- Email: [email protected]
Control of asymmetric cell division
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Control of asymmetric cell division Chantal Roubinet and Clemens Cabernard Asymmetric cell division (ACD) is a mechanism to generate cellular diversity and used by prokaryotes and eukaryotes alike. Stem cells in particular rely on ACD to self-renew the stem cell while simultaneously generating a differentiating sibling. It is well established that the differential partitioning of cell fate determinants in the form of RNA and proteins between sibling cells induces changes in cell behavior and fate. Recently, insight into molecular mechanisms has been gained that could explain how centrosomes and centrosome-associated structures such as histones, chromosomes or the primary cilium, segregate asymmetrically. Similarly, many cell types also generate physical asymmetry in the form of sibling cell size differences. Emerging data suggests that spindle-induced cleavage furrow positioning through regulated spindle placement and spindle geometry is insufficient to explain all occurrence of cell-size asymmetry. Instead, asymmetric membrane extension based on asymmetric Myosin localization and cortical remodeling could be a driving force for the generation of physical asymmetry. Addresses Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 50-70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland Corresponding author: Cabernard, Clemens ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91 This review comes from a themed issue on Cell cycle, differentiation and disease Edited by Stefano Piccolo and Eduard Batlle For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Available online 28th September 2014
several aspects of asymmetric cell division, such as cell fate determinant segregation and spindle orientation. Many excellent reviews have already been written on this topic [1,3,4,6,7]. Here, we will first discuss new data concerning centrosome asymmetry, biased chromosome segregation and asymmetric inheritance of centrosomeassociated structures. In the second part, we will also review recent insight into the generation and function of sibling cell size asymmetry.
Centrosomes are inherently asymmetric and segregate non-randomly Centrosomes are the microtubule organizing centers (MTOCs) of animal cells, consisting of a pair of centrioles surrounded by pericentriolar material (PCM) [8]. Centrioles replicate semi conservatively; the old ‘mother’ centriole serves as a template for the generation of a young ‘daughter’ centriole, both of which go on to reform the PCM cloud and generate a new centrosome after separating. Several stem cell types have been reported to contain physically and molecularly asymmetric centrosomes, segregating non-randomly, leading to the hypothesis that centrosomes provide instructive cues to influence cell fate decisions [9–12,13]. For instance, Drosophila male germline stem cells and vertebrate neural stem cells inherit the older mother centrosome, whereas the younger daughter centriole is obtained by the differentiating sibling cell [9,12] (Figure 1a,b). However, Drosophila neural stem cells, called neuroblasts [2], or female germline stem cells (GSCs) inherit the younger daughter centrosome after cell division [10,11,13], indicating that stemness is not always associated with centriole age (Figure 1c,d).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2014.09.005 0955-0674/# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All right reserved.
Introduction Asymmetric cell division (ACD) generates cellular diversity by differentially segregating RNA and protein determinants into the two sibling cells [1]. ACD is utilized by both prokaryotes and eukaryotes to generate sibling cells with a different molecular identity, cell fate and behavior. Stem cells rely on ACD to generate differentiating siblings while regenerating the stem cell through selfrenewal [2–5]. Many of the key players and mechanisms controlling ACD are conserved between invertebrates and vertebrates [1,2]. A unifying principle that has emerged in the last years is that cell polarity controls Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
The mechanism for biased centrosome segregation seems to be rooted in MTOC activity. For instance, Drosophila neuroblast centrosomes undergo an elaborate centrosome dematuration and rematuration cycle, in which the mother centriole sheds PCM right after centrosome separation and, as a consequence, loses its position on the apical cortex. It remains PCM-free during interphase, only regaining PCM and MTOC activity from prophase onwards. The daughter centriole, however, remains stationed in the apical half of the neuroblast because it retains PCM and MTOC activity throughout interphase [10,14,15]. Recently it was found that asymmetrically localized factors such as Centrobin (Cnb), the mitotic kinase Polo and Pericentrin (PCNT)-like protein (Plp) control PCM retention and thus asymmetric MTOC activity, ultimately affecting centrosome positioning and spindle orientation [11,16,17]. For instance, Cnb specifically localizes to the neuroblast daughter www.sciencedirect.com
Asymmetric cell division during development Roubinet and Cabernard 85
Figure 1
(a) Drosophila male germline
(b) Vertebrate neural stem cell GSC
Dd
Gb GSC
NSC NSC (d) Drosophila female germline
(c) Drosophila neuroblast
GSC
Nb
? Cb
GMC Nb Mother centrosome
GSC Daughter centrosome
Midbody Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Asymmetric centrosome and midbody inheritance. Segregation pattern of mother centrosome (red), daughter centrosome (green) and midbody (orange) in (a) Drosophila male germline stem cells (GSCs), (b) Vertebrate neural stem cells (NSCs), (c) Drosophila neuroblasts (Nbs) and (d) Drosophila female germline stem cells (GSCs). In NSCs, the midbody is released into the extracellular space and in Nbs, its fate is currently unknown. GMC; ganglion mother cells, Gb; gonialblast, Dd; differentiating daughter, CB; cystoblast.
centriole and is necessary and sufficient to retain PCM on the apical daughter centriole [11,16]. Polo is localized on the apical daughter centrosome throughout interphase and phosphorylates Cnb, which is required for PCM retention [14,16,18]. The mother centriole-containing centrosome does not localize Cnb and downregulates Polo after centrosomes separate and remains free of Polo during interphase. Only from prophase onwards, Polo returns to the basal centrosome, initiating its maturation [11,14,19]. How Polo localization is controlled is not clear but it was recently suggested that Plp, which localizes to both centrosomes albeit enriched on the mother, prevents premature Polo localization [17]. Furthermore, the centriolar protein Bld10 (Cep135 in vertebrates) is required to generate interphase centrosome asymmetry through shedding of Polo and subsequently PCM [19]. The molecular mechanism and function of centrosome asymmetry is incompletely understood, but it is clear that correct centrosome positioning is an important step in setting up spindle orientation [9,15,18]. During asymmetric cell division, the correct orientation of the mitotic spindle is very important to accurately segregate cell fate determinants, influencing stem cell homeostasis and differentiation [20]. Also, asymmetric centrosome segregation seems to be an evolutionary conserved mechanism since yeast spindle pole bodies are also distributed in a non-random fashion [21,22].
Non-random sister chromatid segregation Centrosomes are not the only subcellular components to segregate non-randomly. In yeast, mouse embryonic stem www.sciencedirect.com
(ES) cells and Drosophila female GSCs, sister chromatids segregate in a biased fashion [23–27]. Surprisingly, a recent report showed that in male GSCs, only the X and Y chromosomes segregate non-randomly, whereas autosomes are inherited randomly [28]. Biased X and Y chromosome segregation could be connected to the immortal strand hypothesis, which proposes that stem cells reduce the accumulation of replication-induced mutations by retaining the older template DNA strands [29]. However, GCSs do not retain the non-mortal strand [28]. The molecular mechanism underlying biased DNA segregation is still unclear but centrosome asymmetry could be connected with biased sister chromatid segregation. For instance, Centrosomin (Cnn), a major organizer of the pericentriolar matrix (PCM) [30], the SUN domain protein Klaroid (KOI) and the KASH domain protein Klarsicht (Klar) are all required for biased chromosome segregation [28,31]. SUN-domain and KASH-domain proteins are members of the LINC complex (linker of nucleoskeleton and cytoskeleton), tethering the nucleus via the nuclear envelope to cytoskeletal components such as microtubules and thus centrosomes. Since DNA is physically connected to centrosomes via kinetochores, it has been speculated that epigenetic marks and asymmetric kinetochore protein assembly could form a biased centrosome-DNA connection via microtubules, leading to non-random chromatid segregation [32]. Indeed, it was found that Dnmt2, a potential methyltransferase, contributes to biased X and Y sister chromatid segregation Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
86 Cell cycle, differentiation and disease
through non-genetic mechanisms. Strikingly, in GSCs from heterozygous flies (dnmt2 /dnmt2+), inheriting the X chromosome from a mutant mother (dnmt2 /dnmt2 ) and the Y chromosome from a heterozygous father (dnmt2 /dnmt2+), only X chromosome segregation was randomized. This could suggest that the information enabling nonrandom sister chromatid segregation is primed during gametogenesis, transmitted to the zygote on single X and Y chromosomes, and maintained through many cell divisions during embryogenesis and adult tissue homeostasis [28] (Figure 2a). Intriguingly, a recent report also showed that in Drosophila male GSCs, certain histones segregate asymmetrically, Figure 2
(a) Drosophila male germline GSC
Gb X
or
2 3
GSC GSC Gb
Mother centrosome Daughter centrosome
Unknown proteins SUN-KASH proteins
(b) Drosophila male germline Anaphase
Telophase
Anaphase
GSC
GSC
GSC
GSC Gb
Old Histone H3 New Histone H3
Telophase
albeit the connection between non-random sister chromatid segregation and histone partitioning is unclear [33] (Figure 2b). Despite these intriguing observations, nonrandom DNA segregation does not seem to be a determinant of stem cell identity because mutants that randomize sister chromatid segregation do not affect germline stem cell identity [28]. Nevertheless, non-random sister chromatid segregation could influence cell robustness or aging [32].
Asymmetric segregation of the midbody Recently, a link between asymmetric centrosome inheritance and midbody segregation has also been observed. The midbody (MB), also called Flemming body, forms at the end of cytokinesis from overlapping plus ends of central spindle microtubules, recruiting various crosslinking proteins to form this electron dense structure. The MB is the final connection between dividing cells until abscission separates both sibling cells. Since abscission usually occurs asymmetrically, the MB is inherited by only one daughter cell [34–36]. Stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells and also potential cancer stem cells have been reported to inherit the MB remnant together with the older mother centrosome [37]. However, a related study came to the opposite conclusion, since midbodies were found to be released in various cell lines and not retained by either sibling cell [38]. A similar situation has also been observed in vivo; neuroepithelial cells release apical MBs, carrying the stem cell and microdomain marker Prominin-1 into the extracellular space [39] (Figure 1b). Interestingly, it was found that in the Drosophila germline, MBs segregate asymmetrically with the younger daughter centrosome; male germline stem cells inherit the mother centrosome but not the MB, whereas female germline stem cells obtain the daughter centrosome and the MB (Figure 1a,d). Although MB segregation depends on functional centrosomes, it is unlikely that MBs carry inherent cell fate determinants since mutants that randomize MB inheritance do not drastically modulate stem cell identity [13].
Gb
Old Histone H3.3 New Histone H3.3 Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Non-random chromatid and histone segregation. (a) In Drosophila male GSCs, sister chromatids of the X chromosome (and Y chromosome; not represented for simplicity) segregate non-randomly together with the mother centrosome; the red X sister chromatid preferentially segregates with the GSC whereas the green X chromatid is inherited by the gonialblast. Autosomes segregate randomly and are shown in lighter colors. A putative connection between sister chromatids and the mother centrosome is established through the SUN-KASH complex and unknown proteins. (b) In Drosophila male GSCs, old (green squares) and new (orange squares) histones H3 segregate non-randomly; old H3s are preferentially inherited by GSC. By contrast, old (blue squares) and new (pink squares) histones H3.3 randomly segregate between GSCs and gonialblasts (Gbs). Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
Asymmetric inheritance of centrosome associated primary cilium membrane Another centrosome-associated structure to segregate in a biased manner is the primary cilium, which is formed by the mother centriole in non-dividing cells. The primary cilium is an antenna-like structure, composed of nine microtubule doublets and surrounded by ciliary membrane (CM). This organelle serves as a signaling center and is an important regulator of proliferation and embryonic patterning [40]. It is generally accepted that the primary cilium disassembles before mitosis but is reformed in early G1 [8]. A recent report now describes the fate of the CM in dividing neocortical cells, human embryonic kidney (HEK293T) and mouse neuroblastoma (Neuro2a) cells, revealing that the CM is asymmetrically inherited by the self-renewed stem cell, whereas www.sciencedirect.com
Asymmetric cell division during development Roubinet and Cabernard 87
the daughter cell reestablishes a primary cilium [41]. The primary cilium extends from the apical membrane of epithelial neural stem cells (called apical progenitors (APs)), into the lateral ventricle, detecting signals from the cerebrospinal fluid [42]. Live imaging experiments with organotypic slices revealed that the CM internalizes at the G2-M phase transition, persisted intracellularly through mitosis and was subsequently asymmetrically inherited by one daughter, retaining stem cell character. Because the primary cilium is a signaling center, the CMinheriting cell could initiate earlier signaling activity, potentially affecting cell fate (Figure 3) [41]. Apical progenitors can switch from symmetric, amplifying divisions to asymmetric, neurogenic divisions [43] and asymmetric CM inheritance has been primarily observed during preneurogenic and early neurogenic stages. It will be interesting to learn how asymmetric primary cilia segregation is connected to symmetric and asymmetric progenitor divisions and fate.
Spindle-dependent and spindle-independent mechanisms for cleavage furrow positioning
Sibling cell size asymmetry
However, spindle-independent cleavage furrow positioning mechanisms have been recently discovered in several cell types and organisms [58–61]. For instance, asymmetrically dividing Drosophila neuroblasts utilize the polarity proteins Discs large 1 (Dlg1) and Partner of Inscuteable (Pins; AGS3/LGN in vertebrates) to asymmetrically localize Myosin, positioning the cleavage furrow off-center [58,62].
Sibling cell size difference is a form of physical asymmetry and occurs in several cell types and species such as dividing Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells, Drosophila neuroblasts and sensory organ precursor cells (SOPs) [44]. Similarly, physical asymmetry is also established during C. elegans development [4] as well as micromere producing cell divisions in sea urchins and mollusks [45–47]. Polar body forming divisions during meiosis are also highly asymmetric [48,49], generating a large oocyte that supports embryonic development. However, in most other cases, the physiological relevance for this cell-size asymmetry is unclear but could be involved in the regulation of the cell cycle and proliferation rates or affect cell fate [20,50,51]. How sibling cell size is generated is not entirely clear but might be cell type specific and involves several different mechanisms (Figure 4).
One mechanism to establish daughter cell size differences is through cleavage furrow positioning. In most metazoan cells the signals to accurately position the cleavage furrow originate from the spindle midzone, astral microtubules (MTs) or both and involves the Centralspindlin complex, triggering local RhoA activation and the subsequent placement and assembly of the contractile ring (reviewed in [52–55]). Many asymmetrically dividing cells — the first embryonic cell division in C. elegans is one of the best examples — displace the mitotic spindle through Dynein-mediated pulling forces, shifting furrow inducing cues towards one side of the cell (reviewed in [56]). Similarly, spindle-derived furrow inducing cues could be positioned off-cell center by changing spindle geometry. Drosophila neuroblasts develop an asymmetric spindle during anaphase, and it has been assumed that spindle geometry induces cell size asymmetry in this cell type [51,57] (Figure 4a,b).
Asymmetric Myosin localization, as a mechanism to generate sibling cell size differences, has also been observed in the C. elegans Q neuroblast lineage. Q neuroblasts give rise to a QR.a and a QR.p cell, both of which divide asymmetrically, generating three distinct neurons and two apoptotic cells [63]. QR.p cells utilize the spindle displacement mechanism to form unequal sized daughters, but the QR.a cells also localizes Myosin asymmetrically in a
Figure 3
G1
S/G2
Mitosis
Mother centriole Daughter centriole Grand-daughter centriole BP
Ciliary axoneme w/ ciliary membrane
AP
Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Asymmetric inheritance of centrosome associated primary cilium membrane. The ciliary axoneme (brown) is formed by the mother centriole (red square). In S phase, both mother and daughter (green square) centrioles duplicate, generating two grand-daughter centrioles (white squares). Cilia partially disassemble, are endocytosed in G2 phase and remain internalized during mitosis. The cilia and its associated cilia membrane (blue) is preferentially inherited by the self-renewed apical progenitor (AP), whereas the basal progenitor (BP) reestablishes a primary cilium. www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
88 Cell cycle, differentiation and disease
Figure 4
(a)
(b)
Central spindle
Dynein
Cleavage furrow
Centralspindlin complex
(c)
Astral MTs
furrow positioning cue
(d)
Legend Cortical proteins Anillin, Myosin, Moesin Cortical contraction Cytoplasmic flow
DNA
(e)
Symmetry breaking DNA cues Ran, Pp1-87B, Sds22 Cortical expansion Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Cellular and molecular mechanisms generating sibling cell size asymmetry. (a) An asymmetric cortical distribution of Dynein (blue circles) is decentering the mitotic spindle (black) through pulling forces (blue arrows), inducing cleavage furrow positioning off-cell center via the centralspindlin complex (blue oval). (b) The formation of longer astral microtubules (MTs; brown) on one side of the cell and/or an inherently asymmetric central spindle can also shift the cleavage furrow towards one side of the cell pole. (c) A symmetry breaking event on one pole of the cell can induce asymmetric Myosin (green) relocalization. Asymmetric Myosin distribution, putatively triggers an oriented cytoplasmic flow (thin blue arrows), causing apical cortical expansion. (d) During anaphase, kinetochore microtubules pull sister chromatids towards the cell poles. This DNA-cortex proximity allows proteins localized around DNA, such as Ran GTPase or the phosphatases Sds22/Pp1-87B, to deliver polar cortex modifying signals to the cell poles. This causes cortical proteins such as Myosin, Moesin or Anillin to be removed/inhibited, inducing membrane expansion at both poles (blue arrows). The equatorial contraction of the cleavage furrow might again induce a cytoplasmic flow, generating the force to expand the polar membrane. Cells displaying a decentered spindle and thus decentered DNA, could induce asymmetric polar extension based on asymmetric distribution of cortex modifying signals.
spindle-independent manner [61]. In wild type QR.a cells, Myosin is enriched at the anterior pole of dividing cells but mutations in the transcription factors HAM-1 or LIN-32 cause Myosin to be symmetrically distributed, resulting in a physical symmetric cell division. In ham-1 and lin-32 mutants, both QR.a daughter cells survive and adopt neuronal fate whereas in wild type, one sibling undergoes apoptosis and the other becomes a neuron. Interestingly, HAM-1 was found to be specifically involved in QR.a but not QR.p asymmetric division [64,65]. Most likely, HAM-1 and LIN-32 control asymmetric Myosin localization through specific effector genes. For instance, the HAM-1 target PIG-1 is a member of the PAR family proteins, well-known regulators of cell polarity and asymmetric cell division. PIG-1 could thus provide a connection between cell polarity and asymmetric Myosin localization, Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
similarly to Pins and Dlg1 in Drosophila neuroblasts [58] (Figure 4c). Novel data also suggests that GRP-1, the sole C. elegans cytohesin, and the DEP domain-containing protein TOE-2 control sibling cell size asymmetry in the Q neuroblast lineage [66,67]. Cytohesins are Arf guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs) that regulate membrane trafficking and actin cytoskeletal dynamics. Loss of GRP-1 results in daughter cells that are more similar in size, transforming the apoptotic daughter into its sister and thus producing extra neurons [66]. TOE-2 localizes to the plasma membrane and accumulates at the cleavage furrow. In QR.a cells, loss of toe-2 results in a more symmetric division and survival of the smaller QR.a daughter, which in wild type is fated to undergo apoptosis [67]. However, the relationship between GRP-1 and TOE-2 is currently unknown. www.sciencedirect.com
Asymmetric cell division during development Roubinet and Cabernard 89
Cortical expansion generates cell size asymmetry Asymmetric Myosin distribution has been proposed to drive unequal cortical expansion, pushing the cleavage furrow off-center [61,62]. For instance, Myosin enrichment on one side of the cell could create higher active cortical tension while at the same time reducing cortical stiffness on the opposite cell pole. A reduction in cortical stiffness is required to allow cortical expansion, but other cortical proteins such as Anillin or ERM proteins (Ezrin, Radixin and Moesin in vertebrates) also need to be inhibited or relocalized [68–71]. In symmetrically dividing cells, the phosphatases Sds22 and Pp1-87B inactivate dMoesin at polar regions to allow symmetric polar membrane expansion. Sds22 and Pp1-87B are associated with DNA during anaphase, suggesting that the proximity of chromosomes with the membrane could locally modulate the composition of the cortex [70,72]. Interestingly, a more direct role for a chromosome-derived signal in polar relaxation and subsequent expansion has recently been demonstrated in HeLA, Rpe1, BHK and tsBN2 cells [50]. These cells divide symmetrically but when the spindle, and thus also chromosomes, are experimentally shifted to one side of the cell at anaphase onset, Anillin and Myosin are locally inhibited, promoting asymmetric membrane expansion. A prime candidate for the chromosome-derived signal is RanGTP, forming a gradient on chromosomes during mitosis [73]. Indeed, if the formation of RanGTP is prevented under conditions when the chromosomes were displaced, the cortex cannot be modified in the vicinity of the DNA and membrane extension does not occur. Thus, a chromosome derived RanGTP gradient inhibits cortical proteins specifically at polar regions. This causes a local weakening of the cortex and promotes its expansion during anaphase [50]. It has to be noted that this mechanism corrects for mispositioned spindles in symmetrically dividing cells, ensuring that both siblings end up with the same size. Whether asymmetrically dividing cells in vivo utilize the same mechanism to control asymmetric membrane expansion remains to be seen. For instance, asymmetry in DNA proximity between the two poles of asymmetrically dividing cells could inactivate cortical proteins (dMoesin, Myosin, Anillin) preferentially at one pole, inducing cortical contraction in anaphase anisotropic (Figure 4d,e). In agreement with this model is a previous study, showing that unbalanced cortical contractions in HeLa cells are able to shift the cleavage furrow towards polar regions [60].
Conclusion Asymmetric segregation of centrosomes, centrosomeassociated structures but also other organelles is probably more common than previously anticipated. Similarly, cell shape changes during mitosis can trigger transient asymmetries, which, if stabilized could result in physical asymmetric cell division. The biological significance of www.sciencedirect.com
these forms of asymmetry is not always clear, but could affect cell behavior, only detectable on a longer time scale. In the future, it will be interesting to learn more about the specific mechanisms involved and the consequence on cell fate and behavior.
Acknowledgements We thank members of the Cabernard lab for helpful discussions and critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). C.R. is supported by an EMBO long-term postdoctoral fellowship.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Knoblich JA: Asymmetric cell division: recent developments and their implications for tumour biology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2010, 11:849-860.
2.
Homem CCF, Knoblich JA: Drosophila neuroblasts: a model for stem cell biology. Development 2012, 139:4297-4310.
3.
Inaba M, Yamashita YM: Asymmetric stem cell division: precision for robustness. Cell Stem Cell 2012, 11:461-469.
4.
Li R: The art of choreographing asymmetric cell division. Dev Cell 2013, 25:439-450.
5.
Januschke J, Na¨thke I: Stem cell decisions: a twist of fate or a niche market? Semin Cell Dev Biol 2014 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.semcdb.2014.02.014.
6.
Williams SE, Fuchs E: Oriented divisions, fate decisions. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2013, 25:749-758.
7.
Go´mez-Lo´pez S, Lerner RG, Petritsch C: Asymmetric cell division of stem and progenitor cells during homeostasis and cancer. Cell Mol Life Sci 2014, 71:575-597.
8.
Nigg EA, Stearns T: The centrosome cycle: centriole biogenesis, duplication and inherent asymmetries. Nat Cell Biol 2011, 13:1154-1160.
9.
Yamashita YM, Mahowald AP, Perlin JR, Fuller MT: Asymmetric inheritance of mother versus daughter centrosome in stem cell division. Science 2007, 315:518-521.
10. Conduit PT, Raff JW: Cnn dynamics drive centrosome size asymmetry to ensure daughter centriole retention in Drosophila neuroblasts. Curr Biol 2010, 20:2187-2192. 11. Januschke J, Llamazares S, Reina J, Gonzalez C: Drosophila neuroblasts retain the daughter centrosome. Nat Commun 2011, 2:243. 12. Wang X, Tsai J-W, Imai JH, Lian W-N, Vallee RB, Shi S-H: Asymmetric centrosome inheritance maintains neural progenitors in the neocortex. Nature 2009, 461:947-955. 13. Salzmann V, Chen C, Chiang CYA, Tiyaboonchai A, Mayer M, Yamashita YM: Centrosome-dependent asymmetric inheritance of the midbody ring in Drosophila germline stem cell division. Mol Biol Cell 2014, 25:267-275. This study shows asymmetric midbody inheritance in vivo and the correlation between daughter centrosome segregation and midbody inheritance. 14. Rusan NM, Peifer M: A role for a novel centrosome cycle in asymmetric cell division. J Cell Biol 2007, 177:13-20. 15. Rebollo E, Sampaio P, Januschke J, Llamazares S, Varmark H, Gonzalez C: Functionally unequal centrosomes drive spindle orientation in asymmetrically dividing Drosophila neural stem cells. Dev Cell 2007, 12:467-474. 16. Januschke J, Reina J, Llamazares S, Bertran T, Rossi F, Roig J, Gonzalez C: Centrobin controls mother–daughter centriole Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
90 Cell cycle, differentiation and disease
asymmetry in Drosophila neuroblasts. Nat Cell Biol 2013, 15:241-248. This paper demonstrates that Cnb is necessary and sufficient for the retention of PCM proteins on the apical daughter centrosome. It also shows that Polo phosphorylates Cnb, which is required for Cnb to retain PCM in interphase, highlighting an interphase-specific function for Polo. 17. Lerit DA, Rusan NM: PLP inhibits the activity of interphase centrosomes to ensure their proper segregation in stem cells. J Cell Biol 2013, 202:1013-1022. This paper shows that PLP is required to establish centrosome asymmetry by keeping Polo off the basal mother centriole, thereby enabling the establishment of a PCM free centriole. 18. Januschke J, Gonzalez C: The interphase microtubule aster is a determinant of asymmetric division orientation in Drosophila neuroblasts. J Cell Biol 2010, 188:693-706. 19. Singh P, Ramdas Nair A, Cabernard C: The centriolar protein Bld10/Cep135 is required to establish centrosome asymmetry in drosophila neuroblasts. Curr Biol 2014, 24:1548-1555. In this study, the centriolar protein Bld10 was shown to be implicated in shedding of Polo, causing PCM to be downregulated from the mother centrosome. This results in molecular and physical asymmetric centrosomes. 20. Cabernard C, Doe CQ: Apical/basal spindle orientation is required for neuroblast homeostasis and neuronal differentiation in Drosophila. Dev Cell 2009, 17:134-141. 21. Hotz M, Leisner C, Chen D, Manatschal C, Wegleiter T, Ouellet J, Lindstrom D, Gottschling DE, Vogel J, Barral Y: Spindle pole bodies exploit the mitotic exit network in metaphase to drive their age-dependent segregation. Cell 2012, 148:958-972. 22. Pereira G: Modes of spindle pole body inheritance and segregation of the Bfa1p-Bub2p checkpoint protein complex. EMBO J 2001, 20:6359-6370. 23. Armakolas A, Klar AJS: Cell type regulates selective segregation of mouse chromosome 7 DNA strands in mitosis. Science 2006, 311:1146-1149. 24. Klar AJ: Differentiated parental DNA strands confer developmental asymmetry on daughter cells in fission yeast. Nature 1987, 326:466-470. 25. KLAR A: The developmental fate of fission yeast-cells is determined by the pattern of inheritance of parental and grandparental Dna strands. EMBO J 1990, 9:1407-1415. 26. Klar AJS: Lessons learned from studies of fission yeast mating-type switching and silencing. Annu Rev Genet 2007, 41:213-236. 27. Karpowicz P, Pellikka M, Chea E, Godt D, Tepass U, van der Kooy D: The germline stem cells of Drosophila melanogaster partition DNA non-randomly. Eur J Cell Biol 2009, 88:397-408.
cells may retain preexisting canonical histones during asymmetric cell divisions as a potential mechanism to maintain their unique molecular properties. 34. Schiel JA, Childs C, Prekeris R: Endocytic transport and cytokinesis: from regulation of the cytoskeleton to midbody inheritance. Trends Cell Biol 2013, 23:319-327. 35. Agromayor M, Martin-Serrano J: Knowing when to cut and run: mechanisms that control cytokinetic abscission. Trends Cell Biol 2013, 23:433-441. 36. Chen C-T, Ettinger AW, Huttner WB, Doxsey SJ: Resurrecting remnants: the lives of post-mitotic midbodies. Trends Cell Biol 2013, 23:118-128. 37. Kuo T-C, Chen C-T, Baron D, Onder TT, Loewer S, Almeida S, Weismann CM, Xu P, Houghton J-M, Gao F-B et al.: Midbody accumulation through evasion of autophagy contributes to cellular reprogramming and tumorigenicity. Nat Cell Biol 2011, 13:1214-1223. 38. Ettinger AW, Wilsch-Bra¨uninger M, Marzesco A-M, Bickle M, Lohmann A, Maliga Z, Karbanova´ J, Corbeil D, Hyman AA, Huttner WB: Proliferating versus differentiating stem and cancer cells exhibit distinct midbody-release behaviour. Nat Commun 2011, 2:503. 39. Dubreuil V, Marzesco A-M, Corbeil D, Huttner WB, WilschBra¨uninger M: Midbody and primary cilium of neural progenitors release extracellular membrane particles enriched in the stem cell marker prominin-1. J Cell Biol 2007, 176:483-495. 40. Goetz SC, Anderson KV: The primary cilium: a signalling centre during vertebrate development. Nat Rev Genet 2010, 11:331344. 41. Paridaen JTML, Wilsch-Bra¨uninger M, Huttner WB: Asymmetric inheritance of centrosome-associated primary cilium membrane directs ciliogenesis after cell division. Cell 2013, 155:333-344. This study links asymmetric inheritance of the primary cilia membrane with centriolar age in embryonic neocortical stem cells. They show that the primary cilium is asymmetrically inherited by one daughter cell, which retained stem cell character, suggesting a connection between stem cell fate and the signaling activity of the primary cilium. 42. Louvi A, Grove EA: Cilia in the CNS: the quiet organelle claims center stage. Neuron 2011, 69:1046-1060. 43. Paridaen JTML, Huttner WB: Neurogenesis during development of the vertebrate central nervous system. EMBO Rep 2014, 15:351-364. 44. Gillies TE, Cabernard C: Cell division orientation in animals. Curr Biol 2011, 21:R599-R609.
28. Yadlapalli S, Yamashita YM: Chromosome-specific nonrandom sister chromatid segregation during stem-cell division. Nature 2013, 498:251-254. Yadlapalli et al., show the occurrence of non-random sister chromatid segregation of the X and Y chromosome in Drosophila male germline stem cells. It also identifies the first molecular components required for biased sister chromatid segregation.
45. Dassow von G, Verbrugghe KJC, Miller AL, Sider JR, Bement WM: Action at a distance during cytokinesis. J Cell Biol 2009, 187:831-845.
29. Cairns J: Mutation selection and the natural history of cancer. Nature 1975, 255:197-200.
47. Goulding MQ: Cell lineage of the Ilyanassa embryo: evolutionary acceleration of regional differentiation during early development. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:e5506.
30. Megraw TL, Li K, Kao LR, Kaufman TC: The centrosomin protein is required for centrosome assembly and function during cleavage in Drosophila. Development 1999, 126:2829-2839. 31. Yamashita YM: Biased DNA segregation in Drosophila male germline stem cells. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2013, 24:618-626. 32. Tajbakhsh S, Gonzalez C: Biased segregation of DNA and centrosomes: moving together or drifting apart? Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2009, 10:804-810. 33. Tran V, Lim C, Xie J, Chen X: Asymmetric division of Drosophila male germline stem cell shows asymmetric histone distribution. Science 2012, 338:679-682. In this paper, the authors document biased segregation of specific histones in Drosophila male germline stem cells, suggesting that stem Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
46. Bement WM, Benink HA, Dassow von G: A microtubuledependent zone of active RhoA during cleavage plane specification. J Cell Biol 2005, 170:91-101.
48. Fabritius AS, Ellefson ML, McNally FJ: Nuclear and spindle positioning during oocyte meiosis. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2011, 23:78-84. 49. Yi K, Li R: Actin cytoskeleton in cell polarity and asymmetric division during mouse oocyte maturation. Cytoskeleton (Hoboken) 2012, 69:727-737. 50. Kiyomitsu T, Cheeseman IM: Cortical dynein and asymmetric membrane elongation coordinately position the spindle in anaphase. Cell 2013, 154:391-402. In this study, the authors highlight the role of a DNA-dependent RanGTP gradient influencing the composition and behavior of the cell cortex. This mechanism could explain how physical symmetry is established and might be applicable to cell types generating sibling cell size asymmetry. www.sciencedirect.com
Asymmetric cell division during development Roubinet and Cabernard 91
51. Fuse N, Hisata K, Katzen AL, Matsuzaki F: Heterotrimeric G proteins regulate daughter cell size asymmetry in Drosophila neuroblast divisions. Curr Biol 2003, 13:947-954. 52. Burgess DR, Chang F: Site selection for the cleavage furrow at cytokinesis. Trends Cell Biol 2005, 15:156-162. 53. Green RA, Paluch E, Oegema K: Cytokinesis in animal cells. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2011, 28 120717164503001. 54. White EA, Glotzer M: Centralspindlin: at the heart of cytokinesis. Cytoskeleton (Hoboken) 2012, 69:882-892. 55. Cabernard C: Cytokinesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Cytoskeleton (Hoboken) 2012, 69:791-809. 56. Kotak S, Go¨nczy P: Mechanisms of spindle positioning: cortical force generators in the limelight. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2013, 25:741-748. 57. Bonaccorsi S, Giansanti MG, Gatti M: Spindle assembly in Drosophila neuroblasts and ganglion mother cells. Nat Cell Biol 2000, 2:54-56. 58. Cabernard C, Prehoda KE, Doe CQ: A spindle-independent cleavage furrow positioning pathway. Nature 2010, 467:91-94. 59. Cinalli RM, Lehmann R: A spindle-independent cleavage pathway controls germ cell formation in Drosophila. Nat Cell Biol 2013, 15:839-845. 60. Sedzinski J, Biro M, Oswald A, Tinevez J-Y, Salbreux G, Paluch E: Polar actomyosin contractility destabilizes the position of the cytokinetic furrow. Nature 2011, 476:462-466. 61. Ou G, Stuurman N, D’Ambrosio M, Vale RD: Polarized myosin produces unequal-size daughters during asymmetric cell division. Science 2010, 330:677-680. 62. Connell M, Cabernard C, Ricketson D, Doe CQ, Prehoda KE: Asymmetric cortical extension shifts cleavage furrow position in Drosophila neuroblasts. Mol Biol Cell 2011, 22:4220-4226.
In this paper, the two transcription factors LIN-32 and HAM-1 are shown to affect asymmetric cell division in the Q neuroblast lineage. 65. Feng G, Yi P, Yang Y, Chai Y, Tian D, Zhu Z, Liu J, Zhou F, Cheng Z, Wang X et al.: Developmental stage-dependent transcriptional regulatory pathways control neuroblast lineage progression. Development 2013, 140:3838-3847. This study describes novel mutants involved in the establishment of sibling cell size asymmetry in the Q neuroblast lineage. 66. Teuliere J, Cordes S, Singhvi A, Talavera K, Garriga G: Asymmetric neuroblast divisions producing apoptotic cells require the cytohesin GRP-1 in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.167189. 67. Gurling M, Talavera K, Garriga G: The DEP domain-containing protein TOE-2 promotes apoptosis in the Q lineage of C. elegans through two distinct mechanisms. Development 2014, 141:2724-2734. In this paper, Gurling et al., show that TOE-2 is required for sibling cell size asymmetry in QR.a divisions. Membrane localization of TOE-2 is required for cleavage furrow positioning but the DEP domain is dispensable. 68. Kunda P, Pelling AE, Liu T, Baum B: Moesin controls cortical rigidity, cell rounding, and spindle morphogenesis during mitosis. Curr Biol 2008, 18:91-101. 69. Kunda P, Rodrigues NTL, Moeendarbary E, Liu T, Ivetic A, Charras G, Baum B: PP1-mediated moesin dephosphorylation couples polar relaxation to mitotic exit. Curr Biol 2012, 22:231-236. 70. Roubinet C, Decelle B, Chicanne G, Dorn JF, Payrastre B, Payre F, Carreno S: Molecular networks linked by Moesin drive remodeling of the cell cortex during mitosis. J Cell Biol 2011, 195:99-112. 71. Carreno S, Kouranti I, Glusman ES, Fuller MT, Echard A, Payre F: Moesin and its activating kinase Slik are required for cortical stability and microtubule organization in mitotic cells. J Cell Biol 2008, 180:739-746.
63. Sulston JE, Horvitz HR: Post-embryonic cell lineages of the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev Biol 1977, 56:110-156.
72. Posch M, Khoudoli GA, Swift S, King EM, DeLuca JG, Swedlow JR: Sds22 regulates aurora B activity and microtubule-kinetochore interactions at mitosis. J Cell Biol 2010, 191:61-74.
64. Zhu Z, Liu J, Yi P, Tian D, Chai Y, Li W, Ou G: A proneural gene controls C. elegans neuroblast asymmetric division and migration. FEBS Lett 2014, 588:1136-1143.
73. Kala´b P, Pralle A, Isacoff EY, Heald R, Weis K: Analysis of a RanGTP-regulated gradient in mitotic somatic cells. Nature 2006, 440:697-701.
