Structure and Biochemistry of Cadherins and Catenins

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

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).     

The Desmosome

Desmosomes are intercellular junctions that tether intermediate filaments to the plasma membrane. Desmogleins and desmocollins, members of the cadherin superfamily, mediate adhesion at desmosomes. Cytoplasmic components of the desmosome associate with the desmosomal cadherin tails through a series of protein interactions, which serve to recruit intermediate filaments to sites of desmosome assembly. These desmosomal plaque components include plakoglobin and the plakophilins, members of the armadillo gene family. Linkage to the cytoskeleton is mediated by the intermediate filament binding protein, desmoplakin, which associates with both plakoglobin and plakophilins. Although desmosomes are critical for maintaining stable cell–cell adhesion, emerging evidence indicates that they are also dynamic structures that contribute to cellular processes beyond that of cell adhesion. This article outlines the structure and function of the major desmosomal proteins, and explores the contributions of this protein complex to tissue architecture and morphogenesis.The desmosome is an adhesive intercellular junction that is crucial to tissues that experience mechanical stress, such as the myocardium, bladder, gastrointestinal mucosa, and skin (Getsios et al. 2004b; Holthofer et al. 2007). The desmosome was first observed in the spinous layer of epidermis by the Italian pathologist Giulio Bizzozero (1846–1901). Bizzozero''s observations of these small dense nodules, subsequently named “nodes of Bizzozero,” led him to the insightful interpretation of these structures as adhesive cell–cell contact points. The term desmosome was later coined by Josef Schaffer in 1920 and is derived from the Greek words “desmo,” meaning bond or fastening, and “soma,” meaning body (Wells 2005; Calkins and Setzer 2007). The introduction of electron microscopy yielded a series of advances by Porter, Odland, and Kelly in the 1950s and 1960s, which revealed desmosome organization at the ultrastructural level. These studies and others indicated that the desmosome can be divided into three morphologically identifiable zones: the extracellular core region (desmoglea), the outer dense plaque (ODP), and the inner dense plaque (IDP) (Fig. 1A) (Kowalczyk et al. 1994; Schmidt et al. 1994; Green and Jones 1996; North et al. 1999; Garrod and Chidgey 2008).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.A model for the structure of desmosomes. (A) Electron micrograph of a desmosome. (B) Schematic of desmosomal proteins and relative distance from the plasma membrane (PM). The desmosomal cadherins, the desmogleins and desmocollins, extend into extracellular core and outer dense plaque (ODP) to establish contact and adhere to neighboring cells in a Ca²⁺-dependent manner. The cadherin cytoplasmic tails associate linker proteins, plakoglobin (PG), the plakophilins (PKP), and desmoplakin (DP). DP binds to keratin intermediate filaments (KIF) within the inner dense plaque (IDP), serving to tether the intermediate filaments to the plasma membrane. (Adapted with permission from Kottke et al. 2006.)In the mid 1970s, Skerrow and Matoltsy (Skerrow and Matoltsy 1974a; Skerrow and Matoltsy 1974b) advanced the field by isolating desmosomes using biochemical approaches (Bass-Zubek and Green 2007).These landmark studies provided a foundation for the Franke and Steinberg laboratories to characterize the transmembrane glycoproteins and cytoplasmic plaque proteins that linked the structure to the intermediate filament cytoskeleton, and to develop immunological tools for localizing specific components (Franke et al. 1981; Kapprell et al. 1985; Steinberg et al. 1987). Collectively, these and other studies shaped our current view of how desmosomal components are organized.The transmembrane glycoproteins, termed desmogleins and desmocollins (Garrod and Chidgey 2008), represent separate subfamilies of the cadherin superfamily of calcium dependent adhesion molecules. The extracellular domains of the desmogleins and desmocollins mediate adhesion, whereas the cytoplasmic tails of these cadherins associate with the desmosomal plaque proteins. The outer dense plaque consists of the cytoplasmic tails of the desmosomal cadherins, which bind to members of the armadillo and plakin family of linker proteins (Kowalczyk et al. 1994; Getsios et al. 2004b; Garrod and Chidgey 2008). Plakoglobin, a member of the armadillo family, binds directly to the cytoplasmic tails of both the desmogleins and the desmocollins (Wahl et al. 1996; Witcher et al. 1996). Desmoplakin, a member of the plakin family, interacts with both plakoglobin and another subgroup of armadillo family proteins, the plakophilins (Cowin and Burke 1996). Finally, the interaction between desmoplakin and the keratin filaments forms the inner dense plaque, tethering the cytoskeletal network to the adhesion complex (Fig. 1B) (Kowalczyk et al. 1994; Getsios et al. 2004b; Garrod and Chidgey 2008).The following sections of this article describe the structural and functional characteristics of the major desmosomal proteins. In addition, we discuss differences in tissue expression patterns of desmosomal proteins and the role of desmosomes in human disease. A comprehensive review of additional proteins found to regulate or associate with desmosomes is provided elsewhere (Holthofer et al. 2007) and discussion of desmosome dynamics is provided in Green et al. 2009.     

Dynamic Transbilayer Lipid Asymmetry

Cells have thousands of different lipids. In the plasma membrane, and in membranes of the late secretory and endocytotic pathways, these lipids are not evenly distributed over the two leaflets of the lipid bilayer. The basis for this transmembrane lipid asymmetry lies in the fact that glycerolipids are primarily synthesized on the cytosolic and sphingolipids on the noncytosolic surface of cellular membranes, that cholesterol has a higher affinity for sphingolipids than for glycerolipids. In addition, P4-ATPases, “flippases,” actively translocate the aminophospholipids phosphatidylserine and phosphatidylethanolamine to the cytosolic surface. ABC transporters translocate lipids in the opposite direction but they generally act as exporters rather than “floppases.” The steady state asymmetry of the lipids can be disrupted within seconds by the activation of phospholipases and scramblases. The asymmetric lipid distribution has multiple implications for physiological events at the membrane surface. Moreover, the active translocation also contributes to the generation of curvature in the budding of transport vesicles.A lipid bilayer consisting of phosphatidylcholine (PC) with one saturated and one unsaturated acyl chain is stable, flexible, and semipermeable. It is the simplest model of a biomembrane. In such membranes, PC with a spin label on its choline headgroup diffused rapidly in the plane of the membrane with a diffusion coefficient of 1.8 µm²/sec (Devaux and McConnell 1972). In contrast, PC movement between leaflets, “flip-flop,” was slow with a half-time of >6 h at 30°C (Kornberg and McConnell 1971). Similar half-times for PC flip-flop were measured in erythrocyte membranes, a mammalian plasma membrane with a complex lipid composition (Rousselet et al. 1976; Renooij and Van Golde 1977; van Meer et al. 1980). Interestingly, the erythrocyte membrane maintains an asymmetric lipid distribution across the lipid bilayer with all of its phosphatidylserine (PS) and most of its phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) in the cytosolic leaflet (Bretscher 1972; Verkleij et al. 1973). A critical discussion of these early data and the techniques used can be found in (Op den Kamp 1979).It was then observed that the enrichment of aminophospholipids in the cytosolic leaflet is maintained by an ATP-consuming translocator that flips these lipids from the outer leaflet across the lipid bilayer (Seigneuret and Devaux 1984). The flippase was later identified as a P4-ATPase (Tang et al. 1996; Soupene and Kuypers 2006). Around the same time it was found that an ABC transporter, ABCB4, was involved in transporting PC into the bile (Smit et al. 1993), and studies on the closely related ABCB1 proved that these transporters can translocate lipids across the plasma membrane onto acceptors in the extracellular space (van Helvoort et al. 1996). Finally, evidence was provided for passive, bidirectional movement of lipids across the ER membrane and under some conditions across the plasma membrane, in which cases the responsible proteins have not yet been unequivocally identified (Sanyal and Menon 2009; Bevers and Williamson 2010). Thus, we now have a general picture of how lipid asymmetry is generated, maintained, and disrupted. However, there are still important gaps in our knowledge. For example, the transbilayer orientation of the sterols that make up one-third of the lipids in eukaryotic plasma membranes has still not been resolved satisfactorily. Moreover, we do not understand mechanistically how translocators and exporters work and how their activity is regulated.     

