Common formin-regulating sequences in Smy1 and Bud14 are required for the control of actin cable assembly in vivo

Formins comprise a large family of proteins with diverse roles in remodeling the actin cytoskeleton. However, the spatiotemporal mechanisms used by cells to control formin activities are only beginning to be understood. Here we dissected Smy1, which has dual roles in regulating formins and myosin. Using mutagenesis, we identified specific sequences in Smy1 critical for its in vitro inhibitory effects on the FH2 domain of the formin Bnr1. By integrating smy1 alleles targeting those sequences, we genetically uncoupled Smy1’s functions in regulating formins and myosin. Quantitative imaging analysis further demonstrated that the ability of Smy1 to directly control Bnr1 activity is crucial in vivo for proper actin cable length, shape, and velocity and, in turn, efficient secretory vesicle transport. A Smy1-like sequence motif was also identified in a different Bnr1 regulator, Bud14, and found to be essential for Bud14 functions in regulating actin cable architecture and function in vivo. Together these observations reveal unanticipated mechanistic ties between two distinct formin regulators. Further, they emphasize the importance of tightly controlling formin activities in vivo to generate specialized geometries and dynamics of actin structures tailored to their physiological roles.     

A conserved mechanism for Bni1- and mDia1-induced actin assembly and dual regulation of Bni1 by Bud6 and profilin

Formins have conserved roles in cell polarity and cytokinesis and directly nucleate actin filament assembly through their FH2 domain. Here, we define the active region of the yeast formin Bni1 FH2 domain and show that it dimerizes. Mutations that disrupt dimerization abolish actin assembly activity, suggesting that dimers are the active state of FH2 domains. The Bni1 FH2 domain protects growing barbed ends of actin filaments from vast excesses of capping protein, suggesting that the dimer maintains a persistent association during elongation. This is not a species-specific mechanism, as the activities of purified mammalian formin mDia1 are identical to those of Bni1. Further, mDia1 partially complements BNI1 function in vivo, and expression of a dominant active mDia1 construct in yeast causes similar phenotypes to dominant active Bni1 constructs. In addition, we purified the Bni1-interacting half of the cell polarity factor Bud6 and found that it binds specifically to actin monomers and, like profilin, promotes rapid nucleotide exchange on actin. Bud6 and profilin show additive stimulatory effects on Bni1 activity and have a synthetic lethal genetic interaction in vivo. From these results, we propose a model in which Bni1 FH2 dimers nucleate and processively cap the elongating barbed end of the actin filament, and Bud6 and profilin generate a local flux of ATP-actin monomers to promote actin assembly.     

The myosin passenger protein Smy1 controls actin cable structure and dynamics by acting as a formin damper

Formins are a conserved family of proteins with robust effects in promoting actin nucleation and elongation. However, the mechanisms restraining formin activities in cells to generate actin networks with particular dynamics and architectures are not well understood. In S.?cerevisiae, formins assemble actin cables, which serve as tracks for myosin-dependent intracellular transport. Here, we show that the kinesin-like myosin passenger-protein Smy1 interacts with the FH2 domain of the formin Bnr1 to decrease rates of actin filament elongation, which is distinct from the formin displacement activity of Bud14. In?vivo analysis of smy1Δ mutants demonstrates that this "damper" mechanism is critical for maintaining proper actin cable architecture, dynamics, and function. We directly observe Smy1-3GFP being transported by myosin V and transiently pausing at the neck in a manner dependent on Bnr1. These observations suggest that Smy1 is part of a negative feedback mechanism that detects cable length and prevents overgrowth.     

Closing the loops: new insights into the role and regulation of actin during cell polarization

In this review, we summarize recent results on the understanding of actin organization and cell polarization with an emphasis on the critical role of actin during this process. We first report on the advances made in understanding the function and mechanism of formin family proteins in the nucleation of actin filaments. We also discuss how formins and other regulators of actin dynamics are thought to be involved in the generation of cell polarity. In the second part we discuss new findings indicating that, rather than using a linear pathway from signal transduction to cytoskeleton re-organization, cell polarity is established through bidirectional interplay between these processes. We describe the various types of feedback loops identified and point out common schemes. Finally we briefly summarize the emerging role of actinlike proteins in the generation of polarity in prokaryotes that implies an early origin of actin's role in cell polarity.     

Unique and Overlapping Functions of Formins Frl and DAAM During Ommatidial Rotation and Neuronal Development in Drosophila

The noncanonical Frizzled/planar cell polarity (PCP) pathway regulates establishment of polarity within the plane of an epithelium to generate diversity of cell fates, asymmetric, but highly aligned structures, or to orchestrate the directional migration of cells during convergent extension during vertebrate gastrulation. In Drosophila, PCP signaling is essential to orient actin wing hairs and to align ommatidia in the eye, in part by coordinating the movement of groups of photoreceptor cells during ommatidial rotation. Importantly, the coordination of PCP signaling with changes in the cytoskeleton is essential for proper epithelial polarity. Formins polymerize linear actin filaments and are key regulators of the actin cytoskeleton. Here, we show that the diaphanous-related formin, Frl, the single fly member of the FMNL (formin related in leukocytes/formin-like) formin subfamily affects ommatidial rotation in the Drosophila eye and is controlled by the Rho family GTPase Cdc42. Interestingly, we also found that frl mutants exhibit an axon growth phenotype in the mushroom body, a center for olfactory learning in the Drosophila brain, which is also affected in a subset of PCP genes. Significantly, Frl cooperates with Cdc42 and another formin, DAAM, during mushroom body formation. This study thus suggests that different formins can cooperate or act independently in distinct tissues, likely integrating various signaling inputs with the regulation of the cytoskeleton. It furthermore highlights the importance and complexity of formin-dependent cytoskeletal regulation in multiple organs and developmental contexts.     

Actin-mediated Delivery of Astral Microtubules Instructs Kar9p Asymmetric Loading to the Bud-Ward Spindle Pole

In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Kar9p, one player in spindle alignment, guides the bud-ward spindle pole by linking astral microtubule plus ends to Myo2p-based transport along actin cables generated by the formins Bni1p and Bnr1p and the polarity determinant Bud6p. Initially, Kar9p labels both poles but progressively singles out the bud-ward pole. Here, we show that this polarization requires cell polarity determinants, actin cables, and microtubules. Indeed, in a bud6Δ bni1Δ mutant or upon direct depolymerization of actin cables Kar9p symmetry increased. Furthermore, symmetry was selectively induced by myo2 alleles, preventing Kar9p binding to the Myo2p cargo domain. Kar9p polarity was rebuilt after transient disruption of microtubules, dependent on cell polarity and actin cables. Symmetry breaking also occurred after transient depolymerization of actin cables, with Kar9p increasing at the spindle pole engaging in repeated cycles of Kar9p-mediated transport. Kar9p returning to the spindle pole on shrinking astral microtubules may contribute toward this bias. Thus, Myo2p transport along actin cables may support a feedback loop by which delivery of astral microtubule plus ends sustains Kar9p polarized recruitment to the bud-ward spindle pole. Our findings also explain the link between Kar9p polarity and the choice setting aside the old spindle pole for daughter-bound fate.     

The Glc7p-interacting protein Bud14p attenuates polarized growth,pheromone response,and filamentous growth in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

A genetic selection in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for mutants that stimulate the mating pathway uncovered a mutant that had a hyperactive pheromone response pathway and also had hyperpolarized growth. Cloning and segregation analysis demonstrated that BUD14 was the affected gene. Disruption of BUD14 in wild-type cells caused mild stimulation of pheromone response pathway reporters, an increase in sensitivity to mating factor, and a hyperelongated shmoo morphology. The bud14 mutant also had hyperfilamentous growth. Consistent with a role in the control of cell polarity, a Bud14p-green fluorescent protein fusion was localized to sites of polarized growth in the cell. Bud14p shared morphogenetic functions with the Ste20p and Bni1p proteins as well as with the type 1 phosphatase Glc7p. The genetic interactions between BUD14 and GLC7 suggested a role for Glc7p in filamentous growth, and Glc7p was found to have a positive function in filamentous growth in yeast.     

The Bud14p-Glc7p complex functions as a cortical regulator of dynein in budding yeast

Regulated interactions between microtubules (MTs) and the cell cortex control MT dynamics and position the mitotic spindle. In eukaryotic cells, the adenomatous polyposis coli/Kar9p and dynein/dynactin pathways are involved in guiding MT plus ends and MT sliding along the cortex, respectively. Here we identify Bud14p as a novel cortical activator of the dynein/dynactin complex in budding yeast. Bud14p accumulates at sites of polarized growth and the mother-bud neck during cytokinesis. The localization to bud and shmoo tips requires an intact actin cytoskeleton and the kelch-domain-containing proteins Kel1p and Kel2p. While cells lacking Bud14p function fail to stabilize the pre-anaphase spindle at the mother-bud neck, overexpression of Bud14p is toxic and leads to elongated astral MTs and increased dynein-dependent sliding along the cell cortex. Bud14p physically interacts with the type-I phosphatase Glc7p, and localizes Glc7p to the bud cortex. Importantly, the formation of Bud14p-Glc7p complexes is necessary to regulate MT dynamics at the cortex. Taken together, our results suggest that Bud14p functions as a regulatory subunit of the Glc7p type-I phosphatase to stabilize MT interactions specifically at sites of polarized growth.     

Role of bud6p and tea1p in the interaction between actin and microtubules for the establishment of cell polarity in fission yeast

BACKGROUND: In many cell types, microtubules are thought to direct the spatial distribution of F-actin in cell polarity. Schizosaccharomyces pombe cells exhibit a regulated program of polarized cell growth: after cell division, they grow first in a monopolar manner at the old end, and in G2 phase, initiate growth at the previous cell division site (the new end). The role of microtubule ends in cell polarity is highlighted by the finding that the cell polarity factor, tea1p, is present on microtubule plus ends and cell tips [1]. RESULTS: Here, we characterize S. pombe bud6p/fat1p, a homolog of S. cerevisiae Bud6/Aip3. bud6Delta mutant cells have a specific defect in the efficient initiation of growth at the new end and like tea1Delta cells, form T-shaped cells in a cdc11 background. Bud6-GFP localizes to both cell tips and the cytokinesis ring. Maintenance of cell tip localization is dependent upon actin but not microtubules. Bud6-GFP localization is tea1p dependent, and tea1p localization is not bud6p dependent. tea1Delta and bud6Delta cells generally grow in a monopolar manner but exhibit different growth patterns. tea1(Delta)bud6Delta mutants resemble tea1Delta mutants. Tea1p and bud6p coimmunoprecipitate and comigrate in large complexes. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies show that tea1p (a microtubule end-associated factor) and bud6p (an actin-associated factor) function in a common pathway, with bud6p downstream of tea1p. To our knowledge, bud6p is the first protein shown to interact physically with tea1p. These studies delineate a pathway for how microtubule plus ends function to polarize the actin cytoskeleton through actin-associated polarity factors.     

Differential Regulation of Actin Polymerization and Structure by Yeast Formin Isoforms

The budding yeast formins, Bnr1 and Bni1, behave very differently with respect to their interactions with muscle actin. However, the mechanisms underlying these differences are unclear, and these formins do not interact with muscle actin in vivo. We use yeast wild type and mutant actins to further assess these differences between Bnr1 and Bni1. Low ionic strength G-buffer does not promote actin polymerization. However, Bnr1, but not Bni1, causes the polymerization of pyrene-labeled Mg-G-actin in G-buffer into single filaments based on fluorometric and EM observations. Polymerization by Bnr1 does not occur with Ca-G-actin. By cosedimentation, maximum filament formation occurs at a Bnr1:actin ratio of 1:2. The interaction of Bnr1 with pyrene-labeled S265C Mg-actin yields a pyrene excimer peak, from the cross-strand interaction of pyrene probes, which only occurs in the context of F-actin. In F-buffer, Bnr1 promotes much faster yeast actin polymerization than Bni1. It also bundles the F-actin in contrast to the low ionic strength situation where only single filaments form. Thus, the differences previously observed with muscle actin are not actin isoform-specific. The binding of both formins to F-actin saturate at an equimolar ratio, but only about 30% of each formin cosediments with F-actin. Finally, addition of Bnr1 but not Bni1 to pyrene-labeled wild type and S265C Mg-F actins enhanced the pyrene- and pyrene-excimer fluorescence, respectively, suggesting Bnr1 also alters F-actin structure. These differences may facilitate the ability of Bnr1 to form the actin cables needed for polarized delivery of nutrients and organelles to the growing yeast bud.Bni1 and Bnr1 are the two formin isoforms expressed in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (1, 2). These proteins, as other isoforms in the formin family, are large multidomain proteins (3, 4). Several regulatory domains, including one for binding the G-protein rho, are located at the N-terminal half of the protein (4–7). FH1, FH2, and Bud6 binding domains are located in the C-terminal half of the protein (8). The formin homology 1 (FH1)² domain contains several sequential poly-l-proline motifs, and it interacts with the profilin/actin complex to recruit actin monomers and regulate the insertion of actin monomers at the barbed end of actin (9–11). The fomin homology domain 2 (FH2) forms a donut-shaped homodimer, which wraps around actin dimers at the barbed end of actin filaments (12, 13). One important function of formin is to facilitate actin polymerization by stabilizing actin dimers or trimers under polymerization conditions and then to processively associate with the barbed end of the elongating filament to control actin filament elongation kinetics (13–18).A major unsolved protein in the study of formins is the elucidation of the individual functions of different isoforms and their regulation. In vivo, these two budding yeast formins have distinct cellular locations and dynamics (1, 2, 19, 20). Bni1 concentrates at the budding site before the daughter cell buds from the mother cell, moves along with the tip of the daughter cell, and then travels back to the neck between daughter and mother cells at the end of segregation. Bnr1 localizes only at the neck of the budding cell in a very short period of time after bud emergence. Although a key cellular function of these two formins in yeast is to promote actin cable formation (8, 18), the roles of the individual formins in different cellular process is unclear because deleting either individual formin gene has limited impact on cell growth and deleting both genes together is lethal (21).Although each of the two formins can nucleate actin filament formation in vitro, the manner in which they affect polymerization is distinctly isoform-specific. Most of this mechanistic work in vitro has used formin fragments containing the FH1 and FH2 domains. Bni1 alone processively caps the barbed end of actin filaments partially inhibiting polymerization at this end (14, 16, 18). The profilin-actin complex, recruited to the actin barbed end through its binding to Bni1 FH1 domain, possibly raises the local actin concentration and appears to allow this inhibition to be overcome, thereby, accelerating barbed end polymerization. It has also been shown that this complex modifies the kinetics of actin dynamics at the barbed end (9, 11, 18, 22). Moreover, Bni1 participation leads only to the formation of single filaments (8). In comparison, the Bnr1 FH1-FH2 domain facilitates actin polymerization much more efficiently than does Bni1. Moseley and Goode (8) showed Bnr1 accelerates actin polymerization up to 10 times better than does Bni and produces actin filament bundles when the Bnr1/actin molar ratio is above 1:2. Finally, the regulation of Bni1 and Bnr1 by formin binding is different. For example, Bud 6/Aip3, a yeast cell polarity factor, binds to Bni1, but not Bnr1, and also stimulates its activity in vitro.For their studies, Moseley and Goode (8) utilized mammalian skeletal muscle actin instead of the S. cerevisiae actin with which the yeast formins are designed to function. It is entirely possible that the differences observed with the two formins are influenced quantitatively or qualitatively by the nature of the actin used in the study. This possibility must be seriously considered because although yeast and muscle actins are 87% identical in sequence, they display marked differences in their polymerization behavior (23). Yeast actin nucleates filaments better than muscle actin (24, 25). It appears to form shorter and more flexible filaments than does muscle actin (26, 27). Finally, the disposition of the P_i released during the hydrolysis of ATP that occurs during polymerization is different. Yeast actin releases its P_i concomitant with hydrolysis of the bound ATP whereas muscle actin retains the P_i for a significant amount of time following nucleotide hydrolysis (28, 29). This difference is significant because ADP-P_i F-actin has been shown to be more stable than ADP F-actin (30). Another example of this isoform dependence is the interaction of yeast Arp2/3 with yeast versus muscle actins (31). Yeast Arp2/3 complex accelerates polymerization of muscle actin only in the presence of a nucleation protein factor such as WASP. However, with yeast actin, no such auxiliary protein is required. In light of these actin behavioral differences, to better understand the functional differences of these two formins in vivo, we have studied the behavior of Bni 1 and Bnr 1 with WT and mutant yeast actins, and we have also explored the molecular basis underlying the Bnr 1-induced formation of actin nuclei from G-actin.     

Two subclasses of guanine exchange factor (GEF) domains revealed by comparison of activities of chimeric genes constructed from CDC25, SDC25 and BUD5 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Guanine Exchange Factor (GEF) activity for Ras proteins has been associated with a conserved domain in Cdc25p, Sdc25p in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and several other proteins recently found in other eukaryotes. We have assessed the structure-function relationships between three different members of this family in S. cerevisiae, Cdc25p, Sdc25p and Bud5p. Cdc25p controls the Ras pathway, whereas Bud5p controls bud site localization. We demonstrate that the GEF domain of Sdc25p is closely related to that of Cdc25p. We first constructed a thermosensitive allele of SDC25 by specifically altering amino acid positions known to be changed in the cdc25-1 mutation. Secondly, we constructed three chimeric genes from CDC25 and SDC25, the products of which are as active in the Ras pathway as are the wild-type proteins. In contrast, similar chimeras made between CDC25 and BUD5 lead to proteins that are inactive both in the Ras and budding control pathways. This difference in the ability of chimeric proteins to retain activity allows us to define two subclasses of structurally different GEFs: Cdc25p and Sdc25p are Ras-specific GEFs, and Bud5p is a putative GEF for the Rsr1/Bud1 Rap-like protein.     

A Septin from the Filamentous Fungus A. nidulans Induces Atypical Pseudohyphae in the Budding Yeast S. cerevisiae

Background

Septins, novel cytoskeletal proteins, form rings at the bases of emerging round buds in yeasts and at the bases of emerging elongated hyphal initials in filamentous fungi.

Methodology/Principal Findings

When introduced into the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the septin AspC from the filamentous fungus Aspergillus nidulans induced highly elongated atypical pseudohyphae and spore-producing structures similar to those of hyphal fungi. AspC induced atypical pseudohyphae when S. cerevisiae pseudohyphal or haploid invasive genes were deleted, but not when the CDC10 septin gene was deleted. AspC also induced atypical pseudohyphae when S. cerevisiae genes encoding Cdc12-interacting proteins Bem4, Cla4, Gic1 and Gic2 were deleted, but not when BNI1, a Cdc12-interacting formin gene, was deleted. AspC localized to bud and pseudohypha necks, while its S. cerevisiae ortholog, Cdc12, localized only to bud necks.

Conclusions/Significance

Our results suggest that AspC competes with Cdc12 for incorporation into the yeast septin scaffold and once there alters cell shape by altering interactions with the formin Bni1. That introduction of the A. nidulans septin AspC into S. cerevisiae induces a shift from formation of buds to formation of atypical pseudohyphae suggests that septins play an important role in the morphological plasticity of fungi.     

Two subclasses of guanine exchange factor (GEF) domains revealed by comparison of activities of chimeric genes constructed from CDC25, SDC25 and BUD5 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Guanine Exchange Factor (GEF) activity for Ras proteins has been associated with a conserved domain in Cdc25p, Sdc25p in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and several other proteins recently found in other eukaryotes. We have assessed the structure-function relationships between three different members of this family in S. cerevisiae, Cdc25p, Sdc25p and Bud5p. Cdc25p controls the Ras pathway, whereas Bud5p controls bud site localization. We demonstrate that the GEF domain of Sdc25p is closely related to that of Cdc25p. We first constructed a thermosensitive allele of SDC25 by specifically altering amino acid positions known to be changed in the cdc25-1 mutation. Secondly, we constructed three chimeric genes from CDC25 and SDC25, the products of which are as active in the Ras pathway as are the wild-type proteins. In contrast, similar chimeras made between CDC25 and BUD5 lead to proteins that are inactive both in the Ras and budding control pathways. This difference in the ability of chimeric proteins to retain activity allows us to define two subclasses of structurally different GEFs: Cdc25p and Sdc25p are Ras-specific GEFs, and Bud5p is a putative GEF for the Rsr1/Bud1 Rap-like protein.     

Regulation of a formin complex by the microtubule plus end protein tea1p

The plus ends of microtubules have been speculated to regulate the actin cytoskeleton for the proper positioning of sites of cell polarization and cytokinesis. In the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, interphase microtubules and the kelch repeat protein tea1p regulate polarized cell growth. Here, we show that tea1p is directly deposited at cell tips by microtubule plus ends. Tea1p associates in large "polarisome" complexes with bud6p and for3p, a formin that assembles actin cables. Tea1p also interacts in a separate complex with the CLIP-170 protein tip1p, a microtubule plus end-binding protein that anchors tea1p to the microtubule plus end. Localization experiments suggest that tea1p and bud6p regulate formin distribution and actin cable assembly. Although single mutants still polarize, for3Deltabud6Deltatea1Delta triple-mutant cells lack polarity, indicating that these proteins contribute overlapping functions in cell polarization. Thus, these experiments begin to elucidate how microtubules contribute to the proper spatial regulation of actin assembly and polarized cell growth.     

Mechanism and cellular function of Bud6 as an actin nucleation-promoting factor

Formins are a conserved family of actin assembly-promoting factors with diverse biological roles, but how their activities are regulated in vivo is not well understood. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the formins Bni1 and Bnr1 are required for the assembly of actin cables and polarized cell growth. Proper cable assembly further requires Bud6. Previously it was shown that Bud6 enhances Bni1-mediated actin assembly in vitro, but the biochemical mechanism and in vivo role of this activity were left unclear. Here we demonstrate that Bud6 specifically stimulates the nucleation rather than the elongation phase of Bni1-mediated actin assembly, defining Bud6 as a nucleation-promoting factor (NPF) and distinguishing its effects from those of profilin. We generated alleles of Bud6 that uncouple its interactions with Bni1 and G-actin and found that both interactions are critical for NPF activity. Our data indicate that Bud6 promotes filament nucleation by recruiting actin monomers to Bni1. Genetic analysis of the same alleles showed that Bud6 regulation of formin activity is critical for normal levels of actin cable assembly in vivo. Our results raise important mechanistic parallels between Bud6 and WASP, as well as between Bud6 and other NPFs that interact with formins such as Spire.     

Small Molecule Inhibitor of Formin Homology 2 Domains (SMIFH2) Reveals the Roles of the Formin Family of Proteins in Spindle Assembly and Asymmetric Division in Mouse Oocytes

Dynamic actin reorganization is the main driving force for spindle migration and asymmetric cell division in mammalian oocytes. It has been reported that various actin nucleators including Formin-2 are involved in the polarization of the spindle and in asymmetric cell division. In mammals, the formin family is comprised of 15 proteins. However, their individual roles in spindle migration and/or asymmetric division have not been elucidated yet. In this study, we employed a newly developed inhibitor for formin family proteins, small molecule inhibitor of formin homology 2 domains (SMIFH2), to assess the functions of the formin family in mouse oocyte maturation. Treatment with SMIFH2 during in vitro maturation of mouse oocytes inhibited maturation by decreasing cytoplasmic and cortical actin levels. In addition, treatment with SMIFH2, especially at higher concentrations (500 μM), impaired the proper formation of meiotic spindles, indicating that formins play a role in meiotic spindle formation. Knockdown of the mDia2 formins caused a similar decrease in oocyte maturation and abnormal spindle morphology, mimicking the phenotype of SMIFH2-treated cells. Collectively, these results suggested that besides Formin-2, the other proteins of the formin, including mDia family play a role in asymmetric division and meiotic spindle formation in mammalian oocytes.     

Spa2p Interacts with Cell Polarity Proteins and Signaling Components Involved in Yeast Cell Morphogenesis

The yeast protein Spa2p localizes to growth sites and is important for polarized morphogenesis during budding, mating, and pseudohyphal growth. To better understand the role of Spa2p in polarized growth, we analyzed regions of the protein important for its function and proteins that interact with Spa2p. Spa2p interacts with Pea2p and Bud6p (Aip3p) as determined by the two-hybrid system; all of these proteins exhibit similar localization patterns, and spa2Δ, pea2Δ, and bud6Δ mutants display similar phenotypes, suggesting that these three proteins are involved in the same biological processes. Coimmunoprecipitation experiments demonstrate that Spa2p and Pea2p are tightly associated with each other in vivo. Velocity sedimentation experiments suggest that a significant portion of Spa2p, Pea2p, and Bud6p cosediment, raising the possibility that these proteins form a large, 12S multiprotein complex. Bud6p has been shown previously to interact with actin, suggesting that the 12S complex functions to regulate the actin cytoskeleton. Deletion analysis revealed that multiple regions of Spa2p are involved in its localization to growth sites. One of the regions involved in Spa2p stability and localization interacts with Pea2p; this region contains a conserved domain, SHD-II. Although a portion of Spa2p is sufficient for localization of itself and Pea2p to growth sites, only the full-length protein is capable of complementing spa2 mutant defects, suggesting that other regions are required for Spa2p function. By using the two-hybrid system, Spa2p and Bud6p were also found to interact with components of two mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways important for polarized cell growth. Spa2p interacts with Ste11p (MAPK kinase [MEK] kinase) and Ste7p (MEK) of the mating signaling pathway as well as with the MEKs Mkk1p and Mkk2p of the Slt2p (Mpk1p) MAPK pathway; for both Mkk1p and Ste7p, the Spa2p-interacting region was mapped to the N-terminal putative regulatory domain. Bud6p interacts with Ste11p. The MEK-interacting region of Spa2p corresponds to the highly conserved SHD-I domain, which is shown to be important for mating and MAPK signaling. spa2 mutants exhibit reduced levels of pheromone signaling and an elevated level of Slt2p kinase activity. We thus propose that Spa2p, Pea2p, and Bud6p function together, perhaps as a complex, to promote polarized morphogenesis through regulation of the actin cytoskeleton and signaling pathways.     

Sequential Logic of Polarity Determination during the Haploid-to-Diploid Transition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

In many organisms, the geometry of encounter of haploid germ cells is arbitrary. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the resulting zygotes have been seen to bud asymmetrically in several directions as they produce diploid progeny. What mechanisms account for the choice of direction, and do the mechanisms directing polarity change over time? Distinct subgroups of cortical “landmark” proteins guide budding by haploid versus diploid cells, both of which require the Bud1/Rsr1 GTPase to link landmarks to actin. We observed that as mating pairs of haploid cells form zygotes, bud site specification progresses through three phases. The first phase follows disassembly and limited scattering of proteins that concentrated at the zone of cell contact, followed by their reassembly to produce a large medial bud. Bud1 is not required for medial placement of the initial bud. The second phase produces a contiguous bud(s) and depends on axial landmarks. As the titer of the Axl1 landmark diminishes, the third phase ultimately redirects budding toward terminal sites and is promoted by bipolar landmarks. Thus, following the initial random encounter that specifies medial budding, sequential spatial choices are orchestrated by the titer of a single cortical determinant that determines whether successive buds will be contiguous to their predecessors.