In this study, we have identified the gene
scw1+ in a genetic screen for potential regulators and effectors of the SIN pathway in
S. pombe. An
scw1 deletion mutation can suppress all of the mutations in the SIN pathway and shows a cell separation phenotype on its own. The suppression of the SIN seems to be specific, since the
scw1Δ mutation does not suppress mutations in other cytokinesis genes, such as those required for actomyosin ring formation. How, then, does
scw1 loss of function suppress SIN mutations? First,
scw1Δ does not seem to bypass the SIN pathway, because
scw1Δ does not rescue the strongest SIN mutations, such as
sid4-
A1 or
sid1-
125, at the highest restrictive temperature. In addition, the
scw1Δ mutation is unable to suppress
sid2-
250 spg1-
106 double mutants at 36°C, whereas it can suppress either single mutant at 36°C (data not shown). Together, these results indicate that
scw1Δ cannot suppress a total loss of function in the SIN pathway. This suggests that
scw1Δ either acts to enhance weak SIN signaling or removes an inhibitor downstream of the SIN. To study this, we examined
cdc11-
123 mutants, which have defects in localizing SIN components and activating Sid2p kinase activity. The
scw1Δ mutation was unable to rescue the
cdc11-
123 defects in localization of SIN components or activation of Sid2p kinase, suggesting that
scw1Δ does not directly enhance signaling through the SIN. In fact,
scw1Δ single mutants had reduced Sid2p kinase activity. The reason for this is unclear. However, because the SIN seems to be down regulated once the septum has formed, the persistent presence of septa in
scw1Δ cells could cause down regulation of Sid2p activity. Alternatively, increased septum-forming activity in
scw1Δ mutants could inhibit the SIN through a feedback mechanism. Further study will be required to test these possibilities. Interestingly, SIN suppressors such as
cdc16-
116 (
15) and
par1/pbp1 (
22,
25,
48), which are thought to suppress by enhancing signaling through the SIN, do not suppress
cdc11-
123, perhaps because the Cdc11-123p mutant protein does not localize properly to the SPB (
24). Thus, the ability of
scw1Δ to suppress
cdc11-
123 is consistent with a model in which it does not suppress by enhancing signaling through the SIN. Together, these results suggest that Scw1p may function as an inhibitor of septum formation, such that its loss of function allows weak SIN signaling to promote septum formation.
Consistent with this model are studies published during the course of this work showing that the
scw1 mutant is resistant to cell wall-degrading enzymes, whereas SIN mutants are sensitive (
23). The authors also found that
scw1Δ rescued SIN mutants, and they proposed that it did so by restoring cell wall synthesis at the septum. Consistent with this model, we have also observed that
scw1Δ mutants are resistant to Zymolyase treatment (data not shown), and in addition, we found that the
scw1Δ mutation restored the septum synthesis defects of the
cps1-
191 1,3-β-glucan synthase mutant. 1,3-β-Glucan is the major component of the
S. pombe division septum and cell wall, and previous studies have suggested that Cps1p may be a target of the SIN (
29). Thus, one possible model for Scw1p function could be as a negative regulator of Cps1p, consistent with its loss of function rescuing weak activation of Cps1p by the SIN.
Given the effect of
scw1Δ on the cell wall, it is interesting that
scw1Δ mutants have defects in cell separation. It is not clear whether the cell separation defect is a representation of the SIN and
cps1 suppression phenotype or a separate phenotype. It is possible that Scw1p promotes septum degradation leading to cell separation, and thus loss of this function in the
scw1Δ mutant could rescue the septum synthesis defects of the SIN and
cps1-
191 mutants. Another suppressor of the SIN, the B′ regulatory subunit of protein phosphatase 2A called
par1+/
pbp1+, also has cell separation defects (
22,
25,
48). This may be coincidental, since
par1Δ mutations suppress only
cdc7,
cdc11, and
spg1 mutations (
22,
25), unlike
scw1Δ mutations, which suppress all SIN mutations. Defects in cell separation alone are unlikely to suppress the SIN, since other mutants with cell separation defects, such as septin mutants (
30) and
sep1 mutants, do not suppress the SIN (
44) (data not shown).
It is quite possible that Scw1p has multiple functions in the cell. We found that
scw1Δ mutants could partially restore microtubules to the
nda3-
KM311 mutant strain. This effect is not simply from stabilization of the Nda3-KM311 mutant protein, because the
scw1Δ mutation can partially stabilize microtubules in a wild-type background treated with the microtubule-destabilizing drug MBC. As with the effects of
scw1Δ on cell separation, it is difficult to tell whether this phenotype is connected to the ability of the
scw1Δ deletion to suppress the SIN. The SIN seems to be inhibited by microtubule defects, and thus it is possible that stabilization of microtubules could promote signaling through the SIN (
20). However, this seems unlikely, since microtubule defects seem to inhibit SIN signaling, whereas
scw1Δ deletion does not promote signaling through the SIN.
Understanding the relationship between the different phenotypes of the
scw1Δ deletion mutant will likely depend on characterization of the targets of Scw1p action. Database comparisons revealed that Scw1p shows homology to Whi3p and Whi4p, two
S. cerevisiae proteins containing RNA binding domains (
39). Like Scw1p, Whi3p has also been implicated in cell cycle control. Whi3p specifically binds the G
1 cyclin
CLN3 mRNA and localizes the
CLN3 mRNA into discrete cytoplasmic loci that may locally restrict Cln3p synthesis to modulate cell cycle progression (
18). We find that Scw1p localizes to the cytoplasm; however, its localization is more diffuse than that observed for Whi3p. A similar localization pattern has been reported for another putative RNA binding protein, Sce3p, in
S. pombe, which was isolated as a multicopy suppressor of certain alleles of
cdc7,
cdc11, and
sid2 (
11,
42). It is possible that Sce3p overproduction and
scw1Δ deletion could rescue the SIN by affecting a common pathway; however, the genetics suggest that the wild-type gene products would be working in opposition to each other. It will be important in future studies to determine whether Scw1p, like Whi3p, binds specific RNAs and regulates their function. The use of DNA microarray technology may be a powerful approach to address this question.