PA28γ promotes the malignant progression of tumor by elevating mitochondrial function via C1QBP

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors have tried to dissect the functions of Proteasome activator 28γ (PA28γ) which is known to activate proteasomal function in an ATP-independent manner. Although there are multiple works that have highlighted the role of this protein in tumours, this study specifically tried to develop a correlation with Complement C1q binding protein (C1QBp) that is associated with immune response and energy homeostasis.

Strengths:

The observations of the authors hint that beyond PA28y's association with the proteasome, it might also stabilize certain proteins such as C1QBP which influences energy metabolism.

Weaknesses:

The strength of the work also becomes its main drawback. That is, how PA28y stabilizes C1QBP or how C1QBP elicits its pro-tumourigenic role under PA28y OE.
In most of the experiments, the authors have been dependent on the parallel changes in the expression of both the proteins to justify their stabilizing interaction. However, this approach is indirect at best and does not confirm the direct stabilizing effect of this interaction. IP experiments do not indicate direct interaction and have some quality issues. The upregulation of C1QBP might be indirect at best. It is quite possible that PA28y might be degrading some secondary protein/complex that is responsible for C1QBP expression. Since the core idea of the work is PA28y direct interaction with C1QBP stabilizing it, the same should be demonstrated in a more convincing manner.

In all of the assays, C1QBP has been detected as doublet. However, the expression pattern of the two bands varies depending on the experiment. In some cases, the upper band is intensely stained and in some the lower bands. Do C1QBP isoforms exist and are they differentially regulated depending on experiment conditions/tissue types?

Problems with the background of the work: Line 76. This statement is far-fetched. There are presently a number of works of literature that have dealt with the metabolic programming of OSCC including identification of specific metabolites. Moreover, beyond the estimation of OCR, the authors have not conducted any experiments related to metabolism. In the Introduction, the significance of this study and how it will extend our understanding of OSCC needs to be elaborated.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors tried to determine how PA28g functions in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) cells. They hypothesized it may act through metabolic reprogramming in the mitochondria.

Strengths:

They found that the genes of PA28g and C1QBP are in an overlapping interaction network after an analysis of a genome database. They also found that the two proteins interact in coimmunoprecipitation and pull-down assays using the lysate from OSCC cells with or without expression of the exogenous genes. They used truncated C1QBP proteins to map the interaction site to the N-terminal 167 residues of C1QBP protein. They observed the levels of the two proteins are positively correlated in the cells. They provided evidence for the colocalization of the two proteins in the mitochondria, the effect on mitochondrial form and function in vitro and in vivo OSCC models, and the correlation of the protein expression with the prognosis of cancer patients.

Weaknesses:

Many data sets are shown in figures that cannot be understood without more descriptions, either in the text or the legend, e.g., Figure 1A. Similarly, many abbreviations are not defined.

Some of the pull-down and coimmunoprecipitation data do not support the conclusion about the PA28g-C1QBP interaction. For example, in Appendix Figure 1B the Flag-C1QBP was detected in the Myc beads pull-down when the protein was expressed in the 293T cells without the Myc-PA28g, suggesting that the pull-down was not due to the interaction of the C1QBP and PA28g proteins. In Appendix Figure 1C, assume the SFB stands for a biotin tag, then the SFB-PA28g should be detected in the cells expressing this protein after pull-down by streptavidin; however, it was not. The Western blot data in Figure 1E and many other figures must be quantified before any conclusions about the levels of proteins can be drawn.

The immunoprecipitation method is flawed as it is described. The antigen (PA28g or C1QBP) should bind to the respective antibody that in turn should binds to Protein G beads. The resulting immunocomplex should end up in the pellet fraction after centrifugation and be analyzed further by Western blot for coprecipitates. However, the method in the Appendix states that the supernatant was used for the Western blot.

To conclude that PA28g stabilizes C1QBP through their physical interaction in the cells, one must show whether a protease inhibitor can substitute PA28q and prevent C1QBP degradation, and also show whether a mutation that disrupts the PA28g-C1QBP interaction can reduce the stability of C1QBP. In Figure 1F, all cells expressed Myc-PA28g. Therefore, the conclusion that PA28g prevented C1QBP degradation cannot be reached. Instead, since more Myc-PA28g was detected in the cells expressing Flag-C1QBP compared to the cells not expressing this protein, a conclusion would be that the C1QBP stabilized the PA28g. Figure 1G is a quantification of Western blot data that should be shown.

The binding site for PA28g in C1QBP was mapped to the N-terminal 167 residues using truncated proteins. One caveat would be that some truncated proteins did not fold correctly in the absence of the sequence that was removed. Thus, the C-terminal region of the C1QBP with residues 168-283 may still bind to the PA29g in the context of full-length protein. In Figure 1I, more Flag-C1QBP 1-167 was pulled down by Myc-PA28g than the full-length protein or the Flag-C1QBP 1-213. Why?

The interaction site in PA28g for C1QBP was not mapped, which prevents further analysis of the interaction. Also, if the interaction domain can be determined, structural modeling of the complex would be feasible using AlphaFold2 or other programs. Then, it is possible to test point mutations that may disrupt the interaction and if so, the functional effect