Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Post-translational regulation of the maternal-to-zygotic transition

  • Review
  • Published:
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The maternal-to-zygotic transition (MZT) is essential for the developmental control handed from maternal products to newly synthesized zygotic genome in the earliest stages of embryogenesis, including maternal component (mRNAs and proteins) degradation and zygotic genome activation (ZGA). Various protein post-translational modifications have been identified during the MZT, such as phosphorylation, methylation and ubiquitination. Precise post-translational regulation mechanisms are essential for the timely transition of early embryonic development. In this review, we summarize recent progress regarding the molecular mechanisms underlying post-translational regulation of maternal component degradation and ZGA during the MZT and discuss some important issues in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lee MT et al (2014) Zygotic genome activation during the maternal-to-zygotic transition. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 30:581–613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Tadros W, Lipshitz HD (2009) The maternal-to-zygotic transition: a play in two acts. Development 136:3033–3042

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walser CB, Lipshitz HD (2011) Transcript clearance during the maternal-to-zygotic transition. Curr Opin Genet Dev 21:431–443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yartseva V, Giraldez AJ (2015) The maternal-to-zygotic transition during vertebrate development: a model for reprogramming. Curr Top Dev Biol 113:191–232

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Li L et al (2013) The maternal to zygotic transition in mammals. Mol Aspects Med 34:919–938

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Baugh LR et al (2003) Composition and dynamics of the Caenorhabditis elegans early embryonic transcriptome. Development 130:889–900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Robertson S, Lin R (2015) The maternal-to-zygotic transition in C. elegans. Curr Top Dev Biol 113:1–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tadros W et al (2007) SMAUG is a major regulator of maternal mRNA destabilization in Drosophila and its translation is activated by the PAN GU kinase. Dev Cell 12:143–155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wragg J, Muller F (2016) Transcriptional regulation during zygotic genome activation in zebrafish and other anamniote embryos. Adv Genet 95:161–194

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yang J et al (2015) The xenopus maternal-to-zygotic transition from the perspective of the germline. Curr Top Dev Biol 113:271–303

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Yan LY et al (2013) Single-cell RNA-seq profiling of human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20:1131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sheets MD (2015) Building the future: post-transcriptional regulation of cell fate decisions prior to the xenopus midblastula transition. Curr Top Dev Biol 113:233–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nothias JY et al (1995) Regulation of gene-expression at the beginning of mammalian development. J Biol Chem 270:22077–22080

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Majumder S, Depamphilis ML (1995) A unique role for enhancers is revealed during early mouse development. BioEssays 17:879–889

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schultz RM (2002) The molecular foundations of the maternal to zygotic transition in the preimplantation embryo. Hum Reprod Update 8:323–331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pauli A et al (2011) Non-coding RNAs as regulators of embryogenesis. Nat Rev Genet 12:136–149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Svoboda P, Flemr M (2010) The role of miRNAs and endogenous siRNAs in maternal-to-zygotic reprogramming and the establishment of pluripotency. EMBO Rep 11:590–597

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Laver JD et al (2015) Regulation and function of maternal gene products during the maternal-to-zygotic transition in Drosophila. Curr Top Dev Biol 113:43–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stebbins-Boaz B, Richter JD (1997) Translational control during early development. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr 7:73–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barckmann B, Simonelig M (2013) Control of maternal mRNA stability in germ cells and early embryos. Bba Gene Regul Mech 1829:714–724

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Marlow FL (2010) Maternal control of development in vertebrates: my mother made me do it! Morgan & Claypool Life Sciences, San Rafael

  22. Thomsen S et al (2010) Genome-wide analysis of mRNA decay patterns during early Drosophila development. Genome Biol 11:R93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Hamatani T et al (2004) Dynamics of global gene expression changes during mouse preimplantation development. Dev Cell 6:117–131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schier AF (2007) The maternal-zygotic transition: death and birth of RNAs. Science 316:406–407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhao BS et al (2017) m6A-dependent maternal mRNA clearance facilitates zebrafish maternal-to-zygotic transition. Nature 542:475–478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Giraldez AJ et al (2006) Zebrafish MiR-430 promotes deadenylation and clearance of maternal mRNAs. Science 312:75–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tadros W et al (2003) Regulation of maternal transcript destabilization during egg activation in Drosophila. Genetics 164:989–1001

