Recruitment dynamics of ESCRT-III and Vps4 to endosomes and implications for reverse membrane budding

  1. Manuel Alonso Y Adell
  2. Simona M Migliano
  3. Srigokul Upadhyayula
  4. Yury S Bykov
  5. Simon Sprenger
  6. Mehrshad Pakdel
  7. Georg F Vogel
  8. Gloria Jih
  9. Wesley Skillern
  10. Reza Behrouzi
  11. Markus Babst
  12. Oliver Schmidt
  13. Michael W Hess
  14. John AG Briggs
  15. Tomas Kirchhausen  Is a corresponding author
  16. David Teis  Is a corresponding author
  1. Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria
  2. Harvard Medical School, United States
  3. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Germany
  4. Boston Children's Hospital, United States
  5. University of Utah, United States

Abstract

The ESCRT machinery mediates reverse membrane scission. By quantitative fluorescence lattice light-sheet microscopy, we have shown that ESCRT-III subunits polymerize rapidly on yeast endosomes, together with the recruitment of at least two Vps4 hexamers. During their 3-45 second lifetimes, the ESCRT-III assemblies accumulated 75-200 Snf7 and 15-50 Vps24 molecules. Productive budding events required at least two additional Vps4 hexamers. Membrane budding was associated with continuous, stochastic exchange of Vps4 and ESCRT-III components, rather than steady growth of fixed assemblies, and depended on Vps4 ATPase activity. An all-or-none step led to final release of ESCRT-III and Vps4. Tomographic electron microscopy demonstrated that acute disruption of Vps4 recruitment stalled membrane budding. We propose a model in which multiple Vps4 hexamers (four or more) draw together several ESCRT-III filaments. This process induces cargo crowding and inward membrane buckling, followed by constriction of the nascent bud neck and ultimately ILV generation by vesicle fission.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Manuel Alonso Y Adell

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Simona M Migliano

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Srigokul Upadhyayula

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yury S Bykov

    Structural and Computational Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2959-4108
  5. Simon Sprenger

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Mehrshad Pakdel

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Georg F Vogel

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Gloria Jih

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Wesley Skillern

    Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Reza Behrouzi

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3064-9743
  11. Markus Babst

    Center for Cell and Genome Science, Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Oliver Schmidt

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Michael W Hess

    Division of Histology and Embryology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. John AG Briggs

    Structural and Computational Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Tomas Kirchhausen

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    kirchhau@crystal.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. David Teis

    Division of Cell Biology, Biocenter, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    For correspondence
    david.teis@i-med.ac.at
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8181-0253

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM075252)

  • Tomas Kirchhausen

Austrian Science Fund (Y444-B12)

  • David Teis

Austrian Science Fund (P30263)

  • David Teis

Austrian Science Fund (W1101-B18)

  • David Teis

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

Copyright

© 2017, Adell 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

  • 7,081
    views
  • 1,240
    downloads
  • 139
    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. Manuel Alonso Y Adell
  2. Simona M Migliano
  3. Srigokul Upadhyayula
  4. Yury S Bykov
  5. Simon Sprenger
  6. Mehrshad Pakdel
  7. Georg F Vogel
  8. Gloria Jih
  9. Wesley Skillern
  10. Reza Behrouzi
  11. Markus Babst
  12. Oliver Schmidt
  13. Michael W Hess
  14. John AG Briggs
  15. Tomas Kirchhausen
  16. David Teis
(2017)
Recruitment dynamics of ESCRT-III and Vps4 to endosomes and implications for reverse membrane budding
eLife 6:e31652.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31652

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31652

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Jingjing Li, Xinyue Wang ... Vincent Archambault
    Research Article

    In animals, mitosis involves the breakdown of the nucleus. The reassembly of a nucleus after mitosis requires the reformation of the nuclear envelope around a single mass of chromosomes. This process requires Ankle2 (also known as LEM4 in humans) which interacts with PP2A and promotes the function of the Barrier-to-Autointegration Factor (BAF). Upon dephosphorylation, BAF dimers cross-bridge chromosomes and bind lamins and transmembrane proteins of the reassembling nuclear envelope. How Ankle2 functions in mitosis is incompletely understood. Using a combination of approaches in Drosophila, along with structural modeling, we provide several lines of evidence that suggest that Ankle2 is a regulatory subunit of PP2A, explaining how it promotes BAF dephosphorylation. In addition, we discovered that Ankle2 interacts with the endoplasmic reticulum protein Vap33, which is required for Ankle2 localization at the reassembling nuclear envelope during telophase. We identified the interaction sites of PP2A and Vap33 on Ankle2. Through genetic rescue experiments, we show that the Ankle2/PP2A interaction is essential for the function of Ankle2 in nuclear reassembly and that the Ankle2/Vap33 interaction also promotes this process. Our study sheds light on the molecular mechanisms of post-mitotic nuclear reassembly and suggests that the endoplasmic reticulum is not merely a source of membranes in the process, but also provides localized enzymatic activity.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.