In the work described here, GFP fusion proteins have been used to observe the dynamic properties of nuclear lamins during nuclear assembly in daughter cells. A recent report also described the properties of GFP lamin A fusion proteins, primarily in interphase nuclei (
Broers et al. 1999). The results reported here describe for the first time the different pathways of assembly and the organization of A- and B-type lamins in living cells during mitosis, nuclear formation in daughter cells, and the G1 phase of the cell cycle.
When we follow cells expressing GFP-lamins, we observe that lamin B1 is targeted directly to the periphery of chromosomes before significant decondensation begins, and remains at the nuclear boundary. In contrast, lamin A is targeted to the nucleoplasm of newly formed nuclei and is not initially concentrated at the periphery of chromosomes. In PAM cells, lamin B1 begins the process of enclosure in telophase, as the chromosomes reach the spindle poles, before the decondensation process begins. In contrast, lamin A does not begin to associate with chromosomes until the late stages of cytokinesis after the decondensation process has been initiated. In BHK-21 cells, increased lamin B1 fluorescence is seen associated with chromosomes in mid-to-late anaphase/early telophase, earlier than seen in PAM cells. In both cell types, lamin B1 first accumulates on the spindle pole side of the chromosomes, in the region of the kinetochore, suggesting lamina assembly may be initiated at this site. Therefore, this may also represent an early nucleating site for the assembly of the nuclear envelope. In support of this, lamin B1 targeting to the surface of chromosomes occurs before an obvious accumulation of some nuclear pore proteins, implying that lamin B1 assembly begins before pore assembly is completed. The results also show that lamin A is transported into the nucleus after the nucleoporins become associated with the surface of decondensing chromosomes, suggesting that lamin A requires functional nuclear pores to enter the nucleus. Our results on the timing of recruitment of nuclear envelope components are in agreement with results from fixed cells, which suggest sequential binding of different nuclear pore proteins to chromatin (
Bodoor et al. 1999). However, a recent study in live cells indicates that NUP153, p62 (a 414-reactive protein), lamin B receptor (LBR), and emerin associate with chromosomes almost simultaneously in early telophase (
Haraguchi et al. 2000). These results also show that LBR and emerin are initially punctate in their distribution around chromatin and do not become uniform until later in telophase. Therefore, it is tempting to speculate that the binding of lamin B1 that we detect at this same time in the cell division process is required to establish LBR and emerin distribution, through direct interactions or indirectly through the formation of a lamin polymer (see below).
Different patterns of A- and B-type lamins in telophase/early G1 have also been described in other cell types using immunofluorescence. For example, the same overall distributions have been reported for A- and B-type lamins in normal rat kidney cells during early G1 (
Dechat et al. 1998). Nucleoplasmic staining with antibodies directed against lamin A/C has also been reported during early G1 in other cells (
Goldman et al. 1992;
Bridger et al. 1993;
Hozak et al. 1995;
Neri et al. 1999). In addition, the recent results with GFP-tagged lamins A, LAΔ10, and lamin C in CHO cells indicate that they exhibit a nucleoplasmic distribution during G1 (
Broers et al. 1999).
In this study, we show that as cells progress through G1, lamins A and B1 exhibit significantly different assembly properties and locations. In the case of lamin B1, a higher order polymer is established rapidly at the nuclear periphery based on the fluorescence recovery rates of cells at this time in the cell cycle. At the earliest stages of lamin B1 enclosure around chromatin, photobleach zones recover in ~10 min. This value is similar to that obtained for polymerized interphase cytoskeletal IF networks (
Vickstrom et al. 1992;
Yoon et al. 1998) and suggests that lamin B1 is beginning to polymerize on the surface of decondensing chromosomes almost immediately after mitosis. FRAP rates increase in the first 60 min of G1, indicating that lamin B1 is rapidly assembled into a higher order structure after mitosis.
The importance of lamin B1 polymerization in the early stages of lamina assembly is also supported by the expression of the mutant protein, LBT. The absence of the alpha-helical rod prevents this mutant lamin from assembling the coiled-coil dimers required for the subsequent steps in lamin assembly, but it retains the NLS and isoprenylation sites required for nuclear targeting and nuclear membrane association (
Peter et al. 1991). LBT remains distributed uniformly in the nucleoplasm throughout the cell cycle, and it does not appear to be targeted specifically to the lamina (see ). Furthermore, FRAP analysis shows that this mutant protein remains in a diffusible state throughout the nucleoplasm, demonstrating that lamin B1 polymerization, in addition to the NLS and CAAX signals, is required to establish normal lamin B1 organization.
Lamin A exhibits dramatically different dynamic properties relative to lamin B1 during G1. Immediately after mitosis and into the early phase of G1, lamin A is distributed throughout the nucleoplasm of the assembling nucleus of both PAM and BHK cells. The fast fluorescence recovery rates recorded at this time suggest that lamin A is present in a form that is more mobile and hence represents a lower order structure. For ~90–120 min after its initial targeting to the nucleoplasm, lamin A is gradually incorporated into the lamina, as shown by the shift in the intensity of the GFP-lamin A signal from the nucleoplasm to the nuclear periphery. During this time, lamin A exists in two populations with different polymeric states as shown by the FRAP rates and extraction properties.
The differences in lamins A and B1 distributions may reflect their different interactions with other nuclear envelope components. For example, it is known that B-type lamins are associated with nuclear envelope-derived membrane vesicles in mitotic cells (
Gerace and Blobel 1980;
Burke and Gerace 1986;
Vigers and Lohka 1991;
Lourim and Krohne 1993a;
Meier and Georgatos 1994;
Foisner 1997;
Maison et al. 1997;
Drummond et al. 1999). Therefore, lamin B1 would be expected to be localized peripherally during the early stages of assembly as part of the forming nuclear membrane. Furthermore, LAPs probably mediate the interactions of lamins with membranes (
Foisner 1997;
Yang et al. 1997). The LAP family includes LAP2 α and β, emerin and MAN1 (
Lin et al. 2000). In particular, LAP2 has been implicated in the regulation of the early stages of nuclear assembly and also in the growth of the nucleus during G1 (
Yang et al. 1997;
Dechat et al. 1998;
Gant et al. 1999;
Vlcek et al. 1999). Different fragments of LAP2 can inhibit either nuclear assembly or nuclear growth, perhaps reflecting the binding of this protein to chromatin or lamins (
Yang et al. 1997;
Gant et al. 1999). LAP2α, a non–membrane-bound isoform, colocalizes with A-type lamins during nuclear formation and may specifically regulate the assembly of lamin A (
Dechat et al. 1998). Since LAP2β may interact primarily with lamin B isoforms, the distributions of lamins A and B1 that we observe may reflect interactions with different forms of LAP2 during nuclear assembly (
Dechat et al. 1998). Furthermore, it has been proposed that the membrane-bound LBR interacts with lamin B only (
Meier and Georgatos 1994;
Ellenberg et al. 1997;
Drummond et al. 1999), although this putative lamin B-LBR interaction has been questioned (
Mical and Monteiro 1998;
Gajewski and Krohne 1999).
The different distributions of lamins A and B1 may also be due to posttranslational modifications. For example, lamins A and B are isoprenylated at a conserved COOH-terminal cysteine (
Holtz et al. 1989;
Kitten and Nigg 1991). The isoprenyl group remains on lamin B throughout the cell cycle (
Firmbach-Kraft and Stick 1993,
Firmbach-Kraft and Stick 1995), but it is rapidly removed from lamin A by an endoprotease (
Weber et al. 1989;
Kilic et al. 1999). The mutation of the cysteine residue prevents isoprenylation and results in an exclusively nucleoplasmic distribution of lamin A (
Holtz et al. 1989). However, other experiments using inhibitors of isoprenylation suggest that lamin A incorporation into the lamina is not affected by the inhibition of this posttranslational event (
Dalton et al. 1995;
Sasseville and Raymond 1995). In our studies, it is most likely that the majority of the lamin A that we observe localizing to the nucleus immediately after mitosis is synthesized in the previous cell cycle (
Gerace et al. 1984) and therefore would not be isoprenylated as a consequence of the proteolytic cleavage step. It is possible, therefore, that as new, isoprenylated lamin A is synthesized during G1, it interacts, perhaps by forming dimers or tetramers, with the nucleoplasmic lamin A synthesized in the previous cell cycle, resulting in the targeting of both populations to the envelope.
We have also obtained evidence in this study that lamins A and B can exist in a polymerized state within the nucleoplasm in late G1 or other interphase stages, as a veil of fluorescence that is distinct from the peripheral lamina. Both the lamin A and B veils are distributed throughout the nucleus, as shown by through-focus series in the confocal microscope (data not shown). Furthermore, very slow FRAP rates were obtained for the A- and B-type veils, as well as the lamina. In the case of lamin A, this is contrasted with the extremely rapid fluorescence recovery obtained in early G1 cells. However, throughout interphase, the structure of the veil appears biochemically distinct from the lamina, as indicated by a significant reduction in fluorescence intensity after extraction with IF buffer. The recent report using GFP–A-type lamins in CHO cells also describes intranuclear fluorescence, although these workers report that fluorescence recovery takes only 1.5 s (
Broers et al. 1999). This discrepancy with our results, especially in the later phases of G1, could be explained by the stage of the cell cycle during which FRAP experiments were carried out. In comparison with our data, the result of
Broers et al. 1999 would be expected from early G1 cells. It will be an important priority, therefore, to determine the relationships of the different intranuclear lamin structures to each other during specific stages of the cell cycle.
There are now a number of reports of nucleoplasmic lamin structures in fixed, nontransfected cells (
Hozak et al. 1995;
Hozak 1996;
Neri et al. 1999). In support of this, immunoelectron microscopy of extracted, fixed cells has revealed putative lamin filaments within the nucleus (
Hozak et al. 1995). We have also observed lamin staining within the nucleoplasm using immunoelectron microscopy (data not shown). Based on these considerations, it is interesting to consider the possibility that the nuclear lamins, as a member of the IF family of proteins, form the framework for an extended and pervasive nucleoskeletal system that is continuous with the lamina during interphase (
Hozak et al. 1995). The detailed organization, state of polymerization, or structure of this lamin-based nucleoskeleton remains to be explored. However, its existence has profound implications for many nuclear functions (
Pederson 1998,
Pederson 2000a,
Pederson 2000b). Among these are the determination of nuclear size, shape, mechanical properties, the organization of chromatin, and DNA replication. In support of the latter, it has been shown that lamin B colocalizes with DNA replication centers in situ (
Moir et al. 1994), and there is a significant amount of evidence showing that an intact nuclear lamina is required for the completion of DNA replication (
Newport et al. 1990;
Spann et al. 1997;
Ellis et al. 1997;
Moir et al. 2000). Therefore, the existence of a dynamic nucleoplasmic lamin network may ultimately prove to represent the infrastructure required for many important nuclear functions.