Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2016 Dec 13;5:e20085. doi: 10.7554/eLife.20085

A plasma membrane template for macropinocytic cups

Douwe M Veltman 1,2,*, Thomas D Williams 1, Gareth Bloomfield 1, Bi-Chang Chen 3,, Eric Betzig 3, Robert H Insall 2,, Robert R Kay 1,
Editor: Joel Swanson4
PMCID: PMC5154761  PMID: 27960076

Abstract

Macropinocytosis is a fundamental mechanism that allows cells to take up extracellular liquid into large vesicles. It critically depends on the formation of a ring of protrusive actin beneath the plasma membrane, which develops into the macropinocytic cup. We show that macropinocytic cups in Dictyostelium are organised around coincident intense patches of PIP3, active Ras and active Rac. These signalling patches are invariably associated with a ring of active SCAR/WAVE at their periphery, as are all examined structures based on PIP3 patches, including phagocytic cups and basal waves. Patch formation does not depend on the enclosing F-actin ring, and patches become enlarged when the RasGAP NF1 is mutated, showing that Ras plays an instructive role. New macropinocytic cups predominantly form by splitting from existing ones. We propose that cup-shaped plasma membrane structures form from self-organizing patches of active Ras/PIP3, which recruit a ring of actin nucleators to their periphery.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.001

Research Organism: Dictyostelium

eLife digest

Cells can use a process known as macropinocytosis to take up fluid from their surroundings. This process plays an important role in many situations. For example, it allows human immune cells to sample their environment to search for harmful microbes and viruses and helps cancer cells to collect more nutrients so that they can grow more rapidly. During macropinocytosis, a protein called actin – which provides structural support to cells – drives the formation of cup-shaped structures from the membrane that surrounds the cell. Several signaling molecules control when and where the “cups” form, but it was not known exactly how the different types of molecules work together.

Here Veltman et al. used a technique called lattice light sheet microscopy to investigate how the macropinocytic cups form in a single-celled amoeba known as Dictyostelium. The experiments revealed that to make a cup, the actin first arranges to form a ring. The ring copies a template in the membrane, which consists of high concentrations of signaling molecules, and then extends outward to form a hollow cup by which fluid is taken up. The most important signaling molecule identified in these patches of membrane is a protein called Ras, which is mutated and hyperactive in many different types of cancer. In Dictyostelium cells that have a genetic mutation that makes Ras more active, the patches of signaling molecules and macropinocytic cups were larger than in normal cells.

The findings of Veltman et al. provide new details about how cells engulf fluids from their surroundings. The next steps will be to investigate how the signaling molecules form patches in the first place, and how they attract actin molecules. Also, more research is necessary to find out whether all cells take up fluid in a similar way or if other methods have evolved in mammalian cells.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.002

Introduction

Macropinocytosis provides cells with an efficient way of taking up large volumes of medium into intracellular vesicles, from which they can extract nutrients, antigens and other useful molecules (Bloomfield and Kay, 2016; Egami et al., 2014; Maniak, 2001; Swanson, 2008; Swanson and Watts, 1995). It is an ancient process, used for feeding by amoebae (Hacker et al., 1997; Thilo and Vogel, 1980), but one that is important for a wide spectrum of human biology, including uptake of drugs, and large-scale sampling of extracellular medium for antigens by immune cells. It has also been hijacked by pathogens as a major route of entry (Mercer and Helenius, 2012). Recent data suggest that macropinocytosis is a principal and widely used method for sustaining the excessive metabolic demands of cancer cells (Commisso et al., 2013; Kamphorst et al., 2015) and may be implicated in the spread of neurodegenerative disease within the brain (Münch et al., 2011).

Considering its biological importance, macropinocytosis is not well understood. Macropinosomes form from cup-shaped extensions of the plasma membrane, often known as circular ruffles, which are extended by actin polymerisation. The leading rims of these ruffles must be driven outwards to enclose liquid – often for a very significant fraction of the cell’s diameter – but the base must be held static. The resulting cups can be several microns in diameter, and eventually close by constriction of their rim, with membrane fusion producing an endocytic vesicle. Here we address a critical and mysterious question about this process - how do cells organize actin to polymerize in a ring and so form the walls of the cup?

In the closely related process of phagocytosis, in which solid particles are taken up, it is proposed that cup formation is guided by engaging receptors with the particle to be engulfed in a zippering process (Freeman and Grinstein, 2014; Griffin et al., 1975). However, macropinosomes take up fluid and so cannot use a particle as a template in this way. Nor is there any known equivalent in macropinocytosis of the coat that organises clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Thus it appears that macropinocytic cups must form by a self-organizing process within the actin polymerization machinery and its regulators.

The dynamic actin that polymerises around macropinocytic cups is probably initiated by a number of nucleators, including both formins, such as ForG, which is needed for the basal part of phagocytic cups in Dictyostelium (Junemann et al., 2016), and the Arp2/3 complex (Insall et al., 2001), which produces dendritic structures (Pollard and Borisy, 2003), like the actin that drives pseudopods. Assembly of Arp2/3 based actin is controlled by the WASP family of nucleation promoting factors; the two family members that act at the plasma membrane are WASP and SCAR/WAVE (hereafter called SCAR). WASP is important for actin polymerisation during clathrin-mediated endocytosis (Taylor et al., 2011), and SCAR, acting in a five-membered complex (Eden et al., 2002), for the formation of pseudopods (Seastone et al., 2001; Veltman et al., 2012). It is not known which is responsible for macropinocytosis.

Ras and phosphoinositide signalling help organize the cytoskeleton for macropinocytosis and phagocytosis (Bar-Sagi and Feramisco, 1986; Bloomfield and Kay, 2016; Bohdanowicz and Grinstein, 2013; Rodriguez-Viciana et al., 1997; Swanson, 2014). There is evidence that Ras activity stimulates macropinocytosis in both mammalian and Dictyostelium cells, and macropinocytic cups are associated with an intense domain, or ‘patch’, of PIP3 (Araki et al., 2007; Parent et al., 1998; Yoshida et al., 2009), which is essential for their function (Araki et al., 1996; Buczynski et al., 1997; Hoeller et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 1998).

In macrophages, which often evolve macropinocytic cups from linear ruffles, it has been suggested that ruffle circularisation creates a diffusion barrier in the membrane leading to intensified PIP3 signalling and a domain of PIP3 in the centre of the circular ruffle (Welliver et al., 2011). This domain then drives the further progression of the macropinocytic cup.

In axenic strains of Dictyostelium, which grow efficiently in liquid medium, macropinocytosis is massively up-regulated due to mutation of the RasGAP neurofibromatosis-1 (NF1) (Bloomfield et al., 2015; Hacker et al., 1997; Kayman and Clarke, 1983). These strains are thus an excellent starting point for research into the organising principles behind macropinocytic cup formation. Here we examine macropinocytosis with unprecedented 3D detail using lattice light sheet microscopy, and map the spatial and temporal control of actin regulators such as SCAR and WASP with respect to signalling molecules including PIP3 and active Ras. This leads us to propose a new and general hypothesis for the formation of cups from the plasma membrane.

Results

The origins of macropinosomes in axenic strains of Dictyostelium

To determine whether macropinosomes form in Dictyostelium by circularization of linear ruffles, as reported for macrophages (Welliver and Swanson, 2012), we used lattice light sheet microscopy (Chen et al., 2014), which allows unparalleled high-resolution imaging of light-sensitive and dynamic cells over prolonged periods. In axenic cells expressing an F-actin reporter, three types of large F-actin structure are routinely detected: macropinocytic cups, which predominate, pseudopods and basal waves.

3D movies show that the majority of macropinocytic cups initiate by splitting of existing ones (62%; n = 152, Figure 1E). Splitting occurs by a variety of routes, including: simple division in the middle; detachment of a small ruffle that grows into a new macropinocytic cup (Figure 1A, Video 1); and abortive fragmentation of a parental macropinocytic cup into multiple daughter cups. We examined a reporter for active Rac in some of these movies and found that it is spatiotemporally associated tightly with F-actin in this morphological process (Figure 1B, Video 2).

Video 1. Macropinosomes are generated by splitting.

Download video file (2.9MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.004

A vegetative Ax2 cell expressing an F-actin marker imaged using lattice light sheet microscopy and viewed from three perpendicular angles.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.004

Video 2. Macropinocytic cups are generated by splitting.

Download video file (1.6MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.005

Detail of a vegetative Ax2 cell expressing markers for active Rac and F-actin, imaged using lattice light sheet microscopy and viewed from three perpendicular angles.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.005

Figure 1. Life histories of macropinocytosis, pseudopods and basal waves.

Figure 1.

Vegetative axenic cells of strain Ax2 were followed in 3D time-lapse movies made by lattice light sheet microscopy. Images show maximum intensity projections. Cells express a marker for F-actin (LimEΔcoil-RFP) unless otherwise indicated. Numbers indicate time in seconds. (A) A new macropinocytic cup formed by splitting (arrow marks nascent daughter macropinocytic cup). (B) Close-up of a large macropinocytic cup, viewed en-face, that fragments and forms multiple smaller macropinocytic cups (arrowed). (C) Origin of a cluster of macropinocytic cups from a small basal F-actin structure (arrow). (D) Detail of a cell initiating a de novo dorsal macropinocytic cup (ie not in contact with substratum). (E) Table of macropinocytic cup origins. (F) Close-up of macropinocytic cup closure, viewed en face. (G) Growth of a pseudopod from a small F-actin structure close to the substratum (arrow). (H) Growth of a basal F-actin wave from a small F-actin punctum (arrow), to eventually encompass the entire basal surface of the cell. See also supplementary movie 1-7 for full movies of panel A, B, C, D, F, G and H respectively.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.003

The remaining macropinocytic cups form de novo, expanding from places where no previous F-actin activity was detected. In more than 90% of cases the initiation is close to the base of the cell, even though most mature macropinocytic cups are present on the top, and are commonly described as 'crowns'. In the example illustrated in Figure 1C (Video 3), the parental ruffle first emerges close to the substratum (t = 0, white arrow) and cannot unequivocally be classified as either pseudopod or circular ruffle. The ruffle then quickly sweeps to the top of the cell, during which time it grows in size and splits several times, to produce multiple full-grown macropinocytic cups. As with splitting macropinocytic cups, the F-actin in de novo macropinosome cups is closely associated with signalling molecules, as illustrated by active Ras in Figure 1D (Video 4) and discussed later. Circular ruffles can persist on the cell surface for prolonged periods before either closing successfully or regressing back into the cell body. Closure of the cup can be quite abrupt and often appears to involve the inward collapse of the rim (Figure 1F, Video 5) (Swanson et al., 1999).

Video 3. Macropinocytic ruffles often initiate on the substratum.

Download video file (5.5MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.006

A vegetative Ax2 cell expressing an F-actin marker imaged using lattice light sheet microscopy and viewed from three perpendicular angles.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.006

Video 4. A small fraction of de novo macropinocytic cups are initiated off- substratum.

Download video file (1.4MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.007

Detail of a vegetative Ax2 cell expressing markers for active Ras and F-actin, imaged using lattice light sheet microscopy and viewed from three perpendicular angles.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.007

Video 5. Closure of a macropinocytic cup.

Download video file (1.5MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.008

A vegetative Ax2 cell expressing an F-actin marker imaged using lattice light sheet microscopy and viewed from two perpendicular angles.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.008

The other large F-actin projections in growing Dictyostelium cells are pseudopods. These are distinguished from macropinocytic circular ruffles by their shape, which is convex instead of concave. De novo pseudopods also initiate close to the substratum (Figure 1G, white arrow and Video 6) and expand steadily to their full size. Pseudopods are surprisingly rare in growing axenic cells, accounting for less than 5% of all large F-actin structures.

Video 6. Pseudopods are distinct from macropinocytic ruffles.

Download video file (963.7KB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.009

A vegetative Ax2 cell expressing an F-actin marker imaged using lattice light sheet microscopy and viewed from three perpendicular angles. A pseudopod is initiated on the right hand side of the cell at t = 1 min.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.009

Finally, we could follow the enigmatic actin waves that move across the basal surface of vegetative cells (Bretschneider et al., 2004, 2009; Gerisch, 2010). These waves also generally originate from existing ruffles by splitting. When the splitting ruffle in Figure 1H (Video 7) contacts the substratum, it initiates an actin wave that spreads across the entire footprint of the cell, becoming so dominant that other large F-actin structures are suppressed and flattening the cell into a smooth bell-shape.

Video 7. Basal F-actin wave that originates by splitting from a nascent macropinosome.

Download video file (2MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.010

A vegetative Ax2 cell expressing an F-actin marker imaged using lattice light sheet microscopy and viewed from three perpendicular angles. Image jitter in this movie was due to technical issues with the microscope's Z-drive).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.010

These observations show that the large macropinocytic cups of axenic Dictyostelium cells generally form by splitting or by expanding de novo from a small focus, as in fibroblasts (Bernitt et al., 2015), rather than by circularization of linear ruffles (Welliver and Swanson, 2012). The smaller macropinocytic cups of wild-type cells (see later) also more normally form de novo or by splitting, rather than by circularization.

