![[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. 20, Issue 3, 973-982, February 1, 2009
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01605
Submitted September 23, 2008;
Revised November 25, 2008;
Accepted December 1, 2008
Monitoring Editor: Patrick J. Brennwald
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
and references therein). Specific SNARE proteins, present on both the vesicle (v-SNARE) and the target (t-SNARE) membranes, are critical for membrane fusion. Tethering proteins, which are proposed to bridge the vesicle and target membranes at a distance, are either dimeric coiled-coil proteins or components of multisubunit protein complexes (Sztul and Lupashin, 2006). These proteins interact with the donor and target membranes through specific interactions with small Ras superfamily GTPases and phospholipids (Wu et al., 2008). Many tethering proteins bind directly to SNAREs and the regulatory Sec1/Munc18 family proteins and likely play crucial roles in the temporal and spatial regulation of SNARE complex assembly before membrane fusion (Cai et al., 2007; Kummel and Heinemann, 2008).
The exocyst is a conserved multisubunit protein complex required for tethering and fusion of vesicles at specific sites of polarized secretion on the plasma membrane (TerBush et al., 1996; Guo et al., 1999; Munson and Novick, 2006; Wu et al., 2008). This complex is distantly related to tethering factors found in other trafficking pathways, including the GARP (Golgi-associated retrograde protein), COG (conserved oligomeric Golgi), and Dsl1 complexes (Whyte and Munro, 2002; Koumandou et al., 2007). The exocyst is comprised of eight subunits: Sec3p, Sec5p, Sec6p, Sec8p, Sec10p, Sec15p, Exo70p, and Exo84p. These proteins localize to regions of exocytosis and membrane growth in eukaryotic cells, where their activity is regulated by small Rab, Rho, and Ral GTPases (Wu et al., 2008). Temperature-sensitive (ts) yeast exocyst mutants accumulate secretory vesicles at sites of secretion (bud tips and mother-bud necks) at a stage before exocytic SNARE complex assembly. The exocyst also plays critical roles in Drosophila, mammals and plants, not just in exocytosis, but also in endocytic recycling and cytokinesis (Gromley et al., 2005; Sommer et al., 2005; Oztan et al., 2007; Hala et al., 2008).
Elucidation of the molecular function of the exocyst requires detailed knowledge of each of the subunits and their assembly into functional complexes. High-resolution structures of four exocyst subunits have been determined: the C-terminal domain of Drosophila melanogaster Sec15 (Wu et al., 2005), the nearly full-length yeast Exo70p (Dong et al., 2005; Hamburger et al., 2006; Moore et al., 2007), the C-terminal domain of yeast Exo84p (Dong et al., 2005), and the C-terminal domain of yeast Sec6p (Sivaram et al., 2006). They fold into remarkably similar elongated helical bundle structures with diverse surface features (Munson and Novick, 2006; Sivaram et al., 2006). Protein–protein interactions within the exocyst complex and with small GTPases have been identified genetically, by qualitative in vitro binding studies and by yeast two-hybrid analyses (reviewed in Munson and Novick, 2006). The exocyst associates with secretory vesicles through the interaction of Sec15p with the Sec4p GTPase (Guo et al., 1999), and most of its subunits appear to traffic with secretory vesicles to sites of secretion (Boyd et al., 2004). Exocyst function is regulated by interactions of Sec3p and Exo70p with membrane-anchored Rho GTPases and phosphoinositides (Adamo et al., 1999; Guo et al., 2001; Zhang et al., 2001, 2008; He et al., 2007), as well as interactions with the yeast lethal giant larvae (Lgl) homologues Sro7p and Sro77p (Lehman et al., 1999; Zhang et al., 2005a; Grosshans et al., 2006; Hattendorf et al., 2007). Most of the subunits are essential in yeast, except Sec3p, although sec3
cells grow quite slowly (Wiederkehr et al., 2003). In addition, the lethality of sec5 and exo70 can be bypassed by overexpression of either SEC1 or SEC4 (Wiederkehr et al., 2004). These structural, biochemical, and genetic studies indicate that each of the subunits plays diverse roles in exocyst function; however, many questions remain about the specific function(s) of the exocyst and its subunits.
Here, we focus on mutational studies of the yeast exocyst subunit Sec6p, which forms a direct link between the exocyst complex and the exocytic plasma membrane SNARE protein Sec9p and has been proposed to regulate SNARE complex assembly (Sivaram et al., 2005). Qualitative protein–protein interaction studies also indicated that Sec6p can dimerize in vitro (Sivaram et al., 2005), interact with the exocyst subunits Sec10p, Sec8p, and Exo70p (Dong et al., 2005; Sivaram et al., 2006), and bind Rtn1p, an interaction that is important for cortical ER inheritance (De Craene et al., 2006). We identified and mutated two patches of residues on the surface of Sec6p that are highly conserved from yeast to humans and show that these mutants have ts growth and secretory defects in yeast. These phenotypes are due to a loss of polarized localization of the exocyst subunits at nonpermissive conditions. However, unlike other exocyst ts mutants, exocyst complexes are intact at the nonpermissive conditions, indicating that the Sec6p patch residues are necessary to anchor functional, assembled exocyst complexes at sites of secretion. The conservation of these patch residues suggests an anchoring role for Sec6p in all eukaryotes.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
) or a single ts mutation (gifts from P. Novick, Yale University; W. Guo, University of Pennsylvania; and J. Jäntti, University of Helsinki). Diploid strains were sporulated and dissected, and the mutant plasmids were introduced into the GFP+ sec haploids as described above. Media, growth conditions, and genetic methods for yeast were described previously (Munson et al., 2000). Yeast strains used in this study are listed in Table 1. Invertase secretion was performed as in Adamo et al. (1999).
|
), with the following change for the His6-Sec6-49 anion-exchange buffers: 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, and 1 mM DTT ± 1 M NaCl. Protein concentrations were determined by ninhydrin protein assay (Rosen, 1957). Circular dichroism spectroscopy was performed as described (Sivaram et al., 2005). Maltose binding protein (MBP) pulldown binding assays were performed as described (Sivaram et al., 2006) using a 20 mM HEPES, pH 7, 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 0.1% NP-40, and 1 mM DTT binding buffer. For experiments with MBP-Exo84CT, the soluble C-terminal domain (residues 523-753; Dong et al., 2005) was subcloned into pMALc2X (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA). MBP-Exo84CT was expressed at 20°C for 3 h after induction with 0.1 mM IPTG and purified by amylose resin affinity chromatography.
Indirect Immunofluorescence
Strains containing wild-type or mutant Sec6p with C-terminal HA3 tags were grown to log phase in synthetic complete (SC) media at 25°C and either fixed or shifted to nonpermissive conditions (prewarmed YPD at 37°C for 1 h) and then fixed with 37% formaldehyde. Cells were spheroplasted, permeabilized in HS/SDS buffer (0.1 M HEPES, pH 7.4, 1.0 M sorbitol, and 0.5% SDS), and washed twice in HS buffer. Permeabilized cells were placed on slides (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Fort Washington, PA) prepared with 0.1% polylysine. A 1:400 dilution of 
-HA-AlexaFluor 488 (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) was added to visualize Sec6p-HA3. For Sec4p, a 1:500 dilution of -Sec4 antibody (P. Brennwald, University of North Carolina) was used, followed by washing and incubation with 1:1000 goat -mouse-AF488 (Molecular Probes). Differential interference contrast (DIC) and fluorescent images were obtained at room temperature using an Axioskop2 plus epifluorescent microscope (Zeiss, Thornwood, NY) fitted with a 100x Plan-NEOFLUAR (Zeiss 1.30 NA oil immersion) objective lens. Images were collected using a Diagnostic Instruments camera (Sterling Heights, MI; model 2.1.1) and 3rd Party Interface Advanced (ver. 3.5.4 for MacOS) software. Immunofluorescent images were adjusted for total contrast in Adobe Photoshop (San Jose, CA).
GFP Fluorescence
Strains containing C-terminal GFP-tagged exocyst subunits and either wild-type or mutant Sec6p were grown to log phase in SC media at 25°C and shifted to nonpermissive conditions for 1 h. Samples were immediately resuspended in PBS containing 10% glycerol, fixed with 37% formaldehyde for 10 min, washed, and resuspended in PBS with 10% glycerol. Cells were viewed as described above. Localization of the GFP-tagged proteins was quantitated in Adobe Photoshop by counting cells with localized or mislocalized exocyst subunits. For each strain and condition, n > 100 cells were counted for two replicates each.
