Oxygen Sensors: When is a target not a target?
Oxygen is essential for life – just count how many times you need to breathe while reading this article – and is used by virtually every cell in the human body. Most cells are able to sense a diminished oxygen supply (hypoxia) and respond by making changes to cellular metabolism, blood vessel formation and oxygen delivery. For example, physiological hypoxia, such as that encountered in anemia or at high altitudes, induces the production of a hormone called EPO, which causes the body to make more red blood cells to improve oxygen delivery.
Cells must have highly responsive oxygen sensors to regulate these processes, but to date researchers have found only one family of enzymes – the 2-oxoglutarate dioxygenase enzyme family – that is capable of sensing physiological levels of oxygen. These enzymes use molecular oxygen (O2), iron ions and 2-oxogluterate (a molecule with the chemical formula C5H6O5) to catalyze the transfer of oxygen onto amino acid or DNA substrates (Islam et al., 2018). They act as both hydroxylases, catalyzing the addition of a hydroxyl group (OH) to substrates, and dioxygenases, using O2 as a cosubstrate. Researchers have identified four enzymes from this family that act as oxygen sensors to regulate three transcription factors called HIF1α, HIF2α and HIF3α, which in turn regulate how cells express genes in response to hypoxia. Three of these enzymes are prolyl hydroxylase (PHD) enzymes, and the fourth is called factor inhibiting HIF (Epstein et al., 2001; Ivan et al., 2001; Hewitson et al., 2002; Lando et al., 2002).
The PHD enzymes use molecular oxygen to catalyze the hydroxylation of two proline amino acids in the HIFα proteins. When oxygen levels are normal, the HIFα proteins are hydroxylated, which causes them to be degraded by the cell (Figure 1). However, when oxygen levels decrease, leading to hypoxia, the HIFα proteins are not hydroxylated, so they are not degraded as rapidly. This allows them to migrate to the nucleus and activate the genes responsible for adapting to hypoxia (Kaelin and Ratcliffe, 2008).
Since the discovery of the PHD enzymes and factor inhibiting HIF, it has been unclear whether these enzymes could hydroxylate targets other than the HIFα proteins. If PHD enzymes hydroxylate other targets it would suggest that additional non-HIF pathways might be involved in the hypoxia response. Previous research efforts have identified many other potential targets for the PHD enzymes, including some with links to physiological responses to hypoxia (Strowitzki et al., 2019). However, many of these studies did not demonstrate that the PHD enzymes were directly catalyzing the hydroxylation of these proteins, raising doubts as to whether these proteins are bona fide targets for the PHD enzymes. Now, in eLife, Matthew Cockman (Francis Crick Institute), Peter Ratcliffe (University of Oxford) and co-workers – including Kerstin Lippl and Ya-Min Tian (both in Oxford) as joint first authors with Cockman, and other researchers from the Crick, Oxford and the University of Oulu – report on a fascinating study that seeks to clarify the situation (Cockman et al., 2019).
Cockman et al. undertook a rigorous array of in vitro biochemical and mass spectrometry experiments using purified enzymes and substrates. While they confirmed that the PHD enzymes robustly catalyze the hydroxylation of proline residues in HIFα proteins, they found no evidence for the hydroxylation of any of the other targets in vitro. Overall, they studied more than 20 different candidate target proteins and 40 potential modification sites. The substrates used in the experiments were short synthetic peptides and full-length recombinant proteins.
These results suggest that the HIFα proteins are the only primary targets of the oxygen-sensing PHD enzymes. If this is the case, then PHD enzymes have a more focused role in hypoxic signaling than previously thought. This is important for predicting the consequences of manipulating PHD activity for therapeutic purposes. However, while these well-controlled, designed and executed biochemical experiments show that targets other than HIFα proteins cannot be efficiently hydroxylated in vitro, they do not preclude the modification of these targets in vivo. This is because living cells might contain additional cofactors that the PHD enzymes need to hydroxylate non-HIFα targets. Furthermore, modulating the activity of the PHD enzymes affects HIF-independent processes, indirectly pointing to potential non-HIF targets. (Strowitzki et al., 2019).
If in vivo experiments confirm that the HIFα proteins are the only primary targets of the PHD enzymes, as Cockman et al. suggest, this would make these enzymes central to of one of the most specialized sensing and control systems in the cell.
References
-
Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) asparagine hydroxylase is identical to factor inhibiting HIF (FIH) and is related to the cupin structural familyJournal of Biological Chemistry 277:26351–26355.https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.C200273200
-
2-Oxoglutarate-dependent oxygenasesAnnual Review of Biochemistry 87:585–620.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-061516-044724
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2019, Bersten and Peet
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,281
- views
-
- 100
- downloads
-
- 6
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
The conformational ensemble and function of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are sensitive to their solution environment. The inherent malleability of disordered proteins, combined with the exposure of their residues, accounts for this sensitivity. One context in which IDPs play important roles that are concomitant with massive changes to the intracellular environment is during desiccation (extreme drying). The ability of organisms to survive desiccation has long been linked to the accumulation of high levels of cosolutes such as trehalose or sucrose as well as the enrichment of IDPs, such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins or cytoplasmic abundant heat-soluble (CAHS) proteins. Despite knowing that IDPs play important roles and are co-enriched alongside endogenous, species-specific cosolutes during desiccation, little is known mechanistically about how IDP-cosolute interactions influence desiccation tolerance. Here, we test the notion that the protective function of desiccation-related IDPs is enhanced through conformational changes induced by endogenous cosolutes. We find that desiccation-related IDPs derived from four different organisms spanning two LEA protein families and the CAHS protein family synergize best with endogenous cosolutes during drying to promote desiccation protection. Yet the structural parameters of protective IDPs do not correlate with synergy for either CAHS or LEA proteins. We further demonstrate that for CAHS, but not LEA proteins, synergy is related to self-assembly and the formation of a gel. Our results suggest that functional synergy between IDPs and endogenous cosolutes is a convergent desiccation protection strategy seen among different IDP families and organisms, yet the mechanisms underlying this synergy differ between IDP families.
-
- Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
- Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have great potential to be used as alternatives to embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in regenerative medicine and disease modelling. In this study, we characterise the proteomes of multiple hiPSC and hESC lines derived from independent donors and find that while they express a near-identical set of proteins, they show consistent quantitative differences in the abundance of a subset of proteins. hiPSCs have increased total protein content, while maintaining a comparable cell cycle profile to hESCs, with increased abundance of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins required to sustain high growth rates, including nutrient transporters and metabolic proteins. Prominent changes detected in proteins involved in mitochondrial metabolism correlated with enhanced mitochondrial potential, shown using high-resolution respirometry. hiPSCs also produced higher levels of secreted proteins, including growth factors and proteins involved in the inhibition of the immune system. The data indicate that reprogramming of fibroblasts to hiPSCs produces important differences in cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins compared to hESCs, with consequences affecting growth and metabolism. This study improves our understanding of the molecular differences between hiPSCs and hESCs, with implications for potential risks and benefits for their use in future disease modelling and therapeutic applications.