4.4 Article

Src and cortactin promote lamellipodia protrusion and filopodia formation and stability in growth cones

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL
卷 26, 期 18, 页码 3229-3244

出版社

AMER SOC CELL BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E15-03-0142

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 NS49233]
  2. National Science Foundation [1146944-IOS]
  3. Purdue Research Foundation
  4. Bindley Bioscience Center at Purdue
  5. Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute
  6. National Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Clinical and Translational Sciences Award [UL1 TR001108]
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences
  8. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1146944] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Src tyrosine kinases have been implicated in axonal growth and guidance; however, the underlying cellular mechanisms are not well understood. Specifically, it is unclear which aspects of actin organization and dynamics are regulated by Src in neuronal growth cones. Here, we investigated the function of Src2 and one of its substrates, cortactin, in lamellipodia and filopodia of Aplysia growth cones. We found that up-regulation of Src2 activation state or cortactin increased lamellipodial length, protrusion time, and actin network density, whereas down-regulation had opposite effects. Furthermore, Src2 or cortactin up-regulation increased filopodial density, length, and protrusion time, whereas down-regulation promoted lateral movements of filopodia. Fluorescent speckle microscopy revealed that rates of actin assembly and retrograde flow were not affected in either case. In summary, our results support a model in which Src and cortactin regulate growth cone motility by increasing actin network density and protrusion persistence of lamellipodia by controlling the state of actin-driven protrusion versus retraction. In addition, both proteins promote the formation and stability of actin bundles in filopodia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据