Search for: All records

GTP-tubulin is preferentially incorporated at growing microtubule ends, but the biochemical mechanism by which the bound nucleotide regulates the strength of tubulin:tubulin interactions is debated. The ‘self-acting’ (cis) model posits that the nucleotide (GTP or GDP) bound to a particular tubulin dictates how strongly that tubulin interacts, whereas the ‘interface-acting’ (trans) model posits that the nucleotide at the interface of two tubulin dimers is the determinant. We identified a testable difference between these mechanisms using mixed nucleotide simulations of microtubule elongation: with a self-acting nucleotide, plus- and minus-end growth rates decreased in the same proportion to the amount of GDP-tubulin, whereas with interface-acting nucleotide, plus-end growth rates decreased disproportionately. We then experimentally measured plus- and minus-end elongation rates in mixed nucleotides and observed a disproportionate effect of GDP-tubulin on plus-end growth rates. Simulations of microtubule growth were consistent with GDP-tubulin binding at and ‘poisoning’ plus-ends but not at minus-ends. Quantitative agreement between simulations and experiments required nucleotide exchange at terminal plus-end subunits to mitigate the poisoning effect of GDP-tubulin there. Our results indicate that the interfacial nucleotide determines tubulin:tubulin interaction strength, thereby settling a longstanding debate over the effect of nucleotide state on microtubule dynamics. 

Microtubules are dynamic polymers that play fundamental roles in all eukaryotes. Despite their importance, how new microtubules form is poorly understood. Textbooks have focused on variations of a nucleation–elongation mechanism in which monomers rapidly equilibrate with an unstable oligomer (nucleus) that limits the rate of polymer formation; once formed, the polymer then elongates efficiently from this nucleus by monomer addition. Such models faithfully describe actin assembly, but they fail to account for how more complex polymers like hollow microtubules assemble. Here, we articulate a new model for microtubule formation that has three key features: (1) microtubules initiate via rectangular, sheet-like structures that grow faster the larger they become; (2) the dominant pathway proceeds via accretion, the stepwise addition of longitudinal or lateral layers; and (3) a “straightening penalty” to account for the energetic cost of tubulin’s curved-to-straight conformational transition. This model can quantitatively fit experimental assembly data, providing new insights into biochemical determinants and assembly pathways for microtubule nucleation.