High-throughput CRISPR/Cas9 screens to identify new modulators of ATF6α signalling.
(A) Characterisation of the XC45-6S cells, a dual UPR reporter CHO-K1 cell line stably expressing XBP1s::mCherry to report on IRE1 activity and BiP::sfGFP to report on ATF6α activity that was generated to perform the CRISPR/Cas9 screens. Top panel: Two-dimensional contour plots of BiP::sfGFP and XBP1s::mCherry signals in untreated cells (UT, grey) and cells treated with the ER stressors 2-Deoxy-Dglucose (2DG, 4 mM, blue), tunicamycin (Tm, 2.5 µg/ml, orange), or thapsigargin (Tg, 0.5 µM, purple) over a short (6 h) and long period of time (20 h). Histograms of the signal in each channel are displayed on the axes. Lower panel: Contour plots as in “1A, top panel” from XC45-6S cells (parental) and a knockout ATF6αΔ clone (ATF6αΔ#5A2) generated by CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. Cells were analysed under basal (UT) and ER stress conditions (Tm, 2.5 µg/ml, 20 h). The bar graph shows the mean ± SEM of the median fluorescent reporter intensity normalised to untreated cells from 3 independent experiments. Statistical analysis was performed by a two-sided unpaired Welch’s t-test and significance is indicated by asterisks (** p < 0.01). (B) Flowchart illustrating the two parallel CRISPR/Cas9 screenings aimed to identify genetic ATF6α regulators. ATF6α/IRE dual reporter cells were transduced with a CHO sgRNA CRISPR knockout (KO) library. After puromycin selection, the transduced population was split into two subpopulations, subjected to either ER stress with 2DG treatment (4 mM) for 18 h or left untreated (basal) to identify activators and repressors of ATF6α, respectively. A BiP::sfGFPlow ;XBP1s::mCherryhigh population under ER stress and a BiP::sfGFPhigh; XBP1s::mCherrylow population devoid of ER stress were collected through FACS and processed to determinate sgRNAs frequencies after two rounds of selection, expansion, and enrichment. (C) Volcano plot depicting the Log2 (fold change) and the negative Log10 (adjusted p value) of the genes targeted by sgRNAs in 2DG-treated-sorted (TS) cells. This analysis identified genes whose loss confers repression of the ATF6α reporter during ER stress without impacting ER-stress-induced IRE1, compared to treated-unsorted (TUS) cells. The table lists the top 10 genes positively selected in the ATF6α activator screen, with FURIN highlighted as a hit for further analysis. (D) Volcano plot, as in “1C”, depicting the genes targeted by sgRNAs in untreated-sorted (UTS) cells. This analysis identified genes whose loss confers activation of the ATF6α reporter under basal conditions, compared to untreated-unsorted (UTUS) cells. The table lists the top 10 genes positively selected in the ATF6α repressor screen, with calreticulin (CRT) highlighted as the hit for further focused analysis. (H) Venn-diagram depicting unique and common upregulated top genes examined in “1D”, between our screen (yellow) and previous high-throughput UPR screenings (Adamson et al., 2016; Panganiban et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2018) to discard hits that were confirmed to be IRE1- or PERK-dependent UPR target genes. The Log2 (fold change) and the number of active sgRNA are provided for the 20 genes that remained in our screen, to be put forth as possible ATF6α repressor candidates.