Apoptotic and Nonapoptotic Caspase Functions in Animal Development

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

Mechanisms of Action of Bcl-2 Family Proteins

The Bcl-2 family of proteins controls a critical step in commitment to apoptosis by regulating permeabilization of the mitochondrial outer membrane (MOM). The family is divided into three classes: multiregion proapoptotic proteins that directly permeabilize the MOM; BH3 proteins that directly or indirectly activate the pore-forming class members; and the antiapoptotic proteins that inhibit this process at several steps. Different experimental approaches have led to several models, each proposed to explain the interactions between Bcl-2 family proteins. The discovery that many of these interactions occur at or in membranes as well as in the cytoplasm, and are governed by the concentrations and relative binding affinities of the proteins, provides a new basis for rationalizing these models. Furthermore, these dynamic interactions cause conformational changes in the Bcl-2 proteins that modulate their apoptotic function, providing additional potential modes of regulation.Apoptosis was formally described and named in 1972 as a unique morphological response to many different kinds of cell stress that was distinct from necrosis. However, despite the novelty and utility of the concept, little experimental work was performed during the following 20 years because no tools existed to manipulate the process. In the early 1990s, two seminal observations changed the landscape. First, as the complete developmental sequence of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans was painstakingly elucidated at the single-cell level, it was noted that a fixed, predictable number of “intermediate” cells were destined to die, and that this process was positively and negatively regulated by specific genes. Second, a novel gene called B-cell CLL/lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2; encoded by BCL2) that was discovered as a partner in a reciprocal chromosomal translocation in a human tumor turned out to function not as a classic oncogene by driving cell division, but rather by preventing apoptosis. When it was discovered that the mammalian BCL2 could substitute for CED-9, the C. elegans gene that inhibits cell death, the generality of the process was recognized, and the scientific literature exploded with now well over 10⁵ publications on apoptosis. However, it is ironic to note that after a further 20 years of intensive investigation, it is clear that the mechanism of action of Bcl-2 is quite distinct from Ced-9, which sequesters the activator of the caspase protease that is the ultimate effector of apoptosis. In contrast, Bcl-2 works primarily by binding to other related proteins that regulate permeabilization of the mitochondrial outer membrane (MOM).This review examines how apoptosis is regulated by the members of the (now very large) Bcl-2 family, composed of three groups related by structure and function (illustrated in Fig. 1): (1) the BH3 proteins that sense cellular stress and activate (either directly or indirectly); (2) the executioner proteins Bax or Bak that oligomerize in and permeabilize the MOM, thereby releasing components of the intermembrane space that activate the final, effector caspases of apoptosis; and (3) the antiapoptotic members like Bcl-2 that impede the overall process by inhibiting both the BH3 and the executioner proteins. To understand the consequence of the interactions among the three subgroups, several models have been proposed (“direct activation,” “displacement,” “embedded together,” and “unified” models; illustrated in Fig. 2) that are briefly described here before a more detailed discussion of the Bcl-2 families.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Schematic overview of the Bcl-2 family of proteins. The family is divided into two subgroups containing proteins that either inhibit apoptosis or promote apoptosis. The proapoptotic proteins are further subdivided functionally into those that oligomerize and permeabilize the MOM, such as Bax and Bak, or those that promote apoptosis through either activating Bax or Bak or inhibiting the antiapoptotic proteins, such as tBid, Bim, Bad, and Noxa. Proteins are included in the Bcl-2 family based on sequence homology to the founding member, Bcl-2, in one of the four Bcl-2 homology (BH) regions. All the antiapoptotic proteins, as well as Bax, Bak, and Bid, have multiple BH regions, are evolutionarily related, and share a three-dimensional (3D) structural fold. The BH3 proteins contain only the BH3 region, are evolutionarily distant from the multiregion proteins, and are intrinsically unstructured. Most members of the Bcl-2 family proteins contain a membrane-binding region (MBR) on their carboxyl termini in the form of a tail anchor, mitochondrial-targeting sequence, or as a hydrophobic amino acid sequence that facilitates binding and localization of these proteins to the MOM or to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Schematics of the core mechanisms proposed by various models for the regulation of MOMP by Bcl-2 proteins. (↑) Activation; (⊥) inhibition; (⊥↑) mutual recruitment/sequestration. Paired forward and reverse symbols indicate the model makes explicit reference to equilibria. (A) The direct activation model divides the different BH3 proteins by qualitative differences in function. The BH3 proteins with high affinity for binding and activating Bax and Bak are termed as “activators,” whereas those that only bind the antiapoptotic proteins are termed “sensitizers.” The activator BH3 proteins directly interact with and activate Bax and Bak to promote MOMP. The antiapoptotic proteins inhibit MOMP by specifically sequestering the BH3 activators. The BH3 sensitizer proteins can compete for binding with the antiapoptotic proteins, thus releasing the BH3 activator proteins to avidly promote MOMP through activation and oligomerization of Bax and Bak. (B) The displacement model categorizes the BH3 proteins solely based on their affinities of binding for the antiapoptotic proteins (hence, does not recognize them as activators). In this model, Bax and Bak are constitutively active and oligomerize and induce MOMP unless held in check by the antiapoptotic proteins. Therefore, for a cell to undergo apoptosis, the correct combination of BH3 proteins must compete for binding for the different antiapoptotic proteins to liberate Bax and Bak and for MOMP to ensue. (C) The embedded together model introduces an active role for the membrane and combines the major aspects of the previous models. The interactions between members of the Bcl-2 family are governed by equlibria and therefore are contingent on the relative protein concentrations as well as their binding affinities. The latter are determined by posttranslational modifications, fraction of protein bound to the membrane, and cellular physiology. At membranes, the activator BH3 proteins directly activate Bax and Bak, which then oligomerize, inducing MOMP. Both activator and sensitizer BH3 proteins can recruit and sequester antiapoptotic proteins in the membrane. The antiapoptotic proteins inhibit apoptosis by sequestering the BH3 proteins and Bax and Bak in the membrane or by preventing their binding to membranes. At different intracellular membranes, the local concentrations of specific subsets of Bcl-2 family members alter the binding of Bcl-2 proteins to the membrane and the binding equilibria between family members. As a result, Bcl-2 family proteins have distinct but overlapping functions at different cellular locations. (D) The unified model builds on the embedded together model by proposing that the antiapoptotic proteins sequester the activator BH3 proteins (mode 1) and sequester Bax and Bak (mode 2). It differs in that in the unified model, inhibition of apoptosis through mode 1 is less efficient (smaller arrow in panel D) and therefore easier to overcome by sensitizer BH3 proteins. In addition, the unified model extends the role of Bcl-2 family proteins and the regulation of MOMP to mitochondria dynamics (not shown).     

Mechanisms of Protein Sorting in Mitochondria

A protein’s function is intimately linked to its correct subcellular location, yet the machinery required for protein synthesis is predominately cytosolic. How proteins are trafficked through the confines of the cell and integrated into the appropriate cellular compartments has puzzled and intrigued researchers for decades. Indeed, studies exploring this premise revealed elaborate cellular protein translocation and sorting systems, which ensure that all proteins are shuttled to the appropriate cellular destination, where they fulfill their specific functions. This holds true for mitochondria, where sophisticated molecular machines serve to recognize incoming precursor proteins and integrate them into the functional framework of the organelle. We summarize the recent progress in our understanding of mitochondrial protein sorting and the machineries and mechanisms that mediate and regulate this highly dynamic cellular process essential for survival of virtually all eukaryotic cells.Mitochondria are multifunctional double-membrane-bound organelles that arose from a bacterial endosymbiont during the evolution of eukaryotic cells. Known as the powerhouses of the cell, mitochondria harbor the oxidative phosphorylation machinery for ATP synthesis, but also a large number of biosynthetic pathways. Moreover, they are intimately involved in complex cellular processes, like calcium homeostasis and programmed cell death. As a relic of their evolutionary origin, mitochondria contain their own genetic material and machineries to manufacture their own RNAs and proteins. However, the small circular mitochondrial genome encodes only a few proteins (8 and 13 polypeptides in yeast and humans, respectively). All remaining mitochondrial proteins (approximately 99%) are encoded by the nuclear genome and synthesized on cytosolic ribosomes in their precursor forms. To acquire their mature, functional state these precursor proteins need to be efficiently targeted and imported into mitochondria and sorted to the correct submitochondrial compartment: outer membrane, intermembrane space (IMS), inner membrane, and matrix. The inner mitochondrial membrane is further subdivided into the inner boundary membrane, which is closely opposed to the outer membrane, and large tubular invaginations, termed cristae membranes. Within the four mitochondrial compartments, sophisticated translocation, sorting, and assembly machineries serve to establish incoming precursors in a functional state within the context of their new environment. Advances in the last decade, particularly because of the application of proteomic approaches, have significantly extended the number of components and machineries known to be involved in mitochondrial protein import (Sickmann et al. 2003; Prokisch et al. 2004; Reinders et al. 2006; Pagliarini et al. 2008). These and previous discoveries have provided us with the current framework, which suggests the presence of at least six distinct translocation and assembly machineries within mitochondria (Fig. 1). In this article, we will summarize our current understanding of the machineries for mitochondrial protein import and describe the different molecular mechanisms that execute this essential task.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Overview of mitochondrial protein sorting pathways. Cytosolic chaperones deliver precursor proteins to the organelle in a translocation-competent state. Some α-helical proteins are inserted into the outer membrane with the help of Mim1. Virtually all other precursors initially traverse the outer membrane via the TOM complex and are subsequently routed to downstream sorting pathways. Biogenesis of outer membrane β-barrel proteins requires the small TIM chaperones of the IMS and the SAM complex. Cysteine-containing IMS proteins are imported via the MIA pathway. Metabolite carriers of the inner mitochondrial membrane are transferred by the small TIM chaperones to the TIM22 complex, which mediates their membrane integration. Presequence-containing precursors are directly taken over from the TOM complex by the TIM23 machinery that either inserts these proteins into the membrane or translocates them into the matrix in cooperation with the import motor PAM. OM, outer membrane; IMS, intermembrane space; IM, inner membrane, Δψ, membrane potential across the inner mitochondrial membrane.     

Schwann Cells: Development and Role in Nerve Repair

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

Caspase Functions in Cell Death and Disease

Caspases are a family of endoproteases that provide critical links in cell regulatory networks controlling inflammation and cell death. The activation of these enzymes is tightly controlled by their production as inactive zymogens that gain catalytic activity following signaling events promoting their aggregation into dimers or macromolecular complexes. Activation of apoptotic caspases results in inactivation or activation of substrates, and the generation of a cascade of signaling events permitting the controlled demolition of cellular components. Activation of inflammatory caspases results in the production of active proinflammatory cytokines and the promotion of innate immune responses to various internal and external insults. Dysregulation of caspases underlies human diseases including cancer and inflammatory disorders, and major efforts to design better therapies for these diseases seek to understand how these enzymes work and how they can be controlled.Caspases are a family of genes important for maintaining homeostasis through regulating cell death and inflammation. Here we will attempt to summarize what we currently know about how caspases normally work, and what happens when members of this diverse gene family fail to work correctly.Caspases are endoproteases that hydrolyze peptide bonds in a reaction that depends on catalytic cysteine residues in the caspase active site and occurs only after certain aspartic acid residues in the substrate. Although caspase-mediated processing can result in substrate inactivation, it may also generate active signaling molecules that participate in ordered processes such as apoptosis and inflammation. Accordingly, caspases have been broadly classified by their known roles in apoptosis (caspase-3, -6, -7, -8, and -9 in mammals), and in inflammation (caspase-1, -4, -5, -12 in humans and caspase-1, -11, and -12 in mice) (Fig. 1). The functions of caspase-2, -10, and -14 are less easily categorized. Caspases involved in apoptosis have been subclassified by their mechanism of action and are either initiator caspases (caspase-8 and -9) or executioner caspases (caspase-3, -6, and -7).Figure 1.Domain structure of human caspases.Caspases are initially produced as inactive monomeric procaspases that require dimerization and often cleavage for activation. Assembly into dimers is facilitated by various adapter proteins that bind to specific regions in the prodomain of the procaspase. The exact mechanism of assembly depends on the specific adapter involved. Different caspases have different protein–protein interaction domains in their prodomains, allowing them to complex with different adapters. For example, caspase-1, -2, -4, -5, and -9 contain a caspase recruitment domain (CARD), whereas caspase-8 and -10 have a death effector domain (DED) (Taylor et al. 2008).     

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

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

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.     

The Spatiotemporal Organization of ErbB Receptors: Insights from Microscopy

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

Auxin 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).     

The Signaling Mechanisms Underlying Cell Polarity and Chemotaxis

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

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

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