The Measure of Success: Constraints, Objectives, and Tradeoffs in Morphogen-mediated Patterning

A large, diverse, and growing number of strategies have been proposed to explain how morphogen gradients achieve robustness and precision. We argue that, to be useful, the evaluation of such strategies must take into account the constraints imposed by competing objectives and performance tradeoffs. This point is illustrated through a mathematical and computational analysis of the strategy of self-enhanced morphogen clearance. The results suggest that the usefulness of this strategy comes less from its ability to increase robustness to morphogen source fluctuations per se, than from its ability to overcome specific kinds of noise, and to increase the fraction of a morphogen gradient within which robust threshold positions may be established. This work also provides new insights into the longstanding question of why morphogen gradients show a maximum range in vivo.In recent years, much research on morphogen gradients has shifted from purely mechanistic questions—how gradients form and how morphogens signal—to strategic ones—how gradients perform well in the face of various kinds of constraints and perturbations. Forty years ago, Francis Crick was among the first to call attention to constraints that morphogens face, noting that the time required to spread a signal by random transport through a tissue varies with the square of distance (Crick 1970). Using order-of-magnitude calculations, he argued that observed biological maxima for morphogen-mediated patterning were just about where they should be if morphogen signals spread by aqueous diffusion.Although the idea that diffusion time is what limits the sizes of morphogen gradients remains untested, Crick''s work established a precedent of seeking explanations for developmental processes in terms of constraints imposed by the physical world. In the area of biological pattern formation, continued interest in how real-world limits constrain mechanisms has led many current investigators to focus on matters of robustness, the engineering term that describes the relative insensitivity of a system''s behavior to perturbations it may be expected to encounter. With respect to morphogen gradients, most work has focused on parametric robustness, i.e., insensitivity to parameter values (e.g., the dosage of genes, levels, or rate constants of enzymes [Eldar et al. 2002; Eldar et al. 2003; Eldar et al. 2004; Bollenbach et al. 2005; Shimmi et al. 2005; White et al. 2007]). Some investigators have also focused on the “precision” of morphogen gradients, which may be understood as robustness to the causes and effects of natural variation among individuals in a population (Houchmandzadeh et al. 2002; Gregor et al. 2007; Tostevin et al. 2007; Bollenbach et al. 2008; Emberly 2008).Remarkably, after hardly a decade of intensive study of such questions, we find ourselves awash in a sea of diverse and intriguing mechanisms for conferring one or another type of robustness on morphogen-mediated patterning. Mechanisms that operate at the level of gradient formation include self-enhanced morphogen degradation (Eldar et al. 2003), facilitated transport (Eldar et al. 2002; Shimmi et al. 2005), serial transcytosis (Bollenbach et al. 2005), presteady state patterning (Bergmann et al. 2007), and competition between morphogens for binding to inhibitors (Ben-Zvi et al. 2008). Mechanisms that operate at the level of morphogen detection and interpretation include morphogenetic apoptosis (Adachi-Yamada and O''Connor 2002), cell rearrangement (Ashe and Briscoe 2006), integration of signals from multiple morphogens (McHale et al. 2006; Morishita and Iwasa 2008), and various types of local cell-to-cell signaling (e.g., Amonlirdviman et al. 2005).Why so many strategies? Biologists are often quick to ascribe multiplicity to redundancy, but the perspective of engineering suggests a different view. Most engineers accept the “no free lunch” principle (also referred to as “conservation of fragility”), which states that any mechanism that increases robustness in one setting (i.e., to one type of perturbation, or with respect to one type of output) always compromises it in another. The fact that every strategy comes at a price has been offered as an explanation for the seemingly inescapable fragility of highly engineered, modern technology (Carlson and Doyle 2002). By building complex machines that resist everything we think of, we inevitably create susceptibilities to the things we neglected. Although biology is not the result of human engineering, we have no reason to believe that natural selection can circumvent the limits that engineers confront.In a world of no free lunch, one must evaluate a strategy not just by what it is good for, but the “price” of using it. With regard to morphogen-mediated patterning, it is reasonable to suggest that diverse strategies exist because each comes at a different price. If so, achieving meaningful biological understanding requires that we engage in a sort of cost-benefit analysis, in which each strategy is evaluated in the context of the performance objectives of the organism and constraints of the physical world. This is a tall order, as there is a great deal we still do not know about the performance needs of developing organisms (for example, for all the work performed so far on morphogen gradient robustness, we still know little about the magnitudes of the perturbations that need to be withstood). Nevertheless, there is no reason not to get started, as even through the early investigation of hard questions, one commonly learns useful things.     

SLAM-Family Receptors: Immune Regulators with or without SAP-Family Adaptors

The signaling lymphocytic activation molecule (SLAM) family of receptors and the SLAM-associated protein (SAP) family of intracellular adaptors are expressed in immune cells. By way of their cytoplasmic domain, SLAM-related receptors physically associate with SAP-related adaptors. Evidence is accumulating that the SLAM and SAP families play crucial roles in multiple immune cell types. Moreover, the prototype of the SAP family, that is SAP, is mutated in a human immunodeficiency, X-linked lymphoproliferative (XLP) disease. In the presence of SAP-family adaptors, the SLAM family usually mediates stimulatory signals that promote immune cell activation or differentiation. In the absence of SAP-family adaptors, though, the SLAM family undergoes a “switch-of-function,” thereby mediating inhibitory signals that suppress immune cell functions. The molecular basis and significance of this mechanism are discussed herein.Immune cells undergo differentiation and, once mature, are activated through the integrated actions of many molecules, including cell surface receptors and intracellular signaling effectors. Whereas some of these molecules have “primary” roles in the immune response, others have secondary, albeit still critical, functions in this process. For example, differentiation and activation of B cells are strictly dependent on the function of the B-cell receptor (BCR) and its intracellular effectors. Other receptors present on B cells, such as CD19 and CD40, influence B-cell functions in critical ways, by modulating BCR-triggered signals (Cambier et al. 1994).There is accumulating evidence that the signaling lymphocytic activation molecule (SLAM) family of receptors plays important roles in immunity (Schwartzberg et al. 2009; Ma et al. 2007; Veillette et al. 2007; Veillette 2006b; Veillette 2006a). This class of receptors provides key effects in multiple immune cell types. Recent data indicate that SLAM-family receptors can either promote or inhibit the functions of primary activating receptors (Cruz-Munoz et al. 2009; Dong et al. 2009). These alternative activities are controlled by whether or not SLAM-related receptors are coexpressed with members of the SLAM-associated protein (SAP) family of intracellular adaptor molecules. The functions and mechanisms of action of the SLAM and SAP families are reviewed herein.     

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

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

Gap Junctions

Gap junctions are aggregates of intercellular channels that permit direct cell–cell transfer of ions and small molecules. Initially described as low-resistance ion pathways joining excitable cells (nerve and muscle), gap junctions are found joining virtually all cells in solid tissues. Their long evolutionary history has permitted adaptation of gap-junctional intercellular communication to a variety of functions, with multiple regulatory mechanisms. Gap-junctional channels are composed of hexamers of medium-sized families of integral proteins: connexins in chordates and innexins in precordates. The functions of gap junctions have been explored by studying mutations in flies, worms, and humans, and targeted gene disruption in mice. These studies have revealed a wide diversity of function in tissue and organ biology.Gap junctions are clusters of intercellular channels that allow direct diffusion of ions and small molecules between adjacent cells. The intercellular channels are formed by head-to-head docking of hexameric assemblies (connexons) of tetraspan integral membrane proteins, the connexins (Cx) (Goodenough et al. 1996). These channels cluster into polymorphic maculae or plaques containing a few to thousands of units (Fig. 1). The close membrane apposition required to allow the docking between connexons sterically excludes most other membrane proteins, leaving a narrow ∼2 nm extracellular “gap” for which the junction is named (Fig. 2). Gap junctions in prechordates are composed of innexins (Phelan et al. 1998; Phelan 2005). In chordates, connexins arose by convergent evolution (Alexopoulos et al. 2004), to expand by gene duplication (Cruciani and Mikalsen 2007) into a 21-member gene family. Three innexin-related proteins, called pannexins, have persisted in vertebrates, although it is not clear if they form intercellular channels (Panchin et al. 2000; Bruzzone et al. 2003). 7Å-resolution electron crystallographic structures of intercellular channels composed of either a carboxy-terminal truncation of Cx43 (Unger et al. 1999; Yeager and Harris 2007) or an M34A mutant of Cx26 (Oshima et al. 2007) are available. The overall pore morphologies are similar with the exception of a “plug” in the Cx26 channel pore. The density of this plug is substantively decreased by deletion of amino acids 2–7, suggesting that the amino-terminus contributes to this structure (Oshima et al. 2008). A 3.5-Å X-ray crystallographic structure has visualized the amino-terminus of Cx26 folded into the mouth of the channel without forming a plug, thought to be an image of the open channel conformation (Maeda et al. 2009). The amino-terminus has been physiologically implicated in voltage-gating of the Cx26 and Cx32 channels (Purnick et al. 2000; Oh et al. 2004), lending support to a role for the amino-terminus as a gating structure. However, Cx43 also shows voltage-gating, and its lack of any structure resembling a plug remains unresolved. A comparison of a 1985 intercellular channel structure (Makowski 1985) with the 2009 3.5Å structure (Maeda et al. 2009) summarizes a quarter-century of X-ray progress (Fig. 3).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.A diagram showing the multiple levels of gap junction structure. Individual connexins assemble intracellularly into hexamers, called connexons, which then traffic to the cell surface. There, they dock with connexons in an adjacent cell, assembling an axial channel spanning two plasma membranes and a narrow extracellular “gap.”Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Electron microscopy of gap junctions joining adjacent hepatocytes in the mouse. The gap junction (GJ) is seen as an area of close plasma membrane apposition, clearly distinct from the tight junction (TJ) joining these cells. (Inset A) A high magnification view of the gap junction revealing the 2–3 nm “gap” (white arrows) separating the plasma membranes. (Inset B) A freeze-fracture replica of a gap junction showing the characteristic particles on the protoplasmic (P) fracture face and pits on the ectoplasmic (E) fracture face. The particles and pits show considerable disorder in their packing with an average 9-nm center-to-center spacing.Open in a separate windowFigure 3.A comparison of axial sections through gap-junction structures deduced from X-ray diffraction. The 1985 data (Makowski 1985) were acquired from gap junctions isolated biochemically from mouse liver containing mixtures of Cx32 and Cx26. The intercellular channel (CHANNEL) is blocked at the two cytoplasmic surfaces by electron density at the channel mouths along the sixfold symmetry axis. The 2009 data (Maeda et al. 2009), acquired from three-dimensional crystals of recombinant Cx26, resolve this density at the channel opening as the amino-termini of the connexin proteins, the 2009 model possibly showing an open channel structure.Most cells express multiple connexins. These may co-oligomerize into the same (homomeric) or mixed (heteromeric) connexons, although only certain combinations are permitted (Falk et al. 1997; Segretain and Falk 2004). A connexon may dock with an identical connexon to form a homotypic intercellular channel or with a connexon containing different connexins to form a heterotypic channel (Dedek et al. 2006). Although only some assembly combinations are permitted (White et al. 1994), the number of possible different intercellular channels formed by this 21-member family is astonishingly large. This diversity has significance because intercellular channels composed of different connexins have different physiological properties, including single-channel conductances and multiple conductance states (Takens-Kwak and Jongsma 1992), as well as permeabilities to experimental tracers (Elfgang et al. 1995) and to biologically relevant permeants (Gaunt and Subak-Sharpe 1979; Veenstra et al. 1995; Bevans et al. 1998; Gong and Nicholson 2001; Goldberg et al. 2002; Ayad et al. 2006; Harris 2007).Opening of extrajunctional connexons in the plasma membrane, described as “hemichannel” activity, can be experimentally induced in a variety of cell types. Because first observations of hemichannel activity were in an oocyte expression system (Paul et al. 1991) and dissociated retinal horizontal cells (DeVries and Schwartz 1992), the possible functions of hemichannels composed of connexins and pannexins has enjoyed vigorous investigation (Goodenough and Paul 2003; Bennett et al. 2003; Locovei et al. 2006; Evans et al. 2006; Srinivas et al. 2007; Schenk et al. 2008; Thompson and MacVicar 2008; Anselmi et al. 2008; Goodenough and Paul 2003). Hemichannels have been implicated in various forms of paracrine signaling, for example in providing a pathway for extracellular release of ATP (Cotrina et al. 1998; Kang et al. 2008), glutamate (Ye et al. 2003), NAD⁺ (Bruzzone et al. 2000), and prostaglandins (Jiang and Cherian 2003).     

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.     

Receptor Tyrosine Kinases: Legacy of the First Two Decades

Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) and their cellular signaling pathways play important roles in normal development and homeostasis. Aberrations in their activation or signaling leads to many pathologies, especially cancers, motivating the development of a variety of drugs that block RTK signaling that have been successfully applied for the treatment of many cancers. As the current field of RTKs and their signaling pathways are covered by a very large amount of literature, spread over half a century, I am focusing the scope of this review on seminal discoveries made before tyrosine phosphorylation was discovered, and on the early days of research into RTKs and their cellular signaling pathways. I review the history of the early days of research in the field of RTKs. I emphasize key early findings, which provided conceptual frameworks for addressing the questions of how RTKs are activated and how they regulate intracellular signaling pathways.The family of cell-surface receptors designated receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) received their name more that a decade after the same molecules were already known as the cell-surface receptors for insulin (insulin receptor), epidermal growth factor (EGFR), and many other growth factor receptors. Following the pioneering discoveries of nerve growth factor and epidermal growth factor (EGF; Levi-Montalcini and Booker 1960; Cohen 1962) and the establishment of the important roles of these two growth factors in the control of neuronal differentiation and cell proliferation in vivo and in vitro, it became clear that these cytokines bind specifically to cell-surface receptors. Insulin had already been discovered by this time, and had been applied successfully to treat diabetes patients since the early twentieth century. The resulting homogenous preparations of pure insulin enabled the quantitative characterization of insulin binding to its receptor on intact cells or to solubilized insulin receptor preparations using radiolabeled insulin (De Meyts et al. 1973). These studies greatly advanced understanding of the ligand binding characteristics of insulin receptor and, later on EGFR (Carpenter et al. 1975), including the establishment of negative cooperativity in insulin binding to its receptor expressed on the surface of living cells (De Meyts et al. 1973). Moreover, these studies shed important light on the dynamic nature of the cellular behavior of these receptors. The capacities of insulin receptor and EGFR to undergo ligand-dependent down-regulation and desensitization through receptor-mediated internalization and degradation (Carpenter and Cohen 1976; Gordon et al. 1978; Schlessinger et al. 1978a,b; Carpentier et al. 1979; Haigler et al. 1979) were also established well before the realization that growth factors receptors are endowed with intrinsic protein tyrosine kinase activities (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.A time line of key findings during the history of RTKs, with emphasis on findings and discoveries that produced the conceptual framework in the development of the RTK field and its application for cancer therapy. References for the key findings are also presented in the text (Lee et al. 1985; Libermann et al. 1985; Margolis et al. 1990; Bottaro et al. 1991; Bae et al. 2009).Progress was also made in elucidating the role of growth factors in normal embryonic development, wound healing, and pathological conditions such as cancer. Early studies in the 1960s and 1970s showed that growth factors play an important role in oncogenesis induced by retroviruses and in the proliferation of tumor-derived cancer cells. Pioneering studies performed by Howard Temin (1966, 1967) showed that cancer cells need less insulin and serum growth factors for cell proliferation compared with normal cells, suggesting that cancer cells produce and use their own growth factors and/or use cellular processes that in normal cells are regulated by exogenously supplied growth factors; both predictions were subsequently confirmed. A variety of new polypeptide growth factors that stimulate cell proliferation by binding to receptors at the cell surface were subsequently discovered. Those include a growth factor isolated from human platelets designated platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF; Antoniades et al. 1979; Heldin et al. 1979), a growth factor isolated from bovine brain designated fibroblast growth factor (FGF; Gospodarowicz et al. 1978), a growth factor isolated from rat platelets that stimulates the proliferation of mature hepatocytes, designated hepatocyte growth factor (HGF; Nakamura et al. 1986). In addition to EGF, another growth factor that binds selectively to cells expressing EGFR was isolated from virally and chemically transformed cells, suggesting that this growth factor—designated transforming growth factor α—may play a role in oncogenesis by an autocrine mechanism (Roberts et al. 1980, 1982). This discovery provided further support to the earlier finding that transformation by murine and feline sarcoma viruses selectively interferes with EGF binding to EGFR in transformed cells (Todaro et al. 1976). Together with many other studies published since the 1980s, this work showed that growth factors and their receptors play numerous important roles during development and in many normal cellular processes as well as in pathologies such as cancer, diabetes, atherosclerosis, severe bone disorders, and tumor angiogenesis.Visualization of dynamic cellular redistribution of ligand/receptor complexes, and rapid receptor-mediated internalization of growth factors such as insulin or EGF, led to the proposal that cell-surface receptors for these ligands may play a passive role in delivering them to intracellular compartments in which internalized EGF or insulin molecules exert their actions (Vigneri et al. 1978; Podlecki et al. 1986; Jiang and Schindler 1990). In other words, according to this hypothesis, the biological signals induced by insulin or EGF were thought to be mediated by binding of the ligands themselves to intracellular target(s) in the cytoplasm or nucleus, with the role of the cell-surface receptor being to act as a “carrier” that delivers them directly to these targets. An alternative hypothesis was that insulin or EGF activates their cognate receptors at the cell surface, which in turn stimulate the production of an intracellular second messenger molecule analogous to cAMP in signaling by the G-protein-activating β-adrenergic receptor. Indeed, several potential second messengers that are generated in cells on stimulation with insulin or other growth factors were proposed before (and even after) it became clear that insulin receptor, EGFR, and other RTKs are endowed with intrinsic tyrosine kinase activity (Larner et al. 1979; Das 1980; Saltiel and Cuatrecasas 1986).A demonstration that anti-insulin receptor antibodies from the serum of certain diabetic patients could mimic cellular responses of insulin (Flier et al. 1977; Van Obberghen et al. 1979) provided the first conclusive answer to the question of whether the biological activity of growth factors is mediated directly or indirectly through their membrane receptors. This experiment ruled out the possibility that insulin receptor functions as a passive carrier that delivers insulin to an intracellular target to induce cellular responses. Studies showing that intact, bivalent antibodies against the insulin receptor can activate its signaling, whereas monovalent Fab fragments of the same antibodies cannot further argued that ligand-induced receptor dimerization or stimulation of a particular arrangement between two receptor molecules in a dimer can activate the insulin receptor (Kahn et al. 1978).A similar conclusion was reached using certain monoclonal antibodies that bind to the extracellular region of EGFR and block ligand binding (Schreiber et al. 1981). Whereas intact antibodies were able to mimic EGF in stimulating a variety of EGF-like responses including cell proliferation, monovalent Fab fragments of the same monoclonal EGFR antibodies failed to do so—and acted instead as EGFR antagonists (Schreiber et al. 1981, 1983). These experiments provided strong evidence both that EGFR plays a crucial role in mediating EGF-induced cellular responses and that EGFR is activated by ligand-induced receptor dimerization (Schreiber 1981, 1983).     

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.     

