Transportin1 interacts directly and specifically with M9, the bidirectional transport signal of the nuclear shuttling protein, hnRNP A1 (
Michael et al., 1995b;
Siomi and Dreyfuss, 1995) and mediates the nuclear import of hnRNP A1 (
Nakielny et al., 1996;
Pollard et al., 1996). In this study, we have shown that transportin1 is also capable of interacting with additional hnRNP proteins, such as hnRNP F (
Matunis et al., 1994) and mediates their nuclear import in an in vitro import assay. The interaction of hnRNP F protein with transportin1 is competed by the M3 region of A1 (
Siomi and Dreyfuss, 1995;
Pollard et al., 1996), suggesting that the same region of transportin1 (amino acids 518 to the end of the protein;
Pollard et al., 1996) interacts with hnRNP A1 and F proteins. We have searched for an M9-like domain in the hnRNP F sequence, but no obvious sequence similarity was revealed. However, we note that hnRNP F contains a region, between the second and the third RNA-binding domains that is rich in Gly, Ser, Asn, and Tyr residues (
Matunis et al., 1994), an amino acid composition similar to that of A1-M9. Therefore, transportin1 likely recognizes its import substrates by secondary and/or tertiary structural features rather than by primary sequences. Transportin1 is distantly related to human importin β (24% identity;
Nakielny et al., 1996). Nevertheless, transportin1 has a few characteristics that distinguish it from importin β in terms of interacting with its import substrates: (
a) transportin1 does not require adaptor proteins to interact with its import substrates, whereas importin β interacts with its import substrates (the classical NLS-bearing proteins) via importin α (
Görlich et al., 1995a;
Imamoto et al., 1995a); and, related to this, (
b) transportin1 recognizes a wider range of sequences on its import substrates, whereas importin β binds strictly to the IBB of importin α (
Görlich et al., 1996a;
Weis et al., 1996).
Although transportin2 has very high sequence similarity to transportin1, it does not bind any of the ssDNA-binding proteins on a far Western blot under the same conditions at which transportin1 produced strong signals. One of the most obvious differences between these two protein sequences is a small peptide present near the COOH end of transportin2 located within the region corresponding to the M9-interacting domain of transportin1 (amino acids 518 to the end of the protein;
Pollard et al., 1996). Therefore, it is likely that the presence or absence of this mini-exon–like sequence modifies the interaction of transportins1 and 2 with import substrates. The other notable sequence difference between transportins1 and 2 is the acidic stretches located within the second quarter of both proteins. Importin β contains such an acidic stretch, and this sequence is part of its Ran/NPC-binding domain (
Chi et al., 1996;
Kutay et al., 1997). In Ran also, an acidic stretch near its COOH end is required for the high-affinity binding of RanGTP to RanBP1 (
Lounsbury et al., 1994;
Richards et al., 1995; Bischoff et al., 1995;
Ren et al., 1995) and to affect the role of RanBP1 as a costimulator of RanGAP (
Becker et al., 1995; Bischoff et al., 1995;
Richards et al., 1995). Therefore, it is possible that transportins1 and 2 have distinct functions in protein transport through NPCs, and the acidic regions may play important roles in distinguishing their functions from each other.
Here we provide evidence that A1-transportin1 complexes dissociate by RanGTP binding to transportin1. In the nucleus, presumably after its dissociation from transportin1, A1 becomes incorporated into hnRNP complexes, where it functions in pre-mRNA processing. Together with the transportin1 import inhibition data with RanQ69L (
Nakielny et al., 1996), this observation indicates that Ran and GTP hydrolysis function similarly in importin-mediated and transportin1-mediated nuclear import. However, the dissociation of A1 is not complete, since we could isolate A1-transportin1 complexes from the nucleoplasmic fraction. We also observed by immunoprecipitation experiments with D45 that not all transportin1 appears to be associated with import substrates in the nucleoplasm (data not shown), indicating that some transportin1 remains free in the nucleoplasm after dissociating from its cargo. These observations agree well with the immunostaining data with D45, which show that transportin1 is localized in the nucleoplasm to a greater extent than importin β. This suggests that transportin1 may have roles in the nucleus in addition to its role in importing hnRNP proteins from the cytoplasm. They are, however, presently not yet known. The capacity of RanGTP to completely dissociate transportin1 in vitro while transportin1-A1 complexes are found in the nucleus suggests that other factors, such as Ran-binding proteins, may stabilize these complexes in the nucleus. Alternatively, RanGTP may not be homogeneously distributed in the nucleus.
HnRNP A1 shuttles rapidly between the nucleus and the cytoplasm (
Piñol-Roma and Dreyfuss, 1992). A1 is bound, at least initially, to poly(A)
+ RNA while in the cytoplasm, and it has been recently shown by immunoelectron microscopy that mRNA in transit through the NPC to the cytoplasm is indeed associated with hnRNP A1/A2-type proteins (
Mehlin et al., 1992;
Mehlin and Daneholt, 1993;
Visa et al., 1996;
Daneholt, 1997). Therefore, A1 is likely to play an important role in the export of mRNAs from the nucleus. Recent nuclear microinjection experiments provide additional direct evidence for this suggestion (
Izaurralde et al., 1997). The M9 domain of A1 has been shown to serve as the bidirectional transport signal of A1 (
Michael et al., 1995b;
Siomi and Dreyfuss, 1995), and its NLS and nuclear export signal have not been separable so far (
Michael et al., 1995b). The factors that interact with M9 and mediate the import and export of A1 may be the same, and in exhaustive screens, transportin1 has been the only specific M9-binding factor found. Thus, although there is no detectable transportin1 with bulk hnRNP complexes and M9 is not accessible to both transportin1 and 9H10, an anti-M9 monoclonal antibody, it is possible that transportin1 (or a close relative, such as transportin2) is involved in mRNA export. For example, if transportin1 binds to hnRNP complexes after splicing but immediately before their association with NPCs, this fraction may be too small to detect, and it would not be contained in the soluble nucleoplasmic fraction from which we can immunoprecipitate hnRNP complexes; NPCs fractionate with the insoluble “chromatin/nucleolar” pellet. It is also possible that, in contrast to the 1:1 stoichiometry (transportin1: A1) that is required for A1 nuclear import, a much smaller amount of transportin1 (e.g., one transportin1 molecule per hundreds of A1 molecules) is sufficient to direct hnRNP complexes to the NPCs and mediate their export, and this may be below our level of detection.
Finally, the difference in the regulation of the importin- and transportin-mediated nuclear import pathways provides a framework for thinking about the need for these separable pathways. Nuclear import of some hnRNP proteins, represented by A1, is dependent on pol II transcription. In this context, it is interesting that excess free A1 microinjected into
Xenopus oocyte nuclei specifically inhibits mRNA export (
Izaurralde et al., 1997). It therefore appears likely that the reason for reducing the amount of A1 in the nucleus when pol II activity is reduced is to prevent excess A1 from competing with mRNA export. It is also possible that A1 in excess of RNA-binding sites is deleterious to the nucleus because it may be insoluble. Therefore, substrates of transportin1, such as A1, needed to evolve their own nuclear import pathway different from the importin-mediated pathway. The accumulation of PK-M9 in the cytoplasm in cells treated with a pol II inhibitor (actinomycin D) indicates that M9 is a transcription-dependent nuclear transport signal. The accumulation of M9-bearing proteins in the cytoplasm in the presence of actinomycin D is probably a result of lack of interaction of M9 with transportin1 in the absence of pol II transcription, since the intracellular distribution of transportin1 itself is transcription independent (data not shown). PK-M9 accumulates in the cytoplasm to a much greater extent than full length A1 in response to actinomycin D treatment. A1 has many functions and interactions in the nucleus while it binds pre-mRNA along with all other hnRNP proteins. Since M9 lacks the RNA-binding domains and an RGG box, which A1 contains, PK-M9 has fewer interactions with other nuclear components. This is probably why M9 accumulates in the cytoplasm to a much greater extent than A1 in the presence of actinomycin D. Transportin1 isolated from cells treated with actinomycin D is still capable of interacting with GST-M9 fusion protein on glutathione-Sepharose beads as well as that from untreated cells (data not shown). Future experiments will examine possible modifications, such as phosphorylation, that may take place on M9 and, in turn, prevent its interaction with transportin1 in transcriptionally inhibited cells.