Protection by natural IgG: a sweet partnership with soluble lectins does the trick!

EMBO J 32: 2905–2919 10.1038/emboj.2013.199; published online September032013Some B cells of the adaptive immune system secrete polyreactive immunoglobulin G (IgG) in the absence of immunization or infection. Owing to its limited affinity and specificity, this natural IgG is thought to play a modest protective role. In this issue, a report reveals that natural IgG binds to microbes following their opsonization by ficolin and mannan-binding lectin (MBL), two carbohydrate receptors of the innate immune system. The interaction of natural IgG with ficolins and MBL protects against pathogenic bacteria via a complement-independent mechanism that involves IgG receptor FcγRI expressing macrophages. Thus, natural IgG enhances immunity by adopting a defensive strategy that crossovers the conventional boundaries between innate and adaptive microbial recognition systems.The adaptive immune system generates protective somatically recombined antibodies through a T cell-dependent (TD) pathway that involves follicular B cells. After recognizing antigen through the B-cell receptor (BCR), follicular B cells establish a cognate interaction with CD4⁺ T follicular helper (T_FH) cells and thereafter either rapidly differentiate into short-lived IgM-secreting plasmablasts or enter the germinal centre (GC) of lymphoid follicles to complete class switch recombination (CSR) and somatic hypermutation (SHM) (Victora and Nussenzweig, 2012). CSR from IgM to IgG, IgA and IgE generates antibodies with novel effector functions, whereas SHM provides the structural correlate for the induction of affinity maturation (Victora and Nussenzweig, 2012). Eventually, this canonical TD pathway generates long-lived bone marrow plasma cells and circulating memory B cells that produce protective class-switched antibodies capable to recognize specific antigens with high affinity (Victora and Nussenzweig, 2012).In addition to post-immune monoreactive antibodies, B cells produce pre-immune polyreactive antibodies in the absence of conventional antigenic stimulation (Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). These natural antibodies form a vast and stable repertoire that recognizes both non-protein and protein antigens with low affinity (Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). Natural antibodies usually emerge from a T cell-independent (TI) pathway that involves innate-like B-1 and marginal zone (MZ) B cells. These are extrafollicular B-cell subsets that rapidly differentiate into short-lived antibody-secreting plasmablasts after detecting highly conserved microbial and autologus antigens through polyreactive BCRs and nonspecific germline-encoded pattern recognition receptors (Pone et al, 2012; Cerutti et al, 2013).The most studied natural antibody is IgM, a pentameric complement-activating molecule with high avidity but low affinity for antigen (Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). In addition to promoting the initial clearance of intruding microbes, natural IgM regulates tissue homeostasis, immunological tolerance and tumour surveillance (Ochsenbein et al, 1999; Zhou et al, 2007; Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). Besides secreting IgM, B-1 and MZ B cells produce IgG and IgA after receiving CSR-inducing signals from dendritic cells (DCs), macrophages and neutrophils of the innate immune system (Cohen and Norins, 1966; Cerutti et al, 2013). In humans, certain natural IgG and IgA are moderately mutated and show some specificity, which may reflect the ability of human MZ B cells to undergo SHM (Cerutti et al, 2013). Yet, natural IgG and IgA are generally perceived as functionally quiescent.In this issue, Panda et al show that natural IgG bound to a broad spectrum of bacteria with high affinity by cooperating with ficolin and MBL (Panda et al, 2013), two ancestral soluble lectins of the innate immune system (Holmskov et al, 2003). This binding involved some degree of specificity, because it required the presence of ficolin or MBL on the microbial surface as well as lower pH and decreased calcium concentration in the extracellular environment as a result of infection or inflammation (see Figure 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Ficolins and MBL are produced by hepatocytes and various cells of the innate immune system and opsonize bacteria after recognizing conserved carbohydrates. Low pH and calcium concentrations present under infection-inflammation conditions promote the interaction of ficolin or MBL with natural IgG on the surface of bacteria. The resulting immunocomplex is efficiently phagocytosed by macrophages through FcγR1 independently of the complement protein C3, leading to the clearance of bacteria.Ficolins and MBL are soluble pattern recognition receptors that opsonize microbes after binding to glycoconjugates through distinct carbohydrate recognition domain (CRD) structures (Holmskov et al, 2003). While ficolins use a fibrinogen domain, MBL and other members of the collectin family use a C-type lectin domain attached to a collagen-like region (Holmskov et al, 2003). Similar to pentraxins, ficolins and MBL are released by innate effector cells and hepatocytes, and thus may have served as ancestral antibody-like molecules prior to the inception of the adaptive immune system (Holmskov et al, 2003; Bottazzi et al, 2010). Of note, MBL and the MBL-like complement protein C1q are recruited by natural IgM to mediate complement-dependent clearance of autologous apoptotic cells and microbes (Holmskov et al, 2003; Ehrenstein and Notley, 2010). Panda et al found that a similar lectin-dependent co-optation strategy enhances the protective properties of