1. Neuroscience
Download icon

The N-terminus of the prion protein is a toxic effector regulated by the C-terminus

  1. Bei Wu
  2. Alex McDonald
  3. Markham Kathleen
  4. Celeste B Rich
  5. Kyle P Mchugh
  6. Jörg Tatzelt
  7. Colby David
  8. Glenn L Millhauser
  9. David Harris  Is a corresponding author
  1. Boston University School of Medicine, United States
  2. University of California, Davis, United States
  3. University of Delaware, United States
  4. Institute of Biochemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
  5. UC Santa Cruz, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 37
  • Views 2,411
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e23473 doi: 10.7554/eLife.23473

Abstract

PrPC, the cellular isoform of the prion protein, serves to transduce the neurotoxic effects of PrPSc, the infectious isoform, but how this occurs is mysterious. Here, using a combination of electrophysiological, cellular, and biophysical techniques, we show that the flexible, N-terminal domain of PrPC functions as a powerful toxicity-transducing effector whose activity is tightly regulated in cis by the globular C-terminal domain. Ligands binding to the N-terminal domain abolish the spontaneous ionic currents associated with neurotoxic mutants of PrP, and the isolated N-terminal domain induces currents when expressed in the absence of the C-terminal domain. Anti-PrP antibodies targeting epitopes in the C-terminal domain induce currents, and cause degeneration of dendrites on murine hippocampal neurons, effects that entirely dependent on the effector function of the N-terminus. NMR experiments demonstrate intramolecular docking between N- and C-terminal domains of PrPC, revealing a novel auto-inhibitory mechanism that regulates the functional activity of PrPC.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Bei Wu

    Department of Biochemistry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alex McDonald

    Department of Biochemistry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Markham Kathleen

    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Davis, Santa Cruz, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Celeste B Rich

    Department of Biochemistry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Kyle P Mchugh

    Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jörg Tatzelt

    Department of Biochemistry of Neurodegenerative Diseases, Institute of Biochemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5017-5528
  7. Colby David

    Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Glenn L Millhauser

    Department of Chemistry, UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. David Harris

    Department of Biochemistry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    daharris@bu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6985-5790

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 NS065244)

  • Bei Wu
  • Alex McDonald
  • Celeste B Rich
  • David Harris

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM065790)

  • Markham Kathleen
  • Glenn L Millhauser

National Institutes of Health (GM104316)

  • Kyle P Mchugh
  • Colby David

National Science Foundation (Grant 1454508)

  • Kyle P Mchugh
  • Colby David

German Research Foundation ((TA 167/6))

  • Jörg Tatzelt

N.I.H. R01 NS065244 to D.A.H had a role in study design, data collection and interpretation.N.I.H. R01 GM065790 to G.L.M. had a role in data collection.N.I.H. GM104316 to D.W.C. and N.S.F. grant 1454508 to D.W.C. had a role in data collection.German Research Foundation (TA 167/6) to J.T. had a role in data collection.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#AN14997) of Boston University.

Reviewing Editor

  1. J Paul Taylor, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: November 21, 2016
  2. Accepted: May 17, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 20, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 23, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 24, 2017 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record published: June 13, 2017 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2017, Wu 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

  • 2,411
    Page views
  • 585
    Downloads
  • 37
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, 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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Blaise Robert et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (BFCNs) project throughout the cortex to regulate arousal, stimulus salience, plasticity, and learning. Although often treated as a monolithic structure, the basal forebrain features distinct connectivity along its rostrocaudal axis that could impart regional differences in BFCN processing. Here, we performed simultaneous bulk calcium imaging from rostral and caudal BFCNs over a 1-month period of variable reinforcement learning in mice. BFCNs in both regions showed equivalently weak responses to unconditioned visual stimuli and anticipated rewards. Rostral BFCNs in the horizontal limb of the diagonal band were more responsive to reward omission, more accurately classified behavioral outcomes, and more closely tracked fluctuations in pupil-indexed global brain state. Caudal tail BFCNs in globus pallidus and substantia innominata were more responsive to unconditioned auditory stimuli, orofacial movements, aversive reinforcement, and showed robust associative plasticity for punishment-predicting cues. These results identify a functional topography that diversifies cholinergic modulatory signals broadcast to downstream brain regions.

    1. Neuroscience
    Rawan AlSubaie et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Projections from the basal amygdala (BA) to the ventral hippocampus (vH) are proposed to provide information about the rewarding or threatening nature of learned associations to support appropriate goal-directed and anxiety-like behaviour. Such behaviour occurs via the differential activity of multiple, parallel populations of pyramidal neurons in vH that project to distinct downstream targets, but the nature of BA input and how it connects with these populations is unclear. Using channelrhodopsin-2-assisted circuit mapping in mice, we show that BA input to vH consists of both excitatory and inhibitory projections. Excitatory input specifically targets BA- and nucleus accumbens-projecting vH neurons and avoids prefrontal cortex-projecting vH neurons, while inhibitory input preferentially targets BA-projecting neurons. Through this specific connectivity, BA inhibitory projections gate place-value associations by controlling the activity of nucleus accumbens-projecting vH neurons. Our results define a parallel excitatory and inhibitory projection from BA to vH that can support goal-directed behaviour.