- 1 -
The formin homology protein mDia1 regulates dynamics of microtubules and
their effect on focal adhesion growth
Christoph Ballestrem,* Natalia Schiefermeier,*ƒ Julia Zonis,* Michael Shtutman,* Zvi
Kam,* Shuh Narumiya, Arthur S. Alberts, ⁄ and Alexander D. Bershadsky*
*Department of Molecular Cell Biology, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot
76100, Israel; Department of Pharmacology, Kyoto University Faculty of Medicine,
Kyoto, Japan; ⁄Van Andel Research Institute, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
ƒThis author made significant contribution to this paper
Address correspondence to:
Alexander Bershadsky
Department of Molecular Cell Biology
The Weizmann Institute of Science
P.O. Box 26, Rehovot 76100, Israel
Tel.: 972-8-9342884
Fax: 972-8-9344125
E-mail: [email protected]
Total characters: 59107
Running Title: mDia1 regulates dynamics of microtubules
Keywords: mDia, formin homology protein, microtubule, focal adhesion, actin
- 2 -
Abstract
The formin homology protein, mDia1, is a major effector of Rho controlling, together
with the Rho-kinase (ROCK), the formation of focal adhesions and stress fibers. Here we
show that a constitutively active form of mDia1 (mDia1∆N3) affects the dynamics of
microtubules at three stages of their life. We found that in cells expressing mDia1∆N3,
(1) the growth rate at the microtubule plus-end decreased by half, (2) the rates of
microtubule plus-end growth and shortening at the cell periphery decreased while the
frequency of catastrophes and rescue events remained unchanged, and (3) mDia1∆N3
expression in cytoplasts without centrosome stabilized free microtubule minus-ends. This
stabilization required the activity of another Rho target, ROCK. Interestingly, mDia1∆N3
as well as endogenous mDia1, localized at the centrosome. The changes in microtubule
behavior in the mDia1∆N3-expressing cells increased both microtubule targeting toward
focal adhesions, and their inhibitory effect on focal adhesion growth. Thus, mDia1-
induced alterations in microtubule dynamics augment the microtubule-mediated negative
regulation of focal adhesions.
- 3 -
Introduction
The assembly of integrin-mediated cell-matrix adhesions (known as focal adhesions or
focal contacts) depends on cell contractility, is coupled with the formation of associated
actin filament bundles (stress fibers), and is modulated by microtubules working as local
negative regulators (Geiger and Bershadsky, 2001; Small et al., 2002). Signal
transduction pathways triggering the formation of the focal adhesions require the activity
of the small GTPase RhoA (Ridley and Hall, 1992), which operates via its two major
targets, the Rho-associated kinase (ROCK) and the formin homology protein mDia1
(Watanabe et al., 1999). While the main function of ROCK in the formation of focal
adhesions is the regulation of myosin II activity (Kimura et al., 1996; Totsukawa et al.,
2000), the functions of mDia1 in this process are less clear. mDia1 belongs to a
conserved family of Diaphanous-related formins (DRF), present in most eukaryotic cells
(Evangelista et al., 2003; Wallar and Alberts, 2003). Interaction of these proteins with
active Rho or, in some cases, with other Rho family GTPases leads to a conformational
change - opening - that exposes formin homology (FH) domains 1 and 2 (Alberts, 2001;
Alberts, 2002; Watanabe et al., 1999). Truncated constructs containing FH1 and FH2
domains in the deregulated conformation are usually constitutively active (Evangelista et
al., 1997; Watanabe et al., 1999; Tominaga et al., 2000). One known activity of the
formin family molecules is the promotion of actin polymerization. The proline-rich FH1
domain binds to profilin (Chang et al., 1997; Evangelista et al., 1997; Imamura et al.,
1997; Watanabe et al., 1997), while the FH2 domains bind actin (Pring et al., 2003;
Pruyne et al., 2002). With assistance of profilin, budding yeast formins Bni1p and Bnr1p
(Pring et al., 2003; Pruyne et al., 2002; Sagot et al., 2002) and fission yeast formin
- 4 -
Cdc12p (Kovar et al., 2003) nucleate actin filaments that grow rapidly from their barbed
ends. Formins may work as leaky cappers that associate with barbed filament end but
still allow filament elongation even in the presence of tight capping proteins (Zigmond et
al., 2003). It has been recently shown that FH2-containing constructs of mDia1 are even
more potent actin nucleators than the yeast formins (Li and Higgs, 2003).
Besides these effects on actin, there is evidence that formins affect also the
microtubular system (for a review, Gundersen, 2002). In fission yeast, gene disruption
and the overexpression experiments demonstrated that For3 formin controls not only
actin cytoskeleton, but also cytoplasmic microtubule organization (Feierbach and Chang,
2001; Nakano et al., 2002). In mammalian cells, the active form of mDia1 induces
alignment of microtubules along the axes of bipolar cells. This effect was shown to
depend on the FH2 domain of mDia1 (Ishizaki et al., 2001). Furthermore, expression of
an active form of the closely related mDia2 formin or its Diaphanous-autoregulatory
domain which binds to and activates endogenous mDia1 (Alberts, 2001), increases the
fraction of microtubules containing detyrosinated α-tubulin, with Glu instead of Tyr at its
C-terminus (Palazzo et al., 2001); mDia2 was also found to associate with Taxol-
stabilized microtubules. Since α-tubulin detyrosination occurs mainly on long-living
microtubules (Bulinski and Gundersen, 1991; Kreis, 1987; Webster et al., 1987; Webster
et al., 1990), these data suggest that active form of formins may induce microtubule
stabilization. The fraction of microtubules enriched in detyrosinated (Glu) tubulin,
however, is usually rather small and may depend on factors other than microtubule
longevity (Mialhe et al., 2001). Therefore, these alterations do not necessarily provide
information about formin effects on the bulk of microtubule population.
- 5 -
It has been shown previously that focal adhesions can be targeted by microtubules
(Kaverina et al., 1998) and, often, are down regulated by this targeting (Kaverina et al.,
1999), while disruption of microtubules leads to focal adhesion growth (Bershadsky et
al., 1996). We demonstrate here for the first time that mDia1 governs multiple aspects of
the microtubule dynamics and their targeting to and regulation of focal adhesion growth.
At the plus ends, mDia1 decreased microtubule elongation and shortening velocities, but
did not affect the frequencies of transition from growth to shrinking phases and vice
versa. This effect did not require assistance of ROCK. In addition, mDia1 localized to the
centrosome, and expression of its active form efficiently protected microtubules in the
centrosome-lacking cytoplasts from depolymerization, stabilizing the microtubule minus-
ends. This minus-end effect required also the ROCK activity and was abolished by the
inhibitor, Y-27632. These effects of mDia1 on microtubule dynamics shed new light on
the regulation of microtubule interactions with focal adhesions. We propose that mDia1-
mediated changes in microtubule dynamics provide a mechanism coordinating the Rho-
and ROCK-dependent focal adhesion maturation with microtubule-dependent focal
adhesion turnover.
- 6 -
Results
The active form of mDia1 induces reorganization of both the actin and microtubular
cytoskeleton
Transfection of CHO-K1 cells with a constitutively active mutant of mDia1 (mDia1∆N3)
induces a dramatic reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton (in line with (Watanabe et al.,
1999)). Cells expressing the active mDia1 display a characteristic bipolar shape with
finger-like actin-rich projections at both ends (Fig. 1 A and B). Numerous thin actin
bundles extend from pole to pole and fill the entire cytoplasm (Fig. 1 B). The amount of
polymerized actin, estimated by intensity of rhodamine-phalloidin fluorescence, was
about five-fold higher in the mDia1∆N3 transfected cells than in control cells (Fig. 1 C).
Active mDia1 expressed in HeLa cells induces microtubule alignment along the
cell axis (Ishizaki et al., 2001). We made similar observations using CHO-K1 cells,
where, in contrast to the radial microtubule distribution in control cells (Fig. 2A)
mDia1∆N3-expression lead to alignment along the cell axis (Fig. 2 B and C). In order to
better analyze the mDia1 effect on microtubules we used a recently developed software
that allows to quantify the orientation and length of fibrillar structures (Lichtenstein et al.,
2003). We found that the degree of microtubule alignment increased about four-fold in
the cells expressing mDia1∆N3, compared to control cells (Fig. 2 D). In addition, active
mDia1 in CHO-K1 cells induced a moderate but a statistically significant (p<0.01)
increase in total microtubule length (Fig. 2 E), suggesting either an enhanced microtubule
polymerization or an increase of microtubule stability in these cells.
- 7 -
Active mDia1 slows down microtubule plus-end dynamics
For a more detailed analysis of changes in the microtubule system of cells expressing
active mDia1 we first studied its influence on microtubule dynamics in living cells using
GFP-EB1 chimeric protein (Mimori-Kiyosue et al., 2000). This approach is particularly
useful since EB1 marks only growing microtubule plus ends, which allows analysis of the
microtubule growth rate without disturbing background fluorescence. To quantify the
velocity we superimposed successive images of the GFP-EB1-labeled microtubule ends
and measured the displacement of the EB1-positive microtubule tips during the given
time period (Fig. 3 A-D; Fig3 video 1-4).
In CHO-K1 cells expressing GFP-EB1 only microtubules grew with a rate of
about 23 µm/min from the centrosome towards the cell periphery (Fig. 3 A-C; video 1
and 2). In contrast, growth rates in cells expressing active mDia1 were decreased by half
(Fig. 3 G and J; video 2 and 3). In addition, in these cells the speeds of individual
microtubule tips were not constant, in contrast to those in control cells, but varied slightly
during the period of microtubule growth (Fig. 3 F, G, H).
Active mDia1 decreases microtubule elongation and shortening velocities at the cell
periphery
Close to the cell edge, microtubule plus-ends oscillate, transitioning between growth and
shortening phases, a process known as dynamic instability (Cassimeris et al., 1988;
Komarova et al., 2002; Sammak and Borisy, 1988; Shelden and Wadsworth, 1993). Since
GFP-EB1 immediately disappears from the ends when microtubules begin to shorten
(Mimori-Kiyosue et al., 2000), it is not useful for assessing parameters such as
- 8 -
microtubule shortening. To monitor dynamic instability events of microtubules at the cell
periphery we used B16 cells that were stably transfected with GFP-tubulin (Ballestrem et
al., 2000) and transiently co-expressed mDia1∆N3 together with DsRed as a marker to
identify transfected cells (Fig. 4 A, B; video 5 and 6). As seen in CHO-K1 cells,
microtubules in mDia1∆N3 expressing B16 cells were aligned along the cell axis (Fig. 4
B and 9 B), while microtubules in control cells expressing GFP-tubulin only or GFP-
tubulin and DsRed had typically a curved shape (Fig. 4 A and 9 A). To better visualize
and measure dynamic instability parameters of microtubules in cells, two successive
images of time-lapse recordings taken in 5s intervals were first labeled in red and green
and then were superimposed. De novo polymerized or de-polymerized microtubule ends
appear as red or green microtubule ends, respectively (Fig. 4A, B video 5 and 6).
Structures remaining at identical location at the two different time-points appeared
yellow. Comparing the typical parameters of dynamic instability in mDia1∆N3-
transfected and control B16 cells (Table 1) we found that the velocities of microtubule
elongation and microtubule shortening were both reduced in mDia1∆N3-transfected cells,
compared to those in control cells, resulting in smaller amplitudes of microtubule end
oscillations at the periphery of the mDia1∆N3-transfected cells (Fig. 4 C and D). On the
other hand, the frequency of catastrophes and rescue events as well as the time that
microtubules spent growing, pausing and shortening were similar in control and
mDia1∆N3-expressing cells (Table 1).
Active mDia1 inhibits buckling of microtubules
- 9 -
Time-lapse recordings and the superimposition of successive images of GFP-
tubulin-labeled cells (Fig. 4 A and B; video 5and 6) show that the contours of many
microtubules in control cells changed significantly during the period of observation. The
numerous green- and red-labeled parts of microtubules seen in the inner part of the
lamella (Fig 4A and video5) shows that microtubules undergo frequent lateral
displacements caused by continuous buckling and unbuckling. In cells expressing active
mDia1, microtubule buckling was almost entirely abolished. Microtubules in these cells
remained relatively straight and did not change lateral positions (Fig 4B, video 6).
Centrosomal localization of mDia1.
In spite of its effect on plus end dynamics, we did not detect specific mDia1 localization
on the microtubules or their tips. Surprisingly, we detected GFP- mDia1∆N3 co-
localizing at the centrosome with the centrosomal marker γ-tubulin (Fig 5A-C). The FH2
domain seems to be sufficient for centrosomal localization since truncated form of mDia1
comprising only the FH2 domain fused to GFP was also found at the centrosome (Fig
5D). Furthermore, immunofluorescence staining using a rabbit antibody against mDia1
(Tominaga et al., 2000) shows the centrosomal localization of endogenous mDia1 in B16
cells (Fig. 5 G-I). These data suggest that mDia1 may directly or indirectly associate with
the microtubule minus ends.
Active mDia1 stabilizes microtubules in centrosome-free cytoplasts
In view of the enrichment of active mDia1 at the centrosome we looked for a possible
role of mDia1 at the microtubule minus end and therefore studied microtubule dynamics
- 10 -
in the cytoplasts lacking centrosomes. Previous studies demonstrated that the total
microtubule length in centrosome-free cytoplasts is several times lower than in intact
cells (Karsenti et al., 1984; Rodionov et al., 1999). This difference was attributed to a
rapid depolymerization of microtubules from their non-protected minus ends (Rodionov
et al., 1999). Indeed, also in our experiments, non-centrosomal cytoplasts produced from
control, GFP expressing, CHO-K1cells (Fig. 6 A e-g, B) or from CHO-K1cells
expressing mDia1∆N3 bearing a triple point mutation in its FH2 domain (KA3) (Ishizaki
et al., 2001) contained only a little amount of mostly treadmilling microtubules, as
compared to centrosome-containing cytoplasts, or intact cells (Fig. 6 A i-k, B, and data
not shown). Microtubules in these (usually, non-polarized) cytoplasts were randomly
organized and not aligned along a specific axis. In contrast, cytoplasts from CHO-K1
cells expressing active mDia1 (mDia1∆N3) had essentially the same morphology as
intact mDia1∆N3-expressing cells. Irrespective of the presence of the centrosome, they
were bipolar (Fig. 6 Aa), with parallel thin actin bundles throughout the entire cytoplasts
(not shown). Similarly to mDia1∆N3-expressing intact cells, mDia1∆N3-expressing
cytoplasts demonstrated a high degree of microtubule alignment along the bipolar cell
axis (Fig. 6 A b-c, B).
Measurements of total microtubule length revealed that centrosome-free
cytoplasts from control cells have a significantly lower amount of microtubule polymer
than centrosome-containing cytoplasts (not shown). On the other hand, centrosome-free
cytoplasts expressing mDia1∆N3 had an approximately four-fold increase in the amount
of microtubule polymer, as compared to centrosome-free cytoplasts expressing GFP
alone or mDia1∆N3KA3 (Fig. 6 C).
- 11 -
To test whether this increase in microtubule total length can be explained by
changes in microtubule plus-end dynamics induced by mDia1∆N3, we compared
microtubule growth velocities in control and mDia1∆N3-expressing cytoplasts. The
cytoplasts were prepared from CHO-K1 cells transfected with either GFP-EB1 alone
(control), or GFP-EB1 together with mDia1∆N3. The values of microtubule plus-end
velocity in the cytoplasts prepared from control and mDia1∆N3 cells were the same as in
intact cells (Fig. 6 C). Thus, in the cytoplasts, similarly to intact cells, mDia1∆N3
decreases the rate of microtubule polymerization at the plus end irrespective of the
presence of the centrosome (Fig. 6 C). Therefore, the increase in microtubule mass
observed in centrosome-free cytoplasts expressing mDia1∆N3 cannot be explained by an
enhanced polymerization of microtubules at the plus ends; instead it should be attributed
to the stabilization of the minus ends.
ROCK is required for the mDia1 induced stabilization of microtubule minus ends, but
for the mDia1 effect on microtubule plus-ends
mDia1 and ROCK are both activated by Rho-GTP, and cooperate in the formation of
actin bundles and focal adhesions (Tominaga et al., 2000; Watanabe et al., 1999). We
tested whether ROCK cooperates with mDia1 in the control of microtubule dynamics. To
investigate this we blocked ROCK activity using the specific inhibitor, Y-27632 (Uehata
et al., 1997). Treatment of mDia1∆N3-expressing cells with this inhibitor abolished cell
polarization and formation of the parallel arrays of actin fibers (not shown). Despite the
treatment, microtubule plus end growth rate was still diminished in mDia1∆N3-
- 12 -
expressing cells (Fig. 7 A). This indicates that the effect of mDia1 on the dynamics of
microtubule plus ends does not require cooperation of mDia1 with ROCK.
We further tested whether the effect of active mDia1 on the stabilization of
microtubule minus ends requires ROCK activity. Interestingly, here the ROCK-inhibitor
Y-27632 abolished the mDia1∆N3-induced increase of the microtubule mass in the
centrosome-free cytoplasts (Fig. 7 B). At the same time, Y-27632 did not affect the total
microtubule length in either centrosome-containing cytoplasts, or in control or
mDia1∆N3-expressing intact cells (data not shown). Furthermore, the inhibition of
ROCK had no effect on the increase of actin polymerization levels observed in
mDia1∆N3-expressing cells (Fig.7 C). Thus, mDia1-induced stabilization of microtubule
minus ends in centrosome-free cytoplasts, unlike the effect of mDia1 on the microtubule
plus end dynamics, required the activity of ROCK.
Active mDia1 augments microtubule targeting to focal adhesions and their response to
microtubule disruption
One of the more recently described microtubule functions is the regulation of focal
adhesions. Microtubules are often targeted to focal adhesions and this targeting promotes
focal adhesion turnover (Small et al., 2002). Since the active form of mDia1 causes
pronounced changes in microtubule dynamics and stabilization, we tested whether these
changes influenced focal adhesions. To visualize focal adhesion targeting by
microtubules we again used B16 cells stably expressing GFP-tubulin (Ballestrem et al.,
2000), and transfected them by a construct encoding a focal adhesion marker, RFP-zyxin
(Bhatt et al., 2002), with or without mDia1∆N3. As depicted in Fig 8 A and B (video 7
- 13 -
and 8) microtubules target focal adhesions in both control cells and mDia1∆N3-
transfected cells. However, the mode of the microtubule-focal adhesion interaction was
different in control and mDia1∆N3-transfected cells. To characterize this difference, we
counted the frequencies of microtubule entry into and exit from a 2 µm size square boxes
enclosing randomly selected individual focal adhesions (Fig 8 A and B, video 7 and 8).
The total number of microtubules associated with these boxes was, on the average,
similar in control and mDia1∆N3-transfected cells (Table 2). However, in control cells
microtubule tips usually went in and out the box several times during the 1.5 min period
of observation, while in mDia1∆N3-transfected cells the microtubule tips as a rule
remained inside the box for the entire 1.5 minutes (Fig. 8 A B; video 7 and 8). Thus, the
average time individual microtubule tips spent in the proximity of the focal adhesion
increased upon mDia1 activation.
It is well known that microtubule disruption leads to focal adhesion growth
(Bershadsky et al., 1996; Enomoto, 1996; Liu et al., 1998; Pletjushkina et al., 1998;
Kirchner et al., 2003). This phenomenon provides a tool that allows comparing the degree
of microtubule-dependant negative regulation of focal adhesions in control and Dia1
expressing cells. To investigate this, we transfected CHO-K1 cells YFP-paxillin as a
focal adhesion marker, or YFP-paxillin together with mDia1∆N3 and measured the total
area of paxillin-labeled focal adhesions per cell before and after disruption of
microtubules with nocodazole. In control cells, expressing only YFP-paxillin (Fig. 9 A),
microtubule disruption induced statistically significant (p<0.05) increase of focal
adhesion size (Fig. 9 B and E). In addition, expression of active mDia1 led to an increase
of focal adhesions (Fig. 9C and E). Notably, disruption of microtubules in the cells
- 14 -
expressing mDia1∆N3 induced a dramatic increase of focal adhesion area (Fig. 9 D and
E), which apparently exceeded the sum of the effects produced by microtubule disruption
and mDia1∆N3 expression separately. This synergism can be interpreted as an evidence
that active mDia1 enhances the inhibitory effect of microtubules on the focal adhesion
growth. Thus, active mDia1-induced alterations in microtubule dynamics modulate
microtubule effect on focal adhesions.
- 15 -
Discussion
In this study we investigated the role of mDia1 in the precisely controlled dynamics of
microtubules and their influence over focal adhesions. Dynamics of the microtubule plus
ends at the cell periphery can be described as a process of stochastic transitions between
growth and shortening phases ( dynamic instability ). It was demonstrated recently that
in budding and fission yeast (Brunner and Nurse, 2000) and in mammalian cells
(Komarova et al., 2002), that microtubules nucleated at the centrosome grow with a
constant speed until they reach the cell periphery. It is only at this site that microtubule
plus ends demonstrate oscillatory behavior, with alternating periods of shrinking and
growth. These observation suggest that the localized cellular environment defines the
plus-end microtubule dynamics are not uniform over the cytoplasm. Instead, regulation
depends upon local cues.
Minus end regulation is not any less important. It was recently shown that
microtubules are often released and detached from the centrosome and that the dynamics
of the free minus ends of these non-centrosomal microtubules are also strictly controlled
(Abal et al., 2002; Chausovsky et al., 2000; Keating et al., 1997; Rodionov et al., 1999;
Vorobjev et al., 1999) (see for a review (Dammermann et al., 2003)). Therefore it is
possible that cellular factors that direct/influence overall microtubule dynamics could act
at one or both of these sites. Thus, to characterize the mode of action of any putative
regulatory factor, information about its effects on all these aspects of microtubule
dynamics should be provided.
Our results show that the Diaphanous-related formin mDia1 is a master regulator
regulator of microtubule dynamics at plus and minus ends. Using GFP-EB1 (Mimori-
- 16 -
Kiyosue et al., 2000) as a marker of the growing microtubule plus-ends, we showed that
expression of active mDia1 results in a two-fold decrease in the rate of microtubule
growth. This result clearly shows that mDia1 can affect microtubule assembly in the
phase of persistent growth, although it cannot be excluded that exogenous GFP-EB1 is
not an innocent marker, as it can by itself modulate microtubule dynamics (Ligon et al.,
2003; Nakamura et al., 2001; Tirnauer et al., 2002). Furthermore, analysis of microtubule
behavior at the periphery of GFP-tubulin expressing cells revealed that active mDia1
diminished both microtubule elongation and shortening rates. Unlike to the majority of
known microtubule regulators, it does not affect probability of catastrophe and rescue
events. In addition, the active form of mDia1 affects the mechanical characteristics of
entire microtubule by suppressing spontaneous microtubule buckling, which may explain
augmented microtubule orientation and alignment in the affected cells. Finally, when we
evaluated microtubule minus end dynamics in cytoplasts devoid of centrosomes, we
found that active mDia1 protects microtubules from rapid depolymerization, by
stabilization of the minus ends.
The net effect of expression of activated mDia1 is that the average microtubule
survival time increases, thereby increasing the likelyhood of post-translational
modifications that accompany stabilization. This is consistent with the results of (Palazzo
et al., 2001) who observed an increased fraction of detyrosinated (Glu) microtubules in
the cells with active mDia1. Our data significantly extend these results by showing that
active mDia1 affects the dynamics and mechanics of all microtubules rather than
stabilizes a relatively small subpopulation of them.
- 17 -
For the explanation of the effects of mDia1 on microtubule dynamics two major
types of mechanism can be proposed. First, since it is well documented that several DRFs
including mDia1 efficiently promote actin polymerization (Evangelista et al., 2003; Li
and Higgs, 2003), the effects of mDia1 on microtubules can be a consequence of its
effect on the actin cytoskeleton, and do not necessarily require direct interaction of
mDia1 with microtubule components. The second possibility is that mDia1, like mDia2
(Palazzo et al., 2001; Peng et al., 2003), associates with microtubules, and is influencing
microtubule associated protein(s) that control microtubule dynamics.
The actin-dependent mechanism in its simplest form can be based on the fact that
the microtubule growth velocity and dynamic instability parameters in vitro can be
affected by mechanical barriers (Dogterom and Yurke, 1997; Janson et al., 2003). Such
barriers resist the pushing forces developed by the growing microtubule ends and limit
the rate of tubulin subunit addition (Janson et al., 2003). Similarly, in the cell, actin
structures may mechanically modulate microtubule growth, and mDia1 effects on
microtubules might be then a consequence of alterations in actin cytoskeleton rigidity
and/or spatial organization. Obviously, the actin cytoskeleton is more than a system of
mechanical obstacles for microtubules. Several types of protein links between
microtubules and the actin cytoskeleton have been discovered (reviewed in (Goode et al.,
2000; Rodriguez et al., 2003)), including plakin family members (Karakesisoglou et al.,
2000; Lee and Kolodziej, 2002; Leung et al., 2002; Subramanian et al., 2003), coronin
and coronin-like protein Dpod-1 (Goode et al., 1999; Rothenberg et al., 2003), or the
yeast Bim1-Kar9-Myo2 complex (Hwang et al., 2003). These links may affect
microtubule dynamics more specifically than just inert barriers, so that changes in the
- 18 -
actin polymerization induced by mDia1 could be efficiently translated into observed
changes in the microtubule dynamics and organization. There is strong evidence that
formin effects on microtubules in budding yeast are caused by alterations of the actin
cytoskeleton (Bretscher, 2003). Detailed elaboration of this hypothesis in higher
eukaryotic cells, however, requires additional information on the localization and mode
of action of these actin-microtubule links.
It is tempting to explain mDia1-induced decrease in microtubule growth and
shrinking velocity and, perhaps, suppression of buckling by an actin-dependent
mechanism, but events such as the minus end stabilization, appear to require additional
assumptions. Several observations suggest a direct interaction of mDia1 with the
microtubule system. First, we found that mDia1, as well as its constitutively active
mutant mDia∆N3 and isolated FH2 domain, co-localizes with γ-tubulin at the
centrosome. This result is consistent with the recent study that showed centrosomal
localization of mDia2 (Peng et al., 2003). The centrosomal localization of mDia1
suggests that it might interact with some proteins involved in the microtubule minus-end
anchorage and stabilization. Interaction with such proteins could explain the observed
mDia1 effect on the microtubule stabilization also in the centrosome-lacking cytoplasts.
It is worth noting that another major target of Rho, ROCK, was recently shown to be
localized to the centrosome too (Chevrier et al., 2002). Furthermore, in the present study
we have demonstrated that the ROCK inhibitor, Y-27632, prevented the stabilizing effect
of mDia1 on the microtubules in the centrosome-free cytoplasts. At the same time, this
inhibitor did not reduce the stimulating mDia1 effect on the actin polymerization. This
result suggests that mDia1-induced enhancement of actin polymerization is by itself not
- 19 -
sufficient for the stabilization of non-centrosomal microtubules. Cooperation with ROCK
and, perhaps, interaction with certain centrosome/microtubule-associated targets seem to
be required for mDia1 effect on microtubules.
It appeared recently that a group of proteins that specifically localizes to
microtubule tips is very important for the regulation of microtubule dynamics and their
targeting to the cell cortex (reviewed in Carvalho et al., 2003). Among these proteins are
EB1 and its partner APC (Mimori-Kiyosue et al., 2000; Nakamura et al., 2001), CLIP-
170 and its partners of the CLASP family (Akhmanova et al., 2001; Perez et al., 1999),
dynein and its receptor dynactin (in particular its major component p150 Glued)
(Vaughan et al., 1999), and Lis1 protein that can interact with dynein and with CLIP-170
(Coquelle et al., 2002). Remarkably, many, if not all of these microtubule tip proteins are
also found at the centrosome, where they may affect microtubule minus-end dynamics
and anchorage (Askham et al., 2002; Quintyne et al., 1999; Rehberg and Graf, 2002). It is
possible that mDia1 interacts with one or even several of these regulatory proteins to
modulate their effect on plus- and minus-ends of microtubules. Systematic studies of
mDia1 interactions with the microtubule tip proteins are required to elucidate the
mechanism of its effect on microtubules.
Finally, it cannot be excluded that mDia1 modulate microtubule dynamics neither
directly via microtubule associated proteins, nor via actin reorganization, but by
activation of certain signaling pathway(s) upstream to microtubule regulation. In
particular, recent data suggest that mDia1 can trigger Rac activation (Tsuji et al., 2002).
Active Rac, in turn, can affect microtubule dynamics (Wittmann et al., 2003) via several
- 20 -
pathways, including Pak1-Op18/stathmin pathway (Daub et al., 2001), and IQGAP1-
CLIP-170 pathway (Fukata et al., 2002).
Irrespectively to specific mechanism of mDia1 action on the microtubule
dynamics, the resultant alterations apparently augment the microtubule effect on the focal
adhesions. It is well established that in many cell types microtubules function as triggers
of focal adhesion turnover necessary for cell migration (reviewed in (Small et al., 2002)).
In particular, direct dynamic observations revealed that even transient contacts with
microtubule tip often result in gradual disassembly of focal adhesion (Kaverina et al.,
1999). Consistently, disruption of microtubules with nocodazole or colchicine promotes
focal adhesion growth (Bershadsky et al., 1996; Enomoto, 1996; Kirchner et al., 2003;
Liu et al., 1998). Microtubules are, in general, targeted to focal adhesions (Kaverina et
al., 2002; Kaverina et al., 1998; Krylyshkina et al., 2003), and induce their disassembly,
most probably, by local inhibition of myosin II-driven contractility (Elbaum et al., 1999;
Geiger and Bershadsky, 2001; Small et al., 2002). In the present study we have shown
that mDia1-induced changes in microtubule dynamics promote microtubule interactions
with focal adhesions. In cells expressing the active form of mDia1 the amplitude of
microtubule tip oscillations is lower, than in controls, and microtubule tips spend
significantly more time in a close proximity to focal adhesions. Moreover, our
experiments with microtubule disruption by nocodazole showed that the inhibitory effect
of microtubules on focal adhesion was significantly enhanced in cells expressing active
mDia1. Thus, mDia1 plays a dual role in the focal adhesion regulation. First, it is
necessary for the focal adhesion growth induced by force (Riveline et al., 2001). Most
probably, this function of mDia1 is related to its ability to nucleate linear (non-branching)
- 21 -
assembly of actin filaments (Li and Higgs, 2003). Mechanism of force-induced focal
adhesion assembly (Bershadsky et al., 2003; Geiger and Bershadsky, 2002) contains,
however, a positive feedback loop that could lead to unlimited growth of these structures
(growth of focal adhesion induces the growth of associated stress fiber, which generates
more force, which promotes further growth of focal adhesion, and so on ). To avoid
unlimited growth, the second mode of mDia1 action seems to be critical. Namely,
mDia1-induced changes in microtubule dynamics promote microtubule targeting to focal
adhesions, which may locally inhibit myosin II-driven contractility and interrupt the
above mentioned loop. Taken together our data show that mDia1 function coordinates the
activities of two major cytoskeletal systems, actin and microtubules, in the process of
formation and turnover of focal adhesions.
- 22 -
Materials and methods
Cell culture and transfection
CHO-K1 were obtained from American Type Tissue Culture (ATCC, Rockville, MD,
USA) and cultured in Ham s F12 medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum
(FCS), 2mM glutamine, and antibiotics (complete medium). B16 F1 cells stably
transfected with tubulin-GFP (Ballestrem et al., 2000) were cultured in DMEM with 10%
FCS, 2mM glutamine, and antibiotics. Transient transfections were performed with
LipofectAMINE PLUS (Rhenium, Jerusalem, Israel), according to the manufacturer s
instructions.
DNA constructs and antibodies
Paxillin (cDNA kindly provided by K. Nakata, S. Miyamoto and K Matsumoto, National
Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, NIH, Bethesda, MD) was cloned into
ECFP-C1 and EYFP-C1 (Clontech, Palo Alto, CA, USA). The plasmids pFL-mDia∆N3,
pEGFP-mDia∆N3, pEGFP-mDia∆N3KA3 encoding FLAG-tagged and GFP-fused
constitutively active mutants of mDia1 were described in (Watanabe et al., 1999). EB1-
GFP was obtained from Dr. S. Tsukita s lab (Mimori-Kiyosue et al., 2000)
The rabbit antibody against mDia1 were characterized in (Tominaga et al., 2000).
Antibodies for α-tubulin (DM-1A) and γ-tubulin (monoclonal) were from Sigma (Sigma,
St. Lois, MO, USA), the polyclonal anti γ-tubulin was obtained from Dr. G. G. Borisy
(Northwestern University, Chicago, IL).
- 23 -
Secondary antibodies used for our studies coupled to Cy-3, Cy-5 were purchased from
Jackson Laboratories (West Grove, PA, USA), Alexa-350 was from Molecular Probes
(Molecular Probes Inc., Eugene, OR, USA).
Reagents
The ROCK inhibitor Y27632 was purchased from Calbiochem (Merk Eurolab,
Darmstadt, Germany), nocodazole, cytochalasin D, rhodamine-phalloidin, and fibronectin
were all purchased from Sigma (Sigma, St.Louis, MO, USA). Tissue culture media,
antibiotics (penicillin, streptomycin) and glutamine were obtained from Gibco (Rhenium
Ltd., Jerusalem, Israel), and the FCS was from Biological Industries (Kibbutz Beit
Haemek, Israel).
Preparation of cytoplasts
Cytoplasts were prepared as described (Rodionov et al., 1999). Briefly, cells were plated
on fibronectin coated glass coverslips and cultured in medium containing nocodazole
(1µg/ml, Sigma) and cytochalasin D (1.25µg/ml, Sigma) for 90min. Coverslips were then
centrifuged upside down at 10,000g for 25min. After centrifugation, coverslips were
placed in fresh medium or medium containing Y-27632 (10 µM, Calbiochem) for 1-2
hour to allow the recovery and reassembly of microtubules.
Fluorescence Microscopy
For immunofluorescence, cells were fixed with glutaraldehyde. After fixation cells were
rinsed with with PBS and permeabilized with 0.5% of Triton X-100 for 5 minutes. For
- 24 -
actin staining cells were subsequently incubated with 100nM Rodamine-Phalloidin, for
antibody stainings cells were incubated with primary antibodies diluted in PBS. Cells
were then times three washed in PBS and stained with secondary antibodies. After three
final washes fluorescent labeling was analyzed using an Axiovert 100 TV inverted
microscope (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany).
Video Microscopy
Images were recorded on an Axiovert 100 TV inverted microscope (Zeiss, Oberkochen,
Germany) equipped with a Box & Temperature control system from Life Imaging
Services (Switzerland, www.lis.ch/), a 100W mercury lamp, a 100X/1.4 plan-Neofluar
objective (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany), excitation and emission filter wheels, and a
CCD Camera (CH300/CE 350, Photometrics, Tucson, AZ) with KAF1400 CCD chip,
controlled by a DeltaVision system (Applied Precision Inc., Issaquah, WA, USA). Filters
for detection of GFP, YFP, and dsRed were from Chroma (Chroma Technology Corp,
Rockingham, VT, USA)
For EB1-GFP recordings, CHO-K1 cells transfected with EB1-GFP or EB1-GFP
together with mDia1∆Ν3 were plated on fibronectin coated glass-bottom dishes (MatTek
corporation, Ashland, MA, USA). After overnight incubation (24-36 hours post
transfection) cells were placed in HEPES (25mM) buffered complete Ham s F12 under
the microscope. Time-lapse recordings of transfected cells were performed in 3s
intervals. Only cells that were weakly expressing EB1-GFP were chosen for recordings.
For recording of microtubule dynamics B16F1 cells stably expressing tubulin-GFP were
super-transfected with mDia1∆Ν3 plus dsRed2 (in a 2:1 ratio, for identification of
- 25 -
transfected cells), or dsRed2 only (control cells). Cells were plated as described above
and time-lapse images were recorded in 10s intervals.
Image analysis
Images were analyzed using Openlab software (Openlab, Improvision, UK). For
microtubule velocity analysis two subsequent images taken in 3s intervals were
superimposed in alternating colors, red and green. Distances between the dots were
measured using the measurment tools of the Openlab program. Numbers were collected
and analysed in Microsoft Exel.
For the microtubule dynamics measurements, two successive images from time-
lapse recordings taken in 5s intervals were labeled in red and green and merged to
visualize the relative displacement of MT during time (see, e.g., Fig. 4). Growth and
shrinkage of microtubules were measured using measurement tools of the Openlab
software. Data were then transferred to Microsoft Excel files to calculate the indicated
dynamic instability parameters. The parameters were calculated as previously described
by (Wittmann et al., 2003). Only microtubule length changes exceeding the optical
resolution of 0.2 µm per frame were considered as growth or shortening events.
Transitions from growth to shortening and pauses to shortening (only if growth was
preceded the pause) were considered as catastrophic events, transition from shortening to
growth and shortening to pauses (only if shortening preceded the pause) were considered
as rescue events. Catastrophe (or rescue) frequencies were calculated as number of their
events divided by the time of growth (or shortening).
- 26 -
Microtubule alignment and total fiber length were calculated using the fiber score
algorithm (Lichtenstein et al., 2003). The algorithm was implemented in Priism
environment and enabled the evaluation of fiber length, density and co-alignment.
For calculations of FA area per cell, fluorescent images were subtracted from
background and a threshold was set to then apply the water algorithm as previously
described (Zamir et al., 1999). All the individual areas of focal adhesions in a cell were
summed to obtain total focal adhesion area per cell. Statistical significance of the
differences between the samples was determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum test
(Montgomery and Runger, 1999).
- 27 -
Acknowledgements
We thank Benny Geiger for stimulating discussions and critical reading of the
manuscript. This work was supported in part by grants from the Minerva Foundation,
Israesl Sciences Foundation, and USA-Israel Binational Science Foundation to Alexander
Beshadsky. We also acknowledge support from Yad Abraham Center for Cancer
Diagnostics and Therapy. A. Bershadsky holds the Joseph Moss Professional Chair in
Biomedical Research. Christoph Ballestrem was supported by Minerva.
- 28 -
References
Abal, M., M. Piel, V. Bouckson-Castaing, M. Mogensen, J.B. Sibarita, and M. Bornens.2002. Microtubule release from the centrosome in migrating cells. J Cell Biol.159:731-737.
Akhmanova, A., C.C. Hoogenraad, K. Drabek, T. Stepanova, B. Dortland, T. Verkerk,W. Vermeulen, B.M. Burgering, C.I. De Zeeuw, F. Grosveld, and N. Galjart. 2001.Clasps are CLIP-115 and -170 associating proteins involved in the regional regulationof microtubule dynamics in motile fibroblasts. Cell. 104:923-935.
Alberts, A.S. 2001. Identification of a carboxyl-terminal diaphanous-related forminhomology protein autoregulatory domain. J Biol Chem. 276:2824-2830.
Alberts, A.S. 2002. Diaphanous-related Formin homology proteins. Curr Biol. 12:R796.Askham, J.M., K.T. Vaughan, H.V. Goodson, and E.E. Morrison. 2002. Evidence that an
interaction between EB1 and p150(Glued) is required for the formation andmaintenance of a radial microtubule array anchored at the centrosome. Mol Biol Cell.13:3627-3645.
Ballestrem, C., B. Wehrle-Haller, B. Hinz, and B.A. Imhof. 2000. Actin-dependentlamellipodia formation and microtubule-dependent tail retraction control-directed cellmigration. Mol Biol Cell. 11:2999-3012.
Bershadsky, A., A. Chausovsky, E. Becker, A. Lyubimova, and B. Geiger. 1996.Involvement of microtubules in the control of adhesion-dependent signaltransduction. Curr Biol. 6:1279-1289.
Bershadsky, A.D., N.Q. Balaban, and B. Geiger. 2003. Adhesion-dependent cellmechanosensitivity. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 19:677-695.
Bhatt, A., I. Kaverina, C. Otey, and A. Huttenlocher. 2002. Regulation of focal complexcomposition and disassembly by the calcium-dependent protease calpain. J Cell Sci.115:3415-3425.
Bretscher A. 2003. Polarized growth and organelle segregation in yeast: the tracks,motors, and receptors. J Cell Biol. 160:811-816.
Brunner, D., and P. Nurse. 2000. CLIP170-like tip1p spatially organizes microtubulardynamics in fission yeast. Cell. 102:695-704.
Bulinski, J.C., and G.G. Gundersen. 1991. Stabilization of post-translational modificationof microtubules during cellular morphogenesis. Bioessays. 13:285-293.
Carvalho, P., J.S. Tirnauer, and D. Pellman. 2003. Surfing on microtubule ends. TrendsCell Biol. 13:229-237.
Cassimeris, L., N.K. Pryer, and E.D. Salmon. 1988. Real-time observations ofmicrotubule dynamic instability in living cells. J Cell Biol. 107:2223-2231.
Chang, F., D. Drubin, and P. Nurse. 1997. cdc12p, a protein required for cytokinesis infission yeast, is a component of the cell division ring and interacts with profilin. JCell Biol. 137:169-182.
Chausovsky, A., A.D. Bershadsky, and G.G. Borisy. 2000. Cadherin-mediated regulationof microtubule dynamics. Nat Cell Biol. 2:797-804.
Chevrier, V., M. Piel, N. Collomb, Y. Saoudi, R. Frank, M. Paintrand, S. Narumiya, M.Bornens, and D. Job. 2002. The Rho-associated protein kinase p160ROCK is requiredfor centrosome positioning. J Cell Biol. 157:807-817.
Coquelle, F.M., M. Caspi, F.P. Cordelieres, J.P. Dompierre, D.L. Dujardin, C. Koifman,P. Martin, C.C. Hoogenraad, A. Akhmanova, N. Galjart, J.R. De Mey, and O. Reiner.
- 29 -
2002. LIS1, CLIP-170's key to the dynein/dynactin pathway. Mol Cell Biol. 22:3089-3102.
Dammermann, A., A. Desai, and K. Oegema. 2003. The minus end in sight. Curr Biol.13:R614-624.
Daub, H., K. Gevaert, J. Vandekerckhove, A. Sobel, and A. Hall. 2001. Rac/Cdc42 andp65PAK regulate the microtubule-destabilizing protein stathmin throughphosphorylation at serine 16. J Biol Chem. 276:1677-1680.
Dogterom, M., and B. Yurke. 1997. Measurement of the force-velocity relation forgrowing microtubules. Science. 278:856-860.
Elbaum, M., A. Chausovsky, E.T. Levy, M. Shtutman, and A.D. Bershadsky. 1999.Microtubule involvement in regulating cell contractility and adhesion-dependentsignalling: a possible mechanism for polarization of cell motility. Biochem Soc Symp.65:147-172.
Enomoto, T. 1996. Microtubule disruption induces the formation of actin stress fibers andfocal adhesions in cultured cells: possible involvement of the rho signal cascade. CellStruct Funct. 21:317-326.
Evangelista, M., K. Blundell, M.S. Longtine, C.J. Chow, N. Adames, J.R. Pringle, M.Peter, and C. Boone. 1997. Bni1p, a yeast formin linking cdc42p and the actincytoskeleton during polarized morphogenesis. Science. 276:118-122.
Evangelista, M., S. Zigmond, and C. Boone. 2003. Formins: signaling effectors forassembly and polarization of actin filaments. J Cell Sci. 116:2603-2611.
Feierbach, B, and F. Chang. 2001. Roles of the fission yeast formin for3p in cell polarity,actin cable formation and symmetric cell division. Curr Biol. 11:1656-1665.
Fukata, M., T. Watanabe, J. Noritake, M. Nakagawa, M. Yamaga, S. Kuroda, Y.Matsuura, A. Iwamatsu, F. Perez, and K. Kaibuchi. 2002. Rac1 and Cdc42 capturemicrotubules through IQGAP1 and CLIP-170. Cell. 109:873-885.
Geiger, B., and A. Bershadsky. 2001. Assembly and mechanosensory function of focalcontacts. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 13:584-592.
Geiger, B., and A. Bershadsky. 2002. Exploring the neighborhood: adhesion-coupled cellmechanosensors. Cell. 110:139-142.
Goode, B.L., D.G. Drubin, and G. Barnes. 2000. Functional cooperation between themicrotubule and actin cytoskeletons. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 12:63-71.
Goode, B.L., J.J. Wong, A.C. Butty, M. Peter, A.L. McCormack, J.R. Yates, D.G.Drubin, and G. Barnes. 1999. Coronin promotes the rapid assembly and cross-linkingof actin filaments and may link the actin and microtubule cytoskeletons in yeast. JCell Biol. 144:83-98.
Gundersen, G.G. 2002. Evolutionary conservation of microtubule-capture mechanisms.Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 3:296-304.
Howard, J., and A.A. Hyman. 2003. Dynamics and mechanics of the microtubule plusend. Nature. 422:753-758.
Hwang, E., J. Kusch, Y. Barral, and T.C. Huffaker. 2003. Spindle orientation inSaccharomyces cerevisiae depends on the transport of microtubule ends alongpolarized actin cables. J Cell Biol. 161:483-488.
Imamura, H., K. Tanaka, T. Hihara, M. Umikawa, T. Kamei, K. Takahashi, T. Sasaki,and Y. Takai. 1997. Bni1p and Bnr1p: downstream targets of the Rho family small G-
- 30 -
proteins which interact with profilin and regulate actin cytoskeleton inSaccharomyces cerevisiae. Embo J. 16:2745-2755.
Ishizaki, T., Y. Morishima, M. Okamoto, T. Furuyashiki, T. Kato, and S. Narumiya.2001. Coordination of microtubules and the actin cytoskeleton by the Rho effectormDia1. Nat Cell Biol. 3:8-14.
Janson, M.E., M.E. de Dood, and M. Dogterom. 2003. Dynamic instability ofmicrotubules is regulated by force. J Cell Biol. 161:1029-1034.
Karakesisoglou, I., Y. Yang, and E. Fuchs. 2000. An epidermal plakin that integratesactin and microtubule networks at cellular junctions. J Cell Biol. 149:195-208.
Karsenti, E., S. Kobayashi, T. Mitchison, and M. Kirschner. 1984. Role of thecentrosome in organizing the interphase microtubule array: properties of cytoplastscontaining or lacking centrosomes. J Cell Biol. 98:1763-1776.
Kaverina, I., O. Krylyshkina, K. Beningo, K. Anderson, Y.L. Wang, and J.V. Small.2002. Tensile stress stimulates microtubule outgrowth in living cells. J Cell Sci.115:2283-2291.
Kaverina, I., O. Krylyshkina, and J.V. Small. 1999. Microtubule targeting of substratecontacts promotes their relaxation and dissociation. J Cell Biol. 146:1033-1044.
Kaverina, I., K. Rottner, and J.V. Small. 1998. Targeting, capture, and stabilization ofmicrotubules at early focal adhesions. J Cell Biol. 142:181-190.
Keating, T.J., J.G. Peloquin, V.I. Rodionov, D. Momcilovic, and G.G. Borisy. 1997.Microtubule release from the centrosome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 94:5078-5083.
Kimura, K., M. Ito, M. Amano, K. Chihara, Y. Fukata, M. Nakafuku, B. Yamamori, J.Feng, T. Nakano, K. Okawa, A. Iwamatsu, and K. Kaibuchi. 1996. Regulation ofmyosin phosphatase by Rho and Rho-associated kinase (Rho- kinase). Science.273:245-248.
Kirchner, J., Z. Kam, G. Tzur, A.D. Bershadsky, and B. Geiger. 2003. Live-cellmonitoring of tyrosine phosphorylation in focal adhesions following microtubuledisruption. J Cell Sci. 116:975-986.
Komarova, Y.A., I.A. Vorobjev, and G.G. Borisy. 2002. Life cycle of MTs: persistentgrowth in the cell interior, asymmetric transition frequencies and effects of the cellboundary. J Cell Sci. 115:3527-3539.
Kovar, D.R., J.R. Kuhn, A.L. Tichy, and T.D. Pollard. 2003. The fission yeastcytokinesis formin Cdc12p is a barbed end actin filament capping protein gated byprofilin. J Cell Biol. 161:875-887.
Kreis, T.E. 1987. Microtubules containing detyrosinated tubulin are less dynamic. EmboJ. 6:2597-2606.
Krylyshkina, O., K.I. Anderson, I. Kaverina, I. Upmann, D.J. Manstein, J.V. Small, andD.K. Toomre. 2003. Nanometer targeting of microtubules to focal adhesions. J CellBiol. 161:853-859.
Lee, S., and P.A. Kolodziej. 2002. Short Stop provides an essential link between F-actinand microtubules during axon extension. Development. 129:1195-1204.
Leung, C.L., K.J. Green, and R.K. Liem. 2002. Plakins: a family of versatile cytolinkerproteins. Trends Cell Biol. 12:37-45.
Li, F., and H.N. Higgs. 2003. The mouse Formin mDia1 is a potent actin nucleationfactor regulated by autoinhibition. Curr Biol. 13:1335-1340.
- 31 -
Lichtenstein, N., B. Geiger, and Z. Kam. 2003. Quantitative analysis of cytoskeletalorganization by digital fluorescent microscopy. Cytometry. 54A:8-18.
Ligon, L.A., S.S. Shelly, M. Tokito, and E.L. Holzbaur. 2003. The microtubule plus-endproteins EB1 and dynactin have differential effects on microtubule polymerization.Mol Biol Cell. 14:1405-1417.
Liu, B.P., M. Chrzanowska-Wodnicka, and K. Burridge. 1998. Microtubuledepolymerization induces stress fibers, focal adhesions, and DNA synthesis via theGTP-binding protein Rho. Cell Adhes Commun. 5:249-255.
Mialhe, A., L. Lafanechere, I. Treilleux, N. Peloux, C. Dumontet, A. Bremond, M.H.Panh, R. Payan, J. Wehland, R.L. Margolis, and D. Job. 2001. Tubulin detyrosinationis a frequent occurrence in breast cancers of poor prognosis. Cancer Res. 61:5024-5027.
Mimori-Kiyosue, Y., N. Shiina, and S. Tsukita. 2000. The dynamic behavior of the APC-binding protein EB1 on the distal ends of microtubules. Curr Biol. 10:865-868.
Montgomery, D. and G. Runger, 1999. Applied statistics and probability for engineers.Second Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Nakamura, M., X.Z. Zhou, and K.P. Lu. 2001. Critical role for the EB1 and APCinteraction in the regulation of microtubule polymerization. Curr Biol. 11:1062-1067.
Nakano, K., J. Imai, R. Arai, E.A. Toh, Y. Matsui, and I. Mabuchi. 2002. The smallGTPase Rho3 and the diaphanous/formin For3 function in polarized cell growth infission yeast. J Cell Sci. 115:4629-4639.
Palazzo, A.F., T.A. Cook, A.S. Alberts, and G.G. Gundersen. 2001. mDia mediates Rho-regulated formation and orientation of stable microtubules. Nat Cell Biol. 3:723-729.
Peng, J., B.J. Wallar, A. Flanders, P.J. Swiatek, and A.S. Alberts. 2003. Disruption of theDiaphanous-Related Formin Drf1 Gene Encoding mDia1 Reveals a Role for Drf3 asan Effector for Cdc42. Curr Biol. 13:534-545.
Perez, F., G.S. Diamantopoulos, R. Stalder, and T.E. Kreis. 1999. CLIP-170 highlightsgrowing microtubule ends in vivo. Cell. 96:517-527.
Pletjushkina, O.J., A.M. Belkin, O.J. Ivanova, T, Oliver, J.M. Vasiliev, and K. Jacobson1998. Maturation of cell-substratum focal adhesions induced by depolymerization ofmicrotubules is mediated by increased cortical tension. Cell Adhes. Commun. 5:121-35
Pring, M., M. Evangelista, C. Boone, C. Yang, and S.H. Zigmond. 2003. Mechanism offormin-induced nucleation of actin filaments. Biochemistry. 42:486-496.
Pruyne, D., M. Evangelista, C. Yang, E. Bi, S. Zigmond, A. Bretscher, and C. Boone.2002. Role of formins in actin assembly: nucleation and barbed-end association.Science. 297:612-615.
Quintyne, N.J., S.R. Gill, D.M. Eckley, C.L. Crego, D.A. Compton, and T.A. Schroer.1999. Dynactin is required for microtubule anchoring at centrosomes. J Cell Biol.147:321-334.
Rehberg, M., and R. Graf. 2002. Dictyostelium EB1 is a genuine centrosomal componentrequired for proper spindle formation. Mol Biol Cell. 13:2301-2310.
Ridley, A.J., and A. Hall. 1992. The small GTP-binding protein rho regulates theassembly of focal adhesions and actin stress fibers in response to growth factors. Cell.70:389-399.
- 32 -
Riveline, D., E. Zamir, N.Q. Balaban, U.S. Schwarz, T. Ishizaki, S. Narumiya, Z. Kam,B. Geiger, and A.D. Bershadsky. 2001. Focal contacts as mechanosensors: externallyapplied local mechanical force induces growth of focal contacts by an mDia1-dependent and ROCK-independent mechanism. J Cell Biol. 153:1175-1186.
Rodionov, V., E. Nadezhdina, and G. Borisy. 1999. Centrosomal control of microtubuledynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 96:115-120.
Rodriguez, O.C., A.W. Schaefer, C.A. Mandato, P. Forscher, W.M. Bement, and C.M.Waterman-Storer. 2003. Conserved microtubule-actin interactions in cell movementand morphogenesis. Nat Cell Biol. 5:599-609.
Rothenberg, M.E., S.L. Rogers, R.D. Vale, L.Y. Jan, and Y.N. Jan. 2003. Drosophilapod-1 crosslinks both actin and microtubules and controls the targeting of axons.Neuron. 39:779-791.
Sagot, I., A.A. Rodal, J. Moseley, B.L. Goode, and D. Pellman. 2002. An actin nucleationmechanism mediated by Bni1 and profilin. Nat Cell Biol. 4:626-631.
Sammak, P.J., and G.G. Borisy. 1988. Direct observation of microtubule dynamics inliving cells. Nature. 332:724-726.
Shelden, E., and P. Wadsworth. 1993. Observation and quantification of individualmicrotubule behavior in vivo: microtubule dynamics are cell-type specific. J CellBiol. 120:935-945.
Small, J.V., B. Geiger, I. Kaverina, and A. Bershadsky. 2002. Opinion: How domicrotubules guide migrating cells? Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 3:957-964.
Subramanian, A., A. Prokop, M. Yamamoto, K. Sugimura, T. Uemura, J. Betschinger,J.A. Knoblich, and T. Volk. 2003. Shortstop recruits EB1/APC1 and promotesmicrotubule assembly at the muscle-tendon junction. Curr Biol. 13:1086-1095.
Tirnauer, J.S., S. Grego, E.D. Salmon, and T.J. Mitchison. 2002. EB1-microtubuleinteractions in Xenopus egg extracts: role of EB1 in microtubule stabilization andmechanisms of targeting to microtubules. Mol Biol Cell. 13:3614-3626.
Tominaga, T., E. Sahai, P. Chardin, F. McCormick, S.A. Courtneidge, and A.S. Alberts.2000. Diaphanous-related formins bridge Rho GTPase and Src tyrosine kinasesignaling. Mol Cell. 5:13-25.
Totsukawa, G., Y. Yamakita, S. Yamashiro, D.J. Hartshorne, Y. Sasaki, and F.Matsumura. 2000. Distinct roles of ROCK (Rho-kinase) and MLCK in spatialregulation of MLC phosphorylation for assembly of stress fibers and focal adhesionsin 3T3 fibroblasts. J Cell Biol. 150:797-806.
Tsuji, T., T. Ishizaki, M. Okamoto, C. Higashida, K. Kimura, T. Furuyashiki, Y.Arakawa, R.B. Birge, T. Nakamoto, H. Hirai, and S. Narumiya. 2002. ROCK andmDia1 antagonize in Rho-dependent Rac activation in Swiss 3T3 fibroblasts. J CellBiol. 157:819-830.
Uehata, M., T. Ishizaki, H. Satoh, T. Ono, T. Kawahara, T. Morishita, H. Tamakawa, K.Yamagami, J. Inui, M. Maekawa, and S. Narumiya. 1997. Calcium sensitization ofsmooth muscle mediated by a Rho-associated protein kinase in hypertension. Nature.389:990-994.
Vaughan, K.T., S.H. Tynan, N.E. Faulkner, C.J. Echeverri, and R.B. Vallee. 1999.Colocalization of cytoplasmic dynein with dynactin and CLIP-170 at microtubuledistal ends. J Cell Sci. 112:1437-1447.
- 33 -
Vorobjev, I.A., V.I. Rodionov, I.V. Maly, and G.G. Borisy. 1999. Contribution of plusand minus end pathways to microtubule turnover. J Cell Sci. 112:2277-2289.
Wallar, B.J., and A.S. Alberts. 2003. The formins: active scaffolds that remodel thecytoskeleton. Trends Cell Biol. 13:435-446.
Watanabe, N., T. Kato, A. Fujita, T. Ishizaki, and S. Narumiya. 1999. Cooperationbetween mDia1 and ROCK in Rho-induced actin reorganization. Nat Cell Biol.1:136-143.
Watanabe, N., P. Madaule, T. Reid, T. Ishizaki, G. Watanabe, A. Kakizuka, Y. Saito, K.Nakao, B.M. Jockusch, and S. Narumiya. 1997. p140mDia, a mammalian homolog ofDrosophila diaphanous, is a target protein for Rho small GTPase and is a ligand forprofilin. Embo J. 16:3044-3056.
Webster, D.R., G.G. Gundersen, J.C. Bulinski, and G.G. Borisy. 1987. Differentialturnover of tyrosinated and detyrosinated microtubules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.84:9040-9044.
Webster, D.R., J. Wehland, K. Weber, and G.G. Borisy. 1990. Detyrosination of alphatubulin does not stabilize microtubules in vivo. J Cell Biol. 111:113-122.
Wittmann, T., G.M. Bokoch, and C.M. Waterman-Storer. 2003. Regulation of leadingedge microtubule and actin dynamics downstream of Rac1. J Cell Biol. 161:845-851.
Zamir, E., B.Z. Katz, S. Aota, K.M. Yamada, B. Geiger, and Z. Kam. 1999. Molecular
diversity of cell-matrix adhesions. J Cell Sci. 112:1655-1669.
Zigmond SH, Evangelista M, Boone C, Yang C, Dar AC, Sicheri F, Forkey J, Pring M.
2003. Formin leaky cap allows elongation in the presence of tight capping proteins.
Curr. Biol. 13:1820-1823.
- 34 -
Table 1: Microtubule dynamic instability parameters in control and mDia1∆N3
expressing B16F1 cells
Parameter control mDia1(∆N3)
Elongation rate (µm/min) 6.43 – 2.42 4.06 – 1.66
Shortening rate (µm/min) 11,13 – 9.32 5.61 – 3.48
Catastrophe frequency (s-1) 0.084 0.089
Rescue frequency (s-1) 0.104 0.105
Time spent Growing (%) 41 – 11 35 – 17
Pausing (%) 28 – 12 36 – 18
Shortening(%) 31 – 9 29 – 16
MT survival for 90 s (%) 65 95
Parameters characterizing microtubule dynamics were measured at the periphery of cellsstably expressing GFP-tubulin. MT survival denotes the fraction of the microtubules,which remained in the same field of view from the beginning to the end of the 90 secondobservation period. The data are presented as mean – standard deviation (SD).
- 35 -
Table 2. Microtubule interactions with focal adhesions
Cell type FA # MT number in outControl 1 5 11 8
2 2 4 4
3 3 5 3
4 3 6 5
5 3 6 5
6 2 4 3
7 2 4 4
8 4 8 6mDia1∆N3- 1 2 2 0transfected 2 2 2 0
3 3 3 1
4 3 3 0
5 2 2 0
6 3 3 0
7 2 2 0
8 2 3 0
9 1 1 0
Acts of encounter and separation between microtubule tips and individual focal adhesionsfor a period of 90 s are presented. Each row corresponds to an individual focal adhesionselected in control or mDia1∆N3-transfected B16F1 cells expressing GFP-tubulin andRFP-zyxin. MT number corresponds to the total number of different microtubules thatoverlapped with the 2µm size square box enclosing the given focal adhesion during theperiod of observation (see Fig 8). in means number of microtubule tips that were foundin this box in the beginning of observation plus number of microtubule entering eventsregistered during the 90 s observation period. out denotes the number of timesmicrotubule tips went out from the box during the period of observation.
- 36 -
Figure Legends
Fig 1. Active mDia induces actin polymerization. (A) CHO cells were transfected withcDNA encoding a constitutively active form of mDia1 (mDia1(∆N3)) fused to GFP and(B) stained with rhodamine-phalloidin to visualize polymerized actin (F-actin). Note thatthe cell expressing GFP-mDia1(∆N3) has a bipolar shape with aligned actin fibers alongthe long axis. (C) The contents of F-actin estimated by the intensity of rhodamine-phalloidin fluorescence is dramatically enhanced in mDia expressing cells compared tothe surrounding non-transfected control cells.Bar, 20 µm.
Fig 2. Microtubule total mass and alignment is enhanced in mDia1(∆N3) expressingcells. (A) Control CHO cell. (B, C) CHO cells expressing GFP-mDia1(∆N3). (A,B) Anti-tubulin staining, (C) GFP mDia1(∆N3). Bar, 8 µm. (D) Quantification of microtubulealignment demonstrates an about four-fold increase in alignment of microtubules inmDia1(∆N3) expressing cells as compared to control cells . (E) The total length ofmicrotubules in mDia1(∆N3) expressing cells is about 30% higher than in control cells.
Fig 3. Microtubule velocities decrease in mDia1(∆N3) cells (see also video 1-4). Tomeasure the microtubule growth rates CHO cells were transfected with EB-1-GFP(control) or EB1-GFP plus mDia1(∆N3). EB1-GFP localizes at growing microtubule tipsin control (A) and mDia1(∆N3) expressing cells (D). Superimposition of time-lapseimages of EB1-GFP in alternating colors allows detailed analysis of microtubulebehavior (B; C; E; F). (C) and (F) are magnified inserts of (B) and (E), respectively. Barin (B) 8µm, in (C) 3µm. Microtubules in control cells grow with a rate of about 23µm/min and it is decreased by about 50% in cells expressing active mDia (G). The graphsof microtubule end displacement versus time (G) show that in control cells individualmicrotubules grow with a fairly constant growth rate, whereas microtubules in mDia1expressing cells grow with alternating speeds. Growth rate distributions in mDia1(∆N3)expressing cells (H) is shifted to smaller values and more broad than in control cells.
Fig 4. Microtubule oscillations at the cell periphery (see also videos 5 and 6). B16F1cells stably expressing tubulin-GFP were transfected with control plasmids (A) or cDNAencoding active mDia1 (B); the transfected cell in (B) is indicated by the white arrowwhile the non-transfected cell is indicated by the black arrow. To visualize microtubuleelongation, shortening and lateral movements two images of time-lapse recordings takenin 5s intervals were labeled in green and red and then superimposed using Openlabsoftware. Structures that remained at the same place during the 5s interval are seen inyellow. Elongation of microtubules at the cell periphery is seen in red and shortenings ingreen (arrows in A). When microtubules shift laterally during the time of observation thecontour of the same microtubule can be seen in green and red (see control cells in (A) and(B)). Note that microtubule elongation, shortening and lateral movements are lesspronounced in cells expressing active mDia1 than in control cells (see transfected cell in(B)). Bar, 3 µm. Examples of microtubule tip displacement versus time for fourmicrotubules from control and active mDia1 expressing cells are shown in (C) and (D).
- 37 -
Note that the amplitude of microtubule oscillations is decreased in cells with activemDia1 (D) as compared to those in control cells (C).
Fig 5. mDia localization at the centrosome. CHO cells were transfected with cDNAencoding indicated forms of mDia1 fused to GFP (A; D). 24 hours after transfection cellswere fixed and centrosomes were stained with antibodies against γ-tubulin (B; E). Notethat mDia1(∆N3) and mDia1(FH2) co-localize with γ-tubulin at the centrosome (A-F).(G) Native mDia1 localizes at the centrosome in B16 melanoma cells as visualized usingantibodies against mDia1(G) and γ-tubulin (H). Overlay in (I). Bar, 10 µm. Inserts showcentrosomal region of cells in higher magnification.
Fig 6. Increased amount and enhanced alignment of microtubules in centrosome-freecytoplasts from cells expressing actvive mDia1. Cytoplasts from CHO cells transfectedwith indicated plasmids (A: a, e, i) were prepared and microtubules were stained usingantibodies against α-tubulin (A:b, f, j). Cytoplasts used were centrosome-free asmanifested by stainings for γ-tubulin (A: d, h, l). Images of microtubule staining wereprocessed (A: c, g, k) and quantification of microtubule alignment and total microtubulelength was done as described in materials and methods. Note that microtubules alignalong a bipolar axis in cytoplasts expressing GFP-mDia1(∆N3) (A:a-c) but not incytoplasts expressing EGFP (e-g) or a mutated form of the active mDia1, GFP-mDia1(∆N3KA3) (i-k). Quantification reveals an increased microtubule alignment (B)and total microtubule legth (C) in mDia1(∆N3) expressing cytoplast. In cytoplastscontaining the mDia1 mutant (∆N3KA3), microtubule alignment and total microtubulelength were similar to those in control cells. (D) Microtubule plus end growth decreasedby about 50% in cytoplasts containing active mDia1, irrespective of the presence of thecentrosome.
Fig 7. ROCK together with active mDia1 influence minus end stability of microtubulesbut does not affect plus end dynamics. (A) Active mDia1 induces a decrease ofmicrotubule growth rate as revealed by GFP-EB1 marker and this decrease is notabolished by inhibition of ROCK by Y27632. (B) In centrosome-free cytoplastsmDia1(∆N3) increases total mass of microtubules. Inhibition of ROCK in these cells leadto a decrease of microtubule length to levels found in control cells. (C) The presence ofactive mDia1 leads to a dramatic increase of actin polymerization, which is not affectedby inhibition of ROCK.
Fig 8. Active mDia1 alters the mode of microtubule interactions with focal adhesions.B16F1 cells stably expressing tubulin-GFP were transfected with (A) dsRed-Zyxin or (B)dsRed-Zyxin plus mDia1(∆N3). Sequence of microtubule images presented in highermagnification in the lower part of the figure outline the dynamics of the region of boxesin (A) and (B). Time lapse images of 10s intervals show that microtubules inmDia1(∆N3) expressing cells remain for longer times in proximity (box, 2 µm size) offocal adhesions than highly oscillating microtubules of control cells (see videos 7 and 8).
- 38 -
Fig 9. Effect of mDia on focal adhesions. CHO cells were transfected with paxillin-YFPonly (A and B) or paxillin-YFP together with mDia1(∆N3) (C and D). Images ofuntreated cells (A, C) or cells treated with 10 µM nocodazole for 45 min (B, D) weretaken 24 hours post transfection. Focal adhesions in control cells expressing onlypaxillin-YFP(A) increase moderately in size when microtubules were disrupted (B).Focal adhesions increased in size upon co-expression of mDia1(∆N3) (C) anddramatically further increase when microtubules in these cells were disrupted (D). Bar,10 µm. Quantification of total focal adhesion area per cell (E).
Video Supplement
Video1: Microtubule plus end growth in CHO K1 cells transfected with EB1-GFP.Images were taken in 3s intervals for the period of 120 seconds and played back at 5frames/s. For still image, see Fig3A
Video2: Microtubule plus end growth in CHO K1 cells transfected with EB1-GFP. Time-lapse images taken in 3s intervals were staked in alternating colors. Stacking of imagesoutlines the microtubule plus end displacement in a period of 120s. For still image, seeFig 3B and C
Video3: Microtubule plus end growth in CHO K1 cells transfected with EB1-GFP andmDia1(∆N3). Images were taken in 3s intervals for the period of 120 seconds and playedback at 5 frames/s. For still image, see Fig3D
Video4: Microtubule plus end growth in CHO K1 cells transfected with EB1-GFP andmDia1(∆N3). Time-lapse images taken in 3s intervals were staked in alternating colors.Stacking of images outlines the microtubule plus end displacement in a period of 120s.Compare with video2. For still image, see Fig 3B and C.
Video5: Microtubule dynamics in B16F1 cells. B16F1 cells expressing GFP-tubulin weresupertransfected with dsRed and microtubule dynamics were recorded in 5s intervals forthe period of 90 seconds. To outline the dynamic behavior of microtubules two images 5sapart were colored in red and green and merged. Thus, yellow indicates microtubuleoverlay, red polymerization events (or lateral movement), and green depolymerizationevents (or lateral movement). Images were played back at 5 frames/s. For still image, seeFig 4A. Compare with microtubule dynamics of mDia1(∆N3).
Video6: Microtubule dynamics in B16F1 cells expressing active mDia1. B16 F1 cellsexpressing GFP-tubulin were transfected with mDia1(∆N3) together with dsRed toidentify transfected cells. Microtubule dynamics were recorded in 5s intervals for theperiod of 90 seconds. First frame of movie indicates microtubules in green andmicrotubules in red to identify active mDia1 expressing and control cell in the field ofview. To outline the dynamic behavior of microtubules two images 5s apart were coloredin red and green and merged. Thus, yellow indicates microtubule overlay, redpolymerization events (or lateral movement), and green depolymerization events (or
- 39 -
lateral movement). Images were played back at 5 frames/s. For still image, see Fig 4B.Note the dramatic decrease in oscillations and lateral movements of microtubules in cellexpressing active mDia1 versus the control cell (compare also with Video5).
Video7: Microtubule targeting to focal adhesions in B16F1 cells. Cells stably expressingGFP-tubulin were transfected with cDNA encoding dsRed-Zyxin, a marker of focaladhesions. Time-lapse images were recorded in 5s intervals for the period of 90 seconds.Images were played back at 5 frames/s. Note that microtubules oscillate in highfrequency in the proximity of focal adhesions. This is outlined in the section depicted inthe upper left corner. The small box in this section is 2µm large. Microtubules enter andleave this zone with high frequency.
Video8: Microtubule targeting to focal adhesions in B16F1 cells expressing activemDia1. Cells stably expressing GFP-tubulin were transfected with cDNA encoding anactive form of mDia1 and dsRed-Zyxin, a marker of focal adhesions. Time-lapse imageswere recorded in 5s intervals for the period of 90 seconds. Images were played back at 5frames/s. Note that microtubules remain relatively stable in the proximity of focaladhesions. This is outlined in the section depicted in the upper left corner. The small boxin this section is 2µm large. Compare with high frequency microtubule oscillations in theproximity of focal adhesions in control cells (video7).
- 1 -
Video Supplement
Video1: Microtubule plus end growth in CHO K1 cells transfected with EB1-GFP. Images were taken in 3s intervals for the period of 120 seconds and played back at 5 frames/s. For still image, see Fig3A
Video2: Microtubule plus end growth in CHO K1 cells transfected with EB1-GFP. Time-lapse images taken in 3s intervals were staked in alternating colors. Stacking of images outlines the microtubule plus end displacement in a period of 120s. For still image, see Fig 3B and C
Video3: Microtubule plus end growth in CHO K1 cells transfected with EB1-GFP and mDia1(∆N3). Images were taken in 3s intervals for the period of 120 seconds and played back at 5 frames/s. For still image, see Fig3D
Video4: Microtubule plus end growth in CHO K1 cells transfected with EB1-GFP and mDia1(∆N3). Time-lapse images taken in 3s intervals were staked in alternating colors. Stacking of images outlines the microtubule plus end displacement in a period of 120s. Compare with video2. For still image, see Fig 3B and C.
Video5: Microtubule dynamics in B16F1 cells. B16F1 cells expressing GFP-tubulin were supertransfected with dsRed and microtubule dynamics were recorded in 5s intervals for the period of 90 seconds. To outline the dynamic behavior of microtubules two images 5s apart were colored in red and green and merged. Thus, yellow indicates microtubule overlay, red polymerization events (or lateral movement), and green depolymerization events (or lateral movement). Images were played back at 5 frames/s. For still image, see Fig 4A. Compare with microtubule dynamics of mDia1(∆N3).
Video6: Microtubule dynamics in B16F1 cells expressing active mDia1. B16 F1 cells expressing GFP-tubulin were supertransfected with mDia1(∆N3) together with dsRed to identify transfected cells. Microtubule dynamics were recorded in 5s intervals for the period of 90 seconds. First frame of movie indicates microtubules in green and microtubules in red to identify active mDia1 expressing and control cell in the field of view. To outline the dynamic behavior of microtubules two images 5s apart were colored in red and green and merged. Thus, yellow indicates microtubule overlay, red polymerization events (or lateral movement), and green depolymerization events (or lateral movement). Images were played back at 5 frames/s. For still image, see Fig 4B. Note the dramatic decrease in oscillations and lateral movements of microtubules in cell expressing active mDia1 versus the control cell (compare also with Video5).
Video7: Microtubule targeting to focal adhesions in B16F1 cells. Cells stably expressing GFP-tubulin were supertransfected with cDNA encoding dsRed-Zyxin, a marker of focal adhesions. Time-lapse images were recorded in 5s intervals for the period of 90 seconds. Images were played back at 5 frames/s. Note that microtubules oscillate in high frequency in the proximity of focal adhesions. This is outlined in the section depicted in
- 2 -
the upper left corner. The small box in this section is 2µm large. Microtubules enter and leave this zone with high frequency.
Video8: Microtubule targeting to focal adhesions in B16F1 cells expressing active mDia1. Cells stably expressing GFP-tubulin were supertransfected with cDNA encoding an active form of mDia1 and dsRed-Zyxin, a marker of focal adhesions. Time-lapse images were recorded in 5s intervals for the period of 90 seconds. Images were played back at 5 frames/s. Note that microtubules remain relatively stable in the proximity of focal adhesions. This is outlined in the section depicted in the upper left corner. The small box in this section is 2µm large. Compare with high frequency microtubule oscillations in the proximity of focal adhesions in control cells (video7).