Journal: Nature Communications
Article Title: Actomyosin forces trigger a conformational change in desmoplakin within desmosomes
doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-64124-4
Figure Lengend Snippet: A Schematic of the interactions between the desmosome keratin intermediate filaments, and actin filaments. Keratin filaments bind to the C-terminal of DP and interact with actin filaments in the cytoplasm. B Representative STED images of K19-GFP rescue cells immunolabeled for K19 (magenta), DP (green), and actin (cyan). The individual components are shown in grayscale to highlight the structural features. The merged images between K19 and DP or actin are shown at the right. Scale bar: 500 nm. The images show that K19 filaments colocalize with the DP “railroad” tracks and with cortical actin belts. Images were taken across three biological replicates. C Co-IP in WT cells performed with anti-K19 antibody or IgG control. The co-IPs show that K19 interacts with both DP and actin. Experiments were done across three biological replicates. D Representative STED images of DPC (green) at the cell border of WT cells and Blebbstatin-treated WT cells (WT+Blebb). E Quantification of desmosome widths from WT, K19-KO, and WT+Blebb cells showing that Blebbistatin treatment reduces the desmosome width to a similar level as in the K19-KO cell line. n = 630 (WT), 505 (K19-KO), 650 (WT+Blebb); N = 3. Group differences were assessed with a two-sided Kruskal–Wallis test. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons used Dunn’s test with Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons; adjusted P = 7.37E–11 (WT vs. KO), P = 1.05E-12 (WT+Blebb vs. WT), P = 0.847 (WT+Blebb vs. KO); *** P < 0.001; ns, P > 0.05. F Representative STED images of DPC (green) at the cell border of K19-KO cells and Calyculin A-treated K19-KO cells (KO+Caly). G Quantification of desmosome widths from WT, K19-KO, and KO+Caly cells showing that Calyculin A increases the desmosome width of K19-KO cells to a similar level as in the WT cell line. n = 630 (WT), 505 (K19-KO), 353 (KO+Caly); N = 3. Group differences were assessed with a two-sided Kruskal–Wallis test. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons used Dunn’s test with Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons; adjusted P = 1.08E–07 (WT vs. KO), P = 2.01E–05 (KO+Caly vs. KO), P = 0.736 (WT vs. KO+Caly); *** P < 0.001; ns, P > 0.05. All boxplots show median, 25th and 75th percentile with whiskers reaching the last data point within 1.5× interquartile range. Data points outside this range are plotted individually as outliers. The number of data points n represents the number of line scans across the desmosomes.
Article Snippet: The following primary antibodies were used: human anti-Dsg2 (MAB947, R&D systems), rabbit anti-Dsg2 (21880-1-AP, Proteintech), rabbit anti-DPC antibody (A303-356A, Bethyl Lab), rabbit anti-DPN antibody (25318-1-AP, Proteintech), chicken anti-GFP (600-901-215, Rockland), mouse anti-K19 antibody (A53-B/A2, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), mouse anti-K8 antibody (MA1-06318, ThermoFisher), mouse anti-K18 antibody (MA1-19047, ThermoFisher), control mouse IgG (sc-2025, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), and mouse anti-actin antibody (66009-1-Ig, Proteintech).
Techniques: Immunolabeling, Co-Immunoprecipitation Assay, Control