1. Cell Biology
  2. Developmental Biology
Download icon

SUMO is a pervasive regulator of meiosis

  1. Nikhil R Bhagwat
  2. Shannon N Owens
  3. Masaru Ito
  4. Jay V Boinapalli
  5. Philip Poa
  6. Alexander Ditzel
  7. Srujan Kopparapu
  8. Meghan Mahalawat
  9. Owen Richard Davies
  10. Sean R Collins
  11. Jeffrey R Johnson
  12. Nevan J Krogan
  13. Neil Hunter  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Davis and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States
  2. University of California, Davis, United States
  3. Newcastle University, United Kingdom
  4. University of California, San Francisco, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 8
  • Views 2,082
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e57720 doi: 10.7554/eLife.57720

Abstract

Protein modification by SUMO helps orchestrate the elaborate events of meiosis to faithfully produce haploid gametes. To date, only a handful of meiotic SUMO targets have been identified. Here we delineate a multidimensional SUMO-modified meiotic proteome in budding yeast, identifying 2747 conjugation sites in 775 targets, and defining their relative levels and dynamics. Modified sites cluster in disordered regions and only a minority match consensus motifs. Target identities and modification dynamics imply that SUMOylation regulates all levels of chromosome organization and each step of meiotic prophase I. Execution-point analysis confirms these inferences, revealing functions for SUMO in S-phase, the initiation of recombination, chromosome synapsis and crossing over. K15-linked SUMO chains become prominent as chromosomes synapse and recombine, consistent with roles in these processes. SUMO also modifies ubiquitin, forming hybrid oligomers with potential to modulate ubiquitin signaling. We conclude that SUMO plays diverse and unanticipated roles in regulating meiotic chromosome metabolism.

Data availability

Proteomics data have been deposited in the PRIDE archive under the accession code PXD012418.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nikhil R Bhagwat

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2945-6453

  2. Shannon N Owens

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0810-0116

  3. Masaru Ito

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Jay V Boinapalli

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Philip Poa

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. Alexander Ditzel

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. Srujan Kopparapu

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  8. Meghan Mahalawat

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  9. Owen Richard Davies

    Cell Division Biology Group, Biosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3806-5403

  10. Sean R Collins

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4276-5840

  11. Jeffrey R Johnson

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  12. Nevan J Krogan

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  13. Neil Hunter

    Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Davis, United States
    For correspondence
    nhunter@ucdavis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1498-2327

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM074223)

  • Neil Hunter

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Investigator Award)

  • Neil Hunter

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (5T32GM007377)

  • Shannon N Owens

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (1F31GM125106)

  • Shannon N Owens

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (postdoctoral fellowship)

  • Masaru Ito

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Adèle L Marston, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: April 9, 2020
  2. Accepted: January 26, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 27, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 2, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Bhagwat 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

  • 2,082
    Page views
  • 456
    Downloads
  • 8
    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)

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Physics of Living Systems

    Integrin α5β1 nano-presentation regulates collective keratinocyte migration independent of substrate rigidity

    Jacopo Di Russo et al.
    Research Article

    Nanometer-scale properties of the extracellular matrix influence many biological processes, including cell motility. While much information is available for single-cell migration, to date, no knowledge exists on how the nanoscale presentation of extracellular matrix receptors influences collective cell migration. In wound healing, basal keratinocytes collectively migrate on a fibronectin-rich provisional basement membrane to re-epithelialize the injured skin. Among other receptors, the fibronectin receptor integrin α5β1 plays a pivotal role in this process. Using a highly specific integrin α5β1 peptidomimetic combined with nanopatterned hydrogels, we show that keratinocyte sheets regulate their migration ability at an optimal integrin α5β1 nanospacing. This efficiency relies on the effective propagation of stresses within the cell monolayer independent of substrate stiffness. For the first time, this work highlights the importance of extracellular matrix receptor nanoscale organization required for efficient tissue regeneration.

    1. Cell Biology

    Structural basis for membrane recruitment of ATG16L1 by WIPI2 in autophagy

    Lisa M Strong et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Autophagy is a cellular process that degrades cytoplasmic cargo by engulfing it in a double-membrane vesicle, known as the autophagosome, and delivering it to the lysosome. The ATG12–5–16L1 complex is responsible for conjugating members of the ubiquitin-like ATG8 protein family to phosphatidylethanolamine in the growing autophagosomal membrane, known as the phagophore. ATG12–5–16L1 is recruited to the phagophore by a subset of the phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate-binding seven-bladedß -propeller WIPI proteins. We determined the crystal structure of WIPI2d in complex with the WIPI2 interacting region (W2IR) of ATG16L1 comprising residues 207–230 at 1.85 Å resolution. The structure shows that the ATG16L1 W2IR adopts an alpha helical conformation and binds in an electropositive and hydrophobic groove between WIPI2 ß-propeller blades 2 and 3. Mutation of residues at the interface reduces or blocks the recruitment of ATG12–5–16 L1 and the conjugation of the ATG8 protein LC3B to synthetic membranes. Interface mutants show a decrease in starvation-induced autophagy. Comparisons across the four human WIPIs suggest that WIPI1 and 2 belong to a W2IR-binding subclass responsible for localizing ATG12–5–16 L1 and driving ATG8 lipidation, whilst WIPI3 and 4 belong to a second W34IR-binding subclass responsible for localizing ATG2, and so directing lipid supply to the nascent phagophore. The structure provides a framework for understanding the regulatory node connecting two central events in autophagy initiation, the action of the autophagic PI 3-kinase complex on the one hand and ATG8 lipidation on the other.

    1. Cell Biology

    Metformin alleviates stress-induced cellular senescence of aging human adipose stromal cells and the ensuing adipocyte dysfunction

    Laura Le Pelletier et al.
    Research Article

    Aging is associated with central fat redistribution and insulin resistance. To identify age-related adipose features, we evaluated the senescence and adipogenic potential of adipose-derived-stromal cells (ASCs) from abdominal subcutaneous fat obtained from healthy normal-weight young (<25y) or older women (>60y). Increased cell passages of young-donor ASCs (in vitro aging), resulted in senescence but not oxidative stress. ASC-derived adipocytes presented impaired adipogenesis but no early mitochondrial dysfunction. Conversely, aged-donor ASCs at early passages displayed oxidative stress and mild senescence. ASC-derived adipocytes exhibited oxidative stress, and early mitochondrial dysfunction but adipogenesis was preserved. In vitro aging of aged-donor ASCs resulted in further increased senescence, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress and severe adipocyte dysfunction. When in vitro aged young-donor ASCs were treated with metformin, no alteration was alleviated. Conversely, metformin treatment of aged-donor ASCs decreased oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction resulting in decreased senescence. Metformin's prevention of oxidative stress and of the resulting senescence improved the cells' adipogenic capacity and insulin sensitivity. This effect was mediated by the activation of AMP-activated-protein-kinase as revealed by its specific inhibition and activation. Overall, aging ASC-derived adipocytes presented impaired adipogenesis and insulin sensitivity. Targeting stress-induced senescence of ASCs with metformin may improve age-related adipose tissue dysfunction.