Rafael Garcia-Mata

Hassles with Taking Out the Garbage: Aggravating Aggresomes

Diverse human diseases ranging from amyloidosis to neurodegenerative diseases are now recognized as ‘conformational diseases’ caused by protein misfolding and protein aggregation. Misfolded and aggregated proteins are usually handled in the cell through chaperone‐mediated refolding, or when that is impossible, destroyed by proteasomal degradation. Recent evidence suggests that cells might have evolved a third pathway that involves the sequestration of aggregated proteins into specialized ‘holding stations’ called aggresomes. The aggresomal pathway provides a mechanism by which aggregated proteins form particulate (∼ 200 nm) mini‐aggregates that are transported on microtubules (MTs) towards the MT organizing center (MTOC) by a process mediated by the minus‐end motor protein dynein. Once at the MTOC, the individual particles pack into a single, usually spherical aggresome (1–3 μm) that surrounds the MTOC. Aggresomes are dynamic: they recruit various chaperones and proteasomes, presumably to aid in the disposal of the aggregated proteins. In addition, the formation of an aggresome is likely to activate the autophagic clearance mechanism that terminates in lysosomal degradation. Hence, the aggresome pathway may provide a novel system to deliver aggregated proteins from the cytoplasm to lysosomes for degradation. Although it is clear that many pathological states correlate with the formation of aggresomes, their causal relationships remain hotly debated. Here, we describe the current state of our knowledge of the aggresome pathway and outline the open questions that provide the focus of current research.

Rho protein crosstalk: another social network?

Many fundamental processes in cell biology are regulated by Rho GTPases, including cell adhesion, migration and differentiation. While regulating cellular functions, members of the Rho protein family cooperate or antagonize each other. The resulting molecular network exhibits many levels of interaction dynamically regulated in time and space. In the first part of this review we describe the main mechanisms of this crosstalk, which can occur at three different levels of the pathway: (i) through regulation of activity, (ii) through regulation of protein expression and stability, and (iii) through regulation of downstream signaling pathways. In the second part we illustrate the importance of Rho protein crosstalk with two examples: integrin-based adhesion and cell migration.

Isolated nuclei adapt to force and reveal a mechanotransduction pathway in the nucleus

Mechanical forces influence many aspects of cell behaviour. Forces are detected and transduced into biochemical signals by force-bearing molecular elements located at the cell surface, in adhesion complexes or in cytoskeletal structures. The nucleus is physically connected to the cell surface through the cytoskeleton and the linker of nucleoskeleton and cytoskeleton (LINC) complex, allowing rapid mechanical stress transmission from adhesions to the nucleus. Although it has been demonstrated that nuclei experience force, the direct effect of force on the nucleus is not known. Here we show that isolated nuclei are able to respond to force by adjusting their stiffness to resist the applied tension. Using magnetic tweezers, we found that applying force on nesprin-1 triggers nuclear stiffening that does not involve chromatin or nuclear actin, but requires an intact nuclear lamina and emerin, a protein of the inner nuclear membrane. Emerin becomes tyrosine phosphorylated in response to force and mediates the nuclear mechanical response to tension. Our results demonstrate that mechanotransduction is not restricted to cell surface receptors and adhesions but can occur in the nucleus.

RhoG regulates endothelial apical cup assembly downstream from ICAM1 engagement and is involved in leukocyte trans-endothelial migration

During trans-endothelial migration (TEM), leukocytes use adhesion receptors such as intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM1) to adhere to the endothelium. In response to this interaction, the endothelium throws up dynamic membrane protrusions, forming a cup that partially surrounds the adherent leukocyte. Little is known about the signaling pathways that regulate cup formation. In this study, we show that RhoG is activated downstream from ICAM1 engagement. This activation requires the intracellular domain of ICAM1. ICAM1 colocalizes with RhoG and binds to the RhoG-specific SH3-containing guanine-nucleotide exchange factor (SGEF). The SH3 domain of SGEF mediates this interaction. Depletion of endothelial RhoG by small interfering RNA does not affect leukocyte adhesion but decreases cup formation and inhibits leukocyte TEM. Silencing SGEF also results in a substantial reduction in RhoG activity, cup formation, and TEM. Together, these results identify a new signaling pathway involving RhoG and its exchange factor SGEF downstream from ICAM1 that is critical for leukocyte TEM.

Analysis of Activated GAPs and GEFs in Cell Lysates

An assay was developed that allows the precipitation of the active pools of Rho-GEFs, Rho-GAPs, or effectors from cell or tissue lysates. This assay can be used to identify GEFs, GAPs, and effectors involved in specific cellular pathways to determine their GTPase specificity and to monitor the temporal activation of GEFs and GAPs in response to upstream signals.

A novel role for Lsc/p115 RhoGEF and LARG in regulating RhoA activity downstream of adhesion to fibronectin

Adhesion of cells to extracellular matrix proteins such as fibronectin initiates signaling cascades that affect cell morphology, migration and survival. Some of these signaling pathways involve the Rho family of GTPases, such as Cdc42, Rac1 and RhoA, which play a key role in regulating the organization of the cytoskeleton. Although significant advances have been made in understanding how Rho proteins control cytoskeletal architecture, less is known about the signals controlling activation of the GTPases themselves. The focus of this study was to determine which guanine nucleotide exchange factor(s) are responsible for activation of RhoA downstream of adhesion to fibronectin. Using an affinity pulldown assay for activated exchange factors, we show that the RhoA-specific exchange factors Lsc/p115 RhoGEF and LARG are activated when cells are plated onto fibronectin, but not other exchange factors such as Ect2 or Dbl. Knockdown of Lsc and LARG together significantly decreases RhoA activation and formation of stress fibers and focal adhesions downstream of fibronectin adhesion. Similarly, overexpression of a catalytically inactive mutant of Lsc/p115 RhoGEF inhibits RhoA activity and formation of stress fibers and focal adhesions on fibronectin. These data establish a previously uncharacterized role for the exchange factors Lsc/p115 RhoGEF and LARG in linking fibronectin signals to downstream RhoA activation.

Palladin binds to Eps8 and enhances the formation of dorsal ruffles and podosomes in vascular smooth muscle cells

Palladin is a widely expressed phosphoprotein that plays an important role in organizing the actin cytoskeleton. Palladin is concentrated in multiple actin-based structures involved in cell motility and adhesion, including stress fibers, focal adhesions, cell-cell junctions, growth cones and Z-discs. Here, we show that palladin also localizes to the dorsal, circular ruffles that form transiently in response to growth factor stimulation. More importantly, palladin knockdown results in decreased ruffle formation and decreased Rac activation following PDGF treatment. In addition, we describe a novel interaction between palladin and Eps8, a receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) substrate that participates in the activation of the Rac-specific guanine nucleotide-exchange function of Sos-1. Eps8 was identified as a molecular partner for palladin in a yeast two-hybrid screen, and the interaction was confirmed biochemically in co-immunoprecipitation assays. The two proteins were found to colocalize extensively in dorsal ruffles. Palladin also localizes to podosomes after phorbol ester stimulation, and palladin knockdown results in decreased podosome formation in response to PDBu. Together, these data provide strong evidence for a direct and specific interaction between palladin and Eps8, and suggest that they act together in the rapid and transient remodeling of the actin cytoskeleton, which promotes the formation of highly dynamic membrane protrusions in response to PDGF and phorbol ester treatment.

The membrane-tethering protein p115 interacts with GBF1, an ARF guanine-nucleotide-exchange factor

The membrane‐transport factor p115 interacts with diverse components of the membrane‐transport machinery. It binds two Golgi matrix proteins, a Rab GTPase, and various members of the soluble N ‐ethylmaleimide‐sensitive factor attachment protein receptor (SNARE) family. Here, we describe a novel interaction between p115 and Golgi‐specific brefeldin‐A‐resistant factor 1 (GBF1), a guanine‐nucleotide exchange factor for ADP ribosylation factor (ARF). GBF1 was identified in a yeast two‐hybrid screen, using full‐length p115 as bait. The interaction was confirmed biochemically, using in vitro and in vivo assays. The interacting domains were mapped to the proline‐rich region of GBF1 and the head region of p115. These proteins colocalize extensively in the Golgi and in peripheral vesicular tubular clusters. Mutagenesis analysis indicates that the interaction is not required for targeting GBF1 or p115 to membranes. Expression of the p115‐binding (pro‐rich) region of GBF1 leads to Golgi disruption, indicating that the interaction between p115 and GBF1 is functionally relevant.

Dissection of Membrane Dynamics of the ARF‐Guanine Nucleotide Exchange Factor GBF1

ADP‐ribosylation factor (ARF)‐facilitated recruitment of COP I to membranes is required for secretory traffic. The guanine nucleotide exchange factor GBF1 activates ARF and regulates ARF/COP I dynamics at the endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–Golgi interface. Like ARF and coatomer, GBF1 peripherally associates with membranes. ADP‐ribosylation factor and coatomer have been shown to rapidly cycle between membranes and cytosol, but the membrane dynamics of GBF1 are unknown. Here, we used fluorescence recovery after photobleaching to characterize the behavior of GFP‐tagged GBF1. We report that GBF1 rapidly cycles between membranes and the cytosol (t1/2 is approximately 17 ± 1 seconds). GBF1 cycles faster than GFP‐tagged ARF, suggesting that in each round of association/dissociation, GBF1 catalyzes a single event of ARF activation, and that the activated ARF remains on membrane after GBF1 dissociation. Using three different approaches [expression of an inactive (E794K) GBF1 mutant, expression of the ARF1 (T31N) mutant with decreased affinity for GTP and Brefeldin A treatment], we show that GBF1 is stabilized on membranes when in a complex with ARF–GDP. GBF1 dissociation from ARF and membranes is triggered by its catalytic activity, i.e. the displacement of GDP and the subsequent binding of GTP to ARF. Our findings imply that continuous cycles of recruitment and dissociation of GBF1 to membranes are required for sustained ARF activation and COP I recruitment that underlies ER‐Golgi traffic.

Chapter 1. Focal adhesions: new angles on an old structure.

Focal adhesions have been intensely studied ever since their discovery in 1971. The last three decades have seen major advances in understanding the structure of focal adhesions and the functions they serve in cellular adhesion, migration, and other biological processes. In this chapter, we begin with a historical perspective of focal adhesions, provide an overview of focal adhesion biology, and highlight recent major advances in the field. Specifically, we review the different types of matrix adhesions and the role different Rho GTPases play in their formation. We discuss the relative contributions of integrin and syndecan adhesion receptors to the formation of focal adhesions. We also focus on new insights gained from studying focal adhesions on biomaterial surfaces and from the growing field of mechanotransduction. Throughout this chapter, we have highlighted areas of focal adhesion biology where major questions still remain to be answered.