Expression of TESK1 Protein in Various Cell Lines
We previously showed the expression of TESK1 mRNA in various
tissues and cell lines, although the level of expression is lower than
that in the testis (
Toshima et al., 1999 
). To examine the
expression of TESK1 protein in cell lines, lysates from various cell
lines were subjected to immunoprecipitation and immunoblot
analysis, using TK-C21 anti-TESK1 antibody. In our previous studies, we
could not detect the expression of endogenous TESK1 protein in COS-7
cell lysates, under conditions in which we used lysates from 5 ×
10
5 COS-7 cells (
Toshima et al., 1995 
,
1999 
). In this study, we therefore used 10 times more cell lysates
(5 × 10
6 cells), and the
immunoblot membrane was exposed eightfold longer (2 min) to
the ECL detection reagent, compared with the conditions used in the
previous studies. As shown in Figure A,
the one major immunoreactive band migrating at ~68 kDa, similar to
the calculated mass for TESK1 protein, was detected in various cell
lines, including COS-7 cells, HeLa epithelial carcinoma cells, Rat1A
and Swiss 3T3 fibroblasts, Jurkat T cell leukemia, N1E-115
neuroblastoma, and PC12 pheochromocytoma cells. This band was not
detected when COS-7 cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with preimmune
serum or with anti-TESK1 antibody preincubated with antigenic peptide
(Figure B), which suggests that the 68-kDa band represents the
endogenously expressed TESK1 protein. The wide expression of TESK1 mRNA
and protein in various tissues and cell lines suggests general cellular
functions of TESK1.
TESK1 Induces the Formation of Stress Fibers and Focal Adhesions
LIM-kinases induce actin reorganization in cultured cells. Because
the kinase domain of TESK1 is similar to those of LIM-kinases, we asked
whether TESK1 can induce changes in actin organization. When HeLa cells
were transfected with plasmids coding for TESK1 and then stained with
rhodamine-phalloidin to visualize actin filaments, marked induction
of actin stress fibers was observed in TESK1-transfected cells,
compared with findings with TESK1-nontransfected cells (Figure
A, top panels). In contrast, expression
of a kinase-inactive mutant of TESK1, TESK1(D170A), in which the
presumptive catalytic residue Asp-170 is replaced by alanine, failed to
induce stress fibers and seemed to partially reduce naturally occurring
stress fibers (Figure A, middle panels). These results suggest that
TESK1 can induce the formation of actin stress fibers, the function of
which depends on its kinase catalytic activity. As reported (
Yang
et al., 1998 
), expression of LIMK1 induced the actin
reorganization in HeLa cells, but the morphology of polymerized actin
structures induced by LIMK1 was distinct from that induced by TESK1; in
most of the LIMK1-expressing cells, actin filaments accumulated in the
cell periphery (Figure A, bottom panels). Thus, TESK1 seems to play a
role distinct from that of LIMK1 in actin reorganization. In addition,
we observed that both TESK1 and its kinase-inactive mutant expressed in
HeLa cells were localized diffusely in the cytoplasm, with dense
staining at the perinuclear region; the pattern was distinct from that
of LIMK1, which was enriched in the region of polymerized actin at the
cell periphery (Figure A).
The formation of stress fibers is usually accompanied by assembly of
focal adhesions at cell margins. To determine whether TESK1 would
induce focal adhesions, we transfected the TESK1 plasmid into HeLa
cells, and the formation of focal adhesions was visualized by
immunostaining vinculin, a major component of focal adhesions.
Expression of TESK1 significantly induced the formation of focal
adhesions, because vinculin staining was specifically enhanced at the
margins of TESK1-expressing cells (Figure B, top panels). In contrast,
expression of a kinase-inactive TESK1(D170A) failed to induce focal
adhesions (Figure B, bottom panels). These findings suggest that TESK1
plays a role in the formation of actin stress fibers and focal
adhesions, both of which depend on its protein kinase activity.
TESK1 Phosphorylates Cofilin and ADF In Vitro and In Vivo
To elucidate the mechanism by which TESK1 induces stress fibers
and focal adhesions, we searched for the kinase substrate(s) for TESK1.
Structural similarity of the kinase domains of TESK1 and LIM-kinases
suggests that the cellular substrate(s) of these kinases may be similar
or even identical. Because LIM-kinases phosphorylate cofilin
specifically at Ser-3, the site of its inactivation, we examined
whether TESK1 could phosphorylate cofilin in vitro and in vivo.
Wild-type TESK1 and its kinase-inactive D170A mutant were expressed in
COS-7 cells, immunoprecipitated, and subjected to in vitro kinase
reaction, using recombinant (His)6-tagged cofilin
as a substrate. As shown in Figure A,
wild-type TESK1 phosphorylated wild-type cofilin, but not S3A-cofilin,
in which Ser-3 is replaced by alanine. TESK1(D170A) did not
phosphorylate either one. These results suggest that TESK1
phosphorylates cofilin specifically at Ser-3 in vitro. We also examined
the kinase activity of TESK1 toward ADF, a protein closely related to
cofilin. TESK1 phosphorylated ADF to an extent similar to that seen
with cofilin, but not its S3A mutant (Figure A). Accordingly, TESK1
phosphorylates both cofilin and ADF specifically at Ser-3.
We next asked whether TESK1 could phosphorylate cofilin and ADF in
cultured cells. HA-tagged cofilin or its S3A mutant was expressed with
wild-type or the kinase-inactive form of TESK1 in COS-7 cells, and then
the cells were labeled with
[32P]orthophosphate.
32P-incorporation into cofilin was evident when
coexpressed with wild-type TESK1 but not with TESK1(D170A) (Figure B,
left panel). 32P-incorporation into S3A-cofilin
was nil by coexpression with either TESK1 or TESK1(D170A). In a similar
manner, we observed 32P-incorporation into
wild-type ADF but not into its S3A mutant, when they were coexpressed
with TESK1 (Figure B, right panel). Thus TESK1 can phosphorylate
cofilin and ADF specifically at Ser-3 in vivo as well as in vitro.
Cofilin and S3A-cofilin, when expressed in HeLa cells, induced marked
decrease in rhodamine-phalloidin staining, which was caused by the
actin-binding and -depolymerizing activity of cofilin (Figure C, left
panels). When TESK1 was coexpressed with cofilin, the decrease in
phalloidin staining induced by cofilin was reversed, and phalloidin
staining of actin filaments was observed (Figure C, top right panel).
In contrast, the decrease in phalloidin staining induced by
nonphosphorylatable S3A-cofilin was not affected by coexpression with
TESK1 (Figure C, bottom-right panels). Coexpression with a
kinase-inactive TESK1(D170A) did not reverse the cofilin-induced loss
of phalloidin staining (our unpublished results). These results further
support the idea that TESK1, like LIM-kinases, can phosphorylate
cofilin at Ser-3 and thereby inhibit the actin binding/depolymerizing
activity of cofilin in cultured cells.
Effects of ROCK and PAK on the Kinase Activity of TESK1
Rho and Rac regulate actin reorganization: Rho induces actin
stress fibers and focal adhesions, whereas Rac induces lamellipodia
(
Narumiya et al., 1997 
;
Hall, 1998 
). ROCK and PAK,
downstream effectors of Rho and Rac, respectively, directly
phosphorylate and activate LIM-kinases. Because TESK1 induces stress
fibers and focal adhesions, this kinase may act as a downstream
effector of Rho and ROCK. We therefore tested the effect of Rho-ROCK
pathway activation on the kinase activity of TESK1. When TESK1 was
coexpressed in COS-7 cells with either an active form of Rho (RhoV14)
or an active form of ROCK (ROCKΔ3), no increase in the kinase
activity of TESK1 was observed (our unpublished results). This finding
is in contrast to cases of LIM-kinases, the kinase activities of which
were increased by coexpression with ROCKΔ3 or RhoV14 (
Maekawa
et al., 1999 
;
Sumi et al., 1999 
;
Ohashi et
al., 2000 
;
Amano et al., 2001 
). The kinase activity of
TESK1 was not affected when it was coexpressed with an active form of
Rac (RacV12) or Cdc42 (Cdc42V12) (our unpublished results). In
addition, expression of a kinase-inactive mutant TESK1(D170A) had no
apparent effect on RhoV14- or ROCKΔ3-induced stress fiber formation
or RacV12-induced lamellipodium formation (our unpublished results). In
vitro kinase reaction further revealed that the kinase activity of
TESK1 was not affected by treatment with either ROCKΔ3 or an active
form of PAK (PAKΔN), whereas the kinase activity of LIMK2 was
significantly enhanced by ROCKΔ3 or PAKΔN (Figure
). It is noted that TESK1 and
TESK1(D170A) were evidently phosphorylated by PAKΔN (Figure B, third
panel), but the physiological meaning of this phosphorylation remains
to be determined. Taken together, these results suggest that in
contrast to LIM-kinases, TESK1 is not a downstream effector of either
ROCK or PAK.
Effects of Rho-ROCK Signaling on TESK1-induced Stress Fiber and
Focal Adhesion Formation
To further investigate the relationship between the Rho-ROCK
signaling and TESK1-induced actin stress fibers, we examined the
effects of Rho-ROCK inhibitors on TESK1-induced stress fibers. As shown
in Figure A, TESK1-induced stress fibers
were repressed by coexpression with C3 exoenzyme, a
botulinum toxin that specifically inactivates Rho by
ADP-ribosylation (
Sekine et al., 1989 
), or ROCK(KD-IA), a
dominant-negative mutant of ROCK (
Ishizaki et al., 1997 
).
Focal adhesions induced by TESK1 were also repressed by coexpression
with C3 or ROCK(KD-IA) (our unpublished results). Thus, TESK1, albeit
not a direct target of ROCK, does require activity of the Rho-ROCK
signaling pathway for the formation of stress fibers and focal
adhesions.
In addition, we also found that coexpression of ROCK(KD-IA) with
TESK1(D170A) in HeLa cells induced an almost complete loss of actin
filaments and remarkable changes in cell morphology (cell shrinkage
leaving process-like structures) (Figure B). Although ROCK(KD-IA)
alone also induced such shrinking phenotype in 20% of the transfected
cells, coexpression with TESK1(D170A) significantly augmented the ratio
of shrinking cells to 58% (Figure C). On the other hand, coexpression
of a kinase-inactive mutant of LIMK1, LIMK1(D460A), had no apparent
effect, which further suggests that LIMK1, but not TESK1, acts as a
downstream effector of ROCK and that LIMK1 and TESK1 play distinct
roles in the organization of actin filaments and cell morphology.
Coexpression of wild-type TESK1 with ROCK(KD-IA) reduced the ratio of
shrinking cells. These results suggest that both TESK1 and ROCK have an
important role in maintaining normal cell morphology and adhesion by
supporting the formation of actin stress fibers and focal adhesions.
We next investigated the effects of Y-27632, a specific inhibitor of
ROCK (
Uehata et al., 1997 
), on TESK1-induced actin
reorganization, to determine the short-term effects of ROCK inhibition.
As reported (
Uehata et al., 1997 
), stress fibers induced by
RhoV14 were suppressed by a 30 min treatment of cells with Y-27632.
Similarly, stress fibers in TESK1-transfected cells were reduced by
treatment with Y-27632, but interestingly most of the TESK1-expressing
cells showed polymerized actin structures and vinculin assemblies at
cell peripheries (Figure , A and B). In
TESK1(D170A)-expressing cells, no such structure but rather a
significant loss of actin filaments was observed (Figure A). TESK1 was
enriched in the region of polymerized actin structures at cell
peripheries in the presence of Y-27632 (Figure A). Costaining with
anti-TESK1 and anti-vinculin antibodies further revealed colocalization
of TESK1 with vinculin at peripheries of Y-27632–treated cells (Figure
B). Thus, under conditions that ROCK signaling was temporarily blocked
by Y-27632, TESK1 induced polymerized actin structures and vinculin
assemblies that are distinct from stress fibers and focal adhesions, at
the cell periphery. Together with findings that ROCK does not activate
TESK1, these observations suggest that TESK1 has a potential to induce
actin reorganization independently on ROCK.
Activation of Endogenous TESK1 by Integrin Signaling
During cell adhesion and spreading on the fibronectin-coated
surface, actin stress fibers and focal adhesions are induced by
signaling mediated by integrin receptors (
Clark and Brugge,
1995 
). Because TESK1 can induce assembly of actin stress fibers and
focal adhesions, it may play a role in integrin signaling. We
therefore examined changes in kinase activity of endogenous TESK1
during adhesion and spreading of HeLa cells on fibronectin. Suspended
cells were plated onto fibronectin-coated dishes and cultured under the
serum-free conditions. At indicated times, endogenous TESK1 was
prepared by immunoprecipitation, and its kinase activity was measured
in vitro, using recombinant cofilin as a substrate. The kinase activity
of TESK1 gradually increased with time, reaching a maximum level at 30
min after plating (Figure A). A longer
plating on fibronectin did not further promote the activity of TESK1.
When we examined the kinase activity of endogenous LIMK1 in HeLa cells
under similar conditions, only a small increase in LIMK1 activity was
observed during cell spreading (Figure A). The activity of TESK1 was
not stimulated when the cells were plated on a surface coated with
poly-
l-lysine (Figure B). These results suggest that the
kinase activity of TESK1 is up-regulated by fibronectin-induced
stimulation of integrin signaling pathways.
Increase in the Level of Cofilin Phosphorylation by
Integrin Signaling
To determine the level of cofilin phosphorylation after plating
cells on fibronectin, we prepared the antibody that specifically
recognized the phosphorylated form of cofilin (P-cofilin). The
specificity of the antibody was determined by immunoblot
analysis of a two-dimensional gel of COS-7 cell lysates. The antibody
reacted with P-cofilin (and also the phosphorylated form of ADF as a
minor spot) but not with the dephosphorylated form of cofilin (Figure
A). On one-dimensional gels of lysates
of COS-7 cells transfected with plasmids for C-terminally
(His)6-tagged cofilin and ADF, immunoreactive
bands with the sizes corresponding to
(His)6-tagged cofilin and ADF were detected with
anti-P-cofilin antibody, but they disappeared during CIP treatment and
recovered during rephosphorylation reaction with TESK1 (Figure B).
These results suggest that the anti-P-cofilin antibody specifically
recognizes the phosphorylated form of cofilin and ADF.
Using this antibody, we examined changes in the level of endogenous
P-cofilin during adhesion and spreading of HeLa cells on
fibronectin-coated dishes. The level of P-cofilin gradually increased
and reached a maximum level at 30 min after plating on fibronectin but
did not change after plating on poly-l-lysine, which
indicates that integrin signaling stimulates cofilin
phosphorylation (Figure C). We next examined the effects of Y-27632 on
the P-cofilin level before and after plating cells on fibronectin. The
level of P-cofilin markedly decreased in Y-27632–treated suspended
cells but increased gradually after plating on fibronectin in a time
course similar to that of Y-27632–untreated cells (Figure , D and E).
These results suggest that ROCK significantly contributes to the basal
level of cofilin phosphorylation in HeLa cells before plating, but the
integrin-mediated increase in cofilin phosphorylation is
primarily regulated by a pathway(s) not related to ROCK. Similar
patterns of time-dependent changes in TESK1 activation and P-cofilin
level in response to plating cells on fibronectin, together with the
finding that TESK1 kinase activity is independent of ROCK, suggest that
TESK1 but not LIMK is responsible for integrin-mediated cofilin
phosphorylation.
To further examine the role of TESK1 in integrin-mediated
cofilin phosphorylation, we prepared HeLa cells stably expressing
exogenous TESK1 (HeLa/TESK1) and TESK1(D170A)
[HeLa/TESK1(DA)]. The levels of expression of TESK1 and
TESK1(D170A) in these cells were approximately three- to fourfold
higher than the level of endogenous TESK1, as estimated by
immunoblotting (Figure
A). The level of P-cofilin increased
approximately threefold in HeLa/TESK1 cells and decreased to
approximately half in HeLa/TESK1(DA) cells, compared with that in
parental HeLa cells, whereas the levels of total cofilin in these cells
were similar (Figure A). When HeLa/TESK1 cells were plated onto
fibronectin-coated dishes, the level of P-cofilin increased and reached
a maximum level at 30 min after plating (Figure B). On the other hand,
the level of P-cofilin in HeLa/TESK1(DA) cells remained low even after
plating on fibronectin (Figure B). These results further suggest that
TESK1 is involved in cofilin phosphorylation stimulated by
integrin signaling. We also examined the level of P-cofilin in
HeLa cells expressing wild-type LIMK1 (HeLa/LIMK1). The level of
P-cofilin in HeLa/LIMK1 cells was approximately threefold higher than
the level in parental HeLa cells before plating (Figure D). However,
in contrast to HeLa/TESK1 cells, the level of P-cofilin in HeLa/LIMK1
cells was not changed after cells were plated on fibronectin (Figure ,
D and E). Thus, it is likely that LIMK1 is involved in cofilin
phosphorylation but does not significantly contribute to the increase
in P-cofilin level induced by plating cells on fibronectin. In
addition, treatment with Y-27632 reduced the level of P-cofilin in
HeLa/LIMK1 cells before and after cells were plated on fibronectin but
had no effect on the level of P-cofilin in HeLa/TESK1 cells before and
after plating on fibronectin (Figure , C–E). Taken together these
results suggest that TESK1 but not LIMK1 is involved in
integrin-mediated cofilin phosphorylation during cell spreading
and that integrin-mediated TESK1 activation and cofilin
phosphorylation are mostly independent of ROCK.
Effects of TESK1 and TESK1(D170A) Expression on
Integrin-mediated Stress Fiber and Focal Adhesion Formation
To further investigate the role of TESK1 in
integrin-mediated signaling pathways, we next examined the
effect of expression of wild-type or a kinase-inactive form of TESK1 on
integrin-mediated stress fiber and focal adhesion formation.
HeLa cells transfected with plasmids for TESK1 or TESK1(D170A) were
suspended and then replated on fibronectin-coated dishes. When cells
were stained with rhodamine-phalloidin 1.5 h after plating,
stress fibers were markedly enhanced in TESK1-expressing cells (Figure
A, top panel). In contrast, stress
fibers were significantly weakened in TESK1(D170A)-expressing cells,
compared with surrounding nontransfected cells (Figure A, bottom
panel), which strongly suggests that endogenous TESK1 is involved in
the stress fiber formation induced by integrin signaling. We
also examined the effect of expression of wild-type or a kinase-dead
form of TESK1 on focal adhesion formation by vinculin immunostaining.
Formation of focal adhesions was substantially enhanced in wild-type
TESK1-transfected cells but was reduced in TESK1(D170A)-transfected
cells (Figure B). As summarized in Figure C, by plating cells on
fibronectin, stress fibers were induced in 79% of the cells expressing
control GFP and in 95% of cells expressing wild-type TESK1, but in
only 44% of cells expressing TESK1(D170A). Similarly, focal adhesions
were induced in 82% of cells expressing control GFP and in 98% of
cells expressing wild-type TESK1, but in only 43% of cells expressing
TESK1(D170A). Cells expressing a kinase-inactive form of LIMK1,
LIMK1(D460A), induced stress fibers and focal adhesions by plating on
fibronectin, to an extent seen with cells expressing control GFP (our
unpublished results). Suppression of stress fibers and focal adhesions
by TESK1(D170A) but not by LIMK1(D460A) strongly suggests that
endogenous TESK1 but not LIMK1 plays an important role in the
integrin-mediated signaling pathway to induce stress fibers and
focal adhesions.