Search

Mechanotransduction is a process whereby mechanical stimuli outside the cell are sensed by components of the plasma membrane and transmitted as signals through the cytoplasm that terminate in the nucleus. The nucleus responds to these signals by altering gene expression. During mechanotransduction, complex networks of proteins are responsible for cross talk between the cytoplasm and the nucleus. These proteins include cell membrane receptors, cytoplasmic filaments, LINC complex members that bridge the nucleus and cytoplasm, and nuclear envelope proteins that connect to the chromatin. Mechanotransduction also plays a critical role in development. Furthermore, it is possible that disrupted mechanotransduction leads to changes in gene expression that underlie the pathogenic mechanisms of disease., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The blistering skin disorder epidermolysis bullosa simplex (EBS) results from dominant mutations in keratin 5 (K5) or keratin 14 (K14) genes, encoding the intermediate filament (IF) network of basal epidermal keratinocytes. The mechanisms governing keratin network formation and collapse due to EBS mutations remain incompletely understood. Drosophila lacks cytoplasmic IFs, providing a 'null' environment to examine the formation of keratin networks and determine mechanisms by which mutant keratins cause pathology. Here, we report that ubiquitous co-expression of transgenes encoding wild-type human K14 and K5 resulted in the formation of extensive keratin networks in Drosophila epithelial and non-epithelial tissues, causing no overt phenotype. Similar to mammalian cells, treatment of transgenic fly tissues with phosphatase inhibitors caused keratin network collapse, validating Drosophila as a genetic model system to investigate keratin dynamics. Co-expression of K5 and a K14(R125C) mutant that causes the most severe form of EBS resulted in widespread formation of EBS-like cytoplasmic keratin aggregates in epithelial and non-epithelial fly tissues. Expression of K14(R125C)/K5 caused semi-lethality; adult survivors developed wing blisters and were flightless due to a lack of intercellular adhesion during wing heart development. This Drosophila model of EBS is valuable for the identification of pathways altered by mutant keratins and for the development of EBS therapies.

Adhesion G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR), with their very large and complex N termini, are thought to participate in cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions and appear to be highly relevant in several developmental processes. Their intracellular signaling is still poorly understood. Here we demonstrate that GPR133, a member of the adhesion GPCR subfamily, activates the G(s) protein/adenylyl cyclase pathway. The presence of the N terminus and the cleavage at the GPCR proteolysis site are not required for G protein signaling. G(s) protein coupling was verified by Gα(s) knockdown with siRNA, overexpression of Gα(s), co-expression of the chimeric Gq(s4) protein that routes GPR133 activity to the phospholipase C/inositol phosphate pathway, and missense mutation within the transmembrane domain that abolished receptor activity without changing cell surface expression. It is likely that not only GPR133 but also other adhesion GPCR signal via classical receptor/G protein-interaction.

The family of trace amine-associated receptors (TAAR) comprises 9 mammalian TAAR subtypes, with intact gene and pseudogene numbers differing considerably even between closely related species. To date the best characterized subtype is TAAR1, which activates the G(s) protein/adenylyl cyclase pathway upon stimulation by trace amines and psychoactive substances like MDMA or LSD. Recently, chemosensory function involving recognition of volatile amines was proposed for murine TAAR3, TAAR4 and TAAR5. Humans can smell volatile amines despite carrying open reading frame (ORF) disruptions in TAAR3 and TAAR4. Therefore, we set out to study the functional and structural evolution of these genes with a special focus on primates. Functional analyses showed that ligands activating the murine TAAR3, TAAR4 and TAAR5 do not activate intact primate and mammalian orthologs, although they evolve under purifying selection and hence must be functional. We also find little evidence for positive selection that could explain the functional differences between mouse and other mammals. Our findings rather suggest that the previously identified volatile amine TAAR3-5 agonists reflect the high agonist promiscuity of TAAR, and that the ligands driving purifying selection of these TAAR in mouse and other mammals still await discovery. More generally, our study points out how analyses in an evolutionary context can help to interpret functional data generated in single species.