The 133-kDa N-terminal domain enables myosin 15 to maintain mechanotransducing stereocilia and is essential for hearing

  1. Qing Fang
  2. Artur A Indzhykulian
  3. Mirna Mustapha
  4. Gavin P Riordan
  5. David F Dolan
  6. Thomas B Friedman
  7. Inna A Belyantseva
  8. Gregory I Frolenkov
  9. Sally A Camper
  10. Jonathan E Bird  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan, United States
  2. Harvard Medical School, United States
  3. Stanford University, United States
  4. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, United States
  5. University of Michigan Medical School, United States
  6. University of Kentucky, United States

Abstract

The precise assembly of inner ear hair cell stereocilia into rows of increasing height is critical for mechanotransduction and the sense of hearing. Yet, how the lengths of actin-based stereocilia are regulated remains poorly understood. Mutations of the molecular motor myosin-15 stunt stereocilia growth and cause deafness. We found that hair cells express two isoforms of myosin-15 through alternative splicing of an N-terminal domain, and that these isoforms selectively traffic to different stereocilia rows. Using an isoform-specific knockout mouse, hair cells expressing only the small isoform remarkably develop normal stereocilia bundles. However, a critical subset of stereocilia with active mechanotransducer channels subsequently retracts. The larger isoform with the N-terminal domain traffics to these specialized stereocilia and prevents disassembly of their actin core. Our results show that myosin-15 isoforms can navigate between functionally distinct classes of stereocilia, and are independently required to assemble and then maintain the intricate hair bundle architecture.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Qing Fang

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Artur A Indzhykulian

    Department of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mirna Mustapha

    Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Gavin P Riordan

    Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. David F Dolan

    Department of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Thomas B Friedman

    Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Inna A Belyantseva

    Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Gregory I Frolenkov

    Department of Physiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sally A Camper

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jonathan E Bird

    Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    jonathan.bird@nih.gov
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeremy Nathans, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal procedures were approved by the institutional animal care and use committees (IACUC) at the University of Michigan (#PRO00004639, #PRO00005913, #PRO00005128), the University of Kentucky (#903M2005) and at the NIDCD (#1263-12).

Version history

  1. Received: May 9, 2015
  2. Accepted: August 22, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 24, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 6, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 3,487
    views
  • 653
    downloads
  • 66
    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. Qing Fang
  2. Artur A Indzhykulian
  3. Mirna Mustapha
  4. Gavin P Riordan
  5. David F Dolan
  6. Thomas B Friedman
  7. Inna A Belyantseva
  8. Gregory I Frolenkov
  9. Sally A Camper
  10. Jonathan E Bird
(2015)
The 133-kDa N-terminal domain enables myosin 15 to maintain mechanotransducing stereocilia and is essential for hearing
eLife 4:e08627.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08627

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08627

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Natalia Dolgova, Eva-Maria E Uhlemann ... Oleg Y Dmitriev
    Research Article Updated

    Mediator of ERBB2-driven cell motility 1 (MEMO1) is an evolutionary conserved protein implicated in many biological processes; however, its primary molecular function remains unknown. Importantly, MEMO1 is overexpressed in many types of cancer and was shown to modulate breast cancer metastasis through altered cell motility. To better understand the function of MEMO1 in cancer cells, we analyzed genetic interactions of MEMO1 using gene essentiality data from 1028 cancer cell lines and found multiple iron-related genes exhibiting genetic relationships with MEMO1. We experimentally confirmed several interactions between MEMO1 and iron-related proteins in living cells, most notably, transferrin receptor 2 (TFR2), mitoferrin-2 (SLC25A28), and the global iron response regulator IRP1 (ACO1). These interactions indicate that cells with high-MEMO1 expression levels are hypersensitive to the disruptions in iron distribution. Our data also indicate that MEMO1 is involved in ferroptosis and is linked to iron supply to mitochondria. We have found that purified MEMO1 binds iron with high affinity under redox conditions mimicking intracellular environment and solved MEMO1 structures in complex with iron and copper. Our work reveals that the iron coordination mode in MEMO1 is very similar to that of iron-containing extradiol dioxygenases, which also display a similar structural fold. We conclude that MEMO1 is an iron-binding protein that modulates iron homeostasis in cancer cells.

    1. Cell Biology
    Yoko Nakai-Futatsugi, Jianshi Jin ... Masayo Takahashi
    Research Article

    Retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells show heterogeneous levels of pigmentation when cultured in vitro. To know whether their color in appearance is correlated with the function of the RPE, we analyzed the color intensities of human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived RPE cells (iPSC-RPE) together with the gene expression profile at the single-cell level. For this purpose, we utilized our recent invention, Automated Live imaging and cell Picking System (ALPS), which enabled photographing each cell before RNA-sequencing analysis to profile the gene expression of each cell. While our iPSC-RPE were categorized into four clusters by gene expression, the color intensity of iPSC-RPE did not project any specific gene expression profiles. We reasoned this by less correlation between the actual color and the gene expressions that directly define the level of pigmentation, from which we hypothesized the color of RPE cells may be a temporal condition not strongly indicating the functional characteristics of the RPE.