1932

Abstract

Objects are commonly moved within the cell by either passive diffusion or active directed transport. A third possibility is advection, in which objects within the cytoplasm are moved with the flow of the cytoplasm. Bulk movement of the cytoplasm, or streaming, as required for advection, is more common in large cells than in small cells. For example, streaming is observed in elongated plant cells and the oocytes of several species. In the oocyte, two stages of streaming are observed: relatively slow streaming during mid-oogenesis and streaming that is approximately ten times faster during late oogenesis. These flows are implicated in two processes: polarity establishment and mixing. In this review, I discuss the underlying mechanism of streaming, how slow and fast streaming are differentiated, and what we know about the physiological roles of the two types of streaming.

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
Cytoplasmic Streaming in the Drosophila Oocyte: Video 4

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
Cytoplasmic Streaming in the Drosophila Oocyte: Video 3

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
Cytoplasmic Streaming in the Drosophila Oocyte: Video 5

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
Cytoplasmic Streaming in the Drosophila Oocyte: Video 1

Associated Article

There are media items related to this article:
Cytoplasmic Streaming in the Drosophila Oocyte: Video 2
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-111315-125416
2016-10-06
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cellbio/32/1/annurev-cellbio-111315-125416.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-111315-125416&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alberti S. 2015. Don't go with the cytoplasmic flow. Dev. Cell 34:4381–82 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen NS, Allen RD. 1978. Cytoplasmic streaming in green plants. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng. 7:497–526 [Google Scholar]
  3. Almonacid M, Ahmed WW, Bussonnier M, Mailly P, Betz T. et al. 2015. Active diffusion positions the nucleus in mouse oocytes. Nat. Cell Biol. 17:4470–79 [Google Scholar]
  4. Azoury J, Lee KW, Georget V, Rassinier P, Leader B, Verlhac MH. 2008. Spindle positioning in mouse oocytes relies on a dynamic meshwork of actin filaments. Curr. Biol. 18:191514–19 [Google Scholar]
  5. Babu K, Cai Y, Bahri S, Yang X, Chia W. 2004. Roles of Bifocal, Homer, and F-actin in anchoring Oskar to the posterior cortex of Drosophila oocytes. Genes Dev. 18:2138–43 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bastock R St, Johnston D. 2008. Drosophila oogenesis. Curr. Biol. 18:23R1082–87 [Google Scholar]
  7. Becalska AN, Gavis ER. 2009. Lighting up mRNA localization in Drosophila oogenesis. Development 136:152493–503 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bertrand E, Chartrand P, Schaefer M, Shenoy SM, Singer RH, Long RM. 1998. Localization of ASH1 mRNA particles in living yeast. Mol. Cell 2:4437–45 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bor B, Bois JS, Quinlan ME. 2015. Regulation of the formin Cappuccino is critical for polarity of Drosophila oocytes. Cytoskeleton 72:11–15 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brady ST, Pfister KK, Bloom GS. 1990. A monoclonal antibody against kinesin inhibits both anterograde and retrograde fast axonal transport in squid axoplasm. PNAS 87:31061–65 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brendza RP, Serbus LR, Saxton WM, Duffy JB. 2002. Posterior localization of dynein and dorsal-ventral axis formation depend on kinesin in Drosophila oocytes. Curr. Biol. 12:171541–45 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cartwright