QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

Vol. 19, Issue 1, 274-283, January 2008

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Supplemental Materials All Versions of this Article: E07-03-0261v1 19/1/274    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Barkus, R. V. Articles by Saxton, W. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barkus, R. V. Articles by Saxton, W. M.

Identification of an Axonal Kinesin-3 Motor for Fast Anterograde Vesicle Transport that Facilitates Retrograde Transport of Neuropeptides

Rosemarie V. Barkus^*, Olga Klyachko^*, Dai Horiuchi^*, Barry J. Dickson, and William M. Saxton^*,

*Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-3700; and Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, 1030 Vienna, Austria

Submitted March 20, 2007; Revised September 25, 2007; Accepted October 29, 2007
Monitoring Editor: Adam Linstedt

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
A screen for genes required in Drosophila eye development identified an UNC-104/Kif1 related kinesin-3 microtubule motor. Analysis of mutants suggested that Drosophila Unc-104 has neuronal functions that are distinct from those of the classic anterograde axonal motor, kinesin-1. In particular, unc-104 mutations did not cause the distal paralysis and focal axonal swellings characteristic of kinesin-1 (Khc) mutations. However, like Khc mutations, unc-104 mutations caused motoneuron terminal atrophy. The distributions and transport behaviors of green fluorescent protein-tagged organelles in motor axons indicate that Unc-104 is a major contributor to the anterograde fast transport of neuropeptide-filled vesicles, that it also contributes to anterograde transport of synaptotagmin-bearing vesicles, and that it contributes little or nothing to anterograde transport of mitochondria, which are transported primarily by Khc. Remarkably, unc-104 mutations inhibited retrograde runs by neurosecretory vesicles but not by the other two organelles. This suggests that Unc-104, a member of an anterograde kinesin subfamily, contributes to an organelle-specific dynein-driven retrograde transport mechanism.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
To maintain the structural and biochemical order required for proper function, cells of higher organisms use cytoskeleton-based force-generating machinery to carry RNAs, proteins, and organelles to specific destinations. Neurons are especially dependent on such transport processes, because although most synthesis of new components occurs in the soma (cell body), often more than 99% of the cell's volume is in its axon. To support an axon, a neuron must continuously transport new cytoplasmic materials out of the cell body toward the terminal (anterograde transport) and old, unused, or endosome-associated materials back to the cell body (retrograde transport). Disruption of this cycle causes a decline in neurotransmission at the terminal, poor retrograde neurotrophic signaling, and atrophy or "dying back" of the axon (Chevalier-Larsen and Holzbaur, 2006; Duncan and Goldstein, 2006).

The general mechanistic principles of axonal transport center around cytoskeletal filaments (microtubules and F-actin) and three families of force-generating motor proteins (myosins, dyneins and kinesins). A motor links to an axonal cargo and pulls it stepwise along a filament track, using ATP as an energy source (Vale and Milligan, 2000). Long-distance transport in axons is accomplished by members of the kinesin and dynein families, which use microtubules as tracks. Composed of head-to-tail polymers of - and β-tubulin dimers, microtubules in axons are organized with their β ends (plus-ends) toward the axon terminal and their ends (minus-ends) toward the cell body (Heidemann et al., 1981). Cytoplasmic dynein, for which there seems to be just one variety of force-producing heavy chain subunit, is minus-end directed, and it is the primary motor for retrograde axonal transport. The cytoplasmic dynein heavy chain has many associated nonforce-producing subunits whose functions are not well understood. Some are regulatory subunits, and some may serve as specific adaptors to link the motor to its different retrograde cargoes (Mallik and Gross, 2004; Chevalier-Larsen and Holzbaur, 2006).

There are many different subfamilies of kinesins with members whose amino-terminal ATPase and microtubule binding "motor domain" sequences suggest that they might contribute to anterograde transport (Wickstead and Gull, 2006). Function tests in model systems and human disease genetics currently indicate that members of the kinesin-1 and kinesin-3 subfamilies are especially critical for anterograde axonal transport. Mutations in human KIF5A (a kinesin-1) and KIF1B (a kinesin-3) can cause, respectively, hereditary spastic paraplegia (Reid et al., 2002) and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (Zhao et al., 2001). Although the motor regions of kinesins-1 and -3 have similar sequences, there are differences that endow them with distinct biophysical capabilities (e.g., velocity and processivity) when tested in vitro (e.g., Tomishige et al., 2002). This and the fact that the "stalk-tail" cargo binding regions of kinesin-1 and kinesin-3 motor subunits are not conserved suggests that kinesins-1 and -3 carry different sets of anterograde cargoes at different rates. However, the identities of those cargo sets and how defects in their axonal transport relate to mechanisms of neurodegeneration are not well understood.

To gain insight into axonal transport mechanisms and more specifically into the functions of a new UNC-104/KIF1A-like kinesin-3 that we and Pack-Chung et al. (2007) have identified in Drosophila, we applied genetics, immunolocalization, time-lapse microscopy, and digital tracking to study the distributions and movements of organelles in motor axons. Tests of mutants show that Drosophila Unc-104 is critical for normal axon terminal development. It is a key anterograde motor for large neuropeptide-filled vesicles and small transport vesicles, but not for mitochondria. Comparison of the two vesicle types indicates that Unc-104–driven motion is strongly influenced by the identity but not by the size of its cargo. This suggests that organelle-specific components are more important for defining transport behavior than cytoplasmic drag. Analysis of unc-104 mutants revealed an unexpected inhibition of neurosecretory vesicle retrograde runs, but no detectable inhibition of retrograde runs by vesicles or mitochondria, suggesting that Unc-104, an anterograde microtubule motor, is required for a specific cytoplasmic dynein-mediated retrograde transport mechanism.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Fly Culture and Genetics
Flies were cultured at 25°C in a 12-h light/dark cycle on standard soft medium (0.5% agar, 7% molasses, 6% cornmeal, and 0.8% killed yeast) seeded with live yeast. Descriptions of the previously characterized mutant alleles and balancers used can be found in FlyBase (http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu/) and elsewhere (Pilling et al., 2006).

