Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Review

The Roles of Par3, Par6, and aPKC Polarity Proteins in Normal Neurodevelopment and in Neurodegenerative and Neuropsychiatric Disorders

Lili Zhang and Xiangyun Wei
Journal of Neuroscience 15 June 2022, 42 (24) 4774-4793; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0059-22.2022
Lili Zhang
1Department of Psychology, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, Liaoning Province, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiangyun Wei
2Departments of Ophthalmology, Developmental Biology, and Microbiology & Molecular Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Normal neural circuits and functions depend on proper neuronal differentiation, migration, synaptic plasticity, and maintenance. Abnormalities in these processes underlie various neurodevelopmental, neuropsychiatric, and neurodegenerative disorders. Neural development and maintenance are regulated by many proteins. Among them are Par3, Par6 (partitioning defective 3 and 6), and aPKC (atypical protein kinase C) families of evolutionarily conserved polarity proteins. These proteins perform versatile functions by forming tripartite or other combinations of protein complexes, which hereafter are collectively referred to as “Par complexes.” In this review, we summarize the major findings on their biophysical and biochemical properties in cell polarization and signaling pathways. We next summarize their expression and localization in the nervous system as well as their versatile functions in various aspects of neurodevelopment, including neuroepithelial polarity, neurogenesis, neuronal migration, neurite differentiation, synaptic plasticity, and memory. These versatile functions rely on the fundamental roles of Par complexes in cell polarity in distinct cellular contexts. We also discuss how cell polarization may correlate with subcellular polarization in neurons. Finally, we review the involvement of Par complexes in neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders, such as schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. While emerging evidence indicates that Par complexes are essential for proper neural development and maintenance, many questions on their in vivo functions have yet to be answered. Thus, Par3, Par6, and aPKC continue to be important research topics to advance neuroscience.

  • Par3
  • Par6
  • aPKC
  • cell polarity
  • neuropsychiatric disorder
  • Alzheimer's disease

Introduction

Normal neural functions rely on proper neurogenesis, neuronal differentiation and maintenance, and interneuronal wiring. Defects in these processes can lead to neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders, such as intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and Parkinson's disease (Penzes et al., 2011; Batool et al., 2019). These disorders can be caused by a variety of environmental and genetic factors as well as by their complex interplay (Dick et al., 2010; Hannan, 2013; Banerjee et al., 2014; Takumi and Tamada, 2018; Willsey et al., 2018; Zarrei et al., 2019; Hollander et al., 2020). To date, a complete understanding of the etiologies of these disorders is lacking.

Proper neurodevelopment is regulated by many proteins, including Par3, Par6 (partitioning defective 3 and 6), and aPKC (atypical protein kinase C) polarity proteins (Hakanen et al., 2019). Par3, Par6, and aPKC proteins have many homologs in vertebrates. The names and chromosome location of these homologous genes in Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila, zebrafish, mice, and humans are listed in Table 1. Here, we use Par3, Par6, and aPKC to generically and collectively refer to the homologs identified in various species, but when necessary, the specific name of a protein/gene of a particular species is clarified.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Par3, Par6, and aPKC homologsa

Par3, Par6, and aPKC polarity proteins perform their biological functions by forming protein complexes in tripartite or other combinations (Kemphues, 2000; Ohno, 2001; Goldstein and Macara, 2007). Thus, we use a generic plural term, Par complexes, to refer to these protein complexes collectively. To better understand the roles of Par complexes in both normal neurodevelopment and pathologic conditions, we here review the findings on Par complexes in the following three aspects: (1) The basic biophysical binding and biochemical modification properties of Par3, Par6, and aPKC proteins in a variety of cell types and species. Although some of these properties were discovered in non-neuronal cell types, they underlie the basic biology of Par complexes and are likely conserved to a certain extent in neurons. Thus, such information forms the basis to understand their regulation and functions in neurodevelopment. (2) The expression and localization of Par complexes in the nervous system and their roles in neuroepithelial polarity, neurogenesis, neuronal migration, neurite differentiation, synaptic plasticity, and memory. (3) The evidence that human PARD3, PARD3β, PARD6, PARD6β, PARD6γ, and PRKCι, PRKCζ, and PKMζ are involved in neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. On each aspect, we also highlight a few outstanding questions and challenges.

In sum, accumulating evidence shows that, at the nexus of various signaling pathways, Par complexes play essential roles in neurodevelopment, and that malfunction of Par complexes is associated with neurodevelopmental, neuropsychiatric, and neurodegenerative disorders. With many important questions yet to be answered, Par3, Par6, and aPKC are exciting subjects for neuroscience research.

Biophysical and Biochemical Properties of Par Complexes

It was in C. elegans that Par-3, Par-6, and PKC-3 were first discovered to form complexes and to play important roles in cell polarization by partitioning cytoplasmic and membrane-bound components to distinct subcellular regions (Kemphues et al., 1988; Watts et al., 1996; Tabuse et al., 1998; Kemphues, 2000). In insects and vertebrates, Par3, Par6, and aPKC are conserved, but with multiple homologs and isoforms (Knust and Bossinger, 2002; Goldstein and Macara, 2007). In this section, we emphasize vertebrate homologs when we summarize the findings on the physical binding and biochemical interactions among Par3, Par6, and aPKC proteins (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

The binding partners of Par3, Par6, and aPKC homologsa

The physical binding and biochemical interactions among Par3, Par6, and aPKC for complex formation

Two Par3 homologs exist in mammals (Pard3 and Pard3β in mice, and PARD3 and PARD3β in humans) and four in zebrafish (Pard3αa, Pard3αb, Pard3βa, and Pard3βb) (Table 1). Par3 has the following domains aligned from the N terminus to the C terminus: one PB1 (Phox and Bem1) domain, three PDZ (postsynaptic density 95, discs large, and zonula occludins-1) domains (PDZ1, PDZ2, and PDZ3), one aPKC-binding region, and one coiled-coil region (Fig. 1). The PB1 domain can mediate oligomerization to form helical filaments via front-to-back electrostatic interactions (Feng et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2013); this oligomerization plays a role in localizing Par complexes to the tight junctions in the epithelium (Mizuno et al., 2003). PDZ1 domain can bind to the PDZ domain of Par6 (Lin et al., 2000). The aPKC-binding region can bind to aPKC's kinase domain (Izumi et al., 1998). The binding of Par3 to aPKC can inhibit aPKC's kinase activity, thus simultaneously regulating the anchoring and activity of aPKC at specific subcellular regions (Lin et al., 2000; Soriano et al., 2016). In turn, aPKC can phosphorylate Par3's aPKC binding region to destabilize the Par3–aPKC binding and make aPKC available to phosphorylate other substrates, creating a negative regulatory loop (Nagai-Tamai et al., 2002). Unlike Pard3, Pard3β, which is not prominently expressed in neurons (Huo and Macara, 2014), does not bind to aPKC, but Pard3β can still localize to the tight junctions in MDCK cells, suggesting that the apical localization of Pard3β is independent of aPKC. In addition, some Pard3β isoforms bind to Par6 with varying affinities (Gao et al., 2002; Kohjima et al., 2002). In sum, with multiple protein–protein binding domains, Par3 plays an important scaffolding role in Par complexes.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Domain structures of Par3, Par6, and aPKC. Left, N terminals of the proteins. Right, C terminals. Double-headed arrows indicate the binding interactions between domains. PB1, Phox and Bem1 domain; PDZ, PSD95-Dlg1-ZO1 domain; aPKC BR, aPKC binding domain; IQ, IQ calmodulin-binding motif; CRIB, Cdc42/Rac interactive binding; PS, pseudosubstrate peptide; C1, cysteine-rich zinc-finger domain; kinase, kinase domain; coiled-coil, coiled-coil domain.

Vertebrates have multiple Par6 homologs (Pard6α Pard6β, and Pard6γ in mice; PARD6α, PARD6β, and PARD6γ in humans; and Pard6α, Pard6β, and Pard6γa, Pard6γb in zebrafish) (Table 1). Par6 homologs contain the following domains that are aligned from the N terminus to the C terminus: a PB1 domain, an IQ calmodulin-binding motif, a CRIB-like (Cdc42/Rac interactive binding) motif, and a PDZ domain (Fig. 1). In addition to the interaction with Par3 mentioned above, the PB1 domain of Par6 binds to the PB1 domain of aPKC (Joberty et al., 2000; Noda et al., 2001; Hirano et al., 2005).

Two aPKC genes exist in vertebrates (prkcι/λ, and prkcζ) (Table 1). The prkcι/λ genes (originally named aPKCι for the human homolog and aPKCλ for the mouse homolog) encode predominantly one protein product, generically referred to as aPKCλ in this review, whereas prkcζ encodes two protein products by using alternative transcription start sites: the full-length aPKCζ and the constitutively active C-terminal form, PKMζ, which lacks an N-terminal regulatory region (Hernandez et al., 2003) (Fig. 1). PKMζ can also be generated from proteolytic cleavage of aPKCζ, but this mechanism is mainly used in invertebrates (Frutos et al., 1999; Smith et al., 2000; Bougie et al., 2012). Full-length aPKCλ and aPKCζ contain the following domains, aligned from the N termini to the C termini: a PB1 domain, a pseudosubstrate sequence motif, a lipid-binding cysteine-rich zinc-finger domain (C1), and a kinase domain (Suzuki et al., 2003) (Fig. 1). The PB1, pseudosubstrate sequence, and C1 motif/domains constitute the N-terminal regulatory region of aPKC. The pseudosubstrate and C1 domain bind to aPKC's kinase domain to inhibit its activity (Lopez-Garcia et al., 2011). aPKCλ and aPKCζ belong to the atypical subfamily of the PKC family of serine/threonine kinases, which also encompass the conventional (cPKC) and novel (nPKC) subfamilies (Nishizuka, 1988, 1995; Steinberg, 2008). For membrane targeting and activation, cPKC and nPKC require phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate/diacylglycerol, and cPKC's membrane targeting also requires anionic phospholipids in a calcium-dependent manner (Ohno and Nishizuka, 2002); by contrast, aPKC require phosphatidylinositol (PI)−3,4,5-trisphosphate (PIP3), which displaces the pseudosubstrate sequence and C1 to release their inhibition of the kinase domain and promotes the association with Par3 (Ono et al., 1989; Nakanishi et al., 1993; Hirai and Chida, 2003; Ivey et al., 2014). This displacement of the pseudosubstrate motif can also be achieved by binding to Par6 via their PB1 domains (Suzuki et al., 2003; Graybill et al., 2012). Because of the lack of the N-terminal regulatory region-mediated intramolecular autoinhibition, PKMζ is believed to be constitutively active (Hernandez et al., 2003).

The formation of the Par complexes via physical binding partially explains their mutual dependence for subcellular localization in some cellular contexts. However, Par3, Par6, and aPKC do not always coexist in a tripartite complex; their physical binding interactions are not static but rather fluid, and the involved domains can recruit different proteins to suit various cellular contexts. For example, Par3 can perform some functions in the absence of Par6 and aPKC (Chen and Macara, 2005; Harris and Peifer, 2005; Zhang and Macara, 2006); Par3 binds to dynein light intermediate chain 2 in the absence of Par6 and aPKC (Schmoranzer et al., 2009); and aPKC and Par6 can complex with Lgl independent of Par3 to regulate epithelial polarity (Plant et al., 2003; Yamanaka et al., 2003; Yamanaka et al., 2006). This flexibility in complex formation greatly expands their functional versatility.

Another factor that contributes to the versatility in the complex formation and functionality of Par3, Par6, and aPKC is the multiplicity of their homologs and isoforms, particularly in vertebrates. For example, vertebrate Pard3 is expressed in at least 20 isoforms through alternative splicing and transcription start sites, with 100, 150, and 180 kDa being the major isoforms in mammals (Lin et al., 2000; Macara et al., 2009) and 150 and 180 kDa as the major isoforms in zebrafish (Wei et al., 2004). Like Pard3, Pard3β is also expressed as various splicing variants (Fang and Xu, 2001; Gao et al., 2002). These isoforms have different domain compositions, implying the formation of different complexes for different functions. For example, the 100 kDa Pard3 isoform cannot directly associate with aPKC because it lacks the aPKC-binding domain (Lin et al., 2000).

Of note, the current understanding of Par complex formation and functions has been largely based on limited homologs or isoforms. Because many homologs and isoforms are expressed in tissue-specific manners, the binding interactions among Par3, Par6, and aPKC can be very complex and may vary drastically in different cellular contexts. When more homologs and isoforms are investigated, new biochemical and biophysical interactions and functions are expected. Because of the complexity of the interactions among Par3, Par6, and aPKC, it is necessary to use compatible homologs to study their protein–protein interactions. For example, one might need to be cautious to generalize a protein–protein interaction detected between a mouse protein and a human protein in vitro because such an interaction never exists in nature.

Interactions with other molecules in various signaling pathways

Par3, Par6, and aPKC not only physically bind to each other to form Par complexes, but they also interact with many other proteins or lipids through physical binding or biochemical modifications. In this section, we review some prominent upstream and downstream interactions in various signaling pathways as examples (Table 2), which shall not be treated as a comprehensive list.

Interactions with Rho GTPases

Par6's CRIB-like motif together with its adjacent PDZ domain can bind to many small GTPases, such as Cdc42 (cell division control protein 42 homolog), Rac1, RhoA, and TC10 (Joberty et al., 2000; Lin et al., 2000; Noda et al., 2001; Pichaud et al., 2019). Cdc42, Rac1, RhoA, and TC10 belong to the Rho GTPase family, one of the five families of the Ras GTPase superfamily (Adams et al., 1990; Johnson and Pringle, 1990; Ridley and Hall, 1992; Nobes and Hall, 1995; Etienne-Manneville, 2004; Rojas et al., 2012). Rho GTPases act as small molecular switches by converting between an active GTP-bound state and an inactive GDP-bound state (Hall, 2012). This conversion is regulated by guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs), which activate GTPases by promoting the exchange of GDP for GTP, by GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs), which inactivate GTPases by activating their intrinsic GTPase activity, and by guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitors, which keep these GTPases inactive by maintaining them in the GDP-bound state (Diekmann et al., 1991; Hart et al., 1991; Hoffman et al., 2000; Lin et al., 2003; Hall, 2012). By interacting with their effectors, GTPases regulate many cellular processes (Harris and Tepass, 2008; Pichaud et al., 2019).

The binding of GTP-bound Cdc42 to Par6 enhances the affinity of Par6's PDZ domain to its ligands, such as Par3's PDZ1 domain, through allosteric regulation (Garrard et al., 2003; Peterson et al., 2004; Whitney et al., 2011). In addition, GTP-bound Cdc42 causes conformational changes in Par6 to activate aPKC (Yamanaka et al., 2001; Garrard et al., 2003). Because Cdc42 distributes in a polarized fashion, Cdc42 can also facilitate the apical localization and activation of Par complexes (Etienne-Manneville and Hall, 2001). Par complexes are not just effectors of Rho GTPases. Pard3 can also positively regulate Cdc42 and Rac1 by activating two Rac GEFs, Tiam1 (T-lymphoma invasion and metastasis 1) and STEF (also called Tiam2), thus establishing a positive feedback loop (Chen and Macara, 2005; Nishimura et al., 2005; Zhang and Macara, 2006). This partially explains the observation that the loss of Cdc42, Par-3, Par-6, and PKC-3 causes similar polarity defects in diverse C. elegans cell types (Welchman et al., 2007). Furthermore, Par6 can also inhibit RhoA GTPase in dendritic spine formation in cultured neurons by activating p190 RhoGAP (Zhang and Macara, 2008). In addition, the RhoA effector Rho-kinase can phosphorylate Pard3 to disrupt Par complex formation in cell migration (Nakayama et al., 2008). Thus, Rho GTPase signaling can act both upstream and downstream of Par complexes.

Regulation by phosphorylation states

In a variety of cellular contexts, the activities of Par complexes are regulated by many kinases and phosphatases. For example, kinases Ndr1 and Ndr2, whose activity is stimulated by Rassf5, can phosphorylate mouse Pard3 at Ser383 to inhibit its interaction with retrograde dynein and thus to restrict Pard3 to axon tips for axonal specification (Yang et al., 2014). Human PARD3 can bind to, and be phosphorylated by, mitotic kinase Aurora-A at Ser962 to regulate axon specification (Khazaei and Puschel, 2009). Rat Pard3 can also be phosphorylated by Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase 2 (ERK2) at Ser1116 of its C-terminal coiled-coil domain, to which ERK2 binds; this phosphorylation promotes Pard3's unloading at the growth cone during axonal transportation by inhibiting Pard3's binding to KIF3A (kinesin-2) (Funahashi et al., 2013). In addition, Aurora also phosphorylates Par-6 in Drosophila neuroblasts for their polarized localization (Wirtz-Peitz et al., 2008). Par complexes can also be regulated via dephosphorylation. For example, mouse Pard3 can be dephosphorylated by serine/threonine phosphatase PP4 via interacting with PP4's regulator Smek1 through Pard3's coiled-coil domain; this modification removes Pard3's suppression on the differentiation of neural stem cells (Lyu et al., 2013).

Regulation by planar cell polarity (PCP)

Par3, Par6, and aPKC have traditionally been considered as proteins important for epithelial apicobasal polarity (Knust and Bossinger, 2002), which is defined as the polarization of cells along the axis from their apical end, which faces the luminal or external surfaces, to the basal end, which attaches to the basement membrane. Par complexes establish and maintain apicobasal polarity by regulating apical junctional complexes, such as adherens junctions and tight junctions. Interestingly, recent studies suggest that they are also linked to PCP (cell polarization within the two-dimensional plane of tissues, orthogonal to the apicobasal axis of individual cells). In cultured hippocampal neurons, aPKCζ can be activated to promote axon differentiation by binding to PCP component Dishevelled (Dvl), which is activated by noncanonical Wnt signaling ligand Wnt5a and accumulated at the tip of the growing axon but not that of other neurites (Zhang et al., 2007). This Dvl-mediated aPKCζ activation for axon differentiation can be inhibited by nucleoporin Nup358 via the physical binding of Nup358's N terminus to the kinase domain of aPKCζ and the PDZ domain of Dvl (Vyas et al., 2013). Also, Pard3 itself can localize in a planar polarized fashion in mouse inner ear sensory epithelia and regulates the planar orientation of stereociliary hair bundles by regulating the core PCP pathway (Landin Malt et al., 2019). Because apicobasal polarity and PCP together regulate the three-dimensional organization of tissues, Par complexes play a pivotal role in tissue morphogenesis by linking apicobasal and planar cell polarities.

Regulation by phosphoinositide (PIP) signaling

PIP signaling regulates a vast number of cellular processes (Di Paolo and De Camilli, 2006; Fruman et al., 2017), including the apical localization and activation of Par complexes. Drosophila Bazooka can associate with the cell membrane by directly binding to PIPs using its C terminal region (Krahn et al., 2010; McKinley et al., 2012); in addition, PDZ2 domain of rat Pard3 binds to PIPs (with assistance from nonspecific electrostatic interactions and the insertion of hydrophobic side chains into lipid membrane) (Wu et al., 2007). Also, the PDZ1-3 region of mouse Pard3 can associate with the cell membrane by binding to phosphatidic acid (Yu and Harris, 2012). In turn, the binding of Bazooka or Pard3 to PIPs indirectly modulates the makeup of PIPs because Par3's PDZ3 can recruit protein and lipid phosphatase PTEN2, which converts PI(3,4,5)P3 to PI(4,5)P2 at the apical cell–cell junctional regions (von Stein et al., 2005; Pinal et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2007; Feng et al., 2008). This localized PTEN-mediated dephosphorylation, together with phosphorylation by PI4P5 kinase Skittles (SKTL) and PI(4,5)P3 kinase DP110 to produce PI(4,5)P2 and PI(3,4,5)P3, respectively (Claret et al., 2014), regulates the regional balance between PI(3,4,5)P3 and PI(4,5)P2. A proper level of PI(3,4,5)P3 modulates PDK1 (PI(3,4,5)P3-dependent protein kinase 1), which activates rat aPKCζ by localizing to the cell membrane through the binding of its pleckstrin homology domain to PI(3,4,5)P3 (Chou et al., 1998; Le Good et al., 1998; Dainichi et al., 2016). Incidentally, PI(3,4,5)P3 can recruit GEFs via their pleckstrin homology domains to activate Cdc42 and Rac1, which in turn activate aPKC by binding to Par6 (Zheng, 2001; Di Paolo and De Camilli, 2006). Thus, the phosphorylation states of PIPs modulate the localization and activities of Par complexes, making Par complexes integration sites of PIP signaling.

Regulation by TGFβ signaling

Human PARD6γ can bind to Type I TGFβ receptor, TβRI, via its PB1 domain. Upon stimulation by TGFβ, Type II TGFβ receptor is recruited to the Par6-TβRI complex to phosphorylate Par6. During TGFβ-mediated epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, this phosphorylation promotes PARD6γ's binding to E3 ubiquitin ligase Smurf1, which mediates ubiquitination of RhoA at tight junctions and consequently disrupts tight junction (Ozdamar et al., 2005). Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition is based on drastic cell shape changes, which also occur during tissue morphogenesis, such as neurulation. Indeed, TGFβ regulates neural tube closure by interacting with Par complexes in the neuroepithelium to modulate cell shape changes (Amarnath and Agarwala, 2017). These findings suggest that, in a variety of cellular contexts, Par complexes are regulated by TGFβ signaling, which has been implicated in normal neurodevelopment and neuropsychiatric disorders (Galvez-Contreras et al., 2016; Hiew et al., 2021; Mitra et al., 2022).

Regulation of basolateral Lgl-Dlg-Scrib complex

As apicobasal polarity proteins, one way Par complexes contribute to epithelial apicobasal polarity is by directly limiting basolateral proteins from localizing at the apical side. Mouse Pard6γ-aPKCλ-Cdc42 complex can bind to and phosphorylate basolateral protein Lethal giant larvae (Lgl), and the binding occurs between Pard6γ's PDZ domain and Lgl's N terminus (Plant et al., 2003). These interactions were also verified in human cells (Yamanaka et al., 2003). This binding brings Lgl into close contact with aPKCλ for phosphorylation at the apical side of the cell, thus restricting phosphorylated Lgl to the basolateral region (Betschinger et al., 2003), where it negatively regulates the apical membrane domain (Hutterer et al., 2004; Yamanaka et al., 2006). As a result of its basolateral localization, Lgl also restricts cell fate determinant Miranda to the basal side of Drosophila neuroblasts (Betschinger et al., 2003), thus playing a critical role in asymmetric cell division. In this regulatory process, mitotic kinase Aurora-A phosphorylates and activates DmPar-6, which then activates aPKC to phosphorylate Lgl to release Lgl's prevention of Bazooka from binding to the DmPar-6-aPKC complex; this alters the substrate specificity of aPKC and consequently phosphorylates cell fate determinant Numb to promote its basal localization in asymmetric cell division (Wirtz-Peitz et al., 2008). Lgl is only one example of a vast number of polarity proteins that can be phosphorated by aPKC. For more information on aPKC-mediated protein phosphorylation, interested readers are referred to a more detailed review (Hong, 2018).

Interaction with Crumbs (Crb) protein complex

Par complexes also interact with the evolutionarily conserved Crb apical protein complex (Crb, Pals1, Lin7c, and PATJ). In the neuroepithelium and many other epithelia, Par3, aPKC, and Par6 colocalize with Crb complex in a narrow region apical to the tight junctions, as we and others have revealed (Wei and Malicki, 2002; Sotillos et al., 2004; Wei et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2009; Zou et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2020). Mammalian Pard6β's PDZ domain can bind to the N terminus of Pals1 (proteins associated with Lin7) (Hurd et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2004), which is the mammalian homolog of zebrafish Nok and fly Stardust (Hong et al., 2001; Wei and Malicki, 2002). The Pard6β-Pals1 interaction competes with Pals1-PATJ (PALS1-associated tight junction protein) interaction (Wang et al., 2004). In addition, DmPar-6's N terminus can also bind to the PDZ3 domain of Dlt (Discs lost), the fly homolog of mammalian PATJ, to regulate the localization of Crb complex for Drosophila embryonic epithelial polarity and photoreceptor morphogenesis, respectively (Nam and Choi, 2003; Hutterer et al., 2004). DmPar-6 can also bind to the C-terminus of Crb via its PDZ domain, thus mutually reinforcing each other's apical accumulation (Nunes de Almeida et al., 2019). Similar binding also exists between human CRB3 and PARD6α (Lemmers et al., 2004). Drosophila aPKC can phosphorylate Crb and directly bind to Crb and PATJ for apical localization (Sotillos et al., 2004). These physical binding interactions between Par and Crb complexes suggest that these apical polarity proteins may form super complexes and collectively regulate cell polarization.

Interactions with Hippo signaling

Par complexes also interact with Hippo signaling, which mediates diverse cellular processes, such as cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival, by regulating the nuclear localization of the Yki/YAP/TAZ transcription cofactors and consequently gene expression (Zheng and Pan, 2019; Schroeder and Halder, 2012; Enderle and McNeill, 2013; Yu and Guan, 2013). Hippo signaling is based on a kinase cascade, in which the upstream Hpo/Mst kinases phosphorylate and activate Wts/Lats kinases, which then phosphorylate Yki/YAP/TAZ to inhibit their nuclear localization and activity. Proper expression and activation of aPKC are important for Hippo signaling. For example, constitutively active aPKCζ can transform MDCK cells and murine mammary epithelial cells into tumor-like cells by interacting and blocking the membrane localization of Mst1/2, thus suppressing Hippo signaling and increasing nuclear localization and activity of unphosphorylated YAP1 (Archibald et al., 2015). In addition, aPKCζ can phosphorylate and inhibit Kibra, an upstream activator of Mst/Hippo (Buther et al., 2004; Yoshihama et al., 2009). On the other hand, Kibra can also inhibit aPKCζ by directly binding to its kinase domain (Yoshihama et al., 2011). Thus, Par complexes and Hippo signaling mutually inhibit each other.

Inhibition of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β)

GSK3β regulates many neurodevelopmental processes, such as neurogenesis, neuronal migration, neuronal polarization, and axon growth and guidance (for more information on GSK3β, readers are referred to a more detailed review, Hur and Zhou, 2010). GSK3β activity can be inhibited by Par complexes through two indirect mechanisms. First, rat Pard3 binds to and activates PI3K (Itoh et al., 2010), which phosphorylates and activates PKB/Akt to phosphorylate and inactivate GSK3β (Cross et al., 1995; Frame and Cohen, 2001). Second, mouse or rat aPKCζ can recruit Dvl, which binds to and locally inhibits GSK3β's function by disrupting the complex of GSK3β, axin, adenomatous polyposis coli, and β-catenin (Etienne-Manneville and Hall, 2003; Schlessinger et al., 2007). Interestingly, localization of mammalian Pard3 at axon tips also requires local inhibition of GSK3β (Shi et al., 2004), suggesting a feedback regulation between Par3 and GSK3β. Thus, Par complexes can regulate neurodevelopment via GSK3β signaling.

Regulation of phospholipase C

When cotransfected in HEK293 cells, human PARD3 and PARD6 were found to bind to G-protein-activated phospholipase C-β (PLC-β) via PARD3's PDZ1 and PARD6's PDZ domains; this association can stimulate PLC-β to hydrolyze PI(4,5)P2 into second messengers diacylglycerol and inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate (Cai et al., 2005). Given that PLC-β signaling plays important roles in neurodevelopment and that PLC-β is involved in neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders (Cockcroft, 2006; Kang et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016), it would be interesting to further evaluate how Par complexes regulate neurodevelopment by interacting with PLC-β signaling in neurons in vivo.

In sum, by interacting with many other proteins and lipids through physical binding and biochemical modifications, Par complexes integrate various signaling pathways.

Par Complexes in Neurodevelopment

Par complexes are essential for the development of neurons and glial cells from undifferentiated neuroepithelial cells. The current understanding of the roles of Par complexes in the nervous system has been largely limited to early development by studying embryonic development and neurons cultured in vitro. However, the functions of Par complexes in the adult nervous system are much less understood because embryonic lethality caused by systemic loss-of-function approaches has made it difficult to study their roles in the adult nervous system in vivo. For example, the loss of zebrafish Pard3αb (Wei et al., 2004; Guo et al., 2018), Pard6γb (Munson et al., 2008; Guo et al., 2018), and aPKCλ (Horne-Badovinac et al., 2001) usually resulted in embryonic lethality. One exception is the zebrafish pard3αbfh305 mutation, which was supposed to be a null nonsense mutation at the N-terminus. However, the protein expression level in zebrafish pard3αbfh305 was not examined to rule out the possibility of an alternative translation or transcription that bypasses the pard3αbfh305 mutation and produces shorter and yet functional products (Blasky et al., 2014). Loss of Pard3 in mice also resulted in embryonic lethality (Hirose et al., 2006). In this section, we summarize major findings regarding the functions of Par complexes in neuroepithelial polarization, neurogenesis, neuronal migration, neurite development, synaptic plasticity, memory, and myelination. We also discuss how cell polarization in various cellular contexts can be correlated.

Par complexes in neuroepithelial polarization and integrity

The CNS develops from the neural tube, which is made of a single layer of pseudostratified neuroepithelial cells. These cells contact both apical luminal surface and basal basement membrane, displaying apicobasal and planar cell polarities. Although neuroepithelium is much thicker than simple epithelia, these epithelia are similar in the overall organization of their apical adhesion complexes, with Crb-mediated adhesions, tight junctions, and adherens junctions aligned sequentially in the apical-to-basal direction (Zou et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2018) (Fig. 2A). This similarity suggests that conserved apical adhesion mechanisms are used to build various monolayer epithelia. Par complexes establish and maintain epithelial polarity and integrity by stabilizing and organizing apical adhesions through physical and biochemical interactions with many proteins in adhesion complexes, for example, Pard6β with Pals1 (Hurd et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2004), Pard3 with tight junction-associated protein JAM (Ebnet et al., 2001), and Pard3 with nectins (Takekuni et al., 2003).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

The functions of Par complexes and various manifestations of cell polarity during neurodevelopment. A, Par complexes are essential for establishing and maintaining neuroepithelial polarity and integrity by regulating three apical adhesion mechanisms: Crb-mediated adhesion (Crb), tight junction (TJ), and adherens junction (AJ). B, Par complexes regulate both symmetric proliferative and asymmetric differentiative divisions in neurogenesis by controlling the biased distribution of cell fate determinants and the orientation and position of the mitotic spindle. C, Localizing to two opposite ends of neurons, Par complexes play important roles in axon specification, axon growth, and pathfinding, and dendritic spine morphogenesis. D, During synaptic plasticity, Par complexes recruit synaptic molecules and scaffold synaptic subcellular structures at presynaptic and/or postsynaptic terminals. Par complexes are also expected to regulate synaptogenesis. The presence and localization of Par complexes at synapses may vary depending on cell types. Red represents the apical ends of cells. Blue represents the basal ends of cells. Green represents the localizations of Par complexes.

In the neuroepithelium, the essential roles of Par complexes in maintaining epithelial polarity and integrity have been demonstrated by many in vivo studies. For example, the loss of Pard3 and Pard6γb caused abnormal junctional association between the left and right neuroepithelial cells during zebrafish neurulation, preventing the proper formation of the neural tube lumen (Wei et al., 2004; Munson et al., 2008; Guo et al., 2018), and the loss of aPKCλ disrupted neuroepithelial polarity of the retina and brain in zebrafish and mice (Horne-Badovinac et al., 2001; Imai et al., 2006). During neuroepithelial development, Par complex components are expressed at proper levels in a strict spatiotemporal fashion (Yang et al., 2009; Guo et al., 2018). Overexpression of Pard3, for example, disturbed the proper localization of other polarity proteins in the chicken neuroepithelium, causing neuroepithelial cells to detach from the apical surface and form rosettes in the basal regions (Afonso and Henrique, 2006). In short, Par complexes, along with other polarity proteins, establish and maintain the proper apicobasal polarity and integrity of the neuroepithelium from which the sophisticated CNS develops.

Par complexes in neurogenesis

Neuroepithelial cells and the later radial glial cells are neural stem cells. These cells divide either symmetrically, parallel to the plane of the neuroepithelium, or asymmetrically, along the apicobasal axis. Symmetric divisions expand the progenitor population and are thus called proliferative divisions, whereas asymmetric divisions produce an apical daughter cell that retains neural stem cell properties and a basal daughter cell that differentiates into a neuron and are thus called differentiative divisions (Fig. 2B). Whether a neuroepithelial cell divides symmetrically or asymmetrically depends on the orientation and position of the mitotic spindle, which determines not only the orientation and position of cytokinesis but also the distribution of fate determinants relative to the plane of cytokinesis. These processes are all regulated by Par complexes.

As fundamental polarity proteins, Par complexes play an important role in distributing cell fate determinants in a polarized fashion. For example, in Drosophila neuroblasts, aPKC-mediated phosphorylation prevents cell-fate determinants (the adaptor protein Miranda, the Notch signaling repressor Numb, and the transcription factor Prospero) from localizing apically (Rolls et al., 2003; Prehoda, 2009). Par complexes also regulate spindle orientation by apically localizing the NuMA-LGN-Gαi complex, which orients the mitotic spindle by anchoring and pulling astral microtubules of the spindle to the cell cortex via dynein (Kiyomitsu and Boerner, 2021; Lechler and Mapelli, 2021). The apical localization of NuMA-LGN-Gαi requires LGN binding to the adaptor protein Inscuteable, whose apical localization, in turn, depends on Par3 as revealed in various systems (Kuchinke et al., 1998; Wodarz et al., 1999; Schaefer et al., 2000; Yu et al., 2000; Petronczki and Knoblich, 2001; Du and Macara, 2004). aPKC can also negatively regulate the NuMA-LGN-Gαi complex. For example, in the first cell division of C. elegans embryonic development, anterior polarized PKC-3 phosphorylates NuMA homolog Lin-5 and attenuates cortical pulling force in the anterior region, leading to the posterior positioning of the spindle (Galli et al., 2011). In addition, in 3D MDCK cell cultures, aPKCλ can phosphorylate LGN to release it from the cell cortex by disrupting its attachment to membrane-associating GαI, thus promoting symmetric cell division for proper lumen formation (Hao et al., 2010).

During vertebrate neurogenesis, Par complexes are involved in both proliferative and differentiative cell divisions. In proliferative divisions during early cortical neurogenesis in mice, the protein levels of Pard3, Pard6, and aPKCλ at the apical surface are higher than they are during late cortical neurogenesis (Costa et al., 2008). Furthermore, when Pard3 was suppressed at E12 or E13 by in utero injection of anti-Pard3 shRNA expression constructs, smaller clone sizes of brain cells were induced, suggesting that high levels of Par complexes promote the expansion of the neural tissue through proliferative cell divisions (Costa et al., 2008; Bultje et al., 2009). However, conditional KO of Pard3 in developing mouse cortex at E9.5 resulted in overproduction of radial glial progenitor cells, causing megalencephaly with ribbon heterotopia and epilepsy, suggesting that Pard3 regulates neurogenesis in sophisticated spatiotemporal manners (Liu et al., 2018). In asymmetric divisions of mouse neuroepithelial cells, Par complexes remain apically localized, suggesting a conserved role in the asymmetric inheritance of cell-fate determinants (Manabe et al., 2002). This notion was supported by studies of asymmetric division of mouse radial glial progenitor cells, in which one daughter cell was enriched with Pard3 and Notch and took a radial glial progenitor cell fate and another daughter cell inherited less Pard3 and Notch and took a neuronal fate (Bultje et al., 2009).

While Par complexes are involved in both modes of cell divisions in the vertebrate neuroepithelium, the molecular mechanisms that underlie the spatiotemporal regulation of these two division modes are not well understood. Nevertheless, emerging evidence supports that Par complexes regulate vertebrate neurogenesis via their evolutionarily conserved roles in polarizing the distribution of fate determinants and in controlling spindle positioning and orientation.

Par complexes in neuronal migration and cellular pattern formation

Neurons are often born far from their final destinations and need to migrate and establish neural structures and circuits at a distant location. Neuronal migration involves the extension of the leading process, forward translocation of the centrosome and the nucleus, and retraction of the trailing end; these processes require dynamic regulation of cytoskeletons and unfold while the neuron is still attached to supporting substrates, such as a radial glial cell, suggesting the need of intercellular interactions for proper neuronal migration (Feng and Walsh, 2001; Nadarajah et al., 2001; Ayala et al., 2007; Minegishi and Inagaki, 2020). In glial-guided migration of purified cerebellar granule neurons in culture, Pard6α and aPKCζ are enriched in the centrosome and underlie the integrity and movement of the centrosome; Pard6α and aPKCζ also participate in the assembly of the perinuclear microtubule cage that encompasses the cell nucleus for translocation (Solecki et al., 2004). The forward migration of the centrosome and the soma requires acto-myosin-mediated contractility in the leading process, and this contractility is activated by the phosphorylation of the myosin light chain in a Pard6a-dependent manner (Solecki et al., 2004, 2009). In addition, Pard3 recruits tight junction adhesion molecule C to the surface contacts between migrating cerebellar granule neurons and neighboring neurons or glia for proper radial migration (Ebnet et al., 2001; Famulski et al., 2010). Furthermore, Pard6γb, aPKCλ, and aPKCζ regulate the proper migration of facial branchiomotor neurons in a cell nonautonomous fashion in zebrafish, suggesting that neuronal migration mediated by intracellular Par complexes is dependent on intercellular interactions (Grant and Moens, 2010), attesting to the importance of studying the functions of Par complexes in vivo. Because of these roles in migration, the disruption of Par complex-mediated neuronal migration resulting from Pard3 deficiency is expected to contribute to abnormal tissue architectures, such as cortical heterotopia (Liu et al., 2018) and retinal lamination defects (Wei et al., 2004).

Mechanisms of the subcellular localization of Par complexes in neurons

Unlike in neuroepithelial cells, where Par complexes localize apical to the adherens junctions and tight junctions (Guo et al., 2018), the localization of Par complexes in differentiated neurons is quite complicated because of the extensive neuronal arborization (Fig. 2C). In this section, we review findings regarding the mechanisms of expression and localization of Par complex components at tissue/cell and subcellular levels in neurons. This provides background information for understanding the functions of Par complexes in neurons, reviewed in later sections.

Homologs of Par3, Par6, and aPKC are differentially transcribed across various tissue and cell types in vertebrates. Northern blotting has revealed that human PARD6α is expressed in the nervous system, muscles, and kidneys, whereas PARD6β and PARD6γ are strongly expressed in the kidney but weakly in other tissues (Noda et al., 2001). However, in zebrafish, Pard6γb is expressed in the neural tube and is required for neurulation (Munson et al., 2008), suggesting possible differences in tissue specificity among species. Similarly, the human PARD3β homolog (also known as Par3-L) is expressed strongly in the kidney but weakly in the other tissues, including the nervous system; this differs from the broader expression of PARD3 (Gao et al., 2002). As for aPKC, Western blotting and ISH revealed that aPKCλ and PKMζ were expressed in many regions of the rat and mouse brain, including the neocortex, cerebellum, and CA1 regions; in contrast, the full-length aPKCζ was not detectable in the forebrain by Western blotting, although it was found in the lateral olfactory tract by ISH, and was also expressed in the kidney and the hindbrain, including the cerebellum (Hernandez et al., 2003; Oster et al., 2004). These different expression patterns suggest that the nervous system and even different regions of the nervous system require distinct isoforms or homologs of Par complex components for their normal functions.

The subcellular localization of Par3, Par6, and aPKC is achieved via several mechanisms, including translocation, local translation, and physical binding to other molecules (Table 2). Pard3 can be transported to the axon tip anterogradely along microtubules by binding to the plus-end-directed kinesin KIF3A using its C-terminal coiled-coil domain (Nishimura et al., 2004). This Pard3/KIF3A complex is also associated with the plus-end binding protein adenomatous polyposis coli, which further facilitates Pard3's enrichment at the axon tip (Shi et al., 2004). The complex formation with KIF3A is inhibited by phosphorylation of rat Pard3 by ERK2 (Funahashi et al., 2013). Along with Pard3, aPKCλ is translocated via binding to Pard3 and KIF3A (Nishimura et al., 2004).

Par3 and PKMζ can be locally translated and enriched in synapses via localized accumulation and translation of mRNA, which allows for quick responses to stimuli. This mechanism is particularly useful for differentiated neurons because of the long distance between the cell body and the synapse (Sutton and Schuman, 2005; Willis et al., 2007). For example, in cultured hippocampal neurons, PKMζ mRNA is transported rapidly to and stored at dendritic postsynaptic compartments for local translation; this mRNA transport requires cis-regulatory elements located at the junction between the 5′ UTR and open reading frame and in the 3′ UTR (Muslimov et al., 2004); these cis elements are recognized by specific RNA binding proteins that bind to microtubules for transport (Tiedge et al., 1999). These RNA binding proteins also suppress translation (Hernandez et al., 2003) until relieved by neuronal activity (Kelly et al., 2007a,b) or by local stimuli, such as the hypothalamic neuropeptide oxytocin (Lin et al., 2012). This localized de novo synthesis of PKMζ is believed to play an important role in synaptic long-term potentiation (LTP) and memory maintenance (Sacktor, 2011). Similarly, in Aplysia, aPKC mRNA is stored presynaptically for local translation during long-term facilitation; this local translation is promoted by CPEB (cytoplasmic polyadenylating element-binding protein), which is normally inhibited by miRNA-22 until relieved by the neuromodulator serotonin (Fiumara et al., 2015).

The localization of Par complex components may also be regulated by chemical modifications, such as phosphorylation. For example, mouse Pard3 can be phosphorylated by Ndr kinases at Ser383. This phosphorylation blocks Par3's binding to dynein for retrograde transport, thus facilitating its axonal accumulation (Yang et al., 2014).

Par complex components can be retained in the synapses via physical association with other local proteins or lipids. Pard3/Tiam1 complex can be recruited to hippocampal synapses via physical binding to brain-specific angiogenesis inhibitor 1, a synaptic adhesion GPCR required for both spinogenesis and synaptogenesis (Duman et al., 2013). In addition, Bazooka's enrichment at axon tips can be facilitated by binding to PIP3 using its C terminal region and PDZ2 domain (Wu et al., 2007; Krahn et al., 2010; McKinley et al., 2012). This mechanism is consistent with the finding that the axonal localization of mouse Pard3 requires PI 3-kinase (Shi et al., 2004), a key enzyme for synthesizing PIP3, which is concentrated at axon tips (Menager et al., 2004).

In addition to the above-mentioned localization mechanisms, liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) may play a role in the localization of Par complexes. In the past decade, growing evidence has suggested that many intracellular nonmembrane-bound structures behave as liquid condensates of molecules, or droplets as they are often referred to, which can fuse, drip, and quickly exchange content with the surrounding, less concentrated liquid phase of cytoplasm or nucleoplasm (Hyman and Simons, 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Hayashi et al., 2021). In Drosophila neuroblasts, Bazooka condenses as punctate foci that quickly exchange contents with their surrounding cytoplasmic liquid phase, fuse into larger foci, or separate into smaller ones, suggesting that they possess an LLPS property (Liu et al., 2020). This liquid phase separation is facilitated by binding interactions among Par3, Par6, and aPKC, particularly the oligomerization of Par3 mediated by its N-terminal PB1 domain (Liu et al., 2020). In addition, dynamic and polarized condensation of Drosophila Bazooka, DmPar-6, and aPKC was reconstructed in S2 cells on overexpression of Bazooka, suggesting that protein concentration is a critical driving factor for Par complex liquid condensation (Kono et al., 2019).

Although LLPS suits the need for dynamic Par complexes in the ever-changing cellular environment, it is unclear how the stochastic dissolution and condensation process of LLPS reconcile with the polarized localization of Par complexes, which occurs reproducibly and robustly in many cellular contexts. In the subcellular environment, other factors, such as local protein–protein binding, protein-lipid binding, biochemical modifications, and translation-mediated local protein enrichment, may collectively dictate the nucleation of Par complexes in specific subcellular regions in a predictable fashion. While challenging, how these factors collectively orchestrate the localization of Par complexes during neuronal development is an important question to address in the future.

Another outstanding question is how the localization of Par complexes in differentiating or differentiated neurons is regulated relative to other polarity proteins in space and time. Previously, we showed that during neurulation, groups of apical polarity proteins localize to the apical side of the neuroepithelium in three steps: pioneer, intermediate, and terminal. Whereas N-cadherin and ZO-1 belong to the pioneer protein group, Pard3αb, Pard6γb, and aPKCλ, along with Crb complex, belong to the intermediate protein group, and Na+/K+ ATPase belongs to the terminal group (Yang et al., 2009; Guo et al., 2018). In morphologically complex neurons, the proper function of Par complexes and other polarity proteins may also require a certain spatiotemporal order. For example, in neurons, both N-cadherin and Na+/K+ ATPase are expressed, but it is unknown how their localization is spatiotemporally coordinated with that of Par complexes.

Par complexes in axon specification and development

Neuronal polarization is manifested by the long extension of an axon and numerous dendrites for transmitting and receiving neuronal signals, respectively. Par complexes play a critical role in defining which neurite develops into the axon (Fig. 2C). When neurites start to differentiate in cultured hippocampal neurons, enrichment of Pard3, Pard6, and aPKCζ at the tip of one presumptive axon may be essential for axon specification and development because suppression of Pard3, Pard6, and aPKCζ blocked neuronal polarization (Shi et al., 2003). The regulation of axon specification by Par complexes requires mediation by Wnt signaling as suggested by two lines of evidence: First, on the loss of the downstream effector of Wnt signaling Dvl, which directly associates with aPKC to promote its axon accumulation, axon specification was disrupted. Second, Wnt5a promoted axon specification (Zhang et al., 2007). In addition, Par complex-mediated axon specification is regulated by TGFβ signaling, as evidenced by the fact that TGFβ could stimulate axon specification through Type II TGFβ receptor by phosphorylating Par6 (Yi et al., 2010). Interestingly, aPKCλ and PKMζ isoforms localize to presumptive axon- and non–axon-forming neurites, respectively (Parker et al., 2013). Moreover, overexpression of PKMζ inhibited axon formation, whereas overexpression of aPKCλ resulted in supernumerary axons, suggesting that aPKCλ promotes axon formation and PKMζ inhibits axon specification. Instead, PKMζ may promote dendrite formation, possibly via antagonistic competition for Par3 (Parker et al., 2013).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Schematic illustration of the upstream regulators and downstream effectors of Par complexes during neurodevelopment. Double arrows indicate the binding interactions among the constitutes of Par complexes.

Once an axon is specified, it needs to extend and find its target neurons. Par complex also plays an important role in axon growth and pathfinding. To control axon growth, Par complexes regulate microtubules, the major cytoskeletal components of axons. Pard3 can directly stabilize microtubules by promoting their bundling using its N-terminal-mediated oligomerization and the physical binding between microtubules and Pard3's PDZ3 domain (Chen et al., 2013). Par complexes can also enhance microtubule assembly by suppressing microtubule affinity-regulating kinase 2 (Chen et al., 2006), which otherwise phosphorylates microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), such as tau, and destabilizes microtubules. In addition, because MAPs regulate not only microtubule dynamics but also axonal transport and synaptic structure and function (Tapia-Rojas et al., 2019), Par complexes can exert a broad impact on neuronal development by regulating microtubule affinity-regulating kinase 2.

The promotion of axon growth and pathfinding by Par3 is influenced by extracellular signals. For example, in primary cultures of rat embryonic DRG neurons, nerve growth factor, and netrin-1 can stimulate local translation of Pard3 from stored mRNA to stimulate axon growth (Hengst et al., 2009). In contrast, in the context of CNS injury where axon growth is lacking and oligodendrocytes, Pard3, Pard6, and aPKCζ inhibit axon growth, and this inhibition is activated by chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans secreted by oligodendrocytes in the glial scar (Lee et al., 2013). Thus, different extracellular signals regulate the activity of Par complexes differently to either promote axon elongation in normal development or inhibit axon growth during CNS injury.

However, the requirement of Par complexes for axon morphogenesis is not universal. In Drosophila, not all neuronal lineages require Bazooka and DmPar-6 for axon morphogenesis and pathfinding (Rolls and Doe, 2004; Spindler and Hartenstein, 2011). Of note, Drosophila neurons' unipolar branching pattern (i.e., a single neurite branching into both dendritic and axonal terminals) is distinct from those of vertebrate neurons. This morphologic difference may necessitate different regulatory mechanisms (Spindler and Hartenstein, 2011).

Par complexes in dendritic spinogenesis

While Par complexes are enriched at axon tips during the early neuronal development, at the late stages of neuronal differentiation, in addition to localizing in axon tips, they also localize to dendritic spines to regulate spinogenesis and maintain excitatory synapses (Fig. 2C). In hippocampal neurons, spine-localized Pard3 binds to Rac GEF TIAM1 and spatially restricts it to dendritic spines, thus locally modulating the Rac–GTP-dependent actin cytoskeleton for proper spinogenesis (Zhang and Macara, 2006). As discussed earlier, this dendritic localization of Pard3 is regulated by synaptic adhesion molecule GPCR brain-specific angiogenesis inhibitor 1 (Duman et al., 2013). In addition, the coiled-coil domain of Pard3 can bind to scaffolding protein FRMD4A (FERM domain containing 4A) and form a complex with guanine nucleotide exchange factor cytohesin-1 to activate GTPase ARF6 (ADP-ribosylation factor 6) (Ikenouchi and Umeda, 2010), which modulates actin cytoskeleton dynamics in dendritic branching (Jaworski, 2007). The interaction between rat Pard3 and FRMD4A might be important for normal neurodevelopment because the loss of FRMD4A was associated with congenital microcephaly, intellectual disability, and dysmorphism (Fine et al., 2015). Similarly, in Drosophila neuromuscular junctions, Bazooka is required for postsynaptic F-actin enrichment (Ramachandran et al., 2009). Interestingly, independent of Pard3, the Pard6/aPKCζ complex also regulates the actin cytoskeleton in spinogenesis by inhibiting RhoA through p190A RhoGAP (Zhang and Macara, 2008). PKMζ also regulates the length and morphology of spines as revealed by overexpression of PKMζ in primary cultures of rat cortical neurons, which reduced spine length, although it did not affect spine density and dendritic branching (Ron et al., 2012). Similarly, in vivo overexpression and suppression of PKMζ in the optic tectum of Xenopus tadpoles revealed that PKMζ stabilized the growth of dendritic filopodia and restricted dendritic arborization, suggesting that PKMζ helps with synapse maturation during embryonic brain circuit development (Liu et al., 2009).

Par complexes in synaptic plasticity and memory

Neurotransmission at synapses is the central function of neurons. Thus, proper synaptic development, maintenance, and plasticity underlie cognition (Fromer et al., 2014; Volk et al., 2015). How specific synaptic connections are established and modulated in learning and memory remains incompletely understood, however (Sudhof, 2018; Sanes and Zipursky, 2020). Given the fact that Par complexes regulate spinogenesis and axon specification and growth, it is expected that Par complexes also regulate synaptogenesis, but research about this important topic has been scarce. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that Par complexes play important roles in synaptic plasticity at both presynaptic and postsynaptic sites and in memory formation and maintenance (Fig. 2D). In the following section, we review the findings in this regard.

In developed neurons, synapse-localized Par complexes regulate the dynamics of the synaptic cytoskeleton. For example, in the presynaptic compartment of Drosophila neuromuscular junctions, aPKC colocalizes with DmPar-6 and Bazooka and promotes the association of Futsch, a MAP1B-related protein, with microtubules, thus stabilizing microtubules. In contrast, at F-actin-rich postsynaptic sites, aPKC regulates the segregation of actin-rich regions from microtubule-rich regions without colocalizing with DmPar-6 and Bazooka; yet DmPar-6 and Bazooka regulate the formation of synaptic boutons by promoting the F-actin-rich regions (Ruiz-Canada et al., 2004). While not colocalizing with aPKC, the postsynaptic targeting of Bazooka to the F-actin-rich postsynaptic site requires its phosphorylation by aPKC; however, the subsequent retention of Bazooka in the F-actin-rich region requires its dephosphorylation by phosphatase PTEN (Ramachandran et al., 2009).

The synaptic localization of Par complex components is important for synaptic plasticity because they facilitate the recruitment of synaptic membrane proteins by physical binding and biochemical modifications. PKMζ enriched at dendritic spines can phosphorylate and activate ZDHHC8, an enzyme that palmitoylates PSD-95 to facilitate its attachment to membranes and targeting to synapses (Yoshii et al., 2011). In addition, aPKC facilitates glutamate receptor localization in the postsynaptic compartment of Drosophila neuromuscular junctions (Ruiz-Canada et al., 2004). During LTP in rats, aPKCλ can phosphorylate the GluA1 subunit of AMPAR (Parker et al., 2013; Ren et al., 2013) to facilitate its incorporation into active synapses (Boehm et al., 2006; Lin et al., 2009). Furthermore, PARD3's PDZ3 domain can bind to the intracellular PDZ domain of CNTNAP2 (contactin-associated protein-like 2), a Type I transmembrane cell adhesion molecule, to promote its punctate localization in interneurons (Gao et al., 2020); this localization is necessary for CNTNAP2 to cluster potassium channels at the juxtaparanode (Poliak et al., 2003).

LTP of synaptic strength may directly involve PKMζ (Kandel, 2001; Sacktor, 2011). According to the synaptic tagging and capture theory (Frey and Morris, 1997), several studies suggested that PKMζ is one of the plasticity-related proteins, which are synthesized locally and captured by synaptic “tags” in newly potentiated synapses at the early phase of LTP and promote these synapses to develop from the early into the late phase of LTP (Osten et al., 1996; Sajikumar et al., 2005; Serrano et al., 2005; Kelly et al., 2007a; Sajikumar and Korte, 2011). PKMζ was suggested to be necessary and sufficient to maintain late phase of LTP in hippocampal slices (Ling et al., 2002), and that overexpression of WT PKMζ, but not dominant-negative PKMζ, enhanced long-term memory (Shema et al., 2007, 2009, 2011; Serrano et al., 2008; Kwapis et al., 2009; von Kraus et al., 2010). Overexpression of PKMζ also promoted memory in Drosophila and rats (Drier et al., 2002; Shema et al., 2011). In contrast, inhibition of PKMζ by ZIP (ζ inhibitory peptide, a myristoylated pseudosubstrate peptide derived from the autoinhibitory region of PKC) reversed LTP and erased memory (Pastalkova et al., 2006; Madronal et al., 2010; Gao et al., 2018), and suppression of PKMζ by chelerythrine induced LTD (Hrabetova and Sacktor, 1996). LTD may require differential regulation of PKC isoforms because upregulation of cPKC and downregulation of PKMζ were both associated with LTD (Hrabetova and Sacktor, 2001).

Of note, methodological issues have raised doubts about the above-mentioned findings implicating PKMζ in LTP and LTD. First, the specificity of ZIP is a major concern about the specific role of PKMζ in vivo because ZIP also blocks cPKCs (Karaman et al., 2008; Wu-Zhang et al., 2012). Supporting these doubts, ZIP was reported to broadly disrupt neural activity (LeBlancq et al., 2016). In addition, whereas genetic loss of PKMζ did not cause learning and memory defects, ZIP treatment of PKMζ-deficient mice showed such defects (Lee et al., 2013; Volk et al., 2013). Finally, the ZIP-mediated loss of LTP and memory could be nonspecific because ZIP was excitotoxic to cultured hippocampal neurons (Sadeh et al., 2015).

Despite the above concerns regarding the effects of ZIP, a role for PKMζ in late LTP and long-term memory cannot be excluded. For example, PKMζ may be redundant with aPKCλ, which is more stable than newly synthesized PKMζ in synapses after chemical LTP induction (Palida et al., 2015). Supporting this notion, KO of PKMζ in mice can be compensated for by aPKCλ, which can also be inhibited by ZIP (Tsokas et al., 2016; Farah et al., 2017). Likewise, the loss of aPKCλ can be compensated for by PKMζ (Sheng et al., 2017). The potential redundancy between PKMζ and aPKCλ in mammals is consistent with the observation that the loss of aPKC compromised synaptic bouton formation in Drosophila, which has only one aPKC (Ruiz-Canada et al., 2004).

An involvement of PKMζ in LTP and memory is also consistent with the immuno-EM observation that age-related loss of memory is correlated with a decrease in the dendritic synaptic expression of PKMζ and AMPA receptors in rhesus monkeys (Hara et al., 2012). In addition, overexpression of PKMζ-GFP in postsynaptic compartments was correlated with the enrichment of postsynaptic scaffold protein PSD-95 at excitatory synapses (Shao et al., 2012) and with the shortening of dendritic spines and the increase in the amplitude of excitatory postsynaptic currents (Ron et al., 2012).

All these findings suggest that both PKMζ and aPKCλ play important roles in memory formation, possibly in a partially redundant fashion to ensure robust LTP. This redundancy is supported by mathematical modeling (Jalil et al., 2015). The full-length aPKC might be more involved in short-term memory because it can be regulated by external signals, whereas PKMζ may predominantly regulate long-term memory because of its constitutive activity (Hernandez et al., 2003) that is not easily influenced by external signals. This notion is also supported by the differential effects of RNAi-mediated knockdown of aPKCλ and PKMζ in the mouse dorsal hippocampus on short-term and long-term memory, respectively (Wang et al., 2016).

Par complexes in glial development

Par complexes regulate not only neuronal development but also the development of glial cells, although research on this topic is not as abundant as that on neurons. It has been found, for example, that Pard3 is required for myelination. In cocultures of Schwann cells and DRG neurons of rats, Pard3 recruits p75 neurotrophin receptor (NTR) to the axon-glial junction through physical binding between Pard3's PDZ1 domain and p75 NTR in initiating myelination in a BDNF-dependent manner (Chan et al., 2006). Nectin-like cell adhesion protein 4 (Necl-4), which is expressed in Schwann cells, also interacts with Pard3, and this interaction is required for the proper localization of Pard3 at the interface between Schwann cells and axons (Meng et al., 2019). However, it is unknown whether Pard3 regulates Necl-4 localization by binding to Necl-1 (Meng et al., 2019). Finally, Pard3 is required for Reelin-induced Schwann cell migration by directly interacting with Reelin receptor ApoER2 (Pasten et al., 2015). Further research is expected to reveal additional functions of Par complexes in glial development.

A question about versatile manifestations of cell polarity in the nervous system

From morphologically simple neuroepithelial cells to complex neurons and glia of various shapes, cells of the nervous system are polarized, but with different manifestations, as exemplified by the subcellular localizations of Par complexes in the nervous system. This morphologic diversity raises questions about cell polarity and subcellular polarity: Can subcellular structures be polarized independent of cell polarization? If the presynaptic and postsynaptic compartments can be considered as the two opposing ends of polarized neurons, how do Par complexes localize to both ends? Can they still be considered polarity proteins? Can the seemingly opposite roles of Par complexes in axon versus dendrite specification be reconciled by differential localization of distinct homologs and/or isoforms on a spatiotemporal scale, such as aPKCλ in axons versus PKMζ in dendrites? Alternatively, spatially segregated subcellular structures, such as axonal tips and dendritic spines, should develop their own polarity without being influenced by polarity proteins at distal subcellular structures. In this way, the same apical polarity apparatus can be repurposed at opposite ends of the same neurons. It would be interesting to determine if and how these two mechanisms, or any other mechanisms, coordinate to regulate neuronal polarization.

Involvement of Par Complex Genes in Human Neuropsychiatric and Neurodegenerative Disorders

Defects in neuronal migration, neuronal polarization, and synaptogenesis are major characteristics of neurodevelopmental disorders. In addition, synaptic defects often precede massive cell loss in neurodegenerative and cognitive conditions, such as Parkinson's disease and AD (Marcello et al., 2012; Picconi et al., 2012; Lepeta et al., 2016; Lanctot et al., 2017; Soukup et al., 2018). Thus, both neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders can undermine neural circuits and functions and manifest symptoms, such as intellectual disability, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and schizophrenia (Valnegri et al., 2012; Yin et al., 2012; Batool et al., 2019). Although emerging evidence has linked some genetic risk factors with neurodevelopmental, neurodegenerative, and neuropsychiatric disorders (Volk et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2020; Rizalar et al., 2021), a complete understanding of the genetic causes of these disorders has yet to be achieved.

Given the important roles of Par complexes in neuroepithelial polarization, neurogenesis, neuronal migration, neurite development, synaptic plasticity, and memory (Fig. 2), it is reasonable to speculate that malfunction of Par complexes may contribute to neurodevelopmental, neurodegenerative, and neuropsychiatric disorders. For example, a PARD3 genetic defect may contribute to neuropsychiatric disorders by affecting its role in subcellular targeting of CNTNAP2 (Gao et al., 2020), malfunction of which is a risk factor for many neuropsychiatric disorders, including intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and cortical dysplasia focal epilepsy syndrome (Anney et al., 2012; Zweier, 2012; Rodenas-Cuadrado et al., 2016). It is also possible that hyperactivity of PRKCζ and PARD6α may promote neurodegeneration because increased expression of PRKCζ and PARD6α promoted the secretion of tau in cell culture (Yan et al., 2016). And tau secretion is a possible mechanism to propagate misfolded tau from cell to cell in a prion-like fashion, thus spreading the fibrillization of tau in healthy neighbor neurons, causing tauopathy (Frost et al., 2009; Sanders et al., 2014).

Supporting the above speculation, some genetic variants of Par complex genes have been associated with neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders in humans (Table 3). In this section, we review these variants and discuss their implications.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Genetic variants of human par complex genes and their associated clinical phenotypesa

Neuropsychiatric disorders

PARD3 and PARD3β

Genetic variants of both PARD3 and PARD3β are found to be associated with neuropsychiatric disorders. In a study of 204 schizophrenia patients and 351 normal controls in a Korean population, synonymous single-nucleotide variant (SNV) rs3781128 and two intronic SNVs rs1936429 and rs671228 of PARD3 were found to be associated with schizophrenia (Kim et al., 2012). In another study of 2458 cases of schizophrenia, 1108 cases of autism spectrum disorder, and 2095 healthy controls in a Japanese population, two small deletion copy number variants (CNVs), RCV000754238 and RCV000754239, affecting only PARD3β but not its neighboring gene, were associated with schizophrenia (Kushima et al., 2018). In another study of 11,730 patients with neurodevelopmental disorders and 2867 controls, two likely gene-disruptive variants in PARD3β were associated with autism spectrum disorder (Stessman et al., 2017). In a different study, intronic SNV rs4675502 of PARD3β was found to be associated with autism spectrum disorder (Anney et al., 2010, 2012). In another study, missense SNV rs80119103, which causes a Pro1145His mutation in PARD3β at the C-terminus that is not conserved with PARD3, was found in 1 of 8 Saudi children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Bogari et al., 2020).

PARD6β and PARD6γ

Two of the three human PARD6 genes have been implicated in neuropsychiatric disorders. A study of 188 bipolar disorder patients and 376 healthy controls in a Bulgarian population suggested that SNV rs6122972, located in the 3′ UTR of PARD6β, is associated with bipolar disorder (Yosifova et al., 2011). This SNV may affect mRNA stability, thus affecting the PARD6β protein level. In another study of 909 subjects with schizophrenia and 917 controls from the South African Xhosa population, missense mutation Gly165Cys of PARD6γ was identified in one case, as a heterozygote. This mutation altered a highly conserved amino acid residue in the PDZ domain and was not present in any public database (Gulsuner et al., 2020).

PRKCι and PRKCζ

Abnormalities in both PRKCι and PRKCζ genes have also been associated with neuropsychiatric disorders. A comparison between SNVs and gene expression levels in the human PFC revealed that intronic SNV rs2140825-based reduction in PRKCι expression was associated with bipolar disorder (Wellcome Trust Case Control, 2007; Iwamoto et al., 2011). Another study revealed that intronic SNV rs1392366 of PRKCι was associated with bipolar disorder comorbid with alcohol use disorder (Dalvie et al., 2016). The expression of PRKCι as well as many other genes was promoted by topiramate, a drug that has been used to treat bipolar disorder and methamphetamine dependence (Li et al., 2014). In addition, higher PRKCι mRNA expression in the PFC was found in suicide victims (Choi et al., 2011). Moreover, a CpG island in the promoter region of PRKCι was shown to be entrained by light through methylation, suggesting that PRKCι protein expression levels are subject to seasonal and geographical influences, providing a molecular explanation for mood swings caused by these environmental factors (Aslibekyan et al., 2014).

In addition to PRKCι, PRKCζ and PKMζ have also been suggested as risk factors for neuropsychiatric disorders. In a study of 738 patients, intronic SNV rs3753242 in PRKCζ was found to be associated with schizophrenia (McClay et al., 2011). In another study of 600 bipolar disorder patients and 605 normal controls, intronic SNVs rs3128396, rs2503706, and rs3128309 in PRKCζ were found to be associated with bipolar disorder (Kandaswamy et al., 2012). In the same study of the South African Xhosa population mentioned above, a Val557Met missense mutation of PRKCζ was identified in another heterozygous schizophrenia patient, affecting a highly conserved amino acid residue in the kinase domain (Gulsuner et al., 2020). In addition, SNV rs3128296, located in the promoter region of PKMζ, is associated with bipolar disorder (Kandaswamy et al., 2012).

In contrast to the above evidence of the association of genetic variants of human Par complex genes with neuropsychiatric conditions, variants of these genes were not identified as risk factors for autism spectrum disorder in four other studies of a total of 965 autistic families (Iossifov et al., 2012; Neale et al., 2012; O'Roak et al., 2012; Sanders et al., 2012), suggesting that genetic variations in Par complexes may not be common causes of autism spectrum disorder.

Neurodegenerative disorders

Evidence also suggests that Par complex genes are implicated in neurodegenerative disorders. For example, in a study of 86 AD patients and 404 controls in Sweden's Uppsala population, synonymous SNV rs14920 in PARD6α was reported to be associated with AD (Giedraitis et al., 2009). In addition, PKMζ was found enriched in phospho-tau-rich neurofibrillary tangles, one of the hallmark intracellular pathologic features of AD (Crary et al., 2006), implying that improper aggregation of PKMζ may be related to neuronal degeneration. Similarly, PRKCι was also found enriched in tau-positive neurofibrillary inclusions and actin-rich Hirano bodies in AD patients as well as in α-synuclein-rich Lewy bodies in idiopathic Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies (Shao et al., 2006). However, the mechanism of such PKMζ and PRKCι aggregation is unknown; it is unclear whether any genetic alteration in PKMζ and PRKCι caused their intracellular aggregation, which then resulted in neurodegeneration.

Effects of partial versus complete loss of Par complex functions

Most of the above variants are synonymous SNVs, intronic SNVs, or CNVs, except for a few missense mutations. Synonymous SNVs may reduce the efficiency of protein translation because of changes in codon usage; intronic SNVs may affect cis-regulatory elements that either affect transcription levels and specificity or alter splicing isoform selection; CNVs may cause gene dosage imbalance, whereas missense mutations in heterozygous patients may cause either a haploinsufficient or a dominant-negative effect (Kearney et al., 2011; Girirajan et al., 2012, 2013; Kirov, 2015; Shaikh, 2017; Takumi and Tamada, 2018). The common feature of these variants is that they may only partially compromise gene functions because any severe disruption of Par complex functions would likely have resulted in embryonic lethality because of their pivotal roles in many cellular processes, as suggested by animal models (Horne-Badovinac et al., 2001; Wei et al., 2004; Hirose et al., 2006; Munson et al., 2008; Guo et al., 2018). Such embryonic lethality would obscure the manifestation of any postnatal neuropsychiatric disorders. In addition, deleterious mutations would not be preserved in the gene pool because of purifying selection. For example, several PARD3 variants were associated with fatal neural tube defects in humans: in one study, 11 of 138 human fetuses with craniorachischisis and anencephaly had defects in PARD3 (Chen et al., 2017); in another study of 224 fetuses with anencephaly, 6 SNVs in PARD3 were associated with anencephaly (Gao et al., 2012).

In addition to germline mutations, somatic mutations of Par complex genes may also be a cause of neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. Because somatic mutations can occur in local regions in a mosaic fashion, pathogenic mutations may completely abolish the functions of the concerned genes while still allowing the affected people to survive and manifest neuropsychiatric or neurodegenerative disorders (D'Gama and Walsh, 2018). Of course, it is challenging to identify patients with somatic mutations, and any manifested neuropsychiatric symptoms in such patients could vary drastically from case to case, depending on the timing of mutations and the scope of the affected areas. As far as we know, no such cases have been identified for Par complex genes.

Together, partial but not complete and systemic loss of the functions of Par complex genes likely contributes to neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. However, current human genetics research on these genes has been at the level of finding and confirming the association between genetic variations and the disorders. Such associations need to be validated in animal models to rule out the possibility that any clinical symptoms were caused by defects in other genes. In addition, animal models will help with understanding how the genetic variants promote these disorders at the molecular and cellular levels. To study these genes in animal models, thoughtful genetic approaches may be necessary because of potential embryonic lethality and functional redundancy as mentioned above. For example, conditional KO of aPKCλ in differentiated mouse brain neurons did not result in loss of neurons (Yamanaka et al., 2013); this could suggest either that aPKCλ is not required for neuronal maintenance or that its role is compensated for by aPKCζ, as aPKCζ compensated for the loss of aPKCλ in LTP and memory (Sheng et al., 2017). The ever-expanding databases of human genetic variants (Sherry et al., 2001; Landrum et al., 2016; Azzariti et al., 2018), such as ClinVar, dbVar, dbSNP, and gnomAD, will help to reveal the genetic and molecular basis for various neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders.

In conclusion, at the nexus of various signaling pathways, the evolutionarily conserved Par3, Par6, and aPKC polarity proteins play essential roles in neural development and maintenance by regulating neuroepithelial polarity, neurogenesis, neuronal migration, neuronal differentiation, neuronal polarization, synaptic plasticity, and memory (Fig. 3). As a result, dysfunction of these proteins can contribute to neurodevelopmental, neuropsychiatric, and neurodegenerative symptoms. While it is practical and important to study the functions of these genes with in vitro approaches, one must realize the limitations of in vitro methodology because neurons interact more naturally with their neighboring cells in vivo and they may behave quite differently in cell culture. Future study of these genes in various types of neurons and glial cells with in vivo approaches will be challenging and yet rewarding.

Footnotes

  • L.Z. was supported by the Department of Psychology at Dalian Medical University. X.W. was supported by the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Pittsburgh; the Eye and Ear Foundation of Pittsburgh; and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness to the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Pittsburgh. We thank the reviewers and editors for the constructive feedback and editing; and Dr. Mary-Claire King for providing detailed information on some schizophrenia cases and suggestions for the manuscript.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Lili Zhang at zhangll{at}dmu.edu.cn or Xiangyun Wei at weix{at}upmc.edu

SfN exclusive license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Adams AE,
    2. Johnson DI,
    3. Longnecker RM,
    4. Sloat BF,
    5. Pringle JR
    (1990) CDC42 and CDC43, two additional genes involved in budding and the establishment of cell polarity in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Cell Biol 111:131–142. doi:10.1083/jcb.111.1.131 pmid:2195038
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Afonso C,
    2. Henrique D
    (2006) PAR3 acts as a molecular organizer to define the apical domain of chick neuroepithelial cells. J Cell Sci 119:4293–4304. doi:10.1242/jcs.03170 pmid:17003110
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Amarnath S,
    2. Agarwala S
    (2017) Cell-cycle-dependent TGFbeta-BMP antagonism regulates neural tube closure by modulating tight junctions. J Cell Sci 130:119–131. pmid:27034139
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Anney R, et al
    . (2010) A genome-wide scan for common alleles affecting risk for autism. Hum Mol Genet 19:4072–4082. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddq307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Anney R, et al
    . (2012) Individual common variants exert weak effects on the risk for autism spectrum disorders. Hum Mol Genet 21:4781–4792. doi:10.1093/hmg/dds301
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Akimoto K,
    2. Mizuno K,
    3. Osada S,
    4. Hirai S,
    5. Tanuma S,
    6. Suzuki K,
    7. Ohno S
    (1994) A new member of the third class in the protein kinase C family, PKC lambda, expressed dominantly in an undifferentiated mouse embryonal carcinoma cell line and also in many tissues and cells. J Biol Chem 269:12677–12683.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Archibald A,
    2. Al-Masri M,
    3. Liew-Spilger A,
    4. McCaffrey L
    (2015) Atypical protein kinase C induces cell transformation by disrupting Hippo/Yap signaling. Mol Biol Cell 26:3578–3595. doi:10.1091/mbc.E15-05-0265 pmid:26269582
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Aslibekyan S, et al
    . (2014) PRKCZ methylation is associated with sunlight exposure in a North American but not a Mediterranean population. Chronobiol Int 31:1034–1040. doi:10.3109/07420528.2014.944266 pmid:25075435
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Ayala R,
    2. Shu T,
    3. Tsai LH
    (2007) Trekking across the brain: the journey of neuronal migration. Cell 128:29–43. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.021 pmid:17218253
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Azzariti DR,
    2. Riggs ER,
    3. Niehaus A,
    4. Rodriguez LL,
    5. Ramos EM,
    6. Kattman B,
    7. Landrum MJ,
    8. Martin CL,
    9. Rehm HL
    (2018) Points to consider for sharing variant-level information from clinical genetic testing with ClinVar. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud 4:a002345. doi:10.1101/mcs.a002345
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Banerjee S,
    2. Riordan M,
    3. Bhat MA
    (2014) Genetic aspects of autism spectrum disorders: insights from animal models. Front Cell Neurosci 8:58. pmid:24605088
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Barbee JL,
    2. Deutscher SL,
    3. Loomis CR,
    4. Burns DJ
    (1993) The cDNA sequence encoding human protein kinase C-zeta. Gene 132:305–306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Batool S,
    2. Raza H,
    3. Zaidi J,
    4. Riaz S,
    5. Hasan S,
    6. Syed NI
    (2019) Synapse formation: from cellular and molecular mechanisms to neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders. J Neurophysiol 121:1381–1397. doi:10.1152/jn.00833.2018 pmid:30759043
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Betschinger J,
    2. Mechtler K,
    3. Knoblich JA
    (2003) The Par complex directs asymmetric cell division by phosphorylating the cytoskeletal protein Lgl. Nature 422:326–330. doi:10.1038/nature01486 pmid:12629552
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Blasky AJ,
    2. Pan L,
    3. Moens CB,
    4. Appel B
    (2014) Pard3 regulates contact between neural crest cells and the timing of Schwann cell differentiation but is not essential for neural crest migration or myelination. Dev Dyn 243:1511–1523. doi:10.1002/dvdy.24172 pmid:25130183
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Boehm J,
    2. Kang MG,
    3. Johnson RC,
    4. Esteban J,
    5. Huganir RL,
    6. Malinow R
    (2006) Synaptic incorporation of AMPA receptors during LTP is controlled by a PKC phosphorylation site on GluR1. Neuron 51:213–225. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.06.013 pmid:16846856
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Bogari NM, et al
    . (2020) The co-existence of ADHD with autism in Saudi children: an analysis using next-generation DNA sequencing. Front Genet 11:548559. doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.548559 pmid:33384710
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Bougie JK,
    2. Cai D,
    3. Hastings M,
    4. Farah CA,
    5. Chen S,
    6. Fan X,
    7. McCamphill PK,
    8. Glanzman DL,
    9. Sossin WS
    (2012) Serotonin-induced cleavage of the atypical protein kinase C Apl III in Aplysia. J Neurosci 32:14630–14640. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3026-11.2012 pmid:23077049
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Bultje RS,
    2. Castaneda-Castellanos DR,
    3. Jan LY,
    4. Jan YN,
    5. Kriegstein AR,
    6. Shi SH
    (2009) Mammalian Par3 regulates progenitor cell asymmetric division via notch signaling in the developing neocortex. Neuron 63:189–202. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.07.004 pmid:19640478
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Buther K,
    2. Plaas C,
    3. Barnekow A,
    4. Kremerskothen J
    (2004) KIBRA is a novel substrate for protein kinase Czeta. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 317:703–707. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.03.107 pmid:15081397
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Cai Y,
    2. Stafford LJ,
    3. Bryan BA,
    4. Mitchell D,
    5. Liu M
    (2005) G-protein-activated phospholipase C-beta, new partners for cell polarity proteins Par3 and Par6. Oncogene 24:4293–4300. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1208593 pmid:15782111
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Chan JR,
    2. Jolicoeur C,
    3. Yamauchi J,
    4. Elliott J,
    5. Fawcett JP,
    6. Ng BK,
    7. Cayouette M
    (2006) The polarity protein Par-3 directly interacts with p75NTR to regulate myelination. Science 314:832–836. doi:10.1126/science.1134069 pmid:17082460
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Chen S,
    2. Chen J,
    3. Shi H,
    4. Wei M,
    5. Castaneda-Castellanos DR,
    6. Bultje RS,
    7. Pei X,
    8. Kriegstein AR,
    9. Zhang M,
    10. Shi SH
    (2013) Regulation of microtubule stability and organization by mammalian Par3 in specifying neuronal polarity. Dev Cell 24:26–40. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2012.11.014 pmid:23273878
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Chen X,
    2. Macara IG
    (2005) Par-3 controls tight junction assembly through the Rac exchange factor Tiam1. Nat Cell Biol 7:262–269. doi:10.1038/ncb1226 pmid:15723052
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Chen X, et al
    . (2017) Rare deleterious PARD3 variants in the aPKC-binding region are implicated in the pathogenesis of human cranial neural tube defects via disrupting apical tight junction formation. Hum Mutat 38:378–389. doi:10.1002/humu.23153
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Chen YM,
    2. Wang QJ,
    3. Hu HS,
    4. Yu PC,
    5. Zhu J,
    6. Drewes G,
    7. Piwnica-Worms H,
    8. Luo ZG
    (2006) Microtubule affinity-regulating kinase 2 functions downstream of the PAR-3/PAR-6/atypical PKC complex in regulating hippocampal neuronal polarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:8534–8539. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509955103 pmid:16717194
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Choi K,
    2. Le T,
    3. Xing G,
    4. Johnson LR,
    5. Ursano RJ
    (2011) Analysis of kinase gene expression in the frontal cortex of suicide victims: implications of fear and stress. Front Behav Neurosci 5:46. pmid:21847376
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Chou MM,
    2. Hou W,
    3. Johnson J,
    4. Graham LK,
    5. Lee MH,
    6. Chen CS,
    7. Newton AC,
    8. Schaffhausen BS,
    9. Toker A
    (1998) Regulation of protein kinase C zeta by PI 3-kinase and PDK-1. Curr Biol 8:1069–1077. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(98)70444-0 pmid:9768361
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Claret S,
    2. Jouette J,
    3. Benoit B,
    4. Legent K,
    5. Guichet A
    (2014) PI(4,5)P2 produced by the PI4P5K SKTL controls apical size by tethering PAR-3 in Drosophila epithelial cells. Curr Biol 24:1071–1079. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.056 pmid:24768049
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Cockcroft S
    (2006) The latest phospholipase C, PLCeta, is implicated in neuronal function. Trends Biochem Sci 31:4–7. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2005.11.003 pmid:16310357
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Costa MR,
    2. Wen G,
    3. Lepier A,
    4. Schroeder T,
    5. Gotz M
    (2008) Par complex proteins promote proliferative progenitor divisions in the developing mouse cerebral cortex. Development 135:11–22. doi:10.1242/dev.009951 pmid:18032449
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Crary JF,
    2. Shao CY,
    3. Mirra SS,
    4. Hernandez AI,
    5. Sacktor TC
    (2006) Atypical protein kinase C in neurodegenerative disease I: PKMzeta aggregates with limbic neurofibrillary tangles and AMPA receptors in Alzheimer disease. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 65:319–326. doi:10.1097/01.jnen.0000218442.07664.04 pmid:16691113
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Cross DA,
    2. Alessi DR,
    3. Cohen P,
    4. Andjelkovich M,
    5. Hemmings BA
    (1995) Inhibition of glycogen synthase kinase-3 by insulin mediated by protein kinase B. Nature 378:785–789. doi:10.1038/378785a0 pmid:8524413
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cui S,
    2. Otten C,
    3. Rohr S,
    4. Abdelilah-Seyfried S,
    5. Link BA
    (2007) Analysis of aPKClambda and aPKCzeta reveals multiple and redundant functions during vertebrate retinogenesis. Mol Cell Neurosci 34:431–444.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Dainichi T, et al
    . (2016) PDK1 is a regulator of epidermal differentiation that activates and organizes asymmetric cell division. Cell Rep 15:1615–1623. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2016.04.051 pmid:27184845
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Dalvie S,
    2. Fabbri C,
    3. Ramesar R,
    4. Serretti A,
    5. Stein DJ
    (2016) Glutamatergic and HPA-axis pathway genes in bipolar disorder comorbid with alcohol- and substance use disorders. Metab Brain Dis 31:183–189. doi:10.1007/s11011-015-9762-1 pmid:26563126
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. D'Gama AM,
    2. Walsh CA
    (2018) Somatic mosaicism and neurodevelopmental disease. Nat Neurosci 21:1504–1514. doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0257-3 pmid:30349109
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Di Paolo G,
    2. De Camilli P
    (2006) Phosphoinositides in cell regulation and membrane dynamics. Nature 443:651–657. doi:10.1038/nature05185 pmid:17035995
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Dick DM,
    2. Riley B,
    3. Kendler KS
    (2010) Nature and nurture in neuropsychiatric genetics: where do we stand? Dialogues Clin Neurosci 12:7–23. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2010.12.1/ddick pmid:20373663
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Diekmann D,
    2. Brill S,
    3. Garrett MD,
    4. Totty N,
    5. Hsuan J,
    6. Monfries C,
    7. Hall C,
    8. Lim L,
    9. Hall A
    (1991) Bcr encodes a GTPase-activating protein for p21rac. Nature 351:400–402. doi:10.1038/351400a0 pmid:1903516
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Drier EA,
    2. Tello MK,
    3. Cowan M,
    4. Wu P,
    5. Blace N,
    6. Sacktor TC,
    7. Yin JC
    (2002) Memory enhancement and formation by atypical PKM activity in Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Neurosci 5:316–324. doi:10.1038/nn820 pmid:11914720
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Du Q,
    2. Macara IG
    (2004) Mammalian Pins is a conformational switch that links NuMA to heterotrimeric G proteins. Cell 119:503–516. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.10.028 pmid:15537540
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Duman JG,
    2. Tzeng CP,
    3. Tu YK,
    4. Munjal T,
    5. Schwechter B,
    6. Ho TS,
    7. Tolias KF
    (2013) The adhesion-GPCR BAI1 regulates synaptogenesis by controlling the recruitment of the Par3/Tiam1 polarity complex to synaptic sites. J Neurosci 33:6964–6978. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3978-12.2013 pmid:23595754
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Ebnet K,
    2. Suzuki A,
    3. Horikoshi Y,
    4. Hirose T,
    5. Meyer Zu Brickwedde MK,
    6. Ohno S,
    7. Vestweber D
    (2001) The cell polarity protein ASIP/PAR-3 directly associates with junctional adhesion molecule (JAM). EMBO J 20:3738–3748. doi:10.1093/emboj/20.14.3738 pmid:11447115
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Enderle L,
    2. McNeill H
    (2013) Hippo gains weight: added insights and complexity to pathway control. Sci Signal 6:re7. pmid:24106343
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Etienne-Manneville S
    (2004) Cdc42: the centre of polarity. J Cell Sci 117:1291–1300. doi:10.1242/jcs.01115 pmid:15020669
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Etienne-Manneville S,
    2. Hall A
    (2001) Integrin-mediated activation of Cdc42 controls cell polarity in migrating astrocytes through PKCzeta. Cell 106:489–498. doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00471-8 pmid:11525734
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Etienne-Manneville S,
    2. Hall A
    (2003) Cdc42 regulates GSK-3beta and adenomatous polyposis coli to control cell polarity. Nature 421:753–756. doi:10.1038/nature01423 pmid:12610628
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Famulski JK,
    2. Trivedi N,
    3. Howell D,
    4. Yang Y,
    5. Tong Y,
    6. Gilbertson R,
    7. Solecki DJ
    (2010) Siah regulation of Pard3A controls neuronal cell adhesion during germinal zone exit. Science 330:1834–1838. doi:10.1126/science.1198480 pmid:21109632
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Fang CM,
    2. Xu YH
    (2001) Down-regulated expression of atypical PKC-binding domain deleted asip isoforms in human hepatocellular carcinomas. Cell Res 11:223–229. doi:10.1038/sj.cr.7290090 pmid:11642408
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Farah CA,
    2. Hastings MH,
    3. Dunn TW,
    4. Gong K,
    5. Baker-Andresen D,
    6. Sossin WS
    (2017) A PKM generated by calpain cleavage of a classical PKC is required for activity-dependent intermediate-term facilitation in the presynaptic sensory neuron of Aplysia. Learn Mem 24:1–13. doi:10.1101/lm.043745.116 pmid:27980071
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Feng W,
    2. Wu H,
    3. Chan LN,
    4. Zhang M
    (2007) The Par-3 NTD adopts a PB1-like structure required for Par-3 oligomerization and membrane localization. EMBO J 26:2786–2796. doi:10.1038/sj.emboj.7601702 pmid:17476308
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Feng W,
    2. Wu H,
    3. Chan LN,
    4. Zhang M
    (2008) Par-3-mediated junctional localization of the lipid phosphatase PTEN is required for cell polarity establishment. J Biol Chem 283:23440–23449. doi:10.1074/jbc.M802482200 pmid:18550519
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Feng Y,
    2. Walsh CA
    (2001) Protein–protein interactions, cytoskeletal regulation and neuronal migration. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:408–416. doi:10.1038/35077559 pmid:11389474
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Fine D, et al
    . (2015) A syndrome of congenital microcephaly, intellectual disability and dysmorphism with a homozygous mutation in FRMD4A. Eur J Hum Genet 23:1729–1734. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.241 pmid:25388005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Fiumara F,
    2. Rajasethupathy P,
    3. Antonov I,
    4. Kosmidis S,
    5. Sossin WS,
    6. Kandel ER
    (2015) MicroRNA-22 gates long-term heterosynaptic plasticity in Aplysia through presynaptic regulation of CPEB and downstream targets. Cell Rep 11:1866–1875. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.05.034 pmid:26095361
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Frame S,
    2. Cohen P
    (2001) GSK3 takes centre stage more than 20 years after its discovery. Biochem J 359:1–16. doi:10.1042/bj3590001 pmid:11563964
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Frey U,
    2. Morris RG
    (1997) Synaptic tagging and long-term potentiation. Nature 385:533–536. doi:10.1038/385533a0 pmid:9020359
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Fromer M, et al
    . (2014) De novo mutations in schizophrenia implicate synaptic networks. Nature 506:179–184. doi:10.1038/nature12929 pmid:24463507
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Frost B,
    2. Jacks RL,
    3. Diamond MI
    (2009) Propagation of tau misfolding from the outside to the inside of a cell. J Biol Chem 284:12845–12852. doi:10.1074/jbc.M808759200 pmid:19282288
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Fruman DA,
    2. Chiu H,
    3. Hopkins BD,
    4. Bagrodia S,
    5. Cantley LC,
    6. Abraham RT
    (2017) The PI3K pathway in human disease. Cell 170:605–635. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.07.029 pmid:28802037
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Frutos S,
    2. Moscat J,
    3. Diaz-Meco MT
    (1999) Cleavage of zetaPKC but not lambda/iotaPKC by caspase-3 during UV-induced apoptosis. J Biol Chem 274:10765–10770. doi:10.1074/jbc.274.16.10765 pmid:10196149
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Funahashi Y, et al
    . (2013) ERK2-mediated phosphorylation of Par3 regulates neuronal polarization. J Neurosci 33:13270–13285. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4210-12.2013 pmid:23946386
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Galli M,
    2. Munoz J,
    3. Portegijs V,
    4. Boxem M,
    5. Grill SW,
    6. Heck AJ,
    7. van den Heuvel S
    (2011) aPKC phosphorylates NuMA-related LIN-5 to position the mitotic spindle during asymmetric division. Nat Cell Biol 13:1132–1138. doi:10.1038/ncb2315 pmid:21857670
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Galvez-Contreras AY,
    2. Campos-Ordonez T,
    3. Lopez-Virgen V,
    4. Gomez-Plascencia J,
    5. Ramos-Zuniga R,
    6. Gonzalez-Perez O
    (2016) Growth factors as clinical biomarkers of prognosis and diagnosis in psychiatric disorders. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 32:85–96. doi:10.1016/j.cytogfr.2016.08.004 pmid:27618303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Gao L,
    2. Macara IG,
    3. Joberty G
    (2002) Multiple splice variants of Par3 and of a novel related gene, Par3L, produce proteins with different binding properties. Gene 294:99–107. doi:10.1016/S0378-1119(02)00681-9 pmid:12234671
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Gao PP,
    2. Goodman JH,
    3. Sacktor TC,
    4. Francis JT
    (2018) Persistent increases of PKMzeta in sensorimotor cortex maintain procedural long-term memory storage. iScience 5:90–98. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2018.07.002 pmid:30240648
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Gao R,
    2. Pratt CP,
    3. Yoon S,
    4. Martin-de-Saavedra MD,
    5. Forrest MP,
    6. Penzes P
    (2020) CNTNAP2 is targeted to endosomes by the polarity protein PAR3. Eur J Neurosci 51:1074–1086. doi:10.1111/ejn.14620 pmid:31730244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Gao Y,
    2. Chen X,
    3. Shangguan S,
    4. Bao Y,
    5. Lu X,
    6. Zou J,
    7. Guo J,
    8. Dai Y,
    9. Zhang T
    (2012) Association study of PARD3 gene polymorphisms with neural tube defects in a Chinese Han population. Reprod Sci 19:764–771. doi:10.1177/1933719111433886
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gaudet P,
    2. Livstone MS,
    3. Lewis SE,
    4. Thomas PD
    (2011) Phylogenetic-based propagation of functional annotations within the Gene Ontology consortium. Brief Bioinform 12:449–462.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Garrard SM,
    2. Capaldo CT,
    3. Gao L,
    4. Rosen MK,
    5. Macara IG,
    6. Tomchick DR
    (2003) Structure of Cdc42 in a complex with the GTPase-binding domain of the cell polarity protein, Par6. EMBO J 22:1125–1133. doi:10.1093/emboj/cdg110 pmid:12606577
    OpenUrlAbstract
  68. ↵
    1. Giedraitis V,
    2. Kilander L,
    3. Degerman-Gunnarsson M,
    4. Sundelof J,
    5. Axelsson T,
    6. Syvanen AC,
    7. Lannfelt L,
    8. Glaser A
    (2009) Genetic analysis of Alzheimer's disease in the Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 27:59–68. doi:10.1159/000191203
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Girirajan S, et al
    . (2012) Phenotypic heterogeneity of genomic disorders and rare copy-number variants. N Engl J Med 367:1321–1331. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1200395
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Girirajan S, et al
    . (2013) Refinement and discovery of new hotspots of copy-number variation associated with autism spectrum disorder. Am J Hum Genet 92:221–237. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.12.016 pmid:23375656
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Goldstein B,
    2. Macara IG
    (2007) The PAR proteins: fundamental players in animal cell polarization. Dev Cell 13:609–622. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2007.10.007 pmid:17981131
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Goodnight J,
    2. Kazanietz MG,
    3. Blumberg PM,
    4. Mushinski JF,
    5. Mischak H
    (1992) The cDNA sequence, expression pattern and protein characteristics of mouse protein kinase C-zeta. Gene 122:305–311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Grant PK,
    2. Moens CB
    (2010) The neuroepithelial basement membrane serves as a boundary and a substrate for neuron migration in the zebrafish hindbrain. Neural Dev 5:9. doi:10.1186/1749-8104-5-9 pmid:20350296
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Graybill C,
    2. Wee B,
    3. Atwood SX,
    4. Prehoda KE
    (2012) Partitioning-defective protein 6 (Par-6) activates atypical protein kinase C (aPKC) by pseudosubstrate displacement. J Biol Chem 287:21003–21011. doi:10.1074/jbc.M112.360495 pmid:22544755
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Gulsuner S, et al
    . (2020) Genetics of schizophrenia in the South African Xhosa. Science 367:569–573. doi:10.1126/science.aay8833 pmid:32001654
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. Guo C,
    2. Zou J,
    3. Wen Y,
    4. Fang W,
    5. Stolz DB,
    6. Sun M,
    7. Wei X
    (2018) Apical cell-cell adhesions reconcile symmetry and asymmetry in zebrafish neurulation. iScience 3:63–85. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2018.04.007 pmid:29901027
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Hakanen J,
    2. Ruiz-Reig N,
    3. Tissir F
    (2019) Linking cell polarity to cortical development and malformations. Front Cell Neurosci 13:244. pmid:31213986
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Hall A
    (2012) Rho family GTPases. Biochem Soc Trans 40:1378–1382. doi:10.1042/BST20120103 pmid:23176484
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Hannan AJ
    (2013) Nature, nurture and neurobiology: gene-environment interactions in neuropsychiatric disorders. Neurobiol Dis 57:1–4. doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2013.01.004 pmid:23314279
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Hao Y,
    2. Du Q,
    3. Chen X,
    4. Zheng Z,
    5. Balsbaugh JL,
    6. Maitra S,
    7. Shabanowitz J,
    8. Hunt DF,
    9. Macara IG
    (2010) Par3 controls epithelial spindle orientation by aPKC-mediated phosphorylation of apical Pins. Curr Biol 20:1809–1818. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.09.032 pmid:20933426
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Hara Y,
    2. Punsoni M,
    3. Yuk F,
    4. Park CS,
    5. Janssen WG,
    6. Rapp PR,
    7. Morrison JH
    (2012) Synaptic distributions of GluA2 and PKMzeta in the monkey dentate gyrus and their relationships with aging and memory. J Neurosci 32:7336–7344. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0605-12.2012 pmid:22623679
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Harris TJ,
    2. Peifer M
    (2005) The positioning and segregation of apical cues during epithelial polarity establishment in Drosophila. J Cell Biol 170:813–823. doi:10.1083/jcb.200505127 pmid:16129788
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. ↵
    1. Harris KP,
    2. Tepass U
    (2008) Cdc42 and Par proteins stabilize dynamic adherens junctions in the Drosophila neuroectoderm through regulation of apical endocytosis. J Cell Biol 183:1129–1143. doi:10.1083/jcb.200807020 pmid:19064670
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. ↵
    1. Hart MJ,
    2. Eva A,
    3. Evans T,
    4. Aaronson SA,
    5. Cerione RA
    (1991) Catalysis of guanine nucleotide exchange on the CDC42Hs protein by the dbl oncogene product. Nature 354:311–314. doi:10.1038/354311a0 pmid:1956381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Hayashi Y,
    2. Ford LK,
    3. Fioriti L,
    4. McGurk L,
    5. Zhang M
    (2021) Liquid-liquid phase separation in physiology and pathophysiology of the nervous system. J Neurosci 41:834–844. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1656-20.2020 pmid:33472825
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. ↵
    1. Hengst U,
    2. Deglincerti A,
    3. Kim HJ,
    4. Jeon NL,
    5. Jaffrey SR
    (2009) Axonal elongation triggered by stimulus-induced local translation of a polarity complex protein. Nat Cell Biol 11:1024–1030. doi:10.1038/ncb1916 pmid:19620967
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Hernandez AI,
    2. Blace N,
    3. Crary JF,
    4. Serrano PA,
    5. Leitges M,
    6. Libien JM,
    7. Weinstein G,
    8. Tcherapanov A,
    9. Sacktor TC
    (2003) Protein kinase M zeta synthesis from a brain mRNA encoding an independent protein kinase C zeta catalytic domain: implications for the molecular mechanism of memory. J Biol Chem 278:40305–40316. doi:10.1074/jbc.M307065200 pmid:12857744
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. ↵
    1. Hiew LF,
    2. Poon CH,
    3. You HZ,
    4. Lim LW
    (2021) TGF-beta/Smad signalling in neurogenesis: implications for neuropsychiatric diseases. Cells 10:1382. doi:10.3390/cells10061382
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. ↵
    1. Hirai T,
    2. Chida K
    (2003) Protein kinase Czeta (PKCzeta): activation mechanisms and cellular functions. J Biochem 133:1–7. doi:10.1093/jb/mvg017 pmid:12761192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Hirano Y,
    2. Yoshinaga S,
    3. Takeya R,
    4. Suzuki NN,
    5. Horiuchi M,
    6. Kohjima M,
    7. Sumimoto H,
    8. Inagaki F
    (2005) Structure of a cell polarity regulator, a complex between atypical PKC and Par6 PB1 domains. J Biol Chem 280:9653–9661. doi:10.1074/jbc.M409823200 pmid:15590654
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. ↵
    1. Hirose T,
    2. Karasawa M,
    3. Sugitani Y,
    4. Fujisawa M,
    5. Akimoto K,
    6. Ohno S,
    7. Noda T
    (2006) PAR3 is essential for cyst-mediated epicardial development by establishing apical cortical domains. Development 133:1389–1398. doi:10.1242/dev.02294 pmid:16510507
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. ↵
    1. Hoffman GR,
    2. Nassar N,
    3. Cerione RA
    (2000) Structure of the Rho family GTP-binding protein Cdc42 in complex with the multifunctional regulator RhoGDI. Cell 100:345–356. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80670-4 pmid:10676816
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. Hollander JA, et al
    . (2020) Beyond the looking glass: recent advances in understanding the impact of environmental exposures on neuropsychiatric disease. Neuropsychopharmacology 45:1086–1096. doi:10.1038/s41386-020-0648-5 pmid:32109936
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Hong Y
    (2018) aPKC: the kinase that phosphorylates cell polarity. F1000Res 7:903. doi:10.12688/f1000research.14427.1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  94. ↵
    1. Hong Y,
    2. Stronach B,
    3. Perrimon N,
    4. Jan LY,
    5. Jan YN
    (2001) Drosophila Stardust interacts with Crumbs to control polarity of epithelia but not neuroblasts. Nature 414:634–638. doi:10.1038/414634a pmid:11740559
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Horne-Badovinac S,
    2. Lin D,
    3. Waldron S,
    4. Schwarz M,
    5. Mbamalu G,
    6. Pawson T,
    7. Jan Y,
    8. Stainier DY,
    9. Abdelilah-Seyfried S
    (2001) Positional cloning of heart and soul reveals multiple roles for PKC lambda in zebrafish organogenesis. Curr Biol 11:1492–1502. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00458-4 pmid:11591316
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Hrabetova S,
    2. Sacktor TC
    (1996) Bidirectional regulation of protein kinase M zeta in the maintenance of long-term potentiation and long-term depression. J Neurosci 16:5324–5333. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-17-05324.1996 pmid:8757245
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. ↵
    1. Hrabetova S,
    2. Sacktor TC
    (2001) Transient translocation of conventional protein kinase C isoforms and persistent downregulation of atypical protein kinase Mzeta in long-term depression. Brain Res Mol Brain Res 95:146–152. doi:10.1016/S0169-328X(01)00185-1 pmid:11687286
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Huo Y,
    2. Macara IG
    (2014) The Par3-like polarity protein Par3L is essential for mammary stem cell maintenance. Nat Cell Biol 16:529–537. doi:10.1038/ncb2969 pmid:24859006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Hur EM,
    2. Zhou FQ
    (2010) GSK3 signalling in neural development. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:539–551. doi:10.1038/nrn2870 pmid:20648061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Hurd TW,
    2. Gao L,
    3. Roh MH,
    4. Macara IG,
    5. Margolis B
    (2003) Direct interaction of two polarity complexes implicated in epithelial tight junction assembly. Nat Cell Biol 5:137–142. doi:10.1038/ncb923 pmid:12545177
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Hutterer A,
    2. Betschinger J,
    3. Petronczki M,
    4. Knoblich JA
    (2004) Sequential roles of Cdc42, Par-6, aPKC, and Lgl in the establishment of epithelial polarity during Drosophila embryogenesis. Dev Cell 6:845–854. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2004.05.003 pmid:15177032
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Hyman AA,
    2. Simons K
    (2012) Cell biology: beyond oil and water–phase transitions in cells. Science 337:1047–1049. doi:10.1126/science.1223728 pmid:22936764
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. ↵
    1. Ikenouchi J,
    2. Umeda M
    (2010) FRMD4A regulates epithelial polarity by connecting Arf6 activation with the PAR complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:748–753. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908423107 pmid:20080746
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  104. ↵
    1. Imai F,
    2. Hirai S,
    3. Akimoto K,
    4. Koyama H,
    5. Miyata T,
    6. Ogawa M,
    7. Noguchi S,
    8. Sasaoka T,
    9. Noda T,
    10. Ohno S
    (2006) Inactivation of aPKClambda results in the loss of adherens junctions in neuroepithelial cells without affecting neurogenesis in mouse neocortex. Development 133:1735–1744. doi:10.1242/dev.02330 pmid:16571631
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. ↵
    1. Iossifov I, et al
    . (2012) De novo gene disruptions in children on the autistic spectrum. Neuron 74:285–299. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.009 pmid:22542183
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Itoh N,
    2. Nakayama M,
    3. Nishimura T,
    4. Fujisue S,
    5. Nishioka T,
    6. Watanabe T,
    7. Kaibuchi K
    (2010) Identification of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3-kinase) as Par3 partners by proteomic analysis. Cytoskeleton (Hoboken) 67:297–308. doi:10.1002/cm.20444 pmid:20191563
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Ivey RA,
    2. Sajan MP,
    3. Farese RV
    (2014) Requirements for pseudosubstrate arginine residues during autoinhibition and phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-(PO(4)(3)-dependent activation of atypical PKC. J Biol Chem 289:25021–25030. doi:10.1074/jbc.M114.565671 pmid:25035426
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  108. ↵
    1. Iwamoto K,
    2. Ueda J,
    3. Bundo M,
    4. Kojima T,
    5. Kato T
    (2011) Survey of the effect of genetic variations on gene expression in human prefrontal cortex and its application to genetics of psychiatric disorders. Neurosci Res 70:238–242. doi:10.1016/j.neures.2011.02.012 pmid:21382426
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Izumi Y,
    2. Hirose T,
    3. Tamai Y,
    4. Hirai S,
    5. Nagashima Y,
    6. Fujimoto T,
    7. Tabuse Y,
    8. Kemphues KJ,
    9. Ohno S
    (1998) An atypical PKC directly associates and colocalizes at the epithelial tight junction with ASIP, a mammalian homologue of Caenorhabditis elegans polarity protein PAR-3. J Cell Biol 143:95–106. doi:10.1083/jcb.143.1.95 pmid:9763423
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. ↵
    1. Jalil SJ,
    2. Sacktor TC,
    3. Shouval HZ
    (2015) Atypical PKCs in memory maintenance: the roles of feedback and redundancy. Learn Mem 22:344–353. doi:10.1101/lm.038844.115 pmid:26077687
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  111. ↵
    1. Jaworski J
    (2007) ARF6 in the nervous system. Eur J Cell Biol 86:513–524. doi:10.1016/j.ejcb.2007.04.007 pmid:17559968
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Joberty G,
    2. Petersen C,
    3. Gao L,
    4. Macara IG
    (2000) The cell-polarity protein Par6 links Par3 and atypical protein kinase C to Cdc42. Nat Cell Biol 2:531–539. doi:10.1038/35019573 pmid:10934474
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Johansson A,
    2. Driessens M,
    3. Aspenstrom P
    (2000) The mammalian homologue of the Caenorhabditis elegans polarity protein PAR-6 is a binding partner for the Rho GTPases Cdc42 and Rac1. J Cell Sci 113:3267–3275.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  113. ↵
    1. Johnson DI,
    2. Pringle JR
    (1990) Molecular characterization of CDC42, a Saccharomyces cerevisiae gene involved in the development of cell polarity. J Cell Biol 111:143–152. doi:10.1083/jcb.111.1.143 pmid:2164028
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  114. ↵
    1. Kandaswamy R,
    2. McQuillin A,
    3. Curtis D,
    4. Gurling H
    (2012) Tests of linkage and allelic association between markers in the 1p36 PRKCZ (protein kinase C zeta) gene region and bipolar affective disorder. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 159B:201–209. doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.32014 pmid:22231931
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. ↵
    1. Kandel ER
    (2001) The molecular biology of memory storage: a dialogue between genes and synapses. Science 294:1030–1038. doi:10.1126/science.1067020 pmid:11691980
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. ↵
    1. Kang DS,
    2. Yang YR,
    3. Lee C,
    4. Kim S,
    5. Ryu SH,
    6. Suh PG
    (2016) Roles of phosphoinositide-specific phospholipase Cgamma1 in brain development. Adv Biol Regul 60:167–173. doi:10.1016/j.jbior.2015.10.002 pmid:26588873
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Karaman MW, et al
    . (2008) A quantitative analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity. Nat Biotechnol 26:127–132. doi:10.1038/nbt1358 pmid:18183025
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. ↵
    1. Kearney HM,
    2. Thorland EC,
    3. Brown KK,
    4. Quintero-Rivera F,
    5. South ST
    , Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Quality Assurance (2011) American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genet Med 13:680–685. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182217a3a pmid:21681106
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. ↵
    1. Kelly MT,
    2. Crary JF,
    3. Sacktor TC
    (2007a) Regulation of protein kinase Mzeta synthesis by multiple kinases in long-term potentiation. J Neurosci 27:3439–3444. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5612-06.2007 pmid:17392460
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  120. ↵
    1. Kelly MT,
    2. Yao Y,
    3. Sondhi R,
    4. Sacktor TC
    (2007b) Actin polymerization regulates the synthesis of PKMzeta in LTP. Neuropharmacology 52:41–45. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2006.07.002 pmid:16914172
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. ↵
    1. Kemphues K
    (2000) PARsing embryonic polarity. Cell 101:345–348. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80844-2 pmid:10830161
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Kemphues KJ,
    2. Priess JR,
    3. Morton DG,
    4. Cheng NS
    (1988) Identification of genes required for cytoplasmic localization in early C. elegans embryos. Cell 52:311–320. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(88)80024-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. ↵
    1. Khazaei MR,
    2. Puschel AW
    (2009) Phosphorylation of the par polarity complex protein Par3 at serine 962 is mediated by aurora a and regulates its function in neuronal polarity. J Biol Chem 284:33571–33579. doi:10.1074/jbc.M109.055897 pmid:19812038
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  124. ↵
    1. Kim SK,
    2. Lee JY,
    3. Park HJ,
    4. Kim JW,
    5. Chung JH
    (2012) Association study between polymorphisms of the PARD3 gene and schizophrenia. Exp Ther Med 3:881–885. doi:10.3892/etm.2012.496
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. ↵
    1. Kirov G
    (2015) CNVs in neuropsychiatric disorders. Hum Mol Genet 24:R45–R49. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddv253 pmid:26130694
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. ↵
    1. Kiyomitsu T,
    2. Boerner S
    (2021) The Nuclear Mitotic Apparatus (NuMA) protein: a key player for nuclear formation, spindle assembly, and spindle positioning. Front Cell Dev Biol 9:653801. pmid:33869212
    OpenUrlPubMed
  127. ↵
    1. Knust E,
    2. Bossinger O
    (2002) Composition and formation of intercellular junctions in epithelial cells. Science 298:1955–1959. doi:10.1126/science.1072161 pmid:12471248
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  128. ↵
    1. Kohjima M,
    2. Noda Y,
    3. Takeya R,
    4. Saito N,
    5. Takeuchi K,
    6. Sumimoto H
    (2002) PAR3beta, a novel homologue of the cell polarity protein PAR3, localizes to tight junctions. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 299:641–646. doi:10.1016/S0006-291X(02)02698-0 pmid:12459187
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. ↵
    1. Kono K,
    2. Yoshiura S,
    3. Fujita I,
    4. Okada Y,
    5. Shitamukai A,
    6. Shibata T,
    7. Matsuzaki F
    (2019) Reconstruction of Par-dependent polarity in apolar cells reveals a dynamic process of cortical polarization. Elife 8:e45559. doi:10.7554/eLife.45559
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  130. ↵
    1. Krahn MP,
    2. Klopfenstein DR,
    3. Fischer N,
    4. Wodarz A
    (2010) Membrane targeting of Bazooka/PAR-3 is mediated by direct binding to phosphoinositide lipids. Curr Biol 20:636–642. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.065 pmid:20303268
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. ↵
    1. Kuchinke U,
    2. Grawe F,
    3. Knust E
    (1998) Control of spindle orientation in Drosophila by the Par-3-related PDZ-domain protein Bazooka. Curr Biol 8:1357–1365. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(98)00016-5 pmid:9889099
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. ↵
    1. Kushima I, et al
    . (2018) Comparative analyses of copy-number variation in autism spectrum disorder and schizophrenia reveal etiological overlap and biological insights. Cell Rep 24:2838–2856. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.08.022 pmid:30208311
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. ↵
    1. Kwapis JL,
    2. Jarome TJ,
    3. Lonergan ME,
    4. Helmstetter FJ
    (2009) Protein kinase Mzeta maintains fear memory in the amygdala but not in the hippocampus. Behav Neurosci 123:844–850. doi:10.1037/a0016343 pmid:19634944
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. ↵
    1. Lanctot KL, et al
    . (2017) Neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms of Alzheimer's disease: new treatment paradigms. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 3:440–449. doi:10.1016/j.trci.2017.07.001 pmid:29067350
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. ↵
    1. Landin Malt A,
    2. Dailey Z,
    3. Holbrook-Rasmussen J,
    4. Zheng Y,
    5. Hogan A,
    6. Du Q,
    7. Lu X
    (2019) Par3 is essential for the establishment of planar cell polarity of inner ear hair cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:4999–5008. doi:10.1073/pnas.1816333116 pmid:30814219
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  136. ↵
    1. Landrum MJ, et al
    . (2016) ClinVar: public archive of interpretations of clinically relevant variants. Nucleic Acids Res 44:D862–D868. doi:10.1093/nar/gkv1222 pmid:26582918
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. ↵
    1. LeBlancq MJ,
    2. McKinney TL,
    3. Dickson CT
    (2016) ZIP It: neural silencing is an additional effect of the PKM-zeta inhibitor zeta-inhibitory peptide. J Neurosci 36:6193–6198. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4563-14.2016 pmid:27277798
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  138. ↵
    1. Lechler T,
    2. Mapelli M
    (2021) Spindle positioning and its impact on vertebrate tissue architecture and cell fate. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 22:691–708. doi:10.1038/s41580-021-00384-4 pmid:34158639
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. ↵
    1. Lee AM,
    2. Kanter BR,
    3. Wang D,
    4. Lim JP,
    5. Zou ME,
    6. Qiu C,
    7. McMahon T,
    8. Dadgar J,
    9. Fischbach-Weiss SC,
    10. Messing RO
    (2013) Prkcz null mice show normal learning and memory. Nature 493:416–419. doi:10.1038/nature11803 pmid:23283171
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. ↵
    1. Lee CF,
    2. Brangwynne CP,
    3. Gharakhani J,
    4. Hyman AA,
    5. Julicher F
    (2013) Spatial organization of the cell cytoplasm by position-dependent phase separation. Phys Rev Lett 111:088101. pmid:24010479
    OpenUrlPubMed
  141. ↵
    1. Lee SI,
    2. Zhang W,
    3. Ravi M,
    4. Weschenfelder M,
    5. Bastmeyer M,
    6. Levine JM
    (2013) Atypical protein kinase C and Par3 are required for proteoglycan-induced axon growth inhibition. J Neurosci 33:2541–2554. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3154-12.2013 pmid:23392682
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  142. ↵
    1. Le Good JA,
    2. Ziegler WH,
    3. Parekh DB,
    4. Alessi DR,
    5. Cohen P,
    6. Parker PJ
    (1998) Protein kinase C isotypes controlled by phosphoinositide 3-kinase through the protein kinase PDK1. Science 281:2042–2045. doi:10.1126/science.281.5385.2042 pmid:9748166
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  143. ↵
    1. Lemmers C,
    2. Michel D,
    3. Lane-Guermonprez L,
    4. Delgrossi MH,
    5. Medina E,
    6. Arsanto JP,
    7. Le Bivic A
    (2004) CRB3 binds directly to Par6 and regulates the morphogenesis of the tight junctions in mammalian epithelial cells. Mol Biol Cell 15:1324–1333. doi:10.1091/mbc.e03-04-0235 pmid:14718572
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  144. ↵
    1. Lepeta K, et al
    . (2016) Synaptopathies: synaptic dysfunction in neurological disorders: a review from students to students. J Neurochem 138:785–805. doi:10.1111/jnc.13713 pmid:27333343
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  145. ↵
    1. Li MD, et al
    . (2014) Transcriptome profiling and pathway analysis of genes expressed differentially in participants with or without a positive response to topiramate treatment for methamphetamine addiction. BMC Med Genomics 7:65. doi:10.1186/s12920-014-0065-x pmid:25495887
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. ↵
    1. Lin D,
    2. Edwards AS,
    3. Fawcett JP,
    4. Mbamalu G,
    5. Scott JD,
    6. Pawson T
    (2000) A mammalian PAR-3-PAR-6 complex implicated in Cdc42/Rac1 and aPKC signalling and cell polarity. Nat Cell Biol 2:540–547. doi:10.1038/35019582 pmid:10934475
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  147. ↵
    1. Lin DT,
    2. Makino Y,
    3. Sharma K,
    4. Hayashi T,
    5. Neve R,
    6. Takamiya K,
    7. Huganir RL
    (2009) Regulation of AMPA receptor extrasynaptic insertion by 4.1N, phosphorylation and palmitoylation. Nat Neurosci 12:879–887. doi:10.1038/nn.2351 pmid:19503082
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. ↵
    1. Lin Q,
    2. Fuji RN,
    3. Yang W,
    4. Cerione RA
    (2003) RhoGDI is required for Cdc42-mediated cellular transformation. Curr Biol 13:1469–1479. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00613-4 pmid:12956948
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  149. ↵
    1. Lin YT,
    2. Huang CC,
    3. Hsu KS
    (2012) Oxytocin promotes long-term potentiation by enhancing epidermal growth factor receptor-mediated local translation of protein kinase Mzeta. J Neurosci 32:15476–15488. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2429-12.2012 pmid:23115185
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  150. ↵
    1. Ling DS,
    2. Benardo LS,
    3. Serrano PA,
    4. Blace N,
    5. Kelly MT,
    6. Crary JF,
    7. Sacktor TC
    (2002) Protein kinase Mzeta is necessary and sufficient for LTP maintenance. Nat Neurosci 5:295–296. doi:10.1038/nn829 pmid:11914719
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  151. ↵
    1. Liu WA,
    2. Chen S,
    3. Li Z,
    4. Lee CH,
    5. Mirzaa G,
    6. Dobyns WB,
    7. Ross ME,
    8. Zhang J,
    9. Shi SH
    (2018) PARD3 dysfunction in conjunction with dynamic HIPPO signaling drives cortical enlargement with massive heterotopia. Genes Dev 32:763–780. doi:10.1101/gad.313171.118 pmid:29899142
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  152. ↵
    1. Liu XF,
    2. Tari PK,
    3. Haas K
    (2009) PKM zeta restricts dendritic arbor growth by filopodial and branch stabilization within the intact and awake developing brain. J Neurosci 29:12229–12235. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2842-09.2009 pmid:19793981
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  153. ↵
    1. Liu Z, et al
    . (2020) Par complex cluster formation mediated by phase separation. Nat Commun 11:2266. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16135-6 pmid:32385244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  154. ↵
    1. Lopez-Garcia LA, et al
    . (2011) Allosteric regulation of protein kinase PKCzeta by the N-terminal C1 domain and small compounds to the PIF-pocket. Chem Biol 18:1463–1473. doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.08.010 pmid:22118680
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. ↵
    1. Lyu J,
    2. Kim HR,
    3. Yamamoto V,
    4. Choi SH,
    5. Wei Z,
    6. Joo CK,
    7. Lu W
    (2013) Protein phosphatase 4 and Smek complex negatively regulate Par3 and promote neuronal differentiation of neural stem/progenitor cells. Cell Rep 5:593–600. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2013.09.034 pmid:24209749
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. ↵
    1. Macara IG,
    2. Iioka H,
    3. Mili S
    (2009) Axon growth-stimulus package includes local translation. Nat Cell Biol 11:919–921. doi:10.1038/ncb0809-919 pmid:19648976
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  157. ↵
    1. Madronal N,
    2. Gruart A,
    3. Sacktor TC,
    4. Delgado-Garcia JM
    (2010) PKMzeta inhibition reverses learning-induced increases in hippocampal synaptic strength and memory during trace eyeblink conditioning. PLoS One 5:e10400. pmid:20454458
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  158. ↵
    1. Manabe N,
    2. Hirai S,
    3. Imai F,
    4. Nakanishi H,
    5. Takai Y,
    6. Ohno S
    (2002) Association of ASIP/mPAR-3 with adherens junctions of mouse neuroepithelial cells. Dev Dyn 225:61–69. doi:10.1002/dvdy.10139 pmid:12203721
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  159. ↵
    1. Marcello E,
    2. Epis R,
    3. Saraceno C,
    4. Di Luca M
    (2012) Synaptic dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. Adv Exp Med Biol 970:573–601. pmid:22351073
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. ↵
    1. McClay JL, et al
    . (2011) Genome-wide pharmacogenomic study of neurocognition as an indicator of antipsychotic treatment response in schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology 36:616–626. doi:10.1038/npp.2010.193 pmid:21107309
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  161. ↵
    1. McKinley RF,
    2. Yu CG,
    3. Harris TJ
    (2012) Assembly of Bazooka polarity landmarks through a multifaceted membrane-association mechanism. J Cell Sci 125:1177–1190. doi:10.1242/jcs.091884 pmid:22303000
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  162. ↵
    1. Menager C,
    2. Arimura N,
    3. Fukata Y,
    4. Kaibuchi K
    (2004) PIP3 is involved in neuronal polarization and axon formation. J Neurochem 89:109–118. doi:10.1046/j.1471-4159.2004.02302.x pmid:15030394
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  163. ↵
    1. Meng X,
    2. Maurel P,
    3. Lam I,
    4. Heffernan C,
    5. Stiffler MA,
    6. McBeath G,
    7. Salzer JL
    (2019) Necl-4/Cadm4 recruits Par-3 to the Schwann cell adaxonal membrane. Glia 67:884–895. doi:10.1002/glia.23578 pmid:30585357
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  164. ↵
    1. Minegishi T,
    2. Inagaki N
    (2020) Forces to drive neuronal migration steps. Front Cell Dev Biol 8:863. pmid:32984342
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  165. ↵
    1. Mitra S,
    2. Werner C,
    3. Dietz DM
    (2022) Neuroadaptations and TGFβ signaling: emerging role in models of neuropsychiatric disorders. Mol Psychiatry 27:296–306. doi:10.1038/s41380-021-01186-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  166. ↵
    1. Mizuno K,
    2. Suzuki A,
    3. Hirose T,
    4. Kitamura K,
    5. Kutsuzawa K,
    6. Futaki M,
    7. Amano Y,
    8. Ohno S
    (2003) Self-association of PAR-3 mediated by the conserved N-terminal domain contributes to the development of epithelial tight junctions. J Biol Chem 278:31240–31250. doi:10.1074/jbc.M303593200 pmid:12756256
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  167. ↵
    1. Munson C,
    2. Huisken J,
    3. Bit-Avragim N,
    4. Kuo T,
    5. Dong PD,
    6. Ober EA,
    7. Verkade H,
    8. Abdelilah-Seyfried S,
    9. Stainier DY
    (2008) Regulation of neurocoel morphogenesis by Pard6 gamma b. Dev Biol 324:41–54. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2008.08.033 pmid:18817769
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  168. ↵
    1. Muslimov IA,
    2. Nimmrich V,
    3. Hernandez AI,
    4. Tcherepanov A,
    5. Sacktor TC,
    6. Tiedge H
    (2004) Dendritic transport and localization of protein kinase Mzeta mRNA: implications for molecular memory consolidation. J Biol Chem 279:52613–52622. doi:10.1074/jbc.M409240200 pmid:15371429
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  169. ↵
    1. Nadarajah B,
    2. Brunstrom JE,
    3. Grutzendler J,
    4. Wong RO,
    5. Pearlman AL
    (2001) Two modes of radial migration in early development of the cerebral cortex. Nat Neurosci 4:143–150. doi:10.1038/83967 pmid:11175874
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. ↵
    1. Nagai-Tamai Y,
    2. Mizuno K,
    3. Hirose T,
    4. Suzuki A,
    5. Ohno S
    (2002) Regulated protein–protein interaction between aPKC and PAR-3 plays an essential role in the polarization of epithelial cells. Genes Cells 7:1161–1171. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2443.2002.00590.x pmid:12390250
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  171. ↵
    1. Nakanishi H,
    2. Brewer KA,
    3. Exton JH
    (1993) Activation of the zeta isozyme of protein kinase C by phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-trisphosphate. J Biol Chem 268:13–16. doi:10.1016/S0021-9258(18)54107-7 pmid:8380153
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  172. ↵
    1. Nakayama M,
    2. Goto TM,
    3. Sugimoto M,
    4. Nishimura T,
    5. Shinagawa T,
    6. Ohno S,
    7. Amano M,
    8. Kaibuchi K
    (2008) Rho-kinase phosphorylates PAR-3 and disrupts PAR complex formation. Dev Cell 14:205–215. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2007.11.021 pmid:18267089
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. ↵
    1. Nam SC,
    2. Choi KW
    (2003) Interaction of Par-6 and Crumbs complexes is essential for photoreceptor morphogenesis in Drosophila. Development 130:4363–4372. doi:10.1242/dev.00648 pmid:12900452
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  174. ↵
    1. Neale BM, et al
    . (2012) Patterns and rates of exonic de novo mutations in autism spectrum disorders. Nature 485:242–245. doi:10.1038/nature11011 pmid:22495311
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  175. ↵
    1. Nishimura T,
    2. Kato K,
    3. Yamaguchi T,
    4. Fukata Y,
    5. Ohno S,
    6. Kaibuchi K
    (2004) Role of the PAR-3-KIF3 complex in the establishment of neuronal polarity. Nat Cell Biol 6:328–334. doi:10.1038/ncb1118 pmid:15048131
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  176. ↵
    1. Nishimura T,
    2. Yamaguchi T,
    3. Kato K,
    4. Yoshizawa M,
    5. Nabeshima Y,
    6. Ohno S,
    7. Hoshino M,
    8. Kaibuchi K
    (2005) PAR-6-PAR-3 mediates Cdc42-induced Rac activation through the Rac GEFs STEF/Tiam1. Nat Cell Biol 7:270–277. doi:10.1038/ncb1227 pmid:15723051
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  177. ↵
    1. Nishizuka Y
    (1988) The molecular heterogeneity of protein kinase C and its implications for cellular regulation. Nature 334:661–665. doi:10.1038/334661a0 pmid:3045562
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  178. ↵
    1. Nishizuka Y
    (1995) Protein kinase C and lipid signaling for sustained cellular responses. FASEB J 9:484–496. doi:10.1096/fasebj.9.7.7737456 pmid:7737456
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. ↵
    1. Nobes CD,
    2. Hall A
    (1995) Rho, rac, and cdc42 GTPases regulate the assembly of multimolecular focal complexes associated with actin stress fibers, lamellipodia, and filopodia. Cell 81:53–62. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(95)90370-4 pmid:7536630
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  180. ↵
    1. Noda Y,
    2. Takeya R,
    3. Ohno S,
    4. Naito S,
    5. Ito T,
    6. Sumimoto H
    (2001) Human homologues of the Caenorhabditis elegans cell polarity protein PAR6 as an adaptor that links the small GTPases Rac and Cdc42 to atypical protein kinase C. Genes Cells 6:107–119. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2443.2001.00404.x pmid:11260256
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  181. ↵
    1. Nunes de Almeida F,
    2. Walther RF,
    3. Presse MT,
    4. Vlassaks E,
    5. Pichaud F
    (2019) Cdc42 defines apical identity and regulates epithelial morphogenesis by promoting apical recruitment of Par6-aPKC and Crumbs. Development 146:dev175497. doi:10.1242/dev.175497
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  182. ↵
    1. Ohno S
    (2001) Intercellular junctions and cellular polarity: the PAR-aPKC complex, a conserved core cassette playing fundamental roles in cell polarity. Curr Opin Cell Biol 13:641–648. doi:10.1016/S0955-0674(00)00264-7 pmid:11544035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  183. ↵
    1. Ohno S,
    2. Nishizuka Y
    (2002) Protein kinase C isotypes and their specific functions: prologue. J Biochem 132:509–511. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a003249 pmid:12359062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  184. ↵
    1. Ono Y,
    2. Fujii T,
    3. Ogita K,
    4. Kikkawa U,
    5. Igarashi K,
    6. Nishizuka Y
    (1989) Protein kinase C zeta subspecies from rat brain: its structure, expression, and properties. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:3099–3103. doi:10.1073/pnas.86.9.3099 pmid:2470089
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  185. ↵
    1. O'Roak BJ, et al
    . (2012) Sporadic autism exomes reveal a highly interconnected protein network of de novo mutations. Nature 485:246–250. doi:10.1038/nature10989 pmid:22495309
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  186. ↵
    1. Osten P,
    2. Valsamis L,
    3. Harris A,
    4. Sacktor TC
    (1996) Protein synthesis-dependent formation of protein kinase Mzeta in long-term potentiation. J Neurosci 16:2444–2451. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-08-02444.1996 pmid:8786421
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  187. ↵
    1. Oster H,
    2. Eichele G,
    3. Leitges M
    (2004) Differential expression of atypical PKCs in the adult mouse brain. Brain Res Mol Brain Res 127:79–88. doi:10.1016/j.molbrainres.2004.05.009 pmid:15306123
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  188. ↵
    1. Ozdamar B,
    2. Bose R,
    3. Barrios-Rodiles M,
    4. Wang HR,
    5. Zhang Y,
    6. Wrana JL
    (2005) Regulation of the polarity protein Par6 by TGFbeta receptors controls epithelial cell plasticity. Science 307:1603–1609. doi:10.1126/science.1105718 pmid:15761148
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  189. ↵
    1. Palida SF,
    2. Butko MT,
    3. Ngo JT,
    4. Mackey MR,
    5. Gross LA,
    6. Ellisman MH,
    7. Tsien RY
    (2015) PKMzeta, but not PKClambda, is rapidly synthesized and degraded at the neuronal synapse. J Neurosci 35:7736–7749. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0004-15.2015 pmid:25995463
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  190. ↵
    1. Parker SS, et al
    . (2013) Competing molecular interactions of aPKC isoforms regulate neuronal polarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14450–14455. doi:10.1073/pnas.1301588110 pmid:23940317
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Pasquier J, et al
    . (2016) Gene evolution and gene expression after whole genome duplication in fish: the PhyloFish database. BMC Genomics 17:368.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  191. ↵
    1. Pastalkova E,
    2. Serrano P,
    3. Pinkhasova D,
    4. Wallace E,
    5. Fenton AA,
    6. Sacktor TC
    (2006) Storage of spatial information by the maintenance mechanism of LTP. Science 313:1141–1144. doi:10.1126/science.1128657 pmid:16931766
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  192. ↵
    1. Pasten C,
    2. Cerda J,
    3. Jausoro I,
    4. Court FA,
    5. Caceres A,
    6. Marzolo MP
    (2015) ApoER2 and Reelin are expressed in regenerating peripheral nerve and regulate Schwann cell migration by activating the Rac1 GEF protein, Tiam1. Mol Cell Neurosci 69:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.mcn.2015.09.004 pmid:26386179
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  193. ↵
    1. Penzes P,
    2. Cahill ME,
    3. Jones KA,
    4. VanLeeuwen JE,
    5. Woolfrey KM
    (2011) Dendritic spine pathology in neuropsychiatric disorders. Nat Neurosci 14:285–293. doi:10.1038/nn.2741 pmid:21346746
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  194. ↵
    1. Peterson FC,
    2. Penkert RR,
    3. Volkman BF,
    4. Prehoda KE
    (2004) Cdc42 regulates the Par-6 PDZ domain through an allosteric CRIB-PDZ transition. Mol Cell 13:665–676. doi:10.1016/S1097-2765(04)00086-3 pmid:15023337
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  195. ↵
    1. Petronczki M,
    2. Knoblich JA
    (2001) DmPAR-6 directs epithelial polarity and asymmetric cell division of neuroblasts in Drosophila. Nat Cell Biol 3:43–49. doi:10.1038/35050550 pmid:11146625
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  196. ↵
    1. Picconi B,
    2. Piccoli G,
    3. Calabresi P
    (2012) Synaptic dysfunction in Parkinson's disease. Adv Exp Med Biol 970:553–572. pmid:22351072
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  197. ↵
    1. Pichaud F,
    2. Walther RF,
    3. Nunes de Almeida F
    (2019) Regulation of Cdc42 and its effectors in epithelial morphogenesis. J Cell Sci 132:jcs217869.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  198. ↵
    1. Pinal N,
    2. Goberdhan DC,
    3. Collinson L,
    4. Fujita Y,
    5. Cox IM,
    6. Wilson C,
    7. Pichaud F
    (2006) Regulated and polarized PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 accumulation is essential for apical membrane morphogenesis in photoreceptor epithelial cells. Curr Biol 16:140–149. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.11.068 pmid:16431366
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  199. ↵
    1. Plant PJ,
    2. Fawcett JP,
    3. Lin DC,
    4. Holdorf AD,
    5. Binns K,
    6. Kulkarni S,
    7. Pawson T
    (2003) A polarity complex of mPar-6 and atypical PKC binds, phosphorylates and regulates mammalian Lgl. Nat Cell Biol 5:301–308. doi:10.1038/ncb948 pmid:12629547
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  200. ↵
    1. Poliak S, et al
    . (2003) Juxtaparanodal clustering of Shaker-like K+ channels in myelinated axons depends on Caspr2 and TAG-1. J Cell Biol 162:1149–1160. doi:10.1083/jcb.200305018 pmid:12963709
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  201. ↵
    1. Prehoda KE
    (2009) Polarization of Drosophila neuroblasts during asymmetric division. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 1:a001388. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a001388 pmid:20066083
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  202. ↵
    1. Ramachandran P,
    2. Barria R,
    3. Ashley J,
    4. Budnik V
    (2009) A critical step for postsynaptic F-actin organization: regulation of Baz/Par-3 localization by aPKC and PTEN. Dev Neurobiol 69:583–602. doi:10.1002/dneu.20728 pmid:19472188
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  203. ↵
    1. Ren SQ,
    2. Yan JZ,
    3. Zhang XY,
    4. Bu YF,
    5. Pan WW,
    6. Yao W,
    7. Tian T,
    8. Lu W
    (2013) PKClambda is critical in AMPA receptor phosphorylation and synaptic incorporation during LTP. EMBO J 32:1365–1380. doi:10.1038/emboj.2013.60 pmid:23511975
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  204. ↵
    1. Ridley AJ,
    2. Hall A
    (1992) The small GTP-binding protein rho regulates the assembly of focal adhesions and actin stress fibers in response to growth factors. Cell 70:389–399. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(92)90163-7 pmid:1643657
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  205. ↵
    1. Rizalar FS,
    2. Roosen DA,
    3. Haucke V
    (2021) A presynaptic perspective on transport and assembly mechanisms for synapse formation. Neuron 109:27–41. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2020.09.038 pmid:33098763
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  206. ↵
    1. Rodenas-Cuadrado P,
    2. Pietrafusa N,
    3. Francavilla T,
    4. La Neve A,
    5. Striano P,
    6. Vernes SC
    (2016) Characterisation of CASPR2 deficiency disorder: a syndrome involving autism, epilepsy and language impairment. BMC Med Genet 17:8. doi:10.1186/s12881-016-0272-8 pmid:26843181
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  207. ↵
    1. Rojas AM,
    2. Fuentes G,
    3. Rausell A,
    4. Valencia A
    (2012) The Ras protein superfamily: evolutionary tree and role of conserved amino acids. J Cell Biol 196:189–201. doi:10.1083/jcb.201103008 pmid:22270915
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  208. ↵
    1. Rolls MM,
    2. Doe CQ
    (2004) Baz, Par-6 and aPKC are not required for axon or dendrite specification in Drosophila. Nat Neurosci 7:1293–1295. doi:10.1038/nn1346 pmid:15543144
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  209. ↵
    1. Rolls MM,
    2. Albertson R,
    3. Shih HP,
    4. Lee CY,
    5. Doe CQ
    (2003) Drosophila aPKC regulates cell polarity and cell proliferation in neuroblasts and epithelia. J Cell Biol 163:1089–1098. doi:10.1083/jcb.200306079 pmid:14657233
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  210. ↵
    1. Ron S,
    2. Dudai Y,
    3. Segal M
    (2012) Overexpression of PKMzeta alters morphology and function of dendritic spines in cultured cortical neurons. Cereb Cortex 22:2519–2528. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr323 pmid:22123937
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  211. ↵
    1. Ruiz-Canada C,
    2. Ashley J,
    3. Moeckel-Cole S,
    4. Drier E,
    5. Yin J,
    6. Budnik V
    (2004) New synaptic bouton formation is disrupted by misregulation of microtubule stability in aPKC mutants. Neuron 42:567–580. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00255-7 pmid:15157419
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  212. ↵
    1. Sacktor TC
    (2011) How does PKMzeta maintain long-term memory? Nat Rev Neurosci 12:9–15. doi:10.1038/nrn2949 pmid:21119699
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  213. ↵
    1. Sadeh N,
    2. Verbitsky S,
    3. Dudai Y,
    4. Segal M
    (2015) Zeta inhibitory peptide, a candidate inhibitor of protein kinase mzeta, is excitotoxic to cultured hippocampal neurons. J Neurosci 35:12404–12411. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0976-15.2015 pmid:26354909
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  214. ↵
    1. Sajikumar S,
    2. Korte M
    (2011) Metaplasticity governs compartmentalization of synaptic tagging and capture through brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and protein kinase Mzeta (PKMzeta). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:2551–2556. doi:10.1073/pnas.1016849108
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  215. ↵
    1. Sajikumar S,
    2. Navakkode S,
    3. Sacktor TC,
    4. Frey JU
    (2005) Synaptic tagging and cross-tagging: the role of protein kinase Mzeta in maintaining long-term potentiation but not long-term depression. J Neurosci 25:5750–5756. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1104-05.2005 pmid:15958741
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  216. ↵
    1. Sanders DW, et al
    . (2014) Distinct tau prion strains propagate in cells and mice and define different tauopathies. Neuron 82:1271–1288. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.04.047 pmid:24857020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  217. ↵
    1. Sanders SJ, et al
    . (2012) De novo mutations revealed by whole-exome sequencing are strongly associated with autism. Nature 485:237–241. doi:10.1038/nature10945 pmid:22495306
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  218. ↵
    1. Sanes JR,
    2. Zipursky SL
    (2020) Synaptic specificity, recognition molecules, and assembly of neural circuits. Cell 181:1434–1435. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.046 pmid:32531247
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  219. ↵
    1. Schaefer M,
    2. Shevchenko A,
    3. Shevchenko A,
    4. Knoblich JA
    (2000) A protein complex containing Inscuteable and the Galpha-binding protein Pins orients asymmetric cell divisions in Drosophila. Curr Biol 10:353–362. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00401-2 pmid:10753746
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  220. ↵
    1. Schlessinger K,
    2. McManus EJ,
    3. Hall A
    (2007) Cdc42 and noncanonical Wnt signal transduction pathways cooperate to promote cell polarity. J Cell Biol 178:355–361. doi:10.1083/jcb.200701083 pmid:17646398
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  221. ↵
    1. Schmoranzer J,
    2. Fawcett JP,
    3. Segura M,
    4. Tan S,
    5. Vallee RB,
    6. Pawson T,
    7. Gundersen GG
    (2009) Par3 and dynein associate to regulate local microtubule dynamics and centrosome orientation during migration. Curr Biol 19:1065–1074. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.065 pmid:19540120
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  222. ↵
    1. Schroeder MC,
    2. Halder G
    (2012) Regulation of the Hippo pathway by cell architecture and mechanical signals. Semin Cell Dev Biol 23:803–811. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2012.06.001 pmid:22750148
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Selbie LA,
    2. Schmitz-Peiffer C,
    3. Sheng Y,
    4. Biden TJ
    (1993) Molecular cloning and characterization of PKC iota, an atypical isoform of protein kinase C derived from insulin-secreting cells. J Biol Chem 268:24296–24302.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  223. ↵
    1. Serrano P, et al
    . (2008) PKMzeta maintains spatial, instrumental, and classically conditioned long-term memories. PLoS Biol 6:2698–2706. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060318 pmid:19108606
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  224. ↵
    1. Serrano P,
    2. Yao Y,
    3. Sacktor TC
    (2005) Persistent phosphorylation by protein kinase Mzeta maintains late-phase long-term potentiation. J Neurosci 25:1979–1984. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5132-04.2005 pmid:15728837
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  225. ↵
    1. Shaikh TH
    (2017) Copy number variation disorders. Curr Genet Med Rep 5:183–190. doi:10.1007/s40142-017-0129-2 pmid:29732242
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  226. ↵
    1. Shao CY,
    2. Crary JF,
    3. Rao C,
    4. Sacktor TC,
    5. Mirra SS
    (2006) Atypical protein kinase C in neurodegenerative disease: II. PKCiota/lambda in tauopathies and alpha-synucleinopathies. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 65:327–335. doi:10.1097/01.jnen.0000218441.00040.82 pmid:16691114
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  227. ↵
    1. Shao CY,
    2. Sondhi R,
    3. van de Nes PS,
    4. Sacktor TC
    (2012) PKMzeta is necessary and sufficient for synaptic clustering of PSD-95. Hippocampus 22:1501–1507. doi:10.1002/hipo.20996 pmid:22378468
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  228. ↵
    1. Shema R,
    2. Sacktor TC,
    3. Dudai Y
    (2007) Rapid erasure of long-term memory associations in the cortex by an inhibitor of PKM zeta. Science 317:951–953. doi:10.1126/science.1144334 pmid:17702943
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  229. ↵
    1. Shema R,
    2. Hazvi S,
    3. Sacktor TC,
    4. Dudai Y
    (2009) Boundary conditions for the maintenance of memory by PKMzeta in neocortex. Learn Mem 16:122–128. doi:10.1101/lm.1183309 pmid:19181618
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  230. ↵
    1. Shema R,
    2. Haramati S,
    3. Ron S,
    4. Hazvi S,
    5. Chen A,
    6. Sacktor TC,
    7. Dudai Y
    (2011) Enhancement of consolidated long-term memory by overexpression of protein kinase Mzeta in the neocortex. Science 331:1207–1210. doi:10.1126/science.1200215 pmid:21385716
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  231. ↵
    1. Sheng T,
    2. Wang S,
    3. Qian D,
    4. Gao J,
    5. Ohno S,
    6. Lu W
    (2017) Learning-induced suboptimal compensation for PKCiota/lambda function in mutant mice. Cereb Cortex 27:3284–3293. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhx077 pmid:28383692
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  232. ↵
    1. Sherry ST,
    2. Ward MH,
    3. Kholodov M,
    4. Baker J,
    5. Phan L,
    6. Smigielski EM,
    7. Sirotkin K
    (2001) dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res 29:308–311. doi:10.1093/nar/29.1.308 pmid:11125122
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  233. ↵
    1. Shi SH,
    2. Jan LY,
    3. Jan YN
    (2003) Hippocampal neuronal polarity specified by spatially localized mPar3/mPar6 and PI 3-kinase activity. Cell 112:63–75. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(02)01249-7 pmid:12526794
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  234. ↵
    1. Shi SH,
    2. Cheng T,
    3. Jan LY,
    4. Jan YN
    (2004) APC and GSK-3beta are involved in mPar3 targeting to the nascent axon and establishment of neuronal polarity. Curr Biol 14:2025–2032. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.11.009 pmid:15556865
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  235. ↵
    1. Smith L,
    2. Chen L,
    3. Reyland ME,
    4. DeVries TA,
    5. Talanian RV,
    6. Omura S,
    7. Smith JB
    (2000) Activation of atypical protein kinase C zeta by caspase processing and degradation by the ubiquitin-proteasome system. J Biol Chem 275:40620–40627. doi:10.1074/jbc.M908517199 pmid:11016947
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  236. ↵
    1. Solecki DJ,
    2. Model L,
    3. Gaetz J,
    4. Kapoor TM,
    5. Hatten ME
    (2004) Par6alpha signaling controls glial-guided neuronal migration. Nat Neurosci 7:1195–1203. doi:10.1038/nn1332 pmid:15475953
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  237. ↵
    1. Solecki DJ,
    2. Trivedi N,
    3. Govek EE,
    4. Kerekes RA,
    5. Gleason SS,
    6. Hatten ME
    (2009) Myosin II motors and F-actin dynamics drive the coordinated movement of the centrosome and soma during CNS glial-guided neuronal migration. Neuron 63:63–80. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.05.028 pmid:19607793
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  238. ↵
    1. Soriano EV, et al
    . (2016) aPKC inhibition by Par3 CR3 flanking regions controls substrate access and underpins apical-junctional polarization. Dev Cell 38:384–398. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2016.07.018 pmid:27554858
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  239. ↵
    1. Sotillos S,
    2. Diaz-Meco MT,
    3. Caminero E,
    4. Moscat J,
    5. Campuzano S
    (2004) DaPKC-dependent phosphorylation of Crumbs is required for epithelial cell polarity in Drosophila. J Cell Biol 166:549–557. doi:10.1083/jcb.200311031 pmid:15302858
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  240. ↵
    1. Soukup SF,
    2. Vanhauwaert R,
    3. Verstreken P
    (2018) Parkinson's disease: convergence on synaptic homeostasis. EMBO J 37:e98960. doi:10.15252/embj.201898960
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  241. ↵
    1. Spindler SR,
    2. Hartenstein V
    (2011) Bazooka mediates secondary axon morphology in Drosophila brain lineages. Neural Dev 6:16. doi:10.1186/1749-8104-6-16 pmid:21524279
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  242. ↵
    1. Steinberg SF
    (2008) Structural basis of protein kinase C isoform function. Physiol Rev 88:1341–1378. doi:10.1152/physrev.00034.2007 pmid:18923184
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  243. ↵
    1. Stessman HA, et al
    . (2017) Targeted sequencing identifies 91 neurodevelopmental-disorder risk genes with autism and developmental-disability biases. Nat Genet 49:515–526. doi:10.1038/ng.3792 pmid:28191889
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  244. ↵
    1. Sudhof TC
    (2018) Towards an understanding of synapse formation. Neuron 100:276–293.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  245. ↵
    1. Sutton MA,
    2. Schuman EM
    (2005) Local translational control in dendrites and its role in long-term synaptic plasticity. J Neurobiol 64:116–131. doi:10.1002/neu.20152 pmid:15883999
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  246. ↵
    1. Suzuki A,
    2. Akimoto K,
    3. Ohno S
    (2003) Protein kinase C lambda/iota (PKClambda/iota): a PKC isotype essential for the development of multicellular organisms. J Biochem 133:9–16. doi:10.1093/jb/mvg018 pmid:12761193
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  247. ↵
    1. Tabuse Y,
    2. Izumi Y,
    3. Piano F,
    4. Kemphues KJ,
    5. Miwa J,
    6. Ohno S
    (1998) Atypical protein kinase C cooperates with PAR-3 to establish embryonic polarity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Development 125:3607–3614. doi:10.1242/dev.125.18.3607 pmid:9716526
    OpenUrlAbstract
  248. ↵
    1. Takekuni K,
    2. Ikeda W,
    3. Fujito T,
    4. Morimoto K,
    5. Takeuchi M,
    6. Monden M,
    7. Takai Y
    (2003) Direct binding of cell polarity protein PAR-3 to cell-cell adhesion molecule nectin at neuroepithelial cells of developing mouse. J Biol Chem 278:5497–5500. doi:10.1074/jbc.C200707200 pmid:12515806
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  249. ↵
    1. Takumi T,
    2. Tamada K
    (2018) CNV biology in neurodevelopmental disorders. Curr Opin Neurobiol 48:183–192. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2017.12.004 pmid:29331932
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  250. ↵
    1. Tan B,
    2. Yatim S,
    3. Peng S,
    4. Gunaratne J,
    5. Hunziker W,
    6. Ludwig A
    (2020) The mammalian Crumbs complex defines a distinct polarity domain apical of epithelial tight junctions. Curr Biol 30:2791–2804.e2796. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2020.05.032 pmid:32531288
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  251. ↵
    1. Tapia-Rojas C,
    2. Cabezas-Opazo F,
    3. Deaton CA,
    4. Vergara EH,
    5. Johnson G,
    6. Quintanilla RA
    (2019) It's all about tau. Prog Neurobiol 175:54–76. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2018.12.005 pmid:30605723
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed