|
|
|
|||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online 11 February 2009
doi: 10.1242/dev.026203
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

1 Division of Cell and Developmental Biology, College of Life Sciences,
University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, UK.
2 Institut für Genetik, Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf,
Universitätsstr. 1, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
3 ZMBH, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 282, 69120 Heidelberg,
Germany.
Author for correspondence (e-mail:
h.j.muller{at}dundee.ac.uk)
Accepted 5 January 2009
| SUMMARY |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key words: Drosophila, Gastrulation, Mesoderm migration, Rho GEF
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The genetic control of gastrulation has been attributed to the function of
a limited number of genes. Internalization is controlled by targets of the
zygotically active transcription factors Twist (Twi) and Snail (Sna)
(Leptin and Roth, 1994
;
Leptin, 1999
;
Seher et al., 2007
). Cell
signalling through the secreted glycoprotein Folded Gastrulation and the
transmembrane protein T48 are both implicated in local activation of Rho1 at
the apical cell cortex of invaginating mesoderm cells
(Costa et al., 1994
;
Leptin and Roth, 1994
;
Barrett et al., 1997
;
Kolsch et al., 2007
).
Migration of the mesoderm depends on signalling via the FGF receptor Heartless
(Htl) and its two FGF8-like ligands, Thisbe (Ths; FGF8-like1) and Pyramus
(Pyr; FGF8-like2) (Shishido et al.,
1993
; Beiman et al.,
1996
; Gisselbrecht et al.,
1996
; Shishido et al.,
1997
; Gryzik and Müller,
2004
; Stathopoulos et al.,
2004
). In most developmental contexts, Htl acts through the
adaptor protein Stumps (Sms) via the conserved Ras/Raf/MAP kinase pathway
(Michelson et al., 1998a
;
Vincent et al., 1998
;
Imam et al., 1999
). However,
targets of MAPK with a role in mesoderm migration remain elusive, and genetic
evidence suggests that activation of MAPK by Htl is neither required nor
sufficient for the early morphogenetic events occurring during early mesoderm
spreading (Schumacher et al.,
2004
; Wilson et al.,
2005
).
A major unresolved issue is how signalling from the FGF receptor is
transduced to trigger changes in cell behaviour, which eventually results in
the collective cell movements to form a monolayer. Guanine nucleotide exchange
factors (GEF) activate Rho GTPases and provide entry points for the regulation
of Rho activity in different signalling contexts
(Rossman et al., 2005
).
RhoGEF2 and Rho1 promote the recruitment and assembly of cytoplasmic myosin
that drives apical constriction during ventral furrow formation
(Barrett et al., 1997
;
Hacker and Perrimon, 1998
;
Nikolaidou and Barrett, 2004
;
Dawes-Hoang et al., 2005
).
Another GEF called Pebble (Pbl) is indispensable for Htl-triggered cell shape
changes and thus represents an excellent candidate that links FGF signalling
to the modulation of cell shape
(Schumacher et al., 2004
;
Smallhorn et al., 2004
).
Pbl is the single fly orthologue of the human proto-oncogene ect2
and plays an evolutionarily conserved role in cytokinesis. Pbl localizes to
the cell cortex and activates Rho1, which acts through its effector Diaphanous
to promote formation of the contractile actin-myosin ring
(Piekny et al., 2005
). The two
functions of Pbl, cytokinesis and cell migration, can be separated
genetically: Pbl function is still required for cell migration in a genetic
background in which no mitosis occurs, indicating that Pbl plays independent
roles in cytokinesis and cell migration
(Schumacher et al., 2004
).
Whereas protein interactions of Pbl during cytokinesis appear to be highly
conserved, to date nothing is known about the mechanisms of Pbl function in
mesoderm migration. Pbl belongs to a large family of GEFs that contain a
Dbl-homology (DH) domain, which harbours catalytic activity
(Whitehead et al., 1997
). The
function of Pbl in cell migration involves activation of Rho GTPases, as a
point mutation in the highly conserved CR3 region within the DH domain
compromises its catalytic activity and exhibits equally severe defects as
pbl null alleles (Whitehead et
al., 1997
; Liu et al.,
1998
; Schumacher et al.,
2004
; Smallhorn et al.,
2004
). The only currently known Pbl substrate, Rho1, is unlikely
to be involved in mesoderm migration, because Rho1 dominant-negative
constructs fail to block mesoderm spreading while efficiently inhibiting
cytokinesis (Schumacher et al.,
2004
).
|
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
,FRT2A,Mtl
/TM3[ftz::lacZ],
Df(2R)ED2238/CyO[ftz::lacZ], yw,hs::Flp;cxD/TM3,
w;P[ovoD1-18]3L,FRT2A/βTub85D/TM3,
UAS::pbl
BRCT_myc/TM3[ftz::lacZ],
UAS::RhoLN25/CyO, UAS::RhoLV20, UAS::Rac1V12,
UAS::Rac1N17, UAS::Rac1.L, UAS::Rho1.Sph and
EP(3)3118/TM3.
