Profilin inhibits pollen tube growth through actin-binding, but not poly-L-proline-binding

Previously, we have shown that excess profilin inhibits pollen tube growth at significantly lower concentrations than it blocks cytoplasmic streaming. To elucidate the mechanism by which profilin achieves this function, we have employed mutant profilins from Schizosaccharomyces pombe [J. Lu and T.D. Pollard (2001) Mol Biol Cell 12:1161-1175], which have defects in actin-binding, ability to inhibit polymerization, and poly- l-proline (PLP)-binding. Using Lilium longiflorum L. pollen and S. pombe profilins as wild-type (wt) standards, mutant profilins have been injected into pollen tubes of Lilium, and examined for their effects on growth rate and cell morphology. Our results show that mutant Y5D (68% actin-binding; 1.1% PLP-binding) is indistinguishable from wt-standard profilins. However mutant K81F (2.7% actin-binding; 77% PLP-binding) and especially mutant K67E (<1% actin-binding; 100% PLP-binding) are significantly less effective than wt-standard profilins in their ability to inhibit pollen tube growth. PLP also inhibits pollen tube growth. However, PLP is not different from K67E/PLP combined, which has no actin-binding, suggesting that PLP does not function by binding to profilin. In addition, there are differences in the morphology and F-actin organization in cells injected with PLP versus wt-profilin. Whereas wt-profilin causes a fragmentation and marked reduction in the amount of F-actin [L. Vidali et al. (2001) Mol Biol Cell 12:2534-2545], PLP generates an extensive disorganization without any apparent reduction in the amount of F-actin. We conclude that along with actin-binding activity of profilin, PLP-containing proteins also participate in the growth control process, and can do so independently of binding to profilin.