Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages (February 2008)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Harinath Doodhi, Eugene A. Katrukha, Lukas C. Kapitein, Anna Akhmanova 
Advertisements

Volume 21, Issue 16, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 24, Issue 19, Pages (October 2014)
Harinath Doodhi, Eugene A. Katrukha, Lukas C. Kapitein, Anna Akhmanova 
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages (June 2003)
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 145, Issue 6, Pages (June 2011)
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages (September 2012)
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages (July 2006)
Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages (February 2015)
History-Dependent Catastrophes Regulate Axonal Microtubule Behavior
Volume 26, Issue 12, Pages (June 2016)
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages (October 2013)
Yu-Hsin Chiu, Jennifer Y. Lee, Lewis C. Cantley  Molecular Cell 
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
Rab6 Regulates Transport and Targeting of Exocytotic Carriers
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages (January 2008)
Volume 20, Issue 24, Pages (December 2010)
Volume 25, Issue 21, Pages (November 2015)
Volume 24, Issue 19, Pages (October 2014)
Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 22, Issue 19, Pages (October 2012)
An EB1-Binding Motif Acts as a Microtubule Tip Localization Signal
Linda Balabanian, Christopher L. Berger, Adam G. Hendricks 
Communication with the Exon-Junction Complex and Activation of Nonsense-Mediated Decay by Human Upf Proteins Occur in the Cytoplasm  Guramrit Singh, Steffen.
Kif15 Cooperates with Eg5 to Promote Bipolar Spindle Assembly
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages (June 2006)
Elif Nur Firat-Karalar, Navin Rauniyar, John R. Yates, Tim Stearns 
Volume 24, Issue 15, Pages (August 2014)
Zhang-Yi Liang, Mark Andrew Hallen, Sharyn Anne Endow  Current Biology 
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages (August 2015)
The Origin of Phragmoplast Asymmetry
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages (January 2003)
Volume 22, Issue 16, Pages (August 2012)
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages (February 2014)
The Constant Region of the Membrane Immunoglobulin Mediates B Cell-Receptor Clustering and Signaling in Response to Membrane Antigens  Pavel Tolar, Joseph.
EB3 Regulates Microtubule Dynamics at the Cell Cortex and Is Required for Myoblast Elongation and Fusion  Anne Straube, Andreas Merdes  Current Biology 
Volume 15, Issue 13, Pages (July 2005)
Volume 16, Issue 22, Pages (November 2006)
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (June 2011)
Maïlys A.S. Vergnolle, Stephen S. Taylor  Current Biology 
The Timing of Midzone Stabilization during Cytokinesis Depends on Myosin II Activity and an Interaction between INCENP and Actin  Jennifer Landino, Ryoma.
Volume 89, Issue 3, Pages (February 2016)
Volume 18, Issue 21, Pages (November 2008)
The Role of NEDD1 Phosphorylation by Aurora A in Chromosomal Microtubule Nucleation and Spindle Function  Roser Pinyol, Jacopo Scrofani, Isabelle Vernos 
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages (January 2008)
Coiled-Coil Domains of SUN Proteins as Intrinsic Dynamic Regulators
c-Src Activates Endonuclease-Mediated mRNA Decay
Volume 61, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
The Microtubule Plus End-Tracking Proteins mal3p and tip1p Cooperate for Cell-End Targeting of Interphase Microtubules  Karl Emanuel Busch, Damian Brunner 
Control of Centriole Length by CPAP and CP110
STIM2 Is an Inhibitor of STIM1-Mediated Store-Operated Ca2+ Entry
Volume 19, Issue 14, Pages (July 2009)
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages (May 2013)
Kari Barlan, Wen Lu, Vladimir I. Gelfand  Current Biology 
Volume 19, Issue 8, Pages (April 2009)
Three-Step Model for Polarized Sorting of KIF17 into Dendrites
Volume 128, Issue 3, Pages (February 2007)
Plk1 inhibition affects the NuMA turnover at the spindle pole.
Wenxiang Meng, Yoshimi Mushika, Tetsuo Ichii, Masatoshi Takeichi  Cell 
HURP Is Part of a Ran-Dependent Complex Involved in Spindle Formation
The Kinesin-8 Kif18A Dampens Microtubule Plus-End Dynamics
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 134, Issue 1, Pages (July 2008)
Volume 26, Issue 13, Pages (July 2016)
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 41, Issue 4, Pages (February 2011)
The Constant Region of the Membrane Immunoglobulin Mediates B Cell-Receptor Clustering and Signaling in Response to Membrane Antigens  Pavel Tolar, Joseph.
XMAP215 Is a Processive Microtubule Polymerase
Presentation transcript:

Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 177-182 (February 2008) STIM1 Is a MT-Plus-End-Tracking Protein Involved in Remodeling of the ER  Ilya Grigoriev, Susana Montenegro Gouveia, Babet van der Vaart, Jeroen Demmers, Jeremy T. Smyth, Srinivas Honnappa, Daniël Splinter, Michel O. Steinmetz, James W. Putney, Casper C. Hoogenraad, Anna Akhmanova  Current Biology  Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 177-182 (February 2008) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.12.050 Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 STIM1 Interacts with EB1 (A, B, and F) GST pull-down assays with the indicated GST fusions; extracts of HEK293 cells overexpressing GFP-STIM1, GFP-STIM1-C3 mutant, or GFP alone were used in (A) and (F), and the purified full-length EB1 protein was used in (B). Coomassie-stained gels are shown for GST fusions; other proteins were detected by Western blotting with antibodies against GFP (A and F) or EB1 (B). (C and D) HeLa cells were transfected with GFP-STIM1 or GFP-STIM1-C3 mutant, fixed, and stained for the endogenous EB1. The insets show enlargements of the boxed areas. In the overlay GFP-STIM1 is shown in green and EB1 in red. The bars represent 10 μm. (E) Immunoprecipitation from extracts of HeLa cells with the rabbit polyclonal antibody against EB1 or a control rabbit serum. The lane marked “extr.” shows 5% of the input. Dynactin subunit p150Glued, a known EB1 partner, was used as a positive control, and GM130, a protein associated with the cytoplasmic side of the Golgi, was used as a negative control. (G) Mapping of the minimal MT-plus-end binding domain of STIM1 by colocalization with EB1 in fixed HeLa cells. A scheme of STIM1 protein structure and the deletion mutants is shown. Abbreviations: S, signal peptide; EF, EF hand; SAM, sterile α motif domain; TM, transmembrane domain; ERM, ezrin-radixin-moesin domain; CC, coiled coil; S/P, serine-proline-rich domain; KK, lysine-rich domain. Current Biology 2008 18, 177-182DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2007.12.050) Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 GFP-STIM1 Colocalizes with ER and MT Plus Ends in Live Cells (A) Simultaneous imaging of GFP-STIM1 (green in overlay) and DsRed2-ER (red in overlay) in a transiently transfected MRC5-SV cell. (B and C) Simultaneous imaging of GFP-STIM1 (green in overlay) and EB3-mRFP (red in overlay) in a transiently transfected MRC5-SV cell; a single frame is shown in (B). Successive frames from Movie S4 are shown in (C) (time is indicated above the panels). GFP-STIM1 comets are indicated by green arrows, and EB3-mRFP comets are highlighted by red arrows. (D) Simultaneous imaging of GFP-STIM1 (green in overlay) and mCherry-α-tubulin (red in overlay) in a transiently transfected MRC5-SV cell. Successive frames are shown; time is indicated above the panels. Tips of extending/retracting ER tubules and MTs are indicated by green and red arrows, respectively. The bars represent 3 μm. Current Biology 2008 18, 177-182DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2007.12.050) Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Analysis of GFP-STIM1 Dynamics in Control Cells and after Ca2+ Store Depletion (A) FRAP analysis of GFP-STIM1 behavior. Each panel, with the exception of the panel marked “FRAP” (which shows a single frame), represents superimposition of five successive frames with a 1 s interval. Note that recovery of diffuse ER signal in the bleached area precedes the appearance of GFP-STIM1 comets (indicated by red arrows). (B) The average GFP-STIM1 intensity ratio of two regions inside and outside of the photobleached area in HeLa cells (calculated as described in [14]). Top: control cells, n = 20; cells after addition of 2 μM thapsigargin (TG), n = 13 cells. Middle: control cells, n = 7; 2 μm thapsigargin n = 12 cells. Bottom: GFP-STIM, n = 20 cells; EB3-mRFP, n = 7 cells. Error bars represent SD. (C) Representative frames of simultaneous two-color video of an MRC5-SV cell expressing GFP-STIM1 and EB3-RFP before and 120 s after the addition of 2 μM thapsigargin in normal culture medium. Kymographs illustrating the changes of fluorescent intensity over time in the indicated boxed areas are shown on the right. In the kymographs motile comets appear as slopes and immobile structures as vertical lines. The bars represent 5 μm. Current Biology 2008 18, 177-182DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2007.12.050) Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 EB1 and STIM1 Are Required for TAC-Mediated ER Extension (A) Western blot analysis of extracts of HeLa cells 3 days after transfection with the indicated siRNAs. (B) HeLa cells were transfected with the siRNA EB1 #1; two days later the cells were transfected with GFP-STIM1, cultured for 1 more day, fixed, and stained for EB1. The bar represents 5 μm. (C) HeLa cells transfected with GFP-STIM1 were treated with taxol, fixed, and stained for EB1. (D and E) HeLa cells were transfected with the indicated siRNAs. One day later cells were transfected with plasmid DNA, cultured for 2 more days, and used for dual color imaging. The following combinations of fluorescent markers were used: mCherry-α-tubulin (stably expressed in HeLa cells) together with transiently expressed YFP-ER; transiently expressed EB3-mRFP and YFP-ER; transiently expressed EB3-mRFP and GFP-STIM1; and mCherry-α-tubulin (stably expressed in HeLa cells) together with transiently expressed GFP-STIM1. Error bars represent SD. (D) Number of TACs, determined as the events of colocalization of ER tubule protrusion (detected with YFP-ER or GFP-STIM1) with EB3 comets or with growing MT plus ends. (E) Number of sliding events, determined as the events of ER protrusion (detected with YFP-ER or GFP-STIM1), which did not colocalize with EB3 comets or with growing MT plus ends. In (D) and (E), the number of analyzed cells were as follows. ER-MT: control, n = 20; EB1 #1, n = 20; EB1 #2, n = 15. ER-EB3: control, n = 20; STIM1 #1, n = 20; STIM1 #2, n = 20. STIM1-EB3: n = 20. STIM1-MT: control, n = 10; EB1 #1, n = 15; EB1 #2, n = 15. Values obtained in EB1 or STIM1 siRNA-treated cells that were significantly different from the corresponding values in cells treated with the control siRNAs are indicated by asterisks (∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗p < 0.01, and ∗p < 0.05, p > 0.05, n.s.; Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). Current Biology 2008 18, 177-182DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2007.12.050) Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions