Gelsolin domains 1 and 4 bind G-actin in a similar manner and compete with each other, whereas domain 2 binds F-actin at physiological salt concentrations, and does not compete with doma
Trang 1Binding of gelsolin domain 2 to actin
An actin interface distinct from that of gelsolin domain 1 and from ADF/cofilin
Celine Renoult1, Laurence Blondin1, Abdellatif Fattoum2, Diane Ternent3, Sutherland K Maciver3,
Fabrice Raynaud1, Yves Benyamin1and Claude Roustan1
1 UMR 5539 (CNRS) Laboratoire de Motilite´ Cellulaire (Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes), Universite´ de Montpellier, France;
2 Centre de Recherches de Biochimie Macromole´culaire, Montpellier, France;3Genes and Development Group,
Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
It is generally assumed that of the six domains that comprise
gelsolin, domain 2 is primarily responsible for the initial
contact with the actin filament that will ultimately result in
the filament being severed Other actin-binding regions
within domains 1 and 4 are involved in gelsolin’s severing
and subsequent capping activity The overall fold of all
gelsolin repeated domains are similar to the actin
depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin family of actin-binding
proteins and it has been proposed that there is a similarity in
the actin-binding interface Gelsolin domains 1 and 4 bind
G-actin in a similar manner and compete with each other,
whereas domain 2 binds F-actin at physiological salt concentrations, and does not compete with domain 1 Here
we investigate the domain 2 : actin interface and compare this to our recent studies of the cofilin : actin interface We conclude that important differences exist between the interfaces of actin with gelsolin domains 1 and 2, and with ADF/cofilin We present a model for F-actin binding of domain 2 with respect to the F-actin severing and capping activity of the whole gelsolin molecule
Keywords: actin; actin-binding proteins; cofilin; gelsolin
The organization of the actin microfilaments in cells is
dynamic and is quickly rearranged in response to
extra-cellular signals Gelsolin is one of the members of a family
of proteins (e.g severin, villin), that is essential for
microfilament remodelling [1 – 3] There are two forms of
gelsolin which differ in their N-terminal extremities One is
specifically located in the blood and acts with vitamin
D-binding protein to accelerate clearing of actin from the
circulation [4], while the other form is intracellular In vitro,
gelsolin interacts with G- and F-actins, promotes nucleation
and both severs and caps actin filaments Cofilin belongs to
another family of actin-binding proteins that also severs
actin filaments and increases polymerization dynamics [5]
Despite a lack of sequence homology between the cofilin
and gelsolin families the fold adopted by each of gelsolin’s
130 amino-acid subdomains [2] is similar to the actin
depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin family fold [6] In contrast with cofilin, gelsolin does not appear to be essential for viability in the organisms where this has been tested, probably due to the expression of related genes such as adseverin/scinderin [7], but gelsolin is specifically required for rapid movement of various dynamic cells [8] Thus, gelsolin over-expression in fibroblasts leads to enhanced cell motility [9,10]
Domains 1 – 3 (S1 – 3) are sufficient for capping and severing, while the C-terminal half of the molecule is directly implicated in calcium regulation In particular, gelsolin domain 1 (S1) interacts both with monomeric actin, and with the barbed end of the actin filaments inhibiting polymerization
S2, in contrast, preferably binds to the side of the actin filament Severing activity seems to require the binding of S2 to the filament, followed by interaction of S1 between two adjacent actins along the filament axis [11]
The tertiary structure of whole gelsolin in the inactive
Ca21 free state has been determined [2], as has S1 in complex with actin [11], gelsolin S4 – 6 [12], severin domain 2 [13,14] and villin domain 2 [15] The structure of each gelsolin domain shows a surprising similarity to the cofilin fold [6] Therefore it is possible to hypothesize that S2 binds actin in the same manner as cofilin [16]
The solution of the gelsolin structure [2], showed that when S1 is in position according to the G-actin – S1 model [11], S2 is not in contact with actin This might suggest a reorientation of S1 : S2 interfaces so that S2 could contact both of the binding sites on the same actin unit in the filament to which S1 is joined [12] In addition, by studying the S2 – 6 interaction with F-actin, McGough et al [17] showed that the S2 – 3 position on F-actin is similar to the actin-binding domain of a-actinin Robinson et al [12] presented a model for gelsolin interaction based on the
Note: web pages are available at http://www.ephe.univ-montp2.fr, and
http://www.bms.ed.ac.uk/research/smaciver/index.htm.
Note: A gelsolin amino-acid numbering system based on the plasma
human gelsolin [1], in which S1 is defined as extending from Pro39 to
Tyr133 and S2 as being Gly137 to Leu247 [2], is used is this report.
Correspondence to C Roustan, UMR 5539(CNRS) UM2 CC107,
Place E Bataillon 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
Fax: 133 04 67 14 49 27,
E-mail: roustanc@crit.univ-montp2.fr
(Received 14 June 2001, revised 28 September 2001, accepted
4 October 2001)
Abbreviations: S1–6, the six repeated segments of gelsolin; ADF,
Actin depolymerizing factor; 1,5-I-AEDANS, N,-iodoacetyl-N 0
-(sulfo-1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbant
assay; FITC, fluorescein 5-isothiocyanate; G-actin, monomeric actin;
F-actin, filamentous actin; EEDQ,
N-ethoxycarbonyl-2-ethoxy-1,2-dihydroquinoline.
Trang 2determination of the S4 – 6 actin structure They suggested
that changes in the structure of S1 – 3 must occur to allow S2
to interact with the side of actin filament Finally from
mutagenesis and structural data, Puius et al [14] proposed a
model for S2 interaction in which 168RRV170 and 210RLK
212 are determinant in F-actin binding
In this report, we investigated the gelsolin S2 : actin
interface In particular, we focused on the comparison
between respective locations of gelsolin and cofilin on actin
filament and evidenced major differences in the interfaces
M A T E R I A L S A N D M E T H O D S
Proteins and peptides
Rabbit skeletal muscle actin was isolated from acetone
powder [18], and stored in buffer G (2 mM Tris, 0.1 mM
CaCl20.1 mMATP pH 7.5) Actin was selectively cleaved
by Staphylcoccus aureus V8 protease [19] and thrombin
[20] and the fragments obtained were isolated by
electroelution as described previously [19] Human gelsolin
domain 2 (S2) was produced in Escherichia coli,
BL21(pLysS) carrying a vector containing a cDNA
encod-ing residues includencod-ing 151 – 266, the S2 repeat [21] The
bacteria were grown in 1-L flasks with 2 TY medium with
ampicillin (150 mg:mL21) and induced with isopropyl
thio-b-D-galactoside (final concentration 1 mM) when the culture
reached D600¼ 0.5 Cultures were then grown for a further
4 h at 37 8C and the cells collected by centrifugation The
bacteria were lysed by repeated freeze – thaw cycles with
sonication Supernatant containing the S2 protein was
applied to a DE52 column and purified further by
hydroxyapatite chromatography The concentration of S2
was determined spectrophotometrically assuming 1
A280¼ 79 mM[21]
Antibodies directed towards gelsolin fragments 159 – 193
and 203 – 225 or actin sequences 75 – 105 and 285 – 375 were
elicited in rabbits [22] The antibodies directed to the actin
sequences were selectively purified by affinity
chromato-graphy [23] Anti-IgG antibodies labelled with alkaline
phosphatase were from Sigma
Synthetic peptides derived from actin and gelsolin
sequences were prepared on a solid phase support using a
9050 Milligen PepSynthesizer (Millipore) according to the
Fmoc/tBu system The crude peptides were deprotected and
purified thoroughly by preparative reverse-phase HPLC
The purified peptides were shown to be homogenous by
analytical HPLC Electrospray mass spectra, carried out
in the positive ion mode using a Trio 2000 VG Biotech
mass spectrometer (Altrincham, UK), were in line with the
expected structures
Peptides were labelled at the cysteine residue with
N-iodoacetyl-N0-(sulfo-1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine
(1,5-I-AEDANS) or at amino groups by fluorescein
5-isothio-cyanate (FITC) [24,25] Excess reagent was eliminated
by sieving through a Biogel P2 column equilibrated with
0.05M NH4HCO3 buffer pH 8.0 Actin and gelsolin S2
domain were labelled by FITC as described elsewhere [25]
Excess reagent was eliminated by chromatography on a
PD10 column (Pharmacia) in 0.1MNaHCO3buffer pH 8.6
Actin was specifically labelled at cysteine 374 by
1,5-I-AEDANS [24]
Cross-linking experiments Actin (1 mg:mL21) and gelsolin fragment 159 – 193 (0.1 mg:mL21) were incubated with 2.5 mM N-ethoxy-carbonyl-2-ethoxy-1,2-dihydroquinoline (EEDQ; Sigma) in
100 mMMops pH 7.0 at 22 8C The cross-linking reaction was allowed to proceed for 45 min, and stopped by the addition of 100 mM 2-mercaptoethanol The cross-linked species were separated and analysed by SDS/PAGE and immunoblotting
Immunological techniques The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [26], that was previously described in detail [27], was used to monitor interaction of ligands with coated peptides or actin Actin (0.5 mg:mL21) or peptides (5 mg:mL21) in 50 mM
NaHCO3/Na2CO3 pH 9.5, were immobilized on plastic microtiter wells The plate was then saturated with 0.5% gelatin/3% gelatin hydrolysate in 140 mM NaCl/50 mM
Tris buffer pH 7.5 Experiments with coated peptides were performed in 0.15M NaCl, 10 mM phosphate
pH 7.5 Binding was monitored at 405 nm using alkaline phosphatase-labelled anti-IgG antibodies (1 : 1000) or alkaline phosphatase-labelled streptavidin (1 : 1000) Con-trol assays were carried out in wells saturated with gelatin and gelatin hydrolysate used alone Each assay was con-ducted in triplicate and the mean value plotted after sub-traction of nonspecific absorption The binding parameters (apparent dissociation constant Kdand the maximal binding
Amax) were determined by nonlinear fitting A ¼ Amax[L]/ (Kd1 [L]) where A is the absorbance at 405 nm and [L] is the ligand concentration, by using theCURVE FIT software developed by K Raner Software (Victoria, Australia) Additional details on the different experimental conditions are given in the figure legends
Western immunoblots were performed as described previously [28] The immunoblots were revealed using alkaline phosphatase
Fourier transform IR measurements Fourier transform IR spectra were recorded using an IFS 28 Bruker spectrometer Samples were placed in a horizontal ATR plate and the spectra recorded at room temperature The peptide was analysed at a concentration of 5 mg:mL21
in 10 mM phosphate buffer pH 7.5 A total of 500 scans were accumulated in the 1800 – 1500 cm21 range The BrukerOPUS/IR 2 program was used for spectrum analysis (second derivative)
Fluorescence measurements Fluorescence experiments were conducted using a LS 50 Perkin-Elmer luminescence spectrometer Spectra for 1,5-I-AEDANS or FITC were obtained in 50 mMTris/HCl buffer
pH 7.5, with the excitation wavelength set at 340 and
470 nm, respectively Fluorescence changes were deduced from the area of the emission spectra of FITC between 480 and 500 nm The parameters Kd (apparent dissociation constant) and Amax (maximum effect) were calculated by nonlinear fitting of the experimental data points
The number of binding sited (n ) and the affinity constant
K were also determined by another approach [29,30] The
Trang 3following relationship was then used:
where C and E are total concentrations of peptide and actin,
respectively, and X is the relative fluorescence change
A/Amax(corresponding to the fraction of peptide bound to
actin)
A plot of 1/(1 – X) ¼ vs C/(XE) (Eqn 1) was drawn The
plot gives the number of binding sites which is the value
of C/(XE) for 1/(1 – X) ¼ 0 The slope of the same curve
directly gives the value of the affinity constant
Analytical methods
Protein concentrations were determined by UV absorbency
using a Varian MS 100 spectrophotometer Electrophoresis
was carried out on 12.5% (w/v) polyacrylamide slab gels
(SDS/PAGE 12.5%) according to Laemmli [31] and stained
with Coomassie blue The 14 – 97 kDa molecular weight
marker kits were from Biorad
R E S U L T S
Several investigations [32 – 35] have suggested the
parti-cipation of gelsolin S2 sequences (and homologue S2
equivalents) within residues 197 – 226 (including the long
helix of the domain) and within residues 161 – 172
(including the A strand and the AB loop in S2) in the
interaction with F-actin We have investigated subdomain 1
of actin, which possess accessible sequences in F-actin in
order to delimit the interface of gelsolin S2 with the actin
filament
In an initial experiment, we tested the ability of a
sequence covering the helix of S2 to interact with actin
The conformation of the synthesized peptide (sequence
203 – 225) was checked in aqueous solution by Fourier
transform IR The IR spectrum of the peptide is
charac-terized by the presence of a band at 1645 cm-1 (data not
shown) suggesting an unordered conformation [36] A similar result has already been observed for the corre-sponding peptide in cofilin [16] Binding was tested by fluorescence measurements In a first experiment, we have labelled actin at Cys374 with dansyl and the 203 – 225 peptide with FITC The excitation was fixed at 340 nm and the fluorescence emission monitored between 460 and
480 nm The fluorescence was corrected for the contribution
of the FITC-labelled peptide alone In this experiment, we observed a quenching of dansyl fluorescence emission (data not shown) that could be interpreted by energy transfer between the two chromophores and/or changes in the environment of Cys374 occurring during actin – peptide complex formation In a second approach, FITC-labelled actin was incubated in the presence of increasing concentrations of 203 – 225 peptide (0 – 19 mM) The results shown in Fig 1 indicate change in the FITC fluorescence induced by complex formation The shape of the curve shows that the binding takes place in a saturable manner with an apparent Kdof 5 mM These experiments confirm the results of van Troys et al [33] which implicate the sequence
197 – 226 in the gelsolin : actin interface
A second gelsolin S2 : actin interface is located in the N-terminal part of S2 In order to delimit the footprint of this gelsolin part on the actin structure, a peptide covering the
159 – 193 sequence was synthesized Its conformation in an aqueous solution was studied by IR in the amide 1 region The second derivative of the spectrum (Fig 2), character-ized by a major band at 1629:cm21associated with a band at 1680:cm21 suggests the presence of an antiparallel beta sheet structure [36] In the corresponding region of gelsolin S2, crystallographic data reported the occurrence of three antiparallel strands [37]
The interaction of the 159 – 193 peptide with actin was documented by three independent assays Actin was treated with EEDQ in the presence of peptide 159 – 193 and analysed by gel electrophoresis A typical protein band pattern is shown in Fig 3 The EEDQ treatment yields a new product with an apparent molecular weight of 47 kDa, which is not present with actin alone This cross-linked product corresponds to the actin – peptide complex
Fig 2 Structure of the synthetic gelsolin peptide 159 – 193 Second derivative of the IR Fourier transform spectrum Amide I region of the
IR spectrum was observed in 10 m phosphate, pH 7.5.
Fig 1 Binding of FITC-labelled G-actin with gelsolin 203 – 225
peptide Interaction of FITC-labelled G-actin at Lys61 (0.7 m M ) with
gelsolin 203 – 225 peptide was monitored by fluorescence Changes in
the intensity of the fluorescence emission spectra of FITC were
recorded at various peptide concentrations in buffer G pH 7.5.
Excitation was fixed at 470 nm and emission between 510 and 530 nm.
Trang 4The binding of the peptide to actin was also tested by
ELISA Its interaction with coated G-actin was revealed by
using specific antibodies to sequence 159 – 193 within
gelsolin S2 The results presented in Fig 4A show that the
peptide binds to G-actin with an apparent Kd of < 2 mM
These data were confirmed in solution using fluorescence
experiments G-actin labelled with FITC was incubated in
the presence of increasing 159 – 193 peptide concentration
and the changes in fluorescence were monitored The
saturation curve observed suggests a specific interaction
with a Kdof 2 mM A stoichiometry of < 1 mole peptide per
mole G-actin was also estimated (Fig 4C) A similar
experiment was performed with dansylated F-actin at
Cys374 (Fig 4B inset) The interaction induces a
fluorescence quenching of the chromophore (Kd¼ 2 mM)
Determination of the 159 – 193 peptide/actin interface
Two approaches were used for identification of large
fragments of actin to which gelsolin 159 – 193 peptide could
be cross-linked by EEDQ They involved the electrophoretic
and immunological analysis of the cross-linked products
formed either on proteolysis of the complex by V8 protease
or on cross-linking of the 159 – 193 peptide to actin after
digestion by thrombin Digestion of actin by V8 protease
gives two major fragments [19] of 31 and 16 kDa (1 – 225
and 226 – 375 sequence, respectively) As shown in Fig 5,
digestion of the cross-linked actin peptide complex reveals
two faint bands at 33 kDa and 46 kDa which are missing
from the controls They can be stained by both anti-actin
(directed towards sequence 75 – 105) and anti-gelsolin
Fig 4 Binding of gelsolin fragment 159 – 193 with actin (A) Interaction of gelsolin fragment monitored by ELISA Coated G-actin was reacted with the gelsolin fragment at the concentrations indicated Binding was monitored at 405 nm, using specific anti-gelsolin antibodies (B) Interaction of FITC-labelled actin (0.7 m M ) with gelsolin fragment was monitored by fluorescence Changes in the intensity of the fluorescence emission spectra of FITC were recorded at various peptide concentrations (0 – 2.5 m M ) in buffer G pH 7.5 supplemented with 50 m M KCl Inset, Binding of gelsolin peptide to dansylated F-actin (1 m M ) determined by fluorescence The experiment was carried out in buffer F pH 7.5 (C) Quantitative analysis of the data
in (B) for the interaction between G-actin and 159 – 193 peptide was performed by plotting 1/(1 2 X) vs C/(XE) where C is the concentration of peptide expressed in m M and E is the concentration
of G-actin fixed at 0.7 m M X, the binding ratio, was determined as described in Materials and methods.
Fig 3 Cross-linking pattern of actin – gelsolin peptide 159 – 193
complex by EEDQ The cross-linking reactions are performed as
reported in Materials and methods SDS/PAGE was carried out on a
12.5% acrylamide gel and then stained with Coomassie blue Molecular
mass markers (lane 1), actin alone (lane 2) and actin – peptide complex
(lane 3) treated by EEDQ.
Trang 5antibodies These results show that the 159 – 173 peptide is
cross-linked to the 1 – 225 fragment of actin
The EEDQ-induced covalent complex between gelsolin
peptide and thrombic digest of actin produces a 32-kDa
band resulting from the covalent association between the
27 kDa fragment of actin (114 – 375 sequence) and the
gelsolin fragment This conclusion is supported by the fact
that this band can be revealed by anti-gelsolin and anti-actin
antibodies (directed towards 285 – 375 sequence) (Fig 6)
These results reveal that the cross-linking reactions
impli-cate the residues within the 114 – 225 sequence of actin
Two large purified actin fragments [19,20] derived
from thrombic and V8 protease digestion of actin
(114 – 375 and 226 – 375 fragments) were tested for their
possible interaction with 159 – 193 peptide by ELISA The
results shown in Fig 7 indicate that both large fragments interacted with the gelsolin peptide However binding to the 114 – 375 fragment was of higher affinity (apparent
Kd¼ 1.8 mM) that binding to the 226 – 375 fragment (apparent Kd¼ 10 mM) Therefore, these results locate the actin site in central and C-terminal parts of actin
Identification of amino acid sequences implicated in the interfaces between actin and 159 – 193 fragment
In the N-terminal extremity, the sequence 18 – 28 was previously show to be involved in gelsolin S2 – 3 domains binding [38] We tested here the ability of the sequence to interact with the 159 – 193 peptide ELISA experiments in which 18 – 28 peptide was coated to plastic showed no
Fig 5 Analysis of the cross-linking between the gelsolin fragment 159 – 193 and actin with EEDQ after protease V8 digestion The cross-linking reactions followed by a limited digestion by the V8 protease were carried out as described in Material and methods Proteolysed material was analysed by 15% SDS/PAGE Molecular mass markers (lane 1), actin treated by EEDQ (lane 2), gelsolin fragment 159 – 193-actin complex treated by EEDQ (lane 3) (A) SDS/PAGE stained by Coomassie blue (B) Immunoblot revealed by specific antigelsolin antibodies (C) Immunoblot revealed by specific anti-actin antibodies directed towards 75 – 105 sequence.
Fig 6 Analysis of the cross-linking between gelsolin fragment 159 – 193 and a thrombin digest of actin with EEDQ After digestion of actin by thrombin, the cross-linking reaction with EEDQ was conducted as described in Material and methods Proteolysed material was analysed by 17% SDS/PAGE Molecular mass markers (lane 1), thrombic digest of actin (lane 2), thrombic digest of actin treated by EEDQ (lane 3), mixture of gelsolin fragment 159 – 193 and thrombic digest of actin treated by EEDQ (lane 4) and gelsolin fragment 159 – 193 treated by EEDQ (lane 5) (A) SDS/PAGE stained by Coomassie blue (B) Immunoblot revealed by specific anti-gelsolin antibodies (C) Immunoblot revealed by specific anti-actin antibodies directed towards 285 – 375 sequence.
Trang 6binding of the gelsolin fragment (Fig 8A) The results
indicate that this N-terminal part of actin may bind to
another regions of S2 In addition, no interaction can be
detected with the 85 – 103 sequence located near the 18 – 28
sequence at the surface of actin subdomain 1
A first interface was determined in a central region of
actin as evidenced by cross-linking experiments (sequence
114 – 225) Two peptides belonging both to the 114 – 225
sequence and exposed regions of subdomain 1 were tested
(112 – 125 and 119 – 132 peptides) Interaction of the
159 – 193 fragment with the coated peptides was revealed
using specific anti-gelsolin antibodies The results reported
in Fig 8A indicate that only peptide 119 – 132 interacted
with a Kdof 2.9 mM
The binding of the 119 – 132 peptide was confirmed in
solution To perform such an experiment gelsolin 159 – 193
fragment was labelled with FITC and mixed with 112 – 125
and 119 – 132 actin peptides As shown in Fig 8B, the
119 – 132 peptide does not perturb FITC In contrast
the 112 – 125 peptide induces a fluorescence decrease of
the label, but the corresponding binding is very weak
(Kd 50 mM) Therefore, to test the 119 – 132 sequence,
corresponding peptide was synthesized with an extra
cysteine at the N-terminal extremity, then labelled with
1,5-I-AEDANS The binding of the gelsolin fragment
increases the dansyl fluorescence (Fig 8C) Analysis of the
saturation curve shows binding parameters which confirm
the ELISA results (Kd¼ 2 mM)
A second interface was then evidenced in the C-terminal
part of actin The more accessible sequences in this region
were first investigated by ELISA One corresponds to the
helix 338 – 348, and the other to two helices and one turn
located in the 356 – 375 sequence The corresponding
peptides (339 – 349, 347 – 365, 356 – 375 and 360 – 372) were
coated to plastic We observed (Fig 8A and Table 1) that
only peptides 356 – 375 and 347 – 365 interacted
signi-ficantly with the gelsolin fragment The activities of
overlapping peptides within the C-terminal of actin towards
Fig 7 Interaction of gelsolin peptide 159 – 193 with two large
C-terminal fragments of actin Actin (0.5 mg:mL21) (W) or two actin
fragments (0.5 mg:mL 21
) derived by protease v8 digestion (B) (actin sequence 226 – 375) or thrombic digestion (X) (actin sequence
114 – 375) were coated to plastic Increasing concentrations of gelsolin
fragment 159 – 193 were added in buffer containing 0.15 M NaCl, 1%
BSA 10 m M phosphate pH 7.5, 0.1 m M dithiothreitol Binding was
detected by using anti-gelsolin antibodies and was monitored at
405 nm.
Fig 8 Determination of actin sequences involved in the gelsolin fragment 159 – 193 : actin interface (A) Interaction of the gelsolin fragment with various actin synthetic peptides monitored by ELISA Actin peptides [sequences 18 – 28 (O), 112–125 (A), 119–132 (W),
339 – 349 (B) and 356 – 375 (X)] were coated to plastic at a concentration of 5 mg:mL 21 ELISA was carried out as in Fig 7 (B) Interaction of FITC-labelled gelsolin fragment 159 – 193 with actin synthetic peptides of sequences 84 – 103 (O), 112– 125 (W), 347–365 (A), 360–372 (B) and 356–375 (X) Experiments were carried out with FITC-labelled peptide (2 m M ) in 50 m M Tris buffer pH 7.6 (C) Interaction of dansylated synthetic peptides derived from actin sequence to gelsolin fragment 159 – 193 In creasing concentrations of gelsolin fragment were added to peptide 119 – 132 (X), 347–365 (W) and 360 – 372 (B) in 0.05 Tris buffer pH 7.6.
Trang 7FITC-labelled gelsolin fragment were finally tested by
fluorescence As shown in Fig 8B, only 356 – 375 peptide
interaction can be characterized by this method Finally,
dansylated peptides 347 – 365 and 360 – 372 were tested The
peptide interaction of 348 – 365 peptide with the gelsolin
fragment was evidenced (Fig 8C) All of these facts
suggested corresponding interfaces to be located in the
C-terminal part of actin
Competition between the N-terminal part of gelsolin S2
and cofilin
Van Troys and colleagues [16] have proposed that cofilin
and gelsolin S2 share a similar target site on the filament To
show the overlapping of these two proteins on the actin
surface, competition between cofilin and the gelsolin
159 – 193 fragment was studied by ELISA G-actin was
coated to plastic and increasing concentrations of gelsolin
peptide were added to a fixed concentration of cofilin
(0.8 mM) The binding of the ligand used at a fixed
con-centration was monitored using the corresponding
cofilin-specific antibodies The results presented in Fig 9 indicate
that a ternary complex actin – cofilin – gelsolin peptide might
occur as the binding of cofilin decreases only partially to
< 45% as the gelsolin peptide concentration is increased
Footprint of gelsolin S2 on actin
To confirm the ability of sequences 119 – 132, 18 – 28 and
356 – 375 to bind gelsolin, experiments were performed with
the entire domain 2 First, although this domain appears
to bind preferentially to F-actin, we tested the possible
interaction with G-actin For this purpose, gelsolin domain 2
was labelled with FITC and increasing concentrations of
Fig 10 Binding of gelsolin domain S2 to actin (A) FITC labelled gelsolin domain S2 (0.26 m M ) was mixed with 0 – 4 m M G-actin in G-buffer pH 7.5 Changes in the emission spectra were reported vs actin concentrations (B) Increasing concentrations (0 – 7 m M ) of gelsolin domain S2 were incubated with several fluorescent peptides derived from actin sequence [dansylated peptide 18 – 28 (B), dansylated peptide 119 – 132 (X) and FITC-labelled peptide 356–375 (W)] Fluorescence changes were reported vs S2 concentrations (C) Effect of short actin peptide on the interaction of gelsolin S2 to G-actin FITC-labelled gelsolin S2 (0.26 m M ) was mixed with increasing concentration
of G-actin (final concentration, 2.5 m M ) in G-buffer pH 7.5 and the spectrum was recorded between 510 and 530 nm Then, increasing concentrations of actin peptides [peptide 1 – 10 (A), 18–28 (B),
119 – 132 (W), 339–349 (O) and 356–375 (X)] were added and corresponding spectra were recorded The binding is expressed as binding relative to that without peptides.
Fig 9 Competition binding study between gelsolin fragment
159 – 193 and cofilin The binding of cofilin (0.8 m M ) to coated
G-actin in 150 m M NaCl, 10 m M phosphate buffer pH 7.5
supple-mented with 1% BSA and 0.1 m M dithiothreitol was performed in the
presence of increasing gelsolin fragment concentrations (0 – 24 m M ).
Binding was detected by using anti-cofilin antibodies and was
monitored at 405 nm.
Trang 8actin were added As shown in Fig 10A, we observed
changes in the fluorescence intensity Analysis of these data
give an apparent Kdof < 5 mM The interactions evidenced
for gelsolin domain 2 with the three actin peptides (peptides
18 – 28, 119 – 132 and 356 – 375 [39]) labelled, either with
dansyl or FITC (Fig 10B), are in agreement with the above
results
Finally competitions for the binding of S2 and actin
peptides to G-actin were also performed (Fig 10C) We
observed the dissociation of actin – S2 complex by peptides
119 – 132 and 356 – 375 However peptides 18 – 28 and
338 – 348 had no effect
D I S C U S S I O N
The actin-binding site on S2 S2 (137 – 247) contains gelsolin’s initial F-actin binding site prior to severing/capping microfilaments [40], but the orientation of contacting residues and to a lesser extent the identity of these residues within S2 is less certain The first 10 residues of S2 in addition to S1 is the minimal requirement for filament severing [41] The standard explanation for this is that a very weak F-actin binding region exists within these 10 residues; however, additional F-actin affinity afforded by other residues of S2 is necessary for full severing [42] A peptide derived from villin equi-valent to residues 159 – 171 of human gelsolin S2 was found
to bind F-actin and to bundle it if an extra cysteine residue was placed at the C terminus of the peptide allowing dimerization by disulfide cross-linkage [35] A similar peptide (159 – 174) from gelsolin itself has also been shown
to bind F-actin [34], with a Kdof 4 mM Residues 198 – 227
of human gelsolin bind actin, cross-link to F-actin and compete with S2 – 3 for binding to F-actin [33] A deletion study [32] concluded that a mutant 173 – 266 was not able to bind actin Additional data on the actin-binding site on S2 comes from mutational studies in which the importance of two sites (168 – 171 and 210 – 213) were highlighted [14] It
is possible that the introduction of such mutations may alter binding by subtle disruption of the structure and so a more convincing approach has been taken by Southwick [43] in which the non-actin binding S2 equivalent of the gelsolin-related protein CapG was transformed into an actin binding region by the substitution of gelsolin 108 Leu2114 Gly, in the equivalent position of CapG thus indicating their likely importance in actin-binding We too have confirmed the importance of the NH2-terminal portion of S2 in actin binding and report that gelsolin 203 – 225 peptide binds actin, as does 159 – 193 The comparatively weak binding and short length of peptide 203 – 225 has made the deter-mination of its binding site on actin and the stochiometry of
Fig 11 A model for the interaction of gelsolin with the actin
filament Our data suggest that S1 and S2 bind to the same actin
monomer exposed at the barbed end of the filament after severing S3
acts as a spacer connecting S2 to S4 which binds either to the diagonally
opposed actin monomer ‘a’ or monomer ‘b’ We prefer monomer ‘a’ as
this affords the shortest distance across the filament S4 binds the actin
monomer with a similar interface as S1 S5 and S6 do not, as far as is
known, bind actin and may stick out from the filament as illustrated.
Table 1 Summary of binding of gelsolin peptide 159 – 193 and cofilin to various parts of actin and whole actin in the F- and G-form by similar methods Note that no K d value is given for cofilin binding to F-actin as the co-operativity of the interactions precludes this ND, Not determined.
Tested
sequences
Peptide
159 – 193
K d ELISA
Peptide
159 – 193
K d fluorescence
Cofilin
K d
Reference for cofilin
a L Blondin, C Renoult, Y Bemyamin & C Roustan, unpublished data.
Trang 9interaction uncertain; however, we have no reason to believe
that this is not simply 1 : 1 Furthermore we have located the
site of interaction on the actin molecule
The S2-binding site on actin
Van Troy and colleagues [33] have used sequence-specific
actin antibodies to localize the site cross-linked to S2
peptide 198 – 227 and found that they could exclude residues
12 – 44, 228 – 257 and 354 – 375 from being the site of
peptide binding Our adjacent peptide S2 159 – 193 did not
bind the C terminus of actin (360 – 372) either but we did
measure a reasonable binding (Kd3 – 5 mM) to actin peptide
355 – 375 and to 347 – 365 (Kd2 mM) (Table 1) It is possible
that both S2 and the antibody used by this group [33] are
able to bind 355 – 375 of actin simultaneously We measured
tight binding (Kd1.8 mM) to 114 – 375 and weaker binding
(Kd10 mM) to 226 – 375 of actin As the affinity for S2 to the
entire actin molecule is within this range (Kd1.4 – 7.9 mM)
[14,32] perhaps there is no other region on the surface of the
actin molecule that binds actin This is not compatible with
Puius et al [14] who postulated a second monomer interface
with the DNase1 binding loop of actin in subdomain 2 Pope
et al [44] have shown that DNase1 does not interfere with
the binding of S2 – 3, but perhaps binding can occur through
the first actin binding site in S2 [14]
The S2 actin interface compared with ADF/cofilin
The similarity in structural fold between all gelsolin
domains and between these and the ADF/cofilin fold has
enticed some to compare the latter to both S1 [6,45] and S2
[16], despite the fact that important differences exist in
the manner in which S1 and S2 bind actin and that they
bind different, nonoverlapping sites [44] S1 binds G-actin
primarily, S2 binds F-actin exclusively (in salts) and the
ADF/cofilins bind both G- and F-actin but in a significantly
different manner to either gelsolin family domain The
main feature of ADF/cofilin is the extreme co-operativity
in F-actin binding [46] (a Hill coefficient of 3 has been
measured) This is in marked contrast with the situation with
S2 where no evidence for co-operation in F-actin binding
was observed by many other studies [47] Binding of S2,
S2 – 3 found by Scatchard analysis to bind F-actin with a Kd
value of 1.44 mM [47] S2 competes with a-actinin for
actin binding [21,48]; however, only slight competition is
evident between cofilin and a-actinin [49] McGough and
colleagues [50] suggest that a-actinin binds between two
longitudinally associated actin monomers in the filament in
line with the model proposed by Puius et al [14] who
suggest that S2 binds actin via two faces, one S1-like, the
other encompassing 38 – 62 includes the DNase1 binding
loop and 92 – 95 In this respect S2 is like ADF/cofilin as we
have postulated a similar two-site scheme [51]
The fact that the gelsolin fold is so similar to the ADF
fold with only tentative suggestions of homology [52,53] is
all the more remarkable because despite the structural
similarity and the fact that both gelsolin and ADF/cofilin are
actin-binding proteins, the fold seems to form at least three
quite distinct actin binding interfaces Ultimately, structural
solutions of both S2-decorated and ADF/cofilin-decorated
F-actin will be required to establish the exact F-actin
binding characteristics of these different protein families and how similar or otherwise they truly are
The orientation of S2 with respect to actin, and implications for gelsolin on the microfilament How the six gelsolin domains arrange themselves around the actin filament to sever and cap it remain controversial
We have characterized an S2-binding site on subdomain 1
of actin adjacent to but not overlapping that of the S1 site between subdomains 1 and 3 [11] S1 plus a short peptide (Phe134 – Gln160) running into S2 is sufficient for severing [41] As this is likely to be brought about by weak F-actin binding by the peptide, and this region is so close to S1 it is probable that the N terminus of S2 binds subdomain1 of actin We now report that 159 – 193 of S2 binds to regions within 119 – 132 and 347 – 375 of actin both towards the outer surface of the filament on subdomain 1 The actin monomer is generally flat, and in the standard orientation the actin monomer has it flat face presented We have determined that S2 binds subdomain 1 on the lower edge and even perhaps ‘behind’ this flat face surface This placement would explain the capping activity observed in S2 [32] as binding in this region would prevent monomer addition at the barbed end by blocking the longitudinal binding site between subdomain 1 and the DNase1 site of the incoming monomer However our model is not easily reconcilable with that proposed by Puius et al [39] who predict that S2 binds actin with a similar interface as S1 in addition to binding around the DNAse1 binding site in subdomain 2 of actin
The Puius model is attractive in that proposing two actin-binding sites explains why S2 causes oligomerization of actin [39], why S1 – 3 binds two actin monomers [54], and fits a reconstruction of the S2 – 6 decorated filament S2 produces oligomerization of actin monomers [39], and the peptide 159 – 174 from S2 increases the rate of spontaneous actin polymerization [34] but does not increase elongation
or the extent of final polymerization One possible inter-pretation of these facts is that S2 binds two longitudinally associated monomers; however, it is also possible that S2 binding induces a change in the conformation of actin [55]
to that of the F-monomer accounting for the tendency for oligomerization and polymerization
Our model (Fig 11) is similar to that proposed previously
by Pope et al [44] in that we also propose that S3 connects S2 to S4 the ‘long-way around’ the microfilament (so that S4 binds the diagonally opposite actin monomer) and that both models place S1 and S2 on the same actin monomer Where the present model differs is that we place S2 beside S1 on subdomain 1 of actin instead of on subdomain 2 and this requires S3 or parts of it to be more extended than the other domains In the crystallographic solution of gelsolin, it is clear that S2 is connected to S3 by a relatively long linker region which in the absence of Ca21connects S2 to S3 by wrapping around S1 The position of S2 at the edge of subdomain 1 shortens the distance that S3 has to straddle S2 and S4
Major rearrangements between the domains must occur between the Ca21-free and Ca21-bound gelsolin [2,12] There is presently little data to distinguish if S4, which binds actin [56] in a manner to S1 [12], binds the actin monomer (a) as shown (Fig 11) or the monomer that would have been
Trang 10placed immediately under it (b); however, we prefer the
model as shown as it seems that this would be the shortest
route given how the backbone is positioned at the C terminus
of S2 The positions of S5 and S6 relative to the capped
filament are not known with any precision but are shown
‘sticking out’ from the filament as electron microscopic data
from gelsolin S2 – 6-decorated microfilaments [17] indicate
that this is possible
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T
We thank P McLaughlin for many valuable comments on the work.
R E F E R E N C E S
1 Kwiatkowski, D.J., Stossel, T.P., Orkin, S.H., Mole, J.E., Colten,
H.R & Yin, H.L (1986) Plasma and cytoplasmic gelsolins are
encoded by a single gene and contain a duplicated actin-binding
domain Nature 323, 455 – 458.
2 Burtnick, L.D., Koepf, E.K., Grimes, J., Jones, E.Y., Stuart, D.I.,
McLaughlin, P.J & Robinson, R.C (1997) The crystal structure of
plasma gelsolin: Implications for actin severing, capping and
nucleation Cell 90, 661 – 670.
3 Yin, H.L (1988) Gelsolin: calcium and
polyphosphoinositide-regulated actin-modulating protein Bioessays 7, 176 – 179.
4 Haddad, J.G., Harper, K.D., Guoth, M., Pietra, G.G & Sanger, J.W.
(1990) Angiogenic consequences of saturating the plasma
scavenger system for actin Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87,
1381 – 1385.
5 Bamburg, J.R (1999) Proteins of the ADF/cofiln family: Essential
regulators of actin dynamics Ann Rev Cell Dev Biol 15,
185 – 230.
6 Hatanaka, H., Ogura, K., Moriyama, M., Ichikawa, S., Yahara, I &
Inagaki, F (1996) Tertiary structure of destrin and structural
similarity between two actin-regulating protein families Cell 85,
1047 – 1055.
7 Tchakarov, L., Vitale, M.-L., Jeyapragasan, M., Castillo, A.R.D &
Trifaro, J.-M (1990) Expression of scinderin, an actin
filament-severing protein, in different tissues FEBS Lett 268, 209 – 212.
8 Witke, W., Sharpe, A.H.H., Artwig, J.H., Azuma, T., Stossel, T.P &
Kwiatkowski, D.J (1995) Hemostatic, inflammatory and fibroblast
responses are blunted in mice lacking gelsolin Cell 81, 41 – 51.
9 Arora, P.D & Mcculloch, C (1996) Dependence of fibroblast
migration on actin severing activity of gelsolin J Biol Chem 271,
20516– 20523.
10 Cunningham, C.C., Stossel, T.P & Kwiatkowski, D.J (1991)
Enhanced motility in NIH 3T3 fibroblasts that overexpress gelsolin.
Science 251, 1233 – 1236.
11 McLaughlin, P.J., Gooch, J.T., Mannherz, H.G & Weeds, A.G.
(1993) Structure of gelsolin segment-1-actin complex and the
mechanism of filament severing Nature 364, 685 – 692.
12 Robinson, R.C., Mejillano, M., Le, V.P., Burtnick, L.D., Yin, H.L.
& Choe, S (1999) Domain movement in gelsolin: a
calcium-activated switch Science 286, 1939 – 1942.
13 Schnuchel, A., Wiltscheck, R., Eichinger, L, Schleicher, M &
Holak, T.A (1995) Structure of severin domain 2 in solution J Mol.
Biol 247, 21 – 27.
14 Puius, Y.A., Fedorov, E.V., Eichinger, L., Schleicher, M & Almo,
S.C (2000) Mapping the functional surface of domain 2 in the
gelsolin superfamily Biochemistry 39, 5322 – 5331.
15 Markus, M.A., Nakayama, T., Matsudaira, P & Wagner, G (1994)
Solution structure of villin 14T, a domain conserved among
actin-severing proteins Protein Sci 3, 70 – 81.
16 Van Troys, M., Dewitte, D., Verschelde, J.-L., Goethals, M.,
Vandekerckhove, J & Ampe, C (1997) Analogous F-actin binding
by cofilin and gelsolin segment 2 substantiates their structural relationship J Biol Chem 272, 32750– 32758.
17 McGough, A., Chiu, W & Way, M (1998) Determination of the gelsolin binding site on F-actin: Implications for severing and capping Biophys J 74, 764 – 772.
18 Spudich, J.A & Watt, S (1971) The regulation of rabbit skeletal muscle contraction Biochemical studies of the interaction of the tropomyosin-troponin complex with actin and the proteolytic fragments of myosin J Biol Chem 246, 4866 – 4871.
19 Roustan, C., Benyamin, Y., Boyer, M., Bertrand, R., Audemard, E.
& Jauregui-Adell, J (1985) Conformational changes induced by
Mg 21 on actin monomers An immunologic attempt to localize the affected region FEBS Lett 181, 119 – 123.
20 Muszbek, L & Laki, K (1974) Cleavage of actin by thrombin Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71, 2208 – 2211.
21 Way, M., Pope, B & Weeds, A.G (1992) Evidence for functional homology in the F-actin binding domains of gelsolin and alpha-actinin: implications for the requirements of severing and capping.
J Cell Biol 119, 835 – 842.
22 Me´jean, C., Hue, H.K., Pons, F., Roustan, C & Benyamin, Y (1988) Cation binding sites on actin: a structural relationship between antigenic epitopes and cation exchange Biochem Biophys Res Commun 152, 368 – 375.
23 Benyamin, Y., Roustan, C & Boyer, M (1986) Anti-actin antibodies Chemical modification allows the selective production
of antibodies to the N-terminal region J Immunol Methods 86,
21 – 29.
24 Takashi, R (1979) Fluorescence energy transfer between subfragment-1 and actin points in the rigor complex of actosubfragment-1 Biochemistry 18, 5164 – 5169.
25 Miki, M., dos Remedios, C.G & Barden, J.A (1987) Spatial relationship between the nucleotide-binding site, Lys-61 and Cys-374 in actin and a conformational change induced by myosin subfragment-1 binding Eur J Biochem 168, 339 – 345.
26 Engvall, E (1980) Enzyme immunoassay ELISA and EMIT Methods Enzymol 70, 419 – 439.
27 Me´jean, C., Lebart, M.C., Boyer, M., Roustan, C & Benyamin, Y (1992) Localization and identification of actin structures involved
in the filamin – actin interaction Eur J Biochem 209, 555 – 562.
28 Astier, C., Labbe´, J.P., Roustan, C & Benyamin, Y (1993) Effects
of different enzymic treatments on the release of titin fragments from rabbit skeletal myofibrils Purification of an 800 kDa titin polypeptide Biochem J 290, 331 – 344.
29 Reddy, S.R.R., Houmeida, A., Benyamin, Y & Roustan, C (1992) Interaction in vitro of scallop muscle arginine kinase with filamentous actin Eur J Biochem 206, 251 – 257.
30 Valentin-Ranc, C., Combeau, C., Carlier, M.F & Pantaloni, D (1991) Myosin subfragment-1 interacts with two G-actin molecules
in the absence of ATP J Biol Chem 266, 17872 – 17879.
31 Laemmli, U.K (1970) Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4 Nature 227, 680 – 685.
32 Sun, H.Q., Wooten, D.C., Janmey, P.A & Yin, H.L (1994) The actin side-binding domain of gelsolin also caps actin filaments Implications for actin filament severing J Biol Chem 269,
9473 – 9479.
33 Van Troys, M., Dewitte, D., Goethals, M., Vandekerckhove, J & Ampe, C (1996) Evidence for an actin binding helix in gelsolin segment 2; have homologous sequences in segments 1 and 2 of gelsolin evolved to divergent actin binding functions? FEBS Lett.
397, 191 – 196.
34 Feinberg, J., Kwiatek, O., Astier, C., Diennet, S., Mery, J., Heitz, F., Benyamin, Y & Roustan, C (1998) Capping and dynamic relation between domains 1 and 2 of gelsolin J Peptide Sci 4, 116 – 127.
35 deArruda, M.V., Bazari, H., Wallek, M & Matsudaira, P (1992) An actin footprint on villin Single site substitutions in a cluster of basic residues inhibit the actin severing but not capping activity of villin J Biol Chem 267, 13079 – 13085.