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
ScienceDirect Control of asymmetric cell division Chantal Roubinet and Clemens Cabernard Asymmetric cell division (ACD) is a mechanism to generate cellular diversity and used by prokaryotes and eukaryotes alike. Stem cells in particular rely on ACD to self-renew the stem cell while simultaneously generating a differentiating sibling. It is well established that the differential partitioning of cell fate determinants in the form of RNA and proteins between sibling cells induces changes in cell behavior and fate. Recently, insight into molecular mechanisms has been gained that could explain how centrosomes and centrosome-associated structures such as histones, chromosomes or the primary cilium, segregate asymmetrically. Similarly, many cell types also generate physical asymmetry in the form of sibling cell size differences. Emerging data suggests that spindle-induced cleavage furrow positioning through regulated spindle placement and spindle geometry is insufficient to explain all occurrence of cell-size asymmetry. Instead, asymmetric membrane extension based on asymmetric Myosin localization and cortical remodeling could be a driving force for the generation of physical asymmetry. Addresses Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 50-70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland Corresponding author: Cabernard, Clemens ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91 This review comes from a themed issue on Cell cycle, differentiation and disease Edited by Stefano Piccolo and Eduard Batlle For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Available online 28th September 2014
several aspects of asymmetric cell division, such as cell fate determinant segregation and spindle orientation. Many excellent reviews have already been written on this topic [1,3,4,6,7]. Here, we will first discuss new data concerning centrosome asymmetry, biased chromosome segregation and asymmetric inheritance of centrosomeassociated structures. In the second part, we will also review recent insight into the generation and function of sibling cell size asymmetry.
Centrosomes are inherently asymmetric and segregate non-randomly Centrosomes are the microtubule organizing centers (MTOCs) of animal cells, consisting of a pair of centrioles surrounded by pericentriolar material (PCM) [8]. Centrioles replicate semi conservatively; the old ‘mother’ centriole serves as a template for the generation of a young ‘daughter’ centriole, both of which go on to reform the PCM cloud and generate a new centrosome after separating. Several stem cell types have been reported to contain physically and molecularly asymmetric centrosomes, segregating non-randomly, leading to the hypothesis that centrosomes provide instructive cues to influence cell fate decisions [9–12,13]. For instance, Drosophila male germline stem cells and vertebrate neural stem cells inherit the older mother centrosome, whereas the younger daughter centriole is obtained by the differentiating sibling cell [9,12] (Figure 1a,b). However, Drosophila neural stem cells, called neuroblasts [2], or female germline stem cells (GSCs) inherit the younger daughter centrosome after cell division [10,11,13], indicating that stemness is not always associated with centriole age (Figure 1c,d).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2014.09.005 0955-0674/# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All right reserved.
Introduction Asymmetric cell division (ACD) generates cellular diversity by differentially segregating RNA and protein determinants into the two sibling cells [1]. ACD is utilized by both prokaryotes and eukaryotes to generate sibling cells with a different molecular identity, cell fate and behavior. Stem cells rely on ACD to generate differentiating siblings while regenerating the stem cell through selfrenewal [2–5]. Many of the key players and mechanisms controlling ACD are conserved between invertebrates and vertebrates [1,2]. A unifying principle that has emerged in the last years is that cell polarity controls Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
The mechanism for biased centrosome segregation seems to be rooted in MTOC activity. For instance, Drosophila neuroblast centrosomes undergo an elaborate centrosome dematuration and rematuration cycle, in which the mother centriole sheds PCM right after centrosome separation and, as a consequence, loses its position on the apical cortex. It remains PCM-free during interphase, only regaining PCM and MTOC activity from prophase onwards. The daughter centriole, however, remains stationed in the apical half of the neuroblast because it retains PCM and MTOC activity throughout interphase [10,14,15]. Recently it was found that asymmetrically localized factors such as Centrobin (Cnb), the mitotic kinase Polo and Pericentrin (PCNT)-like protein (Plp) control PCM retention and thus asymmetric MTOC activity, ultimately affecting centrosome positioning and spindle orientation [11,16,17]. For instance, Cnb specifically localizes to the neuroblast daughter www.sciencedirect.com
Asymmetric cell division during development Roubinet and Cabernard 85
Figure 1
(a) Drosophila male germline
(b) Vertebrate neural stem cell GSC
Dd
Gb GSC
NSC NSC (d) Drosophila female germline
(c) Drosophila neuroblast
GSC
Nb
? Cb
GMC Nb Mother centrosome
GSC Daughter centrosome
Midbody Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Asymmetric centrosome and midbody inheritance. Segregation pattern of mother centrosome (red), daughter centrosome (green) and midbody (orange) in (a) Drosophila male germline stem cells (GSCs), (b) Vertebrate neural stem cells (NSCs), (c) Drosophila neuroblasts (Nbs) and (d) Drosophila female germline stem cells (GSCs). In NSCs, the midbody is released into the extracellular space and in Nbs, its fate is currently unknown. GMC; ganglion mother cells, Gb; gonialblast, Dd; differentiating daughter, CB; cystoblast.
centriole and is necessary and sufficient to retain PCM on the apical daughter centriole [11,16]. Polo is localized on the apical daughter centrosome throughout interphase and phosphorylates Cnb, which is required for PCM retention [14,16,18]. The mother centriole-containing centrosome does not localize Cnb and downregulates Polo after centrosomes separate and remains free of Polo during interphase. Only from prophase onwards, Polo returns to the basal centrosome, initiating its maturation [11,14,19]. How Polo localization is controlled is not clear but it was recently suggested that Plp, which localizes to both centrosomes albeit enriched on the mother, prevents premature Polo localization [17]. Furthermore, the centriolar protein Bld10 (Cep135 in vertebrates) is required to generate interphase centrosome asymmetry through shedding of Polo and subsequently PCM [19]. The molecular mechanism and function of centrosome asymmetry is incompletely understood, but it is clear that correct centrosome positioning is an important step in setting up spindle orientation [9,15,18]. During asymmetric cell division, the correct orientation of the mitotic spindle is very important to accurately segregate cell fate determinants, influencing stem cell homeostasis and differentiation [20]. Also, asymmetric centrosome segregation seems to be an evolutionary conserved mechanism since yeast spindle pole bodies are also distributed in a non-random fashion [21,22].
Non-random sister chromatid segregation Centrosomes are not the only subcellular components to segregate non-randomly. In yeast, mouse embryonic stem www.sciencedirect.com
(ES) cells and Drosophila female GSCs, sister chromatids segregate in a biased fashion [23–27]. Surprisingly, a recent report showed that in male GSCs, only the X and Y chromosomes segregate non-randomly, whereas autosomes are inherited randomly [28]. Biased X and Y chromosome segregation could be connected to the immortal strand hypothesis, which proposes that stem cells reduce the accumulation of replication-induced mutations by retaining the older template DNA strands [29]. However, GCSs do not retain the non-mortal strand [28]. The molecular mechanism underlying biased DNA segregation is still unclear but centrosome asymmetry could be connected with biased sister chromatid segregation. For instance, Centrosomin (Cnn), a major organizer of the pericentriolar matrix (PCM) [30], the SUN domain protein Klaroid (KOI) and the KASH domain protein Klarsicht (Klar) are all required for biased chromosome segregation [28,31]. SUN-domain and KASH-domain proteins are members of the LINC complex (linker of nucleoskeleton and cytoskeleton), tethering the nucleus via the nuclear envelope to cytoskeletal components such as microtubules and thus centrosomes. Since DNA is physically connected to centrosomes via kinetochores, it has been speculated that epigenetic marks and asymmetric kinetochore protein assembly could form a biased centrosome-DNA connection via microtubules, leading to non-random chromatid segregation [32]. Indeed, it was found that Dnmt2, a potential methyltransferase, contributes to biased X and Y sister chromatid segregation Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
86 Cell cycle, differentiation and disease
through non-genetic mechanisms. Strikingly, in GSCs from heterozygous flies (dnmt2 /dnmt2+), inheriting the X chromosome from a mutant mother (dnmt2 /dnmt2 ) and the Y chromosome from a heterozygous father (dnmt2 /dnmt2+), only X chromosome segregation was randomized. This could suggest that the information enabling nonrandom sister chromatid segregation is primed during gametogenesis, transmitted to the zygote on single X and Y chromosomes, and maintained through many cell divisions during embryogenesis and adult tissue homeostasis [28] (Figure 2a). Intriguingly, a recent report also showed that in Drosophila male GSCs, certain histones segregate asymmetrically, Figure 2
(a) Drosophila male germline GSC
Gb X
or
2 3
GSC GSC Gb
Mother centrosome Daughter centrosome
Unknown proteins SUN-KASH proteins
(b) Drosophila male germline Anaphase
Telophase
Anaphase
GSC
GSC
GSC
GSC Gb
Old Histone H3 New Histone H3
Telophase
albeit the connection between non-random sister chromatid segregation and histone partitioning is unclear [33] (Figure 2b). Despite these intriguing observations, nonrandom DNA segregation does not seem to be a determinant of stem cell identity because mutants that randomize sister chromatid segregation do not affect germline stem cell identity [28]. Nevertheless, non-random sister chromatid segregation could influence cell robustness or aging [32].
