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

  • 5,410
    views
  • 1,231
    downloads
  • 134
    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
    Mitsuhiro Abe, Masataka Yanagawa ... Yasushi Sako
    Research Article

    Anionic lipid molecules, including phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate (PI(4,5)P2), are implicated in the regulation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, the role of the spatiotemporal dynamics of PI(4,5)P2 in the regulation of EGFR activity in living cells is not fully understood, as it is difficult to visualize the local lipid domains around EGFR. Here, we visualized both EGFR and PI(4,5)P2 nanodomains in the plasma membrane of HeLa cells using super-resolution single-molecule microscopy. The EGFR and PI(4,5)P2 nanodomains aggregated before stimulation with epidermal growth factor (EGF) through transient visits of EGFR to the PI(4,5)P2 nanodomains. The degree of coaggregation decreased after EGF stimulation and depended on phospholipase Cγ, the EGFR effector hydrolyzing PI(4,5)P2. Artificial reduction in the PI(4,5)P2 content of the plasma membrane reduced both the dimerization and autophosphorylation of EGFR after stimulation with EGF. Inhibition of PI(4,5)P2 hydrolysis after EGF stimulation decreased phosphorylation of EGFR-Thr654. Thus, EGFR kinase activity and the density of PI(4,5)P2 around EGFR molecules were found to be mutually regulated.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Plant Biology
    Masanori Izumi, Sakuya Nakamura ... Shinya Hagihara
    Research Article

    Plants distribute many nutrients to chloroplasts during leaf development and maturation. When leaves senesce or experience sugar starvation, the autophagy machinery degrades chloroplast proteins to facilitate efficient nutrient reuse. Here, we report on the intracellular dynamics of an autophagy pathway responsible for piecemeal degradation of chloroplast components. Through live-cell monitoring of chloroplast morphology, we observed the formation of chloroplast budding structures in sugar-starved leaves. These buds were then released and incorporated into the vacuolar lumen as an autophagic cargo termed a Rubisco-containing body. The budding structures did not accumulate in mutants of core autophagy machinery, suggesting that autophagosome creation is required for forming chloroplast buds. Simultaneous tracking of chloroplast morphology and autophagosome development revealed that the isolation membranes of autophagosomes interact closely with part of the chloroplast surface before forming chloroplast buds. Chloroplasts then protrude at the site associated with the isolation membranes, which divide synchronously with autophagosome maturation. This autophagy-related division does not require DYNAMIN-RELATED PROTEIN 5B, which constitutes the division ring for chloroplast proliferation in growing leaves. An unidentified division machinery may thus fragment chloroplasts for degradation in coordination with the development of the chloroplast-associated isolation membrane.