The Drosophila neuroblast undergoes repeated asymmetric cell divisions that produce one daughter cell that assumes a neuronal fate and another that remains a neuroblast. During mitosis, the neuroblast polarizes the conserved Par polarity complex to the apical cortex, which is responsible for segregating fate determinants to the basal cell cortex. Polarity is accompanied by orientation of the mitotic spindle through the proteins Pins, Mud, and Dlg to ensure that the cleavage furrow properly segregates the fate determinants. The adaptor protein Inscuteable coordinates these two pathways. In my work, I have addressed how asymmetrically dividing cells are dynamically polarized during the cell cycle and how the resulting polarity is coupled to spindle position. To address how neuroblast polarity is dynamically controlled, I identified the protein Inscuteable as a continuously polarized cue for Par complex localization during mitosis. Inscuteable and Bazooka, a member of the Par complex, interact directly and form a complex that is regulated by the mitotic kinase Aurora A. Regulating this interaction allows for cell-cycle dependent establishment of polarity and for the subsequent loss of polarity after the cell divides. To investigate how Par complex directed polarity is connected to spindle position, I investigated the effect of Inscuteable binding on the spindle orientation ability of the protein Pins. When bound to Inscuteable, Pins' spindle orientation activity becomes repressed. Inscuteable competes with Mud for Pins binding and represses the Gai-Pins-Mud signaling pathway. Function of the parallel Pins-Dlg pathway remains unaffected. This repression behavior may allow differential timing of spindle attachment (through Dlg) and spindle shortening (through Mud) pathways that ensures correct alignment of the mitotic spindle. I was able to model the spindle orientation behavior of Pins using a synthetic protein containing activation sites that have different affinities for the activator. Changing the number and affinities of these activation sites leads to different response profiles that mimic the ultrasensitive behavior of Pins using a non-cooperative mechanism. Together, these regulatory mechanisms cooperate to allow for spatial and temporal control of polarity and for physical connection of polarity to the mitotic spindle. This dissertation includes previously published and unpublished co-authored material.

<p>During development, oriented cell divisions are crucial for correctly organizing and shaping a tissue. Mitotic spindle orientation can be coupled with cell fate decisions to provide cellular diversity through asymmetric cell divisions (ACDs), in which the division of a progenitor cell results in two daughters with different cell fates. Proper tissue morphogenesis relies on the coupling of these two phenomena being highly regulated. The development of the mouse epidermis provides a powerful system in which to study the many levels that regulate ACDs. Within the basal layer of the epidermis, both symmetric and asymmetric cell divisions occur. While symmetric divisions allow for an increase in surface area and progenitor cell number, asymmetric divisions drive the stratification of the epidermis, directly contributing additional cell layers (Lechler and Fuchs 2005; Poulson and Lechler 2010; Williams, Beronja et al. 2011). </p><p>Utilizing genetic lineage tracing to label individual basal cells I show that individual basal cells can undergo both symmetric and asymmetric divisions. Therefore, the balance of symmetric:asymmetric divisions is provided by the sum of individual cells' choices. In addition, I define two control points for determining a cell's mode of division. First is the expression of the mInscuteable gene, which is sufficient to drive ACDs. However, there is robust control of division orientation as excessive ACDs are prevented by a change in the localization of NuMA, an effector of spindle orientation. Finally, I show that p63, a transcriptional regulator of stratification, does not control either of these processes, rather it controls ACD indirectly by promoting cell polarity. </p><p>Given the robust control on NuMA localization to prevent excess ACDs, I sought to determine how targeting of NuMA to the cortex is regulated. First, I determined which regions within the protein were necessary and sufficient for cortical localization. NuMA is a large coiled- coil protein that binds many factors important for ACDs, which include but are not limited to: microtubules, 4.1, and LGN. Interestingly, while the LGN binding domain was necessary, it was not sufficient for proper NuMA localization at the cortex. However, a fragment of NuMA containing both the 4.1 and LGN binding domains was able to localize to the cortex. Additionally, the NuMA-binding domain of 4.1 was able to specifically disrupt NuMA localization at the cortex. These data suggested an important role for a NuMA-4.1 interaction at the cortex. While the 4.1 binding domain was not necessary for the cortical localization of NuMA, it was important for the overall stability of NuMA at the cortex. I hypothesize that 4.1 acts to anchor/stabilize NuMA at the cortex to provide resistance against pulling forces on the mitotic spindle to ensure proper spindle orientation.</p><p>Finally, to determine if post-translational modifications of NuMA could regulate its localization I tested the importance of a conserved Cdk-1 phosphorylation site. Interestingly, a non-phosphorylatable form of NuMA localized predominately to the cortex while the phosphomimetic protein localized strongly to spindle poles. In agreement with these data, use of a CDK-1 inhibitor was able to enhance the cortical localization of NuMA. Unexpectedly, the non-phosphorylatable form of NuMA did not require LGN to localize to the cortex. Additionally, restoration of cortical localization of the phosphomimetic form of NuMA was accomplished by the overexpression of either LGN or 4.1. Thus, phosphorylation of NuMA may alter its overall affinity for the cortex. </p><p>Overall, my studies highlight two important regulatory mechanisms controlling asymmetric cell division in the epidermis. Additionally, I show a novel role for the interaction between NuMA and 4.1 in providing stability at the cortex. This will ultimately provide a framework for analysis of how external cues control the important choice between asymmetric and symmetric cell divisions.</p> / Dissertation

xiii, 48 p. : (col. ill.) A print copy of this title is available through the UO Libraries under the call number: SCIENCE QL537.D76 N57 2007 / Asymmetric cell division (ACD) is a unique mechanism employed during development to achieve cellular diversity from a small number of progenitor cells. Cells undergoing ACD distribute factors for self-renewal at the apical cortex and factors for differentiation at the basal cortex. It is critical for proper development that the mitotic spindle be tightly coupled to this axis of polarization such that both sets of proteins are exclusively segregated into the daughter cells. We use ACD in Drosophila neuroblasts as a model system for understanding the molecular mechanisms that govern spindle-cortical coupling. Neuroblasts polarize Partner of Inscuteable (Pins), Gαi and Mushroom Body Defect (Mud) at the apical cell cortex during mitosis. Gαi and Pins are required for establishing cortical polarity while Mud is essential for spindle-cortical alignment. Gαi and Mud interact through Pins GoLoco domains and tetratricopeptide repeats (TPR) respectively, however it is unclear how Mud activity is integrated with Pins and Gαi to link neuroblast cortical polarity to the mitotic spindle. This dissertation describes how Pins interactions with Gαi and Mud regulate Iwo fundamental aspects of neuroblast ACD: cortical polarity and alignment of the spindle with the resulting polarity axis. I demonstrate that Pins is a dynamic scaffolding protein that undergoes a GoLoco-TPR intramolecular interaction, resulting in a conformation of Pins with low Mud and reduced Gαi binding affinity. However, Pins TPR domains fail to completely repress Gαi binding, as a single GoLoco is unaffected by the intramolecular isomerization. Gαi present at the apical cortex specifies Pins localization through binding this "unregulated" GoLoco. Liberation of Pins intramolecularly coupled state occurs through cooperative binding of Gαi and Mud to the other GoLoco and TPR domains, creating a high-affinity Gαi-Pins-Mud complex. This autoregulatory mechanism spatially confines the Pins-Mud interaction to the apical cortex and facilitates proper apical-spindle orientation. In conclusion, these results suggest Gαi induces multiple Pins states to both properly localize Pins and ensure tight coupling between apical polarity and mitotic spindle alignment. / Adviser: Ken Prehoda