The evolutionary modifications of a GoLoco motif in the AGS protein facilitate micromere formation in the sea urchin embryo

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Previous work has shown that the evolutionarily-conserved division-orienting protein LGN/Pins (vertebrates/flies) participates in division orientation across a variety of cell types, perhaps most importantly those that undergo asymmetric divisions. Micromere formation in echinoids relies on asymmetric cell division at the 16-cell stage, and these authors previously demonstrated a role for the LGN/Pins homolog AGS in that ACD process. Here they extend that work by investigating and exploiting the question of why echinoids but not other echinoderms form micromeres. Starting with a phylogenetics approach, they determine that much of the difference in ACD and micromere formation in echinoids can be attributed to differences in the AGS C-terminus, in particular a GoLoco domain (GL1) that is missing in most other echinoderms.

Strengths:

There is a lot to like about this paper. It represents a superlative match of the problem with the model system and the findings it reports are a valuable addition to the literature. It is also an impressively thorough study; the authors should be commended for using a combination of experimental approaches (and consequently generating a mountain of data).

Weaknesses:

There is an intriguing finding described in Figure 1. AGS in sea cucumbers looks identical to AGS in the pencil urchin, at least at the C terminus (including the GL1 domain). Nevertheless, there are no micromeres in sea cucumbers. Therefore another mechanism besides GL motif organization has arisen to support micromere formation. It is a consequential finding and an important consideration in interpreting the data, but I could not find any mention of it in the text. That is a missed opportunity and should be remedied, ideally not only through discussion but also experimentation. Specifically: does sea cucumber AGS (SbAGS) ever localize to the vegetal cortex in sea cucumbers? Can it do so in echinoids? Will that support micromere formation?

The authors point out that AGS-PmGL demonstrates enrichment at the vegetal cortex (arrow in 5G, quantifications in 5H), unlike PmAGS. AGS-PmGL does not however support ACD. They interpret this result to indicate "that other elements of SpAGS outside of its C-terminus can drive its vegetal cortical localization but not function." This is a critical finding and deserves more attention. Put succinctly: Vegetal cortical localization of AGS is insufficient to promote ACD, even in echinoids. Why should this be?

The authors did perform experiments to address this problem, hypothesizing that the difference might be explained by the linker region, which includes a conserved phosphorylation site that mediates binding to Dlg. They write "To test if this serine is essential for SpAGS localization, we mutated it to alanine (AGS-S389A in Fig. S3A). Compared to the Full AGS control, the mutant AGS-S389A showed reduced vegetal cortical localization (Fig. S3B-C) and function (Fig. S3D-E). Furthermore, we replaced the linker region of PmAGS with that of SpAGS (PmAGS-SpLinker in Fig. S4A-B). However, this mutant did not show any cortical localization nor proper function in ACD (Fig. S4C-F). Therefore, the SpAGS C-terminus is the primary element that drives ACD, while the linker region serves as the secondary element to help cortical localization of AGS."

The experiments performed only make sense if the AGS-PmGL chimeric protein used in Figure 5 starts the PmGL sequence only after the Sp linker, or at least after the Sp phosphorylation site. I can't tell from the paper (Figure S3 indicates that it does, whereas S5 suggests otherwise), but it's a critical piece of information for the argument. Another piece of missing information is whether the PmAGS can be phosphorylated at its own conserved phosphorylation site. The authors don't test this, which they could at least try using a phosphosite prediction algorithm, but they do show that the candidate phosphorylation site has a slightly different sequence in Pm than in Et and Sp (Fig. S4A). With impressive rigor, the authors go on to mutate the PmAGS phosphorylation site to make it identical to Sp. Nothing happens. Vegetal cortical localization does not increase over AGS-PmGL alone. Micromere formation is unrescued.

There is therefore a logic problem in the text, or at least in the way the text is written. The paragraph begins "Additionally, AGS-PmGL unexpectedly showed cortical localization (Figure 5G), while PmAGS showed no cortical localization (Figure 5B)." We want to understand why this is true, but the explanation provided in the remainder of the paragraph doesn't match the question: according to quite a bit of their own data, the phosphorylation site in the linker does not explain the difference. It might explain why AGS-PmGL fails to promote micromere formation, but only if the AGS-PmGL chimeric protein uses the Pm linker domain (see above).

Another concern that is potentially related is the measurement of cortical signal. For example, in the control panel of Figure 5C, there is certainly a substantial amount of "non-cortical" signal that I believe is nuclear. I did not see a discussion of this signal or its implications. My impression of the pictures generally is that the nuclear signal and cortical signal are inversely correlated, which makes sense if they are derived from the same pool of total protein at different points of the cell cycle. If that's the case (and it might not be) I would expect some quantifications to be impacted. For example, the authors show in Figure S3B that AGS-S389A mutant does not localize to the cortex. However, this mutant shows a radically different localization pattern to the accompanying control picture (AGS), namely strong enrichment in what I assume to be the nucleus. Is the S389 mutant preventing AGS from making it to the cortex? Or are these pictures instead temporally distinct, meaning that AGS hasn't yet made it out of the nucleus? Notably, the work of Johnston et al. (Cell 2009), cited in the text, does not show or claim that the linker domain impacts Pins localization. Their model is rather that Pins is anchored at the cortex by Gαi, not Dlg, and that is the same model described in this manuscript. In agreement with that model and the results of Johnston et al., a later study (Neville et al. EMBO Reports 2023) failed to find a role for Dlg or the conserved phosphorylation site in Pins localization.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study from Dr. Emura and colleagues addresses the relevance of AGS3 mutations in the execution of asymmetric cell divisions promoting the formation of the micromere during sea-searching development. To this aim, the authors use quantitative imaging approaches to evaluate the localisation of AGS3 mutants truncated at the N-terminal region or at the C-terminal region, and correlate these distributions with the formation of micromere and correct development of embryos to the pluteus stage. The authors also analyse the capacity of these mutated proteins to rescue developmental defects observed upon AGS3 depletion by morpholino antisense nucleotides (MO). Collectively these experiments revealed that the C-terminus of AGS3, coding for four GoLoco motifs binding to cortical Gaphai proteins, is the molecular determinant for cortical localisation of AGS3 at the micromeres and correct pluteus development. Further genetic dissections and expression of chimeric AGS3 mutants carrying shuffled copies of the GoLoco motifs or four copies of the same motifs revealed that the position of GoLoco1 is essential for AGS3 functioning. To understand whether the AGS3-GoLoco1 evolved specifically to promote asymmetric cell divisions, the authors analyse chimeric AGS3 variants in which they replaced the sea urchin GoLoco region with orthologs from other echinoids that do not form micromeres, or from Drosophila Pins or human LGN. These analyses corroborate the notion that the GoLoco1 position is crucial for asymmetric AGS3 functions. In the last part of the manuscript, the authors explore whether SpAGS3 interacts with the molecular machinery described to promote asymmetric cell division in eukaryotes, including Insc, NuMA, Par3, and Galphai, and show that all these proteins colocalize at the nascent micromere, together with the fate determinant Vasa. Collectively this evidence highlighted how evolutionarily selected AGS3 modifications are essential to sustain asymmetric divisions and specific developmental programs associated with them.