A molecular mechanism of mitotic centrosome assembly in Drosophila

  1. Paul T Conduit
  2. Jennifer H Richens
  3. Alan Wainman
  4. James Holder
  5. Catarina C Vicente
  6. Metta B Pratt
  7. Carly I Dix
  8. Zsofia A Novak
  9. Ian M Dobbie
  10. Lothar Schermelleh
  11. Jordan W Raff  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, United Kingdom

Abstract

Centrosomes comprise a pair of centrioles surrounded by pericentriolar material (PCM). The PCM expands dramatically as cells enter mitosis, but it is unclear how this occurs. Here, we show that the centriole protein Asl initiates the recruitment of DSpd-2 and Cnn to mother centrioles; both proteins then assemble into co-dependent scaffold-like structures that spread outwards from the mother centriole and recruit most, if not all, other PCM components. In the absence of either DSpd-2 or Cnn mitotic PCM assembly is diminished; in the absence of both proteins it appears to be abolished. We show that DSpd-2 helps incorporate Cnn into the PCM and that Cnn then helps maintain DSpd-2 within the PCM, creating a positive feedback loop that promotes robust PCM expansion around the mother centriole during mitosis. These observations suggest a surprisingly simple mechanism of mitotic PCM assembly in flies.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Paul T Conduit

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jennifer H Richens

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alan Wainman

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. James Holder

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Catarina C Vicente

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Metta B Pratt

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Carly I Dix

    Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Zsofia A Novak

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ian M Dobbie

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Lothar Schermelleh

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jordan W Raff

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    jordan.raff@path.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2014, Conduit 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

  • 3,860
    views
  • 479
    downloads
  • 119
    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. Paul T Conduit
  2. Jennifer H Richens
  3. Alan Wainman
  4. James Holder
  5. Catarina C Vicente
  6. Metta B Pratt
  7. Carly I Dix
  8. Zsofia A Novak
  9. Ian M Dobbie
  10. Lothar Schermelleh
  11. Jordan W Raff
(2014)
A molecular mechanism of mitotic centrosome assembly in Drosophila
eLife 3:e03399.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03399

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03399

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Laura Childers, Jieun Park ... Michel Bagnat
    Research Article

    Dietary protein absorption in neonatal mammals and fishes relies on the function of a specialized and conserved population of highly absorptive lysosome-rich enterocytes (LREs). The gut microbiome has been shown to enhance absorption of nutrients, such as lipids, by intestinal epithelial cells. However, whether protein absorption is also affected by the gut microbiome is poorly understood. Here, we investigate connections between protein absorption and microbes in the zebrafish gut. Using live microscopy-based quantitative assays, we find that microbes slow the pace of protein uptake and degradation in LREs. While microbes do not affect the number of absorbing LRE cells, microbes lower the expression of endocytic and protein digestion machinery in LREs. Using transgene-assisted cell isolation and single cell RNA-sequencing, we characterize all intestinal cells that take up dietary protein. We find that microbes affect expression of bacteria-sensing and metabolic pathways in LREs, and that some secretory cell types also take up protein and share components of protein uptake and digestion machinery with LREs. Using custom-formulated diets, we investigated the influence of diet and LRE activity on the gut microbiome. Impaired protein uptake activity in LREs, along with a protein-deficient diet, alters the microbial community and leads to an increased abundance of bacterial genera that have the capacity to reduce protein uptake in LREs. Together, these results reveal that diet-dependent reciprocal interactions between LREs and the gut microbiome regulate protein absorption.

    1. Cell Biology
    Rachel Pudlowski, Lingyi Xu ... Jennifer T Wang
    Research Advance

    Centrioles have a unique, conserved architecture formed by three linked, ‘triplet’, microtubules arranged in ninefold symmetry. The mechanisms by which these triplet microtubules are formed remain unclear but likely involve the noncanonical tubulins delta-tubulin and epsilon-tubulin. Previously, we found that human cells lacking delta-tubulin or epsilon-tubulin form abnormal centrioles, characterized by an absence of triplet microtubules, lack of central core protein POC5, and a futile cycle of centriole formation and disintegration (Wang et al., 2017). Here, we show that human cells lacking either TEDC1 or TEDC2 have similar abnormalities. Using ultrastructure expansion microscopy, we observed that mutant centrioles elongate to the same length as control centrioles in G2 phase and fail to recruit central core scaffold proteins. Remarkably, mutant centrioles also have an expanded proximal region. During mitosis, these mutant centrioles further elongate before fragmenting and disintegrating. All four proteins physically interact and TEDC1 and TEDC2 can form a subcomplex in the absence of the tubulins, supporting an AlphaFold Multimer model of the tetramer. TEDC1 and TEDC2 localize to centrosomes and are mutually dependent on each other and on delta-tubulin and epsilon-tubulin for localization. Our results demonstrate that delta-tubulin, epsilon-tubulin, TEDC1, and TEDC2 function together to promote robust centriole architecture, laying the foundation for future studies on the mechanisms underlying the assembly of triplet microtubules and their interactions with centriole structure.