Antagonistic roles of the N-terminal domain of prion protein to doppel

Prion protein (PrP)-like molecule, doppel (Dpl), is neurotoxic in mice, causing Purkinje cell degeneration. In contrast, PrP antagonizes Dpl in trans, rescuing mice from Purkinje cell death. We have previously shown that PrP with deletion of the N-terminal residues 23–88 failed to neutralize Dpl in mice, indicating that the N-terminal region, particularly that including residues 23–88, may have trans-protective activity against Dpl. Interestingly, PrP with deletion elongated to residues 121 or 134 in the N-terminal region was shown to be similarly neurotoxic to Dpl, indicating that the PrP C-terminal region may have toxicity which is normally prevented by the N-terminal domain in cis. We recently investigated further roles for the N-terminal region of PrP in antagonistic interactions with Dpl by producing three different types of transgenic mice. These mice expressed PrP with deletion of residues 25–50 or 51–90, or a fusion protein of the N-terminal region of PrP with Dpl. Here, we discuss a possible model for the antagonistic interaction between PrP and Dpl.Key words: prion protein, doppel, neurotoxic signal, neurodegeneration, neuroprotection, prion diseaseThe normal prion protein, termed PrP^C, is a membrane glycoprotein tethered to the outer cell surface via a glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor moiety.^1,2 It is ubiquitously expressed in neuronal and non-neuronal tissues, with highest expression in the central nervous system, particularly in neurons.³ The physiological function of PrP^C remains elusive. We and others have shown that PrP^C functionally antagonizes doppel (Dpl), a PrP-like GPI-anchored protein with ∼23% identity in amino acid composition to PrP, protecting Dpl-induced neurotoxicity in mice.^4–7 Dpl is encoded on Prnd located downstream of the PrP gene (Prnp) and expressed in the testis, heart, kidney and spleen of wild-type mice but not in the brain where PrP^C is actively expressed.^4,5,8 However, when ectopically expressed in brains, particularly in cerebellar Purkinje cells, Dpl exerts a neurotoxic activity, causing ataxia and Purkinje cell degeneration in Ngsk, Rcm0 and Zrch II lines of mice devoid of PrP^C (Prnp^0/0).^4,9,10 In these mice, Dpl was abnormally controlled by the upstream Prnp promoter.^4,5 This is due to targeted deletion of part of Prnp including a splicing acceptor of exon 3.¹¹ Pre-mRNA starting from the residual exon1/2 of Prnp was abnormally elongated until the end of Prnd and then intergenically spliced between the residual Prnp exons 1/2 and the Prnd coding exons.^4,5 As a result, Dpl was ectopically expressed under the control of the Prnp promoter in the brain, particularly in neurons including Purkinje cells.^4,5 In contrast, in other Prnp^0/0 lines, such as Zrch I and Npu, the splicing acceptor was intact, resulting in normal Purkinje cells without ectopic expression of Dpl in the brain.⁴The molecular mechanism of the antagonistic interaction between PrP^C and Dpl remains unknown. We recently showed that the N-terminal half of PrP^C includes elements that might mediate cis or trans protection against Dpl in mice, ameliorating Purkinje cell degeneration.¹² We also showed that the octapeptide repeat (OR) region in the N-terminal domain is dispensable for PrP^C to neutralize Dpl neurotoxicity in mice.¹² Here, possible molecular mechanisms for the antagonism between PrP^C and Dpl will be discussed.     

Prions: En route from structural models to structures

The prion hypothesis^1–3 states that the prion and non-prion form of a protein differ only in their 3D conformation and that different strains of a prion differ by their 3D structure.^4,5 Recent technical developments have enabled solid-state NMR to address the atomic-resolution structures of full-length prions, and a first comparative study of two of them, HET-s and Ure2p, in fibrillar form, has recently appeared as a pair of companion papers.^6,7 Interestingly, the two structures are rather different: HET-s features an exceedingly well-ordered prion domain and a partially disordered globular domain. Ure2p in contrast features a very well ordered globular domain with a conserved fold, and—most probably—a partially ordered prion domain.⁶ For HET-s, the structure of the prion domain is characterized at atomic-resolution. For Ure2p, structure determination is under way, but the highly resolved spectra clearly show that information at atomic resolution should be achievable.Key words: prion, NMR, solid-state NMR, MAS, structure, Ure2p, HET-sDespite the large interest in the basic mechanisms of fibril formation and prion propagation, little is known about the molecular structure of prions at atomic resolution and the mechanism of propagation. Prions with related properties to the ones responsible for mammalian diseases were also discovered in yeast and funghi^8,9 which provide convenient model system for their studies. Prion proteins described include the mammalian prion protein PrP, Ure2p,¹⁰ Rnq1p,¹¹ Sup35,¹² Swi1,¹³ and Cyc8,¹⁴ from bakers yeast (S. cervisiae) and HET-s from the filamentous fungus P. anserina. The soluble non-prion form of the proteins characterized in vitro is a globular protein with an unfolded, dynamically disordered N- or C-terminal tail.^15–18 In the prion form, the proteins form fibrillar aggregates, in which the tail adopts a different conformation and is thought to be the dominant structural element for fibril formation.Fibrills are difficult to structurally characterize at atomic resolution, as X-ray diffraction and liquid-state NMR cannot be applied because of the non-crystallinity and the mass of the fibrils. Solid-state NMR, in contrast, is nowadays well suited for this purpose. The size of the monomer, between 230 and 685 amino-acid residues for the prions of Figure 1, and therefore the number of resonances in the spectrum—that used to be large for structure determination—is now becoming tractable by this method.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Prions identified today and characterized as consisting of a prion domain (blue) and a globular domain (red).Prion proteins characterized so far were found to be usually constituted of two domains, namely the prion domain and the globular domain (see Fig. 1). This architecture suggests a divide-and-conquer approach to structure determination, in which the globular and prion domain are investigated separately. In isolation, the latter, or fragments thereof, were found to form β-sheet rich structures (e.g., Ure2p(1-89),^6,19 Rnq1p(153-405)²⁰ and HET-s(218-289)²¹). The same conclusion was reached by investigating Sup35(1-254).²² All these fragements have been characterized as amyloids, which we define in the sense that a significant part of the protein is involved in a cross-beta motif.²³ An atomic resolution structure however is available presently only for the HET-s prion domain, and was obtained from solid-state NMR²⁴ (vide infra). It contains mainly β-sheets, which form a triangular hydrophobic core. While this cross-beta structure can be classified as an amyloid, its triangular shape does deviate significantly from amyloid-like structures of smaller peptides.²³Regarding the globular domains, structures have been determined by x-ray crystallography (Ure2p^25,26 and HET-s²⁷), as well as NMR (mammal prions^15,28–30). All reveal a protein fold rich in α-helices, and dimeric structures for the Ure2 and HET-s proteins. The Ure2p fold resembles that of the β-class glutathione S-transferases (GST), but lacks GST activity.²⁵It is a central question for the structural biology of prions if the divide-and-conquer approach imposed by limitations in current structural approaches is valid. Or in other words: can the assembly of full-length prions simply be derived from the sum of the two folds observed for the isolated domains?     

