Cell Adhesion, the Backbone of the Synapse: ��Vertebrate�� and ��Invertebrate�� Perspectives

Synapses are asymmetric intercellular junctions that mediate neuronal communication. The number, type, and connectivity patterns of synapses determine the formation, maintenance, and function of neural circuitries. The complexity and specificity of synaptogenesis relies upon modulation of adhesive properties, which regulate contact initiation, synapse formation, maturation, and functional plasticity. Disruption of adhesion may result in structural and functional imbalance that may lead to neurodevelopmental diseases, such as autism, or neurodegeneration, such as Alzheimer''s disease. Therefore, understanding the roles of different adhesion protein families in synapse formation is crucial for unraveling the biology of neuronal circuit formation, as well as the pathogenesis of some brain disorders. The present review summarizes some of the knowledge that has been acquired in vertebrate and invertebrate genetic model organisms.Synapses are asymmetric, intercellular junctions that are the basic structural units of neuronal transmission. The correct development of synaptic specializations and the establishment of appropriate connectivity patterns are crucial for the assembly of functional neuronal circuits. Improper synapse formation and function may cause neurodevelopmental disorders, such as mental retardation (MsR) and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (McAllister 2007; Sudhof 2008), and likely play a role in neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer''s disease (AD) (Haass and Selkoe 2007).At chemical synapses (reviewed in Sudhof 2004; Zhai and Bellen 2004; Waites et al. 2005; McAllister 2007; Jin and Garner 2008), the presynaptic compartment contains synaptic vesicles (SV), organized in functionally distinct subcellular pools. A subset of SVs docks to the presynaptic membrane around protein-dense release sites, named active zones (AZ). Upon the arrival of an action potential at the terminal, the docked and “primed” SVs fuse with the plasma membrane and release neurotransmitter molecules into the synaptic cleft. Depending on the type of synapse (i.e., excitatory vs. inhibitory synapses), neurotransmitters ultimately activate an appropriate set of postsynaptic receptors that are accurately apposed to the AZ.Synapse formation occurs in several steps (Fig. 1) (reviewed in Eaton and Davis 2003; Goda and Davis 2003; Waites et al. 2005; Garner et al. 2006; Gerrow and El-Husseini 2006; McAllister 2007). Spatiotemporal signals guide axons through heterogeneous cellular environments to contact appropriate postsynaptic targets. At their destination, axonal growth cones initiate synaptogenesis through adhesive interactions with target cells. In the mammalian central nervous system (CNS), immature postsynaptic dendritic spines initially protrude as thin, actin-rich filopodia on the surface of dendrites. Similarly, at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction (NMJ), myopodia develop from the muscles (Ritzenthaler et al. 2000). The stabilization of intercellular contacts and their elaboration into mature, functional synapses involves cytoskeletal arrangements and recruitment of pre- and postsynaptic components to contact sites in spines and boutons. Conversely, retraction of contacts results in synaptic elimination. Both stabilization and retraction sculpt a functional neuronal circuitry.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.(A–C) Different stages of synapse formation. (A) Target selection, (B) Synapse assembly, (C) Synapse maturation and stabilization. (D–F) The role of cell adhesion molecules in synapse formation is exemplified by the paradigm of N-cadherin and catenins in regulation of the morphology and strength of dendritic spine heads. (D) At an early stage the dendritic spines are elongated from motile structures “seeking” their synaptic partners. (E) The contacts between the presynaptic and postsynaptic compartments are stabilized by recruitment of additional cell adhesion molecules. Adhesional interactions activate downstream pathways that remodel the cytoskeleton and organize pre- and postsynaptic apparatuses. (F) Cell adhesion complexes, stabilized by increased synaptic activity, promote the expansion of the dendritic spine head and the maturation/ stabilization of the synapse. Retraction and expansion is dependent on synaptic plasticity.In addition to the plastic nature of synapse formation, the vast heterogeneity of synapses (in terms of target selection, morphology, and type of neurotransmitter released) greatly enhances the complexity of synaptogenesis (reviewed in Craig and Boudin 2001; Craig et al. 2006; Gerrow and El-Husseini 2006). The complexity and specificity of synaptogenesis relies upon the modulation of adhesion between the pre- and postsynaptic components (reviewed in Craig et al. 2006; Gerrow and El-Husseini 2006; Piechotta et al. 2006; Dalva et al. 2007; Shapiro et al. 2007; Yamada and Nelson 2007; Gottmann 2008). Cell adhesive interactions enable cell–cell recognition via extracellular domains and also mediate intracellular signaling cascades that affect synapse morphology and organize scaffolding complexes. Thus, cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) coordinate multiple synaptogenic steps.However, in vitro and in vivo studies of vertebrate CAMs are often at odds with each other. Indeed, there are no examples of mutants for synaptic CAMs that exhibit prominent defects in synapse formation. This apparent “resilience” of synapses is probably caused by functional redundancy or compensatory effects among different CAMs (Piechotta et al. 2006). Hence, studies using simpler organisms less riddled by redundancy, such as Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila, have aided in our understanding of the role that these molecules play in organizing synapses.In this survey, we discuss the roles of the best characterized CAM families of proteins involved in synaptogenesis. Our focus is to highlight the complex principles that govern the molecular basis of synapse formation and function from a comparative perspective. We will present results from cell culture studies as well as in vivo analyses in vertebrate systems and refer to invertebrate studies, mainly performed in Drosophila and C. elegans, when they have provided important insights into the role of particular CAM protein families. However, we do not discuss secreted factors, for which we refer the reader to numerous excellent reviews (as for example Washbourne et al. 2004; Salinas 2005; Piechotta et al. 2006; Shapiro et al. 2006; Dalva 2007; Yamada and Nelson 2007; Biederer and Stagi 2008; Salinas and Zou 2008).     

Structural Components of Synaptic Plasticity and Memory Consolidation

Consolidation of implicit memory in the invertebrate Aplysia and explicit memory in the mammalian hippocampus are associated with remodeling and growth of preexisting synapses and the formation of new synapses. Here, we compare and contrast structural components of the synaptic plasticity that underlies these two distinct forms of memory. In both cases, the structural changes involve time-dependent processes. Thus, some modifications are transient and may contribute to early formative stages of long-term memory, whereas others are more stable, longer lasting, and likely to confer persistence to memory storage. In addition, we explore the possibility that trans-synaptic signaling mechanisms governing de novo synapse formation during development can be reused in the adult for the purposes of structural synaptic plasticity and memory storage. Finally, we discuss how these mechanisms set in motion structural rearrangements that prepare a synapse to strengthen the same memory and, perhaps, to allow it to take part in other memories as a basis for understanding how their anatomical representation results in the enhanced expression and storage of memories in the brain.Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1894) used the insights provided by his remarkable light microscopic observations of neurons selectively stained with the Golgi method to propose the first cellular theory of memory storage as an anatomical change in the functional connections between nerve cells, later called synapses (Sherrington 1897). For most of the last century, chemical synapses were thought to convey information in only one direction—from the presynaptic to the postsynaptic neuron. It now is clear that synaptic transmission is a bidirectional and self-modifiable form of cell–cell communication (Peters et al. 1976; Jessell and Kandel 1993). This appreciation of reciprocal signaling between pre- and postsynaptic elements is consistent with other forms of intercellular communication and provides a conceptual framework for understanding memory-induced changes in the structure of the synapse. Indeed, an increasing body of evidence suggests that trans-synaptic signaling and coordinated recruitment of pre- and postsynaptic mechanisms underlie consolidation of both implicit and explicit forms of memory storage (Marrone 2005; Hawkins et al. 2006; Bailey et al. 2008).Studies in a variety of systems have found that molecular mechanisms of consolidation and long-term storage of memory begin at the level of the synapse. Existing proteins are modified, signals are sent back to the nucleus so that specific genes are expressed, and gene products are transported back to the synapse where the local synthesis of new protein is triggered to allow for the remodeling, addition, and elimination of synapses (Bailey and Kandel 1985; Bailey et al. 1996; Kandel 2001; Bourne and Harris 2008, 2012). These structural components of synaptic plasticity are thought to represent a cellular change that contributes to both implicit and explicit memory consolidation (Greenough and Bailey 1988; Bailey and Kandel 1993; Bailey et al. 2005; Bourne and Harris 2008, 2012). The association between alterations in the structure and/or number of synapses and memory storage has led to numerous studies regarding the signaling pathways that might couple molecular changes to structural changes. In addition, parallel homeostatic mechanisms have been identified that can trigger synaptic scaling, which serves to stabilize the strengthened synapses while weakening or eliminating other synapses, thus providing specificity during memory consolidation (Bourne and Harris 2011; Schacher and Hu 2014).In this review, we compare and contrast structural changes at the synapse during both implicit and explicit memory consolidation, as well as the molecular signaling pathways that initiate the learning-induced structural changes versus those that serve to maintain these changes over time. Toward that end, we will focus on two experimental model systems and several prototypic forms of synaptic plasticity that we have worked on and that have been extensively studied as representative examples of memory storage: long-term habituation and sensitization of the gill-withdrawal reflex in Aplysia. These are examples of implicit memory consolidation and hippocampal-based long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD), as candidate mechanisms for the synaptic plasticity underlying explicit memory storage in mammals. These will serve as useful points of comparison to consider similarities, differences, and still-existing limitations in our understanding of the functional significance of the structural synaptic plasticity recruited during the consolidation of both implicit and explicit forms of memory.     

Origin of Microglia: Current Concepts and Past Controversies

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

Wnt Signaling in Neuromuscular Junction Development

Wnt proteins are best known for their profound roles in cell patterning, because they are required for the embryonic development of all animal species studied to date. Besides regulating cell fate, Wnt proteins are gaining increasing recognition for their roles in nervous system development and function. New studies indicate that multiple positive and negative Wnt signaling pathways take place simultaneously during the formation of vertebrate and invertebrate neuromuscular junctions. Although some Wnts are essential for the formation of NMJs, others appear to play a more modulatory role as part of multiple signaling pathways. Here we review the most recent findings regarding the function of Wnts at the NMJ from both vertebrate and invertebrate model systems.Wnt proteins are evolutionarily conserved, secreted lipo-glycoproteins involved in a wide range of developmental processes in all metazoan organisms examined to date. In addition to governing many embryonic developmental processes, Wnt signaling is also involved in nervous system maintenance and function, and deregulation of Wnt signaling pathways occurs in many neurodegenerative and psychiatric diseases (De Ferrari and Inestrosa 2000; Caricasole et al. 2005; Okerlund and Cheyette 2011). The first link between Wnt signaling and synapse development was established by Salinas and colleagues in the vertebrate nervous system (Lucas and Salinas 1997; Hall et al. 2000) and by Budnik and colleagues at the invertebrate neuromuscular junction (NMJ) (Packard et al. 2002). Since then, Wnt signaling has emerged as an essential regulator of synaptic development and function in both central and peripheral synapses. Although important roles for Wnt signaling have become known from studies in both the central and peripheral nervous system, this article is concerned with the role of Wnts at the NMJ.     

Studying Signal Transduction in Single Dendritic Spines

Many forms of synaptic plasticity are triggered by biochemical signaling that occurs in small postsynaptic compartments called dendritic spines, each of which typically houses the postsynaptic terminal associated with a single glutamatergic synapse. Recent advances in optical techniques allow investigators to monitor biochemical signaling in single dendritic spines and thus reveal the signaling mechanisms that link synaptic activity and the induction of synaptic plasticity. This is mostly in the study of Ca²⁺-dependent forms of synaptic plasticity for which many of the steps between Ca²⁺ influx and changes to the synapse are now known. This article introduces the new techniques used to investigate signaling in single dendritic spines and the neurobiological insights that they have produced.Each neuron typically receives 1000–10,000 synaptic inputs and sends information to an axon, which branches to produce a similar number of synaptic outputs. Most excitatory postsynaptic terminals are associated with dendritic spines, small protrusions emanating from the dendritic surface (Nimchinsky et al. 2002; Alvarez and Sabatini 2007). Each spine has a volume of ∼0.1 femtoliter, and connects to the parent dendrite through a narrow neck, which acts as a diffusion barrier and compartmentalizes biochemical reactions. Ca²⁺ influx into spines initiates a cascade of biochemical signals leading to various forms of synaptic plasticity including long-term potentiation (LTP).Because LTP in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons is a cellular mechanism that may underlie long-term memory formation, the signal transduction underlying LTP has been extensively studied by pharmacological and genetic methods (Bliss and Collingridge 1993; Derkach et al. 2007). It is now well established that LTP is induced by Ca²⁺ influx into dendritic spines through NMDA-type glutamate receptors (NMDARs), which induces the insertion of AMPA-type glutamate receptors (AMPARs) into the synapse, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the postsynaptic terminal to glutamate (Derkach et al. 2007; Kessels and Malinow 2009). An increase of release probability during LTP has also been reported (Enoki et al. 2009), and thus both pre- and postsynaptic mechanisms may contribute to LTP (Lisman and Raghavachari 2006).Manipulations of signal transduction using specific pharmacological inhibitors or genetic perturbations have identified many signaling pathways that connect Ca²⁺ to LTP induction. For example, LTP requires the activation of many signaling proteins, including Ca²⁺/calmodulin-dependent kinase II (CaMKII), extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK), Phoshoinositide 3 kinase (PI3K), protein kinase A and C, and GTPases such as Ras, Rab, and Rho (Kennedy et al. 2005). The list is continually growing, and the hundreds of implicated proteins form a complex signaling network whose contribution to LTP is still unclear (Bromberg et al. 2008).Signaling dynamics in neurons have traditionally been measured using biochemical analyses (Bromberg et al. 2008). However, the spatiotemporal resolution of conventional biochemistry is limited, restricting analysis to the time scale of many minutes and requiring the homogenization of tissue containing millions of synapses and other cellular elements. Furthermore, resolving synaptically induced changes in signaling by biochemical analysis typically requires stimulating many synapses at the same time, which may produce unintended effects, for instance, excitotoxicity or homeostatic plasticity.The size of dendritic spines is similar to the resolution of an optical microscope, permitting the optical analysis of biochemical signaling in each dendritic spine (Svoboda and Yasuda 2006). In particular, the advent of two-photon-based FRET techniques and the development of appropriate fluorescent reporters of specific biochemical reactions (see below) have provided readouts for signal transduction with high spatiotemporal resolution in live brain tissue (Svoboda and Yasuda 2006; Yasuda 2006). This has provided detailed information about the dynamics of signal transduction in spines and dendrites, and insights into the molecular mechanisms of synaptic plasticity.     

Presynaptic Membrane Retrieval and Endosome Biology: Defining Molecularly Heterogeneous Synaptic Vesicles

The release and uptake of neurotransmitters by synaptic vesicles is a tightly controlled process that occurs in response to diverse stimuli at morphologically disparate synapses. To meet these architectural and functional synaptic demands, it follows that there should be diversity in the mechanisms that control their secretion and retrieval and possibly in the composition of synaptic vesicles within the same terminal. Here we pay particular attention to areas where such diversity is generated, such as the variance in exocytosis/endocytosis coupling, SNAREs defining functionally diverse synaptic vesicle populations and the adaptor-dependent sorting machineries capable of generating vesicle diversity. We argue that there are various synaptic vesicle recycling pathways at any given synapse and discuss several lines of evidence that support the role of the endosome in synaptic vesicle recycling.Chemical synapses contain discrete numbers of synaptic vesicles, which are capable of sustaining neurotransmitter release. Sustained neurotransmission occurs despite the secretory demands imposed by persistent and diverse patterns of neuronal electrical activity. Maintaining synaptic vesicle numbers requires local mechanisms to regenerate these vesicles to prevent their exhaustion, preserve plasma membrane surface area, and to maintain the molecularly distinct identity of a vesicle versus plasma membrane. Rizzoli and Betz (2005) eloquently draw a parallel between chemical neurotransmission with synapse chatter saying that some synapses “whisper,” whereas others “shout.” The “louder” the synapse, the more synaptic vesicles are required, extending from a few hundred vesicles (whisperers) to nearly thousands (shouters). This beautiful analogy implies that every synapse has just one “voice” or species of vesicle. Here we will present the case that synapses are more like choirs in which multiple vesicle species or “voices” contribute to the “pianissimo” or “fortissimo” parts of chemical neurotransmission.Synaptic terminals show a range of structural and functional differences in distinct regions of the brain, suggesting that the mechanisms for exocytosis/endocytosis coupling, as well as local vesicle recycling, may also be diverse. On one side, the Calyx of Held nerve terminal participates in fast and sustained synaptic transmission at high frequency (800 Hz), which is crucial for sound localization in the auditory brainstem (Taschenberger and von Gersdorff 2000; Borst and Soria van Hoeve 2012). The Calyx of Held houses ∼70,000 synaptic vesicles with nearly 3000 vesicles docked per Calyx terminal. These docked vesicles are distributed across the ∼500 active zones that exist per Calyx where vesicle fusion occurs (Satzler et al. 2002). On the other hand, hippocampal synapses fire action potentials at ∼0.5 Hz in bursts (Dobrunz and Stevens 1999). This synapse contains ∼200 synaptic vesicles and one active zone with ∼10 vesicles docked (Schikorski and Stevens 1997). With such a wide functional and structural gamut of synapses, it is reasonable to hypothesize that synaptic vesicles may differ in their retrieval mechanisms, not just at the rate at which the process occurs but also in the molecular pathways used.Two synaptic vesicle retrieval mechanisms, namely clathrin/AP-2/dynamin-dependent biogenesis and kiss-and-run, have been summarized in outstanding recent reviews (see, for example, Augustine et al. 2006; Rizzoli and Jahn 2007; Smith et al. 2008; Royle and Lagnado 2010; Ferguson and De Camilli 2012; Saheki and De Camilli 2012). Therefore, here we focus on the coupling of secretion and membrane retrieval, as well as endosome sorting. We will discuss new developments supporting the existence of diverse functional and molecular pools of synaptic vesicles and how endocytosis and endosome retrieval mechanisms may generate these vesicle pools.     

Molecular Mechanisms of Fibroblast Growth Factor Signaling in Physiology and Pathology

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

Glial Cell Development and Function in Zebrafish

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

Wnt Signaling in Vertebrate Axis Specification

The Wnt pathway is a major embryonic signaling pathway that controls cell proliferation, cell fate, and body-axis determination in vertebrate embryos. Soon after egg fertilization, Wnt pathway components play a role in microtubule-dependent dorsoventral axis specification. Later in embryogenesis, another conserved function of the pathway is to specify the anteroposterior axis. The dual role of Wnt signaling in Xenopus and zebrafish embryos is regulated at different developmental stages by distinct sets of Wnt target genes. This review highlights recent progress in the discrimination of different signaling branches and the identification of specific pathway targets during vertebrate axial development.Wnt pathways play major roles in cell-fate specification, proliferation and differentiation, cell polarity, and morphogenesis (Clevers 2006; van Amerongen and Nusse 2009). Signaling is initiated in the responding cell by the interaction of Wnt ligands with different receptors and coreceptors, including Frizzled, LRP5/6, ROR1/2, RYK, PTK7, and proteoglycans (Angers and Moon 2009; Kikuchi et al. 2009; MacDonald et al. 2009). Receptor activation is accompanied by the phosphorylation of Dishev-elled (Yanagawa et al. 1995), which appears to transduce the signal to both the cell membrane and the nucleus (Cliffe et al. 2003; Itoh et al. 2005; Bilic et al. 2007). Another common pathway component is β-catenin, an abundant component of adherens junctions (Nelson and Nusse 2004; Grigoryan et al. 2008). In response to signaling, β-catenin associates with T-cell factors (TCFs) and translocates to the nucleus to stimulate Wnt target gene expression (Behrens et al. 1996; Huber et al. 1996; Molenaar et al. 1996).This β-catenin-dependent activation of specific genes is often referred to as the “canonical” pathway. In the absence of Wnt signaling, β-catenin is destroyed by the protein complex that includes Axin, GSK3, and the tumor suppressor APC (Clevers 2006; MacDonald et al. 2009). Wnt proteins, such as Wnt1, Wnt3, and Wnt8, stimulate Frizzled and LRP5/6 receptors to inactivate this β-catenin destruction complex, and, at the same time, trigger the phosphorylation of TCF proteins by homeodomain-interacting protein kinase 2 (HIPK2) (Hikasa et al. 2010; Hikasa and Sokol 2011). Both β-catenin stabilization and the regulation of TCF protein function by phosphorylation appear to represent general strategies that are conserved in multiple systems (Sokol 2011). Thus, the signaling pathway consists of two branches that together regulate target gene expression (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Conserved Wnt pathway branches and components. In the absence of Wnt signals, glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) binds Axin and APC to form the β-catenin destruction complex. Some Wnt proteins, such as Wnt8 and Wnt3a, stimulate Frizzled and LRP5/6 receptors to inhibit GSK3 activity and stabilize β-catenin (β-cat). Stabilized β-cat forms a complex with T-cell factors (e.g., TCF1/LEF1) to activate target genes. Moreover, GSK3 inhibition leads to target gene derepression by promoting TCF3 phosphorylation by homeodomain-interacting protein kinase 2 (HIPK2) through an unknown mechanism, for which β-catenin is required as a scaffold. This phosphorylation results in TCF3 removal from target promoters and gene activation. Other Wnt proteins, such as Wnt5a and Wnt11, use distinct receptors such as ROR2 and RYK, in addition to Frizzled, to control the the cytoskeletal organization through core planar cell polarity (PCP) proteins, small GTPases (Rho/Rac/Cdc42), and c-Jun amino-terminal kinase (JNK).Other Wnt proteins, such as Wnt5a or Wnt11, strongly affect the cytoskeletal organization and morphogenesis without stabilizing β-catenin (Torres et al. 1996; Angers and Moon 2009; Wu and Mlodzik 2009). These “noncanonical” ligands do not influence TCF3 phosphorylation (Hikasa and Sokol 2011), but may use distinct receptors such as ROR1/2 and RYK instead of or in addition to Frizzled (Hikasa et al. 2002; Lu et al. 2004; Mikels and Nusse 2006; Nishita et al. 2006, 2010; Schambony and Wedlich 2007; Grumolato et al. 2010; Lin et al. 2010; Gao et al. 2011). In such cases, signaling mechanisms are likely to include planar cell polarity (PCP) components, such as Vangl2, Flamingo, Prickle, Diversin, Rho GTPases, and c-Jun amino-terminal kinases (JNKs), which do not directly affect β-catenin stability (Fig. 1) (Sokol 2000; Schwarz-Romond et al. 2002; Schambony and Wedlich 2007; Komiya and Habas 2008; Axelrod 2009; Itoh et al. 2009; Tada and Kai 2009; Sato et al. 2010; Gao et al. 2011). This simplistic dichotomy of the Wnt pathway does not preclude some Wnt ligands from using both β-catenin-dependent and -independent routes in a context-specific manner.Despite the existence of many pathway branches, only the β-catenin-dependent branch has been implicated in body-axis specification. Recent experiments in lower vertebrates have identified additional pathway components and targets and provided new insights into the underlying mechanisms.     

CSF-1 Receptor Signaling in Myeloid Cells

The CSF-1 receptor (CSF-1R) is activated by the homodimeric growth factors colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1) and interleukin-34 (IL-34). It plays important roles in development and in innate immunity by regulating the development of most tissue macrophages and osteoclasts, of Langerhans cells of the skin, of Paneth cells of the small intestine, and of brain microglia. It also regulates the differentiation of neural progenitor cells and controls functions of oocytes and trophoblastic cells in the female reproductive tract. Owing to this broad tissue expression pattern, it plays a central role in neoplastic, inflammatory, and neurological diseases. In this review we summarize the evolution, structure, and regulation of expression of the CSF-1R gene. We review, the structures of CSF-1, IL-34, and the CSF-1R and the mechanism of ligand binding to and activation of the receptor. We further describe the pathways regulating macrophage survival, proliferation, differentiation, and chemotaxis downstream from the CSF-1R.The glycoprotein, colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1), also known as macrophage-CSF (M-CSF), was the first of the CSFs to be purified (Stanley and Heard 1977) and was shown to stimulate the formation of colonies of macrophages (Stanley et al. 1978). This led to the identification (Guilbert and Stanley 1980) and purification (Yeung et al. 1987) of the CSF-1 receptor (CSF-1R) and the demonstration that it possessed intrinsic tyrosine kinase activity (Yeung et al. 1987). It was subsequently shown to be identical to the c-fms proto-oncoprotein (Sherr et al. 1985) previously studied by Sherr and colleagues (Rettenmier et al. 1985). The c-fms cDNA was cloned and shown to encode a typical class III receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) (Coussens et al. 1986).The CSF-1R plays a central role in many diseases. Dominant inactivating mutations in the CSF-1R lead to adult-onset leukoencephalopathy with axonal spheroids and pigmented glia (Rademakers et al. 2011; Nicholson et al. 2013). Inappropriate expression of the CSF-1R contributes to the development of leukemias and lymphomas, and autocrine and paracrine regulation of the CSF-1R enhances the progression and metastasis of solid tumors (reviewed in Pollard 2009; Chitu and Stanley 2014). In addition, regulation through the CSF-1R contributes to chronic inflammatory diseases (reviewed in Chitu and Stanley 2006; Chitu et al. 2012). This review focuses on the CSF-1R regulation and signaling in cells of the myeloid lineage.     

Bacterial Influences on Animal Origins

Animals evolved in seas teeming with bacteria, yet the influences of bacteria on animal origins are poorly understood. Comparisons among modern animals and their closest living relatives, the choanoflagellates, suggest that the first animals used flagellated collar cells to capture bacterial prey. The cell biology of prey capture, such as cell adhesion between predator and prey, involves mechanisms that may have been co-opted to mediate intercellular interactions during the evolution of animal multicellularity. Moreover, a history of bacterivory may have influenced the evolution of animal genomes by driving the evolution of genetic pathways for immunity and facilitating lateral gene transfer. Understanding the interactions between bacteria and the progenitors of animals may help to explain the myriad ways in which bacteria shape the biology of modern animals, including ourselves.The first bacteria evolved more than 3 billion years ago and dominated the biosphere continually thereafter, shaping the environment in which animals would eventually evolve more than 2 billion years later (Narbonne 2005; Knoll 2011). Because animals evolved in seas filled with bacteria and have lived in close association with bacteria throughout their evolutionary history, it is likely that diverse interactions with bacteria (including predation on bacteria, harboring bacterial commensals, and infection with bacterial pathogens) influenced animal origins. Nonetheless, although the potential contributions of global environmental change and genome evolution to animal origins have received a fair amount of attention (Hoffman et al. 1998; Knoll and Carroll 1999; Knoll 2003; King 2004; Canfield et al. 2007; Shen et al. 2008; Srivastava et al. 2008, 2010; Richter and King 2013), relatively little is known about how the interactions of animal progenitors with the abundant bacteria in their environment may have influenced the evolution of animals (McFall-Ngai 1999; Moran 2007; Hughes and Sperandio 2008; McFall-Ngai et al. 2013). We review here the current state of knowledge about ancient bacterial interactions and consider how these associations may have shaped the biology and evolution of the earliest animals.     

Origin and Evolution of the Self-Organizing Cytoskeleton in the Network of Eukaryotic Organelles

The eukaryotic cytoskeleton evolved from prokaryotic cytomotive filaments. Prokaryotic filament systems show bewildering structural and dynamic complexity and, in many aspects, prefigure the self-organizing properties of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton. Here, the dynamic properties of the prokaryotic and eukaryotic cytoskeleton are compared, and how these relate to function and evolution of organellar networks is discussed. The evolution of new aspects of filament dynamics in eukaryotes, including severing and branching, and the advent of molecular motors converted the eukaryotic cytoskeleton into a self-organizing “active gel,” the dynamics of which can only be described with computational models. Advances in modeling and comparative genomics hold promise of a better understanding of the evolution of the self-organizing cytoskeleton in early eukaryotes, and its role in the evolution of novel eukaryotic functions, such as amoeboid motility, mitosis, and ciliary swimming.The eukaryotic cytoskeleton organizes space on the cellular scale and this organization influences almost every process in the cell. Organization depends on the mechanochemical properties of the cytoskeleton that dynamically maintain cell shape, position organelles, and macromolecules by trafficking, and drive locomotion via actin-rich cellular protrusions, ciliary beating, or ciliary gliding. The eukaryotic cytoskeleton is best described as an “active gel,” a cross-linked network of polymers (gel) in which many of the links are active motors that can move the polymers relative to each other (Karsenti et al. 2006). Because prokaryotes have only cytoskeletal polymers but lack motor proteins, this “active gel” property clearly sets the eukaryotic cytoskeleton apart from prokaryotic filament systems.Prokaryotes contain elaborate systems of several cytomotive filaments (Löwe and Amos 2009) that share many structural and dynamic features with eukaryotic actin filaments and microtubules (Löwe and Amos 1998; van den Ent et al. 2001). Prokaryotic cytoskeletal filaments may trace back to the first cells and may have originated as higher-order assemblies of enzymes (Noree et al. 2010; Barry and Gitai 2011). These cytomotive filaments are required for the segregation of low copy number plasmids, cell rigidity and cell-wall synthesis, cell division, and occasionally the organization of membranous organelles (Komeili et al. 2006; Thanbichler and Shapiro 2008; Löwe and Amos 2009). These functions are performed by dynamic filament-forming systems that harness the energy from nucleotide hydrolysis to generate forces either via bending or polymerization (Löwe and Amos 2009; Pilhofer and Jensen 2013). Although the identification of actin and tubulin homologs in prokaryotes is a major breakthrough, we are far from understanding the origin of the structural and dynamic complexity of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton.Advances in genome sequencing and comparative genomics now allow a detailed reconstruction of the cytoskeletal components present in the last common ancestor of eukaryotes. These studies all point to an ancestrally complex cytoskeleton, with several families of motors (Wickstead and Gull 2007; Wickstead et al. 2010) and filament-associated proteins and other regulators in place (Jékely 2003; Richards and Cavalier-Smith 2005; Rivero and Cvrcková 2007; Chalkia et al. 2008; Eme et al. 2009; Fritz-Laylin et al. 2010; Eckert et al. 2011; Hammesfahr and Kollmar 2012). Genomic reconstructions and comparative cell biology of single-celled eukaryotes (Raikov 1994; Cavalier-Smith 2013) allow us to infer the cellular features of the ancestral eukaryote. These analyses indicate that amoeboid motility (Fritz-Laylin et al. 2010; although, see Cavalier-Smith 2013), cilia (Cavalier-Smith 2002; Mitchell 2004; Jékely and Arendt 2006; Satir et al. 2008), centrioles (Carvalho-Santos et al. 2010), phagocytosis (Cavalier-Smith 2002; Jékely 2007; Yutin et al. 2009), a midbody during cell division (Eme et al. 2009), mitosis (Raikov 1994), and meiosis (Ramesh et al. 2005) were all ancestral eukaryotic cellular features. The availability of functional information from organisms other than animals and yeasts (e.g., Chlamydomonas, Tetrahymena, Trypanosoma) also allow more reliable inferences about the ancestral functions of cytoskeletal components (i.e., not only their ancestral presence or absence) and their regulation (Demonchy et al. 2009; Lechtreck et al. 2009; Suryavanshi et al. 2010).The ancestral complexity of the cytoskeleton in eukaryotes leaves a huge gap between prokaryotes and the earliest eukaryote we can reconstruct (provided that our rooting of the tree is correct) (Cavalier-Smith 2013). Nevertheless, we can attempt to infer the series of events that happened along the stem lineage, leading to the last common ancestor of eukaryotes. Meaningful answers will require the use of a combination of gene family history reconstructions (Wickstead and Gull 2007; Wickstead et al. 2010), transition analyses (Cavalier-Smith 2002), and computer simulations relevant to cell evolution (Jékely 2008).     

Metabolic Stress in Autophagy and Cell Death Pathways

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

What Was the Real Contribution of Endosymbionts to the Eukaryotic Nucleus? Insights from Photosynthetic Eukaryotes

Eukaryotic genomes are composed of genes of different evolutionary origins. This is especially true in the case of photosynthetic eukaryotes, which, in addition to typical eukaryotic genes and genes of mitochondrial origin, also contain genes coming from the primary plastids and, in the case of secondary photosynthetic eukaryotes, many genes provided by the nuclei of red or green algal endosymbionts. Phylogenomic analyses have been applied to detect those genes and, in some cases, have led to proposing the existence of cryptic, no longer visible endosymbionts. However, detecting them is a very difficult task because, most often, those genes were acquired a long time ago and their phylogenetic signal has been heavily erased. We revisit here two examples, the putative cryptic endosymbiosis of green algae in diatoms and chromerids and of Chlamydiae in the first photosynthetic eukaryotes. We show that the evidence sustaining them has been largely overestimated, and we insist on the necessity of careful, accurate phylogenetic analyses to obtain reliable results.Today it is widely accepted that photosynthesis originated in eukaryotes by the endosymbiosis of a cyanobacterium within a heterotrophic eukaryotic host. This occurred in a lineage that subsequently diversified to give rise to the three contemporary groups of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes: Viridiplantae (including green algae and land plants), Rhodophyta and Glaucophyta, grouped collectively within a unique eukaryotic superphylum called Archaeplastida (Adl et al. 2005) or Plantae (Cavalier-Smith 1982). Recently, a second case of primary endosymbioses has been unveiled thanks to the characterization of Paulinella chromatophora, a filose amoeba that hosts a cyanobacterium with a reduced genome that has been described as “a plastid in the making” (Marin et al. 2005; Keeling and Archibald 2008; Nowack et al. 2008). Primary endosymbioses resulted in the establishment of plastids with two membranes. However, a vast variety of eukaryotes possess plastids with three or more membranes. They derive from the endosymbioses of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes within other eukaryotic cells (Delwiche 1999; Keeling 2013). Such secondary endosymbioses have spread photosynthesis across the eukaryotic tree, either by the endosymbiosis of red or of green algae. Whereas it is almost certain that secondary endosymbioses of green algae occurred twice (in euglenids and chlorarachniophytes), secondary red algal plastids are found in a variety of alveolates, stramenopiles, cryptophytes, and haptophytes, and the number of red algal endosymbioses at the origin of these groups has been matter of intense debate (Baurain et al. 2010; Keeling 2010, 2013; Burki et al. 2012b). Moreover, the existence of tertiary endosymbioses (namely, the symbiosis of a secondary photosynthetic eukaryote within another eukaryotic cell) and of plastid replacements makes the picture of plastid evolution in eukaryotes even more complex. Dinoflagellates, some of which have replaced their ancestral red algal plastids by green algae, diatoms, haptophytes, or cryptophytes, are paradigmatic examples of such complex situations (Keeling 2013).The evolution of plastids has been studied using genes from the plastid genome as well as typical eukaryotic nuclear genes, which allow inferring the phylogenies of both the plastids and their hosts. The use of those markers has led to interesting discoveries, such as the monophyly of the Archaeplastida (Moreira et al. 2000; Rodríguez-Ezpeleta et al. 2005) or the difficulties in reconciling the plastid and host histories in eukaryotes with red algal plastids (Baurain et al. 2010; Burki et al. 2012b). However, a third class of genes can also provide useful complementary information: the genes of plastid origin retrieved within the nuclear genome of the host. In fact, contemporary plastids have small genomes, which is due to the fact that most of the original cyanobacterial symbiont genes were lost or transferred to the host nucleus (by a process called endosymbiotic gene transfer, EGT) during the evolution of plastids (Weeden 1981; Martin et al. 1998). These transfer events are not restricted to plastid endosymbioses—the same phenomenon occurred during the endosymbiosis that gave rise to the mitochondria (Gray et al. 1999; Burger et al. 2003).EGT genes may serve to study the evolutionary history of plastids and, in particular, the presence of cryptic endosymbioses. In fact, species that had a plastid in the past but lost photosynthesis may have conserved genes of plastid origin in their nuclear genomes. This has been shown for a variety of nonphotosynthetic eukaryotes, such as, for example, apicomplexan parasites (Fast et al. 2001; Roos et al. 2002; Williams and Keeling 2003; Huang et al. 2004), perkinsids (Stelter et al. 2007; Matsuzaki et al. 2008; Fernández Robledo et al. 2011) or nonphotosynthetic dinoflagellates (Sanchez-Puerta et al. 2007; Slamovits and Keeling 2008), and green algae (de Koning and Keeling 2004). Although much more controversial, potential EGTs have also been used to propose a photosynthetic ancestry for ciliates (Reyes-Prieto et al. 2008) or that algae with secondary plastids of red algal origin, such as diatoms and chromerids, may have contained green algal endosymbionts in their past (Moustafa et al. 2009; Woehle et al. 2011). Likewise, several dozens of potential EGTs have been detected in algae and plants that appear to have been acquired from Chlamydiae, a group of parasitic bacteria (Huang and Gogarten 2007; Becker et al. 2008; Moustafa et al. 2008), which led to proposing that cryptic chlamydial endosymbionts may have helped to establish the first plastids, in particular, by providing essential functions for plastid activity (Greub and Raoult 2003; Ball et al. 2013; Baum 2013).We revise here some of these cases of cryptic endosymbiosis, with special attention on the difficulties in accurately detecting EGT and the importance of proper phylogenetic analysis and of an adequate taxonomic sampling to achieve that task.     

Endocytosis,Signaling, and Beyond

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