Mutation in ATG5 reduces autophagy and leads to ataxia with developmental delay

  1. Myungjin Kim
  2. Erin Sandford
  3. Damian Gatica
  4. Yu Qiu
  5. Xu Liu
  6. Yumei Zheng
  7. Brenda A Schulman
  8. Jishu Xu
  9. Ian Semple
  10. Seung-Hyun Ro
  11. Boyoung Kim
  12. R Nehir Mavioglu
  13. Aslıhan Tolun
  14. Andras Jipa
  15. Szabolcs Takats
  16. Manuela Karpati
  17. Jun Z Li
  18. Zuhal Yapici
  19. Gabor Juhasz
  20. Jun Hee Lee
  21. Daniel J Klionsky
  22. Margit Burmeister  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan, United States
  2. St Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States
  3. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, United States
  4. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, United States
  5. Boğaziçi University, Turkey
  6. Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
  7. Istanbul University, Turkey

Abstract

Autophagy is required for the homeostasis of cellular material and is proposed to be involved in many aspects of health. Defects in the autophagy pathway have been observed in neurodegenerative disorders; however, no genetically-inherited pathogenic mutations in any of the core autophagy-related (ATG) genes have been reported in human patients to date. We identified a homozygous missense mutation, changing a conserved amino acid, in ATG5 in two siblings with congenital ataxia, mental retardation, and developmental delay. The subjects' cells display a decrease in autophagy flux and defects in conjugation of ATG12 to ATG5. The homologous mutation in yeast demonstrates a 30-50% reduction of induced autophagy. Flies in which Atg5 is substituted with the mutant human ATG5 exhibit severe movement disorder, in contrast to flies expressing the wild-type human protein. Our results demonstrate the critical role of autophagy in preventing neurological diseases and maintaining neuronal health.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Myungjin Kim

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Erin Sandford

    Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Damian Gatica

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yu Qiu

    Department of Structural Biology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Xu Liu

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yumei Zheng

    Department of Structural Biology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Brenda A Schulman

    Department of Structural Biology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jishu Xu

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ian Semple

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Seung-Hyun Ro

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Boyoung Kim

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. R Nehir Mavioglu

    Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Aslıhan Tolun

    Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Andras Jipa

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Szabolcs Takats

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Manuela Karpati

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Jun Z Li

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Zuhal Yapici

    Department of Neurology, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Gabor Juhasz

    Department of Anatomy, Cell and Developmental Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Jun Hee Lee

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Daniel J Klionsky

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Margit Burmeister

    Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    margit@umich.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Noboru Mizushima, The University of Tokyo, Japan

Ethics

Human subjects: Study protocols including written informed consents have been approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and the Boğaziçi University Institutional Review Board for Research with Human Participants.

Version history

  1. Received: October 11, 2015
  2. Accepted: January 13, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 26, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 1, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Kim 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

  • 6,306
    views
  • 1,472
    downloads
  • 132
    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. Myungjin Kim
  2. Erin Sandford
  3. Damian Gatica
  4. Yu Qiu
  5. Xu Liu
  6. Yumei Zheng
  7. Brenda A Schulman
  8. Jishu Xu
  9. Ian Semple
  10. Seung-Hyun Ro
  11. Boyoung Kim
  12. R Nehir Mavioglu
  13. Aslıhan Tolun
  14. Andras Jipa
  15. Szabolcs Takats
  16. Manuela Karpati
  17. Jun Z Li
  18. Zuhal Yapici
  19. Gabor Juhasz
  20. Jun Hee Lee
  21. Daniel J Klionsky
  22. Margit Burmeister
(2016)
Mutation in ATG5 reduces autophagy and leads to ataxia with developmental delay
eLife 5:e12245.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12245

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12245

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Weichen Song, Yongyong Shi, Guan ning Lin
    Tools and Resources

    We propose a new framework for human genetic association studies: at each locus, a deep learning model (in this study, Sei) is used to calculate the functional genomic activity score for two haplotypes per individual. This score, defined as the Haplotype Function Score (HFS), replaces the original genotype in association studies. Applying the HFS framework to 14 complex traits in the UK Biobank, we identified 3619 independent HFS–trait associations with a significance of p < 5 × 10−8. Fine-mapping revealed 2699 causal associations, corresponding to a median increase of 63 causal findings per trait compared with single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based analysis. HFS-based enrichment analysis uncovered 727 pathway–trait associations and 153 tissue–trait associations with strong biological interpretability, including ‘circadian pathway-chronotype’ and ‘arachidonic acid-intelligence’. Lastly, we applied least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression to integrate HFS prediction score with SNP-based polygenic risk scores, which showed an improvement of 16.1–39.8% in cross-ancestry polygenic prediction. We concluded that HFS is a promising strategy for understanding the genetic basis of human complex traits.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Jean-David Larouche, Céline M Laumont ... Claude Perreault
    Research Article

    Transposable elements (TEs) are repetitive sequences representing ~45% of the human and mouse genomes and are highly expressed by medullary thymic epithelial cells (mTECs). In this study, we investigated the role of TEs on T-cell development in the thymus. We performed multiomic analyses of TEs in human and mouse thymic cells to elucidate their role in T-cell development. We report that TE expression in the human thymus is high and shows extensive age- and cell lineage-related variations. TE expression correlates with multiple transcription factors in all cell types of the human thymus. Two cell types express particularly broad TE repertoires: mTECs and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). In mTECs, transcriptomic data suggest that TEs interact with transcription factors essential for mTEC development and function (e.g., PAX1 and REL), and immunopeptidomic data showed that TEs generate MHC-I-associated peptides implicated in thymocyte education. Notably, AIRE, FEZF2, and CHD4 regulate small yet non-redundant sets of TEs in murine mTECs. Human thymic pDCs homogenously express large numbers of TEs that likely form dsRNA, which can activate innate immune receptors, potentially explaining why thymic pDCs constitutively secrete IFN ɑ/β. This study highlights the diversity of interactions between TEs and the adaptive immune system. TEs are genetic parasites, and the two thymic cell types most affected by TEs (mTEcs and pDCs) are essential to establishing central T-cell tolerance. Therefore, we propose that orchestrating TE expression in thymic cells is critical to prevent autoimmunity in vertebrates.