Simulation-based survey of TMEM16 family reveals that robust lipid scrambling requires an open groove

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript investigates lipid scrambling mechanisms across TMEM16 family members using coarse-grained molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. While the study presents a statistically rigorous analysis of lipid scrambling events across multiple structures and conformations, several critical issues undermine its novelty, impact, and alignment with experimental observations.

Critical issues:

(1) Lack of Novelty:
The phenomenon of lipid scrambling via an open hydrophilic groove is already well-established in the literature, including through atomistic MD simulations. The authors themselves acknowledge this fact in their introduction and discussion. By employing coarse-grained simulations, the study essentially reiterates previously known findings with limited additional mechanistic insight. The repeated observation of scrambling occurring predominantly via the groove does not offer significant advancement beyond prior work.

(2) Redundancy Across Systems:
The manuscript explores multiple TMEM16 family members in activating and non-activating conformations, but the conclusions remain largely confirmatory. The extensive dataset generated through coarse-grained MD simulations primarily reinforces established mechanistic models rather than uncovering fundamentally new insights. The effort, while statistically robust, feels excessive given the incremental nature of the findings.

(3) Discrepancy with Experimental Observations:
The use of coarse-grained simulations introduces inherent limitations in accurately representing lipid scrambling dynamics at the atomistic level. Experimental studies have highlighted nuances in lipid permeation that are not fully captured by coarse-grained models. This discrepancy raises questions about the biological relevance of the reported scrambling events, especially those occurring outside the canonical groove.

(4) Alternative Scrambling Sites:
The manuscript reports scrambling events at the dimer-dimer interface as a novel mechanism. While this observation is intriguing, it is not explored in sufficient detail to establish its functional significance. Furthermore, the low frequency of these events (relative to groove-mediated scrambling) suggests they may be artifacts of the simulation model rather than biologically meaningful pathways.

Conclusion:

Overall, while the study is technically sound and presents a large dataset of lipid scrambling events across multiple TMEM16 structures, it falls short in terms of novelty and mechanistic advancement. The findings are largely confirmatory and do not bridge the gap between coarse-grained simulations and experimental observations. Future efforts should focus on resolving these limitations, possibly through atomistic simulations or experimental validation of the alternative scrambling pathways.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Stephens et al. present a comprehensive study of TMEM16-members via coarse-grained MD simulations (CGMD). They particularly focus on the scramblase ability of these proteins and aim to characterize the "energetics of scrambling". Through their simulations, the authors interestingly relate protein conformational states to the membrane's thickness and link those to the scrambling ability of TMEM members, measured as the trespassing tendency of lipids across leaflets. They validate their simulation with a direct qualitative comparison with Cryo-EM maps.

Strengths:

The study demonstrates an efficient use of CGMD simulations to explore lipid scrambling across various TMEM16 family members. By leveraging this approach, the authors are able to bypass some of the sampling limitations inherent in all-atom simulations, providing a more comprehensive and high-throughput analysis of lipid scrambling. Their comparison of different protein conformations, including open and closed groove states, presents a detailed exploration of how structural features influence scrambling activity, adding significant value to the field. A key contribution of this study is the finding that groove dilation plays a central role in lipid scrambling. The authors observe that for scrambling-competent TMEM16 structures, there is substantial membrane thinning and groove widening. The open Ca2+-bound nhTMEM16 structure (PDB ID 4WIS) was identified as the fastest scrambler in their simulations, with scrambling rates as high as 24.4 {plus minus} 5.2 events per μs. This structure also shows significant membrane thinning (up to 18 Å), which supports the hypothesis that groove dilation lowers the energetic barrier for lipid translocation, facilitating scrambling.

The study also establishes a correlation between structural features and scrambling competence, though analyses often lack statistical robustness and quantitative comparisons. The simulations differentiate between open and closed conformations of TMEM16 structures, with open-groove structures exhibiting increased scrambling activity, while closed-groove structures do not. This finding aligns with previous research suggesting that the structural dynamics of the groove are critical for scrambling. Furthermore, the authors explore how the physical dimensions of the groove qualitatively correlate with observed scrambling rates. For example, TMEM16K induces increased membrane thinning in its open form, suggesting that membrane properties, along with structural features, play a role in modulating scrambling activity.

Another significant finding is the concept of "out-of-the-groove" scrambling, where lipid translocation occurs outside the protein's groove. This observation introduces the possibility of alternate scrambling mechanisms that do not follow the traditional "credit-card model" of groove-mediated lipid scrambling. In their simulations, the authors note that these out-of-the-groove events predominantly occur at the dimer interface between TM3 and TM10, especially in mammalian TMEM16 structures. While these events were not observed in fungal TMEM16s, they may provide insight into Ca2+-independent scrambling mechanisms, as they do not require groove opening.

Weaknesses:

A significant challenge of the study is the discrepancy between the scrambling rates observed in CGMD simulations and those reported experimentally. Despite the authors' claim that the rates are in line experimentally, the observed differences can mean large energetic discrepancies in describing scrambling (larger than 1kT barrier in reality). For instance, the authors report scrambling rates of 10.7 events per μs for TMEM16F and 24.4 events per μs for nhTMEM16, which are several orders of magnitude faster than experimental rates. While the authors suggest that this discrepancy could be due to the Martini 3 force field's faster diffusion dynamics, this explanation does not fully account for the large difference in rates. A more thorough discussion on how the choice of force field and simulation parameters influence the results, and how these discrepancies can be reconciled with experimental data, would strengthen the conclusions. Likewise, rate calculations in the study are based on 10 μs simulations, while experimental scrambling rates occur over seconds. This timescale discrepancy limits the study's accuracy, as the simulations may not capture rare or slow scrambling events that are observed experimentally and therefore might underestimate the kinetics of scrambling. It's however important to recognize that it's hard (borderline unachievable) to pinpoint reasonable kinetics for systems like this using the currently available computational power and force field accuracy. The faster diffusion in simulations may lead to overestimated scrambling rates, making the simulation results less comparable to real-world observations. Thus, I would therefore read the findings qualitatively rather than quantitatively. An interesting observation is the asymmetry observed in the scrambling rates of the two monomers. Since MARTINI is known to be limited in correctly sampling protein dynamics, the authors - in order to preserve the fold - have applied a strong (500 kJ mol-1 nm-2) elastic network. However, I am wondering how the ENM applies across the dimer and if any asymmetry can be noticed in the application of restraints for each monomer and at the dimer interface. How can this have potentially biased the asymmetry in the scrambling rates observed between the monomers? Is this artificially obtained from restraining the initial structure, or is the asymmetry somehow gatekeeping the scrambling mechanism to occur majorly across a single monomer? Answering this question would have far-reaching implications to better describe the mechanism of scrambling.

Notably, the manuscript does not explore the impact of membrane composition on scrambling rates. While the authors use a specific lipid composition (DOPC) in their simulations, they acknowledge that membrane composition can influence scrambling activity. However, the study does not explore how different lipids or membrane environments or varying membrane curvature and tension, could alter scrambling behaviour. I appreciate that this might have been beyond the scope of this particular paper and the authors plan to further chase these questions, as this work sets a strong protocol for this study. Contextualizing scrambling in the context of membrane composition is particularly relevant since the authors note that TMEM16K's scrambling rate increases tenfold in thinner membranes, suggesting that lipid-specific or membrane-thickness-dependent effects could play a role.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper investigates the TMEM16 family of membrane proteins, which play roles in lipid scrambling and ion transport. A total of 27 experimental structures from five TMEM16 family members were analyzed, including mammalian and fungal homologs (e.g., TMEM16A, TMEM16F, TMEM16K, nhTMEM16, afTMEM16). The identified structures were in both Ca²⁺-bound (open) and Ca²⁺-free (closed) states to compare conformations and were preprocessed (e.g., modeling missing loops) and equilibrated. Coarse-grain simulations were performed in DOPC membranes for 10 microseconds to capture the scrambling events. These events were identified by tracking lipids transitioning between the two membrane leaflets and they analysed the correlation between scrambling rates, in addition, structural properties such as groove dilation and membrane thinning were calculated. They report 700 scrambling events across structures and Figure 2 elaborates on how open structures show higher activity, also as expected. The authors also address how structures may require open grooves, this and other mechanisms around scrambling are a bit controversial in the field.

Strengths:

The strength of this study emerges from a comparative analysis of multiple structural starting points and understanding global/local motions of the protein with respect to lipid movement. Although the protein is well-studied, both experimentally and computationally, the understanding of conformational events in different family members, especially membrane thickness less compared to fungal scramblases offers good insights.

