Direct observation of cortactin protecting Arp2/3-actin filament branch junctions from GMF-mediated destabilization.

How cells tightly control the formation and turnover of branched actin filament arrays to drive cell motility, endocytosis, and other cellular processes is still not well understood. Here, we investigated the mechanistic relationship between two binding partners of the Arp2/3 complex, glia maturation factor (GMF) and cortactin. Individually, GMF and cortactin have opposite effects on the stability of actin filament branches, but it is unknown how they work in concert with each other to govern branch turnover. Using TIRF microscopy, we observe that GMF's branch destabilizing activities are potently blocked by cortactin (IC50 = 1.3 nM) and that this inhibition requires direct interactions of cortactin with Arp2/3 complex. The simplest model that would explain these results is competition for binding Arp2/3 complex. However, we find that cortactin and GMF do not compete for free Arp2/3 complex in solution. Further, we use single molecule analysis to show that cortactin's on-rate (3 ×107 s-1 M-1) and off-rate (0.03 s-1) at branch junctions are minimally affected by excess GMF. Together, these results show that cortactin binds with high affinity to branch junctions, where it blocks the destabilizing effects of GMF, possibly by a mechanism that is allosteric in nature. In addition, the affinities we measure for cortactin at actin filament branch junctions (Kd = 0.9 nM) and filament sides (Kd = 206 nM) are approximately 20-fold stronger than previously reported. These observations contribute to an emerging view of molecular complexity in how Arp2/3 complex is regulated through the integration of multiple inputs.

WAVE1 and WAVE2 have distinct and overlapping roles in controlling actin assembly at the leading edge.

SCAR/WAVE proteins and Arp2/3 complex assemble branched actin networks at the leading edge. Two isoforms of SCAR/WAVE, WAVE1 and WAVE2, reside at the leading edge, yet it has remained unclear whether they perform similar or distinct roles. Further, there have been conflicting reports about the Arp2/3-independent biochemical activities of WAVE1 on actin filament elongation. To investigate this in vivo, we knocked out WAVE1 and WAVE2 genes, individually and together, in B16-F1 melanoma cells. We demonstrate that WAVE1 and WAVE2 are redundant for lamellipodia formation and motility. However, there is a significant decrease in the rate of leading edge actin extension in WAVE2 KO cells, and an increase in WAVE1 KO cells. The faster rates of actin extension in WAVE1 KO cells are offset by faster retrograde flow, and therefore do not translate into faster lamellipodium protrusion. Thus, WAVE1 restricts the rate of actin extension at the leading edge, and appears to couple actin networks to the membrane to drive protrusion. Overall, these results suggest that WAVE1 and WAVE2 have redundant roles in promoting Arp2/3-dependent actin nucleation and lamellipodia formation, but distinct roles in controlling actin network extension and harnessing network growth to cell protrusion.