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

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

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

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

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

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

The Structure and Function of the Eukaryotic Ribosome

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

Widely Conserved Signaling Pathways in the Establishment of Cell Polarity

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

Toll-Like Receptor Signaling

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

Clathrin-Independent Pathways of Endocytosis

There are many pathways of endocytosis at the cell surface that apparently operate at the same time. With the advent of new molecular genetic and imaging tools, an understanding of the different ways by which a cell may endocytose cargo is increasing by leaps and bounds. In this review we explore pathways of endocytosis that occur in the absence of clathrin. These are referred to as clathrin-independent endocytosis (CIE). Here we primarily focus on those pathways that function at the small scale in which some have distinct coats (caveolae) and others function in the absence of specific coated intermediates. We follow the trafficking itineraries of the material endocytosed by these pathways and finally discuss the functional roles that these pathways play in cell and tissue physiology. It is likely that these pathways will play key roles in the regulation of plasma membrane area and tension and also control the availability of membrane during cell migration.The identification of many of the components involved in clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME) and their subsequent characterization have provided a window into how this complex process works. For example, understanding how a clathrin basket is assembled, and how adaptor complexes, the mechanochemical GTPase dynamin, and Rab GTPases work have given us insights into endocytic pit formation, cargo concentration, vesicle scission, and subsequent trafficking. These topics are described in detail elsewhere in this volume (see Johannes et al. 2014; Kirchhausen et al. 2014; Merrifield and Kaksonen 2014).Consequently, CME has remained a predominant paradigm for following the uptake of material into the cell. Several endocytic pathways that do not use clathrin and its attendant molecular machinery have begun to be recognized as distinct clathrin-independent endocytic pathways (CIEs) (see Fig. 1). Some of these pathways are constitutive, whereas others are triggered by specific signals or are even hijacked by pathogens. In addition, they differ in their mechanisms and kinetics of endocytic vesicle formation, associated molecular machinery, and cargo destination. Here we discuss characteristics of clathrin-independent (CI) endocytic pathways, the logic and mechanisms of cargo selection, vesicle budding, the itineraries of internalized cargo, and provide a perspective on the regulation of CIE.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The diversity of endocytic pathways available at the cell surface of metazoan cells. The schematic outlines multiple means by which a cargo located at the plasma membrane or in the extracellular milieu enters the endocytic pathway in metazoan cells. Dynamin-dependent pathways (+; circles) are typically associated with small-scale coat-mediated invaginations, such as clathrin or caveolar pathways. The dynamin-independent pathways reflect a larger diversity of forms, ranging from the small-scale processes to the larger scale membrane invaginations. The main effectors of the CIE pathways are indicated below their primary invaginations. All the dynamin-independent mechanisms appear to use actin filament (red bars) polymerization machinery.At first glance CIE facilitates two types of endocytic processes—the large micrometer-scale pathways such as macropinocytosis and phagocytosis, and a spectrum of smaller (<200 nm) scale processes (Fig. 1). The large-scale processes involve internalization of significant patches of membrane, but these pathways may share some of the same molecular machinery as the smaller scale processes, especially those utilizing actin machinery in membrane remodeling, and have been addressed in recent reviews (Flannagan et al. 2012; Bohdanowicz and Grinstein 2013; see also Cossart and Helenius 2014).     

Chromosome Dynamics during Mitosis

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

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

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

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.     

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 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.