![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2003, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Lipoprotein receptors and a Disabled family cytoplasmic adaptor protein regulate EGL-17/FGF export in C. elegans Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA 1Corresponding author. E-MAIL jcooper/at/fred.fhcrc.org; FAX (206) 667-6522. Received March 24, 2003; Accepted September 22, 2003. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Growth factors and morphogens need to be secreted to act on distant cells during development and in response to injury. Here, we report evidence that efficient export of a fibroblast growth factor (FGF), EGL-17, from the Caenorhabditis elegans developing vulva requires the lipoprotein receptor-related proteins Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 and a cytoplasmic adaptor protein, Ce-DAB-1 (Disabled). Lipoprotein receptors are transmembrane proteins best known for their roles in endocytosis. Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 possess a conserved intraluminal domain that can bind to EGL-17, as well as a cytosolic FXNPXY motif that can bind to Ce-DAB-1. Ce-DAB-1 contains signals that confer subcellular localization to Golgi-proximal vesicles. These results suggest a model in which Ce-DAB-1 coordinates selection of receptors and cargo, including EGL-17, for transport through the secretory pathway. Keywords: Selective secretion, fibroblast growth factor, lipoprotein receptor traffic, Dab, cargo selection, endocytosis Many developmental morphogens and growth factors have specialized mechanisms ofsecretion. For example, Wingless (Wg) secretion requires posttranslational N-glycosylation by the transmembrane protein Porcupine (Porc) within the endoplasmic reticulum (van den Heuvel et al. 1993; Tanaka et al. 2002), whereas a Porc relative, Central missing (Cmn), is critical for Hedgehog (Hh) export (Amanai and Jiang 2001). Spitz, a transmembrane epidermal growth factor (EGF), is held within the ER until Star chaperones it to the Golgi apparatus, where it then encounters Rhomboid-1, which triggers proteolytic cleavage and allows Spitz to move to the cell surface (Lee et al. 2001). Most fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) act cell nonautonomously to coordinate cell migrations, proliferation, and fate specification during wound healing, angiogenesis, tumor metastasis, and development (Friesel and Maciag 1995; Goldfarb 1996; Sutherland et al. 1996; Borland et al. 2001). The majority of FGFs contain standard signal sequences for secretion by the ER-Golgi pathway. However, FGFs 1, 2, and 11–14 lack signal sequences, and FGFs 9, 16, and 20 have a hydrophobic N terminus that may not be cleaved (Friesel and Maciag 1995; Ornitz and Itoh 2001). Thus, certain FGFs may use distinct mechanisms for secretion. A Caenorhabditis elegans fibroblast growth factor (FGF), EGL-17 (egg-laying defective), regulates the migrations ofthe sex myoblasts (SMs) during larval development (DeVore et al. 1995; Burdine et al. 1997, 1998). The SMs are born at the posterior of L1 stage larvae and migrate anteriorly to the gonad center, where they generate the uterine and vulval musculature (T`homas et al. 1990). EGL-17 is expressed in the developing vulva and gonad, and acts as an attractive cue for the SMs, which express an FRF receptor (FGFR), EGL-15. Mutations in genes for either the ligand (egl-17) or receptor (egl-15) prevent correct SM positioning around the gonad center, and egg-laying defects result (Stern and Horvitz 1991). Although these data indicate that EGL-17 is secreted, the mechanism by which this occurs has not been investigated. Here we report that efficient export of EGL-17 by the developing vulva involves the adaptor protein Disabled (Ce-DAB-1) and two lipoprotein receptor-related proteins, Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2. Ce-DAB-1 and the receptors appear to function posttranscriptionally to promote secretion. Lipoprotein receptors cycle rapidly through the endocytic pathway, bringing bound ligands into the cell and releasing them in the acidic environment ofendosomes before returning to the cell surface (Nykjaer and Willnow 2002). Their extracellular domains contain variable numbers ofrepeated domains that allow them to interact with a diverse set ofmacromolecules bearing little structural similarity (Herz and Strickland 2001; Christensen and Birn 2002). Although the primary roles oflipoprotein receptors appear to be in endocytosis, recent evidence suggests that they may participate in the transcytosis ofat least some oftheir ligands (Dehouck et al. 1997; Marino et al. 2000, 2001). However, there is no evidence regarding a possible role in export ofproteins from the cell. Ce-DAB-1 is related to murine Dab1, which functions in a signaling pathway together with lipoprotein receptors VLDLR (very low density lipoprotein receptor) and ApoER2 (Apolipoprotein E receptor), and Dab2, which regulates endocytosis oflipoprotein receptors Megalin and LDLR (Howell and Herz 2001; Mishra et al. 2002a; Morris et al. 2002). Dab1 and Dab2 contain a PTB (phosphotyrosine-binding) domain, also found in Ce-DAB-1, which mediates their association with an FXNPXY motifthat is conserved in the intracellular domains oflipoprotein receptors (Howell et al. 1999; Trommsdorff et al. 1999; Morris and Cooper 2001). The FXNPXY motifin the LDL (low-density lipoprotein) receptor is critical for endocytosis and also for trafficking to the basolateral surface of polarized epithelial cells (Nelson and Yeaman 2001). The binding of Dab proteins to a conserved signal on lipoprotein receptors suggests that they may directly regulate receptor traffic. Results Roles of Ce-dab-1 during larval development The C. elegans gene Ce-dab-1 encodes a protein related to Disabled (Dab) family members in mice and Drosophila (Fig. 1A
To identify a role for Ce-dab-1, gene function was disrupted by using RNA interference (RNAi; Fire et al. 1998). Stage L1 larvae were soaked in Ce-dab-1 or control double-stranded RNA (dsRNA; Tabara et al. 1998; Maeda et al. 2001). A number ofphenotypes were reproducibly observed in the F0 generation, including highly penetrant defects in cuticle molting (Mlt) and in egg laying (Egl; Table 1). dsRNA prepared from alternate regions of Ce-dab-1 conferred the same phenotypes, indicating specificity (Table 1).
The Mlt defect of Ce-dab-1 RNAi-treated worms resembled that caused by mutation of Ce-lrp-1, which encodes a Megalin relative (Yochem et al. 1999). The cuticle formed blisters, and some worms dragged cuticle remnants behind them. Many adults had a “wasp waist” close to the vulva, apparently due to a girdle ofunshed cuticle (Fig. 1C Ce-dab-1 RNAi worms laid eggs at a slower rate and later stage than did control animals (Fig. 1B Ce-dab-1 is expressed in the developing vulva To distinguish whether Ce-DAB-1 regulates SM migration through the EGL-17 producing cells or the EGL-17 responding SMs, we identified the sites of Ce-dab-1 gene expression. We used 5.5 kb of Ce-dab-1 upstream sequence to express either a DAB-1::GFP translational fusion (Ce-dab-1::Ce-DAB-1::GFP; Fig. 2A
Ce-DAB-1 prevents EGL-17 protein accumulation in the VPCs We considered that Ce-dab-1 might regulate egl-17 gene expression or EGL-17 protein secretion. Because ofweak expression of EGL-17 reporter constructs in the developing gonad (Branda and Stern 2000), we monitored egl-17 expression in the descendants of P6.p. To test whether Ce-dab-1 regulates egl-17 promoter activity, we used animals expressing GFP from the egl-17 promoter (Fig. 3A
EGL-17::GFP protein traffic was monitored by both live GFP and indirect immunofluorescence in wild-type egl-17::EGL-17::GFP larvae. Long exposures revealed weak punctate fluorescence in the daughters or granddaughters of P6.p (Fig. 3C To investigate whether accumulation of EGL-17::GFP can result from reduced secretion, we inhibited several genes implicated in vesicle traffic. The clathrin adaptor protein complex AP-1B is involved in basolateral secretion in mammalian cells (Folsch et al. 1999), whereas AP-3 is involved in Golgi/lysosome traffic and AP-2 in endocytosis (Lippincott-Schwartz et al. 2000). RNAi for μ1/μ1B subunits of AP-1B (unc-101, apm-1, and apt-10; Shim et al. 2000) each caused pronounced EGL-17::GFP accumulation in the P6.p descendants but did not cause a Mlt defect (Table 2). RNAi for a σ1 subunit of AP-1 (apt-2) caused both EGL-17::GFP accumulation and defective molting. Conversely, RNAi for potential δ and β3 subunits of AP-3 (apt-5 and apt-6, respectively), had no phenotype, and RNAi for the α-adaptin subunit of AP-2 (apt-4) was lethal. These results support the hypothesis that retention of EGL-17::GFP can be caused by impaired secretion, and also show that EGL-17::GFP retention is independent ofcuticle molting. In addition, Cedab-1 is unlikely to have an essential role in AP-2 function.
Lipoprotein receptors Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 participate in EGL-17 export from the P6.p descendants The sequence of Ce-DAB-1 indicates that it is cytoplasmic. Ce-DAB-1 might therefore regulate secretion by binding to transmembrane receptors present in vesicles that carry EGL-17. Lipoprotein receptors span the membrane and associate with Dab family proteins in vertebrates and, thus, might connect Ce-DAB-1 with EGL-17 in the C. elegans developing vulva. C. elegans has at least three genes related to mammalian lipoprotein receptors: Ce-lrp-1, rme-2 (receptor-mediated endocytosis; Grant and Hirsh 1999), and a gene related to mammalian Lrp (named here Ce-lrp-2) contained in the cosmids F48B3 and T21E3 (Springer 1998). Ce-lrp-1 and Ce-lrp-2 expression has been detected in the developing vulva by in situ hybridization (Shin-i and Kohara 2001). Therefore, we used RNAi to test whether these genes are involved in SM migration. Although inhibition ofany ofthe genes individually had no effect, combined RNAi of Ce-lrp-1 and Ce-lrp-2 caused a significant reduction in SM migration (P < 0.0002; Fig. 4A
To test the roles of Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 in EGL-17 export, we observed their effects on egl-17 expression and EGL-17::GFP accumulation in P6.p descendants. Combined RNAi for Ce-lrp-1 and Ce-lrp-2 had no effect on egl-17 promoter activity (Fig. 4B Ce-DAB-1 interacts with Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 and localizes to post-Golgi vesicles In mammals, the PTB domains of Dab1 and Dab2 bind to a consensus FXNPXY in the intracellular domains oflipoprotein receptors (Howell et al. 1999; Morris and Cooper 2001). Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 contain such motifs. Therefore, we tested for Ce-DAB-1 PTB domain binding to the intracellular domains of Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2. Using the yeast two-hybrid system, both Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 interact with Ce-DAB-1 (Fig. 5A,B
Lipoprotein receptors interact with EGL-17 During synthesis and processing, receptor extracellular domains are in the lumen ofthe ER, Golgi, and transport vesicles, where they might associate directly or indirectly with EGL-17. Because the enormous extracellular domains of Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 (~4600 and ~4730 residues, respectively) were difficult to express, we first measured binding of EGL-17 to the extracellular domains ofmammalian ApoER2 and VLDLR. Like Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2, these receptors contain blocks of complement-like LDLR type A repeats, EGF repeats, and six-bladed YWTD β propellers (Fig. 6A
To identify the domains responsible for EGL-17 binding, we made deletions ofthe ApoER2–Fc fusion protein. Surprisingly, deletion ofthe LDLR type A repeats, which bind multiple ApoE- and ApoB-containing lipoproteins (Nykjaer and Willnow 2002), had no effect on EGL-17 binding (Fig. 6C To determine whether a C. elegans lipoprotein receptor can bind to EGL-17, we inserted various regions of Ce-LRP-2 into the minimal ApoER2–Fc ΔAEY construct. EGL-17-myc bound to a fusion containing the eighth membrane-proximal β propeller and 11 EGF repeats from Ce-LRP-2 (Ce-LRP-2 YE), but not to a similar construct containing only the EGF repeats (Ce-LRP-2 E; Fig. 6D Discussion We have found that two lipoprotein receptors, Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2, and an adaptor protein, Ce-DAB-1, mediate secretion of EGL-17 from the C. elegans VPC P6.p and its descendants. Interfering with expression of either Ce-dab-1 or both Ce-lrp-1 and Ce-lrp-2 reduced SM migration, slowed egg laying, and caused accumulation of EGL-17::GFP in P6.p descendants (Figs. (Figs.1,1 Although it seems likely that reduced EGL-17 secretion from the developing vulva is a primary cause of the observed defects in SM migration and Egl, Ce-LRP-1, Ce-LRP-2, and Ce-DAB-1 may play additional roles. SM migration is regulated by a balance between gonad-dependent attraction and repulsion (GDA and GDR, respectively; Chen and Stern 1998). EGL-17 expression in the early gonad acts as the major attractant for the SMs (Branda and Stern 2000). The role of EGL-17 coming from the developing vulva is less clear, but is sufficient to precisely position the SMs in the absence ofthe gonad (Burdine et al. 1998). Although we detect some expression of Ce-DAB-1::GFP in the anchor cell at later stages ofdevelopment (Fig. 2A In addition to a role in secretion, we also found that depletion of Ce-DAB-1 or Ce-LRP-1, but not Ce-LRP-2, causes cuticle Mlt deficiencies similar to those caused by cholesterol starvation or Ce-lrp-1 mutation (Yochem et al. 1999). This suggests that Ce-DAB-1 and Ce-LRP-1 have an additional role in cholesterol homeostasis. However, impaired cholesterol homeostasis due to Ce-lrp-1 RNAi is not sufficient to reduce SM migration. Interestingly, a genome-wide RNAi screen (Kamath et al. 2003) found that Ce-dab-1 (RNAi) animals are Unc, Gro, Slu, and Emb. Although we only observed the F0 generation and thus did not observe any embryonic lethality (Emb), we did observe the other phenotypes. These phenotypes may be secondary to the cuticle Mlt deficiency, which could be missed in a large-scale screen or could reflect other cellular functions for Ce-DAB-1. The model suggested by our results does not define the step in EGL-17 secretion that is facilitated by Ce-DAB-1 and the receptors. Each stage of vesicular traffic requires the coordination ofcoat protein assembly with the selection oftarget-specific receptors and the appropriate vesicle contents (Schmid 1997; Lippincott-Schwartz et al. 2000). Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 might function as cargo selection receptors and use Ce-DAB-1 to coordinate coat protein assembly at any ofseveral steps. For example, cargo selection could occur at the ER to Golgi stage. Previously, coassembly oftransmembrane proteins and COPII coats has been shown to allow concentrative sorting ofreceptor-associated soluble proteins in the ER lumen (Malkus et al. 2002). In yeast, Erv29p is a transmembrane protein that is responsible for sorting α-factor to the Golgi (Malkus et al. 2002). In vertebrate cells, transmembrane proteins, including BAP31, ERGIC-53, and p24-family proteins, appear to select soluble proteins for transport from ER to Golgi (Lippincott-Schwartz et al. 2000). Similarly, ifa Ce-DAB-1/receptor/EGL-17 complex forms in the ER, then Ce-DAB-1 might link these components to COPII coat assembly to facilitate transport to the Golgi. Alternatively, a Ce-DAB-1/receptor complex may be involved in traffic of EGL-17 from the trans-Golgi network (TGN) to the basolateral surface of P6.p and its descendants. This would be akin to the role of GGA proteins, which bind to a DXXLL motifin the tail ofthe mannose 6-phosphate receptor and traffic it, and its associated soluble cargo, from the TGN to endosomes (Puertollano et al. 2001; Zhu et al. 2001). In mammalian epithelial cells, basolateral targeting ofthe LDL receptor depends on μ1B-containing clathrin adaptor proteins and an FXNPXY signal, but it is not known whether μ1B binds to the signal directly or via another protein (Nelson and Yeaman 2001). The PTB-containing protein ARH was recently shown to be capable ofbinding to AP-1 components and to the FXNPXY ofthe LDL receptor, although it does not localize to the TGN (Mishra et al. 2002b). Our data suggest that Ce-DAB-1 may be involved in recruiting a clathrin adaptor to the tails of Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 at the trans-Golgi network in P6.p and its descendants in the C. elegans developing vulva. A third possibility is that Ce-DAB-1 might be involved in binding of EGL-17 to recycling lipoprotein receptors in a common endosome, where ligands and receptors from the cell surface can associate and enter the secretory pathway without passing to lysosomes (Mostov et al. 2000). This hypothesis is consistent with the recent observations that lipoprotein receptors participate in transcytosis (Nelson and Yeaman 2001). Apical to basolateral transcytosis of LDL and thyroglobulin and vitamin D binding protein involves the LDLR and Megalin, respectively (Dehouck et al. 1997; Marino et al. 2000, 2001). During transcytosis, vesicles move between basolateral and apical common endosome compartments, where they may encounter newly synthesized proteins coming from the TGN (Mostov et al. 2000). In this way, endocytosed lipoprotein receptors that are either recycled or transcytosed may be able to carry newly synthesized ligands to their target membranes. Because Ce-DAB-1 binds to the FXNPXY endocytosis signal, it may assist delivery of Ce-LRP-1 and Ce-LRP-2 to the common endosome in order to collect EGL-17 for delivery to the surface, or may help target them from the common endosome to the basolateral surface. Distinguishing these possibilities will require detailed subcellular analysis of protein traffic in P6.p and its descendants. Evolutionarily conserved interactions between Disabled family proteins and lipoprotein receptors Dab family adaptor proteins interact functionally with lipoprotein receptors in both nematodes and mammals, even though the biological processes they mediate vary greatly (Fig. 6F Materials and methods Nematode culture and microscopy Nematodes were cultured and manipulated at room temperature by using standard techniques. The standard wild-type strain is Bristol N2. Strains used were egl-17(n1377), unc-119(e2498), lrp-1(ku156)/gld-1(q266), PD4666[ayIs6(X)] CeTwist hlh-8::GFP (Harfe et al. 1998), and ayIs4[egl-17::GFP; dpy-20(+)]; dpy-20(e1282ts) (Burdine et al. 1998). Strains from this work include the following: qaIs4000[Ce-dab-1::GFP; unc-119(+)]; unc-119(e2498), qaEx4002[egl-17::EGL-17::GFP; unc-119(+)]; unc-119(e2498), qaEx4003[Ce-dab-1::Ce-DAB-1::GFP; unc-119(+)]; unc-119(e2498), qaIs4004[egl-17::EGL-17::GFP; unc-119(+)]; unc-119(e2498). For microscopy, worms were mounted on a 3% agarose pad in M9 (42 mM Na2HPO4, 22 mM KH2PO4, 85 mM NaCl, 1 mM MgSO4) supplemented with 10 mM NaN3. All fluorescence and DIC (differential interference contrast) images were obtained by using a standard epifluorescence microscope equipped with a digital camera and processed with Adobe Photoshop 5.0 (Adobe Systems). For comparisons ofimage intensity, all images in a set were processed equivalently. Cells were identified on the basis of their positions as described (Sulston and Horvitz 1977; Sternberg and Horvitz 1986). When visible in the plane offocus shown, the AC is indicated by an arrowhead. Anterior is to the left; dorsal, to the top. Plasmids and injections Specifics of plasmid construction are available upon request. Transgenic animals were generated by using standard injection techniques (Fire 1986; Mello et al. 1991). Multiple independent strains carrying each transgene were screened for expression and phenotype. Representative strains were chosen for each experiment. All PCRs for cloning were performed by using Pfu Turbo (Stratagene), and open reading frames were sequenced to confirm polymerase fidelity. Expression plasmids for ApoER2-V5–Fc, VLDLR-V5–Fc (Hiesberger et al. 1999), and EphA5–Fc (Davis et al. 1994) fusion proteins were constructed as described. dsRNA-mediated interference (RNAi) and phenotype scoring Standard techniques were used to synthesize dsRNA from T7 promoter-tagged, PCR-amplified cDNA. Templates for the synthesis of dsRNA are as follows: pDKF8 (Ce-dab-1), yk358b4 (lrp-1), yk8d2 (rme-2), yk597d6 (Ce-lrp-2), and BSKS+ (control). After synthesis, RNA was ethanol-precipitated and resuspended in distilled H2O. Eggs were collected from hypochlorite-treated gravid adults (Lewis and Fleming 1995), and after hatching, L1 larvae were soaked overnight at room temperature in 5 μL of solution comprised ofequivalent amounts ofeach RNA strand in 3 mM spermidine. Soaked animals were then transferred to NGM plates seeded with E. coli OP-50 and allowed to develop until L2 to L4, when they were observed and photographed as described above. When multiple RNAi species were used, equivalent amounts ofeach RNA strand were used. Egl rate experiments were performed as described (Byerly et al. 1976). For scoring EGL-17::GFP retention, photographic exposures were set to Ce-dab-1 (RNAi) animals. Equal exposure times were then used to measure retention in controls and other RNAi treated animals. SM migration and egl-17(n1377) rescue SM studies were performed in the stain ayIs6(X) [CeTwist hlh-8::GFP] (PD4666), which expresses GFP in the nucleus ofthe descendants of M, and specifically in the SMs and their descendants during L3 to L4 (Harfe et al. 1998). The final positions of the SMs were scored relative to the Pn.p cells as described (Thomas et al. 1990). For egl-17(n1377) rescue, pDKF47[egl-17::EGL-17::GFP] (10 ng/μL) or pDKF58[egl-17::LET-23sp::EGL-17::GFP] with BSKS+ (130 ng/μL) was injected as above. To ensure hypodermal expression (from which the vulva is derived), pRF4[rol-6(su1006)] (10 ng/μL; Mello et al. 1991) was used as an injection marker. F1 animals expressing the rol-6(su1006) marker were picked to individual NGM + OP-50 plates and were observed at least once a day for 4 d once becoming adults. If worms developed a “bag ofworms” phenotype within 2 d of becoming adults, they were scored as positive for the phenotype. All other animals were scored as negative. Yeast two-hybrid interactions The physical interactions oflipoprotein receptor intracellular domains and the Ce-DAB-1 PTB domain were tested as described (Vojtek et al. 1997) by using plasmids pDKF40[VP-16 Ce-LRP-1], pDKF42[pLex10 Ce-DAB-1 PTB], and pDKF52[VP-16 Ce-LRP-2]. Statistical analysis The significance of difference between distributions of the SMs were determined using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test. For these tests, the position ofeach hash mark in the figures was converted to a number based on the distance ofeach SM away from P8p. For egl-17(n1377) rescue experiments, the significance ofcontrols versus animals injected with pDKF47[egl-17::EGL-17::GFP] DNA was determined by using the χ2-test. Immunoprecipitations Cells were maintained in DMEM + 10% FBS. One hundred-millimeter dishes of293T cells were transfected by using calcium phosphate with various combinations of ApoER2-V5–Fc, EphA5–Fc, pDKF33[egl-17-myc], pDKF64[ApoER2 ΔAEY], pDKF65[ApoER2 ΔA], pDKF66[Ce-LRP-2 E], or pDKF67[Ce-LRP-2 YE] (6 μg each). The following day, the medium was replaced with DMEM + 10% FBS. Two days after transfection, the cells were rinsed one time in ice-cold PBS and lysed in 500 μL of lysis buffer (1% Triton X-100, 50 mM Tris at pH 7.4, 120 mM NaCl, 2 mM CaCl2). After clarification by centrifugation at 15,000 RPM, supernatants were precipitated with Protein A Sepharose (Sigma). Precipitated proteins or 20 μL ofcell lysate were resolved by 9% SDS-PAGE and transferred to nitrocellulose, and Western blots were performed by using 9E10 (antimyc) or Protein A-HRP (to detect Fc). Immunofluorescence LET-23 and AJM-1 were localized as described (Whitfield et al. 1999). Fixed animals were also stained with anti-GFP antibodies (mAb3E6, Q-Biogene) at 1:50. Confocal z-series were used to reconstruct projected three-dimensional images. For cell culture experiments, NIH3T3 or HeLa cells were transfected with calcium phosphate or Lipofectamine Plus (Invitrogen), respectively, on glass coverslips. Forty-eight hours later, cells were rinsed twice in PBS, fixed in 3.7% formaldehyde for 15 min at room temperature, and permeabilized with 0.1% Triton X-100 in PBS. Cells were stained with anti-Ce-DAB-1 monoclonal antibody P1F4-E5 culture supernatant (1:10), Texas Red wheat germ agglutinin (WGA; 12.5 μg/mL, Molecular Probes), and anti-γ-adaptin (mAb 100/3, Sigma, 1:50). Isotype-specific secondary antibodies were used where appropriate. Acknowledgments We thank Barbara Page and Jeremy Nance for helpful discussions and experimental assistance. Tara Herrick performed the RNAi experiments for clathrin adaptor subunits. We thank Frank Gertler, Brian Howell, and Gian Garriga for their insights, as well as Katie Mickey for early experiments. We also thank the CGC, Michael Stern, the Priess Laboratory, and Yuji Kohara for worm strains and ESTs; Joachim Herz, Stuart Kim, Jeff Simske, and Jason Pitt for reagents and methods; and Priscilla Kronstad-O'Brien for technical assistance. We thank Jeremy Nance, Jim Priess, Leslie Cary, and Miriam Rosenberg for the critical reading ofa draft ofthis manuscript. D.M.K. was supported by a Terry Fox Fellowship with funds from the Canadian Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute of Canada. This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants CA41072 and GM066257. The publication costs ofthis article were defrayed in part by payment ofpage charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Notes Article and publication are at http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gad.1136103. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||
EMBO J. 1993 Dec 15; 12(13):5293-302.
[EMBO J. 1993]J Biol Chem. 2002 Apr 12; 277(15):12816-23.
[J Biol Chem. 2002]Development. 2001 Dec; 128(24):5119-27.
[Development. 2001]Cell. 2001 Oct 19; 107(2):161-71.
[Cell. 2001]FASEB J. 1995 Jul; 9(10):919-25.
[FASEB J. 1995]Cell. 1995 Nov 17; 83(4):611-20.
[Cell. 1995]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Mar 18; 94(6):2433-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997]Development. 1998 Mar; 125(6):1083-93.
[Development. 1998]Cell. 1990 Sep 21; 62(6):1041-52.
[Cell. 1990]Development. 1991 Nov; 113(3):797-803.
[Development. 1991]Trends Cell Biol. 2002 Jun; 12(6):273-80.
[Trends Cell Biol. 2002]J Clin Invest. 2001 Sep; 108(6):779-84.
[J Clin Invest. 2001]J Cell Biol. 1997 Aug 25; 138(4):877-89.
[J Cell Biol. 1997]J Biol Chem. 2000 Mar 10; 275(10):7125-37.
[J Biol Chem. 2000]J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001 Apr; 12(4):637-48.
[J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001]Nature. 1998 Feb 19; 391(6669):806-11.
[Nature. 1998]Science. 1998 Oct 16; 282(5388):430-1.
[Science. 1998]Curr Biol. 2001 Feb 6; 11(3):171-6.
[Curr Biol. 2001]Development. 1999 Feb; 126(3):597-606.
[Development. 1999]Dev Biol. 1977 Mar; 56(1):110-56.
[Dev Biol. 1977]Development. 1996 Nov; 122(11):3617-26.
[Development. 1996]Genes Dev. 1998 Aug 15; 12(16):2623-35.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Mar 18; 94(6):2433-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997]Development. 1998 Mar; 125(6):1083-93.
[Development. 1998]Dev Biol. 1977 Mar; 56(1):110-56.
[Dev Biol. 1977]Development. 1998 Mar; 125(6):1083-93.
[Development. 1998]Dev Biol. 2000 Oct 1; 226(1):137-51.
[Dev Biol. 2000]Dev Biol. 2000 Oct 1; 226(1):137-51.
[Dev Biol. 2000]Development. 1998 Mar; 125(6):1083-93.
[Development. 1998]Cell. 1999 Oct 15; 99(2):189-98.
[Cell. 1999]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2000; 16():557-89.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2000]Mol Biol Cell. 2000 Aug; 11(8):2743-56.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2000]Mol Biol Cell. 1999 Dec; 10(12):4311-26.
[Mol Biol Cell. 1999]J Mol Biol. 1998 Nov 6; 283(4):837-62.
[J Mol Biol. 1998]Mol Cell Biol. 1999 Jul; 19(7):5179-88.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1999]Traffic. 2001 Feb; 2(2):111-23.
[Traffic. 2001]Neuron. 1999 Oct; 24(2):481-9.
[Neuron. 1999]Trends Cell Biol. 2002 Jun; 12(6):273-80.
[Trends Cell Biol. 2002]Cell. 1996 Apr 19; 85(2):195-204.
[Cell. 1996]Cell. 1998 Sep 18; 94(6):761-71.
[Cell. 1998]Mol Biol Cell. 1999 Jun; 10(6):2087-100.
[Mol Biol Cell. 1999]Nat Cell Biol. 2001 Nov; 3(11):983-91.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2001]Trends Genet. 1998 Aug; 14(8):322-7.
[Trends Genet. 1998]Dev Biol. 2000 Oct 1; 226(1):137-51.
[Dev Biol. 2000]Development. 1998 Mar; 125(6):1083-93.
[Development. 1998]Development. 1991 Nov; 113(3):797-803.
[Development. 1991]Development. 1999 Feb; 126(3):597-606.
[Development. 1999]Nature. 2003 Jan 16; 421(6920):231-7.
[Nature. 2003]Annu Rev Biochem. 1997; 66():511-48.
[Annu Rev Biochem. 1997]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2000; 16():557-89.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2000]J Cell Biol. 2002 Dec 23; 159(6):915-21.
[J Cell Biol. 2002]Science. 2001 Jun 1; 292(5522):1712-6.
[Science. 2001]Science. 2001 Jun 1; 292(5522):1716-8.
[Science. 2001]Trends Cell Biol. 2001 Dec; 11(12):483-6.
[Trends Cell Biol. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Dec 10; 99(25):16099-104.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2000 Aug; 12(4):483-90.
[Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2000]Trends Cell Biol. 2001 Dec; 11(12):483-6.
[Trends Cell Biol. 2001]J Cell Biol. 1997 Aug 25; 138(4):877-89.
[J Cell Biol. 1997]J Biol Chem. 2000 Mar 10; 275(10):7125-37.
[J Biol Chem. 2000]J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001 Apr; 12(4):637-48.
[J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001]EMBO J. 2002 Sep 16; 21(18):4915-26.
[EMBO J. 2002]EMBO J. 2002 Apr 2; 21(7):1555-64.
[EMBO J. 2002]Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001 Feb; 11(1):74-81.
[Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001]Genes Dev. 1998 Aug 15; 12(16):2623-35.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Development. 1998 Mar; 125(6):1083-93.
[Development. 1998]Dev Biol. 1977 Mar; 56(1):110-56.
[Dev Biol. 1977]Cell. 1986 Mar 14; 44(5):761-72.
[Cell. 1986]EMBO J. 1986 Oct; 5(10):2673-2680.
[EMBO J. 1986]EMBO J. 1991 Dec; 10(12):3959-70.
[EMBO J. 1991]Neuron. 1999 Oct; 24(2):481-9.
[Neuron. 1999]Science. 1994 Nov 4; 266(5186):816-9.
[Science. 1994]Dev Biol. 1976 Jul 1; 51(1):23-33.
[Dev Biol. 1976]Genes Dev. 1998 Aug 15; 12(16):2623-35.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Cell. 1990 Sep 21; 62(6):1041-52.
[Cell. 1990]EMBO J. 1991 Dec; 10(12):3959-70.
[EMBO J. 1991]Mol Biol Cell. 1999 Jun; 10(6):2087-100.
[Mol Biol Cell. 1999]Development. 1998 Mar; 125(6):1083-93.
[Development. 1998]Development. 1998 Mar; 125(6):1083-93.
[Development. 1998]