Can a death signal half-life be used to sense the distance to a lesion site in axons?

Neuron response to injury depends on the distance to the lesion site, which means that neurons are capable of sensing this distance. Several mechanisms explaining how neurons can do this have been proposed and it is possible that neurons use a combination of several mechanisms to make such measurements. In this paper we investigate the feasibility of the simplest mechanism, which is based on the hypothesis that death signals, produced at the lesion site, propagate toward the neuron soma. The signals are propelled by dynein motors. If signals have a finite half-life, they decay as they propagate. By measuring the concentration of death signals arriving to the soma, neurons should thus be able to determine the distance to the injury site. We develop and solve a transport equation based on the above model. We investigate how a death signal distribution depends on the dynein velocity distribution. We evaluate the efficiency of such a mechanism by investigating the sensitivity of death signal concentration at the soma to the distance to the injury site. By using the hypothesis that system performance is optimized by evolution, we evaluate death signal half-lives that would maximize this sensitivity.     

A cable model for coupled neurons with somatic gap junctions

A cable model is presented for a pair of electrotonically coupled neurons to investigate the spatial effects of soma-somatic gap junctions. The model extends that of Poznanski et al.(1995) in which each neuron is represented by a tapered equivalent cable attached to an isopotential soma with the two somas being electrically coupled. The model is posed generally, so that both active and passive properties can be considered. In the active case a system of nonlinear integral equations is derived for the voltage, whilst in the passive case these have an exact solution that also holds for inputs modelled as synaptic reversal potentials. Analytical and numerical methods are used to examine the sensitivity of the soma potentials (in particular) to the coupling resistance.     

Branch Input Resistance and Steady Attenuation for Input to One Branch of a Dendritic Neuron Model

Mathematical solutions and numerical illustrations are presented for the steady-state distribution of membrane potential in an extensively branched neuron model, when steady electric current is injected into only one dendritic branch. Explicit expressions are obtained for input resistance at the branch input site and for voltage attenuation from the input site to the soma; expressions for AC steady-state input impedance and attenuation are also presented. The theoretical model assumes passive membrane properties and the equivalent cylinder constraint on branch diameters. Numerical examples illustrate how branch input resistance and steady attenuation depend upon the following: the number of dendritic trees, the orders of dendritic branching, the electrotonic length of the dendritic trees, the location of the dendritic input site, and the input resistance at the soma. The application to cat spinal motoneurons, and to other neuron types, is discussed. The effect of a large dendritic input resistance upon the amount of local membrane depolarization at the synaptic site, and upon the amount of depolarization reaching the soma, is illustrated and discussed; simple proportionality with input resistance does not hold, in general. Also, branch input resistance is shown to exceed the input resistance at the soma by an amount that is always less than the sum of core resistances along the path from the input site to the soma.     

Targeting of proteins into the peroxisomal matrix

Summary During the last few years much has been learned regarding signals that target proteins into peroxisomes. The emphasis in the near future will undoubtedly shift towards the elucidation of the mechanism of import. The use of mammalian and yeast cells deficient in peroxisome assembly and/or import (Zoeller & Raetz, 1986; Erdmann et al., 1989; Cregg et al., 1990; Morand et al., 1990; Tsukamoto, Yokota & Fujiki, 1990) should provide a handle on the genes (Erdmann et al., 1991; Tsukamoto et al., 1991) involved in these processes. This will have to be coupled with further development of in vitro systems which will permit the dissection of the steps in the translocation of proteins into peroxisomes. Though some progress has been made in the development of such assays (Imanaka et al., 1987; Small et al., 1987, 1988; Miyazawa et al., 1989), the fragility of peroxisomes and the absence of biochemical hallmarks of import (such as protein modifications or proteolytic processing) have hindered progress. Since peroxisomes exist in the form of a reticulum in mammalian cells (Gorgas, 1984), all peroxisome purification schemes (from mammalian cells at least) must undoubtedly rupture the peroxisomes, which then reseal to form vesicular structures. Additionally, the reliance on the latency of catalase alone as a major criterion for the integrity of peroxisomes ignores the fact that many other matrix proteins leak out of peroxisomes at vastly different rates during purification of the organelles (Thompson & Krisans, 1990). In view of these problems, the development of peroxisomal transport assays with semi-intact cells would also constitute an important advance. It is very likely that in the next few years we will witness some major advances in our understanding of the mechanism by which proteins enter this organelle.I would like to thank all the members of my lab and my collaborators, past and present, whose hard work provided the material for this review. This work has been supported by grants from the March of Dimes Foundation (#1081) and the NIH (DK41737).     

Endosomal lipid accumulation in NPC1 leads to inhibition of PKC, hypophosphorylation of vimentin and Rab9 entrapment

Background information. Within the group of lysosomal storage diseases, NPC1 [NPC (Niemann‐Pick type C) 1] disease is a lipidosis characterized by excessive accumulation of free cholesterol as well as gangliosides, glycosphingolipids and fatty acids in the late E/L (endosomal/lysosomal) system (Chen et al., 2005 ) due to a defect in late endosome lipid egress. We have previously demonstrated that expression of the small GTPase Rab9 in NPC1 cells can rescue the lipid transport block phenotype (Walter et al., 2003 ), albeit by an undefined mechanism. Results. To investigate further the mechanism by which Rab9 facilitates lipid movement from late endosomes we sought to identify novel Rab9 binding/interacting proteins. In the present study, we report that Rab9 interacts with the intermediate filament phosphoprotein vimentin and this interaction is altered by lipid accumulation in late endosomes, which results in inhibition of PKC (protein kinase C) and hypophosphorylation of vimentin, leading to late endosome dysfunction. Intermediate filament hypophosphorylation, aggregation and entrapment of Rab9 ultimately leads to transport defects and inhibition of lipid egress from late endosomes. Conclusions. These results reveal a previously unappreciated interaction between Rab proteins and intermediate filaments in regulating intracellular lipid transport.     

Probability models and the applicability of statistical procedures in the identification of chromosomal fragile sites

Summary. Böhm et al. (1995, Human Genetics 95 , 249–256) introduced a statistical model (named FSM–fragile site model) specifically designed for the identification of fragile sites from chromosomal breakage data. In response to claims to the contrary (Hou et al., 1999, Human Genetics 104 , 350–355; Hou et al., 2001, Biometrics 57 , 435–440), we show how the FSM model is correctly modified for application under the assumption that the probability of random breakage is proportional to chromosomal band length and how the purportedly alternative procedures proposed by Hou, Chang, and Tai (1999, 2001) are variations of the correctly modified FSM algorithm. With the exception of the test statistic employed, the procedure described by Hou et al. (1999) is shown to be functionally identical to the correctly modified FSM and the application of an incorrectly modified FSM is shown to invalidate all of the comparisons of FSM to the alternatives proposed by Hou et al. (1999, 2001). Last, we discuss the statistical implications of the methodological variations proposed by Hou et al. (2001) and emphasize the logical and statistical necessity for fragile site identifications to be based on data from single individuals.     

Developing velocity sensitivity in a model neuron by local synaptic plasticity

Sensor neurons, like those in the visual cortex, display specific functional properties, e.g., tuning for the orientation, direction and velocity of a moving stimulus. It is still unclear how these properties arise from the processing of the inputs which converge at a given cell. Specifically, little is known how such properties can develop by ways of synaptic plasticity. In this study we investigate the hypothesis that velocity sensitivity can develop at a neuron from different types of synaptic plasticity at different dendritic sub-structures. Specifically we are implementing spike-timing dependent plasticity at one dendritic branch and conventional long-term potentiation at another branch, both driven by dendritic spikes triggered by moving inputs. In the first part of the study, we show how velocity sensitivity can arise from such a spatially localized difference in the plasticity. In the second part we show how this scenario is augmented by the interaction between dendritic spikes and back-propagating spikes also at different dendritic branches. Recent theoretical (Saudargiene et al. in Neural Comput 16:595–626, 2004) and experimental (Froemke et al. in Nature 434:221–225, 2005) results on spatially localized plasticity suggest that such processes may play a major role in determining how synapses will change depending on their site. The current study suggests that such mechanisms could be used to develop the functional specificities of a neuron.     

Developmental shaping of dendritic arbors in Drosophila relies on tightly regulated intra-neuronal activity of protein kinase A (PKA)

Dendrites develop morphologies characterized by multiple levels of complexity that involve neuron type specific dendritic length and particular spatial distribution. How this is developmentally regulated and in particular which signaling molecules are crucial in the process is still not understood. Using Drosophila class IV dendritic arborization (da) neurons we test in vivo the effects of cell-autonomous dose-dependent changes in the activity levels of the cAMP-dependent Protein Kinase A (PKA) on the formation of complex dendritic arbors. We find that genetic manipulations of the PKA activity levels affect profoundly the arbor complexity with strongest impact on distal branches. Both decreasing and increasing PKA activity result in a reduced complexity of the arbors, as reflected in decreased dendritic length and number of branching points, suggesting an inverted U-shape response to PKA. The phenotypes are accompanied by changes in organelle distribution: Golgi outposts and early endosomes in distal dendritic branches are reduced in PKA mutants. By using Rab5 dominant negative we find that PKA interacts genetically with the early endosomal pathway. We test if the possible relationship between PKA and organelles may be the result of phosphorylation of the microtubule motor dynein components or Rab5. We find that Drosophila cytoplasmic dynein components are direct PKA phosphorylation targets in vitro, but not in vivo, thus pointing to a different putative in vivo target. Our data argue that tightly controlled dose-dependent intra-neuronal PKA activity levels are critical in determining the dendritic arbor complexity, one of the possible ways being through the regulation of organelle distribution.     

Can Molecular Motors Drive Distance Measurements in Injured Neurons?

Injury to nerve axons induces diverse responses in neuronal cell bodies, some of which are influenced by the distance from the site of injury. This suggests that neurons have the capacity to estimate the distance of the injury site from their cell body. Recent work has shown that the molecular motor dynein transports importin-mediated retrograde signaling complexes from axonal lesion sites to cell bodies, raising the question whether dynein-based mechanisms enable axonal distance estimations in injured neurons? We used computer simulations to examine mechanisms that may provide nerve cells with dynein-dependent distance assessment capabilities. A multiple-signals model was postulated based on the time delay between the arrival of two or more signals produced at the site of injury–a rapid signal carried by action potentials or similar mechanisms and slower signals carried by dynein. The time delay between the arrivals of these two types of signals should reflect the distance traversed, and simulations of this model show that it can indeed provide a basis for distance measurements in the context of nerve injuries. The analyses indicate that the suggested mechanism can allow nerve cells to discriminate between distances differing by 10% or more of their total axon length, and suggest that dynein-based retrograde signaling in neurons can be utilized for this purpose over different scales of nerves and organisms. Moreover, such a mechanism might also function in synapse to nucleus signaling in uninjured neurons. This could potentially allow a neuron to dynamically sense the relative lengths of its processes on an ongoing basis, enabling appropriate metabolic output from cell body to processes.     

