The exquisite control of actin nucleation, elongation, depolymerization, bundling, and contraction necessary to shape the growth cone and enable dynamic responses to a plethora of extracellular cues is mediated by a complex repertoire of actin accessory proteins found in many cell types (see and ). More than 100 such accessory proteins are used by eukaryotic cells to nucleate filaments, control filament length, bundle or cross-link filaments, disassemble filament networks, and maintain a pool of actin monomers (
Pollard and Cooper 2009). While an increasing number of these actin accessory proteins have been identified in neurons, it is likely that the abundance of various classes of actin regulators differs according to cell type, and it is clear that the relative levels of some key types of actin regulatory proteins in the growth cone differ from the stoichiometries found in systems that are commonly used to analyze the regulation of actin dynamics (
Strasser et al. 2004). Thus, an exquisite balance of actin accessory proteins likely contributes to the distinctive morphology of growth cones. Many actin binding proteins in the growth cone regulate lamellipodia and filopodia dynamics, axon guidance, or both, but how guidance cues orchestrate cytoskeletal remodeling by the many proteins within the growth cone to elicit the proper response remains largely unknown. While the list of known actin-associated proteins is expansive and many are expressed in the developing nervous system, relatively few have been implicated in axon guidance. Here, we consider actin-associated proteins that have been specifically implicated in growth cone guidance.
Ena/VASP Proteins
The Ena/VASP proteins were the first examples of barbed-end binding proteins implicated in axon guidance (
Drees and Gertler 2008). There are three vertebrate Ena/VASP paralogs (Mena, VASP, and EVL), while
Drosophila and
C. elegans each contain a single ortholog, Enabled (Ena) and UNC-34, respectively. While Ena/VASP proteins are found in many cell types, they are highly expressed in the developing nervous system, where they concentrate in the filopodial tips of growth cones as well as the leading edge of lamellipodia (
Lanier et al. 1999), two structures rich in elongating barbed ends. The localization of Ena/VASP proteins to these structures, as well as interactions with signaling proteins, is controlled in part by protein–protein interactions between the conserved EVH1 (Ena/VASP homology 1) domain and proteins that contain EVH1-binding motifs (
Niebuhr et al. 1997;
Ball et al. 2002). At least two molecules involved in axon guidance contain functional EVH1-binding sites: Robo/Sax3 (
Bashaw et al. 2000;
Yu et al. 2002) and Lamellipodin (Lpd) (
Krause et al. 2004); the significance of these interactions is discussed below.
Ena/VASP proteins promote assembly of long, sparsely branched actin filament networks. Ena/VASP increases filament length by interacting directly with free barbed ends and 1) binding profilin:G-actin complexes and directly transferring actin monomer from profilin to the barbed end, 2) enhancing the rate of actin polymerization, and 3) delaying termination of filament elongation by F-actin capping proteins (
Bear et al. 2002;
Barzik et al. 2005;
Chereau and Dominguez 2006;
Ferron et al. 2007;
Breitsprecher et al. 2008;
Pasic et al. 2008;
Bear and Gertler 2009). In addition to the effects on filament elongation, Ena/VASP activity reduces Arp2/3 branching density in growing F-actin filament networks. Depending on the cellular context, the actin networks shaped by Ena/VASP give rise to filopodia (when the long, unbranched filaments are bundled) or dynamic, protrusive lamellipodia.
Drosophila Enabled (Ena) was identified initially in a screen for dominant genetic suppressors of phenotypes arising in part from loss of the Abl tyrosine kinase homolog. Complete loss of Ena resulted in gross defects in the organization of axonal fiber tracts in the CNS (
Gertler et al. 1990;
Gertler et al. 1995). Subsequent work established that
Ena is required to guide neurons in the intersegmental nerve b (ISNb) to their proper targets, and that Ena function was required in axons for function, ruling out the possibility that the guidance defect arose as a secondary consequence of defects in other cell types (
Wills et al. 1999b). Consistent with the previously noted antagonism between Ena and Abl activites, genetic interaction data indicated that Ena and Abl have opposing functions in ISNb guidance (
Wills et al. 1999b). Though Ena is a substrate for the tyrosine kinase activity of
Drosophila Abl (
Gertler et al. 1995;
Wills et al. 1999b), it is unclear what role Abl-mediated phosphorylation of Ena plays in this interaction since mutation of all the mapped Abl phosphorylation sites in Ena has only a modest effect on Ena function (
Comer et al. 1998), and none of the sites phosphorylated in Ena are conserved in any of the vertebrate Ena/VASP proteins (
Gertler et al. 1996).
Ena/VASP has important roles in guidance downstream of both attractive and repulsive cues. Mutations in
C. elegans unc-34 (
Yu et al. 2002;
Gitai et al. 2003),
Drosophila Ena (
Wills et al. 2002), and deletion of Mena/VASP/EVL in mice (
Lanier et al. 1999;
Menzies et al. 2004) all cause midline axon crossing defects, in addition to other phenotypes. The phenotypic similarities and genetic interactions observed between
Ena and
Robo (or unc-34 and sax-3) mutants suggested roles for Ena/VASP downstream of the repulsive guidance receptor Robo (and the orthologous SAX-3 in
C. elegans) receptors (
Bashaw et al. 2000;
Yu et al. 2002). The cytoplasmic tail of most Robo family receptors contains at least one EVH1-binding site, called “CC2” (
Dickson and Gilestro 2006), that is conserved in most members of the Robo family, and that binds Ena/VASP proteins robustly (
Bashaw et al. 2000;
Yu et al. 2002). Deletion of CC2 in
Drosophila reduces Robo function significantly, suggesting that direct interactions may be important for Ena/VASP to function as a Robo effector. It is clear, however, that in
Drosophila and
C. elegans, there must be other connections between Robo and the cytoskeleton beyond Ena/VASP since loss of the genes encoding the various Robo proteins lead to phenotypes that are more severe and penetrant than those caused by loss of Ena/VASP. Exactly how Ena/VASP proteins, which promote actin polymerization and filopodial/lamellipodial protrusion, enhance repulsive axon guidance downstream of Robo remains to be determined.
Ena/VASP also functions in response to netrin, a guidance factor that can elicit attractive or repulsive responses depending on receptor subunit composition and the status of second messenger signaling pathways (
Moore et al. 2007). UNC-5, a receptor that mediates repulsion to netrin, induces dorsally directed axon outgrowth when expressed ectopically in classes of
C. elegans neurons that normally extend along longitudinal or ventral trajectories. A screen for genes required for UNC-5-induced dorsal guidance phenotypes resulted in the isolation of a small number of genes including, among others,
unc-6 (netrin),
unc-40 (DCC),
unc-44 (Ankyrin, an F-actin binding protein), and
unc-34 (Ena/VASP) (
Colavita and Culotti 1998). Therefore, it is likely that Ena/VASP functions in normal UNC-5-dependent repulsion to netrin.
In addition to their function downstream of UNC-5, experiments in both
Drosophila and
C. elegans indicate that Ena/VASP contributes to phenotypes arising from chimeric or constitutively active forms of the netrin receptor DCC (
Gitai et al. 2003;
Forsthoefel et al. 2005) (DCC orthologs are: Frazzled in
Drosophila and UNC-40 in
C. elegans). Further analysis verified that Ena/VASP mediates part of the normal chemoattractive response to netrin during axon guidance. Understanding the nature of Ena/VASP mutant axon guidance phenotypes in all model systems is complicated by the dual roles of Ena/VASP in both attraction and repulsion in response to both netrin and Robo-mediated repulsion. Examination of
unc-34 phenotypes in
C. elegans lacking SLIT-Robo guidance provided unambiguous confirmation that Ena/VASP is indeed required for netrin attraction (
Gitai et al. 2003).
Mutational analysis of an activated form of UNC-40 revealed that UNC-34 functions downstream of a conserved cytoplasmic motif known as P1 (
Gitai et al. 2003). The same study revealed that the Rac and ablim orthologs (
mig-10 and
unc-115, respectively) function downstream of the UNC-40 P2 motif and act in parallel to UNC-34. Subsequent genetic analysis suggested that UNC-115 function affects filopodia formation, perhaps in parallel to UNC-34 (
Norris et al. 2009). While the role of the conserved P1 and P2 motifs in expressing the activated UNC-40 phenotype is clear, their role in normal axon guidance is less clear as the
fra mutant phenotype in
Drosophila can be rescued using
fra transgenes that lack P1 and P2 (
Garbe et al. 2007b). Whether UNC-34 interacts directly with UNC-40, or whether adaptor proteins connect them via a downstream signaling pathway, is presently unknown. Regardless of how Ena/VASP proteins are linked to UNC-40/DCC signaling, however, they are required to elicit filopodia formation and elongation after netrin stimulation in vivo (
Chang et al. 2006) and in cultured cortical neurons (
Lebrand et al. 2004).
One mechanism that may coordinate Ena/VASP function in filopodia formation with netrin-mediated guidance responses involves PKA signaling (PKA; cAMP-dependent kinase). Second messenger signaling by cAMP and cGMP plays significant roles in axon guidance by modulating the intensity of responses to cues and perhaps by inducing conversion between attractive and repulsive responses to certain guidance cues (
Bashaw and Klein 2010). Cultured neurons treated with netrin exhibit a robust increase in filopodia formation (
Shekarabi and Kennedy 2002) that requires Ena/VASP, among other cytoskeletal regulatory proteins, and PKA activity (
Lebrand et al. 2004); neurons treated with PKA activators elaborate filopodia (
Chen et al. 2003;
Argaw et al. 2008) in an Ena/VASP-dependent manner (
Lebrand et al. 2004). At present, it is unknown whether PKA phosphorylation of Ena/VASP is essential for netrin-elicited filopodia induction.
While it seems likely that netrin elicits filopodia formation through a process that requires PKA and Ena/VASP in cultured neurons, other data preclude a simple netrin>DCC>cAMP>PKA>Ena/VASP pathway. Treatment with netrin does not increase global cAMP levels or PKA activation (
Bouchard et al. 2004;
Bouchard et al. 2008;
Bashaw and Klein 2010), so it remains unclear how Ena/VASP phosphorylation levels rise upon netrin stimulation. Furthermore, PKA is not required for axon extension towards netrin in vivo, but enhances chemoattraction to netrin, at least in part, by increasing surface levels of DCC (
Bouchard et al. 2004).
The role of both Ena/VASP and filopodia formation in axon guidance has been questioned based on the ability of retinal axons to navigate properly while expressing an Ena/VASP function-blocking construct (
Dwivedy et al. 2007) that depletes and sequesters Ena/VASP (
Bear et al. 2000). This construct was transfected into the retina of developing
Xenopus, and the axons expressing the construct were monitored for filopodia formation, axon navigation, and terminal arborization (
Dwivedy et al. 2007). Despite a significant reduction in filopodia in the axons that expressed the inhibitory construct, these axons made their way to their target region but exhibited defects in terminal branching and final target selection. This result has been interpreted as evidence that filopodia and Ena/VASP are not required for accurate axon guidance (
Dwivedy et al. 2007;
Lowery and Van Vactor 2009). If true, this conclusion would be surprising given the extensive genetic evidence in
Drosophila,
C. elegans, and mice demonstrating roles for Ena/VASP in multiple guidance pathways. Another interpretation of these data is that a major guidance decision made by retinal axons is whether and where to branch in the tectum. It is important to note that the transfection approach used is limited in that it is not possible to be certain when the inhibitory construct was expressed at levels sufficient to block Ena/VASP. Furthermore, only a small subset of neurons in the retina were transfected, therefore it is likely that pioneering axons were not affected by the inhibitory construct. Compensation for Ena/VASP could occur during outgrowth to the target via fasciculation; however, branch formation in the tectum occurs by interstitial axon branching after the primary growth cone has extended beyond the target (
McLaughlin et al. 2003). Thus, topographically specific interstitial branching is a major form of guidance in the tectum, and it is particularly sensitive to Ena/VASP disruption (
Dwivedy et al. 2007). This hypothesis is consistent with the ability of Ena/VASP to affect branching in murine hippocampal (
Lebrand et al. 2004) and cortical (Dent and Gertler, unpubl.) neurons, two neuronal types that branch primarily by interstitial branching (
Halloran and Kalil 1994).
DAAM1
Recent work implicates another barbed-end binding protein, disheveled-associated activator of morphogenesis (DAAM), as a regulator of filopodia formation and axonal morphogenesis in
Drosophila (
Matusek et al. 2008). DAAM is a member of the formin protein superfamily that nucleates linear actin filaments, regulates filament growth rate through processive elongation (continuous attachment to the growing end), and can block filament termination by barbed-end capping proteins. Most formin proteins contain three conserved domains: the GTPase binding domain (GBD), Formin homology 1 (FH1) domain, and Formin homology 2 (FH2) domain (
Higgs 2005). Formins are autoinhibited by head-to-tail intramolecular interactions that are typically relieved by binding to Rho GTPases, thereby allowing the FH1 and FH2 to bind effectors and drive actin polymerization (
Goode and Eck 2007). The FH1 domain binds to profilin, while the FH2 domain contains the core nucleating activity. Unlike other formins, DAAM1 is activated by binding to Dvl, a component of noncanonical Wnt signaling pathways (
Liu et al. 2008), raising the interesting possibility that this molecule could be involved in Wnt-mediated guidance.
The
Drosophila DAAM1 ortholog “DAAM” is expressed highly in the nervous system (
Matusek et al. 2008). Loss-of-function analysis and targeted expression of activated constructs revealed that DAAM plays significant roles in filopodia formation on axonal growth cones: Loss of DAAM reduces the frequency of filopodia formation in primary cultures from mutants, while expression of activated DAAM increases filopodia formation. Most eukaryotes possess multiple formin genes (
Higgs 2005;
Higgs and Peterson 2005), and the cellular roles of these proteins have recently been explored. Mutant embryos lacking functional DAAM exhibit a range of CNS phenotypes that are observed in about a third of the embryos lacking both the maternally and zygotically produced protein. The DAAM mutants show occasional gaps in longitudinal connectives and more severely affected embryos show malformed commissures, misrouted axons, or failures in commissure separation (
Matusek et al. 2008). Genetic interaction studies indicate that reduced levels of DAAM exacerbate phenotypes caused by loss of Rac and vice versa, showing that these two proteins function in interdependent, or perhaps parallel, pathways important for axon outgrowth and guidance. Similarly, reduction in Ena or profilin levels exacerbated the DAAM loss-of-function phenotype. Expression of a constitutively active form of DAAM induced a variety of defects, including a partial collapse of the longitudinal tracts that could be ameliorated significantly by reducing Ena levels. Therefore, it appears that there is likely significant interplay between DAAM and Ena function during axon outgrowth and guidance.
Coimmunoprecipitation of various formins in different systems revealed that there are small pools of Ena/VASP in complex with formins (
Grosse et al. 2003;
Schirenbeck et al. 2006;
Homem and Peifer 2009). The distribution of DAAM and Ena overlaps partially in growth cone filopodia (
Matusek et al. 2008), so these two molecules may interact as well. While various models have been proposed to explain the function of a formin:Ena/VASP complex, none have been tested rigorously. Regardless, it seems likely that complexes between multiple molecules that can each independently drive filopodia formation may exist. This offers the growth cone exquisite flexibility to respond rapidly to distinct guidance cues that trigger activation of a subset of such filopodia-promoting proteins. In the future, it will be interesting to see if DAAM acts in the same guidance pathways as Ena. In this respect, it is curious that mutations in genes encoding DAAM or other formin superfamily proteins have not been recovered in genetic screens conducted in
Drosophila and
C. elegans for axon guidance defects or for modifiers of guidance pathways, while mutations in Ena/VASP genes have been identified repeatedly. Given the large number of formin family members (
Higgs 2005;
Higgs and Peterson 2005), it is likely that future studies will reveal that other formins are involved in growth cone morphology and guidance. It will be interesting to further define how formin family proteins and Ena/VASP proteins cooperate in filopodia formation and axon guidance.
Capping Proteins
Not all barbed-end-binding proteins facilitate actin polymerization. Capping proteins bind to the barbed ends of actin filaments and block access of monomers to the barbed end, thus halting polymerization and reducing the length of F-actin (
Xu et al. 1999). Antagonism between filament elongation/protection factors and capping proteins contributes to filopodial dynamics. In fact, while filopodial formation has been the subject of great interest, relatively little is understood about the mechanisms that govern filopodial withdrawal, including determining which of the many filament capping proteins play predominant roles in negatively regulating filopodial dynamics in growth cones. Hippocampal neurons from mice lacking gelsolin, a protein that severs actin filaments in a Ca
2+-dependent manner and caps the free barbed ends of the severed filaments (
Sun et al. 1999), have increased numbers of filopodia that arise as a consequence of reduced retraction (
Lu et al. 1997). A role for gelsolin in axon guidance has not been reported. Similarly, deletion of the multifunctional capping protein EPS8, which interacts with a number of signaling proteins involved in Rac and Ras signaling, as well as having actin filament capping activity, results in increased filopodia number after treatment of hippocampal neurons with BDNF (
Menna et al. 2009). EPS8 knockout mice do not show any obvious axon guidance defects; however, the expression of two EPS8-related molecules during development may mask a possible requirement for EPS8.
The most widely studied capping protein, heterodimeric capping protein (CP), does indeed mediate growth cone morphology, axon elongation, and possibly axon guidance. In
Drosophila, reduction in filament elongation/anti-capping activity of Ena ameliorates
abl phenotypes, including defects in axon guidance (
Gertler et al. 1990;
Gertler et al. 1995;
Wills et al. 1999b;
Drees and Gertler 2008). Based on this finding, Grevengoed and colleagues examined the effects of reducing CP levels in
abl mutants and found that such animals exhibit more severe phenotypes than those observed in
abl mutants alone with respect to morphology of the nervous system (the opposite of the effect observed upon reduction of Ena levels) (
Grevengoed et al. 2003). Therefore, CP may play a role in axon guidance through its well-characterized ability to cap growing actin filaments. Careful analysis of
cp loss-of-function mutants is required to assess the role of CP in axon outgrowth and guidance.
Unexpectedly, CP also appears to have a role in controlling growth cone morphology and axon elongation independent of its capping activity. Loss of a CP subunit, CapzB2, resulted in aberrant growth cone morphology and neurite outgrowth, and also mis-localized microtubules that extended into the peripheral domain of growth cones. Surprisingly, this phenotype is not a result of reduced capping, but instead arises due to loss of a newly identified interaction between CapzB2 and βIII tubulin. Mutants that maintained capping activity but lacked the ability to bind βIII tubulin could not rescue the phenotype, while capping deficient mutants that bound βIII tubulin rescued (
Davis et al. 2009). This study supports the idea that proper localization of microtubules in the central region of the growth cone is necessary for normal growth cone morphology and translocation. It will be challenging to determine the relative contributions of tubulin binding and filament capping by CP in axon guidance. The control of filament capping during guidance, and its functional significance to navigation, remain outstanding questions in the field.
Fascin
Fascin, a potent F-actin bundling protein found in filopodia, is highly expressed in the developing nervous system of mouse (
De Arcangelis et al. 2004). Fascin cross-links and stabilizes actin filaments, giving rise to parallel/unipolar F-actin bundles (
Sasaki et al. 1996;
Aratyn et al. 2007), and it is involved in filopodia formation in multiple cell types (
Vignjevic et al. 2006). In the large growth cones of the
helisoma snail, inhibition of fascin with TPA, a PKC agonist, resulted in a marked loss of actin bundles within growth cones, suggesting that fascin is crucial for the maintenance of filopodia and normal growth cone morphology (
Cohan et al. 2001). Loss of fascin function in
Drosophila results in impaired neurite morphology and a failure in proper trajectory maintenance (
De Arcangelis et al. 2004), suggesting that fascin may be involved in motility or guidance. Consistent with this idea, semaphorin-induced growth cone collapse is associated with an increase in fascin localization, which the authors suggest increases the F-actin bundles required for myosin-based contraction/retraction (
Brown and Bridgman 2009).
Loss-of-function analysis in
Drosophila and mice, however, has yet to reveal a significant role for fascin in axon guidance. Gene targeted
fascin1 mutant mice revealed that loss of fascin1 had only subtle effects on nervous system development; the only potential guidance-dependent phenotype involved a failure of the posterior portion of the anterior commissure to form (
Yamakita et al. 2009). Dorsal root ganglia cultured from the fascin1 knockouts exhibit fewer and shorter filopodia, though they are able to extend axons normally (
Yamakita et al. 2009). The subtle phenotype observed in fascin1 mutants is unlikely due to overlapping expression with fascin paralogs, as neither of the two other fascin genes in mice are expressed in the developing nervous system (outside of the retina). Other actin bundling proteins might substitute for fascin, or alternatively, homeostatic regulatory mechanisms might partially compensate for fascin and allow for normal nervous system development. It seems likely that genetic interaction screens in
Drosophila or
C. elegans may be necessary to identify conditions that sensitize animals to a loss of fascin function during nervous system development.
Abl
The Ableson (Abl) nonreceptor tyrosine kinase mediates transduction of signals from growth-factor and adhesion receptors and regulates a diverse array of signaling pathways, including many involved in cytoskeletal regulation (for a comprehensive Abl-targets and ligands review, see
Bradley and Koleske 2009). Abl and Arg (an Abl-related gene) are the only known nonreceptor tyrosine kinases that bind the actin cytoskeleton directly; in addition, Arg (but not Abl) can bind MTs.
Drosophila Abl contains the actin binding, but not MT, interacting motifs; therefore, we focus on Abl as an actin-binding kinase. Direct interactions with actin support F-actin bundling by Abl and Arg. Cytoskeletal interactions may also help concentrate Abl family proteins in close proximity to key targets that can regulate the dynamics of membrane protrusion. Abl proteins can also bind and/or phosphorylate other cytoskeletal regulatory proteins such as WAVE family proteins, Cortactin, and Ena/VASP. Abl can also regulate cytoskeletal dynamics by modulating the activity of GEFs and GAPs for Rho family proteins. Abl is therefore of great interest with respect to its ability to interact directly with F-actin and for the many genetic and biochemical interactions that link it to cytoskeletal regulatory proteins during axon guidance.
The evidence that implicates Abl in axon guidance in vivo stems from work in
Drosophila, where functional Abl is required in concert with various interacting genes to form axonal connections in the embryonic nervous system (
Gertler et al. 1989);
Elkins et al. 1990;
Wills et al. 1999a;
Bashaw et al. 2000;
Liebl et al. 2000;
Wills et al. 2002;
Liebl et al. 2003;
Lee et al. 2004;
Forsthoefel et al. 2005;
Lowery et al. 2010). The ladder-like embryonic CNS axon scaffold of
Drosophila is severely disrupted if both maternal and zygotic contributions of Abl protein are eliminated (
Grevengoed et al. 2001). While the CNS is fairly normal in zygotic
Abl mutants, widespread disruption in CNS axonal connections is observed in
Abl mutant embryos also harboring a mutation in the adhesion molecule fasciclin I (
Elkins et al. 1990). In addition, CNS defects are observed in
Abl mutant embryos that have reduced levels of the adhesion receptor Neurotactin (Nrt) (
Liebl et al. 2003), and also in
Abl mutants that lack functional Armadillo, a Beta-catenin homolog that is a component of the N-Cadherin cell:cell adhesion machinery (
Loureiro and Peifer 1998). These interactions suggest that one aspect of Abl function in the formation of the embryonic CNS involves modulation of cell:cell interactions. Beyond CNS midline crossing,
Abl also regulates guidance of the ISNb motor axons. In
Abl mutants, ISNb motor neurons stop short and fail to reach their targets, while overexpression results in these motor axons proceeding past their targets (
Wills et al. 1999a). Abl function in ISNb guidance serves to antagonize the functions of Ena and the receptor tyrosine phosphatase DLAR in the establishment of these axon trajectories.
The role of Abl in regulating midline crossing has been investigated in several studies. Abl appears to act in multiple repulsive and attractive midline guidance systems. Abl binds, and can phosphorylate, the Robo receptor (
Bashaw et al. 2000), potentially activating Robo and preventing axons from crossing the midline. Consistent with this model, a
Robo-like phenotype is caused by overexpression of Abl in the nerve cord (
Bashaw et al. 2000). Other genetic interaction analyses indicate that Abl collaborates with different sets of interacting molecules that either enhance, or dampen, midline crossing (
Wills et al. 2002). Consistent with this idea, either too much or too little Abl activity causes axons to cross the midline inappropriately (
Hsouna et al. 2003). Therefore, a precise balance between Abl function and Abl interaction partners is essential for proper midline guidance.
Genetic evidence in
Drosophila also implicates Abl in netrin-mediated guidance.
Abl mutations exacerbate
Fra(DCC) and
netrin CNS mutant phenotypes;
Fra/Abl double mutants show a marked reduction in commissural axons (
Forsthoefel et al. 2005). Consistent with an in vivo role for Abl as an effector of Fra signaling,
Abl heterozygosity reduces the number of axons that inappropriately cross the midline in embryos expressing a chimeric Robo-Fra receptor. Fra can be coimmunoprecipitated with Abl and may be an Abl substrate (
Forsthoefel et al. 2005). Another guidance receptor,
Dscam, which acts in both netrin-dependent and netrin-independent guidance, exhibits a potent synthetic interaction with
Abl mutations that give rise to severe midline crossing defects (
Andrews et al. 2008).
Abl has been linked functionally to cytoskeletal regulation by genetic data, indicating that accurate axon guidance requires a precise balance between Abl signaling pathways and cytoskeletal-binding proteins that regulate actin dynamics. As noted previously, reduction in Ena levels can suppress many
Abl-dependent phenotypes (
Gertler et al. 1990;
Gertler et al. 1995;
Wills et al. 1999a). Other cytoskeletal proteins have been implicated in Abl-mediated guidance. These include: trio (a rac GEF that functions with Abl in netrin responses [
Liebl et al. 2000;
Forsthoefel et al. 2005]); Abi (an adaptor protein that functions antagonistically with Abl and can also bind various actin regulatory and signaling proteins [
Lin et al. 2009]); and cap (an actin monomer binding protein [
Wills et al. 2002]). Interestingly, Abl is also connected to MT dynamics through potent interactions with two proteins, orbit/CLASP and Msps (mini spindles), both of which are +TIPs protein (
Lee et al. 2004;
Lowery et al. 2010). Therefore, Abl appears poised to coordinate actin and MT dynamics during guidance responses.
In vertebrates, the role of Abl and Arg in axon guidance is less clear than it is for
Drosophila Abl. Abl can interact with the Ephrin-A receptors, EphB2 and EphA4 (
Yu et al. 2001), and is necessary for proper ephrinA-induced repulsion in cultured retinal axons (
Harbott and Nobes 2005). Surprisingly, despite a wealth of evidence implicating Abl in multiple guidance pathways in
Drosophila, clear roles for Abl and the related Arg kinases have yet to be demonstrated in vivo in vertebrates. Mice in which both Abl and Arg were deleted specifically in the nervous system exhibit no obvious axon guidance defects (
Moresco et al. 2005;
Bradley and Koleske 2009). Furthermore, axon guidance phenotypes have not been reported for mutations in the
C. elegans Abl ortholog.
There is no simple explanation for why
Drosophila Abl is involved in so many guidance processes while similar roles for Abl in other systems have not been evident. One possible explanation involves the relatively poorly conserved carboxy terminus of Abl. While the activity of the highly conserved mammalian Abl kinase domain can substitute for fly Abl during this process (
Henkemeyer et al. 1990;
Wills et al. 1999a), the vertebrate c-terminus is not functional in the fly. The large c-terminal domain of Abl family proteins is unique among receptor tyrosine kinases and contains, among other features, the actin-binding sites found in all Abl proteins. Transgenic rescue experiments revealed that while the vertebrate amino terminal portion of Abl (including the SH3, SH2, and tyrosine kinase domains) can functionally substitute for the
Drosophila Abl protein, the c-terminus cannot (
Henkemeyer et al. 1990). Interestingly,
Drosophila Abl has two EVH-1 (Ena/VASP Homology) binding motifs in its carboxy terminus that are not conserved in Abl family proteins found in other species; it would be interesting to determine whether direct binding of Ena and Abl at these sites plays a significant role in their genetic interactions in
Drosophila.
Myosin II
Myosin II is a motor protein that causes anti-parallel filaments to contract, driving actin retrograde flow in growth cones (
Lin et al. 1996). Myosin II is likely to play a major role in force production necessary for growth cone motility as well as aid in actin depolymerization by disruption of F-actin networks (
Medeiros et al. 2006). Both roles are likely important for axon guidance. Myosin-II-based retrograde flow also affects microtubule dynamics and restricts the localization of the majority of microtubules to within the central domain of the growth cone (
Burnette et al. 2008;
Schaefer et al. 2008). To achieve directional motility, however, myosin II activity is likely regulated spatially by signaling from guidance cues. In
Drosophila CNS neurons, expression of a constitutively active Myosin Light Chain Kinase (MLCK) causes incorrect midline crossing (
Kim et al. 2002), confirming the importance of proper regulation of myosin II activity during axon guidance. Expression of active MLCK in conjunction with
Slit or
Robo mutants induced further defects in axon guidance, while activated MLCK expression decreased aberrant guidance in the context of
Comm mutants. Similarly, the effects of active MLCK expression were exacerbated by increased Frazzled levels and suppressed by loss of Frazzled function (
Kim et al. 2002). Therefore, attractive and repulsive guidance cues utilize myosin II activity. Signaling from Rho family proteins can regulate myosin II, and there is evidence that Rho family proteins link myosin II regulation to guidance receptors (
Fritz and VanBerkum 2002;
Gallo 2006;
Loudon et al. 2006;
Murray et al. 2010).
There are three distinct isoforms of nonmuscle myosin II (A, B, and C), and these have overlapping and distinct functions in various aspects of motility and adhesion (
Vicente-Manzanares et al. 2009). A high-resolution study investigated the role of myosin II in repulsion (
Brown et al. 2009). Application of the repellent Sema3A to mouse DRG neurons caused a redistribution of myosin IIB within the growth cone that coincided with a partial depolymerization of the F-actin meshwork but left large F-actin bundles intact. These bundles were proposed to act as the substrate for myosin-II-based contraction, driving growth cone collapse (
Brown et al. 2009). Myosin IIA normally redistributes to the neurite neck during retraction. Myosin IIA overexpression blocks collapse and retraction of mouse DRGs (
Brown et al. 2009), leading the authors to conclude that myosin IIA stabilizes the actin cytoskeleton to prevent retraction. In contrast, genetic deletion of myosin IIB or global inhibition of myosin II activity by blebbistatin treatment blocked retraction (
Brown et al. 2009). During Sema3A treatment, Myosin IIB redistributes from a broad pattern over the entire growth cone to the rear of the growth cone and neck of the connecting neurite. To put these findings together, a model has been proposed in which Sema3A treatment leads to myosin IIA removal from the growth cone, reducing the stability of the actin network and inducing collapse. Subsequently, myosin IIB is thought to associate with the remaining actin bundles at the growth cone neck region to drive retraction (
Brown et al. 2009).
Actin-nucleating Proteins
Activation of the Arp2/3 complex, which nucleates new filaments off the sides of existing F-actin, is accomplished primarily by WASP/WAVE (also called “SCAR”) proteins, which themselves are regulated by Rho GTPases and other signaling cascades. In
Drosophila, loss of function of components in the Arp2/3 complex or its activator SCAR result in aberrant axonal morphology of commissural and longitudinal axons (
Zallen et al. 2002). However, these defects may arise as a secondary consequence of other extensive defects in actin-driven developmental processes. To overcome phenotypes observed in the absence of Arp2/3 function, Ng and Luo performed analysis of single cell clones in developing mushroom body (MB) neurons of
Drosophila and found that removal of an essential component of Arp2/3, or of WAVE, WASP, or both, resulted in MB neurons with no obvious axonal growth or morphological defects (
Ng and Luo 2004). In
C. elegans, removal of both WAVE and WASP, or components of the Arp2/3 complex, result in clear axon guidance defects, but do not affect the ability of axons to elongate (
Shakir et al. 2008;
Norris et al. 2009). Therefore, it appears that the Arp2/3 complex is dispensable for axon formation and outgrowth, but is required in specific guidance pathways.
The role of the Arp2/3 complex in axon outgrowth in mammals has been more difficult to define. In one study, expression of an Arp2/3 inhibitory construct in cultured hippocampal neurons caused no obvious changes in growth cone morphology and filopodia formation, but yielded significant increases in axon length and impaired responses to Sema3A (
Strasser et al. 2004). A second study using both the Arp2/3 inhibitory strategy and siRNA against Arp2/3 subunits to remove Arp2/3 activity in primary hippocampal neurons also found that reduction in Arp2/3 activity caused increased axon elongation (
Pinyol et al. 2007). A third study, however, found that RNAi-mediated depletion of Arp2/3 in neurons resulted in reduced filopodial and lamellipodial protrusion dynamics. It should be noted that while some key experiments (e.g., growth cone protrusion dynamics) were performed in primary hippocampal neurons, most of the data presented in this study were derived from the use of differentiated neuronal-like B35 cells that may or may not reflect the properties of primary neurons (
Korobova and Svitkina 2008). It is possible that the inhibitory strategy used by Strasser et al. and Pinyol et al. was not fully effective in blocking Arp2/3 activity; however, the siRNA knockdown strategy used by Korobova and Svitkina depleted Arp2/3 only to about 40% of normal levels. Furthermore, Pinyol et al. used an Arp2/3 inhibitory construct and RNAi approaches that both yielded results consistent with those of Strasser and colleagues. It is also possible that other differences in experimental design such as the length of time in culture before and after transfection, prior to analysis, may be responsible for these different findings. Regardless of these differences, it is possible to conclude that, as in
Drosophila and
C. elegans, Arp2/3 is not essential for neurite and subsequent axon formation and elongation based on these various loss-of-function studies. Also, as is the case from the analysis of
C. elegans Arp2/3 mutants (
Norris et al. 2009), a reduction in Arp2/3 may compromise filopodial dynamics. Ultimately, it will be necessary to perform true loss-of-function analysis on Arp2/3 and its activators to evaluate the exact role of Arp2/3 in growth cone morphology and axon elongation in mammalian neurons.
While it is unclear whether all guidance responses involve Arp2/3-mediated nucleation, Sema3A and netrin likely utilize this pathway of actin assembly. Sema3A-induced growth cone repulsion is correlated with a decrease in intensity of the Arp2/3 complex and cortactin, and an associated increase in the intensity of fascin and myosin II (
Brown and Bridgman 2009). Furthermore, as described above, neurons expressing an Arp2/3 inhibitory construct fail to respond properly to Sema3A (
Strasser et al. 2004). Inhibition of N-WASP, an Arp2/3 activator, via expression of a dominant–negative construct in commissural neurons blocks the increase in filopodia and growth cone area observed normally after netrin stimulation (
Shekarabi et al. 2005), suggesting that Arp2/3 may be required for netrin response.
It will be important to determine which nucleating activities are required for growth cone locomotion, axon guidance, or both. Furthermore, it is unclear whether there is functional overlap between the different families of actin nucleators (Arp2/3, spire, DAAM1, and cordon-blue). Finally, it will be interesting to define the roles of recently discovered nucleators, such as the neuronal-specific cordon-blue (
Ahuja et al. 2007), in axon navigation.