Unravelling druggable signalling networks that control F508del-CFTR proteostasis

  1. Ramanath Narayana Hegde
  2. Seetharaman Parashuraman
  3. Francesco Iorio
  4. Fabiana Ciciriello
  5. Fabrizio Capuani
  6. Annamaria Carissimo
  7. Diego Carrella
  8. Vincenzo Belcastro
  9. Advait Subramanian
  10. Laura Bounti
  11. Maria Persico
  12. Graeme Carlile
  13. Luis Galietta
  14. David Y Thomas
  15. Diego Di Bernardo
  16. Alberto Luini  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Research Council, Italy
  2. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, United Kingdom
  3. Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Italy
  4. University of Rome, La Sapienza, Italy
  5. Institute of Protein Biochemistry, Italy
  6. KU Leuven University, Italy
  7. McGill University, Canada
  8. Institute of Giannina Gaslini, Italy

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by mutations in CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). The most frequent mutation (F508del-CFTR) results in altered proteostasis, i.e., in the misfolding and intracellular degradation of the protein. The F508del-CFTR proteostasis machinery and its homeostatic regulation are well studied, while the question whether 'classical' signalling pathways and phosphorylation cascades might control proteostasis remains barely explored. Here, we have unravelled signalling cascades acting selectively on the F508del-CFTR folding-trafficking defects by analysing the mechanisms of action of F508del-CFTR proteostasis regulator drugs through an approach based on transcriptional profiling followed by deconvolution of their gene signatures. Targeting multiple components of these signalling pathways resulted in potent and specific correction of F508del-CFTR proteostasis and in synergy with pharmacochaperones. These results provide new insights into the physiology of cellular proteostasis and a rational basis for developing effective pharmacological correctors of the F508del-CFTR defect.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ramanath Narayana Hegde

    Institute of Protein Biochemistry, National Research Council, Naples, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Seetharaman Parashuraman

    Institute of Protein Biochemistry, National Research Council, Naples, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Francesco Iorio

    Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fabiana Ciciriello

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Fabrizio Capuani

    Department of Physics, University of Rome, La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Annamaria Carissimo

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Diego Carrella

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Vincenzo Belcastro

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Advait Subramanian

    National Research Council, Institute of Protein Biochemistry, Naples, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Laura Bounti

    KU Leuven University, Naples, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Maria Persico

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Graeme Carlile

    Department of Biochemistry, McIntyre Medical Sciences Building, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Luis Galietta

    U.O.C. Genetica Medica, Institute of Giannina Gaslini, Genova, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. David Y Thomas

    Department of Biochemistry, McIntyre Medical Sciences Building, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Diego Di Bernardo

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Alberto Luini

    Institute of Protein Biochemistry, National Research Council, Naples, Italy
    For correspondence
    a.luini@ibp.cnr.it
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Suzanne R Pfeffer, Stanford University School of Medicine, United States

Version history

  1. Received: July 25, 2015
  2. Accepted: November 26, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 23, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 28, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: February 18, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Hegde et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,688
    views
  • 637
    downloads
  • 21
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ramanath Narayana Hegde
  2. Seetharaman Parashuraman
  3. Francesco Iorio
  4. Fabiana Ciciriello
  5. Fabrizio Capuani
  6. Annamaria Carissimo
  7. Diego Carrella
  8. Vincenzo Belcastro
  9. Advait Subramanian
  10. Laura Bounti
  11. Maria Persico
  12. Graeme Carlile
  13. Luis Galietta
  14. David Y Thomas
  15. Diego Di Bernardo
  16. Alberto Luini
(2015)
Unravelling druggable signalling networks that control F508del-CFTR proteostasis
eLife 4:e10365.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10365

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10365

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Gang Xue, Xiaoyi Zhang ... Zhiyuan Li
    Research Article

    Organisms utilize gene regulatory networks (GRN) to make fate decisions, but the regulatory mechanisms of transcription factors (TF) in GRNs are exceedingly intricate. A longstanding question in this field is how these tangled interactions synergistically contribute to decision-making procedures. To comprehensively understand the role of regulatory logic in cell fate decisions, we constructed a logic-incorporated GRN model and examined its behavior under two distinct driving forces (noise-driven and signal-driven). Under the noise-driven mode, we distilled the relationship among fate bias, regulatory logic, and noise profile. Under the signal-driven mode, we bridged regulatory logic and progression-accuracy trade-off, and uncovered distinctive trajectories of reprogramming influenced by logic motifs. In differentiation, we characterized a special logic-dependent priming stage by the solution landscape. Finally, we applied our findings to decipher three biological instances: hematopoiesis, embryogenesis, and trans-differentiation. Orthogonal to the classical analysis of expression profile, we harnessed noise patterns to construct the GRN corresponding to fate transition. Our work presents a generalizable framework for top-down fate-decision studies and a practical approach to the taxonomy of cell fate decisions.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Weichen Song, Yongyong Shi, Guan Ning Lin
    Tools and Resources

    We propose a new framework for human genetic association studies: at each locus, a deep learning model (in this study, Sei) is used to calculate the functional genomic activity score for two haplotypes per individual. This score, defined as the Haplotype Function Score (HFS), replaces the original genotype in association studies. Applying the HFS framework to 14 complex traits in the UK Biobank, we identified 3619 independent HFS–trait associations with a significance of p < 5 × 10−8. Fine-mapping revealed 2699 causal associations, corresponding to a median increase of 63 causal findings per trait compared with single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based analysis. HFS-based enrichment analysis uncovered 727 pathway–trait associations and 153 tissue–trait associations with strong biological interpretability, including ‘circadian pathway-chronotype’ and ‘arachidonic acid-intelligence’. Lastly, we applied least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression to integrate HFS prediction score with SNP-based polygenic risk scores, which showed an improvement of 16.1–39.8% in cross-ancestry polygenic prediction. We concluded that HFS is a promising strategy for understanding the genetic basis of human complex traits.