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

    Warwick Medical School, 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

  • 4,209
    Page views
  • 1,098
    Downloads
  • 70
    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
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Metehan Ilter, Ramazan Kaşmer ... Ozge Sensoy
    Research Article

    Undruggability of RAS proteins has necessitated alternative strategies for the development of effective inhibitors. In this respect, phosphorylation has recently come into prominence as this reversible post-translational modification attenuates sensitivity of RAS towards RAF. As such, in this study, we set out to unveil the impact of phosphorylation on dynamics of HRASWT and aim to invoke similar behavior in HRASG12D mutant by means of small therapeutic molecules. To this end, we performed molecular dynamics (MD) simulations using phosphorylated HRAS and showed that phosphorylation of Y32 distorted Switch I, hence the RAS/RAF interface. Consequently, we targeted Switch I in HRASG12D by means of approved therapeutic molecules and showed that the ligands enabled detachment of Switch I from the nucleotide-binding pocket. Moreover, we demonstrated that displacement of Switch I from the nucleotide-binding pocket was energetically more favorable in the presence of the ligand. Importantly, we verified computational findings in vitro where HRASG12D/RAF interaction was prevented by the ligand in HEK293T cells that expressed HRASG12D mutant protein. Therefore, these findings suggest that targeting Switch I, hence making Y32 accessible might open up new avenues in future drug discovery strategies that target mutant RAS proteins.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Daan B Boltje, Jacob P Hoogenboom ... Sander den Hoedt
    Tools and Resources Updated

    Cryogenic electron tomography (cryo-ET) combined with subtomogram averaging, allows in situ visualization and structure determination of macromolecular complexes at subnanometre resolution. Cryogenic focused ion beam (cryo-FIB) micromachining is used to prepare a thin lamella-shaped sample out of a frozen-hydrated cell for cryo-ET imaging, but standard cryo-FIB fabrication is blind to the precise location of the structure or proteins of interest. Fluorescence-guided focused ion beam (FIB) milling at target locations requires multiple sample transfers prone to contamination, and relocation and registration accuracy is often insufficient for 3D targeting. Here, we present in situ fluorescence microscopy-guided FIB fabrication of a frozen-hydrated lamella to address this problem: we built a coincident three-beam cryogenic correlative microscope by retrofitting a compact cryogenic microcooler, custom positioning stage, and an inverted widefield fluorescence microscope (FM) on an existing FIB scanning electron microscope. We show FM controlled targeting at every milling step in the lamella fabrication process, validated with transmission electron microscope tomogram reconstructions of the target regions. The ability to check the lamella during and after the milling process results in a higher success rate in the fabrication process and will increase the throughput of fabrication for lamellae suitable for high-resolution imaging.