Structure of scavenger receptor SCARF1 and its interaction with lipoproteins

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
This study provides an incremental advance to the scavenger receptor field by reporting the crystal structures of the domains of SCARF1 that bind modified LDL such as oxidized LDL and acylated LDL. The crystal packing reveals a new interface for the homodimerization of SCARF1. The authors characterize SCARF1 binding to modified LDL using flow cytometry, ELISA, and fluorescent microscopy. They identify a positively charged surface on the structure that they predict will bind the LDLs, and they support this hypothesis with a number of mutant constructs in binding experiments.

Strengths:
The authors have crystallized domains of an understudied scavenger receptor and used the structure to identify a putative binding site for modified LDL particles. An especially interesting set of experiments is the SCARF1 and SCARF2 chimeras, where they confer binding of modified LDLs to SCARF2, a related protein that does not bind modified LDLs, and use show that the key residues in SCARF1 are not conserved in SCARF2.

Weaknesses:
While the data largely support the conclusions, the figures describing the structure are cursory and do not provide enough detail to interpret the model or quality of the experimental X-ray structure data. Additionally, many of the flow cytometry experiments lack negative controls for non-specific LDL staining and controls for cell surface expression of the SCARF constructs. In several cases, the authors interpret single data points as increased or decreased affinity, but these statements need dose-response analysis to support them. These deficiencies should be readily addressable by the authors in the revision.

The paper is a straightforward set of experiments that identify the likely binding site of modified LDL on SCARF1 but adds little in the way of explaining or predicting other binding interactions. That a positively charged surface on the protein could mediate binding to LDL particles is not particularly surprising. This paper would be of greater importance if the authors could explain the specificity of the binding of SCARF1 to the various lipoparticles that it does or does not bind. Incorporating these mutants into an assay for the biological role of SCARF1 would be powerful.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
The manuscript by Wang and colleagues provided mechanistic insights into SCARF1 and its interactions with the lipoprotein ligands. The authors reported two crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of SCARF1 ectodomain (ECD). On the basis of the structural analysis, the authors further investigated the interactions between SCARF1 and modified LDLs using cell-based assays and biochemical experiments. Together with the two structures and supporting data, this work provided new insights into the diverse mechanisms of scavenger receptors and especially the crucial role of SCARF1 in lipid metabolism.

Strengths:
The authors started by determining the crystal structures of two fragments of SCARF1 ECD. The superposition of the two high-resolution structures, together with the predicted model by AlphaFold, revealed that the ECD of SCARF1 adopts a long-curved conformation with multiple EGF-like domains arranged in tandem. Non-crystallographic and crystallographic two-fold symmetries were observed in crystals of f1 and f2 respectively, indicating the formation of SCARF1 homodimers. Structural analysis identified critical residues involved in dimerization, which were validated through mutational experiments. In addition, the authors conducted flow cytometry and confocal experiments to characterize cellular interactions of SCARF1 with lipoproteins. The results revealed the vital role of the 133-221aa region in the binding between SCARF1 and modified LDLs. Moreover, four arginine residues were identified as crucial for modified LDL recognition, highlighting the contribution of charge interactions in SCARF1-lipoprotein binding. The lipoprotein binding region is further validated by designing SCARF1/SCARF2 chimeric molecules. Interestingly, the interaction between SCARF1 and modified LDLs could be inhibited by teichoic acid, indicating potential overlap in or sharing of binding sites on SCARF1 ECD.

The author employed a nice collection of techniques, namely crystallographic, SEC, DLS, flow cytometry, ELISA, and confocal imaging. The experiments are technically sound and the results are clearly written, with a few concerns as outlined below. Overall, this research represents an advancement in the mechanistic investigation of SCARF1 and its interaction with ligands. The role of scavenger receptors is critical in lipid homeostasis, making this work of interest.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
The manuscript by Wang et. al. described the crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of Scavenger receptor class F member 1 (SCARF1) ectodomains. SCARF1 recognizes modified LDLs, including acetylated LDL and oxidized LDL, and it plays an important role in both innate and adaptive immune responses. They characterized the dimerization of SCARF1 and the interaction of SCARF1 with modified lipoproteins by mutational and biochemical studies. The authors identified the critical residues for dimerization and demonstrated that SCARF1 may function as homodimers. They further characterized the interaction between SCARF1 and LDLs and identified the lipoprotein ligand recognition sites, the highly positively charged areas. Their data suggested that the teichoic acid inhibitors may interact with SCARF1 in the same areas as LDLs.

Strengths:
The crystal structures of SCARF1 were high quality. The authors performed extensive site-specific mutagenesis studies using soluble proteins for ELISA assays and surface-expressed proteins for flow cytometry.

Weaknesses:
1. The schematic drawing of human SCARF1 and SCARF2 in Fig 1A did not show the differences between them. It would be useful to have a sequence alignment showing the polymorphic regions.
2. The description of structure determination was confusing. The f1 crystal structure was determined by SAD with Pt derivatives. Why did they need molecular replacement with a native data set? The f2 crystal structure was solved by molecular replacement using the structure of the f1 fragment. Why did they need to use EGF-like fragments predicted by AlphaFold as search models?
3. It's interesting to observe that SCARA1 binds modified LDLs in a Ca2+-independent manner. The authors performed the binding assays between SCARF1 and modified LDLs in the presence of Ca2+ or EDTA on Page 9. However, EDTA is not an efficient Ca2+ chelator. The authors should have performed the binding assays in the presence of EGTA instead.
4. The authors claimed that SCARF1Δ353-415, the deletion of a C-terminal region of the ectodomain, might change the conformation of the molecule and generate hinderance for the C-terminal regions. Why didn't SCARF1Δ222-353 have a similar effect? Could the deletion change the interaction between SCARF1 and the membrane? Is SCARF1Δ353-415 region hydrophobic?
5. What was the point of having Figure 8? Showing the SCARF1 homodimers could form two types of dimers on the membrane surface proposed? The authors didn't have any data to support that.