The inflammasome: first line of the immune response to cell stress

The NALP3-inflammasome is a protein complex that stimulates caspase-1 activation to promote the processing and secretion of proinflammatory cytokines. Recent work indicates that the NALP3-inflammasome can be activated by endogenous "danger signals" as well as compounds associated with pathogens (Kanneganti et al., 2006; Mariathasan et al., 2006, Martinon et al., 2006; Sutterwala et al., 2006). Here, we discuss new insights into the regulation of caspase-1 activity in the inflammatory response.     

Rab GTPases and membrane identity: Causal or inconsequential?

Rab GTPases are highly conserved components of vesicle trafficking pathways that help to ensure the fusion of a vesicle with a specific target organelle membrane. Specific regulatory pathways promote kinetic proofreading of membrane surfaces by Rab GTPases, and permit accumulation of active Rabs only at the required sites. Emerging evidence indicates that Rab activation and inactivation are under complex feedback control, suggesting that ultrasensitivity and bistability, principles established for other cellular regulatory networks, may also apply to Rab regulation. Such systems can promote the rapid membrane accumulation and removal of Rabs to create time-limited membrane domains with a unique composition, and can explain how Rabs define the identity of vesicle and organelle membranes.

Rab GTPases regulate membrane tethering and vesicle fusion

Eukaryotic cells are defined in part by their complex membrane organelles. This organization permits the coexistence of different chemical environments within the same cell. For example, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is a neutral pH, reducing environment containing chaperones conducive to protein folding and the formation of disulfide bonds, whereas the lysosomes are ∼pH 5 and contain catabolic enzymes maximally active at acidic pH. Though valuable, this organization requires some form of active transport machinery for the exchange of material between these compartments because large hydrophilic molecules such as proteins cannot easily cross membranes. This transfer of molecules between compartments is achieved by vesicular transport systems that use cytosolic coat protein complexes to select small regions of membrane and shape these into defined 40–80-nm-diameter transport vesicles (Bonifacino and Glick, 2004; Faini et al., 2013). Vesicle coats contain binding sites for specific transport sequences, and thus only transfer a subset of proteins into the vesicle. Once produced, these vesicles have to identify, tether to, and then fuse with a specific target organelle (Zerial and McBride, 2001). Research over many years has defined small transmembrane proteins (SNAREs) and a set of accessory factors as the minimal machinery for membrane fusion (McNew et al., 2000; Shi et al., 2012). Tethering is a less well-defined event involving the Rab GTPases and effector protein complexes, typically large extended molecules thought to bridge the space between two approaching membranes (Gillingham and Munro, 2003).Rab GTPases were first linked to vesicle transport by groundbreaking genetic screens for mutants defective in protein secretion (Novick et al., 1980; Salminen and Novick, 1987). Sec4, Rab8 in humans, was found to function in the terminal step of the secretory pathway, delivery of Golgi-derived transport vesicles to the cell surface (Salminen and Novick, 1987; Goud et al., 1988). Ypt1, Rab1 in humans, was then shown to regulate secretion at the Golgi apparatus (Segev et al., 1988; Bacon et al., 1989). These findings led to an influential model for Rab function in which the cycle of GTPase activation and inactivation is coupled to recognition events in vesicle docking (Bourne, 1988). Consistent with the idea that they control vesicle targeting, work in mammalian cells then showed that there is a large family of highly conserved Rab GTPases, each with a specific subcellular localization (Chavrier et al., 1990). A series of seminal studies has since provided direct evidence that Rab1 and Rab5 promote membrane fusion (Gorvel et al., 1991; Segev, 1991) by regulating the activation and engagement of SNAREs (Lian et al., 1994; Søgaard et al., 1994), as a consequence of recruiting tethering factors to membrane surfaces (Segev, 1991; Sapperstein et al., 1996; Cao et al., 1998; Christoforidis et al., 1999; McBride et al., 1999; Allan et al., 2000; Shorter et al., 2002). Similar findings were also made for the Rab Ypt7, which functions in vacuole docking in yeast (Price et al., 2000; Ungermann et al., 2000), a system that allows direct visualization of docked or tethered intermediates due to the large size of the membrane structures (Wang et al., 2002).The evidence that Rabs function upstream of SNARE protein in vesicle trafficking pathways has led to the notion that Rabs help to define the identity of vesicle and organelle membranes (Pfeffer, 2001; Zerial and McBride, 2001). This is best exemplified by the early endocytic pathway, where the identity of early and late endosomes is thought to be determined by Rab5 and Rab7, respectively (Rink et al., 2005). However, in most other cases it remains unclear if this is a causal relationship, where the Rab directly defines the identity of the membrane rather than acting as an upstream regulator of vesicle targeting before the SNARE-mediated membrane fusion event. In addition to Rabs, GTPases of the Arf/Arl family and specific phosphoinositide lipids have also been proposed to act in specifying membrane identity (Munro, 2002; Di Paolo and De Camilli, 2006). It therefore seems likely that no single factor can explain how membrane identity is achieved in vesicle transport, and that Rabs, phosphoinositides, and other factors act in concert.

Rab GEFs provide the minimal machinery for targeting and activation

Despite the progress in defining Rab function, the claim that Rab GTPases define organelle identity therefore remains premature due to crucial unanswered questions. In particular, the issue of how Rabs are targeted to specific organelles, or even restricted to subdomains of these organelles, has remained problematic. Initial work using chimeric GTPases suggested that the variable C-terminal region of the different Rabs provided a targeting mechanism (Chavrier et al., 1991). However, subsequent work indicated that this failed to provide a general mechanism to explain specific Rab targeting, and that multiple regions of the Rab including C-terminal prenylation contribute to membrane recruitment (Ali et al., 2004). Emerging evidence based on the improved understanding of the family of Rab guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs) now provides an alternative view for Rab activation at specific membrane surfaces. Mechanistic details of how Rab GEFs activate Rabs have been discussed elsewhere (Barr and Lambright, 2010), and are not directly relevant for this discussion so won’t be detailed further. Two studies now show that Rab GEFs can provide the minimal machinery needed to target a Rab to a specific membrane within the cell (Gerondopoulos et al., 2012; Blümer et al., 2013). In both cases, Rab GEFs were fused to mitochondrial outer membrane targeting sequences, and the effects on different Rabs observed. Using this strategy it was possible to specifically target Rab1, Rab5, Rab8, Rab35, and Rab32/38 to mitochondria with biochemically defined cognate GEFs (Gerondopoulos et al., 2012; Blümer et al., 2013). Mutants that either reduced the nucleotide exchange activity of the GEF or the target GTPase gave a correspondingly reduced rate of Rab targeting (Blümer et al., 2013). Alone this does not provide a full explanation for Rab targeting; for this an understanding of the interaction of prenylated Rabs with the chaperone GDI (guanine nucleotide displacement inhibitor) is needed. Structural and biophysical analysis of the Ypt1–GDI complex has revealed two components of this interaction relevant for Rab targeting (Pylypenko et al., 2006). Domain I of GDI interacts with the switch II region of Ypt1 only when this is in the GDP-bound inactive form. The doubly prenylated C terminus of Ypt1 occupies a hydrophobic cavity created by domain II of GDI. Simulation of this system and direct biophysical measurements suggests that in the absence of other factors GDI will rapidly deliver Rabs to and extract them from a lipid bilayer (Pylypenko et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2010). These ideas can be combined into a simple model for Rab activation at specific membrane surfaces (Fig. 1 A). In simple terms this model is a form of molecular speed-dating in which the Rab spends a short time sampling each membrane surface it encounters before finally meeting its cognate GEF partner, triggering a period of longer residence at that site (Fig. 1 A). In this model, GEF-mediated nucleotide exchange renders the Rab resistant to extraction by GDI, and thus drives accumulation of the active GTP-bound form of the Rab. This active Rab can then recruit effector proteins to the membrane surface and promote the desired recognition event. Such a system is analogous to the rapid proofreading of amino-acyl tRNAs during protein synthesis by the ribosome (Ibba and Söll, 1999). All amino-acyl tRNAs can enter the so-called acceptor site, but only if stable codon recognition occurs is the peptidyltransferase reaction initiated, otherwise the tRNA is rejected (Steitz, 2008). The two-stage kinetic proofreading of membrane surfaces by Rabs may similarly increase fidelity at little overall cost to the rate of vesicular traffic.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The Rab activation and inactivation cycle. (A) Prenylated Rabs (black wavy lines) are bound by the chaperone GDI in the cytosol. Partitioning of the prenylated tail moiety between the hydrophobic pocket in GDI and the membrane bilayer allows Rabs to rapidly and reversibly sample membrane surfaces. When the GDP-bound inactive Rab encounters a cognate GEF nucleotide exchange occurs. This GTP-bound active Rab species does not interact with GDI and can therefore accumulate on the membrane surface, where it may further recruit effector proteins with specific biological functions. This cycle is reset when a GTP-bound Rab encounters a GAP (GTPase-activating protein) and the bound GTP is hydrolyzed to generate GDP and inorganic phosphate. (B) Additional specification of membrane domains within complex organelles, such as tubular domains of endosomes, or the fenestrated rims and different cisternae of the Golgi apparatus, may involve membrane receptors for Rabs (shown as light blue, dark blue, and green boxes). This could either involve (a) sequestration of the active Rab to a subdomain defined by the membrane receptor, or (b) direction of GDI unloading of an inactive Rab to specific sites on the organelle membrane also defined by a membrane receptor. Accumulation of a Rab at a specific site may be favored by GAPs opposing Rab activation at unwanted sites (Haas et al., 2007).Although this minimal Rab-targeting system does not require any additional factors, it is important to mention that this does not mean such factors do not exist. A family of membrane proteins with prenylated Rab-binding activity that can promote dissociation of some prenylated Rabs from GDI and favor retention of the GDP-bound form of the Rab downstream of membrane delivery by GDI has been identified (Dirac-Svejstrup et al., 1997; Martincic et al., 1997; Hutt et al., 2000; Sivars et al., 2003). These may therefore favor Rab activation, although recent data has suggested that such factors are not generally essential (Blümer et al., 2013). Intriguingly, other evidence links this family of proteins to factors involved in shaping subdomains of the ER and to the Golgi apparatus (Yang et al., 1998; Calero et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2004; Voeltz et al., 2006), perhaps suggesting that they may play roles in defining at which subdomain of an organelle an active Rab is enriched (Fig. 1 B).In addition to these regulatory factors, covalent modification can also be used to modulate the Rab activation cycle. Phosphorylation of Rab1 and Rab4 in mitosis alters the fraction of these GTPases that can associate with membranes (Bailly et al., 1991; van der Sluijs et al., 1992), although the exact mechanisms remain unclear. Furthermore, emerging evidence indicates that one Rab in yeast, Ypt11, is controlled by a phosphorylation-dependent mechanism regulating its activation and abundance (Lewandowska et al., 2013). A number of bacterial pathogens also encode enzymes that directly modify Rab GTPases and as a consequence alter the Rab regulatory cycle. During Legionella infection, Rab1 is modulated by a cycle of adenylylation and de-adenylylation by DrrA and SidA, respectively, and this modification of the conserved tyrosine residue in the switch II renders the protein constitutively active (Müller et al., 2010; Neunuebel et al., 2011; Tan and Luo, 2011). DrrA also has a GEF domain and can therefore directly activate and trap Rab1 in an active form independent of other cellular factors (Schoebel et al., 2009). A second bacterial protein, AnkX, mediates phosphocholination of an adjacent serine within the switch II region (Mukherjee et al., 2011; Campanacci et al., 2013). Pathogens such as Legionella use this covalent modification of Rabs to modulate their localization and activation (Stein et al., 2012). Although cellular enzymes that carry out related modification of Rabs are currently unknown, it would be premature to dismiss the possibility of their existence and use by cells to similarly control Rab activation and inactivation at specific sites.

Evidence for Rab activation on vesicle and target membrane surfaces

Based on the model and discussion so far it seems obvious that Rabs accumulate on the same membrane as their cognate GEF. Indeed, there is evidence that Rab1 may be activated and recruit the p115 tethering factor during the COP II vesicle formation stage of ER-to-Golgi transport (Allan et al., 2000). This would have the advantage that identity would be created at an early stage in vesicle biogenesis, and the vesicle could therefore be tethered to the Golgi before completion of the vesicle, thus increasing targeting efficiency. However, there is also evidence that Rab activation can occur at the target membrane and not only on a vesicle surface. Careful analysis of cell-free ER–Golgi transport assays revealed that Ypt1–Rab1 is not always required on the vesicle fraction, but is essential on the target Golgi membranes (Cao and Barlowe, 2000). Furthermore, a Ypt1 mutant with reduced nucleotide hydrolysis (which prevents its recycling from the Golgi compartment; Richardson et al., 1998), or Golgi membrane-anchored forms of Ypt1 (Cao and Barlowe, 2000) both support apparently normal ER–Golgi transport and cell growth. Subsequently, it was found that the COP II coat required to form ER–Golgi transport vesicles is the membrane receptor for the Ypt1–Rab1 GEF TRAPP (transport protein particle; Jones et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2000; Cai et al., 2007), indicating that Rab1 activation may occur on the coated vesicle. This raises questions about how the cytosolic Rab–GDI complex can access the membrane surface of a still-coated vesicle. However, because the COP II coat has an open lattice structure (Faini et al., 2013), it may be possible in this case for Ypt1–Rab1 to approach the membrane and insert. A further possibility is that COP II vesicles recruit TRAPP and promote the activation of Ypt1–Rab1 at the adjacent Golgi membranes to signal that an ER-derived vesicle is in close proximity (Fig. 2 A). This Golgi pool of activated Rab would then recruit effector proteins such as Uso1/p115 that trap and tether the incoming vesicle by directly engaging with vesicle SNAREs (Cao et al., 1998; Shorter et al., 2002).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Recruitment mechanisms for Rab GEFs. Rab GEFs can be divided into two groups according to the mechanism of membrane recruitment. (A) Discrete coat protein complexes (green) recruit the first group. For example, COP II recruits the Rab1 GEF TRAPP to ER-Golgi vesicles, while clathrin-AP2 recruits DENND1A, the Rab35 GEF, to endocytic sites at the cell surface. In the case of TRAPP, biochemical and genetic data suggest that Rab1 can be activated on the target membrane, before vesicle tethering and SNARE-mediated fusion. (B) The larger second group of Rab GEFs is recruited by Rab GTPases either alone or in combination with a second factor (Rabs/factors listed next to arrow). For example, the GEF Sec2 is recruited to late-Golgi vesicles trafficking to the bud in yeast by the activated Rab Ypt31/32 and phosphatidylinositol 4-phosphate (PI4P), where it activates the Rab Sec4 (Rab8 in humans). The Rabex5–rabaptin complex, which is a Rab5 GEF, interacts with activated Rab4 or Rab5 and ubiquitylated cargo proteins on endocytic vesicles and early endosomes. A number of other GEFs (some additional examples shown) have been found to interact with active Rabs. Whether or not these represent the sole mode of membrane interaction for these GEFs is not defined at this time. PM, plasma membrane. (C) In situations where the GEF for a second Rab in the pathway is an effector for the first, a cascade can develop, where Rab-A promotes the recruitment of GEF-B for this second Rab-B.

Rab GEF targeting and regulation

The mechanism of GEF targeting is of crucial importance for understanding how Rabs are activated at a particular membrane site. At present, two different solutions to the problem depending on the GEF are known. First, as already mentioned, is vesicle coat–dependent GEF targeting (Fig. 2 A). Three examples are known at present: COP II recruitment of the Rab1 GEF TRAPP-I (Cai et al., 2007), and clathrin-adaptor protein complex 2–dependent recruitment of either the Rab35 GEF DENND1A (Allaire et al., 2010; Yoshimura et al., 2010) or the Rab5 GEF RME-6 (Sato et al., 2005; Semerdjieva et al., 2008) during endocytic transport from the plasma membrane. In the latter cases the exact nature of the membrane on which the target Rab is activated is unclear, but it is tempting to speculate that like COP II, the coated vesicle promotes Rab activation on the target organelle to signal the presence of an incoming vesicle to be tethered. The second larger group of GEFs comprises those known to interact with active Rab GTPases (Fig. 2 B). The first of these Rab GEF effectors defined was the Rabex-5–rabaptin complex, which is both a Rab5 exchange factor and effector for Rab4 and Rab5 (Horiuchi et al., 1997). Rabex-5 also binds to ubiquitin via a specific domain and this is important for regulating its recruitment to early endosomes (Lee et al., 2006; Mattera et al., 2006; Mattera and Bonifacino, 2008) where it activates Rab5.Specific phosphatidylinositols play a key role in defining membrane identity (Di Paolo and De Camilli, 2006)), and this is in part due to a role in recruitment or regulation of Rab exchange factors. Sec2, the exchange factor for Sec4–Rab8, is recruited to post-Golgi vesicles by a combination of the Rab Ypt32 and phosphatidylinositol 4-phosphate generated by Pik1 (Ortiz et al., 2002; Sciorra et al., 2005; Mizuno-Yamasaki et al., 2010). Similarly, in mammalian cells the Rab GEF Sec2–Rabin8 is recruited by the Ypt31/32 orthologue Rab11 (Knödler et al., 2010), and phosphatidylinositol 4-phosphate generated by the Pik1 orthologue Fwd is important for Rab11 regulation in Drosophila (Polevoy et al., 2009). Although less is known about the targeting of other Rab GEFs, the clear theme is that many are effectors for a Rab other than the one they activate (Fig. 2 B). The Ric1–Rgp1 complex is a GEF for Rab6 and effector for Rab33B at the Golgi (Pusapati et al., 2012) and the Rab21 GEF VARP is an effector for Rab32/38 (Zhang et al., 2006; Tamura et al., 2009). Additionally, a GEF for Rab32/38 is an effector for Rab9 (Kloer et al., 2010; Gerondopoulos et al., 2012), and the DENND5A Rab39 GEF is an effector for Rab6 (Recacha et al., 2009; Yoshimura et al., 2010). In addition to these canonical trafficking functions there are specialized examples that indicate there is some plasticity to both GEF targeting and specificity. The Ypt1 GEF TRAPP exists in an alternate form (TRAPP-II) with additional subunits that promote late-Golgi targeting and may create additional GEF activity toward Ypt31/32 (Morozova et al., 2006). Interestingly, in higher eukaryotes there is evidence that TRAPP-II may regulate the Ypt31/32 orthologues Rab11 in male meiotic cytokinesis in flies (Robinett et al., 2009) and Rab-A in plant cell polarization and division (Qi et al., 2011), respectively. TRS85 in another alternate TRAPP complex (TRAPP-III) promotes localization to the forming autophagosome and activates Rab1 during autophagy (Lynch-Day et al., 2010).The counterpart to this interlinked network of Rab activation is an equally complex set of interactions between Rabs and Rab GAPs. The GAP Gyp1 is an effector for Ypt32 and promotes GTP hydrolysis by Ypt1 in budding yeast (Rivera-Molina and Novick, 2009). In the absence of Gyp1, Ypt1 spreads into the later compartments of the secretory pathway that should be occupied by Ypt32 (Rivera-Molina and Novick, 2009). Interestingly, one of the cellular GAPs for Ypt1–Rab1 is a transmembrane protein of the ER that may prevent Rab1 activity from spreading earlier in the pathway to the ER rather than act to terminate Rab1 activity at the Golgi (Haas et al., 2007; Sklan et al., 2007). Similarly, two related proteins, RUTBC1 and RUTBC2, bind to active Rab9 and are GAPs for Rab32 and Rab36, respectively (Nottingham et al., 2011, 2012).Together, these findings have led to the general idea that the order of trafficking events in a pathway can potentially be defined by a series of Rabs acting as a cascade (Fig. 2 C). In such models one Rab triggers the next in the pathway by recruiting its cognate GEF, and then feedback develops as a GTPase-activating protein (GAP) is recruited to terminate the action of the previous Rab in the series (Mizuno-Yamasaki et al., 2012; Pfeffer, 2013). In part, this simply passes the problem on because we are then left with the question of how the previous Rab in the pathway or a cofactor for recruitment such as phosphatidylinositol 4-phosphate or ubiquitin is localized and generated only when required. In the case of the secretory pathway the ER provides a defined starting point where activation of Rab1–Ypt1 will inevitably result in a defined and correctly timed wave of Rab activation through the secretory pathway. However, a note of caution is needed when considering these ideas because far more support from experimental data looking at the biochemical properties of these systems both in vitro and in vivo is required to come to any definitive conclusions.

Ultrasensitive Rab activation switches

One of the key tenets of the membrane identity hypothesis is that Rabs should rapidly and accurately establish membrane identity and then be lost once the membrane recognition event is over. Although biochemical data on Rab GEFs clearly indicate these molecules generally have sufficiently high specificity to ensure activation of only one Rab or a set of closely related Rabs (Delprato et al., 2004; Yoshimura et al., 2010; Gerondopoulos et al., 2012), how rapid switch-like accumulation is ensured is less obvious. Similar issues exist for termination of the Rab cycle by Rab GAPs. As already mentioned, Rab cascade models give part of the solution to this problem, and provide features that can ensure vectorial flow in a membrane traffic pathway (Mizuno-Yamasaki et al., 2012; Pfeffer, 2013). However, they do not fully explain how switch-like transitions and defined compartmental boundaries are achieved (Del Conte-Zerial et al., 2008). A possible solution to this problem comes from studies on the regulation of other complex biological systems, exemplified by control of cell cycle transitions (Tyson et al., 2001). Rather than displaying the expected Michaelis-Menten kinetics (Fig. 3 A), Rab cycles may yield properties of ultrasensitivity (Goldbeter and Koshland, 1981, 1984). This would appear to be a valid proposal if the Rab cycle is treated as being analogous to a covalent modification (Rab and Rab-modified, for GDP and GTP forms, respectively) and because GEF activity is generally assumed to be limiting (Blümer et al., 2013). In such a situation, inputs activating the GEF, for example membrane recruitment requiring multiple or binding of an activator, would be amplified and give rise to very large changes in the amount of activated Rab (Fig. 3 A). When combined with feedback loops, this can create a bistable switch between two states as shown for cell cycle transitions (Novak and Tyson, 1993; Pomerening et al., 2003). In the case of GTPase regulation, as the input controlling the GEF increases then the system transitions to a Rab-active state that remains stable over a wide range of GEF activity. GAP activation could then trigger exit from this state. This is also useful for providing a potential explanation for the timing properties of a Rab cascade. Ultrasensitivity and bistability are therefore likely to be useful concepts when explaining the behavior of Rabs, especially when considering complex interlinked cycles (Fig. 3 B) because they avoid the futile cycles where GAPs and GEFs fight one another and thus don’t do any useful work.Open in a separate windowFigure 3.Ultrasensitivity and bistability in Rab regulatory networks. (A) A simplified schematic of a Rab activation cycle is shown treating GDP–GTP exchange as equivalent to a covalent modification cycle such as phosphorylation. Because the reaction can only occur at a membrane surface, membrane recruitment factors are treated as activating inputs. Assuming no feedback and normal first-order reaction kinetics, Rab recruitment would be expected to follow Michaelis-Menten behavior. In cases where substrate is saturating and the reaction becomes zero-order, Goldbeter and Koshland (1984) have shown that product formation becomes more sensitive to enzyme concentration. In this case, generation of GTP-bound Rab becomes ultrasensitive to GEF concentration at the membrane surface. If additional positive feedback controls exist as shown in the bottom panel, then bistability may develop. In this case a rapid switch-like transition in Rab activity develops as Rab GEF concentration increases. Once in the active state the system becomes less dependent on continued high GEF activity. (B) A model for an interlinked Rab cascade is shown. The GEF for Rab-B is an effector for activated Rab-A, while the GAP for Rab-A is regulated by Rab-B. An example of this latter situation is provided by the Ypt1–Yp32 system discussed in the main text and shown in the bottom panel, where a Ypt1 GAP Gyp1 is an effector for Ypt32 (Rivera-Molina and Novick, 2009) and inhibits Ypt1. This coupling of the two cycles can result in coupled ultrasensitive switch-like transitions or bistability.A groundbreaking study in this area has applied these ideas to the conversion of Rab5-positive early endosomes to Rab7-positive late endosomes and lysosomes (Del Conte-Zerial et al., 2008). This analysis has provided strong evidence that positive and negative feedback loops in this system mediated by Rab GEFs and GAPs result in bistability in the form of a cut-out switch, so that Rab5 accumulation is followed by an abrupt transition at which Rab5 is rapidly lost and Rab7 accumulates (Del Conte-Zerial et al., 2008). Underpinning this is a biochemical network in which the Mon1–Ccz1 Rab7 GEF complex displaces Rabex-5, thus breaking the positive feedback loop to Rab5 activation (Poteryaev et al., 2010) and simultaneously promoting recruitment and activation of Rab7 (Nordmann et al., 2010; Gerondopoulos et al., 2012). Although there are only few studies where these ideas have been considered, they can be experimentally tested and are likely to be of increasing importance in membrane traffic regulation.

Origins of Rab GTPase control systems

One of the most difficult questions in membrane trafficking relates to the origins of complex internal membrane systems in eukaryotes. Analysis of Rab GTPases themselves suggests a pattern of evolution of Rabs consistent with the evolution of a core set of membrane organelles of the endocytic and secretory pathways (Diekmann et al., 2011; Klöpper et al., 2012). Yet, this provides little insight into how membrane organelles initially arose. Recent data on the structure of Rab GTPase regulators and coat protein complexes has identified common features with GTPase regulators in other systems including prokaryotes (Kinch and Grishin, 2006; Zhang et al., 2012; Levine et al., 2013). The conserved Longin–Roadblock fold has emerged as a structural feature of the large family of DENN-domain Rab GEFs in human cells (Yoshimura et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2011; Levine et al., 2013). Intriguingly, related domains are also present in the signal sequence receptor involved in protein translocation into the ER, vesicle coat protein complexes, and the MglA GTPase–MglB bacterial cell polarity regulator (Sun et al., 2007; Miertzschke et al., 2011; Levine et al., 2013). Although far from conclusive, these findings provide important pointers to the development of GTPase control systems, and more generally the early origins of membrane traffic pathways in eukaryotes from membrane-associated GTPases and their effector proteins.Are Rabs alone capable of triggering the pathways defining membrane identity? Multiple lines of evidence show Rab GTPases are clearly important and far from inconsequential regulators of vesicle traffic; however, further evidence is required before we should conclude that they are causal regulators of vesicle or organelle membrane identity. Neither of the studies using strategies to modulate the cellular localization of Rab GEFs reported that the mitochondria altered their identity or were converted into an endosome or Golgi because of the mistargeted Rabs (Gerondopoulos et al., 2012; Blümer et al., 2013). The picture emerging is therefore one in which Rabs cannot program membrane identity alone and must work in concert with other factors. Defining and reconstituting the systems needed to create membrane identity is therefore a major goal for membrane traffic research.     

Enhancement of information transmission of sub-threshold signals applied to distal positions of dendritic trees in hippocampal CA1 neuron models with stochastic resonance

Stochastic resonance (SR) has been shown to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio and detection of low level signals in neurons. It is not yet clear how this effect of SR plays an important role in the information processing of neural networks. The objective of this article is to test the hypothesis that information transmission can be enhanced with SR when sub-threshold signals are applied to distal positions of the dendrites of hippocampal CA1 neuron models. In the computer simulation, random sub-threshold signals were presented repeatedly to a distal position of the main apical branch, while the homogeneous Poisson shot noise was applied as a background noise to the mid-point of a basal dendrite in the CA1 neuron model consisting of the soma with one sodium, one calcium, and five potassium channels. From spike firing times recorded at the soma, the mutual information and information rate of the spike trains were estimated. The simulation results obtained showed a typical resonance curve of SR, and that as the activity (intensity) of sub-threshold signals increased, the maximum value of the information rate tended to increased and eventually SR disappeared. It is concluded that SR can play a key role in enhancing the information transmission of sub-threshold stimuli applied to distal positions on the dendritic trees.     

Who’s in control? Principles of Rab GTPase activation in endolysosomal membrane trafficking and beyond

The eukaryotic endomembrane system consists of multiple interconnected organelles. Rab GTPases are organelle-specific markers that give identity to these membranes by recruiting transport and trafficking proteins. During transport processes or along organelle maturation, one Rab is replaced by another, a process termed Rab cascade, which requires at its center a Rab-specific guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF). The endolysosomal system serves here as a prime example for a Rab cascade. Along with endosomal maturation, the endosomal Rab5 recruits and activates the Rab7-specific GEF Mon1-Ccz1, resulting in Rab7 activation on endosomes and subsequent fusion of endosomes with lysosomes. In this review, we focus on the current idea of Mon1-Ccz1 recruitment and activation in the endolysosomal and autophagic pathway. We compare identified principles to other GTPase cascades on endomembranes, highlight the importance of regulation, and evaluate in this context the strength and relevance of recent developments in in vitro analyses to understand the underlying foundation of organelle biogenesis and maturation.

Membrane identity in the endomembrane systemOne key feature of eukaryotic cells is the presence of membrane-enclosed organelles, which constantly exchange proteins, lipids, or metabolites via vesicular transport or membrane contact sites (MCSs). Along the endomembrane system, vesicular trafficking requires vesicle budding from the donor membrane and directed transport toward and fusion with the acceptor compartment. The resulting trafficking routes form a regulated network that connects not only the internal organelles, but also the interior and exterior of the cell.The specific identity of organelles within the endomembrane system is defined by the lipid and protein composition of their membranes. This includes signaling lipids such as phosphoinositides (PIPs) and small GTPases of the Ras superfamily of small G proteins, namely of the Rab, Arf, and Arl families, which act as binding platforms for accessory proteins involved in multiple membrane trafficking processes (Balla, 2013).Rab GTPases, like other small GTPases, are key regulatory proteins that switch between an inactive GDP-bound (Rab-GDP) and an active GTP-bound (Rab-GTP) state (Barr, 2013; Goody et al., 2017; Hutagalung and Novick, 2011). Rabs are posttranslationally modified by the addition of geranylgeranyl moieties to C-terminal cysteine residues, which allow their reversible membrane association. Within the cytosol, Rab-GDP is kept soluble by binding to the chaperone-like GDP dissociation inhibitor (GDI). At the target membrane, an organelle-specific guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) activates the Rab after its previous release from GDI, a process possibly supported by other factors (Dirac-Svejstrup et al., 1997). GTP binding stabilizes two loops in the Rab GTPase domain, which allows recruitment and binding of various so-called effector proteins to the Rab-GTP on the membrane. Rab GTPases are inefficient enzymes with a low intrinsic GTP hydrolysis rate and thus depend on a GTPase-activating protein (GAP) to hydrolyze bound GTP. GDI then extracts the Rab-GDP and keeps it soluble in the cytosol until the next activation cycle (Barr, 2013; Goody et al., 2017; Hutagalung and Novick, 2011). In addition to their conserved GTPase domain, Rabs contain a hypervariable C-terminal domain (HVD), which supports GEF recognition and therefore correct localization of the Rab (Thomas et al., 2018)Among various other functions, Rab GTPases are critical for the fusion of vesicles with the acceptor membrane by recruiting tethering proteins, which bring the two membranes into close proximity. Tethers, together with Sec1/Munc18 proteins, promote the folding of membrane-bound SNAREs at the vesicle and the target membrane into tetrameric coiled-coil complexes. This process further reduces the distance between the membranes, bypasses the hydration layer on membranes, and results in mixing of lipid bilayers and consequently membrane fusion (Wickner and Rizo, 2017; Ungermann and Kümmel, 2019).Organization and function of the endolysosomal pathwayEndocytosis allows the rapid adaptation of plasma membrane composition in response to changing environmental conditions by the uptake of membrane proteins from the plasma membrane, which are either transported to and finally degraded in the lysosome or sorted back to the plasma membrane, e.g., receptors after releasing their cargo within the endosomal lumen (Sardana and Emr, 2021). A third fate of endocytosed cargo is trafficking to the Golgi (Laidlaw and MacDonald, 2018). In addition, various kinds of endocytosis allow the uptake of very large particles such as bacteria during phagocytosis or fluids during pinocytosis (Huotari and Helenius, 2011; Babst, 2014). The endocytic pathway is also involved in the quality control system of plasma membrane proteins and allows degradation of damaged cell surface proteins as well as the down-regulation of nutrient transporters and receptors (Sardana and Emr, 2021). During endocytosis, membrane proteins marked by ubiquitination are incorporated into endocytic vesicles, which pinch off the plasma membrane and fuse with the tubular-shaped early endosome (EE) in the cell periphery (Fig. 1 A). The EE serves as a sorting station, at which membrane proteins are either sorted into tubular structures and brought to the recycling endosome (RE) or get incorporated into intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) with the help of four endosomal sorting complexes required for transport (ESCRTs; Sardana and Emr, 2021). A prerequisite for the degradation of cargo in the lysosome is the maturation of EEs into late endosomes (LEs) by changing the organelle surface composition, including specific Rab GTPases and PIPs, and organelle shape. The LE is eventually spherically shaped, containing multiple ILVs and a more acidified lumen. Therefore, it is also called Multivesicular Body (MVB). Upon fusion with the lysosome, ILVs and their content are degraded into precursor molecules, which are reused by the cell (Fig. 1 A; Sardana and Emr, 2021; Huotari and Helenius, 2011).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Rab GTPases in the endolysosomal pathway.(A) Localization of key Rab GTPases along the endolysosomal pathway. Endocytic vesicles containing cargo (blue dot) or receptor proteins (red) are substrates of endocytosis. Endocytic vesicles (EV) fuse with the EE. Rabs are shown by numbers: Rab5 (green) on early EE is replaced by Rab7 (black) on multivesicular bodies (MVBs). GEFs are shown in blue. Positioning of lysosomes (Lys) depends on binding to motor proteins by either Arl8b (orange, 8b) or Rab7. Recycling occurs via REs involving Rab4, Rab11, and Rab14. MTOC, microtubule organizing center; Nuc, nucleus. (B) Spatiotemporal Rab5-to-Rab7 transition during endosomal maturation. Rab5 (green graph) is rapidly recruited to EE and replaced by Rab7. (C) Model of Rab7 GEF recruitment and activation on endosomes. Mon1-Ccz1 (or the trimeric complex additionally containing Rmc1/C18orf8/Bulli, as indicated by the unlabeled hexagon) requires Rab5-GTP for activation to promote Rab7 recruitment. For details, see text.Central functions of Rab5 and Rab7Along the endolysosomal system, several Rabs coordinate sorting and recycling processes at the EE and LE. Early endosomal Rab5 and late endosomal Rab7 are here the key Rabs conserved among species. Their spatiotemporal activation and therefore functions are tightly coordinated on the level of the MVB/LE (Fig. 1 B).In yeast, the Rab5-like GTPases Vps21, Ypt52, Ypt52, and Ypt10 and the Rab7-like Ypt7 structure the endocytic pathway (Singer-Krüger et al., 1994; Wichmann et al., 1992). In mammalian cells, Rab5 (with Rab5a, b, and c isoforms having nonredundant functions in the endocytic network; Chen et al., 2014, 2009) and Rab7 (with Rab7a and b isoforms, of which Rab7a is the main actor in transport processes along the endocytic pathway [Guerra and Bucci, 2016], whereas Rab7b has a role in the transport from endosome to the Golgi [Kjos et al., 2017; Progida et al., 2010]) are present (Wandinger-Ness and Zerial, 2014). While the overall organization of the endocytic pathway into EE and LE is conserved, yeast seems to have a more ancestral minimal endomembrane system, where the trans-Golgi network acts as EE and RE (Day et al., 2018). In mammalian cells, the more complex endolysosomal system depends on additional Rabs. Rab4 is involved in protein sorting at the EE, activation of Rab5, and recycling of cargo back to the plasma membrane (Kälin et al., 2015; Wandinger-Ness and Zerial, 2014; de Renzis et al., 2002), whereas Rab11 and Rab14 function at REs (Fig. 1 A; Linford et al., 2012; Takahashi et al., 2012). Furthermore, Rab9 is required for retrograde transport between LEs and the trans-Golgi network (Lombardi et al., 1993), and Rab32 and Rab38 function in the biogenesis of lysosome-related organelles (Bowman et al., 2019; Gerondopoulos et al., 2012; Wasmeier et al., 2006).During endosomal maturation, Rab5 is exchanged for Rab7 (Rink et al., 2005; Poteryaev et al., 2010). This Rab switch is highly conserved and a prime example of coordinated Rab turnover during organelle maturation. The rapid transition from Rab5 to Rab7 was explained by a so-called cutout switch, where activation of Rab5 fosters at a threshold value activation of Rab7, which in turn suppresses further Rab5 activation (Fig. 1 B; Del Conte-Zerial et al., 2008). Such a principle may apply to most Rab cascades (Barr, 2013).Rab5 has multiple functions on EEs (Wandinger-Ness and Zerial, 2014). It interacts with a number of effectors such as the lipid kinase Vps34, Rabaptin-5, which is found in complex with the Rab5-GEF Rabex5, Rabenosyn-5, and tethers such as the class C core vacuole/endosome tethering (CORVET) complex or EEA1. Therefore, Rab5 is critical for the homotypic fusion of EEs (Gorvel et al., 1991; Ohya et al., 2009; Christoforidis et al., 1999a, b; Perini et al., 2014; Marat and Haucke, 2016). Vps34 was initially identified in yeast (Schu et al., 1993) and exists in two heterotetrametric complexes, which differ by just one subunit (Kihara et al., 2001). Complex I resides on autophagosomes, whereas complex II functions on endosomes (Fig. 2 D). Both complexes generate a local pool of phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate (PI3P), to which several effectors bind, including the early endosomal tether EEA1 and ESCRTs (Wallroth and Haucke, 2018). Recent structural insights revealed that Rab5 recruits and activates endosomal complex II, whereas Rab1 acts similarly on autophagosomal complex I (Tremel et al., 2021). This explains how Rab5-GTP promotes the formation of a local endosomal PI3P pool (Franke et al., 2019). Interestingly, Caenorhabditis elegans VPS-34 can recruit the Rab5 GAP TBC-2 to endosomal membranes, suggesting a possible link between PI3P generation and Rab5 inactivation (Law et al., 2017).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Rab7 activation on autophagosomes.(A and B) Atg8-dependent Mon1-Ccz1 recruitment and activation. Atg8 (violet) recruits Mon1-Ccz1 (and likely also the trimeric GEF complex in higher eukaryotes, as indicated by the unlabeled hexagon) and allows fusion with lysosome. (C) Model of spatiotemporal Rab7 activation on autophagosomes. Maturation is prerequisite for successful fusion. (D) Comparison of proteins involved in maturation of LEs and autophagosomes.Rab7 is a key component in the late endocytic pathway (Langemeyer et al., 2018a). It is found on LEs, lysosomes, and autophagosomes and is required for the biogenesis and positioning of LEs and lysosomes, for MCSs of lysosomes with other organelles, and for the fusion of endosomes and autophagosomes with lysosomes (Fig. 1 A; Guerra and Bucci, 2016; McEwan et al., 2015; Ballabio and Bonifacino, 2020; Cabukusta and Neefjes, 2018). Even though both the metazoan Rab7 and yeast Ypt7 are activated by the homologous Mon1-Ccz1 GEF complex and are required for endosomal maturation, their function on LEs and lysosomes is not entirely conserved. In yeast, active Ypt7 directly binds the hexameric homotypic fusion and vacuole protein sorting (HOPS) tethering complex and mediates SNARE-dependent fusion of LEs or autophagosomes with vacuoles as well as homotypic vacuole fusion (Wickner and Rizo, 2017; Gao et al., 2018a, b). In higher eukaryotes, HOPS also promotes fusion between LEs and lysosomes, yet apparently does not directly interact with Rab7, but rather with the GTPases Rab2 and Arl8b (Gillingham et al., 2014; Fujita et al., 2017; Lőrincz et al., 2017; Khatter et al., 2015). How Rab7 contributes to fusion at the lysosome is still unclear. Rab7 interacts with several proteins on lysosomes, including the cholesterol sensor ORPL1 and the dynein-interacting lysosomal RILP (Jordens et al., 2001; Cantalupo et al., 2001; Rocha et al., 2009). Both proteins also bind HOPS (van der Kant et al., 2015, 2013), as does another multivalent adaptor protein, PLEKHM1 (McEwan et al., 2015), which binds both Arl8b and Rab7 (Marwaha et al., 2017). Interestingly, Arl8b in complex with its effector SKIP also binds TBC1D15, a Rab7 GAP, which may displace Rab7 from LEs before their fusion with lysosomes (Jongsma et al., 2020). It is thus possible that fusion of LEs and autophagosomes with lysosomes requires a complex coordination of the three GTPases, Rab7, Arl8b, and Rab2, with the HOPS complex and other effectors. Some of this complexity may be explained by a second function of Rab7 and Arl8b in binding adapters of the kinesin or dynein motor protein family, which connect LEs and lysosomes to the microtubule network. Thereby Rab7 and Arl8b control the positioning of these organelles to the periphery or perinuclear area via the microtubule network, which has functional implications (Fig. 1 A; Cabukusta and Neefjes, 2018; Bonifacino and Neefjes, 2017). Perinuclear lysosomes are the main places for degradation of cargo delivered by endosomes and autophagosomes, whereas peripheral lysosomes are involved in the regulation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex1 (mTORC1), the master regulator switching between cell growth and autophagy (Johnson et al., 2016; Korolchuk et al., 2011). This also may be connected to the role of lysosomes in lipid homeostasis, as Rab7 seems to control cholesterol export via the lysosomal NPC1 (van den Boomen et al., 2020; Shin and Zoncu, 2020; Castellano et al., 2017). How far the acidification state of perinuclear and peripheral lysosomes also affects their Rab7 and Arl8b mediated localization is still under debate (Ponsford et al., 2021). Thus, it is likely that Rab7 coordinates LE and lysosomal transport and fusion activity in coordination with endosomal biogenesis and cellular metabolism.GEF function and regulation in endosomal maturationThe heterodimeric complex Mon1-Ccz1 was identified as the GEF for Ypt7 in yeast and for Rab7 in higher eukaryotes (Nordmann et al., 2010; Gerondopoulos et al., 2012). The Mon1-Ccz1 complex is an effector of Rab5 (Kinchen and Ravichandran, 2010; Langemeyer et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015; Poteryaev et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2014), suggesting a direct link to endosomal maturation and Rab turnover (Fig. 1 B). Structural analyses uncovered how the two central longin domains in Mon1 and Ccz1 displace the bound nucleotide from Ypt7 (Kiontke et al., 2017). Unlike yeast, the metazoan Mon1-Ccz1 complex contains a third subunit termed RMC1 or C18orf8 in mammals and Bulli in Drosophila (Vaites et al., 2017; Dehnen et al., 2020; van den Boomen et al., 2020). Even though loss of this subunit impairs endosomal and autophagosomal biogenesis, this subunit does not affect GEF activity toward Rab7 in vitro (Dehnen et al., 2020; Langemeyer et al., 2020), indicating that the general GEF mechanism is conserved across species. As