Dynamic localization of the chromosomal passenger complex is controlled by the orphan kinesin KIN-A in the kinetoplastid parasite Trypanosoma brucei

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The CPC plays multiple essential roles in mitosis such as kinetochore-microtubule attachment regulation, kinetochore assembly, spindle assembly checkpoint activation, anaphase spindle stabilization, cytokinesis, and nuclear envelope formation, as it dynamically changes its mitotic localization: it is enriched at inner centromeres from prophase to metaphase but it is relocalized at the spindle midzone in anaphase. The business end of the CPC is Aurora B and its allosteric activation module IN-box, which is located at the C-terminal part of INCENP. In most well-studied eukaryotic species, Aurora B activity is locally controlled by the localization module of the CPC, Survivin, Borealin, and the N-terminal portion of INCENP. Survivin and Borealin, which bind the N terminus of INCENP, recognize histone residues that are specifically phosphorylated in mitosis, while anaphase spindle midzone localization is supported by the direct microtubule-binding capacity of the SAH (single alpha helix) domain of INCENP and other microtubule-binding proteins that specifically interact with INCENP during anaphase, which are under the regulation of CDK activity. One of these examples includes the kinesin-like protein MKLP2 in vertebrates.

Trypanosoma is an evolutionarily interesting species to study mitosis since its kinetochore and centromere proteins do not show any similarity to other major branches of eukaryotes, while orthologs of Aurora B and INCENP have been identified. Combining molecular genetics, imaging, biochemistry, cross-linking IP-MS (IP-CLMS), and structural modeling, this manuscript reveals that two orphan kinesin-like proteins KIN-A and KIN-B act as localization modules of the CPC in Trypanosoma brucei. The IP-CLMS, AlphaFold2 structural predictions, and domain deletion analysis support the idea that (1) KIN-A and KIN-B form a heterodimer via their coiled-coil domain, (2) Two alpha helices of INCENP interact with the coiled-coil of the KIN-A-KIN-B heterodimer, (3) the conserved KIN-A C-terminal CD1 interacts with the heterodimeric KKT9-KKT11 complex, which is a submodule of the KKT7-KKT8 kinetochore complex unique to Trypanosoma, (4) KIN-A and KIN-B coiled-coil domains and the KKT7-KKT8 complex are required for CPC localization at the centromere, (5) CD1 and CD2 domains of KIN-A support its centromere localization. The authors further show that the ATPase activity of KIN-A is critical for spindle midzone enrichment of the CPC. The imaging data of the KIN-A rigor mutant suggest that dynamic KIN-A-microtubule interaction is required for metaphase alignment of the kinetochores and proliferation. Overall, the study reveals novel pathways of CPC localization regulation via KIN-A and KIN-B by multiple complementary approaches.

Strengths:
The major conclusion is collectively supported by multiple approaches, combining site-specific genome engineering, epistasis analysis of cellular localization, AlphaFold2 structure prediction of protein complexes, IP-CLMS, and biochemical reconstitution (the complex of KKT8, KKT9, KKT11, and KKT12).

Weaknesses:
- The predictions of direct interactions (e.g. INCENP with KIN-A/KIN-B, or KIN-A with KKT9-KKT11) have not yet been confirmed experimentally, e.g. by domain mutagenesis and interaction studies.

- The criteria used to judge a failure of localization are not clearly explained (e.g., Figure 5F, G).

- It remains to be shown that KIN-A has motor activity.

- The authors imply that KIN-A, but not KIN-B, interacts with microtubules based on microtubule pelleting assay (Fig. S6), but the substantial insoluble fractions of 6HIS-KINA and 6HIS-KIN-B make it difficult to conclusively interpret the data. It is possible that these two proteins are not stable unless they form a heterodimer.

- For broader context, some prior findings should be introduced, e.g. on the importance of the microtubule-binding capacity of the INCENP SAH domain and its regulation by mitotic phosphorylation (PMID 8408220, 26175154, 26166576, 28314740, 28314741, 21727193), since KIN-A and KIN-B may substitute for the function of the SAH domain.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

How the chromosomal passenger complex (CPC) and its subunit Aurora B kinase regulate kinetochore-microtubule attachment, and how the CPC relocates from kinetochores to the spindle midzone as a cell transitions from metaphase to anaphase are questions of great interest. In this study, Ballmer and Akiyoshi take a deep dive into the CPC in T. brucei, a kinetoplastid parasite with a kinetochore composition that varies greatly from other organisms.

Using a combination of approaches, most importantly in silico protein predictions using alphafold multimer and light microscopy in dividing T. brucei, the authors convincingly present and analyse the composition of the T. brucei CPC. This includes the identification of KIN-A and KIN-B, proteins of the kinesin family, as targeting subunits of the CPC. This is a clear advancement over earlier work, for example by Li and colleagues in 2008. The involvement of KIN-A and KIN-B is of particular interest, as it provides a clue for the (re)localization of the CPC during the cell cycle. The evolutionary perspective makes the paper potentially interesting for a wide audience of cell biologists, a point that the authors bring across properly in the title, the abstract, and their discussion.

The evolutionary twist of the paper would be strengthened 'experimentally' by predictions of the structure of the CPC beyond T. brucei. Depending on how far the authors can extend their in-silico analysis, it would be of interest to discuss a) available/predicted CPC structures in well-studied organisms and b) structural predictions in other euglenozoa. What are the general structural properties of the CPC (e.g. flexible linkers, overall dimensions, structural differences when subunits are missing etc.)? How common is the involvement of kinesin-like proteins? In line with this, it would be good to display the figure currently shown as S1D (or similar) as a main panel.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
The protein kinase, Aurora B, is a critical regulator of mitosis and cytokinesis in eukaryotes, exhibiting a dynamic localisation. As part of the Chromosomal Passenger Complex (CPC), along with the Aurora B activator, INCENP, and the CPC localisation module comprised of Borealin and Survivin, Aurora B travels from the kinetochores at metaphase to the spindle midzone at anaphase, which ensures its substrates are phosphorylated in a time- and space-dependent manner. In the kinetoplastid parasite, T. brucei, the Aurora B orthologue (AUK1), along with an INCENP orthologue known as CPC1, and a kinetoplastid-specific protein CPC2, also displays a dynamic localisation, moving from the kinetochores at metaphase to the spindle midzone at anaphase, to the anterior end of the newly synthesised flagellum attachment zone (FAZ) at cytokinesis. However, the trypanosome CPC lacks orthologues of Borealin and Survivin, and T. brucei kinetochores also have a unique composition, being comprised of dozens of kinetoplastid-specific proteins (KKTs). Of particular importance for this study are KKT7 and the KKT8 complex (comprising KKT8, KKT9, KKT11, and KKT12). Here, Ballmer and Akiyoshi seek to understand how the CPC assembles and is targeted to its different locations during the cell cycle in T. brucei.

Strengths & Weaknesses:
Using immunoprecipitation and mass-spectrometry approaches, Ballmer and Akiyoshi show that AUK1, CPC1, and CPC2 associate with two orphan kinesins, KIN-A and KIN-B, and with the use of endogenously expressed fluorescent fusion proteins, demonstrate for the first time that KIN-A and KIN-B display a dynamic localisation pattern similar to other components of the CPC. Most of these data provide convincing evidence for KIN-A and KIN-B being bona fide CPC proteins, although the evidence that KIN-A and KIN-B translocate to the anterior end of the new FAZ at cytokinesis is weak - the KIN-A/B signals are very faint and difficult to see, and cell outlines/brightfield images are not presented to allow the reader to determine the cellular location of these faint signals (Fig S1B).

They then demonstrate, by using RNAi to deplete individual components, that the CPC proteins have hierarchical interdependencies for their localisation to the kinetochores at metaphase. These experiments appear to have been well performed, although only images of cell nuclei were shown (Fig 2A), meaning that the reader cannot properly assess whether CPC components have localised elsewhere in the cell, or if their abundance changes in response to depletion of another CPC protein.

Ballmer and Akiyoshi then go on to determine the kinetochore localisation domains of KIN-A and KIN-B. Using ectopically expressed GFP-tagged truncations, they show that coiled-coil domains within KIN-A and KIN-B, as well as a disordered C-terminal tail present only in KIN-A, but not the N-terminal motor domains of KIN-A or KIN-B, are required for kinetochore localisation. These data are strengthened by immunoprecipitating CPC complexes and crosslinking them prior to mass spectrometry analysis (IP-CLMS), a state-of-the-art approach, to determine the contacts between the CPC components. Structural predictions of the CPC structure are also made using AlphaFold2, suggesting that coiled coils form between KIN-A and KIN-B, and that KIN-A/B interact with the N termini of CPC1 and CPC2. Experimental results show that CPC1 and CPC2 are unable to localise to kinetochores if they lack their N-terminal domains consistent with these predictions. Altogether these data provide convincing evidence of the protein domains required for CPC kinetochore localisation and CPC protein interactions. However, the authors also conclude that KIN-B plays a minor role in localising the CPC to kinetochores compared to KIN-A. This conclusion is not particularly compelling as it stems from the observation that ectopically expressed GFP-NLS-KIN-A (full length or coiled-coil domain + tail) is also present at kinetochores during anaphase unlike endogenously expressed YFP-KIN-A. Not only is this localisation probably an artifact of the ectopic expression, but the KIN-B coiled-coil domain localises to kinetochores from S to metaphase and Fig S2G appears to show a portion of the expressed KIN-B coiled-coil domain colocalising with KKT2 at anaphase. It is unclear why KIN-B has been discounted here.

Next, using a mixture of RNAi depletion and LacI-LacO recruitment experiments, the authors show that kinetochore proteins KKT7 and KKT9 are required for AUK1 to localise to kinetochores (other KKT8 complex components were not tested here) and that all components of the KKT8 complex are required for KIN-A kinetochore localisation. Further, both KKT7 and KKT8 were able to recruit AUK1 to an ectopic locus in the S phase, and KKT7 recruited KKT8 complex proteins, which the authors suggest indicates it is upstream of KKT8. However, while these experiments have been performed well, the reciprocal experiment to show that KKT8 complex proteins cannot recruit KKT7, which could have confirmed this hierarchy, does not appear to have been performed. Further, since the LacI fusion proteins used in these experiments were ectopically expressed, they were retained (artificially) at kinetochores into anaphase; KKT8 and KIN-A were both able to recruit AUK1 to LacO foci in anaphase, while KKT7 was not. The authors conclude that this suggests the KKT8 complex is the main kinetochore receptor of the CPC - while very plausible, this conclusion is based on a likely artifact of ectopic expression, and for that reason, should be interpreted with a degree of caution.

Further IP-CLMS experiments, in combination with recombinant protein pull-down assays and structural predictions, suggested that within the KKT8 complex, there are two subcomplexes of KKT8:KKT12 and KKT9:KKT11, and that KKT7 interacts with KKT9:KKT11 to recruit the remainder of the KKT8 complex. The authors also assess the interdependencies between KKT8 complex components for localisation and expression, showing that all four subunits are required for the assembly of a stable KKT8 complex and present AlphaFold2 structural modelling data to support the two subcomplex models. In general, these data are of high quality and convincing with a few exceptions. The recombinant pulldown assay (Fig. 4H) is not particularly convincing as the 3rd eluate gel appears to show a band at the size of KKT11 (despite the labelling indicating no KKT11 was present in the input) but no pulldown of KKT9, which was present in the input according to the figure legend (although this may be mislabeled since not consistent with the text). The text also states that 6HIS-KKT8 was insoluble in the absence of KKT12, but this is not possible to assess from the data presented. It is also surprising that data showing the effects of KKT8, KKT9, and KKT12 depletion on KKT11 localisation and abundance are not presented alongside the reciprocal experiments in Fig S4G-J.

The authors also convincingly show that AlphaFold2 predictions of interactions between KKT9:KKT11 and a conserved domain (CD1) in the C-terminal tail of KIN-A are likely correct, with CD1 and a second conserved domain, CD2, identified through sequence analysis, acting synergistically to promote KIN-A kinetochore localisation at metaphase, but not being required for KIN-A to move to the central spindle at anaphase. They then hypothesise that the kinesin motor domain of KIN-A (but not KIN-B which is predicted to be inactive based on non-conservation of residues key for activity) determines its central spindle localisation at anaphase through binding to microtubules. In support of this hypothesis, the authors show that KIN-A, but not KIN-B can bind microtubules in vitro and in vivo. However, ectopically expressed GFP-NLS fusions of full-length KIN-A or KIN-A motor domain did not localise to the central spindle at anaphase. The authors suggest this is due to the GPF fusion disrupting the ATPase activity of the motor domain, but they provide no evidence that this is the case. Instead, they replace endogenous KIN-A with a predicted ATPase-defective mutant (G209A), showing that while this still localises to kinetochores, the kinetochores were frequently misaligned at metaphase, and that it no longer concentrates at the central spindle (with concomitant mis-localisation of AUK1), causing cells to accumulate at anaphase. From these data, the authors conclude that KIN-A ATPase activity is required for chromosome congression to the metaphase plate and its central spindle localisation at anaphase. While potentially very interesting, these data are incomplete in the absence of any experimental data to show that KIN-A possesses ATPase activity or that this activity is abrogated by the G209A mutation, and the conclusions of this section are rather speculative.

Impact:
Overall, this work uses a wide range of cutting-edge molecular and structural predictive tools to provide a significant amount of new and detailed molecular data that shed light on the composition of the unusual trypanosome CPC and how it is assembled and targeted to different cellular locations during cell division. Given the fundamental nature of this research, it will be of interest to many parasitology researchers as well as cell biologists more generally, especially those working on aspects of mitosis and cell division, and those interested in the evolution of the CPC.