Immunoprecipitation
Strains were grown to log phase in SC media at 25°C or shifted to nonpermissive conditions for 1 h. One hundred OD units of cells were pelleted and washed with 10 mM Tris, pH 7.4, and 10 mM NaN3 at either 25 or 37°C. Supernatants were removed and pellets were resuspended in lysis buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 150 mM KCl, 0.5% NP-40, 1 mM DTT, and 1 mM PMSF). Cells were lysed by bead beating, and the lysates cleared by centrifugation and normalized for total protein concentration by Bradford assay (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). The supernatants were added to prewashed protein A beads (GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences, Piscataway, NJ) and mixed for 30 min at 4°C. Input samples were collected, the remaining supernatants were placed in fresh tubes, and 1:50 dilutions of HA antibody (Roche) were added. Samples were incubated at 4°C for 1 h. Lysate-antibody mixes were added to fresh, prewashed protein A beads. These mixtures were incubated at 4°C for 30 min, the supernatants were removed, and the beads were washed with lysis buffer. Input and bound fractions were analyzed by 10% SDS-PAGE gels and Western blotting. Exocyst subunits were detected using antisera raised against C-terminal constructs of Exo70p, Exo84p, and Sec10p (Pocono Rabbit Farm and Laboratory, Canadensis, PA) or antibodies against Sec3p, Sec5p, and Sec15p (generous gifts from P. Brennwald, University of North Carolina), followed by HRP-conjugated goat -rabbit secondary antibody (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, West Grove, PA) and ECL (GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences), and visualized using a luminescent image analyzer (Fuji Film, Tokyo, Japan; LAS-3000).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
). This domain is sufficient for interactions with the exocyst subunits Exo70p and Sec10p, but not Sec8p or the t-SNARE Sec9p (Dong et al., 2005; Sivaram et al., 2006). Structure-based sequence alignments revealed two highly conserved surface "patches," which we hypothesize are important sites for protein–protein interactions in all eukaryotes (Figure 1A; Sivaram et al., 2006). These patches are composed of the following amino acids: L418, Y422, W433, Q470, Q474, and V478 in Patch-1, and D607, T632, E635, Y636, and D639 in Patch-2. Patch-2 overlaps a conserved acidic region, as well as being in close proximity to the original sec6-4 ts mutation (L633P; Novick et al., 1980; Lamping et al., 2005; Sivaram et al., 2006). When these patch residues were individually mutagenized to alanine in the context of the full-length Sec6p and substituted for the wild-type in yeast, no apparent effects on growth rates were observed (data not shown). We reasoned that this lack of phenotype could be due to tight protein–protein interactions at these surfaces and that single alanine perturbations would be insufficient to disrupt them. Therefore, we combined mutations in each patch (Figure 1A). All the residues in Patch-1 were mutated to Ala (called sec6-49). For Patch-2, residues 607, 632, and 636 were mutated to Ala and residues 635 and 639 to Arg, causing a reversal of charge at these positions (called sec6-54). These mutations were anticipated to severely disrupt protein–protein interactions in these regions.
|
-helical structure of Sec6p. To test this, we cloned and purified the recombinant Sec6p mutant proteins from Escherichia coli and analyzed their secondary structure and stability using circular dichroism. As expected, the patch mutations did not decrease the stability of the proteins. Both of the mutant proteins showed the same characteristic -helical signal as the wild-type Sec6p (
50% helicity) and also had similar thermal stabilities to wild-type at 37°C (Figure 1B). In contrast, the protein containing the ts mutant allele sec6-4 must be considerably destabilized, because we were unable to produce any soluble recombinant protein in E. coli (data not shown).
To test the function of these mutant proteins as the sole copy of Sec6p in yeast, we performed a plasmid shuffle experiment to replace the wild-type SEC6 with the mutants. The mutants were expressed under control of the endogenous promoter from a low-copy (CEN) plasmid and had equivalent expression levels to the endogeneous Sec6p at both 25 and 37°C (data not shown). Both patch mutants were able to replace the wild-type SEC6 URA3 plasmid when grown on SC plates containing 5-fluoro-orotic acid (5-FOA) at 25°C. However, on SC plates at higher temperatures, both mutants exhibited ts growth defects (Figure 2A). In addition, both sec6-49 and sec-54 showed severe growth inhibition when plated on rich YPD medium, even at temperatures that were permissive for growth on SC medium (Figure 2A). The growth rates of the mutants in SC liquid cultures were similar to wild-type at 25°C and were two- to threefold slower than wild-type at 37°C, and the mutants did not grow in liquid YPD at 37°C (data not shown). The slow growth on rich YPD media may be explained by the higher rate of exocytosis compared with synthetic media, which would exacerbate the secretory defect. Similar results have been observed for other exocyst mutants (Haarer et al., 1996; Wiederkehr et al., 2003). Consistent with their growth phenotypes, the mutant strains were defective for secretion of the marker protein invertase at the nonpermissive conditions (Figure 2B). Because the recombinant mutant proteins were stable both in vitro and in vivo, we conclude that Sec6p's function, rather than its stability, is compromised by mutation of residues in these conserved patches.
|
).
|
; Walch-Solimena et al., 1997; Roumanie et al., 2005). We found that Sec4p localization was unperturbed in the sec6-49 and sec6-54 mutant cells after 1 h at nonpermissive conditions (Figure 3), as was previously observed for sec6-4 and other exocyst ts mutants (Walch-Solimena et al., 1997; Roumanie et al., 2005). Therefore, although the Sec6p patch mutant proteins are mislocalized at the nonpermissive conditions, the sec6 mutant cells appear fully competent in localizing secretory vesicles to sites of polarized secretion. Moreover, consistent with the observation that Sec4p trafficking is normal, we observed no obvious morphological defects in the mutant cells (data not shown).
We next tested the localization of the other exocyst subunits at the nonpermissive conditions to investigate whether mislocalization of Sec6p mutants would also affect exocyst complex localization. On the basis of previous results with sec6-4 and other exocyst ts mutants (Finger et al., 1998; Roumanie et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2005b; He et al., 2007), we expected to find mislocalization of most of the subunits due to disruption of complexes at the nonpermissive conditions. The exceptions to this would be subunits proposed to localize and/or stabilize the complex at sites of secretion: Sec3p, Exo70p, and Exo84p. To visualize each of the exocyst subunits individually, we constructed strains in which the genomic copy of one of the exocyst subunits was C-terminally GFP tagged (Huh et al., 2003), and the only copy of SEC6 was either the wild-type or one of the patch mutants (Table 1). We observed significant mislocalization of all the exocyst subunits at the nonpermissive conditions (75–90%, except Sec3-GFP, which was 50%; Figure 4, A and B). As a control, we also observed similar mislocalization of each of the exocyst subunits in sec6-4 cells (data not shown), consistent with previous results (Roumanie et al., 2005). This suggested two possibilities: 1) the exocyst complex was being disassembled and dispersed from sites of secretion; or 2) interactions with a factor(s) at sites of secretion were destabilized, and hence the subunits became mislocalized.
|
). To examine whether the exocyst complex is disassembled at the nonpermissive conditions, we examined the state of the complex by coimmunoprecipitation analyses. For these experiments, we immunoprecipitated the wild-type and mutant Sec6p-HA proteins with -HA antibodies, and assayed for the presence of the other exocyst subunits by Western blot analyses. Surprisingly, we found that, even after 1 h at nonpermissive conditions, similar amounts of the exocyst subunits were coimmunoprecipitated with wild-type and the Sec6p mutants—indicating that the complexes were still assembled (Figure 5A).
|
). To demonstrate that the exocyst is capable of disassembly under our experimental conditions, we immunoprecipitated wild-type Sec6p-HA in a strain containing the sec5-24 ts allele as the sole copy of SEC5. We used sec5-24 because degradation of the sec6-4 protein precluded the use of the Sec6-4-HA for immunoprecipitations. We found, at nonpermissive conditions, nearly complete loss of the other exocyst subunits bound to Sec6p (Figure 5B). Another possibility is that exocyst complexes are in a dynamic equilibrium and can reassemble after lysis during the course of our immunoprecipitation experiments. To exclude this possibility, we performed a lysate mixing experiment using two strains with differently tagged subunits (Figure 5C). The first strain contained SEC8-GFP and untagged SEC6 (Huh et al., 2003); the second had SEC8-MYC3 and SEC6-HA3. The strains were lysed, either kept separate or mixed in a 1:1 ratio, and then the Sec6p-HA was immunoprecipitated with -HA antibodies. The Myc-tagged Sec8p coimmunoprecipitated with Sec6p-HA (from the same strain), but the GFP-tagged Sec8p did not bind Sec6p-HA (from the mixed lysates), indicating that exocyst complexes do not form during the immunoprecipitation experiments. Therefore, we conclude that exocyst complexes remain intact in the patch mutant strains, even at nonpermissive conditions where mislocalization occurs.
Mutant Sec6p Proteins Bind to Known Partners
The finding that the exocyst remains assembled at nonpermissive conditions suggests that the conserved patches are not required for Sec6p to interact with other subunits of the exocyst complex. We have previously shown that the C-terminal domain of Sec6p is sufficient for binding both Exo70p and Sec10p (Sivaram et al., 2006). In contrast to the full-length Sec6p, however, this domain is not sufficient for binding Sec8p and the t-SNARE Sec9p, nor for dimerization (Sivaram et al., 2005, 2006). Here, we examined the interactions between the full-length Sec6p patch mutants and Exo70p, Sec10p, and Sec8p using qualitative pulldown assays and found that the Sec6p mutants bound with affinities similar to that of wild type (Figure 5D). As a negative control, we found that neither the wild-type nor the mutant Sec6p proteins interacted above background with the C-terminal domain of Exo84p (residues 523-753; Dong et al., 2005). Furthermore, as expected from our previous data, gel filtration experiments demonstrated that the mutants were still dimeric and capable of binding Sec9p (data not shown). Together, these binding results corroborate the immunoprecipitation results, and indicate that the binding partner(s) for the conserved patches is not one of the exocyst subunits, nor Sec9p.
