Proliferation enables the expansion, differentiation, and maintenance of T cells at different stages of their life cycle. It is required for the rapid growth of antigen-specific T cells, which is important for efficient control of infection. In this context, the initiation of cell division is primarily driven by signals triggered by the T-cell antigen receptor (TCR), which recognizes self or foreign peptides bound to the major histocompatibility complex (pMHC) at the surface of antigen-presenting cells (APCs). Proliferation is also important during T-cell development as it enables the expansion of immature CD4-CD8- thymocytes (referred to as double-negative [DN] thymocytes) that have successfully rearranged the TCR β-chain and their differentiation into CD4+CD8+thymocytes (referred to as double-positive [DP] thymocytes) (Kreslavsky et al., 2012; Pénit et al., 1995). At these stages, proliferation is mainly driven by coordinated signaling events triggered by the pre-TCR and by the Notch receptor (Ciofani et al., 2004; Maillard et al., 2006). Slow proliferative events are also induced in peripheral T cells to maintain a functional and diversified pool of lymphocytes. Such homeostatic proliferation is triggered in response to TCR stimulation by self-pMHC ligands and to specific cytokines (Sprent and Surh, 2011).

CD4+ T helper cells and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells harbor different proliferative characteristics in response to TCR stimulation. CD4+ T cells require repeated TCR stimulation to efficiently divide and show a relatively restricted expansion rate following antigen priming, while CD8+ T cells divide rapidly after single TCR stimulation (Foulds et al., 2002; Seder and Ahmed, 2003). Cell division is associated to the acquisition of effector function in CD8+ T cells (Chang et al., 2007; Arsenio et al., 2014). The fate decision between the effector and memory lineages in CD8+ T cells has been proposed to occur as early as the first round of division through asymmetric divisions (Arsenio et al., 2014), which enables the unequal partitioning of cell fate determinants in daughter cells (Chang et al., 2007). The role of cell division in the acquisition of CD4+ T cells effector function has been controversial (Bird et al., 1998; Ben-Sasson et al., 2001). Asymmetric divisions were also reported in CD4+ T cells (Chang et al., 2011; Nish et al., 2017), but the contribution of such processes to T helper lineage diversification, which primarily depends on cytokine stimuli, remains also debated (Cobbold et al., 2018). Together, these findings suggest that different cell division dynamics and organization might govern proliferation in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells to ensure different functional outcomes. Whether the mitotic machinery supporting these qualitatively distinct proliferative responses are identical is unknown.

Lissencephaly gene 1 (LIS1, also known as PAFAHB1) is a dynein-binding protein that has important function during brain development (Markus et al., 2020). LIS1 is involved in the proliferation and migration of neural and hematopoietic stem cells (Yingling et al., 2008; Reiner and Sapir, 2013; Zimdahl et al., 2014). It binds to the motor protein complex dynein and regulates the dynamic of its interaction with microtubules (Markus et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2012), as well as its ability to form active complex with the multimeric protein complex dynactin (Htet et al., 2020; Elshenawy et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2013). Those complexes are required for the long transport of cargos toward the minus end of microtubules (McKenney et al., 2014; Ayloo et al., 2014; Urnavicius et al., 2015; Schlager et al., 2014) and are important for a wide variety of cellular processes, including the accumulation of γ-tubulin at the centrosome (Young et al., 2000; Blagden and Glover, 2003) and the efficient formation of mitotic spindle poles during metaphases (Quintyne and Schroer, 2002). Recently, we identified LIS1 as a binding partner of the T-cell signaling protein THEMIS (Zvezdova et al., 2016; Garreau et al., 2017), which is important for thymocyte positive selection, suggesting that LIS1 could exhibit signaling function during T-cell development. LIS1 is required in several cellular models for chromosome congression and segregation during mitosis and for the establishment of mitotic spindle pole integrity (Moon et al., 2014). However, the impact of LIS1 deficiency on cell division varies according to cell types and stimulatory contexts. For example, LIS1 is essential to symmetric division of neuroepithelial stem cells prior neurogenesis, whereas LIS1 deficiency has a moderate impact on asymmetric division associated to the differentiation neuroepithelial stem cells in neural progenitors (Yingling et al., 2008). Previous studies also suggest that LIS1 is dispensable for the expansion of CD8+ T cells induced following antigen priming (Ngoi et al., 2016). Together, these findings suggest that LIS1 could have stage- or subset-specific effects on T-cell mitosis, which might discriminate distinct cellular outcomes.

Here, we selected LIS1 as a candidate molecule to explore whether T-cell proliferative responses could be supported by distinct mitotic machineries across different T-cell subsets, such as immature thymocytes as well as CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Using different Cre-inducible models, we identified a selective LIS1 requirement for mitosis in thymocytes and peripheral CD4+ T cells following β-selection and antigen priming, respectively. In contrast, the disruption of LIS1 had little impact on CD8+ T cell proliferation mediated by the TCR. In thymocytes and CD4+ T cells, LIS1 deficiency led to a disruption of dynein–dynactin complexes, which was associated with a loss of centrosome integrity and with the formation of multipolar spindles. These mitotic abnormalities conducted to abnormal chromosomes congression and separation during metaphase and telophase, and to aneuploidy and p53 upregulation upon cell division. Together, our results suggest that the mechanisms that support mitosis within the T-cell lineage could vary across T-cell subsets according to the functional outcomes to which they are coupled.

In this study, we identified a selective LIS1 requirement for mitosis in thymocytes and peripheral CD4+ T cells following β-selection and antigen priming, respectively. LIS1-dependent proliferation defects resulted in a block of early T-cell development and in a nearly complete lack of CD4+ T-cell expansion following activation. LIS1 deficiency in thymocytes and CD4+ T cells led to a disruption of dynein–dynactin complexes, which was associated with a loss of centrosome integrity and with the formation of multipolar spindles. These mitotic abnormalities were in turn associated to abnormal chromosomes reorganization during metaphase and telophase and to aneuploidy and p53 upregulation upon cell division. Importantly, whereas LIS1 deficiency led to a strong block of CD8+ T-cell proliferation upon PMA and ionomycin stimulation, it had a very little effect, if any, on the proliferation of CD8+ T cells following TCR engagement, suggesting that the mitotic machinery that orchestrates mitosis in CD8+ T cells upon TCR stimulation is different from that engaged in thymocytes and peripheral CD4+ T cells upon pre-TCR and TCR engagement.

LIS1 was shown to be dispensable for the proliferation of antigen-specific CD8+ T cell following infection with L. monocytogenes (Ngoi et al., 2016), supporting the data that we report here in CD8+ T cells following TCR stimulation. Comparable cell type-specific effects of LIS1 on proliferation have been described at early stages of neurogenesis and hematopoiesis (Yingling et al., 2008; Zimdahl et al., 2014). The loss of LIS1 in neuroepithelial stem cells leads to mitotic arrest and apoptosis upon symmetrical division events associated to progenitor cell maintenance, whereas it has only a moderate effect on asymmetrical division associated with neurogenesis, suggesting that symmetric division might be more LIS1-sensitive than asymmetric division (Yingling et al., 2008). Accordingly, LIS1 deficiency leads to a dramatic decrease in proliferation when CD8+ T cells are stimulated with soluble ligands such as cytokines and PMA/ionomycin, which favor symmetric division (Ngoi et al., 2016). This suggests that the different sensitivity of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells to LIS1 deficiency upon cell division is not simply the consequence of a preferential use of LIS1 in CD4+ T cells but rather the consequence of different mitotic organizations in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the context of polarized cell stimulations, which might exhibit different requirement for LIS1. This raises the question of whether CD4+ T cells would be more prone to symmetric divisions than CD8+ T cells. Theoretically, the experimental settings that we used in this study might not be optimal for eliciting asymmetric cell division since we stimulated T cells with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 in the absence of ICAM-1, which is required for asymmetric cell divisions to occur in the context of APC stimulation (Chang et al., 2007). However, the rate of asymmetric cell divisions might be less influenced by ICAM-1 stimulation in conditions where plate-bound stimulations with antibodies are used (Jung et al., 2014). Asymmetric cell divisions have been detected in CD4+ T cells after the first antigen encounter (Chang et al., 2007), but it is unknown whether these divisions occur systematically or whether they occur with variable frequencies that could be context-dependent. It is also unclear whether CD4+ and CD8+ T cells have similar rates of asymmetric division since the literature lacks quantitative studies in which cellular events associated with mitosis would be investigated side-by-side in those two subsets. The repartition of the transcription factor T-bet in daughter cells was compared in one study by flow cytometry in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells after a first round of cell division (Chang et al., 2011). The authors showed that T-bet segregates unequally in daughter cells in both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. However, the disparity of T-bet between daughter cells was higher in CD8+ T cells compared with that in CD4+ T cells (five- versus threefold), suggesting that cell-fate determinants are either more equally (or less unequally) distributed in daughter cells from the CD4+ lineage or that the rate of symmetric divisions is higher in CD4+ T cells than in the CD8+ T cells. More extensive analysis would be required to precisely quantify the rate of symmetric and asymmetric cell divisions in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the context of APC stimulation.

Mechanistically, we show that LIS1 is important in CD4+ T cells to stabilize the interaction of the microtubule-associated motor protein dynein with the dynactin complex, which facilitates the binding of dynein to cargos and promotes thereby their transport along microtubule fibers. This is in agreement with recent in vitro studies showing that LIS1 is required for the efficient assembly of active dynein–dynactin complexes (Htet et al., 2020; Elshenawy et al., 2020). Given the pleiotropic role of the dynein–dynactin complexes during mitosis, several scenarios could possibly explain the defect of proliferation observed in thymocytes and peripheral CD4+ T cells. Two nonexclusive scenarios seem the most likely to us. A first scenario is that the loss of LIS1 leads to an inefficient attachment of the chromosome kinetochores to dynein, leading to metaphase delay and possibly asynchronous chromatid separation, a phenomenon called ‘cohesion fatigue,’ which leads to centriole separation and the formation of multipolar spindles (Daum et al., 2011). This possibility is supported by studies showing that LIS1 is localized to the kinetochores in fibroblasts and is required for the normal alignment of chromosomes during metaphases (Moon et al., 2014; Faulkner et al., 2000) and for targeting the dynein complex to kinetochore (Moon et al., 2014). A second possibility is that the absence of LIS1 leads to the fragmentation of the PCM, which is associated with the formation of multipolar spindles and the erroneous merotelic kinetochore-microtubule attachments (a single kinetochore attached to microtubules oriented to more than one spindle pole), which can cause chromosomal instability in cells that ultimately undergo bipolar division (Cimini et al., 2001). This is supported by the fact that several PCM components are transported toward centrosomes along microtubules by the dynein–dynactin motor complex (Bärenz et al., 2011; Dammermann and Merdes, 2002) and that the depletion of multiple pericentriolar proteins results in PCM fragmentation, which subsequently generates multipolar spindles (Dammermann and Merdes, 2002; Krauss et al., 2008; Kim and Rhee, 2011).

We previously identified LIS1 as a binding partner of the signaling protein THEMIS in thymocytes and confirmed this interaction through yeast two-hybrid approaches (Zvezdova et al., 2016; Garreau et al., 2017). THEMIS enhances positive selection in thymocytes (Fu et al., 2009; Lesourne et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2009) and is important for the maintenance of peripheral CD8+ T cells by stimulating cytokine-driven signals leading to homeostatic proliferation (Brzostek et al., 2020). Although LIS1 deficiency does not modulate the efficiency of thymocyte-positive selection, the loss of LIS1 is associated with a strong defect of peripheral T-cell proliferation in response to IL-2 and IL-15 stimulation (Ngoi et al., 2016). THEMIS and LIS1 deficiencies both lead to severely compromised CD8+ T-cell proliferation following transfer in lymphopenic hosts (Ngoi et al., 2016; Brzostek et al., 2020). Although this defect was attributed to stimulatory function of THEMIS on IL-2- and IL-15-mediated signaling, we cannot rule out the possibility that THEMIS would play a more direct role in cell cycle by controlling LIS1-mediated events. THEMIS operates by repressing the tyrosine phosphatase activity of SHP-1 and SHP-2, which are key regulatory proteins of TCR signaling (Choi et al., 2017). Gain-of-function mutations of SHP-2 in mouse embryonic fibroblast and leukemia cells lead to centrosome amplification and aberrant mitosis with misaligned chromosomes (Liu et al., 2016). Thus, the hyper activation of SHP-2 resulting from THEMIS deficiency may lead to cellular defects similar to those observed in LIS1-deficient T cells. An interesting perspective to this work would be to investigate further whether the loss of THEMIS in CD8+ T cells would lead to similar mitotic defects to those observed in LIS1-deficient thymocytes and CD4+ T cells upon TCR stimulation.

The fact that LIS1 deficiency increases the frequency of aneuploidy and leads to the upregulation of p53 expression suggests that defects affecting LIS1 expression or function could favor oncogenic transformation in lymphoid cells. LIS1 is necessary for the extensive growth of tumor cells in some cancer models. The genetic disruption of LIS1 in hematopoietic stem cells blocks the propagation of myeloid leukemia (Zimdahl et al., 2014). However, several evidence suggests also that the alteration of LIS1 expression could contribute to the carcinogenesis of several cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma (Li et al., 2018; Xing et al., 2011), neuroblastoma (Messi et al., 2008), glioma (Suzuki et al., 2007), and cholangiocarcinoma (Yang et al., 2014). Thus, although a minimal expression level of LIS1 might be mandatory for extensive tumor growth, partial deficiencies in LIS1 might favor oncogenic transformation. Although monoallelic deficiency of LIS1 did not detectably affect CD4+ T-cell proliferation in vitro, the partial loss of LIS1 function may enhance the risk of aneuploidy-driven cancer in a tumor-suppressor-failing context. This could be relevant in humans since genetic variants on Pafah1b1 have been associated with a higher risk of developing acute myeloid leukemia (Cao et al., 2017).

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file have been provided for Figures 1 and 3.

1. 1. Akashi K
   2. Kondo M
   3. von Freeden-Jeffry U
   4. Murray R
   5. Weissman IL

   (1997) Bcl-2 rescues T lymphopoiesis in interleukin-7 receptor-deficient mice

   Cell 89:1033–1041.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80291-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Arsenio J
   2. Kakaradov B
   3. Metz PJ
   4. Kim SH
   5. Yeo GW
   6. Chang JT

   (2014) Early specification of CD8+ T lymphocyte fates during adaptive immunity revealed by single-cell gene-expression analyses

   Nature Immunology 15:365–372.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.2842

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Ayloo S
   2. Lazarus JE
   3. Dodda A
   4. Tokito M
   5. Ostap EM
   6. Holzbaur ELF

   (2014) Dynactin functions as both a dynamic tether and brake during dynein-driven motility

   Nature Communications 5:4807.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5807

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Azzam HS
   2. Grinberg A
   3. Lui K
   4. Shen H
   5. Shores EW
   6. Love PE

   (1998) Cd5 expression is developmentally regulated by T cell receptor (TCR) signals and TCR avidity

   The Journal of Experimental Medicine 188:2301–2311.

   https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.188.12.2301

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bärenz F
   2. Mayilo D
   3. Gruss OJ

   (2011) Centriolar satellites: busy orbits around the centrosome

   European Journal of Cell Biology 90:983–989.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcb.2011.07.007

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Ben-Sasson SZ
   2. Gerstel R
   3. Hu-Li J
   4. Paul WE

   (2001) Cell division is not a “ clock ” measuring acquisition of competence to produce IFN-γ or IL-4

   The Journal of Immunology 166:112–120.

   https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.166.1.112

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bird JJ
   2. Brown DR
   3. Mullen AC
   4. Moskowitz NH
   5. Mahowald MA
   6. Sider JR
   7. Gajewski TF
   8. Wang CR
   9. Reiner SL

   (1998) Helper T cell differentiation is controlled by the cell cycle

   Immunity 9:229–237.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/s1074-7613(00)80605-6

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Blagden SP
   2. Glover DM

   (2003) Polar expeditions -- provisioning the centrosome for mitosis

   Nature Cell Biology 5:505–511.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb0603-505

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Boudil A
   2. Matei IR
   3. Shih H-Y
   4. Bogdanoski G
   5. Yuan JS
   6. Chang SG
   7. Montpellier B
   8. Kowalski PE
   9. Voisin V
   10. Bashir S
   11. Bader GD
   12. Krangel MS
   13. Guidos CJ

   (2015) Il-7 coordinates proliferation, differentiation and tcra recombination during thymocyte β-selection

   Nature Immunology 16:397–405.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.3122

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Brzostek J
    2. Gautam N
    3. Zhao X
    4. Chen EW
    5. Mehta M
    6. Tung DWH
    7. Chua YL
    8. Yap J
    9. Cho SH
    10. Sankaran S
    11. Rybakin V
    12. Fu G
    13. Gascoigne NRJ

    (2020) T cell receptor and cytokine signal integration in CD8+ T cells is mediated by the protein THEMIS

    Nature Immunology 21:186–198.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0570-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Cao SY
    2. Lu XM
    3. Wang LH
    4. Qian XF
    5. Jin GF
    6. Ma HX

    (2017) The functional polymorphisms of LIS1 are associated with acute myeloid leukemia risk in a Han Chinese population

    Leukemia Research 54:7–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2016.12.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chang JT
    2. Palanivel VR
    3. Kinjyo I
    4. Schambach F
    5. Intlekofer AM
    6. Banerjee A
    7. Longworth SA
    8. Vinup KE
    9. Mrass P
    10. Oliaro J
    11. Killeen N
    12. Orange JS
    13. Russell SM
    14. Weninger W
    15. Reiner SL

    (2007) Asymmetric T lymphocyte division in the initiation of adaptive immune responses

    Science 315:1687–1691.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139393

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chang JT
    2. Ciocca ML
    3. Kinjyo I
    4. Palanivel VR
    5. McClurkin CE
    6. DeJong CS
    7. Mooney EC
    8. Kim JS
    9. Steinel NC
    10. Oliaro J
    11. Yin CC
    12. Florea BI
    13. Overkleeft HS
    14. Berg LJ
    15. Russell SM
    16. Koretzky GA
    17. Jordan MS
    18. Reiner SL

    (2011) Asymmetric proteasome segregation as a mechanism for unequal partitioning of the transcription factor T-bet during T lymphocyte division

    Immunity 34:492–504.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2011.03.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Choi S
    2. Warzecha C
    3. Zvezdova E
    4. Lee J
    5. Argenty J
    6. Lesourne R
    7. Aravind L
    8. Love PE

    (2017) THEMIS enhances TCR signaling and enables positive selection by selective inhibition of the phosphatase SHP-1

    Nature Immunology 18:433–441.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.3692

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cimini D
    2. Howell B
    3. Maddox P
    4. Khodjakov A
    5. Degrassi F
    6. Salmon ED

    (2001) Merotelic kinetochore orientation is a major mechanism of aneuploidy in mitotic mammalian tissue cells

    The Journal of Cell Biology 153:517–527.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.153.3.517

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Ciofani M
    2. Schmitt TM
    3. Ciofani A
    4. Michie AM
    5. Cuburu N
    6. Aublin A
    7. Maryanski JL
    8. Zúñiga-Pflücker JC

    (2004) Obligatory role for cooperative signaling by pre-TCR and notch during thymocyte differentiation

    Journal of Immunology 172:5230–5239.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.172.9.5230

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Ciofani M
    2. Zúñiga-Pflücker JC

    (2005) Notch promotes survival of pre-T cells at the beta-selection checkpoint by regulating cellular metabolism

    Nature Immunology 6:881–888.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni1234

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Cobbold SP
    2. Adams E
    3. Howie D
    4. Waldmann H

    (2018) CD4⁺ T cell fate decisions are stochastic, precede cell division, depend on GITR co-stimulation, and are associated with uropodium development

    Frontiers in Immunology 9:1381.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.01381

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Dammermann A
    2. Merdes A

    (2002) Assembly of centrosomal proteins and microtubule organization depends on PCM-1

    The Journal of Cell Biology 159:255–266.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200204023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Daum JR
    2. Potapova TA
    3. Sivakumar S
    4. Daniel JJ
    5. Flynn JN
    6. Rankin S
    7. Gorbsky GJ

    (2011) Cohesion fatigue induces chromatid separation in cells delayed at metaphase

    Current Biology 21:1018–1024.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Elshenawy MM
    2. Kusakci E
    3. Volz S
    4. Baumbach J
    5. Bullock SL
    6. Yildiz A

    (2020) Lis1 activates dynein motility by modulating its pairing with dynactin

    Nature Cell Biology 22:570–578.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-020-0501-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Faulkner NE
    2. Dujardin DL
    3. Tai CY
    4. Vaughan KT
    5. O’Connell CB
    6. Wang Y
    7. Vallee RB

    (2000) A role for the lissencephaly gene LIS1 in mitosis and cytoplasmic dynein function

    Nature Cell Biology 2:784–791.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35041020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Foulds KE
    2. Zenewicz LA
    3. Shedlock DJ
    4. Jiang J
    5. Troy AE
    6. Shen H

    (2002) Cutting edge: CD4 and CD8 T cells are intrinsically different in their proliferative responses

    Journal of Immunology 168:1528–1532.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.168.4.1528

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Fu G
    2. Vallée S
    3. Rybakin V
    4. McGuire MV
    5. Ampudia J
    6. Brockmeyer C
    7. Salek M
    8. Fallen PR
    9. Hoerter JAH
    10. Munshi A
    11. Huang YH
    12. Hu J
    13. Fox HS
    14. Sauer K
    15. Acuto O
    16. Gascoigne NRJ

    (2009) Themis controls thymocyte selection through regulation of T cell antigen receptor-mediated signaling

    Nature Immunology 10:848–856.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.1766

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Garreau A
    2. Blaize G
    3. Argenty J
    4. Rouquié N
    5. Tourdès A
    6. Wood SA
    7. Saoudi A
    8. Lesourne R

    (2017) Grb2-mediated recruitment of USP9X to LAT enhances THEMIS stability following thymic selection

    Journal of Immunology 199:2758–2766.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1700566

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Greaves DR
    2. Wilson FD
    3. Lang G
    4. Kioussis D

    (1989) Human CD2 3’-flanking sequences confer high-level, T cell-specific, position-independent gene expression in transgenic mice

    Cell 56:979–986.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(89)90631-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hirotsune S
    2. Fleck MW
    3. Gambello MJ
    4. Bix GJ
    5. Chen A
    6. Clark GD
    7. Ledbetter DH
    8. McBain CJ
    9. Wynshaw-Boris A

    (1998) Graded reduction of pafah1b1 (LIS1) activity results in neuronal migration defects and early embryonic lethality

    Nature Genetics 19:333–339.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/1221

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Holland AJ
    2. Cleveland DW

    (2009) Boveri revisited: chromosomal instability, aneuploidy and tumorigenesis

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 10:478–487.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2718

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Htet ZM
    2. Gillies JP
    3. Baker RW
    4. Leschziner AE
    5. DeSantis ME
    6. Reck-Peterson SL

    (2020) Lis1 promotes the formation of activated cytoplasmic dynein-1 complexes

    Nature Cell Biology 22:518–525.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-020-0506-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Huang J
    2. Roberts AJ
    3. Leschziner AE
    4. Reck-Peterson SL

    (2012) Lis1 acts as a “ clutch ” between the ATPase and microtubule-binding domains of the dynein motor

    Cell 150:975–986.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.07.022

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Johnson AL
    2. Aravind L
    3. Shulzhenko N
    4. Morgun A
    5. Choi S-Y
    6. Crockford TL
    7. Lambe T
    8. Domaschenz H
    9. Kucharska EM
    10. Zheng L
    11. Vinuesa CG
    12. Lenardo MJ
    13. Goodnow CC
    14. Cornall RJ
    15. Schwartz RH

    (2009) Themis is a member of a new metazoan gene family and is required for the completion of thymocyte positive selection

    Nature Immunology 10:831–839.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.1769

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Jung HR
    2. Song KH
    3. Chang JT
    4. Doh J

    (2014) Geometrically controlled asymmetric division of CD4+ T cells studied by immunological synapse arrays

    PLOS ONE 9:e91926.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091926

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Kastenhuber ER
    2. Lowe SW

    (2017) Putting p53 in context

    Cell 170:1062–1078.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kelly AP
    2. Finlay DK
    3. Hinton HJ
    4. Clarke RG
    5. Fiorini E
    6. Radtke F
    7. Cantrell DA

    (2007) Notch-Induced T cell development requires phosphoinositide-dependent kinase 1

    The EMBO Journal 26:3441–3450.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7601761

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kim K
    2. Rhee K

    (2011) The pericentriolar satellite protein CEP90 is crucial for integrity of the mitotic spindle pole

    Journal of Cell Science 124:338–347.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.078329

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Krauss SW
    2. Spence JR
    3. Bahmanyar S
    4. Barth AIM
    5. Go MM
    6. Czerwinski D
    7. Meyer AJ

    (2008) Downregulation of protein 4.1R, a mature centriole protein, disrupts centrosomes, alters cell cycle progression, and perturbs mitotic spindles and anaphase

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 28:2283–2294.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.02021-07

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kreslavsky T
    2. Gleimer M
    3. Miyazaki M
    4. Choi Y
    5. Gagnon E
    6. Murre C
    7. Sicinski P
    8. von Boehmer H

    (2012) β-selection-induced proliferation is required for αβ T cell differentiation

    Immunity 37:840–853.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2012.08.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Lesourne R
    2. Uehara S
    3. Lee J
    4. Song KD
    5. Li L
    6. Pinkhasov J
    7. Zhang Y
    8. Weng NP
    9. Wildt KF
    10. Wang L
    11. Bosselut R
    12. Love PE

    (2009) Themis, a T cell-specific protein important for late thymocyte development

    Nature Immunology 10:840–847.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.1768

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Li X
    2. Liu L
    3. Li R
    4. Wu A
    5. Lu J
    6. Wu Q
    7. Jia J
    8. Zhao M
    9. Song H

    (2018) Hepatic loss of lissencephaly 1 (LIS1) induces fatty liver and accelerates liver tumorigenesis in mice

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 293:5160–5171.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA117.001474

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Liu X
    2. Zheng H
    3. Li X
    4. Wang S
    5. Meyerson HJ
    6. Yang W
    7. Neel BG
    8. Qu CK

    (2016) Gain-of-function mutations of PTPN11 (SHP2) cause aberrant mitosis and increase susceptibility to DNA damage-induced malignancies

    PNAS 113:984–989.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508535113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Maiato H
    2. Logarinho E

    (2014) Mitotic spindle multipolarity without centrosome amplification

    Nature Cell Biology 16:386–394.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2958

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Maillard I
    2. Tu L
    3. Sambandam A
    4. Yashiro-Ohtani Y
    5. Millholland J
    6. Keeshan K
    7. Shestova O
    8. Xu L
    9. Bhandoola A
    10. Pear WS

