Wnt Signaling in Vertebrate Axis Specification

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

Biology of the TAM Receptors

The TAM receptors—Tyro3, Axl, and Mer—comprise a unique family of receptor tyrosine kinases, in that as a group they play no essential role in embryonic development. Instead, they function as homeostatic regulators in adult tissues and organ systems that are subject to continuous challenge and renewal throughout life. Their regulatory roles are prominent in the mature immune, reproductive, hematopoietic, vascular, and nervous systems. The TAMs and their ligands—Gas6 and Protein S—are essential for the efficient phagocytosis of apoptotic cells and membranes in these tissues; and in the immune system, they act as pleiotropic inhibitors of the innate inflammatory response to pathogens. Deficiencies in TAM signaling are thought to contribute to chronic inflammatory and autoimmune disease in humans, and aberrantly elevated TAM signaling is strongly associated with cancer progression, metastasis, and resistance to targeted therapies.The name of the TAM family is derived from the first letter of its three constituents—Tyro3, Axl, and Mer (Prasad et al. 2006). As detailed in Figure 1, members of this receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) family were independently identified by several different groups and appear in the early literature under multiple alternative names. However, Tyro3, Axl, and Mer (officially c-Mer or MerTK for the protein, Mertk for the gene) have now been adopted as the NCBI designations. The TAMs were first grouped into a distinct RTK family (the Tyro3/7/12 cluster) in 1991, through PCR cloning of their kinase domains (Lai and Lemke 1991). The isolation of full-length cDNAs for Axl (O''Bryan et al. 1991), Mer (Graham et al. 1994), and Tyro3 (Lai et al. 1994) confirmed their segregation into a structurally distinctive family of orphan RTKs (Manning et al. 2002b). The two ligands that bind and activate the TAMs—Gas6 and Protein S (Pros1)—were identified shortly thereafter (Ohashi et al. 1995; Stitt et al. 1995; Mark et al. 1996; Nagata et al. 1996).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.TAM receptors and ligands. The TAM receptors (red) are Tyro3 (Lai and Lemke 1991; Lai et al. 1994)—also designated Brt (Fujimoto and Yamamoto 1994), Dtk (Crosier et al. 1994), Rse (Mark et al. 1994), Sky (Ohashi et al. 1994), and Tif (Dai et al. 1994); Axl (O''Bryan et al. 1991)—also designated Ark (Rescigno et al. 1991), Tyro7 (Lai and Lemke 1991), and Ufo (Janssen et al. 1991); and Mer (Graham et al. 1994)—also designated Eyk (Jia and Hanafusa 1994), Nyk (Ling and Kung 1995), and Tyro12 (Lai and Lemke 1991). The TAMs are widely expressed by cells of the mature immune, nervous, vascular, and reproductive systems. The TAM ligands (blue) are Gas6 and Protein S (Pros1). The carboxy-terminal SHBG domains of the ligands bind to the immunoglobulin (Ig) domains of the receptors, induce dimerization, and activate the TAM tyrosine kinases. When γ-carboxylated in a vitamin-K-dependent reaction, the amino-terminal Gla domains of the dimeric ligands bind to the phospholipid phosphatidylserine expressed on the surface on an apposed apoptotic cell or enveloped virus. See text for details. (From Lemke and Burstyn-Cohen 2010; adapted, with permission, from the authors.)Subsequent progress on elucidating the biological roles of the TAM receptors was considerably slower and ultimately required the derivation of mouse loss-of-function mutants (Camenisch et al. 1999; Lu et al. 1999). The fact that Tyro3^−/−, Axl^−/−, and Mer^−/− mice are all viable and fertile permitted the generation of a complete TAM mutant series that included all possible double mutants and even triple mutants that lack all three receptors (Lu et al. 1999). Remarkably, these Tyro3^−/−Axl^−/−Mer^−/− triple knockouts (TAM TKOs) are viable, and for the first 2–3 wk after birth, superficially indistinguishable from their wild-type counterparts (Lu et al. 1999). Because many RTKs play essential roles in embryonic development, even single loss-of-function mutations in RTK genes often result in an embryonic-lethal phenotype (Gassmann et al. 1995; Lee et al. 1995; Soriano 1997; Arman et al. 1998). The postnatal viability of mice in which an entire RTK family is ablated completely—the TAM TKOs can survive for more than a year (Lu et al. 1999)—is therefore highly unusual. Their viability notwithstanding, the TAM mutants go on to develop a plethora of phenotypes, some of them debilitating (Camenisch et al. 1999; Lu et al. 1999; Lu and Lemke 2001; Scott et al. 2001; Duncan et al. 2003; Prasad et al. 2006). Almost without exception, these phenotypes are degenerative in nature and reflect the loss of TAM signaling activities in adult tissues that are subject to regular challenge, renewal, and remodeling. These activities are the subject of this review.     

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).     

Morphogen Gradient Formation

How morphogen gradients are formed in target tissues is a key question for understanding the mechanisms of morphological patterning. Here, we review different mechanisms of morphogen gradient formation from theoretical and experimental points of view. First, a simple, comprehensive overview of the underlying biophysical principles of several mechanisms of gradient formation is provided. We then discuss the advantages and limitations of different experimental approaches to gradient formation analysis.How a multicellular organism develops from a single fertilized cell has fascinated people throughout history. By looking at chick embryos of different developmental stages, Aristotle first noted that development is characterized by growing complexity and organization of the embryo (Balme 2002). During the 19th century, two events were recognized as key in development: cell proliferation and differentiation. Driesch first noted that to form organisms with correct morphological pattern and size, these processes must be controlled at the level of the whole organism. When he separated two sea urchin blastomeres, they produced two half-sized blastula, showing that cells are potentially independent, but function together to form a whole organism (Driesch 1891, 1908). Morgan noted the polarity of organisms and that regeneration in worms occurs with different rates at different positions. This led him to postulate that regeneration phenomena are influenced by gradients of “formative substances” (Morgan 1901).The idea that organisms are patterned by gradients of form-providing substances was explored by Boveri and Hörstadius to explain the patterning of the sea urchin embryo (Boveri 1901; Hörstadius 1935). The discovery of the Spemann organizer, i.e., a group of dorsal cells that when grafted onto the opposite ventral pole of a host gastrula induce a secondary body axis (Spemann and Mangold 1924), suggested that morphogenesis results from the action of signals that are released from localized groups of cells (“organizing centers”) to induce the differentiation of the cells around them (De Robertis 2006). Child proposed that these patterning “signals” represent metabolic gradients (Child 1941), but the mechanisms of their formation, regulation, and translation into pattern remained elusive.In 1952, Turing showed that chemical substances, which he called morphogens (to convey the idea of “form producers”), could self-organize into spatial patterns, starting from homogenous distributions (Turing 1952). Turing’s reaction–diffusion model shows that two or more morphogens with slightly different diffusion properties that react by auto- and cross-catalyzing or inhibiting their production, can generate spatial patterns of morphogen concentration. The reaction–diffusion formalism was used to model regeneration in hydra (Turing 1952), pigmentation of fish (Kondo and Asai 1995; Kondo 2002), and snails (Meinhardt 2003).At the same time that Turing showed that pattern can self-organize from the production, diffusion, and reaction of morphogens in all cells, the idea that morphogens are released from localized sources (“organizers” à la Spemann) and form concentration gradients was still explored. This idea was formalized by Wolpert with the French flag model for generation of positional information (Wolpert 1969). According to this model, morphogen is secreted from a group of source cells and forms a gradient of concentration in the target tissue. Different target genes are expressed above distinct concentration thresholds, i.e., at different distances to the source, hence generating a spatial pattern of gene expression (Fig. 1C).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Tissue geometry and simplifications. (A) Gradients in epithelia (left) and mesenchymal tissues (right). Because of symmetry considerations, one row of cells (red outline) is representative for the whole gradient. (B) Magnified view of the red row of cells shown in A. Cells with differently colored nuclei (brown, orange, and blue) express different target genes. (C) A continuum model in which individual cells are ignored and the concentration is a function of the positions x. The morphogen activates different target genes above different concentration thresholds (brown and orange).Experiments in the 1970s and later confirmed that tissues are patterned by morphogen gradients. Sander showed that a morphogen released from the posterior cytoplasm specifies anterioposterior position in the insect egg (Sander 1976). Chick wing bud development was explained by a morphogen gradient emanating from the zone of polarizing activity to specify digit positions (Saunders 1972; Tickle, et al. 1975; Tickle 1999). The most definitive example of a morphogen was provided with the identification of Bicoid function in the Drosophila embryo (Nüsslein-Volhard and Wieschaus 1980; Frohnhöfer and Nüsslein-Volhard 1986; Nüsslein-Volhard et al. 1987) and the visualization of its gradient by antibody staining (Driever and Nüsslein-Volhard 1988b, 1988a; reviewed in Ephrussi and St Johnston 2004). Since then, many examples of morphogen gradients acting in different organs and species have been found.In an attempt to understand pattern formation in more depth, quantitative models of gradient formation have been developed. An early model by Crick shows that freely diffusing morphogen produced in a source cell and destroyed in a “sink” cell at a distance would produce a linear gradient in developmentally relevant timescales (Crick 1970). Today, it is known that a localized “sink” is not necessary for gradient formation: Gradients can form if all cells act as sinks and degrade morphogen, or even if morphogen is not degraded at all. Here, we review different mechanisms of gradient formation, the properties of these gradients, and the implications for patterning. We discuss the theory behind these mechanisms and the supporting experimental data.     

Architecture of the Mammalian Golgi

Since its first visualization in 1898, the Golgi has been a topic of intense morphological research. A typical mammalian Golgi consists of a pile of stapled cisternae, the Golgi stack, which is a key station for modification of newly synthesized proteins and lipids. Distinct stacks are interconnected by tubules to form the Golgi ribbon. At the entrance site of the Golgi, the cis-Golgi, vesicular tubular clusters (VTCs) form the intermediate between the endoplasmic reticulum and the Golgi stack. At the exit site of the Golgi, the trans-Golgi, the trans-Golgi network (TGN) is the major site of sorting proteins to distinct cellular locations. Golgi functioning can only be understood in light of its complex architecture, as was revealed by a range of distinct electron microscopy (EM) approaches. In this article, a general concept of mammalian Golgi architecture, including VTCs and the TGN, is described.In 1898 Camillo Golgi was the first to visualize, describe, and ultimately name the Golgi complex. Using a histochemical impregnation method causing the reduction and deposition of silver, he defined the Golgi in neuronal cells as a reticular apparatus stained by the “black reaction” (Golgi 1898). In the 1950s, the first ultrastructural images of the Golgi were revealed using the then newly developed electron microscope (EM) (Dalton 1954; Farquhar and Rinehart 1954; Sjostrand and Hanzon 1954; Dalton and Felix 1956), reviewed by Farquhar and Palade (1981). In 1961, the thiamine pyrophosphatase reaction developed by Novikoff and Goldfischer allowed cytochemical labeling of Golgi membranes, which revealed the ubiquitous cellular distribution of this organelle (Novikoff and Goldfischer 1961). In the many years of ultrastructural research that have followed, the visualization of the Golgi has gone hand-in-hand with the developing EM techniques.The intriguing structural complexity of the Golgi has made it one of the most photographed organelles in the cell. However, a full understanding of Golgi architecture is hard to deduce from the ultrathin (70–100 nm) sections used in standard transmission EM preparations. Rambourg and Clermont (1974) were the first to investigate the Golgi in three dimensions (3D), using stereoscopy (Rambourg 1974). In this approach a “thick” (150–200 nm), EM section is photographed at two distinct angles, after which the pairs of photographs are viewed with a stereoscope. Over the years, stereoscopy was applied to a variety of cells and has greatly contributed to our current understanding of Golgi architecture (Lindsey and Ellisman 1985; Rambourg and Clermont 1990; Clermont et al. 1994; Clermont et al. 1995). An alternative approach to study 3D structure is serial sectioning, by which a series of adjacent (serial) thin sections are collected. The Golgi can be followed throughout these sections and be constructed into a 3D model (Beams and Kessel 1968; Dylewski et al. 1984; Rambourg and Clermont 1990). In the nineties, 3D-EM was boosted by the introduction of high-voltage, dual axis 3D electron tomography (Ladinsky et al. 1999; Koster and Klumperman 2003; Marsh 2005; Marsh 2007; Noske et al. 2008), which allows the analysis of sections of up to 3–4 µm with a 4–6 nm resolution in the z-axis. The sections are photographed in a tilt series of different angles, which are reconstructed into a 3D tomogram that allows one to “look beyond” a given structure and reveals how it relates to other cellular compartments.Membranes with a similar appearance can differ in protein content and function. These differences are revealed by protein localization techniques. Therefore, in addition to the “classical” EM techniques providing ultrastructural details, EM methods that determine protein localization within the context of the cellular morphology have been crucial to further our understanding on the functional organization of the Golgi. For example, by enzyme-activity-based cytochemical staining the cis-to-trans-polarity in the distribution of Golgi glycosylation enzymes was discovered, reviewed by Farquhar and Palade (1981), which was key to understanding the functional organization of the Golgi stack in protein and lipid glycosylation. With the development of immunoEM methods, using antibodies, the need for enzyme activity for protein localization was overcome. This paved the way for the localization of a wide variety of proteins, such as the cytoplasmic coat complexes associated with the Golgi (Rabouille and Klumperman 2005).A logical next step in EM-based imaging of the Golgi would be to combine protein localization with 3D imaging, but this is technically challenging. A number of protocols enabling protein localization in 3D have recently been described (Trucco et al. 2004; Grabenbauer et al. 2005; Gaietta et al. 2006; Zeuschner et al. 2006; Meiblitzer-Ruppitsch et al. 2008), but these have only been applied in a limited manner to Golgi studies. Another approach that holds great potential for Golgi research is correlative microscopy (CLEM). Live cell imaging of fluorescent proteins has revolutionized cell biology by the real time visualization of dynamic events. However, live cell imaging does not reveal membrane complexity. By CLEM, live cells are first viewed by light microscopy and then prepared for EM (Mironov et al. 2008; van Rijnsoever et al. 2008). When coupled with the recent introduction of super resolution light microscopy techniques for real time imaging, the combination with EM for direct correlation with ultrastructural resolution has great potential (Hell 2009; Lippincott-Schwartz and Manley 2009).The 100th anniversary of the discovery of the Golgi, in 1998, triggered a wave of reviews on this organelle, including those focusing on Golgi architecture (Rambourg 1997; Farquhar and Palade 1998). More recent reviews that describe Golgi structure in great detail are provided by Marsh (2005) and Hua (2009). In this article, the most recent insights in mammalian Golgi architecture as revealed by distinct EM approaches are integrated into a general concept.     

mGluR1/TRPC3-mediated Synaptic Transmission and Calcium Signaling in Mammalian Central Neurons

Metabotropic glutamate receptors type 1 (mGluR1s) are required for a normal function of the mammalian brain. They are particularly important for synaptic signaling and plasticity in the cerebellum. Unlike ionotropic glutamate receptors that mediate rapid synaptic transmission, mGluR1s produce in cerebellar Purkinje cells a complex postsynaptic response consisting of two distinct signal components, namely a local dendritic calcium signal and a slow excitatory postsynaptic potential. The basic mechanisms underlying these synaptic responses were clarified in recent years. First, the work of several groups established that the dendritic calcium signal results from IP₃ receptor-mediated calcium release from internal stores. Second, it was recently found that mGluR1-mediated slow excitatory postsynaptic potentials are mediated by the transient receptor potential channel TRPC3. This surprising finding established TRPC3 as a novel postsynaptic channel for glutamatergic synaptic transmission.Glutamate is the predominant neurotransmitter used by excitatory synapses in the mammalian brain (Hayashi 1952; Curtis et al. 1959). At postsynaptic sites, glutamate binds to two different classes of receptors, namely the ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGluRs) and the metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) (Sladeczek et al. 1985; Nicoletti et al. 1986; Sugiyama et al. 1987). The iGluRs represent ligand-gated nonselective cation channels that underlie excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs). Based on their subunit composition, gating, and permeability properties, they are subdivided into three groups named after specific agonists: AMPA- (α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid), NMDA receptors (N-methyl D-aspartate receptors) and kainate receptors (Alexander et al. 2009). The other class of glutamate receptors, the mGluRs, consists of receptors that are coupled to G proteins and act through distinct downstream signaling cascades. They are structurally different from iGluRs and characterized by the presence of seven transmembrane domains (Houamed et al. 1991; Masu et al. 1991). The mGluRs exist as homodimers that do not by themselves form an ion-permeable pore in the membrane (Ozawa et al. 1998). To date, eight different genes (and more splice variants) encoding mGluRs have been identified and form the mGluR1 through mGluR8 subtypes (Alexander et al. 2009). Based on the amino acid sequence homology, downstream signal transduction pathways, and pharmacological properties, each of the subtypes was assigned to one of three groups. Group I receptors consist of mGluR1 and mGluR5 that positively couple to the phospholipase C (PLC). The receptors mGluR2 and mGluR3 constitute group II, whereas the remaining mGluRs, namely mGluR4, mGluR6, mGluR7, and mGluR8, belong to group III. Both groups II and III inhibit the adenylyl cyclase and thereby reduce the concentration of cAMP in the cytosol.Of all different subtypes, mGluR1 is the most abundantly expressed mGluR in the mammalian central nervous system. In the brain, mGluR1 is highly expressed in the olfactory bulb, dentate gyrus, and cerebellum (Lein et al. 2007). The highest expression level of mGluR1 in the brain is found in Purkinje cells, the principal neurons of the cerebellar cortex (Shigemoto et al. 1992; Lein et al. 2007). Together with the AMPA receptors, mGluR1s are part of the excitatory synapses formed between parallel fibers and Purkinje cells (Fig. 1A). Each Purkinje cell is innervated by 100,000–200,000 parallel fibers (Ito 2006) that are axons of the cerebellar granule cells, the most abundant type of neuron in the brain. A second type of excitatory input to Purkinje cells is represented by the climbing fibers that originate in the inferior olive in the brain stem (Ito 2006). The two excitatory synaptic inputs to Purkinje cells are important determinants for the main functions of the cerebellum, including the real-time control of movement precision, error-correction, and control of posture as well as the procedural learning of complex movement sequences and conditioned responses.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Parallel fiber-evoked mGluR1-dependent signals. (A) Diagram showing the parallel fiber synaptic input to Purkinje cell dendrites. (B) Microelectrode recording of glutamatergic postsynaptic potentials from a Purkinje cell in an acute slice of adult rat cerebellum. Short trains of stimuli to the parallel fibers (5–6 at 50 Hz) caused summation of the early AMPA receptor-dependent EPSPs (leading to spike firing) and a slow, delayed, depolarizing potential (slow EPSP), which was reversibly inhibited by antagonist of mGluRs (+)-MCPG (1mM). (C) Confocal image of a patch-clamped Purkinje cell in a cerebellar slice of an adult mouse. The patch-clamp pipette and the glass capillary used for electrical stimulation of parallel fibers are depicted schematically. The site of stimulation is shown at higher magnification in D. (D) Left: Parallel fiber-evoked (five pulses at 200 Hz, in 10 mM CNQX) synaptic responses consisting of a dendritic mGluR1-dependent Ca²⁺ transient (ΔF/F, top) and an early rapid and a slow excitatory postsynaptic current (EPSC, bottom). Block of the mGluR1-dependent components by the group I-specific mGluR-antagonist CPCCOEt (200 µM) is shown as indicated. Right: Pseudocolor image of the synaptic Ca²⁺ signal. (B, Reprinted with modifications, with permission, from Batchelor and Gaithwaite 1997 [Nature Publishing Group].)It is expected that mGluR1 is involved in many of these cerebellar functions. This view is supported by the observation that mGluR1-deficient knockout mice show severe impairments in motor coordination. In particular, the gait of these mice is strongly affected as well as their ability for motor learning and general coordination (Aiba et al. 1994). The phenotype of the general mGluR1-knockout mice is rescued by the insertion of the gene encoding mGluR1 exclusively into cerebellar Purkinje cells (Ichise et al. 2000) and blockade of mGluR1 expression only in Purkinje cells of adult mice leads to impaired motor coordination (Nakao et al. 2007). These findings established mGluR1 in Purkinje cell as synaptic receptors that are indispensable for a normal cerebellar function.Synaptic transmission involving mGluR1s is found at both parallel fiber-Purkinje cell synapses (Batchelor and Garthwaite 1993; Batchelor et al. 1994) as well as at climbing fiber-Purkinje cell synapses (Dzubay and Otis 2002). Most of our knowledge on the mGluR1 was gained from the analysis of the parallel fiber synapses. The parallel fiber synapse is quite unique in the central nervous system regarding its endowment with neurotransmitter receptors. In contrast to most other glutamatergic synapses in the mammalian brain, it lacks functional NMDA receptors (Shin and Linden 2005). The entire synaptic transmission at these synapses relies on AMPA receptors and on mGluR1 (Takechi et al. 1998). Although AMPA receptors are effectively activated even with single shock stimuli (Konnerth et al. 1990; Llano et al. 1991b), activation of mGluRs requires repetitive stimulation (Batchelor and Garthwaite 1993; Batchelor et al. 1994; Batchelor and Garthwaite 1997; Takechi et al. 1998). A possible explanation for the need of repetitive stimulation may relate to the observation that mGluR1s are found mostly at the periphery of the subsynaptic region (Nusser et al. 1994). At these sites outside the synaptic cleft, glutamate levels that are sufficiently high for receptor activation may be reached only with repetitive stimulation.At parallel fiber-Purkinje cell synapses, repetitive stimulation produces an initial AMPA receptor postsynaptic signal component, followed by a more prolonged mGluR1 component (Fig. 1). Figure 1B shows a current clamp recording of this response consisting of an early burst of action potentials, followed by a prolonged depolarization known as a “slow excitatory postsynaptic potential” (slow EPSP) (Batchelor and Garthwaite 1993; Batchelor et al. 1994; Batchelor and Garthwaite 1997). Voltage-clamp recordings allow a clear separation of the initial rapid, AMPA receptor mediated excitatory postsynaptic current (EPSC) and the mGluR1-mediated slow EPSC (Fig. 1D) (Takechi et al. 1998; Hartmann et al. 2008). In addition of inducing the slow EPSPs, mGluR1s mediate a large and highly localized dendritic calcium transient in cerebellar Purkinje cells (Fig. 1D) (Llano et al. 1991a; Finch and Augustine 1998; Takechi et al. 1998).     

Fibronectins,Their Fibrillogenesis,and In Vivo Functions

Fibronectin (FN) is a multidomain protein with the ability to bind simultaneously to cell surface receptors, collagen, proteoglycans, and other FN molecules. Many of these domains and interactions are also involved in the assembly of FN dimers into a multimeric fibrillar matrix. When, where, and how FN binds to its various partners must be controlled and coordinated during fibrillogenesis. Steps in the process of FN fibrillogenesis including FN self-association, receptor activities, and intracellular pathways have been under intense investigation for years. In this review, the domain organization of FN including the extra domains and variable region that are controlled by alternative splicing are described. We discuss how FN–FN and cell–FN interactions play essential roles in the initiation and progression of matrix assembly using complementary results from cell culture and embryonic model systems that have enhanced our understanding of this process.As a ubiquitous component of the extracellular matrix (ECM), fibronectin (FN) provides essential connections to cells through integrins and other receptors and regulates cell adhesion, migration, and differentiation. FN is secreted as a large dimeric glycoprotein with subunits that range in size from 230 kDa to 270 kDa (Mosher 1989; Hynes 1990). Variation in subunit size depends primarily on alternative splicing. FN was first isolated from blood more than 60 years ago (Edsall 1978), and this form is called plasma FN. The other major form, called cellular FN, is abundant in the fibrillar matrices of most tissues. Although FN is probably best known for promoting attachment of cells to surfaces, this multidomain protein has many interesting structural features and functional roles beyond cell adhesion.FN is composed of three different types of modules termed type I, II, and III repeats (Fig. 1) (Petersen et al. 1983; Hynes 1990). These repeats have distinct structures. Although the conformations of type I and type II repeats are maintained by pairs of intramodule disulfide bonds, the type III repeat is a 7-stranded β-barrel structure that lacks disulfide bonds (Main et al. 1992; Leahy et al. 1996, 1992) and, therefore, can undergo conformational changes. FN type III repeats are widely distributed among animal, bacterial, and plant proteins and are found in both extracellular and intracellular proteins (Bork and Doolittle 1992; Tsyguelnaia and Doolittle 1998).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.FN domain organization and isoforms. Each FN monomer has a modular structure consisting of 12 type I repeats (cylinders), 2 type II repeats (diamonds), and 15 constitutive type III repeats (hexagons). Two additional type III repeats (EIIIA and EIIIB, green) are included or omitted by alternative splicing. The third region of alternative splicing, the V region (green box), is included (V120), excluded (V0), or partially included (V95, V64, V89). Sets of modules comprise domains for binding to other extracellular molecules as indicated. Domains required for fibrillogenesis are in red: the assembly domain (repeats I_1-5) binds FN, III_9-10 contains the RGD and synergy sequences for integrin binding, and the carboxy-terminal cysteines form the disulfide-bonded FN dimer (‖). The III_1-2 domain (light red) has two FN binding sites that are important for fibrillogenesis. The amino-terminal 70-kDa fragment contains assembly and gelatin-binding domains and is routinely used in FN binding and matrix assembly studies.Sets of adjacent modules form binding domains for a variety of proteins and carbohydrates (Fig. 1). ECM proteins, including FN, bind to cells via integrin receptors, αβ heterodimers with two transmembrane subunits (Hynes 2002). FN-binding integrins have specificity for one of the two cell-binding sites within FN, either the RGD-dependent cell-binding domain in III₁₀ (Pierschbacher and Ruoslahti 1984) or the CS1 segment of the alternatively spliced V region (IIICS) (Wayner et al. 1989; Guan and Hynes 1990). Some integrins require a synergy sequence in repeat III₉ for maximal interactions with FN (Aota et al. 1994; Bowditch et al. 1994). Another family of cell surface receptors is the syndecans, single-chain transmembrane proteoglycans (Couchman 2010). Syndecans use their glycosaminoglycan (GAG) chains to interact with FN at its carboxy-terminal heparin-binding (HepII) domain (Fig. 1) (Saunders and Bernfield 1988; Woods et al. 2000), which binds to heparin, heparan sulfate, and chondroitin sulfate GAGs (Hynes 1990; Barkalow and Schwarzbauer 1994). Syndecan binding to the HepII domain enhances integrin-mediated cell spreading and intracellular signaling, suggesting that syndecans act as coreceptors with integrins in cell–FN binding (Woods and Couchman 1998; Morgan et al. 2007).A major site for FN self-association is within the amino-terminal assembly domain spanning the first five type I repeats (I_1-5) (Fig. 1) (McKeown-Longo and Mosher 1985; McDonald et al. 1987; Schwarzbauer 1991b; Sottile et al. 1991). This domain plays an essential role in FN fibrillogenesis. As a major blood protein, FN interacts with fibrin during blood coagulation, also using the I_1-5 domain (Mosher 1989; Hynes 1990). As fibrin polymerizes, factor XIII transglutaminase covalently cross-links glutamine residues near the amino terminus of FN to fibrin α chains (Mosher 1975; Corbett et al. 1997). The amino-terminal domain has multiple binding partners in addition to FN and fibrin; these include heparin, S. aureus, and other bacteria, thrombospondin-1, and tenascin-C (Hynes 1990; Ingham et al. 2004; Schwarz-Linek et al. 2006). Adjacent to this domain is the gelatin/collagen-binding domain composed of type I and type II modules (Ingham et al. 1988). This domain also binds to tissue transglutaminase (Radek et al. 1993) and fibrillin-1 (Sabatier et al. 2009). Within the 15 type III repeats reside several FN binding sites that interact with the amino-terminal assembly domain as well as three sites of alternative splicing that generate multiple isoforms. At the carboxyl terminus is a pair of cysteine residues that form the FN dimer through antiparallel disulfide bonds (Hynes 1990). This dimerization may be facilitated by disulfide isomerase activity located in the last set of type I repeats (Langenbach and Sottile 1999).The diverse set of binding domains provides FN with the ability to interact simultaneously with other FN molecules, other ECM components (e.g., collagens and proteoglycans), cell surface receptors, and extracellular enzymes (Pankov and Yamada 2002; Fogelgren et al. 2005; Hynes 2009; Singh et al. 2010). Multitasking by FN probably underlies its essential role during embryogenesis (George et al. 1993). Furthermore, FN''s interactions can be modulated by exposure or sequestration of its binding sites within matrix fibrils, through the presence of ECM proteins that bind to FN, or through variation in structure by alternative splicing.     

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.     

Retrograde Traffic from the Golgi to the Endoplasmic Reticulum

Proteins to be secreted are transported from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) to the Golgi apparatus. The transport of these proteins requires the localization and activity of proteins that create ER exit sites, coat proteins to collect cargo and to reshape the membrane into a transport container, and address labels—SNARE proteins—to target the vesicles specifically to the Golgi apparatus. In addition some proteins may need export chaperones or export receptors to enable their exit into transport vesicles. ER export factors, SNAREs, and misfolded Golgi-resident proteins must all be retrieved from the Golgi to the ER again. This retrieval is also part of the organellar homeostasis pathway essential to maintaining the identity of the ER and of the Golgi apparatus. In this review, I will discuss the different processes in retrograde transport from the Golgi to the ER and highlight the mechanistic insights we have obtained in the last couple of years.Proteins that are exposed at the plasma membrane or populate a membrane-bounded organelle are synthesized into the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). In the ER, the folding of these proteins takes place and posttranslational modifications such as N-glycosylation and disulfide bridge formation occur. Upon adopting a suitable, often correct, conformation, proteins destined to locations beyond the ER are concentrated at so-called ER exit sites (ERES) and incorporated into nascent COPII-coated vesicles. These COPII vesicles eventually bud off the ER membrane and are transported to the Golgi (in yeast, Drosophila, and C. elegans) or the ER-Golgi intermediate compartment (in mammalian cells) (Schweizer et al. 1990; Kondylis and Rabouille 2003; Spang 2009; Witte et al. 2011).It is assumed that the vesicle coat is at least partially destabilized through the hydrolysis of GTP by the small GTPase Sar1 (Oka and Nakano 1994; Springer et al. 1999). However, some of the destabilized coat components have to stay on the vesicle until it has reached the Golgi apparatus because coat components participate in the recognition and the tethering process (Barlowe 1997; Cai et al. 2007; Lord et al. 2011; Zong et al. 2012). Subsequently, SNARE proteins on the vesicles (v-SNAREs) zipper up with cognate SNAREs on the Golgi (target SNAREs, t-SNAREs) to drive membrane fusion (Hay et al. 1998; Cao and Barlowe 2000; Parlati et al. 2002). The content of the ER-derived COPII vesicles is thereby released into the lumen of the cis-cisterna of the Golgi apparatus. Most proteins will continue their journey through the Golgi apparatus and encounter further modifications such as extension of the glycosylation tree or lipidation. However, some proteins, especially those involved in the fusion process, i.e., the v-SNAREs or proteins that act as export factors of the ER, such as Vma21, which is essential for export of the correctly folded and assembled V0 sector of the V-ATPase, need to be recycled back to the ER for another round of transport (Ballensiefen et al. 1998; Malkus et al. 2004). Moreover, cis-Golgi proteins are returned to the ER for quality/functional control (Todorow et al. 2000; Sato et al. 2004; Valkova et al. 2011). Finally, some ER-resident proteins, such as the ER Hsp70 chaperone BiP/Kar2, can escape the ER, but are captured at the cis-Golgi by the H/KDEL receptor Erd2 and returned to the ER (Lewis et al. 1990; Semenza et al. 1990; Aoe et al. 1997).Unfortunately, the retrograde transport route is also hijacked by toxins. For example, endocytosed cholera toxin subunit A contains a KDEL sequence and can thereby exploit the system to access the ER (Majoul et al. 1996, 1998). From there, it is retro-translocated into the cytoplasm where it can exert its detrimental function.     

Molecular Bases of Cell–Cell Junctions Stability and Dynamics

Epithelial cell–cell junctions are formed by apical adherens junctions (AJs), which are composed of cadherin adhesion molecules interacting in a dynamic way with the cortical actin cytoskeleton. Regulation of cell–cell junction stability and dynamics is crucial to maintain tissue integrity and allow tissue remodeling throughout development. Actin filament turnover and organization are tightly controlled together with myosin-II activity to produce mechanical forces that drive the assembly, maintenance, and remodeling of AJs. In this review, we will discuss these three distinct stages in the lifespan of cell–cell junctions, using several developmental contexts, which illustrate how mechanical forces are generated and transmitted at junctions, and how they impact on the integrity and the remodeling of cell–cell junctions.Cell–cell junction formation and remodeling occur repeatedly throughout development. Epithelial cells are linked by apical adherens junctions (AJs) that rely on the cadherin-catenin-actin module. Cadherins, of which epithelial E-cadherin (E-cad) is the most studied, are Ca²⁺-dependent transmembrane adhesion proteins forming homophilic and heterophilic bonds in trans between adjacent cells. Cadherins and the actin cytoskeleton are mutually interdependent (Jaffe et al. 1990; Matsuzaki et al. 1990; Hirano et al. 1992; Oyama et al. 1994; Angres et al. 1996; Orsulic and Peifer 1996; Adams et al. 1998; Zhang et al. 2005; Pilot et al. 2006). This has long been attributed to direct physical interaction of E-cad with β-catenin (β-cat) and of α-catenin (α-cat) with actin filaments (for reviews, see Gumbiner 2005; Leckband and Prakasam 2006; Pokutta and Weis 2007). Recently, biochemical and protein dynamics analyses have shown that such a link may not exist and that instead, a constant shuttling of α-cat between cadherin/β-cat complexes and actin may be key to explain the dynamic aspect of cell–cell adhesion (Drees et al. 2005; Yamada et al. 2005). Regardless of the exact nature of this link, several studies show that AJs are indeed physically attached to actin and that cadherins transmit cortical forces exerted by junctional acto-myosin networks (Costa et al. 1998; Sako et al. 1998; Pettitt et al. 2003; Dawes-Hoang et al. 2005; Cavey et al. 2008; Martin et al. 2008; Rauzi et al. 2008). In addition, physical association depends in part on α-cat (Cavey et al. 2008) and additional intermediates have been proposed to represent alternative missing links (Abe and Takeichi 2008) (reviewed in Gates and Peifer 2005; Weis and Nelson 2006). Although further work is needed to address the molecular nature of cadherin/actin dynamic interactions, association with actin is crucial all throughout the lifespan of AJs. In this article, we will review our current understanding of the molecular mechanisms at work during three different developmental stages of AJs biology: assembly, stabilization, and remodeling, with special emphasis on the mechanical forces controlling AJs integrity and development.     

The EGFR Family: Not So Prototypical Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) was among the first receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) for which ligand binding was studied and for which the importance of ligand-induced dimerization was established. As a result, EGFR and its relatives have frequently been termed “prototypical” RTKs. Many years of mechanistic studies, however, have revealed that—far from being prototypical—the EGFR family is quite unique. As we discuss in this review, the EGFR family uses a distinctive “receptor-mediated” dimerization mechanism, with ligand binding inducing a dramatic conformational change that exposes a dimerization arm. Intracellular kinase domain regulation in this family is also unique, being driven by allosteric changes induced by asymmetric dimer formation rather than the more typical activation-loop phosphorylation. EGFR family members also distinguish themselves from other RTKs in having an intracellular juxtamembrane (JM) domain that activates (rather than autoinhibits) the receptor and a very large carboxy-terminal tail that contains autophosphorylation sites and serves an autoregulatory function. We discuss recent advances in mechanistic aspects of all of these components of EGFR family members, attempting to integrate them into a view of how RTKs in this important class are regulated at the cell surface.The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is often considered the “prototypical” receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) and has been intensively studied. It is one of a family of four RTKs in humans, the others being ErbB2/HER2, ErbB3/HER3, and ErbB4/HER4 (Fig. 1). EGFR and its relatives are known oncogenic drivers in cancers such as lung cancer (Mok 2011), breast cancer (Arteaga et al. 2011), and glioblastoma (Libermann et al. 1985; Lee et al. 2006a; Vivanco et al. 2012), and inhibitors of these receptors have been among the most successful examples of targeted cancer therapies to date (Arteaga 2003; Moasser 2007; Zhang et al. 2007), including antibody therapeutics (e.g., trastuzumab and cetuximab) and small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (e.g., erlotinib, gefitinib, lapatinib).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Schematic representation of EGFR/ErbB family receptors and their ligands. (A) The domain composition of human EGFR is shown. The extracellular region contains four domains: Domain I (amino acids 1–165), domain II (amino acids 165–310), domain III (amino acids 310–480), and domain IV (amino acids 480–620). Domains I and III are closely related in sequence, as are domains II and IV. Shown are representations of the structures of domains I and IV. Domain IV contains two types of disulfide-bonded module (C1 and C2). In C1 domains, a single disulfide constrains an intervening bow-like loop. In C2 modules, two disulfides link four successive cysteines in the patterns C1–C3 and C2–C4 to give a knot-like structure. A short extracellular juxtamembrane (eJM) region separates the extracellular region from the ∼23-amino-acid transmembrane (TM) domain. Within the cell, a short intracellular juxtamembrane (iJM) region separates the tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) from the membrane. A representative EGFR TKD structure is shown. The TKD is followed by a carboxy-terminal largely unstructured tail (amino acids 953–1186) that contains at least five tyrosine autophosphorylation sites. (B) EGFR is one of four members of the EGFR/ErbB family in humans. The other members are ErbB2/HER2, for which no soluble activating ligand is shown; ErbB3/HER3, which has a significantly impaired kinase domain (Jura et al. 2009b; Shi et al. 2010); and ErbB4/HER4. The primary active moiety of the ligands for these receptors is the EGF-like domain, shown as a cartoon structure (top right). EGFR is activated by the EGFR agonists: EGF itself, TGF-α (transforming growth factor α), ARG (amphiregulin), and EGN (epigen). The bispecific ligands regulate both EGFR and ErbB4: HB-EGF (heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor), EPR (epiregulin), and BTC (betacellulin). Neuregulins (NRGs) 1 and 2 regulate ErbB3 and ErbB4, whereas NRG3 and NRG4 appear to be specific for ErbB4 (Wilson et al. 2009).Far from being prototypical, however, it is now clear that regulation of EGFR family members is unique among RTKs (Ferguson 2008; Lemmon 2009; Lemmon and Schlessinger 2010). Structural studies have revealed how the ∼620-amino-acid isolated extracellular region is induced to dimerize after growth factor binding (Burgess et al. 2003) and how the isolated intracellular tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) becomes allosterically activated after forming an asymmetric dimer (Zhang et al. 2006; Jura et al. 2009a; Red Brewer et al. 2009). These findings have typically been interpreted in the context of a model in which EGF family receptors are regulated through ligand-induced receptor homodimerization or heterodimerization, with growth factor binding converting the receptor from an inactive monomeric configuration to an active dimeric conformation (Yarden and Schlessinger 1987; Schlessinger 1988, 2014; Ullrich and Schlessinger 1990). Although this original model has stood the test of time and initiated a whole field of studies of ligand-induced RTK dimerization, recent work has provided highly sophisticated views of a unique mode of allosteric regulation used by EGFR.     

Cadherin-mediated Intercellular Adhesion and Signaling Cascades Involving Small GTPases

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

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.     

Central Role of RET in Thyroid Cancer

RET (rearranged during transfection) is a receptor tyrosine kinase involved in the development of neural crest derived cell lineages, kidney, and male germ cells. Different human cancers, including papillary and medullary thyroid carcinomas, lung adenocarcinomas, and myeloproliferative disorders display gain-of-function mutations in RET. Accordingly, RET protein has become a promising molecular target for cancer treatment.The human RET (rearranged during transfection) gene maps on 10q11.2 and is composed of 21 exons spanning a region of 55,000 bp. It encodes a single-pass trans-membrane protein, RET, that belongs to the receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) family (Pasini et al. 1995). The RET extracellular segment contains four cadherin-like domains, followed by a domain containing cysteine residues involved in the formation of intramolecular disulfide bonds (Fig. 1A) (Anders et al. 2001; Airaksinen and Saarma 2002). RET protein is highly glycosylated and N-glycosylation is necessary for its transport to the cell surface. Only the fully mature glycosylated 170 kDa RET protein isoform is exposed to the extracellular compartment, whereas the mannose-rich 150 kDa isoform is confined to the Golgi (Takahashi et al. 1993; Carlomagno et al. 1996). The transmembrane segment is composed of 22 amino acids, among which S649 and S653 mediate self-association and dimerization of RET, possibly via formation of inter-molecular hydrogen bonding (Kjaer et al. 2006). The intracellular portion of RET contains the tyrosine kinase domain split into two subdomains by the insertion of 27 amino acids. The RET COOH-terminal tail varies in length as a result of alternative splicing of the 3′ end (carboxy terminal with respect to glycine 1063), generating three different isoforms that contain 9 (RET9), 43 (RET43), or 51 (RET51) amino acids (Myers et al. 1995). RET9 and RET51 are the most abundant isoforms, and they activate similar signaling pathways through interaction with diverse protein complexes, and may exert a differential role in development (Fig. 1A) (de Graaff et al. 2001).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Illustration of the mechanisms of activation of wild-type (wt) RET and RET-derived oncoproteins. (A) Wild-type RET activation is mediated by ligand (GFL)-induced dimerization; ligand binding to RET is not direct and mediated by GFR-α coreceptors (not shown); major RET autophosphorylation sites and downstream signaling pathways are indicated. RET extracellular cadherin-like domains are represented in red. The split intracellular RET tyrosine kinase domain, as well as the three alternative carboxy-terminal RET tails, are also depicted. (B) RET/PTC activation is mediated by coiled-coil-induced dimerization (left); activation of RET cysteine mutants associated with MEN2A or FMTC is mediated by disulfide bonds-mediated dimerization (right).RET shows several autophosphorylation sites (Fig. 1A) (Liu et al. 1996; Kawamoto et al. 2004). RET tyrosine 1062 (Y1062) functions as a multidocking site for signaling molecules containing a phosphotyrosine-binding (PTB) domain (Asai et al. 1996). Phospho-Y1062 binding proteins include SHC, N-SHC (RAI), FRS2, IRS1/2, DOK1, and DOK4/5 that, in turn, contribute to the activation of RAS-MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinases) and PI3K (phosphatidyl inositol 3 kinase)-AKT pathways. Y1096, specific to the RET51 splicing variant, couples to the PI3K-AKT and RAS-MAPK pathways, as well. These signaling cascades mediate RET-dependent cell survival, proliferation, and motility (Alberti et al. 1998; Murakami et al. 1999; Segouffin-Cariou and Billaud 2000; Melillo et al. 2001a,b; Schuetz et al. 2004). Y905 is located in the activation loop of the RET kinase and its phosphorylation is associated with RET kinase activation (Knowles et al. 2006). Finally, Y981 and Y1015 have been shown to be coupled to important signaling molecules such as SRC and PLC-γ, respectively (Borrello et al. 1996; Encinas et al. 2004).RET is the receptor for a group of neurotrophic growth factors that belong to the glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) family (GFLs, GDNF family ligands), namely, GDNF, Neurturin (NRT), Artemin (ART), and Persephin (PSF) (Airaksinen and Saarma 2002). GFLs mediate RET protein dimerization and activation (Fig. 1A). GFLs are presented to RET by GPI (glycosylphosphatidylinositol)-anchored coreceptors, called GFR-α (GDNF family receptor α 1-4). Differential tissue expression dictates the specificity of action displayed by alternative GLF-GFR-α pairs during development and adult life (Baloh et al. 2000; Airaksinen and Saarma 2002).Together with other membrane (DCC and p75NTR) or nuclear (androgen receptor, AR) receptors, RET belongs to the family of so-called “dependence” receptors (Mehlen and Bredesen 2011). In the absence of ligand, RET exerts a proapoptotic activity, that is blocked on ligand stimulation (Bordeaux et al. 2000). Such pro-apoptotic activity is RET kinase-independent and mediated by cleavage of RET cytosolic portion by caspase-3, which, in turn, releases a carboxy-terminal RET peptide that is able to induce cell death (Bordeaux et al. 2000). It is feasible that such activity is important for RET developmental function, because it may control migration of RET-expressing cells by limiting survival of cells that move beyond ligand availability (Bordeaux et al. 2000; Cañibano et al. 2007). Whether modulation of this function is also important for RET-associated diseases is still unknown. However, it is interesting to note that a cancer-associated RET mutant (RET-C634R, see below) does not exert cleavage-dependent proapoptotic effects, whereas RET mutants associated with defective development (Hirschsprung disease, see below) exert strong proapoptotic activity that is refractory to modulation by ligand (Bordeaux et al. 2000).RET is expressed in enteric ganglia, adrenal medulla chromaffin cells, thyroid C cells, sensory and autonomic ganglia of the peripheral nervous system, a subset of central nervous system nuclei, developing kidney and testis germ cells (Manié et al. 2001; de Graaff et al. 2001). RET null mice display impaired development of superior cervical ganglia and enteric nervous system, kidney agenesia, reduction of thyroid C cells, and impaired spermatogenesis (Manié et al. 2001). Accordingly, individuals with germline loss-of-function mutations of RET are affected by intestinal aganglionosis causing congenital megacolon (Hirschsprung disease) (Brooks et al. 2005). RET loss-of-function mutations have also been identified in congenital anomalies of kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT), either isolated or in combination with Hirschsprung disease (Jain 2009).Several genetic alterations convert RET into a dominantly transforming oncogene. This review will describe RET-derived oncogenes that are associated with different types of human neoplasia (Fig. 1B).     

Widely Conserved Signaling Pathways in the Establishment of Cell Polarity

How are the asymmetric distributions of proteins, lipids, and RNAs established and maintained in various cell types? Studies from diverse organisms show that Par proteins, GTPases, kinases, and phosphoinositides participate in conserved signaling pathways to establish and maintain cell polarity.The asymmetric distribution of proteins, lipids, and RNAs is necessary for cell fate determination, differentiation, and specialized cell functions that underlie morphogenesis (St Johnston 2005; Gonczy 2008; Knoblich 2008; Macara and Mili 2008; Martin-Belmonte and Mostov 2008). A fundamental question is how this asymmetric distribution is established and maintained in different types of cells and tissues. The formation of a specialized apical surface on an epithelial cell seems quite different from the specification of axons versus dendrites in a neuron, or the asymmetric division of a nematode zygote. Yet, remarkably, a conserved molecular toolbox is used throughout the metazoa to establish and maintain cell polarity in these and many other contexts. This toolbox consists of proteins that are components of signal transduction pathways (Goldstein and Macara 2007; Assemat et al. 2008; Yamanaka and Ohno 2008). However, our understanding of these pathways, and their intersection with other signaling networks, remains incomplete. Moreover, the regulation and cross talk between the polarity proteins and other signaling components varies from one context to another, which complicates the task of dissecting polarity protein function. Nonetheless, rapid progress is being made in our understanding of polarity signaling, which is outlined in this article, with an emphasis on the Par proteins, because these proteins play major roles integrating diverse signals that regulate cell polarity (Fig. 1) (see Munro and Bowerman 2009; Prehoda 2009; Nelson 2009).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.An overview of Par complex signaling, showing inputs (bottom) and outputs (top) with cellular functions that are targeted by these pathways (italics).