The coordinated action of the MVB pathway and autophagy ensures cell survival during starvation

  1. Martin Müller
  2. Oliver Schmidt
  3. Mihaela Angelova
  4. Klaus Faserl
  5. Sabine Weys
  6. Leopold Kremser
  7. Thaddäus Pfaffenwimmer
  8. Thomas Dalik
  9. Claudine Kraft
  10. Zlatko Trajanoski
  11. Herbert Lindner
  12. David Teis  Is a corresponding author
  1. Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria
  2. University of Vienna, Austria
  3. University of Natural Resources and Applied Biosciences, Austria

Abstract

The degradation and recycling of cellular components is essential for cell growth and survival. Here we show how selective and non-selective lysosomal protein degradation pathways cooperate to ensure cell survival upon nutrient limitation. A quantitative analysis of starvation-induced proteome remodeling in yeast reveals comprehensive changes already in the first three hours. In this period, many different integral plasma membrane proteins undergo endocytosis and degradation in vacuoles via the multivesicular body (MVB) pathway. Their degradation becomes essential to maintain critical amino acids levels that uphold protein synthesis early during starvation. This promotes cellular adaptation, including the de novo synthesis of vacuolar hydrolases to boost the vacuolar catabolic activity. This order of events primes vacuoles for the efficient degradation of bulk cytoplasm via autophagy. Hence, a catabolic cascade including the coordinated action of the MVB pathway and autophagy is essential to enter quiescence to survive extended periods of nutrient limitation.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Martin Müller

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Oliver Schmidt

    Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mihaela Angelova

    Division of Bioinformatics, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Klaus Faserl

    Division of Clinical Biochemistry, ProteinMicroAnalysis Facility, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sabine Weys

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Leopold Kremser

    Division of Clinical Biochemistry, ProteinMicroAnalysis Facility, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Thaddäus Pfaffenwimmer

    Max F. Perutz Laboratories, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Thomas Dalik

    Department of Chemistry, University of Natural Resources and Applied Biosciences, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Claudine Kraft

    Max F. Perutz Laboratories, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Zlatko Trajanoski

    Division of Bioinformatics, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Herbert Lindner

    Division of Clinical Biochemistry, ProteinMicroAnalysis Facility, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. David Teis

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    For correspondence
    david.teis@i-med.ac.at
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Müller 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

  • 6,726
    views
  • 1,514
    downloads
  • 102
    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. Martin Müller
  2. Oliver Schmidt
  3. Mihaela Angelova
  4. Klaus Faserl
  5. Sabine Weys
  6. Leopold Kremser
  7. Thaddäus Pfaffenwimmer
  8. Thomas Dalik
  9. Claudine Kraft
  10. Zlatko Trajanoski
  11. Herbert Lindner
  12. David Teis
(2015)
The coordinated action of the MVB pathway and autophagy ensures cell survival during starvation
eLife 4:e07736.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07736

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07736

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Gabriella O Estevam, Edmond Linossi ... James S Fraser
    Research Article

    Mutations in the kinase and juxtamembrane domains of the MET Receptor Tyrosine Kinase are responsible for oncogenesis in various cancers and can drive resistance to MET-directed treatments. Determining the most effective inhibitor for each mutational profile is a major challenge for MET-driven cancer treatment in precision medicine. Here, we used a deep mutational scan (DMS) of ~5764 MET kinase domain variants to profile the growth of each mutation against a panel of 11 inhibitors that are reported to target the MET kinase domain. We validate previously identified resistance mutations, pinpoint common resistance sites across type I, type II, and type I ½ inhibitors, unveil unique resistance and sensitizing mutations for each inhibitor, and verify non-cross-resistant sensitivities for type I and type II inhibitor pairs. We augment a protein language model with biophysical and chemical features to improve the predictive performance for inhibitor-treated datasets. Together, our study demonstrates a pooled experimental pipeline for identifying resistance mutations, provides a reference dictionary for mutations that are sensitized to specific therapies, and offers insights for future drug development.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.