How Does SUMO Participate in Spindle Organization?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
cells Review How Does SUMO Participate in Spindle Organization? Ariane Abrieu * and Dimitris Liakopoulos * CRBM, CNRS UMR5237, Université de Montpellier, 1919 route de Mende, 34090 Montpellier, France * Correspondence: [email protected] (A.A.); [email protected] (D.L.) Received: 5 July 2019; Accepted: 30 July 2019; Published: 31 July 2019 Abstract: The ubiquitin-like protein SUMO is a regulator involved in most cellular mechanisms. Recent studies have discovered new modes of function for this protein. Of particular interest is the ability of SUMO to organize proteins in larger assemblies, as well as the role of SUMO-dependent ubiquitylation in their disassembly. These mechanisms have been largely described in the context of DNA repair, transcriptional regulation, or signaling, while much less is known on how SUMO facilitates organization of microtubule-dependent processes during mitosis. Remarkably however, SUMO has been known for a long time to modify kinetochore proteins, while more recently, extensive proteomic screens have identified a large number of microtubule- and spindle-associated proteins that are SUMOylated. The aim of this review is to focus on the possible role of SUMOylation in organization of the spindle and kinetochore complexes. We summarize mitotic and microtubule/spindle-associated proteins that have been identified as SUMO conjugates and present examples regarding their regulation by SUMO. Moreover, we discuss the possible contribution of SUMOylation in organization of larger protein assemblies on the spindle, as well as the role of SUMO-targeted ubiquitylation in control of kinetochore assembly and function. Finally, we propose future directions regarding the study of SUMOylation in regulation of spindle organization and examine the potential of SUMO and SUMO-mediated degradation as target for antimitotic-based therapies. Keywords: mitosis; spindle; microtubule-associated proteins; SUMO; SUMO-targeted ubiquitin ligases 1. The Biological Context During mitosis, the microtubule (MT) cytoskeleton reorganizes to assemble the mitotic spindle that will capture chromosomes via their kinetochores and segregate them equally into two daughter cells. Compared to interphase, mitotic microtubules are shorter and more dynamic; they are nucleated from γ-tubulin complexes either at centrosomes or along pre-existing MTs [1]. Away from centrosomes, MT nucleation requires Ran-dependent liberation of spindle assembly factors such as TPX2, HURP, or NuSAP, together with augmin complexes that are assembled along preexisting microtubules [1–5]. At kinetochores, microtubules interact with several microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs, including microtubule-dependent motors), and appear as cold-resistant MT bundles called kinetochore-fibers (k-fibers) [6]. The latter are also stabilized along their length by microtubule connectors containing the scaffold protein clathrin, or the MAPs TACC3 and XMAP215 [7]. Interaction between kinetochores and microtubules is highly dynamic in order to correct erroneous attachment, and ensure chromosome bi-orientation before sister chromatids separate toward the two spindle poles [8]. This is achieved by a rapid turnover of phosphorylation/dephosphorylation events that are mainly catalyzed by Aurora-B kinase and the counteracting phosphatases [9]. Once chromosomes are separated, the spindle midzone is further bundled by MAPs, that crosslink microtubules thus becoming less dynamic [10]. Control of MT dynamics and spindle organization during mitosis has long been known to be downstream of the kinase CDK1-Cyclin B that generates a phosphorylation cascade regulating Cells 2019, 8, 801; doi:10.3390/cells8080801 www.mdpi.com/journal/cells Cells 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 18 Cells 2019, 8, 801 2 of 20 counteracting phosphatases [9]. Once chromosomes are separated, the spindle midzone is further bundled by MAPs, that crosslink microtubules thus becoming less dynamic [10]. the MAPsControl at play of duringMT dynamics mitosis and [11 spindle]. This organization cascade culminates during mitosis in metaphasehas long been and known ends to with be the ubiquitin-dependentdownstream of the degradation kinase CDK1-Cyclin of cyclin B Bthat and generates securin, a aphosphorylation sister chromatid cascade cohesion regulating inhibitor the [12]. MAPs at play during mitosis [11]. This cascade culminates in metaphase and ends with the While these two types of post-translational modifications (phosphorylation and ubiquitylation) have ubiquitin-dependent degradation of cyclin B and securin, a sister chromatid cohesion inhibitor [12]. been extensively studied in this context, much less is known regarding modifications by