Cell migration often involves the formation of sheet-like lamellipodia generated by branched actin filaments. The branches are initiated when Arp2/3 complex [1] is activated by WAVE regulatory complex (WRC) downstream of small GTPases of the Rac family [2]. Recent structural studies defined two independent Rac binding sites on WRC within the Sra-1/PIR121 subunit of the pentameric WRC [3, 4], but the functions of these sites in vivo have remained unknown. Here we dissect the mechanism of WRC activation and the in vivo relevance of distinct Rac binding sites on Sra-1, using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene disruption of Sra-1 and its paralog PIR121 in murine B16-F1 cells combined with Sra-1 mutant rescue. We show that the A site, positioned adjacent to the binding region of WAVE-WCA mediating actin and Arp2/3 complex binding, is the main site for allosteric activation of WRC. In contrast, the D site toward the C terminus is dispensable for WRC activation but required for optimal lamellipodium morphology and function. These results were confirmed in evolutionarily distant Dictyostelium cells. Moreover, the phenotype seen in D site mutants was recapitulated in Rac1 E31 and F37 mutants; we conclude these residues are important for Rac-D site interaction. Finally, constitutively activated WRC was able to induce lamellipodia even after both Rac interaction sites were lost, showing that Rac interaction is not essential for membrane recruitment. Our data establish that physical interaction with Rac is required for WRC activation, in particular through the A site, but is not mandatory for WRC accumulation in the lamellipodium.

Long-lived parasites evade host immunity through highly evolved molecular strategies. The murine intestinal helminth, Heligmosomoides polygyrus , down-modulates the host immune system through release of an immunosuppressive TGF-β mimic, TGM1, which is a divergent member of the CCP (Sushi) protein family. TGM1 comprises 5 domains, of which domains 1-3 (D1/2/3) bind mammalian TGF-β receptors, acting on T cells to induce Foxp3 ⁺ regulatory T cells; however, the roles of domains 4 and 5 (D4/5) remain unknown. We noted that truncated TGM1, lacking D4/5, showed reduced potency. Combination of D1/2/3 and D4/5 as separate proteins did not alter potency, suggesting that a physical linkage is required and that these domains do not deliver an independent signal. Coprecipitation from cells treated with biotinylated D4/5, followed by mass spectrometry, identified the cell surface protein CD44 as a coreceptor for TGM1. Both full-length and D4/5 bound strongly to a range of primary cells and cell lines, to a greater degree than D1/2/3 alone, although some cell lines did not respond to TGM1. Ectopic expression of CD44 in nonresponding cells conferred responsiveness, while genetic depletion of CD44 abolished enhancement by D4/5 and ablated the ability of full-length TGM1 to bind to cell surfaces. Moreover, CD44-deficient T cells showed attenuated induction of Foxp3 by full-length TGM1, to levels similar to those induced by D1/2/3. Hence, a parasite protein known to bind two host cytokine receptor subunits has evolved a third receptor specificity, which serves to raise the avidity and cell type–specific potency of TGF-β signaling in mammalian cells.

Polarity is essential for diverse functions in many cell types. Establishing polarity requires targeting a network of specific signaling and cytoskeleton molecules to different subregions of the cell, yet the full complement of polarity regulators and how their activities are integrated over space and time to form morphologically and functionally distinct domains remain to be uncovered. Here, by using the model system Dictyostelium and exploiting the characteristic chemoattractant-stimulated translocation of polarly distributed molecules, we developed a proteomic screening approach, through which we identified a leucine-rich repeat domain–containing protein we named Leep1 as a novel polarity regulator. We combined imaging, biochemical, and phenotypic analyses to demonstrate that Leep1 localizes selectively at the leading edge of cells by binding to PIP3, where it modulates pseudopod and macropinocytic cup dynamics by negatively regulating the Scar/WAVE complex. The spatiotemporal coordination of PIP3 signaling, Leep1, and the Scar/WAVE complex provides a cellular mechanism for organizing protrusive structures at the leading edge.

The Scar/WAVE complex is the principal catalyst of pseudopod and lamellipod formation. Here we show that Scar/WAVE’s proline-rich domain is polyphosphorylated after the complex is activated. Blocking Scar/WAVE activation stops phosphorylation in both Dictyostelium and mammalian cells, implying that phosphorylation modulates pseudopods after they have been formed, rather than controlling whether they are initiated. Unexpectedly, phosphorylation is not promoted by chemotactic signaling but is greatly stimulated by cell:substrate adhesion and diminished when cells deadhere. Phosphorylation-deficient or phosphomimetic Scar/WAVE mutants are both normally functional and rescue the phenotype of knockout cells, demonstrating that phosphorylation is dispensable for activation and actin regulation. However, pseudopods and patches of phosphorylation-deficient Scar/WAVE last substantially longer in mutants, altering the dynamics and size of pseudopods and lamellipods and thus changing migration speed. Scar/WAVE phosphorylation does not require ERK2 in Dictyostelium or mammalian cells. However, the MAPKKK homologue SepA contributes substantially—sepA mutants have less steady-state phosphorylation, which does not increase in response to adhesion. The mutants also behave similarly to cells expressing phosphorylation-deficient Scar, with longer-lived pseudopods and patches of Scar recruitment. We conclude that pseudopod engagement with substratum is more important than extracellular signals at regulating Scar/WAVE’s activity and that phosphorylation acts as a pseudopod timer by promoting Scar/WAVE turnover.

The immunoregulatory cytokine TGF-β is pleiotropic due to the near-ubiquitous expression of the TGF-β receptors TβRI and TβRII on diverse cell types. The helminth parasite Heligmosomoides polygyrus has convergently evolved a family of TGF-β mimics (TGMs) that bind both these receptors through domains 1–3 of a 5-domain protein. One member of this family, TGM4, differs from TGF-β in acting in a cell-specific manner, failing to stimulate fibroblasts, but activating SMAD phosphorylation in macrophages. Primarily through domains 4 and 5, TGM4 interacts with multiple co-receptors, including CD44, CD49d (integrin α4) and CD206, and can up- and downmodulate macrophage responses to IL-4 and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), respectively. The dependence of TGM4 on combinatorial interactions with co-receptors is due to a moderated affinity for TβRII that is more than 100-fold lower than for TGF-β. Thus the parasite has elaborated TGF-β receptor interactions to establish cell specificity through combinatorial cis -signalling, an innovation absent from the mammalian cytokine.

TGM6 is a natural antagonist of mammalian TGF-β signaling produced by the murine helminth parasite Heligmosomoides polygyrus. It differs from the previously described agonist, TGM1 (TGF-β Mimic-1), in that it lacks domains 1/2 that bind TGFBR1. It nonetheless retains TGFBR2 binding through domain 3 and potently inhibits TGF-β signaling in fibroblasts and epithelial cells, but does not inhibit TGF-β signaling in T cells, consistent with divergent domains 4/5 and an altered co-receptor binding preference. The crystal structure of TGM6 bound to TGFBR2 reveals an interface remarkably similar to that of TGF-β with TGFBR2. Thus, TGM6 has adapted its structure to mimic TGF-β, while engaging a distinct co-receptor to direct antagonism to fibroblasts and epithelial cells. The co-expression of TGM6, along with immunosuppressive TGMs that activate the TGF-β pathway, may minimize fibrotic damage to the host as the parasite progresses through its life cycle from the intestinal lumen to submucosa and back again. The co-receptor-dependent targeting of TGFBR2 by the parasite provides a template for the development of therapies for targeting the cancer- and fibrosis-promoting activities of the TGF-βs in humans.