Systematic substrate identification indicates a central role for the metalloprotease ADAM10 in axon targeting and synapse function

  1. Peer-Hendrik Kuhn  Is a corresponding author
  2. Alessio Vittorio Colombo
  3. Benjamin Schusser
  4. Daniela Dreymueller
  5. Sebastian Wetzel
  6. Ute Schepers
  7. Julia Herber
  8. Andreas Ludwig
  9. Elisabeth Kremmer
  10. Dirk Montag
  11. Ulrike Müller
  12. Michaela Schweizer
  13. Paul Saftig
  14. Stefan Bräse
  15. Stefan F Lichtenthaler
  1. Technische Universität München, Germany
  2. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany
  3. Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Germany
  4. Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Germany
  5. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
  6. Helmholtz Zentrum München, Germany
  7. Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Germany
  8. Heidelberg University, Germany
  9. Zentrum für Molekulare Neurobiologie, Germany

Abstract

Metzincin metalloproteases have major roles in intercellular communication by modulating the function of membrane proteins. One of the proteases is the a-disintegrin-and-metalloprotease 10 (ADAM10) which acts as alpha-secretase of the Alzheimer's disease amyloid precursor protein. ADAM10 is also required for neuronal network functions in murine brain, but neuronal ADAM10 substrates are only partly known. With a proteomic analysis of Adam10-deficient neurons we identified 91, mostly novel ADAM10 substrate candidates, making ADAM10 a major protease for membrane proteins in the nervous system. Several novel substrates, including the neuronal cell adhesion protein NrCAM, are involved in brain development. Indeed, we detected mistargeted axons in the olfactory bulb of conditional ADAM10-/- mice, which correlate with reduced cleavage of NrCAM, NCAM and other ADAM10 substrates. In summary, the novel ADAM10 substrates provide a molecular basis for neuronal network dysfunctions in conditional ADAM10-/- mice and demonstrate a fundamental function of ADAM10 in the brain.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Peer-Hendrik Kuhn

    Neuroproteomics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
    For correspondence
    peerhendrik@gmx.net
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alessio Vittorio Colombo

    Neuroproteomics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Benjamin Schusser

    Department of Animal Science, Institute for Animal Physiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Daniela Dreymueller

    Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sebastian Wetzel

    Institute of Biochemistry, Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ute Schepers

    Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Julia Herber

    Neuroproteomics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Andreas Ludwig

    Institute for Pharmacology and Toxicology, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Elisabeth Kremmer

    German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Molecular Tumor immunology, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Dirk Montag

    Neurogenetics, Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Ulrike Müller

    Department of Functional Genomics, Institute for Pharmacy and Molecular Biotechnology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Michaela Schweizer

    Service-Gruppe für Elektronenmikroskopie, Zentrum für Molekulare Neurobiologie, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Paul Saftig

    Institute of Biochemistry, Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Stefan Bräse

    Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Stefan F Lichtenthaler

    Neuroproteomics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Kuhn 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

  • 5,469
    views
  • 1,232
    downloads
  • 137
    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. Peer-Hendrik Kuhn
  2. Alessio Vittorio Colombo
  3. Benjamin Schusser
  4. Daniela Dreymueller
  5. Sebastian Wetzel
  6. Ute Schepers
  7. Julia Herber
  8. Andreas Ludwig
  9. Elisabeth Kremmer
  10. Dirk Montag
  11. Ulrike Müller
  12. Michaela Schweizer
  13. Paul Saftig
  14. Stefan Bräse
  15. Stefan F Lichtenthaler
(2016)
Systematic substrate identification indicates a central role for the metalloprotease ADAM10 in axon targeting and synapse function
eLife 5:e12748.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12748

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12748

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Joan Chang, Adam Pickard ... Karl E Kadler
    Research Article

    Collagen-I fibrillogenesis is crucial to health and development, where dysregulation is a hallmark of fibroproliferative diseases. Here, we show that collagen-I fibril assembly required a functional endocytic system that recycles collagen-I to assemble new fibrils. Endogenous collagen production was not required for fibrillogenesis if exogenous collagen was available, but the circadian-regulated vacuolar protein sorting (VPS) 33b and collagen-binding integrin α11 subunit were crucial to fibrillogenesis. Cells lacking VPS33B secrete soluble collagen-I protomers but were deficient in fibril formation, thus secretion and assembly are separately controlled. Overexpression of VPS33B led to loss of fibril rhythmicity and overabundance of fibrils, which was mediated through integrin α11β1. Endocytic recycling of collagen-I was enhanced in human fibroblasts isolated from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, where VPS33B and integrin α11 subunit were overexpressed at the fibrogenic front; this correlation between VPS33B, integrin α11 subunit, and abnormal collagen deposition was also observed in samples from patients with chronic skin wounds. In conclusion, our study showed that circadian-regulated endocytic recycling is central to homeostatic assembly of collagen fibrils and is disrupted in diseases.

    1. Cell Biology
    Chun-Wei Chen, Jeffery B Chavez ... Bruce J Nicholson
    Research Article Updated

    Endometriosis is a debilitating disease affecting 190 million women worldwide and the greatest single contributor to infertility. The most broadly accepted etiology is that uterine endometrial cells retrogradely enter the peritoneum during menses, and implant and form invasive lesions in a process analogous to cancer metastasis. However, over 90% of women suffer retrograde menstruation, but only 10% develop endometriosis, and debate continues as to whether the underlying defect is endometrial or peritoneal. Processes implicated in invasion include: enhanced motility; adhesion to, and formation of gap junctions with, the target tissue. Endometrial stromal (ESCs) from 22 endometriosis patients at different disease stages show much greater invasiveness across mesothelial (or endothelial) monolayers than ESCs from 22 control subjects, which is further enhanced by the presence of EECs. This is due to the enhanced responsiveness of endometriosis ESCs to the mesothelium, which induces migration and gap junction coupling. ESC-PMC gap junction coupling is shown to be required for invasion, while coupling between PMCs enhances mesothelial barrier breakdown.