Centriolar satellites assemble centrosomal microcephaly proteins to recruit CDK2 and promote centriole duplication

  1. Andrew Kodani
  2. Timothy W Yu
  3. Jeffrey R Johnson
  4. Divya Jayaraman
  5. Tasha L Johnson
  6. Lihadh Al-Gazali
  7. Lāszló Sztriha
  8. Jennifer N Partlow
  9. Hanjun Kim
  10. Alexis L Krup
  11. Alexander Dammermann
  12. Nevan Krogan
  13. Christopher A Walsh
  14. Jeremy F Reiter  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, United States
  3. United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates
  4. University of Vienna, Austria
  5. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States

Abstract

Primary microcephaly (MCPH) associated proteins CDK5RAP2, CEP152, WDR62 and CEP63 colocalize at the centrosome. We found that they interact to promote centriole duplication and form a hierarchy in which each is required to localize another to the centrosome, with CDK5RAP2 at the apex, and CEP152, WDR62 and CEP63 at sequentially lower positions. MCPH proteins interact with distinct centriolar satellite proteins; CDK5RAP2 interacts with SPAG5 and CEP72, CEP152 with CEP131, WDR62 with MOONRAKER, and CEP63 with CEP90 and CCDC14. These satellite proteins localize their cognate MCPH interactors to centrosomes and also promote centriole duplication. Consistent with a role for satellites in microcephaly, homozygous mutations in one satellite gene,CEP90, may cause MCPH. The satellite proteins, with the exception of CCDC14, and MCPH proteins promote centriole duplication by recruiting CDK2 to the centrosome. Thus, centriolar satellites build a MCPH complex critical for human neurodevelopment that promotes CDK2 centrosomal localization and centriole duplication.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrew Kodani

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Timothy W Yu

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jeffrey R Johnson

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Divya Jayaraman

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Tasha L Johnson

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Lihadh Al-Gazali

    Department of Paediatrics, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Lāszló Sztriha

    Department of Paediatrics, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jennifer N Partlow

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Hanjun Kim

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Alexis L Krup

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Alexander Dammermann

    Max F. Perutz Laboratories, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Nevan Krogan

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Christopher A Walsh

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Jeremy F Reiter

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    Jeremy.Reiter@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. W James Nelson, Stanford University, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: Subjects were identified and evaluated in a clinical setting for medical history, cognitive impairment and physical abnormalities. Peripheral blood samples were collected from the affected individuals and family members after obtaining written informed consent according to the protocols approved by the participating institutions and the ethical standards of the responsible national and institutional committees on human subject research.

Version history

  1. Received: March 18, 2015
  2. Accepted: August 21, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 22, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: August 24, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: September 2, 2015 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record published: September 18, 2015 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2015, Kodani et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,996
    views
  • 1,257
    downloads
  • 112
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Andrew Kodani
  2. Timothy W Yu
  3. Jeffrey R Johnson
  4. Divya Jayaraman
  5. Tasha L Johnson
  6. Lihadh Al-Gazali
  7. Lāszló Sztriha
  8. Jennifer N Partlow
  9. Hanjun Kim
  10. Alexis L Krup
  11. Alexander Dammermann
  12. Nevan Krogan
  13. Christopher A Walsh
  14. Jeremy F Reiter
(2015)
Centriolar satellites assemble centrosomal microcephaly proteins to recruit CDK2 and promote centriole duplication
eLife 4:e07519.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07519

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07519

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Julian JA Hoving, Elizabeth Harford-Wright ... Alison C Lloyd
    Research Article Updated

    Collective cell migration is fundamental for the development of organisms and in the adult for tissue regeneration and in pathological conditions such as cancer. Migration as a coherent group requires the maintenance of cell–cell interactions, while contact inhibition of locomotion (CIL), a local repulsive force, can propel the group forward. Here we show that the cell–cell interaction molecule, N-cadherin, regulates both adhesion and repulsion processes during Schwann cell (SC) collective migration, which is required for peripheral nerve regeneration. However, distinct from its role in cell–cell adhesion, the repulsion process is independent of N-cadherin trans-homodimerisation and the associated adherens junction complex. Rather, the extracellular domain of N-cadherin is required to present the repulsive Slit2/Slit3 signal at the cell surface. Inhibiting Slit2/Slit3 signalling inhibits CIL and subsequently collective SC migration, resulting in adherent, nonmigratory cell clusters. Moreover, analysis of ex vivo explants from mice following sciatic nerve injury showed that inhibition of Slit2 decreased SC collective migration and increased clustering of SCs within the nerve bridge. These findings provide insight into how opposing signals can mediate collective cell migration and how CIL pathways are promising targets for inhibiting pathological cell migration.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Marcos Moreno-Aguilera, Alba M Neher ... Carme Gallego
    Research Article Updated

    Alternative RNA splicing is an essential and dynamic process in neuronal differentiation and synapse maturation, and dysregulation of this process has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases. Recent studies have revealed the importance of RNA-binding proteins in the regulation of neuronal splicing programs. However, the molecular mechanisms involved in the control of these splicing regulators are still unclear. Here, we show that KIS, a kinase upregulated in the developmental brain, imposes a genome-wide alteration in exon usage during neuronal differentiation in mice. KIS contains a protein-recognition domain common to spliceosomal components and phosphorylates PTBP2, counteracting the role of this splicing factor in exon exclusion. At the molecular level, phosphorylation of unstructured domains within PTBP2 causes its dissociation from two co-regulators, Matrin3 and hnRNPM, and hinders the RNA-binding capability of the complex. Furthermore, KIS and PTBP2 display strong and opposing functional interactions in synaptic spine emergence and maturation. Taken together, our data uncover a post-translational control of splicing regulators that link transcriptional and alternative exon usage programs in neuronal development.