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

  • 2,440
    views
  • 333
    downloads
  • 18
    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
    Dharmendra Kumar Nath, Subash Dhakal, Youngseok Lee
    Research Advance

    Understanding how the brain controls nutrient storage is pivotal. Transient receptor potential (TRP) channels are conserved from insects to humans. They serve in detecting environmental shifts and in acting as internal sensors. Previously, we demonstrated the role of TRPγ in nutrient-sensing behavior (Dhakal et al., 2022). Here, we found that a TRPγ mutant exhibited in Drosophila melanogaster is required for maintaining normal lipid and protein levels. In animals, lipogenesis and lipolysis control lipid levels in response to food availability. Lipids are mostly stored as triacylglycerol in the fat bodies (FBs) of D. melanogaster. Interestingly, trpγ deficient mutants exhibited elevated TAG levels and our genetic data indicated that Dh44 neurons are indispensable for normal lipid storage but not protein storage. The trpγ mutants also exhibited reduced starvation resistance, which was attributed to insufficient lipolysis in the FBs. This could be mitigated by administering lipase or metformin orally, indicating a potential treatment pathway. Gene expression analysis indicated that trpγ knockout downregulated brummer, a key lipolytic gene, resulting in chronic lipolytic deficits in the gut and other fat tissues. The study also highlighted the role of specific proteins, including neuropeptide DH44 and its receptor DH44R2 in lipid regulation. Our findings provide insight into the broader question of how the brain and gut regulate nutrient storage.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Mykhailo Vladymyrov, Luca Marchetti ... Britta Engelhardt
    Tools and Resources

    The endothelial blood-brain barrier (BBB) strictly controls immune cell trafficking into the central nervous system (CNS). In neuroinflammatory diseases such as multiple sclerosis, this tight control is, however, disturbed, leading to immune cell infiltration into the CNS. The development of in vitro models of the BBB combined with microfluidic devices has advanced our understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms mediating the multistep T-cell extravasation across the BBB. A major bottleneck of these in vitro studies is the absence of a robust and automated pipeline suitable for analyzing and quantifying the sequential interaction steps of different immune cell subsets with the BBB under physiological flow in vitro. Here, we present the under-flow migration tracker (UFMTrack) framework for studying immune cell interactions with endothelial monolayers under physiological flow. We then showcase a pipeline built based on it to study the entire multistep extravasation cascade of immune cells across brain microvascular endothelial cells under physiological flow in vitro. UFMTrack achieves 90% track reconstruction efficiency and allows for scaling due to the reduction of the analysis cost and by eliminating experimenter bias. This allowed for an in-depth analysis of all behavioral regimes involved in the multistep immune cell extravasation cascade. The study summarizes how UFMTrack can be employed to delineate the interactions of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells with the BBB under physiological flow. We also demonstrate its applicability to the other BBB models, showcasing broader applicability of the developed framework to a range of immune cell-endothelial monolayer interaction studies. The UFMTrack framework along with the generated datasets is publicly available in the corresponding repositories.