1 Departamento de Biología Molecular, Centro de Biología Molecular `Severo Ochoa' (UAM/CSIC), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
2 European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Cell Biology and Cell Biophysics Programme, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: icorreas{at}cbm.uam.es)
Accepted 15 September 2004
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
To learn more about centrosomal 4.1R function, isolated centrosomes were examined by confocal microscopy, western blot and in vitro microtubule aster-assembly assays. The experiments showed that 4.1R was present in isolated centrosome preparations, that it remained in the center of in-vitro-assembled microtubule asters and that more asters were assembled by the addition of protein 4.1R fused to glutathione-S-transferase. Together, these results indicate that 4.1R plays a key role at the centrosome, contributing to the maintenance of a radial microtubule organization.
Key words: Protein 4.1R, Centrosome, Microtubules
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Red-blood-cell protein 4.1 (4.1R or 4.1R80) was originally identified as an 80-kDa multifunctional protein of the membrane skeleton of human erythrocytes. In these cells, protein 4.1R stabilizes the spectrin-actin network and mediates the attachment of the underlying cytoskeleton to the overlaying lipid bilayer through interactions with integral membrane proteins (Conboy, 1993).
In nonerythroid cells, multiple isoforms of 4.1R are expressed as a result of extensive alternative splicing of the 4.1R-encoding pre-mRNA (Conboy, 1999; Tang et al., 1990
). This event is cell and tissue specific, and also dependent on the growth and differentiation stages of the cell (Baklouti et al., 1997
; Conboy et al., 1991
; Chasis et al., 1993
; Hou and Conboy, 2001
; Schischmanoff et al., 1997
). Immunological studies have detected 4.1R epitopes at different subcellular locations. Concomitantly, the association of 4.1R with proteins localized at different intracellular sites has been reported (Cohen et al., 1998
; De Cárcer et al., 1995
; Hou et al., 2000
; Kontrogianni-Konstantopoulos et al., 2001
; Kontrogianni-Konstantopoulos et al., 2000
; Krauss et al., 1997
; Lallena and Correas, 1997
; Lallena et al., 1998
; Mattagajasingh et al., 2000
; Nunomura et al., 1997
), thus suggesting that 4.1R might be involved in many processes in nucleated cells. A possible role for 4.1R in organizing the nuclear architecture is suggested by interactions observed between 4.1R and nuclear components of the splicing machinery (Lallena and Correas, 1997
; Lallena et al., 1998
). More recently, 4.1R has been shown to be essential for proper nuclear assembly (Krauss et al., 2002
). A role has also been proposed for 4.1R in organizing microtubule architecture and the mitotic spindle poles as 4.1R interacts with interphase microtubules (Perez-Ferreiro et al., 2001
), with a novel centrosomal protein termed CPAP (Hung et al., 2000
), and with the nuclear mitotic apparatus protein (Mattagajasingh et al., 1999
).
Proteins with key microtubule-anchoring functions are reported to provoke disorganization of the interphase microtubule array when ectopically expressed in COS-7 cells (Dammermann and Merdes, 2002; Quintyne et al., 1999
). However, they might not affect interphase microtubule organization in other cell lines. Thus, dynamitin, a component of the dynactin complex, was reported to have no effect on interphase microtubules in HeLa cells, whereas, conversely, COS-7 cells overexpressing dynamitin contained microtubules that were less focused than normal (Quintyne et al., 1999
). We have described the colocalization of ectopically expressed 4.1R with the microtubule network in human T cells, and the disruption of microtubule architecture in COS-7 cells (Perez-Ferreiro et al., 2001
). To gain insights into the role of 4.1R in the organization of interphase microtubules, we have performed transfection experiments using different 4.1R-encoding cDNAs, microtubule depolymerization-repolymerization assays, confocal microscopy and biochemical sedimentation analyses in COS-7 cells. We have found that interphase microtubules are selectively perturbed by specific exogenous 4.1R isoforms and that microtubule disorganization is accompanied by altered distributions of the dynein-dynactin complex and, more interestingly, of centrosomal 4.1R. Results of further experiments indicate that 4.1R plays an essential role in regulating microtubule organization at the centrosome.
![]() |
Materials and Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
cDNA cloning and composite cDNA constructs
The 4.1R1354,5,16, 4.1R135
16, 4.1R135
16,19, 4.1R80, 4.1R80
16, 4.1R80
5,16 and 4.1R60
16,18 cDNAs were cloned from Molt-4 T cells and tagged as described (Luque and Correas, 2000
; Luque et al., 1999
). The 4.1R60
16,18-GFP cDNA was constructed as detailed elsewhere (Luque et al., 2003
). The glutathione-S-transferase (GST), GST C-terminus (GST-Cter), GST-4.1R60
16,18 and GST-4.1R80
16 proteins were prepared as described elsewhere (Perez-Ferreiro et al., 2001
).
Antibodies
Anti-c-Myc mouse monoclonal antibody 9E10 was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection. Anti-4.1R (10b) antibody was an affinity-purified polyclonal antibody generated as described previously (Correas et al., 1986). Anti-
-tubulin (DM1A), anti-
-tubulin (GTU-88), anti-actin (AC-40) and anti-dynein (intermediate chain) mouse monoclonal antibodies were purchased from Sigma. Anti-tubulin antibody YL1/2 was a rat monoclonal antibody purchased from Sera-Lab. Anti-p150Glued antibody was a mouse monoclonal antibody from BD Transduction Laboratories. Anti-pericentrin antibody was a rabbit polyclonal antibody from Babco. Anti-GST antibody was a rabbit polyclonal antibody from Sigma. Horseradish-peroxidase-labeled secondary antibodies were obtained from Southern Biotechnology Associates. Fluorescence-labeled secondary antibodies and Alexa-Fluor-594/phalloidin were obtained from Molecular Probes.
Immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy
COS-7 cells were fixed with 4% formalin (37% formaldehyde solution, Sigma), permeabilized and blocked (De Cárcer et al., 1995). In some cases, cells were fixed with methanol-acetone (1:1 v/v) for 10 minutes at -20°C. Cells were incubated with the appropriate antibodies and processed as described (De Cárcer et al., 1995
). Controls with primary antibodies omitted were included in each experiment. In figures 1, 2, 3, 4, at least 100 transfected cells were analysed from four independent experiments. Images were obtained using a Zeiss epifluorescence microscope or a Bio-Rad Radiance 2000 confocal laser microscope.
|
|
|
|
Western-blot analysis
Protein samples were separated by sodium-dodecyl-sulfate polyacrylamide-gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and transferred to Immobilon polyvinylidine difluoride (Millipore) in Tris-borate buffer, pH 8.2. Membranes were processed and developed as described (De Cárcer et al., 1995).
Microtubule regrowth assays
COS-7 cells were transfected, seeded on coverslips and grown for 48 hours as described above. Microtubules were depolymerized in 10 µM nocodazole (Sigma) in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) for 4 hours and then washed three times with DMEM and incubated in fresh medium to allow microtubule regrowth. Coverslips were fixed at timed intervals and processed for immunofluorescence as described above.
Sedimentation assays
COS-7 cells were harvested, lysed and sedimented as described (Echeverri et al., 1996). Sedimentation standards, bovine serum albumin (4.4S), catalase (11.3S) and thyroglobulin (19S), were run in parallel. Equal volumes of each fraction were analysed by SDS-PAGE followed by western blotting (De Cárcer et al., 1995
).
Centrosome isolation
Human centrosomes were isolated from Molt-4 T cells as previously described (Moudjou and Bornens, 1998). These cells were chosen because the centrosome isolation protocol used by Modjou and Bornens (Moudjou and Bornens, 1998
) is optimized for human T cells and gives a high yield. Briefly, nocodazole- and cytochalasin-D-treated Molt-4 T cells (
109) were used for centrosome isolation. The centrosomal suspension obtained was layered onto a discontinuous sucrose gradient using the procedure described previously (Moudjou and Bornens, 1998
). For immunofluorescence analysis, the centrosome-containing fractions were spun onto coverslips and probed with anti-
-tubulin, anti-
-tubulin or anti-4.1R antibodies using previously described protocols (Moudjou and Bornens, 1998
).
Microtubule nucleation assays
The microtubule-nucleation ability of isolated centrosomes was analysed according to the method of Mitchison and Kirchner (Mitchison and Kirschner, 1984). The centrosome-containing fractions were incubated in 80 mM PIPES [piperazine-N,N'-bis(2-ethanesulfonic acid)], pH 6.8, 1 mM MgCl2, 1 mM EGTA and 1 mM GTP, containing 3 mg ml-1 bovine brain tubulin (Molecular Probes) for 8 minutes at 37°C. Microtubules were fixed by adding glutaraldehyde (1%), sedimented onto coverslips and then subjected to immunofluorescence analysis using anti-
-tubulin and anti-4.1R antibodies. 12 randomly chosen fields were examined on each coverslip under the microscope and the number of asters formed was counted. To test the effect of addition of GST-4.1R60
16,18, the isolated centrosomes were preincubated with the recombinant protein for 45 minutes at 4°C. GST alone was used as a negative control.
Pull-down assays
GST and the recombinant proteins GST-4.1R6016,18 and GST-Cter were prepared as indicated (Perez-Ferreiro et al., 2001
). COS-7 cell extracts were prepared by washing cells twice with PBS and adding lysis buffer (25 mM Tris, pH 7.6, 200 mM NaCl, 1% Triton X-100) containing 10 µg ml-1 pepstatin, leupeptin and aprotinin, and 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride. Cells were scraped off the plate, transferred to Eppendorf tubes and incubated for 10 minutes on ice. The lysates were centrifuged at high speed in a minicentrifuge at 4°C for 10 minutes. The supernatants were recovered and incubated for 1 hour at 4°C with the glutathione/Sepharose-4B column loaded with the corresponding GST proteins. After extensive washes with lysis buffer, the beads were resuspended in Laemmli buffer and boiled for 5 minutes. Recovery of the GST fusion proteins was confirmed by SDS-PAGE and Coomassie staining. The proteins were transferred to nitrocellulose membranes according to standard procedures and visualized by immunoblotting as described above.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
These results indicate that: (1) perturbation of the microtubule cytoskeleton is not a general effect provoked by the ectopic expression of 4.1R in COS-7 cells; and (2) this perturbation seems to correlate with nuclear localization of the expressed 4.1R isoforms, suggesting that 4.1R would need to be compartmentalized to induce this effect. To learn more about the basis of the microtubule disorganization observed, we used the 4.1R6016,18 protein in this study, because this was the 4.1R isoform that had the strongest effect.
Actin cytoskeleton is not affected by ectopic expression of protein 4.1R6016,18
We next investigated whether another component of the cytoskeleton, actin, was also perturbed by the ectopic expression of 4.1R6016,18. Untransfected cells possessed focused microtubules radiating from the centrosome and actin was detected in stress fibers and membrane ruffles (Fig. 1C). In the same image, cells expressing 4.1R60
16,18 showed unfocused microtubules (Fig. 1C, tubulin, arrows) but no evidence of perturbation in actin distribution was observed (Fig. 1C, actin, arrows). These results were observed in approximately 98% of the transfected cells and indicate that ectopic expression of 4.1R60
16,18 perturbs microtubule but not actin organization.
-Tubulin and pericentrin distributions are not affected by ectopic expression of protein 4.1R60
16,18
We next sought to establish whether the distribution of two main centrosomal components involved in microtubule nucleation, -tubulin and pericentrin, were altered in cells presenting disorganized microtubules. In control cells, microtubules were well organized and
-tubulin and pericentrin localized to a single focus or paired foci near the nucleus (Fig. 2, asterisks). In the same image, cells expressing protein 4.1R60
16,18 (Fig. 2, left, arrows), had disorganized microtubules (Fig. 2, middle, arrows), whereas the staining patterns for
-tubulin and pericentrin (Fig. 2, right, arrows) were similar to those in control cells. These results were observed in
95% of the transfected cells.
Dynactin and dynein distributions are affected by ectopic expression of protein 4.1R6016,18
One possible explanation for the microtubule disorganization observed in cells ectopically expressing protein 4.1R6016,18 might be that the localization of some essential component(s) for stabilizing microtubule organization at centrosomes could be affected. Protein p150Glued is one of the subunits of the dynactin complex that appears to perform a key microtubule-anchoring function (Quintyne et al., 1999
). We therefore investigated whether cells overexpressing protein 4.1R60
16,18 have a normal or altered p150Glued distribution. Untransfected cells presented a single focus or paired foci near the nucleus and cytoplasmic staining (Fig. 3A, p150Glued, asterisks). By contrast, cells expressing protein 4.1R60
16,18 showed either p150Glued distributed in several foci dispersed throughout the cytoplasm and cytoplasmic staining (Fig. 3A, p150Glued, top, arrow) or no detectable p150Glued fluorescence staining at the centrosome (Fig. 3A, middle, insets).
Dynein intermediate chain (IC) mediates the dyneindynactin interaction through association with p150Glued and is required for interphase microtubule organization at centrosomes (Vaughan and Vallee, 1995). We were therefore interested to establish whether cells ectopically expressing protein 4.1R60
16,18 have normal or altered dynein distribution. Untransfected control cells presented a single focus or paired foci near the nucleus (Fig. 3A, dynein, bottom, asterisks) whereas cells expressing protein 4.1R60
16,18 showed, as in the case of protein p150Glued, either several foci dispersed throughout the cytoplasm (not shown) or no detectable dynein fluorescence staining at the centrosome (Fig. 3A, bottom, insets). The effects observed for dynein and p150Glued distributions are representative of most transfected cells (
70%).
Overexpression of 4.1R6016,18 had similar effects on microtubule organization to those caused by some dynactin components, so we set out to determine whether interphase cells had disrupted dynactin structure (Echeverri et al., 1996
; Quintyne et al., 1999
). To address this matter, we examined whether dynactin-dynein remained a single complex that sedimented at
20S, as described by others (Paschal et al., 1993
). In agreement with previous results from control COS-7 cells (Echeverri et al., 1996
), p150Glued and dynein migrated as an
18-19S and an
20S complex, respectively (Fig. 3B, Ct). In samples prepared from cells ectopically expressing 4.1R60
16,18, we observed no major alterations in dynactin or dynein sedimentation behaviors. We did notice, however, that a small proportion of p150Glued and dynein fractionated with sedimentation coefficients higher than 19S or 20S, respectively, in fraction 1 (Fig. 3B, Tr). It is plausible that p150Glued and dynein detected in fraction 1 represent that isolated from the small cell population ectopically expressing 4.1R60
16,18 (
10% of total cells) and are therefore representative of the altered localization observed for these proteins in the confocal images (Fig. 3A). Interestingly, fraction 1 also contained endogenous 4.1R proteins of
135-140 kDa that were absent from fraction 1 isolated from control cells (Fig. 3B, bottom). This result indicates that the sedimentation behavior of endogenous protein 4.1R, like p150Glued and dynein, was also affected by the ectopic expression of 4.1R60
16,18.
Distribution of endogenous centrosomal 4.1R is also perturbed by ectopic expression of protein 4.1R6016,18
Protein 4.1R has been detected at the centrosome in interphase cells (Krauss et al., 1997) and associated with the centrosomal protein CPAP (Hung et al., 2000
). It seemed plausible that centrosomal 4.1R distribution could be altered in cells showing disorganized microtubules by ectopically expressing 4.1R60
16,18. To test this hypothesis, control cells and cells overexpressing protein 4.1R60
16,18 were triple stained with antibodies GTU-88 (to identify
-tubulin), YL1/2 (to detect tubulin) and 10b (to identify simultaneously the endogenous centrosomal 4.1R and the exogenously expressed 4.1R isoform). Several confocal images were analysed and the section in which the centrosome was identified with the anti-
-tubulin antibodies was carefully compared with the staining obtained for 4.1R. Most untransfected control cells (>96%) showed a normal microtubule cytoskeleton as detected with anti-tubulin antibody, and a brightly stained centrosome as detected with anti-
-tubulin and anti-4.1R, 10b, antibodies (Fig. 3C, asterisks). Most cells ectopically expressing 4.1R60
16,18 (
70%) contained disorganized interphase microtubules and a brightly stained centrosome as detected with anti-
-tubulin antibody, but had no detectable (Fig. 3C, insets) or highly reduced (not shown) 4.1R fluorescence staining at the centrosome. These results indicate that exogenous 4.1R alters the microtubule architecture and also affects endogenous centrosomal 4.1R distribution.
Effects of 4.1R6016,18 overexpression on microtubule nucleation and organization at centrosomes
Centrosome functions such as microtubule nucleation and the organization of a radial microtubule network were examined and correlated with the distribution of centrosomal 4.1R in these processes. Microtubules were depolymerized using nocodazole and the subsequent pattern of microtubule regrowth was determined (Fig. 4). After increasing intervals of regrowth (0 minutes to 3 hours), cells were fixed and triple stained to detect tubulin, -tubulin and 4.1R, and confocal images were analysed. Untransfected cells (Fig. 4A) initially had depolymerized microtubules (Fig. 4A, tubulin, 0'). After 5 minutes of regrowth, cells showed single microtubule asters (Fig. 4A, tubulin, 5'). By 30 minutes of regrowth, cells had developed a robust, radial array (Fig. 4A, tubulin, 30'). During all these processes, endogenous centrosomal 4.1R colocalized with
-tubulin (Fig. 4A, insets). The distribution of endogenous nuclear 4.1R was also detected. Transfected cells (Fig. 4B), like control cells, were able to depolymerize microtubules (Fig. 4B, tubulin, 0'). At this point, endogenous centrosomal 4.1R localized with
-tubulin (Fig. 4B, 0' and corresponding insets). After 5 minutes of regrowth, transfected cells showed single microtubule asters and endogenous centrosomal 4.1R distribution was unaltered (5'; compare 4.1R with
-tubulin). By 30 minutes of regrowth, microtubules and endogenous centrosomal 4.1R distributions differed notably from those of control cells. Thus, disorganized, unfocused microtubules were detected (Fig. 4B, tubulin, 30'), accompanied by a lack of endogenous centrosomal 4.1R fluorescence staining (Fig. 4B, 4.1R, 30') but with an unaltered
-tubulin distribution (Fig. 4B,
-tubulin, 30'). The distribution of exogenous nuclear 4.1R60
16,18 is also shown in Fig. 4B. Exogenous 4.1R did not contribute to the observed centrosomal staining because the anti-tag antibody did not stain the centrosomes of transfected cells (not shown; see also Fig. 1). The results of these experiments imply that transfected cells could depolymerize microtubules correctly and nucleate them properly from the centrosome, but that the ability of the centrosome to retain newly assembled microtubules was disturbed. Interestingly, the correct microtubule depolymerization and nucleation from the centrosome correlated with the presence of 4.1R at the centrosome, whereas the inability of the centrosome to anchor microtubules and maintain a radial microtubule organization correlated with an altered distribution of centrosomal 4.1R.
Endogenous protein 4.1R is present in isolated centrosome preparations and localizes within the center of microtubule asters assembled in vitro
Although protein 4.1R was recently localized to the centrosome by immunofluorescence and electron microscopy of mammalian tissue culture lines (Krauss et al., 1997), the presence of 4.1R was not detected in either biochemical experiments or immunofluorescence assays in isolated centrosome preparations (Hung et al., 2000
). To learn more about centrosomal 4.1R, we isolated centrosomes on sucrose density gradients following the procedure described by Modjou and Bornens (Moudjou and Bornens, 1998
). Fig. 5A shows representative images of isolated centrosomes double stained with anti-4.1R and anti-
-tubulin or anti-
-tubulin antibodies. As shown in Fig. 5A, protein 4.1R was present in the isolated centrosome fractions. Western-blot analysis of isolated centrosomes showed 4.1R major bands of
135 kDa and
80 kDa and a minor
60 kDa band (Fig. 5B, 4.1R).
-Tubulin was present in the isolated centrosome preparations whereas actin was absent (Fig. 5B,
-tubulin and actin). It is not certain whether the centrosomal 4.1R band of
135 kDa corresponds to that abnormally sedimenting with dynein and p150Glued in fraction 1 (Fig. 3B) and that is therefore undetectable at the centrosome of cells exogenously expressing 4.1R60
16,18 (Fig. 3C).
|
The isolated centrosomes were tested for their ability to nucleate and assemble microtubule asters in vitro and the location of 4.1R within the asters was determined by confocal microscopy. Most centrosomes (>80%) had the ability to assemble in vitro microtubule asters and protein 4.1R, like -tubulin, was localized at the central part of the microtubule aster (Fig. 5C).
Effect of recombinant GST-4.1R on microtubule aster formation
We next analysed the effect that addition of GST-4.1R6016,18 (GST-4.1R60) has on microtubule aster formation. Recombinant GST-4.1R80
16 protein (GST-4.1R80) was also used in the assay because 4.1R80
16, unlike 4.1R60
16,18, distributed predominantly to the cytoplasm of cells (Luque and Correas, 2000
). The centrosomes were preincubated in the absence (control sample, Ct) or the presence of GST, GST-4.1R80 or GST-4.1R60 and were then assayed for aster formation by the addition of tubulin. Addition of GST had no apparent effect on microtubule aster formation compared with control samples. By contrast, addition of GST-4.1R60 increased the number of total microtubule asters assembled in vitro (Fig. 6). The recombinant protein GST-4.1R60 was incorporated at the center of the asters and along the microtubules (Fig. 6, small panels).
|
Protein 4.1R associates with -tubulin and
-tubulin
The results obtained above suggested that protein 4.1R might function as a microtubule-anchoring factor, establishing a bridge between microtubules and the centrosome. We performed pull-down assays to determine whether 4.1R associates with the centrosomal and microtubule components - and
-tubulin, respectively. Glutathione-Sepharose beads coupled with GST-4.1R60
16,18, GST-Cter or GST were used on COS-7 cell extracts. As shown in Fig. 7, GST-4.1R60
16,18, but not GST-Cter or GST control beads, copelleted
- and
-tubulin from the cell extracts, indicating that 4.1R has the ability to associate with
- and
-tubulin through a region other than its C-terminus.
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Although protein 4.1R was recently localized at the centrosome by immunofluorescence and electron microscopy of mammalian tissue culture lines (Krauss et al., 1997), the presence of 4.1R was not detected in either biochemical experiments or immunofluorescence assays in isolated centrosome preparations (Hung et al., 2000
). Our analyses using isolated centrosomes showed that 4.1R was present at the centrosome, that 4.1R localized at the central part of microtubule asters assembled in vitro and that addition of GST-4.1R60
16,18 (GST-4.1R60) enhanced the number of asters formed, facilitating aster assembly. This effect might be due to the ability of 4.1R to associate with
- and
-tubulin, as suggested by the pull-down experiments (Fig. 7) and by the data on the incorporation of GST-4.1R60 in the asters assembled in vitro (Fig. 6). Previous studies from our group showed a direct interaction between protein 4.1R and tubulin (Correas and Avila, 1988
). More recently, in vitro binding assays revealed that 22 amino acids within a conserved region of the 4.1R sequence were essential for tubulin binding (Perez-Ferreiro et al., 2001
). In this study, the immunodetection of GST-4.1R60 along the microtubules of the asters assembled in vitro supports the direct association between 4.1R and
,ß-tubulin. The incorporation of GST-4.1R60 into the center of the asters might simply be explained by such an interaction, although an interaction with other centrosomal component could also account for it. The results on the distribution and on the effect of GST-4.1R60 in the asters assembled in vitro and those on the pull-down experiments suggested us that centrosomal 4.1R might be acting as a microtubule-anchoring protein.
Proteins with key microtubule-anchoring functions are reported to provoke disorganization of the interphase microtubule array when ectopically expressed in COS-7 cells (Dammermann and Merdes, 2002; Quintyne et al., 1999
). The significance of dynein and dynactin for microtubule anchoring and their participation in the regulation and turnover of the microtubule network are clearly important (Bornens, 2002
; Dammermann et al., 2003
). Indeed, when components of the dynactin complex were overexpressed in COS-7 cells, interphase microtubules were not focused into radial arrays and dynactin subunits did not accumulate at microtubule minus ends (Burkhardt et al., 1997
; Clark and Meyer, 1999
; Quintyne et al., 1999
). Using the same type of experiments, our results showed that specific 4.1R isoforms provoked similar perturbation of the interphase microtubule organization and that, importantly, 4.1R was displaced from the centrosome. These results, in conjunction with the finding that endogenous 4.1R proteins and a population of p150Glued and dynein proteins fractionated on sucrose density gradients with altered sedimentation coefficients (>20S), suggested that microtubule organization is profoundly influenced by the activity and subcellular localization of protein 4.1R.
Ninein, centrin and PCM1 are microtubule-anchoring factors that require dynein/dynactin motor function for their recruitment to the centrosome (Dammermann and Merdes, 2002). Depletion of any of these proteins provoked loss of centrosomal microtubule organization (Dammermann and Merdes, 2002
). As for PCM1 depletion, the absence of centrosomal 4.1R was accompanied by centrosomal microtubule disorganization, altered distributions of dynein and p150Glued and unaltered distribution of
-tubulin. By contrast, unaltered distribution of centrosomal 4.1R correlated well with a correct microtubule depolymerization, nucleation and radial organization. These results indicate that, during interphase, 4.1R is important for the anchoring of microtubules at the centrosome and for the maintenance of radial arrays of microtubules.
Most of the data presented in this work were produced using isoform 4.1R6016,18. The 4.1R60
16,18-encoding cDNA was originally isolated from Molt-4 T cells (Luque and Correas, 2000
) and, interestingly, endogenous 4.1R proteins of
60 kDa have also been detected in many other cell types (Luque and Correas, 2000
; Anderson et al., 1988
). Whether any of these endogenous 4.1R proteins correspond to isoform 4.1R60
16,18 is not known.
The ATG3-translated isoform 4.1R6016,18 had the strongest effect on microtubule organization and presented a predominant nuclear localization. By contrast, ATG1-translated 4.1R isoforms had no effect and presented non-nuclear distribution. ATG2-translated 4.1R isoforms provoked microtubule disorganization if they had a predominant nuclear expression (Fig. 1B, bottom). From these results, it could be suggested that overexpression of 4.1R isoforms with nuclear localization could provoke the dramatic phenotype we show with isoform 4.1R60
16,18. The mechanism by which exogenous expression of nuclear 4.1R might affect microtubule organization is not yet established. One possible explanation could be that the overexpressed nuclear 4.1R isoform retained centrosomal 4.1R and/or a cytoplasmic component essential for maintaining a correct microtubule organization.
In summary, the functional analysis using isolated centrosomes allowed us to analyse the effect on microtubule aster assembly of adding GST-4.1R, whereas the 4.1R-overexpression assays were a useful tool to examine centrosomes lacking endogenous 4.1R. A plausible interpretation of our results is that centrosomal protein 4.1R could be an anchoring protein that establishes a bridge between the microtubules and the centrosome, hence participating in the dynamic interrelationships between the centrosome and the cytoarchitecture.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Anderson, R. A., Correas, I., Mazzucco, C., Castle, J. D. and Marchesi, V. T. (1988). Tissue-specific analogues of erythrocyte protein 4.1 retain functional domains. J. Cell. Biochem. 37, 269-284.[Medline]
Baklouti, F., Huang, S. C., Vulliamy, T. J., Delaunay, J. and Benz, E. J., Jr (1997). Organization of the human protein 4.1 genomic locus: new insights into the tissue-specific alternative splicing of the pre-mRNA. Genomics 39, 289-302.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bornens, M. (2002). Centrosome composition and microtubule anchoring mechanisms. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 14, 25-34.[CrossRef][Medline]
Burkhardt, J. K., Echeverri, C. J., Nilsson, T. and Vallee, R. B. (1997). Overexpression of the dynamitin (p50) subunit of the dynactin complex disrupts dynein-dependent maintenance of membrane organelle distribution. J. Cell Biol. 139, 469-484.
Clark, I. B. and Meyer, D. I. (1999). Overexpression of normal and mutant Arp1alpha (centractin) differentially affects microtubule organization during mitosis and interphase. J. Cell Sci. 112, 3507-3518.
Cohen, A. R., Woods, D. F., Marfatia, S. M., Walther, Z., Chishti, A. H., Anderson, J. M. and Wood, D. F. (1998). Human CASK/LIN-2 binds syndecan-2 and protein 4.1 and localizes to the basolateral membrane of epithelial cells. J. Cell Biol. 142, 129-138.
Conboy, J. (1993). Structure, function, and molecular genetics of erythroid membrane skeletal protein 4.1 in normal and abnormal red blood cells. Semin. Hematol. 30, 58-73.[Medline]
Conboy, J. (1999). The role of alternative pre-mRNA splicing in regulating the structure and function of skeletal protein 4.1. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 220, 73-78.[Abstract]
Conboy, J. G., Chan, J. Y., Chasis, J. A., Kan, Y. W. and Mohandas, N. (1991). Tissue- and development-specific alternative RNA splicing regulates expression of multiple isoforms of erythroid membrane protein 4.1. J. Biol. Chem. 266, 8273-8280.
Correas, I. and Avila, J. (1988). Erythrocyte protein 4.1 associates with tubulin. Biochem. J. 255, 217-221.[Medline]
Correas, I., Speicher, D. W. and Marchesi, V. T. (1986). Structure of the spectrin-actin binding site of erythrocyte protein 4.1. J. Biol. Chem. 261, 13362-13366.
Chasis, J. A., Coulombel, L., Conboy, J., McGee, S., Andrews, K., Kan, Y. W. and Mohandas, N. (1993). Differentiation-associated switches in protein 4.1 expression. Synthesis of multiple structural isoforms during normal human erythropoiesis. J. Clin. Invest. 91, 329-338.[Medline]
Dammermann, A. and Merdes, A. (2002). Assembly of centrosomal proteins and microtubule organization depends on PCM-1. J. Cell Biol. 159, 255-266.
Dammermann, A., Desai, A. and Oegema, K. (2003). The minus end in sight. Curr. Biol. 13, R614-R624.[CrossRef][Medline]
De Cárcer, G., Lallena, M. J. and Correas, I. (1995). Protein 4.1 is a component of the nuclear matrix of mammalian cells. Biochem. J. 312, 871-877.[Medline]
Doxsey, S. (2001). Re-evaluating centrosome function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 688-698.[CrossRef][Medline]
Echeverri, C. J., Paschal, B. M., Vaughan, K. T. and Vallee, R. B. (1996). Molecular characterization of the 50-kD subunit of dynactin reveals function for the complex in chromosome alignment and spindle organization during mitosis. J. Cell Biol. 132, 617-633.[Abstract]
Gascard, P., Lee, G., Coulombel, L., Auffray, I., Lum, M., Parra, M., Conboy, J. G., Mohandas, N. and Chasis, J. A. (1998). Characterization of multiple isoforms of protein 4.1R expressed during erythroid terminal differentiation. Blood 92, 4404-4414.
Hou, V. C. and Conboy, J. G. (2001). Regulation of alternative pre-mRNA splicing during erythroid differentiation. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 8, 74-79.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hou, C. L., Tang, C., Roffler, S. R. and Tang, T. K. (2000). Protein 4.1R binding to eIF3-p44 suggests an interaction between the cytoskeletal network and the translation apparatus. Blood 96, 747-753.
Hung, L. Y., Tang, C. J. and Tang, T. K. (2000). Protein 4.1 R-135 interacts with a novel centrosomal protein (CPAP) which is associated with the -tubulin complex. Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 7813-7825.
Kontrogianni-Konstantopoulos, A., Huang, S. C. and Benz, E. J., Jr (2000). A nonerythroid isoform of protein 4.1R interacts with components of the contractile apparatus in skeletal myofibers. Mol. Biol. Cell 11, 3805-3817.
Kontrogianni-Konstantopoulos, A., Frye, C. S., Benz, E. J., Jr and Huang, S. C. (2001). The prototypical 4.1R-10-kDa domain and the 4.1g-10-kDa paralog mediate fodrin-actin complex formation. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 20679-20687.
Krauss, S. W., Chasis, J. A., Rogers, C., Mohandas, N., Krockmalnic, G. and Penman, S. (1997). Structural protein 4.1 is located in mammalian centrosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 7297-7302.
Krauss, S. W., Heald, R., Lee, G., Nunomura, W., Gimm, J. A., Mohandas, N. and Chasis, J. A. (2002). Two distinct domains of protein 4.1 critical for assembly of functional nuclei in vitro. J. Biol. Chem. 277, 44339-44346.
Lallena, M. J. and Correas, I. (1997). Transcription-dependent redistribution of nuclear protein 4.1 to SC35-enriched nuclear domains. J. Cell Sci. 110, 239-247.
Lallena, M. J., Martínez, C., Valcárcel, J. and Correas, I. (1998). Functional association of nuclear protein 4.1 with pre-mRNA splicing factors. J. Cell Sci. 111, 1963-1971.[Medline]
Luque, C. M. and Correas, I. (2000). A constitutive region is responsible for nuclear targeting of 4.1R: modulation by alternative sequences results in differential intracellular localization. J. Cell Sci. 113, 2485-2495.
Luque, C. M., Lallena, M. J., Pérez-Ferreiro, C. M., de Isidro, Y., de Cárcer, G., Alonso, M. A. and Correas, I. (1999). The N-terminal 209-aa domain of high molecular-weight 4.1R isoforms abrogates 4.1R targeting to the nucleus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 14925-14930.
Luque, C. M., Perez-Ferreiro, C. M., Perez-Gonzalez, A., Englmeier, L., Koffa, M. D. and Correas, I. (2003). An alternative domain containing a leucine-rich sequence regulates nuclear cytoplasmic localization of protein 4.1R. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 2686-2691.
Mattagajasingh, S. N., Huang, S. C., Hartenstein, J. S., Snyder, M., Marchesi, V. T. and Benz, E. J. (1999). A nonerythroid isoform of protein 4.1R interacts with the nuclear mitotic apparatus (NuMA) protein. J. Cell Biol. 145, 29-43.
Mattagajasingh, S. N., Huang, S. C., Hartenstein, J. S. and Benz, E. J., Jr (2000). Characterization of the interaction between protein 4.1R and ZO-2. A possible link between the tight junction and the actin cytoskeleton. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 30573-30585.
Mitchison, T. and Kirschner, M. (1984). Microtubule assembly nucleated by isolated centrosomes. Nature 312, 232-237.[Medline]
Moudjou, M. and Bornens, M. (1998). Method of centrosome isolation from cultured animal cells. In Cell Biology: A Laboratory Handbook (ed. J. E. Celis), pp. 111-119. London, UK: Academic Press.
Nunomura, W., Takakuwa, Y., Tokimitsu, R., Krauss, S. W., Kawashima, M. and Mohandas, N. (1997). Regulation of CD44-protein 4.1 interaction by Ca2+ and calmodulin. Implications for modulation of CD44-ankyrin interaction. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 30322-30328.
Paschal, B. M., Holzbaur, E. L., Pfister, K. K., Clark, S., Meyer, D. I. and Vallee, R. B. (1993). Characterization of a 50-kDa polypeptide in cytoplasmic dynein preparations reveals a complex with p150Glued and a novel actin. J. Biol. Chem. 268, 15318-15323.
Perez-Ferreiro, C. M., Luque, C. M. and Correas, I. (2001). 4.1R proteins associate with interphase microtubules in human T cells: a 4.1R constitutive region is involved in tubulin binding. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 44785-44791.
Quintyne, N. J., Gill, S. R., Eckley, D. M., Crego, C. L., Compton, D. A. and Schroer, T. A. (1999). Dynactin is required for microtubule anchoring at centrosomes. J. Cell Biol. 147, 321-334.
Schischmanoff, P. O., Yaswen, P., Parra, M. K., Lee, G., Chasis, J. A., Mohandas, N. and Conboy, J. G. (1997). Cell shape-dependent regulation of protein 4.1 alternative pre-mRNA splicing in mammary epithelial cells. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 10254-10259.
Tang, T. K., Qin, Z., Leto, T., Marchesi, V. T. and Benz, E. J., Jr (1990). Heterogeneity of mRNA and protein products arising from the protein 4.1 gene in erythroid and nonerythroid tissues. J. Cell Biol. 110, 617-624.[Abstract]
Vaughan, K. T. and Vallee, R. B. (1995). Cytoplasmic dynein binds dynactin through a direct interaction between the intermediate chains and p150Glued. J. Cell Biol. 131, 1507-1516.[Abstract]
Related articles in JCS: