DNA-damage induced cell death in yap1;wwtr1 mutant epidermal basal cells

  1. Jason KH Lai  Is a corresponding author
  2. Pearlyn JY Toh
  3. Hamizah A Cognart
  4. Geetika Chouhan
  5. Timothy E Saunders  Is a corresponding author
  1. Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  2. Department of Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India
  3. Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  4. Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, A*Star, Singapore
  5. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, United Kingdom

Abstract

In a previous study, it was reported that Yap1 and Wwtr1 in zebrafish regulates the morphogenesis of the posterior body and epidermal fin fold (Kimelman et al., 2017). We report here that DNA damage induces apoptosis of epidermal basal cells (EBCs) in zebrafish yap1-/-;wwtr1-/- embryos. Specifically, these mutant EBCs exhibit active Caspase-3, Caspase-8, and γH2AX, consistent with DNA damage serving as a stimulus of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway in epidermal cells. Live imaging of zebrafish epidermal cells reveals a steady growth of basal cell size in the developing embryo, but this growth is inhibited in mutant basal cells followed by apoptosis, leading to the hypothesis that factors underscoring cell size play a role in this DNA damage-induced apoptosis phenotype. We tested two of these factors using cell stretching and substrate stiffness assays, and found that HaCaT cells cultured on stiff substrates exhibit more numerous γH2AX foci compared to ones cultured on soft substrates. Thus, our experiments suggest that substrate rigidity may modulate genomic stress in epidermal cells, and that Yap1 and Wwtr1 promotes their survival.

Editor's evaluation

This manuscript identifies a novel function for YAP/TAZ in epithelial cells. Mechanical stress/strain is shown to drive genomic stress and a DNA damage response in zebrafish skin, and concurrent activation of YAP/TAZ is essential to accommodate the stress/strain by allowing elastic expansion and flattening of cells as well as preventing apoptosis.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72302.sa0

Introduction

The Hippo signaling pathway is widely known for its role in regulating tissue and organ size (Johnson and Halder, 2014). More recently, the roles of its downstream effectors, Yap1 and Wwtr1 (or widely referred to as Taz), have been described in a variety of developing tissues. In the developing heart, Wwtr1 participates in cardiomyocyte decision-making to become a trabecular cell (Lai et al., 2018). Additionally, in the cardiovascular system, YAP1 and WWTR1 are important for sprouting angiogenesis (Astone et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2017; Neto et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017) and vascular stability (Nakajima et al., 2017). Yap1 and Wwtr1 also regulate the retinal epithelium cell fate in the eye (Miesfeld et al., 2015), kidney branching morphogenesis (Reginensi et al., 2015), and fibronectin assembly for tail morphogenesis (Kimelman et al., 2017). In this report, we show that Yap1 and Wwtr1 are required for the survival and growth of epidermal cells during skin development.

In the zebrafish, the non-neural ectoderm, marked by ΔNp63, emerges from the ventral side of the gastrulating embryo, and spreads dorsally to cover the entire embryo as a sheet of cells beneath the periderm during segmentation stages (Bakkers et al., 2002; Solnica-Krezel, 2005). Residing in this layer are the epidermal basal cells (EBCs) which are responsible for epidermal cell renewal and homeostasis (Blanpain and Fuchs, 2006). In mice, Yap1 and Wwtr1, acting downstream of integrin signaling, were shown to modulate EBC proliferation during wound healing (Elbediwy et al., 2016). However, their role in early epidermal development is poorly characterized.

In addition to their role in cell proliferation, YAP1 and WWTR1 promote cell survival. When cells are challenged with DNA damaging agents including doxorubicin (Ma et al., 2016) and radiation (Guillermin et al., 2021), YAP1, as a co-transcription factor of Teads, is localized in the nucleus to drive expression of pro-survival genes. Indeed, transgenic expression of Yap1 in murine livers upregulates the expression of Survivin (Birc5) in hepatocytes, protecting these cells from apoptosis when treated with a pro-apoptotic agent, Jo-2 (Dong et al., 2007). On the other hand, genetic knockdown of Yap1 or inhibition of YAP1 nuclear localization exaggerates apoptosis in cells exposed to chemo- and radiotherapy (Guillermin et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2016). Thus, YAP1 executes its pro-survival function in the nucleus by driving the expression of target genes.

The previous work by Kimelman et al., 2017 investigated how Yap1 and Wwtr1 participate in the development of the fin fold by regulating the expression and organization of the extracellular matrix (ECM). In the course of this previous investigation, which focused specifically on why yap1;wwtr1 double mutants had a thinner epidermis in the ventral fin fold, the authors did not observe apoptotic epidermal cells. However, apoptosis in other parts of the embryo was not thoroughly studied, as it was outside the focus of this previous work. Here, we show that concurrent loss of yap1 and wwtr1 results in aberrant apoptosis of EBCs on the yolk at the 6–10 ss. However, epidermal cell proliferation is not reduced in yap1;wwtr1 double mutant zebrafish embryos, in contrast to adult Yap1-/-;Wwtr1-/- mice. At these developmental stages, Yap1 and Wwtr1 are localized in the EBC nuclei to putatively carry out their co-transcriptional function through the Tead-binding domain (TBD) and support epidermal cell survival. This cell death phenotype in mutant embryos is executed through the extrinsic apoptotic pathway, as apoptosis assays reveal activation of Caspase-8 and Caspase-3. Further, we show that γH2AX, a DNA damage marker, is recruited in mutant EBCs. Thus, DNA damage prompted the extrinsic apoptotic pathway in these cells (Hill et al., 1999). Live imaging of epidermal cells found that, leading up to this apoptosis phenotype, mutant basal cell size is inhibited after the 6 ss, unlike their sibling embryo counterparts, which continue to grow. Interestingly, human keratinocytes cultured on stiffer substrates exhibit more γH2AX foci than cells cultured on softer substrates, suggesting that the mechanical environment not only modifies cell size, but also plays a role in genomic stress (Denais et al., 2016; Raab et al., 2016; Nava et al., 2020). Here, we use the term ‘stress’ to denote the pressure on genome integrity due to, for example, mechanical or radiative perturbations. Moreover, knockdown of YAP1 or WWTR1 in these cells further increases the number of γH2AX foci. Thus, we propose that in response to genomic stress, Yap1 and Wwtr1 have important roles in the survival of EBCs in the course of their development.

Results

Yap1 and Wwtr1 are localized in the nuclei of EBCs to modulate their survival

The previous work on yap1;wwtr1 double mutant zebrafish reported no overt cell death in the tail (Kimelman et al., 2017). Given the important regulatory roles of YAP1 and WWTR1, we hypothesized that cell death may be increased elsewhere during early embryonic development in such embryos. As a first exploration, we focused on the lateral yolk, on which two layers of the epidermis – the periderm and basal epidermis – reside. We performed TUNEL assays on 16–18 ss embryos as by this stage the double mutants are morphologically distinct from their siblings. We found aberrant apoptosis in the yap1-/-;wwtr1-/- (henceforth referred simply as ‘mutant’) epidermis on the yolk, but not in the tail as reported before (Figure 1A). Additionally, whereas WT embryos have regular distribution of P63-positive nuclei (an EBC marker) over the yolk, mutants have a more irregular and sparser pattern (Figure 1A), suggesting apoptosis of mutant EBCs. As we could only detect apoptotic fragments in older mutant embryos, we investigated this phenotype in closer detail by repeating this assay in younger embryos and imaging them with higher magnifications. Normal sibling epidermis exhibit virtually no TUNEL signal. On the other hand, mutant epidermis exhibit P63 and TUNEL co-staining (apoptotic EBCs), as well as punctate TUNEL signal (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). The latter corresponds to apoptotic fragments that made up the bulk of the TUNEL signal (Figure 1B and B’). Therefore, this phenotype suggests that Yap1 and Wwtr1 are required for EBC survival.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all
Developing zebrafish yap1;wwtr1 double mutants show aberrant epidermal basal cell death.

(A) Maximum intensity projections of 16–18 ss WT and mutant embryos stained with TUNEL and P63. Scale bars, 100 µm. (B) Maximum intensity projections of the epidermis on the lateral yolk of 6–8 ss mutant and normal siblings stained with TUNEL, P63, and ZO-1. Yellow arrowheads indicate TUNEL and P63 double positive nuclei. Scale bars, 10 µm. (B’) Quantification of TUNEL-positive EBC nuclei (P63+) and apoptotic fragments (fragments).

Using previously characterized antibodies against Yap1 and Wwtr1 (Flinn et al., 2020; Kimelman et al., 2017; Lai et al., 2018; Miesfeld et al., 2015), we investigated their cellular localization in the epidermis. Both Yap1 and Wwtr1 are localized in the nuclei of the peridermis and basal epidermis at the tailbud stage and at the 16–20 ss (Figure 2A). Yap1 is also localized to the junctions of peridermal cells (Figure 2A; Flinn et al., 2020). At these developmental stages, some EBCs in the basal epidermis lose P63 expression and differentiate into ionocytes (Jänicke et al., 2007). By comparing P63-positive to P63-negative nuclei in the basal epidermis, we found greater expression levels of Yap1 and Wwtr1 in the P63-positive ones (Figure 2B), indicating Yap1 and Wwtr1 activity in EBCs.

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all
Yap1 and Wwtr1 are localized in epidermal basal cells (EBCs) and EVL cells.

(A) Maximum intensity projections of the epidermis on the lateral yolk stained with P63, and Wwtr1 or Yap1 antibodies at indicated developmental stages. Insets, demarcated in red, show overlay of P63 and Yap1/Wwtr1. Arrowheads – P63-positive basal cells; arrows – peridermal cells; triangles – peridermal cell junctions. Scale bars, 10 µm. (B) Boxplots of normalized intensities of Yap1 and Wwtr1 in the nucleus of P63-positive and P63-negative cells in the basal epidermis. t-Tests were carried out to compare these intensities between the two groups. ***p<0.001.

