These results are consistent with a model in which pH-dependent motion of subdomain 1 relative to subdomain 2 through region 75–105 of actin reveals a second cofilin binding site on actin
Trang 1A structural basis for the pH-dependence of cofilin
F-actin interactions
Laurence Blondin1, Vasilia Sapountzi2, Sutherland K Maciver1, Emeline Lagarrigue2, Yves Benyamin1 and Claude Roustan1
1
Laboratoire de motilite´ cellulaire, Universite´ de Montpellier, France;2Genes and Development Group, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
A marked pH-dependent interaction with F-actin is an
important property of typical members of the actin
depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin family of abundant
actin-binding proteins ADF/cofilins tend to bind to
F-actin with a ratio of 1 : 1 at pH values around 6.5, and
to G-actin at pH 8.0 We have investigated the
mechan-ism for the pH-sensitivity We found no evidence for
pH-dependent changes in the structure of cofilin itself, nor
for the interaction of cofilin with G-actin None of the
actin-derived, cofilin-binding peptides that we had
previ-ously identified [Renoult, C., Ternent, D., Maciver, S.K.,
Fattoum, A., Astier, C., Benyamin, Y & Roustan, C
(1999) J Biol Chem 274, 28893–28899] bound cofilin in a
pH-sensitive manner However, we have detected a
conformational change in region 75–105 in the actin subdomain 1 by the use of a peptide-directed antibody A pH-dependent conformational change has also been detected spectroscopically in a similar peptide (84–103) on binding to cofilin These results are consistent with a model in which pH-dependent motion of subdomain 1 relative to subdomain 2 (through region 75–105) of actin reveals a second cofilin binding site on actin (centered around region 112–125) that allows ADF/cofilin associ-ation with the actin filament This motion requires salt in addition to low pH
Keywords: cofilin; actin; pH dependency; synthetic peptide; actin antibodies
The ADF/cofilins are a family of actin-binding proteins that
are pivotally involved in both the polymerization and
depolymerization of actin filaments, most notably in the
advancing lamellae of motile cells [1,2] Cell motility,
through the actin-based cytoskeleton, is tightly controlled
by the interplay of a variety of signaling pathways The
importance of the contribution of ADF/cofilins to cell
motility is reflected in their being regulated by many of these
signals, including phosphorylation [3],
polyphosphoinosi-tides [4–6], the presence of other actin-binding proteins [7–
10] and pH [11–13] Evidence for the regulation of the ADF/
cofilins by pH has been present both in vitro [11–14] and in
living cells [15] Most members of the ADF/cofilin family
show a complex pH-dependent behaviour with respect to
F-actin binding; exceptions are depactin from sea urchin
eggs [16] and actophorin [17] from the soil amoeba
Acanthamoeba ADF/cofilins in general tend to bind to
F-actin around pH 6.5 and to G-actin around pH 8.0
[6,11,18], but actophorin binds rabbit skeletal muscle
F-actin at both pH extremes [17] Actin solutions can be reversibly transformed from the G to F state by changes in
pH in the presence of cofilin [6,11,19] The F-actin bound by cofilin at low pH has several properties distinct from that of F-actin alone These cofilin–actin filaments are short [19], have an increased helical twist [20] and do not bind phalloidin [8,12], caldesmon [8] or tropomyosin [7,10,21] The study of the pH sensitivity of the actin–cofilin interaction is complicated by the fact that actin itself is pH-sensitive across the same range The spontaneous polymerization of actin is more rapid at pH 6.5 than at
pH 8.0 [22] and there appears to be a difference in conformation of G-actin at the two pH extremes [23] Transients in intracellular pH occur in a variety of situations such as chemotaxis [24], mitosis, depolarization [25] and ischemia [26] The actin–cofilins are typically concentrated at the leading edge of cells [5,27,28] and the cell cortex, regions that are especially likely to experience local fluctuations in pH [25] The lammelae of alkalized macro-phages hyperruffle, whereas ruffling ceased on intracellular acidification [29], as expected from the properties that the ADF/cofilins display in vitro
The position and geometry with which ADF/cofilins bind F-actin has been controversial Image reconstructions have placed cofilin on the surface of the filament, between subdomain 1 of one actin monomer and subdomain 2 of the longitudinally associated monomer, immediately toward the barbed end of the filament [20,30,31] Our previous studies [32,33] argue that cofilin is not on the surface of the filament but is instead buried between two longitudinally associated monomers within the filament, and that subdo-main 2 from one monomer and subdosubdo-main 1 from the other are pushed apart This results in the increased twist of the
Correspondence to C Roustan, UMR 5539[CNRS] UM2 CC107,
Universite´ de Montpellier 2, Place E Bataillon CC107,
34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
Fax: + 33 0467144927, E-mail: roustanc@crit.univ-montp2.fr
Abbreviations: ADF, actin depolymerizing factor; FITC, fluorescein
5-isothiocyanate; RITC, rhodamine isothiocyanate; 1,5-I-AEDANS,
N,-iodoacetyl-N¢-[sulfo-1-naphthyl]-ethylenediamine; G-actin,
monomeric actin; F-actin, filamentous actin.