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee LA et al (2001) A genetic screen for suppressors and enhancers of the Drosophila PAN GU cell cycle kinase identifies cyclin B as a target. Genetics 158:1545–1556

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Smibert CA et al (1996) Smaug protein represses translation of unlocalized nanos mRNA in the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev 10:2600–2609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Aviv T et al (2003) The RNA-binding SAM domain of Smaug defines a new family of post-transcriptional regulators. Nat Struct Biol 10:614–621

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gotze M, Wahle E (2014) Smaug destroys a huge treasure. Genome Biol 15:R4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Semotok JL et al (2005) Smaug recruits the CCR4/POP2/NOT deadenylase complex to trigger maternal transcript localization in the early drosophila embryo. Curr Biol 15:284–294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zaessinger S et al (2006) Oskar allows nanos mRNA translation in Drosophila embryos by preventing its deadenylation by Smaug/CCR4. Development 133:4573–4583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Semotok JL et al (2008) Drosophila maternal Hsp83 mRNA destabilization is directed by multiple SMAUG recognition elements in the open reading frame. Mol Cell Biol 28:6757–6772

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Rouget C et al (2010) Maternal mRNA deadenylation and decay by the piRNA pathway in the early Drosophila embryo. Nature 467:U1128–U1144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Weidmann CA et al (2014) The RNA binding domain of Pumilio antagonizes poly-adenosine binding protein and accelerates deadenylation. RNA 20:1298–1319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ota R et al (2011) Biochemical characterization of Pumilio1 and Pumilio2 in Xenopus oocytes. J Biol Chem 286:2853–2863

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mendez R et al (2002) Differential mRNA translation and meiotic progression require Cdc2-mediated CPEB destruction. EMBO J 21:1833–1844

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Hara M et al (2017) Control of PNG kinase, a key regulator of mRNA translation, is coupled to meiosis completion at egg activation. eLife 6:e22219. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22219

  40. Sha QQ et al (2017) A MAPK cascade couples maternal mRNA translation and degradation to meiotic cell cycle progression in mouse oocytes. Development 144:452–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu YS et al (2016) BTG4 is a key regulator for maternal mRNA clearance during mouse early embryogenesis. J Mol Cell Biol 8:366–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pasternak M et al (2016) The BTG4 and CAF1 complex prevents the spontaneous activation of eggs by deadenylating maternal mRNAs. Open Biol. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.160184

  43. Yu C et al (2016) BTG4 is a meiotic cell cycle-coupled maternal-zygotic transition licensing factor in oocytes. Nat Struct Mol Biol 23:387–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Glisovic T et al (2008) RNA-binding proteins and post-transcriptional gene regulation. FEBS Lett 582:1977–1986

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Farley BM, Ryder SP (2008) Regulation of maternal mRNAs in early development. Crit Rev Biochem Mol 43:135–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Schubert CM et al (2000) MEX-5 and MEX-6 function to establish soma/germline asymmetry in early C-elegans embryos. Mol Cell 5:671–682

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gerber AP et al (2006) Genome-wide identification of mRNAs associated with the translational regulator PUMILIO in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:4487–4492

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Paillard L et al (1998) EDEN and EDEN-BP, a cis element and an associated factor that mediate sequence-specific mRNA deadenylation in Xenopus embryos. EMBO J 17:278–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Ramos SBV et al (2004) The CCCH tandem zinc-finger protein Zfp36I2 is crucial for female fertility and early embryonic development. Development 131:4883–4893

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Yu J et al (2002) RNA-binding properties and translation repression in vitro by germ cell-specific MSY2 protein. Biol Reprod 67:1093–1098

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Graindorge A et al (2008) Identification of CUG-BP1/EDEN-BP target mRNAs in Xenopus tropicalis. Nucleic Acids Res 36:1861–1870

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Detivaud L et al (2003) Regulation of EDEN-dependent deadenylation of Aurora A/Eg2-derived mRNA via phosphorylation and dephosphorylation in Xenopus laevis egg extracts. J Cell Sci 116:2697–2705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Moraes KCM et al (2006) CUG-BP binds to RNA substrates and recruits PARN deadenylase. RNA 12:1084–1091

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Roberts R et al (1997) Altered phosphorylation and intracellular distribution of a (CUG)(n) triplet repeat RNA binding protein in patients with myotonic dystrophy and in myotonin protein kinase knockout mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:13221–13226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Yang JX et al (2005) The DNA/RNA-binding protein MSY2 marks specific transcripts for cytoplasmic storage in mouse male germ cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:1513–1518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Medvedev S et al (2011) Absence of MSY2 in mouse oocytes perturbs oocyte growth and maturation, RNA stability, and the transcriptome. Biol Reprod 85:575–583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Yu JY et al (2004) Transgenic RNAi-mediated reduction of MSY2 in mouse oocytes results in reduced fertility. Dev Biol 268:195–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Yu JY et al (2001) Expression of MSY2 in mouse oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Biol Reprod 65:1260–1270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Medvedev S et al (2008) CDC2A (CDK1)-mediated phosphorylation of MSY2 triggers maternal mRNA degradation during mouse oocyte maturation. Dev Biol 321:205–215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Svoboda P et al (2015) Sculpting the transcriptome during the oocyte-to-embryo transition in mouse. Curr Top Dev Biol 113:305–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ma J et al (2013) Maternally recruited DCP1A and DCP2 contribute to messenger RNA degradation during oocyte maturation and genome activation in mouse. Biol Reprod 88:11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Bartel DP (2009) MicroRNAs: target recognition and regulatory functions. Cell 136:215–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Wu E et al (2010) Pervasive and cooperative deadenylation of 3′UTRs by embryonic microRNA families. Mol Cell 40:558–570

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Lasko P (2009) Translational control during early development. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 90:211–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Bushati N et al (2008) Temporal reciprocity of miRNAs and their targets during the maternal-to-zygotic transition in Drosophila. Curr Biol 18:501–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bazzini AA et al (2012) Ribosome profiling shows that miR-430 reduces translation before causing mRNA decay in zebrafish. Science 336:233–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Tang F et al (2007) Maternal microRNAs are essential for mouse zygotic development. Genes Dev 21:644–648

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Denli AM et al (2004) Processing of primary microRNAs by the microprocessor complex. Nature 432:231–235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ketting RF et al (2001) Dicer functions in RNA interference and in synthesis of small RNA involved in developmental timing in C. elegans. Genes Dev 15:2654–2659

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Knight SW, Bass BL (2001) A role for the RNase III enzyme DCR-1 in RNA interference and germ line development in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science 293:2269–2271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Drake M et al (2014) A requirement for ERK-dependent Dicer phosphorylation in coordinating oocyte-to-embryo transition in C. elegans. Dev Cell 31:614–628

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Arur S (2015) Context-dependent regulation of Dicer activity and small RNA production: implications to oocyte-to-embryo transition. Worm 4:e1086062

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Wang SF et al (2010) Proteome of mouse oocytes at different developmental stages. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:17639–17644

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Varshavsky A (2017) The ubiquitin system, autophagy, and regulated protein degradation. Annu Rev Biochem 86:123–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Dikic I (2017) Proteasomal and autophagic degradation systems. Annu Rev Biochem 86:193–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Levine B, Kroemer G (2008) Autophagy in the pathogenesis of disease. Cell 132:27–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Mizushima N et al (2010) Methods in mammalian autophagy research. Cell 140:313–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Li WW et al (2012) Microautophagy: lesser-known self-eating. Cell Mol Life Sci CMLS 69:1125–1136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Cuervo AM, Wong E (2014) Chaperone-mediated autophagy: roles in disease and aging. Cell Res 24:92–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Mizushima N (2007) Autophagy: process and function. Genes Dev 21:2861–2873