Amorphic alleles of unc-104 were isolated in a screen for mutations that disrupt photoreceptor connectivity (Newsome et al., 2000) (T. Suzuki and B. Dickson, unpublished). Hypomorphic alleles were isolated in a standard F2 lethal screen for ethyl methanesulfonate-mutagenized chromosomes (Saxton et al., 1991) that failed to complement amorphic unc-104 alleles (Supplemental Table S1).

To generate animals with fluorescently labeled organelles, meiotic recombination was used to generate third chromosomes with a neuronal Gal4 driver P{GawB}D42, which expresses Gal4 in cells of the optic lopes, the ventral ganglion and motoneurons, but not sensory neurons, and a Gal4-UAS GFP-organelle responder (Pilling et al., 2006). The responders used were as follows: 1) P{w^+mC = UAS-ANFGFP}3, which expresses a fusion protein that concentrates in large dense core vesicles (Rao et al., 2001), referred to here as atrial natriuretic factor::green fluorescent protein (ANF::GFP); 2) P{w^+mC = UAS-mitoGFP.AP}3, which is 13.1-cM distant from P{GawB}D42 and expresses a fusion protein that concentrates in the matrix of mitochondria (Pilling et al., 2006), referred to here as mitoGFP; and 3) P{w^+mC = UAS-syt.eGFP}3, which expresses a fusion protein targeted to small clear core transport vesicles (Zhang et al., 2002), referred to here as synaptotagmin (syt)::GFP. Those recombinant driver-responder chromosomes were used to construct strains with unc-104 alleles on chromosome 2 balanced by a translocation (T(2;3)CyO, TM6B Hu Tb e) that allowed recognition of unc-104/unc-104 larvae by body shape. The unc-104 alleles used were unc-104^P350, unc-10^O1.2, and unc-104^O3.1 (Supplemental Table S1).

Transgenic Unc-104-GFP Construct
A full-length Unc-104 cDNA, isolated from PgR7 (Senti et al., 2003) by digestion with Kpn1 and Xba1 was ligated into the Drosophila transformation vector pUAST, fused in-frame with a gene for enhanced GFP (S65T) downstream of a GAL4-UAS that allowed tissue-specific expression of the Unc-104::GFP fusion gene (Brand and Perrimon, 1993). The final transposable element, P{w^+mC = UAS-unc-104.GFP.RVB}, was transformed into flies by using a helper plasmid containing a transposase gene. The transgene is referred to here as unc-104::GFP.

Immunostaining
Wandering third instar larvae were dissected and fixed as described previously (Hurd and Saxton, 1996). After 20 min of fixation, larvae were washed four times with phosphate-buffered saline containing 3% Triton X-100. The primary antibodies used were mouse monoclonal anti-cysteine string protein at 1:500 (Zinsmaier et al., 1994), rabbit anti-synaptotagmin at 1:500 (Littleton et al., 1993), and rabbit anti-syntaxin at 1:500 (Hata et al., 1993). The fluorescent secondary antibodies used were affinity-purified Alexa 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse and Alexa 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit immunoglobinin G (H+L) at 1:1000 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA).

Imaging of fixed/stained tissues was done with a PerkinElmer UltraVIEW LCI Spinning Disk confocal fluorescence system on a Nikon Eclipse TE200 microscope equipped with a Nikon 40x objective, except for D in Supplemental Figure S1, which was collected with a 60x objective. Images were processed in NIH Image version 1.62b7 (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) and Adobe Photoshop 7.0 (Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA).

Segmental Nerve Ligation
To generate physical blockades of axonal transport in segmental nerves, a fine nylon fiber (Henry and Raff, 1990) was tied with an overhand knot to tightly constrict wandering third instar larvae midway between head and tail (Horiuchi et al., 2005). After 2 h, ligated larvae were pinned to a Sylgard-lined dish, submersed in Schneider's insect medium and incised along the dorsal midline, except for the immediate area of the fiber. After removal of fat body, gut, and salivary glands, larvae were fixed (Horiuchi et al., 2005). The fiber was then cut, dissection was completed, and specimens were immunostained as described above. Constrictions in individual segmental nerves varied in width, probably due to variable tissue surroundings and ligation tightness.

Live Imaging of GFP-tagged Organelle Behavior in Larval Axons
Wandering third instar larvae with GFP fusions driven by D42-Gal4 were dissected quickly (<5 min) in Schneider's medium, and the resulting preparations were laid on microscope slides with the cuticle side against the glass. After adding fresh medium and coverslip fragments as spacers, coverslips were placed over the specimens and anchored with Valap (petroleum jelly:lanolin:paraffin [1:1:1]) at the corners. Imaging was initiated at 10–15 min and terminated at 25–30 min after the start of dissection (Pilling et al., 2006).

Imaging protocols were selected that allowed the most efficient analysis of the transport behavior of each organelle class. GFP-Syt was imaged continuously with a frame collected every 0.7–0.9 s on a Nikon widefield E800 fluorescence microscope with an Orca ER charge-coupled device (CCD) camera controlled by MetaMorph software. Because of larger brighter organelles and the abundance of stationary organelles, mitoGFP in a 30–50-µm-wide region of a nerve was partially photobleached and imaged with an MRC600 scanning confocal fluorescence microscope (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA) at one frame per second (Pilling et al., 2006). ANF::GFP also produced bright organelle signals, but transport was relatively fast. To prevent streaking distortion of organelle images, a high-speed spinning disk confocal system (UltraVIEW LIC; PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences, Boston, MA) with an Orca ER CCD camera (Hamamatsu, Bridgewater, NJ) was used to collect frames at two per second after initial photobleaching of a 30–50-µm-wide section of nerve.

Tracking and Statistics
Digital tracking of organelles in time-lapse image series was done using NIH Image and a tracking protocol described previously (Pilling et al., 2006). For each of the three microscopes, a stage micrometer was used to calculate X and Y pixel dimensions, which were then used to calculate real distances between organelle positions in succeeding video frames. The elapsed time between each succeeding frame was recorded and used to calculate velocities.

Data from organelle tracking were used to define anterograde runs, retrograde runs, and pauses as described previously (Pilling et al., 2006). To determine whether the means of these transport parameters were significantly different between wild-type and mutant larvae for each type of organelle (Figure 7 and Table 1), linear contrast statistical analyses of aggregated means for each organelle were done as detailed previously (Pilling et al., 2006). The significance of differences in flux, net transport velocity (Figure 5 and Table 1), and comparisons of organelles and Unc-104::GFP run velocities (Table 2) were analyzed by F-tests to determine variance and with t tests with unequal or equal variance at 95% confidence intervals.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
A Drosophila Kinesin-3 with Essential Functions in Neurons
Using a whole eye mosaic screen for mutations that disrupt photoreceptor connectivity in the Drosophila visual system (Newsome et al., 2000), we isolated eight alleles of a gene that encode a 1671 amino-acid kinesin-3. One of four Drosophila kinesin-3 family members, phylogenetic comparisons of motor domain sequences places it in a clade that includes Caenorhabditis elegans UNC-104 and human Kif-1A, B, and C (Miki et al., 2005; Wickstead and Gull, 2006). A cDNA sequence for the gene was submitted to GenBank as dunc-104 (accession no. AF247761). The gene was subsequently renamed unc-104 by Flybase in accordance with standard Drosophila nomenclature rules (Flybase report FBrf0129389). Sequencing revealed that four of the eight unc-104 alleles isolated had nonsense mutations (Supplemental Table S1). All heteroallelic combinations of the eight original alleles tested caused similar late embryonic lethality, suggesting that all were amorphic (functionally equivalent to nulls).

To facilitate study of the functions of Drosophila Unc-104 in a mature nervous system with minimal developmental or pleiotropic defects that arise from the amorphic genotypes, we conducted an F2 lethal screen for hypomorphic (partial-loss-of-function) alleles. Two were isolated and characterized (unc-104^O1.2 and unc-104^O3.1). When combined with a nonsense allele (unc-104^P350), unc-104^O3.1 caused lethality in the larval stages such that late third instars were rare; however, unc-104^O1.2 allowed development through the third instar and into the pupal stages (Supplemental Table S1). Observation of both types of hypomorphic mutant larvae revealed sluggish, somewhat uncoordinated crawling movements, consistent with neuronal defects. However, there was no sign of the dystonic posterior paralysis (tail flipping) phenotype that is characteristic of even nonlethal hypomorphic genotypes for Drosophila Khc, which encodes the central subunit of the classic axonal transport motor kinesin-1 (Saxton et al., 1988; Yang et al., 1988; Saxton et al., 1991; Brendza et al., 1999).

To test the possibility that Unc-104 has essential functions in neurons, we determined if Gal4-UAS controlled neuron-specific expression of a GFP-tagged wild-type unc-104 cDNA transgene could prevent the lethality caused by unc-104^O1.2 or unc-104^O3.1/unc-104^P350. Microscopy of larvae in which Unc-104::GFP expression was induced by the "motoneuron driver" D42-Gal4 (Rao et al., 2001; Pilling et al., 2006) showed fluorescence in the larval brain, in segmental nerves that contain motor axons, and at motor axon terminals on bodywall muscles. Some of the fluorescence in nerves was in large immobile inclusions, perhaps representing Unc-104::GFP aggregates. The remainder was diffuse, with occasional small fluorescent particles that moved in both anterograde and retrograde directions. Their mean anterograde velocity was 1.05 ± 0.08 µm/s (SEM), consistent with previous studies of kinesin-3 motors in vivo (Zhou et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2003) and in vitro (Nangaku et al., 1994; Okada et al., 1995). Unc-104-GFP expression in unc-104^O1.2/unc-104^P350 and unc-104^O3.1/unc-104^P350 mutants showed fluorescence distributions similar to wild type and rescued mutant lethality, allowing the development of adults. The rescue was partial, however, because some animals died as pharate adults, and mature adults were behaviorally depressed. However, the marked suppression of lethality by neuronal expression of the GFP-tagged wild-type protein indicates both that the Unc-104::GFP is functional and that Unc-104 is critical in neurons. This and its identity as an anterograde kinesin-3 support the premise that Drosophila Unc-104 makes essential contributions to anterograde axonal transport.

Terminal Atrophy, but No Focal Axonal Organelle Accumulations in unc-104 Mutants
Mutations that inhibit kinesin-1 and cytoplasmic dynein, the known major axonal transport motors in Drosophila, cause motoneuron terminal atrophy and focal axonal swellings that are filled with organelles (Hurd and Saxton, 1996; Gindhart et al., 1998; Bowman et al., 1999; Martin et al., 1999; Pilling et al., 2006). The terminal atrophy is likely due to impaired trafficking of structural and trophic factors needed to build and sustain terminals. The focal organelle accumulations were originally termed organelle jams or clogs, reflecting the idea that they form because of general steric hindrance of transport caused by stalled axonal organelles.

To test for similar axonal transport phenotypes in unc-104 mutants, we compared the distribution of two proteins that associate with small transport vesicles (STVs), cysteine string protein (CSP) and synaptotagmin, in wild-type, unc-104 mutant and Khc mutant larvae, by using immunofluorescence microscopy (Figure 1 and Supplemental Figure S1). In segmental nerves of unc-104 mutants, as in wild type, staining was diffuse, finely punctate, and evenly distributed. This was in marked contrast to Khc mutant nerves, in which CSP and synaptotagmin were concentrated in the large accumulations typical of focal axonal swellings (Figure 1C and Supplemental Figure S1D). Because even nonlethal Khc mutant genotypes cause swellings (Martin et al., 1999), whereas relatively severe unc-104 lethal genotypes do not, it is unlikely that the phenotypic difference is due to differences in allele severity. This argues that kinesin-1 and Unc-104 have important functional differences in Drosophila neurons and that focal swellings may reflect specific rather than general defects in axonal organelle transport mechanisms.

