The sex determination master switch, Sex-lethal (Sxl), controls sexual development as a splicing and translational regulator. Hedgehog (Hh) is a secreted protein that specifies cell fate during development. Sxl is in a complex that contains all of the known Hh cytoplasmic components, including Cubitus interruptus (Ci) the only known target of Hh signaling. Hh promotes the entry of Sxl into the nucleus in the wing disc. In the anterior compartment, the Hh receptor Patched (Ptc) is required for this effect, revealing Ptc as a positive effector of Hh. Some of the downstream components of the Hh signaling pathway also alter the rate of Sxl nuclear entry. Mutations in Suppressor of Fused or Fused with altered ability to anchor Ci are also impaired in anchoring Sxl in the cytoplasm. The levels, and consequently, the ability of Sxl to translationally repress downstream targets in the sex determination pathway, can also be adversely affected by mutations in Hh signaling genes. Conversely, overexpression of Sxl in the domain that Hh patterns negatively affects wing patterning. These data suggest that the Hh pathway impacts on the sex determination process and vice versa and that the pathway may serve more functions than the regulation of Ci (Horabin, 2003).

Sxl co-immunoprecipitates with Cos2 and Fu in the female germline. Since Ci is not expressed in germ cells, it is probable that a different Hh cytoplasmic complex might exist in germ cells. In somatic cells, Sxl is expressed in all female cells while Ci is expressed in only a subset. To test whether the Hh pathway differentiates between the two proteins in somatic cells, Sxl was immunoprecipitated from embryonic extracts and the immunoprecipitates probed for the various Hh cytoplasmic components. The immunoprecipitates showed that Cos2, Fu and Ci are complexed with Sxl. The specificity of this association of Sxl with the Hh pathway components was verified using antibodies to either Ci or Su(fu), and testing the immunoprecipitates for the presence of Sxl. Both co-immunoprecipitated with Sxl. The Ci immunoprecipitate was also tested for another Hh cytoplasmic component, Fu, which was present as expected. These interactions are maintained in a Su(fu)^LP background (protein null allele). An IP of Ci from Su(fu)^LP embryos brought down Sxl, as well as Fu and Cos2. Taken together, these data suggest that cells that express Ci and Sxl have both proteins in the same complex with the known cytoplasmic components of the Hh signaling pathway (Horabin, 2003).

Previous work on the germline has suggested that the Hh signaling pathway affects the intracellular trafficking Sxl. The cross talk between these two developmental pathways has been analyzed in tissues where both Hh targets can be present in the same cell. While analysis of embryos only uncovered an effect of Cos2 on Sxl, analysis of wing discs allowed several specific effects to be uncovered. At least three new functional aspects of the Hh pathway are suggested:

1. More than one 'target' protein can exist in the Hh cytoplasmic complex.
   Immunoprecipitation experiments using extracts from embryos indicate that Sex-lethal and the known Hh signaling target Ci are in the same complex. The two proteins can co-immunoprecipitate each other as well as other known members of the Hh cytoplasmic complex. Even when Su(fu), the cytoplasmic component that most strongly anchors Sxl in the cytoplasm, is removed, Sxl can still be co-immunoprecipitated with both Ci and Fu. As a whole, these results suggest that at least some proportion of the two Hh 'target' proteins are in a common complex within the cell. Additionally, the wing defects produced when Sxl is overexpressed in the Hh signaling region suggest that their relative concentrations are important for their normal functioning (Horabin, 2003).
   
2. The Hh targets can be affected differentially.
   The presence of two 'targets' within the Hh cytoplasmic complex, raises the question of how they can be differentially affected. The data show that the various members of the Hh pathway do not affect Sx1 and Ci similarly. Smo appears to be dispensable for the transmission of the Hh signal in promoting Sx1 nuclear entry, while Smo is critical for the activation of Ci. Conversely, while Ptc is essential for the effect of Hh on Sxl, it is dispensable for the activation of Ci. The Fu kinase (fu^mH63 background) also appears to have no role in Hh signaling with respect to Sxl, while it is critical for the activation of Ci. By contrast, both Su(fu) and the Fu regulatory domain act similarly on Sxl and Ci, serving to anchor them in the cytoplasm (Horabin, 2003).

   Taken together, these data suggest that the presence of Hh can be relayed to the cytoplasmic components differentially and, while the data do not address the point, suggest how different outcomes might be achieved. Ptc has been proposed to be a transmembrane transporter protein that functions catalytically in the inhibition of Smo via a diffusible small molecule. The stimulation of Sxl nuclear entry by the binding of Hh to Ptc might also involve a change in the internal cell milieu, but in this case the Hh cytoplasmic complex may be affected independently, not requiring a change in the activity of Smo or the Fu kinase (Horabin, 2003).
   

3. Ptc can signal the presence of the Hh ligand in a positive manner.
   Several experiments indicate that Hh bound to Ptc enhances the nuclear entry of Sxl. That Smo has no role in transmitting the Hh signal is most clearly demonstrated by expressing the PtcD584 protein in both the anterior and posterior compartments of the dorsal half of the wing disc. PtcD584 acts as a dominant negative and so activates Ci in the anterior compartment, but it fails to enhance the levels of nuclear Sxl in the anterior because it sequesters Hh in the posterior compartment. The double mutant condition of ptc^– clones in a hh^MRT background clearly places Ptc downstream of Hh, while showing Ptc can act positively in transmitting the Hh signal (Horabin, 2003).
   

A positive role for Ptc, but in this case in conjunction with Smo, in promoting cell proliferation during head development has recently been reported. In this situation, however, Hh acts negatively on both Ptc and Smo in their activation of the Activin type I receptor, suggesting an even greater variance from the canonical Hh signaling process (Horabin, 2003).

While the effects on Sxl in the anterior compartment show a dependence on the known Hh signaling components, it is not clear what promotes the rapid nuclear entry of Sxl in the posterior compartment. Su(fu) is expressed uniformly across the disc so it does not appear to be responsible for the AP differences, and ptc clones have no effect (and Ptc RNA and protein are not detected in the posterior compartment). Removal of Hh, however, reduces the nuclear entry rate of Sxl in both compartments. In this regard, the parallel between Hh pathway activation and Sxl nuclear entry in the posterior compartment is worth noting. Fu is also activated in the posterior compartment in a Hh-dependent manner, even though Ptc is not present. It is not clear what mediates between Hh and Fu (Horabin, 2003).

The data also suggest that the Hh cytoplasmic complex may have slightly different compositions in different tissues and/or at developmental stages. In the female germline and in embryos, the absence of Cos2 leads to a severe reduction in Sxl levels. However, in wing discs when mutant clones are made using the same cos2 allele, there is no effect on Sxl. It is suggested that between the third instar larval stage and eclosion, the composition of the Hh cytoplasmic complex may change again to make Sxl more sensitive to Cos2. This would explain why removal of Cos2 can produce sex transformations of the foreleg even though mutant clones in wing discs (and also leg discs) show no alterations in Sxl levels (Horabin, 2003).

A similar argument might apply to the weak sex transformations of forelegs produced by PKA^– clones. Alternatively, PKA may have a very weak effect but the assay on wing discs is not sufficiently sensitive to allow detection of small effects; PKA was found to have a modest effect on Sxl nuclear entry in the germline. Sxl is sufficiently small (38-40 kDa) to freely diffuse into the nucleus, or the protein may enter the nucleus as a complex with splicing components. This may account for the limited sex transformations caused by removal of Hh pathway components (Horabin, 2003).

Removal of several of the Hh pathway components, such as smo, gives the same weak sex transformation phenotype, even though smo has no effect on Sxl nuclear entry. Additionally, there is no correlation between a positive and a negative Hh signaling component and whether there is a resulting phenotype. Changing the dynamics of the activation state of the Hh cytoplasmic complex may perturb the normal functioning of Sxl, since Sxl appears to be in the same complex as Ci. For example, if the Hh pathway is fully activated because of a mutant condition, the relative amounts of Sxl in the cytoplasm versus nucleus at any given time, may be different from the wild-type condition. Perturbing the usual cytoplasmic-nuclear balance could compromise the various processes that Sxl protein regulates. Sxl acts both positively and negatively on its own expression through splicing and translation control and, additionally, regulates the downstream sex differentiation targets. The latter could also be responsible for the weak sex transformations seen, in view of the recent demonstration that doublesex affects the AP organizer and sex-specific growth in the genital disc (Horabin, 2003).

