Paxillin is a multidomain focal contact adapter protein involved in integrin and growth factor-mediated signaling (
Turner, 2000). In this study, we demonstrate the importance of the interaction between paxillin and PKL in controlling morphologic and cytoskeletal changes associated with cell adhesion and motility.
Cell spreading on ECM involves coordinated regulation of the activity of various Rho family members. In particular, previous studies using NIH3T3 cells have shown that early spreading events are characterized by the extension of lamellipodia, which correlates with a transient increase in Cdc42/Rac-dependent PAK activity. Maximum activity is achieved between 10 and 20 min after plating, followed by a steady decline in kinase activity to baseline levels (
Price et al., 1998). A transient reduction in Rho activity during the initial phase of cell spreading has also been reported (
Ren et al., 1999). The decline in PAK, and presumably Cdc42/Rac activity, is generally accompanied by the development of a more elongated angular phenotype associated with the activation of Rho (
Rottner et al., 1999;
Sander et al., 1999;
Arthur et al., 2000). Our results indicate that in parental CHO.K1 cells, or CHO.K1 cells overexpressing wild-type paxillin (paxillin WT), there is a similar sequence of morphologic changes and time course of Rac activation/inactivation, reaching a maximum at 15 min after plating. In striking contrast, overexpression in CHO.K1 cells of a paxillin mutant lacking the LD4 motif (paxillinΔLD4) resulted in a dramatic increase in membrane activity during cell spreading. This included the generation of multiple broad lamellipodia-like structures and enhanced membrane protrusive activity that persisted for several hours; i.e., the cells failed to transition to the more typical angular phenotype. Interestingly, the phenotypic changes induced by the paxillinΔLD4 were accompanied by a prolonged elevation in Rac activity, suggesting that paxillin, through its LD4 adapter function, is critical for the tight regulation of Rac activity during the spreading process.
We have previously demonstrated that the paxillin LD4 motif is capable of binding directly to several proteins including the focal adhesion tyrosine kinase FAK, the actin-binding protein vinculin, and more recently PKL, a putative ARF-GAP (
Turner and Miller, 1994;
Brown et al., 1996;
Turner et al., 1999). The paxillinΔLD4 mutant protein localized as efficiently as wild-type paxillin to focal complexes and focal contacts ( B), consistent with the use of the focal contact targeting sequence within the paxillin LIM domains (
Brown et al., 1996). Importantly, overexpression of the paxillinΔLD4 mutant failed to affect the localization to focal contacts of either FAK or vinculin ( C). In contrast, PKL localization to these structures was lost in the paxillinΔLD4-expressing cells ( A). This difference is likely due to the fact that, although FAK and vinculin can bind to additional LD motifs within the NH
2 terminus of paxillin, PKL binds exclusively to the LD4 motif (
Turner and Miller, 1994;
Brown et al., 1996;
Turner et al., 1999).
In addition to increased cell spreading, enhanced protrusiveness, and multiple lamellipodia, paxillinΔLD4 mutant cells exhibit long tail-like retraction fibers suggestive of highly motile cells and/or a defect in rear release ( B and 3 A). We found that these cells display an increased random motile capacity (, A–D). This stimulation of motility is consistent with data demonstrating that perturbation of the normal pathway of PAK function by expression of either kinase-dead or constitutively active PAK mutants increases basal cell motility (
Sells et al., 1999). However, PAK kinase activity primarily functions to effect directional motility (
Sells et al., 1999). Previously we demonstrated that microinjection of GST–LD4 into NIH 3T3 cells inhibited directed migration in a scrape wound assay (
Turner et al., 1999). We confirm in this report that although deletion of paxillin LD4 increases random motility, directional motility as measured by scrape wound assay is profoundly attenuated ( E). The existence of long retraction fibers in paxillinΔLD4 mutant cells is consistent with impaired tail release. Efficient release is necessary for cell migration (
Small et al., 1996;
Horwitz and Parsons, 1999) and has been proposed to require proper PAK activity (
Kiosses et al., 1999).
However, in addition to mediating PKL binding, paxillin LD4, as well as LD2, supports FAK association (
Turner and Miller, 1994;
Brown et al., 1996;
Turner et al., 1999). A role for FAK in cell motility is well characterized (
Ilic et al., 1995;
Cary et al., 1996;
Hauck et al., 2000;
Sieg et al., 2000,
1999;
Klingbeil et al., 2001). Further, a FAK–paxillin interaction has been implicated directly and indirectly (as measured by paxillin tyrosine phosphorylation) in cell spreading, neurite outgrowth, and cell migration (
Ivankovic-Dikic et al., 2000). In addition, expression of the PKL-related protein GIT1 promotes cell motility in a FAK- and paxillin-dependent manner (
Zhao et al., 2000). It has been proposed that GIT1 increases cell motility by paxillin-dependent recruitment to focal contacts where it causes loss of paxillin to increase focal complex dynamics, and through PIX and FAK binding, activates Rac and antagonizes Rho, respectively (
Zhao et al., 2000). Importantly, PKL, unlike GIT1, does not contain the Spa2 homology domain that mediates FAK binding (
Turner et al., 1999;
Zhao et al., 2000). In addition, neither a change in FAK localization or activity was apparent in paxillinΔLD4 cells (, respectively), nor was any defect in motility observed with paxillinΔLD2 mutant cells ( D). These data combined with the demonstration that PKLΔPBS2 recapitulates the paxillinΔLD4 phenotype ( and ) are consistent with a role for paxillin–PKL in regulating PAK function. Moreover, these data indicate a direct PAK–paxillin interaction (
Hashimoto et al., 2001) cannot compensate for the perturbation of the PKL–paxillin connection. Thus, interference with the normal physiologic paxillin–PKL–PIX–PAK cascade causes the profound phenotypic alterations we report in this study.
Although the role for FAK in cell motility is well characterized, the precise role for paxillin is less clear. Paxillin, and its tyrosine phosphorylation, has been implicated in the regulation of cell migration (
Liu et al., 1999; Riedy et al., 1999;
Salgia et al., 1999;
Turner et al., 1999;
Ito et al., 2000;
Nakamura et al., 2000;
Petit et al., 2000;
Yano et al., 2000). However, overexpression of wild-type paxillin α has been shown to stimulate (
Nakamura et al., 2000;
Yano et al., 2000), inhibit (
Salgia et al., 1999), and also fail to affect cell motility (
Petit et al., 2000). These apparent discrepancies may be due to differences in cell systems and assays, but also likely point to the complex interactions that occur between paxillin and its binding partners that serve to regulate cell motility. That notwithstanding, this study demonstrates that the interaction between paxillin and PKL is critical in regulating Rac-dependent cell shape change and motility.
How might the interaction between paxillin and PKL regulate this cytoskeletal reorganization and Rac activity? Paxillin is linked, via PKL, to a PIX–PAK–Nck complex (
Turner et al., 1999), each member of which is critically involved in the regulation of actin cytoskeleton dynamics. The precise temporal activation and spatial distribution of these proteins has been shown to be critical for proper Rac and Cdc42 signaling to the cytoskeleton (
Bokoch et al., 1996;
Galisteo et al., 1996;
Lu et al., 1997;
Manser et al., 1997,
1998;
Bagrodia et al., 1998;
Frost et al., 1998;
Obermeier et al., 1998;
Sells et al., 1999,
1997). A major means of regulating PAK function is through its restricted capacity to localize to focal complexes. Wild-type PAK normally maintains a diffuse cytoplasmic localization and transiently translocates to focal contacts stimulated by active Cdc42 or Rac, but not RhoA (
Manser et al., 1997). The primary mechanism by which PAK localizes to focal contacts is not clear. However, overexpression of either PAK mutants (G191 and A192) that cannot bind PIX or PIX SH3 mutants that can no longer bind PAK prevent the recruitment of PAK to G12VCdc42 focal contacts (
Manser et al., 1998). Our previous results suggest that PIX may be targeted to these sites through an interaction with PKL (
Turner et al., 1999). In fact, we have found that PAK localization to focal contacts is entirely dependent on the precise interaction between paxillin and PKL (unpublished data).
Paxillin–PKL-mediated localization of PIX and PAK to focal contacts may be essential for the proper function of PAK as an upstream regulator of Rac (
Obermeier et al., 1998). It had been suggested that PAK and an as yet unidentified 90-kD protein (PKL?) may regulate PIX activity (
Obermeier et al., 1998). Subsequent work has confirmed that both PAK membrane targeting and PAK binding to PIX increases PIX GEF activity towards Rac (
Obermeier et al., 1998). Furthermore, overexpression of βPIX produced active Rac-like changes in cell morphology presumably through increased GEF activity (
Manser et al., 1998). It is not yet known if PKL binding to PIX influences GEF activity directly, although it is plausible that improper localization and assembly of a PKL–PIX–PAK complex in the context of paxillinΔLD4 leads to aberrant Rac activity.
Finally, the ability of Rac to control actin cytoskeletal dynamics has been linked to its activation via translocation to the membrane (
Bokoch and Knaus, 1994;
Michaely et al., 1999;
Kraynov et al., 2000). This process of Rac membrane localization is believed to be under the control of the ARF family of proteins, in particular ARF6 (
Radhakrishna et al., 1999;
Zhang et al., 1999;
Al-Awar et al., 2000;
Boshans et al., 2000). Several groups have recently demonstrated that overexpression of ARF-GAP mutants of the ASAP/PAPα/PKL families resulted in marked effects on cell morphology (
Di Cesare et al., 2000;
Kondo et al., 2000;
Randazzo et al., 2000). In light of the ability of the PKLΔPBS2 mutant to alter cell morphology, it is interesting to speculate that mislocalization of a PKL–PIX–PAK complex may indirectly result in the maintenance of ARF6 activity at the plasma membrane and the sustained recruitment and activation of Rac, conceivably through an inability to control the nucleotide state of ARF6 via PKL–ARF–GAP activity.
In conclusion, our observations demonstrate that proper paxillin adapter function is critical to the regulation of the actin cytoskeletal changes that accompany integrin engagement with the ECM, and subsequent cell spreading and motility. This involvement is a result of paxillin's ability to associate with the PKL–ARF–GAP via the LD4 motif, and entails the modulation of Rac activity. Thus, paxillin's ability to influence Rac activation through PKL binding conceivably places paxillin at a junction between Rho- and ARF-family–mediated changes in the actin cytoskeleton. Future investigation will be aimed at elucidating how paxillin, PKL, and their associated proteins act in concert to regulate these processes.