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

Version 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

  • 1,500
    Page views
  • 355
    Downloads
  • 51
    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

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23049

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Kazuki Hanaoka, Kensuke Nishikawa ... Kouichi Funato
    Research Article

    Membrane contact sites (MCSs) are junctures that perform important roles including coordinating lipid metabolism. Previous studies have indicated that vacuolar fission/fusion processes are coupled with modifications in the membrane lipid composition. However, it has been still unclear whether MCS-mediated lipid metabolism controls the vacuolar morphology. Here, we report that deletion of tricalbins (Tcb1, Tcb2, and Tcb3), tethering proteins at endoplasmic reticulum (ER)–plasma membrane (PM) and ER–Golgi contact sites, alters fusion/fission dynamics and causes vacuolar fragmentation in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In addition, we show that the sphingolipid precursor phytosphingosine (PHS) accumulates in tricalbin-deleted cells, triggering the vacuolar division. Detachment of the nucleus–vacuole junction (NVJ), an important contact site between the vacuole and the perinuclear ER, restored vacuolar morphology in both cells subjected to high exogenous PHS and Tcb3-deleted cells, supporting that PHS transport across the NVJ induces vacuole division. Thus, our results suggest that vacuolar morphology is maintained by MCSs through the metabolism of sphingolipids.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Monica Salinas-Pena, Elena Rebollo, Albert Jordan
    Research Article

    Histone H1 participates in chromatin condensation and regulates nuclear processes. Human somatic cells may contain up to seven histone H1 variants, although their functional heterogeneity is not fully understood. Here, we have profiled the differential nuclear distribution of the somatic H1 repertoire in human cells through imaging techniques including super-resolution microscopy. H1 variants exhibit characteristic distribution patterns in both interphase and mitosis. H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 are universally enriched at the nuclear periphery in all cell lines analyzed and co-localize with compacted DNA. H1.0 shows a less pronounced peripheral localization, with apparent variability among different cell lines. On the other hand, H1.4 and H1X are distributed throughout the nucleus, being H1X universally enriched in high-GC regions and abundant in the nucleoli. Interestingly, H1.4 and H1.0 show a more peripheral distribution in cell lines lacking H1.3 and H1.5. The differential distribution patterns of H1 suggest specific functionalities in organizing lamina-associated domains or nucleolar activity, which is further supported by a distinct response of H1X or phosphorylated H1.4 to the inhibition of ribosomal DNA transcription. Moreover, H1 variants depletion affects chromatin structure in a variant-specific manner. Concretely, H1.2 knock-down, either alone or combined, triggers a global chromatin decompaction. Overall, imaging has allowed us to distinguish H1 variants distribution beyond the segregation in two groups denoted by previous ChIP-Seq determinations. Our results support H1 variants heterogeneity and suggest that variant-specific functionality can be shared between different cell types.