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.

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

  • 2,363
    views
  • 327
    downloads
  • 16
    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. David W Morgens
  2. Charlene Chan
  3. Andrew J Kane
  4. Nicholas R Weir
  5. Amy Li
  6. Michael M Dubreuil
  7. C Kimberly Tsui
  8. Gaelen T Hess
  9. Adam Lavertu
  10. Kyuho Han
  11. Nicole Polyakov
  12. Jing Zhou
  13. Emma L Handy
  14. Philip Alabi
  15. Amanda Dombroski
  16. David Yao
  17. Russ B Altman
  18. Jason K Sello
  19. Vladimir Denic
  20. Michael C Bassik
(2019)
Retro-2 protects cells from ricin toxicity by inhibiting ASNA1-mediated ER targeting and insertion of tail-anchored proteins
eLife 8:e48434.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48434

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48434

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Fabian Link, Sisco Jung ... Brooke Morriswood
    Research Article

    The actin cytoskeleton is a ubiquitous feature of eukaryotic cells, yet its complexity varies across different taxa. In the parasitic protist Trypanosoma brucei, a rudimentary actomyosin system consisting of one actin gene and two myosin genes has been retained despite significant investment in the microtubule cytoskeleton. The functions of this highly simplified actomyosin system remain unclear, but appear to centre on the endomembrane system. Here, advanced light and electron microscopy imaging techniques, together with biochemical and biophysical assays, were used to explore the relationship between the actomyosin and endomembrane systems. The class I myosin (TbMyo1) had a large cytosolic pool and its ability to translocate actin filaments in vitro was shown here for the first time. TbMyo1 exhibited strong association with the endosomal system and was additionally found on glycosomes. At the endosomal membranes, TbMyo1 colocalised with markers for early and late endosomes (TbRab5A and TbRab7, respectively), but not with the marker associated with recycling endosomes (TbRab11). Actin and myosin were simultaneously visualised for the first time in trypanosomes using an anti-actin chromobody. Disruption of the actomyosin system using the actin-depolymerising drug latrunculin A resulted in a delocalisation of both the actin chromobody signal and an endosomal marker, and was accompanied by a specific loss of endosomal structure. This suggests that the actomyosin system is required for maintaining endosomal integrity in T. brucei.

    1. Cell Biology
    Georgia Maria Sagia, Xenia Georgiou ... Sofia Dimou
    Research Article Updated

    Membrane proteins are sorted to the plasma membrane via Golgi-dependent trafficking. However, our recent studies challenged the essentiality of Golgi in the biogenesis of specific transporters. Here, we investigate the trafficking mechanisms of membrane proteins by following the localization of the polarized R-SNARE SynA versus the non-polarized transporter UapA, synchronously co-expressed in wild-type or isogenic genetic backgrounds repressible for conventional cargo secretion. In wild-type, the two cargoes dynamically label distinct secretory compartments, highlighted by the finding that, unlike SynA, UapA does not colocalize with the late-Golgi. In line with early partitioning into distinct secretory carriers, the two cargoes collapse in distinct ER-Exit Sites (ERES) in a sec31ts background. Trafficking via distinct cargo-specific carriers is further supported by showing that repression of proteins essential for conventional cargo secretion does not affect UapA trafficking, while blocking SynA secretion. Overall, this work establishes the existence of distinct, cargo-dependent, trafficking mechanisms, initiating at ERES and being differentially dependent on Golgi and SNARE interactions.