Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Stem Cells International
Volume 2012, Article ID 486169, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/486169
Review Article

Neural Stem Cells in Drosophila: Molecular Genetic Mechanisms Underlying Normal Neural Proliferation and Abnormal Brain Tumor Formation

Biozentrum, University of Basel, 4056 Basel, Switzerland

Received 23 November 2011; Accepted 31 March 2012

Academic Editor: Mark LaBarge

Copyright © 2012 Nidhi Saini and Heinrich Reichert. 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

Neural stem cells in Drosophila are currently one of the best model systems for understanding stem cell biology during normal development and during abnormal development of stem cell-derived brain tumors. In Drosophila brain development, the proliferative activity of neural stem cells called neuroblasts gives rise to both the optic lobe and the central brain ganglia, and asymmetric cell divisions are key features of this proliferation. The molecular mechanisms that underlie the asymmetric cell divisions by which these neuroblasts self-renew and generate lineages of differentiating progeny have been studied extensively and involve two major protein complexes, the apical complex which maintains polarity and controls spindle orientation and the basal complex which is comprised of cell fate determinants and their adaptors that are segregated into the differentiating daughter cells during mitosis. Recent molecular genetic work has established Drosophila neuroblasts as a model for neural stem cell-derived tumors in which perturbation of key molecular mechanisms that control neuroblast proliferation and the asymmetric segregation of cell fate determinants lead to brain tumor formation. Identification of novel candidate genes that control neuroblast self-renewal and differentiation as well as functional analysis of these genes in normal and tumorigenic conditions in a tissue-specific manner is now possible through genome-wide transgenic RNAi screens. These cellular and molecular findings in Drosophila are likely to provide valuable genetic links for analyzing mammalian neural stem cells and tumor biology.

1. Introduction

Stem cells play a central role in the process of growth and development in multicellular organisms in which they ensure the generation of a large and diverse set of cell types as well as provide for the maintenance of tissue homeostasis [13]. In recent years stem cells in the genetic model system Drosophila have become an excellent model for studying the cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie stem cell function. Specifically, the neural stem cells in Drosophila, called neuroblasts for historical reasons, are currently one of the best and most extensively used model systems for understanding stem cell biology during normal development [4, 5]. Moreover, Drosophila neural stem cells have also become useful for understanding the cellular and molecular basis of stem cell-derived brain tumors that arise due to loss of control of the stem cell divisions [6, 7]. In this review, we focus on the cellular mechanisms of neural stem cell proliferation in the central brain and optic lobes of Drosophila under normal conditions, present the current state of insight into the molecular elements that control the proliferative action of these neural stem cells during brain development, and discuss the alterations in the mechanisms of neural stem cell control that lead to overproliferation and brain tumor formation.

2. Neural Stem Cells in Drosophila: Neuroblasts of the Central Brain and Optic Lobe

The brain of Drosophila can be divided into the paired optic lobes and the central brain, and the neurons in both of these structures derive from neuroblasts. Of these two sets of neuroblasts, the neuroblasts that give rise to the central brain have been studied in much greater detail (Figure 1). There are two kinds of central brain neuroblasts, type I and type II. The more abundant type I neuroblasts delaminate from the ventral cephalic neuroectoderm during embryogenesis and undergo up to 20 rounds of proliferative activity to generate the restricted number of neurons that make up the larval brain. Subsequently these neuroblasts enter quiescence by embryonic stage 16 and later during larval development in the second instar larval stage, and they re-enter the cell cycle to generate the vast majority neurons of the adult brain [815]. The proliferative activity of most central brain neuroblasts during embryonic and postembryonic stages is comparable and relies on asymmetric cell divisions by which the neuroblasts self-renew and also generate a smaller daughter called ganglion mother cell (GMC) which undergoes a single cell division to generate two postmitotic daughter cells that differentiate into neurons or glial cells [2, 1618] (Figure 2(a)). Other specialized kinds of type I NB are found in the mushroom bodies and the optic lobes [1921].

486169.fig.001
Figure 1: Schematic representation of development of the nervous system in the third instar Drosophila larval brain. During postembryonic neuroblast development, the brain of Drosophila can be divided into the paired optic lobes (OL) at the lateral surface of the two hemispheres, the central brain (CB), located medially to the OL, and the ventral nerve cord (VNC). The type I neuroblasts are the most abundant in the CB and VNC. The type II neuroblasts are located on the dorsomedial surface of the hemispheres.
fig2
Figure 2: Neural stem cells/neuroblast (NB) undergo two types of self-renewing cell divisions: symmetric (proliferating) and/or asymmetric (differentiating). (a) Type I NB self-renew, and also generates a ganglion mother cell (GMC) which divides only once to generate two postmitotic daughter cells that differentiate into neurons or glial cells [2, 1618]. (b) Type II NB initiates expression of the proneural gene asense and becomes an intermediate neural precursor (INP), which undergoes self-renewing asymmetric divisions, with each division resulting in one INP and one GMC [2226]. Type II NB generates much larger lineages compared to type I NB.

In addition to the majority of these so-called type I neuroblasts a smaller set of type II neuroblasts is located in the dorsoposterior and medioposterior region of each of the two central brain hemispheres (8 per hemisphere); these neuroblasts manifest a somewhat different proliferative activity that shows an interesting amplification of neural proliferation. Unlike the type I neuroblasts, in type II neuroblast proliferation the smaller daughter cell initiates expression of the proneural gene asense and becomes an intermediate neural precursor (INP), which undergoes a limited number of repeated self-renewing asymmetric divisions, with each division resulting in one INP and one GMC [2226] (Figure 2(b)). Due to the amplification of proliferation through INPs, the type II neuroblasts can produce lineages of neurons which are markedly larger in size than those of type I neuroblasts.

The neuroblasts of the optic lobes also derive from neuroectodermal cells; however, the development of the optic lobe neuroectoderm and the manner in which the optic lobe neuroblasts differentiate from this neuroectoderm are different from the situation in the central brain. The optic lobes derive from an embryonic optic placode, which during larval stages form two proliferation centers adjacent to the central brain, the inner optic anlagen and the outer optic anlagen. In the inner optic anlagen, neuroepithelial cells initially divide symmetrically to expand the pool of potential precursor cells and later on transform into optic lobe neuroblasts in an ordered and highly localized manner in response to a wave of proneural gene expression that traverses the neuroepithelium [19, 3537]. Subsequent to their formation, the optic lobe neuroblasts switch to a neurogenic mode and proliferate by undergoing a limited number of asymmetrical cell divisions which generate neuronal progeny in a manner that is similar, but not identical, to that of the asymmetrically dividing neuroblasts in the central brain [21, 27, 28, 38] (Figure 3).

486169.fig.003
Figure 3: Schematic representation of neurogenesis in optic lobe development. During larval development transition from neuroepithelial (NE, orange) to neuroblast (NB, blue) takes place. NE cells undergo symmetric proliferation with a horizontal spindle orientation to expand the pool of precursor cells and give rise to asymmetrically dividing NB (green). This is in response to the proneural wave of lethal of scute. The median NB divides asymmetrically with a vertical spindle orientation, owing to the clear subcellular localization of the apical (polarity proteins, red boundary) and basal (cell-fate determinants and their adaptor proteins, purple boundary) complex, to give rise to the Ganglion mother cells (GMCs) and further, post mitotic neuronal daughter cells. Most central brain neuroblasts during embryonic and postembryonic stages undergo asymmetric cell divisions [21, 27, 28].

3. Molecular Mechanisms for Neural Proliferation in Central Brain and Optic Neuroblasts

The molecular mechanisms that underlie the asymmetrical cell divisions by which neural stem cells self-renew and generate lineages of differentiating progeny have been studied extensively in the neuroblasts of the central brain [2, 39]. From a temporal point of view, each asymmetric cell division can be divided into three successive steps, namely, establishment of a polarity axis during interphase, followed by appropriate spindle orientation during the onset of mitosis and finally by asymmetric localization of cell fate determinants in the neuroblast and their inheritance by only one of the two daughter cells at the end of mitosis [40, 41]. From a molecular point of view these successive steps involve two major protein complexes: the apical complex and the basal complex.

Members of the apical complex include the PDZ domain-containing proteins PAR3 and PAR6 and the protein kinase atypical PKC (aPKC) [4248] which accumulate at the apical cell cortex prior to mitosis and are also involved in the asymmetric partitioning of basal determinants [2, 49]. Other proteins constituting this complex are the adaptor protein, Inscuteable [50, 51] which links PAR3-PAR6-aPKC to a further protein complex containing the heterotrimeric G protein -subunit, G [5255], and the adaptor protein Partner of Inscuteable, PINS [5658]. The PINS protein interacts with the microtubule-associated dynein-binding protein, MUD providing for a cortical attachment site for astral microtubules which maintains the apical-basal orientation of the mitotic spindle [5961]. Drosophila neuroblasts have asymmetrically shaped mitotic spindles, where the apical microtubule asters are larger than their basal counterparts and this contributes to asymmetric cell division since it results in two different sized daughter cells [51, 62, 63]. Interestingly, the site of cytokinesis has recently been shown to be determined by another cortical pathway which is mediated by the apical PINS- -MUD complex. Here the cleavage furrow proteins and the myosin segregates into the basal part of the cell even before the mitotic spindle assumes asymmetry. Moreover, in mutants with abnormal spindle orientation but normal cortical polarity, or in flies where spindle formation is blocked, the cortical asymmetry and the resulting cleavage furrow still establishes itself normally [49, 64] (Figure 4).

486169.fig.004
Figure 4: Asymmetric cell division in Drosophila neuroblasts. Apical (red) and basal (blue) proteins are asymmetrically segregated at cortical ends of the neuroblast at the time of mitosis. Members of the apical complex are involved in the asymmetric partitioning of basal determinants, in establishing cell polarity and in the correct orientation of the mitotic spindle. The apical complex consisting of aPKC, Par3, and Par6 is linked to the Gαi-PINS-MUD complex via Inscuteable. The basal complex consists of the cell-fate determinants, Miranda, Prospero, Brat, and Numb.

Members of the basal complex include the cell-fate determinants Numb, Prospero, and Brat which are asymmetrically segregated into the GMC during neuroblast division [4, 5, 7, 6567]. During mitosis, these cell-fate determinants are transiently concentrated in a basal cortical crescent in the neuroblast and are subsequently segregated asymmetrically into the GMCs. The endocytic protein Numb is a tissue-specific inhibitor of Notch-Delta signaling and was the first asymmetrically segregating cell fate determinant characterized in Drosophila [6873]. The translational inhibitor Brat (brain tumor) as well as (in type I neuroblasts) the homeodomain transcription factor Prospero is also asymmetrically segregated into the GMC aided by the adaptor protein Miranda [2932, 7480] (Figure 4). In the GMC, Prospero translocates to the nucleus where it represses the cell-cycle genes and induces neuronal differentiation genes. Brat is thought to act both as a translational repressor and an inhibitor of cell growth as well as a regulator of the transcription factor Myc and micro-RNAs; however, the precise mechanisms by which Brat regulates cell fate is not known [8082]. In contrast to type I neuroblasts, the Asense-negative type II neuroblasts do not express Prospero, hence, Prospero is not segregated to the INP daughter cell during type II neuroblast division and this may contribute to the continued proliferative activity of INPs in these lineages. This restricted proliferative potential of INPs during limited rounds of asymmetric divisions is maintained by the transcription factor Earmuff [26, 75].

