Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Neural Plasticity
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 3145019, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3145019
Review Article

Polarity Determinants in Dendritic Spine Development and Plasticity

Department of Neuroscience and Cell Biology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA

Received 18 June 2015; Revised 16 October 2015; Accepted 1 November 2015

Academic Editor: Kwok-On Lai

Copyright © 2016 Huaye Zhang. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The asymmetric distribution of various proteins and RNAs is essential for all stages of animal development, and establishment and maintenance of this cellular polarity are regulated by a group of conserved polarity determinants. Studies over the last 10 years highlight important functions for polarity proteins, including apical-basal polarity and planar cell polarity regulators, in dendritic spine development and plasticity. Remarkably, many of the conserved polarity machineries function in similar manners in the context of spine development as they do in epithelial morphogenesis. Interestingly, some polarity proteins also utilize neuronal-specific mechanisms. Although many questions remain unanswered in our understanding of how polarity proteins regulate spine development and plasticity, current and future research will undoubtedly shed more light on how this conserved group of proteins orchestrates different pathways to shape the neuronal circuitry.

1. Introduction

Neurons are probably the most polarized/compartmentalized cell type in the human body. Their polarity establishment starts with the specification of dendrites and axons. Further compartmentalization occurs during the formation of dendritic spines, which receive most of the excitatory synaptic inputs in the brain. Thus, the formation and maintenance of dendritic spines can be seen as a localized form of polarity establishment, where separation and maintenance of different membrane and cytoplasmic domains are needed. This makes proteins regulating cellular polarity ideally suited to function in dendritic spine development. Indeed, recent studies from a number of laboratories highlight key roles for different classes of polarity proteins in dendritic spine development and plasticity. In this review, I will summarize recent advances in studying the role of cell polarity regulators, including apical-basal polarity and planar polarity determinants, in dendritic spine development and plasticity, and discuss possible future avenues of investigation.

2. The Spine Cytoskeleton

The actin and microtubule cytoskeleton provides the structural basis for cell polarity in most cell types. For example, asymmetric actin polymerization allows a migrating cell to polarize and extend lamellipodia in the direction of movement. In addition, polarized vesicular trafficking along microtubules is essential for the establishment and maintenance of apical versus basolateral domains in epithelial cells [1]. Similarly, dendritic spines depend on the unique organization of the cytoskeleton to maintain their polarized morphology. Dendritic spines are highly actin-rich structures that extend from the microtubule-rich dendritic shaft. Spines typically consist of an enlarged spine head containing a dense network of short branched actin filaments. The spine head is connected to the main dendritic shaft through the spine neck, which contains both long linear and short branched actin filaments [24]. Although actin constitutes the main cytoskeletal element of dendritic spines, dynamic microtubules do enter spines, a process that is regulated by neuronal activity [5, 6]. This activity-dependent microtubule invasion is important for synaptic plasticity [79]. Thus, the dynamic actin and microtubule cytoskeleton is important for the morphogenesis and plasticity of dendritic spines. Not surprisingly, many of the upstream polarity regulators target the cytoskeleton to regulate spine growth, maturation, and function, as will be discussed in the following sections.

3. Partitioning-Defective (Par) Proteins

The partitioning-defective (Par) proteins play an essential role in various contexts of polarity establishment, including embryogenesis, directional motility, epithelial morphogenesis, and axon specification [10]. These proteins were initially discovered in the C. elegans zygote, where mutations in the par genes cause defects in partitioning of the zygote into asymmetric daughter cells [11]. The Par proteins (except for Par2) are conserved from worms to mammals. Par1 and Par4 are Ser/Thr kinases. Par3 and Par6 are PDZ domain-containing scaffolding/adaptor proteins. Par5 is a member of the 14-3-3 family of proteins, which binds to phosphorylated Ser/Thr residues [12]. Par proteins can have distinct distribution patterns. For example, in the developing zygote, Par3 and Par6, which form a complex with atypical PKC (aPKC), are localized to the anterior pole while Par1 is localized to the posterior pole. In epithelial cells, the Par3/Par6/aPKC complex is localized apically, while Par1 is localized basolaterally. This polarized distribution is partially achieved by the two complexes mutually excluding each other from their respective domains [13]. Par1 is phosphorylated by aPKC, which leads to the binding of Par1 with Par5. This interaction will lead to the inhibition of Par1 membrane binding and kinase activity. In this way, Par1 is excluded from the membrane domain occupied by the Par3/Par6/aPKC complex [14, 15]. Conversely, Par1 can phosphorylate Par3, which leads to Par5/14-3-3 binding and triggers the release of Par3 from the cell membrane [16], thus preventing the Par3/6 complex from localizing to the lateral membrane (Figure 1). This mutual exclusion mechanism helps cells establish and maintain polarity by compartmentalizing signaling processes in a spatially specific manner.

Figure 1: Par polarity proteins maintain their polarized distribution through a mutual exclusion mechanism. In epithelial cells, the Par3/Par6/aPKC complex is localized to the apical membrane while Par1 is localized to the basolateral membrane. Par1 is phosphorylated by aPKC, which leads to the binding of Par1 with Par5, a 14-3-3 protein. This interaction will lead to the inhibition of Par1 membrane binding and kinase activity. In this way, Par1 is excluded from the membrane domain occupied by the Par3/Par6/aPKC complex. Conversely, Par1 can phosphorylate Par3, which leads to Par5/14-3-3 binding and triggers the release of Par3 from the cell membrane, thus preventing the Par3/6 complex from localizing to the lateral membrane.

The highly compartmentalized nature of neurons and their dendritic spines makes Par proteins ideal candidates to function in spine morphogenesis and plasticity. Indeed, the Par3/Par6/aPKC complex was found to play an important role in dendritic spine morphogenesis in hippocampal neurons. Depletion of Par3 results in immature spines that are filopodial- and lamellipodial-like [17]. This phenotype is mediated by the guanine nucleotide exchange factor TIAM1, which activates the small GTPase Rac1. TIAM1 interacts directly with the C-terminus of Par3 [18, 19]. Further experiments show that Par3 functions by spatially restricting Rac activation to dendritic spines through targeting TIAM1. Since Rac is a key regulator of actin dynamics, it was proposed that Par3 and TIAM1 locally modulate the actin cytoskeleton, which is important for proper spine development. In the absence of Par3, TIAM1 becomes mislocalized causing aberrant activation of Rac, which disrupts normal spine morphogenesis [17]. Recently, the adhesion G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) brain-specific angiogenesis inhibitor 1 (BAI1) was found to be the upstream regulator of the Par3/TIAM1 complex [20]. BAI1 interacts with the Par3/TIAM1 complex and targets it to dendritic spines. In the absence of BAI1, the Par3/TIAM1 complex is mislocalized, and Rac activation is lost in dendritic spines. These recent results elegantly demonstrate for the first time a cell surface receptor that targets and regulates the Par polarity complex at the postsynapse. It also positions the Par3/TIAM1 complex in a key position to link a synaptic adhesion receptor to local modulation of actin dynamics.

While Par3 functions through TIAM1 and Rac in spine morphogenesis [17], the Par6/aPKC complex was also found to play a distinct role in spine development. Overexpression of Par6 or enzymatic activation of aPKC promotes spine development, while depletion of Par6 or inhibiting aPKC disrupts spine morphogenesis. Unexpectedly, the Par6/aPKC complex was found to function through p190 RhoGAP and the small GTPase RhoA. Overexpression of Par6 inhibits RhoA activation while knockdown of Par6 elevates RhoA activity [21]. Since prolonged activation of RhoA negatively regulates spine development [22, 23], the Par6/aPKC complex promotes spine development by keeping RhoA activity low in dendritic spines. It is interesting to note that in Drosophila the Par3/Par6/aPKC complex regulates glutamatergic synapse formation at the neuromuscular junction (NMJ) by modulating actin and microtubule dynamics [24, 25]. Moreover, the localization of Par3 and Par6 to the NMJ is dependent on aPKC kinase activity [24, 25], and the retention of Par3 at the NMJ depends on its dephosphorylation by the lipid and protein phosphatase PTEN [24]. Whether similar mechanisms are involved in the mammalian dendritic spines remains to be determined.

As mentioned above, in developing zygotes and epithelia, the Par3/Par6/aPKC complex antagonizes the function of another polarity protein, Ser/Thr kinase Par1, also known as the Microtubule Affinity Regulating Kinase (MARK). The mammalian Par1/MARK was originally discovered as a family of kinases that phosphorylates microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), such as MAP2 and tau, leading to the disassembly of microtubules [26]. There are four members of the mammalian Par1/MARK family, including Par1c/MARK1, Par1b/MARK2, Par1a/MARK3, and Par1d/MARK4. A number of other substrates have since been identified, including doublecortin [27, 28], histone deacetylase 7 (HDAC7) [29], plakophilin 2 [30], Cdc25 [31], and Par3 [16, 32]. In rat hippocampal neurons, depletion of Par1b/MARK2 inhibits dendritic spine maturation, resulting in elongated filopodia-like protrusions. Live imaging studies revealed that in Par1b depleted neurons microtubule growth is reduced. Further, it was found that the microtubule plus end binding protein p140Cap showed reduced accumulation in dendritic spines when Par1b was depleted [33]. Together these studies suggest that Par1 promotes dendritic spine development through modulating microtubule dynamics. Interestingly, in Drosophila, the Par1/MARK homolog dPar1 phosphorylates discs large (Dlg) and regulates neuromuscular junction formation [34]. This phosphorylation mechanism is conserved as the mammalian Par1/MARK phosphorylates the Dlg homolog PSD-95 on the conserved Ser561 site. Phosphorylation of this site is important for the function of Par1 in dendritic spine morphogenesis, as a phosphomimetic mutant of PSD-95 can rescue the spine formation defects in hippocampal neurons expressing kinase-dead Par1 [35]. In addition, Par1/MARK was found to function downstream of NMDA receptors through a mechanism that depends on PKA and another member of the Par proteins, Par4, also known as LKB1 [36]. Together, these studies show that Par1 is important for spine development through regulating both microtubule dynamics and the synaptic scaffolding protein PSD-95. It will be interesting to examine whether Par1 participates in NMDA receptor-dependent synaptic plasticity and whether the known antagonistic effects of the Par4/Par1 and Par3/Par6 complexes play any role in spine development (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Par polarity proteins in dendritic spines. Members of the partitioning-defective (Par) polarity proteins regulate dendritic spine development through different pathways. Par1 functions downstream of NMDA receptors (NMDAR) to regulate dynamic microtubules and to phosphorylate PSD-95. Par3 functions downstream of the BAI1 receptor and targets TIAM1 to modulate Rac activity. Par6 and aPKC function through p190 RhoGAP to inhibit RhoA. Both Rac and Rho are central regulators of actin dynamics.