With the exception of Cos2, which can produce relatively substantial effects on Sxl levels in embryos as well as sex transformations in the foreleg, the effects of removal of any of the other Hh pathway components are generally not large. The strong effects of Cos2 on Sxl could be because it affects the stability of Sxl. However, Sxl depends on an autoregulatory splicing feedback loop for its maintenance making the protein susceptible to a variety of regulatory breakdowns. If Cos2 altered the nuclear entry of Sxl, for example, its removal could compromise the female-specific splicing of Sxl transcripts by reducing the amounts of nuclear Sxl. Splicing of Sxl transcripts would progressively fall into the male mode to eventually result in a loss of Sxl protein (Horabin, 2003).

Hedgehog (Hh) proteins control animal development by regulating the Gli/Ci family of transcription factors. In Drosophila, Hh counteracts phosphorylation by PKA, GSK3, and CKI to prevent Cubitus interruptus (Ci) processing through unknown mechanisms. These kinases physically interact with the kinesin-like protein Costal2 (Cos2) to control Ci processing and Hh inhibits such interaction. Cos2 is required for Ci phosphorylation in vivo, and Cos2-immunocomplexes (Cos2IPs) phosphorylate Ci and contain PKA, GSK3, and CKI. By using a Kinesin-Cos2 chimeric protein that carries Cos2-interacting proteins to the microtubule plus end, it was demonstrated that these kinases bind Cos2 in intact cells. PKA, GSK3, and CKI directly bind the N- and C-terminal regions of Cos2, both of which are essential for Ci processing. Finally, it was shown that Hh signaling inhibits Cos2-kinase complex formation. It is proposed that Cos2 recruits multiple kinases to efficiently phosphorylate Ci and that Hh inhibits Ci phosphorylation by specifically interfering with kinase recruitment (Zhang, 2005).

To facilitate detection of protein-protein interaction between Cos2 and its binding partners in vivo, a Kinesin/Cos2 chimeric protein (Kinco) was generated in which the microtubule binding domain of Cos2 is replaced by the motor domain of Drosophila KHC. Kinco moves to the microtubule plus end and accumulates near the basal surface of imaginal disc epithelial cells. Strikingly, Kinco carries all the known Cos2 binding proteins to the same subcellular compartment, leading to colocalization. PKAc, GSK3, and two CKI isoforms, CKIα and CKIϵ, all colocalize with Kinco at the microtubule plus end, demonstrating that these kinases associate with Cos2 in intact cells. Hence, Kinco provides a powerful tool to determine if a protein interacts with Cos2 in vivo. In addition, Kinco colocalizes with Cos2-interacting proteins in cultured Drosophila cells such as S2 and cl8 cells. It is conceivable that one can use such a cell-based colocalization assay to identify additional proteins that form a complex with Cos2. Furthermore, it is also possible to extend this approach to other protein complexes by generating appropriate Kinesin chimeric 'bait' proteins (Zhang, 2005).

By using immunoprecipitation and GST pull-down assays, the kinase interaction domains were mapped to the microtubule binding (MB) and C-terminal (CT) of Cos2. GST fusion proteins containing either of these domains bind purified recombinant PKAc, GSK3, and CKI, suggesting that these kinases directly bind Cos2. However, the possibility cannot be rule out that these kinases may have additional contacts with other components in the Cos2 complex. Indeed, it was found that CKI can bind Ci in yeast (Zhang, 2005).

Several lines of evidence suggest that Cos2/kinase interaction plays an important role in regulating Ci phosphorylation and processing: (1) Ci phosphorylation is compromised in cos2 mutants; (2) the kinase-interacting domains in Cos2 are essential for Ci processing; (3) overexpressing multiple kinases can bypass the requirement of Cos2 for Ci processing (Zhang, 2005).

PKAc, GSK3, and CKI appear to bind competitively to Cos2; however, since Cos2 can dimerize and each Cos2 protein contains two kinase binding domains, a Cos2 dimer could in principle bind all three kinases simultaneously. It is possible that these kinases might not form a tight complex with Cos2 in a stoichiometric manner, which could explain why purification of endogenous Cos2 complexes failed to identify any of these kinases. However, by using in vitro kinase assay and Western blot analysis, the association of PKAc, GSK3, and CKI with endogenous Cos2 was detected. It is likely that interactions between Cos2 and kinases are transient; however, such interactions could increase local concentrations of these kinases; this greatly facilitates Ci hyperphosphorylation (Zhang, 2005).

It has been demonstrated that Hh induces Ci dephosphorylation in cl8 cells; however, it is not clear whether Hh blocks Ci phosphorylation by all three kinases or a subset of them. By using an antibody that specifically recognizes a phosphorylated PKA site in Ci, it was found that Hh partially inhibits PKA phosphorylation of Ci in wing discs. Consistent with this, Hh only partially blocks Cos2/PKA interaction. In contrast, Hh appears to have a more profound influence on the interaction between Cos2 and CKI or GSK3. Furthermore, CKI and GSK3 kinase activities associated with endogenous Cos2 diminishes upon Hh stimulation and Cos2IPs phosphorylates Ci to a lesser extent after Hh treatment. These observations suggest that Ci phosphorylation by CKI and GSK3 is likely to be inhibited by Hh in vivo (Zhang, 2005).

Several mechanisms may contribute to the regulation of Cos2-Ci-kinase complex formation by Hh. (1) The finding that PKAc, GSK3, and CKI bind Cos2 domains that also interact with Smo raises a possibility that Smo/Cos2 interaction may exclude kinases from binding to Cos2. Indeed, a membrane-tethered form of SmoCT (Myr-SmoCT) interferes with Cos2-Ci-kinase complex formation. (2) Smo/Cos2 interaction at the cell surface may induce conformational change in Cos2, which could mask its kinase interacting domains. (3) Cos2 is phosphorylated in response to Hh. Phosphorylation of Cos2 could regulate its interaction with one or more kinases. (4) There is evidence that Hh induces dissociation of Ci from Cos2, which may further decrease the accessibility of Ci to the kinases. This may explain why Hh induces more significant dissociation of PKAc from Ci than from Cos2. (5) Hh induces degradation of Cos2 in P compartment cells as well as in cells immediately adjacent to the A/P boundary; this may lead to a chronic destruction of Cos2-Ci-kinase complexes. However, it appears that only high levels of Hh induce Cos2 degradation in vivo. Low levels of Hh may prevent Ci phosphorylation with different mechanisms such as those described above (Zhang, 2005).

The Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway has conserved roles in development of species ranging from Drosophila to humans. Responses to Hh are mediated by the transcription factor Cubitus interruptus (Ci; GLIs 1-3 in mammals), and constitutive activation of Hh target gene expression has been linked to several types of human cancer. In Drosophila, the kinesin-like protein Costal2 (Cos2), which associates directly with the Hh receptor component Smoothened (Smo), is essential for suppression of the transcriptional activity of Ci in the absence of ligand. Another protein, Suppressor of Fused [Su(Fu)], exerts a weak negative influence on Ci activity. Based on analysis of functional and sequence conservation of Cos2 orthologs, Su(Fu), Smo, and Ci/GLI proteins, Drosophila and mammalian Hh signaling mechanisms have been found to diverge; in mouse cells, major Cos2-like activities are absent and the inhibition of the Hh pathway in the absence of ligand critically depends on Su(Fu) (Varjosalo, 2006).

The evidence indicates that a significant divergence in the mechanism of Shh signal transduction has occurred between vertebrates and invertebrates at the level of Smo, Cos2, and Su(Fu). The results indicate that major Cos2-like activities are absent in mouse cells based on four observations: (1) domains in Smo that are required in Drosophila to bind to Cos2 are not required for mSmo function; (2) mouse Shh signaling is insensitive to expression of Drosophila Cos2, but can be rendered Cos2 sensitive by replacing the mSmo C-terminal domain with the dSmo C-terminal domain; (3) expression of the Smo C-terminal domain which, in Drosophila, inactivates Cos2 has no effect in the mouse in vivo or in vitro; (4) overexpression or RNAi-mediated suppression of mouse Cos2 homologs has no effect on Hh signaling, even under sensitized conditions. These results are also consistent with divergence of the sequence of domains involved in Cos2 binding in Ci/GLI proteins and Smo between insects and mammals (Varjosalo, 2006).

Although the RNAi experiments targeting Cos2 orthologs Kif7 and Kif27 were performed under conditions in which negative regulators of GLI2 were limiting, they could be argued to be consistent with a model in which multiple kinesins with Cos2-like activity would act in a redundant fashion in mammals. By loss-of-function studies of individual kinesins in cell culture or in mice it would be difficult to obtain conclusive evidence against such a model due to the potential redundancy of multiple members of the kinesin family. However, several other in vitro and in vivo experiments that were presented directly contradict such a model. These include RNAi analyses targeting multiple Kif proteins, the analysis of loss of function of mSmo domains, and the lack of effect of overexpression of myristoylated-mSmoC and the Cos2 orthologs Kif7 and Kif27. In addition, no kinesin with Cos2-like activity could be found by extending the analyses to several other kinesins, which show homology to Cos2 but have different fly orthologs (Varjosalo, 2006).

In contrast to the case in Drosophila, Su(Fu) has a critical role in suppression of the mammalian Hh pathway in the absence of ligand, and loss of Su(Fu) function results in dramatic induction of GLI transcriptional activity. The results are also consistent with the studies that show that loss of Su(Fu) in mouse embryos results in complete activation of the Hh pathway, in a fashion similar to the loss of Ptc. These results are particularly surprising in light of the central role of Cos2 and a minor role of Su(Fu) in Drosophila. Together, these results also clearly show that mouse cells and embryos lack a Cos2-like activity that, in Drosophila, can completely suppress the Hh pathway in the absence of Su(Fu). However, the results should not be taken as evidence against novel proteins (including kinesins not orthologous to Cos2) acting in mammalian cells between Smo and GLI proteins with mechanisms that are distinct from those used by Drosophila Cos2. Several reports have, in fact, described such vertebrate-specific regulators of Hh signaling, including SIL, Iguana, Rab23, Kif3a, IFT88, IFT172, MIM/BEG4, and β-arrestin2 (Varjosalo, 2006).

The results also shed light on some known differences in the function of the Hh pathway in Drosophila and mammals. Mutations and small molecules affecting conformation of Smo transmembrane domains have a strong effect in mammals, but they have little effect in Drosophila. Interestingly, the Smo transmembrane domain is required for regulation of Su(Fu) activity, whereas the Smo C-terminal domain is critical for inhibition of Cos2 activity. Thus, based on the data, manipulations that affect the Smo transmembrane domain would be predicted to affect Su(Fu) and therefore to have a limited role in Drosophila and a major effect in mammals (Varjosalo, 2006).

Although there are differences in mouse and Drosophila Smo functional domains, and a lack of conservation of Smo phosphorylation sites, conservation of Smo function at a level not involving Cos2 is supported by the observation that mutation of a conserved isoleucine (I573A in mSmo) results in loss of both mouse and Drosophila Smo activity, yet does not result in a loss of Cos2 binding to dSmo. In addition, dSmo proteins that are activated by phosphomimetic mutations are constitutively stabilized; yet, they are partially responsive to Hh, suggesting that, in addition to stabilization and phosphorylation, other, potentially conserved mechanisms could be required to generate fully active Smo in Drosophila as well (Varjosalo, 2006).

In the mSmo C terminus, six residues between amino acids 570 and 580 were identified that resulted in significant loss of mSmo activity. The predicted secondary structure for this region is an α helix, in which these residues would reside on the same side, raising the possibility that, together with the third Smo intracellular loop, this region may form an interaction surface involved in inactivation of Su(Fu) or activation of Ci/GLI (Varjosalo, 2006).

Recent results have indicated that Su(Fu) acts as a tumor suppressor in medulloblastoma, and it has been suggested that medulloblastomas associated with loss of Su(Fu) result, in part, from activation of the Wnt pathway. However, consistent with the lack of a Wnt phenotype of Su(Fu) mutations in Drosophila, in the current experiments, a Wnt pathway-specific reporter is not activated by shRNAs targeting Su(Fu). Given observations that Su(Fu) is critically important in the suppression of the mammalian Hh pathway in the absence of ligand, and the fact that Hh pathway activation is required for growth of a form of medulloblastoma induced by mutations in Patched, it is likely that constitutive activation of the Hh pathway is also essential for growth of medulloblastomas associated with the loss of Su(Fu) (Varjosalo, 2006).

In a wider context, the results demonstrate that signal transduction mechanisms of even the major signaling pathways are not immutable, but that they can be subject to evolutionary change. The divergence may have occurred after the separation of the vertebrate and invertebrate lineages. However, some evidence also suggests that functional divergence may have occurred much later in evolution. Although mutants of Fused or Cos2 orthologs of zebrafish have not been identified, zebrafish homologs of Fused and Cos2 act in the Hh pathway based on morpholino antisense injections. In contrast to these findings, mice deficient in mouse ortholog of Drosophila Fused do not have a Hh-related phenotype, and mouse orthologs of Cos2 do not affect Hh signaling. Hh-related phenotypes can be observed in zebrafish by morpholino-mediated targeting of other genes as well, such as β-arrestin2, whose loss in mice does not result in a Hh-related phenotype. It is widely appreciated that multiple types of embryonic insults result in Hh-like phenotypes, such as holoprosencephaly. Thus, it is possible that the zebrafish phenotypes observed are caused by the morpholino injection process itself. Alternatively, there may also be significant differences between the mechanism of Hh signaling between vertebrate species (Varjosalo, 2006).

Because of the strong conservation of Su(Fu) in both invertebrate and vertebrate phyla, the presence of a Cos2 binding domain only in insect Smo, and the divergence of the Cos2 proteins from the kinesin family, the simplest explanation of the data is that Su(Fu) represents the primordial Ci/GLI repressor, and that the Cos2-like functionality has evolved specifically in the invertebrate lineage. The results, thus, also raise the possibility that multicomponent pathways evolve, in part, by insertion of novel proteins between existing pathway components. This mechanism potentially explains a challenging aspect of evolutionary biology regarding the emergence of signaling pathways with multiple specific components (Varjosalo, 2006).

The secreted protein Hedgehog (Hh) plays an important role in metazoan development and as a survival factor for many human tumors. In both cases, Hh signaling proceeds through the activation of the seven-transmembrane protein Smoothened (Smo), which is thought to convert the Gli family of transcription factors from transcriptional repressors to transcriptional activators. This study provides evidence that Smo signals to the Hh signaling complex, which consists of the kinesin-related protein Costal2 (Cos2), the protein kinase Fused (Fu), and the Drosophila Gli homolog cubitus interruptus (Ci), in two distinct manners. Many of the commonly observed molecular events following Hh signaling are not transmitted in a linear fashion but instead are activated through two signals that bifurcate at Smo to independently affect activator and repressor pools of Ci (Ogden, 2006).

This work demonstrates that targeting the association between Smo and the Cos2 cargo domain functionally separates the known molecular markers of the Hh pathway into two distinct categories: those events dependent on a direct association between the Cos2 cargo domain and Smo and those not dependent on this direct association. The Hh-induced readouts requiring direct Smo-Cos2 association include Smo phosphorylation, stabilization, and translocation to the plasma membrane, which facilitate intermediate to high level activation of Ci. Hh-induced Fu and Cos2 hyperphosphorylation, Hedgehog signaling complex relocalization from vesicular membranes to the cytoplasm, and Ci stabilization do not appear to require a direct Smo-Cos2 cargo domain association. Thus, although Smo is necessary for all aspects of Hh signaling, only the molecular events grouped with Ci activation appear to require direct association between Cos2 and Smo. In vivo, carboxyl-terminal Smo binding domain expression is also capable of attenuating Hh signaling. This observation is consistent with in vitro observation that carboxyl-terminal Smo binding domain inhibits critical requirement(s) for pathway activation (Ogden, 2006).

A model has been proposed suggesting the existence of two independently regulated pools of the Hedghog signaling complex (HSC), one involved in pathway repression (HSC-R), and one involved in activation (HSC-A). HSC-R is dedicated to priming Ci for processing into the Ci₇₅ transcriptional repressor, whereas HSC-A is dedicated to activation of stabilized Ci₁₅₅ in response to Hh. this study provides evidence that the effects of these two HSCs can be functionally separated by specifically targeting the interaction between Smo and the Cos2 cargo domain. Moreover, distinct molecular markers were identified for each HSC. It is proposed that in HSC-R, the membrane vesicle tethered Cos2 functions as a scaffold to recruit protein kinase A, glycogen synthase kinase 3ß, and casein kinase I, which in turn phosphorylate Ci. Hyperphosphorylated Ci is then targeted to the proteasome by the F-box protein supernumerary limbs (Slimb), where it is converted into Ci₇₅. In response to Hh, Fu and Cos2 are phosphorylated and dissociate from vesicular membranes and microtubules, which is suggested to result in the attenuation of HSC-R function. This allows for the subsequent accumulation of full-length Ci. The mechanism by which HSC-R function is inhibited by Hh-activated Smo is not clear but appears to require the carboxyl-terminal tail of Smo and, by this analysis, appears to occur independently of a direct Smo-Cos2 cargo domain association. However, the direct Cos2-Smo association is critical for regulation of HSC-A. In the absence of Hh, HSC-A is tethered to vesicular membranes, through Smo, where it is kept in an inactive state. In the presence of Hh, Cos2 bound directly to Smo acts as a scaffold for the phosphorylation of Smo by protein kinase A, glycogen synthase kinase 3ß, and casein kinase I. Phosphorylation of Smo triggers its stabilization and relocalization to the plasma membrane with HSC-A, where Ci is proposed to be activated. Thus, Cos2 plays a similar role in both HSC-R and HSC-A. In the former case, coupling protein kinase A, glycogen synthase kinase 3ß, and casein kinase I with Ci and, in the latter case, coupling the same protein kinases with the carboxyl-terminal tail of Smo (Ogden, 2006).

An alternative interpretation of these data is that disruption of the Cos2 cargo domain-Smo association separates high and low level Hh signaling. It has been suggested that a second, low affinity Smo binding domain may reside within the coiled-coil domain of Cos2. Thus, high level signaling, where all aspects of the Hh pathway are activated may require both Cos2 interaction domains to be directly bound to Smo. In either scenario, HSC-R function would be regulated independently of HSC-A function (Ogden, 2006).

It is concluded that targeted disruption of Cos2 cargo domain-Smo binding by CSBD is able to functionally separate the activities ascribed to the two HSC model. This two-switch system is amenable to the formation of a gradient of Hh signaling activity across a field of cells, in that the relative activity of HSC-R to HSC-A is directly proportional to the level of Hh stimulation a cell receives. The opposing functional effects of the two complexes can then establish unique ratios of Ci₇₅ to activated Ci, resulting in distinct levels of pathway activation on a per cell basis (Ogden, 2006).

The Hedgehog (Hh) family of secreted proteins is involved both in developmental and tumorigenic processes. Although many members of this important pathway are known, the mechanism of Hh signal transduction is still poorly understood. In this study, the regulation of the kinesin-like protein Costal2 (Cos2) by Hh was analyzed. A residue on Cos2, serine 572 (Ser572), is necessary for normal transduction of the Hh signal from the transmembrane protein Smoothened (Smo) to the transcriptional mediator Cubitus interruptus (Ci). This residue is located in the serine/threonine kinase Fused (Fu)-binding domain and is phosphorylated as a consequence of Fu activation. Although Ser572 does not overlap with known Smo- or Ci-binding domains, the expression of a Cos2 variant mimicking constitutive phosphorylation and the use of a specific antibody to phosphorylated Ser572 showed a reduction in the association of phosphorylated Cos2 with Smo and Ci, both in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, Cos2 proteins with an Ala or Asp substitution of Ser572 were impaired in their regulation of Ci activity. It is proposed that, after activation of Smo, the Fu kinase induces a conformational change in Cos2 that allows the disassembly of the Smo-Fu-Cos2-Ci complex and consequent activation of Hh target genes. This study provides new insight into the mechanistic regulation of the protein complex that mediates Hh signalling and a unique antibody tool for directly monitoring Hh receptor activity in all activated cells (Reul, 2007).

These data show that phosphorylation of Cos2 residue Ser572 is necessary for the full activation of Hh signalling, and that this phosphorylation is dependent on the kinase Fu. It is likely that Fu directly phosphorylates Cos2 on Ser572, but it was not possible to purify an activated Fu kinase to confirm this. The phosphorylation of this residue strongly decreased the association of Cos2 with both Ci and Smo, an important step in the regulation of the cytoplasmic anchoring of Ci. By contrast, Cos2-572A, a Cos2 mutant that cannot be phosphorylated at Ser 572, remained associated with Smo and Ci but was much less sensitive to Hh regulation; this is because both its restraining activity on Ci and its association with Ci were only minimally sensitive to the presence of Fu and to the activation of Hh signalling. Phosphorylation of Ser572 of Cos2 induces the partial disassembly of the protein complex (Reul, 2007).

The data show that Cos2 phosphorylated on Ser572 does not bind Smo. However, previous studies have shown that Cos2 is phosphorylated and is pulled down by Smo in response to Hh stimulation. How can these data be reconciled? First, it is possible that not all Cos2 proteins that bind to Smo are phosphorylated. Indeed, only a limited fraction of Cos2 and Fu are sensitive to Hh activation. This is clearly observed with Fu (only 50% of the protein undergoes an electromobility shift upon Hh activation), but is more difficult to quantify with Cos2 because of its very small and diffused electromobility shift. Nevertheless, if Cos2 behaves similarly to Fu, it would mean that 50% of the total Cos2 (corresponding to the non-modified protein in Hh-treated cells) should be able to bring enough Smo down to be detectable in immunoprecipitates. Second, it is possible that Smo still binds to phosphorylated Cos2 on Ser572, but with much less affinity. Third, phosphorylation on Ser572 is not responsible for all Cos2 mobility shift, because Cos2-572A still shifts upon OA treatment, suggesting that other phosphorylated sites are present. Therefore, some phosphorylated isoforms that are not phosphorylated on Ser572 might also be associated with Smo. It is thus possible that this study has revealed only one of a series of sequential phosphorylation events on Cos2 that ultimately lead to the complete dissociation of Cos2 from Smo. Finally, it is worth mentioning that more Smo is present in the Cos2 IP from Hh-treated cells than in non-Hh treated cells. This is thought to simply reflect an increased level of Smo resulting from Hh signalling activation, and not the Hh-dependent regulation of the efficiency of the interaction of Smo with Cos2 (Reul, 2007).

The role of the Cos2 protein in the complex is to serve as a platform to allow both positive and negative regulators to be brought into close proximity with Smo and Ci. Thus, the role of Cos2 in transmitting a response can be masked by the role of Cos2 in limiting pathway activity in the absence of Hh. At low concentrations, it is able to stimulate Hh reporter activity in vitro and engrailed expression in vivo. But in Cos2-572A-expressing cells, engrailed expression was lower than in wild-type discs, and the in vitro stimulation of Hh signalling could not be potentiated by Fu activity. Moreover, the restraining activity of Cos2-572A on Ci could not be counteracted by Hh or Fu in vitro. Therefore, it is proposed that the Ser572 to Ala substitution on Cos2 rendered Cos2 less sensitive to Hh and Fu regulation. Because Cos2-572A still binds to its partners, it could bring Fu into proximity with its other targets. Indeed, it is likely that Fu activation leads not only to the direct phosphorylation of Cos2 but also to direct changes in Ci and/or other partners, such as Sufu. This explains why Cos2-572A is still able to stimulate Hh signalling, albeit not to its highest level (Reul, 2007).

From the Cos2-572A results, one could wonder why Cos2-572D did not constitutively activate the pathway. Because the Cos2-572D form is in a 'frozen' state compared with the wild-type form, cycles of phosphorylation/dephosphorylation are blocked and thus Cos-572D cannot participate in the Hh complex signalling anymore. The data show that constitutively phosphorylated Cos2 and endogenous phospho-Cos2 are bound to Fu but are dissociated from Smo and Ci. Therefore, Fu bound to phosphorylated Cos2 would be absent from the complex, preventing the release of all the cytoplasmic anchors from Ci (Reul, 2007).

Because the Cos2 Ser572 residue is not part of the Ci- or Smo-binding domains, but phosphorylation of this site nevertheless leads to the dissociation of these two proteins from Cos2, it is proposed that the Fu-mediated modification of Cos2 induces the protein to undergo a conformational change that leads to the disassembly of the complex. The disassembly is partial because phosphorylated Cos2 and Fu are still associated. Interestingly, it has been proposed that the binding of Cos2, Sufu and Fu to Ci masks a nuclear localisation site on Ci (Ci-NLS). A conformational change that supports this idea: that disassembly of the complex is necessary to expose the Ci-NLS and for consequent nuclear translocation (Reul, 2007).

Extracellular Hedgehog (Hh) proteins alter cellular behaviours from flies to man by regulating the activities of Gli/Ci family transcription factors. A major component of this response in Drosophila is the inhibition of proteolytic processing of the latent transcriptional activator Ci-155 to a shorter Ci-75 repressor form. Processing is thought to rely on binding of the kinesin-family protein Cos2 directly to Ci-155 domains known as CDN and CORD, allowing Cos2-associated protein kinases to phosphorylate Ci-155 efficiently and create a binding site for an E3 ubiquitin ligase complex. This study shows that the last three zinc fingers of Ci-155 also bind Cos2 in vitro and that the zinc finger region, rather than the CDN domain, functions redundantly with the CORD domain to promote Hh-regulated Ci-155 proteolysis in wing discs. Evidence was also found for a unique function of Cos2 binding to CORD. Cos2 binding to CORD, but not to other regions of Ci, is potentiated by nucleotides and abrogated by the nucleotide binding variant Cos2 S182N. Removal of the CORD region alone enhances processing under a variety of conditions. Most strikingly, CORD region deletion allows Cos2 S182N to stimulate efficient Ci processing. It is deduced that the CORD region has a second function distinct from Cos2 binding that inhibits Ci processing, and that Cos2 binding to CORD relieves this inhibition. It is suggested that this regulatory activity of Cos2 depends on a specific nucleotide-bound conformation that may be regulated by Hh (Zhou, 2010).

Prior to this study it was thought that Cos2 regulates Ci by binding to specific protein kinases and directly to Ci-155 via two regions, CDN and CORD to promote Ci-155 phosphorylation. Experiments with tissue culture cells suggested that CDN and CORD regions of Ci-155 act largely redundantly to promote Ci-155 processing. The current investigations have modified these views in two significant ways. First, studies in the physiological setting of Drosophila wing discs confirm some functional redundancy of two Cos2-binding regions on Ci to promote Ci proteolysis, but the region acting together with the CORD binding site comprises the last three zinc fingers of Ci, not the CDN region. Second, it was found that the CORD region has an additional unique function of inhibiting Ci proteolysis unless it binds to Cos2. Furthermore, the potential was uncovered for Cos2-CORD association to be regulated by nucleotide binding to Cos2 and evidence was uncovered that Hh signalling may modulate Cos2 function in at least two ways to regulate its interaction with Ci (Zhou, 2010).

Three new observations lead to the deducition that Cos2 binding to CORD has an important non-redundant role in promoting Ci processing in the absence of Hh. First, it was found that removing the entire CORD region enhanced Ci proteolysis in a number of settings, revealing an inhibitory role for CORD. Similar criteria suggested an inhibitory role also for the CDN region of Ci. Second, it was found that Cos2 S182N fails to bind the CORD region of Ci but binds normally to a Ci region including the zinc fingers and CDN in vitro. Third, it was found that Cos2 S182N promotes efficient proteolysis of Ci only when the CORD region is absent. The restoration of proteolysis was specific to the S182N substitution and deletion of the CORD domain. Loss of CORD did not allow proteolysis by Cos2 S572D and loss of CDN did not allow proteolysis by Cos2 S182N. It is concluded that the strong defect of Cos2 S182N in supporting wild-type Ci processing results principally from an inability to bind to CORD and thereby relieve the inhibitory effect of CORD on Ci-155 processing. The importance of Cos2-CORD binding was not apparent by simple deletion of the CORD region because that deletion simultaneously eliminates Cos2 binding and the need for Cos2 binding, while sparing the zinc fingers of Ci as an alternative means to recruit Cos2. While Cos2 S182N mediated the proteolysis of Ci molecules lacking the CORD region remarkably efficiently, wild-type Cos2 was consistently better, implying that Cos2 S182N does have a deficit beyond CORD binding that is relevant to Ci proteolysis. That, relatively minor, deficit may stem from the failure of Cos2 S182N to move normally along microtubules (Farzan, 2008; Zhou, 2010).

What is the nature of the inhibitory influence of the CORD region on Ci proteolysis? A variety of segments of Ci, including the zinc fingers, CORD and phosphorylation regions, have been found to bind to each other in vitro. It is therefore speculated that the CORD region may interact, intra- or inter-molecularly, with other regions of Ci, to limit exposure of either key phosphorylation sites to protein kinases, or of the zinc finger and CORD regions to Cos2. The CDN region of Ci also appears to contribute to interactions that make Ci less accessible to one or more steps directing its proteolysis. Relief of CDN inhibition does not, however, appear to depend on Cos2 binding to CORD (because Ci?CORD is efficiently processed by Cos2 S182N) and is apparent in the presence or absence of either CORD or zinc finger Cos2-binding domains (Zhou, 2010).

In addition to a unique function of Cos2 binding to CORD, this association also has a function that can alternatively be executed by the zinc finger region. This assertion is deduced simply from the defective proteolysis of CiδZnδCORD compared to the efficient proteolysis of both CiδZn and CiδCORD (whether assayed in the presence or absence of CDN). Most likely this function is the recruitment of Cos2-associated protein kinases to Ci (Zhou, 2010).

What properties are conferred by the two partially overlapping functions of Cos2-Ci binding and the two Ci domains capable of recruiting Cos2? An obvious hypothesis is that this diversifies the means by which Hh can regulate Ci processing through Cos2, perhaps to extend the range of Hh sensitivity or to produce a more robust Hh response. Specific mechanisms are considered in the next section but the general hypothesis can be investigated by simply eliminating specific modes of Cos2-Ci interaction. It has not been possible to probe the consequences of eliminating Ci zinc fingers in detail because loss of DNA binding prevents execution of normal Ci functions. However, the regulation of CiδCORD and CiδCDN?CORD appeared to be remarkably normal. High levels of Hh in posterior cells fully inhibited Ci processing and elevated full-length Ci protein levels extended over roughly the normal range at the AP border, suggesting that sensitivity to significant inhibition by low Hh levels is also retained. The sensitivity of proteolysis of Ci lacking zinc fingers to low Hh levels also appeared to be roughly normal. Therefore the idea is favoured that the multiple Cos2-Ci interactions are each subject to Hh regulation over a similar range of sensitivity, and that the mechanisms for regulating Cos2-Ci interactions by Hh, like the interactions themselves, are largely redundant, resulting in a very robust regulatory response that is resistant to single genetic perturbations (Zhou, 2010).

Evidence has previously been presented that Hh causes some degree of dissociation between Cos2 and the protein kinases, PKA, CK1 and GSK3, as well as reduced association between Cos2 and Ci. These mechanisms are, of course, not exclusive and their quantitative contributions remain unresolved because definitive physiological measurements of association are very difficult. More importantly, the upstream instigators of these proposed dissociations are not at all clear. The current studies suggest that a specific nucleotide-dependent conformation of Cos2 may be one important mediator of Hh signalling (Zhou, 2010).

It was found that nucleotides stimulated binding of Cos2 derived from cell extracts to GST-Ci CORD, presumably by increasing the proportion of Cos2 molecules that are nucleotide bound. Conventional kinesins are not readily isolated in a nucleotide-free state and their properties are generally altered by exchanging one bound nucleotide for another. It is therefore surprising that it was possible to alter Cos2 properties by adding excess nucleotide rather than by altering the nature of the excess nucleotide. Cos2 has been noted to differ from conventional kinesins in a number of conserved residues but retains residues S182 and G175 within the conserved P-loop that interacts with the β-phosphate of bound nucleotides. There are no reliable means to predict whether Cos2 S182N or G175A would be defective for binding specific nucleotides, all nucleotides or nucleotide hydrolysis, and those properties have not been measured directly for Cos2 or Cos2 variants. Nevertheless, the observation that both Cos2 S182N and G175A showed no evidence of binding CORD suggests two complementary assertions. First, Cos2 S182N and G175A are unable to adopt a nucleotide-bound conformation that is stringently required for binding CORD. Second, the binding of wild-type Cos2 in the absence of added nucleotide is most likely due to a minor proportion of Cos2 molecules bound to nucleotides rather than due to a lower affinity interaction of a nucleotide-free conformation of Cos2. Thus, it is hypothesised that distinct Cos2 conformations, influenced by nucleotide binding, constitute a clean on/off switch for binding the CORD region of Ci (Zhou, 2010).

Conformational changes couple nucleotide binding and microtubule association in kinesins. Hence, the previously observed Hh-induced dissociation of Cos2 from microtubules supports the hypothesis that Hh induces a conformational change in Cos2 that alters nucleotide binding, CORD association and microtubule binding. The speculated Hh-induced conformational change is most likely brought about by the known direct association of Cos2 with Smo. Smo is related to G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), suggesting that the actions of Smo on Cos2 could conceivably be analogous to the nucleotide exchange factor activity of GPCRs, which is normally directed to regulating G-protein conformation and activity (Zhou, 2010).

While modulation of Cos2-CORD interaction through an altered Cos2 conformation phenocopied by Cos2 S182N provides a potential mechanism for Hh to influence the efficiency of Ci proteolysis, it cannot be the sole mechanism because CiδCORD (and CiδCDN?CORD) proteolysis is still extensively regulated by Hh. The Cos2 S572D variant was created previously to mimic Hh-stimulated phosphorylation of Cos2 by Fused and was shown to have reduced ability to co-localise with Ci in embryos and co-precipitate Ci from tissue culture cells. This study found no significant defect in binding of Cos2 S572D to CORD or zinc finger regions of Ci in vitro, suggesting that the biochemical deficits of Cos2 S572D and Cos2 S182N are distinct. This was confirmed by in vivo studies showing that, unlike Cos2 S182N, Cos2 S572D did not preferentially promote proteolysis of Ci lacking the CORD region. Thus, current evidence indicates that Hh-stimulated Cos2 phosphorylation by Fu may provide a second, potentially redundant, mechanism for Hh to regulate Cos2-Ci interactions and the consequent processing of Ci-155. Whether the Hh-regulated association of PKA, CK1 and GSK3 with Cos2 is mediated by either Cos2 phosphorylation or nucleotide-dependent Cos2 conformational changes, or by a third, distinct mechanism, remains to be investigated (Zhou, 2010).

Phosphorylation of Ci at specific sites in the CORD domain (PKA site S962) and the Slimb-binding region (especially GSK3 sites primed by PKA site S892) reduced binding of the CORD region to Cos2 in vitro. That investigation was prompted by prior knowledge that loss of PKA sites in the CORD region appeared to enhance Ci activity. However, that observation would more readily be explained by increased, rather than decreased, Cos2-Ci binding in response to Ci phosphorylation. An alternative hypothesis is that the observed dependence of Cos2-CORD binding on Ci phosphorylation might contribute to extending a graded Hh response. Where Hh levels are high, Ci-155 will be less phosphorylated and would bind Cos2 more readily, requiring a strong Hh signal to disrupt Cos2-CORD association. At the edge of Hh signalling territory Ci-155 will be more highly phosphorylated, would bind Cos2 less readily and hence allow only a very low level of Hh to disrupt Cos2-CORD association and inhibit Ci-155 processing. Currently there has not been any in vivo evidence testing that hypothesis (Zhou, 2010).

While large regions of Ci (CDN and CORD) could be deleted without impairing proteolysis, implying that Ci is composed largely of independently folding domains, two other deletions (of residues 6-339 and 1286-1377) were identified with significant effects on proteolysis. Ci lacking C-terminal residues did not generate any detectable Ci-75 repressor. CiδC strongly induced ptc-lacZ, implying that binding to CBP, which has been mapped to an adjacent region of Ci and is required for Ci-155 activity, was not affected. How the C-terminus of Ci contributes to proteolysis remains a mystery since there is no evidence from binding assays or co-localization studies in tissue culture cells showing association with Cos2 or Cos2-associated factors (Zhou, 2010).

A study using Kc tissue culture cells previously identified the extreme C-terminus of Ci as essential for Ci processing (Wang, 2008). That study also found that the zinc fingers of Ci were not essential for processing, provided they were substituted by a stably folded domain that contributes to the arrest of proteasome digestion. That result is consistent with the observation that CiδZn is efficiently proteolyzed in wing discs. However, in contrast to the observation of very efficient processing of CiδCDNδCORD in wing discs, it was reported that one of these two domains must be present for efficient Ci processing in Kc cells. In fact, the key Ci substrate assayed also lacked residues 1-345 and is therefore virtually identical to the CiδNδCDNδCORD variant (rather than CiδCDNδCORD), which is also processed with reduced efficiency in wing discs (Zhou, 2010).

Removing the N-terminal region (residues 6-339) from Ci strongly raised anterior full-length Ci levels but did not appear to block proteolysis completely because loss of PKA was found to increase the activity of CiδN, presumably by completely eliminating proteolysis. Su(fu) is known to bind within the first 346 residues of Ci and has the potential to recruit Fu-Cos2 complexes to Ci indirectly. In Drosophila, loss of Su(fu) results in strongly reduced Ci-155 and Ci-75 levels but still permits Hh or loss of PKA to increase Ci-155 levels and Hh to inhibit Ci-75 repressor formation. Thus, Su(fu) is certainly not essential for Ci processing or its regulation. The substantial effects of Su(fu) on Ci-155 and Ci-75 levels are thought to involve a different proteolytic mechanism but it remains possible that Su(fu) might also modulate Ci processing efficiency. It is therefore similarly possible that the impaired proteolysis of CiδN results from a failure of Su(fu) to facilitate recruitment of Cos2-Fu complexes to Ci (Zhou, 2010).

In summary, this study has found that Ci-155 has at least two domains (CORD and zinc fingers) functionally capable of recruiting Cos2 directly, that Cos2 binding to the CORD domain additionally prevents that region from inhibiting proteolysis, and that the Cos2-CORD interaction might be regulated physiologically via a specific nucleotide-bound conformation of Cos2. Evidence was also found indicating that Cos2 might additionally be recruited indirectly to Ci, that Hh regulates productive Cos2-Ci engagement through multiple, potentially redundant, mechanisms, and that two terminal Ci-155 domains contribute to processing through mechanisms that are not yet understood (Zhou, 2010).

In flies and mammals, extracellular Hedgehog (Hh) molecules alter cell fates and proliferation by regulating the levels and activities of Ci/Gli family transcription factors. How Hh-induced activation of transmembrane Smoothened (Smo) proteins reverses Ci/Gli inhibition by Suppressor of Fused (SuFu) and kinesin family protein (Cos2/Kif7) binding partners is a major unanswered question. This study shows that the Fused (Fu) protein kinase is activated by Smo and Cos2 via Fu- and CK1-dependent phosphorylation. Activated Fu can recapitulate a full Hh response, stabilizing full-length Ci via Cos2 phosphorylation and activating full-length Ci by antagonizing Su(fu) and by other mechanisms. It is proposed that Smo/Cos2 interactions stimulate Fu autoactivation by concentrating Fu at the membrane. Autoactivation primes Fu for additional CK1-dependent phosphorylation, which further enhances kinase activity. In this model, Smo acts like many transmembrane receptors associated with cytoplasmic kinases, such that pathway activation is mediated by kinase oligomerization and trans-phosphorylation (Zhou, 2011).

This study has shown that Fu is activated by phosphorylation in a Hh-initiated positive feedback loop and that Fu kinase activity alone can provoke the two key outcomes of Hh signaling in Drosophila, namely Ci-155 stabilization and Ci-155 activation. This previously unrecognized central thread of the Drosophila Hh pathway is strikingly similar to receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) pathways or cytokine pathways, where the transmembrane receptor itself or an associated cytoplasmic tyrosine kinase initiates signal transduction via intermolecular phosphorylation. In Hh signaling, engagement of the Ptc receptor leads indirectly to changes in Smo conformation, and perhaps oligomerization that are relayed to Fu via a mutual binding partner, Cos2 (Zhou, 2011).

Three activation loop residues were identified as critical for normal Fu activity. Fu with acidic residues at T151 and T154 (Fu-EE) was not active at physiological levels in the absence of Hh but could initiate Fu activation in three different ways. First, increasing Fu- EE levels induces the full spectrum of Hh target genes and responses in wing discs and is accompanied by extensive phosphorylation, undoubtedly including S159, indicating that phosphorylation can fully activate Fu. Second, low levels of a Fu-EE derivative could synergize with an excess of wild-type Fu, provided the latter molecule had an intact activation loop and was kinase-competent, indicating that a feedback phosphorylation loop could initiate Fu activation even from a ground state containing no phosphorylated residues or their mimics. Third, Hh could activate Fu-EE or wild-type Fu, but this, unlike the above mechanisms, required Cos2 and the Cos2-binding region of Fu. Activation by Hh alters Smo conformation and increases the plasma membrane concentration of Smo-Cos2 complexes, suggesting that the role of activated Smo-Cos2 complexes may simply be to aggregate Fu molecules (Zhou, 2011).

In all of the above situations there is likely an important contribution of binding between the catalytic and regulatory regions of pairs of Fu molecules to allow cross-phosphorylation, as suggested by the impotence of the Fu-EE 1-305 kinase domain alone. The sites of inferred cross-phosphorylation, T151, S159, and S482 might most simply be direct Fu auto-phosphorylation sites but they may involve the participation of an intermediate kinase. Importantly, because Fu is the key activating stimulus and Fu is the key target for activation, there is no need to postulate additional upstream regulatory inputs into a hypothetical intermediary protein kinase. Phosphorylated residues in positions analogous to Fu S159 generally stabilize the active form of the protein kinase, whereas unphosphorylated residues at other positions, closer to the DFG motif may also, or exclusively, stabilize specific inactive conformations. By analogy, phosphorylated T151, T154, and S159 are likely to serve independent, additive functions, all of which are required to generate fully active Fu kinase. There are clearly additional phosphorylated residues on Fu, including the cluster at S482, S485, and T486. These residues are not essential for Hh or Fu-EE to generate fully active Fu when Fu is expressed at high levels. However, S485A/T486A substitutions did suppress activation of GAP-Fu in wing discs and in Kc cells, suggesting that stimulation of physiological levels of Fu, perhaps by lower levels of Hh uses S482, S485, and T486 phosphorylation to favor an active conformation of Fu or productive engagement of Fu molecules. Because the S482 region may be recognized directly as a substrate by the Fu catalytic site, this region may initially mask the catalytic site (in cis or in trans) and then reduce its affinity for the catalytic site once it is phosphorylated, permitting further phosphorylation of Fu in its activation loop (Zhou, 2011).

For a long time it was thought that Fu kinase acts only to prevent inhibition of Ci-155 by Su(fu), and Fu was postulated to accomplish this by phosphorylating Su(fu). This study mapped the sites responsible for the previously observed Hh- and Fu-stimulated phosphorylation of Su(fu) and showed that they were not important for regulating Hh pathway activity. It was found that CK1, like Fu, was required for Hh to oppose Su(fu) inhibition of Ci-155 and because each of the Fu-dependent phosphorylation sites in Fu and Su(fu) that were mapped in this study prime CK1 sites it is suspected that the critical unidentified Fu and CK1 sites for antagonizing Su(fu) will be found in the same molecule, with Ci-155 itself being a prime candidate (Zhou, 2011).

This study found that Fu does considerably more than just antagonize Su(fu). It was unexpectedly found that Fu kinase can also stabilize Ci-155 via phosphorylation of Cos2 on S572, which likely leads to reduced association of Cos2 Ci-155 activation independently of Su(fu), even when Ci-155 processing was blocked by other means (Zhou, 2011).

Some insight was gained into the key regulatory role that Fu plays in Hh signaling. The truncated partially activated Fu derivative, Fu-EE 1-473, exhibited constitutive activity when expressed at high levels but, unlike full-length Fu-EE, it was not activated by Hh. Importantly, a level of Fu-EE 1-473 expression could not be found in fu^mH63 mutant wing discs where Hh target genes were induced at the AP border but not ectopically. Hence, Hh regulation of Fu activity appears to be essential for normal Hh signaling. This contrasts with the normal Hh signaling observed in animals lacking Su(fu) and emphasizes that Fu is a key regulatory component that has essential actions beyond antagonizing Su(fu) (Zhou, 2011).

In mice, SUFU increases Gli protein levels and inhibits Gli activators in a manner that can be overcome by Hh, much as Su(fu) affects Ci levels and activity in flies. However, in mammalian Hh signaling there is no satisfactory mechanistic model connecting Smo activation and SUFU antagonism. This study found that mouse SUFU can substitute for all of the activities of Su(fu) in flies, including a dependence on both Fu and CK1 for Hh to antagonize silencing of Ci-155. These findings, and the observation that Drosophila Su(fu) can partially substitute for murine SUFU in mouse embryo fibroblasts, suggest that SUFU silencing of Gli proteins in mice is also likely to be sensitive to analogous changes in phosphorylation produced by at least one Hh-stimulated protein kinase. Even though the murine protein kinase most similar in sequence to Drosophila Fu is not required for Hh signaling at least three other protein kinases (MAP3K10, Cdc2l1, and ULK3) have been found to contribute positively to Hh responses in cultured mammalian cells. It will be of great interest to see if these or other protein kinases are activated by Hedgehog ligands, perhaps promoted by association with Smo-Kif7 complexes in a positive feedback loop, and whether they can antagonize mSUFU to activate Gli proteins, and perhaps even stabilize Gli proteins via Kif7 phosphorylation (Zhou, 2011).

Hedgehog (Hh) transduces signal by regulating the subcellular localization and conformational state of the GPCR-like protein Smoothened (Smo) but how Smo relays the signal to cytoplasmic signaling components remains poorly understood. This study shows that Hh-induced Smo conformational change recruits Costal2 (Cos2)/Fused (Fu) and promotes Fu kinase domain dimerization. Induced dimerization through the Fu kinase domain activates Fu by inducing multi-site phosphorylation of its activation loop (AL) and phospho-mimetic mutations of AL activate the Hh pathway. Interestingly, it was observed that graded Hh signals progressively increase Fu kinase domain dimerization and AL phosphorylation, suggesting that Hh activates Fu in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, it was found that activated Fu regulates Cubitus interruptus (Ci) by both promoting its transcriptional activator activity and inhibiting its proteolysis into a repressor form. Evidence is provided that activated Fu exerts these regulations by interfering with the formation of Ci-Sufu and Ci-Cos2-kinase complexes that normally inhibit Ci activity and promote its processing. Taken together, these results suggest that Hh-induced Smo conformational change facilitates the assembly of active Smo-Cos2-Fu signaling complexes that promote Fu kinase domain dimerization, phosphorylation and activation, and that Fu regulates both the activator and repressor forms of Ci (Shi, 2011).

How Hh signal is transduced from the GPCR-like receptor Smo to the transcription factor Ci/Gli is still poorly understood. A major unsolved issue is how a change in the Smo activation state is translated into a change in the activity of intracellular signaling complexes, which ultimately changes the balance between Ci^R/Gli^R and Ci^A/Gli^A. The current study suggests that Hh-induced conformational change of Smo exposes a Cos2 docking site(s) near the Smo C terminus that facilitates the assembly of an active Smo-Cos2-Fu complex, and that Smo activates Fu by promoting its kinase domain dimerization and phosphorylation. Evidence is provided that graded Hh signals progressively increase Fu kinase domain dimerization and phosphorylation, which may generate a Fu activity gradient, and that activated Fu regulates both Ci^R and Ci^A by controlling Ci-Sufu and Ci-Cos2-kinase complex formation (Shi, 2011).

Previous immunoprecipitation studies have revealed that Smo pulled down Cos2/Fu in both quiescent cells and Hh-stimulated cells, suggesting that Smo can form a complex with Cos2/Fu even in the absence of Hh. Furthermore, deletion analyses have indicated that both a membrane proximal domain and a C-terminal region of Smo C-tail can mediate the interaction between Smo and Cos2/Fu. Intriguingly, deleting the C-terminal region impaired, whereas deleting the membrane proximal domain potentiated, Smo activity in vivo. Further study suggested that the membrane proximal domain recruits Cos2/PP4 to inhibit Smo phosphorylation and cell-surface accumulation, which is released by Fu-mediated phosphorylation of Cos2 Ser572 in response to Hh. These observations suggest that Smo-Cos2-Fu interaction is likely to be dynamic and that distinct complexes may exist depending on the Hh signaling status. For example, Cos2 may associate with the membrane proximal region of Smo to inhibit Smo phosphorylation in quiescent cells. Upon Hh stimulation, Cos2/Fu may interact with the C-terminal region of Smo to transduce the Hh signal. In support of this model, it was found that Hh stimulated the recruitment of Cos2/Fu to the C-terminal region rather than the membrane proximal region of the Smo C tail. The increased binding depends on phosphorylation-induced conformational change of Smo C-tail that may expose the C-terminal Cos2 binding pocket(s) (Shi, 2011).

Hh signaling induces Fu kinase domain dimerization in a dose-dependent manner, most probably as a consequence of phosphorylation-induced conformational change and dimerization of Smo C tails. In addition, Hh-induced Fu dimerization depends on Cos2. Importantly, dimerization through the Fu kinase domain (CC-Fu) triggers Fu activation both in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, CC-Fu can activate Ci in smo mutant clones and restore high levels of Hh signaling activity in cos2 mutant discs. Taken together, these results support a model in which Hh-induced Fu dimerization via Smo/Cos2 leads to Fu activation (Shi, 2011).

Both Fu dimerization and Hh stimulation induce phosphorylation of multiple Thr/Ser residues in the Fu activation loop that are important for Fu activation. Fu phosphorylation depends on its kinase activity and Fu can trans-phosphorylate itself, suggesting that Hh and dimerization may induce Fu autophosphorylation, although the results do not exclude the involvement of additional kinase(s). CC-induced dimerization does not fully activate Fu, suggesting that Smo may promote Fu activation through additional mechanisms. Activated Fu can promote phosphorylation of its C-terminal regulatory fragment, raising a possibility that Fu activation may also involve phosphorylation of its regulatory domain. Indeed, while this manuscript was under review, Zhou and Kalderon provided evidence that phosphorylation of several Ser/Thr residues in the Fu regulatory domain, likely by CK1, modulates the activity of an activated form of Fu (Zhou, 2011; Shi, 2011 and references therein).

The involvement of multiple phosphorylation events in Fu activation may provide a mechanism for fine-tuning Fu activity in response to different levels of Hh. Indeed, the efficiency of Fu dimerization and the level of activation loop phosphorylation correlate with the level of Hh signaling. Furthermore, the level of Fu activity correlates with the level of its activation loop phosphorylation. Thus, graded Hh signals may generate a Fu activity gradient by progressively increasing its dimerization and phosphorylation in response to a gradual increase in Smo phosphorylation and C-tail dimerization (Shi, 2011).

The conventional view is that Fu is required for high levels of Hh signaling by converting Ci^F into Ci^A. In support of this notion, fu mutations only affect the high, but not low, threshold Hh responsive genes. However, Fu function could have been underestimated because none of the fu mutations examined so far represents a null mutation. In addition, the existence of paralleled mechanisms, such as Gαi activation, could mask the contribution of Fu to low levels of Hh signaling. Nevertheless, a recent study using the phospho-specific antibody against Cos2 Ser572 revealed that Fu kinase activity could be induced by low levels of Hh, raising an interesting possibility that Fu may contribute to all levels of Hh signaling (Raisin, 2010). However, the lack of a fu-null mutation and the involvement of Fu in promoting Ci processing, probably through a structural role, make it difficult to directly demonstrate a role of Fu in blocking Ci processing. Using an in vivo assay for Ci processing, it was demonstrated that activated forms of Fu block Ci processing into Ci^R. In addition, this study found that activated Fu attenuates the association between Cos2 and Ci, as well as their association with PKA/CK1/GSK3, probably by phosphorylating Cos2, suggesting that activated Fu may block Ci processing by impeding the formation of the kinase complex required for efficient Ci phosphorylation (Shi, 2011).

Evidence is provided that activated Fu attenuates Ci/Sufu interaction. Because Sufu impedes Ci nuclear localization and may recruit a co-repressor(s) to further inhibit Ci activity in the nucleus, dissociation of Ci from Sufu may lead to the conversion of Ci^F to Ci^A. Interestingly, recent studies using mammalian cultured cells revealed that Shh signaling induces dissociation of full-length Gli proteins from Sufu (Humke, 2010; Tukachinsky, 2010), suggesting that inhibition of Sufu-Ci/Gli complex formation could be a conserved mechanism for Ci/Gli activation. Although activated forms of Fu promote Sufu phosphorylation, phospho-deficient and phospho-mimetic forms of Sufu behaved in a similar manner to wild-type Sufu in functional assays (Zhou, 2011), implying that phosphorylation of Sufu might not be a major mechanism through which Fu activates Ci. It has been shown that Shh also induces phosphorylation of full-length Gli3 that correlates with its nuclear localization (Humke, 2010). Furthermore, a Fu-related kinase Ulk3 can phosphorylate Gli proteins and promote their transcriptional activities (Maloverjan, 2010). Thus, Fu may activate Ci by promoting its phosphorylation, an interesting possibility that awaits further investigation (Shi, 2011).

Cilia mediate Hedgehog (Hh) signaling in vertebrates and Hh deregulation results in several clinical manifestations, such as obesity, cognitive disabilities, developmental malformations, and various cancers. Drosophila cells are nonciliated during development, which has led to the assumption that cilia-mediated Hh signaling is restricted to vertebrates. This study identified and characterized a cilia-mediated Hh pathway in Drosophila olfactory sensory neurons. Several fundamental key aspects of the vertebrate cilia pathway, such as ciliary localization of Smoothened and the requirement of the intraflagellar transport system, are present in Drosophila. Cos2 and Fused are required for the ciliary transport of Smoothened and cilia mediate the expression of the Hh pathway target genes. Taken together, these data demonstrate that Hh signaling in Drosophila can be mediated by two pathways and that the ciliary Hh pathway is conserved from Drosophila to vertebrates (Kuzhandaivel, 2014).

The existence of this second cilia-dependent Hh pathway in Drosophila shows that Hh signaling can be mediated via two pathways within a single organism. The results further demonstrate that the core components are shared between the two Hh pathways in Drosophila. The function of Cos2 as a putative kinesin in the ciliary compartment indicates that the ancestral Hh signaling pathway may have been cilia specific and that invertebrate cells did not maintain this specialization. Interestingly, not all vertebrate cells have primary cilia, and different types of tumors react differently to Shh depending on whether they are ciliated, indicating that there might be a second, overlooked nonciliary pathway in vertebrates (Kuzhandaivel, 2014).

Genetic in vivo analysis of Smo ciliary localization revealed that, as in vertebrates, the ciliary IFT system and a ciliary localization signal are required for localization of Smo to cilia in Drosophila. The results further show that the Hh receptor Ptc regulates Smo stability and that ciliary localization depends on the activation of the kinesin-like protein Cos2. In the Drosophila wing disc, Fu regulates Cos2 function and is required for most aspects of Hh signaling. The current data show that Fu is also required for Cos2 ciliary localization and Smo transport within the cilia. However, Fu is not essential for mammalian Hh signaling, and in zebrafish, loss of Fu results in weak Hh-related morphological phenotypes. These differences from the Drosophila pathway and vertebrate ciliary signaling could be explained by the existence of a second, as yet unidentified kinase with an analogous function. Cell culture and in vivo studies in vertebrates led to the identification of four kinases with phenotypes related to Fu: Ulk3, Kif11, Map3K10, and Dyrk2. Further investigation is required to determine whether these kinases control the ciliary transport of Smo and whether Cos2 Smo transport is conserved in vertebrates. Yet, the current results demonstrate that cilia-mediated Hh signaling does occur in Drosophila and that this pathway is conserved in vertebrates, which makes the Drosophila OSN a powerful in vivo model for studying Hh signaling and its ciliary transport regulation (Kuzhandaivel, 2014).