Divergent Pairwise Epistasis in the Context of Unstable Membrane Protein Variants

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The paper carries out an impressive and exhaustive non-sense mutagenesis using deep mutational scanning (DMS) of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor for the WT protein and two single point mutations that I) influence TM insertion (V267T) and ii) influence protein stability (W107A), and then measures the effect of these mutants on correct plasma membrane expression (PME).

Overall, most mutations decreased mGnRHR PME levels in all three backgrounds, indicating poor mutational tolerance under these conditions. The W107A variant wasn't really recoverable with low levels of plasma membrane localisation. For the V267T variant, most additional mutations were more deleterious than WT based on correct trafficking, indicating a synergistic effect. As one might expect, there was a higher degree of positive correlation between V267T/W107A mutants and other mutants located in TM regions, confirming that improper trafficking was a likely consequence of membrane protein co-translational folding. Nevertheless, context is important, as positive synergistic mutants in the V27T could be negative in the W107A background and vice versa. Taken together, this important study highlights the complexity of membrane protein folding in dissecting the mechanism-dependent impact of disease-causing mutations related to improper trafficking.

Strengths:
This is a novel and exhaustive approach to dissecting how receptor mutations under different mutational backgrounds related to co-translational folding, could influence membrane protein trafficking.

Weaknesses:
The premise for the study requires an in-depth understanding of how the single-point mutations analysed affect membrane protein folding, but the single-point mutants used seem to lack proper validation. Furthermore, plasma membrane expression has been used as a proxy for incorrect membrane protein folding, but this not necessarily be the case, as even correctly folded membrane proteins may not be trafficked correctly, at least, under heterologous expression conditions. In addition, mutations can affect trafficking and potential post-translational modifications, like glycosylation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this paper, Chamness and colleagues make a pioneering effort to map epistatic interactions among mutations in a membrane protein. They introduce thousands of mutations to the mouse GnRH Receptor (GnRHR), either under wild-type background or two mutant backgrounds, representing mutations that destabilize GnRHR by distinct mechanisms. The first mutant background is W107A, destabilizing the tertiary fold, and the second, V276T, perturbing the efficiency of cotranslational insertion of TM6 to the membrane, which is essential for proper folding. They then measure the surface expression of these three mutant libraries, using it as a proxy for protein stability, since misfolded proteins do not typically make it to the plasma membrane. The resulting dataset is then used to shed light on how diverse mutations interact epistatically with the two genetic background mutations. Their main conclusion is that epistatic interactions vary depending on the degree of destabilization and the mechanism through which they perturb the protein. The mutation V276T forms primarily negative (aggravating) epistatic interactions with many mutations, as is common to destabilizing mutations in soluble proteins. Surprisingly, W107A forms many positive (alleviating) epistatic interactions with other mutations. They further show that the locations of secondary mutations correlate with the types of epistatic interactions they form with the above two mutants.

Strengths:
Such a high throughput study for epistasis in membrane proteins is pioneering, and the results are indeed illuminating. Examples of interesting findings are that: (1) No single mutation can dramatically rescue the destabilization introduced by W107A. (2) Epistasis with a secondary mutation is strongly influenced by the degree of destabilization introduced by the primary mutation. (3) Misfolding caused by mis-insertion tends to be aggravated by further mutations. The discussion of how protein folding energetics affects epistasis (Fig. 7) makes a lot of sense and lays out an interesting biophysical framework for the findings.

Weaknesses:
The major weakness comes from the potential limitations in the measurements of surface expression of severely misfolded mutants. This point is discussed quite fairly in the paper, in statements like "the W107A variant already exhibits marginal surface immunostaining" and many others. It seems that only about 5% of the W107A makes it to the plasma membrane compared to wild-type (Figures 2 and 3). This might be a low starting point from which to accurately measure the effects of secondary mutations.

