Endosomal Chemokine Receptor Signalosomes Regulate Central Mechanisms Underlying Cell Migration

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Hahn et al use bystander BRET, NanoBiT assays, and APEX2 proteomics to investigate endosomal signaling of CCR7 by two agonists, CCL19 and CCL21. The authors suggest that CCR7 signals from early endosomes following internalisation. They use spatial proteomics to try to identify novel interacting partners that may facilitate this signaling and use this data to specifically enhance a Rac1 signaling pathway. Many of the results in the first few figures showing simultaneous recruitment of Barr and G proteins by CCR7 have been shown previously (Laufer et al, 2019, Cell Reports), as has signaling from endomembranes, and Rac1 activation at intracellular sites. The new findings are the APEX2 proteomics studies, which could be useful to the scientific community. Unfortunately, the authors only follow up on a single finding, and the expansion of this section would improve the manuscript.

Strengths:

(1) The APEX2 resource will be valuable to the GPCR and immunology community. It offers many opportunities to follow up on findings and discover new biology. The resource could also be used to validate earlier findings in the current manuscript and in previous manuscripts. Was there enrichment of early endosomal markers, Barr and Gi as this would provide further evidence for their earlier claims regarding endosomal signaling? Previous studies have suggested signaling from the TGN, so it is possible that the different ligands also direct to different sites. This could easily be investigated using the APEX2 data.

(2) The results section is well written and can be followed very easily by the reader.

(3) Some findings verify previous studies (e.g. endomembrane signalling). This should be acknowledged as this shows the validity of the findings of both studies.

Weaknesses:

(1) The findings are interesting although the studies are almost all performed in HEK293 cells. I understand that these are commonly used in GPCR biology and are easy to transfect and don't express many GPCRs at high concentrations, but their use is still odd when there are many cell-lines available that express CCR7 and are more reflective of the endogenous state (e.g. they are polarised, they can perform chemotaxis/ migration). Some of the findings within the study should also be verified in more physiologically relevant cells. At the moment only the final figure looks at this, but findings need to be verified elsewhere.

(2) The authors acknowledge that the kinetic patterns of the signals at the early endosome are not consistent with the rates of internalisation. They mention that this could be due to trafficking elsewhere. This could be easily looked at in their APEX2 data. Is there evidence of proximity to markers of other membranes? Perhaps this could be added to the discussion. Similarly, previous studies have shown that CCR7 signaling may involve the TGN. Was there enrichment of these markers? If not, this could also be an interesting finding and should be discussed. It is also possible that the Rab5 reporter is just not as efficient as the trafficking one, especially as in later figures the very convincing differences in the two ligands are not as robust as the differences in trafficking.

(3) In the final sentence of paragraph 2 of the results the authors state that the internalisation is specific to CCR7 as there isn't recruitment to V2R. I'm not sure this is the best control. The authors can only really say it doesn't recruit to unrelated receptors. The authors could have used a different chemokine receptor which does not respond to these ligands to show this.

(4) The miniGi-Barr1 and imaging showing co-localisation could be more convincing if it was also repeated in a more physiological cell line as in the final figure. Imaging of CCR7, miniGi, and Barr1 would also provide further evidence that the receptor is also present within the complex.

(5) The findings regarding Rac1 are interesting, although an earlier paper found similar results (Laufer et al, 2019, Cell Reports), so perhaps following up on another APEX2-identified protein pathway would have been more interesting. The authors' statement that Rac1 is specifically activated, and RhoA and Cdc42 are not, is unconvincing from the current data. Only a single NanoBiT assay was used, and as raw values are not reported it is difficult for the reader to glean some essential information. The authors should show evidence that these reporters work well for other receptors (or cite previous studies) and also need evidence from an independent (i.e. non-NanoBiT or BRET) assay.

(6) At present, the studies in Figure 7 do not go beyond those in the previous Laufer et al study in which they showed blocking endocytosis affected Rac1 signalling. The authors could show that Rac1 signalling is from early endosomes to improve this, otherwise, it could be from the TGN as previously reported.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes a comprehensive analysis of signalling downstream of the chemokine receptor CCR7. A comprehensive dataset supports the authors' hypothesis that G protein and beta-arrestin signalling can occur simultaneously at CCR7 with implications for continued signalling following receptor endocytosis.

Strengths:

The experiments are well controlled and executed, employing a wide range of assays using - in the main - CCR7 transfectants. Data are well presented, with the authors' claims supported by the data. The paper also has an excellent narrative which makes it relatively easy to follow. I think this would certainly be of interest to the readership of the journal.

Weaknesses:

Since the authors show a differential enrichment of RhoGTPases by CCR7 stimulation with CCL19 versus CCL21, I think that they also need to show that the Gi/o coupling of HEK-292-CCR7-APEX2 cells to both CCL19 and CCL21 is not perturbed by the modification. Currently, the authors only show data for CCL19 signalling, which leaves the potential for a false negative finding in terms of CCL21 signalling being selectively impaired. This should be relatively easy to do and should strengthen the authors' conclusions.

The authors conclude the discussion by suggesting that their findings highlight endosomal signalling as a general mechanism for chemokine receptors in cell migration. I think this is an overreach. The authors chose several studies of CXC chemokine receptors to support their argument that C-terminal truncation or mutation of the C-terminal phosphorylation sites impairs endocytosis and chemotaxis (refs 40-42). However, in some instances e.g. at the related chemokine receptor CCR4, C-terminal removal of these sites impairs endocytosis but promotes chemotaxis (Nakagawa et al, 2014); Anderson et al, 2020). I therefore think that either the final statement needs to be tempered down or the counterargument discussed a little.

References:

Anderson, C. A. et al. A degradatory fate for CCR4 suggests a primary role in Th2 inflammation. J Leukocyte Biol 107, 455-466 (2020).

Nakagawa, M. et al. Gain-of-function CCR4 mutations in adult T cell leukaemia/lymphoma. Journal of Experimental Medicine 211, 2497-2505 (2014).