Abstract
Regulation of growth control is essential for normal development and for maintaining homeostasis in all organisms. Growth regulation involves control of cell proliferation and coordinate regulation of processes required for normal developmental patterning, e.g., regulation of cell growth, signaling from morphogens, other patterning genes, and regulation of programmed cell death. The common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is particularly well-suited for studying genetic regulation of growth control given the large variety of genetic tools available, and the ability to study tissue- and cell-specific defects in flies. The eye imaginal disc is a favored model for studying growth regulation because the genetic hierarchy of eye development and the regulation of cell cycles are well-understood. The eye imaginal disc is a very versatile model system particularly for genetic screens, as the phenotypes are relatively easy to score, and lethal mutants can be recovered. In this chapter, we focus on the regulation of growth control through the Hippo and insulin-receptor/tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)-Target of Rapamycin (TOR) pathways—beginning with the genetic screens through which the initial pathway mutants were identified, the components of these complex signaling networks, and the regulatory relationships that are currently known amongst and between pathway components.
Shilpi Verghese and Indrayani Waghmare have contributed equally to this work.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Introduction
In the biological sense, the term growth has intricate ramifications that we have only started to comprehend. Growth is the overall increase in cell mass or size of a tissue or organism (Conlon and Raff 1999; Cook and Tyers 2007; Edgar 1999; Raff 1996). Growth may be due to increase in cell number resulting from cell division (cell proliferation), increase in cellular mass without cell division (cell enlargement), or due to release of more extracellular matrix (cell accretion). These processes are intimately linked and it is clear that if coordinated growth has to occur in an organism, it is necessary for various biological pathways to interact and relay appropriate signals to proper cell types. Growth regulation is precisely controlled and affected by several intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Cooper 2004; Crickmore and Mann 2008; Grebien et al. 2005; Johnston and Gallant 2002). The intrinsic factors mainly involve synthesis and secretion of signals or ligands, which bind to their cognate receptors to relay downstream signals. These signals consist of variety of molecules such as hormones, mitogens, apoptosis-inducing signals, patterning and axis determining signals, etc. which eventually determine organ size and tissue homeostasis (Johnston and Gallant 2002; Mitchison et al. 1997; Montagne 2000; Tumaneng et al. 2012a). Growth of a tissue or organ is impacted not only by cell division but also by regulated cell death (apoptosis or programmed cell death; Bangs and White 2000; Jacobson et al. 1997; Martin et al. 2009; Oldham et al. 2000a; Richardson and Kumar 2002; Rusconi et al. 2000).
In this chapter, we will focus on growth regulation in imaginal discs (epithelial sacs that are precursors of adult appendages) in D. melanogaster (Bergantinos et al. 2010; Bryant 1978; Bryant 1987; Bryant 2001; Bryant and Schmidt 1990). The obvious advantages that Drosophila has to offer as a model organism include short life cycle, high fecundity, low cost maintenance, and lack of redundancy in genome (Bier 2005; Blair 2003; Boutros and Ahringer 2008; Pagliarini et al. 2003; St. Johnston 2002; Vidal and Cagan 2006). Furthermore, the sophisticated tools available in fly genetics provide great deal of versatility in terms of designing experiments. The plethora of knowledge thus generated through exhausting efforts of scientists has not only revealed to us the classic information about how growth occurs but has also lead to better understanding of growth-related diseases such as cancer.
Drosophila Eye as a Model to Study Regulation of Growth
The compound eyes of Drosophila arise from the eye-antennal imaginal discs, a monolayer epithelial sheet of cells that is responsible for the development of the eyes, the antennae, the ocelli, and a major part of the adult head cuticle. Each eye of the adult fruit fly on an average consists of about 800 ommatidia (Wolff and Ready 1993). Ommatidia arise from a set of 19 precursor cells that are generated by spatially and temporally coordinated cellular processes such as cell-proliferation, cell-differentiation, and cell-death in the eye imaginal discs. Eighteen of these cells contribute to the eye per se, whereas the nineteenth cell gives rise to a sensory bristle (Cagan 1993). A key feature that distinguishes eye from the rest of the organs is its ability to perceive light and relay the signal to distinct areas in the brain called the optic lobes. The eye imaginal discs arise from about 50 primordial cells that express the Drosophila PAX 6 gene eyeless (ey) during mid-to-late embryogenesis. Two such discs develop in each larva and differentiate into two compound eyes, antennae, ocelli, and the head cuticle in the adult.
Much is known about the regulation of growth and differentiation of the eye-antennal imaginal discs (Baker 2001; Cagan 1993; Dominguez and Casares 2005; Hafen 1991; Kramer and Cagan 1994; Kumar 2001). Until the second larval instar of development, the cells of the eye-antennal discs proliferate without differentiation (Baker 2001; Wolff and Ready 1993). During the second instar stage, a unique process of cell differentiation begins in the eye-antennal disc that paves the way for formation of photoreceptor neurons in the posterior region of the eye-antennal imaginal disc (Wolff and Ready 1993). The differentiation occurs in the wake of a so-called “morphogenetic furrow”—a front marked by apical constriction of epithelial cells in response to complex developmental signaling from the Hedgehog (Hh), Decapentaplegic (Dpp), Wingless (Wg), and Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways (Acquisti et al. 2009; Chen and Chien 1999; Firth et al. 2010; Harvey et al. 2001; Kango-Singh et al. 2003; Penton et al. 1997). Posterior to the morphogenetic furrow, the cells begin to acquire particular photoreceptor cell fates and organize into ommatidial clusters.
Anterior to the furrow, the cells divide asynchronously and do not differentiate, however, in the morphogenetic furrows, cells arrest in the G1 phase of the cell cycle, synchronize, and either start to differentiate into photoreceptor cells as they leave the furrow or undergo one additional round of cell division, referred to as the second mitotic wave (SMW) before differentiating into the remaining photoreceptor, cone, pigment, and bristle cells (Baker 2001; Dickson and Hafen 1993; Wolff and Ready 1993). The cells posterior to the morphogenetic furrow enter G1 arrest caused by Dpp (decapentaplegic) signaling that is maintained by the roughex (rux) gene, which negatively regulates G1-S transition. The cells that are temporarily trapped in the G1 phase begin differentiation with specification of the R8 (photoreceptor) cell due to expression of the proneural protein Atonal (Ato) (Baker et al. 1996; Chen and Chien 1999; Daniel et al. 1999; Dominguez 1999; Greenwood and Struhl 1999; Jarman et al. 1994). R8 recruits other photoreceptor cells-R2, R3, R4, and R5 to form a cluster of five photoreceptor precursors. Once specified, these cells never enter cell cycle or cell division again. All other nonspecified cells re-enter cell cycle only once at the SMW (Baker 2001; de Nooij and Hariharan 1995). Cells in the SMW undergo G2/M phase that is mediated through local signaling from Spitz (Spi). Binding of Spi to its cognate receptor EGFR in precursor cells causes activation of downstream string (stg) that completes the G2-M transition during mitosis. Local Spi-EGFR signaling also plays an important role limiting the progression of SMW. For instance, on an average the Spi signal from one precluster can span to a length of seven cells only causing these cells to divide whereas the remaining cells remain arrested in G2 phase and fail to divide (Baker 2001; Brumby and Richardson 2003; de Nooij and Hariharan 1995; Jarman et al. 1994; Price et al. 2002; Wolff and Ready 1991). The progression of the morphogenetic furrow is complete by the mid-third instar of larval development, and the eye-antennal disc is fully grown to about 50,000 cells (Kumar 2009; Kumar and Moses 2000; Kumar and Moses 2001; Sun 2007).
Following development in larval stages, supernumerary cells are eliminated via apoptosis during pupal development. This event is mediated through Notch signaling (Bonini and Fortini 1999; Burke and Basler 1997; Sawamoto and Okano 1996; Treisman and Heberlein 1998; Zipursky 1989). By contrast, survival of pupal cells is brought about by EGFR expression that mediates its cell survival function through suppressing the transcriptional activity of the proapoptotic gene head involution defective (hid) (Bonini and Fortini 1999). In addition, survival signals emanating from cone or primary pigment cells in each ommatidium play a role in survival and proliferation of secondary and tertiary pigment cells , and secondary bristle organs (Cagan 1993, 2009; Rubin 1989; Singh et al. 2012; Tsachaki and Sprecher 2012; Yamamoto 1993). During metamorphosis , the two eye-antennal imaginal discs fuse at the dorsal midline to form the fly head with three ocelli, two antennae, and compound eyes. Thus, the eye-antennal disc is ideal for the study of organogenesis , morphogenesis, pattern formation, and several cell biological processes including the regulation of cell cycle, cell death, cell junctions and adhesion, transport of molecules, cell signaling, and metabolism. Recently, the eye discs have been used as an experimental system for genetic screens to discover postembryonic lethality , and for screening small molecule inhibitors in chemical and drug screens.
The Mosaic Analysis Systems and the Drosophila Eye
Mutagenesis screens are a very well-established tool for gene discovery in flies (for review, see Bellen et al. 1989, 2011; Blair 2003; Pfeiffer et al. 2010; St. Johnston 2002; Venken and Bellen 2012; Xu and Rubin 1993). Over the years, the mosaic techniques have evolved to include the Flipase (FLP) Flipase recognition target (FRT), e y G AL4 U AS F lp EGUF, Flp-out clones, and Mosaic Analysis with Repressible Cell Marker (MARCM) (for review, see Blair 2003; St. Johnston 2002). One of the first tissue-specific mosaic systems was developed in the eye-antennal discs where the mosaic clones were restricted to the eye-antennal discs by virtue of expression of the Flippase gene under the control of the Eyeless Promoter (commonly referred to as the ‘ey-FLP system’, Newsome et al. 2000). This tissue-specific system was further refined by the development of the “cell-lethal ” system, where effects of loss of function of a gene could be surveyed more clearly because the wild-type twin-clones are eliminated due to the presence of cell-lethal mutations (the cell-lethal FLP-FRT system; Newsome et al. 2000). We focus on the genetic screens performed about 10–12 years ago (simultaneously in many labs) that led to the identification of many new genes that were shown to belong to the two major growth regulatory networks: the Hippo pathway and the Tuberous Sclerosis Complex/Target of Rapamycin—TSC-TOR pathway .
Genetic Screens for Genes That Regulate Growth: The “Big-Head” and “Pin-Head” Mutations
Barry Dickson’s group (Newsome et al. 2000) improved the traditional FLP-FRT approach developed in the Rubin Lab (Xu and Rubin 1993), to allow generation of essentially mutant eye discs by eliminating the wild-type twin clone via a cell-lethal mutation (the cell-lethal FLP-FRT system) (Fig. 1a). This so-called “cell-lethal” approach allows the mutant clones to grow to their highest potential due to elimination of competitive interactions between the mutant cells and their wild-type neighbors. Using this system, several groups carried out mutagenesis screens in flies (on the X, 2L, 2R, 3L, 3R chromosomes) and found mutations that affected patterning, growth, cell death, and differentiation (for review, see St. Johnston 2002).
Of special interest were the genes mutations which caused a remarkable effect on growth without disrupting the patterning process (Conlon and Raff 1999; Johnston and Gallant 2002; Mitchison et al. 1997; Oldham et al. 2000a; Raff 1996; Su and O’Farrell 1998; Tumaneng et al. 2012a). Characterization of these mutants revealed the mechanisms that regulate growth and tissue size by controlling cell number (Hippo pathway) (Zhao et al. 2011b) or cell size (InR/TSC-TOR pathway) (Kim and Guan 2011; Loewith 2011; Montagne 2000; Potter et al. 2003; Soulard et al. 2009) in a developing organ. Typically, loss of function mutations in positive regulators of these pathways caused development of enlarged heads that showed overgrowth—referred to as the “big head” mutations (Fig. 1b) (Hafen 2004; Oldham and Hafen 2003; Pan 2007, 2010). In contrast, loss of function of negative regulators of these pathways caused reduction in head size and development of smaller organs, which may be due to cell death or reduction in cell size, and were referred to as the “pin head” mutations (Fig. 1b) .
The Hippo Signaling Pathway
The Hippo signaling pathway was first discovered in flies following characterization of “big-head” mutants identified from genetic screens (for review, see Edgar 2006; Pan 2007; Saucedo and Edgar 2007). Analysis of the loss of function phenotypes revealed that a fundamental function of the Hippo pathway was the regulation of organ size (Boggiano and Fehon 2012; Harvey and Hariharan 2012; Schroeder and Halder 2012; Staley and Irvine 2012). Interestingly, the pathway received its name just after some growth regulatory genes (warts (wts), salvador (sav, aka shar-pie, shrp)) were characterized. Warts (wts) was named based on the bumpy “warts-like” phenotype of the mutant cells in mitotic (mosaic) clones on the body of the adult flies that were reminiscent of the warts on toads (Justice et al. 1995). Another group led by Xu et al. (1995) also independently found warts in the initial FLP/FRT-based screen and named it large tumor suppressor (LATS) (Xu et al. 1995). Two independent groups identified the gene encoding the adaptor protein Salvador (Sav aka Shar-pie, Shrp after the dog species of the same name as the mutant flies showed a characteristic phenotype of folded dark cuticle on the overgrown heads) from complementation groups isolated from the big-head genetic screens (Kango-Singh et al. 2002; Tapon et al. 2002). Interestingly, both Wts and Sav regulated growth by suppressing proliferation and promoting apoptosis . Hippo (Hpo) was the name given to another complementation group from the “big-head ” screens that showed a phenotype that was very similar to Wts and Sav mutants (Harvey et al. 2003; Jia et al. 2003; Pantalacci et al. 2003; Udan et al. 2003; Wu et al. 2003).
Molecular analysis of the three genes revealed that Wts and Hpo genes encode for serine-threonine (S-T) kinases whereas Sav is a WW domain containing adaptor protein. By this time it was clear that Warts, Salvador, and Hippo all show similar loss of function phenotypes and control organ size by a common signaling pathway that promotes apoptosis and restricts cell proliferation (Edgar 2006; O’Neill and Kolch 2005; Rothenberg and Jan 2002), and the pathway got its name from the last member of this trio of genes. A complete pathway that relays a growth regulatory signal from the plasma membrane to the nucleus has emerged over the last decade. Although genetic mutagenesis screens led to the initial discovery of this pathway, several components were identified by other genetic screening strategies and biochemical approaches (e.g., yeast-two hybrid screens, TAP-TAG based protein interaction assays; for review, see Halder and Johnson 2011; Kango-Singh and Singh 2009; Staley and Irvine 2012; Tumaneng et al. 2012a; Varelas and Wrana 2012). Today the Hippo pathway has grown to a large network of tumor suppressor genes that function upstream and downstream of the three initial members of the Hippo pathway (also known as the core kinase cascade) that control several aspects of tissue homeostasis. Overall, the Hippo signalling pathway is a key size regulatory pathway that controls organ size in flies and vertebrates, and misregulation of Hippo signalling is implicated in several diseases including cancer (for review, see Harvey and Hariharan 2012; Schroeder and Halder 2012; Staley and Irvine 2012; Zhao et al. 2011b; Fig. 2).
Regulation by Core Kinase Cascade of the Hippo Pathway
The molecular analysis of the three initial members of the Hippo pathway in Drosophila revealed that Hpo codes for an S-T kinase of the mammalian Sterile-20 family of kinases (Harvey et al. 2003; Jia et al. 2003; Pantalacci et al. 2003; Udan et al. 2003; Wu et al. 2003), and can physically associate with the WW-domain containing adaptor protein Sav (Harvey et al. 2003; Jia et al. 2003; Pantalacci et al. 2003; Udan et al. 2003; Wu et al. 2003). Wts is an S-T kinase protein of the dystrophia myotonica protein kinase (DMPK) family that associates with another adaptor protein Mob as tumor suppressor (Mats; Justice et al. 1995; Lai et al. 2005; Shimizu et al. 2008; Wei et al. 2007; Xu et al. 1995). Loss of function of these genes in genetic mosaics revealed strong overgrowth phenotype caused by increased cell proliferation and diminished sensitivity to apoptosis . Hyperactivation of the pathway by over-expression of Hpo, Sav, Wts, or Mats leads to formation of smaller organs due to increased apoptosis (Harvey et al. 2003; Pantalacci et al. 2003; Udan et al. 2003; Wei et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2003). Biochemical analysis showed that the Hpo kinase phosphorylates and can physically associate with Sav, Wts, and Mats to form protein complexes in vitro (Wei et al. 2007). However, Hpo associates with its cognate adaptor protein Sav to form the Hpo-Sav complex for efficient activation of the downstream kinase Wts (Huang et al. 2005; Wu et al. 2003). Wts itself associates with Mats to form the downstream Wts-Mats complex of the core kinase cascade of the Hippo pathway (Wei et al. 2007). Association of these adaptor proteins is known to stimulate the catalytic activity of the Hpo and Wts kinases (Dong et al. 2007; Pan 2007; Wei et al. 2007). Moreover, phosphorylation of Mats by the Hpo kinase increases its affinity for the Wts kinase (Dong et al. 2007; Pan 2007; Pan 2010; Wei et al. 2007). Wts is activated by autophosphorylation and phosphorylation by Hpo-kinase. Activated Wts associates with Mats (thus Mats cannot simultaneously associate with Hpo and Wts), which acts as a coactivator for the kinase activity of Wts (Dong et al. 2007; Huang et al. 2005; Oh and Irvine 2008; Oh and Irvine 2009). A major output of the core kinase cascade is to inhibit the growth-promoting activity of Yorkie (Yki), the Drosophila homolog of the mammalian Yes-associated protein (YAP) oncogene that acts as a transcriptional coactivator (Dong et al. 2007; Huang et al. 2005). Yki was identified via a yeast two-hybrid screen as an interactor of Warts. Over-expression of Yki phenocopies the loss of function of hpo, sav, wts, and mats (all genes of the core kinase cascade) and causes over-growth (Dong et al. 2007; Wei et al. 2007). Loss of function of yki results in formation of smaller organs due to induction of cell death (Huang et al. 2005).
Yki activity is regulated by controlling its subcellular localization via phosphorylation-dependent and -independent interactions with the core kinase cascade of the Hippo pathway (Oh and Irvine 2008, 2010; Ren et al. 2010b). Yki associates with Wts, and one mechanism by which the Wts-kinase restricts Yki activity is via phosphorylation at Ser168 that creates a 14-3-3 protein-binding site (Goulev et al. 2008; Peng et al. 2009; Ren et al. 2010b; Wu et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2008b Zhao et al. 2008b). Interestingly, only phosphorylated forms of Yki can associate with 14-3-3 proteins. Yki is phosphorylated at multiple sites (e.g., Ser 111 and S250), making it less sensitive to Hpo/Wts-mediated inhibition. These phosphorylation events act in parallel to phosphoYki/14-3-3 mediated mechanisms and inhibit Yki nuclear localization and activity. It is suggested that nuclear export is required for shuttling Yki to the nucleus in response to Hpo signaling, and binding of 14-3-3 proteins is thought to impede nuclear import and/or promote nuclear export thereby facilitating nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of target proteins (Brunet et al. 2002; Kumagai and Dunphy 1999). Nuclear transport of Yki depends on its binding with cognate transcription factors as Yki does not have an intrinsic nuclear localization signal (NLS) (Goulev et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2008b). Currently, it is unclear if binding of 14-3-3 proteins to Yki prevents its binding with cognate transcription factors, or masks the NLSs or promotes export from the nucleus. Nevertheless, coactivator Yki/YAP is the critical downstream regulatory target of the Hpo kinase cascade, and regulation of its subcellular localization is the primary mechanism by which the Hpo pathway influences target gene expression (Goulev et al. 2008; Huang et al. 2005; Oh and Irvine 2008, 2009, 2010; Oh et al. 2009; Peng et al. 2009; Ren et al. 2010b).
Yki (like Sav) is a WW-domain-containing protein and interacts with the PPxY (where P = Proline; x = any amino acid; Y = Tyrosine) motifs in Wts (Huang et al. 2005). Besides Wts, the WW-domains of Yki interact with the PPxY motifs present in other components of Hippo signaling pathway like Expanded (Ex) , Hpo, WW-domain-binding protein 2, and Myopic to regulate Hippo signaling via phosphorylation-independent mechanisms (Badouel et al. 2009; Gilbert et al. 2011; Oh et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2011b). Another protein that acts via its WW-domains is Kibra which associates with the PPxY motifs in Ex (and binds Mer in a WW-domain independent manner; Baumgartner et al. 2010; Genevet et al. 2010). The identification of multiple proteins that act through the interaction between WW-domains and PPxY motifs in the Hippo pathway suggests that these motif-specific interactions are important for regulation of Hippo signaling (reviewed in Sudol (2010); Sudol and Harvey (2010)) .
Yki Activity and Regulation of Expression of Target Genes
Hyperactivation of the pathway, for example, by overexpression of Hpo, leads to phosphorylation and activation of Hpo and Wts with the help of adaptor proteins Sav and Mats. Wts, in turn, phosphorylates the transcriptional coactivator Yki, which associates with 14-3-3 proteins and remains sequestered in the cytoplasm (Dong et al. 2007; Huang et al. 2005; Oh and Irvine 2008; Oh et al. 2009; Ren et al. 2010b). Analysis of adult and imaginal disc phenotypes reveals that over-expression of Hpo results in induction of ectopic apoptosis early in development in imaginal disc cells due to induction of caspase-dependent cell death (Hamaratoglu et al. 2006; Harvey et al. 2003; Udan et al. 2003; Verghese et al. 2012a). In mammalian cells , activation of MST (Mammalian Sterile-20 like kinase)1/2 and hyperphosphorylation of YAP2 by MST2 and LATS1 kinase leads to activation of cell death. Interestingly, MST1/2 are known targets of caspases and YAP1/2 are known to interact with p73 via a PDZ domain in YAP, and induce apoptotic target genes (Bertini et al. 2009; Sudol 2010; Sudol and Harvey 2010). However, these mechanisms of regulating apoptosis may not be conserved in flies because the site for caspase cleavage is not conserved in Drosophila Hpo (Wu et al. 2003), and Drosophila Yki does not have the conserved PDZ domain (Sudol and Harvey 2010). Nevertheless, Hpo overexpression in flies induces apoptosis through an alternate mechanism that does not involve caspase cleavage or p73. Recently, it was shown that the effector caspase Dronc (Drosophila homolog of mammalian Caspase 9) is induced in conditions when Hippo pathway is hyperactivated. Further, using reporter genes, it was shown that dronc transcription is induced during gain-of-function and downregulated during loss-of-function conditions of the Hippo pathway, suggesting that dronc is a transcriptional target of the Hippo pathway (Verghese et al. 2012a). However, the molecular mechanism by which Yki interacts with Dronc remains unclear. Both phosphorylation-dependent (e.g., with 14-3-3 by phosphorylation-dependent mechanisms) and phosphorylation-independent mechanisms (binding with Hpo, Wts, or Ex) result in cytoplasmic retention of Yki in multiple protein complexes. Thus, the possibility remains that hyperactivation of Hippo pathway, releases Yki from one or more cytoplasmic complexes to allow its binding to transcription factors and shuttle into the nucleus to induce dronc transcription. Alternatively, hyperactivation of the Hippo pathway involves a transcriptional repressor that acts together with or independent of Yki to control dronc expression. Thus, although it is clear that hyperactivation of the Hippo pathway leads to induction of apoptosis , the molecular mechanisms underlying this process are yet unidentified.
When the pathway is downregulated, the genes of the core kinase cascade act as tumor suppressors by suppressing the growth-promoting activity of Yki. Under these conditions, Yorkie can partner with transcription factors like the TEAD family protein, Scalloped (Sd) and enter the nucleus and cause transcription of target genes which regulate cell proliferation and apoptosis. Sd was identified as the transcriptional factor of the pathway via yeast two-hybrid screen, and in-vitro Yki activity assays (luciferase assay) (Goulev et al. 2008; Wu et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2008b). Sd is required for wing development (Campbell et al. 1992; Liu et al. 2000), whereas Yki is required for regulating growth of all imaginal disc cells. Other transcription factors that bind Yki to regulate growth via Hippo signaling have since been discovered. These include Mothers Against Dpp (Mad) (Alarcon et al. 2009; Oh and Irvine 2010; Peng et al. 2009), Homothorax (Hth), and Teashirt (Tsh) (Peng et al. 2009). Mad is a known transcription factor within the Dpp/tumor growth factor (TGFβ) signaling pathway , and Mad and Hth were shown to control the activity of the bantam miRNA (Alarcon et al. 2009; Peng et al. 2009). Mad, Hth, and Tsh are known transcription factors that respond to other signals and are required for patterning of imaginal discs during development.
Yki activity is controlled by the upstream signals (Grusche et al. 2010; Oh and Irvine, 2010). A large number of target genes have been identified over the past decade, which include the cell cycle regulators E2F1, and cyclin E, A, B, D; the growth promoter Myc, and cell survival-promoting miRNA bantam, genes regulating cell death like the Drosophila inhibitor of apoptosis diap1, hid, dronc; and cytoskeletal proteins like f-actin, which drive cell proliferation and cell survival (Fig. 3) (Goulev et al. 2008; Harvey et al. 2003; Huang et al. 2005; Jia et al. 2003; Kango-Singh et al. 2002; Neto-Silva et al. 2010; Nolo et al. 2006; Pantalacci et al. 2003; Peng et al. 2009; Tapon et al. 2002; Thompson and Cohen 2006; Udan et al. 2003; Wu et al. 2003; Wu et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2008a; Ziosi et al. 2010). Yki also controls the expression of several upstream components of the Hpo pathway like Ex , Mer, Kibra, Crumbs (Crb) and Four-jointed (Fjose et al. 1984) by a negative feedback loop (Cho et al. 2006; Fjose et al. 1984; Genevet et al. 2009, 2010; Hamaratoglu et al. 2006). Recently, Yki was shown to affect the expression of components of other signaling pathways, such as ligands for the Notch, Wnt, EGFR, and Jak-Stat pathways (Cho et al. 2006; Karpowicz et al. 2010; Ren et al. 2010a; Shaw et al. 2010; Staley and Irvine 2010, 2012; Zhang et al. 2009a). These interactions suggest that Hippo pathway interacts with the major signal transduction pathways , and these points of contact between different pathways may play an important role in controlling correct tissue sizes and maintaining homeostasis (Fig. 4).
Genetic and biochemical studies thus provide a basic premise for how Yki activity is modulated when Hippo signaling is downregulated or upregulated (Halder and Johnson 2011; Harvey and Hariharan 2012; Schroeder and Halder 2012; Staley and Irvine 2012). Studies in imaginal discs and other cell types like intestinal stem cells and fat cells revealed that Hippo signaling is needed in all cell types to regulate growth, and that the activity of the pathway is modulated to achieve tissue homeostasis (Halder et al. 2012; Halder and Johnson 2011; Harvey and Hariharan 2012; Tumaneng et al. 2012a; Zhao et al. 2008a; Zhao et al. 2010a). Whether Hippo signaling pathway is regulated by other global instructive signals (e.g., morphogen gradients) or if the pathway is constitutively active remains unknown. However, several inputs that communicate a growth regulatory signal to the core kinase cascade have been identified. We will discuss the key inputs, and their connection to the core kinase cascade in the following sections .
Upstream Regulators of the Hippo Pathway
Since the discovery of the core kinase cascade, several upstream regulators of the Hippo pathway were identified. These discoveries highlighted two remarkable properties of the Hippo pathway—one, that the Hippo pathway is a signaling network with multiple points of signal integration rather than a linear system of epistatic genes; and two, the interactions between various protein complexes (at the signal integration points) may play a decisive role in shaping the outcome, i.e., Yki activity levels. Although our understanding of the network is incomplete in both these areas, it is clear that signaling interactions within this pathway are shaped by several distinct inputs .
I. Fat signaling and the Hippo Pathway
Fat (ft) alleles were spontaneous mutations first described by Mohr (1923, 1929). Subsequent analysis of mutations in the ft locus revealed both viable and lethal alleles, of which the null alleles are larval lethal and show hyperplastic overgrowth of imaginal discs thereby acting as tumor suppressor genes (Bryant et al. 1988). Molecular cloning of ft revealed that it codes for a transmembrane protein, which is an atypical Cadherin (Mahoney et al. 1991). Loss of ft affects two distinct aspects of imaginal disc growth and development, restriction of cell proliferation and generation of correctly oriented cells within the epithelial sheet, phenotypes that were mapped to two distinct signaling pathways—the Hippo and the Planar Cell Polarity (PCP) pathway (see (Brittle et al. 2010; Cho et al. 2006; Matakatsu and Blair 2006; Matakatsu and Blair 2008; Matakatsu and Blair 2012)). Ft is ubiquitously expressed, however its functions are regulated by two genes, Dachsous (Ds) and Fj, which are expressed in gradients in developing tissues (Matakatsu and Blair 2004; Reddy and Irvine 2008). Ds is another proto-cadherin in flies that acts as the ligand for Ft for both the Hippo and PCP pathways (reviewed in (Thomas and Strutt 2012)). Fj is a Golgi-localized kinase that phosphorylates the extracellular Cadherin domains of Ft and Ds to promote their binding (Ishikawa et al. 2008; Simon et al. 2010). Phosphorylation of Fat by Fj increases its affinity to Ds while phosphorylation of Ds reduces its affinity to Ft. One way in which Fat regulates growth and PCP is based on the slope and vector of the Ds and Fj gradients (Halder and Johnson 2011; Willecke et al. 2008; Zecca and Struhl 2010) .
Several years after Ft was discovered, it was realized that the growth regulatory functions of Fat were tied to the Hippo pathway (Bennett and Harvey 2006; Cho et al. 2006; Silva et al. 2006; Willecke et al. 2006). Loss of ft in mutant clones phenocopied the loss of function phenotypes of genes within the core kinase cascade of the Hippo pathway. Imaginal discs containing somatic clones of ft mutant cells continued to proliferate when normal cells had stopped, thereby forming large overgrown discs. Transcriptional targets of Hippo pathway are induced within the ft mutant cells, a phenotype similar to loss of function of positive regulators of Hippo pathway (e.g., wts, hpo, sav, mats). Ft affects the levels and localization of Hippo pathway components, including Wts, Ex , and Yki (Bennett and Harvey 2006; Cho et al. 2006; Oh and Irvine 2008; Silva et al. 2006; Tyler and Baker 2007; Willecke et al. 2006). Ft influences Hippo signaling independent of other upstream regulators like expanded, merlin (mer), and kibra which form a heteromeric complex (Ex-Mer-Kibra) , and other genes like the Tao-1 kinase (Boggiano et al. 2011; Poon et al. 2011) that act upstream of Hpo (Boggiano and Fehon 2012). However, several other genes were recently identified, which specifically act downstream of Ft and integrate with the Hippo pathway by influencing the activity of the downstream kinase Wts. Thus, the Fat branch of the Hippo pathway has emerged, which independently influences Wts activity and tissue growth (Halder and Johnson 2011; Kango-Singh and Singh 2009; Reddy and Irvine 2008; Staley and Irvine 2012).
Several components of the Ft branch influence the intracellular domain of Ft—the region critical for transducing the signal within cells. These include the Drosophila Discs overgrown (Dco), a homolog of Casein Kinase I, that phosphorylates the Ft intracellular cytoplasmic domain in a Ds-dependent manner (Cho et al. 2006; Feng and Irvine 2009; Sopko et al. 2009); and the unconventional myosin Dachs (D) (Cho et al. 2006; Cho and Irvine 2004; Mao et al. 2006). Loss of function of dco 3, a hypomorphic allele, in homozygous discs and in somatic clones result in tissue overgrowth, and shows elevated levels of Fj and Diap-1 (Bryant and Schmidt 1990; Feng and Irvine 2009; Guan et al. 2007). Dco binds to the cytoplasmic domain of Fat, and in dco mutants, Fat intracellular domains fail to phosphorylate. Ds enriches availability of Fat at the point of cell contacts by forming cis-dimers with Fat. This promotes the transphosphorylation of Fat by Dco. Lowfat is a novel protein that interacts with the intracellular domains of Fat and Ds, and stabilizes the Fat-Ds interaction (Mao et al. 2009). Lowfat was identified in a genome-wide yeast two-hybrid screen as a Fat- and Ds-interacting protein (Mao et al. 2006, 2009). In addition, the palmitoyltraserase Approximated (App) acts downstream of Ft, and Ft regulates the localization of D to the membrane through APP (Matakatsu and Blair 2008). Recently, the apical-basal polarity gene scribble (scrib) (Verghese et al. 2012b) and the LIM (Lin-1; Isl-1; Mec-3) domain protein zyxin 102 (zyx) (Rauskolb et al. 2011) were shown to act in the Fat branch of Hippo signaling pathway (Bennett and Harvey 2006; Cho et al. 2006; Meignin et al. 2007; Polesello and Tapon 2007; Reddy et al. 2010; Silva et al. 2006; Willecke et al. 2006).
The differences in Ds and Fj expression between neighboring cells stimulate Yki activity, whereas the vector property of the gradients effects PCP signaling. Localization of D to the membrane is regulated by Fj, Ds, and Ft (Cho et al. 2006; Mao et al. 2006; Rogulja et al. 2008; Willecke et al. 2008). D controls Yki activity by two alternative mechanisms, one, involves post-translational effects of Ft on Wts, and the second involves the localization of Ex to the subapical membrane (Bennett and Harvey 2006). The apical basal polarity gene scrib and the atypical myosin D are responsible for partitioning the growth regulatory signal from Ft to downstream genes. Genetic epistasis experiments placed Ft upstream of D, and the apical regulator of the pathway—Ex (Cho et al. 2006; Mao et al. 2006; Silva et al. 2006; Willecke et al. 2008; Verghese et al. 2012b). D can reverse the effects of loss of ft on growth, and expression of Fat target genes like wg, serrate, and fj (Mao et al. 2006). Scrib was also placed upstream of D and Ex, and downstream of Ft based on genetic epistasis experiments (Verghese et al. 2012b). When Ft is inactive, D is regulated by Approximated (App) (Matakatsu and Blair 2008). App post-transcriptionally modifies D and affects its localization at the apical cell cortex. Hence, App functions in the Hippo pathway by affecting the availability of D at the apical cell cortex. When Ft is activated, D is released from App and binds to Zyxin (Zyx) , which in turn interacts with Wts and stabilizes Wts activity (Rauskolb et al. 2011). Genetic epistasis experiments placed Zyx downstream of Ft and Dco, and upstream of Wts (Feng and Irvine 2007, 2009; Rauskolb et al. 2011). Thus, influencing Wts stability is a primary mechanism by which Ft controls growth via Hippo signaling. The other input via Ex remains less clear although there is clearly an input from Ft to Ex that also contributes to the Fat-branch-related phenotypes and regulation of the Hippo signaling pathway . Does Fat signaling simultaneously signal through Ex (and the core kinase cascade) and D; or the signals downstream of Ft are partitioned to allow maximum and more efficient signal transduction to the core kinase cascade remains unknown. Currently, the possibility that certain extracellular signals preferentially transmit the signal to Ex or D downstream of Ft has not been addressed.
II. Apical membrane proteins of the Hippo pathway
Over the last 5 years, it has become clear that membrane-localized proteins are an intrinsic part of the Hippo signaling pathway (Genevet and Tapon 2011; Grusche et al. 2011; Halder et al. 2012; Schroeder and Halder 2012). Amongst these are the cell polarity proteins and proteins required for maintaining the cytoskeleton. The FERM (N-Terminal Globular domain (Band4.1, Ezrin, Radixin, Moesin)) domain-containing adaptor proteins Ex and Merlin (Mer) were amongst the earliest Hippo pathway components that were known to localize to the apical membrane (Hamaratoglu et al. 2006; McCartney et al. 2000). Ex and Mer act upstream of the Hpo kinase and regulate pathway activation (Hamaratoglu et al. 2006). Loss of mer and ex together in somatic clones caused dramatic overproliferation of cells leading to overgrowths. These effects were synergistic because loss of function of ex or mer alone does not cause similar defects. These genes function together to control proliferation by regulating expression of transcriptional targets of Hippo pathway (e.g., Cyclin E and DIAP1). Expanded can also regulate the pathway by independently interacting with Yki and sequestering it in the cytoplasm (Badouel et al. 2009; Oh et al. 2009).
Another protein that binds Ex and Mer , and acts upstream of Hpo is the WW- and C2-domain-containing adapter protein Kibra . Ex, Mer, and Kibra form a complex at the apical membrane in epithelial cells , which then activates the downstream core kinase cascade (Baumgartner et al. 2010; Cho et al. 2006; Genevet et al. 2010; Hamaratoglu et al. 2006; Pellock et al. 2007; Tyler and Baker 2007; Yu et al. 2010). Kibra was identified via a genome wide screen in Drosophila and in S2 cells for candidates that modified Yki activity (Baumgartner et al. 2010; Genevet et al. 2010; Yu et al. 2010). Genetic epistasis experiments placed Kibra upstream of Hpo and Yorkie . Kibra affects the phosphorylation of Hpo and Yorkie . Kibra acts synergistically with Ex and Mer to regulate Wts phosphorylation, and Kibra binds to Sav, and Hpo in a Sav-dependent manner (Baumgartner et al. 2010; Genevet et al. 2010; Yu et al. 2010).
Cell-polarity genes have been well characterized in flies and mammalian model systems , and recent studies reveals a role for cell polarity genes in the regulation of Hippo signaling (Genevet and Tapon 2011; Grusche et al. 2010; Grzeschik et al. 2007; Grzeschik et al. 2010a; Grzeschik et al. 2010b; Schroeder and Halder 2012). Crumbs (Crb), a trans-membrane protein is the upstream regulator that regulates Ex activity (Chen et al. 2010; Ling et al. 2010; Robinson et al. 2010). Crb is required for proper localization of Ex . Crb regulates Yki activity by interacting with Expanded (Chen et al. 2010; Grzeschik et al. 2010a; Robinson et al. 2010). Crb was found through a genetic screen, and loss and gain of function of Crb cause overgrowth of tissues and up-regulation of the Hippo pathway target genes. Echinoid (Ed) is another upstream regulator of the Hippo pathway, that like kibra interacts with both Ex and Yki (Baumgartner et al. 2010; Genevet et al. 2010; Yu et al. 2010; Yue et al. 2012). Cells mutant for ed cause mislocalization of Sav from the subapical membrane without affecting Ex or Mer localization. Ed also interacts physically with Hpo, Ex, Mer, and Kibra (Yue et al. 2012).
F-actin acts as an upstream regulator of the Hippo pathway. Increased levels of F-actin inhibit the pathway and activation of Hippo pathway inhibits F-actin accumulation (Fernandez et al. 2011; Richardson 2011; Sansores-Garcia et al. 2011). Tao-1 phosphorylates Hpo at T195 and acts upstream of Hpo (Boggiano and Fehon 2012; Boggiano et al. 2011; Poon et al. 2011). RNAi knockdown of Kibra , Ex, and Mer resulted in a significant decrease of endogenous Hpo protein in the membrane fraction (Boggiano and Fehon 2012; Boggiano et al. 2011; Poon et al. 2011). Thus, the apical proteins regulate Hpo at least in part by bringing the latter to the membrane, where Hpo may be activated via mechanisms yet to be determined.
Negative Regulators of the Hippo Pathway
Several members of the Hippo pathway were identified based on their effects on tissue growth, and the loss of function phenotypes of these components showed dramatic outgrowths and benign lesions in fly epithelia . It was clear that additional components that keep this pathway in check (for example, phosphatases or kinase inhibitors) must exist, as Hippo activity would need to be modulated both positively and negatively for maintaining tissue homeostasis. Thus, the search for negative regulators began, which yielded many important and critical regulators of the Hippo pathway . Amongst the first genes identified in this category, was the Ras Association Family (RASSF) gene, dRASSF1 (Polesello et al. 2006). The dRASSF protein negatively regulates the pathway by inhibiting the phosphorylation of Hpo, thus interrupting the Hpo kinase from signaling to the downstream kinase Wts (Polesello et al. 2006; Scheel and Hofmann 2003). Other inhibitors that act by dephosphorylating Hpo are the phosphatases—Striatin-interacting phosphatase and protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) (Ribeiro et al. 2010). A second mechanism of inhibition of Yki activity was identified by the Drosophila Ajuba family gene, djub (Das Thakur et al. 2010). Loss of djub in mutant clones in imaginal discs caused reduced proliferation and increased apoptosis , akin to yki mutant clones. Genetic interaction studies showed that djub acts downstream of Hpo but upstream of Yki and Wts (Das Thakur et al. 2010). Furthermore, Djub can physically associate with Wts and Sav and influence the signaling activity of Yki. Thus, djub negatively regulates Hippo signaling by interfering with Yki phosphorylation and its subcellular localization (Das Thakur et al. 2010). Recently, another negative regulator, myopic (mop) was identified in a genetic screen for conditional growth suppressors (Gilbert et al. 2011). mop encodes the Drosophila homolog of human His-domain protein tyrosine phosphatase gene (HD-PTP or PTPN23) (Toyooka et al. 2000). mop mutant cells show overgrowth phenotypes due to a block in cell death. This growth is accompanied by upregulation of a subset of Yki transcriptional targets but not the antiapoptotic gene diap1. mop interacts genetically with yki and acts downstream of wts, but at the level of ex and yki. Myopic PPxY motifs bind conserved residues in the WW domains of the transcriptional coactivator Yorkie, and Myopic colocalizes with Yorkie at endosomes (Gilbert et al. 2011). Thus, several negative regulators of the Hippo pathway are now known; however, much remains unknown about their mechanism of action and their influence on growth regulation during development (Table 1).
Hippo Pathway Cross-talks With Other Pathways
Hippo pathway is known to interact with other pathways to regulate growth . In mice it has been shown that Mst2 interacts with Raf-1 of the ERK/MAPK pathway (Graves et al. 1998). Raf-1 inhibits dimerization of Mst2 and recruits a phosphatase to dephosphorylate Mst2, thereby inactivating it, a function independent of the MAPK pathway (O’Neill and Kolch 2005). More recently, many points of intersection between Hippo and other signaling pathways have come to light. For example, in the last 5 years, Hippo pathway was shown to interact with JNK pathway to regulate compensatory proliferation, regeneration, and tumor progression (Chen et al. 2012; Doggett et al. 2011; Grzeschik et al. 2010a; Staley and Irvine 2010; Sun and Irvine 2010, 2011; Tyler et al. 2007; Varelas et al. 2010a). Furthermore, Hippo pathway interacts with Wingless/Wnt pathways in flies and mammals (Varelas et al. 2010a). Hippo pathway restricts Wnt/beta-Catenin signaling by promoting an interaction between TAZ and dishevelled (DVL) in the cytoplasm. TAZ inhibits the CK1delta/epsilon-mediated phosphorylation of DVL, thereby inhibiting Wnt/beta-Catenin signaling (Azzolin et al. 2012; Tsai et al. 2012; Varelas et al. 2010a). In Drosophila , Hippo signaling modulates Wg target gene expression (Varelas et al. 2010a). More connections of Hippo signaling with pathways that control morphogenetic patterning and growth have been uncovered which include the discovery of the regulation of TGF-beta Transforming Growth Factor/SMAD (refers to a family of transcription factors: Sma from Caenorhabditis elegans, Mad 1 from Drosophila, and SMAD1 from human) complexes by YAP/TAZ (transcriptional co-activator with PDZ) in mammalian models and Yki in flies (Chan et al. 2011; Meignin et al. 2007; Polesello and Tapon 2007; Rogulja et al. 2008; Sudol and Harvey 2010; Varelas et al. 2010b). Dpp (Decapentaplegic) signaling interacts with D to maintain Fj and Ds gradient in order to regulate proliferation in the wing (Rogulja et al. 2008). Hippo pathway also intersects the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/TOR pathway via multiple interactions (Bellosta and Gallant 2010; Collak et al. 2012; Karni et al. 2008; Kim et al. 2010; Mills et al. 2008; Sekido 2008; Strassburger et al. 2012; Tumaneng et al. 2012a; Tumaneng et al. 2012b; Wehr et al. 2012); with G-protein coupled receptor signaling (Yu et al. 2012) and Receptor Tyrosine Kinase signaling (Gadd et al. 2012; Garami et al. 2003). In fact, the web of interactions has grown exponentially over the last few years such that oftentimes the Hippo pathway is referred to as a network or superhighway (Barry and Camargo 2013; Table 2.
Mammalian Hippo Pathway
In vertebrate models, Hippo pathway is responsible for regulating organ size, and is involved in regeneration (Bertini et al. 2009; Hiemer and Varelas 2013; Hong and Guan 2012; Liu et al. 2012a). The core kinase pathway is highly conserved in mammals (Hong and Guan 2012; Liu et al. 2012a; Zhao et al. 2008a), and consists of Mst1/2 (Hpo homolog) and LATS1/2 (Wts homolog) along with their adaptor proteins WW45 (Sav) and MOB1 (Mats homolog), which control growth by regulating phosphorylation of YAP (Yki homolog) and TAZ (transcriptional coactivator with PDZ-binding domain); Hong and Guan 2012; Liu et al. 2012a; Zhao et al. 2008a). Ft1-4 (Ft homolog), Dchs1-2 (Ds homolog), and Fjx1 (Fj homolog) are known to regulate PCP; however, their connection to other Hippo pathway components still needs to be explored (Brittle et al. 2010; Hiemer and Varelas 2013; Skouloudaki et al. 2009; Sopko et al. 2009; Zhao et al. 2007). The other downstream components like Dco and Lowfat homolog have not been shown yet to function within the Hippo pathway (Sopko et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2008a, 2011a; Zhao et al. 2010a). However, Dco homolog CK1δ/ε has been shown to be involved in YAP/TAZ degradation (Zhao et al. 2010b).
Neurofibromatosis type II (NF2), the Mer homolog is the most extensively studied upstream regulator in mammals (Sekido 2011; Striedinger et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2009b; Zhao et al. 2007). NF2 interacts with CD44 and adherens junction to relay the signal downstream to other Hippo pathway components during contact inhibition (Li et al. 2012; Morrison et al. 2001; Zhao et al. 2007). Kibra is known to interact with LATS2 to promote its phosphorylation (Zhang et al. 2012). It also protects LATS2 from proteosomal degradation by preventing its ubiquitination. Kibra is also the transcriptional target of Hippo pathway (Angus et al. 2012; Ishiuchi and Takeichi 2012; Visser-Grieve et al. 2012; Xiao et al. 2011). Angiomotin family interacts with its PPxY domain to YAP WW domain and TAZ PDZ domain independent of the upstream components. This interaction inhibits the activity of YAP/TAZ (Chan et al. 2011; Paramasivam et al. 2011; Skouloudaki and Walz 2012; Wang et al. 2012a; Wang et al. 2009; Zhao et al. 2011a). Ex1/FRMD6/Willin (Ex homolog) interacts with upstream Hippo pathway components like Mer (Angus et al. 2012; Ishiuchi and Takeichi 2012; Visser-Grieve et al. 2012). Crb interacts with YAP/TAZ and promotes its phosphorylation, which is dependent on cell density and at the same time inhibits TGF-beta SMAD pathway (Varelas et al. 2010b). Unlike Drosophila RASSF1, mammalian RASSF homologs activate MST1/2 (Avruch et al. 2012; Guo et al. 2007; Hergovich 2012; Hwang et al. 2007; Polesello et al. 2006; Ribeiro et al. 2010; Schagdarsurengin et al. 2010; Seidel et al. 2007).
Nephronophthisis4 (NPHP4) , a known cilia-associated protein that is mutated in the severe degenerative renal disease nephronophthisis, acts as a potent negative regulator of mammalian Hippo signaling (Habbig et al. 2011, 2012). NPHP4 directly interacts with the kinase LATS1 and inhibits LATS1-mediated phosphorylation of the YAP and TAZ, leading to derepression of these proto-oncogenic transcriptional regulators. Moreover, NPHP4 induces release of YAP and TAZ from 14-3-3 binding and their nuclear translocation promoting TEA domain (TEAD)/TAZ/YAP-dependent transcriptional activity (Habbig et al. 2011). ITCH interacts with LATS to negatively regulate its stability (Ho et al. 2011; Salah et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2012a). α-catenin interacts with YAP and affects its stability by stabilizing the YAP/14-3-3 complex to restrict YAP activity, and by preventing PP2A to interact with YAP (Azzolin et al. 2012; Schlegelmilch et al. 2011; Silvis et al. 2011; Tsai et al. 2012; Varelas 2010a; Konsavage 2013; Mauviel 2012). Zona occludens-2 (ZO-2) promotes the pro-apoptotic function of YAP (Oka et al. 2010). The ASPP (apoptosis-stimulating protein of p53) family of proteins can function in the nucleus to modulate the transcriptional activity of p53, with ASPP1 and ASPP2 contributing to the expression of apoptotic target genes (Vigneron et al. 2010). ASPP increases YAP/TAZ nuclear availability by preventing LATS interaction with YAP/TAZ (Vigneron et al. 2010). Similarly, PP1A interacts with ASPP1 to dephosphorylate TAZ leading to increased TAZ nuclear availability (Liu et al. 2010, 2011).
In mammalian cell lines, E-cadherin acts as an upstream regulator of the pathway, which activates the pathway in response to contact inhibition. YAP and TAZ interact with several transcriptional factors. YAP/TAZ interacts with TEAD1/4 and Runx2. TAZ interacts with thyroid transcription factor-1, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) , Tbx5, Pax3, and Smad2/3/4. Yap interacts with p73 to mediate its pro-apoptotic functions. Various target genes are as follows: CTGF, AREG, BIRC5–2, GLI-2 (Liu et al. 2012b; Zhao et al. 2008a, 2010a). YAP1 interacts with Sonic Hedgehog pathway to promote the proliferation of cerebellar granule neuron precursors (CGNPs). TAZ inhibits Wnt signaling by inhibiting the phosphorylation of DVL by CKIδε. YAP/TAZ has also been shown to interact with SMAD to regulate tumorigenesis (Zhang et al. 2011a, b) . Thus, our understanding of the mammalian Hippo pathway continues to grow with new insights on its molecular and signaling interactions with components from Hippo and other pathways.
The Insulin-Receptor Signaling Pathway: Regulation of Cell Size
The pin-head screens showed a large number of mutations that primarily caused decreased growth due to formation of smaller cells (Oldham et al. 2000a; Stocker and Hafen 2000). These mutants were subsequently categorized into two well-studied signaling pathways—the insulin/Phospho inositol 3 kinase (PI3K) pathway and the Target of Rapamycin (TOR) pathway. Using genetic and biochemical strategies, the epistatic and molecular interactions were elucidated for genes that comprise these pathways .
The Regulation of Cell Size and Not Cell Numbers
The PI3K Pathway
Drosophila has one insulin/insulin-like growth factor (IGF) receptor homolog known as dINR (Drosophila insulin receptor) (Chen et al. 1996; Fernandez et al. 1995), and several insulin-like peptides (Brogiolo et al. 2001). These together control the carbohydrate metabolism and growth in flies (Ikeya et al. 2002; Rulifson et al. 2002). Through a mechanism that involves phosphorylation of its carboxy-terminal end, the dINR recruits downstream signaling molecules without the need for adaptor proteins. The signaling also involves the insulin receptor substrate protein Chico, which contains a phosphotyrosine binding domain, which facilitates its binding with activated dINR (Bohni et al. 1999; Poltilove et al. 2000). Subsequently, the pathway functions by activating the PI3K pathway, via activation of the Drosophila PI3K—Dp110 and its adapter subunit Dp60 (Leevers 2001; Leevers et al. 1996; Weinkove et al. 1999). Dp110/Dp60 heterodimers are recruited to the plasma membrane following the binding of p60 SH2 domain to phosphorylated dINR and Chico, which allows the PI3K access to the phosphinositide substrates in the plasma membrane. This sets up a signaling cascade in which PIP3 (phosphatidyl inositol (3, 4, 5 triphosphate)) transduces the signal to downstream effectors that contain the PIP3-binding PH (Pleckstrin homology) domains, and causes relocalization of these proteins to the plasma membrane.
In flies, two such effectors exist, which are the Drosophila homolog of phosphoinositide-dependent kinase 1 (PDK1) and its substrate AKT (AK: mouse strain that develops thymic lymphomas; T: thymoma) aka protein kinase B (PKB). PDK1 localizes to the membrane during low levels of PI3K activity via its affinity to PIP3, whereas AKT requires high levels of PI3K activity to become membrane localized, through a process involving binding of PIP3 to its PH-domain and phosphorylation by PDK1 (Vanhaesebroeck and Alessi 2000). In flies, the activity of dAKT is reduced in the absence of Dp110 and coexpression of dPDK1 and dAKT activates dAKT and induce growth (Cho et al. 2001; Radimerski et al. 2002b; Rintelen et al. 2001).
A negative regulator of the PI3K activity is the lipid phosphatase PTEN (phosphate and tensin homolog), which removes the 3’ phosphate from three phosphoinositides generated by PI3K (Gao et al. 2000; Goberdhan et al. 1999; Huang et al. 1999). Genetic interaction studies support the model where PTEN directly antagonizes PI3K. Loss of PTEN leads to overgrowths due to increased levels of PIP3 (Oldham et al. 2002). Recently, the FOXO (Forkhead box) family of transcription factors was identified as the target that enabled AKT to regulate growth (Tran et al. 2003). AKT-mediated phosphorylation of FOXO antagonizes its transcriptional activity by creating a 14-3-3 binding site that leads to cytoplasmic sequestration of FOXO (Brunet et al. 1999, 2002; Burgering and Kops 2002). Drosophila has one FOXO family transcription factor (dFOXO)—which functions downstream of AKT. Interestingly, loss of function of dFOXO has no apparent effect on cell size or growth as flies homozygous mutant for dFOXO are viable and normal in size (Junger et al. 2003).
The loss of function of Dp110, p60, chico, dINR, dPDK1, and dAKT show similar effects on cell size and tissue growth. For example, twin-spot analysis revealed that loss of function clones of mutations in these genes are smaller than the corresponding wild-type twin clones that lead to formation of smaller structures (Bohni et al. 1999; Brogiolo et al. 2001; Rintelen et al. 2001; Verdu et al. 1999; Weinkove et al. 1999). Overexpression of PI3K pathway components like Dp110 leads to increased insulin/PI3K signaling and a corresponding increase in cell size, cell number, and tissue growth (Goberdhan et al. 1999; Huang et al. 1999; Leevers et al. 1996). Overall, changes in levels of insulin/PI3K signaling have profound effects on organ and organismal size due to effects on cell growth and cell division throughout development and affect the final body/organ size (Fig. 5).
The TSC-TOR Pathway
Two TOR genes, TOR1 and TOR2, were initially identified in yeast, and were shown to be kinases that regulate growth in all organisms by acting as nutrient sensors that couple signaling to nutrient availability (Gingras et al. 2001). Drosophila TOR (dTOR) promotes growth by stimulating translation via promoting the activity of the Drosophila S6Kinase (Montagne et al. 1999), and inhibiting the Drosophila 4E-BP1 (a homolog of the Eukaryotic translation initiator 4E)—the translational inhibitor of eIF4E, which is a part of the translation initiation complex (Gingras et al. 2001; Lasko 2000). Hyperphosphorylation of d4E-BP1 , which is in part controlled by the TOR kinase, relieves its interaction with eIF4E leading to translation initiation.
TOR signaling is negatively regulated by a complex formed by the tuberous sclerosis complex tumor suppressors, TSC1 and TSC2 (Marygold and Leevers 2002). Mutations in Tsc1/Tsc2 cause formation of large cells, and are implicated in the inherited benign hamartomas observed in the tuberous sclerosis patients (Kandt 2002; Montagne et al. 2001). The Drosophila Tsc1/2 genes show similar effects on cell size, and were identified by several groups in the eyFLP cell lethal screens as mutants with overgrown heads (Gao and Pan 2001; Potter et al. 2001; Tapon et al. 2001). Loss of TSC1/2 causes increased growth whereas overexpression of TSC1/2 causes reduced growth due to slow cell cycle progression in the mutant cells. Growth regulation via TSC1/2 happens through preventing dS6K activation via dTOR (Gao et al. 2002; Radimerski et al. 2002a; Radimerski et al. 2002b). Another important component of this pathway is the GTPase (guanosine triphosphate hydrolase) Rheb, which is a target of TSC (Saucedo et al. 2003; Stocker et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2003). The Rheb-GTP levels play a central role in regulating the activity of TOR pathway, and the TOR protein that exists in two large multimeric complexes in the cell, viz., the rapamycin-sensitive TORC1 complex, and the rapamycin-resistant TORC2 complex (Hara et al. 2002; Kim et al. 2002; Kim et al. 2003; Loewith et al. 2002; Sarbassov et al. 2004).
The TORC1 complex consists of TOR, Raptor, and GßL, and responds to the presence of growth factors and nutrients to control protein synthesis. The small GTPase protein Rheb (Ras homolog enriched in brain) is a direct activator of TORC1 (Long et al. 2004; Saucedo et al. 2003; Stocker et al. 2003), and the TSC complex (TSC1/TSC2) negatively regulates TORC1 by functioning as a GTPase-activating protein for Rheb (Potter and Xu 2001; Zhang et al. 2003). Growth factors such as insulin or IGFs activate TORC1 signaling upstream of the TSC1/TSC2 (TSC1/2) complex through the insulin receptor (InR)/PI3K/AKT signaling pathway (Inoki et al. 2002; Potter et al. 2002). TORC1 also senses nutrient availability. Amino acids regulate TORC1 through mechanisms independent or downstream of TSC complex, and recently the Rag small GTPases have been shown to interact with TOR and promote TORC1 activity by controlling its subcellular localization (Nellist et al. 2008; Sancak et al. 2010).
TORC2 complex consists of TOR , rictor, Sin1 (stress-activated map kinase-interacting protein 1) and GßL; and phosphorylates and activates several AGC family kinases, including AKT, serum and glucocorticoid-regulated kinase (SGK) , and protein kinase C , and thereby regulates cell survival, cell cycle progression, and metabolism (Pearce et al. 2010; Li 2010; Gao 2010). In contrast to TORC1, little is known about the upstream activators of mTORC2. Although the general mechanisms have not been accepted, PI3K, TSC, and Rheb have been shown to regulate TORC2 activity, and Rictor has been identified as a substrate of S6 kinase (S6K), suggesting possible regulation of TORC2 through the TORC1 pathway (Dibble et al. 2009; Treins et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2006). Nevertheless, it is generally thought that growth factors may control TORC2, either directly or indirectly (Zinzalla et al. 2011). TORC2 has been proposed to function independent of amino acid availability (Jacinto et al. 2006); however, recent findings show that amino acids may also activate TORC2 (Tato et al. 2011).
The central role of TOR in cell growth has been largely attributed to TORC1, but mounting evidence points to a role for TORC2 as well in this basic cellular process. For instance, TORC2 localizes in polysomal fractions and associates with ribosomal proteins, indicating a potential role for TORC2 in protein synthesis and maturation (Cybulski and Hall 2009; Zinzalla et al. 2011). lst8 knockout flies are viable but small, similar to rictor mutants but dissimilar to files with tor or rheb mutations, which are lethal (Avruch et al. 2009; Liao et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2012b). Neither loss nor overexpression of LST8 affected the kinase activity of TORC1 toward S6K or autophagy , whereas the kinase activity of TORC2 toward AKT was completely lost in the lst8 mutants (Avruch et al. 2009; Liao et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2012b).
In terms of effects of TOR signaling on growth phenotypes in Drosophila , loss of dTOR leads to a decrease in larvae size; however, the larvae fail to mature and die before reaching adulthood. In mosaic Drosophila, loss of dTOR leads to a decrease in cell size while maintaining the general organization of the tissue (Oldham et al. 2000b; Zhang et al. 2000). However, it is less clear how cell size is regulated downstream of mTOR. One of the most potent candidates in this regulation is S6K. In Drosophila, knockout of S6K results in high rates of embryonic lethality. In the surviving adults, however, there is a decrease in body size. Knockdown of either dPTEN or dTSC1is sufficient to increase cell size; however, a double knockdown of dPTEN and dTSC1 has additive effects on cell size regulation. This suggests that in Drosophila, the pathways may have independent components in the regulation of cell size (Gao and Pan 2001). It may also highlight the differences in the regulation of TSC2 by AKT in Drosophila as seen by mutations of the AKT phosphorylation sites on TSC2 (Dong and Pan 2004; Pan et al. 2004). Loss of either dPTEN or dTSC1 can lead to increase in cell size; however, a report has suggested that only knockdown of dTSC1 leads to increase in dS6K (Radimerski et al. 2002a), whereas other reports have also seen increases in dS6K with the knockdown of dPTEN (Sarbassov et al. 2004; Yang et al. 2006). It is possible that dTSC1 regulates cell size in a dTOR-dependent manner, whereas dPTEN partially regulates cell size in a dTOR-independent manner (Radimerski et al. 2002b).
In conclusion, the TOR signaling pathway is a complex network of cell size regulators that is also implicated in tumorigenesis and cell survival. Several pathways interact and intersect with the TOR pathway at multiple points upstream and downstream of TOR .
Growth Regulation: A Network of Tumor Suppressors
Overall, growth control occurs through the Hippo and TSC-TOR pathways in conjunction with pathways regulating pattern formation during development. These pathways intersect in complicated signaling networks in all cell types, and coordinately regulate overall growth of an organism. Our progress in understanding of these pathways has lead the way to find molecules and interactions important for regenerative growth and wound healing—phenomena that have been well-documented but not well-understood at the molecular level for a long time. In addition, the establishment of these growth regulatory networks has generated many insights in the fields of cancer (e.g., the underlying genetics and biology link between hamartomas and TSC genes; Schwannomma’s and NF2; YAP and Hepatocellular carcinoma; TAZ and Breast cancer etc.). In the future, it will be interesting to learn about the regulation of these pathways by extracellular and intracellular mechanisms, an area expected to expand rapidly with our increased understanding of the integration points in the circuitry of these networks .
References
Acquisti C, Kumar S, Elser JJ (2009) Signatures of nitrogen limitation in the elemental composition of the proteins involved in the metabolic apparatus. Proc Biol Sci 276:2605–2610
Alarcon C, Zaromytidou AI, Xi Q, Gao S, Yu J, Fujisawa S, Barlas A, Miller AN, Manova-Todorova K, Macias MJ et al (2009) Nuclear CDKs drive Smad transcriptional activation and turnover in BMP and TGF-beta pathways. Cell 139:757–769
Anderson J, Salzer CL, Kumar JP (2006) Regulation of the retinal determination gene dachshund in the embryonic head and developing eye of Drosophila. Dev Biol 297(2):536–549
Angus L, Moleirinho S, Herron L, Sinha A, Zhang X, Niestrata M, Dholakia K, Prystowsky MB, Harvey KF, Reynolds PA et al (2012) Willin/FRMD6 expression activates the Hippo signaling pathway kinases in mammals and antagonizes oncogenic YAP. Oncogene 31:238–250
Avruch J, Long X, Ortiz-Vega S, Rapley J, Papageorgiou A, Dai N (2009) Amino acid regulation of TOR complex 1. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 296:E592–602
Avruch J, Zhou D, Fitamant J, Bardeesy N, Mou F, Barrufet LR (2012) Protein kinases of the Hippo pathway: regulation and substrates. Semin Cell Dev Biol 23:770–784
Azzolin L, Zanconato F, Bresolin S, Forcato M, Basso G, Bicciato S, Cordenonsi M, Piccolo S (2012) Role of TAZ as mediator of Wnt signaling. Cell 151:1443–1456
Bachmann A, Schneider M, Theilenberg E, Grawe F, Knust E (2001) Drosophila Stardust is a partner of Crumbs in the control of epithelial cell polarity. Nature 414(6864):638–643
Badouel C, Gardano L, Amin N, Garg A, Rosenfeld R, Le Bihan T, McNeill H (2009) The FERM-domain protein expanded regulates Hippo pathway activity via direct interactions with the transcriptional activator Yorkie. Dev Cell 16:411–420
Baena-Lopez LA, Baonza A, Garcia-Bellido A (2005) The orientation of cell divisions determines the shape of Drosophila organs. Curr Biol 15(18):1640–1644
Baker NE (2001) Cell proliferation, survival, and death in the Drosophila eye. Semin Cell Dev Biol 12:499–507
Baker NE, Yu S, Han D (1996) Evolution of proneural atonal expression during distinct regulatory phases in the developing Drosophila eye. Curr Biol 6:1290–1301
Bangs P, White K (2000) Regulation and execution of apoptosis during Drosophila development. Dev Dyn 218:68–79
Barry ER, Camargo FD (2013) The Hippo superhighway: signaling crossroads converging on the Hippo/Yap pathway in stem cells and development. Curr Opin Cell Biol 25(2):247–253
Baumgartner R, Poernbacher I, Buser N, Hafen E, Stocker H (2010) The WW domain protein Kibra acts upstream of Hippo in Drosophila. Dev Cell 18:309–316
Bellen HJ, O’Kane CJ, Wilson C, Grossniklaus U, Pearson RK, Gehring WJ (1989) P-element-mediated enhancer detection: a versatile method to study development in Drosophila. Genes Dev 3:1288–1300
Bellen HJ, Levis RW, He Y, Carlson JW, Evans-Holm M, Bae E, Kim J, Metaxakis A, Savakis C, Schulze KL et al (2011) The Drosophila gene disruption project: progress using transposons with distinctive site specificities. Genetics 188:731–743
Bellosta P, Gallant P (2010) Myc function in Drosophila. Genes Cancer 1:542–546
Bennett FC, Harvey KF (2006) Fat cadherin modulates organ size in Drosophila via the Salvador/Warts/Hippo signaling pathway. Curr Biol 16:2101–2110
Bergantinos C, Vilana X, Corominas M, Serras F (2010) Imaginal discs: renaissance of a model for regenerative biology. Bioessays 32:207–217
Bertini E, Oka T, Sudol M, Strano S, Blandino G (2009) YAP: at the crossroad between transformation and tumor suppression. Cell Cycle 8:49–57
Bier E (2005) Drosophila, the golden bug, emerges as a tool for human genetics. Nat Rev Genet 6:9–23
Blair SS (2003) Genetic mosaic techniques for studying Drosophila development. Development 130:5065–5072
Boggiano JC, Fehon RG (2012) Growth control by committee: intercellular junctions, cell polarity, and the cytoskeleton regulate Hippo signaling. Dev Cell 22:695–702
Boggiano JC, Vanderzalm PJ, Fehon RG (2011) Tao-1 phosphorylates Hippo/MST kinases to regulate the Hippo-Salvador-Warts tumor suppressor pathway. Dev Cell 21:888–895
Bohni R, Riesgo-Escovar J, Oldham S, Brogiolo W, Stocker H, Andruss BF, Beckingham K, Hafen E (1999) Autonomous control of cell and organ size by CHICO, a Drosophila homolog of vertebrate IRS1–4. Cell 97:865–875
Bonini NM, Fortini ME (1999) Surviving Drosophila eye development: integrating cell death with differentiation during formation of a neural structure. Bioessays 21:991–1003
Bosveld F, Bonnet I, Guirao B, Tlili S, Wang Z, Petitalot A et al (2012) Mechanical control of morphogenesis by Fat/Dachsous/Four-jointed planar cell polarity pathway. Science 336(6082):724–727
Boutros M, Ahringer J (2008) The art and design of genetic screens: RNA interference. Nat Rev Genet 9:554–566
Brittle AL, Repiso A, Casal J, Lawrence PA, Strutt D (2010) Four-jointed modulates growth and planar polarity by reducing the affinity of dachsous for fat. Curr Biol 20:803–810
Brogiolo W, Stocker H, Ikeya T, Rintelen F, Fernandez R, Hafen E (2001) An evolutionarily conserved function of the Drosophila insulin receptor and insulin-like peptides in growth control. Curr Biol 11:213–221
Brumby AM, Richardson HE (2003) Scribble mutants cooperate with oncogenic Ras or Notch to cause neoplastic overgrowth in Drosophila. EMBO J 22:5769–5779
Brunet A, Bonni A, Zigmond MJ, Lin MZ, Juo P, Hu LS, Anderson MJ, Arden KC, Blenis J, Greenberg ME (1999) Akt promotes cell survival by phosphorylating and inhibiting a Forkhead transcription factor. Cell 96:857–868
Brunet A, Kanai F, Stehn J, Xu J, Sarbassova D, Frangioni JV, Dalal SN, DeCaprio JA, Greenberg ME, Yaffe MB (2002) 14-3-3 transits to the nucleus and participates in dynamic nucleocytoplasmic transport. J Cell Biol 156:817–828
Bryant PJ (1978) Pattern formation in imaginal discs. In: Ashburner M, Wright TRF (eds) Genetics biology of Drosophila, vol 2C, pp 229–335
Bryant PJ (1987) Experimental and genetic analysis of growth and cell proliferation in Drosophila imaginal discs. In: Loomis WF (ed) Genetic regulation of development. AR Liss, New York, pp 339–372
Bryant PJ (2001) Growth factors controlling imaginal disc growth in Drosophila. Novartis Found Symp 237:182–194; discussion 194–202
Bryant PJ, Schmidt O (1990) The genetic control of cell proliferation in Drosophila imaginal discs. J Cell Sci Suppl 13:169–189
Bryant PJ, Huettner B, Held LI Jr, Ryerse J, Szidonya J (1988) Mutations at the fat locus interfere with cell proliferation control and epithelial morphogenesis in Drosophila. Dev Biol 129:541–554
Burgering BM, Kops GJ (2002) Cell cycle and death control: long live Forkheads. Trends Biochem Sci 27:352–360
Burke R, Basler K (1997) Hedgehog signaling in Drosophila eye and limb development—conserved machinery, divergent roles? Curr Opin Neurobiol 7:55–61
Cagan R (1993) Cell fate specification in the developing Drosophila retina. Dev Suppl 1993:19–28
Cagan R (2009) Principles of Drosophila eye differentiation. Curr Top Dev Biol 89:115–135
Campbell S, Inamdar M, Rodrigues V, Raghavan V, Palazzolo M, Chovnick A (1992) The scalloped gene encodes a novel, evolutionarily conserved transcription factor required for sensory organ differentiation in Drosophila. Genes Dev 6:367–379
Chan SW, Lim CJ, Chen L, Chong YF, Huang C, Song H, Hong W (2011) The Hippo pathway in biological control and cancer development. J Cell Physiol 226:928–939
Chen CK, Chien CT (1999) Negative regulation of atonal in proneural cluster formation of Drosophila R8 photoreceptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5055–5060
Chen C, Jack J, Garofalo RS (1996) The Drosophila insulin receptor is required for normal growth. Endocrinology 137:846–856
Chen CL, Gajewski KM, Hamaratoglu F, Bossuyt W, Sansores-Garcia L, Tao C, Halder G (2010) The apical-basal cell polarity determinant Crumbs regulates Hippo signaling in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:15810–15815
Chen CL, Schroeder MC, Kango-Singh M, Tao C, Halder G (2012) Tumor suppression by cell competition through regulation of the Hippo pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:484–489
Chen HJ, Wang CM, Wang TW, Liaw GJ, Hsu TH, Lin TH et al (2011) The Hippo pathway controls polar cell fate through Notch signaling during Drosophila oogenesis. Dev Biol 357(2):370–379
Chen L, Qin F, Deng X, Avruch J, Zhou D (2012) Hippo pathway in intestinal homeostasis and tumorigenesis. Protein Cell 3(4):305–310
Cho E, Irvine KD (2004) Action of fat, four-jointed, dachsous and dachs in distal-to-proximal wing signaling. Development 131:4489–4500
Cho KS, Lee JH, Kim S, Kim D, Koh H, Lee J, Kim C, Kim J, Chung J (2001) Drosophila phosphoinositide-dependent kinase-1 regulates apoptosis and growth via the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-dependent signaling pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:6144–6149
Cho E, Feng Y, Rauskolb C, Maitra S, Fehon R, Irvine KD (2006) Delineation of a fat tumor suppressor pathway. Nat Genet 38:1142–1150
Clark HF, Brentrup D, Schneitz K, Bieber A, Goodman C, Noll M (1995) Dachsous encodes a member of the cadherin superfamily that controls imaginal disc morphogenesis in Drosophila. Genes Dev 9(12):1530–1542
Collak FK, Yagiz K, Luthringer DJ, Erkaya B, Cinar B (2012) Threonine-120 phosphorylation regulated by phosphoinositide-3-kinase/Akt and mammalian target of rapamycin pathway signaling limits the antitumor activity of mammalian sterile 20-like kinase 1. J Biol Chem 287:23698–23709
Conlon I, Raff M (1999) Size control in animal development. Cell 96:235–244
Cook M, Tyers M (2007) Size control goes global. Curr Opin Biotechnol 18:341–350
Cooper S (2004) Control and maintenance of mammalian cell size. BMC Cell Biol 5:35
Cordero JB, Larson DE, Craig CR, Hays R, Cagan R (2007) Dynamic decapentaplegic signaling regulates patterning and adhesion in the Drosophila pupal retina. Development 134(10):1861–1871
Courbard JR, Djiane A, Wu J, Mlodzik M (2009) The apical/basal-polarity determinant Scribble cooperates with the PCP core factor Stbm/Vang and functions as one of its effectors. Dev Biol 333(1):67–77
Crickmore MA, Mann RS (2008) The control of size in animals: insights from selector genes. Bioessays 30:843–853
Cybulski N, Hall MN (2009) TOR complex 2: a signaling pathway of its own. Trends Biochem Sci 34:620–627
Daniel A, Dumstrei K, Lengyel JA, Hartenstein V (1999) The control of cell fate in the embryonic visual system by atonal, tailless and EGFR signaling. Development 126:2945–2954
Das TM, Feng Y, Jagannathan R, Seppa MJ, Skeath JB, Longmore GD (2010) Ajuba LIM proteins are negative regulators of the Hippo signaling pathway. Curr Biol 20:657–662
de Nooij JC, Hariharan IK (1995) Uncoupling cell fate determination from patterned cell division in the Drosophila eye. Science 270:983–985
Densham RM, O'Neill E, Munro J, Konig I, Anderson K, Kolch W et al (2009) MST kinases monitor actin cytoskeletal integrity and signal via c-Jun N-terminal kinase stress-activated kinase to regulate p21Waf1/Cip1 stability. Mol Cell Biol 29(24):6380–6390
Dibble CC, Asara JM, Manning BD (2009) Characterization of rictor phosphorylation sites reveals direct regulation of mTOR complex 2 by S6K1. Mol Cell Biol 29:5657–5670
Dickson B, Hafen E (1993) Genetic dissection of eye development in Drosophila. In: Bate M, Martinez Arias A (eds) The development of Drosophila melanogaster. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, pp 1327–1362
Dobbelaere J, Josue F, Suijkerbuijk S, Baum B, Tapon N, Raff J (2008) A genome-wide RNAi screen to dissect centriole duplication and centrosome maturation in Drosophila. PLoS Biol 6(9):e224
Doggett K, Grusche FA, Richardson HE, Brumby AM (2011) Loss of the Drosophila cell polarity regulator scribbled promotes epithelial tissue overgrowth and cooperation with oncogenic Ras-Raf through impaired Hippo pathway signaling. BMC Dev Biol 11:57
Dominguez M (1999) Dual role for Hedgehog in the regulation of the proneural gene atonal during ommatidia development. Development 126:2345–2353
Dominguez M, Casares F (2005) Organ specification-growth control connection: new in-sights from the Drosophila eye-antennal disc. Dev Dyn 232:673–684
Dong J, Pan D (2004) Tsc2 is not a critical target of Akt during normal Drosophila development. Genes Dev 18:2479–2484
Dong J, Feldmann G, Huang J, Wu S, Zhang N, Comerford SA, Gayyed MF, Anders RA, Maitra A, Pan D (2007) Elucidation of a universal size-control mechanism in Drosophila and mammals. Cell 130:1120–1133
Edgar BA (1999) From small flies come big discoveries about size control. Nat Cell Biol 1:E191–E193
Edgar BA (2006) From cell structure to transcription: Hippo forges a new path. Cell 124:267–273
Enomoto M, Igaki T (2011) Deciphering tumor-suppressor signaling in flies: genetic link between Scribble/Dlg/Lgl and the Hippo pathways. J Genet Genomics 38(10):461–470
Fan SS, Chen MS, Lin JF, Chao WT, Yang VC (2003) Use of gain-of-function study to delineate the roles of crumbs in Drosophila eye development. J Biomed Sci 10(6 Pt 2):766–773
Feng Y, Irvine KD (2007) Fat and expanded act in parallel to regulate growth through warts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:20362–20367
Feng Y, Irvine KD (2009) Processing and phosphorylation of the fat receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:11989–11994
Fernandez R, Tabarini D, Azpiazu N, Frasch M, Schlessinger J (1995) The Drosophila insulin receptor homolog: a gene essential for embryonic development encodes two receptor isoforms with different signaling potential. EMBO J 14:3373–3384
Fernandez BG, Gaspar P, Bras-Pereira C, Jezowska B, Rebelo SR, Janody F (2011) Actin-Capping protein and the Hippo pathway regulate F-actin and tissue growth in Drosophila. Development 138:2337–2346
Firth LC, Bhattacharya A, Baker NE (2010) Cell cycle arrest by a gradient of Dpp signaling during Drosophila eye development. BMC Dev Biol 10:28
Fjose A, Polito LC, Weber U, Gehring WJ (1984) Developmental expression of the white locus of Drosophila melanogaster. EMBO J 3:2087–2094
Gadd S, Beezhold P, Jennings L, George D, Leuer K, Huang CC, Huff V, Tognon C, Sorensen PH, Triche T et al (2012) Mediators of receptor tyrosine kinase activation in infantile fibrosarcoma: a Children’s Oncology Group study. J Pathol 228:119–130
Gao D, Wan L, Inuzuka H, Berg AH, Tseng A, Zhai B et al (2010) Rictor forms a complex with Cullin-1 to promote SGK1 ubiquitination and destruction. Mol Cell 39(5):797–808
Gao X, Pan D (2001) TSC1 and TSC2 tumor suppressors antagonize insulin signaling in cell growth. Genes Dev 15:1383–1392
Gao X, Neufeld TP, Pan D (2000) Drosophila PTEN regulates cell growth and proliferation through PI3K- dependent and -independent pathways. Dev Biol 221:404–418
Gao X, Zhang Y, Arrazola P, Hino O, Kobayashi T, Yeung RS, Ru B, Pan D (2002) Tsc tumour suppressor proteins antagonize amino-acid-TOR signalling. Nat Cell Biol 4:699–704
Garami A, Zwartkruis FJ, Nobukuni T, Joaquin M, Roccio M, Stocker H, Kozma SC, Hafen E, Bos JL, Thomas G (2003) Insulin activation of Rheb, a mediator of mTOR/S6K/4E-BP signaling, is inhibited by TSC1 and 2. Mol Cell 11:1457–1466
Garg A, Srivastava A, Davis MM, O'Keefe SL, Chow L, Bell JB (2007) Antagonizing scalloped with a novel vestigial construct reveals an important role for scalloped in Drosophila melanogaster leg, eye and optic lobe development. Genetics 175(2):659–669
Garoia F, Guerra D, Pezzoli MC, Lopez-Varea A, Cavicchi S, Garcia-Bellido A (2000) Cell behaviour of Drosophila fat cadherin mutations in wing development. Mech Develop 94(1-2):95–109
Genevet A, Tapon N (2011) The Hippo pathway and apico-basal cell polarity. Biochem J 436:213–224
Genevet A, Polesello C, Blight K, Robertson F, Collinson LM, Pichaud F, Tapon N (2009) The Hippo pathway regulates apical-domain size independently of its growth-control function. J Cell Sci 122:2360–2370
Genevet A, Wehr MC, Brain R, Thompson BJ, Tapon N (2010) Kibra is a regulator of the Salvador/Warts/Hippo signaling network. Dev Cell 18:300–308
Gilbert MM, Tipping M, Veraksa A, Moberg KH (2011) A screen for conditional growth suppressor genes identifies the Drosophila homolog of HD-PTP as a regulator of the oncoprotein Yorkie. Dev Cell 20:700–712
Gingras AC, Raught B, Sonenberg N (2001) Regulation of translation initiation by FRAP/mTOR. Genes Dev 15:807–826
Goberdhan DC, Paricio N, Goodman EC, Mlodzik M, Wilson C (1999) Drosophila tumor suppressor PTEN controls cell size and number by antagonizing the Chico/PI3-kinase signaling pathway. Genes Dev 13:3244–3258
Goulev Y, Fauny JD, Gonzalez-Marti B, Flagiello D, Silber J, Zider A (2008) SCALLOPED interacts with YORKIE, the nuclear effector of the hippo tumor-suppressor pathway in Drosophila. Curr Biol 18:435–441
Graves JD, Gotoh Y, Draves KE, Ambrose D, Han DK, Wright M, Chernoff J, Clark EA, Krebs EG (1998) Caspase-mediated activation and induction of apoptosis by the mammalian Ste20-like kinase Mst1. EMBO J 17:2224–2234
Grebien F, Dolznig H, Beug H, Mullner EW (2005) Cell size control: new evidence for a general mechanism. Cell Cycle 4:418–421
Greenwood S, Struhl G (1999) Progression of the morphogenetic furrow in the Drosophila eye: the roles of Hedgehog, Decapentaplegic and the Raf pathway. Development 126:5795–5808
Grusche FA, Richardson HE, Harvey KF (2010) Upstream regulation of the hippo size control pathway. Curr Biol 20:R574–582
Grusche FA, Degoutin JL, Richardson HE, Harvey KF (2011) The Salvador/Warts/Hippo pathway controls regenerative tissue growth in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Biol 350:255–266
Grzeschik NA, Amin N, Secombe J, Brumby AM, Richardson HE (2007) Abnormalities in cell proliferation and apico-basal cell polarity are separable in Drosophila lgl mutant clones in the developing eye. Dev Biol 311:106–123
Grzeschik NA, Parsons LM, Allott ML, Harvey KF, Richardson HE (2010a) Lgl, aPKC, and Crumbs regulate the Salvador/Warts/Hippo pathway through two distinct mechanisms. Curr Biol 20:573–581
Grzeschik NA, Parsons LM, Richardson HE (2010b) Lgl, the SWH pathway and tumorigenesis: it’s a matter of context & competition!. Cell Cycle 9:3202–3212
Guan J, Li H, Rogulja A, Axelrod JD, Cadigan KM (2007) The Drosophila casein kinase Iepsilon/delta Discs overgrown promotes cell survival via activation of DIAP1 expression. Dev Biol 303:16–28
Guo C, Tommasi S, Liu L, Yee JK, Dammann R, Pfeifer GP (2007) RASSF1A is part of a complex similar to the Drosophila Hippo/Salvador/Lats tumor-suppressor network. Curr Biol 17:700–705
Habbig S, Bartram MP, Muller RU, Schwarz R, Andriopoulos N, Chen S, Sagmuller JG, Hoehne M, Burst V, Liebau MC et al (2011) NPHP4, a cilia-associated protein, negatively regulates the Hippo pathway. J Cell Biol 193:633–642
Habbig S, Bartram MP, Sagmuller JG, Griessmann A, Franke M, Muller RU, Schwarz R, Hoehne M, Bergmann C, Tessmer C et al (2012) The ciliopathy disease protein NPHP9 promotes nuclear delivery and activation of the oncogenic transcriptional regulator TAZ. Hum Mol Genet 21:5528–5538
Hafen E (1991) Patterning by cell recruitment in the Drosophila eye. Curr Opin Genet Dev 1:268–274
Hafen E (2004) Interplay between growth factor and nutrient signaling: lessons from Drosophila TOR. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 279:153–167
Halder G, Johnson RL (2011) Hippo signaling: growth control and beyond. Development 138:9–22
Halder G, Dupont S, Piccolo S (2012) Transduction of mechanical and cytoskeletal cues by YAP and TAZ. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 13:591–600
Hamaratoglu F, Willecke M, Kango-Singh M, Nolo R, Hyun E, Tao C, Jafar-Nejad H, Halder G (2006) The tumour-suppressor genes NF2/Merlin and Expanded act through Hippo signalling to regulate cell proliferation and apoptosis. Nat Cell Biol 8:27–36
Hara K, Maruki Y, Long X, Yoshino K, Oshiro N, Hidayat S, Tokunaga C, Avruch J, Yonezawa K (2002) Raptor, a binding partner of target of rapamycin (TOR), mediates TOR action. Cell 110:177–189
Harvey KF, Hariharan IK (2012) The hippo pathway. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 4:a011288
Harvey NL, Daish T, Mills K, Dorstyn L, Quinn LM, Read SH, Richardson H, Kumar S (2001) Characterization of the Drosophila caspase, DAMM. J Biol Chem 276:25342–25350
Harvey KF, Pfleger CM, Hariharan IK (2003) The Drosophila Mst ortholog, hippo, restricts growth and cell proliferation and promotes apoptosis. Cell 114:457–467
Hergovich A (2012) Mammalian Hippo signalling: a kinase network regulated by protein-protein interactions. Biochem Soc Trans 40:124–128
Herranz H, Hong X, Cohen SM (2012) Mutual repression by bantam miRNA and Capicua links the EGFR/MAPK and Hippo pathways in growth control. Curr Biol 22(8):651–657
Hiemer SE, Varelas X (2013) Stem cell regulation by the Hippo pathway. Biochim Biophys Acta 1830:2323–2334
Ho KC, Zhou Z, She YM, Chun A, Cyr TD, Yang X (2011) Itch E3 ubiquitin ligase regulates large tumor suppressor 1 stability [corrected]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:4870–4875
Hong W, Guan KL (2012) The YAP and TAZ transcription co-activators: key downstream effectors of the mammalian Hippo pathway. Semin Cell Dev Biol 23:785–793
Huang H, Potter CJ, Tao W, Li DM, Brogiolo W, Hafen E, Sun H, Xu T (1999) PTEN affects cell size, cell proliferation and apoptosis during Drosophila eye development. Development 126:5365–5372
Huang J, Wu S, Barrera J, Matthews K, Pan D (2005) The Hippo signaling pathway coordinately regulates cell proliferation and apoptosis by inactivating Yorkie, the Drosophila Homolog of YAP. Cell 122:421–434
Hwang E, Ryu KS, Paakkonen K, Guntert P, Cheong HK, Lim DS, Lee JO, Jeon YH, Cheong C (2007) Structural insight into dimeric interaction of the SARAH domains from Mst1 and RASSF family proteins in the apoptosis pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:9236–9241
Ikeya T, Galic M, Belawat P, Nairz K, Hafen E (2002) Nutrient-dependent expression of insulin-like peptides from neuroendocrine cells in the CNS contributes to growth regulation in Drosophila. Curr Biol 12:1293–1300
Inoki K, Li Y, Zhu T, Wu J, Guan KL (2002) TSC2 is phosphorylated and inhibited by Akt and suppresses mTOR signalling. Nat Cell Biol 4:648–657
Ishikawa HO, Takeuchi H, Haltiwanger RS, Irvine KD (2008) Four-jointed is a Golgi kinase that phosphorylates a subset of cadherin domains. Science 321:401–404
Ishiuchi T, Takeichi M (2012) Nectins localize Willin to cell-cell junctions. Genes Cells 17:387–397
Jacinto E, Facchinetti V, Liu D, Soto N, Wei S, Jung SY, Huang Q, Qin J, Su B (2006) SIN1/MIP1 maintains rictor-mTOR complex integrity and regulates Akt phosphorylation and substrate specificity. Cell 127:125–137
Jacobson MD, Weil M, Raff MC (1997) Programmed cell death in animal development. Cell 88:347–354
Jarman AP, Grell EH, Ackerman L, Jan LY, Jan YN (1994) Atonal is the proneural gene for Drosophila photoreceptors. Nature 369:398–400
Jia J, Zhang W, Wang B, Trinko R, Jiang J (2003) The Drosophila Ste20 family kinase dMST functions as a tumor suppressor by restricting cell proliferation and promoting apoptosis. Genes Dev 17:2514–2519
Johnston LA, Gallant P (2002) Control of growth and organ size in Drosophila. Bioessays 24:54–64
Junger MA, Rintelen F, Stocker H, Wasserman JD, Vegh M, Radimerski T, Greenberg ME, Hafen E (2003) The Drosophila forkhead transcription factor FOXO mediates the reduction in cell number associated with reduced insulin signaling. J Biol 2:20
Justice RW, Zilian O, Woods DF, Noll M, Bryant PJ (1995) The Drosophila tumor suppressor gene warts encodes a homolog of human myotonic dystrophy kinase and is required for the control of cell shape and proliferation. Genes Dev 9:534–546
Kagey JD, Brown JA, Moberg KH (2012) Regulation of Yorkie activity in Drosophila imaginal discs by the Hedgehog receptor gene patched. Mech Dev 129(9-12):339–349
Kaplan NA, Colosimo PF, Liu X, Tolwinski NS (2011) Complex interactions between GSK3 and aPKC in Drosophila embryonic epithelial morphogenesis. PLoS One 6(4):e18616
Kaplan NA, Tolwinski NS (2010) Spatially defined Dsh-Lgl interaction contributes to directional tissue morphogenesis. J Cell Sci 123(Pt 18):3157–3165
Kandt RS (2002) Tuberous sclerosis complex and neurofibromatosis type 1: the two most common neurocutaneous diseases. Neurol Clin 20:941–964
Kango-Singh M, Singh A (2009) Regulation of organ size: insights from the Drosophila Hippo signaling pathway. Dev Dyn 238:1627–1637
Kango-Singh M, Nolo R, Tao C, Verstreken P, Hiesinger PR, Bellen HJ, Halder G (2002) Shar-pei mediates cell proliferation arrest during imaginal disc growth in Drosophila. Development 129:5719–5730
Kango-Singh M, Singh A, Henry Sun Y (2003) Eyeless collaborates with Hedgehog and Decapentaplegic signaling in Drosophila eye induction. Dev Biol 256:49–60
Karni R, Hippo Y, Lowe SW, Krainer AR (2008) The splicing-factor oncoprotein SF2/ASF activates mTORC1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:15323–15327
Karpowicz P, Perez J, Perrimon N (2010) The Hippo tumor suppressor pathway regulates intestinal stem cell regeneration. Development 137:4135–4145
Kiger AA, Baum B, Jones S, Jones MR, Coulson A, Echeverri C et al (2003) A functional genomic analysis of cell morphology using RNA interference. J Biol 2(4):27
Kim DH, Sarbassov DD, Ali SM, King JE, Latek RR, Erdjument-Bromage H, Tempst P, Sabatini DM (2002) mTOR interacts with raptor to form a nutrient-sensitive complex that signals to the cell growth machinery. Cell 110:163–175
Kim DH, Sarbassov DD, Ali SM, Latek RR, Guntur KV, Erdjument-Bromage H, Tempst P, Sabatini DM (2003) GbetaL, a positive regulator of the rapamycin-sensitive pathway required for the nutrient-sensitive interaction between raptor and mTOR. Mol Cell 11:895–904
Kim D, Shu S, Coppola MD, Kaneko S, Yuan ZQ, Cheng JQ (2010) Regulation of proapoptotic mammalian ste20-like kinase MST2 by the IGF1-Akt pathway. PLoS ONE 5:e9616
Kim J, Guan KL (2011) Amino acid signaling in TOR activation. Annu Rev Biochem 80:1001–1032
Klein TJ, Jenny A, Djiane A, Mlodzik M (2006) CKIepsilon/discs overgrown promotes both Wnt-Fz/beta-catenin and Fz/PCP signaling in Drosophila. Curr Biol 16(13):1337–43
Konsavage WM, Jr., Yochum GS (2013) Intersection of Hippo/YAP and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathways. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai) 45(2):71–79
Kramer H, Cagan RL (1994) Determination of photoreceptor cell fate in the Drosophila retina. Curr Opin Neurobiol 4:14–20
Kumagai A, Dunphy WG (1999) Binding of 14-3-3 proteins and nuclear export control the intracellular localization of the mitotic inducer Cdc25. Genes Dev 13:1067–1072
Kumar JP (2001) Signalling pathways in Drosophila and vertebrate retinal development. Nat Rev Genet 2:846–857
Kumar JP (2009) The molecular circuitry governing retinal determination. Biochim Biophys Acta 1789:306–314
Kumar JP, Moses K (2000) Cell fate specification in the Drosophila retina. Results Probl Cell Differ 31:93–114
Kumar JP, Moses K (2001) Eye specification in Drosophila: perspectives and implications. Semin Cell Dev Biol 12:469–474
Lai ZC, Wei X, Shimizu T, Ramos E, Rohrbaugh M, Nikolaidis N, Ho LL, Li Y (2005) Control of cell proliferation and apoptosis by mob as tumor suppressor, mats. Cell 120:675–685
Lasko P (2000) The Drosophila melanogaster genome: translation factors and RNA binding proteins. J Cell Biol 150:F51–56
Leevers SJ (2001) Growth control: invertebrate insulin surprises! Curr Biol 11:R209–212
Leevers SJ, Weinkove D, MacDougall LK, Hafen E, Waterfield MD (1996) The Drosophila phosphoinositide 3-kinase Dp110 promotes cell growth. EMBO J 15:6584–6594
Li W, Cooper J, Karajannis MA, Giancotti FG (2012) Merlin: a tumour suppressor with functions at the cell cortex and in the nucleus. EMBO Rep 13:204–215
Li X, Gianoulis TA, Yip KY, Gerstein M, Snyder M (2010) Extensive in vivo metabolite-protein interactions revealed by large-scale systematic analyses. Cell 143(4):639–650
Liao XH, Majithia A, Huang X, Kimmel AR (2008) Growth control via TOR kinase signaling, an intracellular sensor of amino acid and energy availability, with crosstalk potential to proline metabolism. Amino Acids 35:761–770
Lin YT, Ding JY, Li MY, Yeh TS, Wang TW, Yu JY (2012) YAP regulates neuronal differentiation through Sonic hedgehog signaling pathway. Exp Cell Res 318(15):1877–1888
Ling C, Zheng Y, Yin F, Yu J, Huang J, Hong Y, Wu S, Pan D (2010) The apical transmembrane protein Crumbs functions as a tumor suppressor that regulates Hippo signaling by binding to expanded. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:10532–10537
Liu X, Grammont M, Irvine KD (2000) Roles for scalloped and vestigial in regulating cell affinity and interactions between the wing blade and the wing hinge. Dev Biol 228:287–303
Liu CY, Zha ZY, Zhou X, Zhang H, Huang W, Zhao D, Li T, Chan SW, Lim CJ, Hong W et al (2010) The hippo tumor pathway promotes TAZ degradation by phosphorylating a phosphodegron and recruiting the SCF{beta}-TrCP E3 ligase. J Biol Chem 285:37159–37169
Liu C, Huang W, Lei Q (2011) Regulation and function of the TAZ transcription co-activator. Int J Biochem Mol Biol 2:247–256
Liu AM, Wong KF, Jiang X, Qiao Y, Luk JM (2012a) Regulators of mammalian Hippo pathway in cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 1826:357–364
Liu H, Jiang D, Chi F, Zhao B (2012b) The Hippo pathway regulates stem cell proliferation, self-renewal, and differentiation. Protein Cell 3:291–304
Loewith R (2011) A brief history of TOR. Biochem Soc Trans 39:437–442
Loewith R, Jacinto E, Wullschleger S, Lorberg A, Crespo JL, Bonenfant D, Oppliger W, Jenoe P, Hall MN (2002) Two TOR complexes, only one of which is rapamycin sensitive, have distinct roles in cell growth control. Mol Cell 10:457–468
Long X, Muller F, Avruch J (2004) TOR action in mammalian cells and in Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 279:115–138
Mahoney PA, Weber U, Onofrechuk P, Biessmann H, Bryant PJ, Goodman CS (1991) The fat tumor suppressor gene in Drosophila encodes a novel member of the cadherin gene superfamily. Cell 67:853–868
Maitra S, Kulikauskas RM, Gavilan H, Fehon RG (2006) The tumor suppressors Merlin and Expanded function cooperatively to modulate receptor endocytosis and signaling. Curr Biol 16(7):702–709
Mao Y, Rauskolb C, Cho E, Hu WL, Hayter H, Minihan G, Katz FN, Irvine KD (2006) Dachs: an unconventional myosin that functions downstream of Fat to regulate growth, affinity and gene expression in Drosophila. Development 133:2539–2551
Mao Y, Kucuk B, Irvine KD (2009) Drosophila lowfat, a novel modulator of Fat signaling. Development 136:3223–3233
Martin FA, Perez-Garijo A, Morata G (2009) Apoptosis in Drosophila: compensatory proliferation and undead cells. Int J Dev Biol 53:1341–1347
Marygold SJ, Leevers SJ (2002) Growth signaling: TSC takes its place. Curr Biol 12:R785–787
Matakatsu H, Blair SS (2004) Interactions between Fat and Dachsous and the regulation of planar cell polarity in the Drosophila wing. Development 131:3785–3794
Matakatsu H, Blair SS (2006) Separating the adhesive and signaling functions of the Fat and Dachsous protocadherins. Development 133:2315–2324
Matakatsu H, Blair SS (2008) The DHHC palmitoyltransferase approximated regulates Fat signaling and Dachs localization and activity. Curr Biol 18:1390–1395
Matakatsu H, Blair SS (2012) Separating planar cell polarity and Hippo pathway activities of the protocadherins Fat and Dachsous. Development 139:1498–1508
Mauviel A, Nallet-Staub F, Varelas X (2012) Integrating developmental signals: a Hippo in the (path)way. Oncogene 31(14):1743–1756
McCartney BM, Kulikauskas RM, LaJeunesse DR, Fehon RG (2000) The Neurofibromatosis-2 homologue, Merlin, and the tumor suppressor expanded function together in Drosophila to regulate cell proliferation and differentiation. Development 127:1315–1324
Meignin C, Alvarez-Garcia I, Davis I, Palacios IM (2007) The salvador-warts-hippo pathway is required for epithelial proliferation and axis specification in Drosophila. Curr Biol 17:1871–1878
Mikeladze-Dvali T, Wernet MF, Pistillo D, Mazzoni EO, Teleman AA, Chen YW et al (2005) The growth regulators warts/lats and melted interact in a bistable loop to specify opposite fates in Drosophila R8 photoreceptors. Cell 122(5):775–787
Mills JR, Hippo Y, Robert F, Chen SM, Malina A, Lin CJ, Trojahn U, Wendel HG, Charest A, Bronson RT et al (2008) mTORC1 promotes survival through translational control of Mcl-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:10853–10858
Mitchison JM, Novak B, Sveiczer A (1997) Size control in the cell cycle. Cell Biol Int 21:461–463
Mohr OL (1923) Modifications of the sex-ratio through a sex-linked semi-lethal in Drosophila melanogaster. (Besides notes on an autosomal section deficiency). Studia Mendeliana, ad centesimum diem natalem Gregorii Mendelii a grata patria celebrandum, adiuvante ministerio Pragensi edita. 266–287
Mohr OL (1929) Exaggeration and inhibition phenomena encountered in the analysis of an autosomal dominant. Zeitschrift fur induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre 50:113–200
Montagne J (2000) Genetic and molecular mechanisms of cell size control. Mol Cell Biol Res Commun 4:195–202
Montagne J, Stewart MJ, Stocker H, Hafen E, Kozma SC, Thomas G (1999) Drosophila S6 kinase: a regulator of cell size. Science 285:2126–2129
Montagne J, Radimerski T, Thomas G (2001) Insulin signaling: lessons from the Drosophila tuberous sclerosis complex, a tumor suppressor. Sci STKE 2001:pe36.
Morrison H, Sherman LS, Legg J, Banine F, Isacke C, Haipek CA, Gutmann DH, Ponta H, Herrlich P (2001) The NF2 tumor suppressor gene product, merlin, mediates contact inhibition of growth through interactions with CD44. Genes Dev 15:968–980
Nam SC, Choi KW (2003) Interaction of Par-6 and Crumbs complexes is essential for photoreceptor morphogenesis in Drosophila. Development 130(18):4363–4372
Nam SC, Choi KW (2006) Domain-specific early and late function of Dpatj in Drosophila photoreceptor cells. Dev Dyn 235(6):1501–1507
Nellist M, Sancak O, Goedbloed M, Adriaans A, Wessels M, Maat-Kievit A, Baars M, Dommering C, den Ouweland A van, Halley D (2008) Functional characterisation of the TSC1-TSC2 complex to assess multiple TSC2 variants identified in single families affected by tuberous sclerosis complex. BMC Med Genet 9:10
Neto-Silva RM, Beco S de, Johnston LA (2010) Evidence for a growth-stabilizing regulatory feedback mechanism between Myc and Yorkie, the Drosophila homolog of Yap. Dev Cell 19:507–520
Newsome TP, Asling B, Dickson BJ (2000) Analysis of Drosophila photoreceptor axon guidance in eye-specific mosaics. Development 127:851–860
Nolo R, Morrison CM, Tao C, Zhang X, Halder G (2006) The bantam microRNA is a target of the hippo tumor-suppressor pathway. Curr Biol 16:1895–1904
Ogawa H, Ohta N, Moon W, Matsuzaki F (2009) Protein phosphatase 2A negatively regulates aPKC signaling by modulating phosphorylation of Par-6 in Drosophila neuroblast asymmetric divisions. J Cell Sci 122(Pt 18):3242–3249
Oh h, Irvine KD (2008) In vivo regulation of Yorkie phosphorylation and localization. Development 135:1081–1088
Oh H, Irvine KD (2009) In vivo analysis of Yorkie phosphorylation sites. Oncogene 28:1916–1927
Oh H, Irvine KD (2010) Yorkie: the final destination of Hippo signaling. Trends Cell Biol 20:410–417
Oh H, Reddy BV, Irvine KD (2009) Phosphorylation-independent repression of Yorkie in Fat-Hippo signaling. Dev Biol 335(1):188–197
Oka T, Remue E, Meerschaert K, Vanloo B, Boucherie C, Gfeller D, Bader G, Sidhu S, Vandekerckhove J, Gettemans J et al (2010) Functional complex between YAP2 and ZO-2 is PDZ domain dependent, regulates YAP2 nuclear localization and signaling. Biochem J 432(3):461–472
Oldham S, Hafen E (2003) Insulin/IGF and target of rapamycin signaling: a TOR de force in growth control. Trends Cell Biol 13:79–85
Oldham S, Bohni R, Stocker H, Brogiolo W, Hafen E (2000a) Genetic control of size in Drosophila. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 355:945–952
Oldham S, Montagne J, Radimerski T, Thomas G, Hafen E (2000b) Genetic and biochemical characterization of dTOR, the Drosophila homolog of the target of rapamycin. Genes Dev 14:2689–2694
Oldham S, Stocker H, Laffargue M, Wittwer F, Wymann M, Hafen E (2002) The Drosophila insulin/IGF receptor controls growth and size by modulating PtdInsP(3) levels. Development 129:4103–4109
O’Neill E, Kolch W (2005) Taming the Hippo: Raf-1 controls apoptosis by suppressing MST2/Hippo. Cell Cycle 4:365–367
Pagliarini RA, Quinones AT, Xu T (2003) Analyzing the function of tumor suppressor genes using a Drosophila model. Methods Mol Biol 223:349–382
Pan D (2007) Hippo signaling in organ size control. Genes Dev 21:886–897
Pan D (2010) The hippo signaling pathway in development and cancer. Dev Cell 19:491–505
Pan D, Dong J, Zhang Y, Gao X (2004) Tuberous sclerosis complex: from Drosophila to human disease. Trends Cell Biol 14:78–85
Pantalacci S, Tapon N, Leopold P (2003) The Salvador partner Hippo promotes apoptosis and cell-cycle exit in Drosophila. Nat Cell Biol 5:921–927
Paramasivam M, Sarkeshik A, Yates JR 3rd, Fernandes MJ, McCollum D (2011) Angiomotin family proteins are novel activators of the LATS2 kinase tumor suppressor. Mol Biol Cell 22:3725–3733
Pearce LR, Komander D, Alessi DR (2010) The nuts and bolts of AGC protein kinases. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11:9–22
Pellock BJ, Buff E, White K, Hariharan IK (2007) The Drosophila tumor suppressors Expanded and Merlin differentially regulate cell cycle exit, apoptosis, and Wingless signaling. Dev Biol 304:102–115
Peng HW, Slattery M, Mann RS (2009) Transcription factor choice in the Hippo signaling pathway: homothorax and yorkie regulation of the microRNA bantam in the progenitor domain of the Drosophila eye imaginal disc. Genes Dev 23:2307–3219
Penton A, Selleck SB, Hoffmann FM (1997) Regulation of cell cycle synchronization by decapentaplegic during Drosophila eye development. Science 275:203–206
Pfeiffer BD, Ngo TT, Hibbard KL, Murphy C, Jenett A, Truman JW, Rubin GM (2010) Refinement of tools for targeted gene expression in Drosophila. Genetics 186:735–755
Pichaud F, Desplan C (2002) Cell biology: a new view of photoreceptors. Nature 416(6877):139–140
Poernbacher I, Baumgartner R, Marada SK, Edwards K, Stocker H (2012) Drosophila Pez acts in Hippo signaling to restrict intestinal stem cell proliferation. Curr Biol 22(5):389–396
Polesello C, Tapon N (2007) salvador-warts-hippo signaling promotes Drosophila posterior follicle cell maturation downstream of notch. Curr Biol 17:1864–1870
Polesello C, Huelsmann S, Brown NH, Tapon N (2006) The Drosophila RASSF homolog antagonizes the hippo pathway. Curr Biol 16:2459–2465
Poltilove RM, Jacobs AR, Haft CR, Xu P, Taylor SI (2000) Characterization of Drosophila insulin receptor substrate. J Biol Chem 275:23346–23354
Poon CL, Lin JI, Zhang X, Harvey KF (2011) The sterile 20-like kinase Tao-1 controls tissue growth by regulating the Salvador-Warts-Hippo pathway. Dev Cell 21:896–906
Potter CJ, Xu T (2001) Mechanisms of size control. Curr Opin Genet Dev 11:279–286
Potter CJ, Huang H, Xu T (2001) Drosophila Tsc1 functions with Tsc2 to antagonize insulin signaling in regulating cell growth, cell proliferation, and organ size. Cell 105:357–368
Potter CJ, Pedraza LG, Xu T (2002) Akt regulates growth by directly phosphorylating Tsc2. Nat Cell Biol 4:658–665
Potter CJ, Pedraza LG, Huang H, Xu T (2003) The tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) pathway and mechanism of size control. Biochem Soc Trans 31:584–586
Price DM, Jin Z, Rabinovitch S, Campbell SD (2002) Ectopic expression of the Drosophila Cdk1 inhibitory kinases, Wee1 and Myt1, interferes with the second mitotic wave and disrupts pattern formation during eye development. Genetics 161:721–731
Radimerski T, Montagne J, Hemmings-Mieszczak M, Thomas G (2002a) Lethality of Drosophila lacking TSC tumor suppressor function rescued by reducing dS6K signaling. Genes Dev 16:2627–2632
Radimerski T, Montagne J, Rintelen F, Stocker H, Kaay J van der, Downes CP, Hafen E, Thomas G (2002b) dS6K-regulated cell growth is dPKB/dPI(3)K-independent, but requires dPDK1. Nat Cell Biol 4:251–255
Raff MC (1996) Size control: the regulation of cell numbers in animal development. Cell 86:173–175
Rauskolb C, Pan G, Reddy BV, H Oh, Irvine KD (2011) Zyxin links fat signaling to the hippo pathway. PLoS Biol 9:e1000624
Reddy BV, Irvine KD (2008) The Fat and Warts signaling pathways: new insights into their regulation, mechanism and conservation. Development 135:2827–2838
Reddy BV, Rauskolb C, Irvine KD (2010) Influence of fat-hippo and notch signaling on the proliferation and differentiation of Drosophila optic neuroepithelia. Development 137:2397–2408
Ren F, Wang B, Yue T, Yun EY, Ip YT, Jiang J (2010a) Hippo signaling regulates Drosophila intestine stem cell proliferation through multiple pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:21064–21069
Ren F, Zhang L, Jiang J (2010b) Hippo signaling regulates Yorkie nuclear localization and activity through 14-3-3 dependent and independent mechanisms. Dev Biol 337:303–312
Ribeiro PS, Josue F, Wepf A, Wehr MC, Rinner O, Kelly G, Tapon N, Gstaiger M (2010) Combined functional genomic and proteomic approaches identify a PP2A complex as a negative regulator of Hippo signaling. Mol Cell 39:521–534
Richardson HE (2011) Actin up for Hippo. EMBO J 30:2307–2309
Richardson H, Kumar S (2002) Death to flies: Drosophila as a model system to study programmed cell death. J Immunol Methods 265:21–38
Rintelen F, Stocker H, Thomas G, Hafen E (2001) PDK1 regulates growth through Akt and S6K in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:15020–15025
Robinson BS, Huang J, Hong Y, Moberg KH (2010) Crumbs regulates Salvador/Warts/Hippo signaling in Drosophila via the FERM-domain protein Expanded. Curr Biol 20:582–590
Rogulja D, Rauskolb C, Irvine KD (2008) Morphogen control of wing growth through the Fat signaling pathway. Dev Cell 15:309–321
Rothenberg ME, Jan YN (2002) Salvador—the persistence of proliferation. Cancer Cell 2:171–173
Rubin GM (1989) Development of the Drosophila retina: inductive events studied at single cell resolution. Cell 57:519–520
Rulifson EJ, Kim SK, Nusse R (2002) Ablation of insulin-producing neurons in flies: growth and diabetic phenotypes. Science 296:1118–1120
Rusconi JC, Hays R, Cagan RL (2000) Programmed cell death and patterning in Drosophila. Cell Death Differ 7:1063–1070
Salah Z, Melino G, Aqeilan RI (2011) Negative regulation of the Hippo pathway by E3 ubiquitin ligase ITCH is sufficient to promote tumorigenicity. Cancer Res 71:2010–2020
Sancak Y, Bar-Peled L, Zoncu R, Markhard AL, Nada S, Sabatini DM (2010) Ragulator-Rag complex targets mTORC1 to the lysosomal surface and is necessary for its activation by amino acids. Cell 141:290–303
Sansores-Garcia L, Bossuyt W, Wada K, Yonemura S, Tao C, Sasaki H, Halder G (2011) Modulating F-actin organization induces organ growth by affecting the Hippo pathway. EMBO J 30:2325–2335
Sarbassov DD, Ali SM, Kim DH, Guertin DA, Latek RR, Erdjument-Bromage H, Tempst P, Sabatini DM (2004) Rictor, a novel binding partner of mTOR, defines a rapamycin-insensitive and raptor-independent pathway that regulates the cytoskeleton. Curr Biol 14:1296–1302
Saucedo LJ, Edgar BA (2007) Filling out the Hippo pathway. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8:613–621
Saucedo LJ, Gao X, Chiarelli DA, Li L, Pan D, Edgar BA (2003) Rheb promotes cell growth as a component of the insulin/TOR signalling network. Nat Cell Biol 5:566–571
Sawamoto K, Okano H (1996) Cell-cell interactions during neural development: multiple types of lateral inhibitions involved in Drosophila eye development. Neurosci Res 26:205–214
Schagdarsurengin U, Richter AM, Hornung J, Lange C, Steinmann K, Dammann RH (2010) Frequent epigenetic inactivation of RASSF2 in thyroid cancer and functional consequences. Mol Cancer 9:264
Scheel H, Hofmann K (2003) A novel interaction motif, SARAH, connects three classes of tumor suppressor. Curr Biol 13:R899–900
Schlegelmilch K, Mohseni M, Kirak O, Pruszak J, Rodriguez JR, Zhou D, Kreger BT, Vasioukhin V, Avruch J, Brummelkamp TR et al (2011) Yap1 acts downstream of alpha-catenin to control epidermal proliferation. Cell 144:782–795
Schroeder MC, Halder G (2012) Regulation of the Hippo pathway by cell architecture and mechanical signals. Semin Cell Dev Biol 23(7):803–811
Seidel C, Schagdarsurengin U, Blumke K, Wurl P, Pfeifer GP, Hauptmann S, Taubert H, Dammann R (2007) Frequent hypermethylation of MST1 and MST2 in soft tissue sarcoma. Mol Carcinog 46:865–71
Sekido Y (2008) Molecular biology of malignant mesothelioma. Environ Health Prev Med 13:65–70
Sekido Y (2011) Inactivation of Merlin in malignant mesothelioma cells and the Hippo signaling cascade dysregulation. Pathol Int 61:331–344
Shaw RL, Kohlmaier A, Polesello C, Veelken C, Edgar BA, Tapon N (2010) The Hippo pathway regulates intestinal stem cell proliferation during Drosophila adult midgut regeneration. Development 137:4147–4158
Shimizu T, Ho LL, Lai ZC (2008) The mob as tumor suppressor gene is essential for early development and regulates tissue growth in Drosophila. Genetics 178:957–965
Silva E, Tsatskis Y, Gardano L, Tapon N, McNeill H (2006) The tumor-suppressor gene fat controls tissue growth upstream of expanded in the hippo signaling pathway. Curr Biol 16:2081–2089
Silvis MR, Kreger BT, Lien WH, Klezovitch O, Rudakova GM, Camargo FD, Lantz DM, Seykora JT, Vasioukhin V (2011) alpha-catenin is a tumor suppressor that controls cell accumulation by regulating the localization and activity of the transcriptional coactivator Yap1. Sci Signal 4:ra33
Simon MA, Xu A, Ishikawa HO, Irvine KD (2010) Modulation of fat: dachsous binding by the cadherin domain kinase four-jointed. Curr Biol 20:811–817
Singh A, Kango-Singh M, Choi KW, Sun YH (2004) Dorso-ventral asymmetric functions of teashirt in Drosophila eye development depend on spatial cues provided by early DV patterning genes. Mech Dev 121(4):365–370
Singh A, Tare M, Puli OR, Kango-Singh M (2012) A glimpse into dorso-ventral patterning of the Drosophila eye. Dev Dyn 241:69–84
Skouloudaki K, Walz G (2012) YAP1 recruits c-Abl to protect angiomotin-like 1 from Nedd4-mediated degradation. PLoS ONE 7:e35735
Skouloudaki K, Puetz M, Simons M, Courbard JR, Boehlke C, Hartleben B, Engel C, Moeller MJ, Englert C, Bollig F et al (2009) Scribble participates in Hippo signaling and is required for normal zebrafish pronephros development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:8579–8584
Sopko R, Silva E, Clayton L, Gardano L, Barrios-Rodiles M, Wrana J, Varelas X, Arbouzova NI, Shaw S, Saburi S et al (2009) Phosphorylation of the tumor suppressor fat is regulated by its ligand Dachsous and the kinase discs overgrown. Curr Biol 19:1112–1117
Soulard A, Cohen A, Hall MN (2009) TOR signaling in invertebrates. Curr Opin Cell Biol 21:825–836
St. Johnston D (2002) The art and design of genetic screens: Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Rev Genet 3:176–188
Staley BK, Irvine KD (2010) Warts and Yorkie mediate intestinal regeneration by influencing stem cell proliferation. Curr Biol 20:1580–1587
Staley BK, Irvine KD (2012) Hippo signaling in Drosophila: recent advances and insights. Dev Dyn 241:3–15
Stocker H, Hafen E (2000) Genetic control of cell size. Curr Opin Genet Dev 10:529–535
Stocker H, Radimerski T, Schindelholz B, Wittwer F, Belawat P, Daram P, Breuer S, Thomas G, Hafen E (2003) Rheb is an essential regulator of S6K in controlling cell growth in Drosophila. Nat Cell Biol 5:559–565
Strassburger K, Tiebe M, Pinna F, Breuhahn K, Teleman AA (2012) Insulin/IGF signaling drives cell proliferation in part via Yorkie/YAP. Dev Biol 367:187–196
