The sex determination master switch, Sex-lethal (Sxl), controls sexual development as a splicing and translational regulator. Hedgehog (Hh) is a secreted protein that specifies cell fate during development. Sxl is in a complex that contains all of the known Hh cytoplasmic components, including Cubitus interruptus (Ci) the only known target of Hh signaling. Hh promotes the entry of Sxl into the nucleus in the wing disc. In the anterior compartment, the Hh receptor Patched (Ptc) is required for this effect, revealing Ptc as a positive effector of Hh. Some of the downstream components of the Hh signaling pathway also alter the rate of Sxl nuclear entry. Mutations in Suppressor of Fused or Fused with altered ability to anchor Ci are also impaired in anchoring Sxl in the cytoplasm. The levels, and consequently, the ability of Sxl to translationally repress downstream targets in the sex determination pathway, can also be adversely affected by mutations in Hh signaling genes. Conversely, overexpression of Sxl in the domain that Hh patterns negatively affects wing patterning. These data suggest that the Hh pathway impacts on the sex determination process and vice versa and that the pathway may serve more functions than the regulation of Ci (Horabin, 2003).

Sxl co-immunoprecipitates with Cos2 and Fu in the female germline. Since Ci is not expressed in germ cells, it is probable that a different Hh cytoplasmic complex might exist in germ cells. In somatic cells, Sxl is expressed in all female cells while Ci is expressed in only a subset. To test whether the Hh pathway differentiates between the two proteins in somatic cells, Sxl was immunoprecipitated from embryonic extracts and the immunoprecipitates probed for the various Hh cytoplasmic components. The immunoprecipitates showed that Cos2, Fu and Ci are complexed with Sxl. The specificity of this association of Sxl with the Hh pathway components was verified using antibodies to either Ci or Su(fu), and testing the immunoprecipitates for the presence of Sxl. Both co-immunoprecipitated with Sxl. The Ci immunoprecipitate was also tested for another Hh cytoplasmic component, Fu, which was present as expected. These interactions are maintained in a Su(fu)^LP background (protein null allele). An IP of Ci from Su(fu)^LP embryos brought down Sxl, as well as Fu and Cos2. Taken together, these data suggest that cells that express Ci and Sxl have both proteins in the same complex with the known cytoplasmic components of the Hh signaling pathway (Horabin, 2003).

Previous work on the germline has suggested that the Hh signaling pathway affects the intracellular trafficking Sxl. The cross talk between these two developmental pathways has been analyzed in tissues where both Hh targets can be present in the same cell. While analysis of embryos only uncovered an effect of Cos2 on Sxl, analysis of wing discs allowed several specific effects to be uncovered. At least three new functional aspects of the Hh pathway are suggested:

1. More than one 'target' protein can exist in the Hh cytoplasmic complex.
   Immunoprecipitation experiments using extracts from embryos indicate that Sex-lethal and the known Hh signaling target Ci are in the same complex. The two proteins can co-immunoprecipitate each other as well as other known members of the Hh cytoplasmic complex. Even when Su(fu), the cytoplasmic component that most strongly anchors Sxl in the cytoplasm, is removed, Sxl can still be co-immunoprecipitated with both Ci and Fu. As a whole, these results suggest that at least some proportion of the two Hh 'target' proteins are in a common complex within the cell. Additionally, the wing defects produced when Sxl is overexpressed in the Hh signaling region suggest that their relative concentrations are important for their normal functioning (Horabin, 2003).
   
2. The Hh targets can be affected differentially.
   The presence of two 'targets' within the Hh cytoplasmic complex, raises the question of how they can be differentially affected. The data show that the various members of the Hh pathway do not affect Sx1 and Ci similarly. Smo appears to be dispensable for the transmission of the Hh signal in promoting Sx1 nuclear entry, while Smo is critical for the activation of Ci. Conversely, while Ptc is essential for the effect of Hh on Sxl, it is dispensable for the activation of Ci. The Fu kinase (fu^mH63 background) also appears to have no role in Hh signaling with respect to Sxl, while it is critical for the activation of Ci. By contrast, both Su(fu) and the Fu regulatory domain act similarly on Sxl and Ci, serving to anchor them in the cytoplasm (Horabin, 2003).

