Heparan Sulfate Proteoglycans

Heparan sulfate proteoglycans are found at the cell surface and in the extracellular matrix, where they interact with a plethora of ligands. Over the last decade, new insights have emerged regarding the mechanism and biological significance of these interactions. Here, we discuss changing views on the specificity of protein–heparan sulfate binding and the activity of HSPGs as receptors and coreceptors. Although few in number, heparan sulfate proteoglycans have profound effects at the cellular, tissue, and organismal level.Heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs) are glycoproteins, with the common characteristic of containing one or more covalently attached heparan sulfate (HS) chains, a type of glycosaminoglycan (GAG) (Esko et al. 2009). Cells elaborate a relatively small set of HSPGs (∼17) that fall into three groups according to their location: membrane HSPGs, such as syndecans and glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored proteoglycans (glypicans), the secreted extracellular matrix HSPGs (agrin, perlecan, type XVIII collagen), and the secretory vesicle proteoglycan, serglycin (Esko et al. 1985), which allowed functional studies in the context of a cell culture model (Zhang et al. 2006). A decade later, the first HSPG mutants in a model organism (Drosophila melanogaster) were identified (Rogalski et al. 1993; Nakato et al. 1995; Häcker et al. 1997; Bellaiche et al. 1998; Lin et al. 1999), which was followed by identification of mutants in nematodes, tree frogs, zebrafish, and mice (​and3).3). HS is evolutionarily ancient and its composition has remained relatively constant from Hydra to humans (Yamada et al. 2007; Lawrence et al. 2008).

Table 1.

Heparan sulfate proteoglycans

Archaeology of Eukaryotic DNA Replication

Recent advances in the characterization of the archaeal DNA replication system together with comparative genomic analysis have led to the identification of several previously uncharacterized archaeal proteins involved in replication and currently reveal a nearly complete correspondence between the components of the archaeal and eukaryotic replication machineries. It can be inferred that the archaeal ancestor of eukaryotes and even the last common ancestor of all extant archaea possessed replication machineries that were comparable in complexity to the eukaryotic replication system. The eukaryotic replication system encompasses multiple paralogs of ancestral components such that heteromeric complexes in eukaryotes replace archaeal homomeric complexes, apparently along with subfunctionalization of the eukaryotic complex subunits. In the archaea, parallel, lineage-specific duplications of many genes encoding replication machinery components are detectable as well; most of these archaeal paralogs remain to be functionally characterized. The archaeal replication system shows remarkable plasticity whereby even some essential components such as DNA polymerase and single-stranded DNA-binding protein are displaced by unrelated proteins with analogous activities in some lineages.Double-stranded DNA is the molecule that carries genetic information in all cellular life-forms; thus, replication of this genetic material is a fundamental physiological process that requires high accuracy and efficiency (Kornberg and Baker 2005). The general mechanism and principles of DNA replication are common in all three domains of life—archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes—and include recognition of defined origins, melting DNA with the aid of dedicated helicases, RNA priming by the dedicated primase, recruitment of DNA polymerases and processivity factors, replication fork formation, and simultaneous replication of leading and lagging strands, the latter via Okazaki fragments (Kornberg and Baker 2005; Barry and Bell 2006; Hamdan and Richardson 2009; Hamdan and van Oijen 2010). Thus, it was a major surprise when it became clear that the protein machineries responsible for this complex process are drastically different, especially in bacteria compared with archaea and eukarya. The core components of the bacterial replication systems, such as DNA polymerase, primase, and replication helicase, are unrelated or only distantly related to their counterparts in the archaeal/eukaryotic replication apparatus (Edgell 1997; Leipe et al. 1999).The existence of two distinct molecular machines for genome replication has raised obvious questions on the nature of the replication system in the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all extant cellular life-forms, and three groups of hypotheses have been proposed (Leipe et al. 1999; Forterre 2002; Koonin 2005, 2006, 2009; Glansdorff 2008; McGeoch and Bell 2008): (1) The replication systems in Bacteria and in the archaeo–eukaryotic lineage originated independently from an RNA-genome LUCA or from a noncellular ancestral state that encompassed a mix of genetic elements with diverse replication strategies and molecular machineries. (2) The LUCA was a typical cellular life-form that possessed either the archaeal or the bacterial replication apparatus in which several key components have been replaced in the other major cellular lineage. (3) The LUCA was a complex cellular life-form that possessed both replication systems, so that the differentiation of the bacterial and the archaeo–eukaryotic replication machineries occurred as a result of genome streamlining in both lines of descent that was accompanied by differential loss of components. With regard to the possible substitution of replication systems, a plausible mechanism could be replicon takeover (Forterre 2006; McGeoch and Bell 2008). Under the replicon takeover hypothesis, mobile elements introduce into cells a new replication system or its components, which can displace the original replication system through one or several instances of integration of the given element into the host genome accompanied by inactivation of the host replication genes and/or origins of replication. This scenario is compatible with the experimental results showing that DNA replication DNA in Escherichia coli with an inactivated DnaAgene or origin of replication can be rescued by the replication apparatus of R1 or F1 plasmids integrated into the bacterial chromosome (Bernander et al. 1991; Koppes 1992). Furthermore, genome analysis suggests frequent replicon fusion in archaea and bacteria (McGeoch and Bell 2008); in particular, such events are implied by the observation that in archaeal genomes, genes encoding multiple paralogs of the replication helicase MCM and origins of replication are associated with mobile elements (Robinson and Bell 2007; Krupovic et al. 2010). Replicon fusion also is a plausible path from a single origin of replication that is typical of bacteria to multiple origins present in archaea and eukaryotes. However, all the evidence in support of frequent replicon fusion and the plausibility of replicon takeover notwithstanding, there is no evidence of displacement of the bacterial replication apparatus with the archaeal version introduced by mobile elements, or vice versa, displacement of the archaeal machinery with the bacterial version, despite the rapid accumulation of diverse bacterial and archaeal genome sequences. Thus, the displacement scenarios of DNA replication machinery evolution are so far not supported by comparative genomic data.Regardless of the nature of the DNA replication system (if any) in the LUCA and the underlying causes of the archaeo–bacterial dichotomy of replication machineries, the similarity between the archaeal and eukaryotic replication systems is striking (Leipe et al. 1999; Bell and Dutta 2002; Bohlke et al. 2002; Kelman and White 2005; Barry and Bell 2006). Thus, the archaeal replication system appears to be an ancestral version of the eukaryotic system and hence a good model for functional and structural studies aimed at gaining mechanistic insights into eukaryotic replication.

Table 1.

The relationship between archaeal and eukaryotic replication systems

Noncanonical Sites of Adult Neurogenesis in the Mammalian Brain

Two decades after the discovery that neural stem cells (NSCs) populate some regions of the mammalian central nervous system (CNS), deep knowledge has been accumulated on their capacity to generate new neurons in the adult brain. This constitutive adult neurogenesis occurs throughout life primarily within remnants of the embryonic germinal layers known as “neurogenic sites.” Nevertheless, some processes of neurogliogenesis also occur in the CNS parenchyma commonly considered as “nonneurogenic.” This “noncanonical” cell genesis has been the object of many claims, some of which turned out to be not true. Indeed, it is often an “incomplete” process as to its final outcome, heterogeneous by several measures, including regional location, progenitor identity, and fate of the progeny. These aspects also strictly depend on the animal species, suggesting that persistent neurogenic processes have uniquely adapted to the brain anatomy of different mammals. Whereas some examples of noncanonical neurogenesis are strictly parenchymal, others also show stem cell niche-like features and a strong link with the ventricular cavities. This work will review results obtained in a research field that expanded from classic neurogenesis studies involving a variety of areas of the CNS outside of the subventricular zone (SVZ) and subgranular zone (SGZ). It will be highlighted how knowledge concerning noncanonical neurogenic areas is still incomplete owing to its regional and species-specific heterogeneity, and to objective difficulties still hampering its full identification and characterization.The central nervous system (CNS) of adult mammals is assembled during developmental neurogenesis, and its architectural specificity is maintained through a vast cohort of membrane-bound and extracellular matrix molecules (Gumbiner 1996; Bonfanti 2006). Although CNS structure is sculpted by experience-dependent synaptic plasticity at different postnatal developmental stages (critical periods) (see Sale et al. 2009) and, to a lesser extent, during adulthood (Holtmaat and Svoboda 2009), the neural networks are rather stabilized in the “mature” nervous tissue (Spolidoro et al. 2009). The differentiated cellular elements forming adult neural circuitries remain substantially unchanged in terms of their number and types, because cell renewal/addition in the CNS is very low. This situation is intuitive because connectional, neurochemical, and functional specificities are fundamental features of the mature CNS in highly complex brains, allowing specific cell types to be connected and to act in a relatively invariant way (Frotscher 1992).Since the discovery of neural stem cells (NSCs) (Reynolds and Weiss 1992), we realized that the aforementioned rules of CNS stability have a main exception in two brain regions: the forebrain subventricular zone (SVZ) (Lois and Alvarez-Buylla 1994) and the hippocampal subgranular zone (SGZ) (Gage 2000). These “adult neurogenic sites” are remnants of the embryonic germinal layers (although indirectly for the SGZ, which forms ectopically from the embryonic germinative matrix), which retain stem/progenitor cells within a special microenvironment, a “niche,” allowing and regulating NSC activity (Kriegstein and Alvarez-Buylla 2009). In addition, the areas of destination (olfactory bulb and dentate gyrus) reached by neuroblasts generated within these neurogenic sites harbor specific, not fully identified yet, environmental signals allowing the integration of young, newborn neurons. These two “canonical” sites of adult neurogenesis have been found in all animal species studied so far, including humans (reviewed in Lindsey and Tropepe 2006; Bonfanti and Ponti 2008; Kempermann 2012; Grandel and Brand 2013). Although in several classes of vertebrates including fish, amphibians, and reptiles, adult neurogenesis is widespread in many areas of the CNS (Zupanc 2006; Chapouton et al. 2007; Grandel and Brand 2013), in mammals, the vast majority of the brain and spinal cord regions out of the germinal-layer-derived neurogenic sites are commonly referred to as “nonneurogenic parenchyma” (Sohur et al. 2006; Bonfanti and Peretto 2011; Bonfanti and Nacher 2012). However, this viewpoint has changed during the last few years. New examples of cell genesis, involving both neurogenesis and gliogenesis, have been shown to occur in the so-called nonneurogenic regions of the mammalian CNS (Horner et al. 2000; Dayer et al. 2005; Kokoeva et al. 2005; Luzzati et al. 2006; Ponti et al. 2008; reviewed in Butt et al. 2005; Nishiyama et al. 2009; Migaud et al. 2010; Bonfanti and Peretto 2011), suggesting that structural plasticity involving de novo neural cell genesis could be more widespread than previously thought. Apart from their temporal persistence (some of them represent examples of delayed developmental neurogenesis, which persist postnatally; see below), neurogliogenic processes vary as to their regional localization, origin, and final outcome. In this review, “noncanonical” neurogenic processes occurring in adult mammals will be reviewed by underlining their heterogeneity across the species and their differences in intensity and outcome with respect to canonical neurogenic sites.

Table 1.

Main sites of noncanonical neurogenesis in the mammalian brain

Wnt Pathway Regulation of Embryonic Stem Cell Self-Renewal

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can generate all of the cell types found in the adult organism. Remarkably, they retain this ability even after many cell divisions in vitro, as long as the culture conditions prevent differentiation of the cells. Wnt signaling and β-catenin have been shown to cause strong effects on ESCs both in terms of stimulating the expansion of stem cells and stimulating differentiation toward lineage committed cell types. The varied effects of Wnt signaling in ESCs, alongside the sometimes unconventional mechanisms underlying the effects, have generated a fair amount of controversy and intrigue regarding the role of Wnt signaling in pluripotent stem cells. Insights into the mechanisms of Wnt function in stem cells can be gained by examination of the causes for seemingly opposing effects of Wnt signaling on self-renewal versus differentiation.For a single-cell embryo to eventually form an adult organism of trillions of cells, some cells in the early mammalian embryo must be able to generate all cell lineages in the animal. The potential to make all adult cell types defines the property of pluripotency, and it is maintained in proliferating cells through a process called self-renewal. As cells become specified to contribute to particular lineages, they typically lose the ability to make cell types from distinct lineages (Waddington 1957; Hochedlinger and Plath 2009). As such, pluripotency is lost during the initial steps of lineage commitment that occur during gastrulation (Beddington 1982, 1983; Lawson and Pedersen 1987; Lawson et al. 1991), which is a process that coordinates the generation of adult cell lineages with the elaboration of a basic three-dimensional body structure (Heisenberg and Solnica-Krezel 2008). In the mouse, pluripotency can be tested with various experiments; the gold standard is the injection of cells into a blastocyst-staged embryo followed by contribution to a diversity of cell types in the chimeric animal or chimeric embryo after gastrulation. Cells are typically considered to have been pluripotent only if they contributed to all three germ layers (endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm).Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are generated in vitro by outgrowths from a preimplantation-staged embryo, frequently a blastocyst. Pluripotent cells from the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst proliferate to form colonies, which can be expanded into ESC cultures. When culture conditions for in vitro propagation of mouse ESCs (mESCs) were first discovered more than 30 years ago (Evans and Kaufman 1981; Martin 1981), the critical achievement was finding conditions supporting indefinite ESC self-renewal, that is, maintenance of pluripotency following cell division. Compared with the other cell systems discussed below in this article, mESCs ostensibly display the greatest capacity for self-renewal and the highest ability to maintain pluripotency. As such, mESCs are typically thought to represent a primitive, or “naive,” cellular state in the early embryo.Several culture conditions can support self-renewal of mESCs. Initially, ESCs were grown in serum containing media atop a layer of mitotically inactivated fibroblasts, called feeder cells (Evans and Kaufman 1981). Feeder cells secrete the LIF cytokine, which binds a transmembrane receptor complex consisting of LIFR and gp130 proteins (Gearing et al. 1991; Gearing and Bruce 1992; Davis et al. 1993). LIF binding activates Jak/Stat signaling and Stat3 phosphorylation, which promotes ESC self-renewal (Niwa et al. 1998; Matsuda et al. 1999). Convincing proof of LIF’s importance for self-renewal in vitro was shown when recombinant LIF protein was shown to be sufficient to replace feeder cells in ESC cultures (Smith et al. 1988; Williams et al. 1988; Nichols et al. 1990).Essentially the same feeder cells can be used for both mESCs and human ESCs (hESCs); however, discrete activities of the feeders in terms of the cytokines they release are needed to effect optimal self-renewal for each cell. The LIF cytokine important for mESC self-renewal did not stimulate hESC self-renewal (Thomson et al. 1998). Instead, ERK signaling downstream from Fgf2 must accompany a feeder layer in serum-containing media for optimal hESC self-renewal (Xu et al. 2005). Interestingly, recombinant Fgf2 by itself could not replace feeders, and Fgf2 has been suggested to work in part by stimulating feeders to produce Activin/Nodal ligands; the combination of Fgf2 and Nodal/Activin is sufficient to support hESC self-renewal in serum-free chemically defined culture conditions (Vallier et al. 2004, 2009; James et al. 2005).Clear differences exist between mESCs and hESCs. The colonies adopt different morphologies, they require distinct culture conditions for self-renewal, and they have significantly different gene expression signatures (Brons et al. 2007; Tesar et al. 2007). Mouse EpiSCs are made from the epiblast of postimplantation-staged embryos between embryonic days 5.5 (E5.5) and E6.5 of embryogenesis (Brons et al. 2007; Tesar et al. 2007; Han et al. 2010). Lineage specification of pluripotent epiblast cells begins soon after formation of a cup-like structure, and at E6.5, the cells in the epiblast begin to be specified to primary cell lineages during gastrulation. The in vivo cellular environment for ICM cells and postimplantation epiblast cells is considerably different, and it is not surprising that EpiSCs and mESCs display many different characteristics (Xu et al. 2010). However, it was somewhat surprising that EpiSCs share many characteristics with hESCs, including a common colony morphology, Fgf2 + Activin A culture conditions, and gene expression signatures (Brons et al. 2007; Tesar et al. 2007). Like mESCs and hESCs, EpiSCs pass pluripotency tests for in vitro differentiation and teratoma formation. Whereas mESC can efficiently convert (i.e., differentiate) into EpiSC-like cells when switched to Fgf2/Activin A media (Hanna et al. 2009; Greber et al. 2010), EpiSCs required genetic manipulation or reprogramming for efficient conversion to mES-like cells (Guo et al. 2009; Hanna et al. 2009; Greber et al. 2010; Guo and Smith 2010). Many investigators consider hESCs and mouse EpiSCs to be primed for differentiation as they reside in a less primitive differentiation state relative to the naive state of pluripotency in mESCs.

Table 1.

Pluripotent stem cell states: Naive and primed

Mechanisms and Evidence of Genital Coevolution: The Roles of Natural Selection,Mate Choice,and Sexual Conflict

Genital coevolution between the sexes is expected to be common because of the direct interaction between male and female genitalia during copulation. Here we review the diverse mechanisms of genital coevolution that include natural selection, female mate choice, male–male competition, and how their interactions generate sexual conflict that can lead to sexually antagonistic coevolution. Natural selection on genital morphology will result in size coevolution to allow for copulation to be mechanically possible, even as other features of genitalia may reflect the action of other mechanisms of selection. Genital coevolution is explicitly predicted by at least three mechanisms of genital evolution: lock and key to prevent hybridization, female choice, and sexual conflict. Although some good examples exist in support of each of these mechanisms, more data on quantitative female genital variation and studies of functional morphology during copulation are needed to understand more general patterns. A combination of different approaches is required to continue to advance our understanding of genital coevolution. Knowledge of the ecology and behavior of the studied species combined with functional morphology, quantitative morphological tools, experimental manipulation, and experimental evolution have been provided in the best-studied species, all of which are invertebrates. Therefore, attention to vertebrates in any of these areas is badly needed.Of all the evolutionary interactions between the sexes, the mechanical interaction of genitalia during copulation in species with internal fertilization is perhaps the most direct. For this reason alone, coevolution between genital morphologies of males and females is expected. Morphological and genetic components of male and female genitalia have been shown to covary in many taxa (Sota and Kubota 1998; Ilango and Lane 2000; Arnqvist and Rowe 2002; Brennan et al. 2007; Rönn et al. 2007; Kuntner et al. 2009; Tatarnic and Cassis 2010; Cayetano et al. 2011; Evans et al. 2011, 2013; Simmons and García-González 2011; Yassin and Orgogozo 2013; and see examples in

Membrane Domains Based on Ankyrin and Spectrin Associated with Cell–Cell Interactions

Nodes of Ranvier and axon initial segments of myelinated nerves, sites of cell–cell contact in early embryos and epithelial cells, and neuromuscular junctions of skeletal muscle all perform physiological functions that depend on clustering of functionally related but structurally diverse ion transporters and cell adhesion molecules within microdomains of the plasma membrane. These specialized cell surface domains appeared at different times in metazoan evolution, involve a variety of cell types, and are populated by distinct membrane-spanning proteins. Nevertheless, recent work has shown that these domains all share on their cytoplasmic surfaces a membrane skeleton comprised of members of the ankyrin and spectrin families. This review will summarize basic features of ankyrins and spectrins, and will discuss emerging evidence that these proteins are key players in a conserved mechanism responsible for assembly and maintenance of physiologically important domains on the surfaces of diverse cells.Spectrins are flexible rods 0.2 microns in length with actin-binding sites at each end (Shotton et al. 1979; Bennett et al. 1982) (Fig. 1A). Spectrins are assembled from α and β subunits, each comprised primarily of multiple copies of a 106-amino acid repeat (Speicher and Marchesi 1984). In addition to the canonical 106-residue repeat, β spectrins also have a carboxy-terminal pleckstrin homology domain (Zhang et al. 1995; Macias et al. 1994) and tandem amino-terminal calponin homology domains (Bañuelos et al. 1998), whereas α spectrins contain an Src homology domain 3 (SH3) site (Musacchio et al. 1992), a calmodulin-binding site (Simonovic et al. 2006), and EF hands (Travé et al. 1995) (Fig. 1A). Spectrin α and β subunits are assembled antiparallel and side-to-side into heterodimers, which in turn are associated head-to-head to form tetramers (Clarke 1971; Shotton et al. 1979; Davis and Bennett 1983) (Fig. 1A). In human erythrocytes, in which spectrin was first characterized (Marchesi and Steers 1968; Clarke 1971), actin oligomers containing 10–14 monomers are each linked to five to six spectrin tetramers by accessory proteins to form a geodesic domelike structure that has been resolved by electron microscopy (Byers and Branton 1985). The principal proteins at the spectrin–actin junction are protein 4.1, adducin, tropomyosin, tropomodulin, and dematin (Bennett and Baines 2001) (Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Domain structure and variants of spectrin and ankyrin proteins. (A) Molecular domains of spectrins: Two α spectrins and five β spectrins are shown. Spectrins are comprised of modular units called spectrin repeats (yellow). Other domains such as the ankyrin binding domain (purple), Src-homology domain 3 (SH3, blue), EF-hand domain (red), and calmodulin-binding domain (green) promote interactions with binding targets important for spectrin function. The pleckstrin homology domain (black) promotes association with the plasma membrane and the actin binding domain (grey) tethers the spectrin-based membrane skeleton to the underlying actin cytoskeleton. (B) The spectrin tetramer, the fundamental unit of the spectrin-based membrane skeleton. The spectrin repeat domains of α and β spectrin associate end-to-end to form heterodimers. Heterodimers associate laterally in an antiparallel fashion to form tetramers. The tetramers can then associate end-to-end to form extended macromolecules that link into a geodesic dome shape directly underneath the plasma membrane. (C) Molecular domains present in canonical ankyrins. The membrane binding domain of ankyrin isoforms (orange) is comprised of 24 ANK repeats. The spectrin binding domain (green-blue) allows ankyrins to coordinate integral membrane proteins to the membrane skeleton. The death domain (pink) is the most highly conserved domain. The regulatory domain (brown) is the most variable region of ankyrins. The regulatory domain interacts intramolecularly with the membrane binding domain to modulate ankyrin’s affinity for other binding partners. All ankyrins and spectrins are subject to alternative splicing, which further increases their functional diversity.

Table 1.

Binding partners of spectrin and ankyrins

Loss of Par-1a/MARK3/C-TAK1 Kinase Leads to Reduced Adiposity,Resistance to Hepatic Steatosis,and Defective Gluconeogenesis

Par-1 is an evolutionarily conserved protein kinase required for polarity in worms, flies, frogs, and mammals. The mammalian Par-1 family consists of four members. Knockout studies of mice implicate Par-1b/MARK2/EMK in regulating fertility, immune homeostasis, learning, and memory as well as adiposity, insulin hypersensitivity, and glucose metabolism. Here, we report phenotypes of mice null for a second family member (Par-1a/MARK3/C-TAK1) that exhibit increased energy expenditure, reduced adiposity with unaltered glucose handling, and normal insulin sensitivity. Knockout mice were protected against high-fat diet-induced obesity and displayed attenuated weight gain, complete resistance to hepatic steatosis, and improved glucose handling with decreased insulin secretion. Overnight starvation led to complete hepatic glycogen depletion, associated hypoketotic hypoglycemia, increased hepatocellular autophagy, and increased glycogen synthase levels in Par-1a^−/− but not in control or Par-1b^−/− mice. The intercrossing of Par-1a^−/− with Par-1b^−/− mice revealed that at least one of the four alleles is necessary for embryonic survival. The severity of phenotypes followed a rank order, whereby the loss of one Par-1b allele in Par-1a^−/− mice conveyed milder phenotypes than the loss of one Par-1a allele in Par-1b^−/− mice. Thus, although Par-1a and Par-1b can compensate for one another during embryogenesis, their individual disruption gives rise to distinct metabolic phenotypes in adult mice.Cellular polarity is a fundamental principle in biology (6, 36, 62). The prototypical protein kinase originally identified as a regulator of polarity was termed partitioning defective (Par-1) due to early embryonic defects in Caenorhabditis elegans (52). Subsequent studies revealed that Par-1 is required for cellular polarity in worms, flies, frogs, and mammals (4, 17, 58, 63, 65, 71, 89). An integral role for Par-1 kinases in multiple signaling pathways has also been established, and although not formally addressed, multifunctionality for individual Par-1 family members is implied in reviews of the list of recognized upstream regulators and downstream substrates (Table ​(Table1).1). Interestingly, for many Par-1 substrates the phosphorylated residues generate 14-3-3 binding sites (25, 28, 37, 50, 59, 61, 68, 69, 78, 95, 101, 103). 14-3-3 binding in turn modulates both nuclear/cytoplasmic as well as cytoplasmic/membrane shuttling of target proteins, thus allowing Par-1 activity to establish intracellular spatial organization (15, 101). The phosphorylation of Par-1 itself promotes 14-3-3 binding, thereby regulating its subcellular localization (37, 59, 101).

TABLE 1.

Multifunctionality of Par-1 polarity kinase pathways^a

Pericentriolar material structure and dynamics

A centrosome consists of two barrel-shaped centrioles embedded in a matrix of proteins known as the pericentriolar material (PCM). The PCM serves as a platform for protein complexes that regulate organelle trafficking, protein degradation and spindle assembly. Perhaps most important for cell division, the PCM concentrates tubulin and serves as the primary organizing centre for microtubules in metazoan somatic cells. Thus, similar to other well-described organelles, such as the nucleus and mitochondria, the cell has compartmentalized a multitude of vital biochemical reactions in the PCM. However, unlike these other organelles, the PCM is not membrane bound, but rather a dynamic collection of protein complexes and nucleic acids that constitute the organelle''s interior and determine its boundary. How is the complex biochemical machinery necessary for the myriad centrosome functions concentrated and maintained in the PCM? Recent advances in proteomics and RNAi screening have unveiled most of the key PCM components and hinted at their molecular interactions ( Homo sapiensD. melanogasterCaenorhabditis elegansdomainsPCM-related phenotypesreferencescaffoldsCep192Spd-2SPD-2coiled coil, polo-box-binding domaincentriole duplication defect, reduced PCM, PLK-1 targeting to centrosomes lost[13,26–28]Cep152Asl (Asterless)coiled coil, SMC_prok_B (PFAM)centriole duplication defect, reduced PCM[29,14]CPAPSAS-4SAS-4coiled coil, tubulin bindingcentriole duplication defect, reduced PCM[30,31]PCNTD-PLPcoiled coil, centrosome-targeting (PFAM)reduced PCM[12,32–34]CDK5RAP2Cnn (centrosomin)coiled coil, MT association (PFAM)reduced PCM, centriole-PCM attachment defect[15,35–37]CG-NAP/AKAP450coiled coil, calmodulin-binding domaincentriole duplication defect[38,39]SPD-5coiled coil, SMC_prok_B (PFAM)reduced PCM[16]kinasesPlk1 (polo-like kinase 1)Plk1PLK-1kinase, polo-boxreduced PCM, loss of phosphorylation of Cdk5Rap2/CNN, PCNT, and SPD-5[40–43]AURKA (Aurora A kinase)Aurora AAIR-1kinasecentrosome separation defect, loss of effector recruitment (γ-tubulin, D-TACC, MSPS)[44–46]phosphatasesPPP2caPP2ALET-92phosphatasecentriole duplication defect, loss of MT stability via TPX2 and KLP-7, centrosome–nuclei detachment[47,48]PPP2r1aPP2A-BSUR-6regulatory subunit of PP2Acentriole duplication defect[49]RSA-1regulatory subunit of PP2Aloss of MT stability[47]RSA-2regulatory subunit of PP2Aloss of MT stability[47]PP4cPP4PPH4.1phosphataseabberant pericentrin foci, loss of effectors and kinases (α- and γ-tubulin, PLK-1, Aurora A)[50–53]effectorsγ-tubulinγ-tubulinγ-tubulintubulinimpaired spindle assembly, impaired MT nucleation[3,54–57]TACC2D-TaccTAC-1coiled coil (TACC domain)loss of effectors (ZYG-9/ZYG-8), loss of MT stability[58–61]CKAP5(chTOG)MspsZYG-9MT binding, TOG domainloss of MT stability, loss of centrosome integrity[61–64]Open in a separate window     

Cell Biology of Mitotic Recombination

Homologous recombination provides high-fidelity DNA repair throughout all domains of life. Live cell fluorescence microscopy offers the opportunity to image individual recombination events in real time providing insight into the in vivo biochemistry of the involved proteins and DNA molecules as well as the cellular organization of the process of homologous recombination. Herein we review the cell biological aspects of mitotic homologous recombination with a focus on Saccharomyces cerevisiae and mammalian cells, but will also draw on findings from other experimental systems. Key topics of this review include the stoichiometry and dynamics of recombination complexes in vivo, the choreography of assembly and disassembly of recombination proteins at sites of DNA damage, the mobilization of damaged DNA during homology search, and the functional compartmentalization of the nucleus with respect to capacity of homologous recombination.Homologous recombination (HR) is defined as the homology-directed exchange of genetic information between two DNA molecules (Fig. 1). Mitotic recombination is often initiated by single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), which can arise by several avenues (Mehta and Haber 2014). They include the processing of DNA double-strand breaks by 5′ to 3′ resection, during replication of damaged DNA, or during excision repair (Symington 2014). The ssDNA is bound by replication protein A (RPA) to control its accessibility to the Rad51 recombinase (Sung 1994, 1997a; Sugiyama et al. 1997; Morrical 2014). The barrier to Rad51-catalyzed recombination imposed by RPA can be overcome by a number of mediators, such as BRCA2 and Rad52, which serve to replace RPA with Rad51 on ssDNA, and the Rad51 paralogs Rad55-Rad57 (RAD51B-RAD51C-XRCC2-XRCC3) and the Psy3-Csm2-Shu1-Shu2 complex (SHU) (RAD51D-XRCC2-SWS1), which stabilize Rad51 filaments on ssDNA (see Sung 1997b; Sigurdsson et al. 2001; Martin et al. 2006; Bernstein et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2011; Qing et al. 2011; Amunugama et al. 2013; Zelensky et al. 2014). The Rad51 nucleoprotein filament catalyzes the invasion into a homologous duplex to produce a displacement loop (D-loop) (Fig. 1). At this stage, additional antirecombination functions are exerted by Srs2 (FBH1, PARI), which dissociates Rad51 filaments from ssDNA, and Mph1 (FANCM), which disassembles D-loops (see Daley et al. 2014). Upon Rad51-catalyzed strand invasion, the ATP-dependent DNA translocase Rad54 enables the invading 3′ end to be extended by DNA polymerases to copy genetic information from the intact duplex (Li and Heyer 2009). Ligation of the products often leads to joint molecules (JMs), such as single- or double-Holliday junctions (s/dHJs) or hemicatenanes (HCs), which must be processed to allow separation of the sister chromatids during mitosis. JMs can be dissolved by the Sgs1-Top3-Rmi1 complex (STR) (BTR, BLM-TOP3α-RMI1-RMI2) (see Bizard and Hickson 2014) or resolved by structure-selective nucleases, such as Mus81-Mms4 (MUS81-EME1), Slx1-Slx4, and Yen1 (GEN1) (see Wyatt and West 2014). Mitotic cells favor recombination events that lead to noncrossover events likely to avoid potentially detrimental consequences of loss of heterozygosity and translocations.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Primary pathways for homology-dependent double-strand break (DSB) repair. Recombinational repair of a DSB is initiated by 5′ to 3′ resection of the DNA end(s). The resulting 3′ single-stranded end(s) invade an intact homologous duplex (in red) to prime DNA synthesis. For DSBs that are repaired by the classical double-strand break repair (DSBR) model, the displaced strand from the donor duplex pairs with the 3′ single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) tail at the other side of the break, which primes a second round of DNA synthesis. After ligation of the newly synthesized DNA to the resected 5′ strands, a double-Holliday junction (dHJ) intermediate is generated. The dHJ can be either dissolved by branch migration (indicated by arrows) into a hemicatenane (HC) leading to noncrossover (NCO) products or resolved by endonucleolytic cleavage (indicated by triangles) to produce NCO (positions 1, 2, 3, and 4) or CO (positions 1, 2, 5, and 6) products. Alternatively to the double-strand break repair (DSBR) pathway, the invading strand is often displaced after limited synthesis and the nascent complementary strand anneals with the 3′ single-stranded tail of the other end of the DSB. After fill-in synthesis and ligation, this pathway generates NCO products and is referred to as synthesis-dependent strand annealing (SDSA).

Table 1.

Evolutionary conservation of homologous recombination proteins between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Homo sapiens

Comparative Analysis of Myxococcus Predation on Soil Bacteria

Predator-prey relationships among prokaryotes have received little attention but are likely to be important determinants of the composition, structure, and dynamics of microbial communities. Many species of the soil-dwelling myxobacteria are predators of other microbes, but their predation range is poorly characterized. To better understand the predatory capabilities of myxobacteria in nature, we analyzed the predation performance of numerous Myxococcus isolates across 12 diverse species of bacteria. All predator isolates could utilize most potential prey species to effectively fuel colony expansion, although one species hindered predator swarming relative to a control treatment with no growth substrate. Predator strains varied significantly in their relative performance across prey types, but most variation in predatory performance was determined by prey type, with Gram-negative prey species supporting more Myxococcus growth than Gram-positive species. There was evidence for specialized predator performance in some predator-prey combinations. Such specialization may reduce resource competition among sympatric strains in natural habitats. The broad prey range of the Myxococcus genus coupled with its ubiquity in the soil suggests that myxobacteria are likely to have very important ecological and evolutionary effects on many species of soil prokaryotes.Predation plays a major role in shaping both the ecology and evolution of biological communities. The population and evolutionary dynamics of predators and their prey are often tightly coupled and can greatly influence the dynamics of other organisms as well (1). Predation has been invoked as a major cause of diversity in ecosystems (11, 12). For example, predators may mediate coexistence between superior and inferior competitors (2, 13), and differential trajectories of predator-prey coevolution can lead to divergence between separate populations (70).Predation has been investigated extensively in higher organisms but relatively little among prokaryotes. Predation between prokaryotes is one of the most ancient forms of predation (27), and it has been proposed that this process may have been the origin of eukaryotic cells (16). Prokaryotes are key players in primary biomass production (44) and global nutrient cycling (22), and predation of some prokaryotes by others is likely to significantly affect these processes. Most studies of predatory prokaryotes have focused on Bdellovibrionaceae species (e.g., see references 51, 55, and 67). These small deltaproteobacteria prey on other Gram-negative cells, using flagella to swim rapidly until they collide with a prey cell. After collision, the predator cells then enter the periplasmic space of the prey cell, consume the host cell from within, elongate, and divide into new cells that are released upon host cell lysis (41). Although often described as predatory, the Bdellovibrionaceae may also be considered to be parasitic, as they typically depend (apart from host-independent strains that have been observed [60]) on the infection and death of their host for their reproduction (47).In this study, we examined predation among the myxobacteria, which are also deltaproteobacteria but constitute a monophyletic clade divergent from the Bdellovibrionaceae (17). Myxobacteria are found in most terrestrial soils and in many aquatic environments as well (17, 53, 74). Many myxobacteria, including the model species Myxococcus xanthus, exhibit several complex social traits, including fruiting body formation and spore formation (14, 18, 34, 62, 71), cooperative swarming with two motility systems (64, 87), and group (or “wolf pack”) predation on both bacteria and fungi (4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 50). Using representatives of the genus Myxococcus, we tested for both intra- and interspecific variation in myxobacterial predatory performance across a broad range of prey types. Moreover, we examined whether prey vary substantially in the degree to which they support predatory growth by the myxobacteria and whether patterns of variation in predator performance are constant or variable across prey environments. The latter outcome may reflect adaptive specialization and help to maintain diversity in natural populations (57, 59).Although closely related to the Bdellovibrionaceae (both are deltaproteobacteria), myxobacteria employ a highly divergent mode of predation. Myxobacteria use gliding motility (64) to search the soil matrix for prey and produce a wide range of antibiotics and lytic compounds that kill and decompose prey cells and break down complex polymers, thereby releasing substrates for growth (66). Myxobacterial predation is cooperative both in its “searching” component (6, 31, 82; for details on cooperative swarming, see reference 64) and in its “handling” component (10, 29, 31, 32), in which secreted enzymes turn prey cells into consumable growth substrates (56, 83). There is evidence that M. xanthus employs chemotaxis-like genes in its attack on prey cells (5) and that predation is stimulated by close contact with prey cells (48).Recent studies have revealed great genetic and phenotypic diversity within natural populations of M. xanthus, on both global (79) and local (down to centimeter) scales (78). Phenotypic diversity includes variation in social compatibility (24, 81), the density and nutrient thresholds triggering development (33, 38), developmental timing (38), motility rates and patterns (80), and secondary metabolite production (40). Although natural populations are spatially structured and both genetic diversity and population differentiation decrease with spatial scale (79), substantial genetic diversity is present even among centimeter-scale isolates (78). No study has yet systematically investigated quantitative natural variation in myxobacterial predation phenotypes across a large number of predator genotypes.Given the previous discovery of large variation in all examined phenotypes, even among genetically extremely similar strains, we anticipated extensive predatory variation as well. Using a phylogenetically broad range of prey, we compared and contrasted the predatory performance of 16 natural M. xanthus isolates, sampled from global to local scales, as well as the commonly studied laboratory reference strain DK1622 and representatives of three additional Myxococcus species: M. flavescens (86), M. macrosporus (42), and M. virescens (63) (Table ​(Table1).1). In particular, we measured myxobacterial swarm expansion rates on prey lawns spread on buffered agar (31, 50) and on control plates with no nutrients or with prehydrolyzed growth substrate.

TABLE 1.

List of myxobacteria used, with geographical origin

Immunomodulation by Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Veterinary Species

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) are adult-derived multipotent stem cells that have been derived from almost every tissue. They are classically defined as spindle-shaped, plastic-adherent cells capable of adipogenic, chondrogenic, and osteogenic differentiation. This capacity for trilineage differentiation has been the foundation for research into the use of MSC to regenerate damaged tissues. Recent studies have shown that MSC interact with cells of the immune system and modulate their function. Although many of the details underlying the mechanisms by which MSC modulate the immune system have been defined for human and rodent (mouse and rat) MSC, much less is known about MSC from other veterinary species. This knowledge gap is particularly important because the clinical use of MSC in veterinary medicine is increasing and far exceeds the use of MSC in human medicine. It is crucial to determine how MSC modulate the immune system for each animal species as well as for MSC derived from any given tissue source. A comparative approach provides a unique translational opportunity to bring novel cell-based therapies to the veterinary market as well as enhance the utility of animal models for human disorders. The current review covers what is currently known about MSC and their immunomodulatory functions in veterinary species, excluding laboratory rodents.Abbreviations: AT, adipose tissue; BM, Bone marrow; CB, umbilical cord blood; CT, umbilical cord tissue; DC, dendritic cell; IDO, indoleamine 2;3-dioxygenase; MSC, mesenchymal stem cells; PGE₂, prostaglandin E2; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factorMesenchymal stem cells (MSC, alternatively known as mesenchymal stromal cells) were first reported in the literature in 1968.³⁹ MSC are thought to be of pericyte origin (cells that line the vasculature)^21,22 and typically are isolated from highly vascular tissues. In humans and mice, MSC have been isolated from fat, placental tissues (placenta, Wharton jelly, umbilical cord, umbilical cord blood), hair follicles, tendon, synovial membrane, periodontal ligament, and every major organ (brain, spleen, liver, kidney, lung, bone marrow, muscle, thymus, pancreas, skin).^23,121 For most current clinical applications, MSC are isolated from adipose tissue (AT), bone marrow (BM), umbilical cord blood (CB), and umbilical cord tissue (CT; 11,87,99 Clinical trials in human medicine focus on the use of MSC both for their antiinflammatory properties (graft-versus-host disease, irritable bowel syndrome) and their ability to aid in tissue and bone regeneration in combination with growth factors and bone scaffolds (clinicaltrials.gov).¹³¹ For tissue regeneration, the abilities of MSC to differentiate and to secrete mediators and interact with cells of the immune system likely contribute to tissue healing (Figure 1). The current review will not address the specific use of MSC for orthopedic applications and tissue regeneration, although the topic is covered widely in current literature for both human and veterinary medicine.^57,62,90

Table 1.

Tissues from which MSC have been isolated