The molecular mechanisms that control the limited number of asymmetric proliferative divisions of the neuroblasts in the optic lobe are thought to be similar to those that operate in the INPs of type II neuroblast lineages in the central brain, however, this has not yet been studied in more detail. In contrast, a considerable amount of information is available on the molecular control of the neuroectoderm to neuroblast transformation occurring in the developing optic lobe. Initially and prior to neuroblast formation, the neuroectodermal cells are maintained in their expansive symmetrical division mode by Notch signaling, which also prevents their transformation to neuroblasts [83, 84]. However, at the spatially dynamic transition zone between epithelial neuroectodermal cells and neuroblasts, Notch activity is reduced and high levels of Delta are observed [8587]. The transition between neuroepithelial cells and neuroblasts takes place in response to a proneural wave of lethal of scute (l’sc) expression which sweeps across the neuroepithelium and leaves the asymmetrically dividing neuroblasts behind it [38, 88] (Figure 3). JAK/STAT and EGFR pathways are involved in the control of this wave’s progression [85]. Moreover, the differentiation of neuroepithelial cells into neuroblasts at this zone has been shown to involve the Salvador-Warts-Hippo (SWH) signaling pathway [86]. It is noteworthy that this transition from symmetrically dividing neuroepithelial cells to asymmetrically dividing neuroblasts is similar to the transition from self-renewing to neurogenic neural stem cells in mammalian cortical development.

4. Abnormal Neuroblast Proliferation and Brain-Tumor Formation

Classical genetic screens have identified a number of genes such as brat, l(2)gl, dlg, lethal (2) giant discs, and lethal (3) malignant brain tumor as potent tumor suppressor genes. Flies mutated for any of these tumor suppressor genes develop a tumor-like overproliferation in tissues such as the brain or the imaginal discs [39, 8993]. Building on these classical genetic studies, and based on the cellular and molecular analysis of the proliferation of neuroblasts under normal conditions, recent molecular genetic work has now established Drosophila neuroblasts as an excellent model system for understanding the mechanisms that underlie neural stem cell-derived tumors [4, 5]. Interestingly, these recent investigations have shown that both the molecular mechanisms that control asymmetric cell divisions of neuroblasts in the central brain and those that control the neuroectodermal expansion/transition in the optic lobes are prone to dysregulation which can lead to brain tumor formation.

A firm link between dysregulated asymmetric cell division and brain tumor formation has been established for central brain neuroblasts (Figure 5(a)). Indeed, a number of regulators of asymmetric cell division act as tumor suppressors in Drosophila neuroblasts. Thus, mutations in any one of the key asymmetrically segregated cell-fate determinants Prospero, Numb, or Brat result in brain tumors, even if these mutations are restricted to individual neuroblast clones [24, 2932]. In the absence of any of these cell-fate determinants, the sensitive balance between self-renewal and differentiation is thought to be perturbed in the neuroblasts, leading directly or indirectly to the generation of self-renewing “tumor neuroblasts.” Uninterrupted divisions of these incorrectly specified “tumor neuroblasts” as well as failure to respond to signals that normally act in the termination of neuroblast proliferation at the end of the larval stage, result in indefinite proliferation [3234]. Interestingly, the type II lineages which contain transit amplifying INPs appear to be especially vulnerable to tumor formation. Mutations in Brat, Numb and Earmuff in these lineages lead to a drastic and uncontrolled expansion in the number of proliferating “tumor neuroblasts.” An important feature of the brain tumors induced by mutation of asymmetric cell division regulators in neuroblasts is that their uncontrolled overgrowth potential is maintained following transplantation of mutant brain tissue into normal hosts (Figure 5(b)). Indeed, upon transplantation into wild-type adult hosts, prospero, numb, and brat mutant brain tissue form malignant tumors and metastases, and these tumors can be maintained through subsequent re-transplantation into hosts [32, 33, 94]. In this respect it is interesting to point out that human homologs of Brat [95], Numb [96], and Prospero [97] have been shown to have connections to cancer formation, and thus results obtained with studies concerning Drosophila tumorigenesis can be relevant for understanding mammalian tumorigenesis as well.

fig5
Figure 5: Abnormal neuroblast proliferation and brain tumor formation. (a) (Top), wild-type Drosophilae have “normal neuroblasts” which undergo a regulated self-renewal and differentiation process to generate neurons or glial cells. This proliferation exits at pupal stage. (Bottom), Dysregulated asymmetric cell division in central brain neuroblasts of larval brains with knockdown or knockout of cell-fate determinants results in brain tumor formation [24, 2932]. The disturbed balance between self-renewal and differentiation results in the generation of self-renewing “tumor neuroblasts” and indefinite proliferation. (b) (Left) wild-type larval brain compared to (right) cell fate determinant (brat/prospero/numb) mutant, overproliferated brain. Transplantation of dissected GFP-labeled neuroblasts from the latter results in tumor formation in host flies and subsequent metastasis [3234].

