Asymmetric Cell Divisions of Human Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells Meet Endosomes

Hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) are undifferentiated cells, which self-renew over a long period of time and give rise to committed hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) containing the capability to replenish the whole blood system. Since both uncontrolled expansion as well as loss of HSC would be fatal, the decision of self-renewal versus differentiation needs to be tightly controlled. There is good evidence that both HSC niches as well as asymmetric cell divisions are involved in controlling whether HSC self-renew or become committed to differentiate. In this context, we recently identified four proteins which frequently segregate asymmetrically in dividing HSC/HPC. Remarkably, three of these proteins, the tetraspanins CD53 and CD63, and the transferrin receptor are endosome-associated proteins. Here, we highlight these observations in conjunction with recent findings in model organisms which show that components of the endosomal machinery are involved in cell-fate specification processes.     

干细胞不对称分裂模式与肿瘤发生

干细胞发育中存在对称/不对称两种方式的交替分裂,精确调控维持正常发育。相关调控因素有外源性机制和内源性机制,发现于基本模式生物果蝇,主要包括干细胞周围微环境、细胞极性、纺锤体轴向和命运决定子不对称分布。调控机制的失常将导致干细胞分裂模式紊乱,可能造成肿瘤发生。简要综述了相关研究进展。     

The Role of Symmetric Stem Cell Divisions in Tissue Homeostasis

Successful maintenance of cellular lineages critically depends on the fate decision dynamics of stem cells (SCs) upon division. There are three possible strategies with respect to SC fate decision symmetry: (a) asymmetric mode, when each and every SC division produces one SC and one non-SC progeny; (b) symmetric mode, when 50% of all divisions produce two SCs and another 50%—two non-SC progeny; (c) mixed mode, when both the asymmetric and two types of symmetric SC divisions co-exist and are partitioned so that long-term net balance of the lineage output stays constant. Theoretically, either of these strategies can achieve lineage homeostasis. However, it remains unclear which strategy(s) are more advantageous and under what specific circumstances, and what minimal control mechanisms are required to operate them. Here we used stochastic modeling to analyze and quantify the ability of different types of divisions to maintain long-term lineage homeostasis, in the context of different control networks. Using the example of a two-component lineage, consisting of SCs and one type of non-SC progeny, we show that its tight homeostatic control is not necessarily associated with purely asymmetric divisions. Through stochastic analysis and simulations we show that asymmetric divisions can either stabilize or destabilize the lineage system, depending on the underlying control network. We further apply our computational model to biological observations in the context of a two-component lineage of mouse epidermis, where autonomous lineage control has been proposed and notable regional differences, in terms of symmetric division ratio, have been noted—higher in thickened epidermis of the paw skin as compared to ear and tail skin. By using our model we propose a possible explanation for the regional differences in epidermal lineage control strategies. We demonstrate how symmetric divisions can work to stabilize paw epidermis lineage, which experiences high level of micro-injuries and a lack of hair follicles as a back-up source of SCs.     

Polarity in Stem Cell Division: Asymmetric Stem Cell Division in Tissue Homeostasis

Many adult stem cells divide asymmetrically to balance self-renewal and differentiation, thereby maintaining tissue homeostasis. Asymmetric stem cell divisions depend on asymmetric cell architecture (i.e., cell polarity) within the cell and/or the cellular environment. In particular, as residents of the tissues they sustain, stem cells are inevitably placed in the context of the tissue architecture. Indeed, many stem cells are polarized within their microenvironment, or the stem cell niche, and their asymmetric division relies on their relationship with the microenvironment. Here, we review asymmetric stem cell divisions in the context of the stem cell niche with a focus on Drosophila germ line stem cells, where the nature of niche-dependent asymmetric stem cell division is well characterized.Asymmetric cell division allows stem cells to self-renew and produce another cell that undergoes differentiation, thus providing a simple method for tissue homeostasis. Stem cell self-renewal refers to the daughter(s) of stem cell division maintaining all stem cell characteristics, including proliferation capacity, maintenance of the undifferentiated state, and the capability to produce daughter cells that undergo differentiation. A failure to maintain the correct stem cell number has been speculated to lead to tumorigenesis/tissue hyperplasia via stem cell hyperproliferation or tissue degeneration/aging via a reduction in stem cell number or activity (Morrison and Kimble 2006; Rando 2006). This necessity changes during development. The stem cell pool requires expansion earlier in development, whereas maintenance is needed later to sustain tissue homeostasis.There are two major mechanisms to sustain a fixed number of adult stem cells: stem cell niche and asymmetric stem cell division, which are not mutually exclusive. Stem cell niche is a microenvironment in which stem cells reside, and provides essential signals required for stem cell identity (Fig. 1A). Physical limitation of niche “space” can therefore define stem cell number within a tissue. Within such a niche, many stem cells divide asymmetrically, giving rise to one stem cell and one differentiating cell, by placing one daughter inside and another outside of the niche, respectively (Fig. 1A). Nevertheless, some stem cells divide asymmetrically, apparently without the niche. For example, in Drosophila neuroblasts, cell-intrinsic fate determinants are polarized within a dividing cell, and subsequent partitioning of such fate determinants into daughter cells in an asymmetric manner results in asymmetric stem cell division (Fig. 1B) (see Fig. 3A and Prehoda 2009).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Mechanisms of asymmetric stem cell division. (A) Asymmetric stem cell division by extrinsic fate determinants (i.e., the stem cell niche). The two daughters of stem cell division will be placed in distinct cellular environments either inside or outside the stem cell niche, leading to asymmetric fate choice. (B) Asymmetric stem cell division by intrinsic fate determinants. Fate determinants are polarized in the dividing stem cells, which are subsequently partitioned into two daughter cells unequally, thus making the division asymmetrical. Self-renewing (red line) and/or differentiation promoting (green line) factors may be involved.In this review, we focus primarily on asymmetric stem cell divisions in the Drosophila germ line as the most intensively studied examples of niche-dependent asymmetric stem cell division. We also discuss some examples of stem cell division outside Drosophila, where stem cells are known to divide asymmetrically or in a niche-dependent manner.     

Asymmetric Segregation of the Double-Stranded RNA Binding Protein Staufen2 during Mammalian Neural Stem Cell Divisions Promotes Lineage Progression

Asymmetric cell divisions are a fundamental feature of neural development, and misregulation can lead to brain abnormalities or tumor formation. During an asymmetric cell division, molecular determinants are segregated preferentially into one daughter cell to specify its fate. An important goal is to identify the asymmetric determinants in neural progenitor cells, which could be tumor suppressors or inducers of specific neural fates. Here, we show that the double-stranded RNA-binding protein Stau2 is distributed asymmetrically during progenitor divisions in the developing mouse cortex, preferentially segregating into the Tbr2(+) neuroblast daughter, taking with it a subset of RNAs. Knockdown of Stau2 stimulates differentiation and overexpression produces periventricular neuronal masses, demonstrating its functional importance for normal cortical development. We immunoprecipitated Stau2 to examine its cargo mRNAs, and found enrichment for known asymmetric and basal cell determinants, such as Trim32, and identified candidates, including a subset involved in primary cilium function.     

神经祖细胞不对称分裂中纺锤体取向与细胞皮层极性的偶联机制

神经祖细胞的不对称分裂是神经发生的必要环节.近年来关于不对称分裂的研究,为果蝇及哺乳动物中枢神经系统发育期间神经祖细胞的分化机制提供了新的理解.在这一分裂模式中,纺锤体作为细胞结构的支架,受到细胞皮层极性信号的引导而改变取向,保证底部细胞命运决定子(cell fate determinants)的不对称分配.G蛋白亚基、各种接头蛋白及微管相关蛋白组成极性蛋白复合体,在纺锤体取向改变中发挥了有序的调节作用.现在细胞和分子水平探讨不对称分裂纺锤体与细胞皮层极性偶联这一标志性事件.     

Overlapping and Non-overlapping Functions of Condensins I and II in Neural Stem Cell Divisions

During development of the cerebral cortex, neural stem cells (NSCs) divide symmetrically to proliferate and asymmetrically to generate neurons. Although faithful segregation of mitotic chromosomes is critical for NSC divisions, its fundamental mechanism remains unclear. A class of evolutionarily conserved protein complexes, known as condensins, is thought to be central to chromosome assembly and segregation among eukaryotes. Here we report the first comprehensive genetic study of mammalian condensins, demonstrating that two different types of condensin complexes (condensins I and II) are both essential for NSC divisions and survival in mice. Simultaneous depletion of both condensins leads to severe defects in chromosome assembly and segregation, which in turn cause DNA damage and trigger p53-induced apoptosis. Individual depletions of condensins I and II lead to slower loss of NSCs compared to simultaneous depletion, but they display distinct mitotic defects: chromosome missegregation was observed more prominently in NSCs depleted of condensin II, whereas mitotic delays were detectable only in condensin I-depleted NSCs. Remarkably, NSCs depleted of condensin II display hyperclustering of pericentric heterochromatin and nucleoli, indicating that condensin II, but not condensin I, plays a critical role in establishing interphase nuclear architecture. Intriguingly, these defects are taken over to postmitotic neurons. Our results demonstrate that condensins I and II have overlapping and non-overlapping functions in NSCs, and also provide evolutionary insight into intricate balancing acts of the two condensin complexes.     

Symmetry Breaking in Plants: Molecular Mechanisms Regulating Asymmetric Cell Divisions in Arabidopsis

Asymmetric cell division generates cell types with different specialized functions or fates. This type of division is critical to the overall cellular organization and development of many multicellular organisms. In plants, regulated asymmetric cell divisions are of particular importance because cell migration does not occur. The influence of extrinsic cues on asymmetric cell division in plants is well documented. Recently, candidate intrinsic factors have been identified and links between intrinsic and extrinsic components are beginning to be elucidated. A novel mechanism in breaking symmetry was revealed that involves the movement of typically intrinsic factors between plant cells. As we learn more about the regulation of asymmetric cell divisions in plants, we can begin to reflect on the similarities and differences between the strategies used by plants and animals. Focusing on the underlying molecular mechanisms, this article describes three selected cases of symmetry-breaking events in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. These examples occur in early embryogenesis, stomatal development, and ground tissue formation in the root.Plant cells are surrounded by rigid cell walls that prevent cell movement. Precisely oriented cell division is especially important in the absence of cell migration. When a plant cell divides, a new wall forms between the daughter cells; this permanently delineates their relative positions. As a consequence, the selection of the division plane is crucial for plant tissue organization and overall organ architecture.The selection of the division plane is unique in plants compared with other organisms (for a detailed review of plant cytokinesis see Jürgens 2005). In budding yeast, landmarks at previous bud-sites position the division plane (see Slaughter et al. 2009), whereas in fission yeast it is positioned by the nucleus. The position of the centrosomes and the mitotic spindle determine division plane orientation in animal cells (Balasubramanian et al. 2004; see Munro and Bowerman 2009). In plants, the division plane is positioned by a ring of microtubules and F-actin, called the preprophase band that forms at the cell periphery (Mineyuki 1999). Despite these striking differences, similarities are beginning to emerge. For example, in budding yeast and animals, GTPase activation plays an important role in positioning division planes (Balasubramanian et al. 2004; see McCaffrey and Macara 2009; Slaughter et al. 2009; Munro and Bowerman 2009; Prehoda 2009). In plants, a GTPase was recently found to be localized at the preprophase band and may provide spatial information during division (Xu et al. 2008). Therefore, common molecular mechanisms may underlie division plane selection in plants and animals.In all organisms, asymmetric cell division is a common method to obtain distinct cell types from a single progenitor cell. Before an asymmetric division a cell must first establish an internal asymmetry; this process is termed breaking symmetry. Breaking symmetry can be generally defined as the asymmetric organization of cellular components along one axis leading to cellular polarization as a prerequisite to division. An asymmetric cell division can generate two cells of different morphology (i.e., size and/or shape) or different specialized functions or fates. Specifically, the products of asymmetric cell divisions fall into two major categories. In one case, a mother cell can divide asymmetrically to produce a daughter cell to replace it and a daughter cell with a distinct fate, as in the case of stem cell divisions. Alternatively, a mother cell can divide asymmetrically to produce two distinct daughter cells at the expense of mother cell identity. Following division, there are two basic mechanisms by which a mother cell generates daughters that are distinct from itself. One mechanism is intrinsic to the cell and is defined by segregation of cellular determinants before division. The other mechanism is extrinsic to the cell and is defined by external cues that direct daughter cell fate (Horvitz and Herskowitz 1992). Intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms are not necessarily independent and often work in combination to direct asymmetric division and specification of daughter cells.The first zygotic division of fucoid brown algae, such as Fucus, is one of the earliest studied examples of symmetry breaking in plants regulated by both extrinsic and intrinsic mechanisms. Fucus zygotes are an excellent organism in which to examine the cellular biology underlying asymmetric cell division (for a recent review see Homble and Leonetti 2007). In the presence of extrinsic cues, such as light, the asymmetric zygotic division is oriented perpendicular to the light gradient so that one cell resides on the “shady” side of the gradient (Kropf 1992, 1997; Alessa and Kropf 1999). In the absence of environmental cues, the division is oriented relative to the sperm entry site and therefore appears random within a field of cells (Hable and Kropf 2000). This indicates that Fucus zygotes have an intrinsic mechanism to break symmetry in the absence of extrinsic cues. This intrinsic mechanism occurs rapidly after fertilization, however it can later be overridden by extrinsic cues. Although much is known about the role of the cytoskeleton, membrane depolarization, and ion flux in Fucus embryo polarization, the molecular components regulating these events remain unknown because of a lack of molecular tools. To address the molecular mechanisms regulating asymmetric cell divisions in plants, the use of a more genetically tractable plant is necessary.In the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, many genes that are involved in asymmetric cell division have been identified. Interestingly, many of these genes are thought to function in both asymmetric division and subsequent cell fate specification suggesting that, in plants, these processes are tightly linked. Despite these advances, relatively little is known about the cellular processes of breaking symmetry in plants. Because of these two caveats, the term breaking symmetry must be defined more generally in plants. We use this term to describe a process in which a cell divides asymmetrically to form a daughter cell with a distinct fate. Here we discuss three examples in which the molecular mechanisms that participate in symmetry-breaking events in plants are beginning to be elucidated. These examples occur in early embryogenesis, formation of stomata, and root development (Fig. 1). We confine the topics of this article to Arabidopsis thaliana because the majority of the experimental work, particularly using molecular genetics, is focused on this species.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.An Arabidopsis plant. Schematic of an adult plant depicting roots, leaves, stems, and flowers. In this article, three symmetry-breaking events are discussed. These examples are taken from different organs of the plant. The first example is taken from embryo development, which occurs after fertilization of the flower in the silique (seed pod) in Arabidopsis. Next, symmetry breaking in the leaf epidermis during stomatal development is discussed. Finally, the asymmetric cell division that gives rise to the ground tissue in the root is considered.     

EGFR-Aurka Signaling Rescues Polarity and Regeneration Defects in Dystrophin-Deficient Muscle Stem Cells by Increasing Asymmetric Divisions

1. Download high-res image (203KB)
2. Download full-size image

     

Dynamics of Asymmetric and Symmetric Divisions of Muscle Stem Cells In Vivo and on Artificial Niches

1. Download : Download high-res image (193KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Cell Biology of Prokaryotic Organelles

Mounting evidence in recent years has challenged the dogma that prokaryotes are simple and undefined cells devoid of an organized subcellular architecture. In fact, proteins once thought to be the purely eukaryotic inventions, including relatives of actin and tubulin control prokaryotic cell shape, DNA segregation, and cytokinesis. Similarly, compartmentalization, commonly noted as a distinguishing feature of eukaryotic cells, is also prevalent in the prokaryotic world in the form of protein-bounded and lipid-bounded organelles. In this article we highlight some of these prokaryotic organelles and discuss the current knowledge on their ultrastructure and the molecular mechanisms of their biogenesis and maintenance.The emergence of eukaryotes in a world dominated by prokaryotes is one of the defining moments in the evolution of modern day organisms. Although it is clear that the central metabolic and information processing machineries of eukaryotes and prokaryotes share a common ancestry, the origins of the complex eukaryotic cell plan remain mysterious. Eukaryotic cells are typified by the presence of intracellular organelles that compartmentalize essential biochemical reactions whereas their prokaryotic counterparts generally lack such sophisticated subspecialization of the cytoplasmic space. In most cases, this textbook categorization of eukaryotes and prokaryotes holds true. However, decades of research have shown that a number of unique and diverse organelles can be found in the prokaryotic world raising the possibility that the ability to form organelles may have existed before the divergence of eukaryotes from prokaryotes (Shively 2006).Skeptical readers might wonder if a prokaryotic structure can really be defined as an organelle. Here we categorize any compartment bounded by a biological membrane with a dedicated biochemical function as an organelle. This simple and broad definition presents cells, be they eukaryotes or prokaryotes, with a similar set of challenges that need to be addressed to successfully build an intracellular compartment. First, an organism needs to mold a cellular membrane into a desired shape and size. Next, the compartment must be populated with the proper set of proteins that carry out the activity of the organelle. Finally, the cell must ensure the proper localization, maintenance and segregation of these compartments across the cell cycle. Eukaryotic cells perform these difficult mechanistic steps using dedicated molecular pathways. Thus, if connections exist between prokaryotic and eukaryotic organelles it seems likely that relatives of these molecules may be involved in the biogenesis and maintenance of prokaryotic organelles as well.Prokaryotic organelles can be generally divided into two major groups based on the composition of the membrane layer surrounding them. First are the cellular structures bounded by a nonunit membrane such a protein shell or a lipid monolayer (Shively 2006). Well-known examples of these compartments include lipid bodies, polyhydroxy butyrate granules, carboxysomes, and gas vacuoles. The second class consists of those organelles that are surrounded by a lipid-bilayer membrane, an arrangement that is reminiscent of the canonical organelles of the eukaryotic endomembrane system. Therefore, this article is dedicated to a detailed exploration of three prokaryotic lipid-bilayer bounded organelle systems: the magnetosomes of magnetotactic bacteria, photosynthetic membranes, and the internal membrane structures of the Planctomycetes. In each case, we present the most recent findings on the ultrastructure of these organelles and highlight the molecular mechanisms that control their formation, dynamics, and segregation. We also highlight some protein-bounded compartments to present the reader with a more complete view of prokaryotic compartmentalization.     

Asymmetric Wnt Pathway Signaling Facilitates Stem Cell-Like Divisions via the Nonreceptor Tyrosine Kinase FRK-1 in Caenorhabditis elegans

Asymmetric cell division is critical during development, as it influences processes such as cell fate specification and cell migration. We have characterized FRK-1, a homolog of the mammalian Fer nonreceptor tyrosine kinase, and found it to be required for differentiation and maintenance of epithelial cell types, including the stem cell-like seam cells of the hypodermis. A genomic knockout of frk-1, allele ok760, results in severely uncoordinated larvae that arrest at the L1 stage and have an excess number of lateral hypodermal cells that appear to have lost asymmetry in the stem cell-like divisions of the seam cell lineage. frk-1(ok760) mutants show that there are excess lateral hypodermal cells that are abnormally shaped and smaller in size compared to wild type, a defect that could be rescued only in a manner dependent on the kinase activity of FRK-1. Additionally, we observed a significant change in the expression of heterochronic regulators in frk-1(ok760) mutants. However, frk-1(ok760) mutants do not express late, nonseam hypodermal GFP markers, suggesting the seam cells do not precociously differentiate as adult-hyp7 cells. Finally, our data also demonstrate a clear role for FRK-1 in seam cell proliferation, as eliminating FRK-1 during the L3–L4 transition results in supernumerary seam cell nuclei that are dependent on asymmetric Wnt signaling. Specifically, we observe aberrant POP-1 and WRM-1 localization that is dependent on the presence of FRK-1 and APR-1. Overall, our data suggest a requirement for FRK-1 in maintaining the identity and proliferation of seam cells primarily through an interaction with the asymmetric Wnt pathway.