Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, Bronx, New York 10461
The first step in the directed movement of cells toward a chemotactic source involves the extension of pseudopods initiated by the focal nucleation and polymerization of actin at the leading edge of the cell. We have previously isolated a chemoattractant-regulated barbed-end capping activity from Dictyostelium that is uniquely associated with capping protein, also known as cap32/34. Although uncapping of barbed ends by capping protein has been proposed as a mechanism for the generation of free barbed ends after stimulation, in vitro and in situ analysis of the association of capping protein with the actin cytoskeleton after stimulation reveals that capping protein enters, but does not exit, the cytoskeleton during the initiation of actin polymerization. Increased association of capping protein with regions of the cell containing free barbed ends as visualized by exogenous rhodamine-labeled G-actin is also observed after stimulation. An approximate threefold increase in the number of filaments with free barbed ends is accompanied by increases in absolute filament number, whereas the average filament length remains constant. Therefore, a mechanism in which preexisting filaments are uncapped by capping protein, in response to stimulation leading to the generation of free barbed ends and filament elongation, is not supported. A model for actin assembly after stimulation, whereby free barbed ends are generated by either filament severing or de novo nucleation is proposed. In this model, exposure of free barbed ends results in actin assembly, followed by entry of free capping protein into the actin cytoskeleton, which acts to terminate, not initiate, the actin polymerization transient.
DURING the phenomenon of ameboid chemotaxis,
the binding of chemoattractant to external cell
surface receptors signals a complex series of intracellular events that ultimately result in changes in cell
shape and orientation toward the source of chemoattractant. The extension of pseudopods is one of the primary
morphological responses to chemoattractant in Dictyostelium amebas. After stimulation of starved Dictyostelium
cells with the chemoattractant cAMP, a rapid increase in
both cytoskeletal actin (McRobbie and Newell, 1983 Characterization of the supernatant fraction revealed a
Ca2+-insensitive inhibitor of actin nucleation that is regulated by cAMP with kinetics reciprocal to the actin nucleation activity. This result suggested that a barbed-end capping activity is involved in the generation of free barbed
ends that serve as polymerization nuclei after stimulation.
Fractionation of cytosolic extracts from resting and stimulated cells confirmed that this inhibitory activity is a
barbed-end capping activity that is uniquely regulated during cAMP stimulation (Sauterer et al., 1991 Detailed analysis of the cAMP-regulated capping activity associated with capping protein and Hsc70 (Eddy et al.,
1996 Further insight into the function of capping protein in
vivo has been obtained through the analysis of cells that
under- and overexpress capping protein. Studies by Hug et al.
(1995) After the identification of capping protein as the protein
responsible for the cAMP-regulated capping activity in
Dictyostelium cytosols (Eddy et al., 1996 Studies in platelets have addressed the recompartmentalization of capping protein during stimulated actin polymerization. Stimulation of platelets with thrombin releases
a small amount (10-15%) of capping protein from the Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton (Nachmias et al., 1996 In this paper, we present a kinetic and spatial localization analysis on the cytoskeletal association of capping protein in Dictyostelium after cAMP stimulation, and compare these results to the appearance of free barbed ends
with high temporal resolution. These results define a role
for capping protein in the early actin polymerization transients after stimulation of motile cells, and suggest a mechanism for generating free barbed ends during this event.
Reagents
All reagents were purchased from Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, MO) unless otherwise indicated. Escherichia coli DNA, assistance with the DNase I
assay, and polyclonal antisera against Dictyostelium capping protein were
provided by the laboratory of J.A. Cooper (Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, MO).
Triton-insoluble Cytoskeletons
Triton-insoluble cytoskeletons were prepared as described by Dharmawardhane et al. (1989) In Vitro Actin Nucleation Assay
Dictyostelium AX3 cells were starved at 4-6 × 106 cells/ml for 5.5 h at
22°C, transferred to 10° or 22°C for 30 min in the presence of 3 mM caffeine. At various times after stimulation with 10 µM 2 Quantitation of Free Pointed Ends
The number of free pointed filament ends was determined using the
DNase I inhibition assay as previously described (Podolski and Steck,
1990 Cellular Protein Concentration
Total protein concentration in Dictyostelium AX3 cells harvested at 4-12 × 106 cells/ml was determined by the bicinchoninic acid protein assay (Pierce
Chemical Co., Rockford, IL) using bovine serum albumin as a standard
curve. Capping protein was identified by Western blotting of SDS-polyacrylamide gels of cell lysates. Coomassie blue-stained gels of cell lysates
were analysed by densitometry. Cellular concentrations of actin and capping protein were calculated based on percent of total density of the lysate.
Immunofluorescence Microscopy
Dictyostelium AX3 cells were harvested as previously described (Hall et
al., 1989 In Situ Actin Nucleation Assay
For visualization of actin nucleation sites microscopically using rhodamine-labeled G-actin, AX3 cells were starved and caffeine treated for immunofluorescence microscopy as described. Control cells or cells stimulated
with 10 µM 2 Capping Protein Rapidly Associates with the
Cytoskeleton After cAMP Stimulation
It has been shown previously that the chemoattractant
cAMP elicits a transient increase in actin nucleation activity 5 s after stimulation in Triton X-100 lysates prepared
from starved Dictyostelium amebas (Hall et al., 1989 One possible interpretation of this drop in capping activity in lysate supernatants after chemotactic stimulation
is that the capping activity of capping protein is switched
off globally, resulting in the uncapping of capping protein
from barbed filament ends. Free barbed ends in the cytoskeleton can serve as nuclei for actin polymerization. In
this event, capping protein will be lost from the cytoskeleton after stimulation at times when cytoskeleton-associated actin nucleation activity is increased.
To test whether the uncapping of actin filaments by capping protein is a viable mechanism for the exposure of free
barbed ends, low speed cytoskeletons were prepared from
Triton X-100 lysates prepared at various times after cAMP
stimulation of 6-h starved Dictyostelium at 22°C. The low
speed Triton-insoluble fraction has been shown previously
to contain all of the nucleation activity present in stimulated cells (Hall et al., 1989
Lysates Prepared from Cells Cooled to
10°C before cAMP Stimulation Display a Prolonged
Actin Nucleation Response
Under the normal growing temperature of 22°C (Fig. 1 A),
our initial findings demonstrate that capping protein enters rather than exits the cross-linked cytoskeletal fraction
at the 5-s peak of actin nucleation. However, due to the rapidity of this reaction, it is unclear from the data collected
at 22°C whether a small fraction of capping protein exits
the cytoskeletal fraction before the peak of cAMP-stimulated actin nucleation. Therefore, to investigate whether
capping protein may undergo transient uncapping from
barbed filament ends before the 5-s peak, the temporal
resolution of the actin nucleation response was enhanced
by equilibrating the cells to 10°C before stimulation with
cAMP. Equilibrating Dictyostelium amebas to 10°C slows
responses to chemotactic stimuli by a factor of four and
has been used successfully to study a variety of responses without disruption of any known cellular functions (Gerisch
et al., 1979 Capping Protein Enters Both the Cross-linked and
Total Cytoskeletal Fraction after cAMP Stimulation
Equilibrating starved Dictyostelium amebas at 10°C before
cAMP stimulation allowed changes in the association of
capping protein with the low speed Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton during the actin nucleation response to be monitored with higher temporal resolution. At ~20 s after stimulation, the levels of F-actin increased ~2.8-fold, relative
to unstimulated control levels, whereas the level of capping protein associated with the low speed cytoskeleton
increased ~2.5-fold (Fig. 2 A; Table I). At no time during
the initial phase of actin nucleation was capping protein
observed to exit the low speed cytoskeleton.
