Co-aggregation and secondary nucleation in the life cycle of human prolactin/galanin functional amyloids

  1. Debdeep Chatterjee
  2. Reeba S Jacob
  3. Soumik Ray
  4. Ambuja Navalkar
  5. Namrata Singh
  6. Shinjinee Sengupta
  7. Laxmikant Gadhe
  8. Pradeep Kadu
  9. Debalina Datta
  10. Ajoy Paul
  11. Sakunthala Arunima
  12. Surabhi Mehra
  13. Chinmai Pindi
  14. Santosh Kumar
  15. Praful Singru
  16. Sanjib Senapati
  17. Samir K Maji  Is a corresponding author
  1. Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
  2. Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India
  3. National Institute of Science Education and Research, India

Abstract

Synergistic-aggregation and cross-seeding by two different proteins/peptides in the amyloid aggregation are well evident in various neurological disorders including Alzheimer’s disease. Here, we show co-storage of human Prolactin (PRL), which is associated with lactation in mammals, and neuropeptide galanin (GAL) as functional amyloids in secretory granules (SGs) of the female rat. Using a wide variety of biophysical studies, we show that irrespective of the difference in sequence and structure, both hormones facilitate their synergic aggregation to amyloid fibrils. Although each hormone possesses homotypic seeding ability, a unidirectional cross-seeding of GAL aggregation by PRL seeds and the inability of cross seeding by mixed fibrils suggest tight regulation of functional amyloid formation by these hormones for their efficient storage in SGs. Further, the faster release of functional hormones from mixed fibrils compared to the corresponding individual amyloid, suggests a novel mechanism of heterologous amyloid formation in functional amyloids of SGs in the pituitary.

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 main Figures 1-5 and Supplementary figures and tables.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Debdeep Chatterjee

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Reeba S Jacob

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Soumik Ray

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ambuja Navalkar

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Namrata Singh

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Shinjinee Sengupta

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Laxmikant Gadhe

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Pradeep Kadu

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Debalina Datta

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ajoy Paul

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Sakunthala Arunima

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Surabhi Mehra

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1777-673X
  13. Chinmai Pindi

    Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Santosh Kumar

    School of Biological Sciences, National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Praful Singru

    School of Biological Sciences, National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Sanjib Senapati

    Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Samir K Maji

    Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
    For correspondence
    samirmaji@iitb.ac.in
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9110-1565

Funding

Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India (BT/PR9797/NNT/28/774/2014)

  • Samir K Maji

Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India (BT/HRD/35/01/03/2020)

  • Samir K Maji

Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India (CRG/2019/001133)

  • Samir K Maji

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Mishaela R Rubin, Columbia University Medical Center, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Adult, female, Sprague-Dawley rats taken for this study were maintained under the standard environmental conditions and Institutional Animal Ethical Committee (IAEC) at NISER, Bhubaneswar, India approved the experimental protocols. (Protocol Numbers: NISER/SBS/AH-210 and NISER/SBS/AH-212).

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: September 1, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: September 13, 2021
  3. Accepted: March 3, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: March 8, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: April 8, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Chatterjee et al.

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

Metrics

  • 2,001
    Page views
  • 323
    Downloads
  • 8
    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. Debdeep Chatterjee
  2. Reeba S Jacob
  3. Soumik Ray
  4. Ambuja Navalkar
  5. Namrata Singh
  6. Shinjinee Sengupta
  7. Laxmikant Gadhe
  8. Pradeep Kadu
  9. Debalina Datta
  10. Ajoy Paul
  11. Sakunthala Arunima
  12. Surabhi Mehra
  13. Chinmai Pindi
  14. Santosh Kumar
  15. Praful Singru
  16. Sanjib Senapati
  17. Samir K Maji
(2022)
Co-aggregation and secondary nucleation in the life cycle of human prolactin/galanin functional amyloids
eLife 11:e73835.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73835

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73835

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Jake W Anderson, David Vaisar ... Natalie G Ahn
    Research Article

    Activation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase-2 (ERK2) by phosphorylation has been shown to involve changes in protein dynamics, as determined by hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS) and NMR relaxation dispersion measurements. These can be described by a global exchange between two conformational states of the active kinase, named ‘L’ and ‘R,’ where R is associated with a catalytically productive ATP-binding mode. An ATP-competitive ERK1/2 inhibitor, Vertex-11e, has properties of conformation selection for the R-state, revealing movements of the activation loop that are allosterically coupled to the kinase active site. However, the features of inhibitors important for R-state selection are unknown. Here, we survey a panel of ATP-competitive ERK inhibitors using HDX-MS and NMR and identify 14 new molecules with properties of R-state selection. They reveal effects propagated to distal regions in the P+1 and helix αF segments surrounding the activation loop, as well as helix αL16. Crystal structures of inhibitor complexes with ERK2 reveal systematic shifts in the Gly loop and helix αC, mediated by a Tyr-Tyr ring stacking interaction and the conserved Lys-Glu salt bridge. The findings suggest a model for the R-state involving small movements in the N-lobe that promote compactness within the kinase active site and alter mobility surrounding the activation loop. Such properties of conformation selection might be exploited to modulate the protein docking interface used by ERK substrates and effectors.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Anne E Hultgren, Nicole MF Patras, Jenna Hicks
    Feature Article

    Organizations that fund research are keen to ensure that their grant selection processes are fair and equitable for all applicants. In 2020, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation introduced blinding to the first stage of the process used to review applications for Beckman Young Investigator (BYI) awards: applicants were instructed to blind the technical proposal in their initial Letter of Intent by omitting their name, gender, gender-identifying pronouns, and institutional information. Here we examine the impact of this change by comparing the data on gender and institutional prestige of the applicants in the first four years of the new policy (BYI award years 2021–2024) with data on the last four years of the old policy (2017–2020). We find that under the new policy, the distribution of applicants invited to submit a full application shifted from those affiliated with institutions regarded as more prestigious to those outside of this group, and that this trend continued through to the final program awards. We did not find evidence of a shift in the distribution of applicants with respect to gender.