The
sli-1 locus was originally defined by mutations
that suppress partially defective LET-23, a
C. elegans
homologue of EGF-receptor subfamily tyrosine kinases (
Jongeward
et al., 1995 
). The overall sequence of SLI-1 resembles that
of the mammalian proto-oncoprotein c-Cbl and related proteins (Cbl-b
and Cbl-3). In this study, we have found the following: (1) mutations
in SLI-1 suppress rf mutations in SEM-5 but not LET-60 RAS, which are
mutations that likely interfere with exchange factor interaction; (2)
mutations in SLI-1 do not bypass the requirement for SEM-5, and a
sem-5 null allele is not suppressed by
sli-1; (3)
the SLI-1 N-terminal region and RING finger domain is sufficient to
confer partial wild-type SLI-1 activity in the vulva; (4) the conserved
N-terminal region and RING finger domain in c-Cbl can substitute for
those of SLI-1 such that a chimeric protein can negatively regulate
vulval differentiation; and (5) the ubiquitin ligase domain of SLI-1 is
not absolutely required for negative regulation by SLI-1.
Our genetic analyses led us to believe that SLI-1 inhibits signaling
between LET-23 and RAS for the following reasons. The reduced activity
of SLI-1 can increase vulval signaling in a
sem-5(rf)
background:
sli-1, the reference allele, strongly suppresses
the vulvaless phenotype of non-null
sem-5 rf alleles
(
Jongeward et al., 1995 
; this study). However, we also have
shown that
sli-1 does not suppress a
sem-5 null
allele. Thus, SEM-5 activity is essential for RTK-mediated vulval
signaling with or without the presence of wild-type SLI-1. We conclude
that SLI-1 is a negative regulator of SEM-5-dependent signaling after
LET-23 activation. In contrast, severe reduction of LET-60 Ras activity
is not compensated for by the absence of SLI-1. We thus infer that
SLI-1 affects vulval signaling upstream of LET-60 Ras. Furthermore, the
Muv phenotype of
sli-1 gap-1 double-mutant animals indicates
that SLI-1 and GAP-1 define, at least partly, independent pathways.
Recently, another GAP gene,
gap-2, has been identified in
C. elegans (
Hayashizaki et al., 1998 
); however,
mutations of
gap-2 do not suppress the vulvaless phenotype
of
let-23 mutations (
Hayashizaki et al., 1998 
);
(C. Chang, unpublished observations).
gap-1 and
gap-2 are the only RasGAPs found in
C. elegans by
genome-wide blast search.
Results from our SLI-1/c-Cbl chimeric construct indicate that the
N-terminal region and RING finger domains of SLI-1 and c-Cbl are
functionally conserved with respect to vulval signaling. Our
structure–function studies show that the conserved N-terminal region
and RING finger domain of SLI-1 are necessary and almost sufficient for
negative regulatory activity in LET-23-mediated signal transduction.
That the N-terminal region and RING finger domain may have a conserved
regulatory function in RTK signaling is supported by two lines of
evidence from elsewhere. First, identification of a
Drosophila c-
cbl homologue
(
Drosophila-Cbl; or D
-cbl) revealed that the
D-Cbl product shares the conserved N-terminal domain with
c-Cbl and SLI-1 (
Hime et al., 1997 
;
Meisner et
al., 1997 
). As in the alignment of SLI-1 and c-Cbl, the sequence
similarity of D-Cbl begins after a stretch of divergent N-terminal
residues that are different from both c-Cbl and SLI-1. However, unlike
SLI-1 and c-Cbl, the D-Cbl sequence ends shortly C-terminal to the RING
finger motif and contains no polyproline motifs. As expected from the
lack of poly-proline motifs, D-Cbl does not bind Drk, the
Drosophila homologue of SEM-5/Grb2 adaptor (
Hime et
al., 1997 
;
Meisner et al., 1997 
). Furthermore, both
reports show that D-Cbl associates with the
Drosophila EGFR
in an activation-dependent manner. Finally,
Meisner et al.
(1997) 
show that the expression of D-cbl under the
sevenless
enhancer in
Drosophila negatively regulates R7 photoreceptor
development. These results suggest that the conserved N-terminal
domains of SLI-1 and D-Cbl play analogous roles and that these domains
are sufficient for the negative regulation of the LET-23 and
Drosophila sevenless pathways. Second, it was
previously shown that introduction of a hypomorphic Gly-to-Glu missense
mutation found in SLI-1′s N-terminal domain (
Yoon et al.,
1995 
) can abolish c-Cbl binding to ZAP-70 and EGFR and can ablate the
transforming function of v-Cbl (
Lupher et al., 1996 
;
Thien
and Langdon, 1997 
). Thus, identical mutations in a conserved residue in
the N-terminal domains disrupts function in both SLI-1 and c-Cbl,
suggesting structural and functional conservation.
It is unclear why the full-length c-Cbl construct does not have
SLI-1(+) function in our assays despite the fact that the conserved
N-terminal domain of c-Cbl can functionally replace the corresponding
domain in SLI-1 in a chimeric construct. Several explanations are
possible. One reason may be that the size of the C-terminal domain of
c-Cbl prevents sterically an effective association with the cytoplasmic
portion of the LET-23 protein; the C-terminal domain of c-Cbl is three
times the mass of that of SLI-1. Or, the nematode translational
machinery does not properly recognize the initiator methionine of
c-Cbl, therefore preventing effective expression. A third possibility
is that the highly divergent stretch of residues N-terminal to the
conserved domains could serve important species–specific functions.
The C-terminal polyproline motifs, although not essential for SLI-1
function, are necessary for the full wild-type negative regulatory
activity; the SLI-1:N+RING finger protein is significantly less
effective than the full-length SLI-1 (39% Vul for the SLI-1:N+RING
finger protein versus 74% Vul for full-length SLI-1; Figure B; p
= 0.0002). This effect may simply be caused by a reduction in protein
stability due to early truncation. However, we have found that the
polyproline-rich C-terminus of SLI-1 can interact with SEM-5 in a yeast
2 hybrid assay (this study;
Walhout et al., 2000 
). This
raises another possibility for the function of the C-terminal
polyproline motifs: SEM-5, or a similar adaptor, may bind to SLI-1 and
increase the efficacy of SLI-1 localization to the RTK complex, due to
the binding of the adaptor to the receptor pTyr sites. In mammalian
cells, the C-terminal polyproline domains of c-Cbl have been shown to
bind adaptors such as Grb2 and Nck via PPII helix-SH3 interactions
(
Rivero-Lezcano et al., 1994 
;
Meisner and Czech, 1995 
;
Donovan et al., 1996 
;
Clements et al., 1999 
).
Furthermore, it has been shown that Grb2 can mediate an indirect
association between c-Cbl and EGFR (
Meisner and Czech, 1995 
). In a
similar manner, the C-terminal polyproline domains of SLI-1 may bind to
SH3 domains of adaptor proteins, which in turn enhance the localization
of the N-terminal domain of SLI-1 to the activated LET-23
receptor. In addition, it is also possible that the polyproline
domains of SLI-1 may compete with the polyproline domains of Sos in
binding SEM-5, thereby enhancing the inhibition of the LET-23 RTK
pathway by SLI-1.
The RING finger domain of c-Cbl has been shown recently to enhance
ubiquitination of active RTKs by acting as an E3 ubiquitin–protein
ligase (
Levkowitz et al., 1998 
;
Joazeiro et al.,
1999 
;
Levkowitz et al., 1999 
). Thus, the effects of the loss
of
sli-1 activity might be explained by the failure of the
LET-23 RTK to be down-regulated by a ubiquitination-dependent
degradation pathway. However, we find that the RING finger domain of
SLI-1 is partially dispensable: an SLI-1 variant lacking its RING
finger domain retains a significant amount of biological activity.
Thus, the ubiquitin–ligase activity of SLI-1/c-Cbl is unlikely to be
the sole activity of SLI-1. This conclusion is strengthened by other
findings. It might be expected that if the sole function of SLI-1 was
to target-activated receptor for degradation so that (1) there might be
more LET-23 observable in a
sli-1(lf) background, and (2)
that over expression of LET-23 might mimic
sli-1(lf).
Neither of these effects has been observed (Table ).
In summary, we find that SLI-1 inhibits LET-60 RAS activation by
LET-23. We suggest that SLI-1 interacts with the LET-23 signaling
complex via at least two domains. One of these domains, the
proline-rich C-terminal portion, is necessary for the wild-type level
of activity of SLI-1 in the context of a full-length protein; its role
is likely to interact with an SH3 domain-containing protein. SEM-5 is a
candidate due to the interaction between SLI-1 and SEM-5 that we
observed in our yeast two-hybrid assays. Since the C-terminal
proline-rich domain alone is not sufficient to inhibit signaling, we
infer that SLI-1 does not simply titrate SEM-5 from the RTK/Ras
pathway. In addition, an SLI-1 protein lacking this proline-rich
C-terminal portion retains inhibitory function on signaling. Thus, the
remaining N terminal and RING finger domains must be able to interact
with some of the components of the signaling complex directly by a
different mechanism. In mammalian cell lines, the conserved N-terminal
domain of c-Cbl associates directly with the autophosphorylated
C-terminal region of the EGFR (
Bowtell and Langdon, 1995 
;
Galisteo
et al., 1995 
;
Lupher et al., 1997 
). The
N-terminal domain also has been shown to associate with the non-RTK
ZAP-70 in a phosphorylation-dependent manner in T cells (
Lupher
et al., 1996 
). In both cases, the association requires the
N-terminal divergent SH2 domain and not the C-terminal polyproline
motifs. We explored the possibility that SLI-1 may exert its inhibitory
effect by direct or indirect binding to specific pTyr sites in LET-23.
By analyzing the systematically mutagenized
let-23
constructs containing substitutions in the carboxyl-terminal tyrosine
residues, we have identified an inhibitory tyrosine residue that can
overcome the negative regulation by
sli-1 when it is
mutated. Our current models for
sli-1 functions propose two
roles (Figure ). The major role of
sli-1 might be to attenuate signaling after activation has
occurred. On induction, SLI-1 is recruited into the receptor-signaling
complex by itself or an adaptor protein, and negative regulation ensues
by some other means, possibly by preventing the association and
activation of downstream effectors such as the SEM-5 adaptor and/or
LET-341 SOS-1, via catalyzing the ubiquitination of the receptor, thus
targeting it for degradation. The minor role of
sli-1 might
be to regulate the basal activity of signaling in a quiescent state by
competing with LET-341 SOS-1 for the binding of SEM-5, thereby
decreasing the chance that the spontaneously activated receptor
recruits the SOS-1-bound SEM-5 in the absence of ligand. Other models
are possible, since we cannot rule out the possible existence of
uncharacterized catalytic domains in SLI-1.