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Mizushima N et al (2011) The role of Atg proteins in autophagosome formation. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 27:107–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Mizushima N, Levine B (2010) Autophagy in mammalian development and differentiation. Nat Cell Biol 12:823–830

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Yang Z, Klionsky DJ (2009) An overview of the molecular mechanism of autophagy. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 335:1–32

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Tsukamoto S et al (2008) Autophagy is essential for preimplantation development of mouse embryos. Science 321:117–120

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Updike D, Strome S (2010) P granule assembly and function in Caenorhabditis elegans germ cells. J Androl 31:53–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Zhang YX et al (2009) SEPA-1 mediates the specific recognition and degradation of P granule components by autophagy in C. elegans. Cell 136:308–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Xu YN et al (2012) Autophagy influences maternal mRNA degradation and apoptosis in porcine parthenotes developing in vitro. J Reprod Dev 58:576–584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hershko A, Ciechanover A (1998) The ubiquitin system. Annu Rev Biochem 67:425–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Pickart CM (2001) Mechanisms underlying ubiquitination. Annu Rev Biochem 70:503–533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Welchman RL et al (2005) Ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like proteins as multifunctional signals. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 6:599–609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Komander D, Rape M (2012) The ubiquitin code. Annu Rev Biochem 81(81):203–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Pesin JA, Orr-Weaver TL (2008) Regulation of APC/C activators in mitosis and meiosis. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 24:475–499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Schmidt A et al (2005) Xenopus polo-like kinase Plx1 regulates XErp1, a novel inhibitor of APC/C activity. Genes Dev 19:502–513

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Shoji S et al (2006) Mammalian Emi2 mediates cytostatic arrest and transduces the signal for meiotic exit via Cdc20. EMBO J 25:834–845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Nishiyama T et al (2007) Phosphorylation of Erp1 by p90rsk is required for cytostatic factor arrest in Xenopus laevis eggs. Nature 446:1096–1099

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Hansen DV et al (2006) CaMKII and polo-like kinase 1 sequentially phosphorylate the cytostatic factor Emi2/XErp1 to trigger its destruction and meiotic exit. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:608–613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Liu JJ, Maller JL (2005) Calcium elevation at fertilization coordinates phosphorylation of XErp1/Emi2 by Plx1 and CaMK II to release metaphase arrest by cytostatic factor. Curr Biol 15:1458–1468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Lorca T et al (1993) Calmodulin-dependent protein kinase-II mediates inactivation of Mpf and Csf upon fertilization of Xenopus eggs. Nature 366:270–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Dupont G (1998) Link between fertilization-induced Ca2+ oscillations and relief from metaphase II arrest in mammalian eggs: a model based on calmodulin-dependent kinase II activation. Biophys Chem 72:153–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Suzumori N et al (2003) RFPL4 interacts with oocyte proteins of the ubiquitin–proteasome degradation pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:550–555

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Page AW, OrrWeaver TL (1996) The Drosophila genes grauzone and cortex are necessary for proper female meiosis. J Cell Sci 109:1707–1715

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Pesin JA, Orr-Weaver TL (2007) Developmental role and regulation of cortex, a meiosis-specific anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome activator. PLoS Genet 3:2208–2220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Chu T et al (2001) Cortex, a Drosophila gene required to complete oocyte meiosis, is a member of the Cdc20/fizzy protein family. Genesis 29:141–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Swan A, Schupbach T (2007) The Cdc20 (Fzy)/Cdh1-related protein, Cort, cooperates with Fzy in cyclin destruction and anaphase progression in meiosis I and II in Drosophila. Development 134:891–899

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Whitfield ZJ et al (2013) A meiosis-specific form of the APC/C promotes the oocyte-to-embryo transition by decreasing levels of the polo kinase inhibitor matrimony. PLoS Biol 11:e1001648

