Abstract

Cell proliferation and quiescence are intimately coordinated during metazoan development. Here, we adapt a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) sensor to uncouple these key events of the cell cycle in C. elegans and zebrafish through live-cell imaging. The CDK sensor consists of a fluorescently tagged CDK substrate that steadily translocates from the nucleus to the cytoplasm in response to increasing CDK activity and consequent sensor phosphorylation. We show that the CDK sensor can distinguish cycling cells in G1 from quiescent cells in G0, revealing a possible commitment point and a cryptic stochasticity in an otherwise invariant C. elegans cell lineage. Finally, we derive a predictive model of future proliferation behavior in C. elegans based on a snapshot of CDK activity in newly born cells. Thus, we introduce a live-cell imaging tool to facilitate in vivo studies of cell cycle control in a wide-range of developmental contexts.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Rebecca C Adikes

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Abraham Q Kohrman

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook University, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3726-1090
  3. Michael A Q Martinez

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1178-7139
  4. Nicholas J Palmisano

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jayson J Smith

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Taylor N Medwig-Kinney

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7989-3291
  7. Mingwei Min

    Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado-Boulder, Boulder, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9050-5330
  8. Maria Danielle Sallee

    Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ononnah B Ahmed

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Nuri Kim

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Simeiyun Liu

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Robert D Morabito

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Nicholas Weeks

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Qinyun Zhao

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Wan Zhang

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Jessica L Feldman

    Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5210-5045
  17. Michalis Barkoulas

    Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1974-7668
  18. Ariel M Pani

    University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Sabrina Leigh Spencer

    Biochemistry, University of Colorado-Boulder, Boulder, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5798-3007
  20. Benjamin Louis Martin

    Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5474-4492
  21. David Q Matus

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    For correspondence
    david.matus@stonybrook.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1570-5025

Funding

National Institutes of Health (1R01GM121597)

  • David Q Matus

National Institutes of Health (DP2GM1191136)

  • Sabrina Leigh Spencer

National Institutes of Health (DP2-CA238330)

  • Jessica L Feldman

American Cancer Society (RSG-18-008-01)

  • Sabrina Leigh Spencer

Pew Charitable Trusts

  • Sabrina Leigh Spencer

Boettcher Foundation

  • Sabrina Leigh Spencer

Searle Scholars Program (SSP-2016-1533)

  • Sabrina Leigh Spencer

National Institutes of Health (1K99GM13548901)

  • Maria Danielle Sallee

National Institutes of Health (1R01GM124282)

  • Benjamin Louis Martin

Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (DRR-47-17)

  • Benjamin Louis Martin
  • David Q Matus

National Science Foundation (IOS 1452928)

  • Benjamin Louis Martin

Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Alliance

  • Benjamin Louis Martin

National Institutes of Health (1F32133131)

  • Rebecca C Adikes

National Institutes of Health (F31GM128319)

  • Abraham Q Kohrman

American Cancer Society (132969-PF-18-226-01-CSM)

  • Nicholas J Palmisano

National Institutes of Health (F31HD1000091)

  • Taylor N Medwig-Kinney

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#2012-1932 - R2 - 1.15.21- FI) of Stony Brook University. The protocol was approved by the Office of Research Compliance of Stony Brook University.

Copyright

© 2020, Adikes 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

  • 4,762
    views
  • 707
    downloads
  • 39
    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. Rebecca C Adikes
  2. Abraham Q Kohrman
  3. Michael A Q Martinez
  4. Nicholas J Palmisano
  5. Jayson J Smith
  6. Taylor N Medwig-Kinney
  7. Mingwei Min
  8. Maria Danielle Sallee
  9. Ononnah B Ahmed
  10. Nuri Kim
  11. Simeiyun Liu
  12. Robert D Morabito
  13. Nicholas Weeks
  14. Qinyun Zhao
  15. Wan Zhang
  16. Jessica L Feldman
  17. Michalis Barkoulas
  18. Ariel M Pani
  19. Sabrina Leigh Spencer
  20. Benjamin Louis Martin
  21. David Q Matus
(2020)
Visualizing the metazoan proliferation-quiescence decision in vivo
eLife 9:e63265.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63265

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63265

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Kristina Ehring, Sophia Friederike Ehlers ... Kay Grobe
    Research Article

    The Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling pathway controls embryonic development and tissue homeostasis after birth. This requires regulated solubilization of dual-lipidated, firmly plasma membrane-associated Shh precursors from producing cells. Although it is firmly established that the resistance-nodulation-division transporter Dispatched (Disp) drives this process, it is less clear how lipidated Shh solubilization from the plasma membrane is achieved. We have previously shown that Disp promotes proteolytic solubilization of Shh from its lipidated terminal peptide anchors. This process, termed shedding, converts tightly membrane-associated hydrophobic Shh precursors into delipidated soluble proteins. We show here that Disp-mediated Shh shedding is modulated by a serum factor that we identify as high-density lipoprotein (HDL). In addition to serving as a soluble sink for free membrane cholesterol, HDLs also accept the cholesterol-modified Shh peptide from Disp. The cholesteroylated Shh peptide is necessary and sufficient for Disp-mediated transfer because artificially cholesteroylated mCherry associates with HDL in a Disp-dependent manner, whereas an N-palmitoylated Shh variant lacking C-cholesterol does not. Disp-mediated Shh transfer to HDL is completed by proteolytic processing of the palmitoylated N-terminal membrane anchor. In contrast to dual-processed soluble Shh with moderate bioactivity, HDL-associated N-processed Shh is highly bioactive. We propose that the purpose of generating different soluble forms of Shh from the dual-lipidated precursor is to tune cellular responses in a tissue-type and time-specific manner.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Armando Montoya-Garcia, Idaira M Guerrero-Fonseca ... Michael Schnoor
    Research Article

    Arpin was discovered as an inhibitor of the Arp2/3 complex localized at the lamellipodial tip of fibroblasts, where it regulated migration steering. Recently, we showed that arpin stabilizes the epithelial barrier in an Arp2/3-dependent manner. However, the expression and functions of arpin in endothelial cells (EC) have not yet been described. Arpin mRNA and protein are expressed in EC and downregulated by pro-inflammatory cytokines. Arpin depletion in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells causes the formation of actomyosin stress fibers leading to increased permeability in an Arp2/3-independent manner. Instead, inhibitors of ROCK1 and ZIPK, kinases involved in the generation of stress fibers, normalize the loss-of-arpin effects on actin filaments and permeability. Arpin-deficient mice are viable but show a characteristic vascular phenotype in the lung including edema, microhemorrhage, and vascular congestion, increased F-actin levels, and vascular permeability. Our data show that, apart from being an Arp2/3 inhibitor, arpin is also a regulator of actomyosin contractility and endothelial barrier integrity.