View larger version (97K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Influence of unc-104 mutations on CSP distribution in larval axons. CSP, a vesicle associated protein, was immunolocalized in wild-type (A, D, and G), unc-104O1.2/unc-104P350 mutant (B, E, and H), and Khc6/Khc27 mutant (C, F, and I) third instars. (A–C) Segmental nerves. (D–F) Motor axon terminals on muscle 6/7. (G–I) Motor axon terminals on muscles 12/13. Note that unc-104 mutations did not cause CSP accumulation in the sort of focal axonal swellings that are caused by Khc mutations (short arrows in C). However, unc-104 mutations did seem to cause a reduction in terminal size that was particularly noticeable for the terminals on muscles 12/13 (G–I). Bar, 10 µm.

Unc-104 Specifically Affects the Distribution and Movement of Neuropeptide Vesicles
To test the influence of Unc-104 on specific axonal organelle transport, the expression of mito::GFP and ANF::GFP, targeted to the matrix of mitochondria and the lumens of neuropeptide-bearing large dense-core vesicles (DCVs), respectively, was driven by D42-Gal4. The genetic load associated with the driver-responder chromosome hindered growth of unc-104^O3.1/unc-104^P350 third instars, so most experiments focused on unc-104^O1.2/unc-104^P350 mutants. Larvae were fixed and immunostained with anti-syntaxin to allow imaging of axonal membranes, and then they were examined by fluorescence microscopy (Figures 2 and 3). In wild type, GFP fluorescence was intense in ventral ganglia, bright punctae were scattered along axons, and motoneuron terminals were strongly fluorescent. In unc-104 mutants, the distribution of mitochondria in ventral ganglia and axons was not distinguishable from the wild-type pattern. Mutant terminals were small, but mitochondria were clearly present. Although DCVs in unc-104 mutants were abundant in ventral ganglia, they were greatly reduced in axons and terminals. Interestingly, however, DCV fluorescence remained bright in one (occasionally two) thin 12/13 neurites in unc-104 mutants (Figure 3C). One explanation of this is that multiple neurons likely contribute to the 12/13 neuromuscular junction and that they have cell-specific variations in transport mechanisms such that terminal accumulation of DCVs in one neuron is relatively insensitive to Unc-104 inhibition.

View larger version (143K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Effects of unc-104 mutations on organelle distribution in the ventral ganglion and motor axons. Wild-type (wt) (A and B), unc-104O1.2/unc-104P350 (1.2) (C and D), and unc-104O3.1/unc-104P350 (3.1) (E and F) larvae, in which D42-GAL4 induced expression of either a DCV tag (ANF::GFP; green in A, C, and E) or a mitochondrial tag (mitoGFP; green in B, D, and F). To allow imaging of axons independent of GFP presence, neuromuscular systems were fixed and immunostained with antibodies to syntaxin (red). Motoneuron cell bodies are located in the ventral ganglion (left side of each panel) and axons are in segmental nerves (extending to the right). Bar, 10 µm.

View larger version (42K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Effects of unc-104 mutations on GFP-tagged organelle distribution in motor axon terminals. Wild-type (wt) (A and B) and unc-104O1.2/unc-104P350 mutant (1.2) (C and D) larvae with D42-GAL4–driven expression of ANF::GFP (green in A and C) or mitoGFP (green in B and D). Immunostaining with anti-syntaxin highlights axon plasma membranes (red). Portions of muscle 12/13 axon terminals in segment A4 are shown. Note in unc-104 mutants the absence of DCVs (ANF::GFP) and the aberrant terminal structure. Mitochondria remained abundant. Bar, 10 µm.

View larger version (110K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Live transport behavior of organelles in unc-104 mutant axons. Each panel, extracted from a time-lapse movie of GFP-organelles in motor axons of a larval segmental nerve, shows a kymograph representation of fluorescent organelle positions as a function of time. Anterograde movements have negative slopes, whereas retrograde movements have positive slopes. Stationary organelles appear as vertical streaks. Before each movie, the field of view was photobleached, which reduced signal from stationary organelles, allowing better contrast for organelles that subsequently moved into the bleached area. (A and B) ANF::GFP shows DCV behavior in wild-type (wt) and unc-104O1.2/unc-104P350 (1.2) axons. Note the lower abundance of anterograde DCVs and their slower movements (larger negative slopes) compared with wild type. (C and D) MitoGFP shows mitochondrial behavior. Intact time-lapse movies of organelle transport can been seen in Supplemental Movies S1–S6.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Influence of unc-104 mutations on axonal organelle flux and net transport rates. (A) Mean flux values (±SEM) for DCVs (ANF::GFP) and mitochondria (mitoGFP) were estimated by counting in one segmental nerve per larva (n = 5 larvae per genotype) the number of clearly defined organelles per unit time that entered the field of view moving in either the anterograde (charted above the origin) or retrograde (below the origin) directions. Because of the low abundance of distinct syt::GFP punctae, flux approximations were made by dividing the total number of directionally transported organelles seen anywhere in the nerve by the total time of imaging. Genotypes were wild-type (+), unc-104O1.2/unc-104P350 (1.2), and unc-104O3.1/unc-104P350 (3.1). (B) Net velocity for a single organelle is a summation of all its position changes divided by total time. Means (±SEM) were determined for five organelles in each direction from five larvae for each genotype, except for STVs in which all distinct organelles were tracked (see Table 1 for STV sample sizes). For both A and B, differences between wild-type (unshaded bars) and unc-104 mutant (shaded bars) means were assessed using F-tests for variance followed by two tailed t tests at either equal or unequal variance with 95% confidence intervals. Significant differences for a given organelle type are indicated by asterisks (p < 0.05).

View larger version (61K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6. Accumulation of axonal transport cargoes at a physical blockade. Live wild-type larvae with expression of ANF::GFP driven in motoneurons by D42-Gal4 were ligated with a fine thread for 2 h and subsequently dissected, fixed, and stained with antibodies to endogenous synaptotagmin (anti-Syt). Motoneuron cell bodies were to the left (proximal) and terminals were to the right (distal). Note that both proteins accumulated on both sides of the ligation-induced segmental nerve constriction, but although synaptotagmin seemed relatively balanced, ANF::GFP accumulated more heavily on the proximal side. Bar, 10 µm.

Unc-104 Has Specific Influences on Both Anterograde and Retrograde DCV Runs
To gain further insight into the transport functions of Unc-104, we compared run-pause parameters in wild-type and mutant motor axons. In unc-104^O1.2 and unc-104^O3.1/unc-104^P350 axons, anterograde DCVs had 41 and 44% slower forward run velocities and 30 and 70% shorter run lengths than in wild type, respectively (Figure 7 and Table 1). Thus, the identity of Unc-104 as a member of an anterograde kinesin family, and the observation that mean anterograde DCV run velocity was similar to that of Unc-104::GFP particles (Table 2) agree that Drosophila Unc-104 serves as a major motor for anterograde DCV transport. Tracking of syt::GFP and mito::GFP in unc-104^O3.1/unc-104^P350 animals was not feasible due to the scarcity and small size of late third instars of the correct genotypes, so analysis was focused on unc-104^O1.2/unc-104^P350 animals. Anterograde STV run velocity was significantly reduced, and there was a shift from time spent in anterograde runs to time spent paused. This is consistent with anterograde transport of some STVs by Unc-104 as suggested by studies of homologues in C. elegans and mouse (Hall and Hedgecock, 1991; Yonekawa et al., 1998). There was no reduction in anterograde run parameters for mitochondria; in fact, there was a slight increase in run velocity, suggesting again that mitochondrial transport is sensitive to axon physiology changes.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 7. Changes in run behaviors for different organelles in unc-104 mutant axons. Runs were defined as periods of uninterrupted organelle motion in one direction bounded by pauses or reverse runs. Means (±SEMs) are shown for run velocities (A) and run lengths (B) for DCVs, STVs, and mitochondria (Mito). Sample sizes and additional data can be found in Table 1. Wild-type (unshaded) and unc-104 mutant (shaded) values were compared using linear contrast. Significant differences are noted by an asterisk (p < 0.05). The genotypes tested were wild-type (+), unc-104O1.2/unc-104P350 (1.2), and unc-104O3.1/unc-104P350 (3.1).

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
To gain insight into mechanisms of axonal transport, we studied the consequences of inhibition of a kinesin-3 in Drosophila. The founder of the kinesin-3 subfamily, UNC-104, was discovered as a C. elegans protein required for coordinated crawling behavior (Otsuka et al., 1991). Subsequent studies of C. elegans UNC-104, mammalian Kif1A, B, and other kinesin-3 family members have revealed that different kinesin-3 motors, which move relatively fast toward microtubule plus-ends, can transport a variety of different cargoes, including endosomes, mitochondria, and various vesicles (Hall and Hedgecock, 1991; Nangaku et al., 1994; Okada et al., 1995; Wedlich-Soldner et al., 2002; Zahn et al., 2004). Our results indicate that Drosophila Unc-104 can carry at least two anterograde vesicle types in motor axons, ANF neuropeptide DCVs and synaptotagmin STVs. Unc-104 may also transport other types of organelles, but we found no evidence for transport of axonal mitochondria.

It is known that axonal transport involves the energetic motion of individual organelles, each pulled along cytoskeletal filaments by motor proteins (Chevalier-Larsen and Holzbaur, 2006). The time-lapse analysis reported here emphasizes how distinct the transport behaviors of different organelles can be, and it raises questions about what the mechanistic underpinnings of those differences are. One possibility is that velocity varies inversely with organelle size (Allen et al., 1982), implying that cytoplasmic resistance to movement (viscous drag) is a key determinant of transport behavior and thus of cargo distribution dynamics. Mitochondria in Drosophila larval axons range widely in length, up to several micrometers, and they have an average diameter of 150 nm (Hurd and Saxton, 1996; Pilling et al., 2006). DCVs are mostly spherical with diameters of about 100 nm (Renden et al., 2001). Mean DCV run velocity and length were, respectively, 4-fold and 20-fold greater than those of mitochondria, consistent with an inverse size–velocity relationship. However, although DCV diameter is two- to three-fold greater than that of STVs (30 nm) (Hurd and Saxton, 1996; Renden et al., 2001), means for DCV run velocity and length were, respectively, 1.5- and 4-fold greater than those of STVs. Furthermore, it was previously reported that run velocities for mitochondria in larval motor axons were independent of mitochondria lengths (Pilling et al., 2006). These observations argue that transport behavior is determined mainly by organelle identity and organelle-specific differences in transport mechanisms, rather than by differences in size-dependent viscous drag.

One likely source of transport mechanism differences is the intrinsic mechanochemical capabilities of different motors. The results presented here indicate that many anterograde DCVs in Drosophila motor axons use Unc-104 (kinesin-3). Previous work in the same system showed that anterograde mitochondria use Khc (kinesin-1). DCV runs have higher velocity and longer anterograde runs than mitochondria, consistent with in vitro tests showing that dimeric Unc-104 constructs move with higher velocity and processivity than dimeric Khc constructs (Tomishige et al., 2002). This sort of straightforward mechanochemical difference, however, fails to explain why synaptotagmin-tagged STVs, which also use Unc-104, have slower, shorter runs than DCVs. Furthermore, retrograde run velocities and lengths that we measured for the three organelle types were quite different, despite the fact that cytoplasmic dynein heavy chain (Dhc64C) is the only known fast retrograde microtubule motor available in Drosophila (Walker et al., 1990; Rasmusson et al., 1994; Goldstein and Gunawardena, 2000). Thus, although differences in the mechanochemical properties of motors are important to differential organelle transport behavior, it seems clear that motor performance can be influenced by cargo identity.

Cargo-specific factors that might alter the output of a motor include posttranslational motor modification, motor-cargo linkage proteins, and the presence of other motors on the same organelle (Schnapp, 2003; Mallik and Gross, 2004). Kinesin-3s are reported to be monomeric in vitro (Okada et al., 1995), and individual monomers move slowly on microtubules. However, artificially induced dimerization allows faster more processive motion, supporting the hypothesis that clustering of motors on an organelle may be an important determinant of transport behavior (Okada and Hirokawa, 1999; Tomishige et al., 2002). Because Unc-104 may link directly to vesicle membranes via an FH lipid anchor domain, a variation in clustering controlled by lipid raft dynamics could produce variation in velocity and processivity (Klopfenstein et al., 2002; Klopfenstein and Vale, 2004). In addition, some cargoes are known to use multiple types of anterograde motors. Recent studies have shown that two different kinesins with distinct velocities, when active on the same dendritic cargo, generate motion at an intermediate velocity (Pan et al., 2006). Thus, the slower velocities of the STVs reported here might reflect mixed use of fast Unc-104 and slower Khc, whereas faster DCV velocities could reflect clusters of Unc-104 alone.

Our organelle tracking results suggest a specific positive influence of anterograde Unc-104 on retrograde DCV run velocity and length. A previous study of mitochondrial transport in Drosophila axons showed that kineisn-1 is critical for the dynein-driven retrograde flux of mitochondria (Pilling et al., 2006). Although that sort of positive influence of an opposing motor might reflect a direct physical interaction between kinesin-1 and the dynein complex (Ligon et al., 2004), it could also reflect simple logistical dependence. First, for normal numbers of mitochondria to move retrograde, normal numbers must be transported anterograde. Because kineisn-1 is the anterograde motor, Khc mutations result in low numbers of mitochondria in distal axons (Pilling et al., 2006). Second, dynein itself must be transported to the distal axon, before it can function in retrograde transport, and kinesin-1 is likely responsible for some of that anterograde dynein movement (Brendza et al., 2002; Lenz et al., 2006; Pilling et al., 2006). In contrast, the retrograde DCV run velocity and length decreases we observed in unc-104 mutant axons were not general, i.e., for STVs or mitochondria, statistically significant decreases in retrograde run velocity or length were not seen. This suggests that Unc-104 has an organelle-specific positive influence on the function of DCV-bound dynein.

How could Unc-104 contribute to DCV retrograde transport? First, it might be responsible for delivering DCV-specific dynein regulatory factors into the axon that enhance retrograde run velocity and length. This would require no specific association of Unc-104 with retrograde organelles. However, the fact that retrograde movement of Unc-104::GFP has been observed in axons of C. elegans (Zhou et al., 2001) and Drosophila (this report), along with a report that C. elegans UNC-104 is a retrograde cargo of dynein (Koushika et al., 2004) suggest more direct possibilities. First, DCV-specific motor docking complexes might juxtapose anterograde and retrograde motors such that Unc-104 itself acts as an allosteric activator for dynein. Second, Unc-104 on DCVs might facilitate their retrograde transport biophysically, for example, intermittently generating reverse strain and motion that helps dynein-DCV complexes get past steric barriers in the axon.

It is apparent that neurons use a diverse array of microtubule-based transport mechanisms to support long axons. Each type of organelle, RNP, and protein complex should have an ideal distribution and replacement rate for maintaining proper axon physiology and function. Thus, although it seems that only a few basic force-generating motors are used, diversity in their transport output via cargo-specific motor-motor influences and other regulatory schemes is likely important for optimizing nervous system function (Wong et al., 2002). Because motor proteins have complex effects on multiple processes in neurons and other cells, identifying cargo-specific motor control factors will be important, both for understanding the basic mechanisms of cytoplasmic organization and for providing new potential targets for drugs that can slow the progress of axonal transport-related neurodegenerative diseases.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
We thank Joe Duffy for advice and reagents, Aaron Pilling and Curt Lively for help with statistics, James Powers for microscope development, and Daniel S. Saxton for meiotic recombination mapping of P{w^+mC = UAS-mitoGFP.AP}3 and P{GawB}D42. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health GM-46295 (to W.M.S.), Boehringer Ingelheim (to B.J.D.), and predoctoral fellowships from the American Heart Association, Midwest Affiliate (to R.V.B. and D.H.).

	Footnotes

 
This article was published online ahead of print in MBC in Press (http://www.molbiolcell.org/cgi/doi/10.1091/mbc.E07-03-0261) on November 7, 2007.

Present address: Department of MCD Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

Address correspondence to: William M. Saxton (saxton{at}biology.ucsc.edu).

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Allen, R. D., Metuzals, J., Tasaki, I., Brady, S. T., and Gilbert, S. P. (1982). Fast axonal transport in squid giant axon. Science 218, 1127–1129.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Bowman, A. B., Patel-King, R. S., Benashski, S. E., McCaffery, J. M., Goldstein, L. S., and King, S. M. (1999). Drosophila roadblock and Chlamydomonas LC 7, a conserved family of dynein-associated proteins involved in axonal transport, flagellar motility, and mitosis. J. Cell Biol 146, 165–180.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Brand, A. H., and Perrimon, N. (1993). Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development 118, 401–415.[Abstract]

Brendza, K. M., Rose, D. J., Gilbert, S. P., and Saxton, W. M. (1999). Lethal kinesin mutations reveal amino acids important for ATPase activation and structural coupling. J. Biol. Chem 274, 31506–31514.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Brendza, R. P., Serbus, L. R., Saxton, W. M., and Duffy, J. B. (2002). Posterior localization of dynein and dorsal-ventral axis formation depend on kinesin in Drosophila oocytes. Curr. Biol 12, 1541–1545.[CrossRef][Medline]

Chada, S. R., and Hollenbeck, P. J. (2004). Nerve growth factor signaling regulates motility and docking of axonal mitochondria. Curr. Biol 14, 1272–1276.[CrossRef][Medline]

Chevalier-Larsen, E., and Holzbaur, E. L. (2006). Axonal transport and neurodegenerative disease. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1762, 1094–1108.[Medline]

Duncan, J. E., and Goldstein, L. S. (2006). The genetics of axonal transport and axonal transport disorders. PLoS Genet 2, e124.[CrossRef][Medline]

Gindhart, J. G., Jr, Desai, C. J., Beushausen, S., Zinn, K., and Goldstein, L. S. (1998). Kinesin light chains are essential for axonal transport in Drosophila. J. Cell Biol 141, 443–454.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Goldstein, L. S., and Gunawardena, S. (2000). Flying through the Drosophila cytoskeletal genome. J. Cell Biol 150, F63–F68.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hall, D. H., and Hedgecock, E. M. (1991). Kinesin-related gene unc-104 is required for axonal transport of synaptic vesicles in C. elegans. Cell 65, 837–847.[CrossRef][Medline]

Hata, Y., Slaughter, C. A., and Sudhof, T. C. (1993). Synaptic vesicle fusion complex contains unc-18 homologue bound to syntaxin. Nature 366, 347–351.[CrossRef][Medline]

Heidemann, S. R., Landers, J. M., and Hamborg, M. A. (1981). Polarity orientation of axonal microtubules. J. Cell Biol 91, 661–665.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Henry, J. J., and Raff, R. A. (1990). Evolutionary change in the process of dorsoventral axis determination in the direct developing sea urchin, Heliocidaris erythrogramma. Dev. Biol 141, 55–69.[CrossRef][Medline]

Hollenbeck, P. J., and Saxton, W. M. (2005). The axonal transport of mitochondria. J. Cell Sci 118, 5411–5419.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Horiuchi, D., Barkus, R. V., Pilling, A. D., Gassman, A., and Saxton, W. M. (2005). APLIP1, a kinesin binding JIP-1/JNK scaffold protein, influences the axonal transport of both vesicles and mitochondria in Drosophila. Curr. Biol 15, 2137–2141.[CrossRef][Medline]

Hurd, D. D., and Saxton, W. M. (1996). Kinesin mutations cause motor neuron disease phenotypes by disrupting fast axonal transport in Drosophila. Genetics 144, 1075–1085.[Abstract]

Jia, X. X., Gorczyca, M., and Budnik, V. (1993). Ultrastructure of neuromuscular junctions in Drosophila: comparison of wild type and mutants with increased excitability. J. Neurobiol 24, 1025–1044.[CrossRef][Medline]

Klopfenstein, D. R., Tomishige, M., Stuurman, N., and Vale, R. D. (2002). Role of phosphatidylinositol(4,5)bisphosphate organization in membrane transport by the Unc104 kinesin motor. Cell 109, 347–358.[CrossRef][Medline]

Klopfenstein, D. R., and Vale, R. D. (2004). The lipid binding pleckstrin homology domain in UNC-104 kinesin is necessary for synaptic vesicle transport in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol. Biol. Cell 15, 3729–3739.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Koushika, S. P., Schaefer, A. M., Vincent, R., Willis, J. H., Bowerman, B., and Nonet, M. L. (2004). Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans cytoplasmic dynein components reveal specificity of neuronal retrograde cargo. J. Neurosci 24, 3907–3916.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lee, J. R., Shin, H., Ko, J., Choi, J., Lee, H., and Kim, E. (2003). Characterization of the movement of the kinesin motor KIF1A in living cultured neurons. J. Biol. Chem 278, 2624–2629.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lenz, J. H., Schuchardt, I., Straube, A., and Steinberg, G. (2006). A dynein loading zone for retrograde endosome motility at microtubule plus-ends. EMBO J 25, 2275–2286.[CrossRef][Medline]

Ligon, L. A., Tokito, M., Finklestein, J. M., Grossman, F. E., and Holzbaur, E. L. (2004). A direct interaction between cytoplasmic dynein and kinesin I may coordinate motor activity. J. Biol. Chem 279, 19201–19208.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Littleton, J. T., Bellen, H. J., and Perin, M. S. (1993). Expression of synaptotagmin in Drosophila reveals transport and localization of synaptic vesicles to the synapse. Development 118, 1077–1088.[Abstract]

Mallik, R., and Gross, S. P. (2004). Molecular motors: strategies to get along. Curr. Biol 14, R971–R982.[CrossRef][Medline]

Martin, M., Iyadurai, S. J., Gassman, A., Gindhart, J. G., Jr, Hays, T. S., and Saxton, W. M. (1999). Cytoplasmic dynein, the dynactin complex, and kinesin are interdependent and essential for fast axonal transport. Mol. Biol. Cell 10, 3717–3728.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Miki, H., Okada, Y., and Hirokawa, N. (2005). Analysis of the kinesin superfamily: insights into structure and function. Trends Cell Biol 15, 467–476.[CrossRef][Medline]

Nangaku, M., Sato-Yoshitake, R., Okada, Y., Noda, Y., Takemura, R., Yamazaki, H., and Hirokawa, N. (1994). KIF1B, a novel microtubule plus end-directed monomeric motor protein for transport of mitochondria. Cell 79, 1209–1220.[CrossRef][Medline]

Newsome, T. P., Asling, B., and Dickson, B. J. (2000). Analysis of Drosophila photoreceptor axon guidance in eye-specific mosaics. Development 127, 851–860.[Abstract]

Okada, Y., and Hirokawa, N. (1999). A processive single-headed motor: kinesin superfamily protein KIF1A. Science 283, 1152–1157.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Okada, Y., Yamazaki, H., Sekine-Aizawa, Y., and Hirokawa, N. (1995). The neuron-specific kinesin superfamily protein KIF1A is a unique monomeric motor for anterograde axonal transport of synaptic vesicle precursors. Cell 81, 769–780.[CrossRef][Medline]

Otsuka, A. J., Jeyaprakash, A., Garcia-Anoveros, J., Tang, L. Z., Fisk, G., Hartshorne, T., Franco, R., and Born, T. (1991). The C. elegans unc-104 gene encodes a putative kinesin heavy chain-like protein. Neuron 6, 113–122.[CrossRef][Medline]

Pack-Chung, E., Kurshan, P. T., Dickman, D. K., and Schwarz, T. L. (2007). A Drosophila kinesin required for synaptic bouton formation and synaptic vesicle transport. Nat. Neurosci 10, 980–989.[CrossRef][Medline]

Pan, X., Ou, G., Civelekoglu-Scholey, G., Blacque, O. E., Endres, N. F., Tao, L., Mogilner, A., Leroux, M. R., Vale, R. D., and Scholey, J. M. (2006). Mechanism of transport of IFT particles in C. elegans cilia by the concerted action of kinesin-II and OSM-3 motors. J. Cell Biol 174, 1035–1045.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Pilling, A. D., Horiuchi, D., Lively, C. M., and Saxton, W. M. (2006). Kinesin-1 and Dynein are the primary motors for fast transport of mitochondria in Drosophila motor axons. Mol. Biol. Cell 17, 2057–2068.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Rao, S., Lang, C., Levitan, E. S., and Deitcher, D. L. (2001). Visualization of neuropeptide expression, transport, and exocytosis in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Neurobiol 49, 159–172.[CrossRef][Medline]

Rasmusson, K., Serr, M., Gepner, J., Gibbons, I., and Hays, T. S. (1994). A family of dynein genes in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Biol. Cell 5, 45–55.[Abstract]

Reid, E. et al. (2002). A kinesin heavy chain (KIF5A) mutation in hereditary spastic paraplegia (SPG10). Am. J Hum. Genet 71, 1189–1194.[CrossRef][Medline]

Renden, R., Berwin, B., Davis, W., Ann, K., Chin, C. T., Kreber, R., Ganetzky, B., Martin, T. F., and Broadie, K. (2001). Drosophila CAPS is an essential gene that regulates dense-core vesicle release and synaptic vesicle fusion. Neuron 31, 421–437.[CrossRef][Medline]

Saxton, W. M., Hicks, J., Goldstein, L. S., and Raff, E. C. (1991). Kinesin heavy chain is essential for viability and neuromuscular functions in Drosophila, but mutants show no defects in mitosis. Cell 64, 1093–1102.[CrossRef][Medline]

Saxton, W. M., Porter, M. E., Cohn, S. A., Scholey, J. M., Raff, E. C., and McIntosh, J. R. (1988). Drosophila kinesin: characterization of microtubule motility and ATPase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85, 1109–1113.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Schnapp, B. J. (2003). Trafficking of signaling modules by kinesin motors. J. Cell Sci 116, 2125–2135.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Senti, K. A., Usui, T., Boucke, K., Greber, U., Uemura, T., and Dickson, B. J. (2003). Flamingo regulates R8 axon-axon and axon-target interactions in the Drosophila visual system. Curr. Biol 13, 828–832.[CrossRef][Medline]

Tomishige, M., Klopfenstein, D. R., and Vale, R. D. (2002). Conversion of Unc104/KIF1A kinesin into a processive motor after dimerization. Science 297, 2263–2267.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Vale, R. D., and Milligan, R. A. (2000). The way things move: looking under the hood of molecular motor proteins. Science 288, 88–95.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Walker, R. A., Salmon, E. D., and Endow, S. A. (1990). The Drosophila claret segregation protein is a minus-end directed motor molecule. Nature 347, 780–782.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wedlich-Soldner, R., Straube, A., Friedrich, M. W., and Steinberg, G. (2002). A balance of KIF1A-like kinesin and dynein organizes early endosomes in the fungus Ustilago maydis. EMBO J 21, 2946–2957.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wickstead, B., and Gull, K. (2006). A "holistic" kinesin phylogeny reveals new kinesin families and predicts protein functions. Mol. Biol. Cell 17, 1734–1743.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wong, R. W., Setou, M., Teng, J., Takei, Y., and Hirokawa, N. (2002). Overexpression of motor protein KIF17 enhances spatial and working memory in transgenic mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 14500–14505.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Yang, J. T., Saxton, W. M., and Goldstein, L. S. (1988). Isolation and characterization of the gene encoding the heavy chain of Drosophila kinesin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85, 1864–1868.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Yonekawa, Y., Harada, A., Okada, Y., Funakoshi, T., Kanai, Y., Takei, Y., Terada, S., Noda, T., and Hirokawa, N. (1998). Defect in synaptic vesicle precursor transport and neuronal cell death in KIF1A motor protein-deficient mice. J. Cell Biol 141, 431–441.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Zahn, T. R., Angleson, J. K., MacMorris, M. A., Domke, E., Hutton, J. F., Schwartz, C., and Hutton, J. C. (2004). Dense core vesicle dynamics in Caenorhabditis elegans neurons and the role of kinesin UNC-104. Traffic 5, 544–559.[CrossRef][Medline]

Zhang, Y. Q., Rodesch, C. K., and Broadie, K. (2002). Living synaptic vesicle marker: synaptotagmin-GFP. Genesis 34, 142–145.[CrossRef][Medline]

Zhao, C. et al. (2001). Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 2A caused by mutation in a microtubule motor KIF1Bbeta. Cell 105, 587–597.[CrossRef][Medline]

Zhou, H. M., Brust-Mascher, I., and Scholey, J. M. (2001). Direct visualization of the movement of the monomeric axonal transport motor UNC-104 along neuronal processes in living Caenorhabditis elegans. J. Neurosci 21, 3749–3755.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Zinsmaier, K. E., Eberle, K. K., Buchner, E., Walter, N., and Benzer, S. (1994). Paralysis and early death in cysteine string protein mutants of Drosophila. Science 263, 977–980.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Qian Cai and Z.-H. Sheng Molecular Motors and Synaptic Assembly Neuroscientist, February 1, 2009; 15(1): 78 - 89. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Toda, H. Mochizuki, R. Flores III, R. Josowitz, T. B. Krasieva, V. J. LaMorte, E. Suzuki, J. G. Gindhart, K. Furukubo-Tokunaga, and T. Tomoda UNC-51/ATG1 kinase regulates axonal transport by mediating motor-cargo assembly Genes & Dev., December 1, 2008; 22(23): 3292 - 3307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. K. de Jong, J. Vinet, V. S. Stanulovic, M. Meijer, E. Wesseling, K. Sjollema, H. W. G. M. Boddeke, and K. Biber Expression, transport, and axonal sorting of neuronal CCL21 in large dense-core vesicles FASEB J, December 1, 2008; 22(12): 4136 - 4145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Supplemental Materials All Versions of this Article: E07-03-0261v1 19/1/274    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Barkus, R. V. Articles by Saxton, W. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barkus, R. V. Articles by Saxton, W. M.