T-Cell Signaling Regulated by the Tec Family Kinase, Itk

The Tec family tyrosine kinases regulate lymphocyte development, activation, and differentiation. In T cells, the predominant Tec kinase is Itk, which functions downstream of the T-cell receptor to regulate phospholipase C-γ. This review highlights recent advances in our understanding of Itk kinase structure and enzymatic regulation, focusing on Itk protein domain interactions and mechanisms of substrate recognition. We also discuss the role of Itk in the development of conventional versus innate T-cell lineages, including both αβ and γδ T-cell subsets. Finally, we describe the complex role of Itk signaling in effector T-cell differentiation and the regulation of cytokine gene expression. Together, these data implicate Itk as an important modulator of T-cell signaling and function.The Tec family nonreceptor tyrosine kinases, Tec, Btk, Itk/Emt/Tsk, Rlk/Txk, and Bmx/Etk, are expressed primarily in hematopoietic cells and serve as important mediators of antigen receptor signaling in lymphocytes (Berg et al. 2005; Felices et al. 2007; Readinger et al. 2009). The demonstration that the human B-cell immunodeficiency, X-linked agammaglobulinemia (XLA), is caused by mutations in Btk first underscored the importance of this tyrosine kinase family in lymphocyte development and antigen receptor signaling (Rawlings et al. 1993; Thomas et al. 1993; Tsukada et al. 1993; Vetrie et al. 1993). T lymphocytes express three Tec kinases: Itk, Rlk and Tec. To date, only Itk has been found to have a clearly defined function in T cells, leading to the conclusion that Itk is the predominant Tec kinase in T cells. In this review, we will cover recent findings that highlight the critical role of Itk in T-cell signaling and function.     

Endocytosis of Viruses and Bacteria

Of the many pathogens that infect humans and animals, a large number use cells of the host organism as protected sites for replication. To reach the relevant intracellular compartments, they take advantage of the endocytosis machinery and exploit the network of endocytic organelles for penetration into the cytosol or as sites of replication. In this review, we discuss the endocytic entry processes used by viruses and bacteria and compare the strategies used by these dissimilar classes of pathogens.Many of the most widespread and devastating diseases in humans and livestock are caused by viruses and bacteria that enter cells for replication. Being obligate intracellular parasites, viruses have no choice. They must transport their genome to the cytosol or nucleus of infected cells to multiply and generate progeny. Bacteria and eukaryotic parasites do have other options; most of them can replicate on their own. However, some have evolved to take advantage of the protected environment in the cytosol or in cytoplasmic vacuoles of animal cells as a niche favorable for growth and multiplication. In both cases (viruses and intracellular bacteria), the outcome is often destructive for the host cell and host organism. The mortality and morbidity caused by infectious diseases worldwide provide a strong rationale for research into pathogen–host cell interactions and for pursuing the detailed mechanisms of transmission and dissemination. The study of viruses and bacteria can, moreover, provide invaluable insights into fundamental aspects of cell biology.Here, we focus on the mechanisms by which viral and bacterial pathogens exploit the endocytosis machinery for host cell entry and replication. Among recent reviews on this topic, dedicated uniquely to either mammalian viruses or bacterial pathogens, we recommend the following: Cossart and Sansonetti (2004); Pizarro-Cerda and Cossart (2006); Kumar and Valdivia (2009); Cossart and Roy (2010); Mercer et al. (2010b); Grove and Marsh (2011); Kubo et al. (2012); Vazquez-Calvo et al. (2012a); Sun et al. (2013).The term “endocytosis” is used herein in its widest sense, that is, to cover all processes whereby fluid, solutes, ligands, and components of the plasma membrane as well as particles (including pathogenic agents) are internalized by cells through the invagination of the plasma membrane and the scission of membrane vesicles or vacuoles. This differs from current practice in the bacterial pathogenesis field, where the term “endocytosis” is generally reserved for the internalization of molecules or small objects, whereas the uptake of bacteria into nonprofessional phagocytes is called “internalization” or “bacterial-induced phagocytosis.” In addition, the term “phagocytosis” is reserved for internalization of bacteria by professional phagocytes (macrophages, polymorphonuclear leucocytes, dendritic cells, and amoebae), a process that generally but not always leads to the destruction of the ingested bacteria (Swanson et al. 1999; May and Machesky 2001; Henry et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2010). With a few exceptions, we will not discuss phagocytosis of bacteria or the endocytosis of protozoan parasites such as Toxoplasma and Plasmodium (Robibaro et al. 2001).