|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | |||||
First published online 28 October 2008
doi: 10.1242/jcs.036269
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Research Article |
Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EH, UK
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: ms433{at}cam.ac.uk)
Accepted 1 September 2008
 |
Summary |
|---|
 Top Summary IntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
reduced Bud6p association with the bud neck. Accordingly, bni1 or bnr1 mutations redirected microtubule capture to or away from the bud neck, respectively. Furthermore, a Bni1p truncation that can form actin cables independently of Bud6p could not bypass a bud6 for microtubule capture. Conversely, Bud61-565p, a truncation insufficient for correct actin organisation via formins, supported microtubule capture. Finally, Bud6p or Bud61-565p associated with microtubules in vitro. Thus, surprisingly, Bud6p may promote microtubule capture independently of its links to actin organisation, whereas formins would contribute to the program of Bud6p-dependent microtubule-cortex interactions by controlling Bud6p localisation.
Key words: Cytoskeleton, Microtubules, Yeast
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
). Spindle orientation is achieved through a complex program that controls the spindle pole body (SPB), the yeast counterpart of the centrosome. The SPB is imbedded in the nuclear envelope and exposes nuclear and cytoplasmic faces that organise the spindle and astral MTs, respectively (Byers, 1981).
SPB duplication generates a `new' SPB side-by-side to the `old' SPB from the preceding cell cycle (Jaspersen and Winey, 2004). The old SPB is dynamically tethered to the emerging bud by its existing astral MTs. Astral MT organisation at the new SPB awaits spindle assembly (Shaw et al., 1997), a delay dependent upon S-phase cyclin-dependent kinase activity (Segal et al., 2000b; Huisman et al., 2007). Thus, the new SPB can move away from the bud neck as the spindle assembles. A similar temporal asymmetry underlies the movement of the new centrosome in stem cell divisions of Drosophila male germline (Yamashita et al., 2007). In yeast, inherent SPB asymmetry translates into spindle polarity by the action of two mechanisms ensuring that the old SPB becomes the SPBbud, i.e. the bud-ward pole (reviewed by Huisman and Segal, 2005), accounting for an invariant pattern of SPB inheritance (Pereira et al., 2001).
The first mechanism involves the polarity determinant Bud6p that marks the incipient bud cortex for capture of astral MTs from the old SPB. Astral MTs contacting Bud6p sites prolong their interaction with the cell cortex and can couple MT growth and shrinkage with SPB movement (Segal et al., 2002). Later, Bud6p accumulates at the bud neck in time to limit the access to the bud of astral MTs newly formed by the new SPB (Amberg et al., 1997; Segal et al., 2000a). Thus, spindle polarity is established within this restricted temporal window, with the old SPB intended for the bud. The second mechanism centres on Kar9p, a protein that provides guidance of astral MT plus ends along actin cables to reach the growing bud. Kar9p is recruited by both SPBs at onset of spindle assembly and becomes progressively polarised to the SPBbud. From the SPB, Kar9p translocates to MT plus ends in association with the plus end-tracking protein Bim1p. Kar9p-bound MTs are then delivered to the bud as cargoes of the type V myosin Myo2p (Korinek et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2000; Beach et al., 2000; Yin et al., 2000; Hwang et al., 2003) (for a review, see Huisman and Segal, 2005).
Both mechanisms enforcing spindle polarity engage the activity of formins, actin filament nucleators that play important roles in cell polarity and morphogenesis with concomitant impact in a wide range of developmental processes (Faix and Grosse, 2006). Organisation of polarised actin cables in yeast involves two formins, Bni1p and Bnr1p, which are downstream effectors of Rho-like GTPases (Evangelista et al., 1997; Imamura et al., 1997; Pruyne et al., 2002; Sagot et al., 2002; Dong et al., 2003; Pruyne et al., 2004; Moseley and Goode, 2006). Part of a family related to Diaphanous, they may exist in an autoinhibited conformation involving an intramolecular interaction that is relieved upon binding of an active Rho GTPase close to an N-terminal inhibitory site (Otomo et al., 2005). Bni1p generates actin cables from the bud tip as part of the polarisome, a complex assembled at the site for bud emergence upon Cdc42p activation (Chang and Peter, 2003) that also includes Bud6p, Spa2p and Pea2p. Bnr1p organises actin cables from the bud neck (Pruyne et al., 2004; Buttery et al., 2007). At least one formin is necessary for viability (Ozaki-Kuroda et al., 2001). A recombinant C-terminal fragment of Bud6p (amino acids 489-788) can stimulate actin cable formation by Bni1p in vitro. Stimulation depends on Bud6p binding to a site between amino acids 1750 and 1824 of Bni1p, although further C-terminal sequences are required for stimulation (Moseley and Goode, 2005). Bud6p may bind Bnr1p (Kikyo et al., 1999), but no functional interaction was detected in vitro (Moseley and Goode, 2005).
Consistent with its importance for cell polarity, Bni1p has been implicated in establishment of spindle polarity (Fujiwara et al., 1999; Lee et al., 1999; Miller et al., 1999; Segal et al., 2000a; Yeh et al., 2000; Evangelista et al., 2002). Astral MTs of bni1 cells tether the duplicated SPBs to the incipient bud (Segal et al., 2000a); however, preanaphase spindle alignment along the mother–bud axis fails (Lee et al., 1999). This may be due to compromised Kar9p function (Miller et al., 1999) compounded by a tendency to symmetric interactions from both SPBs with the bud neck that perturbs specification of SPB identity (Segal et al., 2000a; Yeh et al., 2000). This latter defect may correlate with the advanced and exaggerated accumulation of Bud6p at the bud neck in bni1 cells (Segal et al., 2000a). By contrast, a bnr1 mutation did not affect spindle orientation (Evangelista et al., 2002).
Interestingly, a bni1CT mutant that expresses a Bni1p truncation lacking amino acids 1749-1953, thus excluding the putative Bud6p-binding site and DAD domain, shared the spindle orientation and bud site selection phenotypes of bni1 cells, even though actin organisation was deemed to be unperturbed (Evangelista et al., 1997; Lee et al., 1999). Yet, the same mutant formin was dominant active for actin cable formation in vivo upon overexpression [then termed BNI1-FD by Ozaki-Kuroda et al. and Sagot et al. (Ozaki-Kuroda et al., 2001; Sagot et al., 2002)]. Under these conditions, cable formation by Bni1FDp (but not by full-length Bni1p) was independent of Bud6p (Sagot et al., 2002). Similarly, S. pombe Bud6p binds For3p in a C-terminal region overlapping with its DAD domain. Mutations disrupting DAD function, allowed for3(DAD-) to bypass NETO defects of a bud6 mutant. Thus, lack of autoinhibition rendered For3p independent of Bud6p for control of actin integrity and cell polarity in vivo (Martin et al., 2007).
Formins and Bud6p may orient the spindle, in part, via Kar9p as they organise the actin cables necessary for MT guidance. Yet, Bud6p contributes to spindle orientation by a separate mechanism. Indeed, the dynamic properties of MT–cortex interactions promoted by Bud6p are unchanged in a kar9 mutant (Huisman et al., 2004). However, this observation does not preclude that Bud6p-dependent capture of MTs may involve its known partners: the formins.
Here, we explored the key contributions of formins to Bud6p-mediated control of spindle polarity and orientation by determining whether formins control Bud6p cortical localisation and whether they mediate Bud6p-dependent capture of MTs. We also attempted to separate Bud6p role in MT capture from actin organisation via formins.
We found that both formins regulated Bud6p localisation. bni1 mutations advanced recruitment of Bud6p at the bud neck, ahead of spindle assembly, whereas bnr1 reduced Bud6p association with the bud neck. Accordingly, in formin mutants, MT capture was redirected to sites mirroring the disruption in cortical distribution of Bud6p. Furthermore, cells expressing a Bni1p truncation that formed actin cables independently of Bud6p as the sole formin could not support cortical capture of MTs in the absence of Bud6p. Conversely, Bud61-565p, a truncation lacking the region required for formin binding and stimulation, supported MT capture without restoring actin organisation to bud6 cells. Finally, Bud6p or Bud61-565p associated with microtubules in vitro.
Our data indicate that Bud6p-dependent capture may not involve formins beyond their contribution to cell cycle control of Bud6p cortical partition, with Bud6p acting as the link to MTs.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
) but a corresponding role for Bnr1p was not addressed.
To determine the contribution of both formins to Bud6p localisation, the partitioning between the bud tip and bud neck of Bud6p-GFP expressed at endogenous levels was compared in different formin mutants. Cells additionally expressed CFP-Tub1p to offer an independent landmark of cell cycle progression. After early association with the bud tip, Bud6p-GFP accumulated at the bud neck in wild-type cells coincident with initiation of spindle assembly (Fig. 1A,B). A bnr1 mutation resulted in very weak or absent localisation of Bud6p-GFP at the bud neck as cells completed spindle assembly. Faint label of the bud neck appeared in large budded cells with elongated spindles (Fig. 1A-B) and reached wild-type levels as cells underwent cytokinesis. This observation was validated by comparing fluorescence intensity at the bud tip and bud neck cortex in wild type or bnr1 budded cells expressing Bud6p-GFP as a function of bud growth (Fig. 1C) or by comparing overall labelling of the bud and bud neck regions in mid-size budded cells (1.5-3.0 µm bud length) (Fig. 1D). Labelling of the bud cortex was comparable yet labelling at the bud neck was significantly reduced in bnr1 cells prior to cytokinesis.
|
cells (Segal et al., 2000a), or bni1CT cells that expressed a formin truncation lacking amino acids 1749-1953 eliminating the putative Bud6p-binding site (Evangelista et al., 1997; Lee et al., 1999; Sagot et al., 2002), exhibited advanced accumulation of Bud6p-GFP at the bud neck without otherwise affecting association with the bud. Label at the bud neck was already prominent in cells lacking a spindle (Fig. 1A,B). Finally, the bnr1 mutation also delayed Bud6p-GFP labelling at the bud neck in combination with bni1CT (Fig. 1A,B). Thus, Bnr1p may tether Bud6p to the bud neck whereas Bni1p may act from the bud tip to restrict Bud6p arrival at the bud neck until a spindle has formed. At the same time, Bni1p was dispensable for Bud6p localisation at the bud tip.
Importantly, Bud6p association with the bud neck exhibited only partial temporal overlap with the presence of each formin (see Fig. S1 in the supplementary material). Indeed, Bnr1p was recruited at the bud neck following bud emergence before Bud6p (98%, n=200). Both proteins then colocalised until only Bnr1p disappeared prior to cytokinesis. Conversely, Bni1p and Bud6p colocalised at the bud cell cortex, yet, association of Bud6p with the bud neck in mid-size budded cells was not accompanied by Bni1p (100%, n=200 cells). Finally, Bni1p colocalised with Bud6p during cytokinesis (see Fig. S1 in the supplementary material) whereas Bnr1p was absent from the division site (Buttery et al., 2007).
Thus, formins may influence Bud6p program of cortical localisation; however, their distribution may not be the sole factor accounting for the temporality of Bud6p cortical partition.
Distinct perturbation of actin organisation by bni1 vs. bni1CT in spite of a common effect on Bud6p localisation
Bni1p and Bnr1p may define two axis directing polarised actin cable organisation from the bud tip and bud neck, respectively (Pruyne et al., 2004), that might contribute to target Bud6p (Jin and Amberg, 2000). However, the similar perturbation in Bud6p cortical accumulation observed in bni1 and bni1CT cells, prompted us to reassess the actin organisation phenotypes of the different formin mutants.
Bulk F-actin organisation was examined in fixed cells stained by rhodamine-phalloidin (Fig. 2). Wild-type cells exhibited the characteristic polarised actin patches and thick actin cables lining the mother cell. Consistent with Bnr1p function as a potent actin nucleator and bundling factor positioned at the bud neck (Pruyne et al., 2004; Moseley and Goode, 2005), bnr1 cells exhibited fewer and thinner cables (Fig. 2A,B). By contrast, bni1 or bni1CT exhibited thick actin cables from the neck (Lee et al., 1999). Cells expressing solely the temperature sensitive Bni1-FH2#1p (Sagot et al., 2002) exhibited completely depolarised patches and no cables following a 30 minute shift to 34°C (see Fig. S2A,B in the supplementary material).
|
The perturbation provoked by bni1CT, however, became apparent in the double mutant bnr1 bni1CT. Indeed, contrary to bnr1 cells that lacked the bulk of actin cables in the mother cell, the bnr1 bni1CT mutant maintained robust actin cables, although their polarity was affected (Fig. 2B). Thus, consistent with previous findings based on overexpression (Sagot et al., 2002) the formin encoded by endogenous bni1CT promoted excessive actin cables. However, scoring of bipolar budding pattern in diploid cells, a highly sensitive indicator of perturbations in actin and cell polarity (Yang et al., 1997; Sheu et al., 2000), showed that heterozygous bni1CT/bni1 diploids supported bipolar budding within 15% of the value for a BNI1/bni1 (Fig. 2C,D). Thus, in spite of the proposed hyperactivity (Sagot et al., 2002), Bni1CTp at endogenous levels significantly supported cell polarity. It is noteworthy that bni1 and bni1CT mutants shared a common behaviour regarding Bud6p accumulation at the bud neck, but exhibited distinct actin organisation phenotypes. It follows that the influence of Bni1p on Bud6p localisation at the bud neck may not solely involve actin.
Actin organisation in bni1CT bnr1 cells may be independent of Bud6p
To determine the relative requirement of Bud6p for actin organisation versus cytoplasmic microtubule capture in cells expressing Bni1CTp as the sole formin, we first proceeded to test for synergistic impairment of actin organisation upon combining the different formin mutations and a bud6.
A bud6 mutation decreased thick actin cables as did a bnr1 (Amberg et al., 1997; Feierbach et al., 2004), suggesting a link between Bud6p and Bnr1p-dependent cable organisation in the mother cell. In support of such a link, synergistic effects between bni1 and bud6 were observed. Relative to single mutants, overall polarity and actin organisation were severely compromised in bni1 bud6 cells. This was the only instance in which we observed a marked increase in cells with depolarised patches (Fig. 2E). Yet, this synergism was not apparent by combining bud6 with bni1CT bnr1 mutations (Fig. 2F), in contrast to the genetic interaction observed between bud6 and single bni1CT or bnr1 mutations, respectively (see Fig. S2C,D in the supplementary material), indicating that formin organisation of actin cables in the bni1CT bnr1 mutant may be indeed Bud6p independent.
Supporting this view, colocalisation between Bud6p-CFP and Bni1CTp-GFP at the bud cortex was less precise with 
25% of all foci containing one of the two signals, in marked contrast to the precise colocalisation with Bni1p-GFP (see Fig. S3 in the supplementary material). Taken together, these data may point to the importance of the C-terminal region deleted in Bni1CTp in mediating an interaction with Bud6p in vivo.
In conclusion, Bud6p may cooperate with Bnr1p to organise actin, a functional interaction that may also account for Bnr1p influence on Bud6p localisation at the bud neck. In addition, Bud6p distribution in formin mutants might reflect the differential disruption of actin cables from the bud tip or bud neck sustaining Bud6p delivery (Jin and Amberg, 2000; Pruyne et al., 2004). However, the fact that Bni1CTp supported cell polarity but could not impede Bud6p advanced accumulation at the bud neck may also point to the importance of the physical interaction between Bni1p and Bud6p via their respective C termini in tethering Bud6p to the bud cortex. Finally, a bni1CT bnr1 strain may organise actin cables independently of Bud6p.
Bud6p-dependent microtubule-cortex interactions persist in formin mutants
Preanaphase spindle orientation along the mother-bud axis requires correctly partitioned contacts by astral MTs emanating from each SPB. MTs from the SPBbud interact with three cortical domains: the bud, bud neck and mother cell cortex. The mother-bound SPB is restricted to interact with the mother cell cortex. Bud6p may be important for partitioning these interactions (Segal et al., 2000a; Yeh et al., 2000; Huisman et al., 2004).
To determine whether formins might participate in Bud6p-dependent capture of astral MTs and to assess the impact of Bud6p displacement in formin mutants, time lapse analysis of wild type or formin mutants expressing GFP-Tub1p was carried out.
MT contacts by cortical domain were monitored from SPB separation to assembly of a preanaphase spindle (Huisman et al., 2004). Compared with wild-type cells, bnr1 cells increased the number of MT interactions within the bud at the expense of interactions with the bud neck region. Conversely, bni1CT cells favoured MT contacts with the bud neck (Fig. 3A,B), as shown for bni1 cells (Segal et al., 2000a), an effect suppressed by disruption of bnr1 (Fig. 3A) or bud6 [not shown but see Segal et al. (Segal et al., 2000a)].
|
). To address whether formins could mediate this dynamic behaviour, the various modes of MT–cortex interaction were scored in time lapse series from mitotic exit to bud emergence (Fig. 3C). During this interval, localisation of Bud6p in different formin mutants would be comparable. MT shrinkage and growth at the cell cortex were well represented in wild-type and bnr1 bni1CT cells, even though the double mutant expressed a formin that was presumably unable to bind Bud6p. More importantly, deletion of BUD6 in this mutant disrupted MT growth and shrinkage at the cell cortex (Fig. 3C). In order to verify that these findings did not result from any indirect effect of the deletion of BUD6 on Bni1CTp position at the cell cortex, a bni1CT-GFP allele was introduced replacing endogenous BNI1 in otherwise wild-type, bud6 and bud6 bnr1 backgrounds. As shown in Fig. 3D, Bni1CTp-GFP was localised to the bud cortex and the division site as expected from its ability to support cell polarity (Fig. 2). This localisation was unaffected in combination with bud6 and bnr1 mutations. Yet, the same formin construct depended on Spa2p for efficient cortical localisation, consistent with Bni1CTp having the putative binding site of Spa2p but not that of Bud6p. By contrast, cortical localisation of full-length Bni1p-GFP expressed at endogenous levels was impaired by deleting both BUD6 and SPA2 in a synergistic manner (see Fig. S4 in the supplementary material).
Thus, Bni1CTp cannot bypass the requirement for Bud6p in cortical capture of MTs, even though it seemed to support Bud6p-independent organisation of actin cables (Sagot et al., 2002) (Fig. 2F). Moreover, bni1 cells that are devoid of formins at the cytokinesis site and presumptive bud site supported proficient Bud6p-dependent MT capture during that cell cycle interval (see Fig. S5 in the supplementary material).
Finally, preanaphase spindle orientation was determined in asynchronous populations of the different formin mutants to compare the overall disruption of the program for spindle orientation (Fig. 3E). Both bud6 and bnr1 exhibited subtle defects related to lack of spindle retention at the bud neck (Evangelista et al., 2002; Miller et al., 1999; Segal et al., 2000a; Yeh et al., 2000). Indeed, bnr1 cells exhibited frequent transits of preanaphase spindles across the bud neck during time lapse analysis (not shown), as previously shown for bud6 cells (Segal et al., 2000a). Both bni1 and bni1CT exhibited misaligned spindles tethered to the bud neck (Miller et al., 1999; Lee et al., 1999; Segal et al., 2000a) and were additionally affected by deleting BUD6. Interestingly, bnr1 in combination with bni1CT significantly increased misaligned spindles away from the bud neck, highlighting the combined contributions of disorganised actin cables that discourage MT targeting to the bud (Fig. 3A) and the absence of Bud6p from the bud neck (Fig. 1). Accordingly, bud6 had a modest effect in combination with a double formin mutation.
It follows that Bud6p may promote MT-cortex interactions coupled to SPB movement, independent of its association with formins. However, formins are still crucial to effect Bud6p localisation and to allow Kar9p to deliver MTs to Bud6p-decorated areas.
A Bud6p truncation unable to promote actin organisation via formins supports MT capture
To gain further support to the view that formins may not be mediators in Bud6p-dependent capture of MTs, we then attempted to genetically separate Bud6p functions in actin organisation via formins from any links to MTs.
In order to outline regions of Bud6p supporting cortical capture of MTs, a series of GFP-tagged truncations of Bud6p was assayed in bud6 cells. In particular, a truncation still encoding amino acids 1-565 of Bud6p (Bud61-565p) was localised to the bud and bud neck cortex (Fig. 4A), while shorter versions of the N-terminal region marked the incipient bud but became delocalised as the bud grew (not shown), consistent with Jin and Amberg (Jin and Amberg, 2000).
|
Bud61-565p may lack functional domains for binding and stimulation of formins (Amberg et al., 1997; Evangelista et al., 1997; Moseley et al., 2005). Indeed, this truncation did not interact with Bni1p by yeast two-hybrid analysis (not shown) and was unable to correct actin organisation in a bud6 mutant (Fig. 4B,C) or to restore fully bipolar budding to a bud6 diploid strain (not shown). Significantly, live imaging analysis (Fig. 4D) showed that MT shrinkage at the cell cortex, a mode of cortical interaction that is linked to Bud6p (Segal et al., 2002), was restored to wild-type levels in bud6 cells by Bud61-565p. Accordingly, bud61-565 suppressed characteristic synthetic spindle orientation phenotypes observed in bud6 kar9 and bud6 dyn1 cells (Huisman et al., 2004). Preanaphase spindle orientation in kar9 bud61-565 cells was comparable with that in a kar9 mutant (Fig. 4E). Similarly, bud61-565 dyn1 cells did not accumulate late anaphase cells with both poles of the spindle contacting the bud, contrary to bud6 dyn1 cells (Fig. 4F). Finally, bud61-565 suppressed premature mitotic exit of bud6 dyn1 cells in the presence of elongated spindles in the mother cell. Indeed, asynchronous cultures of a bud6 dyn1 mutant accumulated 12% of cells with multiple SPBs (n=500), a reflection of premature mitotic exit (Huisman et al., 2004; Nelson and Cooper, 2007). By contrast, bud61-565 dyn1 cells did not show excess SPBs (n=1500).
Thus, Bud6p may contain a functional domain that promotes cortical capture of MTs away from the region required for promoting actin organisation via formins. To further determine the possible involvement of this region in interaction with MTs, extracts from bud6 cells expressing either HA3-Bud6p or HA3-Bud61-565p were prepared to perform MT-binding assays. Both full-length Bud6p and truncated Bud61-565p sedimented with MTs (Taxol-MTs) through a sucrose cushion but not in the presence of free tubulin (Noco-tub) or in the absence of tubulin (Fig. 5A,B). Following sedimentation, treatment of the MT fraction with 8 mM ATP, 10 mM GTP or 0.5 M NaCl did not release Bud6p from MTs whereas 2 M urea caused partial release (Fig. 5C). Thus, Bud6p appeared to bind tightly to MTs in a nucleotide-insensitive manner. Yet, we failed to deplete Bud6p from the supernatant in this assay, indicating that a pool of Bud6p may not readily interact with MTs. Interestingly, full-length Bud6p sedimented with MTs was consistently enriched for high mobility bands as observed by western blot analysis, suggesting that phosphorylation may play a role in controlling these pools (Fig. 5A).
|
Finally, extracts from bni1CT bnr1 cells (Fig. 5D) or from bni1 cells (not shown) expressing HA3Bud61-565p yielded a similar result, indicating that Bud6p association with MTs may occur independently of formins.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
; Jaquenoud and Peter, 2000), whereas the secretory pathway and actin integrity have been implicated in maintaining an axis of cell polarity and Bud6p delivery that may involve formins (Ayscough et al., 1997; Jin and Amberg, 2000; Pruyne et al., 2004; Irazoqui et al., 2005). Our data showed that both formins are required for the correct cortical partition of Bud6p. Bnr1p promoted Bud6p association with the bud neck, whereas Bni1p from the bud restricted the arrival of Bud6p at the bud neck until spindle assembly began (Fig. 1).
The involvement of Bni1p was further addressed by comparing bni1 with a bni1CT mutant (Lee et al., 1999). Bni1CTp is a truncated formin lacking the putative Bud6p-binding site (Evangelista et al., 1997). Previous studies based on overexpressed Bni1p and Bni1CTp demonstrated that the truncation promoted actin cable formation in a Bud6p-independent manner in vivo (Sagot et al., 2002). Indeed, the behaviour of Bni1CTp at endogenous levels presented here is best explain by the failure of this mutant formin to bind Bud6p. First, there was no synergism between bud6 and bni1CT bnr1 mutations (Fig. 2), indicating that actin cable formation by Bni1CTp was independent of Bud6p. Second, precise colocalisation at the bud cortex was no longer observed between Bni1CTp and Bud6p (see Fig. S3 in the supplementary material). Third, Bni1p efficient localisation at the bud cortex depended on both Spa2p and Bud6p. However, Bni1CTp (which only contains the putative binding site for Spa2p) (Fujiwara et al., 1998) localised efficiently in bud6 cells but not in spa2 cells (see Fig. S4 in the supplementary material). As our analysis was performed in live cells with formins expressed at endogenous levels, we could detect a contribution of Bud6p to Bni1p localisation not observed before (Sagot et al., 2002).
Regarding Bud6p localisation, bni1CT behaved like a bni1 by exhibiting premature accumulation at the bud neck (Fig. 1). However, both mutants differed in overall actin organisation (Fig. 2). Moreover, Bni1CTp was correctly polarised (Fig. 3) and supported cell polarity (Fig. 2). Thus, Bud6p binding to Bni1p may play a crucial role in Bud6p distribution irrespective of actin organisation.
It remains possible that Bud6p accumulation in bni1 mutants partly reflects the importance of Bni1p-driven actin cable organisation from the tip. Likewise, Bnr1p may promote Bud6p transport to the bud neck. Yet, Bud6p association with the bud neck was delayed in relation to Bnr1p (see Fig. S1 in the supplementary material) indicating that Bud6p delivery along actin cables cannot account for the timing of Bud6p recruitment at the bud neck (Segal et al., 2000a). Indeed, localisation of Bud6p may additionally depend on the axial determinant Bud3p that accumulates at the bud neck in late S phase (Segal et al., 2000a; Lord et al., 2000).
|
(Segal et al., 2000a) or bni1CT cells exhibited prominent MT interactions with the bud neck matching the accumulation of Bud6p.
In addition, Kar9p function would rely on the remaining set of actin cables in the respective formin mutants (Fig. 6B; see Fig. S6 in the supplementary material). Surprisingly, a bnr1 mutant exhibits a slight defect in spindle alignment (Evangelista et al., 2002) and virtually no impairment in Kar9p-mediated delivery (see Fig. S6 in the supplementary material). However, a bnr1 mutant is significantly perturbed for vesicle transport within the mother cell (Pruyne et al., 2004), indicating that Kar9p function might be comparatively less sensitive to disruption of bulk actin organisation in the mother cell. Still, spindle retention at the bud neck was compromised in bnr1 and bud6 cells (Segal et al., 2000a). By contrast, Kar9p function would be severely disrupted once bnr1 is combined with bni1CT, reducing overall MT delivery to the bud (Fig. 3E; see Fig. S6 in the supplementary material) owing to excessive and partly disorganised actin cables.
Finally, even though Bud6p and Bni1p act together at the bud tip, the spindle orientation phenotypes of single and double mutants are quite distinct, underscoring the dual contribution of Bni1p to actin organisation and Bud6p localisation. A bud6 strain still favours Kar9p-mediated transport of MTs to the bud while reducing MT contacts with the bud neck (Huisman et al., 2004) (Fig. 6C). By contrast, MT contacts with the bud neck in a bni1 mutant persist upon KAR9 deletion (Segal et al., 2000a) (Fig. 6D). Deleting instead BUD6 impairs MT delivery to the bud and eliminates the prominent contacts with the bud neck (Segal et al., 2000a).
Bud6p functions in actin organisation and microtubule capture are separable
The fact that Bni1CTp organised actin cables independently of Bud6p (Sagot et al., 2002) (and our results) allowed us to explore Bud6p requirement for MT capture beyond formins. A bnr1 bni1CT strain still required Bud6p function to support MT growth and shrinkage at the cell cortex (Fig. 3C). This result was confirmed in a bni1 mutant assessed during a cell cycle interval in which no formin would be cortically localised (see Fig. S5 in the supplementary material). Therefore, MT capture at Bud6p sites may be independent of its links to formins.
These findings were validated by the characterization of Bud61-565p. This truncation may still interact with Spa2p (Sheu et al., 1998), but would not contain actin- and forming-binding sites (Amberg et al., 1997; Evangelista et al., 1997). Accordingly, Bud61-565p did not support actin organisation (Fig. 4B,C) demonstrating that this truncation was unable to stimulate formins. However, Bud61-565p mediated MT shrinkage at wild-type levels (Fig. 4D), and suppressed genetic interactions between kar9 or dyn1 and bud6 mutations (Fig. 4E,F). Finally, both Bud6p and Bud61-565p co-sedimented with MTs in vitro in support of a role for Bud6p in cortical capture of MTs. Taken together, our analysis showed the existence of separable functional domains of Bud6p, both required for establishment of spindle polarity and orientation. One participating in formin-dependent organisation of actin cables and another mediating astral MT-cortex interactions. The molecular partners for this latter function remain to be elucidated.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
, bni1 (Segal et al., 2000a), bnr1 and spa2 were generated using KANR cassettes amplified by PCR (Wach et al., 1994). The truncation bni1CT was constructed by disrupting the BNI1 locus with a KANR cassette that eliminated the sequence encoding amino acids 1749-1953 of Bni1p. An analogous bnr1CT allele did not support viability in combination with bni1 (not shown) and was not analysed further. A bud6::LEU2 disruption was used when indicated. Deletions were confirmed by PCR analysis. A bnr1 bni1-FH2#1ts strain (PY3744) and the control carrying the single bnr1 mutation (PY3505) were a gift from D. Pellman. Both strains (Sagot et al., 2002) were isogenic to the wild-type strain S288C (a his31 leu2 ura3 met15).
|
pAFS91 or its derivative pOB1 were used to express GFP-Tub1p (Straight et al., 1997). pbud6::LEU2, used for one-step disruption of BUD6, contained a 2 kb sequence of LEU2 between BUD6 flanking 5' (400 bp) and 3' (300 bp) sequences generated by PCR as a 2.7 kb BamHI-XhoI fragment in pBluescript(KS). pCFP-TUB1 or its derivative pRS404CFP-TUB1 were used to express a CFP-Tub1p fusion (Jensen et al., 2001). Tagging constructs were derived from pKGFP, pKHA3 or pKCFP (Jensen et al., 2002; Huisman et al., 2004). BUD6 was amplified from yeast genomic DNA from 15DauA. The sequence predicts two changes with respect to Bud6p protein sequence based on the Saccharomyces Genome Database: an insertion of TGA at nucleotide position 699 of the ORF resulting in an additional Asp residue at position 234 in the protein sequence and a Thr to Met substitution at position 482. YIplac211-BUD6tGFP and YIplac128-BUD6tCFP contained a 565 bp EcoRI-NotI fragment generated by PCR for 3' in-frame fusion of BUD6 to GFP or CFP, respectively. Linearisation with SacI targeted integration at the endogenous BUD6. pRS404 (Sikorski and Hieter, 1989) carrying a 210 bp KpnI-XhoI fragment containing the HIS3 promoter followed by a 780 bp XhoI-BamHI fragment encoding GFP was used to express N-terminally tagged versions of full-length or truncated Bud6p. A 2370 bp sequence corresponding to full-length BUD6, and fragments encoding amino acids 1-565, 1-414, 1-364 or 1-233 flanked by BglII-NotI sites, were generated by PCR for in-frame fusion after GFP. To derive HA3 or CFP-tagging constructs, the GFP sequence was replaced by a XhoI-BamHI fragment encoding either HA3 or CFP. Constructs were linearised with Bsu36I before transformation. YIp211-BNR1tGFP contained a 640 bp sequence corresponding to the 3' end of the BNR1 ORF as an EcoRI-NotI fragment generated by PCR for 3' in-frame fusion to GFP. Linearization with BseRI targeted integration at the endogenous BNR1. pRS406-BNI1tGFP contained a 1000 bp SacI-NotI fragment generated by PCR for 3' in frame fusion of BNI1 to GFP. Linearisation with HindIII targeted integration at the endogenous BNI1. pRS406-BNI1CTtGFP contained a 504 bp SacI-NotI fragment generated by PCR in which the NotI site truncated the BNI1 ORF sequence at amino acid position 1749 for 3' in frame fusion to GFP. Linearisation with HindIII targeted integration at the endogenous BNI1, introducing instead the bni1CT allele fused to GFP. pRS406-KAR9tGFP contained a 495 bp SacI-NotI fragment generated by PCR for 3' in-frame fusion to GFP. Linearisation with BamHI targeted integration at the endogenous KAR9 (Huisman et al., 2004). Standard yeast genetic procedures and media were used (Guthrie and Fink, 1991). Yeast cultures were grown at 25°C unless otherwise stated. Cells were fixed in 3.7% formaldehyde for 30 minutes and processed for calcofluor or rhodamine-phalloidin staining as previously described (Adams and Pringle, 1991; Pringle, 1991).
Digital imaging microscopy
Time lapse recordings were carried out as previously described (Huisman et al., 2007) using a Nikon Eclipse E800 with a CFI Plan Apochromat 100x, N.A. 1.4 objective, Chroma Technology filter sets and a Coolsnap-HQ CCD camera (Roper Scientific). Five fluorescence images were acquired at a z-distance of 0.8 µm between planes using 2x2 binning along with a single differential interference contrast image in the middle focal plane. When indicated, still images were also obtained by compiling five-plane z-stacks. Images of cells co-expressing GFP and CFP-tagged constructs were obtained by a protocol that discriminates between CFP and GFP using a CFP/YFP filter set (Huisman et al., 2007). Images were processed using Metamorph software and digital overlays were used for scoring.
Modes of astral MT-cell cortex interaction were scored by following the history of individual MTs during the cell cycle interval from mitotic exit to bud emergence. Interactions were categorised as previously described (Carminati and Stearns, 1997; Segal et al., 2002). Interactions by cell compartment during the preanaphase interval (Huisman et al., 2004) were scored using the definition for cortical interaction by Carminati and Stearns (Carminati and Stearns, 1997). Bud neck was defined as the region within a 0.5 µm distance from the point of constriction between the mother and the bud. Measurements in digital images were performed using Metamorph software tools calibrated with a stage micrometer. Linescan analysis for maximal fluorescence (six-pixel width) was carried out along the cell polarity axis to determine the relative fluorescence label between bud cortex and bud neck in cells expressing solely Bud6p-GFP acquired as five-plane z-stacks using a GFP filter set. Fluorescence intensity at the bud neck or bud was measured as mean fluorescence intensity within a fixed box (10x5 pixel) spanning the bud neck or a region including the whole bud excluding the bud neck, respectively. Mean background intensity in the mother cell was subtracted from all measures.
Spindles were scored as oriented if an imaginary line drawn through the long axis of the spindle intersected the bud neck, a measure reflecting both the spindle angle relative to the mother-bud axis and its distance from the bud neck (Theesfeld et al., 1999). Spindle polarity at anaphase was scored as previously described (Huisman et al., 2004).
Microtubule-binding assay
Extracts were prepared from pellets of 100 ml yeast cell cultures (1-2x107 cells /ml) suspended in PEMap lysis buffer (100 mM K-PIPES pH 6.8, 1 mM MgSO4, 2 mM EGTA, protease inhibitors) (Infante et al., 1999) +0.1% NP40 by disruption with glass beads and centrifugation to obtain a clear lysate. Bovine brain tubulin (Cytoskeleton) was polymerized at a concentration of 7 µg/µl in PEMap containing 1 mM GTP and 40 µM Taxol at 36°C for 5 minutes. The preparation was then passed three times through a 25-gauge needle attached to a 1 ml insulin syringe to generate more MT ends (Taxol-MT). An equal amount of tubulin was incubated instead in the presence of 40 µM nocodazole (Nocodazole-tubulin) to prevent polymerization. Extracts at a final concentration of 1.2 µg/µl in PEMap were incubated at 16°C for 15 minutes in a final volume of 210 µl with one of the following: (1) 1 mM GTP, 40 µM Taxol and 10 µl Taxol-MT; (2) 40 µM nocodazole and 10 µl nocodazole-tubulin; (3) buffer as a control. Samples were then centrifuged through a 10% sucrose cushion (20% for strains expressing HA3Bud61-565p) at 30,000 g for 30 minutes at 16°C. Pellet (5 µl out of a resuspended volume of 30 µl) and supernatant (7.5 µl out of 200 µl) fractions were subjected to western blot analysis by probing with anti-HA monoclonal antibody (1:1000 dilution, Roche) for detection of Bud6p constructs and monoclonal antibody B-5-1-2 (1:1000 dilution, Sigma) to detect 
-tubulin.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
Adams, A. E. and Pringle, J. R. (1991). Staining of actin with fluorochrome-conjugated phalloidin. Meth. Enzymol. 194, 729-731.[Medline]
Amberg, D. C., Zahner, J. E., Mulholland, J. W., Pringle, J. R. and Botstein, D. (1997). Aip3p/Bud6p, a yeast actin-interacting protein that is involved in morphogenesis and the selection of bipolar budding sites. Mol. Biol. Cell 8, 729-753.[Abstract]
Ayscough, K. R., Stryker, J., Pokala, N., Sanders, M., Crews, P. and Drubin, D. G. (1997). High rates of actin filament turnover in budding yeast and roles for actin in establishment and maintenance of cell polarity revealed using the actin inhibitor latrunculin-A. J. Cell Biol. 137, 399-416.
Beach, D. L., Thibodeaux, J., Maddox, P., Yeh, E. and Bloom, K. (2000). The role of the proteins Kar9 and Myo2 in orienting the mitotic spindle of budding yeast. Curr. Biol. 10, 1497-1506.[CrossRef][Medline]
Buttery, S. M., Yoshida, S. and Pellman, D. (2007). Yeast formins Bni1 and Bnr1 utilize different modes of cortical interaction during the assembly of actin cables. Mol. Biol. Cell 18, 1826-1838.
Byers, B. (1981). Cytology of the yeast life cycle. In The Molecular Biology of the Yeast Saccharomyces: Life Cycle and Inheritance (ed. J. N. Strathern, E. W. Jones and J. R. Broach), pp. 59-96. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Carminati, J. L. and Stearns, T. (1997). Microtubules orient the mitotic spindle in yeast through dynein-dependent interactions with the cell cortex. J. Cell Biol. 138, 629-641.
Chang, F. and Peter, M. (2003). Yeasts make their mark. Nat. Cell Biol. 5, 294-299.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dong, Y., Pruyne, D. and Bretscher, A. (2003). Formin-dependent actin assembly is regulated by distinct modes of Rho signaling in yeast. J. Cell Biol. 161, 1081-1092.
Evangelista, M., Blundell, K., Longtine, M. S., Chow, C. J., Adames, N., Pringle, J. R., Peter, M. and Boone, C. (1997). Bni1p, a yeast formin linking cdc42p and the actin cytoskeleton during polarized morphogenesis. Science 276, 118-122.
Evangelista, M., Pruyne, D., Amberg, D. C., Boone, C. and Bretscher, A. (2002). Formins direct Arp2/3-independent actin filament assembly to polarize cell growth in yeast. Nat. Cell Biol. 4, 260-269.[CrossRef][Medline]
Faix, J. and Grosse, R. (2006). Staying in shape with formins. Dev. Cell 10, 693-706.[CrossRef][Medline]
Feierbach, B., Verde, F. and Chang, F. (2004). Regulation of a formin complex by the microtubule plus end protein tea1p. J. Cell Biol. 165, 697-707.
Fujiwara, T., Tanaka, K., Mino, A., Kikyo, M., Takahashi, K., Shimizu, K. and Takai, Y. (1998). Rho1p-Bni1p-Spa2p interactions: implication in localization of Bni1p at the bud site and regulation of the actin cytoskeleton in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Biol. Cell 9, 1221-1233.
Fujiwara, T., Tanaka, K., Inoue, E., Kikyo, M. and Takai, Y. (1999). Bni1p regulates microtubule-dependent nuclear migration through the actin cytoskeleton in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 8016-8027.
Guthrie, C. and Fink, G. R. (1991). Guide to Yeast Genetics and Molecular Biology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Huisman, S. M. and Segal, M. (2005). Cortical capture of microtubules and spindle polarity in budding yeast: where's the catch? J. Cell Sci. 118, 463-471.
Huisman, S. M., Bales, O. A., Bertrand, M., Smeets, M. F., Reed, S. I. and Segal, M. (2004). Differential contribution of Bud6p and Kar9p to microtubule capture and spindle orientation in S. cerevisiae. J. Cell Biol. 167, 231-244.
Huisman, S. M., Smeets, M. F. and Segal, M. (2007). Phosphorylation of Spc110p by Cdc28p-Clb5p kinase contributes to correct spindle morphogenesis in S. cerevisiae. J. Cell Sci. 120, 435-446.
Hwang, E., Kusch, J., Barral, Y. and Huffaker, T. C. (2003). Spindle orientation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae depends on the transport of microtubule ends along polarized actin cables. J. Cell Biol. 161, 483-488.
Imamura, H., Tanaka, K., Hihara, T., Umikawa, M., Kamei, T., Takahashi, K., Sasaki, T. and Takai, Y. (1997). Bni1p and Bnr1p: downstream targets of the Rho family small G-proteins which interact with profilin and regulate actin cytoskeleton in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. EMBO J. 16, 2745-2755.[CrossRef][Medline]
Infante, C., Ramos-Morales, F., Fedriani, C., Bornens, M. and Rios, R. M. (1999). GMAP-210, A cis-Golgi network-associated protein, is a minus end microtubule-binding protein. J. Cell Biol. 145, 83-98.
Irazoqui, J. E., Howell, A. S., Theesfeld, C. L. and Lew, D. J. (2005). Opposing roles for actin in Cdc42p polarization. Mol. Biol. Cell 16, 1296-1304.
Jaquenoud, M. and Peter, M. (2000). Gic2p may link activated Cdc42p to components involved in actin polarization, including Bni1p and Bud6p (Aip3p). Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 6244-6258.
Jaspersen, S. L. and Winey, M. (2004). The budding yeast spindle pole body: structure, duplication, and function. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 20, 1-28.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jensen, S., Segal, M., Clarke, D. J. and Reed, S. I. (2001). A novel role of the budding yeast separin Esp1 in anaphase spindle elongation: evidence that proper spindle association of Esp1 is regulated by Pds1. J. Cell Biol. 152, 27-40.
Jensen, S., Geymonat, M., Johnson, A. L., Segal, M. and Johnston, L. H. (2002). Spatial regulation of the guanine nucleotide exchange factor Lte1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Cell Sci. 115, 4977-4991.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jin, H. and Amberg, D. C. (2000). The secretory pathway mediates localization of the cell polarity regulator Aip3p/Bud6p. Mol. Biol. Cell 11, 647-661.
Kikyo, M., Tanaka, K., Kamei, T., Ozaki, K., Fujiwara, T., Inoue, E., Takita, Y., Ohya, Y. and Takai, Y. (1999). An FH domain-containing Bnr1p is a multifunctional protein interacting with a variety of cytoskeletal proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Oncogene 18, 7046-7054.[CrossRef][Medline]
Korinek, W. S., Copeland, M. J., Chaudhuri, A. and Chant, J. (2000). Molecular linkage underlying microtubule orientation toward cortical sites in yeast. Science 287, 2257-2259.
Lee, L., Klee, S. K., Evangelista, M., Boone, C. and Pellman, D. (1999). Control of mitotic spindle position by the Saccharomyces cerevisiae formin Bni1p. J. Cell Biol. 144, 947-961.
Lee, L., Tirnauer, J. S., Li, J., Schuyler, S. C., Liu, J. Y. and Pellman, D. (2000). Positioning of the mitotic spindle by a cortical-microtubule capture mechanism. Science 287, 2260-2262.
Lord, M., Yang, M. C., Mischke, M. and Chant, J. (2000). Cell cycle programs of gene expression control morphogenetic protein localization. J. Cell Biol. 151, 1501-1512.
Martin, S. G., Rincon, S. A., Basu, R., Perez, P. and Chang, F. (2007). Regulation of the formin for3p by cdc42p and bud6p. Mol. Biol. Cell 18, 4155-4167.
Miller, R. K., Matheos, D. and Rose, M. D. (1999). The cortical localization of the microtubule orientation protein, Kar9p, is dependent upon actin and proteins required for polarization. J. Cell Biol. 144, 963-975.
Miller, R. K., Cheng, S. C. and Rose, M. D. (2000). Bim1p/Yeb1p mediates the Kar9p-dependent cortical attachment of cytoplasmic microtubules. Mol. Biol. Cell 11, 2949-2959.
Moseley, J. B. and Goode, B. L. (2005). Differential activities and regulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae formin proteins Bni1 and Bnr1 by Bud6. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 28023-28033.
Moseley, J. B. and Goode, B. L. (2006). The yeast actin cytoskeleton: from cellular function to biochemical mechanism. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 70, 605-645.
Nelson, S. A. and Cooper, J. A. (2007). A novel pathway that coordinates mitotic exit with spindle position. Mol. Biol. Cell 18, 3440-3450.
Otomo, T., Otomo, C., Tomchick, D. R., Machius, M. and Rosen, M. K. (2005). Structural basis of Rho GTPase-mediated activation of the formin mDia1. Mol. Cell 18, 273-281.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ozaki-Kuroda, K., Yamamoto, Y., Nohara, H., Kinoshita, M., Fujiwara, T., Irie, K. and Takai, Y. (2001). Dynamic localization and function of Bni1p at the sites of directed growth in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 827-839.
Pearson, C. G. and Bloom, K. (2004). Dynamic microtubules lead the way for spindle positioning. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 5, 481-492.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pereira, G., Tanaka, T. U., Nasmyth, K. and Schiebel, E. (2001). Modes of spindle pole body inheritance and segregation of the Bfa1p-Bub2p checkpoint protein complex. EMBO J. 20, 6359-6370.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pringle, J. R. (1991). Staining of bud scars and other cell wall chitin with calcofluor. Meth. Enzymol. 194, 732-735.[Medline]
Pruyne, D., Evangelista, M., Yang, C., Bi, E., Zigmond, S., Bretscher, A. and Boone, C. (2002). Role of formins in actin assembly: nucleation and barbed-end association. Science 297, 612-615.
Pruyne, D., Gao, L., Bi, E. and Bretscher, A. (2004). Stable and dynamic axes of polarity use distinct formin isoforms in budding yeast. Mol. Biol. Cell 15, 4971-4989.
Sagot, I., Klee, S. K. and Pellman, D. (2002). Yeast formins regulate cell polarity by controlling the assembly of actin cables. Nat. Cell Biol. 4, 42-50.[Medline]
Segal, M., Bloom, K. and Reed, S. I. (2000a). Bud6 directs sequential microtubule interactions with the bud tip and bud neck during spindle morphogenesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Biol. Cell 11, 3689-3702.
Segal, M., Clarke, D. J., Maddox, P., Salmon, E. D., Bloom, K. and Reed, S. I. (2000b). Coordinated spindle assembly and orientation requires Clb5p-dependent kinase in budding yeast. J. Cell Biol. 148, 441-452.
Segal, M., Bloom, K. and Reed, S. I. (2002). Kar9p-independent microtubule capture at Bud6p cortical sites primes spindle polarity before bud emergence in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Biol. Cell 13, 4141-4155.
Shaw, S. L., Yeh, E., Maddox, P., Salmon, E. D. and Bloom, K. (1997). Astral microtubule dynamics in yeast: a microtubule-based searching mechanism for spindle orientation and nuclear migration into the bud. J. Cell Biol. 139, 985-994.
Sheu, Y. J., Santos, B., Fortin, N., Costigan, C. and Snyder, M. (1998). Spa2p interacts with cell polarity proteins and signaling components involved in yeast cell morphogenesis. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 4053-4069.
Sheu, Y. J., Barral, Y. and Snyder, M. (2000). Polarized growth controls cell shape and bipolar bud site selection in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 5235-5247.
Sikorski, R. S. and Hieter, P. (1989). A system of shuttle vectors and yeast host strains designed for efficient manipulation of DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 122, 19-27.
Straight, A. F., Marshall, W. F., Sedat, J. W. and Murray, A. W. (1997). Mitosis in living budding yeast: anaphase A but no metaphase plate. Science 277, 574-578.
Theesfeld, C. L., Irazoqui, J. E., Bloom, K. and Lew, D. J. (1999). The role of actin in spindle orientation changes during the Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell cycle. J. Cell Biol. 146, 1019-1032.
Wach, A., Brachat, A., Pohlmann, R. and Philippsen, P. (1994). New heterologous modules for classical or PCR-based gene disruptions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 10, 1793-1808.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yamashita, Y. M., Mahowald, A. P., Perlin, J. R. and Fuller, M. T. (2007). Asymmetric inheritance of mother versus daughter centrosome in stem cell division. Science 315, 518-521.
Yang, S., Ayscough, K. R. and Drubin, D. G. (1997). A role for the actin cytoskeleton of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in bipolar bud-site selection. J. Cell Biol. 136, 111-123.
Yeh, E., Yang, C., Chin, E., Maddox, P., Salmon, E. D., Lew, D. J. and Bloom, K. (2000). Dynamic positioning of mitotic spindles in yeast: role of microtubule motors and cortical determinants. Mol. Biol. Cell 11, 3949-3961.
Yin, H., Pruyne, D., Huffaker, T. C. and Bretscher, A. (2000). Myosin V orientates the mitotic spindle in yeast. Nature 406, 1013-1015.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
