Browsing by Author "Guilgur, Leonardo G."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Absence of the spindle assembly checkpoint restores mitotic fidelity upon loss of sister chromatid cohesionPublication . Silva, Rui; Mirkovic, Mihailo; Guilgur, Leonardo G.; Rathore, Om; Martinho, Rui Goncalo; Oliveira, Raquel A.The fidelity of mitosis depends on cohesive forces that keep sister chromatids together. This is mediated by cohesin that embraces sister chromatid fibers from the time of their replication until the subsequent mitosis [1-3]. Cleavage of cohesin marks anaphase onset, where single chromatids are dragged to the poles by the mitotic spindle [4-6]. Cohesin cleavage should only occur when all chromosomes are properly bio-oriented to ensure equal genome distribution and prevent random chromosome segregation. Unscheduled loss of sister chromatid cohesion is prevented by a safeguard mechanism known as the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) [7, 8]. To identify specific conditions capable of restoring defects associated with cohesion loss, we screened for genes whose depletion modulates Drosophila wing development when sister chromatid cohesion is impaired. Cohesion deficiency was induced by knockdown of the acetyltransferase separation anxiety (San)/Naa50, a cohesin complex stabilizer [9-12]. Several genes whose function impacts wing development upon cohesion loss were identified. Surprisingly, knockdown of key SAC proteins, Mad2 and Mpsl, suppressed developmental defects associated with San depletion. SAC impairment upon cohesin removal, triggered by San depletion or artificial removal of the cohesin complex, prevented extensive genome shuffling, reduced segregation defects, and restored cell survival. This counterintuitive phenotypic suppression was caused by an intrinsic bias for efficient chromosome biorientation at mitotic entry, coupled with slow engagement of error-correction reactions. Thus, in contrast to SAC's role as a safeguard mechanism for mitotic fidelity, removal of this checkpoint alleviates mitotic errors when sister chromatid cohesion is compromised.
- Drosophila aPKC is required for mitotic spindle orientation during symmetric division of epithelial cellsPublication . Guilgur, Leonardo G.; Prudencio, Pedro; Ferreira, Tania; Pimenta-Marques, Ana Rita; Goncalo Martinho, RuiEpithelial cells mostly orient the spindle along the plane of the epithelium (planar orientation) for mitosis to produce two identical daughter cells. The correct orientation of the spindle relies on the interaction between cortical polarity components and astral microtubules. Recent studies in mammalian tissue culture cells suggest that the apically localised atypical protein kinase C (aPKC) is important for the planar orientation of the mitotic spindle in dividing epithelial cells. Yet, in chicken neuroepithelial cells, aPKC is not required in vivo for spindle orientation, and it has been proposed that the polarization cues vary between different epithelial cell types and/or developmental processes. In order to investigate whether Drosophila aPKC is required for spindle orientation during symmetric division of epithelial cells, we took advantage of a previously isolated temperature-sensitive allele of aPKC. We showed that Drosophila aPKC is required in vivo for spindle planar orientation and apical exclusion of Pins (Raps). This suggests that the cortical cues necessary for spindle orientation are not only conserved between Drosophila and mammalian cells, but are also similar to those required for spindle apicobasal orientation during asymmetric cell division.
- Evolution of GnRH ligands and receptors in gnathostomataPublication . Guilgur, Leonardo G.; Moncaut, Natalia P.; Canario, Adelino V. M.; Somoza, G. M.Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) is the final common signaling molecule used by the brain to regulate reproduction in all vertebrates. Until now, a total of 24 GnRH structural variants have been characterized from vertebrate, protochordate and invertebrate nervous tissue. Almost all vertebrates already investigated have at least two GnRH forms coexisting in the central nervous system. Furthermore, it is now well accepted that three GnRH forms are present both in early and late evolved teleostean fishes. The number and taxonomic distribution of the different GnRH variants also raise questions about the phylogenetic relationships between them. Most of the GnRH phylogenetic analyses are in agreement with the widely accepted idea that the GnRH family can be divided into three main groups. However, the examination of the gnathostome GnRH phylogenetic relationships clearly shows the existence of two main paralogous GnRH lineages: the ‘‘midbrain GnRH” group and the “forebrain GnRH” group. The first one, represented by chicken GnRH-II forms, and the second one composed of two paralogous lineages, the salmon GnRH cluster (only represented in teleostean fish species) and the hypophysotropic GnRH cluster, also present in tetrapods. This analysis suggests that the two forebrain clades share a common precursor and reinforces the idea that the salmon GnRH branch has originated from a duplication of the hypophysotropic lineage. GnRH ligands exert their activity through G protein-coupled receptors of the rhodopsin-like family. As with the ligands, multiple GnRHRs are expressed in individual vertebrate species and phylogenetic analyses have revealed that all vertebrate GnRHRs cluster into three main receptor types. However, new data and a new phylogenetic analysis propose a two GnRHR type model, in which different rounds of gene duplications may have occurred in different groups within each lineage.