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

  • 5,596
    views
  • 1,240
    downloads
  • 141
    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
    Dharmendra Kumar Nath, Subash Dhakal, Youngseok Lee
    Research Advance

    Understanding how the brain controls nutrient storage is pivotal. Transient receptor potential (TRP) channels are conserved from insects to humans. They serve in detecting environmental shifts and in acting as internal sensors. Previously, we demonstrated the role of TRPγ in nutrient-sensing behavior (Dhakal et al., 2022). Here, we found that a TRPγ mutant exhibited in Drosophila melanogaster is required for maintaining normal lipid and protein levels. In animals, lipogenesis and lipolysis control lipid levels in response to food availability. Lipids are mostly stored as triacylglycerol in the fat bodies (FBs) of D. melanogaster. Interestingly, trpγ deficient mutants exhibited elevated TAG levels and our genetic data indicated that Dh44 neurons are indispensable for normal lipid storage but not protein storage. The trpγ mutants also exhibited reduced starvation resistance, which was attributed to insufficient lipolysis in the FBs. This could be mitigated by administering lipase or metformin orally, indicating a potential treatment pathway. Gene expression analysis indicated that trpγ knockout downregulated brummer, a key lipolytic gene, resulting in chronic lipolytic deficits in the gut and other fat tissues. The study also highlighted the role of specific proteins, including neuropeptide DH44 and its receptor DH44R2 in lipid regulation. Our findings provide insight into the broader question of how the brain and gut regulate nutrient storage.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Mykhailo Vladymyrov, Luca Marchetti ... Britta Engelhardt
    Tools and Resources

    The endothelial blood-brain barrier (BBB) strictly controls immune cell trafficking into the central nervous system (CNS). In neuroinflammatory diseases such as multiple sclerosis, this tight control is, however, disturbed, leading to immune cell infiltration into the CNS. The development of in vitro models of the BBB combined with microfluidic devices has advanced our understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms mediating the multistep T-cell extravasation across the BBB. A major bottleneck of these in vitro studies is the absence of a robust and automated pipeline suitable for analyzing and quantifying the sequential interaction steps of different immune cell subsets with the BBB under physiological flow in vitro. Here, we present the under-flow migration tracker (UFMTrack) framework for studying immune cell interactions with endothelial monolayers under physiological flow. We then showcase a pipeline built based on it to study the entire multistep extravasation cascade of immune cells across brain microvascular endothelial cells under physiological flow in vitro. UFMTrack achieves 90% track reconstruction efficiency and allows for scaling due to the reduction of the analysis cost and by eliminating experimenter bias. This allowed for an in-depth analysis of all behavioral regimes involved in the multistep immune cell extravasation cascade. The study summarizes how UFMTrack can be employed to delineate the interactions of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells with the BBB under physiological flow. We also demonstrate its applicability to the other BBB models, showcasing broader applicability of the developed framework to a range of immune cell-endothelial monolayer interaction studies. The UFMTrack framework along with the generated datasets is publicly available in the corresponding repositories.