A seven-sex species recognizes self and non-self mating-type via a novel protein complex

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this study, Yan et al. investigate the molecular bases underlying mating type recognition in Tetrahymena thermophila. This model protist possesses a total of 7 mating types/sexes and mating occurs only between individuals expressing different mating types. The authors aimed to characterize the function of mating type proteins (MTA and MTB) in the process of self- and non-self recognition, using a combination of elegant phenotypic assays, protein studies, and imaging. They showed that the presence of MTA and MTB in the same cell is required for the expression of concavalin-A receptors and for tip transformation - two processes that are characteristic of the costimulation phase that precedes cell fusion. Using protein studies, the authors identify a set of additional proteins of varied functions that interact with MTA and MTB and are likely responsible for the downstream signaling processes required for mating. This is a description of a fascinating self- and non-self-recognition system and, as the authors point out, it is a rare example of a system with numerous mating types/sexes. This work opens the door for the further understanding of the molecular bases and evolution of these complex recognition systems within and outside protists.

The results shown in this study point to the unequivocal requirement of MTA and MTB proteins for mating. Nevertheless, some of the conclusions regarding the mode of functioning of these proteins are not fully supported and require additional investigation.

Strengths:
1. The authors have established a set of very useful knock-out and reporter lines for MT proteins and extensively used them in sophisticated and well-designed phenotypic assays that allowed them to test the role of these proteins in vivo.

2. Despite their apparent low abundance, the authors took advantage of a varied set of protein isolation and characterization techniques to pinpoint the localization of MT proteins to the cell membrane, and their interaction with multiple other proteins that could be downstream effectors. This opens the door for the future characterization of these proteins and further elucidation of the mating type recognition cascade.

Weaknesses:
The manuscript is structured and written in a very clear and easy-to-follow manner. However, several conclusions and discussion points fall short of highlighting possible models and mechanisms through which MT proteins control mating type recognition:

1. The authors dismiss the possibility of a "simple receptor-ligand system", even though the data does not exclude this possibility. The model presented in Figure 2 S1, and on which the authors based their hypothesis, assumes the independence of MTA and MTB proteins in the generation of the intracellular cascade. However, the results presented in Figure 2 show that both proteins are required to be active in the same cell. Coupled with the fact that MTA and MTB proteins interact, this is compatible with a model where MTA would be a ligand and MTB a receptor (or vice-versa), and could thus form a receptor-ligand complex that could potentially be activated by a non-cognate MTA-MTB receptor-ligand complex, leading to an intracellular cascade mediated by the identified MRC proteins. As it stands, it is not clear what is the proposed working model, and it would be very beneficial for the reader for this to be clarified by having the point of view of the authors on this or other types of models.

2. The presence of MTA/MTB proteins is required for costimulation (Figure 2), and supplementation with non-cognate extracellular fragments of these proteins (MTAxc, or MTBxc) is a positive stimulator of pairing. However, alone, these fragments do not have the ability to induce costimulation (Figure 5). Based on the results in Figures 5 and 6 the authors suggest that MT proteins mediate both self and non-self recognition. Why do MTAxc and MTBxc not induce costimulation alone? Are any other components required? How to reconcile this with the results of Figure 2? A more in-depth interpretation of these results would be very helpful, since these questions remain unanswered, making it difficult for the reader to extract a clear hypothesis on how MT proteins mediate self- and non-self-recognition.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This manuscript reports the discovery and analysis of a large protein complex that controls mating type and sexual reproduction of the model ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila. In contrast to many organisms that have two mating types or two sexes, Tetrahymena is multi-sexual with 7 distinct mating types. Previous studies identified the mating type locus, which encodes two transmembrane proteins called MTA and MTB that determine the specificity of mating type interactions. In this study, mutants are generated in the MTA and MTB genes and mutant isolates are studied for mating properties. Cells missing either MTA or MTB failed to co-stimulate wild-type cells of different mating types. Moreover, a mixture of mutants lacking MTA or MTB also failed to stimulate. These observations support the conclusion that MTA and MTB may form a complex that directs mating-type identity. To address this, the proteins were epitope-tagged and subjected to IP-MS analysis. This revealed that MTA and MTB are in a physical complex, and also revealed a series of 6 other proteins (MRC1-6) that together with MTA/B form the mating type recognition complex (MTRC). All 8 proteins feature predicted transmembrane domains, three feature GFR domains, and two are predicted to function as calcium transporters. The authors went on to demonstrate that components of the MTRC are localized on the cell surface but not in the cilia. They also presented findings that support the conclusion that the mating type-specific region of the MTA and MTB genes can influence both self- and non-self-recognition in mating.

Taken together, the findings presented are interesting and extend our understanding of how organisms with more than two mating types/sexes may be specified. The identification of the six-protein MRC complex is quite intriguing. It would seem important that the function of at least one of these subunits be analyzed by gene deletion and phenotyping, similar to the findings presented here for the MTA and MTB mutants. A straightforward prediction might be that a deletion of any subunit of the MRC complex would result in a sterile phenotype. The manuscript was very well written and a pleasure to read.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors describe the role, location, and function of the MTA and MTB mating type genes in the multi-mating-type species T. thermophila. The ciliate is an important group of organisms to study the evolution of mating types, as it is one of the few groups in which more than two mating types evolved independently. In the study, the authors use deletion strains of the species to show that both mating types genes located in each allele are required in both mating individuals for successful matings to occur. They show that the proteins are localized in the cell membrane, not the cilia, and that they interact in a complex (MTRC) with a set of 6 associated (non-mating type-allelic) genes. This complex is furthermore likely to interact with a cyclin-dependent kinase complex. It is intriguing that T. thermophila has two genes that are allelic and that are both required for successful mating. This coevolved double recognition has to my knowledge not been described for any other mating-type recognition system. I am not familiar with experimental research on ciliates, but as far as I can judge, the experiments appear well performed and mostly support the interpretation of the authors with appropriate controls and statistical analyses.

The results show clearly that the mating type genes regulate non-self-recognition, however, I am not convinced that self-recognition occurs leading to the suppression of mating. An alternative explanation could be that the MTA and MTB proteins form a complex and that the two extracellular regions together interact with the MTA+MTB proteins from different mating types. This alternative hypothesis fits with the coevolution of MTA and MTB genes observed in the phylogenetic subgroups as described by Yan et al. (2021 iScience). Adding MTAxc and/or MTBxc to the cells can lead to the occupation of the external parts of the full proteins thereby inhibiting the formation of the complex, which in turn reduces non-self interactions. Self-recognition as explained in Figure 2S1 suggests an active response, which should be measurable in expression data for example. This is in my opinion not essential, but a claim of self-recognition through the MTA and MTB should not be made.

The authors discuss that T. thermophila has special mating-type proteins that are large, while those of other groups are generally small (lines 157-160 and discussion). The complex formed is very large and in the discussion, they argue that this might be due to the "highly complex process, given that there are seven mating types in all". There is no argument given why large is more complex, if this is complex, and whether more mating types require more complexity. In basidiomycete fungi, many more mating types than 7 exist, and the homeodomain genes involved in mating types are relatively small but highly diverse (Luo et al. 1994 PMID: 7914671). The mating types associated with GPCR receptors in fungi are arguably larger, but again their function is not that complex, and mating-type specific variations appear to evolve easily (Fowler et al 2004 PMID: 14643262; Seike et al. 2015 PMID: 25831518). The large protein complex formed is reminiscent of the fusion patches that develop in budding or fission yeasts. In these species, the mating type receptors are activated by ligand pheromones from the opposite mating type that induce polarity patch formation (see Sieber et al. 2023 PMID: 35148940 for a recent review). At these patches, growth (shmooing) and fusion occur, which is reminiscent (in a different order) of the tip transformation in T. thermophilia. The fusion of two cells is in all taxa a dangerous and complex event that requires the evolution of very strict regulation and the existence of a system like the MTRC and cyclin-dependent complex to regulate this process is therefore not unexpected. The existence of multiple mating types should not greatly complicate the process, as most of the machinery (except for the MTA and MTB) is identical among all mating types.

The Tetrahymena/ciliate genetics and lifecycle could be better explained. For a general audience, the system is not easy to follow. For example, the ploidy of the somatic nucleus with regards to the mating type is not clear to me. The MAC is generally considered "polyploid", but how does this work for the mating type? I assume only a single copy of the mating type locus is available in the MAC to avoid self-recognition in the cells. Is it known how the diploid origin reduces to a single mating type? This does not become apparent from Cervantes et al. 2013. Also, the explanation of co-stimulation is not completely clear (lines 49-60). Initially, direct cell-cell contact is mentioned, but later it is mentioned that "all cells become fully stimulated", even when unequal ratios are used. Is physical contact necessary? Or is this due to the "secrete mating-essential factors" (line 601)? These details are essential, for interpretation of the results and need to be explained better.

Abstract and introduction: Sexes are not mating types. In general, mating types refer to systems in which there is no obvious asymmetry between the gametes, beyond the compatibility system. When there is a physiological difference such as size or motility, sexes are used. This distinction is of importance because in many species mating types and sexes can occur together, with each sex being able to have either (when two) or multiple mating types. An example are SI in angiosperms as used as an example by the authors or mating types in filamentous fungi. See Billiard et al. 2011 [PMID: 21489122] for a good explanation and argumentation for the importance of making this distinction.