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.

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.

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. Genetics and Genomics
    Yi Li, Long Gong ... Shangbang Gao
    Research Article

    Resistance to anthelmintics, particularly the macrocyclic lactone ivermectin (IVM), presents a substantial global challenge for parasite control. We found that the functional loss of an evolutionarily conserved E3 ubiquitin ligase, UBR-1, leads to IVM resistance in Caenorhabditis elegans. Multiple IVM-inhibiting activities, including viability, body size, pharyngeal pumping, and locomotion, were significantly ameliorated in various ubr-1 mutants. Interestingly, exogenous application of glutamate induces IVM resistance in wild-type animals. The sensitivity of all IVM-affected phenotypes of ubr-1 is restored by eliminating proteins associated with glutamate metabolism or signaling: GOT-1, a transaminase that converts aspartate to glutamate, and EAT-4, a vesicular glutamate transporter. We demonstrated that IVM-targeted GluCls (glutamate-gated chloride channels) are downregulated and that the IVM-mediated inhibition of serotonin-activated pharynx Ca2+ activity is diminished in ubr-1. Additionally, enhancing glutamate uptake in ubr-1 mutants through ceftriaxone completely restored their IVM sensitivity. Therefore, UBR-1 deficiency-mediated aberrant glutamate signaling leads to ivermectin resistance in C. elegans.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Minsoo Noh, Xiangguo Che ... Sihoon Lee
    Research Article

    Osteoporosis, characterized by reduced bone density and strength, increases fracture risk, pain, and limits mobility. Established therapies of parathyroid hormone (PTH) analogs effectively promote bone formation and reduce fractures in severe osteoporosis, but their use is limited by potential adverse effects. In the pursuit of safer osteoporosis treatments, we investigated R25CPTH, a PTH variant wherein the native arginine at position 25 is substituted by cysteine. These studies were prompted by our finding of high bone mineral density in a hypoparathyroidism patient with the R25C homozygous mutation, and we explored its effects on PTH type-1 receptor (PTH1R) signaling in cells and bone metabolism in mice. Our findings indicate that R25CPTH(1–84) forms dimers both intracellularly and extracellularly, and the synthetic dimeric peptide, R25CPTH(1–34), exhibits altered activity in PTH1R-mediated cyclic AMP (cAMP) response. Upon a single injection in mice, dimeric R25CPTH(1–34) induced acute calcemic and phosphaturic responses comparable to PTH(1–34). Furthermore, repeated daily injections increased calvarial bone thickness in intact mice and improved trabecular and cortical bone parameters in ovariectomized (OVX) mice, akin to PTH(1–34). The overall results reveal a capacity of a dimeric PTH peptide ligand to activate the PTH1R in vitro and in vivo as PTH, suggesting a potential path of therapeutic PTH analog development.