The role of the prion protein membrane anchor in prion infection

Normal cellular and abnormal disease-associated forms of prion protein (PrP) contain a C-terminal glycophosphatidyl-inositol (GPI) membrane anchor. The importance of the GPI membrane anchor in prion diseases is unclear but there are data to suggest that it both is and is not required for abnormal prion protein formation and prion infection. Utilizing an in vitro model of prion infection we have recently demonstrated that, while the GPI anchor is not essential for the formation of abnormal prion protein in a cell, it is necessary for the establishment of persistent prion infection. In combination with previously published data, our results suggest that GPI anchored PrP is important in the amplification and spread of prion infectivity from cell to cell.Key words: prion, GPI anchor, PrP, prion spread, scrapieIn transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE or prion diseases) such as sheep scrapie, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, normally soluble and protease-sensitive prion protein (PrP-sen or PrP^C) is converted to an abnormal, insoluble and protease-resistant form termed PrP-res or PrP^Sc. PrP-res/PrP^Sc is believed to be the main component of the prion, the infectious agent of the TSE/prion diseases. Its precursor, PrP-sen, is anchored to the cell surface at the C-terminus by a co-translationally added glycophosphatidyl-inositol (GPI) membrane anchor which can be cleaved by the enzyme phosphatidyl-inositol specific phospholipase (PIPLC). The GPI anchor is also present in PrP-res, but is inaccessible to PIPLC digestion suggesting that conformational changes in PrP associated with PrP-res formation have blocked the PIPLC cleavage site.¹ Although the GPI anchor is present in both PrP-sen and PrP-res, its precise role in TSE diseases remains unclear primarily because there are data to suggest that it both is and is not necessary for PrP-res formation and prion infection.In tissue culture cells infected with mouse scrapie, PrP-res formation occurs at the cell surface and/or along the endocytic pathway^2–4 and may be dependent upon the membrane environment of PrP-sen. For example, localization via the GPI anchor to caveolae-like domains favors PrP-res formation⁵ while substitution of the GPI anchor addition site with carboxy termini favoring transmembrane anchored PrP-sen inhibits formation of PrP-res.^5,6 Other studies have shown that localization of both PrP-sen and PrP-res to lipid rafts, cholesterol and sphingolipid rich membrane microdomains where GPI anchored proteins can be located, is important in PrP-res formation.^6–9However, there are also data which suggest that such localization is not necessarily essential for PrP-res formation. Anchorless PrP-sen isolated from cells by immunoprecipitation or wild-type PrP-sen purified by immunoaffinity column followed by cation exchange chromatography are efficiently converted into PrP-res in cell-free systems.^10,11 Furthermore, recombinant PrP-sen derived from E. coli, which has no membrane anchor or glycosylation, can be induced to form protease-resistant PrP in vitro when reacted with prion-infected brain homogenates.^12–14 Finally, in at least one instance, protease-resistant recombinant PrP-res generated in the absence of infected brain homogenate was reported to cause disease when inoculated into transgenic mice.¹⁵The data concerning the role of the PrP-sen GPI anchor in susceptibility to TSE infection are similarly contradictory. Transgenic mice expressing anchorless mouse PrP-sen are susceptible to infection with mouse scrapie and accumulate both PrP-res and prion infectivity.¹⁶ Thus, the GPI anchor is clearly not needed for PrP-res formation or productive TSE infection in vivo. However, we recently published data demonstrating that, in vitro, anchored PrP-sen is in fact required to persistently infect cells.¹⁷ Given that anchorless PrP-sen is not present on the cell surface but is released into the cell medium, we speculated that the differences between the in vitro and in vivo data were related to the location of PrP-res formation. In the mice expressing anchorless PrP-sen, environments conducive to PrP-res formation are present in certain areas of the complex extracellular milieu of the brain where anchorless, secreted PrP-sen can accumulate and come into contact with PrP-res from the infectious inoculum. Since similar environments are missing in vitro, any PrP-res formation in cells expressing anchorless PrP-sen must be cell-associated. While this explanation addresses how extracellular PrP-res could be generated in an unusual transgenic mouse model of TSE infection, it does not really help to define how the GPI anchor is involved in normal prion infection of a cell.As with other infectious organisms such as viruses, TSE infection can be roughly divided into three steps: uptake, replication and spread. Over the last several years, data derived from new techniques as well as new cell lines susceptible to prion infection have increased our knowledge of some of the basic events that occur during each of these steps. In order to try to tease out the role of the GPI anchor in normal TSE pathogenesis, it is therefore useful to consider the process of TSE infection of a cell and how the GPI anchor might be involved in each stage.In a conventional viral infection, binding and uptake of the virus is essential to establish infection. Studying PrP-res uptake has been complicated by the lack of an antibody that can specifically distinguish PrP-res from PrP-sen in live cells and by the difficulty of detecting the input PrP-res from the PrP-res made de novo by the cell. Recently, however, several groups have been able to study PrP-res uptake using input PrP-res that was either fluorescently labeled^18–20 or tagged with the epitope to the monoclonal antibody 3F4,²¹ or cell lines that express little or no PrP-sen.^19,21–23 The data show that PrP-res uptake is independent of scrapie strain or cell type but is influenced by the PrP-res microenvironment as well as PrP-res aggregate size.²¹ Importantly, these studies demonstrated that PrP-sen expression was not required.^19,21–23 Given these data, it is clear that GPI anchored PrP-sen is not involved in the initial uptake of PrP-res into the cell.The next stage of prion infection involves replication of infectivity which is typically assayed by following cellular PrP-res formation. Once again, however, the issue of how to distinguish PrP-res in the inoculum from newly formed PrP-res in the cells has made it difficult to study the early stages of prion replication. To overcome this difficulty, we developed a murine tissue culture system that utilizes cells expressing mouse PrP-sen tagged with the epitope to the 3F4 antibody (Mo3F4 PrP-sen).²⁴ Wild-type mouse PrP does not have this epitope. As a result, following exposure to an infected mouse brain homogenate, de novo PrP-res formation can be followed by assaying for 3F4 positive PrP-res. Our studies showed that there were two stages of PrP-res formation: (1) an initial acute burst within the first 96 hours post-infection that was cell-type and scrapie strain independent and, (2) persistent PrP-res formation (i.e., formation of PrP-res over multiple cell passages) that was dependent on cell-type and scrapie strain and associated with long-term infection.²⁴ Acute PrP-res formation did not necessarily lead to persistent PrP-res formation suggesting that other cell-specific factors or processes are needed for PrP-res formation to persist.²⁴When cells expressing Mo3F4 PrP-sen without the GPI anchor (Mo3F4 GPI-PrP-sen) were exposed to mouse scrapie infected brain homogenates, GPI negative, 3F4 positive PrP-res (Mo3F4 GPI-PrP-res) was detected within 96 hours indicating that acute PrP-res formation had occurred.¹⁷ Thus, despite the fact that Mo3F4 GPI-PrP-sen is not expressed on the cell surface¹⁶ (Fig. 1A), it was still available for conversion to PrP-res. These results are consistent with data from cell-free systems and demonstrate that, at least acutely, membrane anchored PrP is not necessary for PrP-res formation in a cell.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Persistent infection of cells in vitro requires the expression of GPI-anchored cell surface PrP-sen. PrP knockout cells (CF10)²¹ were transduced with 3F4 epitope tagged mouse PrP-sen (Mo3F4), 3F4 epitope tagged mouse PrP-sen without the GPI anchor (Mo3F4 GPI-), or Mo3F4 GPI-PrP-sen plus wild-type, GPI anchored mouse PrP-sen (MoPrP). The cells were then exposed to the mouse scrapie strain 22L and passaged. (A) The presence of 3F4 epitope tagged, cell surface mouse PrP-sen was assayed by FACS analysis of fixed, non-permeabilized cells. CF10 cells expressing the following mouse PrP-sen molecules were assayed: Mo3F4 (solid line); Mo3F4 GPI⁻ (dashed line); Mo3F4 GPI⁻ + MoPrP (dotted and dashed line); Mo3F4 GPI⁻ + MoPrP infected with 22L scrapie (dotted line). Only cells expressing Mo3F4 PrP-sen were positive for cell surface, 3F4 epitope tagged PrP. (B) Persistent infection was analyzed by inoculating the cells intracranially into transgenic mice overexpressing MoPrP (Tga20 mice). Only cells expressing anchored mouse PrP-sen were susceptible to scrapie infection. Cells expressing anchorless mouse PrP-sen did not contain detectable infectivity in either the cells or the cellular supernatant (data not shown). Data in (B) are adapted from McNally 2009.¹⁷In terms of persistent PrP-res formation, however, our data suggest that the GPI anchor is important. Despite an initial burst of PrP-res formation within the first 96 hours post-infection, Mo3F4 GPI-PrP-res was not observed following passage of the cells nor did the cells become infected. This effect was not due either to resistance of the cells to scrapie infection or to an inability of the scrapie strain used to infect cells. When the same cells expressed anchored Mo3F4 PrP-sen and were exposed to the same mouse scrapie strain, both acute and persistent PrP-res formation were detected and the cells were persistently infected with scrapie (Fig. 1B).¹⁷ Taken together, these data demonstrate that cells expressing anchorless PrP-sen do not support persistent PrP-res formation. Furthermore, the data strongly suggest that GPI-anchored PrP-sen is required during the transition from acute to persistent scrapie infection. In support of this hypothesis, the resistance of cells expressing Mo3F4 GPI-PrP-sen to persistent prion infection could be overcome if wild-type GPI anchored PrP-sen was co-expressed in the same cell. When both forms of PrP-sen were expressed, anchored and anchorless forms of PrP-res were made and the cells became persistently infected (Fig. 1B).¹⁷ Thus, the data suggest that GPI anchored PrP is necessary to establish prion infection within a cell.How could GPI membrane anchored PrP be involved in the establishment and maintenance of persistent prion infection? Several studies have suggested that the GPI anchor is needed to localize PrP-sen to specific membrane environments where PrP-res formation is favored.^5–8 However, if this localization was essential for PrP-res formation, GPI-PrP-sen would presumably never form PrP-res. Lacking the GPI anchor, it would not be in the correct membrane environment to support conversion. As a result, neither acute nor persistent prion infection could occur. This is obviously not the case. Transgenic mice expressing only anchorless PrP-sen generate PrP-res and can be infected with scrapie even though (1) flotation gradients showed that anchorless PrP-sen was not in the same membrane environment as anchored PrP-sen and, (2) flow cytometry analysis demonstrated that anchorless PrP-sen was not present on the cell surface.¹⁶ Thus, the GPI anchor is not needed to target PrP-sen to a conversion friendly membrane environment.Consistent with the idea that the GPI anchor is not essential for PrP-res formation, in our studies anchorless PrP-sen could form PrP-res in cells acutely infected with scrapie despite the fact that it is processed differently than anchored PrP-sen, is not present on the cell surface (Fig. 1A), and is secreted.¹⁷ Persistent formation of anchorless PrP-res only occurred when both anchored and anchorless forms of PrP were expressed in the same cell.¹⁷ For this to happen both types of PrP must share a cellular compartment where PrP-res formation occurs, presumably either on the cell surface or in a specific location along the endocytic pathway^2,3 such as the endosomal recycling compartment.⁴ Analysis of infected and uninfected cells co-expressing Mo3F4 GPI-PrP-sen and wild-type PrP-sen demonstrated that Mo3F4 GPI-PrP-sen was not present on the cell surface (Fig. 1A). Thus, it is unlikely that GPI-PrP-res formation is occurring on the cell surface. We speculate that the anchored form of PrP-res encounters anchorless PrP-sen along either a secretory or endocytic pathway, allowing for the formation of anchorless PrP-res. Regardless of the precise location, the in vitro and in vivo data strongly suggest that the role of the anchor in persistent prion infection is not simply to localize PrP-sen to an environment compatible with PrP-res formation.However, the data are consistent with the idea that GPI anchored PrP is absolutely essential for the establishment of persistent infection in vitro. This is likely related to the spread of infectivity within a culture that is necessary for maintaining a persistent infection over time. Evidence suggests that PrP-res can be transferred between cells in a variety of ways including mother-daughter cell division,²⁵ cell-to-cell contact^26,27 and exosomes.²⁸ Tunneling nanotubes have also been hypothesized to be involved in intercellular prion spread¹⁹ and recent data suggest that spread can occur via these structures.²⁰ Any of these processes could involve the cell-to-cell transfer of PrP-res in membrane containing particles as has been observed in cell-free⁷ and cell-based systems.²⁹ If cell-to-cell contact were required, for example via simple physical proximity or perhaps tunneling nanotubes,^19,20 then the conversion of cell surface PrP-sen on the naïve cell by cell surface PrP-res on the infected cell would transfer infection to the naïve cell. In this instance, GPI membrane anchored, cell surface PrP-sen would be essential as it would allow for PrP-res formation on the cell surface. If spread is via cell division, then GPI-anchored, cell surface PrP-sen would be important for its role as a precursor to PrP-res formation.² In this instance, cell surface PrP-sen would be an essential intermediate in the continuous formation of PrP-res necessary for the accumulation and amplification of PrP-res within the cell. It would also help to cycle PrP between the cell surface and intracellular compartments where PrP-res can be formed.⁴ In either case, GPI-anchored PrP-sen would facilitate the accumulation of intracellular PrP-res to high enough levels to maintain both persistent infection in the mother cell and enable the transfer of organelles containing sufficient PrP-res to initiate infection in the daughter cell. Thus, we would suggest that efficient spread of infectivity requires not just the passive transfer of PrP-res from cell-to-cell but the concurrent initiation of conversion and amplification of PrP-res via cell surface, GPI anchored PrP-sen.In vivo, several lines of evidence suggest that the spread of scrapie infectivity also requires de novo PrP-res formation in the recipient cell and not simply transfer of PrP-res from one cell to another. For example, when neurografts from PrP expressing mice were placed in the brains of PrP knockout mice and the mice were challenged intracranially with scrapie, the graft showed scrapie pathology, but the surrounding tissue did not.³⁰ Furthermore, PrP-res from the graft migrated to the host tissue demonstrating that simple transfer of PrP-res was not sufficient and that PrP-sen expression was required for the spread of scrapie pathology.³⁰ In fact, these mice did not develop scrapie pathology following peripheral infection even when peripheral lymphoid tissues were reconstituted with PrP-sen expressing cells.³¹ Even though PrP-sen expressing cells were present in both the brain and spleen, in order for infectivity to spread from the lymphoreticular system to the central nervous system PrP-sen expression was also required in an intermediate tissue such as peripheral nerve.^31,32 Given that PrP-res uptake and trafficking do not require PrP-sen, the most obvious explanation for the requirement of PrP-sen in contiguous tissues is that de novo PrP-res formation in naïve cells is necessary for (1) infectivity to move from cell to cell within a tissue and, (2) infectivity to move from tissue to tissue.Another study demonstrated that peripheral expression of heterologous mouse PrP significantly increased the incubation time and actually prevented clinical disease in the majority of transgenic mice expressing hamster PrP in neurons of the brain.³³ Once again, if simple transfer and uptake of PrP-res were sufficient for spread, the presence of heterologous PrP molecules should not interfere because cellular uptake of PrP-res is independent of PrP-sen expression.^19,21–23 Clinical disease in these mice was likely prevented by the heterologous PrP molecule interfering with conversion of PrP-sen to PrP-res suggesting that prevention of de novo PrP-res formation inhibits spread of PrP-res and infectivity. These in vivo data, when combined with our recent in vitro data,¹⁷ provide evidence to support the importance of cell surface, and by extension GPI-anchored, PrP in the spread of prion infection.Our data demonstrate that the GPI anchor plays a role in the establishment of persistent scrapie infection in vitro. In our tissue culture system,²¹ as well as others where spread of infectivity by cell to cell contact appears to be limited,^25,34 the role of GPI anchored PrP-sen would be to amplify PrP-res to enable the efficient transfer of infectivity from mother to daughter cell. In cell systems where spread of prion infectivity may require cell to cell contact,^26,27 we propose that the role of GPI anchored PrP-sen is to facilitate the spread of prion infection via a chain of conversion from cell-to-cell, a “domino” type spread of infection that has been previously hypothesized.^35,36In vivo, such a mechanism might explain why neuroinvasion does not necessarily require axonal transport^32,37,38 and can occur independently of the axonal neurofilament machinery.³⁹ It would likely vary with cell type²⁷ and be most important in areas where infectivity is transferred from the periphery to the nervous system as well as in areas where cell division may be limited. It is also possible, if the location of PrP-res formation differs for different scrapie strains,⁴⁰ that the relative importance of a domino-like spread of infectivity in vivo would vary with the scrapie strain.Of course, spread of infectivity via a “wave” of GPI anchored, PrP mediated conversion would not preclude the spread of infectivity by other intracellular means such as axonal transport (reviewed in ref. ⁴¹). Furthermore, spread of infectivity may still also occur extracellularly such as in the unique case of mice which express anchorless PrP-sen,¹⁶ where our in vitro data would suggest that the cells themselves are not infected. In such a case, spread would require neither GPI anchored PrP-sen nor amplification of PrP-res in cells but would likely occur via other means such as blood⁴¹ or interstitial fluid flow.⁴²     

Insights into intragenic and extragenic effectors of prion propagation using chimeric prion proteins

The study of fungal prion proteins affords remarkable opportunities to elucidate both intragenic and extragenic effectors of prion propagation. The yeast prion protein Sup35 and the self-perpetuating [PSI+] prion state is one of the best characterized fungal prions. While there is little sequence homology among known prion proteins, one region of striking similarity exists between Sup35p and the mammalian prion protein PrP. This region is comprised of roughly five octapeptide repeats of similar composition. The expansion of the repeat region in PrP is associated with inherited prion diseases. In order to learn more about the effects of PrP repeat expansions on the structural properties of a protein that undergoes a similar transition to a self-perpetuating aggregate, we generated chimeric Sup35-PrP proteins. Using both in vivo and in vitro systems we described the effect of repeat length on protein misfolding, aggregation, amyloid formation and amyloid stability. We found that repeat expansions in the chimeric prion proteins increase the propensity to initiate prion propagation and enhance the formation of amyloid fibers without significantly altering fiber stability.Key words: prion, yeast, sup35, PrP, nonsense suppression, translation termination, amyloid, repeatWe recently described a novel chimeric prion system that was designed to elucidate the consequences of one class of inherited prion disease mutations on protein folding.^1,2 We created a fusion between the mammalian prion protein PrP and the yeast prion protein Sup35p (Fig. 1). Sup35p is an essential translation termination factor in yeast. Interestingly, the majority of the protein can be sequestered into a self-propagating aggregate, the [PSI+] prion.³ Remarkably, when yeast are grown in normal laboratory conditions, the [PSI+] prion is not detrimental. In fact, the biological consequences of the switch from the [psi−] non-prion state to the [PSI+] prion state may be beneficial in terms of adaptation and evolution.⁴ Importantly, the prion state of Sup35p can be readily detected in vivo by monitoring the reduced function of the translation termination factor when the protein is propagating as a prion aggregate.³ In addition, several methods have been developed to not only follow the propagation of the prion, but also to control the propagation and promote prion induction and loss (curing).⁵ Therefore, in addition to simply being a fascinating biological problem in of itself, the [PSI+] prion in yeast affords the ability to further elucidate both intragenic and extragenic effectors of prion biology.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic representation of the yeast protein Sup35p and the mammalian prion protein PrP highlighting the position of the oligopeptide repeat domain (ORD). The amino acid sequence represents the consensus for a single repeat. Numbers shown represent the amino acid position of the beginning and the end of each ORD. The numbers above the schematic represent the original PrP amino acid positioning and the numbers below represent the original Sup35p amino acid sequence positions.Several prions have now been identified and interestingly, there is little sequence homology between the proteins to suggest that only one type of sequence can form a self-propagating aggregate.^6–8 In vitro studies suggest that many proteins can form amyloids under the appropriate conditions.⁹ The fact that only a small percentage of proteins propagate as prions in vivo may be partly a consequence of physiological conditions being adequate to promote amyloid formation with those particular sequences. It is unclear what the precise distinction between prion and amyloid is at this time, but localization alone may preclude some amyloidogenic proteins from being “prion proteins” per se.¹⁰The sequence context that permits a protein to adopt a prion conformation in vivo is unclear. Several of the identified prion proteins have a domain that is enriched in glutamine and asparagine (Q/N) residues, but this is not true of all prion proteins.⁷ Our recent study demonstrates that the Q/N character of the Sup35p prion-forming domain can be significantly reduced, yet still propagate as a prion.¹ This was also found recently in another prion protein chimera created and expressed in yeast.⁶ These studies suggest that the lack of stable secondary structure may be one of the defining features of a prion-forming domain. One of the striking sequence similarities that does exist between two prion proteins occurs in an oligopeptide repeat region found in Sup35p and PrP.¹¹ Previous data clearly demonstrated that the Sup35p repeats are important for [PSI+] prion propagation.^12–15 The deletion of a single repeat from the wild type SUP35 sequence results in the loss of normal [PSI+] prion propagation.¹² Moreover, the addition of two extra repeats of Sup35p sequence served to enhance the formation of the [PSI+] prion.¹³ The expansion of the analogous repeat domain in the mammalian prion protein PrP is associated with an inherited form of prion disease.¹⁶ Since the repeat regions of Sup35p and PrP are similar in size and character, we wanted to determine if the Sup35p oligopeptide repeat region could be substituted with that of PrP. Indeed, the PrP repeats in the context of Sup35p supported the propagation of the [PSI+] prion in yeast.^1,17 Strikingly, we found phenotypic changes that occurred in a repeat length-dependent manner that suggested that the repeat expansions associated with disease result in an increase in the aggregation propensity but do not necessarily dictate only one type of aggregate structure.¹More recently, we verified some of these results in vitro.² These data are in agreement with other studies on the effect of repeat expansions.^18,19 Taking the analysis one step further, we demonstrated that the stability of the amyloid fibers formed with the repeat-expanded proteins did not differ significantly. A very interesting observation that we made was that the formation of amyloid fibers by the longest repeat-expanded chimera (SP14NM) followed drastically different kinetics compared to the chimera containing the wild type number of repeats (SP5NM).² In unseeded reactions, SP14NM did not show a lag phase during the course of fiber formation whereas SP5NM displayed a characteristic lag phase. Furthermore, the morphology of the amyloid fibers visualized by EM was different between SP14NM and SP5NM. SP14NM fibers were curvy and clumped but SP5NM fibers were long and straight. The correlation between the kinetics and the morphology of amyloid formation of SP14NM and SP5NM is reminiscent of fibers formed by β2-microglobulin (β2m) protein in different conditions.²⁰ At pH 3.6, β2m formed curvy, worm-like fibers with no apparent lag phase. In contrast, long, straight fibers were formed at pH 2.5 and had a distinct lag phase. Analysis of the β2m fibers formed at pH 3.6 using mass spectrometric techniques identified species ranging from monomer to 13-mer. This suggested that the fibers were formed by monomer addition. On the other hand, oligomers larger than tetramers were not formed during fiber formation at pH 2.5. Based on these data the authors propose that β2m forms fibers in a nucleation-independent manner at pH 3.6, but fiber formation at pH 2.5 follows a nucleation-dependent mechanism. We suggest that the mechanism underlying SP5NM and repeat-expanded SP14NM fiber formation is similar to β2m fibers formed at pH 2.5 and pH 3.6, respectively. It will be interesting to determine if disease-associated mutations in amyloidogenic proteins alter the pathway whereby amyloid formation occurs and how that process plays a role in pathogenesis.In our in vivo study,¹ we highlighted a unique feature of the longest Sup35-PrP chimera that related to the ability of the protein to adopt multiple self-perpetuating prion conformations more readily than wild type Sup35p. We suggest that this may be an important aspect of prion biology as it relates to inherited disease. If the repeat-expanded proteins can adopt multiple conformations that aggregate, then that may contribute to the large amount of variation observed in pathology and disease progression in this class of inherited prion diseases.^21,22We also found that the spontaneous conversion of the repeat-expanded Sup35-PrP chimera into a prion state was significantly increased. However, this conversion required another aggregated protein in vivo, the [RNQ+] prion. In vitro, the prion-forming domain of the chimera showed a similar trend with the longer repeat lengths enhancing the ability of the protein to form amyloid fibers. The chimera with repeat expansions (8, 11 or 14 repeats) formed fibers very quickly as compared to that with the wild type number of repeats (5). While this correlates with the in vivo data in that both systems demonstrate an increased level of conversion with the repeat expansion, the systems are very different with respect to their requirement for a different “seed” to initiate the prion conversion. So, how does the [RNQ+] prion influence [PSI+]? At the moment, that isn''t entirely clear. Susan Liebman and colleagues discovered another epigenetic factor in yeast, [PIN+], which was important for the de novo induction of [PSI+].^23–25 Several years later, the [RNQ+] prion²⁶ was found to be that factor in the commonly used [PSI+] laboratory strains, but they also found that the overexpression of other proteins could reproduce the effect.²⁵ Hence, [RNQ+] can be [PIN+], and may be the primary epigenetic element that influences [PSI+] induction in yeast, but need not be in every case. Two models were proposed to explain the ability of [RNQ+] to influence the induction of [PSI+].^25,27 One suggested that there is a direct templating effect where the aggregated state of the Rnq1 protein in the [RNQ+] prion serves as a seed for the direct physical association and aggregation of Sup35p and initiates [PSI+]. The second postulated that there is an inhibitor of aggregation in cells that is titrated out by the presence of another aggregated protein. Recent experimental evidence suggests that the templating model may explain at least part of the mechanism of action behind the [RNQ+] prion inducing the formation of [PSI+].^28,29Why is [RNQ+] required for the in vivo conversion of the repeatexpanded chimera that forms amyloid on its own very efficiently in vitro? Interestingly, we found that the [RNQ+] prion per se is not required. We overexpressed the Rnq1 protein from a constitutive high promoter (pGPD-RNQ1) and found that Rnq1p aggregated in the cells but did not induce the [RNQ+] prion. That is, the cells were still [rnq−] and did not genetically transmit the aggregated state of the protein. However, even these non-prion aggregates of Rnq1p served to enhance the induction of the chimeric prions. Therefore, either the [RNQ+] prion or an aggregate of Rnq1 protein is sufficient, which is in line with previous studies that demonstrated that some proteins that aggregate when overexpressed can also enhance the induction of [PSI+].²⁵ Also of note, recent data suggests that the requirement of [RNQ+] for the induction of Sup35p aggregation in vivo can be overcome by very long polyglutamine or glutamine/tyrosine stretches fused to the non-prion forming domain of Sup35p.³⁰ These fusions may alter protein-protein interactions or destabilize the non-prion structure of Sup35p in such a manner that the [RNQ+] prion seed is no longer required to form [PSI+] de novo. Indeed, the non-polymerizing state of some of the fusion proteins was shown to be very unstable.So, what is the important difference between our in vitro and in vivo systems in the prion conversion? Obviously there are many candidates. First, the full length Sup35 protein may alter the conversion properties since a large part of the molecule is the structured C terminal domain. The C terminal domain may influence the initiation of prion propagation in vivo and that is not a factor in the in vitro system. Second, the influences of co-translational folding and potentially some initial unfolding of the prion-forming domain are not present since the in vitro system starts with denatured protein. Third, the environmental influences are clearly different. The molecular crowding effects and chaperones that are required for prion propagation in vivo are not required for the formation of amyloid in vitro. Finally, it is unclear if amyloid structures similar to those formed with the prion-forming domain in vitro actually exist in yeast. Certainly there is some correlation between the structures since aggregated Sup35 protein from [PSI+] cell lysates can seed amyloid formation in vitro^31,32 and the fibers formed in vitro can be transformed into [psi−] cells and cause conversion to [PSI+].³³ Nevertheless, we find it interesting that the expansion of the repeat region can have a tremendous effect on amyloid formation in vitro yet still cannot overcome the requirement for [RNQ+] for conversion in vivo. The presence of co-aggregating or cross-seeding proteins may play a role in the sporadic appearance or progression of neurodegenerative diseases and the interconnected yeast prions [RNQ+] and [PSI+] may provide a model system for elucidating the mechanism underlying such effects.     

