Wnt Signaling from Development to Disease: Insights from Model Systems

One of the early surprises in the study of cell adhesion was the discovery that β-catenin plays dual roles, serving as an essential component of cadherin-based cell–cell adherens junctions and also serving as the key regulated effector of the Wnt signaling pathway. Here, we review our current model of Wnt signaling and discuss how recent work using model organisms has advanced our understanding of the roles Wnt signaling plays in both normal development and in disease. These data help flesh out the mechanisms of signaling from the membrane to the nucleus, revealing new protein players and providing novel information about known components of the pathway.Modern biomedical science is a partnership between scientists studying basic cell and developmental processes in model systems and clinicians exploring the basis of human disease. Few fields exemplify this better than Wnt signaling, born 22 years ago with the realization that the oncogene int1 and the Drosophila developmental patterning gene wingless (wg) are homologs (Cabrera et al. 1987; Rijsewijk et al. 1987). Additional connections further fueled research. Drosophila Armadillo (Arm), a component of the Wg pathway, is the homolog of the cell junction proteins β-catenin (βcat) and plakoglobin (McCrea et al. 1991; Peifer et al. 1992; Peifer and Wieschaus 1990) joining Wnt signaling and cadherin-based cell adhesion, a connection we still do not fully understand (see Heuberger and Birchmeier 2009). Adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), the tumor suppressor mutated in most colon cancers, binds βcat and is a key regulator of Wnt signaling (Rubinfeld et al. 1993; Su et al. 1993), putting the Wnt field even more squarely in the center of cancer research. Here, we outline recent advances in understanding Wnt signaling, casting new light on these critical regulators of development, homeostasis, and disease.     

Protein-Folding Homeostasis in the Endoplasmic Reticulum and Nutritional Regulation

The flux of newly synthesized proteins entering the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is under negative regulation by the ER-localized PKR-like ER kinase (PERK). PERK is activated by unfolded protein stress in the ER lumen and inhibits new protein synthesis by the phosphorylation of translation initiation factor eIF2α. This homeostatic mechanism, shared by all animal cells, has proven to be especially important to the well-being of professional secretory cells, notably the endocrine pancreas. PERK, its downstream effectors, and the allied branches of the unfolded protein response intersect broadly with signaling pathways that regulate nutrient assimilation, and ER stress and the response to it have been implicated in the development of the metabolic syndrome accompanying obesity in mammals. Here we review our current understanding of the cell biology underlying these relationships.Insulin was among the first proteins to be sequenced, among the first to have its structure solved, and therefore among the first to provide clues to the diversity of modifications that affect secreted proteins. The β cell of the pancreas, which produces insulin, is one of the best-studied secretory cells, and the role of the secretory pathway in insulin biosynthesis has been recognized from the dawn of modern cell biology. Years later, when the stress pathways that contribute to protein-folding homeostasis in the endoplasmic reticulum (the unfolded protein response, UPR) came under scrutiny (Gardner et al. 2013; Olzmann et al. 2013), it was revealed that their integrity is important to insulin metabolism and to the function of β cells.The precursor of insulin, prepro-insulin, is recruited to the ER membrane cotranslationally through its amino-terminal signal sequence (Mandon et al. 2013). Oxidative folding and signal sequence removal yield mature pro-insulin, whose tertiary structure is stabilized by three disulfide bonds (Bulleid 2012). Folded pro-insulin clears ER quality control (Braakman and Hebert 2013) and traffics distally (Lord et al. 2013).The peptidase involved in post-ER steps of pro-insulin maturation has long been recognized as playing a key role in its secretion, but the sensitivity of insulin biosynthesis to integrity of ER steps was not recognized until later. An early clue came from study of a naturally occurring mutation in mouse Ins2. The Akita mutation results in a Cys-92→Tyr substitution, disrupting an essential disulfide bond and leading to misfolding of proinsulin 2 (Wang et al. 1999). Interestingly, a single copy of the mutation is sufficient to compromise β cells, whereas homozygosity for a null mutation in Ins2 is without an obvious phenotype in mice (because of redundancy between a rodent’s two insulin genes) (Duvillie et al. 1997). The biochemical (and phenotypic) dominance of the Akita mutation in mice (Colombo et al. 2008) fit well with retention of the mutant pro-insulin in the ER, high levels of UPR signaling, and with a progressive decline in β-cell mass and insulin stores as the mutant mice age. Thus, a perturbation to ER protein-folding homeostasis induced by the misfolding-prone mutant pro-insulin has a long-term negative effect on β-cell function.Unbiased human genetics provided an additional clue to the importance of protein-folding homeostasis in the ER; the Wolcott–Rallison syndrome is a rare recessive monogenic form of hypoinsulinaemic neonatal diabetes associated with bone dysplasia and episodic liver failure (Julier and Nicolino 2010). Positional cloning revealed that the causative mutations in EIF2AK3 severely disrupted the expression or function of PERK (Delepine et al. 2000), an ER-localized stress-activated kinase that tunes rates of new protein synthesis to the unfolded protein load in the ER (Harding et al. 1999). Although known to be enriched in β cells, PERK expression is ubiquitous (Shi et al. 1998). Therefore, the prominence of diabetes in the phenotype associated with loss-of-function mutations in a ubiquitous component of the unfolded protein response (UPR) pointed to a special role for ER homeostasis in β-cell health.More surprising has been the link between chronic ER stress and the ability of insulin target tissues to respond to the hormone; it has emerged that nutrient excess and obesity are associated with higher levels of UPR signaling in the liver and fat and that steps that mitigate ER stress in these tissues ameliorate the insulin resistance that is part of the metabolic syndrome linked to nutrient excess. Thus, ER stress and the response to it affect both the insulin-producing β cell and the insulin-responsive tissues and may therefore influence the pathophysiology of the common, type II form of diabetes mellitus by limiting both the production of insulin and the body’s sensitivity to it.     

