Cargando…

Single‐cell profiling screen identifies microtubule‐dependent reduction of variability in signaling

Populations of isogenic cells often respond coherently to signals, despite differences in protein abundance and cell state. Previously, we uncovered processes in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae pheromone response system (PRS) that reduced cell‐to‐cell variability in signal strength and cellular respons...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pesce, C Gustavo, Zdraljevic, Stefan, Peria, William J, Bush, Alan, Repetto, María Victoria, Rockwell, Daniel, Yu, Richard C, Colman‐Lerner, Alejandro, Brent, Roger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5884679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29618636
http://dx.doi.org/10.15252/msb.20167390
_version_ 1783311863560273920
author Pesce, C Gustavo
Zdraljevic, Stefan
Peria, William J
Bush, Alan
Repetto, María Victoria
Rockwell, Daniel
Yu, Richard C
Colman‐Lerner, Alejandro
Brent, Roger
author_facet Pesce, C Gustavo
Zdraljevic, Stefan
Peria, William J
Bush, Alan
Repetto, María Victoria
Rockwell, Daniel
Yu, Richard C
Colman‐Lerner, Alejandro
Brent, Roger
author_sort Pesce, C Gustavo
collection PubMed
description Populations of isogenic cells often respond coherently to signals, despite differences in protein abundance and cell state. Previously, we uncovered processes in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae pheromone response system (PRS) that reduced cell‐to‐cell variability in signal strength and cellular response. Here, we screened 1,141 non‐essential genes to identify 50 “variability genes”. Most had distinct, separable effects on strength and variability of the PRS, defining these quantities as genetically distinct “axes” of system behavior. Three genes affected cytoplasmic microtubule function: BIM1, GIM2, and GIM4. We used genetic and chemical perturbations to show that, without microtubules, PRS output is reduced but variability is unaffected, while, when microtubules are present but their function is perturbed, output is sometimes lowered, but its variability is always high. The increased variability caused by microtubule perturbations required the PRS MAP kinase Fus3 and a process at or upstream of Ste5, the membrane‐localized scaffold to which Fus3 must bind to be activated. Visualization of Ste5 localization dynamics demonstrated that perturbing microtubules destabilized Ste5 at the membrane signaling site. The fact that such microtubule perturbations cause aberrant fate and polarity decisions in mammals suggests that microtubule‐dependent signal stabilization might also operate throughout metazoans.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5884679
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58846792018-04-09 Single‐cell profiling screen identifies microtubule‐dependent reduction of variability in signaling Pesce, C Gustavo Zdraljevic, Stefan Peria, William J Bush, Alan Repetto, María Victoria Rockwell, Daniel Yu, Richard C Colman‐Lerner, Alejandro Brent, Roger Mol Syst Biol Articles Populations of isogenic cells often respond coherently to signals, despite differences in protein abundance and cell state. Previously, we uncovered processes in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae pheromone response system (PRS) that reduced cell‐to‐cell variability in signal strength and cellular response. Here, we screened 1,141 non‐essential genes to identify 50 “variability genes”. Most had distinct, separable effects on strength and variability of the PRS, defining these quantities as genetically distinct “axes” of system behavior. Three genes affected cytoplasmic microtubule function: BIM1, GIM2, and GIM4. We used genetic and chemical perturbations to show that, without microtubules, PRS output is reduced but variability is unaffected, while, when microtubules are present but their function is perturbed, output is sometimes lowered, but its variability is always high. The increased variability caused by microtubule perturbations required the PRS MAP kinase Fus3 and a process at or upstream of Ste5, the membrane‐localized scaffold to which Fus3 must bind to be activated. Visualization of Ste5 localization dynamics demonstrated that perturbing microtubules destabilized Ste5 at the membrane signaling site. The fact that such microtubule perturbations cause aberrant fate and polarity decisions in mammals suggests that microtubule‐dependent signal stabilization might also operate throughout metazoans. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5884679/ /pubmed/29618636 http://dx.doi.org/10.15252/msb.20167390 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Published under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Articles
Pesce, C Gustavo
Zdraljevic, Stefan
Peria, William J
Bush, Alan
Repetto, María Victoria
Rockwell, Daniel
Yu, Richard C
Colman‐Lerner, Alejandro
Brent, Roger
Single‐cell profiling screen identifies microtubule‐dependent reduction of variability in signaling
title Single‐cell profiling screen identifies microtubule‐dependent reduction of variability in signaling
title_full Single‐cell profiling screen identifies microtubule‐dependent reduction of variability in signaling
title_fullStr Single‐cell profiling screen identifies microtubule‐dependent reduction of variability in signaling
title_full_unstemmed Single‐cell profiling screen identifies microtubule‐dependent reduction of variability in signaling
title_short Single‐cell profiling screen identifies microtubule‐dependent reduction of variability in signaling
title_sort single‐cell profiling screen identifies microtubule‐dependent reduction of variability in signaling
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5884679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29618636
http://dx.doi.org/10.15252/msb.20167390
work_keys_str_mv AT pescecgustavo singlecellprofilingscreenidentifiesmicrotubuledependentreductionofvariabilityinsignaling
AT zdraljevicstefan singlecellprofilingscreenidentifiesmicrotubuledependentreductionofvariabilityinsignaling
AT periawilliamj singlecellprofilingscreenidentifiesmicrotubuledependentreductionofvariabilityinsignaling
AT bushalan singlecellprofilingscreenidentifiesmicrotubuledependentreductionofvariabilityinsignaling
AT repettomariavictoria singlecellprofilingscreenidentifiesmicrotubuledependentreductionofvariabilityinsignaling
AT rockwelldaniel singlecellprofilingscreenidentifiesmicrotubuledependentreductionofvariabilityinsignaling
AT yurichardc singlecellprofilingscreenidentifiesmicrotubuledependentreductionofvariabilityinsignaling
AT colmanlerneralejandro singlecellprofilingscreenidentifiesmicrotubuledependentreductionofvariabilityinsignaling
AT brentroger singlecellprofilingscreenidentifiesmicrotubuledependentreductionofvariabilityinsignaling