Anti-ferroptotic mechanism of IL4i1-mediated amino acid metabolism

  1. Leonie Zeitler
  2. Alessandra Fiore
  3. Claudia Meyer
  4. Marion Russier
  5. Gaia Zanella
  6. Sabine Suppmann
  7. Marco Gagaro
  8. Sachdev S Sidhu
  9. Somasekar Seshagiri
  10. Caspar Ohnmacht
  11. Thomas Köcher
  12. Francesca Fallarino
  13. Andreas Linkermann
  14. Peter J Murray  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Germany
  2. Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Germany
  3. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany
  4. Università degli Studi di Perugia, Italy
  5. University of Toronto, Canada
  6. SciGenom, India
  7. Helmholtz Zentrum, Germany
  8. Vienna BioCenter, Austria
  9. Technical University of Dresden, Germany

Abstract

Interleukin-4-induced-1 (IL4i1) is an amino acid oxidase secreted from immune cells. Recent observations have suggested that IL4i1 is pro-tumorigenic via unknown mechanisms. As IL4i1 has homologues in snake venoms (LAAO, L-amino acid oxidases), we used comparative approaches to gain insight into the mechanistic basis of how conserved amino acid oxidases regulate cell fate and function. Using mammalian expressed recombinant proteins, we found venom LAAO kills cells via hydrogen peroxide generation. By contrast, mammalian IL4i1 is non-cytotoxic and instead elicits a cell productive gene expression program inhibiting ferroptotic redox death by generating indole-3-pyruvate (I3P) from tryptophan. I3P suppresses ferroptosis by direct free radical scavenging and through the activation of an anti-oxidative gene expression program. Thus, the pro-tumor effects of IL4i1 are likely mediated by local anti-ferroptotic pathways via aromatic amino acid metabolism, arguing that an IL4i1 inhibitor may modulate tumor cell death pathways.

Data availability

RNAseq data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE161159, GSE167136.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Leonie Zeitler

    Immunoregulation, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Alessandra Fiore

    Immunoregulation, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Claudia Meyer

    Sektion Nephrologie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Marion Russier

    Immunoregulation, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9633-9804
  5. Gaia Zanella

    Immunoregulation, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Sabine Suppmann

    Immunoregulation, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Marco Gagaro

    Dipartimento di medicina e chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Sachdev S Sidhu

    Donnelly Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7755-5918
  9. Somasekar Seshagiri

    Research Foundation, SciGenom, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Caspar Ohnmacht

    Center of Allergy and Environment, Helmholtz Zentrum, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Thomas Köcher

    Core Facilities GmbH, Vienna BioCenter, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    Thomas Köcher, Thomas Köcher is affiliated with Vienna BioCenter Core Facilities GmbH. The author has no financial interests to declare..
  12. Francesca Fallarino

    Dipartimento di medicina e chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Andreas Linkermann

    Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Peter J Murray

    Immunoregulation, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    For correspondence
    murray@biochem.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6329-9802

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB-TRR 127)

  • Andreas Linkermann
  • Peter J Murray

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (FOR 2599)

  • Caspar Ohnmacht
  • Peter J Murray

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB-TRR 205)

  • Andreas Linkermann

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

  • Peter J Murray

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

Copyright

© 2021, Zeitler 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

  • 4,615
    views
  • 782
    downloads
  • 82
    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. Leonie Zeitler
  2. Alessandra Fiore
  3. Claudia Meyer
  4. Marion Russier
  5. Gaia Zanella
  6. Sabine Suppmann
  7. Marco Gagaro
  8. Sachdev S Sidhu
  9. Somasekar Seshagiri
  10. Caspar Ohnmacht
  11. Thomas Köcher
  12. Francesca Fallarino
  13. Andreas Linkermann
  14. Peter J Murray
(2021)
Anti-ferroptotic mechanism of IL4i1-mediated amino acid metabolism
eLife 10:e64806.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64806

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64806

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Jingjing Li, Xinyue Wang ... Vincent Archambault
    Research Article

    In animals, mitosis involves the breakdown of the nucleus. The reassembly of a nucleus after mitosis requires the reformation of the nuclear envelope around a single mass of chromosomes. This process requires Ankle2 (also known as LEM4 in humans) which interacts with PP2A and promotes the function of the Barrier-to-Autointegration Factor (BAF). Upon dephosphorylation, BAF dimers cross-bridge chromosomes and bind lamins and transmembrane proteins of the reassembling nuclear envelope. How Ankle2 functions in mitosis is incompletely understood. Using a combination of approaches in Drosophila, along with structural modeling, we provide several lines of evidence that suggest that Ankle2 is a regulatory subunit of PP2A, explaining how it promotes BAF dephosphorylation. In addition, we discovered that Ankle2 interacts with the endoplasmic reticulum protein Vap33, which is required for Ankle2 localization at the reassembling nuclear envelope during telophase. We identified the interaction sites of PP2A and Vap33 on Ankle2. Through genetic rescue experiments, we show that the Ankle2/PP2A interaction is essential for the function of Ankle2 in nuclear reassembly and that the Ankle2/Vap33 interaction also promotes this process. Our study sheds light on the molecular mechanisms of post-mitotic nuclear reassembly and suggests that the endoplasmic reticulum is not merely a source of membranes in the process, but also provides localized enzymatic activity.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.