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

Version 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

  • 6,217
    Page views
  • 1,463
    Downloads
  • 124
    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

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    William Matlock, Samuel Lipworth ... REHAB Consortium
    Research Article Updated

    Plasmids enable the dissemination of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in common Enterobacterales pathogens, representing a major public health challenge. However, the extent of plasmid sharing and evolution between Enterobacterales causing human infections and other niches remains unclear, including the emergence of resistance plasmids. Dense, unselected sampling is essential to developing our understanding of plasmid epidemiology and designing appropriate interventions to limit the emergence and dissemination of plasmid-associated AMR. We established a geographically and temporally restricted collection of human bloodstream infection (BSI)-associated, livestock-associated (cattle, pig, poultry, and sheep faeces, farm soils) and wastewater treatment work (WwTW)-associated (influent, effluent, waterways upstream/downstream of effluent outlets) Enterobacterales. Isolates were collected between 2008 and 2020 from sites <60 km apart in Oxfordshire, UK. Pangenome analysis of plasmid clusters revealed shared ‘backbones’, with phylogenies suggesting an intertwined ecology where well-conserved plasmid backbones carry diverse accessory functions, including AMR genes. Many plasmid ‘backbones’ were seen across species and niches, raising the possibility that plasmid movement between these followed by rapid accessory gene change could be relatively common. Overall, the signature of identical plasmid sharing is likely to be a highly transient one, implying that plasmid movement might be occurring at greater rates than previously estimated, raising a challenge for future genomic One Health studies.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Ji-Eun Ahn, Hubert Amrein
    Research Article

    In the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, gustatory sensory neurons express taste receptors that are tuned to distinct groups of chemicals, thereby activating neural ensembles that elicit either feeding or avoidance behavior. Members of a family of ligand -gated receptor channels, the Gustatory receptors (Grs), play a central role in these behaviors. In general, closely related, evolutionarily conserved Gr proteins are co-expressed in the same type of taste neurons, tuned to chemically related compounds, and therefore triggering the same behavioral response. Here, we report that members of the Gr28 subfamily are expressed in largely non-overlapping sets of taste neurons in Drosophila larvae, detect chemicals of different valence, and trigger opposing feeding behaviors. We determined the intrinsic properties of Gr28 neurons by expressing the mammalian Vanilloid Receptor 1 (VR1), which is activated by capsaicin, a chemical to which wild-type Drosophila larvae do not respond. When VR1 is expressed in Gr28a neurons, larvae become attracted to capsaicin, consistent with reports showing that Gr28a itself encodes a receptor for nutritious RNA. In contrast, expression of VR1 in two pairs of Gr28b.c neurons triggers avoidance to capsaicin. Moreover, neuronal inactivation experiments show that the Gr28b.c neurons are necessary for avoidance of several bitter compounds. Lastly, behavioral experiments of Gr28 deficient larvae and live Ca2+ imaging studies of Gr28b.c neurons revealed that denatonium benzoate, a synthetic bitter compound that shares structural similarities with natural bitter chemicals, is a ligand for a receptor complex containing a Gr28b.c or Gr28b.a subunit. Thus, the Gr28 proteins, which have been evolutionarily conserved over 260 million years in insects, represent the first taste receptor subfamily in which specific members mediate behavior with opposite valence.