Formation of a novel structure, the aggresome, has been proposed to represent a general cellular response to the presence of misfolded proteins (Johnston, J.A., C.L. Ward, and R.R. Kopito. 1998. J. Cell Biol. 143:1883–1898; Wigley, W.C., R.P. Fabunmi, M.G. Lee, C.R. Marino, S. Muallem, G.N. DeMartino, and P.J. Thomas. 1999. J. Cell Biol. 145:481–490). To test the generality of this finding and characterize aspects of aggresome composition and its formation, we investigated the effects of overexpressing a cytosolic protein chimera (GFP-250) in cells. Overexpression of GFP-250 caused formation of aggresomes and was paralleled by the redistribution of the intermediate filament protein vimentin as well as by the recruitment of the proteasome, and the Hsp70 and the chaperonin systems of chaperones. Interestingly, GFP-250 within the aggresome appeared not to be ubiquitinated. In vivo time-lapse analysis of aggresome dynamics showed that small aggregates form within the periphery of the cell and travel on microtubules to the MTOC region where they remain as distinct but closely apposed particulate structures. Overexpression of p50/dynamitin, which causes the dissociation of the dynactin complex, significantly inhibited the formation of aggresomes, suggesting that the minus-end–directed motor activities of cytoplasmic dynein are required for aggresome formation. Perinuclear aggresomes interfered with correct Golgi localization and disrupted the normal astral distribution of microtubules. However, ER-to-Golgi protein transport occurred normally in aggresome containing cells. Our results suggest that aggresomes can be formed by soluble, nonubiquitinated proteins as well as by integral transmembrane ubiquitinated ones, supporting the hypothesis that aggresome formation might be a general cellular response to the presence of misfolded proteins.

Mechanical force causes stiffening, or reinforcement, of integrin-based cellular adhesions. This reinforcement is shown to be mediated by the recruitment of the LARG and GEF-H1 guanine nucleotide exchange factors, which activate distinct signalling pathways in response to integrin stimulation. How individual cells respond to mechanical forces is of considerable interest to biologists as force affects many aspects of cell behaviour1. The application of force on integrins triggers cytoskeletal rearrangements and growth of the associated adhesion complex, resulting in increased cellular stiffness2,3, also known as reinforcement4. Although RhoA has been shown to play a role during reinforcement3, the molecular mechanisms that regulate its activity are unknown. By combining biochemical and biophysical approaches, we identified two guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs), LARG and GEF-H1, as key molecules that regulate the cellular adaptation to force. We show that stimulation of integrins with tensional force triggers activation of these two GEFs and their recruitment to adhesion complexes. Surprisingly, activation of LARG and GEF-H1 involves distinct signalling pathways. Our results reveal that LARG is activated by the Src family tyrosine kinase Fyn, whereas GEF-H1 catalytic activity is enhanced by ERK downstream of a signalling cascade that includes FAK and Ras.

Rho guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitors (RhoGDIs) bind to inactive Rho GTPases in the cytosol, but their function remains unclear. Several Rho GTPases are now shown to compete for RhoGDI binding and this is crucial for regulating Rho GTPase turnover and activation. At steady state, most Rho GTPases are bound in the cytosol to Rho guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitors (RhoGDIs)1. RhoGDIs have generally been considered to hold Rho proteins passively in an inactive state within the cytoplasm. Here we describe an evolutionarily conserved mechanism by which RhoGDI1 controls the homeostasis of Rho proteins in eukaryotic cells. We found that depletion of RhoGDI1 promotes misfolding and degradation of the cytosolic geranylgeranylated pool of Rho GTPases while activating the remaining membrane-bound fraction. Because RhoGDI1 levels are limiting, and Rho proteins compete for binding to RhoGDI1, overexpression of an exogenous Rho GTPase displaces endogenous Rho proteins bound to RhoGDI1, inducing their degradation and inactivation. These results raise important questions about the conclusions drawn from studies that manipulate Rho protein levels. In many cases the response observed may arise not simply from the overexpression itself but from additional effects on the levels and activity of other Rho GTPases as a result of competition for binding to RhoGDI1; this may require a re-evaluation of previously published studies that rely exclusively on these techniques.