Twelve phosphomimetic mutations induce the assembly of recombinant full-length human tau into paired helical filaments

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary and Strengths:

The very well-written manuscript by Lövestam et al. from the Scheres/Goedert groups entitled "Twelve phosphomimetic mutations induce the assembly of recombinant full-length human tau into paired helical filaments" demonstrates the in vitro production of the so-called paired helical filament Alzheimer's disease (AD) polymorph fold of tau amyloids through the introduction of 12 point mutations that attempt to mimic the disease-associated hyper-phosphorylation of tau. The presented work is very important because it enables disease-related scientific work, including seeded amyloid replication in cells, to be performed in vitro using recombinant-expressed tau protein.

Weaknesses:

The following points are asked to be addressed by the authors:

(i) In the discussion it would be helpful to note the findings that in AD the chemical structure tau (including phosphorylation) is what defines the polymorph fold and not the buffer/cellular environment. It would be further interesting to discuss these findings in respect to the relationship between disease and structure. The presented findings suggest that due to a cellular/organismal alteration, such as aging or Abeta aggregation, tau is specifically hyper-phosphorylated which then leads to its aggregation into the paired helical filaments that are associated with AD.

(ii) The conditions used for each assembly reaction are a bit hard to keep track of and somewhat ambiguous. In order to help the reader, I would suggest making a table to show conditions used for each type of assembly (including the diameter / throw of the orbital shaker) and the results (structural/biological) of those conditions. For example, presumably the authors did not have ThT in the samples used for cryo-EM but the methods section does not specify this. Also, the presence of trace NaCl is proposed as a possible cause for the CTE fold to appear in the 0N4R sample (page 4) but no explanation of why this particular sample would have more NaCl than the others. Furthermore, it appears that NaCl was actually used in the seeded assembly reactions that produced the PHF and not the CTE fold. This would seem to indicate the CTE structure of 0N4R-PAD12 is not actually induced by NaCl (like it was for tau297-391). In order for the reader to better understand the reproducibility of the polymorphs, it would be helpful to indicate in how many different conditions and how many replicates with new protein preparations each polymorph was observed (could be included in the same table)

(iii) It is not clear how the authors calculate the percentage of each filament type. In Figure 1 it is stated "discarded solved particles (coloured) and discarded filaments in grey" which leaves the reviewer wondering what a "discarded solved particle" is and which filaments were discarded. From the main text one guesses that the latter is probably false positives from automated picking but if so, these should not be referred to as filaments. Also, are the percentages calculated for filaments or segments? In any case, it would be more helpful in such are report to know the best estimate of the ratio of identified filament types without confusing the reader with a measure of the quality of the picking algorithm. Please clarify. Also, a clarification is asked for the significance of the varying degrees of PHF and AD monomer filaments in the various assembly conditions. It could be expected that there is significant variability from sample to sample but it would be interesting to know if there has been any attempt to reproduce the samples to measure this variability. If not, it might be worth mentioning so that the % values are taking with the appropriate sized grain of salt. Finally, the representation of the data in Figure 1 would seem to imply that the 0N3R forms less or no monofilament AD fold because no cross-section is shown for this structure, however it is very similar to (or statistically the same as) the 1:1 mix of 0N3R:0N4R.

(iv) The interpretation of the NMR data on soluble tau that the mutations on the second site are suppressing in part long range dynamic interaction around the aggregation-initiation site (FIA) is sound. It is in particular interesting to find that the mutations have a similar effect as the truncation at residue 391. An additional experiment using solvent PREs to elaborate on the solvent exposed sequence-resolved electrostatic potential and the intra-molecular long range interactions would likely strengthen the interpretation significantly (Iwahara, for example, Yu et al, in JACS 2024). Figure 6D Figure supplement shows the NMR cross peak intensities between tau 151-391 and PAD12tau151-391. Overall the intensities of the PAD12 tau construct are more intense which could be interpreted with less conformational exchange between long range dynamic interactions. There are however several regions which do not show any intensity anymore when compared with the corresponding wildtype construct such as 259-262, 292-294 which should be discussed/explained.

(v) Concerning the Cryo-EM data from the different hyper-phosphorylation mimics, it would seem that the authors could at least comment on the proportion of monofilament and paired-filaments even if they could not solve the structures. Nonetheless, based on their previous publications, one would also expect that they could show whether the non-twisted filaments are likely to have the same structure (by comparing the 2D classes to projections of non-twisted models). Also, it is very interesting to note that the twist could be so strongly controlled by the charge distribution on the non-structured regions (and may be also related to the work by Mezzenga on twist rate and buffer conditions). Is the result reported in Figure 2 a one-off case or was it also reproducible?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript addresses an important impediment in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and tauapathy research by showing that 12 specific phosphomimetic mutations in full-length tau allow the protein to aggregate into fibrils with the AD fold and the fold of chronic traumatic encephalopathy fibrils in vitro. The paper presents comprehensive structural and cell based seeding data indicating the improvement of their approach over previous in vitro attempts on non-full-length tau constructs. The main weaknesses of this work results from the fact that only up to 70% of the tau fibrils form the desired fibril polymorphs. In addition, some of the figures are of low quality and confusing.

Strengths:

This study provides significant progress towards a very important and timely topic in the amyloid community, namely the in vitro production of tau fibrils found in patients.

The 12 specific phosphomimetic mutations presented in this work will have an immediate impact in the field since they can be easily reproduced.

Multiple high-resolution structures support the success of the phosphomimetic mutation approach.

Additional data show the seeding efficiency of the resulting fibrils, their reduced tendency to bundle, and their ability to be labeled without affecting core structure or seeding capability.

Weaknesses:

Despite the success of making full-length AD tau fibrils, still ~30% of the fibrils are either not PHF, or not accounted for. A small fraction of the fibrils are single filaments and another ~20% are not accounted for. The authors mention that ~20% of these fibrils were not picked by the automated algorithm. However, it would be important to get additional clarity about these fibrils. Therefore, it would improve the impact of the paper if the authors could manually analyze passed-over particles to see if they are compatible with PHF or fall into a different class of fibrils. In addition, it would be helpful if the authors could comment on what can be done/tried to get the PHF yield closer to 90-100%

Author response:

We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments. While we work on a revision that addresses all points raised, we would already like to point out that both reviewers seem to have misunderstood how we reported the percentages of filament types in our reactions. Because we included all picked images in our calculations (including false positives from the picking, as well as damaged, overlapping or otherwise unsuitable filaments), we may have inadvertently given the impression that these filament preparations are not pure. In fact, the opposite is true: 0N3R PAD12 tau and the mixture of 0N3R:0N4R PAD12 tau assemble into highly pure paired helical filaments with the Alzheimer fold. Discarding images is common practice for high-resolution cryo-EM structure determination. Our reported percentages of discarded images (20-30%) are much lower than in typical cryo-EM studies, which is another reflection of the high quality of these samples. The main impurity lies in smaller fractions (~10%) of single protofilaments with the Alzheimer fold. We will make this clearer in our revised manuscript.