4. The Septin GTPases

Septins are cytoskeletal proteins that regulate cell polarity by forming filamentous structures underneath the plasma membrane to function as diffusion barriers. They belong to the GTPase family that binds to and hydrolyzes GTP into GDP. There are 13 mammalian septin genes, many of which exist in multiple isoforms [37]. Different septins interact with each other to form heterooligomeric complexes. These oligomers then assemble end-to-end to form filamentous structures. Septin filaments can be straight, curved, or circular and function as scaffolds and/or diffusion barriers [38]. For example, in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, where these proteins were initially discovered over 40 years ago, septins form a ring around the neck between mother and bud [37, 38]. More recent studies show that this septin diffusion barrier is important for the asymmetric segregation of age during yeast budding. Aging factor such as circular DNA is retained in the mother cell by a septin-dependent lateral diffusion barrier. This ensures that age is reset in the newborn bud so species propagation can be achieved [39].

Given the geometrical similarities between a yeast bud and a dendritic spine, different groups hypothesized that septins may form a ring around the spine neck to limit diffusion in and out of dendritic spines, thus biochemically compartmentalizing the spine (Figure 3). Indeed it was known that a fraction of dendritic spines are diffusionally isolated [40]; however the molecular identity of this barrier was not clear at the time. In 2007, two groups discovered that septins are indeed present at the spine neck and play an important role in dendritic spine morphogenesis. Both groups independently found that septin 7 (Sept7) is localized to the base of dendritic filopodia, branch points, and the base of dendritic spines. Overexpression of Sept7 increases dendritic branching and protrusion density [41], while depletion of Sept7 results in reduced dendritic arborization and immature, elongated spines [41, 42], suggesting that Sept7 is important for spine maturation.

Figure 3: Septin diffusion barriers in yeast and spines. Septins form filamentous structures that constitute diffusion barriers in the yeast bud neck. Similarly, septin diffusion barriers have been found in the spine neck.

While the localization of Sept7 to spine neck indicates a role in barrier function, this was not experimentally demonstrated until a recent study by the Choquet group [43]. They measured diffusion of the GluA2 receptor, bulk membrane, and cytoplasmic proteins across the spine neck, using fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) imaging. Diffusion of GluA2 and membrane-bound mRFP is slower in spines containing the septin barrier, while diffusion of cytoplasmic mRFP is not affected [43]. This suggests that Sept7 regulates the lateral diffusion of membrane proteins in and out of spines, which is in line with known septin functions in other organisms. It is intriguing to speculate that septins contribute to the heterogeneity of dendritic spines by forming a barrier on certain spine necks but not others. Further research is needed to elucidate how septin-containing spines and septin-free spines differ in their physiological functions.

5. Planar Cell Polarity Proteins

Planar cell polarity (PCP) is a phenomenon in which coordinated orientation of cells and their appendages, such as stereocilia or hair, occurs within the plane of the epithelial sheet. Thus in the case of PCP, asymmetry is established at the tissue level rather than the cellular level. Genetic studies in Drosophila have revealed conserved PCP proteins such as Frizzled (Fz), Dishevelled (Dvl), and Van Gogh (Vang). Studies in the mammalian cochlea have identified additional PCP factors including Vangl2 (a mammalian homologue of the Drosophila Vang) and Scrb1 (mammalian homologue of the Drosophila Scribble) [44]. From a basic cell biological perspective, the core function of PCP proteins is similar to other polarity proteins, which is to compartmentalize the membrane, except that the compartmentalization occurs on the anterior-posterior body axis instead of the apical-basal axis. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that several of the PCP proteins are also found to be important for dendritic spine morphogenesis.

5.1. Scribble

Scribble (Scrib) is a large scaffolding protein containing 16 leucine-rich repeats (LRR) on the N-terminus followed by four PDZ domains. It was originally identified in Drosophila as a determinant of apical-basolateral polarity [45] and a tumor suppressor [46]. Scrib localizes to the basolateral domain of epithelial cells and promotes basolateral membrane identity together with its binding partners lethal giant larvae (Lgl) and discs large (Dlg). Depletion of Scrib disrupts E-cadherin mediated adhesion in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney epithelial cells [47, 48]. In mammalian cochlear hair cells, a mutation in the Scrib gene causes defects in PCP as reflected by disrupted orientation of stereociliary bundles of hair cells [49]. Furthermore, Scrib genetically and physically interacts with the PCP core protein Vang and functions as its effector during PCP establishment in Drosophila [50]. Thus Scrib is a determinant of both apical-basal polarity and planar polarity.

