Structural and mechanistic basis of the EMC-dependent biogenesis of distinct transmembrane clients

  1. Lakshmi E Miller-Vedam
  2. Bastian Bräuning
  3. Katerina D Popova
  4. Nicole T Schirle Oakdale
  5. Jessica L Bonnar
  6. Jesuraj R Prabu
  7. Elizabeth A Boydston
  8. Natalia Sevillano
  9. Matthew J Shurtleff
  10. Robert M Stroud
  11. Charles S Craik
  12. Brenda A Schulman  Is a corresponding author
  13. Adam Frost  Is a corresponding author
  14. Jonathan S Weissman  Is a corresponding author
  1. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, United States
  2. Max Plank Institute for Biochemistry, Germany
  3. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  4. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany
  5. FairJourney Biologics, Portugal
  6. Stanford University, United States
  7. St Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States

Abstract

Membrane protein biogenesis in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is complex and failure-prone. The ER membrane protein complex (EMC), comprising eight conserved subunits, has emerged as a central player in this process. Yet, we have limited understanding of how EMC enables insertion and integrity of diverse clients, from tail-anchored to polytopic transmembrane proteins. Here, yeast and human EMC cryo-EM structures reveal conserved intricate assemblies and human-specific features associated with pathologies. Structure-based functional studies distinguish between two separable EMC activities, as an insertase regulating tail-anchored protein levels and a broader role in polytopic membrane protein biogenesis. These depend on mechanistically coupled yet spatially distinct regions including two lipid-accessible membrane cavities which confer client-specific regulation, and a non-insertase EMC function mediated by the EMC lumenal domain. Our studies illuminate the structural and mechanistic basis of EMC's multifunctionality and point to its role in differentially regulating the biogenesis of distinct client protein classes.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript or will have been made available in public repositories. Flow cytometry data and analysis code is available at Github (https://github.com/katerinadpopova/emcstructurefunction). Electron microscopy maps are available at the EMDB (unsharpened, sharpened, half maps, FSC file) (accession codes EMDB - 11732, 11733, 23003, 23033), models at the PDB (accession codes PDB - 7ADO, 7ADP, 7KRA, 7KTX), and raw cryo-EM data at EMPIAR. Key Resource Table is included as an appendix to the main article and is referenced throughout the Methods section with relevant reagents used or generated during the course of the study allowing for replication of these or request of specific cell lines and reagents. Supplementary file 1 contains raw mass spectrometry data. Supplementary file 4 contains un-cropped western blots. Supplementary file 5 contains plasmid sequences for mutant constructs generated for this study.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lakshmi E Miller-Vedam

    Biology, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2980-7479
  2. Bastian Bräuning

    Molecular Signaling, Max Plank Institute for Biochemistry, Martinsreid, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7194-2500
  3. Katerina D Popova

    Biology, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nicole T Schirle Oakdale

    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.
  5. Jessica L Bonnar

    Biology, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jesuraj R Prabu

    Department of Structural Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Elizabeth A Boydston

    Biology, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8365-0436
  8. Natalia Sevillano

    Antibody Engineering, FairJourney Biologics, Porto, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Matthew J Shurtleff

    Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9846-3051
  10. Robert M Stroud

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Charles S Craik

    Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7704-9185
  12. Brenda A Schulman

    Department of Structural Biology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    For correspondence
    schulman@biochem.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Adam Frost

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    adam.frost@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2231-2577
  14. Jonathan S Weissman

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    Jonathan.Weissman@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2445-670X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

  • Brenda A Schulman

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative

  • Adam Frost

Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems Magdeburg

  • Brenda A Schulman

National Institutes of Health (P50AI150476,1P41CA196276-01)

  • Natalia Sevillano
  • Charles S Craik

Helen Hay Whitney Foundation

  • Matthew J Shurtleff

Peter und Traudl Engelhorn Stiftung

  • Bastian Bräuning

Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Medical Research

  • Nicole T Schirle Oakdale

National Institutes of Health (1DP2OD017690-01)

  • Adam Frost

National Institutes of Health (GM24485)

  • Robert M Stroud

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Jonathan S Weissman

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

Copyright

© 2020, Miller-Vedam 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

  • 4,560
    views
  • 794
    downloads
  • 75
    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. Lakshmi E Miller-Vedam
  2. Bastian Bräuning
  3. Katerina D Popova
  4. Nicole T Schirle Oakdale
  5. Jessica L Bonnar
  6. Jesuraj R Prabu
  7. Elizabeth A Boydston
  8. Natalia Sevillano
  9. Matthew J Shurtleff
  10. Robert M Stroud
  11. Charles S Craik
  12. Brenda A Schulman
  13. Adam Frost
  14. Jonathan S Weissman
(2020)
Structural and mechanistic basis of the EMC-dependent biogenesis of distinct transmembrane clients
eLife 9:e62611.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62611

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62611

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Naoki Yamawaki, Hande Login ... Asami Tanimura
    Research Article

    The claustrum complex is viewed as fundamental for higher-order cognition; however, the circuit organization and function of its neuroanatomical subregions are not well understood. We demonstrated that some of the key roles of the CLA complex can be attributed to the connectivity and function of a small group of neurons in its ventral subregion, the endopiriform (EN). We identified a subpopulation of EN neurons by their projection to the ventral CA1 (ENvCA1-proj. neurons), embedded in recurrent circuits with other EN neurons and the piriform cortex. Although the ENvCA1-proj. neuron activity was biased toward novelty across stimulus categories, their chemogenetic inhibition selectively disrupted the memory-guided but not innate responses of mice to novelty. Based on our functional connectivity analysis, we suggest that ENvCA1-proj. neurons serve as an essential node for recognition memory through recurrent circuits mediating sustained attention to novelty, and through feed-forward inhibition of distal vCA1 neurons shifting memory-guided behavior from familiarity to novelty.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Sarah De Beuckeleer, Tim Van De Looverbosch ... Winnok H De Vos
    Research Article

    Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology is revolutionizing cell biology. However, the variability between individual iPSC lines and the lack of efficient technology to comprehensively characterize iPSC-derived cell types hinder its adoption in routine preclinical screening settings. To facilitate the validation of iPSC-derived cell culture composition, we have implemented an imaging assay based on cell painting and convolutional neural networks to recognize cell types in dense and mixed cultures with high fidelity. We have benchmarked our approach using pure and mixed cultures of neuroblastoma and astrocytoma cell lines and attained a classification accuracy above 96%. Through iterative data erosion, we found that inputs containing the nuclear region of interest and its close environment, allow achieving equally high classification accuracy as inputs containing the whole cell for semi-confluent cultures and preserved prediction accuracy even in very dense cultures. We then applied this regionally restricted cell profiling approach to evaluate the differentiation status of iPSC-derived neural cultures, by determining the ratio of postmitotic neurons and neural progenitors. We found that the cell-based prediction significantly outperformed an approach in which the population-level time in culture was used as a classification criterion (96% vs 86%, respectively). In mixed iPSC-derived neuronal cultures, microglia could be unequivocally discriminated from neurons, regardless of their reactivity state, and a tiered strategy allowed for further distinguishing activated from non-activated cell states, albeit with lower accuracy. Thus, morphological single-cell profiling provides a means to quantify cell composition in complex mixed neural cultures and holds promise for use in the quality control of iPSC-derived cell culture models.