Vinculin and metavinculin exhibit distinct effects on focal adhesion properties, cell migration, and mechanotransduction.

• Main Authors: Hyunna T Lee, Lisa Sharek, E Timothy O'Brien, Fabio L Urbina, Stephanie L Gupton, Richard Superfine, Keith Burridge, Sharon L Campbell
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221962

Vinculin (Vcn) is a ubiquitously expressed cytoskeletal protein that links transmembrane receptors to actin filaments, and plays a key role in regulating cell adhesion, motility, and force transmission. Metavinculin (MVcn) is a Vcn splice isoform that contains an additional exon encoding a 68-residue insert within the actin binding tail domain. MVcn is selectively expressed at sub-stoichiometic amounts relative to Vcn in smooth and cardiac muscle cells. Mutations in the MVcn insert are linked to various cardiomyopathies. In vitro analysis has previously shown that while both proteins can engage filamentous (F)-actin, only Vcn can promote F-actin bundling. Moreover, we and others have shown that MVcn can negatively regulate Vcn-mediated F-actin bundling in vitro. To investigate functional differences between MVcn and Vcn, we stably expressed either Vcn or MVcn in Vcn-null mouse embryonic fibroblasts. While both MVcn and Vcn were observed at FAs, MVcn-expressing cells had larger but fewer focal adhesions per cell compared to Vcn-expressing cells. MVcn-expressing cells migrated faster and exhibited greater persistence compared to Vcn-expressing cells, even though Vcn-containing FAs assembled and disassembled faster. Magnetic tweezer measurements on Vcn-expressing cells show a typical cell stiffening phenotype in response to externally applied force; however, this was absent in Vcn-null and MVcn-expressing cells. Our findings that MVcn expression leads to larger but fewer FAs per cell, in conjunction with the inability of MVcn to bundle F-actin in vitro and rescue the cell stiffening response, are consistent with our previous findings of actin bundling deficient Vcn variants, suggesting that deficient actin-bundling may account for some of the differences between Vcn and MVcn.