Heat Shock Response: A model for handling cell stress

  • Download
  • Cite
  • CommentOpen annotations (there are currently 0 annotations on this page).
  1. Laura Le Breton
  2. Matthias P Mayer  Is a corresponding author
  1. DKFZ-ZMBH-Alliance, Germany

Cells are subjected to frequent assaults either from their environment or as a consequence of development or disease. Such stresses – which can be caused by a range of conditions, including changes in temperature and mechanical stresses – are damaging to proteins, so cells mount the so-called heat shock response. This response is an evolutionarily conserved transcriptional program that is orchestrated in eukaryotic cells by a protein called Hsf1 (short for heat shock factor 1; Morimoto, 1998). Three copies of this protein combine to form trimers that bind to the promoters of Hsf1-dependent genes, which leads to higher levels of heat shock proteins inside the cell. These proteins include the chaperones that refold misfolded proteins or target them for degradation. Once the effects of the stress have been dealt with, cells reduce the production of heat shock proteins to normal levels.

The heat shock response has been studied for more than 30 years, mainly in yeast and animal cells, and different models have been proposed to explain it (Anckar and Sistonen, 2011). The intrinsic response model, which assumes that Hsf1 directly senses increasing temperature (and potentially other stresses), relies on Hsf1 transitioning from a monomer to a trimer (Zhong et al., 1998; Hentze et al., 2016). This model can only apply to animal cells because Hsf1 forms trimers in yeast under all conditions, even in the absence of heat shock (Sorger et al., 1987).

The chaperone titration model assumes that Hsf1 is kept inactive in unstressed cells by its interactions with chaperones; the presence of misfolded proteins then activates Hsf1 by attracting (or “titrating”) the chaperones away from Hsf1. Although there is evidence to support such a model, it was unclear which – if any – of the chaperones is the main regulator of the Hsf1 activity cycle. (Shi et al., 1998; Rabindran et al., 1994; Guo et al., 2001). In addition, Hsf1 is subject to a large number of post-translational modifications, such as phosphorylation, but the influence of these modifications on the heat shock response is a topic of controversy (Budzyński et al., 2015; Xia and Voellmy, 1997).

Now, in eLife, David Pincus and coworkers from the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Boston University and Harvard University – including Xu Zheng and Joanna Krakowiak as joint first authors – report how they have used a combination of mathematical modeling and cell biology experiments in yeast to address these issues (Zheng et al., 2016).

Initial experimental results demonstrated that a chaperone called Hsp70 – which is thought to damp down the heat shock response – binds to Hsf1 under non-stress conditions and is released upon a sudden increase in temperature. From these findings, Zheng et al. simulated how the expression of Hsf1-dependent genes changes in response to interactions between Hsp70, Hsf1 and misfolded proteins. Further support for the chaperone titration model came from experiments in which yeast cells expressed two types of Hsf1: wild-type Hsf1 and “decoy” Hsf1 (which can bind to Hsp70 but cannot activate the transcription of the Hsf1-dependent genes). These data are the strongest evidence to date that Hsp70 feedback regulates the heat shock response by directly associating with Hsf1, as happens in the chaperone titration model (Figure 1).

The chaperone titration model of the heat shock response.

Clockwise from top: The chaperone protein Hsp70 binds to the heat shock transcription factor Hsf1, repressing its transcriptional activity. Upon a sudden increase in temperature or other stresses …

The overexpression of Hsf1 under otherwise unstressed conditions impairs the growth of yeast cells by over-activating the transcription of Hsf1-dependent genes. Elevating the levels of Hsp70 or one of its co-chaperones in such cells rescues growth and represses the transcription of Hsf1-dependent genes. In contrast, Hsp90 – a chaperone that was believed to repress Hsf1 under non-stress conditions (Duina et al., 1998; Zou et al., 1998) – had no effect on growth or the transcription of Hsf1-dependent genes in these cells. This argues against Hsp90 playing a major role in down-regulating Hsf1 activity. Thus, the effects of the down-regulation of Hsp90 or its co-chaperones on the heat shock response might be indirect in yeast.

Zheng et al. also investigated how the hyperphosphorylation of Hsf1 helps to regulate the heat shock response. They performed en masse mutations of Hsf1 by either removing all 152 potential phosphorylation sites, or mimicking phosphorylation at up to 116 sites. Unexpectedly, completely abolishing phosphorylation only mildly reduces Hsf1 activity upon heat shock, indicating that phosphorylation per se is not required to activate Hsf1. On the other hand, mimicking hyperphosphorylation activates Hsf1 even under non-stress conditions. Moreover, the activity of Hsf1 increases further upon heat shock, which means that hyperphosphorylation only partially overwrites the repression of Hsf1 by Hsp70. Phosphorylation is thus a dose-dependent mechanism for fine-tuning the activity of Hsf1 that mainly occurs after the initial phase of the heat shock response, enhancing and prolonging it. This also means that if the stress response is activated for developmental or other reasons, the cell is still able to react to acute assaults.

It will be important in the future to assess whether these findings also apply to animal Hsf1, which interacts with chaperones such as Hsp70 and Hsp90 while in its inactive monomeric form under non-stress conditions (Shi et al., 1998; Zou et al., 1998). It also remains to be discovered how these chaperones integrate with the ability of Hsf1 to directly sense stress (Zhong et al., 1998; Hentze et al., 2016).

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Laura Le Breton

    Center for Molecular Biology Heidelberg University, DKFZ-ZMBH-Alliance, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5599-3244
  2. Matthias P Mayer

    Center for Molecular Biology Heidelberg University, DKFZ-ZMBH-Alliance, Heidelberg, Germany
    For correspondence
    M.Mayer@zmbh.uni-heidelberg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7859-3112

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published:

Copyright

© 2016, Le Breton et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 7,215
    views
  • 635
    downloads
  • 18
    citations

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

Download links

Further reading

    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.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Artem K Velichko, Nadezhda V Petrova ... Omar L Kantidze
    Research Article

    We investigated the role of the nucleolar protein Treacle in organizing and regulating the nucleolus in human cells. Our results support Treacle’s ability to form liquid-like phase condensates through electrostatic interactions among molecules. The formation of these biomolecular condensates is crucial for segregating nucleolar fibrillar centers from the dense fibrillar component and ensuring high levels of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene transcription and accurate rRNA processing. Both the central and C-terminal domains of Treacle are required to form liquid-like condensates. The initiation of phase separation is attributed to the C-terminal domain. The central domain is characterized by repeated stretches of alternatively charged amino acid residues and is vital for condensate stability. Overexpression of mutant forms of Treacle that cannot form liquid-like phase condensates compromises the assembly of fibrillar centers, suppressing rRNA gene transcription and disrupting rRNA processing. These mutant forms also fail to recruit DNA topoisomerase II binding protein 1 (TOPBP1), suppressing the DNA damage response in the nucleolus.