Telomeres: Change and HOAP for the best

HOAP is a telomere-binding protein that has a conserved role in Drosophila, but it also needs to evolve quickly to restrict telomeric retrotransposons.
  1. Claudia Castillo-González
  2. Dorothy E Shippen  Is a corresponding author
  1. Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, United States

Telomeres are specialized structures that ‘cap’ and protect the ends of linear chromosomes. They allow the cell to distinguish the ends of chromosomes from abnormal double-stranded breaks, and they protect the genetic information from being lost after replication (Barbero Barcenilla and Shippen, 2019). Losing telomeres leads to harmful anomalies, such as chromosomes fusing together: these structures are therefore conserved in all organisms with linear chromosomes, including (but not limited to) all animals, plants, insects and fungi (de Lange, 2018).

Telomeres are formed of dedicated protein complexes and sequences of repetitive DNA elements; these are tightly compacted into heterochromatin and therefore more difficult to transcribe. In Drosophila species, telomeres consist of a specialized type of genetic elements known as the HTT-array, which is then capped with a terminin complex that includes the proteins HOAP and HipHop (Casacuberta, 2017; Pardue and DeBaryshe, 2008). In fact, loss of terminin is lethal at the embryonic stage due to catastrophic chromosome fusions (Cenci et al., 2003; Mlotshwa et al., 2010). In addition, the DNA in Drosophila telomeres is wrapped around proteins decorated with a specific mark recognized by Heterochromatin Protein 1 (HP1 for short) to ensure that they remain in their compacted form. HP1 is also part of the telomere cap, as it directly interacts with HOAP and HipHop.

The HTT-array consists of ‘parasitic’ DNA sequences known as retrotransposons, which, when transcribed, can ultimately ‘copy and paste’ themselves into different regions in the genome. This ability plays a key role in lengthening and maintaining telomeres, as HTTs typically get inserted at chromosome-ends (Casacuberta, 2017), but they can also cause genome instability if these sequences replicate without control. Remarkably, when expressed, some HTT transcripts are processed into small RNAs that direct a silencing complex known as piRISC, which severs HTT transcripts, limiting their expression (Akkouche et al., 2017). In addition, piRISC guides the deposition of the genetic marks that help recruit HP1 and compact chromatin, also reducing the transcription of the retrotransposons (Sato and Siomi, 2018). In fact, loss of heterochromatin results in over-proliferation of retrotransposons and telomere deregulation (Akkouche et al., 2017; Khurana et al., 2010; Perrini et al., 2004; Radion et al., 2018).

Given the critical role of telomeres, it is intriguing that flies have evolved a protective mechanism that involves parasitic elements and factors like HOAP and HipHop, which are two of the fastest evolving proteins in Drosophila (Saint-Leandre and Levine, 2020). How can conserved functions be fulfilled by an ever-changing molecular machinery? Now, in eLife, Bastien Saint-Leandre, Courtney Christopher and Mia Levine, from the University of Pennsylvania, report that HOAP performs more than one function, which is why it needs to evolve fast (Saint-Leandre et al., 2020).

First, Saint-Leandre et al. analyzed the sequences of the cav gene, which encodes HOAP, in different Drosophila species. This revealed that advantageous mutations of the protein were being selected for, a hallmark of adaptive evolution. CRISPR/Cas9 technology was harnessed to generate mutant D. melanogaster flies with the gene from another Drosophila species, D. yakuba; D. melanogaster flies with a tagged version of the native HOAP (HOAP[mel]) served as a control. Flies expressing the D. yakuba version of HOAP (HOAP[yak]) were viable, confirming that the essential role of HOAP was conserved between species despite the two proteins having diverging sequences.

Next, Saint-Leandre et al. followed the phenotypes of telomeres in the engineered D. melanogaster flies expressing HOAP[yak] through fifty generations. This revealed that, in D. melanogaster, both versions of the HOAP protein protected telomere ends, but only HOAP[mel] regulated HTT expression and telomere length. The telomeres in flies carrying the D. yakuba variant did not have the genetic marks recognized by HP1 and recruited much less of this protein. Additionally, these insects accumulated less piRISC, despite the expression of the HTT-array being upregulated (Figure 1). This observation is consistent with previous studies showing that depleting telomeres of piRISC produces abnormal telomeric chromatin (Akkouche et al., 2017; Radion et al., 2018). Strikingly, HTT overexpression in flies expressing HOAP[yak] resulted in the array inserting itself outside telomeres, potentially disrupting essential genes. Indeed, these females produced fewer progeny over their lifetime than those expressing the native HOAP[mel]. This fitness cost is consistent with catastrophic genome damage.

Comparison of telomere phenotypes in Drosophila melanogaster flies expressing HOAP from either D. melanogaster (HOAP[mel]) or D. yakuba (HOAP[yak]).

Left: the telomeres of a D. melanogaster fly expressing HOAP[mel]. The complex formed by HOAP[mel] (green), HipHop (maroon) and HP1 (dark orange) binds the telomere. Bi-directional transcription of the HTT-array produces both full-length transcripts (dark blue lines) and shorter transcripts (bright pink lines) that bind the protein Piwi (light pink) to form piRISC. This complex drives the degradation of the full-length HTT transcripts to prevent retrotransposons from being inserted into other regions of the chromosome. Additionally, piRISC guides the deposition of silencing marks (dark green circles) which serve to recruit HP1 to the telomeres. This leads to chromatin compaction, reducing HTT-array transcription and providing a second layer of control over the retrotransposons. The complex formed by HOAP, HipHop and HP1 also binds to terminin (purple) to cap and protect the chromosome end. Right: telomeres of a D. melanogaster fly expressing the cav gene from D. yakuba, HOAP[yak]. While HOAP[yak] (light blue) can bind to HipHop and HP1 and bind terminin to effectively cap the chromosome ends, it fails to perform the roles of the native HOAP in regulating the HTT-array. This means that the telomeres of flies expressing HOAP[yak] have lower levels of HP1 and do not have silencing marks to aid in the compaction of chromatin. Consequently, chromatin becomes relaxed, increasing the transcription of the HTT-array. The full-length transcripts of the retrotransposons that are produced are not degraded because these telomeres do not support the accumulation piRISC. This accelerates retrotransposon replication, initially elongating the telomeres, but then allowing the elements to travel to other regions of the chromosome, potentially disrupting other genes (figure created using BioRender.com).

These results show that telomere-capping and HTT regulation are two independent functions converging in HOAP, and that while telomere-capping is essential and must be conserved, HTT regulation is not. Coupled with evidence that the D. melanogaster and D. yakuba genes have undergone adaptive evolution since their divergence, this indicates that it is HOAP’s role in regulating the HTT-array that requires fast evolution. This is potentially in response to the HTT-array constantly adapting to escape control.

The work by Saint-Leandre et al. resolves the apparent paradox of a fast-evolving protein being responsible for an essential and strictly conserved role. It also predicts that HOAP, HipHop and HP1 participate in two independent complexes for telomere function: one which involves terminin and protects the ends of the chromosomes, and a second that demands constant innovation to contain the genetic parasitic elements that form telomeres. Understanding how retrotransposons are contained by this second complex and why females are more susceptible to dysregulation of HTT are two fascinating mysteries for future investigation.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Claudia Castillo-González

    Claudia Castillo-González is in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6250-4317
  2. Dorothy E Shippen

    Dorothy E Shippen is in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States

    For correspondence
    dshippen@tamu.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0562-2047

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: December 22, 2020 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2020, Castillo-González and Shippen

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 415
    Page views
  • 51
    Downloads
  • 0
    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)

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. Claudia Castillo-González
  2. Dorothy E Shippen
(2020)
Telomeres: Change and HOAP for the best
eLife 9:e64945.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64945

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    Deny Cabezas-Bratesco et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Transient receptor potential (TRP) proteins are a large family of cation-selective channels, surpassed in variety only by voltage-gated potassium channels. Detailed molecular mechanisms governing how membrane voltage, ligand binding, or temperature can induce conformational changes promoting the open state in TRP channels are still a matter of debate. Aiming to unveil distinctive structural features common to the transmembrane domains within the TRP family, we performed phylogenetic reconstruction, sequence statistics, and structural analysis over a large set of TRP channel genes. Here, we report an exceptionally conserved set of residues. This fingerprint is composed of twelve residues localized at equivalent three-dimensional positions in TRP channels from the different subtypes. Moreover, these amino acids are arranged in three groups, connected by a set of aromatics located at the core of the transmembrane structure. We hypothesize that differences in the connectivity between these different groups of residues harbor the apparent differences in coupling strategies used by TRP subgroups.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Medicine
    Jingsong Zhang et al.
    Research Article

    Background:

    Abiraterone acetate is an effective treatment for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but evolution of resistance inevitably leads to progression. We present a pilot study in which abiraterone dosing is guided by evolution-informed mathematical models to delay onset of resistance.

    Methods:

    In the study cohort, abiraterone was stopped when PSA was <50% of pretreatment value and resumed when PSA returned to baseline. Results are compared to a contemporaneous cohort who had >50% PSA decline after initial abiraterone administration and met trial eligibility requirements but chose standard of care (SOC) dosing.

    Results:

    17 subjects were enrolled in the adaptive therapy group and 16 in the SOC group. All SOC subjects have progressed, but four patients in the study cohort remain stably cycling (range 53–70 months). The study cohort had significantly improved median time to progression (TTP; 33.5 months; p<0.001) and median overall survival (OS; 58.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20–0.83, p<0.001) compared to 14.3 and 31.3 months in the SOC cohort. On average, study subjects received no abiraterone during 46% of time on trial. Longitudinal trial data demonstrated the competition coefficient ratio (αRSSR) of sensitive and resistant populations, a critical factor in intratumoral evolution, was two- to threefold higher than pre-trial estimates. Computer simulations of intratumoral evolutionary dynamics in the four long-term survivors found that, due to the larger value for αRSSR, cycled therapy significantly decreased the resistant population. Simulations in subjects who progressed predicted further increases in OS could be achieved with prompt abiraterone withdrawal after achieving 50% PSA reduction.

    Conclusions:

    Incorporation of evolution-based mathematical models into abiraterone monotherapy for mCRPC significantly increases TTP and OS. Computer simulations with updated parameters from longitudinal trial data can estimate intratumoral evolutionary dynamics in each subject and identify strategies to improve outcomes.

    Funding:

    Moffitt internal grants and NIH/NCI U54CA143970-05 (Physical Science Oncology Network).