Striedinger K, VandenBerg SR, Baia GS, McDermott MW, Gutmann DH, Lal A (2008) The neurofibromatosis 2 tumor suppressor gene product, merlin, regulates human meningioma cell growth by signaling through YAP. Neoplasia 10:1204–1212
Strutt H, Price MA, Strutt D (2006) Planar polarity is positively regulated by casein kinase Iepsilon in Drosophila. Curr Biol 16(13):1329–1336
Su TT, O’Farrell PH (1998) Size control: cell proliferation does not equal growth. Curr Biol 8:R687–689
Sudol M (2010) Newcomers to the WW domain-mediated network of the Hippo tumor suppressor pathway. Genes Cancer 1:1115–1118
Sudol M, Harvey KF (2010) Modularity in the Hippo signaling pathway. Trends Biochem Sci 35(11):627–633
Sun G, Irvine KD (2010) Regulation of Hippo signaling by Jun kinase signaling during compensatory cell proliferation and regeneration, and in neoplastic tumors. Dev Biol 350(1):139–151
Sun G, Irvine KD (2011) Regulation of Hippo signaling by Jun kinase signaling during compensatory cell proliferation and regeneration, and in neoplastic tumors. Dev Biol 350:139–151
Sun Q (2007) The mechanism of pattern formation in the developing Drosophila retina. Sci China C Life Sci 50:120–4
Tamori Y, Bialucha CU, Tian AG, Kajita M, Huang YC, Norman M et al (2010) Involvement of Lgl and Mahjong/VprBP in cell competition. PLoS Biol 8(7):e1000422
Tapon N, Ito N, Dickson BJ, Treisman JE, Hariharan IK (2001) The Drosophila tuberous sclerosis complex gene homologs restrict cell growth and cell proliferation. Cell 105:345–355
Tapon N, Harvey K, Bell D, Wahrer D, Schiripo T, Haber D, Hariharan I (2002) salvador promotes both cell cycle exit and apoptosis in Drosophila and is mutated in human cancer cell lines. Cell 110:467
Tato I, Bartrons R, Ventura F, Rosa JL (2011) Amino acids activate mammalian target of rapamycin complex 2 (mTORC2) via PI3K/Akt signaling. J Biol Chem 286:6128–6142
Tepass U, Theres C, Knust E (1990) crumbs encodes an EGF-like protein expressed on apical membranes of Drosophila epithelial cells and required for organization of epithelia. Cell 61(5):787–799
Thomas C, Strutt D (2012) The roles of the cadherins Fat and Dachsous in planar polarity specification in Drosophila. Dev Dyn 241:27–39
Thompson BJ, Cohen SM (2006) The Hippo pathway regulates the bantam microRNA to control cell proliferation and apoptosis in Drosophila. Cell 126:767–774
Torok T, Tick G, Alvarado M, Kiss I (1993) P-lacW insertional mutagenesis on the second chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster: isolation of lethals with different overgrowth phenotypes. Genetics 135(1):71–80
Toyooka S, Ouchida M, Jitsumori Y, Tsukuda K, Sakai A, Nakamura A, Shimizu N, Shimizu K (2000) HD-PTP: a novel protein tyrosine phosphatase gene on human chromosome 3p21.3. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 278:671–678
Tran H, Brunet A, Griffith EC, Greenberg ME (2003) The many forks in FOXO’s road. Sci STKE 2003:RE5
Treins C, Warne PH, Magnuson MA, Pende M, Downward J (2010) Rictor is a novel target of p70 S6 kinase-1. Oncogene 29:1003–1016
Treisman JE, Heberlein U (1998) Eye development in Drosophila: formation of the eye field and control of differentiation. Curr Top Dev Biol 39:119–158
Tsachaki M, Sprecher SG (2012) Genetic and developmental mechanisms underlying the formation of the Drosophila compound eye. Dev Dyn 241:40–56
Tsai BP, Hoverter NP, Waterman ML (2012) Blending hippo and WNT: sharing messengers and regulation. Cell 151:1401–1403
Tumaneng K, Russell RC, Guan KL (2012a) Organ size control by Hippo and TOR pathways. Curr Biol 22:R368–379
Tumaneng K, Schlegelmilch K, Russell RC, Yimlamai D, Basnet H, Mahadevan N, Fitamant J, Bardeesy N, Camargo FD, Guan KL (2012b) YAP mediates crosstalk between the Hippo and PI(3)K-TOR pathways by suppressing PTEN via miR-29. Nat Cell Biol 14:1322–1329
Tyler DM, Baker NE (2007) Expanded and fat regulate growth and differentiation in the Drosophila eye through multiple signaling pathways. Dev Biol 305:187–201
Tyler DM, Li W, Zhuo N, Pellock B, Baker NE (2007) Genes affecting cell competition in Drosophila. Genetics 175:643–657
Udan RS, Kango-Singh M, Nolo R, Tao C, Halder G (2003) Hippo promotes proliferation arrest and apoptosis in the Salvador/Warts pathway. Nat Cell Biol 5(10):914–20
Vanhaesebroeck B, Alessi DR (2000) The PI3K-PDK1 connection: more than just a road to PKB. Biochem J 346 Pt 3:561–576
Varelas X, Wrana JL (2012) Coordinating developmental signaling: novel roles for the Hippo pathway. Trends Cell Biol 22:88–96
Varelas X, Miller BW, Sopko R, Song S, Gregorieff A, Fellouse FA, Sakuma R, Pawson T, Hunziker W, McNeill H et al (2010a) The Hippo pathway regulates Wnt/beta-catenin signaling. Dev Cell 18:579–591
Varelas X, Samavarchi-Tehrani P, Narimatsu M, Weiss A, Cockburn K, Larsen BG, Rossant J, Wrana JL (2010b) The crumbs complex couples cell density sensing to Hippo-dependent control of the TGF-beta-SMAD pathway. Dev Cell 19:831–844
Venken KJ, Bellen HJ (2012) Genome-wide manipulations of Drosophila melanogaster with transposons, Flp recombinase, and PhiC31 integrase. Methods Mol Biol 859:203–228
Verdu J, Buratovich MA, Wilder EL, Birnbaum MJ (1999) Cell-autonomous regulation of cell and organ growth in Drosophila by Akt/PKB. Nat Cell Biol 1:500–506
Verghese S, Bedi S, Kango-Singh M (2012a) Hippo signalling controls Dronc activity to regulate organ size in Drosophila. Cell Death Differ 19(10):1664–1676
Verghese S, Waghmare I, Kwon H, Hanes K, Kango-Singh M (2012b) Scribble acts in the Drosophila fat-hippo pathway to regulate warts activity. PLoS ONE 7:e47173
Vidal M, Cagan RL (2006) Drosophila models for cancer research. Curr Opin Genet Dev 16L:10–6
Vigneron AM, Ludwig RL, Vousden KH (2010) Cytoplasmic ASPP1 inhibits apoptosis through the control of YAP. Genes Dev 24:2430–2439
Villano JL, Katz FN (1995) four-jointed is required for intermediate growth in the proximal-distal axis in Drosophila. Development 121(9):2767–2777
Visser-Grieve S, Hao Y, Yang X (2012) Human homolog of Drosophila expanded, hEx, functions as a putative tumor suppressor in human cancer cell lines independently of the Hippo pathway. Oncogene 31:1189–1195
Wang C, An J, Zhang P, Xu C, Gao K, Wu D, Wang D, Yu H, Liu JO, Yu L (2012a) The Nedd4-like ubiquitin E3 ligases target angiomotin/p130 to ubiquitin-dependent degradation. Biochem J 444:279–289
Wang K, Degerny C, Xu M, Yang XJ (2009) YAP, TAZ, and Yorkie: a conserved family of signal-responsive transcriptional coregulators in animal development and human disease. Biochem Cell Biol 87:77–91
Wang T, Blumhagen R, Lao U, Kuo Y, Edgar BA (2012b) LST8 regulates cell growth via target-of-rapamycin complex 2 (TORC2). Mol Cell Biol 32:2203–2213
Wehr MC, Holder MV, Gailite I, Saunders RE, Maile TM, Ciirdaeva E, Instrell R, Jiang M, Howell M, Rossner MJ et al (2012) Salt-inducible kinases regulate growth through the Hippo signalling pathway in Drosophila. Nat Cell Biol 15(1):61–71
Wei X, Shimizu T, Lai ZC (2007) Mob as tumor suppressor is activated by Hippo kinase for growth inhibition in Drosophila. EMBO J 26:1772–1781
Weinkove D, Neufeld TP, Twardzik T, Waterfield MD, Leevers SJ (1999) Regulation of imaginal disc cell size, cell number and organ size by Drosophila class I(A) phosphoinositide 3-kinase and its adaptor. Curr Biol 9:1019–1029
Wernet MF, Labhart T, Baumann F, Mazzoni EO, Pichaud F, Desplan C (2003) Homothorax switches function of Drosophila photoreceptors from color to polarized light sensors. Cell 115(3):267–279
Willecke M, Hamaratoglu F, Kango-Singh M, Udan R, Chen CL, Tao C, Zhang X, Halder G (2006) The fat cadherin acts through the Hippo tumorsuppressor pathway to regulate tissue size. Curr Biol 16(21):2090–2100
Willecke M, Hamaratoglu F, Sansores-Garcia L, Tao C, Halder G (2008) Boundaries of Dachsous Cadherin activity modulate the Hippo signaling pathway to induce cell proliferation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:14897–14902
Wolff T, Ready DF (1991) The beginning of pattern formation in the Drosophila compound eye: the morphogenetic furrow and the second mitotic wave. Development 113:841–850
Wolff T, Ready DF (1993) Pattern formation in the Drosophila retina. In: Bate, Martinez Arias (eds), pp 1277–1325
Wu S, Huang J, Dong J, Pan D (2003) Hippo encodes a Ste-20 family protein kinase that restricts cell proliferation and promotes apoptosis in conjunction with salvador and warts. Cell 114:445–456
Wu S, Liu Y, Zheng Y, Dong J, Pan D (2008) The TEAD/TEF family protein Scalloped mediates transcriptional output of the Hippo growth-regulatory pathway. Dev Cell 14:388–398
Xiao L, Chen Y, Ji M, Dong J (2011) KIBRA regulates Hippo signaling activity via interactions with large tumor suppressor kinases. J Biol Chem 286:7788–7796
Xu T, Rubin GM (1993) Analysis of genetic mosaics in developing and adult Drosophila tissues. Development 117:1223–1237
Xu T, Wang W, Zhang S, Stewart RA, Yu W (1995) Identifying tumor suppressors in genetic mosaics: the Drosophila lats gene encodes a putative protein kinase. Development 121:1053–1063
Yamamoto D (1993) Positive and negative signaling mechanisms in the regulation of photoreceptor induction in the developing Drosophila retina. Review. Genetica 88:153–164
Yang Q, Inoki K, Kim E, Guan KL (2006) TSC1/TSC2 and Rheb have different effects on TORC1 and TORC2 activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:6811–6816
Yu FX, Zhao B, Panupinthu N, Jewell JL, Lian I, Wang LH, Zhao J, Yuan H, Tumaneng K, Li H et al (2012) Regulation of the Hippo-YAP pathway by G-protein-coupled receptor signaling. Cell 150:780–791
Yu J, Poulton J, Huang YC, Deng WM (2008) The hippo pathway promotes Notch signaling in regulation of cell differentiation, proliferation, and oocyte polarity. PLoS One 3(3):e1761
Yu J, Zheng Y, Dong J, Klusza S, Deng WM, Pan D (2010) Kibra functions as a tumor suppressor protein that regulates Hippo signaling in conjunction with Merlin and Expanded. Dev Cell 18:288–299
Yue T, Tian A, Jiang J (2012) The cell adhesion molecule echinoid functions as a tumor suppressor and upstream regulator of the Hippo signaling pathway. Dev Cell 22:255–267
Zecca M, Struhl G (2010) A feed-forward circuit linking wingless, fat-dachsous signaling, and the warts-hippo pathway to Drosophila wing growth. PLoS Biol 8:e1000386
Zeitler J, Hsu CP, Dionne H, Bilder D (2004) Domains controlling cell polarity and proliferation in the Drosophila tumor suppressor Scribble. J Cell Biol 167(6):1137–1146
Zhang H, Stallock JP, Ng JC, Reinhard C, Neufeld TP (2000) Regulation of cellular growth by the Drosophila target of rapamycin dTOR. Genes Dev 14:2712–2724
Zhang Y, Gao X, Saucedo LJ, Ru B, Edgar BA, Pan D (2003) Rheb is a direct target of the tuberous sclerosis tumour suppressor proteins. Nat Cell Biol 5:578–581
Zhang J, Smolen GA, Haber DA (2008a) Negative regulation of YAP by LATS1 underscores evolutionary conservation of the Drosophila Hippo pathway. Cancer Res 68:2789–2794
Zhang L, Ren F, Zhang Q, Chen Y, Wang B, Jiang J (2008b) The TEAD/TEF family of transcription factor Scalloped mediates Hippo signaling in organ size control. Dev Cell 14:377–387
Zhang L, Yue T, Jiang J (2009a) Hippo signaling pathway and organ size control. Fly (Austin) 3:68–73
Zhang X, Milton CC, Humbert PO, Harvey KF (2009b) Transcriptional output of the Salvador/warts/hippo pathway is controlled in distinct fashions in Drosophila melanogaster and mammalian cell lines. Cancer Res 69:6033–6041
Zhang X, George J, Deb S, Degoutin JL, Takano EA, Fox SB, Bowtell DD, Harvey KF (2011a) The Hippo pathway transcriptional co-activator, YAP, is an ovarian cancer oncogene. Oncogene 30:2810–2822
Zhang X, Milton CC, Poon CL, Hong W, Harvey KF (2011b) Wbp2 cooperates with Yorkie to drive tissue growth downstream of the Salvador-Warts-Hippo pathway. Cell Death Differ 18:1346–1355
Zhang L, Iyer J, Chowdhury A, Ji M, Xiao L, Yang S, Chen Y, Tsai MY, Dong J (2012) KIBRA regulates aurora kinase activity and is required for precise chromosome alignment during mitosis. J Biol Chem 287:34069–34077
Zhao B, Wei X, Li W, Udan RS, Yang Q, Kim J, Xie J, Ikenoue T, Yu J, Li L et al (2007) Inactivation of YAP oncoprotein by the Hippo pathway is involved in cell contact inhibition and tissue growth control. Genes Dev 21:2747–2761
Zhao B, Lei QY, Guan KL (2008a) The Hippo-YAP pathway: new connections between regulation of organ size and cancer. Curr Opin Cell Biol 20(6):638–646
Zhao B, Ye X, Yu J, Li L, Li W, Li S, Lin JD, Wang CY, Chinnaiyan AM, Lai ZC et al (2008b) TEAD mediates YAP-dependent gene induction and growth control. Genes Dev 22:1962–1971
Zhao B, Li L, Lei Q, Guan KL (2010a) The Hippo-YAP pathway in organ size control and tumorigenesis: an updated version. Genes Dev 24:862–874
Zhao B, Li L, Tumaneng K, Wang CY, Guan KL (2010b) A coordinated phosphorylation by Lats and CK1 regulates YAP stability through SCF(beta-TRCP). Genes Dev 24:72–85
Zhao B, Li L, Lu Q, Wang LH, Liu CY, Lei Q, Guan KL (2011a) Angiomotin is a novel Hippo pathway component that inhibits YAP oncoprotein. Genes Dev 25:51–63
Zhao B, Tumaneng K, Guan KL (2011b) The Hippo pathway in organ size control, tissue regeneration and stem cell self-renewal. Nat Cell Biol 13:877–883
Zinzalla V, Stracka D, Oppliger W, Hall MN (2011) Activation of mTORC2 by association with the ribosome. Cell 144:757–768
Ziosi M, Baena-Lopez LA, Grifoni D, Froldi F, Pession A, Garoia F, Trotta V, Bellosta P, Cavicchi S (2010) dMyc functions downstream of Yorkie to promote the supercompetitive behavior of hippo pathway mutant cells. PLoS Genet 6
Zipursky SL (1989) Molecular and genetic analysis of Drosophila eye development: sevenless, bride of sevenless and rough. Trends Neurosci 12:183–189
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Verghese, S., Waghmare, I., Singh, S., Kango-Singh, M. (2013). Drosophila Eye as a Model to Study Regulation of Growth Control: The Discovery of Size Control Pathways. In: Singh, A., Kango-Singh, M. (eds) Molecular Genetics of Axial Patterning, Growth and Disease in the Drosophila Eye. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8232-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8232-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8231-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8232-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)