Why have chloroplasts developed a unique motility system?

Organelle movement in plants is dependent on actin filaments with most of the organelles being transported along the actin cables by class XI myosins. Although chloroplast movement is also actin filament-dependent, a potential role of myosin motors in this process is poorly understood. Interestingly, chloroplasts can move in any direction and change the direction within short time periods, suggesting that chloroplasts use the newly formed actin filaments rather than preexisting actin cables. Furthermore, the data on myosin gene knockouts and knockdowns in Arabidopsis and tobacco do not support myosins'' XI role in chloroplast movement. Our recent studies revealed that chloroplast movement and positioning are mediated by the short actin filaments localized at chloroplast periphery (cp-actin filaments) rather than cytoplasmic actin cables. The accumulation of cp-actin filaments depends on kinesin-like proteins, KAC1 and KAC2, as well as on a chloroplast outer membrane protein CHUP1. We propose that plants evolved a myosin XI-independent mechanism of the actin-based chloroplast movement that is distinct from the mechanism used by other organelles.Key words: actin, Arabidopsis, blue light, kinesin, myosin, organelle movement, phototropinOrganelle movement and positioning are pivotal aspects of the intracellular dynamics in most eukaryotes. Although plants are sessile organisms, their organelles are quickly repositioned in response to fluctuating environmental conditions and certain endogenous signals. By and large, plant organelle movements and positioning are dependent on actin filaments, although microtubules play certain accessory roles in organelle dynamics.^1,2 Actin inhibitors effectively retard the movements of mitochondria,^3–6 peroxisomes,^5,7–11 Golgi stacks,^12,13 endoplasmic reticulum (ER),^14,15 and nuclei.^16–18 These organelles are co-aligned and associated with actin filaments.^{5,7,8,10–12,15,18} Recent progress in this field started to reveal the molecular motility system responsible for the organelle transport in plants.¹⁹Chloroplast movement is among the most fascinating models of organelle movement in plants because it is precisely controlled by ambient light conditions.^20,21 Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response so that chloroplasts can capture photosynthetic light efficiently (Fig. 1A). Strong light induces chloroplast avoidance response to escape from photodamage (Fig. 1B).²² The blue light-induced chloroplast movement is mediated by the blue light receptor phototropin (phot). In some cryptogam plants, the red light-induced chloroplast movement is regulated by a chimeric phytochrome/phototropin photoreceptor neochrome.^23–25 In a model plant Arabidopsis, phot1 and phot2 function redundantly to regulate the accumulation response,²⁶ whereas phot2 alone is essential for the avoidance response.^27,28 Several additional factors regulating chloroplast movement were identified by analyses of Arabidopsis mutants deficient in chloroplast photorelocation.^29–32 In particular, identification of CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1) revealed the connection between chloroplasts and actin filaments at the molecular level.²⁹ CHUP1 is a chloroplast outer membrane protein capable of interacting with F-actin, G-actin and profilin in vitro.^29,33,34 The chup1 mutant plants are defective in both the chloroplast movement and chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,^22,29,33 suggesting that CHUP1 plays an important role in linking chloroplasts to the plasma membrane through the actin filaments. However, how chloroplasts move using the actin filaments and whether chloroplast movement utilizes the actin-based motility system similar to other organelle movements remained to be determined.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic distribution patterns of chloroplasts in a palisade cell under different light conditions, weak (A) and strong (B) lights. Shown as a side view of mid-part of the cell and a top view with three different levels (i.e., top, middle and bottom of the cell). The cell was irradiated from the leaf surface shown as arrows. Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response (A) and strong light induces the avoidance response (B).Here, we review the recent findings pointing to existence of a novel actin-based mechanisms for chloroplast movement and discuss the differences between the mechanism responsible for movement of chloroplasts and other organelles.     

Tuba and N-WASP function cooperatively to position the central lumen during epithelial cyst morphogenesis

The process of epithelial lumenogenesis requires coordination of a network of signaling machinery communicated to each cell through subsequent cell divisions. Formation of a single hollow lumen has previously been shown to require Tuba, a Cdc42 GEF, for Cdc42 activation and correct spindle orientation. Using a Caco-2 model of lumenogenesis, we show that knockdown (KD) of the actin regulator N-WASP, causes a multilumen phenotype similar to Tuba KD. Defects in lumenogenesis in Tuba KD and N-WASP KD cells are observed at the two-cell stage with inappropriate marking of the pre-apical patch (PAP )—the precursor to lumen formation. Strikingly, both Tuba and N-WASP depend on each other for localization to the PAP. We conclude that N-WASP functions cooperatively with Tuba to facilitate lumenogenesis and this requires the polyproline region of N-WASP.Key words: lumen, N-WASP, tuba, E-cadherin, pre-apical patchMany epithelial tissues are organized as hollow tubes whose open lumina connect the body with its external environment.^1,2 These tubes consist of a monolayer of polarized cells that envelope the central lumen. Lumen formation is thus a key process in epithelial morphogenesis that depends upon cell polarity to establish three cell surface domains: a basal surface adherent to the extracellular matrix, a lateral surface between cells, and an apical surface that is exposed to the luminal fluids. Of note, the apical membrane is biochemically and morphologically distinct from the baso-lateral surfaces and effectively defines the luminal surface.^3,4For a lumen to form, cells must first mark the site at which apical membrane is to be inserted, something that is achieved at the first cell division.⁵ Targeted trafficking of apical membrane constituents defines a pre-apical patch (PAP), the precursor to the definitive lumen.⁵ Such insertion of apical membrane must presumably be coordinated with the assembly of apical junctions to segregate nascent apical from lateral membrane domains.² Subsequent cell divisions direct apical membrane and protein constituents to this point of initial apical membrane placement.⁶ Coordinated luminal positioning enables the initial formation of a single hollow lumen that subsequently expands through polarized fluid secretion to separate apical membranes, such as occurs in the embryonic gastrointestinal tract,⁷ or by apoptosis or autophagy of the central cells as is observed in mammary gland development.^8,9 Failure to establish initial luminal positioning causes defective lumenogenesis, often resulting in multiple, morphologically abnormal lumina.^5,6Crucial to lumenal morphogenesis is then the mechanism(s) that mark the site where the PAP will form. Cdc42 signaling is increasingly implicated in this process,^2,10 with downstream consequences that include control of mitotic spindle orientation,⁵ which itself influences PAP placement⁵ and potentially regulation of cell-cell junctions. Like other Rho family GTPases, the subcellular location of Cdc42 signaling is determined by the action of upstream proteins, notably guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs).^11,12 Of these, Tuba, a Cdc42-specific GEF,¹³ has emerged as a regulator of lumenal morphogenesis that controls PAP placement through mitotic spindle orientation.¹⁰Tuba is also a scaffolding protein¹³ capable of linking the actin assembly machinery with trafficking pathways. Not only is Tuba required for Cdc42 activation to direct spindle orientation,⁵ it also has the potential to interact with phosphoinositides that define the PAP.¹⁴ Additionally, Tuba binds directly to the actin regulator N-WASP, a key molecule in the organization of actin and itself a Cdc42 effector.¹⁵ Further, Tuba and N-WASP cooperate in various forms of actin-driven cellular motility, such as vesicle propulsion and cell invasive behavior.¹⁶ Interestingly, in epithelial cells N-WASP is also found at cadherin-based cell-cell junctions.¹⁷ In fact it has been proposed that N-WASP functions downstream of Tuba in the maintenance of epithelial junctional homeostasis as N-WASP overexpression was capable of rescuing a Tuba KD phenotype.¹⁸ Therefore, Tuba has the potential to play a central role in coordinating the molecular complexes required for productive polarization of epithelial cells and placement of the PAP during lumenogenesis. However, whether other protein interactions contribute to the morphogenetic impact of Tuba remain to be assessed.Three-dimensional cell culture systems are being utilized to identify critical components in lumen formation. In particular, Madin-Darby canine kidney cells (MDCK) and Caco-2 gastrointestinal cells are commonly used to study cyst and/or tubule formation. MDCK cells undergo both cyst and tubule growth, apoptosis being primarily responsible for the final step in lumen formation,¹⁹ while Caco-2 cells primarily utilize fluid influx to expand cysts.⁵ Cyst culture systems replicate aspects of in vivo organogenesis²⁰ providing tangible, powerful models to analyze and dissect the coordinated cellular mechanisms and processes that occur during epithelial morphogenesis.In this study we examined the relationship between Tuba and N-WASP in early epithelial lumenogenesis using Caco-2 three dimensional cyst cultures. Both Tuba and N-WASP RNAi cell lines result in mature cysts with multiple lumina, and at the two-cell stage, formed multiple PAPs. Interestingly, N-WASP KD perturbed Tuba localization at the PAP, however, N-WASP localization to the PAP was not affected to the same extent by Tuba KD. Taken together, these results suggest a complex interrelationship between Tuba and N-WASP for the coordinated formation of a single hollow lumen.     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

Fetal cells migrate into the mother during pregnancy. Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver. In mice, fetal cells have also been found in the brain. The fetal cells also appear to target sites of injury. Fetomaternal microchimerism may have important implications for the immune status of women, influencing autoimmunity and tolerance to transplants. Further understanding of the ability of fetal cells to cross both the placental and blood-brain barriers, to migrate into diverse tissues, and to differentiate into multiple cell types may also advance strategies for intravenous transplantation of stem cells for cytotherapeutic repair. Here we discuss hypotheses for how fetal cells cross the placental and blood-brain barriers and the persistence and distribution of fetal cells in the mother.Key Words: fetomaternal microchimerism, stem cells, progenitor cells, placental barrier, blood-brain barrier, adhesion, migrationMicrochimerism is the presence of a small population of genetically distinct and separately derived cells within an individual. This commonly occurs following transfusion or transplantation.^1–3 Microchimerism can also occur between mother and fetus. Small numbers of cells traffic across the placenta during pregnancy. This exchange occurs both from the fetus to the mother (fetomaternal)^4–7 and from the mother to the fetus.^8–10 Similar exchange may also occur between monochorionic twins in utero.^11–13 There is increasing evidence that fetomaternal microchimerism persists lifelong in many child-bearing women.^7,14 The significance of fetomaternal microchimerism remains unclear. It could be that fetomaternal microchimerism is an epiphenomenon of pregnancy. Alternatively, it could be a mechanism by which the fetus ensures maternal fitness in order to enhance its own chances of survival. In either case, the occurrence of pregnancy-acquired microchimerism in women may have implications for graft survival and autoimmunity. More detailed understanding of the biology of microchimeric fetal cells may also advance progress towards cytotherapeutic repair via intravenous transplantation of stem or progenitor cells.Trophoblasts were the first zygote-derived cell type found to cross into the mother. In 1893, Schmorl reported the appearance of trophoblasts in the maternal pulmonary vasculature.¹⁵ Later, trophoblasts were also observed in the maternal circulation.^16–20 Subsequently various other fetal cell types derived from fetal blood were also found in the maternal circulation.^21,22 These fetal cell types included lymphocytes,²³ erythroblasts or nucleated red blood cells,^24,25 haematopoietic progenitors^7,26,27 and putative mesenchymal progenitors.^14,28 While it has been suggested that small numbers of fetal cells traffic across the placenta in every human pregnancy,^29–31 trophoblast release does not appear to occur in all pregnancies.³² Likewise, in mice, fetal cells have also been reported in maternal blood.^33,34 In the mouse, fetomaternal transfer also appears to occur during all pregnancies.³⁵     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Interior decoration: Tropomyosin in actin dynamics and cell migration