JHE, Piro O, Tuval I. 2009. Fluid dynamics in developmental biology: moving fluids that shape ontogeny. HFSP J. 3:277–93 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cha BJ, Koppetsch BS, Theurkauf WE. 2001. In vivo analysis of Drosophila bicoid mRNA localization reveals a novel microtubule-dependent axis specification pathway. Cell 106:135–46 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cha BJ, Serbus LR, Koppetsch BS, Theurkauf WE. 2002. Kinesin I-dependent cortical exclusion restricts pole plasm to the oocyte posterior. Nat. Cell Biol. 4:8592–98 [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark I, Giniger E, Ruohola-Baker H, Jan LY, Jan YN. 1994. Transient posterior localization of a kinesin fusion protein reflects anteroposterior polarity of the Drosophila oocyte. Curr. Biol. 4:4289–300 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark IE, Jan LY, Jan YN. 1997. Reciprocal localization of Nod and kinesin fusion proteins indicates microtubule polarity in the Drosophila oocyte, epithelium, neuron and muscle. Development 124:2461–70 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cooley L, Verheyen E, Ayers K. 1992. chickadee encodes a profilin required for intercellular cytoplasm transport during Drosophila oogenesis. Cell 69:1173–84 [Google Scholar]
  18. Corti B. 1774. Osservazioni microscopiche sulla tremella e sulla circolazione del fluido in una pianta acqua juola Lucca, Italy: G. Rocchi [Google Scholar]
  19. Dahlgaard K, Raposo AA, Niccoli T St, Johnston D. 2007. Capu and Spire assemble a cytoplasmic actin mesh that maintains microtubule organization in the Drosophila oocyte. Dev. Cell 13:4539–53 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dassow GV, Schubiger G. 1994. How an actin network might cause fountain streaming and nuclear migration in the syncytial Drosophila embryo. J. Cell Biol. 127:61637–53 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dumont J, Million K, Sunderland K, Rassinier P, Lim H. et al. 2007. Formin-2 is required for spindle migration and for the late steps of cytokinesis in mouse oocytes. Dev. Biol 301:1254–65 [Google Scholar]
  22. Emmons S, Phan H, Calley J, Chen W, James B, Manseau L. 1995. cappuccino, a Drosophila maternal effect gene required for polarity of the egg and embryo, is related to the vertebrate limb deformity locus. Genes Dev. 9:202482–94 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ephrussi A, Dickinson LK, Lehmann R. 1991. oskar organizes the germ plasm and directs localization of the posterior determinant nanos. Cell 66:137–50 [Google Scholar]
  24. Forrest KM, Gavis ER. 2003. Live imaging of endogenous RNA reveals a diffusion and entrapment mechanism for nanos mRNA localization in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 13:141159–68 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ganguly S, Williams LS, Palacios IM, Goldstein RE. 2012. Cytoplasmic streaming in Drosophila oocytes varies with kinesin activity and correlates with the microtubule cytoskeleton architecture. PNAS 109:3815109–14 [Google Scholar]
  26. Glotzer JB, Saffrich R, Glotzer M, Ephrussi A. 1997. Cytoplasmic flows localize injected oskar RNA in Drosophila oocytes. Curr. Biol. 7:5326–37 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldstein LS, Yang Z. 2000. Microtubule-based transport systems in neurons: the roles of kinesins and dyneins. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 23:39–71 [Google Scholar]
  28. Goldstein RE, van de Meent J-W. 2015. A physical perspective on cytoplasmic streaming. Interface Focus 5:420150030 [Google Scholar]
  29. González-Reyes A, Elliott H St, Johnston D. 1995. Polarization of both major body axes in Drosophila by gurken-torpedo signalling. Nature 375:6533654–58 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gross SP, Tuma MC, Deacon SW, Serpinskaya AS, Reilein AR, Gelfand VI. 2002. Interactions and regulation of molecular motors in Xenopus melanophores. J. Cell Biol. 156:5855–65 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gutzeit HO. 1986a. The role of microfilaments in cytoplasmic streaming in Drosophila follicles. J. Cell Sci. 80:1159–69 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gutzeit H. 1986b. The role of microtubules in the differentiation of ovarian follicles during vitellogenesis in Drosophila. Rouxs Arch. Dev. Biol. 195:3173–81 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gutzeit H, Koppa R. 1982. Time-lapse film analysis of cytoplasmic streaming during late oogenesis of Drosophila. Development 67:1101–11 [Google Scholar]
  34. He L, Wang X, Montell DJ. 2011. Shining light on Drosophila oogenesis: live imaging of egg development. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 21:5612–19 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hecht I, Rappel W-J, Levine H. 2009. Determining the scale of the Bicoid morphogen gradient. PNAS 106:61710–15 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hudson AM, Cooley L. 2002. Understanding the function of actin-binding proteins through genetic analysis of Drosophila oogenesis. Annu. Rev. Genet. 36:455–88 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hudson AM, Cooley L. 2014. Methods for studying oogenesis. Methods 68:1207–17 [Google Scholar]
  38. Januschke J, Gervais L, Gillet L, Keryer G, Bornens M, Guichet A. 2006. The centrosome-nucleus complex and microtubule organization in the Drosophila oocyte. Development 133:1129–39 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jaramillo AM, Weil TT, Goodhouse J, Gavis ER, Schupbach T. 2008. The dynamics of fluorescently labeled endogenous gurken mRNA in Drosophila. J. Cell Sci. 121:6887–94 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kim-Ha J, Smith JL, Macdonald PM. 1991. oskar mRNA is localized to the posterior pole of the Drosophila oocyte. Cell 66:123–35 [Google Scholar]
  41. King R, Brown E, Aggarwal S, Aggarwal U. 1972. Invertebrate Oogenesis: Interactions Between Oocytes and Their Accessory Cells New York: MSS Inf. [Google Scholar]
  42. King RC. 1970. Ovarian Development in Drosophila melanogaster New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  43. King RC, Rubinson AC, Smith RF. 1956. Oogenesis in adult Drosophila melanogaster. Growth 20:2121–57 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kugler J-M, Lasko P. 2009. Localization, anchoring and translational control of oskar, gurken, bicoid and nanos mRNA during Drosophila oogenesis. Fly 3:115–28 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kumano G. 2012. Polarizing animal cells via mRNA localization in oogenesis and early development. Dev. Growth Differ. 54:11–18 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lasko P. 2012. mRNA Localization and translational control in Drosophila oogenesis. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 4:10a012294 [Google Scholar]
  47. Loiseau P, Davies T, Williams LS, Mishima M, Palacios IM. 2010. Drosophila PAT1 is required for Kinesin-1 to transport cargo and to maximize its motility. Development 137:162763–72 [Google Scholar]
  48. Luby-Phelps K. 2000. Cytoarchitecture and physical properties of cytoplasm: volume, viscosity, diffusion, intracellular surface area. Int. Rev. Cytol. 192:189–221 [Google Scholar]
  49. MacDougall N, Clark A, MacDougall E, Davis I. 2003. Drosophila gurken (TGFalpha) mRNA localizes as particles that move within the oocyte in two dynein-dependent steps. Dev. Cell 4:3307–19 [Google Scholar]
  50. Manseau L, Calley J, Phan H. 1996. Profilin is required for posterior patterning of the Drosophila oocyte. Development 122:72109–16 [Google Scholar]
  51. Manseau LJ, Schupbach T. 1989. cappuccino and spire: two unique maternal-effect loci required for both the anteroposterior and dorsoventral patterns of the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev. 3:91437–52 [Google Scholar]
  52. McGrail M, Gepner J, Silvanovich A, Ludmann S, Serr M, Hays TS. 1995. Regulation of cytoplasmic dynein function in vivo by the Drosophila Glued complex. J. Cell Biol. 131:2411–25 [Google Scholar]
  53. McGrail M, Hays TS. 1997. The microtubule motor cytoplasmic dynein is required for spindle orientation during germline cell divisions and oocyte differentiation in Drosophila. Development 124:122409–19 [Google Scholar]
  54. McLaughlin J, Bratu D. 2015. Drosophila melanogaster oogenesis: an overview. Drosophila Oogenesis DP Bratu, GP McNeil 1–20 New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  55. Mische S, Li M, Serr M, Hays TS. 2007. Direct observation of regulated ribonucleoprotein transport across the nurse cell/oocyte boundary. Mol. Biol. Cell 18:62254–63 [Google Scholar]
  56. Monteith CE, Brunner ME, Djagaeva I,, Bielecki AM, Deutsch JM, Saxton WM. 2016. A mechanism for cytoplasmic streaming: kinesin-driven alignment of microtubules and fast fluid flows. Biophys. J. 110:92053–65 [Google Scholar]
  57. Moua P, Fullerton D, Serbus LR, Warrior R, Saxton WM. 2011. Kinesin-1 tail autoregulation and microtubule-binding regions function in saltatory transport but not ooplasmic streaming. Development 138:61087–92 [Google Scholar]
  58. Neuman-Silberberg FS, Schüpbach T. 1996. The Drosophila TGF-α-like protein Gurken: expression and cellular localization during Drosophila oogenesis. Mech. Dev. 59:2105–13 [Google Scholar]
  59. Palacios IM, Drechsler M, Ganguly S. 2015. A complex relationship between motor activity, cytoplasmic flows and the organisation of the actin and microtubule cytoskeletons. Mol. Biol. Cell 26:E49 [Google Scholar]
  60. Palacios IM St, Johnston D. 2002. Kinesin light chain–independent function of the Kinesin heavy chain in cytoplasmic streaming and posterior localisation in the Drosophila oocyte. Development 129:235473–85 [Google Scholar]
  61. Parton RM, Hamilton RS, Ball G, Yang L, Cullen CF. et al. 2011. A PAR-1-dependent orientation gradient of dynamic microtubules directs posterior cargo transport in the Drosophila oocyte. J. Cell Biol. 194:1121–35 [Google Scholar]
  62. Pfender S, Kuznetsov V, Pleiser S, Kerkhoff E, Schuh M. 2011. Spire-type actin nucleators cooperate with Formin-2 to drive asymmetric oocyte division. Curr. Biol. 21:11955–60 [Google Scholar]
  63. Pickard WF. 2006. Absorption by a moving spherical organelle in a heterogeneous cytoplasm: implications for the role of trafficking in a symplast. J. Theor. Biol. 240:2288–301 [Google Scholar]
  64. Pieuchot L, Lai J, Loh RA, Leong FY, Chiam K-H. et al. 2015. Cellular subcompartments through cytoplasmic streaming. Dev. Cell 34:4410–20 [Google Scholar]
  65. Pokrywka NJ, Stephenson EC. 1995. Microtubules are a general component of mRNA localization systems in Drosophila oocytes. Dev. Biol. 167:1363–70 [Google Scholar]
  66. Polesello C, Delon I, Valenti P, Ferrer P, Payre F. 2002. Dmoesin controls actin-based cell shape and polarity during Drosophila melanogaster oogenesis. Nat. Cell Biol. 4:10782–89 [Google Scholar]
  67. Popov S, Poo MM. 1992. Diffusional transport of macromolecules in developing nerve processes. J. Neurosci. 12:177–85 [Google Scholar]
  68. Quinlan ME. 2013. Direct interaction between two actin nucleators is required in Drosophila oogenesis. Development 140:214417–25 [Google Scholar]
  69. Quinlan ME, Heuser JE, Kerkhoff E, Mullins RD. 2005. Drosophila Spire is an actin nucleation factor. Nature 433:7024382–88 [Google Scholar]
  70. Quinlan ME, Hilgert S, Bedrossian A, Mullins RD, Kerkhoff E. 2007. Regulatory interactions between two actin nucleators, Spire and Cappuccino. J. Cell Biol. 179:1117–28 [Google Scholar]
  71. Rice SE, Gelfand VI. 2006. Paradigm lost: milton connects kinesin heavy chain to miro on mitochondria. J. Cell Biol. 173:4459–61 [Google Scholar]
  72. Robinson DN, Cant K, Cooley L. 1994. Morphogenesis of Drosophila ovarian ring canals. Development 120:72015–25 [Google Scholar]
  73. Rosales-Nieves AE, Johndrow JE, Keller LC, Magie CR, Pinto-Santini DM, Parkhurst SM. 2006. Coordination of microtubule and microfilament dynamics by Drosophila Rho1, Spire and Cappuccino. Nat. Cell Biol. 8:4367–76 [Google Scholar]
  74. Roth-Johnson EA, Vizcarra CL, Bois JS, Quinlan ME. 2014. Interaction between microtubules and the Drosophila formin Cappuccino and its effect on actin assembly. J. Biol. Chem. 289:74395–404 [Google Scholar]
  75. Saxton WM, Stemple DL, Leslie RJ, Salmon ED, Zavortink M, McIntosh JR. 1984. Tubulin dynamics in cultured mammalian cells. J. Cell Biol. 99:62175–86 [Google Scholar]
  76. Schuh M, Ellenberg J. 2008. A new model for asymmetric spindle positioning in mouse oocytes. Curr. Biol. 18:241986–92 [Google Scholar]
  77. Serbus LR, Cha B-J, Theurkauf WE, Saxton WM. 2005. Dynein and the actin cytoskeleton control kinesin-driven cytoplasmic streaming in Drosophila oocytes. Development 132:163743–52 [Google Scholar]
  78. Shimmen T. 2007. The sliding theory of cytoplasmic streaming: fifty years of progress. J. Plant Res. 120:131–43 [Google Scholar]
  79. Shimmen T, Yokota E. 2004. Cytoplasmic streaming in plants. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 16:168–72 [Google Scholar]
  80. Sinsimer KS, Jain RA, Chatterjee S, Gavis ER. 2011. A late phase of germ plasm accumulation during Drosophila oogenesis requires Lost and Rumpelstiltskin. Development 138:163431–40 [Google Scholar]
  81. St. Johnston D, Beuchle D, Nüsslein-Volhard C. 1991. Staufen, a gene required to localize maternal RNAs in the Drosophila egg. Cell 66:151–63 [Google Scholar]
  82. Suyama R, Jenny A, Curado S, Pellis–van Berkel W, Ephrussi A. 2009. The actin-binding protein Lasp promotes Oskar accumulation at the posterior pole of the Drosophila embryo. Development 136:195–105 [Google Scholar]
  83. Theurkauf WE. 1994. Premature microtubule-dependent cytoplasmic streaming in cappuccino and spire mutant oocytes. Science 265:51812093–96 [Google Scholar]
  84. Theurkauf WE, Hazelrigg TI. 1998. In vivo analyses of cytoplasmic transport and cytoskeletal organization during Drosophila oogenesis: characterization of a multi-step anterior localization pathway. Development 125:183655–66 [Google Scholar]
  85. Theurkauf WE, Smiley S, Wong ML, Alberts BM. 1992. Reorganization of the cytoskeleton during Drosophila oogenesis: implications for axis specification and intercellular transport. Development 115:4923–36 [Google Scholar]
  86. Tominaga M, Ito K. 2015. The molecular mechanism and physiological role of cytoplasmic streaming. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 27:104–10 [Google Scholar]
  87. Tominaga M, Kimura A, Yokota E, Haraguchi T, Shimmen T. et al. 2013. Cytoplasmic streaming velocity as a plant size determinant. Dev. Cell. 27:3345–52 [Google Scholar]
  88. Trong PK, Doerflinger H, Dunkel J St, Johnston D, Goldstein RE. 2015. Cortical microtubule nucleation can organise the cytoskeleton of Drosophila oocytes to define the anteroposterior axis. eLife 4:e06088 [Google Scholar]
  89. Vizcarra CL, Bor B, Quinlan ME. 2014. The role of formin tails in actin nucleation, processive elongation, and filament bundling. J. Biol. Chem. 289:4430602–13 [Google Scholar]
  90. Wang Y, Riechmann V. 2008. Microtubule anchoring by cortical actin bundles prevents streaming of the oocyte cytoplasm. Mech. Dev. 125:1–2142–52 [Google Scholar]
  91. Warn RM, Gutzeit HO, Smith L, Warn A. 1985. F-actin rings are associated with the ring canals of the Drosophila egg chamber. Exp. Cell Res. 157:2355–63 [Google Scholar]
  92. Weil TT, Forrest KM, Gavis ER. 2006. Localization of bicoid mRNA in late oocytes is maintained by continual active transport. Dev. Cell 11:2251–62 [Google Scholar]
  93. Weil TT, Parton R, Davis I, Gavis ER. 2008. Changes in bicoid mRNA anchoring highlight conserved mechanisms during the oocyte-to-embryo transition. Curr. Biol. 18:141055–61 [Google Scholar]
  94. Wellington A, Emmons S, James B, Calley J, Grover M. et al. 1999. Spire contains actin binding domains and is related to ascidian posterior end mark-5. Development 126:235267–74 [Google Scholar]
  95. Williams LS. 2012. Analysis of Kinesin-1 Function In Vivo Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  96. Williams LS, Ganguly S, Loiseau P, Ng BF, Palacios IM. 2014. The auto-inhibitory domain and ATP-independent microtubule-binding region of Kinesin heavy chain are major functional domains for transport in the Drosophila germline. Development 141:1176–86 [Google Scholar]
  97. Wolke U, Jezuit EA, Priess JR. 2007. Actin-dependent cytoplasmic streaming in C. elegans oogenesis. Development 134:122227–36 [Google Scholar]
  98. Woodhouse FG, Goldstein RE. 2013. Cytoplasmic streaming in plant cells emerges naturally by microfilament self-organization. PNAS 110:3514132–37 [Google Scholar]
  99. Yi K, Unruh JR, Deng M, Slaughter BD, Rubinstein B, Li R. 2011. Dynamic maintenance of asymmetric meiotic spindle position through Arp2/3-complex-driven cytoplasmic streaming in mouse oocytes. Nat. Cell Biol. 13:101252–58 [Google Scholar]
  100. Yoo H, Roth-Johnson EA, Bor B, Quinlan ME. 2015. Drosophila Cappuccino alleles provide insight into formin mechanism and role in oogenesis. Mol. Biol. Cell 26:101875–86 [Google Scholar]
  101. Zhao T, Graham OS, Raposo A St, Johnston D. 2012. Growing microtubules push the oocyte nucleus to polarize the Drosophila dorsal-ventral axis. Science 336:6084999–1003 [Google Scholar]
  102. Zimyanin VL, Belaya K, Pecreaux J, Gilchrist MJ, Clark A. et al. 2008. In vivo imaging of oskar mRNA transport reveals the mechanism of posterior localization. Cell 134:5843–53 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-111315-125416
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-111315-125416
Loading

Data & Media loading...

    Slow streaming in a stage 9 wild type oocyte. Images of autofluorescent yolk granules were acquired once every 15 seconds (M.E. Quinlan, unpublished data).

    Fast streaming in a stage 11 wild type oocyte. Images of yolk granules labeled with trypan blue were acquired once every 15 seconds. Dumping becomes apparent after 5 minutes (M.E. Quinlan, unpublished data).

    Microtubules visualized during fast streaming in a stage 11 oocyte expressing GFP-tubulin. Images were acquired every 15 seconds.

    Trypan blue was injected directly into a stage 11 wild type oocyte. The dye labeled a subset of yolk granules. Dispersal of the yolk granules over time demonstrates that mixing is accomplished during fast streaming. One image per minute is shown.

    The actin mesh in a stage 9 oocyte is labeled by UtrnCH-GFP (the actin binding calponin homology domain of utrophin, which labels filamentous actin). Images were acquired every 10 seconds.

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error