The Two ADF-H Domains of Twinfilin Play Functionally Distinct Roles in Interactions with Actin Monomers

Twinfilin is a ubiquitous and abundant actin monomer–binding protein that is composed of two ADF-H domains. To elucidate the role of twinfilin in actin dynamics, we examined the interactions of mouse twinfilin and its isolated ADF-H domains with G-actin. Wild-type twinfilin binds ADP-G-actin with higher affinity (K(D) = 0.05 μM) than ATP-G-actin (K(D) = 0.47 μM) under physiological ionic conditions and forms a relatively stable (k(off) = 1.8 s(−1)) complex with ADP-G-actin. Data from native PAGE and size exclusion chromatography coupled with light scattering suggest that twinfilin competes with ADF/cofilin for the high-affinity binding site on actin monomers, although at higher concentrations, twinfilin, cofilin, and actin may also form a ternary complex. By systematic deletion analysis, we show that the actin-binding activity is located entirely in the two ADF-H domains of twinfilin. Individually, these domains compete for the same binding site on actin, but the C-terminal ADF-H domain, which has >10-fold higher affinity for ADP-G-actin, is almost entirely responsible for the ability of twinfilin to increase the amount of monomeric actin in cosedimentation assays. Isolated ADF-H domains associate with ADP-G-actin with rapid second-order kinetics, whereas the association of wild-type twinfilin with G-actin exhibits kinetics consistent with a two-step binding process. These data suggest that the association with an actin monomer induces a first-order conformational change within the twinfilin molecule. On the basis of these results, we propose a kinetic model for the role of twinfilin in actin dynamics and its possible function in cells

Mutant Actins Demonstrate a Role for Unpolymerized Actin in Control of Transcription by Serum Response Factor

Signal-induced activation of the transcription factor serum response factor (SRF) requires alterations in actin dynamics. SRF activity can be inhibited by ectopic expression of β-actin, either because actin itself participates in SRF regulation or as a consequence of cytoskeletal perturbations. To distinguish between these possibilities, we studied actin mutants. Three mutant actins, G13R, R62D, and a C-terminal VP16 fusion protein, were shown not to polymerize in vivo, as judged by two-hybrid, immunofluorescence, and cell fractionation studies. These actins effectively inhibited SRF activation, as did wild-type actin, which increased the G-actin level without altering the F:G-actin ratio. Physical interaction between SRF and actin was not detectable by mammalian or yeast two-hybrid assays, suggesting that SRF regulation involves an unidentified cofactor. SRF activity was not blocked upon inhibition of CRM1-mediated nuclear export by leptomycin B. Two actin mutants were identified, V159N and S14C, whose expression favored F-actin formation and which strongly activated SRF in the absence of external signals. These mutants seemed unable to inhibit SRF activity, because their expression did not reduce the absolute level of G-actin as assessed by DNase I binding. Taken together, these results provide strong evidence that G-actin, or a subpopulation of it, plays a direct role in signal transduction to SRF