P-Bodies and Stress Granules: Possible Roles in the Control of Translation and mRNA Degradation

The control of translation and mRNA degradation is important in the regulation of eukaryotic gene expression. In general, translation and steps in the major pathway of mRNA decay are in competition with each other. mRNAs that are not engaged in translation can aggregate into cytoplasmic mRNP granules referred to as processing bodies (P-bodies) and stress granules, which are related to mRNP particles that control translation in early development and neurons. Analyses of P-bodies and stress granules suggest a dynamic process, referred to as the mRNA Cycle, wherein mRNPs can move between polysomes, P-bodies and stress granules although the functional roles of mRNP assembly into higher order structures remain poorly understood. In this article, we review what is known about the coupling of translation and mRNA degradation, the properties of P-bodies and stress granules, and how assembly of mRNPs into larger structures might influence cellular function.The translation and decay of mRNAs play key roles in the control of eukaryotic gene expression. The determination of eukaryotic mRNA decay pathways has allowed insight into how translation and mRNA degradation are coupled. Degradation of eukaryotic mRNAs is generally initiated by shortening of the 3′ poly (A) tail (Fig. 1A) (reviewed in Parker and Song 2004; Garneau et al. 2007) by the major mRNA deadenylase, the Ccr4/Pop2/Not complex (Daugeron et al. 2001; Tucker et al. 2001; Thore et al. 2003). Following deadenylation, mRNAs can be degraded 3′ to 5′ by the exosome (Anderson and Parker 1998; Wang and Kiledjian 2001). However, more commonly, mRNAs are decapped by the Dcp1/Dcp2 decapping enzyme and then degraded 5′ to 3′ by the exonuclease, Xrn1 (Decker and Parker 1993; Hsu and Stevens 1993; Muhlrad et al. 1994, 1995; Dunckley and Parker 1999; van Dijk et al. 2002; Steiger et al. 2003). In metazoans, a second decapping enzyme, Nudt16, also contributes to mRNA turnover (Song et al. 2010).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Eukaryotic mRNA decay pathways. (A) General mRNA decay pathways. (B) Specialized decay pathways that degrade translationally aberrant mRNAs.The processes of mRNA decay and translation are interconnected in eukaryotic cells in many ways. For example, quality control mechanisms exist to detect aberrancies in translation, which then lead to mRNAs being degraded by specialized mRNA decay pathways (Fig. 1B). Nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) is one such mRNA quality control system that degrades mRNAs that terminate translation aberrantly. In yeast, aberrant translation termination leads to deadenylation-independent decapping (Muhlrad and Parker 1994), whereas in metazoan cells NMD substrates can be both decapped and endonucleolytically cleaved and degraded (reviewed in Isken and Maquat 2007). A second quality control system for mRNA translation is referred to as no-go decay (NGD) and leads to endonucleolytic cleavage of mRNAs with strong stalls in translation elongation (Doma and Parker 2006; reviewed in Harigaya and Parker 2010). Another mechanism of mRNA quality control is the rapid 3′ to 5′ degradation of mRNAs that do not contain translation termination codons, which is referred to as non-stop decay (NSD) (Frischmeyer et al. 2002; van Hoof et al. 2002). The available evidence suggests these specialized mechanisms function primarily on aberrant mRNAs that are produced by defects in splicing, 3′ end formation, or damage to RNAs.The main pathway of mRNA degradation is also in competition with translation initiation. Competition between the two processes was first suggested by the observation that removal of the poly (A) tail and the cap structure, both of which stimulate translation initiation, were the key steps in mRNA degradation. In addition, inhibition of translation initiation by strong secondary structures in the 5′UTR, translation initiation inhibitors, a poor AUG context, or mutations in initiation factors increases the rates of deadenylation and decapping (Muhlrad et al. 1995; Muckenthaler et al. 1997; Lagrandeur and Parker 1999; Schwartz and Parker 1999). Moreover, the cap binding protein eIF4E, known to stimulate translation initiation, inhibits the decapping enzyme, Dcp1/Dcp2, both in vivo and in vitro (Schwartz and Parker 1999; Schwartz and Parker 2000). Finally, many mRNA specific regulatory factors, (e.g., miRNAs or PUF proteins), both repress translation and accelerate deadenylation and decapping (reviewed in Wickens et al. 2002; Behm-Ansmant et al. 2006; Franks and Lykke-Anderson 2008; Shyu et al. 2008).In the simplest model, the competition between translation and mRNA degradation can be understood through changes in the proteins bound to the cap and poly (A) tail that then influence the accessibility of these structures to deadenylases and decapping enzymes. For example, given that the Ccr4/Pop2/Not deadenylase complex is inhibited by poly (A)-binding protein (Pab1) (Tucker et al. 2002), the effects of translation on deadenylation are most likely through dynamic changes in the association of Pab1 binding with the poly (A) tail. One possibility is that defects in translation initiation either directly or indirectly decrease Pab1 association with the poly (A) tail. Deadenylation is also affected by aspects of translation termination. For instance, premature translation termination in yeast accelerates poly (A) shortening as part of the process of NMD (Cao and Parker 2003; Mitchell and Tollervey 2003). The coupling of translation termination to deadenylation has been suggested to occur through direct interactions of the translation termination factor eRF3 with Pab1 (Cosson et al. 2002), which may lead to Pab1 transiently dissociating from the poly (A) tail. Interestingly, in yeast, once the poly (A) tail reaches an oligo (A) length of 10–12 residues, a length that reduces the affinity of Pab1, the mRNA can become a substrate for decapping and for binding of the Pat1/Lsm1-7 complex (Tharun and Parker 2001; Chowdhury et al. 2007), which enhances the rate of decapping. This exchange of the Pab1 protein for the Pat1/Lsm1-7 complex is part of the mechanism that allows decapping to be promoted following deadenylation.A similar mRNP dynamic is also likely to occur on the cap structure. Specifically, the competition between translation initiation and decapping suggests that prior to decapping, translation initiation factors are exchanged for decapping factors, thereby assembling a distinct “decapping” mRNP that is no longer capable of translation initiation (Tharun and Parker 2001). This idea is supported by the observation that some decapping activators also function as translational repressors (Coller and Parker 2005; Pilkington and Parker 2008; Nissan et al. 2010). Thus, mRNA decapping appears to occur in two steps, first inhibition of translation initiation and exchange of translation factors for the general repression/degradation machinery, and a second step whereby the mRNA is actually degraded. Thus, by understanding the changes in mRNP states between actively translating mRNAs and mRNAs that are translationally repressed and possibly stored or ultimately degraded we will better understand how the fate of mRNAs is controlled in the cytoplasm.     