   Taken together, these data suggest that the presence of Hh can be relayed to the cytoplasmic components differentially and, while the data do not address the point, suggest how different outcomes might be achieved. Ptc has been proposed to be a transmembrane transporter protein that functions catalytically in the inhibition of Smo via a diffusible small molecule. The stimulation of Sxl nuclear entry by the binding of Hh to Ptc might also involve a change in the internal cell milieu, but in this case the Hh cytoplasmic complex may be affected independently, not requiring a change in the activity of Smo or the Fu kinase (Horabin, 2003).
   

3. Ptc can signal the presence of the Hh ligand in a positive manner.
   Several experiments indicate that Hh bound to Ptc enhances the nuclear entry of Sxl. That Smo has no role in transmitting the Hh signal is most clearly demonstrated by expressing the PtcD584 protein in both the anterior and posterior compartments of the dorsal half of the wing disc. PtcD584 acts as a dominant negative and so activates Ci in the anterior compartment, but it fails to enhance the levels of nuclear Sxl in the anterior because it sequesters Hh in the posterior compartment. The double mutant condition of ptc^– clones in a hh^MRT background clearly places Ptc downstream of Hh, while showing Ptc can act positively in transmitting the Hh signal (Horabin, 2003).
   

A positive role for Ptc, but in this case in conjunction with Smo, in promoting cell proliferation during head development has recently been reported. In this situation, however, Hh acts negatively on both Ptc and Smo in their activation of the Activin type I receptor, suggesting an even greater variance from the canonical Hh signaling process (Horabin, 2003).

While the effects on Sxl in the anterior compartment show a dependence on the known Hh signaling components, it is not clear what promotes the rapid nuclear entry of Sxl in the posterior compartment. Su(fu) is expressed uniformly across the disc so it does not appear to be responsible for the AP differences, and ptc clones have no effect (and Ptc RNA and protein are not detected in the posterior compartment). Removal of Hh, however, reduces the nuclear entry rate of Sxl in both compartments. In this regard, the parallel between Hh pathway activation and Sxl nuclear entry in the posterior compartment is worth noting. Fu is also activated in the posterior compartment in a Hh-dependent manner, even though Ptc is not present. It is not clear what mediates between Hh and Fu (Horabin, 2003).

The data also suggest that the Hh cytoplasmic complex may have slightly different compositions in different tissues and/or at developmental stages. In the female germline and in embryos, the absence of Cos2 leads to a severe reduction in Sxl levels. However, in wing discs when mutant clones are made using the same cos2 allele, there is no effect on Sxl. It is suggested that between the third instar larval stage and eclosion, the composition of the Hh cytoplasmic complex may change again to make Sxl more sensitive to Cos2. This would explain why removal of Cos2 can produce sex transformations of the foreleg even though mutant clones in wing discs (and also leg discs) show no alterations in Sxl levels (Horabin, 2003).

A similar argument might apply to the weak sex transformations of forelegs produced by PKA^– clones. Alternatively, PKA may have a very weak effect but the assay on wing discs is not sufficiently sensitive to allow detection of small effects; PKA was found to have a modest effect on Sxl nuclear entry in the germline. Sxl is sufficiently small (38-40 kDa) to freely diffuse into the nucleus, or the protein may enter the nucleus as a complex with splicing components. This may account for the limited sex transformations caused by removal of Hh pathway components (Horabin, 2003).

Removal of several of the Hh pathway components, such as smo, gives the same weak sex transformation phenotype, even though smo has no effect on Sxl nuclear entry. Additionally, there is no correlation between a positive and a negative Hh signaling component and whether there is a resulting phenotype. Changing the dynamics of the activation state of the Hh cytoplasmic complex may perturb the normal functioning of Sxl, since Sxl appears to be in the same complex as Ci. For example, if the Hh pathway is fully activated because of a mutant condition, the relative amounts of Sxl in the cytoplasm versus nucleus at any given time, may be different from the wild-type condition. Perturbing the usual cytoplasmic-nuclear balance could compromise the various processes that Sxl protein regulates. Sxl acts both positively and negatively on its own expression through splicing and translation control and, additionally, regulates the downstream sex differentiation targets. The latter could also be responsible for the weak sex transformations seen, in view of the recent demonstration that doublesex affects the AP organizer and sex-specific growth in the genital disc (Horabin, 2003).