To test this possibility further, we examined genetic interactions between the mutants and the other exocyst subunits. We first tested for suppression of the growth phenotypes by overexpression of the other exocyst subunits, as well as SEC4, SEC1, and SEC9, the other plasma membrane t-SNARE, SSO1, and the secretory vesicle v-SNARE, SNC2, from 2µ plasmids. We also tested for suppression by overexpression of an "open" mutant of Sso1p (Munson and Hughson, 2002). None of the exocyst subunits or SEC4 or SEC1 suppressed the sec6 mutants (data not shown). These results support the idea that the Sec6p binding partner(s) is not a subunit of the exocyst complex. In contrast, overexpression of SEC9, SSO1, and SNC2 all suppressed the sec6-49 and -54 ts phenotypes (Figure 5E). The likely explanation is that loss of assembled exocyst complexes at sites of secretion leads to a decrease in SNARE complex assembly, which can be rescued by overexpression of the plasma membrane SNAREs. We also expected that the open Sso1p mutant would rescue this defect, because it readily forms SNARE complexes. However, similarly to the synthetic defects observed in combination with other exocyst ts mutants, this mutant failed to suppress the sec6-49 and -54 ts phenotypes (Figure 5E), likely because of a detrimental overaccumulation of SNARE complexes (Munson and Hughson, 2002). In contrast, the sec6-4 allele, in which the exocyst complex is completely disassembled (TerBush and Novick, 1995), has a more severe block in SNARE complex assembly (Grote et al., 2000) that cannot be suppressed by overexpression of SSO1 and SEC9 (Aalto et al., 1993). Additionally, unlike the sec6-4 allele, the sec6-49 and -54 mutants were synthetically lethal when crossed with most of the exocyst ts strains (Table 2). The differences in synthetic lethality between our sec6 mutants and sec6-4 (Finger and Novick, 2000) may reflect the severity of the ts defects in these cells, especially sec6-54, rather than specific functional differences. However, the combination of destabilization of the exocyst by the sec ts mutants, together with partial mislocalization of the complex by the sec6-49 and -54 mutations at 25°C, could result in more severe defects. Together, the biochemical, phenotypic, and genetic interactions observed for both of the patch mutants indicate that sec6-49 is very similar, albeit weaker, to the sec6-54 allele. In support of this idea, we found that combining the sec6-49 and -54 mutations together resulted in similar ts and YPD growth defects as the individual mutants (data not shown). The patch residues appear to comprise a single binding site for an as yet unknown factor, which is not an exocyst complex subunit or Sec9p.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Unexpectedly, the extensive exocyst mislocalization observed in our sec6-49 and -54 strains at the nonpermissive conditions included Sec3p, which was proposed to be the spatial landmark for exocyst localization (Finger et al., 1998). Sec3p-GFP appeared polarized in yeast cells in the absence of ongoing exocytosis and in other exocyst ts mutants (Finger et al., 1998; Zhang et al., 2005b). However, localization of the endogeneous Sec3p by immunofluorescence indicated that the GFP tag may artificially stabilize Sec3p-GFP at sites of secretion (Roumanie et al., 2005), although this was recently disputed (Zhang et al., 2008). Localization of the endogenous Sec3p in sec6-4 cells (Roumanie et al., 2005) was similar to our results with Sec3-GFP in the sec6-4 strain. Several variations between our studies and previous results could account for these discrepancies: the use of plasmid-borne, instead of genomic GFP-tagged Sec3p; the testing of Sec3-GFP in the presence of the endogenous Sec3p; differences in strain backgrounds; and the fact that our construct contains a linker sequence (9 a.a.) between the C-terminus of Sec3p and the GFP (Huh et al., 2003). Our data, combined with the observations that Sec3p is not an essential gene and that the other exocyst subunits are polarized in sec3 cells at 25°C (Wiederkehr et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2005b), suggest that Sec3p is not the spatial landmark for the exocyst complex.
Other candidates for targeting the exocyst to sites of secretion are Exo70p and Exo84p (Boyd et al., 2004; He et al., 2007). However, we found that Exo70p-GFP was mislocalized in the sec6-49 and -54 strains at the nonpermissive conditions (Figure 4). Similarly, although the localization of Exo84-GFP was proposed to be independent of the exocyst subunits (e.g., not mislocalized in previous ts strains; Zhang et al., 2005b), Exo84-GFP was also mislocalized in the sec6-49 and -54 strains (Figure 4). Therefore, we conclude that the conserved surface patches on Sec6p are required for localization and/or stability of the exocyst complex at sites of secretion and that Sec3p, Exo70p, and Exo84p are not sufficient to localize the complex in these sec6 mutant strains. Nevertheless, the presence of a landmark is not strictly necessary, because actin cables are polarized independently of the exocyst, bringing vesicles to the correct sites of exocytosis (Walch-Solimena et al., 1997). Therefore, we propose that exocyst subunits travel to sites of secretion where they assemble together, and that Sec6p is required to anchor the assembled exocyst complexes at these sites. Perhaps Sec6p acts in cooperation with Sec3p, Exo70p, and/or Exo84p for stabilization of the exocyst complexes on the plasma membrane or perhaps their interactions (e.g., with Rho proteins and phosphoinositides) are more regulatory in nature (Roumanie et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2008). It may be that either Exo70p or Sec3p are sufficient to localize the exocyst, when wild-type Sec6p is present to stabilize the complex at sites of secretion (Hutagalung et al., 2008).
The spatial and temporal regulation of exocyst assembly and disassembly is currently unclear. Most of the exocyst subunits appear to traffic to the plasma membrane with secretory vesicles (Boyd et al., 2004), although it is unknown whether they traffic as preassembled complexes or they assemble upon vesicle arrival. Assembly upon arrival at sites of secretion, which was suggested by FRAP data (Boyd et al., 2004), is compelling, because the interactions between subunits on the vesicle with those on the plasma membrane could tether the membranes together. If so, then the patch residues of wild-type Sec6p would be necessary to anchor the complex at these sites after vesicle arrival. In the case of the patch mutants, Sec4p would need to hydrolyze the bound GTP, perhaps upon exocyst assembly, to release Sec15p and therefore the rest of the exocyst complex. On the other hand, it is possible that the exocyst assembles at sites of vesicle formation and budding; the patch residues of Sec6p would be required for proper trafficking of the complex to sites of secretion. This could only be the case if vesicles are capable of transport in the absence of assembled exocyst complexes, because trafficking of vesicles containing Sec4p is unimpaired in the patch mutant strains (as well as in the sec6-4 and other exocytic sec mutants). This situation would require that Sec4p on the budding vesicle hydrolyze the bound GTP to release the complex. Further mutational and GFP localization studies will be necessary to distinguish between these scenarios.
Regardless of where assembly takes place, the finding that the complex remains assembled despite a block in exocytosis and in the absence of polarized accumulation suggests two possibilities. First, the complex cannot disassemble, because disassembly is triggered by a factor(s) at sites of secretion or by membrane fusion. If the complex is locked into an assembled conformation in the sec6-49 and -54 mutants, then it may be unable to be recycled for subsequent rounds of vesicle tethering and fusion, thus contributing to the ts phenotype. Alternatively, the complex is assembled in these mutants because it normally does not disassemble unless destabilized. In this case, mislocalization of the assembled exocyst complexes at nonpermissive conditions would lower the concentration of active exocyst complexes that are available to function at sites of secretion. This would ultimately result in decreased SNARE complex assembly and membrane fusion.
Conservation of these Sec6p patch residues suggests an important anchoring function for Sec6p in all eukaryotes. Our analyses indicate that the binding partner for the patches on Sec6p is not a subunit of the exocyst complex, nor is it the t-SNARE Sec9p (Figure 5). Therefore, further genetic and biochemical experiments will be necessary to identify the anchoring factor and analyze its role in polarizing Sec6p and the exocyst complex at sites of secretion.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Address correspondence to: Mary Munson (mary.munson{at}umassmed.edu)
Abbreviations used: SC, synthetic complete; ts, temperature sensitive.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Adamo, J. E., Rossi, G., and Brennwald, P. (1999). The Rho GTPase Rho3 has a direct role in exocytosis that is distinct from its role in actin polarity. Mol. Biol. Cell 10, 4121–4133.
Ayscough, K. R., Stryker, J., Pokala, N., Sanders, M., Crews, P., and Drubin, D. G. (1997). High rates of actin filament turnover in budding yeast and roles for actin in establishment and maintenance of cell polarity revealed using the actin inhibitor latrunculin-A. J. Cell Biol 137, 399–416.
Boyd, C., Hughes, T., Pypaert, M., and Novick, P. (2004). Vesicles carry most exocyst subunits to exocytic sites marked by the remaining two subunits, Sec3p and Exo70p. J. Cell Biol 167, 889–901.
Cai, H., Reinisch, K., and Ferro-Novick, S. (2007). Coats, tethers, Rabs, and SNAREs work together to mediate the intracellular destination of a transport vesicle. Dev. Cell 12, 671–682.[CrossRef][Medline]
De Craene, J. O., Coleman, J., Estrada de Martin, P., Pypaert, M., Anderson, S., Yates, J. R., 3rd, Ferro-Novick, S., and Novick, P. (2006). Rtn1p is involved in structuring the cortical endoplasmic reticulum. Mol. Biol. Cell 17, 3009–3020.
Dong, G., Hutagalung, A. H., Fu, C., Novick, P., and Reinisch, K. M. (2005). The structures of exocyst subunit Exo70p and the Exo84p C-terminal domains reveal a common motif. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol 12, 1094–1100.[CrossRef][Medline]
Finger, F. P., Hughes, T. E., and Novick, P. (1998). Sec3p is a spatial landmark for polarized secretion in budding yeast. Cell 92, 559–571.[CrossRef][Medline]
Finger, F. P., and Novick, P. (2000). Synthetic interactions of the post-Golgi sec mutations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 156, 943–951.
