Protein Targeting and Transport as a Necessary Consequence of Increased Cellular Complexity

With increasing intracellular complexity, a new cell-biological problem that is the allocation of cytoplasmically synthesized proteins to their final destinations within the cell emerged. A special challenge is thereby the translocation of proteins into or across cellular membranes. The underlying mechanisms are only in parts well understood, but it can be assumed that the course of cellular evolution had a deep impact on the design of the required molecular machines. In this article, we aim to summarize the current knowledge and concepts of the evolutionary development of protein trafficking as a necessary premise and consequence of increased cellular complexity.

The evolution of modern cells is arguably the most challenging and important problem the field of biology has ever faced …—Carl R. Woese(Woese 2002)

Current models may accept that all modern eukaryotic cells arose from a single common ancestor (the cenancestral eukaryote), the nature of which is—owing to the lack of direct living or fossil descendants—still highly under debate (de Duve 2007). The chimeric nature of eukaryotic genomes with eubacterial and archaebacterial shares led to a discussion about the origin of this first “proto-eukaryote.” Several models exist (see Fig. 1), which either place the evolution of the nucleus before or after the emergence of the mitochondrion (outlined in Koonin 2010; Martijn and Ettema 2013). According to the different postulated scenarios (summarized in Embley and Martin 2006), eukaryotes in the latter case might have evolved by endosymbiosis between a hydrogen-producing, oxygen-producing, or sulfur-dependent α-proteobacterium and an archaebacterial host (Fig. 1C). The resulting mitochondriate prokaryote would have evolved the nucleus subsequently. In other scenarios (Fig. 1B), the cenancestral eukaryote emerged by cellular fusion or endosymbiosis of a Gram-negative, maybe hydrogen-producing, eubacterium and a methanogenic archaebacterium or eocyte, leading to a primitive but nucleated amitochondrial (archezoan) cell (Embley and Martin 2006, and references therein). As a third alternative, Cavalier-Smith (2002) suggested a common eubacterial ancestor for eukaryotes and archaebacteria (the Neomuran hypothesis) (Fig. 1A).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Evolution of the last common ancestor of all eukaryotic cells. A schematic depiction of the early eukaryogenesis. Because of the lack of living and fossil descendants, several opposing models are discussed (A–C). The anticipated order of events is shown as a flow chart. For details, see text. (Derived from Embley and Martin 2006; Koonin 2010.)     

The Structure and Function of the Eukaryotic Ribosome

Structures of the bacterial ribosome have provided a framework for understanding universal mechanisms of protein synthesis. However, the eukaryotic ribosome is much larger than it is in bacteria, and its activity is fundamentally different in many key ways. Recent cryo-electron microscopy reconstructions and X-ray crystal structures of eukaryotic ribosomes and ribosomal subunits now provide an unprecedented opportunity to explore mechanisms of eukaryotic translation and its regulation in atomic detail. This review describes the X-ray crystal structures of the Tetrahymena thermophila 40S and 60S subunits and the Saccharomyces cerevisiae 80S ribosome, as well as cryo-electron microscopy reconstructions of translating yeast and plant 80S ribosomes. Mechanistic questions about translation in eukaryotes that will require additional structural insights to be resolved are also presented.All ribosomes are composed of two subunits, both of which are built from RNA and protein (Figs. ​(Figs.11 and ​and2).2). Bacterial ribosomes, for example of Escherichia coli, contain a small subunit (SSU) composed of one 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and 21 ribosomal proteins (r-proteins) (Figs. ​(Figs.1A1A and ​and1B)1B) and a large subunit (LSU) containing 5S and 23S rRNAs and 33 r-proteins (Fig. 2A). Crystal structures of prokaryotic ribosomal particles, namely, the Thermus thermophilus SSU (Schluenzen et al. 2000; Wimberly et al. 2000), Haloarcula marismortui and Deinococcus radiodurans LSU (Ban et al. 2000; Harms et al. 2001), and E. coli and T. thermophilus 70S ribosomes (Yusupov et al. 2001; Schuwirth et al. 2005; Selmer et al. 2006), reveal the complex architecture that derives from the network of interactions connecting the individual r-proteins with each other and with the rRNAs (Brodersen et al. 2002; Klein et al. 2004). The 16S rRNA can be divided into four domains, which together with the r-proteins constitute the structural landmarks of the SSU (Wimberly et al. 2000) (Fig. 1A): The 5′ and 3′ minor (h44) domains with proteins S4, S5, S12, S16, S17, and S20 constitute the body (and spur or foot) of the SSU; the 3′ major domain forms the head, which is protein rich, containing S2, S3, S7, S9, S10, S13, S14, and S19; whereas the central domain makes up the platform by interacting with proteins S1, S6, S8, S11, S15, and S18 (Fig. 1B). The rRNA of the LSU can be divided into seven domains (including the 5S rRNA as domain VII), which—in contrast to the SSU—are intricately interwoven with the r-proteins as well as each other (Ban et al. 2000; Brodersen et al. 2002) (Fig. 2A). Structural landmarks on the LSU include the central protuberance (CP) and the flexible L1 and L7/L12 stalks (Fig. 2A).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The bacterial and eukaryotic small ribosomal subunit. (A,B) Interface (upper) and solvent (lower) views of the bacterial 30S subunit (Jenner et al. 2010a). (A) 16S rRNA domains and associated r-proteins colored distinctly: b, body (blue); h, head (red); pt, platform (green); and h44, helix 44 (yellow). (B) 16S rRNA colored gray and r-proteins colored distinctly and labeled. (C–E) Interface and solvent views of the eukaryotic 40S subunit (Rabl et al. 2011), with (C) eukaryotic-specific r-proteins (red) and rRNA (pink) shown relative to conserved rRNA (gray) and r-proteins (blue), and with (D,E) 18S rRNA colored gray and r-proteins colored distinctly and labeled.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.The bacterial and eukaryotic large ribosomal subunit. (A) Interface (upper) and solvent (lower) views of the bacterial 50S subunit (Jenner et al. 2010b), with 23S rRNA domains and bacterial-specific (light blue) and conserved (blue) r-proteins colored distinctly: cp, central protuberance; L1, L1 stalk; and St, L7/L12 stalk (or P-stalk in archeaa/eukaryotes). (B–E) Interface and solvent views of the eukaryotic 60S subunit (Klinge et al. 2011), with (B) eukaryotic-specific r-proteins (red) and rRNA (pink) shown relative to conserved rRNA (gray) and r-proteins (blue), (C) eukaryotic-specific expansion segments (ES) colored distinctly, and (D,E) 28S rRNA colored gray and r-proteins colored distinctly and labeled.In contrast to their bacterial counterparts, eukaryotic ribosomes are much larger and more complex, containing additional rRNA in the form of so-called expansion segments (ES) as well as many additional r-proteins and r-protein extensions (Figs. 1C–E and ​and2C–E).2C–E). Compared with the ∼4500 nucleotides of rRNA and 54 r-proteins of the bacterial 70S ribosome, eukaryotic 80S ribosomes contain >5500 nucleotides of rRNA (SSU, 18S rRNA; LSU, 5S, 5.8S, and 25S rRNA) and 80 (79 in yeast) r-proteins. The first structural models for the eukaryotic (yeast) ribosome were built using 15-Å cryo–electon microscopy (cryo-EM) maps fitted with structures of the bacterial SSU (Wimberly et al. 2000) and archaeal LSU (Ban et al. 2000), thus identifying the location of a total of 46 eukaryotic r-proteins with bacterial and/or archaeal homologs as well as many ES (Spahn et al. 2001a). Subsequent cryo-EM reconstructions led to the localization of additional eukaryotic r-proteins, RACK1 (Sengupta et al. 2004) and S19e (Taylor et al. 2009) on the SSU and L30e (Halic et al. 2005) on the LSU, as well as more complete models of the rRNA derived from cryo-EM maps of canine and fungal 80S ribosomes at ∼9 Å (Chandramouli et al. 2008; Taylor et al. 2009). Recent cryo-EM reconstructions of plant and yeast 80S translating ribosomes at 5.5–6.1 Å enabled the correct placement of an additional six and 10 r-proteins on the SSU and LSU, respectively, as well as the tracing of many eukaryotic-specific r-protein extensions (Armache et al. 2010a,b). The full assignment of the r-proteins in the yeast and fungal 80S ribosomes, however, only became possible with the improved resolution (3.0–3.9 Å) resulting from the crystal structures of the SSU and LSU from Tetrahymena thermophila (Klinge et al. 2011; Rabl et al. 2011) and the Saccharomyces cerevisiae 80S ribosome (Figs. ​(Figs.1D,E1D,E and ​and2D,E)2D,E) (Ben-Shem et al. 2011).     

