Mutation in ATG5 reduces autophagy and leads to ataxia with developmental delay

  1. Myungjin Kim
  2. Erin Sandford
  3. Damian Gatica
  4. Yu Qiu
  5. Xu Liu
  6. Yumei Zheng
  7. Brenda A Schulman
  8. Jishu Xu
  9. Ian Semple
  10. Seung-Hyun Ro
  11. Boyoung Kim
  12. R Nehir Mavioglu
  13. Aslıhan Tolun
  14. Andras Jipa
  15. Szabolcs Takats
  16. Manuela Karpati
  17. Jun Z Li
  18. Zuhal Yapici
  19. Gabor Juhasz
  20. Jun Hee Lee
  21. Daniel J Klionsky
  22. Margit Burmeister  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan, United States
  2. St Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States
  3. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, United States
  4. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States
  5. Boğaziçi University, Turkey
  6. Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
  7. Istanbul University, Turkey

Abstract

Autophagy is required for the homeostasis of cellular material and is proposed to be involved in many aspects of health. Defects in the autophagy pathway have been observed in neurodegenerative disorders; however, no genetically-inherited pathogenic mutations in any of the core autophagy-related (ATG) genes have been reported in human patients to date. We identified a homozygous missense mutation, changing a conserved amino acid, in ATG5 in two siblings with congenital ataxia, mental retardation, and developmental delay. The subjects' cells display a decrease in autophagy flux and defects in conjugation of ATG12 to ATG5. The homologous mutation in yeast demonstrates a 30-50% reduction of induced autophagy. Flies in which Atg5 is substituted with the mutant human ATG5 exhibit severe movement disorder, in contrast to flies expressing the wild-type human protein. Our results demonstrate the critical role of autophagy in preventing neurological diseases and maintaining neuronal health.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Myungjin Kim

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Erin Sandford

    Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Damian Gatica

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yu Qiu

    Department of Structural Biology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Xu Liu

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yumei Zheng

    Department of Structural Biology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Brenda A Schulman

    Department of Structural Biology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jishu Xu

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ian Semple

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Seung-Hyun Ro

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Boyoung Kim

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. R Nehir Mavioglu

    Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Aslıhan Tolun

    Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Andras Jipa

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Szabolcs Takats

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Manuela Karpati

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Jun Z Li

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Zuhal Yapici

    Department of Neurology, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Gabor Juhasz

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Jun Hee Lee

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Daniel J Klionsky

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Margit Burmeister

    Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    margit@umich.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Human subjects: Study protocols including written informed consents have been approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and the Boğaziçi University Institutional Review Board for Research with Human Participants.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Noboru Mizushima, The University of Tokyo, Japan

Publication history

  1. Received: October 11, 2015
  2. Accepted: January 13, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 26, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 1, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Kim 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

  • 5,903
    Page views
  • 1,430
    Downloads
  • 104
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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. Myungjin Kim
  2. Erin Sandford
  3. Damian Gatica
  4. Yu Qiu
  5. Xu Liu
  6. Yumei Zheng
  7. Brenda A Schulman
  8. Jishu Xu
  9. Ian Semple
  10. Seung-Hyun Ro
  11. Boyoung Kim
  12. R Nehir Mavioglu
  13. Aslıhan Tolun
  14. Andras Jipa
  15. Szabolcs Takats
  16. Manuela Karpati
  17. Jun Z Li
  18. Zuhal Yapici
  19. Gabor Juhasz
  20. Jun Hee Lee
  21. Daniel J Klionsky
  22. Margit Burmeister
(2016)
Mutation in ATG5 reduces autophagy and leads to ataxia with developmental delay
eLife 5:e12245.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12245
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Joseph V Geisberg, Zarmik Moqtaderi ... Kevin Struhl
    Research Advance Updated

    Alternative polyadenylation yields many mRNA isoforms whose 3’ termini occur disproportionately in clusters within 3’ untranslated regions. Previously, we showed that profiles of poly(A) site usage are regulated by the rate of transcriptional elongation by RNA polymerase (Pol) II (Geisberg et al., 2020). Pol II derivatives with slow elongation rates confer an upstream-shifted poly(A) profile, whereas fast Pol II strains confer a downstream-shifted poly(A) profile. Within yeast isoform clusters, these shifts occur steadily from one isoform to the next across nucleotide distances. In contrast, the shift between clusters – from the last isoform of one cluster to the first isoform of the next – is much less pronounced, even over large distances. GC content in a region 13–30 nt downstream from isoform clusters correlates with their sensitivity to Pol II elongation rate. In human cells, the upstream shift caused by a slow Pol II mutant also occurs continuously at single nucleotide resolution within clusters but not between them. Pol II occupancy increases just downstream of poly(A) sites, suggesting a linkage between reduced elongation rate and cluster formation. These observations suggest that (1) Pol II elongation speed affects the nucleotide-level dwell time allowing polyadenylation to occur, (2) poly(A) site clusters are linked to the local elongation rate, and hence do not arise simply by intrinsically imprecise cleavage and polyadenylation of the RNA substrate, (3) DNA sequence elements can affect Pol II elongation and poly(A) profiles, and (4) the cleavage/polyadenylation and Pol II elongation complexes are spatially, and perhaps physically, coupled so that polyadenylation occurs rapidly upon emergence of the nascent RNA from the Pol II elongation complex.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Christin S Kuo, Spyros Darmanis ... Mark A Krasnow
    Research Article

    Pulmonary neuroendocrine cells (PNECs) are sensory epithelial cells that transmit airway status to the brain via sensory neurons and locally via calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and γ- aminobutyric acid (GABA). Several other neuropeptides and neurotransmitters have been detected in various species, but the number, targets, functions, and conservation of PNEC signals are largely unknown. We used scRNAseq to profile hundreds of the rare mouse and human PNECs. This revealed over 40 PNEC neuropeptide and peptide hormone genes, most cells expressing unique combinations of 5–18 genes. Peptides are packaged in separate vesicles, their release presumably regulated by the distinct, multimodal combinations of sensors we show are expressed by each PNEC. Expression of the peptide receptors predicts an array of local cell targets, and we show the new PNEC signal angiotensin directly activates one subtype of innervating sensory neuron. Many signals lack lung targets so may have endocrine activity like those of PNEC-derived carcinoid tumors. PNECs are an extraordinarily rich and diverse signaling hub rivaling the enteroendocrine system.