Mutation in ATG5 reduces autophagy and leads to ataxia with developmental delay

  1. Myungjin Kim
  2. Erin Sandford
  3. Damian Gatica
  4. Yu Qiu
  5. Xu Liu
  6. Yumei Zheng
  7. Brenda A Schulman
  8. Jishu Xu
  9. Ian Semple
  10. Seung-Hyun Ro
  11. Boyoung Kim
  12. R Nehir Mavioglu
  13. Aslıhan Tolun
  14. Andras Jipa
  15. Szabolcs Takats
  16. Manuela Karpati
  17. Jun Z Li
  18. Zuhal Yapici
  19. Gabor Juhasz
  20. Jun Hee Lee
  21. Daniel J Klionsky
  22. Margit Burmeister  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan, United States
  2. St Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States
  3. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, United States
  4. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States
  5. Boğaziçi University, Turkey
  6. Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
  7. Istanbul University, Turkey

Abstract

Autophagy is required for the homeostasis of cellular material and is proposed to be involved in many aspects of health. Defects in the autophagy pathway have been observed in neurodegenerative disorders; however, no genetically-inherited pathogenic mutations in any of the core autophagy-related (ATG) genes have been reported in human patients to date. We identified a homozygous missense mutation, changing a conserved amino acid, in ATG5 in two siblings with congenital ataxia, mental retardation, and developmental delay. The subjects' cells display a decrease in autophagy flux and defects in conjugation of ATG12 to ATG5. The homologous mutation in yeast demonstrates a 30-50% reduction of induced autophagy. Flies in which Atg5 is substituted with the mutant human ATG5 exhibit severe movement disorder, in contrast to flies expressing the wild-type human protein. Our results demonstrate the critical role of autophagy in preventing neurological diseases and maintaining neuronal health.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Myungjin Kim

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Erin Sandford

    Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Damian Gatica

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yu Qiu

    Department of Structural Biology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Xu Liu

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yumei Zheng

    Department of Structural Biology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Brenda A Schulman

    Department of Structural Biology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jishu Xu

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ian Semple

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Seung-Hyun Ro

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Boyoung Kim

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. R Nehir Mavioglu

    Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Aslıhan Tolun

    Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Andras Jipa

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Szabolcs Takats

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Manuela Karpati

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Jun Z Li

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Zuhal Yapici

    Department of Neurology, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Gabor Juhasz

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Jun Hee Lee

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Daniel J Klionsky

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Margit Burmeister

    Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    margit@umich.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Noboru Mizushima, The University of Tokyo, Japan

Ethics

Human subjects: Study protocols including written informed consents have been approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and the Boğaziçi University Institutional Review Board for Research with Human Participants.

Version history

  1. Received: October 11, 2015
  2. Accepted: January 13, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 26, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 1, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Kim 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

  • 6,332
    views
  • 1,474
    downloads
  • 141
    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. Myungjin Kim
  2. Erin Sandford
  3. Damian Gatica
  4. Yu Qiu
  5. Xu Liu
  6. Yumei Zheng
  7. Brenda A Schulman
  8. Jishu Xu
  9. Ian Semple
  10. Seung-Hyun Ro
  11. Boyoung Kim
  12. R Nehir Mavioglu
  13. Aslıhan Tolun
  14. Andras Jipa
  15. Szabolcs Takats
  16. Manuela Karpati
  17. Jun Z Li
  18. Zuhal Yapici
  19. Gabor Juhasz
  20. Jun Hee Lee
  21. Daniel J Klionsky
  22. Margit Burmeister
(2016)
Mutation in ATG5 reduces autophagy and leads to ataxia with developmental delay
eLife 5:e12245.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12245

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12245

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Gbolahan Bamgbose, Guillaume Bordet ... Alexei Tulin
    Research Article

    PARP-1 is central to transcriptional regulation under both normal and stress conditions, with the governing mechanisms yet to be fully understood. Our biochemical and ChIP-seq-based analyses showed that PARP-1 binds specifically to active histone marks, particularly H4K20me1. We found that H4K20me1 plays a critical role in facilitating PARP-1 binding and the regulation of PARP-1-dependent loci during both development and heat shock stress. Here, we report that the sole H4K20 mono-methylase, pr-set7, and parp-1 Drosophila mutants undergo developmental arrest. RNA-seq analysis showed an absolute correlation between PR-SET7- and PARP-1-dependent loci expression, confirming co-regulation during developmental phases. PARP-1 and PR-SET7 are both essential for activating hsp70 and other heat shock genes during heat stress, with a notable increase of H4K20me1 at their gene body. Mutating pr-set7 disrupts monomethylation of H4K20 along heat shock loci and abolish PARP-1 binding there. These data strongly suggest that H4 monomethylation is a key triggering point in PARP-1 dependent processes in chromatin.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Ting Zhang, Alisa Ambrodji ... Steven M Offer
    Research Article

    Enhancers are critical for regulating tissue-specific gene expression, and genetic variants within enhancer regions have been suggested to contribute to various cancer-related processes, including therapeutic resistance. However, the precise mechanisms remain elusive. Using a well-defined drug-gene pair, we identified an enhancer region for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD, DPYD gene) expression that is relevant to the metabolism of the anti-cancer drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Using reporter systems, CRISPR genome-edited cell models, and human liver specimens, we demonstrated in vitro and vivo that genotype status for the common germline variant (rs4294451; 27% global minor allele frequency) located within this novel enhancer controls DPYD transcription and alters resistance to 5-FU. The variant genotype increases recruitment of the transcription factor CEBPB to the enhancer and alters the level of direct interactions between the enhancer and DPYD promoter. Our data provide insight into the regulatory mechanisms controlling sensitivity and resistance to 5-FU.