Cryo-EM structures of S-OPA1 reveal its interactions with membrane and changes upon nucleotide binding

Essential revisions:

As essential revisions, we request the authors to address the following issues.

1) Figure 2: handedness, fit of the nucleotide-free map. There is a mismatch of the statement of a "left-handed helical map" with the stalk filament fitted in a right-handed manner (Figure 7C). To avoid confusion, the authors should consistently state the handedness of their maps based on the assembly of the stalk filament.

Nevertheless, it is doubtful that the right-handed stalk assembly fitted into the nucleotide-free map, is correct, for the following reasons: […] The authors should consider alternative fittings for both maps.

We would like to thank the reviewers very much for this important critical points. Yes, the helical map of S-OPA1 coated tube is left-handed. The model in the previous Figure 7C is misleading. The apparent right-handed stalk region is just due to a visual effect from the compact packing of S-OPA1 on membrane in nucleotide-free state, in which the interaction between neighboring helical rung is a key factor for the stability of assembly.

As suggested by reviewers, we utilized the recent published crystal structure of S-Mgm1 (PDB code 6QL4) to re-perform structural fitting of both nucleotide-free and GTP-γ-S bound maps. With a better structural fitting, we updated our structural interpretation according to the suggestions from reviewers. In the revision (Figures 3, 6 and 7; Figure 3—figure supplements 1-4; Figure 7—figure supplement 1), the building block of S-OPA1 assembly in both nucleotide-free and GTP-γ-S bound states has been assigned as a new dimer, which shares the similar interface 1 and interface 2 in comparison with S-Mgm1 and Dyn1. However, in the nucleotide-free state, the unique interfaces I3 at the stalk region and P1 at the GMB region are also observed and described. These two unique interfaces disappear after GTP-γ-S binding with a new interface P2 of GMB region appearing, indicating a large assembly change of S-OPA1 after nucleotide binding. In the revision, the assemblies of S-OPA1 on membrane in both nucleotide-free and GTP-γ-S bound states are all left-handed (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). With this new structural interpretation, the model of how the assembly of S-OPA1 responses to GTP-γ-S binding is also revised (see Figure 7E). Besides, the comparison of oligomer assembly between S-OPA1, S-Mgm1 and Dyn1 are also re-performed (Figure 3—figure supplement 4).

2) As now the structures of the yeast Opa1 homolog Mgm1 are available, the authors are suggested to use the Mgm1 model to fit the cryo-EM density and make corresponding analysis. Considering the substantial difference between the Mgm1 paddle domain and dynamin PH domain, as well as the special kink of the Mgm1 stalk domain, more accurate models could be obtained by this analysis. In this case, the authors may add also the Mgm1 sequence into the alignment in Supplementary Figure 5A.

We would like to thank the reviewers for this important suggestion. In the revision, we have utilized the recent published crystal structure of S-Mgm1 (PDB code 6QL4) to re-perform structural fitting of both nucleotide-free and GTP-γ-S bound maps. In addition, the sequence alignment between S-OPA1 and S-Mgm1 was also performed (Figure 3—figure supplement 1).

3) As the structural difference between the nucleotide-free and GTP-γ-S bound states of Opa1 polymer is a major finding of this manuscript, the author should perform an ITC analysis to confirm and quantify the association between Opa1 and GTP-γ-S.

We would like to thank the reviewers for this important suggestion. Yes, we tried to perform ITC analysis to confirm GTP-γ-S binding. However, we found a severe protein precipitation during GTP or GTP-analogs titration, which stopped the possibility of using ITC to quantify the association between SOPA1 and GTP-γ-S.

As suggested below by reviewers, we then utilized different mutations of S-OPA1 at its GTPase domain to examine whether it is the GTP binding or hydrolysis to induce assembly change and thus tube expansion (Figure 4C). For those mutants that lose GTP hydrolysis activity but keep the ability of GTP binding, we observed the tube expansion effect after adding GTP. This further confirms it is the GTP binding to trigger the assembly change of SOPA1 on membrane.

4) Supplementary Figure 5: GMB comparison with PH domain in dynamin. A sequence alignment of dynamin and OPA1 shows a very low amino acid identity in the region of the PH and GMB domain. A reliable alignment is not possible in this region. The authors speculate that amino acids 794-800 form an amphipathic helix which may bind to the membrane. However, the envisaged sequence is less than two turns in length, which would constitute only a small membrane anchoring point. Second, the proposed OPA1 amino acids are aligned to an amino acid stretch in the PH domain of dynamin, which forms two β-strands (compare sequence alignment to the structure of the PH domain, Ferguson et al., 1994, pdb 2dyn). In fact, the aligned β-strand region in the PH domain contains a known membrane binding loop. These observations do not support the conclusion that membrane binding in OPA1 is mediated by an amphipathic helix. The investigation of charged and hydrophobic residues in the GMB domain in order to detect the membrane binding region is sufficient to explain the experiments in Figure 5 without invoking an amphipathic helix.

We agree with the reviewers. The amphipathic helix assumption and statement have been removed in the revision and we only discussed the characteristic charged and hydrophobic residues of 794-800 region in the GMB domain.

5) Figures 1E and 4C: It should be clearly stated which nucleotide was used in which experiment and whether GTP-γ-S-induced structural changes were visible in negative stain EM. Representative negative-stain images should be provided for both conditions. The experiments with G interface mutants in Figure 4C make only sense in the presence of GTP-γ-S, since no structural changes can be expected for these mutants in the absence of nucleotide.

We would like to thank the reviewers for this nice suggestion. In the original Figures 1E and 4C, we did not add nucleotide in liposome tubulation experiments. As suggested by reviewers, we further utilized negative stain EM to examine the potential structural changes induced after the addition of GTP for various G domain mutants. The new results have been added into Figure 4C. For those mutants that lose GTP hydrolysis activity but keep the ability of GTP binding, we observed the tube expansion effect after adding GTP. This further confirms it is the GTP binding to trigger the assembly change of SOPA1 on membrane.

[Editors' note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Essential revisions:

1) The assembly of the stalks in the nucleotide-free structure is still confusing. The new fittings, depiction of stalk interfaces and the schematic Figure 7E show that both the nucleotide-free and GTP-γ-S bound sOPA1 use interface-1 and 2 to form a filament. These interfaces are also used in Mgm1 and have been shown by mutagenesis to contribute to assembly. In contrast, the newly observed interface-3 is unique to the nucleotide-free form, is opposite of all previously known stalk interfaces, and due to missing mutagenesis, its significance for assembly remains unknown. To avoid confusion, the authors should use interface-1 and 2 to define the OPA1 filament also in the nucleotide-free form, e.g. in Figure 3A and E, Figure 3—figure supplement 2 and Figure 7E left. In Figure 7E left, not the blue and green dimers, but the blue striped and blue dimers should form the filament, as in Figure 7E right. In this case, I1 and I2 are present within a filament, and I3 is in between filaments. It would be helpful for the reader if one such turn is shown in a unique color in Figure 2A or Figure 3A (similar as it is now with the 'I3 filament') to indicate whether such filament is right- or left-handed. How do the G domains in this case connect? One might expect that the putative G domain interface is then in between different rungs.

We appreciate the reviewers so much for this additional important suggestion. We tried to re-define S-OPA1 filament using the common interface-1 and 2 (see revised Figure 7E and Figure 3—figure supplement 2D and E). With this new definition, as the reviewers expected, the G domain dimerization interface in this case is now in between different rungs (see revised Figure 3—figure supplement 5). However, with this new definition, we found the filament becomes right-handed, which generates a new inconsistency with the left-handed assembly at GTP-γ-S bound state. Therefore, we would like to keep our original definition in the main figures but put this alternative one at the supplements.

Besides, we agree with the reviewers that the newly observed interface-3 is unique and its significance for filament assembly is not validated due to lack of mutagenesis. However, based on the fitted model, we calculated the areas of those interfaces, which yielded 1324 Å2 for interface-1, 124 Å2 for interface-2, and 1599 Å2 for interface-3. The area of interface-3 is large enough to play an important role to stabilize the assembly of S-OPA1. Thus, although the future mutagenesis work is needed, the role of interface-3 should not be neglected. To be noted, the computed area of interface-2 might not be accurate due to the existence of unfitted density there (see Figure 3D).

2) Figure 4C: The new data on the GTP-bound sOPA1 mutants are nicely contributing to the manuscript. However, tube diameters have to be quantified for the mutants in the absence and presence of GTP (for example as in Figure 6—figure supplement 1 or as average diameter) to make a convincing claim. It also appears from Figure 1F that the representative tubes of the Δ196-252 variant are somehow smaller compared to sOPA1. Could the authors provide also some quantification of these?

We would like to thank the reviewers very much for this good suggestion. The diameters of sOPA1 mutants coated tubes before and after adding GTP have been quantified with statistics (see Figure 5—figure supplement 2 in the revision), which is in consistency with our previous observation. The relevant text has been revised with this additional information.

Upon the reviewers’ request, we also added the diameter statistics of Δ196-252 coated tube at the nucleotide-free state (see Figure 2—figure supplement 1A in the revision). As the reviewers observed, the averaged diameter of Δ196-252 coated tube is a bit smaller than the wild type.

3) Nomenclature GMB domain: The fitted paddle is anything but a globular domain (unlike the previously assumed PH domain). Maybe 'Extended Membrane Binding Domain' (EMB) instead?

Corrected as the suggestion.

4) Figure 1D legend should contain the used GTP concentration. It appears from Figure 4B that the stimulation of wt is about 10-fold, not 70-fold?

The legend of Figure 1 has been revised accordingly. For the fold of activity stimulation by adding liposome, the parameter Kcat was used in this study for comparison (see Supplementary file 1 and Supplementary file 1—source data 1). The apparent increase of the activity can be represented by Kcat/Km, which is about 10-fold as mentioned by the reviewers.