Positive interactions are depicted with arrows, while negative interactions are depicted with T-bars. Proteins are shown in capital letters; gene names are shown in lower case italics. (A) The core GLP-1 Notch signaling pathway shown with the downstream GLD-1 and GLD-2 pathways that promote entry into meiosis (Kimble and Crittenden 2005; Hansen and Schedl 2006). PRP-17 and other C. elegans splicing factor orthologs promote meiotic development by positively regulating the GLD-1 pathway through the splicing of mRNAs of genes that function in this pathway. Because the relevant direct splicing targets of PRP-17/ spliceosome have not yet been identified, we show general positive regulation on the GLD-1 pathway as a whole. (B) The core germline sex determination pathway in C. elegans (Ellis and Schedl 2006). In hermaphrodites GLD-1 and FOG-2 act to promote spermatogenesis by repression of tra-2 mRNA in early larvae; the switch to oogenesis occurs upon repression of fem-3 mRNA and derepression of tra-2 mRNA in late larvae. PRP-17 and other splicing factor orthologs may promote the oocyte fate in C. elegans germline sex determination via splicing of the mRNA of an unknown gene (or genes) X, which functions as a translational repressor of fem-3 mRNA during hermaphrodite oogenesis. In (A), PRP-17 and the splicing factors have been placed downstream of GLP-1 signaling as triple mutants of glp-1 null, gld-3 null with prp-17, mog-1 or mog-6 mutations (described here) and teg-4 (Mantina et al. 2009) are tumorous, demonstrating that glp-1 activity is not required for the overproliferation phenotype. Previous work indicated that the GLD-2 polyA polymerase and the GLD-3 Bicaudal-C related RNA binding protein function together to promote entry into meiosis (Kadyk and Kimble,1998; Wang et al. 2002; Eckmann et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2004a and b). Therefore, we were surprised to find that the gld-2(q497) prp-17(oz273); glp-1(q175) triple mutant is not tumorous, but rather has the glp-1 premature meiotic entry phenotype, with similar results in triple mutants with mog-1 and mog-6 (data not shown) as well as for teg-4 (Mantina et al. 2009). There are other situations where gld-2 and gld-3 do not behave identically in the proliferation versus meiosis decision. gld-3(q730) has a stronger meiotic entry defect in combination with gld-1 or nos-3 null alleles than does gld-2(q497) (Eckmann et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2004a and b). The genetic behavior of the pas-5 proteasome subunit shows a similar set of interactions with gld-2, gld-3 and glp-1 as the splicing factor mutants: the pas-5; gld-3; glp-1 mutant is tumorous while gld-2 pas-5; glp-1 mutant shows the glp-1 premature meiotic entry phenotype (MacDonald et al. 2008). How might GLD-2 and GLD-3 function together yet display some different genetic behaviors? One possibility is that GLD-3 may have a separate function, outside of its role with GLD-2, in promoting entry into meiosis, possibly in the proposed third pathway that acts in parallel to the GLD-1 and GLD-2 pathways (Hansen et al. 2004b). Alternatively, although the gld-2(q497) allele used these experiments is a stop mutation (Wang et al. 2002), it may not fully eliminate gld-2 activity. In contrast, the gld-3(q730) allele is a deletion that likely eliminates all gld-3 activity. While the reasons for differences in behavior of gld-2 and gld-3 remain to be resolved, the finding that the tumorous phenotype of the gld-3 null with splicing factor mutants is independent of glp-1 activity strongly supports the proposal that the splicing factors function, at least in part, downstream of GLP-1 signaling.