  106. Mcnally FJ, Vale RD (1993) Identification of katanin, an atpase that severs and disassembles stable microtubules. Cell 75:419–429

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Srayko M et al (2000) MEI-1/MEI-2 katanin-like microtubule severing activity is required for Caenorhabditis elegans meiosis. Genes Dev 14:1072–1084

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Petroski MD, Deshaies RJ (2005) Function and regulation of cullin-RING ubiquitin ligases. Nat Rev Mol Cell Bio 6:9–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Pintard L et al (2003) The BTB protein MEL-26 is a substrate-specific adaptor of the CUL-3 ubiquitin-ligase. Nature 425:311–316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Xu L et al (2003) BTB proteins are substrate-specific adaptors in an SCF-like modular ubiquitin ligase containing CUL-3. Nature 425:316–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Furukawa M et al (2003) Targeting of protein ubiquitination by BTB-Cullin 3-Roc1 ubiquitin ligases. Nat Cell Biol 5:1001–1007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Bowerman B, Kurz T (2006) Degrade to create: developmental requirements for ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis during early C. elegans embryogenesis. Development 133:773–784

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Enchev RI et al (2015) Protein neddylation: beyond cullin-RING ligases. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 16:30–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Pintard L et al (2003) Neddylation and deneddylation of CUL-3 is required to target MEI-1/katanin for degradation at the meiosis-to-mitosis transition in C. elegans. Curr Biol 13:911–921

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Quintin S et al (2003) The mbk-2 kinase is required for inactivation of MEI-1/katanin in the one-cell Caenorhabditis elegans embryo. EMBO Rep 4:1175–1181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Pang KM et al (2004) The minibrain kinase homolog, mbk-2, is required for spindle positioning and asymmetric cell division in early C. elegans embryos. Dev Biol 265:127–139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Stitzel ML et al (2006) The C. elegans DYRK kinase MBK-2 marks oocyte proteins for degradation in response to meiotic maturation. Curr Biol 16:56–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Stitzel ML et al (2007) Regulation of MBK-2/Dyrk kinase by dynamic cortical anchoring during the oocyte-to-zygote transition. Curr Biol 17:1545–1554

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Cheng KCC et al (2009) Regulation of MBK-2/DYRK by CDK-1 and the pseudophosphatases EGG-4 and EGG-5 during the oocyte-to-embryo transition. Cell 139:560–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Boxem M et al (1999) The Caenorhabditis elegans gene ncc-1 encodes a cdc2-related kinase required for M phase in meiotic and mitotic cell divisions, but not for S phase. Development 126:2227–2239

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Zhang P et al (2009) Proteomic-based identification of maternal proteins in mature mouse oocytes. BMC Genom 10:348

  122. Yang Y et al (2017) The E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF114 and TAB 1 degradation are required for maternal-to-zygotic transition. EMBO Rep 18:205–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Shibuya H et al (1996) TAB 1: an activator of the TAK1 MAPKKK in TGF-beta signal transduction. Science 272:1179–1182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Wang C et al (2001) TAK1 is a ubiquitin-dependent kinase of MKK and IKK. Nature 412:346–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Moreno-Garcia ME et al (2013) Kinase-independent feedback of the TAK1/TAB 1 complex on BCL10 turnover and NF-kappaB activation. Mol Cell Biol 33:1149–1163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Nishikimi A et al (1999) Nuclear translocation of nuclear factor kappa B in early 1-cell mouse embryos. Biol Reprod 60:1536–1541

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Barnard DC et al (2004) Symplekin and xGLD-2 are required for CPEB-mediated cytoplasmic polyadenylation. Cell 119:641–651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Mendez R et al (2000) Phosphorylation of CPEB by Eg2 mediates the recruitment of CPSF into an active cytoplasmic polyadenylation complex. Mol Cell 6:1253–1259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Setoyama D et al (2007) Mechanism of degradation of CPEB during Xenopus oocyte maturation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18001–18006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Nechama M et al (2013) An unusual two-step control of CPEB destruction by Pin1. Mol Cell Biol 33:48–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Li L et al (2008) A subcortical maternal complex essential for preimplantation mouse embryogenesis. Dev Cell 15:416–425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Koyanagi S et al (2012) Effects of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 deficiency on mouse ova. Reproduction 143:271–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Sato M, Sato K (2013) Dynamic regulation of autophagy and endocytosis for cell remodeling during early development. Traffic 14:479–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Sato K et al (2006) Dynamic regulation of caveolin-1 trafficking in the germ line and embryo of Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol Biol Cell 17:3085–3094

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Balklava Z et al (2007) Genome-wide analysis identifies a general requirement for polarity proteins in endocytic traffic. Nat Cell Biol 9:U1035–U1066

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Grant B, Hirsh D (1999) Receptor-mediated endocytosis in the Caenorhabditis elegans oocyte. Mol Biol Cell 10:4311–4326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Maruyama R et al (2007) EGG-3 regulates cell-surface and cortex rearrangements during egg activation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr Biol 17:1555–1560

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Kadandale P et al (2005) The egg surface LDL receptor repeat-containing proteins EGG-1 and EGG-2 are required for fertilization in Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr Biol 15:2222–2229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Hanson PI, Cashikar A (2012) Multivesicular Body Morphogenesis. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 28(28):337–362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Sato M et al (2008) Rab11 is required for synchronous secretion of chondroitin proteoglycans after fertilization in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Cell Sci 121:3177–3186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Traub LM, Lukacs GL (2007) Decoding ubiquitin sorting signals for clathrin-dependent endocytosis by CLASPs. J Cell Sci 120:543–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Mukhopadhyay D, Riezman H (2007) Proteasome-independent functions of ubiquitin in endocytosis and signaling. Science 315:201–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Lauwers E et al (2010) The ubiquitin code of yeast permease trafficking. Trends Cell Biol 20:196–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Sato M et al (2014) Fertilization-induced K63-linked ubiquitylation mediates clearance of maternal membrane proteins. Development 141:U1268–U1324

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Jukam D et al (2017) Zygotic genome activation in vertebrates. Dev Cell 42:316–332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Palfy M et al (2017) The timing of zygotic genome activation. Curr Opin Genet Dev 43:53–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Newport J, Kirschner M (1982) A major developmental transition in early Xenopus-embryos. 1. Characterization and timing of cellular-changes at the midblastula stage. Cell 30:675–686

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Howe JA et al (1995) Identification of a developmental timer regulating the stability of embryonic cyclin-a and a new somatic a-type cyclin at gastrulation. Genes Dev 9:1164–1176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Amodeo AA et al (2015) Histone titration against the genome sets the DNA-to-cytoplasm threshold for the Xenopus midblastula transition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:E1086–E1095

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Collart C et al (2013) Titration of four replication factors is essential for the Xenopus laevis midblastula transition. Science 341:893–896

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Dunican DS et al (2008) xDnmt1 regulates transcriptional silencing in pre-MBT Xenopus embryos independently of its catalytic function. Development 135:1295–1302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Brown JL et al (1991) Repression of the Drosophila–Fushi–Tarazu (Ftz) segmentation gene. EMBO J 10:665–674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Kane DA, Kimmel CB (1993) The zebrafish midblastula transition. Development 119:447–456

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Siefert JC et al (2015) Cell cycle control in the early embryonic development of aquatic animal species. Comp Biochem Phys C 178:8–15

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  155. Rempel RE et al (1995) Maternal Xenopus Cdk2-cyclin E complexes function during meiotic and early embryonic cell cycles that lack a G1 phase. J Biol Chem 270:6843–6855

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Strausfeld UP et al (1996) Both cyclin A and cyclin E have S-phase promoting (SPF) activity in Xenopus egg extracts. J Cell Sci 109:1555–1563

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Zhang M et al (2017) Cell cycle remodeling and zygotic gene activation at the midblastula transition. Adv Exp Med Biol 953:441–487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. Kim SH et al (1999) A maternal form of the phosphatase Cdc25A regulates early embryonic cell cycles in Xenopus laevis. Dev Biol 212:381–391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Murakami MS, Vande Woude GF (1998) Analysis of the early embryonic cell cycles of Xenopus; regulation of cell cycle length by Xe-wee1 and Mos. Development 125:237–248

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Sha W et al (2003) Hysteresis drives cell-cycle transitions in Xenopus laevis egg extracts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:975–980

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Kang Q, Pomerening JR (2012) Punctuated cyclin synthesis drives early embryonic cell cycle oscillations. Mol Biol Cell 23:284–296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Guven-Ozkan T et al (2008) Global transcriptional repression in C. elegans germline precursors by regulated sequestration of TAF-4. Cell 135:149–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Veenstra GJ et al (1999) Translation of maternal TATA-binding protein mRNA potentiates basal but not activated transcription in Xenopus embryos at the midblastula transition. Mol Cell Biol 19:7972–7982

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. Bartfai R et al (2004) TBP2, a vertebrate-specific member of the TBP family, is required in embryonic development of zebrafish. Curr Biol 14:593–598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Dantonel JC et al (2000) TBP-like factor is required for embryonic RNA polymerase II transcription in C. elegans. Mol Cell 6:715–722

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Jallow Z et al (2004) Specialized and redundant roles of TBP and a vertebrate-specific TBP paralog in embryonic gene regulation in Xenopus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13525–13530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Veenstra GJC et al (2000) Distinct roles for TBP and TBP-like factor in early embryonic gene transcription in Xenopus. Science 290:2312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Liang HL et al (2008) The zinc-finger protein Zelda is a key activator of the early zygotic genome in Drosophila. Nature 456:U400–U467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  169. Lee MT et al (2013) Nanog, Pou5f1 and SoxB1 activate zygotic gene expression during the maternal-to-zygotic transition. Nature 503:360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Leichsenring M et al (2013) Pou5f1 transcription factor controls zygotic gene activation in vertebrates. Science 341:1005–1009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. De Iaco A et al (2017) DUX-family transcription factors regulate zygotic genome activation in placental mammals. Nat Genet 49:941

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  172. Hendrickson PG et al (2017) Conserved roles of mouse DUX and human DUX4 in activating cleavage-stage genes and MERVL/HERVL retrotransposons. Nat Genet 49:925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  173. Whiddon JL et al (2017) Conservation and innovation in the DUX4-family gene network. Nat Genet 49:935

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  174. Walker AK, Blackwell TK (2003) A broad but restricted requirement for TAF-5 (human TAF(II)100) for embryonic transcription in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Biol Chem 278:6181–6186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Du Z et al (2015) E3 ubiquitin ligases promote progression of differentiation during C. elegans embryogenesis. Dev Biol 398:267–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Abbassi L et al (2016) Multiple mechanisms cooperate to constitutively exclude the transcriptional co-activator YAP from the nucleus during murine oogenesis. Biol Reprod 94(5):102

  177. Li B et al (2007) The role of chromatin during transcription. Cell 128:707–719

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Newport J, Kirschner M (1982) A major developmental transition in early Xenopus-embryos. 2. Control of the onset of transcription. Cell 30:687–696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Wu JY et al (2016) The landscape of accessible chromatin in mammalian preimplantation embryos. Nature 534:652

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Dekker J, Mirny L (2016) The 3D genome as moderator of chromosomal communication. Cell 164:1110–1121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Ke YW et al (2017) 3D Chromatin Structures of Mature Gametes and Structural Reprogramming during Mammalian Embryogenesis. Cell 170:367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Du ZH et al (2017) Allelic reprogramming of 3D chromatin architecture during early mammalian development. Nature 547:232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Berr A et al (2012) Chromatin modification and remodelling: a regulatory landscape for the control of Arabidopsis defence responses upon pathogen attack. Cell Microbiol 14:829–839

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Izzo A, Schneider R (2010) Chatting histone modifications in mammals. Brief Funct Genom 9:429–443

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  185. Freedman BS, Heald R (2010) Functional comparison of H1 histones in Xenopus reveals isoform-specific regulation by Cdk1 and RanGTP. Curr Biol 20:1048–1052

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. Chang CC et al (2005) A maternal store of macroH2A is removed from pronuclei prior to onset of somatic macroH2A expression in preimplantation embryos. Dev Biol 278:367–380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Douet J et al (2017) MacroH2A histone variants maintain nuclear organization and heterochromatin architecture. J Cell Sci 130:1570–1582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Ostrup O et al (2013) Chromatin-linked determinants of zygotic genome activation. Cell Mol Life Sci 70:1425–1437

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Puschendorf M et al (2008) PRC1 and Suv39 h specify parental asymmetry at constitutive heterochromatin in early mouse embryos. Nat Genet 40:411–420

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Levine SS et al (2004) Division of labor in polycomb group repression. Trends Biochem Sci 29:478–485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Braun RE (2001) Packaging paternal chromosomes with protamine. Nat Genet 28:10–12

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Jung YH et al (2017) Chromatin states in mouse sperm correlate with embryonic and adult regulatory landscapes. Cell Rep 18:1366–1382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  193. Lindeman LC et al (2011) Prepatterning of developmental gene expression by modified histones before zygotic genome activation. Dev Cell 21:993–1004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Zenk F et al (2017) Germ line-inherited H3K27me3 restricts enhancer function during maternal-to-zygotic transition. Science 357:212–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Hontelez S et al (2015) Embryonic transcription is controlled by maternally defined chromatin state. Nat Commun 6:10148

  196. Lawrence M et al (2016) Lateral thinking: how histone modifications regulate gene expression. Trends Genet 32:42–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. Schuettengruber B et al (2007) Genome regulation by polycomb and trithorax proteins. Cell 128:735–745

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Vastenhouw NL et al (2010) Chromatin signature of embryonic pluripotency is established during genome activation. Nature 464:U143–U922

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  199. Bernstein BE et al (2006) A bivalent chromatin structure marks key developmental genes in embryonic stem cells. Cell 125:315–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Zhang BJ et al (2016) Allelic reprogramming of the histone modification H3K4me3 in early mammalian development. Nature 537:553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Dahl JA et al (2016) Broad histone H3K4me3 domains in mouse oocytes modulate maternal-to-zygotic transition. Nature 537:548

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Liu XY et al (2016) Distinct features of H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 chromatin domains in pre-implantation embryos. Nature 537:558

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. Nagaraj R et al (2017) Nuclear localization of mitochondrial TCA cycle enzymes as a critical step in mammalian zygotic genome activation. Cell 168:210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  204. Du Z et al (2016) Protein palmitoylation activate zygotic gene expression during the maternal-to-zygotic transition. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 475:194–201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Tung JJ et al (2005) A role for the anaphase-promoting complex inhibitor Emi2/XErp1, a homolog of early mitotic inhibitor 1, in cytostatic factor arrest of Xenopus eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:4318–4323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant no. XDA16020700), the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant no. 2016YFA0500901) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 31471277, 31471107, 91649202, and 31771501).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Reproductive Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100101, People’s Republic of China

    Chao Liu, Yanjie Ma, Yongliang Shang & Wei Li

  2. State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Histology and Embryology, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, People’s Republic of China

    Ran Huo

  3. Department of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University, Haerbin, 150030, People’s Republic of China

    Yanjie Ma

  4. College of Life Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, People’s Republic of China

    Chao Liu, Yongliang Shang & Wei Li

  5. State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Histology and Embryology, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, People’s Republic of China

    Ran Huo

Authors
  1. Chao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yanjie Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yongliang Shang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ran Huo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ran Huo or Wei Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, C., Ma, Y., Shang, Y. et al. Post-translational regulation of the maternal-to-zygotic transition. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 75, 1707–1722 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-018-2750-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-018-2750-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation