Pathogenic variants of sphingomyelin synthase SMS2 disrupt lipid landscapes in the secretory pathway

  1. Tolulope Sokoya
  2. Jan Parolek
  3. Mads Møller Foged
  4. Dmytro I Danylchuk
  5. Manuel Bozan
  6. Bingshati Sarkar
  7. Angelika Hilderink
  8. Michael Philippi
  9. Lorenzo D Botto
  10. Paulien A Terhal
  11. Outi Mäkitie
  12. Jacob Piehler
  13. Yeongho Kim
  14. Christopher G Burd
  15. Andrey S Klymchenko
  16. Kenji Maeda
  17. Joost CM Holthuis  Is a corresponding author
  1. Osnabrück University, Germany
  2. Danish Cancer Society, Denmark
  3. Université de Strasbourg, UMR 7021, CNRS, France
  4. University of Utah, United States
  5. Utrecht University, Netherlands
  6. University of Helsinki, Finland
  7. Yale University, United States

Abstract

Sphingomyelin is a dominant sphingolipid in mammalian cells. Its production in the trans-Golgi traps cholesterol synthesized in the ER to promote formation of a sphingomyelin/sterol gradient along the secretory pathway. This gradient marks a fundamental transition in physical membrane properties that help specify organelle identify and function. We previously identified mutations in sphingomyelin synthase SMS2 that cause osteoporosis and skeletal dysplasia. Here we show that SMS2 variants linked to the most severe bone phenotypes retain full enzymatic activity but fail to leave the ER owing to a defective autonomous ER export signal. Cells harboring pathogenic SMS2 variants accumulate sphingomyelin in the ER and display a disrupted transbilayer sphingomyelin asymmetry. These aberrant sphingomyelin distributions also occur in patient-derived fibroblasts and are accompanied by imbalances in cholesterol organization, glycerophospholipid profiles and lipid order in the secretory pathway. We postulate that pathogenic SMS2 variants undermine the capacity of osteogenic cells to uphold nonrandom lipid distributions that are critical for their bone forming activity.

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 2-4, 7-9 and Appendix 1 - figure 3.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Tolulope Sokoya

    Department of Biology and Center of Cellular Nanoanalytics, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jan Parolek

    Department of Biology and Center of Cellular Nanoanalytics, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mads Møller Foged

    Center for Autophagy, Recycling and Disease, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dmytro I Danylchuk

    Laboratoire de Bioimagerie et Pathologies, Université de Strasbourg, UMR 7021, CNRS, Strasbourg, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Manuel Bozan

    Department of Biology and Center of Cellular Nanoanalytics, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8426-369X
  6. Bingshati Sarkar

    Department of Biology and Center of Cellular Nanoanalytics, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Angelika Hilderink

    Department of Biology and Center of Cellular Nanoanalytics, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Michael Philippi

    Department of Biology and Center of Cellular Nanoanalytics, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Lorenzo D Botto

    Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Paulien A Terhal

    Department of Genetics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Outi Mäkitie

    Children's Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4547-001X
  12. Jacob Piehler

    Department of Biology and Center of Cellular Nanoanalytics, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2143-2270
  13. Yeongho Kim

    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1477-925X
  14. Christopher G Burd

    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1831-8706
  15. Andrey S Klymchenko

    Laboratoire de Bioimagerie et Pathologies, Université de Strasbourg, UMR 7021, CNRS, Strasbourg, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Kenji Maeda

    Center for Autophagy, Recycling and Disease, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Joost CM Holthuis

    Department of Biology and Center of Cellular Nanoanalytics, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany
    For correspondence
    jholthuis@uni-osnabrueck.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8912-1586

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB944-P14)

  • Joost CM Holthuis

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HO3539/1-1)

  • Joost CM Holthuis

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB944-P8)

  • Jacob Piehler

National Institutes of Health (R35 GM144096)

  • Christopher G Burd

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

Copyright

© 2022, Sokoya 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

  • 2,565
    views
  • 547
    downloads
  • 19
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Tolulope Sokoya
  2. Jan Parolek
  3. Mads Møller Foged
  4. Dmytro I Danylchuk
  5. Manuel Bozan
  6. Bingshati Sarkar
  7. Angelika Hilderink
  8. Michael Philippi
  9. Lorenzo D Botto
  10. Paulien A Terhal
  11. Outi Mäkitie
  12. Jacob Piehler
  13. Yeongho Kim
  14. Christopher G Burd
  15. Andrey S Klymchenko
  16. Kenji Maeda
  17. Joost CM Holthuis
(2022)
Pathogenic variants of sphingomyelin synthase SMS2 disrupt lipid landscapes in the secretory pathway
eLife 11:e79278.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79278

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79278

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Parnian Arafi, Sujan Devkota ... Michael S Wolfe
    Research Article

    Missense mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin-1 (PSEN1) cause early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) and alter proteolytic production of secreted 38-to-43-residue amyloid β-peptides (Aβ) by the PSEN1-containing γ-secretase complex, ostensibly supporting the amyloid hypothesis of pathogenesis. However, proteolysis of APP substrate by γ-secretase is processive, involving initial endoproteolysis to produce long Aβ peptides of 48 or 49 residues followed by carboxypeptidase trimming in mostly tripeptide increments. We recently reported evidence that FAD mutations in APP and PSEN1 cause deficiencies in early steps in processive proteolysis of APP substrate C99 and that this results from stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes. These stalled complexes triggered synaptic degeneration in a Caenorhabditis elegans model of FAD independently of Aβ production. Here, we conducted full quantitative analysis of all proteolytic events on APP substrate by γ-secretase with six additional PSEN1 FAD mutations and found that all six are deficient in multiple processing steps. However, only one of these (F386S) was deficient in certain trimming steps but not in endoproteolysis. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy in intact cells revealed that all six PSEN1 FAD mutations lead to stalled γ-secretase enzyme-substrate/intermediate complexes. The F386S mutation, however, does so only in Aβ-rich regions of the cells, not in C99-rich regions, consistent with the deficiencies of this mutant enzyme only in trimming of Aβ intermediates. These findings provide further evidence that FAD mutations lead to stalled and stabilized γ-secretase enzyme-substrate and/or enzyme-intermediate complexes and are consistent with the stalled process rather than the products of γ-secretase proteolysis as the pathogenic trigger.