natural IgG (Panda et al, 2013).By using bacteria and the bacterial glycan N-acetylglicosamine, Panda et al show that natural IgG isolated from human serum or T cell-deficient mice interacted with the fibrinogen domain of microbe-associated ficolins (Panda et al, 2013). The resulting immunocomplex was phagocytosed by macrophages via the IgG receptor FcγRI in a complement-independent manner (Panda et al, 2013). The additional involvement of MBL was demonstrated by experiments showing that natural IgG retained some bacteria-binding activity in the absence of ficolins (Panda et al, 2013).Surface plasmon resonance provided some clues regarding the molecular requirements of the ficolin–IgG interaction (Panda et al, 2013), but the conformational changes required by ficolin to interact with natural IgG remain to be addressed. In particular, it is unclear what segment of the effector Fc domain of natural IgG binds to ficolins and whether Fc-associated glycans are involved in this binding. Specific glycans have been recently shown to mitigate the inflammatory properties of IgG emerging from TI responses (Hess et al, 2013) and this process could implicate ficolins and MBL. Moreover, it would be important to elucidate whether and how the antigen-binding Fab portion of natural IgG regulates its interaction with ficolins and MBL.The in vivo protective role of natural IgG was elegantly demonstrated by showing that reconstitution of IgG-deficient mice lacking the CSR-enzyme activation-induced cytidine deaminase with natural IgG from T cell-insufficient animals enhanced resistance to pathogenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Panda et al, 2013). This protective effect was associated with reduced production of proinflammatory cytokines, occurred independently of the complement protein C3 and was impaired by peptides capable to inhibit the binding of natural IgG to ficolin (Panda et al, 2013). Additional in vivo studies will be needed to determine whether natural IgG exerts protective activity in mice lacking ficolin, MBL or FcγRI, and to ascertain whether these molecules also enhance the protective properties of canonical or natural IgG and IgA released by bone marrow plasma cells and mucosal plasma cells, respectively.In conclusion, the findings by Panda et al show that natural IgG adopts ‘crossover'' defensive strategies that blur the conventional boundaries between the innate and adaptive immune systems. The sophisticated integration of somatically recombined and germline-encoded antigen recognition systems described in this new study shall stimulate immunologists to further explore the often underestimated protective virtues of our vast natural antibody repertoire. This effort may lead to the development of novel therapies against infections.     

Compact Parkin only: insights into the structure of an autoinhibited ubiquitin ligase

EMBO J 32 15, 2099–2112 doi:10.1038/emboj.2013.125; published online May312013Mutations in Parkin represent ∼50% of disease-causing defects in autosomal recessive-juvenile onset Parkinson''s disease (AR-JP). Recently, there have been four structural reports of autoinhibited forms of this RING-IBR-RING (RBR) ubiquitin ligase (E3) by the Gehring, Komander, Johnston and Shaw groups. The important advances from these studies set the stage for the next steps in understanding the molecular basis for Parkinson''s disease (PD).Regulated protein degradation requires that E3s and their access to substrates be exquisitely controlled. RBR family E3s provide striking examples of this regulation. The complex and compact structures of Parkin (Riley et al, 2013; Spratt et al, 2013; Trempe et al, 2013; Wauer and Komander, 2013) as well as another RBR E3, human homologue of Ariadne (HHARI) (Duda et al, 2013), demonstrate extraordinarily intricate inter-domain arrangements. These autoinhibited structures ensure that their functions are restricted until activated.Until recently, RBR E3s were believed to be a subclass of RING E3s, which allosterically activate E2 conjugated with ubiquitin (E2∼Ub). However, Wenzel et al (2011) determined that they are actually hybrid E3s, containing an E2 binding site in RING1 and a catalytic cysteine residue in the domain designated as RING2. The catalytic cysteine is an acceptor for an ubiquitin from RING1-bound E2∼Ub forming an intermediate (E3∼Ub) that leads to substrate or autoubiquitination. In this way, RBRs resemble HECT E3s, which also form catalytic intermediates in ubiquitination. There are 13 human RBR family E3s. Besides Parkin, two notable RBRs are HOIL-1 and HOIP, which form part of a complex integral to NF-κB activation (Wenzel and Klevit, 2012).In addition to causal roles in AR-JP, single allele mutations of Parkin are found in some sporadic cases of PD (references in Wauer and Komander, 2013). Mutations in the Parkin-associated kinase PINK1, which is upstream of Parkin, also account for a significant number of AR-JP cases (Hardy et al, 2009; Narendra et al, 2012; Lazarou et al, 2013). A number of diverse Parkin substrates have been postulated to be associated with PD. There is substantial evidence that one role for Parkin is at mitochondria. Once activated and recruited to damaged/depolarized mitochondria by PINK1, it ubiquitinates exposed mitochondrial proteins leading to both proteasomal degradation and mitophagy (Narendra et al, 2012; Sarraf et al, 2013). Parkin has also been implicated in cell surface signalling and as a tumour suppressor (see references in Wauer and Komander, 2013).Parkin encodes five structured domains, beginning with an N-terminal ubiquitin-like domain (UbLD) and followed by four domains that each bind two zinc (Zn) atoms (Figure 1A). The most N-terminal of the Zn-binding domains is