Abstract

Spatial regulation of exocytosis relies on the exocyst, a hetero-octameric protein complex that tethers vesicles to fusion sites at the plasma membrane. Nevertheless, our understanding of mechanisms regulating exocyst assembly/disassembly, localization, and function are incomplete. Here, we have exploited a panel of anti-Sec6 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to probe possible configurational changes accompanying transitions in exocyst function in epithelial MDCK cells. Sec6 is quantitatively associated with Sec8 in high molecular weight complexes, as shown by gel filtration and co-immunoprecipitation studies. We mapped epitopes recognized by more than 20 distinct mAbs to one of six Sec6 segments. Surprisingly, mAbs that bound epitopes in each segment labeled distinct subcellular structures. In general, antibodies to epitopes in N-terminal domains labeled Sec6 in either cytosolic or nuclear pools, whereas those that bound epitopes in C-terminal domains labeled membrane-associated Sec6. In this latter group, we identified antibodies that labeled distinct Sec6 populations at the apical junctional complex, desmosomes, endoplasmic reticulum and vimentin-type intermediate filaments. That each antibody was specific was verified by both Sec6 RNAi and competition with fusion proteins containing each domain. Comparison of non-polarized and polarized cells revealed that many Sec6 epitopes either redistribute or become concealed during epithelial polarization. Transitions in exocyst configurations may be regulated in part by the actions of Ral GTPases, because the exposure of Sec6 C-terminal domain epitopes at the plasma membrane is significantly reduced upon RalA RNAi. To determine whether spatio-temporal changes in epitope accessibility was correlated with differential stability of interactions between Sec6 and other exocyst subunits, we quantified relative amounts of each subunit that co-immunoprecipitated with Sec6 when antibodies to N-terminal or C-terminal epitopes were used. Antibodies to Sec6NT co-precipitated substantially more Sec5, -10, -15, Exo70 and -84 than did those to Sec6CT. In contrast, antibodies to Sec6CT co-precipitated more Sec3 and Sec8 than did those to Sec6NT. These results are consistent with a model in which exocyst activation during periods of rapid membrane expansion is accompanied by molecular rearrangements within the holocomplex or association with accessory proteins, which expose the Sec6 C-terminal domain when the complex is membrane-bound and conceal it when the complex is cytoplasmic.

Highlights

  • In the course of characterizing the mammalian exocyst complex, more than 30 monoclonal antibodies were generated against a His-tagged rSec6 fusion protein that immunoblotted a single 86 kDa protein in rat brain homogenate (Hsu et al, 1996; Kee et al, 1997) and cell lines (Grindstaff et al, 1998; Yeaman et al, 2001)

  • Epitopes were distributed along the length of Sec6, and the most of antibodies (23) bound a single segment (Figure 1)

  • Discrepancies in reported localizations may reflect differences in fixation and permeabilization procedures, specific antibodies used in the study, extent of cellular polarization, growth conditions of cells, existence of exocyst subcomplexes associated with different organelles and the possibility that exocyst complexes may exist in different conformational states

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Exocysts are multifunctional protein scaffolds that mediate vesicle tethering during exocytosis (Luo et al, 2014), and function in many other membrane trafficking pathways during endocytic recycling and transcytosis (Jafar-Nejad et al, 2005; Oztan et al, 2007), cytokinesis (Fielding et al, 2005; Gromley et al, 2005; Cascone et al, 2008), ciliogenesis (Zuo et al, 2009; Das and Guo, 2011), and ciliary shedding (Overgaard et al, 2009), cell motility (Rosse et al, 2006; Zuo et al, 2006; Spiczka and Yeaman, 2008), autophagy (Bodemann et al, 2011; Simicek et al, 2013), membrane nanotube formation (Hase et al, 2009), invadopodia formation (Sakurai-Yageta et al, 2008; Liu et al, 2009), phagocytosis (Mohammadi and Isberg, 2013), and bacterial invasion into host cells (Nichols and Casanova, 2010). Most “accessory proteins” do not bind the exocyst consitutively, but do so in a manner that is regulated by either phosphorylation (Chen et al, 2011; Stalder and Novick, 2016) or, more commonly, small GTPases (Chien et al, 2006; Rittmeyer et al, 2008; Sakurai-Yageta et al, 2008; Spiczka and Yeaman, 2008; Lalli, 2009; Bodemann et al, 2011; Pathak et al, 2012; Das et al, 2014)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.