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

  • 5,265
    views
  • 1,213
    downloads
  • 127
    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. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Camille Dantzer, Justine Vaché ... Violaine Moreau
    Research Article

    Immune checkpoint inhibitors have produced encouraging results in cancer patients. However, the majority of ß-catenin-mutated tumors have been described as lacking immune infiltrates and resistant to immunotherapy. The mechanisms by which oncogenic ß-catenin affects immune surveillance remain unclear. Herein, we highlighted the involvement of ß-catenin in the regulation of the exosomal pathway and, by extension, in immune/cancer cell communication in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We showed that mutated ß-catenin represses expression of SDC4 and RAB27A, two main actors in exosome biogenesis, in both liver cancer cell lines and HCC patient samples. Using nanoparticle tracking analysis and live-cell imaging, we further demonstrated that activated ß-catenin represses exosome release. Then, we demonstrated in 3D spheroid models that activation of β-catenin promotes a decrease in immune cell infiltration through a defect in exosome secretion. Taken together, our results provide the first evidence that oncogenic ß-catenin plays a key role in exosome biogenesis. Our study gives new insight into the impact of ß-catenin mutations on tumor microenvironment remodeling, which could lead to the development of new strategies to enhance immunotherapeutic response.

    1. Cell Biology
    Zhongyun Xie, Yongping Chai ... Wei Li
    Research Article

    Asymmetric cell divisions (ACDs) generate two daughter cells with identical genetic information but distinct cell fates through epigenetic mechanisms. However, the process of partitioning different epigenetic information into daughter cells remains unclear. Here, we demonstrate that the nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase (NuRD) complex is asymmetrically segregated into the surviving daughter cell rather than the apoptotic one during ACDs in Caenorhabditis elegans. The absence of NuRD triggers apoptosis via the EGL-1-CED-9-CED-4-CED-3 pathway, while an ectopic gain of NuRD enables apoptotic daughter cells to survive. We identify the vacuolar H+–adenosine triphosphatase (V-ATPase) complex as a crucial regulator of NuRD’s asymmetric segregation. V-ATPase interacts with NuRD and is asymmetrically segregated into the surviving daughter cell. Inhibition of V-ATPase disrupts cytosolic pH asymmetry and NuRD asymmetry. We suggest that asymmetric segregation of V-ATPase may cause distinct acidification levels in the two daughter cells, enabling asymmetric epigenetic inheritance that specifies their respective life-versus-death fates.