Auxin and Monocot Development

Monocots are known to respond differently to auxinic herbicides; hence, certain herbicides kill broadleaf (i.e., dicot) weeds while leaving lawns (i.e., monocot grasses) intact. In addition, the characters that distinguish monocots from dicots involve structures whose development is controlled by auxin. However, the molecular mechanisms controlling auxin biosynthesis, homeostasis, transport, and signal transduction appear, so far, to be conserved between monocots and dicots, although there are differences in gene copy number and expression leading to diversification in function. This article provides an update on the conservation and diversification of the roles of genes controlling auxin biosynthesis, transport, and signal transduction in root, shoot, and reproductive development in rice and maize.Auxinic herbicides have been used for decades to control dicot weeds in domestic lawns (Fig. 1A), commercial golf courses, and acres of corn, wheat, and barley, yet it is not understand how auxinic herbicides selectively kill dicots and spare monocots (Grossmann 2000; Kelley and Reichers 2007). Monocots, in particular grasses, must perceive or respond differently to exogenous synthetic auxin than dicots. It has been proposed that this selectivity is because of either limited translocation or rapid degradation of exogenous auxin (Gauvrit and Gaillardon 1991; Monaco et al. 2002), altered vascular anatomy (Monaco et al. 2002), or altered perception of auxin in monocots (Kelley and Reichers 2007). To explain these differences, there is a need to further understand the molecular basis of auxin metabolism, transport, and signaling in monocots.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Differences between monocots and dicots. (A) A dicot weed in a lawn of grasses. Note the difference in morphology of the leaves. (B) Germinating dicot (bean) seedling. Dicots have two cotyledons (cot). Reticulate venation is apparent in the leaves. The stem below the cotyledons is called the hypocotyl (hyp). (C) Germinating monocot (maize) seedling. Monocots have a single cotyledon called the coleoptile (col) in grasses. Parallel venation is apparent in the leaves. The stem below the coleoptile is called the mesocotyl (mes).Auxin, as we have seen in previous articles, plays a major role in vegetative, reproductive, and root development in the model dicot, Arabidopsis. However, monocots have a very different anatomy from dicots (Raven et al. 2005). Many of the characters that distinguish monocots and dicots involve structures whose development is controlled by auxin: (1) As the name implies, monocots have single cotyledons, whereas dicots have two cotyledons (Fig. 1B,C). Auxin transport during embryogenesis may play a role in this difference as cotyledon number defects are often seen in auxin transport mutants (reviewed in Chandler 2008). (2) The vasculature in leaves of dicots is reticulate, whereas the vasculature in monocots is parallel (Fig. 1). Auxin functions in vascular development because many mutants defective in auxin transport, biosynthesis, or signaling have vasculature defects (Scarpella and Meijer 2004). (3) Dicots often produce a primary tap root that produces lateral roots, whereas, in monocots, especially grasses, shoot-borne adventitious roots are the most prominent component of the root system leading to the characteristic fibrous root system (Fig. 2). Auxin induces lateral-root formation in dicots and adventitious root formation in grasses (Hochholdinger and Zimmermann 2008).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.The root system in monocots. (A) Maize seedling showing the primary root (1yR), which has many lateral roots (LR). The seminal roots (SR) are a type of adventitious root produced during embryonic development. Crown roots (CR) are produced from stem tissue. (B) The base of a maize plant showing prop roots (PR), which are adventitious roots produced from basal nodes of the stem later in development.It is not yet clear if auxin controls the differences in morphology seen in dicots versus monocots. However, both conservation and diversification of mechanisms of auxin biosynthesis, homeostasis, transport, and signal transduction have been discovered so far. This article highlights the similarities and the differences in the role of auxin in monocots compared with dicots. First, the genes in each of the pathways are introduced (Part I, Table I) and then the function of these genes in development is discussed with examples from the monocot grasses, maize, and rice (Part II).     

Apoptotic and Nonapoptotic Caspase Functions in Animal Development

A developing animal is exposed to both intrinsic and extrinsic stresses. One stress response is caspase activation. Caspase activation not only controls apoptosis but also proliferation, differentiation, cell shape, and cell migration. Caspase activation drives development by executing cell death or nonapoptotic functions in a cell-autonomous manner, and by secreting signaling molecules or generating mechanical forces, in a noncell autonomous manner.Programmed cell death or apoptosis occurs widely during development. During C. elegans development, 131 cells die by caspase CED-3-dependent apoptosis; however, ced-3 mutants do not show significant developmental defects (Ellis and Horvitz 1986). In contrast, studies on caspase mutants in mouse and Drosophila have revealed caspases’ roles in development. During development, cells are exposed to extrinsic and intrinsic stresses, and caspases are activated as one of multiple stress responses that ensure developmental robustness (Fig. 1). Caspases actively regulate animal development through both apoptosis and nonapoptotic functions that involve cell–cell communication in developing cell communities (Miura 2011). This chapter focuses on the in vivo roles of caspases in development and regeneration.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Caspase activation during development. An embryo undergoes intrinsic and extrinsic stress, which activates caspases to execute both apoptotic and nonapoptotic functions, including cell differentiation and dendrite pruning. Apoptotic cells affect the shape and behavior of their neighboring cells. Caspase-activated cells are shown in dark gray.     

The Signaling Mechanisms Underlying Cell Polarity and Chemotaxis

Chemotaxis—the directed movement of cells in a gradient of chemoattractant—is essential for neutrophils to crawl to sites of inflammation and infection and for Dictyostelium discoideum (D. discoideum) to aggregate during morphogenesis. Chemoattractant-induced activation of spatially localized cellular signals causes cells to polarize and move toward the highest concentration of the chemoattractant. Extensive studies have been devoted to achieving a better understanding of the mechanism(s) used by a neutrophil to choose its direction of polarity and to crawl effectively in response to chemoattractant gradients. Recent technological advances are beginning to reveal many fascinating details of the intracellular signaling components that spatially direct the cytoskeleton of neutrophils and D. discoideum and the complementary mechanisms that make the cell''s front distinct from its back.Chemotaxis—the directed movement of cells in a gradient of chemoattractant—allows leukocytes to seek out sites of inflammation and infection, amoebas of Dictyostelium discoideum (D. discoideum) to aggregate, neurons to send projections to specific regions of the brain to find their synaptic partners, yeast cells to mate, and fibroblasts to move into the wound space (Fig. 1). In each case, chemoattractant-induced activation of spatially localized cellular signals causes cells to polarize and move toward the highest concentration of the chemoattractant. During chemotaxis, filamentous actin (F-actin) is polymerized asymmetrically at the upgradient edge of the cell (leading edge), providing the necessary force to thrust projections of the plasma membrane in the proper direction (see Mullins 2009). Neutrophilic leukocytes (neutrophils), for instance, can polarize and move up very shallow gradients, with a chemoattractant concentration ∼2% higher at the front than the back (Fig. 2) (Devreotes and Zigmond 1988). To restrict actin polymerization to the leading edge in such a shallow gradient, neutrophils must create a much steeper internal gradient of regulatory signals. In addition, distinctive actin–myosin contractile complexes are also formed at the sides and back of the cells (Fig. 2). The ability to create such distinctive segregation of actin assemblies enables neutrophils to move nearly 50 times more quickly than fibroblasts. The polarization response is self-organizing, which occurs even when the attractant concentration is uniform and apparently stimulating all portions of the plasma membrane at the same intensity; in the absence of a gradient, the direction of polarity is random, but all cells can be induced to polarize (Fig. 2). Thus, neutrophil polarization to chemoattractant stimulation represents a striking example of symmetry breaking from an unpolarized state to a polarized one.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Examples of chemotaxis. (A) A human neutrophil chasing a Staphylococcus aureus microorganism on a blood film among red blood cells, notable for their dark color and principally spherical shape (imaged by David Rogers, courtesy of Thomas P. Stossel). Bar, 10 µm. Chemotaxis is also necessary for (B) D. discoideum to form multicellular aggregates during development (courtesy of M.J. Grimson and R.L. Blanton, Texas Tech University), and (C) for axons to find their way in the developing nervous system. Photo provided by Kathryn Tosney, University of Miami.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.(A–D) Polarization of a neutrophil in response to gradient of chemoattractant. Nomarski images of unpolarized neutrophil responding to a micropipette containing the chemoattractant fMLP (white circle) at (A) 5 s, (B) 30 s, (C) 81 s, and (D) 129 s of stimulation. Bar = 5 µm. (Figure is taken from Weiner et al. 1999, with permission.) Human neutrophils stimulated with fMLP show highly polarized morphology and asymmetric cytoskeletal assemblies. (E–G) Human neutrophils were stimulated by a uniform concentration of fMLP (100 nM) and fixed 2 min after stimulations. Fixed cells were stained for F-actin with rhodamine-phalloidin (E, red) and an antibody raised against activated myosin II (phosphorylated specifically at Ser19, p[19]-MLC) (F, green). These fluorescent images are merged with Nomarski image in (G). Bars, 10 µm.To enter an infected tissue, neutrophils require chemoattractants produced by host cells and microorganisms to migrate to the sites and infection and inflammation. Neutrophil chemotaxis also contributes to many inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, ischemia-reperfusion syndrome, acute respiratory distress, and systemic inflammatory response syndromes. Although the critical physiological functions of neutrophils have made their chemoattractants and chemoattractant receptors targets of intense investigation, understanding of the neutrophil polarity and directional migration has until recently lagged behind that of other cells. Over the past decade, experimentation with knockout mice and human neutrophil cell lines has begun to shed light on the complex intracellular signals responsible for neutrophil polarity. In this article, I summarize recent advances in the study of chemotactic signals in neutrophils, with some of the discussion also devoted to a related model—chemotaxis of D. discoideum. These soil amoebas grow as single cells, but on starvation chemotax into multicellular aggregates in response to secreted chemoattractants such as adenosine 3′,5′-monophosphate (cAMP).     

Chromosome Dynamics during Mitosis

The primary goal of mitosis is to partition duplicated chromosomes into daughter cells. Eukaryotic chromosomes are equipped with two distinct classes of intrinsic machineries, cohesin and condensins, that ensure their faithful segregation during mitosis. Cohesin holds sister chromatids together immediately after their synthesis during S phase until the establishment of bipolar attachments to the mitotic spindle in metaphase. Condensins, on the other hand, attempt to “resolve” sister chromatids by counteracting cohesin. The products of the balancing acts of cohesin and condensins are metaphase chromosomes, in which two rod-shaped chromatids are connected primarily at the centromere. In anaphase, this connection is released by the action of separase that proteolytically cleaves the remaining population of cohesin. Recent studies uncover how this series of events might be mechanistically coupled with each other and intricately regulated by a number of regulatory factors.In eukaryotic cells, genomic DNA is packaged into chromatin and stored in the cell nucleus, in which essential chromosomal processes, including DNA replication and gene expression, take place (Fig. 1, interphase). At the onset of mitosis, the nuclear envelope breaks down and chromatin is progressively converted into a discrete set of rod-shaped structures known as metaphase chromosomes (Fig. 1, metaphase). In each chromosome, a pair of sister kinetochores assembles at its centromeric region, and their bioriented attachment to the mitotic spindle acts as a prerequisite for equal segregation of sister chromatids. The linkage between sister chromatids is dissolved at the onset of anaphase, allowing them to be pulled apart to opposite poles of the cell (Fig. 1, anaphase). At the end of mitosis, the nuclear envelope reassembles around two sets of segregated chromatids, leading to the production of genetically identical daughter cells (Fig. 1, telophase).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Overview of chromosome dynamics during mitosis. In addition to the crucial role of kinetochore–spindle interactions, an intricate balance between cohesive and resolving forces acting on sister chromatid arms (top left, inset) underlies the process of chromosome segregation. See the text for major events in chromosome segregation.Although the centromere–kinetochore region plays a crucial role in the segregation process, sister chromatid arms also undergo dynamic structural changes to facilitate their own separation. Conceptually, such structural changes are an outcome of two balancing forces, namely, cohesive and resolving forces (Fig. 1, top left, inset). The cohesive force holds a pair of duplicated arms until proper timing of separation, otherwise daughter cells would receive too many or too few copies of chromosomes. The resolving force, on the other hand, counteracts the cohesive force, reorganizing each chromosome into a pair of rod-shaped chromatids. From this standpoint, the pathway of chromosome segregation is regarded as a dynamic process, in which the initially robust cohesive force is gradually weakened and eventually dominated by the resolving force. Almost two decades ago, genetic and biochemical studies for the behavior of mitotic chromosomes converged productively, culminating in the discovery of cohesin (Guacci et al. 1997; Michaelis et al. 1997; Losada et al. 1998) and condensin (Hirano et al. 1997; Sutani et al. 1999), which are responsible for the cohesive and resolving forces, respectively. The subsequent characterizations of these two protein complexes have not only transformed our molecular understanding of chromosome dynamics during mitosis and meiosis, but also provided far-reaching implications in genome stability, as well as unexpected links to human diseases. In this article, I summarize recent progress in our understanding of mitotic chromosome dynamics with a major focus on the regulatory networks surrounding cohesin and condensin. I also discuss emerging topics and attempt to clarify outstanding questions in the field.     

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.     

Schwann Cells: Development and Role in Nerve Repair

Schwann cells develop from the neural crest in a well-defined sequence of events. This involves the formation of the Schwann cell precursor and immature Schwann cells, followed by the generation of the myelin and nonmyelin (Remak) cells of mature nerves. This review describes the signals that control the embryonic phase of this process and the organogenesis of peripheral nerves. We also discuss the phenotypic plasticity retained by mature Schwann cells, and explain why this unusual feature is central to the striking regenerative potential of the peripheral nervous system (PNS).The myelin and nonmyelin (Remak) Schwann cells of adult nerves originate from the neural crest in well-defined developmental steps (Fig. 1). This review focuses on embryonic development (for additional information on myelination, see Salzer 2015). We also discuss how the ability to change between differentiation states, a characteristic attribute of developing cells, is retained by mature Schwann cells, and explain how the ability of Schwann cells to change phenotype in response to injury allows the peripheral nervous system (PNS) to regenerate after damage.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Main transitions in the Schwann cell precursor (SCP) lineage. The diagram shows both developmental and injury-induced transitions. Black uninterrupted arrows, normal development; red arrows, the Schwann cell injury response; stippled arrows, postrepair reformation of myelin and Remak cells. Embryonic dates (E) refer to mouse development. (Modified from Jessen and Mirsky 2012; reprinted, with permission and with contribution from Y. Poitelon and L. Feltri.)     

Auxin distribution and lenticel formation in determinate nodule of Lotus japonicus

Legumes can establish a symbiosis with rhizobia and form root nodules that function as an apparatus for nitrogen fixation. Nodule development is regulated by several phytohormones including auxin. Although accumulation of auxin is necessary to initiate the nodulation of indeterminate nodules, the functions of auxin on the nodulation of determinate nodules have been less characterized. In this study, the functions of auxin in nodule development in Lotus japonicus have been demonstrated using an auxin responsive promoter and auxin inhibitors. We found that the lenticel formation on the nodule surface was sensitive to the auxin defect. Further analysis indicated that failure in the development of the vascular bundle of the determinate nodule, which was regulated by auxin, was the cause of the disappearance of lenticels.Key words: auxin, lenticel, Lotus japonicus, nodulation, symbiotic nitrogen fixationLegumes (Fabaceae) constitute the third largest plant family with around 700 genera and 20,000 species.¹ Legume plants form root nodules through symbiosis with a soil microbe called rhizobia. This plant-microbe symbiosis in nodules mediates an harmonized exchange of chemical signals between host plants and rhizobia.² Nodules are biologically divided into two different groups, i.e., indeterminate nodules and determinate nodules. Indeterminate nodules, represented by Trifolium repens (white clover) and Medicago truncatula, are initiated from the inner cortex to form a persistent nodule meristem, which allows continuous growth, and leads to the formation of elongated nodules, whereas in determinate legumes, nodules are mostly developed from outer cortical cells and form spherical nodules.³Auxin is one of the most important regulators for nodule development. Since the possible involvement of auxin in nodule formation was first reported by Thimann,⁴ auxin distribution during nodulation has been studied in particular with indeterminate nodules.⁵ However, little is known about auxin involvement in determinate nodule formation. To evaluate auxin functions in the determinate nodulation of legume plants, we performed an auxin-responsive promoter analysis in detail. Using GH3:GUS transformed Lotus japonicus (a kind gift from Dr. Herman P. Spaink, Leiden State University, Netherlands),⁶ we detected auxin signals throughout the nodulation process, e.g., at the basal and front part of the nodule primordia, circumjacent to the infection zone of the young developing nodules (Fig. 1), and at the nodule vascular bundle in mature nodules. We also investigated the effect of several auxin inhibitors, including newly synthesized auxin antagonist PEO-IAA (kindly provided by Dr. Hayashi, Okayama University of Science, Japan),⁷ on the nodulation of L. japonicus, and revealed that auxin was required for forming a nodule vascular bundle and lenticels (Fig. 2).⁸Open in a separate windowFigure 1GH3:GUS expression in determinate nodule at 6 dpi. (A) GUS staining was observed in the central cylinder of the root vascular bundle and in the nodule. (B) Cross section of (A). GUS expression was observed around the infection zone of the nodule. Bars = 100 µm.Open in a separate windowFigure 2The effect of auxin inhibitor on nodule surface. (A) Typical mature nodule of L. japonicus at 21 dpi. Lenticels are pointed out by yellow arrowheads. (B) The treatment of auxin inhibitor (NPA 100 µM) inhibited lenticel formation on the nodule surface. Bars = 500 µm.In indeterminate legumes, auxin is accumulated at the site of rhizobia inoculation.⁹ This is caused by the inhibition of polar auxin transport by accumulation of flavonoids around the infection site, which are known as regulators of auxin transport. When flavonoid biosynthesis is reduced by the gene silencing of chalcone synthase, which catalyzes the first step of flavonoid synthesis, M. truncatula was unable to inhibit polar auxin transport and resulted in reduced nodule number.^10,11 A similar phenotype was observed when the auxin transporter gene was silenced.¹² In addition, treatment of polar auxin transport inhibitors such as NPA and TIBA induce pseudonodule formation,⁹ suggesting that auxin accumulation is required for nodulation of indeterminate legumes. In contrast, the treatment of polar auxin transport inhibitors in determinate nodules did not induce a nodule-like structure, suggesting a different function of auxin between indeterminate and determinate nodules. It is, however, of interest to investigate the involvement of flavonoids in determinate nodule formation, because several genes in the flavonoid biosynthesis pathway are upregulated at 2 dpi (days post inoculation) in L. japonicus.¹³Lenticels regulate gas permeability of nodules.¹⁴ Under low oxygen or water-logged conditions, they develop more extensively, whereas they collapse, or develop very little during insufficient water conditions, or under high oxygen pressure.^14,15 Because lenticel development on the nodule surface is accompanied with the nodule vascular bundle, growth regulators supplied from the vascular system likely facilitate lenticel development.¹⁵ Our data suggests that auxin is necessary to form the nodule vascular bundle, and in fact, auxin itself is one of the candidates of growth substances that control lenticel formation. It is necessary to analyze mutants, which lack in lenticel formation, but can form a nodule vascular bundle, for clarification of further mechanisms of lenticel development.     

The Kinetochore

A critical requirement for mitosis is the distribution of genetic material to the two daughter cells. The central player in this process is the macromolecular kinetochore structure, which binds to both chromosomal DNA and spindle microtubule polymers to direct chromosome alignment and segregation. This review will discuss the key kinetochore activities required for mitotic chromosome segregation, including the recognition of a specific site on each chromosome, kinetochore assembly and the formation of kinetochore–microtubule connections, the generation of force to drive chromosome segregation, and the regulation of kinetochore function to ensure that chromosome segregation occurs with high fidelity.A key objective for cell division is to physically distribute the genomic material to the two new daughter cells. Achieving proper chromosome segregation requires three primary things (Fig. 1): (1) the ability to specifically recognize and detect each unit of DNA; (2) a physical connection between the DNA and other cellular structures to mediate their distribution; and (3) a force-generating mechanism to drive the spatial movement of the DNA to the daughter cells. Although this article focuses on how these processes are achieved during mitosis in eukaryotic cells, these key principles are required for DNA segregation in all organisms, including bacteria. Perhaps the simplest DNA distribution machine is the partitioning system that segregates the small, circular bacterial R1 plasmid (Fig. 1). The R1 partitioning system uses just a single component for each of the three key activities listed above (reviewed in Salje et al. 2010). First, a 160-bp sequence-specific DNA element termed parC allows the partitioning system to recognize a specific region of the plasmid. Second, the DNA-binding protein ParR associates with the parC DNA sequence. ParR can then mediate connections between the plasmid DNA and third factor—the filament forming protein ParM. ParM polymerization is capable of generating force to drive the separation of two replicated copies of the R1 plasmid. The R1 plasmid partitioning system is both simple and elegant, and it demonstrates that it is possible to achieve DNA segregation with only two proteins and a short DNA sequence.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Core requirements for DNA segregation. Cartoon diagram showing the core activities required for DNA segregation of the bacterial R1 plasmid or eukaryotic chromosomes highlighting the recognition of DNA, physical connections, and force.In striking contrast to the R1 plasmid partitioning system, chromosome segregation in eukaryotes (Fig. 1) requires hundreds of different proteins. Given the ability of the simple R1 partitioning system to efficiently mediate DNA segregation in bacteria, it raises the question of why this added complexity is present in eukaryotes. Importantly, there are significant limitations to the bacterial system that would prevent such a system from working in eukaryotes. For example, bacteria are ∼1–2-µm long, whereas vertebrate cells can be ∼10–50 µm in diameter creating a larger spatial requirement to move the DNA (Fig. 1). In addition, although only a single R1 plasmid is present in each bacterium, human cells have 46 different units of DNA (23 from each parent), which are packaged into chromosomes. Each chromosome must be distributed properly during every cell division. Independently recognizing each of these units to ensure their accurate distribution represents a complex challenge. Indeed, adding even one additional R1 plasmid causes the system to break down, with ParM polymers acting indefinitely, pushing the two most closely positioned units of DNA apart to opposite ends of a cell (Campbell and Mullins 2007). Finally, eukaryotic cells require that chromosome segregation occur with high fidelity to ensure that the two replicated units of DNA are distributed accurately to the two new daughter cells. Even a single chromosome mis-segregation event in a multicellular organism has the potential to lead to lethality, lead to developmental disorders, or contribute to cancer progression (Holland and Cleveland 2009; Gordon et al. 2012), placing a high premium on the accuracy of this process.Despite the differences in complexity between bacterial plasmid partitioning systems and the eukaryotic chromosome segregation machinery, the fundamental requirements for distributing DNA to two new cells are remarkably similar (Fig. 1). First, it is necessary to have a region of each chromosome that is “recognized” by the chromosome segregation machinery. In eukaryotes, this region of DNA is termed the centromere. Second, a group of proteins must assemble on this DNA element to facilitate its “connections” to other structures in the cell. In eukaryotes, this physical connection is provided by a macromolecular structure termed the kinetochore. The kinetochore is an impressive molecular machine that requires the coordinated functions of more than 100 different protein components (Cheeseman and Desai 2008). Third, the kinetochore must interact with additional structures that provide the “force” to move the chromosomes. Chromosome segregation in eukaryotes requires microtubule polymers that generate force primarily through their depolymerization.In this review, I will discuss the molecular mechanisms that underlie kinetochore function, including the recognition of a specific site on each chromosome, the formation of the physical kinetochore–microtubule connections, and the forces that drive chromosome segregation during mitosis in eukaryotes, as well as the mechanisms that regulate kinetochore function.     

The Spatiotemporal Organization of ErbB Receptors: Insights from Microscopy

Signal transduction is regulated by protein–protein interactions. In the case of the ErbB family of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), the precise nature of these interactions remains a topic of debate. In this review, we describe state-of-the-art imaging techniques that are providing new details into receptor dynamics, clustering, and interactions. We present the general principles of these techniques, their limitations, and the unique observations they provide about ErbB spatiotemporal organization.Signal transduction is associated with dramatic spatial and temporal changes in membrane protein distribution. Although the biochemical events downstream of membrane receptor activation are often well characterized, the initiating events within the plasma membrane remain unclear. Many cell surface receptors have been shown to redistribute into clusters in response to ligand binding (Metzger 1992). Therefore, correlating membrane receptor activation with dynamics and aggregation state is essential to understanding cell signaling.The role of receptor aggregation is of particular interest in the case of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs). It is generally accepted that ligand binding to the extracellular domain of RTKs induces dimerization, whether ligand- or receptor-mediated (Lemmon and Schlessinger 2010). However, there is evidence that some RTKs exist as oligomers in the absence of ligand, whereas others require higher-order oligomerization for activation (Lemmon and Schlessinger 2010). Understanding the fundamental interactions that regulate RTK signaling still remains an important focus in the field.Over the past decade, imaging technologies and biological tools have developed to a point such that questions about protein dynamics, clustering, and interactions can now be addressed in living cells (Fig. 1). These techniques reveal information about protein behavior on a spatial and temporal scale that is not provided by traditional biochemical assays. In this review, we will discuss the application of these advanced imaging technologies to the study of the ErbB family of RTKs.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Summary of imaging techniques for quantifying receptor clustering, dynamics, and interactions.     

Auxin transport-dependent,stage-specific dynamics of leaf vein formation

For centuries, the formation of vein patterns in the leaf has intrigued biologists, mathematicians and philosophers. In leaf development, files of vein-forming procambial cells emerge from seemingly homogeneous subepidermal tissue through the selection of anatomically inconspicuous preprocambial cells. Although the molecular details underlying the orderly differentiation of veins in the leaf remain elusive, gradually restricted transport paths of the plant hormone auxin have long been implicated in defining sites of vein formation. Several recent advances now appear to converge on a more precise definition of the role of auxin flow at different stages of vascular development. The picture that emerges is that of vein formation as a self-organizing, reiterative, auxin transport-dependent process.Key words: arabidopsis, leaf development, polar auxin transport, procambium, vascular patterningThe vascular system of plants is a branching array of cell files extending through all organs.¹ In dicot leaves, these vascular strands, or ‘veins’, are arranged in a ramified pattern that largely reflects the shape of the leaf (Fig. 1A).^2,3 ‘Lateral veins’ branch from a conspicuous central vein (‘midvein’) that is continuous with the stem vasculature. In many species, lateral veins extend along the leaf edge to form ‘marginal veins’, which connect to adjacent lateral veins to form prominent closed loops. Finally, a series of ‘higher-order veins’ branch from midvein and loops and can either terminate in the lamina (‘free-ending veins’) or join two veins (‘connected veins’).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Conceptual summary of dicot leaf vein formation. (A) Schematics of a simplified mature leaf illustrating midvein (M), first, second and third loops (L1, L2 and L3, respectively)—each derived from corresponding lateral (LV) and marginal (MV) veins—free-ending (FV) and connected (CV) higher-order veins, hydathodes (H) and middle-to-margin positions (decreasing green gradient) as used in the text. (B) State transitions in leaf subepidermal cell differentiation. Available evidence suggests that the vein patterning process is limited to ground meristem cells (white), while subepidermal cells that have begun to acquire mesophyll characteristics are incapable of responding to vein-inducing signals.^11,13,19,38 Expression of preprocambial (blue) and mesophyll emergence markers seem to identify two mutually exclusive and typically irreversible cell states, one leading to procambium (pink) and the other to mature mesophyll (green) formation. The transition from ground meristem to differentiated mesophyll could conceivably occur through a cell state that is formally equivalent to the preprocambial state in vascular differentiation. However, the existence of such a ‘premesophyll’ state (faded gray), the extent of its stability, its mutual exclusivity or competition with the preprocambial state and its responsiveness to vein-inducing signals still remain open questions. (C) Stage-specific dynamics of leaf vein patterning and their dependency on auxin levels and transport as exemplified for loop formation, but in general equally applicable to all veins. Upper series: PIN1-labeled auxin transport paths corresponding to preprocambial cell selection zones (yellow). Note how loops are composed of a lateral PIN1 expression domain (LD) and an initially free-ending marginal PIN1 expression domain (MD). Further, note slightly expanded PIN1 expression domains in a fraction of hydathode-associated third loops during normal development, broad PIN1 domains on the side of local auxin application (arrowhead) and nearly ubiquitous PIN1 expression upon systemic auxin transport inhibition. Middle series: directions of Athb8/J1721-marked preprocambial strand formation (blue arrows). Note middle-to-margin progression of preprocambial strand formation during normal loop development. Further, note margin-to-middle preprocambial strand extension in a fraction of third loops during normal development and in all loops forming on the side of auxin application. Finally, note co-existence of middle-to-margin and margin-to-middle polarities of preprocambial strand extension during the formation of individual loops in response to auxin transport inhibition. Lower series: gradual appearance of procambial cell identity acquisition (pink to magenta). Note simultaneous differentiation of lateral and marginal procambial strands in normal loop development. Further, note successive formation of lateral and marginal procambial strands in a fraction of third loops during normal development and in all loops formed on the side of auxin application and under conditions of reduced auxin transport. Arrows temporally connect successive stages of vein formation. See text for additional details.Vascular cells mature from procambial cells: narrow, cytoplasmdense cells, characteristically arranged in continuous strands.⁴ Leaf procambial strands differentiate from files of isodiametric preprocambial cells, which are selected from the anatomically homogeneous subepidermal tissue of the leaf primordium, the ground meristem (Fig. 1B).^5,6 The mechanism by which ground meristem cells are specified to procambial cell fate is unknown, but an instrumental role for auxin transport and resulting auxin distribution patterns in this process has increasingly gained support.^7–13 This brief essay summarizes a recent group of articles that emphasizes the importance of auxin transport in leaf vein formation.     

Cell–Matrix Interactions in Mammary Gland Development and Breast Cancer

The mammary gland is an organ that at once gives life to the young, but at the same time poses one of the greatest threats to the mother. Understanding how the tissue develops and functions is of pressing importance in determining how its control mechanisms break down in breast cancer. Here we argue that the interactions between mammary epithelial cells and their extracellular matrix (ECM) are crucial in the development and function of the tissue. Current strategies for treating breast cancer take advantage of our knowledge of the endocrine regulation of breast development, and the emerging role of stromal–epithelial interactions (Fig. 1). Focusing, in addition, on the microenvironmental influences that arise from cell–matrix interactions will open new opportunities for therapeutic intervention. We suggest that ultimately a three-pronged approach targeting endocrine, growth factor, and cell-matrix interactions will provide the best chance of curing the disease.Cellular interactions with the ECM are one of the defining features of metazoans (Huxley-Jones et al. 2007). Matrix proteins are among the most abundant in the body, and are integral components of cell regulation and developmental programs operating in all tissues. They provide structure and support to tissues, and they interact with cells through diverse receptors to guide development, patterning, and cell fate decisions (Streuli 2009). Together with cytokines and growth factors, and cell–cell interactions, the ECM determines whether cells survive, proliferate, differentiate, or migrate, and it influences cell shape and polarity (Streuli and Akhtar 2009). Cell–ECM interactions also are central in the assembly of the matrix itself, and in determining ECM organization and rigidity (Kadler et al. 2008; Kass et al. 2007). The cell–matrix interface is therefore pivotal in controlling both cell function and tissue structure, which together build organs into operational structures. Thus, elucidating precisely how the matrix directs cell phenotype is crucial for understanding mechanisms of development and disease.Mammary gland tissue contains epithelium and stroma (​(Fig.Fig. 2). Mammary epithelial cells (MEC) form collecting ducts and, in pregnancy and lactation, milk-secreting alveoli (or lobules). The mammary epithelium is bilayered, with the inner luminal cells facing a central apical cavity and surrounded by the outer basal, myoepithelial cells. It also harbors stem and progenitor cells, which are the source of both luminal and myoepithelial cells (Visvader 2009). The epithelium is ensheathed by one of the main types of ECM, basement membrane (BM), which separates epithelium from stroma, and profoundly influences the development and biology of the gland (Streuli 2003). The stroma includes fibrous connective tissue ECM proteins, and a wide variety of cell types, including inter- and intralobular fibroblasts, adipocytes, endothelial cells, and innate immune cells (both macrophages and mast cells). The stroma is the support network for the epithelium, providing both nutrients and blood supply, and immune defenses, as well as physical structure to the gland. Importantly, each of the different stromal cell types secrete instructive signals that are crucial for various aspects of the development and function of the epithelium (Sternlicht 2006).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Mammary gland development. Whole mounts of (A) virgin and (B) mid-pregnant mouse mammary gland. The thin, branched epithelial ducts that are characteristic of nonpregnant gland undergo dramatic alterations in pregnancy, when new types of epithelial structures, the milk-producing alveoli, emerge. The huge amount of proliferation that accompanies this change occurs in a discrete and controlled fashion. The formation of ducts and alveoli is under three types of environmental control. The first is long-range endocrine hormones, which includes estrogen, progesterone, glucocorticoids, and prolactin. The second is locally acting growth factors, which arise from stromal–epithelial conversation, and includes amphiregulin, FGF, HGF, and IGF. Finally, microenvironmental adhesive signals from adjacent cells (e.g., via cadherins) and from the ECM (e.g., integrin) have an equally central role in all aspects of mammary development and function. Importantly, the proliferation that occurs in breast cancer is not well controlled, indicating not only defects in growth signaling, but also in cellular organization. Chronologically, breast cancer drugs were initially developed against endocrine regulators, e.g., estrogen, and more recently against the stromal/epithelial regulators, e.g., receptor tyrosine kinases. A complete control of the disease will only happen when therapies targeting the microenvironmental adhesion breast regulators, e.g., cell–matrix interactions, are formulated, and used in combination.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Ducts and alveoli in early pregnancy. Transverse section of ducts surrounded by a thick layer of collagenous (stromal) connective tissue containing fibroblasts and the fat pad. Also visible are small alveoli, which fill the fat pad by the time the gland lactates, but note that they are not surrounded collagen. A capillary is evident, and macrophages and mast cells are also present, though they require specific staining to visualize. A basement membrane is present directly at the basal surface of both ductal and alveolar epithelium (see Fig. 3).BMs surround three cell types in the mammary gland: the epithelium, the endothelium of the vasculature, and adipocytes (Fig. 3). These ECMs are thin, ∼100-nm thick sheets of glycoproteins and proteoglycans, which are constructed around an assembled polymer of laminins and a cross-linked network of collagen IV fibrils (Yurchenco and Patton 2009). Laminins form αβγ trimers, and in the breast at least four distinct isoforms are present: laminin-111, -322, and -511 and -521 (previously known as LM-1, 5, 10, and 11) (Aumailley et al. 2005; Prince et al. 2002). Similarly, BM proteoglycans are diverse and show complexity in their GAG chain modifications that vary with development of the mammary gland, though the major species is perlecan (Delehedde et al. 2001). BM proteins interact with MEC via integrins and transmembrane proteoglycans dystroglycan and syndecan, which all couple to the cytoskeleton and assemble signaling platforms to control cell fate (Barresi and Campbell 2006; Morgan et al. 2007). The best-studied MEC BM receptors are integrins, which are αβ heterodimers: they include receptors for collagen (α1β1 and α2β1), LM-111, -511, -521 (α3β1, α6β1, and α6β4), LM-322 (α3β1 and α6β4), and in some MECs fibronectin and vitronectin (α5β1 and β3 integrins) (Naylor and Streuli 2006). BM proteoglycans have a further signaling role via their capacity to bind growth factors and cytokines: They act both as a reservoir and a delivery vehicle to GF receptors, thereby controlling the passage of GFs across the BM (Iozzo 2005). Because of these diverse roles, the BM is a dominant regulator of the mammary epithelial phenotype.Open in a separate windowFigure 3.Alveolar and ductal architecture of breast epithelia shown through fluorescence and histological images. (A) An alveolus from a lactating mammary gland, showing luminal epithelial cells with cell–cell adhesion junctions (green, E-cadherin) and cell–matrix interactions (red, laminin-111). The central lumen is where milk collects. (B) The duct of a nonpregnant gland is stained with an antibody to laminin (brown) and counterstained with hematoxylin. Note that the laminin-containing basement membrane surrounds the ductal epithelial cells, and outside this lie collagenous connective tissue and adipocytes. Figure B courtesy of Dr. Rama Khokha.Apart from the endothelium and adipocytes, which contact BMs, the mammary stromal cells are mostly solitary and embedded within a fibrous ECM. Stromal matrix components include collagens type I and III, proteoglycans and hyaluronic acid, fibronectin and tenascins, and the composition varies with development and pregnancy (Schedin et al. 2004). Not a great deal is known about the specific interactions between breast stromal cells and their ECM, or how the matrix composition and density determines stromal cell function. However, it is becoming evident that the stromal matrix exerts a powerful influence on malignant breast epithelial cells, which invade the stroma and are further transformed by exposure to this distinct microenvironment (Kumar and Weaver 2009; Streuli 2006).In this article we focus on cell–matrix interactions within mammary epithelium, and reveal known and possible mechanisms for its control on ductal development, alveolar function, and cancer progression.     

Forming Patterns in Development without Morphogen Gradients: Scattered Differentiation and Sorting Out

Few mechanisms provide alternatives to morphogen gradients for producing spatial patterns of cells in development. One possibility is based on the sorting out of cells that initially differentiate in a salt and pepper mixture and then physically move to create coherent tissues. Here, we describe the evidence suggesting this is the major mode of patterning in Dictyostelium. In addition, we discuss whether convergent evolution could have produced a conceptually similar mechanism in other organisms.A limited number of processes are thought to regulate the differentiation of specialized cell types and their organization to form larger scale structures, such as organs or limbs, during embryonic development. First, early embryological experiments revealed a patterning process that depends on special “organizing” regions in the embryo. This idea was encapsulated as “positional information” and led to the concept of morphogen gradients (Fig. 1) (Wolpert 1996). In addition, cytoplasmic determinants have been shown to direct development along different lines when they are partitioned unequally between daughter cells by asymmetric cell division (Betschinger and Knoblich 2004). Finally, short-range inductive signaling can specify cells at a local level and when reiterated produces highly ordered structures (Simpson 1990; Freeman 1997; Meinhardt and Gierer 2000).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Alternative ways of patterning cells during development. (A) Patterning by “positional information”: A group of undifferentiated cells is patterned by a morphogen diffusing from a pre-established source, producing a concentration gradient. Cells respond according to the local morphogen concentration, becoming red, white, or blue. (B, C) Patterning without positional information: This is a two-step process in which different cell types first differentiate mixed up with each other, and then sort out. The initial differentiation can be controlled by strictly local interactions between the cells, as in lateral inhibition (B), or by a global signal to which cells respond with different sensitivities and whose concentration they regulate by negative feedback (C). Once sorting has occurred, the global inducer forms a reverse gradient, which could then convey positional information for further patterning events.The question then arises of whether evolution has devised any further global patterning mechanisms. One possibility that has been repeatedly considered, but not firmly established as a general mechanism, is based on sorting out. In this process, pattern is produced in two steps: (1) Different cell types are initially specified from a precursor pool independent of their position to produce a salt and pepper mixture and (2) the mixture of cell types is resolved into discrete tissues by the physical movement and sorting out of the cells (Fig. 1). Consequently, this mechanism does not involve positional information. However, it can actually provide the conditions under which positional signaling and morphogen gradients can arise, if the resolved tissues then act as sources and sinks for signal molecules.We first describe the powerful evidence that this alternative patterning process is used during the developmental cycle of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum, and then consider the possibility that this patterning strategy may be used more widely.