Rab7 is required on LEs, autophagosomes, and lysosomes, spatial recruitment and activity of the Rab7 GEF must be tightly regulated.Rab5 activates the Mon1-Ccz1 GEF complexDuring endosomal maturation, the Mon1-Ccz1 complex is recruited to Rab5- and PI3P-positive endosomes and activates Rab7 for subsequent fusion of endosomes with lysosomes (Nordmann et al., 2010; Poteryaev et al., 2010; Cabrera and Ungermann, 2013; Cabrera et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2014; Fig. 1 C). However, it was postulated that (but remained unclear how) Rab5 affects Rab7 GEF activity. The activity of GEFs is in the simplest way determined in solution, where the respective Rab, which has been loaded with a fluorescent- or radioactive-labeled nucleotide, is incubated with the GEF (Schoebel et al., 2009; Bergbrede et al., 2009). GDP or GTP addition then triggers displacement of the bound nucleotide, which results in a decrease of fluorescence or increase of radioactive signal in solution. Such in-solution assays can uncover the Rab specificity of GEFs yet cannot recapitulate the membrane context and potential regulating factors. Recent approaches therefore used liposomes and prenylated Rab:GDI complexes to address the role of membrane lipids and proteins in GEF activation (Thomas and Fromme, 2016; Thomas et al., 2018; Langemeyer et al., 2020, 2018b; Cezanne et al., 2020; Bezeljak et al., 2020). Details of these reconstituted systems are discussed below. In yeast, prenylated, membrane-bound, and GTP-loaded Rab5-like Vps21 was surprisingly inefficient as a single factor to recruit Mon1-Ccz1 to membranes, whereas addition of PIPs together with Vps21 enhanced recruitment (Langemeyer et al., 2020). However, activity of both the yeast and metazoan Rab7 GEF complexes showed a striking dependence on membrane-bound Rab5-GTP in the GEF assay, whereas PIPs alone were not sufficient to drive GEF activation. These observations demonstrate that the Mon1-Ccz1 complex depends on membrane-bound Rab5 for its Rab7 GEF activity, which nicely explains some of the previous in vivo observations on endosomal Rab5-to-Rab7 exchange (Poteryaev et al., 2010; Rink et al., 2005).This Rab exchange, which occurs similarly on phagosomes (Jeschke and Haas, 2016), is in vivo likely regulated in space and time. Time-lapse microscopy studies revealed that levels of fluorescently labeled Rab5 decreased, while fluorescently labeled Rab7 increased on the surface of a tracked endosome (Poteryaev et al., 2010; Yasuda et al., 2016). Analysis of the spatiotemporal Rab5-to-Rab7 transition in mammalian cells revealed that Rab5-positive endosomes can separate from Rab7-positive membranes, suggesting that a stepwise maturation process also occurs in some cells (Skjeldal et al., 2021). However, in all cases, only some insights on Mon1-Ccz1 regulation are presently available. Phosphorylation is one potential regulatory mechanism in GEF regulation (Kulasekaran et al., 2015). Indeed, yeast Mon1-Ccz1 is a substrate of the vacuolar casein kinase 1 Yck3 (Lawrence et al., 2014). When added to the Rab5-dependent GEF assay, Yck3-mediated phosphorylation inhibited Mon1-Ccz1 GEF activity, presumably by blocking the Rab5 interaction (Langemeyer et al., 2020). How the kinase is in turn regulated and whether this is the only mechanism of Mon1-Ccz1 GEF control is currently unknown.Rab7 activation and function in autophagyThe lysosome is also the destination of the autophagic catabolic pathway. During autophagy, portions of the cytosol, specific organelles, aggregates, or pathogens are engulfed into a double-layered membrane, which upon closure fuses with the lysosome for degradation and reuse of its content (Fig. 2 A; Zhao and Zhang, 2019; Nakatogawa, 2020). Autophagy is a versatile pathway required for adaptation of a cell’s organelle repertoire and quality control.Rab7 is found not just on LEs, but also on autophagosomes (Hegedűs et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2018a), although its precise function seems to differ between organisms (Kuchitsu and Fukuda, 2018). In yeast, the Rab7-homologue Ypt7 mediates HOPS-dependent fusion of autophagosomes with vacuoles (Gao et al., 2018a). In metazoan cells, Rab7 and its effectors PLEKHM1 and WDR91 are required for autolysosome/amphisome-lysosome fusion, yet Rab7 does not seem to directly bind HOPS during fusion of autophagosomes with lysosomes (Xing et al., 2021; McEwan et al., 2015; Gutierrez et al., 2004; Kuchitsu and Fukuda, 2018).Given the striking Rab5 dependence on endosomes in Mon1-Ccz1 activation, the question arises, how does Mon1-Ccz1-mediated Rab7 activation happen on autophagosomes? Some data suggest that yeast and metazoan Rab5 is directly involved in the autophagy process such as autophagosome closure (Ravikumar et al., 2008; Bridges et al., 2012; Zhou et al., 2019, 2017), whereas others do not find direct evidence, for instance in Drosophila (Hegedűs et al., 2016). Studies in yeast revealed that the LC3–like Atg8 protein directly binds and recruits Mon1-Ccz1 to the autophagosomal membrane during starvation, which results in Ypt7 activation as a prerequisite of HOPS-dependent fusion with the vacuole (Gao et al., 2018a; Fig. 2 B). Tight regulation of Mon1-Ccz1 GEF-activity is apparently mandatory to avoid fusion of premature autophagosomes with the vacuole (Fig. 2 C). How Mon1-Ccz1 localization to either endosomes or autophagosomes is coordinated (also with regard to similarities in organelle features; Fig. 2 D) and whether Atg8/LC3 also regulates the activity of the GEF complex are not yet known.Of note, an endosomal-like Rab5-to-Rab7 cascade also occurs on the mitochondrial outer membrane during mitophagy in metazoan cells, a selective pathway to degrade damaged mitochondria (Yamano et al., 2018). Here, Rab5 is activated by a mitochondrially localized Rab5 GEF, followed by Mon1-Ccz1 recruitment and Rab7A activation, which then orchestrates the subsequent mitophagy process. How this process is coupled to autophagosome maturation, and whether Rab7 is then again needed on the formed autophagosome, has not been addressed so far.These data nevertheless demonstrate the adjustable recruitment of Mon1-Ccz1 during endosomal maturation and autophagosome formation and even to the mitochondrial surface. Targeting of the Mon1-Ccz1 complex is likely coordinated between all these processes.A role for ER-endosome MCSs in endosome maturationEndosomes form MCSs with the ER. Such contact sites have multiple roles ranging from lipid transport to ion exchange (Scorrano et al., 2019; Reinisch and Prinz, 2021). The endosome-ER contact depends on Rab7 and contributes to transport and positioning of endosomes, supports endosomal fission, and facilitates endocytic cargo transport and cholesterol transfer between LEs and the ER (Rocha et al., 2009; Friedman et al., 2013; Rowland et al., 2014; Raiborg et al., 2015; Jongsma et al., 2016). Rab7 activation via the Mon1-Ccz1 complex is required for cholesterol export from the lysosome, likely in the context of MCSs. Rab7 binds to the NPC1 cholesterol transporter and may thus promote cholesterol export only at MCSs with the ER or other organelles (van den Boomen et al., 2020). The ER is also involved in endosome maturation, which requires an MCS between Reticulon-3L on the ER and endosomal Rab9. In fact, Rab9 is recruited shortly before the Rab5-to-Rab7 transition (Wu and Voeltz, 2021; Kucera et al., 2016). How Rab9 activation and MCS formation are coordinated with endosomal maturation has not yet been revealed. It is likely that the spatial positioning of endosomes (Fig. 1 A), their acidification, and TORC1 activity also contribute to this process (Bonifacino and Neefjes, 2017; Johnson et al., 2016).Retromer opposes Rab7 activationRetromer is a conserved heteropentameric complex that mediates the formation of vesicular carriers at the endosome and thus allows the transport of receptors back to the Golgi or plasma membrane. The complex consists of a trimeric core (Vps35, Vps26, and Vps29), which binds either a SNX1-SNX4 heterodimer or a SNX3 monomer (Simonetti and Cullen, 2018; Leneva et al., 2021; Kovtun et al., 2018). Retromer is an effector of Rab7, but also recruits the Rab7 GAP TBC1D5 in metazoan cells (Rojas et al., 2008; Kvainickas et al., 2019; Jimenez-Orgaz et al., 2018; Distefano et al., 2018; Seaman et al., 2009). This dual function of retromer may facilitate the formation of endosomal tubules after the Rab5-to-Rab7 transition, and these tubules eventually lose Rab7 once scission has occurred (Jongsma et al., 2020).It is not yet clear how conserved the Rab7-retromer-GAP connection is. Yeast retromer is also an effector of the Rab7-like Ypt7 and coordinates protein recycling at the endosome (Liu et al., 2012; Balderhaar et al., 2010), yet a role of a Rab7 GAP has not been described. However, yeast retromer also binds to the Rab5 GEFs Vps9 and Muk1 (Bean et al., 2015), which suggests that both Rab5 and Rab7 function contribute to efficient tubule formation at the endosome. Whether and how the Rab7 GEF Mon1-Ccz1 is functionally coordinated with retromer will be a topic of future studies.GEF regulation along the endomembrane systemIn the previous section, we focused mainly on the role of the Rab7 GEF in the context of endosome and autophagosome maturation. However, the timing of GEF activation and the subsequent recruitment of their target Rabs is critical for all membrane trafficking processes along the endomembrane system to guarantee maintenance of intracellular organelle organization. Rabs in turn interact with effectors, and effectors such as the lysosomal HOPS complex not only bind SNAREs but also catalyze their assembly and thus drive membrane fusion (Fig. 3 A). The spatiotemporal regulation of GEF activation is therefore at the heart of organelle biogenesis and maturation, and thus membrane trafficking. Within this section, we will now broaden our view by comparing different regulatory principles of GEFs.Open in a separate windowFigure 3.Regulatory mechanisms influence the activity of GEFs.(A) Hierarchical cascade of factors controlling membrane fusion. GEFs integrate various signals and initiate a cascade of protein activities, finally leading to membrane fusion. Signaling lipids, the presence of cargo proteins, upstream GTPases, and kinases influence the activity of GEFs and therefore determine Rab GTPase activation. Consequently, effector proteins such as tethering factors are recruited. This ultimately leads to SNARE-mediated lipid bilayer mixing and membrane fusion. (B) A Rab cascade in yeast exocytosis. Active Ypt32 and PI4P (yellow) on late Golgi compartments and secretory vesicles recruit the GEF Sec2, which in turn promotes activation and stable membrane insertion of the Rab Sec4. (C) Mon1-Ccz1 regulation by phosphorylation. Mon1-Ccz1 is recruited to and activated on LEs by coincidence detection of membrane-associated Rab5 and PI3P (red, Fig. 1 C) and promotes stable membrane insertion of Rab7. This process is terminated by Mon1-Ccz1 phosphorylation by the type I casein kinase Yck3 in yeast (orange). (D) A positive feedback loop of GEF activation on endocytic vesicles and EEs. The Rab5 GEF Rabex-5 binds ubiquitinated cargo on endocytic vesicles and is autoinhibited. Rab5 recruits Rabaptin-5, which binds Rabex-5 and releases the GEF from autoinhibition, generating a positive feedback loop. (E) Membrane factors determine GEF activity of TRAPPII at the trans-Golgi. TRAPPII activity for the Rab Ypt32 requires membrane-associated Arf1 and PI4P. (F) The length of the hypervariable domain of Golgi Rabs defines the substrate specificity for TRAPP complexes. The yeast Rab GTPases Ypt1 and Ypt32 differ in the length of their C-terminal HVD (box). TRAPPII and TRAPPIII complexes have the same active site, which is positioned away from the membrane, and thus discriminate Rab accessibility. (G) Phosphorylation as a mechanism to promote GEF activity. DENND1 GEF activity is autoinhibited, which is released by Akt-mediated phosphorylation. For details, see text.A Rab cascade in exocytosisAnother well-characterized Rab cascade is involved in the exocytic transport of secretory vesicles from the trans-Golgi network to the plasma membrane. At the trans-Golgi, the GEF transport protein particle II (TRAPPII) activates the Rab GTPase Ypt32, which then recruits the GEF Sec2 to secretory vesicles. Sec2 in turn activates the Rab Sec4, which binds the Sec15 subunit of the Exocyst tethering complex and allows vesicles to dock and fuse with the plasma membrane (Fig. 3 B; Walch-Solimena et al., 1997; Ortiz et al., 2002; Dong et al., 2007; Itzen et al., 2007). This cascade is conserved in humans. During ciliogenesis at the plasma membrane, the Ypt32 homologue Rab11 recruits the GEF Rabin 8, which in turn activates the human Sec4 homologue Rab8, a process regulated by phosphorylation (Hattula et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2015; Knödler et al., 2010). Interestingly, yeast Sec2 not only is a GEF, but also interacts with the Sec4 effector Sec15 (Medkova et al., 2006), a principle also observed in the endocytic Rab5 activation cycle, where the GEF Rabex5 interacts with the Rab5 effector Rabaptin-5. This dual role may also apply to Mon1-Ccz1, as the Mon1 homologue in C. elegans, SAND1, and yeast Mon1-Ccz1 can bind the HOPS tethering complex (Poteryaev et al., 2010; Nordmann et al., 2010).At the Golgi, phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate (PI4P) contributes to directionality and spatiotemporal regulation of the exocytic Rab cascade. Sec2 binds both Ypt32 and PI4P on secretory vesicles via two binding sites, a process called coincidence detection. However, PI4P binding inhibits the interaction of Sec2 with Sec15. As vesicles reach the cell periphery, PI4P levels drop by the activity of Osh4, a lipid transporter, which allows Sec2 to bind the Exocyst subunit rather than Ypt32 (Ling et al., 2014; Mizuno-Yamasaki et al., 2010). In addition, Sec2 is phosphorylated by the plasma membrane–localized casein kinases Yck1 and Yck2 (Stalder et al., 2013; Stalder and Novick, 2016), resulting in effector recruitment rather than further Rab activation.Such a regulation may also apply to yeast Mon1-Ccz1. Anionic phospholipids and PI3P support Mon1-Ccz1 recruitment to liposomes and vacuoles (Langemeyer et al., 2020; Cabrera et al., 2014; Lawrence et al., 2014), whereas phosphorylation of the complex by the casein kinase Yck3 inhibits the binding of Mon1-Ccz1 to the Rab5-like Ypt10 and consequently reduces its GEF activity toward Rab7 (Fig. 3 C; Langemeyer et al., 2020). These observations suggest that the phosphorylation of GEFs by kinases may be a general regulatory principle in Rab cascades.Autoinhibition controls the Rab5 GEFAnother widely used regulatory mechanism is the autoinhibition of GEFs to control their activity. This has been analyzed in detail for the early endosomal Rab5-specific GEF Rabex-5, which interacts with the Rab5-effector Rabaptin-5 (Horiuchi et al., 1997). One factor for Rabex-5 recruitment to endocytic vesicles are ubiquitinated cargo proteins at the plasma membrane (Fig. 3 D; Mattera et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2006). Yet, isolated Rabex-5 has only low GEF activity in vitro (Delprato and Lambright, 2007). Structural analysis revealed that binding of Rabaptin-5 to Rabex-5 causes a rearrangement in the Rabex-5 C-terminus, which releases the GEF from autoinhibition and therefore facilitates nucleotide exchange of Rab5 (Delprato and Lambright, 2007; Zhang et al., 2014). On endosomes, increasing amounts of Rab5-GTP further promotes recruitment of the Rabex-5–Rabaptin-5 complex, resulting in a positive feedback loop of Rab5 activation and GEF recruitment (Lippé et al., 2001). Overall, Rabex-5 GEF activity is regulated by autoinhibition, a feedback loop with the Rab5 effector protein Rabaptin-5, and ubiquitinated cargo, which guarantees precise timing in establishing a Rab5-positive endosome. Of note, the Mon1 subunit of the Rab7 GEF can displace Rabex-5 from endosomal membranes (Poteryaev et al., 2010), which suggests a negative feedback loop of the Rab5 activation cascade once the next GEF is present.Regulation of Arf1 GEFs at different Golgi subcompartmentsThese key principles of GEF regulation in GTPase cascades are also found for Arf GTPases. Arf GTPases are soluble in their GDP-bound state by shielding their N-terminal myristate anchor in a hydrophobic pocket. Like Rabs, Arf GTPases are activated by specific GEFs, and their inactivation requires a specific GAP (Sztul et al., 2019). However, this review only highlights some key findings in the regulation of Rab GEFs and does not address regulation of the corresponding GAPs. Once activated, Arfs insert their lipid anchor and an adjacent amphipathic helix into membranes and are then able to bind effector proteins (Sztul et al., 2019). One of the best-studied Arf-GEFs is Sec7, which activates Arf1, an Arf GTPase involved in intra-Golgi trafficking (Achstetter et al., 1988). Studies on yeast Sec7 revealed that the protein is autoinhibited in solution and depends on three small GTPases—Arf1, the Rab Ypt1, and the Arf-like Arl1—for recruitment to the Golgi, a process supported by anionic lipids found in the late Golgi compartment. Importantly, the late Golgi Rabs Ypt31/32 strongly stimulate GEF activity (McDonold and Fromme, 2014; Richardson et al., 2012, 2016), indicating allosteric activation, as observed for Rab5-dependent Mon1-Ccz1 activation (Langemeyer et al., 2020). In this process, Sec7 dimerizes and promotes Arf1 recruitment and thus establishes a positive feedback loop. Interestingly, membrane binding of two additional Arf1 GEFs of the early Golgi, Gea1/2, depends on Rab1/Ypt1 and neutral membranes. Under these conditions, Gea1/2 is released from autoinhibition, although no positive feedback loop was observed (Gustafson and Fromme, 2017). Thus, Arf GEF regulation and Arf activation are tightly linked to multiple small GTPases and the membrane environment to establish Golgi compartments.Regulation and specificity of TRAPP complexes at the GolgiArf1 activation is also linked to the activation of Golgi-specific Rabs. Arf1-GTP binds to the highly conserved TRAPP GEF complexes at the Golgi (Fig. 3 E). Yeast and mammalian cells contain two TRAPP complexes. In yeast, both complexes share seven core components. TRAPPIII in addition contains Trs85, while accessory TRAPPII subunits are instead Trs130, Trs120, Trs65, and Tca17. Metazoan TRAPP complexes contain additional subunits (Lipatova and Segev, 2019).Interestingly, both complexes share the same catalytic site for Rab1/Ypt1 and Rab11/Ypt32. However, TRAPPIII provides GEF activity toward Rab1/Ypt1. Initially, it was proposed that TRAPPII can activate both Rab1/Ypt1 and Rab11/Ypt32 (Thomas et al., 2019, 2018; Thomas and Fromme, 2016; Riedel et al., 2018); however, it was recently shown that the TRAPPII complex is specific for Rab11/Ypt32 (Riedel et al., 2018; Thomas et al., 2019). Reconstitution of GEF activity on liposomes helped here to unravel TRAPP complex substrate specificity, since in solution assays are not adequate to address some of the features important for specific interactions: Rab11/Ypt32 has a longer HVD between the prenyl anchor and the GTPase domain compared with Rab1/Ypt1 (Fig. 3 F, box). The HVD not only binds TRAPPII but also stretches a longer distance from the membrane (Fig. 3 F). Thereby it allows Rab11/Ypt32, but not Rab1/Ypt1, to reach the active site of membrane-bound TRAPPII. Thus, substrate specificity is controlled by the distance of the GTPase domain from the membrane surface, since the active site seems to be located on the opposing site of the complex from the site of membrane interaction (Fig. 3 F; Thomas et al., 2019). The smaller TRAPPIII has its active site closer to the membrane, binds Ypt1 via its shorter HVD, and facilitates its activation, while Ypt32 with its longer HVD may be positioned too far away from the active site. In addition, both complexes require their respective membrane environment for optimal activity, indicating how Arf and Rab GEFs cooperate in Golgi biogenesis.The GEF DENND1 requires Arf5 for Rab35 activationRecently, another example of Arf-mediated Rab activation was reported (Kulasekaran et al., 2021). Rab35, an endocytic Rab found at the plasma membrane and REs (Sato et al., 2008; Kouranti et al., 2006), is involved in cell adhesion and cell migration by controlling the trafficking of β1-integrin and the EGF receptor (Klinkert and Echard, 2016; Allaire et al., 2013). Arf5 binds the Rab35 GEF DENND1 and stimulates its GEF activity, with dysregulation of this cascade linked to glioblastoma growth (Kulasekaran et al., 2021). DENND1 GEF activity is initially autoinhibited and relieved by phosphorylation via the central Akt kinase (Fig. 3 G; Kulasekaran et al., 2015). Similarly, another DENN-domain containing GEF, DENND3, is phosphorylated by the autophagy-specific ULK kinase and then activates Rab12, a small GTPase involved in autophagosome trafficking (Xu et al., 2015). Thus, it seems that Rab GEF activation is more generally linked to other trafficking proteins, such as Arfs, and controlled by kinases and likely also phosphatases.Lessons from reconstitutionOrganelle biogenesis and maintenance in the endomembrane system are tightly linked to the correct spatial and temporal activation of Rab GTPases. A small yeast cell gets by with 11 Rabs, while human cells encode >60 (Hutagalung and Novick, 2011). Rab activation, and therefore membrane identity, of each organelle depends on the cognate GEF. This puts GEFs into the driver’s seat of any Rab-directed function at cellular membranes. It seems that GEFs integrate, by several regulatory loops, incoming signals from various sources such as membrane composition, cargo proteins, upstream GTPases, or kinases/phosphatases (Fig. 3 A). Yet our insights on the specific membrane targeting and regulation of GEFs remain incomplete for want of available experimental approaches. We briefly discuss here how recent advances on the reconstitution of GEF-mediated Rab activation at model membranes have advanced our understanding of organelle maturation and biogenesis.Reconstitution of any reaction to uncover the essential constituents is limited by the available tools. GEFs, Rabs, Sec18/Munc1 proteins, tethering factors, and SNAREs are for instance required for membrane fusion (Fig. 3 A). Initial assays focused on SNAREs and revealed their important but rather inefficient fusogenicity (Weber et al., 1998). Further analyses uncovered critical activation steps for SNAREs (Malsam et al., 2012; Pobbati et al., 2006; Südhof and Rothman, 2009; Jahn and Scheller, 2006), yet fusion at physiological SNARE concentrations in various in vitro systems does not occur, unless assisted by chaperoning Sec1/Munc18 proteins and tethering factors (Bharat et al., 2014; Lai et al., 2017; Mima and Wickner, 2009; Ohya et al., 2009; Wickner and Rizo, 2017). Most tethers again depend on Rabs for their localization, and Rab localization to membranes requires a GEF (Cabrera and Ungermann, 2013), whose activity can be a limiting factor for fusion (Langemeyer et al., 2020, 2018b). The long avenue of understanding the mechanism and regulation of membrane fusion exemplifies the challenges in dissecting the complexity of a cellular reaction, but also demonstrates the powerful insights obtained from reconstitution of these processes.GEFs determine the localization of the corresponding Rab, and consequently, Rabs follow their GEF if they are mistargeted (Gerondopoulos et al., 2012; Blümer et al., 2013; Cabrera and Ungermann, 2013). However, these anchor-away approaches completely bypass the tight cellular regulation of GEF activation by the mistargeting and additional overexpression of the GEF protein and may allow only statements about GEF/substrate specificity. The spatiotemporal activation of each GEF at the right organelle is vital for the timing of all downstream reactions. GEFs are recruited to membranes by coincidence detection, which includes membrane lipids such as PIPs, membrane packaging defects, and peripheral membrane proteins such as upstream Rabs or other small GTPases. This recruitment is often accompanied by the release from autoinhibition, which may be triggered or inhibited by other regulatory processes such as phosphorylation. It comes as no surprise that pathogens such as Legionella and Salmonella take advantage of the central function of GEFs to establish and nourish their intracellular organellar niche by manipulating small GTPase activity (Spanò and Galán, 2018).To understand the specificity of Rab GEFs (and GAPs), mostly very simplified systems were used. Most GEF assays analyze soluble Rabs loaded with fluorescent 2′-O-(N-methylanthraniloyl) (MANT)-nucleotide or radioactively labeled GTP/GDP and soluble GEF in a test tube, where nucleotide exchange activity is observed upon addition of unlabeled nucleotide (Fig. 4 A). This strategy allows the identification of substrate (Rab) specificity of GEFs, but could also lead to misleading results, as pointed out earlier on the example of the TRAPP complexes and Rab1/Ypt1 or Rab11/Ypt32. In addition, GEF-Rab pairs negatively regulated by one of the above principles could easily be missed.Open in a separate windowFigure 4.Approaches to determine GEF activity in vitro. Methods to determine GEF activity for Mon1-Ccz1. In all approaches, Rab7 is preloaded with fluorescent MANT-GDP. Fluorescence decreases upon GEF-mediated nucleotide exchange. (A) GEF assays. (Ai) In-solution Rab GEF assay. Mon1-Ccz1 (blue, Bulli/Rmc1/C18orf8 subunit, indicated by unlabeled hexagon) and Rab7 (gray) are freely diffusible in the test tube, which results in random collision and Rab activation. (Aii) GEF-mediated activation of artificially recruited Rab7 on liposomes. Rab7 with a C-terminal 6xHis-tag is permanently immobilized on membranes containing the cationic lipid DOGS-NTA. Mon1-Ccz1 unspecifically binds to this membrane surface and activates Rab7. Diffusion is limited to the membrane surface, thus increasing chances of interactions. (Aiii) Reconstitution of Rab5-mediated Rab7 activation by Mon1-Ccz1 on liposomes. Chemically activated, prenylated Rab5 (green), delivered to the membrane by the Rab Escort Protein (REP), allows Mon1-Ccz1 recruitment and Rab7 activation from the GDI complex (see text for further details). (B) Summary of Ai–Aiii. pren., prenylation.As Rabs and GEFs function on membranes, we and others adopted strategies for measuring Rab activation by GEFs on membranes (Fig. 4 B). In a first approach, Rab and other small GTPases (Sot et al., 2013; Schmitt et al., 1994) were immobilized with C-terminal hexahistidine tags on liposomes containing the polycationic lipid 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-[(N-(5-amino-1-carboxypentyl)iminodiacetic acid)succinyl] (DOGS-NTA) and observed higher activity of the added GEF (Cabrera et al., 2014; Thomas and Fromme, 2016). A drawback of this technique is the artificial membrane composition. To avoid potential artifacts of unnaturally charged membranes and permanently membrane-bound Rab, recent studies relied on prenylated Rabs in complex with GDI. Reflecting the natural source of the cytoplasmic Rab pool, this complex was used as a GEF substrate in the presence of liposomes mimicking the natural membrane composition (Cezanne et al., 2020; Bezeljak et al., 2020; Langemeyer et al., 2020, 2018b; Thomas et al., 2018, 2019; Thomas and Fromme, 2016).Even though these observations are recent, the outcome and the understanding of GEF regulation is encouraging. For the Rab5 GEF complex consisting of Rabex5 and Rabaptin5, GEF-dependent Rab5 recruitment to membranes revealed a self-organizing system, nonlinear Rab5 patterning, and collective switching of the Rab5 population (Bezeljak et al., 2020; Cezanne et al., 2020). This is in agreement with mathematical modeling and predictions on bistability and ultrasensitivity of Rab networks (Del Conte-Zerial et al., 2008; Barr, 2013). For the Golgi-resident TRAPPII and TRAPPIII complexes, the membrane composition, the length of the Rab HVD, and the presence of membrane-bound Arf1 determined the GEF specificity for their Rabs (Fig. 3 F; Thomas et al., 2019, 2018; Thomas and Fromme, 2016; Riedel et al., 2018), which is nicely supported by recent structural analyses of yeast and metazoan TRAPPIII (Galindo et al., 2021; Joiner et al., 2021)Our own data uncovered that the yeast and metazoan Mon1-Ccz1(-RMC1) complex required membrane-bound Rab5-GTP to activate Rab7 out of the GDI complex (Langemeyer et al., 2020). Surprisingly, Rab5-GTP not only determined membrane binding of Mon1-Ccz1, but also activated the GEF on membranes by a yet-unknown mechanism (Fig. 1 C). Phosphorylation of yeast Mon1-Ccz1 by the casein kinase Yck3 inhibited this activation, demonstrating possible regulation of GEF activity (Fig. 3 C). Importantly, this finding agrees with the observed Rab5-to-Rab7 switch in vivo (Poteryaev et al., 2010; Rink et al., 2005).Taken together, the available tools open exciting avenues for our understanding of organelle maturation. Reconstitution will allow the investigation of an entire Rab cascade and its regulation by kinases or membrane lipids. It will be possible to determine the cross-talk with lipid kinases and observe possible regulatory loops between Rabs and PI kinases (Tremel et al., 2021). We are confident that such analyses, complemented by in vivo analyses of Rabs or other small GTPases and their GEFs, will clarify the underlying mechanism of organelle maturation and biogenesis along the endomembrane system of eukaryotic cells.     

BDNF instructs the kinase LKB1 to grow an axon

Determining which neurite of a differentiating neuron is to become the axon is a crucial step in neuronal morphogenesis. Two groups (Barnes et al., 2007; Shelly et al., 2007) now report that axon specification in vivo is mediated by extracellular signals acting through the serine/threonine kinase LKB1.     

Modelling active transport in Drosophila unipolar motor neurons

This paper develops a model for simulating organelle transport in Drosophila unipolar motor neurons. The paper is motivated by a recent experimental investigation by Stone et al. (Microtubules have opposite orientation in axons and dendrites of Drosophila neurons. Mol Biol Cell.19:4122-4129) who proposed a map of microtubule (MT) orientation in Drosophila neurons, and explained why dynein mutations selectively impede dendritic growth without having much effect on axonal growth. Two different approaches to modelling the effect of dynein mutations are utilised: one through assuming a reduced average velocity of a dynein mutant motor and the other through assuming its decreased processivity (an increased detachment rate from MTs). Modified Smith–Simmons equations are used for developing a continuum model of the process. Distributions of organelle concentrations as well as distributions of diffusion, motor-driven and total organelle fluxes are simulated.     

Intermediate filament proteins participate in signal transduction

How timely transport of chemical signals between the distal end of long axonal processes and the cell bodies of neurons occurs is an interesting and unresolved issue. Recently, Perlson et al. presented evidence that cleavage products of newly synthesized vimentin, an intermediate filament (IF) protein, interact with mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinases at sites of axon injury. These IF fragments appear to be required for the transport of these kinases to the cell body along microtubule tracks. The truncated vimentin is instrumental in signal propagation as it provides a scaffold that brings together activated MAP kinases (such as Erk 1 and Erk2), as well as importin beta and cytoplasmic dynein. The authors propose that this all-in-one transport complex has the extraordinary ability to travel towards the cell body and enter the nucleus where the kinases activate and influence gene expression so that a neuron can generate a timely response to injury.     

Aβ1–42 triggers the generation of a retrograde signaling complex from sentinel mRNAs in axons

Neurons frequently encounter neurodegenerative signals first in their periphery. For example, exposure of axons to oligomeric Aβ_1‐42 is sufficient to induce changes in the neuronal cell body that ultimately lead to degeneration. Currently, it is unclear how the information about the neurodegenerative insult is transmitted to the soma. Here, we find that the translation of pre‐localized but normally silenced sentinel mRNAs in axons is induced within minutes of Aβ_1–42 addition in a Ca²⁺‐dependent manner. This immediate protein synthesis following Aβ_1–42 exposure generates a retrograde signaling complex including vimentin. Inhibition of the immediate protein synthesis, knock‐down of axonal vimentin synthesis, or inhibition of dynein‐dependent transport to the soma prevented the normal cell body response to Aβ_1–42. These results establish that CNS axons react to neurodegenerative insults via the local translation of sentinel mRNAs encoding components of a retrograde signaling complex that transmit the information about the event to the neuronal soma.     

The small GTPase Rab4A interacts with the central region of cytoplasmic dynein light intermediate chain-1

Rab4 belongs to the Rab family of small GTPases involved in the regulation of intracellular transport, and has been localized to early endosomes. We have employed the yeast two-hybrid system to identify proteins that specifically interact with Rab4AQ67L, a GTPase-deficient mutant form of Rab4A. Screening a mouse embryo cDNA library identified a clone (M449) that interacted with Rab4A in a nucleotide-dependent fashion. Data base searches identified this clone as the mouse cytoplasmic dynein light intermediate chain-1 (LIC-1). Based on this finding, the full-length equivalent human cytoplasmic dynein LIC-1 was isolated by PCR. When Rab4A was overexpressed together with either M449 or dynein LIC-1 in HeLa cells, the proteins were found to colocalize in the perinuclear region. We characterize the localization of both overexpressed human dynein LIC-1 and the endogenous protein with respect to microtubules and show that it concentrates to the microtubule-organizing center and mitotic spindle. Additionally, GFPRab4A endosomes localize to microtubules and are redistributed by nocodazole treatment. This is the first described interaction between cytoplasmic dynein, a retrograde motor protein, and a Rab protein.