Cell migration and invasion requires the precise temporal and spatial orchestration of a variety of biological processes. Filaments of polymerized actin are critical players in these diverse processes, including the regulation of cell anchorage points (both cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix), the uptake and delivery of molecules via endocytic pathways and the generation of force for both membrane protrusion and retraction. How the actin filaments are specialized for each of these discrete functions is yet to be comprehensively elucidated. The cytoskeletal tropomyosins are a family of actin associating proteins that form head-to-tail polymers which lay in the major groove of polymerized actin filaments. In the present review we summarize the emerging isoform-specific functions of tropomyosins in cell migration and invasion and discuss their potential roles in the specialization of actin filaments for the diverse cellular processes that together regulate cell migration and invasion.Key words: tropomyosin, actin, migration, invasion, cytoskeleton, actin dynamics, adhesionActin is the most abundant protein in eukaryotic cells and is critical for maintaining structural integrity. The polymerization of globular (G)-actin monomers forms actin filaments (F-actin),¹ which play a role in diverse and complex cellular functions including intercellular transport of organelles and vesicles,^2,3 cytokinesis,⁴ apoptosis⁵ and cell motility.⁶ Intricate details describing the molecular scale interactions between regulatory proteins and actin have been extensively investigated but the mechanistic control of diverse actin filament functions remain largely unclear. Recent improvements in analysis techniques⁷ and the use of physiologically relevant models of 3D cell culturing⁸ have now begun to reveal mechanisms of actin cytoskeleton regulation. Accruing evidence suggests that the actin decorating protein tropomyosin is a key regulator of actin filament specialization. Of particular interest is the impact that tropomyosin regulation has on actin filament activity during cell migration and invasion that underpins immunological cell homing, development, wound healing and metastasis.     

Novel protein-protein interaction family proteins involved in chloroplast movement response

To optimize photosynthetic activity, chloroplasts change their intracellular location in response to ambient light conditions; chloroplasts move toward low intensity light to maximize light capture and away from high intensity light to avoid photodamage. Although several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement response, any physical interaction among them was not found so far. We recently found a physical interaction between two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, WEB1 (Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1) and PMI2 (Plastid Movement Impaired 2), that were indentified to regulate chloroplast movement velocity. Since the both coiled-coil regions of WEB1 and PMI2 were classified into an uncharacterized protein family having DUF827 (DUF: Domain of Unknown Function) domain, it was the first report that DUF827 proteins could mediate protein-protein interaction. In this mini-review article, we discuss regarding molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2, and also define a novel protein family composed of WEB1, PMI2 and WEB1/PMI2-like proteins for protein-protein interaction in land plants.Key words: Arabidopsis, blue light, chloroplast velocity, coiled-coil region, organelle movement, phototropin, protein-protein interactionIntracellular locations of chloroplasts change in response to different light conditions to capture sunlight efficiently for energy production through photosynthesis. Chloroplasts move toward weak light to maximize light capture (the accumulation response),^1,2 and away from strong light to reduce photodamage (the avoidance response).³ In higher plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana, the responses are induced by blue light-dependent manner.^1,2 Recently, chloroplast actin (cp-actin) filaments were found to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement and positioning.^4,5 The cp-actin filaments are localized at the interface between the chloroplast and the plasma membrane to anchor the chloroplast to the plasma membrane, and are relocalized to the leading edge of chloroplasts before and during the movement.^4,5 The difference of cp-actin filament amounts between the front and the rear halves of chloroplasts determines the chloroplast movement velocity; as the difference increases, chloroplast velocity also increases.^4,5Several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast movement. The blue light receptors, phototropin 1 (phot1) and phot2, mediate the accumulation response,⁶ and phot2 solely mediates the avoidance response.^7,8 Chloroplast Unusual Positioning 1 (CHUP1), Kinesin-like Protein for Actin-Based Chloroplast Movement 1 (KAC1) and KAC2 are involved in the cp-actin filament formation.^4,9–11 Other proteins with unknown molecular function involved in the chloroplast movement responses have also been reported. They are J-domain Protein Required for Chloroplast Accumulation Response 1 (JAC1),^12,13 Plastid Movement Impaired 1 (PMI1),¹⁴ a long coiled-coil protein Plastid Movement Impaired 2 (PMI2), a PMI2-homologous protein PMI15,¹⁵ and THRUMIN1.¹⁶Recently, we characterized two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1 (WEB1) and PMI2, which regulate the velocity of chloroplast photorelocation movement.¹⁷ In this mini-review article, we discuss about molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2 in chloroplast photorelocation movement, and also define the WEB1/PMI2-related (WPR) protein family as a new protein family for protein-protein interaction.     

Human non-CG methylation: Are human stem cells plant-like?

Non-CG methylation is well characterized in plants where it appears to play a role in gene silencing and genomic imprinting. Although strong evidence for the presence of non-CG methylation in mammals has been available for some time, both its origin and function remain elusive. In this review we discuss available evidence on non-CG methylation in mammals in light of evidence suggesting that the human stem cell methylome contains significant levels of methylation outside the CG site.Key words: non-CG methylation, stem cells, Dnmt1, Dnmt3a, human methylomeIn plant cells non-CG sites are methylated de novo by Chromomethylase 3, DRM1 and DRM2. Chromomethylase 3, along with DRM1 and DRM2 combine in the maintenance of methylation at symmetric CpHpG as well as asymmetric DNA sites where they appear to prevent reactivation of transposons.¹ DRM1 and DRM2 modify DNA de novo primarily at asymmetric CpH and CpHpH sequences targeted by siRNA.²Much less information is available on non-CG methylation in mammals. In fact, studies on mammalian non-CG methylation form a tiny fraction of those on CG methylation, even though data for cytosine methylation in other dinucleotides, CA, CT and CC, have been available since the late 1980s.³ Strong evidence for non-CG methylation was found by examining either exogenous DNA sequences, such as plasmid and viral integrants in mouse and human cell lines,^4,5 or transposons and repetitive sequences such as the human L1 retrotransposon⁶ in a human embryonic fibroblast cell line. In the latter study, non-CG methylation observed in L1 was found to be consistent with the capacity of Dnmt1 to methylate slippage intermediates de novo.⁶Non-CG methylation has also been reported at origins of replication^7,8 and a region of the human myogenic gene Myf3.⁹ The Myf3 gene is silenced in non-muscle cell lines but it is not methylated at CGs. Instead, it carries several methylated cytosines within the sequence CCTGG. Gene-specific non-CG methylation was also reported in a study of lymphoma and myeloma cell lines not expressing many B lineage-specific genes.¹⁰ The study focused on one specific gene, B29 and found heavy CG promoter methylation of that gene in most cell lines not expressing it. However, in two other cell lines where the gene was silenced, cytosine methylation was found almost exclusively at CCWGG sites. The authors provided evidence suggesting that CCWGG methylation was sufficient for silencing the B29 promoter and that methylated probes based on B29 sequences had unique gel shift patterns compared to non-methylated but otherwise identical sequences.¹⁰ The latter finding suggests that the presence of the non-CG methylation causes changes in the proteins able to bind the promoter, which could be mechanistically related to the silencing seen with this alternate methylation.Non-CG methylation is rarely seen in DNA isolated from cancer patients. However, the p16 promoter region was reported to contain both CG and non-CG methylation in breast tumor specimens but lacked methylation at these sites in normal breast tissue obtained at mammoplasty.¹¹ Moreover, CWG methylation at the CCWGG sites in the calcitonin gene is not found in normal or leukemic lymphocyte DNA obtained from patients.¹² Further, in DNA obtained from breast cancer patients, MspI sites that are refractory to digestion by MspI and thus candidates for CHG methylation were found to carry CpG methylation.¹³ Their resistance to MspI restriction was found to be caused by an unusual secondary structure in the DNA spanning the MspI site that prevents restriction.¹³ This latter observation suggests caution in interpreting EcoRII/BstNI or EcoRII/BstOI restriction differences as due to CWG methylation, since in contrast to the 37°C incubation temperature required for full EcoRII activity, BstNI and BstOI require incubation at 60°C for full activity where many secondary structures are unstable.The recent report by Lister et al.¹⁴ confirmed a much earlier report by Ramsahoye et al.¹⁵ suggesting that non-CG methylation is prevalent in mammalian stem cell lines. Nearest neighbor analysis was used to detect non-CG methylation in the earlier study on the mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell line,¹⁵ thus global methylation patterning was assessed. Lister et al.¹⁴ extend these findings to human stem cell lines at single-base resolution with whole-genome bisulfite sequencing. They report¹⁴ that the methylome of the human H1 stem cell line and the methylome of the induced pluripotent IMR90 (iPS) cell line are stippled with non-CG methylation while that of the human IMR90 fetal fibroblast cell line is not. While the results of the two studies are complementary, the human methylome study addresses locus specific non-CG methylation. Based on that data,¹⁴ one must conclude that non-CG methylation is not carefully maintained at a given site in the human H1 cell line. The average non-CG site is picked up as methylated in about 25% of the reads whereas the average CG methylation site is picked up in 92% of the reads. Moreover, non-CG methylation is not generally present on both strands and is concentrated in the body of actively transcribed genes.¹⁴Even so, the consistent finding that non-CG methylation appears to be confined to stem cell lines,^14,15 raises the possibility that cancer stem cells¹⁶ carry non-CG methylation while their nonstem progeny in the tumor carry only CG methylation. Given the expected paucity of cancer stem cells in a tumor cell population, it is unlikely that bisulfite sequencing would detect non-CG methylation in DNA isolated from tumor cells since the stem cell population is expected to be only a very minor component of tumor DNA. Published sequences obtained by bisulfite sequencing generally report only CG methylation, and to the best of our knowledge bisulfite sequenced tumor DNA specimens have not reported non-CG methylation. On the other hand, when sequences from cell lines have been reported, bisulfite-mediated genomic sequencing⁸ or ligation mediated PCR¹⁷ methylcytosine signals outside the CG site have been observed. In a more recent study plasmid DNAs carrying the Bcl2-major breakpoint cluster¹⁸ or human breast cancer DNA¹³ treated with bisulfite under non-denaturing conditions, cytosines outside the CG side were only partially converted on only one strand¹⁸ or at a symmetrical CWG site.¹³ In the breast cancer DNA study the apparent CWG methylation was not detected when the DNA was fully denatured before bisulfite treatment.¹³In both stem cell studies, non-CG methylation was attributed to the Dnmt3a,^14,15 a DNA methyltransferase with similarities to the plant DRM methyltransferase family¹⁹ and having the capacity to methylate non-CG sites when expressed in Drosophila melanogaster.¹⁵ DRM proteins however, possess a unique permuted domain structure found exclusively in plants¹⁹ and the associated RNA-directed non-CG DNA methylation has not been reproducibly observed in mammals despite considerable published^20–23 and unpublished efforts in that area. Moreover, reports where methylation was studied often infer methylation changes from 5AzaC reactivation studies²⁴ or find that CG methylation seen in plants but not non-CG methylation is detected.^21,22,25,26 In this regard, it is of interest that the level of non-CG methylation reported in stem cells corresponds to background non-CG methylation observed in vitro with human DNA methyltransferase I,²⁷ and is consistent with the recent report that cultured stem cells are epigenetically unstable.²⁸The function of non-CG methylation remains elusive. A role in gene expression has not been ruled out, as the studies above on Myf3 and B29 suggest.^9,10 However, transgene expression of the bacterial methyltransferase M.EcoRII in a human cell line (HK293), did not affect the CG methylation state at the APC and SerpinB5 genes²⁹ even though the promoters were symmetrically de novo methylated at ^mCWGs within each CCWGG sequence in each promoter. This demonstrated that CG and non-CG methylation are not mutually exclusive as had been suggested by earlier reports.^9,10 That observation is now extended to the human stem cell line methylome where CG and non-CG methylation co-exist.¹⁴ Gene expression at the APC locus was likewise unaffected by transgene expression of M.EcoRII. In those experiments genome wide methylation of the CCWGG site was detected by restriction analysis and bisulfite sequencing,²⁹ however stem cell characteristics were not studied.Many alternative functions can be envisioned for non-CG methylation, but the existing data now constrains them to functions that involve low levels of methylation that are primarily asymmetric. Moreover, inheritance of such methylation patterns requires low fidelity methylation. If methylation were maintained with high fidelity at particular CHG sites one would expect that the spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine would diminish the number of such sites, so as to confine the remaining sites to those positions performing an essential function, as is seen in CG methylation.^30–33 However, depletion of CWG sites is not observed in the human genome.³⁴ Since CWG sites account for only about 50% of the non-CG methylation observed in the stem cell methylome¹⁴ where methylated non-CG sites carry only about 25% methylation, the probability of deamination would be about 13% of that for CWG sites that are subject to maintenance methylation in the germ line. Since mutational depletion of methylated cytosines has to have its primary effect on the germ line, if the maintenance of non-CG methylation were more accurate and more widespread, one would have had to argue that stem cells in the human germ lines lack CWG methylation. As it is the data suggests that whatever function non-CG methylation may have in stem cells, it does not involve accurate somatic inheritance in the germ line.The extensive detail on non-CG methylation in the H1 methylome¹⁴ raises interesting questions about the nature of this form of methylation in human cell lines. A key finding in this report is the contrast between the presence of non-CG methylation in the H1 stem cell line and its absence in the IMR90 human fetal lung fibroblast cell line.¹⁴ This suggests that it may have a role in the origin and maintenance of the pluripotent lineage.¹⁴By analogy with the well known methylated DNA binding proteins specific for CG methylation,³⁵ methylated DNA binding proteins that selectively bind sites of non-CG methylation are expected to exist in stem cells. Currently the only protein reported to have this binding specificity is human Dnmt1.^36–38 While Dnmt1 has been proposed to function stoichiometrically³⁹ and could serve a non-CG binding role in stem cells, this possibility and the possibility that other stem-cell specific non-CG binding proteins might exist remain to be been explored.Finally, the nature of the non-CG methylation patterns in human stem cell lines present potentially difficult technical problems in methylation analysis. First, based on the data in the H1 stem cell methylome,⁴⁰ a standard MS-qPCR for non-CG methylation would be impractical because non-CG sites are infrequent, rarely clustered and are generally characterized by partial asymmetric methylation. This means that a PCR primer that senses the 3 adjacent methylation sites usually recommended for MS-qPCR primer design^41,42 cannot be reliably found. For example in the region near Oct4 (Chr6:31,246,431), a potential MS-qPCR site exists with a suboptimal set of two adjacent CHG sites both methylated on the + strand at Chr6:31,252,225 and 31,252,237.^14,40 However these sites were methylated only in 13/45 and 30/52 reads. Thus the probability that they would both be methylated on the same strand is about 17%. Moreover, reverse primer locations containing non-CG methylation sites are generally too far away for practical bisulfite mediated PCR. Considering the losses associated with bisulfite mediated PCR⁴³ the likelihood that such an MS-qPCR system would detect non-CG methylation in the H1 cell line or stem cells present in a cancer stem cell niche^44,45 is very low.The second difficulty is that methods based on the specificity of MeCP2 and similar methylated DNA binding proteins for enriching methylated DNA (e.g., MIRA,⁴⁶ COMPARE-MS⁴⁷) will discard sequences containing non-CG methylation since they require cooperative binding afforded by runs of adjacent methylated CG sites for DNA capture. This latter property of the methylated cytosine capture techniques makes it also unlikely that methods based on 5-methylcytosine antibodies (e.g., meDIP⁴⁸) will capture non-CG methylation patterns accurately since the stem cell methylome shows that adjacent methylated non-CG sites are rare in comparison to methylated CG sites.¹⁴In summary, whether or not mammalian stem cells in general or human stem cells in particular possess functional plant-like methylation patterns is likely to continue to be an interesting and challenging question. At this point we can conclude that the non-CG patterns reported in human cells appear to differ significantly from the non-CG patterns seen in plants, suggesting that they do not have a common origin or function.     

Myosin light chain kinases: Division of work in cell migration

Cell motility is a highly coordinated multistep process. Uncovering the mechanism of myosin II (MYO2) activation responsible for the contractility underlying cell protrusion and retraction provides clues on how these complementary activities are coordinated. Several protein kinases have been shown to activate MYO2 by phosphorylating the associated myosin light chain (MLC). Recent work suggests that these MLC kinases are strategically localized to various cellular regions during cell migration in a polarized manner. This localization of the kinases together with their specificity in MLC phosphorylation, their distinct enzymatic properties and the distribution of the myosin isoforms generate the specific contractile activities that separately promote the cell protrusion or retraction essential for cell motility.Key words: myosin, MLCK, ROK, MRCK, phosphorylation, cell migrationCell movement is a fundamental activity underlying many important biological events ranging from embryological development to immunological responses in the adult. A typical cell movement cycle entails polarization, membrane protrusion, formation of new adhesions, cell body translocation and finally rear retraction.¹ A precise temporal and spatial coordination of these separate steps that take place in different parts of the cell is important for rapid and efficient movement.²One major event during eukaryotic cell migration is the myosin II (MYO2)-mediated contraction that underlies cell protrusion, traction and retraction.^1,3 An emerging theme from collective findings is that there are distinct myosin contractile modules responsible for the different functions which are separately regulated by local myosin regulatory light chain (MLC) kinases. These kinases contribute to contractile forces that connect adhesion, protrusion and actin organization.² Unraveling the regulation of these contractile modules is therefore pivotal to a better understanding of the coordination mechanism.At the lamellipodium, the conventional calcium/calmodulin-dependent myosin light chain kinase (MLCK) has been shown to play an essential role in a Rac-dependent lamellipodial extension.⁴ Inhibition of calmodulin or MLCK activity by specific photoactivatable peptides in motile eosinophils effectively blocks lamellipodia extension and net movement.⁵ Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between activated MLCK and phosphorylated MLC within the lamellipodia of Ptk-2 cells as revealed by fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) analysis.⁶ More recent studies showed MLCK to regulate the formation of focal complexes during lamellipodia extension.^7,8 Functionally, MLCK is thought to play a critical role in the environment-sensing mechanism that serves to guide membrane protrusion. It mediates contraction that exerts tension on integrin-extracellular matrix (ECM) interaction, which, depending on the rigidity of the substratum, will lead to either stabilization of adhesion resulting in protrusion or destabilization of attachment seen as membrane ruffling on non-permissive surfaces.^8,9As a Rho effector, Rho-associated kinase (ROK/ROCK/Rho-kinase) has been shown to regulate stress fibers and focal adhesion formation by activating myosin, an effect that can be blocked by the specific ROK inhibitor Y-27632.^10,11 Myosin activation by ROK is the effect of two phosphorylation events: the direct phosphorylation on MLC and the inhibition of myosin phosphatase through phosphorylation of its associated myosin-binding subunit (MBS).¹¹ Consistent with this notion of a localization-function relationship, ROK and MBS, which can interact simultaneously with activated RhoA,¹¹ have been shown to colocalize on stress fibers.^12,13 In migrating cells, Rho and ROK activities have been mostly associated with the regulation of tail retraction, as inhibition of their activities often results in trailing tails due to the loss of contractility specifically confined to the cell rear.^14,15 Tail retraction requires high contractile forces to overcome the strong integrin-mediated adhesion established at the rear end, an event which coincides with the strategic accumulation of highly stable and contractile stress fibers that assemble at the posterior region of migrating cells.MRCK was previously shown to phosphorylate MLC and promote Cdc42-mediated cell protrusion.¹⁶ More recently, it was found to colocalize extensively with and regulate the dynamics of a specific actomyosin network located in the lamella and cell center, in a Cdc42-dependent manner but independent of MLCK and ROK.¹⁷ The lamellar actomyosin network physically overlaps with, but is biochemically distinct from the lamellipodial actin meshwork.^9,18 The former network consists of an array of filaments assembled in an arrangement parallel to the leading edge, undergoing continuous retrograde flow across the lamella, with their disassembly occurring at the border of the cell body zone sitting in a deeper region.^17–19 Retrograde flow of the lamellar network plays a significant role in cell migration as it is responsible for generating contractile forces that support sustained membrane protrusion and cell body advancement.^17–19It is therefore conceivable that these three known MLC kinases are regulated by different signaling mechanisms at different locations and on different actomyosin contractile modules. The coordination of the various modules will ensure persistent directional migration (Figure 1). Phosphorylation of MLC by PAK and ZIP kinase has also been reported, but their exact roles in this event have yet to be determined.^20,21 It is also noteworthy that individual kinases can work independently of each other, as amply shown by evidence from inhibitor treatments. This is particularly true for MRCK in the lamella, whose activity on lamellar actomyosin flow is not affected by ML7 and Y-27632, the inhibitors of MLCK and ROK respectively.¹⁷ These findings further indicate that although both ROK and MRCK have been shown to upregulate phosphorylated MLC levels by inhibiting the myosins phosphatases,^11,22 they are likely to act as genuine MLC kinases themselves, without the need of MLCK as previously suggested.¹¹Open in a separate windowFigure 1Upper panel depicts a model for the specific activation of the different MLC kinases at various locations in the cell. In response to upstream signals, MLC kinases MLCK, MRCK and ROK are activated and localized to different regions. In the case of MRCK and ROK, the interaction of the GTP-bound Rho GTPase binding domain will determine the specific action of the downstream kinase, resulting in actomyosin contractility at different locations. The coordination of these signalling events is crucial for directional cell migration. Lower panel shows a typical front-rear location for Myosin 2A and 2B in a migrating U2OS cell.In conjunction with their differences in localization, the three MLC kinases show apparent individual preferences and specificity towards the MYO2 isoforms that they associate with. The two major MYO2 isoforms MYO2A and 2B are known to have distinct intracellular distributions that are linked to their individual functions (Figure 1).^23,24 In motile cells, MYO2A localization that is skewed towards the protruding cell front is consistent with it being the major myosin 2 component of the lamellar filaments regulated by MRCK as well as its regulation by MLCK in lamellipodial contraction.^8,17,19 In contrast, the enrichment of MYO2B at retracting cell rear conforms well with the requirement of thick and stable stress fibers capable of causing tail contraction and prevention of protrusion under the control of Rho/ROK signaling.^23,25 The selection for MYO2B filaments in the cell rear stems from their more contractile and stable nature compared with MYO2A, a consequence of their higher time-averaged association with actin.^26,27 Conversely, the lower tension property of MYO2A filaments suggests that they are more dynamic in nature,^26,27 a characteristic which fits well with the dynamic actomyosin activities at the leading edge and lamella that regulate protrusion.It deserves special mention that the three MLC kinases display subtle differences in their specificity towards MLC. While MLCK and MRCK phosphorylate only a single Ser19 site (monophosphorylation),^18,28 ROK is able to act on both Thr18 and Ser19 residues causing diphosphorylation of MLC,²⁹ MLCK only causes diphosphorylation when present at higher concentrations.³⁰ By further increasing its actin-activated ATPase activity, diphosphorylation of MLC has been shown to induce a higher myosin activation and filament stability.^30–32 The use of specific antibodies that can differentiate between the two populations of phosphorylated MLC has been instrumental in revealing their localization and correlation with the activity of the MLC kinases. The emerging picture from these experiments is that mono and diphosphorylated MLC exhibit distinct distributions in migrating cells, with the monophosphorylated MLC localized more towards the protrusive region, while the diphosphorylated form is more enriched at the posterior end.^21,33 Taking into account their biochemical properties, the polarized distributions of these differentially phosphorylated MLC coincide functionally with the segregation of the MYO2 isoforms and their corresponding regulators. These findings provide further support for the existence of segregated contractile modules in migrating cell and their distinctive regulation.The mechanisms that determine the specific segregation of the contractile modules and their regulation are unclear. However, some clues have emerged from recent studies. It has been shown that the C-terminal coiled-coil region of MYO2B is important for determining its localization in cell rear²⁵ and which requires Rho/ROK activity as their inhibition resulted in the loss of this specific localization.²³ Correspondingly, the inhibition of MRCK activity resulted in the loss of lamella-localized MYO2A.¹⁷ These findings suggest that activation of MYO2 filaments by their upstream regulators is important for their functional segregation and maintenance. It is noteworthy that both ROK and MRCK have distinct regulatory domains including the pleckstrin homology domains which have been shown to be essential for their localization, a process which may involve myosin interaction and lipid-dependent targeting as has been respectively shown for ROK and MRCK.^11,13,16 Further, the specificity of MRCK for lamellar actomyosin is believed to be largely determined by the two proteins it forms a complex with: the adaptor LRAP35a, and the MYO2-related MYO18A. Activation of MYO18A by MRCK, a process bridged by LRAP35a, is a crucial step which facilitates MRCK regulation on lamellar MYO2A.¹⁷The mechanisms responsible for segregating the contractile modules and their regulators may also comprise a pathway that parallels the microtubule-modulatory Par6/aPKC/GSK3β signalling pathway which regulates cellular polarization. This notion is supported by both Cdc42 and Rho being common upstream regulators of these two pathways.³⁴ GTPase activation may determine the localized activities of the separate contractile modules and create an actomyosin-based asymmetry across the cell body, which together with the microtubule-based activities, result in the formation of a front-back axis important for directional movement. The involvement of MRCK in MTOC reorientation and nuclear translocation events,³⁵ and our unpublished observation that LRAP35a has a GSK3β-dependent microtubule stabilizing function are supportive of a possible cross-talk between these two pathways.In conclusion, the complex regulation of contractility in cell migration emphasizes the importance of the localization, specificity and enzymatic properties of the different MLC kinases and myosin isoforms involved. The initial excitement and confusion caused by the emergence of the different MLC kinases are fading, being now overtaken by the curiosity about how they cooperate and are coordinated while promoting cell motility.     

Plant defensins: Defense,development and application

Plant defensins are small, highly stable, cysteine-rich peptides that constitute a part of the innate immune system primarily directed against fungal pathogens. Biological activities reported for plant defensins include antifungal activity, antibacterial activity, proteinase inhibitory activity and insect amylase inhibitory activity. Plant defensins have been shown to inhibit infectious diseases of humans and to induce apoptosis in a human pathogen. Transgenic plants overexpressing defensins are strongly resistant to fungal pathogens. Based on recent studies, some plant defensins are not merely toxic to microbes but also have roles in regulating plant growth and development.Key words: defensin, antifungal, antimicrobial peptide, development, innate immunityDefensins are diverse members of a large family of cationic host defence peptides (HDP), widely distributed throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.^1–3 Defensins and defensin-like peptides are functionally diverse, disrupting microbial membranes and acting as ligands for cellular recognition and signaling.⁴ In the early 1990s, the first members of the family of plant defensins were isolated from wheat and barley grains.^5,6 Those proteins were originally called γ-thionins because their size (∼5 kDa, 45 to 54 amino acids) and cysteine content (typically 4, 6 or 8 cysteine residues) were found to be similar to the thionins.⁷ Subsequent “γ-thionins” homologous proteins were indentified and cDNAs were cloned from various monocot or dicot seeds.⁸ Terras and his colleagues⁹ isolated two antifungal peptides, Rs-AFP1 and Rs-AFP2, noticed that the plant peptides'' structural and functional properties resemble those of insect and mammalian defensins, and therefore termed the family of peptides “plant defensins” in 1995. Sequences of more than 80 different plant defensin genes from different plant species were analyzed.¹⁰ A query of the UniProt database (www.uniprot.org/) currently reveals publications of 371 plant defensins available for review. The Arabidopsis genome alone contains more than 300 defensin-like (DEFL) peptides, 78% of which have a cysteine-stabilized α-helix β-sheet (CSαβ) motif common to plant and invertebrate defensins.¹¹ In addition, over 1,000 DEFL genes have been identified from plant EST projects.¹²Unlike the insect and mammalian defensins, which are mainly active against bacteria,^2,3,10,13 plant defensins, with a few exceptions, do not have antibacterial activity.¹⁴ Most plant defensins are involved in defense against a broad range of fungi.^2,3,10,15 They are not only active against phytopathogenic fungi (such as Fusarium culmorum and Botrytis cinerea), but also against baker''s yeast and human pathogenic fungi (such as Candida albicans).² Plant defensins have also been shown to inhibit the growth of roots and root hairs in Arabidopsis thaliana¹⁶ and alter growth of various tomato organs which can assume multiple functions related to defense and development.⁴     

Protein interactors of acyl-CoA-binding protein ACBP2 mediate cadmium tolerance in Arabidopsis

In our recent paper in the Plant Journal, we reported that Arabidopsis thaliana lysophospholipase 2 (lysoPL2) binds acyl-CoA-binding protein 2 (ACBP2) to mediate cadmium [Cd(II)] tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. ACBP2 contains ankyrin repeats that have been previously shown to mediate protein-protein interactions with an ethylene-responsive element binding protein (AtEBP) and a farnesylated protein 6 (AtFP6). Transgenic Arabidopsis ACBP2-overexpressors, lysoPL2-overexpressors and AtFP6-overexpressors all display enhanced Cd(II) tolerance, in comparison to wild type, suggesting that ACBP2 and its protein partners work together to mediate Cd(II) tolerance. Given that recombinant ACBP2 and AtFP6 can independently bind Cd(II) in vitro, they may be able to participate in Cd(II) translocation. The binding of recombinant ACBP2 to [¹⁴C]linoleoyl-CoA and [¹⁴C]linolenoyl-CoA implies its role in phospholipid repair. In conclusion, ACBP2 can mediate tolerance to Cd(II)-induced oxidative stress by interacting with two protein partners, AtFP6 and lysoPL2. Observations that ACBP2 also binds lysophosphatidylcholine (lysoPC) in vitro and that recombinant lysoPL2 degrades lysoPC, further confirm an interactive role for ACBP2 and lysoPL2 in overcoming Cd(II)-induced stress.Key words: acyl-CoA-binding protein, cadmium, hydrogen peroxide, lysophospholipase, oxidative stressAcyl-CoA-binding proteins (ACBP1 to ACBP6) are encoded by a multigene family in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ These ACBP proteins are well studied in Arabidopsis in comparison to other organisms,^1–4 and are located in various subcellular compartments.¹ Plasma membranelocalized ACBP1 and ACBP2 contain ankyrin repeats that have been shown to function in protein-protein interactions.^5,6 ACBP1 and ACBP2 which share 76.9% amino acid identity also confer tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis to lead [Pb(II)] and Cd(II), respectively.^1,5,7 Since recombinant ACBP1 and ACBP2 bind linolenoyl-CoA and linoleoyl-CoA in vitro, they may possibly be involved in phospholipid repair in response to heavy metal stress at the plasma membrane.^5,7 In contrast, ACBP3 is an extracellularly-localized protein⁸ while ACBP4, ACBP5 and ACBP6 are localized to cytosol.^9,10 ACBP1 and ACBP6 have recently been shown to be involved in freezing stress.^9,11 ACBP4 and ACBP5 bind oleoyl-CoA ester and their mRNA expressions are lightregulated.^12,13 Besides acyl-CoA esters, some ACBPs also bind phospholipids.^9,11,13 To investigate the biological function of ACBP2, we have proceeded to establish its interactors at the ankyrin repeats, including AtFP6,⁵ AtEBP⁶ and now lysoPL2 in the Plant Journal paper. While the significance in the interaction of ACBP2 with AtEBP awaits further investigations, some parallels can be drawn between those of ACBP2 with AtFP6 and with lysoPL2.     

v-Crk regulates membrane dynamics and Rac activation

Cell migration is an integrated process that involves cell adhesion, protrusion and contraction. We recently used CAS (Crk-associated substrate, 130CAS)-deficient mouse embryo fibroblasts (MEFs) to examined contribution made to v-Crk to that process via its interaction with Rac1. v-Crk, the oncogene product of avian sarcoma virus CT10, directly affects membrane ruffle formation and is associated with Rac1 activation, even in the absence of CAS, a major substrate for Crk. In CAS-deficient MEFs, cell spreading and lamellipodium dynamics are delayed; moreover, Rac activation is significantly reduced and it is no longer targeted to the membrane. However, expression of v-Crk by CAS-deficient MEFs increased cell spreading and active lamellipodium protrusion and retraction. v-Crk expression appears to induce Rac1 activation and its targeting to the membrane, which directly affects membrane dynamics and, in turn, cell migration. It thus appears that v-Crk/Rac1 signaling contributes to the regulation of membrane dynamics and cell migration, and that v-Crk is an effector molecule for Rac1 activation that regulates cell motility.Key words: v-Crk, Rac, lamellipodia dynamics, cell migration, p130CASCell migration is a central event in a wide array of biological and pathological processes, including embryonic development, inflammatory responses, angiogenesis, tissue repair and regeneration, cancer invasion and metastasis, osteoporosis and immune responses.^1,2 Although the molecular basis of cell migration has been studied extensively, the underlying mechanisms are still not fully understood. It is known that cell migration is an integrated process that involves formation of cell adhesions and/or cell polarization, membrane protrusion in the direction of migration (e.g., filopodium formation and lamellipodium extension), cell body contraction and tail detachment.^1–3 Formation of cell adhesions, including focal adhesions, fibrillar adhesions and podosomes are the first step in cell migration. Cell adhesions are stabilized by attachment to the extracellular matrix (ECM) mediated by integrin transmembrane receptors, which are also linked to various cytoplasmic proteins and the actin cytoskeleton, which provide the mechanical force necessary for migration.^2,4 The next steps in the process of cell migration are filopodium formation and lamellipodium extension. These are accompanied by actin polymerization and microtubule dynamics, which also contribute to the control of cell adhesion and migration.⁵Focal adhesions are highly dynamic structures that form at sites of membrane contact with the ECM and involve the activities of several cellular proteins, including vinculin, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), Src family kinase, paxillin, CAS (Crk-associated substrate, p130CAS) and Crk.⁶ A deficiency in focal adhesion protein is associated with the severe defects in cell motility and results in embryonic death. For example, FAK deficiency disrupts mesoderm development in mice and delays cell migration in vitro,⁷ which reflects impaired assembly and disassembly the focal adhesions.⁸ In addition, mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) lacking Src kinase showed a reduced rate of cell spreading that resulted in embryonic death.⁹ Taken together, these findings strongly support the idea that cell adhesion complexes play crucial roles in cell migration.CAS is a hyperphosphorylated protein known to be a major component of focal adhesion complexes and to be involved in the transformation of cells expressing v-Src or v-Crk.¹⁰ CAS-deficient mouse embryos die in utero and show marked systematic congestion and growth retardation,⁴ while MEFs lacking CAS show severely impaired formation and bundling of actin stress fibers and delayed cell motility.^4,11,12 Conversely, transient expression of CAS in COS7 cells increases cell migration.¹¹ Crk-null mice also exhibit lethal defects in embryonic development,¹³ which is consistent with the fact that CAS is a major substrate for v-Crk, and both CAS and v-Crk are necessary for induction of cell migration.¹⁴ v-Crk consists of a viral gag sequence fused to cellular Crk sequences, which contain Src homology 2 (SH2) and SH3 domains but no kinase domain, and both CAS and paxillin bind to SH2 domains.^12,15,16 Despite the absence of a kinase domain, cell expressing v-Crk show upregulation of tyrosine phosphorylation of CAS, FAK and paxillin, which is consistent with v-Crk functioning as an adaptor protein.¹⁷ Moreover, this upregulation of tyrosine phosphorylation correlates well with the transforming activity of v-Crk.¹⁷ By contrast, tyrosine phosphorylation of FAK and CAS is diminished in Src kinase-deficient cells expressing v-Crk, and they are not targeted to the membrane, suggesting v-Crk signaling is Src kinase-dependent. After formation of the CAS/v-Crk complex, v-Crk likely transduces cellular signaling to Src kinase and FAK.¹² Notably, tyrosine phosphorylation of FAK and cell migration and spreading are all enhanced when v-Crk is introduced into CAS-deficient MEFs.¹² We therefore suggest that v-Crk activity, but not cellular Crk activity, during cell migration and spreading is CAS-independent.Membrane dynamics such as lamellipodium protrusion and membrane ruffling reportedly involve Rac1,¹⁸ α4β1 integrin,¹⁹ Arp2/3,⁶ and N-WASP,²⁰ and are enhanced in v-Crk-expressing CAS-deficient MEFs.²¹ Moreover, expression in those cells of N17Rac1, a dominant defective Rac1 mutant, abolished membrane dynamics at early times and delayed cell migration.²¹ v-Crk-expressing, CAS-deficient MEFs transfected with N17Rac1 did not begin spreading until one hour after being plated on fibronectin, and blocking Rac activity suppressed both membrane dynamics and cell migration. We therefore suggest that v-Crk is involved in cell attachment and spreading, and that this process is mediated by Rac1 activation. In addition, v-Crk expression apparently restores lamellipodium formation and ruffle retraction in CAS-deficient MEFs. Thus v-Crk appears to participate in a variety cellular signaling pathways leading to cell spreading, Rac1 activation, membrane ruffling and cell migration, even in the absence of CAS, its major substrate protein.In fibroblasts, the Rho family of small GTP-binding proteins (e.g., Cdc42, Rac and Rho) functions to control actin cytoskeleton turnover, including filopodium extension, lamellipodium formation and generation of actin stress fibers and focal adhesions.²² These GTPases function in a cascade, such that activation of Cdc42 leads to activation of Rac1, which in turn activates Rho.²² Once activated, Rho controls cell migration. Cell adhesion to ECM leads to the translocation of Rac1 and Cdc42 from the cytosol to the plasma membrane,²³ where they regulate actin polymerization at the leading edge.^19,24 Dominant negative Rac and Cdc42 mutants inhibit the signaling to cell spreading initiated by the interaction of integrin with ECM.²⁴ The fact that cellular levels of activated Rac are higher in cells adhering to ECM than in suspended cells further suggests that activation of Rac and Cdc42 is a critical step leading to membrane protrusion and ruffle formation. It is noteworthy in this regard that v-Crk is able to induce Rac activation and its translocation to plasma membrane.²¹Overall, the findings summarized in this article demonstrate that v-Crk participates in several steps leading to cell adhesion and spreading (Fig. 1), and the targeting of v-Crk to focal adhesion sites appears to be a prerequisite for regulation of cell migration and spreading via Rac activation. To fully understand its function, however, it will be necessary to clarify the role of v-Crk in Rac1 and Cdc42 activation initiated by integrin-ECM interactions.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic diagram of v-Crk signaling in MEFs. Cell adhesion signaling initiated by the integrin-ECM interaction triggers v-Crk signaling mediated by Src kinase, after which focal adhesion proteins are tyrosine phosphorylated. These events lead to translocation of Rac from the cytosol to the membrane, where it promotes membrane protrusion and ruffle formation. Under basal conditions, Rac is bound with GDP and is inactive. Upon stimulation, Rac activation is mediated by guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs) that stimulate the release of bound GDP and the binding of GTP. Activation of Rac is transient, however, as it is inactivated by GTPase activating protein (GAP).     

The pulling,pushing and fusing of lens fibers: A role for Rho GTPases

Lens development and differentiation are intricate and complex processes characterized by distinct molecular and morphological changes. The growth of a transparent lens involves proliferation of the epithelial cells and their subsequent differentiation into secondary fiber cells. Prior to differentiation, epithelial cells at the lens equator exit from the cell cycle and elongate into long, ribbon-like cells. Fiber cell elongation takes place bidirectionally as fiber tips migrate both anteriorly and posteriorly along the apical surface of the epithelium and inner surface of the capsule, respectively. The differentiating fiber cells move inward from the periphery to the center of the lens on a continuous basis as the lens grows throughout life. Finally, when fiber cells reach the center or suture line, their basal and apical tips detach from the epithelium and capsule, respectively, and interlock with cells from the opposite direction of the lens and form the suture line. Further, symmetric packing of fiber cells and degradation of most of the cellular organelle during fiber cell terminal differentiation are crucial for lens transparency. These sequential events are presumed to depend on cytoskeletal dynamics and cell adhesive interactions; however, our knowledge of regulation of lens fiber cell cytosketal reorganization, cell adhesive interactions and mechanotransduction, and their role in lens morphogenesis and function is limited at present. Recent biochemical and molecular studies have targeted cytoskeletal signaling proteins, including Rho GTPases, Abl kinase interacting proteins, cell adhesion molecules, myosin II, Src kinase and phosphoinositide 3-kinase in the developing chicken and mouse lens and characterized components of the fiber cell basal membrane complex. These studies have begun to unravel the vital role of cytoskeletal proteins and their regulatory pathways in control of lens morphogenesis, fiber cell elongation, migration, differentiation, survival and mechanical properties.Key words: lens, fiber cells, elongation, migration, adhesion, Rho GTPasesLens morphogenesis involves a complex network of regulatory genes and interplay between growth factor, mitogenic, cell adhesive and cytoskeletal signaling pathways. The lens originates from surface ectoderm near the optic vesicle and lens vesicle that is formed via invagination of lens placode differentiates into primary fibers (the posterior half ) and epithelial cells (the anterior half ). These changes in embryonic cells control the lens distinctive anterior-posterior polarity. Subsequently, the lens grows through the proliferation of epithelial cells and the differentiation of their progeny into secondary fiber cells.^1,2 The continuous addition of new fiber cells at the lens periphery leads to a gradual inward movement of older cells to the center of the lens. The ectodermal basement membrane that surrounds the lens vesicle thickens to form the lens capsule and is composed of mainly proteins of extracellular matrix.^2,3 Since the lens does not shed cells, they are retained throughout the lens''s life and are packed symmetrically within the lens⁴ (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Diagram of organization of lens epithelial and differentiating fiber cells. The lens is enclosed by a thick capsule consisting of various extracellular matrix proteins. Lens epithelial cells at the equator divide and exit from the cell cycle, and as they exit from the cell cycle, they start to elongate bidirectionally by making apical (AMC) and basal (BMC) membrane complexes with epithelium and capsule, respectively. As fiber cells elongate, they are pushed down and migrate toward the center. As the fiber cells migrate toward the center, both the basal and apical membrane complexes are expected to undergo changes in a regulated manner to control fiber cell adhesive, protrusive and contractile activity. Finally, when the fiber cells reach the center or suture line, their basal and apical ends detach from the epithelium and capsule, respectively and interlock with cells from the opposite direction of the lens and form suture. During fiber cell elongation and differentiation, cell adhesive interactions are reorganized extensively, and terminally differentiated fiber cells exhibit loss of cellular organelle and extensive membrane remodeling with unique ball and socket interdigitations. Arrows indicate the direction of fiber cell movement. This schematic is a modified version of Figure 2 from Lovicu and McAvoy.¹Lens fiber cell elongation and differentiation is associated with a remarkable change in cell morphology, with the length of fiber cells increasing on the order of several hundredfold. These morphological changes are associated with extensive membrane and cortical cytoskeletal remodeling, actomyosin reorganization and cell adhesion turnover.^5–17 Additionally, the tips of the elongating fiber cells at both the anterior and posterior terminals slide along the lens epithelium and capsule, respectively, as these cells migrate inward, and finally detach at the suture, where they form contacts with their counterparts from the opposite side of the lens.^4,12 These cell movements are fundamental for maintaining distinct lens fiber cell polarity and are temporally and spatially regulated as the lens grows continuously throughout life.^1,2,12 Another unique feature of the lens is that during fiber cell terminal differentiation, all the cellular organelles, including nuclei, endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, are degraded in a programmed manner.¹⁸ It has been well documented that lens epithelial cell elongation and differentiation is associated with reorganization of actin cytoskeleton, increased ratio of G-actin to F-actin, integrin switching, formation of N-cadherin linked cell adhesions, and expression of actin capping protein tropomodulin.^{5,6,9,10,13,15,17,19–21} Importantly, disruption of actin cytoskeletal organization has been shown to impair lens epithelial differentiation and induce cataract formation, indicating the significance of actin cytoskeleton in lens differentiation and maintenance of lens optical quality.^14,22 Further, during accommodation, lens shape is changed in a reversible manner. Therefore, the tensional homeostasis between actomyosin inside the fiber cell and fiber cell adhesion on the inner side of the lens capsule is considered to be crucial for accommodation.¹²In the developing mouse and chicken lens, the tips of the fiber cells (both apical and basal) have been reported to cluster with different cytoskeletal proteins, including actin, myosin II, actin capping protein tropomodulin, and N-cadherins.^10,19,21 Similarly, adhesion regulating signaling molecules including integrins, focal adhesion kinase, Cdk5, abl kinase interacting protein (Abi-2), and Rho GTPases have been shown to localize to the fiber cell apical and basal tips.^20,23–26 Moreover, isolation and characterization of the fiber cell basal membrane complexes (BMCs) had revealed a symmetric organization of N-cadherin, myosin II, actin in association with myosin light chain kinase, focal adhesion kinase, β1 integrin and caldesmon.¹² The signaling activity, tensional property and dynamics of BMCs are thought to control the coordinated migration of fiber cells along the lens capsule, formation of lens suture line, and lens accommodation.¹² Additionally, the BMCs have been shown to undergo a characteristic regional rearrangement (including size and shape) during lens elongation and migration along the lens capsule.²⁷ Therefore, impaired fiber cell migration on the lens capsule is expected to induce cataractogenesis.²⁷ Taken together, these different observations convincingly indicate the importance of cytoskeleton and cell adhesion regulatory mechanisms in lens fiber cell elongation and migration.Although important insights have emerged regarding external cues controlling lens epithelial cell proliferation, elongation and differentiation, little is known regarding the specific signaling pathways that drive the processes culminating in fiber cell formation, migration, packing and maturation.^1,7,28 For example, growth factors are known to play key roles in influencing cell fates during development. Some of the major growth factor families, including FGFs and TGFβ/BMPs, have been shown to be involved in the regulation of lens developmental processes and primary fiber cell differentiation via ERK kinase activation.^1,28,29 However, the identity and role of signaling pathways acting downstream to growth factors regulating lens secondary fiber cell elongation, migration, adhesion, membrane remodeling and survival are poorly understood.^1,12,21,30 In particular, regulatory mechanisms involved in cytoskeletal reorganization, tensional force and cell adhesive interactions during these cellular processes have yet be identified and characterized.^{7,9,12,21,30–32}Our laboratory has been working on a broad hypothesis that the actin cytoskeletal and cell adhesive signaling mechanisms composed of Rho GTPases (Rho, Rac and Cdc42) and their effector molecules play a critical role in controlling lens growth and differentiation, and in maintaining lens integrity.⁷ The Rho family of small GTPases regulates morphogenesis, polarity, migration and cell adhesion.³³ These proteins bind GTP, exhibit GTPase activity, and cycle between an inactive GDP-bound form and an active GTP-bound form. This cycling is regulated by three groups of proteins: guanine-nucleotide exchange factors, which facilitate the exchange of GDP for GTP, thus rendering Rho GTPases active; GTPase-activating proteins, which regulate the inactivation of Rho by accelerating intrinsic GTPase activity and converting Rho GTPases back to their GDP-bound form; and GDP dissociation inhibitors (GDIs), which inhibit the dissociation of GDP bound to Rho GTPases.^33,34 The GTP-bound form of the Rho GTPases interact with downstream effectors, which include protein kinases (e.g., ROCK and PAK), regulators of actin polymerization (e.g., N-WASP/WAVE, PI3-kinase and mDia), and other proteins with adaptor functions.³³ The selective interaction of the different Rho GTPases with a variety of effectors determines the final outcome of their activation.³³ For example, during cell movement, Rac and Cdc42 stimulate formation of protrusions at the leading edges of cells, and RhoA induces retraction at the tail ends of cells. This coordinated cytoskeletal reorganization permits cells to move toward a target.³⁵ PI3-kinase and PI (3, 4, 5) P3 have also been widely implicated in controlling cell migration and polarity in a Rac GTPase-dependent manner.³⁵ Members of the Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein (WASP) and WASP-family verprolin homologous protein (WAVE) families serve to link Rho GTPases signals to the ARP2/3 complex, leading to actin polymerization that is crucial for the reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton at the leading edge for processes such as cell movement and protrusions.³⁶ Importantly, all three Rho GTPases also regulate microtubule polymerization and assembly of adherens junctions to influence polarity and cell adhesion, respectively.^33,37Likewise, a tensional balance between cell adhesion on the outside and myosin II-based contractility on the inside of the cells is regulated by Rho GTPases.³⁸To explore the role of the Rho GTPases in lens morphogenesis and differentiation, we have targeted the lens Rho GTPases by overexpressing either the C3 exoenzyme (inactivator of RhoA and RhoB) or RhoGDIα (Rho GDP dissociation inhibitor) in a lens-specific manner in transgenic mice and followed their effects developmentally. These two transgenic mouse models exhibited ocular phenotype, including lens opacity (cataract) and microphthalmic eyes. Importantly, various histological, immunofluorescence and biochemical analyses performed in these developing transgenic mice have revealed defective lens morphogenesis, abnormal fiber cell migration, elongation, disrupted cytoskeletal organization and adhesive interactions, along with changes in proteins of the fiber cell gap junctions and water channels.^32,39 These lenses have also shown decreased ERM (ezrin, radixin, moesin) protein phosphorylation,⁴⁰ proteins that are involved in crosslinking of the plasma membrane with actin cytoskeleton,⁴¹ and increased apoptosis.³² Defective fiber cell migration has been found to be more notable in the Rho GDI overexpressing lenses than in the C3 exoenzyme expressing lenses (Fig. 2). The Rho GDI overexpressing lenses have shown a defective membrane localization of Rho, Rac and Cdc42 confirming their inactivation. These data, together with mechanistic studies performed using the lens epithelial cells and the noted effects on cell shape, actin polymerization, myosin phosphorylation and cell adhesive interactions, reveal the importance of Rho GTPase-dependent signaling pathways in processes underlying fiber cell migration, elongation, cytoskeletal and membrane organization and survival in the developing lens.⁷ Lens fiber cell BMC has been found to be localized intensely with Rac GTPase involved in cell migration (our unpublished work). Additionally, the Rho GDI transgenic lenses showed an impaired apical-apical cell-cell interactions between the fiber cells and epithelial cells.³² Moreover, the ruptured posterior capsule and disrupted suture lines in these lenses are indicative of defective BMC organization and activity.³²Open in a separate windowFigure 2Abnormal lens phenotype in the neonatal Rho GDIα overexpressing transgenic mouse. Hematoxylin and eosin-stained sagittal sections of P1 RhoGDIα transgenic eyes reveal abnormal migration and morphology of the posterior lens fibers as compared with the symmetric organization of lens fibers and their migration toward the lens suture in the wild type mouse (reproduced with permission from Maddala et al.)³².Further support for involvement of Rho GTPases in lens fiber cell differentiation and survival has come from studies conducted with chick lens epithelial explants and cultured epithelial cells. Inactivation of Rho kinase or Rac activation by PI3 kinase in chick lens epithelial cells has been reported to induce fiber cell differentiation and survival in association with distinct cortical actin cytoskeletal reorganization, indicating the significance of Rho GTPases in lens fiber cell differentiation and survival.^9,42 Additionally, lens fiber cell elongation and differentiation has been found to be associated with increased myosin light chain (MLC) phosphorylation, and inhibition of MLC phosphorylation regulated by MLC kinase and Rho kinase has induced lens opacity and disruption of cytoskeletal integrity, supporting the importance of myosin II activity in maintaining lens architecture and transparency.¹⁰ Importantly, various growth factors that regulate lens morphogenesis, fiber cell differentiation, and survival have been found to activate Rho and Rac GTPases and to induce MLC phosphorylation, actin cytoskeletal reorganization, and focal adhesion formation in lens epithelial cells.^7,30 In addition to Rho GTPases, inhibition of Src kinase has been shown to induce fiber cell differentiation in association with actin cytoskeletal reorganization and cell adhesive interactions.⁴³ Also, the expression and activation of focal adhesion kinase has been reported to increase in differentiating and migrating lens epithelial cells.⁴⁴ Both these molecules are well recognized to regulate cell migration by participating in the disassembly of cell adhesions at the front of migrating cells.³⁵Additional evidence for the participation of actin cytoskeletal organization and Rho GTPases in lens fiber cell migration and elongation has been derived from the studies of Abi-2 deficient mouse. Abl-interactor adaptor proteins Abi-1 and Abi-2 are linked to the Rac-WAVE-Arp2/3 signaling pathway and regulate actin polymerization and cell-cell adhesive interactions.⁴⁵ Homozygous deletion of Abi-2 in mice has been shown to exhibit ocular phenotype including microphthalmia and lens opacity similar to the Rho GDI overexpressing transgenic mouse eyes noted in previous studies.^23,32 In the absence of Abi-2, the secondary lens fiber orientation, migration and elongation were found to be defective, supporting the importance of Rac-WAVE-Arp2/3 signaling in lens fiber cell migration and cell adhesion.²³ Abi-2 has been shown to localize intensely to the both basal and apical regions of the fiber cells and adherens junctions, and suppression of Abi-2 expression in epithelial cells resulted in impaired adherens junctions and downregulation of actin nucleation promoting factors.²³ The significance of cytoskeletal signaling in lens has also been implicated in Lowe syndrome, a rare X-linked disorder characterized by congenital cataracts, results from mutations in the OCRL1 gene. The OCRL1 protein product (phosphatidylinositol 4, 5 bisphosphate 5-phosphatase) has been shown to participate in Rac GTPase regulated actin cytoskeletal organization, cell migration, and cell adhesion in various cell types.⁴⁶ Finally, Wnt/PCP signaling via activation of Rho GTPases has been suggested to control lens morphogenesis, fiber cell migration and differentiation.²⁶Importantly, given how the activity of the Rho GTPases is regulated by external cues and various effector proteins, a detailed understanding of the regulation of Rho GTPase signaling is necessary for a better appreciation of their role in lens morphogenesis, fiber cell elongation and differentiation, and tensional homeostasis. Further mechanistic studies are critical to unravel the specific role(s) of Rho GTPases and other cytoskeletal regulatory mechanisms involved in regulating the formation and disassembly of fiber cell basal and apical membrane complexes, fiber cell lateral membrane remodeling, and fiber cell-cell adhesive interactions during lens differentiation. Very little is known in terms of the assembly of different cell adhesive molecules at the apical-apical interface between the lens fibers and epithelial cells. We are only beginning to glimpse the regulatory networks involved in the regulation of fiber cell elongation, polarity, migration and adhesion. Many challenging questions remain: for example, how are the pathways regulating migration, basal and apical membrane complexes, and tensional homeostasis controlled by extracellular signals, and how are they integrated during fiber cell migration, suture formation, and packing? Novel insights into the molecular mechanisms regulating these cellular processes are expected to advance our understanding of lens morphogenesis, function and cataractogenesis.     

Matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) and TGFβ1-stimulated cell migration in skin and cornea wound healing

Cell migration during wound healing is a complex process that involves the expression of a number of growth factors and cytokines. One of these factors, transforming growth factor-beta (TGFβ) controls many aspects of normal and pathological cell behavior. It induces migration of keratinocytes in wounded skin and of epithelial cells in damaged cornea. Furthermore, this TGFβ-induced cell migration is correlated with the production of components of the extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and expression of integrins and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). MMP digests ECMs and integrins during cell migration, but the mechanisms regulating their expression and the consequences of their induction remain unclear. It has been suggested that MMP-14 activates cellular signaling processes involved in the expression of MMPs and other molecules associated with cell migration. Because of the manifold effects of MMP-14, it is important to understand the roles of MMP-14 not only the cleavage of ECM but also in the activation of signaling pathways.Key words: wound healing, migration, matrix metalloproteinase, transforming growth factor, skin, corneaWound healing is a well-ordered but complex process involving many cellular activities including inflammation, growth factor or cytokine secretion, cell migration and proliferation. Migration of skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells requires the coordinated expression of various growth factors such as platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), transforming growth factor (TGF), keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), insulin-like growth factor (IGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), small GTPases, and macrophage stimulating protein (reviewed in refs. ¹ and ²). The epithelial cells in turn regulate the expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and integrins during cell migration.^1,3,4 TGF-β is a well-known cytokine involved in processes such as cell growth inhibition, embryogenesis, morphogenesis, tumorigenesis, differentiation, wound healing, senescence and apoptosis (reviewed in refs. ⁵ and ⁶). It is also one of the most important cytokines responsible for promoting the migration of skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells.^3,6,7TGFβ has two quite different effects on skin keratinocytes: it suppresses their multiplication and promotes their migration. The TGFβ-induced cell growth inhibition is usually mediated by Smad signaling, which upregulates expression of the cell cycle inhibitor p21^WAF1/Cip1 or p12^CDK2-AP1 in HaCaT skin keratinocyte cells and human primary foreskin keratinocytes.^8,9 Keratinocyte migration in wounded skin is associated with strong expression of TGFβ and MMPs,¹ and TGFβ stimulates the migration of manually scratched wounded HaCaT cells.¹⁰ TGFβ also induces cell migration and inhibits proliferation of injured corneal epithelial cells, whereas it stimulates proliferation of normal corneal epithelial cells via effects on the MAPK family and Smad signaling.^2,7 Indeed, skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells display the same two physiological responses to TGFβ during wound healing; cell migration and growth inhibition. However as mentioned above, TGFβ has a different effect on normal cells. For example, it induces the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) of normal mammary cells and lens epithelial cells.^11,12 It also promotes the differentiation of corneal epithelial cells, and induces the fibrosis of various tissues.^2,6The MMPs are a family of structurally related zinc-dependent endopeptidases that are secreted into the extracellular environment.¹³ Members of the MMP family have been classified into gelatinases, stromelysins, collagenases and membrane type-MMPs (MT-MMPs) depending on their substrate specificity and structural properties. Like TGFβ, MMPs influence normal physiological processes including wound healing, tissue remodeling, angiogenesis and embryonic development, as well as pathological conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis and tumor invasion.^13,14The expression patterns of MMPs during skin and cornea wound healing are well studied. In rats, MMP-2, -3, -9, -11, -13 and -14 are expressed,¹⁵ and in mice, MMP-1, -2, -3, -9, -10 and -14 are expressed during skin wound healing.¹ MMP-1, -3, -7 and -12 are increased in corneal epithelial cells during Wnt 7a-induced rat cornea wound healing.¹⁶ Wound repair after excimer laser keratectomy is characterized by increased expression of MMP-1, -2, -3 and -9 in the rabbit cornea, and MMP-2, -9 in the rat cornea.^17,18 The expression of MMP-2 and -9 during skin keratinocyte and corneal epithelial cell migration has been the most thoroughly investigated, and it has been shown that their expression generally depends on the activity of MMP-14. MMP-14 (MT1-MMP) is constitutively anchored to the cell membrane; it activates other MMPs such as MMP-2, and also cleaves various types of ECM molecules including collagens, laminins, fibronectin as well as its ligands, the integrins.¹³ The latent forms of some cytokines are also cleaved and activated by MMP-14.¹⁹ Overexpression of MMP-14 protein was found to stimulate HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cell migration.²⁰ In contrast, the attenuation of MMP-14 expression using siRNA method decreased fibroblast invasiveness,²¹ angiogenesis of human microvascular endothelial cells,²² and human skin keratinocyte migration.¹⁰ The latter effect was shown to result from lowering MMP-9 expression. Other studies have shown that EGF has a critical role in MMP-9 expression during keratinocyte tumorigenesis and migration.^23,24 On the other hand, TGFβ modulates MMP-9 production through the Ras/MAPK pathway in transformed mouse keratinocytes and NFκB induces cell migration by binding to the MMP-9 promoter in human skin primary cultures.^25,26 Enhanced levels of pro-MMP-9 and active MMP-9 have also been noted in scratched corneal epithelia of diabetic rats.²⁷There is evidence that MMP-14 activates a number of intracellular signaling pathways including the MAPK family pathway, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), Src family, Rac and CD44, during cell migration and tumor invasion.^19,20,28 In COS-7 cells, ERK activation is stimulated by overexpression of MMP-14 and is essential for cell migration.²⁹ These observations all indicate that MMP-14 plays an important role in cell migration, not only by regulating the activity or expression of downstream MMPs but also by processing and activating migration-associated molecules such as integrins, ECMs and a variety of intracellular signaling pathays.³⁰Cell migration during wound healing is a remarkably complex phenomenon. TGFβ is just one small component of the overall process of wound healing and yet it triggers a multitude of reactions needed for cell migration. It is important to know what kinds of molecules are expressed when cell migration is initiated, but it is equally important to investigate the roles of these molecules and how their expression is regulated. Despite the availability of some information about how MMPs and signaling molecules can influence each other, much remains to be discovered in this area. It will be especially important to clarify how MMP-14 influences other signaling pathways since its role in cell migration is not restricted to digesting ECM molecules but also includes direct or indirect activation of cellular signaling pathways.     

Strigolactones as mediators of plant growth responses to environmental conditions

Strigolactones (SLs) have been recently identified as a new group of plant hormones or their derivatives thereof, shown to play a role in plant development. Evolutionary forces have driven the development of mechanisms in plants that allow adaptive adjustments to a variety of different habitats by employing plasticity in shoot and root growth and development. The ability of SLs to regulate both shoot and root development suggests a role in the plant''s response to its growth environment. To play this role, SL pathways need to be responsive to plant growth conditions, and affect plant growth toward increased adaptive adjustment. Here, the effects of SLs on shoot and root development are presented, and possible feedback loops between SLs and two environmental cues, light and nutrient status, are discussed; these might suggest a role for SLs in plants'' adaptive adjustment to growth conditions.Key words: strigolactones, light, nutrient status, root, shoot, branching, lateral roots, root hairsStrigolactones (SLs) are carotenoid-derived terpenoid lactones suggested to stem from the carotenoid pathway¹ via the activity of various oxygenases.^2,3 SLs production has been demonstrated in both monocotyledons and eudicotyledons (reviewed in ref. ⁴), suggesting their presence in many plant species.⁵ SLs are synthesized mainly in the roots and in some parts of the stem and then move towards the shoot apex (reviewed ref. ⁷).^6,8,9SLs were first characterized more than 40 years ago as germination stimulants of the parasitic plants Striga and Orobanche and later, as stimulants of arbuscular mycorrhiza hyphal branching as well (reviewed in ref. ^{4, 10–13}). Recently, SLs or derivatives thereof, have been identified as a new group of plant hormones, shown to play a role in inhibition of shoot branching,^2,3,8,9 thereby affecting shoot architecture; more recently they have also been shown to affect root growth by affecting auxin efflux.¹⁴Plants have developed mechanisms that allow adaptive adjustments to a variety of different habitats by employing plasticity in their growth and development.¹⁵ Shoot architecture is affected by environmental cues, such as light quality and quantity and nutrient status.^16–19 Root-system architecture and development are affected by environmental conditions such as nutrient availability (reviewed in ref. ^{20, 21}). At the same time, plant hormones are known to be involved in the regulation of plant growth, development and architecture (reviewed in ref. ^22–24) and to be mediators of the effects of environmental cues on plant development; one classic example is auxin''s role in the plant''s shade-avoidance response (reviewed in ref. ²⁵).The ability of SLs to regulate shoot and root development suggests that these phytohormones also have a role in the plant''s growth response to its environment. To play this putative role, SL pathways need to be responsive to plant growth conditions, and affect plant growth toward enhancing its adaptive adjustment. The present review examines the SLs'' possible role in adaptive adjustment of the plant''s response to growth conditions, by discussing their effect on plant development and the possible associations and feedback loops between SLs and two environmental cues: light and nutrient status.     

