Ribosomal composition affects the noncanonical translation and toxicity of polyglycine-containing proteins in fragile X-associated conditions

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Tutak et al use a combination of pulldowns, analyzed by mass spectrometry, reporter assays, and fluorescence experiments to decipher the mechanism of protein translation in fragile X-related diseases. The topic is interesting and important.

Although a role for Rps26-deficient ribosomes in toxic protein translation is plausible based on already available data, the authors' data are not carefully controlled and thus do not support the conclusions of the paper.

Strengths:

The topic is interesting and important.

Weaknesses:

In particular, there is very little data to support the notion that Rps26-deficient ribosomes are even produced under the circumstances. And no data that indicate that they are involved in the RAN translation. Essential controls (for ribosome numbers) are lacking, no information is presented on the viability of the cells (Rps26 is an essential protein), and the differences in protein levels could well arise from block in protein synthesis, and cell division coupled to differential stability of the proteins.

Specific points:

(1) Analysis of the mass spec data in Supplemental Table S3 indicates that for many of the proteins that are differentially enriched in one sample, a single peptide is identified. So the difference is between 1 peptide and 0. I don't understand how one can do a statistical analysis on that, or how it would give out anything of significance. I certainly do not think it is significant. This is exacerbated by the fact that the contaminants in the assay (keratins) are many, many-fold more abundant, and so are proteins that are known to be mitochondrial or nuclear, and therefore likely not actual targets (e.g. MCCC1, PC, NPM1; this includes many proteins "of significance" in Table S1, including Rrp1B, NAF1, Top1, TCEPB, DHX16, etc...).

The data in Table S6/Figure 3A suffer from the same problem.

I am not convinced that the mass spec data is reliable.

(2) The mass-spec data however claims to identify Rps26 as a factor binding the toxic RNA specifically. The rest of the paper seeks to develop a story of how Rps26-deficient ribosomes play a role in the translation of this RNA. I do not consider that this makes sense.

(3) Rps26 is an essential gene, I am sure the same is true for DHX15. What happens to cell viability? Protein synthesis? The yeast experiments were carefully carried out under experiments where Rps26 was reduced, not fully depleted to give small growth defects.

(4) Knockdown efficiency for all tested genes must be shown to evaluate knockdown efficiency.

(5) The data in Figure 1E have just one mock control, but two cell types (control si and Rps26 depletion).

(6) The authors' data indicate that the effects are not specific to Rps26 but indeed also observed upon Rps25 knockdown. This suggests strongly that the effects are from reduced ribosome content or blocked protein synthesis. Additional controls should deplete a core RP to ascertain this conclusion.

(7) Supplemental Figure S3 demonstrates that the depletion of S26 does not affect the selection of the start codon context. Any other claim must be deleted. All the 5'-UTR logos are essentially identical, indicating that "picking" happens by abundance (background).

(8) Mechanism is lacking entirely. There are many ways in which ribosomes could have mRNA-specific effects. The authors tried to find an effect from the Kozak sequence, unsuccessfully (however, they also did not do the experiment correctly, as they failed to recognize that the Kozak sequence differs between yeast, where it is A-rich, and mammalian cells, where it is GGCGCC). Collisions could be another mechanism.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Translation of CGG repeats leads to the accumulation of poly G, which is associated with neurological disorders. This is a valuable paper in which the authors sought out proteins that modulate RAN translation. They determined which proteins in Hela cells bound to CGG repeats and affected levels of polyG encoded in the 5'UTR of the FMR1 mRNA. They then showed that siRNA depletion of ribosomal protein RPS26 results in less production of FMR1polyG than in control. There are data supporting the claim that RPS26 depletion modulates RAN translation in this RNA, although for some results, the Western results are not strong. The data to support increased aggregation by polyG expression upon S26 KD are incomplete.

Strengths:

The authors have proteomics data that show the enrichment of a set of proteins on FMR1 RNA but not a related RNA.

Weaknesses:

-It is insinuated that RPS26 binds the RNA to enhance CGG-containing protein expression. However, RPS26 reduction was also shown previously to affect ribosome levels, and reduced ribosome levels can result in ribosomes translating very different RNA pools.

-A significant claim is that RPS26 KD alleviates the effects of FMR polyG expression, but those data aren't presented well.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Tutak et al provide interesting data showing that RPS26 and relevant proteins such as TSR2 and RPS25 affect RAN translation from CGG repeat RNA in fragile X-associated conditions. They identified RPS26 as a potential regulator of RAN translation by RNA-tagging system and mass spectrometry-based screening for proteins binding to CGG repeat RNA and confirmed its regulatory effects on RAN translation by siRNA-based knockdown experiments in multiple cellular disease models and patient-derived fibroblasts. Quantitative mass spectrometry analysis found that the expressions of some ribosomal proteins are sensitive to RPS26 depletion while approximately 80% of proteins including FMRP were not influenced. Since the roles of ribosomal proteins in RAN translation regulation have not been fully examined, this study provides novel insights into this research field. However, some data presented in this manuscript are limited and preliminary, and their conclusions are not fully supported.

(1) While the authors emphasized the importance of ribosomal composition for RAN translation regulation in the title and the article body, the association between RAN translation and ribosomal composition is apparently not evaluated in this work. They found that specific ribosomal proteins (RPS26 and RPS25) can have regulatory effects on RAN translation（Figures 1C, 2B, 2C, 2E, 4A, 5A, and 5B), and that the expression levels of some ribosomal proteins can be changed by RPS26 knockdown (Figure 3B, however, the change of the ribosome compositions involved in the actual translation has not been elucidated). Therefore, their conclusive statement, that is, "ribosome composition affects RAN translation" is not fully supported by the presented data and is misleading.

(2) The study provides insufficient data on the mechanisms of how RPS26 regulates RAN translation. Although authors speculate that RPS26 may affect initiation codon fidelity and regulate RAN translation in a CGG repeat sequence-independent manner (Page 9 and Page 11), what they really have shown is just identification of this protein by the screening for proteins binding to CGG repeat RNA (Figure 1A, 1B), and effects of this protein on CGG repeat-RAN translation. It is essential to clarify whether the regulatory effect of RPS26 on RAN translation is dependent on CGG repeat sequence or near-cognate initiation codons like ACG and GUG in the 5' upstream sequence of the repeat. It would be better to validate the effects of RPS26 on translation from control constructs, such as one composed of the 5' upstream sequence of FMR1 with no CGG repeat, and one with an ATG substitution in the 5' upstream sequence of FMR1 instead of near-cognate initiation codons.

(3) The regulatory effects of RPS26 and other molecules on RAN translation have all been investigated as effects on the expression levels of FMRpolyG-GFP proteins in cellular models expressing CGG repeat sequences （Figures 1C, 2B, 2C, 2E, 4A, 5A, and 5B). In these cellular experiments, there are multiple confounding factors affecting the expression levels of FMRpolyG-GFP proteins other than RAN translation, including template RNA expression, template RNA distribution, and FMRpolyG-GFP protein degradation. Although authors evaluated the effect on the expression levels of template CGG repeat RNA, it would be better to confirm the effect of these regulators on RAN translation by other experiments such as in vitro translation assay that can directly evaluate RAN translation.

(4) While the authors state that RPS26 modulated the FMRpolyG-mediated toxicity, they presented limited data on apoptotic markers, not cellular viability (Figure 1E), not fully supporting this conclusion. Since previous work showed that FMRpolyG protein reduces cellular viability (Hoem G et al., Front Genet 2019), additional evaluations for cellular viability would strengthen this conclusion.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Tutak et al use a combination of pulldowns, analyzed by mass spectrometry, reporter assays, and fluorescence experiments to decipher the mechanism of protein translation in fragile X-related diseases. The topic is interesting and important.

Although a role for Rps26-deficient ribosomes in toxic protein translation is plausible based on already available data, the authors' data are not carefully controlled and thus do not support the conclusions of the paper.

Strengths:

The topic is interesting and important.

Weaknesses:

In particular, there is very little data to support the notion that Rps26-deficient ribosomes are even produced under the circumstances. And no data that indicate that they are involved in the RAN translation. Essential controls (for ribosome numbers) are lacking, no information is presented on the viability of the cells (Rps26 is an essential protein), and the differences in protein levels could well arise from block in protein synthesis, and cell division coupled to differential stability of the proteins.

We agree that presented data could benefit from addition of suggested experiments. We will address the ribosome content, global translation rate and cell viability upon RPS26 depletion. We are also planning to apply polysome profiling to determine if RPS26-depleted ribosomes are translationally active.

Specific points:

(1) Analysis of the mass spec data in Supplemental Table S3 indicates that for many of the proteins that are differentially enriched in one sample, a single peptide is identified. So the difference is between 1 peptide and 0. I don't understand how one can do a statistical analysis on that, or how it would give out anything of significance. I certainly do not think it is significant. This is exacerbated by the fact that the contaminants in the assay (keratins) are many, many-fold more abundant, and so are proteins that are known to be mitochondrial or nuclear, and therefore likely not actual targets (e.g. MCCC1, PC, NPM1; this includes many proteins "of significance" in Table S1, including Rrp1B, NAF1, Top1, TCEPB, DHX16, etc...).

The data in Table S6/Figure 3A suffer from the same problem.

Tables S3 and S6 show the mass spectrometry output data from MaxQuant analysis without any flittering. Certain identifications, i.e. those denoted as contaminants (such as keratins) were removed during statistical analysis in Perseus software. Regarding the data presented in Table S6 (SILAC data), we argue that these data are of very good quality. More than 2000 proteins were identified in a 125min gradient, with over 80% of proteins that were identified with at least 2 unique peptides. However, we acknowledge that the description of Tables S3 and S6 may lead to misunderstanding, thus we will clarify their explanation.

I am not convinced that the mass spec data is reliable.

(2) The mass-spec data however claims to identify Rps26 as a factor binding the toxic RNA specifically. The rest of the paper seeks to develop a story of how Rps26-deficient ribosomes play a role in the translation of this RNA. I do not consider that this makes sense.

Indeed, we identified RPS26 as a protein co-precipitated with FMR1 RNA containing expanded CGG repeats. However, we do not claim that they interact directly. Downregulation of FMRpolyG biosynthesis could be an outcome of the alteration of ribosomal assembly, changes in efficiency and fidelity of PIC scanning or impeded elongation or more likely combination of some of these processes. We will provide better explanation regarding those issues in the revised version of the manuscript.

(3) Rps26 is an essential gene, I am sure the same is true for DHX15. What happens to cell viability? Protein synthesis? The yeast experiments were carefully carried out under experiments where Rps26 was reduced, not fully depleted to give small growth defects.

We agree with the Reviewer 1 that RPS26 is an essential protein. Previously, it was shown that cell viability in cells with mutated C-terminal deletion of RPS26 is decreased (Havkin-Solomon T, Nucleic Acids Res 2023). We will address the question regarding the suppression of FMRpolyG in models with partial RPS26 knock-down.

(4) Knockdown efficiency for all tested genes must be shown to evaluate knockdown efficiency.

Missing experiments showing efficiency of knock-down will be included in the revised version of the manuscript.

(5) The data in Figure 1E have just one mock control, but two cell types (control si and Rps26 depletion).

We will clarify this ambiguity in the revised version of the manuscripts.

(6) The authors' data indicate that the effects are not specific to Rps26 but indeed also observed upon Rps25 knockdown. This suggests strongly that the effects are from reduced ribosome content or blocked protein synthesis. Additional controls should deplete a core RP to ascertain this conclusion.

We agree that observed effect may stem partially from reduced ribosome content, however, we argue that this is not the only explanation. In the publication concerning RPS25 regulation of G4C2-related RAN translation (Yamada SB, 2019, Nat Neurosci), it was shown that RPS25 KO does not affect global translation. Our experiments (SUnSET assay, unpublished) indicated that RPS26 KD also did not reduce global translation rate significantly. We will present that data in the revised version of the manuscript.

(7) Supplemental Figure S3 demonstrates that the depletion of S26 does not affect the selection of the start codon context. Any other claim must be deleted. All the 5'-UTR logos are essentially identical, indicating that "picking" happens by abundance (background).

Results shown in Fig.S3 does not imply that RPS26 does not affect the selection of start codon context entirely. We just tested a few hypotheses. We decided to test -4 position, because this position was indicated as the most sensitive to RPS26 regulation in yeast (Ferretti M, 2017, Nat Struct Mol Biol). Regarding WebLOGO analysis; we wrote in the manuscript that we did not identify any specific motif or enrichment within analysed transcripts in comparison to background. We will clarify this ambiguity in revised version of the manuscript.

(8) Mechanism is lacking entirely. There are many ways in which ribosomes could have mRNA-specific effects. The authors tried to find an effect from the Kozak sequence, unsuccessfully (however, they also did not do the experiment correctly, as they failed to recognize that the Kozak sequence differs between yeast, where it is A-rich, and mammalian cells, where it is GGCGCC). Collisions could be another mechanism.

As in (7).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Translation of CGG repeats leads to the accumulation of poly G, which is associated with neurological disorders. This is a valuable paper in which the authors sought out proteins that modulate RAN translation. They determined which proteins in Hela cells bound to CGG repeats and affected levels of polyG encoded in the 5'UTR of the FMR1 mRNA. They then showed that siRNA depletion of ribosomal protein RPS26 results in less production of FMR1polyG than in control. There are data supporting the claim that RPS26 depletion modulates RAN translation in this RNA, although for some results, the Western results are not strong. The data to support increased aggregation by polyG expression upon S26 KD are incomplete.

Strengths:

The authors have proteomics data that show the enrichment of a set of proteins on FMR1 RNA but not a related RNA.

Weaknesses:

- It is insinuated that RPS26 binds the RNA to enhance CGG-containing protein expression. However, RPS26 reduction was also shown previously to affect ribosome levels, and reduced ribosome levels can result in ribosomes translating very different RNA pools.

We agree that presented data could benefit from addition of some experiments. Therefore we will address questions regarding the ribosome content, global translation rate and cell viability upon RPS26 depletion. We are also planning to apply polysome profiling to determine if RPS26-depleted ribosomes are translationally active. However, we did not state that RPS26 binds directly to RNA with expanded CGG repeats and that this interaction is crucial for translation regulation of studied RNA. We just tested such hypotheses. We will improve the text narration in revised version of the manuscript to make major conclusions clearer.

- A significant claim is that RPS26 KD alleviates the effects of FMRpolyG expression, but those data aren't presented well.

We thank the Reviewer 2 for this comment. We will show the data derived from a few different cell models that we already have obtained. Moreover, we will include results of experiments with luminescence readout for FMRpolyG fused with luciferase upon RPS26 KD.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Tutak et al provide interesting data showing that RPS26 and relevant proteins such as TSR2 and RPS25 affect RAN translation from CGG repeat RNA in fragile X-associated conditions. They identified RPS26 as a potential regulator of RAN translation by RNA-tagging system and mass spectrometry-based screening for proteins binding to CGG repeat RNA and confirmed its regulatory effects on RAN translation by siRNA-based knockdown experiments in multiple cellular disease models and patient-derived fibroblasts. Quantitative mass spectrometry analysis found that the expressions of some ribosomal proteins are sensitive to RPS26 depletion while approximately 80% of proteins including FMRP were not influenced. Since the roles of ribosomal proteins in RAN translation regulation have not been fully examined, this study provides novel insights into this research field. However, some data presented in this manuscript are limited and preliminary, and their conclusions are not fully supported.

(1) While the authors emphasized the importance of ribosomal composition for RAN translation regulation in the title and the article body, the association between RAN translation and ribosomal composition is apparently not evaluated in this work. They found that specific ribosomal proteins (RPS26 and RPS25) can have regulatory effects on RAN translation（Figures 1C, 2B, 2C, 2E, 4A, 5A, and 5B), and that the expression levels of some ribosomal proteins can be changed by RPS26 knockdown (Figure 3B, however, the change of the ribosome compositions involved in the actual translation has not been elucidated). Therefore, their conclusive statement, that is, "ribosome composition affects RAN translation" is not fully supported by the presented data and is misleading.

We thank Reviewer 3 for critical comments and suggestions. We agree that the proposed title may be misleading and the presented data does not fully support the aforementioned statement regarding ribosomal composition affecting FMRpolyG synthesis. Hence, we will change the title together with a narrative regarding these unfortunate statements that go beyond the presented results.

(2) The study provides insufficient data on the mechanisms of how RPS26 regulates RAN translation. Although authors speculate that RPS26 may affect initiation codon fidelity and regulate RAN translation in a CGG repeat sequence-independent manner (Page 9 and Page 11), what they really have shown is just identification of this protein by the screening for proteins binding to CGG repeat RNA (Figure 1A, 1B), and effects of this protein on CGG repeat-RAN translation. It is essential to clarify whether the regulatory effect of RPS26 on RAN translation is dependent on CGG repeat sequence or near-cognate initiation codons like ACG and GUG in the 5' upstream sequence of the repeat. It would be better to validate the effects of RPS26 on translation from control constructs, such as one composed of the 5' upstream sequence of FMR1 with no CGG repeat, and one with an ATG substitution in the 5' upstream sequence of FMR1 instead of near-cognate initiation codons.

We will address the question regarding the influence of the content of CGG repeats and START codon selection (including different near-cognate start codons) on RPS26-sensitive translation, and present these data in revised version of the manuscript.

(3) The regulatory effects of RPS26 and other molecules on RAN translation have all been investigated as effects on the expression levels of FMRpolyG-GFP proteins in cellular models expressing CGG repeat sequences Figures 1C, 2B, 2C, 2E, 4A, 5A, and 5B). In these cellular experiments, there are multiple confounding factors affecting the expression levels of FMRpolyG-GFP proteins other than RAN translation, including template RNA expression, template RNA distribution, and FMRpolyG-GFP protein degradation. Although authors evaluated the effect on the expression levels of template CGG repeat RNA, it would be better to confirm the effect of these regulators on RAN translation by other experiments such as in vitro translation assay that can directly evaluate RAN translation.

We agree that there are multiple factors affecting final translation of investigated mRNA including aforementioned processes. We evaluated the level of FMR1 mRNA, which turned out not to be affected upon RPS26 depletion (Figure 2B&C), however, we will address other possibilities as well.

(4) While the authors state that RPS26 modulated the FMRpolyG-mediated toxicity, they presented limited data on apoptotic markers, not cellular viability (Figure 1E), not fully supporting this conclusion. Since previous work showed that FMRpolyG protein reduces cellular viability (Hoem G et al., Front Genet 2019), additional evaluations for cellular viability would strengthen this conclusion.

We thank Reviewer 3 for this suggestion. We addressed the effect of RPS26 KD on apoptotic process induced by FMRpolyG. We will perform other experiments regarding different aspects of FMRpolyG-mediated cell toxicity as well.