Ubiquitination refers to the covalent attachment of the small protein ubiquitin to target proteins. This modification usually targets ubiquitinated proteins for proteolytic degradation by the proteasome (reviewed by
Glickman and Ciechanover, 2002;
Pickart, 2004;
Welchman et al., 2005). In this capacity, ubiquitination is essential for turnover of proteins involved in many cellular processes including the cell cycle, cell death, signal transduction, etc. (
Petroski and Deshaies, 2005). For example, ubiquitin-mediated degradation of cyclins is essential for progression through the cell cycle (reviewed by
Pines, 2006). Inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAPs) need to be ubiquitinated and degraded in cells undergoing apoptosis (
Herman-Bachinsky et al., 2007;
Holley et al., 2002;
Ryoo et al., 2002;
Yang et al., 2000;
Yoo et al., 2002) (reviewed by
Cashio et al., 2005). However, ubiquitin-mediated degradation of caspases, the principal executioners of apoptosis, has been reported to protect cells from apoptosis (
Cashio et al., 2005;
Chai et al., 2003;
Huang et al., 2000;
Suzuki et al., 2001;
Wilson et al., 2002). In addition, non-traditional functions of ubiquitination, which do not target proteins for proteolysis, have been reported (
Chen, 2005;
Mukhopadhyay and Riezman, 2007;
Welchman et al., 2005). In this regard, it is noteworthy that activated cell surface signaling receptors are ubiquitinated, usually mono-ubiquitinated, for endocytosis and protein sorting at the early endosome (
Gruenberg and Stenmark, 2004;
Haglund and Dikic, 2005).
Alterations in the ubiquitination machinery are often associated with human diseases such as cancer, neurodegenerative disorders and inflammation (
Devoy et al., 2005;
Mukhopadhyay and Riezman, 2007;
Reinstein and Ciechanover, 2006). On the other hand, targeting the ubiquitination system for therapeutic purposes holds promise in the clinic (
Nalepa et al., 2006). Thus, a detailed understanding of the role of ubiquitination for proper homeostasis and physiology of multi-cellular organisms is critical.
E1 ubiquitin-activating enzymes catalyze the first step in the ubiquitination cycle, the ATP-dependent formation of a thioester bond between the C-terminal glycine residue of ubiquitin and the active site cysteine of the E1 (
Haas and Siepmann, 1997;
Pickart, 2001). This is followed by the transfer of ubiquitin from the E1 to a ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme (E2). The final step is the conjugation of ubiquitin to target proteins mediated by ubiquitin ligases (E3). The specificity of the ubiquitination process is conferred to by E3 ubiquitin ligases. The genomes of eukaryotic organisms contain hundreds of different E3-encoding genes required for the regulated protein turnover in many cellular processes (
Hicke et al., 2005;
Petroski and Deshaies, 2005). By contrast, there are considerably fewer E1 and E2 enzymes. For example, the
Drosophila genome encodes only one E1 enzyme, termed
Uba1 (
Watts et al., 2003). This low complexity suggests that the primary function of the E1 enzyme is to provide activated ubiquitin for all ubiquitin-dependent reactions. This has indeed been observed in yeast. Genetic inactivation of the yeast gene
Uba1 blocks most, if not all ubiquitin conjugation (
Ghaboosi and Deshaies, 2007;
McGrath et al., 1991;
Swanson and Hochstrasser, 2000). There are mammalian cell lines containing temperature-sensitive alleles of E1. These cell lines have been of great importance for understanding the role of ubiquitin-mediated degradation of cyclins for progression through the cell cycle, and have further suggested an essential function of E1 enzymes to provide activated ubiquitin for conjugation of target proteins (
Ciechanover et al., 1984;
Ciechanover et al., 1985;
Finley et al., 1984;
Kulka et al., 1988;
Salvat et al., 2000).
However, despite these valuable analyses of ubiquitin conjugation in single cell organisms and cell lines, a systematic analysis of partial or complete loss of ubiquitin conjugation in multi-cellular organisms has not been reported. This can be accomplished by reducing the activity of the only E1 enzyme in
Drosophila,
Uba1 (
Watts et al., 2003). To date, a role of
Drosophila Uba1 (from now on referred to as
Uba1) has only been reported for axon pruning in the nervous system, and the precise mechanistic function of
Uba1 in this process is unknown (
Kuo et al., 2006;
Watts et al., 2003). Here, we report the isolation and characterization of weak and strong alleles of
Uba1 in
Drosophila. We show that, depending on the strength of the
Uba1 allele, different and sometimes opposing phenotypes are observed. For example, weak
Uba1 alleles protect cells from apoptosis, whereas mutant clones of strong alleles are highly apoptotic. Strong
Uba1 alleles which we show affect significantly ubiquitin conjugation, cause cell cycle arrest that correlates with increased cyclin levels. Unexpectedly, clones of strong
Uba1 alleles induce cell proliferation in neighboring tissue, triggering non-autonomous overgrowth. These
Uba1 clones fail to downregulate Notch activity which stimulates Jak/STAT signaling, and thus growth, in neighboring wild-type tissue. In summary, this analysis demonstrates that the lack of ubiquitin conjugation has significant consequences for the organism, and may implicate
Uba1 as a tumor suppressor gene.