Table I.
Percent Total Actin and Capping Protein
Recovered in Low Speed Triton-insoluble Cytoskeletons After
cAMP Stimulation
) and
actin polymerization is observed (Hall et al., 1988
), which
correlates with changes in cell shape (Condeelis, 1993
). This increase in F-actin after stimulation is reversible and
is cotemporal with an increase in actin nucleation activity
detected in lysates prepared with Triton X-100 detergent
(Hall et al., 1989
). All detectable nucleation activity is associated with the Triton-insoluble cytoskeletal fraction
and is sensitive to cytochalasin D, suggesting that free
barbed ends of filaments associated with the low speed
pelletable cytoskeleton are the source of actin nucleation
activity in stimulated lysates (Hall et al., 1989
).
). Further isolation of this cAMP-regulated, Ca2+-insensitive, barbed-end capping activity led to the copurification of capping
protein and the 70-kD heat shock cognate protein, Hsc70 (Sauterer et al., 1991
; Eddy et al., 1993
, 1996
). Dictyostelium capping protein is also known as cap32/34 (Schleicher
et al., 1984
).
) demonstrated that although both proteins copurify,
capping protein is solely responsible for the capping activity. In addition, Hsc70 does not function as a cofactor in
the regulation of the capping activity, since Hsc70 neither
stimulated nor inhibited the activity of isolated native capping protein (Eddy et al., 1996
), contrary to the results observed by Haus et al. (1993)
for the interaction of Hsc70
and bacterially expressed capping protein. Studies with the
skeletal muscle homologue of capping protein also failed
to detect any enhancement in the activity of native capping protein by Hsc70 (Schafer et al., 1996
). However, the
copurification of Hsc70 and capping protein (Haus et al.,
1993
; Eddy et al., 1996
) suggests that Hsc70, acting as a
chaperone, may assist in the proper folding and assembly
of nascent capping protein heterodimers in vivo (Eddy et al.,
1996
) and the expression of fully active recombinant capping protein in vitro (Haus et al., 1993
).
have shown that capping protein binds to and can
determine the number of free barbed ends, consistent with
the possibility that capping protein is a buffer of free
barbed ends in vivo.
), we set out to investigate the function of capping protein during cAMP-stimulated actin polymerization transients. To account for
the abrupt drop in capping protein-associated capping activity observed in cytosolic extracts from cells lysed after
stimulation (Hall et al., 1989
), either (a) the activity of capping protein is switched off by a mechanism not involving Hsc70, or (b) capping protein remains active but is recompartmentalized from the cytosol into the cytoskeleton in
response to the appearance of free barbed ends elicited independently by cAMP, resulting in a loss of capping activity from the cytosol.
). In addition, treatment of n-octyl
-D glucopyranoside permeabilized platelets with the thrombin receptor activating
fragment also releases a similar fraction of capping protein
from the cytoskeleton (Barkalow et al., 1996
), suggesting the capping activity of a small fraction of capping protein
is either switched off, or the on rate of capping protein for
the barbed ends is reduced after stimulation (Schafer et
al., 1996
). These results are consistent with a model where
an uncapping mechanism is responsible for the generation
of free barbed ends. Paradoxically, the vast majority of capping protein was found to associate with the Triton-insoluble
cytoskeleton upon thrombin activation of intact platelets
(Barkalow et al., 1996
), also consistent with a model in
which free barbed ends, generated by a mechanism that does not involve uncapping by capping protein, are subsequently capped by capping protein. These results leave unclear the precise mechanism of chemoattractant-induced
actin nucleation and the function of capping protein during
stimulated actin assembly in excitable cells.
Materials and Methods
with some modifications. Dictyostelium strain
(AX3) cells were starved at 107 cells/ml in suspension for 5.5 h at 22°C and
then transferred to a 10° or 22°C shaking water bath for 30 min as indicated in the presence of 3 mM caffeine. At this caffeine concentration, Dictyostelium adenylate cyclase is inhibited and exogenous intercellular cAMP signaling is prevented (Brenner and Thomas, 1980
). At various times after stimulation with 10 µM 2
deoxy-cAMP, 2 × 106 cells/ml (final) were lysed in L buffer (20 mM Pipes, pH 7, 50 mM KCl, 5 mM
EGTA, 0.2 mM MgCl2, 5 mM DTT, 1 mM ATP, 0.5% Triton X-100, 5 µg/
ml each of leupeptin, chymotrypsin, and pepstatin A) with or without 20 µM phalloidin. Cells were also mechanically lysed by forced passage
through a 3-µm nucleopore filter (Millipore Corp., Waters Chromatography, Milford, MA) according to Das and Henderson (1983)
. Lysates were
vortexed for 5 s and immediately microfuged at 4°C for 3 min at 8,700 g
(low speed cytoskeleton), or centrifuged for 1 h at 415,000 g in a rotator
(high speed cytoskeleton; TLA-100.2; Beckman Instrs., Fullerton, CA).
The low or high speed Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton pellets were resuspended on ice in 20% lysate volume of TBS, pH 7.6, plus protease inhibitors, and Western blotted using anti-capping protein-
antibodies followed by 125I-protein A (DuPont-NEN, Boston, MA) as previously
described (Eddy et al., 1996
). Actin levels in cytoskeleton pellets were determined by Coomassie blue staining of the 42-kD actin band after SDS-PAGE as described (Laemmli, 1970
). Densitometry analysis of Coomassie blue-stained SDS-polyacrylamide gels and autoradiograms were performed on a computing desitometer (ImageQuant Software, version 3.3; Molecular Dynamics, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). The percent total actin and
capping protein in low speed Triton-insoluble cytoskeletons was calculated as: 100 × (lysate value
supernatant value)/lysate value, or directly
from densitometry of pellet fractions. Both methods led to the same conclusions.
deoxy-cAMP, 106
cells/ml (final) were lysed in L buffer plus 10 mg/ml bovine serum albumin. 2 µM G-actin (10% pyrene-labeled) was immediately added to the
lysate, and actin polymerization was monitored by an increase in pyrene
fluorescence with a fluorescence spectrophotometer (F-2000; Hitachi,
Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) using 365 and 407 nm as the excitation and emission
wavelengths, respectively. Relative nucleation rate is defined as the ratio
of initial rate in stimulated lysates to initial rate in resting lysates.