Tracking protein aggregate interactions

Amyloid fibrils share a structural motif consisting of highly ordered β-sheets aligned perpendicular to the fibril axis.^{1, 2} At each fibril end, β-sheets provide a template for recruiting and converting monomers.³ Different amyloid fibrils often co-occur in the same individual, yet whether a protein aggregate aids or inhibits the assembly of a heterologous protein is unclear. In prion disease, diverse prion aggregate structures, known as strains, are thought to be the basis of disparate disease phenotypes in the same species expressing identical prion protein sequences.^4–7 Here we explore the interactions reported to occur when two distinct prion strains occur together in the central nervous system.Key words: prion, prions, strain, TSE, interaction, amyloid, LCP, neurodegeneration, aggregation     

Alimentary prion infections: Touchdown in the intestine

Neurodegenerative diseases are caused by proteinaceous aggregates, usually consisting of misfolded proteins which are often typified by a high proportion of β-sheets that accumulate in the central nervous system. These diseases, including Morbus Alzheimer, Parkinson disease and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs)—also termed prion disorders—afflict a substantial proportion of the human population and, as such, the etiology and pathogenesis of these diseases has been the focus of mounting research. Although many of these diseases arise from genetic mutations or are sporadic in nature, the possible horizontal transmissibility of neurodegenerative diseases poses a great threat to population health. In this article we discuss recent studies that suggest that the “non-transmissible” status bestowed upon Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases may need to be revised as these diseases have been successfully induced through tissue transplants. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of investigating the “natural” mechanism of prion transmission including peroral and perenteral transmission, proposed routes of gastrointestinal uptake and neuroinvasion of ingested infectious prion proteins. We examine the multitude of factors which may influence oral transmissibility and discuss the zoonotic threats that Chronic Wasting disease (CWD), Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and Scrapie may pose resulting in vCJD or related disorders. In addition, we suggest that the 37 kDa/67 kDa laminin receptor on the cell surface of enterocytes, a major cell population in the intestine, may play an important role in the intestinal pathophysiology of alimentary prion infections.Key words: prion, 37 kDa/67 kDa laminin receptor, CJD, BSE, CWD, scrapie, Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, intestine, enterocytesMany different mechanisms exist which underlie the etiology of the numerous neurodegenerative diseases affecting the human population. Amongst the most prominent are Morbus Alzheimer, prion disorders, Parkinson disease, Chorea Huntington, frontotemporal dementia and amylotrophic lateral sclerosis. The molecular mechanisms underlying these diseases vary; however, all neurodegenerative diseases share a common feature: they are caused by protein aggregation. The only neurodegenerative diseases proven to be transmissible are prion disorders. In contrast to frontotemporal dementia, recent evidence suggests that Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases may also be transmissible. Pre-symptomatic Alzheimer disease (APP23) mice exhibited an increase in the Alzheimer phenotype when brain homogenate of autopsied human Alzheimer disease patients and older, amyloid beta- (Aβ-) laden APP23 mice was injected into their hippocampi.¹ These findings suggest that the Aβ-abundant brain homogenate of Alzheimer disease patients may possess the ability to induce or supplement the overproduction of Aβ, possibly leading to the onset of Alzheimer disease.The pathological feature associated with Parkinson disease is the formation of Lewy bodies in cell bodies and neuronal processes in the brain.² The main component of these protein aggregates is α-synuclein (reviewed in ref. ²). Autopsies of Parkinson disease patients revealed that Lewy bodies had formed on healthy embryonic neurons that had been grafted onto the brain tissue of the patients several years before (prior to said examination).^3–5 It may thus be proposed that α-synuclein transmission is possible from diseased to healthy neurons, suggesting that Parkinson disease may be transmissible from a Parkinson disease patient to a healthy individual. These findings imply that Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases may be transmissible through tissue transplants and the use of contaminated surgical tools.⁶Prion disorders, also termed Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs), are fatal neurodegenerative diseases that affect the central nervous system (CNS) of multiple animal species. In lieu of the social, economic and political ramifications of such infections, as well as the possible intra- and interspecies transmissibility of such disorders, various routes of experimental transmission have been investigated including intracerebral, intraperitoneal, intraventricular, intraocular, intraspinal and subcutaneous injections (reviewed in ref. ^7–9). However, such routes of transmission are not representative of the “natural” mechanism as the majority of prion disorders are contracted through ingestion of infectious prion (PrP^Sc) containing material. Thus, the peroral and perenteral prion transmission is of greatest consequence with respect to TSE disease establishment. Moreover, the presence of PrP^Sc in the buccal cavity of scrapie-infected sheep¹⁰ (reviewed in ref. ¹¹) and the possible horizontal transfer as a result hereof, as may be similarly proposed for animals suffering from other TSEs, may further contribute to the oral transmissibility of TSEs.A number of model systems have been employed to study TSE transmissibility. Owing to ethical constraints, TSE transmissibility to humans via the oral route may not be directly investigated and as a result hereof, alternative model systems are needed. These may include the use of transgenic mice, cell lines which are permissive to infection¹² and experimental animals such as sheep, calves, goats, minks, ferrets and non-human primates (reviewed in ref. ⁹).Intestinal entry of PrP^Sc has been proposed to occur via two pathways, the membranous (M) cell-dependent and M cell-independent pathways (Fig. 1).^13,14 The former involves endocytic M (microfold)-cells, which cover the intestinal lymphoid follicles (Peyer''s patches)¹⁴ and may take up prions and thereby facilitate the translocation of these proteins across the intestinal epithelium into the lymphoid tissues (reviewed in ref. ⁹) as has been demonstrated in a cellular model.¹³ Following such uptake by the M cells, the prions may subsequently pass to the dendritic cells and follicular dendritic cells (FDCs) (Fig. 1), which allow for prion transport to the mesenteric lymph nodes and replication, respectively.¹⁵ The prion proteins may subsequently gain access to the enteric nervous system (ENS) and ultimately the central nervous system (CNS).¹⁵Open in a separate windowFigure 1Proposed routes of gastrointestinal entry of ingested infectious prions (PrP^Sc) as well as possible pathways of amplification and transport to the central nervous system.However, prion intestinal translocation has been observed in the absence of M cells and has been demonstrated to be as a result of the action of polar, 37 kDa/67 kDa LRP/LR (non-integrin laminin receptor; reviewed in ref. ^16–18) expressing enterocytes. Enterocytes are the major cell population of the intestinal epithelium and due to their ability to endocytose pathogens, nutrients and macromolecules,¹⁹ it has been proposed that these cells may represent a major entry site for alimentary prions (Fig. 1).Since enterocyte prion uptake has been demonstrated to be dependent on the presence of LRP/LR on the apical brush border of the cells,^14,20 the interaction between varying prion protein strains and the receptor^21–23 may be employed as a model system to study possible oral transmissibility of prion disorders across species as well as the intestinal pathophysiology of alimentary prion infections.²⁴ Moreover, the blockage of such interactions through the use of anti-LRP/LR specific antibodies has been reported to reduce PrP^Sc endocytosis¹⁹ and thus these antibodies may serve as potential therapeutics to prevent infectious prion internalization and thereby prevent prion infections. It must be emphasized that the adhesion of prion proteins to cells is not solely dependent on the LRP/LR-PrP^Sc interactions;²⁴ however, this interaction is of importance with regards to internalization and subsequent pathogenesis.We applied the aforementioned cell model to study the possible oral transmission of PrP^BSE, PrP^CWD and ovine PrP^Sc to cervids, cattle, swine and humans.²⁴ The direct transmission of the aforementioned animal prion disorders to humans as a result of dietary exposure and the possible establishment of zoonotic diseases is of great public concern. It must however be emphasized that the study investigated the co-localization of LRP/LR and various prion strains and not the actual internalization process.PrP^BSE was shown to co-localize with LRP/LR on human enterocytes²⁴, thereby suggesting that PrP^BSE is transmissible to humans via the oral route which is widely accepted as the manner by which variant CJD originated. This suspicion was previously investigated using a macaque model, which was successfully perorally infected by BSE-contaminated material and subsequently lead to the development of a prion disorder that resembles vCJD.²⁵ These results, due to the evolutionary relatedness between macaques and humans, allowed researchers to confirm the oral transmissibility of PrP^BSE to humans. PrP^BSE may also potentially lead to prion disorder establishment in swine,²⁴ livestock of great economic and social importance.The prion disorder affecting elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer is termed CWD. Cases of the disease are most prevalent in the US but are also evident in Canada and South Korea.^26,27 As the infectious prion isoform is reported to be present in the blood²⁸ and skeletal muscle,²⁹ hunting, consumption of wild venison and contact with other animal products derived from CWD-infected elk and deer may thereby pose a public health risk. Our studies demonstrate that PrP^CWD co-localizes with LRP/LR on human enterocytes²⁴ thereby suggesting a possible oral transmissibilty of this TSE to humans. This is, however, inconsistent with results obtained during intra-cerebral inoculation of the brains and spinal cords of transgenic mice overexpressing the human cellular prion protein (PrP^c),^26,27 which is essential for TSE disease establishment and progression. Further, discrepancies have also been reported with respect to non-human primates, as squirrel monkeys have been successfully intracerebrally inoculated with mule-deer prion homogenates,³⁰ while cynolmolgus macaques were resistant to infection.³¹ CWD has been transmitted to ferrets, minks and goats³² and as these animals may serve as domestic animals or livestock, secondary transmission from such animals to humans, through direct contact or ingestion of infected material, may be an additional risk factor that merits further scientific investigation.Ovine PrP^Sc co-localization with LRP/LR on human and bovine enterocytes may be indicative of the infectious agents'' ability to effect cross-species infections. The oral transmissibility of Scrapie has been confirmed in hamsters fed with sheep-scrapie-infected material.³³The discrepancies with regards to the transmissibility of certain infectious prion proteins when assessed by different model systems may be due to the experimental transmission route employed. Oral exposure often results in significantly prolonged incubation times when compared to intracerebral inoculation techniques and thus failure of transgenic mice and normal experimental animals to develop disease phenotypes after being fed TSE-contaminated material may not necessarily indicate that the infection process failed.¹⁴ Apart from the route of infection, numerous other factors may influence transmission between species, including dose, PrP polymorphisms and genetic factors, the prion strain employed as well as the efficacy of prion transport to the CNS.³⁴ The degree of homology between the PrP^c protein in the animals serving as the infectious prion source and recipient has also been described as a feature limiting cross-species transmission.³⁴ The negative results, as referred to above, obtained upon prion-protein inoculation of animal models may have resulted due to the slow rate at which the infectious prion induces conformational conversion of the endogenous PrP^c in the animal cells and this in turn results in low levels of infectious prion replication and symptom development.²⁷Furthermore, even in the event that certain prion disorders are not directly transmissible to humans, most are transmissible to at least a single species of domestic animal or livestock. The infectious agents properties may be altered in the secondary host such that it becomes transmissible to humans (reviewed in ref. ³⁵). Thus, interspecies transmission between animals may indirectly influence human health.It is noteworthy to add that although the oral route of PrP^Sc transmission may result in prolonged incubation times, it may broaden the range of susceptible hosts. A common constituent of food is ferritin, a protein that is resistant to digestive enzyme hydrolysis and, due to its homology across species, it may serve as co-transporter of PrP^Sc and facilitate enterocyte internalization of the infectious prion.³⁶ It may thus be proposed that prion internalization may occur via a ferritin-PrP^Sc complex even in the absence of co-localization between the infectious agent and LRP/LR such that many more cross-species infections (provided that the other infection factors are favorable) may be probable.³⁷ In addition, digestive enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract facilitate PrP^Sc binding to the intestinal epithelium and subsequent intestinal uptake³⁶ and thus depending on the individuals'' digestive processes, the susceptibility to infection and the rate of disease development may vary accordingly. As a result hereof, though laboratory experiments in cell-culture and animal models may render a particular prion disorder non-infectious to humans, this may not be true for all individuals.In lieu of the above statements, with particular reference to inconsistencies in reported results and the multiple factors influencing oral transmissibility of TSEs, further transmission studies are required to evaluate the zoonotic threat which CWD, BSE and Scrapie may pose through ingestion.     

PrP assemblies: Spotting the responsible regions in prion propagation

The “protein only” hypothesis states that the key phenomenon in prion pathogenesis is the conversion of the host protein (PrP^C) into a β-sheet enriched polymeric and pathogenic conformer (PrP^Sc). However the region of PrP bearing the information for structural transfer is still controversial. In a recent report, we highlighted the role of the C terminal part i.e., the helixes H2 and H3, using mutation approaches on recombinant PrP. The H2H3 was shown to be the minimal region necessary to reproduce the oligomerization pattern of the full-length protein. The oligomers produced from isolated H2H3 domain presented the same structural characteristics as the oligomers formed from the full-length PrP. Combining other groups'' results, this paper further discusses the relative, direct or indirect role of different PrP regions in assembly. The H2H3 region represents the core of PrP oligomers and fibrils, whereas the N terminus could explain divergences among different aggregates. Finally this review evocates the possibility to separate the domain involved in prion information transference (i.e., prion replication) from the domain bearing the cytotoxicity properties.Key words: prion, H2H3, amyloid, domain of replication, unfolding, strain, polymer, fibersTransmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), fatal neurodegenerative diseases affecting humans and other mammalians, induce in most cases loss of motor control and dementia. PrP is a protein physiologically present in parts of the animal kingdom (in mammals, birds, reptiles and fishes). According to the “protein-only” hypothesis,^1,2 the key phenomenon in the pathogenesis is the conversion of the α-helix rich host-encoded PrP form (PrP^C) into a pathogenic conformer (PrP^Sc) characterized by a higher content in β-sheet and a polymeric state. The conversion to an enriched β-sheet structure is supposed to be due to the modification—induced only by a PrP^Sc-like state acting as a template- of PrP^C into the PrP^Sc conformer. This hypothesis was first proposed by Griffith in 1967³ and revisited by Lansbury et al. in 1993.⁴ The prion hypothesis has now found increasing support from experimental evidence based on the synthetic production of β-sheeted recombinant PrP which shows pathogenic properties in a wide variety of physico-chemical conditions.^5–7 However, the molecular basis of prion conversion remains unclear, especially the various structural landscape of the PrP^Sc, which is the basis of the strain phenomenon.⁸To understand the mechanisms of transfer of the structural information, two mains issues have to be addressed: (1) we need to understand which region(s) of the protein act as template for conversion and (2) what is the “pathogenic” state of this domain. In this review, we shall assume that the region bearing the infectious information for replication and the region responsible for polymerization are identical. However, the link between the propensity of a domain to form aggregates and the ability to contain the necessary information for prion replication is far from being trivial. Generally the formation of amyloid assemblies results from the aggregation of disordered peptides or in some cases from disordered regions of a folded protein.⁸ If we consider that prion replication is only supported by the globular part of PrP⁹ the currently available model involves the folded domain. Since all structural transitions need at least a partial unfolding and refolding process, pre-required structural events should be considered prior to the conversion process.     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

Fetal cells migrate into the mother during pregnancy. Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver. In mice, fetal cells have also been found in the brain. The fetal cells also appear to target sites of injury. Fetomaternal microchimerism may have important implications for the immune status of women, influencing autoimmunity and tolerance to transplants. Further understanding of the ability of fetal cells to cross both the placental and blood-brain barriers, to migrate into diverse tissues, and to differentiate into multiple cell types may also advance strategies for intravenous transplantation of stem cells for cytotherapeutic repair. Here we discuss hypotheses for how fetal cells cross the placental and blood-brain barriers and the persistence and distribution of fetal cells in the mother.Key Words: fetomaternal microchimerism, stem cells, progenitor cells, placental barrier, blood-brain barrier, adhesion, migrationMicrochimerism is the presence of a small population of genetically distinct and separately derived cells within an individual. This commonly occurs following transfusion or transplantation.^1–3 Microchimerism can also occur between mother and fetus. Small numbers of cells traffic across the placenta during pregnancy. This exchange occurs both from the fetus to the mother (fetomaternal)^4–7 and from the mother to the fetus.^8–10 Similar exchange may also occur between monochorionic twins in utero.^11–13 There is increasing evidence that fetomaternal microchimerism persists lifelong in many child-bearing women.^7,14 The significance of fetomaternal microchimerism remains unclear. It could be that fetomaternal microchimerism is an epiphenomenon of pregnancy. Alternatively, it could be a mechanism by which the fetus ensures maternal fitness in order to enhance its own chances of survival. In either case, the occurrence of pregnancy-acquired microchimerism in women may have implications for graft survival and autoimmunity. More detailed understanding of the biology of microchimeric fetal cells may also advance progress towards cytotherapeutic repair via intravenous transplantation of stem or progenitor cells.Trophoblasts were the first zygote-derived cell type found to cross into the mother. In 1893, Schmorl reported the appearance of trophoblasts in the maternal pulmonary vasculature.¹⁵ Later, trophoblasts were also observed in the maternal circulation.^16–20 Subsequently various other fetal cell types derived from fetal blood were also found in the maternal circulation.^21,22 These fetal cell types included lymphocytes,²³ erythroblasts or nucleated red blood cells,^24,25 haematopoietic progenitors^7,26,27 and putative mesenchymal progenitors.^14,28 While it has been suggested that small numbers of fetal cells traffic across the placenta in every human pregnancy,^29–31 trophoblast release does not appear to occur in all pregnancies.³² Likewise, in mice, fetal cells have also been reported in maternal blood.^33,34 In the mouse, fetomaternal transfer also appears to occur during all pregnancies.³⁵     

Is,indeed, the prion protein a Harlequin servant of “many” masters?

Tens of putative interacting partners of the cellular prion protein (PrP^C) have been identified, yet the physiologic role of PrP^C remains unclear. For the first time, however, a recent paper has demonstrated that the absence of PrP^C produces a lethal phenotype. Starting from this evidence, here we discuss the validity of past and more recent literature supporting that, as part of protein platforms at the cell surface, PrP^C may bridge extracellular matrix molecules and/or membrane proteins to intracellular signaling pathways.Key words: prion protein, PrP^C, extracellular matrix, cell adhesion molecules, neuritogenesis, p59fyn, Ca²⁺Initially, the discovery that the prion protein was the major, if not the unique, component of the prion agent causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE)¹ has placed the protein in an extremely unfavorable light. Thereafter, however, a wealth of evidence has supported the notion that the protein positively influences several aspects of the cell physiology, and that its duality—in harboring both lethal and beneficial potentials—could be rationalized in terms of a structural switch. Indeed, the protein exists in at least two conformational states: the cellular, α helix-rich isoform, PrP^C, and the prion-associated β sheet-rich isoform, PrP^Sc.² If it is now unquestionable that the presence of PrP^C in the cell is mandatory for prion replication and neurotoxicity to occur,^3,4 nonetheless its physiologic function is still debatable, despite the long lasting effort, and the numerous, frequently genetically advanced, animal and cell model systems dedicated to the issue. From these studies the picture of an extremely versatile protein has emerged, whereby PrP^C acts in the cell defense against oxidative and apoptotic challenges, but also in cell adhesion, proliferation and differentiation, and in synaptic plasticity.^5,6 In an effort to converge these multiple propositions in an unifying functional model, different murine lines devoid of PrP^C have been studied. These animals, however, displayed no obvious phenotype,^7–9 suggesting that either PrP^C is dispensable during development and adult life or that compensative mechanisms mask the loss of PrP^C function in these paradigms. Thus, identifying the exact role of PrP^C in the cell would not only resolve an important biological question, but would also help elucidate the cellular steps of prion pathogenesis necessary for designing early diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies for TSE.As is often the case, the employment of a model system unprecedented in prion research has recently disclosed a most interesting scenario with regards to PrP^C physiology, having unravelled, for the first time, a lethal phenotype linked to the absence of the protein.¹⁰ The paradigm is the zebrafish, which expresses two PrP^C isoforms (PrP1 and PrP2). Similarly to mammalian PrP^C, they are glycosylated and attached to the external side of the plasma membrane through a glycolipid anchor. PrP1 and PrP2 are, however, expressed in distinct time frames of the zebrafish embryogenesis. Accordingly, the knockdown of the PrP1, or PrP2, gene very early in embryogenesis impaired development at different stages, bypassing putative compensatory mechanisms. By focusing on PrP1, Malaga-Trillo et al. showed that the protein was essential for cell adhesion, and that this event occurred through PrP1 homophilic trans-interactions and signaling. This comprised activation of the Src-related tyrosine (Tyr) kinase p59fyn, and, possibly, Ca²⁺ metabolism, leading to the regulation of the trafficking of E-cadherin, a member of surface-expressed cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) responsible for cell growth and differentiation.¹¹ It was also reported that overlapping PrP1 functions were performed by PrP^Cs from other species, while the murine PrP^C was capable to replace PrP1 in rescuing, at least in part, the knockdown developmental phenotype. Apart from providing the long-sought proof for a vital role of PrP^C, the demonstration that a mammalian isoform corrected the lethal zebrafish phenotype strongly reinforces previous results—mainly obtained in a variety of mammalian primary neurons and cell lines—pointing to a functional interplay of PrP^C with CAMs, or extra cellular matrix (ECM) proteins, and cell signaling, to promote neuritogenesis and neuronal survival. A revisit of these data is the main topic of the present minireview.As mentioned, the capacity of PrP^C to act as a cell adhesion, or recognition, molecule, and to entertain interactions with proteins implicated in growth and survival, has already been reported for the mammalian PrP^C. A case in point is the interaction, both in cis- and trans-configurations, with the neuronal adhesion protein N-CAM12 that led to neurite outgrowth.¹³ Like cadherins, N-CAM belongs to the CAM superfamily. Following homo- or heterophylic interactions, it can not only mediate adhesion of cells, or link ECM proteins to the cytoskeleton, but also act as a receptor to transduce signals ultimately resulting in modulating neurite outgrowth, neuronal survival and synaptic plasticity.¹¹ Another example is the binding of PrPC to laminin, an ECM heterotrimeric glycoprotein, which induced neuritogenesis together with neurite adhesion and maintenance,^14,15 but also learning and memory consolidation.¹⁶ Further, it has been described that PrPC interacted with the mature 67 kDa-receptor (67LR) (and its 37 kDa-precursor) for laminin, and with glycosamminoglycans (GAGs), each of which is involved in neuronal differentiation and axon growth.^17–21 More recently, Hajj et al.²² have reported that the direct interaction of PrP^C with another ECM protein, vitronectin, could accomplish the same process, and that the absence of PrP^C could be functionally compensated by the overexpression of integrin, another laminin receptor.²³ Incidentally, the latter finding may provide a plausible explanation for the absence of clear phenotypes in mammalian PrP-null paradigms. By exposing primary cultured neurons to recombinant PrPs, others have shown that trans-interactions of PrP^C are equally important for neuronal outgrowth,^24,25 including the formation of synaptic contacts.²⁵ Finally, it has been demonstrated that the binding of PrP^C with the secreted co-chaperone stress-inducible protein 1 (STI1) stimulated neuritogenesis.²⁶ This same interaction had also a pro-survival effect, as did the interaction of PrP^C with its recombinant form.²⁴ Notably, the involvement of PrP^C in cell protection has been heightened by experiments with whole animals. By applying transient or permanent focal cerebral ischemia to the animals, it was found that their reduced brain damage correlated with spontaneous or adenoviral-mediated, upregulation of PrP^C,^27–29 (reviewed in ref. ³⁰), and that PrP^C deficiency aggravated their ischemic brain injury.^30,31 Thus, now that data are available from phylogenetically distant paradigms (zebrafish and mammalian model systems), it acquires more solid grounds the advocated engagement of PrP^C in homo/heterophilic cis/trans interactions to trigger signaling events aiming at neuronal—or, in more general terms, cell—survival and neuritogenesis. The latter notion is consistent with the delayed maturation of different types of PrP^C-less neurons, observed both in vitro and in vivo.^32,33If one assumes that the interaction of PrP^C with multiple partners (45 for PrP^C and PrP^Sc, as reviewed in Aguzzi et al.,⁵ or 46 considering the homophylic interaction) are all functionally significant, the most immediate interpretation of this “sticky” behavior entails that PrP^C acts as a scaffolding protein in different membrane protein complexes.^5,6 Each complex could then activate a specific signaling pathway depending on the type and maturation of cells, the expression and glycosylation of PrP^C, and availability of extra- and intra-cellular signaling partners. At large, all these signals have been shown to be advantageous to the cell. However, because in a cell only a subtle line divides the “good” from the “bad,” instances can be envisioned in which a pro-life signal turns into a pro-death signal. A typical example of this possibility is glutamate excitotoxicity resulting in dangerous, glutamate receptor-linked, Ca²⁺ overload. Likewise, an excessive or over-stimulated signal elicited by PrP^C, or by the putative complex housing the protein could become noxious to the cell. This possibility may explain why the massive expression of PrP^C caused degeneration of the nervous system,³⁴ and of skeletal muscles,^34,35 in transgenic animals. More intriguing is the finding that—in a mouse line expressing anchorless PrP^C—PrP^Sc was capable to replicate without threatening the integrity of neurons.³⁶ This may suggest that native membrane-bound PrP^C acts as, or takes part into, a “receptor for PrP^Sc”, and that lasting PrP^Sc-PrP^C interactions distort the otherwise beneficial signal of the protein/complex and cause neurodegeneration.³⁷ Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that the in vivo antibody-mediated ligation of PrP^C provoked apoptosis of the antibody-injected brain area.³⁸ Speculatively, the action of N-terminally, or N-proximally truncated PrPs whose expression in PrP-less transgenic mice induced extensive neurodegeneration,^39–41 may be traced back to the same hyper-activation of PrP^C signaling. Possibly, this may hold true also for the synaptic impairment that, recorded only in PrP^C-expressing neurons, was attributed to the binding of amyloid beta (Aβ) peptide oligomers implicated in Alzheimer disease, to PrP^C.^42,43But which is (are) the cellular signaling pathway(s) conveyed by the engagement of PrP^C in different signaling complexes? In line with its multifaceted behavior, several intracellular effectors have been proposed, including p59fyn, mitogen-activated kinases (MAPK) Erk1/2, PI3K/Akt and cAMP-PKA. p59fyn is the most reported downstream effector, suggesting that, in accordance with its behavior, p59fyn could serve as the sorting point for multiple incoming and outgoing signals also in the case of PrP^C. The initial evidence of the PrP^C-p59fyn connection came from cells subjected to antibody-mediated cross-linking of PrP^C.⁴⁴ Later, it was shown that the PrP^C-p59fyn signal converged to Erk1/2 through a pathway dependent on (but also independent of) reactive oxygen species generated by NADPH oxidase.⁴⁵ A PrP^C-dependent activation of p59fyn^13,25 and Erk1/2 (but also of PI3K and cAMP-PKA)²⁴ was evident in other neuronal cell paradigms and consistent with the almost ubiquitous expression of PrP^C, in non-neuronal cells such as Jurkat and T cells.⁴⁶ Not to forget that in zebrafish embryonic cells activated p59fyn was found in the same focal adhesion sites harboring PrP1.¹⁰ Regarding the activation of the ERK1/2 pathway promoted by the PrP^C-STI1 complex, and leading to neuritogenesis, the role of p59fyn was not investigated.²⁶ The same holds true for the transduction of a neuroprotective signal by the PrP^C-STI1 complex involving the cAMP-PKA pathway.²⁶ Interestingly, this is not the only example reporting that engagement of PrP^C activates simultaneously two independent pathways. In fact, possibly after transactivating the receptor for the epidermal growth factor, the antibody-mediated clustering of PrP^C was shown to impinge on both the Erk1/2 pathway, and on a protein (stathmin) involved in controlling microtubule dynamics.⁴⁷Yet, if p59fyn is implicated in mammalian PrP^C-activated signaling cascade, a protein linking extracellular PrP^C to p59fyn is needed, given the attachment of the enzyme to the inner leaflet of the plasma membrane through palmitoylated/myristoylated anchors. In this, the PrP^C partner N-CAM (isoform 140) seems ideal to fulfill the task, given that p59fyn is part of N-CAM-mediated signaling. Indeed, after recruitment of N-CAM to lipid rafts—which may also depend on PrP^C,¹³—together with the receptor protein Tyr phosphatase α (RPTPα), the Tyr-phosphate removing activity of RPTPα allows the subsequent activation of p59fyn through an autophosphorylation step.⁴⁸ This event recruits and activates the focal adhesion kinase (FAK),¹¹ another non-receptor Tyr kinase. Finally, formation of the FAK-p59fyn complex triggers neuritogenesis through both Erk1/2 and PI3K/Akt pathways.^49,50 Parenthetically, the FAK-p59fyn and PI3K/Akt connection would be suitable to explain why aggravation of ischemic brain injury in PrP-deficient brains was linked to a depressed Akt activation.³¹ FAK-p59fyn complex, however, may be also involved in the signal triggered by the still mysterious PrP^C partner, 67LR. This protein was reported not only to act as a laminin receptor but also to facilitate the interaction of laminin with integrins,⁵¹ thereby possibly activating (through integrins) FAK-p59fyn-regulated pathways.⁴⁹ Conversely, other data have supported the candidature of caveolin-1 for coordinating the signal that from PrP^C reaches Erk1/2 through p59fyn.^44,45,52 Further scrutiny of this route has shown that it comprised players such as laminin and integrins (upstream), FAK-p59fyn, paxillin and the Src-homology-2 domain containing adaptor protein (downstream), and that caveolin-1, a substrate of the FAK-p59fyn complex, facilitated the interaction of these signaling partners by recruiting them in caveolae-like membrane domains.⁵³For the relevance they bear, we need to acknowledge recent propositions supporting the commitment of PrP^C with proteins whose function is unrelated from the above-mentioned cell adhesion or ECM molecules; namely, the β-site amyloid precursor protein (APP) cleaving enzime (BACE1) and the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-receptor. BACE1 is a proteolytic enzyme involved in Aβ production. It has been shown that overexpressed PrP^C restricted, while depletion of PrP^C increased the access of BACE1 to APP, possibly because PrP^C interacts with BACE1 via GAGs.⁵⁴ Thus, native PrP^C reduces the production of Aβ peptides. A beneficial effect of PrP^C was also highlighted by Khosravani et al.⁵⁵ showing that, by physically associating with the subunit 2D of the NMDA-receptor, PrP^C attenuated neuronal Ca²⁺ entry and its possible excitotoxic effect. This clear example for the control of PrP^C on Ca²⁺ metabolism is particularly intriguing in light of previous reports linking Ca²⁺ homeostasis to PrP^C pathophysiology (reviewed in ref. ⁵⁶). Also, it is important to mention that a few partners of PrP^C or downstream effectors may initiate signals that increase intracellular Ca²⁺, and that, in turn, local Ca²⁺ fluctuations regulate some of the afore-mentioned pathways.^11,49,57,58In conclusion, although still somehow speculative, the implication of Ca²⁺ in PrP^C-dependent pathways raises the possibility that the different input signals originating from the interaction of PrP^C with diverse partners may all converge to the universal, highly versatile Ca²⁺ signaling. Were indeed this the case, then clearly the acting of PrP^C as Harlequin, the famous character of the 18^th century Venetian playwright Carlo Goldoni, who struggles to fill the orders of two masters, would be merely circumstantial.     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Tunnelling nanotubes: A highway for prion spreading?

The discovery of tunnelling nanotubes (TNTs) and their proposed role in long intercellular transport of organelles, bacteria and viruses have led us to examine their potential role during prion spreading. We have recently shown that these membrane bridges can form between neuronal cells, as well as between dendritic cells and primary neurons and that both endogenous and exogenous PrP^Sc appear to traffic through these structures between infected and non-infected cells. Furthermore, prion infection can be efficiently transmitted from infected dendritic cells to primary neurons only in co-culture conditions permissive for TNT formation. Therefore, we propose a role for TNTs during prion spreading from the periphery to the central nervous system (CNS). Here, we discuss some of the key steps where TNTs might play a role during prion neuroinvasion.Key words: tunnelling nanotubes, TNTs, prion, PrP^Sc, prion spreading, dendritic cells, neuroinvasionPrion diseases, or transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), are fatal neurodegenerative disorders that have been found in a number of species, including scrapie in sheep, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle (BSE), Chronic wasting disease in deer and Creutzfeldt-Jacob, the Gerstmann-Straüssler-Scheinker syndrome, fatal familial insomnia and kuru in humans (reviewed in ref. ¹). Human TSEs can be sporadic, genetic or acquired by infection. A new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (termed vCJD) was reported from the UK in 1996.² The majority of vCJD cases diagnosed to date resulted from a peripheral exposure via the consumption of BSE-contaminated food. Pathological features of TSE diseases can include gliosis, neuronal cell loss and spongiform changes, but the common feature of all members of this group of diseases is the build-up of an aberrant form of the host cellular protein PrP^C, named PrP^Sc (from scrapie). The normal cellular isoform, PrP^C, is an endogenous glycosylphosphatidyl inositol (GPI)-anchored protein present in numerous tissues in mammals, including neurons and lymphoid cells. While the exact function of PrP^C remains unclear, evidence suggest putative roles in neuroprotection, cell adhesion and signal transduction (reviewed in refs. ³ and ⁴). According to the ‘protein-only hypothesis,’ the causative agents of prion diseases are proteinaceous infectious particles (‘prions’), which are composed essentially of misfolded PrP^C, or PrP^Sc.^5,6 Prions replicate through a molecular mechanism in which abnormally folded PrP^Sc acts as a catalyst and serves as a template to convert normal PrP^C molecules into PrP^Sc.^5,6 PrP^Sc differs from PrP^C in the conformation of its polypeptide chain, which is enriched in β-sheets and is protease resistant. Although the conversion process is believed to have a predominant role in the pathogenesis of prion diseases, the cellular and molecular basis for the pathogenic conversion of PrP are still unknown.Another important question is how PrP^Sc spreads to and within the brain. After oral exposure, PrP^Sc accumulates into lymphoid tissues, such as the spleen, lymph nodes or Peyer''s patches, prior to neuroinvasion.^7–9 The exact mechanisms and specific cells involved in the spreading from the gastrointestinal track to the lymphoid system and to the peripheral nervous system (PNS), leading to neuroinvasion of the CNS remain to be elucidated. However, a range of evidence suggests that the accumulation of PrP^Sc within lymphoid tissues is necessary for efficient neuroinvasion.^9–11 In particular it has been shown that PrP^Sc accumulates first within follicular dendritic cells (FDCs)¹² and macrophages.¹³ FDCs are stromal-differentiated cells in the germinal centres of activated lymphoid follicles. A number of studies have demonstrated that FDCs play a critical role during spreading of infection since their absence greatly impaires the neuroinvasion process.^8,11,14,15 However, because FDCs are immobile cells, it is not clear how they acquire PrP^Sc and how it spreads from the FDCs to the PNS. FDCs and nerve synapses occupy different anatomical sites^16,17 and therefore the lack of physical contact between the gut and FDCs and between FDCs and the nerve periphery imply the presence of intermediate mechanisms for the transport of PrP^Sc. Dendritic cells (DCs) have been proposed to play a critical role in the transport of PrP^Sc from the gut to FDCs.¹⁸ DCs function as sentinels for incoming pathogens. Bone-marrow dendritic cells (BMDCs) are migratory cells that are able to transport proteins within Peyer''s patches and into mesenteric lymph nodes.¹⁹ Interestingly, mucosal dendritic cells which play a role in the transport of intestinal antigen for presentation to Peyer''s patches and to mesenteric lymph nodes, can also extend trans-epithelial dendrites to directly sample bacteria in the gut.^20,21 However, the transport of PrP^Sc from FDCs to the PNS remains controversial and evidence for a direct role of DCs during this process has been debated.^22,23 Several mechanisms have been proposed for the intercellular transfer of PrP^Sc, including cell-cell contact, transfer via exosomes or by GPI-painting.^24–26 For example, similar to other types of pathogens such as HIV-1, which was proposed to follow the “exosomal” pathway to be released from the cells,²⁷ it has been shown that the supernatant of prion infected cells contain large amount of PrP^Sc in membranous vesicles known as exosomes.^25,28 Thus, it was suggested that exosomes might be a way to spread prion infection in vivo.^25,28 Recently, a different type of vesicles known as plasma membrane-derived microvesicles, were also described as a potential spreading mechanism during neuroinvasion.²⁹In 2004, Rustom and colleagues discovered a new mechanism of long distance intercellular communication in mammalian cells, called tunnelling nanotubes (TNTs).³⁰ TNTs are transient, long, actin-rich projections that allow for long-distance intercellular communication (reviewed in refs. ^31–33). TNT-like structures have been described to form in vitro between numerous cell types, including neuronal and immune cells.^30,34,35 These studies demonstrated that TNT-like structures formed bridges or channels between distant cells that can be used to transfer material between cells, including Lysotracker positive or endosomal vesicles, calcium fluxes, bacteria or viruses through their cytoplasms or along the surface of the nanotubes.^31–33 Interestingly, a model GPI-anchored protein, GFP-GPI, was found to move at the surface of these tubes³⁴ and while studying the neuritic transport of prions in neuronal cells, Magalhães and colleagues noticed a strong correlation between internalized PrP-res and Lysotracker positive vesicles in neurites,³⁶ suggesting that PrP-res might also be able to transfer through TNTs during prion cell-cell spreading.The results from the studies mentioned above and random observations of TNT-like structures in neuronal model cell cultures first led us to study whether these structures could in fact provide an efficient mechanism for prion cell-cell spreading.³⁷ We initially characterized TNT-like structures in the mouse catecholaminergic neuronal cell line, Cath.a-Differentiated cells (CAD cells) a well-recognized neuronal cell model for prion infection.³⁸ Under our culturing conditions, over 40% of the CAD cells could efficiently form actin-rich TNT-like structures between differentially labelled cell populations. In CAD cells, these nanotubes were very heterogeneous, both in length and in diameters. Indeed, TNT-like structures had lengths ranging from 10 to 80 µm and while over 70% of the nanotubes had diameters smaller than 200 nm, the remaining TNT-like structures had larger diameters (200 to 800 nm). We demonstrated that vesicles of lysosomal origins, a fluorescent form of PrP (GFP-PrP), infectious Alexa-PrP^Sc, as well as both endogenous and exogenous PrP^Sc could traffic within TNTs between neuronal cells (Fig. 1). The lysosomal and GFP-PrP vesicles observed to move through TNTs had a directed movement with a speed in the range of actin-mediated motors,³⁷ consistent with previous studies suggesting the involvement of an actomyosin-dependent transport.³⁹ Interestingly, active transfer of endogenous PrP^Sc, lysosomal or GFP-PrP vesicles occurred through TNTs with larger diameters, suggesting distinct roles for the different TNT-like structures observed.³⁷ These results do not seem to be specific to CAD cells since the transfer of GFP-PrP throught TNTs was observed in different types of transfected cells, including HEK293 cells (unpublished data). Furthermore, these results were in agreement with previous observations by Onfelt and colleagues showing the presence of a fluorescent GPI model protein (GFP-GPI) in TNTs formed between EBV-transformed human B cells³⁴ suggesting that different GPI-anchored proteins can be transferred along the surface and inside vesicles within TNTs. In order to determine the relevance of this type of intercellular communication in the case of prion diseases, it was necessary to evaluate the trafficking of the pathological form of PrP (PrP^Sc) within TNTs, by analyzing the transfer of endogenous PrP^Sc between chronically infected ScCAD cells and non-infected CAD cells. By immunofluorescence after guanidium treatment, endogenous PrP^Sc was found inside TNTs and in the cytoplasm of recipient non-infected CAD cells. Similar to exogenous PrP^Sc, endogenous PrP^Sc particles were not present in non-infected CAD cells not in contact with ScCAD cells after overnight co-cultures, thus excluding exosomal transfer or protein shedding.³⁷ Similarly, no transfer was observed between cells in direct contact with one another or upon treatment with latrunculin, which inhibits TNT formation. Strikingly, the transfer of endogenous PrP^Sc was visible only when TNTs were present, demonstrating that in vitro, PrP^Sc can efficiently exploit TNTs to spread between cells of neuronal origin. These data suggested that TNTs could be a mechanism for prion spreading within the cells of the CNS.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Endogenous PrP^Sc transfer from ScCAD cells to CAD cells via TNTs. Endogenous PrP^Sc is found in punctate structures inside TNTs and in the cytoplasms of recipient cells. CAD cells were transfected with Cherry-PLAP (red) and co-cultured with ScCAD for 24 h. Cells were fixed, treated with Gnd and immunostained for PrP using SAF32 Ab (green). (A) Merge projection of Z-stacks obtained with a confocal Andor spinning-disk microscope. (B) Three-dimensional reconstruction of (A) using OsiriX software. (C) Zoom in on TNT-like structures. PrP^Sc is found in vesicular structures inside TNTs and in the cytoplasm of the recipient non-infected CAD cells (see blue arrow heads). Scale bar represents 10 µm.Interestingly, DCs were shown to form networks of TNTs both in vitro⁴⁰ and in vivo.⁴¹ In an elegant study, Watkins and Salter demonstrated that DCs could propagate calcium flux upon cell stimulation to other cells hundreds of microns away through TNTs, both between DCs and between DCs and THP-1 monocytes.⁴⁰ These data suggested the possibility that DCs could form tubular connections with neuronal cells in order to transport PrP^Sc to the PNS via TNTs. Using BMDCs in co-cultures with both cerebellar granular neurons (CGNs) and primary hippocampal neurons, we showed that BMDCs could form networks of TNTs with both types of neurons. Furthermore, these TNTs appeared to be functional, allowing for the transport of Lysotracker positive vesicles and infectious Alexa-PrP^Sc between loaded BMDCs and primary neurons, suggesting that DCs could transfer the infectious prion agent to primary neuronal cultures through TNTs. By using filters and conditions unfavorable for other mechanisms of transport, we found that moRK13 cells,²⁸ as well as CGNs (unpublished data), could be infected by co-cultures with BMDCs loaded with infectious brain homogenate.³⁷ Overall, these data indicate that TNTs could be an efficient mechanism of prion transmission between immune cells and neuronal cells, as well as between neuronal cultures. Since DCs can interact with peripheral neurons,⁴² we propose that TNTs could be involved in the process of neuroinvasion at multiple stages, from the peripheral site of entry to the PNS by neuroimmune interactions with DCs, allowing neurons to retrogradely transport prions to the CNS, and within the CNS (Fig. 2).Open in a separate windowFigure 2Transport of PrP^Sc via TNTs, an alternative spreading mechanism during neuroinvasion. Studies in our laboratory suggest that TNTs allow for the intracellular transport of PrP^Sc between dendritic cells and neurons and between neurons (see inset). The exact mechanism of transport remains to be determined. For instance, it is still not clear, whether PrP^Sc is strictly transported within endocytic vesicles, or whether it can slide along the surface or be transported as aggregosomes within the tubes. Similarly, the types of motors used, as well as the possible gated mechanisms to enter the recipient cells are not known. Because of the high propensity of DCs to form TNTs with different cell types, we propose that TNTs could play important roles in delivering PrP^Sc to the proper cell types along the neuroinvasion route. For instance, DCs could deliver PrP^Sc from the peripheral entry sites to FDCs in the secondary lymphoid tissues (2) or in a less efficient manner, they might occasionally directly transport PrP^Sc to the PNS (1). They could also bridge the immobile FDC networks and the PNS (3), since we have shown that DCs can form TNTs with nerve cells. Finally, once PrP^Sc has reached its final destination within the CNS, TNTs might play a final role in the spreading of PrP^Sc within the brain between neurons and possibly between neuronal cells and astrocytes (4).Recently, it was demonstrated that the distance between FDCs and the neighbouring PNS was critical for prion neuroinvasion.⁴³ Indeed, in the spleen of CD19^−/− mice, FDC networks were found to be 50% closer to the nerve fibers compared to wild-type mice.⁴³ The authors suggested that the increase in prion spreading efficiency in these mice was directly dependent on the reduction in the distance between the FDC networks and the PNS in these mice. These results would be consistent with a mechanism of transfer such as exosomes release. However, shortening the distance between FDCs and the PNS would also reduce the route of transport that mobile cells would have to travel and increase the chances for transfer of prions to the PNS, resulting in an increase in prion spreading efficiency. While the importance of FDCs in prion replication during the spreading to the CNS seems to be clear,^11,14,15 their specific role in the transfer of prions and their possible interactions with other mobile cells are much more debated.^22,23 In order to bridge the gap between FDCs and the PNS, a role for DCs as possible carriers of PrP^Sc has been postulated. Aucouturier and colleagues have previously shown, using RAG-1^−/− mice, which are deficient in FDCs, that CD11c⁺ DCs infected with 139A were able to carry prion infection to the CNS, without accumulation and replication in lymphoid organs,²² thus suggesting that DCs are able to transport prions from the periphery to nerve cells. Recently, however, another study using TNFR1^−/− mice, deficient for FDCs, suggested that DCs were unlikely candidates in the transport of prion to the PNS.²³ In this study, the authors showed that in TNFR1^−/− mice, ME7 or 139A infected DCs were inefficient in transferring infection to the PNS. The authors suggested that the differences between the results obtained with RAG-1^−/− mice and TNFR1^−/− mice could be due to the differences in the levels of innervation of the spleen in RAG-1^−/−mice compared to TNFR1^−/− mice. They suggested that in RAG-1^−/− mice, DCs could spread prion infection because their spleens are highly innervated, compared to TNFR1^−/− or wild-type mice, therefore increasing the propensity of DCs to encounter nerve cells and tranfer the prion agents. Because of the reduction in the levels of innervation in the spleens of wild-type mice, the authors concluded that DCs are unlikely candidate for the transport of prions directly to the PNS [see (1) in Fig. 2]. However, since these studies are using mice deficient for FDCs, it remains unclear what type of interactions might occur between FDCs and DCs, and how DCs might be able to transport prions from FDCs to the PNS in wild-type mice [see (2) in Fig. 2]. Indeed, both studies show that under the right circumstances, DCs can interact with nerve cells, similar to what was recently shown in infected mice⁴² and in agreement with our findings that DCs can form TNTs with neurons.³⁷ Within this scenario, it is clear that to determine the specific role of DCs during the spreading of prions from the gut to the PNS, the transfer mechanisms between DCs and other cell types, especially FDCs and peripheral neurons, need to be better characterized.Overall, these in vitro data strongly point toward TNTs as one possible mechanism of prion spreading. The next step will be to identify these structures in vivo and to determine whether prion spreading in vivo is the result of passive mechanisms, such as exosome release, active intercellular transport along and within TNTs or whether prions will use any means available to reach their targets. Recently, TNT-like structures were imaged in a mouse cornea,⁴¹ suggesting that while challenging, the visualization of in vivo trafficking of prions in lymphoid tissues such as in lymph nodes or in the spleen as well as in brain organotypic cultures might be possible and could be used to reveal the presence of TNTs.The discovery of the existence of nanotubular membrane bridges in vitro has opened-up a new field of research. Channels, called plasmodesmata,⁴⁴ connecting plant cells have long been known to play crucial roles in the transport of nutrients, molecules and signals during development and some of their functions were recently compared with some of the recently proposed functions of TNTs.⁴⁵ Furthermore, in vivo long, actin-rich filopodia like structures were found to be crucial during development.^46–49 For example, these structures exist in developing sea urchin embryos and were proposed to play a role in signalling and patterning during gastrulation.⁴⁷ Similar roles were proposed for thin filopodia-like structures observed during dorsal closure in drosophila.⁴⁹ In addition, TNT-like structures were observed in the mouse cornea between DCs and were shown to increase under inflammatory conditions.⁴¹ The authors postulated that these TNT-like structures could play a role in Ag-specific signalling, especially as a response to eye inflammation. Therefore, the possibility that TNTs might play numerous roles during cell development, in the immune system and as conduits for the spreading of pathogens could lead to major changes in the way we view animal cell interactions. Specifically, understanding how pathogens usurp these cellular connections to spread could allow for the screening and the identification of new therapeutic inhibitors. To this aim, characterizing the basic mechanism of TNT formation within cell model systems will be necessary to improve the knowledge of TNTs in general, to analyze the transfer of pathogens more specifically, and to identify key molecules during this process. In the case of prions, whether they hijack nanotubes to spread between cells or whether prions increase the formation of filopodia and TNT-like structures similar to some viruses^33,50 and/or the efficiency of transfer remain to be determined. Overall, in this specific field, the constant improvement of cell imaging techniques and the emergence of imaging tools to study prion spreading^{36,37,51–53} could lead to exciting new insights both in the physiology of these intercellular connections and in the pathology of these devastating diseases.     

Human non-CG methylation: Are human stem cells plant-like?

Non-CG methylation is well characterized in plants where it appears to play a role in gene silencing and genomic imprinting. Although strong evidence for the presence of non-CG methylation in mammals has been available for some time, both its origin and function remain elusive. In this review we discuss available evidence on non-CG methylation in mammals in light of evidence suggesting that the human stem cell methylome contains significant levels of methylation outside the CG site.Key words: non-CG methylation, stem cells, Dnmt1, Dnmt3a, human methylomeIn plant cells non-CG sites are methylated de novo by Chromomethylase 3, DRM1 and DRM2. Chromomethylase 3, along with DRM1 and DRM2 combine in the maintenance of methylation at symmetric CpHpG as well as asymmetric DNA sites where they appear to prevent reactivation of transposons.¹ DRM1 and DRM2 modify DNA de novo primarily at asymmetric CpH and CpHpH sequences targeted by siRNA.²Much less information is available on non-CG methylation in mammals. In fact, studies on mammalian non-CG methylation form a tiny fraction of those on CG methylation, even though data for cytosine methylation in other dinucleotides, CA, CT and CC, have been available since the late 1980s.³ Strong evidence for non-CG methylation was found by examining either exogenous DNA sequences, such as plasmid and viral integrants in mouse and human cell lines,^4,5 or transposons and repetitive sequences such as the human L1 retrotransposon⁶ in a human embryonic fibroblast cell line. In the latter study, non-CG methylation observed in L1 was found to be consistent with the capacity of Dnmt1 to methylate slippage intermediates de novo.⁶Non-CG methylation has also been reported at origins of replication^7,8 and a region of the human myogenic gene Myf3.⁹ The Myf3 gene is silenced in non-muscle cell lines but it is not methylated at CGs. Instead, it carries several methylated cytosines within the sequence CCTGG. Gene-specific non-CG methylation was also reported in a study of lymphoma and myeloma cell lines not expressing many B lineage-specific genes.¹⁰ The study focused on one specific gene, B29 and found heavy CG promoter methylation of that gene in most cell lines not expressing it. However, in two other cell lines where the gene was silenced, cytosine methylation was found almost exclusively at CCWGG sites. The authors provided evidence suggesting that CCWGG methylation was sufficient for silencing the B29 promoter and that methylated probes based on B29 sequences had unique gel shift patterns compared to non-methylated but otherwise identical sequences.¹⁰ The latter finding suggests that the presence of the non-CG methylation causes changes in the proteins able to bind the promoter, which could be mechanistically related to the silencing seen with this alternate methylation.Non-CG methylation is rarely seen in DNA isolated from cancer patients. However, the p16 promoter region was reported to contain both CG and non-CG methylation in breast tumor specimens but lacked methylation at these sites in normal breast tissue obtained at mammoplasty.¹¹ Moreover, CWG methylation at the CCWGG sites in the calcitonin gene is not found in normal or leukemic lymphocyte DNA obtained from patients.¹² Further, in DNA obtained from breast cancer patients, MspI sites that are refractory to digestion by MspI and thus candidates for CHG methylation were found to carry CpG methylation.¹³ Their resistance to MspI restriction was found to be caused by an unusual secondary structure in the DNA spanning the MspI site that prevents restriction.¹³ This latter observation suggests caution in interpreting EcoRII/BstNI or EcoRII/BstOI restriction differences as due to CWG methylation, since in contrast to the 37°C incubation temperature required for full EcoRII activity, BstNI and BstOI require incubation at 60°C for full activity where many secondary structures are unstable.The recent report by Lister et al.¹⁴ confirmed a much earlier report by Ramsahoye et al.¹⁵ suggesting that non-CG methylation is prevalent in mammalian stem cell lines. Nearest neighbor analysis was used to detect non-CG methylation in the earlier study on the mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell line,¹⁵ thus global methylation patterning was assessed. Lister et al.¹⁴ extend these findings to human stem cell lines at single-base resolution with whole-genome bisulfite sequencing. They report¹⁴ that the methylome of the human H1 stem cell line and the methylome of the induced pluripotent IMR90 (iPS) cell line are stippled with non-CG methylation while that of the human IMR90 fetal fibroblast cell line is not. While the results of the two studies are complementary, the human methylome study addresses locus specific non-CG methylation. Based on that data,¹⁴ one must conclude that non-CG methylation is not carefully maintained at a given site in the human H1 cell line. The average non-CG site is picked up as methylated in about 25% of the reads whereas the average CG methylation site is picked up in 92% of the reads. Moreover, non-CG methylation is not generally present on both strands and is concentrated in the body of actively transcribed genes.¹⁴Even so, the consistent finding that non-CG methylation appears to be confined to stem cell lines,^14,15 raises the possibility that cancer stem cells¹⁶ carry non-CG methylation while their nonstem progeny in the tumor carry only CG methylation. Given the expected paucity of cancer stem cells in a tumor cell population, it is unlikely that bisulfite sequencing would detect non-CG methylation in DNA isolated from tumor cells since the stem cell population is expected to be only a very minor component of tumor DNA. Published sequences obtained by bisulfite sequencing generally report only CG methylation, and to the best of our knowledge bisulfite sequenced tumor DNA specimens have not reported non-CG methylation. On the other hand, when sequences from cell lines have been reported, bisulfite-mediated genomic sequencing⁸ or ligation mediated PCR¹⁷ methylcytosine signals outside the CG site have been observed. In a more recent study plasmid DNAs carrying the Bcl2-major breakpoint cluster¹⁸ or human breast cancer DNA¹³ treated with bisulfite under non-denaturing conditions, cytosines outside the CG side were only partially converted on only one strand¹⁸ or at a symmetrical CWG site.¹³ In the breast cancer DNA study the apparent CWG methylation was not detected when the DNA was fully denatured before bisulfite treatment.¹³In both stem cell studies, non-CG methylation was attributed to the Dnmt3a,^14,15 a DNA methyltransferase with similarities to the plant DRM methyltransferase family¹⁹ and having the capacity to methylate non-CG sites when expressed in Drosophila melanogaster.¹⁵ DRM proteins however, possess a unique permuted domain structure found exclusively in plants¹⁹ and the associated RNA-directed non-CG DNA methylation has not been reproducibly observed in mammals despite considerable published^20–23 and unpublished efforts in that area. Moreover, reports where methylation was studied often infer methylation changes from 5AzaC reactivation studies²⁴ or find that CG methylation seen in plants but not non-CG methylation is detected.^21,22,25,26 In this regard, it is of interest that the level of non-CG methylation reported in stem cells corresponds to background non-CG methylation observed in vitro with human DNA methyltransferase I,²⁷ and is consistent with the recent report that cultured stem cells are epigenetically unstable.²⁸The function of non-CG methylation remains elusive. A role in gene expression has not been ruled out, as the studies above on Myf3 and B29 suggest.^9,10 However, transgene expression of the bacterial methyltransferase M.EcoRII in a human cell line (HK293), did not affect the CG methylation state at the APC and SerpinB5 genes²⁹ even though the promoters were symmetrically de novo methylated at ^mCWGs within each CCWGG sequence in each promoter. This demonstrated that CG and non-CG methylation are not mutually exclusive as had been suggested by earlier reports.^9,10 That observation is now extended to the human stem cell line methylome where CG and non-CG methylation co-exist.¹⁴ Gene expression at the APC locus was likewise unaffected by transgene expression of M.EcoRII. In those experiments genome wide methylation of the CCWGG site was detected by restriction analysis and bisulfite sequencing,²⁹ however stem cell characteristics were not studied.Many alternative functions can be envisioned for non-CG methylation, but the existing data now constrains them to functions that involve low levels of methylation that are primarily asymmetric. Moreover, inheritance of such methylation patterns requires low fidelity methylation. If methylation were maintained with high fidelity at particular CHG sites one would expect that the spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine would diminish the number of such sites, so as to confine the remaining sites to those positions performing an essential function, as is seen in CG methylation.^30–33 However, depletion of CWG sites is not observed in the human genome.³⁴ Since CWG sites account for only about 50% of the non-CG methylation observed in the stem cell methylome¹⁴ where methylated non-CG sites carry only about 25% methylation, the probability of deamination would be about 13% of that for CWG sites that are subject to maintenance methylation in the germ line. Since mutational depletion of methylated cytosines has to have its primary effect on the germ line, if the maintenance of non-CG methylation were more accurate and more widespread, one would have had to argue that stem cells in the human germ lines lack CWG methylation. As it is the data suggests that whatever function non-CG methylation may have in stem cells, it does not involve accurate somatic inheritance in the germ line.The extensive detail on non-CG methylation in the H1 methylome¹⁴ raises interesting questions about the nature of this form of methylation in human cell lines. A key finding in this report is the contrast between the presence of non-CG methylation in the H1 stem cell line and its absence in the IMR90 human fetal lung fibroblast cell line.¹⁴ This suggests that it may have a role in the origin and maintenance of the pluripotent lineage.¹⁴By analogy with the well known methylated DNA binding proteins specific for CG methylation,³⁵ methylated DNA binding proteins that selectively bind sites of non-CG methylation are expected to exist in stem cells. Currently the only protein reported to have this binding specificity is human Dnmt1.^36–38 While Dnmt1 has been proposed to function stoichiometrically³⁹ and could serve a non-CG binding role in stem cells, this possibility and the possibility that other stem-cell specific non-CG binding proteins might exist remain to be been explored.Finally, the nature of the non-CG methylation patterns in human stem cell lines present potentially difficult technical problems in methylation analysis. First, based on the data in the H1 stem cell methylome,⁴⁰ a standard MS-qPCR for non-CG methylation would be impractical because non-CG sites are infrequent, rarely clustered and are generally characterized by partial asymmetric methylation. This means that a PCR primer that senses the 3 adjacent methylation sites usually recommended for MS-qPCR primer design^41,42 cannot be reliably found. For example in the region near Oct4 (Chr6:31,246,431), a potential MS-qPCR site exists with a suboptimal set of two adjacent CHG sites both methylated on the + strand at Chr6:31,252,225 and 31,252,237.^14,40 However these sites were methylated only in 13/45 and 30/52 reads. Thus the probability that they would both be methylated on the same strand is about 17%. Moreover, reverse primer locations containing non-CG methylation sites are generally too far away for practical bisulfite mediated PCR. Considering the losses associated with bisulfite mediated PCR⁴³ the likelihood that such an MS-qPCR system would detect non-CG methylation in the H1 cell line or stem cells present in a cancer stem cell niche^44,45 is very low.The second difficulty is that methods based on the specificity of MeCP2 and similar methylated DNA binding proteins for enriching methylated DNA (e.g., MIRA,⁴⁶ COMPARE-MS⁴⁷) will discard sequences containing non-CG methylation since they require cooperative binding afforded by runs of adjacent methylated CG sites for DNA capture. This latter property of the methylated cytosine capture techniques makes it also unlikely that methods based on 5-methylcytosine antibodies (e.g., meDIP⁴⁸) will capture non-CG methylation patterns accurately since the stem cell methylome shows that adjacent methylated non-CG sites are rare in comparison to methylated CG sites.¹⁴In summary, whether or not mammalian stem cells in general or human stem cells in particular possess functional plant-like methylation patterns is likely to continue to be an interesting and challenging question. At this point we can conclude that the non-CG patterns reported in human cells appear to differ significantly from the non-CG patterns seen in plants, suggesting that they do not have a common origin or function.