Filopodial focal complexes direct adhesion and force generation towards filopodia outgrowth

Filopodia are key structures within many cells that serve as sensors constantly probing the local environment. Although filopodia are involved in a number of different cellular processes, their function in migration is often analyzed with special focus on early processes of filopodia formation and the elucidation of filopodia molecular architecture. An increasing number of publications now describe the entire life cycle of filopodia, with analyses from the initial establishment of stable filopodium-substrate adhesion to their final integration into the approaching lamellipodium. We and others can now show the structural and functional dependence of lamellipodial focal adhesions as well as of force generation and transmission on filopodial focal complexes and filopodial actin bundles. These results were made possible by new high resolution imaging techniques as well as by recently developed elastomeric substrates and theoretical models. The data additionally provide strong evidence that formation of new filopodia depends on previously existing filopodia through a repetitive filopodial elongation of the stably adhered filopodial tips. In this commentary we therefore hypothesize a highly coordinated mechanism that regulates filopodia formation, adhesion, protein composition and force generation in a filopodia dependent step by step process.Key words: filopodia, focal adhesion, cell force, filopodial focal complex, actinCell protrusion depends on collaborative interactions of lamellipodia and filopodia.¹ Although filopodia cannot drive cell migration alone, in contrast to lamellipodia, they are essential for many cell biological functions such as guidance of neuronal growth cones² or during angiogenesis.³ Furthermore, filopodia are vital to cell-cell contact establishment as described for epithelial cells⁴ or during dorsal closure in Drosophila,⁵ and are also implicated in cancer cell metastasis.^6,7 Lamellipodia as well as filopodia can be formed independently from each other,⁸ and recent results implicate independent basic mechanisms of cytoskeletal regulation for their formation. While lamellipodia protrusion is a well accepted Arp2/3-dependent process where actin branches constantly form the protrusive force at the leading edge of the lamella,⁹ the details of filopodia formation are far from being understood.^10–13 Although earlier experiments indicated Arp2/3 was also involved in filopodia formation,¹⁴ recent results point to a machinery that is far less dependent, or even possibly independent, of Arp2/3 with formins being the central regulating molecules instead.⁸As soon as filopodia start to form, they constantly sense their environment upon elongation. Transmembrane proteins such as cadherins or integrins^15,16 connect filopodia to surrounding cells, extracellular matrix, or even pathogens to form stable contacts. When filopodial adhesion fails, retraction takes place.¹⁷ Although integrins and talin have been shown to be initially present at these sites in an un-clustered but active state, many additional adhesion proteins take part in filopodial focal complexes (filopodial FXs).^16,18 Starting from a small VASP-containing adhesion spot at the tip of filopodia, proteins such as vinculin, paxillin, talin, tensin and even zyxin form an elongated filopodial FX behind the VASP spot along the filopodium. While integrin as well as VASP transport along the filopodia shaft via myosin-X has been described,¹⁹ it is still unclear whether additional adhesion proteins are also actively transported or whether diffusion takes place. Diffusion is typically a non-limiting process during cytoplasmic protein complex formation. However for filopodia, diffusion could have an important regulatory function as already hypothesized in theoretical models,²⁰ because they are small in width and densely filled with actin filaments. Therefore, local concentrations of soluble adhesion molecules might drop within filopodia upon FX formation resulting in a pure physical regulation of filopodial length as well as filopodial FX size.The almost complete focal adhesion site specific protein inventory of filopodia FXs^16,18 as indicated above provided further indications for a dependency of lamellipodial focal adhesions (FAs) on filopodial FXs. This hypothesis was confirmed using fluorescent live cell imaging to identify the transition of filopodial FXs into fully assembled FAs upon FX contact with the leading edge of the lamellipodium. While filopodial FXs were responsible for only a sub-fraction of FAs in fish fibroblasts,¹⁸ stable FAs of human keratinocytes were formed almost exclusively by enlargement of existing filopodial FXs¹⁶ (see scheme, Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Filopodia determine the fate of lamellipodial structures. Filopodia are formed by actin polymerization at their tip. Upon stable adhesion, a small but fully assembled filopodial focal complex (FX) is formed. This FX becomes enlarged in size upon lamellipodial contact to form focal adhesions. In parallel, the filopodial actin cross-linker fascin becomes exchanged by palladin and α-actinin as soon as the filopodial actin bundles are incorporated into the lamellipodium. In a next step, α-actinin becomes partially exchanged by myosin II, leading to enhanced force values applied at filopodial-originated FA sites bound to the substrate. The tight interaction between FAs and filopodial actin bundles reduces the actin retrograde flow within the filopodium in front of the FA (lower inlay) compared to filopodia lacking stable FAs in the lamellipodium (not shown). Adhesion sites formed in the lamellipodium lack connections to distinct actin bundles leading to low force application at these sites and short lifetimes (upper inlay).The structural dependency of lamellipodial complexes on filopodial protein aggregates could be also shown for actin bundles. Here, parallel oriented actin filaments become cross-linked by proteins such as fascin or IRSp53-Eps8-complex upon filopodia formation.^21,22 These tightly packed bundles of 15–30 single actin filaments originate from the lamellipodial actin meshwork.²³ Interestingly, filopodial actin bundles in turn also affect lamellipodial actin structures independent of whether the filopodium adheres in a stable manner or looses contact. Nemethova et al.¹⁸ described the contribution of non-adhering filopodia to the construction of concave bundles of actin filaments within the lamellipodium of fish fibroblasts. These bundles often extended in length and interconnected with adjacent bundles. Similar observations were found for fibroblasts of chicken embryos and neuronal growth cones.^24,25 Here, filopodial actin bundles were clearly shown to be the origin of nearly 85% of all actin bundles found in the lamella. These actin filaments typically pointed towards the direction of migration. Additionally, myosin II was associated with these filopodial derived actin filaments to form polarized actin bundles. Of equal importance are findings presented by Schäfer et al. in this issue. The authors analyzed the fate of stably adhered filopodia and identified a stepwise exchange of filopodial fascin against the actin cross-linker proteins palladin and especially α-actinin in areas where filopodia were just overgrown by the lamellipodial leading edge (schematically presented in Fig. 1). α-Actinin further induced incorporation of myosin II into filopodial actin bundles in the lamellipodium. The authors additionally found that FAs displayed an enhanced lifetime when adhered to these myosin containing actin filaments. Therefore, these findings could also explain the unusual stability of filopodial actin filaments in neuronal growth cones observed by Mallavarapu and Mitchison.¹⁷ For keratinocytes, filopodia-dependent actin bundles are the only myosin containing actin structures oriented in the direction of movement within the lamellipodium and the lamella. Sensitivity and resolution improvements in cell force analyses further proved that these actin bundles were responsible for almost the entire force transmitted from the lamellipodium of migrating keratinocytes to the substrate. These forces were transferred at FA sites emerging from filopodial FXs, proving the importance of filopodia in lamellipodial structures and functions. Although filopodia-independent adhesion sites are also formed in keratinocytes right behind the leading edge, these sites are neither connected to detectable actin filament bundles nor do they transmit significant forces (see scheme, Fig. 1). Consequently, their sizes and life spans are strongly reduced (Schäfer et al., this issue).Recent results in keratinocytes additionally close the circle from stably adhered filopodia to the generation of new ones. Our original observations indicated that new filopodia were mainly formed in a direct extension of focal adhesions. Since these adhesion sites also depended on previously adhered filopodial FXs, a closer look revealed a consecutive outgrowth of the same filopodia.¹⁶ These cycles were only interrupted when outgrowing filopodia did not adhere in a stable manner between outgrowth cycles. Present results suggest that the same tip complex is present in all subsequently formed filopodia with a VASP tip signal remaining in place during successive filopodial elongations. As a result, well aligned, consecutive elongated focal adhesions can be found in keratinocytes. We can only speculate whether such an Arp2/3-independent mechanism describes a basic principle in filopodia formation at this point, but similar results have been observed for fish fibroblasts with a repetitive and alternating transition between filopodia and microspikes as filopodia-like structures barely extending over the lamellipodial leading edge.¹⁸The strong interdependency between lamellipodial FAs and stably adhered filopodia is also highlighted by actin retrograde flow analyses in keratinocytes (Schäfer et al. this issue). Retrograde actin flow is generated by actin polymerization at the cell front and myosin activity pulling the filaments rearwards. The interaction of actin with FAs is known to dampen flow rates in front of lamellipodial FAs.²⁶ Furthermore, filamentous-actin dynamics measured in lung epithelial cells showed a fast retrograde actin flow at the leading edge compared to rates within the lamellae. The highest flow rates were in the range of 0.3–0.5 µm/min.²⁷ Interestingly, keratocytes exhibited ten times slower flow rates at the leading edge,²⁸ indicating that retrograde flow strongly depends on the cell type analyzed. Actin filaments polymerizing at the tips of filopodia also undergo retrograde flow, but these flow rates are much faster compared to those found in lamellipodia,²⁴ as shown by bleaching experiments in chick embryo fibroblasts with flow rates approximately two-fold faster in filaments derived from filopodia compared to flow rates measured within the lamellipodium. These flow rates of approximately 1.3 µm/min were similar to those found for filopodia in other studies.²² Furthermore, we could show that this retrograde flow rate strongly depends on stable FAs formed behind the filopodium (Schäfer et al. this issue and Fig. 1). In the absence of these FAs, actin retrograde flow is doubled once more to rates of approximately 2.5 µm/min in filopodia. Therefore, although rates of FAs containing filopodia are still much higher than those found in lamellipodia, these rates are still slowed down indicating an effective connection between FAs and filopodial actin. These results further imply that myosin II incorporation into filopodial-originated actin bundles is responsible for enhanced retrograde flow rates in filopodia compared to rates found in the lamellipodium and that myosin II incorporation does not depend on stably adhered FAs directly behind filopodia. These data also strongly support the hypothesis that new filopodia form in front of stable lamellipodial FAs. It will be an intriguing question for future studies to analyze whether the reduced retrograde flow speeds in front of lamellipodial FAs might even be a prerequisite for efficient assembly and stable adhesion of small filopodial FXs, or perhaps even for filopodia formation in general.Taking into account all the currently known functions of filopodia, the presented results finally indicate that filopodia might be characterized best not only by one but actually two main functions. The first function is environmental sensing. Various transmembrane proteins can be involved leading to various roles for filopodia such as formation of cell-cell or cell-matrix interactions.^5,15 Although these functions in environmental sensing seem to be highly diverse, force generation along filopodial-originated actin bundles as the second function for filopodia might be of universal importance independent of the cell type that forms them. Force transmission along cell-pathogen interacting filopodia have been observed,²⁹ and the formation of adherens junctions after filopodia mediated cell-cell interaction is also a cell force dependent process.⁵ Therefore, these observations fit well to the currently presented data by Schäfer et al. (this issue) proving the importance of filopodia-dependent cell matrix interactions in cell force generation in the direction of migration (see scheme, Fig. 1).Present in almost every moving cell type, filopodia are therefore much more than just sensors for environmental conditions. In fact, these needle-like structures are the starting point for essential structures of adhesion and movement. Independent of whether they adhere stably or not, filopodia define the position of cellular adhesion sites, actin bundles, cell force generation and application, and, finally, the new filopodia to be formed.