Evidence for a Role of CLIP-170 in the Establishment of Metaphase Chromosome Alignment

CLIPs (cytoplasmic linker proteins) are a class of proteins believed to mediate the initial, static interaction of organelles with microtubules. CLIP-170, the CLIP best characterized to date, is required for in vitro binding of endocytic transport vesicles to microtubules. We report here that CLIP-170 transiently associates with prometaphase chromosome kinetochores and codistributes with dynein and dynactin at kinetochores, but not polar regions, during mitosis. Like dynein and dynactin, a fraction of the total CLIP-170 pool can be detected on kinetochores of unattached chromosomes but not on those that have become aligned at the metaphase plate. The COOH-terminal domain of CLIP-170, when transiently overexpressed, localizes to kinetochores and causes endogenous full-length CLIP-170 to be lost from the kinetochores, resulting in a delay in prometaphase. Overexpression of the dynactin subunit, dynamitin, strongly reduces the amount of CLIP-170 at kinetochores suggesting that CLIP-170 targeting may involve the dynein/dynactin complex. Thus, CLIP-170 may be a linker for cargo in mitosis as well as interphase. However, dynein and dynactin staining at kinetochores are unaffected by this treatment and further overexpression studies indicate that neither CLIP-170 nor dynein and dynactin are required for the formation of kinetochore fibers. Nevertheless, these results strongly suggest that CLIP-170 contributes in some way to kinetochore function in vivo.Microtubules (MTs)¹ in vertebrate somatic cells are involved in intracellular transport and distribution of membranous organelles. Fundamental to this role are their tightly controlled, polarized organization, and unusual dynamic properties (Hirokawa, 1994) and their interaction with a complex set of MT-based motor proteins (Hirokawa, 1996; Sheetz, 1996; Goodson et al., 1997). During mitosis, they contribute to the motility of centrosomes, the construction of spindle poles (Karsenti et al., 1996; Merdes and Cleveland, 1997), and the dynamic movements of kinetochores (Rieder and Salmon, 1994) and chromosome arms (Barton and Goldstein, 1996; Vernos and Karsenti, 1996). The motor protein cytoplasmic dynein, drives the transport toward MT minus-ends of a variety of subcellular organelles (Schnapp and Reese, 1989; Schroer et al., 1989; Holzbaur and Vallee, 1994). Dynactin is a molecular complex originally identified as being essential for dynein-mediated movement of salt-washed vesicles in vitro (reviewed in Schroer, 1996; Schroer and Sheetz, 1991). Genetic studies in fungi, yeast, and flies have shown that the two complexes function together to drive nuclear migration, spindle and nuclear positioning and to permit proper neuronal development (Eshel et al., 1993; Clark and Meyer, 1994; Muhua et al., 1994; Plamann et al., 1994; McGrail et al., 1995; Karsenti et al., 1996). Biochemical studies suggest a direct interaction between certain subunits of dynein and dynactin (Karki and Holzbaur, 1995; Vaughan and Vallee, 1995). In vivo, the two molecules may bind one another transiently, since they have not been isolated as a stable complex.There is good evidence indicating that the dynein/dynactin complex, together with other motors (Eg5, and a minus-end oriented kinesin-related protein) and a structural protein (NuMa), drive the focusing of free microtubule ends into mitotic spindle poles (Merdes and Cleveland, 1997; Waters and Salmon, 1997)_. A trimolecular complex composed of NuMa and dynein/dynactin may be crucial in this process in both acentriolar (Merdes et al., 1996), and centriolar spindles (Gaglio et al., 1997). A number of findings also indicate that the combined actions of dynein and dynactin at the kinetochore contribute to chromosome alignment in vertebrate somatic cells. First, the initial interaction between polar spindle MTs and kinetochores seems to involve a tangential capture event (Merdes and De Mey, 1990; Rieder and Alexander, 1990) which is followed by a poleward gliding along the surface lattice of the MT (Hayden et al., 1990). Both in vivo and in vitro (Hyman and Mitchison, 1991) this gliding movement appears similar to the dynein-mediated retrograde transport of vesicular organelles along MTs. Consistent with this is the finding that both dynein (Pfarr et al., 1990; Steuer et al., 1990) and its activator, dynactin (Echeverri et al., 1996), are present at prometaphase kinetochores. Overexpression of dynamitin, a 50-kD subunit of the dynactin complex, results in the partial disruption of the dynactin complex and in the loss, from kinetochores, of dynein, as well as dynactin. Therefore, it has been proposed that dynactin mediates the association of dynein with kinetochores. Abnormal spindles with poorly focused poles are observed and the cells become arrested in pseudoprometaphase (Echeverri et al., 1996). Despite these findings, rigorous proof for a role of the dynein motor complex in kinetochore motility is still lacking, and its role may differ between lower and higher eucaryotes, and between mitosis and meiosis.CLIP-170 (Rickard and Kreis, 1996) is needed for in vitro binding of endocytic transport vesicles to MTs (Pierre et al., 1992). It is a nonmotor MT-binding protein that accumulates preferentially in the vicinity of MT plus ends and on early endosomes and endocytic transport vesicles in nondividing cells (Rickard and Kreis, 1990; Pierre et al., 1992). Like many MT-binding proteins, CLIP-170 is a homodimer whose NH₂-terminal head domains and COOH-terminal tail domains flank a central α-helical coiled-coil domain. The binding of CLIP-170 to MTs involves a 57–amino acid sequence present twice in the head domain (Pierre et al., 1992) and is regulated by phosphorylation (Rickard and Kreis, 1991). The COOH-terminal domain has been proposed to participate in targeting to endocytic membranes (Pierre et al., 1994). The fact that the latter move predominantly toward microtubule minus ends in a process most likely mediated by cytoplasmic dynein and dynactin (Aniento and Gruenberg, 1995), suggests that CLIP-170 may act in concert with this motor complex, and may be subject to regulated interactions with one or more dynactin or dynein subunits at the vesicle membrane.Here we report that during mitosis, CLIP-170 codistributes with dynein and dynactin at kinetochores, but not spindle poles. Evidence is presented that the COOH-terminal domain of CLIP-170 is responsible for its kinetochore targeting, and that this may be mediated by the complex of dynein and dynactin. The effects on mitotic progression of overexpression of wild type and several deletion mutants of CLIP-170 provide evidence for the involvement of CLIP-170 in kinetochore function early in mitosis. We also present in vivo evidence that neither CLIP-170 nor the complex of dynein and dynactin are required for formation of kinetochore fibers.     