In Drosophila, Scrib regulates the architecture of the presynaptic terminal. Scrib mutant flies show fewer synaptic vesicles in the active zone and more in the reserve pool, resulting in defects in short-term synaptic plasticity [51]. In mammals, this presynaptic effect of Scrib is believed to be downstream of β-catenin [52]. On the postsynaptic side, Scrib recruits the neuronal nitric oxide synthase 1 adaptor protein (NOS1AP) to the G-protein coupled receptor interacting protein 1 (GIT1)/β-p21-activated kinase- (PAK-) interacting exchange factor (β-PIX)/PAK complex to regulate dendritic spine morphogenesis. As the GIT1/β-PIX complex functions to regulate PAK activity through Rac [53, 54], the Scrib-NOS1AP complex also regulates spine morphogenesis through influencing Rac activity [55]. Indeed Scrib mutant mice show increased Rac activation [56]. Furthermore, these mutant mice show impaired synaptic transmission and plasticity in the hippocampus. Overall dendritic spine density is reduced in Scrib mutant mice; however individual spines are enlarged [56]. Together these studies suggest that Scrib functions through Rac to regulate dendritic spine development and plasticity.

5.2. The Wnt/Fz/Dvl Pathway and Vangl

Wnts are a family of secreted proteins that are important for many aspects of tissue development. Wnt proteins function through the seven-transmembrane Frizzled receptor (Fz) and the cytoplasmic adaptor protein Disheveled (Dvl). There are two main branches of the Wnt signaling pathway. The canonical Wnt pathway involves downstream phosphorylation of β-catenin and regulation of gene transcription. The noncanonical Wnt PCP pathway involves regulation of RhoA and actomyosin contractility [57]. During animal development, the Wnt PCP pathway regulates key processes such as convergent extension and neural tube closure [58]. The Wnt pathway is also crucial for multiple cellular processes during brain development, including proliferation and differentiation of neuronal precursors [59], neuronal migration [60], and axon guidance [61]. More recent studies show that Wnt signaling promotes dendritic spine formation in hippocampal neurons [62]. Several different Wnts, including Wnt2, Wnt5a, and Wnt7a, have been shown to increase dendritic spine density [6365]. Wnt5a increases synaptic transmission [64] and clustering of PSD-95 [66], and Wnt7a increases excitatory, but not inhibitory, synaptic transmission through Dvl1 and the calcium-calmodulin dependent kinase II (CaMKII) [65]. The specific receptors mediating these effects include Fz5, which may act both pre- and postsynaptically [67]. Other Fz receptors involved may include Fz1 and Fz3, both of which are highly localized to synaptic sites [68]. It will be interesting to examine the involvement of other Wnt receptors, including the receptor tyrosine kinase Ryk and receptor tyrosine kinase-like orphan receptor 2 (ROR2). Indeed a recent study shows that depletion of ROR2 inhibits dendritic spine maturation [69].

The Drosophila Vang and its mammalian homologue Vangl are tetramembrane spanning proteins that function as core components of the PCP pathway. In the Drosophila wing epithelia, Fz and Vang segregate into distinct domains [70]. Fz concentrates on the distal edges of cells while Vang localizes to the proximal edges. How this spatial segregation is achieved is unclear and several different models have been proposed [71]; however the direct transcellular interaction between Fz and Vang is likely involved [72, 73] (Figure 4). In vertebrates, there are two Vangl genes, Vangl1 and Vangl2. Vangl2 is highly expressed in neuronal tissues and regulates various aspects of brain development including neurulation [74, 75], neuronal migration [76, 77], and growth cone guidance [78]. Recent studies show that Vangl2 is also important for dendritic spine development. Vangl2 forms a direct interaction through its C-terminal PDZ-binding motif with PSD-95 on the third PDZ domain [79]. In addition, Vangl2 directly interacts with N-cadherin and enhances its internalization [80]. In hippocampal neurons depleted of Vangl2, both dendritic branching and spine density are reduced [81]. Formation of synapses is also reduced as shown by the decreased clustering of pre- and postsynaptic markers [80]. These studies show that Vangl2 is important for dendritic spine development. It will be interesting to determine how interactions between different PCP proteins contribute to spine development and plasticity (Figure 5).

Figure 4: Asymmetric localization of core planar cell polarity (PCP) proteins in the fly wing. (a) Cells can polarize within the plane of the epithelial sheet, a phenomenon called planar cell polarity. (b) The core PCP proteins Frizzled and Vang form transcellular interactions and are distributed asymmetrically along the epithelial plane. Vang is concentrated in the proximal membrane while Frizzled is localized to the distal membrane.
Figure 5: Planar cell polarity proteins in dendritic spines. Planar cell polarity (PCP) proteins play important roles in dendritic spine development. Wnt signals via the Frizzled receptor and Disheveled (Dvl) to regulate spine morphogenesis, possibly through the Rho GTPases. The PCP protein Vangl2 interacts directly with PSD-95 and N-cadherin and regulates N-cadherin endocytosis. Vangl2 also interacts with Scribble, which forms a complex with NOS1AP, GIT1, and PIX to regulate Rac activity in dendritic spines. Dashed arrows represent pathways that have been established in other cell types but have not been directly demonstrated in dendritic spines.

6. Crosstalk between Polarity Proteins

The interplay within and between different groups of polarity proteins has been most extensively examined in epithelial cells of Drosophila and mammals. As described above, the reciprocal exclusions of the Par1-Par3/Par6/aPKC complexes and the Fz-Vang complexes are important for the establishment of apical-basal and planar cell polarity, respectively. However how interactions within different groups of polarity proteins contribute to dendritic spine development and function is largely unknown. Since the interplay between polarity proteins is important for establishing different cellular domains in nonneuronal cells, it is intriguing to speculate that these reciprocal interactions are involved in establishing different spine domains or subdomains. Recent studies using superresolution microscopy have revealed interesting microdomain organizations within dendritic spines [82]. It will be interesting to see whether the organization of these microdomains depends on the balancing acts of the polarity complexes.