Gromley, A., Yeaman, C., Rosa, J., Redick, S., Chen, C. T., Mirabelle, S., Guha, M., Sillibourne, J., and Doxsey, S. J. (2005). Centriolin anchoring of exocyst and SNARE complexes at the midbody is required for secretory-vesicle-mediated abscission. Cell 123, 75–87.[CrossRef][Medline]
Grosshans, B. L., Andreeva, A., Gangar, A., Niessen, S., Yates, J. R., 3rd, Brennwald, P., and Novick, P. (2006). The yeast lgl family member Sro7p is an effector of the secretory Rab GTPase Sec4p. J. Cell Biol 172, 55–66.
Grote, E., Carr, C. M., and Novick, P. J. (2000). Ordering the final events in yeast exocytosis. J. Cell Biol 151, 439–452.
Guo, W., Roth, D., Walch-Solimena, C., and Novick, P. (1999). The exocyst is an effector for Sec4p, targeting secretory vesicles to sites of exocytosis. EMBO J 18, 1071–1080.[CrossRef][Medline]
Guo, W., Tamanoi, F., and Novick, P. (2001). Spatial regulation of the exocyst complex by Rho1 GTPase. Nat. Cell Biol 3, 353–360.[CrossRef][Medline]
Haarer, B. K., Corbett, A., Kweon, Y., Petzold, A. S., Silver, P., and Brown, S. S. (1996). SEC3 mutations are synthetically lethal with profilin mutations and cause defects in diploid-specific bud-site selection. Genetics 144, 495–510.[Abstract]
Hala, M. (2008). An exocyst complex functions in plant cell growth in Arabidopsis and tobacco. Plant Cell 20, 1330–1345.
Hamburger, Z. A., Hamburger, A. E., West, A. P., and Weis, W. I. (2006). Crystal structure of the S. cerevisiae exocyst component Exo70p. J. Mol. Biol 356, 9–21.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hattendorf, D. A., Andreeva, A., Gangar, A., Brennwald, P. J., and Weis, W. I. (2007). Structure of the yeast polarity protein Sro7 reveals a SNARE regulatory mechanism. Nature 446, 567–571.[CrossRef][Medline]
He, B., Xi, F., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., and Guo, W. (2007). Exo70 interacts with phospholipids and mediates the targeting of the exocyst to the plasma membrane. EMBO J 26, 4053–4065.[CrossRef][Medline]
Huh, W. K., Falvo, J. V., Gerke, L. C., Carroll, A. S., Howson, R. W., Weissman, J. S., and O'Shea, E. K. (2003). Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast. Nature 425, 686–691.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hutagalung, A. H., Coleman, J., Pypaert, M., and Novick, P. J. (2008). An internal domain of Exo70p is required for actin-independent localization and mediates assembly of specific exocyst components. Mol. Biol. Cell 20, 153–163.[CrossRef][Medline]
Koumandou, V. L., Dacks, J. B., Coulson, R. M., and Field, M. C. (2007). Control systems for membrane fusion in the ancestral eukaryote; evolution of tethering complexes and SM proteins. BMC Evol. Biol 7, 29.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kummel, D., and Heinemann, U. (2008). Diversity in structure and function of tethering complexes: evidence for different mechanisms in vesicular transport regulation. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci 9, 197–209.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lamping, E., Tanabe, K., Niimi, M., Uehara, Y., Monk, B. C., and Cannon, R. D. (2005). Characterization of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae sec6-4 mutation and tools to create S. cerevisiae strains containing the sec6-4 allele. Gene 361, 57–66.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lehman, K., Rossi, G., Adamo, J. E., and Brennwald, P. (1999). Yeast homologues of tomosyn and lethal giant larvae function in exocytosis and are associated with the plasma membrane SNARE, Sec9. J. Cell Biol 146, 125–140.
Moore, B. A., Robinson, H. H., and Xu, Z. (2007). The crystal structure of mouse Exo70 reveals unique features of the mammalian exocyst. J. Mol. Biol 371, 410–421.[CrossRef][Medline]
Munson, M., Chen, X., Cocina, A. E., Schultz, S. M., and Hughson, F. M. (2000). Interactions within the yeast t-SNARE Sso1p that control SNARE complex assembly. Nat. Struct. Biol 7, 894–902.[CrossRef][Medline]
Munson, M., and Hughson, F. M. (2002). Conformational regulation of SNARE assembly and disassembly in vivo. J. Biol. Chem 277, 9375–9381.
Munson, M., and Novick, P. (2006). The exocyst defrocked, a framework of rods revealed. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol 13, 577–581.[CrossRef][Medline]
Novick, P., Field, C., and Schekman, R. (1980). Identification of 23 complementation groups required for post-translational events in the yeast secretory pathway. Cell 21, 205–215.[CrossRef][Medline]
Oztan, A., Silvis, M., Weisz, O. A., Bradbury, N. A., Hsu, S. C., Goldenring, J. R., Yeaman, C., and Apodaca, G. (2007). Exocyst requirement for endocytic traffic directed toward the apical and basolateral poles of polarized MDCK cells. Mol. Biol. Cell 18, 3978–3992.
Rosen, H. (1957). A modified ninhydrin colorimetric analysis for amino acids. Arch. Biochem. Biophys 67, 10–15.[CrossRef][Medline]
Roumanie, O., Wu, H., Molk, J. N., Rossi, G., Bloom, K., and Brennwald, P. (2005). Rho GTPase regulation of exocytosis in yeast is independent of GTP hydrolysis and polarization of the exocyst complex. J. Cell Biol 170, 583–594.
Sivaram, M. V., Furgason, M. L., Brewer, D. N., and Munson, M. (2006). The structure of the exocyst subunit Sec6p defines a conserved architecture with diverse roles. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol 13, 555–556.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sivaram, M. V., Saporita, J. A., Furgason, M. L., Boettcher, A. J., and Munson, M. (2005). Dimerization of the exocyst protein Sec6p and its interaction with the t-SNARE Sec9p. Biochemistry 44, 6302–6311.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sommer, B., Oprins, A., Rabouille, C., and Munro, S. (2005). The exocyst component Sec5 is present on endocytic vesicles in the oocyte of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Cell Biol 169, 953–963.
Sztul, E., and Lupashin, V. (2006). Role of tethering factors in secretory membrane traffic. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol 290, C11–C26.
TerBush, D. R., Maurice, T., Roth, D., and Novick, P. (1996). The Exocyst is a multiprotein complex required for exocytosis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. EMBO J 15, 6483–6494.[Medline]
TerBush, D. R., and Novick, P. (1995). Sec6, Sec8, and Sec15 are components of a multisubunit complex which localizes to small bud tips in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Cell Biol 130, 299–312.
Walch-Solimena, C., Collins, R. N., and Novick, P. J. (1997). Sec2p mediates nucleotide exchange on Sec4p and is involved in polarized delivery of post-Golgi vesicles. J. Cell Biol 137, 1495–1509.
Whyte, J. R., and Munro, S. (2002). Vesicle tethering complexes in membrane traffic. J. Cell Sci 115, 2627–2637.
Wickner, W., and Schekman, R. (2008). Membrane fusion. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol 15, 658–664.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wiederkehr, A., De Craene, J. O., Ferro-Novick, S., and Novick, P. (2004). Functional specialization within a vesicle tethering complex: bypass of a subset of exocyst deletion mutants by Sec1p or Sec4p. J. Cell Biol 167, 875–887.
Wiederkehr, A., Du, Y., Pypaert, M., Ferro-Novick, S., and Novick, P. (2003). Sec3p is needed for the spatial regulation of secretion and for the inheritance of the cortical endoplasmic reticulum. Mol. Biol. Cell 14, 4770–4782.
Wu, H., Rossi, G., and Brennwald, P. (2008). The ghost in the machine: small GTPases as spatial regulators of exocytosis. Trends Cell Biol 18, 397–404.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wu, S., Mehta, S. Q., Pichaud, F., Bellen, H. J., and Quiocho, F. A. (2005). Sec15 interacts with Rab11 via a novel domain and affects Rab11 localization in vivo. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol 12, 879–885.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zhang, X., Bi, E., Novick, P., Du, L., Kozminski, K. G., Lipschutz, J. H., and Guo, W. (2001). Cdc42 interacts with the exocyst and regulates polarized secretion. J. Biol. Chem 276, 46745–46750.
Zhang, X., Orlando, K., He, B., Xi, F., Zhang, J., Zajac, A., and Guo, W. (2008). Membrane association and functional regulation of Sec3 by phospholipids and Cdc42. J. Cell Biol 180, 145–158.
Zhang, X., Wang, P., Gangar, A., Zhang, J., Brennwald, P., TerBush, D., and Guo, W. (2005a). Lethal giant larvae proteins interact with the exocyst complex and are involved in polarized exocytosis. J. Cell Biol 170, 273–283.
Zhang, X., Zajac, A., Zhang, J., Wang, P., Li, M., Murray, J., TerBush, D., and Guo, W. (2005b). The critical role of Exo84p in the organization and polarized localization of the exocyst complex. J. Biol. Chem 280, 20356–20364.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. J. Andersen and C. Yeaman Sec3-containing Exocyst Complex Is Required for Desmosome Assembly in Mammalian Epithelial Cells Mol. Biol. Cell, January 1, 2010; 21(1): 152 - 164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
