Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorDonald HamelbergGeorgia State University, Atlanta, United States of America
- Senior EditorQiang CuiBoston University, Boston, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Jafarinia et al. have made an interesting contribution to unravelling the molecular mechanisms underlying pathological phenotypes of repeat expansion of the C9orf72 gene. The repeat expression leads to the expression of polyPR proteins. Using coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations, the authors identify putative binding partners involved in nucleocytoplasmic transport (NCT), and that conjecture that polyPR affects essential processes by binding to NCT-related proteins. The results are well-reported, but only putative, and need experimental support to be more conclusive. Also, a comparison with results from all-atom MD simulations in explicit water could help verify the results. But even without these, the work is very useful as a first step to unravel the role of polyPR and related peptides.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
This study used coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulation to explain how the binding of polyPR might interfere with distinct stages of the transport cycle. This finding shows that the interaction between polyPR and transport components is driven by electrostatic interactions and is correlated with the salt concentration and the length of polyPR, providing an important basis for subsequent exploration of the impact of C9orf72 R-DPRs on NCT disruption.
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Onck and co-workers present in this work the identification of binding partners and sites of polyPR on various nuclear transport components and elucidate how polyPR might potentially influence the transport process. It's interesting to note that some interaction sites on transport components also serve as their inherent/functional binding sites. The difference in the effects between short polyPR (PR7) and long polyPR (PR50) is also evident, although the authors might need to clarify the mechanisms better. Overall, the manuscript is well organized and concisely written, and it would greatly enhance our understanding of the toxicity induced by polyPR. In general, the 1-bead per atom force field model used in the study is well-tuned for studying the interactions between polyPR and proteins, as the essential cation-pi interactions (between Arg and Phe/Tyr/Trp) were included using an 8-6 LJ model.
