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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Bart De Strooper, VIB Center for the Biology of Disease, KU Leuven, Belgium

Version history

  1. Received: November 2, 2015
  2. Accepted: January 22, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 23, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 26, 2016 (version 2)

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

  • 5,120
    Page views
  • 1,193
    Downloads
  • 123
    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. 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
    Kazuki Hanaoka, Kensuke Nishikawa ... Kouichi Funato
    Research Article

    Membrane contact sites (MCSs) are junctures that perform important roles including coordinating lipid metabolism. Previous studies have indicated that vacuolar fission/fusion processes are coupled with modifications in the membrane lipid composition. However, it has been still unclear whether MCS-mediated lipid metabolism controls the vacuolar morphology. Here, we report that deletion of tricalbins (Tcb1, Tcb2, and Tcb3), tethering proteins at endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–plasma membrane (PM) and ER–Golgi contact sites, alters fusion/fission dynamics and causes vacuolar fragmentation in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In addition, we show that the sphingolipid precursor phytosphingosine (PHS) accumulates in tricalbin-deleted cells, triggering the vacuolar division. Detachment of the nucleus–vacuole junction (NVJ), an important contact site between the vacuole and the perinuclear ER, restored vacuolar morphology in both cells subjected to high exogenous PHS and Tcb3-deleted cells, supporting that PHS transport across the NVJ induces vacuole division. Thus, our results suggest that vacuolar morphology is maintained by MCSs through the metabolism of sphingolipids.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Monica Salinas-Pena, Elena Rebollo, Albert Jordan
    Research Article

    Histone H1 participates in chromatin condensation and regulates nuclear processes. Human somatic cells may contain up to seven histone H1 variants, although their functional heterogeneity is not fully understood. Here, we have profiled the differential nuclear distribution of the somatic H1 repertoire in human cells through imaging techniques including super-resolution microscopy. H1 variants exhibit characteristic distribution patterns in both interphase and mitosis. H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 are universally enriched at the nuclear periphery in all cell lines analyzed and co-localize with compacted DNA. H1.0 shows a less pronounced peripheral localization, with apparent variability among different cell lines. On the other hand, H1.4 and H1X are distributed throughout the nucleus, being H1X universally enriched in high-GC regions and abundant in the nucleoli. Interestingly, H1.4 and H1.0 show a more peripheral distribution in cell lines lacking H1.3 and H1.5. The differential distribution patterns of H1 suggest specific functionalities in organizing lamina-associated domains or nucleolar activity, which is further supported by a distinct response of H1X or phosphorylated H1.4 to the inhibition of ribosomal DNA transcription. Moreover, H1 variants depletion affects chromatin structure in a variant-specific manner. Concretely, H1.2 knock-down, either alone or combined, triggers a global chromatin decompaction. Overall, imaging has allowed us to distinguish H1 variants distribution beyond the segregation in two groups denoted by previous ChIP-Seq determinations. Our results support H1 variants heterogeneity and suggest that variant-specific functionality can be shared between different cell types.