Construction of Dominant-Negative Fragments of Sec10p
The yeast Sec10 protein and its homologues in
Caenorhabditis elegans and mammals share sequence
identity on the order of 20–25%. Major regions of homology are
contained in three blocks of approximately 150 amino acids each,
present at the N terminus, the middle region, and the C terminus of
Sec10p as indicated in Figure A. The
amino-terminal block contains a domain (amino acids 77–98) predicted
to form a coiled-coil structure. The carboxy-terminal block is somewhat
more hydrophobic than the rest of the protein, as predicted by the
algorithm of
Kyte and Doolittle (1982) 
(Figure A).
Given the conservation of amino acid residues in the N terminus and the
C terminus together with the hydrophobicity of the C terminus, we
investigated whether these regions of the protein might constitute
distinct functional domains of Sec10p. Based on the hydropathy plot and
the conserved regions, we constructed three fragments of Sec10p, termed
Sec10NT, Sec10ΔC, and Sec10CT. Sec10NT comprised a 30-kDa fragment
that contained the predicted coiled-coil region and the first region of
homology. Sec10ΔC comprised the first two regions of homology, while
Sec10CT comprised the more hydrophobic, third region of the protein
(Figure A). These fragments were overexpressed in yeast from the
galactose-inducible GAL1 promotor. The rational behind the
approach is that Sec10p may normally interact with several partners
through its different domains. Overexpression of an isolated domain of
Sec10p would compete against the endogenous Sec10p for the binding to
one of its interactive partners. Because such a protein would not be
fully functional, it would competitively inhibit the function of the
endogenous full-length Sec10p.
While overexpression of Sec10p itself is not toxic to the cells, we
found that cells overexpressing either Sec10ΔC or Sec10CT had a
growth defect (Figure B). Quantitative immunoblot analysis
indicated that Sec10ΔC was expressed between 200- to 300-fold over
the normal Sec10p level. The growth inhibition suggested that both
Sec10p fragments were able to inhibit the function of the endogenous
protein. The extent of the growth rate inhibition by Sec10ΔC was
~70%, while Sec10CT overexpression gave ~45% growth rate
inhibition compared with wild type. Sec10NT, although overexpressed,
did not cause a growth defect (Figure B). The growth inhibition
observed upon overexpression of the entire hydrophilic (Sec10ΔC) or
hydrophobic (Sec10CT) regions of the Sec10p suggests that this protein
has at least two distinct protein–protein interaction domains. The
N-terminal one-third of the protein, which covers the predicted
coiled-coil region, may not constitute a fully functional binding
domain.
Phenotypic Characterization of the Sec10 Dominant-Negative Mutants
When we examined the cells overexpressing Sec10ΔC or Sec10CT by
light microscopy, we noticed almost diametrically opposite phenotypic
effects on cell morphology (Figure ,
A–C). Cells that had been grown in YP-glycerol and had been induced
for overexpression of the Sec10 dominant-negative mutants for 10 h
were processed for indirect immunofluorescence and double labeled with
anti-Sec4p and anti-actin antibodies. At this time point, maximal
expression of the Sec10 fragments was reached, and the phenotypic
changes were quite evident. Cells overexpressing Sec10ΔC were
frequently enlarged, and most cells were unbudded (92% unbudded,
compared with 39% for wild type) or had only small buds (Figure B).
The actin cytoskeleton was depolarized, with cortical actin patches
present throughout mother and daughter cells, and actin cables were no
longer detectable (Figure H). Sec4p staining, marking the location of
secretory vesicles, was still localized to the bud site (Figure E).
Cells were usually mononucleate. At this level, the phenotype of these
cells is similar to that of a post-Golgi blocked sec mutant,
such as the temperature-sensitive mutant sec10–2.
Cells overexpressing Sec10CT showed a distinctly different phenotype
typified by elongated cells (Figure C). These cells were 70% longer
than the average small budded wild-type cell and 30% longer than the
average large budded wild-type cell. Actin was predominantly present at
the tip of the bud, but also extended to the neck region (Figure I).
Interestingly, Sec4p staining was frequently (39% of the cells)
visible simultaneously at the tip of the bud and at the neck between
mother and daughter cells (Figure F). To investigate whether secretion
in these cells occurred simultaneously at both bud tip and neck, we
performed cell wall labeling with TRITC-Con A and examined by
fluorescence microscopy where newly synthesized cell wall material was
deposited after a growth period in the absence of TRITC-Con A. The
incorporation of newly synthesized cell wall material, as indicated by
the absence of TRITC-Con A fluorescence, was only detected at the bud
tip (our unpublished observations), suggesting that growth
preferentially occurred at this site. The method used, however, may not
have been sensitive enough to detect smaller amounts of secretion
occurring at the neck.
Accumulation of Vesicles in Sec10ΔC but Not in
Sec10CT-overexpressing Cells
An important question from the above data was whether the growth
defects of the dominant negative Sec10p mutants were due to blocks on
the exocytic pathway. Such a block would result in the accumulation of
secretory vesicles. To address this, we performed electron microscopy
on the dominant-negative Sec10p mutants and wild-type cells. In cells
overexpressing Sec10ΔC, vesicles accumulated (81 ± 31
vesicles/cell section, compared with 4 ± 2 for
wild-type)(Figure , C and D). In
small budded cells (Figure C), the vesicles were primarily
concentrated in the bud, but were also distributed randomly in the
mother cell. In large budded cells, vesicles accumulated approximately
equally in daughter and mother cell. However, vesicles in the bud
appeared more tightly concentrated in groups than they were in the
mother cell (Figure D). In summary, the data demonstrated that
overexpression of Sec10ΔC resulted in a block of the exocytic
pathway.
In contrast, cells overexpressing the C-terminal region of Sec10p,
Sec10CT, were largely devoid of vesicles (5 ± 2 vesicles/cell
section) (Figure B). Since these cells did not accumulate any other
forms of intracellular membranes, we assume that the slow growth of
these cells was not due to a defect in vesicular traffic. Rather, the
elongated shape of these cells suggested that exocytosis continued, but
that the switch from bud tip growth to isotropic growth and subsequent
cytokinesis was delayed.
Sec10ΔC and Sec10CT Are Synthetically Lethal with Different
Subsets of Exocytic Mutants
As an initial clue to the identification of interactive partners
of the Sec10 fragments, we searched for genetic interactions between
the dominant-negative Sec10 mutants and mutants in other genes of the
post-Golgi pathway (Table ). Toward this
aim, the Sec10p domains were expressed in temperature-sensitive mutants
of members of the exocyst (sec3–2, sec5–24,
sec6–4, sec8–9, sec10–2,
sec15–1), of a t-SNARE (sec9–4), of a potential
SNARE-associated protein (sec1–1), of the Rab
(sec4–8), and of its nucleotide exchange protein
(sec2–41). The two dominant negative mutants of Sec10p
displayed distinct patterns of genetic interactions. Expression of
Sec10ΔC resulted in cell death at 25°C exclusively with mutants of
the exocyst, namely sec3–2, sec5–24, sec6–4,
sec10–2, and sec15–1. On the other hand,
overexpression of Sec10CT was synthetically lethal with a mutant of the
t-SNARE, sec9–4, a mutant of the potentially
SNARE-interacting protein Sec1p, as well as with the exocyst mutants,
sec6–4, sec8–9, and sec15–1.
Somewhat weaker synthetic effects were found with sec4–8.
In conclusion, Sec10ΔC genetically interacts exclusively with members
of the exocyst; in contrast, Sec10CT interacts with components of the
SNARE apparatus and a subset of the exocyst proteins.
| Table 2Genetic interactions between
mutants |
Sec10ΔC Physically Interacts with Sec15p
Given the different effects of the Sec10p fragments on cell
morphology and their distinct patterns of genetic interactions, we
examined whether the Sec10p fragments would bind to different partners.
We have investigated the interactions of Sec10ΔC and Sec10CT with
other members of the exocyst by using in vitro synthesized
[35S]-methionine/cysteine–labeled proteins. The proteins
to be tested for interaction were cotranslated, and the reaction
mixture was subjected to immunoprecipitation using a c-myc
tag, which had been added to the protein sequence of Sec10ΔC and
Sec10CT. To test a direct interaction between the two different Sec10p
domains themselves, c-myc-tagged Sec10ΔC and untagged
Sec10CT were used. The C-terminal fragment of Sec10p did not bind to
any other member of the exocyst tested in vitro, nor did it bind to the
Sec10ΔC fragment (our unpublished observations). However, we found an
in vitro interaction between the Sec10ΔC fragment and Sec15p (Figure
). Binding of Sec10ΔC to Sec15p was
almost stoichiometric.
Effect of the Dominant-Negative Sec10p Domains on the Composition
of the Exocyst Complex
The composition of the exocyst complex is altered in
temperature-sensitive mutants of some of its members
(
sec3–2,
sec5–24,
sec15–1, and
sec10–2) (
TerBush et al., 1995 
). Since different
mutants cause the loss of different subunits from the complex,
important clues can be deduced about the structural interactions within
the complex. We have, therefore, examined the effects of the
dominant-negative Sec10p mutants on the composition of the exocyst
complex. Strains carrying a c-
myc3–tagged
SEC8 allele, as well as expressing Sec10ΔC or Sec10CT
under the control of the inducible
GAL1 promotor, were
induced for overexpression of the Sec10p fragments and then
metabolically labeled with [
35S]-cysteine and
-methionine. Sec8p and associated proteins were retrieved from lysates
by precipitation with anti–c-
myc antibody, and labeled
proteins were visualized by autoradioagraphy (Figure
A). While overexpression of Sec10ΔC
displaced full-length Sec10p from the complex, no other subunits were
displaced, although a slight reduction in the level of Sec6p and Sec15p
was noted. The composition was not altered when the Sec10CT was
overexpressed (Figure A). As a marker for the position of Sec10p in
the immunoprecipitates, an immunoprecipitate from a strain
overexpressing full-length Sec10p was used. When Sec10p and Sec15p were
cotranscribed and translated in vitro, Sec15p could be coprecipitated
with Sec10p (Figure B). Addition of GST-Sec10ΔC, but not GST alone,
was able to displace Sec15p from full-length Sec10p.
Based on these results, we suggest that, in Sec10ΔC-overexpressing
cells, the growth defect and the accumulation of vesicles are due to
the loss of endogenous Sec10p from the exocyst complex, possibly by
competition for binding to Sec15p. On the other hand, Sec10CT does not
appear to exert its effect on cell function by interacting with the
other components of the exocyst complex. The presence of a complete
exocyst complex is in agreement with the lack of vesicle accumulation
seen in cells overexpressing Sec10CT. Furthermore it is in agreement
with the failure of Sec10CT to bind in vitro to other components of the
exocyst.
The Effects of Co-overexpression of Sec15p and Fragments of Sec10p
Given the binding of Sec10ΔC to Sec15p, we investigated the
functional interaction of Sec10p and Sec15p in vivo. The overexpression
of Sec15p alone results in growth inhibition and the accumulation of
vesicles (
Salminen and Novick, 1989 
). Many of the vesicles accumulate
in the form of a tight cluster, which is distinct from the pattern of
vesicle accumulation seen in temperature-sensitive post-Golgi
sec mutants such as
sec1–1 or
sec6–4. When we compared the growth of yeast coexpressing
Sec10ΔC and Sec15p with the growth of strains expressing each protein
alone, we noticed a synergistic negative effect on growth rate (our
unpublished observations). Cells co-overexpressing Sec10CT and Sec15p,
however, had the same approximate growth rate of cells overexpressing
Sec10CT alone (our unpublished observations). However, when examined by
light microscopy, these cells no longer appeared elongated like the
cells overexpressing Sec10CT alone, implying that co-overexpression of
Sec15p modifies the Sec10CT phenotype (Figure
).
Sec15p and Sec4p Colocalize upon Sec15p Overexpression
When Sec15p is overexpressed, it can be localized by
immunofluorescence as a patch in the vicinity of the bud tip or
sometimes in the neck region of small budded cells, whereas the normal
level of Sec15p in wild-type cells is not detectable (
Salminen and
Novick, 1989 
). In cells overexpressing Sec15p, Sec4p is localized in
regions similar to Sec15p. We investigated the potential colocalization
of Sec15p and Sec4p in cells overexpressing Sec15p (Figure ). Upon
overexpression of Sec15p, both Sec4p and Sec15p were detectable in a
bright spot that colocalized in the majority of the cells (64%
colocalization). Some cells, however, could not be stained by Sec15p
antibody, although a distinct patch of Sec4p was visible (Figure , C
and D). Yet, whenever Sec15p and Sec4p are detected within the same
cell, they colocalize. These patches of Sec4p and Sec15p most likely
correspond to the vesicle clusters seen by electron microscopy in
Sec15p-overexpressing cells (
Salminen and Novick, 1989 
).
We next used the formation of the Sec4p/Sec15p patch as an assay by
which to further examine the potential function of the Sec10p domains.
In particular, we were interested to determine whether the
overexpression of either of the Sec10p domains would cause a change in
the formation of the Sec15p patch. Prior studies demonstrated that
formation of the Sec15 patch requires the function of the GTPase Sec4p
and its exchange protein Sec2p (
Salminen and Novick, 1989 
). In cells
co-overexpressing Sec15p and the Sec10CT, we noticed that Sec15p
colocalized with Sec4p in 64% of cells (Figure , G and H), and the
morphology of these cells was similar to that of wild-type cells. Thus,
while the coexpression of Sec10CT and Sec15p prevents the formation of
elongated cells, typical of Sec10CT expression, it does not prevent the
formation of the Sec15p/Sec4p patch, typical of Sec15p overexpression.
In contrast, when Sec15p and Sec10ΔC were co-overexpressed, the patch
of Sec15p staining was no longer visible (Figure F). Given that
Sec10ΔC binds to Sec15p, we speculated that the Sec10ΔC may be
recruited to the site of the Sec15p patch and that the lack of Sec15p
fluorescence in the Sec10ΔC/Sec15p co-overexpressing cells was due to
the masking of the epitope by Sec10ΔC. In this case we would expect
to see colocalization of Sec4p and Sec10ΔC by immunofluorescence. As
shown in Figure , double labeling with
monoclonal Sec4p antibody and polyclonal Sec10p antibody demonstrated
colocalization in distinct patches in the cell (Figure , E and F). As
in the case of the Sec15p staining, not all the cells showed staining
with both Sec4p and Sec10p antibodies (79% colocalization). It seems
most likely that Sec10ΔC is recruited to the site of Sec15p
localization and thus masks the epitope for the Sec15p antibody. Since
the antibody used recognizes both endogenous Sec10p, as well as the
Sec10ΔC fragment, it was important to verify that the patches
observed with this antibody upon Sec10ΔC expression correspond to
concentrations of Sec10ΔC and not the full-length protein. As shown
in Figure C, the immunofluorescence is more intense, when Sec10ΔC
was overexpressed compared with wild-type cells, where only the
endogenous Sec10p was recognized (Figure A). This suggests that the
patch stained with Sec10p antibody in the Sec15p/Sec10ΔC
co-overexpressors predominantly reflects the presence of Sec10ΔC,
although we cannot rule out that endogenous Sec10p was also
recruited to the site of Sec4p colocalization. Since we did not observe
a concentration of Sec10p staining in cells overexpressing Sec15p alone
(our unpublished observations), it seems that most of Sec10p is not
recruited into a patch, in this situation. Also, as shown in Figure ,
C and D, overexpression of Sec10ΔC alone did not result in the
colocalization of Sec4p and Sec10ΔC. Sec10ΔC was distributed
throughout the cells. Thus, Sec15p has the ability to colocalize with
Sec4p in a patch when overexpressed, and Sec10ΔC can become
incorporated into these patches through its interaction with Sec15p.
To extend this line of investigation, we used electron microscopy to
examine the ultrastructure of yeast co-overexpressing Sec15p with
either of the Sec10 fragments to assay for the formation of vesicle
clusters (Figure ). Cells
co-overexpressing Sec10ΔC and Sec15p (Figure B) contained a
comparable number of vesicles (170 ± 23 vesicles/cell section) as
cells overexpressing Sec15p alone (160 ± 123 vesicles/cell
section) (Figure A). Frequently, cells accumulated additional
membranes such as Golgi and endoplasmic reticulum. The severe
constitutive block in post-Golgi transport may lead to the accumulation
of membrane at earlier stages of the secretory pathway. Vesicles in
these cells often appeared in clusters similar to those in
Sec15p-overexpressing cells (Figure B). The binding of Sec10ΔC to
Sec15p did not appear to interfere with the ability of Sec15p to
cluster vesicles.
We also analyzed the extent of vesicle accumulation in cells
co-overexpressing Sec10CT and Sec15p. However, somewhat fewer vesicles
were present (52 ± 17 vesicles/cell section) than when Sec15p
alone was overexpressed (160 ± 123 vesicles/cell section) (Figure
C). While a minor fraction of cells did show a vesicle cluster (our
unpublished observations), such clusters were generally less prominent
(as in Figure C). In contrast, overexpression of Sec10CT alone caused
an elongated cell shape without any accumulation of vesicles (5 ±
2 vesicles/cell section). The phenotypic interaction of Sec15p and
Sec10CT may not result from a direct interaction of Sec10CT and Sec15p,
but from the counterbalancing of two opposing effects on the cell.
Overexpression of Sec15p may, by inhibiting the secretory pathway,
prevent the formation of elongated cells, while overexpression of
Sec10CT may, by slowing the growth rate of the cells, limit the
accumulation of vesicles.
Myo2p Colocalizes with Sec4p
Both actin and the class V unconventional myosin, Myo2p, have been
implicated in the targeting of vesicles. To explore the possibility of
the presence of components of the cytoskeleton in the vesicle cluster
formed in response to Sec15p overexpression, we performed double
labeling with Sec4p and actin or Sec4p and Myo2p antibodies. The
localization of Sec4p was taken as a reference point for the formation
of the vesicle cluster. Similar to the situation in wild-type cells,
actin and Sec4p, although generally present in similar regions of the
cell, never colocalized exactly (our unpublished observations). Some
overlap of localization was observed, particularly in large budded
cells overexpressing Sec15p. In these cells, Sec15p was frequently
found in the neck region between mother and daughter cells as was
actin. Yet even in these situations, the colocalization was still only
partial. The additional overexpression of Sec10ΔC or Sec10CT did not
further alter the pattern of actin localization.
The class V unconventional myosin, Myo2p, has been localized to the
sites of exocytosis in yeast (
Lillie and Brown, 1994 
). Furthermore, the
temperature-sensitive mutant,
myo2–66, leads to an
accumulation of vesicles, clearly showing a connection between this
myosin and exocytosis (
Govindan et al., 1995 
). In wild-type
cells, Myo2p and Sec4p did colocalize in the bud tip and at the neck
between mother and daughter cells (Figure
, A and B). The additional punctate
cytoplasmic staining of Myo2p, which had also been previously reported
(
Lillie and Brown, 1994 
), did not colocalize with Sec4p. In cells
overexpressing Sec15p, Myo2p remained, in many cases, colocalized with
Sec4p staining in patches (Figure , C and D). Sec15p, therefore,
seemed to be able to also mislocalize Myo2p together with Sec4p.
However, not all cells displayed Myo2p staining, and when multiple
spots of Sec4p were present in a single cell, only the ones with the
highest intensity of Sec4p staining would costain for Myo2p. The
additional overexpression of Sec10p fragments did not alter Sec4p and
Myo2p colocalization (Figure , E–H). By extrapolation, we conclude
that Myo2p also colocalizes with Sec15p in this patch.