1. Cell Biology
  2. Genetics and Genomics
Download icon

Retro-2 protects cells from ricin toxicity by inhibiting ASNA1-mediated ER targeting and insertion of tail-anchored proteins

Research Article
  • Cited 7
  • Views 1,776
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e48434 doi: 10.7554/eLife.48434

Abstract

The small molecule Retro-2 prevents ricin toxicity through a poorly-defined mechanism of action (MOA), which involves halting retrograde vesicle transport to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). CRISPRi genetic interaction analysis revealed Retro-2 activity resembles disruption of the transmembrane domain recognition complex (TRC) pathway, which mediates post-translational ER-targeting and insertion of tail-anchored (TA) proteins, including SNAREs required for retrograde transport. Cell-based and in vitro assays show that Retro-2 blocks delivery of newly-synthesized TA-proteins to the ER-targeting factor ASNA1 (TRC40). An ASNA1 point mutant identified using CRISPR-mediated mutagenesis abolishes both the cytoprotective effect of Retro-2 against ricin and its inhibitory effect on ASNA1-mediated ER-targeting. Together, our work explains how Retro-2 prevents retrograde trafficking of toxins by inhibiting TA-protein targeting, describes a general CRISPR strategy for predicting the MOA of small molecules, and paves the way for drugging the TRC pathway to treat broad classes of viruses known to be inhibited by Retro-2.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David W Morgens

    Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Charlene Chan

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Andrew J Kane

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nicholas R Weir

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1797-849X
  5. Amy Li

    Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Michael M Dubreuil

    Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. C Kimberly Tsui

    Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Gaelen T Hess

    Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Adam Lavertu

    Biomedical Informatics Training Program, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kyuho Han

    Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Nicole Polyakov

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jing Zhou

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Emma L Handy

    Department of Chemistry, Brown University, Providence, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Philip Alabi

    Department of Chemistry, Brown University, Providence, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Amanda Dombroski

    Department of Chemistry, Brown University, Providence, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. David Yao

    Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Russ B Altman

    Bioengineering, Genetics, and Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Jason K Sello

    Department of Chemistry, Brown University, Providence, United States
    For correspondence
    jason_sello@brown.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Vladimir Denic

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    vdenic@mcb.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1982-7281
  20. Michael C Bassik

    Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    bassik@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5185-8427

Funding

National Institutes of Health (1DP2HD084069-01)

  • Michael C Bassik

National Human Genome Research Institute (T32 HG000044)

  • David W Morgens

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ramanujan S Hegde, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: May 13, 2019
  2. Accepted: October 28, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 1, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 15, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Morgens 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

  • 1,776
    Page views
  • 279
    Downloads
  • 7
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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. Cell Biology
    Natalya Pashkova et al.
    Research Article

    Attachment of ubiquitin (Ub) to cell surface proteins serves as a signal for internalization via clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME). How ubiquitinated membrane proteins engage the internalization apparatus remains unclear. The internalization apparatus contains proteins such as Epsin and Eps15, which bind Ub, potentially acting as adaptors for Ub-based internalization signals. Here we show that additional components of the endocytic machinery including CALM, HIP1R, and Sla2 bind Ub via their N-terminal ANTH domain, a domain belonging to the superfamily of ENTH and VHS domains. Structural studies revealed that Ub binds with µM affinity to a unique C-terminal region within the ANTH domain not found in ENTH domains. Functional studies showed that combined loss of Ub-binding by ANTH-domain proteins and other Ub-binding domains within the yeast internalization apparatus caused defects in the Ub-dependent internalization of the GPCR Ste2 that was engineered to rely exclusively on Ub as an internalization signal. In contrast, these mutations had no effect on the internalization of Ste2 engineered to use an alternate Ub-independent internalization signal. These studies define new components of the internalization machinery that work collectively with Epsin and Eps15 to specify recognition of Ub as an internalization signal.

    1. Cell Biology
    Richa Sardana et al.
    Short Report

    Protein glycosylation in the Golgi is a sequential process that requires proper distribution of transmembrane glycosyltransferase enzymes in the appropriate Golgi compartments. Some of the cytosolic machinery required for the steady-state localization of some Golgi enzymes are known but existing models do not explain how many of these enzymes are localized. Here, we uncover the role of an integral membrane protein in yeast, Erd1, as a key facilitator of Golgi glycosyltransferase recycling by directly interacting with both the Golgi enzymes and the cytosolic receptor, Vps74. Loss of Erd1 function results in mislocalization of Golgi enzymes to the vacuole/lysosome. We present evidence that Erd1 forms an integral part of the recycling machinery and ensures productive recycling of several early Golgi enzymes. Our work provides new insights on how the localization of Golgi glycosyltransferases is spatially and temporally regulated, and is finely tuned to the cues of Golgi maturation.