A native interactor scaffolds and stabilizes toxic Ataxin-1 oligomers in SCA1

  1. Cristian A Lasagna-Reeves
  2. Maxime W C Rousseaux
  3. Marcos J Guerrero-Munoz
  4. Jeehye Park
  5. Paymaan Jafar-Nejad
  6. Ronald Richman
  7. Nan Lu
  8. Urmi Sengupta
  9. Alexandra Litvinchuk
  10. Harry T Orr
  11. Rakez Kayed
  12. Huda Y Zoghbi  Is a corresponding author
  1. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  2. University of Texas Medical Branch, United States
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  4. University of Minnesota, United States

Abstract

Recent studies indicate that soluble oligomers drive pathogenesis in several neurodegenerative proteinopathies, including Alzheimer and Parkinson disease. Curiously, the same conformational antibody recognizes different disease-related oligomers, despite the variations in clinical presentation and brain regions affected, suggesting that the oligomer structure might be responsible for toxicity. We investigated whether polyglutamine-expanded Ataxin1, the protein that underlies spinocerebellar ataxia type 1, forms toxic oligomers and, if so, what underlies their toxicity. We found that mutant ATXN1 does form oligomers and that oligomer levels correlate with disease progression in the Atxn1154Q/+ mice. Moreover, oligomeric toxicity, stabilization and seeding require interaction with Capicua, which is expressed at greater ratios with respect to ATXN1 in the cerebellum than in less vulnerable brain regions. Thus, specific interactors, not merely oligomeric structure, drive pathogenesis and contribute to regional vulnerability. Identifying interactors that stabilize toxic oligomeric complexes could answer longstanding questions about the pathogenesis of other proteinopathies.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Cristian A Lasagna-Reeves

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Maxime W C Rousseaux

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Marcos J Guerrero-Munoz

    Department of Neurology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Jeehye Park

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Paymaan Jafar-Nejad

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Ronald Richman

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Nan Lu

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Urmi Sengupta

    Department of Neurology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Alexandra Litvinchuk

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Harry T Orr

    Institute for Translational Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Rakez Kayed

    Department of Neurology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Huda Y Zoghbi

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    hzoghbi@bcm.edu
    Competing interests
    Huda Y Zoghbi, Senior editor, eLife.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#AN-1013) of Baylor College of Medicine

Copyright

© 2015, Lasagna-Reeves 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

  • 2,407
    views
  • 736
    downloads
  • 27
    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. Cristian A Lasagna-Reeves
  2. Maxime W C Rousseaux
  3. Marcos J Guerrero-Munoz
  4. Jeehye Park
  5. Paymaan Jafar-Nejad
  6. Ronald Richman
  7. Nan Lu
  8. Urmi Sengupta
  9. Alexandra Litvinchuk
  10. Harry T Orr
  11. Rakez Kayed
  12. Huda Y Zoghbi
(2015)
A native interactor scaffolds and stabilizes toxic Ataxin-1 oligomers in SCA1
eLife 4:e07558.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07558

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07558

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Maxine K Loh, Samantha J Hurh ... Mitchell F Roitman
    Research Article

    Mesolimbic dopamine encoding of non-contingent rewards and reward-predictive cues has been well established. Considerable debate remains over how mesolimbic dopamine responds to aversion and in the context of aversive conditioning. Inconsistencies may arise from the use of aversive stimuli that are transduced along different neural paths relative to reward or the conflation of responses to avoidance and aversion. Here, we made intraoral infusions of sucrose and measured how dopamine and behavioral responses varied to the changing valence of sucrose. Pairing intraoral sucrose with malaise via injection of lithium chloride (LiCl) caused the development of a conditioned taste aversion (CTA), which rendered the typically rewarding taste of sucrose aversive upon subsequent re-exposure. Following CTA formation, intraoral sucrose suppressed the activity of ventral tegmental area dopamine neurons (VTADA) and nucleus accumbens (NAc) dopamine release. This pattern of dopamine signaling after CTA is similar to intraoral infusions of innately aversive quinine and contrasts with responses to sucrose when it was novel or not paired with LiCl. Dopamine responses were negatively correlated with behavioral reactivity to intraoral sucrose and predicted home cage sucrose preference. Further, dopamine responses scaled with the strength of the CTA, which was increased by repeated LiCl pairings and weakened through extinction. Thus, the findings demonstrate differential dopamine encoding of the same taste stimulus according to its valence, which is aligned to distinct behavioral responses.

    1. Neuroscience
    Gaqi Tu, Peiying Wen ... Kaori Takehara-Nishiuchi
    Research Article

    Outcomes can vary even when choices are repeated. Such ambiguity necessitates adjusting how much to learn from each outcome by tracking its variability. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been reported to signal the expected outcome and its discrepancy from the actual outcome (prediction error), two variables essential for controlling the learning rate. However, the source of signals that shape these coding properties remains unknown. Here, we investigated the contribution of cholinergic projections from the basal forebrain because they carry precisely timed signals about outcomes. One-photon calcium imaging revealed that as mice learned different probabilities of threat occurrence on two paths, some mPFC cells responded to threats on one of the paths, while other cells gained responses to threat omission. These threat- and omission-evoked responses were scaled to the unexpectedness of outcomes, some exhibiting a reversal in response direction when encountering surprising threats as opposed to surprising omissions. This selectivity for signed prediction errors was enhanced by optogenetic stimulation of local cholinergic terminals during threats. The enhanced threat-evoked cholinergic signals also made mice erroneously abandon the correct choice after a single threat that violated expectations, thereby decoupling their path choice from the history of threat occurrence on each path. Thus, acetylcholine modulates the encoding of surprising outcomes in the mPFC to control how much they dictate future decisions.