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

  • 3,994
    Page views
  • 1,254
    Downloads
  • 103
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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. Cell Biology
    Kazuki Hanaoka, Kensuke Nishikawa ... Kouichi Funato
    Research Article

    Membrane contact sites (MCSs) are junctures that perform important roles including coordinating lipid metabolism. Previous studies have indicated that vacuolar fission/fusion processes are coupled with modifications in the membrane lipid composition. However, it has been still unclear whether MCS-mediated lipid metabolism controls the vacuolar morphology. Here, we report that deletion of tricalbins (Tcb1, Tcb2, and Tcb3), tethering proteins at endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–plasma membrane (PM) and ER–Golgi contact sites, alters fusion/fission dynamics and causes vacuolar fragmentation in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In addition, we show that the sphingolipid precursor phytosphingosine (PHS) accumulates in tricalbin-deleted cells, triggering the vacuolar division. Detachment of the nucleus–vacuole junction (NVJ), an important contact site between the vacuole and the perinuclear ER, restored vacuolar morphology in both cells subjected to high exogenous PHS and Tcb3-deleted cells, supporting that PHS transport across the NVJ induces vacuole division. Thus, our results suggest that vacuolar morphology is maintained by MCSs through the metabolism of sphingolipids.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Monica Salinas-Pena, Elena Rebollo, Albert Jordan
    Research Article

    Histone H1 participates in chromatin condensation and regulates nuclear processes. Human somatic cells may contain up to seven histone H1 variants, although their functional heterogeneity is not fully understood. Here, we have profiled the differential nuclear distribution of the somatic H1 repertoire in human cells through imaging techniques including super-resolution microscopy. H1 variants exhibit characteristic distribution patterns in both interphase and mitosis. H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 are universally enriched at the nuclear periphery in all cell lines analyzed and co-localize with compacted DNA. H1.0 shows a less pronounced peripheral localization, with apparent variability among different cell lines. On the other hand, H1.4 and H1X are distributed throughout the nucleus, being H1X universally enriched in high-GC regions and abundant in the nucleoli. Interestingly, H1.4 and H1.0 show a more peripheral distribution in cell lines lacking H1.3 and H1.5. The differential distribution patterns of H1 suggest specific functionalities in organizing lamina-associated domains or nucleolar activity, which is further supported by a distinct response of H1X or phosphorylated H1.4 to the inhibition of ribosomal DNA transcription. Moreover, H1 variants depletion affects chromatin structure in a variant-specific manner. Concretely, H1.2 knock-down, either alone or combined, triggers a global chromatin decompaction. Overall, imaging has allowed us to distinguish H1 variants distribution beyond the segregation in two groups denoted by previous ChIP-Seq determinations. Our results support H1 variants heterogeneity and suggest that variant-specific functionality can be shared between different cell types.