Inhibition of Wnt signalling by Notch via two distinct mechanisms

Notch and Wnt are two essential signalling pathways that help to shape animals during development and to sustain adult tissue homeostasis. Although they are often active at the same time within a tissue, they typically have opposing effects on cell fate decisions. In fact, crosstalk between the two pathways is important in generating the great diversity of cell types that we find in metazoans. Several different mechanisms have been proposed that allow Notch to limit Wnt signalling, driving a Notch-ON/Wnt-OFF state. Here we explore these different mechanisms in human cells and demonstrate two distinct mechanisms by which Notch itself, can limit the transcriptional activity of β-catenin. At the membrane, independently of DSL ligands, Notch1 can antagonise β-catenin activity through an endocytic mechanism that requires its interaction with Deltex and sequesters β-catenin into the membrane fraction. Within the nucleus, the intracellular domain of Notch1 can also limit β-catenin induced transcription through the formation of a complex that requires its interaction with RBPjκ. We believe these mechanisms contribute to the robustness of cell-fate decisions by sharpening the distinction between opposing Notch/Wnt responses.

Inhibition of Wnt signalling by Notch via two distinct mechanisms

SummaryNotch and Wnt are two essential signalling pathways that help to shape animals during development and to sustain adult tissue homeostasis. Although, they are often active at the same time within a tissue, they typically have opposing effects on cell fate decisions. In fact, crosstalk between the two pathways is important in generating the great diversity of cell types that we find in metazoans. However, several different mechanisms have been proposed that allow Notch to limit Wnt signalling, driving a Notch-ON/Wnt-OFF state. Here we explore these different mechanisms in vertebrate cells and demonstrate two distinct mechanisms by which Notch itself, can limit the transcriptional activity of β-catenin. At the membrane, independently of DSL ligands, Notch1 can antagonise β-catenin activity through an endocytosis mediated mechanism that is dependent upon its interaction with Deltex and sequesters β-catenin into the membrane fraction. Within the nucleus, the intracellular domain of Notch1 can also limit β-catenin induced transcription through the formation of a complex that requires its interaction with RBPjκ. We believe these mechanisms contribute to the robustness of cell-fate decisions by sharpening the distinction between opposing Notch/Wnt responses.

Developmental fidelity imposed by the RGL-1 “Balanced Switch” mediating opposing signals

The six C. elegans vulval precursor cells (VPCs) are induced to form the 30-30-20-Γ-20-3° pattern of cell fates with high fidelity. In response to EGF signal, the LET-60/Ras-LIN-45/Raf-MEK-2/MEK-MPK-1/ERK canonical MAP kinase cascade is necessary to induce 1° fate and synthesis of DSL ligands. In turn, LIN-12/Notch signal is necessary to induce neighboring cells to become 2°. We previously showed that, in response to lower dose of EGF signal, the modulatory LET-60/Ras-RGL-1/RalGEF-RAL-1/Ral signal promotes 2° fate in support of LIN-12. In this study we identify two key differences between RGL-1 and RAL-1 functions. First, deletion of RGL-1 confers no overt developmental defects, while previous studies showed RAL-1 to be essential for viability and fertility. From this observation we hypothesize that the developmentally essential functions of RAL-1 are independent of upstream activation. Second, RGL-1 plays opposing and genetically separable roles in VPC fate patterning. RGL-1 promotes 2° fate via canonical GEF-dependent activation of RAL-1 and 1° fate via a non-canonical GEF-independent activity. Our genetic epistasis experiments are consistent with RGL-1 functioning in the modulatory 1°-promoting AGE-1/PI3-Kinase-PDK-1-AKT-1 cascade. Additionally, animals without RGL-1 experience 15-fold higher rates of VPC patterning errors compared to the wild type. Yet VPC patterning in RGL-1 deletion mutants is not more sensitive to environmental perturbations. We propose that RGL-1 functions as a “Balanced Switch” that orchestrates opposing 1°- and 2°-promoting modulatory cascades to decrease inappropriate fate decisions. We speculate that such switches are broadly conserved but mostly masked by paralog redundancy or essential genes.

