The Pseudokinase Ulk4 promotes Shh signaling by regulating Stk36 ciliary localization and Gli2 phosphorylation

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The Hedgehog (HH) protein family is important for embryonic development and adult tissue maintenance. Deregulation or even temporal imbalances in the activity of one of the main players in the HH field, sonic hedgehog (SHH), can lead to a variety of human diseases, ranging from congenital brain disorders to diverse forms of cancers. SHH activates the GLI family of transcription factors, yet the mechanisms underlying GLI activation remain poorly understood. Modification and activation of one of the main SHH signalling mediators, GLI2, depends on its localization to the tip of the primary cilium. In a previous study the lab had provided evidence that SHH activates GLI2 by stimulating its phosphorylation on conserved sites through Unc-51-like kinase 3 (ULK3) and another ULK family member, STK36 (Han et al., 2019). Recently, another ULK family member, ULK4, was identified as a modulator of the SHH pathway (Mecklenburg et al. 2021). However, the underlying mechanisms by which ULK4 enhances SHH signalling remained unknown. To address this question, the authors employed complex biochemistry-based approaches and localization studies in cell culture to examine the mode of ULK4 activity in the primary cilium in response to SHH. The study by Zhou et al. demonstrates that ULK4, in conjunction with STK36, promotes GLI2 phosphorylation and thereby SHH pathway activation. Further experiments were conducted to investigate how ULK4 interacts with SHH pathway components in the primary cilium. The authors show that ULK4 interacts with a complex formed between STK36 and GLI2 and hypothesize that ULK4 functions as a scaffold to facilitate STK36 and GLI2 interaction and thereby GLI2 phosphorylation by STK36. Furthermore, the authors provide evidence that ULK4 and STK36 co-localize with GLI2 at the ciliary tip of NIH 3T3 cells, and that ULK4 and STK36 depend on each other for their ciliary tip accumulation. Overall, the described ULK4-mediated mechanism of SHH pathway modulation is based on detailed and rigorous Co-IP experiments and kinase assays as well as confocal imaging localization studies. The authors used various mutated and wild-type constructs of STK36 and ULK4 to decipher the mechanisms underlying GLI2 phosphorylation at the tip of the primary cilium. These novel results on SHH pathway activation add valuable insight into the complexity of SHH pathway regulation. The data also provide possible new strategies for interfering with SHH signalling which has implications in drug development (e.g., cancer drugs).

However, it will be necessary to explore additional model systems, besides NIH3T3, HEK293 and MEF cell cultures, to conclude on the universality of the mechanisms described in this study. Ultimately, it needs to be addressed whether ULK4 modulates SHH pathway activity in vivo. Is there evidence that genetic ablation of ULK4 in animal models leads to less efficient SHH pathway induction? It also remains to be resolved how ULK3 and ULK4 act in distinct or common manners to promote SHH signalling. Another remaining question is, whether cell type- and tissue-specific features exist, that play a role in ULK3- versus ULK4-dependent SHH pathway modulation. In particular for the studies on ciliary tip localization of factors, relevant for SHH pathway transduction, a higher temporal resolution will be needed in the future as well as a deeper insight into tissue/ cell type-specific mechanisms. These caveats, mentioned here, don't have to be addressed in new experiments for the revision of this manuscript but could be discussed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors provide solid molecular and cellular evidence that ULK4 and STK36 not only interact, but that STK36 is targeted (transported?) to the cilium by ULK4. Their data helps generate a model for ULK4 acting as a scaffold for both STK36 and its substrate, Gli2, which appear to co-localise through mutual binding to ULK4. This makes sense, given the proposed role of most pseuodkinases as non-catalytic signaling hubs. There is also an important mechanistic analysis performed, in which ULK4 phosphorylation in an acidic consensus by STK36 is demonstrated using IP'd STK36 or an inactive 'AA' mutant, which suggests this phosphorylation is direct.

The major strength of the study is the well-executed combination of logical approaches taken, including expression of various deletion and mutation constructs and the careful (but not always quantified in immunoblot) effects of depleting and adding back various components in the context of both STK36 and ULK3, which broadens the potential impact of the work. The biochemical analysis of ULK4 phosphorylation appears to be solid, and the mutational study at a particular pair of phosphorylation sites upstream of an acidic residue (notably T2023) is further strong evidence of a functional interaction between ULK4/STK36. The possibility that ULK4 requires ATP binding for these mechanisms is not approached, though would provide significant insight: for example it would be useful to ask if Lys39 in ULK4 is involved in any of these processes, because this residue is likely important for shaping the ULK4 substrate-binding site as a consequence of ATP binding; this was originally shown in PMID 24107129 and discussed more recently in PMID: 33147475 in the context of the large amount of ULK4 proteomics data released.

The discussion is excellent, and raises numerous important future work in terms of potential transportation mechanisms of this complex. It also explains why the ULK4 pseudokinase domain is linked to an extended C-terminal region. Does AF2 predict any structural motifs in this region that might support binding to Gli2?

A weakness in the study, which is most evident in Figure 1, where Ulk4 siRNA is performed in the NIH3T3 model (and effects on Shh targets and Gli2 phosphorylation assessed), is that we do not know if ULK4 protein is originally present in these cells in order to actually be depleted. Also, we are not informed if the ULK4 siRNA has an effect on the 'rescue' by HA-ULK4; perhaps the HA-ULK4 plasmid is RNAi resistant, or if not, this explains why phosphorylation of Gli2 never reaches zero? Given the important findings of this study, it would be useful for the authors to comment on this, and perhaps discuss if they have tried to evaluate endogenous levels of ULK4 (and Stk36) in these cells using antibody-based approaches, ideally in the presence and absence of Shh. The authors note early on the large number of binding partners identified for ULK4, and siRNA may unwittingly deplete some other proteins that could also be involved in ULK4 transport/stability in their cellular model.

The sequence of ULK4 siRNAs is not included in the materials and methods as far as I can see.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Zhou et al. demonstrate that the pseudokinase ULK4 has an important role in Hedgehog signaling by scaffolding the active kinase Stk36 and the transcription factor Gli2, enabling Gli2 to be phosphorylated and activated.
Through nice biochemistry experiments, they show convincingly that the N-terminal pseudokinase domain of ULK4 binds Stk36 and the C-terminal Heat repeats bind Gli2.

Lastly, they show that upon Sonic Hedgehog signaling, ULK4 localizes to the cilia and is needed to localize Stk36 and Gli2 for proper activation.

This manuscript is very solid and methodically shows the role of ULK4 and STK36 throughout the whole paper, with well controlled experiments. The phosphomimetic and incapable mutations are very convincing as well.
I think this manuscript is strong and stands as is, and there is no need for additional experiments.

Overall, the strengths are the rigor of the methods, and the convincing case they bring for the formation of the ULK4-Gli2-Stk36 complex. There are no weaknesses noted. I think a little additional context for what is being observed in the immunofluorescence might benefit readers who are not familiar with these cell types and structures.