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

  • 5,484
    views
  • 1,208
    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. 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
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Timothy Fuqua, Yiqiao Sun, Andreas Wagner
    Research Article

    Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Valentin Babosha, Natalia Klimenko ... Oksana Maksimenko
    Research Article

    The male-specific lethal complex (MSL), which consists of five proteins and two non-coding roX RNAs, is involved in the transcriptional enhancement of X-linked genes to compensate for the sex chromosome monosomy in Drosophila XY males compared with XX females. The MSL1 and MSL2 proteins form the heterotetrameric core of the MSL complex and are critical for the specific recruitment of the complex to the high-affinity ‘entry’ sites (HAS) on the X chromosome. In this study, we demonstrated that the N-terminal region of MSL1 is critical for stability and functions of MSL1. Amino acid deletions and substitutions in the N-terminal region of MSL1 strongly affect both the interaction with roX2 RNA and the MSL complex binding to HAS on the X chromosome. In particular, substitution of the conserved N-terminal amino-acids 3–7 in MSL1 (MSL1GS) affects male viability similar to the inactivation of genes encoding roX RNAs. In addition, MSL1GS binds to promoters such as MSL1WT but does not co-bind with MSL2 and MSL3 to X chromosomal HAS. However, overexpression of MSL2 partially restores the dosage compensation. Thus, the interaction of MSL1 with roX RNA is critical for the efficient assembly of the MSL complex on HAS of the male X chromosome.