Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jul 25.
Published before final editing as: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2026 May 5:a041896. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a041896

A Synergy between Genetics and Biochemistry Unravels the Molecular Architecture of the Hippo Signaling Pathway

Yonggang Zheng 1, Duojia Pan 1
PMCID: PMC13399587  NIHMSID: NIHMS2193598  PMID: 42086288

Abstract

The Hippo signaling pathway is a central regulator of tissue growth in animal development and adult tissue homeostasis, integrating diverse upstream cues to coordinate proliferation and apoptosis. Its discovery stemmed from innovative genetic approaches in Drosophila, where Flippase recognition target (FRT)/Flippase (FLP)-based mosaic screens identified the tumor suppressors Warts, Salvador, Hippo, and Mats, which together constitute a conserved kinase cascade. Complementary biochemical analyses revealed that this core module suppresses tissue overgrowth by phosphorylating and inhibiting the transcriptional coactivator Yorkie, which partners with the transcriptional enhanced associate domain (TEAD) family transcription factor Scalloped to control target gene expression. Subsequent work uncovered various upstream regulators, including Expanded, Merlin, Fat, Kibra, Crumbs, Pez, Tao-1, and the STRIPAK complex, as well as physiological inputs ranging from cell polarity and cell–cell adhesion to mechanical cues, underscoring the pathway’s role in integrating tissue architecture with growth. Conservation of the Hippo pathway in mammals, culminating in the Yes-associated protein (YAP)/transcriptional coactivator with PDZ-binding motif (TAZ)–TEAD transcriptional complex, established its evolutionary importance and biomedical relevance, particularly in cancer biology and regenerative medicine. This review traces the historical milestones that defined the Hippo pathway, highlighting the synergy of genetic and biochemical strategies that transformed an orphan tumor suppressor into a paradigm of growth control, and outlining key challenges for future research.

Animal development is orchestrated through a finely tuned interplay between patterning cues and growth control mechanisms, ensuring that tissues form in the right place, at the right time, and with the correct size and proportion. Patterning relies on spatially restricted signals, such as morphogen gradients and transcription factor networks, which establish positional identity and guide cell fate decisions. These processes are largely governed by a handful of classic developmental signaling pathways, including Hedgehog, Wnt, BMP, and Notch (Barolo and Posakony 2002; Affolter et al. 2008). Notably, patterning cues often intersect with growth regulators like the Hippo pathway, which calibrates proliferation and apoptosis to sculpt organs with precision (Schwank and Basler 2010).

The molecular dissection of these canonical patterning pathways can be traced back to the landmark Heidelberg screen conducted by Nobel laureates Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus (Wieschaus and Nüsslein-Volhard 2016). Through large-scale mutagenesis screens targeting defects in the pattern and structure of the Drosophila larval cuticle, they identified 600 mutants corresponding to 120 genes, among which are components of classic signaling pathways such as Hedgehog and Wingless. However, Drosophila embryogenesis is inherently unsuitable for studying growth control mechanisms, as it relies entirely on maternally deposited nutrients and features rapid nuclear division without accompanying cell growth.

In contrast, Drosophila imaginal discs provide a powerful model system for dissecting growth regulation (Aldaz and Escudero 2010). These sac-like epithelial structures reside within the larval body and undergo dramatic metamorphosis to form adult external structures, including the head, thorax, appendages, and genitalia. Imaginal discs originate during embryogenesis as clusters of 10–50 diploid cells segregated from the embryonic epidermis. They subsequently undergo exponential proliferation during larval development, increasing cell numbers by ~1000-fold over 4 days.

Despite their past success, traditional genetic screens based on homozygous mutant animals are not readily applicable to imaginal discs, as mutations in essential genes often cause early lethality, precluding analysis of their roles in disc development. Two transformative technical advances overcame this obstacle: the introduction of the yeast-derived Flippase recognition target (FRT)/Flippase (FLP) recombination system into Drosophila (Golic and Lindquist 1989; Golic 1991) and the development of this system into convenient mosaic analysis tools (Xu and Rubin 1993). These approaches enable the generation of homozygous mutant clones within an otherwise heterozygous background, allowing for high-resolution, single-cell analyses (Fig. 1). More critically, they facilitate systematic genetic screens to uncover regulators of imaginal disc development, including those that control disc growth (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Flippase (FLP)/Flippase recognition target (FRT)-based mosaic screen for identifying growth regulators in Drosophila. (A) Starting from a heterozygous genetic background, FLP/FRT-mediated recombination generates a pair of progenitor cells: one homozygous for a given mutation and one wild-type sibling carrying two copies of the control chromosome. The control chromosome is typically marked with a ubiquitous marker, allowing genotypic distinction based on marker expression levels. (B) These progenitor cells proliferate into two distinct clones, mutant (white) and wild-type sibling (darker red), which can be evaluated in adult fly tissues, most commonly the compound eye. Mutations in positive or negative growth regulators result in homozygous mutant clones that are either smaller (undergrowth) or larger (overgrowth) than their wild-type counterparts. FLP/FRT screens have primarily targeted negative growth regulators, as tissue overgrowth presents a more specific phenotype than undergrowth.

Among the genes uncovered through FRT/FLP-based mosaic screens in imaginal discs were four components of the Hippo signaling pathway: Warts (Wts), Salvador (Sav), Hippo (Hpo), and Mob as tumor suppressor (Mats). Biochemical analyses placed these proteins into a conserved kinase cascade that serves as the core of Hippo signaling. The identification of this core module catalyzed decades of research aimed at uncovering upstream regulators and downstream transcriptional machinery, using a combination of genetic and biochemical approaches. These efforts transformed a simple kinase cascade into a complex signaling network that integrates diverse upstream cues and converges on the nuclear effector Yorkie (Yki)/Yes-associated protein (YAP)/transcriptional coactivator with PDZ-binding motif (TAZ).

Here, we provide a historical perspective on the discovery and characterization of the Hippo signaling pathway, highlighting key advances that shaped our current understanding (Table 1).

Table 1.

Molecular characterization of key Hippo pathway components and regulators

Pathway modules Component Year of identification Key approach References
Core kinase cascade Wts 1995 Genetics Justice et al. 1995; Xu et al. 1995
Sav 2002 Genetics Kango-Singh et al. 2002; Tapon et al. 2002
Hpo 2003 Genetics Harvey et al. 2003; Jia et al. 2003; Pantalacci et al. 2003; Udan et al. 2003; Wu et al. 2003
Mats 2005 Genetics Lai et al. 2005
Transcriptional machinery Yki 2005 Biochemistry Huang et al. 2005
Sd 2008 Biochemistry Goulev et al. 2008; Wu et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2008
Tgi 2013 Genetics Koontz et al. 2013
Upstream regulators Ex 2006 Genetics Hamaratoglu et al. 2006
Mer 2006 Genetics Hamaratoglu et al. 2006
Ds-Ft-D module 2006 Genetics Bennett and Harvey 2006; Cho et al. 2006; Silva et al. 2006; Willecke et al. 2006
Kibra 2010 Genetics Baumgartner et al. 2010; Genevet et al. 2010; Yu et al. 2010
Crb 2010 Genetics Chen et al. 2010; Grzeschik et al. 2010; Ling et al. 2010; Robinson et al. 2010
STRIPAK 2010 Biochemistry Ribeiro et al. 2010
Jub 2010 Genetics Das Thakur et al. 2010
Tao-1 2011 Genetics Boggiano et al. 2011; Poon et al. 2011
Pez/PTPN14 2012 Biochemistry Poernbacher et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2012
Spectrin 2015 Genetics Deng et al. 2015; Fletcher et al. 2015; Wong et al. 2015
Mammalian-specific regulators AMOT 2011 Biochemistry Chan et al. 2011; Paramasivam et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2011; Zhao et al. 2011
GPCRs 2012 Biochemistry Yu et al. 2012
RAP2 2018 Biochemistry Meng et al. 2018
Open in a new tab

(Wts) Warts, (Sav) Salvador, (Hpo) Hippo, (Mats) Mob as tumor suppressor, (Yki) Yorkie, (Sd) Scalloped, (Tgi) Tondu-domain-containing growth inhibitor, (Ex) Expanded, (Mer) Merlin, (Crb) Crumbs, GPCR (G-protein-coupled receptor).

GENETIC SCREENS FOR OVERGROWTH MUTANTS IN DROSOPHILA UNCOVERED THE CORE KINASE CASSETTE OF THE HIPPO PATHWAY

In 1995, two independent studies identified recessive mutations in Drosophila that triggered dramatic tissue overgrowth and tumor formation in homozygous clones generated via FRT/FLP-mediated mosaic techniques (Justice et al. 1995; Xu et al. 1995). These mutations disrupted a conserved nuclear Dbf2-related (NDR) family kinase, independently named warts (wts) and large tumor suppressor (lats). Over time, wts became the standard nomenclature for the Drosophila gene, while lats was adopted for its mammalian orthologs. Despite its striking phenotype, Wts remained an orphan tumor suppressor for nearly a decade, with no known upstream regulators and downstream effectors.

A turning point came in 2002, when two independent studies identified another gene, salvador (sav, also known as shar-pei), whose mutations also caused dramatic overgrowth in FRT/FLP-generated mutant clones (Kango-Singh et al. 2002; Tapon et al. 2002). sav encodes a protein with two WW domains and a carboxy-terminal SARAH (Salvador-Rassf-Hippo) domain. Tapon et al. (2002) further showed that loss-of-sav phenocopies loss-of-wts in elevating the protein levels of the cell-cycle regulator Cyclin E (CycE) and the apoptosis inhibitor Diap1, although the molecular relationships between Sav and Wts or how these tumor suppressors regulate CycE and Diap1 levels remained unclear.

In 2003, the Hippo field witnessed an explosion when five studies independently identified the Ste20-like kinase Hippo (Hpo) as a tumor-suppressor gene (Harvey et al. 2003; Jia et al. 2003; Pantalacci et al. 2003; Udan et al. 2003; Wu et al. 2003). Loss of hpo phenocopied wts and sav mutants, producing massive tissue overgrowth, elevated proliferation, apoptosis resistance, and increased CycE and Diap1 levels in FRT/FLP-generated mutant clones. Hpo contains a carboxy-terminal SARAH domain that binds Sav, forming a kinase complex. In particular, Wu et al. (2003) demonstrated that Hpo directly phosphorylates and activates Wts in vitro and in cell culture, with Sav enhancing this phosphorylation. These biochemical insights established the molecular framework of the Hippo kinase cascade as we know today. Wu et al. (2003) further revealed that this kinase cascade regulates Diap1 transcriptionally, implying the existence of downstream transcriptional machinery that mediates the effect of these tumor suppressors on target gene transcription.

The final component of the core kinase cassette was uncovered in 2005: mob as tumor suppressor (Mats), a member of the Mob protein family (Lai et al. 2005). Mats binds Wts as a cofactor to enhance its kinase activity. The canonical Hippo kinase cassette, in which the Hpo–Sav complex phosphorylates and activates the Wts–Mats complex, had now emerged.

BIOCHEMISTRY LED THE WAY IN ELUCIDATING THE NUCLEAR EFFECTOR AND TRANSCRIPTIONAL MACHINERY OF THE HIPPO PATHWAY

Despite the identification of tumor-suppressor proteins that constitute the core kinase cassette of the Hippo pathway, the mechanism by which these proteins controlled growth remained a mystery by this point. A major breakthrough came with the identification of Yorkie as the nuclear effector and the missing link between the kinase cassette and target gene transcription.

Unlike the core kinase cassette, which was identified primarily through mosaic screens using FRT/FLP-based mitotic recombination in Drosophila, Yorkie was discovered through a yeast two-hybrid screen (Huang et al. 2005). Using the noncatalytic amino-terminal region of Wts as bait, Huang et al. (2005) isolated the gene yorkie (yki), which is named after Yorkshire Terriers (one of the smallest dog breeds) based on its loss-of-function phenotype. yki mutants exhibit reduced cell proliferation and increased apoptosis, resulting in tissue undergrowth, a phenotype opposite to that of core kinase cascade mutants. Importantly, yki loss-of-function fully rescues the elevated Diap1 expression and tissue overgrowth caused by mutations in the core kinase cascade, while yki gain-of-function phenocopies loss-of-function of core kinase cascade in promoting Diap1 upregulation and tissue overgrowth. Subsequent biochemical analyses showed that Wts directly phosphorylates Yki, facilitating Yki’s cytoplasmic sequestration via 14-3-3 proteins (Huang et al. 2005; Dong et al. 2007). These findings collectively establish Yki as the critical downstream effector of Hippo signaling.

yki encodes a transcriptional coactivator containing two WW domains and an amino-terminal homology (NH) domain but notably lacks intrinsic DNA-binding capacity. Its DNA-binding partner, the transcriptional enhanced associate domain (TEAD) family transcription factor Scalloped (Sd), was later identified by three independent studies (Goulev et al. 2008; Wu et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2008). Wu et al. employed two complementary strategies to pinpoint Sd: (1) dissection of the Diap1 locus revealed a minimal Hippo-responsive element harboring a TEAD consensus binding motif, and (2) a yeast two-hybrid screen using the NH domain of Yki as bait isolated Sd as a direct interactor. In parallel, Goulev et al. (2008) and Zhang et al. (2008) recognized the Yki–Sd interaction from existing yeast two-hybrid data and substantiated it through genetic and biochemical analyses. Collectively, these studies established Sd as the DNA-binding partner essential for Yki-mediated transcriptional activation.

Curiously, sd mutant clones do not exhibit growth defects in most tissues, in contrast to the pronounced undergrowth observed in yki mutants. This paradox was resolved in 2013, when Koontz et al. (2013) demonstrated via genetic epistasis that the undergrowth caused by yki mutation also requires Sd. Crucially, they uncovered that in the absence of Yki, Sd functions as a default transcriptional repressor, partnering with corepressors such as Tondu-domain-containing growth inhibitor (Tgi), to suppress target gene expression and tissue growth. Therefore, Yki’s primary role is to antagonize this repression, converting Sd from a repressor into a transcriptional activator. This default repression mechanism was later shown to be conserved in the mammalian systems (Cai et al. 2022), underscoring its evolutionary conservation and reinforcing the paradigm that transcriptional coactivators such as Yki/YAP function by displacing repressive complexes.

Thus, biochemical studies, such as unbiased protein–protein interaction screens, were instrumental in elucidating the transcriptional machinery of the Hippo pathway. This reflects a key biological distinction: the core kinase cassette comprises tumor suppressors whose mutations lead to characteristic tissue overgrowth. In contrast, the downstream transcriptional machinery primarily consists of growth-promoting factors, whose loss-of-function phenotypes are often confounded with those of other essential genes, making them less amenable to detection by conventional genetic screens.

GENETIC ANALYSES IN DROSOPHILA ILLUMINATED THE UPSTREAM REGULATORS OF THE HIPPO PATHWAY

With the elucidation of the core kinase cassette and its nuclear effector Yki by 2005, the identification of upstream regulators emerged as a major challenge in the field. Classical developmental signaling pathways often operate in a linear fashion, with upstream and downstream components producing nearly indistinguishable phenotypes. In contrast, following the discovery of the Hippo core kinase cascade, whose components trigger dramatic tissue overgrowth when mutated, no upstream genes with similarly overt phenotypes had been identified.

In hindsight, this discrepancy reflects the modular nature of Hippo pathway regulation: diverse upstream regulators feed into the core kinase cascade, akin to tributaries converging on a mainstream. As a result, loss of any single upstream regulator only partially attenuates Hippo signaling, leading to relatively mild tissue overgrowth. However, this feature was not immediately apparent.

A conceptual revelation came in 2006 from a study by Hamaratoglu et al. (2006), which demonstrated that two previously known tumor suppressors, Expanded (Ex) and Merlin (Mer, also known as Nf2), function upstream of the Hippo core kinase cascade in a partially redundant manner. Loss of either Ex or Mer alone causes modest tissue overgrowth or hyperplasia, but their combined loss mimics the dramatic overgrowth seen when core kinase components are disrupted. This finding provided the first indication for the combinatorial mode of upstream regulation in the Hippo signaling pathway.

Following this discovery, a wave of studies sought to connect other hyperplasia mutations, such as Fat (Ft) (Bennett and Harvey 2006; Cho et al. 2006; Silva et al. 2006; Willecke et al. 2006), Kibra (Baumgartner et al. 2010; Genevet et al. 2010; Yuet al. 2010), Crumbs (Crb) (Chen et al. 2010; Grzeschik et al. 2010; Ling et al. 2010; Robinson et al. 2010), and Pez (Poernbacher et al. 2012), to the Hippo kinase cascade. It is notable that some of these hyperplasia mutants, such as Ft and Ex (Watson et al. 1994), were discovered several decades before the identification of the core kinase cassette of the Hippo pathway, but their relationship with the Hippo pathway could not have been determined without a clear molecular understanding of Hippo signaling including its transcriptional targets. With few exceptions, these upstream regulators physically interact with components of the core kinase cassette through multiple protein–protein interactions, helping to recruit the kinase cassette to the plasma membrane for activation. Interestingly, many of these upstream regulators are themselves negatively regulated by Hippo signaling, forming a negative feedback loop that fine-tunes pathway activity (Hamaratoglu et al. 2006; Genevet et al. 2010).

In addition to membrane-associated regulators, the core kinase cassette is further modulated by kinases and phosphatases. Thousand-and-one amino acid kinase 1 (TAO-1) directly phosphorylates and activates Hpo, as shown by Boggiano et al. (2011) and Poon et al. (2011). In contrast, the striatin-interacting phosphatase and kinase (STRIPAK) phosphatase complex inhibits Hippo signaling by directly dephosphorylating Hpo (Ribeiro et al. 2010). STRIPAK is increasingly recognized as a molecular hub that integrates diverse upstream inputs into the Hippo pathway, including lysophosphatidic acid stimulation in mammalian cells (Chen et al. 2019) and bacterial infection in Drosophila (Liu et al. 2016).

The molecular complexity upstream of the Hippo kinase cascade is matched by the wide array of physiological signals known to regulate Hippo signaling. These include cell–cell adhesion, cell polarity, soluble factors, stressors, metabolic cues, bacterial infection, and mechanical forces (Yu et al. 2015; Davis and Tapon 2019; Moya and Halder 2019; Zheng and Pan 2019). Among these, mechanical regulation has garnered particular attention. This concept was first introduced by the Sasaki and Piccolo laboratories, which showed that actomyosin-dependent changes in YAP/TAZ activity occur in mammalian cells cultured on extracellular matrices with varying stiffness or island size (Dupont et al. 2011; Wada et al. 2011). Concurrently, two independent studies revealed that F-actin promotes Yki activity in a more physiological setting, the Drosophila imaginal discs (Fernandez et al. 2011; Sansores-Garcia et al. 2011). Subsequent work further showed that cytoskeletal tension suppresses Hippo signaling by stabilizing the Ajuba–Wts complex in Drosophila (Rauskolb et al. 2014). Despite these advances, the precise molecular mechanisms by which mechanical cues influence Hippo signaling continue to represent a major frontier in Hippo signaling and mechanobiology.

The regulatory architecture of the Hippo pathway sets it apart from other canonical developmental pathways such as Wnt, Notch, and Hedgehog. This distinction is perhaps expected, given the central role of Hippo signaling in coordinating tissue integrity with growth control during development and tissue homeostasis. Considering its role in multicellular morphogenesis among unicellular relatives of animals (Phillips et al. 2022; Phillips and Pan 2024), it is plausible that the Hippo pathway evolved to couple tissue architecture with growth regulation. In this light, Hippo signaling appears highly responsive to disturbances in tissue and cellular integrity, including changes in adhesion, polarity, stress responses, and mechanical tension. These perturbations feed into the pathway and modulate its activity, allowing Yki/YAP/TAZ-driven transcriptional programs to restore proper architecture and function.

BEYOND DROSOPHILA

The discovery of the Hippo signaling module leading from Hpo to Yki in Drosophila, and the apparent conservation of pathway components in mammals, laid the foundation for exploring the mammalian Hippo pathway. Shortly thereafter, the orthologous components, MST1/2 for Hpo, SAV1 for Sav, LATS1/2 for Wts, and MOB1A/B for Mats, were shown to form a conserved kinase cascade that culminates in the phosphorylation of YAP and TAZ, the mammalian counterparts of Yki in cultured mammalian cells (Dong et al. 2007; Zhao et al. 2007; Lei et al. 2008). Importantly, inducible, liver-specific overexpression of YAP, whose biological function had remained elusive by then, led to hepatomegaly and liver cancers in transgenic mice (Camargo et al. 2007; Dong et al. 2007). Loss-of-function mutations in Mst1/2 (Zhou et al. 2009; Lu et al. 2010; Song et al. 2010), Sav1 (Lee et al. 2010; Lu et al. 2010), Lats1/2 (Chen et al. 2015; Yi et al. 2016), or Mob1a/b (Nishio et al. 2016) recapitulated similar phenotypes. Together, these genetic experiments validated the functional conservation of Hippo signaling in mammalian growth control and tumorigenesis. Not surprisingly, unbiased annotation of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) identified Hippo as one of the major pathways dysregulated in human cancer (Sanchez-Vega et al. 2018).

Several upstream regulators of the Hippo pathway have been shown to play a conserved role in mammalian Hippo signaling using mouse genetics and/or cell culture analysis. These include NF2 (Zhang et al. 2010), KIBRA (Hermann et al. 2018), the STRIPAK complex (Couzens et al. 2013), CRB3 (Varelas et al. 2010), and the Pez-homology phosphatase PTPN14 (Wang et al. 2012). Together, these components reinforce the evolutionary conservation of the pathway’s core architecture.

Beyond these conserved components, several mammalian-specific regulators have been identified, such as AMOT family proteins (Chan et al. 2011; Paramasivam et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2011; Zhao et al. 2011), G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) (Yu et al. 2012), and the RAP2 small GTPase (Meng et al. 2018). In contrast to the genetic approaches that have been instrumental in defining the Hippo pathway in Drosophila, the discovery of mammalian-specific components has largely relied on biochemical strategies, such as affinity purification coupled with mass spectrometry. As a result, their physiological relevance remains to be validated by mouse genetics.

Interestingly, although the Hippo pathway plays a central role in coordinating tissue integrity and growth in animals, its evolutionary origin predates the emergence of multicellularity. The core signaling module comprising Hpo, Wts, and Yki/Sd is present in the closest unicellular relatives of animals, including the filasterean Capsaspora owczarzaki (Phillips et al. 2022; Phillips and Pan 2024) and the choanoflagellate Salpingoeca rosetta (Combredet et al. 2025). Notably, in these unicellular organisms, the Hippo pathway does not regulate cell proliferation. Instead, it governs cytoskeletal organization in Capsaspora (Phillips et al. 2022; Phillips and Pan 2024) and extracellular matrix secretion in Salpingoeca (Combredet et al. 2025). Intriguingly, cytoskeleton and extracellular matrix are known to regulate and be regulated by Hippo signaling in animals, suggesting that regulation of cell mechanics may represent a primordial function of the Hippo pathway.

CONCLUSION

The Hippo signaling pathway, first uncovered through genetic screens in Drosophila, has emerged as a highly conserved mechanism for coordinating growth and tissue architecture. The integration of FRT/FLP-based mosaic screens and biochemical analyses was pivotal in delineating the core kinase cascade and its downstream transcriptional machinery, along-side critical upstream regulators (Table 1). This synergy between genetics and biochemistry helped define the pathway’s molecular framework, and together with cell biology studies, illuminated its responsiveness to diverse physiological inputs, including mechanical forces, cell–cell adhesion, and cell polarity. The pathway’s conservation in mammals, coupled with the discovery of mammalian-specific regulators, highlights its evolutionary significance and relevance to human health, particularly in cancer and regenerative medicine. Looking ahead, key challenges include resolving the molecular basis of upstream regulation, integrating Hippo with other signaling pathways, and harnessing its modulatory potential for therapeutic purposes. The evolving narrative of Hippo biology continues to weave together classical genetic approaches with biochemistry and leverage additional inputs from cell biology, structural biology, genomics and proteomics, offering a compelling model for how multicellular organisms maintain both robustness and flexibility in growth control.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We apologize to colleagues whose work could not be cited due to space limitations. This work was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health (EY015708). D.P. is an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Footnotes

Additional Perspectives on The Hippo Pathway: Signaling, Biology, Disease, and Therapeutics available at www.cshperspectives.org

REFERENCES

  1. Affolter M, Pyrowolakis G, Weiss A, Basler K. 2008. Signal-induced repression: the exception or the rule in developmental signaling? Dev Cell 15: 11–22. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2008.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldaz S, Escudero LM. 2010. Imaginal discs. Curr Biol 20: R429–R431. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barolo S, Posakony JW. 2002. Three habits of highly effective signaling pathways: principles of transcriptional control by developmental cell signaling. Genes Dev 16: 1167–1181. doi: 10.1101/gad.976502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumgartner R, Poernbacher I, Buser N, Hafen E, Stocker H. 2010. The WW domain protein Kibra acts upstream of Hippo in Drosophila. Dev Cell 18: 309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.12.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennett FC, Harvey KF. 2006. Fat cadherin modulates organ size in Drosophila via the Salvador/Warts/Hippo signaling pathway. Curr Biol 16: 2101–2110. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.09.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Boggiano JC, Vanderzalm PJ, Fehon RG. 2011. Tao-1 phosphorylates Hippo/MST kinases to regulate the Hippo-Salvador-Warts tumor suppressor pathway. Dev Cell 21: 888–895. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2011.08.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cai J, Choi K, Li H, Pulgar Prieto KD, Zheng Y, Pan D. 2022. YAP-VGLL4 antagonism defines the major physiological function of the Hippo signaling effector YAP. Genes Dev 36: 1119–1128. doi: 10.1101/gad.350127.122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Camargo FD, Gokhale S, Johnnidis JB, Fu D, Bell GW, Jaenisch R, Brummelkamp TR. 2007. YAP1 increases organ size and expands undifferentiated progenitor cells. Curr Biol 17: 2054–2060. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chan SW, Lim CJ, Chong YF, Pobbati AV, Huang C, Hong W. 2011. Hippo pathway-independent restriction of TAZ and YAP by angiomotin. J Biol Chem 286: 7018–7026. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C110.212621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen CL, Gajewski KM, Hamaratoglu F, Bossuyt W, Sansores-Garcia L, Tao C, Halder G. 2010. The apical-basal cell polarity determinant Crumbs regulates Hippo signaling in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107: 15810–15815. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004060107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen Q, Zhang N, Xie R, Wang W, Cai J, Choi KS, David KK, Huang B, Yabuta N, Nojima H, et al. 2015. Homeostatic control of Hippo signaling activity revealed by an endogenous activating mutation in YAP. Genes Dev 29: 1285–1297. doi: 10.1101/gad.264234.115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen R, Xie R, Meng Z, Ma S, Guan KL. 2019. STRIPAK integrates upstream signals to initiate the Hippo kinase cascade. Nat Cell Biol 21: 1565–1577. doi: 10.1038/s41556-019-0426-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cho E, Feng Y, Rauskolb C, Maitra S, Fehon R, Irvine KD. 2006. Delineation of a fat tumor suppressor pathway. Nat Genet 38: 1142–1150. doi: 10.1038/ng1887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Combredet C, Ansel M, Brunet T. 2025. A selection-based knockout approach for a choanoflagellate reveals regulation of multicellular development by Hippo signaling. Cell Rep 44: 116345. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Couzens AL, Knight JD, Kean MJ, Teo G, Weiss A, Dunham WH, Lin ZY, Bagshaw RD, Sicheri F, Pawson T, et al. 2013. Protein interaction network of the mammalian Hippo pathway reveals mechanisms of kinase-phosphatase interactions. Sci Signal 6: rs15. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2004712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Das Thakur M, Feng Y, Jagannathan R, Seppa MJ, Skeath JB, Longmore GD. 2010. Ajuba LIM proteins are negative regulators of the Hippo signaling pathway. Curr Biol 20: 657–662. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.02.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Davis JR, Tapon N. 2019. Hippo signalling during development. Development 146: dev167106. doi: 10.1242/dev.167106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Deng H, Wang W, Yu J, Zheng Y, Qing Y, Pan D. 2015. Spectrin regulates Hippo signaling by modulating cortical actomyosin activity. eLife 4: e06567. doi: 10.7554/eLife.06567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dong J, Feldmann G, Huang J, Wu S, Zhang N, Comerford SA, Gayyed MF, Anders RA, Maitra A, Pan D. 2007. Elucidation of a universal size-control mechanism in Drosophila and mammals. Cell 130: 1120–1133. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.07.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dupont S, Morsut L, Aragona M, Enzo E, Giulitti S, Cordenonsi M, Zanconato F, Le Digabel J, Forcato M, Bicciato S, et al. 2011. Role of YAP/TAZ in mechanotransduction. Nature 474: 179–183. doi: 10.1038/nature10137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fernandez BG, Gaspar P, Bras-Pereira C, Jezowska B, Rebelo SR, Janody F. 2011. Actin-Capping Protein and the Hippo pathway regulate F-actin and tissue growth in Drosophila. Development 138: 2337–2346. doi: 10.1242/dev.063545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fletcher GC, Elbediwy A, Khanal I, Ribeiro PS, Tapon N, Thompson BJ. 2015. The Spectrin cytoskeleton regulates the Hippo signalling pathway. EMBO J 34: 940–954. doi: 10.15252/embj.201489642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Genevet A, Wehr MC, Brain R, Thompson BJ, Tapon N. 2010. Kibra is a regulator of the Salvador/Warts/Hippo signaling network. Dev Cell 18: 300–308. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.12.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Golic KG. 1991. Site-specific recombination between homologous chromosomes in Drosophila. Science 252: 958–961. doi: 10.1126/science.2035025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Golic KG, Lindquist S. 1989. The FLP recombinase of yeast catalyzes site-specific recombination in the Drosophila genome. Cell 59: 499–509. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(89)90033-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goulev Y, Fauny JD, Gonzalez-Marti B, Flagiello D, Silber J, Zider A. 2008. SCALLOPED interacts with YORKIE, the nuclear effector of the hippo tumor-suppressor pathway in Drosophila. Curr Biol 18: 435–441. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.02.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Grzeschik NA, Parsons LM, Allott ML, Harvey KF, Richardson HE. 2010. Lgl, aPKC, and Crumbs regulate the Salvador/Warts/Hippo pathway through two distinct mechanisms. Curr Biol 20: 573–581. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hamaratoglu F, Willecke M, Kango-Singh M, Nolo R, Hyun E, Tao C, Jafar-Nejad H, Halder G. 2006. The tumour-suppressor genes NF2/Merlin and Expanded act through Hippo signalling to regulate cell proliferation and apoptosis. Nat Cell Biol 8: 27–36. doi: 10.1038/ncb1339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Harvey KF, Pfleger CM, Hariharan IK. 2003. The Drosophila Mst ortholog, hippo, restricts growth and cell proliferation and promotes apoptosis. Cell 114: 457–467. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00557-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hermann A, Wennmann DO, Gromnitza S, Edeling M, Van Marck V, Sudol M, Schaefer L, Duning K, Weide T, Pavenstädt H, et al. 2018. WW and C2 domain-containing proteins regulate hepatic cell differentiation and tumorigenesis through the hippo signaling pathway. Hepatology 67: 1546–1559. doi: 10.1002/hep.29647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Huang J, Wu S, Barrera J, Matthews K, Pan D. 2005. The Hippo signaling pathway coordinately regulates cell proliferation and apoptosis by inactivating Yorkie, the Drosophila Homolog of YAP. Cell 122: 421–434. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jia J, Zhang W, Wang B, Trinko R, Jiang J. 2003. The Drosophila Ste20 family kinase dMST functions as a tumor suppressor by restricting cell proliferation and promoting apoptosis. Genes Dev 17: 2514–2519. doi: 10.1101/gad.1134003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Justice RW, Zilian O, Woods DF, Noll M, Bryant PJ. 1995. The Drosophila tumor suppressor gene warts encodes a homolog of human myotonic dystrophy kinase and is required for the control of cell shape and proliferation. Genes Dev 9: 534–546. doi: 10.1101/gad.9.5.534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kango-Singh M, Nolo R, Tao C, Verstreken P, Hiesinger PR, Bellen HJ, Halder G. 2002. Shar-pei mediates cell proliferation arrest during imaginal disc growth in Drosophila. Development 129: 5719–5730. doi: 10.1242/dev.00168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Koontz LM, Liu-Chittenden Y, Yin F, Zheng Y, Yu J, Huang B, Chen Q, Wu S, Pan D. 2013. The Hippo effector Yorkie controls normal tissue growth by antagonizing scalloped-mediated default repression. Dev Cell 25: 388–401. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2013.04.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lai ZC, Wei X, Shimizu T, Ramos E, Rohrbaugh M, Nikolaidis N, Ho LL, Li Y. 2005. Control of cell proliferation and apoptosis by mob as tumor suppressor, mats. Cell 120: 675–685. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2004.12.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee KP, Lee JH, Kim TS, Kim TH, Park HD, Byun JS, Kim MC, Jeong WI, Calvisi DF, Kim JM, et al. 2010. The Hippo-Salvador pathway restrains hepatic oval cell proliferation, liver size, and liver tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107: 8248–8253. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912203107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lei QY, Zhang H, Zhao B, Zha ZY, Bai F, Pei XH, Zhao S, Xiong Y, Guan KL. 2008. TAZ promotes cell proliferation and epithelial-mesenchymal transition and is inhibited by the hippo pathway. Mol Cell Biol 28: 2426–2436. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01874-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ling C, Zheng Y, Yin F, Yu J, Huang J, Hong Y, Wu S, Pan D. 2010. The apical transmembrane protein Crumbs functions as a tumor suppressor that regulates Hippo signaling by binding to Expanded. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107: 10532–10537. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004279107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu B, Zheng Y, Yin F, Yu J, Silverman N, Pan D. 2016. Toll receptor-mediated hippo signaling controls innate immunity in Drosophila. Cell 164: 406–419. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lu L, Li Y, Kim SM, Bossuyt W, Liu P, Qiu Q, Wang Y, Halder G, Finegold MJ, Lee JS, et al. 2010. Hippo signaling is a potent in vivo growth and tumor suppressor pathway in the mammalian liver. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107: 1437–1442. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911427107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Meng Z, Qiu Y, Lin KC, Kumar A, Placone JK, Fang C, Wang KC, Lu S, Pan M, Hong AW, et al. 2018. RAP2 mediates mechanoresponses of the Hippo pathway. Nature 560: 655–660. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0444-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Moya IM, Halder G. 2019. Hippo-YAP/TAZ signalling in organ regeneration and regenerative medicine. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 20: 211–226. doi: 10.1038/s41580-018-0086-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nishio M, Sugimachi K, Goto H, Wang J, Morikawa T, Miyachi Y, Takano Y, Hikasa H, Itoh T, Suzuki SO, et al. 2016. Dysregulated YAP1/TAZ and TGF-beta signaling mediate hepatocarcinogenesis in Mob1a/1b-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113: E71–E80. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517188113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pantalacci S, Tapon N, Léopold P. 2003. The Salvador partner Hippo promotes apoptosis and cell-cycle exit in Drosophila. Nat Cell Biol 5: 921–927. doi: 10.1038/ncb1051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Paramasivam M, Sarkeshik A, Yates JR III, Fernandes MJ, McCollum D. 2011. Angiomotin family proteins are novel activators of the LATS2 kinase tumor suppressor. Mol Biol Cell 22: 3725–3733. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e11-04-0300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Phillips JE, Pan D. 2024. The Hippo kinase cascade regulates a contractile cell behavior and cell density in a close unicellular relative of animals. eLife 12: RP90818. doi: 10.7554/eLife.90818.3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Phillips JE, Santos M, Konchwala M, Xing C, Pan D. 2022. Genome editing in the unicellular holozoan Capsaspora owczarzaki suggests a premetazoan role for the Hippo pathway in multicellular morphogenesis. eLife 11: e77598. doi: 10.7554/eLife.77598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Poernbacher I, Baumgartner R, Marada SK, Edwards K, Stocker H. 2012. Drosophila Pez acts in Hippo signaling to restrict intestinal stem cell proliferation. Curr Biol 22: 389–396. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Poon CL, Lin JI, Zhang X, Harvey KF. 2011. The sterile 20-like kinase Tao-1 controls tissue growth by regulating the Salvador-Warts-Hippo pathway. Dev Cell 21: 896–906. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2011.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Rauskolb C, Sun S, Sun G, Pan Y, Irvine KD. 2014. Cytoskeletal tension inhibits Hippo signaling through an Ajuba-Warts complex. Cell 158: 143–156. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ribeiro PS, Josué F, Wepf A, Wehr MC, Rinner O, Kelly G, Tapon N, Gstaiger M. 2010. Combined functional genomic and proteomic approaches identify a PP2A complex as a negative regulator of Hippo signaling. Mol Cell 39: 521–534. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Robinson BS, Huang J, Hong Y, Moberg KH. 2010. Crumbs regulates Salvador/Warts/Hippo signaling in Drosophila via the FERM-domain protein Expanded. Curr Biol 20: 582–590. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.03.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Sanchez-Vega F, Mina M, Armenia J, Chatila WK, Luna A, La KC, Dimitriadoy S, Liu DL, Kantheti HS, Saghafinia S, et al. 2018. Oncogenic signaling pathways in the cancer genome atlas. Cell 173: 321–337.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sansores-Garcia L, Bossuyt W, Wada K, Yonemura S, Tao C, Sasaki H, Halder G. 2011. Modulating F-actin organization induces organ growth by affecting the Hippo pathway. EMBOJ 30: 2325–2335. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2011.157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Schwank G, Basler K. 2010. Regulation of organ growth by morphogen gradients. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2: a001669. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a001669 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Silva E, Tsatskis Y, Gardano L, Tapon N, McNeill H. 2006. The tumor-suppressor gene fat controls tissue growth upstream of expanded in the hippo signaling pathway. Curr Biol 16: 2081–2089. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Song H, Mak KK, Topol L, Yun K, Hu J, Garrett L, Chen Y, Park O, Chang J, Simpson RM, et al. 2010. Mammalian Mst1 and Mst2 kinases play essential roles in organ size control and tumor suppression. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107: 1431–1436. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911409107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Tapon N, Harvey KF, Bell DW, Wahrer DC, Schiripo TA, Haber D, Hariharan IK. 2002. Salvador promotes both cell cycle exit and apoptosis in Drosophila and is mutated in human cancer cell lines. Cell 110: 467–478. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00824-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Udan RS, Kango-Singh M, Nolo R, Tao C, Halder G. 2003. Hippo promotes proliferation arrest and apoptosis in the Salvador/Warts pathway. Nat Cell Biol 5: 914–920. doi: 10.1038/ncb1050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Varelas X, Samavarchi-Tehrani P, Narimatsu M, Weiss A, Cockburn K, Larsen BG, Rossant J, Wrana JL. 2010. The Crumbs complex couples cell density sensing to Hippo-dependent control of the TGF-beta-SMAD pathway. Dev Cell 19: 831–844. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2010.11.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wada K, Itoga K, Okano T, Yonemura S, Sasaki H. 2011. Hippo pathway regulation by cell morphology and stress fibers. Development 138: 3907–3914. doi: 10.1242/dev.070987 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang W, Huang J, Chen J. 2011. Angiomotin-like proteins associate with and negatively regulate YAP1. J Biol Chem 286: 4364–4370. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C110.205401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Wang W, Huang J, Wang X, Yuan J, Li X, Feng L, Park JI, Chen J. 2012. PTPN14 is required for the density-dependent control of YAP1. Genes Dev 26: 1959–1971. doi: 10.1101/gad.192955.112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Watson KL, Justice RW, Bryant PJ. 1994. Drosophila in cancer research: the first fifty tumor suppressor genes. J Cell Sci Suppl 18: 19–33. doi: 10.1242/jcs.1994.Supplement_18.4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wieschaus E, Nüsslein-Volhard C. 2016. The Heidelberg screen for pattern mutants of Drosophila: a personal account. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 32: 1–46. doi: 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-113015-023138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Willecke M, Hamaratoglu F, Kango-Singh M, Udan R, Chen CL, Tao C, Zhang X, Halder G. 2006. The fat cadherin acts through the hippo tumor-suppressor pathway to regulate tissue size. Curr Biol 16: 2090–2100. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wong KK, Li W, An Y, Duan Y, Li Z, Kang Y, Yan Y. 2015. beta-Spectrin regulates the hippo signaling pathway and modulates the basal actin network. J Biol Chem 290: 6397–6407. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M114.629493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Wu S, Huang J, Dong J, Pan D. 2003. Hippo encodes a Ste-20 family protein kinase that restricts cell proliferation and promotes apoptosis in conjunction with Salvador and Warts. Cell 114: 445–456. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00549-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Wu S, Liu Y, Zheng Y, Dong J, Pan D. 2008. The TEAD/TEF family protein Scalloped mediates transcriptional output of the Hippo growth-regulatory pathway. Dev Cell 14: 388–398. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2008.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Xu T, Rubin GM. 1993. Analysis of genetic mosaics in developing and adult Drosophila tissues. Development 117: 1223–1237. doi: 10.1242/dev.117.4.1223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Xu T, Wang W, Zhang S, Stewart RA, Yu W. 1995. Identifying tumor suppressors in genetic mosaics: the Drosophila lats gene encodes a putative protein kinase. Development 121: 1053–1063. doi: 10.1242/dev.121.4.1053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Yi J, Lu L, Yanger K, Wang W, Sohn BH, Stanger BZ, Zhang M, Martin JF, Ajani JA, Chen J, et al. 2016. Large tumor suppressor homologs 1 and 2 regulate mouse liver progenitor cell proliferation and maturation through antagonism of the coactivators YAP and TAZ. Hepatology 64: 1757–1772. doi: 10.1002/hep.28768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Yu J, Zheng Y, Dong J, Klusza S, Deng WM, Pan D. 2010. Kibra functions as a tumor suppressor protein that regulates Hippo signaling in conjunction with Merlin and Expanded. Dev Cell 18: 288–299. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.12.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Yu FX, Zhao B, Panupinthu N, Jewell JL, Lian I, Wang LH, Zhao J, Yuan H, Tumaneng K, Li H, et al. 2012. Regulation of the Hippo-YAP pathway by G-protein-coupled receptor signaling. Cell 150: 780–791. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Yu FX, Zhao B, Guan KL. 2015. Hippo pathway in organ size control, tissue homeostasis, and cancer. Cell 163: 811–828. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.10.044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhang L, Ren F, Zhang Q, Chen Y, Wang B, Jiang J. 2008. The TEAD/TEF family of transcription factor Scalloped mediates Hippo signaling in organ size control. Dev Cell 14: 377–387. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2008.01.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Zhang N, Bai H, David KK, Dong J, Zheng Y, Cai J, Giovannini M, Liu P, Anders RA, Pan D. 2010. The Merlin/NF2 tumor suppressor functions through the YAP oncoprotein to regulate tissue homeostasis in mammals. Dev Cell 19: 27–38. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2010.06.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Zhao B, Wei X, Li W, Udan RS, Yang Q, Kim J, Xie J, Ikenoue T, Yu J, Li L, et al. 2007. Inactivation of YAP oncoprotein by the Hippo pathway is involved in cell contact inhibition and tissue growth control. Genes Dev 21: 2747–2761. doi: 10.1101/gad.1602907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Zhao B, Li L, Lu Q, Wang LH, Liu CY, Lei Q, Guan KL. 2011. Angiomotin is a novel Hippo pathway component that inhibits YAP oncoprotein. Genes Dev 25: 51–63. doi: 10.1101/gad.2000111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Zheng Y, Pan D. 2019. The Hippo signaling pathway in development and disease. Dev Cell 50: 264–282. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2019.06.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Zhou D, Conrad C, Xia F, Park JS, Payer B, Yin Y, Lauwers GY, Thasler W, Lee JT, Avruch J, et al. 2009. Mst1 and Mst2 maintain hepatocyte quiescence and suppress hepatocellular carcinoma development through inactivation of the Yap1 oncogene. Cancer Cell 16: 425–438. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.09.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES