Dominant spinal muscular atrophy linked mutations in the cargo binding domain of BICD2 result in altered interactomes and dynein hyperactivity

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this work, Neiswender and colleagues test the hypothesis that mutations in BicD2 that are associated with SMALED alter BicD2-cargo interactions. To do this, they first establish the WT BicD2 cargo interactome (using a proximity-dependent biotin ligase screen with Turbo-ID on the BicD2 C-terminus). In addition to known cargo interactors, they also identified many proteins in the HOPs complex. Interestingly, they find that the HOPs complex may interact with BicD2 in a different manner than other known cargos. The authors also show that while BicD2 is required for the HOPs complex localization, on average, depletion of BicD2 from HeLa and Cos7 cells causes HOPs and Lysosome mislocalization that is consistent with Kinesin-1 trafficking defects, rather than dynein. The authors also use proximity biotin ligase approaches to define the cargo interactome of three BicD2 variants associated with SMALED. One variant (R747C) has the most altered cargo interactome. The authors highlight one protein, in particular, GRAMD1A, that is only found in the R747C dataset and mislocalizes specifically when R747C is expressed.

The work in this manuscript is of a very high quality and contributes important findings to the field. I have a few questions that, if answered, could increase the impact of this work.

(1) I was surprised at the effect of BicD2 knockdown on LAMP (and VPS41) localization, which really suggests that in HeLa and Cos7 cells, BicD2 regulation of Kinesin-1 (rather than dynein) is the primary driver of lysosome localization. The KIF5B-knockout rescue of the BicD2-overexpression phenotype was a very powerful result that supports this conclusion. Have the authors looked at other cargos, eg, Golgi or centrosomes in G2? Can the authors include more discussion about what this result means or how they imagine dynein and kinesin-1's interaction with BicD2 is regulated?

(2) Have the authors examined if the SMALED mutants show diminished or increased binding to KIF5B? While the authors are correct that the mutations could hyperactivate dynein because they reduce BicD2 autoinhibition, it is possible that the SMALED mutants hyperactivate dynein because they no longer bind kinesin. This would be particularly interesting, given the complex relationship between BicD2 regulation of dynein and kinesin that the authors show in Figure 3.

(3) What is already known about the protein GRAMD1A? Did the authors choose to focus on GRAMD1A because it was the only novel interaction found in the SMALED mutant interactomes, or was this protein interesting for a different reason? Does the known function of GRAMD1A explain the potential dysfunction of cells expressing BICD2_R747C or patients who have this mutation? More discussion of this protein and why the authors focused on it would really strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Neiswender et al. investigated the interactomes between wild-type BICD2 and BICD2 mutants that are associated with Spinal Muscular Atrophy with Lower Extremity Predominance (SMALED2). Although BICD2 has previously been implicated in SMALED2, it is unclear how mutations in BICD2 may contribute to disease symptoms. In this study, the authors characterize the interactome of wild-type BICD2 and identify potential new cargos, including the HOPS complex. The authors then chose three SMALED2-associated BICD2 mutants and compared each mutant interactome to that of wild-type BICD2. Each mutant had a change in the interactome, with the most drastic being BICD2_R747C, a mutation in the cargo binding domain of BICD2. This mutant displayed less interaction with a potential new BICD2 cargo, the HOPS complex. Additionally, it displayed more interaction with an ER protein, GRAMD1A.

The data in the paper is generally strong, but the major conclusions of this paper need more evidence to be better supported.

(1) The authors use cells that have been engineered to express the different BICD2 constructs. As shown in Figure 4B, the authors see wide expression of BICD2_WT throughout the cell. However, WT BICD2 usually localizes to the TGN. This widespread localization introduces some uncertainty about the interactome data. The authors should either try to verify the interaction data (specifically with the HOPS complex and GRAMD1A) by immunoprecipitating endogenous BICD2 or by repeating their interactome experiment in Figure 1 using BICD2 knockout cells that express the BICD2_WT construct. This should also be done to verify the immunoprecipitation and microscopy data shown in Figure 7.

(2) The authors conclude that cargo transport defects resulting from BICD2 mutations may contribute to SMALED2 symptoms. However, the authors are unable to determine if BICD2 directly binds to the potential new cargo, the HOPS complex. To address this, the authors could purify full-length WT BICD2 and perform in vitro experiments. Furthermore, the authors were unable to identify the minimal region of BICD2 needed for HOPS interaction. The authors could expand on the experiment attempted with the extended BICD2 C-terminal using a deltaCC1 construct, which could also be used for in vitro experiments.

(3) Again, the authors conclude that BICD2 mutants cause cargo transport defects that are likely to lead to SMALED2 symptoms. This would be better supported if the authors are able to find a protein relevant to SMALED2 and examine if/how its localization is changed under expression of the BICD2 mutants. The authors currently use the HOPS complex and GRAMD1A as indicators of cargo transport defects, but it is unclear if these are relevant to SMALED2 symptoms.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

BicD2 is a motor adapter protein that facilitates cellular transport pathways, which are impacted by human disease mutations of BicD2, causing spinal muscular atrophy with lower extremity dominance (SMALED2). The authors provide evidence that some of these mutations result in interactome changes, which may be the underlying cause of the disease. This is supported by proximity biotin ligation screens, immunoprecipitation, and cell biology assays. The authors identify several novel BicD2 interactions, such as the HOPS complex that participates in the fusion of late endosomes and autophagosomes with lysosomes, which could have important functions. Three BicD2 disease mutants studied had changes in the interactome, which could be an underlying cause for SMALED2. The study extends our understanding of the BicD2 interactome under physiological conditions, as well as of the changes in cellular transport pathways that result in SMALED2. It will be of great interest for the BicD2 and dynein fields.

Strengths:

Extensive interactomes are presented for both WT BicD2 as well as the disease mutants, which will be valuable for the community. The HOPS complex was identified as a novel interactor of BicD2, which is important for fusion of late endosomes and lysosomes, which is of interest, since some of the BicD2 disease mutations result in Golgi-fragmentation phenotypes. The interaction with the HOPS complex is affected by the R747C mutation, which also results in a gain-of-function interaction with GRAMD1A.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript should be strengthened by further evidence of the BicD2/HOPS complex interaction and the functional implications for spinal muscular atrophy by changes in the interactome through mutations. Which functional implications does the loss of the BicD2/HOPS complex interaction and the gain of function interaction with GRAMD1A have in the context of the R747C mutant?

Major points:

(1) In the biotin proximity ligation assay, a large number of targets were identified, but it is not clear why only the HOPS complex was chosen for further verification. Immunoprecipitation was used for target verification, but due to the very high number of targets identified in the screen, and the fact that the HOPS complex is a membrane protein that could potentially be immunoprecipitated along with lysosomes or dynein, additional experiments to verify the interaction of BicD2 with the HOPS complex (reconstitution of a complex in vitro, GST-pull down of a complex from cell extracts or other approaches) are needed to strengthen the manuscript.

(2) In the biotin proximity ligation assay, a large number of BicD2 interactions were identified that are distinct between the mutant and the WT, but it was not clear why, particularly GRAMD1A was chosen as a gain-of-function interaction, and what the functional role of a BicD2/GRAMD1A interaction may be. A Western blot shows a strengthened interaction with the R747C mutant, but GRAMD1A also interacts with WT BicD2.

(3) Furthermore, the functional implications of changed interactions with HOPS and GRAMD1A in the R747C mutant are unclear. Additional experiments are needed to establish the functional implication of the loss of the BicD2/HOPS interaction in the BicD2/R747C mutant. For the GRAMD1A gain of function interaction, according to the authors, a significant amount of the protein localized with BicD2/R747C at the centrosomal region. This changed localization is not very clear from the presented images (no centrosomal or other markers were used, and the changed localization could also be an effect of dynein hyperactivation in the mutant). Furthermore, the functional implication of a changed localization of GRAMD1A is unclear from the presented data.