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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Karsten Weis, ETH Zürich, Switzerland

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.

Version history

  1. Received: March 27, 2015
  2. Accepted: August 23, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 27, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 11, 2015 (version 2)

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

  • 5,468
    Page views
  • 1,188
    Downloads
  • 98
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, 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. 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. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Allison Coté, Aoife O'Farrell ... Arjun Raj
    Research Article

    Splicing is the stepwise molecular process by which introns are removed from pre-mRNA and exons are joined together to form mature mRNA sequences. The ordering and spatial distribution of these steps remain controversial, with opposing models suggesting splicing occurs either during or after transcription. We used single-molecule RNA FISH, expansion microscopy, and live-cell imaging to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution of nascent transcripts in mammalian cells. At super-resolution levels, we found that pre-mRNA formed clouds around the transcription site. These clouds indicate the existence of a transcription-site-proximal zone through which RNA move more slowly than in the nucleoplasm. Full-length pre-mRNA undergo continuous splicing as they move through this zone following transcription, suggesting a model in which splicing can occur post-transcriptionally but still within the proximity of the transcription site, thus seeming co-transcriptional by most assays. These results may unify conflicting reports of co-transcriptional versus post-transcriptional splicing.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Maria L Adelus, Jiacheng Ding ... Casey E Romanoski
    Research Article

    Heterogeneity in endothelial cell (EC) sub-phenotypes is becoming increasingly appreciated in atherosclerosis progression. Still, studies quantifying EC heterogeneity across whole transcriptomes and epigenomes in both in vitro and in vivo models are lacking. Multiomic profiling concurrently measuring transcriptomes and accessible chromatin in the same single cells was performed on six distinct primary cultures of human aortic ECs (HAECs) exposed to activating environments characteristic of the atherosclerotic microenvironment in vitro. Meta-analysis of single-cell transcriptomes across 17 human ex vivo arterial specimens was performed and two computational approaches quantitatively evaluated the similarity in molecular profiles between heterogeneous in vitro and ex vivo cell profiles. HAEC cultures were reproducibly populated by four major clusters with distinct pathway enrichment profiles and modest heterogeneous responses: EC1-angiogenic, EC2-proliferative, EC3-activated/mesenchymal-like, and EC4-mesenchymal. Quantitative comparisons between in vitro and ex vivo transcriptomes confirmed EC1 and EC2 as most canonically EC-like, and EC4 as most mesenchymal with minimal effects elicited by siERG and IL1B. Lastly, accessible chromatin regions unique to EC2 and EC4 were most enriched for coronary artery disease (CAD)-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms from Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), suggesting that these cell phenotypes harbor CAD-modulating mechanisms. Primary EC cultures contain markedly heterogeneous cell subtypes defined by their molecular profiles. Surprisingly, the perturbations used here only modestly shifted cells between subpopulations, suggesting relatively stable molecular phenotypes in culture. Identifying consistently heterogeneous EC subpopulations between in vitro and ex vivo models should pave the way for improving in vitro systems while enabling the mechanisms governing heterogeneous cell state decisions.