Tài liệu Báo cáo khoa học: Bone morphogenetic protein signaling in stem cells ) one signal, many consequences pptx

Bone morphogenetic protein signaling in stem cells one signal, many consequences Toni U.. Wagner Physiological Chemistry I, University of Wuerzburg, Germany BMP signals in stem cells Bo

Bone morphogenetic protein signaling in stem cells ) one signal, many consequences

Toni U Wagner

Physiological Chemistry I, University of Wuerzburg, Germany

BMP signals in stem cells

Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signals have

tre-mendous effects on all kinds of cells Most striking

and defining, however, are the reactions that stem and

progenitor cells show upon exposure to BMP ligands

Various stem cell types utilize BMP signals in a

multi-tude of ways in order to define their fates The

integra-tion of this pathway with a variety of other signals is

still poorly understood, but recent discoveries strongly

suggest that stem cell niches, areas with a certain

sig-nal–molecule cocktail, are responsible for the final

out-come of BMP signaling, be it by modulating the ligand

itself, or the cascade transducing the signal within

the cell Regulation of BMP signaling is seen at all

molecular levels: ligands, receptors, transducers, tran-scription complex composition and chromatin state The present review focuses on data gathered on the role of BMP signaling in selected stem cell systems Due to space limitations, numerous stem cell niches described to be influenced by BMP are not reviewed

We try to focus on publications that represent the wide variety of effects induced by BMP signals

The BMP signaling cascades

The basic BMP signaling process is started by

homo-or heterodimeric BMP ligands Upon binding to type I receptors, formation of a heteromeric complex with type II receptors is induced In this simple transduction

Keywords

apoptosis; BMP; differentiation;

pluripotency; signaling; stem cells

Correspondence

T U Wagner, Physiological Chemistry I,

University of Wuerzburg, 97070 Wuerzburg,

Germany

Fax: +49 931 888 4150

Tel: +49 931 888 4165

E-mail: toni.wagner@biozentrum.

uni-wuerzburg.de

Website: http://www.biozentrum.

uni-wuerzburg.de/pc/pc1/

(Received 1 December 2006, revised

29 March 2007, accepted 19 April 2007)

doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.05839.x

Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signals play key roles throughout embryology, from the earliest patterning events, via tissue specification, through organ development and again in germ cell differentiation While both input and the transducer molecules are rather well studied, the final outcome of a BMP signal is basically unpredictable and differs enormously between previously studied cell types As already suggested by their name, BMPs exhibit most of their (known) functions on stem cells and precursor cells, usually driving them into various types of differentiation or death In this minireview, some prime examples of BMP effects on several very different stem-cell types are discussed

Abbreviations

BMP, bone morphogenetic protein; ES, embryonic stem; ID, inhibitors of DNA-binding; GDF3, growth and differentiation factor-3; GFAP, glial fibrillary acidic protein; LIF, leukaemia inhibitory factor; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; MPC, mesodermal progenitor cell; NSC, neural stem ⁄ progenitor cell; PGC, primordial germ cell; STAT3, signal transducer and activator of transcription-3; TGF-b, transforming growth factor b.

version, the type II receptors then phosphorylate the

type I receptors, which subsequently activate R-Smads

(Smads 1, 5 and 8 for BMP ligands) by serine-threonine

phosphorylation [1,2] R-Smads are transcription

fac-tors, which need activation (usually by

phosphoryla-tion) and subsequent multimerization in order to

become active and accumulate in the nucleus Once

activated, the R-Smad is able to bind to the Co-Smad

(Smad4) and translocate to, or accumulate in the

nuc-leus [3] There, together with a wide variety of

cofac-tors, target gene transcription is usually activated when

R-Smads are in play

Of course, this very linear pathway is far from

real-ity BMP receptors have been shown to convey signals

not only by Smad phosphorylation, but also through

p38 activation [3] Furthermore, transduction can as

well occur through so-called repressor-Smads and

Smads specific for transforming growth factor b

(TGF-b) signals such as Nodal (Table 1) [2]

BMP signals are strongly influenced by many

addi-tional parameters, such as the mode of oligomerization

of receptors even prior to ligand-binding and resulting

differences in downstream targets have also been

clar-ified in much more detail [1] Regulation is further

fine-tuned by BMP receptor regulation through

degra-dation and dephosphorylation [4], different modes of

endocytosis [5], interaction with other pathways and

expression of pseudo-receptors [6,7]

Further downstream, Smads are again subject to

massive functional modulation by interaction with

other transcriptional modifiers [8–11], nuclear import

and export regulation [3], as well as dephosphorylation

[12–15]

BMP signals aid to keep pluripotency

in embryonic stem cell cultures

Among the hot topics in current research is the

genera-tion and use of stem cells The theoretical applicagenera-tions

of having expandable and differentiation-controllable

stem cell cultures are extremely promising However, basic knowledge of molecular changes happening in cells that are transferred from the embryonic milieu to the cell culture dish is missing

A different side of the same problem is the lack of information on factors that guide self-renewal and plu-ripotency in the embryo or adult

