| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Genetics, Vol. 178, 957-965, February 2008, Copyright © 2008
doi:10.1534/genetics.107.081570
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

,
,1
* Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
Integrative Biosciences Graduate Degree Program in Cell and Developmental Biology,
Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
1 Corresponding author: Department of Biology, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 201 Life Sciences Bldg., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
E-mail: zcl1{at}psu.edu
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Two upstream components implicated in the Hpo/Wts signaling are the FERM-domain-containing membrane-associated factors, Merlin/Expanded, whose activity can increase the kinase function of Hpo (HAMARATOGLU et al. 2006). The Fat (Ft) protein may function as a receptor farther upstream or in parallel with Hpo/Wts signaling (HARVEY and TAPON 2007; PAN 2007). Hpo associates with an adaptor protein Salvador (Sav), and this interaction is shown to increase Hpo phosphorylation to another kinase Wts/Lats (KANGO-SINGH et al. 2002; TAPON et al. 2002; WU et al. 2003; COLOMBANI et al. 2006). We have previously identified Mob as tumor suppressor (Mats) as a coactivator for Wts/Lats kinase (LAI et al. 2005) and have shown that Hpo enhances Mats function via phosphorylation (WEI et al. 2007). Loss of function in any of these genes results in upregulation of cyclin E and Drosophila inhibitor of apoptosis (DIAP1), causing cell overproliferation and defective cell death in mosaic tissues (JUSTICE et al. 1995; XU et al. 1995; KANGO-SINGH et al. 2002; TAPON et al. 2002; HARVEY et al. 2003; JIA et al. 2003; PANTALACCI et al. 2003; UDAN et al. 2003; WU et al. 2003; LAI et al. 2005). As a major downstream target, the growth-promoting transcriptional cofactor Yorkie (Yki) is negatively regulated by the Hpo/Wts growth inhibitory pathway (HUANG et al. 2005).
Studies of homologs in yeast and human cells have shown potential cellular activities of factors involved in the Hpo/Wts pathway. Budding yeast homologs of Wts and Mats (Dbf2 and Mob1, respectively) are components of the mitotic exit network (KOMARNITSKY et al. 1998; LUCA and WINEY 1998; LUCA et al. 2001). Intracellular localization of these proteins are regulated during the cell cycle such that, until anaphase, they are localized at the spindle pole bodies but they move to the bud neck prior to actin ring assembly in a functionally interdependent manner (FRENZ et al. 2000; LUCA et al. 2001; YOSHIDA and TOH-E 2001). In mammalian cells, both Wts homologs, LATS1 and LATS2, were found to regulate G2/M-phase and G1/S-phase transitions, respectively (TAO et al. 1999; YANG et al. 2001; XIA et al. 2002; LI et al. 2003). Both LATS1 and LATS2 are found in the centrosome, and their loss of function results in multinucleation, centrosomal amplification, and genomic instability, suggesting that they are involved in some aspects of cell cycle progression (NISHIYAMA et al. 1999; MORISAKI et al. 2002; MCPHERSON et al. 2004; TOJI et al. 2004).
Although mutations in wts or mats result in obvious overgrowth, mitotic defects associated with mutations in these factors have not been reported in Drosophila. Here we show that mats is an essential gene that is required for early embryonic development. The Mats protein is a centrosomal component that appears to be critical for maintaining genome stability and the disruption of mats function results in aberrant mitoses. However, this does not seem to be due to compromised mitotic spindle checkpoint function. Moreover, our data suggest that Mats regulates expression not only of cyclin E, but also of cyclin A and cyclin B, which are key regulators of cell cycle progression in both invertebrate and vertebrate animals.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Analysis of maternally mats null embryos:
Dominant female sterility (DFS) technique takes advantage of dominant ovoD1 mutation that renders sterility to oocytes (CHOU and PERRIMON 1996). Thus, for heterozygous females carrying ovoD1 to be able to lay eggs, somatic recombination needs to happen to generate clones of homozygous oocytes that have eliminated ovoD1. When used in combination with the third chromosome that harbors the mats mutation, this technique generates homozygous mats mutant oocytes in heterozygous females, and only these oocytes can generate eggs. Female flies of y, hs-FLP; FRT82B matse235/TM6B were crossed with males of w1118; FRT82B ovoD1/TM3, and embryos were collected for 24 hr. Hatched larvae were heat-shocked for 20–30 min at 37° in L2 stage, and resulting virgin females of hs-FLP; FRT82B matse235/FRT82B ovoD1 were collected. As ovoD1 gives dominant female sterility, for females of this genotype to be able to lay eggs, they must undergo somatic recombination in the ovary to generate FRT82B matse235/FRT82B matse235 cells, eliminating ovoD1 and functional the mats allele from their genome. These flies were crossed with males of w1118; FRT82B matse235/CyO·TM32xhs-GFP and resulting embryos were heat-shocked at 37° for 15 min. Embryos and larvae were handpicked and placed on the microscope slide, and GFP autofluorescence was observed under a Zeiss microscope. The animals were categorized by developmental stage (embryo or larva) and the presence or absence of GFP, and their numbers were scored.
For immunostaining, embryos were collected for 2–3 hr, and handpicked embryos were washed in PBS and dechorinated in mild bleach for 2 min. After washes, embryos were fixed in a 1:1 mix of paraformaldehyde-lysine-phosphate (PLP: 2% paraformaldehyde, 0.75 M poly-L-lysine, 0.25% sodium periodate) and heptane on the bench top for 20 min. Then PLP was replaced by methanol, and the samples were vigorously shaken to remove vitelline membrane. Embryos were then rehydrated with balanced salt solution (BSS) Triton 0.3% (ASHBURNER 1989) and stained with anti-Cnn antibodies (a gift of Thomas Kaufman; MEGRAW et al. 2002) at 4° overnight. The secondary anti-rabbit Alexa Fluor (AF) 488 antibodies (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) were used at 1:500 dilutions. Images were taken with an Olympus FluoView 300 confocal microscope.
Cell culture and immunostaining:
HEK293T cells were cultured in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). Transfection was mediated through Polyfect transfection reagent (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA). Transfected cells were seeded on coverslips coated with FBS and fixed with methanol (–20°). Cells were washed and stained with either anti-Myc antibodies or anti-CycE antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA) in BSS with 0.3% Triton. Anti-rabbit AF594 (1:500) and anti-mouse AF680 (1:200) antibodies were used for secondary staining. Draq5 (Biostatus, Leiscestershire, UK) was used for DNA staining.
Genetic interactions of Wts/Lats signaling:
UAS-myc-wts6R on the second chromosome is a relatively strong allele and was recombined with ey-Gal4 to generate w1118; ey-Gal4, UAS-myc-wts6R/SM6·TM6B. Females of this genotype were crossed with w1118, UAS-cycE, UAS-diap1, UAS-cycA, UAS-cycB, cyclin EAR95/TM3, diap14/TM3, cyclin AC8LR1/TM3, cyclin A03946/TM3, cyclin B2/CyO, or cyclin BKG08886/CyO male flies. UAS transgenic flies were crossed with w1118; ey-Gal4/SM6·TM6B to generate flies for comparison. Flies carrying loss-of-function alleles of cyclin E, diap1, cyclin A, and cyclin B were also crossed with w1118 flies to determine their heterozygous phenotypes.
Somatic homozygous mats mutant cells were generated by crossing w1118; FRT82B matse235/TM6B males with y,w, ey-FLP; FRT82B arm-lacZ/TM6B females. For control, w1118 larvae of the same developmental stage were used. The eye discs of Tb+ larvae were dissected and fixed with PLP on ice for 45 min and washed with BSS with 0.3% Triton twice. Peripodial membranes were removed, and discs were stained with primary antibodies [mouse anticyclin A (1:5 dilution) and mouse anticyclin B (1:5 dilution) antibodies; Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank at the University of Iowa] followed by AF 680 fluorescent secondary antibodies (1:200). Clonal expression of Yki in larval discs was achieved using hsFLP122 actin>CD2>Gal4 UAS-lacZ/UAS-yki-V5 flies, which were treated at the early second instar larval stage for 1 hr at 37° to allow FLP expression. Wing and eye discs were isolated from matured third instar larvae. Antibodies for cyclin A, cyclin B, and β-galactosidase were used for immunostaining of the larval tissues.
Mitotic checkpoint analysis:
Third instar larval eye discs containing control or mps1 or mats homozygous mutant clones were generated by crossing w1118; FRT82B 90E P[w+] or w1118; FRT82B mps11/TM6B (a gift of Christian Lehner; FISCHER et al. 2004) or w1118; FRT82B matse235/TM6B males with UAS-GFP, ey-FLP; Tub-Gal4, FRT82B Tub-Gal80/TM6B females. Dissected eye discs were incubated for 3 hr in Schneider S2 medium (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) either with or without 1 µM colcemid (Sigma, St. Louis) before staining with phosphohistone H3 antibodies (1:200; a gift of Esther Siegfried). Clones were identified by the presence of GFP signals.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Mats is required for proper chromosomal segregation:
Up to the midblastula transition, the cellular function of Drosophila embryos relies on maternally loaded transcripts and protein products (EDGAR et al. 1986). Therefore, in maternally mats null embryos, the cell divisions up to the 16th cycle occur in the total absence of Mats function. To observe cell division phenotype in the absence of Mats, embryos from the maternally null crosses were collected before midblastula transition (at this point embryos included both maternally and zygotically null and heterozygous zygotes) and the behavior of a centrosomal marker Centrosomin (Cnn) (MEGRAW et al. 2002) and DNA (Draq5) was examined. While in wild-type embryos, an equal amount of DNA was segregated to two centrosomal poles (Figure 1, A–C), all embryos generated from maternal null oocytes showed aberrant DNA segregation (Figure 1, D–F). Maternally mats null embryos also appeared to have DNA fragmentation in some divisions and occasionally three or more centrosomes were associated with one pool of segregating DNA (Figure 1F). Thus Mats appears to play a role in ensuring the proper chromosomal segregation during mitosis.
|
|
Mats and Wts are colocalized at the centrosome:
To determine subcellular localization of Mats and its binding partner Wts kinase, Mats and Wts proteins were tagged and expressed in cultured cells. Specifically, human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293T cells were used to transfect mats-GFP and myc-wts fusion genes under the control of the cytomegalovirus promoter. We found that Mats-GFP was localized in the cytosol as well as in the nucleus, whereas Wts was exclusively cytosolic during interphase (Figure 3). It was also clear that both Mats and Wts accumulated at the perinuclear region in a dot-like pattern. This dot-like pattern was duplicated once the mitotic DNA segregation commenced. These accumulations appeared to be centrosomes, as they colocalized with
-tubulin signals (Figure 3, A–H). This observation is consistent with the centrosomal localization of human LATS1 and MOB1A (MATS2) reported elsewhere (NISHIYAMA et al. 1999; BOTHOS et al. 2005). Mats and Wts are also localized at the midbody area during cytokinesis (Figure 3, B, D, F, and H). Moreover, Mats and Wts colocalize with endogenous human cyclin E at the centrosome (Figure 3, I–P). Thus, Mats and Wts proteins appear to function together in subcellular organelles such as centrosomes.
|
|
|
|
Mats is not involved in mitotic checkpoint:
The possibility that mats mutation would cause genomic instability suggests its involvement in cell cycle checkpoint function. To assess whether Mats plays a role in this cellular response, the MARCM system (LEE and LUO 1999) was used to generate eye discs containing control, mps1 mutant, or mats mutant clones, and the tissue was dissected and incubated in either the presence or absence of colcemid for 2 hr and the accumulation of M-phase cells was analyzed. Discs containing control clones accumulated M-phase cells in response to colcemid treatment especially at the posterior disc area adjacent to the morphogenetic furrow [Figure S1, A–F, at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/; – colcemid (n = 7 eye discs), + colcemid (n = 10 eye discs)]. Discs containing mps1 mutant clones, however, showed accumulation of M-phase cells only in wild-type tissue (GFP negative) but accumulation was not seen at the mps1 mutant clones (GFP positive) [Figure S1, G–L; – colcemid (n = 8 eye discs), + colcemid (n = 12 eye discs)] as previously reported (FISCHER et al. 2004). Thus, mutations in mps1 resulted in failure to initiate mitotic checkpoint response, and consequently mps1 mutant cells did not arrest at the M phase. Discs containing mats mutant clones, on the other hand, accumulated M-phase cells exactly as seen in the control group, especially posterior to the morphogenetic furrow [Figure S1, M–R; – colcemid (n = 6 eye discs), + colcemid (n = 8 eye discs)]. These results indicate that mat is not involved in the spindle checkpoint response.
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Mats is essential for normal development as mats mutants stop their growth at the second instar larval stage and eventually die. In fact, this growth retardation phenotype facilitated identification of matsroo and matse235 mutant larvae for DNA sequence analysis (LAI et al. 2005). Using our matse235 allele and the P-element-induced allele matsPB, HE et al. (2005) showed that mats homozygotes and hemizygotes grew slowly and their imaginal discs were much smaller than that of wild-type larvae at the same age. mats mutant cells in mosaic tissues acquire growth advantage likely through comparison and competition with neighboring wild-type cells. In contrast, the absence of wild-type cells in homozygous mats mutant animals renders no competitive growth advantage to mutant cells. The mechanism by which mats mutants acquire growth advantage in the context of mosaic tissue still needs to be investigated. mats mutant embryos missing both maternal and zygotic mats functions failed to hatch, indicating that mats is essential for embryonic development. By analyzing mitotic cells, we found that maternally mats-depleted embryos showed aberrant DNA segregation such that uneven amounts of DNA were segregated toward opposing centrosomes. However, this did not appear to be due to the compromised function of mitotic spindle checkpoint, as mats mutant tissue still accumulated M-phase cells in response to inhibition of mitotic spindle formation by colcemid treatment. Thus, mats is not required for mitotic spindle checkpoint, unlike mps1.
Cyclin E is a critical cell cycle regulator (SHERR and ROBERTS 2004). Through a Cdk2-dependent mechanism, cyclin E-Cdk2 plays a critical role in accelerating G1–S transition in the cell cycle. As a general rule, cyclin E is tightly regulated during the cell cycle by Cdk2 and GSK-mediated phosphorylation and subsequent degradation. A nondegradable cyclin E mutant can cause extra rounds of DNA synthesis and polyploidy, and overexpression of cyclin E is frequently detected in tumor cells exhibiting polyploidy. Intriguingly, cyclin E is a centrosomal protein that functions to promote S-phase entry and DNA synthesis in a Cdk2-independent manner (MATSUMOTO and MALLER 2004). Loss of cyclin E expression in the centrosome inhibits DNA synthesis, whereas ectopic expression of cyclin E in the centrosome accelerates S-phase entry. Thus, the centrosome is an important subcellular organelle for cyclin E to regulate cell proliferation, and the level and activity of cyclin E in centrosomes must be tightly controlled. The fact that Mats and Wts colocalize with cyclin E at the centrosome raises the possibility that Mats may function together with Wts kinase to regulate cyclin E function in the centrosome for mitotic control. In support of this hypothesis, loss-of-function mutations in mats increase the levels of cyclin E protein and both gain- and loss-of-function mutant alleles of cyclin E modulate the eye phenotypes caused by Wts overexpression (LAI et al. 2005; this study). Although Mats/Wts-mediated inhibition of cyclin E could occur through Yki to regulate cyclin E transcription, a direct control of cyclin E at the protein level would allow a rapid response to an upstream signal.
The fact that both Mats and Wts show a intracellular localization pattern very similar to that of their respective yeast relatives Mob1 and Dbf2 suggests that their function is conserved. This conservation may extend to mammals, as it has been shown that human LATS1, LATS2, and MOB1A (MATS2) also localize at the centrosome (NISHIYAMA et al. 1999; MORISAKI et al. 2002; MCPHERSON et al. 2004; TOJI et al. 2004; BOTHOS et al. 2005; ABE et al. 2006). In addition, localization at the bud neck/midbody appears to be conserved in humans (NISHIYAMA et al. 1999; BOTHOS et al. 2005). Interestingly, such centrosomal localization of Mats and Wts does not seem to rely on Wts kinase activity as kinase-inactive Wts and Mats can be still localized at the centrosome (our unpublished observation). To examine whether endogenous Mats protein localizes at the centrosome, embryo immunostaining was done with Mats antibodies. As in larval tissues, expression of Mats protein in developing embryos does not exhibit any obvious pattern and Mats expression level is low and ubiquitous. Although we have not been able to show centrosomal localization of endogenous Mats protein, likely due to some technical problems, Mats (CG13852/Mob4) has been recently reported to be a centrosomal protein (DOMINGUES et al. 2005).
Both loss- and gain-of-function analysis supports a model in which cyclin E and diap1 are critical downstream targets of Hpo/Wts signaling. Evidence in this report suggests that Hpo/Wts signaling may also target cyclin A and cyclin B. Consistent with this notion, elevated levels of cyclin B were found in ex mutant cells (PELLOCK et al. 2007). In another study, wts has been shown to be required for a negative control of cyclin A but not cyclin B expression (TAO et al. 1999). In humans, LATS1 was shown to be a negative regulator of Cdc2/cyclin A (TAO et al. 1999) and to function at the G2/M-phase transition (YANG et al. 2001; XIA et al. 2002), while LATS2 affects cyclin E/Cdk2 activity and regulates G1/S phase passage (LI et al. 2003). Thus, the ability of Hpo/Wts signaling to target cyclin genes important for cell cycle progression appears to be evolutionarily conserved.
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
|
|---|
ABE, Y., M. OHSUGI, K. HARAGUCHI, J. FUJIMOTO and T. YAMAMOTO, 2006 LATS2-Ajuba complex regulates gamma-tubulin recruitment to centrosomes and spindle organization during mitosis. FEBS Lett. 580: 782–788.[CrossRef][Medline]
ASHBURNER, M., 1989 Drosophila: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
BAKER, N. E., 2001 Cell proliferation, survival, and death in the Drosophila eye. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 12: 499–507.[CrossRef][Medline]
BOTHOS, J., R. L. TUTTLE, M. OTTEY, F. C. LUCA and T. D. HALAZONETIS, 2005 Human LATS1 is a mitotic exit network kinase. Cancer Res. 65: 6568–6575.
CHOU, T. B., and N. PERRIMON, 1996 The autosomal FLP-DFS technique for generating germline mosaics in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 144: 1673–1679.[Abstract]
COLOMBANI, J., C. POLESELLO, F. JOSUE and N. TAPON, 2006 Dmp53 activates the hippo pathway to promote cell death in response to DNA damage. Curr. Biol. 16: 1453–1458.[CrossRef][Medline]
DOMINGUES, C., A. WAINMAN, C. FLORINDO, D. GLOVER and A. TAVARES, 2005 Centrosomal protein Mob4 is a new tumor suppressor. Eur. Dros. Res. Conf. 19: DR6.
EDGAR, B. A., 2006 From cell structure to transcription: Hippo forges a new path. Cell 124: 267–273.[CrossRef][Medline]
EDGAR, B. A., C. P. KIEHLE and G. SCHUBIGER, 1986 Cell cycle control by the nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio in early Drosophila development. Cell 44: 365–372.[CrossRef][Medline]
FISCHER, M. G., S. HEEGER, U. HACKER and C. F. LEHNER, 2004 The mitotic arrest in response to hypoxia and of polar bodies during early embryogenesis requires Drosophila Mps1. Curr. Biol. 14: 2019–2024.[CrossRef][Medline]
FRENZ, L. M., S. E. LEE, D. FESQUET and L. H. JOHNSTON, 2000 The budding yeast Dbf2 protein kinase localises to the centrosome and moves to the bud neck in late mitosis. J. Cell Sci. 113(Pt. 19): 3399–3408.[Abstract]
HAMARATOGLU, F., M. WILLECKE, M. KANGO-SINGH, R. NOLO, E. HYUN et al., 2006 The tumour-suppressor genes NF2/Merlin and Expanded act through Hippo signalling to regulate cell proliferation and apoptosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 8: 27–36.[CrossRef][Medline]
HARIHARAN, I. K., and D. BILDER, 2006 Regulation of imaginal disc growth by tumor-suppressor genes in Drosophila. Annu. Rev. Genet. 40: 335–361.[CrossRef][Medline]
HARVEY, K., and N. TAPON, 2007 The Salvador-Warts-Hippo pathway: an emerging tumour-suppressor network. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 7: 182–191.[CrossRef][Medline]
HARVEY, K. F., C. M. PFLEGER and I. K. HARIHARAN, 2003 The Drosophila Mst ortholog, hippo, restricts growth and cell proliferation and promotes apoptosis. Cell 114: 457–467.[CrossRef][Medline]
HE, Y., K. EMOTO, X. FANG, N. REN, X. TIAN et al., 2005 Drosophila Mob family proteins interact with the related tricornered (Trc) and warts (Wts) kinases. Mol. Biol. Cell 16: 4139–4152.
HUANG, J., S. WU, J. BARRERA, K. MATTHEWS and D. PAN, 2005 The Hippo signaling pathway coordinately regulates cell proliferation and apoptosis by inactivating Yorkie, the Drosophila Homolog of YAP. Cell 122: 421–434.[CrossRef][Medline]
JIA, J., W. ZHANG, B. WANG, R. TRINKO and J. JIANG, 2003 The Drosophila Ste20 family kinase dMST functions as a tumor suppressor by restricting cell proliferation and promoting apoptosis. Genes Dev. 17: 2514–2519.
JUSTICE, R. W., O. ZILIAN, D. F. WOODS, M. NOLL and P. J. BRYANT, 1995 The Drosophila tumor suppressor gene warts encodes a homolog of human myotonic dystrophy kinase and is required for the control of cell shape and proliferation. Genes Dev. 9: 534–546.
KANGO-SINGH, M., R. NOLO, C. TAO, P. VERSTREKEN, P. R. HIESINGER et al., 2002 Shar-pei mediates cell proliferation arrest during imaginal disc growth in Drosophila. Development 129: 5719–5730.[CrossRef][Medline]
KOMARNITSKY, S. I., Y. C. CHIANG, F. C. LUCA, J. CHEN, J. H. TOYN et al., 1998 DBF2 protein kinase binds to and acts through the cell cycle-regulated MOB1 protein. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18: 2100–2107.
LAI, Z.-C., X. WEI, T. SHIMIZU, E. RAMOS, M. ROHRBAUGH et al., 2005 Control of cell proliferation and apoptosis by mob as tumor suppressor, mats. Cell 120: 675–685.[CrossRef][Medline]
LEE, T., and L. LUO, 1999 Mosaic analysis with a repressible cell marker for studies of gene function in neuronal morphogenesis. Neuron 22: 451–461.[CrossRef][Medline]
LI, Y., J. PEI, H. XIA, H. KE, H. WANG et al., 2003 Lats2, a putative tumor suppressor, inhibits G1/S transition. Oncogene 22: 4398–4405.[CrossRef][Medline]
LUCA, F. C., and M. WINEY, 1998 MOB1, an essential yeast gene required for completion of mitosis and maintenance of ploidy. Mol. Biol. Cell 9: 29–46.
LUCA, F. C., M. MODY, C. KURISCHKO, D. M. ROOF, T. H. GIDDINGS et al., 2001 Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mob1p is required for cytokinesis and mitotic exit. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21: 6972–6983.
MATSUMOTO, Y., and J. L. MALLER, 2004 A centrosomal localization signal in cyclin E required for Cdk2-independent S phase entry. Science 306: 885–888.
MCPHERSON, J. P., L. TAMBLYN, A. ELIA, E. MIGON, A. SHEHABELDIN et al., 2004 Lats2/Kpm is required for embryonic development, proliferation control and genomic integrity. EMBO J. 23: 3677–3688.[CrossRef][Medline]
MEGRAW, T. L., S. KILARU, F. R. TURNER and T. C. KAUFMAN, 2002 The centrosome is a dynamic structure that ejects PCM flares. J. Cell Sci. 115: 4707–4718.
MORISAKI, T., T. HIROTA, S. IIDA, T. MARUMOTO, T. HARA et al., 2002 WARTS tumor suppressor is phosphorylated by Cdc2/cyclin B at spindle poles during mitosis. FEBS Lett. 529: 319–324.[CrossRef][Medline]
NISHIYAMA, Y., T. HIROTA, T. MORISAKI, T. HARA, T. MARUMOTO et al., 1999 A human homolog of Drosophila warts tumor suppressor, h-warts, localized to mitotic apparatus and specifically phosphorylated during mitosis. FEBS Lett. 459: 159–165.[CrossRef][Medline]
PAN, D., 2007 Hippo signaling in organ size control. Genes Dev. 21: 886–897.
PANTALACCI, S., N. TAPON and P. LEOPOLD, 2003 The Salvador partner Hippo promotes apoptosis and cell-cycle exit in Drosophila. Nat. Cell Biol. 5: 921–927.[CrossRef][Medline]
PELLOCK, B. J., E. BUFF, K. WHITE and I. K. HARIHARAN, 2007 The Drosophila tumor suppressors Expanded and Merlin differentially regulate cell cycle exit, apoptosis, and Wingless signaling. Dev. Biol. 304: 102–115.[CrossRef][Medline]
SHERR, C. J., and J. M. ROBERTS, 2004 Living with or without cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases. Genes Dev. 18: 2699–2711.
TAO, W., S. ZHANG, G. S. TURENCHALK, R. A. STEWART, M. A. ST. JOHN et al., 1999 Human homologue of the Drosophila melanogaster lats tumour suppressor modulates CDC2 activity. Nat. Genet. 21: 177–181.[CrossRef][Medline]
TAPON, N., K. F. HARVEY, D. W. BELL, D. C. WAHRER, T. A. SCHIRIPO et al., 2002 salvador promotes both cell cycle exit and apoptosis in Drosophila and is mutated in human cancer cell lines. Cell 110: 467–478.[CrossRef][Medline]
TOJI, S., N. YABUTA, T. HOSOMI, S. NISHIHARA, T. KOBAYASHI et al., 2004 The centrosomal protein Lats2 is a phosphorylation target of Aurora-A kinase. Genes Cells 9: 383–397.
UDAN, R. S., M. KANGO-SINGH, R. NOLO, C. TAO and G. HALDER, 2003 Hippo promotes proliferation arrest and apoptosis in the Salvador/Warts pathway. Nat. Cell Biol. 5: 914–920.[CrossRef][Medline]
WEI, X., T. SHIMIZU and Z.-C. LAI, 2007 Mob as tumor suppressor is activated by Hippo kinase in growth inhibition in Drosophila. EMBO J. 26: 1772–1781.[CrossRef][Medline]
WHITFIELD, M. L., G. SHERLOCK, A. J. SALDANHA, J. I. MURRAY, C. A. BALL et al., 2002 Identification of genes periodically expressed in the human cell cycle and their expression in tumors. Mol. Biol. Cell 13: 1977–2000.
WU, S., J. HUANG, J. DONG and D. PAN, 2003 hippo encodes a Ste-20 family protein kinase that restricts cell proliferation and promotes apoptosis in conjunction with salvador and warts. Cell 114: 445–456.[CrossRef][Medline]
XIA, H., H. QI, Y. LI, J. PEI, J. BARTON et al., 2002 LATS1 tumor suppressor regulates G2/M transition and apoptosis. Oncogene 21: 1233–1241.[CrossRef][Medline]
XU, T., and G. M. RUBIN, 1993 Analysis of genetic mosaics in developing and adult Drosophila tissues. Development 117: 1223–1237.[Abstract]
XU, T., W. WANG, S. ZHANG, R. A. STEWART and W. YU, 1995 Identifying tumor suppressors in genetic mosaics: the Drosophila lats gene encodes a putative protein kinase. Development 121: 1053–1063.[Abstract]
YANG, X., D. M. LI, W. CHEN and T. XU, 2001 Human homologue of Drosophila lats, LATS1, negatively regulates growth by inducing G(2)/M arrest or apoptosis. Oncogene 20: 6516–6523.[CrossRef][Medline]
YOSHIDA, S., and A. TOH-E, 2001 Regulation of the localization of Dbf2 and Mob1 during cell division of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Genet. Syst. 76: 141–147.[CrossRef][Medline]
Communicating editor: R. S. HAWLEY
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |