Structure-guided mutagenesis of OSCAs reveals differential activation to mechanical stimuli

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The OSCA/TMEM63 channels have recently been identified as mechanosensitive channels. In a previous study, the authors found that OSCA subtypes (1, 2, and 3) respond differently to stretch and poke stimuli. For example, OSCA1.2 is activated by both poke and stretch, while OSCA3.1, responds strongly to stretch but poorly to poke stimuli. In this study, the authors use cryo-EM, mutagenesis, and electrophysiology to dissect the mechanistic determinants that underlie the channels' ability to respond to poke and stretch stimuli.

The starting hypothesis of the study is that the mechanical activation of OSCA channels relies on the interactions between the protein and the lipid bilayer and that the differential responses to poke and stretch might stem from variations in the lipid-interacting regions of OSCA proteins. The authors specifically identify the amphipathic helix (AH), the fenestration, and the Beam Like Domain (BLD) as elements that might play a role in mechanosensing.

The strength of this paper lies in the technically sound data - the structural work and electrophysiology are both very well done. For example, the authors produce a high-resolution OSCA3.1 structure which will be a useful tool for many future studies. Also, the study identifies several interesting mutants that seemingly uncouple the OSCA1.2 poke and stretch responses. These might be valuable in future studies of OSCA mechanosensation.

However, the experimental approach employed by the authors to dissect the molecular mechanisms of poke and stretch falls short of enabling meaningful mechanistic conclusions. For example, we are left with several unanswered questions surrounding the role of AH and the fenestration lipids in mechanosensation: Is the AH really important for the poke response if mutating residues conserved between OSCA1.2 and OSCA3.1 disrupts the OSCA1.2 ability to respond to poke but mutating the OSCA1.2 AH to resemble that of OSCA3.1 results in no change to its "pokability"? Similar questions arise in response to the study of the fenestration-lining residues.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
Jojoa-Cruz et al. determined a high-resolution cryo-EM structure in the Arabidopsis thaliana (At) OSCA3.1 channel. Based on a structural comparison between OSCA3.1 and OSCA1.2 and the difference between these two paralogs in their mechanosensitivity to poking and membrane stretch, the authors performed structural-guided mutagenesis and tested the roles of three structural domains, including an amphipathic helix, a beam-like domain, and a lipid fenestration site at the pore domain, for mechanosensation of OSCA channels.

Strengths:
The authors successfully determined a structure of the AtOSCA3.1 channel reconstituted in lipid nanodiscs by cryo-EM to a high resolution of 2.6 Å. The high-resolution EM map enabled the authors to observe putative lipid EM densities at various sites where lipid molecules are associated with the channel. Overall, the structural data provides the information for comparison with other OSCA paralogs.

In addition, the authors identified OSCA1.2 mutants that exhibit differential responses to mechanical stimulation by poking and membrane stretch (i.e., impaired response to poke assay but intact response to membrane stretch). This interesting behavior will be useful for further study on differentiating the mechanisms of OSCA activation by distinct mechanical stimuli.

Major weakness:
1. The major weaknesses of this study are the mutagenesis design and the functional characterization of the three structural domains - an amphipathic helix (AH), a beam-like domain (BLD), and the fenestration site at the pore, in OSCA mechanosensation.

1. First of all, it is confusing to the reviewer, whether the authors set out to test these structural domains as a direct sensor(s) of mechanical stimuli or as a coupling domain(s) for downstream channel opening and closing (gating). The data interpretations are vague in this regard as the authors tend to interpret the effects of mutations on the channel 'sensitivity' to different mechanical stimuli (poking or membrane stretch). The authors ought to dissect the molecular bases of sensing mechanical force and opening/closing (gating) the channel pore domain for the structural elements that they want to study.

Furthermore, the authors relied on the functional discrepancies between OSCA1.2 (sensitive to both membrane poking and stretch) and OSCA3.1 (little or weak sensitivity to poking but sensitive to membrane stretch). But the experimental data presented in the study are not clear to address the mechanisms of channel activation by poking vs. by stretch, and why the channels behave differently.

1. The reviewer questions if the "apparent threshold" of poke-induced membrane displacement and the threshold of membrane stretch are good measures of the change in the channel sensitivity to the different mechanical stimuli.

2. Overall, the mutagenesis design in the various structural domains lacks logical coherence and the interpretation of the functional data is not sufficient to support the authors' hypothesis. Essentially the authors mutated several residues on the hotspot domains, observed some effects on the channel response to poking and membrane stretch, then interpreted the mutated residues/regions are critical for OSCA mechanosensation. Examples are as follows.

In the section "Mutation of key residues in the amphipathic helix", the authors mutated W75 and L80, which are located on the N- and C-terminal of the AH in OSCA1.2, and mutated Pro in the OSCA1.2 AH to Arg at the equivalent position in OSCA3.1 AH. W75 and L80 are conserved between OSCA 1.2 and OSCA3.1. Mutations of W75 and/or L80 impaired OSCA1.2 activation by poking, but not by membrane stretch. In comparison, the wildtype OSCA3.1 which contains W and L at the equivalent position of its AH exhibits little or weak response to poking. The loss of response to poking in the OSCA1.2 W/L mutants does not indicate their roles in poking-induced activation.

Besides, the P2R mutation on OSCA1.2 AH showed no effect on the channel activation by poking, suggesting Arg in OSCA3.1 AH is not responsible for its weak response to poking. Together the mutagenesis of W75, L80, and P2R on OSCA1.2 AH does not support the hypothesis of the role of AH involved in OSCA mechanosensation.

In the section "Replacing the OSCA3.1 BLD in OSCA1.2", the authors replaced the BLD in OSCA 1.2 with that from OSCA3.1, and only observed slightly stronger displacement by poking stimuli. The authors still suggest that BLD "appears to play a role" in the channel sensitivity to poke despite the evidence not being strong.

OSCA1.2 has four Lys residues in TM4 and TM6b at the pore fenestration site, which were shown to interact with the lipid phosphate head group, whereas two of the equivalent residues in OSCA3.1 are Ile. In the section "Substitution of potential lipid-interacting lysine residues", the authors made K435I/K536I double mutant for OSCA1.2 to mimic OSCA3.1 and observed poor response to poking but an intact response to stretch. Did the authors mutate the Ile residues in OSCA3.1 to Lys, and did the mutation confer channel sensitivity to poking stimuli resembling OSCA1.2? The reviewer thinks it is necessary to perform such an experiment, to thoroughly suggest the importance of the four Lys residues in lipid interaction for channel mechanoactivation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
Jojoa-Cruz et al provide a new structure of At-OSCA3.1. The structure of OSCA 3.1 is similar to previous OSCA cryo-em structures of both OSCA3.1 and other homologues validating the new structure. Using the novel structure of OSCA3.1 as a guide they created several point mutations to investigate two different mechanosensitive modalities: poking and stretching. To investigate the ability of OSCA channels to gate in response to poking they created point mutations in OSCA1.2 to reduce sensitivity to poking based on the differences between the OSCA1.2 and 3.1 structures. Their results suggest that two separate regions are responsible for gating in response to poking and stretching.

Strengths:
Through a detailed structure-based analysis, the authors identified structural differences between OSCA3.1 and OSCA1.2. These subtle structural changes identify regions in the amphipathic helix and near the pore that are essential for the gating of OSCA1.2 in response to poking and stretching. The use of point mutations to understand how these regions are involved in mechanosensation clearly shows the role of these residues in mechanosensation.

Weaknesses:
In general, the point mutations selected all show significant alterations to the inherent mechanosensitive regions. This often suggests that any mutation would disrupt the function of the region, additional mutations that are similar in function to the WT channel would support the claims in the manuscript. Mutations in the amphipathic helix at W75 and L80 show reduced gating in response to poking stimuli. The gating observed occurs at poking depths similar to cellular rupture, the similarity in depths suggests that these mutations could be a complete loss of function. For example, a mutation to L80I or L80Q would show that the addition of the negative charge is responsible for this disruption not just a change in the steric space of the residue in an essential region.