Vangl2 suppresses NF-κB signaling and ameliorates sepsis by targeting p65 for NDP52-mediated autophagic degradation

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the manuscript titled "Vangl2 suppresses NF-κB signaling and ameliorates sepsis by targeting p65 for NDP52-mediated autophagic degradation" by Lu et al, the authors show that Vangl2, a planner cell polarity component, plays a direct role in autophagic degradation of NFkB-p65 by facilitating its ubiquitination via PDLIM2 and subsequent recognition and autophagic targeting via the autophagy adaptor protein NDP52. Conceptually it is a wonderful study with excellent execution of experiments and controls. The concerns with the manuscript are mainly on two counts - First issue is the kinetics of p65 regulation reported here, which does not fit into the kinetics of the mechanism proposed here, i.e., Vangl2-mediated ubiquitination followed by autophagic degradation of p65. The second issue is more technical- an absolute lack of quantitative analyses. The authors rely mostly on visual qualitative interpretation to assess an increase or decrease in associations between partner molecules throughout the study. While the overall mechanism is interesting, the authors should address these concerns as highlighted below:

Major points:

1. Kinetics of p65 regulation by Vangl2: As mentioned above, authors report that LPS stimulation leads to higher IKK and p65 activation in the absence of Vangl2. The mechanism of action authors subsequently work out is that- Vangl2 helps recruit E3 ligase PDLIM to p65, which causes K63 ubiquitination, which is recognised by NDP52 for autophagic targeting. Curiously, peak p65 activation is achieved within 30 minutes of LPS stimulation. The time scale of all other assays is way longer. It is not clear that in WT cells, p65 could be targeted to autophagic degradation in Vangl2 dependent manner within 30 minutes. The HA-Myc-Flag-based overexpression and Co-IP studies do confirm the interactions as proposed. However, they do not prove that this mechanism was responsible for the Vangl2-mediated modulation of p65 activation upon LPS stimulation. Moreover, the Vangl2 KO line also shows increased IKK activation. The authors do not show the cause behind increased IKK activation, which in itself can trigger increased p65 phosphorylation.
2. The other major concern is regarding the lack of quantitative assessments. For Co-IP experiments, I can understand it is qualitative observation. However, when the authors infer that there is an increase or decrease in the association through co-IP immunoblots, it should also be quantified, especially since the differences are quite marginal and could be easily misinterpreted.
3. Figure 4E and F: It is evident that inhibiting Autolysosome (CQ or BafA1) or autophagy (3MA) led to the recovery of p65 levels and inducing autophagy by Rapamycin led to faster decay in p65 levels. Did the authors also note/explore the possibility that Vangl2 itself may be degraded via the autophagy pathway? IB of WCL upon CQ/BAF/3MA or upon Rapa treatment does indicate the same. If true, how would that impact the dynamics of p65 activation?
4. Autophagic targeting of p65 should also be shown through alternate evidence, like microscopy etc., in the LPS-stimulated WT cells.

Limitation: The mechanism behind enhanced activation of IKK in the absence of Vangl2 remains unclear. It is possible there is an autophagy-independent mechanism also involved in this regulation.

Summary: The study shows a new mechanism of NFkB-p65 regulation mediated by Vangl2-dependent autophagic targeting. Autophagic regulation of p65 has been reported earlier; this study brings an additional set of molecular players involved in this important regulatory event, which may have implications for chronic and acute inflammatory conditions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Vangl2, a core planar cell polarity protein involved in Wnt/PCP signaling, mediates cell proliferation, differentiation, homeostasis, and cell migration. Vangl2 malfunctioning has been linked to various human ailments, including autoimmune and neoplastic disorders. Interestingly, Vangl2 was shown to interact with the autophagy regulator p62, and indeed, autophagic degradation limits the activity of inflammatory mediators such as p65/NF-κB. However, if Vangl2, per se, contributes to restraining aberrant p65/NF-kB activity remains unclear.

In this manuscript, Lu et al. describe that Vangl2 expression is upregulated in human sepsis-associated PBMCs and that Vangl2 mitigates experimental sepsis in mice by negatively regulating p65/NF-κB signaling in myeloid cells. Vangl2 recruits the E3 ubiquitin ligase PDLIM2 to promote K63-linked poly-ubiquitination of p65. Vangl2 also facilitates the recognition of ubiquitinated p65 by the cargo receptor NDP52. These molecular processes cause selective autophagic degradation of p65. Indeed, abrogation of PDLIM2 or NDP52 functions rescued p65 from autophagic degradation, leading to extended p65/NF-κB activity.

As such, the manuscript presents a substantial body of interesting work and a novel mechanism of NF-κB control. If found true, the proposed mechanism may expand therapeutic opportunities for inflammatory diseases. However, the current draft has significant weaknesses that need to be addressed.

Specific comments
1. Vangl2 deficiency did not cause a discernible increase in the cellular level of total endogenous p65 (Fig 2A and Fig 2B) but accumulated also phosphorylated IKK.
Even Fig 4D reveals that Vangl2 exerts a rather modest effect on the total p65 level and the figure does not provide any standard error for the quantified data. Therefore, these results do not fully support the proposed model (Figure 7) - this is a significant draw back. Instead, these data provoke an alternate hypothesis that Vangl2 could be specifically mediating autophagic removal of phosphorylated IKK and phosphorylated IKK, leading to exacerbated inflammatory NF-κB response in Vangl2-deficient cells. One may need to use phosphorylation-defective mutants of p65, at least in the over-expression experiments, to dissect between these possibilities.
2. Fig 1A: The data indicates the presence of two subgroups within the sepsis cohort - one with high Vangl2 expressions and the other with relatively normal Vangle2 expression. Was there any difference with respect to NF-κB target inflammatory gene expressions between these subgroups?
3. The effect of Vangl2 deficiency was rather modest in the neutrophil. Could it be that Vangl2 mediates its effect mostly in macrophages?
4. Fig 1D and Figure 1E: Data for unstimulated Vangl2 cells should be provided. Also, the source of the IL-1β primary antibody has not been mentioned.
5. The relevance and the requirement of RNA-seq analysis are not clear in the present draft. Figure 1E already reveals upregulation of the signature NF-κB target inflammatory genes upon Vangl2 deficiency.
6. Fig 2A reveals an increased accumulation of phosphorylated p65 and IKK in Vangl2-deficient macrophages upon LPS stimulation within 30 minutes. However, Vangl2 accumulates at around 60 minutes post-stimulation in WT cells. Similar results were obtained for neutrophils (Fig 2B). There appears to be a temporal disconnect between Vangl2 and phosphorylated p65 accumulation - this must be clarified.
7. Figure 2E and 2F do not have untreated controls. Presentations in Fig 2E may be improved to more clearly depict IL6 and TNF data, preferably with separate Y-axes.
8. Line 219: "strongly with IKKα, p65 and MyD88, and weak" - should be revised.
9. It is not clear why IKKβ was excluded from interaction studies in Fig S3G.
10. Fig 3F- In the text, authors mentioned that Vangl2 strongly associates with p65 upon LPS stimulation in BMDM. However, no controls, including input or another p65-interacting protein, were used.
11. Figure 4D - Authors claim that Vangl2-deficient BMDMs stabilized the expression of endogenous p65 after LPS treatment. However, p65 levels were particularly constitutively elevated in knockout cells, and LPS signaling did not cause any further upregulation. This again indicates the role of Vangl2 in the basal state. The authors need to explain this and revise the test accordingly.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Lu et al. describe Vangl2 as a negative regulator of inflammation in myeloid cells. The primary mechanism appears to be through binding p65 and promoting its degradation, albeit in an unusual autolysosome/autophagy dependent manner. Overall, the findings are novel and the crosstalk of PCP pathway protein Vangl2 with NF-kappaB is of interest. Whether PCP is anyway relevant or if this is a PCP-independent function of Vangl2 is not directly explored (the later appears more likely from the manuscript/discussion). PCP pathways intersect often with developmentally important pathways such as WNT, HH/GLI, Fat-Dachsous and even mechanical tension. It might be of importance to investigate whether Vangl2-dependent NF-kappaB is influenced by developmental pathways. Are Vangl2 phosphorylations (S5, S82 and S84) in anyway necessary for the observed effects on NF-kappaB or would a phospho-mutant (alanine substitution mutant) Vangl2 phenocopy WT Vangl2 for regulation of NF-kappaB? Another area to strengthen might be with regards to specificity of cell types where this phenomenon may be observed. LPS treatment in mice resulted in Vangl2 upregulation in spleen and lymph nodes, but not in lung and liver. What explains the specificity of organ/cell-type Vangl2 upregulation and its consequences observed here? Why is NF-kappaB signaling not more broadly or even ubiquitously affected in all cell types in a Vangl2-dependent manner, rather than being restricted to macrophages, neutrophils and peritoneal macrophages, or, for that matter, in spleen and LN and not liver and lung? After all, one may think that the PCP proteins, as well as NF-kappaB, are ubiquitous. Regardless, Vangl2 as a negative regulator of NF-kappaB is an important finding. There are, however, some concerns about methodology and statistics that need to be addressed.