1. Developmental Biology
  2. Neuroscience
Download icon

Receptor-specific interactome as a hub for rapid cue-induced selective translation in axons

Research Article
  • Cited 21
  • Views 2,952
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e48718 doi: 10.7554/eLife.48718

Abstract

Extrinsic cues trigger the local translation of specific mRNAs in growing axons via cell surface receptors. The coupling of ribosomes to receptors has been proposed as a mechanism linking signals to local translation but it is not known how broadly this mechanism operates, nor whether it can selectively regulate mRNA translation. We report that receptor-ribosome coupling is employed by multiple guidance cue receptors and this interaction is mRNA-dependent. We find that different receptors associate with distinct sets of mRNAs and RNA-binding proteins. Cue stimulation of growing Xenopus retinal ganglion cell axons induces rapid dissociation of ribosomes from receptors and the selective translation of receptor-specific mRNAs. Further, we show that receptor-ribosome dissociation and cue-induced selective translation are inhibited by co-exposure to translation-repressive cues, suggesting a novel mode of signal integration. Our findings reveal receptor-specific interactomes and suggest a generalizable model for cue-selective control of the local proteome.

Data availability

RNA-sequencing data associated with this manuscript has been deposited on the GEO database (identifier GSE135338).All proteomics data associated with this manuscript has been uploaded to the PRIDE online repository (identifier: PXD015650).

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Max Koppers

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Roberta Cagnetta

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Toshiaki Shigeoka

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Lucia CS Wunderlich

    Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7200-1713
  5. Pedro Vallejo-Ramirez

    Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Julie Qiaojin Lin

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Sixian Zhao

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Maximilian AH Jakobs

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0879-7937
  9. Asha Dwivedy

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Michael S Minett

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Anaïs Bellon

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Clemens F Kaminski

    Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5194-0962
  13. William A Harris

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9995-8096
  14. John Flanagan

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Christine E Holt

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ceh33@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2829-121X

Funding

Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (Rubicon 019.161LW.033)

  • Max Koppers

Wellcome Trust (085314/Z/08/Z)

  • Christine E Holt

Wellcome Trust (203249/Z/16/Z)

  • Christine E Holt

European Research Council (Advanced Grant 322817)

  • Christine E Holt

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experiments were approved by the University of Cambridge Ethical Review Committee in compliance with the University of Cambridge Animal Welfare Policy. This research has been regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012 following ethical review by the University of Cambridge Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) and under project license PPL80/2198.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Carol A Mason, Columbia University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: May 23, 2019
  2. Accepted: November 19, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 20, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 5, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Koppers 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

  • 2,952
    Page views
  • 451
    Downloads
  • 21
    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
    2. Developmental Biology
    Meng Zhu et al.
    Research Article

    Apico-basal polarization of cells within the embryo is critical for the segregation of distinct lineages during mammalian development. Polarized cells become the trophectoderm (TE), which forms the placenta, and apolar cells become the inner cell mass (ICM), the founding population of the fetus. The cellular and molecular mechanisms leading to polarization of the human embryo and its timing during embryogenesis have remained unknown. Here, we show that human embryo polarization occurs in two steps: it begins with the apical enrichment of F-actin and is followed by the apical accumulation of the PAR complex. This two-step polarization process leads to the formation of an apical domain at the 8-16 cell stage. Using RNA interference, we show that apical domain formation requires Phospholipase C (PLC) signaling, specifically the enzymes PLCB1 and PLCE1, from the 8-cell stage onwards. Finally, we show that although expression of the critical TE differentiation marker GATA3 can be initiated independently of embryo polarization, downregulation of PLCB1 and PLCE1 decreases GATA3 expression through a reduction in the number of polarized cells. Therefore, apical domain formation reinforces a TE fate. The results we present here demonstrate how polarization is triggered to regulate the first lineage segregation in human embryos.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Eduardo Pulgar et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The developmental strategies used by progenitor cells to allow a safe journey from their induction place towards the site of terminal differentiation are still poorly understood. Here, we uncovered a mechanism of progenitor cell allocation that stems from an incomplete process of epithelial delamination that allows progenitors to coordinate their movement with adjacent extra-embryonic tissues. Progenitors of the zebrafish laterality organ originate from the superficial epithelial enveloping layer by an apical constriction process of cell delamination. During this process, progenitors retain long-lasting apical contacts that enable the epithelial layer to pull a subset of progenitors on their way to the vegetal pole. The remaining delaminated cells follow the movement of apically attached progenitors by a protrusion-dependent cell-cell contact mechanism, avoiding sequestration by the adjacent endoderm, ensuring their collective fate and allocation at the site of differentiation. Thus, we reveal that incomplete delamination serves as a cellular platform for coordinated tissue movements during development.