Asymmetric segregation of the midbody Recently, a link between asymmetric centrosome inheritance and midbody segregation has also been observed. The midbody (MB), also called Flemming body, forms at the end of cytokinesis from overlapping plus ends of central spindle microtubules, recruiting various crosslinking proteins to form this electron dense structure. The MB is the final connection between dividing cells until abscission separates both sibling cells. Since abscission usually occurs asymmetrically, the MB is inherited by only one daughter cell [34–36]. Stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells and also potential cancer stem cells have been reported to inherit the MB remnant together with the older mother centrosome [37]. However, a related study came to the opposite conclusion, since midbodies were found to be released in various cell lines and not retained by either sibling cell [38]. A similar situation has also been observed in vivo; neuroepithelial cells release apical MBs, carrying the stem cell and microdomain marker Prominin-1 into the extracellular space [39] (Figure 1b). Interestingly, it was found that in the Drosophila germline, MBs segregate asymmetrically with the younger daughter centrosome; male germline stem cells inherit the mother centrosome but not the MB, whereas female germline stem cells obtain the daughter centrosome and the MB (Figure 1a,d). Although MB segregation depends on functional centrosomes, it is unlikely that MBs carry inherent cell fate determinants since mutants that randomize MB inheritance do not drastically modulate stem cell identity [13].
Gb
Old Histone H3.3 New Histone H3.3 Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Non-random chromatid and histone segregation. (a) In Drosophila male GSCs, sister chromatids of the X chromosome (and Y chromosome; not represented for simplicity) segregate non-randomly together with the mother centrosome; the red X sister chromatid preferentially segregates with the GSC whereas the green X chromatid is inherited by the gonialblast. Autosomes segregate randomly and are shown in lighter colors. A putative connection between sister chromatids and the mother centrosome is established through the SUN-KASH complex and unknown proteins. (b) In Drosophila male GSCs, old (green squares) and new (orange squares) histones H3 segregate non-randomly; old H3s are preferentially inherited by GSC. By contrast, old (blue squares) and new (pink squares) histones H3.3 randomly segregate between GSCs and gonialblasts (Gbs). Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
Asymmetric inheritance of centrosome associated primary cilium membrane Another centrosome-associated structure to segregate in a biased manner is the primary cilium, which is formed by the mother centriole in non-dividing cells. The primary cilium is an antenna-like structure, composed of nine microtubule doublets and surrounded by ciliary membrane (CM). This organelle serves as a signaling center and is an important regulator of proliferation and embryonic patterning [40]. It is generally accepted that the primary cilium disassembles before mitosis but is reformed in early G1 [8]. A recent report now describes the fate of the CM in dividing neocortical cells, human embryonic kidney (HEK293T) and mouse neuroblastoma (Neuro2a) cells, revealing that the CM is asymmetrically inherited by the self-renewed stem cell, whereas www.sciencedirect.com
Asymmetric cell division during development Roubinet and Cabernard 87
the daughter cell reestablishes a primary cilium [41]. The primary cilium extends from the apical membrane of epithelial neural stem cells (called apical progenitors (APs)), into the lateral ventricle, detecting signals from the cerebrospinal fluid [42]. Live imaging experiments with organotypic slices revealed that the CM internalizes at the G2-M phase transition, persisted intracellularly through mitosis and was subsequently asymmetrically inherited by one daughter, retaining stem cell character. Because the primary cilium is a signaling center, the CMinheriting cell could initiate earlier signaling activity, potentially affecting cell fate (Figure 3) [41]. Apical progenitors can switch from symmetric, amplifying divisions to asymmetric, neurogenic divisions [43] and asymmetric CM inheritance has been primarily observed during preneurogenic and early neurogenic stages. It will be interesting to learn how asymmetric primary cilia segregation is connected to symmetric and asymmetric progenitor divisions and fate.
Spindle-dependent and spindle-independent mechanisms for cleavage furrow positioning
Sibling cell size asymmetry
However, spindle-independent cleavage furrow positioning mechanisms have been recently discovered in several cell types and organisms [58–61]. For instance, asymmetrically dividing Drosophila neuroblasts utilize the polarity proteins Discs large 1 (Dlg1) and Partner of Inscuteable (Pins; AGS3/LGN in vertebrates) to asymmetrically localize Myosin, positioning the cleavage furrow off-center [58,62].
Sibling cell size difference is a form of physical asymmetry and occurs in several cell types and species such as dividing Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells, Drosophila neuroblasts and sensory organ precursor cells (SOPs) [44]. Similarly, physical asymmetry is also established during C. elegans development [4] as well as micromere producing cell divisions in sea urchins and mollusks [45–47]. Polar body forming divisions during meiosis are also highly asymmetric [48,49], generating a large oocyte that supports embryonic development. However, in most other cases, the physiological relevance for this cell-size asymmetry is unclear but could be involved in the regulation of the cell cycle and proliferation rates or affect cell fate [20,50,51]. How sibling cell size is generated is not entirely clear but might be cell type specific and involves several different mechanisms (Figure 4).
One mechanism to establish daughter cell size differences is through cleavage furrow positioning. In most metazoan cells the signals to accurately position the cleavage furrow originate from the spindle midzone, astral microtubules (MTs) or both and involves the Centralspindlin complex, triggering local RhoA activation and the subsequent placement and assembly of the contractile ring (reviewed in [52–55]). Many asymmetrically dividing cells — the first embryonic cell division in C. elegans is one of the best examples — displace the mitotic spindle through Dynein-mediated pulling forces, shifting furrow inducing cues towards one side of the cell (reviewed in [56]). Similarly, spindle-derived furrow inducing cues could be positioned off-cell center by changing spindle geometry. Drosophila neuroblasts develop an asymmetric spindle during anaphase, and it has been assumed that spindle geometry induces cell size asymmetry in this cell type [51,57] (Figure 4a,b).
Asymmetric Myosin localization, as a mechanism to generate sibling cell size differences, has also been observed in the C. elegans Q neuroblast lineage. Q neuroblasts give rise to a QR.a and a QR.p cell, both of which divide asymmetrically, generating three distinct neurons and two apoptotic cells [63]. QR.p cells utilize the spindle displacement mechanism to form unequal sized daughters, but the QR.a cells also localizes Myosin asymmetrically in a
Figure 3
G1
S/G2
Mitosis
Mother centriole Daughter centriole Grand-daughter centriole BP
Ciliary axoneme w/ ciliary membrane
AP
Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Asymmetric inheritance of centrosome associated primary cilium membrane. The ciliary axoneme (brown) is formed by the mother centriole (red square). In S phase, both mother and daughter (green square) centrioles duplicate, generating two grand-daughter centrioles (white squares). Cilia partially disassemble, are endocytosed in G2 phase and remain internalized during mitosis. The cilia and its associated cilia membrane (blue) is preferentially inherited by the self-renewed apical progenitor (AP), whereas the basal progenitor (BP) reestablishes a primary cilium. www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
88 Cell cycle, differentiation and disease
Figure 4
(a)
(b)
Central spindle
Dynein
Cleavage furrow
Centralspindlin complex
(c)
Astral MTs
furrow positioning cue
(d)
Legend Cortical proteins Anillin, Myosin, Moesin Cortical contraction Cytoplasmic flow
DNA
(e)
Symmetry breaking DNA cues Ran, Pp1-87B, Sds22 Cortical expansion Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Cellular and molecular mechanisms generating sibling cell size asymmetry. (a) An asymmetric cortical distribution of Dynein (blue circles) is decentering the mitotic spindle (black) through pulling forces (blue arrows), inducing cleavage furrow positioning off-cell center via the centralspindlin complex (blue oval). (b) The formation of longer astral microtubules (MTs; brown) on one side of the cell and/or an inherently asymmetric central spindle can also shift the cleavage furrow towards one side of the cell pole. (c) A symmetry breaking event on one pole of the cell can induce asymmetric Myosin (green) relocalization. Asymmetric Myosin distribution, putatively triggers an oriented cytoplasmic flow (thin blue arrows), causing apical cortical expansion. (d) During anaphase, kinetochore microtubules pull sister chromatids towards the cell poles. This DNA-cortex proximity allows proteins localized around DNA, such as Ran GTPase or the phosphatases Sds22/Pp1-87B, to deliver polar cortex modifying signals to the cell poles. This causes cortical proteins such as Myosin, Moesin or Anillin to be removed/inhibited, inducing membrane expansion at both poles (blue arrows). The equatorial contraction of the cleavage furrow might again induce a cytoplasmic flow, generating the force to expand the polar membrane. Cells displaying a decentered spindle and thus decentered DNA, could induce asymmetric polar extension based on asymmetric distribution of cortex modifying signals.
spindle-independent manner [61]. In wild type QR.a cells, Myosin is enriched at the anterior pole of dividing cells but mutations in the transcription factors HAM-1 or LIN-32 cause Myosin to be symmetrically distributed, resulting in a physical symmetric cell division. In ham-1 and lin-32 mutants, both QR.a daughter cells survive and adopt neuronal fate whereas in wild type, one sibling undergoes apoptosis and the other becomes a neuron. Interestingly, HAM-1 was found to be specifically involved in QR.a but not QR.p asymmetric division [64,65]. Most likely, HAM-1 and LIN-32 control asymmetric Myosin localization through specific effector genes. For instance, the HAM-1 target PIG-1 is a member of the PAR family proteins, well-known regulators of cell polarity and asymmetric cell division. PIG-1 could thus provide a connection between cell polarity and asymmetric Myosin localization, Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
similarly to Pins and Dlg1 in Drosophila neuroblasts [58] (Figure 4c). Novel data also suggests that GRP-1, the sole C. elegans cytohesin, and the DEP domain-containing protein TOE-2 control sibling cell size asymmetry in the Q neuroblast lineage [66,67]. Cytohesins are Arf guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs) that regulate membrane trafficking and actin cytoskeletal dynamics. Loss of GRP-1 results in daughter cells that are more similar in size, transforming the apoptotic daughter into its sister and thus producing extra neurons [66]. TOE-2 localizes to the plasma membrane and accumulates at the cleavage furrow. In QR.a cells, loss of toe-2 results in a more symmetric division and survival of the smaller QR.a daughter, which in wild type is fated to undergo apoptosis [67]. However, the relationship between GRP-1 and TOE-2 is currently unknown. www.sciencedirect.com
Asymmetric cell division during development Roubinet and Cabernard 89
Cortical expansion generates cell size asymmetry Asymmetric Myosin distribution has been proposed to drive unequal cortical expansion, pushing the cleavage furrow off-center [61,62]. For instance, Myosin enrichment on one side of the cell could create higher active cortical tension while at the same time reducing cortical stiffness on the opposite cell pole. A reduction in cortical stiffness is required to allow cortical expansion, but other cortical proteins such as Anillin or ERM proteins (Ezrin, Radixin and Moesin in vertebrates) also need to be inhibited or relocalized [68–71]. In symmetrically dividing cells, the phosphatases Sds22 and Pp1-87B inactivate dMoesin at polar regions to allow symmetric polar membrane expansion. Sds22 and Pp1-87B are associated with DNA during anaphase, suggesting that the proximity of chromosomes with the membrane could locally modulate the composition of the cortex [70,72]. Interestingly, a more direct role for a chromosome-derived signal in polar relaxation and subsequent expansion has recently been demonstrated in HeLA, Rpe1, BHK and tsBN2 cells [50]. These cells divide symmetrically but when the spindle, and thus also chromosomes, are experimentally shifted to one side of the cell at anaphase onset, Anillin and Myosin are locally inhibited, promoting asymmetric membrane expansion. A prime candidate for the chromosome-derived signal is RanGTP, forming a gradient on chromosomes during mitosis [73]. Indeed, if the formation of RanGTP is prevented under conditions when the chromosomes were displaced, the cortex cannot be modified in the vicinity of the DNA and membrane extension does not occur. Thus, a chromosome derived RanGTP gradient inhibits cortical proteins specifically at polar regions. This causes a local weakening of the cortex and promotes its expansion during anaphase [50]. It has to be noted that this mechanism corrects for mispositioned spindles in symmetrically dividing cells, ensuring that both siblings end up with the same size. Whether asymmetrically dividing cells in vivo utilize the same mechanism to control asymmetric membrane expansion remains to be seen. For instance, asymmetry in DNA proximity between the two poles of asymmetrically dividing cells could inactivate cortical proteins (dMoesin, Myosin, Anillin) preferentially at one pole, inducing cortical contraction in anaphase anisotropic (Figure 4d,e). In agreement with this model is a previous study, showing that unbalanced cortical contractions in HeLa cells are able to shift the cleavage furrow towards polar regions [60].
Conclusion Asymmetric segregation of centrosomes, centrosomeassociated structures but also other organelles is probably more common than previously anticipated. Similarly, cell shape changes during mitosis can trigger transient asymmetries, which, if stabilized could result in physical asymmetric cell division. The biological significance of www.sciencedirect.com
these forms of asymmetry is not always clear, but could affect cell behavior, only detectable on a longer time scale. In the future, it will be interesting to learn more about the specific mechanisms involved and the consequence on cell fate and behavior.
Acknowledgements We thank members of the Cabernard lab for helpful discussions and critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). C.R. is supported by an EMBO long-term postdoctoral fellowship.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Knoblich JA: Asymmetric cell division: recent developments and their implications for tumour biology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2010, 11:849-860.
2.
Homem CCF, Knoblich JA: Drosophila neuroblasts: a model for stem cell biology. Development 2012, 139:4297-4310.
3.
Inaba M, Yamashita YM: Asymmetric stem cell division: precision for robustness. Cell Stem Cell 2012, 11:461-469.
4.
Li R: The art of choreographing asymmetric cell division. Dev Cell 2013, 25:439-450.
5.
Januschke J, Na¨thke I: Stem cell decisions: a twist of fate or a niche market? Semin Cell Dev Biol 2014 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.semcdb.2014.02.014.
6.
Williams SE, Fuchs E: Oriented divisions, fate decisions. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2013, 25:749-758.
7.
Go´mez-Lo´pez S, Lerner RG, Petritsch C: Asymmetric cell division of stem and progenitor cells during homeostasis and cancer. Cell Mol Life Sci 2014, 71:575-597.
8.
Nigg EA, Stearns T: The centrosome cycle: centriole biogenesis, duplication and inherent asymmetries. Nat Cell Biol 2011, 13:1154-1160.
9.
Yamashita YM, Mahowald AP, Perlin JR, Fuller MT: Asymmetric inheritance of mother versus daughter centrosome in stem cell division. Science 2007, 315:518-521.
10. Conduit PT, Raff JW: Cnn dynamics drive centrosome size asymmetry to ensure daughter centriole retention in Drosophila neuroblasts. Curr Biol 2010, 20:2187-2192. 11. Januschke J, Llamazares S, Reina J, Gonzalez C: Drosophila neuroblasts retain the daughter centrosome. Nat Commun 2011, 2:243. 12. Wang X, Tsai J-W, Imai JH, Lian W-N, Vallee RB, Shi S-H: Asymmetric centrosome inheritance maintains neural progenitors in the neocortex. Nature 2009, 461:947-955. 13. Salzmann V, Chen C, Chiang CYA, Tiyaboonchai A, Mayer M, Yamashita YM: Centrosome-dependent asymmetric inheritance of the midbody ring in Drosophila germline stem cell division. Mol Biol Cell 2014, 25:267-275. This study shows asymmetric midbody inheritance in vivo and the correlation between daughter centrosome segregation and midbody inheritance. 14. Rusan NM, Peifer M: A role for a novel centrosome cycle in asymmetric cell division. J Cell Biol 2007, 177:13-20. 15. Rebollo E, Sampaio P, Januschke J, Llamazares S, Varmark H, Gonzalez C: Functionally unequal centrosomes drive spindle orientation in asymmetrically dividing Drosophila neural stem cells. Dev Cell 2007, 12:467-474. 16. Januschke J, Reina J, Llamazares S, Bertran T, Rossi F, Roig J, Gonzalez C: Centrobin controls mother–daughter centriole Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
90 Cell cycle, differentiation and disease
asymmetry in Drosophila neuroblasts. Nat Cell Biol 2013, 15:241-248. This paper demonstrates that Cnb is necessary and sufficient for the retention of PCM proteins on the apical daughter centrosome. It also shows that Polo phosphorylates Cnb, which is required for Cnb to retain PCM in interphase, highlighting an interphase-specific function for Polo. 17. Lerit DA, Rusan NM: PLP inhibits the activity of interphase centrosomes to ensure their proper segregation in stem cells. J Cell Biol 2013, 202:1013-1022. This paper shows that PLP is required to establish centrosome asymmetry by keeping Polo off the basal mother centriole, thereby enabling the establishment of a PCM free centriole. 18. Januschke J, Gonzalez C: The interphase microtubule aster is a determinant of asymmetric division orientation in Drosophila neuroblasts. J Cell Biol 2010, 188:693-706. 19. Singh P, Ramdas Nair A, Cabernard C: The centriolar protein Bld10/Cep135 is required to establish centrosome asymmetry in drosophila neuroblasts. Curr Biol 2014, 24:1548-1555. In this study, the centriolar protein Bld10 was shown to be implicated in shedding of Polo, causing PCM to be downregulated from the mother centrosome. This results in molecular and physical asymmetric centrosomes. 20. Cabernard C, Doe CQ: Apical/basal spindle orientation is required for neuroblast homeostasis and neuronal differentiation in Drosophila. Dev Cell 2009, 17:134-141. 21. Hotz M, Leisner C, Chen D, Manatschal C, Wegleiter T, Ouellet J, Lindstrom D, Gottschling DE, Vogel J, Barral Y: Spindle pole bodies exploit the mitotic exit network in metaphase to drive their age-dependent segregation. Cell 2012, 148:958-972. 22. Pereira G: Modes of spindle pole body inheritance and segregation of the Bfa1p-Bub2p checkpoint protein complex. EMBO J 2001, 20:6359-6370. 23. Armakolas A, Klar AJS: Cell type regulates selective segregation of mouse chromosome 7 DNA strands in mitosis. Science 2006, 311:1146-1149. 24. Klar AJ: Differentiated parental DNA strands confer developmental asymmetry on daughter cells in fission yeast. Nature 1987, 326:466-470. 25. KLAR A: The developmental fate of fission yeast-cells is determined by the pattern of inheritance of parental and grandparental Dna strands. EMBO J 1990, 9:1407-1415. 26. Klar AJS: Lessons learned from studies of fission yeast mating-type switching and silencing. Annu Rev Genet 2007, 41:213-236. 27. Karpowicz P, Pellikka M, Chea E, Godt D, Tepass U, van der Kooy D: The germline stem cells of Drosophila melanogaster partition DNA non-randomly. Eur J Cell Biol 2009, 88:397-408.
cells may retain preexisting canonical histones during asymmetric cell divisions as a potential mechanism to maintain their unique molecular properties. 34. Schiel JA, Childs C, Prekeris R: Endocytic transport and cytokinesis: from regulation of the cytoskeleton to midbody inheritance. Trends Cell Biol 2013, 23:319-327. 35. Agromayor M, Martin-Serrano J: Knowing when to cut and run: mechanisms that control cytokinetic abscission. Trends Cell Biol 2013, 23:433-441. 36. Chen C-T, Ettinger AW, Huttner WB, Doxsey SJ: Resurrecting remnants: the lives of post-mitotic midbodies. Trends Cell Biol 2013, 23:118-128. 37. Kuo T-C, Chen C-T, Baron D, Onder TT, Loewer S, Almeida S, Weismann CM, Xu P, Houghton J-M, Gao F-B et al.: Midbody accumulation through evasion of autophagy contributes to cellular reprogramming and tumorigenicity. Nat Cell Biol 2011, 13:1214-1223. 38. Ettinger AW, Wilsch-Bra¨uninger M, Marzesco A-M, Bickle M, Lohmann A, Maliga Z, Karbanova´ J, Corbeil D, Hyman AA, Huttner WB: Proliferating versus differentiating stem and cancer cells exhibit distinct midbody-release behaviour. Nat Commun 2011, 2:503. 39. Dubreuil V, Marzesco A-M, Corbeil D, Huttner WB, WilschBra¨uninger M: Midbody and primary cilium of neural progenitors release extracellular membrane particles enriched in the stem cell marker prominin-1. J Cell Biol 2007, 176:483-495. 40. Goetz SC, Anderson KV: The primary cilium: a signalling centre during vertebrate development. Nat Rev Genet 2010, 11:331344. 41. Paridaen JTML, Wilsch-Bra¨uninger M, Huttner WB: Asymmetric inheritance of centrosome-associated primary cilium membrane directs ciliogenesis after cell division. Cell 2013, 155:333-344. This study links asymmetric inheritance of the primary cilia membrane with centriolar age in embryonic neocortical stem cells. They show that the primary cilium is asymmetrically inherited by one daughter cell, which retained stem cell character, suggesting a connection between stem cell fate and the signaling activity of the primary cilium. 42. Louvi A, Grove EA: Cilia in the CNS: the quiet organelle claims center stage. Neuron 2011, 69:1046-1060. 43. Paridaen JTML, Huttner WB: Neurogenesis during development of the vertebrate central nervous system. EMBO Rep 2014, 15:351-364. 44. Gillies TE, Cabernard C: Cell division orientation in animals. Curr Biol 2011, 21:R599-R609.
28. Yadlapalli S, Yamashita YM: Chromosome-specific nonrandom sister chromatid segregation during stem-cell division. Nature 2013, 498:251-254. Yadlapalli et al., show the occurrence of non-random sister chromatid segregation of the X and Y chromosome in Drosophila male germline stem cells. It also identifies the first molecular components required for biased sister chromatid segregation.
45. Dassow von G, Verbrugghe KJC, Miller AL, Sider JR, Bement WM: Action at a distance during cytokinesis. J Cell Biol 2009, 187:831-845.
29. Cairns J: Mutation selection and the natural history of cancer. Nature 1975, 255:197-200.
47. Goulding MQ: Cell lineage of the Ilyanassa embryo: evolutionary acceleration of regional differentiation during early development. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:e5506.
30. Megraw TL, Li K, Kao LR, Kaufman TC: The centrosomin protein is required for centrosome assembly and function during cleavage in Drosophila. Development 1999, 126:2829-2839. 31. Yamashita YM: Biased DNA segregation in Drosophila male germline stem cells. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2013, 24:618-626. 32. Tajbakhsh S, Gonzalez C: Biased segregation of DNA and centrosomes: moving together or drifting apart? Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2009, 10:804-810. 33. Tran V, Lim C, Xie J, Chen X: Asymmetric division of Drosophila male germline stem cell shows asymmetric histone distribution. Science 2012, 338:679-682. In this paper, the authors document biased segregation of specific histones in Drosophila male germline stem cells, suggesting that stem Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91
46. Bement WM, Benink HA, Dassow von G: A microtubuledependent zone of active RhoA during cleavage plane specification. J Cell Biol 2005, 170:91-101.
48. Fabritius AS, Ellefson ML, McNally FJ: Nuclear and spindle positioning during oocyte meiosis. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2011, 23:78-84. 49. Yi K, Li R: Actin cytoskeleton in cell polarity and asymmetric division during mouse oocyte maturation. Cytoskeleton (Hoboken) 2012, 69:727-737. 50. Kiyomitsu T, Cheeseman IM: Cortical dynein and asymmetric membrane elongation coordinately position the spindle in anaphase. Cell 2013, 154:391-402. In this study, the authors highlight the role of a DNA-dependent RanGTP gradient influencing the composition and behavior of the cell cortex. This mechanism could explain how physical symmetry is established and might be applicable to cell types generating sibling cell size asymmetry. www.sciencedirect.com
Asymmetric cell division during development Roubinet and Cabernard 91
51. Fuse N, Hisata K, Katzen AL, Matsuzaki F: Heterotrimeric G proteins regulate daughter cell size asymmetry in Drosophila neuroblast divisions. Curr Biol 2003, 13:947-954. 52. Burgess DR, Chang F: Site selection for the cleavage furrow at cytokinesis. Trends Cell Biol 2005, 15:156-162. 53. Green RA, Paluch E, Oegema K: Cytokinesis in animal cells. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2011, 28 120717164503001. 54. White EA, Glotzer M: Centralspindlin: at the heart of cytokinesis. Cytoskeleton (Hoboken) 2012, 69:882-892. 55. Cabernard C: Cytokinesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Cytoskeleton (Hoboken) 2012, 69:791-809. 56. Kotak S, Go¨nczy P: Mechanisms of spindle positioning: cortical force generators in the limelight. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2013, 25:741-748. 57. Bonaccorsi S, Giansanti MG, Gatti M: Spindle assembly in Drosophila neuroblasts and ganglion mother cells. Nat Cell Biol 2000, 2:54-56. 58. Cabernard C, Prehoda KE, Doe CQ: A spindle-independent cleavage furrow positioning pathway. Nature 2010, 467:91-94. 59. Cinalli RM, Lehmann R: A spindle-independent cleavage pathway controls germ cell formation in Drosophila. Nat Cell Biol 2013, 15:839-845. 60. Sedzinski J, Biro M, Oswald A, Tinevez J-Y, Salbreux G, Paluch E: Polar actomyosin contractility destabilizes the position of the cytokinetic furrow. Nature 2011, 476:462-466. 61. Ou G, Stuurman N, D’Ambrosio M, Vale RD: Polarized myosin produces unequal-size daughters during asymmetric cell division. Science 2010, 330:677-680. 62. Connell M, Cabernard C, Ricketson D, Doe CQ, Prehoda KE: Asymmetric cortical extension shifts cleavage furrow position in Drosophila neuroblasts. Mol Biol Cell 2011, 22:4220-4226.
In this paper, the two transcription factors LIN-32 and HAM-1 are shown to affect asymmetric cell division in the Q neuroblast lineage. 65. Feng G, Yi P, Yang Y, Chai Y, Tian D, Zhu Z, Liu J, Zhou F, Cheng Z, Wang X et al.: Developmental stage-dependent transcriptional regulatory pathways control neuroblast lineage progression. Development 2013, 140:3838-3847. This study describes novel mutants involved in the establishment of sibling cell size asymmetry in the Q neuroblast lineage. 66. Teuliere J, Cordes S, Singhvi A, Talavera K, Garriga G: Asymmetric neuroblast divisions producing apoptotic cells require the cytohesin GRP-1 in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.167189. 67. Gurling M, Talavera K, Garriga G: The DEP domain-containing protein TOE-2 promotes apoptosis in the Q lineage of C. elegans through two distinct mechanisms. Development 2014, 141:2724-2734. In this paper, Gurling et al., show that TOE-2 is required for sibling cell size asymmetry in QR.a divisions. Membrane localization of TOE-2 is required for cleavage furrow positioning but the DEP domain is dispensable. 68. Kunda P, Pelling AE, Liu T, Baum B: Moesin controls cortical rigidity, cell rounding, and spindle morphogenesis during mitosis. Curr Biol 2008, 18:91-101. 69. Kunda P, Rodrigues NTL, Moeendarbary E, Liu T, Ivetic A, Charras G, Baum B: PP1-mediated moesin dephosphorylation couples polar relaxation to mitotic exit. Curr Biol 2012, 22:231-236. 70. Roubinet C, Decelle B, Chicanne G, Dorn JF, Payrastre B, Payre F, Carreno S: Molecular networks linked by Moesin drive remodeling of the cell cortex during mitosis. J Cell Biol 2011, 195:99-112. 71. Carreno S, Kouranti I, Glusman ES, Fuller MT, Echard A, Payre F: Moesin and its activating kinase Slik are required for cortical stability and microtubule organization in mitotic cells. J Cell Biol 2008, 180:739-746.
63. Sulston JE, Horvitz HR: Post-embryonic cell lineages of the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev Biol 1977, 56:110-156.
72. Posch M, Khoudoli GA, Swift S, King EM, DeLuca JG, Swedlow JR: Sds22 regulates aurora B activity and microtubule-kinetochore interactions at mitosis. J Cell Biol 2010, 191:61-74.
64. Zhu Z, Liu J, Yi P, Tian D, Chai Y, Li W, Ou G: A proneural gene controls C. elegans neuroblast asymmetric division and migration. FEBS Lett 2014, 588:1136-1143.
73. Kala´b P, Pralle A, Isacoff EY, Heald R, Weis K: Analysis of a RanGTP-regulated gradient in mitotic somatic cells. Nature 2006, 440:697-701.
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Cell Biology 2014, 31:84–91