Origin and Evolution of the Self-Organizing Cytoskeleton in the Network of Eukaryotic Organelles

The eukaryotic cytoskeleton evolved from prokaryotic cytomotive filaments. Prokaryotic filament systems show bewildering structural and dynamic complexity and, in many aspects, prefigure the self-organizing properties of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton. Here, the dynamic properties of the prokaryotic and eukaryotic cytoskeleton are compared, and how these relate to function and evolution of organellar networks is discussed. The evolution of new aspects of filament dynamics in eukaryotes, including severing and branching, and the advent of molecular motors converted the eukaryotic cytoskeleton into a self-organizing “active gel,” the dynamics of which can only be described with computational models. Advances in modeling and comparative genomics hold promise of a better understanding of the evolution of the self-organizing cytoskeleton in early eukaryotes, and its role in the evolution of novel eukaryotic functions, such as amoeboid motility, mitosis, and ciliary swimming.The eukaryotic cytoskeleton organizes space on the cellular scale and this organization influences almost every process in the cell. Organization depends on the mechanochemical properties of the cytoskeleton that dynamically maintain cell shape, position organelles, and macromolecules by trafficking, and drive locomotion via actin-rich cellular protrusions, ciliary beating, or ciliary gliding. The eukaryotic cytoskeleton is best described as an “active gel,” a cross-linked network of polymers (gel) in which many of the links are active motors that can move the polymers relative to each other (Karsenti et al. 2006). Because prokaryotes have only cytoskeletal polymers but lack motor proteins, this “active gel” property clearly sets the eukaryotic cytoskeleton apart from prokaryotic filament systems.Prokaryotes contain elaborate systems of several cytomotive filaments (Löwe and Amos 2009) that share many structural and dynamic features with eukaryotic actin filaments and microtubules (Löwe and Amos 1998; van den Ent et al. 2001). Prokaryotic cytoskeletal filaments may trace back to the first cells and may have originated as higher-order assemblies of enzymes (Noree et al. 2010; Barry and Gitai 2011). These cytomotive filaments are required for the segregation of low copy number plasmids, cell rigidity and cell-wall synthesis, cell division, and occasionally the organization of membranous organelles (Komeili et al. 2006; Thanbichler and Shapiro 2008; Löwe and Amos 2009). These functions are performed by dynamic filament-forming systems that harness the energy from nucleotide hydrolysis to generate forces either via bending or polymerization (Löwe and Amos 2009; Pilhofer and Jensen 2013). Although the identification of actin and tubulin homologs in prokaryotes is a major breakthrough, we are far from understanding the origin of the structural and dynamic complexity of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton.Advances in genome sequencing and comparative genomics now allow a detailed reconstruction of the cytoskeletal components present in the last common ancestor of eukaryotes. These studies all point to an ancestrally complex cytoskeleton, with several families of motors (Wickstead and Gull 2007; Wickstead et al. 2010) and filament-associated proteins and other regulators in place (Jékely 2003; Richards and Cavalier-Smith 2005; Rivero and Cvrcková 2007; Chalkia et al. 2008; Eme et al. 2009; Fritz-Laylin et al. 2010; Eckert et al. 2011; Hammesfahr and Kollmar 2012). Genomic reconstructions and comparative cell biology of single-celled eukaryotes (Raikov 1994; Cavalier-Smith 2013) allow us to infer the cellular features of the ancestral eukaryote. These analyses indicate that amoeboid motility (Fritz-Laylin et al. 2010; although, see Cavalier-Smith 2013), cilia (Cavalier-Smith 2002; Mitchell 2004; Jékely and Arendt 2006; Satir et al. 2008), centrioles (Carvalho-Santos et al. 2010), phagocytosis (Cavalier-Smith 2002; Jékely 2007; Yutin et al. 2009), a midbody during cell division (Eme et al. 2009), mitosis (Raikov 1994), and meiosis (Ramesh et al. 2005) were all ancestral eukaryotic cellular features. The availability of functional information from organisms other than animals and yeasts (e.g., Chlamydomonas, Tetrahymena, Trypanosoma) also allow more reliable inferences about the ancestral functions of cytoskeletal components (i.e., not only their ancestral presence or absence) and their regulation (Demonchy et al. 2009; Lechtreck et al. 2009; Suryavanshi et al. 2010).The ancestral complexity of the cytoskeleton in eukaryotes leaves a huge gap between prokaryotes and the earliest eukaryote we can reconstruct (provided that our rooting of the tree is correct) (Cavalier-Smith 2013). Nevertheless, we can attempt to infer the series of events that happened along the stem lineage, leading to the last common ancestor of eukaryotes. Meaningful answers will require the use of a combination of gene family history reconstructions (Wickstead and Gull 2007; Wickstead et al. 2010), transition analyses (Cavalier-Smith 2002), and computer simulations relevant to cell evolution (Jékely 2008).     

Glycosphingolipid Functions

The combination of carbohydrate and lipid generates unusual molecules in which the two distinctive halves of the glycoconjugate influence the function of each other. Membrane glycolipids can act as primary receptors for carbohydrate binding proteins to mediate transmembrane signaling despite restriction to the outer bilayer leaflet. The extensive heterogeneity of the lipid moiety plays a significant, but still largely unknown, role in glycosphingolipid function. Potential interplay between glycolipids and their fatty acid isoforms, together with their preferential interaction with cholesterol, generates a complex mechanism for the regulation of their function in cellular physiology.The chemical identification of sphingosine/sphingomyelin by Thudichum (1884) marks the beginning of the enigma in terms of glycosphingolipid (GSLs) function. Their extensive compositional characterization, defines more than 300 species (Stults et al. 1989; Hakomori 2008). However, this large complement of chemically defined GSLs, containing on average 1–8 sugars, may significantly underrepresent the total GSL “glycome” because polyglycosyl ceramides, containing up to 60 sugar residues, have been described by Karlsson and colleagues (Miller-Podraza et al. 1993, 1997) but have not been followed up since their initial isolation.Despite early compositional definition, functional studies on GSLs lag behind other macromolecular biomolecules, (e.g., proteins, or even glycoproteins). Indeed, the revolution in molecular biology and structural biology seem to have largely by-passed GSLs. GSL crystal structures are extremely rare (Pascher and Sundell 1977), much rarer than membrane proteins, for example (Loll 2003). Three dimensional GSL structures have been attained within protein complex crystals, rather than as separate entities (Zajonc et al. 2003; Malinina et al. 2006; Wu et al. 2006), and these resolve structures largely incompatible with lamellar membrane presented GSLs.     

PRC1 Cooperates with CLASP1 to Organize Central Spindle Plasticity in Mitosis

During cell division, chromosome segregation is governed by the interaction of spindle microtubules with the kinetochore. A dramatic remodeling of interpolar microtubules into an organized central spindle between the separating chromatids is required for the initiation and execution of cytokinesis. Central spindle organization requires mitotic kinesins, microtubule-bundling protein PRC1, and Aurora B kinase complex. However, the precise role of PRC1 in central spindle organization has remained elusive. Here we show that PRC1 recruits CLASP1 to the central spindle at early anaphase onset. CLASP1 belongs to a conserved microtubule-binding protein family that mediates the stabilization of overlapping microtubules of the central spindle. PRC1 physically interacts with CLASP1 and specifies its localization to the central spindle. Repression of CLASP1 leads to sister-chromatid bridges and depolymerization of spindle midzone microtubules. Disruption of PRC1-CLASP1 interaction by a membrane-permeable peptide abrogates accurate chromosome segregation, resulting in sister chromatid bridges. These findings reveal a key role for the PRC1-CLASP1 interaction in achieving a stable anti-parallel microtubule organization essential for faithful chromosome segregation. We propose that PRC1 forms a link between stabilization of CLASP1 association with central spindle microtubules and anti-parallel microtubule elongation.To ensure that each daughter cell receives the full complement of the genome in each cell division, chromosomes move poleward, and non-kinetochore fibers become bundled at the onset of anaphase, initiating assembly of the central spindle, a set of anti-parallel microtubules that serves to concentrate key regulators of cytokinesis (1–3). Chromosomal passengers are a group of evolutionarily conserved proteins that orchestrates chromosome segregation and central spindle plasticity (4, 5). This protein complex containing Aurora B, Survivin, INCENP, and Borealin is relocated from the kinetochore to the central spindle upon anaphase onset (5–9). Perturbation of their function results in defects in metaphase chromosome alignment, chromosome segregation, and cytokinesis (10).Among the central spindle maintenance components, only two have been reported to mediate the microtubule bundling in the central spindle. One is centralspindlin, a heterotetramer containing CeMKLP1/ZEN-4 and RhoGAP/CYK-4 (11), and the other one is an evolutionarily conserved protein, PRC1 (also named Feo in fruit fry, Ase1 in yeast, and MAP65 in plant cells). PRC1 is a non-motor microtubule-binding and -bundling protein in human cells originally identified as a Cdc2 substrate essential for cytokinesis (12, 13). Similar microtubule regulatory activities have been reported in yeast, fruit fly, and plant cells. It is well known that overexpression of wild type PRC1 in HeLa cells can result in thick microtubule bundles in cells at interphase (13). Bundling activity of PRC1, as well as centralspindlin, is required for the organization of the central spindle as well as for the successful progression of cytokinesis. PRC1 molecules accumulate on the midline of a central spindle with the cell cycle progression to anaphase. As a non-motor microtubule-binding protein, transportation of PRC1 to the midline is promoted by its association to kinesin, KIF4A, and timing of this progression is controlled by the dephosphorylation of Thr-481 on PRC1 when the cell exits metaphase by phosphatase Cdc14 (14). Our recent study shows that prevention of the phosphorylation of PRC1 at Thr-470 causes an inhibition in PRC1 oligomerization in vitro and an aberrant organization of central spindle in vivo, suggesting that this phosphorylation-dependent PRC1 oligomerization ensures that central spindle assembly occurs at the appropriate time in the cell cycle (15).Spatiotemporal regulation of microtubule organization and dynamics is responsible for the mitotic apparatus such as the central spindle. However, it has remained elusive as to how the central spindle microtubule organization and dynamics are regulated. There are large varieties of microtubule-associated proteins responsible for regulation of the dynamic behavior of microtubules and microtubule-mediated transport. Among these, proteins that associate with the tips of microtubules are called +TIPs, for “plus-end tracking proteins.” These proteins have been shown to be important in different organisms and cellular systems (16). Using yeast two-hybrid assay, CLASPs were identified as interacting partners of the CLIPs and characterized as new +TIP proteins (17).The microtubule-binding protein CLASP is emerging as an important microtubule regulator in the formation of the mitotic apparatus (18–22). CLASP is required for promoting plus-end growth of spindle microtubules in prometaphase (23). Although the molecular mechanisms underlying its regulation of microtubule dynamics remain elusive, it is generally believed that CLASP orchestrates microtubule dynamics via its physical interacting with EB1, CLIP170, and microtubules (17, 24).To delineate the molecular function of PRC1 in central spindle organization and spatiotemporal regulation, we carried out a new search for PRC1-interacting proteins. Our studies show that PRC1 physically interacts with CLASP1, and the two proteins cooperate in the organization of the central spindle. Our studies provide a novel regulatory mechanism in which the PRC1 complex operates central spindle organization in mitosis.     

Sexual Conflict and Seminal Fluid Proteins: A Dynamic Landscape of Sexual Interactions

Sexual reproduction requires coordinated contributions from both sexes to proceed efficiently. However, the reproductive strategies that the sexes adopt often have the potential to give rise to sexual conflict because they can result in divergent, sex-specific costs and benefits. These conflicts can occur at many levels, from molecular to behavioral. Here, we consider sexual conflict mediated through the actions of seminal fluid proteins. These proteins provide many excellent examples in which to trace the operation of sexual conflict from molecules through to behavior. Seminal fluid proteins are made by males and provided to females during mating. As agents that can modulate egg production at several steps, as well as reproductive behavior, sperm “management,” and female feeding, activity, and longevity, the actions of seminal proteins are prime targets for sexual conflict. We review these actions in the context of sexual conflict. We discuss genomic signatures in seminal protein (and related) genes that are consistent with current or previous sexual conflict. Finally, we note promising areas for future study and highlight real-world practical situations that will benefit from understanding the nature of sexual conflicts mediated by seminal proteins.Both sexes benefit from successful reproduction, but the different reproductive strategies adopted by males and females may result in differential costs and benefits. This can result in sexual conflict before, during, and after mating. Conflict in the more familiar form of competition can also occur between females and between males, with the latter situation including interejaculate competition. Of the many “weapons” in these conflicts and competitions, this article focuses on the seminal fluid proteins (SFPs) that are made by males and transferred to females during mating. These proteins represent a crucial interface of functional activity between male and female. Transfer of SFPs can affect physiology and, in some animals, the behavior and life span of mated females (reviewed in Chapman 2001; Gillott 2003; Poiani 2006; Avila et al. 2011; Rodríguez-Martínez et al. 2011). Because SFPs have important effects on the most intimate of interactions between the sexes, they are prime candidates to become subject to sexually antagonistic selection (Arnqvist and Rowe 2005). With increasing knowledge of the functions of SFPs, their roles in inter- and intrasexual conflict and their evolutionary responses to conflict are becoming ever more apparent. Here, we explore the roles, evolution, and significance of these male-derived players in sexual conflict. We refer the reader to previous reviews for much of the detailed functional information on SFPs (e.g., Chapman 2001; Gillott 2003; Kubli 2003; Arnqvist and Rowe 2005; Poiani 2006; Sirot et al. 2009; Avila et al. 2011; Rodríguez-Martínez et al. 2011) and focus here instead on selected examples, drawn largely from the study of insects.     

Protein Solubility and Protein Homeostasis: A Generic View of Protein Misfolding Disorders

According to the “generic view” of protein aggregation, the ability to self-assemble into stable and highly organized structures such as amyloid fibrils is not an unusual feature exhibited by a small group of peptides and proteins with special sequence or structural properties, but rather a property shared by most proteins. At the same time, through a wide variety of techniques, many of which were originally devised for applications in other disciplines, it has also been established that the maintenance of proteins in a soluble state is a fundamental aspect of protein homeostasis. Taken together, these advances offer a unified framework for understanding the molecular basis of protein aggregation and for the rational development of therapeutic strategies based on the biological and chemical regulation of protein solubility.Virtually every complex biochemical process taking place in living cells depends on the ability of the molecules involved to self-assemble into functional structures (Dobson 2003; Robinson et al. 2007; Russel et al. 2009), and a sophisticated quality control system is responsible for regulating the reactions leading to this organization within the cellular environment (Dobson 2003; Balch et al. 2008; Hartl and Hayer-Hartl 2009; Powers et al. 2009; Vendruscolo and Dobson 2009). Proteins are the molecules that are essential for enabling, regulating, and controlling almost all the tasks necessary to maintain such a balance. To function, the majority of our proteins need to fold into specific three-dimensional structures following their biosynthesis in the ribosome (Hartl and Hayer-Hartl 2002). The wide variety of highly specific structures that results from protein folding, and which serve to bring key functional groups into close proximity, has enabled living systems to develop an astonishing diversity and selectivity in their underlying chemical processes by using a common set of just 20 basic molecular components, the amino acids (Dobson 2003). Given the central importance of protein folding, it is not surprising that the failure of proteins to fold correctly, or to remain correctly folded, is at the origin of a wide variety of pathological conditions, including late-onset diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases (Dobson 2003; Chiti and Dobson 2006; Haass and Selkoe 2007). In many of these disorders proteins self-assemble in an aberrant manner into large molecular aggregates, notably amyloid fibrils (Chiti and Dobson 2006; Ramirez-Alvarado et al. 2010).     

Architecture of the Mammalian Golgi

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

Wnt Signaling in Vertebrate Axis Specification

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

Paradox of Mother's Curse and the Maternally Provisioned Offspring Microbiome

Strict maternal transmission creates an “asymmetric sieve” favoring the spread of mutations in organelle genomes that increase female fitness, but diminish male fitness. This phenomenon, called “Mother''s Curse,” can be viewed as an asymmetrical case of intralocus sexual conflict. The evolutionary logic of Mother''s Curse applies to each member of the offspring microbiome, the community of maternally provisioned microbes, believed to number in the hundreds, if not thousands, of species for host vertebrates, including humans. Taken together, these observations pose a compelling evolutionary paradox: How has maternal transmission of an offspring microbiome become a near universal characteristic of the animal kingdom when the genome of each member of that community poses a potential evolutionary threat to the fitness of host males? I review features that limit or reverse Mother''s Curse and contribute to resolving this paradox. I suggest that the evolution of vertical symbiont transmission requires conditions that mitigate the evolutionary threat to host males.The genomes of mitochondria, chloroplasts, and many symbiotic microbes are transmitted maternally by host females to their offspring. Maternal transmission can be transovariole (intracellular, within the egg) or contagious, during gestation, birth, or feeding (Sonneborn 1950; Smith and Dunn 1991; Gillham 1994; O’Neill et al. 1997). Vertically transmitted (VT) symbiont lineages tend to be genetically homogeneous within hosts (Birky et al. 1983, 1989; Funk et al. 2000). Maternal uniparental transmission creates an “asymmetric sieve” wherein mutations advantageous for females, but harmful for males, can spread through a population (Cosmides and Tooby 1981; Frank and Hurst 1996; Zeh and Zeh 2005; Burt and Trivers 2006). Such mutations spread because deleterious male-specific fitness effects do not affect the response to natural selection of the maternally transmitted entities. This adaptive process favoring the transmitting sex is called Mother''s Curse (MC) (Gemmell et al. 2004) and it has been referred to as an irreconcilable instance of intralocus conflict: “… exclusively maternal transmission of cytoplasmic genes (e.g., in mitochondria) can result in suboptimal mitochondrial function in males … a form of [intralocus sexual conflict] that apparently cannot be resolved, because selection on mitochondria in males cannot produce a response” (Bonduriansky and Chenoweth 2009, p. 285).Mitochondria are ubiquitous in animals and despite the indisputable evolutionary logic of MC (Frank and Hurst 1996) there are no reported cases of sperm-killing or son-killing mitochondria (Burt and Trivers 2006). Moreover, many species of animals possess an offspring microbiome, a community of microbes transmitted uniparentally from mother to offspring at some point in development, whether prefertilization, postfertilization, or postnatal (Funkhouser and Bordenstein 2013). In some vertebrates, including humans, this community is believed to number in the hundreds of species (Funkhouser and Bordenstein 2013). Prolonged periods of maternal care, as in mammals and birds, as well as kin-structured sociality, afford many opportunities for maternal provisioning of microbes to developing offspring. The social insects, in particular, show obligate mutualisms with a microbiome that confers important nutritional benefits for its host (Baumann 2005; Engel and Moran 2013), the termites being a classic example (Ikeda-Ohtsubo and Brune 2009).Together, the evolutionary logic of MC and the widespread existence of maternally transmitted hereditary symbioses pose a paradox for evolutionary biology. The maternally provisioned microbiome (MC) consists of tens to hundreds of genomes affording ample opportunity, along with mitochondrial and organelle genomes, for the occurrence of mutations that benefit females while harming host males. Assembling a VT community as a host nutritional or defensive adaptation requires evading MC not once, but from a continuous siege over evolutionary time. This is the Mother''s Curse–microbiome (MC–MB) paradox. It conceptually affiliated with the “paradox of mutualism,” the persistence of interspecific mutualisms despite the advantages of cheating by one or the other member of the mutualism (Heath and Stinchcombe 2014). Symbiont “cheating” on only half the members of a host species, the males, might offer marginal benefits relative to wholesale cheating on both host sexes. Nevertheless, the MC–MB paradox deserves research attention.In this review, I discuss inbreeding, kin selection, compensatory evolution, and defensive advantages against more virulent pathogens (or predators and herbivores) as means for resolving the MC–MB paradox. First, I review the simple population genetics of MC. I discuss how host inbreeding and kin selection (Unckless and Herren 2009; Wade and Brandvain 2009), alone or in concert, allow for a response to selection on male fertility and viability fitness effects of maternally transmitted genomes. As a result, inbreeding and kin selection can limit or prevent the spread of mutations in a hereditary symbiosis (Cowles 1915) that are harmful to males. I will show that, for both inbreeding and kin selection, there exist conditions that “favor the spread of maternally transmitted mutations harmful to females”; a situation that is the reverse of MC. However, many outbreeding, asocial species harbor maternally provisioned microbiomes and these solutions cannot be applied to them.I also consider the evolution of compensatory nuclear mutations that mitigate or eliminate the harm to males of organelles or symbionts, spreading via MC dynamics. However, I find that the relative rate of compensatory evolution is only 1/4 the rate of evolution of male-harming symbionts. Thus, an evolutionary rescue of host males via compensatory host nuclear mutations requires that there be fourfold or more opportunities for compensation offered by a larger host nuclear genome. The larger the number of species in a host microbiome, the more difficult it is to entertain host nuclear compensatory mutations as a resolution of the MC–MB paradox.Next, I consider the situation in which a deleterious, VT symbiont harms its host but prevents host infection by a more severely deleterious contagiously transmitted pathogen (Lively et al. 2005; see also Clay 1988). This is a case in which absolute harm to a host by a maternally provisioned symbiont becomes a “relative” fitness advantage. This is a scenario that may be common in hosts with speciose microbial communities, especially if each microbial species increases host resistance or outright immunity to infectious, virulent pathogens.Finally, I discuss models of symbiont domestication and capture via the evolution of vertical transmission from an ancestral state of horizontal transmission (Drown et al. 2013). I show that the evolution of vertical transmission requires conditions that tend to restrict the capacity for male harming by symbionts. Each of these scenarios significantly expands the range of evolutionary possibilities permitted for the coevolution of host–symbiont assemblages, especially those microbial communities that are maternally, uniparentally transmitted across host generations. Unfortunately, current data do not permit discriminating among these various evolutionary responses to MC, so none can be definitively considered a resolution of the MC–MB paradox.     

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

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

Sexual Conflict between Parents: Offspring Desertion and Asymmetrical Parental Care

Parental care is an immensely variable social behavior, and sexual conflict offers a powerful paradigm to understand this diversity. Conflict over care (usually considered as a type of postzygotic sexual conflict) is common, because the evolutionary interests of male and female parents are rarely identical. I investigate how sexual conflict over care may facilitate the emergence and maintenance of diverse parenting strategies and argue that researchers should combine two fundamental concepts in social behavior to understand care patterns: cooperation and conflict. Behavioral evidence of conflict over care is well established, studies have estimated specific fitness implications of conflict for males or females, and experiments have investigated specific components of conflict. However, studies are long overdue to reveal the full implications of conflict for both males and females. Manipulating (or harming) the opposite sex seems less common in postzygotic conflicts than in prezygotic conflicts because by manipulating, coercing, or harming the opposite sex, the reproductive interest of the actor is also reduced. Parental care is a complex trait, although few studies have yet considered the implications of multidimensionality for parental conflict. Future research in parental conflict will benefit from understanding the behavioral interactions between male and female parents (e.g., negotiation, learning, and coercion), the genetic and neurogenomic bases of parental behavior, and the influence of social environment on parental strategies. Empirical studies are needed to put sexual conflict in a population context and reveal feedback between mate choice, pair bonds and parenting strategies, and their demographic consequences for the population such as mortalities and sex ratios. Taken together, sexual conflict offers a fascinating avenue for understanding the causes and consequences of parenting behavior, sex roles, and breeding system evolution.Sexual conflict over care is a type of evolutionary conflict that emerges from the different interests of males and females in regard to parental care (Trivers 1972; Clutton-Brock 1991; Chapman et al. 2003; Arnqvist and Rowe 2005). The conflict arises when the young benefit from the effort of either parent, but each parent pays only the cost of its own effort, so that each parent would have higher fitness if the other parent provides more care (Houston et al. 2005; Lessells 2006; Klug et al. 2012). Conflict refers to the way selection acts on the two sexes that have different optimum values in parental provisioning; between the two optima, sexually antagonistic selection operates (Lessells 2012). Sexual conflict over care can be seen as tug-of-war, because each parent is tempted to pull out of care leaving the other parent to provide more care for the young (Székely et al. 1996; Arnqvist and Rowe 2005; Lessells 2012).Sexual conflict over care seems to be the rule rather than the exception. The conflict may be resolved by one or both parents failing to adopt the optimal parenting for their mate and nonetheless remaining in conflict, or by both parents adopting the optima that suit their mate (i.e., exhibit the maximum provisioning possible). Examples of the latter conflict resolution (whereby the conflict is completely wiped out) are exceedingly rare and seem to be limited to three scenarios. First, conflict over care is not expected in obligate monogamy by both males and females so that the lifetime reproductive successes of both parents are identical. This may occur in semelparous organisms (i.e., both the male and the female put their resources into a single breeding event) or in iteroparous organisms with lifelong exclusive monogamy. Second, males and females might be genetically identical, so even though one or both sexes are polygamous, polygamy would benefit the same genome whether it is in the male or the female phenotype. Third, parental care is cost-free and thus parents provide maximum level of care (P Smiseth, pers. comm.). However, few, if any, organisms fit these restrictive assumptions, and thus conflict-free parenting seems exceedingly rare in nature: (1) some level of polygamy (by males, females, or both sexes) appears to be widespread; (2) the reproduction by genetically identical individuals (clones) as separate sexes (males and females) seems unlikely although not impossible if sex is determined environmentally; and (3) care provisioning, as far as we are aware, does have costs that discourage parents from providing their absolute maxima for a given batch of offspring.Parents may have conflicting interest over caring or deserting the young, the amount of care provided for each young, the number of simultaneous mates, the size and sex ratio of their brood, and the synchronization of birth for a clutch or litter of young (Westneat and Sargent 1996; Houston et al. 2005; Klug et al. 2012; Lessells 2012). Conflict between parents over care is usually labeled as a postzygotic conflict although resources had been already allocated into the gametes before fertilization as part of parental provisioning (Clutton-Brock 1991); other examples of postzygotic conflicts include infanticide and genomic imprinting (Chapman et al. 2003; Tregenza et al. 2006; Lessells 2012; see Palombit 2014).Studies of conflict over care are fascinating for at least four major reasons. First, parental care is diverse. There is great variation both between and within species in the types of care provided, duration of care, and the sex of the care-providing parent (Wilson 1975; Clutton-Brock 1991; McGraw et al. 2010; Royle et al. 2012), and sexual conflict is thought to be one of the main drivers of this diversity. Second, parental care is one of the core themes in breeding systems and sex role evolution, and it is increasingly evident that parental care can only be understood by dissecting the entangled relationships between ecological and life-history settings, and the variety of mating and parenting behavior (Székely et al. 2000; Webb et al. 2002; Wedell et al. 2006; Jennions and Kokko 2010; Klug et al. 2012). Third, parental care was (and is) one of the test beds of evolutionary game theory. Numerous models have been developed to understand how parents interact with each other and with their offspring (Trivers 1972; Maynard Smith 1977; Houston and Davies 1985; Balshine-Earn and Earn 1998; McNamara et al. 1999, 2000; Webb et al. 1999; Johnstone and Hinde 2006; Johnstone et al. 2014). Parental care research is one field in which empiricists are extensively testing the predictions of evolutionary game theoretic models in both the laboratory and wild populations (Székely et al. 1996; Balshine-Earn and Earn 1998; Harrison et al. 2009; Klug et al. 2012; Lessells 2012; van Dijk et al. 2012), although the congruence between theoretical and empirical work is not as tight as often assumed (Houston et al. 2013). Finally, parental care—wherever it occurs—is often a major component of fitness, because whether the offspring are cared for or abandoned has a large impact on their survival, maturation, and reproduction (Smiseth et al. 2012). Therefore, parental care (or the lack of it) may have an impact on population productivity and population growth and influences the resilience of populations to various threats (Bessa-Gomes et al. 2004; Veran and Beissinger 2009; Blumstein 2010). Thus, understanding the behavioral interactions between parents and the fitness implications of these interactions is highly relevant for population dynamics and biodiversity conservation (Alonzo and Sheldon 2010; Blumstein 2010).Sexual conflict over care has been reviewed recently (van Dijk and Székely 2008; Lessells 2012; Houston et al. 2013). Here, I focus on three issues that have not been extensively covered by previous reviews: (1) why sexual conflict over care occurs in some environments, whereas in others parental cooperation appears to dominate; (2) how can one detect sexual conflict over care; and (3) what are the implications of sexual conflict over care for macroevolution. I view causes and implications of parental care primarily from empirical perspectives; there are excellent reviews on the rich theoretical literature (Lessells 2006, 2012; Klug et al. 2012; Houston et al. 2013). My intention is not to be comprehensive; instead, I use selected examples to illustrate salient features of conflict over care. I focus on ecological and evolutionary aspects; for a discussion of the genetic and neuroendocrine bases of parental care, see Adkins-Regan (2005), McGraw et al. (2010), and Champagne and Curley (2012). I prefer to use the term “parental care” instead of “parental investment,” because the latter, as admitted by Trivers (1985), is extremely difficult to estimate empirically and thus may have a limited use in empirical studies (Mock and Parker 1997; McGraw et al. 2010). The term “parental investment” can be deceptive, if used without directly demonstrating the full costs of care. The term “parental care” is less restrictive, because it refers to any form of parental behavior that appears to increase the fitness of an offspring and is likely to have evolved for this function (Clutton-Brock 1991; Smiseth et al. 2012). In this review, I focus on families in the narrow sense (i.e., two parents and their offspring), although in numerous organisms the families are more extensive and may include several generations of offspring living together and/or unrelated individuals that assist the parents rearing the young.     

Herpes Simplex Viruses: Mechanisms of DNA Replication

Herpes simplex virus (HSV) encodes seven proteins necessary for viral DNA synthesis—UL9 (origin-binding protein), ICP8 (single-strand DNA [ssDNA]-binding protein), UL30/UL42 (polymerase), and UL5/UL8/UL52 (helicase/primase). It is our intention to provide an up-to-date analysis of our understanding of the structures of these replication proteins and how they function during HSV replication. The potential roles of host repair and recombination proteins will also be discussed.The Herpesviridae are a large family of double-stranded DNA viruses responsible for many human and veterinary diseases. Although members of this family differ in tissue tropism and many aspects of their interactions with their hosts, the mechanisms by which they replicate their DNA during productive (“lytic”) infection are largely conserved. The molecular mechanisms involved in herpesvirus DNA replication and its regulation are of interest as they provide important models for the study of eukaryotic DNA replication. Many of the replication proteins encoded by herpesviruses represent functional analogs of the eukaryotic DNA replication machinery, with informative similarities and differences. In addition, viral enzymes involved in DNA replication have provided a rich store of useful targets for antiviral therapy. This work will focus primarily on DNA replication of herpes simplex virus 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2), but will refer, on occasion, to findings from other herpesviruses. Because this work is intended to update the work on HSV DNA replication written for the previous edition of DNA Replication and Human Disease (Weller and Coen 2006), it draws primarily from work published during the last 6 years. Topics covered in detail in the previous work by the authors (Weller and Coen 2006) and reviewed elsewhere will be summarized only briefly (see Coen 2009; Weller 2010; Livingston and Kyratsous 2011; Ward and Weller 2011; Weitzman and Weller 2011).     

Endocytosis of Viruses and Bacteria

Of the many pathogens that infect humans and animals, a large number use cells of the host organism as protected sites for replication. To reach the relevant intracellular compartments, they take advantage of the endocytosis machinery and exploit the network of endocytic organelles for penetration into the cytosol or as sites of replication. In this review, we discuss the endocytic entry processes used by viruses and bacteria and compare the strategies used by these dissimilar classes of pathogens.Many of the most widespread and devastating diseases in humans and livestock are caused by viruses and bacteria that enter cells for replication. Being obligate intracellular parasites, viruses have no choice. They must transport their genome to the cytosol or nucleus of infected cells to multiply and generate progeny. Bacteria and eukaryotic parasites do have other options; most of them can replicate on their own. However, some have evolved to take advantage of the protected environment in the cytosol or in cytoplasmic vacuoles of animal cells as a niche favorable for growth and multiplication. In both cases (viruses and intracellular bacteria), the outcome is often destructive for the host cell and host organism. The mortality and morbidity caused by infectious diseases worldwide provide a strong rationale for research into pathogen–host cell interactions and for pursuing the detailed mechanisms of transmission and dissemination. The study of viruses and bacteria can, moreover, provide invaluable insights into fundamental aspects of cell biology.Here, we focus on the mechanisms by which viral and bacterial pathogens exploit the endocytosis machinery for host cell entry and replication. Among recent reviews on this topic, dedicated uniquely to either mammalian viruses or bacterial pathogens, we recommend the following: Cossart and Sansonetti (2004); Pizarro-Cerda and Cossart (2006); Kumar and Valdivia (2009); Cossart and Roy (2010); Mercer et al. (2010b); Grove and Marsh (2011); Kubo et al. (2012); Vazquez-Calvo et al. (2012a); Sun et al. (2013).The term “endocytosis” is used herein in its widest sense, that is, to cover all processes whereby fluid, solutes, ligands, and components of the plasma membrane as well as particles (including pathogenic agents) are internalized by cells through the invagination of the plasma membrane and the scission of membrane vesicles or vacuoles. This differs from current practice in the bacterial pathogenesis field, where the term “endocytosis” is generally reserved for the internalization of molecules or small objects, whereas the uptake of bacteria into nonprofessional phagocytes is called “internalization” or “bacterial-induced phagocytosis.” In addition, the term “phagocytosis” is reserved for internalization of bacteria by professional phagocytes (macrophages, polymorphonuclear leucocytes, dendritic cells, and amoebae), a process that generally but not always leads to the destruction of the ingested bacteria (Swanson et al. 1999; May and Machesky 2001; Henry et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2010). With a few exceptions, we will not discuss phagocytosis of bacteria or the endocytosis of protozoan parasites such as Toxoplasma and Plasmodium (Robibaro et al. 2001).     

Unconventional Functions for Clathrin,ESCRTs, and Other Endocytic Regulators in the Cytoskeleton,Cell Cycle,Nucleus, and Beyond: Links to Human Disease

The roles of clathrin, its regulators, and the ESCRT (endosomal sorting complex required for transport) proteins are well defined in endocytosis. These proteins can also participate in intracellular pathways that are independent of endocytosis and even independent of the membrane trafficking function of these proteins. These nonendocytic functions involve unconventional biochemical interactions for some endocytic regulators, but can also exploit known interactions for nonendocytic functions. The molecular basis for the involvement of endocytic regulators in unconventional functions that influence the cytoskeleton, cell cycle, signaling, and gene regulation are described here. Through these additional functions, endocytic regulators participate in pathways that affect infection, glucose metabolism, development, and cellular transformation, expanding their significance in human health and disease.The discovery and characterization of clathrin (Pearse 1975) initiated molecular definition of the many endocytosis regulators described in this collection, which mediate the clathrin-dependent and -independent pathways for membrane internalization (see Kirchhausen et al. 2014; Mayor et al. 2014; Merrifield and Kaksonen 2014). In accompanying reviews, we have seen how these endocytic pathways influence nutrition and metabolism (see Antonescu et al. 2014), signal transduction (see Bökel and Brand 2014; Di Fiore and von Zastrow 2014), neuronal function (see Morgan et al. 2013; Cosker and Segal 2014), infection and immunity (see ten Broeke et al. 2013; Cossart and Helenius 2014), tissue polarity and development (see Eaton and Martin-Belmonte 2014; Gonzalez-Gaitan and Jülicher 2014), and migration and metastasis (see Mellman and Yarden 2013). Recently, it has been established that some endocytic regulators have molecular properties that expand their functions beyond endocytosis. These include molecular interactions that affect the microtubule and actin cytoskeletons, nuclear translocation that influences gene regulation, and the formation of membrane-associated scaffolds that serve as signaling and sorting platforms. Through these diverse nonendocytic functions, endocytosis regulators play additional roles in cell division, pathogen infection, cell adhesion, and oncogenesis. In this article, we review the nonconventional behavior of endocytic regulators, first discussing the molecular properties that enable their moonlighting functions and then discussing the cellular processes and disease states that are influenced by these functions.     

Presynaptic Membrane Retrieval and Endosome Biology: Defining Molecularly Heterogeneous Synaptic Vesicles

The release and uptake of neurotransmitters by synaptic vesicles is a tightly controlled process that occurs in response to diverse stimuli at morphologically disparate synapses. To meet these architectural and functional synaptic demands, it follows that there should be diversity in the mechanisms that control their secretion and retrieval and possibly in the composition of synaptic vesicles within the same terminal. Here we pay particular attention to areas where such diversity is generated, such as the variance in exocytosis/endocytosis coupling, SNAREs defining functionally diverse synaptic vesicle populations and the adaptor-dependent sorting machineries capable of generating vesicle diversity. We argue that there are various synaptic vesicle recycling pathways at any given synapse and discuss several lines of evidence that support the role of the endosome in synaptic vesicle recycling.Chemical synapses contain discrete numbers of synaptic vesicles, which are capable of sustaining neurotransmitter release. Sustained neurotransmission occurs despite the secretory demands imposed by persistent and diverse patterns of neuronal electrical activity. Maintaining synaptic vesicle numbers requires local mechanisms to regenerate these vesicles to prevent their exhaustion, preserve plasma membrane surface area, and to maintain the molecularly distinct identity of a vesicle versus plasma membrane. Rizzoli and Betz (2005) eloquently draw a parallel between chemical neurotransmission with synapse chatter saying that some synapses “whisper,” whereas others “shout.” The “louder” the synapse, the more synaptic vesicles are required, extending from a few hundred vesicles (whisperers) to nearly thousands (shouters). This beautiful analogy implies that every synapse has just one “voice” or species of vesicle. Here we will present the case that synapses are more like choirs in which multiple vesicle species or “voices” contribute to the “pianissimo” or “fortissimo” parts of chemical neurotransmission.Synaptic terminals show a range of structural and functional differences in distinct regions of the brain, suggesting that the mechanisms for exocytosis/endocytosis coupling, as well as local vesicle recycling, may also be diverse. On one side, the Calyx of Held nerve terminal participates in fast and sustained synaptic transmission at high frequency (800 Hz), which is crucial for sound localization in the auditory brainstem (Taschenberger and von Gersdorff 2000; Borst and Soria van Hoeve 2012). The Calyx of Held houses ∼70,000 synaptic vesicles with nearly 3000 vesicles docked per Calyx terminal. These docked vesicles are distributed across the ∼500 active zones that exist per Calyx where vesicle fusion occurs (Satzler et al. 2002). On the other hand, hippocampal synapses fire action potentials at ∼0.5 Hz in bursts (Dobrunz and Stevens 1999). This synapse contains ∼200 synaptic vesicles and one active zone with ∼10 vesicles docked (Schikorski and Stevens 1997). With such a wide functional and structural gamut of synapses, it is reasonable to hypothesize that synaptic vesicles may differ in their retrieval mechanisms, not just at the rate at which the process occurs but also in the molecular pathways used.Two synaptic vesicle retrieval mechanisms, namely clathrin/AP-2/dynamin-dependent biogenesis and kiss-and-run, have been summarized in outstanding recent reviews (see, for example, Augustine et al. 2006; Rizzoli and Jahn 2007; Smith et al. 2008; Royle and Lagnado 2010; Ferguson and De Camilli 2012; Saheki and De Camilli 2012). Therefore, here we focus on the coupling of secretion and membrane retrieval, as well as endosome sorting. We will discuss new developments supporting the existence of diverse functional and molecular pools of synaptic vesicles and how endocytosis and endosome retrieval mechanisms may generate these vesicle pools.     

The Biochemistry of Mitosis

In this article, we will discuss the biochemistry of mitosis in eukaryotic cells. We will focus on conserved principles that, importantly, are adapted to the biology of the organism. It is vital to bear in mind that the structural requirements for division in a rapidly dividing syncytial Drosophila embryo, for example, are markedly different from those in a unicellular yeast cell. Nevertheless, division in both systems is driven by conserved modules of antagonistic protein kinases and phosphatases, underpinned by ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis, which create molecular switches to drive each stage of division forward. These conserved control modules combine with the self-organizing properties of the subcellular architecture to meet the specific needs of the cell. Our discussion will draw on discoveries in several model systems that have been important in the long history of research on mitosis, and we will try to point out those principles that appear to apply to all cells, compared with those in which the biochemistry has been specifically adapted in a particular organism.The aim of mitosis is to separate the genome and ensure that the two daughter cells inherit an equal and identical complement of chromosomes (Yanagida 2014). To achieve this, eukaryotic cells completely reorganize their microtubules to build a mitotic spindle that pulls apart the sister chromatids after the cohesin complexes are cut (see Cheeseman 2014; Hirano 2015; Reber and Hyman 2015; Westhorpe and Straight 2015) and, subsequently, use the actin cytoskeleton to divide the cell into two (cytokinesis) (see D’Avino et al. 2015). In some cells, such as in budding and fission yeasts, the spindle is built within the nucleus (closed mitosis), whereas in others, the nuclear envelope breaks down and the condensed chromosomes are captured by microtubules in the cytoplasm (open mitosis). This difference in the spatial organization of the mitotic cell has ramifications for the machinery controlling mitosis. In particular, the breakdown of the nuclear compartment disrupts the guanosine triphosphate (GTP)–guanosine diphosphate (GDP) gradient of the small GTPase called Ran. Ran usually controls nuclear-cytoplasmic transport through the importin chaperones; Ran-GDP in the cytoplasm promotes binding to nuclear transport substrates, whereas Ran-GTP in the nucleus promotes their dissociation (Güttler and Görlich 2011). As a result of nuclear envelope breakdown (NEBD), another Ran-GTP gradient is generated around the chromosomes, to which the RCC1 GTP-exchange factor binds (Clarke 2008). This Ran-GTP gradient is important for the interaction between microtubules and chromosomes because the high Ran-GTP levels around chromosomes promote the dissociation between the importin β chaperone and its binding partners, several of which help to stabilize or nucleate microtubules (Carazo-Salas et al. 1999; Kalab et al. 1999; Gruss et al. 2001; Wilde et al. 2001; Yokoyama et al. 2008).The dramatic reorganization of the cell at mitosis must be coordinated in both time and space. There are several key temporal events: entry to mitosis, sister chromatid separation, and mitotic exit, and these are effectively made unidirectional by the biochemical machinery. We will discuss the biochemistry behind each of these temporal events, in turn, but it is important to emphasize that the control mechanisms are also spatially organized. Our understanding of this spatial organization has improved dramatically with advances in the technology to detect gradients of activity in cells, and this has revealed the importance of local gradients of antagonistic protein kinases and phosphatases, GTP-binding protein regulators, and ubiquitin ligases and deubiquitylases, to name only a few of the more prominent examples (reviewed in Pines and Hagan 2011).     

Creative destruction of the microtubule array

Comment on: Mukherjee S, et al. Cell Cycle 2012; 11:2359-66.Typical cells contain a dense array of microtubules that serves as a structural backbone and also provides a substrate against which molecular motor proteins generate force. Cells transitioning through the cell cycle or undergoing significant morphological changes must be able to tear apart the microtubule array and reconstruct it into new configurations, either partially or completely. The microtubule field was revolutionized in the 1980s with the introduction of the dynamic instability model,¹ now broadly recognized as a fundamental mechanism by which microtubule populations are reconfigured.² Dynamic instability involves the catastrophic disassembly of microtubules, generally from their plus ends, as well as the rapid reassembly of microtubules and selective stabilization of particular ones. Microtubules can be stabilized along their length by binding to various proteins and can be attached at their minus ends to structures such as the centrosome and “captured” at their plus ends by proteins in the cell’s cortex.² Given the contribution of these stabilizing and anchoring factors, additional mechanisms beyond dynamic instability are required to tear down previous microtubule structures so that new ones can be constructed. Borrowing from the field of economics, we refer to this as creative destruction.Various proteins such as stathmin³ and kinesin-13⁴ contribute to creative destruction by promoting loss of tubulin subunits from the ends of the microtubules. We find especially interesting a category of AAA enzymes called microtubule-severing proteins that use the energy of ATP hydrolysis to yank at tubulin subunits within the microtubule, thereby causing the lattice to break.⁵ If this occurs along the length of the microtubule, the microtubule will be severed into pieces. If this occurs at either of the two ends of the microtubule, the microtubule will lose subunits from that end. The first discovered and best-studied microtubule-severing proteins are katanin and spastin.Thanks to David Sharp and his colleagues at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, as well as other workers in the field, we now know that cells express at least five other AAA proteins with potential microtubule-severing properties, on the basis of sequence similarity to katanin and spastin in the AAA region.⁵ Two of these, called katanin-like-1 and katanin-like-2, are very similar to katanin. The three others are similar to one another, collectively termed fidgetins (fidgetin, fidgetin-like-1 and fidgetin-like-2). One possibility is that all seven of the microtubule-severing proteins are regulated similarly and are functionally redundant with one another. A more compelling possibility is that, while there is some functional redundancy, there is also a division of labor, with each severing protein displaying distinct properties and carrying out its own duties. Thus far, Sharp’s studies on mitosis support the latter scenario, with katanin, fidgetin and spastin having characteristic distributions within the spindle, resulting in unique phenotypes when depleted.⁶In a new article, Sharp’s group has confirmed that fidgetin has microtubule-severing properties. Interestingly, fidgetin depolymerizes microtubules preferentially from the minus end.⁷ In addition, the new work shows that in human U2OS cells, fidgetin targets to the centrosome, where most minus ends of microtubules are clustered, suggesting a scenario by which fidgetin suppresses microtubule growth from the centrosome as well as attachment to it. Consistent with this scenario, the authors show that experimental depletion of fidgetin reduces that speed of poleward tubulin flux as well as the speed of anaphase A chromatid-to-pole motion and also results in an increase in both the number and length of astral microtubules. Notably, this contrasts with katanin, which favors the plus ends of microtubules, for example, at the chromosome during cell division⁶ and at the leading edge of motile cells.⁸The authors close their article by pointing out that microtubule-severing is important beyond mitosis, for example, in the restructuring of the microtubule array in neurons and migrating cells, and we would point to plants as well.⁹ We previously described a mechanism called “cut and run,” wherein the severing of microtubules is important for motility within the microtubule array, as short microtubules are more mobile than long ones.⁹ Now, inspired by the work of Sharp and colleagues, we envision “creative destruction” as another way of understanding the crucial roles played by a diversity of microtubule-severing proteins in cells.