Ubiquitylation-independent activation of Notch signalling by Delta

Ubiquitylation (ubi) by the E3-ligases Mindbomb1 (Mib1) and Neuralized (Neur) is required for activation of the DSL ligands Delta (Dl) and Serrate (Ser) to activate Notch signalling. These ligases transfer ubiquitin to lysines of the ligands' intracellular domains (ICDs), which sends them into an Epsin-dependent endocytic pathway. Here, we have tested the requirement of ubi of Dl for signalling. We found that Dl requires ubi for its full function, but can also signal in two ubi-independent modes, one dependent and one independent of Neur. We identified two neural lateral specification processes where Dl signals in an ubi-independent manner. Neur, which is needed for these processes, was shown to be able to activate Dl in an ubi-independent manner. Our analysis suggests that one important role of DSL protein ubi by Mib1 is their release from cis-inhibitory interactions with Notch, enabling them to trans-activate Notch on adjacent cells.

Cis-interactions between Notch and its ligands block ligand-independent Notch activity

The Notch pathway is integrated into numerous developmental processes and therefore is fine-tuned on many levels, including receptor production, endocytosis, and degradation. Notch is further characterized by a twofold relationship with its Delta-Serrate (DSL) ligands, as ligands from opposing cells (trans-ligands) activate Notch, whereas ligands expressed in the same cell (cis-ligands) inhibit signaling. We show that cells without both cis- and trans-ligands can mediate Notch-dependent developmental events during Drosophila oogenesis, indicating ligand-independent Notch activity occurs when the receptor is free of cis- and trans-ligands. Furthermore, cis-ligands can reduce Notch activity in endogenous and genetically induced situations of elevated trans-ligand-independent Notch signaling. We conclude that cis-expressed ligands exert their repressive effect on Notch signaling in cases of trans-ligand-independent activation, and propose a new function of cis-inhibition which buffers cells against accidental Notch activity.

Distinct intracellular motifs of Delta mediate its ubiquitylation and activation by Mindbomb1 and Neuralized

DSL proteins are transmembrane ligands of the Notch receptor. They associate with a RING (really interesting new gene) family E3 ubiquitin ligase, either Neuralized (Neur) or Mindbomb 1 (Mib1), as a prerequisite to signaling. Although Neur and Mib1 stimulate internalization of DSL ligands, it is not known how ubiquitylation contributes to signaling. We present a molecular dissection of the intracellular domain (ICD) of Drosophila melanogaster Delta (Dl), a prototype DSL protein. Using a cell-based assay, we detected ubiquitylation of Dl by both Neur and Mib1. The two enzymes use distinct docking sites and displayed different acceptor lysine preferences on the Dl ICD. We generated Dl variants that selectively perturb its interactions with Neur or Mib1 and analyzed their signaling activity in two in vivo contexts. We found an excellent correlation between the ability to undergo ubiquitylation and signaling. Therefore, ubiquitylation of the DSL ICD seems to be a necessary step in the activation of Notch.

The divergent DSL ligand Dll3 does not activate Notch signaling but cell autonomously attenuates signaling induced by other DSL ligands

Mutations in the DSL (Delta, Serrate, Lag2) Notch (N) ligand Delta-like (Dll) 3 cause skeletal abnormalities in spondylocostal dysostosis, which is consistent with a critical role for N signaling during somitogenesis. Understanding how Dll3 functions is complicated by reports that DSL ligands both activate and inhibit N signaling. In contrast to other DSL ligands, we show that Dll3 does not activate N signaling in multiple assays. Consistent with these findings, Dll3 does not bind to cells expressing any of the four N receptors, and N1 does not bind Dll3-expressing cells. However, in a cell-autonomous manner, Dll3 suppressed N signaling, as was found for other DSL ligands. Therefore, Dll3 functions not as an activator as previously reported but rather as a dedicated inhibitor of N signaling. As an N antagonist, Dll3 promoted Xenopus laevis neurogenesis and inhibited glial differentiation of mouse neural progenitors. Finally, together with the modulator lunatic fringe, Dll3 altered N signaling levels that were induced by other DSL ligands.