No abstract

Planar polarity decisions in the wing of Drosophila involve the assembly of asymmetric protein complexes containing the conserved receptor Frizzled. In this study, we analyse the role of the Van Gogh/strabismus gene in the formation of these complexes and cell polarisation. We find that the Strabismus protein becomes asymmetrically localised to the proximal edge of cells. In the absence of strabismus activity, the planar polarity proteins Dishevelled and Prickle are mislocalised in the cell. We show that Strabismus binds directly to Dishevelled and Prickle and is able to recruit them to membranes. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the putative PDZ-binding motif at the C terminus of Strabismus is not required for its function. We propose a two-step model for assembly of Frizzledcontaining asymmetric protein complexes at cell boundaries. First, Strabismus acts together with Frizzled and the atypical cadherin Flamingo to mediate apicolateral recruitment of planar polarity proteins including Dishevelled and Prickle. In the second phase, Dishevelled and Prickle are required for these proteins to become asymmetrically distributed on the proximodistal axis.

SummaryBackgroundThe planar polarization of developing tissues is controlled by a conserved set of core planar polarity proteins. In the Drosophila pupal wing, these proteins adopt distinct proximal and distal localizations in apicolateral junctions that act as subcellular polarity cues to control morphological events. The core polarity protein Flamingo (Fmi) localizes to both proximal and distal cell boundaries and is known to have asymmetric activity, but the molecular basis of this asymmetric activity is unknown.ResultsWe examine the role of Fmi in controlling asymmetric localization of polarity proteins in pupal wing cells. We find that Fmi interacts preferentially with distal-complex components, rather than with proximal components, and present evidence that there are different domain requirements for Fmi to associate with distal and proximal components. We further show that distally and proximally localized proteins cooperate to allow stable accumulation of Fmi at apicolateral junctions and present evidence that the rates of endocytic trafficking of Fmi are increased when Fmi is not in a stable asymmetric complex. Finally, we provide evidence that Fmi is trafficked from junctions via both Dishevelled-dependent and Dishevelled-independent mechanisms.ConclusionsWe present a model in which the primary function of Fmi is to participate in the formation of inherently stable asymmetric junctional complexes: Removal from junctions of Fmi that is not in stable complexes, combined with directional trafficking of Frizzled and Fmi to the distal cell edge, drives the establishment of cellular asymmetry.

During planar polarity patterning of the Drosophila wing, a “core” group of planar polarity genes has been identified which acts downstream of global polarity cues to locally coordinate cell polarity and specify trichome production at distal cell edges. These genes encode protein products that assemble into asymmetric apicolateral complexes that straddle the proximodistal junctional region between adjacent cells. We have carried out detailed genetic analysis experiments, analysing the requirements of each complex component for planar polarity patterning. We find that the three transmembrane proteins at the core of the complex, Frizzled, Strabismus and Flamingo, are required earliest in development and are the only components needed for intercellular polarity signalling. Notably, cells that lack both Frizzled and Strabismus are unable to signal, revealing an absolute requirement for both proteins in cell–cell communication. In contrast the cytoplasmic components Dishevelled, Prickle and Diego are not needed for intercellular communication. These factors contribute to the cell–cell propagation of polarity, most likely by promotion of intracellular asymmetry. Interestingly, both local polarity propagation and trichome placement occur normally in mutant backgrounds where asymmetry of polarity protein distribution is undetectable, suggesting such asymmetry is not an absolute requirement for any of the functions of the core complex.

SummaryThe core planar polarity proteins localize asymmetrically to the adherens junctions of epithelial cells, where they have been hypothesized to assemble into intercellular complexes. Here, we show that the core proteins are preferentially distributed to discrete membrane subdomains (“puncta”), where they form asymmetric contacts between neighboring cells. Using an antibody internalization assay and fluorescence recovery after photobleaching in prepupal and pupal wings, we have investigated the turnover of two key core proteins, Flamingo and Frizzled, and find that the localization of both within puncta is highly stable. Furthermore, the transmembrane core proteins, Flamingo, Frizzled, and Strabismus, are necessary for stable localization of core proteins to junctions, whereas the cytoplasmic core proteins are required for their concentration into puncta. Thus, we define the distinct roles of specific core proteins in the formation of asymmetric contacts between cells, which is a key event in the generation of coordinated cellular asymmetry.

Extracellular cyclic AMP (cAMP) induces the formation of prespore cells in Dictyostelium but inhibits stalk cell formation. We have cloned gskA, which encodes the Dictyostelium homolog of glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK-3), and discovered that it is required for both cAMP effects. Disruption of gskA creates a mutant that aggregates but forms few spores and an abnormally high number of stalk cells. These stalk cells probably arise from an expanded prestalk B (pstB) cell population, which normally produces the basal disc of the fruiting body. In cultured mutant cells, cAMP neither inhibits pstB cell differentiation nor induces efficient prespore cell differentiation. We propose that cAMP acts through a common pathway that requires GSK-3 and determines the proportion of prespore and pstB cells.

The Polycomb group and trithorax group genes of Drosophila are required for maintaining the differential expression state of developmental regulators, such as the homeotic genes, in a stable and heritable manner throughout development. The Polycomb group genes have been suggested to act by regulating higher order chromatin and packaging repressed chromosomal domains in a heterochromatin‐like structure. We have mapped, at high resolution, the distribution of Polycomb protein on the bithorax complex of Drosophila tissue culture cells, using an improved formaldehyde cross‐linking and immunoprecipitation technique. Polycomb protein is not distributed homogeneously on the regulatory regions of the repressed Ultrabithorax and abdominal‐A genes, but is highly enriched at discrete sequence elements, many of which coincide with previously mapped Polycomb group response elements (PREs). Our results further suggest that Polycomb protein spreads locally over a few kilobases of DNA surrounding PREs, perhaps to stabilize silencing complexes. GAGA factor/Trithorax‐like, a member of the trithorax group, is also bound at those PREs which contain GAGA consensus‐binding sites. Two modes of binding can be distinguished: a high level binding to elements in the regulatory domain of the expressed Abdominal‐B gene, and a low level of binding to Polycomb‐bound PREs in the inactive domains of the bithorax complex. We propose that GAGA factor binds constitutively to regulatory elements in the bithorax complex, which function both as PREs and as trithorax group response elements.

The subcellular three-dimensional distribution of three polycomb-group (PcG) proteins—polycomb, polyhomeotic and posterior sex combs—in fixed whole-mount Drosophila embryos was analyzed by multicolor confocal fluorescence microscopy. All three proteins are localized in complex patterns of 100 or more loci throughout most of the interphase nuclear volume. The rather narrow distribution of the protein intensities in the vast majority of loci argues against a PcG-mediated sequestration of repressed target genes by aggregation into subnuclear domains. In contrast to the case for PEV repression (Csink, A.K., and S. Henikoff. 1996. Nature. 381:529–531), there is a lack of correlation between the occurrence of PcG proteins and high concentrations of DNA, demonstrating that the silenced genes are not targeted to heterochromatic regions within the nucleus. There is a clear distinction between sites of transcription in the nucleus and sites of PcG binding, supporting the assumption that most PcG binding loci are sites of repressive complexes. Although the PcG proteins maintain tissue-specific repression for up to 14 cell generations, the proteins studied here visibly dissociate from the chromatin during mitosis, and disperse into the cytoplasm in a differential manner. Quantitation of the fluorescence intensities in the whole mount embryos demonstrate that the dissociated proteins are present in the cytoplasm. We determined that <2% of PH remains attached to late metaphase and anaphase chromosomes. Each of the three proteins that were studied has a different rate and extent of dissociation at prophase and reassociation at telophase. These observations have important implications for models of the mechanism and maintenance of PcG- mediated gene repression.