In the nucleus, Yap1 and Wwtr1 bind to Teads via their TBD to drive expression of target genes. To test whether this interaction is important for their function, we evaluated the yap1bns22 zebrafish allele, which encodes an in-frame deletion in the TBD of Yap1 (p.(Pro42_Glu60delinsLeu)) (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). Specifically, this deletion spans across the S54 residue that binds to Teads (Miesfeld et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2008). In the yap1bns22/bns22;wwtr1-/- embryos, we again observed apoptosis in the epidermis (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). These observations suggest that nuclear-localized Yap1 in EBCs promote survival by driving the expression of downstream target genes with Teads.

Yap1 and Wwtr1 are dispensable for the proliferation of developing epidermal cells

Using adult mice, a previous study found fewer proliferating cells in the epidermis of yap1;wwtr1 double mutants (Elbediwy et al., 2016). Thus, we performed a proliferation assay with phospho-histone H3 (pH3) staining in the 3–5 ss embryos. We chose this developmental stage to avoid coinciding with the cell death phenotype in mutants. Overall, the number of pH3 foci is not noticeably different between WT and mutant embryos (Figure 3). Restricting our analysis to the epidermis on the lateral yolk, the number of pH3-positive cells is not significantly different between the two genotypes (Figure 3B). Thus, Yap1 and Wwtr1 are not required for epidermal cell proliferation during development.

Concurrent loss of yap1 and wwtr1 did not impair epidermal cell proliferation.

(A) Maximum intensity projections of 3–5 ss WT and mutant embryos stained with a proliferation marker, phospho-histone H3 (phosphoH3; pH3), and phalloidin. Scale bars, 100 µm. (B) Boxplot of the number of pH3 cells on the lateral side of the yolk of WT and mutant zebrafish embryos. mut – yap1;wwtr1 double mutants.

Apoptosis in mutant EBCs occurs through the extrinsic pathway

We next address whether the apoptosis phenotype in mutant EBCs is initiated by the intrinsic or extrinsic pathway. Supporting the TUNEL results, we find in mutant epidermis, cleaved Caspase-3 co-stained with P63 and in apoptotic fragments (Figure 4A and A’). To test the extrinsic pathway, we evaluated the activity of Caspase-8 using a live Caspase-8 probe, FITC-IETD-FMK (Materials and methods). At the 18–20 ss, FITC foci are present in mutant, but not WT, epidermal cells (Figure 4B and B’), indicating that Caspase-8 is active in mutants. This observation indicates that apoptosis in yap1;wwtr1 double mutant epidermal cells is initiated by the extrinsic pathway.

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all
Zebrafish yap1-/-;wwtr1-/- epidermal cells exhibit DNA damage and extrinsic apoptotic cell death.

(A) Maximum intensity projections of 6–8 ss WT and mutant epidermis on the lateral yolk stained with cleaved Caspase-3 (*Caspase-3) and P63. Some *Caspase-3-positive cells are also P63-positive (yellow arrowheads). Scale bars, 10 µm. (A’) Number of epidermal basal cells (EBCs) (P63+) and apoptotic fragments (fragments) expressing cleaved Caspase-3 in WT and mutant embryo epidermis. ‘X’ represents the median, while the whiskers projecting from it represent the interquartile range. (B) Maximum intensity projections of the epidermis on the lateral yolk of 20–22 ss WT and mutant embryos expressing H2A-mCherry. Embryos were incubated in a Caspase-8 chemical probe, FITC-IETD-FMK, prior to imaging. FITC signal indicates Caspase-8 activity in cells (yellow arrowheads). Scale bars, 10 µm. (B’) Number of FITC foci in WT and mutant embryo epidermis. ‘X’ represents the median, while the whiskers projecting from it represent the interquartile range. (C) Maximum intensity projections of 18–22 ss WT and mutant epidermis on the lateral yolk stained with γH2AX and P63. Some nuclei are positive for both markers (yellow arrowheads). Scale bars, 10 µm. (C’) Number of EBCs (P63+) and apoptotic fragments (fragments) expressing γH2AX in WT and mutant embryo epidermis. ‘X’ represents the median, while the whiskers projecting from it represent the interquartile range.

γH2AX is recruited to the nuclei of mutant epidermal cells

Previous studies have found that the epidermis clears DNA-damaged cells through the extrinsic apoptotic pathway (Bang et al., 2003; Hill et al., 1999; Takahashi et al., 2001), prompting us to investigate our mutant epidermal cells for DNA damage. Indeed, interrogating mutant and WT embryos by Western blot shows elevated levels of γH2AX, a DNA damage marker, in mutants (Figure 4—figure supplement 1A). Closer inspection of these embryos by confocal microscopy reveals a pan-nuclear pattern of γH2AX in mutant EBCs but not in WT ones (Figure 4C and C’). γH2AX was also observed in apoptotic fragments. Therefore, DNA damage is the putative stimulus of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway in mutant EBCs.

Mutant basal cell size growth is limited

What are the cellular events leading to apoptosis in mutant embryos? We utilized live imaging of the developing epidermis in order to visualize the cell behavior. Embryos at the one-cell stage were injected with H2A-mCherry and lyn-EGFP mRNA to mark the nuclei and membrane, respectively. At the tailbud stage, we mounted the embryos laterally on the yolk to record the epidermal cells. In sibling and yap1;wwtr1 double mutants, epidermal cell behavior is not readily distinguishable between them throughout the live-imaging experiment, aside from apoptosis in mutant embryos beginning from the 3 hr mark (Video 1).

Video 1
Time lapse imaging of mutant and sibling epidermis.

Maximum intensity projections of the epidermis on the lateral yolk of mutant and sibling embryos. Membranes and nuclei are marked by Lyn-EGFP (green) and H2A-mCherry (red), respectively. Time stamp format, HH:MM; 00:00 is tailbud stage.

With the membrane marker, we measured basal cell size (basal cell apical area) in sibling and mutant embryos. Whereas basal cells in sibling embryos grew steadily throughout the live-imaging experiment, mutant ones stopped growing 120 min post-tailbud (Figure 5). At the end of this experiment, basal cells in sibling embryos were on average a third larger than mutant ones (747±136 µm2 vs. 551±103 µm2 [mean ±s.d.]; p<0.01). Curiously, apoptosis – DNA condensation and membrane blebbing (Video 2) – of mutant basal cells follows after stagnation of their growth (Figure 5). We investigated other cell shape parameters, but we did not observe any clear differences between mutant and sibling embryo basal cells. Taken together, basal cell apical area size is inhibited in yap1;wwtr1 double mutant embryos.

Epidermal cell size of sibling and mutant embryos during development.

Cell size was measured with a membrane marker during live imaging of mutant and sibling embryos from the tailbud stage. Fine lines are the size of individual cells, while bold lines are the average cell size in a single embryo. Skull symbols mark cell size and time before death (DNA condensation).

Figure 5—source data 1

Measured cell size from live-imaging experiment for Figure 5.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/72302/elife-72302-fig5-data1-v3.xlsx
Video 2
Apoptosis of mutant basal cells.

Time lapse of mutant basal cells undergoing apoptosis as captured by live imaging. Membranes and nuclei are marked by Lyn-EGFP (green) and H2A-mCherry (red), respectively. Time stamp format, HH:MM; 00:00 is tailbud stage. Scale bars, 10 µm.

Investigation of γH2AX by cell stretching and substrate stiffness

Our results show that DNA damage is an upstream trigger of extrinsic apoptosis in mutant EBCs, and that apoptosis occurs after inhibition of cell size. Thus, we hypothesized that factors underlying cell size play a role in DNA damage. Exploring this hypothesis in the early embryo is very challenging due to its accessibility for modulating forces. We tested this hypothesis with two experiments: (1) in vivo stretching of head epidermal cells by ventricular inflation and (2) culturing of a human keratinocyte cell line, HaCaT, on increasing stiffness of collagen-coated hydrogels. Though not directly related to EBCs, these experiments allow us to test the link between cell size and DNA damage, and the potential role of the Hippo pathway in regulating this process.

We stretched epidermal cells in vivo by inflating the zebrafish brain ventricle with mineral oil (Figure 6A), based on a previously characterized approach (Lewis et al., 2020) As a positive control, we exposed zebrafish embryos to UV for 10 min followed by recovery of 1 hr before fixation. In the UV-treated embryos, we found pan-nuclear staining of γH2AX in the periderm and basal epidermis (Figure 6—figure supplement 1A), similar to the staining pattern in mutant EBCs (Figure 4C). However, we did not observe γH2AX in the nuclei of epidermal cells after ventricular inflation (Figure 6A’). These observations suggest that stretching of epidermal cells alone does not induce the recruitment of γH2AX.

Figure 6 with 1 supplement see all
γH2AX in stretched epidermal cells and in keratinocytes cultured on different substrate stiffness.

(A) Schematic of head epidermal cell stretching experiment in zebrafish embryos. (A’) Sham (n=6) and stretched (n=6) head epidermal cells stained with γH2AX and epidermal markers (E-cadherin and P63). P63 is a marker for epidermal basal cells (EBCs). No discernible γH2AX signal was detected in both conditions. Scale bars, 10 µm. (B) Selected nuclei of HaCaT cells cultured on 0.5, 12.0, 25.0 kPa hydrogels and glass, as well as boxplot of the number of γH2AX foci in these nuclei. Number of γH2AX foci in HaCaT cell nuclei were contrasted against HaCaT cells cultured on 0.5 kPa hydrogel using t-tests. Data were collected from three independent experiments. ***p<0.001 adjusted for multiple testing (Tukey method).

Next, to test our hypothesis in defined mechanical environments, we evaluated DNA damage in HaCaT cells cultured on increasing substrate stiffness – 0.5, 12, 25 kPa hydrogels and glass. We used these stiffnesses as they cover a broad range of physiologically relevant conditions, from very soft (0.5 kPa) to very stiff. One set of cells was exposed to UV as a positive control. Interestingly, the number of γH2AX foci detected in HaCaT cell nuclei is higher in cells cultured on stiffer substrates, but this correlation is not linear, with the maximum number of foci occurring in HaCaT cells cultured on 12 kPa hydrogel (Figure 6B). Moreover, we observed a similar trend among cells exposed to UV (Figure 6—figure supplement 1B). Nevertheless, in cells cultured on a given substrate stiffness, we detected more γH2AX foci in the UV group than the unexposed group (Figure 6—figure supplement 1B). Thus, keratinocytes cultured on stiff substrates appear to have greater genomic stress than cells on soft substrates.

As YAP1 and WWTR1 are shuttled into the nucleus when cells are cultured on stiffer substrates, we hypothesized that their presence in the nucleus protects HaCaT cells cultured on 25 kPa and glass from genomic stress resulting in fewer γH2AX foci. We performed knockdowns of YAP1, WWTR1, or both in HaCaT cells cultured on glass. We found that double knockdown of YAP1 and WWTR1 did not deplete their protein expression, unlike the single YAP1 or WWTR1 knockdowns (Figure 7A). Accordingly, the depletion of YAP1 or WWTR1 resulted in greater expression of γH2AX by Western blot (Figure 7A), and more γH2AX foci (Figure 7B). However, we could not test the redundancy of YAP1 and WWTR1 as the double knockdown was incomplete, which may explain the unchanged γH2AX levels in the double knockdown compared to control. This observation suggests a role for YAP1/WWTR1 in protecting the genome from DNA damage.

Recruitment of γH2AX in YAP1/WWTR1 knockdown HaCaT cells.

(A) Western blots of control and YAP1/WWTR1 knockdown HaCaT cells. (B) Boxplot of the number of γH2AX foci in control and YAP1/WWTR1 knockdown HaCaT cell nuclei. Number of γH2AX were compared to control knockdowns (sictrl) using t-tests.

Discussion

Our results presented here are consistent with Yap1 and Wwtr1 playing important roles in epidermal cell size control, genomic stability, and survival during epidermal development. In contrast to adult murine epidermis (Elbediwy et al., 2016), the developing zebrafish epidermis does not require Yap1 and Wwtr1 for cell proliferation. Instead, we found mutant epidermal cells to be smaller, exhibit DNA damage, and undergo apoptosis through the extrinsic pathway. These observations led us to investigate the relationship between the mechanical environment of epidermal cells and genomic stress.

Mechanical perturbations of cells were shown to recruit DNA damage factors including γH2AX and ATR (Cognart et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2014). Our present results show that both baseline and induced DNA damage can be intensified by culturing cells on stiffer substrates. Specifically, we found more γH2AX foci in human keratinocyte cells seeded on 12 kPa, 25 kPa hydrogels, and glass compared to the ones seeded on 0.5 kPa hydrogels. At the same time, YAP1/WWTR1 are known to shuttle into the nucleus of cells cultured in stiffer substrates. This phenomenon may explain why the number of γH2AX is fewer in cells cultured on 25 kPa hydrogel and glass than cells cultured on 12 kPa hydrogel, if YAP1 and WWTR1 protect the genome from DNA damage. Indeed, depleting them in HaCaT cells and zebrafish epidermal cells results in greater expression of γH2AX. We note that these conclusions are based on results from different experimental systems, and further work will be required to confirm these ideas.

Yap1 was shown to supply survival signals in cells under genotoxic stress conditions by driving the expression of Survivin (Guillermin et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2016). However, our Western blot assay did not find downregulation of Survivin in zebrafish yap1;wwtr1 double mutants (data not shown), presumably as Survivin is also a key player in cellular proliferation (Nair et al., 2013), which is not impeded in mutants. Therefore, we propose that the mechanical environment of the epidermis modifies genomic stress in cells, and that Yap1 and Wwtr1 play a role in their survival. However, further work will be required to test this proposal in vivo, by altering the mechanical environment within the embryo.

The mechanical environment of the developing epidermis changes with increasing production of the ECM. Indeed, greater ECM density is known to increase cell size (Engler et al., 2006), which could underscore the increasing basal cell size during epidermal development. In the transcriptomic signatures from the previous study (Kimelman et al., 2017), genes that are downregulated in yap1;wwtr1 double mutant tailbuds include lama5, col7a1, lamb1a, lamb4, and lamb2, which encode key components of the skin basal lamina. This downregulation likely translates to a different ECM environment in mutant embryos and consequently results in the inhibition of basal cell size (Figure 5).

Our work reveals that Yap1 and Wwtr1 likely have important functions in epidermal cell survival and growth during development. We also show greater genomic stress in cells grown on more rigid extracellular substrates, which is consistent with the DNA damage-induced apoptosis phenotype in yap1;wwtr1 double mutant zebrafish. These results open new areas of exploration on the physiological relevance of mechanobiology in development, physiology, and disease, as well as its interplay with Yap1/Wwtr1 and genomic stress in these processes.

Materials and methods

Zebrafish lines

Request a detailed protocol

Mutant zebrafish lines used in this study are: yap1bns19 (Astone et al., 2018; Kimelman et al., 2017), yap1bns22 (this study), and wwtr1bns35 (Lai et al., 2018).

The yap1bns22 allele was generated from a CRISPR/CAS9-mediated mutagenesis. Two single-guide RNA (sgRNA) sequences, 5’-ACCTCATCGGCACGGAAGGG-3’ and 5’-CTGGAGTGGGACTTTGGCTC-3’, were designed by an sgRNA design tool by the Zhang Lab (crispr.mit.edu; accessed in 2014). These sequences were cloned into the pT7-gRNA vector (Addgene #46759). Following vector linearization with BsmBI enzyme, sgRNA were obtained by in vitro transcription with MEGAshortscript T7 kit (Ambion). CAS9 mRNA was obtained by in vitro transcription of linearized pT3TS-nCas9n vector (Addgene #46757) with MEGAscript T3 kit (Ambion). sgRNA (50 pg each) and 150 pg of CAS9 mRNA were co-injected into one-cell stage AB embryos. The yap1bns22 allele contains a 54 bp deletion in the TBD [p.(Pro42_Glu60delinsLeu)]. This allele can be genotyped by using the following PCR primer pair: 5’-CTGTTTGTGGTTTCTGAGGGG-3’ and 5’-CGCTGTGATGAACCCGAAAA-3’. Mutant and WT products can be resolved and distinguished by gel electrophoresis with a 2% gel. Genotyping of yap1bns19 and wwtr1bns35 alleles have been described previously (Astone et al., 2018; Lai et al., 2018).

Mutant embryos in this study were obtained from an incross of double heterozygous animals (i.e. yap1bns19/+;wwtr1bns35/+ incross or yap1bns22/+;wwtr1bns35/+ incross).

Incubation and visual identification of mutant embryos

Request a detailed protocol

Experiments involving 16 ss and older embryos were incubated at 25°C throughout, otherwise younger embryos were incubated at 28.5°C. yap1;wwtr1 double mutant embryos older than 16 ss can be visually identified for experiments. These mutant embryos were compared to stage-matched embryos from WT crosses.

For experiments involving <16 ss embryos, embryos from heterozygous incross were fixed and assayed for cell death with TUNEL. Using a wide-field stereomicroscope, embryos with excess TUNEL staining in the epidermis on the lateral yolk were selected and mounted for confocal imaging. Under the confocal microscope, embryos with apoptotic bodies (TUNEL foci and fragmented DNA stained by DAPI) were further investigated and genotyped for downstream analyses. These embryos were compared to stage-matched WT embryos.

Whole-mount immunofluorescence assay

Request a detailed protocol

Zebrafish samples were fixed in 4% PFA in 1× PBS, followed by dechorionation. Briefly, samples were blocked for 1 hr in 2 mg/mL BSA and 1% goat serum (Thermo Fisher) in 1× PBSTXD (1× PBS, 0.1% Tween-20, 0.1% Triton X-100%, and 1% DMSO). Then, samples were incubated in primary antibody (see below) overnight at 4°C. Samples were washed in 1× PBSTXD every 15 min for 2 hr and then incubated in secondary antibody in room temperature for at least 4 hr, followed by washing with 1× PBSTXD. Counter stains for nuclei was DAPI, and for actin was phalloidin (Alexa 488 conjugated). When using anti-γH2AX as primary antibody, all PBS buffers were substituted with TBS buffers, and blocking buffer consisted of 3–5% BSA only.

TUNEL assays were performed between the blocking step and primary antibody incubation step. Samples were washed in 1× PBST (1× PBS, 0.1% Tween-20) three times, 5 min each. After aspiration of the buffer, samples were incubated in the Fluorescein TUNEL kit (Roche) for 1 hr at 37°C with gentle shaking. 1× PBST washes were performed to stop the reaction before proceeding with the remaining step of the immunofluorescence protocol.

Primary antibodies used in this study were: anti-Yap1 (CS4912, Cell Signaling), 1:250; anti-Wwtr1 (D24E4, Cell Signaling), 1:250; anti-P63 (ab735, Abcam), 1:500; anti-ZO1 (1A12, Thermo Fisher), 1:250; anti-phosphoH3 (9701, Cell Signaling), 1:500; anti-cleaved-Caspase-3 (ab13847, Abcam), 1:250; and anti-γH2AX (GTX127342, Genetex), 1:500, anti-E-cadherin (610182, BD Transduction Labs), 1:100.

Secondary antibodies used in this study were: Alexa fluorophore-conjugated anti-mouse and anti-rabbit by Thermo Fisher used at 1:500 dilution.

Caspase-8 assay

Request a detailed protocol

Embryos were injected with 10–15 pg H2A-mCherry mRNA at the one-cell stage. At 16 ss, mutant and WT embryos were identified and dechorionated, then incubated in FITC-IETD-FMK (ab65614, Abcam) for 30 min at room temperature. Embryos were washed with egg water three times, 5 min each, and then mounted for confocal imaging.

Proliferation assay

Request a detailed protocol

Embryos were imaged from the lateral side. After imaging, embryos were genotyped and only yap1;wwtr1 double mutants were compared with stage-matched WT embryos. A maximum intensity projection was generated for each embryo. The yolk was manually demarcated as a ‘region of interest’, followed by manual identification and counting of pH3 foci. Poisson regression for count data was used to test whether the number of pH3 foci differs between WT and mutants.

Yap1/Wwtr1 immunostaining quantification

Request a detailed protocol

Nuclei were segmented with DAPI in order to get total intensity of Yap1, Wwtr1, and P63. Peridermal nuclei were excluded from the analysis. The intensity of interests are normalized with DAPI intensity. Nuclei were grouped as P63-positive and P63-negative. t-Tests were performed between the P63-positive and P63-negative groups for each normalized Yap1 and Wwtr1 intensity.

Confocal imaging

Request a detailed protocol

Live and fixed embryos were embedded in 1% LMA (Sigma) on glass-bottomed dish (inverted microscopes) or Petri dish (upright microscopes). For low-magnification images of the entire embryo, a 10× objective lens was used. Otherwise, high-magnification images were taken with 40× objective (water dipping) or 63× objective (water immersion) lens with at least 1 NA was used. For the ventricular inflation experiment, the stretched region of the head epidermis was flattened and mounted using a coverslip and imaged on the Zeiss LSM 880 confocal microscope with a Plan-APOCHROMAT 63×/1.4 oil objective at a 1.5× optical zoom.

Live imaging

Request a detailed protocol

Embryos from incrosses of yap1;wwtr1 double heterozygous animals were injected with 10 pg of H2A-mCherry and lyn-EGFP mRNA each at the one-cell stage. At 90% epiboly, 6–10 embryos were dechorionated and embedded laterally in 0.5% LMA on a glass-bottomed dish to be imaged under the spinning disk system (Yokogawa CSU-W1). A z-stack of 41 slices, 0.5 µm thick, were acquired per embryo every 2 min overnight in an environmental chamber set at 28.5°C. At most eight embryos were imaged in a single sitting. Embryos were genotyped the next day. All mutants are yap1-/-;wwtr1-/-, while siblings are not yap1-/- or wwtr1-/-.

Cell size quantification

Request a detailed protocol

Maximum intensity projections of each embryo were generated for each time point. Basal cells were distinguished from EVL cells manually. The lyn-EGFP marks the cell membrane which was manually demarcated to measure cell size every five frames. When a cell divides, it marks the start or end of the tracking. For dying cells in mutants, the tracking stops one frame before the DNA condenses.

Western Blot

Request a detailed protocol

16–18 ss mutant embryos (visually identified) and stage-matched WT embryos were dechorionated and collected in separate Eppendorf tubes. A total of 20 embryos from each group were pooled into one tube to constitute a biological replicate. In 1× PBS, embryos were mechanically de-yolked with a pipette tip. Samples were washed in cold 1× PBS thrice, and then 4× Laemmli sample buffer (Bio-Rad) with B-mercapthoethanol (Sigma) was added. Samples were vortexed and boiled at 95°C for 5 min three times. Samples were stored in –20°C until ready for use.

Proteins from each sample were resolved using a precast 8–16% gradient gel (Bio-Rad), and transferred to a PVDF membrane following the manufacturer’s protocol. Membranes were blocked with 3–5% BSA in 1× TBST (1× TBS, 0.5% Tween-20) for an hour, followed by incubation with primary antibody overnight at 4°C. Membranes were washed with 1× TBST before incubation with secondary antibody for at least 1 hr. Membranes were washed again with 1× TBST. ECL substrate (Bio-Rad) was added to the membrane and imaged with the ChemiDoc imaging system (Bio-Rad).

The primary antibodies used in this assay are: anti-B-actin (A5441, Sigma), 1:1000; anti-γH2AX (GTX127342, Genetex), 1:1000.

The secondary antibodies used in this assay are: HRP-conjugated anti-mouse (31430, Thermo Fisher), 1:10,000; HRP-conjugated anti-rabbit (31460, Thermo Fisher), 1:10,000.

Ventricular oil injections

Request a detailed protocol

The head epidermis was stretched by injecting hydrophobic mineral oil (Bio-Rad; 1632129) into the hindbrain ventricle of 24 hpf zebrafish, as previously described (Lewis et al., 2020). In brief, at 24 hpf the dechorionated embryos were anesthetized in 0.02–0.024% (w/v in E3) tricaine, and vertically mounted in holes punched in a 3% (w/v) agarose plate. This was followed by either stretching the epidermis by injecting 10–12 nL mineral oil in the hindbrain ventricle (stretched) or injecting only 0.1–0.2 nL oil to act as an injury control (sham). All embryos used in a set were obtained from the same clutch and were injected using the same capillary needle, to reduce variation. The test and sham embryos were grown in E3 until fixation an hour later.

HaCaT cell culture

Request a detailed protocol

All cell culture reagents were purchased from Gibco (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). The human immortalized keratinocyte cell line, HaCaT, was a gift from CT Lim Lab (MBI, Singapore). The core facility at the Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore regularly performs mycoplasma contamination checks on these cells. All experiments on these cells were performed within 1 year of receiving them. HaCaT keratinocytes were cultured in complete Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium that was supplemented with 100 IU/mL aqueous penicillin, 100 µg/mL streptomycin and 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum. Cells were maintained at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 and harvested with TrypLE (1×). TrypLE was deactivated with complete media. Cells were pelleted by centrifugation at 180× g for 5 min and then re-suspended in complete media. The cell suspensions were used only when their viability, as assessed by trypan blue exclusion, exceeded 95%. Briefly, 0.1 mL of 0.4% of trypan blue solution was added to 0.1 mL of cell suspension. Cell viability and density were calculated with a hemocytometer.

HaCaT cells were then seeded on 0.5, 12, and 25 kPa collagen-coated Softslips (Matrigen, Brea, CA), as well as glass coverslips in individual wells of a 24-well plate. 50,000 cells were seeded on each substrate. Seeded cells were incubated for 10 hr or overnight for cells to completely attach to the substrates.

HaCaT cell immunofluorescence assay

Request a detailed protocol

HaCaT cells were fixed with 4% PFA in 1× PBS for 15 min. After washing off residual PFA with 1× TBSX (1× TBS supplemented with 0.1% Triton X-100), samples were incubated with blocking solution (4% BSA in 1× TBSX) for 1 hr. Samples were then incubated in primary antibody diluted in blocking solution overnight at 4°C. After washing off the primary antibody solution with 1× TBSX, samples were incubated in secondary antibodies and counterstains diluted in blocking solution for 2 hr, followed by washes with 1× TBSX. Hydrogel-coated coverslips (Softslips) were inverted unto a coverslip for imaging according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

γH2AX foci quantification in HaCaT cells

Request a detailed protocol

Nuclei of HaCaT cells were marked as regions of interest for counting the number of γH2AX foci. Background signal was subtracted using a rolling radius of 5 pixels. A focus is at least 5 pixels in area size, and the number of foci was counted for each nucleus. To test the increase of γH2AX foci in the UV-treated group, one-sided t-tests were performed between UV and control groups for each substrate stiffness. To test the change of the number of γH2AX foci by different substrate stiffness, control HaCaT cells cultured on 0.5 kPa hydrogels were used as the reference in two-sided t-tests. p-Values were adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing with the Tukey method.

UV exposure

Request a detailed protocol

Twenty-four hpf zebrafish embryos or HaCaT cells were exposed to UV in the Biosafety Cabinet. UV dose for zebrafish experiment was 63.2 mJ/cm2, while UV dose for HaCaT cells was 30.6 mJ/cm2. After UV exposure, samples were allowed to recover for an hour (zebrafish in a 29.0°C incubator; HaCaT cells in 37.0°C humidified incubator).

Statistical analysis

Request a detailed protocol

Paired t-test analysis was performed in Figure 4 using estimationstats.com (Ho et al., 2019).

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file; Source Data files have been provided for Figures 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

References

Decision letter

  1. Marianne E Bronner
    Senior and Reviewing Editor; California Institute of Technology, United States
  2. Barry J Thompson
    Reviewer; JCSMR - ANU, Australia

In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "DNA-damage induced cell death in yap1;wwtr1 mutant epidermal basal cells" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Marianne Bronner as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Barry Thompson (Reviewer #3).

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission. While the reviewers think that manuscript is interesting and has the potential to make an important contribution to the literature, they also pointed out several issues and clarifications that were necessary. The major points are summarized in Essential Revisions below but we have also included the full reviews to help you better understand the issues raised.

Essential revisions:

The most important point seems that there is a lack of direct evidence that the cell size/cell stretching phenotype and the apoptosis phenotype are due to mechanical stress. There needs to be better evidence to support this.

Is it known whether different regions of the epidermis experience different levels of mechanical stress? If so, there could be significant differences in mechanical stress among different regions of the epidermis.

The authors need to consider cell area, which they measure, versus cell volume.

How dependent is periderm growth on proliferation of the EBCs at this stage of zebrafish development? The authors should comment this point.

There was some confusion from the reviewers because you mention in the abstract previous work on the ventral fin while that region was not examined in this study. This is an example of where the broader audience would benefit from some further details/text changes

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Yap1 and Wwtr1 are important, partially redundant proteins involved regulation of organ size and have been extensively studied. Yap1 and Wwtr1 are known to prevent apoptosis. In the adult mouse epidermis, Yap1/Wwtr1 regulate cell proliferation during wound healing. The role of Yap1/Wwtr1 in epidermis development is unknown and the topic of this study.

The manuscript by Lai et al., focuses on the role of Yap1/Wwtr1 in the development of the zebrafish epidermis. The authors present convincing data that epidermal basal cells (EBCs) exhibit reduced cellular growth and increased DNA damage and apoptosis in Yap1/Wwtr1 double mutant zebrafish embryos. The major weakness of the study is the underlying mechanisms of these phenotypes is not clearly established.

The data presented in the first five figures is convincing. Yap1/Wwtr1 are necessary for the increase in cell size of EBCs and prevent apoptosis of these cells in the post-gastrulation zebrafish embryo. The authors hypothesize that increasing mechanical stress on the Yap1/Wwtr1 mutant EBC cells causes the apoptosis.

In figure six, the authors try a nice in vivo experiment in which they increase mechanical stress in the head of the developing zebrafish embryo by injecting a bolus of mineral oil into the brain. However, this manipulation did not result in the expected increase in apoptosis. It is presumed that this experiment was performed in wild-type embryos as the authors do not specify the genotype. It is not clear why the authors did not try this experiment in Yap1/Wwtr1 mutant embryos as they should be more sensitive to this manipulation according to the author's model.

In the latter part of figure 6, the authors plate human keratinocyte cells on substrates of different stiffnesses. Here, they observe an increase in DNA damage on cells plated on substrates with a stiffness {greater than or equal to}12.0 kPa. These keratinocytes are also prone to DNA damage via UV irradiation, but it doesn't appear that plating cells on stiffer substrates make them more sensitive to UV induced DNA damage. The relevance of these keratinocyte experiments to understanding the phenotype of Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants is not entirely clear.

The major weakness of the study is the lack of a mechanistic understanding of the cell growth and apoptosis phenotypes. In the discussion, the authors hypothesize that the defect in cell growth is due to a reduction in the density of the ECM. This is based on the observations that ECM density has been shown to increase cell size in other contexts and the fact that the expression of a number of ECM proteins is reduced in Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants. This hypothesis is easily testable via genetic mosaics as one would expect this phenotype to be cell non-autonomous. Wild-type EBCs in Yap1/Wwtr1 hosts should also exhibit a reduction in cellular growth. Conversely, Yap1/Wwtr1 EBCs in a wild-type host should exhibit restored cell growth.

The authors suggest that the increase in the ECM and the corresponding increase in the mechanical stiffness of the embryonic environment causes Yap1/Wwtr1 mutant EBCs to apoptose. In this interpretation, which seems to contradict the first hypothesis, Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants do not produce enough ECM for EBCs to reach their normal size, but Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants do produce enough ECM-dependent stiffness to induce EBC apoptosis. The suggested genetic mosaics experiments could also provide evidence for the author's explanation of the apoptosis phenotype. Might one expect an even higher rate of apoptosis of Yap1/Wwtr1 mutant EBCs when they are developing in a more mechanically robust wild-type host?

One issue with the text is ambiguity about what the authors mean by "stress". As in physics, this could mean force per unit area. Alternatively, it could refer to a challenging physiological condition as the term is frequently used in biology. Since this study involves mechanobiology, the authors would need to clearly define what they mean by stress. This ambiguity makes it difficult to always discern the meaning of the text, and it appears that the different meanings are conflated in the text.

Relatedly, it is unclear what the authors mean by "genomic stress". Is the genome under greater mechanical stress in Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants? It would also be helpful to state how the authors think increased substrate stiffness increases genomic stress. Is this relationship purely mechanical or is cell signaling and gene expression involved? What is currently known about the link between the mechanical environment and genomic stress?

The study is interesting and rigorously performed. However, the authors need to better substantiate their conclusions to merit publication in eLife. Specifically, the authors need to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the cell growth and apoptosis phenotypes. The beforementioned mineral oil injections into Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants could provide useful data. However, the genetic mosaic experiments could really be clarifying, and these are standard experiments in zebrafish.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Lai et al. submit a manuscript investigating the role for Wwtr1/Taz and Yap1 in morphogenesis of the posterior body and epidermal fin fold. Through Zebrafish double mutant embryos, the authors present data suggesting that Wwtr1 and Yap1 cooperate to protect epidermal basal cells from DNA damage during morphogenesis, confirming previously published studies. Not only are both Wwrt1 and Yap1 localised to EBC nuclei, but these cells undergo Tp53 independent apoptosis driven by DNA damage. Recruitment of DNA damage marker γH2AX in mutant embryos is also associated with reduced cell size. Using an in vivo ventricular inflation assay and in vitro cell stretching, the authors suggest that increased tissue stiffness may cause DNA damage that is protected against by Wwrt1 and Yap1.

The submitted manuscript aims to investigate Wwrt1 and Yap1 in epidermal morphogenesis and presents data suggesting a surprisingly strong need for both proteins to protect Epidermal Basal Cell DNA during somitogenesis. While the authors confirm no proliferation defect in mutant embryos, proliferation is assayed early in the mutant pathology and may not represent the cell dynamics present in later stages where the authors also find EBCs to be smaller. A conflict arises between these data as increased cell death and no significant increase in proliferation might lead to epithelial rupture. Why mutant EBC are smaller is not directly addressed but the authors suggest that embryonic stiffening might underlie epidermal susceptibility to DNA damage, however, there are insufficient control experiments and discussion to make this conclusion.

Further experiments and discussion are required to make some of the claims presented here and to improve impact of the work within this hotly studied pathway.

1. Results section is not very well motivated. For example, why 16-18 ss? Not entirely clear whether this stage was analysed by previous publication, why exactly that is so important for the phenotype – why that might be crucial in epidermal development as opposed to other stages.

2. The text states no apoptosis was seen in the tail as before, however, the image shown in Figure 1 does appear to have TUNNEL staining in the posterior embryo albeit much less than the rest of the embryo. Is there any way to quantify this phenotype and represent the average phenotypes for the brood?

3. No justification for studying 6 ss embryos for detailed looked at EBCs. Is there a constant level of apoptosis across these stages of development or does it change over time?

4. Figure 1: Single colour panels would be required to show nuclear TUNNEL staining.

5. Figure 2: Throughout text and legends figure 2 is said to show Wwrt1 and Yap1 expression but only immunofluorescence is shown. Quantification of immunofluorescence should be added to the main figure to bolster the imaging data.

6. Figure 2 S1: The pattern of apoptosis seen in the TEAD binding mutant is different from that seen in the complete null. Could these differences indicate a spatial difference in Wwrt1/Yap1 function? This is not addressed and could be improved by quantification/comparison with other mutants.

7. Why proliferation was assayed in mutants at 3-5 ss is not well justified. Ideally 6 ss and 18 ss would be included to confirm no change in proliferation. This is especially important as not only do mutant cells become smaller, then die more often. How enough cells would be made to compensate for cell loss without rupture of the epithelium leaves these data looking conspicuous and should also be addressed in the text as well.

8. Live Capase-8 probe is not cited in results text.

9. The role for Tp53 in the embryo/cell or why it is used to distinguish the extrinsic apoptotic pathway is not explained.

10. Figure 4: No statistical tests on image quantifications.

11. Cell size was calculated as the 2D area of EBCs, however this is totally cell size as these cells could take on another shape, becoming more columnar. In this case cell size could be the same but tissue geometry would be different and put different force upon the nucleus.

12. Further to comment 7. How can mutant EBCs be smaller and there be no rupturing of the epithelium? Are other parts of the epithelium proliferating more/less to allow for this constraint?

13. It is not clear which EBCs were assayed in ventricular injection experiments. The paper is focussed on the posterior embryo, yet assays whether the head epithelium is susceptible to stretch induced DNA damage. While a potential proxy the strengths and weaknesses of this experiment is not provided – which include the very short time scale of stretching. Further, no data are presented that demonstrate the efficacy of this experiment here.

14. Why gels of these stiffnesses were used has not been justified, nor has the susceptibility of these nuclei to damage at 12Kpa increased compared to greater stiffness been well discussed. How do the collagens within the gels compare to the ECM that EBCs are in contact with? How does the stiffness of the posterior embryo compare to these gels? etc.

15. The claims of the paper would need to be toned down throughout the manuscript without further controls being added.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

This important study identifies a new type of anti-apoptotic function for YAP/TAZ proteins in zebrafish. While YAP/TAZ proteins are known to protect cells from apoptosis in many different animal species, the authors identify a novel and specific requirement for YAP/TAZ in preventing apoptosis caused by mechanical forces that flatten the cell nucleus and lead to DNA damage (an inducer of apoptosis). Double yap1, taz/wwtr1 knockout zebrafish embryos reveal an essential function of YAP/TAZ in maintaining cell survival in the basal layer cells of the epidermis, cells that experience significant mechanical stretch during embryonic morphogenesis. It is proposed that mechanical stress/strain in the epidermis leads to genomic stress, which then requires nuclear translocation of YAP/TAZ to ensure cell survival. In addition, YAP/TAZ are shown to promote elastic expansion and flattening of epidermal cells in response to stretch. The findings are an important addition to previous work in mice, where YAP/TAZ have a mainly pro-proliferative role in basal layer skin epidermal cells during development. Thus, in different contexts, mechanical stress/strain can induce nuclear YAP/TAZ to drive either increased cell proliferation (as in mouse skin), or cell expansion/flattening and survival (as in fish embryonic skin), to govern how the tissue responds to the mechanical stimulus.

The conclusions are clearly supported by the results.

The major strengths are the quality of the zebrafish genetics and phenotypic analysis, as well as the novel insights produced, particularly that the response of zebrafish skin to mechanical stretch is different to that of mouse skin, yet still governed by YAP/TAZ. That mechanical stress leads to genome stress is also a novel finding, and the role of YAP/TAZ in ensuring cell survival in this particular context is also a novel function for these proteins.

These findings will be of major significance to both developmental biology and cancer.

[Editors' note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "DNA-damage induced cell death in yap1;wwtr1 mutant epidermal basal cells" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by Marianne Bronner (Senior Editor) and a Reviewing Editor.

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:

1. The major deficiency of the original submission of this manuscript was a lack of direct evidence that the cell size/cell stretching phenotype and the apoptosis phenotype in yap1/wwtr1 double mutant zebrafish are due to mechanical stress. The authors have addressed this issue not with new data, but by making their conclusions more circumspect. The problem is that the bold conclusions that made the study more broadly interesting are not adequately supported by the data. For example, the impact statement for the manuscript, "Substrate rigidity modulates genomic stress in the epidermal basal cells of the developing zebrafish embryo and Yap1 and Wwtr1 are required for its survival" is not clearly demonstrated by the data in the manuscript. Thus, the study in its current form is of less general interest and may be better suited for a different journal.

2. The author's response is that further experiments are not really feasible. However, this is not entirely true. Genetic mosaic experiments are routine in zebrafish. It is true that transplantation of yap1/wwtr1 double mutant cells into wild-type embryos is challenging because only 1/16 donor embryos will be double mutant, and one doesn't know the genotype of the embryos at the time of transplantation. There are ways to perform the experiment by allowing the donor embryos to develop along with the associated mosaic embryos created by the transplantation. The double mutants could be identified as the phenotype becomes apparent and the associated mosaic embryos could be characterized in detail. Thus, this experiment is difficult, but not impossible.

3. The converse experiment of transplanting wild-type cells into the double mutants is quite doable. Such an experiment could be done to test whether the reduction in ECM production in the yap1/wwtr1 double mutants is responsible for the reduction in size of epidermal cells. Transplants into 200 blastula stage embryos is easily doable in a single day and the phenotypes of the host yap1/wwtr1double mutant embryos will be evident as the embryos develop. Given the size of the epidermal cell population, virtually every yap1/wwtr1 double mutant would have some wild-type cells in their epidermis. Thus, more than 10 such mosaics embryos could be created in a day and there would be ample control embryos.

4. In the one new experiment presented in the revision (Figure 7), it is not clear why knockdown of yap or taz causes an increase in DNA damage foci, but knockdown of yap/taz together does not increase DNA damage. No explanation is provided for this discrepancy.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72302.sa1

Author response

Essential revisions:

The most important point seems that there is a lack of direct evidence that the cell size/cell stretching phenotype and the apoptosis phenotype are due to mechanical stress. There needs to be better evidence to support this.

Is it known whether different regions of the epidermis experience different levels of mechanical stress? If so, there could be significant differences in mechanical stress among different regions of the epidermis.

This is a very interesting point, and it is currently not well known whether mechanical stress on the epidermis is uniform across the entire embryo.

It is a major challenge to perform robust and reliable in vivo mechanical perturbations to the early embryo. That is why we opted for the perturbations either in the later embryo or utilising cell culture. The latter experiments were generally supportive of our conclusions, but obviously they represent a different system. Therefore, as suggested by the Reviewers, we have toned down the confidence in a number of our conclusions.

Another related idea was to perform transplantation experiments. This is a very powerful approach that has been successfully used in zebrafish. However, in our case, we are analysing a double mutant with 1/16 success rate. Given the trickiness of the transplantation experiment and the low number of successes, this experiment was not feasible given our current time constraints. We have toned down the appropriate conclusions related to this part, reflecting the uncertainty that remains. However, we hope that the Reviewers understand the technical challenges. We emphasise that the significant majority of results presented have not been questioned. Therefore, we believe that the results and conclusions are generally on a solid footing and suitable for publication.

We agree that it is important to evaluate whether differential mechanical stress on the yolk contributes to the observed yap1;wwtr1 double mutant phenotype (i.e. apoptosis of epidermal cells on the yolk). We therefore elected to test this hypothesis under a more controlled and well-defined environment with cell culture systems. We include new data to test this hypothesis (Figure 7).

The authors need to consider cell area, which they measure, versus cell volume.

The epidermal cells flatten as the embryo progresses through segmentation stages. During the 6-10 somite stages (s.s.), when the apoptosis phenotype appears, the epidermal cells are very thin (about 1 mm). Thus, the measured area approximates cell volume. We have clarified in the text that cell size refers to the apical area (line 155).

How dependent is periderm growth on proliferation of the EBCs at this stage of zebrafish development? The authors should comment this point.

EBCs are highly proliferative at this stage driven by ΔNP63 as shown by Lee & Kimelman (2002). In the absence of ΔNP63, which is expressed in the EBCs but not the peridermal cells, EBC proliferation is reduced, but periderm growth does not appear to be impeded by this perturbation prior to 20 hpf – when apoptosis of the EBCs are observed in yap1;wwtr1 double mutants.

There was some confusion from the reviewers because you mention in the abstract previous work on the ventral fin while that region was not examined in this study. This is an example of where the broader audience would benefit from some further details/text changes.

We have added introductory texts to give more context as to why our present focus had shifted away from the ventral fin to the epidermis on the yolk (lines 56-61).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Yap1 and Wwtr1 are important, partially redundant proteins involved regulation of organ size and have been extensively studied. Yap1 and Wwtr1 are known to prevent apoptosis. In the adult mouse epidermis, Yap1/Wwtr1 regulate cell proliferation during wound healing. The role of Yap1/Wwtr1 in epidermis development is unknown and the topic of this study.

The manuscript by Lai et al., focuses on the role of Yap1/Wwtr1 in the development of the zebrafish epidermis. The authors present convincing data that epidermal basal cells (EBCs) exhibit reduced cellular growth and increased DNA damage and apoptosis in Yap1/Wwtr1 double mutant zebrafish embryos. The major weakness of the study is the underlying mechanisms of these phenotypes is not clearly established.

The data presented in the first five figures is convincing. Yap1/Wwtr1 are necessary for the increase in cell size of EBCs and prevent apoptosis of these cells in the post-gastrulation zebrafish embryo. The authors hypothesize that increasing mechanical stress on the Yap1/Wwtr1 mutant EBC cells causes the apoptosis.

We are pleased that the Reviewer finds the significant majority of our conclusions to be well supported by the presented findings.

In figure six, the authors try a nice in vivo experiment in which they increase mechanical stress in the head of the developing zebrafish embryo by injecting a bolus of mineral oil into the brain. However, this manipulation did not result in the expected increase in apoptosis. It is presumed that this experiment was performed in wild-type embryos as the authors do not specify the genotype. It is not clear why the authors did not try this experiment in Yap1/Wwtr1 mutant embryos as they should be more sensitive to this manipulation according to the author's model.

We thank the Reviewer for this suggested experiment. Unfortunately, the technique has been developed and tested for embryos after 20 hpf, which is beyond the viability of the double mutants. In addition, when the experimental results carried out on WT embryos proved negative, we did not pursue it further as Singapore and India were under strict border controls due to the Δ SARS-COV2 variant – the fish were in Singapore, while the technique was performed in India. We have toned down our conclusions on this experiment to reflect the remaining uncertainty in our results.

In the latter part of figure 6, the authors plate human keratinocyte cells on substrates of different stiffnesses. Here, they observe an increase in DNA damage on cells plated on substrates with a stiffness {greater than or equal to}12.0 kPa. These keratinocytes are also prone to DNA damage via UV irradiation, but it doesn't appear that plating cells on stiffer substrates make them more sensitive to UV induced DNA damage. The relevance of these keratinocyte experiments to understanding the phenotype of Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants is not entirely clear.

As stated above, a challenge we faced was performing robust and reproducible mechanical manipulations in vivo. The use of keratinocytes was to have a cleaner system to explore the role of stiffness in the genomic stability – but obviously at the cost of removing from the in vivo system.

We have included an additional part to the discussion (lines 215-224) that outlines the link between the experiments. We also include an appropriate caveat highlighting the limitation of our approach.

The major weakness of the study is the lack of a mechanistic understanding of the cell growth and apoptosis phenotypes. In the discussion, the authors hypothesize that the defect in cell growth is due to a reduction in the density of the ECM. This is based on the observations that ECM density has been shown to increase cell size in other contexts and the fact that the expression of a number of ECM proteins is reduced in Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants. This hypothesis is easily testable via genetic mosaics as one would expect this phenotype to be cell non-autonomous. Wild-type EBCs in Yap1/Wwtr1 hosts should also exhibit a reduction in cellular growth. Conversely, Yap1/Wwtr1 EBCs in a wild-type host should exhibit restored cell growth.

We thank the Reviewer for highlighting this point, but unfortunately this experiment is extremely challenging. We discuss this point above at the beginning of the letter. We now include a caveat regarding this in the Discussion, to make clear where future work can progress (lines 231-232).

The authors suggest that the increase in the ECM and the corresponding increase in the mechanical stiffness of the embryonic environment causes Yap1/Wwtr1 mutant EBCs to apoptose. In this interpretation, which seems to contradict the first hypothesis, Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants do not produce enough ECM for EBCs to reach their normal size, but Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants do produce enough ECM-dependent stiffness to induce EBC apoptosis. The suggested genetic mosaics experiments could also provide evidence for the author's explanation of the apoptosis phenotype. Might one expect an even higher rate of apoptosis of Yap1/Wwtr1 mutant EBCs when they are developing in a more mechanically robust wild-type host?

We agree with the Reviewer that there is tension in the results from our experiments. It appears that Yap1/Wwtr1 has two important functions here: (1) Drive expression of ECM genes; and (2) promote survival under genomic stress. These processes are intertwined with the hypothesis that under increased mechanical stiffness cells experience genomic stress. The suggested experiment of performing a mosaic experiment should disentangle and address this hypothesis.

As outlined above, unfortunately such a mosaic experiment is very challenging to perform, both due to the early developmental stage and the very low probability of gaining cells of correct genotype. Even if the embryo transplantation experiment worked, it’s likely that the results would be confusing as the readouts may be unclear. For example, our key readout is apoptosis of mutant cells which, if the hypothesis is true, becomes absent during sample collection and imaging. This readout means that either transplantation for that embryo was suboptimal, or that we are only observing after the fact that the apoptosed cells have been cleared away.

This is why we decided to robustly test this hypothesis using human-derived keratinocytes, namely the HaCaT cell line. Obviously, we lose the advantage of the in vivo system. However, we have far greater control on the perturbations, making readout clearer. We found that indeed, both depletion of Yap1/Wwtr1 and increasing mechanical stiffness could induce recruitment of γH2AX. We have introduced suitable caveats within the manuscript to make these points clearer.

One issue with the text is ambiguity about what the authors mean by "stress". As in physics, this could mean force per unit area. Alternatively, it could refer to a challenging physiological condition as the term is frequently used in biology. Since this study involves mechanobiology, the authors would need to clearly define what they mean by stress. This ambiguity makes it difficult to always discern the meaning of the text, and it appears that the different meanings are conflated in the text.

We thank the Reviewer for highlighting this issue – we agree that this term is often used ambiguously. We have tried to clarify our terminology in the manuscript. We have endeavoured to make sure that when referring to the sense with regards to challenging physiological conditions, we always use “genomic stress”. Further, to avoid confusion, we do not use the word “stress” explicitly in the manuscript to refer to the physics meaning of force/area.

Relatedly, it is unclear what the authors mean by "genomic stress". Is the genome under greater mechanical stress in Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants? It would also be helpful to state how the authors think increased substrate stiffness increases genomic stress. Is this relationship purely mechanical or is cell signaling and gene expression involved? What is currently known about the link between the mechanical environment and genomic stress?

The question of the link between mechanical environment and genomic stress is a topic of significant interest. Recent work from the Wickström lab (Nava et al. Cell 2020) has revealed that nuclear softening can protect the genome from mechanical perturbations in epithelial tissues. This stands in contrast to experiments on cancer lines, that reveal DNA damage under mechanical stress (Denais et al. Science 2016, Raab et al. Science 2016). We include these references when introducing the concept of genomic stress (line 76), which helps to clarify the comparison of genomic with mechanical stress.

The study is interesting and rigorously performed. However, the authors need to better substantiate their conclusions to merit publication in eLife. Specifically, the authors need to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the cell growth and apoptosis phenotypes. The beforementioned mineral oil injections into Yap1/Wwtr1 mutants could provide useful data. However, the genetic mosaic experiments could really be clarifying, and these are standard experiments in zebrafish.

As stated above, the mosaic experiments are especially challenging in this case and the expected readouts (i.e. apoptosis of mutant cells) may not necessarily address the hypothesis at hand.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):Lai et al. submit a manuscript investigating the role for Wwtr1/Taz and Yap1 in morphogenesis of the posterior body and epidermal fin fold. Through Zebrafish double mutant embryos, the authors present data suggesting that Wwtr1 and Yap1 cooperate to protect epidermal basal cells from DNA damage during morphogenesis, confirming previously published studies. Not only are both Wwrt1 and Yap1 localised to EBC nuclei, but these cells undergo Tp53 independent apoptosis driven by DNA damage. Recruitment of DNA damage marker γH2AX in mutant embryos is also associated with reduced cell size. Using an in vivo ventricular inflation assay and in vitro cell stretching, the authors suggest that increased tissue stiffness may cause DNA damage that is protected against by Wwrt1 and Yap1.

The submitted manuscript aims to investigate Wwrt1 and Yap1 in epidermal morphogenesis and presents data suggesting a surprisingly strong need for both proteins to protect Epidermal Basal Cell DNA during somitogenesis. While the authors confirm no proliferation defect in mutant embryos, proliferation is assayed early in the mutant pathology and may not represent the cell dynamics present in later stages where the authors also find EBCs to be smaller. A conflict arises between these data as increased cell death and no significant increase in proliferation might lead to epithelial rupture. Why mutant EBC are smaller is not directly addressed but the authors suggest that embryonic stiffening might underlie epidermal susceptibility to DNA damage, however, there are insufficient control experiments and discussion to make this conclusion.

We thank the Reviewer for their reading of our paper and their constructive critiques. Below, we outline how we address these concerns.

Further experiments and discussion are required to make some of the claims presented here and to improve impact of the work within this hotly studied pathway.

1. Results section is not very well motivated. For example, why 16-18 ss? Not entirely clear whether this stage was analysed by previous publication, why exactly that is so important for the phenotype – why that might be crucial in epidermal development as opposed to other stages.

We agree it is important to clearly outline our particularly choice of timing. We have added additional detail on lines 85-90.

2. The text states no apoptosis was seen in the tail as before, however, the image shown in Figure 1 does appear to have TUNNEL staining in the posterior embryo albeit much less than the rest of the embryo. Is there any way to quantify this phenotype and represent the average phenotypes for the brood?

The quantification for this suggestion is reflected in Figure 1B’. It is worth noting that it is less reliable to quantify TUNEL foci of images derived from the 10x lens. The images shown in Figure 1 are representative of our embryos. The focus of this paper is the epidermis phenotype of yap1/wwtr1 mutants, and so a detailed quantification of the temporal-spatial apoptosis paper is beyond the paper scope.

3. No justification for studying 6 ss embryos for detailed looked at EBCs. Is there a constant level of apoptosis across these stages of development or does it change over time?

As apoptosis accumulates over time, the TUNEL signal was localised to apoptotic fragments (very late into apoptosis) and was thus difficult to assess which epidermal cell type was affected (i.e. TP63+ or TP63- or peridermal cells). We have now included more details in the paragraph (lines 84-101) where we introduce these experiments.

4. Figure 1: Single colour panels would be required to show nuclear TUNNEL staining.

We have now included the single colour channels in Figure 1, Supplementary Figure 1.

5. Figure 2: Throughout text and legends figure 2 is said to show Wwrt1 and Yap1 expression but only immunofluorescence is shown. Quantification of immunofluorescence should be added to the main figure to bolster the imaging data.

We have now included the quantification into the main Figure 2, which was originally in the associated supplementary figure­.

6. Figure 2 S1: The pattern of apoptosis seen in the TEAD binding mutant is different from that seen in the complete null. Could these differences indicate a spatial difference in Wwrt1/Yap1 function? This is not addressed and could be improved by quantification/comparison with other mutants.

The phenotypes of the TEAD binding mutant is not identical but similar to the complete null ones. The increased apoptosis is in a similar domain of the embryo and timing of apoptosis onset is like the complete nulls. We do expect some variations between the mutant embryos but the results across all our embryos (7 for the complete null and 6 for the TEAD mutant) are consistent. Therefore, our current data does not suggest that there are spatial differences. More detailed future work may reveal more subtle differences.

7. Why proliferation was assayed in mutants at 3-5 ss is not well justified. Ideally 6 ss and 18 ss would be included to confirm no change in proliferation. This is especially important as not only do mutant cells become smaller, then die more often. How enough cells would be made to compensate for cell loss without rupture of the epithelium leaves these data looking conspicuous and should also be addressed in the text as well.

We chose to assay proliferation at these stages as loss of cells to apoptosis at later stages will reduce the number of cells, which potentially confounds with fewer number of ph3 cells. Although documenting a trend would be interesting, it is beyond the scope of the present investigation.

The question of cell compensation does not arise in this scenario as the periderm remains intact and therefore the integrity of the tissue remains intact.

8. Live Capase-8 probe is not cited in results text.

We include in the Methods the use of the Caspase-8 probe, including where we acquired the probe (line 306-310).

9. The role for Tp53 in the embryo/cell or why it is used to distinguish the extrinsic apoptotic pathway is not explained.

Tp53 plays a role in tumour suppression and drives apoptosis. However, we recognise that upon revisiting this experiment, that it does not aid in distinguishing the apoptotic pathways. Therefore, we now omit this from the revision.

10. Figure 4: No statistical tests on image quantifications.

We have now included this in the revised manuscript.

11. Cell size was calculated as the 2D area of EBCs, however this is totally cell size as these cells could take on another shape, becoming more columnar. In this case cell size could be the same but tissue geometry would be different and put different force upon the nucleus.

This is a valid concern. However, in this case the EBCs are exceptionally thin. Their average depth is estimated to be 1 mm. Therefore, the area is a close proxy of the cell size as the size in the third dimension is small. We have clarified this on line 155.

12. Further to comment 7. How can mutant EBCs be smaller and there be no rupturing of the epithelium? Are other parts of the epithelium proliferating more/less to allow for this constraint?

We thank the Reviewer for highlighting this. It is relevant to point out that the periderm remains intact and is the superficial layer that keeps the embryo from rupturing.

13. It is not clear which EBCs were assayed in ventricular injection experiments. The paper is focussed on the posterior embryo, yet assays whether the head epithelium is susceptible to stretch induced DNA damage. While a potential proxy the strengths and weaknesses of this experiment is not provided – which include the very short time scale of stretching. Further, no data are presented that demonstrate the efficacy of this experiment here.

The ventricular inflation technique has been thoroughly tested and its efficacy has been reported elsewhere (Lewis, N. S., et al., 2020). Indeed, the same scientist (Geetika Chouhan) performed these experiments. Unfortunately, local inflation at the yolk area has not been thoroughly tested for its efficacy and robust readouts, thus we did not attempt it.

14. Why gels of these stiffnesses were used has not been justified, nor has the susceptibility of these nuclei to damage at 12Kpa increased compared to greater stiffness been well discussed. How do the collagens within the gels compare to the ECM that EBCs are in contact with? How does the stiffness of the posterior embryo compare to these gels? etc.

As our aim was to address the question on whether stiffer environment could induce genomic stress we sampled a range of hydrogel stiffness for this experiment. While measurements of relative stiffness changes are possible in vivo (e.g. using laser ablation or aspiration) it is challenging to gain absolute numbers on the embryo stiffness (Petridou and Heisenberg, EMBO Journal 2019). Cantilevers have been used to estimate the mechanical properties of the early zebrafish embryo. The measured Young’s modulus is similar to epithelial cells, though this measurements are only approximate (Tomizawa et al. Sensors 2019). It’s likely that the embryo falls within the range of stiffness that we measured in cell culture. We have now justified our approach more clearly (lines 215-224).

15. The claims of the paper would need to be toned down throughout the manuscript without further controls being added.

Given the concerns raised by the Reviewers and that some suggested experiments are not currently doable, we agree with this comment. We have adjusted our conclusions to more closely reflect the confidence we have in our experiments (e.g. lines 220-222, 231-232, 241-243).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

This important study identifies a new type of anti-apoptotic function for YAP/TAZ proteins in zebrafish. While YAP/TAZ proteins are known to protect cells from apoptosis in many different animal species, the authors identify a novel and specific requirement for YAP/TAZ in preventing apoptosis caused by mechanical forces that flatten the cell nucleus and lead to DNA damage (an inducer of apoptosis). Double yap1, taz/wwtr1 knockout zebrafish embryos reveal an essential function of YAP/TAZ in maintaining cell survival in the basal layer cells of the epidermis, cells that experience significant mechanical stretch during embryonic morphogenesis. It is proposed that mechanical stress/strain in the epidermis leads to genomic stress, which then requires nuclear translocation of YAP/TAZ to ensure cell survival. In addition, YAP/TAZ are shown to promote elastic expansion and flattening of epidermal cells in response to stretch. The findings are an important addition to previous work in mice, where YAP/TAZ have a mainly pro-proliferative role in basal layer skin epidermal cells during development. Thus, in different contexts, mechanical stress/strain can induce nuclear YAP/TAZ to drive either increased cell proliferation (as in mouse skin), or cell expansion/flattening and survival (as in fish embryonic skin), to govern how the tissue responds to the mechanical stimulus.

The conclusions are clearly supported by the results.

The major strengths are the quality of the zebrafish genetics and phenotypic analysis, as well as the novel insights produced, particularly that the response of zebrafish skin to mechanical stretch is different to that of mouse skin, yet still governed by YAP/TAZ. That mechanical stress leads to genome stress is also a novel finding, and the role of YAP/TAZ in ensuring cell survival in this particular context is also a novel function for these proteins.

These findings will be of major significance to both developmental biology and cancer.

We thank the Reviewer for their overall positive review of our manuscript.

[Editors' note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:

1. The major deficiency of the original submission of this manuscript was a lack of direct evidence that the cell size/cell stretching phenotype and the apoptosis phenotype in yap1/wwtr1 double mutant zebrafish are due to mechanical stress. The authors have addressed this issue not with new data, but by making their conclusions more circumspect. The problem is that the bold conclusions that made the study more broadly interesting are not adequately supported by the data. For example, the impact statement for the manuscript, "Substrate rigidity modulates genomic stress in the epidermal basal cells of the developing zebrafish embryo and Yap1 and Wwtr1 are required for its survival" is not clearly demonstrated by the data in the manuscript. Thus, the study in its current form is of less general interest and may be better suited for a different journal.

We thank the reviewers for this feedback. We have revised the concluding statements to capture the results of the experiments presented.

“Thus, our experiments suggest that substrate rigidity modulates genomic stress in epidermal cells, and that Yap1 and Wwtr1 promotes their survival.”

As support for the relationship between substrate rigidity and genomic stress is limited to culturing HaCaT cells on different substrate rigidity, we have corrected the first part of the conclusion by not alluding this relationship to the developing epidermis, which should rightly be tested with mosaic experiments as suggested below.

The second part of the conclusion reflects the observed phenotype of the double yap1;wwtr1 mutants.

Along with the above changes, a concern is raised about the generality of our results. Our findings that Yap1/Wwtr1 play an important role in cell survival in cells under mechanical stress is a very important one. It has clear potential impact, from developmental biology to cancer research.

Therefore, even though our conclusions are toned down, they will still be of broad interest.

2. The author's response is that further experiments are not really feasible. However, this is not entirely true. Genetic mosaic experiments are routine in zebrafish. It is true that transplantation of yap1/wwtr1 double mutant cells into wild-type embryos is challenging because only 1/16 donor embryos will be double mutant, and one doesn't know the genotype of the embryos at the time of transplantation. There are ways to perform the experiment by allowing the donor embryos to develop along with the associated mosaic embryos created by the transplantation. The double mutants could be identified as the phenotype becomes apparent and the associated mosaic embryos could be characterized in detail. Thus, this experiment is difficult, but not impossible.

We agree with the reviewer that this experiment is difficult, but not impossible. However, we face two hurdles at the moment.

First, despite a number of trials, the relevant fish in our system are not spawning well. We likely need to out-cross the fish to return them to laying well, which will take > 3 months.

A further issue here is that while this experiment is doable in a technical sense, it requires significant hands-on work from dedicated and trained lab personnel. Due to Covid, much of the work on this project has been significantly delayed and key lab personnel have subsequently moved onto new positions. Therefore, getting the expertise together is a major challenge at present.

Given the above issues, it is not possible to do the requested experiments within a reasonable timescale. We have therefore toned down our conclusion on this part (see [1]). Despite this, we stress that the manuscript still has numerous strong experiments that provide support for our key conclusions regarding Yap/Wwtr1 and cell survival under mechanical stress. Hence, we hope that the reviewers can accept the manuscript in this current version given the constraints we face.

3. The converse experiment of transplanting wild-type cells into the double mutants is quite doable. Such an experiment could be done to test whether the reduction in ECM production in the yap1/wwtr1 double mutants is responsible for the reduction in size of epidermal cells. Transplants into 200 blastula stage embryos is easily doable in a single day and the phenotypes of the host yap1/wwtr1double mutant embryos will be evident as the embryos develop. Given the size of the epidermal cell population, virtually every yap1/wwtr1 double mutant would have some wild-type cells in their epidermis. Thus, more than 10 such mosaics embryos could be created in a day and there would be ample control embryos.

This experiment is facing similar challenges to point [2] above.

4. In the one new experiment presented in the revision (Figure 7), it is not clear why knockdown of yap or taz causes an increase in DNA damage foci, but knockdown of yap/taz together does not increase DNA damage. No explanation is provided for this discrepancy.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this omission. We have added this explanation in lines 197-204, reproduced here:

“We found that double knockdown of YAP1 and WWTR1 did not deplete their protein expression, unlike the single YAP1 or WWTR1 knockdowns (Figure 7A). Accordingly, the depletion of YAP1 or WWTR1 resulted in greater expression of γH2AX by Western Blot (Figure 7A), and more γH2AX foci (Figure 7B). However, we could not test the redundancy of YAP1 and WWTR1 as the double knockdown was incomplete, which may explain the unchanged γH2AX levels in the double knockdown compared to control. This observation suggests a role for YAP1/WWTR1 in protecting the genome from DNA damage.”

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72302.sa2

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jason KH Lai

    Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Pearlyn JY Toh
    For correspondence
    jasonlaikh@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3476-4733
  2. Pearlyn JY Toh

    Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Contribution
    Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Jason KH Lai
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0907-7947
  3. Hamizah A Cognart

    Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Contribution
    Data curation, Investigation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3090-1526
  4. Geetika Chouhan

    Department of Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India
    Contribution
    Data curation, Investigation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  5. Timothy E Saunders

    1. Mechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    2. Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    3. Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, A*Star, Singapore, Singapore
    4. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing
    For correspondence
    timothy.saunders@warwick.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5755-0060

Funding

Ministry of Education - Singapore (MOE2016-T3-1-002)

  • Jason KH Lai
  • Pearlyn JY Toh
  • Hamizah A Cognart
  • Timothy E Saunders

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

Acknowledgements

The yap1bns22 zebrafish allele was generated by JKHL in Didier Stainier’s lab (MPI, Bad Nauheim), and we thank him for his support. We also thank Boon Chuan Low (MBI, Singapore), Mahendra Sonawane (TIFR, India), and Tom Carney (NTU, Singapore) for insightful discussions and suggestions. This work was funded by the Singapore Ministry of Education Tier 3 grant MOE2016-T3-1-002 and Mechanobiology Institute core funding.

Ethics

All zebrafish husbandry was performed under standard conditions in accordance with institutional (Biological Resource Center, A*Star, Singapore, and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India) and national ethical and animal welfare guidelines (Singapore IACUC: 181,323 and GMAC: Res-21–034). All users were trained in ethical handling of zebrafish.

Senior and Reviewing Editor

  1. Marianne E Bronner, California Institute of Technology, United States

Reviewer

  1. Barry J Thompson, JCSMR - ANU, Australia

Publication history

  1. Preprint posted: July 23, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: July 23, 2021
  3. Accepted: May 29, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: May 30, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 31, 2022 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record published: June 14, 2022 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2022, Lai, Toh et al.

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

  • 865
    Page views
  • 243
    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. Jason KH Lai
  2. Pearlyn JY Toh
  3. Hamizah A Cognart
  4. Geetika Chouhan
  5. Timothy E Saunders
(2022)
DNA-damage induced cell death in yap1;wwtr1 mutant epidermal basal cells
eLife 11:e72302.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72302
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    John G Dingus, Jonathan CY Tang ... Constance L Cepko
    Research Article

    Conventional antibodies and their derived fragments are difficult to deploy against intracellular targets in live cells, due to their bulk and structural complexity. Nanobodies provide an alternative modality, with well-documented examples of intracellular expression. Despite their promise as intracellular reagents, there has not been a systematic study of nanobody intracellular expression. Here, we examined intracellular expression of 75 nanobodies from the Protein Data Bank. Surprisingly, a majority of these nanobodies were unstable in cells, illustrated by aggregation and clearance. Using comparative analysis and framework mutagenesis, we developed a general approach that stabilized a great majority of nanobodies that were originally unstable intracellularly, without significantly compromising target binding. This approach led to the identification of distinct sequence features that impacted the intracellular stability of tested nanobodies. Mutationally stabilized nanobody expression was found to extend to in vivo contexts, in the murine retina and in E. coli. These data provide for improvements in nanobody engineering for intracellular applications, potentiating a growing field of intracellular interrogation and intervention.

    1. Cell Biology
    Benjamin Barsi-Rhyne, Aashish Manglik, Mark von Zastrow
    Research Article Updated

    β-Arrestins are master regulators of cellular signaling that operate by desensitizing ligand-activated G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) at the plasma membrane and promoting their subsequent endocytosis. The endocytic activity of β-arrestins is ligand dependent, triggered by GPCR binding, and increasingly recognized to have a multitude of downstream signaling and trafficking consequences that are specifically programmed by the bound GPCR. However, only one biochemical ‘mode’ for GPCR-mediated triggering of the endocytic activity is presently known – displacement of the β-arrestin C-terminus (CT) to expose clathrin-coated pit-binding determinants that are masked in the inactive state. Here, we revise this view by uncovering a second mode of GPCR-triggered endocytic activity that is independent of the β-arrestin CT and, instead, requires the cytosolic base of the β-arrestin C-lobe (CLB). We further show each of the discrete endocytic modes is triggered in a receptor-specific manner, with GPCRs that bind β-arrestin transiently (‘class A’) primarily triggering the CLB-dependent mode and GPCRs that bind more stably (‘class B’) triggering both the CT and CLB-dependent modes in combination. Moreover, we show that different modes have opposing effects on the net signaling output of receptors – with the CLB-dependent mode promoting rapid signal desensitization and the CT-dependent mode enabling prolonged signaling. Together, these results fundamentally revise understanding of how β-arrestins operate as efficient endocytic adaptors while facilitating diversity and flexibility in the control of cell signaling.