Spindle Assembly in Xenopus Egg Extracts: Respective Roles of Centrosomes and Microtubule Self-Organization

In Xenopus egg extracts, spindles assembled around sperm nuclei contain a centrosome at each pole, while those assembled around chromatin beads do not. Poles can also form in the absence of chromatin, after addition of a microtubule stabilizing agent to extracts. Using this system, we have asked (a) how are spindle poles formed, and (b) how does the nucleation and organization of microtubules by centrosomes influence spindle assembly? We have found that poles are morphologically similar regardless of their origin. In all cases, microtubule organization into poles requires minus end–directed translocation of microtubules by cytoplasmic dynein, which tethers centrosomes to spindle poles. However, in the absence of pole formation, microtubules are still sorted into an antiparallel array around mitotic chromatin. Therefore, other activities in addition to dynein must contribute to the polarized orientation of microtubules in spindles. When centrosomes are present, they provide dominant sites for pole formation. Thus, in Xenopus egg extracts, centrosomes are not necessarily required for spindle assembly but can regulate the organization of microtubules into a bipolar array.During cell division, the correct organization of microtubules in bipolar spindles is necessary to distribute chromosomes to the daughter cells. The slow growing or minus ends of the microtubules are focused at each pole, while the plus ends interact with the chromosomes in the center of the spindle (Telzer and Haimo, 1981; McIntosh and Euteneuer, 1984). Current concepts of spindle assembly are based primarily on mitotic spindles of animal cells, which contain centrosomes. Centrosomes are thought to be instrumental for organization of the spindle poles and for determining both microtubule polarity and the spindle axis. In the prevailing model, termed “Search and Capture,” dynamic microtubules growing from two focal points, the centrosomes, are captured and stabilized by chromosomes, generating a bipolar array (Kirschner and Mitchison, 1986). However, while centrosomes are required for spindle assembly in some systems (Sluder and Rieder, 1985; Rieder and Alexander, 1990; Zhang and Nicklas, 1995a ,b), in other systems they appear to be dispensable (Steffen et al., 1986; Heald et al., 1996). Furthermore, centrosomes are not present in higher plant cells and in female meiosis of most animal species (Bajer and Mole, 1982; Gard, 1992; Theurkauf and Hawley, 1992; Albertson and Thomson, 1993; Lambert and Lloyd, 1994). In the absence of centrosomes, bipolar spindle assembly seems to occur through the self-organization of microtubules around mitotic chromatin (McKim and Hawley, 1995; Heald et al., 1996; Waters and Salmon, 1997). The observation of apparently different spindle assembly pathways raises several questions: Do different types of spindles share common mechanisms of organization? How do centrosomes influence spindle assembly? In the absence of centrosomes, what aspects of microtubule self-organization promote spindle bipolarity?To begin to address these questions, we have used Xenopus egg extracts, which can be used to reconstitute different types of spindle assembly. Spindle assembly around Xenopus sperm nuclei is directed by centrosomes (Sawin and Mitchison, 1991). Like other meiotic systems (Bastmeyer et al., 1986; Steffen et al., 1986), Xenopus extracts also support spindle assembly around chromatin in the absence of centrosomes through the movement and sorting of randomly nucleated microtubules into a bipolar structure (Heald et al., 1996). In this process, the microtubule-based motor cytoplasmic dynein forms spindle poles by cross-linking and sliding microtubule minus ends together. Increasing evidence suggests that the function of dynein in spindle assembly depends on its interaction with other proteins, including dynactin, a dynein-binding complex, and NuMA¹ (nuclear protein that associates with the mitotic apparatus) (Merdes et al., 1996; Echeverri et al., 1996; Gaglio et al., 1996). In this paper, we demonstrate that both in the presence and absence of centrosomes, spindle pole assembly occurs by a common dynein-dependent mechanism. We show that when centrosomes are present, they are tethered to spindle poles by dynein. In the absence of dynein function, microtubules are still sorted into an antiparallel array, indicating that other aspects of microtubule self-assembly independent of pole formation promote spindle bipolarity around mitotic chromatin. Since centrosomes are dispensable for pole formation in this system, what is their function? We show here that if only one centrosome is present, it acts as a dominant site for microtubule nucleation and focal organization, resulting in a monopolar spindle. Therefore, although centrosomes are not required in this system, they can influence spindle pole formation and bipolarity.     

A Small Conserved Domain in the Yeast Spa2p Is Necessary and Sufficient for Its Polarized Localization

SPA2 encodes a yeast protein that is one of the first proteins to localize to sites of polarized growth, such as the shmoo tip and the incipient bud. The dynamics and requirements for Spa2p localization in living cells are examined using Spa2p green fluorescent protein fusions. Spa2p localizes to one edge of unbudded cells and subsequently is observable in the bud tip. Finally, during cytokinesis Spa2p is present as a ring at the mother–daughter bud neck. The bud emergence mutants bem1 and bem2 and mutants defective in the septins do not affect Spa2p localization to the bud tip. Strikingly, a small domain of Spa2p comprised of 150 amino acids is necessary and sufficient for localization to sites of polarized growth. This localization domain and the amino terminus of Spa2p are essential for its function in mating. Searching the yeast genome database revealed a previously uncharacterized protein which we name, Sph1p (Spa2p homolog), with significant homology to the localization domain and amino terminus of Spa2p. This protein also localizes to sites of polarized growth in budding and mating cells. SPH1, which is similar to SPA2, is required for bipolar budding and plays a role in shmoo formation. Overexpression of either Spa2p or Sph1p can block the localization of either protein fused to green fluorescent protein, suggesting that both Spa2p and Sph1p bind to and are localized by the same component. The identification of a 150–amino acid domain necessary and sufficient for localization of Spa2p to sites of polarized growth and the existence of this domain in another yeast protein Sph1p suggest that the early localization of these proteins may be mediated by a receptor that recognizes this small domain.Polarized cell growth and division are essential cellular processes that play a crucial role in the development of eukaryotic organisms. Cell fate can be determined by cell asymmetry during cell division (Horvitz and Herskowitz, 1992; Cohen and Hyman, 1994; Rhyu and Knoblich, 1995). Consequently, the molecules involved in the generation and maintenance of cell asymmetry are important in the process of cell fate determination. Polarized growth can occur in response to external signals such as growth towards a nutrient (Rodriguez-Boulan and Nelson, 1989; Eaton and Simons, 1995) or hormone (Jackson and Hartwell, 1990a , b ; Segall, 1993; Keynes and Cook, 1995) and in response to internal signals as in Caenorhabditis elegans (Goldstein et al., 1993; Kimble, 1994; Priess, 1994) and Drosophila melanogaster (St Johnston and Nusslein-Volhard, 1992; Anderson, 1995) early development. Saccharomyces cerevisiae undergo polarized growth towards an external cue during mating and to an internal cue during budding. Polarization towards a mating partner (shmoo formation) and towards a new bud site requires a number of proteins (Chenevert, 1994; Chant, 1996; Drubin and Nelson, 1996). Many of these proteins are necessary for both processes and are localized to sites of polarized growth, identified by the insertion of new cell wall material (Tkacz and Lampen, 1972; Farkas et al., 1974; Lew and Reed, 1993) to the shmoo tip, bud tip, and mother–daughter bud neck. In yeast, proteins localized to growth sites include cytoskeletal proteins (Adams and Pringle, 1984; Kilmartin and Adams, 1984; Ford, S.K., and J.R. Pringle. 1986. Yeast. 2:S114; Drubin et al., 1988; Snyder, 1989; Snyder et al., 1991; Amatruda and Cooper, 1992; Lew and Reed, 1993; Waddle et al., 1996), neck filament components (septins) (Byers and Goetsch, 1976; Kim et al., 1991; Ford and Pringle, 1991; Haarer and Pringle, 1987; Longtine et al., 1996), motor proteins (Lillie and Brown, 1994), G-proteins (Ziman, 1993; Yamochi et al., 1994; Qadota et al., 1996), and two membrane proteins (Halme et al., 1996; Roemer et al., 1996; Qadota et al., 1996). Septins, actin, and actin-associated proteins localize early in the cell cycle, before a bud or shmoo tip is recognizable. How this group of proteins is localized to and maintained at sites of cell growth remains unclear.Spa2p is one of the first proteins involved in bud formation to localize to the incipient bud site before a bud is recognizable (Snyder, 1989; Snyder et al., 1991; Chant, 1996). Spa2p has been localized to where a new bud will form at approximately the same time as actin patches concentrate at this region (Snyder et al., 1991). An understanding of how Spa2p localizes to incipient bud sites will shed light on the very early stages of cell polarization. Later in the cell cycle, Spa2p is also found at the mother–daughter bud neck in cells undergoing cytokinesis. Spa2p, a nonessential protein, has been shown to be involved in bud site selection (Snyder, 1989; Zahner et al., 1996), shmoo formation (Gehrung and Snyder, 1990), and mating (Gehrung and Snyder, 1990; Chenevert et al., 1994; Yorihuzi and Ohsumi, 1994; Dorer et al., 1995). Genetic studies also suggest that Spa2p has a role in cytokinesis (Flescher et al., 1993), yet little is known about how this protein is localized to sites of polarized growth.We have used Spa2p green fluorescent protein (GFP)¹ fusions to investigate the early localization of Spa2p to sites of polarized growth in living cells. Our results demonstrate that a small domain of ∼150 amino acids of this large 1,466-residue protein is sufficient for targeting to sites of polarized growth and is necessary for Spa2p function. Furthermore, we have identified and characterized a novel yeast protein, Sph1p, which has homology to both the Spa2p amino terminus and the Spa2p localization domain. Sph1p localizes to similar regions of polarized growth and sph1 mutants have similar phenotypes as spa2 mutants.     

Proteomic Analysis of Dynein-Interacting Proteins in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Synaptosomes Reveals Alterations in the RNA-Binding Protein Staufen1

Synapse disruption takes place in many neurodegenerative diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). However, the mechanistic understanding of this process is still limited. We set out to study a possible role for dynein in synapse integrity. Cytoplasmic dynein is a multisubunit intracellular molecule responsible for diverse cellular functions, including long-distance transport of vesicles, organelles, and signaling factors toward the cell center. A less well-characterized role dynein may play is the spatial clustering and anchoring of various factors including mRNAs in distinct cellular domains such as the neuronal synapse. Here, in order to gain insight into dynein functions in synapse integrity and disruption, we performed a screen for novel dynein interactors at the synapse. Dynein immunoprecipitation from synaptic fractions of the ALS model mSOD1^G93A and wild-type controls, followed by mass spectrometry analysis on synaptic fractions of the ALS model mSOD1^G93A and wild-type controls, was performed. Using advanced network analysis, we identified Staufen1, an RNA-binding protein required for the transport and localization of neuronal RNAs, as a major mediator of dynein interactions via its interaction with protein phosphatase 1–beta (PP1B). Both in vitro and in vivo validation assays demonstrate the interactions of Staufen1 and PP1B with dynein, and their colocalization with synaptic markers was altered as a result of two separate ALS-linked mutations: mSOD1^G93A and TDP43^A315T. Taken together, we suggest a model in which dynein''s interaction with Staufen1 regulates mRNA localization along the axon and the synapses, and alterations in this process may correlate with synapse disruption and ALS toxicity.Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)¹ is an adult-onset progressive neurodegenerative disease that targets both upper and lower motor neurons via an unknown mechanism, leading to paralysis and eventually death. Pathological changes affecting synapses in both the primary motor cortex and the peripheral neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) are considered an early occurrence in ALS, often preceding the degeneration of the axons and clinical symptomatic onset (1). Although synapse disruption is common to many neurodegenerative diseases and the molecular mechanisms underlying synapse stabilization and maintenance are of keen interest, the exact mechanisms governing synapse disruption have yet to be understood.Both upper and lower motor neurons are highly polarized cells, with axons that are several orders of magnitude longer than the diameter of their cell bodies. To survive and maintain proper function, these neurons depend on active intracellular transport (2). The molecular motor kinesin drives transport from the cell body to the nerve periphery, supplying proteins, lipids, RNAs, and other essential materials to the synapse. The dynein/dynactin protein complex drives retrograde transport, moving damaged proteins for degradation, as well as critical signaling molecules such as neurotrophins, to the cell body (3). Dynein is a pleiotropic cellular motor, whose function in numerous cellular pathways may be regulated by specific interactions with different binding partners (4, 5). In addition to its canonical role as a motor protein, dynein has been shown to have an anchoring role as well. For example, the interaction of dynein with microtubule binding nuclear mitotic apparatus protein (NuMA)-protein coupled receptor 1 (LGN) allows dynein to be cortically anchored in order to function in the spindle-positioning process during cell division (4, 6). In neurons, dynein interacts with the neuronal adhesion molecule neural-cell-adhesion-molecule-180, which leads to the specific recruitment of dynein to the cell cortex for synapse stabilization (7). Another example, best characterized in the oocyte, is mRNA anchoring at specific cellular locations (8). Thus, dynein can serve as a motor conducting long-distance signaling, as well as an anchoring agent at distinct domains like the synapse. The switch between dynein''s different capacities may be regulated by its phosphorylation state, which may be mediated by protein phosphatase 1 (PP1) (9, 10).Transport deficits are common in many neurodegenerative disorders (3, 11, 12). In the ALS mouse model SOD1^G93A, transport dysfunction can be observed as early as at the embryonic stage (13). Although mutations in dynein or its activator dynactin were demonstrated to lead to synapse disruption and neurodegeneration (14–16), the effect of the mutations in slowing down dynein-mediated transport is not sufficient to create the harsh neurodegeneration observed in ALS (17, 18), suggesting an additional mechanism. One possibility is a switch in the nature of the retrogradely transported cargo from survival signals to stress signals (19). Hence, a change in the composition of dynein complexes may underlie neurodegenerative and synapse elimination mechanisms.General proteomic screens of protein complexes at the synapse have presented high complexity of both protein composition and signaling network architecture (20–23). Proteomics following immunoprecipitation of receptors such as α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid and N-methyl-D-aspartate from synaptosomes reveal large protein complexes, up to 3000 kDa that can incorporate up to 185 proteins (21, 24). Notably, many of these proteins are involved in localized protein synthesis (25).Interestingly, dynein was found to be one of the proteins identified from synaptosome proteomics (26), suggesting that dynein plays a role in maintaining synaptic function. Although synapse disruption is one of the early events occurring in many neurodegenerative diseases, the identity of dynein complexes in the synapse and molecular mechanisms of synapse protection are still largely unknown.Here, we sought to characterize synaptic dynein complexes using a differential proteomic screen of the SOD1^G93A mouse model for ALS. The SOD1^G93A mouse model is the most studied model for ALS, manifesting many ALS phenotypes, including upper and lower motoneuron degeneration, synaptic disruption, and alterations in dynein functions. Here, we purified synaptosomes from brains of SOD1^G93A and control mice, followed by dynein-intermediate chain immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry analysis to identify changes in dynein interactors. We further utilized the Advanced Network Analysis Tool (ANAT) (27) to predict potential pathways connecting dynein to the immunoprecipitated proteins in the ALS model and control mice. Our results demonstrate distinct populations of dynein-interacting proteins in ALS and in control mice, in addition to several common interactors. In both networks, the RNA-binding protein Staufen1 appeared as a predicted central node linking dynein to PP1B, a component of the catalytic subunit of PP1. In vitro and in vivo validation of the interaction and synaptic colocalization of both Staufen1 and PP1B with dynein, together with altered localization caused by ALS-linked mutations, suggest a role for dynein in the localization of Staufen1 ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) in neurodegenerative diseases such as ALS.     

Tyrosine Phosphorylation at a Site Highly Conserved in the L1 Family of Cell Adhesion Molecules Abolishes Ankyrin Binding and Increases Lateral Mobility of Neurofascin

This paper presents evidence that a member of the L1 family of ankyrin-binding cell adhesion molecules is a substrate for protein tyrosine kinase(s) and phosphatase(s), identifies the highly conserved FIGQY tyrosine in the cytoplasmic domain as the principal site of phosphorylation, and demonstrates that phosphorylation of the FIGQY tyrosine abolishes ankyrin-binding activity. Neurofascin expressed in neuroblastoma cells is subject to tyrosine phosphorylation after activation of tyrosine kinases by NGF or bFGF or inactivation of tyrosine phosphatases with vanadate or dephostatin. Furthermore, both neurofascin and the related molecule Nr-CAM are tyrosine phosphorylated in a developmentally regulated pattern in rat brain. The FIGQY sequence is present in the cytoplasmic domains of all members of the L1 family of neural cell adhesion molecules. Phosphorylation of the FIGQY tyrosine abolishes ankyrin binding, as determined by coimmunoprecipitation of endogenous ankyrin and in vitro ankyrin-binding assays. Measurements of fluorescence recovery after photobleaching demonstrate that phosphorylation of the FIGQY tyrosine also increases lateral mobility of neurofascin expressed in neuroblastoma cells to the same extent as removal of the cytoplasmic domain. Ankyrin binding, therefore, appears to regulate the dynamic behavior of neurofascin and is the target for regulation by tyrosine phosphorylation in response to external signals. These findings suggest that tyrosine phosphorylation at the FIGQY site represents a highly conserved mechanism, used by the entire class of L1-related cell adhesion molecules, for regulation of ankyrin-dependent connections to the spectrin skeleton.Vertebrate L1, neurofascin, neuroglial cell adhesion molecule (Ng-CAM),¹ Ng-CAM–related cell adhesion molecule (Nr-CAM), and Drosophila neuroglian are members of a family of nervous system cell adhesion molecules that possess variable extracellular domains comprised of Ig and fibronectin type III domains and a relatively conserved cytoplasmic domain (Grumet, 1991; Hortsch and Goodman, 1991; Rathgen and Jessel, 1991; Sonderegger and Rathgen, 1992; Hortsch, 1996). Members of this family, including a number of alternatively spliced forms, are abundant in the nervous system during early development as well as in adults. Neurofascin and Nr-CAM, for example, constitute ∼0.5% of the total membrane protein in adult brain (Davis et al., 1993; Davis and Bennett, 1994). Cellular functions attributed to the L1 family include axon fasciculation (Stallcup and Beasley, 1985; Landmesser et al., 1988; Brummendorf and Rathjen, 1993; Bastmeyer et al., 1995; Itoh et al., 1995; Magyar-Lehmann et al., 1995), axonal guidance (van den Pol and Kim, 1993; Liljelund et al., 1994; Brittis and Silver, 1995; Brittis et al., 1995; Lochter et al., 1995; Wong et al., 1996), neurite extension (Chang et al., 1987; Felsenfeld et al., 1994; Hankin and Lagenaur, 1994; Ignelzi et al., 1994; Williams et al., 1994a ,b,c,d; Doherty et al., 1995; Zhao and Siu, 1995), a role in long term potentiation (Luthl et al., 1994), synaptogenesis (Itoh et al., 1995), and myelination (Wood et al., 1990). The potential clinical importance of this group of proteins has been emphasized by the findings that mutations in the L1 gene on the X chromosome are responsible for developmental anomalies including hydrocephalus and mental retardation (Rosenthal et al., 1992; Jouet et al., 1994; Wong et al., 1995).The conserved cytoplasmic domains of L1 family members include a binding site for the membrane skeletal protein ankyrin. This interaction was first described for neurofascin (Davis et. al., 1993) and subsequently has been observed for L1, Nr-CAM (Davis and Bennett, 1994), and Drosophila neuroglian (Dubreuil et al., 1996). The membrane-binding domain of ankyrin contains two distinct sites for neurofascin and has the potential to promote lateral association of neurofascin and presumably other L1 family members (Michaely and Bennett, 1995). Nodes of Ranvier are physiologically relevant axonal sites where ankyrin and L1 family members collaborate, based on findings of colocalization of a specialized isoform of ankyrin with alternatively spliced forms of neurofascin and NrCAM in adults (Davis et al., 1996) as well as in early axonal developmental intermediates (Lambert, S., J. Davis, P. Michael, and V. Bennett. 1995. Mol. Biol. Cell. 6:98a).L1, after homophilic and/or heterophilic binding, participates in signal transduction pathways that ultimately are associated with neurite extension and outgrowth (Ignelzi et al., 1994; Williams et al., 1994a ,b,c,d; Doherty et al., 1995). L1 copurifies with a serine–threonine protein kinase (Sadoul et al., 1989) and is phosphorylated on a serine residue that is not conserved among other family members (Wong et al., 1996). L1 pathway(s) may also involve G proteins, calcium channels, and tyrosine phosphorylation (Williams et al., 1994a ,b,c,d; Doherty et al., 1995). After homophilic interactions, L1 directly activates a tyrosine signaling cascade after a lateral association of its ectodomain with the fibroblast growth factor receptor (Doherty et al., 1995). Antibodies against L1 have also been shown to activate protein tyrosine phosphatase activity in growth cones (Klinz et al., 1995). However, details of the downstream substrates of L1-promoted phosphorylation and dephosphorylation and possible roles of the cytoplasmic domain are not known.Tyrosine phosphorylation is well established to modulate cell–cell and cell–extracellular matrix interactions involving integrins and their associated proteins (Akiyama et al., 1994; Arroyo et al., 1994; Schlaepfer et al., 1994; Law et al., 1996) as well as the cadherins (Balsamo et al., 1996; Krypta et al., 1996; Brady-Kalnay et al., 1995; Shibamoto et al., 1995; Hoschuetzky et al., 1994; Matsuyoshi et al., 1992). For example, the adhesive functions of the calciumdependent cadherin cell adhesion molecule are mediated by a dynamic balance between tyrosine phosphorylation of β-catenin by TrkA and dephosphorylation via the LARtype protein tyrosine phosphatase (Krypta et al., 1996). In this example the regulation of binding among the structural proteins is the result of a coordination between classes of protein kinases and protein phosphatases.This study presents evidence that neurofascin, expressed in a rat neuroblastoma cell line, is a substrate for both tyrosine kinases and protein tyrosine phosphatases at a tyrosine residue conserved among all members of the L1 family. Site-specific tyrosine phosphorylation promoted by both tyrosine kinase activators (NGF and bFGF) and protein tyrosine phosphatase inhibitors (dephostatin and vanadate) is a strong negative regulator of the neurofascin– ankyrin binding interaction and modulates the membrane dynamic behavior of neurofascin. Furthermore, neurofascin and, to a lesser extent Nr-CAM, are also shown here to be tyrosine phosphorylated in developing rat brain, implying a physiological relevance to this phenomenon. These results indicate that neurofascin may be a target for the coordinate control over phosphorylation that is elicited by protein kinases and phosphatases during in vivo tyrosine phosphorylation cascades. The consequent decrease in ankyrin-binding capacity due to phosphorylation of neurofascin could represent a general mechanism among the L1 family members for regulation of membrane–cytoskeletal interactions in both developing and adult nervous systems.     

The Amino-terminal Domain of Desmoplakin Binds to Plakoglobin and Clusters Desmosomal Cadherin–Plakoglobin Complexes

The desmosome is a highly organized plasma membrane domain that couples intermediate filaments to the plasma membrane at regions of cell–cell adhesion. Desmosomes contain two classes of cadherins, desmogleins, and desmocollins, that bind to the cytoplasmic protein plakoglobin. Desmoplakin is a desmosomal component that plays a critical role in linking intermediate filament networks to the desmosomal plaque, and the amino-terminal domain of desmoplakin targets desmoplakin to the desmosome. However, the desmosomal protein(s) that bind the amino-terminal domain of desmoplakin have not been identified. To determine if the desmosomal cadherins and plakoglobin interact with the amino-terminal domain of desmoplakin, these proteins were co-expressed in L-cell fibroblasts, cells that do not normally express desmosomal components. When expressed in L-cells, the desmosomal cadherins and plakoglobin exhibited a diffuse distribution. However, in the presence of an amino-terminal desmoplakin polypeptide (DP-NTP), the desmosomal cadherins and plakoglobin were observed in punctate clusters that also contained DP-NTP. In addition, plakoglobin and DP-NTP were recruited to cell–cell interfaces in L-cells co-expressing a chimeric cadherin with the E-cadherin extracellular domain and the desmoglein-1 cytoplasmic domain, and these cells formed structures that were ultrastructurally similar to the outer plaque of the desmosome. In transient expression experiments in COS cells, the recruitment of DP-NTP to cell borders by the chimera required co-expression of plakoglobin. Plakoglobin and DP-NTP co-immunoprecipitated when extracted from L-cells, and yeast two hybrid analysis indicated that DP-NTP binds directly to plakoglobin but not Dsg1. These results identify a role for desmoplakin in organizing the desmosomal cadherin–plakoglobin complex and provide new insights into the hierarchy of protein interactions that occur in the desmosomal plaque.Desmosomes are highly organized adhesive intercellular junctions that couple intermediate filaments to the cell surface at sites of cell–cell adhesion (Farquhar and Palade, 1963; Staehelin, 1974; Schwarz et al., 1990; Garrod, 1993; Collins and Garrod, 1994; Cowin and Burke, 1996; Kowalczyk and Green, 1996). Desmosomes are prominent in tissues that experience mechanical stress, such as heart and epidermis, and the disruption of desmosomes or the intermediate filament system in these organs has devastating effects on tissue integrity (Steinert and Bale, 1993; Coulombe and Fuchs, 1994; Fuchs, 1994; McLean and Lane, 1995; Stanley, 1995; Bierkamp et al., 1996; Ruiz et al., 1996). Desmosomes are highly insoluble structures that can withstand harsh denaturing conditions (Skerrow and Matoltsy, 1974; Gorbsky and Steinberg, 1981; Jones et al., 1988; Schwarz et al., 1990). This property of desmosomes facilitated early identification of desmosomal components but has impaired subsequent biochemical analysis of the protein complexes that form between desmosomal components. Ultrastructurally, desmosomes contain a core region that includes the plasma membranes of adjacent cells and a cytoplasmic plaque that anchors intermediate filaments to the plasma membrane. The plaque can be further divided into an outer dense plaque subjacent to the plasma membrane and an inner dense plaque through which intermediate filaments appear to loop.Molecular genetic analysis has revealed that the desmosomal glycoproteins, the desmogleins and desmocollins, are members of the cadherin family of cell–cell adhesion molecules (for review see Buxton et al., 1993, 1994; Cowin and Mechanic, 1994; Kowalczyk et al., 1996). The classical cadherins, such as E-cadherin, mediate calcium-dependent, homophilic cell–cell adhesion (Nagafuchi et al., 1987). The mechanism by which the desmosomal cadherins mediate cell–cell adhesion remains elusive (Amagai et al., 1994; Chidgey et al., 1996; Kowalczyk et al., 1996), although heterophilic interactions have recently been detected between desmogleins and desmocollins (Chitaev and Troyanovsky, 1997). Both classes of the desmosomal cadherins associate with the cytoplasmic plaque protein plakoglobin (Kowalczyk et al., 1994; Mathur et al., 1994; Roh and Stanley, 1995b ; Troyanovsky et al., 1994), which is part of a growing family of proteins that share a repeated motif first identified in the Drosophila protein Armadillo (Peifer and Wieschaus, 1990). This multigene family also includes the desmosomal proteins band 6/plakophilin 1, plakophilin 2a and 2b, and p0071, which are now considered to comprise a subclass of the armadillo family of proteins (Hatzfeld et al., 1994; Heid et al., 1994; Schmidt et al., 1994; Hatzfeld and Nachtsheim, 1996; Mertens et al., 1996).The most abundant desmosomal plaque protein is desmoplakin, which is predicted to be a homodimer containing two globular end domains joined by a central α-helical coiled-coil rod domain (O''Keefe et al., 1989; Green et al., 1990; Virata et al., 1992). Previous studies have demonstrated that the carboxyl-terminal domain of desmoplakin interacts with intermediate filaments (Stappenbeck and Green, 1992; Stappenbeck et al., 1993; Kouklis et al., 1994; Meng et al., 1997), and the amino-terminal domain of desmoplakin is required for desmoplakin localization to the desmosomal plaque (Stappenbeck et al., 1993). Direct evidence supporting a role for desmoplakin in intermediate filament attachment to desmosomes was provided recently when expression of an amino-terminal polypeptide of desmoplakin was found to displace endogenous desmoplakin from cell borders and disrupt intermediate filament attachment to the cell surface in A431 epithelial cell lines (Bornslaeger et al., 1996).The classical cadherins, such as E-cadherin, bind directly to both β-catenin and plakoglobin (Aberle et al., 1994; Jou et al., 1995; for review see Cowin and Burke, 1996). β-Catenin is also an armadillo family member (McCrea et al., 1991; Peifer et al., 1992), and both plakoglobin and β-catenin bind directly to α-catenin (Aberle et al., 1994, 1996; Jou et al., 1995; Sacco et al., 1995; Obama and Ozawa, 1997). α-Catenin is a vinculin homologue (Nagafuchi et al., 1991) and associates with both α-actinin and actin (Knudson et al., 1995; Rimm et al., 1995; Nieset et al., 1997). Through interactions with β- and α-catenin, E-cadherin is coupled indirectly to the actin cytoskeleton, and this linkage is required for the adhesive activity of E-cadherin (Ozawa et al., 1990; Shimoyama et al., 1992). In addition, E-cadherin association with plakoglobin appears to be required for assembly of desmosomes (Lewis et al., 1997), underscoring the importance of E-cadherin in the overall program of intercellular junction assembly. However, the hierarchy of molecular interactions that couple the desmosomal cadherins to the intermediate filament cytoskeleton is largely unknown, although the desmocollin cytoplasmic domain appears to play an important role in recruiting components of the desmosomal plaque (Troyanovsky et al., 1993, 1994). Since desmosomal cadherins form complexes with plakoglobin and because the amino-terminal domain of desmoplakin is required for desmoplakin localization at desmosomes, we hypothesized that the amino-terminal domain of desmoplakin interacts with the desmosomal cadherin– plakoglobin complex.In previous studies, we used L-cell fibroblasts to characterize plakoglobin interactions with the cytoplasmic domains of the desmosomal cadherins and found that the desmosomal cadherins regulate plakoglobin metabolic stability (Kowalczyk et al., 1994) but do not mediate homophilic adhesion (Kowalczyk et al., 1996). To test the ability of the desmoplakin amino-terminal domain to interact with the desmosomal cadherin–plakoglobin complex, we established a series of L-cell lines expressing the desmosomal cadherins in the presence or absence of a desmoplakin amino-terminal polypeptide (DP-NTP).¹ The results indicate that one important function of the desmoplakin amino-terminal domain is to cluster desmosomal cadherin–plakoglobin complexes. In addition, DP-NTP and plakoglobin were found to form complexes that could be co-immunoprecipitated from L-cell lysates. Using the yeast two hybrid system, DP-NTP was found to bind directly to plakoglobin but not Dsg1. These data suggest that plakoglobin couples the amino-terminal domain of desmoplakin to the desmosomal cadherins and that desmoplakin plays an important role in organizing the desmosomal cadherin–plakoglobin complex into discrete plasma membrane domains.     

Neocentromere-mediated Chromosome Movement in Maize

Neocentromere activity is a classic example of nonkinetochore chromosome movement. In maize, neocentromeres are induced by a gene or genes on Abnormal chromosome 10 (Ab10) which causes heterochromatic knobs to move poleward at meiotic anaphase. Here we describe experiments that test how neocentromere activity affects the function of linked centromere/kinetochores (kinetochores) and whether neocentromeres and kinetochores are mobilized on the spindle by the same mechanism. Using a newly developed system for observing meiotic chromosome congression and segregation in living maize cells, we show that neocentromeres are active from prometaphase through anaphase. During mid-anaphase, normal chromosomes move on the spindle at an average rate of 0.79 μm/min. The presence of Ab10 does not affect the rate of normal chromosome movement but propels neocentromeres poleward at rates as high as 1.4 μm/min. Kinetochore-mediated chromosome movement is only marginally affected by the activity of a linked neocentromere. Combined in situ hybridization/immunocytochemistry is used to demonstrate that unlike kinetochores, neocentromeres associate laterally with microtubules and that neocentromere movement is correlated with knob size. These data suggest that microtubule depolymerization is not required for neocentromere motility. We argue that neocentromeres are mobilized on microtubules by the activity of minus end–directed motor proteins that interact either directly or indirectly with knob DNA sequences. C urrent models suggest that chromosomes move by a combination of forces generated by microtubule disassembly (Inoue and Salmon, 1995; Waters et al., 1996) and the activity of molecular motors (Vernos and Karsenti, 1996; Yen and Schaar, 1996). Microtubule disassembly generates a constant poleward force; while molecular motors can generate force in either poleward or away-from-pole directions, depending on the characteristics of the motor protein. Both plus and minus end–directed microtubule-based motors are localized to kinetochores (Hyman and Mitchison, 1991). Immunolocalization experiments indicate that mammalian kinetochores contain the minus end– directed motor dynein throughout metaphase and anaphase (Pfarr et al., 1990; Steuer et al., 1990). The kinesin-like proteins CENP-E, which has a transient kinetochore localization in animals, and MCAK, which is localized between the kinetochore plates of mammalian chromosomes, are also thought to generate and/or regulate chromosome movement (Yen et al., 1992; Lombillo et al., 1995; Wordeman and Mitchison, 1995).In addition to the molecular motors on kinetochores, several kinesin-like proteins are localized to chromosome arms (Vernos and Karsenti, 1996). Two subfamilies of arm-based motors have been identified in animals: the NOD subfamily (Afshar et al., 1995; Tokai et al., 1996) and the Xklp1/chromokinesin subfamily (Vernos et al., 1995; Wang and Adler, 1995). Both Nod and Xklp1 are required for positioning chromosomes on the metaphase plate, suggesting that they encode plus end–directed motors (Afshar et al., 1995; Vernos et al., 1995). Other evidence suggests that minus end–directed motors interact with chromosome arms. In the plant Haemanthus, a poleward force acts along chromosome arms during metaphase (Khodjakov et al., 1996), and forces propelling chromosome arms poleward have been detected during anaphase in crane fly spermatocytes (Adames and Forer, 1996). Little is known about how poleward arm motility at metaphase–anaphase affects the fidelity or rate of chromosome segregation.The neocentromeres of maize (Rhoades and Vilkomerson, 1942) provide a particularly striking example of poleward chromosome arm motility. In the presence of Abnormal chromosome 10 (Ab10),¹ heterochromatic DNA domains known as knobs are transformed into neocentromeres and mobilized on the spindle (Rhoades and Vilkomerson, 1942; Peacock et al., 1981; Dawe and Cande, 1996). Knobs are primarily composed of a tandem 180-bp repeat (Peacock et al., 1981) which shows homology to a maize B centromere clone (Alfenito and Birchler, 1993). A characteristic feature of neocentromeres is that they arrive at the spindle poles in advance of centromeres; in extreme cases the neocentromere-bearing chromosome arms stretch towards the poles (Rhoades and Vilkomerson, 1942; Rhoades, 1952). A recently identified mutation (smd1) demonstrates that a trans-acting factor(s) encoded on Ab10 is essential for converting the normally quiescent heterochromatic knobs into active neocentromeres (Dawe and Cande, 1996).Here we use neocentromeres as a model for understanding the mechanisms and importance of nonkinetochore chromosome movement. As a part of our analysis, we developed a four-dimensional system for observing chromosome segregation in living meiocytes. Our experiments were designed to determine (a) how poleward arm motility affects the rate and fidelity of chromosome segregation; and (b) whether the mechanism of neocentromere motility is comparable to the mechanism of kinetochore motility.     

Aberrant Expression of Dynein light chain 1 (DYNLT1) is Associated with Human Male Factor Infertility*

DYNLT1 is a member of a gene family identified within the t-complex of the mouse, which has been linked with male germ cell development and function in the mouse and the fly. Though defects in the expression of this gene are associated with male sterility in both these models, there has been no study examining its association with spermatogenic defects in human males. In this study, we evaluated the levels of DYNLT1 and its expression product in the germ cells of fertile human males and males suffering from spermatogenic defects. We screened fertile (n = 14), asthenozoospermic (n = 15), oligozoospermic (n = 20) and teratozoospermic (n = 23) males using PCR and Western blot analysis. Semiquantitative PCR indicated either undetectable or significantly lower levels of expression of DYNLT1 in the germ cells from several patients from across the three infertility syndrome groups, when compared with that of fertile controls. DYNLT1 was localized on head, mid-piece, and tail segments of spermatozoa from fertile males. Spermatozoa from infertile males presented either a total absence of DYNLT1 or its absence in the tail region. Majority of the infertile individuals showed negligible levels of localization of DYNLT1 on the spermatozoa. Overexpression of DYNLT1 in GC1-spg cell line resulted in the up-regulation of several cytoskeletal proteins and molecular chaperones involved in cell cycle regulation. Defective expression of DYNLT1 was associated with male factor infertility syndromes in our study population. Proteome level changes in GC1-spg cells overexpressing DYNLT1 were suggestive of its possible function in germ cell development. We have discussed the implications of these observations in the light of the known functions of DYNLT1, which included protein trafficking, membrane vesiculation, cell cycle regulation, and stem cell differentiation.The t-complex of the mouse occupies the proximal half of chromosome 17 and contains genes which have profound effects on spermatogenesis. Multiple mutations in several loci in the t-complex appear to interact to cause complete male sterility (1, 2). Tctex-1 (t-complex testis expressed-1), lately renamed as dynein light chain 1 (Dynlt1)¹, is identified as a candidate gene involved in male sterility in mice (1) and maps to the t-complex in mice (3). Dynlt1 is a member of a multigene family which is virtually germ cell-specific and is eightfold over expressed in t-homozygotes and 200-fold higher in testis than in other adult tissues (1). The human homologue of the mouse Dynlt1 is located on chromosome 6q25.2–25.3. The amino acid sequence shows a high degree of similarity to the predicted product of the Dynlt1 gene of the mouse t complex (4).DYNLT1 gene encodes a 14 kDa protein constituting the inner arm L1 of cytoplasmic and flagellar dynein complexes (5, 6). DYNLT1 is localized to Golgi complexes as well (7). DYNLT1 protein is present in sperm tails and oocytes (8, 9). A wide range of cellular events are brought about by cytoplasmic dynein and its association with the accessory intermediate, light intermediate, and light chain subunits. These subunits define the interaction of cytoplasmic dynein motor complex with other molecules (10). DYNLT1 is involved in cargo binding (11), lymphocyte division (8), vesicle transport (12–14), and human embryo implantation (15). DYNLT1 is known to undergo phosphorylation during apical delivery of rhodopsin (16) and during its interaction with the bone morphogenetic receptor type II (BMPRII) (17). DYNLT1 can function in dynein-independent fashion as a cell fate regulator by its interaction with G-protein β γ subunit regulating initial neurite sprouting (18), axonal specification, and elongation of hippocampal neurons in culture (11, 19). GEF-H1 is bound to microtubules by DYNLT1 and its release without microtubule depolymerization is mediated through the interaction of DYNLT1 with G proteins (20). DYNLT1 is a novel marker for neural progenitors in adult brain (21). DYNLT1 regulatory element was identified which selectively marked nestin⁺/GFAP⁺/Sox2⁺ neural stem-like cells in developing and adult brain (22). The genetic knockdown of DYNLT1 in radial precursors promoted neurogenesis (23). The use of GFP placed under the control of DYNLT1 promoter to mark adult neural stem cells and thus allowing the insertion of any nucleotide sequence selectively into neural progenitors has been patented (24).DYNLT1 is reported to have functional roles in non-murine germ cells as well. DYNLT1 was found to be essential during spermatid differentiation in Drosophila (10) and a mouse DYNLT1 homolog was identified in the dynein light chain of sea urchin sperm flagella (25, 26). However, the expression of DYNLT1 in human testicular germ cells and its association, if any, with human male factor subfertility are not yet evaluated. This study evaluates the association between DYNLT1expression and spermatogenesis in infertile human males and the possible function of DYNLT1 in spermatogonial cell division and differentiation.     

Analysis of Free Energy Signals Arising from Nucleotide Hybridization Between rRNA and mRNA Sequences during Translation in Eubacteria

A decoding algorithm is tested that mechanistically models the progressive alignments that arise as the mRNA moves past the rRNA tail during translation elongation. Each of these alignments provides an opportunity for hybridization between the single-stranded, -terminal nucleotides of the 16S rRNA and the spatially accessible window of mRNA sequence, from which a free energy value can be calculated. Using this algorithm we show that a periodic, energetic pattern of frequency 1/3 is revealed. This periodic signal exists in the majority of coding regions of eubacterial genes, but not in the non-coding regions encoding the 16S and 23S rRNAs. Signal analysis reveals that the population of coding regions of each bacterial species has a mean phase that is correlated in a statistically significant way with species () content. These results suggest that the periodic signal could function as a synchronization signal for the maintenance of reading frame and that codon usage provides a mechanism for manipulation of signal phase.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]