Origin of Microglia: Current Concepts and Past Controversies

Microglia are the resident macrophages of the central nervous system (CNS), which sit in close proximity to neural structures and are intimately involved in brain homeostasis. The microglial population also plays fundamental roles during neuronal expansion and differentiation, as well as in the perinatal establishment of synaptic circuits. Any change in the normal brain environment results in microglial activation, which can be detrimental if not appropriately regulated. Aberrant microglial function has been linked to the development of several neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, microglia also possess potent immunoregulatory and regenerative capacities, making them attractive targets for therapeutic manipulation. Such rationale manipulations will, however, require in-depth knowledge of their origins and the molecular mechanisms underlying their homeostasis. Here, we discuss the latest advances in our understanding of the origin, differentiation, and homeostasis of microglial cells and their myelomonocytic relatives in the CNS.Microglia are the resident macrophages of the central nervous system (CNS), which are uniformly distributed throughout the brain and spinal cord with increased densities in neuronal nuclei, including the Substantia nigra in the midbrain (Lawson et al. 1990; Perry 1998). They belong to the nonneuronal glial cell compartment and their function is crucial to maintenance of the CNS in both health and disease (Ransohoff and Perry 2009; Perry et al. 2010; Ransohoff and Cardona 2010; Prinz and Priller 2014).Two key functional features define microglia: immune defense and maintenance of CNS homeostasis. As part of the innate immune system, microglia constantly sample their environment, scanning and surveying for signals of external danger (Davalos et al. 2005; Nimmerjahn et al. 2005; Lehnardt 2010), such as those from invading pathogens, or internal danger signals generated locally by damaged or dying cells (Bessis et al. 2007; Hanisch and Kettenmann 2007). Detection of such signals initiates a program of microglial responses that aim to resolve the injury, protect the CNS from the effects of the inflammation, and support tissue repair and remodeling (Minghetti and Levi 1998; Goldmann and Prinz 2013).Microglia are also emerging as crucial contributors to brain homeostasis through control of neuronal proliferation and differentiation, as well as influencing formation of synaptic connections (Lawson et al. 1990; Perry 1998; Hughes 2012; Blank and Prinz 2013). Recent imaging studies revealed dynamic interactions between microglia and synaptic connections in the healthy brain, which contributed to the modification and elimination of synaptic structures (Perry et al. 2010; Tremblay et al. 2010; Bialas and Stevens 2013). In the prenatal brain, microglia regulate the wiring of forebrain circuits, controlling the growth of dopaminergic axons in the forebrain and the laminar positioning of subsets of neocortical interneurons (Squarzoni et al. 2014). In the postnatal brain, microglia-mediated synaptic pruning is similarly required for the remodeling of neural circuits (Paolicelli et al. 2011; Schafer et al. 2012). In summary, microglia occupy a central position in defense and maintenance of the CNS and, as a consequence, are a key target for the treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders.Although microglia have been studied for decades, a long history of experimental misinterpretation meant that their true origins remained debated until recently. Although we knew that microglial progenitors invaded the brain rudiment at very early stages of embryonic development (Alliot et al. 1999; Ransohoff and Perry 2009), it has now been established that microglia arise from yolk sac (YS)-primitive macrophages, which persist in the CNS into adulthood (Davalos et al. 2005; Nimmerjahn et al. 2005; Ginhoux et al. 2010, 2013; Kierdorf and Prinz 2013; Kierdorf et al. 2013a). Moreover, early embryonic brain colonization by microglia is conserved across vertebrate species, implying that it is essential for early brain development (Herbomel et al. 2001; Bessis et al. 2007; Hanisch and Kettenmann 2007; Verney et al. 2010; Schlegelmilch et al. 2011; Swinnen et al. 2013). In this review, we will present the latest findings in the field of microglial ontogeny, which provide new insights into their roles in health and disease.     

Structure and Biochemistry of Cadherins and Catenins

Classical cadherins mediate specific adhesion at intercellular adherens junctions. Interactions between cadherin ectodomains from apposed cells mediate cell–cell contact, whereas the intracellular region functionally links cadherins to the underlying cytoskeleton. Structural, biophysical, and biochemical studies have provided important insights into the mechanism and specificity of cell–cell adhesion by classical cadherins and their interplay with the cytoskeleton. Adhesive binding arises through exchange of β strands between the first extracellular cadherin domains (EC1) of partner cadherins from adjacent cells. This “strand-swap” binding mode is common to classical and desmosomal cadherins, but sequence alignments suggest that other cadherins will bind differently. The intracellular region of classical cadherins binds to p120 and β-catenin, and β-catenin binds to the F-actin binding protein α-catenin. Rather than stably bridging β-catenin to actin, it appears that α-catenin actively regulates the actin cytoskeleton at cadherin-based cell–cell contacts.Cadherins constitute a large family of cell surface proteins, many of which participate in Ca²⁺-dependent cell adhesion that plays a fundamental role in the formation of solid tissues (Takeichi 1995; Tepass 1999; Gumbiner 2005). Many events in the development of multicellular assemblies are associated with changes in cadherin expression (Takeichi 1995; Honjo et al. 2000; Price et al. 2002). Expression of particular cadherins often correlates with formation of discrete tissue structures, and in mature tissues discrete cell layers or other cell assemblies are often demarcated by particular cadherins (Gumbiner 1996). Conversely, down-regulation or loss of cadherins correlates with an increased metastatic potential of the affected cells that arises from the loss of their adhesive properties (Hajra and Fearon 2002; Gumbiner 2005).The cadherins of vertebrates, and some of their invertebrate homologs, are the most highly characterized. “Classical” cadherins, associated with the adherens junction, and the closely related desmosomal cadherins feature an amino-terminal extracellular region or ectodomain that is followed by a transmembrane anchor and a carboxy-terminal intracellular region. Interactions between ectodomains on apposed cells mediate specific cell–cell contacts, whereas the intracellular region functionally links cadherins to the underlying cytoskeleton. This article focuses on structural, biophysical, and biochemical studies that have provided important mechanistic insights into the specificity of cell–cell adhesion and its interplay with the cytoskeleton (see also Meng and Takeichi 2009; Cavey and Lecuit 2009).     

VEGFR and Type-V RTK Activation and Signaling

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) in vertebrates play essential roles in the regulation of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. VEGFRs belong to the receptor-type tyrosine kinase (RTK) supergene family. They consist of a ligand-binding region with seven immunoglobulin (7 Ig) -like domains, a trans-membrane (TM) domain, and a tyrosine kinase (TK) domain with a long kinase insert (KI) (also known as a type-V RTK). Structurally, VEGFRs are distantly related to the members of the M-colony stimulating factor receptor/platelet-derived growth factor receptor (CSFR)/(PDGFR) family, which have five immunoglobulin (5 Ig)-like domains. However, signal transduction in VEGFRs significantly differs from that in M-CSFR/PDGFRs. VEGFR2, the major signal transducer for angiogenesis, preferentially uses the phospholipase Cγ-protein kinase C (PLC-γ-PKC)-MAPK pathway, whereas M-CSFR/PDGFRs use the PI3 kinase-Ras-MAPK pathway for cell proliferation. In phylogenetic development, the VEGFR-like receptor in nonvertebrates appears to be the ancestor of the 7 Ig- and 5 Ig-RTK families because most nonvertebrates have only a single 7 Ig-RTK gene. In mammals, VEGFRs are deeply involved in pathological angiogenesis, including cancer and inflammation. Thus, an efficient inhibitor targeting VEGFRs could be useful in suppressing various diseases.Angiogenesis, blood vessel formation, is essential for supplying oxygen and nutrients to the tissues and for removing carbon dioxide and waste materials (Hanahan and Folkman 1996; Risau 1997). Furthermore, lymph vessels are crucial for the absorption of tissue fluids and the recovery of tissue-infiltrated lymphocytes. In the 1980s, two proteins, vascular permeability factor (VPF) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGF), were independently isolated. However, in 1989, these proteins were found to be identical and encoded by a single gene (Ferrara and Davis-Smith 1997; Dvorak 2002). This protein, named VEGF (or VEGF-A), has a homodimeric structure with three intramolecular and two intermolecular disulfide (S–S) bonds. However, its receptor and signaling patterns were yet to be elucidated.In 1990, we isolated from human placenta a novel receptor-type tyrosine kinase (RTK) cDNA encoding a protein with seven Ig-like domains in its extracellular region. We designated it Flt-1 (Fms-like tyrosine kinase-1; the first type-V RTK) because of its similarity with the Fms (M-CSFR) and PDGFR family (Fig. 1) (Shibuya et al. 1990; Shibuya 1995). On the basis of this similarity, the ligand of Flt-1 was suggested to be a protein with a homodimeric structure, such as M-CSF and PDGF. In 1992, De Vries et al. (1992) reported tight binding and activation of Flt-1 with VEGF, indicating that Flt-1 is the first receptor for VEGF (VEGFR1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The VEGF-VEGFR system and its inhibitors. VEGF (VEGF-A) and its receptors, VEGFR1 and VEGFR2, play a major role in vasculogenesis and angiogenesis. VEGFR3 regulates not only lymphangiogenesis but also angiogenesis under pathological conditions. Neuropilins (Nrp)-1 and Nrp-2 function as coreceptors for VEGFR1 and VEGFR2, respectively, and efficiently stimulate VEGFR signaling. A heterodimer formed between two receptors, such as VEGFR1/VEGFR2 and VEGFR2/VEGFR3, was reported to regulate angiogenesis as well as lymphangiogenesis. Various inhibitors were developed to suppress this system, and some of them are now widely used clinically.Several years later, two RTKs structurally related to Flt-1 were isolated: one was KDR/Flk-1 (kinase-insert [KI] domain receptor in humans/fetal liver kinase-1 in mice; VEGFR2), while the other was Flt-4 (VEGFR3) (Matthews et al. 1991; Terman et al. 1991; Alitalo and Carmeliet 2002). VEGF binds VEGFR1 and VEGFR2, but not VEGFR3. Other VEGF family members, VEGF-C and VEGF-D, bind VEGFR3 and activate it for lymphangiogenesis (Joukov et al. 1997; Achen et al. 1998).When we isolated full-length flt-1 cDNA, we also found a short 3-kb-long flt-1 mRNA, encoding a peptide without a TK domain that was highly expressed in normal placenta (Shibuya et al. 1990). This short flt-1 mRNA was later reported to encode a soluble Flt-1 (sFlt-1) protein without trans-membrane (TM) and TK domains (Kendall and Thomas 1993; Hornig et al. 2000; Helske et al. 2001). Soluble Flt-1 is strongly expressed in the placental trophoblasts and is abnormally expressed in preeclampsia (Koga et al. 2003; Maynard et al. 2003). The main function of sFlt-1 is considered to be trapping of endogenous VEGF. Thus, extreme trapping and suppression of VEGF in various tissues of the body may result in the hypertension and proteinuria observed in preeclampsia patients (Levine et al. 2004).VEGF heterozygotic knockout mice (VEGF-A^+/− mice) are embryonic lethal because of immature development of angiogenesis, indicating that the concentration of VEGF is tightly regulated in tissues during embryogenesis (Carmeliet et al. 1996; Ferrara et al. 1996). The VEGF-VEGFR system is the major regulator of angiogenesis. Therefore, this system is an attractive target for antiangiogenic therapy and proangiogenic therapy.     

DNA-Pairing and Annealing Processes in Homologous Recombination and Homology-Directed Repair

The formation of heteroduplex DNA is a central step in the exchange of DNA sequences via homologous recombination, and in the accurate repair of broken chromosomes via homology-directed repair pathways. In cells, heteroduplex DNA largely arises through the activities of recombination proteins that promote DNA-pairing and annealing reactions. Classes of proteins involved in pairing and annealing include RecA-family DNA-pairing proteins, single-stranded DNA (ssDNA)-binding proteins, recombination mediator proteins, annealing proteins, and nucleases. This review explores the properties of these pairing and annealing proteins, and highlights their roles in complex recombination processes including the double Holliday junction (DhJ) formation, synthesis-dependent strand annealing, and single-strand annealing pathways—DNA transactions that are critical both for genome stability in individual organisms and for the evolution of species.A central step in the process of homologous recombination is the formation of heteroduplex DNA. In this article, heteroduplex DNA is defined as double-stranded DNA that arose from recombination, in which the two strands are derived from different parental DNA molecules or regions. The two strands of the heteroduplex may be fully complementary in sequence, or may contain small regions of noncomplementarity embedded within their otherwise complementary sequences. In either case, Watson-Crick base pairs must stabilize the heteroduplex to the extent that it can exist as free DNA following the dissociation of the recombination proteins that promoted its formation.The ability to form heteroduplex DNA using strands from two different parental DNA molecules lies at the heart of fundamental biological processes that control genome stability in individual organisms, inheritance of genetic information by their progeny, and genetic diversity within the resulting populations (Amunugama and Fishel 2012). During meiosis, the formation of heteroduplex DNA facilitates crossing-over and allelic exchange between homologous chromosomes; this process ensures that progeny are not identical clones of their parents and that sexual reproduction between individuals will result in a genetically diverse population (see Lam and Keeney 2015; Zickler and Kleckner 2015). Heteroduplex DNA generated by meiotic COs also ensures proper segregation of homologous chromosomes, so that each gamete receives a complete but genetically distinct set of chromosomes (Bascom-Slack et al. 1997; Gerton and Hawley 2005). In mitotic cells, heteroduplex DNA formation between sister chromatids is essential for homology-directed repair (HR) of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), stalled replication forks, and other lesions (Maher et al. 2011; Amunugama and Fishel 2012; Mehta and Haber 2014). Prokaryotic organisms also generate heteroduplex DNA to perform HR transactions, and to promote genetic exchanges, such as occur during bacterial conjugation (Cox 1999; Thomas and Nielsen 2005).Fundamentally, heteroduplex DNA generation involves the formation of tracts of Watson-Crick base pairs between strands of DNA derived from two different progenitor (parental) DNA molecules. Mechanistically, the DNA transactions giving rise to heteroduplex may involve two, three, or four strands of DNA (Fig. 1). DNA annealing refers to heteroduplex formation from two complementary (or nearly complementary) molecules or regions of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) (Fig. 1A). DNA annealing may occur spontaneously, but it is promoted in vivo by certain classes of annealing proteins. Three-stranded reactions yielding heteroduplex DNA proceed by a different mechanism referred to as DNA pairing, strand invasion, or strand exchange. These reactions involve the invasion of a duplex DNA molecule by homologous (or nearly homologous) ssDNA. The invading DNA may be completely single stranded, as is often the case in in vitro assays for DNA-pairing activity (Fig. 1B) (Cox and Lehman 1981). Under physiological conditions, however, the invading ssDNA is contained as a single-stranded tail or gap within a duplex (Fig. 1C,D). DNA-pairing reactions are promoted by DNA-pairing proteins of the RecA family (Bianco et al. 1998), and proceed via the formation of D-loop or joint molecule intermediates that contain the heteroduplex DNA (Fig. 1B–D). Three-stranded reactions may also be promoted by exonuclease/annealing protein complexes found in certain viruses. Four-stranded reactions generating heteroduplex DNA involve branch migration of a Holliday junction (Fig. 1D). In practice, a four-stranded reaction must be initiated by a three-stranded pairing reaction catalyzed by a DNA-pairing protein, after which the heteroduplex is extended into duplex regions through the action of the DNA-pairing protein or of an associated DNA helicase/translocase (Das Gupta et al. 1981; Kim et al. 1992; Tsaneva et al. 1992).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Common DNA annealing and pairing reactions. (A) Simple annealing between two complementary molecules of single-stranded DNA to form a heteroduplex. (B) Three-stranded DNA-pairing reaction of the type used for in vitro assays of RecA-family DNA-pairing proteins. The single-stranded circle is homologous to the linear duplex. Formation of heteroduplex (red strand base-paired to black) requires protein-promoted invasion of the duplex by the ssDNA to form a joint molecule or D-loop (i). The length of the heteroduplex may be extended by branch migration (ii). (C) Three-stranded DNA-pairing reaction of the type used for high-fidelity repair of DNA DSBs in vivo. The invading strand is the ssDNA tail of a resected DSB. The 3′ end of the invading strand is incorporated into the heteroduplex within the D-loop intermediate. (D) Example of a four-stranded DNA-pairing transaction that is initiated by a three-stranded pairing event and extended by branch migration. The ssDNA in a gapped duplex serves as the invading strand to generate a joint molecule (i), reminiscent of the reaction shown in panel B. Protein-directed branch migration may proceed into the duplex region adjacent to the original gap, generating α-structure intermediates (ii), or eventually a complete exchange of strands (iii).     

The phylogenetics of mycotoxin and sclerotium production in Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus oryzae

Aspergillus flavus is a common filamentous fungus that produces aflatoxins and presents a major threat to agriculture and human health. Previous phylogenetic studies of A. flavus have shown that it consists of two subgroups, called groups I and II, and morphological studies indicated that it consists of two morphological groups based on sclerotium size, called "S" and "L." The industrially important non-aflatoxin-producing fungus A. oryzae is nested within group I. Three different gene regions, including part of a gene involved in aflatoxin biosynthesis (omt12), were sequenced in 33 S and L strains of A. flavus collected from various regions around the world, along with three isolates of A. oryzae and two isolates of A. parasiticus that were used as outgroups. The production of B and G aflatoxins and cyclopiazonic acid was analyzed in the A. flavus isolates, and each isolate was identified as "S" or "L" based on sclerotium size. Phylogenetic analysis of all three genes confirmed the inference that group I and group II represent a deep divergence within A. flavus. Most group I strains produced B aflatoxins to some degree, and none produced G aflatoxins. Four of six group II strains produced both B and G aflatoxins. All group II isolates were of the "S" sclerotium phenotype, whereas group I strains consisted of both "S" and "L" isolates. Based on the omt12 gene region, phylogenetic structure in sclerotium phenotype and aflatoxin production was evident within group I. Some non-aflatoxin-producing isolates of group I had an omt12 allele that was identical to that found in isolates of A. oryzae.     

Self-avoidance and Tiling: Mechanisms of Dendrite and Axon Spacing

The spatial pattern of branches within axonal or dendritic arbors and the relative arrangement of neighboring arbors with respect to one another impact a neuron''s potential connectivity. Although arbors can adopt diverse branching patterns to suit their functions, evenly spread branches that avoid clumping or overlap are a common feature of many axonal and dendritic arbors. The degree of overlap between neighboring arbors innervating a surface is also characteristic within particular neuron types. The arbors of some populations of neurons innervate a target with a comprehensive and nonoverlapping “tiled” arrangement, whereas those of others show substantial territory overlap. This review focuses on cellular and molecular studies that have provided insight into the regulation of spatial arrangements of neurite branches within and between arbors. These studies have revealed principles that govern arbor arrangements in dendrites and axons in both vertebrates and invertebrates. Diverse molecular mechanisms controlling the spatial patterning of sister branches and neighboring arbors have begun to be elucidated.Axonal and dendritic arbors adopt complex and morphologically diverse shapes that influence neural connectivity and information processing. In this article we review anatomical and molecular studies that elucidate how the arrangements of branches within neuronal arbors are established during development (isoneuronal spacing) and how the relative spacing of arbors is determined when multiple neurons together innervate a defined territory (heteroneuronal spacing). Together these mechanisms ensure that arbors achieve functionally appropriate coverage of input or output territories.Isoneuronal and heteroneuronal processes display a variety of spacing arrangements, suggesting a diversity of underlying molecular mechanisms. Self-avoidance can occur between branches that arise from a single soma (Yau 1976; Kramer and Kuwada 1983; Kramer and Stent 1985), implying that neurons are able to discriminate “self,” which they avoid, from “nonself” arbors, with which they coexist (Kramer and Kuwada 1983). Similarly, arbors from different cells that share the same function and together innervate a defined territory can create a pattern of minimally overlapping neighboring dendritic or axonal fields, known as tiling. Such spacing mechanisms ensure that arbors maximize their spread across a territory while minimizing the redundancy with which the territory is innervated. In contrast, adhesive interactions between arbors can operate to maintain coherence of dendrites at specific targets (Zhu and Luo 2004), or to bundle functionally similar processes and possibly coordinate their activity (Campbell et al. 2009). Understanding how processes are patterned relative to one another can help to uncover the functional logic of neural circuit organization.Here we focus primarily on mechanisms of isoneuronal and heteroneuronal avoidance that result in complete and nonredundant innervation of sensory or synaptic space. Such mechanisms have been studied extensively in systems where neuronal arbors innervate a two-dimensional plane, such as the retina or body wall (Wassle et al. 1981; Perry and Linden 1982; Hitchcock 1989; Lin and Masland 2004; Fuerst et al. 2009; Kramer and Stent 1985; Grueber et al. 2003; Sugimura et al. 2003; Sagasti et al. 2005). However, the principles regulating process spacing in these regions likely also apply in three dimensions, most prominently where processes are segregated into nonoverlapping domains or columns (Huckfeldt et al. 2009). It is also notable that nonneuronal cell types might similarly engage in self-avoidance and form tiling arrangements, including leech comb cells (Jellies and Kristan 1991) and mammalian astrocytes (Bushong et al. 2002; Ogata and Kosaka 2002; Livet et al. 2007). Elucidating the mechanisms of process spacing during development is therefore relevant for understanding principles of tissue organization inside and outside of the nervous system.     

Endocytosis,Signaling, and Beyond

The endocytic network comprises a vast and intricate system of membrane-delimited cell entry and cargo sorting routes running between biochemically and functionally distinct intracellular compartments. The endocytic network caters to the organization and redistribution of diverse subcellular components, and mediates appropriate shuttling and processing of materials acquired from neighboring cells or the extracellular milieu. Such trafficking logistics, despite their importance, represent only one facet of endocytic function. The endocytic network also plays a key role in organizing, mediating, and regulating cellular signal transduction events. Conversely, cellular signaling processes tightly control the endocytic pathway at different steps. The present article provides a perspective on the intimate relationships that exist between particular endocytic and cellular signaling processes in mammalian cells, within the context of understanding the impact of this nexus on integrated physiology.Molecular mechanisms governing the remarkable diversity of endocytic routes and trafficking steps are described elsewhere in the literature (see Bissig and Gruenberg 2013; Henne et al. 2013; Burd and Cullen 2014; Gautreau et al. 2014; Kirchhausen et al. 2014; Mayor et al. 2014; Merrifield and Kaksonen 2014; Piper et al. 2014). Moreover, these have been the focus of many studies in the last 30 years, and the topic has been covered by many excellent reviews, making it unnecessary for us to dwell on this aspect any further here (see, for instance, Howes et al. 2010; McMahon and Boucrot 2011; Sandvig et al. 2011; Parton and del Pozo 2013). Herein, we will instead concentrate our attention on how cellular regulatory mechanisms control endocytosis, as well as on how endocytic events impinge on cell functions. Emphasis will be placed, although not exclusively, on studies that analyze cellular networks using holistic approaches and in vivo analysis. Our aim is to give the reader a flavor of the deep embedding of endocytic processes within cellular programs, a concept we refer to as the endocytic matrix (Scita and Di Fiore 2010).     

Auxin and Monocot Development

Monocots are known to respond differently to auxinic herbicides; hence, certain herbicides kill broadleaf (i.e., dicot) weeds while leaving lawns (i.e., monocot grasses) intact. In addition, the characters that distinguish monocots from dicots involve structures whose development is controlled by auxin. However, the molecular mechanisms controlling auxin biosynthesis, homeostasis, transport, and signal transduction appear, so far, to be conserved between monocots and dicots, although there are differences in gene copy number and expression leading to diversification in function. This article provides an update on the conservation and diversification of the roles of genes controlling auxin biosynthesis, transport, and signal transduction in root, shoot, and reproductive development in rice and maize.Auxinic herbicides have been used for decades to control dicot weeds in domestic lawns (Fig. 1A), commercial golf courses, and acres of corn, wheat, and barley, yet it is not understand how auxinic herbicides selectively kill dicots and spare monocots (Grossmann 2000; Kelley and Reichers 2007). Monocots, in particular grasses, must perceive or respond differently to exogenous synthetic auxin than dicots. It has been proposed that this selectivity is because of either limited translocation or rapid degradation of exogenous auxin (Gauvrit and Gaillardon 1991; Monaco et al. 2002), altered vascular anatomy (Monaco et al. 2002), or altered perception of auxin in monocots (Kelley and Reichers 2007). To explain these differences, there is a need to further understand the molecular basis of auxin metabolism, transport, and signaling in monocots.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Differences between monocots and dicots. (A) A dicot weed in a lawn of grasses. Note the difference in morphology of the leaves. (B) Germinating dicot (bean) seedling. Dicots have two cotyledons (cot). Reticulate venation is apparent in the leaves. The stem below the cotyledons is called the hypocotyl (hyp). (C) Germinating monocot (maize) seedling. Monocots have a single cotyledon called the coleoptile (col) in grasses. Parallel venation is apparent in the leaves. The stem below the coleoptile is called the mesocotyl (mes).Auxin, as we have seen in previous articles, plays a major role in vegetative, reproductive, and root development in the model dicot, Arabidopsis. However, monocots have a very different anatomy from dicots (Raven et al. 2005). Many of the characters that distinguish monocots and dicots involve structures whose development is controlled by auxin: (1) As the name implies, monocots have single cotyledons, whereas dicots have two cotyledons (Fig. 1B,C). Auxin transport during embryogenesis may play a role in this difference as cotyledon number defects are often seen in auxin transport mutants (reviewed in Chandler 2008). (2) The vasculature in leaves of dicots is reticulate, whereas the vasculature in monocots is parallel (Fig. 1). Auxin functions in vascular development because many mutants defective in auxin transport, biosynthesis, or signaling have vasculature defects (Scarpella and Meijer 2004). (3) Dicots often produce a primary tap root that produces lateral roots, whereas, in monocots, especially grasses, shoot-borne adventitious roots are the most prominent component of the root system leading to the characteristic fibrous root system (Fig. 2). Auxin induces lateral-root formation in dicots and adventitious root formation in grasses (Hochholdinger and Zimmermann 2008).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.The root system in monocots. (A) Maize seedling showing the primary root (1yR), which has many lateral roots (LR). The seminal roots (SR) are a type of adventitious root produced during embryonic development. Crown roots (CR) are produced from stem tissue. (B) The base of a maize plant showing prop roots (PR), which are adventitious roots produced from basal nodes of the stem later in development.It is not yet clear if auxin controls the differences in morphology seen in dicots versus monocots. However, both conservation and diversification of mechanisms of auxin biosynthesis, homeostasis, transport, and signal transduction have been discovered so far. This article highlights the similarities and the differences in the role of auxin in monocots compared with dicots. First, the genes in each of the pathways are introduced (Part I, Table I) and then the function of these genes in development is discussed with examples from the monocot grasses, maize, and rice (Part II).     