Widely Conserved Signaling Pathways in the Establishment of Cell Polarity

How are the asymmetric distributions of proteins, lipids, and RNAs established and maintained in various cell types? Studies from diverse organisms show that Par proteins, GTPases, kinases, and phosphoinositides participate in conserved signaling pathways to establish and maintain cell polarity.The asymmetric distribution of proteins, lipids, and RNAs is necessary for cell fate determination, differentiation, and specialized cell functions that underlie morphogenesis (St Johnston 2005; Gonczy 2008; Knoblich 2008; Macara and Mili 2008; Martin-Belmonte and Mostov 2008). A fundamental question is how this asymmetric distribution is established and maintained in different types of cells and tissues. The formation of a specialized apical surface on an epithelial cell seems quite different from the specification of axons versus dendrites in a neuron, or the asymmetric division of a nematode zygote. Yet, remarkably, a conserved molecular toolbox is used throughout the metazoa to establish and maintain cell polarity in these and many other contexts. This toolbox consists of proteins that are components of signal transduction pathways (Goldstein and Macara 2007; Assemat et al. 2008; Yamanaka and Ohno 2008). However, our understanding of these pathways, and their intersection with other signaling networks, remains incomplete. Moreover, the regulation and cross talk between the polarity proteins and other signaling components varies from one context to another, which complicates the task of dissecting polarity protein function. Nonetheless, rapid progress is being made in our understanding of polarity signaling, which is outlined in this article, with an emphasis on the Par proteins, because these proteins play major roles integrating diverse signals that regulate cell polarity (Fig. 1) (see Munro and Bowerman 2009; Prehoda 2009; Nelson 2009).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.An overview of Par complex signaling, showing inputs (bottom) and outputs (top) with cellular functions that are targeted by these pathways (italics).     

Gap Junctions

Gap junctions are aggregates of intercellular channels that permit direct cell–cell transfer of ions and small molecules. Initially described as low-resistance ion pathways joining excitable cells (nerve and muscle), gap junctions are found joining virtually all cells in solid tissues. Their long evolutionary history has permitted adaptation of gap-junctional intercellular communication to a variety of functions, with multiple regulatory mechanisms. Gap-junctional channels are composed of hexamers of medium-sized families of integral proteins: connexins in chordates and innexins in precordates. The functions of gap junctions have been explored by studying mutations in flies, worms, and humans, and targeted gene disruption in mice. These studies have revealed a wide diversity of function in tissue and organ biology.Gap junctions are clusters of intercellular channels that allow direct diffusion of ions and small molecules between adjacent cells. The intercellular channels are formed by head-to-head docking of hexameric assemblies (connexons) of tetraspan integral membrane proteins, the connexins (Cx) (Goodenough et al. 1996). These channels cluster into polymorphic maculae or plaques containing a few to thousands of units (Fig. 1). The close membrane apposition required to allow the docking between connexons sterically excludes most other membrane proteins, leaving a narrow ∼2 nm extracellular “gap” for which the junction is named (Fig. 2). Gap junctions in prechordates are composed of innexins (Phelan et al. 1998; Phelan 2005). In chordates, connexins arose by convergent evolution (Alexopoulos et al. 2004), to expand by gene duplication (Cruciani and Mikalsen 2007) into a 21-member gene family. Three innexin-related proteins, called pannexins, have persisted in vertebrates, although it is not clear if they form intercellular channels (Panchin et al. 2000; Bruzzone et al. 2003). 7Å-resolution electron crystallographic structures of intercellular channels composed of either a carboxy-terminal truncation of Cx43 (Unger et al. 1999; Yeager and Harris 2007) or an M34A mutant of Cx26 (Oshima et al. 2007) are available. The overall pore morphologies are similar with the exception of a “plug” in the Cx26 channel pore. The density of this plug is substantively decreased by deletion of amino acids 2–7, suggesting that the amino-terminus contributes to this structure (Oshima et al. 2008). A 3.5-Å X-ray crystallographic structure has visualized the amino-terminus of Cx26 folded into the mouth of the channel without forming a plug, thought to be an image of the open channel conformation (Maeda et al. 2009). The amino-terminus has been physiologically implicated in voltage-gating of the Cx26 and Cx32 channels (Purnick et al. 2000; Oh et al. 2004), lending support to a role for the amino-terminus as a gating structure. However, Cx43 also shows voltage-gating, and its lack of any structure resembling a plug remains unresolved. A comparison of a 1985 intercellular channel structure (Makowski 1985) with the 2009 3.5Å structure (Maeda et al. 2009) summarizes a quarter-century of X-ray progress (Fig. 3).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.A diagram showing the multiple levels of gap junction structure. Individual connexins assemble intracellularly into hexamers, called connexons, which then traffic to the cell surface. There, they dock with connexons in an adjacent cell, assembling an axial channel spanning two plasma membranes and a narrow extracellular “gap.”Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Electron microscopy of gap junctions joining adjacent hepatocytes in the mouse. The gap junction (GJ) is seen as an area of close plasma membrane apposition, clearly distinct from the tight junction (TJ) joining these cells. (Inset A) A high magnification view of the gap junction revealing the 2–3 nm “gap” (white arrows) separating the plasma membranes. (Inset B) A freeze-fracture replica of a gap junction showing the characteristic particles on the protoplasmic (P) fracture face and pits on the ectoplasmic (E) fracture face. The particles and pits show considerable disorder in their packing with an average 9-nm center-to-center spacing.Open in a separate windowFigure 3.A comparison of axial sections through gap-junction structures deduced from X-ray diffraction. The 1985 data (Makowski 1985) were acquired from gap junctions isolated biochemically from mouse liver containing mixtures of Cx32 and Cx26. The intercellular channel (CHANNEL) is blocked at the two cytoplasmic surfaces by electron density at the channel mouths along the sixfold symmetry axis. The 2009 data (Maeda et al. 2009), acquired from three-dimensional crystals of recombinant Cx26, resolve this density at the channel opening as the amino-termini of the connexin proteins, the 2009 model possibly showing an open channel structure.Most cells express multiple connexins. These may co-oligomerize into the same (homomeric) or mixed (heteromeric) connexons, although only certain combinations are permitted (Falk et al. 1997; Segretain and Falk 2004). A connexon may dock with an identical connexon to form a homotypic intercellular channel or with a connexon containing different connexins to form a heterotypic channel (Dedek et al. 2006). Although only some assembly combinations are permitted (White et al. 1994), the number of possible different intercellular channels formed by this 21-member family is astonishingly large. This diversity has significance because intercellular channels composed of different connexins have different physiological properties, including single-channel conductances and multiple conductance states (Takens-Kwak and Jongsma 1992), as well as permeabilities to experimental tracers (Elfgang et al. 1995) and to biologically relevant permeants (Gaunt and Subak-Sharpe 1979; Veenstra et al. 1995; Bevans et al. 1998; Gong and Nicholson 2001; Goldberg et al. 2002; Ayad et al. 2006; Harris 2007).Opening of extrajunctional connexons in the plasma membrane, described as “hemichannel” activity, can be experimentally induced in a variety of cell types. Because first observations of hemichannel activity were in an oocyte expression system (Paul et al. 1991) and dissociated retinal horizontal cells (DeVries and Schwartz 1992), the possible functions of hemichannels composed of connexins and pannexins has enjoyed vigorous investigation (Goodenough and Paul 2003; Bennett et al. 2003; Locovei et al. 2006; Evans et al. 2006; Srinivas et al. 2007; Schenk et al. 2008; Thompson and MacVicar 2008; Anselmi et al. 2008; Goodenough and Paul 2003). Hemichannels have been implicated in various forms of paracrine signaling, for example in providing a pathway for extracellular release of ATP (Cotrina et al. 1998; Kang et al. 2008), glutamate (Ye et al. 2003), NAD⁺ (Bruzzone et al. 2000), and prostaglandins (Jiang and Cherian 2003).     

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).     

Toll-Like Receptor Signaling

Toll-like receptors sense pathogen-associated molecular patterns (e.g., lipopolysaccharides) and trigger gene-expression changes that ultimately eradicate the invading microbes.Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are protective immune sentries that sense pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) such as unmethylated double-stranded DNA (CpG), single-stranded RNA (ssRNA), lipoproteins, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and flagellin. In innate immune myeloid cells, TLRs induce the secretion of inflammatory cytokines (Newton and Dixit 2012), thereby engaging lymphocytes to mount an adaptive, antigen-specific immune response (see Fig. 1) that ultimately eradicates the invading microbes (Kawai and Akira 2010).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.TLR signaling (simplified view).Identification of TLR innate immune function began with the discovery that Drosophila mutants in the Toll gene are highly susceptible to fungal infection (Lemaitre et al. 1996). This was soon followed by identification of a human Toll homolog, now known as TLR4 (Medzhitov et al. 1997). To date, 10 TLR family members have been identified in humans, and at least 13 are present in mice. All TLRs consist of an amino-terminal domain, characterized by multiple leucine-rich repeats, and a carboxy-terminal TIR domain that interacts with TIR-containing adaptors. Nucleic acid–sensing TLRs (TLR3, TLR7, TLR8, and TLR9) are localized within endosomal compartments, whereas the other TLRs reside at the plasma membrane (Blasius and Beutler 2010; McGettrick and O’Neill 2010). Trafficking of most TLRs from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) to either the plasma membrane or endolysosomes is orchestrated by ER-resident proteins such as UNC93B (for TLR3, TLR7, TLR8, and TLR9) and PRAT4A (for TLR1, TLR2, TLR4, TLR7, and TLR9) (Blasius and Beutler 2010). Once in the endolysosomes, TLR3, TLR7, and TLR9 are subject to stepwise proteolytic cleavage, which is required for ligand binding and signaling (Barton and Kagan 2009). For some TLRs, ligand binding is facilitated by coreceptors, including CD14 and MD2.Following ligand engagement, the cytoplasmic TIR domains of the TLRs recruit the signaling adaptors MyD88, TIRAP, TRAM, and/or TRIF (see Fig. 2). Depending on the nature of the adaptor that is used, various kinases (IRAK4, IRAK1, IRAK2, TBK1, and IKKε) and ubiquitin ligases (TRAF6 and pellino 1) are recruited and activated, culminating in the engagement of the NF-κB, type I interferon, p38 MAP kinase (MAPK), and JNK MAPK pathways (Kawai and Akira 2010; Morrison 2012). TRAF6 is modified by K63-linked autoubiquitylation, which enables the recruitment of IκB kinase (IKK) through a ubiquitin-binding domain of the IKKγ (also known as NEMO) subunit. In addition, a ubiquitin-binding domain of TAB2 recognizes ubiquitylated TRAF6, causing activation of the associated TAK1 kinase, which then phosphorylates the IKKβ subunit. Pellino 1 can modify IRAK1 with K63-linked ubiquitin, allowing IRAK1 to recruit IKK directly. TLR4 signaling via the TRIF adaptor protein leads to K63-linked polyubiquitylation of TRAF3, thereby promoting the type I interferon response via interferon regulatory factor (IRFs) (Hacker et al. 2011). Alternatively, TLR4 signaling via MyD88 leads to the activation of TRAF6, which modifies cIAP1 or cIAP2 with K63-linked polyubiquitin (Hacker et al. 2011). The cIAPs are thereby activated to modify TRAF3 with K48-linked polyubiquitin, causing its proteasomal degradation. This allows a TRAF6–TAK1 complex to activate the p38 MAPK pathway and promote inflammatory cytokine production (Hacker et al. 2011). TLR signaling is turned off by various negative regulators: IRAK-M and MyD88 short (MyD88s), which antagonize IRAK1 activation; FADD, which antagonizes MyD88 or IRAKs; SHP1 and SHP2, which dephosphorylate IRAK1 and TBK1, respectively; and A20, which deubiquitylates TRAF6 and IKK (Flannery and Bowie 2010; Kawai and Akira 2010).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.TLR signaling. (Adapted with kind permission of Cell Signaling Technology [http://www.cellsignal.com].)Deregulation of the TLR signaling cascade causes several human diseases. Patients with inherited deficiencies of MyD88, IRAK4, UNC93B1, or TLR3 are susceptible to recurrent bacterial or viral infections (Casanova et al. 2011). Chronic TLR7 and/or TLR9 activation in autoreactive B cells, in contrast, underlies systemic autoimmune diseases (Green and Marshak-Rothstein 2011). Furthermore, oncogenic activating mutations of MyD88 occur frequently in the activated B-cell-like subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and in other B-cell malignancies (Ngo et al. 2011). Inhibitors of various TLRs or their associated kinases are currently being developed for autoimmune or inflammatory diseases and also hold promise for the treatment of B-cell malignancies with oncogenic MyD88 mutations. Many TLR7 and TLR9 agonists are currently in clinical trials as adjuvants to boost host antitumor responses in cancer patients (Hennessy et al. 2010).     

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.     

DNA-Pairing and Annealing Processes in Homologous Recombination and Homology-Directed Repair

The formation of heteroduplex DNA is a central step in the exchange of DNA sequences via homologous recombination, and in the accurate repair of broken chromosomes via homology-directed repair pathways. In cells, heteroduplex DNA largely arises through the activities of recombination proteins that promote DNA-pairing and annealing reactions. Classes of proteins involved in pairing and annealing include RecA-family DNA-pairing proteins, single-stranded DNA (ssDNA)-binding proteins, recombination mediator proteins, annealing proteins, and nucleases. This review explores the properties of these pairing and annealing proteins, and highlights their roles in complex recombination processes including the double Holliday junction (DhJ) formation, synthesis-dependent strand annealing, and single-strand annealing pathways—DNA transactions that are critical both for genome stability in individual organisms and for the evolution of species.A central step in the process of homologous recombination is the formation of heteroduplex DNA. In this article, heteroduplex DNA is defined as double-stranded DNA that arose from recombination, in which the two strands are derived from different parental DNA molecules or regions. The two strands of the heteroduplex may be fully complementary in sequence, or may contain small regions of noncomplementarity embedded within their otherwise complementary sequences. In either case, Watson-Crick base pairs must stabilize the heteroduplex to the extent that it can exist as free DNA following the dissociation of the recombination proteins that promoted its formation.The ability to form heteroduplex DNA using strands from two different parental DNA molecules lies at the heart of fundamental biological processes that control genome stability in individual organisms, inheritance of genetic information by their progeny, and genetic diversity within the resulting populations (Amunugama and Fishel 2012). During meiosis, the formation of heteroduplex DNA facilitates crossing-over and allelic exchange between homologous chromosomes; this process ensures that progeny are not identical clones of their parents and that sexual reproduction between individuals will result in a genetically diverse population (see Lam and Keeney 2015; Zickler and Kleckner 2015). Heteroduplex DNA generated by meiotic COs also ensures proper segregation of homologous chromosomes, so that each gamete receives a complete but genetically distinct set of chromosomes (Bascom-Slack et al. 1997; Gerton and Hawley 2005). In mitotic cells, heteroduplex DNA formation between sister chromatids is essential for homology-directed repair (HR) of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), stalled replication forks, and other lesions (Maher et al. 2011; Amunugama and Fishel 2012; Mehta and Haber 2014). Prokaryotic organisms also generate heteroduplex DNA to perform HR transactions, and to promote genetic exchanges, such as occur during bacterial conjugation (Cox 1999; Thomas and Nielsen 2005).Fundamentally, heteroduplex DNA generation involves the formation of tracts of Watson-Crick base pairs between strands of DNA derived from two different progenitor (parental) DNA molecules. Mechanistically, the DNA transactions giving rise to heteroduplex may involve two, three, or four strands of DNA (Fig. 1). DNA annealing refers to heteroduplex formation from two complementary (or nearly complementary) molecules or regions of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) (Fig. 1A). DNA annealing may occur spontaneously, but it is promoted in vivo by certain classes of annealing proteins. Three-stranded reactions yielding heteroduplex DNA proceed by a different mechanism referred to as DNA pairing, strand invasion, or strand exchange. These reactions involve the invasion of a duplex DNA molecule by homologous (or nearly homologous) ssDNA. The invading DNA may be completely single stranded, as is often the case in in vitro assays for DNA-pairing activity (Fig. 1B) (Cox and Lehman 1981). Under physiological conditions, however, the invading ssDNA is contained as a single-stranded tail or gap within a duplex (Fig. 1C,D). DNA-pairing reactions are promoted by DNA-pairing proteins of the RecA family (Bianco et al. 1998), and proceed via the formation of D-loop or joint molecule intermediates that contain the heteroduplex DNA (Fig. 1B–D). Three-stranded reactions may also be promoted by exonuclease/annealing protein complexes found in certain viruses. Four-stranded reactions generating heteroduplex DNA involve branch migration of a Holliday junction (Fig. 1D). In practice, a four-stranded reaction must be initiated by a three-stranded pairing reaction catalyzed by a DNA-pairing protein, after which the heteroduplex is extended into duplex regions through the action of the DNA-pairing protein or of an associated DNA helicase/translocase (Das Gupta et al. 1981; Kim et al. 1992; Tsaneva et al. 1992).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Common DNA annealing and pairing reactions. (A) Simple annealing between two complementary molecules of single-stranded DNA to form a heteroduplex. (B) Three-stranded DNA-pairing reaction of the type used for in vitro assays of RecA-family DNA-pairing proteins. The single-stranded circle is homologous to the linear duplex. Formation of heteroduplex (red strand base-paired to black) requires protein-promoted invasion of the duplex by the ssDNA to form a joint molecule or D-loop (i). The length of the heteroduplex may be extended by branch migration (ii). (C) Three-stranded DNA-pairing reaction of the type used for high-fidelity repair of DNA DSBs in vivo. The invading strand is the ssDNA tail of a resected DSB. The 3′ end of the invading strand is incorporated into the heteroduplex within the D-loop intermediate. (D) Example of a four-stranded DNA-pairing transaction that is initiated by a three-stranded pairing event and extended by branch migration. The ssDNA in a gapped duplex serves as the invading strand to generate a joint molecule (i), reminiscent of the reaction shown in panel B. Protein-directed branch migration may proceed into the duplex region adjacent to the original gap, generating α-structure intermediates (ii), or eventually a complete exchange of strands (iii).     

The Structure and Function of Bacterial Actin Homologs

During the past decade, the appreciation and understanding of how bacterial cells can be organized in both space and time have been revolutionized by the identification and characterization of multiple bacterial homologs of the eukaryotic actin cytoskeleton. Some of these bacterial actins, such as the plasmid-borne ParM protein, have highly specialized functions, whereas other bacterial actins, such as the chromosomally encoded MreB protein, have been implicated in a wide array of cellular activities. In this review we cover our current understanding of the structure, assembly, function, and regulation of bacterial actins. We focus on ParM as a well-understood reductionist model and on MreB as a central organizer of multiple aspects of bacterial cell biology. We also discuss the outstanding puzzles in the field and possible directions where this fast-developing area may progress in the future.The discovery of cytoskeletal proteins in bacteria has fundamentally altered our understanding of the organization and evolution of bacteria as cells. Homologs of eukaryotic actin represent the most molecularly and functionally diverse family of bacterial cytoskeletal elements. Recent phylogenetic studies have identified more than 20 subgroups of bacterial actin homologs (Derman et al. 2009) (Fig. 1). Many of these bacterial actins are encoded on extrachromosomal plasmids, but most bacterial species with nonspherical morphologies also encode chromosomal actin homologs (Daniel and Errington 2003). The two earliest proteins to be characterized as bacterial actins were the chromosomal protein MreB (Jones et al. 2001) and the plasmidic protein ParM (Jensen and Gerdes 1997). MreB and ParM remain the best-characterized of the bacterial actins and we will thus focus on these two proteins for most of this article.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The superfamily of bacterial actin homologs. Shown is a phylogenetic tree of the bacterial actin subfamilies that have been identified to date based on sequence homology. The subfamilies that have been experimentally shown to polymerize are labeled and colored. (Courtesy of Joe Pogliano, based on Derman et al. 2009.)The appreciation that bacteria possess actin homologs only occurred in the past decade. MreB was first identified as a protein involved in cell shape regulation in Escherichia coli in the late 1980s (Doi et al. 1988). In the early 1990s, pioneering bioinformatic studies identified similarities in a group of ATPases that have five conserved motifs (Bork et al. 1992), a feature dubbed the actin superfamily fold. Although this group includes actin and MreB, it also contains proteins that do not polymerize into filaments, such as sugar kinases like hexokinase and chaperones like Hsp70. A number of bacterial proteins are present in the actin superfamily, including the bacterial cell division protein FtsA which interacts with the tubulin homolog FtsZ and may or may not form filaments in different contexts (van den Ent and Lowe 2000). Because MreB did not appear significantly more related to actin than these nonfilamentous proteins, the weak sequence similarity with actin was largely ignored for the better part of a decade. This changed in 2001 when two seminal papers showed that Bacillus subtilis MreB forms cytoskeletal filaments in vivo (Jones et al. 2001) and that Thermotoga maritima MreB forms cytoskeletal filaments in vitro (van den Ent et al. 2001). Indeed, structural and biochemical studies of both MreB and ParM have convincingly showed that these proteins closely resemble actin and polymerize into linear filaments in a nucleotide-dependent manner (Fig. 2).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Structures of F-actin (Holmes et al. 1990), MreB (van den Ent et al. 2001), and ParM (van den Ent et al. 2002). (Left) Structures of F-actin filaments (PDB entry 1YAG). (Second from the left) MreB filaments from T. maritima (PDB entry 1JCE). (Center) ParM:ADP monomer in the “closed” conformation. (Second from the right) apo ParM monomer in the “open” conformation. (Right) ParM filament. Shown are the position of the nucleotide within the interdomain cleft, the conservation of fold, and the axis of the protofilament extension (arrow). Note that the conformational change shown for ParM from the “open” to “closed” state is predicted for all actin homologs. (Adapted, with permission from, Michie and Löwe 2006.)Research following the identification of bacterial cytoskeletal proteins has focused on understanding their assembly, regulation, and function. Here, we will summarize our current understanding of these issues and highlight the outstanding questions. We will begin with ParM, whose well-characterized assembly and dynamics represent a model for future studies of all cytoskeletal proteins. We will then focus on MreB, whose diverse activities appear to be central to the cell biology of many bacterial species.     

Diversity of Neural Precursors in the Adult Mammalian Brain

Aided by advances in technology, recent studies of neural precursor identity and regulation have revealed various cell types as contributors to ongoing cell genesis in the adult mammalian brain. Here, we use stem-cell biology as a framework to highlight the diversity of adult neural precursor populations and emphasize their hierarchy, organization, and plasticity under physiological and pathological conditions.The adult mammalian brain displays remarkable structural plasticity by generating and incorporating new neural cell types into an already formed brain (Kempermann and Gage 1999). Largely restricted within the subventricular zone (SVZ) along the lateral ventricle and the subgranular zone (SGZ) in the dentate gyrus (DG), neural genesis is thought to arise from neural stem cells (NSCs) (Ming and Song 2011). Stem cells are defined by hallmark functions: capacity to self-renew, maintenance of an immature state over a long duration, and ability to generate specialized cell types (Fig. 1). These features distinguish stem cells from committed progenitor cells that more readily differentiate into specialized cell types (Fig. 1). Stem and progenitor cells (collectively called precursors) are additionally characterized by their lineage capacity. For example, multipotential neural precursors generate neurons and glia, whereas unipotential cells produce only one cell type, such as neurons (Gage 2000; Ma et al. 2009). The classical NSC definition is based on cell culture experiments in which a single cell can self-renew and generate neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes (Gage 2000; Ma et al. 2009). Yet, reprogramming studies have raised the question of whether cultured lineage-restricted neural progenitors acquire additional potential not evident in vivo (Palmer et al. 1999; Kondo and Raff 2000; Gabay et al. 2003). As a result, various lineage models have been proposed to explain cell generation in the adult brain (Fig. 1) (Ming and Song 2011). In one model, bona fide adult stem cells generate multiple lineages at the individual cell level. In another, cell genesis represents a collective property from a mixed population of unipotent progenitors. Importantly, these models are not mutually exclusive as evidence for the coexistence of multiple precursors has been observed in several adult somatic tissues, in which one population preferentially maintains homeostasis and another serves as a cellular reserve (Li and Clevers 2010; Mascre et al. 2012). Recent technical advances, including single-cell lineage tracing (Kretzschmar and Watt 2012), have made it possible to dissect basic cellular and behavioral processes of neural precursors in vivo (Fig. 4) (Bonaguidi et al. 2012). In this work, we review our current knowledge of precursor cell identity, hierarchical organization, and regulation to examine the diverse origins of cell genesis in the adult mammalian brain.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Models of generating cell diversity in the adult tissues. (A,B) Definitions of stem and progenitor cells. In A, quiescent stem cells (S_q) become active stem cells (S_a) that proliferate to generate different types of specialized cells (C₁, C₂, C₃) and new stem cells (S). The active stem cell can return to quiescence and remain quiescent over long periods of time. In B, lineage-restricted progenitor cells lacking self-renewal capacity (P₁, P₂, P₃) each give rise to distinct populations of specialized cells (C₁, C₂, C₃). (C) Generation of specialized cells in a tissue could be explained by three models. (1) The stem-cell model, in which multipotent stem cells give rise to all the specialized cells in the tissue. (2) The progenitor cell model, in which diverse, lineage-restricted progenitor cells give rise to different cell types in the tissue. (3) A hybrid model, in which a mixture of stem cells and lineage-restricted progenitor cells generate specialized cells of the adult tissue.

Table 1.

Comparison of different methods used to study the generation of new cells in the adult mammalian nervous system

Entry and Exit Mechanisms at the cis-Face of the Golgi Complex

Vesicular transport of protein and lipid cargo from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) to cis-Golgi compartments depends on coat protein complexes, Rab GTPases, tethering factors, and membrane fusion catalysts. ER-derived vesicles deliver cargo to an ER-Golgi intermediate compartment (ERGIC) that then fuses with and/or matures into cis-Golgi compartments. The forward transport pathway to cis-Golgi compartments is balanced by a retrograde directed pathway that recycles transport machinery back to the ER. How trafficking through the ERGIC and cis-Golgi is coordinated to maintain organelle structure and function is poorly understood and highlights central questions regarding trafficking routes and organization of the early secretory pathway.Newly synthesized secretory proteins and lipids are transported to early Golgi compartments in dissociative carrier vesicles that are formed from the ER (Palade 1975). Through the development of biochemical, genetic and morphological approaches, outlines for the molecular machinery that catalyze this transport step and the membrane structures that comprise the early secretory compartments have been developed (Rothman 1994; Schekman and Orci 1996). Initial images and studies suggested the early secretory pathway consisted of stable compartments with ER-derived carrier vesicles shuttling cargo to pre-Golgi and Golgi compartments. However, live cell and time-lapse imaging revealed highly dynamic structures with both secretory cargo and compartment residents detected in pleiomorphic intermediates (Presley et al. 1997; Scales et al. 1997; Shima et al. 1999; Ben-Tekaya et al. 2005). Several lines of evidence now indicate that active bidirectional transport cycles between the ER, ERGIC, and cis-Golgi compartments are balanced to maintain compartment structure and function (Lee et al. 2004). The coat protein complex II (COPII) produces vesicles for forward transport from the ER whereas the coat protein complex I (COPI) buds vesicles for retrograde transport from cis-Golgi compartments to the ER (Fig. 1). Indeed inhibition of either the forward or retrograde pathways results in a rapid loss of normal ER and Golgi organization (Lippincott-Schwartz et al. 1989; Rambourg et al. 1994; Morin-Ganet et al. 2000; Ward et al. 2001). Yet, under steady-state conditions, the cis-Golgi compartments retain a characteristic composition and structure as secretory cargo passes through. These observations indicate that the structure and function of early secretory compartments are maintained at dynamic equilibrium through coordination of multiple pathways.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Trafficking in the early secretory pathway. A simplified model depicting bidirectional transport routes between the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), the ER-Golgi intermediate compartment (ERGIC), and cis-Golgi cisternae. COPII vesicles bud from the ER and transport cargo in an anterograde direction for tethering and fusion with the ERGIC. The ERGIC then matures into the cis-Golgi compartment and/or fuses with the cis-Golgi. COPI vesicles bud from the ERGIC and cis-Golgi compartments in a retrograde transport pathway back to the ER to recycle transport machinery.Although much of the molecular machinery required for transport to and from cis-Golgi membranes has been identified, the current challenges are to understand the sequence of molecular events that underlie the observed structural organization. Moreover, the mechanisms that govern entry and exit rates to-from cis-Golgi membranes to maintain organization at dynamic equilibrium are poorly understood. In this perspective the known key machinery required for anterograde transport to, and retrograde exit from, cis-Golgi compartments will be described, and then current models for how compartmental structure is maintained while protein and lipid cargo fluxes through will be examined. This review will survey core machinery and principles from several experimental models although it is becoming clear that different species and different cell types within a species may employ variations on a basic theme depending on cellular function. For example, in many animal cells secretory cargo passes through a well-characterized ER-Golgi intermediate compartment (ERGIC) en route to cis-Golgi cisternae. The ERGIC may be necessary to span the distance between ER export sites and the Golgi stack; however, the relationship of this intermediate compartment to the cis-Golgi remains unclear (Appenzeller-Herzog and Hauri 2006). In other species including yeast, Golgi organization appears less coherent and may be considered more simply as a series of intermediate compartments. Here COPII vesicles are thought to fuse directly with the cis-Golgi or this first intermediate compartment (Fig. 2) (Mogelsvang et al. 2003). Despite these quite varied structural organizations, there is a remarkable level of conservation in molecular machinery. After consideration of this conserved molecular machinery, we will return to organizational issues in transport to and from the cis-Golgi compartment.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.ER/Golgi organization in the yeast P. pastoris. Three-dimensional models reconstructed from electron microscope tomography showing proximity of ER and cis-most cisterna of the Golgi complex. Putative COPII vesicles are detected in a narrow region between the ER and cis-Golgi. For further information, see Mogelsvang et al. (2003). Bar = 100 nm. (Reprinted, with permission, from Mogelsvang et al. 2003 [American Society for Cell Biology].)     

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.     

Cyanobacterial Heterocysts

Many multicellular cyanobacteria produce specialized nitrogen-fixing heterocysts. During diazotrophic growth of the model organism Anabaena (Nostoc) sp. strain PCC 7120, a regulated developmental pattern of single heterocysts separated by about 10 to 20 photosynthetic vegetative cells is maintained along filaments. Heterocyst structure and metabolic activity function together to accommodate the oxygen-sensitive process of nitrogen fixation. This article focuses on recent research on heterocyst development, including morphogenesis, transport of molecules between cells in a filament, differential gene expression, and pattern formation.Organisms composed of multiple differentiated cell types can possess structures, functions, and behaviors that are more diverse and efficient than those of unicellular organisms. Among multicellular prokaryotes, heterocyst-forming cyanobacteria offer an excellent model for the study of cellular differentiation and multicellular pattern formation. Cyanobacteria are a large group of Gram-negative prokaryotes that perform oxygenic photosynthesis. They have evolved multiple specialized cell types, including nitrogen-fixing heterocysts, spore-like akinetes, and the cells of motile hormogonia filaments. Of these, the development of heterocysts in the filamentous cyanobacterium Anabaena (also Nostoc) sp. strain PCC 7120 (hereafter Anabaena PCC 7120) has been the best studied. Heterocyst development offers a striking example of cellular differentiation and developmental biology in a very simple form: Filaments are composed of only two cell types and these are arrayed in a one-dimensional pattern similar to beads on a string (Figs. 1 and ​and22).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Heterocyst development in Anabaena PCC 7120. (A) Anabaena PCC 7120 grown in medium containing a source of combined nitrogen grows as filaments of photosynthetic vegetative cells. (B) In the absence of combined nitrogen, heterocysts differentiate at semiregular intervals, forming a developmental pattern of single heterocysts every 10 to 20 vegetative cells along filaments. Heterocysts are often larger than vegetative cells, have a thicker multilayered envelope, and usually contain cyanophycin granules at their poles adjacent to a vegetative cell.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Heterocyst development in Anabaena PCC 7120. Filaments of the wild type carrying a patS-gfp reporter grown in medium containing nitrate are composed of vegetative cells (A), and have undergone heterocyst development 1 d after transfer to medium without combined nitrogen (B). A patS mutant strain carrying the same patS-gfp reporter grown in media containing nitrate contains a small number of heterocysts (C), and 1 d after transfer to medium without combined nitrogen shows a higher than normal frequency of heterocysts and an abnormal developmental pattern (D). (A, B, C, D) Merged DIC (grayscale), autofluorescence of photosynthetic pigments (red), and patS-gfp reporter fluorescence (green) microscopic images; arrowheads indicate heterocysts; asterisks indicate proheterocysts; size bar, 5 µm. (E, F) Transmission electron micrographs of wild-type vegetative cells (V) and a heterocyst (H) at the end of a filament; T, thylakoid membranes; PS, polysaccharide layer; GL, glycolipid layer; C, polar cyanophycin granule; size bar, 0.2 µm.Many cyanobacterial species are capable of nitrogen fixation. However, oxygenic photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation are incompatible processes because nitrogenase is inactivated by oxygen. Cyanobacteria mainly use two mechanisms to separate these activities: a biological circadian clock to separate them temporally, and multicellularity and cellular differentiation to separate them spatially. For example, the unicellular Cyanothece sp. strain ATCC 51142 stores glycogen during the day and fixes nitrogen at night (Toepel et al. 2008), whereas the filamentous Trichodesmium erythraeum IMS101 fixes nitrogen during the day in groups of specialized cells (Sandh et al. 2009). Heterocyst-forming cyanobacteria differentiate highly specialized cells to provide fixed nitrogen to the vegetative cells in a filament.In the presence of a source of combined nitrogen such as nitrate or ammonium, Anabaena PCC 7120 grows as long filaments containing hundreds of photosynthetic vegetative cells. In the absence of combined nitrogen, it produces heterocysts, which are terminally differentiated nitrogen-fixing cells that form at semiregular intervals between stretches of vegetative cells to produce a multicellular pattern of single heterocysts every ten to twenty vegetative cells along filaments (Figs. 1 and ​and2).2). Some heterocyst-forming cyanobacteria show different regulation or display different developmental patterns but these topics are beyond the scope of this article. Heterocyst development involves integration of multiple external and internal signals, communication between the cells in a filament, and temporal and spatial regulation of genes and cellular processes. The study of heterocyst development in Anabaena PCC 7120 has proven to be an excellent model for the study of cell fate determination, pattern formation, and differential gene expression during prokaryotic multicellular evelopment. Various aspects of heterocyst development, signaling, and regulation have been the subject of several recent reviews (Meeks and Elhai 2002; Forchhammer 2004; Herrero et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2006; Aldea et al. 2008; Zhao and Wolk 2008).Although beyond the scope of this article, it should be noted that cyanobacteria have recently attracted increased attention because of their important roles in environmental carbon and nitrogen fixation (Montoya et al. 2004), and their potential for providing renewable chemicals and biofuels (Dismukes et al. 2008).