Quality Control of Mitochondrial Proteostasis

A decline in mitochondrial activity has been associated with aging and is a hallmark of many neurological diseases. Surveillance mechanisms acting at the molecular, organellar, and cellular level monitor mitochondrial integrity and ensure the maintenance of mitochondrial proteostasis. Here we will review the central role of mitochondrial chaperones and proteases, the cytosolic ubiquitin-proteasome system, and the mitochondrial unfolded response in this interconnected quality control network, highlighting the dual function of some proteases in protein quality control within the organelle and for the regulation of mitochondrial fusion and mitophagy.In all cellular compartments, correct protein folding is critical to maintain cellular homeostasis. In cases where proteins become misfolded or damaged, it is imperative that they are turned over and removed to prevent the formation of toxic folding intermediates or the accumulation of aggregates to levels that can be deleterious for the cell. Several neurodegenerative diseases share a common pathogenic mechanism, which involves the formation of fibrillar aggregates of a particular protein that can accumulate in the cytosol, the nucleus, or the mitochondria. Examples of this include accumulation of the amyloid-β peptide in Alzheimer’s disease (Kayed et al. 2003; Tanzi and Bertram 2005), accumulation of α-synuclein in Parkinson’s disease (Spillantini et al. 1997; Zarranz et al. 2004), and aggregation of a mutant form of the huntingtin protein caused by extended polyglutamine stretches in Huntington’s disease (DiFiglia et al. 1997). Although the exact mechanism of pathogenesis for these diseases remains unresolved, mitochondrial dysfunction is implicated in their progression, which may in turn be responsible for the loss of neurological cell populations because of their sensitivity and requirement for functional mitochondria (Rodolfo et al. 2010).The evolution of mitochondria began approximately 1.5 billion years ago after an α-proteobacterium was engulfed by a preeukaryotic cell (Gray et al. 1999). Since that time, mitochondria have retained two phospholipid bilayers that segregate two aqueous compartments, the mitochondrial intermembrane space (IMS) and the mitochondrial matrix (Palade 1953). Mitochondria are found in essentially all eukaryotic cells and play integral roles in a number of the cell''s metabolic pathways. For example, mitochondria are the key players in cellular ATP production through an elaborate respiratory chain network found in the organelles inner membrane (IM) (Mitchell 1961; Leonard and Schapira 2000). Mitochondria are also required for the β-oxidation of fatty acids, Fe-S biosynthesis, and Ca²⁺ homeostasis (Pinton et al. 1998; Rizzuto et al. 2000; Lill 2009; Modre-Osprian et al. 2009). Moreover, mitochondria are key regulators of programmed cell death and they participate in developmental processes as well as aging (Singh 2004; Green 2005).In contrast to early depictions of mitochondria as singular kidney bean shaped entities, it is now well established that mitochondria form elaborate, reticular networks in many tissues (Bereiter-Hahn 1990). The ability of mitochondria to form such networks arises from two major factors: (1) Specialized machineries in the mitochondrial outer membrane (OM) and the IM allow mitochondria to fuse and divide and (2) mitochondria are able to be shuttled along cytoskeletal elements (Anesti and Scorrano 2006; Hoppins et al. 2007). This plasticity of mitochondria ensures that they are able to respond to different cellular cues, which is potentially important for their numerous functions. In different cell types, mitochondria adopt varying morphologies (Kuznetsov et al. 2009). For example, in cultured fibroblasts mitochondria form extensive reticular networks, whereas in neuronal cells, mitochondria can be found enriched at areas of high-energy demand, including presynaptic termini, axon initial segments, and growth cones. Furthermore, in muscle cells, mitochondria adopt a very uniform intermyofibrillar conformation (Vendelin et al. 2005). The dynamic nature of mitochondria provides an explanation as to how they adopt varying organizations in different cell populations. The importance of mitochondrial networks is highlighted by the fact that mutations in components involved in maintaining mitochondrial dynamics results in neurodegenerative diseases (Chan 2006; Olichon et al. 2006; Knott et al. 2008; Martinelli and Rugarli 2010; Winklhofer and Haass 2010).     

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.     

Protein Solubility and Protein Homeostasis: A Generic View of Protein Misfolding Disorders

According to the “generic view” of protein aggregation, the ability to self-assemble into stable and highly organized structures such as amyloid fibrils is not an unusual feature exhibited by a small group of peptides and proteins with special sequence or structural properties, but rather a property shared by most proteins. At the same time, through a wide variety of techniques, many of which were originally devised for applications in other disciplines, it has also been established that the maintenance of proteins in a soluble state is a fundamental aspect of protein homeostasis. Taken together, these advances offer a unified framework for understanding the molecular basis of protein aggregation and for the rational development of therapeutic strategies based on the biological and chemical regulation of protein solubility.Virtually every complex biochemical process taking place in living cells depends on the ability of the molecules involved to self-assemble into functional structures (Dobson 2003; Robinson et al. 2007; Russel et al. 2009), and a sophisticated quality control system is responsible for regulating the reactions leading to this organization within the cellular environment (Dobson 2003; Balch et al. 2008; Hartl and Hayer-Hartl 2009; Powers et al. 2009; Vendruscolo and Dobson 2009). Proteins are the molecules that are essential for enabling, regulating, and controlling almost all the tasks necessary to maintain such a balance. To function, the majority of our proteins need to fold into specific three-dimensional structures following their biosynthesis in the ribosome (Hartl and Hayer-Hartl 2002). The wide variety of highly specific structures that results from protein folding, and which serve to bring key functional groups into close proximity, has enabled living systems to develop an astonishing diversity and selectivity in their underlying chemical processes by using a common set of just 20 basic molecular components, the amino acids (Dobson 2003). Given the central importance of protein folding, it is not surprising that the failure of proteins to fold correctly, or to remain correctly folded, is at the origin of a wide variety of pathological conditions, including late-onset diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases (Dobson 2003; Chiti and Dobson 2006; Haass and Selkoe 2007). In many of these disorders proteins self-assemble in an aberrant manner into large molecular aggregates, notably amyloid fibrils (Chiti and Dobson 2006; Ramirez-Alvarado et al. 2010).     

Cellular Mechanisms Controlling Caspase Activation and Function

Caspases are the primary drivers of apoptotic cell death, cleaving cellular proteins that are critical for dismantling the dying cell. Initially translated as inactive zymogenic precursors, caspases are activated in response to a variety of cell death stimuli. In addition to factors required for their direct activation (e.g., dimerizing adaptor proteins in the case of initiator caspases that lie at the apex of apoptotic signaling cascades), caspases are regulated by a variety of cellular factors in a myriad of physiological and pathological settings. For example, caspases may be modified posttranslationally (e.g., by phosphorylation or ubiquitylation) or through interaction of modulatory factors with either the zymogenic or active form of a caspase, altering its activation and/or activity. These regulatory events may inhibit or enhance enzymatic activity or may affect activity toward particular cellular substrates. Finally, there is emerging literature to suggest that caspases can participate in a variety of cellular processes unrelated to apoptotic cell death. In these settings, it is particularly important that caspases are maintained under stringent control to avoid inadvertent cell death. It is likely that continued examination of these processes will reveal new mechanisms of caspase regulation with implications well beyond control of apoptotic cell death.Apoptosis is a form of programmed cell death that eliminates individual cells within an organism while preserving the overall structure of surrounding tissue. Many of the prominent morphological features of apoptosis were first described in 1972 by Kerr, Wyllie, and Currie (Kerr et al. 1972). However, it was not until the mid-1990s that apoptosis was linked to the activation of the cysteine-dependent aspartate-driven proteases (caspases), which cleave key intracellular substrates to promote cell death (Cerretti et al. 1992; Nicholson et al. 1995; Alnemri et al. 1996; Liu et al. 1996; Thornberry and Lazebnik 1998). Given the critical role that caspases play in dismantling the cell during apoptosis, their activation and subsequent activity are highly regulated. Failure of a cell to properly modulate caspase activity can cause aberrant or untimely apoptotic cell death, potentially leading to carcinogenesis, autoimmunity, neurodegeneration, and immunodeficiency (Thompson 1995; Hanahan and Weinberg 2000; Yuan and Yankner 2000; Li and Yuan 2008).Caspases are synthesized within the cell as inactive zymogens that lack significant protease activity. Thus, caspases are, in essence, regulated from the moment of protein synthesis in that they are not activated until receipt of specific death stimuli (Earnshaw et al. 1999). The primary structure of a caspase is an amino-terminal prodomain and a carboxy-terminal protease domain, which contains the key catalytic cysteine residue. Caspases are categorized as initiator or effector caspases, based on their position in apoptotic signaling cascades. The initiator caspases (caspase-2, -8, -9, and -10) act apically in cell death pathways and all share long, structurally similar prodomains. This group of enzymes is activated through “induced proximity” when adaptor proteins interact with the prodomains and promote caspase dimerization (Boatright et al. 2003; Baliga et al. 2004; Pop et al. 2006; Riedl and Salvesen 2007; Wachmann et al. 2010). In contrast, the effector caspases (caspase-3, -6, and -7) have shorter prodomains and exist in the cell as preformed, but inactive, homodimers. Following cleavage mediated by an initiator caspase, effector caspases act directly on specific cellular substrates to dismantle the cell. Although many individual caspase substrates have been implicated in specific aspects of cellular destruction (e.g., lamin cleavage is required for the efficient packaging of nuclei into small membrane-bound vesicles), recent proteomic approaches have greatly expanded the known repertoire of proteolytic products generated during apoptosis (Van Damme et al. 2005; Dix et al. 2008; Mahrus et al. 2008). Further work will be needed to confirm these findings and to determine how (or if) all of these substrates participate in the apoptotic process (see Poreba et al. 2013), especially as new details emerge on the relationship between posttranslational modifications, like phosphorylation, and caspase cleavage (Dix et al. 2012).     

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.     

Cadherin-mediated Intercellular Adhesion and Signaling Cascades Involving Small GTPases

Epithelia form physical barriers that separate the internal milieu of the body from its external environment. The biogenesis of functional epithelia requires the precise coordination of many cellular processes. One of the key events in epithelial biogenesis is the establishment of cadherin-dependent cell–cell contacts, which initiate morphological changes and the formation of other adhesive structures. Cadherin-mediated adhesions generate intracellular signals that control cytoskeletal reorganization, polarity, and vesicle trafficking. Among such signaling pathways, those involving small GTPases play critical roles in epithelial biogenesis. Assembly of E-cadherin activates several small GTPases and, in turn, the activated small GTPases control the effects of E-cadherin-mediated adhesions on epithelial biogenesis. Here, we focus on small GTPase signaling at E-cadherin-mediated epithelial junctions.Cell–cell adhesions are involved in a diverse range of physiological processes, including morphological changes during tissue development, cell scattering, wound healing, and synaptogenesis (Adams and Nelson 1998; Gumbiner 2000; Halbleib and Nelson 2006; Takeichi 1995; Tepass et al. 2000). In epithelial cells, cell–cell adhesions are classified into three kinds of adhesions: adherens junction, tight junction, and desmosome (for more details, see Meng and Takeichi 2009, Furuse 2009, and Delva et al. 2009, respectively). A key event in epithelial polarization and biogenesis is the establishment of cadherin-dependent cell–cell contacts. Cadherins belong to a large family of adhesion molecules that require Ca²⁺ for their homophilic interactions (Adams and Nelson 1998; Blanpain and Fuchs 2009; Gumbiner 2000; Hartsock and Nelson 2008; Takeichi 1995; Tepass et al. 2000). Cadherins form transinteraction on the surface of neighboring cells (for details, see Shapiro and Weis 2009). For the development of strong and rigid adhesions, cadherins are clustered concomitantly with changes in the organization of the actin cytoskeleton (Tsukita et al. 1992). Classical cadherins are required, but not sufficient, to initiate cell–cell contacts, and other adhesion protein complexes subsequently assemble (for details, see Green et al. 2009). These complexes include the tight junction, which controls paracellular permeability, and desmosomes, which support the structural continuum of epithelial cells. A fundamental problem is to understand how these diverse cellular processes are regulated and coordinated. Intracellular signals, generated when cells attach with one another, mediate these complicated processes.Several signaling pathways upstream or downstream of cadherin-mediated cell–cell adhesions have been identified (Perez-Moreno et al. 2003) (see also McCrea et al. 2009). Among these pathways, small GTPases including the Rho and Ras family GTPases play critical roles in epithelial biogenesis and have been studied extensively. Many key morphological and functional changes are induced when these small GTPases act at epithelial junctions, where they mediate an interplay between cell–cell adhesion molecules and fundamental cellular processes including cytoskeletal activity, polarity, and vesicle trafficking. In addition to these small GTPases, Ca²⁺ signaling and phosphorylation of cadherin complexes also play pivotal roles in the formation and maintenance of cadherin-mediated adhesions. Here, we focus on signaling pathways involving the small GTPases in E-cadherin-mediated cell–cell adhesions. Other signaling pathways are described in recent reviews (Braga 2002; Fukata and Kaibuchi 2001; Goldstein and Macara 2007; McLachlan et al. 2007; Tsukita et al. 2008; Yap and Kovacs 2003; see also McCrea et al. 2009).     

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).     

Imaging the Dynamics of Endocytosis in Live Mammalian Tissues

In mammalian cells, endocytosis plays a pivotal role in regulating several basic cellular functions. Up to now, the dynamics and the organization of the endocytic pathways have been primarily investigated in reductionist model systems such as cell and organ cultures. Although these experimental models have been fully successful in unraveling the endocytic machinery at a molecular level, our understanding of the regulation and the role of endocytosis in vivo has been limited. Recently, advancements in intravital microscopy have made it possible to extend imaging in live animals to subcellular structures, thus revealing new aspects of the molecular machineries regulating membrane trafficking that were not previously appreciated in vitro. Here, we focus on the use of intravital microscopy to study endocytosis in vivo, and discuss how this approach will allow addressing two fundamental questions: (1) how endocytic processes are organized in mammalian tissues, and (2) how they contribute to organ physiopathology.Endocytosis is a fundamental process used by the cell to internalize molecules from the plasma membrane (Mellman 1996; Doherty and McMahon 2009), and its dysregulation is the cause of several pathological conditions, such as cancer and neurodegenerative, metabolic, and storage diseases (Lanzetti and Di Fiore 2008; Mosesson et al. 2008; Ballabio and Gieselmann 2009).In mammals, endocytosis has been primarily studied in cell culture, which has been instrumental in identifying various endocytic pathways and elucidating the trafficking of internalized molecules throughout the endolysosomal system (Conner and Schmid 2003; Maxfield and McGraw 2004; Donaldson et al. 2009; Hurley and Stenmark 2011). The degree of complexity in the organization and the regulation of the endocytic processes have been shown to substantially increase in polarized cells (Mostov et al. 2003; Folsch et al. 2009) and in organ cultures (Dunn et al. 1980; Kandimalla et al. 2009; Khandelwal et al. 2010), which recapitulate some of the architectural features of the intact tissue. The scenario is further complicated in live animals, where tissues are continuously exposed to a specific combination of cues coming from the vasculature, the central nervous system, and the extracellular environment, which are difficult to reconstitute accurately in vitro. Therefore, although our knowledge of the molecular machineries controlling mammalian endocytosis has substantially increased in the last decades, there are still fundamental issues that have not been explored yet, such as how endocytic pathways are organized and regulated in mammalian tissues. Specifically, it is fundamental to establish whether in vivo cells show the same regulation of endocytic pathways that has been reported in vitro, or how molecules are internalized and trafficked in the presence of physiological levels of ligands and regulatory molecules. Another question is what is the contribution of the endocytic pathways to the physiopathology of a specific tissue or organ. For example, it is of paramount importance to determine whether and how endocytic pathways are altered in epithelial and stromal cells during tumor development and progression, and which specific cell function is affected by their dysregulation.Investigations of endocytosis in live mammals (i.e., rodents) were extensively performed during the 1980s and 1990s by using conventional techniques (e.g., biochemical assays, EM, and indirect immunofluorescence). However, the advent of the green fluorescent protein (GFP) technology, which has enabled imaging subcellular organelles in real time, has significantly shifted the focus toward cell cultures.The recent advancements in intravital microscopy (IVM), which encompasses a series of light microscopy–based techniques, have now made possible imaging biological processes in live animals at a subcellular resolution (Weigert et al. 2013). In this perspective, we focus on reviewing most of the recent data on IVM and endocytosis and try to convey to the reader a sense of the potential, challenges, and limitations of this approach. However, before discussing the “heart of the matter,” we start by briefly pointing out the advantages of using animal models versus the more popular and well-established in vitro model systems.     

Effects of Membrane Trafficking on Signaling by Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

The intracellular trafficking machinery contributes to the spatial and temporal control of signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs). The primary role in this process is played by endocytic trafficking, which regulates the localization of RTKs and their downstream effectors, as well as the duration and the extent of their activity. The key regulatory points along the endocytic pathway are internalization of RTKs from the plasma membrane, their sorting to degradation or recycling, and their residence in various endosomal compartments. Here I will review factors and mechanisms that modulate RTK signaling by (1) affecting receptor internalization, (2) regulating the balance between degradation and recycling of RTK, and (3) compartmentalization of signals in endosomes and other organelles. Cumulatively, these mechanisms illustrate a multilayered control of RTK signaling exerted by the trafficking machinery.At the cellular level, receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) need to be properly localized to function as signal-receiving and signal-transmitting devices (Lemmon and Schlessinger 2010). To receive signals (i.e., to bind extracellular ligands), RTKs have to be exposed at the surface of the plasma membrane. To transmit signals after ligand binding by RTKs, appropriate signaling components have to be available within intracellular compartments: in the cytoplasm, in association with membrane-bound organelles and in the cell nucleus. Importantly, the intracellular distribution of RTKs and their associated partners is not static but undergoes dynamic changes in different phases of signaling, as reflected for example by endocytic internalization of activated RTKs (Scita and Di Fiore 2010). Therefore, to function properly, the whole RTK signaling machinery within the cell has to be organized and tightly controlled both in space and in time. This organization and control are ensured by intracellular trafficking machineries, mainly by membrane transport systems such as endocytosis and secretion but also by other distribution systems (e.g., responsible for nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of proteins).Recent years have brought increasing evidence that intracellular membrane trafficking, in particular endocytic internalization, degradation, and recycling, can profoundly affect the signaling properties of RTKs (Mukherjee et al. 2006; Abella and Park 2009; Lemmon and Schlessinger 2010; Scita and Di Fiore 2010; Grecco et al. 2011; Sigismund et al. 2012). The changes in the amounts of RTKs at the cell surface can alter the cellular responses when ligands are abundant (Grecco et al. 2011). In turn, the presence of a given RTK at the plasma membrane is determined by the rates of three trafficking processes: delivery of newly synthesized molecules by the secretory pathway, their internalization (occurring for both ligand-bound and ligand-free molecules), and endocytic recycling. Although the molecular details concerning the regulation of RTK delivery to the plasma membrane are not well known, numerous studies document various mechanisms by which internalization and recycling of RTKs can be modulated, thus affecting the signaling outputs (Le Roy and Wrana 2005). In addition to the regulation of RTKs at the cell surface, trafficking processes control the intracellular fate of endocytosed RTKs. Following internalization, RTKs can be either targeted for lysosomal degradation, or recycled back to the plasma membrane (Mukherjee et al. 2006; Abella and Park 2009; Scita and Di Fiore 2010). The first route results in the termination of signaling, whereas the second allows for sustained signaling if the ligand is available. Usually degradation and recycling of a given RTK can occur simultaneously but the balance between them is crucial to determine the net signaling output. Again, the molecular mechanisms that can shift the fate of internalized RTKs between degradation and recycling, thus changing RTK signaling, have begun to emerge in recent years (Polo and Di Fiore 2006; von Zastrow and Sorkin 2007; Sorkin and von Zastrow 2009; Sigismund et al. 2012). Finally, in contrast to an early view that only RTKs present at the plasma membrane are signaling competent, it is now accepted that in many cases activated RTKs can emit signals also after internalization into intracellular compartments (Miaczynska et al. 2004b; Miaczynska and Bar-Sagi 2010; Platta and Stenmark 2011). In some cell types (e.g., in neurons), such “signaling endosomes” are crucial for signal propagation within the cell and for the final cellular response. Moreover, endosomes can serve as platforms for amplification and compartmentalization of signals emitted by RTKs (Sadowski et al. 2009; Platta and Stenmark 2011).In this article, I will review factors and mechanisms that modulate RTK signaling by (1) affecting receptor internalization, (2) regulating the balance between degradation and recycling of RTK, and (3) compartmentalization of signals in endosomes and other organelles. As the membrane trafficking system of a cell is highly interconnected and can be considered a global dynamic continuum, it is important to note that often one primary alteration at a given stage of RTK trafficking may affect other transport steps or compartments, thus causing generalized changes in the intracellular routing and signaling of RTKs.     

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).     

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).     

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.     

Extracellular Matrix Degradation and Remodeling in Development and Disease

The extracellular matrix (ECM) serves diverse functions and is a major component of the cellular microenvironment. The ECM is a highly dynamic structure, constantly undergoing a remodeling process where ECM components are deposited, degraded, or otherwise modified. ECM dynamics are indispensible during restructuring of tissue architecture. ECM remodeling is an important mechanism whereby cell differentiation can be regulated, including processes such as the establishment and maintenance of stem cell niches, branching morphogenesis, angiogenesis, bone remodeling, and wound repair. In contrast, abnormal ECM dynamics lead to deregulated cell proliferation and invasion, failure of cell death, and loss of cell differentiation, resulting in congenital defects and pathological processes including tissue fibrosis and cancer. Understanding the mechanisms of ECM remodeling and its regulation, therefore, is essential for developing new therapeutic interventions for diseases and novel strategies for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.The extracellular matrix (ECM) forms a milieu surrounding cells that reciprocally influences cellular function to modulate diverse fundamental aspects of cell biology (Hynes 2009). The diversity and sophistication of ECM components and their respective cell surface receptors are among the most salient features during metazoan evolution (Har-el and Tanzer 1993; Hutter et al. 2000; Whittaker et al. 2006; Engler et al. 2009; Huxley-Jones et al. 2009; Ozbek et al. 2010). The ECM is extremely versatile and performs many functions in addition to its structural role. As a major component of the microenvironment of a cell, the ECM takes part in most basic cell behaviors, from cell proliferation, adhesion and migration, to cell differentiation and cell death (Hynes 2009). This pleiotropic aspect of ECM function depends on the highly dynamic structure of ECM and its remodeling as an effective mechanism whereby diverse cellular behaviors can be regulated. This concept is particularly important when considering processes and cell behaviors that need to be deployed promptly and transiently and wherein cell–cell and cell–matrix interactions are constantly changing (Daley et al. 2008).ECM dynamics are a feature of tissues wherein radical remodeling occurs, such as during metamorphosis of insects and amphibians or remodeling of the adult bone and mammary gland, and in developmental processes, including neural crest migration, angiogenesis, tooth and skeletal development, branching morphogenesis, maturation of synapses, and the nervous system (Berardi et al. 2004; Fukumoto and Yamada 2005; Page-McCaw et al. 2007; Zimmermann and Dours-Zimmermann 2008).ECM dynamics can result from changes of ECM composition, for example, because of altered synthesis or degradation of one or more ECM components, or in architecture because of altered organization. Mounting evidence has shown how individual ECM components are laid down, cross-linked, and organized together via covalent and noncovalent modifications and how they can greatly influence the fundamental aspects of cell behavior (Lopez et al. 2008; Engler et al. 2009; Egeblad et al. 2010b). This higher level of ECM organization is also dynamic and subject to sustained remodeling as mediated by reciprocal interactions between the ECM and its resident cellular components (Daley et al. 2008). Understandably, ECM dynamics are tightly regulated to ensure normal development, physiology, and robustness of organ systems. This is achieved by redundant mechanisms to modulate the expression and function of ECM modifying enzymes at multiple levels. When such control mechanisms are corrupted, ECM dynamics become deregulated, leading to various human congenital defects and diseases, including cancer.Here, we examine the players involved in ECM remodeling and how they are tightly regulated to achieve a delicate balance between stability and remodeling of the ECM. We focus on the cellular and molecular mechanisms through which ECM dynamics influence cellular behaviors. We illustrate how a wide variety of cell behaviors can be deployed by exploiting the important roles of ECM dynamics to build vertebrate organs and maintain their functions, and how deregulation of ECM dynamics contributes to the initiation and progression of human cancer.