To test the hypothesis that the myosin II motor domain (S1) preferentially binds to specific subsets of actin filaments in vivo, we expressed GFP-fused S1 with mutations that enhanced its affinity for actin in Dictyostelium cells. Consistent with the hypothesis, the GFP-S1 mutants were localized along specific portions of the cell cortex. Comparison with rhodamine-phalloidin staining in fixed cells demonstrated that the GFP-S1 probes preferentially bound to actin filaments in the rear cortex and cleavage furrows, where actin filaments are stretched by interaction with endogenous myosin II filaments. The GFP-S1 probes were similarly enriched in the cortex stretched passively by traction forces in the absence of myosin II or by external forces using a microcapillary. The preferential binding of GFP-S1 mutants to stretched actin filaments did not depend on cortexillin I or PTEN, two proteins previously implicated in the recruitment of myosin II filaments to stretched cortex. These results suggested that it is the stretching of the actin filaments itself that increases their affinity for the myosin II motor domain. In contrast, the GFP-fused myosin I motor domain did not localize to stretched actin filaments, which suggests different preferences of the motor domains for different structures of actin filaments play a role in distinct intracellular localizations of myosin I and II. We propose a scheme in which the stretching of actin filaments, the preferential binding of myosin II filaments to stretched actin filaments, and myosin II-dependent contraction form a positive feedback loop that contributes to the stabilization of cell polarity and to the responsiveness of the cells to external mechanical stimuli.

Motility often plays a decisive role in the survival of species. Five systems of motility have been studied in depth: those propelled by bacterial flagella, eukaryotic actin polymerization and the eukaryotic motor proteins myosin, kinesin and dynein. However, many organisms exhibit surprisingly diverse motilities, and advances in genomics, molecular biology and imaging have showed that those motilities have inherently independent mechanisms. This makes defining the breadth of motility nontrivial, because novel motilities may be driven by unknown mechanisms. Here, we classify the known motilities based on the unique classes of movement‐producing protein architectures. Based on this criterion, the current total of independent motility systems stands at 18 types. In this perspective, we discuss these modes of motility relative to the latest phylogenetic Tree of Life and propose a history of motility. During the ~4 billion years since the emergence of life, motility arose in Bacteria with flagella and pili, and in Archaea with archaella. Newer modes of motility became possible in Eukarya with changes to the cell envelope. Presence or absence of a peptidoglycan layer, the acquisition of robust membrane dynamics, the enlargement of cells and environmental opportunities likely provided the context for the (co)evolution of novel types of motility.

High-speed atomic force microscopy was employed to observe structural changes in actin filaments induced by cofilin binding. Consistent with previous electron and fluorescence microscopic studies, cofilin formed clusters along actin filaments, where the filaments were 2-nm thicker and the helical pitch was ∼25% shorter, compared to control filaments. Interestingly, the shortened helical pitch was propagated to the neighboring bare zone on the pointed-end side of the cluster, while the pitch on the barbed-end side was similar to the control. Thus, cofilin clusters induce distinctively asymmetric conformational changes in filaments. Consistent with the idea that cofilin favors actin structures with a shorter helical pitch, cofilin clusters grew unidirectionally toward the pointed-end of the filament. Severing was often observed near the boundaries between bare zones and clusters, but not necessarily at the boundaries.

Myosin II-dependent contraction of the contractile ring drives equatorial furrowing during cytokinesis in animal cells. Nonetheless, myosin II-null cells of the cellular slime mold Dictyostelium divide efficiently when adhering to substrates by making use of polar traction forces. Here, we show that in the presence of 30 μM blebbistatin, a potent myosin II inhibitor, normal rat kidney (NRK) cells adhering to fibronectin-coated surfaces formed equatorial furrows and divided in a manner strikingly similar to myosin II-null Dictyostelium cells. Such blebbistatin-resistant cytokinesis was absent in partially detached NRK cells and was disrupted in adherent cells if the advance of their polar lamellipodia was disturbed by neighboring cells. Y-27632 (40 μM), which inhibits Rho-kinase, was similar to 30 μM blebbistatin in that it inhibited cytokinesis of partially detached NRK cells but only prolonged furrow ingression in attached cells. In the presence of 100 μM blebbistatin, most NRK cells that initiated anaphase formed tight furrows, although scission never occurred. Adherent HT1080 fibrosarcoma cells also formed equatorial furrows efficiently in the presence of 100 μM blebbistatin. These results provide direct evidence for adhesion-dependent, contractile ring-independent equatorial furrowing in mammalian cells and demonstrate the importance of substrate adhesion for cytokinesis.

Background: Formins are multidomain proteins defined by a conserved FH2 (formin homology 2) domain with actin nucleation activity preceded by a proline-rich FH1 (formin homology 1) domain. Formins act as profilin-modulated processive actin nucleators conserved throughout a wide range of eukaryotes. Results: We present a detailed sequence analysis of the 10 formins (ForA to J) identified in the genome of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum. With the exception of ForI and ForC all other formins conform to the domain structure GBD/FH3-FH1-FH2-DAD, where DAD is the Diaphanous autoinhibition domain and GBD/FH3 is the Rho GTPase-binding domain/formin homology 3 domain that we propose to represent a single domain. ForC lacks a FH1 domain, ForI lacks recognizable GBD/FH3 and DAD domains and ForA, E and J have additional unique domains. To establish the relationship between formins of Dictyostelium and other organisms we constructed a phylogenetic tree based on the alignment of FH2 domains. Real-time PCR was used to study the expression pattern of formin genes. Expression of forC, D, I and J increased during transition to multi-cellular stages, while the rest of genes displayed less marked developmental variations. During sexual development, expression of forH and forI displayed a significant increase in fusion competent cells. Conclusion: Our analysis allows some preliminary insight into the functionality of Dictyostelium formins: all isoforms might display actin nucleation activity and, with the exception of ForI, might also be susceptible to autoinhibition and to regulation by Rho GTPases. The architecture GBD/FH3-FH1-FH2-DAD appears common to almost all Dictyostelium, fungal and metazoan formins, for which we propose the denomination of conventional formins, and implies a common regulatory mechanism.