Large vesicle extrusions from C. elegans neurons are consumed and stimulated by glial-like phagocytosis activity of the neighboring cell

Abstract

C. elegans neurons under stress can produce giant vesicles, several microns in diameter, called exophers. Current models suggest that exophers are neuroprotective, providing a mechanism for stressed neurons to eject toxic protein aggregates and organelles. However, little is known of the fate of the exopher once it leaves the neuron. We found that exophers produced by mechanosensory neurons in C. elegans are engulfed by surrounding hypodermal skin cells and are then broken up into numerous smaller vesicles that acquire hypodermal phagosome maturation markers, with vesicular contents gradually degraded by hypodermal lysosomes. Consistent with the hypodermis acting as an exopher phagocyte, we found that exopher removal requires hypodermal actin and Arp2/3, and the hypodermal plasma membrane adjacent to newly formed exophers accumulates dynamic F-actin during budding. Efficient fission of engulfed exopher-phagosomes to produce smaller vesicles and degrade their contents requires phagosome maturation factors SAND-1/Mon1, GTPase RAB-35, the CNT-1 ARF-GAP, and microtubule motor associated GTPase ARL-8, suggesting a close coupling of phagosome fission and phagosome maturation. Lysosome activity was required to degrade exopher contents in the hypodermis but not for exopher-phagosome resolution into smaller vesicles. Importantly, we found that GTPase ARF-6 and effector SEC-10/Exocyst activity in the hypodermis, along with the CED-1 phagocytic receptor, is required for efficient production of exophers by the neuron. Our results indicate that the neuron requires specific interaction with the phagocyte for an efficient exopher response, a mechanistic feature potentially conserved with mammalian exophergenesis, and similar to neuronal pruning by phagocytic glia that influences neurodegenerative disease.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files; Source Data files have been provided for Figures 1-8 and S2-S6.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yu Wang

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Meghan Lee Arnold

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Anna Joelle Smart

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Guoqiang Wang

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3694-7103
  5. Rebecca J Androwski

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Andres Morera

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ken CQ Nguyen

    Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Peter J Schweinsberg

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ge Bai

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jason Cooper

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. David H Hall

    Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Monica Driscoll

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Barth D Grant

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    For correspondence
    barthgra@dls.rutgers.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5943-8336

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01AG047101)

  • David H Hall
  • Monica Driscoll
  • Barth D Grant

National Institutes of Health (R24OD090143)

  • David H Hall

National Institutes of Health (F31AG066405)

  • Meghan Lee Arnold

National Institutes of Health (F31NS101969)

  • Anna Joelle Smart

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

Copyright

© 2023, Wang 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

  • 3,251
    views
  • 488
    downloads
  • 18
    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. Yu Wang
  2. Meghan Lee Arnold
  3. Anna Joelle Smart
  4. Guoqiang Wang
  5. Rebecca J Androwski
  6. Andres Morera
  7. Ken CQ Nguyen
  8. Peter J Schweinsberg
  9. Ge Bai
  10. Jason Cooper
  11. David H Hall
  12. Monica Driscoll
  13. Barth D Grant
(2023)
Large vesicle extrusions from C. elegans neurons are consumed and stimulated by glial-like phagocytosis activity of the neighboring cell
eLife 12:e82227.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82227

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82227

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Tomoharu Kanie, Beibei Liu ... Peter K Jackson
    Research Article

    Distal appendages are nine-fold symmetric blade-like structures attached to the distal end of the mother centriole. These structures are critical for formation of the primary cilium, by regulating at least four critical steps: ciliary vesicle recruitment, recruitment and initiation of intraflagellar transport (IFT), and removal of CP110. While specific proteins that localize to the distal appendages have been identified, how exactly each protein functions to achieve the multiple roles of the distal appendages is poorly understood. Here we comprehensively analyze known and newly discovered distal appendage proteins (CEP83, SCLT1, CEP164, TTBK2, FBF1, CEP89, KIZ, ANKRD26, PIDD1, LRRC45, NCS1, CEP15) for their precise localization, order of recruitment, and their roles in each step of cilia formation. Using CRISPR-Cas9 knockouts, we show that the order of the recruitment of the distal appendage proteins is highly interconnected and a more complex hierarchy. Our analysis highlights two protein modules, CEP83-SCLT1 and CEP164-TTBK2, as critical for structural assembly of distal appendages. Functional assays revealed that CEP89 selectively functions in RAB34+ ciliary vesicle recruitment, while deletion of the integral components, CEP83-SCLT1-CEP164-TTBK2, severely compromised all four steps of cilium formation. Collectively, our analyses provide a more comprehensive view of the organization and the function of the distal appendage, paving the way for molecular understanding of ciliary assembly.

    1. Cell Biology
    Ling Cheng, Ian Meliala ... Mikael Björklund
    Research Article

    Mitochondrial dysfunction is involved in numerous diseases and the aging process. The integrated stress response (ISR) serves as a critical adaptation mechanism to a variety of stresses, including those originating from mitochondria. By utilizing mass spectrometry-based cellular thermal shift assay (MS-CETSA), we uncovered that phosphatidylethanolamine-binding protein 1 (PEBP1), also known as Raf kinase inhibitory protein (RKIP), is thermally stabilized by stresses which induce mitochondrial ISR. Depletion of PEBP1 impaired mitochondrial ISR activation by reducing eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2α (eIF2α) phosphorylation and subsequent ISR gene expression, which was independent of PEBP1’s role in inhibiting the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. Consistently, overexpression of PEBP1 potentiated ISR activation by heme-regulated inhibitor (HRI) kinase, the principal eIF2α kinase in the mitochondrial ISR pathway. Real-time interaction analysis using luminescence complementation in live cells revealed an interaction between PEBP1 and eIF2α, which was disrupted by eIF2α S51 phosphorylation. These findings suggest a role for PEBP1 in amplifying mitochondrial stress signals, thereby facilitating an effective cellular response to mitochondrial dysfunction. Therefore, PEBP1 may be a potential therapeutic target for diseases associated with mitochondrial dysfunction.