The Desmosome

Desmosomes are intercellular junctions that tether intermediate filaments to the plasma membrane. Desmogleins and desmocollins, members of the cadherin superfamily, mediate adhesion at desmosomes. Cytoplasmic components of the desmosome associate with the desmosomal cadherin tails through a series of protein interactions, which serve to recruit intermediate filaments to sites of desmosome assembly. These desmosomal plaque components include plakoglobin and the plakophilins, members of the armadillo gene family. Linkage to the cytoskeleton is mediated by the intermediate filament binding protein, desmoplakin, which associates with both plakoglobin and plakophilins. Although desmosomes are critical for maintaining stable cell–cell adhesion, emerging evidence indicates that they are also dynamic structures that contribute to cellular processes beyond that of cell adhesion. This article outlines the structure and function of the major desmosomal proteins, and explores the contributions of this protein complex to tissue architecture and morphogenesis.The desmosome is an adhesive intercellular junction that is crucial to tissues that experience mechanical stress, such as the myocardium, bladder, gastrointestinal mucosa, and skin (Getsios et al. 2004b; Holthofer et al. 2007). The desmosome was first observed in the spinous layer of epidermis by the Italian pathologist Giulio Bizzozero (1846–1901). Bizzozero''s observations of these small dense nodules, subsequently named “nodes of Bizzozero,” led him to the insightful interpretation of these structures as adhesive cell–cell contact points. The term desmosome was later coined by Josef Schaffer in 1920 and is derived from the Greek words “desmo,” meaning bond or fastening, and “soma,” meaning body (Wells 2005; Calkins and Setzer 2007). The introduction of electron microscopy yielded a series of advances by Porter, Odland, and Kelly in the 1950s and 1960s, which revealed desmosome organization at the ultrastructural level. These studies and others indicated that the desmosome can be divided into three morphologically identifiable zones: the extracellular core region (desmoglea), the outer dense plaque (ODP), and the inner dense plaque (IDP) (Fig. 1A) (Kowalczyk et al. 1994; Schmidt et al. 1994; Green and Jones 1996; North et al. 1999; Garrod and Chidgey 2008).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.A model for the structure of desmosomes. (A) Electron micrograph of a desmosome. (B) Schematic of desmosomal proteins and relative distance from the plasma membrane (PM). The desmosomal cadherins, the desmogleins and desmocollins, extend into extracellular core and outer dense plaque (ODP) to establish contact and adhere to neighboring cells in a Ca²⁺-dependent manner. The cadherin cytoplasmic tails associate linker proteins, plakoglobin (PG), the plakophilins (PKP), and desmoplakin (DP). DP binds to keratin intermediate filaments (KIF) within the inner dense plaque (IDP), serving to tether the intermediate filaments to the plasma membrane. (Adapted with permission from Kottke et al. 2006.)In the mid 1970s, Skerrow and Matoltsy (Skerrow and Matoltsy 1974a; Skerrow and Matoltsy 1974b) advanced the field by isolating desmosomes using biochemical approaches (Bass-Zubek and Green 2007).These landmark studies provided a foundation for the Franke and Steinberg laboratories to characterize the transmembrane glycoproteins and cytoplasmic plaque proteins that linked the structure to the intermediate filament cytoskeleton, and to develop immunological tools for localizing specific components (Franke et al. 1981; Kapprell et al. 1985; Steinberg et al. 1987). Collectively, these and other studies shaped our current view of how desmosomal components are organized.The transmembrane glycoproteins, termed desmogleins and desmocollins (Garrod and Chidgey 2008), represent separate subfamilies of the cadherin superfamily of calcium dependent adhesion molecules. The extracellular domains of the desmogleins and desmocollins mediate adhesion, whereas the cytoplasmic tails of these cadherins associate with the desmosomal plaque proteins. The outer dense plaque consists of the cytoplasmic tails of the desmosomal cadherins, which bind to members of the armadillo and plakin family of linker proteins (Kowalczyk et al. 1994; Getsios et al. 2004b; Garrod and Chidgey 2008). Plakoglobin, a member of the armadillo family, binds directly to the cytoplasmic tails of both the desmogleins and the desmocollins (Wahl et al. 1996; Witcher et al. 1996). Desmoplakin, a member of the plakin family, interacts with both plakoglobin and another subgroup of armadillo family proteins, the plakophilins (Cowin and Burke 1996). Finally, the interaction between desmoplakin and the keratin filaments forms the inner dense plaque, tethering the cytoskeletal network to the adhesion complex (Fig. 1B) (Kowalczyk et al. 1994; Getsios et al. 2004b; Garrod and Chidgey 2008).The following sections of this article describe the structural and functional characteristics of the major desmosomal proteins. In addition, we discuss differences in tissue expression patterns of desmosomal proteins and the role of desmosomes in human disease. A comprehensive review of additional proteins found to regulate or associate with desmosomes is provided elsewhere (Holthofer et al. 2007) and discussion of desmosome dynamics is provided in Green et al. 2009.     

