Are All Multisubunit Tethering Complexes Bona Fide Tethers?

Since the late 1990s, a number of multisubunit tethering complexes (MTCs) have been described that function in membrane trafficking events: TRAPP I, TRAPP II, TRAPP III, COG, HOPS, CORVET, Dsl1, GARP and exocyst. On the basis of structural and sequence similarities, they have been categorized as complexes associated with tethering containing helical rods (CATCHR) (Dsl1, COG, GARP and exocyst) or non‐CATCHR (TRAPP I, II and III, HOPS and CORVET) complexes (Yu IM, Hughson FM. Tethering factors as organizers of intracellular vesicular traffic. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2010;26:137–156). Both acronyms (CATCHR and MTC) imply these complexes tether opposing membranes to facilitate fusion. The main question we will address is: have these complexes been formally demonstrated to function as tethers? If the answer is no, then is it premature or even correct to refer to them as tethers? In this commentary, we will argue that the vast majority of MTCs have not been demonstrated to act as a tether. We propose that a distinction between the terms tether and tethering factor be considered to address this issue. Membrane traffic requires the function of a number of protein complexes that have been referred to as multisubunit tethering complexes or MTCs. Implicit in this acronym is the fact that these complexes tether transport vesicles to target membranes. But is this really the case? Here we briefly review the literature for each of the nine MTCs and suggest that not all of these complexes have been definitively demonstrated to act as bona fide tethers.