Tumorigenic overgrowth due to mutation in tumor suppressor genes also takes place in the optic lobes. For example, mutation of the tumor suppressor l(3)mbt has recently been shown to result in optic lobe overgrowth [98100]. However, in contrast to the situation in the central brain, the primary cause of this overgrowth is not due to dysregulated proliferation of the neuroblast, it is also not a result of the asymmetric segregation of cell-fate determinants in optic lobe neuroblasts of l(3)mbt mutants. Rather an overproliferation of the symmetrically dividing neuroepithelial cells during their expansion phase occurs in these mutants which in turn results in the generation of an uncontrolled number of optic lobe neuroblasts. At the molecular level, this unregulated overproliferation in the optic lobes of l(3)mbt mutants is caused, at least in part by derepression of the target genes of the SWH signaling pathway. Accordingly, experimental repression of SWH signaling or an increased expression of its downstream targets reproduces the massive proliferation of optic lobes similar to the l(3)mbt mutants [100]. While extensive studies point towards the importance of SWH pathway and its downstream targets in tumorigenesis of l(3)mbt mutants, the tumorigenic process is likely to involve the combined imbalance of several other signaling pathways like the Notch pathway [83, 85, 101103], the JAK-STAT pathway [38], and other developmental control pathways, some of which operate in the germline [99]. Combined together with the studies of overproliferation in central brain neuroblasts, these studies clearly show that very different cellular and molecular events can lead to the formation of neural stem cell-derived brain tumors in Drosophila. Thus, a different cascade of initiating events in larval brain neuroblasts and optic lobe neuroblasts finally leads to a similar outcome of overproliferating cells resulting in brain tumor formation [104, 105].

5. Genome-Wide Screens for Neural Stem Cell Control Elements

Given the fundamental roles of the regulators of neural stem cell differentiation and maintenance that have been shown to operate in neuroblasts during normal brain development and during abnormal brain tumor formation, an in-depth analysis of their molecular mode of action and of their molecular interaction partners is of central importance. Several successful attempts have been made in the recent past, to identify novel candidate molecules involved in neural stem cell maintenance and differentiation at the genome-wide level using both microarray techniques and transcriptional target identification [31, 106, 107]. However, the functional relevance of most of these novel candidate molecules is still unknown. A useful approach to understanding the functional relevance of such identified candidate genes, is the targeted RNAi methods used to knock down the expression of their respective genes in neural stem cells, in vivo, where the immediate environment and the interactions with the surrounding niche are intact. This approach is eminently feasible in Drosophila, since genome-wide transgenic RNAi libraries are now available which allow for candidate gene functional analysis in a tissue-specific manner [108].

In a recent genome-wide study of self-renewal in Drosophila neuroblasts, transgenic RNAi targeted by the binary Gal4-UAS system was used to investigate the role of all known Drosophila genes in neuroblasts [30, 109]. In Drosophila, the GAL4-UAS system [110, 111] is routinely used to analyze the function of newly found developmental genes. The technique is based on the interaction of two different kinds of transgenic strains, activator and effector lines. In an activator line the gene for the yeast transcriptional activator GAL4 is placed under the control of a specific promoter, while in the effector line the gene of interest is fused to the DNA-binding motif of GAL4 (Upstream Activating Sequences, UAS). The effector gene becomes transcriptionally active only when the flies carrying it are crossed to those of an activator line, and thereby the effector gene is directed by the pattern of expression of GAL4 in the activator. This, of course, permits the controlled ectopic expression of the effector gene. In the study by Neumüller et al., out of a total of over 12,000 analyzed genes, around 600 candidate genes, showed RNAi-dependent defects in neuroblast self-renewal or in differentiation of their neural progeny. Based on precise quantification of the resulting loss-of-function phenotype and the hierarchical clustering as well as molecular interaction data, a set of functional networks representing the molecular elements involved in the control of neuroblast self-renewal and differentiation was established. Analysis of these networks reveals key roles of interacting sets of transcriptional regulators and chromatin remodeling complexes for the control of asymmetric cell division, cytokinesis, cell growth, and differentiation in the Drosophila brain. It is noteworthy that the dataset obtained from this RNAi screen is highly enriched for genes expressed in mammalian stem cells and thus is likely to provide valuable genetic links for analyzing mammalian stem cells and tumor biology [109].

6. Conclusions

A great deal of progress has been made in understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie proliferation and cell-fate decision in the Drosophila brain neuroblast model. A surprising aspect of this progress is the recent demonstration that key molecular control elements involved in asymmetric cell-fate determination in normal neuroblast lineages are also central elements in neuroblast-derived brain tumor formation. Further research in Drosophila and in other model systems is required to determine how the process of self-renewal and differentiation operates in normal neural stem cells and neural stem cell-derived cancer. Fortunately, the remarkable conservation of major transcriptional control and signaling pathways between flies and humans makes these studies of neural stem cells in Drosophila highly valuable for human stem cell biology. Thus, investigations in mammalian systems focused on the roles of those key factors for neural stem cell proliferation that have been identified in Drosophila are likely to be a gateway for a better understanding of many human cancers and further for developing therapeutic designs. Moreover, a sound understanding of the mechanisms underlying tumorigenic perturbations of neural stem cells is clearly a prerequisite for any potential development of neural stem cell-based therapy in humans.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Boris Egger for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and National Research Program 63 Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine (406340 128006/1).

References

  1. Y. M. Yamashita, D. L. Jones, and M. T. Fuller, “Orientation of asymmetric stem cell division by the APC tumor suppressor and centrosome,” Science, vol. 301, no. 5639, pp. 1547–1550, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. J. Betschinger and J. A. Knoblich, “Dare to be different: asymmetric cell division in Drosophila, C. elegans and vertebrates,” Current Biology, vol. 14, no. 16, pp. R674–R685, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. T. Lechler and E. Fuchs, “Asymmetric cell divisions promote stratification and differentiation of mammalian skin,” Nature, vol. 437, no. 7056, pp. 275–280, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. C. Q. Doe, “Neural stem cells: balancing self-renewal with differentiation,” Development, vol. 135, no. 9, pp. 1575–1587, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. R. A. Neumüller and J. A. Knoblich, “Dividing cellular asymmetry: asymmetric cell division and its implications for stem cells and cancer,” Genes and Development, vol. 23, no. 23, pp. 2675–2699, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. T. D. Southall, B. Egger, K. S. Gold, and A. H. Brand, “Regulation of self-renewal and differentiation in the Drosophila nervous system,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, vol. 73, pp. 523–528, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. P. S. Wu, B. Egger, and A. H. Brand, “Asymmetric stem cell division: lessons from Drosophila,” Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 283–293, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. V. Hartenstein, E. Rudloff, and J. A. Campos -Ortega, “The pattern of proliferation of the neuroblasts in the wild-type embryo of Drosophila melanogaster,” Roux's Archives of Developmental Biology, vol. 196, no. 8, pp. 473–485, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. W. Truman and M. Bate, “Spatial and temporal patterns of neurogenesis in the central nervous system of Drosophila melanogaster,” Developmental Biology, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 145–157, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. Prokop and G. M. Technau, “The origin of postembryonic neuroblasts in the ventral nerve cord of Drosophila melanogaster,” Development, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 79–88, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. K. Ito and Y. Hotta, “Proliferation pattern of postembryonic neuroblasts in the brain of Drosophila melanogaster,” Developmental Biology, vol. 149, no. 1, pp. 134–148, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. W. Truman, B. J. Taylor, and T. A. Awad, “Formation of the adult nervous system,” in The Development of Drosophila Melanogaster, M. Bate and A. Martinez-Arias, Eds., pp. 1245–1275, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbour, NY, USA, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  13. R. Urbach and G. M. Technau, “Molecular markers for identified neuroblasts in the developing brain of Drosophila,” Development, vol. 130, no. 16, pp. 3621–3637, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. C. Maurange and A. P. Gould, “Brainy but not too brainy: starting and stopping neuroblast divisions in Drosophila,” Trends in Neurosciences, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 30–36, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. J. Morante, T. Erclik, and C. Desplan, “Cell migration in Drosophila optic lobe neurons is controlled by eyeless/Pax6,” Development, vol. 138, no. 4, pp. 687–693, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. T. Lee and L. Luo, “Mosaic analysis with a repressible cell marker (MARCM) for Drosophila neural development,” Trends in Neurosciences, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 251–254, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. B. Skeath and S. Thor, “Genetic control of Drosophila nerve cord development,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 8–15, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. A. Wodarz and W. B. Huttner, “Asymmetric cell division during neurogenesis in Drosophila and vertebrates,” Mechanisms of Development, vol. 120, no. 11, pp. 1297–1309, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. Hofbauer and J. A. Campos-Ortega, “Proliferation pattern and early differentiation of the optic lobes in Drosophila melanogaster,” Roux's Archives of Developmental Biology, vol. 198, no. 5, pp. 264–274, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. K. Ito, W. Awano, K. Suzuki, Y. Hiromi, and D. Yamamoto, “The Drosophila mushroom body is a quadruple structure of clonal units each of which contains a virtually identical set of neurones and glial cells,” Development, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 761–771, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. B. Egger, J. Q. Boone, N. R. Stevens, A. H. Brand, and C. Q. Doe, “Regulation of spindle orientation and neural stem cell fate in the Drosophila optic lobe,” Neural Development, vol. 2, no. 1, article 1, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. B. C. Bello, N. Izergina, E. Caussinus, and H. Reichert, “Amplification of neural stem cell proliferation by intermediate progenitor cells in Drosophila brain development,” Neural Development, vol. 3, no. 1, article 5, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. Q. Boone and C. Q. Doe, “Identification of Drosophila type II neuroblast lineages containing transit amplifying ganglion mother cells,” Developmental Neurobiology, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 1185–1195, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. S. K. Bowman, V. Rolland, J. Betschinger, K. A. Kinsey, G. Emery, and J. A. Knoblich, “The tumor suppressors brat and numb regulate transit-amplifying neuroblast lineages in Drosophila,” Developmental Cell, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 535–546, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. O. A. Bayraktar, J. Q. Boone, M. L. Drummond, and C. Q. Doe, “Drosophila type II neuroblast lineages keep Prospero levels low to generate large clones that contribute to the adult brain central complex,” Neural Development, vol. 5, no. 1, article 26, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. M. Weng, K. L. Golden, and C. Y. Lee, “dFezf/Earmuff maintains the restricted developmental potential of intermediate neural progenitors in Drosophila,” Developmental Cell, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 126–135, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. A. H. Brand and F. J. Livesey, “Neural stem cell viology in vertebrates and invertebrates: more alike than different?” Neuron, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 719–729, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. B. Egger, K. S. Gold, and A. H. Brand, “Regulating the balance between symmetric and asymmetric stem cell division in the developing brain,” Fly, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 237–241, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  29. B. Bello, H. Reichert, and F. Hirth, “The brain tumor gene negatively regulates neural progenitor cell proliferation in the larval central brain of Drosophila,” Development, vol. 133, no. 14, pp. 2639–2648, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. J. Betschinger, K. Mechtler, and J. A. Knoblich, “Asymmetric segregation of the tumor suppressor brat regulates self-renewal in Drosophila neural stem cells,” Cell, vol. 124, no. 6, pp. 1241–1253, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. S. P. Choksi, T. D. Southall, T. Bossing et al., “Prospero acts as a binary switch between self-renewal and differentiation in Drosophilaneuralstem cells,” Developmental Cell, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 775–789, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. C. Y. Lee, B. D. Wilkinson, S. E. Siegrist, R. P. Wharton, and C. Q. Doe, “Brat is a Miranda cargo protein that promotes neuronal differentiation and inhibits neuroblast self-renewal,” Developmental Cell, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 441–449, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. E. Caussinus and C. Gonzalez, “Induction of tumor growth by altered stem-cell asymmetric division in Drosophila melanogaster,” Nature Genetics, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1125–1129, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. C. Gonzalez, “Spindle orientation, asymmetric division and tumour suppression in Drosophila stem cells,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 462–472, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. K. White and D. R. Kankel, “Patterns of cell division and cell movement in the formation of the imaginal nervous system in Drosophila melanogaster,” Developmental Biology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 296–321, 1978. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. P. Green, A. Y. Hartenstein, and V. Hartenstein, “The embryonic development of the Drosophila visual system,” Cell and Tissue Research, vol. 273, no. 3, pp. 583–598, 1993. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. J. Ceron, C. González, and F. J. Tejedor, “Patterns of cell division and expression of asymmetric cell fate determinants in postembryonic neuroblast lineages of Drosophila,” Developmental Biology, vol. 230, no. 2, pp. 125–138, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. T. Yasugi, D. Umetsu, S. Murakami, M. Sato, and T. Tabata, “Drosophila optic lobe neuroblasts triggered by a wave of proneural gene expression that is negatively regulated by JAK/STAT,” Development, vol. 135, no. 8, pp. 1471–1480, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. C. Y. Lee, K. J. Robinson, and C. Q. Doe, “Lgl, Pins and aPKC regulate neuroblast self-renewal versus differentiation,” Nature, vol. 439, no. 7076, pp. 594–598, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. J. A. Knoblich, “Asymmetric cell division during animal development,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. M. Glotzer, “Cleavage furrow positioning,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 164, no. 3, pp. 347–351, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. M. Schober, M. Schaefer, and J. A. Knoblich, “Bazooka recruits inscuteable to orient asymmetric cell divisions in Drosophila neuroblasts,” Nature, vol. 402, no. 6761, pp. 548–551, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. A. Wodarz, A. Ramrath, U. Kuchinke, and E. Knust, “Bazooka provides an apical cue for inscuteable localization in Drosophila neuroblasts,” Nature, vol. 402, no. 6761, pp. 544–547, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. A. Wodarz, A. Ramrath, A. Grimm, and E. Knust, “Drosophila atypical protein kinase C associates with Bazooka and controls polarity of epithelia and neuroblasts,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 150, no. 6, pp. 1361–1374, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. M. Petronczki and J. A. Knoblich, “DmPAR-6 directs epithelial polarity and asymetric cell division of neuroblasts in Drosophila,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. M. M. Rolls, R. Albertson, H. P. Shih, C. Y. Lee, and C. Q. Doe, “Drosophila aPKC regulates cell polarity and cell proliferation in neuroblasts and epithelia,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 163, no. 5, pp. 1089–1098, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. T. Yamanaka, Y. Horikoshi, N. Izumi, A. Suzuki, K. Mizuno, and S. Ohno, “Lgl mediates apical domain disassembly by suppressing the PAR-3-aPKC-PAR-6 complex to orient apical membrane polarity,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 119, no. 10, pp. 2107–2118, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. S. X. Atwood and K. E. Prehoda, “aPKC phosphorylates miranda to polarize fate determinants during neuroblast asymmetric cell division,” Current Biology, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 723–729, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. C. Cabernard and C. Q. Doe, “Apical/basal spindle orientation is required for neuroblast homeostasis and neuronal differentiation in Drosophila,” Developmental Cell, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 134–141, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. R. Kraut and J. A. Campos-Ortega, “inscuteable, a neural precursor gene of Drosophila, encodes a candidate for a cytoskeleton adaptor protein,” Developmental Biology, vol. 174, no. 1, pp. 65–81, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. R. Kraut, W. Chia, L. Y. Jan, Y. N. Jan, and J. A. Knoblich, “Role of inscuteable in orienting asymmetric cell divisions in Drosophila,” Nature, vol. 383, no. 6595, pp. 50–55, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. M. Schaefer, M. Petronczki, D. Dorner, M. Forte, and J. A. Knoblich, “Heterotrimeric G proteins direct two modes of asymmetric cell division in the Drosophila nervous system,” Cell, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 183–194, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. N. Fuse, K. Hisata, A. L. Katzen, and F. Matsuzaki, “Heterotrimeric G proteins regulate daughter cell size asymmetry in Drosophila neuroblast divisions,” Current Biology, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 947–954, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. F. Yu, Y. Cai, R. Kaushik, X. Yang, and W. Chia, “Distinct roles of Gαi and Gβ13F subunits of the heterotrimeric G protein complex in the mediation of Drosophila neuroblast asymmetric divisions,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 162, no. 4, pp. 623–633, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. Y. Izumi, N. Ohta, A. Itoh-Furuya, N. Fuse, and F. Matsuzaki, “Differential functions of G protein and Baz-aPKC signaling pathways in Drosophila neuroblast asymmetric division,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 164, no. 5, pp. 729–738, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. M. Schaefer, A. Shevchenko, A. Shevchenko, and J. A. Knoblich, “A protein complex containing inscuteable and the Gα-binding protein pins orients asymmetric cell divisions in Drosophila,” Current Biology, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 353–362, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. F. Yu, X. Morin, Y. Cai, X. Yang, and W. Chia, “Analysis of partner of inscuteable, a novel player of Drosophila asymmetric divisions, reveals two distinct steps in inscuteable apical localization,” Cell, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 399–409, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. F. Yu, H. Wang, H. Qian et al., “Locomotion defects, together with Pins, regulates heterotrimeric G-protein signaling during Drosophila neuroblast asymmetric divisions,” Genes and Development, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1341–1353, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. S. K. Bowman, R. A. Neumüller, M. Novatchkova, Q. Du, and J. A. Knoblich, “The Drosophila NuMA homolog mud regulates spindle orientation in asymmetric cell division,” Developmental Cell, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 731–742, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. Y. Izumi, N. Ohta, K. Hisata, T. Raabe, and F. Matsuzaki, “Drosophila Pins-binding protein Mud regulates spindle-polarity coupling and centrosome organization,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 586–593, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. K. H. Siller, C. Cabernard, and C. Q. Doe, “The NuMA-related Mud protein binds Pins and regulates spindle orientation in Drosophila neuroblasts,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 594–600, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. J. A. Kaltschmidt, C. M. Davidson, N. H. Brown, and A. H. Brand, “Rotation and asymmetry of the mitotic spindle direct asymmetric cell division in the developing central nervous system,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. E. Rebollo, P. Sampaio, J. Januschke, S. Llamazares, H. Varmark, and C. González, “Functionally Unequal Centrosomes Drive Spindle Orientation in Asymmetrically Dividing Drosophila Neural Stem Cells,” Developmental Cell, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 467–474, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. C. Cabernard, K. E. Prehoda, and C. Q. Doe, “A spindle-independent cleavage furrow positioning pathway,” Nature, vol. 467, no. 7311, pp. 91–94, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. W. Chia, W. G. Somers, and H. Wang, “Drosophila neuroblast asymmetric divisions: cell cycle regulators, asymmetric protein localization, and tumorigenesis,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 180, no. 2, pp. 267–272, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. P. Gönczy, “Mechanisms of asymmetric cell division: flies and worms pave the way,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 355–366, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. J. A. Knoblich, “Mechanisms of asymmetric stem cell division,” Cell, vol. 132, no. 4, pp. 583–597, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. M. S. Rhyu, L. Y. Jan, and Y. N. Jan, “Asymmetric distribution of numb protein during division of the sensory organ precursor cell confers distinct fates to daughter cells,” Cell, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 477–491, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. E. P. Spana, C. Kopczynski, C. S. Goodman, and C. Q. Doe, “Asymmetric localization of numb autonomously determines sibling neuron identity in the Drosophila CNS,” Development, vol. 121, no. 11, pp. 3489–3494, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. M. Guo, L. Y. Jan, and Y. N. Jan, “Control of daughter cell fates during asymmetric division: interaction of Numb and Notch,” Neuron, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 27–41, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. E. Santolini, C. Puri, A. E. Salcini et al., “Numb is an endocytic protein,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 151, no. 6, pp. 1345–1352, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. D. Berdnik, T. Török, M. González-Gaitán, and J. A. Knoblich, “The endocytic protein α-adaptin is required for numb-mediated asymmetric cell division in Drosophila,” Developmental Cell, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 221–231, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. K. M. O'Connor-Giles and J. B. Skeath, “Numb inhibits membrane localization of sanpodo, a four-pass transmembrane protein, to promote asymmetric divisions in Drosophila,” Developmental Cell, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 231–243, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. J. Hirata, H. Nakagoshi, Y. Nabeshima, and F. Matsuzaki, “Asymmetric segregation of the homeodomain protein Prospero during Drosophila development,” Nature, vol. 377, no. 6550, pp. 627–630, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. J. A. Knoblich, L. Y. Jan, and Y. N. Jan, “Asymmetric segregation of Numb and Prospero during cell division,” Nature, vol. 377, no. 6550, pp. 624–627, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. E. P. Spana and C. Q. Doe, “The prospero transcription factor is asymmetrically localized to the cell cortex during neuroblast mitosis in Drosophila,” Development, vol. 121, no. 10, pp. 3187–3195, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. H. Ikeshima-Kataoka, J. B. Skeath, Y. I. Nabeshima, C. Q. Doe, and F. Matsuzaki, “Miranda directs Prospero to a daughter cell during Drosophila asymmetric divisions,” Nature, vol. 390, no. 6660, pp. 625–629, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. F. Matsuzaki, T. Ohshiro, H. Ikeshima-Kataoka, and H. Izumi, “miranda localizes staufen and prospero asymmetrically in mitotic neuroblasts and epithelial cells in early Drosophila embryogenesis,” Development, vol. 125, no. 20, pp. 4089–4098, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. A. J. Schuldt, J. H. J. Adams, C. M. Davidson et al., “Miranda mediates asymmetric protein and RNA localization in the developing nervous system,” Genes and Development, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 1847–1857, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. J. Sonoda and R. P. Wharton, “Drosophila brain tumor is a translational repressor,” Genes and Development, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 762–773, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. R. A. Neumüller, J. Betschinger, A. Fischer et al., “Mei-P26 regulates microRNAs and cell growth in the Drosophila ovarian stem cell lineage,” Nature, vol. 454, no. 7201, pp. 241–245, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. J. C. Schwamborn, E. Berezikov, and J. A. Knoblich, “The TRIM-NHL protein TRIM32 activates microRNAs and prevents self-renewal in mouse neural progenitors,” Cell, vol. 136, no. 5, pp. 913–925, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. B. Egger, K. S. Gold, and A. H. Brand, “Notch regulates the switch from symmetric to asymmetric neural stem cell division in the Drosophila optic lobe,” Development, vol. 137, no. 18, pp. 2981–2987, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. W. Wang, W. Liu, Y. Wang, L. Zhou, X. Tang, and H. Luo, “Notch signaling regulates neuroepithelial stem cell maintenance and neuroblast formation in Drosophila optic lobe development,” Developmental Biology, vol. 350, no. 2, pp. 414–428, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. K. T. Ngo, J. Wang, M. Junker et al., “Concomitant requirement for Notch and Jak/Stat signaling during neuro-epithelial differentiation in the Drosophila optic lobe,” Developmental Biology, vol. 346, no. 2, pp. 284–295, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. B. V. V. G. Reddy, C. Rauskolb, and K. D. Irvine, “Influence of Fat-Hippo and Notch signaling on the proliferation and differentiation of Drosophila optic neuroepithelia,” Development, vol. 137, no. 14, pp. 2397–2408, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. D. Sprinzak, A. Lakhanpal, L. Lebon et al., “Cis-interactions between Notch and Delta generate mutually exclusive signalling states,” Nature, vol. 465, no. 7294, pp. 86–90, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. T. Yasugi, A. Sugie, D. Umetsu, and T. Tabata, “Coordinated sequential action of EGFR and Notch signaling pathways regulates proneural wave progression in the Drosophila optic lobe,” Development, vol. 137, no. 19, pp. 3193–3203, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. E. Gateff, “Malignant neoplasms of genetic origin in Drosophila melanogaster,” Science, vol. 200, no. 4349, pp. 1448–1459, 1978. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. E. Gateff, “Tumor suppressor and overgrowth suppressor genes of Drosophila melanogaster: developmental aspects,” International Journal of Developmental Biology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 565–590, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  91. T. Ohshiro, T. Yagami, C. Zhang, and F. Matsuzaki, “Role of cortical tumour-suppressor proteins in asymmetric division of Drosophila neuroblast,” Nature, vol. 408, no. 6812, pp. 593–596, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. C. Y. Peng, L. Manning, R. Albertson, and C. Q. Doe, “The tumour-suppresor genes lgl and dlg regulate basal protein targeting in Drosophila neuroblasts,” Nature, vol. 408, no. 6812, pp. 596–600, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. A. Wodarz, “Molecular control of cell polarity and asymmetric cell division in Drosophila neuroblasts,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 475–481, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. E. Castellanos, P. Dominguez, and C. Gonzalez, “Centrosome dysfunction in Drosophila neural stem cells causes tumors that are not due to genome instability,” Current Biology, vol. 18, no. 16, pp. 1209–1214, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. J. L. Boulay, U. Stiefel, E. Taylor, B. Dolder, A. Merlo, and F. Hirth, “Loss of heterozygosity of TRIM3 in malignant gliomas,” BMC Cancer, vol. 9, article 71, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. S. Pece, M. Serresi, E. Santolini et al., “Loss of negative regulation by Numb over Notch is relevant to human breast carcinogenesis,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 167, no. 2, pp. 215–221, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  97. T. V. Petrova, A. Nykänen, C. Norrmén et al., “Transcription factor PROX1 induces colon cancer progression by promoting the transition from benign to highly dysplastic phenotype,” Cancer Cell, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 407–419, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  98. E. Gateff, T. Loffler, and J. Wismar, “A temperature-sensitive brain tumor suppressor mutation of Drosophila melanogaster: developmental studies and molecular localization of the gene,” Mechanisms of Development, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 15–31, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  99. A. Janic, L. Mendizabal, S. Llamazares, D. Rossell, and C. Gonzalez, “Ectopic expression of germline genes drives malignant brain tumor growth in Drosophila,” Science, vol. 330, no. 6012, pp. 1824–1827, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. C. Richter, K. Oktaba, J. Steinmann et al., “The tumour suppressor L(3)mbt inhibits neuroepithelial proliferation and acts on insulator elements,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1029–1039, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  101. K. Harvey and N. Tapon, “The Salvador-Warts-Hippo pathway—an emerging tumour-suppressor network,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 182–191, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. L. J. Saucedo and B. A. Edgar, “Filling out the Hippo pathway,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 613–621, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. B. V. V. G. Reddy and K. D. Irvine, “The fat and warts signaling pathways: new insights into their regulation, mechanism and conservation,” Development, vol. 135, no. 17, pp. 2827–2838, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. C. J. Potter, G. S. Turenchalk, and T. Xu, “Drosophila in cancer researchan expanding role,” Trends in Genetics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 33–39, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  105. H. Harris, “A long view of fashions in cancer research,” BioEssays, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 833–838, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. T. Loop, R. Leemans, U. Stiefel et al., “Transcriptional signature of an adult brain tumor in Drosophila,” BMC Genomics, vol. 5, no. 1, article 24, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  107. T. D. Southall and A. H. Brand, “Neural stem cell transcriptional networks highlight genes essential for nervous system development,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 28, no. 24, pp. 3799–3807, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. G. Dietzl, D. Chen, F. Schnorrer et al., “A genome-wide transgenic RNAi library for conditional gene inactivation in Drosophila,” Nature, vol. 448, no. 7150, pp. 151–156, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  109. R. A. Neumüller, C. Richter, A. Fischer, M. Novatchkova, K. G. Neumüller, and J. A. Knoblich, “Genome-wide analysis of self-renewal in Drosophila neural stem cells by transgenic RNAi,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 580–593, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  110. J. A. Fischer, E. Giniger, T. Maniatis, and M. Ptashne, “GAL4 activates transcription in Drosophila,” Nature, vol. 332, no. 6167, pp. 853–856, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. A. H. Brand and N. Perrimon, “Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes,” Development, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 401–415, 1993. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus