Cell fate specification during Caenorhabditis elegans male tail development

The cells of the specialized mating structures of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans adult male tail develop from sex-specific divisions of postembryonic blast cells. One male-specific blast cell, B, is the precursor to all the cells of the copulatory spicules. Both cell interactions and autonomous fate specification mechanisms are utilized in the B lineage to specify fate.

During development the anterior daughter of B, B.a, generates four distinct pairs of cells. Cell ablation experiments indicate that the cells of each pair respond to positional cues provided by other male-specific blast cells. F and U promote anterior fates, Y.p promotes some posterior fates, and the B.a progeny promote posterior fates. The cells within each pair may also interact.

The lin-3/let-23 signalling pathway, identified for its function in C. elegans hermaphrodite vulval induction, mediates the signal from F and U. Reduction-of-function mutations in lin-3 (EGF-like signal), let-23 (receptor), sem-5 (adaptor), let-60 (ras), or lin-45 (raf) disrupt the fates of the anterior cells, and mimic F and U ablation. In addition, ectopically expressed lin-3 disrupts the fates of the posterior cells, and can promote anterior fates even in the absence of F and U.

A genetic screen of over 9000 mutagenized gametes recovered 22 mutations in 20 loci that disrupt fate specification in male tail lineages. Seven of these mutations may represent new genes that play a role in male tail development.

The first division of the B cell is asymmetric. The gene vab-3 is required for specification of B.a fates, and it may represent a factor whose activity is localized to the B.a cell via the gene lin-17. lin-17 acts both at the first division of the B cell and at specific other cell divisions in the lineage.

Pattern formation during Caenorhabditis Elegans vulval development

Pattern formation during animal development involves at least three processes: establishment of the competence of precursor cells to respond to intercellular signals, formation of a pattern of different cell fates adopted by precursor cells, and execution of the cell fate by generating a pattern of distinct descendants from precursor cells. I have analyzed the fundamental mechanisms of pattern formation by studying the development of Caenorhabditis elegans vulva.

In C. elegans, six multipotential vulval precursor cells (VPCs) are competent to respond to an inductive signal LIN-3 (EGF) mediated by LET- 23 (RTK) and a lateral signal via LIN-12 (Notch) to form a fixed pattern of 3°-3°-2°-1°-2°-3°. Results from expressing LIN-3 as a function of time in animals lacking endogenous LIN-3 indicate that both VPCs and VPC daughters are competent to respond to LIN-3. Although the daughters of VPCs specified to be 2° or 3° can be redirected to adopt the 1°fate, the decision to adopt the 1° fate is irreversible. Coupling of VPC competence to cell cycle progression reveals that VPC competence may be periodic during each cell cycle and involve LIN-39 (HOM-C). These mechanisms are essential to ensure a bias towards the 1° fate, while preventing an excessive response.

After adopting the 1° fate, the VPC executes its fate by dividing three rounds to form a fixed pattern of four inner vulF and four outer vulE descendants. These two types of descendants can be distinguished by a molecular marker zmp-1::GFP. A short-range signal from the anchor cell (AC), along with signaling between the inner and outer 1° VPC descendants and intrinsic polarity of 1° VPC daughters, patterns the 1° lineage. The Ras and the Wnt signaling pathways may be involved in these mechanisms.

The temporal expression pattern of egl-17::GFP, another marker ofthe 1° fate, correlates with three different steps of 1° fate execution: the commitment to the 1° fate, as well as later steps before and after establishment of the uterine-vulval connection. Six transcription factors, including LIN-1(ETS), LIN-39 (HOM-C), LIN-11(LIM), LIN-29 (zinc finger), COG-1 (homeobox) and EGL-38 (PAX2/5/8), are involved in different steps during 1° fate execution.

Signal transduction, regulation, and developmental logic of EGFR signalling in C. elegans

RTKs-mediated signaling systems and the pathways with which they interact (e.g., those initiated by G protein-mediated signaling) involve a highly cooperative network that sense a large number of cellular inputs and then integrate, amplify, and process this information to orchestrate an appropriate set of cellular responses. The responses include virtually all aspects of cell function, from the most fundamental (proliferation, differentiation) to the most specialized (movement, metabolism, chemosensation). The basic tenets of RTK signaling system seem rather well established. Yet, new pathways and even new molecular players continue to be discovered. Although we believe that many of the essential modules of RTK signaling system are rather well understood, we have relatively little knowledge of the extent of interaction among these modules and their overall quantitative importance.

My research has encompassed the study of both positive and negative signaling by RTKs in C. elegans. I identified the C. elegans S0S-1 gene and showed that it is necessary for multiple RAS-mediated developmental signals. In addition, I demonstrated that there is a SOS-1-independent signaling during RAS-mediated vulval differentiation. By assessing signal outputs from various triple mutants, I have concluded that this SOS-1-independent signaling is not mediated by PTP-2/SHP-2 or the removal of inhibition by GAP-1/ RasGAP and it is not under regulation by SLI-1/Cb1. I speculate that there is either another exchange factor for RASor an as yet unidentified signaling pathway operating during RAS-mediated vulval induction in C. elegans.

In an attempt to uncover the molecular mechanisms of negative regulation of EGFR signaling by SLI-1/Cb1, I and two other colleagues codiscovered that RING finger domain of SLI-1 is partially dispensable for activity. This structure-function analysis shows that there is an ubiquitin protein ligase-independent activity for SLI-1 in regulating EGFR signaling. Further, we identified an inhibitory tyrosine of LET-23/ EGFR requiring sli-1(+)for its effects: removal of this tyrosine closely mimics loss of sli-1 but not loss of other negative regulator function.

By comparative analysis of two RTK pathways with similar signaling mechanisms, I have found that clr-1, a previously identified negative regulator of egl-15 mediated FGFR signaling, is also involved in let-23 EGFR signaling. The success of this approach promises a similar reciprocal test and could potentially extend to the study of other signaling pathways with similar signaling logic.

Finally, by correlating the developmental expression of lin-3 EGF to let-23 EGFR signaling activity, I demonstrated the existence of reciprocal EGF signaling in coordinating the morphogenesis of epithelia. This developmental logic of EGF signaling could provide a basis to understand a universal mechanism for organogenesis.

Phospholipids and a protein-conducting channel regulate cotranslational protein targeting

Signal recognition particle (SRP) and signal recognition particle receptor (SR) are evolutionarily conserved GTPases that deliver secretory and membrane proteins to the protein-conducting channel Sec61 complex in the lipid bilayer of the endoplasmic reticulum in eukaryotes or the SecYEG complex in the inner membrane of bacteria. Unlike the canonical Ras-type GTPases, SRP and SR are activated via nucleotide-dependent heterodimerization. Upon formation of the SR•SRP targeting complex, SRP and SR undergo a series of discrete conformational changes that culminate in their reciprocal activation and hydrolysis of GTP. How the SR•SRP GTPase cycle is regulated and coupled to the delivery of the cargo protein to the protein-conducting channel at the target membrane is not well-understood. Here we examine the role of the lipid bilayer and SecYEG in regulation of the SRP-mediated protein targeting pathway and show that they serve as important biological cues that spatially control the targeting reaction.

In the first chapter, we show that anionic phospholipids of the inner membrane activate the bacterial SR, FtsY, and favor the late conformational states of the targeting complex conducive to efficient unloading of the cargo. The results of our studies suggest that the lipid bilayer acts as a spatial cue that weakens the interaction of the cargo protein with SRP and primes the complex for unloading its cargo onto SecYEG.

In the second chapter, we focus on the effect of SecYEG on the conformational states and activity of the targeting complex. While phospholipids prime the complex for unloading its cargo, they are insufficient to trigger hydrolysis of GTP and the release of the cargo from the complex. SecYEG modulates the conformation of the targeting complex and triggers the GTP hydrolysis from the complex, thus driving the targeting reaction to completion. The results of this study suggest that SecYEG is not a passive recipient of the cargo protein; rather, it actively releases the cargo from the targeting complex. Together, anionic phospholipids and SecYEG serve distinct yet complementary roles. They spatially control the targeting reaction in a sequential manner, ensuring efficient delivery and unloading of the cargo protein.

In the third chapter, we reconstitute the transfer reaction in vitro and visualize it in real time. We show that the ribosome-nascent chain complex is transferred to SecYEG via a stepwise mechanism with gradual dissolution and formation of the contacts with SRP and SecYEG, respectively, explaining how the cargo is kept tethered to the membrane during the transfer and how its loss to the cytosol is avoided.

In the fourth chapter, we examine interaction of SecYEG with secretory and membrane proteins and attempt to address the role of a novel insertase YidC in this interaction. We show that detergent-solubilized SecYEG is capable of discriminating between the nascent chains of various lengths and engages a signal sequence in a well-defined conformation in the absence of accessory factors. Further, YidC alters the conformation of the signal peptide bound to SecYEG. The results described in this chapter show that YidC affects the SecYEG-nascent chain interaction at early stages of translocation/insertion and suggest a YidC-facilitated mechanism for lateral exit of transmembrane domains from SecYEG into the lipid bilayer.