wingless
Molecular motors actively transport many types of cargo along the cytoskeleton in a wide range of organisms. One class of cargo is localized mRNAs, which are transported by myosin on actin filaments or by kinesin and dynein on microtubules. How the cargo is kept at its final intracellular destination and whether the motors are recycled after completion of transport are poorly understood. A new RNA anchoring assay in living Drosophila blastoderm embryos has been used to show that apical anchoring of mRNA after completion of dynein transport does not depend on actin or on continuous active transport by the motor. Instead, apical anchoring of RNA requires microtubules and involves dynein as a static anchor that remains with the cargo at its final destination. This study proposes a general principle that could also apply to other dynein cargo and to some other molecular motors, whereby cargo transport and anchoring reside in the same molecule (Delanoue, 2005).
This study has used a specific RNA anchoring assay to distinguish between the four main models that could explain how apical wg and pair-rule mRNA (runt, and fushi tarazu) are retained in the apical cytoplasm after their transport by dynein. The models that have been proposed could also apply to other molecular motors and their various cargos. (1) The dynein motor could release the RNA cargo at its final destination, allowing the RNA to bind to an actin-dependent static anchor and the motor to participate in further transport. (2) The anchor could be MT associated rather than actin based. (3) RNA could be retained in the apical cytoplasm by continuous active transport without anchoring. (4) The motor itself could retain the cargo and turn into a static anchor when it reaches the final destination (Delanoue, 2005).
At the outset of this study, it was anticipated that cargo anchoring via actin was the most likely possibility given that actin is thought to be involved in anchoring of many other RNAs. It was also thought that after a motor completes a transport cycle, it releases the cargo and is available for transport of new cargo. However, in general, there has not been very good direct evidence showing that such a model is correct because of the lack of an assay that could discriminate between the transport and anchoring steps. In this study, two specific assays were used: one for transport and another for anchoring. Both anchoring and transport were assayed at the same time in the same embryo using two distinct RNAs. These specific assays have allowed a test and refutation of the prevailing actin anchoring model at least in the case of runt, fushi tarazu and wg apical mRNA localization in the Drosophila blastoderm embryo. Against expectations, the results show that the fourth model is correct, namely that wg and pair-rule RNA are anchored by a dynein-dependent mechanism so that the motor molecules are maintained to the site of anchoring with the cargo. The data shows that the requirement for dynein to anchor the apical RNA is independent of the ATPase activity of the motor and its transport cofactors Egl and BicD, all of which are required for the active transport of the RNA. These observations are best explained by a model in which the dynein motor involved in apical transport of RNA does not release the cargo and acts as a static anchor at the final destination (Delanoue, 2005).
It is interesting to consider how a dynamic motor such as dynein could turn into a static anchor after completion of cargo transport. Dynein is a large multicomplex motor that is difficult to work with in vitro. Nevertheless, many of the subunits of dynein are defined and the force-generating protein, Dhc, is thought to contain physically distinct ATPase and MT binding domains. It is therefore easy to imagine how the motor could change to a static anchor by remaining attached to MTs via the MT binding domain and losing its ATPase force-generating capacity. Indeed, ATPase-independent MT binding has been observed with dynein under in vitro conditions. While it is difficult to compare in vitro studies with the current studies in vivo, the latter are likely to show much more complex and varied interactions with proteins in the cell. Indeed, anchoring may also involve interactions with additional components not present in vitro, such as MT-associated proteins (MAPs), which could stabilize the binding of dynein to the apical MTs or could physically obstruct the motor movement. Another possibility could be anchoring through association with ribosomes, but this can be ruled out in the case of wg and pair-rule RNA, since RNAs lacking a coding region can be transported and anchored correctly. Alternative hypotheses, which cannot be ruled out, include a change of conformation or modifications of the structure of the dynein-dynactin complex. While the data demonstrate conclusively a new RNA-anchoring function for dynein, they do not allow distinguishing between the various hypotheses of how this anchoring occurs at the molecular level, nor test definitively whether Dynactin is required for anchoring. p50/dynamitin is present with the anchored RNA, and overexpression of p50/dynamitin and a Glued/p150 allele cause a partial inhibition of RNA localization with no obvious effects on anchoring. These results suggest, but do not demonstrate conclusively, that Dynactin is not required for anchoring. Furthermore, while it is shown that the ATPase activity of the motor is not required for anchoring, this observation does not test whether dynactin is required in addition to dynein for anchoring (Delanoue, 2005).
Whatever the molecular basis for the dynein anchoring function that was uncovered, it seems likely that the described anchoring does not involve a single dynein molecule anchoring a single RNA molecule. Instead, the RNA cargo is likely to consist of particles containing many RNA molecules and probably many motor complexes. The cargo is thus likely to remain strongly attached to at least some motor molecules throughout transport and anchoring. However, it is not yet known what the linkers between the RNA and motors are (Delanoue, 2005).
Little is also known about the mechanism of anchoring of other dynein cargos, although the mechanism of transport of RNA by dynein could be very similar to other cargos such as lipid droplets. Dynein is also required for nuclear positioning and tethering in many systems, so its role as a static anchor may be widespread. Furthermore, some kinesin-like proteins are also thought to interact with static cell components, and recent in vitro studies show that myosin VI can switch from a motor to an anchor under tension. This process has been proposed to stabilize actin cytoskeletal structures and link protein complexes to actin structures. It is therefore proposed that myosins, kinesins, and dynein may all be able to switch under certain circumstances from dynamic motors to static anchors and that the observations of this study may represent a general principle for anchoring of some cargos following transport to their final cytoplasmic destination (Delanoue, 2005).
Fragile X syndrome (FXS), the most common inherited determinant of
intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorders, is caused
by loss of the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) gene product
(FMRP), an mRNA-binding translational repressor. A number of
conserved FMRP targets have been identified in the
well-characterized Drosophila FXS disease model, but
FMRP is highly pleiotropic in function and the full spectrum of
FMRP targets has yet to be revealed. In this study, screens for
upregulated neural proteins in Drosophila fmr1 (dfmr1)
null mutants reveal strong elevation of two synaptic heparan
sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs): GPI-anchored glypican Dally-like
protein (Dlp) and transmembrane Syndecan
(Sdc). Earlier work has shown that Dlp and Sdc act as co-receptors
regulating extracellular ligands upstream of intracellular signal
transduction in multiple trans-synaptic pathways that drive
synaptogenesis. Consistently, dfmr1 null synapses
exhibit altered WNT signaling, with changes in both Wingless
(Wg) ligand abundance and downstream Frizzled-2
(Fz2) receptor C-terminal nuclear import. Similarly, a parallel
anterograde signaling ligand, Jelly
belly (Jeb), and downstream ERK phosphorylation (dpERK)
are depressed at dfmr1 null synapses. In contrast, the
retrograde BMP ligand Glass
bottom boat (Gbb) and downstream signaling via
phosphorylation of the transcription factor MAD (pMAD)
seem not to be affected. To determine whether HSPG upregulation is
causative for synaptogenic defects, HSPGs were genetically reduced
to control levels in the dfmr1 null background. HSPG
correction restored both (1) Wg and Jeb trans-synaptic signaling,
and (2) synaptic architecture and transmission strength back to
wild-type levels. Taken together, these data suggest that FMRP
negatively regulates HSPG co-receptors controlling trans-synaptic
signaling during synaptogenesis, and that loss of this regulation
causes synaptic structure and function defects characterizing the
FXS disease state (Friedman, 2013).
FXS is widely considered a disease state arising from synaptic
dysfunction, with pre- and postsynaptic defects well characterized
in the Drosophila disease model. There has been much
work documenting FXS phenotypes in humans as well as in animal
models, but there has been less progress on mechanistic
underpinnings. This study focuses on the extracellular
synaptomatrix in FXS owing to identification of pharmacological
and genetic interactions between FMRP and secreted MMPs, a
mechanism that is conserved in mammals. Other studies have also
highlighted the importance of the synaptomatrix in synaptogenesis,
particularly the roles of membrane-anchored HSPGs as co-receptors
regulating trans-synaptic signaling. Importantly, it has been
shown that FMRP binds HSPG mRNAs, thereby presumably repressing
translation. Based on these multiple lines of evidence, this study
hypothesized that the FMRP-MMP-HSPG intersection provides a
coordinate mechanism for the pre- and postsynaptic defects
characterizing the FXS disease state, with trans-synaptic
signaling orchestrating synapse maturation across the synaptic
cleft (Friedman, 2013). In testing this hypothesis, a dramatic upregulation of
GPI-anchored glypican Dlp and transmembrane Sdc HSPGs was
discovered at dfmr1 null NMJ synapses. Indeed, these are
among the largest synaptic molecular changes reported in the Drosophila
FXS disease model. Importantly, HSPGs have been shown to play key
roles in synaptic development. For example, the mammalian HSPG
Agrin has long been known to regulate acetylcholine receptors,
interconnected with a glycan network modulating trans-synaptic
signaling. In Drosophila, Dlp, Sdc and Perlecan HSPGs
mediate axon guidance, synapse formation and trans-synaptic
signaling. Previous work on dlp mutants reports elevated
neurotransmission, paradoxically similar to the Dlp overexpression
phenotype shown in this study. However, the previous study does
not show Dlp overexpression electrophysiological data, although it
does show increased active zone areas consistent with strengthened
neurotransmission. The same study reports that Dlp overexpression
decreases bouton number on muscle 6/7, which differs from finding
in this study of increased bouton number on muscle 4. Because HSPG
co-receptors regulate trans-synaptic signaling, dfmr1
mutants were tested for changes in three established pathways at
the Drosophila NMJ. Strong alterations in both Wg and
Jeb pathways were found, with anterograde signaling being
downregulated in both cases. In contrast, no change was found in
the retrograde BMP Gbb pathway, suggesting that FMRP plays
specific roles in modulating anterograde trans-synaptic signaling
during synaptogenesis (Friedman, 2013). The defect in Jeb signaling seems to be simple to understand,
with decreased synaptomatrix ligand abundance coupled to decreased
dpERK nuclear localization. However, there is no known link to
HSPG co-receptor regulation. It has been shown earlier that Jeb
signaling is regulated by another synaptomatrix glycan mechanism,
providing a clear precedent for this level of regulation. In
contrast, the Wnt pathway exhibits an inverse relationship between
Wg ligand abundance (elevated) and Fz2-C nuclear signaling
(reduced). This apparent contradiction is explained by the dual
activity of the Dlp co-receptor, which stabilizes extracellular Wg
to retain it at the membrane, but also competes with the Fz2
receptor. This ‘exchange-factor mechanism’ is
competitively dependent on the ratio of Dlp co-receptor to Fz2
receptor, with a higher ratio causing more Wg to be competed away
from Fz2. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that the same elevated
Wg surface retention couples to decreased downstream Fz2-C
signaling in an independent HSPG regulative mechanism at the Drosophila
NMJ. This study suggests that in the dfmr1 null synapse,
highly elevated Dlp traps Wg, thereby preventing it from binding
Fz2 to initiate signaling (Friedman, 2013). Dysregulation of the Wg nuclear import pathway (FNI) provides a
plausible mechanism to explain synapse development defects
underlying the FXS disease state, with established roles in
activity-dependent modulation of synaptic morphogenesis and
neurotransmission. FXS has long been associated with defects in
activity-dependent architectural modulation, including
postsynaptic spine formation, synapse pruning and functional
plasticity. Although it is surely not the only player, aberrant Wg
signaling could play a part in these deficiencies. Importantly, it
has been shown that the FNI pathway is involved in shuttling large
RNA granules out of the postsynaptic nucleus, providing a
potential intersection with the FMRP RNA transport mechanism.
However, the Wg FNI pathway is not the only Wnt signaling at the Drosophila
NMJ, with other outputs including the canonical, divergent
canonical and planar cell polarity pathways, which could be
dysregulated in dfmr1 nulls. For example, a divergent
canonical retrograde pathway proceeds through GSK3β (Shaggy)
to alter microtubule assembly, and the FXS disease state is linked
to dysregulated GSK3β and microtubule stability misregulation
via Drosophila Futsch/mammalian
MAP1B. Moreover, it has been shown that the secreted HSPG Perlecan
(Drosophila
Trol) regulates bidirectional Wnt signaling to affect Drosophila
NMJ structure and/or function, via anterograde FNI and retrograde
divergent canonical pathways. It is also important to note that
previous studies show that a reduction in the FNI pathway, due to
decreased Fz2-C trafficking to the nucleus, leads to decreased NMJ
bouton number. Future work is needed to fully understand
connections between FMRP, HSPGs, the multiple Wnt signaling
pathways and the established defects in the synaptic microtubule
cytoskeleton in the FXS disease state (Friedman, 2013). Adding to the complications of FXS trans-synaptic signaling
regulation, it was shown that two trans-synaptic signaling
pathways are suppressed in parallel: the Wg and Jeb pathways.
Possibly even more promising for clinical relevance, it has been
established that the Jeb signaling functions as a repressor of
neurotransmission strength at the Drosophila NMJ, with jeb
and alk mutants presenting increased evoked synaptic
transmission. Consistently, loss of FMRP leads to increased EJC
amplitudes, which could be due, at least partially, to
misregulated Jeb-Alk signaling. Importantly, it has been shown
that dfmr1 null neurotransmission defects are due to a
combination of pre- and postsynaptic changes, and that there is a
non-cell-autonomous requirement for FMRP in the regulation of
functional changes in the synaptic vesicle (SV) cycle underlying
neurotransmission strength. Additionally, jeb and alk
mutants exhibit synaptic structural changes consistent with this
FMRP interaction, including a larger NMJ area and synaptic bouton
maturation defects, which are markedly similar to the structural
overelaboration phenotypes of the FXS disease state. These data
together suggest that altered Jeb-Alk trans-synaptic signaling
plays a role in the synaptic dysfunction characterizing the dfmr1
null. The study proposes that Wg and Jeb signaling defects likely
interact, in synergistic and/or antagonistic ways, to influence
the combined pre- and postsynaptic alterations characterizing the
FXS disease state (Friedman, 2013). Although trans-synaptic signaling pathways, and in particular
both Wnt and Jeb-Alk pathways, have been proposed to be involved
in the manifestation of a number of neurological disorders, this
study provides the first evidence that aberrant trans-synaptic
signaling is causally involved in an FXS disease model. The study
proposes a mechanism in which FMRP acts to regulate trans-synaptic
ligands by depressing expression of membrane-anchored HSPG
co-receptors. HSPG overexpression alone is sufficient to cause
both synaptic structure and function defects characterizing the
FXS disease state. Increasing HSPG abundance in the postsynaptic
cell is enough to increase the number of presynaptic branches and
synaptic boutons, as well as elevate neurotransmission.
Correlation with these well-established dfmr1 null
synaptic phenotypes suggests that HSPG elevation could be a causal
mechanism. Conclusively, reversing HSPG overexpression in the dfmr1
null is sufficient to correct Wnt and Jeb signaling, and to
restore normal synaptic structure and function. Because there is
no dosage compensation, HSPG heterozygosity offsets the elevation
caused by loss of dfmr1. Correcting both Dlp and Sdc
HSPGs in the dfmr1 background restores Wg and Jeb
signaling to control levels. Correcting Dlp levels by itself
restores synaptic architecture, but both Dlp and Sdc have to be
corrected to restore normal neurotransmission in dfmr1
null synapses. Taken together, these results from the Drosophila
FXS disease model provide exciting new insights into the
mechanisms of synaptic phenotypes caused by the loss of FMRP, and
promising avenues for new therapeutic treatment strategies
(Friedman, 2013).
wingless
continued:
Biological Overview
| Evolutionary Homologs
| Transcriptional regulation
|Targets of Activity
| Protein Interactions
| Developmental Biology
| Effects of Mutation
| References
Home page: The Interactive Fly © 1995, 1996 Thomas B. Brody, Ph.D.
The Interactive Fly resides on the
Society for Developmental Biology's Web server.