The brown adipocyte protein CIDEA promotes lipid droplet fusion via a phosphatidic acid-binding amphipathic helix

  1. David Barneda
  2. Joan Planas-Iglesias
  3. Maria L Gaspar
  4. Dariush Mohammadyani
  5. Sunil Prasannan
  6. Dirk Dormann
  7. Gil-Soo Han
  8. Stephen A Jesch
  9. George M Carman
  10. Valerian Kagan
  11. Malcolm G Parker
  12. Nicholas T Ktistakis
  13. Ann M Dixon
  14. Judith Klein-Seetharaman
  15. Susan Henry
  16. Mark Christian  Is a corresponding author
  1. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  2. University of Warwick, United Kingdom
  3. Cornell University, United States
  4. University of Pittsburgh, United States
  5. Imperial College London, United States
  6. Rutgers University, United States
  7. Babraham Institute, United Kingdom

Abstract

Maintenance of energy homeostasis depends on the highly regulated storage and release of triacylglycerol primarily in adipose tissue and excessive storage is a feature of common metabolic disorders. CIDEA is a lipid droplet (LD)-protein enriched in brown adipocytes promoting the enlargement of LDs which are dynamic, ubiquitous organelles specialized for storing neutral lipids. We demonstrate an essential role in this process for an amphipathic helix in CIDEA, which facilitates embedding in the LD phospholipid monolayer and binds phosphatidic acid (PA). LD pairs are docked by CIDEA trans-complexes through contributions of the N-terminal domain and a C-terminal dimerization region. These complexes, enriched at the LD-LD contact site, interact with the cone-shaped phospholipid PA and likely increase phospholipid barrier permeability, promoting LD fusion by transference of lipids. This physiological process is essential in adipocyte differentiation as well as serving to facilitate the tight coupling of lipolysis and lipogenesis in activated brown fat.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David Barneda

    Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Joan Planas-Iglesias

    Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Maria L Gaspar

    Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dariush Mohammadyani

    Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sunil Prasannan

    Department of Chemistry, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Dirk Dormann

    Microscopy Facility, MRC Clinical Sciences Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Gil-Soo Han

    Microscopy Facility, MRC Clinical Sciences Centre, Imperial College London, London, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Stephen A Jesch

    Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. George M Carman

    Department of Food Science, Rutgers Center for Lipid Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Valerian Kagan

    Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Malcolm G Parker

    Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Nicholas T Ktistakis

    Signalling Programme, Babraham Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Ann M Dixon

    Department of Chemistry, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Judith Klein-Seetharaman

    Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Susan Henry

    Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Mark Christian

    Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    m.christian@warwick.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Stephen G Young, University of California, Los Angeles, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: March 13, 2015
  2. Accepted: November 25, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 26, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: December 10, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: February 3, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Barneda 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

  • 4,197
    Page views
  • 1,071
    Downloads
  • 69
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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. David Barneda
  2. Joan Planas-Iglesias
  3. Maria L Gaspar
  4. Dariush Mohammadyani
  5. Sunil Prasannan
  6. Dirk Dormann
  7. Gil-Soo Han
  8. Stephen A Jesch
  9. George M Carman
  10. Valerian Kagan
  11. Malcolm G Parker
  12. Nicholas T Ktistakis
  13. Ann M Dixon
  14. Judith Klein-Seetharaman
  15. Susan Henry
  16. Mark Christian
(2015)
The brown adipocyte protein CIDEA promotes lipid droplet fusion via a phosphatidic acid-binding amphipathic helix
eLife 4:e07485.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07485

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Amy Osterman, Alfonso Mondragón
    Research Article

    Topoisomerase V is a unique topoisomerase that combines DNA repair and topoisomerase activities. The enzyme has an unusual arrangement, with a small topoisomerase domain followed by 12 tandem (HhH)2 domains, which include three AP lyase repair domains. The uncommon architecture of this enzyme bears no resemblance to any other known topoisomerase. Here we present structures of topoisomerase V in complex with DNA. The structures show that the (HhH)2 domains wrap around the DNA and in this manner appear to act as a processivity factor. There is a conformational change in the protein to expose the topoisomerase active site. The DNA bends sharply to enter the active site, which melts the DNA and probably facilitates relaxation. The structures show a DNA binding mode not observed before and provide information on the way this atypical topoisomerase relaxes DNA. In common with type IB enzymes, topoisomerase V relaxes DNA using a controlled rotation mechanism, but the structures show that topoisomerase V accomplishes this in different manner. Overall, the structures firmly establish that type IC topoisomerases form a distinct type of topoisomerases, with no similarities to other types at the sequence, structural, or mechanistic level. They represent a completely different solution to DNA relaxation.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Sarah R Hansen et al.
    Research Article

    In eukaryotes, splice sites define the introns of pre-mRNAs and must be recognized and excised with nucleotide precision by the spliceosome to make the correct mRNA product. In one of the earliest steps of spliceosome assembly, the U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein (snRNP) recognizes the 5' splice site (5' SS) through a combination of base pairing, protein-RNA contacts, and interactions with other splicing factors. Previous studies investigating the mechanisms of 5' SS recognition have largely been done in vivo or in cellular extracts where the U1/5' SS interaction is difficult to deconvolute from the effects of trans-acting factors or RNA structure. In this work we used co-localization single-molecule spectroscopy (CoSMoS) to elucidate the pathway of 5' SS selection by purified yeast U1 snRNP. We determined that U1 reversibly selects 5' SS in a sequence-dependent, two-step mechanism. A kinetic selection scheme enforces pairing at particular positions rather than overall duplex stability to achieve long-lived U1 binding. Our results provide a kinetic basis for how U1 may rapidly surveil nascent transcripts for 5' SS and preferentially accumulate at these sequences rather than on close cognates.