Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute and Department of Anatomy, University of Cambridge, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QN, UK
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: nb117{at}cam.ac.uk)
Accepted 3 June 2005
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Cytoskeleton, Muscle, Sarcomere, Filopodia, Oogenesis
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The genomes of mouse, human and fly contain six actin gene loci (Fig. 1A). Actin proteins differ in only a few amino acids within a species and even between distant species such as fly and mouse. The high conservation at the protein level raises the question as to why multiple actin genes have been retained through evolution. In many cases, multigene families arise through duplication of ancestral (single copy) genes and often diverge in the function of the encoded proteins or the regulation of the genes or both, making all copies essential over time (Meyer and Van De Peer, 2003). For actin proteins, it is not clear which of these options has occurred. In the mouse, two of the muscle actins are specifically expressed in striated muscles (
-skeletal and
-cardiac) and two in smooth muscles (
-vascular and
-enteric); the other two actins are non-muscle actins, also termed cytoplasmic actins (Sheterline et al., 1999
). Similarly to mouse, Drosophila has four muscle-specific actins, with actin 87E being expressed throughout life, actin 57B being expressed in embryonic and larval muscles and actins 79B and 88F being mostly expressed in pupal and adult muscles (Fig. 1C). In addition to the temporal restriction of expression, the fly actins are also restricted in their spatial expression patterns (Fyrberg et al., 1983
).
|
|
|
Data from mammalian cells have produced conflicting results as to the influence of the actin protein sequence on its ability to incorporate into different actin structures. Amongst endogenous actins there seems to be a preference for cytoplasmic actins to be incorporated into the motile cell edges rather than stress fibres (DeNofrio et al., 1989; Hoock et al., 1991
), but actin fibres isolated from smooth muscles have been shown by electron microscopic analysis to have both smooth muscle and cytoplasmic actins present within the same filament (Drew et al., 1991
). Incorporation of ectopic actins produced varied results. For example, one study found that injected muscle and non-muscle actins showed identical patterns of distribution in both fibroblasts and myocytes (McKenna et al., 1985
), whilst another study showed that transfected muscle and non-muscle actins are differentially distributed in cultured smooth muscle and non-muscle cells (Mounier et al., 1997
). These and other studies are difficult to compare as they use very different methodologies and have only addressed subsets of the actins present in one species.
In Drosophila, all six actins are more closely related to vertebrate cytoplasmic actins than to any of the muscle-specific vertebrate actins, with the two fly cytoplasmic actins being the most similar to the two vertebrate cytoplasmic actins (Fig. 1B). Despite the higher similarity between muscle and non-muscle actins in the fly, the actin structures found in Drosophila do not appear significantly different from those observed in mammals. Even though all fly actins are closely related, functional substitution tests have shown that some can compensate for loss of another actin while others cannot. The deleterious lack of cytoplasmic actin5C can be rescued by reintroducing the coding sequence of the second cytoplasmic actin, 42A, under the regulatory control of act5C elements (Wagner et al., 2002). By contrast, lack of the indirect flight muscle-specific actin88F, which renders flies flightless, can only be rescued by expression of one out of the five other actins, with the failure to substitute correlating with the extent of sequence difference between actin88F and the actin used to rescue (Fyrberg et al., 1998
). The underlying mechanistic reasons for these differences in the functional equivalence are unclear.
The goal of this work was to perform a single comprehensive study to compare the ability of all the actins from one species to incorporate into different actin structures, using the same methodology throughout and analysing a large variety of tissues. At the same time, we tested the usefulness of the transgenic fly lines we generated as tools to selectively label subsets of actin structures. To this end, we have expressed all six actin genes in Drosophila as green fluorescent protein (GFP) fusion proteins using the UAS-Gal4 system (Brand and Perrimon, 1993) to drive expression in various tissues. We found that, with only a few exceptions, each actin was efficiently incorporated into all of the different structures formed by the endogenous actins that we analysed. The most drastic difference in the site of incorporation of the actins was observed in the sarcomeres of muscles. In contrast to some of the mammalian cell culture studies we found no large difference in incorporation between cytoplasmic and muscle-specific actins, and did not observe strong dominant-negative effects of the overexpression. We hope that in addition to aiding in the understanding of the effect of actin sequence variability on the formation of actin structures, the tools presented here will prove useful for subsequent studies on actin dynamics in Drosophila.
![]() |
Materials and Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Test of flight ability
Flight ability was tested by comparing actin-expressing flies to flies carrying the GFPactin but not the Gal4-driver transgene for their ability to fly up in a transparent cylindrical cage after being shaken to the bottom: wild-type flies fly up to the top of the cage whereas flightless flies have to climb up the sides.
Cloning of GFPactin constructs
Actin gene sequences were amplified with specific primers in the 5'- and 3'-UTRs from genomic DNA [prepared as described previously (Huang et al., 2000)] and subcloned into pCR TOPOII. Using primers specific for the coding sequences that added NotI and XbaI sites (or a BamHI site in the case of actin79B) the actin sequences were re-amplified and cloned into a pUASp(mGFP6) vector (Röper and Brown, 2003
; Rørth, 1998
). The GFP was fused to the actin N-terminally, with a short linker sequence of SSSAAA in between the GFP and the first methionine of the actin protein sequence. All sequences were verified by sequencing.
Immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy
Embryos were collected on apple-juice agar plates at stage 14-15 of development, and processed for immunofluorescence using standard procedures. Ovaries were dissected from well-fed females and processed for fluorescence using standard procedures. Third instar larvae were either imaged live, or opened, fixed in 4% formaldehyde and stained with phalloidin in PBT (PBS plus 0.5% bovine serum albumin and 0.3% Triton X-100). Indirect flight muscles were dissected from well-fed 1- to 3-day-old adult flies, fixed in 4% formaldehyde and stained with phalloidin in PBT. Confocal images were obtained using a Radiance 2000 confocal microscope (Bio-Rad, Hemel Hempstead, UK). Confocal laser, iris and amplification settings in experiments comparing intensities of labelling were set to identical values. Confocal pictures were assembled in Adobe Photoshop.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
We then tested the ability of each GFPactin to be incorporated into a variety of the actin based structures formed by the endogenous actins in Drosophila: (1) branched networks and parallel bundles of actin filaments such as lamellipodia and filopodia, which are easily seen in the embryonic epidermis and amnioserosa; (2) cortical actin and stress fibre-like structures, found for instance in the ovarian follicle epithelium; (3) specialized actin structures found in the female germline such as ring canals and actin cages; (4) highly ordered actin-myosin assemblies found in the sarcomeric structures of embryonic, larval and adult muscles. To do this, we expressed each GFPactin in the relevant tissue with the appropriate Gal4 driver, and visualized GFP expression in fixed and live samples. All GFPactins appeared to be expressed at similar levels, judging by the brightness of the fluorescence and western blot analysis (data not shown). We also examined whether the expression of each GFPactin perturbed the endogenous actin structures by double-labelling with rhodamine-phalloidin to reveal the overall distribution of filamentous actin. Actin overexpression did not detectably impair normal filamentous actin assembly, because in all tissues analysed, the phalloidin-labelling in wild-type cells and those expressing GFPactin was indistinguishable. In most cases GFPactin overexpression did not interfere with cellular function, but the few exceptions that we noted are described below.
Lamellipodia and filopodia in the embryonic epidermis and amnioserosa
Lamellipodia and filopodia are actin-based cellular extensions important for cell-cell contact and cell migration (Jacinto and Wolpert, 2001; Small et al., 2002
; Svitkina et al., 2003
). Actin filaments are arranged in parallel bundles in filopodia and branched networks in lamellipodia. A variety of accessory proteins have been discovered that can determine which of the two structures is formed (Mejillano et al., 2004
; Revenu et al., 2004
), but the contribution of actins has not been examined. In the fly embryo, elaborate filopodia and lamellipodia are found at the interface between the embryonic epidermis and the amnioserosa (Fig. 2A). The amnioserosa is an extraembryonic tissue covering the dorsal region of the embryo, which is eventually displaced by the embryonic epidermis (Jacinto et al., 2002
). The amnioserosa cells also have numerous lamellipodia and filopodia.
|
Expression of the GFPactins was driven in the embryonic epidermis using the patched-Gal4 driver (Hinz et al., 1994), leading to expression in segmentally repeated stripes within the epidermis and `patchy' expression within the amnioserosa. The two cytoplasmic GFPactins, actin 5C and 42A, and the muscle-specific actin88F highlighted the leading edge filopodia very strongly compared with the overall cytoplasmic labelling (Fig. 2B,C,G), with GFPactin88F showing the most striking enrichment in the filopodia (Fig. 2G). The other three GFPactins, actin57B, 79B and 87E, displayed a higher level of cytoplasmic staining (Fig. 2D-F) compared to the amount in the filopodia. GFPactin79B was the only actin that did not appear to be incorporated into lamellipodia and filopodia within the amnioserosa (Fig. 2E), whereas all other GFPactins labeled lamellipodia to varying degrees, with 42A and 88F being the strongest (Fig. 2C,G). Of the two cytoplasmic actins, GFPactin42A appeared to be the one that was better incorporated into filopodia and lamellipodia. Comparison of the phalloidin labelling of GFPactin-expressing and non-expressing cells showed that the overall distribution of filamentous actin was identical and that cell morphology was not altered.
|
When we expressed GFPactins in the follicle epithelium using the CY2-Gal4 driver (Queenan et al., 1997), each actin was incorporated into both structures, but with differing efficiency (Fig. 3). Actin87E showed especially strong cortical actin labelling (Fig. 3F), whereas actin79B was mostly cytoplasmic and only weakly labelled the cortex (Fig. 3E). The four other actins labelled the cell cortex at intermediate levels (Fig. 3B-D,G). Incorporation into the basal stress fibres was strongest for the cytoplasmic GFPactin42A (Fig. 3I), strong for 5C, 87E and 88F (Fig. 3H,M,N), and only weak for 57B (Fig. 3K). GFPactin79B very poorly incorporated into the basal actin fibres (Fig. 3L). For both actin structures present in follicle cells, the cortical actin and the stress fibre-like arrangements, the cytoplasmic actin42A appeared a better marker than the widely used actin5C.
|
When expressed in the germline using the nanos-Gal4-VP16 driver (Van Doren et al., 1998), all GFPactins strongly labelled the ring canals within the germarium and early egg chambers (Fig. 4A-F) and also at late stages of oogenesis (some ring canals at these stages are visible in Fig. 4I-O). All actins except actin79B were incorporated into the actin struts around nurse cell nuclei (compare Fig. 4M with I,K,L,N,O).
Overexpression of two of the GFPactins interfered with normal germline development. Expression of either GFPactin5C or 57B caused a failure in formation of germline cysts with the correct number of germ cells in a fraction of ovarioles (Fig. 4C,G,H), indicating that the mitotic divisions generating the germline cysts were perturbed. Germ cells were multinucleate and ring canals appeared to contain excess actin (Fig. 4G). Nonetheless, late stage egg chambers could be found that contained a morphologically identifiable oocyte despite having too few germ cells (Fig. 4H, asterisk).
|
GFPactins were expressed in muscles using the mef2-Gal4 driver (Hinz et al., 1994). In the larval visceral (Fig. 5A) and body wall muscles (Fig. 5B,C) all actins were incorporated into the striated sarcomeric structure (Fig. 5A, compare GFPactin to phalloidin labelling). No difference in the overall efficiency of incorporation was detected between cytoplasmic and muscle-specific actins (Fig. 5A-C, compare a,b with c-f). Also, at the light-microscopic level, muscle architecture or function in larvae was not disrupted (see phalloidin labelling in Fig. 5A). This is in strong contrast to mammalian muscle cells in culture, in which overexpression of cytoplasmic actins led to strong dominant negative effects (von Arx et al., 1995
). The distribution of both fly cytoplasmic actins (5C and 42A) was indistinguishable from the distribution of F-actin (Fig. 5A,a and b), indicating that the majority of GFPactin was incorporated into the sarcomeres.
We next analysed more closely how the different actins were incorporated into striated muscles (Fig. 5B). All but one actin isoform appeared to be incorporated into the thin filaments along their entire length; actin79B was slightly more enriched in the Z-lines compared to the other actins (Fig. 5B,d). GFPactin88F expressed in larval muscles appeared to be specifically excluded from Z-lines, but strongly present throughout the rest of the thin filaments (Fig. 5B,f).
Highly ordered sarcomeric actin assemblies in the adult indirect flight muscles
The muscles that move the wings of adult flies and enable flight, the indirect flight muscles, reside within the thorax. Each indirect flight muscle is a single multinucleate cell containing many myofibrils with especially regular sarcomeres (Reedy and Beall, 1993a). This highly ordered structure allows for the high-frequency contractions that are necessary to power the beating wing and thus enable flight (Bate, 1993
). The major actin isoform expressed in the indirect flight muscles is actin88F (Fyrberg et al., 1983
). Indirect flight muscles appear especially sensitive to interference with the sarcomeric components, and most manipulations result in an inability to fly (Brault et al., 1999a
; Brault et al., 1999b
; Fyrberg et al., 1998
).
Expression of GFPactins in the adult indirect flight muscle showed the most striking differences in incorporation, and also revealed unexpected patterns of actin incorporation (Fig. 6). Independent of the actin isoform expressed, all flight muscles showed a core of elevated levels of GFPactin (Fig. 6A). As seen in Fig. 6, the size of the core varied between individual flies analysed, but none of the specimens showed homogeneous labelling of the thin filaments. The core staining must represent stronger incorporation into the forming sarcomeres during early pupal stages of indirect flight muscle assembly. The individual sarcomeres grow continuously in length and diameter during pupal development, with thin filaments growing in length and layers of thin filaments being added around the periphery (Mardahl-Dumesnil and Fowler, 2001) (see diagram in Fig. 6C). The stronger incorporation into the core was not specific to the level of GFPactin production driven by mef2-Gal4, as two other drivers, CY2 and 24B, produced similar patterns but are expressed at different levels (Fig. 6B and data not shown). A likely explanation for the labelling of the core is that there is a temporal change in the ratio of the GFPactin to endogenous actin. For example, a large increase in the expression of endogenous actin88F at the end of flight muscle assembly could dilute the GFPactin. Regardless of the cause of the core labelling, our results highlight a difference between the Z-lines, which homogeneously incorporated the GFPactin, and the thin filaments, which did not, even though the Z-lines and thin filaments are assembled at the same time (Reedy and Beall, 1993a
).
|
The indirect flight muscle was the only muscle in which the function was affected by overexpression of GFPactins. Expression of any of the muscle-specific or cytoplasmic actins in this tissue led to flightless adults that were otherwise healthy and fertile (data not shown). This is most probably due to an imbalance in the relative amounts of actin and myosin (Beall et al., 1989). In some cases the disruption of the flight muscle structure could be observed in dissected flight muscles fibres (Fig. 6D for GFPactin5C, arrows). Nonetheless, the overall assembly of thin filaments into sarcomeres appeared indistinguishable from wild-type as judged by phalloidin-labelling (Fig. 6A, phalloidin).
A mutant actin, actin79BR291H, exclusively in Z-lines
In the process of generating the GFPactin-transgenic flies, we realized that one expression construct of actin79B harboured a point mutation in a highly conserved residue: R291 was changed into a histidine (Fig. 7A). Expressed in fly muscles, this mutant, actin79BR291H, was almost exclusively incorporated into the Z-lines of sarcomeres, with very low levels in the rest of the thin filaments. This Z-line-specific incorporation was found in all muscle types analysed: larval visceral muscles (Fig. 7B), larval body wall muscles (Fig. 7C and D), adult indirect flight muscles (Fig. 7E,F), adult direct flight muscles and adult leg muscles (data not shown). Similarly to wild-type actin79B, actin79BR291H was not incorporated into filopodia and lamellipodia in the amnioserosa (Fig. 7G), and did not label the cortex of follicular epithelial cells, though it labelled the apical microvilli (Fig. 7H). However, in contrast to the wild-type actin79B, the mutant strongly labelled the basal actin stress fibres in the follicle cells (Fig. 7I).
Analysis of chimerae between actin79BR291H and actin88F
To address the molecular basis of the specific exclusion of actin88F from Z-lines, and the preferential incorporation of actin79BR291H into Z-lines, we constructed chimeric GFP-fusion proteins. Comparing the position of the mutation in actin79BR291H with the crystal structure of actin (Kabsch et al., 1990), it appeared to be in a position that might affect packing of monomers into the filament. Overall, actin79BR291H and actin88F differ from each other in 12 positions at the amino acid level (see Fig. 1A). Four of the changes are clustered in the very N terminus, the most divergent region for all actin proteins (see Fig. 1A). The other differences are spread over the length of the protein. We therefore exchanged the first 149 amino acids of actin79BR291H with those of actin88F and vice versa and fused them to GFP as done for the others (Fig. 8). Expression analysis in larval and adult muscles revealed that localization within the sarcomeric structure was determined by the C-terminal half. This half contains the R291H mutation and there are only two residues in this half that are unique to actin88F: F170, which is a Y in all other actins, and S298, which is variably I, N, or T in the others.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Taken together, this study compares, for the first time, the ability of all actin paralogues found in one species to be incorporated into a large variety of actin structures in vivo. Our aim was to better understand the extent to which the six actin proteins found in Drosophila are functionally equivalent. The ability of fly actins to integrate into most actin structures and their sequence conservation suggest that the regulation of expression rather than a divergence in function of individual proteins is key to understanding why this multigene family maintained that many members through evolution. But this explanation is likely to be too simplistic, as it does not account for the following factors. Firstly, different fly actin protein sequences cannot always substitute for another actin (Fyrberg et al., 1998). Secondly, in this study we observed differences in the efficiency of different actins to be incorporated into different structures and in a few examples inability of certain actins to be incorporated into an actin structure: actin79B was not incorporated into filopodia or lamellipodia (Fig. 2), and actin88F was excluded from Z-lines in muscles (Figs 5 and 6). Thirdly, our experiments do not address whether each actin is able to form each of the actin structures by itself, because we have just tested their ability to become incorporated into structures formed by the actins normally present in each cell type. These results suggest that the main difference between actin paralogues in flies could lie in the expression control, but that in addition, tissue- or actin structure-specific adaptation of individual actins evolved, so that the present actin paralogues cannot unequivocally substitute for each other.
How could the primary actin protein sequence lead to the preferable incorporation of one actin over another for a single filament within an actin structure? It could be explained by the inability of two or more actins to co-polymerize. However, in vivo and in vitro studies in mammals have shown that even the more divergent muscle and non-muscle actins can be found copolymerized within one filament (Drew et al., 1991; Mounier et al., 1997
), therefore, it appears very likely that this would also be the case in Drosophila and thus preclude `immiscibility' of actins as a cause of segregation of paralogues. Alternatively, actin-binding proteins that support the formation of certain structures could show a preference for certain actins. An example of such a preference has been described in the protein beta cap73 that preferentially binds to ß-actin but not
-actin and probably links ß-actin to ezrin, with which it forms a complex (Shuster et al., 1996
). Such preferential binding of accessory proteins could explain the striking difference of incorporation into Z-lines that we observed for actin88F and the mutant actin79BR291H. The analysis in various tissues showed that actin79BR291H was not efficiently incorporated into filamentous structures. The strong incorporation into Z-lines could be due to binding to a Z-line-specific actin-binding protein such as
-actinin. This could also explain the incorporation of the mutant actin into the basal stress fibres, as they also contain
-actinin (Otey and Carpen, 2004
). Conversely, the exclusion of GFPactin88F could be due to its inability to associate with certain Z-line-specific actin-binding proteins.
The exclusion of actin88F from Z-lines in the indirect flight muscles was particularly surprising, because actin88F is the primary actin isoform expressed in these muscles (Fyrberg et al., 1983). Therefore, this result suggests that the Z-line actin in the indirect flight muscles is not composed of actin88F, but instead must normally be made of one or more of the other actins. This could also explain why the other GFPactins labelled the whole of the Z-line but only the core of the thin filaments: a late burst of actin88F expression may dilute out GFPactin incorporation into thin filaments, but not the Z-line. The alternative explanation is that actin88F is normally found in the Z-lines, but the GFP-tag blocks its localisation to Z-lines. This would indicate that the recruitment of actin88F to the Z-lines occurs differently than all the other actins, since the GFP-tag did not interfere with their Z-line association. The effect of the GFP on actin88F would also have to be a long-range conformational change, since the inability of GFPactin88F to go to Z-lines mapped to the C terminus, rather than the N terminus, which contains the GFP tag.
A fortuitous mutation in actin79B, R291H, converted it into a Z-line-specific actin. Comparing this mutant with 88F, we mapped the residues responsible for the exclusion of actin88F to one or both of two residues in the C-terminal half, F170 and S298. Both of these residues are within subdomain 3 of the actin monomer, which is part of the barbed end. One of the actin88F-specific residues, S298 (T297 in human ß-actin), is less likely to cause Z-line exclusion, because it is variable between the different actins and is buried in the structure of the actin monomer (Kabsch et al., 1990). The other residue, F170, is usually a tyrosine (Y169 in human ß-actin), and, like R291, is exposed on the surface of the structure. F170 and R291 are both in regions that form contacts with other actin subunits during filament formation (Holmes et al., 1990
). The lysine adjacent to R291 has been shown to be less reactive upon actin polymerization, indicating that it is buried in the filament (Holmes et al., 1990
), thus residues in this region potentially form stabilizing contacts between actin monomers. The difference in localisation between actin88F and the mutant actin79BR291H might be explained if we hypothesize that some F-actin in the Z-lines is present as very short filaments. The mutant actin79B could cap the ends of these filaments without being too detrimental, and, conversely, perhaps actin88F cannot associate with a barbed end capping protein at the Z-lines, so it does not accumulate.
Both residues, F170 and R291, are also part of the binding site for profilin (Schutt et al., 1993). The equivalent residue to R291 in bovine ß-actin (R290), is part of the primary contact site between profilin and bovine ß-actin (Schutt et al., 1993
). Profilin binds actin monomers, catalyses the nucleotide exchange on actin monomers and delivers them for polymerization to free barbed ends of actin filaments (Paavilainen et al., 2004
). Binding sites for other actin-binding proteins are distinct from these specific residues. For example, the interaction of actin-binding calponin-homology domains, like those in the Z-line-specific protein
-actinin, with actin filaments involves the outside of the filaments and subdomain 1 of the actin monomer (Moores et al., 2000
; Sutherland-Smith et al., 2003
). Thus, either a reduction in the ability to form filaments or reduced binding to profilin interaction may explain why actin79BR291H was not easily incorporated into cytoplasmic actin structures such as filopodia, lamellipodia and cortical actin.
GFPactins as tools to visualize actin structures
As well as allowing an insight into the basis of actin diversity, the GFPactins are valuable tools to study or highlight actin-based structures in a live organism. We would recommend using the following GFPactins to label specific structures (see also Table 1): actin 42A or 88F for cell cortices, filopodia and lamellipodia in the embryonic epidermis and amnioserosa; actin87E for cell outlines and actin42A for basal fibres in the follicular epithelium; actin 42A or 87E for ring canals or actin struts in the germline; actin 57B or 87E for sarcomeres in muscles. It is worth mentioning that a number of the newly generated fusion proteins, and in particular the second cytoplasmic actin42A, were in most cases a better marker for actin structures, i.e. better signal to noise ratio, in many cell types than the commonly used GFPactin5C (Verkhusha et al., 1999).
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Arpin, M., Algrain, M. and Louvard, D. (1994). Membrane-actin microfilament connections: an increasing diversity of players related to band 4.1. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 6, 136-141.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bassell, G. J., Zhang, H., Byrd, A. L., Femino, A. M., Singer, R. H., Taneja, K. L., Lifshitz, L. M., Herman, I. M. and Kosik, K. S. (1998). Sorting of beta-actin mRNA and protein to neurites and growth cones in culture. J. Neurosci. 18, 251-265.
Bate, M. (1993). The mesoderm and its derivatives. In The Development of Drosophila Melanogaster (ed. M. Bate and A. Martinez-Arias), pp. 1013-1090. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Bateman, J., Reddy, R. S., Saito, H. and Van Vactor, D. (2001). The receptor tyrosine phosphatase Dlar and integrins organize actin filaments in the Drosophila follicular epithelium. Curr. Biol. 11, 1317-1327.[CrossRef][Medline]
Beall, C. J., Sepanski, M. A. and Fyrberg, E. A. (1989). Genetic dissection of Drosophila myofibril formation: effects of actin and myosin heavy chain null alleles. Genes Dev. 3, 131-140.[Abstract]
Brand, A. H. and Perrimon, N. (1993). Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development 118, 401-415.
Brault, V., Reedy, M. C., Sauder, U., Kammerer, R. A., Aebi, U. and Schoenenberger, C. (1999a). Substitution of flight muscle-specific actin by human (beta)-cytoplasmic actin in the indirect flight muscle of Drosophila. J. Cell Sci. 112, 3627-3639.
Brault, V., Sauder, U., Reedy, M. C., Aebi, U. and Schoenenberger, C. A. (1999b). Differential epitope tagging of actin in transformed Drosophila produces distinct effects on myofibril assembly and function of the indirect flight muscle. Mol. Biol. Cell 10, 135-149.
Bretscher, A. (1991). Microfilament structure and function in the cortical cytoskeleton. Annu. Rev. Cell Biol. 7, 337-374.[CrossRef][Medline]
Clark, K. A., McElhinny, A. S., Beckerle, M. C. and Gregorio, C. C. (2002). Striated muscle cytoarchitecture: an intricate web of form and function. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 18, 637-706.[CrossRef][Medline]
DeNofrio, D., Hoock, T. C. and Herman, I. M. (1989). Functional sorting of actin isoforms in microvascular pericytes. J. Cell Biol. 109, 191-202.[Abstract]
DeRosier, D. J. and Tilney, L. G. (2000). F-actin bundles are derivatives of microvilli: What does this tell us about how bundles might form? J. Cell Biol. 148, 1-6.
Drew, J. S., Moos, C. and Murphy, R. A. (1991). Localization of isoactins in isolated smooth muscle thin filaments by double gold immunolabeling. Am. J. Physiol. 260, C1332-C1340.[Medline]
Fyrberg, E. A., Mahaffey, J. W., Bond, B. J. and Davidson, N. (1983). Transcripts of the six Drosophila actin genes accumulate in a stage- and tissue-specific manner. Cell 33, 115-123.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fyrberg, E. A., Fyrberg, C. C., Biggs, J. R., Saville, D., Beall, C. J. and Ketchum, A. (1998). Functional nonequivalence of Drosophila actin isoforms. Biochem. Genet. 36, 271-287.[CrossRef][Medline]
Guild, G. M., Connelly, P. S., Shaw, M. K. and Tilney, L. G. (1997). Actin filament cables in Drosophila nurse cells are composed of modules that slide passively past one another during dumping. J. Cell Biol. 138, 783-797.
Hill, M. A. and Gunning, P. (1993). Beta and gamma actin mRNAs are differentially located within myoblasts. J. Cell Biol. 122, 825-832.[Abstract]
Hinz, U., Giebel, B. and Campos-Ortega, J. A. (1994). The basic-helix-loop-helix domain of Drosophila lethal of scute protein is sufficient for proneural function and activates neurogenic genes. Cell 76, 77-87.[CrossRef][Medline]
Holmes, K. C., Popp, D., Gebhard, W. and Kabsch, W. (1990). Atomic model of the actin filament. Nature 347, 44-49.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hoock, T. C., Newcomb, P. M. and Herman, I. M. (1991). Beta actin and its mRNA are localized at the plasma membrane and the regions of moving cytoplasm during the cellular response to injury. J. Cell Biol. 112, 653-664.[Abstract]
Huang, A. M., Rehm, E. J. and Rubin, G. M. (2000). Recovery of DNA sequences flanking P-element insertions: Inverse PCR and plasmid recue. In Drosophila Protocols (ed. W. Sullivan, M. Ashburner and R. S. Hawley), pp. 429-437. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Jacinto, A. and Wolpert, L. (2001). Filopodia. Curr. Biol. 11, R634.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jacinto, A., Woolner, S. and Martin, P. (2002). Dynamic analysis of dorsal closure in Drosophila: from genetics to cell biology. Dev. Cell 3, 9-19.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kabsch, W., Mannherz, H. G., Suck, D., Pai, E. F. and Holmes, K. C. (1990). Atomic structure of the actin: DNase I complex. Nature 347, 37-44.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kislauskis, E. H., Zhu, X. and Singer, R. H. (1994). Sequences responsible for intracellular localization of beta-actin messenger RNA also affect cell phenotype. J. Cell Biol. 127, 441-451.[Abstract]
Kolega, J., Janson, L. W. and Taylor, D. L. (1991). The role of solation-contraction coupling in regulating stress fiber dynamics in nonmuscle cells. J. Cell Biol. 114, 993-1003.[Abstract]
Mahowald, A. P. (1971). The formation of ring canals by cell furrows in Drosophila. Z. Zellforsch. Mikrosk. Anat. 118, 162-167.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mardahl-Dumesnil, M. and Fowler, V. M. (2001). Thin filaments elongate from their pointed ends during myofibril assembly in Drosophila indirect flight muscle. J. Cell Biol. 155, 1043-1053.
McKenna, N., Meigs, J. B. and Wang, Y. L. (1985). Identical distribution of fluorescently labelled brain and muscle actins in living cardiac fibroblasts and myocytes. J. Cell Biol. 100, 292-296.[Abstract]
Mejillano, M. R., Kojima, S., Applewhite, D. A., Gertler, F. B., Svitkina, T. M. and Borisy, G. G. (2004). Lamellipodial versus filopodial mode of the actin nanomachinery: pivotal role of the filament barbed end. Cell 118, 363-373.[CrossRef][Medline]
Meyer, A. and Van De Peer, Y. (2003). Genome Evolution: Gene and Genome Duplications and the Origin of Novel Gene Functions. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Moores, C. A., Keep, N. H. and Kendrick-Jones, J. (2000). Structure of the utrophin actin-binding domain bound to F-actin reveals binding by an induced fit mechanism. J. Mol. Biol. 297, 465-480.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mounier, N., Perriard, J. C., Gabbiani, G. and Chaponnier, C. (1997). Transfected muscle and non-muscle actins are differentially sorted by cultured smooth muscle and non-muscle cells. J. Cell Sci. 110, 839-846.
Nongthomba, U., Pasalodos-Sanchez, S., Clark, S., Clayton, J. D. and Sparrow, J. C. (2001). Expression and function of the Drosophila ACT88F actin isoform is not restricted to the indirect flight muscles. J. Muscle Res. Cell Motil. 22, 111-119.[CrossRef][Medline]
Otey, C. A. and Carpen, O. (2004). Alpha-actinin revisited: a fresh look at an old player. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 58, 104-111.[CrossRef][Medline]
Paavilainen, V. O., Bertling, E., Falck, S. and Lappalainen, P. (2004). Regulation of cytoskeletal dynamics by actin-monomer-binding proteins. Trends Cell Biol. 14, 386-394.[CrossRef][Medline]
Queenan, A. M., Ghabrial, A. and Schupbach, T. (1997). Ectopic activation of torpedo/Egfr, a Drosophila receptor tyrosine kinase, dorsalizes both the eggshell and the embryo. Development 124, 3871-3880.
Ranganayakulu, G., Schulz, R. A. and Olson, E. N. (1996). Wingless signaling induces nautilus expression in the ventral mesoderm of the Drosophila embryo. Dev. Biol. 176, 143-148.[CrossRef][Medline]
Reedy, M. C. and Beall, C. (1993a). Ultrastructure of developing flight muscle in Drosophila. I. Assembly of myofibrils. Dev. Biol. 160, 443-465.[CrossRef][Medline]
Reedy, M. C. and Beall, C. (1993b). Ultrastructure of developing flight muscle in Drosophila. II. Formation of the myotendon junction. Dev. Biol. 160, 466-479.[CrossRef][Medline]
Revenu, C., Athman, R., Robine, S. and Louvard, D. (2004). The co-workers of actin filaments: from cell structures to signals. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5, 635-646.[CrossRef][Medline]
Robinson, D. N., Smith-Leiker, T. A., Sokol, N. S., Hudson, A. M. and Cooley, L. (1997). Formation of the Drosophila ovarian ring canal inner rim depends on cheerio. Genetics 145, 1063-1072.
Röper, K. and Brown, N. H. (2003). Maintaining epithelial integrity: a function for gigantic spectraplakin isoforms in adherens junctions. J. Cell Biol. 162, 1305-1315.
Rørth, P. (1998). Gal4 in the Drosophila female germline. Mech. Dev. 78, 113-118.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schafer, D. A. (2002). Coupling actin dynamics and membrane dynamics during endocytosis. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 14, 76-81.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schutt, C. E., Myslik, J. C., Rozycki, M. D., Goonesekere, N. C. and Lindberg, U. (1993). The structure of crystalline profilin-beta-actin. Nature 365, 810-816.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sheterline, P., Clayton, J. and Sparrow, J. C. (1999). Protein Profile: Actin. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Shuster, C. B., Lin, A. Y., Nayak, R. and Herman, I. M. (1996). Beta cap73: a novel beta actin-specific binding protein. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 35, 175-187.[CrossRef][Medline]
Small, J. V., Stradal, T., Vignal, E. and Rottner, K. (2002). The lamellipodium: where motility begins. Trends Cell Biol. 12, 112-120.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sokol, N. S. and Cooley, L. (1999). Drosophila filamin encoded by the cheerio locus is a component of ovarian ring canals. Curr. Biol. 9, 1221-1230.[CrossRef][Medline]
Song, J., Worth, N. F., Rolfe, B. E., Campbell, G. R. and Campbell, J. H. (2000). Heterogeneous distribution of isoactins in cultured vascular smooth muscle cells does not reflect segregation of contractile and cytoskeletal domains. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 48, 1441-1452.
Sutherland-Smith, A. J., Moores, C. A., Norwood, F. L., Hatch, V., Craig, R., Kendrick-Jones, J. and Lehman, W. (2003). An atomic model for actin binding by the CH domains and spectrin-repeat modules of utrophin and dystrophin. J. Mol. Biol. 329, 15-33.[CrossRef][Medline]
Svitkina, T. M., Bulanova, E. A., Chaga, O. Y., Vignjevic, D. M., Kojima, S., Vasiliev, J. M. and Borisy, G. G. (2003). Mechanism of filopodia initiation by reorganization of a dendritic network. J. Cell Biol. 160, 409-421.
Van Doren, M., Williamson, A. L. and Lehmann, R. (1998). Regulation of zygotic gene expression in Drosophila primordial germ cells. Curr. Biol. 8, 243-246.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vasioukhin, V. and Fuchs, E. (2001). Actin dynamics and cell-cell adhesion in epithelia. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 13, 76-84.[CrossRef][Medline]
Verkhusha, V. V., Tsukita, S. and Oda, H. (1999). Actin dynamics in lamellipodia of migrating border cells in the Drosophila ovary revealed by a GFP-actin fusion protein. FEBS Lett. 445, 395-401.[CrossRef][Medline]
von Arx, P., Bantle, S., Soldati, T. and Perriard, J. C. (1995). Dominant negative effect of cytoplasmic actin isoproteins on cardiomyocyte cytoarchitecture and function. J. Cell Biol. 131, 1759-1773.[Abstract]
Wagner, C. R., Mahowald, A. P. and Miller, K. G. (2002). One of the two cytoplasmic actin isoforms in Drosophila is essential. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 8037-8042.
|