Note: web pages are available at http://www.dbs.univ-montp2.fr/
umr5539/, http://www.ephe.univ-montp2.fr, http://www.bms.ed.
ac.uk/research/smaciver/index.htm
(Received 9 May 2002, accepted 27 June 2002)
Trang 2actin filament observed first by McGough and coworkers
[20] and subsequently by others [31], and the thrusting
forward of subdomain 2 with respect to the rest of the
monomer
In this report we study the pH-dependence of the actin–
cofilin interface and provide evidence for a pH-dependent
movement of subdomain 1 that may be involved in the
pH-dependence of the interaction of cofilin with actin
E X P E R I M E N T A L P R O C E D U R E S
Proteins and peptides
Rabbit skeletal muscle actin was isolated from acetone
powder [34] Human cofilin was produced in E coli
[BL21(DE3)], transfected with a T7-based vector, pMW172,
carrying a human nonmuscle cofilin encoding cDNA
fragment and purified as described previously [13,35] Cofilin
labeling with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) was carried
out by incubating the reagent (dissolved in
N,N-dimethyl-formamide) with the protein in a molar ratio of 1 : 4 The
coupling reaction was carried out in 50 mM NaHCO3
buffer, pH 8.5, for 3 h, and excess reagent removed by gel
filtration (PD-10, Amersham Pharmacia Biotech.) and
equilibrated with the same buffer The stoichiometry of
the labeling was determined to be 0.7 mol FITC per mol
cofilin The procedure for Rhodamine isothiocyanate
(RITC) labeling of cofilin or actin was similar, except that
the reaction was performed using a 3 molar excess of
reagent Antibodies directed towards cofilin or 75–105
peptide coupled to hemocyanin were elicited in rabbits [36]
They were labeled with Oregon green (Molecular Probes) by
the same procedure described for FITC except that a 20
molar excess of reagent was used IgGs labeled with alkaline
phosphatase were purchased from Sigma
Synthetic peptides derived from actin sequences were
prepared on solid phase support using a 9050 Milligen
PepSynthesizer (Millipore, U.K.) according to the Fmoc/tBu
system The crude peptides were deprotected and thoroughly
purified 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 labeled at the cysteine residue with
N-iodo-acetyl-N¢-[sulfo-1-naphthyl]-ethylenediamine
(1.5-I-AE-DANS) or at amino groups by FITC [37,38] Excess
reagent was eliminated by sieving through a Biogel P2
col-umn equilibrated with 0.05MNH4HCO3buffer, pH 8.0
Immunological techniques
ELISA [39], previously described in detail [40], was used to
monitor the interaction between coated peptides and cofilin
Peptides (5 lgÆmL)1) in 50 mMNaHCO3/Na2CO3, pH 9.5,
were immobilized on plastic microtiter wells The plate was
then saturated with 0.5% gelatin and 3% gelatin
hydroly-sate, in 140 mMNaCl, 50 mMTris buffer, pH 7.5 Binding
was monitored at 405 nm using alkaline
phosphatase-labeled IgGs (dilution 1 : 1000) Control assays were carried
out in wells saturated with the mixture of gelatin and gelatin
hydrolysate used alone Each assay was conducted in
triplicate and the mean value plotted after subtraction of
nonspecific absorption The binding parameters (apparent dissociation constant Kd and the maximal binding Amax) were determined by non linear fitting A¼ Amax· [L]/ (Kd+ [L]) where A is the absorbance at 405 nm and L the ligand concentration, by using the CURVE FIT software developed by Kevin Raner software, Victoria, Australia Additional details on the different experimental conditions are given in the figure legends
Fluorescence measurements Fluorescence experiments were conducted using a LS 50 Perkin-Elmer luminescence spectrometer Spectra for FITC, Oregon green or RITC were obtained with the excitation wavelength set at 470, 480 and 540 nm, respectively Fluorescence changes were deduced from the area of the emission spectra of FITC or Oregon green between 510 and
530 and 570–590 nm for RITC The parameters Kd (apparent dissociation constant) and Amax (maximum effect) were calculated by nonlinear fitting of the experi-mental data points
Actin binding to immobilized cofilin Recombinant human nonmuscle cofilin was coupled to cyanogen-activated Sepharose 4B beads (Amersham Phar-macia Biotech.) according to the manufacturer’s recom-mendations Excess reactive groups were quenched by washing with 0.1M Tris buffer, pH 8.0 Prior to actin-binding experiments the beads were washed in Buffer G–ADP at either pH 6.5 (10 mMimidazole, 0.1 mMADP, 0.2 mMCaCl2, 0.2 mMdithiothreitol and 1 mMNaN3) or
pH 8.0 (10 mMTris, 0.1 mMADP, 0.2 mMCaCl2, 0.2 mM dithiothreitol and 1 mM NaN3) ADP–G-actin was made from ATP–actin by incubation with hexokinase (Sigma) and glucose [41] before being added to the indicated total concentration The beads were collected by centrifugation after incubation The amount of actin bound to the beads and remaining in the supernatant was measured by scanning SDS/PAGE gels
Analytical methods Protein concentrations were determined by UV absorbency using a Varian MS 100 (Varian SA, Les Ulis, France), and a Pharmacia Ultraspec 2000 spectrophotometer For cofilin the absorbance was measured at 280 nm, where one absorbance unit is equivalent to 74 lM For actin solutions, the absorbance was measured at 290 nm where one absorbance unit is equivalent to 38 lM SDS/PAGE was carried out on 15% gels as described previously [42] and stained with Coomassie blue R-250
R E S U L T S
pH and F-actin
In a previous study [33] we have shown that at pH 6.5, FITC labeled cofilin binds to G- and F-actin, but a change
in the fluorescence intensity of FITC occurs only when labeled cofilin interacts with F-actin In the present study, similar experiments were performed at two pH values (6.5 and 8.0) for comparison G-actin and FITC–cofilin were
Trang 3mixed, the addition of salts (0.1MKCl and 2 mMMgCl2)
then induces oligomerization and the fluorescence was
measured at 520 nm as a function of time (Fig 1) A
significant fluorescent enhancement was observed only at
pH 6.5, immediately after salt addition and before a
significant amount of actin has polymerized [33], even if
the very rapid kinetics of cofilin–actin polymerization at
pH 6.5 are considered [19] In a control experiment, no
change was observed in the fluorescence intensity of
FITC-labeled cofilin used alone after salt addition to the sample
(data not shown)
Effect of pH on cofilin conformation The regulation of the cofilin activity by pH occurs in a pH range suggesting the involvement of histidine residues In fact, the single histidine in human and yeast cofilin is not located in the same position [18,43,44] and more generally its position is not conserved during evolution However,
we have looked for a possible structural change in cofilin induced by pH shift Two kinds of fluorescence experi-ments were performed We have measured the intrinsic fluorescence of cofilin via its unique tryptophan residue and the extrinsic fluorescence of RITC covalently linked to cofilin at various values of pH between 6.5 and 8.0 We observed no significant changes in fluorescence intensity (not shown), indicating that the environment of these two chromophores in cofilin is independent of pH at least in the range tested
The pH dependence of the cofilin–G-actin interaction
We then tested for a pH dependence in the interaction of cofilin with G-actin by two independent methods G-actin was labeled with RITC and increasing concentrations of cofilin were added In Fig 2A, we show a decrease in the fluorescence intensity that is higher at pH 6.5 than pH 8 Analysis of these data shows that the fluorescence decrease extrapolated to infinite cofilin concentrations is significantly different for the two pH (32% and 22% for pH 6.5 and
pH 8.0, respectively, Figs 2A and 3) In contrast, an apparent Kdof about 1 lM was estimated in both cases
In a control experiment we observed that the fluorescence of the RITC-labeled actin is not affected by pH changes within the same range (not shown) We have confirmed that there
is no difference in affinity between G-actin and cofilin by measuring the G-actin binding to cofilin immobilizing on sepharose beads (Fig 2B) We were able to demonstrate that this was the case for both ADP and ATP–actin (not
Fig 1 Cofilin–actin copolymerization FITC-cofilin (0.5 l M ) and
G-actin (5 l M ) were mixed in 50 m M Mops, 0.1 m M ATP, buffer
pH 6.5 or 8.0, then 0.1 M KCl, 2 m M MgCl 2 were added FITC-cofilin
fluorescence was monitored at 520 nm versus time at pH 6.5 (—) or
pH 8.0 ( -).
Fig 2 Effect of pH on the interaction of actin with cofilin (A) Effect of pH on the interaction of RITC-actin with cofilin Binding of RITC-labeled actin (1.5 l M ) to cofilin in 50 m M Mops, 0.05 m M CaCl 2 , 0.05 m M ATP, buffer pH 6.5 or 7.8 was monitored by fluorescence Changes in the intensity of the emission spectra were recorded at pH 6.5 (d) and 7.8 (s), in the presence of increasing cofilin concentrations (between 0 and 3.5 l M ) An apparent K d of about 1 l M was estimated in both cases (B) Binding of ADP-actin to cofilin immobilized on beads in ADP buffer G at either pH 6.5 (d), or pH 8.0 (s) No significant difference in actin binding was found as pH was varied.
Trang 4shown) In order to deduce a more precise location in the
actin sequence for pH-dependent structural changes
induced by cofilin in F-actin, a peptidic approach was then
carried out
Actin sequence correlated with pH effect
Two interfaces on the actin surface have been characterized
previously as interacting with cofilin [32,33] Site 1 includes
the 18–28 sequence and the C-terminal part of the protein,
including the 360–372 sequence In contrast, site 2 includes
sequences between residues 75–135 These two sites contain
some histidine residues: three residues in the 84–103
fragment and one in the 360–372 fragment Another
histidine is located in the 38–52 fragment, but this sequence
was previously excluded from the interfaces [33]
The possible effect of pH on the actin site 1 was first
tested using the C-terminal peptides 356–375 or 360–372
The competition between cofilin towards actin and sequence
360–375 belonging to site 1 was studied at two pH values
(6.6 and 7.5) by ELISA In this experiment the peptide was
coated to plastic and the binding of cofilin, fixed at 1.8 lM,
was monitored in the presence of increasing actin
concen-trations (between 0 and 4.8 lM) As shown in Fig 4 we
observed a decrease in the cofilin binding in the presence of
actin suggesting that the actin–cofilin complex impedes the
interaction of cofilin with the actin peptide
The complex formation between the C-terminal sequence
of actin with cofilin was then investigated Cofilin labeled
with RITC was incubated in the presence of increasing
concentrations of 355–375 actin peptide and the cence monitored at pH 6.5 and 8.0 A decrease of fluores-cence was observed The binding occurs with similar Kdof about 2 lM(not shown) and similar fluorescence changes (34% effect) in both cases (Fig 3) Then, we have checked the peptide 355–375 labeled with IAEDANS at its cysteine residue (at position 374), but the interaction with actin does not induce any fluorescent change Therefore, we have labeled the peptide with IAEDANS corresponding to actin sequence 360–372 in which an extra cysteine residue was added at its N-terminal extremity In the present case, we observed an increase of the fluorescence intensity upon cofilin binding However, the observed variation was similar for the two pH values used (12% effect) (Fig 3)
The interaction of the peptide 84–103 corresponding to a part of site 2 was also checked As previously reported for site 1, competition between actin and the peptide 84–103 belonging to site 2 was also investigated As shown in Fig 5
we observed a decrease in the binding of cofilin to peptide 84–103 in the presence of increasing actin concentration at the two pH values tested
The complex formation between 84 and 103 actin fragment and cofilin was then determined To perform these experiments, either peptide 84–103 was labeled with Oregon green, or cofilin was labeled with RITC As shown
in Fig 6, in both cases and for both pH, the peptide binds to cofilin with a Kdof about 3 lM The interaction of cofilin with Oregon green labeled peptide induces a fluorescence decrease that is pH-dependant The maximum effect extrapolated at infinite cofilin concentration is of 7% at
pH 6.5 and 25% at pH 8.0 (Fig 3) Similarly, in the second experiment where fluorescence intensity change of RITC in labeled cofilin was monitored vs peptide concentrations, a decrease of 25% is observed at pH 6.5 and only of 14% at
pH 8.0 (Figs 3 and 7)
Fig 3 Effect of pH on the fluorescence changes induced by the
inter-action of cofilin with actin or actin derivative synthetic peptides Results
are expressed as the maximum fluorescence variation
Enhance-ment (%) ¼ (A max /F 0 ) · 100 where A max is the maximum
fluores-cence change extrapolated at an infinite ligand concentration, and F 0
the initial fluorescence in the absence of ligand The experiments were
performed in 50 m M Mops buffer pH 6.5 or pH 8.0 with cofilin in the
presence of different ligands (A) Oregon green 84–103
pep-tide + cofilin, (B) rhodamine-labeled cofilin + 84–103 peppep-tide, (C)
rhodamine-labeled G-actin + cofilin, (D) rhodamine-labeled
cofi-lin + 355–375 peptide, (E) Dansylated 360–372 peptide + coficofi-lin.
Fig 4 Competition binding study between actin fragment 360–372 and G-actin monitored by ELISA The binding of cofilin (1.8 l M ) to coated actin peptide of sequence 360–372 in 50 m M Mops buffer pH 7.5 (s)
or 6.6 (d), supplemented with 3% gelatin hydrolysate, in the presence
of increasing G-actin concentrations (0–4.8 l M ) Binding was detected
by using anti-cofilin Ig and monitored at 405 nm.
Trang 5Evidence for a change in the conformation
of actin in the 75–103-actin region
The significance of the modifications observed in the
interface between cofilin and actin upon pH effect was
checked by using a fluorescent probe specific for the site 2 in
actin We have labeled specific purified antibodies directed
towards 75–105 actin sequence with Oregon green The
binding of actin to this antibody was monitored at pH 6.5
and 8.0 As shown in Fig 8, the fluorescence enhancement
is about 4 fold higher at pH 8.0 than pH 6.5 while the
apparent affinities appear unchanged In contrast, no
change between the two pH, in the fluorescence of
antibodies alone, was obtained This last result showed that
antibodies interact in a different local environment with the antigenic epitope located within cofilin site 2 in actin sequence
D I S C U S S I O N
The ADF/cofilins are so far unique amongst the many distinct types of actin-binding proteins in their ability to alter the twist of actin filaments [20] This property possibly explains the extreme cooperativity of F-actin binding [12,13,17,20] and perhaps severing [45] The manner in which cofilin achieves this feat remains contentious and two broad models have been proposed Both propose a binding geometry where cofilin binds one actin monomer at subdomain 1, and a second, longitudinally associated monomer immediately toward the barbed end at subdo-main 2 The major difference between the models is in the
Fig 5 Competition binding study between actin fragment 84–103 and
G-actin monitored by ELISA The binding of cofilin (1.1 l M ) to coated
actin peptide of sequence 360–372 in 50 m M Mops buffer pH 7.5 (s)
or 6.6 (d), supplemented with 3% gelatin hydrolysate, in the presence
of increasing G-actin concentrations (0–2.4 l M ) Binding was detected
by using anti-cofilin Ig and monitored at 405 nm.
Fig 6 Binding of cofilin with 84–103 actin sequence evidenced by
fluorescence Changes in the emission spectrum intensities of 84–103
peptide (0.6 l M ) labeled with Oregon green were monitored in the
presence of cofilin (0–7 l M ) The experiments were carried out in
50 m M MOPS buffer pH 6.5 (d) or pH 8.0 (s).
Fig 7 Interaction of RITC-labeled cofilin with 84–103 actin sequence evidenced by fluorescence Changes in the emission spectrum intensities
of RITC-cofilin (2 l M ) were measured in the presence of 84–103 peptide (0–20 l M ) The experiments were carried out in 50 m M Mops buffer pH 6.5 (d) or pH 8.0 (s).
Fig 8 Binding of purified antibodies directed to 75–105 sequence of actin to G-actin monitored by fluorescence measurements Changes in the emission spectrum intensities of antibodies (0.25 l M ) labeled with Oregon green were monitored in the presence of G-actin (0–4.2 l M ) The experiments were carried out in 50 m M Mops buffer pH 6.5 (d) or
pH 8.0 (s).
Trang 6position of the cofilin with respect to the second associated
monomer We [32,33] propose that cofilin intercalates into
the filament between the two associated monomers to bind
the second through an interaction with the upper rear of
subdomain 2 A number of other groups [20,31,46], suggest
that cofilin binds the forward facing surface of subdomain
2 (that is, in the standard orientation as first displayed by
Kabsch and colleagues [47]) These models predict profound
differences in the surfaces of cofilin that would be exposed at
the surface of the cofilin:actin filament, and in the interfaces
between the molecules An additional complexity is that in
one reconstruction, a second ADF/cofilin was proposed to
bind the filament [31] so that the over all ratio in these
filaments was two ADF/cofilins to every actin, this would
perhaps explain why others have found bundling activity
associated with ADF/cofilins [48] However, both
pheno-menon could be explained by oxidation of the many
cysteine residues carried by these proteins
The interaction of typical ADF/cofilins is pH sensitive
but the molecular mechanism has not yet been explained
The pH sensitivity could result from three nonexclusive
possibilities: it may arise from titratable residues on either
surface; alternatively, the tertiary structure of cofilin may
undergo a pH-sensitive change, or finally, a conformational
change could be displayed by actin, either by actin
monomers or between monomers associated within the
filament
Binding of cofilin to G-actin at site 1 is pH-insensitive
The ADF/cofilin family bind G-actin through subdomain 1
[49,50] We have shown here by two independent means that
the interaction of ADF/cofilin with G-actin through site 1 is
not sensitive to pH within normal physiological range
(pH 6.5–8.0) We measured the affinity of actin and cofilin
by changes in the fluorescence of RITC labelled actin
Although the fluorescence change between RITC-actin and
cofilin was larger when measured at pH 6.5 than at pH 7.8
(Fig 2A) the calculated affinities were similar (Kd¼ 1 lM)
This value is higher than that typically measured for
actin-G–actin interaction at 0.1 lM, probably as a result of the
label as it is known that modification of Cys374 by other
agents inhibits the interaction with cofilin [19] We measured
the affinity of binding of cofilin to unmodified ADP-G-actin
and ATP-G-actin as a function of pH by direct means in
order to confirm that the lack of pH sensitivity was not an
artifact of labelled actin We found no difference in binding
of either ADP or ATP-actin to cofilin immobilized on beads
between pH 6.5 and pH 8.0 (Fig 2B) The G-actin binding
footprint of yeast cofilin has been determined at pH 8.0 by
synchrotron protein footprinting [51] The G-actin binding
footprint in surprisingly large, encompassing roughly a third
of the surface of cofilin
No evidence for pH dependent conformational changes
in the structure of cofilin
We could find no evidence for substantial pH-dependent
conformational changes in cofilin that might explain the
pH-dependent nature of the interaction of ADF/cofilins
with F-actin We measured the intrinsic fluorescence of
cofilin via its unique tryptophan residue and the extrinsic
fluorescence of RITC covalently linked to cofilin at various
pHs between 6.5 and 8.0 and observed no significant changes in fluorescence intensity in agreement with other studies using circular dichroism and limited proteolysis [52]
No evidence for pH-sensitivity in the actin:cofilin surfaces directly
None of the actin-derived peptides that we have previously shown to bind actin, do so in a pH-sensitive manner However, actin itself is pH-sensitive, the spontaneous polymerization of actin is more rapid at pH 6.5 than at
pH 8.0 [22,53], the intermonomeric flexibility of Mg2+-actin filaments is larger at pH 7.4 than at pH 6.5 [54], and actin filaments are stabilized at low pH [55]
PH-dependence may result from conformational changes in the actin monomer itself
We have detected a pH-sensitive change in the structure of actin subdomain 1 that may explain the overt pH sensitivity
of the cofilin-F–actin interaction The interaction of Oregon green coupled antibodies directed to residues 75–105 of actin is strongly pH-sensitive, most probably because of a difference in conformation of G-actin at the two pH extremes This finding was confirmed by fluorescence measurements of a similar peptide 83–103 labelled with Oregon green that again showed pH-dependent changes in the presence of cofilin Evidence for a pH sensitive change in conformation in subdomain 1 of G-actin has come from studies with AEDANS labeled actin [23] Residues 75–105 encompass part of cofilin binding site 2 [33] and is situated between subdomains 1 and 2 FRET analysis has shown that cofilin binding alters the orientation of subdomain 1 and 2 of actin [33] We have proposed that cofilin binds a second site (site 2) on F-actin [32], consisting of a helical region 112–125 that lies on the upper, rear surface of subdomain 1 close to subdomains 2 when viewed in the standard actin orientation [47] This second site of actin is proposed to be cryptic, pH sensitive movements of region 75–105, may make site 2 (in region 112–125) available for binding probably by the C-terminal helix of ADF/cofilin [46]
We have previously shown that FITC-cofilin binds to both G- and F-actin and that this induces an increase in fluorescence in conditions that allow actin oligomerization
to occur [33] This increase in fluorescence is very much more rapid than polymerization and probably reflects a conformational change We now show that this conforma-tional change only occurs at pH 6.5 and not at pH 8.0 (Fig 1), suggesting that site 2 is present only in F-actin and
in G-actin bound through site 1 by cofilin at pH 6.5 Three actin-binding sites of cofilin?
Present evidence suggests that cofilin binds actin at site 1 through the N-terminal region [49], and site 2 possibly through the C-terminal helix [46] Many studies have indicated that the so called long helix is important to actin-binding and additionally mutations here dissociate severing from pointed end off rate increase It has been suggested that cofilin binds a third site on actin by a region around K114 on cofilin’s long helix [56] This site may be an
as yet unrecognized distinct region on actin, or a region
Trang 7contiguous with those surfaces already identified as sites 1 or
2 We favour the latter hypothesis, and since K114 appears
at the surface of cofilin so close to the N-terminus, we
further hypothesize that site 1 is contiguous with site 3, in
agreement with data obtained by synchrotron protein
footprinting [51] This is also in agreement with the finding
that a peptide including K114 can be crosslinked to Cys374
on actin [57]
Implications for other actin-binding proteins
The ADF homology domain (ADF-H) is defined as a
protein sequence motif shared between the AC family
members and a number of other proteins distinct from the
ACs [58] These include twinfilin, which has tandem
ADF-H domains [59], coactosin and Abp1p (see [60])
Surpris-ingly, the gelsolin repeat is similar to the ADF-H fold
despite having little sequence homology [61] However
gelsolin domain 2 binds actin through an interface distinct
from that of gelsolin domain1 and both through interfaces
distinct from cofilin [32] Thus, the group of proteins that
possess ADF-H sequence motifs or that share homologous
folds, tend to share some actin binding properties such as
PIP2 sensitivity, ADP-actin monomer preference and (in
some cases) pH dependence, yet paradoxically bind actin
through distinct interfaces [62] Actophorin and depactin
(from Acanthamoeba and star fish eggs, respectively) are
members of the ADF/cofilin family that are not pH
sensitive Depactin is reported as being not pH sensitive
[16] and actophorin binds to F-actin at both pH 6.5 and
pH 8.0 [17]
Any explanation of pH sensitivity of the ADF/cofilins
must also explain why these otherwise typical ADF/cofilins
are not pH sensitive It is possible that actophorin does not
share typical pH dependence of F-actin binding because site
2 is not hidden from binding as it is in the case of cofilin
These experiments are in progress
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
This research was supported by grants from AFM and Amoebics Ltd.
Edinburgh.
R E F E R E N C E S
1 Bamburg, J.R (1999) Proteins of the ADF/cofiln family: Essential
regulators of actin dynamics Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 15, 185–
230.
2 Pollard, T.D., Blanchoin, L & Mullins, R.D (2000) Molecular
mechanisms controlling actin filament dynamics in nonmuscle
cells Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Sruct 29, 545–576.
3 Morgan, T.E., Lockerbie, R.O., Minamide, L.S., Browning, M.D.
& Bamburg, J.R (1993) Isolation and characterization of a
regulated form of actin depolymerizing factor J Cell Biol 122,
623–633.
4 Yonezawa, N., Nishida, E., Iida, K., Yahara, I & Sakai, H (1990)
Inhibition of the interactions of cofilin, destrin, and
deoxy-ribonuclease-1 with actin by phosphoinositides J Biol Chem 265,
8382–8386.
5 Quirk, S & Maciver, S.K (1993) Primary structure of and
studies on Acanthamoeba actophorin Biochemistry 32, 8525–
8533.
6 Gungabissoon, R.A., Jiang, C.-J., Drøbak, B.K., Maciver, S.K &
Hussey, P.J (1998) Interaction of maize actin-depolymerising
factor with actin and phosphoinositides and its inhibition of plant phospholipase C Plant J 16, 689–696.
7 Bernstein, B.W & Bamburg, J.R (1982) Tropomyosin binding to F-actin protects the F-actin from disassembly by brain actin depolymerizing factor (ADF) Cell Motility 2, 1–8.
8 Yonezawa, N., Nishida, E., Maekawa, S & Sakai, H (1988) Studies on the interaction between actin and cofilin purified by a new method Biochem J 251, 121–127.
9 Okada, K., Obinata, T & Abe, H (1999) XAIP1: a Xenopus homoloque of yeast actin interacting protein 1 (AIP1), which induces disassembly of actin filaments cooperatively with ADF/ cofilin family proteins J Cell Sci 112, 1553–1565.
10 Ono, S & Ono, K (2002) Tropomyosin inhibits ADF/cofilin-dependent actin filament dynamics J Cell Biol 156, 1065–1076.
11 Yonezawa, N., Nishida, E & Sakai, H (1985) pH control of actin polymerization by cofilin J Biol Chem 260, 14410–14412.
12 Hayden, S.M., Miller, P.S., Brauweiler, A & Bamburg, J.R (1993) Analysis of the interactions of actin depolymerizing factor (ADF) with G- and F-actin Biochemistry 32, 9994–10004.
13 Hawkins, M., Pope, B., Maciver, S.K & Weeds, A.G (1993) Human actin depolymerizing factor mediates a pH-sensitive destruction of actin filaments Biochemistry 32, 9985–9993.
14 Yeoh, S., Pope, B., Mannherz, H.G & Weeds, A (2002) Determining the differences in actin binding by human ADF and cofilin J Mol Biol 315, 911–925.
15 Bernstein, B.W., Painter, W.B., Chen, H., Minamide, L.S., Abe,
H & Bamburg, J.R (2000) Intracellular pH modulation of ADF/ Cofilin proteins Cell Motility Cytoskeleton 47, 319–336.
16 Mabuchi, I (1983) An actin-depolymerizing protein (depactin) from starfish oocytes: properties and interaction with actin J Cell Biol 97, 1612–1621.
17 Maciver, S.K., Pope, B.J., Whytock, S & Weeds, A.G (1998) The effect of two ADF/cofilins on actin filament turnover: pH sensi-tivity of F-actin by human ADF, but not of Acanthamoeba actophorin Biochemistry 256, 388–397.
18 Iida, K., Moriyama, K., Matsumoto, S., Kawasaki, H., Nishida,
E & Yahara, I (1993) Isolation of a yeast essential gene, COF1, that encodes a homologue of mammalian cofilin, a low-M r actin-binding and depolymerizing protein Gene 124, 115–120.
19 Bonet, C., Ternent, D., Maciver, S.K & Mozo-Villarias, A (2000) Rapid formation and high diffusibility of actin-cofilin cofilaments
at low pH Eur J Biochem 267, 1–8.
20 McGough, A., Pope, B., Chiu, W & Weeds, A (1997) Cofi lin changes the twist of F-actin: Implications for actin filament dynamics and cellular function J Cell Biol 138, 771–781.
21 Maciver, S.K., Zot, H.G & Pollard, T.D (1991) Characterization
of actin filament severing by actophorin from Acanthamoeba castellanii J Cell Biol 115, 1611–1620.
22 Zimmerle, C.T & Frieden, C (1988) Effect of pH on the mechanism of actin polymerization Biochemistry 27, 7766–7772.
23 Zimmerle, C.T & Frieden, C (1988) pH-induced changes in G-actin conformation and metal affinity Biochemistry 27, 7759– 7765.
24 Simchowitz, L & Cragoe, E.J Jr (1986) Regulation of neutrophil chemotaxis by intracellular pH J Biol Chem 261, 6492–6500.
25 Schwiening, C.J & Willoughby, D (2002) Depolarization-induced
pH microdomains and their relationship to calcium transients in isolated snail neurones J Physiol 538, 371–382.
26 Lipton, P (1999) Ischemic cell death in brain neurons Physiol Rev 79, 1431–1568.
27 Bamburg, J.R & Bray, D (1987) Distribution and cellular loca-lization of Actin Depolymerizing Factor J Cell Biol 105, 2817– 2825.
28 Jiang, C.J., Weeds, A.G & Hussey, P.J (1997) The maize actin-depolymerizing factor, ZmADF3, redistributes to the growing tip
of elongating root hairs and can be induced to translocate into the nucleus with actin Plant J 12, 1035–1043.
Trang 829 Heuser, J (1989) Changes in lysosome shape and distribution
correlated with changes in cytoplasmic pH J Cell Biol 108, 855–
864.
30 Pope, B.J., Gonsior, S.M., Yeoh, S., McGough, A & Weeds,
A.G (2000) Uncoupling actin filament fragmentation by cofilin
from increased subunit turnover J Mol Biol 298, 649–661.
31 Galkin, V.E., Orlova, A., Lukoyanova, N., Wriggers, W &
Egelman, E.H (2001) Actin depolymerization factor stabilizes an
existing state of F-actin and can change the tilt of F-actin subunits.
J Cell Biol 153, 75–86.
32 Renoult, C., Ternent, D., Maciver, S.K., Fattoum, A., Astier, C.,
Benyamin, Y & Roustan, C (1999) The identification of a second
cofilin binding site on actin suggests a novel, intercalated
arrange-ment of F-actin binding J Biol Chem 274, 28893–28899.
33 Blondin, L., Sapountzi, V., Maciver, S.K., Renoult, C., Benyamin,
Y & Roustan, C (2001) The second ADF/cofilin actin-binding
site exists in F-actin, the cofilin: G-actin complex, but not in
G-actin Eur J Biochem 268, 6426–6434.
34 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.
35 Maciver, S.K & Harrington, C.R (1995) Two actin-binding
proteins, actin depolymerizing factor and cofilin, are associated
with hirano bodies Neuroreport 6, 1985–1988.
36 Benyamin, Y., Roustan, C & Boyer, M (1986) Anti-actin
anti-bodies Chemical modification allows the selective production of
antibodies to the N-terminal region J Immunol Meth 86, 21–29.
37 Takashi, R (1979) Fluorescence energy transfer between
sub-fragment-1 and actin points in the rigor complex of
actosubfrag-ment-1 Biochemistry 18, 5164–5169.
38 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.
39 Engvall, E (1980) Enzyme immunoassay ELISA and EMIT.
Methods Enzymol 70, 419–439.
40 Me´jean, C., Lebart, M.C., Poyer, M., Roustan, C & Benyamin,
Y (1992) Localization and identification of actin structures
involved in the filamin–actin interaction Eur J Biochem 209,
555–562.
41 Pollard, T.D (1986) Rate constants for the reactions of ATP- and
ADP-actin with the ends of actin fi laments J Cell Biol 103, 2747–
2754.
42 Laemmli, U.K (1970) Cleavage of structural proteins during the
assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4 Nature 227, 680–685.
43 Ogawa, K., Tashima, M., Yumato, Y., Okuda, T., Sawada, H.,
Okuma, M & Maruyama, Y (1990) Coding sequence of human
placenta cofilin cDNA Nucleic Acids Res 18, 7169.
44 Moon, A.L., Janmey, P.A., Louie, K.A & Drubin, D.G (1992)
Cofilin is an essential component of the yeast cortical cytoskeleton.
J.Cell Biol 120, 421–435.
45 Maciver, S.K (1998) How ADF/cofilin depolymerizes actin
fila-ments Curr Op Cell Biol 10, 140–144.
46 Ono, S., McGough, A., Pope, B.J., Tolbert, V.T., Bui, A., Pohl, J.,
Benian, G.M., Gernert, K.M & Weeds, A.G (2001) The
C-terminal tail of UNC-60B (actin depolymerizing factor/cofilin)
is critical for maintaining its stable association with F-actin and is
implicated in the second actin-binding site J Biol Chem 276, 5952–5958.
47 Kabsch, W., Mannherz, H.G., Suck, D., Pai, E.F & Holmes, K.C (1990) Atomic structure of the actin–DNase I complex Nature 347, 37–44.
48 Pfannstiel, J., Cyrklaff, M., Habermann, A., Stoeva, S., Griffiths, G., Shoeman, R & Faulstich, H (2001) Human cofilin forms oligomers exhibiting actin bundling activity J Biol Chem 276, 49476–49484.
49 Sutoh, K & Mabuchi, I (1984) N-terminal and C-terminal segments of actin participate in binding depactin, an actin-depolymerizing protein from starfish oocytes Biochemistry 23, 6757–6761.
50 Muneyuki, E., Nishida, E., Sutoh, K & Sakai, H (1985) Puri-fication of cofilin, a 21,000 molecular weight actin-binding protein, from porcine kidney and identification of the cofilin-binding site in the actin sequence J Biochem 97, 563–568.
51 Guan, J.Q., Vorobiev, S., Almo, S.C & Chance, M.R (2002) Mapping the G-actin binding surface of cofilin using synchrotron protein footprinting Biochemistry 41, 5765–5775.
52 Arima, K., Imanaka, M., Okuzono, S., Kazuta, Y & Kotani, S (1998) Evidence for structural differences between the two highly homologous actin-regulatory proteins: destrin and cofilin Biosci Biotechn Biochem 62, 215–220.
53 Wang, F., Sampogna, R.V & Ware, B.R (1989) pH dependence
of actin self-assembly Biophys J 55, 293–298.
54 Hild, G., Nyitrai, M & Somogyi, B (2002) Intermonomer flexibility of Ca- and Mg-actin filaments at different pH values Eur J Biochem 269, 842–849.
55 Oda, T., Makino, K., Yamashita, I., Namba, K & Maeda, Y (2001) Distinct structural changes detected by X-ray diffraction in stabilization of F-actin by lowering pH and increasing ionic strength Biophys J 80, 841–851.
56 Moriyama, K & Yahara, I (2002) The actin-severing activity of cofilin is exerted by the interplay of three distinct sites on cofilin and essential for cell viability Biochem J 365, 147–155.
57 Yonezawa, N., Nishida, E., Iida, K., Kumagai, H.I., Yahara & Sakai, H (1991) Inhibition of actin polymerization by a synthetic dodecapeptide patterned on the sequence around the actin-bind-ing site of cofilin J Biol Chem 266, 10485–10489.
58 Lappalainen, P., Kessels, M.M., Cope, M.J.T.V & Drubin, D.G (1998) The ADF homolog (ADF-H) domain: a highly exploited actin-binding module Mol Biol Cell 9, 1951–1959.
59 Palmgren, S., Vartiainen, M & Lappalainen, P (2002) Twinfilin,
a molecular mailman for actin monomers J Cell Sci 115, 881–886.
60 Maciver, S.K & Hussey, P.J (2002) The ADF/cofilin family: actin-remodeling proteins BMC Genome Biol 3 (5), 3007.1– 3007.3007.12.
61 Hatanaka, H., Ogura, K., Moriyama, M., Ichikawa, S., Yahara, I.
& Inagaki, F (1996) Tertiay structure of destrin and structural similarity between two actin-regulating protein families Cell 85, 1047–1055.
62 Renoult, C., Blondin, L., Fattoum, A., Ternent, D., Maciver, S.K., Raynaud, F., Benyamin, Y & Roustan, C (2001) Binding of gelsolin domain 2 to actin An actin interface distinct from that of gelsolin domain 1 and from ADF/cofilin Eur J Biochem 268, 6165–6175.