Mitochondrial Regulation of Cell Death

Although required for life, paradoxically, mitochondria are often essential for initiating apoptotic cell death. Mitochondria regulate caspase activation and cell death through an event termed mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP); this leads to the release of various mitochondrial intermembrane space proteins that activate caspases, resulting in apoptosis. MOMP is often considered a point of no return because it typically leads to cell death, even in the absence of caspase activity. Because of this pivotal role in deciding cell fate, deregulation of MOMP impacts on many diseases and represents a fruitful site for therapeutic intervention. Here we discuss the mechanisms underlying mitochondrial permeabilization and how this key event leads to cell death through caspase-dependent and -independent means. We then proceed to explore how the release of mitochondrial proteins may be regulated following MOMP. Finally, we discuss mechanisms that enable cells sometimes to survive MOMP, allowing them, in essence, to return from the point of no return.In most organisms, mitochondria play an essential role in activating caspase proteases through a pathway termed the mitochondrial or intrinsic pathway of apoptosis. Mitochondria regulate caspase activation by a process called mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP). Selective permeabilization of the mitochondrial outer membrane releases intermembrane space (IMS) proteins that drive robust caspase activity leading to rapid cell death. However, even in the absence of caspase activity, MOMP typically commits a cell to death and is therefore considered a point of no return (Fig. 1). Because of this pivotal role in dictating cell fate, MOMP is highly regulated, mainly through interactions between pro- and antiapoptotic members of the Bcl-2 family. In this article, we begin by discussing how mitochondria may have evolved to become central players in apoptotic cell death. We then provide an overview of current models addressing the mechanics of MOMP, outlining how this crucial event leads to cell death through both caspase-dependent or -independent mechanisms. Finally, we discuss how caspase activity may be regulated post-MOMP and define other processes that allow cells to survive MOMP and, in effect, return from the point of no return.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Mitochondrial regulation of cell death. Bax/Bak-mediated mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP) can lead to caspase-dependent apoptosis (left) or caspase-independent cell death (right). Following MOMP, soluble proteins are released from the mitochondrial intermembrane space into the cytoplasm. Cytochrome c binds to monomeric Apaf-1 leading to its conformational change and oligomerization. Procaspase-9 is recruited to heptameric Apaf-1 complexes forming the apoptosome. This leads to activation of caspase-9 and, through caspase-9-mediated cleavage, activation of the executioner caspases-3 and -7. Release of Smac and Omi from the mitochondrial intermembrane space facilitates caspase activation by neutralizing the caspase inhibitor XIAP. MOMP can also lead to nonapoptotic cell death through a gradual loss of mitochondrial function and/or release of mitochondrial proteins that kill the cell in a caspase-independent manner.     

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.)     

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

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

Table 1.

Binding partners of spectrin and ankyrins

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).     