PIP3, Ras and SCAR are required for normal fluid phase uptake

We tested the involvement of PIP3 and Ras signalling in macropinocytosis using an isogenic set of mutants in which we measured both fluid uptake and growth in liquid medium (Supplementary material, Table 1). Either increased or decreased PIP3 levels (PTEN and PI3-kinase mutants) are deleterious to fluid uptake and growth in liquid medium, as expected from earlier work (Clark et al., 2014; Hoeller and Kay, 2007). Two independent RasG- mutants are substantially impaired in growth in liquid medium, as previously described, but contrary to the earlier report (Khosla et al., 2000), both are also defective in fluid uptake. Compensation by other Ras proteins and genetic background differences may account for the discrepancy (Bloomfield et al., 2008; Bolourani et al., 2010). RasC null cells have no growth defect and a lesser defect in fluid uptake, while RasS (not tested here) may also contribute to macropinocytosis (Chubb et al., 2000). Notably, we confirm that the Arp2/3 activator, SCAR, is required for efficient fluid uptake (Seastone et al., 2001).

Table 1.

Growth and fluid uptake by mutants.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.011

Strain

Mutated protein

Genotype

MGT±SEM (hr)

Fluid uptake ± SEM (nl/10^six cells/h)

Ax2

parental

9.26 ± 0.26 (26)

114.7 ± 10.8 (9)

HM1505

RasC

rasC-

9.27 ± 0.26 (7)

84.3 ± 6.3 (3)

HM1497

RasG

rasG-

27.6 ± 2.9 (7)

55.3 ± 8.4 (3)

HM1514

RasG

rasG-

19.1 ± 0.24 (3)

67.6 ± 1.9 (3)

HM1200

PI3K1-5

pikA-, pikB-, pikC-, pikF-, pikG-

103 ± 1.1 (3)*

9.0 ± 0.6 (3)

HM1289

PTEN

ptenA-

19.0 ± 1.4 (9)

12.4 ± 0.6 (3)

HM1809

SCAR

scrA-

27.8 ± 2.4 (6)

56.8 ± 9.7 (3)

HM1818

SCAR

scrA-

38.4 ± 4.6 (10)

19.7 ± 5.0 (3)

* taken from Hoeller et al. (2013).

A ring of active SCAR forms around PIP3 domains at the rim of macropinocytic cups

The SCAR complex is mostly cytosolic and basally inactive, but when recruited to the plasma membrane it causes actin polymerization through the Arp2/3 complex (Steffen et al., 2004; Ura et al., 2012). A GFP reporter tagged at the HSPC300 subunit accumulates at sites of actin polymerization (Veltman et al., 2012). To confirm that this accumulation signifies the presence of activated SCAR complex, we correlated the signal with the expansion of pseudopods, using this as a proxy for actin polymerization. The results clearly show that the reporter is recruited during expansion phases but lost in stalls (Figure 2A,B). This correlation holds true globally: SCAR reporter intensity along the membrane correlates well with the local membrane expansion speed (Figure 2C) as all pixels with high SCAR reporter are associated with positive instantaneous membrane speed. Note that the small set of pixels with very high membrane speeds and no SCAR (Figure 2C, red arrow) are due to blebs (Zatulovskiy et al., 2014).

Figure 2. Macropinocytic cups contain a central domain of PIP3 surrounded by a ring of SCAR.

Figure 2.

(A, B, C) Evidence that fluorescently tagged SCAR complex faithfully marks regions of active actin polymerisation: (A) An aggregation-competent cell moving under an agarose overlay (optimal conditions for visualising pseudopods) showing HSPC300-GFP recruited to the two pseudopods; (B) Kymograph of expansion of the pseudopod arrowed in (A) showing that the SCAR reporter is present during periods of expansion, but absent in the plateaus when the pseudopod is not expanding; (C) Membrane speed and SCAR complex accumulation are positively correlated. The HSPC300-GFP signal and local membrane speed was measured at 100 points along the membrane of a motile cell. Data of eight independent cells was combined and plotted as a 2D histogram. Green arrow indicates data points with high levels of SCAR and positive displacement. Red arrow indicates data points due to blebs, which are actin-free and expand much faster than pseudopods (Zatulovskiy et al., 2014). (D) SCAR is recruited as a ring to the lip of macropinocytic cups. The upper panels show top and side views of a surface rendering of a cell with three macropinocytic cups and the lower shows the same cell with a SCAR reporter. (E) SCAR is recruited to pseudopods in distinct blocks, not as a ring. Pitted appearance of the 3D surface is a rendering artefact caused by small vesicles that reside just underneath the cell membrane. (F) SCAR is recruited to the edge of an intense PIP3 patch in the macropinocytic cup. The white dotted line in the left panel corresponds to the position of the vertical plane in the right panel. (G) 3D reconstruction of the cell in the previous panel. (H) F-actin is nearly uniformly distributed in the macropinocytic cup and does not predict the localization of SCAR. Ax2 cells were used in all panels. HSPC300 was used as a marker for the SCAR complex, PH-CRAC as a reporter for PI(3,4,5)P3 and Lifeact as a reporter for F-actin. 3D images were reconstructed from Z-stacks taken on a spinning disk microscope.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.012

In images recorded in 3D, the reporter reveals a thin, sometimes broken ring of active SCAR around the lip of macropinocytic cups (Figure 2D and Video 8). The presence of a ring could not be predicted by imaging the actin cytoskeleton itself, as actin filaments are distributed rather uniformly throughout the cup (Figure 2H). These circular SCAR structures are not seen in pseudopods, where 3D images show the same discrete blocks of SCAR as in 2D images (Figure 2E).

Video 8. The rim of macropinocytic cups is traced by a thin line of SCAR.

Download video file (2.6MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.013

Shown is a vegetative Ax2 cell expressing the SCAR marker HSPC300. A Z-stack was collected using a spinning disk microscope and deconvolved using a calculated point spread function. Left panel shows a surface render of the cell outline and the right panel shows a 3D reconstruction of the fluorescence signal using maximum intensity projection.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.013

The discovery of these remarkable rings immediately raises the question of how individual SCAR molecules are coordinated to maintain the ring shape. We visualised PIP3 using a double reporter that co-expresses the PH-domain of CRAC fused to RFP (Insall et al., 1994). This revealed a second remarkable feature of SCAR rings: they follow the edges of intensely stained domains, or ‘patches’ (Postma et al., 2004) of PIP3. In all macropinocytic cups examined, of whatever size, the concave cup contains a patch of PIP3 and SCAR is present as a ring around this patch, without detectable recruitment to its centre (Figure 2F and G and Video 9).

Video 9. Macropinocytic cups are defined by a patch of PIP3 that is circumscribed by a thin line of SCAR.

Download video file (539.7KB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.014

Shown is a vegetative Ax2 cell expressing the SCAR marker HSPC300-GFP and the PIP3 marker PH-CRAC-RFP. A Z-stack was collected using a spinning disk microscope and deconvolved using a calculated point spread function. Image shown is a 3D reconstruction of the fluorescence signal using maximum intensity projection.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.014

This was confirmed in a larger sample by measuring fluorescence intensity at the centre and rim of 17 macropinocytic cups from nine cells rendered in 3D (Figure 3A–B). All cup centres contained high levels of PIP3, but SCAR consistently followed the rim of the cup with the mean fluorescence of the SCAR reporter significantly higher than cytosolic background (p<0.01), while signal at the centre of the PIP3 patch was not statistically different from the cytosolic background. This is also clear in 2D images, but is easily overlooked as the narrow SCAR ring appears only as tiny puncta in the cross sections obtained from confocal microscopy.

Figure 3. SCAR is present at the edge but not the centre of the macropinocytic cup.

Figure 3.

(A, B) Quantification of PIP3 and SCAR in macropinocytic cups identified visually. (A) Method of analysis: Macropinocytic cups were identified morphologically from 3D rendered images and the position of their center (blue arrow) and edge (orange arrows) was noted. Fluorescence intensity along the cell membrane of the boxed macropinocytic cup was plotted and the intensity was measured at the marked center and edge. (B) PIP3 and SCAR fluorescence intensity at center and edge of 17 visually identified macropinocytic cups. Bar indicates the mean, box indicates the second and third quartile. Whiskers indicate the range of the data. (C, D) Analysis of SCAR in PIP3 patches. (C) Method of PIP3 patch analysis: Membrane-bound fluorescence intensity of the respective markers was measured for individual cells. PIP3 patches were defined as those membrane regions where the fluorescence intensity is greater than mean cytosol plus one standard deviation (dotted line) and these regions are marked in grey. (D) Quantification of fluorescence intensity at the centers and edges of 31 identified PIP3 patches. Bar indicates the mean, box indicates the second and third quartile. Whiskers indicate the range of the data. (E) Anti-correlation between SCAR and PIP3 reporter intensity. In this analysis the intensity of fluorescence in all membrane pixels was compared, irrespective of the morphological structure in which they lay. The plot shows the combined data from 16 cells. Vegetative Ax2 cells expressing the SCAR complex reporter HSPC300-GFP and the PI(3,4,5)P3 reporter PH-CRAC-mRFP were used in all experiments. The asterisk marks significant differences (p<0.01).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.015

We further tested the spatial relation between PIP3 and SCAR in two ways not requiring visual recognition of macropinocytic cups. In the first, a number of growing axenic cells was analysed as follows. Membrane areas with fluorescence intensity of the PIP3 reporter greater than cytosolic background plus one standard deviation were defined as PIP3 patches, and the associated SCAR signal was measured. In all cases SCAR is consistently and significantly enriched at patch edges (p<0.01), and never at their centres (Figure 3C–D). In the second test, the fluorescence intensity of the SCAR and PIP3 reporters was extracted from the circumference of a number of growing cells and the results plotted as a 2D histogram (Figure 3E). In pixels with high PIP3 signal, the SCAR signal is low, and conversely in pixels with high SCAR, PIP3 is low. This method cannot show whether high SCAR and PIP3 pixels are adjacent, but it does confirm that SCAR and PIP3 do not co-localise but instead are anti-correlated.

SCAR is associated to the periphery of PIP3 patches throughout macropinocytic cup lifetime

The complete lifetime of a de novo macropinocytic cup is shown in Figure 4A (Video 10 shows another example). The PIP3 patch first becomes visible at t = 1 and this sub-micron sized patch is already flanked by puncta of SCAR. As the patch of PIP3 grows the SCAR puncta remain dynamically associated with its edge right up to closure of the macropinocytic cup, after which the SCAR signal quickly disappears and the vesicle is internalised. The SCAR is not detected at the centres of the patches above background.

Video 10. SCAR remains dynamically associated to the edge of PIP3 patches throughout macropinocytosis.

Download video file (1.4MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.017

Vegetative Ax2 cell expressing the SCAR marker HSPC300-GFP and the PIP3 marker PH-CRAC-RFP. Images were taken on a spinning disk microscope.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.017

Figure 4. A SCAR ring encircles PIP3 patches throughout their lifetime.

Figure 4.

(A) Detail of a cell initiating a de novo macropinocytic cup. Puncta of SCAR flank the PIP3 patch at all times. Time is indicated in seconds. (B) Kymograph of the fluorescence intensity along the membrane of a vegetative cell completing several macropinocytosis events. SCAR is associated with the edge of PIP3 patches during their entire lifetime and never with their centers. (C) Quantification of peripheral SCAR signal during macropinocytosis. A line was drawn through the edge of the macropinocytic cup and extending into the cytosol for each frame of a time lapse of the lifetime of a complete macropinocytosis event. Line plots were concatenated resulting in kymographs as shown in panel (D). Orange dotted line indicates the closure event. Numbers indicate independent macropinocytosis events. (E) The SCAR signal at the edge of macropinocytic cups is present from start to finish. The fluorescence intensity at the macropinocytic cup edge was quantified and averaged for all six analysed macropinocytic cups. Vegetative Ax2 cells expressing the SCAR complex reporter HSPC300-GFP and the PI(3,4,5)P3 reporter PH-CRAC-mRFP were used in all experiments. Images are representative of typical macropinocytosis events.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.016

This is also shown in a kymograph of the membrane pixels of a single cell as it makes several macropinosomes (Figure 4B). The SCAR signal, though sometimes weak, can be traced along the edge of the PIP3 patches from the start of a patch to its abrupt loss at invagination. Combining the data from several macropinocytosis events confirms this continuous association (Figure 4C–E). Thus despite changes in size and shape of PIP3 patches, SCAR remains associated with their edges, and only their edges, throughout the macropinocytic cup lifetime.

All PIP3 patches, whatever their origin, recruit SCAR to their periphery

It seemed possible that as a rule of cytoskeletal organization in Dictyostelium, PIP3 patches always recruit SCAR to their edges. Four other examples of PIP3 patches support this: two from growing cells, and two from starved cells, which are highly migratory, chemotactically sensitive, and morphologically very different from growing cells:

During phagocytosis Dictyostelium cells make a PIP3 patch where they contact the particle to be ingested (Clarke et al., 2010; Marshall et al., 2001). In the yeast case shown in Figure 5A, SCAR is recruited to the edges of the PIP3 patch, and not the centre, while a 3D view reveals a full ring of SCAR around the rim of the phagocytic cup. Indeed, a clear ring of SCAR could be detected in all such cases, provided expression of the SCAR reporter was low enough to avoid excessive background fluorescence.

Figure 5. SCAR is recruited to the periphery of PIP3 patches, however they are formed.

(A) Phagocytosis of a yeast cell. Arrows point to the narrow accumulation of SCAR at the rim of the phagocytic cup. A full 3D render of the same cell is displayed on the right. The yeast cell is not labelled and thus not visible in this image. (B) SCAR rings around basal actin waves visualised by TIRF microscopy. These waves consist of a patch of PIP3 surrounded by a zone of actin polymerisation. PIP3 patches are invariably surrounded by a ring of SCAR. (C) WASP is excluded from the PIP3 patches of basal waves and present as a ring around the patch, but less strongly than SCAR. (D) WASP is present at the edge of PIP3 patches in macropinocytic cups, albeit more faintly than SCAR. Confocal cross sections are shown on the left panels and a full 3D render of the same cell is shown on the right. White arrow indicates the faint rim of WASP around the PIP3 patch. (EG) SCAR rings at cell-cell contacts. During chemotactic aggregation, streaming cells make head-to-tail attachments and form a domain of PIP3 in their anterior attachment, which is surrounded by a strong SCAR ring; (F) A close-up of the region indicated in the white box in (E); (G) A full 3D reconstruction of the same contact site. (HJ) Response to acute stimulation with the chemoattractant cyclic-AMP. Aggregation-competent cells (equivalent to about 5 hr of starvation) were uniformly stimulated with a saturating dose of cyclic-AMP (1 µM). They respond with a fast and spatially fairly uniform production of PIP3 at 4 s and later with a secondary response in which clear PIP3 patches are formed (panel H, t = 99s). SCAR is uniquely present at the edges of these patches (arrowed) as is most evident in the kymograph (I) and not at the centre (J).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.018

Figure 5.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1. WASH is not recruited to PIP3 patches.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

(A) WASH is neither detected at the center nor at the edge of TIRF images of basal PIP3 patches. (B) WASH is present on internal vesicles and not on macropinocytic cups in vegetative cells. A confocal cross section is shown in the left panel and a full 3D render of the same cell is shown on the right.

Basal waves have a core of PIP3 surrounded by a ring of F-actin (Bretschneider et al., 2004, 2009; Gerhardt et al., 2014; Gerisch, 2010), and again, the basal PIP3 patches are invariably surrounded by a ring of SCAR (Figure 5B). Basal waves are favourable for microscopy, and we found that WASP is also excluded from PIP3 patches and forms a ring around them, though weaker and less coherently than SCAR (Figure 5C). Similarly, WASP forms rings at the edges of PIP3 patches of normal macropinocytic cups, again more weakly than SCAR (Figure 5D). The remaining Arp2/3 activator in Dictyostelium, WASH, does not associate with PIP3 patches (Figure 5—figure supplement 1).

During chemotactic aggregation, developing cells form small chains and streams with strong head-to-tail adhesions between them and PIP3 patches in their front (Dormann et al., 2002). These patches are invariably surrounded by a ring of SCAR. In the example shown in Figure 5E–G, a cell strongly expressing reporters is situated between two poorly expressing cells. The strongly expressing cell forms a PIP3 contact patch, with SCAR present as a clear ring and excluded from the centre.

Cells respond to cyclic-AMP by making PIP3, initially homogenously and then, after about a minute, in patches at the membrane (Postma et al., 2004). In the low light conditions required for time-lapse imaging, the SCAR signal is weak, but where detected, it is clearly at the edges of the PIP3 patches (Figure 5H–J and Video 11). These patches have sometimes been regarded as new pseudopods (for example [Chen et al., 2003]), but many become concave and close to engulf a drop of medium, indicating that the cell is performing macropinocytosis, not a chemotactic response.

Video 11. Chemoattractant-stimulated PIP3 patches recruit SCAR to their edges, not to their centres.

Download video file (5.7MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.020

A developed Ax2 cell expressing the PIP3 marker PH-CRAC-RFP and the SCAR marker HSPC300-GFP was stimulated at t = 0 with 1 μm cyclic AMP. Images were collected using a spinning disk microscope.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.020

PIP3 patches are based on active Ras but do not require F-actin ruffles

PIP3 is largely made by Ras-activated PI3-kinases (Clark et al., 2014; Funamoto et al., 2002; Hoeller and Kay, 2007). We confirmed that a patch of activated Ras exactly coincides with each PIP3 patch (Figure 6A) (Sasaki et al., 2004; 2007). Similarly, plots of intensity, pixel-by-pixel, show exceptional correlation between the Ras and PIP3 signals (Figure 6B). Thus PIP3 patches have a matching patch of activated Ras, which could sustain them by activating PI3-kinase.

Figure 6. PIP3 patches are supported by coincident patches of activated Ras, which can recruit weaker SCAR rings.

Figure 6.

(A, B) PIP3 and activated Ras domains are essentially coincident in vegetative Ax2 cells: (A) dorsal patches (macropinocytic cups) and basal patches. Left and right panels show different cells; (B) 2-D histogram showing strong correlation between PIP3 and activated Ras reporters. Fluorescence intensity values of the active Ras reporter and PIP3 reporter along the perimeter of 35 cells are plotted against each other. (C) Macropinocytic signal patches additionally coincide with patches of active Rac. Shown is a representative image of a macropinocytic cup in a vegetative Ax2 cell co-expressing a marker for active Ras (Raf1-RBD) and active Rac (pakB-CRIB). (D, E) mutant lacking all Ras-activated PI3-kinases (strain HM1200) still forms Ras patches, both off the substratum (D) and basally- see (E). (E, F) Basal patches of the PI3-kinase mutant recruit SCAR to their periphery, though less strongly than the wild-type, Ax2 (TIRF images). Error bars indicate the standard deviation. Thus, loss of PI3K signalling does not allow SCAR to trespass on the Ras patch. (G, H) Ras patches (indicated by white arrow) remain discrete, despite globally high levels of PIP3 in PTEN-null cells (strain HM1289) and these domains still invariably recruit a complete SCAR ring to their edges.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.021

Similarly, the Ras/PIP3 patch overlaps a patch of active Rac1, as detected by the CRIB domain (Figure 6C) (Manser et al., 1994). Rac1 is an upstream regulator of SCAR, and has been implicated in macropinocytosis (Dumontier et al., 2000; Palmieri et al., 2000). However, its broad distribution cannot simply account for the much narrower SCAR ring. Alternatively, Rac1 may define a permissive area where SCAR can be activated or other Rac isoforms may be involved, such as RacB, RacC or RacG (Lee et al., 2003; Seastone et al., 1998). No specific markers exist for their activated state, but the RacG molecule itself is modestly enriched at the rim of phagocytic cups (Somesh et al., 2006).

It has been proposed that PIP3 patch formation requires a positive feedback loop where PIP3 activates Ras (Sasaki et al., 2007). We tested this by genetically manipulating PIP3 levels (Clark et al., 2014; Hoeller and Kay, 2007). A mutant without Ras-activated PI3-kinases and producing only 10% of wild-type PIP3 levels still forms patches of activated Ras at a similar frequency to parental cells (Figure 6D). The SCAR signal in confocal cross sections of macropinocytic cups is too small for an accurate comparison of SCAR ring formation between mutants and therefore we used basal waves as a proxy for macropinocytic cups. Ras patches on the basal surface of PI3-kinase null cells still exclude SCAR from their centre and recruit a peripheral ring of SCAR as normal, albeit more weakly than in parental cells (Figure 6E–F). Conversely, when PIP3 levels are increased 10-fold by eliminating the PTEN phosphatase, the activated Ras domains do not expand correspondingly (Figure 6G) and remain associated with rings of SCAR (Figure 6H). Thus Ras, rather than PIP3, is the primary determinant of patches and SCAR rings.

It has also been proposed that PIP3 patch formation requires an enclosing circular ruffle to act as a diffusion trap (Welliver and Swanson, 2012). We tested this by controlled use of the actin inhibitor latrunculin-A to inhibit ruffle formation. Latrunculin-A at 1 µM leaves some actin polymerisation intact, and at 5 µM abolishes all visible actin filaments, resulting in spherical cells (Figure 7A). Neither treatment abolishes the patches of PIP3, which become larger but less numerous, with a fluorescence intensity not significantly different from control cells (Figure 7B–E). We tested whether the sharp boundaries of patches are affected by latrunculin-A by measuring the intensity across the edges of more than 30 patches for each condition, (Figure 7F–H). It is clear that latrunculin-A has little effect on the sharpness of the patch, suggesting that a diffusion barrier is not required to maintain its strong spatial coherence.

Figure 7. PIP3 patch formation does not require an encircling actin ruffle, but patch size is regulated by Ras activity.

(A) The actin cytoskeleton is depolymerized by treatment with latrunculin-A and ruffles suppressed. Vegetative cells expressing an F-actin marker (Lifeact) and a PIP3 marker (PH-CRAC) were treated for 15 min with the indicated amounts of latrunculin-A. The F-actin marker is undetectable in the cortex when treated with 5 μM latrunculin-A. (B) PIP3 patches remain after ruffles are suppressed by depolymerisation of the actin cytoskeleton. SCAR remains associated with the patch edge under 1 μM latrunculin-A, but is lost when treated with 5 μM latrunculin-A. (CE) Ruffles are not essential for PIP3 patch formation. Treatment with latrunculin-A does not significantly change PIP3 patch intensity, but leads to an increase in size and a decrease in number. (FH) Patch boundaries are sharply defined and this does not depend on an enclosing ruffle. (F) Membrane fluorescence intensity across the edge of PIP3 patches was measured (G) Measured intensity profiles along the edge of 36 patches of both treated and untreated cells, with each line representing a single patch. (H) Mean fluorescence intensity of the PIP3 reporter along the patch edges of treated and untreated cells, obtained by averaging the profiles in the previous panel. (I) Macropinocytic cups in vegetative cells of wild-type cells are smaller than those of axenic strains. Shown is a maximum intensity projection of the F-actin reporter LimEΔcoil of a field of vegetative cells, recorded using lattice light sheet microscopy. (J) SCAR is still recruited to the edges of the PIP3 patch of the small macropinocytic cups of wild-type cells. (KL) Increased Ras activity leads to larger PIP3 patches and macropinocytic cups. Ras activity was increased by knock-out of the RasGAP, NF1 (axeB is the gene encoding NF1). Parental DdB and knock-out cells were cultivated for 48 hr in axenic medium to maximally up-regulate macropinocytosis. (K) Confocal image of macropinocytic patches in wild-type DdB and axeB null cells; (L) Quantification of the patch size in both cell types. Loss of NF1 leads to a significant increase in macropinocytic patch size.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.022

Figure 7.

Figure 7—figure supplement 1. Basal PIP3 patches (actin waves) are absent from wild-type cells.

Figure 7—figure supplement 1.

(AB) Basal PIP3 patches become prevalent during early development of Ax2 cells. (A) Ax2 cells expressing a PIP3 marker were washed free of growth medium and allowed to develop autonomously in KK2. Their basal surface was imaged using confocal microscopy and the fraction of cells with basal patches was determined at specified intervals. (B) Visualisation of basal patch abundance during development. A time-lapse image of the basal surface of developing Ax2 cells expressing a PIP3 marker was resized to a width of one pixel and all frames were concatenated to yield a pseudo-kymograph. PIP3 fluorescence intensity at the basal membrane is maximal around 3 hr after starvation. (CD) Basal PIP3 patches are caused by the specific loss of the RasGAP NF1. (C) Confocal image of the basal surface of a group of early starved wild-type NC66.2 cells and axenic Ax4 cells expressing a PIP3 marker. Arrows point to PIP3 patches. (D) Quantification of the number of basal PIP3 patches of indicated strains during vegetative growth, early starvation and aggregation. Error bars indicate the standard deviation.

In summary, a circular ruffle is not essential to create signalling patches, which appear to largely depend on Ras, with PIP3 playing a secondary though still important role.

The intensity of Ras signalling controls patch and macropinocytic cup size

To test whether Ras plays an instructive role in macropinocytic cup morphogenesis, directly regulating their formation and size rather than acting as a remote trigger or passive participant, we examined the effect of genetically increasing Ras activity. The RasGAP NF1, encoded by the Dictyostelium axeB gene, is present in the wild-isolate NC4 but inactivated in its axenic derivatives, including the standard Ax2 used here. We found that macropinocytic cups in NC4 maintain exactly the same organization as in Ax2, with a central patch of PIP3 surround by a ring of SCAR, but are much smaller and shorter-lived and often arise de novo (Figure 7I,J and Videos 12, 13 and 14). To confirm that macropinocytic cup size is controlled by NF1 we compared an isogenic NF1 knock-out with its parent (DdB; also derived from NC4; [Bloomfield et al., 2008]). Cells from each strain were cultivated for 48 hr in axenic medium to maximally induce the rate of macropinocytosis. Under these conditions the axeB-null cells that have lost NF1 make significantly larger macropinocytic patches compared to cells from the parental strain (p<0.01, Figure 7K–L).

Video 12. Large circular ruffles are absent in vegetative wild-type NC4 cells.

Download video file (5.7MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.024

Shown is a maximum intensity projection of the fluorescence intensity of the F-actin marker LimEΔcoil. Images were taken on a lattice light sheet microscope.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.024

Video 13. The morphology of vegetative cells from axenic strains is dominated by large circular ruffles.

Download video file (2.7MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.025

Shown is a maximum intensity projection of the fluorescence intensity of the F-actin marker LimEΔcoil (Jitter in this movie was due to technical issues with the microscope's Z-drive). Images were taken on a lattice light sheet microscope.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.025

Video 14. SCAR follows PIP3 patches in macropinocytic cups of wild-type NC4 cells.

Download video file (606.1KB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.026

Detail of a vegetative cell from the wild strain NC4 expressing a marker for PIP3 and a marker for the SCAR complex. Macropinocytosis is rapid and small but the cups still show SCAR puncta on their edges. Images were taken on a spinning disk microscope. It should be noted that due to the small size of the macropinocytic cups, the top and bottom of the cup are frequently in the focal plane, resulting in an overlap in both signals.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.026

The effect of the loss of NF1 on basal PIP3 patches (basal actin waves) is equally striking. Basal PIP3 patches are prevalent in axenic laboratory strains, especially during early starvation, but absent from all wild-type strains tested (Figure 7—figure supplement 1 and compare Videos 15 and 16). axeB knockout cells that have lost NF1 form abundant basal PIP3 patches, but their wild-type parent does not (Figure 7—figure supplement 1D). Thus the intensity of Ras signalling governs the size and frequency of SCAR rings in macropinocytic cups and basal waves, showing that Ras must play an instructive role.

Video 15. Basal patches are dominant in axenic cells during early starvation.

Download video file (14.8MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.027

Cells from the axenic strain Ax2 were washed free of nutrients and left to develop autonomously under non-nutrient buffer. Time-lapse images were taken using a confocal microscope. Z-plane was set so that the basal membrane of the cell was in focus. Shown is an overlay of the fluorescence signal of a PIP3 marker with the trans-illuminated image.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.027

Video 16. Basal patches are absent from non-axenic wild type cells.

Download video file (10.7MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.028

Cells of the wild-type strain NC4 were washed free of nutrients and left to develop autonomously under non-nutrient buffer. Time-lapse images were taken using a confocal microscope. Z-plane was set so that the basal membrane of the cell was in focus. Shown is an overlay of the fluorescence signal of a PIP3 marker with the trans-illuminated image.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.028

We therefore propose that Ras patches, assisted by PI3-kinase and Rac, cause macropinocytic cup formation by recruiting rings of SCAR/WAVE complex to their edge.

Discussion

Macropinosomes develop from cup-shaped projections of the plasma membrane, whose walls are driven outwards by actin polymerization. They contain a central patch of activated Ras and PIP3 throughout their life and we find that in Dictyostelium, this patch is invariably associated with a ring of active SCAR at its edge. We propose that this ring of active SCAR is recruited by the signalling patch and drives a hollow ring of F-actin to extend the walls of the macropinocytic cup.

A possible alternative mechanism comes from immune cells, which make abundant linear ruffles. These occasionally fold back to form circular ruffles, which have been described as diffusion traps that can intensify signalling within them, leading to the formation of a patch of active Ras and PIP3, (Welliver et al., 2011). In this model, PIP3 patches form as a consequence of circular ruffle formation, rather than as a cause of it. Despite the evidence that sharply curved membrane areas such as those present at the leading edge of lamellipods can act as a diffusion barrier (Weisswange et al., 2005), this idea does not easily extend to Dictyostelium, where linear ruffles are much less common, and the central PIP3 patch of macropinocytic cups can still form when ruffle formation is inhibited. However it remains possible that a diffusion barrier forms by a ruffle-independent mechanism, for example by septin-like molecules (Golebiewska et al., 2011), or perhaps by cross-linking components within the patch. Further, Dictyostelium patches become larger when Ras signalling is increased by NF1 inactivation, showing that Ras plays an instructive part in their formation.

PIP3 patches are coincident with patches of activated Ras, which presumably support them by activating PI3-kinase, and also of activated Rac. Previous work suggest that patches are self-organising structures, which can form independently of input from G-protein coupled receptors (Sasaki et al., 2007) and are likely dependent on positive feedback loops between their components (Postma et al., 2003, 2004). Our results argue against an essential role for feedback from PIP3 to Ras, because activated Ras patches can form independently of type-1 PI3-kinases and are still able to recruit SCAR to their edges, albeit less efficiently than when PI3-kinases are present. Thus it appears that the kinetics that lead to patch formation must lie largely within the compass of the GEFs and GAPs activating and inactivating Ras.

We can only speculate on how SCAR is recruited to the periphery of Ras/PIP3 patches. One possibility is that SCAR and Arp2/3 are preferentially recruited by newly synthesised F-actin (Ichetovkin et al., 2002) produced by formins (Jasnin et al., 2016), which might therefore be the initial actin nucleator to be recruited. However, this seems unlikely in the light of recent work showing that ForG contributes to the base of the macropinocytic cup, but seemingly not to the extending lip (Junemann et al., 2016). Alternatively, SCAR might be moved to the periphery of Ras/PIP3 patches, perhaps by myosin-1 motors. Early work showed that myosin-1 is genetically important for macropinocytosis in Dictyostelium (Novak et al., 1995; Titus, 2000). In support of the genetic evidence, myosin-1 isoforms are recruited to macropinocytic cups in both Dictyostelium and Acanthamoeba (Brzeska et al., 2012; Ostap et al., 2003), most likely due to their affinity for PIP3 (Chen et al., 2012). The PIP3-binding MyoE and MyoF are recruited in the centre and MyoB at the periphery of macropinocytic cups, forming a striking ‘bull’s eye’ pattern (Brzeska et al., 2016; Dieckmann et al., 2010). In such a scenario, CARMIL may provide the link between myosin-1 and SCAR (Jung et al., 2001).

Our work also has implications more specific to Dictyostelium biology. First, the basal actin waves, which give a valuable window into actin dynamics (Bretschneider et al., 2004, 2009; Gerisch, 2010), appear to be formed as a consequence of the loss of NF1 in standard laboratory axenic strains. Knowing this should allow for better manipulation of these waves and for modelling to take account of their underlying need for activated Ras (Arai et al., 2010; Khamviwath et al., 2013; Sasaki et al., 2007; Taniguchi et al., 2013). Second, we consider that all patches of PIP3 and activated Ras are related by their common recruitment of SCAR to their periphery and are therefore likely to organise circular rings of actin polymerization, rather than the solid blocks characteristic of pseudopods. Therefore, the proposed role of these patches in chemotaxis, where they have been mistaken for pseudopods, needs to be re-evaluated.

In summary, our work suggests a general hypothesis for the formation of cupped actin structures: that these structures arise from a ring of actin polymerization formed by recruiting actin nucleators to the periphery, but not the centre, of self-organizing patches of intense Ras and PIP3 signalling. This hypothesis suggests many new lines of experimentation.

Materials and methods

Cell strains, cultivation and fluid uptake assay

The following Dictyostelium discoideum strains were used: Ax2 (R. Kay lab strain), NC4 (from K. Raper, obtained via P. Schaap), DdB (from M. Sussman, obtained via D. Welker), NC66.2 (from D. Francis), Ax3 (R. Chisholm laboratory strain, obtained via Stock Center) and Ax4 (W. Loomis laboratory strain, obtained via Stock Center). Axenic strains were cultured in Petri dishes under HL5 medium (Formedium, Hunstanton, UK) using standard methods. Non-axenic strains were cultivated on SM agar plates with a lawn of live Klebsiella pneumoniae and where necessary washed free of bacteria by repeated low-speed centrifugation from KK2 (20 mM KH2PO4/K2HPO4, 2 mM MgSO4, 0.1 mM CaCl2, pH 6.2) (for detailed protocols of these standard techniques, see (Kay, 1987) and dictybase.org/techniques/). Mutant strains, all in the parental Ax2 (Kay) background, are listed in Supplementary Material, Table 1.

Fluid uptake was measured using TRITC-dextran and flow cytometry. Cells were grown on bacterial lawns, washed free of bacteria, resuspended in HL5 with antibiotics, 50 µl aliquots were distributed into 96 plates and allowed to adapt for about 18 hr, until macropinocytosis was maximally up-regulated. TRITC-dextran was added to 0.5 mg/ml in HL5 to the wells and the cells incubated for various times, after which the TRITC dextran was removed, the cells washed once and uptake terminated with ice-cold, 5 mM NaN3, which also detaches the cells. Fluorescence in individual cells was then measured by flow cytometry, and the rate determined while uptake was linear with time (first 45–60 min).

DNA constructs and transfection

Single and dual expression vectors were used for all experiments (Veltman et al., 2009). Specifically, the following vectors were used: plasmid pDM1219 - expression of mCherry-LimEΔcoil (residue 1–145 of Dd LimE), pDM767 - dual expression of HSPC300-GFP and PH-CRAC-mRFPmars (residue 1–126 of Dd DagA), pDM1492 - dual expression of mCherry-RBD-Raf1 (residue 1–134 of Hs Raf1) and PH-PkgE-mCherry (residue 1–100 of Dd PkgE), pDM1383 - dual expression of HSPC300-GFP and mCherry-RBD-Raf1 and pDM1424 - dual expression of HSPC300-GFP and PH-PkgE-mCherry.

The act6 promoter that drives the resistance marker on the expression vectors is not active when cells are cultivated using bacteria as a food source. Therefore, this promoter was replaced by the coaA promoter (bp −293 to bp −1 relative to the start codon of coaA) for those vectors that were used to transfect non-axenic, wild-type cells.

Transfection of non-axenic cells was performed as follows: 5 × 106 cells were harvested from the feeding front of an SM agar plate, washed once in H40 buffer (40 mM HEPES/KOH pH 7.0, 1 mM MgCl2), and resuspended in 100 μl H40 buffer. Cells were mixed with 5 μl miniprep DNA (~0.5–1 μg total) and put on ice. Cells were then electroporated with two square waves of 350 V, 8 ms, 1 s apart using a Gene Pulser Xcell (Biorad) and immediately transferred to a Petri dish with SorMC buffer (15 mM KH2PO4, 2 mM Na2HPO4, 50 μM MgCl2, 50 μM CaCl2, pH 6.0) supplemented with live Klebsiella pneumoniae at an OD600 of 2. Selection marker was added after 5 hr (10 μg/ml G418 or 100 μg/ml hygromycin).

Image acquisition

Lattice light sheet microscopy 3D images were acquired as described (Chen et al., 2014), using a massively parallel array of coherently interfering beams comprising a non-diffracting 2D optical lattice as light sheet illumination focused by 0.65 NA objective for excitation (Special Optics). This creates a coherent structured light sheet that can be dithered to create uniform excitation in a 400 nm thick plane across the entire field of view determined by the length of the light sheet. In order to obtain the array of lattice light sheet, a binary spatial light modulator (SXGA-3DM, Forth Dimension Displays) is placed conjugate to the sample plane, and a binarized version of the desired structured pattern at the sample is projected on the display. In the time-lapse dithered mode, 3D stacks were acquired either by moving the detection objective (Nikon, CFI Apo LWD 25XW, 1.1 NA, 2 mm WD), which is synchronized with the scanning galvo mirror, or moving the sample by fast piezoelectric flexure stage (Physik Instrumente, P-621.1CD) with 100 ~150 z planes, to have about 20 µm in z axis with respect to the detection objective. Exposure time was 5 or 10 msec per plane, for a total exposure time of ~1 s for one 3D stack and a 1 s pause was added between each time point to have time series data. Raw data was deconvolved via a 3D iterative Lucy-Richardson algorithm in Matlab (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) utilizing an experimentally measured point spread function.

Spinning disk microscopy was performed on an Andor Revolution system with a Yokogawa CSU spinning disk confocal unit. The microscope was fitted with a 1.49 Plan Apo 100x oil immersion objective and an additional 1.2x magnification lens. GFP and mCherry signals were separated by a Tucam beam splitter and detected using two Andor iXon Ultra backlit EMCCD cameras with 16 µm pixel size. Z-scans were performed with the 1.5x optovar in place using 70 ms exposure per frame and a Z-spacing of 0.19 µm. Typically, 80 frames were collected from each camera in a total of 8 s.

TIRF microscopy was performed using a Nikon N-STORM system fitted with a 1.49 Plan Apo 100x oil immersion objective and the 1.5x optovar in place. GFP and mCherry fluorescence signals were recorded sequentially on an Andor iXon Ultra backlit EMCCD camera.

Confocal microscopy was performed on a Leica SP8 system using a 1.4 NA plan apo oil immersion objective and GFP/mCherry fluorescence was detected using two HyD detectors. All microscopy was performed at room temperature.

Image analysis

General image handling, such as brightness/contrast adjustments and generation of kymographs was done using ImageJ (NIH). 3D cellular fluorescence images were generated as follows. A Z-stack was recorded on a spinning disk microscope using previously indicated settings. The dataset was deconvolved with Huygens Professional software (Scientific Volume Imaging) using a calculated point spread function. The images presented are maximum intensity projections of the deconvolved dataset.

Correlation between speed and membrane fluorescence intensity was analysed using Quimp11 (www.warwick.ac.uk/quimp). Identification of membrane pixels and measuring their fluorescence intensity was done using a custom-written MATLAB (The MathWorks) script (Supplementary file 1 and Source code 1).

Image sets that were used for quantification were taken from at least two independent transfections. Only those cells with very low HSPC300-GFP expression were included for analysis, as overexpression dramatically reduces image contrast. For the quantification of SCAR fluorescence on the edge and centre of macropinocytic cups a paired 2-tailed T-test was used in Figure 3B and D and a 2-tailed T-test was used in Figure 6F.

All lattice light sheet microscopy movies (1–7 and 12–13) show a maximum intensity projection of the fluorescence intensity. The F-actin marker LimEΔcoil is used in all images unless otherwise specified. Images were deconvolved using a custom-written Richardson-Lucy algorithm. The maximum intensity projection was generated using Huygens software. Indicated time is in the min:sec format.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Sean Munro for comments on the manuscript and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Grant number BB/K009699/1 to RRK and DV), Medical Research Council (reference number U105115237 to RRK) for support.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K009699/1 to Douwe M Veltman, Robert R Kay.

  • Medical Research Council U105115237 to Robert R Kay.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Author contributions

DMV, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

TDW, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data.

GB, Analysis and interpretation of data, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents.

B-CC, Acquisition of data, Drafting or revising the article.

EB, Acquisition of data, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents.

RHI, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article.

RRK, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

Additional files

Supplementary file 1. Manual for the track_membrane MATLAB script.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.029

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.029
Source code 1. Track membrane MATLAB script.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20085.030

elife-20085-code1.zip (17.8KB, zip)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20085.030

References

  1. Arai Y, Shibata T, Matsuoka S, Sato MJ, Yanagida T, Ueda M. Self-organization of the phosphatidylinositol lipids signaling system for random cell migration. PNAS. 2010;107:12399–12404. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908278107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Araki N, Egami Y, Watanabe Y, Hatae T. Phosphoinositide metabolism during membrane ruffling and macropinosome formation in EGF-stimulated A431 cells. Experimental Cell Research. 2007;313:1496–1507. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2007.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Araki N, Johnson MT, Swanson JA. A role for phosphoinositide 3-kinase in the completion of macropinocytosis and phagocytosis by macrophages. The Journal of Cell Biology. 1996;135:1249–1260. doi: 10.1083/jcb.135.5.1249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bar-Sagi D, Feramisco JR. Induction of membrane ruffling and fluid-phase pinocytosis in quiescent fibroblasts by ras proteins. Science. 1986;233:1061–1068. doi: 10.1126/science.3090687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernitt E, Koh CG, Gov N, Döbereiner HG. Dynamics of actin waves on patterned substrates: a quantitative analysis of circular dorsal ruffles. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0115857. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bloomfield G, Kay RR. Uses and abuses of macropinocytosis. Journal of Cell Science. 2016;129:2697–2705. doi: 10.1242/jcs.176149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloomfield G, Tanaka Y, Skelton J, Ivens A, Kay RR. Widespread duplications in the genomes of laboratory stocks of Dictyostelium discoideum. Genome Biology. 2008;9:R75. doi: 10.1186/gb-2008-9-4-r75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bloomfield G, Traynor D, Sander SP, Veltman DM, Pachebat JA, Kay RR. Neurofibromin controls macropinocytosis and phagocytosis in Dictyostelium. eLife. 2015;4:e04940. doi: 10.7554/eLife.04940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bohdanowicz M, Grinstein S. Role of phospholipids in endocytosis, phagocytosis, and macropinocytosis. Physiological Reviews. 2013;93:69–106. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00002.2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolourani P, Spiegelman G, Weeks G. Ras proteins have multiple functions in vegetative cells of Dictyostelium. Eukaryotic Cell. 2010;9:1728–1733. doi: 10.1128/EC.00141-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bretschneider T, Anderson K, Ecke M, Müller-Taubenberger A, Schroth-Diez B, Ishikawa-Ankerhold HC, Gerisch G. The three-dimensional dynamics of actin waves, a model of cytoskeletal self-organization. Biophysical Journal. 2009;96:2888–2900. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2008.12.3942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bretschneider T, Diez S, Anderson K, Heuser J, Clarke M, Müller-Taubenberger A, Köhler J, Gerisch G. Dynamic actin patterns and Arp2/3 assembly at the substrate-attached surface of motile cells. Current Biology. 2004;14:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2003.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brzeska H, Guag J, Preston GM, Titus MA, Korn ED. Molecular basis of dynamic relocalization of Dictyostelium myosin IB. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2012;287:14923–14936. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.318667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Brzeska H, Koech H, Pridham KJ, Korn ED, Titus MA. Selective localization of myosin-I proteins in macropinosomes and actin waves. Cytoskeleton. 2016;73:68–82. doi: 10.1002/cm.21275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Buczynski G, Grove B, Nomura A, Kleve M, Bush J, Firtel RA, Cardelli J. Inactivation of two Dictyostelium discoideum genes, DdPIK1 and DdPIK2, encoding proteins related to mammalian phosphatidylinositide 3-kinases, results in defects in endocytosis, lysosome to postlysosome transport, and actin cytoskeleton organization. The Journal of Cell Biology. 1997;136:1271–1286. doi: 10.1083/jcb.136.6.1271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen BC, Legant WR, Wang K, Shao L, Milkie DE, Davidson MW, Janetopoulos C, Wu XS, Hammer JA, Liu Z, English BP, Mimori-Kiyosue Y, Romero DP, Ritter AT, Lippincott-Schwartz J, Fritz-Laylin L, Mullins RD, Mitchell DM, Bembenek JN, Reymann AC, Böhme R, Grill SW, Wang JT, Seydoux G, Tulu US, Kiehart DP, Betzig E. Lattice light-sheet microscopy: imaging molecules to embryos at high spatiotemporal resolution. Science. 2014;346:1257998. doi: 10.1126/science.1257998. In press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen CL, Wang Y, Sesaki H, Iijima M. Myosin I links PIP3 signaling to remodeling of the actin cytoskeleton in chemotaxis. Science Signaling. 2012;5:ra10. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2002446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen L, Janetopoulos C, Huang YE, Iijima M, Borleis J, Devreotes PN. Two phases of actin polymerization display different dependencies on PI(3,4,5)P3 accumulation and have unique roles during chemotaxis. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2003;14:5028–5037. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E03-05-0339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chubb JR, Wilkins A, Thomas GM, Insall RH. The Dictyostelium RasS protein is required for macropinocytosis, phagocytosis and the control of cell movement. Journal of Cell Science. 2000;113:709–719. doi: 10.1242/jcs.113.4.709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Clark J, Kay RR, Kielkowska A, Niewczas I, Fets L, Oxley D, Stephens LR, Hawkins PT. Dictyostelium uses ether-linked inositol phospholipids for intracellular signalling. The EMBO Journal. 2014;33:2188–2200. doi: 10.15252/embj.201488677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Clarke M, Engel U, Giorgione J, Müller-Taubenberger A, Prassler J, Veltman D, Gerisch G. Curvature recognition and force generation in phagocytosis. BMC Biology. 2010;8:154. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-8-154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Commisso C, Davidson SM, Soydaner-Azeloglu RG, Parker SJ, Kamphorst JJ, Hackett S, Grabocka E, Nofal M, Drebin JA, Thompson CB, Rabinowitz JD, Metallo CM, Vander Heiden MG, Bar-Sagi D. Macropinocytosis of protein is an amino acid supply route in Ras-transformed cells. Nature. 2013;497:633–637. doi: 10.1038/nature12138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Dieckmann R, von Heyden Y, Kistler C, Gopaldass N, Hausherr S, Crawley SW, Schwarz EC, Diensthuber RP, Côté GP, Tsiavaliaris G, Soldati T. A myosin IK-Abp1-PakB circuit acts as a switch to regulate phagocytosis efficiency. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2010;21:1505–1518. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E09-06-0485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dormann D, Weijer G, Parent CA, Devreotes PN, Weijer CJ. Visualizing PI3 kinase-mediated cell-cell signaling during Dictyostelium development. Current Biology. 2002;12:1178–1188. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00950-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dumontier M, Höcht P, Mintert U, Faix J. Rac1 GTPases control filopodia formation, cell motility, endocytosis, cytokinesis and development in Dictyostelium. Journal of Cell Science. 2000;113:2253–2265. doi: 10.1242/jcs.113.12.2253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Eden S, Rohatgi R, Podtelejnikov AV, Mann M, Kirschner MW. Mechanism of regulation of WAVE1-induced actin nucleation by Rac1 and Nck. Nature. 2002;418:790–793. doi: 10.1038/nature00859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Egami Y, Taguchi T, Maekawa M, Arai H, Araki N. Small GTPases and phosphoinositides in the regulatory mechanisms of macropinosome formation and maturation. Frontiers in Physiology. 2014;5:374. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2014.00374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Freeman SA, Grinstein S. Phagocytosis: receptors, signal integration, and the cytoskeleton. Immunological Reviews. 2014;262:193–215. doi: 10.1111/imr.12212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Funamoto S, Meili R, Lee S, Parry L, Firtel RA. Spatial and temporal regulation of 3-phosphoinositides by PI 3-kinase and PTEN mediates chemotaxis. Cell. 2002;109:611–623. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00755-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gerhardt M, Ecke M, Walz M, Stengl A, Beta C, Gerisch G. Actin and PIP3 waves in giant cells reveal the inherent length scale of an excited state. Journal of Cell Science. 2014;127:4507–4517. doi: 10.1242/jcs.156000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gerisch G. Self-organizing actin waves that simulate phagocytic cup structures. PMC Biophysics. 2010;3:7. doi: 10.1186/1757-5036-3-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Golebiewska U, Kay JG, Masters T, Grinstein S, Im W, Pastor RW, Scarlata S, McLaughlin S. Evidence for a fence that impedes the diffusion of phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate out of the forming phagosomes of macrophages. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2011;22:3498–3507. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E11-02-0114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Griffin FM, Griffin JA, Leider JE, Silverstein SC. Studies on the mechanism of phagocytosis. I. Requirements for circumferential attachment of particle-bound ligands to specific receptors on the macrophage plasma membrane. Journal of Experimental Medicine. 1975;142:1263–1282. doi: 10.1084/jem.142.5.1263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hacker U, Albrecht R, Maniak M. Fluid-phase uptake by macropinocytosis in Dictyostelium. Journal of Cell Science. 1997;110:105–112. doi: 10.1242/jcs.110.2.105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoeller O, Bolourani P, Clark J, Stephens LR, Hawkins PT, Weiner OD, Weeks G, Kay RR. Two distinct functions for PI3-kinases in macropinocytosis. Journal of Cell Science. 2013;126:4296–4307. doi: 10.1242/jcs.134015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoeller O, Kay RR. Chemotaxis in the absence of PIP3 gradients. Current Biology. 2007;17:813–817. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ichetovkin I, Grant W, Condeelis J. Cofilin produces newly polymerized actin filaments that are preferred for dendritic nucleation by the Arp2/3 complex. Current Biology. 2002;12:79–84. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00629-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Insall R, Kuspa A, Lilly PJ, Shaulsky G, Levin LR, Loomis WF, Devreotes P. CRAC, a cytosolic protein containing a pleckstrin homology domain, is required for receptor and G protein-mediated activation of adenylyl cyclase in Dictyostelium. The Journal of Cell Biology. 1994;126:1537–1545. doi: 10.1083/jcb.126.6.1537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Insall R, Müller-Taubenberger A, Machesky L, Köhler J, Simmeth E, Atkinson SJ, Weber I, Gerisch G. Dynamics of the Dictyostelium Arp2/3 complex in endocytosis, cytokinesis, and chemotaxis. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton. 2001;50:115–128. doi: 10.1002/cm.10005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Jasnin M, Ecke M, Baumeister W, Gerisch G. Actin organization in cells responding to a perforated surface, revealed by live imaging and cryo-electron tomography. Structure. 2016;24:1031–1043. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2016.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Junemann A, Filić V, Winterhoff M, Nordholz B, Litschko C, Schwellenbach H, Stephan T, Weber I, Faix J. A Diaphanous-related formin links Ras signaling directly to actin assembly in macropinocytosis and phagocytosis. PNAS. 2016 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1611024113. In press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Jung G, Remmert K, Wu X, Volosky JM, Hammer JA. The Dictyostelium CARMIL protein links capping protein and the Arp2/3 complex to type I myosins through their SH3 domains. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2001;153:1479–1497. doi: 10.1083/jcb.153.7.1479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kamphorst JJ, Nofal M, Commisso C, Hackett SR, Lu W, Grabocka E, Vander Heiden MG, Miller G, Drebin JA, Bar-Sagi D, Thompson CB, Rabinowitz JD. Human pancreatic cancer tumors are nutrient poor and tumor cells actively scavenge extracellular protein. Cancer Research. 2015;75:544–553. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-2211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kay RR. Cell differentiation in monolayers and the investigation of slime mold morphogens. Methods in Cell Biology. 1987;28:433–448. doi: 10.1016/s0091-679x(08)61661-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kayman SC, Clarke M. Relationship between axenic growth of Dictyostelium discoideum strains and their track morphology on substrates coated with gold particles. The Journal of Cell Biology. 1983;97:1001–1010. doi: 10.1083/jcb.97.4.1001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Khamviwath V, Hu J, Othmer HG. A continuum model of actin waves in Dictyostelium discoideum. PLoS One. 2013;8:e64272. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Khosla M, Spiegelman GB, Insall R, Weeks G. Functional overlap of the dictyostelium RasG, RasD and RasB proteins. Journal of Cell Science. 2000;113:1427–1434. doi: 10.1242/jcs.113.8.1427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lee E, Seastone DJ, Harris E, Cardelli JA, Knecht DA. RacB regulates cytoskeletal function in Dictyostelium spp. Eukaryotic Cell. 2003;2:474–485. doi: 10.1128/EC.2.3.474-485.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Maniak M. Fluid-phase uptake and transit in axenic Dictyostelium cells. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects. 2001;1525:197–204. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4165(01)00105-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Manser E, Leung T, Salihuddin H, Zhao ZS, Lim L. A brain serine/threonine protein kinase activated by Cdc42 and Rac1. Nature. 1994;367:40–46. doi: 10.1038/367040a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Marshall JG, Booth JW, Stambolic V, Mak T, Balla T, Schreiber AD, Meyer T, Grinstein S. Restricted accumulation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase products in a plasmalemmal subdomain during Fc gamma receptor-mediated phagocytosis. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2001;153:1369–1380. doi: 10.1083/jcb.153.7.1369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Mercer J, Helenius A. Gulping rather than sipping: macropinocytosis as a way of virus entry. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 2012;15:490–499. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2012.05.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Munch C, O'Brien J, Bertolotti A. Prion-like propagation of mutant superoxide dismutase-1 misfolding in neuronal cells. PNAS. 2011;108:3548–3553. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1017275108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Novak KD, Peterson MD, Reedy MC, Titus MA. Dictyostelium myosin I double mutants exhibit conditional defects in pinocytosis. The Journal of Cell Biology. 1995;131:1205–1221. doi: 10.1083/jcb.131.5.1205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ostap EM, Maupin P, Doberstein SK, Baines IC, Korn ED, Pollard TD. Dynamic localization of myosin-I to endocytic structures in Acanthamoeba. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton. 2003;54:29–40. doi: 10.1002/cm.10081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Palmieri SJ, Nebl T, Pope RK, Seastone DJ, Lee E, Hinchcliffe EH, Sluder G, Knecht D, Cardelli J, Luna EJ. Mutant Rac1B expression in Dictyostelium: effects on morphology, growth, endocytosis, development, and the actin cytoskeleton. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton. 2000;46:285–304. doi: 10.1002/1097-0169(200008)46:4&#x0003c;285::AID-CM6&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-N. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Parent CA, Blacklock BJ, Froehlich WM, Murphy DB, Devreotes PN. G protein signaling events are activated at the leading edge of chemotactic cells. Cell. 1998;95:81–91. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81784-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Pollard TD, Borisy GG. Cellular motility driven by assembly and disassembly of actin filaments. Cell. 2003;112:453–465. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00120-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Postma M, Roelofs J, Goedhart J, Gadella TW, Visser AJ, Van Haastert PJ. Uniform cAMP stimulation of Dictyostelium cells induces localized patches of signal transduction and pseudopodia. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2003;14:5019–5027. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E03-08-0566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Postma M, Roelofs J, Goedhart J, Loovers HM, Visser AJ, Van Haastert PJ. Sensitization of Dictyostelium chemotaxis by phosphoinositide-3-kinase-mediated self-organizing signalling patches. Journal of Cell Science. 2004;117:2925–2935. doi: 10.1242/jcs.01143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rodriguez-Viciana P, Warne PH, Khwaja A, Marte BM, Pappin D, Das P, Waterfield MD, Ridley A, Downward J. Role of phosphoinositide 3-OH kinase in cell transformation and control of the actin cytoskeleton by Ras. Cell. 1997;89:457–467. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80226-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sasaki AT, Chun C, Takeda K, Firtel RA. Localized Ras signaling at the leading edge regulates PI3K, cell polarity, and directional cell movement. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2004;167:505–518. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200406177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Sasaki AT, Janetopoulos C, Lee S, Charest PG, Takeda K, Sundheimer LW, Meili R, Devreotes PN, Firtel RA. G protein-independent Ras/PI3K/F-actin circuit regulates basic cell motility. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2007;178:185–191. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200611138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Seastone DJ, Harris E, Temesvari LA, Bear JE, Saxe CL, Cardelli J. The WASp-like protein scar regulates macropinocytosis, phagocytosis and endosomal membrane flow in Dictyostelium. Journal of Cell Science. 2001;114:2673–2683. doi: 10.1242/jcs.114.14.2673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Seastone DJ, Lee E, Bush J, Knecht D, Cardelli J. Overexpression of a novel rho family GTPase, RacC, induces unusual actin-based structures and positively affects phagocytosis in Dictyostelium discoideum. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 1998;9:2891–2904. doi: 10.1091/mbc.9.10.2891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Somesh BP, Vlahou G, Iijima M, Insall RH, Devreotes P, Rivero F. RacG regulates morphology, phagocytosis, and chemotaxis. Eukaryotic Cell. 2006;5:1648–1663. doi: 10.1128/EC.00221-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Steffen A, Rottner K, Ehinger J, Innocenti M, Scita G, Wehland J, Stradal TE. Sra-1 and Nap1 link Rac to actin assembly driving lamellipodia formation. The EMBO Journal. 2004;23:749–759. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Swanson JA. Shaping cups into phagosomes and macropinosomes. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2008;9:639–649. doi: 10.1038/nrm2447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Swanson JA. Phosphoinositides and engulfment. Cellular Microbiology. 2014;16:1473–1483. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Swanson JA, Johnson MT, Beningo K, Post P, Mooseker M, Araki N. A contractile activity that closes phagosomes in macrophages. Journal of Cell Science. 1999;112:307–316. doi: 10.1242/jcs.112.3.307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Swanson JA, Watts C. Macropinocytosis. Trends in Cell Biology. 1995;5:424–428. doi: 10.1016/S0962-8924(00)89101-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Taniguchi D, Ishihara S, Oonuki T, Honda-Kitahara M, Kaneko K, Sawai S. Phase geometries of two-dimensional excitable waves govern self-organized morphodynamics of amoeboid cells. PNAS. 2013;110:5016–5021. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218025110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Taylor MJ, Perrais D, Merrifield CJ. A high precision survey of the molecular dynamics of mammalian clathrin-mediated endocytosis. PLoS Biology. 2011;9:e1000604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Thilo L, Vogel G. Kinetics of membrane internalization and recycling during pinocytosis in Dictyostelium discoideum. PNAS. 1980;77:1015–1019. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.2.1015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Titus MA. The role of unconventional myosins in Dictyostelium endocytosis. The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology. 2000;47:191–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2000.tb00038.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Ura S, Pollitt AY, Veltman DM, Morrice NA, Machesky LM, Insall RH. Pseudopod growth and evolution during cell movement is controlled through SCAR/WAVE dephosphorylation. Current Biology. 2012;22:553–561. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Veltman DM, Akar G, Bosgraaf L, Van Haastert PJ. A new set of small, extrachromosomal expression vectors for Dictyostelium discoideum. Plasmid. 2009;61:110–118. doi: 10.1016/j.plasmid.2008.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Veltman DM, King JS, Machesky LM, Insall RH. SCAR knockouts in Dictyostelium: WASP assumes SCAR's position and upstream regulators in pseudopods. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2012;198:501–508. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201205058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Weisswange I, Bretschneider T, Anderson KI. The leading edge is a lipid diffusion barrier. Journal of Cell Science. 2005;118:4375–4380. doi: 10.1242/jcs.02551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Welliver TP, Chang SL, Linderman JJ, Swanson JA. Ruffles limit diffusion in the plasma membrane during macropinosome formation. Journal of Cell Science. 2011;124:4106–4114. doi: 10.1242/jcs.091538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Welliver TP, Swanson JA. A growth factor signaling cascade confined to circular ruffles in macrophages. Biology Open. 2012;1:754–760. doi: 10.1242/bio.20121784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Yoshida S, Hoppe AD, Araki N, Swanson JA. Sequential signaling in plasma-membrane domains during macropinosome formation in macrophages. Journal of Cell Science. 2009;122:3250–3261. doi: 10.1242/jcs.053207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Zatulovskiy E, Tyson R, Bretschneider T, Kay RR. Bleb-driven chemotaxis of Dictyostelium cells. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2014;204:1027–1044. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201306147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Zhou K, Pandol S, Bokoch G, Traynor-Kaplan AE. Disruption of Dictyostelium PI3K genes reduces [32P]phosphatidylinositol 3,4 bisphosphate and [32P]phosphatidylinositol trisphosphate levels, alters F-actin distribution and impairs pinocytosis. Journal of Cell Science. 1998;111:283–294. doi: 10.1242/jcs.111.2.283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eLife. 2016 Dec 13;5:e20085. doi: 10.7554/eLife.20085.031