Since 1988, the key player in embryonic stem (ES)-cell media for the best established culture system, murine ES-cells, has been leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) [16] Even though cultures have to be addition-ally supplemented by serum, feeder cells and other factors, LIF is considered to be necessary for pluripo-tency The signaling cascade triggered by LIF is trans-duced through phosphorylation and subsequent translocation of the signal transducer and activator of transcription-3 (STAT3) to the nucleus [17,18] Although most of the data reviewed below has been collected with mouse embryonic stem cells, it should

be noted that recent studies in nonhuman primate ES-cell cultures [19] as well as in human ES-cell culture systems [20,21], have demonstrated complete independ-ence of LIF and STAT3

Back in the mouse system, feeder cells and serum can be omitted if BMP2⁄ 4 and LIF are present in the medium [22], resulting in a very defined two-factor sys-tem to study pluripotency The same work demonstra-ted that the downstream target genes primarily responsible for the pluripotency maintenance effect of BMPs under these conditions are the inhibitors of DNA-binding (ID) genes ID gene transcription was previously shown to be enhanced by a Smad1–Smad4 complex directly binding GC-rich elements in combina-tion with Smad-binding elements (SBE, sequence: GTCT) present in the ID1 promoter region [23] ID gene expression is further enhanced by another well known pluripotency associated factor called Nanog [24] in a not yet understood way

Adding to the picture are data obtained by micro-array-based analysis [25] of murine stem cells, in which

Table 1 BMP and TGF-b signal transducer molecules of the Smad family and their respective function [1,2].

several genes with STAT3 dependent expression were

identified Among the list of strongly up-regulated

genes after LIF⁄ STAT3 signaling inactivation are

fac-tors generally associated with TGF-b and BMP

signa-ling cascades including Lefty1, ID1 and ID2 These

data already indicate negative transcriptional

regula-tion between LIF⁄ STAT3 signaling on one end, and

TGF-b⁄ BMP signaling on the other end

Strong activation of the BMP pathway was shown

to lead to differentiation of embryonic stem cells into

mesodermal and endodermal lineages, whereas neural

differentiation is actively suppressed [22]

Low levels of BMP, followed by transduction via

Smad1, already leads to up-regulation of typical

mark-ers for early stages of mesodermal differentiation

inclu-ding the transcription factor Brachyury Present in

only low amounts, Brachyury forms a complex with

STAT3 This complex has been shown to bind to the

Nanog promoter and enhance its transcription Nanog

protein in turn was proven to bind to Smad1 and

sup-press formation of Smad1 transcriptional activator

complexes [26] Closing the regulatory circle, a prime

target of the thus inhibited Smad1-complex mediated

transcriptional activation would be Brachyury Thus,

early stages of differentiation triggered by low level

BMP signaling are reversible by simultaneous presence

and action of Nanog and STAT3 Consequently,

sup-port of pluripotency by BMP signals is not only highly

dose-dependent, but also needs to be counter-regulated

(e.g by STAT3 and Nanog)

Recapitulating, the BMP-signaling pathway promotes

pluripotency only indirectly by driving expression of ID

genes in a Smad1-dependent manner ID-proteins block

neural differentiation of ES-cells by sequestering

tran-scription factors needed to initiate commitment to this

lineage Concurrently, the differentiation induction

effects of BMP are counteracted by STAT3 and Nanog,

which are able to suppress activation of Smad1-target

genes necessary for differentiation into mesodermal and

endodermal cell fates

In other words, the essence of defined medium

murine ES-cell culture appears to be the simultaneous

action of STAT3 and Smad in a certain ratio

Down-stream, negative regulation of differentiation

pro-grammes for mesodermal and endodermal fates

(mediated by STAT3) as well as neuro-ectodermal

line-ages (controlled by IDs) is initiated, resulting in the

blockage of any kind of differentiation (Fig 1)

Taking these data from the culture system, it is

inter-esting to look at studies on BMP signaling proteins

in early embryonic development Although Smad4–⁄ –

mouse embryos do not successfully undergo

gastrula-tion and die before embryonic day 7.5, it was possible

to derive ES-cell lines from the inner cell mass of these mutants [27] As the only Co-Smad, Smad4 is abso-lutely necessary for any Smad-linked BMP signal con-duction to the nucleus Thus, these experiments suggest that the pluripotent stem cell state within the embryo is not depending on Smad signaling Initially, this contra-dicts a basal role of BMP in pluripotency described before based on cell culture experiments There is, how-ever, dependency on BMPR-IA (ALK3) because it is impossible to derive ES-cell lines from ALK3 null embryos [27] The discrepancy of BMP receptor dependence on one hand and Smad4 independence on the other suggests a Smad-independent mode of BMP signal transduction The only other known transduc-tion pathway of BMP receptor activatransduc-tion is mediated

by p38, a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) family member, via a complex of adapter proteins including XIAP, Tab1⁄ 2 and Tak1 [28,29] Here, it is interesting to note that BMP4 treatment of mouse ES-cell cultures results not only in up-regulation of ID genes, but also in the up-regulation of Oct4, a definitive marker of pluripotency, accompanied by a short-termed drop of p38 phosphorylation levels [27] The mediators of these effects remain unidentified, with many candidates from MAPK phosphatase families In

a key experiment, simulation of the BMP induced de-phosphorylation effect on p38 by its inhibitor SB23580 enabled derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines from ALK3–⁄ –embryos Even more striking is the finding that these cell lines were subsequently able to

