ER as master regulator of membrane trafficking and organelle function

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER), which occupies a large portion of the cytoplasm, is the cell’s main site for the biosynthesis of lipids and carbohydrate conjugates, and it is essential for folding, assembly, and biosynthetic transport of secreted proteins and integral membrane proteins. The discovery of abundant membrane contact sites (MCSs) between the ER and other membrane compartments has revealed that, in addition to its biosynthetic and secretory functions, the ER plays key roles in the regulation of organelle dynamics and functions. In this review, we will discuss how the ER regulates endosomes, lysosomes, autophagosomes, mitochondria, peroxisomes, and the Golgi apparatus via MCSs. Such regulation occurs via lipid and Ca²⁺ transfer and also via control of in trans dephosphorylation reactions and organelle motility, positioning, fusion, and fission. The diverse controls of other organelles via MCSs manifest the ER as master regulator of organelle biology.

IntroductionThe endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is the cell’s largest organelle and Ca²⁺ reservoir with well-characterized roles in the biosynthesis of lipids, proteins, and glycoconjugates. The more recent discoveries of membrane contact sites (MCSs) between the ER and other organelles have revealed that the functions of the ER go far beyond biosynthesis. Here, we will review these “non-traditional” functions of the ER. Since the interplays between the ER and the plasma membrane and lipid droplets have been extensively reviewed (Crul and Maleth, 2021; Renne and Hariri, 2021), we will focus on the interactions between the ER and intracellular organelles with emphasis on molecular mechanisms that control membrane trafficking and organelle function.ER in control of endosomesThe endocytic pathway consists of numerous endocytic vesicles, endosomes, and lysosomes that receive the material taken up from the cell surface via endocytosis, including cargos such as nutrient receptors and activated growth factor and hormone receptors. Endocytic vesicles derived from the plasma membrane fuse with early endosomes, which mature and change their molecular composition as they move toward the cell interior guided by dynein-dependent transport along microtubules. As endosomes mature, they become gradually more acidic and acquire hydrolytic enzymes supplied by fusion with Golgi-derived vesicles. Finally, the resulting late endosomes fuse with lysosomes and their cargo is degraded (Huotari and Helenius, 2011; Scott et al., 2014). Although the endocytic and biosynthetic pathways have traditionally been considered to be highly separate, recent studies have revealed surprising connections between the ER and endosomes (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.ER-mediated control of endosome dynamics. Overview of cell biological functions of ER-endosome contact sites and the involved molecules. The molecular composition of ER–endosome contact sites. OSBP, ORPs, and VAPs function as dimers or multimers. For simplicity, this is not displayed in the figure. VAP family members (see text box) are depicted as “VAP.” (1) Perinuclear vesicle tethering: The E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme UBE2J1 activates the E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF26, which then ubiquitinates SQSTM1/p62. Ubiquitinated SQSTM1/p62 in turn binds to organelle-specific adaptor proteins, such as T6BP/TAX1BP1, on TGN vesicles and EPS15B or TOLLIP on endosomes. The release of the tethered vesicles is mediated by the deubiquitinase USP15. (2) Endosome translocation. (2a) The BORC complex recruits the small GTPase ARL8B to endosomes, which in turn recruits and activates the Kinesin-1 adaptor protein SKIP/PLEKHM2, resulting in plus-end directed movement of endosomes and lysosomes. Upon ER stress, IRE1 inhibits BORC-dependent anterograde endosome translocation. (2b) The ER-resident protein Protrudin contacts endosomes by binding to RAB7 and PtdIns3P. At these contact sites, Protrudin mediates the hand-over of Kinesin-1 to the endosomal adaptor protein FYCO1, allowing plus-end translocation of endosomes along microtubules. The activity of Protrudin can be regulated by CPT1C, which promotes anterograde endosome transport under nutrient-rich conditions and blocks it under cellular stress conditions. PDZD8 interacts with Protrudin and RAB7, also mediating ER-endosome contact. In addition, PDZD8 might mediate contact with mitochondria. (2c) Endosomes containing high levels of cholesterol move along microtubules in the minus-end direction by dynein/dynactin motor proteins, which connect to the endosome through RILP, RAB7, and ORP1L. Under low concentrations of cholesterol, ORP1L makes contact with VAP in the ER, which leads to the dissociation of dynein/dynactin and the HOPS complex. ER-endosome contact enables ORP1L to transfer cholesterol from the ER to endosomes. Sufficient levels of endosomal cholesterol are a prerequisite for ILV formation (see also legend to 4b). (3) Shaping of endosomal tubules: The formation of recycling tubules requires transient accumulation of PtdIns4P on endosomes to allow WASH-dependent actin nucleation and retromer function. OSBP interacts with PtdIns4P on endosomes via its PH domain and tethers endosomes to the ER via interaction with VAP. PtdIns4P is then dephosphorylated by the ER-resident lipid phosphatase SAC1, securing a transient PtdIns4P pool on endosomes. WASH is linked to the retromer by its subunit FAM21, which marks the site of tubule scission. The PtdIns3P-binding retromer subunit SNX2 is also able to interact with the ER through VAP. The ER protein TMCC1 and Coronin 1C on endosomes are required for contact site formation and fission of WASH-containing endosome tubules. It is not known whether Coronin 1C and TMCC1 interact directly, or if there are additional proteins required to generate these membrane contact sites. (4) Receptor dephosphorylation, ILV formation, and cholesterol transfer. (4a) EGFR-induced phosphorylation of Annexin A1 induces the formation of Annexin A1/S100A11-mediated ER-endosome contact sites, aided by the local increase in Ca²⁺ through the endosomal Ca²⁺ channel TPC1. PTP1B in the ER dephosphorylates EGFRs and ESCRT-0, facilitating the sorting of EGFRs into forming ILVs. (4b) In addition, Annexin A1/S100A11-mediated ER-endosome contact sites facilitate cholesterol transfer from ER to forming ILVs by ORP1L (see also legend to 2c). (4c) STARD3 and its paralog STARD3NL (not shown) mediate cholesterol transfer from ER to EGFR-negative endosomes. ORP5 facilitates cholesterol transport from endosomal membranes to the ER. The cholesterol is provided by NPC2 and NPC1, which interacts with ORP5, forming an ER–endosome contact. Direct shuttling of sterols using the ORD domain of ORP5 remains to be confirmed (Santos et al., 2020).Perinuclear retention of endosomesThe bulk of endosomes and lysosomes exhibit a perinuclear localization clustered around the microtubule-organizing center, together with vesicles of the trans-Golgi network (TGN). This localization enables efficient endosome maturation and cargo trafficking, important for endocytic pathway functions including nutrient uptake, receptor downregulation and cell signaling, host defense against pathogens, and control of cell polarity and cell migration (Alanko et al., 2016; Huotari and Helenius, 2011; Scott et al., 2014). Although the perinuclear clustering of endosomes and Golgi vesicles has been observed for decades, how they are organized and retained was not understood until recently. The ER plays a direct role in the maintenance of this endosomal architecture, orchestrated by two ER-resident ubiquitination enzymes (Cremer et al., 2021; Jongsma et al., 2016; Fig. 1, 1). The E2 ubiquitin conjugation enzyme UBE2J1 interacts with and activates the multimembrane spanning RING domain E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF26. This induces the recruitment and ubiquitination of SQSTM1/p62, a cytosolic ubiquitin adapter best known for its role in selective autophagy. Ubiquitinated SQSTM1/p62 in turn interacts with many ubiquitin-binding organelle-specific adaptor proteins, including T6BP/TAX1BP1 at the TGN (Morriswood et al., 2007) and EPS15B or TOLLIP on endosomes (Katoh et al., 2004; Roxrud et al., 2008). The localization of the E2/E3 pair UBE2J1/RNF26 is confined to the perinuclear ER, which ensures the perinuclear retention of vesicles until released. The ubiquitin-dependent vesicle tethering is released by the deubiquitination enzyme USP15, which is recruited by RNF26 (Jongsma et al., 2016). Although the perinuclear retention of RNF26 depends on its RING domain, it is not known how this mechanism is regulated or how it is coordinated with mechanisms that translocate vesicles to the cell periphery. Dysregulation of ER-UBE2J1/RNF26-mediated vesicle tethering leads to the increased half-life of phosphorylated epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR) accompanied by prolonged AKT-S473 phosphorylation due to impaired endocytic downregulation (Cremer et al., 2021).Regulation of endosome translocation to the cell peripheryThe nutritional status as well as cellular stress responses influence how endosomes are positioned and utilized for cellular functions (Korolchuk et al., 2011; Raiborg, 2018). During stress and low nutrient conditions, endosomes and lysosomes cluster perinuclearly to facilitate cargo degradation for nutrient supply. When nutrients are available and in the absence of cellular stress, motile endosomes engage in a variety of cellular processes to support cell growth and development. The motile and dispersed late endosomes are less acidic and contain lesser hydrolytic enzymes than the perinuclear late endosomes (Johnson et al., 2016), consistent with their role in functions other than cargo degradation. Indeed, although some endosomes recycle cargo back to the cell surface, others are engaged in plasma membrane repair, protrusion formation, mTORC1 signaling, or secretion of exosomes (Ballabio and Bonifacino, 2020; Pu et al., 2016). Importantly many of these responses are coordinated through the ER. There are two established mechanisms that facilitate the centrifugal transport of late endosomes: the protrudin-dependent pathway, whose function depends on ER-resident proteins, and the BORC-dependent pathway, which is inhibited by ER stress (see below). Thus, the ER is a master regulator of endosome positioning through the control of mechanisms that promote their perinuclear or peripheral localization.Inhibition of BORC-dependent endosome translocation upon cellular stressThe eight-subunit protein BLOC-one-related complex (BORC) localizes to late endosomes. When nutrient supplies are rich, BORC recruits the small GTPase ARL8B, which through its effector SKIP/PLEKHM2 engages the plus-end-directed microtubule motor Kinesin-1, thus promoting late endosome translocation to the cell periphery (Fig. 1, 2 a). This mechanism is important for cell migration and axonal growth (Farías et al., 2017; Pu et al., 2015). Under cellular stress conditions, however, this pathway is turned off. When cells are deprived of amino acids and growth factors, the BORC complex binds to the endosomal Ragulator complex, making it unable to engage Kinesin-1 (Filipek et al., 2017; Pu et al., 2017). In addition, the ER-resident transmembrane nuclease inositol requiring enzyme 1 (IRE1) plays a role in shutting off BORC-dependent endosome translocation. One branch of the unfolded protein response triggered by ER stress goes through the activation of IRE1. Once activated, IRE1 cleaves and initiates the degradation of certain mRNAs, including the mRNA encoding Blos1, a subunit of the BORC complex. Thus, endosomes cluster perinuclearly, facilitating the lysosomal degradation and clearance of ubiquitinated protein aggregates by microautophagy during ER stress (Bae et al., 2019).Protrudin-mediated endosome translocationProtrudin is a transmembrane ER-resident protein that induces ER–endosome MCSs by binding to the late endosomal small GTPase RAB7 in combination with the endosomally enriched lipid phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate (PtdIns3P; see text box for RAB GTPases and phosphoinositides). In such MCSs, Protrudin hands over Kinesin-1 to the endosomal adapter protein FYCO1, which also interacts with RAB7 and PtdIns3P. This facilitates the translocation of late endosomes along microtubules to the plasma membrane (Raiborg et al., 2015a; Fig. 1, 2 b). The ER-resident pseudoenzyme carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1C (CPT1C) is found in a complex with Protrudin and functions as a nutrient sensor. Under glucose-rich conditions, malonyl-CoA binds CPT1C, and this activates Protrudin-mediated Kinesin-1 handover, which is inhibited upon cellular stress by signaling from the 5'' AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK; Palomo-Guerrero et al., 2019). It is not clear if the seemingly parallel BORC and Protrudin pathways are redundant. As they depend on different small GTPases, ARL8B and RAB7, respectively, they likely translocate different subpopulations of late endosomes (Jongsma et al., 2020). The Protrudin pathway is important for the formation of cellular protrusions like neurites or invadopodia, and this requires that endosomes fuse with the plasma membrane in a Synaptotagmin-VII-dependent manner (Palomo-Guerrero et al., 2019; Pedersen et al., 2020; Raiborg et al., 2015a; Shirane and Nakayama, 2006). In addition, the endosomes contain cargo, such as the metalloprotease MT1-MMP, and the overexpression of Protrudin increases the cell’s invasive behavior by facilitating exocytosis of MT1-MMP in growing invadopodia (Pedersen et al., 2020). Moreover, the Protrudin pathway facilitates mTORC1 signaling from late endosomes (Hong et al., 2017) and stimulates angiogenesis (Arora et al., 2022) and axon regeneration (Petrova et al., 2020).The vesicle-associated membrane protein-associated protein (VAP) family consists of five dimeric transmembrane ER proteins that contain a major sperm protein (MSP) domain, which binds FFAT (two phenylalanines in an acidic tract) or FFNT (two phenylalanines in a neutral tract) motifs present in proteins on the membranes of various organelles to form MCSs (Cabukusta et al., 2020; James and Kehlenbach, 2021; Loewen and Levine, 2005). Mammalian VAPs include the FFAT-binding VAP-A, VAP-B, and MOSPD2, and the FFNT-binding MOSPD1 and MOSPD3.RAB GTPases are small GTPases of the RAS superfamily, which act as molecular switches that are active in the GTP-bound form and inactive in the GDP-bound form (Stenmark, 2009). In their active conformation, RAB GTPases control membrane dynamics and intracellular transport by binding various effector proteins, including vesicle tethers, enzymes, and motor adaptors. Almost 70 different mammalian RAB GTPases have been identified, and they are known to associate with specific membranes such as the Golgi (RAB6), early endosomes (RAB5), or late endosomes/lysosomes (RAB7). Membrane association is mediated via C-terminal isoprenoid groups.Phosphoinositides (PIs) are phosphorylated derivatives of the abundant membrane phospholipid, phosphatidylinositol (PtdIns; Schink et al., 2016). Seven PIs exist in nature – PtdIns3P, PtdIns4P, PtdIns5P, PtdIns(3,4)P₂, PtdIns(3,5)P₂, PtdIns(4,5)P₂, and PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃, with numbers indicating the positions of phosphates in the inositol headgroup. PtdIns3P, PtdIns4P, and PtdIns(4,5)P₂ have been implicated in MCS formation and dynamics. Phosphorylations of the headgroup are mediated by isoform-specific PI kinases whereas dephosphorylations are catalyzed by specific PI phosphatases.ORP (oxysterol binding protein-related protein) is a family of proteins that has the capacity to bind and transfer sterols and phosphoinositides (Nakatsu and Kawasaki, 2021). ORPs are characterized by an OSBP-related domain, ORD, which contains a hydrophobic sterol binding pocket. Most ORPs also contain phosphoinositide-binding pleckstrin homology (PH) domains and FFAT motifs, which mediate their localization and functions at MCSs.Synchronization of endosome translocation and lipid transferLipid transfer between closely opposed organelles is mediated by lipid transfer proteins (Reinisch and Prinz, 2021). The ER-resident PDZ domain containing protein 8 (PDZD8) harbors lipid transfer activity and transfers glycerophospholipids and ceramide between membranes in vitro by the use of its synaptotagmin-like mitochondrial-lipid-binding (SMP) domain (Gao et al., 2022; Shirane et al., 2020). In vivo, the depletion of PDZD8 results in a decrease in the abundance of phosphatidylserine (PS) in neuronal endosomes (Shirane et al., 2020) and the accumulation of endosomal PtdIns(4,5)P₂ (Jeyasimman et al., 2021). PDZD8 is important for endosome maturation and their degradative capacity, neuronal integrity, and neurite outgrowth (Gao et al., 2022; Jeyasimman et al., 2021; Shirane et al., 2020).PDZD8 mediates ER–endosome contact sites by binding to RAB7 and interacts with Protrudin via its transmembrane domain (Elbaz-Alon et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2022; Guillén-Samander et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2021; Shirane et al., 2020; Fig. 1, 2 b). The potential functional relationship between Protrudin and PDZD8 is not completely understood. Since both proteins can form ER–endosome contact sites, why would they need to interact? It is tempting to speculate that these proteins cooperate in the regulation of endosome maturation and translocation, PDZD8, by mediating lipid transfer, and Protrudin by providing a microtubule motor protein. Thus, endosome maturation, function, and translocation can be coordinated efficiently by the ER. This might be especially important in neurons, which depend heavily on endosomal trafficking for their function.Coordination of microtubule-mediated retrograde and anterograde endosome transportEndosome positioning entails a constant balance between minus- and plus-end-directed transport along microtubules, mediated by dynein or kinesins, respectively (Bonifacino and Neefjes, 2017; Gennerich and Vale, 2009). With its widespread connection to endosomes, the ER constitutes a unique platform for the organization of the required motor proteins (Friedman et al., 2013). One such possible coordination point centers on the ER-resident protein VAP-A (see text box). Despite being a transmembrane ER protein, Protrudin harbors a VAP-binding FFAT motif, and VAP-A is important for the proper distribution of Protrudin in the ER and for the function of Protrudin in protrusion formation, suggesting that VAP-A facilitates Kinesin-1-dependent endosome translocation (Saita et al., 2009; Fig. 1, 2 b). VAP-A is also implicated in the loss of dynein from endosomal membranes. The dynein binding endosomal protein RILP forms a tripartite complex with RAB7 and the endosomal cholesterol sensor ORP1L, a member of the ORP family (see text box). Under low endosomal cholesterol concentration, the endosomes become tethered to the ER by ORP1L binding to VAP-A, leading to the dissociation of dynein from RILP (Rocha et al., 2009; Fig. 1, 2 c). Thus, although not yet experimentally verified, it is conceivable that VAP-A sites in the ER coordinate the loss of endosomal dynein with the gain of Kinesin-1 through ORP1L-RILP and Protrudin.Another clue to the role of ER as a coordinator of endosomal motor protein switching comes from the association between Protrudin and the long M1 isoform of the microtubule-severing AAA-ATPase, Spastin. Spastin interacts with Protrudin in the ER and inhibits Protrudin-dependent polarized membrane traffic (Connell et al., 2020). The inhibitory effect of Spastin on endosome translocation requires its ability to interact with the endosomal-sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT)-III proteins, IST1 and CHMP1B, in addition to its microtubule severing-activity. Although not completely understood, this effect might be related to the role of Spastin in the fission of endosomal recycling tubules, which requires the same functional properties as Spastin (Allison et al., 2013). The recruitment of dynein to Spastin-induced microtubule plus ends (Fassier et al., 2013; Lenz et al., 2006; Riano et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2003) likely counteracts the Protrudin-mediated Kinesin-1-dependent movement of endosomes on microtubule rails toward the cell periphery (Wassmer et al., 2009). The interaction between Spastin and Protrudin in the ER could ensure that the microtubule severing is positioned in close proximity to Protrudin. Thus, the ER coordinates the recruitment of dynein and Kinesin-1 via Spastin and Protrudin, respectively.Shaping of endosomal tubulesEndocytic cargo that is not destined for lysosomal degradation is sorted into endosomal membrane tubules for recycling back to the plasma membrane or to the Golgi (Huotari and Helenius, 2011; Scott et al., 2014). This process involves membrane budding, tubule extension, and fission to generate cargo-containing vesicles. The ER appears to control both endosomal tubule formation and fission, involving different types of ER–endosome contact sites.The formation of endosomal recycling tubules requires actin polymerization by the WASH complex, which is coupled to the cargo-sorting retromer machinery by its subunit FAM21 (Derivery et al., 2009; Gomez and Billadeau, 2009; Harbour et al., 2012; Puthenveedu et al., 2010). The transient accumulation of PtdIns4P on endosomes is coupled to a transient burst of WASH-dependent actin nucleation to facilitate retromer function, and the ER is the master regulator of these dynamics (Dong et al., 2016). A type II PI 4-kinase localizes to the WASH complex and produces a local pool of PtdIns4P (Ryder et al., 2013). Endosomal OSBP interacts with PtdIns4P via its PH domain and tethers the endosome to the ER by interacting with VAP-A/B (Fig. 1 3). Here, OSBP transfers PtdIns4P to the ER-resident lipid-phosphatase SAC1, which dephosphorylates PtdIns4P, ensuring the transient PtdIns4P pool on the endosome required for tubule dynamics. In addition, the PtdIns3P binding retromer subunit SNX2 interacts with the ER through VAP-A/B. As actin nucleation by WASH is tightly coupled to retromer-dependent cargo sorting, the ER presumably coordinates their activities through the interaction between VAP-A/B (ER), SNX2 (retromer), and OSBP/PtdIns4P (WASH), all of which localize to the same intracellular hotspots. When this mechanism is perturbed by the depletion of VAP-A/B, SNX2, or OSBP, both PtdIns4P and actin hyper-accumulate on endosomes, and the traffic between endosomes and the Golgi complex is disrupted (Dong et al., 2016). Thus, by regulating endosomal PtdIns4P levels, the ER affects WASH-dependent actin nucleation and retromer function; however, it remains to be seen how PtdIns4P mechanistically interacts with WASH activity.In addition to regulating endosomal actin dynamics, the ER defines the position and timing of endosome fission (Hoyer et al., 2018; Rowland et al., 2014). Immediately prior to fission, contact sites are formed between ER tubules and endosome buds on sites marked by the WASH component FAM21. The organelles are tethered by the ER membrane protein TMCC1 and endosomal Coronin1C, which is connected to actin on the endosomal buds (Fig. 1 3). Both proteins are required for contact site formation and fission of WASH-containing endosome tubules. Depletion of TMCC1 disrupts recycling of the CI-MPR from endosomes to the Golgi to a similar extent as the depletion of FAM21 (WASH) or VPS35 (retromer), emphasizing the role of ER in this process (Hoyer et al., 2018). Coronin1C confines the localization of actin to bud necks, thereby defining membrane availability for ER–endosome contact sites (Striepen and Voeltz, 2022). How the ER promotes fission is, however, not understood. It will be important to investigate a possible connection with the PtdIns4P-regulated mechanism discussed above. It is tempting to speculate that the final fission step is facilitated by the ESCRT-III-related proteins, IST1 and CHMP1B, which are known to mediate positive membrane bending and constriction (Nguyen et al., 2020) and are connected to the ER by Spastin M1, which is indeed required for the fission of tubules and the recycling of endosomal cargo (Allison et al., 2013).Coordination of receptor dephosphorylation and formation of multivesicular endosomesUpon growth factor stimulation, activated growth factor receptors, such as EGFR, are internalized by endocytosis for their final degradation in lysosomes, a process referred to as receptor downregulation (Huotari and Helenius, 2011; Scott et al., 2014). This process ensures that signaling is switched off in a timely manner to prevent hyperproliferation. To attenuate EGFR signaling, the receptors are dephosphorylated and sorted into forming intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) of multivesicular endosomes (MVEs) on their way to the lysosome. It is interesting to note that EGF-stimulation itself induces this process by triggering the dephosphorylation of EGFR and at the same time stimulates ILV formation. Intriguingly, the ER is recruited to promote both tasks.The phospholipid-binding protein Annexin A1 associates with EGFR-containing MVEs, whereas its ligand S100A11 localizes to the ER (Futter et al., 1993; Gerke and Moss, 2002; Liu et al., 2012; Fig. 1, 4 a). EGFR-induced phosphorylation of Annexin A1 induces the formation of Annexin A1/S100A11-mediated ER–endosome contact sites (Eden et al., 2016). Both Annexin A1 and S100A11 are Ca²⁺ binding proteins, and the contact site formation is aided by the local increase in Ca²⁺, which is induced by the endosomal NAADP-sensitive two-pore Ca²⁺ channel TPC1 (Kilpatrick et al., 2017). These contact sites promote EGF-induced ILV formation (Eden et al., 2016; White et al., 2006; Wong et al., 2018). First, the protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B), which is embedded in the cytoplasmic face of the ER, dephosphorylates EGFRs on the endosomes, depending on Annexin A1/S100A11-mediated ER–endosome contact sites (Eden et al., 2010). At the same time, the EGFRs are sorted into forming ILVs by the ESCRT protein machinery, which interacts with the ubiquitinated EGFRs and mediates membrane deformation and scission to generate ILVs (Migliano et al., 2022). Interestingly, the ESCRT proteins HRS and STAM are dephosphorylated by PTP1B, implying that the Annexin A1/S100A11-mediated ER–endosome contact sites can regulate ESCRT function (Eden et al., 2010; Stuible et al., 2010). This functional relationship, which could facilitate the progression of cargo through downstream ESCRTs and ILV formation, needs further investigation.In addition to acting on the ESCRT machinery through PTP1B, the Annexin A1/S100A11-mediated ER–endosome contact sites can facilitate ILV formation through a different mechanism. ILVs are rich in cholesterol, and high levels of endosomal cholesterol are required to form ILVs (Möbius et al., 2003). Cholesterol can be supplied by the uptake of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) by receptor-mediated endocytosis (Anderson et al., 1977). To fuel ILV formation in the absence of LDL, cholesterol needs to come from internal sources such as the ER. When endosomal cholesterol levels are low, EGF-stimulated ILV formation depends on Annexin A1/S100A11-mediated ER–endosome contacts (Eden et al., 2016). As Annexin A1/S100A11 does not harbor sterol transfer properties, such delivery has to be coordinated with a lipid transfer protein. The endosomal cholesterol sensor ORP1L localizes to Annexin A1-dependent ER–endosome contact sites in the absence of LDL and is a plausible candidate for this activity. When endosomal cholesterol levels are low, a conformational change exposes the ORP1L FFAT-motif, inducing binding to VAP-A in the ER (Rocha et al., 2009; Fig.1, 4 b). Here, ORP1L facilitates the transfer of cholesterol from the ER to EGFR-containing endosomes and stimulates ILV formation in a manner that requires its interaction with VAP-A (Eden et al., 2016). Whether ORP1L is directly responsible for transfer or regulates another lipid transfer protein is unresolved. It is interesting to note that under cholesterol depletion, the interaction of ORP1L with VAP-A in the ER at the same time leads to the loss of dynein and the HOPS complex from the endosomes (van der Kant et al., 2013). This will inhibit the perinuclear translocation and fusion of MVEs when cholesterol levels are low, and could thus halt the maturation of endosomes to ensure proper sorting of EGFRs into ILVs by use of cholesterol from the ER.Control of endosome maturation and homeostasisTo maintain lipid homeostasis, the ER influences the transport of lipids from the ER to endosomes and vice versa. In addition to the lipid transporters PDZD8 and ORP1L mentioned above, STARD3 resides in EGFR-negative endosomes and facilitates cholesterol transport from the ER to the endosomes, which are anchored to the ER through VAP-A/B and MOSPD2 (Alpy et al., 2013; Voilquin et al., 2019; Wilhelm et al., 2017). Conversely, NPC1 facilitates the transfer of cholesterol from endosomes to the ER by interaction with ORP5 in the ER (Fig.1, 4 c; Du et al., 2011; Raiborg et al., 2015b). The ER plays a pivotal role in maintaining endosome homeostasis and maturation by regulating endosomal identity (Wu and Voeltz, 2021), and the sorting and trafficking of hydrolytic enzymes and endocytosed proteins and lipids, as exemplified above. Mutations in NPC1 lead to the accumulation of cholesterol in endosomes, causing the neurodegenerative disease Nieman-Pick (Mukherjee and Maxfield, 2004). Accumulation of endocytosed or cellular material caused by dysfunctional ER–endosome MCS proteins can thus lead to severe metabolic and developmental defects, as manifested by genetic diseases, collectively termed lysosomal storage disorders (Platt et al., 2012).ER as source and regulator of autophagosomesMacroautophagy (hereafter, autophagy) is a catabolic process that entails sequestration of portions of cytoplasm by a double-membrane structure known as the phagophore (Fig. 2). The phagophore closes to form an autophagosome, and when the autophagosome fuses with a lysosome to form an autolysosome, the sequestered material is degraded by lysosomal hydrolases (Melia et al., 2020; Mizushima and Komatsu, 2011) The catabolic functions of autophagy are used to supply cells with amino acids and other small molecules during conditions of low nutrient availability, but autophagy is also used to protect cells from potentially harmful cytoplasmic objects such as protein aggregates, pathogens, and damaged organelles.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Biogenesis of the phagophore membrane via ER contacts. Autophagy is initiated by sequestration of cytoplasmic material by a double-membrane phagophore, whose seed is thought to be composed of ATG9-containing vesicles originating from the Golgi. The phagophore elongates and closes to form an autophagosome, and the sequestered material is degraded once the autophagosome fuses with a lysosome. Phagophore elongation is promoted by a flux of lipids from the ER to the phagophore membrane via the lipid channel transporter ATG2, which tethers subdomains of the ER to growing phagophores by interaction with the ER-localized lipid scramblases TMEM41B and VMP1, and the lipid scramblase ATG9 in the phagophore membrane (additional contacts between the membranes are likely). TMEM41B-VMP1 and ATG9 serve to maintain transbilayer lipid balance in the ER and phagophore membrane, respectively.Biogenesis of the phagophore membraneAlthough several cellular membranes have been proposed as the origin of phagophore membranes, there is little doubt that the ER is a major source (Lamb et al., 2013; Melia et al., 2020). The fact that autophagosome membranes, in contrast to other cellular membranes, are almost devoid of transmembrane proteins (Fengsrud et al., 2000) suggests that much of the phagophore could originate from de novo membrane synthesis rather than budding from existing membranes. In support of this, a large cytosolic protein required for autophagosome biogenesis, ATG2, is an elongated lipid transporter that contains a hydrophobic groove through which lipids can slide in an efficient way (Ghanbarpour et al., 2021; Maeda et al., 2019). ATG2 could thus function in MCSs that bridge the lipid-synthesizing ER and the forming phagophore.ATG2 interacts with two lipid scramblases in the ER membrane, TMEM41B and VMP1, and with a lipid scramblase on Golgi-derived vesicles, ATG9 (Ghanbarpour et al., 2021; Judith et al., 2019; Noda, 2021). Lipid scramblases transfer lipids from one membrane leaflet to the other, and it has been proposed that even a single ATG9-containing vesicle might act as a seed for phagophore biogenesis (Ghanbarpour et al., 2021). In this model, ATG2 mediates lipid transport from the ER membrane to the seeding vesicle, whereas TMEM41B and VMP1 re-equilibrate the leaflets of the ER during lipid extraction. In the seed vesicle, ATG9 scrambles ER-derived lipids upon their delivery to allow phagophore expansion (Fig. 2). Even though this is an attractive model that explains the requirement for lipid transporters and scramblases in autophagosome biogenesis, it still needs to be verified experimentally. Hybrid organelles consisting of membranes from endosomes and the cis-Golgi have recently been put forward as precursors of phagophores (Kumar et al., 2021), and it remains plausible that autophagosomes can originate from membranes other than the ER, at least under some conditions (Melia et al., 2020).Class III PI 3-kinase (PI3K-III), which phosphorylates PtdIns into PtdIns3P, is required for phagophore biogenesis, and it is conceivable that PtdIns3P contributes to defining the sites of phagophore initiation. Indeed, ATG14, a subunit of the autophagy-specific version of PI3K-III, localizes to ER sites, and this localization is required for autophagy (Matsunaga et al., 2010). The PtdIns3P-binding protein DFCP1 is recruited to PtdIns3P-containing ER subdomains in response to amino acid starvation, a classical way to induce autophagy, and is a likely PtdIns3P effector in autophagosome biogenesis. Due to their omega shape in light microscopy, DFCP1-containing ER subdomains are referred to as omegasomes (Axe et al., 2008). The exact spatial and functional relationships of omegasomes with phagophores are not known, but current evidence suggests that omegasomes could represent ER subdomains that are involved in the elongation and sculpting of the phagophore.PtdIns3P is not only found on ER subdomains but also on phagophore membranes (Cheng et al., 2014), suggesting the involvement of additional PtdIns3P-binding proteins in phagophore biogenesis. PtdIns3P-binding proteins of the WIPI family are good candidates as they interact with ATG2 and localize to the growing phagophore. WIPI4, which shows the highest affinity to ATG2, binds to one of the tips of ATG2, consistent with the idea that ATG2 could be recruited by WIPI4 to form a lipid-transporting bridge between the ER and the tip of the phagophore (Chowdhury et al., 2018). However, the spatiotemporal relationships between ATG2, ATG9, PtdIns3P, DFCP1, and WIPI4 during phagophore biogenesis remain to be defined.Control of autophagosome fusionAutophagy culminates in the fusion of autophagosomes with lysosomes. The membranes of late endosomes and lysosomes contain the small GTPase RAB7, and among the RAB7 effectors they recruit are ORP1L, RILP, and PLEKHM1. As described above, ORP1L is a cholesterol sensor that forms tripartite contacts with RAB7 and the dynein adaptor RILP, thereby promoting dynein-mediated transport of late endosomes and lysosomes toward the microtubule organizing center. The endolysosomal protein PLEKHM1, in concert with RILP, recruits the HOPS complex, which promotes fusion between lysosomes and autophagosomes (McEwan et al., 2015; Wijdeven et al., 2016). If the lysosomes have low cholesterol content, the FFAT motif of ORP1L is exposed and engages in interaction with VAP-A in the ER membrane. The cholesterol-free conformation of ORP1L not only prevents the interaction of RILP with dynein and HOPS, but also dissociates PLEKHM1, and this inhibits both lysosome motility toward the microtubule organizing center and fusion between lysosomes and autophagosomes (Wijdeven et al., 2016). Thus, autophagic flux is positively regulated by cholesterol and negatively controlled by the ER–lysosome MCSs. Since autolysosomes, like lysosomes, contain RAB7 and ORP1L, their motility is regulated in the same manner.Regulation of mitochondria by ERMCSs between ER and mitochondria are guided by bridging proteins that tether the two membranes. Such MCSs are important for several mechanisms, including mitochondrial homeostasis, lipid composition, nutrient sensing, and regulation of the apoptotic machinery. The MCSs affect mitochondria both through physical interactions between the membranes, as with mitochondrial fission, and also via Ca²⁺ release and signaling, as for regulation of the Krebs cycle (Marchi et al., 2014; Rowland and Voeltz, 2012).Ca²⁺ transfer between ER and mitochondriaThe ER contains a highly concentrated pool of intraluminal Ca²⁺, which is involved in the regulation of processes ranging from ATP production to the onset of apoptosis. Upon activation of the IP₃ gated Ca²⁺ channel (IP3R), the ER can release Ca²⁺ ions to the surrounding milieu. The close proximity of the ER–mitochondria MCSs allows for a directional flow of Ca²⁺ to enter the mitochondria through the voltage-dependent anion channel 1 (VDAC1) in the outer membrane (Gincel et al., 2001; Rapizzi et al., 2002) and the mitochondrial calcium uniporter (MCU1) in the inner membrane (Kirichok et al., 2004). The glucose-regulated protein 75 (GRP75) bridges the two organelles to form a stable “synapse” for the Ca²⁺ transfer by binding both VDAC1 and IP3R (Szabadkai et al., 2006; Fig. 3 a). This synapse is necessary for mitochondrial function, homeostasis, energy production, and viability. The concentration of Ca²⁺ inside the inner mitochondrial membrane has consequences for ATP production through the regulation of Ca²⁺-dependent enzymes in the Krebs cycle (Rossi et al., 2019). However, excessive levels of Ca²⁺ ions can induce apoptosis (Rasola and Bernardi, 2011; see below).Open in a separate windowFigure 3.Control of mitochondrial functions via contacts with ER. The figure shows an overview of some of the best-studied functional contacts between the ER and mitochondrial membranes. (a) Calcium transport for homeostasis or apoptosis. In healthy cells, Ca²⁺ flows from the lumen of ER via the IP3R and through the VDAC1 channel in the outer mitochondria membrane (OMM). GRP75 binds both channels to stabilize the synapse. Inside the mitochondria, ions pass the inner mitochondria membrane (IMM) via MCU1 where Ca²⁺ is needed for the Krebs cycle. Several protein–protein interactions are required to strengthen the contact site. Examples of such contacts are the ER proteins MFN2 and VAP-B which can interact with mitochondria-resident proteins MFN1/2 and PTPIP51, respectively. During apoptosis, a membrane complex consisting of BAP31, procaspase-8, CDIP1, and FIS1 tethers mitochondria and ER together in addition to the complex required for calcium transport. BAP31 from the ER bind both CDIP1 and procaspase-8, the latter is activated by interacting via its DED domain to bind a vDED domain on BAP31. FIS1 on the mitochondria interacts with BAP31 to bridge the two organelles. These apoptotic cues lead to increased Ca²⁺ levels in the mitochondria matrix and open the PTP. This disrupts the proton gradient and eventually leads to swelling and rupture of the mitochondria membrane, allowing cytochrome c to leak into the cytosol. APAF1 binds cytochrome c and assembles the apoptosome to execute apoptosis. (b) Mitochondria fission and fusion. ER marks the position for mitochondria fission or fusion by wrapping tubules around the mitochondria. Spire1C nucleates actin filaments and binds INF2 on the ER. INF2 stimulates the mitochondrial Ca²⁺ uptake and polymerizes actin filaments to further connect ER and mitochondria, allowing the IMM to divide first. DRP1 self assembles into a spiral guided by MFF and FIS1, and with the help of actin filaments constricts to separate the OMM. The final separation of the mitochondria can be aided by lysosomes or trans-Golgi network vesicles containing PtdIns4P at the ER–mitochondria contact site. Fusion is engaged by homodimerization between MFN1 or MFN2 in the OMM through their GTPase domain. Similarly, the GTPase domain on OPA1 interacts to fuse the inner membranes. Miro can bind motor proteins on both microtubules and actin filaments, possibly to strengthen the ER–mitochondria contact by reducing mitochondria movements.Several protein–protein interactions are involved in the flow of Ca²⁺ between these membranes, likely due to its important functions in the regulation of both cell growth and cell death. One such example is VAP-B on ER, which binds PTPIP51 on the outer mitochondrial membrane to ensure proper Ca²⁺ release from ER lumen to the mitochondria (De Vos et al., 2012). The interaction is mediated via the FFAT-like motif on PTPIP51 and the MSP motif on VAP-B. A mutated version of VAP-B, VAPB^P56S, and the dysregulation of Ca²⁺ flow between ER and mitochondria are both associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, highlighting the physiological importance of this connection (Langou et al., 2010; Nishimura et al., 2004). Mitofusin (MFN) is another example of a protein bridge that supports Ca²⁺ transport from the ER to the mitochondria. The ER membrane carries MFN2, which can bind heterotypically or homotypically to MFN1 or MFN2, respectively, on the mitochondrial membrane. This interaction aids in forming a stable bridge between the organelles during mitochondria Ca²⁺ uptake (de Brito and Scorrano, 2008).The ER-resident lipid transfer protein PDZD8 (described under “Synchronization of endosome translocation and lipid transfer”) is a mammalian paralog of the yeast protein Mmm1, a member of the ER–mitochondrial encounter structure (ERMES) complex, implicated in the formation of ER–mitochondria contact sites (Hirabayashi et al., 2017; Wideman et al., 2018). In neurons, PDZD8 is necessary for the contact between ER and mitochondria during Ca²⁺ transport. This MCS is proposed to be utilized by neurons to regulate dendritic excitability and plasticity during signal transduction. PDZD8 establishes directionality of Ca²⁺ flux from IP3R and ryanodine receptors toward the mitochondrion. In the absence of PDZD8, the cytosolic Ca²⁺ concentration increases. The protein partner of PDZD8 on the mitochondria membrane has yet to be elucidated (Hirabayashi et al., 2017).Regulation of apoptosisIn the context of cell death, the ER-resident protein BAP31 is crucial for ER–mitochondrial tethering (Ng et al., 1997), and several BAP31 complexes are associated with cell death, including FIS1 (Iwasawa et al., 2011) and CDIP1 (Namba et al., 2013; Fig. 3 a). These protein–protein contacts regulate cell death by establishing signaling platforms, translating apoptotic cues, and engaging in the onset of apoptosis (Iwasawa et al., 2011; Mattson and Chan, 2003; Namba et al., 2013). The initiation of cell death will activate either the intrinsic or extrinsic apoptotic pathway. However, a few common events occur independently of the mode of action. These include the activation of caspases by cleavage and the release of cytochrome c into the cytosol from the mitochondria. These actions are downstream of an increased flow of Ca²⁺ from ER into the mitochondria. When the concentration of Ca²⁺ reaches a certain threshold, the permeability transition pore (PTP) opens and allows for water molecules and protons to travel freely over the inner mitochondria membrane. This disrupts the proton gradient and induces swelling and rupture of the outer membrane (Halestrap, 2009). As a result, cytochrome c leaks into the cytosol where it binds the apoptotic protease-activating factor 1 (APAF1) machinery (Hardingham and Bading, 2003; Mattson and Chan, 2003), causing the apoptosome to assemble and execute apoptosis (Rasola and Bernardi, 2011).Cell death can also be mediated through ceramide-induced apoptosis (Obeid et al., 1993). Ceramides synthesized by ER are highly regulated and are normally transported to the Golgi for further processing. A rise in ceramide levels followed by the recruitment of ceramide binding proteins on the outer mitochondria membrane can trigger apoptosis. The exact molecular mechanisms leading to this event remain elusive, but VDAC2 in the outer mitochondrial membrane has recently been shown to bind ceramides and acts as an effector of cell death signals (Dadsena et al., 2019).Interestingly, BAP31 in the ER–mitochondria MCSs is not restricted to cell death signaling. The mitochondrial membrane protein TOM40 can bind BAP31 to recruit NDUSF4. This protein complex is involved in stress sensing and cellular homeostasis. The lack of BAP31 activates autophagy and glycolysis while reducing mitochondrial oxygen consumption (Namba, 2019). Thus, BAP31 has a role in ER MCS during both self-preservation and self-destruction.Mitochondrial fissionHomeostasis of mitochondria is maintained by fission and fusion of the organelle. ER–mitochondrial contacts spatially define where the mitochondrion will divide (Abrisch et al., 2020; Friedman et al., 2011), as ER tubules wrap around the mitochondria to indicate the position for fission (Abrisch et al., 2020; Chakrabarti et al., 2018; Korobova et al., 2013; Fig. 3 b). The ER-associated formin, inverted formin-2 (INF2), polymerizes actin filaments to establish a close contact between the two organelles. The INF2-mediated actin polymerization stimulates mitochondria Ca²⁺ uptake. Spire1c is an actin nucleator and resides on the outer mitochondrial membrane during fission. Here it binds INF2 directly to connect the two organelles, as well as initiating nucleation of the actin filaments (Manor et al., 2015). ER tubules in the MCS release Ca²⁺, which enters the mitochondria through the VDAC1 channel. INF2 has been implied in the constriction of the inner mitochondria membrane indirectly by an increase in ER–mitochondria contact sites following an influx of Ca²⁺, which triggers the inner mitochondrial membrane to divide first (Chakrabarti et al., 2018). It is unknown exactly how the inner membrane divides, but the electron transport chain is required for the execution. Constriction of the outer membrane depends on the cytosolic GTPase dynamin related-protein 1 (DRP1) to self-assemble into a ring around the mitochondrion at the fission site. For the Drp1-spiral to form, the outer membrane receptors FIS1 and MFF guide the assembly (Elgass et al., 2013; Koch et al., 2005). Drp1 binds actin filaments and modulates actin bundles in vitro (Ji et al., 2015). It is therefore possible that the actin filaments on the mitochondria surface are anchored directly to the DRP1 spiral. The spiral constricts with the aid of actin–myosin filaments (Smirnova et al., 2001). Thus, the inner membrane scission is followed by constriction of the outer membrane as the Drp1 spiral tightens and ultimately results in the formation of two daughter organelles (Chakrabarti et al., 2018; Korobova et al., 2013).A recent contribution to the field of mitochondrial fission is the observation that PtdIns4P-containing vesicles derived from lysosomes or the TGN interact with ER–mitochondria MCSs, forming three-way contacts (Boutry and Kim, 2021; Nagashima et al., 2020). Within these contact sites, ORP1L was suggested to transfer PtdIns4P from lysosomes to the mitochondrion, promoting mitochondrial fission (Boutry and Kim, 2021). Likewise, inhibition of the formation of PtdIns4P microdomains on TGN vesicles results in branched and hyperfused mitochondria (Nagashima et al., 2020), thus indicating an important role of ER–mitochondria triple contact sites to finalize fission.When mitochondria divide, the daughter mitochondria must bear a copy of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) found in the parental mitochondrion. Subpopulations of ER–mitochondria contact sites have been shown to be specifically reserved for and required for the synthesis of mtDNA (Lewis et al., 2016). Following duplication of the nucleoid, DRP1 regulates the mtDNA synthesis and the distribution to the daughter organelles during fission by altering the ER sheets that contact the mitochondria (Ilamathi et al., 2022; Lewis et al., 2016).Mitochondrial fusionIt has been proposed that mitochondrial fission and fusion events are coordinated to quickly respond to metabolic cues. Hence, as for mitochondrial fission, the ER marks the sites of mitochondrial fusion (Guo et al., 2018), and molecules involved in fusion and fission colocalize in ER–mitochondria contact sites (Abrisch et al., 2020). It has been proposed that ER tethering guides the position and timing of mitochondria fusion, but the exact role of ER–mitochondria MCS is still not clear (Gao and Hu, 2021). Fusion of the outer mitochondria membranes is executed by the mitofusins, MFN1 and MFN2 (Cao et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2003), while Opa1 regulates the fusion of the inner mitochondria membrane (Song et al., 2009; Fig. 3 b). Even though both hetero- and homotypic protein interactions can occur between MFN1 and MFN2, it is the homotypic interactions that are required for fusion (Chen et al., 2003). Interestingly, only a certain protein conformation of mitofusins allows for mitochondrial fusion (Franco et al., 2016). Both MFN1 and DRP1 puncta localize to the ER–mitochondria contact sites during the synchronized fusion and fission events, respectively (Abrisch et al., 2020). To maintain the ER–mitochondria contact during fusion, the Ca²⁺ sensitive molecule Miro will decrease mitochondria motility (Kornmann et al., 2011). Miro is also a motorprotein-adaptor involved in both actin filament and microtubule transport. It is unknown exactly how Miro regulates the translocation of mitochondria during fission and fusion; however, acetylation of Miro at specific Lysine residues has been implicated in the context of mitochondria transportation in neurons (Kalinski et al., 2019). More research is needed to further explore the role of Miro in mitochondria fission and fusion.Lipid transfer between ER and mitochondriaMitochondria rely on lipid transport proteins to maintain membrane homeostasis. The evolutionarily conserved ER protein LTC1 is found at MCSs between mitochondria and ER, depending on the mitochondrial import receptors Tom70/71. It has been suggested that the function of LTC1 is to transport and/or sense sterols to maintain correct lipid homeostasis and organelle function (Murley et al., 2015).Miro is not only involved in mitochondria mobility as discussed above but it also promotes lipid transfer. In this role, Miro has been shown to locate to the outer mitochondrial membrane to recruit the lipid channel transporter VPS13D, which is anchored to the ER by VAP-B. Analogously, Miro regulates lipid transfer in ER–peroxisome contact sites (Guillen-Samander et al., 2021; Kornmann et al., 2011).The interaction between the ER-resident protein VAP-B and the mitochondrial protein PTPIP51 is also important for lipid transfer (De Vos et al., 2012). The interaction between the proteins is provided by a FFAT-like motif on PTPIP51 and an MSP domain on VAP-B. The contact site can provide the transport of phosphatidic acid from ER to mitochondria via a TRP motif in PTPIP51 (Yeo et al., 2021). Interestingly, the same protein–protein interaction and MCS are also involved in regulating autophagy in mammalian cells. Loss of PTPIP51 or VAP-B results in increased autophagy, while the overexpression of either protein reduces the number of autophagic structures, likely in a Ca²⁺-dependent manner (Gomez-Suaga et al., 2017).Regulation of peroxisomes by ERPeroxisomes are organelles with diverse metabolic tasks, such as fatty acid turnover, lipid synthesis, and the generation of reactive oxygen species (He et al., 2021; Mast et al., 2020). These processes require a close interplay with other cellular organelles, in particular with the ER. ER and peroxisome interactions have long been observed in electron micrographs, where peroxisomes are localized in the vicinity or even enwrapped by ER (Fahimi et al., 1993; Grabenbauer et al., 2000; Novikoff and Novikoff, 1972; Zaar et al., 1987). The molecular composition and function of peroxisome–ER tethers involve the peroxisomal C-tail anchored proteins acyl-CoA binding domain proteins 4 and 5 (ACBD4 and ACBD5), which interact with the VAP-A and VAP-B proteins in the ER via their FFAT motifs (Costello et al., 2017a; Costello et al., 2017b; Hua et al., 2017; Fig. 4 a). The interaction between ACBD5 and VAP-A/B regulates the extent of ER–peroxisome contacts (Costello et al., 2017a; Hua et al., 2017). Disruption of the tether by depletion of either ACBD5 or VAP-A and VAP-B increased peroxisome motility, indicating that the MCS acts like an anchor for the peroxisomes to the ER (Costello et al., 2017a; Wang et al., 2018). Further, elongation and growth of the PO membrane are reduced, which implicates this contact in lipid transfer. Indeed, plasmalogen and cholesterol homeostasis was shown to be disrupted when the MCS was compromised (Hua et al., 2017). Not surprisingly, a disruption of the peroxisome–ER contact site is associated with pathologies in mice and humans: loss or mutation of ACBD5 causes retinal dystrophy and white matter disease, which are characterized by an increase in very long-chain fatty acids due to impaired lipid transfer and impaired peroxisomal β-oxidation (Bartlett et al., 2021; Darwisch et al., 2020; Ferdinandusse et al., 2017; Gorukmez et al., 2022; Hua et al., 2017; Yagita et al., 2017). Interestingly, more levels of regulation of MCS formation are currently identified, such as phosphorylation of FFAT motifs, which can either promote or inhibit contact formation: ACBD5 phosphorylation through GSK3b was shown to negatively regulate the ACBD5–VAP–B interaction and thus peroxisome–ER MCS formation, while phosphorylation of the STARD3 FFAT motif induces contact formation with the MSP domains of VAP–A and –B (Di Mattia et al., 2020; Kors et al., 2022).Open in a separate windowFigure 4.Contact sites with ER control peroxisome and Golgi functions. (a) The peroxisomal proteins ACBD4 and ACBD5 interact with the VAP proteins in the ER via their FFAT motifs, anchoring peroxisomes to the ER to facilitate lipid transfer. ER anchored E-Syts contact peroxisomal PtdIns(4,5)P₂ to allow cholesterol transport from lysosomes via peroxisomes to the ER. The ER protein BAP31 can potentially interact with FIS1 on peroxisomes, presumably required for peroxisome fission similar to mitochondria. (b) PtdIns4P, the signature phosphoinositide of the Golgi. A PtdIns4P gradient is maintained by phosphorylation of PtdIns by PI4KIIIβ in the TGN and dephosphorylation of PtdIns4P in the ER by the phosphatase SAC1. CERT recognizes PtdIns4P in the Golgi and is tethered to the ER by binding to VAP, where it uses its START domain to transfer ceramide from the ER to the trans-Golgi network. OSBP and OSBP-related proteins (ORPs) interact with PtdIns4P in the Golgi and VAP in the ER. Here, the transfer of PtdIns4P from the Golgi to the ER along the PtdIns4P gradient fuels the counter-transfer of cholesterol or PS to the Golgi. NIR2 binds and transfers PtdIns from the ER to the Golgi, thereby replenishing the PtdIns pool. FAPP1 promotes the activity of SAC1 to dephosphorylate PtdIns4P in trans in narrow membrane contact sites. CPT1C inhibits SAC1 activity to maintain normal levels of PtdIns4P in the Golgi under basal conditions.Another peroxisome–ER contact site is formed by ER-resident extended synaptotagmins (E-Syts-1, 2, and 3) which contact peroxisomal phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate to allow cholesterol transport from lysosomes via peroxisomes to the ER (Xiao et al., 2019; Fig. 4 a).Likely, more mammalian ER–peroxisome contact sites will be discovered in the future. MOSPD2 has been suggested to function as an alternative to VAP–A/B, since it also contains an MSP domain shown to interact with FFAT motif proteins (Di Mattia et al., 2018); however its interaction with ACBD4 or 5 has not yet been experimentally proven (Schrader et al., 2020). Further, the ER protein BAP31 interacts with the mitochondrial protein FIS1, which is required for mitochondrial fission (Fig. 4 a). As FIS1 and other mitochondrial fission proteins (DRP1 and MFF) can also be found on peroxisomes, and ER–mitochondrion or ER–endosome MCSs have been shown to mark fission sites (Friedman et al., 2011; Rowland et al., 2014), an analogous ER–peroxisome contact site might assist in peroxisome fission.ER-mediated regulation of the GolgiDue to their collaborative roles in synthesis, modification, and transport of biomolecules, the ER and the Golgi require efficient ways to exchange molecules. Besides vesicular transport between the ER and cis-Golgi, biomolecules can also be exchanged directly at contact sites. To form contacts, PtdIns4P, the signature phosphoinositide of the Golgi, is indispensable as it governs the localization and regulation of lipid-exchange molecules.PtdIns4P fuels lipid transfer between ER and GolgiPtdIns4P is generated by the Golgi-localized phosphatidylinositol kinase 4β (PI4KIIIβ) through the phosphorylation of PtdIns (Balla and Balla, 2006). Oxysterol-binding protein (OSBP) and ORPs (see text box), such as ORP4L, ORP9, and ORP10, are lipid-exchange transporters, which depend on high levels of PtdIns4P in the Golgi, both to form ER–Golgi contact sites and to function in lipid transport. These cytosolic transport proteins contact the Golgi with their PH domain, which binds PtdIns4P and ARF1-GTP, and they tether to the ER via their VAP-binding FFAT motifs, which allows the exchange of PtdIns4P against sterols or PS (Mesmin et al., 2013; Ngo and Ridgway, 2009). The lipid transfer is mediated by the ORD domain and requires PtdIns4P in exchange. The high PtdIns4P levels in the Golgi fuel a counter-transfer of cholesterol (OSBP, ORP4L, and ORP9) or PS (ORP10) to the Golgi (Maeda et al., 2013; Pietrangelo and Ridgway, 2018; Venditti et al., 2019b; Fig. 4 b). The PtdIns4P gradient is maintained by PI4KIIIβ-mediated synthesis of PtdIns4P in the TGN and dephosphorylation of PtdIns4P in the ER by the phosphatase SAC1 (Mesmin et al., 2013; Mesmin et al., 2017).SAC1 regulates PtdIns4P levelsSAC1 is an ER-resident phosphatase that dephosphorylates PtdIns4P in cis in the ER (Mesmin et al., 2013). However, close contact at ER–Golgi–MCS may allow SAC1 to also act in trans to consume PtdIns4P in the Golgi (Manford et al., 2010), and this activity is promoted by the presence of phosphatidyl-four-phosphate-adaptor-protein-1 (FAPP1) within these contacts (Venditti et al., 2019a; Fig. 4 b). Another regulator of SAC1 phosphatase activity is the neuronally-expressed CPT1C (Sierra et al., 2008), which cooperates with Protrudin as described above. CPT1C senses metabolic changes through binding to malonyl-CoA, an intermediate in de novo long-chain fatty acid synthesis, whose levels correlate with the nutritional state. Under basal conditions, CPT1C inhibits SAC1 activity to maintain normal levels of PtdIns4P in the Golgi, allowing AMPA receptor trafficking to the plasma membrane. Under glucose deprivation, CPT1C releases SAC1 inhibition allowing SAC1 to dephosphorylate PtdIns4P at ER–Golgi–MCS in trans, which results in AMPA receptor retention at the TGN (Casas et al., 2020). In this way, the ER can affect neuronal function and cognition depending on energy status.Sphingolipid transfer between ER and GolgiPtdIns4P also plays an important role for sphingolipid transporters: Ceramide transfer protein (CERT) uses its START domain to transfer ceramide from the ER to the TGN for further processing into sphingomyelin (Hanada et al., 2003; Fig. 4 b). CERT forms a contact site by binding to ER-resident VAP proteins via its FFAT motif and its PH domain recognizes PtdIns4P in the Golgi (Hanada et al., 2003; Peretti et al., 2008). The activity of CERT is regulated by phosphorylation and by a negative feedback loop recognizing elevated DAG levels, resulting from sphingomyelin synthesis (Fugmann et al., 2007; Kumagai et al., 2014; Saito et al., 2008). In addition, the START domain can compete with the PH domain for PtdIns4P binding. When the levels of ceramide are high, the START domain is occupied by ceramide, and the shuttling of ceramide from ER to Golgi will occur. When the levels of ceramide are low, the START domain will bind to the PH domain, removing CERT from the Golgi (Prashek et al., 2017).Phosphatidylinositol-four-phosphate adapter protein 2 (FAPP2; also known as PLEKHA8) possesses a PtdIns4P- and ARF1-GTP-binding PH domain at the N-terminus and a glycolipid transfer protein homology domain at the C-terminus, responsible for glucosylceramide (GlcCer) transport (Godi et al., 2004). Depletion of FAPP2 disrupts GlcCer transport from cis- to trans-Golgi, resulting in a disturbed synthesis of complex glycosphingolipids (D''Angelo et al., 2007; D''Angelo et al., 2013; Halter et al., 2007). How FAPP2 aids in the transport of GlcCer from the cis to the trans-Golgi is not yet fully understood, but may involve ER–Golgi contact sites: FAPP2 has a putative FFAT motif (Backman et al., 2018) and has been suggested to transfer GlcCer retrogradely to the ER, where GlcCer translocates into the lumen. From the ER lumen, GlcCer could be anterogradely transported to the trans-Golgi for further glycosylation into complex glycosphingolipids (Halter et al., 2007). Alternatively or additionally, FAPP2 may mediate the direct transfer of GlcCer from cis- to trans-Golgi (D''Angelo et al., 2007).Control of Golgi homeostasisThe phosphatidylinositol-transfer protein NIR2 (PYK2 N-terminal domain- interacting receptor 2) contacts the ER through a classical FFAT motif and it has a PtdIns-transfer domain (PITD) that mediates Golgi localization (Amarilio et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2013). Through its PITD domain, NIR2 transfers PtdIns from the ER to the Golgi, and thereby replenishes the substrate for the PtdIns4-kinase. This closes the PtdIns4P cycle of phosphorylation, transfer, and dephosphorylation, which is necessary to fuel sterol and PS transport (Fig. 4 b). In addition, NIR2 has been shown to regulate DAG levels at the Golgi apparatus (Litvak et al., 2005) and it can affect OSBP and CERT localization and activity (Peretti et al., 2008). The action of the lipid-transfer proteins OSBP, CERT, and NIR2 is thus intricately connected and coordinated at ER–Golgi contact sites.Maintaining lipid homeostasis through lipid-transfer proteins is important for the physiologic function of the secretory pathway. Disturbances in lipid exchange and the resulting imbalances in PtdIns4P or cargo lipids disrupt Golgi morphology, lipid modifications, and anterograde cargo transport processes (Cruz-Garcia et al., 2013; Godi et al., 2004; Litvak et al., 2005; Peretti et al., 2008; Szentpetery et al., 2010; Wakana et al., 2021; Wakana et al., 2015). The ER maintains this balance not only through its direct function at lipid-transfer contact sites but also by anchoring TGN vesicles in the perinuclear area through T6BP/TAX1BP1–SQSTM1/p62–RNF26 as described above (Fig. 1, 1).Conclusions and perspectivesThe ER controls the synthesis and trafficking of molecules not only through its classical functions in protein biosynthesis but also directly through membrane contacts with other organelles. The wide distribution of the ER throughout the cytoplasm makes it well suited to control other organelles via MCSs. As exemplified in this review, ER MCSs have diverse functions that include lipid transfer, Ca²⁺ transfer, protein and lipid dephosphorylation in trans, energy sensing, and regulation of organelle fusion, fission, motility, and positioning. This means that MCSs should always be taken into account when investigating organelle biology. Likewise, organelle-associated diseases can sometimes be understood by considering the dysfunctions of specific ER MCSs. Disruption of ER-organelle MCSs can severely affect cellular homeostasis, causing diseases ranging from metabolic and developmental defects, lipid storage, and neuronal diseases to cancer (Castro et al., 2018; Henne, 2017; Schrader et al., 2020; Simoes et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020).Even though we are getting a clearer picture of the protein compositions of many MCSs, most of them have not been characterized in full, and we know little about how the many different MCSs influence each other. Triple contacts of ER with endolysosomes, mitochondria, peroxisomes, Golgi apparatus, and lipid droplets have been described (Boutry and Kim, 2021; Elbaz-Alon et al., 2020; Guillen-Samander et al., 2021; Joshi et al., 2018; Nagashima et al., 2020), and it is conceivable that more tripartite MCSs will be detected as more are being characterized. The recent discovery of lipid channel proteins such as VPS13D and ATG2, which allow efficient lipid transport from the ER to other organelles via MCSs, has highlighted the involvement of MCSs in the composition and expansion of organelle membranes. Further progress in the burgeoning research field of ER MCSs will be spurred by combinations of molecular biological dissections of MCSs, structural analyses by cryo-electron microscopy, intracellular localization by advanced light and electron microscopy, and functional characterization by genetic approaches.     

Bridging the gap: Membrane contact sites in signaling,metabolism, and organelle dynamics

Regions of close apposition between two organelles, often referred to as membrane contact sites (MCSs), mostly form between the endoplasmic reticulum and a second organelle, although contacts between mitochondria and other organelles have also begun to be characterized. Although these contact sites have been noted since cells first began to be visualized with electron microscopy, the functions of most of these domains long remained unclear. The last few years have witnessed a dramatic increase in our understanding of MCSs, revealing the critical roles they play in intracellular signaling, metabolism, the trafficking of metabolites, and organelle inheritance, division, and transport.

Introduction

The compartmentalization of cells allows the segregation and regulation of the myriad reactions that occur within them. The tremendous benefits of intracellular compartmentalization also come at a price; to function optimally, cells must transmit signals and exchange material between compartments. Numerous mechanisms have evolved to facilitate these exchanges. One that has not been well appreciated until the last few years is the transmission of signals and molecules between organelles that occurs at regions where the organelles are closely apposed, often called membrane contact sites (MCSs). These sites were first characterized because of their critical roles in the intracellular exchange of lipids and calcium, which can be directly channeled between organelles via MCSs. More recently, it has also become apparent that MCSs are important sites for intracellular signaling, organelle trafficking, and inheritance, and that MCSs are specialized regions where regulatory complexes are assembled (English and Voeltz, 2013; Helle et al., 2013).A hallmark of MCSs is that membranes from two organelles (or compartments of the same organelle) are tethered to one another, but not all instances in which membranes interact with or are tethered to one another are considered MCSs. True MCSs have four properties: (1) membranes from two intracellular compartments are tethered in close apposition, typically within 30 nm, (2) the membranes do not fuse (though they may transiently hemi-fuse), (3) specific proteins and/or lipids are enriched at the MCS, and (4) MCS formation affects the function or composition of at least one of the two organelles in the MCS.This review will discuss what we know about proteins that tether organelles, the exchange of small molecules at MCSs, and other emerging functions of MCSs.

MCS tethers

An MCS tether is a protein or complex of proteins (Fig. 1) that simultaneously binds the two apposing membranes at an organelle contact site and plays a role in maintaining the site (English and Voeltz, 2013; Helle et al., 2013). In many cases it is not yet clear if these proteins and complexes are genuine tethers, which are necessary to maintain MCSs, or function at MCSs but are not necessary to sustain contacts. Distinguishing between these possibilities is an important challenge for the field, especially when more than one protein or complex of proteins independently hold together the membranes at an MCS.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Proteins proposed to mediate tethering at MCSs. Mammalian proteins are shown on a yellow background, yeast proteins on a blue background, and proteins found in both mammals and yeast are on a green background. Tethering complexes not described in the text are indicated with red numbers: (1) StARD3-VAPs (Alpy et al., 2013), (2) NPC1-ORP5 (Du et al., 2011), (3) Psd2-Pdr17 (Riekhof et al., 2014), (4) Vac8-Nvj1 (Pan et al., 2000), (5) Nvj2 (Toulmay and Prinz, 2012), (6) PTPIP51-VAPs (De Vos et al., 2012), (7) Orai1-STIM1 (Nunes et al., 2012), (8) DGAT2-FATP1 (Xu et al., 2012), and (9) IncD-CERT-VAPs (Derré et al., 2011; Elwell et al., 2011).As a growing number of potential tethers are identified, three trends are emerging. First, most MCSs are maintained by several tethers. One of the best-characterized examples of this is the junction of the ER and plasma membrane (PM) in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Recent work showed that it was necessary to eliminate six ER resident proteins to dramatically reduce the normally extensive interactions between the ER and PM (Manford et al., 2012; Stefan et al., 2013). This suggests that these six proteins mediate tethering independently of each other. Four of the six proteins (three calcium and lipid-binding domain proteins 1–3, also called Tcb1–3, and Ist2) are integral ER membrane proteins that have cytosolic domains that bind the plasma membranes (Fischer et al., 2009; Toulmay and Prinz, 2012). The other two proteins, Scs2 and Scs22 (Scs, suppressor of Ca²⁺ sensitivity), are homologues of mammalian VAPs (vesicle-associated membrane protein–associated proteins). VAPs are integral membrane tail-anchored proteins in the ER that bind proteins containing FFAT (phenylalanines in an acid tract) motifs (Loewen et al., 2003). A number of proteins that contain these motifs also have domains that bind lipids and proteins in the PM, allowing them to simultaneously bind and tether the ER and PM. For example, some oxysterol-binding protein (OSBP)–related proteins (ORPs) have FFAT motifs and pleckstrin homology (PH) domains that bind phosphoinositides (PIPs) in the plasma membrane (Levine and Munro, 1998; Weber-Boyvat et al., 2013). Thus, ORPs and other FFAT motif-containing proteins can mediate ER–PM tethering via VAPs. It should be noted that VAPs and proteins bound by VAPs also mediate tethering between the ER and organelles in addition to the PM. These are shown in Fig. 1.A second emerging trend is that tethering seems to be a dynamic, regulated process, and we are beginning to understand the mechanisms of dynamic apposition of membranes at MCSs by tethers. One example is ER–PM tethering mediated by proteins called extended synaptotagmins (E-Syts), which are homologues of the yeast Tcb tethers. The tethering of the ER and PM by E-Syts is regulated by Ca²⁺ and the PM-enriched lipid PI(4,5)P₂ (Chang et al., 2013; Giordano et al., 2013). Binding of these molecules by E-Syts may control both the extent of ER–PM contact and the distance between these organelles at MCSs. A second example of regulated MCS formation is provided by a recent study on OSBP. This protein and other FFAT motif-containing proteins have been thought to mediate ER–Golgi tethering by simultaneously binding VAPs in the ER and PIPs in the Golgi complex (Kawano et al., 2006; Peretti et al., 2008). In an elegant set of experiments, Mesmin et al. (2013) showed that OSBP regulates its own ability to mediate ER–Golgi tethering by modulating PI4P levels in the Golgi complex. When PI4P levels in the Golgi complex are high, OSBP tethers the ER and Golgi complex and also transports PI4P from the Golgi to the ER. When the PI4P reaches the ER, it is hydrolyzed by the phosphatase Sac1, preventing it from being transferred back to the Golgi. The reduction in Golgi complex PI4P levels by OSBP causes OSBP to dissociate from the Golgi, decreasing ER–Golgi tethering. Thus, OSBP negatively regulates its own tethering of the ER and Golgi membranes. Lipid transport by OSBP and similar proteins will be discussed in more detail in the section on lipid transport at MCSs.The third important feature of many MCS tethering complexes is that most have functions in addition to tethering. This is well illustrated by complexes proposed to mediate ER–mitochondria tethering in mammalian cells, where four such complexes have been described (Fig. 1). For example, Mfn2 (mitofusin-2) acts as a tether (de Brito and Scorrano, 2008), but the primary function of this dynamin-like protein is to mediate mitochondrial fusion. Although Mfn2 is largely in the outer mitochondrial membrane (OMM), a small fraction also resides the ER, and it has been proposed that the interaction of Mfn2 in the ER with Mfn2 in the OMM tethers the ER and mitochondria (de Brito and Scorrano, 2008). The other ER–mitochondria tethering complexes proposed in mammals (Fig. 1) also have additional functions—either Ca²⁺ signaling or apoptotic signaling between these organelles.

Tethers within organelles

MCSs may form not only between organelles but also between compartments of the same organelle. In two cases, proteins necessary for these intra-organelle contacts are known. The Golgi complex is divided into a number of cisternae that remain closely apposed in some cell types, forming stacked compartments. Two tethering proteins maintain connections between Golgi cisternae. Golgi reassembly stacking protein 65 (GRASP65) forms contacts between cis- and medial-Golgi cisternae and GRASP55 mediates medial- to trans-cisternal interactions (Fig. 1; Barr et al., 1997; Shorter et al., 1999). The Golgi stack disassembles when both GRASPs are depleted, indicating that they are the primary or sole tethers (Xiang and Wang, 2010). Tethering by these proteins is regulated by kinases to allow Golgi cisternal disassembly during the cell cycle. Whether the inter-Golgi contacts formed by GRASPs mediate signaling or lipid exchange between cisternae is not yet known (Tang and Wang, 2013).MCSs also form inside organelles with internal membranes: mitochondria, chloroplasts, and multivesicular bodies. These MCSs may form between membranes within these organelles or between internal membranes and the outer membrane of the organelle. Recently, three groups discovered a tethering complex involved in forming contacts between mitochondrial cisternae and between cisternae and the mitochondrial outer membrane (Harner et al., 2011; Hoppins et al., 2011; von der Malsburg et al., 2011). This complex, called the mitochondrial contact site and cristae organizing system (MICOS), is conserved from yeast to humans and contains at least six proteins (Fig. 1). It is necessary to maintain inner membrane organization and also interacts with protein complexes in the outer membrane, including the translocase of the outer membrane (TOM) complex and the sorting and assembly machinery (SAM) complex (van der Laan et al., 2012; Zerbes et al., 2012).

Lipid exchange at MCSs

Lipid exchange between organelles at MCSs may serve a number of important functions. One is that it allows cells to rapidly modulate the lipid composition of an organelle independently of vesicular trafficking. In addition, some organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts, must obtain most of the lipids they require for membrane biogenesis by nonvesicular lipid trafficking that almost certainly occurs at MCSs (Osman et al., 2011; Wang and Benning, 2012; Horvath and Daum, 2013). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, lipid transfer at MCSs may play an important role in lipid metabolism by channeling lipids to or away from enzymes in different compartments.Some lipid exchange at MCSs is facilitated by soluble lipid transport proteins (LTPs), which can shuttle lipid monomers between membranes (Fig. 2 A). In other cases, known LTPs do not seem to be required and lipids may be exchanged at MCSs by other mechanisms (Fig. 2, B and C), which will be discussed next.Open in a separate windowFigure 2.Possible mechanisms of lipid exchange at MCSs. (A) Transfer by LTPs using CERT as an example. The targeting PH domain (pink) and FFAT motif (blue) are shown. CERT could shuttle between membranes (left) or transfer while binding both membranes (right). (B) Some transfer could occur through hydrophobic channels or tunnels (in green) bridging the two membranes at a MCS. (C) Lipid exchange between hemifused membranes. Hemifusion could be promoted and regulated by proteins (red).Most LTPs fall into at least five superfamilies that differ structurally but that all have a hydrophobic pocket or groove that can bind a lipid monomer, and often have a lid domain that shields the bound lipid from the aqueous phase (D’Angelo et al., 2008; Lev, 2010). This allows LTPs to shuttle lipid monomers between membranes. LTPs probably transfer lipids between organelles in cells most efficiently at MCSs, where they have only a short distance to diffuse between membranes. LTPs that may transfer lipids at contact sites are: OSBP, ceramide transport protein (CERT), the yeast OSBP homologues Osh6 and Osh7, protein tyrosine kinase 2 N-terminal domain–interacting receptor 2 (Nir2), and Ups1 (Hanada, 2010; Connerth et al., 2012; Chang et al., 2013; Maeda et al., 2013; Mesmin et al., 2013).LTPs could function by shuttling between membranes at MCSs or while simultaneously bound to both membranes (Fig. 2 A). Many LTPs have domains that target them to the two membranes at an MCS. For example, OSBP and CERT have FFAT motifs, which bind ER resident VAPs, and PH domains that bind PIPs in the Golgi complex or PM.Another important emerging aspect of lipid exchange by some LTPs is that it may be driven by their ability to exchange one lipid for another. For example, OSBP can transfer both cholesterol and PI4P. At ER–Golgi MCSs, OSBP may facilitate the net movement of cholesterol from the ER to the Golgi and PI4P in the opposite direction (Mesmin et al., 2013). The difference in the PI4P concentrations in the ER and Golgi (lower in the ER than in the Golgi) may drive the net transfer of cholesterol to the Golgi. The ability to exchange one lipid for another has been found for other LTPs (Schaaf et al., 2008; de Saint-Jean et al., 2011; Kono et al., 2013) and may be critical for driving directional lipid exchange at MCSs.Some lipid exchange at MCSs does not seem to be facilitated by LTPs. The best evidence for this comes from studies on lipid transfer between the ER and mitochondria. It has long been known that lipids are exchanged between these two organelles; mitochondria must acquire most of the lipid it requires for membrane biogenesis from the rest of the cell. Lipid exchange at ER–mitochondria MCSs occurs by a mechanism that does not require energy, at least in vitro, and does not require any cytosolic factors (Osman et al., 2011; Vance, 2014).How this lipid transfer occurs is not known, and two possible types of mechanism are shown in Fig. 2, B and C. One is that some MCS proteins form a hydrophobic channel that allows lipids to move between membranes. Such a channel would be similar to an LTP, but whereas lipids enter and exit LTPs by the same opening, they enter and exit channels by different openings. This difference could allow lipid exchange by a channel to be regulated and, if the channel could bind two different lipids simultaneously, it might couple the transfer of the lipids. A domain that may form channels at MCSs has been identified. Called the synaptotagmin-like mitochondrial lipid-binding protein (SMP) domain, it has been predicted to be part of a superfamily of proteins that includes cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP; Kopec et al., 2010). CETP has a tubular lipid-binding domain that transfers lipids between high-density and low-density lipoproteins, probably while simultaneously bound to both (Qiu et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2012). SMP domains could transfer lipids between membranes by a similar mechanism. Consistent with this possibility, all SMP-containing proteins in budding yeast localize to MCSs and many mammalian SMP-containing proteins do as well (Toulmay and Prinz, 2012). Interestingly, SMP domains are present in three of the five proteins in a yeast ER–mitochondria tethering complex called ERMES (Kornmann et al., 2009). Whether ERMES facilitates lipid exchange between the ER and mitochondria is not yet clear. Mitochondria derived from cells missing ERMES have altered lipid composition (Osman et al., 2009; Tamura et al., 2012; Tan et al., 2013), indicating that lipid exchange between the ER and mitochondria could be altered in these strains. On the other hand, little or no defect in the rates of phospholipid exchange between ER and mitochondria were found in ERMES mutants (Kornmann et al., 2009; Nguyen et al., 2012; Voss et al., 2012). Thus, whether proteins that contain SMP domains actually facilitate lipid exchange remains to be determined.As second possible mechanism of lipid transfer at MCSs that does not require LTPs is membrane hemifusion (Fig. 2 C), which could allow rapid exchange of large amounts of lipids between compartments. Recent indirect evidence suggests that hemifusion may occur between the ER and chloroplasts (Mehrshahi et al., 2013). This is consistent with an earlier study using optical tweezers that found the ER and chloroplasts remained attached to one another even when a stretching force of 400 pN was applied (Andersson et al., 2007). Whether hemifusion occurs at MCSs in animal cells remains to be determined.

Calcium signaling at MCSs

MCSs between the ER and PM and the ER and mitochondria play central roles in intracellular Ca²⁺ storage, homeostasis, and signaling in mammalian cells. MCSs between the ER and lysosomes may also be important, though they are less well understood (Helle et al., 2013; Lam and Galione, 2013).One of the best-characterized MCSs is the one formed between the PM and ER in muscle cells. In both cardiac and skeletal muscle cells, deep invaginations of the PM, called T (transverse)-tubules, allow it to form extensive contacts with the ER, called the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) in muscle cells. These contacts are essential for coupling excitation and contraction. Before excitation, Ca²⁺ levels in the cytoplasm of muscle cells are low, whereas the Ca²⁺ concentrations in the SR and outside muscle cells are high. During muscle excitation, Ca²⁺ rapidly flows into the cytosol through channels in the PM and the SR (Fig. 3 A). The channels in the PM, called dihydropyridine receptors (DHPRs), and those in the SR, known ryanodine receptors RyRs, directly interact with each other where the SR and PM are closely apposed, allowing the opening of both types of channels to be coordinated (Fabiato, 1983; Bannister, 2007; Beam and Bannister, 2010; Rebbeck et al., 2011).Open in a separate windowFigure 3.Ca²⁺ trafficking at ER–PM MCSs. (A) In muscle cells, the interaction of the RyR in the SR and with DHPR in the PM allows the coordinated release of Ca²⁺ during muscle excitation and contraction. See text for details. (B) When STIM1 senses low Ca²⁺ concentration in the ER, it undergoes a conformational change that allows it to oligomerize and bind to the PM, to the protein Orai1, and to accumulate at ER–PM MCSs. Ca²⁺ influx at these sites facilitates Ca²⁺ import into the ER by sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca²⁺-ATPase (SERCA). (C) Calcium channeling from the ER lumen to the mitochondrial matrix. Calcium exits the ER through the inositol trisphosphate receptor (IP3R) channel, enters mitochondria via VDAC, and then uses the mitochondrial Ca²⁺ uniporter (MCU) to move into the mitochondrial matrix.The extensive contacts between the SR and PM in muscle cells are largely maintained by tethering proteins called junctophilins, which have a single transmembrane domain in the SR and a large cytosolic domain that interacts with the PM. Expression of junctophilins in cells lacking them induces ER–PM contacts (Takeshima et al., 2000) and cells lacking junctophilins have abnormal SR–PM MCSs and defects in Ca²⁺ signaling (Ito et al., 2001; Komazaki et al., 2002; Hirata et al., 2006). Thus, junctophilins are both necessary and sufficient for generating functional SR–PM contacts. However, cells lacking junctophilins still maintain some SR–PM contacts, indicating that other proteins also tether the SR and the PM. Some of this residual tethering probably comes from the interaction of DHPRs and RyRs.ER–PM contacts also play a role in regulating intracellular Ca²⁺ levels in non-excitable cells. When the Ca²⁺ concentration in the ER lumen is low it triggers Ca²⁺ entry into the cytosol and ER from outside cells (Fig. 3 B), a process known as store-operated Ca²⁺ entry (SOCE). The PM channel responsible for Ca²⁺ entry is Orai1, and the sensor of Ca²⁺ concentration in the ER lumen is the integral membrane protein stromal interaction molecule-1 (STIM1). When STIM1 senses that the Ca²⁺ concentration in the ER is low, it oligomerizes and undergoes a conformational change that exposes a basic cluster of amino acids in its C terminus that binds PIPs in the PM (Stathopulos et al., 2006, 2008; Liou et al., 2007; Muik et al., 2011). STIM1 also binds to Orai1 in the PM and activates it (Kawasaki et al., 2009; Muik et al., 2009; Park et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009). Activation of STIM1 causes it to shift from being relatively evenly distributed on the ER to forming a number of puncta, which are regions were the ER and PM are closely apposed. It seems likely that STIM1 accumulates at and expands preexisting ER–PM MCSs and may also drive the formation of new MCSs (Wu et al., 2006; Lur et al., 2009; Orci et al., 2009).The interaction of STIM1 and Orai1 at ER–PM contacts during SOCE is an elegant mechanism for channeling both signals and small molecules at an MCS. The signal that ER luminal Ca²⁺ concentration is low is transmitted directly from STIM1 in the ER to Orai1 in the PM. The close contact of PM and ER also allows Ca²⁺ to move from outside the cell into the lumen of the ER without significantly increasing cytosolic Ca²⁺ levels (Jousset et al., 2007). During SOCE, ER Ca²⁺ levels are restored by the sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca²⁺-ATPase (SERCA) pump (Sampieri et al., 2009; Manjarrés et al., 2011). This pump is enriched in ER–PM contacts with STIM1 and may interact directly with it, suggesting how Ca²⁺ can be effectively channeled from outside cells directly into the ER lumen at ER–PM MCSs (Fig. 3 B).Interestingly, it has become clear that proteins that are not part of the SOCE pathway also facilitate ER–PM connections during Ca²⁺ signaling. The E-Syts have multiple domains that probably bind Ca²⁺. They have been shown to regulate both the number of the ER–PM contacts and the distance between the ER and PM at MCSs during Ca²⁺ signaling (Chang et al., 2013; Giordano et al., 2013).MCSs between the ER and mitochondria similarly facilitate Ca²⁺ movement from the ER lumen to mitochondria (Rizzuto et al., 1998; Csordás et al., 2006). Ca²⁺ channels in the ER and OMM interact with each other at MCSs (Fig. 3 C). The channel in the ER is called the inositol trisphosphate receptor (IP3R), while the voltage-dependent anion channel (VDAC) in the outer mitochondrial membrane is a nonspecific pore that allows Ca²⁺ entry into mitochondria. These proteins, together with the cytosolic chaperone Grp75, form a complex that links the ER and mitochondria and facilitates Ca²⁺ exchange (Szabadkai et al., 2006).More evidence that Ca²⁺ transfer from the ER to mitochondria occurs at MCSs came from studies on the channel that allows Ca²⁺ to move across the inner mitochondrial membrane, called the mitochondrial Ca²⁺ uniporter (MCU). Surprisingly, this channel has an affinity for Ca²⁺ that is lower than the typical Ca²⁺ concentration in the cytosol (Kirichok et al., 2004). However, Ca²⁺ release by the ER at ER–mitochondrial MCSs suggests a solution to this puzzle; the local Ca²⁺ concentration at these MCSs is probably high enough for MCU to function (Csordás et al., 2010). Close contacts between the ER and mitochondria are therefore essential for channeling Ca²⁺ from the ER lumen to the mitochondrial matrix.It is thought that MCSs between the ER (or SR) and lysosomes regulate Ca²⁺ release by lysosomes, but the mechanism is not yet understood (Kinnear et al., 2004, 2008; Galione et al., 2011; Morgan et al., 2011).

Enzymes working in trans and signaling at MCSs

MCSs allow rapid and efficient signaling between intracellular compartments. We are still just beginning to understand the mechanisms and functions of this signaling. One way that signals are transmitted between the two compartments at an MCS is for an enzyme in one compartment to modify substrates in the second; that is, for the enzyme to work in trans. Although there are currently only a few examples of this, which are discussed here, it seems likely that many more will be uncovered.The protein tyrosine phosphatase PTP1B regulates a number of receptor tyrosine kinases. PTP1B resides on the surface of the ER with its active site in the cytosol, and yet the receptor tyrosine kinases it modifies are in the PM. Although this was initially puzzling, it was found that PTP1B probably encounters its substrates at MCSs, either at ER–PM junctions or at contacts between the ER and endocytic recycling compartments (Haj et al., 2002; Boute et al., 2003; Anderie et al., 2007; Eden et al., 2010; Nievergall et al., 2010). Interestingly, in some cases the interaction of PTP1B with substrates in the PM occurs on portions of the PM that are part of cell–cell contacts (Haj et al., 2012), suggesting that ER–PM contacts could play a role in signaling, not only between the ER and PM but between cells as well. Dephosphorylation of receptor tyrosine kinases by PTP1B at contact sites probably allows their kinase activity to be regulated in response to changes in the ER or changes in cellular architecture that alter MCSs. For example, the dephosphorylation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) by PTP1B occurs at regions of close contact between the ER and multivesicular bodies, causing EGFR to become sequestered with multivesicular bodies (Eden et al., 2010). This may provide a mechanism for cells to regulate EGFR levels on the PM in response to signals in the ER.Lipid metabolism enzymes can also work in trans at MCSs. In two cases, both in yeast, enzymes that reside in the ER have been found to modify lipids in the PM at MCSs. In one instance, the phosphatase Sac1, which is on the surface of the ER, can dephosphorylate PIPs in the PM (Stefan et al., 2011). In the second, the ER enzyme Opi3 methylates phosphatidylethanolamine in the PM, a reaction that is required for the conversion of phosphatidylethanolamine to phosphatidylcholine (Tavassoli et al., 2013). Remarkably, the PIP-binding protein Osh3 (Tong et al., 2013) regulates both reactions, suggesting that lipid metabolism at ER–PM junctions is regulated by PIPs. It seems likely that ER–PM junctions play important roles in integrating lipid metabolism in both organelles.

MCSs and organelle trafficking and inheritance

In addition to being sites at which signals and small molecules are exchanged between cellular compartments, there is growing evidence that MCS formation also regulates organelle trafficking and inheritance.In budding yeast, organelle transport is polarized from the mother cell to the growing bud and is required for proper organelle inheritance. The transport of peroxisomes and mitochondria to the bud is regulated by their association with the ER or PM.Knoblach et al. (2013) found that tethering of the ER to peroxisomes requires Pex3, an integral membrane protein that resides in both compartments, and Inp1, a cytosolic protein that binds to Pex3. This tether keeps peroxisomes in mother cells. When peroxisomes divide they are transferred to the bud by the myosin V motor Myo2 and become attached to the ER in the bud. In cells lacking the ER–peroxisome tether, peroxisomes accumulate in daughter cells. Thus, tethering plays a critical role in ensuring that some peroxisomes are retained in mother cells and that both cells inherit peroxisomes.Mitochondrial inheritance in yeast is regulated by close contacts with both the ER and PM. Mitochondria–PM contacts mediated by a complex containing Num1 and Mdm36 ensure that mitochondria are properly distributed between mother and daughter cells and seem to be particularly important for retaining mitochondria in the mother cells (Klecker et al., 2013; Lackner et al., 2013). Interestingly, Num1–Mdm36-mediated contacts also associate with the ER (Lackner et al., 2013), suggesting that three membranes may somehow associate at these MCSs. An ER–mitochondria tether containing the protein Mmr1, which anchors mitochondria to bud tips, also plays a role in mitochondrial inheritance (Swayne et al., 2011). Thus, the Num1-tethering complex and Mmr1-tethering complex seem to play antagonistic roles in mitochondrial distribution; the Num1 complex promotes mitochondrial retention in the mother, whereas the Mmr1 complex favors retention in the bud.MCSs also play a role in endosomal trafficking in mammalian cells. One of the complexes that tethers the ER to endosomes contains VAPs and ORP1L, which is an OSBP homologue that can bind cholesterol (Fig. 1). ORPlL can also binds the p150^Glued subunit of the dynein–dynactin motor that participates in endosome transport along microtubules (Johansson et al., 2007). When cellular cholesterol levels are high, ORP1L associates with p150^Glued but not VAPs and endosomes are transported on microtubules. However, when cholesterol levels decrease, ORP1L undergoes a conformation change that dissociates it from p150^Glued and allows it to bind to VAPs on the surface of the ER, thus forming a tether between endosomes and the ER (Rocha et al., 2009). Under these conditions, endosome transport on microtubules is blocked. ORPlL is therefore a cholesterol sensor that regulates a switch between the association of endosomes with either motors or the ER.

MCSs and organelle division

A groundbreaking study revealed a new and unexpected role for MCSs between the ER and mitochondria: the ER regulates mitochondrial fission (Friedman et al., 2011). Although a mechanistic understanding of how ER participates in mitochondrial fission is not yet available, the sequence of events is beginning to come into focus (Fig. 4). The ER encircles mitochondria at sites where scission will occur. The ERMES complex is present at these sites (Murley et al., 2013). Because mammalian cells lack ERMES, another tethering complex must perform the same function in higher eukaryotes. Mitochondrial division requires membrane scission by the dynamin-like protein Dnm1/Drp1, which multimerizes on the outer mitochondria membrane. Close contacts between the ER and mitochondria occur before Dnm1/Drp1 assembly, suggesting that these contacts promote or regulate the association of Dnm1/Drp1 with mitochondria and hence mitochondrial division. It is possible that when the ER encircles mitochondria it causes mitochondria to constrict to a diameter that allows Dnm1/Drp1 to assemble. The force necessary to drive constriction may come from actin polymerization. A recent study found that the ER protein, inverted formin-2, probably drives actin polymerization at these sites and is necessary for mitochondria fusion (Korobova et al., 2013).Open in a separate windowFigure 4.Model of ER-mediated regulation of mitochondrial fission at sites of contact. (A) The ER and mitochondria are tethered by ERMES in yeast (other tethers are used in higher eukaryotes). (B) The ER encircles mitochondria at sites where division will occur. (C) Actin polymerization facilitated by formin 2 may cause mitochondrial constriction. (D) The dynamin-like protein Drp1 is recruited to the mitochondrial surface, where it multimerizes and causes mitochondrial scission. (E) After fission, the ER remains associated with the mitochondrion that retains the ERMES complex.Understanding the assembly and regulation of the mitochondrial division machinery at ER–mitochondria MCSs and how this is linked to mitochondrial and perhaps ER function remain fascinating questions for the future. Another interesting question is whether other MCSs play roles in the fission of other organelles.

Proposed functions of ER–mitochondrial MCSs

A growing number of studies have suggested that ER–mitochondria MCSs play critical roles in autophagy, apoptosis, inflammation, reactive oxygen species signaling, and metabolic signaling. ER–mitochondria MCSs have also been implicated in Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and some viral infections. These topics have been recently reviewed (Eisner et al., 2013; Raturi and Simmen, 2013; Marchi et al., 2014; Vance, 2014) and will not be discussed in detail here.One issue with most of the studies on the functions of ER–mitochondria junctions is that they rely, at least in part, on density gradient purification of the ER that associates with mitochondria. These operationally defined membranes, often called mitochondrial-associated membranes (MAMs), remain poorly defined. In fact, a significant number of proteins that are enriched in MAMs do not seem to be enriched at ER–mitochondria junctions when their localization is determined by other methods (Helle et al., 2013; Vance, 2014). Therefore, it remains unclear why some proteins and lipids are enriched in MAMs.Here, two interesting findings will be discussed that suggest the importance of ER–mitochondrial junctions in signaling in addition to their well-known role in Ca²⁺ signalling.The induction of apoptosis requires signal transmission between the ER and mitochondria. Part of this signaling process occurs through an interaction between the ER protein Bap31 and the mitochondrial fission protein Fission 1 homologue (Fis1; Iwasawa et al., 2011). This interaction occurs at ER–mitochondria MCSs and results in the cleavage of Bap31 by caspase-8 to form p20Bap31, which is pro-apoptotic. Both Bap31 and Fis1 are parts of larger complexes that are still being characterized. Interestingly, it has recently been found that a protein called cell death–involved p53 target-1 (CDIP1) binds to Bap31 during ER stress and promotes apoptotic signaling from the ER to mitochondria (Namba et al., 2013), suggesting how ER stress signals are transmitted from the ER to mitochondria through MCSs.Another important connection between ER–mitochondrial MCSs and signaling has to do with the target of rapamycin (TOR) kinase complexes, which are critical regulators of growth and metabolism. The mammalian TOR complex 2 (mTORC2) was found to interact with the IP3R–Grp75–VDAC complex that tethers the ER and mitochondria (Betz et al., 2013). Remarkably, this study presents evidence that mTORC regulates both the formation of ER–mitochondrial MCSs and mitochondrial function, suggesting an interesting new mechanism for how metabolic signaling can impact mitochondrial function via MCSs.

Conclusions and perspectives

The potential of MCSs to facilitate Ca²⁺ signaling and channel lipids between organelles was recognized some time ago (Levine and Loewen, 2006), but it has only been in the last few years that we have finally begun to have some mechanistic insight into how these processes occur and how MCSs are formed. Many fundamental questions remain to be addressed. How lipid exchange at MCSs that does not require soluble LTPs occurs or whether transient hemifusion of membranes at MCS ever occurs remain open questions. Another is the mechanisms by which Ca²⁺ regulates MCS formation between the ER and other organelles. One major challenge for the field will be devising better methods to visualize MCSs and identify proteins and lipids enriched at these sites. It is particularly important to better understand what the MAM fraction is and what it means for proteins and lipids to be enriched in this fraction.One of the most exciting developments in the study of MCSs in the last few years has been the discovery of the role of MCSs in organelle trafficking, inheritance, and dynamics. These studies have revealed that MCSs not only play critical roles in signaling and metabolism, but also modulate the intracellular distribution of organelles and organelle architecture. Understanding how MCSs perform these functions will probably shed light on the connection between the still murky relationship between organelle structure and function as well as the role of the ER as a regulator of other organelles. Given the current pace of discovery, it seems likely that in the next few years our knowledge of the functions of MCSs will grow dramatically.     

Flexible open conformation of the AP-3 complex explains its role in cargo recruitment at the Golgi

Vesicle formation at endomembranes requires the selective concentration of cargo by coat proteins. Conserved adapter protein complexes at the Golgi (AP-3), the endosome (AP-1), or the plasma membrane (AP-2) with their conserved core domain and flexible ear domains mediate this function. These complexes also rely on the small GTPase Arf1 and/or specific phosphoinositides for membrane binding. The structural details that influence these processes, however, are still poorly understood. Here we present cryo-EM structures of the full-length stable 300 kDa yeast AP-3 complex. The structures reveal that AP-3 adopts an open conformation in solution, comparable to the membrane-bound conformations of AP-1 or AP-2. This open conformation appears to be far more flexible than AP-1 or AP-2, resulting in compact, intermediate, and stretched subconformations. Mass spectrometrical analysis of the cross-linked AP-3 complex further indicates that the ear domains are flexibly attached to the surface of the complex. Using biochemical reconstitution assays, we also show that efficient AP-3 recruitment to the membrane depends primarily on cargo binding. Once bound to cargo, AP-3 clustered and immobilized cargo molecules, as revealed by single-molecule imaging on polymer-supported membranes. We conclude that its flexible open state may enable AP-3 to bind and collect cargo at the Golgi and could thus allow coordinated vesicle formation at the trans-Golgi upon Arf1 activation.

Eukaryotic cells have membrane-enclosed organelles, which carry out specialized functions, including compartmentalized biochemical reactions, metabolic channeling, and regulated signaling, inside a single cell. The transport of proteins, lipids, and other molecules between these organelles is mediated largely by small vesicular carriers that bud off at a donor compartment and fuse with the target membrane to deliver their cargo. The generation of these vesicles has been subject to extensive studies and has led to the identification of numerous coat proteins that are required for their formation at different sites (1, 2). Coat proteins can be monomers, but in most cases, they consist of several proteins, which form a heteromeric complex.Heterotetrameric adapter protein (AP) complexes are required at several endomembranes for cargo binding. Five well-conserved AP-complexes with differing functions have been identified in mammalian cells, named AP-1–AP-5, of which three (AP-1–AP-3) are conserved from yeast to human (3, 4). The three conserved adapter complexes function at different membranes along the endomembrane system. AP-1 is required for cargo transport between the Golgi and the endosome, AP-2 is required for cargo recognition and transport between the plasma membrane and the early endosome. Finally, AP-3 functions between the trans Golgi and the vacuole in yeast, whereas mammalian AP-3 localizes to a tubular endosomal compartment, in addition to or instead of the TGN (2, 5, 6).Each of the complexes consists of four different subunits: two large adaptins (named α−ζ and β1-5 respectively), a medium-sized subunit (μ1-5), and a small subunit (σ1-5). While μ- and σ-subunits together with the N-termini of the large adaptins build the membrane-binding core of the complex, the C-termini of both adaptins contain the ear domains, which are connected via flexible linkers (2). The recruitment of these complexes to membranes is not entirely conserved. They all require cargo binding, yet AP-1 binds Arf1-GTP with the γ and β1 subunit and phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate (PI4P) via a proposed conserved site on its γ-subunit (7, 8). AP-2, on the other hand, interacts with PI(4,5)P₂ at the plasma membrane via its α, β2, and μ2 subunits (9, 10, 11).Several studies have uncovered how AP-3 functions in cargo sorting in yeast. AP-3 recognizes cargo at the Golgi via two sorting motifs in the cytosolic segments of membrane proteins: a Yxxφ sorting motif, as found in yeast in the SNARE Nyv1 or the Yck3 casein kinase, which binds to a site in μ3, as shown for mammalian AP-3, which is similar to μ2 in AP-2 (12, 13, 14), and dileucine motifs as found in the yeast SNARE Vam3 or the alkaline phosphatase Pho8, potentially also at a site comparable to AP-1 and AP-2 (15, 16). Unlike AP-1 and AP-2-coated vesicles, which depend on clathrin for their formation (2, 17), AP-3 vesicle formation in yeast does not require clathrin or the HOPS subunit Vps41 (18), yet Vps41 is required at the vacuole to bind AP-3 vesicles prior to fusion (19, 20, 21, 22). Studies in metazoan cells revealed that Vps41 and AP-3 function in regulated secretion (23, 24, 25), and AP-3 is required for biogenesis of lysosome-related organelles (26). This suggests that the AP-3 complex has features that are quite different from AP-1 and AP-2 complexes, which cooperate with clathrin in vesicle formation (2).Among the three conserved AP complexes, the function of the AP-3 complex is the least understood. Arf1 is necessary for efficient AP-3 vesicle generation in mammalian cells and shows a direct interaction with the β3 and δ subunits of AP-3 (27, 28). In addition, in vitro experiments on mammalian AP-3 using liposomes or enriched Golgi membranes suggest Arf1 as an important factor in AP-3 recruitment, whereas acidic lipids do not have a major effect, in contrast to what was found for AP-1 and AP-2 (7, 11, 29, 30). Another study showed that membrane recruitment of AP-3 depends on the recognition of sorting signals in cargo tails and PI3P (31), similar to AP-1 recruitment via cargo tails, Arf1 and PI4P (32).However, since AP-1 and AP-3 are both recruited to the trans-Golgi network (TGN) in yeast (33), the mechanism of their recruitment likely differs. Even though Arf1 is required, yeast AP-3 seems to be present at the TGN before the arrival of the Arf1 guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) Sec7 (33). This implies the necessity for additional factors at the TGN and a distinct mechanism to allow for spatial and temporal separation of AP-1 and AP-3 recruitment to membranes. Structural data on mammalian AP-1 and AP-2 “core” complexes without the hinge and ear domains of their large subunits revealed that both exist in at least two very defined conformational states: a “closed” cytosolic state, where the cargo-binding sites are buried within the complex, and an “open” state, where the same sites are available to bind cargo (7, 8, 10, 34, 35). Binding of Arf1 to AP-1 or PI(4,5)P₂ in case of AP-2 induces a conformational change in the complexes that enables them to bind cargo molecules carrying a conserved acidic di-Leucine or a Tyrosine-based motif, as for all three AP complexes in yeast (8, 34). Additional conformational states and intermediates have been reported for both, mammalian AP-1 and AP-2 complex. AP-1, for example, can be hijacked by the human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) proteins viral protein u (Vpu) and negative factor (Nef), resulting in a hyper-open conformation of AP-1 (36, 37).An emerging model over the past years has suggested that APs have several binding sites that allow for the stabilization of membrane binding and the open conformation of the complexes, but there are initial interactions required that dictate their recruitment to the target membrane. Although these interaction sites for mammalian AP-1 and AP-2 have been identified in great detail based on interaction analyses and structural studies (8, 10, 11, 35, 36, 38, 39), structural data for AP-3 is largely missing. The C-terminal part of the μ-subunit of mammalian AP-3 has been crystallized together with a Yxxφ motif-containing a cargo peptide, which revealed a similar fold and cargo-binding site as shown for AP-1 and AP-2 (14). However, positively charged binding surfaces required for PIP-interaction were not well conserved. Although the “trunk” segment of AP-1 and AP-2 is known quite well by now, information on hinge and ear domains in context of these complexes is largely missing. Crystal structures of the isolated ear domains of α-, γ- and β2-adaptin have been published (40, 41, 42), and a study on mammalian AP-3 suggested a direct interaction between δ-ear and δ3 that interfered with Arf1-binding (43). Furthermore, during tethering of AP-3 vesicles with the yeast vacuole, the δ−subunit Apl5 of the yeast AP-3 complex binds to the Vps41 subunit of the HOPS complex as a prerequisite of fusion (18, 19, 21, 22).In this study, we applied single particle electron cryo-microscopy (cryo-EM) to analyze the purified full-length AP-3 complex from yeast and unraveled the factors required for AP-3 recruitment to membranes by biochemical reconstitution. Our data reveal that a surprisingly flexible AP-3 complex requires a combination of cargo, PI4P, and Arf1 for membrane binding, which explains its function in selective cargo sorting at the Golgi.     

The activation of G protein-coupled receptor 30 (GPR30) inhibits proliferation of estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer cells in vitro and in vivo

There is an urgent clinical need for safe and effective treatment agents and therapy targets for estrogen receptor negative (ER−) breast cancer. G protein-coupled receptor 30 (GPR30), which mediates non-genomic signaling of estrogen to regulate cell growth, is highly expressed in ER− breast cancer cells. We here showed that activation of GPR30 by the receptor-specific agonist G-1 inhibited the growth of ER− breast cancer cells in vitro. Treatment of ER− breast cancer cells with G-1 resulted in G2/M-phase arrest, downregulation of G2-checkpoint regulator cyclin B, and induction of mitochondrial-related apoptosis. The G-1 treatment increased expression of p53 and its phosphorylation levels at Serine 15, promoted its nuclear translocation, and inhibited its ubiquitylation, which mediated the growth arrest effects on cell proliferation. Further, the G-1 induced sustained activation and nuclear translocation of ERK1/2, which was mediated by GPR30/epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signals, also mediated its inhibition effects of G-1. With extensive use of siRNA-knockdown experiments and inhibitors, we found that upregulation of p21 by the cross-talk of GPR30/EGFR and p53 was also involved in G-1-induced cell growth arrest. In vivo experiments showed that G-1 treatment significantly suppressed the growth of SkBr3 xenograft tumors and increased the survival rate, associated with proliferation suppression and upregulation of p53, p21 while downregulation of cyclin B. The discovery of multiple signal pathways mediated the suppression effects of G-1 makes it a promising candidate drug and lays the foundation for future development of GPR30-based therapies for ER− breast cancer treatment.Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in females worldwide.¹ Clinically, breast cancer is generally classified into estrogen receptor α positive (ER+) or ER-negative (ER−) subtypes.² ER− tumors are often intrinsically more aggressive and of higher grade than ER+ tumors.³ Since lack of the effectiveness of ER-targeted endocrine treatments (tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors), patients with ER− breast cancer have significantly worse prognosis and greater 5-year recurrence rate than that of ER+ breast cancer.⁴ Considering that ER− breast cancer constitutes around 30% of all breast cancers,⁵ there is an urgent need to explore new targeted approaches for its treatment.A seven-transmembrane receptor G protein-coupled receptor 30 (GPR30), which is structurally unrelated to nuclear ER, has been recently shown to mediate rapid non-genomic signals of estrogens. The activation of GPR30 can stimulate adenylyl cyclase, transactivate epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs), induce mobilization of intracellular calcium (Ca²⁺) stores, and activate mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling pathways.^6,7 Previous studies revealed that GPR30 can modulate growth of hormonally responsive cancers such as endometrial,⁸ ovarian,⁹ and breast cancer.¹⁰ Therefore, GPR30 likely has an important role in modulating estrogen responsiveness and development and/or progression of ER− breast cancer. Studies revealed that activation of GPR30 can induce the expression of genes and activate pathways that facilitate cell proliferation of endometrial,^11,12 breast,¹³ and ovarian cancer.¹⁴ On the contrary, numerous studies demonstrated that activation of GPR30 by its specific agonist G-1 results in cell-cycle arrest and proliferation inhibition of ERα-positive breast cancer,¹⁰ endothelial cells,¹⁵ prostate,¹⁶ and ovarian⁹ cancer cells. So it requires further investigation on the function of activating GPR30 and the effect of G-1 on the cancer cells.GPR30 has been reported to be expressed in ER− breast cancer cells and suggested to be an excellent new therapeutic target for the treatment of ER− breast cancer.¹⁷ Confusedly, the only two published papers reported contradictory results: Girgert et al.¹⁸ stated that activation of GPR30 promotes growth of ER− breast cancer cells, while Weissenborn et al.¹⁹ revealed that GPR30 functions as a tumor suppressor of ER− breast cancer cells. Therefore, there is an urgent need to illustrate the effects of GPR30 on the proliferation of ER− breast cancer and its downstream signal mechanisms. In the present study, we demonstrated that activation of GPR30 by G-1 inhibits the proliferation of ER− breast cancer cells both in vitro and in vivo.     

CD300b regulates the phagocytosis of apoptotic cells via phosphatidylserine recognition

The CD300 receptor family members are a group of molecules that modulate a variety of immune cell processes. We show that mouse CD300b (CLM7/LMIR5), expressed on myeloid cells, recognizes outer membrane-exposed phosphatidylserine (PS) and does not, as previously reported, directly recognize TIM1 or TIM4. CD300b accumulates in phagocytic cups along with F-actin at apoptotic cell contacts, thereby facilitating their engulfment. The CD300b-mediated activation signal is conveyed through CD300b association with the adaptor molecule DAP12, and requires a functional DAP12 ITAM motif. Binding of apoptotic cells promotes the activation of the PI3K-Akt kinase pathway in macrophages, while silencing of CD300b expression diminishes PI3K-Akt kinase activation and impairs efferocytosis. Collectively, our data show that CD300b recognizes PS as a ligand, and regulates the phagocytosis of apoptotic cells via the DAP12 signaling pathway.In both developing and mature multicellular organisms, large numbers of apoptotic cells are continually generated and must be cleared by neighboring cells or ‘professional'' phagocytes.^{1, 2, 3, 4} If not properly cleared, they become necrotic, pro-inflammatory and immunogenic, potentially leading to the development of autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematous (SLE).^{5, 6, 7, 8} Therefore, phagocytes possess sensing systems to facilitate the clearance of apoptotic cells.^{1, 2, 3} Once guided to their location by diffusible ‘find me'' signals, phagocytes recognize apoptotic cells through their display of characteristic cell surface molecules (‘eat me'' signals).^{4, 7} The most common signal promoting phagocytosis is the recognition of phosphatidylserine (PS), which when exposed on the outer leaflet of the plasma membrane signals phagocytes to engulf apoptotic cells.² Multiple receptors for PS exist on phagocytic cells, although not necessarily simultaneously; these include stabilins,^{9, 10} T cell Ig mucin (TIM) 1 and TIM4,^{11, 12} BAI1,¹³ MFGE8, which bridges PS to integrin αvβ3,¹⁴ and Protein S and Gas6, which bridge PS to TAM receptors.¹⁵ Recently, we and others demonstrated that the CD300 family members, human and mouse CD300a,^{16, 17} and mouse CD300f,^{18, 19} also bind PS, and their expression regulates apoptotic cell phagocytosis.The CD300 family contains both activating and inhibitory receptor members.²⁰ CD300b has a short intracellular tail and gains activation potential by association with DNAX activating protein of 12 kDa (DAP12) or DAP10 adaptor molecules.²¹ CD300b is predominantly expressed on myeloid cells, including neutrophils, macrophages and mast cells. Antibody cross-linking of human and mouse CD300b has been shown to induce the release of inflammatory cytokines from mast cells.²¹ The ligand for CD300b remains a matter of debate. A recent study found that a soluble form of CD300b, released in response to Toll-like receptor ligation, recognizes unknown ligands on the surface of macrophages, resulting in the release of inflammatory cytokines.²² Others have identified the PS-binding receptors TIM1 and TIM4 as endogenous ligands for CD300b, but not PS itself.²³Here, we show that CD300b binds to PS, and recognizes PS on TIM1 or TIM4 expressing cells rather than TIM1 or TIM4 alone. We found that CD300b promotes PS-dependent apoptotic cell phagocytosis upon ectopic expression in cell lines, without the need for additional PS receptors. In addition, CD300b-mediated phagocytosis requires the association of the adaptor protein DAP12 for effective signaling. Inhibition of CD300b function by either anti-CD300b antibody treatment or siRNA transfection significantly decreases macrophage-dependent phagocytosis of apoptotic cells. Furthermore, CD300b silencing in macrophages severely impairs the apoptotic cell-induced phosphorylation of PI3K, Akt and Syk, but not Erk. Thus, our data show that CD300b is an activating receptor that has an important role in macrophage-mediated clearance of apoptotic cells.     

Activation of volume-sensitive outwardly rectifying chloride channel by ROS contributes to ER stress and cardiac contractile dysfunction: involvement of CHOP through Wnt

Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress occurring in stringent conditions is critically involved in cardiomyocytes apoptosis and cardiac contractile dysfunction (CCD). However, the molecular machinery that mediates cardiac ER stress and subsequent cell death remains to be fully deciphered, which will hopefully provide novel therapeutic targets for these disorders. Here, we establish tunicamycin-induced model of cardiomyocyte ER stress, which effectively mimicks pathological stimuli to trigger CCD. Tunicamycin activates volume-sensitive outward rectifying Cl⁻ currents. Blockade of the volume-sensitive outwardly rectifying (VSOR) Cl⁻ channel by 4,4''-diisothiocya-natostilbene-2,2''-disulfonic acid (DIDS), a non-selective Cl⁻ channel blocker, and 4-(2-butyl-6,7-dichlor-2-cyclopentyl-indan-1-on-5-yl) oxybutyric acid (DCPIB), a selective VSOR Cl⁻ channel blocker, improves cardiac contractility, which correlates with suppressed ER stress through inhibiting the canonical GRP78/eIF2α/ATF4 and XBP1 pathways, and promotes survival of cardiomyocytes by inverting tunicamycin-induced decrease of Wnt through the CHOP pathway. VSOR activation of tunicamycin-treated cardiomyocytes is attributed to increased intracellular levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Our study demonstrates a pivotal role of ROS/VSOR in mediating ER stress and functional impairment of cardiomyocytes via the CHOP-Wnt pathway, and suggests the therapeutic values of VSOR Cl⁻ channel blockers against ER stress-associated cardiac anomalies.The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is characterized as an organelle that participates in the folding of membrane and secretory proteins.^1,2 Efficient functioning of the endoplasmic reticulum is important for cell function and survival. Perturbations of ER homeostasis by energy deprivation and glucose,³ viral infections⁴ and accumulation of misfolded and/or unfolded proteins² interfere with ER function, leading to a state of ER stress.^{5, 6, 7} A cohort of chemicals, for example, tunicamycin and thapsigargin, also trigger ER stress.^{8, 9, 10} Thapsigargin disrupts the calcium storage of ER by blocking calcium reuptake into the ER lumen, thus by depleting calcium from the organelle.¹¹ In particular, tunicamycin is a highly specific ER stress inducer by inhibiting N-linked glycosylation of protein, representing a well-documented method to artificially elicit unfolded protein response.⁸ In response to ER stress, ER chaperones such as glucose-regulated protein 78 kDa (GRP78) and glucose-regulated protein 94 kDa (GRP94) are upregulated to facilitate the recovery of unfolded or misfolded proteins.¹² ER stress may act as a defense mechanism against external insults; however, prolonged and/or severe ER stress may ultimately trigger apoptosis.⁸ The C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP) has been defined as a pivotal mediator of cell death signaling in ER stress.^{13, 14} Accumulating evidence has demonstrated that ER stress-induced cell death is an essential step in the pathogenesis of a wide variety of cardiovascular diseases such as ischemia reperfusion heart diseases,¹⁵ atherosclerosis,^{5, 16, 17, 18} myocardial infarction,¹⁹ hypertension^{20, 21} and heart failure.^{8, 22, 23} Inhibiting ER stress has great therapeutic values for cardiac anomalies. However, the precise mechanism involved in ER stress-induced cardiovascular diseases has not been well identified, which impedes the translation of our understanding of ER stress-induced cardiovascular anomalies into effective therapeutic strategies. Apoptosis induction requires persistent cell shrinkage, named apoptotic volume decrease (AVD).^{24, 25, 26, 27} It is an early prerequisite for the activation of caspases.²⁴ In various types of cells including cardiomyocytes, AVD process is accomplished by the activation of volume-sensitive outwardly rectifying (VSOR) Cl⁻ channel and is concomitant with the egress of water from the cells undergoing mitochondrion-initiated or death receptor-induced apoptosis.^{25, 28, 29, 30} Although inhibition of VSOR Cl⁻ channel by DIDS (4,4''-diisothiocyanatostilbene-2,2''-disulphonic acid) and DCPIB (4-(2-butyl-6,7- dichlor-2-cyclopentyl-indan-1-on-5-yl) oxybutyric acid) blocked AVD and rescued cardiomyocytes from mitochondrial and death receptor pathway-induced apoptosis,^{31, 32} it remains largely unknown concerning the role of VSOR Cl⁻ channel and how it is regulated in ER stress-induced apoptotic cardiomyocyte death.Emerging evidence indicates that Wnt signal pathways are found to be anti-apoptotic in the cardiovascular diseases,^{33, 34, 35} regulating crucial aspects of cardiovascular biology. However, up to now, its activity in ER stress-induced apoptosis and in the process of AVD in cardiomyocytes remains elusive.In the present study, we probed the role of VSOR Cl⁻ channel in ER stress-induced apoptosis of cardiomyocytes, which intimately correlates with cardiac contractile dysfunction (CCD). We hypothesized that VSOR Cl⁻ channel controls the process of AVD occurring concomitantly with ER stress-induced apoptosis of cardiomyocytes. To test this hypothesis, we investigated VSOR Cl⁻ currents in cardiomyocytes treated with the ER stress inducer tunicamycin. The pathophysiological role of VSOR Cl⁻ channel and the potential signaling mechanisms in the development of ER stress-induced apoptosis in CCD were also dissected.     

Phosphorylation of the C Terminus of RHD3 Has a Critical Role in Homotypic ER Membrane Fusion in Arabidopsis

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) consists of dynamically changing tubules and cisternae. In animals and yeast, homotypic ER membrane fusion is mediated by fusogens (atlastin and Sey1p, respectively) that are membrane-associated dynamin-like GTPases. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), another dynamin-like GTPase, ROOT HAIR DEFECTIVE3 (RHD3), has been proposed as an ER membrane fusogen, but direct evidence is lacking. Here, we show that RHD3 has an ER membrane fusion activity that is enhanced by phosphorylation of its C terminus. The ER network was RHD3-dependently reconstituted from the cytosol and microsome fraction of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) cultured cells by exogenously adding GTP, ATP, and F-actin. We next established an in vitro assay system of ER tubule formation with Arabidopsis ER vesicles, in which addition of GTP caused ER sac formation from the ER vesicles. Subsequent application of a shearing force to this system triggered the formation of tubules from the ER sacs in an RHD-dependent manner. Unexpectedly, in the absence of a shearing force, Ser/Thr kinase treatment triggered RHD3-dependent tubule formation. Mass spectrometry showed that RHD3 was phosphorylated at multiple Ser and Thr residues in the C terminus. An antibody against the RHD3 C-terminal peptide abolished kinase-triggered tubule formation. When the Ser cluster was deleted or when the Ser residues were replaced with Ala residues, kinase treatment had no effect on tubule formation. Kinase treatment induced the oligomerization of RHD3. Neither phosphorylation-dependent modulation of membrane fusion nor oligomerization has been reported for atlastin or Sey1p. Taken together, we propose that phosphorylation-stimulated oligomerization of RHD3 enhances ER membrane fusion to form the ER network.In eukaryotic cells, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is the organelle with the largest membrane area. The ER consists of an elaborate network of interconnected membrane tubules and cisternae that is continually moving and being remodeled (Friedman and Voeltz, 2011). In plant cells, ER movement and remodeling is primarily driven by the actin-myosin XI cytoskeleton (Sparkes et al., 2009; Ueda et al., 2010; Yokota et al., 2011; Griffing et al., 2014) and secondarily by the microtubule cytoskeleton (Hamada et al., 2014). Several factors involved in creating the ER architecture have been also identified (Anwar et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2012; Goyal and Blackstone, 2013; Sackmann, 2014; Stefano et al., 2014a; Westrate et al., 2015). Among them, ER membrane-bound GTPases, animal atlastins and yeast Sey1p (Synthetic Enhancement of Yop1), function as ER fusogens to form the interconnected tubular network (Hu et al., 2009; Orso et al., 2009; Anwar et al., 2012). Atlastin molecules on the two opposed membranes have been proposed to transiently dimerize to attract the two membranes to each other (Bian et al., 2011; Byrnes and Sondermann, 2011; Morin-Leisk et al., 2011; Moss et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2012; Byrnes et al., 2013). Closely attracted lipid bilayers are supposed to be destabilized by an amphipathic helical domain at the atlastin C terminus to facilitate membrane fusion (Bian et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2012; Faust et al., 2015). Knockdown of atlastins leads to fragmentation of the ER and unbranched ER tubules, while overexpression of atlastins enhances ER membrane fusion, which enlarges the ER profiles (Hu et al., 2009; Orso et al., 2009).An Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) protein, ROOT HAIR DEFECTIVE3 (RHD3), has been proposed as a fusogen because (1) when it is disrupted, the ER network is modified into large cable-like strands of poorly branched membranes (Zheng et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2011; Stefano et al., 2012), (2) it shares sequence similarity with the above-mentioned fusogen Sey1p (Hu et al., 2009), and (3) it has structural similarity to atlastin and Sey1p, with a functional GTPase domain at the N-terminal cytosolic domain (Stefano et al., 2012) followed by two transmembrane domains and a cytosolic tail. RHD3 has a longer cytosolic C-terminal tail than do atlastin and Sey1p (Stefano and Brandizzi, 2014). It contains not only an amphipathic region but also a Ser/Thr-rich C terminus.Arabidopsis has two RHD3 isoforms called RHD3-Like 1 and RHD3-Like 2. Fluorescently tagged RHD3 and RHD3-Like 2 localize to the ER (Chen et al., 2011; Stefano et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2013). RHD3 and the two RHD3-Like proteins likely have redundant roles in ER membrane fusion (Zhang et al., 2013). Overexpression of either RHD3 or RHD3-Like 2 with a defective GTPase domain phenocopies the aberrant ER morphology in rhd3-deficient mutants (Chen et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2013).In this study, we show that the Ser/Thr-rich C terminus enhances ER membrane fusion following phosphorylation of its C terminus. We propose a model in which phosphorylation and oligomerization of RHD3 is required for efficient ER membrane fusion. Our findings clarify the mechanisms that regulate RHD3 and consequently the homeostasis of membrane fusion in the ER.     

The nuclease activity of DNA2 promotes exonuclease 1–independent mismatch repair

The DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system is a major DNA repair system that corrects DNA replication errors. In eukaryotes, the MMR system functions via mechanisms both dependent on and independent of exonuclease 1 (EXO1), an enzyme that has multiple roles in DNA metabolism. Although the mechanism of EXO1-dependent MMR is well understood, less is known about EXO1-independent MMR. Here, we provide genetic and biochemical evidence that the DNA2 nuclease/helicase has a role in EXO1-independent MMR. Biochemical reactions reconstituted with purified human proteins demonstrated that the nuclease activity of DNA2 promotes an EXO1-independent MMR reaction via a mismatch excision-independent mechanism that involves DNA polymerase δ. We show that DNA polymerase ε is not able to replace DNA polymerase δ in the DNA2-promoted MMR reaction. Unlike its nuclease activity, the helicase activity of DNA2 is dispensable for the ability of the protein to enhance the MMR reaction. Further examination established that DNA2 acts in the EXO1-independent MMR reaction by increasing the strand-displacement activity of DNA polymerase δ. These data reveal a mechanism for EXO1-independent mismatch repair.

The mismatch repair (MMR) system has been conserved from bacteria to humans (1, 2). It promotes genome stability by suppressing spontaneous and DNA damage-induced mutations (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). The key function of the MMR system is the correction of DNA replication errors that escape the proofreading activities of replicative DNA polymerases (1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12). In addition, the MMR system removes mismatches formed during strand exchange in homologous recombination, suppresses homeologous recombination, initiates apoptosis in response to irreparable DNA damage caused by several anticancer drugs, and contributes to instability of triplet repeats and alternative DNA structures (1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18). The principal components of the eukaryotic MMR system are MutSα (MSH2-MSH6 heterodimer), MutLα (MLH1-PMS2 heterodimer in humans and Mlh1-Pms1 heterodimer in yeast), MutSβ (MSH2-MSH3 heterodimer), proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), replication factor C (RFC), exonuclease 1 (EXO1), RPA, and DNA polymerase δ (Pol δ). Loss-of-function mutations in the MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2 genes of the human MMR system cause Lynch and Turcot syndromes, and hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter is responsible for ∼15% of sporadic cancers in several organs (19, 20). MMR deficiency leads to cancer initiation and progression via a multistage process that involves the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes and action of oncogenes (21).MMR occurs behind the replication fork (22, 23) and is a major determinant of the replication fidelity (24). The correction of DNA replication errors by the MMR system increases the replication fidelity by ∼100 fold (25). Strand breaks in leading and lagging strands as well as ribonucleotides in leading strands serve as signals that direct the eukaryotic MMR system to remove DNA replication errors (26, 27, 28, 29, 30). MMR is more efficient on the lagging than the leading strand (31). The substrates for MMR are all six base–base mismatches and 1 to 13-nt insertion/deletion loops (25, 32, 33, 34). Eukaryotic MMR commences with recognition of the mismatch by MutSα or MutSβ (32, 34, 35, 36). MutSα is the primary mismatch-recognition factor that recognizes both base–base mismatches and small insertion/deletion loops whereas MutSβ recognizes small insertion/deletion loops (32, 34, 35, 36, 37). After recognizing the mismatch, MutSα or MutSβ cooperates with RFC-loaded PCNA to activate MutLα endonuclease (38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43). The activated MutLα endonuclease incises the discontinuous daughter strand 5′ and 3′ to the mismatch. A 5'' strand break formed by MutLα endonuclease is utilized by EXO1 to enter the DNA and excise a discontinuous strand portion encompassing the mismatch in a 5''→3′ excision reaction stimulated by MutSα/MutSβ (38, 44, 45). The generated gap is filled in by the Pol δ holoenzyme, and the nick is ligated by a DNA ligase (44, 46, 47). DNA polymerase ε (Pol ε) can substitute for Pol δ in the EXO1-dependent MMR reaction, but its activity in this reaction is much lower than that of Pol δ (48). Although MutLα endonuclease is essential for MMR in vivo, 5′ nick-dependent MMR reactions reconstituted in the presence of EXO1 are MutLα-independent (44, 47, 49).EXO1 deficiency in humans does not seem to cause significant cancer predisposition (19). Nevertheless, it is known that Exo1^-/- mice are susceptible to the development of lymphomas (50). Genetic studies in yeast and mice demonstrated that EXO1 inactivation causes only a modest defect in MMR (50, 51, 52, 53). In agreement with these genetic studies, a defined human EXO1-independent MMR reaction that depends on the strand-displacement DNA synthesis activity of Pol δ holoenzyme to remove the mismatch was reconstituted (54). Furthermore, an EXO1-independent MMR reaction that occurred in a mammalian cell extract system without the formation of a gapped excision intermediate was observed (54). Together, these findings implicated the strand-displacement activity of Pol δ holoenzyme in EXO1-independent MMR.In this study, we investigated DNA2 in the context of MMR. DNA2 is an essential multifunctional protein that has nuclease, ATPase, and 5''→3′ helicase activities (55, 56, 57). Previous research ascertained that DNA2 removes long flaps during Okazaki fragment maturation (58, 59, 60), participates in the resection step of double-strand break repair (61, 62, 63), initiates the replication checkpoint (64), and suppresses the expansions of GAA repeats (65). We have found in vivo and in vitro evidence that DNA2 promotes EXO1-independent MMR. Our data have indicated that the nuclease activity of DNA2 enhances the strand-displacement activity of Pol δ holoenzyme in an EXO1-independent MMR reaction.     

Distinct roles of RIP1–RIP3 hetero- and RIP3–RIP3 homo-interaction in mediating necroptosis

Necroptosis is mediated by a signaling complex called necrosome, containing receptor-interacting protein (RIP)1, RIP3, and mixed-lineage kinase domain-like (MLKL). It is known that RIP1 and RIP3 form heterodimeric filamentous scaffold in necrosomes through their RIP homotypic interaction motif (RHIM) domain-mediated oligomerization, but the signaling events based on this scaffold has not been fully addressed. By using inducible dimer systems we found that RIP1–RIP1 interaction is dispensable for necroptosis; RIP1–RIP3 interaction is required for necroptosis signaling, but there is no necroptosis if no additional RIP3 protein is recruited to the RIP1–RIP3 heterodimer, and the interaction with RIP1 promotes the RIP3 to recruit other RIP3; RIP3–RIP3 interaction is required for necroptosis and RIP3–RIP3 dimerization is sufficient to induce necroptosis; and RIP3 dimer-induced necroptosis requires MLKL. We further show that RIP3 oligomer is not more potent than RIP3 dimer in triggering necroptosis, suggesting that RIP3 homo-interaction in the complex, rather than whether RIP3 has formed homo polymer, is important for necroptosis. RIP3 dimerization leads to RIP3 intramolecule autophosphorylation, which is required for the recruitment of MLKL. Interestingly, phosphorylation of one of RIP3 in the dimer is sufficient to induce necroptosis. As RIP1–RIP3 heterodimer itself cannot induce necroptosis, the RIP1–RIP3 heterodimeric amyloid fibril is unlikely to directly propagate necroptosis. We propose that the signaling events after the RIP1–RIP3 amyloid complex assembly are the recruitment of free RIP3 by the RIP3 in the amyloid scaffold followed by autophosphorylation of RIP3 and subsequent recruitment of MLKL by RIP3 to execute necroptosis.Necroptosis is a type of programmed necrosis characterized by necrotic morphological changes, including cellular organelle swelling, cell membrane rupture,^{1, 2, 3} and dependence of receptor-interacting protein (RIP)1⁴ and RIP3.^{5, 6, 7} Physiological function of necroptosis has been illustrated in host defense,^{8, 9, 10, 11} inflammation,^{12, 13, 14, 15, 16} tissue injury,^{10, 17, 18} and development.^{19, 20, 21}Necroptosis can be induced by a number of different extracellular stimuli such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF). TNF stimulation leads to formation of TNF receptor 1 (TNFR1) signaling complex (named complex I), and complex II containing RIP1, TRADD, FAS-associated protein with a death domain (FADD), and caspase-8, of which the activation initiates apoptosis. If cells have high level of RIP3, RIP1 recruits RIP3 to form necrosome containing FADD,^{22, 23, 24} caspase-8, RIP1, and RIP3, and the cells undergo necroptosis.^{25, 26} Caspase-8 and FADD negatively regulates necroptosis,^{27, 28, 29, 30} because RIP1, RIP3, and CYLD are potential substrates of caspase-8.^{31, 32, 33, 34} Necrosome also suppresses apoptosis but the underlying mechanism has not been described yet. Mixed-lineage kinase domain-like (MLKL) is downstream of RIP3,^{35, 36} and phosphorylation of MLKL is required for necroptosis.^{37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42}Apoptosis inducing complex (complex II) and necrosome are both supramolecular complexes.^{43, 44, 45} A recent study showed that RIP1 and RIP3 form amyloidal fibrils through their RIP homotypic interaction motif⁴⁶ (RHIM)-mediated polymerization, and suggested that amyloidal structure is essential for necroptosis signaling.⁴⁷ The RIP1–RIP3 heterodimeric amyloid complex is believed to function as a scaffold that brings signaling proteins into proximity to permit their activation. However, RIP1 and RIP3 also can each form fibrils on their own RHIM domains in vitro. It is unclear how the homo- and hetero-interactions are coordinated and organized on the amyloid scaffold to execute their functions in necroptosis. Here, we used inducible dimerization systems to study the roles of RIP1–RIP1, RIP1–RIP3, and RIP3–RIP3 interactions in necroptosis signaling. Our data suggested that it is the RIP1–RIP3 interaction in the RIP1–RIP3 heterodimeric amyloid complex that empowers to recruit other free RIP3; homodimerization of RIP3 triggers its autophosphorylation and only the phosphorylated RIP3 can recruit MLKL to execute necroptosis.     

The endogenous caspase-8 inhibitor c-FLIPL regulates ER morphology and crosstalk with mitochondria

Components of the death receptor-mediated pathways like caspase-8 have been identified in complexes at intracellular membranes to spatially restrict the processing of local targets. In this study, we report that the long isoform of the cellular FLICE-inhibitory protein (c-FLIP_L), a well-known inhibitor of the extrinsic cell death initiator caspase-8, localizes at the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and mitochondria-associated membranes (MAMs). ER morphology was disrupted and ER Ca²⁺-release as well as ER-mitochondria tethering was decreased in c-FLIP^−/− mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs). Mechanistically, c-FLIP ablation resulted in enhanced basal caspase-8 activation and in caspase-mediated processing of the ER-shaping protein reticulon-4 (RTN4) that was corrected by re-introduction of c-FLIP_L and caspase inhibition, resulting in the recovery of a normal ER morphology and ER-mitochondria juxtaposition. Thus, the caspase-8 inhibitor c-FLIP_L emerges as a component of the MAMs signaling platforms, where caspases appear to regulate ER morphology and ER-mitochondria crosstalk by impinging on ER-shaping proteins like the RTN4.Cellular FLICE inhibitory proteins (c-FLIP) inhibit death receptor (DR)-mediated apoptosis, by preventing caspase-8 activation.¹ Among the three identified c-FLIP splicing forms,^{2, 3} c-FLIP_S,R were described as cytosolic, whereas c-FLIP_L was also observed in the nucleus. A pool of membrane-bound c-FLIP_L was also described⁴ suggesting that caspase-8/c-FLIP_L could re-distribute on stimulation, leading to a more subtle regulation of caspase-8 activity depending on substrates localization.⁵ Furthermore, caspase-8 itself and Fas-Associated Death Domain adaptor protein (FADD) were found or were shown to re-loca5lize in local complexes on ER^{6, 7, 8} and mitochondria,^{9, 10} mediating the exchange of signals between the two organelles.^{11, 12, 13} Several molecular platforms containing both membrane-bound proteins and cytosolic apoptosis modulators have been identified at the ER-mitochondria interface (the so-called mitochondria-associated membranes or MAMs),¹⁴ controlling ER-mitochondria anchorage as well as lipid metabolism, Ca²⁺ signaling and apoptosis.¹⁵ MAMs have been recently described as lipid raft-like domains that orient proteins to promote the ER-mitochondria juxtaposition;¹⁶ consequently, alterations in their composition may profoundly affect the physical and functional inter-organelle crosstalk. Furthermore, as mitochondrial and ER membranes are continuously and concertedly remodeled,¹⁷ it is not surprising that membrane-shaping proteins can also exert a function in regulating the ER-mitochondria coupling.^{12, 18} Different families of ER-shaping proteins control the organization of peripheral ER, which consists of sheet-like cisternae and tubules connected by three-way junctions.¹⁹ Among these, Reticulons (RTN) and Deleted in Polyposis locus 1 (DP1) proteins cause the ER membrane to curve and tubulate,^{20, 21} whereas the GTPases Atlastins (ATL) promote the branching of ER tubules;²² finally, ER sheet-enriched proteins such as the 63-kDa cytoskeleton-linking membrane protein (CLIMP63) control the width of ER cisternae, anchoring the organelle to microtubules and maintaining its spatial distribution.^{23, 24} Along with other components of the extrinsic apoptosis, here we described for the first time the enrichment of c-FLIP_L at ER and ER-mitochondria interface. Furthermore, we observed that ER structure and tethering to mitochondria are impaired in cells lacking c-FLIP. Given the importance of membrane-shaping proteins and MAM complexes in regulating organelles structure and ER-mitochondria juxtaposition, we focused on the mechanism underlying this phenotype and we found that c-FLIP_L deficiency induces the caspase-mediated processing of RTN4, thus affecting organelle shape and coupling to mitochondria. We therefore concluded that c-FLIP_L is a novel regulator of ER morphology and ER-mitochondria crosstalk.     

Protein kinase D1/2 is involved in the maturation of multivesicular bodies and secretion of exosomes in T and B lymphocytes

Multivesicular bodies (MVBs) are endocytic compartments that enclose intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) formed by inward budding from the limiting membrane of endosomes. In T lymphocytes, these ILV contain Fas ligand (FasL) and are secreted as ''lethal exosomes'' following activation-induced fusion of the MVB with the plasma membrane. Diacylglycerol (DAG) and diacylglycerol kinase α (DGKα) regulate MVB maturation and polarized traffic, as well as subsequent secretion of pro-apoptotic exosomes, but the molecular basis underlying these phenomena remains unclear. Here we identify protein kinase D (PKD) family members as DAG effectors involved in MVB genesis and secretion. We show that the inducible secretion of exosomes is enhanced when a constitutively active PKD1 mutant is expressed in T lymphocytes, whereas exosome secretion is impaired in PKD2-deficient mouse T lymphoblasts and in PKD1/3-null B cells. Analysis of PKD2-deficient T lymphoblasts showed the presence of large, immature MVB-like vesicles and demonstrated defects in cytotoxic activity and in activation-induced cell death. Using pharmacological and genetic tools, we show that DGKα regulates PKD1/2 subcellular localization and activation. Our studies demonstrate that PKD1/2 is a key regulator of MVB maturation and exosome secretion, and constitutes a mediator of the DGKα effect on MVB secretory traffic.Exosomes are nanovesicles that form as intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) inside multivesicular bodies (MVBs) and are then secreted by numerous cell types.¹ ILVs are generated by inward budding of late endosome limiting membrane in a precisely regulated maturation process.^{2, 3} Two main pathways are involved in MVB maturation.^{4, 5} In addition to the ESCRT (endosomal complex required for traffic) proteins,⁶ there is increasing evidence that lipids such as lyso-bisphosphatidic acid (LBPA),⁷ ceramides⁸ and diacylglycerol (DAG)⁹ contribute to this membrane invagination process.Exosomes participate in many biological processes related to T-cell receptor (TCR)-triggered immune responses, including T lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity and activation-induced cell death (AICD), antigen presentation and intercellular miRNA exchange.^{10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15} The discovery of exosome involvement in these responses increased interest in the regulation of exosome biogenesis and secretory traffic, with special attention to the contribution of lipids such as ceramide and DAG, as well as DAG-binding proteins.^{14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21} These studies suggest that positive and negative DAG regulators may control secretory traffic. By transforming DAG into phosphatidic acid (PA), diacylglycerol kinase α (DGKα) is essential for the negative control of DAG function in T lymphocytes.²² DGKα translocates transiently to the T-cell membrane after human muscarinic type 1 receptor (HM1R) triggering or to the immune synapse (IS) after TCR stimulation; at these subcellular locations, DGKα acts as a negative modulator of phospholipase C (PLC)-generated DAG.^{23, 24}The secretory vesicle pathway involves several DAG-controlled checkpoints at which DGKα may act; these include vesicle formation and fission at the trans-Golgi network (TGN), MVB maturation, as well as their transport, docking and fusion to the plasma membrane.^{9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20} The molecular components that regulate some of these trafficking processes include protein kinase D (PKD) family members.²¹ PKD1 activity, for instance, regulates fission of transport vesicles from TGN via direct interaction with the pre-existing DAG pool at this site.¹⁹ The cytosolic serine/threonine kinases PKD1, PKD2 and PKD3^{(ref. 21)} are expressed in a wide range of cells, with PKD2 the most abundant isotype in T lymphocytes.^{25, 26} PKD have two DAG-binding domains (C1a and C1b) at the N terminus,²¹ which mediate PKD recruitment to cell membranes. Protein kinase C (PKC) phosphorylation at the PKD activation loop further promotes PKD autophosphorylation and activation.²⁷Based on our previous studies showing DGKα regulation of DAG in MVB formation and exosome secretion,^{9, 14, 28} and the identification of PKD1/2 association to MVB,¹⁴ we hypothesized that DGKα control of DAG mediates these events, at least in part, through PKD. Here we explored whether, in addition to its role in vesicle fission from TGN,¹⁹ PKD regulates other steps in the DAG-controlled secretory traffic pathway. Using PKD-deficient cell models, we analyzed the role of PKD1/2 in MVB formation and function, and demonstrate their implication in exosome secretory traffic.     

Concerted actions of DnaA complexes with DNA-unwinding sequences within and flanking replication origin oriC promote DnaB helicase loading

Unwinding of the replication origin and loading of DNA helicases underlie the initiation of chromosomal replication. In Escherichia coli, the minimal origin oriC contains a duplex unwinding element (DUE) region and three (Left, Middle, and Right) regions that bind the initiator protein DnaA. The Left/Right regions bear a set of DnaA-binding sequences, constituting the Left/Right-DnaA subcomplexes, while the Middle region has a single DnaA-binding site, which stimulates formation of the Left/Right-DnaA subcomplexes. In addition, a DUE-flanking AT-cluster element (TATTAAAAAGAA) is located just outside of the minimal oriC region. The Left-DnaA subcomplex promotes unwinding of the flanking DUE exposing TT[A/G]T(T) sequences that then bind to the Left-DnaA subcomplex, stabilizing the unwound state required for DnaB helicase loading. However, the role of the Right-DnaA subcomplex is largely unclear. Here, we show that DUE unwinding by both the Left/Right-DnaA subcomplexes, but not the Left-DnaA subcomplex only, was stimulated by a DUE-terminal subregion flanking the AT-cluster. Consistently, we found the Right-DnaA subcomplex–bound single-stranded DUE and AT-cluster regions. In addition, the Left/Right-DnaA subcomplexes bound DnaB helicase independently. For only the Left-DnaA subcomplex, we show the AT-cluster was crucial for DnaB loading. The role of unwound DNA binding of the Right-DnaA subcomplex was further supported by in vivo data. Taken together, we propose a model in which the Right-DnaA subcomplex dynamically interacts with the unwound DUE, assisting in DUE unwinding and efficient loading of DnaB helicases, while in the absence of the Right-DnaA subcomplex, the AT-cluster assists in those processes, supporting robustness of replication initiation.

The initiation of bacterial DNA replication requires local duplex unwinding of the chromosomal replication origin oriC, which is regulated by highly ordered initiation complexes. In Escherichia coli, the initiation complex contains oriC, the ATP-bound form of the DnaA initiator protein (ATP–DnaA), and the DNA-bending protein IHF (Fig. 1, A and B), which promotes local unwinding of oriC (1, 2, 3, 4). Upon this oriC unwinding, two hexamers of DnaB helicases are bidirectionally loaded onto the resultant single-stranded (ss) region with the help of the DnaC helicase loader (Fig. 1B), leading to bidirectional chromosomal replication (5, 6, 7, 8). However, the fundamental mechanism underlying oriC-dependent bidirectional DnaB loading remains elusive.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic structures of oriC, DnaA, and the initiation complexes. A, the overall structure of oriC. The minimal oriC region and the AT-cluster region are indicated. The sequence of the AT-cluster−DUE (duplex-unwinding element) region is also shown below. The DUE region (DUE; pale orange bars) contains three 13-mer repeats: L-DUE, M-DUE, and R-DUE. DnaA-binding motifs in M/R-DUE, TT(A/G)T(T), are indicated by red characters. The AT-cluster region (AT cluster; brown bars) is flanked by DUE outside of the minimal oriC. The DnaA-oligomerization region (DOR) consists of three subregions called Left-, Middle-, and Right-DOR. B, model for replication initiation. DnaA is shown as light brown (for domain I–III) and darkbrown (for domain IV) polygons (right panel). ATP–DnaA forms head-to-tail oligomers on the Left- and Right-DORs (left panel). The Middle-DOR (R2 box)-bound DnaA interacts with DnaA bound to the Left/Right-DORs using domain I, but not domain III, stimulating DnaA assembly. IHF, shown as purple hexagons, bends DNA >160° and supports DUE unwinding by the DnaA complexes. M/R-DUE regions are efficiently unwound. Unwound DUE is recruited to the Left-DnaA subcomplex and mainly binds to R1/R5M-bound DnaA molecules. The sites of ssDUE-binding B/H-motifs V211 and R245 of R1/R5M-bound DnaA molecules are indicated (pink). Two DnaB homohexamer helicases (light green) are recruited and loaded onto the ssDUE regions with the help of the DnaC helicase loader (cyan). ss, single stranded.The minimal oriC region consists of the duplex unwinding element (DUE) and the DnaA oligomerization region (DOR), which contains specific arrays of 9-mer DnaA-binding sites (DnaA boxes) with the consensus sequence TTA[T/A]NCACA (Fig. 1A) (3, 4). The DUE underlies the local unwinding and contains 13-mer AT-rich sequence repeats named L-, M-, and R-DUE (9). The M/R-DUE region includes TT[A/G]T(A) sequences with specific affinity for DnaA (10). In addition, a DUE-flanking AT-cluster (TATTAAAAAGAA) region resides just outside of the minimal oriC (Fig. 1A) (11). The DOR is divided into three subregions, the Left-, Middle-, and Right-DORs, where DnaA forms structurally distinct subcomplexes (Fig. 1A) (8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). The Left-DOR contains high-affinity DnaA box R1, low-affinity boxes R5M, τ1−2, and I1-2, and an IHF-binding region (17, 18, 19, 20). The τ1 and IHF-binding regions partly overlap (17).In the presence of IHF, ATP–DnaA molecules cooperatively bind to R1, R5M, τ2, and I1-2 boxes in the Left-DOR, generating the Left-DnaA subcomplex (Fig. 1B) (8, 17). Along with IHF causing sharp DNA bending, the Left-DnaA subcomplex plays a leading role in DUE unwinding and subsequent DnaB loading. The Middle-DOR contains moderate-affinity DnaA box R2. Binding of DnaA to this box stimulates DnaA assembly in the Left- and Right-DORs using interaction by DnaA N-terminal domain (Fig. 1B; also see below) (8, 12, 14, 16, 21). The Right-DOR contains five boxes (C3-R4 boxes) and cooperative binding of ATP–DnaA molecules to these generates the Right-DnaA subcomplex (Fig. 1B) (12, 18). This subcomplex is not essential for DUE unwinding and plays a supportive role in DnaB loading (8, 15, 17). The Left-DnaA subcomplex interacts with DnaB helicase, and the Right-DnaA subcomplex has been suggested to play a similar role (Fig. 1B) (8, 13, 16).In the presence of ATP–DnaA, M- and R-DUE adjacent to the Left-DOR are predominant sites for in vitro DUE unwinding: unwinding of L-DUE is less efficient than unwinding of the other two (Fig. 1B) (9, 22, 23). Deletion of L-DUE or the whole DUE inhibits replication of oriC in vitro moderately or completely, respectively (23). A chromosomal oriC Δ(AT-cluster−L-DUE) mutant with an intact DOR, as well as deletion of Right-DOR, exhibits limited inhibition of replication initiation, whereas the synthetic mutant combining the two deletions exhibits severe inhibition of cell growth (24). These studies suggest that AT-cluster−L-DUE regions stimulate replication initiation in a manner concerted with Right-DOR, although the underlying mechanisms remain elusive.DnaA consists of four functional domains (Fig. 1B) (4, 25). Domain I supports weak domain I–domain I interaction and serves as a hub for interaction with various proteins such as DnaB helicase and DiaA, which stimulates ATP–DnaA assembly at oriC (26, 27, 28, 29, 30). Two or three domain I molecules of the oriC–DnaA subcomplex bind a single DnaB hexamer, forming a stable higher-order complex (7). Domain II is a flexible linker (28, 31). Domain III contains AAA+ (ATPase associated with various cellular activities) motifs essential for ATP/ADP binding, ATP hydrolysis, and DnaA–DnaA interactions in addition to specific sites for ssDUE binding and a second, weak interaction with DnaB helicase (1, 4, 8, 10, 19, 25, 32, 33, 34, 35). Domain IV bears a helix-turn-helix motif with specific affinity for the DnaA box (36).As in typical AAA+ proteins, a head-to-tail interaction underlies formation of ATP–DnaA pentamers on the DOR, where the AAA+ arginine-finger motif Arg285 recognizes ATP bound to the adjacent DnaA protomer, promoting cooperative ATP–DnaA binding (Fig. 1B) (19, 32). DnaA ssDUE-binding H/B-motifs (Val211 and Arg245) in domain III sustain stable unwinding by directly binding to the T-rich (upper) strand sequences TT[A/G]T(A) within the unwound M/R-DUE (Fig. 1B) (8, 10). Val211 residue is included in the initiator-specific motif of the AAA+ protein family (10). For DUE unwinding, ssDUE is recruited to the Left-DnaA subcomplex via DNA bending by IHF and directly interacts with H/B-motifs of DnaA assembled on Left-DOR, resulting in stable DUE unwinding competent for DnaB helicase loading; in particular, DnaA protomers bound to R1 and R5M boxes play a crucial role in the interaction with M/R-ssDUE (Fig. 1B) (8, 10, 17). Collectively, these mechanisms are termed ssDUE recruitment (4, 17, 37).Two DnaB helicases are thought to be loaded onto the upper and lower strands of the region including the AT-cluster and DUE, with the aid of interactions with DnaC and DnaA (Fig. 1B) (25, 38, 39). DnaC binding modulates the closed ring structure of DnaB hexamer into an open spiral form for entry of ssDNA (40, 41, 42, 43). Upon ssDUE loading of DnaB, DnaC is released from DnaB in a manner stimulated by interactions with ssDNA and DnaG primase (44, 45). Also, the Left- and Right-DnaA subcomplexes, which are oriented opposite to each other, could regulate bidirectional loading of DnaB helicases onto the ssDUE (Fig. 1B) (7, 8, 35). Similarly, recent works suggest that the origin complex structure is bidirectionally organized in both archaea and eukaryotes (1, 46). In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, two origin recognition complexes containing AAA+ proteins bind to the replication origin region in opposite orientations; this, in turn, results in efficient loading of two replicative helicases, leading to head-to-head interactions in vitro (46). Consistent with this, origin recognition complex dimerization occurs in the origin region during the late M-G1 phase (47). The fundamental mechanism of bidirectional origin complexes might be widely conserved among species.In this study, we analyzed various mutants of oriC and DnaA in reconstituted systems to reveal the regulatory mechanisms underlying DUE unwinding and DnaB loading. The Right-DnaA subcomplex assisted in the unwinding of oriC, dependent upon an interaction with L-DUE, which is important for efficient loading of DnaB helicases. The AT-cluster region adjacent to the DUE promoted loading of DnaB helicase in the absence of the Right-DnaA subcomplex. Consistently, the ssDNA-binding activity of the Right-DnaA subcomplex sustained timely initiation of growing cells. These results indicate that DUE unwinding and efficient loading of DnaB helicases are sustained by concerted actions of the Left- and Right-DnaA subcomplexes. In addition, loading of DnaB helicases are sustained by multiple mechanisms that ensure robust replication initiation, although the complete mechanisms are required for precise timing of initiation during the cell cycle.     

Oncogenic BRAF induces chronic ER stress condition resulting in increased basal autophagy and apoptotic resistance of cutaneous melanoma

The notorious unresponsiveness of metastatic cutaneous melanoma to current treatment strategies coupled with its increasing incidence constitutes a serious worldwide clinical problem. Moreover, despite recent advances in targeted therapies for patients with BRAF^V600E mutant melanomas, acquired resistance remains a limiting factor and hence emphasises the acute need for comprehensive pre-clinical studies to increase the biological understanding of such tumours in order to develop novel effective and longlasting therapeutic strategies. Autophagy and ER stress both have a role in melanoma development/progression and chemoresistance although their real impact is still unclear. Here, we show that BRAF^V600E induces a chronic ER stress status directly increasing basal cell autophagy. BRAF^V600E-mediated p38 activation stimulates both the IRE1/ASK1/JNK and TRB3 pathways. Bcl-XL/Bcl-2 phosphorylation by active JNK releases Beclin1 whereas TRB3 inhibits the Akt/mTor axes, together resulting in an increase in basal autophagy. Furthermore, we demonstrate chemical chaperones relieve the BRAF^V600E-mediated chronic ER stress status, consequently reducing basal autophagic activity and increasing the sensitivity of melanoma cells to apoptosis. Taken together, these results suggest enhanced basal autophagy, typically observed in BRAF^V600E melanomas, is a consequence of a chronic ER stress status, which ultimately results in the chemoresistance of such tumours. Targeted therapies that attenuate ER stress may therefore represent a novel and more effective therapeutic strategy for BRAF mutant melanoma.Cutaneous melanoma represents one of the most aggressive and difficult to treat forms of human cancer, with a worldwide incidence that has steadily increased over the past 40 years.^{1, 2}Notoriously unresponsive to conventional chemotherapy, metastatic disease is highly invasive and evolves with an extensive repertoire of molecular defences against immunological and cytotoxic attack.³Although linked to exposure to ultraviolet light, it is widely accepted that both genotypic and phenotypic changes in melanocytes predispose to melanocyte transformation and the onset of melanoma.^{4, 5}Surprisingly, p53 mutations are very rare in melanoma, but activity is, however, impaired through direct or indirect inactivation of key elements of this pathway, including through the suppression of APAF-1 expression,⁶ loss of PTEN function,⁷ dysregulation of Bcl-2 expression,⁸ upregulation of the anti-apoptotic protein Mcl-1 together with its altered slice variant expression ^{9, 10} and the ER chaperone GRP78.^{11, 12, 13} Oncogenic mutations, however, in the Ras/Raf pathway are the most well-described genetic mutations associated with melanoma development and progression.¹⁴ Indeed, up to 90% of all melanomas harbour activating NRAS or BRAF mutations, with BRAF^V600E representing more than 90% of BRAF mutations,^{15, 16} the consequence of which is the constitutive activation of RAF-extracellular signal-regulated kinase/ERK signalling promoting melanoma proliferation and resistance to apoptosis.¹⁷ Nevertheless, mutation of NRAS/BRAF alone is not sufficient to initiate melanomagenesis, because these common mutations are also present in benign nevi, thereby highlighting the requirement of other factors to drive melanocyte transformation and melanoma development.^{15, 16} Dysregulation of autophagy has accordingly been postulated as a secondary event contributing to melanoma progression and, importantly, also has a key role in chemoresistance.^{18, 19, 20}Autophagy is the principal catabolic process for the bulk degradation and recycling of aged/damaged cellular components, organelles and proteins through the formation of a double-membraned cytosolic vesicle able to wrap targeted material. The subsequent fusion with lysosomes and degradation of cargo provide nutrients in times of environmental stress, such as nutrient deprivation or hypoxia.²¹ Though essential for the maintenance of cellular homeostasis under conditions of nutrient deprivation, paradoxically, autophagy promotes both tumour suppression and tumour development.²² Although the accumulation of damaged organelles/cytosolic proteins may lead to cellular transformation, autophagy may also sustain tumour growth in a microenvironment which is commonly poor of oxygen and nutrients.²² Thus, not surprisingly, autophagy activation is frequently observed in late-stage malignancy although the molecular mechanisms mediating its activation/regain of function remain unclear.ER stress may also constitute a key secondary event in melanoma development.²³ Primarily a cytoprotective pro-survival process, ER stress is activated as a result of accumulated unfolded proteins, protein overload or depletion of ER calcium stores and mediated through the activity of the master ER chaperone Grp78 and three signalling pathways; PERK/eIF2α/ATF4, IRE-1/Xbp-1 and ATF6 which collectively maintain ER homeostasis through the instigation of an unfolded protein response (UPR)²⁴ or sustained ER stress may lead to the induction of apoptosis.^{25, 26} Increasing evidence indicates that nutrient deprivation and hypoxia lead to activation of the UPR in various solid tumours, frequently correlating with resistance to chemotherapy.²⁷ The accepted hypothesis is thus that activation of the UPR in cancer cells enables their adaption to such ER stress resulting in the resistance to apoptosis through the persistent expression of pro-survival instead of pro-apoptotic proteins.²⁸Although under stress conditions, autophagy and ER stress seem to act in parallel, indeed they are closely related, because one can regulate the other and vice versa. In fact, ER stress is able to promptly stimulate autophagy,²⁶ whereas autophagy selectively removes the membranes of the endoplasmic reticulum at the end of the UPR, although the molecular mechanisms are still largely unclear.²⁹In the present study, we investigated the link between oncogenic BRAF^V600E and increased basal autophagy in melanoma cells, highlighting the pivotal role played by ER stress, possibly responsible for tumour growth and chemoresistance.     

The Fcp1-Wee1-Cdk1 axis affects spindle assembly checkpoint robustness and sensitivity to antimicrotubule cancer drugs

To grant faithful chromosome segregation, the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) delays mitosis exit until mitotic spindle assembly. An exceedingly prolonged mitosis, however, promotes cell death and by this means antimicrotubule cancer drugs (AMCDs), that impair spindle assembly, are believed to kill cancer cells. Despite malformed spindles, cancer cells can, however, slip through SAC, exit mitosis prematurely and resist killing. We show here that the Fcp1 phosphatase and Wee1, the cyclin B-dependent kinase (cdk) 1 inhibitory kinase, play a role for this slippage/resistance mechanism. During AMCD-induced prolonged mitosis, Fcp1-dependent Wee1 reactivation lowered cdk1 activity, weakening SAC-dependent mitotic arrest and leading to mitosis exit and survival. Conversely, genetic or chemical Wee1 inhibition strengthened the SAC, further extended mitosis, reduced antiapoptotic protein Mcl-1 to a minimum and potentiated killing in several, AMCD-treated cancer cell lines and primary human adult lymphoblastic leukemia cells. Thus, the Fcp1-Wee1-Cdk1 (FWC) axis affects SAC robustness and AMCDs sensitivity.The spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) delays mitosis exit to coordinate anaphase onset with spindle assembly. To this end, SAC inhibits the ubiquitin ligase Anaphase-Promoting Complex/Cyclosome (APC/C) to prevent degradation of the anaphase inhibitor securin and cyclin B, the major mitotic cyclin B-dependent kinase 1 (cdk1) activator, until spindle assembly.¹ However, by yet poorly understood mechanisms, exceedingly prolonging mitosis translates into cell death induction.^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} Although mechanistic details are still missing on how activation of cell death pathways is linked to mitosis duration, prolongation of mitosis appears crucial for the ability of antimicrotubule cancer drugs (AMCDs) to kill cancer cells.^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} These drugs, targeting microtubules, impede mitotic spindle assembly and delay mitosis exit by chronically activating the SAC. Use of these drugs is limited, however, by toxicity and resistance. A major mechanism for resistance is believed to reside in the ability of cancer cells to slip through the SAC and exit mitosis prematurely despite malformed spindles, thus resisting killing by limiting mitosis duration.^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} Under the AMCD treatment, cells either die in mitosis or exit mitosis, slipping through the SAC, without or abnormally dividing.^{2, 3, 4} Cells that exit mitosis either die at later stages or survive and stop dividing or proliferate, giving rise to resistance.^{2, 3, 4} Apart from a role for p53, what dictates cell fate is still unknown; however, it appears that the longer mitosis is protracted, the higher the chances for cell death pathway activation are.^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}Although SAC is not required per se for killing,⁶ preventing SAC adaptation should improve the efficacy of AMCD by increasing mitosis duration.^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} Therefore, further understanding of the mechanisms by which cells override SAC may help to improve the current AMCD therapy. Several kinases are known to activate and sustain SAC, and cdk1 itself appears to be of primary relevance.^{1, 8, 9} By studying mitosis exit and SAC resolution, we recently reported a role for the Fcp1 phosphatase to bring about cdk1 inactivation.^{10, 11} Among Fcp1 targets, we identified cyclin degradation pathway components, such as Cdc20, an APC/C co-activator, USP44, a deubiquitinating enzyme, and Wee1.^{10, 11} Wee1 is a crucial kinase that controls the G2 phase by performing inhibitory phosphorylation of cdk1 at tyr-15 (Y15-cdk1). Wee1 is also in a feedback relationship with cdk1 itself that, in turn, can phosphorylate and inhibit Wee1 in an autoamplification loop to promote the G2-to-M phase transition.¹² At mitosis exit, Fcp1 dephosphorylated Wee1 at threonine 239, a cdk1-dependent inhibitory phosphorylation, to dampen down the cdk1 autoamplification loop, and Cdc20 and USP44, to promote APC/C-dependent cyclin B degradation.^{10, 11, 12} In this study we analysed the Fcp1 relevance in SAC adaptation and AMCD sensitivity.