TAPBPR bridges UDP-glucose:glycoprotein glucosyltransferase 1 onto MHC class I to provide quality control in the antigen presentation pathway

  1. Andreas Neerincx
  2. Clemens Hermann
  3. Robin Antrobus
  4. Andy van Hateren
  5. Huan Cao
  6. Nico Trautwein
  7. Stefan Stevanović
  8. Tim Elliott
  9. Janet E Deane
  10. Louise H Boyle  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  2. University of Cape Town, South Africa
  3. University of Southampton, United Kingdom
  4. University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom
  5. Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany

Abstract

Recently we revealed that TAPBPR is a peptide exchange catalyst important for optimal peptide selection by MHC class I molecules. Here we asked if any other co-factors associate with TAPBPR which would explain its effect on peptide selection. We identify an interaction between TAPBPR and UDP-glucose:glycoprotein glucosyltransferase 1 (UGT1), a folding sensor in the calnexin/calreticulin quality control cycle known to regenerate the Glc1Man9GlcNAc2 moiety on glycoproteins. Our results suggest the formation of a multimeric complex, dependent on a conserved cysteine at position 94 in TAPBPR, in which TAPBPR promotes the association of UGT1 with peptide-receptive class I molecules. We reveal that the interaction between TAPBPR and UGT1 facilities the reglucosylation of the glycan on class I, promoting their recognition by calreticulin. Our results suggest that in addition to being a peptide-editor, TAPBPR improves peptide optimisation by promoting peptide-receptive MHC class I molecules to associate with the peptide-loading complex.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andreas Neerincx

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Clemens Hermann

    Department of Integrative Biomedical Sciences, Division of Chemical and Systems Biology, Institute for Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Robin Antrobus

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Andy van Hateren

    Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3915-0239
  5. Huan Cao

    Division of Applied Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Nico Trautwein

    Department of Immunology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Stefan Stevanović

    Department of Immunology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Tim Elliott

    Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Janet E Deane

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4863-0330
  10. Louise H Boyle

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    lhb22@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3105-6555

Funding

Wellcome (Senior Research Fellowship 104647)

  • Andreas Neerincx
  • Louise H Boyle

Royal Society (University Research Fellowship,UF100371)

  • Janet E Deane

Cancer Research UK (Programme Grant,C7056A)

  • Andy van Hateren
  • Tim Elliott

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 685)

  • Nico Trautwein
  • Stefan Stevanović

Wellcome (PhD studentship,089563)

  • Clemens Hermann

Wellcome (Strategic Award 100140)

  • Robin Antrobus

Wellcome (programme grant,WT094847MA)

  • Huan Cao

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. David H Margulies, National Institutes of Health, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: November 7, 2016
  2. Accepted: April 14, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 20, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 23, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Neerincx 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

  • 1,344
    Page views
  • 337
    Downloads
  • 43
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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. Andreas Neerincx
  2. Clemens Hermann
  3. Robin Antrobus
  4. Andy van Hateren
  5. Huan Cao
  6. Nico Trautwein
  7. Stefan Stevanović
  8. Tim Elliott
  9. Janet E Deane
  10. Louise H Boyle
(2017)
TAPBPR bridges UDP-glucose:glycoprotein glucosyltransferase 1 onto MHC class I to provide quality control in the antigen presentation pathway
eLife 6:e23049.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23049

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Meng Zhao, Niels Banhos Dannieskiold-Samsøe ... Katrin J Svensson
    Research Article

    The secreted protein Isthmin-1 (Ism1) mitigates diabetes by increasing adipocyte and skeletal muscle glucose uptake by activating the PI3K-Akt pathway. However, while both Ism1 and insulin converge on these common targets, Ism1 has distinct cellular actions suggesting divergence in downstream intracellular signaling pathways. To understand the biological complexity of Ism1 signaling, we performed phosphoproteomic analysis after acute exposure, revealing overlapping and distinct pathways of Ism1 and insulin. We identify a 53 % overlap between Ism1 and insulin signaling and Ism1-mediated phosphoproteome-wide alterations in ~ 450 proteins that are not shared with insulin. Interestingly, we find several unknown phosphorylation sites on proteins related to protein translation, mTOR pathway and, unexpectedly, muscle function in the Ism1 signaling network. Physiologically, Ism1 ablation in mice results in altered proteostasis, including lower muscle protein levels under fed and fasted conditions, reduced amino acid incorporation into proteins, and reduced phosphorylation of the key protein synthesis effectors Akt and downstream mTORC1 targets. As metabolic disorders such as diabetes are associated with accelerated loss of skeletal muscle protein content, these studies define a non-canonical mechanism by which this anti-diabetic circulating protein controls muscle biology.

    1. Cell Biology
    Jia Chen, Daniel St Johnston
    Research Article

    In the adult Drosophila midgut, basal intestinal stem cells give rise to enteroblasts that integrate into the epithelium as they differentiate into enterocytes. Integrating enteroblasts must generate a new apical domain and break through the septate junctions between neighbouring enterocytes, while maintaining barrier function. We observe that enteroblasts form an apical membrane initiation site (AMIS) when they reach the septate junction between the enterocytes. Cadherin clears from the apical surface and an apical space appears between above the enteroblast. New septate junctions then form laterally with the enterocytes and the AMIS develops into an apical domain below the enterocyte septate junction. The enteroblast therefore forms a pre-assembled apical compartment before it has a free apical surface in contact with the gut lumen. Finally, the enterocyte septate junction disassembles and the enteroblast/pre-enterocyte reaches the gut lumen with a fully-formed brush border. The process of enteroblast integration resembles lumen formation in mammalian epithelial cysts, highlighting the similarities between the fly midgut and mammalian epithelia.