Decision letter

Editor: Joel Swanson1

In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.

[Editors’ note: a previous version of this study was rejected after peer review, but the authors submitted for reconsideration. The first decision letter after peer review is shown below.]

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "A plasma membrane template for macropinocytic cups" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been evaluated by Vivek Malhotra (Senior Editor) and three reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors. Our decision has been reached after consultation amongst the reviewers. Based on these discussions and the individual reviews pasted below, we regret to inform you that your work will not be considered further for publication in eLife.

Dr. Joel Swanson has agreed to reveal his identity as one of the peer reviewers of your paper.

All in all, the reviewers were satisfied with the images, the high quality of data and your interesting hypothesis. However, they were concerned that your conclusions were not sufficiently justified by the data especially with respect to the mechanism of ring formation and the actual function of the ring in cup formation. We feel their major concerns cannot be addressed within the usually permitted period of 2-3 months. But, given the potential importance of the findings, we would be willing to consider a new manuscript for review by the same reviewers, provided you can address the reviewers’ concerns. Otherwise, we strongly urge you to submit this work elsewhere.

Reviewer #1:

This paper investigates the mechanisms driving the formation of macropinocytic cups in Dictyostelium. Using high end imaging (lattice sheet microscopy), the authors uncover that the actin nucleation promoting factor SCAR accumulates in a thin ring at the edge of PIP3 patches. They then explore PIP3 patches in a variety of other cellular processes, such as phagocytosis and basal actin waves, and demonstrate that similar SCAR rings are present. Finally, the authors investigate the role of Ras in the formation of PIP3 patches.

The imaging is beautiful and the results do suggest a morphogenetic mechanism. However, the work remains at a rather preliminary level and does not go much beyond the observation of the SCAR rings. Many open questions remain: What is the mechanism of SCAR ring formation? The authors discuss the possible involvement of myosin 1, could they explore this experimentally?

If the SCAR ring is indeed responsible for the curving of the membrane and the formation of a circular actin ruffle, why do all the structures with such a ring not adopt a similar geometry? How does the morphogenetic mechanism suggested by the authors actually work? It would have been useful to follow the dynamics of SCAR during macropinosome formation. Is the PIP3 patch initially flat and then the membrane curves out? And if so, does this event correspond with SCAR ring formation? Or does the ring initially promote patch expansion, like in an actin wave, and if so, how does the transition to outwards polymerisation occur? Addressing any aspect of the mechanism of ring formation or of its morphogenetic effect would bring the paper beyond the level of an interesting observation.

1) The authors use the correlation between HSPC300-GFP recruitment and forward extension of pseudopods as a proof that this construct localizes active SCAR. This is not entirely clear. Is SCAR itself (in an inactive form) still present at the edge of stalled pseudopods? And if not, could HSPC300 localize together with SCAR independently of its activity?

2) If CRAC PH-domain binds both PIP3 and PIP2 as stated by the authors (subsection “SCAR is recruited to the periphery of PIP3 domains in macropinocytic cups”, third paragraph), why do they consider it a readout of PIP3 localization?

3) Some of the figures (e.g. most of the data displayed on Figure 4; Figure 5F-H) lack quantification, and while they display beautiful images, it would be helpful to quantify the readouts, or at least mention in the figure legend of how many cells and experiments the presented image is representative.

4) Figure 4 is interesting but raises several questions: why has WASP been localized only for basal actin waves? Does WASP also follow the same trend as SCAR in the other cases of PIP3 patches? In panel H, SCAR appears to form larger domains that overlap with PIP3 to some extent. How does this fit with the other observations?

5) It is not clear how the measurements displayed in panel 5E were actually done: is the background measured outside the cell? And if so, is this the right normalization? And if not, where would the background region be in pictures like those displayed in panel D? Also, the authors claim that SCAR recruitment is less strong in PI3K-null cells than in wt, however, the fluorescence at center also seems lower in this case. It would be better to plot the ratio of center to edges (both measured in the same patch), which would also avoid the use of the background signal.

6) The authors discuss the possible presence of a diffusion barrier at the edge of Ras/PIP3 domains, could they discuss what would and actin based barrier (as suggested) prevent from diffusing? How would such a barrier work?

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript by Veltman, et al., examines the dynamics of F-actin, PIP3 Ras-binding domains (RBD) and SCAR/WAVE during macropinosome formation and related movements in Dictyostelium. Using state-of-the-art fluorescence microscopy, the authors demonstrate a distinct spatial arrangement of PIP3 RBD and SCAR in forming macropinocytic cups, with PIP3 and RBD localizing to patches of plasma membrane within cups and SCAR (inferred by imaging the SCAR component HSPC300-GFP) localizing to cup rims, at the edges of ruffles that define PIP3 patches. The images provide a striking correlation between the localization of PIP3 and RBD patches and of SCAR at the edges of ruffles that delineate those patches. They show further that similar patterns can be detected in wild-type amoebas which make macropinosomes more infrequently than those which are adapted to broth culture.

My major concern is with the statements, in the Abstract and elsewhere, that "patches of intense PIP3 signalling […] recruit SCAR/WAVE complex to their edges, […] driving a ring of actin polymerization that forms the walls of the cups" (Abstract). This implies that PIP3 patches precede the SCAR localization to patch edges, which is not demonstrated by the experiments. The figures provided, especially Figure 4H, indicate that PIP3 patches form coincident with SCAR concentration at leading edges. Instead, I would interpret the images as supporting a model in which SCAR defines a boundary, perhaps a diffusion barrier, that permits amplification of PI 3-kinase activity within a circular domain in the inner leaflet of plasma membrane; that is, SCAR either prescribes the PIP3 patch or assembles coincidently into the concentric arrangement. This essential claim of the manuscript about which comes first could be addressed by experiments which measure the timing of PIP3 patch formation relative to that of SCAR localization and ring formation.

Secondly, mechanistic interpretations (i.e., PIP3 patches recruit SCAR) would require more than the correlative evidence provided here, such as localization after experimental manipulations of the system components. Some mechanism is suggested by the experiments of Figure 5, which show RBD patches forming without corresponding patches of PIP3, and which suggest that PIP3 patches do not prescribe SCAR rings. However, the mechanism implied by this result remains speculative.