Weaknesses:

The weakness of the work is to fully reconcile with experimental evidence of Ca²⁺-independent scrambling rates observed in prior studies, but this part is also challenging using coarse-grain molecular simulations. Previous reports have identified lipid crossing, packing defects, and other associated events, so it is difficult to place this paper in that context. However, the absence of validation leaves certain claims, like alternative scrambling pathways, speculative.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript investigates lipid scrambling mechanisms across TMEM16 family members using coarse-grained molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. While the study presents a statistically rigorous analysis of lipid scrambling events across multiple structures and conformations, several critical issues undermine its novelty, impact, and alignment with experimental observations.

Critical issues:

(1) Lack of Novelty:

The phenomenon of lipid scrambling via an open hydrophilic groove is already well-established in the literature, including through atomistic MD simulations. The authors themselves acknowledge this fact in their introduction and discussion. By employing coarse-grained simulations, the study essentially reiterates previously known findings with limited additional mechanistic insight. The repeated observation of scrambling occurring predominantly via the groove does not offer significant advancement beyond prior work.

We agree with the reviewer’s statement regarding the lack of novelty when it comes to our observations of scrambling in the groove of open Ca²⁺-bound TMEM16 structures. However, we feel that the inclusion of closed structures in this study, which attempts to address the yet unanswered question of how scrambling by TMEM16s occurs in the absence of Ca²⁺, offers new observations for the field. In our study we specifically address to what extent the induced membrane deformation, which has been theorized to aid lipids cross the bilayer especially in the absence of Ca²⁺, contributes to the rate of scrambling (see references 36, 59, and 66). There are also several TMEM16F structures solved under activating conditions (bound to Ca²⁺ and in the presence of PIP2) which feature structural rearrangements to TM6 that may be indicative of an open state (PDB 6P48) and had not been tested in simulations. We show that these structures do not scramble and thereby present evidence against an out-of-the-groove scrambling mechanism for these states. Although we find a handful of examples of lipids being scrambled by Ca²⁺-free structures of TMEM16 scramblases, none of our simulations suggest that these events are related to the degree of deformation.

(2) Redundancy Across Systems:

The manuscript explores multiple TMEM16 family members in activating and non-activating conformations, but the conclusions remain largely confirmatory. The extensive dataset generated through coarse-grained MD simulations primarily reinforces established mechanistic models rather than uncovering fundamentally new insights. The effort, while statistically robust, feels excessive given the incremental nature of the findings.

Again, we agree with the reviewer’s statement that our results largely confirm those published by other groups and our own. We think there is however value in comparing the scrambling competence of these TMEM16 structures in a consistent manner in a single study to reduce inconsistencies that may be introduced by different simulation methods, parameters, environmental variables such as lipid composition as used in other published works of single family members. The consistency across our simulations and high number of observed scrambling events have allowed us to confirm that the mechanism of scrambling is shared by multiple family members and relies most obviously on groove dilation.

(3) Discrepancy with Experimental Observations:

The use of coarse-grained simulations introduces inherent limitations in accurately representing lipid scrambling dynamics at the atomistic level. Experimental studies have highlighted nuances in lipid permeation that are not fully captured by coarse-grained models. This discrepancy raises questions about the biological relevance of the reported scrambling events, especially those occurring outside the canonical groove.

We thank the reviewer for bringing up the possible inaccuracies introduced by coarse graining our simulations. This is also a concern for us, and we address this issue extensively in our discussion. As the reviewer pointed out above, our CG simulations have largely confirmed existing evidence in the field which we think speaks well to the transferability of observations from atomistic simulations to the coarse-grained level of detail. We have made both qualitative and quantitative comparisons between atomistic and coarse-grained simulations of nhTMEM16 and TMEM16F (Figure 1, Figure 4-figure supplement 1, Figure 4-figure supplement 5) showing the two methods give similar answers for where lipids interact with the protein, including outside of the canonical groove. We do not dispute the possible discrepancy between our simulations and experiment, but our goal is to share new nuanced ideas for the predicted TMEM16 scrambling mechanism that we hope will be tested by future experimental studies.

(4) Alternative Scrambling Sites:

The manuscript reports scrambling events at the dimer-dimer interface as a novel mechanism. While this observation is intriguing, it is not explored in sufficient detail to establish its functional significance. Furthermore, the low frequency of these events (relative to groove-mediated scrambling) suggests they may be artifacts of the simulation model rather than biologically meaningful pathways.

We agree with the reviewer that our observed number of scrambling events in the dimer interface is too low to present it as strong evidence for it being the alternative mechanism for Ca²⁺-independent scrambling. This will require additional experiments and computational studies which we plan to do in future research. However, we are less certain that these are artifacts of the coarse-grained simulation system as we observed a similar event in an atomistic simulation of TMEM16F.

Conclusion:

Overall, while the study is technically sound and presents a large dataset of lipid scrambling events across multiple TMEM16 structures, it falls short in terms of novelty and mechanistic advancement. The findings are largely confirmatory and do not bridge the gap between coarse-grained simulations and experimental observations. Future efforts should focus on resolving these limitations, possibly through atomistic simulations or experimental validation of the alternative scrambling pathways.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Stephens et al. present a comprehensive study of TMEM16-members via coarse-grained MD simulations (CGMD). They particularly focus on the scramblase ability of these proteins and aim to characterize the "energetics of scrambling". Through their simulations, the authors interestingly relate protein conformational states to the membrane's thickness and link those to the scrambling ability of TMEM members, measured as the trespassing tendency of lipids across leaflets. They validate their simulation with a direct qualitative comparison with Cryo-EM maps.

Strengths:

The study demonstrates an efficient use of CGMD simulations to explore lipid scrambling across various TMEM16 family members. By leveraging this approach, the authors are able to bypass some of the sampling limitations inherent in all-atom simulations, providing a more comprehensive and high-throughput analysis of lipid scrambling. Their comparison of different protein conformations, including open and closed groove states, presents a detailed exploration of how structural features influence scrambling activity, adding significant value to the field. A key contribution of this study is the finding that groove dilation plays a central role in lipid scrambling. The authors observe that for scrambling-competent TMEM16 structures, there is substantial membrane thinning and groove widening. The open Ca²⁺-bound nhTMEM16 structure (PDB ID 4WIS) was identified as the fastest scrambler in their simulations, with scrambling rates as high as 24.4 {plus minus} 5.2 events per μs. This structure also shows significant membrane thinning (up to 18 Å), which supports the hypothesis that groove dilation lowers the energetic barrier for lipid translocation, facilitating scrambling.

The study also establishes a correlation between structural features and scrambling competence, though analyses often lack statistical robustness and quantitative comparisons. The simulations differentiate between open and closed conformations of TMEM16 structures, with open-groove structures exhibiting increased scrambling activity, while closed-groove structures do not. This finding aligns with previous research suggesting that the structural dynamics of the groove are critical for scrambling. Furthermore, the authors explore how the physical dimensions of the groove qualitatively correlate with observed scrambling rates. For example, TMEM16K induces increased membrane thinning in its open form, suggesting that membrane properties, along with structural features, play a role in modulating scrambling activity.

Another significant finding is the concept of "out-of-the-groove" scrambling, where lipid translocation occurs outside the protein's groove. This observation introduces the possibility of alternate scrambling mechanisms that do not follow the traditional "credit-card model" of groove-mediated lipid scrambling. In their simulations, the authors note that these out-of-the-groove events predominantly occur at the dimer interface between TM3 and TM10, especially in mammalian TMEM16 structures. While these events were not observed in fungal TMEM16s, they may provide insight into Ca²⁺-independent scrambling mechanisms, as they do not require groove opening.

Weaknesses:

A significant challenge of the study is the discrepancy between the scrambling rates observed in CGMD simulations and those reported experimentally. Despite the authors' claim that the rates are in line experimentally, the observed differences can mean large energetic discrepancies in describing scrambling (larger than 1kT barrier in reality). For instance, the authors report scrambling rates of 10.7 events per μs for TMEM16F and 24.4 events per μs for nhTMEM16, which are several orders of magnitude faster than experimental rates. While the authors suggest that this discrepancy could be due to the Martini 3 force field's faster diffusion dynamics, this explanation does not fully account for the large difference in rates. A more thorough discussion on how the choice of force field and simulation parameters influence the results, and how these discrepancies can be reconciled with experimental data, would strengthen the conclusions. Likewise, rate calculations in the study are based on 10 μs simulations, while experimental scrambling rates occur over seconds. This timescale discrepancy limits the study's accuracy, as the simulations may not capture rare or slow scrambling events that are observed experimentally and therefore might underestimate the kinetics of scrambling. It's however important to recognize that it's hard (borderline unachievable) to pinpoint reasonable kinetics for systems like this using the currently available computational power and force field accuracy. The faster diffusion in simulations may lead to overestimated scrambling rates, making the simulation results less comparable to real-world observations. Thus, I would therefore read the findings qualitatively rather than quantitatively. An interesting observation is the asymmetry observed in the scrambling rates of the two monomers. Since MARTINI is known to be limited in correctly sampling protein dynamics, the authors - in order to preserve the fold - have applied a strong (500 kJ mol-1 nm-2) elastic network. However, I am wondering how the ENM applies across the dimer and if any asymmetry can be noticed in the application of restraints for each monomer and at the dimer interface. How can this have potentially biased the asymmetry in the scrambling rates observed between the monomers? Is this artificially obtained from restraining the initial structure, or is the asymmetry somehow gatekeeping the scrambling mechanism to occur majorly across a single monomer? Answering this question would have far-reaching implications to better describe the mechanism of scrambling.

The main aim of our computational survey was to directly compare all relevant published TMEM16 structures in both open and closed states using the Martini 3 CGMD force field. Our standardized simulation and analysis protocol allowed us to quantitatively compare scrambling rates across the TMEM16 family, something that has never been done before. We do acknowledge that direct comparison between simulated versus experimental scrambling rates is complicated and is best to be interpreted qualitatively. In line with other reports (e.g., Li et al, PNAS 2024), lipid scrambling in CGMD is 2-3 orders of magnitude faster than typical experimental findings. In the CG simulation field, these increased dynamics due to the smoother energy landscape are a well known phenomenon. In our view, this is a valuable trade-off for being able to capture statistically robust scrambling dynamics and gain mechanistic understanding in the first place, since these are currently challenging to obtain otherwise. For example, with all-atom MD it would have been near-impossible to conclude that groove openness and high scrambling rates are closely related, simply because one would only measure a handful of scrambling events in (at most) a handful of structures.

Considering the elastic network: the reviewer is correct in that the elastic network restrains the overall structure to the experimental conformation. This is necessary because the Martini 3 force field does not accurately model changes in secondary (and tertiary) structure. In fact, by retaining the structural information from the experimental structures, we argue that the elastic network helped us arrive at the conclusion that groove openness is the major contributing factor in determining a protein’s scrambling rate. This is best exemplified by the asymmetric X-ray structure of TMEM16K (5OC9), in which the groove of one subunit is more dilated than the other. In our simulation, this information was stored in the elastic network, yielding a 4x higher rate in the open groove than in the closed groove, within the same trajectory.

Notably, the manuscript does not explore the impact of membrane composition on scrambling rates. While the authors use a specific lipid composition (DOPC) in their simulations, they acknowledge that membrane composition can influence scrambling activity. However, the study does not explore how different lipids or membrane environments or varying membrane curvature and tension, could alter scrambling behaviour. I appreciate that this might have been beyond the scope of this particular paper and the authors plan to further chase these questions, as this work sets a strong protocol for this study. Contextualizing scrambling in the context of membrane composition is particularly relevant since the authors note that TMEM16K's scrambling rate increases tenfold in thinner membranes, suggesting that lipid-specific or membrane-thickness-dependent effects could play a role.

Considering different membrane compositions: for this study, we chose to keep the membranes as simple as possible. We opted for pure DOPC membranes, because it has (1) negligible intrinsic curvature, (2) forms fluid membranes, and (3) was used previously by others (Li et al, PNAS 2024). As mentioned by the reviewer, we believe our current study defines a good standardized protocol and solid baseline for future efforts looking into the additional effects of membrane composition, tension, and curvature that could all affect TMEM16-mediated lipid scrambling.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Strengths:

The strength of this study emerges from a comparative analysis of multiple structural starting points and understanding global/local motions of the protein with respect to lipid movement. Although the protein is well-studied, both experimentally and computationally, the understanding of conformational events in different family members, especially membrane thickness less compared to fungal scramblases offers good insights.

We appreciate the reviewer recognizing the value of the comparative study. In addition to valuable insights from previous experimental and computational work, we hope to put forward a unifying framework that highlights various TMEM16 structural features and membrane properties that underlie scrambling function.

Weaknesses:

The weakness of the work is to fully reconcile with experimental evidence of Ca²⁺-independent scrambling rates observed in prior studies, but this part is also challenging using coarse-grain molecular simulations. Previous reports have identified lipid crossing, packing defects, and other associated events, so it is difficult to place this paper in that context. However, the absence of validation leaves certain claims, like alternative scrambling pathways, speculative.

It is generally difficult to quantitatively compare bulk measurements of scrambling phenomena with simulation results. The advantage of simulations is to directly observe the transient scrambling events at a spatial and temporal resolution that is currently unattainable for experiments. The current experimental evidence for the precise mechanism of Ca²⁺-independent scrambling is still under debate. We therefore hope to leverage the strength of MD and statistical rigor of coarse-grained simulations to generate testable hypotheses for further structural, biochemical, and computational studies.