|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online December 8, 2005
doi: 10.1242/10.1242/dev.02169
Review |
Developmental Biology Program, Sloan-Kettering Institute, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: k-anderson{at}ski.mskcc.org)
SUMMARY
Although the framework of the Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway is evolutionarily conserved, recent studies indicate that fundamental differences exist between Drosophila and vertebrates in the way signals are transduced from the membrane protein Smoothened (Smo) to the Ci/Gli transcription factors. For example, Smo structure and the roles of fused and Suppressor of fused have diverged. Recently, many vertebrate-specific components have been identified that act between Smo and Gli. These include intraflagellar transport proteins, which link vertebrate Hh signaling to cilia. Because abnormal Hh signaling can cause birth defects and cancer, these vertebrate-specific components may have roles in human health.
Introduction
Genetic studies of the signaling pathways that regulate development have led to the view that a few evolutionarily conserved signaling pathways - the bone morphogenetic protein (Bmp), Wnt, receptor tyrosine kinase, Notch and Hedgehog (Hh) pathways - are used repeatedly in different contexts to control many cell fate decisions in all animals. Although cellular context controls the final output of a signaling pathway, most experiments suggest that the core components of each pathway - ligand, receptor, cytoplasmic signal transduction machinery and transcription factor - have been conserved in evolution. The Hh pathway, first elucidated by genetic studies in Drosophila, has been considered to be such a conserved cassette. However, recent genetic studies have defined a surprisingly large number of proteins required for Hh signaling in vertebrates that have no apparent role in Drosophila Hh signaling.
Loss of activity of the Hh pathway can cause a variety of human birth
defects, including holoprosencephaly, polydactyly, craniofacial defects and
skeletal malformations (McMahon et al.,
2003
). Inappropriate activation of Hh signaling is responsible for
nearly all basal cell carcinomas, some medulloblastomas and rhabdomyosarcomas,
and has been implicated in other tumors
(Pasca di Magliano and Hebrok,
2003). In addition, recent findings about the relationship between
primary cilia and the mouse Hh pathway
(Huangfu et al., 2003) suggest
that Hh signaling may be affected in human syndromes caused by defects in
cilia, including Bardet Biedl syndrome, Kartagener syndrome, polycystic kidney
disease and retinal degeneration (Pan et
al., 2005).
Because of these roles of Hh signaling in human biology, it is important to understand both the similarities and differences in the Hh signal transduction pathways in Drosophila, the zebrafish and the mouse. Here, we focus on the comparison of the Drosophila and vertebrate cytoplasmic signal transduction pathways from Smo to the Ci/Gli transcription factors, the step affected by most of the newly identified, vertebrate-specific components. We describe the evolutionarily conserved core of the cytoplasmic signal transduction pathway, the cases in which the core components of the pathway have changed structure or function in evolution, and explore the functions of the vertebrate-specific components of the pathway. We point out those cases where the observed differences between the fly and vertebrate pathways reflect genuine changes in mechanism and those that may reflect an incomplete understanding of both the fly and vertebrate pathways.
The conserved scaffold of the Hh signaling pathway
The Hh family of secreted proteins regulates many developmental processes
in both vertebrates and invertebrates
(McMahon et al., 2003). The
hh gene was first identified in Drosophila because of its
role in embryonic segment polarity
(Nüsslein-Volhard and Wieschaus,
1980) and was later shown to act in other aspects of
Drosophila development, such as patterning of the imaginal discs
(Basler and Struhl, 1994;
Mohler, 1988;
Tabata et al., 1992). Soon
after the molecular identification of the Drosophila hh gene, which
showed that it encodes an unusual secreted protein
(Lee et al., 1992;
Mohler and Vani, 1992;
Tabata et al., 1992;
Tashiro et al., 1993),
vertebrate homologs of Hh were identified in chick and mouse, and were
implicated in patterning of the limb and the neural tube
(Echelard et al., 1993;
Riddle et al., 1993;
Roelink et al., 1994).
Hh signaling has been studied in greatest depth in Drosophila,
where forward genetic screens have identified the components of the Hh
signaling pathway and revealed its unconventional nature
(Hooper and Scott, 2005).
Drosophila has a single Hh ligand, which binds to its receptor, the
multiple membrane-spanning protein Patched (Ptc). Unlike most receptors, Ptc
activity turns off the downstream signaling pathway in the absence of ligand,
and binding of Hh relieves that repression. Smoothened (Smo), another
transmembrane protein, acts downstream of Ptc and is an essential positive
mediator of the Hh signal. Active Smo regulates the bifunctional transcription
factor Cubitus interruptus (Ci). Full-length Ci protein can be modified in
response to Hh to become a transcriptional activator. In the absence of Hh
ligand, Ci is proteolytically processed into a shorter form (CiR)
that acts as a transcriptional repressor of target genes. Both the proteolytic
processing and the nuclear translocation of Ci are tightly regulated processes
that involve a protein complex containing the atypical kinesin protein Costal
2 (Cos2; Cos - FlyBase), the serine threonine kinase Fused (Fu) and the novel
protein Suppressor of fused [Sufu; Su(fu) - FlyBase].
The genetics of vertebrate homologs of Drosophila Hh pathway genes
has been studied by gene targeting in the mouse and by forward genetic screens
and morpholino knockdown in the zebrafish. These studies show that the
scaffold of the Hh pathway is largely conserved in vertebrates: Hh negatively
regulates Ptc, which negatively regulates Smo; Smo controls both activation of
Gli transcription factors and proteolytic processing events that generate the
Gli repressor (Fig. 1). The
obvious difference between the Drosophila and fish/mouse pathways is
that genes encoding specific pathway components have been duplicated in
vertebrates. In the mouse, there are three Hh homologs, sonic hedgehog
(Shh), Indian hedgehog (Ihh) and desert hedgehog
(Dhh); Shh and Ihh play important roles in
embryonic development, and Dhh regulates spermatogenesis
(Bitgood et al., 1996;
Chiang et al., 1996;
St-Jacques et al., 1999;
Zhang et al., 2001). There
are five Hh homologs in zebrafish
(http://zfin.org),
and three of them [sonic hedgehog (shh), echidna
hedgehog (ehh) and tiggywinkle hedgehog
(twhh)] play important roles in embryonic patterning
(Currie and Ingham, 1996;
Ekker et al., 1995). Both mice
and zebrafish have two Ptc homologs: Ptch1 appears to be the
major receptor during embryonic development
(Goodrich et al., 1997;
Wolff et al., 2003), and
zebrafish ptc2 mutants have a relatively mild phenotype
(Koudijs et al., 2005).
Downstream of Ptch1, a single Smo protein mediates all vertebrate signaling
(Zhang et al., 2001) by
regulating the three homologs of Ci, Gli1, Gli2 and Gli3
(Bai et al., 2004;
Motoyama et al., 2003). Gli1
and Gli2 act primarily as activators, while Gli3 acts both as an activator and
repressor, like Ci.
|
Hh signals have different effects in different contexts. Hh can act as an
on/off switch that regulates the fate of immediately adjacent cells, as in the
ventral ectoderm of the Drosophila embryo
(Ingham and Hidalgo, 1993).
Alternatively, Hh can act as a short-range morphogen (over 10-15 cell
diameters, 
20 µm) that controls three alternative fates as a function
of its concentration, as in the Drosophila wing imaginal disc
(Strigini and Cohen, 1997).
Hh can also act as a long-range morphogen that controls several cell fates, as
in the vertebrate neural tube, a field that spans many cell diameters over
200 µm. Components of the signaling pathway can be used differently in
these distinct contexts. For example, Drosophila Fused is required
for Hh signaling in some cell types but not in others; it is required in the
wing disc, where Hh acts as a morphogen, but not in dorsal embryonic ectoderm,
where Hh acts as a switch (Therond et
al., 1999).
|
;
Méthot and Basler,
2000). In the absence of Hh, CiR, which is generated by
proteolytic processing of full-length Ci, represses Hh target genes. Low
levels of Hh block this processing of Ci, which causes derepression of some
target genes, but activator Ci (CiAct) is not made. At higher Hh
concentrations, Ci is fully converted to the activator form and, with the help
of Fused, moves to cell nuclei
(Méthot and Basler,
2000). Accordingly, a gradient of Hh can specify at least three
distinct fates.
Vertebrate Hh signaling has been studied in greatest depth in the mouse
neural tube, where different concentrations of Shh appear to specify a series
of cell fates (Jacob and Briscoe,
2003). The source of Shh is at the ventral pole of the neural
tube, first in the notochord and then in the floor plate. Mutants that lack
all Hh signaling fail to specify correctly six distinct cell types in the
ventral half of the neural tube (Wijgerde
et al., 2002) (Fig.
2). As in the fly wing disc, Gli3 repressor is essential for the
fates of cells that experience low concentrations of Shh (lateral neural cell
types) (Persson et al., 2002)
and Gli2 activator is essential for the ventral neural cells that respond to
highest levels of Shh, the floor plate
(Ding et al., 1998;
Matise et al., 1998)
(Fig. 2). The intervening
neural cell types can be specified by different levels of Gli activator
(Stamataki et al., 2005),
which suggests that different levels of Shh are directly translated into
different ratios of Gli activator/Gli repressor, which control cell fate.
However, the specification of multiple neural cell types in response to
different amounts of Shh over a large field could place constraints on this
signaling pathway that would require new components or strategies.
Smo: the nodal point of the pathway
The single Smo gene in Drosophila, mouse and zebrafish is
responsible for all responses to Hh ligands
(Alcedo et al., 1996;
van den Heuvel and Ingham,
1996; Varga et al.,
2001; Zhang et al.,
2001). Because different ligand concentrations can cause different
cellular responses, Smo must be able to relay different levels of activity.
Thus, both its regulation and function are complex.
Smo is an integral membrane protein with a seven-transmembrane (TM) domain
structure like that of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs)
(Alcedo et al., 1996;
van den Heuvel and Ingham,
1996). However, only limited evidence indicates that Smo directly
couples with G proteins (DeCamp et al.,
2000; Kasai et al.,
2004) and it is unclear whether there is a ligand that regulates
Smo activity. Sequence comparisons among vertebrate and invertebrate Smo
proteins show that the TM region of Smo is relatively conserved across
species, while significant divergence exists in the cytoplasmic C-terminal
tails (Fig. 3). This divergence
is the first clue that Smo may act differently in vertebrates and
invertebrates.
|
The seven-TM domain structure of Smo strongly resembles that of the
Frizzled (Fz) family of proteins, the receptors of the Wnt signaling pathway,
which shares several features with the Hh pathway
(Nusse, 2003). Both Smo and Fz
have an N-terminal extracellular cysteine-rich domain (CRD), which, in Fz, is
required for binding to Wnt family ligands
(Bhanot et al., 1996). Its
function in Smo is unknown. Smo does not bind to Wnt family ligands, nor does
it bind to the Hh ligand directly. Instead, Hh regulates Smo indirectly
through the Hh receptor Ptc, which apparently does not directly interact with
Smo (see below). Mutations in the Drosophila CRD disrupt Smo activity
in vivo (Alcedo et al., 2000;
Nakano et al., 2004), while
deletion of the CRD in mammalian cells does not affect the activity of
overexpressed Smo (Murone et al.,
1999; Taipale et al.,
2002). These differences could be due to divergence of the
pathway, but more likely reflect activation by endogenous signals versus
overexpression. Nevertheless, while the CRDs in fish and mouse Smo are 70%
identical and 82% similar, the CRD in fly Smo is more divergent (43%
identical, 56% similar between fly and mouse), which could mean that the
vertebrate and Drosophila CRDs have distinct functions
(Fig. 3).
The heptahelical TM region of Smo is relatively conserved (45% identity)
across species. In the fly wing disc, expression of a Fz/Smo chimeric protein,
in which the cytoplasmic domain of Fz was replaced with that of Smo, could
mediate both low and high Hh responses in response to Wg, instead of Hh
(Hooper, 2003). This indicates
that the binding of Wg changes the conformation, or multimerization, of the
receptor sufficiently to regulate the activity of Smo, and that similar
changes occur during the normal activation of both Fz and Smo.
The Fz/Smo chimera experiments indicated that the cytoplasmic domain of
Drosophila Smo is sufficient to mediate all responses to Hh, when
properly regulated. Additional experiments in the fly have confirmed that the
cytoplasmic C-terminal domain (CTD) is essential for Smo activity: expression
of a membrane-tethered version of the Smo C-terminal tail alone can partially
activate Hh signaling (Jia et al.,
2003; Nakano et al.,
2004).
Despite its important function, the CTD is the most divergent region of the protein: only the 180 amino acid juxtamembrane region is highly related in vertebrate and invertebrate Smo (Fig. 3). The 400 amino acids of the Drosophila protein that lie more C-terminally have only short patches of homology with either the zebrafish or the mouse Smo, whereas the entire CTD is relatively conserved (31% identity) between zebrafish and mouse Smo.
Is Smo activated by different mechanisms in flies and vertebrates?
In the absence of the Hh ligand, Ptc inhibits Smo activity. Upon binding of
the ligand, Ptc relieves its inhibition of Smo and allows Smo to activate
downstream components. This relationship is evolutionarily conserved; in both
vertebrates and invertebrates, biochemical data show that mammalian Ptch1
binds to the Shh ligand (Marigo et al.,
1996; Stone et al.,
1996) and genetic analyses show Smo acts downstream of Ptc
(Alcedo et al., 1996;
Chen and Struhl, 1996;
Zhang et al., 2001). It is,
however, not clear how Ptc regulates Smo in any organism. There is little
evidence that the endogenous Ptc and Smo proteins interact directly. In fact,
activation of the Hh pathway induces opposite changes in the subcellular
localization of Ptc and Smo (Denef et al.,
2000; Incardona et al.,
2002), and Ptc inhibits Smo activity in a catalytic manner,
whereby one molecule of Ptc can regulate 50 Smo molecules
(Taipale et al., 2002),
contrary to the prediction of a stoichiometric interaction model.
If Ptc does not regulate Smo activity through direct interactions, there
must be intermediate components that relay signals from Ptc to Smo. Some clues
suggest that the intermediate component could be a small molecule. The Ptc
protein has similar structure to the RND (resistance, nodulation, division)
family of bacterial proton gradient driven transmembrane molecular
transporters (Hooper and Scott,
1989; Nakano et al.,
1989) and to the Niemann-Pick C1 (Npc1) protein, a regulator of
cholesterol trafficking (Scott and
Ioannou, 2004). Ptc, like Npc1, also has a sterol-sensing domain
(Carstea et al., 1997), which
suggests that sterols might regulate Ptc activity. These structural features
suggest that Ptc may transport hydrophobic molecules that, in turn, regulate
Smo activity. The finding that several exogenous small molecules that bind Smo
act as either agonists and antagonists of Smo activity
(Chen et al., 2002) is
consistent with the possibility that an endogenous small molecule regulates
Smo.
However, similar effects of these small molecules have not been seen in
Drosophila. Cyclopamine, for example, inhibits Hh signaling in both
zebrafish and mammals through direct interactions with the heptahelical region
of Smo, but it has no effect in Drosophila, nor does it bind to the
Drosophila Smo protein (Chen et
al., 2002; Chen et al.,
2001; Taipale et al.,
2000). Although it is possible that subtle changes in the
conformation of the Drosophila Smo protein render it inaccessible to
cyclopamine, it is also possible that the difference in activity of small
molecules represents the divergence in the regulation of Smo by upstream
components of the pathway.
Correlation of activation and localization of Smo
Cell-surface accumulation of Smo protein correlates with the activation of
the Hh pathway in Drosophila in vivo
(Denef et al., 2000;
Nakano et al., 2004;
Zhu et al., 2003). In
addition, overexpressed membrane-tethered forms of Smo are more potent
activators of the pathway in the wing disc than is wild-type Smo, while Smo
mutant forms that are trapped in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) have weaker
activities. These results suggest that Hh signaling may regulate the activity
of Drosophila Smo through regulation of its subcellular
localization.
By contrast, transfected Smo in mammalian cultured cells is internalized
after activation of the pathway, instead of accumulating at the cell surface
(Incardona et al., 2002).
Similarly, the internalization of Smo has been observed when the pathway is
activated using a Hh agonist, and can be reversed by treatment with the Hh
antagonist cyclopamine (Chen et al.,
2004). These findings suggested that Smo localization might be
regulated differently in flies and mammals. However, recent findings on the
role of cilia in the Hh pathway suggest that vertebrate Smo, like the
Drosophila protein, is recruited to specialized membranes in response
to ligand (see below).
Smo C-terminal tail phosphorylation plays different roles in Drosophila and vertebrates
The Drosophila Smo protein has a large C-terminal tail that
contains a set of sites for phosphorylation by protein kinase A (PKA) and
casein kinase I (CKI) (Fig. 3).
Smo phosphorylation is coupled with Hh activation in Drosophila
(Denef et al., 2000;
Zhang et al., 2004). Using
phosphorylation-mimicking or unphosphorylatable forms of Smo, it was found
that Smo phosphorylation is required for both its cell-surface accumulation
and its activity in cell culture and in vivo
(Jia et al., 2004;
Zhang et al., 2004;
Apionishev et al., 2005). In
vitro kinase assays show that both PKA and CKI kinases can phosphorylate Smo
directly, and modulation of PKA or CKI activities in vivo changes Hh-induced
Smo cell-surface accumulation (Jia et al.,
2004).
Most of the phosphorylated residues identified in the fly Smo C-terminal
tail are not conserved in vertebrates, which argues that vertebrate Smo
proteins are regulated differently. Mammalian cell culture experiments show
that the mammalian Smo protein is also phosphorylated, and that the
phosphorylation depends on a different kinase, the G-protein-coupled receptor
kinase 2 (Grk2) (Chen et al.,
2004). Phosphorylation by Grk2 causes internalization of Smo, a
process that involves ß-arrestin 2 (Arrb2).
In the zebrafish, arrb2 morpholino knockdown experiments indicate
that arrb2 acts as a positive regulator of the Hh pathway
(Wilbanks et al., 2004),
which suggests that Smo phosphorylation and internalization promotes its
activity. This contrasts with the case in Drosophila, where Smo
phosphorylation also activates Smo but leads to cell surface accumulation.
Mouse mutants that lack Arrb2 are viable, but mutants that lack both
Arrb1 and Arrb2 are embryonic lethal
(Kohout et al., 2001),
although the double-mutant embryos have not been examined for defects in Hh
signaling. Mouse mutants that lack Grk2 die between embryonic day (E)
9.0 and E15.5 with heart abnormalities
(Jaber et al., 1996), but
similarly have not been examined for Hh mutant phenotypes.
Downstream of Smo: cytoplasmic Hh signal transducers
Analysis of the protein complexes that associate with Drosophila Smo has led to an understanding of the signal transduction mechanism and has provided information about how different concentrations of Hh ligand can mediate different responses. However, recent studies show that some of these downstream events may not be conserved in vertebrates.
Cos2 bridges Smo and Ci in Drosophila
Cos2 is a kinesin-related protein that regulates the production of both
CiR and CiAct
(Sisson et al., 1997;
Wang, G. et al., 2000;
Wang and Holmgren, 2000).
Overexpression of the CTD of Smo activates low levels of Hh signaling in the
wing disc. This phenotype is suppressed by expression of an additional copy of
wild-type Cos2, which suggests that the CTD of Smo antagonizes Cos2 activity
(Hooper, 2003).
This idea was supported by evidence showing that direct physical
interactions occur between Drosophila Smo and Cos2
(Jia et al., 2003;
Lum et al., 2003b;
Ogden et al., 2003;
Ruel et al., 2003). In the
absence of Hh signaling, Cos2 forms a complex with Fu, Sufu and the Ci
transcription factor that both promotes cleavage of the full-length Ci to
CiR and keeps full-length Ci out of the nucleus. In response to low
levels of Hh, the Smo-Cos2 complex is recruited to the membrane, and this
relieves the inhibitory effect of Cos2 on Ci, which may lead to dissociation
of Ci from the Smo-Cos2 complex (Ruel et
al., 2003). However, Ci is not fully activated and cannot enter
the nucleus, because Ci is tethered by Sufu in a complex that also includes
Cos2. At high levels of Hh signaling, this final restriction is removed, and
CiAct can move into the nucleus to activate the pathway to a high
level.
The identification of homologs of Cos2 was challenging because of
the large number of kinesin-related genes in vertebrate genomes. Two mammalian
Cos2-like proteins, Kif7 and Kif27, both share considerable sequence homology
with Drosophila Cos2 (22-23% identical, 37-38% similar)
(Katoh and Katoh, 2004).
