Novel LOTUS-domain proteins are organizational hubs that recruit C. elegans Vasa to germ granules

  1. Patricia Giselle Cipriani
  2. Olivia Bay
  3. John Zinno
  4. Michelle Gutwein
  5. Hin Hark Gan
  6. Vinay K Mayya
  7. George Chung
  8. Jia-Xuan Chen
  9. Hala Fahs
  10. Yu Guan
  11. Thomas F Duchaine
  12. Matthias Selbach
  13. Fabio Piano
  14. Kristin C Gunsalus  Is a corresponding author
  1. New York University, United States
  2. McGill University, Canada
  3. Max DelbrĂĽck Center for Molecular Medicine, Germany
  4. New York University Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

We describe MIP-1 and MIP-2, novel paralogous C. elegans germ granule components that interact with the intrinsically disordered MEG-3 protein. These proteins promote P granule condensation, form granules independently of MEG-3 in the postembryonic germ line, and balance each other in regulating P granule growth and localization. MIP-1 and MIP-2 each contain two LOTUS domains and intrinsically disordered regions and form homo- and heterodimers. They bind and anchor the Vasa homolog GLH-1 within P granules and are jointly required for coalescence of MEG-3, GLH-1, and PGL proteins. Animals lacking MIP-1 and MIP-2 show temperature-sensitive embryonic lethality, sterility, and mortal germ lines. Germline phenotypes include defects in stem cell self-renewal, meiotic progression, and gamete differentiation. We propose that these proteins serve as scaffolds and organizing centers for ribonucleoprotein networks within P granules that help recruit and balance essential RNA processing machinery to regulate key developmental transitions in the germ line.

Data availability

All mass spectrometry raw data have been deposited to the PRIDE repository with the dataset identifier PXD012852. All other data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 2A-C; Figure 2-figure supplement 2; Figure 6A,B; Figure 8E; Figure 9B; Figure 9-figure supplement 1; Figure 10C.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Patricia Giselle Cipriani

    Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Olivia Bay

    Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. John Zinno

    Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Michelle Gutwein

    Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Hin Hark Gan

    Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Vinay K Mayya

    Goodman Cancer Research Centre and Department of Biochemistry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. George Chung

    Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jia-Xuan Chen

    None, Max DelbrĂĽck Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Hala Fahs

    Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Yu Guan

    Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Thomas F Duchaine

    Goodman Cancer Research Center, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Matthias Selbach

    Department of Protein Dynamics, Max DelbrĂĽck Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Fabio Piano

    Department of Biology and Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Kristin C Gunsalus

    Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, New York University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    kcg1@nyu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9769-4624

Funding

New York University Abu Dhabi (ADPHG CGSB)

  • Patricia Giselle Cipriani
  • Hala Fahs
  • Fabio Piano
  • Kristin C Gunsalus

New York University Abu Dhabi

  • Patricia Giselle Cipriani
  • Olivia Bay
  • John Zinno
  • Michelle Gutwein
  • Hin Hark Gan
  • George Chung
  • Fabio Piano
  • Kristin C Gunsalus

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP 123352)

  • Vinay K Mayya
  • Thomas F Duchaine

Charlotte and Leo Karassik Foundation

  • Vinay K Mayya

Bundesministerium fĂĽr Bildung und Forschung (0315362)

  • Jia-Xuan Chen

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

Copyright

© 2021, Cipriani 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

  • 3,039
    views
  • 273
    downloads
  • 19
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60833

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Sarah Y Coomson, Salil A Lachke
    Insight

    A study in mice reveals key interactions between proteins involved in fibroblast growth factor signaling and how they contribute to distinct stages of eye lens development.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Paul Richard J Yulo, Nicolas Desprat ... Heather L Hendrickson
    Research Article

    Maintenance of rod-shape in bacterial cells depends on the actin-like protein MreB. Deletion of mreB from Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 results in viable spherical cells of variable volume and reduced fitness. Using a combination of time-resolved microscopy and biochemical assay of peptidoglycan synthesis, we show that reduced fitness is a consequence of perturbed cell size homeostasis that arises primarily from differential growth of daughter cells. A 1000-generation selection experiment resulted in rapid restoration of fitness with derived cells retaining spherical shape. Mutations in the peptidoglycan synthesis protein Pbp1A were identified as the main route for evolutionary rescue with genetic reconstructions demonstrating causality. Compensatory pbp1A mutations that targeted transpeptidase activity enhanced homogeneity of cell wall synthesis on lateral surfaces and restored cell size homeostasis. Mechanistic explanations require enhanced understanding of why deletion of mreB causes heterogeneity in cell wall synthesis. We conclude by presenting two testable hypotheses, one of which posits that heterogeneity stems from non-functional cell wall synthesis machinery, while the second posits that the machinery is functional, albeit stalled. Overall, our data provide support for the second hypothesis and draw attention to the importance of balance between transpeptidase and glycosyltransferase functions of peptidoglycan building enzymes for cell shape determination.