Auxin and Plant-Microbe Interactions

Microbial synthesis of the phytohormone auxin has been known for a long time. This property is best documented for bacteria that interact with plants because bacterial auxin can cause interference with the many plant developmental processes regulated by auxin. Auxin biosynthesis in bacteria can occur via multiple pathways as has been observed in plants. There is also increasing evidence that indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), the major naturally occurring auxin, is a signaling molecule in microorganisms because IAA affects gene expression in some microorganisms. Therefore, IAA can act as a reciprocal signaling molecule in microbe-plant interactions. Interest in microbial synthesis of auxin is also increasing in yet another recently discovered property of auxin in Arabidopsis. Down-regulation of auxin signaling is part of the plant defense system against phytopathogenic bacteria. Exogenous application of auxin, e.g., produced by the pathogen, enhances susceptibility to the bacterial pathogen.The phytohormone auxin (from the Greek “auxein,” meaning to grow) regulates a whole repertoire of plant developmental processes, as documented in previous articles on this topic. Perhaps less well known is the fact that some microorganisms also produce auxin (Costacurta and Vanderleyden 1995; Patten and Glick 1996). In their interaction with plants, these microorganisms can interfere with plant development by disturbing the auxin balance in plants. This is best documented for phytopathogenic bacteria like Agrobacterium spp. and Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi, causing tumors and galls, respectively (Jameson 2000; Mole et al. 2007), and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) such as Azospirillum spp. that impact on plant root development (Persello-Cartieaux et al. 2003; Spaepen et al. 2007a). The term rhizobacteria refers to the fact that their numbers are highly enriched in the rhizosphere, i.e., the narrow band of soil that surrounds the root (Hiltner 1904; Smalla et al. 2006; van Loon 2007). Of more recent date is the observation that auxin (indole-3-acetic acid or IAA) is a signaling molecule in some microorganisms (Spaepen et al. 2007a). Bringing these data together, it follows that auxin can have a major impact in microorganism-plant interactions. This is the main theme addressed in this article. Finally, the recent finding that auxin signaling in plants is also part of the Arabidopsis defense response against a leaf pathogen (Navarro et al. 2006) is discussed in relation to bacterial IAA synthesis.     

Assessing <Emphasis Type="Italic">Azorella</Emphasis> (Apiaceae) and its allies: Phylogenetics and a new classification

Phylogenetic analyses of nuclear rDNA spacers (ITS and ETS) from Azorella and five closely related genera confirm earlier plastid results indicating that Azorella, Huanaca, Mulinum, and Schizeilema are all polyphyletic, and that the monotypic genus Laretia is nested within one of the six subclades of Azorella. Only Stilbocarpa is monophyletic, but that genus is embedded within a larger clade that includes representatives of three other genera (Azorella, Huanaca, and Schizeilema). Both nuclear and plastid datasets identify the same 10 clades, but the placement of these clades remains unstable. A new classification is presented in which these six genera are reduced to a single genus (Azorella) comprising 58 species arranged in 10 sections, one of which is newly described here (Azorella sect. Ranunculus), and one lectotypified (Azorella sect. Glabratae). A total of 13 new combinations are made (A. albovaginata, A. allanii, A. boelckei, A. burkartii, A. colensoi, A. echegarayi, A. echinus, A. hallei, A. lyallii, A. polaris, A. prolifera, A. robusta, A. ulicina), along with three replacement names (A. atacamensis, A. ruizii, A. schizeilema). For each of the 58 accepted species, a full synonymy is provided along with geographic ranges (and nomenclatural notes, where useful).     

Poles Apart: Prokaryotic Polar Organelles and Their Spatial Regulation

While polar organelles hold the key to understanding the fundamentals of cell polarity and cell biological principles in general, they have served in the past merely for taxonomical purposes. Here, we highlight recent efforts in unraveling the molecular basis of polar organelle positioning in bacterial cells. Specifically, we detail the role of members of the Ras-like GTPase superfamily and coiled-coil-rich scaffolding proteins in modulating bacterial cell polarity and in recruiting effector proteins to polar sites. Such roles are well established for eukaryotic cells, but not for bacterial cells that are generally considered diffusion-limited. Studies on spatial regulation of protein positioning in bacterial cells, though still in their infancy, will undoubtedly experience a surge of interest, as comprehensive localization screens have yielded an extensive list of (polarly) localized proteins, potentially reflecting subcellular sites of functional specialization predicted for organelles.Since the first electron micrographs that revealed flagella at the cell poles of bacteria, we have known that bacterial cells are polarized and that they are able to decode the underlying positional information to confine the assembly of an extracellular organelle to a polar cellular site (Fig. 1). Foraging into this unknown territory has been challenging, but recent efforts that exploit the power of bacterial genetics along with modern imaging methods to visualize proteins in the minute bacterial cells has yielded several enticing entry points to dissect polarity-based mechanisms and explore potentially contributing subdiffusive characteristics (Golding and Cox 2006).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Transmission electron micrograph (taken by Jeff Skerker) of a Caulobacter crescentus swarmer cell showing the polar pili (empty arrowheads), the polar flagellum with the flagellar filament (filled arrowheads), and the hook (white arrow) (see Fig. 2A).While polar organelles are a visual manifestation of polarity, it is important to point out that polarity can also be inherent to cells, at least in molecular terms, even in the absence of discernible polar structures. In other words, molecular anatomy can reveal that a bacterial cell, such as an Escherichia coli cell, features specialized protein complexes at or near the poles, despite a perfectly symmetrical morphology (Maddock and Shapiro 1993; Lindner et al. 2008). Such systemic polarization in bacteria, likely stemming from the distinctive division history of each pole, has the potential to be widespread and to be exploited for positioning of polar organelles and protein complexes. As excellent reviews have been published detailing the interplay between cell polarity and protein localization (Dworkin 2009; Shapiro et al. 2009; Kaiser et al. 2010; Rudner and Losick 2010), here we focus on recent progress in understanding the function and localization of spatial regulators of polar organelles. Considering that the ever-growing list of polar protein complexes emerging from systematic and comprehensive localization studies (Kitagawa et al. 2005; Russell and Keiler 2008; Werner et al. 2009; Hughes et al. 2010) is suggestive of multiple polarly confined (organelle-like) functions, understanding their spatial regulation is also of critical relevance in the realm of medical bacteriology, as many virulence determinants also underlie polarity (Goldberg et al. 1993; Scott et al. 2001; Judd et al. 2005; Jain et al. 2006; Jaumouille et al. 2008; Carlsson et al. 2009). Below, we highlight a few prominent examples of overtly polar organelles and the proteins known to date that regulate their polar positioning.     

Glial Cell Development and Function in Zebrafish

The zebrafish is a premier vertebrate model system that offers many experimental advantages for in vivo imaging and genetic studies. This review provides an overview of glial cell types in the central and peripheral nervous system of zebrafish. We highlight some recent work that exploited the strengths of the zebrafish system to increase the understanding of the role of Gpr126 in Schwann cell myelination and illuminate the mechanisms controlling oligodendrocyte development and myelination. We also summarize similarities and differences between zebrafish radial glia and mammalian astrocytes and consider the possibility that their distinct characteristics may represent extremes in a continuum of cell identity. Finally, we focus on the emergence of zebrafish as a model for elucidating the development and function of microglia. These recent studies have highlighted the power of the zebrafish system for analyzing important aspects of glial development and function.Following the pioneering work of George Streisinger in the early 1980s, the zebrafish has emerged as a premier vertebrate model system (Streisinger et al. 1981). A key strength of the zebrafish is that the embryos and early larvae are transparent, allowing exquisite cellular analysis of many dynamic processes, including cell migration, axonal pathfinding, and myelination, among many others (e.g., Gilmour et al. 2002; Lyons et al. 2005; Czopka et al. 2013). The zebrafish also has many advantages for large-scale genetic studies, including relatively small size and rapid development, high fecundity, and the ability to manipulate the ploidy of gametes and early embryos (Kimmel 1989). Through the 1980s and early 1990s, insightful studies of several interesting mutations elegantly exploited these experimental advantages (e.g., Kimmel et al. 1989; Ho and Kane 1990; Hatta et al. 1991; Grunwald and Eisen 2002), attracting many researchers from other fields to the zebrafish system. Following the explosion of interest in the zebrafish in the 1990s, advances in many areas have added to the strengths of the system, including large-scale screens that identified thousands of new mutations (Driever et al. 1996; Haffter et al. 1996), rapid transgenesis (Kawakami et al. 2004), new methods for imaging and tracking all cells during development (Huisken 2012), genetic mapping and sequencing to identify genes and mutated loci (Postlethwait et al. 1994; Howe et al. 2013), optogenetic methods to control neural activity (Portugues et al. 2013), the advent of targeted nucleases to create mutations in genes of interest (Huang et al. 2011; Sander et al. 2011; Bedell et al. 2012; Chang et al. 2013; Hwang et al. 2013), and small molecule screening approaches to isolate compounds with novel biological activities in vivo (Peterson and Fishman 2011).Many fundamental similarities in physiology and body plan unite the zebrafish and other vertebrates (Kimmel 1989). In addition, analysis of genes and genomes has revealed that sequence, expression, and function of many genes are conserved among zebrafish and other vertebrates (Postlethwait and Talbot 1997; Howe et al. 2013). Thus, insights from studies in zebrafish will apply broadly to other vertebrates, including humans. On the other hand, there are important genetic, genomic, and physiological differences among vertebrates. It is, therefore, important to keep possible differences in mind and to recognize that analyzing the diversity among different species may enhance overall understanding of important processes. For example, zebrafish and other teleosts have a much more extensive regenerative ability than mammals, so that studies of fin, heart, and spinal cord regeneration in zebrafish may suggest avenues toward new therapeutic approaches in humans (Gemberling et al. 2013; Becker and Becker 2014).In this review, we provide an overview of different types of glia in the zebrafish, with a focus on some recent studies that highlight the power of the zebrafish system to analyze different aspects of glial development and function.     

Identification of 81LGxGxxIxW89 and 171EDRW174 Domains from Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Vif That Regulate APOBEC3G and APOBEC3F Neutralizing Activity

The human cytidine deaminases APOBEC3G (A3G) and APOBEC3F (A3F) potently restrict human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) replication, but they are neutralized by the viral protein Vif. Vif bridges A3G and A3F with a Cullin 5 (Cul5)-based E3 ubiquitin ligase and mediates their proteasomal degradation. This mechanism has been extensively studied, and several Vif domains have been identified that are critical for A3G and A3F neutralization. Here, we identified two additional domains. Via sequence analysis of more than 2,000 different HIV-1 Vif proteins, we identified two highly conserved amino acid sequences, ⁸¹LGxGxSIEW⁸⁹ and ¹⁷¹EDRWN¹⁷⁵. Within the ⁸¹LGxGxSIEW⁸⁹ sequence, residues L81, G82, G84, and, to a lesser extent, I87 and W89 play very critical roles in A3G/A3F neutralization. In particular, residues L81 and G82 determine Vif binding to A3F, residue G84 determines Vif binding to both A3G and A3F, and residues ⁸⁶SIEW⁸⁹ affect Vif binding to A3F, A3G, and Cul5. Accordingly, this ⁸¹LGxGxSIEW⁸⁹ sequence was designated the ⁸¹LGxGxxIxW⁸⁹ domain. Within the ¹⁷¹EDRWN¹⁷⁵ sequence, all residues except N175 are almost equally important for regulation of A3F neutralization, and consistently, they determine Vif binding only to A3F. Accordingly, this domain was designated ¹⁷¹EDRW¹⁷⁴. The LGxGxxIxW domain is also partially conserved in simian immunodeficiency virus Vif from rhesus macaques (SIVmac239) and has a similar activity. Thus, ⁸¹LGxGxxIxW⁸⁹ and ¹⁷¹EDRW¹⁷⁴ are two novel functional domains that are very critical for Vif function. They could become new targets for inhibition of Vif activity during HIV replication.The function of the lentiviral protein Vif is to neutralize the major host antiretroviral cytidine deaminases that belong to the APOBEC (apolipoprotein B mRNA-editing catalytic polypeptide) family, as recently reviewed by several investigators (18, 29, 31). This family consists of APOBEC1; activation-induced deaminase (AID); APOBEC2; a subgroup of APOBEC3 (A3) proteins, including A3A, A3B, A3C, A3DE, A3F, A3G, and A3H; and APOBEC4 in humans. They have one or two copies of a cytidine deaminase (CDA) domain with a signature motif (HxEx_23-28PCx_2-4C), only one of which normally has deaminase activity.All seven A3 genes have been shown to inhibit replication of various types of retrovirus via cytidine deamination-dependent or -independent mechanisms. In particular, human A3B, A3DE, A3F, A3G, and A3H inhibit human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) replication, whereas A3A and A3C do not (1, 3, 5, 26, 33, 37). Among these proteins, the expression of human A3G and A3F in vivo has been demonstrated, and in vitro studies indicate that they have the most potent anti-HIV-1 activity. A3G and A3F share ∼50% sequence similarity but have different biochemical properties (32) and different target sequence preferences while catalyzing cytidine deamination of viral cDNAs (13). Expression of human A3B has not been detected (7), and a 29.5-kb deletion spanning from the 3′ end of the A3A gene to the 8th exon of the A3B gene, leading to the complete removal of the A3B gene, has been detected in certain human populations (12). Human A3H is also poorly expressed in vivo (20). It was reported that human A3H has four haplotypes (Hap I, II, III, and IV), and only Hap II, which is maintained primarily in African populations, could be stably expressed in vitro (19). However, expression of this protein has not been detected in any human populations. Thus, the primary function of HIV-1 Vif is to neutralize A3G, A3F, and, to a lesser extent, A3DE.Vif hijacks cellular proteasomal machinery to destroy these host cytidine deaminases by protein degradation (15, 27, 30). Vif acts as an adaptor protein that bridges A3 proteins with a Cullin 5-based E3 ubiquitin ligase complex, which includes Cul5, Elongin B (EloB), and Elongin C (EloC) (35). Vif has a BC-box motif (¹⁴⁴SLQYLALA¹⁴⁹) that binds to EloC (16, 36) and an HCCH motif (¹⁰⁸Hx₅Cx_17-18Cx_3-5H¹³⁹) that binds to Cul5 (14, 17, 34). On the other hand, Vif also interacts with A3G and A3F. As a consequence of these interactions, A3G and A3F are polyubiquitylated and directed to 26S proteasomes for degradation. In addition, Vif may also inhibit A3 activity independently of proteasomal degradation (10, 11, 24).Interactions between Vif and A3G/A3F are a key step for their proteasomal degradation, and this mechanism has been extensively studied. First, unique surfaces in A3G and A3F important for Vif interaction were identified, and interestingly, they are located in different regions of the two proteins (9, 23). Second, several discontinuous surfaces on Vif have been found to regulate A3G and/or A3F degradation. The ⁴⁰YRHHY⁴⁴ domain specifically binds to A3G and determines Vif specificity for A3G (22); the ¹¹WxxDRMR¹⁷ and ⁷⁴TGERxW⁷⁹ domains specifically bind to A3F and determine Vif specificity for A3F (8, 22); and the ²¹WxSLVK²⁶, ⁵⁵VxIPLx₄L⁶⁴, and ⁶⁹YxxL⁷²domains determine Vif specificity for both A3G and A3F (2, 6, 8, 21). These results indicate that the mechanism that regulates Vif recognition of A3G and A3F is quite complicated, and understanding this mechanism is critical for pharmaceutical protection of A3G and A3F from Vif-mediated proteasomal degradation.Based on our current knowledge of these functional domains, it has been thought that Vif interacts with A3G and A3F mainly via its N-terminal region and with Cul5 E3 ubiquitin ligase machinery via its C-terminal region. However, here we identify a new A3G and A3F regulatory domain from the central region and a new A3F regulatory domain from the C-terminal region of HIV-1 Vif. Our results indicate that A3G and A3F interaction surfaces on HIV-1 Vif are structurally complex, and more efforts are required for a complete understanding of this host-pathogen interactive mechanism.     

Metabolic Stress in Autophagy and Cell Death Pathways

Growth factors and oncogenic kinases play important roles in stimulating cell growth during development and transformation. These processes have significant energetic and synthetic requirements and it is apparent that a central function of growth signals is to promote glucose metabolism to support these demands. Because metabolic pathways represent a fundamental aspect of cell proliferation and survival, there is considerable interest in targeting metabolism as a means to eliminate cancer. A challenge, however, is that molecular links between metabolic stress and cell death are poorly understood. Here we review current literature on how cells cope with metabolic stress and how autophagy, apoptosis, and necrosis are tightly linked to cell metabolism. Ultimately, understanding of the interplay between nutrients, autophagy, and cell death will be a key component in development of new treatment strategies to exploit the altered metabolism of cancer cells.Although single-celled organisms grow and proliferate based on nutrient availability, metazoan cells rely on growth factor input to promote nutrient uptake, regulate growth and proliferation, and survive (Raff 1992; Rathmell et al. 2000). Access and competition for these signals are critical in developmental patterning and to maintain homeostasis of mature tissues. Cells that do not receive proper growth factor signals typically atrophy, lose the ability to uptake and use extracellular nutrients, and instead induce the self-digestive process of autophagy as an intracellular energy source before ultimately undergoing programmed cell death. Cancer cells, in contrast, often become independent of extracellular growth signals by gaining mutations or expressing oncogenic kinases to drive intrinsic growth signals that mimic growth factor input, which can be the source of oncogene addiction. Growth factor input or oncogenic signals often drive highly elevated glucose uptake and metabolism (Rathmell et al. 2000; DeBerardinis et al. 2008; Michalek and Rathmell 2010). First described in cancer by Warburg in the 1920s, this highly glycolytic metabolic program is termed aerobic glycolysis and is a general feature of many nontransformed proliferative cells (Warburg 1956; DeBerardinis et al. 2008).Nutrient uptake and aerobic glycolysis induced by growth signals play key roles in cell survival (Vander Heiden et al. 2001). Manipulating cell metabolism as a means to promote the death of inappropriately dividing cells, therefore, is a promising new avenue to treat disease. Targeting the altered metabolism of cancer cells in particular is of great interest. It is still unclear at the molecular level, however, how inhibiting or modulating cell metabolism leads to apoptosis, and how these pathways may best be exploited (Dang et al. 2009; Wise and Thompson 2010).Growth factor or oncogenic kinases promote multiple metabolic pathways that are essential to prevent metabolic stress and may be targets in efforts to link metabolism and cell death (Vander Heiden et al. 2001). Decreased glucose metabolism on loss of growth signals leads to decreased ATP generation as well as loss in generation of many biosynthetic precursor molecules, including nucleic acids, fatty acids, and acetyl-CoA for acetylation (Zhao et al. 2007; Wellen et al. 2009; Coloff et al. 2011). Glucose is also important as a precursor for the hexosamine pathway, to allow proper glycosylation and protein folding in the endoplasmic reticulum (Dennis et al. 2009; Kaufman et al. 2010). If glucose metabolism remains insufficient or disrupted, the cells can switch to rely on mitochondrial oxidation of fatty acids and amino acids, which are energy rich but do not readily support cell growth and can lead to potentially dangerous levels of reactive oxygen species (Wellen and Thompson 2010). Amino acid deficiency can directly inhibit components of the signaling pathways downstream from growth factors and activate autophagy (Lynch 2001; Beugnet et al. 2003; Byfield et al. 2005; Nobukuni et al. 2005). Finally, hypoxia induces a specific pathway to increase nutrient uptake and metabolism via the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF1/2α) that promotes adaptation to anaerobic conditions, but may lead to apoptosis if hypoxia is severe (Saikumar et al. 1998; Suzuki et al. 2001; Fulda and Debatin 2007).Typically a combination of metabolic stresses rather than loss of a single nutrient input occur at a given time (Degenhardt et al. 2006) and autophagy is activated to mitigate damage and provide nutrients for short-term survival (Bernales et al. 2006; Tracy et al. 2007; Altman et al. 2011; Guo et al. 2011). Autophagy is a cellular process of bulk cytoplasmic and organelle degradation common to nearly all eukaryotes. Unique double-membraned vesicles known as autophagosomes engulf cellular material and fuse with lysosomes to promote degradation of the contents (Kelekar 2005). Described in greater detail below, autophagy can reduce sources of stress, such as protein aggregates and damaged or dysfunctional intracellular organelles, and provide nutrients during times of transient and acute nutrient withdrawal.Despite the protective effects of autophagy, cells deprived of growth signals, nutrients, or oxygen for prolonged times will eventually succumb to cell death. Apoptosis is the initial death response on metabolic stress and is regulated by Bcl-2 family proteins. In healthy cells, antiapoptotic Bcl-2 family proteins, such as Bcl-2, Bcl-xl, and Mcl-1, bind and inhibit the multidomain proapoptotic proteins Bax and Bak (van Delft and Huang 2006; Walensky 2006; Chipuk et al. 2010). In metabolic stress, proapoptotic “BH3-only” proteins of the Bcl-2 family are induced or activated and bind to and inhibit the antiapoptotic Bcl-2 family proteins to allow activation of the proapoptotic Bax and Bak (Galonek and Hardwick 2006). The BH3-only proteins Bim, Bid, and Puma can also directly bind and activate Bax and Bak (Letai et al. 2002; Ren et al. 2010). Active Bax and Bak disrupt the outer mitochondrial membrane (termed mitochondrial outer-membrane permeabilization, or MOMP) and release several proapoptotic factors including cytochrome-C that activate the apoptosome that in turn activates effector caspases to cleave a variety of cellular proteins and drive apoptosis (Schafer and Kornbluth 2006). In cases in which these apoptotic pathways are suppressed, metabolic stress can instead lead to necrotic cell death (Jin et al. 2007).     

Molecular Mechanisms of Fibroblast Growth Factor Signaling in Physiology and Pathology

Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) signal in a paracrine or endocrine fashion to mediate a myriad of biological activities, ranging from issuing developmental cues, maintaining tissue homeostasis, and regulating metabolic processes. FGFs carry out their diverse functions by binding and dimerizing FGF receptors (FGFRs) in a heparan sulfate (HS) cofactor- or Klotho coreceptor-assisted manner. The accumulated wealth of structural and biophysical data in the past decade has transformed our understanding of the mechanism of FGF signaling in human health and development, and has provided novel concepts in receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) signaling. Among these contributions are the elucidation of HS-assisted receptor dimerization, delineation of the molecular determinants of ligand–receptor specificity, tyrosine kinase regulation, receptor cis-autoinhibition, and tyrosine trans-autophosphorylation. These structural studies have also revealed how disease-associated mutations highjack the physiological mechanisms of FGFR regulation to contribute to human diseases. In this paper, we will discuss the structurally and biophysically derived mechanisms of FGF signaling, and how the insights gained may guide the development of therapies for treatment of a diverse array of human diseases.Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling fulfills essential roles in metazoan development and metabolism. A wealth of literature has documented the requirement for FGF signaling in multiple processes during embryogenesis, including implantation (Feldman et al. 1995), gastrulation (Sun et al. 1999), somitogenesis (Dubrulle and Pourquie 2004; Wahl et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2009; Naiche et al. 2011; Niwa et al. 2011), body plan formation (Martin 1998; Rodriguez Esteban et al. 1999; Tanaka et al. 2005; Mariani et al. 2008), morphogenesis (Metzger et al. 2008; Makarenkova et al. 2009), and organogenesis (Goldfarb 1996; Kato and Sekine 1999; Sekine et al. 1999; Sun et al. 1999; Colvin et al. 2001; Serls et al. 2005; Vega-Hernandez et al. 2011). Recent clinical and biochemical data have uncovered unexpected roles for FGF signaling in metabolic processes, including phosphate/vitamin D homeostasis (Consortium 2000; Razzaque and Lanske 2007; Nakatani et al. 2009; Gattineni et al. 2011; Kir et al. 2011), cholesterol/bile acid homeostasis (Yu et al. 2000a; Holt et al. 2003), and glucose/lipid metabolism (Fu et al. 2004; Moyers et al. 2007). Highlighting its diverse biology, deranged FGF signaling contributes to many human diseases, such as congenital craniosynostosis and dwarfism syndromes (Naski et al. 1996; Wilkie et al. 2002, 2005), Kallmann syndrome (Dode et al. 2003; Pitteloud et al. 2006a), hearing loss (Tekin et al. 2007, 2008), and renal phosphate wasting disorders (Shimada et al. 2001; White et al. 2001), as well as many acquired forms of cancers (Rand et al. 2005; Pollock et al. 2007; Gartside et al. 2009; di Martino et al. 2012). Endocrine FGFs have also been implicated in the progression of acquired metabolic disorders, including chronic kidney disease (Fliser et al. 2007), obesity (Inagaki et al. 2007; Moyers et al. 2007; Reinehr et al. 2012), and insulin resistance (Fu et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2008b; Chateau et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2011), giving rise to many opportunities for drug discovery in the field of FGF biology (Beenken and Mohammadi 2012).Based on sequence homology and phylogeny, the 18 mammalian FGFs are grouped into six subfamilies (Ornitz and Itoh 2001; Popovici et al. 2005; Itoh and Ornitz 2011). Five of these subfamilies act in a paracrine fashion, namely, the FGF1 subfamily (FGF1 and FGF2), the FGF4 subfamily (FGF4, FGF5, and FGF6), the FGF7 subfamily (FGF3, FGF7, FGF10, and FGF22), the FGF8 subfamily (FGF8, FGF17, and FGF18), and the FGF9 subfamily (FGF9, FGF16, and FGF20). In contrast, the FGF19 subfamily (FGF19, FGF21, and FGF23) signals in an endocrine manner (Beenken and Mohammadi 2012). FGFs exert their pleiotropic effects by binding and activating the FGF receptor (FGFR) subfamily of receptor tyrosine kinases that are coded by four genes (FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, and FGFR4) in mammals (Johnson and Williams 1993; Mohammadi et al. 2005b). The extracellular domain of FGFRs consists of three immunoglobulin (Ig)-like domains (D1, D2, and D3), and the intracellular domain harbors the conserved tyrosine kinase domain flanked by the flexible amino-terminal juxtamembrane linker and carboxy-terminal tail (Lee et al. 1989; Dionne et al. 1991; Givol and Yayon 1992). A unique feature of FGFRs is the presence of a contiguous segment of glutamic and aspartic acids in the D1–D2 linker, termed the acid box (AB). The two-membrane proximal D2 and D3 and the intervening D2–D3 linker are necessary and sufficient for ligand binding/specificity (Dionne et al. 1990; Johnson et al. 1990), whereas D1 and the D1–D2 linker are implicated in receptor autoinhibition (Wang et al. 1995; Roghani and Moscatelli 2007; Kalinina et al. 2012). Alternative splicing and translational initiation further diversify both ligands and receptors. The amino-terminal regions of FGF8 and FGF17 can be differentially spliced to yield FGF8a, FGF8b, FGF8e, FGF8f (Gemel et al. 1996; Blunt et al. 1997), and FGF17a and FGF17b isoforms (Xu et al. 1999), whereas cytosine-thymine-guanine (CTG)-mediated translational initiation gives rise to multiple high molecular weight isoforms of FGF2 and FGF3 (Florkiewicz and Sommer 1989; Prats et al. 1989; Acland et al. 1990). The tissue-specific alternative splicing in D3 of FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3 yields “b” and “c” receptor isoforms which, along with their temporal and spatial expression patterns, is the major regulator of FGF–FGFR specificity/promiscuity (Orr-Urtreger et al. 1993; Ornitz et al. 1996; Zhang et al. 2006). A large body of structural data on FGF–FGFR complexes has begun to reveal the intricate mechanisms by which different FGFs and FGFRs combine selectively to generate quantitatively and qualitatively different intracellular signals, culminating in distinct biological responses. In addition, these structural data have unveiled how pathogenic mutations hijack the normal physiological mechanisms of FGFR regulation to lead to pathogenesis. We will discuss the current state of the structural biology of the FGF–FGFR system, lessons learned from studying the mechanism of action of pathogenic mutations, and how the structural data are beginning to shape and advance the translational research.     

Disulfide Bond Formation at the C Termini of Vaccinia Virus A26 and A27 Proteins Does Not Require Viral Redox Enzymes and Suppresses Glycosaminoglycan-Mediated Cell Fusion

Vaccinia virus A26 protein is an envelope protein of the intracellular mature virus (IMV) of vaccinia virus. A mutant A26 protein with a truncation of the 74 C-terminal amino acids was expressed in infected cells but failed to be incorporated into IMV (W. L. Chiu, C. L. Lin, M. H. Yang, D. L. Tzou, and W. Chang, J. Virol 81:2149-2157, 2007). Here, we demonstrate that A27 protein formed a protein complex with the full-length form but not with the truncated form of A26 protein in infected cells as well as in IMV. The formation of the A26-A27 protein complex occurred prior to virion assembly and did not require another A27-binding protein, A17 protein, in the infected cells. A26 protein contains six cysteine residues, and in vitro mutagenesis showed that Cys441 and Cys442 mediated intermolecular disulfide bonds with Cys71 and Cys72 of viral A27 protein, whereas Cys43 and Cys342 mediated intramolecular disulfide bonds. A26 and A27 proteins formed disulfide-linked complexes in transfected 293T cells, showing that the intermolecular disulfide bond formation did not depend on viral redox pathways. Finally, using cell fusion from within and fusion from without, we demonstrate that cell surface glycosaminoglycan is important for virus-cell fusion and that A26 protein, by forming complexes with A27 protein, partially suppresses fusion.Vaccinia virus, the prototype of the Orthopoxvirus genus of the family Poxviridae, infects many cell lines and animals (13) and produces several forms of infectious particles, among which the intracellular mature virus (IMV) is the most abundant form inside cells. The IMV can be wrapped with additional Golgi membrane, transported through microtubules, and released from cells as extracellular enveloped viruses (10). The IMV has evolved to enter host cells through plasma membrane fusion (1, 3, 12, 29, 47) or endocytosis (11, 48). Recently, Mercer et al. reported that IMV entered HeLa cells through apoptotic mimicry and macropinocytosis (32), and Huang et al. reported that IMV enters into HeLa cells through a dynamin-dependent fluid-phase endocytosis that required the cellular protein VPEF (22).The IMV contains more than 75 viral proteins. Of these, more than 10 viral envelope proteins are known to be involved in vaccinia virus entry into cells (6, 34, 55). Vaccinia virus contains at least five attachment proteins, with H3, A27, and D8 binding to cell surface glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) (7, 21, 28), A26 protein binding to the extracellular matrix protein laminin (5), and L1 protein binding to unidentified cell surface molecules (14). A27 protein also binds to the viral A17 protein through its C-terminal region (35, 50), and it was recently shown that the coexpression of A17 and A27 proteins resulted in cell fusion in transiently transfected 293T cells (27). In this study, we demonstrate the formation through disulfide bonds of complexes between two viral attachment proteins, A26 and A27, and we determine the cysteine residues that are critical for these disulfide bonds. We also address the biological role of the A26-A27 protein complex formation in cell fusion regulation.