    (2006) The requirement for Notch signaling at the beta-selection checkpoint in vivo is absolute and independent of the pre-T cell receptor

    The Journal of Experimental Medicine 203:2239–2245.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20061020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Maraskovsky E
    2. O’Reilly LA
    3. Teepe M
    4. Corcoran LM
    5. Peschon JJ
    6. Strasser A

    (1997) Bcl-2 can rescue T lymphocyte development in interleukin-7 receptor-deficient mice but not in mutant rag-1-/- mice

    Cell 89:1011–1019.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80289-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Markus SM
    2. Marzo MG
    3. McKenney RJ

    (2020) New insights into the mechanism of dynein motor regulation by lissencephaly-1

    eLife 9:e59737.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59737

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. McKenney RJ
    2. Huynh W
    3. Tanenbaum ME
    4. Bhabha G
    5. Vale RD

    (2014) Activation of cytoplasmic dynein motility by dynactin-cargo adapter complexes

    Science 345:337–341.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254198

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Messi E
    2. Florian MC
    3. Caccia C
    4. Zanisi M
    5. Maggi R

    (2008) Retinoic acid reduces human neuroblastoma cell migration and invasiveness: effects on DCX, LIS1, neurofilaments-68 and vimentin expression

    BMC Cancer 8:30.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-8-30

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Moon HM
    2. Youn YH
    3. Pemble H
    4. Yingling J
    5. Wittmann T
    6. Wynshaw-Boris A

    (2014) Lis1 controls mitosis and mitotic spindle organization via the LIS1-NDEL1-dynein complex

    Human Molecular Genetics 23:449–466.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddt436

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Ngoi SM
    2. Lopez JM
    3. Chang JT

    (2016) The microtubule-associated protein LIS1 regulates T lymphocyte homeostasis and differentiation

    Journal of Immunology 196:4237–4245.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1502410

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Nigg EA
    2. Stearns T

    (2011) The centrosome cycle: centriole biogenesis, duplication and inherent asymmetries

    Nature Cell Biology 13:1154–1160.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2345

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Nish SA
    2. Zens KD
    3. Kratchmarov R
    4. Lin W-HW
    5. Adams WC
    6. Chen Y-H
    7. Yen B
    8. Rothman NJ
    9. Bhandoola A
    10. Xue H-H
    11. Farber DL
    12. Reiner SL

    (2017) Cd4+ T cell effector commitment coupled to self-renewal by asymmetric cell divisions

    Journal of Experimental Medicine 214:39–47.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20161046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Pénit C
    2. Lucas B
    3. Vasseur F

    (1995)

    Cell expansion and growth arrest phases during the transition from precursor (CD4-8-) to immature (CD4+8+) thymocytes in normal and genetically modified mice

    Journal of Immunology 154:5103–5113.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Quintyne NJ
    2. Schroer TA

    (2002) Distinct cell cycle-dependent roles for dynactin and dynein at centrosomes

    The Journal of Cell Biology 159:245–254.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200203089

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Reck-Peterson SL
    2. Redwine WB
    3. Vale RD
    4. Carter AP

    (2018) The cytoplasmic dynein transport machinery and its many cargoes

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 19:382–398.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-018-0004-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Reiner O
    2. Sapir T

    (2013) Lis1 functions in normal development and disease

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 23:951–956.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.08.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Schlager MA
    2. Hoang HT
    3. Urnavicius L
    4. Bullock SL
    5. Carter AP

    (2014) In vitro reconstitution of a highly processive recombinant human dynein complex

    The EMBO Journal 33:1855–1868.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201488792

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Schmitt TM
    2. de Pooter RF
    3. Gronski MA
    4. Cho SK
    5. Ohashi PS
    6. Zúñiga-Pflücker JC

    (2004) Induction of T cell development and establishment of T cell competence from embryonic stem cells differentiated in vitro

    Nature Immunology 5:410–417.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni1055

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Seder RA
    2. Ahmed R

    (2003) Similarities and differences in CD4+ and CD8+ effector and memory T cell generation

    Nature Immunology 4:835–842.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni969

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Sprent J
    2. Surh CD

    (2011) Normal T cell homeostasis: the conversion of naive cells into memory-phenotype cells

    Nature Immunology 12:478–484.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.2018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Suzuki SO
    2. McKenney RJ
    3. Mawatari S
    4. Mizuguchi M
    5. Mikami A
    6. Iwaki T
    7. Goldman JE
    8. Canoll P
    9. Vallee RB

    (2007) Expression patterns of LIS1, dynein and their interaction partners dynactin, nude, nudel and NudC in human gliomas suggest roles in invasion and proliferation

    Acta Neuropathologica 113:591–599.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-006-0180-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Taghon T
    2. Yui MA
    3. Pant R
    4. Diamond RA
    5. Rothenberg EV

    (2006) Developmental and molecular characterization of emerging beta- and gammadelta-selected pre-T cells in the adult mouse thymus

    Immunity 24:53–64.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2005.11.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Urnavicius L
    2. Zhang K
    3. Diamant AG
    4. Motz C
    5. Schlager MA
    6. Yu M
    7. Patel NA
    8. Robinson CV
    9. Carter AP

    (2015) The structure of the dynactin complex and its interaction with dynein

    Science 347:1441–1446.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4080

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Wang S
    2. Ketcham SA
    3. Schön A
    4. Goodman B
    5. Wang Y
    6. Yates J
    7. Freire E
    8. Schroer TA
    9. Zheng Y

    (2013) Nudel/nude and LIS1 promote dynein and dynactin interaction in the context of spindle morphogenesis

    Molecular Biology of the Cell 24:3522–3533.

    https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E13-05-0283

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Xing Z
    2. Tang X
    3. Gao Y
    4. Da L
    5. Song H
    6. Wang S
    7. Tiollais P
    8. Li T
    9. Zhao M

    (2011) The human LIS1 is downregulated in hepatocellular carcinoma and plays a tumor suppressor function

    Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 409:193–199.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.04.117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Yamada M
    2. Toba S
    3. Yoshida Y
    4. Haratani K
    5. Mori D
    6. Yano Y
    7. Mimori-Kiyosue Y
    8. Nakamura T
    9. Itoh K
    10. Fushiki S
    11. Setou M
    12. Wynshaw-Boris A
    13. Torisawa T
    14. Toyoshima YY
    15. Hirotsune S

    (2008) LIS1 and NDEL1 coordinate the plus-end-directed transport of cytoplasmic dynein

    The EMBO Journal 27:2471–2483.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2008.182

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Yang R
    2. Chen Y
    3. Tang C
    4. Li H
    5. Wang B
    6. Yan Q
    7. Hu J
    8. Zou S

    (2014) MicroRNA-144 suppresses cholangiocarcinoma cell proliferation and invasion through targeting platelet activating factor acetylhydrolase isoform 1B

    BMC Cancer 14:917.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-917

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Yingling J
    2. Youn YH
    3. Darling D
    4. Toyo-Oka K
    5. Pramparo T
    6. Hirotsune S
    7. Wynshaw-Boris A

    (2008) Neuroepithelial stem cell proliferation requires LIS1 for precise spindle orientation and symmetric division

    Cell 132:474–486.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.01.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Young A
    2. Dictenberg JB
    3. Purohit A
    4. Tuft R
    5. Doxsey SJ

    (2000) Cytoplasmic dynein-mediated assembly of pericentrin and gamma tubulin onto centrosomes

    Molecular Biology of the Cell 11:2047–2056.

    https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.11.6.2047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Zimdahl B
    2. Ito T
    3. Blevins A
    4. Bajaj J
    5. Konuma T
    6. Weeks J
    7. Koechlein CS
    8. Kwon HY
    9. Arami O
    10. Rizzieri D
    11. Broome HE
    12. Chuah C
    13. Oehler VG
    14. Sasik R
    15. Hardiman G
    16. Reya T

    (2014) Lis1 regulates asymmetric division in hematopoietic stem cells and in leukemia

    Nature Genetics 46:245–252.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2889

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Zvezdova E
    2. Mikolajczak J
    3. Garreau A
    4. Marcellin M
    5. Rigal L
    6. Lee J
    7. Choi S
    8. Blaize G
    9. Argenty J
    10. Familiades J
    11. Li L
    12. Gonzalez de Peredo A
    13. Burlet-Schiltz O
    14. Love PE
    15. Lesourne R

    (2016) Themis1 enhances T cell receptor signaling during thymocyte development by promoting Vav1 activity and Grb2 stability

    Science Signaling 9:ra51.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.aad1576

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "A selective LIS1 requirement for mitotic spindle assembly discriminates distinct T-cell division mechanisms within the T-cell lineage" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Tadatsugu Taniguchi as the Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

Essential revisions:

Critical controls:

1. Control for the impact of Cre expression (and perhaps LIS1flox+/-).

2. Assess the ablation of Lis1 to ensure that the effects (and particularly the difference in effect between CD4 and CD8) are not an artefact of the experimental approach to deletion.

Critical extensions of the work:

3. More experimentation to clarify the step in β-selection that are disrupted by LIS deletion (expression of Notch and IL7R signalling components, cell cycle analysis, assess DN3a and DN3b stages).

4. Extend analysis of CD4 responses to later timepoints.

Modifications of interpretation:

5. Incorporate findings In the literature into the discussion on ACD as an explanation of the differences in proliferative effects between CD4 and CD8 cells.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

a) It has been shown in the literature (e.g. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1600827) that Cre itself can affect T cell differentiation. In this publication, the authors compared Cd2-Cre Lisflox/flox versus Lisflox/flox or Cd4-Cre Lisflox/flox versus Lisflox/flox, which means it is difficult to be sure that the effect is entirely due to the deletion of Lis1 and not partly due to the Cre itself. I think that it is important that they include this control.

b) In figure 1 it would be helpful to determine the effect of Lis1 deletion on icβTCR DN3a and DN3b cells, as opposed to DN3 cells, as the low levels of icβTCR at the DN3a stage may be obscuring the effect of Lis1.

c) In Cd4-Cre Lisflox/flox mice there was a drop in peripheral CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ cells and a 10% drop in proliferating CD8⁺ cells. The authors claim that this demonstrates that Lis1 is therefore not required for the proliferation of CD8 cells. However, as there is a slight effect, I do not feel that you can definitively claim that there is no effect. It would be useful to perform the cell cycle analysis and determine whether there is a defect in cell division, or not, to support this claim. Also, I am unclear as to why there was a drop in peripheral CD8⁺ cells if Lis1 did not affect proliferation.

d) In figure 4C, D you state that some cells are divided with an unequal repartition of the chromosomes in the daughter cells. Please state how this was measured.

e) In some of the figure legends the authors state: Data represent one experiment out of two independent experiments with n=30-50 cells analyzed per group. Please clarify why you haven't shown the data from both experiments.

f) In the discussion there is a paragraph correlating the lack of effect on CD8 cells and asymmetric cell division. I think this is an interesting point and while I appreciate that is it possibly beyond the scope of this paper I do think that the authors should draw on the literature examining the occurrence of asymmetric cell division in CD4 cells versus CD8 cells to strengthen this section of the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Lis1 is a dynein binding protein previously shown to be important for some types of T cell proliferation including homeostatic proliferation, but less important for the response of CD8 T cells to TCR stimulation. However, it is required for the development of CD8 T cell memory in model systems. In the present study, the authors repeat and extend the previous work. They construct iCD2-Cre mice harboring a conditional allele of Lis1 that it is critically required for proliferation in T cell development. Repeating earlier experiments with CD4-Cre, they confirm that Lis1 is less required for CD8 proliferation to TCR stimulation. However, it appears it is required in CD4 T cells. The authors show that the absence of Lis1 leads to p53 activation in CD4 T cells and DN3 thymocytes. They attempt to dissect the mechanism of the requirement for Li1 in CD4 T cells. Their results establish that CD4 T cells proliferating in the absence of Lis1 possess extra centrosomes.

The work here is well-performed and appropriately referenced. However, the puzzle that is not resolved, is why CD8 T cells have a lesser requirement for Lis1 after TCR stimulation. Because the CD4-Cre continues to be expressed and active in CD4 but not CD8 single-positive T cells, the authors should rigorously establish that the Lis1 protein is indeed ablated in CD8 T cells. i.e. they should establish that the proliferation of CD8 T cells is not due to escapees that continue to possess Lis1. Although this may appear unlikely because these cells do have proliferative defects in response to mitogens, this caveat should be rigorously excluded.

Additionally, the different responses in CD8 T cells could be due to a different proliferative mechanism, as the authors hypothesize, but also due to other differences. CD8 T cells may generate lower levels of p53, for example, or they may be resistant to the effects of p53. The authors should establish whether p53 stabilization is evident in CD8 T cells, as they see for DN3 and CD4 T cells. Additionally, they should determine whether extra centrosomes are seen in TCR-signaled CD8 T cells, as they show for CD4 T cells.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. In Figure 1A it is clear that DN cells have increased frequencies in Lis1flox/flox-Cd2Cre mice. However, when numbers are calculated, there is no difference between control and LIS1-deficient mice. I understand that the composition of DN cells (DN1 to DN4) is different when comparing both groups, but this also suggests that there are fewer cells in the thymus of Lis1flox/flox-Cd2Cre animals. Did the authors observe faster thymic involution in these mice?

2. Can authors hypothesize what is shared between the maturation of pre-pro-B cells into pro-B cells and the transition from DN3 to DN4 in the thymus that could explain why LIS deficiency is particularly affecting these stages?

3. In Figures 1C/D authors claim that "LIS1 was not required for functional pre-TCR assembly but rather for the expansion of DN3 thymocytes…" based on the expression of IL-7R and CD5 by LIS-deficient DN3 thymocytes. However, authors previously state that "Notch and the IL-7receptor (IL-7R) stimulation lead to the up-regulation of CD5". As CD5 expression seems to be upregulated in DN3 thymocytes from Lis1flox/flox-Cd2Cre, it would be interesting to understand whether other signals downstream of Notch and IL-7R are being impacted. This would further strengthen the idea that signalling is not the reason for the defect in proliferation seen in these cells. This conclusion would also be strengthened by further evidence of proliferative defects in LIS1-deficient DN3 thymocytes – using Ki67 or BrdU staining combined with the DNA one. The experimental setup used to produce the data shown in Figures 2A and 2B could be used to address this question.

4. In Figure 2C the higher expression of CD5 by DN3 cells from Lis1flox/flox-Cd2Cre mice is not observed, as opposed to what is seen in Figure 1C. On the other hand, the phenotype of cells stuck in G2/M phase seems to be more severe (Figure 2E). Can authors discuss what could be the reason for these different phenotypes?

5. I understand that BCl^-2 expression can be used as a measurement of cell survival, but the authors' claim that "the inability of cells to proliferate was not primarily due to survival defects" would be strengthened by direct measurement of cell viability.

6. Results depicted in Figure 3 (including its supplementary Figure) are mostly confirmations of a previous study (Ngoi, Lopez, Chang, Journal of Immunology, 2016; reference 34). Here the authors provide further evidence of a distinct role of LIS1 in CD4 T cell proliferation. However, the experimental setup chosen to show the physiological impact of the proliferation defect observed in LIS1-deficient CD4 T cells on immune responses is limited as it is restricted to a very early timepoint. The manuscript would benefit from data obtained in later time points following immunization: day 7/8 after immunization at peak of T cell expansion and >4 weeks after immunization when the T cell pool would be enriched for long-lived memory cells. Can Lis1flox/flox-Cd4Cre mice still form any memory pool?

7. Figure 4: MG-132, being a proteasome inhibitor, will have global effects on cell proteostasis, which itself can lead to defects in the cell cycle. Could authors confirm these results inducing metaphase arrest using a different strategy?

8. It is very interesting that the association between dynein and dynactin does not need to be stabilized in all cell division contexts. As observed in reference 34 and confirmed by the authors, CD8⁺ T cell proliferation following TCR engagement is not impacted by LIS1 deficiency. Does LIS1 have any homologue that could compensate for its loss in certain scenarios? Is the expression of LIS1 in wild-type cells changed over the course of stimulation/proliferation?

9. Authors discuss the possible role of LIS1 in maintaining symmetric cell divisions. However, at least in the context of CD8⁺ T cell proliferation/differentiation, the presence of ICAM-1 (and its engagement to LFA-1) has been shown to be a requirement for asymmetric cell division (one of the publications that explores that is referred by the authors: Chang et al., 2007, Science, reference 8). In the context of antigen presentation by APCs (such as in in vivo challenges), ICAM-1 is present, but this is not the case upon stimulation with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 antibodies only, the method used by the authors in Figure 3. Thus, TCR engagement that most likely leads to symmetric divisions is being impaired in LIS1-deficient CD8⁺ T cells. Furthermore, even if authors assume that anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 only would promote polarization, CD4⁺ T cells have been shown to undergo asymmetric cell division (ref.8) after the first antigen encounter (reference 8). As the authors suggest that LIS1 is a requirement for symmetric cell divisions and not asymmetric ones, if no evidence of differences in asymmetric partitioning of cell cargoes upon loss of LIS1 is provided, I would suggest this session of the discussion be rephrased accordingly.

10. Did the authors ever check whether heterozygous mice (Cre+ but Lis1flox/+) have any phenotype? This would be interesting to provide preliminary insights into a point that is raised at the end of the discussion: "mono-allelic dysfunctions of LIS1might be sufficient to modulate the susceptibility to oncogenic transformation."

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

a) It has been shown in the literature (e.g. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1600827) that Cre itself can affect T cell differentiation. In this publication, the authors compared Cd2-Cre Lisflox/flox versus Lisflox/flox or Cd4-Cre Lisflox/flox versus Lisflox/flox, which means it is difficult to be sure that the effect is entirely due to the deletion of Lis1 and not partly due to the Cre itself. I think that it is important that they include this control.

We included new data showing that the Cre recombinase expression has no detectable effect on T-cell development and peripheral T-cell percentages in Lis1flox/+ mice when induced by the CD2 and the CD4 promoter respectively (Figure 1 —figure supplement 1B and Figure 3 —figure supplement 1E of the revised version).

b) In figure 1 it would be helpful to determine the effect of Lis1 deletion on icβTCR DN3a and DN3b cells, as opposed to DN3 cells, as the low levels of icβTCR at the DN3a stage may be obscuring the effect of Lis1.

To address the reviewer’s comment, we analyzed the intracytoplasmic expression of the TCRbeta chain versus the cell surface expression of CD27, a cell surface marker that discriminate DN3a (CD27^low) from DN3b (CD27^hi) thymocytes (Figure 1C of the revised manuscript). As expected, we show that the TCRbeta chain is mostly expressed in CD27^hi thymocytes. The percentages of TCRbeta^hiCD27^hi thymocytes in DN3 cells were decreased in the absence of LIS1, suggesting a defect upon or after the beta-selection checkpoint. The absence of detectable signaling defect associated to the pre-TCR (Figure 1D), Notch (Figure 1E) and IL-7R (Figure 1E and 2E) suggest that LIS1 is important for cell expansion after the b-selection checkpoint.

c) In Cd4-Cre Lisflox/flox mice there was a drop in peripheral CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ cells and a 10% drop in proliferating CD8⁺ cells. The authors claim that this demonstrates that Lis1 is therefore not required for the proliferation of CD8 cells. However, as there is a slight effect, I do not feel that you can definitively claim that there is no effect. It would be useful to perform the cell cycle analysis and determine whether there is a defect in cell division, or not, to support this claim.

We agree with the reviewer and took out the statement that “LIS1 is not required for TCR-mediated proliferation” (page 8 of the previous manuscript) since it is true that a modest effect could be detected in Figure 3D. We believe that this effect is relatively marginal in comparison to the dramatic effect observed in CD4⁺ T cells after TCR engagement, where the numbers of cells that divided after the first round of division are decreased by 80 to 90%. Note that, we observed a nearly complete absence of proliferation of Lis1-deficient OTII+CD4⁺ T cell in vivo following immunization with ovalbumin, whereas the absence of LIS1 has no detectable effect on the expansion of OTI+CD8⁺ T cell in Listeria-Ova infection models (Ngoi, S. M. et al., The Journal of Immunology, 2016). To address the reviewer’s comment, we analyzed the cell cycle of CD8⁺ T cells stimulated with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 antibodies in similar conditions as for CD4⁺ T cells (Figure 3C). The loss of LIS1 did not impact on the percentages of cells in G2/M, suggesting further that CD8⁺ T cells divide normally in the absence of LIS1. We also include new data showing that p53 is expressed at similar level in wild-type and Lis1-deficient CD8⁺ T cells after stimulation (Figure 5B), indicating that the division of CD8⁺ T cells is not associated with p53-induced cell death in the absence of LIS1.

Also, I am unclear as to why there was a drop in peripheral CD8⁺ cells if Lis1 did not affect proliferation.

LIS1 is essential for IL-7-mediated homeostatic proliferation in CD8⁺ T cells (Ngoi, S. M. et al., The Journal of Immunology, 2016) but seems more dispensable in this subset for TCR-mediated cell divisions. The reason of this is unclear but could result from distinct molecular requirements of cell divisions upon stimulation by soluble factors and antigenpresenting cells. This has been well characterized in previous studies from Krummel’s lab on Septins protein (Mujal, A.M. et al., Nature Immunology, 2015). We show in Figure 3D that the loss of LIS1 leads to a strong defect of proliferation in CD8⁺ T cells when cell divisions are prompted by pharmacological activation, confirming that CD8⁺ T cells become sensitive to the loss of LIS1 when cell divisions are elicited by soluble factors.

d) In figure 4C, D you state that some cells are divided with an unequal repartition of the chromosomes in the daughter cells. Please state how this was measured.

The repartition of genetic material was scored based on the analysis of mitosis by video microscopy. Typical mitosis with equal chromosomes repartition (LIS1-WT CD4⁺ T cells) is represented in Video-1 of the revised manuscript whereas typical mitosis with unequal repartition is represented in Video-3. Mitosis with unequal repartition of DNA are typical in that they lead to the formation of several nuclei in one of the two daughter cells.

e) In some of the figure legends the authors state: Data represent one experiment out of two independent experiments with n=30-50 cells analyzed per group. Please clarify why you haven't shown the data from both experiments.

In Figure 6 A and C, the numbers of centrosomes per cell were quantified in two independent experiments. The percentages of cells with n=2 and n>2 centrosomes were calculated independently and were in similar ranges for both experiments. We decided not to combine those percentages on one single graph since it would lead to represent the average of only two values on which we could not really perform statistical tests. We also estimated that calculating a single value of percentage from two experiments would not be completely accurate since they represent independent analyses. In Figure 6B, the histogram bar graphs representing PCM size now include combined data from three independent experiments.

f) In the discussion there is a paragraph correlating the lack of effect on CD8 cells and asymmetric cell division. I think this is an interesting point and while I appreciate that is it possibly beyond the scope of this paper I do think that the authors should draw on the literature examining the occurrence of asymmetric cell division in CD4 cells versus CD8 cells to strengthen this section of the discussion.

A new chapter discussing this point is now included p18 in the revised version of the manuscript.

“This raises the question of whether CD4⁺ T cells would be more prone to symmetric divisions than CD8⁺ T cells. Theoretically, the experimental settings that we used in this study might not be optimal for eliciting asymmetric cell division, since we stimulated T cells with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 in the absence of ICAM-1, which is required for asymmetric cell divisions to occur in the context of APC stimulation (Chang, J. T. et al., Science, 2007). However, the rate of asymmetric cell divisions might be less influenced by ICAM-1 stimulation in conditions where plate-bound stimulation with antibodies are used (Jung H.R. PLOS one, 2014). Asymmetric cell divisions have been detected in CD4⁺ T cells after the first antigen encounter (Chang, J. T. et al., Science, 2007), but it is unknown whether these divisions occur systematically or whether they occur with variable frequency that could be context-dependent. It is also unclear whether CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells have similar rates of asymmetric division since the literature is lacking of quantitative studies in which cellular events associated to mitosis would be investigated side-by-side in those two subsets. The repartition of the transcription factor T-bet in daughter cells was compared in one study by flow cytometry in CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells after a first round of cell division (Chang, J. T. et al., Immunity, 2011). Authors showed that T-bet segregates unequally in daughter cells in both CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells. However, the disparity of T-bet between daughter cells was higher in CD8⁺ T cells as compared to that in CD4⁺ T cells (5- versus 3-fold), suggesting that cell-fate determinants are either more equally (or less unequally) distributed in daughter cells from the CD4⁺ lineage or that the rate of symmetric divisions is higher in CD4⁺ T cells than in the CD8⁺ T cells. More extensive analysis would be required to precisely quantify the rate of symmetric and asymmetric cell divisions in CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells in the context of APC stimulation.”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Lis1 is a dynein binding protein previously shown to be important for some types of T cell proliferation including homeostatic proliferation, but less important for the response of CD8 T cells to TCR stimulation. However, it is required for the development of CD8 T cell memory in model systems. In the present study, the authors repeat and extend the previous work. They construct iCD2-Cre mice harboring a conditional allele of Lis1 that it is critically required for proliferation in T cell development. Repeating earlier experiments with CD4-Cre, they confirm that Lis1 is less required for CD8 proliferation to TCR stimulation. However, it appears it is required in CD4 T cells. The authors show that the absence of Lis1 leads to p53 activation in CD4 T cells and DN3 thymocytes. They attempt to dissect the mechanism of the requirement for Li1 in CD4 T cells. Their results establish that CD4 T cells proliferating in the absence of Lis1 possess extra centrosomes.

The work here is well-performed and appropriately referenced. However, the puzzle that is not resolved, is why CD8 T cells have a lesser requirement for Lis1 after TCR stimulation. Because the CD4-Cre continues to be expressed and active in CD4 but not CD8 single-positive T cells, the authors should rigorously establish that the Lis1 protein is indeed ablated in CD8 T cells. i.e. they should establish that the proliferation of CD8 T cells is not due to escapees that continue to possess Lis1. Although this may appear unlikely because these cells do have proliferative defects in response to mitogens, this caveat should be rigorously excluded.

To address this possibility, we verified that LIS1 was depleted similarly in both CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ peripheral T cells. Analysis by Western blot shows that LIS1 is efficiently depleted in both subsets, suggesting that the mild effect of LIS1 in CD8⁺ T cells is not resulting from the remaining expression of LIS1. Those data are now included as Figure 3 —figure supplement 2B of the revised version.

Additionally, the different responses in CD8 T cells could be due to a different proliferative mechanism, as the authors hypothesize, but also due to other differences. CD8 T cells may generate lower levels of p53, for example, or they may be resistant to the effects of p53. The authors should establish whether p53 stabilization is evident in CD8 T cells, as they see for DN3 and CD4 T cells. Additionally, they should determine whether extra centrosomes are seen in TCR-signaled CD8 T cells, as they show for CD4 T cells.

To address this comment, we analyzed the expression level of p53 in CD8⁺ T cells stimulated in similar conditions as for CD4⁺ T cells. In contrast to CD4⁺ T cells, we observed comparable amounts of p53 in wild-type and LIS1-deficient CD8⁺ T cells (Figure 5B), suggesting that the modest effect of LIS1 in CD8⁺ T cells is not resulting from a reduced p53 sensitivity threshold which would enable proliferation despite abnormal cell divisions. We also performed cell cycle analysis in CD8⁺ T cells and show that the loss of LIS1 does not affect the percentages of cells in the G2/M phase (Figure 3C).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. In Figure 1A it is clear that DN cells have increased frequencies in Lis1flox/flox-Cd2Cre mice. However, when numbers are calculated, there is no difference between control and LIS1-deficient mice. I understand that the composition of DN cells (DN1 to DN4) is different when comparing both groups, but this also suggests that there are fewer cells in the thymus of Lis1flox/flox-Cd2Cre animals. Did the authors observe faster thymic involution in these mice?

We did not perform this analysis since most of our phenotypic studies were done on mice that were younger than three months old, before the beginning of thymic involution in wild-type animals. We observed a dramatic decrease of thymus cellularity in young Cd2-Cre Lis1^flox/flox- mice but we attributed this to the strong block of thymocyte proliferation after the bselection checkpoint. DN1 and DN2 populations were not decreased in numbers in the absence of LIS1 suggesting that not all thymocyte subsets are decreased such as during thymic involution processes. However, it is possible that the massive drop of thymocytes observed in the absence of LIS1 affect the thymic epithelial architecture and cause premature thymus involution.

2. Can authors hypothesize what is shared between the maturation of pre-pro-B cells into pro-B cells and the transition from DN3 to DN4 in the thymus that could explain why LIS deficiency is particularly affecting these stages?

The defects in T- and B- cell development observed in CD2-Cre Lis1^flox/flox mice occur at two different stages which are not directly related developmentally speaking. Within the T-cell lineage, the loss of LIS1 leads to a block after the b-selection checkpoint due to the inability of cells to efficiently proliferate. Within the B-cell lineage, LIS1 deficiency induces an early block prior the stage at which the pre-BCR is formed (pre-B cells), which theoretically could be compared to the DN2 stage in thymocytes. We did not investigate in detail the cause of the B-cell development defect but we could speculate that it might be the consequence of a proliferative block similar to what is observed in thymocytes. Pro-B cells were shown to proliferate in response to IL-7 stimulation (Hardy R.R et al., The journal of experimental medicine, 1991; Corfe S.A. et al., Seminars in Immunology, 2012) and LIS1 is required for cell division upon IL-7 stimulation in peripheral CD8⁺ T cells (Ngoi, S. M. et al., The Journal of Immunology, 2016). If this interpretation is correct, it is intriguing that we did not detect an effect of LIS1 at the DN2 stage of T-cell development, as DN2 thymocytes were also reported to proliferate in response to IL-7R signaling (von Freeden-Jeffry, U. et al., Immunity, 1997).

One possibility to explain this could be that the Lis1^flox/flox genes are deleted at a later stage of T-cell development than of B-cell development. Previous analyses of Cre recombinase activity in the hCD2-promoter model suggest that the Cre is effective in all B cell precursor subsets (Siegemund S. et al., PLOS one, 2015), whereas in thymocytes optimal recombination is reached at the DN3 stage (Shi J. et al., PLOS one, 2012).

3. In Figures 1C/D authors claim that "LIS1 was not required for functional pre-TCR assembly but rather for the expansion of DN3 thymocytes…" based on the expression of IL-7R and CD5 by LIS-deficient DN3 thymocytes. However, authors previously state that "Notch and the IL-7receptor (IL-7R) stimulation lead to the up-regulation of CD5". As CD5 expression seems to be upregulated in DN3 thymocytes from Lis1flox/flox-Cd2Cre, it would be interesting to understand whether other signals downstream of Notch and IL-7R are being impacted. This would further strengthen the idea that signalling is not the reason for the defect in proliferation seen in these cells. This conclusion would also be strengthened by further evidence of proliferative defects in LIS1-deficient DN3 thymocytes – using Ki67 or BrdU staining combined with the DNA one. The experimental setup used to produce the data shown in Figures 2A and 2B could be used to address this question.

As answered above, CD5 is a downstream target of the pre-TCR signaling but, to our knowledge, it is not a downstream target of Notch or IL-7R signaling. The sentence p7 of the manuscript was re-formulated since we understand that it could be misleading. However, we fully agree with the reviewer’s comment on Notch and IL-7R signaling and included new data in the revised version of the manuscript to address this point. Notch signaling stimulates metabolic changes which lead to the increase of thymocyte cell-size following the b-selection checkpoint (Ciofani M. et al., Nature Immunology, 2005; Maillard I. et al., The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 2006) and to the up-regulation of the transferrin receptor CD71 (Kelly, A.P. et al., The EMBO journal, 2007). We now show in Figure 1E of the revised manuscript that the loss of LIS1 does not affect the average cell-size of post-b-selection thymocytes and the expression level of CD71 in these cells, suggesting that Notch signaling is preserved in the absence of LIS1. This was confirmed in vitro following stimulation of DN3a thymocytes with OP9-dl1 cells (Figure 2D of the revised manuscript). In this Figure, we also analyzed the expression level of BCl^-2, which is regulated by IL-7R signaling (von Freeden-Jeffry, U. et al., Immunity, 1997). We show that BCl^-2 is comparable in abundance in LIS1 wild-type and LIS1deficient thymocytes following stimulation with OP-9dl1, suggesting that IL-7R signaling is not affected by the absence of LIS1. As for proliferative defects, we performed experiments to stain KI67 in thymocytes subsets but failed to detect any differences in WT and LIS1 deficient DN3 thymocytes (Author response image 1). However, the flow cytometry profile of KI67 expression in WT cells was almost similar in DN2, DN3-CD5^low and DN3-CD5^hi subsets, three populations which should exhibit different percentages of proliferative cells. The dot plot analysis of CD5 versus KI67 staining in DN3 thymocytes shows no detectable increase of KI67 expression in CD5hi thymocytes which is unexpected since these cells are enriched in post-b-selection thymocytes which extensively proliferate. A small decrease of Ki67 MFI was detected in DN3-CD5^low thymocytes as compared to that in other subsets but it seems to correspond to a general shift of the staining rather than a decrease of a KI67^hi subset. We decided not to include this analysis since we suspect that our staining did not efficiently discriminate proliferative events in these subsets.

Author response image 1

Download asset Open asset

4. In Figure 2C the higher expression of CD5 by DN3 cells from Lis1flox/flox-Cd2Cre mice is not observed, as opposed to what is seen in Figure 1C. On the other hand, the phenotype of cells stuck in G2/M phase seems to be more severe (Figure 2E). Can authors discuss what could be the reason for these different phenotypes?

For the cell cycle analysis, the effects of LIS1 are relatively similar in vivo and in vitro if you consider the mean values represented in the bar graphs. More representative histograms are now included in Figure 2F of the revised version. For CD5 expression, we suspect that the higher expression of CD5 on LIS1 deficient DN3 thymocytes is not the consequence of a direct effect of LIS1 on pre-TCR signaling, as suggested by the absence of effect on CD5 when cells are stimulated in vitro with OP-9dl1 cells, but an indirect effect due to the accumulation DN3 thymocytes that are blocked at this stage of T-cell development. CD5 surface expression is stimulated by pre-TCR signaling and CD5 increases in abundance as cells progress from the DN3 stage to the DN4 and DP stage (Azzam, H. S. et al., The journal of experimental medicine, 1998). We think that part of the cells characterized as DN3 cells in LIS1 deficient mice represent cells that have failed to transit to the DN4 stage and have accumulated pre-TCR signals, leading to the higher surface expression of CD5. This is not observed in vitro presumably because DN3 cells received synchronized stimuli by OP9 cells for relatively short periods of time.

5. I understand that BCl^-2 expression can be used as a measurement of cell survival, but the authors' claim that "the inability of cells to proliferate was not primarily due to survival defects" would be strengthened by direct measurement of cell viability.

The effect of LIS1 on cell viability is indirectly addressed in Figure 5, for both thymocytes and peripheral CD4⁺ T cells, by evaluating the percentages of apoptosis in divided and undivided cells. Similar results as the one represented in Figure 5 were obtained at day 3 after stimulation, when viability dyes were used instead of annexin-5. This was performed in only one experiment and was not included in the manuscript. We agree with the reviewer that the sentence “The loss of LIS1 also did not affect the expression of BCl^-2 (Figure 2D), …, suggesting that the inability of cells to proliferate was not primarily due to survival defects” appeals for a following-up analysis of cell survival in the same figure. We changed this sentence and presented the analysis of BCl^-2 expression as a read-out of IL-7R signaling instead of cell survival (p8).

6. Results depicted in Figure 3 (including its supplementary Figure) are mostly confirmations of a previous study (Ngoi, Lopez, Chang, Journal of Immunology, 2016; reference 34). Here the authors provide further evidence of a distinct role of LIS1 in CD4 T cell proliferation. However, the experimental setup chosen to show the physiological impact of the proliferation defect observed in LIS1-deficient CD4 T cells on immune responses is limited as it is restricted to a very early timepoint. The manuscript would benefit from data obtained in later time points following immunization: day 7/8 after immunization at peak of T cell expansion and >4 weeks after immunization when the T cell pool would be enriched for long-lived memory cells. Can Lis1flox/flox-Cd4Cre mice still form any memory pool?

We choose to analyze CD4⁺ T cells at day 2 and 3 after immunization because we sought to catch early cell-division waves through CTV dilution. We also wanted to show that LIS1 deficient CD4⁺ T cells could normally survive and migrate to lymph nodes before they start to proliferate. Given the dramatic effect of LIS1 on CD4⁺ T-cell proliferation at day 3, we anticipated that very low numbers of LIS1 deficient cells would survive at later time points after immunization. To address the reviewer’s comment, we transferred OT2+CD45.1+ CD4⁺ T cells stained with CTV in C57BL/6 mice and analyzed the percentages and numbers of CD45.1+ T cells as well as the dilution of CTV in those cells at day 7 after immunization. As expected, all CD45.1+ cells were negative for CTV within this time of analysis (data not shown). The percentages and numbers of CD45.1+ T cells were strongly decrease in the absence of LIS1 in comparison to wild-type controls (Figure 3 —figure supplement 2C), confirming results obtained at day 3 after immunization. We think that it would be very difficult to infer possible effects of LIS1 on long-lived memory cells given the bias introduced by the major proliferative defect observed at early times.

7. Figure 4: MG-132, being a proteasome inhibitor, will have global effects on cell proteostasis, which itself can lead to defects in the cell cycle. Could authors confirm these results inducing metaphase arrest using a different strategy?

We are not aware of an alternative to MG132 treatment, which is a very classic approach to our knowledge to induce metaphase arrest. We believe that the inability of LIS1deficient cells to rapidly reach metaphasis was confirmed in the video microscopy studies (Figure 4C and video-2 and -3) in which cells were not incubated with MG132.

8. It is very interesting that the association between dynein and dynactin does not need to be stabilized in all cell division contexts. As observed in reference 34 and confirmed by the authors, CD8⁺ T cell proliferation following TCR engagement is not impacted by LIS1 deficiency. Does LIS1 have any homologue that could compensate for its loss in certain scenarios? Is the expression of LIS1 in wild-type cells changed over the course of stimulation/proliferation?

We agree that this is a puzzling observation and can only speculate at this stage for an explanation. We are not aware of any LIS1 paralogs or other molecules that could substitute for LIS1 deficiency. The abundance of LIS1 remains unchanged in CD8⁺ T cells at day two after stimulation with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 antibodies, when cell divisions have been initiated (data not shown). Of note, the interaction between dynein and the dynactin component p150Glued was not totally disrupted in CD4⁺ T cells lacking LIS1, suggesting that dynein and dynactin interact to some extent through LIS1-independent mechanism. A possibility to explain this observation would be that LIS1 acts in a context-dependent manner on specific dynein/dynactin complexes which would be more critical for the division of CD4⁺ T cells than of CD8⁺ T cells. Dynein assembles with many other regulatory proteins which lead to the formation of different dynein complexes, each serving different purposes upon cell division (kinetochore localization, force generation at the cell cortex, chromosomes alignment, etc…) (Raaijmakers J.A. et al., The journal of Cell biology, 2013; Torisawa T. et al., Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2020). Although LIS1 is associated with the majority of those complexes (Raaijmakers J.A. et al., The journal of Cell biology, 2013), it is not the case for dynactin components which associate in a restrictive manner to some dynein complexes but not to others (Raaijmakers J.A. et al., The journal of Cell biology, 2013). Previous studies have shown context-dependent effect of LIS1 (Baumbach J. et al., eLife, 2017), suggesting that LIS1 might regulate dynein/dynactin interaction in some complexes but not in others. Why those complexes would be particularly important for the division of CD4⁺ T cells but not of CD8⁺ T cells would need further investigations, but could possibly be related to differences linked to the symmetry of cell division, which implies different mechanistic readjustments of mitotic spindles presumably involving distinct dynein/dynactin-dependent processes.

9. Authors discuss the possible role of LIS1 in maintaining symmetric cell divisions. However, at least in the context of CD8⁺ T cell proliferation/differentiation, the presence of ICAM-1 (and its engagement to LFA-1) has been shown to be a requirement for asymmetric cell division (one of the publications that explores that is referred by the authors: Chang et al., 2007, Science, reference 8). In the context of antigen presentation by APCs (such as in in vivo challenges), ICAM-1 is present, but this is not the case upon stimulation with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 antibodies only, the method used by the authors in Figure 3. Thus, TCR engagement that most likely leads to symmetric divisions is being impaired in LIS1-deficient CD8⁺ T cells. Furthermore, even if authors assume that anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 only would promote polarization, CD4⁺ T cells have been shown to undergo asymmetric cell division (ref.8) after the first antigen encounter (reference 8). As the authors suggest that LIS1 is a requirement for symmetric cell divisions and not asymmetric ones, if no evidence of differences in asymmetric partitioning of cell cargoes upon loss of LIS1 is provided, I would suggest this session of the discussion be rephrased accordingly.

We agree with the reviewer and have rephrased the discussion as followed (p18, of the manuscript):

“This raises the question of whether CD4⁺ T cells would be more prone to symmetric divisions than CD8⁺ T cells. Theoretically, the experimental settings that we used in this study might not be optimal for eliciting asymmetric cell division, since we stimulated T cells with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 in the absence of ICAM-1, which is required for asymmetric cell divisions to occur in the context of APC stimulation (Chang, J. T. et al., Science, 2007). However, the rate of asymmetric cell divisions might be less influenced by ICAM-1 stimulation in conditions where plate-bound stimulations with antibodies are used (Jung H.R. PLOS one, 2014). Asymmetric cell divisions have been detected in CD4⁺ T cells after the first antigen encounter (Chang, J. T. et al., Science, 2007), but it is unknown whether these divisions occur systematically or whether they occur with variable frequencies that could be context dependent. It is also unclear whether CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells have similar rates of asymmetric division since the literature is lacking of quantitative studies in which cellular events associated to mitosis would be investigated side-by-side in those two subsets. The repartition of the transcription factor T-bet in daughter cells was compared in one study by flow cytometry in CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells after a first round of cell division (Chang, J. T. et al., Immunity, 2011). Authors showed that T-bet segregates unequally in daughter cells in both CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells. However, the disparity of T-bet between daughter cells was higher in CD8⁺ T cells as compared to that in CD4⁺ T cells (5- versus 3-fold), suggesting that cell-fate determinants are either more equally (or less unequally) distributed in daughter cells from the CD4⁺ lineage or that the rate of symmetric divisions is higher in CD4⁺ T cells than in the CD8⁺ T cells. More extensive analysis would be required to precisely quantify the rate of symmetric and asymmetric cell divisions in CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells in the context of APC stimulation.”

10. Did the authors ever check whether heterozygous mice (Cre+ but Lis1flox/+) have any phenotype? This would be interesting to provide preliminary insights into a point that is raised at the end of the discussion: "mono-allelic dysfunctions of LIS1might be sufficient to modulate the susceptibility to oncogenic transformation."

We have addressed this point experimentally in the revised version of the manuscript. We show that mono-allelic LIS1 deficiency does not have a significant impact on the percentages of thymocyte populations in Cd2-Cre Lis1flox/+ mice (Figure 1 —figure supplement 1B) and on the numbers of peripheral T cells in Cd4-Cre Lis1flox/+ (Figure 3 —figure supplement 1E), suggesting that LIS1 does not operate in a dose-dependent fashion in the context of T-cell development and T-cell homeostatic maintenance. Additionally, Cd4Cre Lis1flox/+ CD4⁺ T cells proliferate effectively following TCR and CD28 stimulation (Figure 3 —figure supplement 2A), indicating further that mono-allelic LIS1 dosage is sufficient to support cell division of CD4⁺ T cells. The part of the discussion related to Lis1 haplo-deficiency has been rephrased according to this new set of data.

Author details

1. Jérémy Argenty

   Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), INSERM UMR1291, CNRS UMR5051, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Nelly Rouquié

   Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), INSERM UMR1291, CNRS UMR5051, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Cyrielle Bories

   Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), INSERM UMR1291, CNRS UMR5051, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Suzanne Mélique

   Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), INSERM UMR1291, CNRS UMR5051, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Valérie Duplan-Eche

   Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), INSERM UMR1291, CNRS UMR5051, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

   Contribution

   Software, Formal analysis, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Abdelhadi Saoudi

   Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), INSERM UMR1291, CNRS UMR5051, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

   Contribution

   Supervision, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7015-8178

7. Nicolas Fazilleau

   Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), INSERM UMR1291, CNRS UMR5051, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

   Contribution

   Supervision, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Renaud Lesourne

   Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), INSERM UMR1291, CNRS UMR5051, University Toulouse III, Toulouse, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   renaud.lesourne@inserm.fr

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3816-7087

• 334

  Page views

• 53

  Downloads

• 0

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.