RING0. C-terminal to this is the RBR, consisting of RING1, the IBR and RING2. The crystal structures of inactive Parkin from Riley et al (2013), Trempe et al (2013) and Wauer and Komander (2013) show remarkable congruity. Spatially, the IBR is at the complete opposite end of the molecule from RING2, to which it is connected by a partially unstructured ∼37 residue linker. This linker includes a two-turn helix, referred to as the repressor element of Parkin (REP) or tether, which binds and occludes the E2 binding face of RING1. RING1 occupies the central position in these structures, and RING0 separates RING1 from RING2 (Figure 1B and C). The latter contains the residue identified by Wenzel et al (2011), and confirmed by all three groups, to be the catalytic cysteine, C431. A lower resolution structure also includes the UbLD and places this domain adjacent to RING1 (Trempe et al, 2013). A second unstructured linker connects the UbLD and RING0. UbLDs are involved in a number of protein–protein interactions and small angle X-ray scattering confirms that this domain is integral to the core structure of Parkin (Spratt et al, 2013; Trempe et al, 2013). Biophysical characterization of Parkin and HHARI suggests that each is a monomer in solution.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic and spatial representation of Parkin. (A) Primary structure and domain designations of Parkin, including the REP sequence within the otherwise unstructured IBR-RING2 linker. (B) Structural representation of full-length Parkin (PDB 4K95) highlighting the complex domain interactions in the three-dimensional structure, the catalytic C431 residue, and residue W403 within the REP, which plays a role in stabilizing the autoinhibited form of Parkin. (C) A model of Parkin with the E2 UbcH5B/Ube2D2 bound (devised using PDB 4K95 and PDB 4AP4 to mimic the position of an E2 bound to RING1) to illustrate the required displacement of UbLD and REP and the large distance between the E2∼Ub attachment site of the E2 and the catalytic active site of Parkin. Note that in this conformation the catalytic Cys within RING2 (C431) remains buried by RING0.RING1 is the only bona fide RING domain. All NMR and crystal structures of IBR domains from Parkin, HHARI and HOIP (PDB ID: 2CT7) are in good agreement. The Parkin and HHARI RING2s are structurally highly homologous and share a common Zn-coordinating arrangement with IBR domains. In contrast to the IBR and RING2, RING0 has a distinct arrangement of Zn-coordinating residues (Beasley et al, 2007; Duda et al, 2013; Riley et al, 2013; Spratt et al, 2013; Trempe et al, 2013; Wauer and Komander, 2013) (see Figure 1F of Trempe et al (2013) for the various Zn coordination arrangements).All of the Parkin crystal structures represent inactive forms of the E3. This is imposed by the quaternary positioning of the domains, which precludes activity in multiple ways. RING0 plays two obvious roles to maintain Parkin in an inactive state. RING0 shares an interface with RING2 and buries C431, making it unavailable as an ubiquitin acceptor. Moreover, RING0 intervenes between RING1 and RING2, creating an insurmountable separation of >50 Å between the active site Cys of an E2 bound to RING1 and C431 (Figure 1B and C). Thus, RING0 must be displaced for ubiquitin transfer to occur. Accordingly, deletion of RING0 results in a marked increase in Parkin autoubiquitination and in C431 reactivity (Riley et al, 2013; Trempe et al, 2013; Wauer and Komander, 2013). In HHARI, these two inhibitory functions are fulfilled by the C-terminal Ariadne domain, which similarly interposes between RING1 and RING2 (Duda et al, 2013).Additional inhibition is provided by the REP, which binds to RING1 at the canonical RING-E2 binding site and prevents E2 binding. This provides at least a partial explanation for the impaired ability of Parkin to bind E2 when compared to HHARI, which lacks this element (Duda et al, 2013). A disease-associated REP mutant (A398T) at the RING1 interface increases autoubiquitination (Wauer and Komander, 2013). The significance of inhibition by REP-RING1 binding was verified by mutating a critical RING1-interacting REP residue (W403A). This increased autoubiquitination and E2 binding (Trempe et al, 2013). Consistent with the requirement for charging C431 with ubiquitin in mitochondrial translocation (Lazarou et al, 2013), Parkin association with depolarized mitochondria is accelerated with this mutation (Trempe et al, 2013). Interestingly, W403 also interacts with the C-terminal Val of Parkin within RING2, and could therefore potentially further stabilize the autoinhibited form of the protein (Riley et al, 2013), consistent with previous observations (Henn et al, 2005).The quaternary structure of full-length Parkin also suggests that displacement of its N-terminal UbLD must occur for full activation (Trempe et al, 2013). The positioning of the UbLD adjacent to RING1 indicates that it would provide a steric impediment to E2∼Ub binding (Figure 1B and C). Additionally, displacement of the UbLD could be important to relieve interactions with the IBR-RING2 linker, which, as suggested in a previous study (Chaugule et al, 2011), might help to maintain Parkin in an inactive state. Finally, the crystal structure of the full-length Parkin indicates that the UbLD is not available for interactions with other proteins. This would limit Parkin''s range of intermolecular interactions.RBR E3s have at least two domains critical for sequential ubiquitin transfer and full activity, RING1 and RING2. The RING1 of Parkin, as well as all other RBR E3s, is notable in lacking the basic residue in the second Zn coordinating loop (or its equivalent in U-box proteins), which has recently been implicated in