Comparative genetic screens in human cells reveal new regulatory mechanisms in WNT signaling

  1. Andres M Lebensohn
  2. Ramin Dubey
  3. Leif R Neitzel
  4. Ofelia Tacchelly-Benites
  5. Eungi Yang
  6. Caleb D Marceau
  7. Eric M Davis
  8. Bhaven B Patel
  9. Zahra Bahrami-Nejad
  10. Kyle J Travaglini
  11. Yashi Ahmed
  12. Ethan Lee
  13. Jan E Carette  Is a corresponding author
  14. Rajat Rohatgi  Is a corresponding author
  1. Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
  2. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States
  3. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, United States
  4. University of Colorado, Boulder, United States

Abstract

The comprehensive understanding of cellular signaling pathways remains a challenge due to multiple layers of regulation that may become evident only when the pathway is probed at different levels or critical nodes are eliminated. To discover regulatory mechanisms in canonical WNT signaling, we conducted a systematic forward genetic analysis through reporter-based screens in haploid human cells. Comparison of screens for negative, sensitizing and positive regulators of WNT signaling, mediators of R-spondin-dependent signaling and suppressors of constitutive signaling induced by loss of the tumor suppressor APC or casein kinase 1α uncovered new regulatory features at many levels of the pathway. These include a requirement for the transcription factor TFAP4, a role for the DAX domain of AXIN2 in controlling β-catenin activity, a contribution of GPI anchor biosynthetic enzymes and glypicans to R-spondin-potentiated signaling, and two different mechanisms that regulate signaling when distinct components of the β-catenin destruction complex are lost.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andres M Lebensohn

    Department of Biochemistry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ramin Dubey

    Department of Biochemistry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Leif R Neitzel

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ofelia Tacchelly-Benites

    Department of Molecular and Systems Biology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Hanover, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Eungi Yang

    Department of Molecular and Systems Biology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Hanover, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Caleb D Marceau

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Eric M Davis

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Bhaven B Patel

    Department of Biochemistry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Zahra Bahrami-Nejad

    Department of Chemical and Systems Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kyle J Travaglini

    Department of Biochemistry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Yashi Ahmed

    Department of Molecular and Systems Biology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Hanover, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Ethan Lee

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Jan E Carette

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    carette@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Rajat Rohatgi

    Department of Biochemistry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    rrohatgi@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7609-8858

Funding

National Institutes of Health (DP2 AI104557,DP2 GM105448,R01 GM081635,R01 GM103926,RO1 CA105038)

  • Yashi Ahmed
  • Ethan Lee
  • Jan E Carette
  • Rajat Rohatgi

National Science Foundation (DBI-1039423)

  • Yashi Ahmed

David and Lucile Packard Foundation (Fellow Award)

  • Jan E Carette

Helen Hay Whitney Foundation (Novartis Fellowship)

  • Andres M Lebensohn

Stanford University School of Medicine (Josephine Q. Berry Fellowship)

  • Rajat Rohatgi

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Utpal Banerjee, University of California, Los Angeles, United States

Version history

  1. Received: September 13, 2016
  2. Accepted: December 7, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 20, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: December 22, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: January 23, 2017 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: February 1, 2017 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2016, Lebensohn 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

  • 6,906
    views
  • 1,391
    downloads
  • 48
    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. Andres M Lebensohn
  2. Ramin Dubey
  3. Leif R Neitzel
  4. Ofelia Tacchelly-Benites
  5. Eungi Yang
  6. Caleb D Marceau
  7. Eric M Davis
  8. Bhaven B Patel
  9. Zahra Bahrami-Nejad
  10. Kyle J Travaglini
  11. Yashi Ahmed
  12. Ethan Lee
  13. Jan E Carette
  14. Rajat Rohatgi
(2016)
Comparative genetic screens in human cells reveal new regulatory mechanisms in WNT signaling
eLife 5:e21459.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21459

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21459

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Ardalan Naseri, Degui Zhi, Shaojie Zhang
    Research Article Updated

    Runs-of-homozygosity (ROH) segments, contiguous homozygous regions in a genome were traditionally linked to families and inbred populations. However, a growing literature suggests that ROHs are ubiquitous in outbred populations. Still, most existing genetic studies of ROH in populations are limited to aggregated ROH content across the genome, which does not offer the resolution for mapping causal loci. This limitation is mainly due to a lack of methods for the efficient identification of shared ROH diplotypes. Here, we present a new method, ROH-DICE (runs-of-homozygous diplotype cluster enumerator), to find large ROH diplotype clusters, sufficiently long ROHs shared by a sufficient number of individuals, in large cohorts. ROH-DICE identified over 1 million ROH diplotypes that span over 100 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and are shared by more than 100 UK Biobank participants. Moreover, we found significant associations of clustered ROH diplotypes across the genome with various self-reported diseases, with the strongest associations found between the extended human leukocyte antigen (HLA) region and autoimmune disorders. We found an association between a diplotype covering the homeostatic iron regulator (HFE) gene and hemochromatosis, even though the well-known causal SNP was not directly genotyped or imputed. Using a genome-wide scan, we identified a putative association between carriers of an ROH diplotype in chromosome 4 and an increase in mortality among COVID-19 patients (p-value = 1.82 × 10−11). In summary, our ROH-DICE method, by calling out large ROH diplotypes in a large outbred population, enables further population genetics into the demographic history of large populations. More importantly, our method enables a new genome-wide mapping approach for finding disease-causing loci with multi-marker recessive effects at a population scale.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Lisa Baumgartner, Jonathan J Ipsaro ... Julius Brennecke
    Research Advance

    Members of the diverse heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) family play crucial roles in heterochromatin formation and maintenance. Despite the similar affinities of their chromodomains for di- and tri-methylated histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9me2/3), different HP1 proteins exhibit distinct chromatin-binding patterns, likely due to interactions with various specificity factors. Previously, we showed that the chromatin-binding pattern of the HP1 protein Rhino, a crucial factor of the Drosophila PIWI-interacting RNA (piRNA) pathway, is largely defined by a DNA sequence-specific C2H2 zinc finger protein named Kipferl (Baumgartner et al., 2022). Here, we elucidate the molecular basis of the interaction between Rhino and its guidance factor Kipferl. Through phylogenetic analyses, structure prediction, and in vivo genetics, we identify a single amino acid change within Rhino’s chromodomain, G31D, that does not affect H3K9me2/3 binding but disrupts the interaction between Rhino and Kipferl. Flies carrying the rhinoG31D mutation phenocopy kipferl mutant flies, with Rhino redistributing from piRNA clusters to satellite repeats, causing pronounced changes in the ovarian piRNA profile of rhinoG31D flies. Thus, Rhino’s chromodomain functions as a dual-specificity module, facilitating interactions with both a histone mark and a DNA-binding protein.