

Cells rely on complex molecular machines composed of protein assemblies to perform essential functions such as energy production, gene expression, and protein synthesis. To better understand how these machines work, scientists capture snapshots of them by isolating proteins from cells and using various methods to determine their structures. However, isolating proteins from cells also removes them from the context of their native environment, including protein interaction partners and cellular location.
Recently, cryogenic electron tomography (cryo-ET) has emerged as a way to observe proteins in their native environment by imaging frozen cells at different angles to obtain three-dimensional structural information. This approach is exciting because it allows researchers to directly observe how and where proteins associate with each other, revealing the cellular neighborhood of those interactions within the cell.
With the technology available to image proteins in their native environment, graduate student Barrett Powell wondered if he could take it one step further: what if molecular machines could be observed in action? In a paper published today in Nature Methods, Powell describes the method he developed, called tomoDRGN, for modeling structural differences of proteins in cryo-ET data that arise from protein motions or proteins binding to different interaction partners. These variations are known as structural heterogeneity.
Although Powell had joined the Davis Lab as an experimental scientist, he recognized the potential impact of computational approaches in understanding structural heterogeneity within a cell. Previously, the Davis Lab developed a related methodology named cryoDRGN to understand structural heterogeneity in purified samples. As Powell and Associate Professor of Biology Joey Davis saw cryo-ET rising in prominence in the field, Powell took on the challenge of reimagining this framework to work in cells.
When solving structures with purified samples, each particle is imaged only once. By contrast, cryo-ET data is collected by imaging each particle more than 40 times from different angles. That meant tomoDRGN needed to be able to merge the information from more than 40 images, which was where the project hit a roadblock: the amount of data led to an information overload.
To address the information overload, Powell successfully rebuilt the cryoDRGN model to prioritize only the highest-quality data. When imaging the same particle multiple times, radiation damage occurs. The images acquired earlier, therefore, tend to be of higher quality because the particles are less damaged.
“By excluding some of the lower quality data, the results were actually better than using all of the data–and the computational performance was substantially faster,” Powell says.
Just as Powell was beginning work on testing his model, he had a stroke of luck: the authors of a groundbreaking new study that visualized, for the first time, ribosomes inside cells at near-atomic resolution, shared their raw data on the Electric Microscopy Public Image Archive (EMPIAR). This dataset was an exemplary test case for Powell, through which he demonstrated that tomoDRGN could uncover structural heterogeneity within cryo-ET data.
According to Powell, one exciting result is what tomoDRGN found surrounding a subset of ribosomes in the EMPIAR dataset. Some of the ribosomal particles were associated with a bacterial cell membrane and engaged in a process called cotranslational translocation. This occurs when a protein is being simultaneously synthesized and transported across a membrane. Researchers can use this result to make new hypotheses about how the ribosome functions with other protein machinery integral to transporting proteins outside of the cell, now guided by a structure of the complex in its native environment.
After seeing that tomoDRGN could resolve structural heterogeneity from a structurally diverse dataset, Powell was curious: how small of a population could tomoDRGN identify? For that test, he chose a protein named apoferritin which is a commonly used benchmark for cryo-ET and is often treated as structurally homogeneous. Ferritin is a protein used for iron storage and is referred to as apoferritin when it lacks iron.
Surprisingly, in addition to the expected particles, tomoDRGN revealed a minor population of ferritin particles–with iron bound–making up just 2% of the dataset that was not previously reported. This result further demonstrated tomoDRGN’s ability to identify structural states that occur so infrequently that they would be averaged out with traditional analysis tools.
Powell and other members of the Davis Lab are excited to see how tomoDRGN can be applied to further ribosomal studies and to other systems. Davis works on understanding how cells assemble, regulate, and degrade molecular machines, so the next steps include exploring ribosome biogenesis within cells in greater detail using this new tool.
“What are the possible states that we may be losing during purification?” Davis says. “Perhaps more excitingly, we can look at how they localize within the cell and what partners and protein complexes they may be interacting with.”
To create proteins, DNA is transcribed into RNA, and that RNA is then “translated” into protein. Between the creation of the RNA and the translation to protein is often a step called splicing. During splicing, segments called introns are removed, and the remaining pieces, called exons, are joined together to form the blueprint for translation. By splicing together different exons, the cell can create different proteins from the same section of genetic code. When splicing goes awry, it can lead to diseases and cancers.
New research recently published in Disease Models & Mechanisms from the Calo Lab in the Department of Biology at MIT has identified the mechanism for how cells respond to disruptions in splicing, which involves activating a cellular stress response. The stress response, once activated, causes widespread effects, including changes to cell metabolism.
Researchers have discovered cellular stress responses for other core cellular processes, such as ribosome biogenesis. However, this is the first time researchers have identified how cells respond to perturbing the splicing process.
A particular protein acts as a kind of canary in a coal mine: Mdm2, which responds to a broad range of splicing disruptions. Mdm2 does not cause a stress response by itself. Rather, Mdm2 is itself spliced differently in response to splicing disruptions. Downstream, the alternative splicing of Mdm2 leads to the activation of a protein called p53, which is known to orchestrate a cascade of responses to stress.
Researchers have long wondered why some cell types seem more sensitive to splicing disruptions than others. For example, some disorders caused by mutations in proteins that perform RNA splicing, despite affecting the whole organism, induce more noticeable changes in tissues derived from the neural crest—a collection of stem cells that contributes to the formation of the face, jaw, retinas, limbs, and heart during development. Certain splicing inhibitors have also increased the effectiveness of some cancer treatments, but the mechanism is unknown.
One of the p53-induced stress responses includes changing the metabolism of cells and how they use sugars, which may explain why some cells are more sensitive to splicing disruptions than others. Inhibiting glycolysis, the reactions that extract energy from glucose, can affect how cells divide and migrate.
The way cells divide and migrate is critical during development; in experiments, zebrafish treated with glycolysis inhibitors exhibited similar changes to craniofacial features as those where splicing was disrupted. Cancerous cells, too, are known to require high levels of sugar metabolism and, therefore, may be especially sensitive to treatments that induce changes in the splicing pathway.
The researchers knocked down genes to mimic milder splicing disruptions instead of knocking them out entirely. Splicing is so essential that knocking out the splicing machinery can lead to extreme responses like cell death. In organismal models like zebrafish, those severe phenotypes don’t accurately reflect how splicing disruptions present in human diseases.
First author Jade Varineau, a graduate student in the Calo lab, was drawn to the project because it allowed her to explore what was happening at the RNA and cellular level while also observing how splicing perturbations were affecting the whole organism.
“I think this data can help us reframe the way we think about diseases and cancers that are impacted by splicing—that a treatment that works for one may work for another because all the symptoms may stem from the same cellular response,” Varineau says.
Although the results indicate how cells broadly respond to splicing perturbations, the mechanism for how disruptions in splicing induce the alternate splicing of Mdm2 remains unclear. Senior author Eliezer Calo says the lab is also exploring how splicing mechanisms may be altered for things like cancer. Their work, he says, opens the door for further exploration of cell-type specificity of genetic disorders and improvements in cancer treatments using splicing inhibitors.
“We know that the sensor is encoded in the gene Mdm2—what are the molecules that allow Mdm2 to act as a sensor, and how does the sensor malfunction for things like cancer?” Calo says. “The next step is to find out how the sensor works.”
Transcription, the process of copying RNA from DNA, is a critical first step for cells to create proteins. The enzyme responsible for transcription is a motor protein called RNA polymerase.
When an RNA polymerase transcribes a gene, it will begin elongating the mRNA and will then, often, pause.
From there, the RNA polymerase will either return to elongating the mRNA or it will get stuck. For the latter occurrence, the mRNA and subsequent protein will never be made: the polymerase will go somewhere else, or restart transcription on the same gene and get stuck again.
Pausing is thought to be governed by a protein called Negative Elongation Factor, NELF, and DRB-sensitivity inducing factor, DSIF. Previous research suggested that NELF stably clamps down onto RNA polymerase to stall the elongation process and prevent the polymerase from moving. That model contradicted cell-based experiments, however, which indicated that NELF is somehow still attached to polymerase after transcription resumes.
New research from the Vos Lab in the Department of Biology at MIT published today in Molecular Cell reveals that NELF isn’t merely an on-off switch for transcription. Instead, NELF can change into a distinct conformation that allows the polymerase to resume transcription. The researchers dubbed this distinct conformation NELF’s “poised” state.
RNA polymerase pausing, sometimes for minutes at a time, is thought to be an important gene expression checkpoint; more than half of genes exhibit pausing, although many questions remain about the role of pausing in gene expression. Understanding both how and why the process is occurring, down to the atomic level, and what components are involved, is key to understanding how cells function, both individually and as part of an organism.
“It’s a very central question to biological research, and we still don’t fully understand it because it’s such a complex process,” says first author Bonnie G. Su, a graduate student in the Vos lab. “The bigger picture is: how does the cell decide what resources to allocate to certain biological processes? This finding might help us answer questions like that.”
To visualize the two distinct conformations of NELF and polymerase, the researchers used a combination of biochemical and structural approaches. The previous understanding of proximal pausing was based on Cryo-Electron Microscopy images of the static complex. Cryo-EM is a powerful microscopy technique that involves freezing samples and imaging them, and that approach had captured polymerase in its paused state.
Using the core Cryo-EM facility available at MIT.nano, Su instead added the necessary components for the polymerase to transcribe, and gathered structural data on an actively transcribing complex —allowing, for the first time, a stepwise visualization of how proximal pausing occurs.
“What we found is that NELF, which we always thought of as static, can actually move around,” Su says. “This has updated our understanding of what pausing is, and how early gene regulation happens.”
The structural results also provide an explanation for how polymerase may be cycling between the two states—and how one form of NELF may be forcing polymerase to pause, while the newly discovered form allows polymerase to resume transcription.
It’s still unclear what triggers NELF to transition from the paused state to the poised state, and many questions remain about how polymerase is regulated, according to senior author Seychelle Vos, the Robert A. Swanson (1969) Career Development Professor of Life Sciences and HHMI Freeman Hrabowski Scholar. RNA polymerase can be associated with and is known to be regulated by a large repertoire of proteins.
“We’re trying to see if we can actually lock the complex in the paused state by adding additional factors,” Vos says. “We’re also pursuing whether sequence context is affecting pausing behavior—how or if the sequence of DNA may be causing polymerase to pause.”