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.

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).

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

  • 5,615
    views
  • 961
    downloads
  • 124
    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. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Parnian Arafi, Sujan Devkota ... Michael S Wolfe
    Research Article

    Missense mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin-1 (PSEN1) cause early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) and alter proteolytic production of secreted 38-to-43-residue amyloid β-peptides (Aβ) by the PSEN1-containing γ-secretase complex, ostensibly supporting the amyloid hypothesis of pathogenesis. However, proteolysis of APP substrate by γ-secretase is processive, involving initial endoproteolysis to produce long Aβ peptides of 48 or 49 residues followed by carboxypeptidase trimming in mostly tripeptide increments. We recently reported evidence that FAD mutations in APP and PSEN1 cause deficiencies in early steps in processive proteolysis of APP substrate C99 and that this results from stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes. These stalled complexes triggered synaptic degeneration in a Caenorhabditis elegans model of FAD independently of Aβ production. Here, we conducted full quantitative analysis of all proteolytic events on APP substrate by γ-secretase with six additional PSEN1 FAD mutations and found that all six are deficient in multiple processing steps. However, only one of these (F386S) was deficient in certain trimming steps but not in endoproteolysis. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy in intact cells revealed that all six PSEN1 FAD mutations lead to stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate/intermediate complexes. The F386S mutation, however, does so only in Aβ-rich regions of the cells, not in C99-rich regions, consistent with the deficiencies of this mutant enzyme only in trimming of Aβ intermediates. These findings provide further evidence that FAD mutations lead to stalled and stabilized γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes and are consistent with the stalled process rather than the products of γ-secretase proteolysis as the pathogenic trigger.