With the exception of Cos2, which can produce relatively substantial effects on Sxl levels in embryos as well as sex transformations in the foreleg, the effects of removal of any of the other Hh pathway components are generally not large. The strong effects of Cos2 on Sxl could be because it affects the stability of Sxl. However, Sxl depends on an autoregulatory splicing feedback loop for its maintenance making the protein susceptible to a variety of regulatory breakdowns. If Cos2 altered the nuclear entry of Sxl, for example, its removal could compromise the female-specific splicing of Sxl transcripts by reducing the amounts of nuclear Sxl. Splicing of Sxl transcripts would progressively fall into the male mode to eventually result in a loss of Sxl protein (Horabin, 2003).

Hedgehog (Hh) proteins control animal development by regulating the Gli/Ci family of transcription factors. In Drosophila, Hh counteracts phosphorylation by PKA, GSK3, and CKI to prevent Cubitus interruptus (Ci) processing through unknown mechanisms. These kinases physically interact with the kinesin-like protein Costal2 (Cos2) to control Ci processing and Hh inhibits such interaction. Cos2 is required for Ci phosphorylation in vivo, and Cos2-immunocomplexes (Cos2IPs) phosphorylate Ci and contain PKA, GSK3, and CKI. By using a Kinesin-Cos2 chimeric protein that carries Cos2-interacting proteins to the microtubule plus end, it was demonstrated that these kinases bind Cos2 in intact cells. PKA, GSK3, and CKI directly bind the N- and C-terminal regions of Cos2, both of which are essential for Ci processing. Finally, it was shown that Hh signaling inhibits Cos2-kinase complex formation. It is proposed that Cos2 recruits multiple kinases to efficiently phosphorylate Ci and that Hh inhibits Ci phosphorylation by specifically interfering with kinase recruitment (Zhang, 2005).

To facilitate detection of protein-protein interaction between Cos2 and its binding partners in vivo, a Kinesin/Cos2 chimeric protein (Kinco) was generated in which the microtubule binding domain of Cos2 is replaced by the motor domain of Drosophila KHC. Kinco moves to the microtubule plus end and accumulates near the basal surface of imaginal disc epithelial cells. Strikingly, Kinco carries all the known Cos2 binding proteins to the same subcellular compartment, leading to colocalization. PKAc, GSK3, and two CKI isoforms, CKIα and CKIϵ, all colocalize with Kinco at the microtubule plus end, demonstrating that these kinases associate with Cos2 in intact cells. Hence, Kinco provides a powerful tool to determine if a protein interacts with Cos2 in vivo. In addition, Kinco colocalizes with Cos2-interacting proteins in cultured Drosophila cells such as S2 and cl8 cells. It is conceivable that one can use such a cell-based colocalization assay to identify additional proteins that form a complex with Cos2. Furthermore, it is also possible to extend this approach to other protein complexes by generating appropriate Kinesin chimeric 'bait' proteins (Zhang, 2005).

By using immunoprecipitation and GST pull-down assays, the kinase interaction domains were mapped to the microtubule binding (MB) and C-terminal (CT) of Cos2. GST fusion proteins containing either of these domains bind purified recombinant PKAc, GSK3, and CKI, suggesting that these kinases directly bind Cos2. However, the possibility cannot be rule out that these kinases may have additional contacts with other components in the Cos2 complex. Indeed, it was found that CKI can bind Ci in yeast (Zhang, 2005).

Several lines of evidence suggest that Cos2/kinase interaction plays an important role in regulating Ci phosphorylation and processing: (1) Ci phosphorylation is compromised in cos2 mutants; (2) the kinase-interacting domains in Cos2 are essential for Ci processing; (3) overexpressing multiple kinases can bypass the requirement of Cos2 for Ci processing (Zhang, 2005).

PKAc, GSK3, and CKI appear to bind competitively to Cos2; however, since Cos2 can dimerize and each Cos2 protein contains two kinase binding domains, a Cos2 dimer could in principle bind all three kinases simultaneously. It is possible that these kinases might not form a tight complex with Cos2 in a stoichiometric manner, which could explain why purification of endogenous Cos2 complexes failed to identify any of these kinases. However, by using in vitro kinase assay and Western blot analysis, the association of PKAc, GSK3, and CKI with endogenous Cos2 was detected. It is likely that interactions between Cos2 and kinases are transient; however, such interactions could increase local concentrations of these kinases; this greatly facilitates Ci hyperphosphorylation (Zhang, 2005).

It has been demonstrated that Hh induces Ci dephosphorylation in cl8 cells; however, it is not clear whether Hh blocks Ci phosphorylation by all three kinases or a subset of them. By using an antibody that specifically recognizes a phosphorylated PKA site in Ci, it was found that Hh partially inhibits PKA phosphorylation of Ci in wing discs. Consistent with this, Hh only partially blocks Cos2/PKA interaction. In contrast, Hh appears to have a more profound influence on the interaction between Cos2 and CKI or GSK3. Furthermore, CKI and GSK3 kinase activities associated with endogenous Cos2 diminishes upon Hh stimulation and Cos2IPs phosphorylates Ci to a lesser extent after Hh treatment. These observations suggest that Ci phosphorylation by CKI and GSK3 is likely to be inhibited by Hh in vivo (Zhang, 2005).

Several mechanisms may contribute to the regulation of Cos2-Ci-kinase complex formation by Hh. (1) The finding that PKAc, GSK3, and CKI bind Cos2 domains that also interact with Smo raises a possibility that Smo/Cos2 interaction may exclude kinases from binding to Cos2. Indeed, a membrane-tethered form of SmoCT (Myr-SmoCT) interferes with Cos2-Ci-kinase complex formation. (2) Smo/Cos2 interaction at the cell surface may induce conformational change in Cos2, which could mask its kinase interacting domains. (3) Cos2 is phosphorylated in response to Hh. Phosphorylation of Cos2 could regulate its interaction with one or more kinases. (4) There is evidence that Hh induces dissociation of Ci from Cos2, which may further decrease the accessibility of Ci to the kinases. This may explain why Hh induces more significant dissociation of PKAc from Ci than from Cos2. (5) Hh induces degradation of Cos2 in P compartment cells as well as in cells immediately adjacent to the A/P boundary; this may lead to a chronic destruction of Cos2-Ci-kinase complexes. However, it appears that only high levels of Hh induce Cos2 degradation in vivo. Low levels of Hh may prevent Ci phosphorylation with different mechanisms such as those described above (Zhang, 2005).

The Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway has conserved roles in development of species ranging from Drosophila to humans. Responses to Hh are mediated by the transcription factor Cubitus interruptus (Ci; GLIs 1-3 in mammals), and constitutive activation of Hh target gene expression has been linked to several types of human cancer. In Drosophila, the kinesin-like protein Costal2 (Cos2), which associates directly with the Hh receptor component Smoothened (Smo), is essential for suppression of the transcriptional activity of Ci in the absence of ligand. Another protein, Suppressor of Fused [Su(Fu)], exerts a weak negative influence on Ci activity. Based on analysis of functional and sequence conservation of Cos2 orthologs, Su(Fu), Smo, and Ci/GLI proteins, Drosophila and mammalian Hh signaling mechanisms have been found to diverge; in mouse cells, major Cos2-like activities are absent and the inhibition of the Hh pathway in the absence of ligand critically depends on Su(Fu) (Varjosalo, 2006).

The evidence indicates that a significant divergence in the mechanism of Shh signal transduction has occurred between vertebrates and invertebrates at the level of Smo, Cos2, and Su(Fu). The results indicate that major Cos2-like activities are absent in mouse cells based on four observations: (1) domains in Smo that are required in Drosophila to bind to Cos2 are not required for mSmo function; (2) mouse Shh signaling is insensitive to expression of Drosophila Cos2, but can be rendered Cos2 sensitive by replacing the mSmo C-terminal domain with the dSmo C-terminal domain; (3) expression of the Smo C-terminal domain which, in Drosophila, inactivates Cos2 has no effect in the mouse in vivo or in vitro; (4) overexpression or RNAi-mediated suppression of mouse Cos2 homologs has no effect on Hh signaling, even under sensitized conditions. These results are also consistent with divergence of the sequence of domains involved in Cos2 binding in Ci/GLI proteins and Smo between insects and mammals (Varjosalo, 2006).

Although the RNAi experiments targeting Cos2 orthologs Kif7 and Kif27 were performed under conditions in which negative regulators of GLI2 were limiting, they could be argued to be consistent with a model in which multiple kinesins with Cos2-like activity would act in a redundant fashion in mammals. By loss-of-function studies of individual kinesins in cell culture or in mice it would be difficult to obtain conclusive evidence against such a model due to the potential redundancy of multiple members of the kinesin family. However, several other in vitro and in vivo experiments that were presented directly contradict such a model. These include RNAi analyses targeting multiple Kif proteins, the analysis of loss of function of mSmo domains, and the lack of effect of overexpression of myristoylated-mSmoC and the Cos2 orthologs Kif7 and Kif27. In addition, no kinesin with Cos2-like activity could be found by extending the analyses to several other kinesins, which show homology to Cos2 but have different fly orthologs (Varjosalo, 2006).

In contrast to the case in Drosophila, Su(Fu) has a critical role in suppression of the mammalian Hh pathway in the absence of ligand, and loss of Su(Fu) function results in dramatic induction of GLI transcriptional activity. The results are also consistent with the studies that show that loss of Su(Fu) in mouse embryos results in complete activation of the Hh pathway, in a fashion similar to the loss of Ptc. These results are particularly surprising in light of the central role of Cos2 and a minor role of Su(Fu) in Drosophila. Together, these results also clearly show that mouse cells and embryos lack a Cos2-like activity that, in Drosophila, can completely suppress the Hh pathway in the absence of Su(Fu). However, the results should not be taken as evidence against novel proteins (including kinesins not orthologous to Cos2) acting in mammalian cells between Smo and GLI proteins with mechanisms that are distinct from those used by Drosophila Cos2. Several reports have, in fact, described such vertebrate-specific regulators of Hh signaling, including SIL, Iguana, Rab23, Kif3a, IFT88, IFT172, MIM/BEG4, and β-arrestin2 (Varjosalo, 2006).

The results also shed light on some known differences in the function of the Hh pathway in Drosophila and mammals. Mutations and small molecules affecting conformation of Smo transmembrane domains have a strong effect in mammals, but they have little effect in Drosophila. Interestingly, the Smo transmembrane domain is required for regulation of Su(Fu) activity, whereas the Smo C-terminal domain is critical for inhibition of Cos2 activity. Thus, based on the data, manipulations that affect the Smo transmembrane domain would be predicted to affect Su(Fu) and therefore to have a limited role in Drosophila and a major effect in mammals (Varjosalo, 2006).

Although there are differences in mouse and Drosophila Smo functional domains, and a lack of conservation of Smo phosphorylation sites, conservation of Smo function at a level not involving Cos2 is supported by the observation that mutation of a conserved isoleucine (I573A in mSmo) results in loss of both mouse and Drosophila Smo activity, yet does not result in a loss of Cos2 binding to dSmo. In addition, dSmo proteins that are activated by phosphomimetic mutations are constitutively stabilized; yet, they are partially responsive to Hh, suggesting that, in addition to stabilization and phosphorylation, other, potentially conserved mechanisms could be required to generate fully active Smo in Drosophila as well (Varjosalo, 2006).

In the mSmo C terminus, six residues between amino acids 570 and 580 were identified that resulted in significant loss of mSmo activity. The predicted secondary structure for this region is an α helix, in which these residues would reside on the same side, raising the possibility that, together with the third Smo intracellular loop, this region may form an interaction surface involved in inactivation of Su(Fu) or activation of Ci/GLI (Varjosalo, 2006).

Recent results have indicated that Su(Fu) acts as a tumor suppressor in medulloblastoma, and it has been suggested that medulloblastomas associated with loss of Su(Fu) result, in part, from activation of the Wnt pathway. However, consistent with the lack of a Wnt phenotype of Su(Fu) mutations in Drosophila, in the current experiments, a Wnt pathway-specific reporter is not activated by shRNAs targeting Su(Fu). Given observations that Su(Fu) is critically important in the suppression of the mammalian Hh pathway in the absence of ligand, and the fact that Hh pathway activation is required for growth of a form of medulloblastoma induced by mutations in Patched, it is likely that constitutive activation of the Hh pathway is also essential for growth of medulloblastomas associated with the loss of Su(Fu) (Varjosalo, 2006).

In a wider context, the results demonstrate that signal transduction mechanisms of even the major signaling pathways are not immutable, but that they can be subject to evolutionary change. The divergence may have occurred after the separation of the vertebrate and invertebrate lineages. However, some evidence also suggests that functional divergence may have occurred much later in evolution. Although mutants of Fused or Cos2 orthologs of zebrafish have not been identified, zebrafish homologs of Fused and Cos2 act in the Hh pathway based on morpholino antisense injections. In contrast to these findings, mice deficient in mouse ortholog of Drosophila Fused do not have a Hh-related phenotype, and mouse orthologs of Cos2 do not affect Hh signaling. Hh-related phenotypes can be observed in zebrafish by morpholino-mediated targeting of other genes as well, such as β-arrestin2, whose loss in mice does not result in a Hh-related phenotype. It is widely appreciated that multiple types of embryonic insults result in Hh-like phenotypes, such as holoprosencephaly. Thus, it is possible that the zebrafish phenotypes observed are caused by the morpholino injection process itself. Alternatively, there may also be significant differences between the mechanism of Hh signaling between vertebrate species (Varjosalo, 2006).

Because of the strong conservation of Su(Fu) in both invertebrate and vertebrate phyla, the presence of a Cos2 binding domain only in insect Smo, and the divergence of the Cos2 proteins from the kinesin family, the simplest explanation of the data is that Su(Fu) represents the primordial Ci/GLI repressor, and that the Cos2-like functionality has evolved specifically in the invertebrate lineage. The results, thus, also raise the possibility that multicomponent pathways evolve, in part, by insertion of novel proteins between existing pathway components. This mechanism potentially explains a challenging aspect of evolutionary biology regarding the emergence of signaling pathways with multiple specific components (Varjosalo, 2006).

The secreted protein Hedgehog (Hh) plays an important role in metazoan development and as a survival factor for many human tumors. In both cases, Hh signaling proceeds through the activation of the seven-transmembrane protein Smoothened (Smo), which is thought to convert the Gli family of transcription factors from transcriptional repressors to transcriptional activators. This study provides evidence that Smo signals to the Hh signaling complex, which consists of the kinesin-related protein Costal2 (Cos2), the protein kinase Fused (Fu), and the Drosophila Gli homolog cubitus interruptus (Ci), in two distinct manners. Many of the commonly observed molecular events following Hh signaling are not transmitted in a linear fashion but instead are activated through two signals that bifurcate at Smo to independently affect activator and repressor pools of Ci (Ogden, 2006).

This work demonstrates that targeting the association between Smo and the Cos2 cargo domain functionally separates the known molecular markers of the Hh pathway into two distinct categories: those events dependent on a direct association between the Cos2 cargo domain and Smo and those not dependent on this direct association. The Hh-induced readouts requiring direct Smo-Cos2 association include Smo phosphorylation, stabilization, and translocation to the plasma membrane, which facilitate intermediate to high level activation of Ci. Hh-induced Fu and Cos2 hyperphosphorylation, Hedgehog signaling complex relocalization from vesicular membranes to the cytoplasm, and Ci stabilization do not appear to require a direct Smo-Cos2 cargo domain association. Thus, although Smo is necessary for all aspects of Hh signaling, only the molecular events grouped with Ci activation appear to require direct association between Cos2 and Smo. In vivo, carboxyl-terminal Smo binding domain expression is also capable of attenuating Hh signaling. This observation is consistent with in vitro observation that carboxyl-terminal Smo binding domain inhibits critical requirement(s) for pathway activation (Ogden, 2006).

A model has been proposed suggesting the existence of two independently regulated pools of the Hedghog signaling complex (HSC), one involved in pathway repression (HSC-R), and one involved in activation (HSC-A). HSC-R is dedicated to priming Ci for processing into the Ci₇₅ transcriptional repressor, whereas HSC-A is dedicated to activation of stabilized Ci₁₅₅ in response to Hh. this study provides evidence that the effects of these two HSCs can be functionally separated by specifically targeting the interaction between Smo and the Cos2 cargo domain. Moreover, distinct molecular markers were identified for each HSC. It is proposed that in HSC-R, the membrane vesicle tethered Cos2 functions as a scaffold to recruit protein kinase A, glycogen synthase kinase 3ß, and casein kinase I, which in turn phosphorylate Ci. Hyperphosphorylated Ci is then targeted to the proteasome by the F-box protein supernumerary limbs (Slimb), where it is converted into Ci₇₅. In response to Hh, Fu and Cos2 are phosphorylated and dissociate from vesicular membranes and microtubules, which is suggested to result in the attenuation of HSC-R function. This allows for the subsequent accumulation of full-length Ci. The mechanism by which HSC-R function is inhibited by Hh-activated Smo is not clear but appears to require the carboxyl-terminal tail of Smo and, by this analysis, appears to occur independently of a direct Smo-Cos2 cargo domain association. However, the direct Cos2-Smo association is critical for regulation of HSC-A. In the absence of Hh, HSC-A is tethered to vesicular membranes, through Smo, where it is kept in an inactive state. In the presence of Hh, Cos2 bound directly to Smo acts as a scaffold for the phosphorylation of Smo by protein kinase A, glycogen synthase kinase 3ß, and casein kinase I. Phosphorylation of Smo triggers its stabilization and relocalization to the plasma membrane with HSC-A, where Ci is proposed to be activated. Thus, Cos2 plays a similar role in both HSC-R and HSC-A. In the former case, coupling protein kinase A, glycogen synthase kinase 3ß, and casein kinase I with Ci and, in the latter case, coupling the same protein kinases with the carboxyl-terminal tail of Smo (Ogden, 2006).

An alternative interpretation of these data is that disruption of the Cos2 cargo domain-Smo association separates high and low level Hh signaling. It has been suggested that a second, low affinity Smo binding domain may reside within the coiled-coil domain of Cos2. Thus, high level signaling, where all aspects of the Hh pathway are activated may require both Cos2 interaction domains to be directly bound to Smo. In either scenario, HSC-R function would be regulated independently of HSC-A function (Ogden, 2006).

It is concluded that targeted disruption of Cos2 cargo domain-Smo binding by CSBD is able to functionally separate the activities ascribed to the two HSC model. This two-switch system is amenable to the formation of a gradient of Hh signaling activity across a field of cells, in that the relative activity of HSC-R to HSC-A is directly proportional to the level of Hh stimulation a cell receives. The opposing functional effects of the two complexes can then establish unique ratios of Ci₇₅ to activated Ci, resulting in distinct levels of pathway activation on a per cell basis (Ogden, 2006).

The Hedgehog (Hh) family of secreted proteins is involved both in developmental and tumorigenic processes. Although many members of this important pathway are known, the mechanism of Hh signal transduction is still poorly understood. In this study, the regulation of the kinesin-like protein Costal2 (Cos2) by Hh was analyzed. A residue on Cos2, serine 572 (Ser572), is necessary for normal transduction of the Hh signal from the transmembrane protein Smoothened (Smo) to the transcriptional mediator Cubitus interruptus (Ci). This residue is located in the serine/threonine kinase Fused (Fu)-binding domain and is phosphorylated as a consequence of Fu activation. Although Ser572 does not overlap with known Smo- or Ci-binding domains, the expression of a Cos2 variant mimicking constitutive phosphorylation and the use of a specific antibody to phosphorylated Ser572 showed a reduction in the association of phosphorylated Cos2 with Smo and Ci, both in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, Cos2 proteins with an Ala or Asp substitution of Ser572 were impaired in their regulation of Ci activity. It is proposed that, after activation of Smo, the Fu kinase induces a conformational change in Cos2 that allows the disassembly of the Smo-Fu-Cos2-Ci complex and consequent activation of Hh target genes. This study provides new insight into the mechanistic regulation of the protein complex that mediates Hh signalling and a unique antibody tool for directly monitoring Hh receptor activity in all activated cells (Reul, 2007).

These data show that phosphorylation of Cos2 residue Ser572 is necessary for the full activation of Hh signalling, and that this phosphorylation is dependent on the kinase Fu. It is likely that Fu directly phosphorylates Cos2 on Ser572, but it was not possible to purify an activated Fu kinase to confirm this. The phosphorylation of this residue strongly decreased the association of Cos2 with both Ci and Smo, an important step in the regulation of the cytoplasmic anchoring of Ci. By contrast, Cos2-572A, a Cos2 mutant that cannot be phosphorylated at Ser 572, remained associated with Smo and Ci but was much less sensitive to Hh regulation; this is because both its restraining activity on Ci and its association with Ci were only minimally sensitive to the presence of Fu and to the activation of Hh signalling. Phosphorylation of Ser572 of Cos2 induces the partial disassembly of the protein complex (Reul, 2007).

The data show that Cos2 phosphorylated on Ser572 does not bind Smo. However, previous studies have shown that Cos2 is phosphorylated and is pulled down by Smo in response to Hh stimulation. How can these data be reconciled? First, it is possible that not all Cos2 proteins that bind to Smo are phosphorylated. Indeed, only a limited fraction of Cos2 and Fu are sensitive to Hh activation. This is clearly observed with Fu (only 50% of the protein undergoes an electromobility shift upon Hh activation), but is more difficult to quantify with Cos2 because of its very small and diffused electromobility shift. Nevertheless, if Cos2 behaves similarly to Fu, it would mean that 50% of the total Cos2 (corresponding to the non-modified protein in Hh-treated cells) should be able to bring enough Smo down to be detectable in immunoprecipitates. Second, it is possible that Smo still binds to phosphorylated Cos2 on Ser572, but with much less affinity. Third, phosphorylation on Ser572 is not responsible for all Cos2 mobility shift, because Cos2-572A still shifts upon OA treatment, suggesting that other phosphorylated sites are present. Therefore, some phosphorylated isoforms that are not phosphorylated on Ser572 might also be associated with Smo. It is thus possible that this study has revealed only one of a series of sequential phosphorylation events on Cos2 that ultimately lead to the complete dissociation of Cos2 from Smo. Finally, it is worth mentioning that more Smo is present in the Cos2 IP from Hh-treated cells than in non-Hh treated cells. This is thought to simply reflect an increased level of Smo resulting from Hh signalling activation, and not the Hh-dependent regulation of the efficiency of the interaction of Smo with Cos2 (Reul, 2007).

The role of the Cos2 protein in the complex is to serve as a platform to allow both positive and negative regulators to be brought into close proximity with Smo and Ci. Thus, the role of Cos2 in transmitting a response can be masked by the role of Cos2 in limiting pathway activity in the absence of Hh. At low concentrations, it is able to stimulate Hh reporter activity in vitro and engrailed expression in vivo. But in Cos2-572A-expressing cells, engrailed expression was lower than in wild-type discs, and the in vitro stimulation of Hh signalling could not be potentiated by Fu activity. Moreover, the restraining activity of Cos2-572A on Ci could not be counteracted by Hh or Fu in vitro. Therefore, it is proposed that the Ser572 to Ala substitution on Cos2 rendered Cos2 less sensitive to Hh and Fu regulation. Because Cos2-572A still binds to its partners, it could bring Fu into proximity with its other targets. Indeed, it is likely that Fu activation leads not only to the direct phosphorylation of Cos2 but also to direct changes in Ci and/or other partners, such as Sufu. This explains why Cos2-572A is still able to stimulate Hh signalling, albeit not to its highest level (Reul, 2007).

From the Cos2-572A results, one could wonder why Cos2-572D did not constitutively activate the pathway. Because the Cos2-572D form is in a 'frozen' state compared with the wild-type form, cycles of phosphorylation/dephosphorylation are blocked and thus Cos-572D cannot participate in the Hh complex signalling anymore. The data show that constitutively phosphorylated Cos2 and endogenous phospho-Cos2 are bound to Fu but are dissociated from Smo and Ci. Therefore, Fu bound to phosphorylated Cos2 would be absent from the complex, preventing the release of all the cytoplasmic anchors from Ci (Reul, 2007).

Because the Cos2 Ser572 residue is not part of the Ci- or Smo-binding domains, but phosphorylation of this site nevertheless leads to the dissociation of these two proteins from Cos2, it is proposed that the Fu-mediated modification of Cos2 induces the protein to undergo a conformational change that leads to the disassembly of the complex. The disassembly is partial because phosphorylated Cos2 and Fu are still associated. Interestingly, it has been proposed that the binding of Cos2, Sufu and Fu to Ci masks a nuclear localisation site on Ci (Ci-NLS). A conformational change that supports this idea: that disassembly of the complex is necessary to expose the Ci-NLS and for consequent nuclear translocation (Reul, 2007).