4.8 Article

Avidity-driven polarity establishment via multivalent lipid-GTPase module interactions

期刊

EMBO JOURNAL
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.15252/embj.201899652

关键词

cell polarity; lipids; nanoclustering; Rho GTPase; super-resolution imaging

资金

  1. University of Bordeaux through the Synthetic Biology in Bordeaux (SB2) Program
  2. Doctoral School Fellowship
  3. CNRS through the Interdisciplinary Research Initiative
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) through Program Blanc grant [ANR-13-BSV2-0015-01, ANR-14-CE09-0020-01]
  5. Regional Council of Aquitaine
  6. European Research Council (ERC-2015-StG GA) [639020]
  7. IdEx Bordeaux (Chaire d'Installation) [ANR-10-IDEX-03-02]
  8. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant [708972]
  9. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [708972] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While Rho GTPases are indispensible regulators of cellular polarity, the mechanisms underlying their anisotropic activation at membranes have been elusive. Using the budding yeast Cdc42 GTPase module, which includes a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) Cdc24 and the scaffold Bem1, we find that avidity generated via multivalent anionic lipid interactions is a critical mechanistic constituent of polarity establishment. We identify basic cluster (BC) motifs in Bem1 that drive the interaction of the scaffold-GEF complex with anionic lipids at the cell pole. This interaction appears to influence lipid acyl chain ordering, thus regulating membrane rigidity and feedback between Cdc42 and the membrane environment. Sequential mutation of the Bem1 BC motifs, PX domain, and the PH domain of Cdc24 lead to a progressive loss of cellular polarity stemming from defective Cdc42 nanoclustering on the plasma membrane and perturbed signaling. Our work demonstrates the importance of avidity via multivalent anionic lipid interactions in the spatial control of GTPase activation.

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

4.8
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