Reviewer #3:

In this manuscript the authors study the organization of macropinocytic cups in Dictyostelium cells. They first characterize the dynamic structure of the macropinocytic cups in 3D using the new lattice light sheet microscopy technology. They also compare and contrast the macropinocytic structures to basal actin waves and to pseudopodia. The authors show that active SCAR protein localizes to the rim of the macropinocytic cups. The SCAR protein, and to a lesser extent WASP, follows the edge of a membrane patch enriched in PIP3 and Ras activity. The localization of SCAR to the edge of PIP3 patches is shown to be very robust as it is seen under various growth conditions and genetic backgrounds. The authors suggest that the SCAR pattern explains the formation of the cup shaped actin structures driving the formation of the macropinosomes. Finally, the authors show using mutant cells that PIP3, may contribute, but is not required for the formation of the SCAR pattern.

The finding that SCAR localizes to the rim of PIP3 patches is interesting and likely to be important for mechanistic understanding of the actin driven formation of the macropinosomes. However, the molecular mechanism that forms the SCAR pattern around the PIP3 patches remains unknown. Several hypotheses are discussed, but not tested in the manuscript. Testing these models may be beyond the scope of this manuscript.

The manuscript is clearly written, and the presented data is very beautiful, quantitative and of high technical quality. The key conclusions of the manuscript are well supported by the data.

I would, however, suggest toning down some overstated conclusions that might be misleading for some readers.

1) At the end of the subsection “All PIP3 patches, whatever their origin, recruit SCAR to their periphery” the authors state that: "[…] any process that causes patches of PIP3 will cause recruitment of SCAR at the edges […]". This is a rather exaggerated conclusion based on colocalization data, especially when the authors later show that PIP3 is not needed for SCAR localization.

2) At the end of the subsection “Macropinosomes in wild-type cells show the same as organisation as in axenic cells, but basal PIP3 waves do not form” they also conclude "[…] that PIP3 patches cause peripheral SCAR and actin rings to form […]". Again this is too strong a conclusion. No evidence is presented that PIP3 causes the SCAR localization.

3) In the first paragraph of the Discussion it says: "This work offers an explanation how the architecture of these rings is controlled." The manuscript describes the SCAR ring architecture, but doesn't really explain the mechanisms that control it.

[Editors’ note: what now follows is the decision letter after the authors submitted for further consideration.]

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "A plasma membrane template for macropinocytic cups" for further consideration at eLife. Your revised article has been favorably evaluated by Randy Schekman (Senior editor) and three reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors.

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed before acceptance. No additional experimental work is needed, but the Discussion section should be revised to clarify points identified by reviewers 2 and 3.

1) "The authors should address what is known about the role of specific Racs that have been described as having a role in macropinocytosis, such as Rac1A and Rac1C and perhaps RacB, so as to remove some of the ambiguity from the presentation of the data and synthesis of the results. "

2) Known roles for RasC or RasG in macropinocytosis, if any, should be mentioned.

3) Known roles for myosin 1 isoforms in macropinocytosis should be mentioned.

4) Citations of Hoeller et al. and Seastone et al. should be included with the reference to Clark et al. 2014.

5) Additional thoughts about the nature of the diffusion barrier that remains after latrunculin treatment are optional but encouraged.

Reviewer #1:

This manuscript analyzes the spatial and temporal organization of actin PIP3, Ras, Rac and SCAR during the formation of macropinosomes in Dictyostelium. It demonstrates that SCAR localizes to the edges of plasma membrane patches of PIP3 coincident with patch formation. The PIP3 patches, which also contain active Ras and Rac, prescribe the localization of SCAR and the accompanying actin polymerization that forms the cup. Additional experiments support a model in which the size of the PIP3 patch is prescribed by active Ras, and not vice versa; this is an important mechanistic insight. An alternative hypothesis, that the PIP3 patch is prescribed by the forming actin-rich cup, is excluded by experiments showing that PIP3 patches can form in cells whose actin has been depolymerized by latrunculin A.

The revised manuscript adequately addresses the critiques from the first reviews. The additional experiments provide mechanistic analyses that were missing from the first manuscript. Revised text addresses earlier concerns about interpretation of the results.

The title of the manuscript is acceptable. Supplementary videos provide important supporting data for the claims of the paper, especially regarding the relative distributions of PIP3 and SCAR.

Reviewer #2:

Cells can internalize large volumes of liquid via macropinocytosis, a dynamic process driven by actin polymerization. Veltman et al. beautifully describe macropinocytosis in the Dictyostelium amoebae. They show that macropinocytic cups do not arise from flat membrane protrusions or pseudopods as had been proposed but rather arise de novo from the membrane of a Dictyostelium cell. The Arp2/3 regulator SCAR is tightly localized to the rim of the extending cup, surrounding a membrane patch enriched for both active Ras and PIP3, where it is maintained all throughout its formation, expansion and closure. Cells with significantly reduced levels of PIP3 continue to make macropinocytic cups, with a core patch of activated Ras bordered by SCAR, establishing that activation of small G proteins is the initial driver of cup formation. Support for this comes from the finding that true wild type strains extend significantly fewer and smaller macropinocytic cups, however upon disruption of the NF1 RasGAP (which is mutated in axenic laboratory strains) macropinocytosis is dramatically upregulated. Together with previous work in the field, the results establish that Ras/Rac activation is critical for macropinosome formation that promotes the localized production of PIP3 on the membrane and selectively recruits and/or activates SCAR at the border that, in turn activates Arp2/3 mediated actin polymerization to drive cup extension.

Activated Ras, PIP3, and SCAR are known to have significant roles in macropinocytosis, but it has not been clear which is the primarily responsible for initiating cup formation. Here the authors provide new insights into this problem by showing that Ras/Rac activation at the membrane corresponds with the recruitment of SCAR to the periphery, likely playing critical role in initiating a ring of actin polymerization surrounding the patch at the membrane. PIP3 appears to be dispensable for this initial step but must play a role in subsequent steps. The results also demonstrate that membrane patches of PIP3 are not associated with pseudopods but are rather mainly involved in the formation of macropinocytic structures, an important clarification for the field that has focused a good deal of attention to the role of PIP3 in directed migration. Naturally, these findings raise the critical question of how specific small GTPases with roles in macropinocytosis act together with PI3K to orchestrate subsequent events. Activated Ras/Rac is permissive for SCAR activation at the edges of the forming and mature cup but how the relatively large region of active Ras on the membrane causes such restrictive localization of SCAR remains an intriguing mystery.

Specific comment:

Reporters for activated Ras and Rac are localized to the macropinocytic cup and a number of small GTPases, such as RasC and RasG, are implicated in macropinocytosis, as previously shown by others and also described here. The authors should address what is known about the role of specific Racs that have been described as having a role in macropinocytosis, such as Rac1A and Rac1C and perhaps RacB, so as to remove some of the ambiguity from the presentation of the data and synthesis of the results.

Have the authors examined either the RasC or RasG null mutant to see what step in macropinocytosis either of these small GTPases affects – macropinosome formation or cup size/extension? The addition of such data could be an important first step towards clarifying the role of specific small GTPases in initiating macropinocytosis.

Reviewer #3:

This study dissects the spatial and temporal patterns of PIP3, SCAR and actin in the genesis of macropinocytic lamellae and cups with unprecedented precision. The study integrates, extends and explains previous studies on the generation, propagation and function of actin waves at the ventral surface of the cell, by showing their relationship with ruffles and cups that give rise to macropinosomes on the dorsal surface.

One of the major claims is that PI3K does not play an instructive role in the generation of cups, but instead demonstrates such a role for Ras and not for Rac.

Another extremely important discovery is that the RasGAP ortholog of NF1, which absence or lack of functionality is determinant for the capacity of Dictyostelium cells to live from fluid phase uptake, dictates the size of the cups.

Overall, this revised version of the manuscript presents very strong experimental evidence for the claims, is richly documented both by time-lapse microscopy with unprecedented 3D and temporal resolution, and exquisite reconstructions and analyses. All important results are quantified and analysed with appropriate statistical tools.

It is also worth noting that I was not among the reviewers of the original manuscript, but am fully satisfied by the answers given to all criticisms, mainly in the rich and complete additional experimental evidence as well as in the reformulation of the claims and the overall more objective tone of the text.

Therefore, I do not have strong criticisms, but only a few points for which I would encourage the authors to bring some additional clarification and discussion.

1) Every PIP3 patch has a rim of SCAR, but it is not really clear to me whether every SCAR-positive structure (dot/patch/ring) has a core of underlying PIP3. The same can potentially be asked for combinations of activated Ras or Rac.

2) The claim that the LatA experiments rule out that a diffusion barrier is required to restrict the PIP3 patch is too general. It shows that an actin-dependent diffusion barrier is not required. But one might envisage other membrane heterogeneities that could serve as diffusion barrier (Lo versus Ld phases, rafts etc.).

3) Grinstein and colleagues had shown that the phagocytic cup lip serves as diffusion barrier, possibly implying that the geometry - the curvature - was the mechanism. The findings here with LatA-treated spherical cells refute this hypothesis. This should be mentioned.

4) Maybe a slightly expanded discussion on the possible roles of class I myosins would be cool. They were implicated in the ventral actin waves; they are known to participate in the recruitment and activation of the Arp2/3 complex; the absence of MyoK induces morphological similarities with the "smooth bell-shaped cell" morphology induced by a wave spreading through the cell footprint; absence of many class I myosins result in macropinocytic but also phagocytic and trafficking phenotypes.

eLife. 2016 Dec 13;5:e20085. doi: 10.7554/eLife.20085.032

Author response


[Editors’ note: the author responses to the first round of peer review follow.]

[…] Reviewer #1:

This paper investigates the mechanisms driving the formation of macropinocytic cups in Dictyostelium. Using high end imaging (lattice sheet microscopy), the authors uncover that the actin nucleation promoting factor SCAR accumulates in a thin ring at the edge of PIP3 patches. They then explore PIP3 patches in a variety of other cellular processes, such as phagocytosis and basal actin waves, and demonstrate that similar SCAR rings are present. Finally, the authors investigate the role of Ras in the formation of PIP3 patches.

The imaging is beautiful and the results do suggest a morphogenetic mechanism. However, the work remains at a rather preliminary level and does not go much beyond the observation of the SCAR rings. Many open questions remain: What is the mechanism of SCAR ring formation? The authors discuss the possible involvement of myosin 1, could they explore this experimentally?

We agree that myosin 1 is likely to be important in the formation of macropinocytic cups and are actively working in this area. We have made reporters to six different myo‐1 proteins and confirmed the bull’s eye pattern of recruitment to macropinocytic cups recently reported by the Korn lab (Cytoskeleton, 2016); we have also made single mutants in all these genes and some doubles and a triple, again confirming that they are important for macropinocytosis. However, this is a long‐term project, and unfortunately we are not in a position to add anything to the current paper from this work.

If the SCAR ring is indeed responsible for the curving of the membrane and the formation of a circular actin ruffle, why do all the structures with such a ring not adopt a similar geometry?

The circular actin ruffle contains Arp2/3 cross linked F‐actin, which in Dictyostelium is catalysed exclusively by members of the WASP family (SCAR, WASP and WASH). Since SCAR is recruited to the circular actin ruffle and there are no other candidates, we conclude that SCAR must be responsible.

All structures with a SCAR ring adopt the same geometry, but negative curvature is not always clear in each individual images. (1) A 2D confocal section through the center of a macropinocytic cup typically shows negative curvature, but this is less pronounced in different confocal slices. (2) The negative curvature induced by the actin ring cannot always be maintained in the center of the cup. Macropinocytic cups in axenic cells are unusually large and are presumably physically challenging. The center of such large macropinocytic cups can be flat or can even have positive (outward) curvature with negative curvature limited to the edge, where the actin ring is.

Other structures with a SCAR ring are also always associated with negative curvature when this is physically permitted. This is true in phagosomes and cell‐cell contacts, but not in basal waves, which are constrained to be flat. In this case the F‐actin protrudes into the cell interior for several microns, rather than pushing the membrane out.

How does the morphogenetic mechanism suggested by the authors actually work? It would have been useful to follow the dynamics of SCAR during macropinosome formation. Is the PIP3 patch initially flat and then the membrane curves out? And if so, does this event correspond with SCAR ring formation? Or does the ring initially promote patch expansion, like in an actin wave, and if so, how does the transition to outwards polymerisation occur? Addressing any aspect of the mechanism of ring formation or of its morphogenetic effect would bring the paper beyond the level of an interesting observation.

These are all very important questions and we have explored them in depth in the revised manuscript (new Figure 4).

We show that PIP3 patches in all cases have SCAR along their periphery. We did not identify any patches, even those in initiating macropinocytic cups, where a ring of SCAR/F‐actin was absent. Macropinocytic cups therefore do not initiate by a belated recruitment of SCAR along initially flat PIP3 patches.

We have also recorded time lapse images of PIP3 and SCAR during developing macropinocytic cups. During all stages of the macropinocytic cup lifetime, SCAR remains tightly associated to the edges of the PIP3 patch. We thus find no evidence for a transition between macropinocytic cup expansion and macropinocytic cup closure. SCAR drives cup progression at all stages.

1) The authors use the correlation between HSPC300-GFP recruitment and forward extension of pseudopods as a proof that this construct localizes active SCAR. This is not entirely clear. Is SCAR itself (in an inactive form) still present at the edge of stalled pseudopods? And if not, could HSPC300 localize together with SCAR independently of its activity?

We may not have been sufficiently clear in the text. We do not assert that HSPC300 specifically marks active SCAR complex. HSPC300 and SCAR form a stable complex (together with PIR121, NAP and Abi) and HSPC300 thus marks all SCAR complex. We assert that the SCAR complex is active at places where it strongly accumulates. All membrane areas with high concentrations of fluorescent SCAR complex show outward membrane movement, thus we assume that it is active at these positions.

In principle any of the subunits of the SCAR complex can be tagged with GFP and we have done so (Veltman et al. J Cell Biol. 2012 Aug 20; 198(4): 501–508.), but we prefer to tag HSPC300 due to its small size, facilitating experimental procedures.

We have revised the text to more concisely make the point regarding the SCAR reporter.

2) If CRAC PH-domain binds both PIP3 and PIP2, as stated by the authors (subsection “SCAR is recruited to the periphery of PIP3 domains in macropinocytic cups”, third paragraph), why do they consider it a readout of PIP3 localization?

PH‐CRAC is the conventional sensor for PIP3 in Dictyostelium and has been used for almost 20 years. We have used this marker so that our data can be more easily compared with previous work. Some Dictyostelium workers hypothesize that the PIP3 patches (marked by PH‐CRAC) recruit SCAR and result in pseudopod formation. Our work shows that this is not the case.

There are no truly PIP3‐specific probes available. All tested PIP3 probes, such as PH‐ Akt, PH‐Btk, PH‐Gab2 and PH‐CRAC strongly bind to PIP3, but also bind to 3,4‐PIP2 (though not 4,5‐PIP2) to a lesser degree (See for example Park et al. Mol Cell. 2008 May 9; 30(3): 381–392. or Manna et al. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282:32093‐32105). In all cases, the Kd for PIP3 is much lower than that for 3,4‐PIP2 and thus the probes are considered PIP3 probes. It should be noted that we tested various PIP3 probes and found no differences with respect to macropinocytic cups:

The probes do behave differently with regards to pseudopod formation and chemotaxis and we are currently preparing a manuscript to describe these differences.

3) Some of the figures (e.g. most of the data displayed on Figure 4; Figure 5F-H) lack quantification, and while they display beautiful images, it would be helpful to quantify the readouts, or at least mention in the figure legend of how many cells and experiments the presented image is representative.

All images shown are representative. We should note here that a ring of SCAR around patches of Ras/PIP3 is detected in all cases, provided a microscope with a high NA objective is used (the SCAR puncta flanking the PIP3 patches are absolutely tiny) and provided that the SCAR reporter is not too highly overexpressed, in which case the high cytosolic background obscures the relatively weak fluorescence of the ring.

We have included in the text throughout the manuscript whether shown images are representative and added the number of analysed cells where appropriate.

4) Figure 4 is interesting but raises several questions: why has WASP been localized only for basal actin waves? Does WASP also follow the same trend as SCAR in the other cases of PIP3 patches? In panel H, SCAR appears to form larger domains that overlap with PIP3 to some extent. How does this fit with the other observations?

We included these images because we think that it is important to show that PIP3 patches do not recruit any of the Arp2/3 activating proteins to their centers. We show that WASP follows the same trend as SCAR in macropinocytic cups, but only very weakly (Figure 4D, revised manuscript). Since the recruitment of WASP is not as strong as that of SCAR, the WASP signal was generally not sufficient to reliably detect it at the rim of PIP3 patches in 3D recordings (which are technically demanding) in all cases.

The referee is right to remark that in the uniform stimulation experiment (Figure 4H) there are membrane areas where the PIP3 and SCAR signals partially overlap. In principle SCAR can thus be recruited transiently to areas with high levels of PIP3. However, this is specific to the (non‐physiological) uniform stimulation experiments and we assume that the duration of the SCAR recruitment to the membrane in these experiments is too short (only 2 seconds) for the PIP3 and SCAR to self‐organise into patches/rings.

5) It is not clear how the measurements displayed in panel 5E were actually done: is the background measured outside the cell? And if so, is this the right normalization? And if not, where would the background region be in pictures like those displayed in panel D? Also, the authors claim that SCAR recruitment is less strong in PI3K-null cells than in wt, however, the fluorescence at center also seems lower in this case. It would be better to plot the ratio of center to edges (both measured in the same patch), which would also avoid the use of the background signal.

The background signal is measured in a basal membrane region (revised Figure 6E) where there is where there is no patch. In some cases the patch is large and there is not much area outside the patch. We disregarded images where the patch occupied the entire footprint of the cell and the background could not reliably be measured. In the shown images (revised Figure 6E) the background was measured at the indicated areas.

The referee suggests measuring the ratio center:edges. We have not opted for this strategy as we argue that the signal at a location outside the patch is the best value to normalise by. The referee is correct to remark that the loss in SCAR recruitment will be smaller when normalising to the center of the patch. However, this does not affect our conclusion, which is that PIP3 is not required for SCAR ring formation.

We have replaced the word "background" by "outside patch" in the revised manuscript to more clearly indicate how the data is normalised.

6) The authors discuss the possible presence of a diffusion barrier at the edge of Ras/PIP3 domains, could they discuss what would and actin based barrier (as suggested) prevent from diffusing? How would such a barrier work?

The presence of a diffusion barrier was also suggested by reviewer 2 and we have addressed these questions in depth in the revised manuscript. See also the response to reviewer 2.

Reviewer #2:

[…] My major concern is with the statements, in the Abstract and elsewhere, that "patches of intense PIP3 signalling [...] recruit SCAR/WAVE complex to their edges, […], driving a ring of actin polymerization that forms the walls of the cups" (Abstract). This implies that PIP3 patches precede the SCAR localization to patch edges, which is not demonstrated by the experiments. The figures provided, especially Figure 4H, indicate that PIP3 patches form coincident with SCAR concentration at leading edges. Instead, I would interpret the images as supporting a model in which SCAR defines a boundary, perhaps a diffusion barrier, that permits amplification of PI 3-kinase activity within a circular domain in the inner leaflet of plasma membrane; that is, SCAR either prescribes the PIP3 patch or assembles coincidently into the concentric arrangement. This essential claim of the manuscript about which comes first could be addressed by experiments which measure the timing of PIP3 patch formation relative to that of SCAR localization and ring formation.

We thank the reviewer for this clear exposition of an alternative model, which we have addressed with several new experiments, as described above.

We did not intend to imply any temporal order by using the word "template", i.e. that PIP3 patches precede SCAR rings. We intended to imply that the spatial arrangement of the ring is specified by that of the patch.

Our new data indeed indicates that SCAR appears simultaneously with Ras and PIP3 in macropinocytic cups (added Figure 1D,4A and B and Video 4), agreeing with a spatial templating hypothesis, but not with temporal templating.

We have included new data on the temporal evolution to show that signals and F‐actin co‐evolve during macropinosome initiation. We no longer refer to the word "templating" throughout the text, to avoid possible confusion over who comes first and instead use the term "self organise".

Secondly, mechanistic interpretations (i.e., PIP3 patches recruit SCAR) would require more than the correlative evidence provided here, such as localization after experimental manipulations of the system components. Some mechanism is suggested by the experiments of Figure 5, which show RBD patches forming without corresponding patches of PIP3, and which suggest that PIP3 patches do not prescribe SCAR rings. However, the mechanism implied by this result remains speculative.

In the revised manuscript we have added proof to our claim that the PIP3/Ras patch controls the peripheral ring of SCAR by experimental manipulation of the signalling patch and of the peripheral ring of F‐actin. Disruption of the actin ring does not prevent signal patch formation. However, increasing patch size by disruption of a RasGAP leads to a concomitant increase in the peripheral ring of SCAR. These data substantiate our claim that the patch orchestrates the peripheral ring of SCAR.

Reviewer #3:

[…] I would, however, suggest toning down some overstated conclusions that might be misleading for some readers.

1) At the end of the subsection “All PIP3 patches, whatever their origin, recruit SCAR to their periphery” the authors state that: "[…] any process that causes patches of PIP3 will cause recruitment of SCAR at the edges […]". This is a rather exaggerated conclusion based on colocalization data, especially when the authors later show that PIP3 is not needed for SCAR localization.

This snippet and similar sentences that suggest that PIP3 recruits SCAR have been removed in the revised manuscript.

2) At the end of the subsection “Macropinosomes in wild-type cells show the same as organisation as in axenic cells, but basal PIP3waves do not form” they also conclude "[…] that PIP3patches cause peripheral SCAR and actin rings to form […]". Again this is too strong a conclusion. No evidence is presented that PIP3causes the SCAR localization.

The sentence has been removed in the revised manuscript where we have more carefully worded our conclusions.

[Editors' note: the author responses to the re-review follow.]

[…] The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed before acceptance. No additional experimental work is needed, but the Discussion section should be revised to clarify points identified by reviewers 2 and 3.

1) "The authors should address what is known about the role of specific Racs that have been described as having a role in macropinocytosis, such as Rac1A and Rac1C and perhaps RacB, so as to remove some of the ambiguity from the presentation of the data and synthesis of the results. "

Rac function has been primarily studied in Dictyostelium by overexpression of WT or constitutively active isoforms. Perturbation of Rac1 function, either by expressing constitutive active or dominant isoforms has a detrimental effect on macropinocytosis, suggesting that normal Rac1 function is essential for fluid phase endocytosis. Exactly how Rac1 is involved is unknown. Synthetic high levels of active Rac1 by overexpression of constitutive active isoforms greatly increases the number of circular ruffles, yet fluid phase uptake is decreased. Clearly, generation of ruffles alone is not sufficient of efficient uptake of fluid (Dumontier et al. 2000, Palmieri et al. 2000).

Conditional overexpression of RacC yields similar contrasting results; Phagocytosis is increased threefold in these cells, whereas fluid-phase uptake is reduced. These changes are mediated by PIP3, as pharmacological inhibition of PI3-Kinase by Wortmannin or LY294002 suppresses these effects (Seastone et al. 1998).

Conditional overexpression of RacB leads to numerical spherical surface protrusion, but cells also stop growing phagocytosis rates are reduced. It is thus not certain whether the protrusions represent unregulated attempts at macropinocytosis (Lee et al. 2003).

Overexpression of RacG also increases the rate of phagocytosis. Macropinocytosis was not measured. Similar as with RacG, the increased uptake is dependent on PIP3, as it can be inhibited using LY294002. Microscopically, the RacG isoform gives a hint at possible involvement in ring formation; RacG was found to be enriched at the rim of phagocytic cups (Somesh et al. 2006). No sensors for activated RacG currently exist, so it cannot be determined whether thus accumulated Rac is functional.

In summary, the results provide clues to involvement of Rac in macropinocytosis, but the used experiments are relatively crude and it is difficult to discriminate between specific effects and general disarray of cytoskeletal function caused by the mutations. As a result, there is no clear picture of how Rac is involved in macropinocytosis other than a general link with actin polymerization. A condensed report of these publications of known roles for Rac isoforms on macropinocytosis has been added to the Results section of the revised manuscript.

2) Known roles for RasC or RasG in macropinocytosis, if any, should be mentioned.

RasC and RasG are Dictyostelium-specific Ras isoforms. Ras in Dictyostelium has thus far mostly been researched in the context of gradient sensing and chemotaxis. However, several papers investigate the role of Ras isoforms on growth and fluid uptake. Relevant references have been added to the manuscript as follows:

“Two independent RasG- mutants are substantially impaired in growth in liquid medium, as previously described, but contrary to the earlier report (Khosla et al., 2000), both are also defective in fluid uptake. Compensation by other Ras proteins and genetic background differences may account for the discrepancy (Bloomfield et al., 2008; Bolourani et al., 2010). RasC null cells have no growth defect and a lesser defect in fluid uptake, while RasS (not tested here) may also contribute to macropinocytosis (Chubb et al., 2000).”

3) Known roles for myosin 1 isoforms in macropinocytosis should be mentioned.

We have expanded the discussion on myosin 1, adding 4 new references and including both genetic as microscopic evidence for a role of myosin-1 in macropinocytosis:

“Alternatively, SCAR might be moved to the periphery of Ras/PIP3 patches, perhaps by myosin-1 motors. […] In such a scenario, CARMIL could provide the link between myosin-1 and SCAR (Jung et al. 2001).”

4) Citations of Hoeller et al. and Seastone et al. should be included with the reference to Clark et al. 2014.

We assume that the referee means the first reference to Clark et al. 2014 where the effect of several genetic mutations on macropinocytosis are presented. Hoeller et al. 2013 studied the effects of several PI3K mutations, including fluid uptake. Seastone et al. 2001 first identified SCAR and immediately noticed an effect on macropinocytosis. Both papers are extremely relevant and were already cited elsewhere in the paper, but the referee is correct that they should also be included with the Clark et al. 2014 citation, where they fit perfectly. The Hoeller reference was included with the Clark reference. The Seastone reference was included at the end of the paragraph.

5) Additional thoughts about the nature of the diffusion barrier that remains after latrunculin treatment are optional but encouraged.

Sharply defined membrane domains continue to exist even after treatment with latrunculin, however, this does not imply that a diffusion gradient must exist. A combination of rapid synthesis of PIP3 on the patch and rapid degradation outside of the patch, likely supported by positive feedback loops, may also account for these domains. As such, speculation on the nature of the diffusion barrier that remains after latrunculin treatment may be pre-emptive. Nonetheless, we have somewhat expanded our discussion on diffusion barriers, including an extra reference providing evidence that membrane curvature can also restrict diffusion.


Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

RESOURCES