Fig 1 Model of pluripotency control in cultured feeder and serum-free mouse embryonic stem cells Parallel activity of STAT3 and Smad leads to inhibition of differentiation programs induced by the other pathway, thereby upholding the pluripotent state of the cells The balance is easily broken upon signal increase in any direction.

tolerate lack of ALK3 in absence of the inhibitor.

Although functional proof is missing, the authors

found up-regulation of ALK1 and ALK2 in these cells

and suggest these receptors to be able to compensate

ALK3 loss Bringing the different aspects together,

alternative BMP signaling pathways all seem to be able

to support pluripotency, but a complete loss of BMP

signal transduction is not compatible with stemness To

truly clarify this situation, additional studies using

con-ditional depletion of all combinations of the suggested

transduction ways are needed

Yet another BMP signal influencing factor

associ-ated with pluripotency has been identified, namely

growth and differentiation factor-3 (GDF3) [30]

GDF3 is exclusively expressed in the undifferentiated

state in both mouse and human ES-cell culture GDF3

is a secreted factor, which is able to bind to and

thereby inactivate BMP4 Reduction of GDF3

expres-sion in murine ES-cells lead to increased independence

of LIF but, at the same time, to a lack of mesodermal

and endodermal differentiation-ability in vitro In vivo,

GDF3 is expressed during early embryogenesis in mice,

notably in the inner cell mass Protein localization

shows extracellular distribution throughout the

blasto-cyst embryo During gastrulation, GDF3 mRNA was

detected in the node

These data substantiate the notion that fine-tuning

BMP-signal strength, timing and downstream pathway

choices are strongly influencing cell fate decisions both

in early embryonic cells and stem cell cultures

How-ever, the molecular mechanisms underlying this

non-linear behaviour are not yet identified They likely

include cross-talk with other prominent signaling

path-ways such as Wnts on multiple levels of the cascades

BMP action in other stem cell niches

BMP pathways are not only involved in pluripotency

control, but also in various other stem cell niches, both

in adults and embryos The roles of BMP in those

niches are far from uniform

BMP signaling induces differentiation of neural

stem cells

Another variant of signal integration between BMPs

and STAT3 has been identified in the case of

differen-tiation of neural stem⁄ progenitor cells (NSCs) Here,

the neurogenesis versus astrocytogenesis decision

during early differentiation is based on a network of

negative regulation Co-immunoprecipitation assays

showed that STAT3 and Smad1 are complexed via

the transcriptional cofactor p300 [31] This complex

enhances the differentiation of fetal neuroepithelial cells into astrocytes, by binding and hyper activating the promoter of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP)

In parallel, BMP signals lead to enhanced expression

of ID proteins, which in turn bind and sequester bHLH transcription factors such as Neurogenin1 and Mash1, both responsible for neurogenesis [32] Addi-tionally, BMP exposure results in down-regulation of Olig2 expression [33] Olig2 in turn inhibits formation

of the GFAP superactivator complex STAT3–p300– Smad1 [34], thus clearing the path for neuronal differ-entiation for cells exposed to low amounts of BMPs The p300–Smad1 complex is target for yet another reg-ulatory input Neurogenin has been shown to compete with STAT3 for its recruitment Although the GFAP promoter is hyper activated when bound by Smad1– p300–STAT3, the neuroD promoter is strongly driven

by binding of Smad1–p300–Neurogenin [35], giving BMP signals a role in neurogenesis as well Other stud-ies [36] have shown that LIF or BMP4 alone are also able to drive GFAP expression in neurosphere cul-tures Phenotypically, the resulting GFAP+cells gener-ated by either LIF or BMP4 differ strongly: whereas LIF induces GFAP expressing NSCs to become elon-gated and stay proliferative, BMP4 application results

in cell-cycle exit and a star-like cell-morphology Fur-thermore, LIF treatment leads to an upkeep of progen-itor features, such as prolonged culture ability and the potential to undergo neural differentiation, whereas BMP4 decreases both These results stress that BMP signaling is indeed an antiproliferative and differenti-ation inductive signal for neural stem cells, again (as shown and discussed for murine ES-cells) modulated

by LIF⁄ STAT3 in a highly dose-dependent manner

BMP signals as inhibitors of differentiation

of pancreatic progenitors

A prototypic example for a cell type where BMP sig-nals play an inhibitory role for differentiation are pan-creatic progenitor cells Upon treatment of these progenitors with BMP4, increased levels of ID2 result

in inhibition of NeuroD function [37] NeuroD is a classical target for ID proteins because it is a member

of the bHLH transcription factor family, which can be efficiently bound and thereby inactivated by ID pro-teins In the rat tumour cell line AR42J, derived from the acinar pancreas, and isolated primary interferon-c-NOD epithelial duct cells, ID2 expression leads to down-regulation of the NeuroD target gene PAX6, an important factor for final differentiation of the progen-itors into endocrine cells In parallel, BMP4 treatment increases proliferation activity of the progenitors

These data once more demonstrate that BMP signals

are able to promote stemness and block differentiation

in specific contexts

BMP as a specification switch in hair-cell

progenitors

NeuroD also plays essential roles in hair-cell

specifi-cation in the inner ear Recently, the effects of BMP

on hair-cell progenitors have been investigated BMP4

is a well established marker for otic sensory patches

in various species Over expression of BMP4 in

explanted chicken otic vesicles leads to fewer hair

cells [38] Inhibition of BMP signals by Noggin

results in increasing numbers of hair-cells Cell-cycle

and apoptosis analyses of these experiments reveal

that BMP4 not only suppresses expression of

prosen-sory markers (itself including), but also drives the

proliferative sensory precursor cells into apoptosis In

the same context, Noggin application is able to

expand the sensory patches without increasing

pro-genitor proliferation This suggests that BMP4 has a

double function in restriction of hair-cell number:

block of differentiation and stop of progenitor

prolif-eration, with both effects leading to apoptosis The

molecular mechanism at work in these progenitor

cells has not yet been addressed, but might include

ID protein mediated block of bHLH factors such as

NeuroD, which are responsible for correct

progres-sion of final differentiation steps

BMP signals lead to proliferation, apoptosis

and cell-cycle arrest within the eye

Studies in the chick embryo have revealed a role for

BMP4 in eye development Implantation experiments

of beads soaked in BMP4 have shown that BMP is

able to induce programmed cell death (apoptosis)

Blocking the BMP pathway by using Noggin-leaded

beads does not lead to over proliferation but, on the

contrary, restricts growth and, when applied for longer

periods, will result in reduced size of the optic cup

[39] Surprisingly, apoptosis is inhibited at the same

time In line with this, BMP4, even though responsible

for programmed cell death in the optic cup, increases

cell proliferation

The effects on lens tissue are completely different:

Noggin cannot stop apoptosis there, and BMP4⁄ 7

application leads to over proliferation

This set of experiments clearly demonstrates how

versatile the BMP pathway really is Within a very

small region, clear subdivision of apoptotic,

pro-proliferative and ignorant cell responses to BMP signal

effects alternate To date, the intracellular mechanisms are not well understood In almost all cases studied, BMP signalling will directly lead to target gene up-regulation The best studied ones with functions in stem and progenitor cells are ID1-4 and Msx1⁄ 2 Probably, there are many more direct as well as cell-type specific targets with yet unknown functions to

be found once more in-depth molecular analyses are performed

Cell fate determination as a consequence

of Nodal versus BMP signals Patterning events during early development are often guided by BMP activity gradients In a recently des-cribed case, mesodermal progenitor cell commitment was shown to be controlled by a graded exposure to BMP and Nodal ligands With zebrafish as a model system, Szeto and Kimmelman [40] used elegant trans-plantation experiments to demonstrate that the somites along the anterior–posterior body axis are divided into three regions: the anterior trunk, the posterior trunk and the tail According to their experiments, the fate

of mesodermal progenitor cells (MPCs) is set at gastru-lation A BMP signal gradient originating from the posterior end of the embryo establishes a boundary between trunk and tail domains Determination of the two trunk domains is probably due to higher levels of Nodal signaling and weakening of BMP signaling by antagonists such as Chordin or Follistatin, which are most likely genetically downstream of Nodal The MPCs are then able to integrate and interpret the signal strengths of Nodal and BMP by entering the somite regions at different somites Strong Nodal drives them in early, at somite 1, whereas strong BMP delays their entry until somite 16 MPCs receiving both weak Nodal and weak BMP input enter in-between, at somite 9

So far, it has not been possible to truly visualize gra-ded signal activities in living embryos Furthermore, the cellular machinery for signal integration also remains elusive Whether this process is strictly nuc-lear, transcriptional control of sets of target genes or happens in the cytoplasm where translocation and acti-vation of transducer molecules is modulated in is also unclear There is a significant gap between the avail-able in vivo knowledge coming from analyses of pheno-types as a result of BMP signal strength and in vitro knowledge about intracellular processes downstream of signal triggering

There is another example of stemness decisions by Nodal versus BMP signaling emerging from human embryonic stem cell research Testing human ES-cells

for signaling activity, James et al [41] found constantly

active TGF-b signaling as demonstrated by nuclear

Smad2 staining and detectable phosphorylation of this

signal transducer The main transducer of BMPs

how-ever, Smad1, resided mostly in the cytoplasm and was

not phosphorylated As expected, addition of BMP to

the medium of these cultures resulted in a

down-regu-lation of Oct4 and an accordant change in cell

mor-phology reminiscent of differentiation Interestingly,

supplementation with activin A did not alter Oct4

lev-els and the cells retained their typical embryonic stem

cell morphology Only recently, proof for the

involve-ment of TGF-b signaling in pluripotent cell cultures

has been extended to the murine system Ogawa et al

[42] used either ectopic expression of Smad7 or the

chemical inhibitor SB-431542 to block activin⁄ TGF-b

signaling in murine stem cell cultures Both

experi-ments resulted in a strong growth inhibition of the

stem cells but, fascinatingly, did not interfere with their

pluripotency, as judged by mRNA levels of Oct4,

Nanog and Sox2 Inhibition of BMP signaling by

ectopic expression of Smad6 neither interfered with

proliferation, nor did it lead to changes in pluripotency

[42] These results suggest that there is not only a

mechanistic difference between proliferation and

pluri-potency of stem cells, but also that both BMP and

TGF-b signaling are dispensable for stemness, even

though they are capable of supporting it under specific

conditions as described before

BMP as an initiator of the germ line

Cells of the germ line are unique in many aspects

Their DNA and differentiation state have to be

con-trolled over generations They are extremely mobile

and on their long way from being defined to arriving

in the gonad they are exposed to, and ignore,

practically all extracellular cues used for building

and patterning the embryo Generally, with the

appearance of primordial germ cells (PGCs), the germ line is usually the earliest cell-lineage that

is determined in the embryo In many lower ani-mals, such as flies and fish, they are defined by maternally deposited factors Strikingly, they have even been shown to be pluripotent after in vitro expansion [43]

In the mouse embryo, PGCs are formed during embryonic day 6 at the posterior proximal epiblast through a location dependent mechanism Using gene knockouts, the molecules responsible were identified as BMPs The primary induction of PGCs is driven by BMP4 [44], whereas the number of PGCs is guided by BMP2, BMP4 and BMP8b in synergistic action [45]

As demonstrated by in vitro culture assays [30], inde-pendent BMP signals originating from the visceral endoderm and the extra embryonic ectoderm are necessary for proper PGC induction The receiving receptors were found by knockout experiments, where

no PGCs were present in ALK2–⁄ –embryos, and lower than wild-type numbers are found in ALK2 heterozy-gous animals The same effect is true for BMP4 knock-outs and heterozygotes, which can then be rescued by ectopic expression of a constantly active variant of ALK2 How these different BMP signals are finally integrated to first guide induction and later number is yet unclear

Summary

BMP signals influence various kinds of stem cells, inter-estingly, with very diverse outcomes (Table 2) This pathway is a prime example of how cells are able to integrate the very same signal into their current molecular state How exactly this is achieved is far from being understood There are examples of this integration on many levels of signal transduction (Table 3) In some cases, the interaction of downstream signal transducers produces different transcriptional

Table 2 BMP signal outcome in described stem cell types.

Embryonic stem cells (i) Stemness upkeep when counteracting STAT3 is balancing BMP effects [10] Embryonic stem cells (ii) Differentiation when dominating other signals (especially LIF, STAT3) [14] Hair-cell progenitors (inner ear) Apoptosis of proliferative progenitors [24]

Mesodermal progenitor cells Exposure to BMP during gastrulation defines mesodermal progenitors in their

identity along the anterior–posterior axis of the embryo [26]

Pancreatic progenitor cells Inhibition of differentiation and increased proliferation of progenitors [23] Primordial germ cells Cell lineage definition and cell number control [29]

Progenitors of the eyefield Depending on the exact cell type increases proliferation, induces cell-cycle

arrest or drives cells into apoptosis [25]

outcomes This has been seen when Smad1 and STAT3

interact to guide astrocyte fates For embryonic

stem cell cultures, it is more likely an effect of negative

regulation of target genes: here, STAT3 and its targets

seem to block transcription of BMP signal targets and

vice versa Certainly, the signal integration process

has to be extended beyond the transducer molecules

One such level of signal modulation occurs outside

of the signal receiving cell, by secretion of blocking

ligands such as Noggin, Chordin and Follistatin or

GDF3 Another way to modulate ligand⁄ receptor

inter-action is by receptor localization within the membrane

[46] Additionally, the makeup of BMP-receptor

com-plexes is crucial for the choice of the transduction route

and resulting cellular response BMP2, for example,

can bind a type I receptor (e.g BRIa) with high affinity

[47] and induce subsequent BRII recruitment to the

complex This mode of complex formation leads to

signal conveyance via the p38 MAPK pathway

Alter-natively, a preformed receptor complex including

type I and type II receptors is able to bind BMP2, in

which case transduction will occur through Smad

activation [48]

There is further evidence for higher-order cross-talk

between BMP signaling proteins and those of other

pathways close to the membrane (e.g with

PI3-Kin-ase [49] or Dullard [4]), in cytoplasmic complexes

(e.g Smad1 and Enofin [50]) and nuclear complexes

(e.g b-catenin, Tcf4 and Smad1 [9] or Notch-IC and Smad3 [11])

Taken together, the currently available evidence strongly suggests that cells are defined in their identity

by the sequence of signals they are exposed to, whereas their respective responses to a molecule cocktail (often referred to as niche) appear to be highly variable BMP signaling cannot be attributed to define or differ-entiate a stem cell of any kind on its own Rather, it is

an integral part of stemness and also differentiation signaling depending on the the current transduction programme of receiving cell, which involves multilevel integration of a variety of signals

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr M Schartl for critical read-ing and general help Furthermore, I need to thank Dr

A Herpin for his patience and inspiring discussions I also have to thank the reviewers for helpful comments, enhancing this article and making it more comprehen-sive I want to thank sources of funding: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through GK1048 ‘Vertebrate Organogenesis’ and the European Community through Plurigenes I have to apologize to a high number of scientists whom I was not able to cite due to space limitations, especially those cited indirectly via more general BMP signaling reviews

Table 3 BMP signal modulation PIAS, protein inhibitor of activated STAT proteins.

Extracellular space Modification of ligand-receptor affinity ) usually by

binding to ligand dimers

Dimeric secreted proteins such as noggin, chordin, follistatin and GDF3 bind and therby inactivate BMP dimers [16]

Cell membrane Predimerization of type I receptors,

type I–type II receptors

Receptor heterooligomers induced by ligand binding signal via Smads, preformed complexes signal via p38 [31]

Receptor complex inhibiton BAMBI pseudoreceptors block receptor activation

[1]

Receptor–adapter junction R-Smads are kept from interacting

with receptor complexes

Smad7 binds to type I receptors and thus blocks R-Smads from being activated by the receptors [1]

Adapters inhibit receptor activation FKBP12 inhibits type I receptor phosphorylation

[1]

Cytoplasm Smad expression and covalent modification Sumoylation by PIAS, ubiquitylation by Smurf1 ⁄ 2

[1]

Competition for Smad4 binding Smad6 sequesters Smad4, thereby blocks Smad1

binding and nuclear accumulation [1]

Nucleus Co-factor-availability, corepressors and coactivators

can form a complex

Ngn competes with Stat3 for Smad1–p300 complexes in glial differentiation [21]

Nuclear import, export and retention MAPK phosphorylation of Smads leads to export

from the nucleus [2]

Dephosphorylation of Smads to end a signal Several phosphatases targeting the SXS

C-terminal regions of Smad1 ⁄ 2 ⁄ 3 [12–15]

1 Nohe A, Keating E, Knaus P & Petersen NO (2004)

Signal transduction of bone morphogenetic protein

receptors Cell Signal 16, 291–299

2 Shi Y & Massague J (2003) Mechanisms of TGF-beta

signaling from cell membrane to the nucleus Cell 113,

685–700

3 Xu L & Massague J (2004) Nucleocytoplasmic shuttling

of signal transducers Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 5, 209–219

4 Satow R, Kurisaki A, Chan T, Hamazaki TS &

Asashima M (2006) Dullard promotes degradation and

dephosphorylation of BMP receptors and is required

for neural induction Dev Cell 11, 763–774

5 Hartung A, Bitton-Worms K, Rechtman MM, Wenzel

V, Boergermann JH, Hassel S, Henis YI & Knaus P

(2006) Different routes of bone morphogenic protein

(BMP) receptor endocytosis influence bmp signaling

Mol Cell Biol 26, 7791–7805

6 Onichtchouk D, Chen YG, Dosch R, Gawantka V,

Delius H, Massague´ J & Niehrs C (1999) Silencing of

TGF-beta signalling by the pseudoreceptor BAMBI

Nature 401, 480–485

7 Balemans W & Van Hul W (2002) Extracellular

regula-tion of BMP signaling in vertebrates: a cocktail of

mod-ulators Dev Biol 250, 231–250

8 Kurisaki K, Kurisaki A, Valcourt U, Terentiev AA,

Pardali K, Ten Dijke P, Heldin C, Ericsson J &

Moustakas A (2003) Nuclear factor YY1 inhibits

trans-forming growth factor beta- and bone morphogenetic

protein-induced cell differentiation Mol Cell Biol 23,

4494–4510

9 Hu MC & Rosenblum ND (2005) Smad1, beta-catenin

and Tcf4 associate in a molecular complex with the

Myc promoter in dysplastic renal tissue and cooperate

to control myc transcription Development 132, 215–225

10 Dahlqvist C, Blokzijl A, Chapman G, Falk A, Dannaeus

K, Ibaˆn˜ez CF & Lendahl U (2003) Functional notch

signaling is required for BMP4-induced inhibition of

myogenic differentiation Development 130, 6089–6099

11 Blokzijl A, Dahlqvist C, Reissmann E, Falk A, Moliner

A, Lendahl U & Iba´n˜ez CF (2003) Cross-talk between

the notch and TGF-beta signaling pathways mediated

by interaction of the notch intracellular domain with

Smad3 J Cell Biol 163, 723–728

12 Sapkota G, Knockaert M, Alarco´n C, Montalvo E,

Brivanlou AH & Massague´ J (2006) Dephosphorylation

of the linker regions of Smad1 and Smad2⁄ 3 by small

C-terminal domain phosphatases has distinct outcomes

for bone morphogenetic protein and transforming

growth factor-beta pathways J Biol Chem 281, 40412–

40419

13 Knockaert M, Sapkota G, Alarco´n C, Massague´ J &

Brivanlou AH (2006) Unique players in the BMP

pathway: small C-terminal domain phosphatases

dephosphorylate Smad1 to attenuate BMP signaling Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103, 11940–11945

14 Duan X, Liang Y, Feng X & Lin X (2006) Protein serine⁄ threonine phosphatase PPM1A dephosphorylates smad1 in the bone morphogenetic protein signaling pathway J Biol Chem 281, 36526–36532

15 Chen HB, Shen J, Ip YT & Xu L (2006) Identification

of phosphatases for Smad in the BMP⁄ DPP pathway Genes Dev 20, 648–653

16 Williams RL, Hilton DJ, Pease S, Willson TA, Stewart

CL, Gearing DP, Wagner EF, Metcalf D, Nicola NA & Gough NM (1988) Myeloid leukaemia inhibitory factor maintains the developmental potential of embryonic stem cells Nature 336, 684–687

17 Niwa H, Burdon T, Chambers I & Smith A (1998) Self-renewal of pluripotent embryonic stem cells is mediated via activation of STAT3 Genes Dev 12, 2048–2060

18 Boeuf H, Hauss C, Graeve FD, Baran N & Kedinger C (1997) Leukemia inhibitory factor-dependent transcrip-tional activation in embryonic stem cells J Cell Biol

138, 1207–1217

19 Sumi T, Fujimoto Y, Nakatsuji N & Suemori H (2004) STAT3 is dispensable for maintenance of self-renewal in nonhuman primate embryonic stem cells Stem Cells 22, 861–872

20 Humphrey RK, Beattie GM, Lopez AD, Bucay N, King

CC, Firpo MT, Rose-John S & Hayek A (2004) Mainte-nance of pluripotency in human embryonic stem cells is STAT3 independent Stem Cells 22, 522–530

21 Daheron L, Opitz SL, Zaehres H, Lensch WM, Andrews PW, Itskovitz-Eldor J & Daley GQ (2004) LIF⁄ STAT3 signaling fails to maintain self-renewal of human embryonic stem cells Stem Cells 22, 770–778

22 Ying QL, Nichols J, Chambers I & Smith A (2003) BMP induction of Id proteins suppresses differentiation and sustains embryonic stem cell self-renewal in colla-boration with STAT3 Cell 115, 281–292

23 Lopez-Rovira T, Chalaux E, Massague J, Rosa JL & Ventura F (2002) Direct binding of Smad1 and Smad4

to two distinct motifs mediates bone morphogenetic protein-specific transcriptional activation of Id1 gene

J Biol Chem 277, 3176–3185

24 Chambers I, Colby D, Robertson M, Nichols J, Lee S, Tweedie S & Smith A (2003) Functional expression cloning of Nanog, a pluripotency sustaining factor in embryonic stem cells Cell 113, 643–655

25 Sekkai D, Gruel G, Herry M, Moucadel V, Constantin-escu SN, Albagli O, Tronik-Le Roux D, Vainchenker

W & Bennaceur-Griscelli A (2005) Microarray analysis

of lif⁄ stat3 transcriptional targets in embryonic stem cells Stem Cells 23, 1634–1642

26 Suzuki A, Raya A, Kawakami Y, Morita M, Matsui T, Nakashima K, Gage FH, Rodriguez-Esteban C & Izpisua Belmonte JC (2006) Nanog binds to smad1 and blocks bone morphogenetic protein-induced

differentiation of embryonic stem cells Proc Natl Acad

Sci USA 103, 10294–10299

27 Qi X, Li T, Hao J, Hu J, Wang J, Simmons H, Miura

S, Mishina Y & Zhao G (2004) BMP4 supports

self-renewal of embryonic stem cells by inhibiting

mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways Proc Natl Acad Sci

USA 101, 6027–6032

28 Yamaguchi K, Nagai S, Ninomiya-Tsuji J, Nishita M,

Tamai K, Irie K, Ueno N, Nishida E, Shibuya H &

Matsumoto K (1999) XIAP, a cellular member of the

inhibitor of apoptosis protein family, links the receptors

to TAB1-TAK1 in the bmp signaling pathway EMBO

J 18, 179–187

29 Iwasaki S, Iguchi M, Watanabe K, Hoshino R,

Tsujimoto M & Kohno M (1999) Specific activation of

the p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling

path-way and induction of neurite outgrowth in PC12 cells

by bone morphogenetic protein-2 J Biol Chem 274,

26503–26510

30 Levine AJ & Brivanlou AH (2006) GDF3, a BMP

inhi-bitor, regulates cell fate in stem cells and early embryos

Development 133, 209–216

31 Nakashima K, Yanagisawa M, Arakawa H, Kimura N,

Hisatsune T, Kawabata M, Miyazono K & Taga T

(1999) Synergistic signaling in fetal brain by

STAT3-smad1 complex bridged by p300 Science 284, 479–482

32 Nakashima K, Takizawa T, Ochiai W, Yanagisawa M,

Hisatsune T, Nakafuku M, Miyazono K, Kishimoto T,

Kageyama R & Taga T (2001) BMP2-mediated

altera-tion in the developmental pathway of fetal mouse brain

cells from neurogenesis to astrocytogenesis Proc Natl

Acad Sci USA 98, 5868–5873

33 Mekki-Dauriac S, Agius E, Kan P & Cochard P (2002)

Bone morphogenetic proteins negatively control

oligo-dendrocyte precursor specification in the chick spinal

cord Development 129, 5117–5130

34 Fukuda S, Kondo T, Takebayashi H & Taga T (2004)

Negative regulatory effect of an oligodendrocytic bHLH

factor OLIG2 on the astrocytic differentiation pathway

Cell Death Differ 11, 196–202

35 Sun Y, Nadal-Vicens M, Misono S, Lin MZ, Zubiaga

A, Hua X, Fan G & Greenberg ME (2001) Neurogenin

promotes neurogenesis and inhibits glial differentiation

by independent mechanisms Cell 104, 365–376

36 Bonaguidi MA, McGuire T, Hu M, Kan L, Samanta J

& Kessler JA (2005) Lif and bmp signaling generate

separate and discrete types of gfap-expressing cells

Development 132, 5503–5514

37 Hua H, Zhang Y, Dabernat S, Kritzik M, Dietz D,

Sterling L & Sarvetnick N (2006) BMP4 regulates

pancreatic progenitor cell expansion through Id2 J Biol

Chem 281, 13574–13580

38 Pujades C, Kamaid A, Alsina B & Giraldez F (2006)

BMP-signaling regulates the generation of hair-cells

Dev Biol 292, 55–67

39 Trousse F, Esteve P & Bovolenta P (2001) Bmp4 med-iates apoptotic cell death in the developing chick eye

J Neurosci 21, 1292–1301

40 Szeto DP & Kimelman D (2006) The regulation of mesodermal progenitor cell commitment to somitogen-esis subdivides the zebrafish body musculature into dis-tinct domains, Genes Dev 20, 1923–1932

41 James D, Levine AJ, Besser D & Hemmati-Brivanlou A (2005) Tgfbeta/activin/nodal signaling is necessary for the maintenance of pluripotency in human embryonic stem cells Development 132, 1273–1282

42 Ogawa K, Saito A, Matsui H, Suzuki H, Ohtsuka S, Shimosato D, Morishita Y, Watabe T, Niwa H & Miya-zono K (2007) Activin-nodal signaling is involved in propagation of mouse embryonic stem cells J Cell Sci

120, 55–65

43 Guan K, Nayernia K, Maier LS, Wagner S, Dressel R, Lee JH, Nolte J, Wolf F, Li M, Engel W et al (2006) Pluripotency of spermatogonial stem cells from adult mouse testis Nature 440, 1199–1203

44 Lawson KA, Dunn NR, Roelen BA, Zeinstra LM, Davis AM, Wright CV, Korving JP & Hogan BL (1999) Bmp4 is required for the generation of primor-dial germ cells in the mouse embryo Genes Dev 13, 424–436

45 Ying Y, Qi X & Zhao GQ (2001) Induction of primor-dial germ cells from murine epiblasts by synergistic action of BMP4 and BMP8B signaling pathways Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98, 7858–7862

46 Nohe A, Keating E, Underhill TM, Knaus P & Petersen

NO (2003) Effect of the distribution and clustering of the type I A BMP receptor (ALK3) with the type II BMP receptor on the activation of signalling pathways

J Cell Sci 116, 3277–3284

47 Gilboa L, Nohe A, Geissendo¨rfer T, Sebald W, Henis

YI & Knaus P (2000) Bone morphogenetic protein receptor complexes on the surface of live cells: a new oligomerization mode for serine⁄ threonine kinase recep-tors Mol Biol Cell 11, 1023–1035

48 Nohe A, Hassel S, Ehrlich M, Neubauer F, Sebald W, Henis YI & Knaus P (2002) The mode of bone morpho-genetic protein (BMP) receptor oligomerization deter-mines different BMP-2 signaling pathways J Biol Chem

277, 5330–5338

49 Ghosh-Choudhury N, Abboud SL, Mahimainathan L, Chandrasekar B & Choudhury GG (2003) Phosphati-dylinositol 3-kinase regulates bone morphogenetic protein-2 (bmp-2)-induced myocyte enhancer factor 2a-dependent transcription of bmp-2 gene in cardiomyocyte precursor cells J Biol Chem 278, 21998–22005

50 Shi W, Chang C, Nie S, Xie S, Wan M & Cao X (2007) Endofin acts as a Smad anchor for receptor activation

in bmp signaling J Cell Sci 120, 1216–1224