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

  • 2,009
    Page views
  • 330
    Downloads
  • 9
    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
    2. Medicine
    Giulia Leanza, Francesca Cannata ... Nicola Napoli
    Research Article

    Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with higher fracture risk, despite normal or high bone mineral density. We reported that bone formation genes (SOST and RUNX2) and advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) were impaired in T2D. We investigated Wnt signaling regulation and its association with AGEs accumulation and bone strength in T2D from bone tissue of 15 T2D and 21 non-diabetic postmenopausal women undergoing hip arthroplasty. Bone histomorphometry revealed a trend of low mineralized volume in T2D (T2D 0.249% [0.156–0.366]) vs non-diabetic subjects 0.352% [0.269–0.454]; p=0.053, as well as reduced bone strength (T2D 21.60 MPa [13.46–30.10] vs non-diabetic subjects 76.24 MPa [26.81–132.9]; p=0.002). We also showed that gene expression of Wnt agonists LEF-1 (p=0.0136) and WNT10B (p=0.0302) were lower in T2D. Conversely, gene expression of WNT5A (p=0.0232), SOST (p<0.0001), and GSK3B (p=0.0456) were higher, while collagen (COL1A1) was lower in T2D (p=0.0482). AGEs content was associated with SOST and WNT5A (r=0.9231, p<0.0001; r=0.6751, p=0.0322), but inversely correlated with LEF-1 and COL1A1 (r=–0.7500, p=0.0255; r=–0.9762, p=0.0004). SOST was associated with glycemic control and disease duration (r=0.4846, p=0.0043; r=0.7107, p=0.00174), whereas WNT5A and GSK3B were only correlated with glycemic control (r=0.5589, p=0.0037; r=0.4901, p=0.0051). Finally, Young’s modulus was negatively correlated with SOST (r=−0.5675, p=0.0011), AXIN2 (r=−0.5523, p=0.0042), and SFRP5 (r=−0.4442, p=0.0437), while positively correlated with LEF-1 (r=0.4116, p=0.0295) and WNT10B (r=0.6697, p=0.0001). These findings suggest that Wnt signaling and AGEs could be the main determinants of bone fragility in T2D.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Valentin Bohl, Nele Merret Hollmann ... Axel Mogk
    Research Article

    Heat stress can cause cell death by triggering the aggregation of essential proteins. In bacteria, aggregated proteins are rescued by the canonical Hsp70/AAA+ (ClpB) bi-chaperone disaggregase. Man-made, severe stress conditions applied during, e.g., food processing represent a novel threat for bacteria by exceeding the capacity of the Hsp70/ClpB system. Here, we report on the potent autonomous AAA+ disaggregase ClpL from Listeria monocytogenes that provides enhanced heat resistance to the food-borne pathogen enabling persistence in adverse environments. ClpL shows increased thermal stability and enhanced disaggregation power compared to Hsp70/ClpB, enabling it to withstand severe heat stress and to solubilize tight aggregates. ClpL binds to protein aggregates via aromatic residues present in its N-terminal domain (NTD) that adopts a partially folded and dynamic conformation. Target specificity is achieved by simultaneous interactions of multiple NTDs with the aggregate surface. ClpL shows remarkable structural plasticity by forming diverse higher assembly states through interacting ClpL rings. NTDs become largely sequestered upon ClpL ring interactions. Stabilizing ring assemblies by engineered disulfide bonds strongly reduces disaggregation activity, suggesting that they represent storage states.