Chia-Chien Wu

Cdc42 is required for PIP2-induced actin polymerization and early development but not for cell viability

BACKGROUND Cdc42 and other Rho GTPases are conserved from yeast to humans and are thought to regulate multiple cellular functions by inducing coordinated changes in actin reorganization and by activating signaling pathways leading to specific gene expression. Direct evidence implicating upstream signals and components that regulate Cdc42 activity or for required roles of Cdc42 in activation of downstream protein kinase signaling cascades is minimal, however. Also, whereas genetic analyses have shown that Cdc42 is essential for cell viability in yeast, its potential roles in the growth and development of mammalian cells have not been directly assessed. RESULTS To elucidate potential functions of Cdc42 mammalian cells, we used gene-targeted mutation to inactivate Cdc42 in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells and in the mouse germline. Surprisingly, Cdc42-deficient ES cells exhibited normal proliferation and phosphorylation of mitogen- and stress-activated protein kinases. Yet Cdc42 deficiency caused very early embryonic lethality in mice and led to aberrant actin cytoskeletal organization in ES cells. Moreover, extracts from Cdc42-deficient cells failed to support phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP(2))-induced actin polymerization. CONCLUSIONS Our studies clearly demonstrate that Cdc42 mediates PIP(2)-induced actin assembly, and document a critical and unique role for Cdc42 in this process. Moreover, we conclude that, unexpectedly, Cdc42 is not necessary for viability or proliferation of mammalian early embryonic cells. Cdc42 is, however, absolutely required for early mammalian development.

Multiple event monitoring

Suppose you were monitoring a group of people in order to determine if anyone of them did something suspicious (e.g., putting down a bag) or if any two interacted in a suspicious manner (e.g., trading bags). How large a group could you monitor successfully? This paper reports on six experiments in which observers monitor a group of entities, watching for an event. Whether the event was performed by a single entity or was an interaction between a pair, the capacity for event monitoring was two to three items. This was lower than the multiple object tracking capacity for the same stimuli (approximately six items). Capacity was essentially the same whether entities were identical circles or unique cartoon animals; nor was capacity changed by an added requirement to identify the entities involved in an event. Event monitoring appears to be related to, but not identical to, multiple object tracking.

Comparing eye movements during position tracking and identity tracking: No evidence for separate systems

There is an ongoing debate as to whether people track multiple moving objects in a serial fashion or with a parallel mechanism. One recent study compared eye movements when observers tracked identical objects (Multiple Object Tracking—MOT task) versus when they tracked the identities of different objects (Multiple Identity Tracking—MIT task). Distinct eye-movement patterns were found and attributed to two separate tracking systems. However, the same results could be caused by differences in the stimuli viewed during tracking. In the present study, object identities in the MIT task were invisible during tracking, so observers performed MOT and MIT tasks with identical stimuli. Observer were able to track either position and identity depending on the task. There was no difference in eye movements between position tracking and identity tracking. This result suggests that, while observers can use different eye-movement strategies in MOT and MIT, it is not necessary.