4.7 Article

Knockout of ACTB and ACTG1 with CRISPR/Cas9(D10A) Technique Shows that Non-Muscle beta and gamma Actin Are Not Equal in Relation to Human Melanoma Cells' Motility and Focal Adhesion Formation

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21082746

关键词

beta actin; gamma actin; actin isoforms; melanoma; CRISPR/Cas9(D10A) technique; focal adhesion; adhesion; migration; LPA; PMA

资金

  1. NATIONAL SCIENCE CENTRE, POLAND [2015/17/B/NZ3/03604]
  2. Foundation for Polish Science [050.2017]
  3. Ministry of Science and Higher Education [444/STYP/13/2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-muscle actins have been studied for many decades; however, the reason for the existence of both isoforms is still unclear. Here we show, for the first time, a successful inactivation of the ACTB (CRISPR clones with inactivated ACTB, CR-ACTB) and ACTG1 (CRISPR clones with inactivated ACTG1, CR-ACTG1) genes in human melanoma cells (A375) via the RNA-guided D10A mutated Cas9 nuclease gene editing [CRISPR/Cas9(D10A)] technique. This approach allowed us to evaluate how melanoma cell motility was impacted by the lack of either beta actin coded by ACTB or gamma actin coded by ACTG1. First, we observed different distributions of beta and gamma actin in the cells, and the absence of one actin isoform was compensated for via increased expression of the other isoform. Moreover, we noted that gamma actin knockout had more severe consequences on cell migration and invasion than beta actin knockout. Next, we observed that the formation rate of bundled stress fibers in CR-ACTG1 cells was increased, but lamellipodial activity in these cells was impaired, compared to controls. Finally, we discovered that the formation rate of focal adhesions (FAs) and, subsequently, FA-dependent signaling were altered in both the CR-ACTB and CR-ACTG1 clones; however, a more detrimental effect was observed for gamma actin-deficient cells. Our research shows that both non-muscle actins play distinctive roles in melanoma cells' FA formation and motility.

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

4.7
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