TMEM16 and TMEM63/OSCA proteins share a conserved potential to permeate ions and phospholipids

  1. Department of Biochemistry, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA
  2. Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA
  3. Department of Neurobiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA

Peer review process

Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a provisional response from the authors.

Read more about eLife’s peer review process.

Editors

  • Reviewing Editor
    Murali Prakriya
    Northwestern University, Chicago, United States of America
  • Senior Editor
    Merritt Maduke
    Stanford University, Stanford, United States of America

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

TMEM16, OSCA/TMEM63, and TMC belong to a large superfamily of ion channels where TMEM16 members are calcium-activated lipid scramblases and chloride channels, whereas OSCA/TMEM63 and TMCs are mechanically activated ion channels. In the TMEM16 family, TMEM16F is a well-characterized calcium-activated lipid scramblase that plays an important role in processes like blood coagulation, cell death signaling, and phagocytosis. In a previous study, the group demonstrated that lysine mutation in TM4 of TMEM16A can enable the calcium-activated chloride channel to permeate phospholipids too. Based on this they hypothesize that the energy barrier for lipid scramblase in these ion channels is low, and that modification in the hydrophobic gate region by introducing a charged side chain between the TM4/6 interface in TMEM16 and OSCA/TMEM63 family can allow lipid scramblase. In this manuscript, using scramblase activity via Annexin V binding to phosphatidylserine, and electrophysiology, the authors demonstrate that lysine mutation in TM4 of TMEM16F and TMEM16A can cause constitutive lipid scramblase activity. The authors then go on to show that analogous mutations in OSCA1.2 and TMEM63A can lead to scramblase activity.

Strengths:

Overall, the authors introduce an interesting concept that this large superfamily can permeate ions and lipids.

Weaknesses:

The electrophysiology data does not entirely support their claims.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This concise and focused study by Lowry and colleagues identifies a motif in the pores of three families of channel/scramblase proteins that regulate exclusive ion permeation and lipid transport. These three ion channel families, which include the TMEM16s, the plant-expressed and stress-gated cation channel OSCA, and the mammalian homolog and mechanosensitive cation channel, TMEM63 share low sequence similarity between them and have seemingly differing functions, as anion (TMEM16s), or stress-activated cation channels (OSCA/TMEM63). The study finds that in all three families, mutating a single hydrophobic residue in the ion permeation pathway of the channels confers lipid transport through the pores of the channels, indicating that TMEM16 and the related OSCA and TMEM63 channels have a conserved potential for both ion and lipid permeation. The authors interpret the findings as revealing that these channel/scramblase proteins have a relatively low "energetic barrier for scramblase" activity. The experiments themselves seem to be done with a high level of rigor and the paper is well written. A weakness is the limited scope of the experiments which, if fixed, could open up a new line of inquiry.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study was focused on the conserved mechanisms across the Transmembrane Channel/Scramblase superfamily, which includes members of the TMEM16, TMEM63/OSCA, and TMC families. The authors show that the introduction of lysine residues at the TM4-TM6 interface can disrupt gating and confer scramblase activity to non-scramblase proteins. Specifically, they show this to be true for conserved TM4 residues across TMEM16F, TMEM16A, OSCA1.2, and TMEM63A proteins. This breadth of data is a major strength of the paper and provides strong evidence for an underlying linked mechanism for ion conduction and phospholipid transport. Overall, the confocal imaging experiments, patch clamping experiments, and data analysis are performed well.

However, there are several concerns regarding the scope of experiments supporting some claims in the paper. Although the authors propose that the TM4/TM6 interface is critical to ion conduction and phospholipid scramblase activity, in each case, there is very narrow evidence of support consisting of 1-3 lysine substitutions at specific residues on TM4. Given that the authors postulate that the introduction of a positive charge via the lysine side chain is essential to the constitutive activity of these proteins, additional mutation controls for side chain size (e.g. glutamine/methionine) or negative charge (e.g. glutamic acid), or a different positive charge (i.e. arginine) would have strengthened their argument. To more comprehensively understand the TM4/TM6 interface, mutations at locations one turn above and one turn below could be studied until there is no phenotype. In addition, the equivalent mutations on the TM6 side should be explored to rule out the effects of conformational changes that arise from mutating TM4 and to increase the strength of evidence for the importance of side-chain interactions at the TM6 interface. The experiments for OSCA1.2 osmolarity effects on gating and scramblase in Figure 4 could be improved by adding different levels of osmolarity in addition to time in the hypotonic solution.

Author response:

Overall recommendations.

A brief summary of the main reviewers' recommendations that should be prioritized is listed below. Detailed recommendations as suggested by each individual reviewer are also included.

-Better justification of the choice of the substitutions for the mutations should be added. In addition, authors should strongly consider adding more mutations to enable mechanistic tests of the proposed model for lipid conduction.

We will characterize more mutations to the key residues at the TM4-TM6 interface. In addition to the TM4 lysine mutations shown in the original manuscript, we will include mutations to alanine and glutamate, and justify our choice of the substitutions in the revised manuscript. Furthermore, we will also test if introducing lysine mutations in TM6 will convert the ion channels into lipid scramblases. These additional experiments will greatly strengthen our conclusion.

-Blockers to validate the concern that the recorded currents indeed arise from TMEM16A or OSCA/TMEM63 channels should be tested. Do the pore blockers also block scramblase activity in the gating mutants?

TMEM16A and OSCA1.2 are readily expressed on cell surface. OSCA1.2 also has large conductance. This is the reason why we can record huge current even with inside-out patches. We will include TMEM16A inhibitor Ani9 and a non-specific inhibitor of OSCA channels to further validate. We have reported that Ani9 can inhibit a TMEM16A-derived lipid scramblase (L543K in TM4) in our previo3us publication (PMID: 31015464). We will test if Ani9 can also inhibit other TMEM16A scramblases reported in this study. We will also examine if Gd3+ is capable of blocking lipid scrambling of the OSCA1.2 gating mutations.

-Include details of missing experimental conditions for scramblase activity.

We will conduct a thorough revision to include detailed experimental conditions for scramblase activity measurement.

-Additional mutants above and below the putative lysine gate as suggested by reviewer 3 to better assess the model.

As we explained in Response #1, we will extend our mutations around the putative activation gate.

-Concern about whether osmolarity changes are in fact activating OSC and TMEM63. As suggested by reviewers 1 and 3. This could be addressed by assessing scramblase activity and currents at different osmolarity levels.

We will test the engineered OSCA1.2 scramblases in response to solutions with different osmolarity.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

TMEM16, OSCA/TMEM63, and TMC belong to a large superfamily of ion channels where TMEM16 members are calcium-activated lipid scramblases and chloride channels, whereas OSCA/TMEM63 and TMCs are mechanically activated ion channels. In the TMEM16 family, TMEM16F is a well-characterized calcium-activated lipid scramblase that plays an important role in processes like blood coagulation, cell death signaling, and phagocytosis. In a previous study, the group demonstrated that lysine mutation in TM4 of TMEM16A can enable the calcium-activated chloride channel to permeate phospholipids too. Based on this they hypothesize that the energy barrier for lipid scramblase in these ion channels is low, and that modification in the hydrophobic gate region by introducing a charged side chain between the TM4/6 interface in TMEM16 and OSCA/TMEM63 family can allow lipid scramblase. In this manuscript, using scramblase activity via Annexin V binding to phosphatidylserine, and electrophysiology, the authors demonstrate that lysine mutation in TM4 of TMEM16F and TMEM16A can cause constitutive lipid scramblase activity. The authors then go on to show that analogous mutations in OSCA1.2 and TMEM63A can lead to scramblase activity.

Strengths:

Overall, the authors introduce an interesting concept that this large superfamily can permeate ions and lipids.

Weaknesses:

The electrophysiology data does not entirely support their claims.

We appreciate your positive comments. We will conduct more experiments including more electrophysiology characterizations as suggested.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This concise and focused study by Lowry and colleagues identifies a motif in the pores of three families of channel/scramblase proteins that regulate exclusive ion permeation and lipid transport. These three ion channel families, which include the TMEM16s, the plant-expressed and stress-gated cation channel OSCA, and the mammalian homolog and mechanosensitive cation channel, TMEM63 share low sequence similarity between them and have seemingly differing functions, as anion (TMEM16s), or stress-activated cation channels (OSCA/TMEM63). The study finds that in all three families, mutating a single hydrophobic residue in the ion permeation pathway of the channels confers lipid transport through the pores of the channels, indicating that TMEM16 and the related OSCA and TMEM63 channels have a conserved potential for both ion and lipid permeation. The authors interpret the findings as revealing that these channel/scramblase proteins have a relatively low "energetic barrier for scramblase" activity. The experiments themselves seem to be done with a high level of rigor and the paper is well written. A weakness is the limited scope of the experiments which, if fixed, could open up a new line of inquiry.

We appreciate the positive comments from the reviewer. We will conduct more experiments listed in our responses to the Overall Recommendations to improve the scope and quality of our study.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study was focused on the conserved mechanisms across the Transmembrane Channel/Scramblase superfamily, which includes members of the TMEM16, TMEM63/OSCA, and TMC families. The authors show that the introduction of lysine residues at the TM4-TM6 interface can disrupt gating and confer scramblase activity to non-scramblase proteins. Specifically, they show this to be true for conserved TM4 residues across TMEM16F, TMEM16A, OSCA1.2, and TMEM63A proteins. This breadth of data is a major strength of the paper and provides strong evidence for an underlying linked mechanism for ion conduction and phospholipid transport. Overall, the confocal imaging experiments, patch clamping experiments, and data analysis are performed well.

However, there are several concerns regarding the scope of experiments supporting some claims in the paper. Although the authors propose that the TM4/TM6 interface is critical to ion conduction and phospholipid scramblase activity, in each case, there is very narrow evidence of support consisting of 1-3 lysine substitutions at specific residues on TM4. Given that the authors postulate that the introduction of a positive charge via the lysine side chain is essential to the constitutive activity of these proteins, additional mutation controls for side chain size (e.g. glutamine/methionine) or negative charge (e.g. glutamic acid), or a different positive charge (i.e. arginine) would have strengthened their argument. To more comprehensively understand the TM4/TM6 interface, mutations at locations one turn above and one turn below could be studied until there is no phenotype. In addition, the equivalent mutations on the TM6 side should be explored to rule out the effects of conformational changes that arise from mutating TM4 and to increase the strength of evidence for the importance of side-chain interactions at the TM6 interface. The experiments for OSCA1.2 osmolarity effects on gating and scramblase in Figure 4 could be improved by adding different levels of osmolarity in addition to time in the hypotonic solution.

We appreciate the positive and constructive comments from the reviewer. As we outlined in our responses to the Overall Recommendations, we will include more mutations at the TM4 and TM6 interface to further strengthen our conclusion.

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  4. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation