Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 176

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Single-molecule tracking of tau reveals fast kiss-and-hop interaction with microtubules in living neurons

Janning, Dennis, Igaev, Maxim, Sündermann, Frederik, Brühmann, Jörg, Beutel, Oliver, Heinisch, Jürgen J., Bakota, Lidia, Piehler, Jacob, Junge, Wolfgang, Brandt, Roland·2014·Molecular Biology of the Cell
DOI 10.1091/mbc.e14-06-1099PMC PMC4230615
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The microtubule-associated phosphoprotein tau regulates microtubule dynamics and is involved in neurodegenerative diseases collectively called tauopathies. It is generally believed that the vast majority of tau molecules decorate axonal microtubules, thereby stabilizing them. However, it is an open question how tau can regulate microtubule dynamics without impeding microtubule-dependent transport and how tau is also available for interactions other than those with microtubules. Here we address this apparent paradox by fast single-molecule tracking of tau in living neurons and Monte Carlo simulations of tau dynamics. We find that tau dwells on a single microtubule for an unexpectedly short time of ∼40 ms before it hops to the next. This dwell time is 100-fold shorter than previously reported by ensemble measurements. Furthermore, we observed by quantitative imaging using fluorescence decay after photoactivation recordings of photoactivatable GFP–tagged tubulin that, despite this rapid dynamics, tau is capable of regulating the tubulin–microtubule balance. This indicates that tau's dwell time on microtubules is sufficiently long to influence the lifetime of a tubulin subunit in a GTP cap. Our data imply a novel kiss-and-hop mechanism by which tau promotes neuronal microtubule assembly. The rapid kiss-and-hop interaction explains why tau, although binding to microtubules, does not interfere with axonal transport.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1091/mbc.e14-06-1099

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1: Single-molecule tracking reveals undirected fast movement of tau in processes of neural cells. (A) Schematic representation of the Halo-tagged tau fusion construct (Halo-tau) and the visualization of a thin cellular layer by TIRF microscopy. The microtubule-binding repeats (R1–R4) are indicated by the gray boxes, and the evanescent field close to the cellular attachment site is shown in yellow. Bottom, colocalization of Halo-tau (left) and monomeric enhanced GFP–tagged α-tubulin (EGFP-tub; right) as visualized by TIRF microscopy of the cell body of living PC12 cells. Sum projections of 1000 consecutive frames were recorded. Scale bar, 10 μm. MTOC, microtubule-organizing center. (B) Time series of individual Halo-tau molecules moving in a process of a neuronally differentiated PC12 cell. Motion during the first 85 ms. Dashed lines indicate the border of the process. A trajectory generated from the complete time series (2.2 s = 440 frames) is shown below, indicating undirected fast movement both longitudinally and transversally. The starting point is indicated by a circle and the end by a square. Scale bar, 0.5 μm.
FIGURE 1: Single-molecule tracking reveals undirected fast movement of tau in processes of neural cells. (A) Schematic representation of the Halo-tagged tau fusion construct (Halo-tau) and the visualization of a thin cellular layer by TIRF microscopy. The microtubule-binding repeats (R1–R4) are indicated by the gray boxes, and the evanescent field close to the cellular attachment site is shown in yellow. Bottom, colocalization of Halo-tau (left) and monomeric enhanced GFP–tagged α-tubulin (EGFP-tub; right) as visualized by TIRF microscopy of the cell body of living PC12 cells. Sum projections of 1000 consecutive frames were recorded. Scale bar, 10 μm. MTOC, microtubule-organizing center. (B) Time series of individual Halo-tau molecules moving in a process of a neuronally differentiated PC12 cell. Motion during the first 85 ms. Dashed lines indicate the border of the process. A trajectory generated from the complete time series (2.2 s = 440 frames) is shown below, indicating undirected fast movement both longitudinally and transversally. The starting point is indicated by a circle and the end by a square. Scale bar, 0.5 μm.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2: Tau interacts with multiple microtubules in processes of PC12 cells. (A) Schematic representation showing the geometry and MT distribution in a process of a neuronally differentiated PC12 cell. (B) Localization of a single Halo-tau molecule in a PC12 cell process over time (for a high-resolution version see Supplemental Figure S1). For comparison, thickness and density of MTs are schematically indicated by green bars. Top, enlargement of the indicated segment. (C) Schematic representation of a real trajectory of a molecule moving between microtubules in a bundle is shown in black. Yellow and black circles indicate binding events of tau with microtubules. The recorded pseudotrajectory is indicated in red. Only the binding events within the time frame (Δt) are detected and indicated by the yellow circles. (D) Time series showing the movement of a syp-mCherry–tagged vesicle in a PC12 cell process. In contrast to tau, localization of syp-mCherry over time indicates directional movement along a single MT. Scale bar, 1 μm.
FIGURE 2: Tau interacts with multiple microtubules in processes of PC12 cells. (A) Schematic representation showing the geometry and MT distribution in a process of a neuronally differentiated PC12 cell. (B) Localization of a single Halo-tau molecule in a PC12 cell process over time (for a high-resolution version see Supplemental Figure S1). For comparison, thickness and density of MTs are schematically indicated by green bars. Top, enlargement of the indicated segment. (C) Schematic representation of a real trajectory of a molecule moving between microtubules in a bundle is shown in black. Yellow and black circles indicate binding events of tau with microtubules. The recorded pseudotrajectory is indicated in red. Only the binding events within the time frame (Δt) are detected and indicated by the yellow circles. (D) Time series showing the movement of a syp-mCherry–tagged vesicle in a PC12 cell process. In contrast to tau, localization of syp-mCherry over time indicates directional movement along a single MT. Scale bar, 1 μm.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
FIGURE 3: Step-size distribution analysis and Monte Carlo simulation indicate jumps of tau between microtubules. (A) SSD analysis of >1000 pseudotrajectories indicating subpopulations of jumps between MTs. The peaks in the histogram correspond to 1 → 2, 1 → 3, and 1 → 4 hops between MTs. (B) SSD analysis of simulated pseudotrajectories at different pseudoequilibrium constants (kon*/koff). Note that the histogram at kon*/koff = 102 closely resembles the data shown in A. The Monte Carlo simulation revealed an additional peak (indicated in red), which was not resolved by imaging.
FIGURE 3: Step-size distribution analysis and Monte Carlo simulation indicate jumps of tau between microtubules. (A) SSD analysis of >1000 pseudotrajectories indicating subpopulations of jumps between MTs. The peaks in the histogram correspond to 1 → 2, 1 → 3, and 1 → 4 hops between MTs. (B) SSD analysis of simulated pseudotrajectories at different pseudoequilibrium constants (kon*/koff). Note that the histogram at kon*/koff = 102 closely resembles the data shown in A. The Monte Carlo simulation revealed an additional peak (indicated in red), which was not resolved by imaging.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
FIGURE 4: Representative histogram of residence times of tau on microtubules in PC12 cells. The monoexponential fit is shown by a red line, and the time constant (dwell time) is indicated on top.
FIGURE 4: Representative histogram of residence times of tau on microtubules in PC12 cells. The monoexponential fit is shown by a red line, and the time constant (dwell time) is indicated on top.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
FIGURE 5: Tau promotes microtubule assembly in neurites of living cells. (A) Live-cell imaging of a PC12 cell coexpressing mCherry-tagged tau (left, inset) and PAGFP-tagged α-tubulin (PAGFP-tub) before and after fluorescence photoactivation. The position of activation is indicated by a violet box. Fluorescence decay of PAGFP-tub in the activated region is indicated by the arrows. Scale bar, 10 μm. (B) Determination of the axes of symmetry (left) and the plot of normalized intensity distributions (right) as they were used to define the ROI. (C) FDAP curves of PAGFP-tub in the ROI. The presence of mCherry-tau decreases fluorescence decay of PAGFP-tub (left), whereas a control protein (3×mCherry) has no effect (right). For comparison, FDAP of a soluble protein (3×PAGFP) is shown. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 29–36). Fractions of polymerized PAGFP-tub were estimated based on fitting of the respective FDAP curves to a reaction-diffusion model (bottom).
FIGURE 5: Tau promotes microtubule assembly in neurites of living cells. (A) Live-cell imaging of a PC12 cell coexpressing mCherry-tagged tau (left, inset) and PAGFP-tagged α-tubulin (PAGFP-tub) before and after fluorescence photoactivation. The position of activation is indicated by a violet box. Fluorescence decay of PAGFP-tub in the activated region is indicated by the arrows. Scale bar, 10 μm. (B) Determination of the axes of symmetry (left) and the plot of normalized intensity distributions (right) as they were used to define the ROI. (C) FDAP curves of PAGFP-tub in the ROI. The presence of mCherry-tau decreases fluorescence decay of PAGFP-tub (left), whereas a control protein (3×mCherry) has no effect (right). For comparison, FDAP of a soluble protein (3×PAGFP) is shown. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 29–36). Fractions of polymerized PAGFP-tub were estimated based on fitting of the respective FDAP curves to a reaction-diffusion model (bottom).CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
FIGURE 6: Tau exhibits kiss-and-hop behavior also in axons of primary neurons. (A) Triple fluorescence micrographs showing expression of Halo-tau (red) in lentivirally infected wild-type mouse cortical neurons. Staining against tubulin (DM1A, green) and nuclei (4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole [DAPI], blue) is shown. Right, Western blot indicating expression of exogenous Halo-tau (arrow) in cultures from wild-type (wt) or TAU−/− mice (KO). The presence of endogenous tau in wt mice is indicated by arrowheads. Bottom, staining for actin as a loading control. Scale bar, 20 μm. (B) Triple fluorescence micrographs after a fixation-extraction protocol, which reveals cytoskeletal association. Cortical neurons from TAU−/− mice were lentivirally infected to express Halo-tau (red). Top, overview; bottom, individual growth cone region. Note the enrichment of Halo-tau at the transition between the axon shaft and the growth cone as indicated by arrows. Staining against tubulin (DM1A, green) and nuclei (DAPI, blue) is shown. Scale bar, 20 μm (top), 10 μm (bottom). (C) Localization of a single Halo-tau molecule in an axon of a TAU−/− neuron over time. For comparison, thickness and density of axonal MTs are schematically indicated by the green bars. Top, enlargement of the indicated segment. Note that the MT–MT distance in axons of cortical neurons is much smaller than in neurites of PC12 cells. (D) Dwell times of Halo-tau in neurites of PC12 cells (39 ± 4 ms; n = 7) and axons of primary cultures (36 ± 5 ms; n = 4). Data represent mean ± SEM.
FIGURE 6: Tau exhibits kiss-and-hop behavior also in axons of primary neurons. (A) Triple fluorescence micrographs showing expression of Halo-tau (red) in lentivirally infected wild-type mouse cortical neurons. Staining against tubulin (DM1A, green) and nuclei (4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole [DAPI], blue) is shown. Right, Western blot indicating expression of exogenous Halo-tau (arrow) in cultures from wild-type (wt) or TAU−/− mice (KO). The presence of endogenous tau in wt mice is indicated by arrowheads. Bottom, staining for actin as a loading control. Scale bar, 20 μm. (B) Triple fluorescence micrographs after a fixation-extraction protocol, which reveals cytoskeletal association. Cortical neurons from TAU−/− mice were lentivirally infected to express Halo-tau (red). Top, overview; bottom, individual growth cone region. Note the enrichment of Halo-tau at the transition between the axon shaft and the growth cone as indicated by arrows. Staining against tubulin (DM1A, green) and nuclei (DAPI, blue) is shown. Scale bar, 20 μm (top), 10 μm (bottom). (C) Localization of a single Halo-tau molecule in an axon of a TAU−/− neuron over time. For comparison, thickness and density of axonal MTs are schematically indicated by the green bars. Top, enlargement of the indicated segment. Note that the MT–MT distance in axons of cortical neurons is much smaller than in neurites of PC12 cells. (D) Dwell times of Halo-tau in neurites of PC12 cells (39 ± 4 ms; n = 7) and axons of primary cultures (36 ± 5 ms; n = 4). Data represent mean ± SEM.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
FIGURE 7: Schematic representation illustrating features and consequences of the kiss-and-hop behavior of tau as identified in this study. P, phosphorylation; D, dephosphorylation.
FIGURE 7: Schematic representation illustrating features and consequences of the kiss-and-hop behavior of tau as identified in this study. P, phosphorylation; D, dephosphorylation.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Aronov S, 2001, J Neurosci, 21, 6577, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-17-06577.2001 · DOI
  2. Bakota L, 2012, Mol Genet Genomics, 287, 313, 10.1007/s00438-012-0680-1 · DOI
  3. Bates DM, 1988, Nonlinear Regression Analysis and Its Applications, 10.1002/9780470316757 · DOI
  4. Brandt R, 1993, J Biol Chem, 268, 3414, 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)53710-8 · DOI
  5. Brandt R, 1993, J Neurochem, 61, 997, 10.1111/j.1471-4159.1993.tb03613.x · DOI
  6. Butner KA, 1991, J Cell Biol, 115, 717, 10.1083/jcb.115.3.717 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Dawson HN, 2001, J Cell Sci, 114, 1179, 10.1242/jcs.114.6.1179 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Fath T, 2002, J Neurosci, 22, 9733, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-22-09733.2002 · DOI
  9. Galbraith JA, 1999, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 96, 11589, 10.1073/pnas.96.20.11589 · DOI
  10. Gardner MK, 2011, Cell, 146, 582, 10.1016/j.cell.2011.06.053 · DOI
  11. Gauthier-Kemper A, 2011, J Cell Biol, 192, 647, 10.1083/jcb.201007161 · DOI
  12. Gauthier-Kemper A, 2012, Methods Enzymol, 505, 3, 10.1016/B978-0-12-388448-0.00009-7 · DOI
  13. Hess ST, 2006, Biophys J, 91, 4258, 10.1529/biophysj.106.091116 · DOI
  14. Hink MA, 2000, J Biol Chem, 275, 17556, 10.1074/jbc.M001348200 · DOI
  15. Hinrichs MH, 2012, J Biol Chem, 287, 38559, 10.1074/jbc.M112.369785 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hirokawa N, 1988, J Cell Biol, 107, 1449, 10.1083/jcb.107.4.1449 · DOI
  17. Hirokawa N, 2005, Nat Rev Neurosci, 6, 201, 10.1038/nrn1624 · DOI
  18. Hundelt M, 2011, Neurobiol Aging, 32, 991, 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.06.007 · DOI
  19. Igaev M, 2014, Biophys J
  20. Irwin DJ, 2013, Nat Rev Neurosci, 14, 626, 10.1038/nrn3549 · DOI
  21. Ittner LM, 2010, Nat Rev Neurosci, 12, 67, 10.1038/nrn2967 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Ittner LM, 2010, Cell, 142, 387, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.06.036 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Jacobs JR, 1986, J Cell Biol, 103, 895, 10.1083/jcb.103.3.895 · DOI
  24. Jendretzki A, 2009, Mol Genet Genomics, 282, 437, 10.1007/s00438-009-0476-0 · DOI
  25. 10.1091/mbc.11.4.1213 · DOI
  26. Kempf M, 1996, J Neurosci, 16, 5583, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-18-05583.1996 · DOI
  27. Konzack S, 2007, J Neurosci, 27, 9916, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0927-07.2007 · DOI
  28. Litman P, 1993, Neuron, 10, 627, 10.1016/0896-6273(93)90165-N · DOI
  29. Lorberg A, 2001, Mol Genet Genomics, 266, 514, 10.1007/s004380100580 · DOI
  30. Los GV, 2008, ACS Chem Biol, 3, 373, 10.1021/cb800025k · DOI · Paper page
  31. Maeder CI, 2007, Nat Cell Biol, 9, 1319, 10.1038/ncb1652 · DOI
  32. Michelman-Ribeiro A, 2009, Biophys J, 97, 337, 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.04.027 · DOI
  33. Mylonas E, 2008, Biochem, 47, 10345, 10.1021/bi800900d · DOI · Paper page
  34. Newton AC, 1995, J Biol Chem, 270, 28495, 10.1074/jbc.270.48.28495 · DOI
  35. Popov S, 1992, J Neurosci, 12, 77, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-01-00077.1992 · DOI
  36. Seeger MA, 2010, J Biol Chem, 285, 8155, 10.1074/jbc.M109.068247 · DOI
  37. Sergé A, 2008, Nat Methods, 5, 687, 10.1038/nmeth.1233 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Spillantini MG, 2013, Lancet Neurol, 12, 609, 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70090-5 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Sprague BL, 2004, Biophys J, 86, 3473, 10.1529/biophysj.103.026765 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Swaminathan R, 1996, Biophys J, 71, 1140, 10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79316-5 · DOI
  41. Tulu US, 2003, Curr Biol, 13, 1894, 10.1016/j.cub.2003.10.002 · DOI
  42. VandeVondele S, 2003, Biotechnol Bioeng, 82, 784, 10.1002/bit.10625 · DOI
  43. Van Rossum G, 1991, CWI Q, 4, 283
  44. Weimann L, 2013, PLoS One, 8, e64287, 10.1371/journal.pone.0064287 · DOI
  45. Weissmann C, 2009, Traffic, 10, 1655, 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2009.00977.x · DOI
  46. Wilmes S, 2012, Angew Chem, 124, 4952, 10.1002/ange.201200853 · DOI
  47. Yuan A, 2008, J Neurosci, 28, 1682, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5242-07.2008 · DOI

Cited by

See all 176

Metadata

Authors
Janning, D., Igaev, M., Sündermann, F., Brühmann, J., Beutel, O., Heinisch, J. J., Bakota, L., Piehler, J., Junge, W., & Brandt, R.
Venue
Molecular Biology of the Cell
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2014-11-05
Volume
25
Issue
22
Pages
3541-3551
ISSN
  • 1059-1524
  • 1939-4586
DOI
10.1091/mbc.e14-06-1099
PMC
PMC4230615
Cited by
176
References
6
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.