Protein arginine methylation facilitates KCNQ channel-PIP2 interaction leading to seizure suppression

  1. Hyun-Ji Kim
  2. Myong-Ho Jeong
  3. Kyung-Ran Kim
  4. Chang-Yun Jung
  5. Seul-Yi Lee
  6. Hanna Kim
  7. Jewoo Koh
  8. Tuan Anh Vuong
  9. Seungmoon Jung
  10. Hyunwoo Yang
  11. Su-Kyung Park
  12. Dahee Choi
  13. Sung Hun Kim
  14. KyeongJin Kang
  15. Jong-Woo Sohn
  16. Joo Min Park
  17. Daejong Jeon
  18. Seung-Hoi Koo
  19. Won-Kyung Ho
  20. Jong-Sun Kang  Is a corresponding author
  21. Seong-Tae Kim  Is a corresponding author
  22. Hana Cho  Is a corresponding author
  1. Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Republic of Korea
  2. Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Republic of Korea
  3. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Republic of Korea
  4. Kangwon National University, Republic of Korea
  5. Institute for Basic Science, Republic of Korea
  6. Seoul National University Hospital, Republic of Korea
  7. Korea University, Republic of Korea

Abstract

KCNQ channels are critical determinants of neuronal excitability, thus emerging as a novel target of anti-epileptic drugs. To date, the mechanisms of KCNQ channel modulation have been mostly characterized to be inhibitory via Gq-coupled receptors, Ca2+/CaM, and protein kinase C. Here we demonstrate that methylation of KCNQ by protein arginine methyltransferase 1 (Prmt1) positively regulates KCNQ channel activity, thereby preventing neuronal hyperexcitability. Prmt1+/- mice exhibit epileptic seizures. Methylation of KCNQ2 channels at 4 arginine residues by Prmt1 enhances PIP2 binding, and Prmt1 depletion lowers PIP2 affinity of KCNQ2 channels and thereby the channel activities. Consistently, exogenous PIP2 addition to Prmt1+/- neurons restores KCNQ currents and neuronal excitability to the WT level. Collectively, we propose that Prmt1-dependent facilitation of KCNQ-PIP2 interaction underlies the positive regulation of KCNQ activity by arginine methylation, which may serve as a key target for prevention of neuronal hyperexcitability and seizures.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hyun-Ji Kim

    Department of Physiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Myong-Ho Jeong

    Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Kyung-Ran Kim

    Department of Physiology, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Chang-Yun Jung

    Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Seul-Yi Lee

    Department of Physiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hanna Kim

    Department of Physiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jewoo Koh

    Department of Physiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4977-3728
  8. Tuan Anh Vuong

    Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Seungmoon Jung

    Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Hyunwoo Yang

    Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Su-Kyung Park

    Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Dahee Choi

    Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7672-461X
  13. Sung Hun Kim

    Department of Neurology, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. KyeongJin Kang

    Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0446-469X
  15. Jong-Woo Sohn

    Department of Biological Sciences, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Joo Min Park

    Center for Cognition and Sociality, Institute for Basic Science, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Daejong Jeon

    Department of Neurology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Seung-Hoi Koo

    Division of Life Sciences, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Won-Kyung Ho

    Department of Physiology, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1568-1710
  20. Jong-Sun Kang

    Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    For correspondence
    kangj01@skku.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Seong-Tae Kim

    Departments of Molecular Cell Biology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    For correspondence
    stkim@skku.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Hana Cho

    Department of Physiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    For correspondence
    hanacho@skku.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9394-8671

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2012R1A2A2A01046878)

  • Hyun-Ji Kim
  • Seul-Yi Lee
  • Hanna Kim
  • Jewoo Koh
  • Hana Cho

National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015R1A2A1A15051998)

  • Myong-Ho Jeong
  • Tuan Anh Vuong
  • Jong-Sun Kang

National Research Foundation of Korea (2015-048055)

  • Kyung-Ran Kim
  • Won-Kyung Ho

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Research Advisory Committee at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine Laboratory Animal Research Center (Approval No. IACUC-11-39).

Copyright

© 2016, Kim 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

  • 2,756
    views
  • 724
    downloads
  • 36
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17159

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kathleen T Quach, Gillian A Hughes, Sreekanth H Chalasani
    Research Article

    Prey must balance predator avoidance with feeding, a central dilemma in prey refuge theory. Additionally, prey must assess predatory imminence—how close threats are in space and time. Predatory imminence theory classifies defensive behaviors into three defense modes: pre-encounter, post-encounter, and circa-strike, corresponding to increasing levels of threat—–suspecting, detecting, and contacting a predator. Although predatory risk often varies in spatial distribution and imminence, how these factors intersect to influence defensive behaviors is poorly understood. Integrating these factors into a naturalistic environment enables comprehensive analysis of multiple defense modes in consistent conditions. Here, we combine prey refuge and predatory imminence theories to develop a model system of nematode defensive behaviors, with Caenorhabditis elegans as prey and Pristionchus pacificus as predator. In a foraging environment comprised of a food-rich, high-risk patch and a food-poor, low-risk refuge, C. elegans innately exhibits circa-strike behaviors. With experience, it learns post- and pre-encounter behaviors that proactively anticipate threats. These defense modes intensify with predator lethality, with only life-threatening predators capable of eliciting all three modes. SEB-3 receptors and NLP-49 peptides, key stress regulators, vary in their impact and interdependence across defense modes. Overall, our model system reveals fine-grained insights into how stress-related signaling regulates defensive behaviors.

    1. Neuroscience
    Markus R Tünte, Stefanie Hoehl ... Ezgi Kayhan
    Research Advance

    Several recent theoretical accounts have posited that interoception, the perception of internal bodily signals, plays a vital role in early human development. Yet, empirical evidence of cardiac interoceptive sensitivity in infants to date has been mixed. Furthermore, existing evidence does not go beyond the perception of cardiac signals and focuses only on the age of 5–7 mo, limiting the generalizability of the results. Here, we used a modified version of the cardiac interoceptive sensitivity paradigm introduced by Maister et al., 2017 in 3-, 9-, and 18-mo-old infants using cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches. Going beyond, we introduce a novel experimental paradigm, namely the iBREATH, to investigate respiratory interoceptive sensitivity in infants. Overall, for cardiac interoceptive sensitivity (total n=135) we find rather stable evidence across ages with infants on average preferring stimuli presented synchronously to their heartbeat. For respiratory interoceptive sensitivity (total n=120) our results show a similar pattern in the first year of life, but not at 18 mo. We did not observe a strong relationship between cardiac and respiratory interoceptive sensitivity at 3 and 9 mo but found some evidence for a relationship at 18 mo. We validated our results using specification curve- and mega-analytic approaches. By examining early cardiac and respiratory interoceptive processing, we provide evidence that infants are sensitive to their interoceptive signals.