All rescue assays were performed using virgins from a twi::Gal4;
pbl3/TM3[ftz::lacZ] stock. Genetic interactions of Pbl with
Rac1 and Rho1 were examined using a
UAS::pbl
BRCT,pbl3
recombinant chromosome crossed in trans to pbl3 with
UAS::Rac1.L on the second chromosome or in trans to a recombinant
UAS::Rho1.Sph,pbl3 chromosome, respectively. These
experiments required distinct crosses to control for the genetic background:
for the Rac1 experiment, twi::Gal4;pbl3 crossed
to UAS::pbl
BRCT,pbl3
was used as control; for the Rho1 control experiment,
twi::Gal4;UAS::pbl
BRCT,pbl3
was crossed to pbl3.
Molecular biology
The pbl cDNA constructs were generated through PCR amplification
using the pbl-RA cDNA as a template. Fragments were inserted in frame
into the pUAST-HA vector to create C-terminal fusions of the HA
epitope. The Pbl-GFP and GFP-PblPH constructs were generated using
the Gateway system (Invitrogen) and cloned into the pTGW or pTWG expression
vectors (DGRC, Bloomington). The Pbl constructs encode the following amino
acids of the Pbl-A protein: Pbl-A 1-853, Pbl
N-term 386-853,
PblDH-PH 386-775, PblDH 386-581, PblPH
595-719, PblC-term 716-844 and Pbl
C-term 1-720.
The PblDH-PH_V531D and Pbl
N-term_V531D constructs
were generated using the QuikChange II Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kit
(Stratagene) to generate a single amino acid exchange (Pbl-A Val531
to Asp) of the respective construct.
Biochemistry
GST fusion proteins were expressed from pGEX plasmids in BL21DE E.
coli cells. After lysis in 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8), 100 mM NaCl, 10 mM
MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 1 mM PMSF, the fusion proteins were purified by
affinity chromatography (wash buffer, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 500 mM NaCl, 10 mM
MgCl2, 1 mM DTT; elution buffer, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 50 mM NaCl,
20 mM glutathione, 1 mM DTT). The GEF assay was performed as described
previously (Grosshans et al.,
2005
). Briefly, 0.2 µM GST-GTPases were loaded with
[8-3H]GDP (Amersham). The 3H-GDP loaded GTPases were
incubated as duplicates with 0.1 µM of the corresponding GEF in the
presence of GTP at 25°C for 20 minutes. After nitrocellulose filtration,
the radioactivity bound on the filter was determined by liquid scintillation
counting.
Immunocytochemistry and microscopy
Embryos were obtained, fixed, stained and sectioned as described previously
(Müller, 2008
).
Microscopy was performed on a Zeiss Axiophot, an Olympus BX61 as well as Zeiss
510 Meta and Leica-SP2 confocal microscopes. Images were processed using Adobe
Photoshop and Volocity (Improvision). Heads of adult flies were prepared for
scanning electron microscopy as described
(Meyer et al., 2006
). The
following antibodies were used: mouse-anti-Eve, mouse-anti-βGal (both at
1:100, DSHB), rabbit-anti-βGal (1:5000, Cappel), mouse-anti-HA (1:1000,
Roche), mouse-anti-GFP (1:800, ABCAM), rabbit-anti-Myc (1:35, Santa Cruz),
mouse-anti-CD2 (Serotec), rabbit-anti-Twi (1:1000) and rat-anti-Pbl (1:350).
Pbl antiserum was generated against a GST-Pbl-A fusion protein. A 1.6 kb
fragment of pbl-RA cDNA (encoding amino acids 1-532 of Pbl-A) was
cloned into pGEX-4T-2. The corresponding GST fusion protein was used to
immunize rats (Eurogentec, Belgium).
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
A point mutation (V531D) in the DH domain that is known to compromise its
catalytic activity abolished the activity of Pbl in cytokinesis and cell
migration (Liu et al., 1998
;
Schumacher et al., 2004
;
Smallhorn et al., 2004
). To
identify other functionally important protein domains of Pbl, we tested the
rescue potential of a range of tagged deletion constructs
(Fig. 1). Expression of
Pbl
BRCT, which has both N-terminal BRCT domains deleted,
with twi::Gal4 was unable to rescue cytokinesis, but still rescued
migration at
55% compared with wild type
(Fig. 2D,J;
Table 1)
(Smallhorn et al., 2004
).
Similarly, a construct lacking the conserved C-terminal tail,
Pbl
C-term, did not rescue cytokinesis, but was still able to
partially rescue the migration defect to a similar extent as
Pbl
BRCT (Fig.
2I,J; Table 1; see
below). These data indicate that neither domain alone plays an essential role,
because in the absence of either domain there is still a partial rescue.