Crosstalk between different groups of polarity proteins also occurs. As described above, Scribble interacts with both apical-basal polarity determinants like Lgl and PCP determinants like Vang. Interestingly, recent studies show that the apical-basal polarity determinants Par3/Par6/aPKC can become planar polarized [83, 84], which leads to different fates of the daughter cells [84]. This indicates crosstalk between the Par complex and the PCP machinery. Indeed the Wnt/Dvl pathway has been shown to regulate the Par complex through the interaction between Dvl and aPKC [85]. Finally, Par4/LKB1 and Par1/MARK can regulate the basolateral localization of Scribble [86]. How these crosstalks are involved in dendritic spine development and function remains to be determined.

Interestingly, many of these polarity determinants target the actin and microtubule cytoskeleton to regulate spine development and plasticity. For example, the Par complex, Scribble, and the Wnt/Dvl complex all target the Rho family GTPases, which are core regulators of the actin cytoskeleton. Rho GTPases have also been shown to modulate microtubule dynamics [87]. Moreover, Par1 and Wnt/Dvl are known regulators of microtubule dynamics [88, 89]. Further studies will shed light on how signals from diverse groups of polarity determinants converge on the cytoskeleton to modulate dendritic spine development and function.

7. Conclusions

The establishment of cell polarity is essential at all stages of animal development, as segregation of different cellular domains is key to the physiological functions of all cell types. Studies from traditional model systems, such as S. cerevisiae, C. elegans, and D. melanogaster, have provided significant insight into the mechanisms by which a conserved group of polarity proteins, including apical-basal polarity proteins and planer polarity proteins, functions in different contexts of polarity establishment. Recent studies in mammalian neurons have highlighted the remarkable diversity of functions for this conserved group of cell polarity proteins. Evolution has bestowed novel roles upon these polarity regulators in the development of dendritic spines, which is a more complex level of neuronal compartmentalization that occurs primarily in vertebrates. While great progress has been made in understanding the function of this important group of proteins in spine development, many questions remain. For example, dendritic spines are heterogeneous in both their morphology and function. Do polarity proteins regulate this heterogeneity? Some polarity proteins show segregated distribution in epithelial cells. Do they distribute to different spine subdomains in neurons? If so, how does this contribute to synaptic functions? Recent advances in imaging techniques, including superresolution imaging, will help address some of these questions. Future research will pave the way to understanding of how these conserved polarity proteins help shape the synaptic connections and how they contribute to cognitive functions of the brain.

Conflict of Interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Institute of Health Grants NS065183 and NS089578 and startup fund from the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School to Huaye Zhang.

