![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
|
|
|
|
|
||
Vol. 17, Issue 6, 2559-2571, June 2006
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*Department of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130; and Laboratory of Developmental Biology, Institute of General and Molecular Biology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Torun, Poland
Submitted January 13, 2006;
Revised March 20, 2006;
Accepted March 21, 2006
Monitoring Editor: David Drubin
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
; Mermall et al., 1998; Berg et al., 2001). Genes encoding myosin VI are present in many animals, and myosin VI mutants have phenotypes that suggest a variety of different roles in diverse tissues (Kellerman and Miller, 1992; Hasson and Mooseker, 1994; Buss et al., 1998; Kelleher et al., 2000; Avraham et al., 1995 Seiler et al., 2004). Myosin VI has an ATP-dependent motor domain, a coiled-coil domain that may mediate dimerization, and a predicted globular tail domain that mediates association with membrane vesicles in vivo. Motility properties revealed using in vitro motility assays, the identity of interacting proteins, and phenotypic analysis of myosin VI mutants in various species suggest two speculative molecular functions of myosin VI.
The first role suggested for myosin VI is a motor for cargo transport in the endocytosis pathway. This idea is supported by myosin VI's ability to bind to clathrin-coated pits and proteins associated with compartments of the endosome pathway (SAP97 and DAB2) and localization on endosome vesicles in cultured mammalian cells and neurons in mouse brain (Buss et al., 2001; Aschenbrenner et al., 2003; Dance et al., 2004; Osterweil et al., 2005). Immunofluorescence localization and time-lapse observation of green fluorescent protein (GFP)-myosin VI-labeled endosome vesicles in cultured mammalian cell shows this association is transient, dynamic, and required for efficient endocytosis (Buss et al., 2001; Aschenbrenner et al., 2003). In addition, when nonnative coiled-coil sequences from yeast GCN4 are inserted into the tail region of myosin VI to induce dimerization, motility assays have demonstrated that myosin VI moves processively with a large step size (up to 
30 nm). Recently, it has been shown that by binding to actin filaments, full-length myosin VI can form dimers and move with processive steps in vitro (Park et al., 2006). These findings support the hypothesis that myosin VI's primary function is as a cargo transporter (Inoue et al., 2002; Morris et al., 2002; Wu et al., 2002).
Another suggested function for myosin VI is a molecular cross-linker for tethering cytoplasmic organelles or components of the actin cytoskeleton. This idea is supported by a number of in vitro observations. First, the majority of myosin VI takes a monomeric form when it is expressed in a baculovirus expression system and in cultured mammalian cells (Lister et al., 2004). In motility assays in vitro, monomeric myosin VI is a nonprocessive motor, making it less likely to play a cargo transport role. It has also been suggested that the predicted coiled-coil sequence of myosin VI could be an 
-helix incapable of mediating dimerization (Knight et al., 2005). It remains unclear whether myosin VI works as monomer or dimer in any specific process. Second, even when myosin VI is forced to be a dimer and becomes a processive motor in vitro, some of myosin VI's properties do not suggest a role in cargo transport. Myosin VI takes only a few processive steps (Wells et al., 1999; Rock et al., 2001; Nishikawa et al., 2002) with a transport distance of <200 nm (only a tiny portion of a cell). In addition, myosin VI's stepping in vitro is stalled by backward force. In this situation, myosin VI's heads remain tightly bound to actin for long intervals (minutes) (Altman et al., 2004). Thus, by binding to another structure, myosin VI could serve as a structural cross-linker or anchor for particles/vesicles on an actin network.
Analysis of myosin VI mutant phenotypes supports a structural role for myosin VI. In cultured fibroblasts from myosin VI mutant mice (Snell's waltzer mice), the Golgi apparatus is retracted to the periphery of the nuclei (Warner et al., 2003). It seems that the role of myosin VI is to tether the Golgi and resist the inward force exerted by dynein. Moreover, in human, mice and zebrafish, mutations in myosin VI lead to defects in stereocilia formation in the inner ear mechanosensory organ (Self et al., 1999; Kappler et al., 2004; Seiler et al., 2004). Myosin VI localizes to a dense actin network at the base of cilia called the cuticular plate, which is thought to structurally support the stereocilia. In the absence of myosin VI, the cilia fuse together, suggesting that the structural integrity of the cuticular plate is affected.
Although we know a great deal about the mechanisms by which myosin VI is targeted to membrane trafficking pathways, we know little about the motor kinetics of myosin VI in vivo. To understand the in vivo function of myosin VI and to determine which properties measured in vitro are important in vivo, direct observation of the motor function of myosin VI in cells is important. Such observations could distinguish between different models for function. An ideal system for performing such studies would be one in which 1) myosin VI functions on an actin structure with clearly defined actin filament orientation and organization, and 2) its localization is solely dependent on its motor domain. Here, we report the development of such a system that is perfectly suited for examining these questions.
Myosin VI is required for the final step of Drosophila spermatogenesis, individualization (Hicks et al., 1999). During individualization 64 syncytial spermatids are segregated into individual cells (Supplemental Data 1) (Tokuyasu et al., 1972; Fabrizio et al., 1998; Noguchi and Miller, 2003). To accomplish this, 64 actin cones move synchronously from the sperm nuclei to the ends of the tails. As the actin cones move, the cytoplasm and most organelles are pushed out of the flagella, and the cell membrane is reorganized and attached to the axoneme. The cytoplasm and organelles pushed out by the actin cones accumulate in the cystic bulge and finally are discarded as the waste bag when the cones reach the end of the cyst. In Drosophila myosin VI mutants in which the expression of myosin VI is greatly reduced in the testis, actin cone organization is disrupted and individualization stops prematurely (Hicks et al., 1999). In wild-type testes, myosin VI localizes at the fronts of actin cones. Actin-related protein (Arp)2/3 complex and its activator, cortactin also localize to the front of actin cones and their localizations are disrupted in myosin VI mutants (Rogat and Miller, 2002). These findings led us to propose a structural role for myosin VI in Drosophila spermatogenesis. Previously, we demonstrated that the whole process of individualization can be observed in culture (Noguchi and Miller, 2003). Here, we have carried out a detailed analysis of myosin VI function using this in vitro culture system. In this report, three issues were addressed: 1) Definitive determination of the stage at which myosin VI mutant defect is manifest and the precise nature of those defects using in vitro culture and electron microscopy (EM). We show that the defect is specifically in actin cone growth during individualization. 2) Actin cone structure was examined using EM methods that revealed the organization and orientations of actin filaments. 3) Myosin VI motor kinetics on actin in vivo were examined using fluorescence recovery after photobleach (FRAP) of GFP-myosin VI, showing that myosin VI remains bound to actin for long periods.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
).
Primary Culture of Isolated Spermatogenic Cysts
Primary culture of spermatogenic cysts during individualization was described previously (Cross and Shellenbarger, 1979; Noguchi and Miller, 2003). Time-lapse movies were recorded using an inverted microscope (Diaphot; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) with 10 or 20x ePlan lens with differential interference contrast (numerical aperture [N.A.] = 0.25; Nikon) equipped with a SPOT charge coupled device camera RT Slider (Diagnostic Instruments, Sterling Heights, MI) driven by SPOT software, version 3.5.9. Movies were made using ImageJ software (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/).
Electron Microscopy
For cross-sections of spermatogenic cysts, testes were dissected from adult male flies and fixed with 1.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), pH 7.0, for 2 h on ice. The specimens were then washed twice with 0.1 M PBS, pH 7.0, and postfixed in 1% OsO4 for 2 h at 4°C. Samples were dehydrated in graded concentrations of ethanol up to 100%. After washing twice in propylene oxide, the specimens were embedded in Poly/Bed 812 resin (Polysciences, Warrington, PA). Sections (60–70 nm) were cut using a SuperNova Reichert-Jung ultramicrotome and stained with 2.5% uranyl acetate and 0.4% lead citrate solutions. Sections were examined using a Hitachi H-600 transmission electron microscope.
For longitudinal sections of actin cones in cystic bulges, individualizing cysts were firmly attached to a piece of glass slide coated with poly-L-lysine for 5 min. This process is important for keeping cystic bulges flattened in one plane for later sectioning. The cysts were fixed with 2% glutaraldehyde in PBS for 2–3 h on ice and then fixed with 1% OsO4 for 90 min and processed as described above. After polymerization of resin, the glass fragment was ripped off, leaving the sample on the top surface of the resin block. Then, longitudinal sections were cut as described above.
Quantitation of F-Actin in Actin Cones
Actin cones of isolated cysts were stained with Alexa488-phalloidin (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) using the method described previously (Noguchi and Miller, 2003), and examined using a 40x HCX Plan-Apo lens (N.A. = 1.25; Leica, Iena, Germany) on a laser confocal microscope (TCS SP2 attached to DM IRB inverted microscope; Leica). In each experiment, all samples were processed under exactly the same conditions, and all images were recorded with the same exposure settings. To obtain longitudinal optical sections through the middle of the actin cone, focus was adjusted to the position of the axoneme, which runs through the center of the cone. Because the actin cone grows as individualization progresses, the individualizing cysts were divided into four categories: before movement (colocalizing with sperm nuclei), early (0-1/3 of cyst length), middle (1/3-2/3), and late (2/3-3/3), based on the position of actin cones along the cyst. Fluorescence intensity was measured according to each category. However, because the myosin VI mutant cones do not often move more than half the length of the cyst, actin cones located in first half of the cyst were chosen for data acquisition in comparison between wild-type and myosin VI mutants. Fluorescence intensities were analyzed using NIH Image 1.62 (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/nih-image/), and data were processed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). See the legend for Figure 3 for data analysis.
Myosin Subfragment 1 (S1) Fragment Decoration
Purification of rabbit skeletal myosin II and preparation of S1 subfragment were carried out using conventional methods (Margossian and Lowey, 1982). For myosin II S1 fragment decoration, isolated individualizing cysts were permeabilized with 0.1% saponin and 20 µM phalloidin in extraction buffer (50 mM KCl, 50 mM HEPES, pH 7.0, 5 mM EGTA, and 5 mM MgCl2) for 20 min. Under these conditions, actin cone structure was not disrupted, as judged by Alexa568-phalloidin staining at the light microscope level. After three washes with extraction buffer containing 2.5 µM phalloidin, cysts were treated with 4 mg/ml S1 fragment in extraction buffer for 45 min at room temperature. Then, cysts were washed several times in extraction buffer. S1 decorated cysts were fixed with 1% glutaraldehyde and 0.2% tannic acid in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 6.8, for 30 min at room temperature, followed by several washes in the same buffer. The fixed cysts were stuck on a small piece of plastic sheet (Thermanox; Electron Microscopy Science, Hatfield, PA) by pushing at both sides of the cystic bulge with a thin glass needle. Then, the cysts were covered with a drop of 0.5% agarose and fixed with 2% OsO4 in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer, pH 6.0, for 2 h at room temperature. After rinsing with Milli-Q–filtered water, samples were dehydrated in a graded series of ethanol and embedded in Poly/Bed 812 resin. Ultrathin sections (40–60 nm) were cut, stained, and examined as described above.
Expression of Myosin VI in Testis
Overexpression of myosin VI was accomplished using a heat shock protein 83 (hsp83)-promoter–driven transgene that expresses myosin VI (Hicks et al., 1999). Myosin VI is highly and constitutively expressed during individualization from this transgene.
For experiments using GFP-myosin VI, GFP was inserted in frame at the N terminus of full-length myosin VI. The GFP-myosin VI transgene was constructed as follows. GFP sequences were amplified from pRSETB (gift from M. Chalfie, Columbia University, New York City, NY) using the primers 5'-cgggatccatgtctaaaggagaagaa-3' (forward) and 5'-gaattctgcagcggctttgtatagttcatc-3' (reverse), adding BamH1 and Not1 sites at the 5' end, changing the GFP stop codon, and adding an EcoR1 site at the 3' end. pNB15 is a previously isolated full-length myosin VI cDNA (Kellerman and Miller, 1992). The 5' end of myosin VI was amplified from a full-length cDNA, pNB-B15, using the primers 5'-cggaattcatgttggaggacacc-3' (forward) and 5'-gcgatcgaatagtcgactgtagat-3' (reverse). The product was digested with EcoR1 and Sal1. This generated the 5' fragment of myosin VI. The remainder of the open reading frame of myosin VI was obtained by digestion of pNB-B15 with Sal1 and Not1. The GFP (BamH1-EcoR1), 5' myosin VI (EcoR1-Sal1) and 3' myosin VI (Sal1-Not1) fragments were assembled in an intermediate vector. The GFP-myosin VI fusion protein was cloned into Casper hsp83 promoter vector (provided by Paul Shedl, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ) using the Not1 sites 5' to GFP and 3' to myosin VI open reading frame. Transformed fly lines were established by conventional methods. The truncated version of myosin VI (GFP-myosin VI-Globular-tail) was constructed by PCR amplifying the sequences encoding the predicted C-terminal globular tail domain (fragment containing amino acids 1045–1253) in pNB15 using the primer 5'-cggaattcttgatcagatccgaa (forward) and a reverse primer in the pNB40 vector outside the cDNA. This strategy added an EcoR1 site at the 5' end of myosin VI fragment in frame to GFP (see above). The introduced EcoR1 site and a Not1 site in the pNB40 vector were used to isolate the myosin VI Globular-tail fragment. The GFP and myosin VI mini-tail fragment were assembled in an intermediate vector, cloned into Casper-hsp83, and transformed fly lines isolated as described above.
Protein expression level was examined by Western blot analysis using anti-Drosophila myosin VI monoclonal antibody (mAb) (3c7) (Mermall and Miller, 1995) or anti-GFP antibody (Clontech, Mountain View, CA). For loading control, Western blots using anti--tubulin mAb (DM1-A) were performed. Forty testes were dissected for each sample. Testes were washed in PBS and homogenized in 100 µl of homogenization buffer (2 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.0, 10 µM leupeptin, and 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride). Proteins were separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and Western blotted using conventional methods.
ATP Extraction of GFP-Myosin VI
GFP-myosin VI was expressed in male germ line cells of myosin VI mutant (jar1). Adult testes from {w; hsp83-GFP-myosin VI/+; jar1/Df-S87.5} were dissected, and cysts were isolated as described above. Cysts were washed with PBS and then incubated for 20 min in permeabilization buffer (50 mM KCl, 10 mM imidazole, pH 7.0, 2.5 mM EGTA, and 4 mM MgCl2) containing 0.1% Triton X-100 and Alexa568-phalloidin (Invitrogen). After 5-min incubation in permeabilization buffer containing 5 mM ATP or 5 mM ADP, cysts were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS, pH 7.0, for 10 min and then washed in PBS. Samples were examined by laser confocal microscopy as described above (Leica).
Fluorescence Recovery after Photobleach
GFP-myosin VI was expressed in male germ line cells as described above. FRAP was carried out as described previously (Noguchi and Miller, 2003) using a laser confocal microscope with a 40x lens. Relative fluorescence intensity = (fluorescence intensity of GFP-myosin VI localized on an actin cone – background in cytosol)/fluorescence intensity of GFP-myosin VI on the cone before bleach). Intensity was measured in an area defined to include the region of high-intensity GFP-myosin VI fluorescence (Figure 7). The relative fluorescence intensity of GFP-myosin VI localizing on a cone was plotted against time after bleaching, and the period of linear recovery was determined. Photobleaching due to serial scanning was detected by measuring the decay of fluorescence of GFP-myosin VI on unbleached cones and this amount of fluorescence was added at each time point. The images were analyzed using NIH Image software. The average turnover rate (relative fluorescence intensity recovered/min) was calculated using Microsoft Excel.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
; Rogat and Miller 2002). However, from this work, it was unclear how the defects arose and the exact role of myosin VI in individualization that led to the terminal phenotype we previously observed in fixed preparations. To precisely define the step at which myosin VI acts and to determine whether and how different aspects of individualization were affected, we isolated and cultured individualizing cysts from myosin VI mutants and compared them with wild-type cysts (Figure 1). Fully elongated cysts before individualization from the mutant and wild type looked identical in length and morphology. Individualization seemed to start normally in both genotypes (see also below), but differences between the mutant and wild type were soon apparent. In wild type, the cystic bulge had a round shape. However, in myosin VI mutants (jar1/jar1), the cystic bulge looked thinner and elongated, suggesting that cytoplasm was not effectively pushed out in front of the actin cones. In cases where the somatic cyst cells that normally enclose the cyst were removed by mechanical sheer force during isolation, the individualized part of the sperm tails became apparent. In wild type, individualization occurred simultaneously for all 64 spermatids at the basal side of the cystic bulge. In myosin VI mutant cysts, some sperm tails were individualized, but others were grouped within the same membrane (Figure 1A).
|
One possible cause of problems with cystic bulge movement could be improperly formed axonemes or other defects before individualization, which would then impede cone movement or affect individualization indirectly. To look for defects in axoneme formation and mitochondria differentiation, which were not apparent at the light microscope level, EM cross-sections of cysts before and in the process of individualization were examined in both wild-type and myosin VI mutants. After elongation but before individualization began, a significant quantity of cytoplasm surrounded the 64 axoneme and mitochondria derivative pairs (Tokuyasu et al., 1972), and both genotypes looked identical (our unpublished data). Differences were apparent between wild-type and mutants after individualization. In wild type, very little cytoplasm was left, and each axoneme/mitochondria pair was tightly surrounded by plasma membrane (Figure 1, C and E). In myosin VI mutants, individualization had not occurred in some of the axoneme/mitochondria pairs. In some places, several sperm tails were enclosed within the same membrane and surrounded by a large amount of cytoplasm (dark gray area in right side of Figure 1D). Even in individualized sperm tails, a larger than normal amount of cytoplasm remained (Figure 1F, top right). However, axoneme structure and mitochondrial derivative morphology was normal in the mutants (Figure 1, E and F), suggesting that the defects are likely to be restricted to individualization.
We did observe defects in the actin cones themselves in longitudinal sections. In wild type, the region of dense actin that comprises the cones was wide at the front and tapered off at the rear (Figure 2A). In myosin VI mutants, the severity of the defect was variable, but all cones were smaller and narrower with a decreased diameter at the front (Figure 2, B–D). Fibrous staining is more visible in wild type than myosin VI mutant, suggesting that the mutant cones contained fewer filaments and the filaments were less densely packed. At higher magnification, unlike wild type, cytoplasmic organelles were present in the cone region (Figure 2, E and F). This supports the idea that the mutant actin cones are not effective in pushing out the cytoplasm and organelles. Even when they progress down the cyst and remodel the membrane properly, components that are normally excluded from mature sperm are still present.
|
) (Figure 3A). Width and length were variable and uncoordinated among cones in the same cystic bulge (Figure 3B). The total amount of F-actin in each actin cone and the density of F-actin in the cone were quantitated by measuring fluorescence intensity of Alexa488-phalloidin. Before the onset of individualization, the quantity of F-actin in cones was not significantly different between wild type and the mutant. After individualization began, the density remained constant and the total amount of F-actin increased about twofold in wild type, suggesting that actin cones assemble more F-actin as they move. In the mutant, both total amount and the density of actin declined to about half of their premovement level once movement began (Figure 3, C and D).
|
Myosin VI might affect the amount of F-actin in cones by altering actin polymerization/depolymerization dynamics. To measure actin dynamics (turnover rate), we performed FRAP experiments on GFP-actin expressed in wild type and myosin VI mutant testes (Supplemental Data 2). Absence of myosin VI did not affect the turnover rate significantly, despite the major disruption of the morphology of actin cones. Thus, we instead favor the hypothesis that myosin VI affects F-actin level by allowing more filaments to accumulate, rather than slowing turn over rate of each filament.
There Are Two Structural Domains in the Actin Cone
To better understand how myosin VI can allow more actin filaments to accumulate in the cone, we asked two questions, comparing mutant and wild-type cones. 1) What is the general organization of actin in the cone? 2) How are the actin filaments oriented in the cone structure? F-actin was visualized at the EM level by decorating with rabbit skeletal muscle myosin II S1. This technique permitted us to better resolve the filament organization and to determine the orientation of the barbed ends of the filaments relative to the overall structure (Figure 4, A–E). Two distinct structural domains, a front meshwork and a rear area of parallel bundles were observed. In wild type, the front meshwork was densely packed with actin filaments oriented at random angles. This structure is very likely built by Arp2/3 actin branching activity (Rogat and Miller, 2002). The rear region was composed of long bundles of filaments that lie parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cone (Figure 4, A and B). In the myosin VI mutant, the most actin cones were narrower and were composed of significantly smaller numbers of filaments, consistent with measurements of actin amount and density by fluorescence. However, the cones had the same the basic organization as was seen in wild type (Figure 4, C–E). These data suggest that myosin VI is not essential for forming either the front meshwork or rear bundles, but it has a supportive role in actin cone formation.
|
), perpendicular (toward area 
), or forward (toward area 
). The filaments that were classified as perpendicular were further subdivided into those with barbed ends facing the inside (axoneme) or the outside (membrane) of the cone. In the front meshwork, the majority of fast-growing (barbed) ends faced backward (Figures 4F and 5). The actin filaments comprising parallel rear bundles had a very clear polarity, with their barbed ends facing backward (Figure 4, G and H). Based on other motile actin structures such as the Listeria actin comet tail, we would have expected that the barbed ends would face in the direction of movement. However, quantitation revealed that only 10% of actin filaments had barbed ends directed forward, whereas the majority of the filaments had barbed ends directed backward (Figure 5B). This orientation also means barbed ends primarily face the membrane that surrounds the rear of the actin cone. In addition, among the perpendicular filaments, the majority of the barbed ends faced outward, toward the membrane surrounding the actin cone. Overall, 85% of the total filaments had their barbed ends oriented toward the membrane. Interestingly, the front edge of actin cone is dominated by pointed ends, which is consistent with the fact that myosin VI, a pointed end-directed motor, concentrates to the front edge of the cone. We saw no difference in actin filament orientation between wild type and myosin VI mutant (Figures 4, I and J, and 5C), indicating that myosin VI does not play a role in actin filament orientation.
|
; Aschenbrenner et al., 2003; Dance et al., 2004). We wondered whether the same would hold true in this situation, where myosin VI is not associated with membrane. To address this question, we asked whether myosin VI binding to the actin cone required its head or tail. First, we expressed GFP-myosin VI full-length (GFP-FL) and GFP-myosin VI globular-tail (GFP-G-tail) in testis. G-tail fragment (a.a. 1045–1253) starts at the beginning of predicted globular tail region right after coiled-coil region and ends at the C terminus of the protein. GFP-FL was expressed at a level comparable with endogenous myosin VI in testis, whereas the expression level of GFP-G-tail was much lower (Figure 6A; Supplemental Data 3). Quantitation of a Western blot using anti-GFP antibody shows the signal intensity for GFP-G-tail is 54% that of the GFP-FL. However, we suspect this overestimates the amount of GFP-G-tail, because our fluorescence microscopic observations indicate a much lower total amount of fluorescence. We measured the amount of GFP-G-tail as 9.7 ± 2.9% (n = 10) of GFP-FL based on fluorescence intensity. We suspect these measurements differ because the smaller GFP-G-tail (55–60 kDa) is more efficiently transferred to the polyvinylidene difluoride membrane than GFP-FL (180 kDa). However, we think this expression level is high enough to detect GFP localization, if the G-tail does localize specifically. Even at a level of 10% of the GFP-FL, we were able to see GFP-signal in the cysts (see Supplemental Data 3). By comparison, we were easily able to see actin cones in GFP-actin–expressing testes, where the fluorescence was only 7.8 ± 1.3% (n = 10) of the intensity of GFP-FL (Noguchi and Miller 2003; Supplemental Data 2 and 3). To be sure that the diffuse cytoplasmic signal from unincorporated GFP-myosin VI did not obscure localization to the cones, we fixed the cysts and washed to extract protein that was present diffusely in the cytoplasm. GFP-FL localized properly (Figure 6B), and its expression in the mutant background restored fertility and cystic bulge movement (hsp83-GFP-myosin VI/+; jar1/Df-S87.5, speed = 3.1 ± 0.6 µm/min [n = 7], jar1/Df-S87.5, speed = 0.7 ± 1.0 µm/min [n = 6]). Therefore, GFP-myosin VI functions properly during individualization. However, GFP-G-tail expressed in wild-type background did not localize to the cone (Figure 6B) and failed to rescue fertility of the mutant (our unpublished data). Even with increased laser power and detection gain settings in GFP-G-tail samples compared with the GFP-FL samples, no enrichment of GFP-G-tail on the cones was observed. At this low level of expression, the GFP-G-tail did not interfere with endogenous myosin VI function, because males expressing GFP-G-tail were fertile, and no defects in individualization were observed.
|
Dynamics of Myosin VI on Actin Cones
Because myosin VI binds to the actin cones using its motor domain, the dynamics of its binding should directly reflect its motor activity in vivo and allow us to determine whether observations of its kinetics in vitro are relevant in vivo. In motility assays in vitro, dimeric myosin VI makes several processive steps before detaching from an actin filament. This behavior would lead to myosin VI remaining bound to actin for on the order of a second (Rock et al., 2001). However, when a backward force is applied to myosin VI walking on actin in vitro, myosin VI stalls and remains bound for several minutes (Altman et al., 2004). If myosin VI takes monomeric form, this nonprocessive motor would fall off of an actin filament in milliseconds unless it is tethered or anchored on actin filaments with its motor domain. We measured the myosin VI turnover rate in moving actin cones using FRAP. The average turnover rate of GFP-myosin VI was 0.25 ± 0.07/min (n = 10). The time required for recovery of half the fluorescence intensity was 2 min (Figure 7). Furthermore, before cone movement, myosin VI turned over even more slowly (Supplemental Data 4). These data demonstrate that myosin VI molecules remain bound to actin for minutes, consistent with the possibility that myosin VI stalls while attached to the filaments. Myosin VI molecule's relatively long dwell time is consistent with a role in structurally stabilizing the actin cone or tethering something to the cone.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The actin cones are composed of two domains, a front meshwork and a rear region of parallel bundles. Even in the most strongly affected cones in the mutant, both meshwork and parallel bundles were present in each cone. Therefore, myosin VI is not absolutely required for generating either of the two structural domains. However, the density of filaments and total area of the cones were both significantly decreased in myosin VI mutant cones. Therefore, we conclude that myosin VI has a supportive role in actin structure formation.
Stabilization of actin structure might explain myosin VI's role in other situations, such as stereocilia formation in inner ear hair cells in vertebrates. In this case, myosin VI localizes to a dense actin network at the bottom of the stereocillia, a structure supporting the cilia (Self et al., 1999; Seiler et al., 2004). Without myosin VI, the stereocilia fuse together, perhaps as a result of the lack of a structural support from this actin meshwork.
Myosin VI Is a Cross-linker or Anchor In Vivo not a Cargo Transporter
GFP-G-tail expression and ATP extraction demonstrated that myosin VI binds with its actin binding head domain, rather than its globular tail. In contrast, myosin VI in vertebrate cells associates with compartments of the endocytic pathway and the Golgi using its tail domain (Buss et al., 2001; Aschenbrenner et al., 2003). Because localization of myosin VI to actin cones depends on its actin binding activity, we used FRAP to monitor myosin VI association with actin. These measurements demonstrated that myosin VI remains bound for a long time. This is the first direct observation of myosin VI's motor kinetics in vivo. Myosin VI's long dwell time is consistent with the possibility that the myosin VI head stalls in a tightly bound state in vivo, as observed in vitro (Altman et al., 2004). Myosin VI's slow turnover is also consistent with our hypothesis that it works as a structural cross-linker or anchor in vivo.
None of our data support the idea that myosin VI is a cargo transporter during individualization. First, myosin VI at the front edge of actin cone does not translocate along the actin filaments any significant distance, because we see no "flow" of myosin VI in the recovery of fluorescence during FRAP. Second, EM sections of actin cones show no evidence of invaginations or vesicles in the region around the cones (Figure 2). Third, our previous observations of membrane dynamics using membrane dye FM1-43 in live cysts, revealed no endocytosis or exocytosis sites around actin cones (Noguchi and Miller, 2003). Finally, studies of the shibire mutant (dynamin) and use of inhibitors showed no requirement for endo- and exocytosis during individualization (Noguchi and Miller, 2003).
Myosin VI also is unlikely to provide force for cone movement. In myosin VI mutants, the cones move with normal speed during the first part of individualization, suggesting that something else is responsible for force production. Actin turnover is required for cone movement, because treatment with inhibitors of both polymerization and depolymerization interfere with movement (Noguchi and Miller, 2003). Whether actin polymerization itself provides the force for movement remains an open question.
Actin Cone Structure Compared with Other Motile Actin Structures
The organization of the actin cone is in some ways reminiscent of other motile actin structures. The cone's triangular shape, the dense meshwork of branched filaments, and the localization of Arp2/3 complex near the front are similar to the actin comet tail of Listeria monocytogenes (Gouin et al., 1999; Cameron et al., 2001). The leading edge of the lamellipodia also is composed of a branched actin meshwork with Arp2/3 complex enriched at the front (Svitkina and Borisy, 1999). However, cones are built using a very different organization (Figure 8A). The filaments in the cone are primarily oriented with their barbed ends away from the direction of movement. In contrast, in Listeria comet tails and at the leading edge of motile cells, barbed ends face in the direction of movement. In addition, unlike Listeria comet tails and lamellipodia, Arp2/3 complex is not activated by localization of an activator to a membrane or solid surface, because there is no such membrane or structure at the cone front.
|
) as would be expected if this were the case. The front meshwork is initially formed just as the cones begin to move on bundles that exist before cone movement (our unpublished data). Formins are more likely candidates to nucleate the formation of the bundles.
Model of Myosin VI Function In Vivo
What is the mechanism by which myosin VI stabilizes the actin meshwork at the front of the cone? Because the actin meshwork grows bigger in cones that contain myosin VI, actin might be predicted to turn over at a slower rate in cones with myosin VI. However, the filaments turn over with similar rates whether myosin VI is present or not (see Supplemental Data 2). This result indicates that myosin VI does not directly regulate actin dynamics by changing rates of subunit addition or loss at filament ends.
The most direct mechanism for myosin VI to mediate cone growth is by stabilizing actin filaments at the front edge of the cone to prevent their loss through debranching (Figure 8B, model 1). If debranching happens too quickly, the actin cone would lose many filaments from front edge before they were used by the Arp2/3 complex to nucleate new filaments, and the meshwork would not grow. We hypothesize that the growth of the cone is achieved by increasing the number of filaments (which turn over at the same rate). Because normal actin cones approximately triple in actin content by the end of individualization, and filament length does not seem to change, we would expect that the number of filaments approximately triples. At the cone front, this may be particularly important because a filament that debranches may be quickly lost from the meshwork. Filaments turn over with a half-time of 6 min, whereas cones move for 600 min. For a cone to remain a constant size with this turnover rate, 50 debranching and branch generation cycles must occur for each initial filament. A threefold increase in number of actin filaments could be achieved by a decrease in debranching rate of only 2.5% in each cycle. We hypothesize that the supportive role of myosin VI in stabilizing the branched network at the front edge of the cone, which causes a small change in the rate of actin assembly, has a large impact on over all growth and maintenance of this long-lasting actin structures in vivo.
To mediate this branch stabilization, myosin VI might work either as a dimer or monomer. Binding to an actin filament can facilitate dimerization of full-length myosin VI in vitro (Park et al., 2006). Myosin VI is highly concentrated at the actin cone front. Myosin VI may form a dimer using the mechanism suggested by Park et al. (2006) in this case. A dimer would be able to bridge the branch by holding onto each filament with one head. Myosin VI has a large step size (36 nm) and a very flexible neck region due to unfolding of the proximal region of the coiled-coil domain (Yildiz et al., 2004; Rock et al., 2005). Such flexibility might allow myosin VI to reach across the Arp2/3 branch (Arp2/3 complex diameter 1015 nm). If myosin VI works as a monomer (Lister et al., 2004), it might bind to other molecules on nearby actin filaments or dimerize through target protein binding. Other proteins, such as optinuerin (Sahlender et al., 2005), dimerize using such a mechanism.
A second model (Figure 8B, model 2) is that myosin VI serves as an anchor for a molecule that stimulates Arp2/3 complex activity, increasing the rate of branch generation. In other motility systems, Arp2/3 complex activators are thought to bind to and be activated at the leading membrane. However, there is no leading membrane at the cone front. Myosin VI might serve this role instead. Because we still see a branched network without myosin VI, anchoring of the activator cannot be essential for branched network formation, however.
Overall, our data support the idea that myosin VI plays a structural and not a transport role and that it can stall in a tightly bound state, as suggested by motility assays in vitro. These studies confirm that myosin VI is indeed an unusual motor.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
The online version of this article contains supplemental material at MBC Online (http://www.molbiolcell.org). 
Address correspondence to: Tatsuhiko Noguchi ( noguchi{at}biology2.wustl.edu)
Abbreviations used: Arp, actin-related protein; Jar, jaguar
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Aschenbrenner, L., Lee, T., Hasson, T. (2003). Myo6 facilitates the translocation of endocytic vesicles from cell peripheries. Mol. Biol. Cell 14, 2728–2743.
Avraham, K. B., Hasson, T., Steel, K. P., Kingsley, D. M., Russell, L. B., Mooseker, M. S., Copeland, N. G., Jenkins, N. A. (1995). The mouse Snell's waltzer deafness gene encodes an unconventional myosin required for structural integrity of inner ear hair cells. Nat. Genet 11, 369–375.[CrossRef][Medline]
Berg, J. S., Powell, B. C., Cheney, R. E. (2001). A millennial myosin census. Mol. Biol. Cell 12, 780–794.
Buss, F., Arden, S. D., Lindsay, M., Luzio, J. P., Kendrick-Jones, J. (2001). Myosin VI isoform localized to clathrin-coated vesicles with a role in clathrin-mediated endocytosis. EMBO J 20, 3676–3684.[CrossRef][Medline]
Buss, F., Kendrick-Jones, J., Lionne, C., Knight, A. E., Cote, G. P., Paul Luzio, J. (1998). The localization of myosin VI at the golgi complex and leading edge of fibroblasts and its phosphorylation and recruitment into membrane ruffles of A431 cells after growth factor stimulation. J. Cell Biol 143, 1535–1545.
Cameron, L. A., Svitkina, T. M., Vignjevic, D., Theriot, J. A., Borisy, G. G. (2001). Dendritic organization of actin comet tails. Curr. Biol 11, 130–135.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cheney, R. E. and Mooseker, M. S. (1992). Unconventional myosins. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol 4, 27–35.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cross, D. P. and Shellenbarger, D. L. (1979). The dynamics of Drosophila melanogaster spermatogenesis in in vitro cultures. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol 53, 345–351.[Medline]
Dance, A. L., Miller, M., Seragaki, S., Aryal, P., White, B., Aschenbrenner, L., Hasson, T. (2004). Regulation of myosin-VI targeting to endocytic compartments. Traffic 5, 798–813.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fabrizio, J. J., Hime, G., Lemmon, S. K., Bazinet, C. (1998). Genetic dissection of sperm individualization in Drosophila melanogaster. Development 125, 1833–1843.[Abstract]
Gouin, E., Gantelet, H., Egile, C., Lasa, I., Ohayon, H., Villiers, V., Gounon, P., Sansonetti, P. J., Cossart, P. (1999). A comparative study of the actin-based motilities of the pathogenic bacteria Listeria monocytogenes, Shigella flexneri and Rickettsia conorii. J. Cell Sci 112, 1697–1708.[Abstract]
Hasson, T. and Mooseker, M. S. (1994). Porcine myosin-VI: characterization of a new mammalian unconventional myosin. J. Cell Biol 127, 425–440.
Hicks, J. L., Deng, W. M., Rogat, A. D., Miller, K. G., Bownes, M. (1999). Class VI unconventional myosin is required for spermatogenesis in Drosophila. Mol. Biol. Cell 10, 4341–4353.
Inoue, A., Sato, O., Homma, K., Ikebe, M. (2002). DOC-2/DAB2 is the binding partner of myosin VI. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun 292, 300–307.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kappler, J. A., Starr, C. J., Chan, D. K., Kollmar, R., Hudspeth, A. J. (2004). A nonsense mutation in the gene encoding a zebrafish myosin VI isoform causes defects in hair-cell mechanotransduction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 13056–13061.
Kelleher, J. F., Mandell, M. A., Moulder, G., Hill, K. L., L'Hernault, S. W., Barstead, R., Titus, M. A. (2000). Myosin VI is required for asymmetric segregation of cellular components during C. elegans spermatogenesis. Curr. Biol 10, 1489–1496.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kellerman, K. A. and Miller, K. G. (1992). An unconventional myosin heavy chain gene from Drosophila melanogaster. J. Cell Biol 119, 823–834.
Knight, P. J., Thirumurugan, K., Xu, Y., Wang, F., Kalverda, A. P., Stafford, W. F. 3rd, Sellers, J. R., Peckham, M. (2005). The predicted coiled-coil domain of myosin 10 forms a novel elongated domain that lengthens the head. J. Biol. Chem 280, 34702–34708.
Lister, I., Schmitz, S., Walker, M., Trinick, J., Buss, F., Veigel, C., Kendrick-Jones, J. (2004). A monomeric myosin VI with a large working stroke. EMBO J 23, 1729–1738.[CrossRef][Medline]
Margossian, S. S. and Lowey, S. (1982). Preparation of myosin and its subfragments from rabbit skeletal muscle. Methods Enzymol 85B, 55–71.[Medline]
Mermall, V. and Miller, K. G. (1995). The 95F unconventional myosin is required for proper organization of the Drosophila syncytial blastoderm. J. Cell Biol 129, 1575–1588.
Mermall, V., Post, P. L., Mooseker, M. S. (1998). Unconventional myosins in cell movement, membrane traffic, and signal transduction. Science 279, 527–533.
Morris, S. M., Arden, S. D., Roberts, R. C., Kendrick-Jones, J., Cooper, J. A., Luzio, J. P., Buss, F. (2002). Myosin VI binds to and localises with Dab2, potentially linking receptor-mediated endocytosis and the actin cytoskeleton. Traffic 3, 331–341.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nishikawa, S., et al. (2002). Class VI myosin moves processively along actin filaments backward with large steps. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun 290, 311–317.[CrossRef][Medline]
Noguchi, T. and Miller, K. G. (2003). A role for actin dynamics in individualization during spermatogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Development 130, 1805–1816.
Osterweil, E., Wells, D. G., Mooseker, M. S. (2005). A role for myosin VI in postsynaptic structure and glutamate receptor endocytosis. J. Cell Biol 168, 329–338.
Park, H., Ramamurthy, B., Travaglia, M., Safer, D., Chen, L. Q., Franzini-Armstrong, C., Selvin, P. R., Sweeney, H. L. (2006). Full-length myosin VI dimerizes and moves processively along actin filaments upon monomer clustering. Mol. Cell 21, 331–336.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rock, R. S., Ramamurthy, B., Dunn, A. R., Beccafico, S., Rami, B. R., Morris, C., Spink, B. J., Franzini-Armstrong, C., Spudich, J. A., Sweeney, H. L. (2005). A flexible domain is essential for the large step size and processivity of myosin VI. Mol. Cell 17, 603–609.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rock, R. S., Rice, S. E., Wells, A. L., Purcell, T. J., Spudich, J. A., Sweeney, H. L. (2001). Myosin VI is a processive motor with a large step size. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 13655–13659.
Rogat, A. D. and Miller, K. G. (2002). A role for myosin VI in actin dynamics at sites of membrane remodeling during Drosophila spermatogenesis. J. Cell Sci 115, 4855–4865.[Medline]
Sahlender, D. A., Roberts, R. C., Arden, S. D., Spudich, G., Taylor, M. J., Luzio, J. P., Kendrick-Jones, J., Buss, F. (2005). Optineurin links myosin VI to the Golgi complex and is involved in Golgi organization and exocytosis. J. Cell Biol 169, 285–295.
Seiler, C., Ben-David, O., Sidi, S., Hendrich, O., Rusch, A., Burnside, B., Avraham, K. B., Nicolson, T. (2004). Myosin VI is required for structural integrity of the apical surface of sensory hair cells in zebrafish. Dev. Biol 272, 328–338.[CrossRef][Medline]
Self, T., Sobe, T., Copeland, N. G., Jenkins, N. A., Avraham, K. B., Steel, K. P. (1999). Role of myosin VI in the differentiation of cochlear hair cells. Dev. Biol 214, 331–341.[CrossRef][Medline]
Svitkina, T. M. and Borisy, G. G. (1999). Arp2/3 complex and actin depolymerizing factor/cofilin in dendritic organization and treadmilling of actin filament array in lamellipodia. J. Cell Biol 145, 1009–1026.
Tokuyasu, K. T., Peacock, W. J., Hardy, R. W. (1972). Dynamics of spermiogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Individualization process. Z Zellforsch Mikrosk. Anat 124, 479–506.[CrossRef][Medline]
Warner, C. L., Stewart, A., Luzio, J. P., Steel, K. P., Libby, R. T., Kendrick-Jones, J., Buss, F. (2003). Loss of myosin VI reduces secretion and the size of the Golgi in fibroblasts from Snell's waltzer mice. EMBO J 22, 569–579.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wells, A. L., Lin, A. W., Chen, L. Q., Safer, D., Cain, S. M., Hasson, T., Carragher, B. O., Milligan, R. A., Sweeney, H. L. (1999). Myosin VI is an actin-based motor that moves backwards. Nature 401, 505–508.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wu, H., Nash, J. E., Zamorano, P., Garner, C. C. (2002). Interaction of SAP97 with minus-end-directed actin motor myosin VI. Implications for AMPA receptor trafficking. J. Biol. Chem 277, 30928–30934.
Yildiz, A., Park, H., Safer, D., Yang, Z., Chen, L. Q., Selvin, P. R., Sweeney, H. L. (2004). Myosin VI steps via a hand-over-hand mechanism with its lever arm undergoing fluctuations when attached to actin. J. Biol. Chem 279, 37223–37226.
Thi
) and myosin VI mutant (
). The distance of the cystic bulge from the basal end of the cyst was plotted as a function of time during the whole individualization process. Measurements were made at 12 min intervals. (C–F) EM analyses of cross-sections of cysts after individualization. (C) Each wild-type cyst contained 64 pairs of axonemes (arrows) and mitochondria derivatives (arrowheads) enclosed by plasma membrane. (D) Myosin VI mutant cyst contained some individualized (arrows) regions, but some groups of sperm tails are not separated by plasma membrane. (E and F) Sperm tails of wild-type (E) and myosin VI mutant (F) at higher magnification. Both axoneme and major mitochondrial derivative structure look normal, but some cytoplasm remained surrounding the axoneme even in cases where individualization had occurred in myosin VI mutant (white arrow) cysts. Black arrow, axoneme; large white arrowhead, major mitochondria; small white arrowhead, minor mitochondria derivative. Bar, 1 µm (D) and 0.2 µm (F).