However, as the rescue is not complete, both the BRCT domains and the
C-terminal tail must be important for Pbl function in mesoderm migration.
|
N-term in the mesoderm of pbl3
homozygotes did not rescue the mesoderm differentiation defects
(Fig. 2E,J;
Table 1). Moreover, even in
heterozygous embryos expressing Pbl
N-term the mesoderm cells
failed to internalize (see below). By contrast, PblDH-PH lacking
the conserved C-terminal tail was able to suppress the pbl mesoderm
defect (Fig. 2F,J;
Table 1). The V531D point
mutation completely abolished the rescuing activity of PblDH-PH;
both constructs were expressed at very similar levels
(Fig. 2G,J;
Fig. 5G,H,K,L). Importantly,
the DH domain alone did not exhibit any rescue activity
(Fig. 2H,J). Thus, the activity
of the tandem DH-PH domain of Pbl requires both a functional DH domain and the
presence of the PH domain. Moreover, the rescue capability of the tandem DH-PH
domain was dependent on the absence of the C-terminal tail, suggesting that
this domain might impinge on the activity of the DH-PH domain.
Differential dominant phenotypes of oncogenic forms of Pbl
In addition to the different rescue potentials of
Pbl
N-term and PblDH-PH, we noticed that these
constructs also exhibited distinct dominant phenotypes. Expression of
Pbl
N-term in a wild-type background blocked invagination and
the cells failed to undergo cytokinesis
(Fig. 3C,D,O,P;
Fig. 5F). As null mutants of
pbl do not exhibit any defects in mesoderm invagination (S.S. and
H.A.J.M., unpublished), Pbl
N-term exhibits an abnormal
activity interfering with that process. By contrast, expression of
PblDH-PH exhibited defects in mesoderm spreading, whereas
cytokinesis was unimpaired (Fig.
3I,J,Q,R). The expression levels of the constructs were in a
similar range and even when the level of PblDH-PH was increased
using multiple copies of transgenes, the occurrence of phenotypic classes did
not change (Fig. 5) (A.v.I. and
H.A.J.M., unpublished). Introducing the V531D mutation into either
PblDH-PH or Pbl
N-term abolished the dominant
activity (Fig. 3K,L and data
not shown). Expression of Pbl
BRCT,
Pbl
C-term or of the DH domain alone in the mesoderm of
wild-type embryos had no adverse effects on development
(Fig. 3E-H). Similarly,
expression of the C terminus alone did not have any effect on development
(data not shown). In summary, the distinct dominant mis-expression phenotypes
of Pbl
Nterm and PblDH-PH support the idea that
the C-terminal tail plays an important role in modulating the activity of the
tandem DH-PH domain.
|
We next sought to determine the domains that are required for cortical
localization of Pbl in mesoderm cells. Pbl
BRCT was localized
similarly to wild-type Pbl, whereas the two BRCT domains alone localized to
the cytoplasm (Fig. 5A,B)
(A.v.I. and H.A.J.M., unpublished). Thus, the BRCT domains appear not to be
involved in the association of Pbl with the cell cortex in interphase cells.
Pbl
Cterm was present at high levels in the nucleus, but low
amounts in the cytoplasm and cell cortex
(Fig. 5C,D). The importance of
the C-terminal tail for the cortical localization was even more evident in
constructs lacking N-terminal PEST and NLS sequences, in which cytoplasmic
levels are accumulating. Pbl
Nterm exhibited a strong
accumulation at the cell cortex (Fig.
5E,F). Even when the C-terminal tail alone was expressed it was
enriched at the cell cortex of mesoderm cells, suggesting that this domain is
to some extent sufficient for cortical localization
(Fig. 5O,P).
Despite the importance of the C-terminal domain, constructs lacking this
domain still exhibit some cortical localization. PblDH-PH, which
lacks the C-terminal tail, was also localized at the cell periphery in a
conspicuous punctate fashion - similar to that described for the tandem DH-PH
domain of Ect2 in mammalian cells (Fig.
5G,H) (Solski et al.,
2004
). This result suggested that the PH domain might contribute
to membrane association of Pbl. Indeed, the DH domain alone was localized in
the cytoplasm, indicating that the PH domain is required for the punctate
cortical localization of PblDH-PH
(Fig. 5M,N). Moreover, a Pbl
PH-GFP fusion protein was enriched at the cell cortex, suggesting that the PH
domain was to some extent sufficient to mediate cortical localization
(Fig. 5Q,R). In summary, these
localization studies indicate that both the C-terminal tail and the PH domain
are involved in the localization of Pbl to the cortical cytoplasm.
|
Cterm can still partially rescue mesoderm defects
in pbl mutants, cortical localization through the C-terminal tail
appears to be important but not essential for the activity of Pbl in cell
migration. By contrast, Pbl
Cterm was unable to rescue
cytokinesis in pbl mutants (Fig.
6G-J). The failure of Pbl
Cterm in rescuing
cytokinesis was not due to a requirement for subcellular localization.
Pbl
Cterm was localized to the cleavage furrow of dividing
cells as in the wild type (Fig.
6A-F). These data indicate that the C-terminal tail is required
for the activation of Rho1 during cytokinesis and suggest that the C-terminal
domain might play a more direct role in regulating the activity of the DH
domain. Thus, the Pbl
Cterm construct uncouples the dual
functions of Pbl, in cytokinesis and cell migration, and supports the previous
model that Pbl activates a different Rho pathway during mesoderm migration
(Schumacher et al., 2004
We sought to determine the Rho GTPase specificity of Pbl in vivo by testing
genetic interactions in the developing eye using GMR::Gal4. The
dominant activities of PblDH-PH and Pbl
Nterm were
both dependent on a functional DH domain. Thus, the overexpression phenotypes
are most probably consequences of over-activating the respective Rho GTPase
pathway downstream of Pbl. As PblDH-PH is able to partially rescue
the mesoderm defect in pbl mutants, it represents an excellent tool
with which to identify the substrate of Pbl in cell migration through testing
genetic interactions with Rho GTPases. Expression of PblDH-PH
results in a rough eye phenotype that is characterized by a reduction of the
size of the eye and highly abnormal ommatidial structures
(Fig. 7A,B). Expression of
PblDH-PH_V531D did not produce any phenotype, indicating that the
PblDH-PH rough eye phenotype is a result of overactivation of
downstream Rho GTPase pathways (Fig.
7C). Moreover, expression of PblDH-PH in a
pbl3 heterozygous background mildly suppressed the rough
eye phenotype (Fig. 7D).
Therefore, PblDH-PH probably acts in the normal Pbl pathway, but is
hyperactive. Hence, it should be possible to suppress the eye phenotypes
similarly by reducing the expression level of the target GTPases of Pbl.
PblDH-PH interacted with Rho1, as a reduction of the
Rho1 gene dose resulted in suppression of the rough eye phenotype
(Fig. 7E). This result was
expected, as it has been shown before that Pbl can directly bind Rho1
(Prokopenko et al., 1999
).
Co-expression of dominant versions of RhoL or heterozygosity of a
loss-of-function mutation in cdc42 did not modify the rough eye
phenotype (Fig. 7F-H). However,
in flies heterozygous for a triple mutation in Drosophila Rac GTPases
(Rac1J10, Rac2
and
Mtl
), the PblDH-PH rough eye phenotype
was strongly suppressed (Fig.
7I). Moreover, co-expression of either Rac1 or Rac2 with
PblDH-PH strongly enhanced the rough eye phenotype
(Fig. 7J; data not shown).
These results suggest that overexpression of PblDH-PH in the eye
promotes activation of Rac GTPases. We conclude that PblDH-PH
behaves as a gain-of-function allele and exhibits genetic interactions
consistent with activation of Rho1 and Rac pathways.
|
|
Nterm in the embryo affected two
Rho1-dependent processes, cytokinesis and invagination, suggesting that this
construct might specifically overactivate the Rho1 pathway in the cell.
Unfortunately, expression of Pbl
Nterm in the eye results in
lethality at pupal stages. However, at a lower temperature (18°C),
lethality occurred at the pharate adult stage [0% eclosion (n=43);
Fig. 7K]. The lethality is
suppressed by removal of one functional copy of Rho1, as those flies
eclosed and displayed a strong rough eye phenotype [20% eclosion
(n=54); Fig. 7L]. No
suppression of the Pbl
Nterm lethality was observed in flies
heterozygous for Rac1J10, Rac2
,
Mtl
[0% eclosion n=42)]. These results
indicate that Pbl
Nterm specifically activates the Rho1
pathway and support the idea that the embryonic phenotype produced by
Pbl
Nterm is caused by overactivation of the Rho1
pathway.
The DH domain promotes nucleotide exchange activity for Rho1, Rac1 and Rac2 in vitro
The genetic interactions demonstrated that the tandem DH-PH domain of Pbl
activates Rho1 and Rac GTPases. To determine whether Pbl is capable of
directly interacting with Rac GTPases, we performed functional
guanyl-nucleotide exchange assays using GST fusion proteins of Rho1, Rac1,
Rac2, Mtl, RhoL and Cdc42, the DH domain of Pbl, and the first DH domain of
Trio as a control. The GTPases were loaded with 3H-GDP and
incubated with the respective DH domain or GST as a control in the presence of
GTP. The release of 3H-GDP reflects a measure of the exchange
activity of a specific DH domain towards a given GTPase. The first DH domain
of Trio, an exchange factor for Rac GTPases, exhibited a strong preference for
Rac1, Rac2 and Mtl, whereas Trio did not promote nucleotide exchange for Rho1
or Cdc42 and showed a weak activity for RhoL
(Fig. 8). GST-PblDH
promotes GDP exchange from Rho1, consistent with our genetic data and
previously reported binding studies
(Prokopenko et al., 1999
).
Strikingly, we also detected an activity of GST-PblDH for Rac1 and
Rac2 (Fig. 8). The fact that
the activity for Rac1 and Rac2 was weaker than for Rho1 might reflect a
requirement of the PH domain in promoting full activity or specificity of the
DH domain of Pbl. The insolubility of the bacterial GST-PblDH-PH
fusion protein prohibited us from directly testing this possibility. Together,
these data indicate that the DH domain of Pbl is able to use Rac1 or Rac2 as a
substrate and in conjunction with the genetic interactions suggest that Pbl
promotes exchange activity towards multiple substrates, including Rac
GTPases.
|
|
BRCT. Overexpression of
Pbl
BRCT provides enough activity to suppress the
pbl3 mesoderm phenotype substantially without producing a
dominant phenotype, suggesting that this construct is present in the cells at
near physiological levels (Fig.
2J; Fig. 3E,F;
Table 1). Co-expression of
wild-type Rac1 together with Pbl
BRCT leads to a significant
enhancement of the rescue of pbl mutants by Pbl
BRCT
(Table 3). When wild-type Rho1
is co-expressed with Pbl
BRCT, there was no change in the
strength of the rescue of the pbl phenotype by
Pbl
BRCT (Table
4). This experiment indicates that Rac1 interacts with
Pbl
BRCT and can promote its ability to rescue the
pbl3 migration defect. Together, the genetic interactions
strongly support a role of Pbl to activate the Rac pathway in mesoderm
spreading.
|
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We show that the tandem DH-PH domain of Pbl is essential for cell migration
and employs not only Rho1, but also the Rac pathway. Several lines of evidence
strongly suggest that Pbl acts through Rac GTPases during mesoderm migration.
The dominant rough eye phenotype induced by PblDH-PH is sensitive
to gene doses of Rac GTPases. Expression of constitutively active or
dominant-negative Rac1 but not Rho1 enhances the mesoderm phenotype in the
hypomorphic pbl11D allele. Moreover, co-expression of
Rac1, but not of Rho1, promotes the suppression of mesoderm migration defects
by Pbl
BRCT in pbl-null mutants. In addition, we
provide biochemical data that strongly suggest the Rac pathway as a direct
target of Pbl.
Pbl has previously been reported to localize to the nucleus in interphase
cells. Nuclear localization was interpreted as a means of storing the protein
until rapid release at mitosis (O'Keefe et
al., 2001
). In cultured cells and C. elegans zygotes,
homologues of Pbl localize at the cell cortex, e.g. cell junctions or the
anterior cortex in the nematode zygote
(Liu et al., 2004
;
Jenkins et al., 2006
). We
detected functional Pbl-HA in the nucleus and the cytoplasm, including
membrane protrusions. These data are consistent with the model that Pbl
activates Rac GTPases at the cell cortex during cell migration.
Our study identified two domains, the conserved C-terminal tail and the PH
domain, as candidates to mediate the association of Pbl with the cell cortex
in interphase cells. The use of N-terminally deleted constructs facilitated
these studies, because the respective proteins were excluded from the nucleus
as they lack the NLS. Either domain alone is sufficient to localize to the
cell cortex, and deletion studies suggest that both domains are crucial for
cortical localization. We propose that the PH domain and the C-terminal tail
might cooperate in localizing Pbl to the cell cortex. DH domain associated PH
domains are essential for GEF function and are known to promote binding to
specific membrane subdomains enriched in phosphoinositides
(Lemmon, 2008
). An attractive
model therefore is that the PH domain provides specificity by targeting Pbl to
membrane domains enriched for particular phospholipids, whereas the C-terminal
tail functions in anchoring Pbl to the cell cortex. In addition, binding to
phospholipids might promote the specific exchange activity of the tandem DH-PH
domain, as described for other Dbl family GEFs
(Snyder et al., 2001
;
Rossman et al., 2003
).
It is difficult to address the issue of whether cortical localization is
important for the function of Pbl in mesoderm migration. The reduced rescuing
capability of Pbl
C-term is consistent with a correlation of
cortical localization through the C-terminal domain and the function of Pbl in
cell migration. A more stringent experiment would involve the generation of a
construct that lacks the PH and C-terminal domains for membrane association.
However, as PH domains are essential for DH domain function in vivo, deletion
of the PH domain will abolish activity in any case, as we have shown for the
constitutively active DH-PH construct. Such an analysis would require a way to
uncouple the activities of the PH domain that promote the exchange activity
and membrane-phospholipid binding. It will therefore remain important to
determine whether the function of the PH domain involves its interaction with
lipid substrates or directly promotes the activity of the DH domain in
migrating cells.
|
Nterm is probably caused by disruption of the local
activation of Rho1 at the cell cortex. During invagination and cytokinesis,
the Rho1 pathway is activated locally: in the apical domain of the mesoderm
cells to trigger apical constriction or at the cell equator of the dividing
cell to promote assembly of the contractile ring. As
Pbl
Nterm strongly accumulates at the cortex in a
non-polarized fashion, it might activate Rho1 ectopically throughout the cell
cortex and thereby overriding any polarizing cues for local activation.
The dramatic differences in the overexpression phenotypes of
PblDH-PH or Pbl
Nterm suggest an important
function of the C-terminal tail in controlling the biochemical activities of
the tandem DH-PH domain. Strikingly, Pbl
Nterm genetically
interacts with Rho1, but not with Rac GTPases, supporting the idea that the
C-terminus promotes the exchange activity towards Rho1. We propose that in the
mesoderm cells this activity of the C-terminal domain is antagonized to
activate the Rac rather than to the Rho1 pathway. In the presence of the NLS
and PEST motifs, the cytoplasmic levels of Pbl are low and allow for this
regulation to occur, whereas the oncogenic forms lacking these motifs are
present in the cytoplasm at high levels and might escape regulation. Thus,
constructs that lack the C-terminal tail promote interaction with Rac and
rescue Rac-dependent mesoderm migration. This model is also supported by the
observation that the C-terminal domain is essential for Rho1 activation, but
not for Pbl localization in dividing cells. The same construct,
Pbl
C-term, is still able to rescue Rac-dependent migration
defects. Thus, deletion of the C-terminal tail uncouples activation of Rho1-
from Rac-dependent processes and suggests that in the absence of the negative
interaction with the C-terminal tail, the tandem DH-PH domain promotes
activation of Rac.
Although many receptor tyrosine kinases signal through Rho GTPases, only
few FGF receptors have been reported to regulate Rho GEFs
(Schiller, 2006
). One
attractive model is that FGF signalling mediates post-translational
modification of the C-terminal tail to trigger the switch in the differential
interaction with Rho1 and Rac GTPases. The sequence of the C-terminal tail
contains several conserved putative phosphorylation sites that might represent
targets for FGF signalling. Interestingly, the exchange factor specificity of
oncogenic ect2 for GTPase substrates depends on the C-terminal tail
of the protein (Solski et al.,
2004
). Identification of proteins that interact with the
C-terminal domain might shed light on its role in controlling selectivity for
distinct GTPase pathways. Such studies will be important to advance our
understanding of the mechanism of the transforming potential of Pbl, as well
as its mechanism of action in cell polarity and cell migration.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material for this article is available at
http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/136/5/813/DC1
| Footnotes |
|---|
* Present address: Operon Biotechnologies GmbH, Cologne, Germany ![]()
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Barrett, K., Leptin, M. and Settleman, J.
(1997). The Rho GTPase and a putative RhoGEF mediate a signaling
pathway for the cell shape changes in Drosophila gastrulation.
Cell 91,905
-915.[CrossRef][Medline]
Beiman, M., Shilo, B. Z. and Volk, T. (1996).
Heartless, a Drosophila FGF receptor homolog, is essential for cell migration
and establishment of several mesodermal lineages. Genes
Dev. 10,2993
-3002.
Carmena, A., Gisselbrecht, S., Harrison, J., Jimenez, F. and
Michelson, A. M. (1998). Combinatorial signaling codes for
the progressive determination of cell fates in the Drosophila embryonic
mesoderm. Genes Dev. 12,3910
-3922.
Costa, M., Sweeton, D. and Wieschaus, E.
(1993). Gastrulation in Drosophila: Cellular
Mechanisms of Morphogenetic Movements. Cold Spring Harbor, NY:
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Costa, M., Wilson, E. T. and Wieschaus, E.
(1994). A putative cell signal encoded by the folded gastrulation
gene coordinates cell shape changes during Drosophila gastrulation.
Cell 76,1075
-1089.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dawes-Hoang, R. E., Parmar, K. M., Christiansen, A. E., Phelps,
C. B., Brand, A. H. and Wieschaus, E. F. (2005). folded
gastrulation, cell shape change and the control of myosin localization.
Development 132,4165
-4178.
Frasch, M., Hoey, T., Rushlow, C., Doyle, H. and Levine, M.
(1987). Characterization and localization of the even-skipped
protein of Drosophila. EMBO J.
6, 749-759.[Medline]
Furlong, E. E. (2004). Integrating
transcriptional and signalling networks during muscle development.
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
14,343
-350.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gisselbrecht, S., Skeath, J. B., Doe, C. Q. and Michelson, A.
M. (1996). heartless encodes a fibroblast growth factor
receptor (DFR1/DFGF-R2) involved in the directional migration of early
mesodermal cells in the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev.
10,3003
-3017.
Grosshans, J., Wenzl, C., Herz, H. M., Bartoszewski, S.,
Schnorrer, F., Vogt, N., Schwarz, H. and Muller, H. A.
(2005). RhoGEF2 and the formin Dia control the formation of the
furrow canal by directed actin assembly during Drosophila cellularisation.
Development 132,1009
-1020.
Gryzik, T. and Müller, H. A. (2004).
FGF8-like1 and FGF8-like2 encode putative ligands of the FGF receptor Htl and
are required for mesoderm migration in the Drosophila gastrula.
Curr. Biol. 14,659
-667.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hacker, U. and Perrimon, N. (1998). DRhoGEF2
encodes a member of the Dbl family of oncogenes and controls cell shape
changes during gastrulation in Drosophila. Genes Dev.
12,274
-284.
Hakeda-Suzuki, S., Ng, J., Tzu, J., Dietzl, G., Sun, Y., Harms,
M., Nardine, T., Luo, L. and Dickson, B. J. (2002). Rac
function and regulation during Drosophila development.
Nature 416,438
-442.[CrossRef][Medline]
Imam, F., Sutherland, D., Huang, W. and Krasnow, M. A.
(1999). stumps, a Drosophila gene required for fibroblast growth
factor (FGF)-directed migrations of tracheal and mesodermal cells.
Genetics 152,307
-318.
Jagla, K., Bellard, M. and Frasch, M. (2001). A
cluster of Drosophila homeobox genes involved in mesoderm differentiation
programs. BioEssays 23,125
-133.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jenkins, N., Saam, J. R. and Mango, S. E.
(2006). CYK-4/GAP provides a localized cue to initiate
anteroposterior polarity upon fertilization. Science
313,1298
-1301.
Kolsch, V., Seher, T., Fernandez-Ballester, G. J., Serrano, L.
and Leptin, M. (2007). Control of Drosophila gastrulation by
apical localization of adherens junctions and RhoGEF2.
Science 315,384
-386.
Lemmon, M. A. (2008). Membrane recognition by
phospholipid-binding domains. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell
Biol. 9,99
-111.[CrossRef][Medline]
Leptin, M. (1999). Gastrulation in Drosophila:
the logic and the cellular mechanisms. EMBO J.
18,3187
-3192.[CrossRef][Medline]
Leptin, M. and Grunewald, B. (1990). Cell shape
changes during gastrulation in Drosophila. Development
110, 73-84.[Abstract]
Leptin, M. and Roth, S. (1994). Autonomy and
non-autonomy in Drosophila mesoderm determination and morphogenesis.
Development 120,853
-859.[Abstract]
Liu, X., Wang, H., Eberstadt, M., Schnuchel, A., Olejniczak, E.
T., Meadows, R. P., Schkeryantz, J. M., Janowick, D. A., Harlan, J. E.,
Harris, E. A. et al. (1998). NMR structure and mutagenesis of
the N-terminal Dbl homology domain of the nucleotide exchange factor Trio.
Cell 95,269
-277.[CrossRef][Medline]
Liu, X. F., Ishida, H., Raziuddin, R. and Miki, T.
(2004). Nucleotide exchange factor ECT2 interacts with the
polarity protein complex Par6/Par3/protein kinase Czeta (PKCzeta) and
regulates PKCzeta activity. Mol. Cell. Biol.
24,6665
-6675.
Meyer, W. J., Schreiber, S., Guo, Y., Volkmann, T., Welte, M. A.
and Müller, H. A. (2006). Overlapping functions of
argonaute proteins in patterning and morphogenesis of Drosophila embryos.
PLoS Genet. 2,e134
.[CrossRef][Medline]
Michelson, A. M., Gisselbrecht, S., Buff, E. and Skeath, J.
B. (1998a). Heartbroken is a specific downstream mediator of
FGF receptor signalling in Drosophila. Development
125,4379
-4389.[Abstract]
Michelson, A. M., Gisselbrecht, S., Zhou, Y., Baek, K. H. and
Buff, E. M. (1998b). Dual functions of the heartless
fibroblast growth factor receptor in development of the Drosophila embryonic
mesoderm. Dev. Genet.
22,212
-229.[CrossRef][Medline]
Müller, H. A. (2008). Immunolabeling of
embryos. Methods Mol. Biol.
420,207
-218.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ng, J., Nardine, T., Harms, M., Tzu, J., Goldstein, A., Sun, Y.,
Dietzl, G., Dickson, B. J. and Luo, L. (2002). Rac GTPases
control axon growth, guidance and branching. Nature
416,442
-447.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nikolaidou, K. K. and Barrett, K. (2004). A Rho
GTPase signaling pathway is used reiteratively in epithelial folding and
potentially selects the outcome of Rho activation. Curr.
Biol. 14,1822
-1826.[CrossRef][Medline]
O'Keefe, L., Somers, W. G., Harley, A. and Saint, R.
(2001). The pebble GTP exchange factor and the control of
cytokinesis. Cell Struct. Funct.
26,619
-626.[CrossRef][Medline]
Piekny, A., Werner, M. and Glotzer, M. (2005).
Cytokinesis: welcome to the Rho zone. Trends Cell
Biol. 15,651
-658.[CrossRef][Medline]
Prokopenko, S. N., Brumby, A., O'Keefe, L., Prior, L., He, Y.,
Saint, R. and Bellen, H. J. (1999). A putative exchange
factor for Rho1 GTPase is required for initiation of cytokinesis in
Drosophila. Genes Dev.
13,2301
-2314.
Prokopenko, S. N., Saint, R. and Bellen, H. J.
(2000). Tissue distribution of PEBBLE RNA and pebble protein
during Drosophila embryonic development. Mech. Dev.
90,269
-273.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rossman, K. L., Cheng, L., Mahon, G. M., Rojas, R. J., Snyder,
J. T., Whitehead, I. P. and Sondek, J. (2003).
Multifunctional roles for the PH domain of Dbs in regulating Rho GTPase
activation. J. Biol. Chem.
278,18393
-18400.
Rossman, K. L., Der, C. J. and Sondek, J.
(2005). GEF means go: turning on RHO GTPases with guanine
nucleotide-exchange factors. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.
6, 167-180.[CrossRef][Medline]
Saito, S., Liu, X. F., Kamijo, K., Raziuddin, R., Tatsumoto, T.,
Okamoto, I., Chen, X., Lee, C. C., Lorenzi, M. V., Ohara, N. et al.
(2004). Deregulation and mislocalization of the cytokinesis
regulator ECT2 activate the Rho signaling pathways leading to malignant
transformation. J. Biol. Chem.
279,7169
-7179.
Schiller, M. R. (2006). Coupling receptor
tyrosine kinases to Rho GTPases-GEFs what's the link. Cell
Signal. 18,1834
-1843.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schumacher, S., Gryzik, T., Tannebaum, S. and Müller, H.
A. (2004). The RhoGEF Pebble is required for cell shape
changes during cell migration triggered by the Drosophila FGF receptor
Heartless. Development
131,2631
-2640.
Seher, T. C., Narasimha, M., Vogelsang, E. and Leptin, M.
(2007). Analysis and reconstitution of the genetic cascade
controlling early mesoderm morphogenesis in the Drosophila embryo.
Mech. Dev. 124,167
-179.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shishido, E., Higashijima, S., Emori, Y. and Saigo, K.
(1993). Two FGF-receptor homologues of Drosophila: one is
expressed in mesodermal primordium in early embryos.
Development 117,751
-761.[Abstract]
Shishido, E., Ono, N., Kojima, T. and Saigo, K.
(1997). Requirements of DFR1/Heartless, a mesoderm-specific
Drosophila FGF-receptor, for the formation of heart, visceral and somatic
muscles, and ensheathing of longitudinal axon tracts in CNS.
Development 124,2119
-2128.[Abstract]
Smallhorn, M., Murray, M. J. and Saint, R.
(2004). The epithelial-mesenchymal transition of the Drosophila
mesoderm requires the Rho GTP exchange factor Pebble.
Development 131,2641
-2651.
Snyder, J. T., Rossman, K. L., Baumeister, M. A., Pruitt, W. M.,
Siderovski, D. P., Der, C. J., Lemmon, M. A. and Sondek, J.
(2001). Quantitative analysis of the effect of phosphoinositide
interactions on the function of Dbl family proteins. J. Biol.
Chem. 276,45868
-45875.
Solski, P. A., Wilder, R. S., Rossman, K. L., Sondek, J., Cox,
A. D., Campbell, S. L. and Der, C. J. (2004). Requirement for
C-terminal sequences in regulation of Ect2 guanine nucleotide exchange
specificity and transformation. J. Biol. Chem.
279,25226
-25233.
Somers, W. G. and Saint, R. (2003). A RhoGEF
and Rho family GTPase-activating protein complex links the contractile ring to
cortical microtubules at the onset of cytokinesis. Dev.
Cell 4,29
-39.[CrossRef][Medline]
Stathopoulos, A. and Levine, M. (2004).
Whole-genome analysis of Drosophila gastrulation. Curr. Opin.
Genet. Dev. 14,477
-484.[CrossRef][Medline]
Stathopoulos, A., Tam, B., Ronshaugen, M., Frasch, M. and
Levine, M. (2004). pyramus and thisbe: FGF genes that pattern
the mesoderm of Drosophila embryos. Genes Dev.
18,687
-699.
Sweeton, D., Parks, S., Costa, M. and Wieschaus, E.
(1991). Gastrulation in Drosophila: the formation of the ventral
furrow and posterior midgut invaginations. Development
112,775
-789.[Abstract]
Vincent, S., Wilson, R., Coelho, C., Affolter, M. and Leptin,
M. (1998). The Drosophila protein Dof is specifically
required for FGF signaling. Mol. Cell
2, 515-525.[CrossRef][Medline]
Whitehead, I. P., Campbell, S., Rossman, K. L. and Der, C.
J. (1997). Dbl family proteins. Biochim. Biophys.
Acta 1332,F1
-F23.
Wilson, R., Vogelsang, E. and Leptin, M.
(2005). FGF signalling and the mechanism of mesoderm spreading in
Drosophila embryos. Development
132,491
-501.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. van Impel, S. Schumacher, M. Draga, H.-M. Herz, J. Grosshans, and H. A. J. Muller Regulation of the Rac GTPase pathway by the multifunctional Rho GEF Pebble is essential for mesoderm migration in the Drosophila gastrula J. Cell Sci., March 1, 2009; 122(5): e507 - e507. [Full Text] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||