Abstract

GGGGCC (G4C2) hexanucleotide repeat expansion in the C9ORF72 gene is the most common genetic cause of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The repeat is bidirectionally transcribed and confers gain of toxicity. However, the underlying toxic species is debated, and it is not clear whether antisense CCCCGG (C4G2) repeat expanded RNAs contribute to disease pathogenesis. Our study shows that C9ORF72 antisense C4G2 repeat expanded RNAs trigger the activation of the PKR/eIF2α-dependent integrated stress response independent of dipeptide repeat proteins that are produced through repeat-associated non-AUG initiated translation, leading to global translation inhibition and stress granule formation. Reducing PKR levels with either siRNA or morpholinos mitigates integrated stress response and toxicity caused by the antisense C4G2 RNAs in cell lines, primary neurons, and zebrafish. Increased phosphorylation of PKR/eIF2α is also observed in the frontal cortex of C9ORF72 FTD/ALS patients. Finally, only antisense C4G2, but not sense G4C2, repeat expanded RNAs robustly activate the PKR/eIF2α pathway and induce aberrant stress granule formation. These results provide a mechanism by which antisense C4G2 repeat expanded RNAs elicit neuronal toxicity in FTD/ALS caused by C9ORF72 repeat expansions.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Janani Parameswaran

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9030-4953
  2. Nancy Zhang

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Elke Braems

    Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kedamawit Tilahun

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2107-1580
  5. Devesh C Pant

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4046-4195
  6. Keena Yin

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Seneshaw Asress

    Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Kara Heeren

    Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Anwesha Banerjee

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Emma Davis

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Samantha L Schwartz

    Department of Biochemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Graeme L Conn

    Department of Biochemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Gary J Bassell

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Ludo Van Den Bosch

    Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Jie Jiang

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    For correspondence
    jie.jiang@emory.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9519-4992

Funding

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS114253)

  • Anwesha Banerjee
  • Gary J Bassell

National Institutes of Health (R01AG068247)

  • Jie Jiang

ALS Association (21-PDF-585)

  • Janani Parameswaran

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (G0C1620N)

  • Ludo Van Den Bosch

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Hugo J Bellen, Baylor College of Medicine, United States

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: June 6, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: January 2, 2023
  3. Accepted: April 18, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: April 19, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: May 16, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Parameswaran 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

  • 1,947
    views
  • 382
    downloads
  • 7
    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. Janani Parameswaran
  2. Nancy Zhang
  3. Elke Braems
  4. Kedamawit Tilahun
  5. Devesh C Pant
  6. Keena Yin
  7. Seneshaw Asress
  8. Kara Heeren
  9. Anwesha Banerjee
  10. Emma Davis
  11. Samantha L Schwartz
  12. Graeme L Conn
  13. Gary J Bassell
  14. Ludo Van Den Bosch
  15. Jie Jiang
(2023)
Antisense, but not sense, repeat expanded RNAs activate PKR/eIF2α-dependent ISR in C9ORF72 FTD/ALS
eLife 12:e85902.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.85902

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.85902

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ladan Shahshahani, Maedbh King ... Jörn Diedrichsen
    Research Article

    Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have documented cerebellar activity across a wide array of tasks. However, the functional contribution of the cerebellum within these task domains remains unclear because cerebellar activity is often studied in isolation. This is problematic, as cerebellar fMRI activity may simply reflect the transmission of neocortical activity through fixed connections. Here, we present a new approach that addresses this problem. Rather than focus on task-dependent activity changes in the cerebellum alone, we ask if neocortical inputs to the cerebellum are gated in a task-dependent manner. We hypothesize that input is upregulated when the cerebellum functionally contributes to a task. We first validated this approach using a finger movement task, where the integrity of the cerebellum has been shown to be essential for the coordination of rapid alternating movements but not for force generation. While both neocortical and cerebellar activity increased with increasing speed and force, the speed-related changes in the cerebellum were larger than predicted by an optimized cortico-cerebellar connectivity model. We then applied the same approach in a cognitive domain, assessing how the cerebellum supports working memory. Enhanced gating was associated with the encoding of items in working memory, but not with the manipulation or retrieval of the items. Focusing on task-dependent gating of neocortical inputs to the cerebellum offers a promising approach for using fMRI to understand the specific contributions of the cerebellum to cognitive function.

    1. Neuroscience
    Petteri Stenroos, Isabelle Guillemain ... Emmanuel L Barbier
    Research Article

    In patients suffering absence epilepsy, recurring seizures can significantly decrease their quality of life and lead to yet untreatable comorbidities. Absence seizures are characterized by spike-and-wave discharges on the electroencephalogram associated with a transient alteration of consciousness. However, it is still unknown how the brain responds to external stimuli during and outside of seizures. This study aimed to investigate responsiveness to visual and somatosensory stimulation in Genetic Absence Epilepsy Rats from Strasbourg (GAERS), a well-established rat model for absence epilepsy. Animals were imaged under non-curarized awake state using a quiet, zero echo time, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) sequence. Sensory stimulations were applied during interictal and ictal periods. Whole-brain hemodynamic responses were compared between these two states. Additionally, a mean-field simulation model was used to explain the changes of neural responsiveness to visual stimulation between states. During a seizure, whole-brain responses to both sensory stimulations were suppressed and spatially hindered. In the cortex, hemodynamic responses were negatively polarized during seizures, despite the application of a stimulus. The mean-field simulation revealed restricted propagation of activity due to stimulation and agreed well with fMRI findings. Results suggest that sensory processing is hindered or even suppressed by the occurrence of an absence seizure, potentially contributing to decreased responsiveness during this absence epileptic process.