References

  1. E. Rodriguez-Boulan and I. G. Macara, “Organization and execution of the epithelial polarity programme,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 225–242, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. D. M. D. Landis and T. S. Reese, “Cytoplasmic organization in cerebellar dendritic spines,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 1169–1178, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. P. Hotulainen and C. C. Hoogenraad, “Actin in dendritic spines: connecting dynamics to function,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 189, no. 4, pp. 619–629, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. F. Korobova and T. M. Svitkina, “Molecular architecture of synaptic actin cytoskeleton in hippocampal neurons reveals a mechanism of dendritic spine morphogenesis,” Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 165–176, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. Gu, B. L. Firestein, and J. Q. Zheng, “Microtubules in dendritic spine development,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 28, no. 46, pp. 12120–12124, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. X. Hu, C. Viesselmann, S. Nam, E. Merriam, and E. W. Dent, “Activity-dependent dynamic microtubule invasion of dendritic spines,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 28, no. 49, pp. 13094–13105, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. Jaworski, L. C. Kapitein, S. M. Gouveia et al., “Dynamic microtubules regulate dendritic spine morphology and synaptic plasticity,” Neuron, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 85–100, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. E. B. Merriam, D. C. Lumbard, C. Viesselmann et al., “Dynamic microtubules promote synaptic NMDA receptor-dependent spine enlargement,” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 11, Article ID e27688, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. X. Hu, L. Ballo, L. Pietila et al., “Bdnf-induced increase of PSD-95 in dendritic spines requires dynamic microtubule invasions,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 31, no. 43, pp. 15597–15603, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. I. G. Macara, “Parsing the polarity code,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 220–231, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. K. J. Kemphues, J. R. Priess, D. G. Morton, and N. Cheng, “Identification of genes required for cytoplasmic localization in early C. elegans embryos,” Cell, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 311–320, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. D. G. Morton, D. C. Shakes, S. Nugent et al., “The Caenorhabditis elegans par-5 Gene encodes a 14-3-3 protein required for cellular asymmetry in the early embryo,” Developmental Biology, vol. 241, no. 1, pp. 47–58, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. B. Goldstein and I. G. Macara, “The PAR proteins: fundamental players in animal cell polarization,” Developmental Cell, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 609–622, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. J. B. Hurov, J. L. Watkins, and H. Piwnica-Worms, “Atypical PKC phosphorylates PAR-1 kinases to regulate localization and activity,” Current Biology, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 736–741, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. Suzuki, M. Hirata, K. Kamimura et al., “aPKC acts upstream of PAR-1b in both the establishment and maintenance of mammalian epithelial polarity,” Current Biology, vol. 14, no. 16, pp. 1425–1435, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. R. Benton and D. St Johnston, “Drosophila PAR-1 and 14-3-3 inhibit Bazooka/PAR-3 to establish complementary cortical domains in polarized cells,” Cell, vol. 115, no. 6, pp. 691–704, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. H. Zhang and I. G. Macara, “The polarity protein PAR-3 and TIAM1 cooperate in dendritic spine morphogenesis,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 227–237, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. X. Chen and I. G. Macara, “Par-3 controls tight junction assembly through the Rac exchange factor Tiam1,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 262–269, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. T. Nishimura, T. Yamaguchi, K. Kato et al., “PAR-6-PAR-3 mediates Cdc42-induced Rac activation through the Rac GEFs STEF/Tiam1,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 270–277, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. J. G. Duman, C. P. Tzeng, Y.-K. Tu et al., “The adhesion-GPCR BAI1 regulates synaptogenesis by controlling the recruitment of the Par3/Tiam1 polarity complex to synaptic sites,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 33, no. 16, pp. 6964–6978, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. H. Zhang and I. G. Macara, “The PAR-6 polarity protein regulates dendritic spine morphogenesis through p190 RhoGAP and the Rho GTPase,” Developmental Cell, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 216–226, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. Tashiro, A. Minden, and R. Yuste, “Regulation of dendritic spine morphology by the Rho family of small GTPases: antagonistic roles of Rac and Rho,” Cerebral Cortex, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 927–938, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. E.-E. Govek, S. E. Newey, C. J. Akerman, J. R. Cross, L. Van der Veken, and L. Van Aelst, “The X-linked mental retardation protein oligophrenin-1 is required for dendritic spine morphogenesis,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 364–372, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. P. Ramachandran, R. Barria, J. Ashley, and V. Budnik, “A critical step for postsynaptic F-actin organization: regulation of Baz/Par-3 localization by aPKC and PTEN,” Developmental Neurobiology, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 583–602, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. C. Ruiz-Canada, J. Ashley, S. Moeckel-Cole, E. Drier, J. Yin, and V. Budnik, “New synaptic bouton formation is disrupted by misregulation of microtubule stability in aPKC mutants,” Neuron, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 567–580, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. G. Drewes, A. Ebneth, U. Preuss, E.-M. Mandelkow, and E. Mandelkow, “MARK, a novel family of protein kinases that phosphorylate microtubule-associated proteins and trigger microtubule disruption,” Cell, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 297–308, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. B. T. Schaar, K. Kinoshita, and S. K. McConnell, “Doublecortin microtubule affinity is regulated by a balance of kinase and phosphatase activity at the leading edge of migrating neurons,” Neuron, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 203–213, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. T. Sapir, A. Shmueli, T. Levy et al., “Antagonistic effects of doublecortin and MARK2/Par-1 in the developing cerebral cortex,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 28, no. 48, pp. 13008–13013, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. F. Dequiedt, M. Martin, J. Von Blume et al., “New role for hPar-1 kinases EMK and C-TAK1 in regulating localization and activity of class IIa histone deacetylases,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 26, no. 19, pp. 7086–7102, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. J. Müller, D. A. Ritt, T. D. Copeland, and D. K. Morrison, “Functional analysis of C-TAK1 substrate binding and identification of PKP2 as a new C-TAK1 substrate,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 22, no. 17, pp. 4431–4442, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. C.-Y. Peng, P. R. Graves, S. Ogg et al., “C-TAK1 protein kinase phosphorylates human Cdc25C on serine 216 and promotes 14-3-3 protein binding,” Cell Growth and Differentiation, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 197–208, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. T. W. Hurd, S. Fan, C.-J. Liu, H. K. Kweon, K. Hakansson, and B. Margolis, “Phosphorylation-dependent binding of 14-3-3 to the polarity protein Par3 regulates cell polarity in mammalian epithelia,” Current Biology, vol. 13, no. 23, pp. 2082–2090, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. K. Hayashi, A. Suzuki, S.-I. Hirai, Y. Kurihara, C. C. Hoogenraad, and S. Ohno, “Maintenance of dendritic spine morphology by partitioning-defective 1b through regulation of microtubule growth,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 31, no. 34, pp. 12094–12103, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. Y. Zhang, H. Guo, H. Kwan, J.-W. Wang, J. Kosek, and B. Lu, “PAR-1 kinase phosphorylates Dlg and regulates its postsynaptic targeting at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction,” Neuron, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 201–215, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. Q. Wu, V. L. DiBona, L. P. Bernard, and H. Zhang, “The polarity protein partitioning-defective 1 (PAR-1) regulates dendritic spine morphogenesis through phosphorylating postsynaptic density protein 95 (PSD-95),” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 287, no. 36, pp. 30781–30788, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. L. P. Bernard and H. Zhang, “MARK/Par1 kinase is activated downstream of NMDA receptors through a PKA-dependent mechanism,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 5, Article ID e0124816, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. Y. Oh and E. Bi, “Septin structure and function in yeast and beyond,” Trends in Cell Biology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 141–148, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. S. Mostowy and P. Cossart, “Septins: the fourth component of the cytoskeleton,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 183–194, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. Z. Shcheprova, S. Baldi, S. B. Frei, G. Gonnet, and Y. Barral, “A mechanism for asymmetric segregation of age during yeast budding,” Nature, vol. 454, no. 7205, pp. 728–734, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. B. L. Bloodgood and B. L. Sabatini, “Neuronal activity regulates diffusion across the neck of dendritic spines,” Science, vol. 310, no. 5749, pp. 866–869, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. T. Tada, A. Simonetta, M. Batterton, M. Kinoshita, D. Edbauer, and M. Sheng, “Role of Septin cytoskeleton in spine morphogenesis and dendrite development in neurons,” Current Biology, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 1752–1758, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. Y. Xie, J. P. Vessey, A. Konecna, R. Dahm, P. Macchi, and M. A. Kiebler, “The GTP-binding protein Septin 7 is critical for dendrite branching and dendritic-spine morphology,” Current Biology, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 1746–1751, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. H. Ewers, T. Tada, J. D. Petersen, B. Racz, M. Sheng, and D. Choquet, “A septin-dependent diffusion barrier at dendritic spine necks,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 12, Article ID e113916, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. M. Simons and M. Mlodzik, “Planar cell polarity signaling: from fly development to human disease,” Annual Review of Genetics, vol. 42, pp. 517–540, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. D. Bilder and N. Perrimon, “Localization of apical epithelial determinants by the basolateral PDZ protein Scribble,” Nature, vol. 403, no. 6770, pp. 676–680, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. D. Bilder, M. Li, and N. Perrimon, “Cooperative regulation of cell polarity and growth by Drosophila tumor suppressors,” Science, vol. 289, no. 5476, pp. 113–116, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. M. Lohia, Y. Qin, and I. G. Macara, “The Scribble polarity protein stabilizes E-cadherin/p120-catenin binding and blocks retrieval of E-cadherin to the Golgi,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 11, Article ID e51130, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. Y. Qin, C. Capaldo, B. M. Gumbiner, and I. G. Macara, “The mammalian Scribble polarity protein regulates epithelial cell adhesion and migration through E-cadherin,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 171, no. 6, pp. 1061–1071, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. M. Montcouquiol, R. A. Rachel, P. J. Lanford, N. G. Copeland, N. A. Jenkins, and M. W. Kelley, “Identification of Vangl2 and Scrb1 as planar polarity genes in mammals,” Nature, vol. 423, no. 6936, pp. 173–177, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. J.-R. Courbard, A. Djiane, J. Wu, and M. Mlodzik, “The apical/basal-polarity determinant Scribble cooperates with the PCP core factor Stbm/Vang and functions as one of its effectors,” Developmental Biology, vol. 333, no. 1, pp. 67–77, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. J. P. Roche, M. C. Packard, S. Moeckel-Cole, and V. Budnik, “Regulation of synaptic plasticity and synaptic vesicle dynamics by the PDZ protein scribble,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 15, pp. 6471–6479, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. Y. Sun, M. Aiga, E. Yoshida, P. O. Humbert, and S. X. Bamji, “Scribble interacts with β-catenin to localize synaptic vesicles to synapses,” Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 20, no. 14, pp. 3390–3400, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. H. Zhang, D. J. Webb, H. Asmussen, and A. F. Horwitz, “Synapse formation is regulated by the signaling adaptor GIT1,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 161, no. 1, pp. 131–142, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. H. Zhang, D. J. Webb, H. Asmussen, S. Niu, and A. F. Horwitz, “A GIT1/PIX/Rac/PAK signaling module regulates spine morphogenesis and synapse formation through MLC,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 25, no. 13, pp. 3379–3388, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. L. Richier, K. Williton, L. Clattenburg et al., “NOS1AP associates with scribble and regulates dendritic spine development,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 13, pp. 4796–4805, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. M. M. Moreau, N. Piguel, T. Papouin et al., “The planar polarity protein scribble1 is essential for neuronal plasticity and brain function,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 29, pp. 9738–9752, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. B. Gao, “Wnt regulation of planar cell polarity (PCP),” Current Topics in Developmental Biology, vol. 101, pp. 263–295, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. S. Y. Sokol, “Spatial and temporal aspects of Wnt signaling and planar cell polarity during vertebrate embryonic development,” Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, vol. 42, pp. 78–85, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  59. H. Bielen and C. Houart, “The Wnt cries many: Wnt regulation of neurogenesis through tissue patterning, proliferation, and asymmetric cell division,” Developmental Neurobiology, vol. 74, no. 8, pp. 772–780, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. H. Wada and H. Okamoto, “Roles of noncanonical Wnt/PCP pathway genes in neuronal migration and neurulation in zebrafish,” Zebrafish, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 3–8, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. K. Onishi, E. Hollis, and Y. Zou, “Axon guidance and injury-lessons from Wnts and Wnt signaling,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 27, pp. 232–240, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. V. Budnik and P. C. Salinas, “Wnt signaling during synaptic development and plasticity,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 151–159, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. B. G. Hiester, D. F. Galati, P. C. Salinas, and K. R. Jones, “Neurotrophin and Wnt signaling cooperatively regulate dendritic spine formation,” Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, vol. 56, pp. 115–127, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. L. Varela-Nallar, I. E. Alfaro, F. G. Serrano, J. Parodi, and N. C. Inestrosa, “Wingless-type family member 5A (Wnt-5a) stimulates synaptic differentiation and function of glutamatergic synapses,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 49, pp. 21164–21169, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. L. Ciani, K. A. Boyle, E. Dickins et al., “Wnt7a signaling promotes dendritic spine growth and synaptic strength through Ca2+/Calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, no. 26, pp. 10732–10737, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  66. G. G. Farías, I. E. Alfaro, W. Cerpa et al., “Wnt-5a/JNK signaling promotes the clustering of PSD-95 in hippocampal neurons,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 284, no. 23, pp. 15857–15866, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. M. Sahores, A. Gibb, and P. C. Salinas, “Frizzled-5, a receptor for the synaptic organizer Wnt7a, regulates activity-mediated synaptogenesis,” Development, vol. 137, no. 13, pp. 2215–2225, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. L. Varela-Nallar, V. T. Ramirez, C. Gonzalez-Billault, and N. C. Inestrosa, “Frizzled receptors in neurons: from growth cones to the synapse,” Cytoskeleton, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 528–534, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. I. E. Alfaro, L. Varela-Nallar, M. Varas-Godoy, and N. C. Inestrosa, “The ROR2 tyrosine kinase receptor regulates dendritic spine morphogenesis in hippocampal neurons,” Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, vol. 67, pp. 22–30, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  70. J. R. K. Seifert and M. Mlodzik, “Frizzled/PCP signalling: a conserved mechanism regulating cell polarity and directed motility,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 126–138, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. J. Wu and M. Mlodzik, “A quest for the mechanism regulating global planar cell polarity of tissues,” Trends in Cell Biology, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 295–305, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. J. Wu and M. Mlodzik, “The frizzled extracellular domain is a ligand for Van Gogh/Stbm during nonautonomous planar cell polarity signaling,” Developmental Cell, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 462–469, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. J. M. Carvajal-Gonzalez and M. Mlodzik, “Mechanisms of planar cell polarity establishment in Drosophila,” F1000Prime Reports, vol. 6, article 98, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. B. Ciruna, A. Jenny, D. Lee, M. Mlodzik, and A. F. Schier, “Planar cell polarity signalling couples cell division and morphogenesis during neurulation,” Nature, vol. 439, no. 7073, pp. 220–224, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. M. Williams, W. Yen, X. Lu, and A. Sutherland, “Distinct apical and basolateral mechanisms drive planar cell polarity-dependent convergent extension of the mouse neural plate,” Developmental Cell, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 34–46, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. D. M. Glasco, V. Sittaramane, W. Bryant et al., “The mouse Wnt/PCP protein Vangl2 is necessary for migration of facial branchiomotor neurons, and functions independently of Dishevelled,” Developmental Biology, vol. 369, no. 2, pp. 211–222, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. V. Sittaramane, X. Pan, D. M. Glasco et al., “The PCP protein Vangl2 regulates migration of hindbrain motor neurons by acting in floor plate cells, and independently of cilia function,” Developmental Biology, vol. 382, no. 2, pp. 400–412, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. B. Shafer, K. Onishi, C. Lo, G. Colakoglu, and Y. Zou, “Vangl2 promotes Wnt/planar cell polarity-like signaling by antagonizing Dvl1-mediated feedback inhibition in growth cone guidance,” Developmental Cell, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 177–191, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. T. Yoshioka, A. Hagiwara, Y. Hida, and T. Ohtsuka, “Vangl2, the planner cell polarity protein, is complexed with postsynaptic density protein PSD-95,” FEBS Letters, vol. 587, no. 10, pp. 1453–1459, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  80. T. Nagaoka, R. Ohashi, A. Inutsuka et al., “The Wnt/planar cell polarity pathway component Vangl2 induces synapse formation through direct control of N-cadherin,” Cell Reports, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 916–927, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. A. Hagiwara, M. Yasumura, Y. Hida, E. Inoue, and T. Ohtsuka, “The planar cell polarity protein Vangl2 bidirectionally regulates dendritic branching in cultured hippocampal neurons,” Molecular Brain, vol. 7, article 79, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. H. MacGillavry, Y. Song, S. Raghavachari, and T. Blanpied, “Nanoscale scaffolding domains within the postsynaptic density concentrate synaptic ampa receptors,” Neuron, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 615–622, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. S. D. M. Simões, J. T. Blankenship, O. Weitz et al., “Rho-kinase directs bazooka/Par-3 planar polarity during drosophila axis elongation,” Developmental Cell, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 377–388, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. C. Besson, F. Bernard, F. Corson et al., “Planar cell polarity breaks the symmetry of PAR protein distribution prior to mitosis in Drosophila sensory organ precursor cells,” Current Biology, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1104–1110, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  85. X. Zhang, J. Zhu, G.-Y. Yang et al., “Dishevelled promotes axon differentiation by regulating atypical protein kinase C,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 743–754, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. M. Mohseni, J. Sun, A. Lau et al., “A genetic screen identifies an LKB1-MARK signalling axis controlling the Hippo-YAP pathway,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 108–117, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. A. Hall, “Rho family GTPases,” Biochemical Society Transactions, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1378–1382, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. P. C. Salinas, “Retrograde signalling at the synapse: a role for Wnt proteins,” Biochemical Society Transactions, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1295–1298, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. D. Matenia and E.-M. Mandelkow, “The tau of MARK: a polarized view of the cytoskeleton,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 332–342, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus