Membrane fusion plays a central role in many cell processes from vesicular transport to nuclear envelope reconstitution at mitosis but the mechanisms that underlie fusion of natural membranes are not well understood. Studies with synthetic membranes and theoretical considerations indicate that accumulation of lipids characterised by negative curvature such as diacylglycerol (DAG) facilitate fusion. However, the specific role of lipids in membrane fusion of natural membranes is not well established. Nuclear envelope (NE) assembly was used as a model for membrane fusion. A natural membrane population highly enriched in the enzyme and substrate needed to produce DAG has been isolated and is required for fusions leading to nuclear envelope formation, although it contributes only a small amount of the membrane eventually incorporated into the NE. It was postulated to initiate and regulate membrane fusion. Here we use a multidisciplinary approach including subcellular membrane purification, fluorescence spectroscopy and Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET)/two-photon fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM) to demonstrate that initiation of vesicle fusion arises from two unique sites where these vesicles bind to chromatin. Fusion is subsequently propagated to the endoplasmic reticulum-derived membranes that make up the bulk of the NE to ultimately enclose the chromatin. We show how initiation of multiple vesicle fusions can be controlled by localised production of DAG and propagated bidirectionally. Phospholipase C (PLCgamma), GTP hydrolysis and (phosphatidylinsositol-(4,5)-bisphosphate (PtdIns(4,5)P(2)) are required for the latter process. We discuss the general implications of membrane fusion regulation and spatial control utilising such a mechanism.
Membrane fusion plays a central role in many cell processes from vesicular transport to nuclear envelope reconstitution at mitosis but the mechanisms that underlie fusion of natural membranes are not well understood. Studies with synthetic membranes and theoretical considerations indicate that accumulation of lipids characterised by negative curvature such as diacylglycerol (DAG) facilitate fusion. However, the specific role of lipids in membrane fusion of natural membranes is not well established. Nuclear envelope (NE) assembly was used as a model for membrane fusion. A natural membrane population highly enriched in the enzyme and substrate needed to produce DAG has been isolated and is required for fusions leading to nuclear envelope formation, although it contributes only a small amount of the membrane eventually incorporated into the NE. It was postulated to initiate and regulate membrane fusion. Here we use a multidisciplinary approach including subcellular membrane purification, fluorescence spectroscopy and Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET)/two-photon fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM) to demonstrate that initiation of vesicle fusion arises from two unique sites where these vesicles bind to chromatin. Fusion is subsequently propagated to the endoplasmic reticulum-derived membranes that make up the bulk of the NE to ultimately enclose the chromatin. We show how initiation of multiple vesicle fusions can be controlled by localised production of DAG and propagated bidirectionally. Phospholipase C (PLCgamma), GTP hydrolysis and (phosphatidylinsositol-(4,5)-bisphosphate (PtdIns(4,5)P(2)) are required for the latter process. We discuss the general implications of membrane fusion regulation and spatial control utilising such a mechanism.
Membrane fusion is required for many cell processes from vesicular transport to
nuclear envelope reconstitution at mitosis. Historically, the role of lipids and
lipid modifications in fusion has been based on model membranes in which an
intermediate or hemifusion state, promoted by the localised reorganisation of lipids
of negative curvature, leads to a transient fusion pore and eventually to complete
fusion [1]. Recent work has integrated roles for both protein
signalling and lipid modification in natural membrane fusion [1], [2],
[3],
[4],
[5].We have isolated a natural membrane vesicle fraction (MV1) from cytoplasm of
fertilised oocytes. This membrane population consists of >50%
phosphoinositides, is >100-fold enriched in a phosphatidylinositol-specific
phospholipase C (PI-PLCγ) and is essential for membrane fusion leading to
nuclear envelope formation [3], [6]. Using cell-free oocyte extracts to assemble
nuclear envelopes from fusion of discrete membrane vesicle populations [7], we
have shown that the early signalling events involve activation of a tyrosine kinase
[8]
which in turn activates PLCγ in MV1 [3]. Subsequent formation of
diacylglycerol (DAG) alters the lamellar structure of these precursor membranes,
facilitating their fusion with the endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-derived membranes that
contribute most of the nuclear envelope [3], [5], [9].Here we show, using FRET by two-photon FLIM and three dimensional reconstructions of
immobilised nuclei, that the two pole regions to which MV1 membrane vesicles bind
are the sites of initiation of fusion with adjacent (ER) membranes, and that further
fusion propagates away from the poles to complete enclosure of the chromatin. Using
inhibitors, we show that this process is dependent on PtdIns(4,5)P2, PLC
and GTPase activity. We discuss how spatial control of membrane fusion may be
regulated by regional binding of a potentially fusogenic membrane vesicle population
and the novel consequences of such a mechanism.
Materials and Methods
Buffer and reagents
Lytechinus pictus sea urchins were purchased from Marinus (Long
Beach, CA), 4-heptadecyl-7-hydroxycoumarin, BODIPY-C12 and DiIC12, from
Invitrogen, U73122 and U73343 from Calbiochem, GTPγ[S]
(guanosine 5-[γ-thio]triphosphate) from Sigma, and
caged-GTP from Jena Bioscience. Recombinant SKIP proteins (Skeletal muscle and
Kidney enriched Inositol Phosphatase, a phosphoinositide 5-phosphatase) were a
generous gift from E. Rosivatz and R. Woscholski. Nuclear preparation buffer
(SXN), TN (Tris/NaCl buffer) and egg lysis buffer [10] were prepared as
described previously [11]. DABCO antifade was from Sigma and prepared
at 2.5% (w/v) in LB. The ATP-generating system (ATP-GS) is 1 mM ATP,
20 mM creatine phosphate and 1 mg/ml creatine kinase in LB.
Nuclei and egg extracts
Isolation and permeabilisation of sperm nuclei were adapted from methods
described previously [7], [12]. Nuclei
demembranated with 0.1% Triton X-100 were resuspended in freezing
buffer [SXN supplemented with 0.16% (w/v) BSA and
16.5% (v/v) glycerol], frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored
at −80°C. S10 cytoplasmic (G1 phase) extracts from eggs at 10
min post fertilization, membrane vesicles (MVs) and subfractions MV1 and MV2,
and 150,000 g supernantant cytosolic egg extracts (S150) were prepared as
previously described [13]
Fluorescent labelling
Demembranated nuclei were incubated 1 hour at 4°C with 5 mM
hydroxycoumarin in TN buffer to label nuclear envelope remnants (NERs). Nuclei
were then collected by centrifugation (1000 g, 2 min.). Stock solutions of
fluorescent probes were prepared in Wesson Oil (BODIPY-C12, 20 mM) or in MeOH
(DiIC12, 10 mM). The amount of lipid was measured by phosphorus titration before
adding the fluorophores in order to ensure that the probe/lipid ratio in the
resulting vesicles was less than 1 mole %. MV0, MV1 or MV2 vesicles
were mixed with fluorescent probes and vortexed for 5 min at room temperature.
The samples were then centrifuged at 100,000 g for 30 min to remove the
non-inserted fluorescent probes and resuspended in S150 cytosol.
Binding and fusion assays
To a 1.5 ml Eppendorf tube, 10 µl of BODIPY-C12 labelled MVs, 10
µl of diIC12 labelled MVs in S150, 1.2 µl of ATP-generating
system and 2 µl of demembranated sperm nuclei were added. The mixture
was incubated at room temperature for 1 h. The unbound vesicles were removed by
centrifugation through 0.5 M sucrose (1000 g, 3 min.) and the purified nuclei
with bound vesicles were suspended in 4 µl S150 cytosolic egg extract
supplemented with 1 mM caged-GTP, 1 µl of 2.5% DABCO and 5
µl 1% low melting point agarose at 30°C. The
mixture was immediately mounted on a Mattek® dish and viewed under a
100X oil-immersion objective. Binding was confirmed by surface coating of
fluorescent membranes on nuclei. Fusion was triggered by UV (Hg lamp)
illumination of the sample for 2 seconds inducing the photoactivation of the
GTP. Lifetime of the BODIPY-C12 (donor) was measured before
(t = 0) and after GTP activation
(t = 5, 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes).
Hydroxycoumarin fluorescence of NERs was recorded during activation by the Hg
source. U73122 (30 µM), U73343 (30 µM) and
GTPγ[S] (2 mM) inhibitors were applied just before
mounting the samples on Mattek® dishes and fusion was initiated 15 min
after according to Byrne et al (2005) [14]. Caged GTP was used
in all experiments except GTPγ[S] assays.
Alternatively, MVs were incubated with SKIP purified protein for 1 hour at room
temperature prior to binding. The activity of the purified proteins was checked
according to Schmid et al. (2004) [15]. Each experiment
was repeated a minimum of three times (n = 3).
The images are a representative of one experiment.
Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM)
All FLIM measurements were undertaken with a modified TE 2000-E inverted
microscope. Fluorescence lifetime measurements were performed with an SPC 830
time-correlated single photon counting (TCSPC) electronic card (Becker and
Hickl, Germany). A mode-locked tuneable Ti-sapphire laser (Mira 900; Coherent)
pumped by a solid-state diode laser (Verdi; Coherent) was used. For two-photon
excitation of BODIPY-C12, the laser was tuned at 890 nm and pumped at 6W. The
Ti-sapphire laser generates 125-fs pulses with a repetition rate of 76.26 MHz
and an average power output of 450 mW. The laser beam was focused with a 100X
oil immersion objective lens (Nikon). Fluorescence was detected through the same
objective in a descanned configuration with a fast photomultiplier (Hamamatsu
7400) after filtering with a bandpass filter (510–610 nm, Chroma
Technology Corp). Acquisition times of the order of 60 s at low excitation power
were used to achieve sufficient photon statistics for fitting
(i.e. 100–10000 photons per pixel), while avoiding
either pulse pile-up or photobleaching. Epifluorescence intensity images of both
donor and acceptor were acquired with the mercury lamp source of the TE 2000-E
microscope and fluorescence detected by a cooled CCD camera (Hamamatsu ORCA-ER).
The cubes set in the TE 2000-E microscope turret were FITC (Nikon Ltd.) for
BODIPY-C12 and G-2A (Nikon Ltd.) for the diIC12.
Results
The cell-free assay to assemble nuclear membranes consists of a cytoplasmic extract
of fertilised eggs (S10) and sperm nuclei demembranated with 0.1% Triton
X-100, which leaves remnants of the sperm nuclear envelope at the tip and base of
the nucleus. MV1 binds exclusively to these regions [7], [16], Supporting Information
(Fig S1).
The majority of bound vesicles however are derived from the ER (MV2), which bind
over the entire surface, not just at the poles [17].Taking advantage of this difference, we initially labelled two sets of total membrane
vesicles from S10 (MV0s), one with a donor fluorophore (BODIPY-C12) and the other
with an acceptor fluorophore (DiIC12). The characterisation of these is described in
MethodsS1. Nuclear envelope remnants (NER) were labelled with
hydroxycoumarin (arrows, Fig.
1A). Since FRET is only possible between molecules that are in close
proximity (1–10 nm), it is a reliable indicator of membrane fusion which
permits the donor and acceptor to interact within a common continuous bilayer.
Figure 1
GTP-induced fusion is bi-polarised.
(A) S10s containing total MVs (MV0) were independently labelled with either
BODIPY-C12 (donor) or diIC12 (acceptor) and mixed together. Sperm nuclei and
ATP-GS (ATP) were added. Nuclear envelope remnants of the nuclei were
pre-labelled with hydroxycoumarin. Epifluorescence patterns of labelled
nuclei with bound MVs were visualised by phase contrast and two-photon
fluorescence microscopy using a 100X objective. MVs were bound around the
entire periphery of the nucleus. The nuclear envelope remnants mark the
former apex and base of the sperm nucleus (white arrowheads). Fluorescence
lifetime of BODIPY was measured before
(t = 0) and after
(t = 5, 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes) the
induction of NE formation by photo activation of caged-GTP. (B)
Quantification of FRET FLIM images. For analyses, nuclei were divided in
four quadrants: p1 and p2 correspond to the poles of the nuclei that include
NER while e1 and e2 correspond to the equatorial regions. The averaged mean
lifetime was for each quadrant was plotted for each time point showing that
MVs fusion is initiated in the polar quadrants and propagates toward the
equator. Errors bars correspond to the standard deviation from 7 independent
experiments.
GTP-induced fusion is bi-polarised.
(A) S10s containing total MVs (MV0) were independently labelled with either
BODIPY-C12 (donor) or diIC12 (acceptor) and mixed together. Sperm nuclei and
ATP-GS (ATP) were added. Nuclear envelope remnants of the nuclei were
pre-labelled with hydroxycoumarin. Epifluorescence patterns of labelled
nuclei with bound MVs were visualised by phase contrast and two-photon
fluorescence microscopy using a 100X objective. MVs were bound around the
entire periphery of the nucleus. The nuclear envelope remnants mark the
former apex and base of the sperm nucleus (white arrowheads). Fluorescence
lifetime of BODIPY was measured before
(t = 0) and after
(t = 5, 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes) the
induction of NE formation by photo activation of caged-GTP. (B)
Quantification of FRET FLIM images. For analyses, nuclei were divided in
four quadrants: p1 and p2 correspond to the poles of the nuclei that include
NER while e1 and e2 correspond to the equatorial regions. The averaged mean
lifetime was for each quadrant was plotted for each time point showing that
MVs fusion is initiated in the polar quadrants and propagates toward the
equator. Errors bars correspond to the standard deviation from 7 independent
experiments.The nuclei were mounted on a cover slip with low-melting agarose to prevent movement
prior to initiation of membrane fusion and confocal imaging. To accurately set the
time of initiation, 2 mM caged GTP was included prior to embedding in agarose and
after photo-activation by a UV source, fusion kinetics were assessed by the decrease
in lifetime of the donor.A reference point at t = 0 was taken in the absence
of GTP (Supporting Information Movie S1). By 5 minutes post-activation,
initiation of FRET occurred in the regions of the NERs or poles (arrows) and
proceeded laterally into the regions occupied only by the ER-derived vesicles. At 15
minutes the progression of the FRET signal can be seen in Supporting Information
Movie S2.
By 45–60 minutes a maximum FRET signal was attained around the entire
nucleus as a complete envelope was formed by successive vesicle fusions, The time
for enclosure is consistent with previous determinations [3]. Fig. 1B plots donor lifetime in the polar and
equatorial quadrants as the reaction proceeds. By 5 minutes the donor lifetime
decreased from 3.2 to 2.5±0.15 ns at the poles, remaining unchanged in
the equatorial regions. Upon completion of fusion the entire nuclear envelope had a
lifetime of 2.5±0.15 ns and a FRET efficiency of 0.7. Thus MV2 vesicle
fusion apparently does not proceed unless adjacent to previously fused vesicles.To visualise the polarised progression of fusion in three dimensions, confocal
Z-stacks were obtained and a 3-D representation was reconstructed. Fig. 2 shows initiation sites of
fusion in the middle set of stacks containing the NERs and the polarised progression
of fusion to almost entirely envelop the spherical nucleus by 30 minutes
(Supplementary Information Movie S3).
Figure 2
3D view of nuclei visualised by FLIM.
(A) Stack measurements of a nucleus: the first image corresponds to the
fluorescence lifetime of the BODIPY measured at the top of a nucleus 15
minutes after photo-activation of caged GTP. Ten successive layers of the
same nucleus were obtained. For each layer the focus of the objective was
moved 0.25 µm along the Z-axis. Since the acquisition of one image
lasts for 1 minute, the last image corresponding to the bottom of the
nucleus was measured 25 minutes after the induction of NE formation. (B) 3D
reconstructions from the Z-stacks of the same nucleus to form fluorescence
lifetime 3D views. The indicated times correspond to the time elapsed after
photo activation when the first image of each stack was measured.
3D view of nuclei visualised by FLIM.
(A) Stack measurements of a nucleus: the first image corresponds to the
fluorescence lifetime of the BODIPY measured at the top of a nucleus 15
minutes after photo-activation of caged GTP. Ten successive layers of the
same nucleus were obtained. For each layer the focus of the objective was
moved 0.25 µm along the Z-axis. Since the acquisition of one image
lasts for 1 minute, the last image corresponding to the bottom of the
nucleus was measured 25 minutes after the induction of NE formation. (B) 3D
reconstructions from the Z-stacks of the same nucleus to form fluorescence
lifetime 3D views. The indicated times correspond to the time elapsed after
photo activation when the first image of each stack was measured.Substitution of non-hydrolysable GTPγ-S inhibited fusion (Fig. S2). To
show that the GTP-initiated fusion was effected by the hydrolysis of
PtdIns(4,5)P2, the PLC inhibitor U73122 was included. Fig. 3 shows that inhibition of
PLC prevented the decrease of the donor lifetime, which remained at
3.3±0.16 ns.
Figure 3
Inhibition of PLC prevents membrane fusion.
The same experiment as in Fig.
2 was carried out in the presence of 30 µM U73122, a
specific PLC inhibitor. The images (A) and lifetime graph (B) show complete
inhibition of MV fusion. Data representative of 3 independent
experiments
Inhibition of PLC prevents membrane fusion.
The same experiment as in Fig.
2 was carried out in the presence of 30 µM U73122, a
specific PLC inhibitor. The images (A) and lifetime graph (B) show complete
inhibition of MV fusion. Data representative of 3 independent
experimentsThe reactions presented thus far measure fusion between all nuclear bound vesicles
(MV0) which include the minor population MV1 and the major population from ER (MV2).
To show that initiation of membrane fusion at the poles results from PLCγ
hydrolysis of PtdIns(4,5)P2 in the bound MV1 vesicles, we purified both
MV1 and MV2, which were separately labelled with either the donor or acceptor
fluorophore. Fig. 4A shows MV1
binding at the poles and MV2 over the rest of the chromatin surface. Fusion of MV1
with MV2 was initiated by GTP hydrolysis from the MV1 region (decrease of donor
lifetime from 3.3 ns to 2.4 ns). By 15 minutes the fusion wave started to spread
laterally to MV2. When MV1 was pre-treated with the PLC inhibitor U73122, membrane
fusion was blocked (Fig. 4B).
The inactive U73343 analogue did not prevent fusion (Fig. S4).
Figure 4
DAG is required for vectorial progression of fusion.
(A) The same experiments as in Fig. 2 were performed using non-ER vesicles (MV1) labelled with
BODIPY-C12 and ER vesicles (MV2) labelled with diIC12. Membrane fusion
induces both a decrease of the lifetime and a spreading of BODIPY-C12 all
around the nucleus. (B) Same experiment as in Fig. 4A carried out in the
presence of 30 µM of U73122, indicating that fusion of the non-ER
with the ER membranes requires PLC activity. (C) Same experiment as Fig. 4A
using SKIP pre-treated MV1 vesicles. Dephosphorylation of
PtdIns(4,5)P2 to PtdIns(4)P inhibits fusion.
DAG is required for vectorial progression of fusion.
(A) The same experiments as in Fig. 2 were performed using non-ER vesicles (MV1) labelled with
BODIPY-C12 and ER vesicles (MV2) labelled with diIC12. Membrane fusion
induces both a decrease of the lifetime and a spreading of BODIPY-C12 all
around the nucleus. (B) Same experiment as in Fig. 4A carried out in the
presence of 30 µM of U73122, indicating that fusion of the non-ER
with the ER membranes requires PLC activity. (C) Same experiment as Fig. 4A
using SKIP pre-treated MV1 vesicles. Dephosphorylation of
PtdIns(4,5)P2 to PtdIns(4)P inhibits fusion.If MV1 was pre-treated with a recombinant phosphoinositide 5-phosphatase (SKIP) to
deplete the substrate for PLC, membrane fusion was also prevented (Fig. 4C). SKIP dephosphorylates
PtdIns(4,5)P2 to PtdIns(4)P which is not recognised by PLCγ
and thus DAG cannot be produced. We show in Fig 4C a sperm nucleus which was not completely
decondensed so its conical shape clearly defines the apical and basal poles.
Pre-treatment of MV0 with SKIP also inhibited membrane fusion as expected (Fig. S3A). In a
control parallel reaction, denatured SKIP failed to block membrane fusion and
nuclear envelope formation (Fig. S3B).Inhibition results are summarised in Table 1. These results strongly support our model of nuclear envelope
formation involving GTP regulation of PLC hydrolysis of PtdIns(4,5)P2
[3], [4], [5] and
add for the first time confirmation of the prediction of bipolarised spatial control
of fusion initiation.
Table 1
Summary of membrane fusion effectors and inhibitors.
Treatment
Fusion
ATP
−
GTP
+
GTPγS
−
U73122 + GTP
−
U73343 + GTP
+
SKIP all MVs + GTP
−
SKIP non-ER MVs + GTP
−
Boiled SKIP all MVs + GTP
+
MVs independently labelled with either BODIPY-C12 (donor) or diIC12
(acceptor) were bound in vitro to sperm nuclei with
ATP-GS (ATP). MV fusion was induced by photo activation of caged GTP and
assessed by FLIM measurements as presented in Fig. 2, 3 and 4. The inhibitors U73122, U73343 (30
µM) or GTPγ[S] (2 mM) were applied
just before mounting the sample and after 15 minutes of incubation GTP
was activated. For inhibition of PtdIns(4,5)P2 phosphatase,
MVs (either all MVs or only non-ER MV1) were incubated with SKIP
purified proteins for 1 hour at room temperature prior to binding.
MVs independently labelled with either BODIPY-C12 (donor) or diIC12
(acceptor) were bound in vitro to sperm nuclei with
ATP-GS (ATP). MV fusion was induced by photo activation of caged GTP and
assessed by FLIM measurements as presented in Fig. 2, 3 and 4. The inhibitors U73122, U73343 (30
µM) or GTPγ[S] (2 mM) were applied
just before mounting the sample and after 15 minutes of incubation GTP
was activated. For inhibition of PtdIns(4,5)P2 phosphatase,
MVs (either all MVs or only non-ER MV1) were incubated with SKIP
purified proteins for 1 hour at room temperature prior to binding.
Discussion
In this paper we provide evidence that fusion initiation leading to nuclear envelope
formation is GTP triggered, and requires PtdIns(4,5)P2 and PLC activity
in the MV1 fraction. Fusion is propagated bi-directionally from the sites of
initiation and involves fusion of MV1 with MV2 as well as successive fusions with
more MV2 to complete NE formation in the cell-free assay. The properties of the
non-ER derived MV1 therefore are consistent with its role as a potentially fusogenic
vesicle population regulated by GTP hydrolysis and resulting in heterotypic fusion
with other vesicles by localised production of DAG.These results lead to several questions: what is the origin of the polarisation, how
is fusion propagated after initiation, and is the mechanism for fusion a general
one? We discuss and offer speculation on these questions in turn below.Since non-ER derived MV1 is a major source of the fusogenic DAG (and location of
PLCγ in these cells), its restricted binding to the apex and base of the
sperm nucleus lead to bi-directionality of fusion. The specificity of binding to the
NER regions is likely to result from non-random packing of chromosomes in the sperm
nucleus. MV1 binding requires NERs [18] which themselves have an unusual lipid
composition and physical properties [19]. We have shown
regions with similar properties present in the sperm nuclei of a wide range of
animals suggesting they serve as nuclear membrane organising regions [20]. It
remains to be demonstrated that each chromosome contains one or a few such
structures which might also be used during mitotic NE reassembly.Our data show that the mechanism of propagation of fusion commences from the polar
MV1vesicles, which fuse with ER-derived vesicles. Subsequently ER vesicles fuse with
one another towards the equatorial regions. The nuclear envelope precursor vesicles
in vitro and in vivo are approximately 0.5
µm and the nucleus about 4 µm in diameter. Surface area
calculations suggest that minimally 125 vesicles must fuse to envelop the nucleus
with two bilayers [21]. If each NE were initiated by a single MV1
vesicle at the poles, the lipid contribution of MV1 to the completed nuclear
envelope could be <1% of the total. Since nearly all PLCγ
is associated with MV1 and is >100-fold enriched in MV1 as well as its
substrate PtdIns(4,5)P2
[3], it is
likely that DAG formed in this compartment rapidly diffuses into the ER-derived
membranes with successive fusions, continually lowering the DAG concentration until
it is below the 4% estimated from synthetic systems to be required for
fusion [22]. Due to this dilution, eventually the fusogenicity of
the forming envelope towards successive vesicles would likely decrease, and the
process might become self-limiting. To determine if a decrease in the rate of
successive fusions accompanies propagation requires a much a higher resolution
method than used here.The non-ER derived MV1 vesicle fraction enriched in PLCγ is found in vesicles
in the cortex of oocytes [3] whereas the ER in vivo is usually
a continuous membrane structure [23] that is of necessity vesiculated during
preparation of cell extracts. In vivo, it is likely that tubules or
continuous sheets of ER envelop the chromosomes at telophase. Thus the role of the
non-ER fusogenic MV1 vesicles would be to seal gaps in the enveloping ER [5]. Local
DAG concentrations could decline through dilution, chemical modification or both,
returning the membrane to a non-fusigenic state.A complete description of the spatial rearrangements of MV1 during the cell cycle has
yet to be made. It is however clear that there are many more non-ER vesicles
enriched in PLCγ than are necessary to facilitate NE formation [21]. It
will therefore be of interest to determine whether such potentially fusogenic
vesicles are mobilised to participate in other membrane fusion events during mitosis
or interphase [24]. A novel aspect of this mechanism is that the
specificity of localisation of DAG would depend on its delivery through the
recruitment of potentially fusogenic vesicles to the sites of fusion rather than by
its generation within a domain of one or both partner membranes to be fused.We have shown that membrane fusion can involve a vectorial progression with a
specific origin and direction. This vectorial progression is dependent on the
formation of localised DAG derived from polyphosphoinositide modification in one of
the partner membranes. The interplay of localised lipids and protein recruitment
will be of importance to explore in a variety of natural membrane fusions.(0.10 MB DOC)Click here for additional data file.Confocal images of sperm nuclei, nuclear envelope remnants and bound MVs. (A)
Input sperm nuclei (extracted with 0.1% Triton X-100). DNA
stained with propidium iodide [23] and detergent
resistant membranes of the nuclear envelope remnants stained with diOC6
located at the acrosomal and centriolar fossa regions (apex and base) of the
undecondensed nucleus. (B) Decondensed sperm nucleus with bound membrane
vesicles from fertilised egg extract (S10). DNA stained with Hoechst 33334
(blue) and membranes stained with diOC6 (green). Nuclei incubated in S10
with ATP have decondensed chromatin and bound vesicles. (C) Nuclei with
bound vesicles separated from unbound vesicles remaining in the S10
following purification through 0.5 M sucrose. The majority of bound vesicles
are from the ER-derived population (MV2), which binds over the entire
surface. The binding of non-ER derived membrane vesicle (MV1) occurs only in
the regions of the NERs.(2.26 MB EPS)Click here for additional data file.GTPγS does not induce fusion. The same experiment presented in Figure 1 was carried out
using GTPγS instead of caged GTP. Under these conditions the
lifetime of the donor remains constant indicating that there is no fusion of
the labelled vesicles.(0.57 MB EPS)Click here for additional data file.Pre-treatment of MVs with SKIP inhibits the fusion process. (A) Total S10
membranes (MV0) were pre-treated with SKIP as described in Experimental
Procedures. Pre-treated membranes were independently labelled with either
BODIPYC12 (donor) or diIC12 (acceptor) and both bound in vitro to sperm
nuclei with ATP-GS (ATP). MV fusion was induced by photo activation of caged
GTP and assessed by FLIM measurements as presented in Figures 2 to
4. (B) As a control the same experiment as in (A) was performed with
denatured SKIP (5 minutes at 100oC). Denaturation of SKIP abolished the
inhibition of fusion.(0.88 MB EPS)Click here for additional data file.U73343, an inactive analogue of U73122, does not inhibit fusion. To confirm
the specificity of the U73122 inhibitor, the same experiment as presented in
Figure 4 was
preformed using the U73343 analogue. No inhibition of fusion was observed.(0.88 MB EPS)Click here for additional data file.3D Movie of nuclei visualised by FLIM at 0 minutes prior to activation of
caged GTP.(7.65 MB MOV)Click here for additional data file.3D Movie of nuclei visualised by FLIM at 15 minutes after photo-activation of
caged GTP.(7.76 MB MOV)Click here for additional data file.3D Movie of nuclei visualised by FLIM at 30 minutes after photo-activation of
caged GTP.(7.71 MB MOV)Click here for additional data file.
Authors: B Abbott; R Abbott; R Adhikari; A Ageev; B Allen; R Amin; S B Anderson; W G Anderson; M Araya; H Armandula; M Ashley; F Asiri; P Aufmuth; C Aulbert; S Babak; R Balasubramanian; S Ballmer; B C Barish; C Barker; D Barker; M Barnes; B Barr; M A Barton; K Bayer; R Beausoleil; K Belczynski; R Bennett; S J Berukoff; J Betzwieser; B Bhawal; I A Bilenko; G Billingsley; E Black; K Blackburn; L Blackburn; B Bland; B Bochner; L Bogue; R Bork; S Bose; P R Brady; V B Braginsky; J E Brau; D A Brown; A Bullington; A Bunkowski; A Buonanno; R Burgess; D Busby; W E Butler; R L Byer; L Cadonati; G Cagnoli; J B Camp; C A Cantley; L Cardenas; K Carter; M M Casey; J Castiglione; A Chandler; J Chapsky; P Charlton; S Chatterji; S Chelkowski; Y Chen; V Chickarmane; D Chin; N Christensen; D Churches; T Cokelaer; C Colacino; R Coldwell; M Coles; D Cook; T Corbitt; D Coyne; J D E Creighton; T D Creighton; D R M Crooks; P Csatorday; B J Cusack; C Cutler; E D'Ambrosio; K Danzmann; E Daw; D DeBra; T Delker; V Dergachev; R DeSalvo; S Dhurandhar; A Di Credico; M Díaz; H Ding; R W P Drever; R J Dupuis; J A Edlund; P Ehrens; E J Elliffe; T Etzel; M Evans; T Evans; S Fairhurst; C Fallnich; D Farnham; M M Fejer; T Findley; M Fine; L S Finn; K Y Franzen; A Freise; R Frey; P Fritschel; V V Frolov; M Fyffe; K S Ganezer; J Garofoli; J A Giaime; A Gillespie; K Goda; G González; S Gossler; P Grandclément; A Grant; C Gray; A M Gretarsson; D Grimmett; H Grote; S Grunewald; M Guenther; E Gustafson; R Gustafson; W O Hamilton; M Hammond; J Hanson; C Hardham; J Harms; G Harry; A Hartunian; J Heefner; Y Hefetz; G Heinzel; I S Heng; M Hennessy; N Hepler; A Heptonstall; M Heurs; M Hewitson; S Hild; N Hindman; P Hoang; J Hough; M Hrynevych; W Hua; M Ito; Y Itoh; A Ivanov; O Jennrich; B Johnson; W W Johnson; W R Johnston; D I Jones; L Jones; D Jungwirth; V Kalogera; E Katsavounidis; K Kawabe; S Kawamura; W Kells; J Kern; A Khan; S Killbourn; C J Killow; C Kim; C King; P King; S Klimenko; S Koranda; K Kötter; J Kovalik; D Kozak; B Krishnan; M Landry; J Langdale; B Lantz; R Lawrence; A Lazzarini; M Lei; I Leonor; K Libbrecht; A Libson; P Lindquist; S Liu; J Logan; M Lormand; M Lubinski; H Lück; T T Lyons; B Machenschalk; M MacInnis; M Mageswaran; K Mailand; W Majid; M Malec; F Mann; A Marin; S Márka; E Maros; J Mason; K Mason; O Matherny; L Matone; N Mavalvala; R McCarthy; D E McClelland; M McHugh; J W C McNabb; G Mendell; R A Mercer; S Meshkov; E Messaritaki; C Messenger; V P Mitrofanov; G Mitselmakher; R Mittleman; O Miyakawa; S Miyoki; S Mohanty; G Moreno; K Mossavi; G Mueller; S Mukherjee; P Murray; J Myers; S Nagano; T Nash; R Nayak; G Newton; F Nocera; J S Noel; P Nutzman; T Olson; B O'Reilly; D J Ottaway; A Ottewill; D Ouimette; H Overmier; B J Owen; Y Pan; M A Papa; V Parameshwaraiah; C Parameswariah; M Pedraza; S Penn; M Pitkin; M Plissi; R Prix; V Quetschke; F Raab; H Radkins; R Rahkola; M Rakhmanov; S R Rao; K Rawlins; S Ray-Majumder; V Re; D Redding; M W Regehr; T Regimbau; S Reid; K T Reilly; K Reithmaier; D H Reitze; S Richman; R Riesen; K Riles; B Rivera; A Rizzi; D I Robertson; N A Robertson; L Robison; S Roddy; J Rollins; J D Romano; J Romie; H Rong; D Rose; E Rotthoff; S Rowan; A Rüdiger; P Russell; K Ryan; I Salzman; V Sandberg; G H Sanders; V Sannibale; B Sathyaprakash; P R Saulson; R Savage; A Sazonov; R Schilling; K Schlaufman; V Schmidt; R Schnabel; R Schofield; B F Schutz; P Schwinberg; S M Scott; S E Seader; A C Searle; B Sears; S Seel; F Seifert; A S Sengupta; C A Shapiro; P Shawhan; D H Shoemaker; Q Z Shu; A Sibley; X Siemens; L Sievers; D Sigg; A M Sintes; J R Smith; M Smith; M R Smith; P H Sneddon; R Spero; G Stapfer; D Steussy; K A Strain; D Strom; A Stuver; T Summerscales; M C Sumner; P J Sutton; J Sylvestre; A Takamori; D B Tanner; H Tariq; I Taylor; R Taylor; R Taylor; K A Thorne; K S Thorne; M Tibbits; S Tilav; M Tinto; K V Tokmakov; C Torres; C Torrie; G Traylor; W Tyler; D Ugolini; C Ungarelli; M Vallisneri; M van Putten; S Vass; A Vecchio; J Veitch; C Vorvick; S P Vyachanin; L Wallace; H Walther; H Ward; B Ware; K Watts; D Webber; A Weidner; U Weiland; A Weinstein; R Weiss; H Welling; L Wen; S Wen; J T Whelan; S E Whitcomb; B F Whiting; S Wiley; C Wilkinson; P A Willems; P R Williams; R Williams; B Willke; A Wilson; B J Winjum; W Winkler; S Wise; A G Wiseman; G Woan; R Wooley; J Worden; W Wu; I Yakushin; H Yamamoto; S Yoshida; K D Zaleski; M Zanolin; I Zawischa; L Zhang; R Zhu; N Zotov; M Zucker; J Zweizig; M Kramer; A G Lyne Journal: Phys Rev Lett Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 9.161
Authors: Teresa Barona; Richard D Byrne; Trevor R Pettitt; Michael J O Wakelam; Banafshe Larijani; Dominic L Poccia Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2005-10-10 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Marie Garnier-Lhomme; Richard D Byrne; Tina M C Hobday; Stephen Gschmeissner; Rudiger Woscholski; Dominic L Poccia; Erick J Dufourc; Banafshé Larijani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Viviana Cremasco; Corinne E Decker; Deborah Stumpo; Perry J Blackshear; Keiichi I Nakayama; Keiko Nakayama; Traian S Lupu; Daniel B Graham; Deborah V Novack; Roberta Faccio Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Marta G Lete; Jesus Sot; David Gil; Mikel Valle; Milagros Medina; Felix M Goñi; Alicia Alonso Journal: Biophys J Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Christopher J Peddie; Ken Blight; Emma Wilson; Charlotte Melia; Jo Marrison; Raffaella Carzaniga; Marie-Charlotte Domart; Peter O'Toole; Banafshe Larijani; Lucy M Collinson Journal: Ultramicroscopy Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Leandro N Ventimiglia; Miguel Angel Cuesta-Geijo; Nicolas Martinelli; Anna Caballe; Pauline Macheboeuf; Nolwenn Miguet; Ian M Parnham; Yolanda Olmos; Jeremy G Carlton; Winfried Weissenhorn; Juan Martin-Serrano Journal: Dev Cell Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 13.417
Authors: Marie-Charlotte Domart; Tina M C Hobday; Christopher J Peddie; Gary H C Chung; Alan Wang; Karen Yeh; Nirmal Jethwa; Qifeng Zhang; Michael J O Wakelam; Rudiger Woscholski; Richard D Byrne; Lucy M Collinson; Dominic L Poccia; Banafshé Larijani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 3.240