Paradox Found: Global Accounting of Lymphocyte Protein Synthesis

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors examine the fascinating question of how T lymphocytes regulate proteome expression during the dramatic cell state change that accompanies the transition from the resting quiescent state to the activated, dividing state. Orthogonal, complementary assays for translation (RPM/RTA, metabolic labeling) are combined with polyribosome profiling and quantitative, biochemical determinations of protein and ribosome content to explore this question, primarily in the OT-I T lymphocyte model system. The authors conclude that the ratio of protein levels to ribosomes/protein synthesis capacity is insufficient to support activation-coupled T cell division and cell size expansion. The authors hint at cellular mechanisms to explain this apparent paradox, focusing on protein acquisition strategies, including emperipolesis and entosis, though these remain topic areas for future study.

The strengths of the paper include the focus on a fundamental biological question - the transcriptional/translational control mechanisms that support the rapid, dramatic cell state change that accompanies lymphocyte activation from the quiescent to activated state, the use of orthogonal approaches to validate the primary findings, and the creative proposal for how this state change is achieved.

The weakness of the work is that several cellular regulatory processes that could explain the apparent paradox are not explored, though they are accessible for experimental analysis. In the accounting narrative that the authors highlight, a thorough accounting of the cellular process inventory that could support the cell state change should be further explored before committing to the proposal, provocative as it is, that protein acquisition provides a principal mechanism for supporting lymphocyte activation cell state change.

Appraisal and Discussion:

1. relating to the points raised above, two recent review articles explore this topic area and highlight important areas of study in RNA biology and translational control that likely contribute to the paradox noted by the authors: Choi et al. 2022,
   doi.org/10.4110/in.2022.22.e39 ("RNA metabolism in T lymphocytes") and Turner 2023, DOI: 10.1002/bies.202200236 ("Regulation and function of poised mRNAs in lymphocytes"). These should be cited, and the broader areas of RNA biology discussed by these authors integrated into the current manuscript.

2. The authors cite the Wolf et al. study from the Geiger lab (doi.org/10.1038/s41590-020-0714-5, ref. 41) though largely to compare determined values for ribosome number. Many other elements of the Wolf paper seem quite relevant, for example, the very high abundance of glycolytic enzymes (and whose mRNAs are quite abundant as well), where (and as others have reported) there is a dramatic activation of glycolytic flux upon T cell activation that is largely independent of transcription and translation, the evidence for "pre-existing, idle ribosomes", the changes in mRNA copy number and protein synthesis rate Spearman correlation that accompanies activation, and that the efficiencies of mRNA translation are heterogeneous. These data suggest that more accounting needs to be done to establish that there is a paradox.

As one example, what if glycolytic enzyme protein levels in the resting cell are in substantial excess of what's needed to support glycolysis (likely true) and so translational upregulation can be directed to other mRNAs whose products are necessary for function of the activated cell? In this scenario, the dilution of glycolytic enzyme concentration that would come with cell division would not necessarily have a functional consequence. And the idle ribosomes could be recruited to key subsets of mRNAs (transcriptionally or post-transcriptionally upregulated) and with that a substantial remodeling of the proteome (authors ref. 44). The study of Ricciardi et al. 2018 (The translational machinery of human CD4+ T cells is poised for activation and controls the switch from quiescence to metabolic remodeling (doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2018.08.009) is consistent with this possibility. That study, and the short reviews noted above, are useful in highlighting the contributions of selective translational remodeling and the signaling pathways that contribute to the cell state change of T cell activation. From this perspective, an alternative view can be posited, where the quiescent state is biologically poised to support activation, where subsets of proteins and mRNAs are present in far higher levels than that necessary to support basal function of the quiescent lymphocyte. In such a model, the early stages of lymphocyte activation and cell division are supported by this surplus inventory, with transcriptional activation, including ribosomal genes, primarily contributing at later stages of the activation process. An obvious analogy is the developing Drosophila embryo where maternal inheritance supports early-stage development and zygotic transcriptional contributions subsequently assuming primary control (e.g. DOI 10.1002/1873-3468.13183 , DOI: 10.1126/science.abq4835). To pursue that biological logic would require quantifying individual mRNAs and their ribosome loading states, mRNA-specific elongation rates, existing individual protein levels, turnover rates of both mRNAs and proteins, ribosome levels, mean ribosome occupancy state, and how each of these parameters is altered in response to activation. Such accounting could go far to unveil the paradox. This is a considerable undertaking, though, and outside the scope of the current paper.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper takes a novel look at the protein economy of primary human and mouse T-cells - in both resting and activated state. Their findings in primary human T-cells are that:

1. A large fraction of ribosomes are stalled in resting cultured primary human lymphocytes, and these stalled ribosomes are likely to be monosomes.
2. Elongation occurs at similar rates for HeLa cells and lymphocytes, with the active ribosomes in resting lymphocytes translating at a similar rate as fully activated lymphocytes.

They then turn their attention to mouse OT-1 lymphocytes, looking at translation rates both in vitro and in vivo. Day 1 resting T-cells also show stalling - which curiously wasn't seen on freshly purified cells - I didn't understand these differences.

In vivo, they show that it is possible to monitor accurate translation and measure rates. Perhaps most interestingly they note a paradoxically high ratio of cellular protein to ribosomes insufficient to support their rapid in vivo division, suggesting that the activated lymphocyte proteome in vivo may be generated in an unusual manner.

This was an interesting and provocative paper. Lots of interesting techniques and throwing down challenges to the community - it manages to address a number of important issues without necessarily providing answers.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript provides a more or less quantitative analysis of protein synthesis in lymphocytes. I have no issue with the data as presented, as I'm sure all measurements have been expertly done. I see no need for additional experimental work, although it would be helpful if the authors could comment on the possibility of measuring the rate of synthesis of a defined protein, say a histone, in cells prior to and after activation. The conclusion the authors leave us with is the idea that the rates of protein synthesis recorded here are incompatible with observed rates of T cell division in vivo. Indeed, in the final paragraph of the discussion, the authors note the mismatch between what they consider a requirement for cell division, and the observed rates of protein synthesis. They then invoke unconventional mechanisms to make up for the shortfall, without -in this reviewer's opinion- discussing in adequate detail the technical limitations of the methodology used.

A key question is the broad interest, novelty, and extension of current knowledge, in comparison with Argüello's (reference 27) 'SunRise' method. It would be helpful for the authors to stake out a clear position as to the similarities and differences with reference 27: what have we learned that is new? The authors could cite reference 27 in the introduction of their manuscript, given the similarity in approach. That said, the findings reported here will generate further discussion.

The manuscript would increase in impact if the authors were to clearly define why a particular measurement is important and then show the actual experiment/result. As an example, it would be helpful to explain to the non-expert why the distinction between monosomes, polysomes, and stalled versions of the same is important, and then explain the rationale of the actual experiment: how can these distinctions be made with confidence, and what are confounding variables? The initial use of human cells, later abandoned in favor of the OT-1 in vitro and in vivo models, requires contextualization. If the goal is to address the relationship between rates of translation and cell division of antigen-activated T cells in vivo, then a lot of the work on the human model and the in vitro experiments becomes more of a distraction, unless properly contextualized. Is there any reason to assume that antigen-specific activation in vivo will impact translation differently than the use of the PMA/ionomycin/IL2 cocktail? The way the work is presented leaves me with the impression that everything that was done is included, regardless of whether it goes to the core of the question(s) of interest.

It would be helpful if the authors made explicit some of the assumptions that underlie their quantitative comparisons. Likewise, the authors should discuss the limitations of their methods and provide alternative interpretations where possible, even if they consider them less/not plausible, with justification. As they themselves note, improvements in the RPM protocols raised the increase in translating ribosomes upon activation from 10-fold to 15-fold. Who's to say that is the best achievable result? What about the reliability/optimization of the other measurements?

The composition of the set of proteins produced upon activation will differ from cell to cell (CD4, CD8, B, resting vs. dividing). Even if analyses are performed on fixed cells, the ability of the monoclonal anti-puromycin antibody to penetrate the matrix of the various fixed cell types may not be equal for all of them, depending on protein composition, susceptibility to fixation etc. Is it possible for puromycin to occupy the ribosome's A site and terminate translation without forming a covalent bond with the nascent chain? This could affect the staining with anti-puromycin antibodies and also underestimate the number of nascent chains.

I believe that the concept of FACS-based quantitation also requires an explanation for the non-expert. For the FACS plots shown, the differences between the highest and lowest RPM scores for cells that divided and that have a similar CFSE score is at least 10-fold. Does that mean that divided cells can differ by that margin in terms of the number of nascent chains present? If I make the assumption that cells stimulated with PMA/ionomycin/IL2 respond more or less synchronously, why would there be a 10-fold difference in absolute fluorescence intensity (anti=puromycin) for randomly chosen cells with similar CFSE values? While the use of MFI values is standard practice in cytofluorimetry, the authors should devote some comments to such variation at the population level.

It is assumed that for cells to complete division, they must have produced a full and complete copy of their proteome and only then divide. What if cells can proceed to divide even when expressing a subset of the proteome of departure (=the threshold set required for initiation of division), only to complete synthesis of the 'missing ' portion once cell division is complete? Would this obviate the requirement for an unusual mechanism of protein acquisition (trogocytosis; other)?

Translation is estimated to proceed at a rate of ~6 amino acids per second, but surely there is variability in this number attributable to inaccuracies of the methods used, in addition to biological variability. Were these so-called standard values determined for a range of different tissues? It stands to reason that there might be variation depending on the availability of initiation/elongation factors, NTPs, aminoacyl tRNAs etc. What is the margin of error in calculating chain elongation rates based on the results shown here?