Inhibition of PIP4Kγ ameliorates the pathological effects of mutant huntingtin protein

  1. Ismael Al-Ramahi
  2. Sai Srinivas Panapakkam Giridharan
  3. Yu-Chi Chen
  4. Samarjit Patnaik
  5. Nathaniel Safren
  6. Junya Hasegawa
  7. Maria de Haro
  8. Amanda K Wagner Gee
  9. Steven A Titus
  10. Hyunkyung Jeong
  11. Jonathan Clarke
  12. Dimitri Krainc
  13. Wei Zheng
  14. Robin F Irvine
  15. Sami Barmada
  16. Marc Ferrer
  17. Noel Southall
  18. Lois S Weisman  Is a corresponding author
  19. Juan Botas  Is a corresponding author
  20. Juan Jose Marugan  Is a corresponding author
  1. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  2. University of Michigan, United States
  3. National Institutes of Health, United States
  4. Northwestern University, United States
  5. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Abstract

The discovery of the causative gene for Huntington's disease (HD) has promoted numerous efforts to uncover cellular pathways that lower levels of mutant huntingtin protein (mHtt) and potentially forestall the appearance of HD-related neurological defects. Using a cell-based model of pathogenic huntingtin expression, we identified a class of compounds that protect cells through selective inhibition of a lipid kinase, PIP4Kγ. Pharmacological inhibition or knock-down of PIP4Kγ modulates the equilibrium between phosphatidylinositide (PI) species within the cell and increases basal autophagy, reducing the total amount of mHtt protein in human patient fibroblasts and aggregates in neurons. In two Drosophila models of Huntington's disease, genetic knockdown of PIP4K ameliorated neuronal dysfunction and degeneration as assessed using motor performance and retinal degeneration assays respectively. Together, these results suggest that PIP4Kγ is a druggable target whose inhibition enhances productive autophagy and mHtt proteolysis, revealing a useful pharmacological point of intervention for the treatment of Huntington’s disease, and potentially for other neurodegenerative disorders.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ismael Al-Ramahi

    Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sai Srinivas Panapakkam Giridharan

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yu-Chi Chen

    National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Samarjit Patnaik

    National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nathaniel Safren

    Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Junya Hasegawa

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7041-890X
  7. Maria de Haro

    Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Amanda K Wagner Gee

    National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Steven A Titus

    National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Hyunkyung Jeong

    The Ken and Ruth Davee Department of Neurology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jonathan Clarke

    Department of Pharmacology, 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:" 0000-0002-4079-5333
  12. Dimitri Krainc

    The Ken and Ruth Davee Department of Neurology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Wei Zheng

    National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Robin F Irvine

    Department of Pharmacology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Sami Barmada

    Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Marc Ferrer

    National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Noel Southall

    National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4500-880X
  18. Lois S Weisman

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    lweisman@umich.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Juan Botas

    Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    jbotas@bcm.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Juan Jose Marugan

    National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, United States
    For correspondence
    maruganj@mail.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3951-7061

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01-NS064015)

  • Lois S Weisman

National Institutes of Health (R01-NS099340)

  • Lois S Weisman

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All vertebrate animal work was approved by the Institutional Animal Use & Care Committee at the University of Michigan (PRO00007096).

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 4,479
    views
  • 702
    downloads
  • 49
    citations

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

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. Ismael Al-Ramahi
  2. Sai Srinivas Panapakkam Giridharan
  3. Yu-Chi Chen
  4. Samarjit Patnaik
  5. Nathaniel Safren
  6. Junya Hasegawa
  7. Maria de Haro
  8. Amanda K Wagner Gee
  9. Steven A Titus
  10. Hyunkyung Jeong
  11. Jonathan Clarke
  12. Dimitri Krainc
  13. Wei Zheng
  14. Robin F Irvine
  15. Sami Barmada
  16. Marc Ferrer
  17. Noel Southall
  18. Lois S Weisman
  19. Juan Botas
  20. Juan Jose Marugan
(2017)
Inhibition of PIP4Kγ ameliorates the pathological effects of mutant huntingtin protein
eLife 6:e29123.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.29123

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.29123

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Mohini Sengupta
    Insight

    Slow and fast movements are controlled by distinct sets of spinal V2a neurons with matching properties and connections.

    1. Neuroscience
    Benjamin R Kop, Yazan Shamli Oghli ... Lennart Verhagen
    Research Advance

    Transcranial ultrasonic stimulation (TUS) is rapidly emerging as a promising non-invasive neuromodulation technique. TUS is already well-established in animal models, providing foundations to now optimize neuromodulatory efficacy for human applications. Across multiple studies, one promising protocol, pulsed at 1000 Hz, has consistently resulted in motor cortical inhibition in humans (Fomenko et al., 2020). At the same time, a parallel research line has highlighted the potentially confounding influence of peripheral auditory stimulation arising from TUS pulsing at audible frequencies. In this study, we disentangle direct neuromodulatory and indirect auditory contributions to motor inhibitory effects of TUS. To this end, we include tightly matched control conditions across four experiments, one preregistered, conducted independently at three institutions. We employed a combined transcranial ultrasonic and magnetic stimulation paradigm, where TMS-elicited motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) served as an index of corticospinal excitability. First, we replicated motor inhibitory effects of TUS but showed through both tight controls and manipulation of stimulation intensity, duration, and auditory masking conditions that this inhibition was driven by peripheral auditory stimulation, not direct neuromodulation. Furthermore, we consider neuromodulation beyond driving overall excitation/inhibition and show preliminary evidence of how TUS might interact with ongoing neural dynamics instead. Primarily, this study highlights the substantial shortcomings in accounting for the auditory confound in prior TUS-TMS work where only a flip-over sham and no active control was used. The field must critically reevaluate previous findings given the demonstrated impact of peripheral confounds. Furthermore, rigorous experimental design via (in)active control conditions is required to make substantiated claims in future TUS studies. Only when direct effects are disentangled from those driven by peripheral confounds can TUS fully realize its potential for research and clinical applications.