The Ability to Induce Microtubule Acetylation Is a General Feature of Formin Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cytoplasmic microtubules exist as distinct dynamic and stable populations within the cell. Stable microtubules direct and maintain cell polarity and it is thought that their stabilization is dependent on coordinative organization between the microtubule network and the actin cytoskeleton. A growing body of work suggests that some members of the formin family of actin remodeling proteins also regulate microtubule organization and stability. For example, we showed previously that expression of the novel formin INF1 is sufficient to induce microtubule stabilization and tubulin acetylation, but not tubulin detyrosination. An important issue with respect to the relationship between formins and microtubules is the determination of which formin domains mediate microtubule stabilization. INF1 has a distinct microtubule-binding domain at its C-terminus and the endogenous INF1 protein is associated with the microtubule network. Surprisingly, the INF1 microtubule-binding domain is not essential for INF1-induced microtubule acetylation. We show here that expression of the isolated FH1 + FH2 functional unit of INF1 is sufficient to induce microtubule acetylation independent of the INF1 microtubule-binding domain. It is not yet clear whether or not microtubule stabilization is a general property of all mammalian formins; therefore we expressed constitutively active derivatives of thirteen of the fifteen mammalian formin proteins in HeLa and NIH3T3 cells and measured their effects on stress fiber formation, MT organization and MT acetylation. We found that expression of the FH1 + FH2 unit of the majority of mammalian formins is sufficient to induce microtubule acetylation. Our results suggest that the regulation of microtubule acetylation is likely a general formin activity and that the FH2 should be thought of as a dual-function domain capable of regulating both actin and microtubule networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".