Context-Dependent Modification of PFKFB3 in Hematopoietic Stem Cells Promotes Anaerobic Glycolysis and Ensures Stress Hematopoiesis

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Watanuki et al used metabolomic tracing strategies of U-13C6-labeled glucose and 13C-MFA to quantitatively identify the metabolic programs of HSCs during steady-state, cell-cycling, and OXPHOS inhibition. They found that 5-FU administration in mice increased anaerobic glycolytic flux and decreased ATP concentration in HSCs, suggesting that HSC differentiation and cell cycle progression are closely related to intracellular metabolism and can be monitored by measuring ATP concentration. Using the GO-ATeam2 system to analyze ATP levels in single hematopoietic cells, they found that PFKFB3 can accelerate glycolytic ATP production during HSC cell cycling by activating the rate-limiting enzyme PFK of glycolysis. Additionally, by using Pfkfb3 knockout or overexpressing strategies and conducting experiments with cytokine stimulation or transplantation stress, they found that PFKFB3 governs cell cycle progression and promotes the production of differentiated cells from HSCs in proliferative environments by activating glycolysis. Overall, in their study, Watanuki et al combined metabolomic tracing to quantitatively identify metabolic programs of HSCs and found that PFKFB3 confers glycolytic dependence onto HSCs to help coordinate their response to stress. Even so, several important questions need to be addressed as below:

1. Based on previous reports, the authors expanded the LSK gate to include as many HSCs as possible (Supplemental Figure 1B). However, while they showed the gating strategy on Day 6 after 5-FU treatment, results from other time-points should also be displayed to ensure the strict selection of time-points.

2. In Figure 1, the authors examined the metabolite changes on Day 6 after 5-FU treatment. However, it is important to consider whether there are any dynamic adjustments to metabolism during the early and late stages of 5-FU treatment in HSCs compared to PBS treatment, in order to coordinate cell homeostasis despite no significant changes in cell cycle progression at other time-points.

3. As is well known, ATP can be produced through various pathways, including glycolysis, the TCA cycle, the PPP, NAS, lipid metabolism, amino acid metabolism and so on. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether treatment with 5-FU or oligomycin affects these other metabolic pathways in HSCs.

4. In part 2, they showed that oligomycin treatment of HSCs exhibited activation of the glycolytic system, but what about the changes in ATP concentration under oligomycin treatment? Are other metabolic systems affected by oligomycin treatment?

5. In Figure 5M, it would be helpful to include a control group that was not treated with 2-DG. Additionally, if Figure 5L is used as the control, it is unclear why the level of ATP does not show significant downregulation after 2-DG treatment. Similarly, in Figure 5O, a control group with no glucose addition should be included.

6. In this study, their findings suggest that PFKFB3 is required for glycolysis of HSCs under stress, including transplantation. In Figure 7B, the results showed that donor-derived chimerism in PB cells decreased relative to that in the WT control group during the early phase (1 month post-transplant) but recovered thereafter. Although the transplantation cell number is equal in two groups of donor cells, it is unclear why the donor-derived cell count decreased in the 2-week post-transplantation period and recovered thereafter in the Pfkgb3 KO group. Therefore, they should provide an explanation for this. Additionally, they only detected the percentage of donor-derived cells in PB but not from BM, which makes it difficult to support the argument for increasing the HSPC pool.

7. In Figure 7E, they collected the BM reconstructed with Pfkfb3- or Rosa-KO HSPCs two months after transplantation, and then tested their resistance to 5-FU. However, the short duration of the reconstruction period makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the effects on steady-state blood cell production.

8. PFK is allosterically activated by PFKFB, and other members of the PFKFB family could also participate in the glycolytic program. Therefore, they should investigate their function in contributing to glycolytic plasticity in HSCs during proliferation. Additionally, they should also analyze the protein expression and modification levels of other members. Although PFKFB3 is the most favorable for PFK activation, the role of other members should also be explored in HSC cell cycling to provide sufficient reasoning for choosing PFKFB3.

9. In this study, the authors identified PRMT1 as the upstream regulator of PFKFB3 that is involved in the glycolysis activation of HSCs. However, PRMT1 is also known to participate in various transcriptional activations. Thus, it is important to determine whether PRMT1 affects glycolysis through transcriptional regulation or through its direct regulation of PFKFB3? Additionally, the authors should investigate whether PRMT1i inhibits ATP production in normal HSCs. Moreover, could we combine Figure 6I and 6J for analysis. Finally, the authors could conduct additional rescue experiments to demonstrate that the effect of PRMT1 inhibitors on ATP production can be rescued by overexpression of PFKFB3.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the manuscript Watanuki et al. want to define the metabolic profile of HSCs in stress/proliferative (myelosuppression with 5-FU), and mitochondrial inhibition and homeostatic conditions. Their conclusions are that during proliferation HSCs rely more on glycolysis (as other cell types) while HSCs in homeostatic conditions are mostly dependent on mitochondrial metabolism. Mitochondrial inhibition is used to demonstrate that blocking mitochondrial metabolism results in similar features of proliferative conditions.

The authors used state-of-the-art technologies that allow metabolic readout in a limited number of cells like rare HSCs. These applications could be of help in the field since one of the major issues in studying HSCs metabolism is the limited sensitivity of the "standard" assays, which make them not suitable for HSC studies.

However, the observations do not fully support the claims. There are no direct evidence/experiments tackling cell cycle state and metabolism in HSCs. Often the observations for their claims are indirect, while key points on cell cycle state-metabolism, OCR analysis should be addressed directly.

Specifically, there are several major points that rise concerns about the claims:

1. The gating strategy to select HSCs with enlarged Sca1 gating is not convincing. I understand the rationale to have a sufficient number of cells to analyze, however this gating strategy should be applied also in the control group. From the FACS plot seems that there are more HSCs upon 5FU treatment (Figure S1b). How that is possible? Is it because of the 20% more of cycling cells at day 6? To prove that this gating strategy still represents a pure HSC population, authors should compare the blood reconstitution capability of this population with a "standard" gated population. If the starting population is highly heterogeneous then the metabolic readout could simply reflect cell heterogeneity.

2. S2 does not show major differences before and after sorting. However, a key metabolite like Lactate is decreased, which is also one of the most present. Wouldn't that mean that HSCs once they move out from the hypoxic niche, they decrease lactate production? Do they decrease anaerobic glycolysis? How can quiescent HSC mostly rely on OXPHOS being located in hypoxic niche?

3. The authors performed challenging experiments to track radiolabeled glucose, which are quite remarkable. However, the data do not fully support the conclusions. Mitochondrial metabolism in HSCs can be supported by fatty acid and glutamate, thus authors should track the fate of other energy sources to fully discriminate the glycolysis vs mito-metabolism dependency. From the data on S2 and Fig1 1C-F, the authors can conclude that upon 5FU treatment HSCs increase glycolytic rate.

4. In Figure S1, 5-FU leads to the induction of cycling HSCs and in figure 1, 5-FU results in higher activation of glycolysis. Would it be possible to correlate these two phenotypes together? For example, by sorting NBDG+ cells and checking the cell cycle status of these cells?

5. FIG.2B-C: Increase of Glycolysis upon oligomycin treatment is common in many different cell types. As explained before, other radiolabeled substrates should be used to understand the real effect on mitochondria metabolism.

6. Why are only ECAR measurements (and not OCR measurements) shown? In Fig.2G, why are HSCs compared with cKit+ myeloid progenitors, and not with MPP1? The ECAR increased observed in HSC upon oligomycin treatment is shared with many other types of cells. However, cKit+ cells have a weird behavior. Upon oligo treatment cKit+ cells decrease ECAR, which is quite unusual. The data of both HSCs and cKit+ cells could be clarified by adding OCR curves. Moreover, it is recommended to run glycolysis stress test profile to assess the dependency to glycolysis (Glucose, Oligomycin, 2DG).

7. Since HSCs in the niche are located in hypoxic regions of the bone marrow, would that not mimic OxPhos inhibition (oligomycin)? Would that not mean that HSCs in the niche are more glycolytic (anaerobic glycolysis)?

FIG.3 A-C. As mentioned previously, the flux analyses should be integrated with data using other energy sources. If cycling HSCs are less dependent to OXPHOS, what happen if you inhibit OXHPHOS in 5-FU condition? Since the authors are linking OXPHOS inhibition and upregulation of Glycolysis to increase proliferation, do HSCs proliferate more when treated with oligomycin?

8. FIG.4 shows that in vivo administration of radiolabeled glucose especially marks metabolites of TCA cycle and Glycolysis. The authors interpret enhanced anaerobic glycolysis, but I am not sure this is correct; if more glycolysis products go in the TCA cycle, it might mean that HSC start engaging mitochondrial metabolism. What do the authors think about that?

9. FIG.4: the experimental design is not clear. Are BMNNCs stained and then put in culture? Is it 6-day culture or BMNNCs are purified at day 6 post 5FU? FIG-4B-C The difference between PBS vs 5FU conditions are the most significant; however, the effect of oligomycin in both conditions is the most dramatic one. From this readout, it seems that HSCs are more dependent on mitochondria for energy production both upon 5FU treatment and in PBS conditions.

10. In Figure 5B, the orange line (Glucose+OXPHOS inhibition) remains stable, which means HSCs prefer to use glycolysis when OXPHOS is inhibited. Which metabolic pathway would HSCs use under hypoxic conditions? As HSCs resides in hypoxic niche, does it mean that these steady-state HSCs prefer to use glycolysis for ATP production? As mentioned before, mitochondrial inhibition can be comparable at the in vivo condition of the niche, where low pO2 will "inhibit" mitochondria metabolism.

11. FIG.6H should be extended with cell cycle analyses. There are no differences between 5FU and ctrl groups. If 5FU induces HSCs cycling and increases glycolysis I would expect higher 2-NBDG uptake in the 5FU group. How do the authors explain this?

12. In S7 the experimental design is not clear. What are quiescent vs proliferative conditions? What does it mean "cell number of HSC-derived colony"? Is it a CFU assay? Then you should show colony numbers. When HSCs proliferate, they need more energy thus inhibition of metabolism will impact proliferation. What happens if you inhibit mitochondrial metabolism with oligomycin?

13. In FIG 7 since homing of HSCs is influenced by the cell cycle state, should be important to show if in the genetic model for PFKFB3 in HSCs there's a difference in homing efficiency.