Still, the authors claim that measurements of W107A double mutants "still contain cellular subpopulations with surface immunostaining intensities that are well above or below that of the W107A single mutant, which suggests that this fluorescence signal is sensitive enough to detect subtle differences in the PME of these variants". I was not entirely convinced that this was true. Firstly, I think it would be important to test how much noise these measurements have and how much surface immunostaining the W107A mutant displays above the background of cells that do not express the protein at all. But more importantly, it is not clear if under this regimen surface expression still reports on stability/protein fitness. It is unknown if the W107A retains any function or folding at all. For example, it is possible that the low amount of surface protein represents misfolded receptors that escaped the ER quality control. The differential clustering of epistatic mutations (Fig. 6) provides some interesting insights as to the rules that dictate epistasis, but these too are dominated by the magnitude of destabilization caused by one of the mutations. In this case, the secondary mutations that had the most interesting epistasis were exceedingly destabilizing. With this in mind, it is hard to interpret the results that emerge regarding the epistatic interactions of W107A. Furthermore, the most significant positive epistasis is observed when W107A is combined with additional mutations that almost completely abolish surface expression. It is likely that either mutation destabilizes the protein beyond repair. Therefore, what we can learn from the fact that such mutations have positive epistasis is not clear to me. Based on this, I am not sure that another mutation that disrupts the tertiary folding more mildly would not yield different results.

With that said, I believe that the results regarding the epistasis of V276T with other mutations are strong and very interesting on their own.

Additionally, the study draws general conclusions from the characterization of only two mutations, W107A and V276T. At this point, it is hard to know if other mutations that perturb insertion or tertiary folding would behave similarly. This should be emphasized in the text.

Some statistical aspects of the study could be improved:

1. It would be nice to see the level of reproducibility of the biological replicates in a plot, such as scatter or similar, with correlation values that give a sense of the noise level of the measurements. This should be done before filtering out the inconsistent data.

2. The statements "Variants bearing mutations within the C- terminal region (ICL3-TMD6-ECL3-TMD7) fare consistently worse in the V276T background relative to WT (Fig. 4 B & E)." and "In contrast, mutations that are 210 better tolerated in the context of W107A mGnRHR are located 211 throughout the structure but are particularly abundant among residues 212 in the middle of the primary structure that form TMD4, ICL2, and ECL2 213 (Fig. 4 C & F)." are both hard to judge. Inspecting Figures 4B and C does not immediately show these trends, and importantly, a solid statistical test is missing here. In Figures 4E and F the locations of the different loops and TMs are not indicated on the structure, making these statements hard to judge.

3. The following statement lacks a statistical test: "Notably, these 98 variants are enriched with TMD variants (65% TMD) relative to the overall set of 251 variants (45% TMD)." Is this enrichment significant? Further in the same paragraph, the claim that "In contrast to the sparse epistasis that is generally observed between mutations within soluble proteins, these findings suggest a relatively large proportion of random mutations form epistatic interactions in the context of unstable mGnRHR variants". Needs to be backed by relevant data and statistics, or at least a reference.

Author Response

Response to the Reviews

We are grateful for these balanced, nuanced evaluations of our work concerning the observed epistatic trends and our interpretations of their mechanistic origins. Overall, we think the reviewers have done an excellent job at recognizing the novel aspects of our findings while also discussing the caveats associated with our interpretations of the biophysical effects of these mutations. We believe it is important to consider both of these aspects of our work in order to appreciate these advances and what sorts of pertinent questions remain.

Notably, both reviewers suggest that a lack of experimental approaches to compare the conformational properties of GnRHR variants weakens our claims. We would first humbly suggest that this constitutes a more general caveat that applies to nearly all investigations of the cellular misfolding of α-helical membrane proteins. Whether or not any current in vitro folding measurements report on conformational transitions that are relevant to cellular protein misfolding reactions remains an active area of debate (discussed further below). Nevertheless, while we concede that our structural and/ or computational evaluations of various mutagenic effects remain speculative, prevailing knowledge on the mechanisms of membrane protein folding suggest our mutations of interest (V276T and W107A) are highly unlikely to promote misfolding in precisely the same way. Thus, regardless of whether or not we were able experimentally compare the relevant folding energetics of GnRHR variants, we are confident that the distinct epistatic interactions formed by these mutations reflect variations in the misfolding mechanism and that they are distinct from the interactions that are observed in the context of stable proteins. In the following, we provide detailed considerations concerning these caveats in relation to the reviewers’ specific comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The paper carries out an impressive and exhaustive non-sense mutagenesis using deep mutational scanning (DMS) of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor for the WT protein and two single point mutations that I) influence TM insertion (V267T) and ii) influence protein stability (W107A), and then measures the effect of these mutants on correct plasma membrane expression (PME).

Overall, most mutations decreased mGnRHR PME levels in all three backgrounds, indicating poor mutational tolerance under these conditions. The W107A variant wasn't really recoverable with low levels of plasma membrane localisation. For the V267T variant, most additional mutations were more deleterious than WT based on correct trafficking, indicating a synergistic effect. As one might expect, there was a higher degree of positive correlation between V267T/W107A mutants and other mutants located in TM regions, confirming that improper trafficking was a likely consequence of membrane protein co-translational folding. Nevertheless, context is important, as positive synergistic mutants in the V27T could be negative in the W107A background and vice versa. Taken together, this important study highlights the complexity of membrane protein folding in dissecting the mechanism-dependent impact of disease-causing mutations related to improper trafficking.

Strengths

This is a novel and exhaustive approach to dissecting how receptor mutations under different mutational backgrounds related to co-translational folding, could influence membrane protein trafficking.

Weaknesses

The premise for the study requires an in-depth understanding of how the single-point mutations analysed affect membrane protein folding, but the single-point mutants used seem to lack proper validation.

Given our limited understanding of the structural properties of misfolded membrane proteins, it is unclear whether the relevant conformational effects of these mutations can be unambiguously validated using current biochemical and/ or biophysical folding assays. X-ray crystallography, cryo-EM, and NMR spectroscopy measurements have demonstrated that many purified GPCRs retain native-like structural ensembles within certain detergent micelles, bicelles, and/ or nanodiscs. However, helical membrane protein folding measurements typically require titration with denaturing detergents to promote the formation of a denatured state ensemble (DSE), which will invariably retain considerable secondary structure. Given that the solvation provided by mixed micelles is clearly distinct from that of native membranes, it remains unclear whether these DSEs represent a reasonable proxy for the misfolded conformations recognized by cellular quality control (QC, see https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00532). Thus, the use and interpretation of these systems for such purposes remains contentious in the membrane protein folding community. In addition to this theoretical issue, we are unaware of any instances in which GPCRs have been found to undergo reversible denaturation in vitro- a practical requirement for equilibrium folding measurements (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-051013-022926). We note that, while the resistance of GPCRs to aggregation, proteolysis, and/ or mechanical unfolding have also been probed in micelles, it is again unclear whether the associated thermal, kinetic, and/ or mechanical stability should necessarily correspond to their resistance to cotranslational and/ or posttranslational misfolding. Thus, even if we had attempted to validate the computational folding predictions employed herein, we suspect that any resulting correlations with cellular expression may have justifiably been viewed by many as circumstantial. Simply put, we know very little about the non-native conformations are generally involved in the cellular misfolding of α-helical membrane proteins, much less how to measure their relative abundance. From a philosophical standpoint, we prefer to let cells tell us what sorts of broken protein variants are degraded by their QC systems, then do our best to surmise what this tells us about the relevant properties of cellular DSEs.

Despite this fundamental caveat, we believe that the chosen mutations and our interpretation of their relevant conformational effects are reasonably well-informed by current modeling tools and by prevailing knowledge on the physicochemical drivers of membrane protein folding and misfolding. Specifically, the mechanistic constraints of translocon-mediated membrane integration provide an understanding of the types of mutations that are likely to disrupt cotranslational folding. Though we are still learning about the protein complexes that mediate membrane translocation (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05336-2), it is known that this underlying process is fundamentally driven by the membrane depth-dependent amino acid transfer free energies (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125904). This energetic consideration suggests introducing polar side chains near the center of a nascent TMDs should almost invariably reduce the efficiency of topogenesis. To confirm this in the context of TMD6 specifically, we utilized a well-established biochemical reporter system to confirm that V276T attenuates its translocon-mediated membrane integration (Fig. S1)- at least in the context of a chimeric protein. We also constructed a glycosylation-based topology reporter for full-length GnRHR, but ultimately found its’ in vitro expression to be insufficient to detect changes in the nascent topological ensemble. In contrast to V276T, the W107A mutation is predicted to preserve the native topological energetics of GnRHR due to its position within a soluble loop region. W107A is also unlike V276T in that it clearly disrupts tertiary interactions that stabilize the native structure. This mutation should preclude the formation of a structurally conserved hydrogen bonding network that has been observed in the context of at least 25 native GPCR structures (https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.5489). However, without a relevant folding assay, the extent to which this network stabilizes the native GnRHR fold in cellular membranes remains unclear. Overall, we admit that these limitations have prevented us from measuring how much V276T alters the efficiency of GnRHR topogenesis, how much the W107A destabilizes the native fold, or vice versa. Nevertheless, given these design principles and the fact that both reduce the plasma membrane expression of GnRHR, as expected, we are highly confident that the structural defects generated by these mutations do, in fact, promote misfolding in their own ways. We also concede that the degree to which these mutagenic perturbations are indeed selective for specific folding processes is somewhat uncertain. However, it seems exceedingly unlikely that these mutations should disrupt topogenesis and/ or the folding of the native topomer to the exact same extent. From our perspective, this is the most important consideration with respect to the validity of the conclusions we have made in this manuscript.

Furthermore, plasma membrane expression has been used as a proxy for incorrect membrane protein folding, but this not necessarily be the case, as even correctly folded membrane proteins may not be trafficked correctly, at least, under heterologous expression conditions. In addition, mutations can affect trafficking and potential post-translational modifications, like glycosylation.

While the reviewer is correct that the sorting of folded proteins within the secretory pathway is generally inefficient, it is also true that the maturation of nascent proteins within the ER generally bottlenecks the plasma membrane expression of most α-helical membrane proteins. Our group and several others have demonstrated that the efficiency of ER export generally appears to scale with the propensity of membrane proteins to achieve their correct topology and/ or to achieve their native fold (see https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.5b03743 and https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.8b08243). Notably, these investigations all involved proteins that contain native glycosylation and various other post-translational modification sites. While we cannot rule out that certain specific combinations of mutations may alter expression through their perturbation of post-translational GnRHR modifications, we feel confident that the general trends we have observed across hundreds of variants predominantly reflect changes in folding and cellular QC. This interpretation is supported by the relationship between observed trends in variant expression and Rosetta-based stability calculations, which we identified using unbiased unsupervised machine learning approaches (compare Figs. 6B & 6D).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, Chamness and colleagues make a pioneering effort to map epistatic interactions among mutations in a membrane protein. They introduce thousands of mutations to the mouse GnRH Receptor (GnRHR), either under wild-type background or two mutant backgrounds, representing mutations that destabilize GnRHR by distinct mechanisms. The first mutant background is W107A, destabilizing the tertiary fold, and the second, V276T, perturbing the efficiency of cotranslational insertion of TM6 to the membrane, which is essential for proper folding. They then measure the surface expression of these three mutant libraries, using it as a proxy for protein stability, since misfolded proteins do not typically make it to the plasma membrane. The resulting dataset is then used to shed light on how diverse mutations interact epistatically with the two genetic background mutations. Their main conclusion is that epistatic interactions vary depending on the degree of destabilization and the mechanism through which they perturb the protein. The mutation V276T forms primarily negative (aggravating) epistatic interactions with many mutations, as is common to destabilizing mutations in soluble proteins. Surprisingly, W107A forms many positive (alleviating) epistatic interactions with other mutations. They further show that the locations of secondary mutations correlate with the types of epistatic interactions they form with the above two mutants.

Strengths:

Such a high throughput study for epistasis in membrane proteins is pioneering, and the results are indeed illuminating. Examples of interesting findings are that: (1) No single mutation can dramatically rescue the destabilization introduced by W107A. (2) Epistasis with a secondary mutation is strongly influenced by the degree of destabilization introduced by the primary mutation. (3) Misfolding caused by mis-insertion tends to be aggravated by further mutations. The discussion of how protein folding energetics affects epistasis (Fig. 7) makes a lot of sense and lays out an interesting biophysical framework for the findings.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness comes from the potential limitations in the measurements of surface expression of severely misfolded mutants. This point is discussed quite fairly in the paper, in statements like "the W107A variant already exhibits marginal surface immunostaining" and many others. It seems that only about 5% of the W107A makes it to the plasma membrane compared to wild-type (Figures 2 and 3). This might be a low starting point from which to accurately measure the effects of secondary mutations.

The reviewer raises an excellent point that we considered at length during the analysis of these data and the preparation of the manuscript. Though we remain confident in the integrity of these measurements and the corresponding analyses, we now realize this aspect of the data merits further discussion and documentation in our forthcoming revision, in which we will outline the following specific lines of reasoning.

Still, the authors claim that measurements of W107A double mutants "still contain cellular subpopulations with surface immunostaining intensities that are well above or below that of the W107A single mutant, which suggests that this fluorescence signal is sensitive enough to detect subtle differences in the PME of these variants". I was not entirely convinced that this was true.

We made this statement based on the simple observation that the surface immunostaining intensities across the population of recombinant cells expressing the library of W107A double mutants was consistently broader than that of recombinant cells expressing W107A GnRHR alone (see Author response image 1 for reference). Given that the recombinant cellular library represents a mix of cells expressing ~1600 individual variants that are each present at low abundance, the pronounced tails within this distribution presumably represent the composite staining of many small cellular subpopulations that express collections of variants that deviate from the expression of W107A to an extent that is significant enough to be visible on a log intensity plot.

Author response image 1.

Firstly, I think it would be important to test how much noise these measurements have and how much surface immunostaining the W107A mutant displays above the background of cells that do not express the protein at all.

For reference, the average surface immunostaining intensity of HEK293T cells transiently expressing W107A GnRHR was 2.2-fold higher than that of the IRES-eGFP negative, untransfected cells within the same sample- the WT immunostaining intensity was 9.5-fold over background by comparison. Similarly, recombinant HEK293T cells expressing the W107A double mutant library had an average surface immunostaining intensity that was 2.6-fold over background across the two DMS trials. Thus, while the surface immunostaining of this variant is certainly diminished, we were still able to reliably detect W107A at the plasma membrane even under distinct expression regimes. We will include these and other signal-to-noise metrics for each experiment in a new table in the revised version of this manuscript.

Beyond considerations related to intensity, we also previously noticed the relative intensity values for W107A double mutants exhibited considerable precision across our two biological replicates. If signal were too poor to detect changes in variant expression, we would have expected a plot of the intensity values across these two replicates to form a scatter. Instead, we found DMS intensity values for individual variants to be highly correlated from one replicate to the next (Pearson’s R= 0.97, see Author response image 2 for reference). This observation empirically demonstrates that this assay consistently differentiated between variants that exhibit slightly enhanced immunostaining from those that have even lower immunostaining than W107A GnRHR.

Author response image 2.

But more importantly, it is not clear if under this regimen surface expression still reports on stability/protein fitness. It is unknown if the W107A retains any function or folding at all. For example, it is possible that the low amount of surface protein represents misfolded receptors that escaped the ER quality control.

While we believe that such questions are outside the scope of this work, we certainly agree that it is entirely possible that some of these variants bypass QC without achieving their native fold. This topic is quite interesting to us but is quite challenging to assess in the context of GPCRs, which have complex fitness landscapes that involve their propensity to distinguish between different ligands, engage specific components associated with divergent downstream signaling pathways, and navigate between endocytic recycling/ degradation pathways following activation. In light of the inherent complexity of GPCR function, we humbly suggest our choice of a relatively simple property of an otherwise complex protein may be viewed as a virtue rather than a shortcoming. Protein fitness is typically cast as the product of abundance and activity. Rather than measuring an oversimplified, composite fitness metric, we focused on one variable (plasma membrane expression) and its dominant effector (folding). We believe restraining the scope in this manner was key for the elucidation of clear mechanistic insights.

The differential clustering of epistatic mutations (Fig. 6) provides some interesting insights as to the rules that dictate epistasis, but these too are dominated by the magnitude of destabilization caused by one of the mutations. In this case, the secondary mutations that had the most interesting epistasis were exceedingly destabilizing. With this in mind, it is hard to interpret the results that emerge regarding the epistatic interactions of W107A. Furthermore, the most significant positive epistasis is observed when W107A is combined with additional mutations that almost completely abolish surface expression. It is likely that either mutation destabilizes the protein beyond repair. Therefore, what we can learn from the fact that such mutations have positive epistasis is not clear to me. Based on this, I am not sure that another mutation that disrupts the tertiary folding more mildly would not yield different results. With that said, I believe that the results regarding the epistasis of V276T with other mutations are strong and very interesting on their own.

We agree with the reviewer. In light of our results we believe it is virtually certain that the secondary mutations characterized herein would be likely to form distinct epistatic interactions with mutations that are only mildly destabilizing. Indeed, this insight reflects one of the key takeaway messages from this work- stability-mediated epistasis is difficult to generalize because it should depend on the extent to which each mutation changes the stability (ΔΔG) as well as initial stability of the WT/ reference sequence (ΔG, see Figure 7). Frankly, we are not so sure we would have pieced this together as clearly had we not had the fortune (or misfortune?) of including such a destructive mutation like W107A as a point of reference.

Additionally, the study draws general conclusions from the characterization of only two mutations, W107A and V276T. At this point, it is hard to know if other mutations that perturb insertion or tertiary folding would behave similarly. This should be emphasized in the text.

We agree and will be sure to emphasize this point in the revised manuscript.

Some statistical aspects of the study could be improved:

1. It would be nice to see the level of reproducibility of the biological replicates in a plot, such as scatter or similar, with correlation values that give a sense of the noise level of the measurements. This should be done before filtering out the inconsistent data.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and will include scatters for each genetic background like the one shown above in the supplement of the revised version of the manuscript.

1. The statements "Variants bearing mutations within the C- terminal region (ICL3-TMD6-ECL3-TMD7) fare consistently worse in the V276T background relative to WT (Fig. 4 B & E)." and "In contrast, mutations that are 210 better tolerated in the context of W107A mGnRHR are located 211 throughout the structure but are particularly abundant among residues 212 in the middle of the primary structure that form TMD4, ICL2, and ECL2 213 (Fig. 4 C & F)." are both hard to judge. Inspecting Figures 4B and C does not immediately show these trends, and importantly, a solid statistical test is missing here. In Figures 4E and F the locations of the different loops and TMs are not indicated on the structure, making these statements hard to judge.

We apologize for this oversight and thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We will include additional statistical tests to reinforce these conclusions in the revised version of the manuscript.

1. The following statement lacks a statistical test: "Notably, these 98 variants are enriched with TMD variants (65% TMD) relative to the overall set of 251 variants (45% TMD)." Is this enrichment significant? Further in the same paragraph, the claim that "In contrast to the sparse epistasis that is generally observed between mutations within soluble proteins, these findings suggest a relatively large proportion of random mutations form epistatic interactions in the context of unstable mGnRHR variants". Needs to be backed by relevant data and statistics, or at least a reference.

We will include additional statistical tests for this in the revised manuscript and will ensure the language we use is consistent with the strength of the indicated statistical enrichment.