Morpholino knockdown experiments have indicated that a zebrafish homolog of
mammalian Kif7 acts like Cos2 as a negative regulator of the Hh pathway
(Tay et al., 2005). The major
Cos2 interaction domain of Smo is in the long C-terminal tail present in the
fly protein that is not conserved in zebrafish
(Jia et al., 2003). A more
membrane-proximal segment that interacts with Cos2 has limited sequence
conservation in the vertebrate Smo protein
(Lum et al., 2003b), although
it has not been tested whether this domain can bind Kif7. The roles of Kif7
and Kif27 in the mammalian Hh pathway have not yet been tested.
The role of Fused
In Drosophila, the response to high levels of Hh specifically
requires the serine/threonine kinase Fused
(Preat et al., 1990).
Recently, a zebrafish homolog of fused (stk36) was
identified, and morpholino knockdown experiments indicate that zebrafish
fused is required for responses to high levels of Hh
(Wolff et al., 2003).
Morpholino knockdown of both fused and Sufu restored the
specification of muscle cell types that depend on high levels of Hh signaling,
which suggests that zebrafish Fused antagonizes Sufu, similar to the role of
Fused in the fly pathway (Wolff et al.,
2003). However fish Fused also appears to play a role in the
response to submaximal, as well as high, Hh signaling, unlike the
Drosophila protein (Wolff et
al., 2003).
The mouse Fused homolog (Stk36) is broadly expressed in the developing
embryo, including in Hh-responsive tissues
(Chen et al., 2005). However
mice that lack all activity of this protein survive beyond birth and have no
apparent defects in hedgehog signaling
(Chen et al., 2005;
Merchant et al., 2005). This
striking discrepancy between the mouse and the zebrafish/fly functions of this
protein could be explained if another distantly related kinase overlaps in
function with mouse Fused homolog. Alternatively, the function of Fused may
have diverged between fish and mice.
Sufu: a major repressor of the vertebrate pathway
Drosophila Sufu was identified through its ability to suppress the
phenotype of fused. Sufu helps to tether full-length Ci in the
cytoplasm, and therefore helps keep the pathway switched off in the absence of
ligand (Méthot and Basler,
2000). Sufu also appears to play a role in the inhibition of
CiAct in the nucleus (Kogerman
et al., 1999; Pearse et al.,
1999; Wang et al.,
1999). Sufu-null mutant flies are viable and fertile, and
show a phenotype only when fused, or another pathway component, is
also mutated (Preat, 1992).
Thus, Drosophila Sufu has a minor role in negative regulation of the
Drosophila Hh pathway.
The zebrafish dreumes gene was recently shown to encode Sufu.
Although the dreumes mutant does not show any obvious Hh-related
phenotypes (Koudijs et al.,
2005), morpholino knockdown of sufu in zebrafish causes a
gain of Hh signaling phenotype in muscle patterning
(Wolff et al., 2003). The
stronger effect of the morpholino knockdown is probably due to a maternal Sufu
contribution that is not inactivated in homozygous dreumes mutants
(Koudijs et al., 2005). The
sufu morpholinos produced an effect on muscle patterning even when
wild-type fused was present, which suggests that Sufu has a
different, and more crucial, role in negative regulation of the vertebrate
pathway than in Drosophila.
A targeted allele of mouse Sufu has a more dramatic effect on Hh signaling.
Null embryos die at midgestation and show a strong Hh gain-of-function
ventralization of cell types in the neural tube
(Cooper et al., 2005). Like
patched 1 (Ptch1) null mutants, all cells in the neural plate of
Sufu embryos express markers of the most ventral neural cell type,
the floor plate, and express Ptch1
1, a direct Hh target gene. It is possible that the stronger phenotype of the mouse Sufu null than the zebrafish morphant is due to residual Sufu function in the fish that is resistant to morpholino knockdown.
Both the zebrafish and mouse results demonstrate that vertebrate Sufu plays
a crucial role in negative regulation of the pathway, in contrast to its
subtle role in Drosophila. In keeping with these findings, humans
that are heterozygous for SUFU mutations have a predisposition to
medulloblastoma, as seen with mutations in PTCH1
(Pasca di Magliano and Hebrok,
2003; Taylor et al.,
2002). It remains to be determined which aspect of Sufu function
is crucial in vertebrates - regulation of Gli nuclear localization, regulation
of Gli-activator activity or some other role in the pathway.
PKA is a conserved negative modulator of the pathway
In Drosophila, PKA is required for the proteolytic cleavage of Ci
to generate CiR (Chen et al.,
1999; Chen et al.,
1998; Price and Kalderon,
1999; Wang et al.,
1999). The phosphorylation of specific Ci residues by PKA primes
the phosphorylation of additional sites by CK1 and GSK3ß that are also
necessary for processing (Price and
Kalderon, 1999); fully phosphorylated Ci can be recognized by
Slimb, a component of the SCF ubiquitin ligase that allows
proteasome-dependent processing of Ci. In both PKA and Slimb
mutant clones, full-length Ci accumulates owing to lack of proteolytic
cleavage; however, Ci becomes a transcriptional activator only in
PKA, but not in Slimb, mutant clones because PKA is also
required to prevent activation of the full-length Ci protein
(Wang et al., 1999). In
support of this idea, loss of PKA phosphorylation sites not only blocks the
proteolytic cleavage of Ci, but also makes it constitutively active
(Chen et al., 1999;
Price and Kalderon,
1999).
In addition to its repressor function, PKA has also been proposed to act as
an activator of the Drosophila Hh pathway. Unphosphorylatable forms
of Ci can be further activated by PKA overexpression
(Chen et al., 1998), which
suggests PKA may phosphorylate other factors that regulate Ci activity. As
described above, PKA directly phosphorylates Smo, and overexpression of the
unphosphorylatable form of Smo does not rescue the Smo mutant
phenotype, which suggests that the activator role of PKA is due to its ability
to phosphorylate Smo.
No genetic analysis has been carried out in vertebrates to assess the in
vivo functions of Btrc (ß-TrCP; ß-transducin repeat-containing
protein, the Slimb homolog), CK1 and GSK3ß, in part because of the
existence of more than one homologous gene. However, PKA has been shown to
function as a repressor, but not as an activator, of the zebrafish and mouse
Hh pathways. Dominant-negative and constitutively active forms of PKA
expressed in zebrafish embryos indicate that PKA is a cell-autonomous negative
regulator of Hh signaling in the fish
(Concordet et al., 1996;
Hammerschmidt et al., 1996).
Two mouse genes encode the PKA catalytic subunits C
and Cß
(Prkaca and Prkacb). Although both C and Cß
single mutants develop normally, C homozygous mutants that have only a
single copy of wild-type Cß, or Cß homozygous mutants with only a
single copy of wild type C, survive to E12.5, and show dorsal expansion
of ventral markers in the neural tube, consistent with a role for PKA as a
negative regulator of Hh signaling (Huang
et al., 2002). As the PKA phosphorylation sites are not conserved
in vertebrate Smo proteins (Fig.
3), it is unlikely that PKA activates the vertebrate pathway by
phosphorylating Smo.
Smo and downstream proteins may require localization to cilia for activity
Intraflagellar transport (IFT) is a process that is required for the
assembly and maintenance of all cilia and flagella in plants, protists and
animals (Rosenbaum and Witman,
2002). Seventeen IFT proteins have been identified that comprise
two large complexes (A and B) that transport cargo along the axonemal
microtubules of the cilia. We and others have found that several components of
the mouse IFT machinery, including three IFT complex B proteins
(Ift172/Wimple, Polaris/Ift88/Ttc10, Ngd5/Ift52), an IFT anterograde motor
subunit (Kif3a) and an IFT retrograde motor subunit (Dnchc2) are all required
for Hh signaling at a step between Smo and the Gli transcription factors
(Huangfu and Anderson, 2005;
Huangfu et al., 2003;
Liu et al., 2005). The neural
tubes of these IFT mutants lack most ventral neural cell types, but lateral
and dorsal neural cell types are specified normally, a phenotype similar to
that of mutants that lack both Gli2 and Gli3
(Bai et al., 2004;
Lei et al., 2004;
Motoyama et al., 2003)
(Fig. 2). Ift172
mutants also do not form a lung (D.H. and K.V.A., unpublished), like Gli2
Gli3 double mutants (Motoyama et al.,
1998) and unlike Shh mutants
(Litingtung et al., 1998),
which suggests that IFT is required for both Shh and Ihh signaling. Mouse IFT
proteins are required for all modulation of both Gli activator and Gli
repressor in response to Hh ligands
(Huangfu and Anderson, 2005;
Liu et al., 2005); as a
result, IFT mutants display a loss of Hh signaling phenotype in the neural
tube, where Gli activators play the major role in pattern formation, and a
gain of Hh signaling phenotype in the limb, where Gli3 repressor plays the
major role.
Although Drosophila has IFT proteins, fly mutants that lack the
homologs of Ift88, Ift172 and Kif3a are viable and do not
have the patterning defects expected in Hh pathway mutants
(Avidor-Reiss et al., 2004;
Han et al., 2003;
Ray et al., 1999). Instead,
these mutants have defects in sensory behavior; this correlates well with the
requirement for these proteins to make cilia in ciliated sensory neurons.
The function of the IFT components in mammals has some parallels with that
of Drosophila Cos2. Both have dual positive and negative functions in
the pathway, as both are required for Ci/Gli3 processing and both are required
for Ci/Gli activator functions. Cos2 is a kinesin-like protein and IFTs are
microtubule associated, although the Kif3a kinesin-subunit of the anterograde
IFT motor is not the ortholog of Cos2
(Katoh and Katoh, 2004).
Because of the similar functions of Cos2 and IFT proteins, one possibility is
that IFT proteins substitute for the function of Cos2 in mammals and provide
the missing link between Smo and the Gli proteins.
Alternatively, several lines of evidence suggest that IFT components have a
different function from Cos2 and are required because of the role of cilia in
the Hh pathway. Both the IFT anterograde and retrograde motors are required
for both Gli activator functions and formation of Gli3 repressor
(Huangfu and Anderson, 2005),
which is consistent with a requirement for normally structured cilia in
transduction of the signal from Smo to Gli proteins rather than vectorial
transport of pathway components. In addition, the presence of cilia is
correlated with Hh responsiveness. Non-motile primary cilia are present on
most vertebrate cells, including every Hh-responsive cell type that has been
examined (Pazour and Witman,
2003). Cultured cells become Hh responsive only when they are
confluent (Bailey et al.,
2002), and also have cilia only when they are confluent
(Quarmby and Parker,
2005).
Recent data have shown that mouse Smo becomes localized to cilia in
response to Hh signaling (Corbit et al.,
2005). Smo is approximately threefold enriched in the cilia
relative to other parts of the cell in the mouse node, where Hh signaling is
active. When Smo was expressed in MDCK cells, it was not localized to cilia
unless the pathway was activated by treatment with Shh. Expression of an
activated allele of Smo in these cells led to its constitutive localization to
cilia, even in the absence of Hh. This signal-dependent localization is
reminiscent of the situation in Drosophila, where Smo activity
correlates with its cell-surface localization, although Hh-responsive cells in
Drosophila do not have cilia. The localization of Smo to cilia
depends on a short motif immediately C-terminal to the last TM domain that is
present in other 7-TM receptors that localize to cilia. This motif is required
for localization of mouse Smo to cilia, and appears to be required for Smo
activity (Corbit et al.,
2005). The same motif is present in Drosophila Smo; if
that motif is required for membrane localization of fly Smo, it will be
interesting to explore how Drosophila has retained this targeting
mechanism even in the absence of cilia.
As IFT proteins are required for both Gli3 processing and Gli activation
(Huangfu and Anderson, 2005;
Liu et al., 2005), both
positively and negatively acting components of the pathway may be localized to
cilia. It will be of particular interest to learn whether mammalian Gli, Sufu
and Fu are also localized to cilia. If these proteins are enriched in cilia,
it would suggest that cilia act as signaling centers where pathway components
can be concentrated and their interactions enhanced. It will also be of
interest to determine whether IFT-mediated transport is required for pathway
components to interact correctly.
There are currently no data indicating that IFT proteins are required for
Hh signaling in zebrafish, but several pieces of data are missing in the IFT
puzzle. At this point, there are two possibilities: IFT proteins may have been
substituted for Cos2 in the pathway at some point after the divergence of fish
and mammals; or fish and mammals may use both Cos2 and IFT proteins in
parallel processes downstream of Smo. The morpholino data indicate that Cos2
is an important negative regulator in zebrafish, while there are no data about
Cos2 function in mammals. Nor is it known whether IFT proteins are required
for Hh signaling in the zebrafish. There are zebrafish mutations in several
IFT components, but these mutants or morpholino knockdown experiments have not
shown Hh-related phenotypes (Sun et al.,
2004; Tsujikawa and Malicki,
2004). However, zygotic null mutants of IFT components still have
cilia, because of maternally contributed components
(Sun et al., 2004), so it is
possible that IFT proteins play a role in zebrafish Hh signaling. Although
data to resolve these issues should become available soon, the similarity of
the fish and mammalian Smo proteins (and their differences from
Drosophila Smo) suggests to us that vertebrates will use both Cos2
and IFT proteins in Hh signal transduction.
Additional cytoplasmic components of the vertebrate pathway
Genetic screens and targeted mutations have identified several other genes that appear to act downstream of Smo and upstream of Gli proteins in the vertebrate Hh pathway, based on loss-of-function phenotypes that resemble those of other Hh pathway mutants and on genetic and physical interactions with known pathway components. These mutants have diverse phenotypes (Fig. 2) and may have distinct effects on Gli proteins (Fig. 4), suggesting that there are additional fundamental differences between the mechanisms that transduce Hh signals in Drosophila and vertebrates.
A new component of the zebrafish pathway, iguana (igu;
dzip1 - Zebrafish Information Network), has both positive and
negative effects on the pathway (Sekimizu
et al., 2004; Wolff et al.,
2004). Igu acts downstream of PKA, interacts genetically with Sufu
and appears to control the nuclear localization of Gli proteins. igu
has homologs of unknown function in both Drosophila and mammals.
Human DZIP1, the homolog of igu, was initially identified in
a yeast two-hybrid screen as a protein that interacts with DAZ, a protein
involved in spermatogenesis (Moore et al.,
2003); however, the functions of DZIP1 in spermatogenesis
and Hh signaling have not been determined.
|
Rab23 (previously opb) mutants show a gain of Hh
signaling phenotype in the caudal spinal cord and other cell types
(Eggenschwiler and Anderson,
2000; Eggenschwiler et al.,
2001). Rab23 belongs to the Rab family of GTPases that regulate
vesicular transport. Although overexpressed Rab23 colocalizes with Ptch1 in
endosomes (Evans et al.,
2003), double mutant analysis indicates that Rab23 acts downstream
of both Ptch1 and Smo (Eggenschwiler et
al., 2005). Loss of Gli2 almost completely suppresses the Rab23
phenotype (Eggenschwiler et al.,
2005), which argues that the Rab23 acts primarily as a negative
regulator of Gli2 activity. There is a Drosophila ortholog of
Rab23, but mutants in this gene are viable and fertile (J. Sierra and
I. Guererro, personal communication).
Both Ift172 and Polaris/Ift88 are required for the
activity of Rab23 (Huangfu et
al., 2003). If we assume that the IFT proteins are required
because of their role in cilia, then Rab23 could regulate a trafficking event
downstream of Smo that requires cilia or Rab23 could regulate trafficking
inside cilia.
Fkbp8 is a member of the FK506-binding protein family (the immunophilins)
that acts as an antagonist of Hh signaling in the caudal neural tube
(Bulgakov et al., 2004) and
also acts downstream of Smo and upstream of Gli proteins
(Eggenschwiler et al., 2005).
The ventralized phenotype of Fkbp8 mutants is distinct from that of
Rab23 mutants: there is a greater expansion of the most ventral
neural cell type, the floor plate, but dorsal cell types are less affected
(Fig. 2). Fkbp8 has been shown
to inhibit the Ca2+-calmodulin activated serine/threonine-specific
protein phosphatase calcineurin (Shirane
and Nakayama, 2003), although it is not known whether the function
of Fkbp8 in the Hh pathway depends on calcineurin. There are three calcineurin
catalytic subunit genes, and mutants that lack any single subunit do not have
Hh-related phenotypes (Schulz and Yutzey,
2004), which could be due to overlapping functions. Unlike Rab23,
the effect of Fkbp8 appears to be neural specific; this is the first clear
example of a tissue-specific regulator of the pathway in vertebrates.
Sil was identified as a gene at a chromosome breakpoint associated with
human leukemia (Aplan et al.,
1990), although Sil is not the oncogene of the translocation.
Targeted deletion of Sil causes embryonic lethality at E9.0,
associated with a loss of ventral neural cell types, such as Smo or
Kif3a mutants (Izraeli et al.,
1999). Genetic experiments demonstrated that Sil is required
downstream of Ptch1 to turn on Hh targets
(Izraeli et al., 2001). The
Sil protein does not have any obvious structural domain that indicates its
function, and there is no obvious Drosophila homolog.
At least one newly defined component may play roles in both the mammalian
and Drosophila pathways. A targeted mouse mutation in a gene encoding
an Ig-family transmembrane protein, Cdon, causes microform holoprosencephaly,
a condition associated with loss of Hh signaling
(Cole and Krauss, 2003). The
Drosophila homolog of this gene, iHog, was identified in an
RNAi screen to be a positive regulator of Hh signaling
(Lum et al., 2003a), which is
consistent with the mouse mutant phenotype.
For each of the newly identified components, future experiments will test
their function in the pathway. Even if Drosophila homologs of the new
vertebrate genes do not have dramatic phenotypes on their own, they might,
like Sufu, still modulate the fly pathway in the appropriate double
mutant background. The analysis of mouse double mutants that lack both the
newly identified players and core pathway components should define the step
affected by each new vertebrate gene. The subcellular localization of the
proteins in embryonic tissues will also be of central importance. For example,
it will be important to learn if any of these proteins are localized to cilia.
Bardet-Biedl syndrome (BBS) is a complex human genetic disorder associated
with polycystic kidney, polydactyly, situs reversal and obesity
(Pan et al., 2005). Both
polydactyly and situs reversal are associated with abnormal Hh signaling,
which suggests that there could be connections between abnormal Hh signaling,
BBS and basal bodies. Some BBS proteins are localized to basal bodies, the
centriole-based structure at the base of the cilia, and some BBS proteins
undergo IFT (Blacque et al.,
2004; Kim et al.,
2004; Kim et al.,
2005), so some of the newly identified Hh pathway components could
act in basal bodies.
Are these new genes just the tip of the iceberg? Given that the genetic
screens that identified Rab23 and the IFT mutants have not yet been carried to
saturation (García-García et
al., 2005; Kasarskis et al.,
1998), it is certain that more components remain to be identified
that act between Smo and Gli. For example, the chicken talpid mutants
have phenotypes similar to those of IFT mutants
(Buxton et al., 2004;
Caruccio et al., 1999;
Lewis et al., 1999;
Wang, B. et al., 2000), and
could well encode additional proteins that act at this step.
Several hundred proteins are required for normal cilia structure and
function (Avidor-Reiss et al.,
2004; Li et al.,
2004), and if normally structured cilia are essential for
mammalian Hh signaling, many of those proteins might impact on Hh signal
transduction. If this proves to be the case, the challenge will be to
understand the physical relations among the ciliary and Hh pathway components
that allow efficient Hh signaling.
The Ci/Gli transcription factors
The separation of activator and repressor function into different
vertebrate Gli proteins provides the opportunity for additional modulation of
the pathway. In Drosophila, the bifunctional protein Ci is the only
transcription factor at the end of the Hh pathway, while there are three Gli
proteins in the mouse that have different biochemical properties and different
modes of regulation. Gli3 is bifunctional, like Ci: it can be processed into a
repressor form in vivo and also functions as a transcriptional activator
(Wang, B. et al., 2000). Gli1
cannot be proteolytically processed and is only a transcriptional activator
(Dai et al., 1999;
Lee et al., 1997;
Ruiz i Altaba, 1998). Gli2 is
an important activator in vivo, and because Gli1 can replace Gli2 function in
vivo, it is likely that Gli2 does not have a significant repressor function
(Aza-Blanc et al., 2000;
Wang, B. et al., 2000).
The three Gli proteins and Ci share high homology in the zinc-finger
domain, but have limited homology outside this region
(Matise and Joyner, 1999),
which raises the possibility that other proteins may interact with and
modulate the activity of individual Gli proteins. Several vertebrate proteins
that modulate Gli activity have been identified, but their specificities are
not yet clear. MIM/BEG4, a transcriptional target of mammalian Hh signaling,
can associate with Gli1 and Gli2 and potentiate transcriptional activity, at
least in vitro (Callahan et al.,
2004; Gonzalez-Quevedo et al.,
2005). The Ski co-repressor can bind Gli3 and regulate its
repressive activity (Dai et al.,
2002). The mouse Zic proteins function in dorsal neural patterning
and can interact with Gli proteins to modulate their transcriptional activity,
but no specificity of interaction was observed in vitro
(Aruga, 2004;
Koyabu et al., 2001). Specific
interactions with other transcription factors or co-factors might help explain
how the single morphogen Shh can specify so many different ventral neural cell
types (Fig. 2).
Conclusion: evolution and the Hh pathway
Despite the evolutionarily conserved core of the pathway, the data reviewed here highlight, surprisingly, many differences between the Drosophila and vertebrate Hh signal transduction pathways. Differences are apparent in the structure of the Smo protein, especially its CTD, in the activity of small molecule agonists and antagonists of Smo, in the subcellular localization of active Smo, in the requirement for IFT and other proteins in the vertebrate but not the Drosophila pathway, and in the functions of Fused and Sufu. Although these differences are real, and the identification of vertebrate-specific pathway components has important implications for the human diseases that involve Hh signaling and cilia, additional experiments are required to determine whether the biochemical mechanisms of signal transduction differ fundamentally between Drosophila and vertebrates.
Comparisons of the pathway between species should help to define the true core pathway. Did mammals add cilia to the pathway or did Drosophila lose the requirement for them? The ancestral roles of Cos2, Fused and Sufu also need to be investigated. More detailed comparisons between the zebrafish and mouse pathways is a first step towards answering these questions. RNAi strategies should also help to define the essential components of the pathway in non-model organisms in order to deduce the structure of the ancestral Hh signaling pathway.
Note added in proof
Recently, Haycraft et al. demonstrated that Gli1, Gli2, Gli3 and Sufu
proteins are enriched in cilia (Haycraft
et al., 2005).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Jeremy Reiter and Jonathan Eggenschwiler for sharing information prior to publication. Our research is supported by the NIH.
REFERENCES
Alcedo, J., Ayzenzon, M., Von Ohlen, T., Noll, M. and Hooper, J. E. (1996). The Drosophila smoothened gene encodes a seven-pass membrane protein, a putative receptor for the hedgehog signal. Cell 86,221 -232.[CrossRef][Medline]
Alcedo, J., Zou, Y. and Noll, M. (2000). Posttranscriptional regulation of smoothened is part of a self-correcting mechanism in the Hedgehog signaling system. Mol. Cell 6, 457-465.[CrossRef][Medline]
Apionishev, S., Katanayeva, N. M., Marks, S. A., Kalderon, D. and Tomlinson, A. (2005). Drosophila Smoothened phosphorylation sites essential for Hedgehog signal transduction. Nat. Cell Biol. 7,86 -92.[CrossRef][Medline]
Aplan, P. D., Lombardi, D. P., Ginsberg, A. M., Cossman, J.,
Bertness, V. L. and Kirsch, I. R. (1990). Disruption of the
human SCL locus by "illegitimate" V-(D)-J recombinase activity.
Science 250,1426
-1429.
Aruga, J. (2004). The role of Zic genes in neural development. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 26,205 -221.[CrossRef][Medline]
Avidor-Reiss, T., Maer, A. M., Koundakjian, E., Polyanovsky, A., Keil, T., Subramaniam, S. and Zuker, C. S. (2004). Decoding cilia function; defining specialized genes required for compartmentalized cilia biogenesis. Cell 117,527 -539.[CrossRef][Medline]
Aza-Blanc, P., Lin, H. Y., Ruiz i Altaba, A. and Kornberg, T. B. (2000). Expression of the vertebrate Gli proteins in Drosophila reveals a distribution of activator and repressor activities. Development 127,4293 -4301.[Abstract]
Bai, C. B., Stephen, D. and Joyner, A. L. (2004). All mouse ventral spinal cord patterning by hedgehog is Gli dependent and involves an activator function of Gli3. Dev. Cell 6,103 -115.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bailey, E. C., Milenkovic, L., Scott, M. P., Collawn, J. F. and
Johnson, R. L. (2002). Several PATCHED1 missense
mutations display activity in patched1-deficient fibroblasts.
J. Biol. Chem. 277,33632
-33640.
Basler, K. and Struhl, G. (1994). Compartment boundaries and the control of Drosophila limb pattern by hedgehog protein. Nature 368,208 -214.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bhanot, P., Brink, M., Samos, C. H., Hsieh, J. C., Wang, Y., Macke, J. P., Andrew, D., Nathans, J. and Nusse, R. (1996). A new member of the frizzled family from Drosophila functions as a Wingless receptor. Nature 382,225 -230.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bitgood, M. J., Shen, L. and McMahon, A. P. (1996). Sertoli cell signaling by Desert hedgehog regulates the male germline. Curr. Biol. 6, 298-304.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blacque, O. E., Reardon, M. J., Li, C., McCarthy, J., Mahjoub,
M. R., Ansley, S. J., Badano, J. L., Mah, A. K., Beales, P. L., Davidson, W.
S. et al. (2004). Loss of C. elegans BBS-7 and BBS-8 protein
function results in cilia defects and compromised intraflagellar transport.
Genes Dev. 18,1630
-1642.
Bulgakov, O. V., Eggenschwiler, J. T., Hong, D. H., Anderson, K.
V. and Li, T. (2004). FKBP8 is a negative regulator of mouse
sonic hedgehog signaling in neural tissues.
Development 131,2149
-2159.
Buxton, P., Francis-West, P. H., Davey, M. G., Tickle, C., Paton, I. R., Morrice, D. R. and Burt, D. W. (2004). Craniofacial development in the talpid3 chicken mutant. Differentiation 72,348 -362.[CrossRef][Medline]
Callahan, C. A., Ofstad, T., Horng, L., Wang, J. K., Zhen, H.
H., Coulombe, P. A. and Oro, A. E. (2004). MIM/BEG4, a Sonic
hedgehog-responsive gene that potentiates Gli-dependent transcription.
Genes Dev. 18,2724
-2729.
Carstea, E. D., Morris, J. A., Coleman, K. G., Loftus, S. K.,
Zhang, D., Cummings, C., Gu, J., Rosenfeld, M. A., Pavan, W. J., Krizman, D.
B. et al. (1997). Niemann-Pick C1 disease gene:
homology to mediators of cholesterol homeostasis.
Science 277,228
-231.
Caruccio, N. C., Martinez-Lopez, A., Harris, M., Dvorak, L., Bitgood, J., Simandl, B. K. and Fallon, J. F. (1999). Constitutive activation of sonic hedgehog signaling in the chicken mutant talpid(2): Shh-independent outgrowth and polarizing activity. Dev. Biol. 212,137 -149.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chen, J. K., Taipale, J., Cooper, M. K. and Beachy, P. A.
(2002). Inhibition of Hedgehog signaling by direct binding of
cyclopamine to Smoothened. Genes Dev.
16,2743
-2748.
Chen, M. H., Gao, N., Kawakami, T. and Chuang, P. T.
(2005). Mice deficient in the fused homolog do not exhibit
phenotypes indicative of perturbed hedgehog signaling during embryonic
development. Mol. Cell. Biol.
25,7042
-7053.
Chen, W., Burgess, S. and Hopkins, N. (2001). Analysis of the zebrafish smoothened mutant reveals conserved and divergent functions of hedgehog activity. Development 128,2385 -2396.
Chen, W., Ren, X. R., Nelson, C. D., Barak, L. S., Chen, J. K.,
Beachy, P. A., de Sauvage, F. and Lefkowitz, R. J. (2004).
Activity-dependent internalization of smoothened mediated by beta-arrestin 2
and GRK2. Science 306,2257
-2260.
Chen, Y. and Struhl, G. (1996). Dual roles for patched in sequestering and transducing Hedgehog. Cell 87,553 -563.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chen, Y., Gallaher, N., Goodman, R. H. and Smolik, S. M.
(1998). Protein kinase A directly regulates the activity and
proteolysis of cubitus interruptus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 95,2349
-2354.
Chen, Y., Cardinaux, J. R., Goodman, R. H. and Smolik, S. M. (1999). Mutants of cubitus interruptus that are independent of PKA regulation are independent of hedgehog signaling. Development 126,3607 -3616.[Abstract]
Chiang, C., Litingtung, Y., Lee, E., Young, K. E., Corden, J. L., Westphal, H. and Beachy, P. A. (1996). Cyclopia and defective axial patterning in mice lacking Sonic hedgehog gene function. Nature 383,407 -413.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cole, F. and Krauss, R. S. (2003). Microform holoprosencephaly in mice that lack the Ig superfamily member Cdon. Curr. Biol. 13,411 -415.[CrossRef][Medline]
Concordet, J. P., Lewis, K. E., Moore, J. W., Goodrich, L. V., Johnson, R. L., Scott, M. P. and Ingham, P. W. (1996). Spatial regulation of a zebrafish patched homologue reflects the roles of sonic hedgehog and protein kinase A in neural tube and somite patterning. Development 122,2835 -2846.[Abstract]
Cooper, A. F., Yu, K. P., Brueckner, M., Brailey, L. L.,
Johnson, L., McGrath, J. M. and Bale, A. E. (2005). Cardiac
and CNS defects in a mouse with targeted disruption of suppressor of fused.
Development 132,4407
-4417.
Corbit, K. C., Aanstad, P., Singla, V., Norman, A. R., Stainier, D. Y. and Reiter, J. F. (2005). Vertebrate Smoothened functions at the primary cilium. Nature 437,1018 -1021.[CrossRef][Medline]
Currie, P. D. and Ingham, P. W. (1996). Induction of a specific muscle cell type by a hedgehog-like protein in zebrafish. Nature 382,452 -455.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dai, P., Akimaru, H., Tanaka, Y., Maekawa, T., Nakafuku, M. and
Ishii, S. (1999). Sonic Hedgehog-induced activation of the
Gli1 promoter is mediated by GLI3. J. Biol. Chem.
274,8143
-8152.
Dai, P., Shinagawa, T., Nomura, T., Harada, J., Kaul, S. C.,
Wadhwa, R., Khan, M. M., Akimaru, H., Sasaki, H., Colmenares, C. et al.
(2002). Ski is involved in transcriptional regulation by the
repressor and full-length forms of Gli3. Genes Dev.
16,2843
-2848.
DeCamp, D. L., Thompson, T. M., de Sauvage, F. J. and Lerner, M.
R. (2000). Smoothened activates Galphai-mediated signaling in
frog melanophores. J. Biol. Chem.
275,26322
-26327.
Denef, N., Neubuser, D., Perez, L. and Cohen, S. M. (2000). Hedgehog induces opposite changes in turnover and subcellular localization of patched and smoothened. Cell 102,521 -531.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ding, Q., Motoyama, J., Gasca, S., Mo, R., Sasaki, H., Rossant, J. and Hui, C. C. (1998). Diminished Sonic hedgehog signaling and lack of floor plate differentiation in Gli2 mutant mice. Development 125,2533 -2543.[Abstract]
Echelard, Y., Epstein, D. J., St-Jacques, B., Shen, L., Mohler, J., McMahon, J. A. and McMahon, A. P. (1993). Sonic hedgehog, a member of a family of putative signaling molecules, is implicated in the regulation of CNS polarity. Cell 75,1417 -1430.[CrossRef][Medline]
Eggenschwiler, J. T. and Anderson, K. V. (2000). Dorsal and lateral fates in the mouse neural tube require the cell-autonomous activity of the open brain gene. Dev. Biol. 227,648 -660.[CrossRef][Medline]
Eggenschwiler, J. T., Espinoza, E. and Anderson, K. V. (2001). Rab23 is an essential negative regulator of the mouse Sonic hedgehog signalling pathway. Nature 412,194 -198.[CrossRef][Medline]
Eggenschwiler, J. T., Bulgakov, O. V., Li, T. and Anderson, K. V. (2005). Mouse Rab23 regulates Hedgehog signaling from Smoothened to Gli proteins. Dev. Biol. (in press).
Ekker, S. C., Ungar, A. R., Greenstein, P., von Kessler, D. P., Porter, J. A., Moon, R. T. and Beachy, P. A. (1995). Patterning activities of vertebrate hedgehog proteins in the developing eye and brain. Curr. Biol. 5, 944-955.[CrossRef][Medline]
Evans, T. M., Ferguson, C., Wainwright, B. J., Parton, R. G. and Wicking, C. (2003). Rab23, a negative regulator of hedgehog signaling, localizes to the plasma membrane and the endocytic pathway. Traffic 4,869 -884.[CrossRef][Medline]
García-García, M. J., Eggenschwiler, J. T.,
Caspary, T., Alcorn, H. L., Wyler, M. R., Huangfu, D., Rakeman, A. S., Lee, J.
D., Feinberg, E. H., Timmer, J. R. et al. (2005). Inaugural
Article: Analysis of mouse embryonic patterning and morphogenesis by forward
genetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
102,5913
-5919.
Gonzalez-Quevedo, R., Shoffer, M., Horng, L. and Oro, A. E.
(2005). Receptor tyrosine phosphatase-dependent cytoskeletal
remodeling by the hedgehog-responsive gene MIM/BEG4. J. Cell
Biol. 168,453
-463.
Goodrich, L. V., Milenkovic, L., Higgins, K. M. and Scott, M.
P. (1997). Altered neural cell fates and medulloblastoma in
mouse patched mutants. Science
277,1109
-1113.
Hammerschmidt, M., Bitgood, M. J. and McMahon, A. P.
(1996). Protein kinase A is a common negative regulator of
Hedgehog signaling in the vertebrate embryo. Genes
Dev. 10,647
-658.
Han, Y. G., Kwok, B. H. and Kernan, M. J. (2003). Intraflagellar transport is required in Drosophila to differentiate sensory cilia but not sperm. Curr. Biol. 13,1679 -1686.[CrossRef][Medline]
Haycraft, C. J., Banizs, B., Aydin-Son, Y., Zhang, Q., Michaud, E. J. and Yoder, B. K. (2005). Gli2 and Gli3 localize to cilia and require the intraflagellar transport protein Polaris for processing and function. PLoS Genet. 1, e53.
Hooper, J. E. (2003). Smoothened translates
Hedgehog levels into distinct responses. Development
130,3951
-3963.