). Dictyostelium AX3 cells were starved at 107 cells/ml for 5.5 h at
22°C, concentrated to 2 × 107, and transferred to 10°C for 30 min in the
presence of 3 mM caffeine. Cells were lysed at various times after stimulation with 10 µM 2
-deoxy cAMP. The number of filament pointed ends
was calculated by fitting experimental Cpm values to a Dictyostelium G-actin standard curve at fixed DNase I concentration.
), and starved for 5 h in 14.8 mM NaH2PO4, 5.2 mM K2PO4, pH
6.6, at 106 cells/ml. Cells were allowed to settle onto 12-mm circular glass coverslips (Fisher Scientific Co., Pittsburgh, PA) for 30 min at 22°C and
then transferred to 10°C for 30 min in the presence of 3 mM caffeine. Control cells or cells stimulated with 10 µM 2
deoxy-cAMP for 20 s were
fixed for 3.5 min in 1% glutaraldehyde (Ted Pella, Inc., Redding, CA),
0.1% Triton X-100 in general buffer (10 mM Pipes, pH 6.8, 20 mM KPO4,
5 mM EGTA, 2 mM MgCl2). For preparation of cytoskeletons, cells were
treated for 1 min in buffer B (15 mM Pipes, pH 6.9, 6.25 mM Hepes, 10 mM
EGTA, 0.5 mM MgCl2) containing 0.75% Triton X-100, 10 µM phalloidin,
5 µg/ml each of leupeptin, chymotrypsin, and pepstatin A after cAMP
stimulation and then fixed for 3.5 min in 1% glutaraldehyde with 5 µM
phalloidin in buffer B. Autofluorescence was quenched with 1 mg/ml
NaBH4 in general buffer. Coverslips were blocked in 1% bovine serum albumin, 1% fetal calf serum in TBS, pH 7.6, plus 0.1 µM rhodamine-phalloidin (Molecular Probes, Inc., Eugene, OR) for 15 min and incubated with 50 µg/ml of a polyclonal antibody against Dictyostelium capping protein-
(Hug at al., 1995), for 1 h. Fluorescein-labeled goat anti-rabbit IgG
(Cappel Laboratories, Malvern, PA) preabsorbed to fixed Dictyostelium
AX3 cells was used at 10 µg/ml. Cells were mounted in gelvatol plus 6 mg/
ml of n-propyl gallate as an antibleaching agent and examined with a scanning confocal microscope (MRC600, equipped with a Kr/Ar laser; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) to ensure complete separation of the
fluorescein and rhodamine channels. 0.8-1.0-µM optical sections of
stained cells were imaged with a microscope (Diaphot with 60× flat field
objective [NA = 1.4]; Nikon, Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Images were prepared using Adobe Photoshop software, version 3.0.5.
deoxy-cAMP at 10°C were treated with C buffer (10 mM
Pipes, pH 7, 20 mM KCl, 0.5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM EGTA, 20 µM phalloidin,
0.1% Triton X-100, 5 µg/ml each of chymostatin, leupeptin, and pepstatin
A) for 30 s and then washed for 30 s in C buffer minus Triton X-100 and
phalloidin. Rhodamine-labeled rabbit skeletal muscle actin, prepared as
described in Chan et al. (1997)
, was diluted to 12 µM in 1 mM Hepes, pH
7.5, 0.2 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM ATP, sonicated for 5 s, and clarified by ultracentrifugation in an airfuge (Beckman Instrs.) at 22 psi for 20 min, and
held on ice for 30 min. Immediately before use, rhodamine-labeled G-actin was diluted to 0.45 µM in 10 mM Pipes, pH 7, 30 mM KCl, 1 mM EGTA, 2 mM MgCl2, 1 mM ATP, and incubated with cells for 5 min at 10°C. Polymerization was terminated by fixation in C buffer plus 1% glutaraldehyde,
5 µM phalloidin for 3.5 min, and coverslips costained for capping protein
as described. Images were collected with a camera (KAF 1400 cooled CCD
with 1 × 1 binning; Photometrics Ltd., Tucson, AZ) and microscope (IX70
with an infinity corrected 60× objective [NA = 1.4]; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).
Results
). This
increase in actin nucleation activity is associated with the
low speed Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton and corresponds
to an increase in actin polymer content therein. Coincident
with the increase in actin nucleation and polymerization, a
drop in the level of activity of a single capping activity in cell lysate supernatants is observed (Sauterer et al., 1991
). This cAMP-regulated capping activity has been identified
as capping protein (Eddy et al., 1996
).
). The levels of both F-actin and
capping protein in the low speed cytoskeleton were analyzed by densitometry of Coomassie blue-stained gels and immunoblots, respectively. At ~5 s after stimulation with
cAMP, the levels of F-actin increased ~2.3-fold relative to
unstimulated control levels, whereas the level of capping
protein associated with the low speed cytoskeleton increased ~2.2-fold (Fig. 1 A). To eliminate the possibility
that the association of capping protein with Triton-insoluble cytoskeletons may be nonspecific due to the presence
of detergent, cells were lysed by forced passage through
3-µm nucleopore membranes (Millipore Corp.) in the absence of Triton X-100. Low speed pellet fractions prepared from nucleopore lysates of Dictyostelium cells are
enriched in F-actin and membrane sheets (Das and Henderson, 1983
). The low speed cytoskeleton fraction prepared by nucleopore lysis displayed a peak increase of
~2.1- and ~2.35-fold in F-actin and capping protein, respectively, relative to prestimulatory levels at ~5 s following cAMP stimulation. These results suggest that capping
protein is not lost from the cross-linked cytoskeleton in response to stimulation as predicted in an uncapping mechanism, but rather shows an increased association with the cross-linked cytoskeleton during the peak of actin nucleation.
Fig. 1.
(A) Association of capping protein with the low speed
Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton after cAMP stimulation at 22°C.
Dictyostelium AX3 cells (107 cells/ml) in 20 mM phosphate buffer, pH 6.6, were starved in suspension for 5.5 h at 22°C, and then
treated with 3 mM caffeine for 30 min. At various times after
stimulation with 10 µM 2 deoxy-cAMP, 2 × 106 cells/ml (final)
were lysed in L buffer containing 0.5% Triton X-100. Lysates
were immediately microfuged for 3 min at 8,700 g and the low
speed Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton pellets were resuspended to
20% of lysate volume and Western blotted using anti-capping
protein-
antibodies followed by densitometry. Actin levels in cytoskeleton pellets were determined by densitometry of Coomassie blue staining of the 42-kD actin band after SDS-PAGE. The 5-s time point value represents data from three separate determinations. (B) Relative actin nucleation rate of Dictyostelium
lysates after stimulation at 22°C and 10°C. AX3 cells were starved
at 4-6 × 106 cells/ml at 22°C and transferred to either 22° or 10°C
as described in Materials and Methods. At various times after
stimulation with 10 µM 2
deoxy-cAMP, 106 cells/ml (final) were
lysed in L buffer containing 0.5% Triton X-100. 2 µM G-actin
(30% pyrene labeled) was immediately added to the lysate, and
the initial rate of actin polymerization was monitored as an increase in pyrene fluorescence. Relative nucleation rate is defined
as the ratio of initial rate in stimulated lysates to initial rate in
resting lysates. Points represent data from three separate experiments ± the standard deviation.
[View Larger Versions of these Images (22 + 23K GIF file)]
), including the extent of myosin II-mediated
contractility (Kuczmarski et al., 1991
). In addition, motility
in resting and cAMP-stimulated Dictyostelium still occurs
at 10°C, as expected for an organism that naturally occurs
in forest soil where temperatures are ~10°C. A slowing of
the actin nucleation response by a factor of four was observed after cAMP stimulation at 10°C, shifting the peak
to ~20 s poststimulation (Fig. 1 B). In addition, the amplitude of the relative rate of actin nucleation was increased slightly as compared to that observed at 22°C.
Fig. 2.
Association of capping protein with the low and
high speed Triton-insoluble
cytoskeleton after stimulation at 10°C in the presence
and absence of phalloidin.
AX3 cells were starved at 22°C and transferred to 10°C
as described in Materials and
Methods. At various times
after stimulation with 10 µM
2 deoxy-cAMP, 2 × 106
cells/ml (final) were lysed in
L buffer containing 0.5% Triton X-100 alone (A and B), or
L buffer containing 20 µM
phalloidin (C and D). Low
speed Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton pellets (A and C)
were recovered by centrifugation in a microfuge for 3 min at 8,700 g. High speed
Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton
pellets (B and D) were recovered by centrifugation for
1 h at 415,000 g in a Beckman
TLA-100.2 rotator, a force
sufficient to pellet individual actin filaments. The low speed
or high speed cytoskeleton pellets were resuspended on ice in 20% lysate volume and Western blotted using anti-capping protein-
antibodies followed by densitometry. Actin levels in cytoskeleton pellets were determined by densitometry of Coomassie blue staining of
the 42-kD actin band after SDS-PAGE. Values represent data from three separate experiments ± the standard deviation.
[View Larger Versions of these Images (21 + 17K GIF file)]
The accumulation of actin filaments in the low speed cytoskeletal fraction requires the cross-linking of filaments
into a structure pelletable under low g-force conditions (Cox
et al., 1995). To address the concern that the cross-linked
actin filament fraction may represent a special subset of
the total F-actin in cells, the analysis was repeated under
high g-force spin conditions (392,500 g for 1 h). Under these
conditions, ~100% of the F-actin present in vivo is pelleted (Hall et al., 1988
). Upon stimulation, capping protein
was found to enter, but not exit, the high speed cytoskeletal fraction (Fig. 2 B), with kinetics similar to that observed in the low speed cytoskeleton (Fig. 2 A).
After lysis of cells with Triton X-100, a fraction of actin filaments may undergo depolymerization during centrifugation. To address the possibility that the high and low speed cytoskeletons may underrepresent the total amount of F-actin due to depolymerization, 20 µM phalloidin was included in the lysis buffer to stabilize the F-actin. In the presence of 20 µM phalloidin, resting levels of total actin recovered in the low speed pellet were increased ~1.8-fold (Table I). In agreement with Fig. 2, A and B, capping protein was observed to enter, but not exit, the low and high speed cytoskeletons upon stimulation when the cytoskeletal content was measured in the presence of 20 µM phalloidin (Fig. 2, C and D). Taken together, these results demonstrate that capping protein enters but never exits the actin cytoskeleton at all times during the initiation of actin polymerization following cAMP stimulation.
Capping Protein Enters the Actin-rich Cell Cortex upon cAMP Stimulation
Previous studies by Wessels et al. (1989) showed that before cAMP treatment, polarized Dictyostelium amebas exhibit an intense accumulation of F-actin in anterior pseudopodia as shown by fluorescein-phalloidin staining. However,
5 s after stimulation at 22°C and concomitant with the peak
of actin nucleation/polymerization detected in vitro, the
F-actin staining is lost from the pseudopodia and becomes relocalized almost globally throughout the cell cortex, just
below the plasma membrane. To determine the in situ localization of capping protein in response to cAMP stimulation, we performed indirect immunofluorescence using
capping protein antibodies on glutaraldehyde-fixed whole
cells and Triton-insoluble cytoskeletons. F-actin localization
by rhodamine-phalloidin staining of both unstimulated whole
cells and Triton-insoluble cytoskeletons was primarily in
pseudopodia of highly polarized cells, in addition to circumferential staining of the cell cortex in cells displaying a
flattened, rounded morphology (Figs. 3 c and 4 c). Capping protein displayed a punctate cytosolic localization in
both unstimulated whole cells (Fig. 3 e) and Triton-insoluble cytoskeletons (Fig. 4 e) with a more pronounced staining in areas of F-actin localization, particularly in the cell
cortex (Figs. 3 c and 4 c).
At 20 s after cAMP stimulation at 10°C, both whole cells and Triton-insoluble cytoskeletons showed an increase in F-actin (Figs. 3 d and 4 d) and capping protein (Figs. 3 f and 4 f) staining of the cell cortex with a redistribution from pseudopods to the cell cortex in polarized cells. Therefore, capping protein colocalizes with F-actin and undergoes a redistribution to the cell cortex along with F-actin in response to cAMP stimulation.
Capping Protein Localizes to Regions of Actin Nucleation Visualized by Exogenous Rhodamine-labeled G-actin
The localization of capping protein mirrors changes in
F-actin localization in response to stimulation, suggesting
that capping protein binds to the barbed ends of actin filaments. To investigate this further, the localization of capping
protein relative to regions of the cell containing barbed
ends after stimulation was determined using a rhodamine-labeled G-actin polymerization assay. To visualize sites of
actin nucleation and, therefore, free barbed filament ends
in situ, we incubated permeabilized, phalloidin-stabilized Dictyostelium cells with exogenous rhodamine-labeled
G-actin under polymerizing conditions. This technique has
been used to visualize the distribution of free barbed ends
in permeabilized fibroblasts (Symons and Mitchison, 1991),
polymorphonuclear leukocytes (Redmond and Zigmond,
1993
), and mammary adenocarcinoma cells (Chan et al.,
1997
). Unstimulated cells that possessed a polarized morphology contained sites of rhodamine-labeled G-actin incorporation primarily in the anterior pseudopod (Fig. 5 a).
No incorporation of rhodamine-labeled G-actin was observed in the presence cytochalasin D (data not shown)
indicating that sites of rhodamine-labeled G-actin incorporation represent free barbed ends. The pattern of rhodamine-labeled G-actin incorporation colocalized with capping
protein staining (Fig. 5, a and c). At 20 s after cAMP stimulation at 10°C, there was a redistribution of the incorporation of rhodamine-labeled G-actin and capping protein
staining to the entire cell cortex (Fig. 5, b and d), consistent with the redistribution of F-actin globally throughout
the cell cortex after stimulation (Figs. 3 c and d, and 4 c
and d), and as observed by Wessels et al. (1989)
. These results demonstrate that sites of increased free barbed ends, F-actin, and capping protein are all colocalized to the cell
cortex in response to cAMP stimulation.
The Number of Actin Filaments Increases during cAMP-stimulated Actin Nucleation
The results of the Triton cytoskeleton assays (Figs. 1 A and 2), combined with the in situ colocalization of capping protein with regions of increased F-actin staining and free barbed ends (Figs. 3-5), indicate that capping protein is associating with free barbed ends as they appear after stimulation. These in vitro and in situ results strongly suggest that free barbed ends are not generated by an uncapping mechanism involving capping protein.
In a pure uncapping mechanism, a capping protein would
be released from the cytoskeleton as the barbed ends of
preexisiting actin filaments become exposed in response to
stimulation and the number of actin filaments before and
after cAMP stimulation would remain constant. We investigated this prediction of the uncapping mechanism by
quantitating the number of pointed ends of actin filaments
in the cytoskeleton after stimulation and therefore the
number of actin filaments, using a DNase I binding assay, originally developed to score the number of actin filaments in resting Dictyostelium (Podolski and Steck, 1990).
As shown in Fig. 6, the number of filaments increased by
~2.4-fold, an increase of 2.24 × 105 per cell within 20 s after cAMP stimulation at 10°C.
Table II. cAMP-stimulated Actin Polymerization in Low Speed Triton-insoluble Cytoskeletons |
The facts that all the nucleation activity in stimulated
cells is recovered in the low speed Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton (Hall et al., 1989), and the amount of F-actin recovered in the cytoskeleton is close to that measured in the
intact cell (Hall et al., 1988
), led us to use the low speed Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton as the appropriate compartment to compare filament number, concentration of barbed
ends, capping protein and F-actin, and filament length (Table II).
After stimulation, the number of free barbed ends in the cytoskeleton shows an increase from 1.5 × 103 in a resting cell to a peak of 1.47 × 104 in a stimulated cell (Fig. 6). Therefore, at 20 s poststimulation, the vast majority (~96%) of filaments are capped (Table II). This result is consistent with the large incorporation of capping protein into the cytoskeleton after stimulation as shown in Fig. 2 and Table II. This increased capping protein incorporation would be necessary to cap the large number of barbed ends created by stimulation.
The goal of this work was to determine the compartmentation of capping protein relative to free barbed ends in such a way as to test the proposal that a simple uncapping model involving capping protein can explain the timing of appearance and number of free barbed ends, and amount of F-actin assembled after stimulation of a chemotactic cell, Dictyostelium. This is the first comprehensive study in which all of these measurements were made on the same cell cultures, and the number of filaments present in cells before and after stimulation were measured directly using the DNase binding assay.
Predictions of a Simple Uncapping Model
Previous studies document that the capping activity associated with capping protein is lost from the cytosol after
stimulation of Dictyostelium amebas with chemoattractant
(Hall et al., 1989; Sauterer et al., 1991
; Eddy et al., 1996
).
A simple uncapping model would explain this as a switching off of the capping activity of capping protein and would
predict the following (Fig. 7 A): (a) As the capping activity
of capping protein is inhibited after stimulation, capping
protein would dissociate from barbed ends of preexisting
filaments; (b) the average filament length would increase
as G-actin assembles onto the preexisting filaments; and
(c) the number of filaments would remain constant.
The Behavior of Capping Protein Does Not Conform to a Simple Uncapping Model
To test the prediction that capping protein should exit the
cytoskeleton in response to stimulation, we undertook a
kinetic analysis of the association of capping protein with
the actin cytoskeleton at various times and conditions following cAMP stimulation of Dictyostelium amebas. Under
all conditions tested, capping protein was observed to enter, but not exit, the cytoskeleton after cAMP stimulation.
Neither the steady state increase in the number of free
barbed ends (Fig. 6) nor the uncapping of amounts of capping protein at the detection limit of the assays used here (~30 nM or 1.5 × 1020 mol/cell) can account for the
amount of F-actin assembled in the 20 s after stimulation.
This is true because ~1.7 × 107 actin subunits are polymerized into filaments during the 20-s interval after stimulation. The nonfilamentous actin concentration required
to polymerize this much F-actin, based on published rate constants (Pollard, 1986) from an undetected 30 nM of
barbed ends or from the number of free barbed ends actually measured (Fig. 6), would be
100 µM. This value is
1.5-fold above that measured for unpolymerized actin by
Hall et al. (1989)
during this interval.
The in vitro association of capping protein with the actin cytoskeleton after cAMP stimulation was also analyzed by in situ fluorescence. The location of free barbed ends in situ was identified by incorporation of exogenous rhodamine-labeled G-actin. Colocalization of capping protein, free barbed ends as rhodamine-actin, and F-actin were observed in the actin cytoskeleton at 0 and 20 s after cAMP stimulation at 10°C. A redistribution of capping protein, free barbed ends, and F-actin staining from the leading edge of anterior pseudopods in unstimulated cells to the submembraneous cortex were observed after stimulation. Therefore, capping protein colocalizes with F-actin and free barbed ends in resting and stimulated cells, which is consistent with the interpretation that capping protein in the cytoskeleton as defined here is associated with the barbed ends of actin filaments. Since the amount of capping protein is equimolar with the barbed ends in the cytoskeleton both before and after stimulation (Table II), it is improbable that recruitment of capping protein to the cytoskeleton is barbed end independent. Taken together, these in vitro and in situ results are inconsistent with the loss of capping protein from the actin cytoskeleton as free barbed ends appear as predicted by an uncapping mechanism.
Since uncapping by capping protein as a mechanism for
the generation of free barbed ends in response to stimulation is not supported by our data, uncapping by other
barbed-end capping proteins must be considered. However, uncapping by gelsolin family members such as severin (Brown et al., 1982; Andre et al., 1989
), and cap100
(protovilin) (Hofmann et al., 1992
) has been investigated and seems unlikely since, after cAMP stimulation, only the
capping activity associated with capping protein shows a
change in cell lysates, whereas the other capping activities
present do not (Sauterer et al., 1991
). Although this does
not completely rule out the existence of a capping activity
not detectable in lysate supernatants that is regulated during stimulation, the simplest explanation of this result is
that capping protein is the dominant capping activity in
Dictyostelium as in neutrophils (DiNubile et al., 1995
) and
platelets (Barkalow et al., 1996
), and is responsible for terminating the actin polymerization transient.
An Increase in Actin Filament Number Occurs without a Change in Filament Length After Stimulation
This study reports the first direct measurement of the number of filament pointed ends in chemotactic cells after stimulation using a direct DNase binding assay developed previously (Poldolski and Steck, 1990). As shown in Table II and Fig. 6, the number of filaments increases by ~2.4-fold, an increase of 2.24 × 105 per cell within 20 s after cAMP stimulation at 10°C. The free barbed ends per Dictyostelium cell increases from ~1,500 to 15,000 during stimulation. This means that the free barbed ends increase from ~1 to 3.9% of the total barbed ends in the cell upon stimulation (Table II), indicating that the vast majority of filaments are capped in both resting and stimulated cells (Fig. 6).
The amount of capping protein measured in the low speed
cytoskeleton is approximately equimolar with the total number of barbed ends in this compartment, indicating that
capping protein is predominantly responsible for the capping of these filaments (Table II). Furthermore, since the
number of barbed ends has increased dramatically after stimulation, the amount of capping protein entering the
cytoskeleton to cap these new filaments is significant, and
accounts for the large increase in capping protein entering
the cytoskeleton after stimulation (Fig. 2), and the large
drop in capping protein-associated capping activity in the
cytosol (Hall et al., 1989). Specifically, 27% of the capping
activity is lost from the cytosol after stimulation, which
corresponds closely with the 23% recompartmentalization of capping protein from the cytosol measured in this study.
Therefore, the loss of capping activity from the cytosol after stimulation can be most easily explained as a redistribution of capping protein, and not the switching off of its
capping activity.
Another prediction of a simple uncapping mechanism is
that after uncapping of barbed ends, the average length of
filaments should increase as the preexisting filaments polymerize. Using the value of 2.7 nm/monomer reported for
the structure of the actin filament (Huxley, 1963; Egelman
et al., 1982
; Holmes et al., 1990
), and the filament number
and F-actin concentration (Table II), an average length was
calculated for the filaments recovered in the low speed cytoskeleton before and after stimulation. The average filament length remained unchanged, from 0.33 ± 0.1 µm in
unstimulated cells, to 0.36 ± 0.01 µm in cells 20 s after cAMP stimulation at 10°C (Table II). The filament length
for resting Dictyostelium, using the DNase I binding assay
as reported by Podolski and Steck (1990)
, averaged 0.2 µm,
whereas filament lengths measured by electron microscopy
were ~1 µm (Cox et al., 1995
). The filament length values
reported in this study, an average of ~0.35 µm, fall closer
to the former estimate. We believe that the difference between these studies is due to a difference in the filament
populations measured and a difference in the attachment state of the cells used for these measurements. In the current study, the length was determined for all filaments in suspended cells, whereas in Cox et al. (1995)
, the length was
determined for filaments running parallel to the surface in
adherent cells within pseudopods only. However, this difference does not affect the conclusion from the current
study since the filament length distribution does not change
after stimulation. Therefore, an uncapping mechanism for
the generation of free barbed ends is not supported by these
results, since the average filament number increases while
remaining constant in length after stimulation (Table II).
In general, the results reported in this study of Dictyostelium closely correspond with those reported for neutrophils (Cano et al., 1991; DiNubile et al., 1995
), i.e., that
capping protein dominates the capping of barbed ends,
and the number of filaments increases by more than 2 × 105 after stimulation. Correspondence of the increase in
filament number is interesting in particular because estimates of the number of filaments in neutrophils were calculated from depolymerization rate experiments assuming
that the off rate of actin monomers is invariant in situ.
However, since the off rate in vitro can be altered by actin
binding proteins (Weber et al., 1994
; Carlier et al., 1997
), a
more direct measurement of filament number after stimulation was required. Hence, we used the DNase I assay as a direct measurement of filament number in this study.
The closeness of the values measured in neutrophils and
Dictyostelium before and after stimulation by these two
distinct methods argues compellingly that the increase in
filament number is real. These results also suggest that the
mechanism underlying stimulated actin polymerization may
be common in both cell types and may not involve any increase in monomer off rate.
Finally, Dictyostelium mutants that overexpress capping
protein polymerized less actin than wild-type cells, whereas
mutants that underexpress capping protein polymerized more
actin than wild type (Hug et al., 1995). These observations
further support the role of capping protein as a terminator, not
initiator, of free barbed ends after chemotactic stimulation.
Model for Chemoattractant-stimulated Actin Polymerization
The following model for chemoattractant-induced actin assembly accounts for the observed data including increases in filament number without increase in length, free barbed ends, and F-actin content and entry of capping protein into the cytoskeleton after stimulation. First, chemoattractant stimulation activates an increase in the number of free barbed ends in the cell cortex by a mechanism that does not involve the uncapping of preexisting barbed filament ends. Such a mechanism may include the nucleation of actin filaments de novo or the exposure of free barbed ends by filament severing (Fig. 7, B and C). Next, polymerization of actin filaments occurs from these newly exposed free barbed ends. Finally, as filaments polymerize, free capping protein binds to the polymerizing barbed ends, terminating their growth.
A similar model has been proposed by Schafer et al.
(1996), to explain chemoattractant-induced actin polymerization. In the Schafer et al. model, the sequence of events
after stimulation is uncapping, polymerization, severing,
and finally, capping. By replacing uncapping with severing,
the Schafer et al. model is consistent with our results.
If the model shown in either Fig. 7, B and C is correct, it must account for the increase of F-actin content observed in the cytoskeleton of ~2.6-fold (from 34 to 89 µM) within 20 s. During this 55 µM increase in F-actin within 20 s (2.75 µM/s), the rate of increase of new filaments is 1.1 × 104/s after stimulation. Using the on and off rates previously determined for the pointed and barbed ends of filaments (Pollard, 1986), ~6 µM G-actin would be sufficient to support this rate of F-actin assembly if the half-life of the barbed end of each of these new filaments is 1 s. This value for G-actin is consistent with the low end of the range reported for nonfilamentous actin in vivo. Under these conditions, the average filament would add ~77 subunits or 0.2 µm of filament length. This last point is most consistent with a severing reaction (Fig. 7 b), in which each preexisting filament is severed only once (Table II).
Since our results indicate that capping protein is predominantly responsible for the capping of filaments after
stimulation, the on rate of capping protein must be 0.35 µM/s
in the presence of ~2 µM free capping protein to achieve
a barbed end half-life of 1 s. This on-rate value is predicted
from the dissociation constant (Kd) of 0.8 nM measured
for purified Dictyostelium capping protein (Eddy et al.,
1996), and from the average off rate of 4 × 10
4/s measured
for various vertebrate isoforms of capping protein (Schafer et al., 1996
). This value is also similar to the lower estimate for capping protein on rate in neutrophils (DiNubile et al., 1995
), but slower than that measured for purified
vertebrate capping protein of 3 µM/s (Schafer et al., 1996
).
In Dictyostelium cells, the Kd of capping protein for actin
barbed ends was estimated to be >100-fold of the Kd measured for purified capping protein (compare Hug et al.,
1995
, and Eddy et al., 1996
), indicating that if the off rate
of 4 × 10
4/s applies, the on rate in vivo would be as low
as 0.004 µM/s. Thus, the on rate of capping protein may be
slowed considerably in vivo by regulatory factors such as
PIP2, to increase the half-life of the barbed end and thereby
increase the polymerization time (Schafer et al., 1996
). However, based on our results, the intrinsic on rate of purified
capping protein may be consistent with the extent of actin
polymerization observed after stimulation in Dictyostelium.
Alternative Mechanisms for the Generation of Free Barbed Ends
The results presented here require consideration of mechanisms for the generation of free barbed ends that do not
involve uncapping. An increase in the number of barbed
ends might be accomplished by severing preexisting filaments, thereby creating new barbed ends (Fig. 7 B). In
such a model, preexisting actin filaments are broken via
tractional forces generated by myosins, or severed by
gelsolin-related proteins (Witke et al., 1995), such as severin (Andre et al., 1989
), or members of the actin depolymerizing factor (ADF)1/cofilin protein family. Filament
severing by severin may be minor, however, since Dictyostelium cells deficient in severin show normal motility and
chemotaxis to cAMP (Andre et al., 1989
). ADF/cofilin proteins that include ADF, cofilin, actophorin, and destrin
have been described to sever actin filaments in vitro without capping of the barbed ends in a pH and phosphorylation-dependent manner (Agnew et al., 1995
; Moon and
Drubin, 1995
). The increase in the level of F-actin detected in Dictyostelium mutants that overexpress cofilin is
consistent with a role for cofilin in increasing barbed-end number in vivo (Aizawa et al., 1996
).
De novo nucleation has also been proposed as a potential mechanism of actin polymerization (Fig. 7 C). In this
model, free barbed ends do not result from uncapping or
severing of preexisting actin filaments, but rather multiprotein complexes can serve as templates from which actin
monomers can elongate to form filaments. Candidate proteins include the Arp2/3 complex, reported to induce F-actin
cloud formation around Listeria in platelet extracts (Welch et al., 1997), and talin, a membrane-associated protein that
has been shown to nucleate actin polymerization in vitro
(Kaufmann et al., 1991
; Goldman et al., 1992
). The talin
homologue filopodin (Kreitmeier at el., 1995), accumulates at the leading edge at 30 s after stimulation in Dictyostelium, but the role of filopodin during the 5-s actin nucleation transient remains undetermined.
It is possible that both mechanisms operate in cells, with de novo nucleation predominating in regions of the cytoplasm where there are few preexisting filaments and weak severing predominating in regions where there are numerous preexisting filaments. Future studies will be required to distinguish between severing and de novo nucleation as potential mechanisms of actin nucleation in response to chemoattractant stimulation.
Received for publication 18 June 1997 and in revised form 25 September 1997.
Address all correspondence to J.S. Condeelis, Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, 1300 Morris Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461. Tel.: (718) 430-4113. Fax: (718) 430-8996. E-mail: condeeli{at}aecom.yu.eduWe thank C. Hug and J. Cooper (Washington University Medical School) for their assistance in providing antibodies used in this study, and J. Wyckoff (Albert Einstein College of Medicine [AECOM]) for his expert technical assistance. Microscopy was performed at the Analytical Imaging Facility of the AECOM.
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (GM38511 and training grant 5T32GM07128).
1. |
Agnew, B.,
L. Minamide, and
J. Bamburg.
1995.
Reactivation of phosphorylated actin depolymerizing factor and identification of the regulatory site.
J.
Biol. Chem.
270:
17582-17587
|
2. | Aizawa, H., K. Sutoh, and I. Yahara. 1996. Overexpression of cofilin stimulates bundling of actin filaments, membrane ruffling, and cell movement in Dictyostelium. J. Cell Biol. 132: 335-344 [Abstract]. |
3. | Andre, E., M. Brink, G. Gerisch, G. Isenberg, A. Noegel, M. Schleicher, J.E. Segall, and E. Wallraff. 1989. A Dictyostelium mutant deficient in severin, an F-actin fragmenting protein, shows normal motility and chemotaxis. J. Cell Biol. 108: 985-995 [Abstract]. |
4. | Barkalow, K., W. Witke, D.J. Kwiatkowski, and J.H. Hartwig. 1996. Coordinated regulation of platelet actin filament barbed ends by gelsolin and capping protein. J. Cell Biol. 134: 389-399 [Abstract]. |
5. | Brenner, M., and S.D. Thomas. 1980. Caffeine blocks activation of cyclic AMP synthesis in Dictyostelium discoideum. Dev. Biol. 101: 136-146 . |
6. | Brown, S.S., K. Yamamoto, and J.A. Spudich. 1982. A 40,000-dalton protein from Dictyostelium discoideum affects assembly properties of actin in a Ca2+-dependent manner. J. Cell Biol. 93: 205-210 [Abstract]. |
7. | Cano, M.L., D. Lauffenburger, and S.H. Zigmond. 1991. Kinetic analysis of F-actin depolymerization in polymorphonuclear leukocyte lysates indicates that chemoattractant stimulation increases actin filament number without altering the filament length distribution. J. Cell Biol. 115: 677-687 [Abstract]. |
8. |
Carlier, M.-F.,
V. Laurent,
J. Santolini,
R. Melki,
D. Didry,
G.-X. Xia,
Y. Hong,
N.-H. Chua, and
D. Pantaloni.
1997.
Actin depolymerizing factor (ADF/Cofilin) enhances the rate of filament turnover: implication in actin-based motility.
J. Cell Biol.
136:
1307-1323
|
9. | Chan, A.Y., S. Raft, M. Bailly, J.B. Wyckoff, J.E. Segall, and J.S. Condeelis. 1997. EGF stimulates an increase in actin nucleation and filament number at the tip of the lamellipod in mammary adenocarcinoma cells. J. Cell Sci. In press. |
10. | Condeelis, J.. 1993. Life at the leading edge: the formation of cells protrusions. Annu. Rev. Cell Biol. 9: 411-444 . |
11. | Cox, D., J.A. Ridsdale, J. Condeelis, and J. Hartwig. 1995. Genetic deletion of ABP-120 alters the three-dimensional organization of actin filaments in Dictyostelium pseudopods. J. Cell Biol. 128: 819-835 [Abstract]. |
12. | Das, O.P., and E.J. Henderson. 1983. A novel technique for gentle lysis of eucaryotic cells: isolation of plasma membranes from Dictyostelium discoideum. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 736: 45-56 . |
13. | Dharmawardhane, S., V. Warren, A. Hall, and J. Condeelis. 1989. Changes in the association of actin-binding proteins with the actin cytoskeleton during chemotactic stimulation of Dictyostelium discoideum. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton. 13: 57-63 |
14. | DiNubile, M., L. Cassimeris, M. Joyce, and S. Zigmond. 1995. Actin filament barbed end capping activity in neutrophil lysates: the role of capping protein beta-2. Mol. Biol. Cell. 6: 1659-1671 [Abstract]. |
15. |
Eddy, R.J.,
R.A. Sauterer, and
J.S. Condeelis.
1993.
Aginactin, an agonist-regulated F-actin capping activity is associated with an Hsc70 in Dictyostelium.
J.
Biol. Chem.
268:
23267-23274
|
16. | Eddy, R.J., J. Han, R.A. Sauterer, and J.S. Condeelis. 1996. A major agonist-regulated capping activity in Dictyostelium is due the capping protein, cap32/ 34. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1314: 247-259 |
17. | Egelman, E.H., N. Francis, and D.D. DeRosier. 1982. F-actin is a helix with a random variable helix. Nature. 289: 131-135 . |
18. | Gerisch, G., D. Malchow, W. Roos, and U. Wick. 1979. Oscillations of cyclic nucleotide concentrations in relation to the excitability of Dictyostelium cells. J. Exp. Biol. 81: 33-47 [Abstract]. |
19. | Goldman, W.H., V. Niggli, S. Kaufmann, and G. Isenberg. 1992. Probing actin and liposome interaction of talin and talin-vinculin complexes: a kinetic, thermodynamic, and lipid labeling study. Biochemistry. 31: 7665-7671 |
20. | Hall, A.L., A. Schlein, and J. Condeelis. 1988. Relationship of pseudopod extension to chemotactic hormone-induced actin polymerization in amoeboid cells. J. Cell. Biochem. 37: 285-299 |
21. | Hall, A., V. Warren, S. Dharmawardhane, and J. Condeelis. 1989. Identification of actin nucleation activity and polymerization inhibitor in amoeboid cells: their regulation by chemotactic stimulation. J. Cell Biol. 109: 2207-2213 [Abstract]. |
22. | Haus, U., P. Trommler, P.R. Fisher, H. Hartmann, F. Lottspeich, A.A. Noegel, and M. Schleicher. 1993. The heat shock cognate protein from Dictyostelium affects actin polymerization through interaction with the actin-binding protein cap32/34. EMBO (Eur. Mol. Biol. Organ.) J. 12: 3763-3771 [Abstract]. |
23. | Hofmann, A., L. Eichinger, E. Andre, D. Rieger, and M. Schleicher. 1992. Cap100, a novel phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate-regulated protein that caps actin filaments but does not nucleate actin assembly. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton. 23: 133-144 |
24. | Holmes, K.C., D. Popp, W. Gebhard, and W. Kabsch. 1990. Atomic model of the actin filament. Nature. 347: 44-49 |
25. | Hug, C., P.Y. Jay, I. Reddy, J.G. McNally, P.C. Bridgman, E.L. Elson, and J.A. Cooper. 1995. Capping protein levels influence actin assembly and cell motility in Dictyostelium. Cell. 81: 591-600 |
26. | Huxley, H.E.. 1963. Electron microscopic studies on the structure of natural and synthetic protein filaments muscle. J. Mol. Biol. 7: 281-308 . |
27. | Kaufmann, S., T. Piekenbrock, W.H. Goldmann, M. Barmann, and G. Isenberg. 1991. Talin binds to actin and promotes filament nucleation. FEBS (Fed. Eur. Biochem. Soc.) Lett. 284: 187-191 . |
28. | Kreitmeier, M., G. Gerisch, C. Heizer, and A. Muller-Taubenberger. 1995. A talin homologue of Dictyostelium rapidly assembles at the leading edge of cells in response to chemoattractant. J. Cell Biol. 129: 179-188 [Abstract]. |
29. | Kuczmarski, E.R., L. Palivos, C. Aguado, and Z.L. Yao. 1991. Stopped-flow measurement of cytoskeletal contraction: Dictyostelium myosin II is specifically required for contraction of amoeba cytoskeletons. J. Cell Biol. 114: 1191-1199 [Abstract]. |
30. | Laemmli, U.K.. 1970. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature. 227: 680-685 |
31. | McRobbie, S.J., and P.C. Newell. 1983. Changes in actin associated with the cytoskeleton following chemotactic stimulation of Dictyostelium discoideum. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 115: 351-359 |
32. | Moon, A., and D.G. Drubin. 1995. The ADF/cofilin proteins: stimulus-responsive modulators of actin dynamics. Mol. Biol. Cell. 120: 421-435 . |
33. | Nachmias, V.T., R. Golla, J.F. Casella, and E. Barron-Casella. 1996. Cap Z, a calcium insensitive capping protein in resting and activated platelets. FEBS (Fed. Eur. Biochem. Soc.) Lett. 378: 258-262 . |
34. |
Podolski, J., and
T. Steck.
1990.
Length distribution of F-actin in Dictyostelium
discoideum.
J. Biol. Chem.
265:
1312-1318
|
35. | Pollard, T.D., and J.A. Cooper. 1986. Actin and actin-binding proteins. A critical evaluation of mechanisms and functions. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 55: 987-1035 |
36. | Redmond, T., and S.H. Zigmond. 1993. Distribution of F-actin elongation sites in lysed polymorphonuclear leukocytes parallels the distribution of endogenous F-actin. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton. 26: 7-18 |
37. |
Sauterer, R.A.,
R.J. Eddy,
A.L. Hall, and
J.S. Condeelis.
1991.
Purification and
characterization of aginactin, a newly identified agonist-regulated actin-capping protein from Dictyostelium.
J. Biol. Chem.
266:
24533-24539
|
38. | Schafer, D.A., P.B. Jennings, and J.A. Cooper. 1996. Dynamics of capping protein and actin assembly in vitro: uncapping barbed ends by PIP2. J. Cell Biol. 135: 169-179 [Abstract]. |
39. | Schleicher, M., G. Gerisch, and G. Isenberg. 1984. New actin-binding proteins from Dictyostelium discoideum. EMBO (Eur. Mol. Biol. Organ.) J. 3: 2095-2100 . |
40. | Symons, M., and T.J. Mitchison. 1991. Control of actin polymerization in live and permeabilized fibroblasts. J. Cell Biol. 114: 503-513 [Abstract]. |
41. |
Weber, A.,
C.R. Pennise, and
M. Pring.
1994.
DNase I increases the rate constant of depolymerization at the pointed (![]() |
42. | Welch, M.D., A. Iwamatsu, and T.J. Mitchison. 1997. Actin polymerization is induced by Arp2/3 protein complex at the surface of Listeria monocytogenes. Nature. 385: 265-269 |
43. | Wessels, D., N.A. Schroeder, E. Voss, A.L. Hall, J. Condeelis, and D.R. Soll. 1989. cAMP-mediated inhibition of intracellular particle movement and actin reorganization in Dictyostelium. J. Cell Biol. 109: 2841-2851 [Abstract]. |
44. | Witke, W., A.H. Sharpe, J.H. Hartwig, T. Azuma, T.P. Stossel, and D.J. Kwiatkowski. 1995. Hemostatic, inflammatory, and fibroblast responses are blunted in mice lacking gelsolin. Cell. 81: 41-51 |