Progerin reduces LAP2α-telomere association in Hutchinson-Gilford progeria

  1. Alexandre Chojnowski
  2. Peh Fern Ong
  3. Esther SM Wong
  4. John SY Lim
  5. Rafidah A Mutalif
  6. Raju Navasankari
  7. Bamaprasad Dutta
  8. Henry Yang
  9. Yi Y Liow
  10. Siu K Sze
  11. Thomas Boudier
  12. Graham D Wright
  13. Alan Colman
  14. Brian Burke
  15. Colin L Stewart
  16. Oliver Dreesen  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore
  2. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
  3. National University of Singapore, Singapore
  4. IPAL UMI 2955, Singapore

Abstract

Hutchinson-Gilford progeria (HGPS) is a premature ageing syndrome caused by a mutation in LMNA, resulting in a truncated form of lamin A called progerin. Progerin triggers loss of the heterochromatic marker H3K27me3, and premature senescence, which is prevented by telomerase. However, the mechanism how progerin causes disease remains unclear. Here, we describe an inducible cellular system to model HGPS and find that LAP2α (lamina-associated polypeptide-α) interacts with lamin A, while its interaction with progerin is significantly reduced. Super-resolution microscopy revealed that over 50% of telomeres localize to the lamina and that LAP2α association with telomeres is impaired in HGPS. This impaired interaction is central to HGPS since increasing LAP2α levels rescues progerin-induced proliferation defects and loss of H3K27me3, whereas lowering LAP2 levels exacerbates progerin-induced defects. These findings provide novel insights into the pathophysiology underlying HGPS, and how the nuclear lamina regulates proliferation and chromatin organization.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alexandre Chojnowski

    Developmental and Regenerative Biology, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Peh Fern Ong

    Cellular Ageing, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Esther SM Wong

    Developmental and Regenerative Biology, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. John SY Lim

    Microscopy Unit, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Rafidah A Mutalif

    Developmental and Regenerative Biology, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Raju Navasankari

    Developmental and Regenerative Biology, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Bamaprasad Dutta

    School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Henry Yang

    Bioinformatics Core, Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Yi Y Liow

    Developmental and Regenerative Biology, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Siu K Sze

    School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Thomas Boudier

    Bioinformatics Institute, IPAL UMI 2955, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Graham D Wright

    Microscopy Unit, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Alan Colman

    Stem Cell Disease Models, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Brian Burke

    Nuclear Dynamics and Architecture, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Colin L Stewart

    Developmental and Regenerative Biology, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Oliver Dreesen

    Cellular Ageing, Institute of Medical Biology, Singapore, Singapore
    For correspondence
    oliver.dreesen@imb.a-star.edu.sg
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

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 (140960) of the Institute of Medical Biology, A*STAR, Singapore.

Copyright

© 2015, Chojnowski 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

  • 5,479
    views
  • 1,204
    downloads
  • 101
    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. Alexandre Chojnowski
  2. Peh Fern Ong
  3. Esther SM Wong
  4. John SY Lim
  5. Rafidah A Mutalif
  6. Raju Navasankari
  7. Bamaprasad Dutta
  8. Henry Yang
  9. Yi Y Liow
  10. Siu K Sze
  11. Thomas Boudier
  12. Graham D Wright
  13. Alan Colman
  14. Brian Burke
  15. Colin L Stewart
  16. Oliver Dreesen
(2015)
Progerin reduces LAP2α-telomere association in Hutchinson-Gilford progeria
eLife 4:e07759.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07759

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07759

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ting-Wen Chen, Hsiao-Wei Liao ... Chung-Te Chang
    Research Article

    The mRNA 5'-cap structure removal by the decapping enzyme DCP2 is a critical step in gene regulation. While DCP2 is the catalytic subunit in the decapping complex, its activity is strongly enhanced by multiple factors, particularly DCP1, which is the major activator in yeast. However, the precise role of DCP1 in metazoans has yet to be fully elucidated. Moreover, in humans, the specific biological functions of the two DCP1 paralogs, DCP1a and DCP1b, remain largely unknown. To investigate the role of human DCP1, we generated cell lines that were deficient in DCP1a, DCP1b, or both to evaluate the importance of DCP1 in the decapping machinery. Our results highlight the importance of human DCP1 in decapping process and show that the EVH1 domain of DCP1 enhances the mRNA-binding affinity of DCP2. Transcriptome and metabolome analyses outline the distinct functions of DCP1a and DCP1b in human cells, regulating specific endogenous mRNA targets and biological processes. Overall, our findings provide insights into the molecular mechanism of human DCP1 in mRNA decapping and shed light on the distinct functions of its paralogs.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Miguel Martinez-Ara, Federico Comoglio, Bas van Steensel
    Research Article

    Genes are often regulated by multiple enhancers. It is poorly understood how the individual enhancer activities are combined to control promoter activity. Anecdotal evidence has shown that enhancers can combine sub-additively, additively, synergistically, or redundantly. However, it is not clear which of these modes are more frequent in mammalian genomes. Here, we systematically tested how pairs of enhancers activate promoters using a three-way combinatorial reporter assay in mouse embryonic stem cells. By assaying about 69,000 enhancer-enhancer-promoter combinations we found that enhancer pairs generally combine near-additively. This behaviour was conserved across seven developmental promoters tested. Surprisingly, these promoters scale the enhancer signals in a non-linear manner that depends on promoter strength. A housekeeping promoter showed an overall different response to enhancer pairs, and a smaller dynamic range. Thus, our data indicate that enhancers mostly act additively, but promoters transform their collective effect non-linearly.