![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Essential role of ADF/cofilin for assembly of contractile actin networks in the C. elegans somatic gonad Department of Pathology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322 Correspondence to: Shoichiro Ono, Department of Pathology, Emory University, 615 Michael Street, Whitehead Research Building, Room 105N, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA The publisher's final edited version of this article is available free at J Cell Sci.Abstract The somatic gonad of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans has the myoepithelial sheath that surrounds oocytes and provides contractile forces during ovulation. Contractile apparatuses of the myoepithelial sheath cells are non-striated and similar to those of smooth muscle. We report identification of a specific isoform of actin depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin as an essential factor for assembly of contractile actin networks in the gonadal myoepithelial sheath. Two ADF/cofilin isoforms, UNC-60A and UNC-60B, are expressed from the unc-60 gene by alternative splicing. RNA interference of UNC-60A caused disorganization of the actin networks in the myoepithelial sheath. UNC-60B, which is known to function in the body wall muscle, was not necessary or sufficient for actin organization in the myoepithelial sheath. However, mutant forms of UNC-60B with reduced actin filament severing activity rescued the UNC-60A-depletion phenotype. UNC-60A has much weaker filament severing activity than UNC-60B, suggesting that an ADF/cofilin with weak severing activity is optimal for assembly of actin networks in the myoepithelial sheath. In contrast, strong actin filament severing activity of UNC-60B was required for assembly of striated myofibrils in the body wall muscle. Our results suggest that an optimal level of actin filament severing activity of ADF/cofilin is required for assembly of actin networks in the somatic gonad. Keywords: Actin dynamics, severing, contraction, ovulation, myoepithelial cells Introduction Striated and non-striated muscles have different organization of actin and myosin filaments and play distinct physiological roles. Striated muscle can repeat rapid cycles of contraction and relaxation and has uniformly oriented sarcomeric myofibrils so that the cell can contract in one direction (Squire, 1997). Non-striated (or smooth) muscle generally contracts and relaxes slowly and has a lattice-like network of contractile actomyosin filaments so that contraction changes the cell shape in a more flexible manner (Gerthoffer, 2005; Somlyo and Somlyo, 1994). Thus, the difference in the organization of actomyosin filaments is important for their different functions. However, it is currently unknown as to how actin and myosin are assembled into such different structures. In vertebrates, different sets of structural proteins are expressed in striated and smooth muscles, and perhaps different biochemical properties of the structural proteins may contribute to differentiation of the contractile apparatuses. The nematode Caenorhabditis elegans is a relatively simple model to study the mechanism of cytoskeletal differentiation. The body wall muscle is obliquely striated muscle and has been extensively used as a model to study structure and function of striated muscle (Moerman and Fire, 1997; Waterston, 1988). C. elegans also has several different non-striated muscles such as the pharyngeal muscle and the myoepithelial cells of the somatic gonad, but cell biology of these muscles has not been studied as extensively as that of the body wall muscle. The myoepithelial sheath of the somatic gonad is particularly an interesting system, in which many of the structural components of the contractile apparatuses are expressed from genes that are also expressed in the striated body wall muscle (Ardizzi and Epstein, 1987; Ono and Ono, 2004; Ono et al., 2007; Rose et al., 1997). The myoepithelial sheath cells are smooth muscle-like cells that surround oocytes at the proximal gonad (Hall et al., 1999; Strome, 1986). Contraction of the myoepithelial sheath is coupled with oocyte maturation and is essential for ovulation (McCarter et al., 1997; McCarter et al., 1999). Thus, the gonadal myoepithelial sheath is substantially different from the body wall muscle, yet the same structural components are used to assemble striated and non-striated contractile apparatuses. Therefore, different regulatory mechanisms for cytoskeletal assembly are expected to operate in these muscles. To explore the mechanism of assembly of non-striated contractile apparatuses in the myoepithelial sheath cells, we hypothesized that actin depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin is a critical regulator of actin organization. ADF/cofilin enhances actin dynamics by severing and depolymerizing actin filaments and is involved in a wide range of actin cytoskeletal remodeling processes (Ono, 2007). In C. elegans, two ADF/cofilin isoforms, UNC-60A and UNC-60B, are expressed from the unc-60 gene by alternative splicing (Anyanful et al., 2004; McKim et al., 1994). In vitro, UNC-60A and UNC-60B exhibit different actin-regulatory activities (Ono and Benian, 1998; Yamashiro et al., 2005). UNC-60A only weakly severs actin filaments and strongly prevents polymerization, while UNC-60B strongly severs actin filaments and accelerates polymerization. UNC-60A is widely expressed in non-muscle cells including early embryos and required for embryonic cytokinesis (Ono et al., 2003). UNC-60B is expressed in the body wall muscle and required for organized assembly of myofibrils (Ono et al., 1999) and muscle arm development (Dixon and Roy, 2005). In this study, we identified UNC-60A as an essential ADF/cofilin isoform for actin organization in the somatic gonad. Although wild-type UNC-60B did not substitute for the function of UNC-60A, mutant forms of UNC-60B with defective actin severing activity rescued the UNC-60A-depletion phenotype. These results demonstrate non-redundant functions of the two ADF/cofilin isoforms and suggest that the difference in their actin filament severing activity determines the isoform-specific functions. Results UNC-60A is required for assembly of contractile apparatuses in the myoepithelial sheath cells The myoepithelial sheath cells express a number of contractile proteins that are also expressed in the striated body wall muscle (Ardizzi and Epstein, 1987; Ono et al., 2007). Therefore, we predicted that UNC-60B, one of the two splice variants of ADF/cofilin, might have an important function, since it is expressed in the body wall muscle and required for organization of striated myofibrils (Ono et al., 2003; Ono et al., 1999). unc-60B(su158) is an unc-60B(null) allele that has a deletion in the unc-60B coding region without affecting the function of unc-60A (Ono et al., 2003). However, in unc-60B(su158) homozygous animals, actin filaments were nearly normally organized into non-striated meshwork in the myoepithelial sheath cells (Fig. 1D
Instead, we found that UNC-60A was critical for assembly of the contractile apparatuses in the myoepithelial sheath cells. Previously, we showed that UNC-60A is widely expressed in non-muscle cells and essential for early embryogenesis (Ono et al., 2003), but function of UNC-60A in adult tissues have not been characterized. To bypass the effect of UNC-60A on embryogenesis, we started RNA interference treatment of unc-60A at the L1 larval stage and observed phenotypes in the adult. In unc-60A(RNAi) animals, actin filaments in the myoepithelial sheath cells were severely disorganized (Fig. 1J UNC-60A is expressed in the myoepithelial sheath cells Previously, we reported that UNC-60A is highly expressed in the germline and oocytes in the hermaphroditic gonad (Ono et al., 2003). However, we overlooked the presence of UNC-60A in the myoepithelial sheath cells due to strong expression of UNC-60A in the oocytes. By focusing on the myoepithelial sheath, we detected immunofluorescent signals of UNC-60A (Fig. 2A
Somatic expression of UNC-60A is required for assembly of actin network in the myoepithelial sheath UNC-60A is also highly expressed in the germline in the distal gonad (Ono et al., 2003), and unc-60A(RNAi) causes severe defects in the germline development and subsequent oocyte production (our unpublished results). Since the myoepithelial sheath and the germiline functionally interact during gonadal development (Killian and Hubbard, 2005), abnormal germline development could affect morphogenesis of the myoepithelial sheath non-cell autonomously. Therefore, to distinguish the effects of RNAi in the somatic gonads from those in the germ cells, we compared the RNAi phenotypes in wild-type and rrf-1 backgrounds. The rrf-1 mutants are defective with RNAi in the somatic cells but not in the germ cells (Sijen et al., 2001). Thus, if function of an RNAi target is important in the somatic gonad, the myoepithelial sheath will be disorganized in wild-type but normal in the rrf-1 background. In rrf-1, unc-60A(RNAi) did not cause disorganization of the actin filaments in the myoepithelial sheath but caused abnormal oocyte formation (Fig. 3
The unc-60A(RNAi) phenotype is rescued by mutant UNC-60B with impaired actin filament severing activity Our immunofluorescent localization indicates that UNC-60A is expressed in the myoepithelial sheath, but that UNC-60B is not. Therefore, requirement of UNC-60A may simply mean that UNC-60A is the only ADF/cofilin in the myoepithelial sheath, and the data do not demonstrate that the two ADF/cofilin isoforms are functionally different. We tested whether forced expression of UNC-60B can substitute for the function of UNC-60A in the myoepithelial sheath. GFP-tagged UNC-60B was expressed in the myoepithelial sheath from a transgene under the control of the let-502 promoter (Yin et al., 2004) and examined for its activity to rescue the unc-60A(RNAi) phenotype. Because there was phenotypic variability in the actin organization, the actin phenotypes were classified into four classes (Table 1). Class 1 is the most severe phenotype in which large aggregates of actin were formed without thin filaments (e. g. Fig. 4D
In gonads with control RNAi, GFP-UNC-60B(WT) diffusely localized in the cytoplasm (Fig. 4H The major biochemical difference between UNC-60A and UNC-60B is in their F-actin severing activity. Our previous work demonstrated that UNC-60A has much weaker F-actin severing activity than UNC-60B (Yamashiro et al., 2005). Therefore, we tested if the difference in the severing activity confers their in vivo functional difference. We have shown that small truncations of 1–3 amino acids at the C-terminal tail of UNC-60B impair F-actin severing activity without affecting G-actin binding activity (Ono et al., 2001). Here, we examined effects of UNC-60B(Δ150) (lacking three C-terminal amino acids) and UNC-60B(Δ152) (lacking one C-terminal amino acid), both of which have impaired severing activity in vitro (Ono et al., 2001). We previously used a bulk assay using pyrene-labeled actin to detect severing events (Ono et al., 2001). This assay quantitatively measures the relative number of exposed filament ends and is adequate to detect severing activity of wild-type UNC-60B. However, it was not sensitive enough to detect severing activity of UNC-60A and the C-terminal variants of UNC-60B (Ono, et al., 2001; Yamashiro et al., 2005). In this study, we re-evaluated actin filament severing activity of UNC-60B variants using a more sensitive microscopic assay (Ono et al., 2004; Yamashiro et al., 2005) and found that the UNC-60B variants have defects in severing activity to different extents. Severing activity of UNC-60A was very weak and almost non-detectable at 2 min of incubation in the range from 10 nM to 10 μM (Fig. 5A and B
Interestingly, we found that the severing-defective UNC-60B variant showed much stronger ability to rescue the unc-60A(RNAi) phenotype than wild-type UNC-60B (Fig. 4M-X Strong actin filament severing activity of UNC-60B is required for actin filament organization in the striated body wall muscle Activities of GFP-UNC-60B (wild-type, Δ150, and Δ152) were also tested in the striated body wall muscle. These GFP-UNC-60B variants were expressed in the body wall muscle of the unc-60B(null) mutant by the myo-3 promoter and examined for their abilities to rescue disorganized actin filaments. Unlike in the myoepithelial sheath, wild-type UNC-60B efficiently rescued the phenotype, but weak-severing and severing-defective UNC-60B mutants showed only partial and no activity to rescue the phenotype, respectively. unc-60B(null) worms have very disorganized actin filaments with large aggregates in the body wall muscle (Fig. 6D-F
In contrast, GFP-UNC-60B(Δ150) showed no rescue, and GFP-UNC-60B(Δ152) only partially rescued the unc-60B-null phenotype. Expression of GFP-UNC-60B(Δ150) did not alter the disorganized actin filaments (0 % rescue, n = 50) (Fig. 6J-L Discussion In this study, we identified UNC-60A as an ADF/cofilin isoform that is specifically required for organized assembly of contractile actin networks in the myoepithelial sheath of the C. elegans somatic gonad. UNC-60A, but not UNC-60B, was expressed in the myoepithelial sheath. Transgenic expression of wild-type UNC-60B did not effectively rescue the unc-60A(RNAi) phenotype, indicating that the two ADF/cofilin isoforms are not functionally equivalent. However, variants of UNC-60B with reduced actin filament severing activity rescued the unc-60A(RNAi) phenotype. Since the major biochemical difference between UNC-60A and UNC-60B was in their actin filament severing activity, these results suggest that an ADF/cofilin with weak severing activity is suitable for morphogenesis of contractile actin networks in the myoepithelial sheath. In contrast, strong severing activity was required for actin filament organization in the striated body wall muscle. Thus, these observations suggest that striated and non-striated muscles require different levels of actin filament severing activity of ADF/cofilin. Isoform-specific role of ADF/cofilin in the C. elegans somatic gonad and the body wall muscle This is the first report of an essential function of a regulator of actin filament dynamics in the C. elegans somatic gonad. Previously, RNAi of talin has been shown to cause similarly severe disorganization of actin filaments in the myoepithelial sheath (Cram et al., 2003). However, talin is rather a structural component of adhesion structures where actin filaments are anchored to the membrane (Moulder et al., 1996). Tropomyosin stabilizes actin filaments against ADF/cofilin-dependent actin dynamics (Ono and Ono, 2002). However, in the myoepithelial sheath, depletion of tropomyosin inhibits contractile activity of the sheath but does not disrupt actin organization (Ono and Ono, 2004). We observed UNC-87, a calponin-like protein, localizes to the thin filaments in the myoepithelial sheath (our unpublished data) and may contribute to stabilizing actin filaments as we demonstrated in the body wall muscle (Yamashiro et al., 2007). ADF/cofilin isoforms, UNC-60A and UNC-60B, are the only known cytoskeleton-related proteins with differential functions in the myoepithelial sheath and the body wall muscle. These two morphologically and functionally different muscles share many of the same structural components that are expressed from the same genes (Ardizzi and Epstein, 1987; Ono et al., 2007). To assemble non-striated and striated contractile apparatuses from the same components, different regulatory mechanisms must be employed. Although the difference in actin-regulatory activities of UNC-60A and UNC-60B appear to be a part of such differentiation mechanisms, further investigations are needed to identify additional genes that contribute to assembly of contractile apparatuses in these cells. Genome-wide promoter-reporter analysis (Dupuy et al., 2007) and cell-specific transcriptome analysis (Fox et al., 2007) may identify specific genes for the myoepithelial sheath or the body wall muscle. Further functional analysis of these genes should provide information on the differentiation of these muscle cells. We observed that weaker actin filament severing activity of ADF/cofilin is preferred for organized assembly of actin filaments in the myoepithelial sheath. In contrast, full severing activity of UNC-60B was required for actin filament organization in the body wall muscle. The difference in the optimal filament severing activity of ADF/cofilin could be related to different architecture of striated and non-striated contractile apparatuses. Non-striated contractile apparatuses in the myoepithelial sheath are loosely arranged throughout the cytoplasm (Hall et al., 1999). Therefore, regulators of actin dynamics could be easily diffused into the actin network and interact with actin efficiently, but too strong actin regulators may disrupt the filamentous organization. In contrast, striated myofibrils in the body wall muscle are densely packed within 1–1.5 μm from the plasma membrane (Francis and Waterston, 1985; Waterston et al., 1980). Thus, soluble proteins may not be readily accessible to the core of myofibrils, and regulators of actin dynamics would have to be very efficient in actin remodeling. Our previous biochemical observations (Yamashiro et al., 2005) that UNC-60B is kinetically more efficient in enhancing actin turnover than UNC-60A support this hypothesis. Alternatively, the two ADF/cofilin isoforms may have different interacting proteins in regulation of actin dynamics. UNC-60A and UNC-60B(Δ150) were very similar in their biochemical activities (Fig. 5 Implications for isoform-specific functions of ADF/cofilin in other systems Our observations also provide insights into isoform-specific functions of ADF/cofilin in other multicellular organisms. Mammals have three ADF/cofilin isoforms: ADF/destrin, cofilin-1/non-muscle-type cofilin, and cofilin-2/muscle-type cofilin, and they are expressed in distinct tissue-specific patterns with some overlap (Moriyama et al., 1990; Ono et al., 1994; Vartiainen et al., 2002). Redundant functions of ADF and cofilin-1 in regulation of actin turnover are demonstrated in cultured cells (Hotulainen et al., 2005). A mutation in human cofilin-2 causes nemaline myopathy in the skeletal muscle (Agrawal et al., 2007). However, cardiac muscle is not affected by the mutation most likely because cofilin-1 is expressed in the heart and compensate for the function of cofilin-2. Nonetheless, the ADF/cofilin isoforms display quantitatively different activities in actin filament severing and depolymerization in vitro (Chen et al., 2004; Nakashima et al., 2005; Yeoh et al., 2002). Recently, differential involvements of ADF and cofilin-1 in migration of human colon cancer cells (Estornes et al., 2007) and mouse brain development (Bellenchi et al., 2007) have been reported, which may be due to the difference in their actin-regulatory activities. Moreover, actin severing activity of ADF/cofilin is regulated by pH (Bernstein et al., 2000; Hawkins et al., 1993; Hayden et al., 1993; Yonezawa et al., 1985), and local modulation of ADF/cofilin by pH changes may be important for assembly of different types of actin filament networks, such as contractile rings, stress fibers and lamella meshwork. Thus, actin severing activity of ADF/cofilin might be optimized by isoforms or cellular conditions for regulation of specific types of actin cytoskeletal organization. Materials and Methods Nematode strains Wild-type C. elegans strain N2 and an RNAi-defective strain NL2098 rrf-3(pk1417) (Sijen et al., 2001) were obtained from the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (Mineapolis, MN). unc-60B(su158) (Zengel and Epstein, 1980) was provided by Henry Epstein (University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX) and outcrossed in our laboratory (Ono et al., 2003). Nematodes were grown under standard conditions at 20 ºC (Brenner, 1974). RNA interference experiments Nematodes were treated with RNAi by feeding E. coli expressing double-stranded RNA (Timmons et al., 2001; Timmons and Fire, 1998). A vector for unc-60A(RNAi) was previously described (Ono et al., 2003). To bypass embryonic effects, gravid hermaphrodites were allowed to lay eggs on agar plates with E. coli expressing dsRNA, hatched worms cultured by feeding dsRNA-expressing E. coli, and phenotypes characterized when they became adults. Control experiments were performed with E. coli HT115(DE3) that was transformed with L4440 [a vector for feeding RNAi (Timmons et al., 2001)] with no insert. RNAi experiments were performed at least three times and quantification of one representative set of experiments is shown in the result. Construction of expression vectors Transgenic expression in the body wall muscle was driven by the myo-3 promoter (Okkema et al., 1993). The full-length UNC-60B cDNA was PCR-amplified and cloned at the Eco RI - Nhe I sites of pPD118.20, an expression vector with the myo-3 promoter and the GFP coding sequence (provided by Andrew Fire, Stanford University, Stanford, CA). UNC-60B(Δ150) and UNC-60B(Δ152) were produced by introducing premature stop codons in the reverse primers for PCR and cloned into pPD118.20. The entire coding regions were sequenced to confirm the presence of introduced mutations and the absence of PCR-induced errors. Transgenic expression in the myoepithelial sheath was driven by the let-502 promoter (Wissmann et al., 1999; Yin et al., 2004). A 2.9-kb fragment of the 5′-upstream sequence of the let-502 gene was amplified by PCR and fused with the GFP-UNC-60B sequence plus the let-858 3′-UTR that had been amplified from the body wall muscle-expression vector by fusion PCR (Hobert, 2002). Transgenic nematodes Transgenic nematodes were generated as described previously (Mohri et al., 2006). The plasmid vectors for Pmyo-3::GFP-UNC-60B (20 μg/ml) were mixed with 80 μg/ml pET-32a (Novagen) as carrier DNA. The fusion-PCR products for Plet-502::GFP-UNC-60B were diluted to 1:10 in a buffer containing 80 μg/ml pRF6 as carrier DNA. The DNA mixtures were injected into the distal arm of the hermaphroditic gonad of wild-type N2 as described (Mello and Fire, 1995). Transformants were selected by expression of GFP as observed by epifluorescence, and the transgenes maintained as extrachromosomal arrays. Transgenic animals carrying Pmyo-3::GFP-UNC-60B were further crossed with unc-60B(su158), and unc-60B(su158) homozygotes carrying Pmyo-3::GFP-UNC-60B were established. Fluorescence microscopy The gonads were dissected by cutting adult hermaphrodites at the level of pharynx on poly-lysine-coated slides as described previously (Rose et al., 1997). For staining with tetramethylrhodamine-phalloidin (Sigma-Aldrich), the samples were fixed with 4 % paraformaldehyde in cytoskeleton buffer (138 mM KCl, 3 mM MgCl2, 2 mM EGTA, and 10 mM MES-KOH, pH 6.1) containing 0.32 M sucrose for 10 min at room temperature followed by treatment with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing 0.5 % Triton X-100 and 30 mM glycine for 10 min. They were incubated with 0.2 μg/ml tetramethylrhodamine-phalloidin and 0.2 μg/ml 4′6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) in PBS containing 0.5 % Triton X-100 and 30 mM glycine for 10 min for 1 hour and washed with PBS containing 0.5 % Triton X-100 and 30 mM glycine. For immunolocalization of UNC-60A, dissected gonads were freeze-cracked and fixed with methanol at −20 ºC for 5 min, washed with PBS, and incubated with rabbit anti-UNC-60A antibody (Ono et al., 1999) and mouse anti-MyoA monoclonal antibody 5–6 (Miller et al., 1983) or mouse anti-actin monoclonal antibody C4 (MP Biomedicals). They were visualized by Cy3-conjugated donkey anti-rabbit IgG (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories) and Alexa488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (Invitrogen). Staining of whole worms with tetramethylrhodamine-phalloidin was performed as described previously (Ono, 2001). Samples were mounted with ProLong Gold (Invitrogen) and viewed by epifluorescence using a Nikon Eclipse TE2000 inverted microscope with a 40x or 60x CFI Plan Fluor objective. Images were captured by a SPOT RT Monochrome CCD camera (Diagnostic Instruments) and processed by the IPLab imaging software (Scanalytics, Inc.) and Adobe Photoshop 6.0. Worm motility assay Worm motility was quantified as described (Epstein and Thomson, 1974). Briefly, adult worms were placed in M9 buffer. Then, one beat was counted when a worm swung its head to either right or left. The total number of beats in 30 seconds was recorded. Microscopic assay for actin filament severing Bacterially expressed UNC-60A, UNC-60B, UNC-60B(Δ150), and UNC-60B(Δ152) were purified as described previously (Ono and Benian, 1998; Ono et al., 2001). Observation of actin filament severing by fluorescence microscopy was performed as described previously (Ono et al., 2004; Yamashiro et al., 2005) with slight modifications. Previously, we used anti-biotin monoclonal antibody (Invitrogen) to immobilize biotin-labeled actin on the glass surface. However, this antibody has been discontinued by the company, and we found several other commercially available anti-biotin antibodies were not very efficient in tethering actin filaments. Therefore, unlabeled actin (1.4 μM) and Alexa488-labeled actin (0.4 μM) were co-polymerized and attached to a glass coverslip using heavy meromyosin (Cytoskeleton Inc.). Other procedures were the same as our previous reports. Acknowledgments Monoclonal antibody 5–6 was developed by Dr. Henry Epstein (University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX) and was obtained from the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank developed under the auspices of the NICHD and maintained by The University of Iowa, Department of Biological Sciences, Iowa City, IA 52242. Some C. elegans strains were provided by the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center, which is supported by the National Institute of Health National Center for Research Resources. This work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Health (R01 AR48615) and American Heart Association to S. O. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1997 Apr; 7(2):247-57.
[Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1997]Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2005 Oct; 83(10):851-6.
[Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2005]Nature. 1994 Nov 17; 372(6503):231-6.
[Nature. 1994]J Cell Biol. 1987 Dec; 105(6 Pt 1):2763-70.
[J Cell Biol. 1987]Mol Biol Cell. 2004 Jun; 15(6):2782-93.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2004]Dev Dyn. 2007 Apr; 236(4):1093-105.
[Dev Dyn. 2007]Dev Biol. 1997 Dec 1; 192(1):59-77.
[Dev Biol. 1997]Dev Biol. 1999 Aug 1; 212(1):101-23.
[Dev Biol. 1999]Int Rev Cytol. 2007; 258():1-82.
[Int Rev Cytol. 2007]J Cell Biol. 2004 Nov 22; 167(4):639-47.
[J Cell Biol. 2004]Mol Gen Genet. 1994 Feb; 242(3):346-57.
[Mol Gen Genet. 1994]J Biol Chem. 1998 Feb 6; 273(6):3778-83.
[J Biol Chem. 1998]Biochemistry. 2005 Nov 1; 44(43):14238-47.
[Biochemistry. 2005]J Cell Biol. 1987 Dec; 105(6 Pt 1):2763-70.
[J Cell Biol. 1987]Dev Dyn. 2007 Apr; 236(4):1093-105.
[Dev Dyn. 2007]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 15; 116(Pt 10):2073-85.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]J Cell Biol. 1999 May 3; 145(3):491-502.
[J Cell Biol. 1999]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 15; 116(Pt 10):2073-85.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 15; 116(Pt 10):2073-85.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 15; 116(Pt 10):2073-85.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Dev Biol. 2005 Mar 15; 279(2):322-35.
[Dev Biol. 2005]Cell. 2001 Nov 16; 107(4):465-76.
[Cell. 2001]Mol Biol Cell. 2004 Aug; 15(8):3938-49.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2004]Biochemistry. 2005 Nov 1; 44(43):14238-47.
[Biochemistry. 2005]J Biol Chem. 2001 Feb 23; 276(8):5952-8.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]J Biol Chem. 2001 Feb 23; 276(8):5952-8.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]Biochemistry. 2005 Nov 1; 44(43):14238-47.
[Biochemistry. 2005]J Biol Chem. 2004 Apr 2; 279(14):14207-12.
[J Biol Chem. 2004]EMBO J. 1991 Dec; 10(12):3959-70.
[EMBO J. 1991]J Cell Sci. 2003 Oct 1; 116(Pt 19):3871-8.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Mol Biol Cell. 1996 Aug; 7(8):1181-93.
[Mol Biol Cell. 1996]J Cell Biol. 2002 Mar 18; 156(6):1065-76.
[J Cell Biol. 2002]Mol Biol Cell. 2004 Jun; 15(6):2782-93.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2004]J Cell Sci. 2007 Sep 1; 120(Pt 17):3022-33.
[J Cell Sci. 2007]J Cell Biol. 1987 Dec; 105(6 Pt 1):2763-70.
[J Cell Biol. 1987]Dev Dyn. 2007 Apr; 236(4):1093-105.
[Dev Dyn. 2007]Nat Biotechnol. 2007 Jun; 25(6):663-8.
[Nat Biotechnol. 2007]Genome Biol. 2007; 8(9):R188.
[Genome Biol. 2007]Dev Biol. 1999 Aug 1; 212(1):101-23.
[Dev Biol. 1999]J Cell Biol. 1985 Oct; 101(4):1532-49.
[J Cell Biol. 1985]Dev Biol. 1980 Jun 15; 77(2):271-302.
[Dev Biol. 1980]Biochemistry. 2005 Nov 1; 44(43):14238-47.
[Biochemistry. 2005]Biochemistry. 2003 Nov 25; 42(46):13363-70.
[Biochemistry. 2003]J Cell Biol. 2001 Mar 19; 152(6):1313-9.
[J Cell Biol. 2001]J Cell Sci. 2003 Oct 15; 116(Pt 20):4107-18.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Nature. 2003 Jan 16; 421(6920):231-7.
[Nature. 2003]Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 2006 Jan; 63(1):14-28.
[Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 2006]J Biol Chem. 1990 Apr 5; 265(10):5768-73.
[J Biol Chem. 1990]J Biol Chem. 1994 May 27; 269(21):15280-6.
[J Biol Chem. 1994]Mol Biol Cell. 2002 Jan; 13(1):183-94.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2002]Mol Biol Cell. 2005 Feb; 16(2):649-64.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2005]Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Jan; 80(1):162-7.
[Am J Hum Genet. 2007]Cell. 2001 Nov 16; 107(4):465-76.
[Cell. 2001]Cell Motil. 1980; 1(1):73-97.
[Cell Motil. 1980]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 15; 116(Pt 10):2073-85.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Genetics. 1974 May; 77(1):71-94.
[Genetics. 1974]Gene. 2001 Jan 24; 263(1-2):103-12.
[Gene. 2001]Nature. 1998 Oct 29; 395(6705):854.
[Nature. 1998]J Cell Sci. 2003 May 15; 116(Pt 10):2073-85.
[J Cell Sci. 2003]Genetics. 1993 Oct; 135(2):385-404.
[Genetics. 1993]Dev Biol. 1999 May 1; 209(1):111-27.
[Dev Biol. 1999]Mol Biol Cell. 2004 Aug; 15(8):3938-49.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2004]Biotechniques. 2002 Apr; 32(4):728-30.
[Biotechniques. 2002]Mol Biol Cell. 2006 May; 17(5):2190-9.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2006]Methods Cell Biol. 1995; 48():451-82.
[Methods Cell Biol. 1995]Dev Biol. 1997 Dec 1; 192(1):59-77.
[Dev Biol. 1997]J Cell Biol. 1999 May 3; 145(3):491-502.
[J Cell Biol. 1999]Cell. 1983 Sep; 34(2):477-90.
[Cell. 1983]J Cell Biol. 2001 Mar 19; 152(6):1313-9.
[J Cell Biol. 2001]Nature. 1974 Aug 16; 250(467):579-80.
[Nature. 1974]J Biol Chem. 1998 Feb 6; 273(6):3778-83.
[J Biol Chem. 1998]J Biol Chem. 2001 Feb 23; 276(8):5952-8.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]J Biol Chem. 2004 Apr 2; 279(14):14207-12.
[J Biol Chem. 2004]Biochemistry. 2005 Nov 1; 44(43):14238-47.
[Biochemistry. 2005]