RING-mediated transfer of Ub from E2∼Ub (Metzger et al, 2013). This suggests that other factors play compensatory roles in positioning ubiquitin for transfer from E2∼Ub to C431. A non-mutually exclusive possibility is that the lack of this basic residue in RING1 limits unwanted attack on the E2∼Ub linkage, thereby minimizing the unregulated ubiquitination. Turning to RING2, the area surrounding the active site C431 of Parkin is notable in that it includes a sequence recognizable as a catalytic triad, similar to that in deubiquitinating enzymes. The Cys-His-Glu grouping, found in Parkin and other RBR E3s, contributes to in vitro activity (Riley et al, 2013; Wauer and Komander, 2013). Interestingly, however, the Glu was dispensable in a cellular assay (Riley et al, 2013). This triad is conserved in HHARI, where an Asn between the Cys and His residues (found in a number of RBRs but not conserved in Parkin), was found to be important for catalysis (Duda et al, 2013).The advances made in these studies impart significant information about an important and clinically relevant E3. However, Parkin, as well as HHARI, has been captured in their inactive, unmodified forms. One obvious question is how does Parkin transition between inactive and active states. PINK1 is implicated in phosphorylating Parkin on its UbLD and potentially other sites, with evidence that phosphorylation contributes to Parkin activation (Narendra et al, 2012). How phosphorylation could contribute to protein interactions that might facilitate Parkin activation, potentially including Parkin oligomerization (Lazarou et al, 2013), is unknown. Regardless, it is evident that considerable unwinding of its quaternary structure must take place.While there is much work ahead to understand these processes, one important interface that must be disrupted for activation is that between the REP and RING1. It is intriguing to consider that such interruption might be associated with other alterations in the IBR-RING2 linker, potentially facilitating the movement of the UbLD from RING1 and contributing to activation. Related to activation is the all-important question of how Parkin recognizes and targets specific substrates. While the UbLD represents a potential site of interaction, most purported substrates are not known to have UbLD-interaction domains. Although interactions involving the UbLD could occur indirectly, through bridging molecules, there is also evidence that other regions of Parkin, including the RBR region, might recognize substrates either directly or indirectly (Tsai et al, 2003) and that some substrates may be phosphorylated by PINK1 (Narendra et al, 2012). Conformational changes induced by substrate interactions, particularly in the IBR RING2 linker, could, as above, represent an important aspect of activation.There are over 75 missense mutations of Parkin associated with AR-JP, most of these inactivate the protein, but there are also some that are activating (Wauer and Komander, 2013). Activating mutations presumably result in pathology at least partially as a consequence of increased autoubiquitination and degradation (e.g., A398T). The current studies help to provide a classification of missense mutations into those that affect (i) folding or stability, (ii) catalytic mechanism, and (iii) interactions between domains. Interdomain mutations might inactivate or contribute to constitutive activation leading to autoubiquitination and degradation.Finally, we know little about how the autosomal recessive and the much more prevalent sporadic forms of PD overlap in their molecular pathology. However, mitochondrial dysfunction is increasingly a common theme. Thus, with the structure of the inactive protein in hand, there is hope that we can begin to consider ways in which domain interactions might be altered in a controlled manner to activate, but not hyperactivate, this critical E3 and lessen the progression of PD.     

How two become one: HJURP dimerization drives CENP‐A assembly

EMBO J 32 15, 2113–2124 doi:10.1038/emboj.2013.142; published online June142013Curr Biol 23 9, 764–769 doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.03.037; published online May062013Curr Biol 23 9, 770–774 doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.03.042; published online May062013CENP-A containing nucleosomes epigenetically specify centromere position on chromosomes. Deposition of CENP-A into chromatin is mediated by HJURP, a specific CENP-A chaperone. Paradoxically, HJURP binding sterically prevents dimerization of CENP-A, which is critical to form functional centromeric nucleosomes. A recent publication in The EMBO Journal (Zasadzińska et al, 2013) demonstrates that HJURP itself dimerizes through a C-terminal repeat region, which is essential for centromeric assembly of nascent CENP-A.CENP-A containing nucleosomes have a well-established role in the epigenetic specification of centromere position. However, the composition of the CENP-A nucleosome has been the subject of intense investigation and debate (as has been extensively reviewed, e.g., in Black and Cleveland, 2011). X-ray crystallography data, biochemical interaction experiments and in vivo mutational analysis provide strong evidence that CENP-A nucleosomes are octameric (CENP-A/H4/H2A/H2B)₂, analogous to their histone H3-containing counterparts (Tachiwana et al, 2011; Bassett et al, 2012). Alternatively, based primarily on AFM data and nucleosome crosslinking assays, a tetrameric CENP-A/H4/H2A/H2B ‘hemisome'' has been proposed to be present at centromeres, at least during part of the cell cycle (Dalal et al, 2007; Bui et al, 2012). Whether both nucleosome types exist under specific conditions remains an unresolved question. However, recent studies by the Maddox and Black labs have reported single-molecule fluorescence measurements of CENP-A nucleosomes and high-resolution DNA protection assays of centromeric chromatin, respectively, both of which indicate that octamers are the predominant species of CENP-A in vivo (Hasson et al, 2013; Padeganeh et al, 2013).HJURP is the centromeric histone chaperone that is responsible for timely assembly of CENP-A nucleosomes. HJURP binds to soluble CENP-A and is recruited to centromeric chromatin in early G1 phase, concurrently with nascent CENP-A (Stellfox et al, 2013). Importantly, HJURP facilitates CENP-A nucleosome formation in vitro and its transient targeting to non-centromeric chromatin is sufficient to stably deposit CENP-A at these sites in vivo (Barnhart et al, 2011). Together, these observations identify HJURP as a bona fide centromeric CENP-A histone assembly factor.However, there is an apparent discrepancy between the role of HJURP in CENP-A assembly and the octameric nature of CENP-A nucleosomes. The crystal structure of the human prenucleosomal complex clearly shows that HJURP binds to CENP-A/H4 dimers in a manner that precludes CENP-A/H4 hetero-tetramerization (Hu et al, 2011). Interestingly, however, mutational analysis of CENP-A has shown that tetramerization is crucial for centromere assembly (Bassett et al, 2012). Thus, a mechanism must exist to allow for two trimeric HJURP/CENP-A/H4 complexes to coordinately assemble a tetrameric (CENP-A/H4)₂ particle.In this issue, a study by the Foltz lab sheds light on these paradoxical observations (Zasadzińska et al, 2013). Human HJURP contains two C-terminal repeat regions (HJURP C-terminal domains; HCTD). Expression of short fragments of HJURP containing either of these was sufficient to allow for centromere targeting. However, depletion of endogenous HJURP abolished centromere targeting of the C-terminally located HCTD2 fragment, without affecting the localization of the fragment containing HCTD1. These observations suggest that HCTD1 is required for centromere targeting, while HCTD2 allows for HJURP dimerization. Indeed, the authors go on to show that the latter fragment is both necessary and sufficient to form functional dimers of HJURP. RNAi replacement experiments show that HJURP lacking the HCTD2 dimerization domain is incapable of loading nascent CENP-A into centromeres. Importantly, Zasadzińska et al (2013) demonstrate that the defect in CENP-A loading can be directly attributed to a lack of HJURP dimerization. In an elegant experiment where the HCTD2 containing domain is replaced by an unrelated dimerization domain (that of bacterial LacI), CENP-A assembly is rescued to wild-type levels (Figure 1). This indicates that dimerization of HJURP is an essential step in centromeric chromatin assembly and provides a potential mechanism for the assembly of tetrameric (CENP-A/H4)₂ structures into chromatin as precursors to octameric nucleosomes.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Human HJURP contains separate protein domains that are responsible for CENP-A/H4 binding (blue), centromere targeting (brown) and dimerization (red). Full-length HJURP containing all these domains is capable of assembling CENP-A nucleosomes at centromeres (left). Zasadzińska et al (2013) now show that HJURP lacking the dimerization domain is still able to localize to centromeres, but is unable to assemble CENP-A nucleosomes (middle). However, replacement of the HJURP dimerization domain by an exogenous dimerization domain fully rescues the capability to form CENP-A nucleosomes at centromeres (right). These findings show that HJURP dimerization is an essential feature in the process of nucleosome formation, and explain how (CENP-A/H4)₂ tetramers can be formed by a chaperone that exclusively binds to CENP-A/H4 dimers.While the composition of the HJURP complex suggests a likely mechanism for the formation of octameric nucleosomes, this poses a new challenge to the field. Future studies will be needed to dissect how the shielded HJURP-bound state of CENP-A/H4 can transition to a tetramer on DNA. Interestingly, HJURP is not the only histone chaperone that exclusively binds to histone dimers. Crystal structures of trimeric complexes of both Asf1a/H3.1/H4 (English et al, 2006) as well as DAXX/H3.3/H4 (Elsässer et al, 2012) clearly show sterical incompatibility between chaperone binding and histone tetramerization. It follows that efficient chromatin assembly requires a mode for two histone chaperones to deposit histone dimers in a coordinated fashion, e.g., through dimerization as has been shown for Nap1 (McBryant and Peersen, 2004) and now for HJURP. However, dimerization does not appear to be a universal feature for histone chaperones, as a single CAF1 chaperone is able to bind two H3/H4 dimers as well as (H3/H4)₂ tetramers (Winkler et al, 2012). Thus, while deposition of H3.1/H4 at the replication fork may be driven by the high density of pre-assembly complexes, assembly of nucleosomes containing the replacement variant H3.3, H3.1 nucleosomes at DNA damage sites, and CENP-A at the centromere would require a more active form of coordination. Histone chaperone dimerization may therefore be a common feature in the pipeline to chromatin formation.In summary, Zasadzińska et al (2013) propose a solution to a paradox in the assembly pathway of CENP-A. They show that while each HJURP molecule can exclusively bind a single CENP-A/H4 dimer, HJURP itself dimerizes, ultimately allowing for the formation of tetrameric (CENP-A/H4)₂ structures in chromatin. Interestingly, exclusive dimer binding has been observed for a number of histone chaperones, suggesting that chaperone dimerization may be a more general process in the nucleosome assembly pathway.     

Senescent cells spread the word: non‐cell autonomous propagation of cellular senescence

Nat Cell Biol advance online publication, June162013; doi:10.1038/ncb2784Senescence has long been considered a cell autonomous arrest programme restricting the propagation of damaged cells in tissues. Now there is accumulating evidence that senescent cells can communicate with their environment. In a recent report by Gil and colleagues (Acosta et al, 2013), it now seems senescence can be transmitted in a paracrine fashion in several in vitro and in vivo contexts. In addition to broadening our understanding of the biology of senescence, these new findings may have interesting implications for tissue homeostasis and future cancer therapies.Senescence is a form of stress-induced cell cycle arrest that restricts the proliferative capacity of damaged and/or potentially harmful cells (Rodier and Campisi, 2011), thereby promoting tissue homeostasis and tumour suppression. While the senescence-associated cell cycle arrest involves the well-studied Rb and p53 pathways, senescent cells also possess the less understood ability to secrete growth factors, cytokines and chemokines into their environment. This process, collectively known as the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP; Rodier and Campisi, 2011), was originally used to mark senescent cells, but is now known to enforce cell cycle arrest, modify the microenvironment and trigger immune surveillance of senescent cells (Xue et al, 2007; Krizhanovsky et al, 2008; Rodier and Campisi, 2011).Adding to our understanding of this process, a recent report by Gil and colleagues showed that the SASP can also mediate paracrine transmission of cellular senescence (Acosta et al, 2013). By co-culturing cells undergoing oncogene-induced senescence (OIS) with normal cells, the authors showed that the senescence phenotype could be transmitted to surrounding cells via the soluble SASP proteins. Coupling quantitative proteomics with small-molecule inhibitor screens, they identified key players mediating the paracrine transmission of senescence, including TGFB, VEGF and CCL2 pathways. A search for upstream regulators of SASP pointed at IL-1 signalling and the inflammasome, molecules that operate cell autonomously to control SASP production and non-cell autonomously to spread the senescent phenotype via the SASP (Figure 1). Complementing the in vitro senescence findings, experiments using mouse and human models of OIS demonstrated evidence for paracrine senescence transmission in vivo.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Cell autonomous and non-cell autonomous effects of cellular senescence. Stress stimuli such as activation of oncogenes and DNA damage can trigger normal mitotic cells to go into senescence. This involves inflammosome-mediated activation of IL-1 signalling, which initiates the SASP response. The SASP acts cell autonomously (autocrine) to reinforce the senescent phenotype via cytokines such as IL-6. The SASP also acts non-cell autonomously (paracrine) to influence the cells in the surrounding environment. For example, SASP components such as VEGF, TGFB and CCL2 can trigger bystander senescence on neighbouring cells. Paradoxically, the SASP can also exert pro-mitogenic stimulation of neighbouring cells via cytokines like IL-6, which appear to play dual roles depending on the context. Furthermore, the SASP can act on the immune system via pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to immune cell recruitment and subsequent targeting and clearance of senescent cells. Alternatively, the SASP can trigger upregulation of p16 and p21 levels on neighbouring immune cells, the functional consequences of which are not yet so clear.The ability of senescent cells to propagate their phenotype is consistent with previous studies identifying IGFBP7 as a paracrine senescence regulator (Wajapeyee et al, 2008) and provides important insights into senescence biology. It is conceivable to think that the induction of paracrine cell cycle arrest could expand the senescence footprint of the pre-neoplastic lesion to the surrounding epithelium. This could potentially serve to amplify the tissue damage signal, recruit more immune cells and ensure more efficient clearance of damaged cells. In parallel, the induction of paracrine senescence in other cell types within the tissue, for example tumour-associated fibroblasts, could repress their reported paracrine tumour-promoting effects (Krtolica et al, 2001).Despite the biological implications, a number of questions remain. Why, for instance, is paracrine senescence triggered in some cells surrounding pre-neoplastic lesions but not in others? Similarly, what is the functional significance of paracrine senescence induction in the surrounding immune cells? Intriguingly, recent evidence implies that p16 can also be induced in tumour-infiltrating immune cells (Burd et al, 2013). It will be important to determine whether the paracrine p16 induction in immune cells leads to the same consequences as in non-immune cells and whether the induction of a potential arrest programme compromises the ability of the immune cell to clear senescent cells.Beyond the biological implications, the key regulators of paracrine senescence have potential to be manipulated therapeutically. It is commonly believed, for instance, that senescent cells accumulate in aging tissues and disrupt tissue architecture and function (Rodier and Campisi, 2011). In this context, antagonists of paracrine senescence might limit the spread of senescence and prove beneficial for some age-associated disorders. In the context of cancer, both chemotherapeutic drugs and radiation are known to induce senescence in tumour cells (Schmitt, 2007; Prise and O''Sullivan, 2009). The use of agents agonizing paracrine senescence as adjunctive therapy could potentially increase the effectiveness of chemo- and radiotherapy by triggering a bystander response.Nonetheless, it is critical to keep in mind that the SASP may not always relay an arrest-inducing message onto the surrounding cells. Indeed, the SASP component IL-6 has been shown to elicit a pro-mitogenic response in a paracrine fashion (Kuilman et al, 2008). Similarly, the SASP has been shown to be pro- and anti-tumorigenic depending on the microenvironment (Krtolica et al, 2001; Xue et al, 2007; Lujambio et al, 2013; Figure 1). Collectively, these findings suggest that the ultimate outcome of senescence within a tissue is highly dependent on the context. But what then determines this context? One decisive factor could be whether or not the senescence signal engages in sufficient modulation of the immune system to provoke clearance. In cases where the senescent cells in a tissue are not cleared, the pro-mitogenic arm of the SASP signal could persist long enough to have an overall pro-tumorigenic effect. It will thus be important to understand all the flavours of SASP to modulate it safely for therapeutic purposes.     

Characterization of the Possible Roles for B Class MADS Box Genes in Regulation of Perianth Formation in Orchid

To investigate sepal/petal/lip formation in Oncidium Gower Ramsey, three paleoAPETALA3 genes, O. Gower Ramsey MADS box gene5 (OMADS5; clade 1), OMADS3 (clade 2), and OMADS9 (clade 3), and one PISTILLATA gene, OMADS8, were characterized. The OMADS8 and OMADS3 mRNAs were expressed in all four floral organs as well as in vegetative leaves. The OMADS9 mRNA was only strongly detected in petals and lips. The mRNA for OMADS5 was only strongly detected in sepals and petals and was significantly down-regulated in lip-like petals and lip-like sepals of peloric mutant flowers. This result revealed a possible negative role for OMADS5 in regulating lip formation. Yeast two-hybrid analysis indicated that OMADS5 formed homodimers and heterodimers with OMADS3 and OMADS9. OMADS8 only formed heterodimers with OMADS3, whereas OMADS3 and OMADS9 formed homodimers and heterodimers with each other. We proposed that sepal/petal/lip formation needs the presence of OMADS3/8 and/or OMADS9. The determination of the final organ identity for the sepal/petal/lip likely depended on the presence or absence of OMADS5. The presence of OMADS5 caused short sepal/petal formation. When OMADS5 was absent, cells could proliferate, resulting in the possible formation of large lips and the conversion of the sepal/petal into lips in peloric mutants. Further analysis indicated that only ectopic expression of OMADS8 but not OMADS5/9 caused the conversion of the sepal into an expanded petal-like structure in transgenic Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) plants.The ABCDE model predicts the formation of any flower organ by the interaction of five classes of homeotic genes in plants (Yanofsky et al., 1990; Jack et al., 1992; Mandel et al., 1992; Goto and Meyerowitz, 1994; Jofuku et al., 1994; Pelaz et al., 2000, 2001; Theißen and Saedler, 2001; Pinyopich et al., 2003; Ditta et al., 2004; Jack, 2004). The A class genes control sepal formation. The A, B, and E class genes work together to regulate petal formation. The B, C, and E class genes control stamen formation. The C and E class genes work to regulate carpel formation, whereas the D class gene is involved in ovule development. MADS box genes seem to have a central role in flower development, because most ABCDE genes encode MADS box proteins (Coen and Meyerowitz, 1991; Weigel and Meyerowitz, 1994; Purugganan et al., 1995; Rounsley et al., 1995; Theißen and Saedler, 1995; Theißen et al., 2000; Theißen, 2001).The function of B group genes, such as APETALA3 (AP3) and PISTILLATA (PI), has been thought to have a major role in specifying petal and stamen development (Jack et al., 1992; Goto and Meyerowitz, 1994; Krizek and Meyerowitz, 1996; Kramer et al., 1998; Hernandez-Hernandez et al., 2007; Kanno et al., 2007; Whipple et al., 2007; Irish, 2009). In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), mutation in AP3 or PI caused identical phenotypes of second whorl petal conversion into a sepal structure and third flower whorl stamen into a carpel structure (Bowman et al., 1989; Jack et al., 1992; Goto and Meyerowitz, 1994). Similar homeotic conversions for petal and stamen were observed in the mutants of the AP3 and PI orthologs from a number of core eudicots such as Antirrhinum majus, Petunia hybrida, Gerbera hybrida, Solanum lycopersicum, and Nicotiana benthamiana (Sommer et al., 1990; Tröbner et al., 1992; Angenent et al., 1993; van der Krol et al., 1993; Yu et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2004; Vandenbussche et al., 2004; de Martino et al., 2006), from basal eudicot species such as Papaver somniferum and Aquilegia vulgaris (Drea et al., 2007; Kramer et al., 2007), as well as from monocot species such as Zea mays and Oryza sativa (Ambrose et al., 2000; Nagasawa et al., 2003; Prasad and Vijayraghavan, 2003; Yadav et al., 2007; Yao et al., 2008). This indicated that the function of the B class genes AP3 and PI is highly conserved during evolution.It has been thought that B group genes may have arisen from an ancestral gene through multiple gene duplication events (Doyle, 1994; Theißen et al., 1996, 2000; Purugganan, 1997; Kramer et al., 1998; Kramer and Irish, 1999; Lamb and Irish, 2003; Kim et al., 2004; Stellari et al., 2004; Zahn et al., 2005; Hernandez-Hernandez et al., 2007). In the gymnosperms, there was a single putative B class lineage that duplicated to generate the paleoAP3 and PI lineages in angiosperms (Kramer et al., 1998; Theißen et al., 2000; Irish, 2009). The paleoAP3 lineage is composed of AP3 orthologs identified in lower eudicots, magnolid dicots, and monocots (Kramer et al., 1998). Genes in this lineage contain the conserved paleoAP3- and PI-derived motifs in the C-terminal end of the proteins, which have been thought to be characteristics of the B class ancestral gene (Kramer et al., 1998; Tzeng and Yang, 2001; Hsu and Yang, 2002). The PI lineage is composed of PI orthologs that contain a highly conserved PI motif identified in most plant species (Kramer et al., 1998). Subsequently, there was a second duplication at the base of the core eudicots that produced the euAP3 and TM6 lineages, which have been subject to substantial sequence changes in eudicots during evolution (Kramer et al., 1998; Kramer and Irish, 1999). The paleoAP3 motif in the C-terminal end of the proteins was retained in the TM6 lineage and replaced by a conserved euAP3 motif in the euAP3 lineage of most eudicot species (Kramer et al., 1998). In addition, many lineage-specific duplications for paleoAP3 lineage have occurred in plants such as orchids (Hsu and Yang, 2002; Tsai et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Mondragón-Palomino and Theißen, 2008, 2009; Mondragón-Palomino et al., 2009), Ranunculaceae, and Ranunculales (Kramer et al., 2003; Di Stilio et al., 2005; Shan et al., 2006; Kramer, 2009).Unlike the A or C class MADS box proteins, which form homodimers that regulate flower development, the ability of B class proteins to form homodimers has only been reported in gymnosperms and in the paleoAP3 and PI lineages of some monocots. For example, LMADS1 of the lily Lilium longiflorum (Tzeng and Yang, 2001), OMADS3 of the orchid Oncidium Gower Ramsey (Hsu and Yang, 2002), and PeMADS4 of the orchid Phalaenopsis equestris (Tsai et al., 2004) in the paleoAP3 lineage, LRGLOA and LRGLOB of the lily Lilium regale (Winter et al., 2002), TGGLO of the tulip Tulipa gesneriana (Kanno et al., 2003), and PeMADS6 of the orchid P. equestris (Tsai et al., 2005) in the PI lineage, and GGM2 of the gymnosperm Gnetum gnemon (Winter et al., 1999) were able to form homodimers that regulate flower development. Proteins in the euAP3 lineage and in most paleoAP3 lineages were not able to form homodimers and had to interact with PI to form heterodimers in order to regulate petal and stamen development in various plant species (Schwarz-Sommer et al., 1992; Tröbner et al., 1992; Riechmann et al., 1996; Moon et al., 1999; Winter et al., 2002; Kanno et al., 2003; Vandenbussche et al., 2004; Yao et al., 2008). In addition to forming dimers, AP3 and PI were able to interact with other MADS box proteins, such as SEPALLATA1 (SEP1), SEP2, and SEP3, to regulate petal and stamen development (Pelaz et al., 2000; Honma and Goto, 2001; Theißen and Saedler, 2001; Castillejo et al., 2005).Orchids are among the most important plants in the flower market around the world, and research on MADS box genes has been reported for several species of orchids during the past few years (Lu et al., 1993, 2007; Yu and Goh, 2000; Hsu and Yang, 2002; Yu et al., 2002; Hsu et al., 2003; Tsai et al., 2004, 2008; Xu et al., 2006; Guo et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2007; Chang et al., 2009). Unlike the flowers in eudicots, the nearly identical shape of the sepals and petals as well as the production of a unique lip in orchid flowers make them a very special plant species for the study of flower development. Four clades (1–4) of genes in the paleoAP3 lineage have been identified in several orchids (Hsu and Yang, 2002; Tsai et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Mondragón-Palomino and Theißen, 2008, 2009; Mondragón-Palomino et al., 2009). Several works have described the possible interactions among these four clades of paleoAP3 genes and one PI gene that are involved in regulating the differentiation and formation of the sepal/petal/lip of orchids (Tsai et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2007; Mondragón-Palomino and Theißen, 2008, 2009). However, the exact mechanism that involves the orchid B class genes remains unclear and needs to be clarified by more experimental investigations.O. Gower Ramsey is a popular orchid with important economic value in cut flower markets. Only a few studies have been reported on the role of MADS box genes in regulating flower formation in this plant species (Hsu and Yang, 2002; Hsu et al., 2003; Chang et al., 2009). An AP3-like MADS gene that regulates both floral formation and initiation in transgenic Arabidopsis has been reported (Hsu and Yang, 2002). In addition, four AP1/AGAMOUS-LIKE9 (AGL9)-like MADS box genes have been characterized that show novel expression patterns and cause different effects on floral transition and formation in Arabidopsis (Hsu et al., 2003; Chang et al., 2009). Compared with other orchids, the production of a large and well-expanded lip and five small identical sepals/petals makes O. Gower Ramsey a special case for the study of the diverse functions of B class MADS box genes during evolution. Therefore, the isolation of more B class MADS box genes and further study of their roles in the regulation of perianth (sepal/petal/lip) formation during O. Gower Ramsey flower development are necessary. In addition to the clade 2 paleoAP3 gene OMADS3, which was previously characterized in our laboratory (Hsu and Yang, 2002), three more B class MADS box genes, OMADS5, OMADS8, and OMADS9, were characterized from O. Gower Ramsey in this study. Based on the different expression patterns and the protein interactions among these four orchid B class genes, we propose that the presence of OMADS3/8 and/or OMADS9 is required for sepal/petal/lip formation. Further sepal and petal formation at least requires the additional presence of OMADS5, whereas large lip formation was seen when OMADS5 expression was absent. Our results provide a new finding and information pertaining to the roles for orchid B class MADS box genes in the regulation of sepal/petal/lip formation.