Regulation and Function of Autophagy during Cell Survival and Cell Death

Autophagy is an important catabolic process that delivers cytoplasmic material to the lysosome for degradation. Autophagy promotes cell survival by elimination of damaged organelles and proteins aggregates, as well as by facilitating bioenergetic homeostasis. Although autophagy has been considered a cell survival mechanism, recent studies have shown that autophagy can promote cell death. The core mechanisms that control autophagy are conserved between yeast and humans, but animals also possess genes that regulate autophagy that are not present in yeast. These regulatory differences may be explained by the need to control autophagy in a cell context-specific manner in multicellular animals, such as during cell survival and cell death. Autophagy was thought to be a bulk cytoplasmic degradation mechanism, but recent studies have shown that specific cargo is recruited for degradation. This suggests the possibility that either cell survival or death may be regulated by selective autophagic clearance of cytoplasmic material. Here we summarize the mechanisms that regulate autophagy and how they may contribute to cell survival and death.Autophagy (self-eating) is an evolutionarily conserved catabolic process that is used to deliver cytoplasmic materials, including organelles and proteins, to the lysosome for degradation. Three types of autophagy have been described, including macroautophagy, microautophagy, and chaperone-mediated autophagy (Mizushima and Komatsu 2011). Although macroautophagy involves the fusion of the double membrane autophagosome and lysosomes, microautophagy is poorly understood and thought to involve direct uptake of material by the lysosome via a process that appears similar to pinocytosis. By contrast, chaperone-mediated autophagy is a biochemical mechanism to import proteins into the lysosome; it depends on a signature sequence and interaction with protein chaperones. Here we will focus on macroautophagy (hereafter called autophagy) because of our knowledge of this process in cell survival and cell death.Autophagy was likely first observed when electron microscopy was used to observe “dense bodies” containing mitochondria in mouse kidneys (Clark 1957). Five years later, it was reported that rat hepatocytes exposed to glucagon possessed membrane-bound vesicles that were rich in mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum (Ashford and Porter 1962). Almost simultaneously, it was shown that these membrane-bound vesicles contained lysosomal hydrolases (Novikoff and Essner 1962). In 1965 de Duve coined the term “autophagy” (Klionsky 2008).The delivery of cytoplasmic material to the lysosome by autophagy involves membrane formation and fusion events (Fig. 1). First an isolation membrane, also known as a phagophore, must be initiated from a membrane source known as the phagophore assembly site (PAS). de Duve suggested that the smooth endoplasmic reticulum could be the source of autophagosome membrane (de Duve and Wattiaux 1966), and subsequent studies have supported this possibility (Dunn 1990; Axe et al. 2008). Although controversial, mitochondria and plasma membrane could also supply membranes for the formation of the autophagosomes under different conditions (Hailey et al. 2010; Ravikumar et al. 2010). The elongating isolation membrane surrounds cargo that is ultimately enclosed in the double membrane autophagosome. Once the autophagosome is formed, it fuses with lysosomes (known as the vacuole in yeasts and plants) to form autolysosomes in which the cargo is degraded by lysosomal hydrolases. At this stage lysosomes must reform so that subsequent autophagy may occur (Yu et al. 2010).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Macroautophagy (autophagy) delivers cytoplasmic cargo to lysosomes for degradation, and involves membrane formation and fusion. The isolation membrane is initiated from a membrane source known as the from the phagophore assembly site (PAS). The isolation membrane surrounds cargo, including organelles and proteins, to form a double membrane autophagosome. Autophagosomes fuse with lysosomes to form autolysosomes in which the cargo is degraded by lysosomal hydrolases.     

Poles Apart: Prokaryotic Polar Organelles and Their Spatial Regulation

While polar organelles hold the key to understanding the fundamentals of cell polarity and cell biological principles in general, they have served in the past merely for taxonomical purposes. Here, we highlight recent efforts in unraveling the molecular basis of polar organelle positioning in bacterial cells. Specifically, we detail the role of members of the Ras-like GTPase superfamily and coiled-coil-rich scaffolding proteins in modulating bacterial cell polarity and in recruiting effector proteins to polar sites. Such roles are well established for eukaryotic cells, but not for bacterial cells that are generally considered diffusion-limited. Studies on spatial regulation of protein positioning in bacterial cells, though still in their infancy, will undoubtedly experience a surge of interest, as comprehensive localization screens have yielded an extensive list of (polarly) localized proteins, potentially reflecting subcellular sites of functional specialization predicted for organelles.Since the first electron micrographs that revealed flagella at the cell poles of bacteria, we have known that bacterial cells are polarized and that they are able to decode the underlying positional information to confine the assembly of an extracellular organelle to a polar cellular site (Fig. 1). Foraging into this unknown territory has been challenging, but recent efforts that exploit the power of bacterial genetics along with modern imaging methods to visualize proteins in the minute bacterial cells has yielded several enticing entry points to dissect polarity-based mechanisms and explore potentially contributing subdiffusive characteristics (Golding and Cox 2006).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Transmission electron micrograph (taken by Jeff Skerker) of a Caulobacter crescentus swarmer cell showing the polar pili (empty arrowheads), the polar flagellum with the flagellar filament (filled arrowheads), and the hook (white arrow) (see Fig. 2A).While polar organelles are a visual manifestation of polarity, it is important to point out that polarity can also be inherent to cells, at least in molecular terms, even in the absence of discernible polar structures. In other words, molecular anatomy can reveal that a bacterial cell, such as an Escherichia coli cell, features specialized protein complexes at or near the poles, despite a perfectly symmetrical morphology (Maddock and Shapiro 1993; Lindner et al. 2008). Such systemic polarization in bacteria, likely stemming from the distinctive division history of each pole, has the potential to be widespread and to be exploited for positioning of polar organelles and protein complexes. As excellent reviews have been published detailing the interplay between cell polarity and protein localization (Dworkin 2009; Shapiro et al. 2009; Kaiser et al. 2010; Rudner and Losick 2010), here we focus on recent progress in understanding the function and localization of spatial regulators of polar organelles. Considering that the ever-growing list of polar protein complexes emerging from systematic and comprehensive localization studies (Kitagawa et al. 2005; Russell and Keiler 2008; Werner et al. 2009; Hughes et al. 2010) is suggestive of multiple polarly confined (organelle-like) functions, understanding their spatial regulation is also of critical relevance in the realm of medical bacteriology, as many virulence determinants also underlie polarity (Goldberg et al. 1993; Scott et al. 2001; Judd et al. 2005; Jain et al. 2006; Jaumouille et al. 2008; Carlsson et al. 2009). Below, we highlight a few prominent examples of overtly polar organelles and the proteins known to date that regulate their polar positioning.     

The Role of Functional Prion-Like Proteins in the Persistence of Memory

Prions are a self-templating amyloidogenic state of normal cellular proteins, such as prion protein (PrP). They have been identified as the pathogenic agents, contributing to a number of diseases of the nervous system. However, the discovery that the neuronal RNA-binding protein, cytoplasmic polyadenylation element-binding protein (CPEB), has a prion-like state that is involved in the stabilization of memory raised the possibility that prion-like proteins can serve normal physiological functions in the nervous system. Here, we review recent experimental evidence of prion-like properties of neuronal CPEB in various organisms and propose a model of how the prion-like state may stabilize memory.Prions are proteinaceous infectious agents that were discovered in the 1980s by Stanley Prusiner while studying Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (Prusiner 1982). Prusiner and colleagues showed them to be an amyloidogenic, self-perpetuating, forms of a normal cellular protein, termed prion protein or PrP. Prp in its self-perpetuating state kills cells. Prusiner and colleagues found that PrPs exist in at least two conformations: monomeric and aggregated (Fig. 1). The transition among these forms occurs spontaneously and only the aggregated conformation is pathogenic. Soon, PrPs were found to contribute to other neurodegenerative disorders in people, including kuru, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, as well as bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cows (Prusiner 1994; Aguzzi and Weissmann 1998).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Pathogenic prions exist in two states (soluble and aggregated and self-perpetuating). The conversion from the soluble to the aggregated form is spontaneous and the aggregated, self-perpetuating form is often toxic and kills the cell.There is now a growing consensus that similar prion-like, self-templating mechanisms underlie a variety of neurodegenerative disorders, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease (Polymenidou and Cleveland 2012).Not all prions, however, appear to be disease causing. Fungal prions, for instance, are nontoxic, and some may even be beneficial to the cells that harbor them (Wickner 1994; Shorter and Lindquist 2005; Crow and Li 2011). In 2003, Si and Kandel serendipitously discovered a prion-like protein in multicellular eukaryotes—the nervous system of the marine snail Aplysia—whose aggregated and self-perpetuating form contributes to the maintenance of long-term changes in synaptic efficacy. This functional prion-like protein differs from pathogenic prions in two important ways: (1) The conversion to the prion-like state is regulated by a physiological signal, and (2) the aggregated form has an identified physiological function (Fig. 2). Recent identification of new functional prion-like proteins in various organisms, including human, supports the idea that nonpathogenic prions may perform a wide range of biologically meaningful roles (Coustou et al. 1997; Eaglestone et al. 1999; True and Lindquist 2000; Ishimaru et al. 2003; True et al. 2004; Hou et al. 2011; Jarosz et al. 2014).Open in a separate windowFigure 2.“Functional” prion: memory. “Functional” prions differ from conventional prions in two ways. First, the conversion is triggered by a physiological signal, and second, the aggregated, self-perpetrating forms have a physiological function. 5-HT, Serotonin; DA, dopamine.In this review, we focus on functional prion-like proteins in the brain and specifically on the prion-like properties of the cytoplasmic polyadenylation element-binding protein (CPEB), and examine how the prion-like state can control protein synthesis at the synapse and, thereby, synaptic plasticity and long-lasting memory. We anticipate the studies of CPEB would also provide some generalizable concepts as to how prion-based protein switches in multicellular eukaryotes may work.     

Missing Pieces of an Ancient Puzzle: Evolution of the Eukaryotic Membrane-Trafficking System

The membrane-trafficking system underpins cellular trafficking of material in eukaryotes and its evolution would have been a watershed in eukaryogenesis. Evolutionary cell biological studies have been unraveling the history of proteins responsible for vesicle transport and organelle identity revealing both highly conserved components and lineage-specific innovations. Recently, endomembrane components with a broad, but patchy, distribution have been observed as well, pieces that are missing from our cell biological and evolutionary models of membrane trafficking. These data together allow for new insights into the history and forces that shape the evolution of this critical cell biological system.A major feature of eukaryotic cells is subcompartmentalization. Specific components are concentrated within restricted regions of the cell, necessitating the presence of one or more targeting mechanisms. The eukaryotic membrane-trafficking system facilitates intracellular transport of proteins and lipids between organelles and further acts to build the interface between the cell and external environment. This system touches, at some level, virtually every cellular compartment and component; its proper function is crucial for modern eukaryotes.The establishment of the membrane-trafficking system represented a tremendous milestone in the restructuring that took place during the transition from the prokaryotic to eukaryotic cellular configuration. As it does today, a membrane-trafficking system would have enhanced the ability of even the earliest eukaryotes to remodel their cell surface, export proteins to modify their external environment by exocytosis, as well as acquire nutrients by endocytosis. Subcompartmentalization of the cell and the ability to direct material to specific compartments would have allowed for intracellular specializations, for example, the sequestration of metabolic processes. Membrane trafficking also likely served to integrate fledgling endosymbiotic interactions (Flinner et al. 2013; Wideman et al. 2013), regardless of the precise timing of the mitochondrial endosymbiotic event with respect to the evolution of endogenously derived organelles (Martin and Muller 1998; Cavalier-Smith 2002; Martin and Koonin 2006; Forterre 2011). Finally, trafficking could have also facilitated a size increase for the proto-eukaryotic organisms and enabled their colonization of novel ecological niches; for example, phagocytosis is a critical function that would have been made possible by this change in morphology.In the textbook definition (e.g., Alberts 2002), the membrane-trafficking system consists of the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi body, trans-Golgi network (TGN), various types of endolysosomal organelles (early, recycling, and late endosomes and lysosomes/vacuoles), as well as the plasma membrane (Fig. 1A). However, recent work has uncovered greater integration between these classical membrane-trafficking compartments and other organelles including the nucleus (Dokudovskaya et al. 2009), peroxisomes (Agrawal and Subramani 2013), and even the endosymbiotic organelles, particularly the mitochondria (Braschi et al. 2010; Michel and Kornmann 2012; Sandoval and Simmen 2012). Although the molecular details of the latter are still being unearthed, much insight has been gained into the processes of transport between membrane-trafficking organelles by vesicle formation and the subsequent delivery and fusion of the transport vesicle with a target organelle.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Eukaryotic endomembrane organelles and evolution. (A) A eukaryotic cell depicting the major endomembrane organelles and trafficking pathways (denoted by arrows). Figure created from data in Wideman et al. (2013). (B) Depiction of specificity machinery encoded by multiple components of the vesicle formation and fusion machinery. For diagrammatic simplicity only the Coats, Rabs, and SNAREs are shown. (C) The organelle paralogy hypothesis for the evolution of novel endomembrane organelles by duplication and coevolution of identity-encoding genes.The core molecular machinery for transport between endomembrane organelles consists of proteins and lipids that must, in a combinatorial manner, encode the information required for transport specificity (Cai et al. 2007). The generally accepted model for packaging of material into vesicles at a given organelle involves GTPases of the Arf/Sar family, along with a number of activating and effector proteins (Bonifacino and Glick 2004). Further to this is a requirement for cargo selection, membrane deformation, and scission involving one or more coat protein complexes (COPI, COPII, clathrin/adaptins, ESCRTs, retromer) to generate the transport carriers. Delivery of the carrier initially involves a tethering step involving Rab GTPases, and their modulating GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) and guanine nucleotide exchange factors, as well as multisubunit tethering complexes (MTCs). The final fusion between the transport carrier and target organelle involves additional protein families such as SNAREs and SM proteins (Bonifacino and Glick 2004). Increasingly, the lines between these various sets of machineries have been blurring, with complexes being identified composed of a mixture of proteins initially identified as involved in either vesicle formation or fusion (e.g., Miller et al. 2007; Pryor et al. 2008). To add a level of complexity, many of the aforementioned proteins are, in fact, protein families in which each paralog performs the same mechanistic role, but at defined organelles or transport pathways within the cell (Bonifacino and Glick 2004). With the number of individual components involved in the membrane-trafficking process, the interconnectivity between the machineries and organelles, and with the diversity of eukaryotic organisms possessing membrane-trafficking machinery, understanding the processes of transport specificity and organelle identity benefits from a more holistic view.Evolutionary cell biology, one aspect of which is the application of comparative molecular evolutionary analysis to cell biology (Brodsky et al. 2012), is particularly valuable in addressing such sweeping questions. Using a toolkit comprising comparative genomics, molecular phylogenetics, and, more recently, mathematical modeling, it has been possible to reconstruct the characteristics and complements of the membrane-trafficking machinery in early eukaryotic ancestors. Importantly, it has been possible to validate some of these in silico predictions of function and behavior of protein components through molecular cell biological characterization in model eukaryotes beyond mammals and yeast. This provides increased confidence in predictions of ancient membrane-trafficking systems, rather than being solely reliant on deduced histories of protein families. Furthermore, by considering the evolutionary histories of trafficking components as an integrated set or cohort, it has been possible to begin deriving mechanistic models of how nonendosymbiotic organelles may evolve. Interestingly, as surveys have advanced in scope, some unexpected patterns of conservation have begun to emerge in the machinery of membrane trafficking that have shed light on the evolution of the system, but also raised questions as to the processes that have shaped it.     

Understanding the Structure and Function of the Immunological Synapse

The immunological synapse has been an area of very active scientific interest over the last decade. Surprisingly, much about the synapse remains unknown or is controversial.  Here we review some of these current issues in the field:  how the synapse is defined, its potential role in T-cell function, and our current understanding about how the synapse is formed.T cells are activated when they recognize peptide-MHC complexes on the surface of antigen presenting cells (APC) (Babbitt et al. 1985). But the exact process regarding how antigenic pMHC complexes are recognized and transduced into signals is still incompletely understood. Naïve T cells enter secondary lymphoid organs such as the lymph node and scan dendritic cells for the presence of rare specific pMHC complexes (Miller et al. 2004). After recognizing less than 10 specific pMHC complexes, naïve T cells maintain long contacts (6–18 h) with dendritic cells before being committed to enter cell cycle and differentiate into effector T cells (Iezzi et al. 1998; Irvine et al. 2002; Mempel et al. 2004).The immunological synapse (IS) refers to the organization of membrane proteins that occurs at the interface between the T cell and the APC during these long contacts and also during the effector phase (Grakoui et al. 1999; Monks et al. 1998). Interest in studying the IS stems from ideas that the supramolecular structures that form at the IS underlies the high sensitivity of T cell recognition and that understanding these structures will lead to better insights into how antigen recognition leads to the decision of a T cell to proliferate, differentiate, and function.Springer first put forward the concept that receptors would segregate laterally during cell interactions (Springer 1990). Subsequently, Kupfer was the first to show that proteins in the contact area between a T cell and APC segregate laterally (Monks et al. 1998). Specifically, he noted that the integrin, LFA-1, became concentrated in an outer ring, known as the peripheral supramolecular activation complex (pSMAC) and the TCR became concentrated in the center, in a zone known as the central supramolecular activation complex (cSMAC) (Monks et al. 1998)(Fig. 1). We showed that CD2 could segregate from LFA-1 and concentrate in the center of a hybrid cell-planar bilayer junction and suggested that these patterns and those described by Monks et al. (1998) provided evidence for the previously hypothesized immunological synapse (Dustin et al. 1998; Norcross 1984). The function of this receptor segregation is still not completely understood but it was initially hypothesized that formation of this pattern might be related to T-cell activation and constitute a “molecular machine” that would be formed in response to the presence of antigenic ligand and that this “molecular machine” might function to sustain signaling for long periods of time and direct subsequent T-cell differentiation (Grakoui et al. 1999).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Structure of the immunological synapse. The basic structure of the “organized” immunological synapse with SMACs is shown (left). In the center is the central supramolecular activation complex or cSMAC, which contains receptors like the TCR, CD28, CD4, CD8, and CD2. Newer studies suggest that the cSMAC may be divided into an outer area containing CD28 and an inner area containing the TCR (not shown). The ring that surrounds the cSMAC is called the peripheral supramolecular activation complex or pSMAC. This domain is mainly populated by the integrin molecule LFA-1. Outside of the pSMAC is another domain known as the distal supramolecular activation complex. Originally the dSMAC was thought not be important and contain all of the molecules that are not specifically recruited to the cSMAC or pSMAC but it is increasingly becoming appreciated that the dSMAC is an area of active membrane movement. This suggests that the pSMAC and dSMAC may be analogous to the actin structures known as the lamellae and lamellipodia, respectively (right).     

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).     

Base Excision Repair

Base excision repair (BER) corrects DNA damage from oxidation, deamination and alkylation. Such base lesions cause little distortion to the DNA helix structure. BER is initiated by a DNA glycosylase that recognizes and removes the damaged base, leaving an abasic site that is further processed by short-patch repair or long-patch repair that largely uses different proteins to complete BER. At least 11 distinct mammalian DNA glycosylases are known, each recognizing a few related lesions, frequently with some overlap in specificities. Impressively, the damaged bases are rapidly identified in a vast excess of normal bases, without a supply of energy. BER protects against cancer, aging, and neurodegeneration and takes place both in nuclei and mitochondria. More recently, an important role of uracil-DNA glycosylase UNG2 in adaptive immunity was revealed. Furthermore, other DNA glycosylases may have important roles in epigenetics, thus expanding the repertoire of BER proteins.Base excision repair (BER) corrects small base lesions that do not significantly distort the DNA helix structure. Such damage typically results from deamination, oxidation, or methylation (Fig. 1). Much of the damage is the result of spontaneous decay of DNA (Lindahl 1993), although similar damage may also be caused by environmental chemicals, radiation, or treatment with cytostatic drugs. BER takes place in nuclei, as well as in mitochondria, largely using different isoforms of proteins or genetically distant proteins. The identification of Escherichia coli uracil-DNA glycosylase (Ung) in 1974 by Tomas Lindahl marks the discovery of BER. Lindahl searched for an enzyme activity that would act on genomic uracil resulting from cytosine deamination. Such an activity was found, but rather unexpectedly, it was not a nuclease. Instead, Lindahl identified an enzyme that cleaved the bond between uracil and deoxyribose. The resulting abasic site (AP-site) was suggested to be further processed by an AP-endonuclease, an exonuclease, a DNA polymerase, and a ligase. Thus, the fundamental steps in the BER pathway were outlined already in the very first paper (Lindahl 1974). Enzymes that cleave the bond between deoxyribose and a modified or mismatched DNA base are now called DNA glycosylases. Collectively these enzymes initiate base excision repair of a large number of base lesions, each recognized by one or a few DNA glycosylases with overlapping specificities.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Chemistry of common base lesions and abasic sites.This relatively brief review focuses on recent advances in the mechanism and function of BER with a focus on mammalian proteins. The current view is that BER is important in relation to cancer, neurodegeneration, and aging (Jeppesen et al. 2011; Wallace et al. 2012). Because of limited space, we have referred to reviews for the majority of results published more than 6–7 years ago. Also, for more detailed analyses of different aspects of BER, the reader is referred to excellent reviews on BER proteins and pathways published in Huffman et al. (2005), Beard and Wilson (2006), Berti and McCann (2006), Cortázar et al. (2007), Kavli et al. (2007), Sousa et al. (2007), Tubbs et al. (2007), Berger et al. (2008), Robertson et al. (2009), Friedman and Stivers (2010), Wilson et al. (2010), Svilar et al. (2011), and Jacobs and Schar (2012).     

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.     

Membrane Organization and Dynamics in Cell Polarity

The establishment and maintenance of cell polarity is important to a wide range of biological processes ranging from chemotaxis to embryogenesis. An essential feature of cell polarity is the asymmetric organization of proteins and lipids in the plasma membrane. In this article, we discuss how polarity regulators such as small GTP-binding proteins and phospholipids spatially and kinetically control vesicular trafficking and membrane organization. Conversely, we discuss how membrane trafficking contributes to cell polarization through delivery of polarity determinants and regulators to the plasma membrane.Cell polarity is essential in most if not all eukaryotes for their development and physiological functions at the tissue and organism level. Although there are significant differences in gross morphology and function among various tissues and organisms, at the cellular level, the establishment and maintenance of cell polarity tend to follow common themes.A basic feature of cell polarity is the asymmetric organization of the plasma membrane (see McCaffrey and Macara 2009; Nelson 2009). This is mostly achieved through membrane trafficking along cytoskeleton tracks under the control of signaling molecules. In general, membrane trafficking occurs through sequential budding, transport, and fusion of vesicles from donor membranes to acceptor membranes (for recent reviews, see Bonifacino and Glick 2004; Cai et al. 2007). During budding, protein complexes interact with phospholipids to induce membrane curvature and generate vesicular carriers that capture different cargos from the donor compartments. After vesicles form, they are delivered to their acceptor compartments, most often along the cytoskeletons. Vesicle fusion at the acceptor membrane is mediated by the assembly of SNARE (soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion protein attachment protein receptors) complexes. Before membrane fusion, proteins or protein complexes tether the vesicles to the acceptor membranes and likely promote SNARE assembly. The Arf and Rab family of small GTPases are localized to different membrane compartments and regulate various stages of membrane trafficking.Polarized distribution of proteins at the plasma membrane often results from a balance of vesicle delivery and fusion with the plasma membrane (“exocytosis”), two-dimensional spread through the plasma membrane (“diffusion”), and internalization and membrane recycling (“endocytosis”). There are two main layers of regulation that control polarized protein transport and incorporation to the plasma membrane. The first involves sorting at the trans-Golgi network (TGN) and endosomal compartments, such as the recycling endosomes. Protein sorting involves recognition of sorting signals in the cargo proteins by the adaptor protein (AP) complexes. There are a number of different AP complexes, and each is localized to different membrane compartments and captures distinct sets of cargo proteins before targeting to their correct destination. Protein sorting before delivery to different domains of the plasma membrane has been best characterized in epithelial cells, which have distinctive basolateral and apical domains separated by junctional complexes. This layer of regulation has been discussed in a recent review (Mellman and Nelson 2008) and is further discussed by Nelson (Nelson 2009), so it will not be discussed further here. The second layer of regulation of membrane protein polarization is through the polarized tethering and docking of vesicles at specific domains of the plasma membrane (Fig. 1). Tethering proteins (i.e., the exocyst) target secretory vesicles to specific domains of the plasma membrane and SNARE assembly eventually drives membrane fusion. Proteins at the plasma membrane can be retrieved back into the cell via endocytosis. These proteins are internalized via clathrin-coated pits, and transported through different endosomal compartments either for degradation in the lysosomes or for recycling back to the plasma membrane. The endosomal compartment that mediates the transport of internalized plasma membrane proteins back to the cell surface is called the “recycling endosome.” Recycling endosomes are major sources of cargo destined to the plasma membrane for exocytosis in many types of cells.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Membrane trafficking to the plasma membrane. Schematic of the endocytic and exocytic routes involving trans-Golgi network (TGN), endosomal compartments, and the plasma membrane. During exocytosis, cargo leaves the TGN or recycling endosomes in vesicular carriers to the plasma membrane. Once on the membrane, proteins can be internalized and transported to early endosomes, and then either travel through late endosomes to the lysosome to be degraded or return to the plasma membrane through the recycling endosomes. Early endosomes may serve as sorting stations for the next stages of cargo transport.Signaling molecules such as the Rho family of small GTPases spatially and kinetically regulate membrane trafficking during cell polarization (see McCaffrey and Macara 2009; Slaughter et al. 2009). Reversely, vesicular trafficking is required for the polarized deposition and accrual of these regulators. In the first part of this article, we examine the membrane organization and dynamics of cell polarity, focusing on the polarized tethering and docking of vesicles at the plasma membrane. We highlight key components and regulators of polarized exocytosis including the exocyst, small GTPases, and phospholipids. We also use different organisms and systems to show analogous mechanisms during cell polarization. In the second part of this article, we focus on the aforementioned reciprocal effects of cell polarity and membrane trafficking using two representative examples, one from yeast (Cdc42 polarization) and one in mammalian epithelial cells (E-cadherin trafficking).