α-actinin accounts for the bioactivity of actin preparations in inducing STAT target genes in Drosophila melanogaster

  1. Oliver Gordon
  2. Conor M Henry
  3. Naren Srinivasan
  4. Susan Ahrens
  5. Anna Franz
  6. Safia Deddouche
  7. Probir Chakravarty
  8. David Phillips
  9. Roger George
  10. Svend Kjaer
  11. David Frith
  12. Ambrosius P Snijders
  13. Rita S Valente
  14. Carolina J Simoes da Silva
  15. Luis Teixeira
  16. Barry Thompson
  17. Marc S Dionne
  18. Will Wood
  19. Caetano Reis e Sousa  Is a corresponding author
  1. The Francis Crick Institute, United Kingdom
  2. University of Bristol, United Kingdom
  3. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Portugal
  4. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  5. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Abstract

Damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) are molecules exposed or released by dead cells that trigger or modulate immunity and tissue repair. In vertebrates, the cytoskeletal component F-actin is a DAMP specifically recognised by DNGR-1, an innate immune receptor. Previously we suggested that actin is also a DAMP in Drosophila melanogaster by inducing STAT-dependent (Srinivasan et al., 2016). Here, we revise that conclusion and report that α-actinin is far more potent than actin at inducing the same STAT response and can be found in trace amounts in actin preparations. Recombinant expression of actin or α-actinin in bacteria demonstrated that only α-actinin could drive the expression of STAT target genes in Drosophila. The response to injected α-actinin required the same signalling cascade that we had identified in our previous work using actin preparations. Taken together, these data indicate that α-actinin rather than actin drives STAT activation when injected into Drosophila.

Data availability

Data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript. Mass spectrometry data were uploaded as supporting file.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Oliver Gordon

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Conor M Henry

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Naren Srinivasan

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Susan Ahrens

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Anna Franz

    Department of Biochemistry, Biomedical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Safia Deddouche

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Probir Chakravarty

    Bioinformatics and Biostatistics Facility, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. David Phillips

    Genomics-Equipment Park, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Roger George

    The Structural Biology Science Technology Platform, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Svend Kjaer

    Structural Biology, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. David Frith

    Proteomics, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Ambrosius P Snijders

    Proteomics, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Rita S Valente

    Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Carolina J Simoes da Silva

    Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Luis Teixeira

    Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8326-6645
  16. Barry Thompson

    Epithelial Biology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0103-040X
  17. Marc S Dionne

    Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8283-1750
  18. Will Wood

    MRC Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Caetano Reis e Sousa

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    Caetano@crick.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7392-2119

Funding

Francis Crick Institute (FC001136)

  • Caetano Reis e Sousa

Wellcome Trust (WT106973MA)

  • Caetano Reis e Sousa

Federation of European Biochemical Societies

  • Conor M Henry

Fundação para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (PTDC/BEX- GMG/3128/2014)

  • Luis Teixeira

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

Copyright

© 2018, Gordon 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

  • 1,542
    views
  • 202
    downloads
  • 21
    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. Oliver Gordon
  2. Conor M Henry
  3. Naren Srinivasan
  4. Susan Ahrens
  5. Anna Franz
  6. Safia Deddouche
  7. Probir Chakravarty
  8. David Phillips
  9. Roger George
  10. Svend Kjaer
  11. David Frith
  12. Ambrosius P Snijders
  13. Rita S Valente
  14. Carolina J Simoes da Silva
  15. Luis Teixeira
  16. Barry Thompson
  17. Marc S Dionne
  18. Will Wood
  19. Caetano Reis e Sousa
(2018)
α-actinin accounts for the bioactivity of actin preparations in inducing STAT target genes in Drosophila melanogaster
eLife 7:e38636.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Sofia V Krasik, Ekaterina A Bryushkova ... Ekaterina O Serebrovskaya
    Research Article

    The current understanding of humoral immune response in cancer patients suggests that tumors may be infiltrated with diffuse B cells of extra-tumoral origin or may develop organized lymphoid structures, where somatic hypermutation and antigen-driven selection occur locally. These processes are believed to be significantly influenced by the tumor microenvironment through secretory factors and biased cell-cell interactions. To explore the manifestation of this influence, we used deep unbiased immunoglobulin profiling and systematically characterized the relationships between B cells in circulation, draining lymph nodes (draining LNs), and tumors in 14 patients with three human cancers. We demonstrated that draining LNs are differentially involved in the interaction with the tumor site, and that significant heterogeneity exists even between different parts of a single lymph node (LN). Next, we confirmed and elaborated upon previous observations regarding intratumoral immunoglobulin heterogeneity. We identified B cell receptor (BCR) clonotypes that were expanded in tumors relative to draining LNs and blood and observed that these tumor-expanded clonotypes were less hypermutated than non-expanded (ubiquitous) clonotypes. Furthermore, we observed a shift in the properties of complementarity-determining region 3 of the BCR heavy chain (CDR-H3) towards less mature and less specific BCR repertoire in tumor-infiltrating B-cells compared to circulating B-cells, which may indicate less stringent control for antibody-producing B cell development in tumor microenvironment (TME). In addition, we found repertoire-level evidence that B-cells may be selected according to their CDR-H3 physicochemical properties before they activate somatic hypermutation (SHM). Altogether, our work outlines a broad picture of the differences in the tumor BCR repertoire relative to non-tumor tissues and points to the unexpected features of the SHM process.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Axelle Amen, Randy Yoo ... Matthijs M Jore
    Research Article

    Circulating sexual stages of Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) can be transmitted from humans to mosquitoes, thereby furthering the spread of malaria in the population. It is well established that antibodies can efficiently block parasite transmission. In search for naturally acquired antibodies targets on sexual stages, we established an efficient method for target-agnostic single B cell activation followed by high-throughput selection of human monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) reactive to sexual stages of Pf in the form of gametes and gametocyte extracts. We isolated mAbs reactive against a range of Pf proteins including well-established targets Pfs48/45 and Pfs230. One mAb, B1E11K, was cross-reactive to various proteins containing glutamate-rich repetitive elements expressed at different stages of the parasite life cycle. A crystal structure of two B1E11K Fab domains in complex with its main antigen, RESA, expressed on asexual blood stages, showed binding of B1E11K to a repeating epitope motif in a head-to-head conformation engaging in affinity-matured homotypic interactions. Thus, this mode of recognition of Pf proteins, previously described only for Pf circumsporozoite protein (PfCSP), extends to other repeats expressed across various stages. The findings augment our understanding of immune-pathogen interactions to repeating elements of the Plasmodium parasite proteome and underscore the potential of the novel mAb identification method used to provide new insights into the natural humoral immune response against Pf.