|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 18, 15766-15772, May 3, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-2852
Received for publication, December 10, 2001, and in revised form, February 22, 2002
Many cell signaling pathways are regulated by
phosphorylation, ubiquitination, and degradation of constituent
proteins. As with phosphorylation, protein ubiquitination can be
reversed, through the action of ubiquitin-specific processing proteases (UBPs). Here we have analyzed 15 UBP disruption mutants in
the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and identified one
(ubp3 A broad array of cell signaling molecules act on cell surface
receptors and their associated G proteins. In humans, such receptors can detect hormones, neurotransmitters, odors, taste, and light. In the
yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, G protein-coupled receptors (Ste2, Ste3) respond to pheromones that initiate haploid cell fusion,
or mating (1). Upon receptor stimulation, the G protein A general property of signaling cascades is the ability to abrogate
their responsiveness over time (2). In yeast, pheromone signaling is
attenuated by degradation of the peptide ligand, hydrolysis of GTP by
G There is emerging evidence that pheromone signaling is regulated
through ubiquitination and degradation of constituent proteins (3-5,
7). Ubiquitination requires ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes, which
catalyze the formation of an isopeptide bond between the C-terminal
carboxyl group of ubiquitin and Lys side chains of the target protein
(8). Conjugated ubiquitin is itself ubiquitinated, resulting in the
formation of polyubiquitin chains. These chains are then recognized by
the 26 S proteasome, which degrades the substrate protein (9). In the
case of some cell surface receptors (e.g. Ste2 and Ste3)
ubiquitination can function as a signal for ligand-induced endocytosis.
This situation is unusual, however, in that the receptors are largely
monoubiquitinated instead of polyubiquitinated and are delivered to the
vacuole instead of the proteasome (3-5).
Protein ubiquitination is reversible (10). Following proteolysis of the
substrate, ubiquitin is removed from the resulting protein fragments
and reused. Moreover, some proteins appear to undergo ubiquitination
without being degraded or targeted to the proteasome. For instance, the
I Whether or not the protein substrate is degraded, disassembly of
polyubiquitin requires ubiquitin-C-terminal hydrolases and ubiquitin-specific processing proteases (UBPs; also called
isopeptidases and deubiquitinating enzymes) that cleave the amide bond
between ubiquitin and the substrate protein (10, 14, 15). Of the 17 deubiquitinating enzymes in yeast, 16 are members of the UBP class. The
UBP family is extremely divergent, in yeast ranging from 54 to 146 kDa;
however, all members contain a signature sequence that includes
conserved Cys and His residues needed for catalytic activity (16,
17).
The cellular function of most UBPs is unknown (14). Systematic
disruption of the 16 UBP genes in yeast revealed only
minimal phenotypic abnormalities, and none proved essential (18). Where a ubp phenotype has been identified, there appears to be
little functional overlap among family members (18-23). Perhaps the
best characterized member is Doa4 (Ubp4) (24). Doa4 is associated with
the proteasome, where it removes ubiquitin from substrate intermediates
during the course of proteolysis (19). Cells lacking DOA4
accumulate small polyubiquitinated peptide fragments, and the
consequent depletion of free ubiquitin leads to stabilization of other
substrates (19, 21, 25, 26). Another well characterized family member
is Ubp14 (mammalian IsoT is similar), which appears to act downstream
of Doa4 to disassemble free (unanchored) polyubiquitin chains (23).
The large number of UBPs suggests that they may function in specific
signaling or developmental pathways. Here, we demonstrate functional
regulation of the G protein and MAP kinase signaling cascade by Ubp3 in
yeast. These experiments reveal a novel mechanism of feedback
regulation through pheromone-dependent ubiquitination of
the MAP kinase kinase Ste7.
Strains and Plasmids--
Standard methods for the growth,
maintenance, and transformation of yeast and bacteria and for the
manipulation of DNA were used throughout (27). The yeast S. cerevisiae strains used in this study are BY4741 (MATa
leu2
Expression plasmids used in this study that have been described
previously are pRS316-GAL-STE4 (29) and YCp50-STE11-4 (30) (from
George Sprague, University of Oregon). Overexpression of STE12 was achieved by PCR amplification and subcloning into
the pYES2.1/V5-His-TOPO (2 µm, URA3, GAL1
promoter, CYC1 terminator) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). PCR
primer was 5'-CCA GAA TGA AAG TCC AAA TAA CC-3', 5'-TCA GGT TGC ATC TGG
AAG G-3' (for STE12).
Growth, Transcription, Phosphorylation, Degradation, and
Ubiquitination Bioassays--
The pheromone-dependent
growth inhibition (halo) and reporter-transcription assays were
conducted as described previously (31). Phosphorylation of Ste4 and
Ste7 and ubiquitination of Ste7 were monitored by immunoblotting of
whole cell extracts. To monitor the loss of Ste7 over time, midlog cell
cultures were treated with 2.5 µM
For some experiments, ubiquitinated Ste7 was enriched by
immunoprecipitation prior to immunoblotting. Cells were grown to midlog
phase and either treated with 2.5 µM It is well established that the pheromone receptors are regulated
by ubiquitination. Upon pheromone binding, Ste2 and Ste3 are rapidly
phosphorylated, ubiquitinated, endocytosed, and degraded in the vacuole
(3-5). Our goal here was to determine if postreceptor signaling events
are similarly regulated by ubiquitination. Our initial approach was to
examine the ubiquitination and signaling properties of strains lacking
each of the known deubiquitinating enzymes. By removing UBP
activity from cells, we anticipated that short-lived changes in protein
ubiquitination might be detected. This is analogous to using specific
phosphatase inhibitors to preserve transient increases in protein phosphorylation.
We initially investigated whether there are any global changes in
ubiquitination following stimulation with pheromone. Extracts were
prepared from wild type cells and from 15 different ubp
deletion mutants, either untreated or treated for 1 h with 2.5 µM We then examined whether UBP3 can modulate the pheromone
response pathway. For these experiments, we compared signaling in wild
type and each of the ubp
Pheromone-dependent Ubiquitination of the
Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase Kinase Ste7*
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
) that acts specifically in the pheromone response
pathway. Upon pheromone stimulation, ubp3
mutants
accumulate unconjugated polyubiquitin chains as well as
polyubiquitinated forms of the mitogen-activated protein kinase
kinase Ste7. The ubp3
mutants exhibit a potentiated response to pheromone, as measured by in vivo MAP kinase
activity, transcriptional induction, and cell cycle arrest. Signaling
is likewise enhanced upon direct activation of Ste4 (G protein
subunit) and Ste11 (Ste7 kinase) but not the downstream transcription factor Ste12. These findings reveal a mechanism by which
pheromone-triggered ubiquitination of Ste7 can modulate the pheromone
response in vivo.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
subunit
(Gpa1) binds to GTP and dissociates from the G protein 
subunits
(Ste4/Ste18). The G
dimer can then propagate the mating signal
through activation of effector proteins, including a protein kinase
(Ste20), a kinase scaffolding protein (Ste5), and the Cdc42 GDP-GTP
exchange factor (Cdc24). These effectors go on to activate a
mitogen-activated protein
(MAP)1 kinase cascade
composed of Ste11 (MAPK kinase kinase), which phosphorylates and
activates a dual specificity kinase Ste7 (MAPK kinase), which in turn
phosphorylates and activates Fus3 (MAPK). Known downstream targets of
Fus3 in the mating pathway include Ste12, a transcription factor, and
Far1, a component of the cell cycle machinery. Phosphorylation of Ste12
and Far1 leads to enhanced transcription of pheromone-inducible genes
and arrest of the cell division cycle in the late G1 phase
(1).
, and dephosphorylation of target proteins (1). Further
desensitization is achieved through feedback regulatory mechanisms,
including phosphorylation, internalization, and degradation of cell
surface receptors (3-5). Another desensitization mechanism involves
the expression, phosphorylation, and stabilization of the
GTPase-accelerating protein Sst2 (6). These processes allow resumption
of cell division after pheromone arrest, whether or not mating is successful.
B
protein kinase is regulated through a cycle of
stimulus-dependent ubiquitination and deubiquitination (11). The immunoglobulin E receptor is ubiquitinated upon antigen binding but rapidly deubiquitinated upon antigen disengagement (12). In
yeast, the ubiquitinated form of the transcription factor Met4 can
associate with target promoters but fails to form functional
transcription complexes, indicating that ubiquitination can directly
regulate Met4 activity (13).
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
met15
ura3
),
BY4741-derived mutants lacking STE4, STE7, UBP1,
UBP2, UBP3, DOA4 (UBP4,
SSV7, NPI2, ASI7), UBP5,
UBP6, UBP7, UBP8, UBP9,
UBP11, UBP12, UBP13, UBP14,
UBP15, and UBP16 (LPF12) (Research
Genetics, Huntsville, AL), MHY753 (MATa
his3-
200 leu2
1 ura3-52
lys2-801 trp1
63 ade2-101), MHY754
(MHY753, cim3-1), and MHY755 (MHY753, cim5-1) (28).
-factor for 30 min,
followed by cycloheximide (10 µg/ml in 0.1% ethanol, final
concentrations) for up to 90 min. Growth was stopped by the addition of
10 mM NaN3 and transfer to an ice bath. Cells
were washed and resuspended directly in boiling SDS-PAGE sample buffer
(62.5 mM Tris-HCl, pH 6.8, 10% glycerol, 2% SDS, 1%
2-mercaptoethanol, 0.0005% bromphenol blue) for 10 min, subjected to
glass bead homogenization, and clarified by microcentrifugation.
Following SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and transfer to
nitrocellulose, the membrane was probed with antibodies to Ste4 at
1:2,000 (from Duane Jenness, University of Massachusetts), Pgk1 at
1:75,000 (from Jeremy Thorner, University of California, Berkeley, CA),
ubiquitin at 1:100 (Sigma), or Ste7 at 1:200 (yN-18) (Santa Cruz
Biotechnology, Inc.). Immunoreactive species were visualized by
enhanced chemiluminescence detection (Pierce) of horseradish
peroxidase-conjugated anti-rabbit IgG (Bio-Rad) or anti-goat IgG (Santa
Cruz Biotechnology). Specificity of detection was established using
ste4
and ste7
cell extracts as negative controls.
factor or with
water for 1 h. Approximately 100 ml of cells at
A600 = 1 were harvested and lysed at 4 °C in
600 µl of lysis buffer (25 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 200 mM NaCl, 15 mM EGTA, 15 mM
MgCl2, 0.1% Triton X-100, 10% glycerol, 1 mM
NaN3, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 10 mM
N-ethylmaleimide, 5 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl
fluoride, 1 µg/ml pepstatin, and 1 µg/ml leupeptin) with the use of
acid-washed glass beads and 30-s pulses of vortexing, repeated six
times. Samples were centrifuged for 10 min at 6,500 × g, and the resulting supernatant was removed and diluted to
a final volume of 1 ml with wash buffer (the same as lysis buffer
except without glycerol). Lysates were incubated with 40 µl of yN-18
goat anti-Ste7 antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) for 90 min on ice.
After clarification with 10-min high speed microcentrifugation at
4 °C, protein-antibody complexes were precipitated for 1 h at
4 °C with 40 µl of 50% slurry of protein G-Sepharose (Amersham
Biosciences, Inc.) equilibrated in wash buffer. Immunoprecipitates were
collected by centrifugation at 2,000 × g for 30 s, and pellets were washed with wash buffer before final resuspension
in 50 µl of 2× SDS-PAGE sample buffer.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-factor. Whole cell extracts were subjected to
SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting, and probed with anti-ubiquitin antibodies.
All of the ubp mutants accumulated polyubiquitin chains of
varying length and appeared depleted of free ubiquitin and smaller
ubiquitin chains (four or fewer) as previously described for
doa4 and ubp14 (18, 21, 23). Following pheromone
stimulation, the ubp3
mutant accumulated additional
polyubiquitin chains. There was no effect of pheromone in wild type
cells or in any of the other ubp mutants tested (Fig. 1 and data not shown).

View larger version (49K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Pheromome-induced accumulation of
polyubiquitinated species in ubp3
mutants. Whole cell extracts were prepared from wild type,
ubp3
, ubp4/doa4
, and
ubp14
mutant strains, either untreated (
) or treated
with
-factor (+) for 1 h. Samples were resolved by 15%
SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting and were probed using anti-ubiquitin
polyclonal antiserum. The identities of the unconjugated ubiquitin
(Ub1), unconjugated polyubiquitin (Ub2,
Ub3, and Ub4), and conjugated polyubiquitin
(Ub-conjugate) species are indicated, as described
previously (18, 21, 23).
mutants using three standard
bioassays. First, we measured pheromone-dependent growth
arrest (31). In this assay, cells are spread onto solid medium and
exposed to
-factor pheromone spotted onto sterile filter disks. The
resulting zone of growth inhibition provides an indication of initial
pheromone sensitivity (halo size) and long term desensitization (halo
turbidity). Of the 15 ubp mutants tested, only
ubp3
exhibited a larger than normal zone of growth
inhibition, indicating a ~5-fold enhancement in pheromone sensitivity
(Fig. 2A and data not shown).
Second, we measured short term pheromone signaling using a reporter
transcription assay, consisting of the pheromone-inducible
FUS1 promoter fused to the lacZ
(
-galactosidase) reporter (31). Compared with wild type cells, the
ubp3
mutant exhibited a 1.7-fold increase in
-galactosidase activity at the maximum effective dose and an elevated basal activity (i.e. no pheromone added) but no
change in the EC50 (Fig. 2B). No difference was
observed for the doa4
or ubp14
mutants.
Finally, we measured pheromone-dependent MAP kinase
activity using two endogenous substrates, the G protein
subunit
(Ste4) and the MAP kinase kinase (Ste7). Feedback phosphorylation by
the MAP kinases Fus3 (or Kss1, which has partially overlapping function) significantly reduces the electrophoretic mobility of each
substrate and is conveniently monitored by immunoblotting with
anti-Ste7 and anti-Ste4 antibodies (32, 33). In either case, the
ubp3
mutation resulted in a substantial increase in basal
and pheromone-stimulated phosphorylation (Fig. 2C). The extent of basal and pheromone-dependent phosphorylation was
greater for Ste7 than Ste4. No difference was observed for either the doa4
or ubp14
mutants.

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
The ubp3
mutants exhibit a potentiated response to pheromone.
A, pheromone-dependent growth arrest response of
wild type and ubp3
mutants was measured by exposing cells
to
-factor (clockwise from bottom
right: 1, 5, 15, and 45 µg) for 48 h and then
photographed. To quantitate the difference in sensitivity, halo size
was plotted as a function of pheromone amount over the linear range of
response. B, pheromone-dependent transcriptional
induction of wild type and ubp3
mutant was measured
following transformation with a plasmid containing the
pheromone-responsive FUS1 promoter-lacZ reporter.
Cells were then treated with the indicated concentrations of
-factor, and the resulting
-galactosidase activity was measured
fluorimetrically. The data shown are representative of three
independent experiments performed in triplicate. Absolute values at 0 and 100 µM
-factor are 162 ± 25 and 32,811 ± 1,253 (wild type) and 2,634 ± 338 and 62,604 ± 2,449 (ubp3
). Error bars, S.E.
C, pheromone-dependent in vivo MAP
kinase activity was measured by comparing phosphoryl- ated (upper bands) and
nonphosphorylated (lower bands) forms of two
endogenous substrates Ste4 (top panel) and Ste7
(bottom panel). Whole cell extracts were prepared
from wild type, ubp3
, ubp4/doa4
,
ubp14
, ste4
(control,
top panel), and ste7
(control, bottom panel) mutants,
resolved by 7.5% SDS-PAGE, and probed with anti-Ste4 (top)
or anti-Ste7 antiserum (bottom) as well as anti-Pgk1 to
confirm equal loading of each lane.
The data presented in Fig. 2 reveal that MAP kinase activity is
elevated in UBP3-deficient cells. This is likely to be
responsible for the increase in transcriptional activation and growth
arrest exhibited in these mutants. The same immunoblots also revealed a
very high molecular weight form of Ste7 in ubp3
cells
treated with pheromone, a phenomenon commonly observed with proteins
that have undergone polyubiquitination. Accumulation of the presumed ubiquitinated form of Ste7 is dose-dependent (Fig.
3A). Ubiquitinated Ste7 is
barely visible in the wild type cells even at the highest concentrations of
-factor sufficient to trigger growth arrest. Thus,
accumulation of ubiquitinated Ste7 is dependent on pheromone and is not
simply a result of cell division arrest.
|
To confirm that Ste7 is ubiquitinated, the protein was immunoprecipitated with anti-Ste7 antibodies and analyzed by immunoblotting with anti-ubiquitin antibodies. This enrichment scheme again yielded a high molecular weight band recognized by the ubiquitin antibodies (Fig. 3B). To confirm these results, we monitored expression of Ste7 in cim3-1 and cim5-1 mutant strains, which are deficient in 26 S proteasome activity (28). Upon pheromone stimulation, expression of ubiquitinated and nonubiquitinated Ste7 increased in both mutants and in particular the cim3-1 strain (Fig. 3C). Taken together, these results demonstrate that pheromone stimulation promotes the ubiquitination of Ste7.
Ubiquitination typically leads to protein degradation. However, the
ubp3
mutant accumulates polyubiquitinated forms of Ste7, suggesting that Ste7 degradation is slowed in these cells. To test this
possibility, we monitored Ste7 degradation in ubp3
mutant
and wild type cells treated with pheromone. Cells in midlog phase were
treated with cycloheximide to block new protein synthesis and analyzed
by immunoblotting with Ste7 antibodies. In both strains, the overall
level of the native (nonubiquitinated) Ste7 dropped rapidly when
translation was blocked, but the ubp3
mutation extended the half-life of the native Ste7 by ~90% (Fig. 3D). These
results suggest that Ste7 is degraded rapidly and that degradation is accelerated by Ubp3 expression.
The data above indicate that Ubp3 can modulate Ste7 ubiquitination,
degradation, and pheromone responsiveness. We therefore examined
whether the functional effects of the ubp3
mutation are
due to changes in Ste7 or perhaps due to some other
unidentified target. To this end, we compared signaling in wild type
and in ubp3
cells, activated at points upstream
(STE4, STE11) and downstream (STE12)
of Ste7. Overexpression of STE4 leads to an increase in cellular G
beyond that which can bind to G
and as a
consequence leads to constitutive signaling (34-36). The
STE11-4 mutant encodes a constitutively active form of the
kinase (30). Overexpression of STE12 leads to elevated
transcription of pheromone-induced genes (37). As shown in Fig.
4, the ubp3
mutant can
potentiate signaling by STE4 (Fig. 4A) and
STE11-4 (Fig. 4B) over the full range of
-factor concentrations. In contrast, the ubp3
mutant does not alter the response seen with STE12 overexpression
at high doses of pheromone (Fig. 4C) and actually diminishes
transcription at lower doses. We surmised that the diminished basal
transcription could be due to the accumulation of Fus3, since in the
absence of a sustained signal Fus3 can block Ste12 activity. Indeed,
either deletion or overexpression of FUS3 leads to
diminished signaling. Only upon pheromone treatment does Ste7
phosphorylate and activate Fus3, leading to disinhibition (through
dissociation) and activation (through phosphorylation) of Ste12
(38-40). In agreement with this model, Fus3 expression is elevated in
the ubp3
mutant as compared with wild type, particularly
in the absence of pheromone (Fig. 5).
Taken together, these data suggest that Ubp3 modulates pheromone signaling through deubiquitination and destabilization of Ste7.
|
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Many biological processes are regulated through the modification of existing proteins. Modification by ubiquitination typically leads to destruction of the substrate protein. With regard to cell signaling, most work has focused on ubiquitination of tyrosine kinase receptors, transcription factors, and components of the cell cycle machinery. More recently, attention has turned to ubiquitination of G protein-coupled receptors and their downstream targets (7, 41-46). There has also been growing interest in mechanisms of protein deubiquitination (10). Our results indicate that ubiquitination of Ste7 is stimulated by pheromone and that deubiquitination of Ste7 specifically requires the Ubp3 enzyme. In the absence of Ubp3 activity, Ste7 expression is elevated, and this leads to elevated MAP kinase activity, transcription, and growth arrest.
Ubp3 is one of three UBPs originally isolated based on their ability to
cleave a ubiquitin-
-galactosidase fusion test protein (47). A
ubp3
mutant has a slight growth defect but no detectable change in total cellular ubiquitin-specific processing protease activity. Ubp3 was later shown to copurify with Sir4 (48), a factor
necessary for transcriptional silencing (49). Deletion of
UBP3 results in a marked increase in silencing at telomeres and the HML mating type locus, suggesting that Ubp3 is an inhibitor of
silencing (48). The mechanism of Ubp3 function in this context is not
known. Although HML silencing is needed to preserve mating type and
mating efficiency, the ubp3
mutant does not confer a sterile phenotype (48). Indeed, our findings indicate that
ubp3
actually enhances pheromone-dependent
transcription and growth arrest and does so through action upstream of
the transcription factor Ste12.
Perhaps the best characterized UBP is Doa4. Doa4 is physically
associated with the proteasome (19, 25) and appears necessary for
deubiquitination of polyubiquitin-substrate intermediates prior to
their degradation. Doa4 might also function to rescue inappropriately
ubiquitinated proteins from degradation. Mutants of doa4
have reduced cellular levels of free ubiquitin but elevated levels of
ubiquitinated peptides, evidently the remnants of
proteins degraded by the proteasome (21). Even when ubiquitin is
restored to normal or strongly elevated levels, however, degradation of a test substrate (ubiquitin-
-galactosidase fusion) is diminished. These findings indicate that the doa4
mutant is also
defective for a postubiquitination step in the ubiquitin-proteasome
pathway (19).
Another well characterized UBP is Ubp14, the yeast counterpart of
mammalian isopeptidase T (22, 23) and Drosophila UbpA (22).
This enzyme acts primarily on unanchored ubiquitin chains generated as
intermediates in substrate degradation (15). A ubp14
mutant exhibits a defect in ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis and an accumulation of unanchored polyubiquitin chains (23); these
chains are thought to inhibit proteolysis by competing with polyubiquitinated substrates on the 26 S proteasome (50, 51).
Thus, Doa4 appears to remove ubiquitin chains from proteins already
committed to degradation by the proteasome (25), while Ubp14 acts to
disassemble free ubiquitin chains (23). Notably, neither mutant affects
the pheromone response. Moreover, the defects that are associated with
doa4
and ubp14
appear not to be rescued by
other UBP isoforms, even when present on high copy plasmids. Thus, it seems likely that each UBP shares a common catalytic activity
but can have highly specific cell regulatory functions in
vivo, perhaps acting on just a subset of ubiquitinated substrates. Individual UBPs could have specific roles in the reversal of regulatory ubiquitination (11), editing of inappropriately ubiquitinated proteins
and regeneration of active ubiquitin from adducts with small cellular
nucleophiles (such as glutathione) that may be produced by side
reactions. Another possibility is that different UBPs recruit only
selected substrates to the proteasome (Fig. 6). This model would explain how Ste7 can
be ubiquitinated but not degraded in ubp3
cells.
|
A modest increase in Ste7 expression could well account for the
enhanced signaling observed in the ubp3
mutant. Ste7
appears to be the limiting component of the MAP kinase cascade.
Estimates from quantitative immunoblotting studies revealed the number
of Ste7 molecules (~2,000/cell) to be considerably lower than either Fus3 or Kss1 (~5,000 each) (52). Thus, a small change in Ste7 expression could easily account for the increased activity of Fus3/Kss1
observed in vivo. Indeed, it was shown previously that modest overexpression of STE7 (using a CYC1
promoter and a low copy CEN plasmid) yielded a 1.4-fold
increase in pheromone-stimulated gene transcription (32). An intriguing
question is whether the ubiquitinated Ste7 species retains kinase
activity and how this activity might compare with that of the
nonubiquitinated species. Ste7 is also required for invasive growth
(1), suggesting that Ubp3 might regulate that signaling pathway as
well. However, examination of this possibility could be challenging
because of the lack of satisfactory quantitative assays of invasive
growth similar to those used for the mating pathway.
A more general question is whether UBP control of MAP kinase activity
could lead to altered cell differentiation or transformation. Specific
deubiquitinating enzymes have been shown to regulate cellular growth in
a number of other organisms. In Dictyostelium, UbpA-deficient cells grow and respond normally to starvation growth conditions but fail to continue development to the stage where pulses
of cAMP trigger aggregation and fruiting body formation (22). Another
isoform, UbpB, was identified in a two-hybrid screen using
MEKK
(MAPKKK) as bait (53). Cells deficient in either MEKK
or
UBPB develop precociously and exhibit abnormal cell type
patterning. Deletion of UBPB alone was shown to diminish MEKK
expression and was stated to increase the abundance of ubiquitinated MEKK
(53). In Drosophila, the UBP faf
determines cell growth and cell differentiation during eye development
(54, 55). Antagonizing ubiquitination by the neuronal overexpression of faf or yeast UBP2 leads to synaptic overgrowth
and defects in neurotransmitter release. This phenotype is very similar
to the loss-of-function phenotype of hiw, a putative
synaptic E3 ubiquitin ligase (56). In mammals, the protooncogene
tre-2 encodes a deubiquitinating enzyme, and the
tre-2 oncoprotein exhibits transforming activity in 3T3
fibroblasts (25, 57). Likewise, the deubiquitinating enzyme encoded by
unp is tumorigenic in transgenic mice (58, 59). It is not
known if any of these transforming mutations alter MAPKK
ubiquitination or activity.
In summary, we have demonstrated that Ste7 is regulated by
ubiquitination and that Ste7 ubiquitination is regulated by pheromone and Ubp3. Our results imply that other Ubp isoforms will have highly
selective cell-regulatory functions and that MAP kinase kinases in
other organisms may be similarly regulated by growth factor stimulation.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Jeremy Thorner and Duane Jenness for generously providing antibodies, and we thank Beverly Errede for advice and comments.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants GM55316 and GM59167 (to H. G. D.).The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
An Established Investigator of the American Heart
Association. To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of
Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, 405 Mary Ellen Jones Bldg., Campus Box 7260, Chapel Hill, NC
27599-2852. Tel.: 919-843-6894; Fax: 919-966-2852; E-mail:
henrik_dohlman@ med.unc.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, February 25, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M111733200
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: MAP, mitogen-activated protein; UBP, ubiquitin-specific processing protease(s); MAPK, MAP kinase; E3, ubiquitin-protein isopeptide ligase.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Dohlman, H. G.,
and Thorner, J. W.
(2001)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
70,
703-754[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 2. |
Krupnick, J. G.,
and Benovic, J. L.
(1998)
Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol.
38,
289-319[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 3. |
Hicke, L.,
and Riezman, H.
(1996)
Cell
84,
277-287[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 4. |
Hicke, L.,
Zanolari, B.,
and Riezman, H.
(1998)
J. Cell Biol.
141,
349-358 |
| 5. |
Roth, A. F.,
Sullivan, D. M.,
and Davis, N. G.
(1998)
J. Cell Biol.
142,
949-961 |
| 6. |
Garrison, T. R.,
Zhang, Y.,
Pausch, M.,
Apanovitch, D.,
Aebersold, R.,
and Dohlman, H. G.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
36387-36391 |
| 7. |
Madura, K.,
and Varshavsky, A.
(1994)
Science
265,
1454-1458 |
| 8. |
Pickart, C. M.
(2001)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
70,
503-533[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 9. |
Voges, D.,
Zwickl, P.,
and Baumeister, W.
(1999)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
68,
1015-1068[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 10. |
Wilkinson, K. D.
(2000)
Semin. Cell Dev. Biol.
11,
141-148[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 11. |
Chen, Z. J.,
Parent, L.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1996)
Cell
84,
853-862[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 12. |
Paolini, R.,
and Kinet, J. P.
(1993)
EMBO J.
12,
779-786[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 13. |
Kaiser, P.,
Flick, K.,
Wittenberg, C.,
and Reed, S. I.
(2000)
Cell
102,
303-314[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 14. |
Hochstrasser, M.
(1996)
Annu. Rev. Genet.
30,
405-439[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 15. |
Wilkinson, K. D.,
Tashayev, V. L.,
O'Connor, L. B.,
Larsen, C. N.,
Kasperek, E.,
and Pickart, C. M.
(1995)
Biochemistry
34,
14535-14546[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 16. |
Johnston, S. C.,
Larsen, C. N.,
Cook, W. J.,
Wilkinson, K. D.,
and Hill, C. P.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
3787-3796[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. |
Larsen, C. N.,
Price, J. S.,
and Wilkinson, K. D.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
6735-6744[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 18. |
Amerik, A. Y., Li, S. J.,
and Hochstrasser, M.
(2000)
Biol. Chem.
381,
981-992[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 19. |
Papa, F. R.,
Amerik, A. Y.,
and Hochstrasser, M.
(1999)
Mol. Biol. Cell
10,
741-756 |
| 20. |
Zhu, Y.,
Carroll, M.,
Papa, F. R.,
Hochstrasser, M.,
and D'Andrea, A. D.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
3275-3279 |
| 21. |
Swaminathan, S.,
Amerik, A. Y.,
and Hochstrasser, M.
(1999)
Mol. Biol. Cell
10,
2583-2594 |
| 22. |
Lindsey, D. F.,
Amerik, A.,
Deery, W. J.,
Bishop, J. D.,
Hochstrasser, M.,
and Gomer, R. H.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
29178-29187 |
| 23. |
Amerik, A.,
Swaminathan, S.,
Krantz, B. A.,
Wilkinson, K. D.,
and Hochstrasser, M.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
4826-4838[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 24. |
Hochstrasser, M.,
and Varshavsky, A.
(1990)
Cell
61,
697-708[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 25. |
Papa, F. R.,
and Hochstrasser, M.
(1993)
Nature
366,
313-319[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 26. |
Springael, J. Y.,
Galan, J. M.,
Haguenauer-Tsapis, R.,
and Andre, B.
(1999)
J. Cell Sci.
112,
1375-1383[Abstract] |
| 27. | Ausubel, F. M., Brent, R., Kingston, R. E., Moore, D. D., Seidman, J. G., Smith, J. A., and Struhl, K. (eds) (1987) Current Protocols in Molecular Biology , John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York |
| 28. |
Ghislain, M.,
Udvardy, A.,
and Mann, C.
(1993)
Nature
366,
358-362[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 29. |
Dohlman, H. G.,
Apaniesk, D.,
Chen, Y.,
Song, J.,
and Nusskern, D.
(1995)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15,
3635-3643[Abstract] |
| 30. |
Stevenson, B. J.,
Rhodes, N.,
Errede, B.,
and Sprague, G. F., Jr.
(1992)
Genes Dev.
6,
1293-1304 |
| 31. |
Hoffman, G.,
Garrison, T. R.,
and Dohlman, H. G.
(2002)
Methods Enzymol.
344,
617-631[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 32. |
Zhou, Z.,
Gartner, A.,
Cade, R.,
Ammerer, G.,
and Errede, B.
(1993)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13,
2069-2080 |
| 33. |
Cole, G. M.,
and Reed, S. I.
(1991)
Cell
64,
703-716[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 34. |
Nomoto, S.,
Nakayama, N.,
Arai, K.,
and Matsumoto, K.
(1990)
EMBO J.
9,
691-696[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 35. |
Cole, G. M.,
Stone, D. E.,
and Reed, S. I.
(1990)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
10,
510-517 |
| 36. |
Whiteway, M.,
Hougan, L.,
and Thomas, D. Y.
(1990)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
10,
217-222 |
| 37. |
Dolan, J. W.,
and Fields, S.
(1990)
Genes Dev.
4,
492-502 |
| 38. |
Farley, F. W.,
Satterberg, B.,
Goldsmith, E. J.,
and Elion, E. A.
(1999)
Genetics
151,
1425-1444 |
| 39. |
Bardwell, L.,
Cook, J. G.,
Voora, D.,
Baggott, D. M.,
Martinez, A. R.,
and Thorner, J.
(1998)
Genes Dev.
12,
2887-2898 |
| 40. |
Cook, J. G.,
Bardwell, L.,
and Thorner, J.
(1997)
Nature
390,
85-88[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 41. |
Hicke, L.
(2001)
Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol.
2,
195-201[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 42. |
Shenoy, S. K.,
McDonald, P. H.,
Kohout, T. A.,
and Lefkowitz, R. J.
(2001)
Science
294,
1307-1313 |
| 43. |
Marchese, A.,
and Benovic, J. L.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
45509-45512 |
| 44. |
Obin, M. S.,
Jahngen-Hodge, J.,
Nowell, T.,
and Taylor, A.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
14473-14484 |
| 45. |
Kim, E.,
Arnould, T.,
Sellin, L.,
Benzing, T.,
Comella, N.,
Kocher, O.,
Tsiokas, L.,
Sukhatme, V. P.,
and Walz, G.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
6371-6376 |
| 46. |
Penela, P.,
Ruiz-Gomez, A.,
Castano, J. G.,
and Mayor, F., Jr.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
35238-35244 |
| 47. |
Baker, R. T.,
Tobias, J. W.,
and Varshavsky, A.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
23364-23375 |
| 48. |
Moazed, D.,
and Johnson, D.
(1996)
Cell
86,
667-677[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 49. |
Rine, J.,
and Herskowitz, I.
(1987)
Genetics
116,
9-22 |
| 50. |
Hadari, T.,
Warms, J. V.,
Rose, I. A.,
and Hershko, A.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
719-727 |
| 51. |
Beal, R.,
Deveraux, Q.,
Xia, G.,
Rechsteiner, M.,
and Pickart, C.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
861-866 |
| 52. |
Bardwell, L.,
Cook, J. G.,
Chang, E. C.,
Cairns, B. R.,
and Thorner, J.
(1996)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16,
3637-3650[Abstract] |
| 53. |
Chung, C. Y.,
Reddy, T. B.,
Zhou, K.,
and Firtel, R. A.
(1998)
Genes Dev.
12,
3564-3578 |
| 54. |
Huang, Y.,
Baker, R. T.,
and Fischer-Vize, J. A.
(1995)
Science
270,
1828-1831 |
| 55. |
Huang, Y.,
and Fischer-Vize, J. A.
(1996)
Development
122,
3207-3216[Abstract] |
| 56. |
DiAntonio, A.,
Haghighi, A. P.,
Portman, S. L.,
Lee, J. D.,
Amaranto, A. M.,
and Goodman, C. S.
(2001)
Nature
412,
449-452[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 57. |
Nakamura, T.,
Hillova, J.,
Mariage-Samson, R.,
Onno, M.,
Huebner, K.,
Cannizzaro, L. A.,
Boghosian-Sell, L.,
Croce, C. M.,
and Hill, M.
(1992)
Oncogene
7,
733-741[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 58. |
Gupta, K.,
Copeland, N. G.,
Gilbert, D. J.,
Jenkins, N. A.,
and Gray, D. A.
(1993)
Oncogene
8,
2307-2310[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 59. |
Gupta, K.,
Chevrette, M.,
and Gray, D. A.
(1994)
Oncogene
9,
1729-1731[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 60. |
Verma, R.,
Chen, S.,
Feldman, R.,
Schieltz, D.,
Yates, J.,
Dohmen, J.,
and Deshaies, R. J.
(2000)
Mol. Biol. Cell
11,
3425-3439 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
Y. Wang, M. Zhu, M. Ayalew, and J. A. Ruff Down-regulation of Pkc1-mediated Signaling by the Deubiquitinating Enzyme Ubp3 J. Biol. Chem., January 25, 2008; 283(4): 1954 - 1961. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. K. Shenoy Seven-Transmembrane Receptors and Ubiquitination Circ. Res., April 27, 2007; 100(8): 1142 - 1154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Wang and H. G. Dohlman Regulation of G Protein and Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Signaling by Ubiquitination: Insights From Model Organisms Circ. Res., December 8, 2006; 99(12): 1305 - 1314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. K. Esch, Y. Wang, and B. Errede Pheromone-Induced Degradation of Ste12 Contributes to Signal Attenuation and the Specificity of Developmental Fate Eukaryot. Cell, December 1, 2006; 5(12): 2147 - 2160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Shao, W. Zheng, W. Qiu, Q. Ouyang, and C. Tang Dynamic Studies of Scaffold-Dependent Mating Pathway in Yeast Biophys. J., December 1, 2006; 91(11): 3986 - 4001. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Mata and J. Bahler Global roles of Ste11p, cell type, and pheromone in the control of gene expression during early sexual differentiation in fission yeast PNAS, October 17, 2006; 103(42): 15517 - 15522. [Ab |