Agonist-mediated switching of ion selectivity in TPC2 differentially promotes lysosomal function

  1. Susanne Gerndt
  2. Cheng-Chang Chen
  3. Yu-Kai Chao
  4. Yu Yuan
  5. Sandra Burgstaller
  6. Anna Scotto Rosato
  7. Einar Krogsaeter
  8. Nicole Urban
  9. Katharina Jacob
  10. Ong Nam Phuong Nguyen
  11. Meghan T Miller
  12. Marco Keller
  13. Angelika M Vollmar
  14. Thomas Gudermann
  15. Susanna Zierler
  16. Johann Schredelseker
  17. Michael Schaefer
  18. Martin Biel
  19. Roland Malli
  20. Christian Wahl-Schott  Is a corresponding author
  21. Franz Bracher  Is a corresponding author
  22. Sandip Patel  Is a corresponding author
  23. Christian Grimm  Is a corresponding author
  1. Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany
  2. UCL London, United Kingdom
  3. Medical University of Graz, Austria
  4. University of Leipzig, Germany
  5. Roche, Switzerland
  6. MHH Hannover, Germany
  7. University College London, United Kingdom

Abstract

Ion selectivity is a defining feature of a given ion channel and is considered immutable. Here we show that ion selectivity of the lysosomal ion channel TPC2, which is hotly debated (Calcraft et al., 2009; Guo et al., 2017; Jha et al., 2014; Ruas et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2012), depends on the activating ligand. A high throughput screen identified two structurally distinct TPC2 agonists. One of these evoked robust Ca2+-signals and non-selective cation currents, the other weaker Ca2+-signals and Na+-selective currents. These properties were mirrored by the Ca2+-mobilizing messenger, NAADP and the phosphoinositide, PI(3,5)P2, respectively. Agonist action was differentially inhibited by mutation of a single TPC2 residue and coupled to opposing changes in lysosomal pH and exocytosis. Our findings resolve conflicting reports on the permeability and gating properties of TPC2 and they establish a new paradigm whereby a single ion channel mediates distinct, functionally-relevant ionic signatures on demand.

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. Susanne Gerndt

    Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Cheng-Chang Chen

    Pharmacology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, München, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1282-4026
  3. Yu-Kai Chao

    Walther-Straub-Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, LM-University Munich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1202-2448
  4. Yu Yuan

    Biosciences, UCL London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sandra Burgstaller

    Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Anna Scotto Rosato

    Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Einar Krogsaeter

    Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8232-5498
  8. Nicole Urban

    Pharmacology/Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Katharina Jacob

    Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ong Nam Phuong Nguyen

    Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Meghan T Miller

    HTS, Roche, Basel, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Marco Keller

    Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, München, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Angelika M Vollmar

    Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, München, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Thomas Gudermann

    Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Susanna Zierler

    Walther-Straub Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4684-0385
  16. Johann Schredelseker

    Walther Straub Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6657-0466
  17. Michael Schaefer

    Rudolf-Boehm-Institute for Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Martin Biel

    Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Roland Malli

    Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6327-8729
  20. Christian Wahl-Schott

    Medicine, MHH Hannover, Hannover, Germany
    For correspondence
    wahl-schott.christian@mh-hannover.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Franz Bracher

    Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, München, Germany
    For correspondence
    franz.bracher@cup.uni-muenchen.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Sandip Patel

    Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    patel.s@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Christian Grimm

    Department of Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    For correspondence
    Christian.Grimm@med.uni-muenchen.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0177-5559

Funding

Mucolipidosis IV Foundation (MDBR-17-120- ML4)

  • Christian Grimm

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB/TRR152 P04)

  • Christian Grimm

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB/TRR152 P06)

  • Christian Wahl-Schott

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB/TRR152 P12)

  • Martin Biel

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (BR 1034/7-1)

  • Franz Bracher

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/N01524X/1)

  • Sandip Patel

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Richard S Lewis, Stanford University School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the Bavarian Government and the European Union. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care protocols of the University of Munich. The protocol was approved by the Bavarian Government (AZ55.2-1-54-2532-170-17).

Version history

  1. Received: December 23, 2019
  2. Accepted: March 12, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 13, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: March 16, 2020 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: March 31, 2020 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: April 6, 2020 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2020, Gerndt 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

  • 5,013
    views
  • 875
    downloads
  • 110
    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. Susanne Gerndt
  2. Cheng-Chang Chen
  3. Yu-Kai Chao
  4. Yu Yuan
  5. Sandra Burgstaller
  6. Anna Scotto Rosato
  7. Einar Krogsaeter
  8. Nicole Urban
  9. Katharina Jacob
  10. Ong Nam Phuong Nguyen
  11. Meghan T Miller
  12. Marco Keller
  13. Angelika M Vollmar
  14. Thomas Gudermann
  15. Susanna Zierler
  16. Johann Schredelseker
  17. Michael Schaefer
  18. Martin Biel
  19. Roland Malli
  20. Christian Wahl-Schott
  21. Franz Bracher
  22. Sandip Patel
  23. Christian Grimm
(2020)
Agonist-mediated switching of ion selectivity in TPC2 differentially promotes lysosomal function
eLife 9:e54712.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54712

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54712

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Maximilian Nagel, Marco Niestroj ... Marc Spehr
    Research Article

    In most mammals, conspecific chemosensory communication relies on semiochemical release within complex bodily secretions and subsequent stimulus detection by the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Urine, a rich source of ethologically relevant chemosignals, conveys detailed information about sex, social hierarchy, health, and reproductive state, which becomes accessible to a conspecific via vomeronasal sampling. So far, however, numerous aspects of social chemosignaling along the vomeronasal pathway remain unclear. Moreover, since virtually all research on vomeronasal physiology is based on secretions derived from inbred laboratory mice, it remains uncertain whether such stimuli provide a true representation of potentially more relevant cues found in the wild. Here, we combine a robust low-noise VNO activity assay with comparative molecular profiling of sex- and strain-specific mouse urine samples from two inbred laboratory strains as well as from wild mice. With comprehensive molecular portraits of these secretions, VNO activity analysis now enables us to (i) assess whether and, if so, how much sex/strain-selective ‘raw’ chemical information in urine is accessible via vomeronasal sampling; (ii) identify which chemicals exhibit sufficient discriminatory power to signal an animal’s sex, strain, or both; (iii) determine the extent to which wild mouse secretions are unique; and (iv) analyze whether vomeronasal response profiles differ between strains. We report both sex- and, in particular, strain-selective VNO representations of chemical information. Within the urinary ‘secretome’, both volatile compounds and proteins exhibit sufficient discriminative power to provide sex- and strain-specific molecular fingerprints. While total protein amount is substantially enriched in male urine, females secrete a larger variety at overall comparatively low concentrations. Surprisingly, the molecular spectrum of wild mouse urine does not dramatically exceed that of inbred strains. Finally, vomeronasal response profiles differ between C57BL/6 and BALB/c animals, with particularly disparate representations of female semiochemicals.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Claudia D Consalvo, Adedeji M Aderounmu ... Brenda L Bass
    Research Article

    Invertebrates use the endoribonuclease Dicer to cleave viral dsRNA during antiviral defense, while vertebrates use RIG-I-like Receptors (RLRs), which bind viral dsRNA to trigger an interferon response. While some invertebrate Dicers act alone during antiviral defense, Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts in a complex with a dsRNA binding protein called RDE-4, and an RLR ortholog called DRH-1. We used biochemical and structural techniques to provide mechanistic insight into how these proteins function together. We found RDE-4 is important for ATP-independent and ATP-dependent cleavage reactions, while helicase domains of both DCR-1 and DRH-1 contribute to ATP-dependent cleavage. DRH-1 plays the dominant role in ATP hydrolysis, and like mammalian RLRs, has an N-terminal domain that functions in autoinhibition. A cryo-EM structure indicates DRH-1 interacts with DCR-1’s helicase domain, suggesting this interaction relieves autoinhibition. Our study unravels the mechanistic basis of the collaboration between two helicases from typically distinct innate immune defense pathways.