Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a response from the authors (if available).
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorPaul Donlin-AspUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- Senior EditorLori SusselUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
Here the authors convincingly identify and characterize the SERBP1 interactome and further define its role in the nucleus, where it is associated with complexes involved in splicing, cell division, chromosome structure, and ribosome biogenesis. Many of the SERBP1-associated proteins are RNA-binding proteins and SERBP1 exerts its impact, at least in part, through these players. SERBP1 is mostly disordered but along with its associated proteins displays a preference for G4 binding and can can bind to PAR and be PARylated. They present data that strongly suggest that complexes in which SERBP1 participates are assembled through G4 or PAR binding. The authors suggest that because SERBP1 lacks traditional functional domains yet is clearly involved in distinct regulatory complexes, SERBP1 likely acts in the early steps of assembly through the recognition of interacting sites present in RNA, DNA, and proteins.
Strengths:
The data is very convincing and demonstrated through multiple approaches.
Weaknesses:
No weaknesses were identified by this reviewer.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this study the authors have used pull-down experiments in a cell line overexpressing tagged SERPINE1 mRNA binding protein 1 (SERBP1) followed by mass spectrometry-based proteomics, to establish its interactome. Extensive analyses are performed to connect the data to published resources. The authors attempt to connect SERBP1 to stress granules and Alzheimer's disease-associated tau pathology. Based on the interactome, the authors propose a cross-talk between SERBP1 and PARP1 functions.
Strengths:
The main strength of this study lies in the proteomics data analysis, and its effort to connect the data to published studies.
Weaknesses:
While the authors propose a feedback regulatory model for SERBP1 and PARP1 functions, strong evidence for PARylation modulating SERBP1 functions is lacking. PARP inhibition decreasing the amount of PARylated proteins associated with SERBP1 and likely all other PARylated proteins is expected. This study is also incomplete in its attempt to establish a connection to Alzheimer's disease related tauopathy. A single AD case is not sufficient, and frozen autopsy tissue shows unexplained punctate staining likely due to poor preservation of cellular structures for immunohistochemistry. There is a lack of essential demographic data, source of the tissue, brain regions shown, and whether there was an IRB protocol for the human brain tissue. The presence of phase-separated transient stress granules in an autopsy brain is unlikely, even if G3BP1 staining is present. Normally, stress granule proteins move to the cytoplasm under cellular stress, whereas SERBP1 becomes nuclear. The co-localization of abundant cytoplasmic G3BP1 and SERBP1 under normal conditions does not indicate an association with stress granules.
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Summary:
A survey of SERBP1-associated functions and their impact on the transcriptome upon gene depletion, as well as the identification of chemical inhibitors upon gene over-expression.
Strengths:
(1) Provides a valuable resource for the community, supported by statistical analyses.
(2) Offers a survey of different processes with correlation data, serving as a good starting point for the community to follow up.
Weaknesses:
(1) The authors provided numerous correlations on diverse topics, from cell division to RNA splicing and PARP1 association, but did not follow up their findings with experiments, offering little mechanistic insight into the actual role of SERBP1. The model in Figure 5D is entirely speculative and lacks data support in the manuscript.
(2) Following up with experiments to demonstrate that their findings are real (e.g., those related to splicing defects and the PARylation/PAR-binding association) would be beneficial. For example, whether the association between PARP1 and SERBP1 is sensitive to PAR-degrading enzymes is unclear.
(3) They did not clearly articulate how experiments were performed. For instance, the drug screen and even the initial experiment involving the pull-down were poorly described. Many in the community may not be familiar with vectors such as pSBP or pUltra without looking up details.
(4) The co-staining of SERBP1 with pTau, PARP1, and G3BP1 in the brain is interesting, but it would be beneficial to follow up with immunoprecipitation in normal and patient samples to confirm the increased physical association.
(5) The combination index of 0.7-0.9 for PJ34 + siSERBP1 is weak. Could this be due to the non-specific nature of the drug against other PARPs? Have the authors looked into this possibility?
