Activation of Polycystin-1 Signaling by Binding of Stalk-derived Peptide Agonists

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
This research used cell-based signaling assay and Gaussian-accelerated molecular dynamics (GaMD) to study peptide-mediated signaling activation of Polycystin-1 (PC1), which is responsible for the majority of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) cases. Synthetic peptides of various lengths derived from the N-terminal portion of the PC1 C-terminal fragment (CTF) were applied to HEK293T cells transfected with stalkless mouse CTF expression construct. It was shown that peptides including the first 7, 9, and 17 residues of the N-terminal portion could activate signaling to the NFAT reporter. To further understand the underlying mechanism, docking and peptide-GaMD simulations of peptides composed of the first 9, 17, and 21 residues from the N-terminal portion of the human PC1 CTF were performed. These simulations revealed the correlation between peptide-CTF binding and PC1 CTF activation characterized by the close contact (salt bridge interaction) between residues R3848 and E4078. Finally, a Potts statistical model was inferred from diverged PC1 homologs to identify strong/conserved interacting pairs within PC1 CTF, some of which are highly relevant to the findings from the peptide GaMD simulations. The peptide binding pockets identified in the GaMD simulations may serve as novel targets for the design of therapeutic approaches for treating ADPKD.

Strengths:
(1) The experimental and computational parts of this study complement and mostly support each other, thus increasing the overall confidence in the claims made by the authors.

(2) The use of exogenous peptides and a stalkless CTF in the GaMD is a step forward compared to earlier simulations using the full CTF, CTF mutants, or the stalkless CTF alone. And it led to findings of novel binding pockets.

(3) Since the PC1 shares characteristics with the Adhesion class of GPCRs, the approaches used in this work may be extended to other similar systems.

Weaknesses:
(1) The GaMD simulations all include the exogenous peptides, thus lacking a control where no such peptide is present (and only stalkless CTF). An earlier study (PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 19 e2113786119) covered this already but it should be mentioned here that there was no observation of close/activation for the stalkless CTF.

(2) Although 5 independent trajectories were generated for each peptide, the authors did not provide sufficient details regarding the convergence of the simulation. This leaves some uncertainties in their results. Given that the binding poses changed relative to the starting docked poses for all three peptides, it is possible that some other binding pockets and/or poses were not explored.

(3) The free energy profiles (Figures 2 to 4) based on the selected coordinates provide important information regarding binding and CTF conformational change. However, it is a coarse-grained representation and complementary analysis such as RDFs, and/or contact maps between the peptide and CTF residues might be helpful to understand the details of their interactions. These details are currently only available in the text.

(4) The use of a stalkless CTF is necessary for studying the functions of the exogenous peptides. However, the biological relevance of the stalkless CTF to ADPKD was not clearly explained, if any.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
The autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is a major form of polycystic kidney disease (PKD). To provide better treatment and avoid side effects associated with currently available options, the authors investigated an interesting GPCR, polycystin-1 (PC1), as a potential therapeutic target. In vitro and in silico studies were combined to identify peptide agonists for PC1 and to elucidate their roles in PC1 signaling. Overall, regarding the significance of the findings, this work described valuable peptide agonists for PC1 and the combined in vitro and in silico approach can be useful to study a complex system like PC1. However, the strength of the evidence is incomplete, as more experiments are needed as controls to validate the computational observations. The work appears premature.

Strengths:
(1) This work first described the experimental discovery of short peptides designed to mimic the stalk region of PC1, followed by computational investigation using docking and MD simulations. PC1 is a complex membrane protein and an emerging target for ADPKD, but it can be challenging to study. The knowledge and the peptide discovery can be valuable and useful to understand the mechanism and potential modulation of PC1.

(2) The authors published the mechanistic study of PC1 and identified key interacting residues such as N3074-S3585 and R3848-E4078, using very similar techniques (PNAS 2022, 119(19), e2113786119). This work furthers this research by identifying peptides that are stalk mimics for PC1 activation.

(3) Eight peptides were designed and tested experimentally first; three were computationally studied with docking and GaMD simulations to understand their mechanism (s).

Weaknesses:
(1) The therapeutic potential of PC1 peptide agonists is unclear in the introduction. For example, while the FDA-approved drug Jynarque was mentioned, the text was misleading as it sounded like Jynarque targeted PC1. In fact, it targets another GPCR, the vasopressin receptor 2 (V2). A clear comparison of targeting PC1 over V2 pathways and their therapeutic relevance can help the readers better understand the importance of this work. Importantly, a clear background on the relationship between PC1 agonism and treatments for ADPKD is necessary.

(2) PC1 is a complex membrane protein, and most figures focus on the peptide-binding site. For general readers (or readers that did not read the previous PNAS publication), it is hard to imagine the overall structure and understand where the key interactions (e.g., R3848-E4078) are in the protein and how peptide binding affects locally and globally. I suggest enhancing the illustrations.

(3) The authors used the mouse construct for the cellular assays and the peptide designs in preparation for future in vivo assays. This is helpful in understanding biology, but the relevance of drug discovery is weakened. Related to Point 1, the therapeutic potential of PC1 peptide agonist is largely missing.

(4) More control experiments are needed. For example, a 7-residue hydrophilic sequence (GGKKKKK) is attached to the peptide design to increase solubility. This 7-residue peptide should be tested for PC1 activation as a control. Second, there is no justification for why the peptide design must begin with residue T3041. Can other segments of the stalk also be agonists?

(5) There are some major concerns about the simulations: The GaMD simulations showed different binding sites of p-21, p-17, and p-9, and the results report the simulated conformations as "active conformational states". However, these are only computational findings without structural biology or mutagenesis data to validate. Further, neither docking nor the simulation data can explain the peptide SAR. Finally, it will be interesting if the authors can use docking or GaMD and explain why some peptide designs (like P11-P15) are less active (as control simulations).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
The authors demonstrate the activation of Polycystin-1 (PC1), a G-protein coupled receptor, using small peptides derived from its original agonist, the stalk TA protein. In the experimental part of the study, the authors performed cellular assays to check the peptide-induced reactivation of a mutant form of PC1 which does not contain the stalk agonist. The experimental data is supported by computational studies using state-of-the-art Gaussian accelerated Molecular Dynamics (GaMD) and bioinformatics analysis based on sequence covariance. The computer simulations revealed the mechanistic details of the binding of the said peptides with the mutant PC1 protein and discovered different bound, unbound, and intermediate conformations depending on the peptide size and sequence. The use of reliable and well-established molecular simulation algorithms and the physiological relevance of this protein autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) make this work particularly valuable.

Strengths:
This work is exploratory and its goal is to establish that small peptides can be used to probe the PC1 signaling process. The authors have provided sufficient evidence to justify this claim. Their GaMD simulations have produced free-energy landscapes that differentiate the interaction of PC1 with three different synthetic peptides and demonstrate the associated conformational dynamics of the receptor protein. Their trajectory analysis and sequence covariance analysis could identify residue-specific interactions that facilitate this process.

Weaknesses:
The following minor weaknesses should be taken into account by the reader when interpreting the results:

(1) No control has been used for the computational (GaMD) study as the authors only report the free energy surface for 3 highly agonistic peptides but for none of the other peptides that did not induce an agonistic effect. Therefore, in the current version, the reliability of the computational results is not foolproof.

(2) All discussions about the residue level interactions focused only on geometric aspects (distance, angle, etc) but not the thermodynamic aspect (e.g. residue-wise interaction energy). Considering they perform a biased simulation, the lack of interaction energy analysis only provides a qualitative picture of the mechanism.

(3) It is not mentioned clearly whether the reader should interpret the free energy landscapes quantitatively or qualitatively. Considering no error analysis or convergence plots are reported for the GaMD free energy surfaces, it may be assumed the results are qualitative. The readers should consider this caveat and not try to quantitatively reproduce these free energy landscapes with other comparable techniques.