the SUMO While these two types of post-translational modifications (phosphorylation and ubiquitylation) have proteinbeen (Figure extensively1; for studied a review in seethis [context,13]). This much is indeedless is known surprising, regarding since modifications SUMO has beenby the first SUMO isolated in theprotein context (Figure of spindle-related 1; for a review mechanismssee [13]). This is either indeed in surprising, Ran regulation since SUMO or kinetochore has been first function isolated [14 –17]. In addition,in the context there of is spindle-related accumulating mechanisms evidence that either numerous in Ran regulation mitotic motors,or kinetochore MAPs, function and kinases [14– are SUMOylated.17]. In addition, The there purpose is accumulating of this review evidence is to that summarize numerous information mitotic motors, and MAPs, discuss and thekinases possible molecularare SUMOylated. mechanisms The involving purpose of SUMO this review in mitotic is to summarize spindle organization. information and discuss the possible molecular mechanisms involving SUMO in mitotic spindle organization. FigureFigure 1. The 1. The SUMO SUMO pathway pathway [13 [13,18,19].,18,19]. SimilarSimilar to ubiq ubiquitylation,uitylation, the the SUMO SUMO conjugation conjugation pathway pathway leadsleads to formation to formation of an of isopeptide an isopeptide bond bond between between the the C-terminal C-terminal carboxyl carboxyl of theof the 11kDa 11kDa protein protein SUMO and anSUMO"-lysine and ofan the-lysine target of protein. the target SUMO protein. precursors SUMO pr areecursors first processed are first byprocessed SUMO by isopeptidases, SUMO leavingisopeptidases, a C-terminal leaving di-glycine a C-terminal (GG) motif di-glycine that is(GG) activated motif that in an is ATP-dependentactivated in an ATP-dependent manner, forming a thioestermanner, with forming catalytic a cysteinethioester ofwith the catalytic heterodimeric cysteine E1-activating of the heterodimeric enzyme Uba2E1-activating/Aos1. Next,enzyme SUMO is transferredUba2/Aos1. onto Next, the SUMO catalytic is transferred cysteine ofonto the the E2-conjugating catalytic cysteine enzyme of the (Ubc9)E2-conjugating and finally enzyme onto the target(Ubc9) protein, and eitherfinally directlyonto the ortarget through protein, a SUMOeither directly E3 ligase. or through SUMO a itselfSUMO can E3 alsoligase. serve SUMO as itself target for SUMOylation,can also serve leading as target to for formation SUMOylation, of polySUMO leading to formation chains. SUMOylation of polySUMO chains. is reversed SUMOylation by one is of the reversed by one of the SUMO isopeptidases that processed its precursor in the first step (SENP1-3 SUMO isopeptidases that processed its precursor in the first step (SENP1-3 and SENP5-7 in human and and SENP5-7 in human and Ulp1 and 2 in budding yeast). SENP1, 2, 3, and 5 belong to the Ulp1 Ulp1 and 2 in budding yeast). SENP1, 2, 3, and 5 belong to the Ulp1 branch, whereas SENP6 and 7 are branch, whereas SENP6 and 7 are more closely related to the Smt4/Ulp2 branch [20]. more closely related to the Smt4/Ulp2 branch [20]. Contrary to ubiquitylation, SUMOylation does not always require a E3 ligase, at least in vitro Contrary[21]. Nevertheless, to ubiquitylation, three classes SUMOylation of E3 ligases doesare the not best always characterized require (for a E3 aligase, review, at see least [22];in other vitro [21]. Nevertheless,types of SUMO three classesE3s alsoof exist). E3 ligases The SP-RING are the family best characterized was identified (for with a review,Siz1/Siz2 see in [budding22]; other yeast types of SUMOthat E3s share also aexist). conserved The SP-RINGRING-related family motif was with identified PIAS (protein with Siz1 inhibitor/Siz2 inof budding activated yeast STAT) that [23], share a conservedresponsible RING-related for the interaction motif with of the PIAS SUMO (protein E3 with inhibitor Ubc9 [24]. ofactivated STAT) [23], responsible for the interactionThe of second the SUMO class of E3 SUMO with Ubc9E3s is [the24 ].Ran-binding protein 2 (RanBP2), which is a large (358 kDa) Thecomponent second of class the nuclear of SUMO pore E3s complex is the Ran-binding(NPC). This multidomain protein 2 (RanBP2), E3 ligase whichcontains is atwo large internal (358 kDa) componentrepeats of(IR) the displaying nuclear pore the complexE3 ligase (NPC).domain This IR1- multidomainM-IR2 [25–27]. E3 The ligase IR-domain contains is twoalso internalthe site repeatsof assembly of the RRSU complex that contains the SUMO1-modified form of RanGAP1 (IR) displaying the E3 ligase domain IR1-M-IR2 [25–27]. The IR-domain is also the site of assembly of (RanGAP1•SUMO1) and Ubc9 [28]. This complex is recruited to the outermost part of the the RRSU complex that contains the SUMO1-modified form of RanGAP1 (RanGAP1