Close

Mitochondria-adaptor TRAK1 promotes kinesin-1 driven transport in crowded environments

Verena Henrichs, Lenka Grycova, Cyril Barinka, Zuzana Nahacka, Jiri Neuzil, Stefan Diez, Jakub Rohlena, Marcus Braun, Zdenek Lansky

Posted on: 20 February 2020 , updated on: 3 April 2020

Preprint posted on 22 January 2020

Article now published in Nature Communications at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16972-5

Henrichs et al. employ in vitro stepping assays with the kinesin-1 KIF5B and its adaptor TRAK1 to understand how they form a complex that transports mitochondria on crowded microtubules.

Selected by Vaishnavi Ananthanarayanan

Background

Motor proteins frequently encounter crowded environments in cells, which need to be traversed in order to ensure proper transport of cargoes, including organelles. While some motor proteins, such as cytoplasmic dynein 1, have the ability to switch to a neighbouring protofilament on the microtubule (Can et al., 2014) when faced with an obstacle, the plus-end directed kinesin-1 is notorious for its inability to remain moving on a crowded microtubule. How then is effective anterograde movement, such as that of mitochondria on neuronal microtubules, made possible?

 

Key Findings

In this work, Henrichs et al. provided evidence for a direct attachment of the kinesin-1 adaptor for mitochondrial trafficking, TRAK1 (Milton) to the microtubules. In the absence of the kinesin-1 motor, KIF5B, TRAK1 was observed to bind and diffuse on microtubules. This diffusional movement switched to processive plus-end directed movement upon addition of full-length KIF5B, illuminating a key role for TRAK1 in the activation of the motor. Further, analysis of the intensity histogram of TRAK1 spots that colocalized with processive KIF5B dimers indicated that at most two TRAK1 dimers were included in the transport complex.

By comparing with a constitutively active kinesin-1 mutant, KIF5BΔ, that lacked the autoinhibitory tail domain of KIF5B, but retained the ability to bind TRAK1, the authors demonstrated that the KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 complex had increased processivity (ability of the motor to take several steps on the microtubule before detachment) and interaction time with microtubules, than KIF5BΔ alone. The deletion of TRAK1’s microtubule binding domain (TRAK1Δ) abolished this increase, with KIF5BΔ-TRAK1Δ complexes exhibiting run lengths and interaction times similar to KIF5BΔ.

Next, the authors tested if the attachment of TRAK1 to KIF5BΔ was sufficient for the complex to achieve processive movement on the microtubule in crowded environments. First, a kinesin-1 rigor mutant was used, which binds tightly to microtubules due to its inability to hydrolyze ATP and therefore causes roadblocks on microtubules. The authors found that KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 had higher run lengths and interaction times on the microtubule that had roadblocks than KIF5BΔ alone. Then, the movement of KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 in the presence of cohesive tau islands on microtubules was monitored. While KIF5BΔ either detached at the boundary or moved only ~200nm into a tau island, only a small fraction of KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 detached at the boundary and the rest moved into the island for ~500nm before detaching from the microtubule. The latter was hypothesized to occur by sequential displacement of tau’s microtubule-binding repeats. Lastly, the authors extracted whole cell lysates from HEK293/T17 cells and added this to their in vitro stepping assay. Three different lysates were obtained: a native lysate, one from cells overexpressing TRAK1 and the last from cells overexpressing only the purification tag (halo lysate). Again, only the TRAK1 lysate exhibited processive movements on the microtubule.

Finally, the ability of TRAK1 to facilitate transport of mitochondria by KIF5BΔ was checked by isolating mitochondria from 4T1 cells. The isolated mitochondria lacked endogenous KIF5B or TRAK1, but had the transmembrane protein Miro, which links mitochondria to the transport complex. The authors observed that mitochondria transported by KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 exhibited median run lengths of >20µm, likely indicating that a single mitochondrion could be transported by several KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 complexes.

Taken together, TRAK1 functions as an additional microtubule tether of kinesin-1 to microtubules (à la dynactin for dynein (Culver-Hanlon et al., 2006)), thereby allowing kinesin-1 to run longer on microtubules even in the presence of obstacles on the microtubule.

 

What I like about this work

While previous research has identified that TRAK1 binds mitochondria to kinesin-1 (e.g. (Brickley and Stephenson, 2011)), I like that this work provides clean evidence for the role of TRAK1 in regulating kinesin-1 activity. I also like the fact that the paper is very well written, and so can be read and understood by a non-expert without too much difficulty. The question of how motors overcome crowding on the microtubule has been long-standing in the field. The authors have combined several elegant methods to introduce crowding on the microtubule and have clearly shown TRAK1’s influence on the processivity of kinesin-1 in all instances. This work opens up the field to test how other motor proteins might cope with the issue of roadblocks on the microtubule.

 

Questions to the authors

  • Most of the experiments have been performed with the constitutively active KIF5BΔ mutant. Would you expect to see a similar behavior of full-length KIF5B when coupled with TRAK1?
  • Do you see instances where a run is abrogated due to detachment of TRAK1 from full-length KIF5B, i.e. what are the kinetics of attachment and detachment between KIF5B and TRAK1?
  • Would disabling the dimerization of TRAK1 have any effect on the transport complex?
  • How does microtubule crowding affect mitochondrial transport by KIF5BΔ-TRAK1?
  • Could you employ photobleaching experiments (similar to those used in Fig. S2) to ascertain that multiple KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 complexes transport mitochondria?
  • Perhaps some questions for future work: (i) How do the KIF5B-TRAK1 complexes function in a tug-of-war situation with cytoplasmic dynein? (ii) How do differential post-translational modifications of tubulin alter the processivity of KIF5B-TRAK1?

 

References

Brickley, K. and Stephenson, F. A. (2011). Trafficking Kinesin Protein (TRAK)-mediated Transport of Mitochondria in Axons of Hippocampal Neurons. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 18079–18092.

Can, S., Dewitt, M. A. and Yildiz, A. (2014). Bidirectional helical motility of cytoplasmic dynein around microtubules. Elife 3,.

Culver-Hanlon, T. L., Lex, S. A., Stephens, A. D., Quintyne, N. J. and King, S. J. (2006). A microtubule-binding domain in dynactin increases dynein processivity by skating along microtubules. Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 264–270.

Henrichs, V., Grycova, L., Barinka, C., Nahacka, Z., Neuzil, J., Diez, S., Rohlena, J., Braun, M. and Lansky, Z. (2020). Mitochondria-adaptor TRAK1 promotes kinesin-1 driven transport in crowded environments. bioRxiv.

 

doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/prelights.17071

Read preprint (No Ratings Yet)

Author's response

The author team shared

1)    Most of the experiments have been performed with the constitutively active KIF5BΔ mutant. Would you expect to see a similar behavior of full-length KIF5B when coupled with TRAK1?

To be able to compare the motility of KIF5B in absence and presence of TRAK1, we performed the experiments with a truncated, constitutively active KIF5BΔ. We observed a strong increase in the processivity of KIF5BΔ through a TRAK1-based tethering to the microtubule. We furthermore observed a direct activation of full length KIF5B by TRAK1. To determine whether a binding of TRAK1 has the same effect on full length KIF5B, we performed experiments of full length KIF5B in presence of full length TRAK1 and TRAK1Δ without a microtubule-binding domain, respectively. We observed that TRAK1Δ activates full length KIF5B for processive motility with a similar efficiency but a weaker effect on the processivity in comparison to an activation of full length KIF5B by full length TRAK. Hence, we conclude that the behaviour of full length KIF5B and KIF5BΔ in complex with TRAK is similar.

2)    Do you see instances where a run is abrogated due to detachment of TRAK1 from full-length KIF5B, i.e. what are the kinetics of attachment and detachment between KIF5B and TRAK1?

Full length KIF5B is an autoinhibited protein that only sparsely interacts with microtubules. In complex with TRAK1, we observed activation of full length KIF5B and processive movements co-localizing with the TRAK1 signal. The movement of the KIF5B-TRAK1 transport complex along a microtubule stops when either TRAK1 dissociated from the transport complex or when the whole complex dissociates from the microtubule. However, as full length KIF5B itself is not able of robust processive movement, in both situations a sudden disappearance of the fluorescence signal would be observed. Hence, with our experimental setup it is not possible to differentiate between both scenarios.

3)    Would disabling the dimerization of TRAK1 have any effect on the transport complex?

To date we know that the transport complex consists of one KIF5B dimer transporting one TRAK1 dimer but experiments with a TRAK1-deletion mutant preventing dimerization were not performed. However, we speculate that a TRAK1 monomer binding to KIF5B might still increase the processivity as the microtubule-tethering would not be abolished completely. The effect on the velocity might be decreased as with only one microtubule-binding domain present in the TRAK1 monomer, the frictional drag of the transport complex would decrease.

4)    How does microtubule crowding affect mitochondrial transport by KIF5BΔ-TRAK1?

Our experiments showed that TRAK1 increases the processivity of KIF5BΔ in crowded environments through a tethering to the microtubule. In a different experiment, the significantly increased run length of mitochondria in comparison to single KIF5BΔ molecules and KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 transport complexes suggest the engagement of several KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 transport complexes in mitochondrial transport, collectively increasing the processivity of mitochondria. Indeed, analyzing the fluorescence intensities of the TRAK1 molecules indicated the presence of several transport complexes on the mitochondrial surface. Combining both results let us speculate that robust mitochondrial transport in crowded environments -a very physiological condition- could be possible by several transport complexes working in concert, each increasing the processivity of its bound KIF5BΔ to guide the mitochondria through the crowded environment. However, further experiments would be required to confirm this hypothesis.

5)    Could you employ photobleaching experiments (similar to those used in Fig. S2) to ascertain that multiple KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 complexes transport mitochondria?

As indicated in the previous response, we measured the number of TRAK1 molecules bound to the mitochondrial surfaces by evaluating the fluorescent signal. While in average three to four TRAK1 molecules were bound to the mitochondria, one has to consider that not all of these TRAK1 molecules might be in complex with KIF5BΔ and/or bound to the mitochondria in an area that faces the microtubule. However, the increased run length and decreased velocity of mitochondria in comparison to single KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 transport complexes indicates the presence of several actively engaged KIF5BΔ-TRAK1 transport complexes.

6)    Perhaps some questions for future work: (i) How do the KIF5B-TRAK1 complexes function in a tug-of-war situation with cytoplasmic dynein? (ii) How do differential post-translational modifications of tubulin alter the processivity of KIF5B-TRAK1?

i) TRAK1 is known to bind KIF5B as well as cytoplasmic dynein though whether TRAK1 can bind both motor proteins simultaneously remains enigmatic. Notwithstanding, KIF5B and dynein can bind through separate TRAK1 molecules to mitochondria and thereby potentially expose it to a tug-of-war situation. In vivo, mitochondrial transport is known to be interspersed with frequent pauses and directional switches, resembling the typical behavior of artificial cargo exposed to both opposite directed motor proteins in a tug-of-war. The reconstitution of mitochondrial transport in a tug-of-war situation in vitro is a highly fascinating matter worth studying in near future.

ii) We performed preliminary experiments with KIF5BΔ and/or TRAK1 on differently posttranslationally modified microtubules. While we clearly observed differences in the interaction and motility patterns in comparison to wild type microtubules polymerized from tubulin isolated from pig brain, we have to perform additional control experiments and collect more data to get a clear view on the influence of the differential post-translational modifications, the underlying mechanism and its biological implication.

Have your say

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up to customise the site to your preferences and to receive alerts

Register here
Close