Opposite effects of tor1 and tor2 on nitrogen starvation responses in fission yeast
Authors: Rona Harari
Irina Roitburg
Martin Kupiec
Miriam Schonbrun
Ronit Weisman
Journal: Genetics (2007)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: TOR protein kinases; cellular growth; proliferation; fission yeast; tor1(+)
Affiliations: Department of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. 

Abstract:  The TOR protein kinases exhibit a conserved role in regulating cellular growth and proliferation. In the fission yeast two TOR homologs are present. tor1(+) is required for starvation and stress responses, while tor2(+) is essential. We report here that Tor2 depleted cells show a phenotype very similar to that of wild-type cells starved for nitrogen, including arrest at the G(1) phase of the cell cycle, induction of nitrogen-starvation-specific genes, and entrance into the sexual development pathway. The phenotype of tor2 mutants is in a striking contrast to the failure of tor1 mutants to initiate sexual development or arrest in G(1) under nitrogen starvation conditions. Tsc1 and Tsc2, the genes mutated in the human tuberous sclerosis complex syndrome, negatively regulate the mammalian TOR via inactivation of the GTPase Rheb. We analyzed the genetic relationship between the two TOR genes and the Schizosaccharomyces pombe orthologs of TSC1, TSC2, and Rheb. Our data suggest that like in higher eukaryotes, the Tsc1-2 complex negatively regulates Tor2. In contrast, the Tsc1-2 complex and Tor1 appear to work in parallel, both positively regulating amino acid uptake through the control of expression of amino acid permeases. Additionally, either Tsc1/2 or Tor1 are required for growth on a poor nitrogen source such as proline. Mutants lacking Tsc1 or Tsc2 are highly sensitive to rapamycin under poor nitrogen conditions, suggesting that the function of Tor1 under such conditions is sensitive to rapamycin. We discuss the complex genetic interactions between tor1(+), tor2(+), and tsc1/2(+) and the implications for rapamycin sensitivity in tsc1 or tsc2 mutants. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 https: imgur.com a RDmCLqC , 
 Dear editor, this error appears in the original version of the manuscript, we have corrected this error , thank you very much! , 
 Please find a comparison of the text in the accepted, published online version (left) against the final paginated published version (right). Indeed, one entire treatment was totally erased from this figure. However, the published online version states u201cThis article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111 pce.13387u201d. While one can appreciate that minor editing may result in differences, it is very unusual, if not odd, to see a difference in basic fundamental data. This constitutes a post-publication, and post peer review edit. For transparency and to better appreciate how data is handled between accepted versions and final published versions, and considering that 1) published papers nowadays can be retracted due to such differences in data discrepancy and 2) that this is a high-ranking COPE member Wiley journal, perhaps the authors could offer more insight into the publishing process at this stage, for readers to better appreciate how, when, why and by whom, these changes in fundamental data in figure 2, were made. To make the query easier, perhaps the authors could offer the following background about the changes: 1)tWhat was the precise date when the original accepted paper was published online at the PCE website? 2)tWhat was the precise date when the changes to Figure 2 were requested. 3)tWere the u201cerrorsu201d (as described by the author Xiaosan Huang) detected by the authors, the proof department, or an editor? 4)tWhat was the precise date when the final, paginated paper was published at the PCE website? 5)tWhat exactly was the u201cpositiveu201d treatment in the originally accepted and published paper and why was it removed? Very importantly, what were the three yeast colonies that were representing the 0 ng mL AbA? If they were removed, does that they were not important? If they were not important finally, then why were they added as data to figure 2 in the first place? Keep in mind that the paper claims to be peer reviewed and the original figure 2 was also accepted by the peer reviewers and PCE editors as valid. Perhaps the editors should also offer commentary, in addition to the authorsu2019 description of events. 6)tWas any other text, or fundamental data changed between the accepted and paginated versions? To better understand the issue, a figure of the text and figure comparison are provided. https: imgur.com a xMN2QFB , 
 Dear friend, thank you for your concerns. I also express my heartfelt gratitude to you for pointing out the difference between the first version on line and the finalized one. This MS was first submitted to PCE on 10 01 2018 and was accepted on 13 06 2018. As you know the accepted paper will appear on line before proof reading. We first returned to the proof on 26 06 2018, 2 days after it was sent us for proofreading. Later, we again checked the MS and found that we made a mistake by using the yeast growth images of the bait prey twice, one being also used for the positive control. As you know we have done this work for a long time, we have positive and negative controls every time when we checked the interaction of relevant partners. Unfortunately, we made a mistake when we prepared the figure in the first version. This is due to our carelessness. So, we wrote to the production editor asking for sending the new proof. After getting her consent we remade the figures by removing the positive control. We did this change not because we did not have the right one. This is why the first online version is not the same as the finalized one. Anyway, thank you for paying attention to this difference. We will be more careful when we make figures to avoid occurrence of such things in the future. Your comments are of value for my work. Thank you very much. Best regards Caihua Xing and Xiaosan Huang ,