Category: Whitehead Institute

Cellular interactions help explain vascular complications due to COVID-19 virus infection

Whitehead Institute Founding Member Rudolf Jaenisch and colleagues have found that cellular interactions help explain how SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could have such significant vascular complications, including blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
December 31, 2024

COVID-19 is a respiratory disease primarily affecting the lungs. However, the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 surprised doctors and scientists by triggering an unusually large percentage of patients to experience vascular complications – issues related to blood flow, such as blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes.

Whitehead Institute Founding Member Rudolf Jaenisch and colleagues wanted to understand how this respiratory virus could have such significant vascular effects. They used pluripotent stem cells to generate three relevant vascular and perivascular cell types—cells that surround and help maintain blood vessels—so they could closely observe the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on the cells. Instead of using existing methods to generate the cells, the researchers developed a new approach, providing them with fresh insights into the mechanisms by which the virus causes vascular problems. The researchers found that SARS-CoV-2 primarily infects perivascular cells and that signals from these infected cells are sufficient to cause dysfunction in neighboring vascular cells, even when the vascular cells are not themselves infected. In a paper published in the journal Nature Communications on December 30, Jaenisch, postdoc in his lab Alexsia Richards, Harvard University Professor and Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering Member David Mooney, and then-postdoc in the Jaenisch and Mooney labs Andrew Khalil share their findings and present a scalable stem cell-derived model system with which to study vascular cell biology and test medical therapies.

A new problem requires a new approach

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, Richards, a virologist, quickly pivoted her focus to SARS-CoV-2. Khalil, a bioengineer, had already been working on a new approach to generate vascular cells. The researchers realized that a collaboration could provide Richards with the research tool she needed and Khalil with an important research question to which his tool could be applied.

The three cell types that Khalil’s approach generated were endothelial cells, the vascular cells that form the lining of blood vessels; and smooth muscle cells and pericytes, perivascular cells that surround blood vessels and provide them with structure and maintenance, among other functions. Khalil’s biggest innovation was to generate all three cell types in the same media—the mixture of nutrients and signaling molecules in which stem cell-derived cells are grown.

The combination of signals in the media determines the final cell type into which a stem cell will mature, so it is much easier to grow each cell type separately in specially tailored media than to find a mixture that works for all three. Typically, Richards explains, virologists will generate a desired cell type using the easiest method, which means growing each cell type and then observing the effects of viral infection on it in isolation. However, this approach can limit results in several ways. Firstly, it can make it challenging to distinguish the differences in how cell types react to a virus from the differences caused by the cells being grown in different media.

“By making these cells under identical conditions, we could see in much higher resolution the effects of the virus on these different cell populations, and that was essential in order to form a strong hypothesis of the mechanisms of vascular symptom risk and progression,” Khalil says.

Secondly, infecting isolated cell types with a virus does not accurately represent what happens in the body, where cells are in constant communication as they react to viral exposure. Indeed, Richards’ and Khalil’s work ultimately revealed that the communication between infected and uninfected cell types plays a critical role in the vascular effects of COVID-19.

“The field of virology often overlooks the importance of considering how cells influence other cells and designing models to reflect that,” Richards says. “Cells do not get infected in isolation, and the value of our model is that it allows us to observe what’s happening between cells during infection.”

Viral infection of smooth muscle cells has broader, indirect effects

When the researchers exposed their cells to SARS-CoV-2, the smooth muscle cells and pericytes became infected—the former at especially high levels, and this infection resulted in strong inflammatory gene expression—but the endothelial cells resisted infection. Endothelial cells did show some response to viral exposure, likely due to interactions with proteins on the virus’ surface. Typically, endothelial cells press tightly together to form a firm barrier that keeps blood inside of blood vessels and prevents viruses from getting out. When exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the junctions between endothelial cells appeared to weaken slightly. The cells also had increased levels of reactive oxygen species, which are damaging byproducts of certain cellular processes.

However, big changes in endothelial cells only occurred after the cells were exposed to infected smooth muscle cells. This triggered high levels of inflammatory signaling within the endothelial cells. It led to changes in the expression of many genes relevant to immune response. Some of the genes affected were involved in coagulation pathways, which thicken blood and so can cause blood clots and related vascular events. The junctions between endothelial cells experienced much more significant weakening after exposure to infected smooth muscle cells, which would lead to blood leakage and viral spread. All of these changes occurred without SARS-CoV-2 ever infecting the endothelial cells.

This work shows that viral infection of smooth muscle cells, and their resultant signaling to endothelial cells, is the lynchpin in the vascular damage caused by SARS-CoV-2. This would not have been apparent if the researchers had not been able to observe the cells interacting with each other.

Clinical relevance of stem cell results

The effects that the researchers observed were consistent with patient data. Some of the genes whose expression changed in their stem cell-derived model had been identified as markers of high risk for vascular complications in COVID-19 patients with severe infections. Additionally, the researchers found that a later strain of SARS-CoV-2, an Omicron variant, had much weaker effects on the vascular and perivascular cells than did the original viral strain. This is consistent with the reduced levels of vascular complications seen in COVID-19 patients infected with recent strains.

Having identified smooth muscle cells as the main site of SARS-Cov-2 infection in the vascular system, the researchers next used their model system to test one drug’s ability to prevent infection of smooth muscle cells. They found that the drug, N, N-Dimethyl-D-erythro-sphingosine, could reduce infection of the cell type without harming smooth muscle or endothelial cells. Although preventing vascular complications of COVID-19 is not as pressing a need with current viral strains, the researchers see this experiment as proof that their stem cell model could be used for future drug development. New coronaviruses and other pathogens are frequently evolving, and when a future virus causes vascular complications, this model could be used to quickly test drugs to find potential therapies while the need is still high. The model system could also be used to answer other questions about vascular cells, how these cells interact, and how they respond to viruses.

“By integrating bioengineering strategies into the analysis of a fundamental question in viral pathology, we addressed important practical challenges in modeling human disease in culture and gained new insights into SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Mooney says.

“Our interdisciplinary approach allowed us to develop an improved stem cell model for infection of the vasculature,” says Jaenisch, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Our lab is already applying this model to other questions of interest, and we hope that it can be a valuable tool for other researchers.”

Cellular traffic congestion in chronic diseases suggests new therapeutic targets

Many chronic diseases have a common denominator that could be driving their dysfunction: reduced protein mobility, which in turn reduces protein function. A new paper from the Young Lab describes this pervasive mobility defect.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
November 26, 2024

Chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes and inflammatory disorders have a huge impact on humanity. They are a leading cause of disease burden and deaths around the globe, are physically and economically taxing, and the number of people with such diseases is growing.

Treating chronic disease has proven difficult because there is not one simple cause, like a single gene mutation, that a treatment could target. At least, that’s how it has appeared to scientists. However, research from Whitehead Institute Member Richard Young and colleagues, published in the journal Cell on November 27, reveals that many chronic diseases have a common denominator that could be driving their dysfunction: reduced protein mobility. What this means is that around half of all proteins active in cells slow their movement when cells are in a chronic disease state, reducing the proteins’ functions. The researchers’ findings suggest that protein mobility may be a linchpin for decreased cellular function in chronic disease, making it a promising therapeutic target.

In this paper, Young and colleagues in his lab, including postdoc Alessandra Dall’Agnese, graduate students Shannon Moreno and Ming Zheng, and research scientist Tong Ihn Lee, describe their discovery of this common mobility defect, which they call proteolethargy; explain what causes the defect and how it leads to dysfunction in cells; and propose a new therapeutic hypothesis for treating chronic diseases.

“I’m excited about what this work could mean for patients,” says Dall’Agnese. “My hope is that this will lead to a new class of drugs that restore protein mobility, which could help people with many different diseases that all have this mechanism as a common denominator.”

“This work was a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort that brought together biologists, physicists, chemists, computer scientists and physician-scientists,” Lee says. “Combining that expertise is a strength of the Young lab. Studying the problem from different viewpoints really helped us think about how this mechanism might work and how it could change our understanding of the pathology of chronic disease.”

Commuter delays cause work stoppages in the cell

How do proteins moving more slowly through a cell lead to widespread and significant cellular dysfunction? Dall’Agnese explains that every cell is like a tiny city, with proteins as the workers who keep everything running. Proteins have to commute in dense traffic in the cell, traveling from where they are created to where they work. The faster their commute, the more work they get done. Now, imagine a city that starts experiencing traffic jams along all the roads. Stores don’t open on time, groceries are stuck in transit, meetings are postponed. Essentially all operations in the city are slowed.

The slow down of operations in cells experiencing reduced protein mobility follows a similar progression. Normally, most proteins zip around the cell bumping into other molecules until they locate the molecule they work with or act on. The slower a protein moves, the fewer other molecules it will reach, and so the less likely it will be able to do its job. Young and colleagues found that such protein slow-downs lead to measurable reductions in the functional output of the proteins. When many proteins fail to get their jobs done in time, cells begin to experience a variety of problems—as they are known to do in chronic diseases.

Discovering the protein mobility problem

Young and colleagues first suspected that cells affected in chronic disease might have a protein mobility problem after observing changes in the behavior of the insulin receptor, a signaling protein that reacts to the presence of insulin and causes cells to take in sugar from blood. In people with diabetes, cells become less responsive to insulin — a state called insulin resistance — causing too much sugar to remain in the blood. In research published on insulin receptors in Nature Communications in 2022, Young and colleagues reported that insulin receptor mobility might be relevant to diabetes.

Knowing that many cellular functions are altered in diabetes, the researchers considered the possibility that altered protein mobility might somehow affect many proteins in cells. To test this hypothesis, they studied proteins involved in a broad range of cellular functions, including MED1, a protein involved in gene expression; HP1α, a protein involved in gene silencing; FIB1, a protein involved in production of ribosomes; and SRSF2, a protein involved in splicing of messenger RNA. They used single-molecule tracking and other methods to measure how each of those proteins moves in healthy cells and in cells in disease states. All but one of the proteins showed reduced mobility (about 20-35%) in the disease cells.

“I’m excited that we were able to transfer physics-based insight and methodology, which are commonly used to understand the single-molecule processes like gene transcription in normal cells, to a disease context and show that they can be used to uncover unexpected mechanisms of disease,” Zheng says. “This work shows how the random walk of proteins in cells is linked to disease pathology.”

Moreno concurs: “In school, we’re taught to consider changes in protein structure or DNA sequences when looking for causes of disease, but we’ve demonstrated that those are not the only contributing factors. If you only consider a static picture of a protein or a cell, you miss out on discovering these changes that only appear when molecules are in motion.”

 Can’t commute across the cell, I’m all tied up right now

Next, the researchers needed to determine what was causing the proteins to slow down. They suspected that the defect had to do with an increase in cells of the level of reactive oxygen species (ROS), molecules that are highly prone to interfering with other molecules and their chemical reactions. Many types of chronic-disease-associated triggers, such as higher sugar or fat levels, certain toxins, and inflammatory signals, lead to an increase in ROS, also known as an increase in oxidative stress. The researchers measured the mobility of the proteins again, in cells that had high levels of ROS and were not otherwise in a disease state, and saw comparable mobility defects, suggesting that oxidative stress was to blame for the protein mobility defect.

The final part of the puzzle was why some, but not all, proteins slow down in the presence of ROS. SRSF2 was the only one of the proteins that was unaffected in the experiments, and it had one clear difference from the others: its surface did not contain any cysteines, an amino acid building block of many proteins. Cysteines are especially susceptible to interference from ROS because it will cause them to bond to other cysteines. When this bonding occurs between two protein molecules, it slows them down because the two proteins cannot move through the cell as quickly as either protein alone.

About half of the proteins in our cells contain surface cysteines, so this single protein mobility defect can impact many different cellular pathways. This makes sense when one considers the diversity of dysfunctions that appear in cells of people with chronic diseases: dysfunctions in cell signaling, metabolic processes, gene expression and gene silencing, and more. All of these processes rely on the efficient functioning of proteins—including the diverse proteins studied by the researchers. Young and colleagues performed several experiments to confirm that decreased protein mobility does in fact decrease a protein’s function. For example, they found that when an insulin receptor experiences decreased mobility, it acts less efficiently on IRS1, a molecule to which it usually adds a phosphate group.

From understanding a mechanism to treating a disease

Discovering that decreased protein mobility in the presence of oxidative stress could be driving many of the symptoms of chronic disease provides opportunities to develop therapies to rescue protein mobility. In the course of their experiments, the researchers treated cells with an antioxidant drug—something that reduces ROS—called N-acetyl cysteine and saw that this partially restored protein mobility.

The researchers are pursuing a variety of follow ups to this work, including the search for drugs that safely and efficiently reduce ROS and restore protein mobility. They developed an assay that can be used to screen drugs to see if they restore protein mobility by comparing each drug’s effect on a simple biomarker with surface cysteines to one without. They are also looking into other diseases that may involve protein mobility, and are exploring the role of reduced protein mobility in aging.

“The complex biology of chronic diseases has made it challenging to come up with effective therapeutic hypotheses,” says Young, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The discovery that diverse disease-associated stimuli all induce a common feature, proteolethargy, and that this feature could contribute to much of the dysregulation that we see in chronic disease, is something that I hope will be a real game changer for developing drugs that work across the spectrum of chronic diseases.”

Whitehead Institute Member Sebastian Lourido receives the 2024 William Trager Award

Sebastian Lourido was awarded the 2024 William Trager Award by the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene for his pioneering use of CRISPR tools to study the biology of Toxoplasma gondii, a single-celled parasite that infects about 25% of humans.

Merrill Meadow | Whitehead Institute
November 14, 2024

The Trager Award recognizes scientists who have made substantial contributions to the study of basic parasitology through breakthroughs that have unlocked completely new areas of work.

ASTMH selected Lourido — who is also an associate professor of Biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and holds the Landon Clay Career Development Chair at Whitehead Institute — in recognition of his groundbreaking discoveries on the molecular biology of Toxoplasma. In particular, Lourido has been lauded for his use of cutting-edge CRISPR tools to study the fundamental biology of Toxoplasma gondii, a single-celled parasite that infects about 25 percent of humans.

“My laboratory colleagues and I are grateful for this recognition of our work, and for the wonderful opportunity it presents to more widely share the ideas and tools we have developed,” says Lourido, who will deliver a talk on his research at the ASTMH Annual Meeting in New Orleans on Nov. 15, 2024.

An elegant switch regulates production of protein variants during cell division

Cells make variants of thousands of proteins. These variants are not produced indiscriminately, but rather through precise regulatory mechanisms that can meet rapidly changing needs of the cell according to new research from the Cheeseman Lab.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
October 18, 2024

Our cells contain thousands of proteins that have gone largely undetected and unstudied until recent years: these are variants of known proteins, which cells can make when their protein-building machinery interacts differently with the same stretch of genetic code. These protein variants have typically been overlooked as occasional accidents of gene expression, but researchers including Whitehead Institute Member Iain Cheeseman are discovering that they are actually abundant and can play important roles in cell functions. Researchers in Cheeseman’s lab are studying individual protein variants to learn more about them and their roles in health and disease, but they also wanted to understand broader patterns of protein variant production: how do cells control when to make one variant of a protein versus another, and what are the consequences of such switches?

Cheeseman, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and graduate student in his lab Jimmy Ly have now identified how cells switch to a different pattern of protein variant production during mitosis, or cell division. In research published in the journal Nature on October 23, they show that this broad regulatory switch helps cells survive paused cell divisions that can sometimes occur in healthy humans or be triggered by certain chemotherapy treatments. The work confirms that cells make variants of thousands of proteins, and also demonstrates that cells do not do so indiscriminately. Rather, cells use precise regulatory mechanisms to switch between different patterns of protein variant production, in order to rapidly tailor the proteins available to fit the changing needs of the cell.

A plethora of hidden proteins

Hw can our cells contain unknown proteins? In high school biology classes, students learn the rule that each gene codes for exactly one protein, such that if you know an organism’s genetic code, you should know every protein it can make. In fact, there are instead many genes that code for multiple proteins. For a protein to be made, first the genetic code for it is copied from DNA into a messenger RNA (mRNA). Then, a ribosome, the cellular machine that follows the instructions in genetic code to build a protein, locates the coding sequence within the mRNA by scanning for the start codon, a sequence of the three bases A, U, and G – bases are the chemical building blocks of RNA, abbreviated as A, U, C, and G. The ribosome recognizes the AUG start codon as the place to begin following instructions, and builds a protein based on the genetic sequence from there through to another trio of bases called a stop codon. However, one way that different versions of a protein can be produced is that a ribosome may begin reading the instructions from multiple different starting points.

Sometimes, a ribosome may miss the first AUG start codon and skip ahead to another AUG somewhere in the middle of the gene’s code, creating a truncated version of the protein. Sometimes, a ribosome may treat a similar trio of bases, such as CUG or GUG, as a start codon. This can cause it to begin earlier, creating a protein based on an extended genetic sequence. These possibilities mean that cells contain thousands more different proteins, or variants of proteins, than are represented by the dogma of one gene, one protein.

In order to understand protein variant production, the researchers—in collaboration with researchers from Whitehead Institute Member David Bartel’s lab–used a method that let them carefully track ribosomes to compare which start sites ribosomes tended to use. They looked at start site selection during mitosis versus during the rest of the cell cycle and found that a dramatic shift in use occurred for thousands of start sites. Specifically, the researchers found that during mitosis, ribosome scanning becomes more stringent. The ribosome will only begin making proteins at AUG sequences, and even then, only at AUGs that have preferable sequences of bases surrounding them—known as a strong Kozak context. This increased selectivity does not always lead to the familiar version of the protein being made during mitosis; sometimes the first AUG start codon has a weak Kozak context, so a truncated protein gets made from an AUG start codon with a stronger Kozak context that lies within the gene.

“Coming into this project, we knew very little about protein production during mitosis—for a long time, people didn’t think much protein production happened in mitosis at all,” Ly says. “It was satisfying to show not only that it is occurring, but that there’s a shift in which proteins are being made—and that this shift is important for cellular viability.”

How cells switch between protein variant programs

The researchers next identified how the switch to increased stringency is initiated during mitosis. They discovered that the key player is a protein called eIF1, which is one of many partners that can pair with ribosomes to help them select their start site. In particular, increased eIF1 pairing with ribosomes causes the ribosomes to be more stringent in their start codon selection, inhibiting the usage of non-AUG initiation sites or sites with weak Kozak contexts.

During mitosis, ribosome pairing with eIF1 increases sharply, leading to the shift in stringency. This change in pairing rate during mitosis puzzled the researchers: ribosomes and their partners, including eIF1, all typically reside together in the main body of the cell—where ribosomes make proteins—so they should be able to pair freely at any time. The researchers looked for other molecules in the same location that could be altering how ribosomes and eIF1 interact during different parts of the cell cycle, but they couldn’t find anything. Eventually, the researchers realized that the answer to the puzzle lay in a separate location: the nucleus.

They found that cells maintain a large pool of eIF1 inside of the nucleus, locked away from the ribosomes. Then, during cell division, the wall of the nucleus dissolves, mixing its contents with the rest of the cell. This is necessary for the dividing cell to divvy up its DNA, but it also releases the pool of eIF1 to pair with ribosomes, increasing stringency. At the end of mitosis, the nucleus reforms and eIF1 is re-incorporated into the nucleus of each of the two daughter cells, and the cells return to a less stringent program.

“The explanation for increased interaction between eIF1 and ribosomes during mitosis had really stumped us, and so when I saw eIF1 localizing to the nucleus, that was a really exciting ‘aha’ moment,” Ly says. “Discovering this mechanism of nuclear release during mitosis was unexpected, and it’s interesting to think about how else cells might be using it.”

Consequences of increased stringency for the cell

Once the researchers understood the how, they then wanted to understand the why? What they discovered is that when cells have no nuclear pool of eIF1, and so no change in stringency during mitosis, they are more likely to die during mitosis. In particular, these cells fare poorly during mitotic arrest, a state in which cells get stuck in mitosis for hours or even days–much longer than typical mitosis. Arrest occurs when cells detect a possible cell division error and so halt their division until the error is corrected or the cell dies.

One effect of increased stringency during mitosis is related to mitochondria, which are required for energy production in many cell types and are therefore required for maintaining viability. Cells stuck in mitotic arrest need energy to keep them going through this unexpected delay. The researchers found that increased stringency during mitosis led to an increase in the production of important mitochondrial proteins, boosting the cells’ energy supply to get them through arrest.

Increased stringency also gives cells the tools they need to escape arrest, even if they haven’t fixed the error that caused them to pause division. In a Nature paper in 2023, Cheeseman and then-postdoc in his lab Mary-Jane Tsang showed that when cells build up enough of the truncated version of a protein called CDC20, they can escape arrest. Ly’s work adds to this story by showing that the nuclear release of eIF1 increases stringency, leading to more production of truncated CDC20 during mitosis, which explains how cells build up enough of this protein variant during mitosis to trigger their escape. These findings may have important potential implications for some cancer chemotherapy strategies.

Some chemotherapies work by trapping cancer cells in mitotic arrest until they die. Cheeseman, Tsang, and Ly’s work collectively shows that when cancer cells lack sufficient truncated CDC20—as can occur in the absence of nuclear eIF1—the cells cannot escape arrest and so are killed off by these chemotherapies at higher rates. These results could be used to improve the efficacy of antimitotic chemotherapy drugs.

The switch in protein variant production that the researchers found affects thousands of proteins. These newly identified protein variants serve as a foundation for many future projects in the lab.

As the researchers continue to examine the consequences of this switch to stringency during mitosis, they are also searching for other cases in which cells regulate protein variant production outside of mitosis. For example, the researchers are interested in how this switch in stringency affects fertility; immature egg cells spend a long time in a form of arrested cell division without an intact nucleus, and Ly observed eIF1 in the nucleus of the immature female eggs.

“Cells have axes of control that they use to quickly make broad changes in gene expression,” Cheeseman says. “Several of these are central to controlling cell division—for example, the role of phosphorylation as a regulatory switch in mitosis has been well studied. Our work identifies another axis of control, and we’re excited to discover more about when and how cells make use of it.”

Establishing boundaries of the genetic kind

The pseudoautosomal region (PAR) is a critical area on the Y chromosome that swaps genetic information with the X chromosome. Recent research from the Page Lab reaffirms the location of PAR and offers a refined understanding of where crossover events occur.

Shafaq Zia | Whitehead Institute
October 14, 2024

At first, the X and the Y sex chromosomes seemed like an unlikely pair. But then, researchers, including Whitehead Institute Member David Page, began finding clues that suggested otherwise: identical DNA sequences on the X and Y chromosomes.

Soon, it became clear that the tips of the X and Y chromosomes join together in a tight embrace, swapping genetic material during the process of sperm production from immature male germ cells. This limited area of genetic exchange between the two sex chromosomes is called the pseudoautosomal region (PAR).

But science is an iterative process—a continuous cycle of questioning, testing, and revising knowledge. Last fall, what had long been considered well established in genetics was called into question when new research suggested that the boundary of the PAR might be half a million base pairs away from the accepted location. Given that a typical human gene is about tens of thousands of base pairs, this length would potentially span multiple genes on the X and Y chromosomes, raising serious concerns about the accuracy and validity of decades of scientific literature.

Fortunately, new work from Page, research scientist Daniel Winston Bellott, and colleagues—published Oct. 14 in the American Journal of Human Genetics—offers clarity. In this study, the group re-examines the size of the PAR using sequencing data presented by outside researchers in their 2023 work, alongside decades of genomic resources, and single-cell sequencing of human sperm. Their findings confirm that the location of the boundary to the PAR, as identified by scientists in 1989, still holds true.

“If one is interested in understanding sex differences in health and disease, the boundary of the pseudoautosomal region is arguably the most fundamental landmark in the genome,” says Page, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an Investigator with Howard Hughes Medical Institute. “Had this boundary been multiple genes off, the field would have been shaken to its foundations.”

Dance of the chromosomes

The X and Y chromosomes evolved from an ancestral pair of chromosomes with identical structures. Over time, the Y chromosome degenerated drastically, losing hundreds of functional genes. Despite their differences, the X and Y chromosomes come together during a special type of cell division called male meiosis, which produces sperm cells.

This process begins with the tips of the sex chromosomes aligning side by side like two strands of rope. As the X and Y chromosomes embrace each other, enzymes create breaks in the DNA. These breaks are repaired using the opposite chromosome as a template, linking the X and Y together. About half of the time, an entire segment of DNA, which often contains multiple genes, will cross over onto the opposite chromosome.

The genetic exchange, called recombination, concludes with the X and Y chromosomes being pulled apart to opposite ends of the dividing cell, ensuring that each chromosome ends up in a different daughter cell. “This intricate dance of the X and Y chromosomes is essential to a sperm getting either an X or a Y—not both, and not neither,” says Page.

This way when the sperm—carrying either an X or a Y—fuses with the egg—carrying an X—during fertilization, the resulting zygote has the right number of chromosomes and a mix of genetic material from both parents.

But that’s not all. The swapping of DNA during recombination also allows for the chromosomes to have the same genes but with slight variations. These unique combinations of genetic material across sex chromosomes are key to genetic diversity within a species, enabling it to survive, adapt, and reproduce successfully.

Beyond the region of recombination, the Y chromosome contains genes that are important for sex determination, for sperm production, and for general cellular functioning. The primary sex-defining gene, SRY, which triggers the development of an embryo into a male, is located only 10,000 bases from the boundary of the PAR.

Advancing together

To determine whether the location of this critical boundary on the human sex chromosomes—where they stop crossing over during meiosis and become X-specific or Y-specific—had been misidentified for over three decades, researchers began by comparing publicly-available DNA sequences from the X and the Y chromosomes of seven primate species: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, siamangs, rhesus macaques, and colobus monkeys.

Based on the patterns of crossover between the X and the Y chromosomes of these species, the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree. Upon analyzing how DNA sequences close to and distant from the PAR boundary group together across species, the researchers found a substitution mutation—where a letter in a long string of letters is swapped for a different one—in the DNA of the human X and Y chromosomes. This change was also present in the chimpanzee Y chromosome, suggesting that the mutation originally occurred in the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees and was then transferred to the human X chromosome.

“These alignments between various primates allowed us to observe where the X and the Y chromosomes have preserved identity over millions of years and where they have diverged,” says Bellott. “That [pseudoautosomal] boundary has remained unchanged for 25 million years.”

Next, the group studied crossover events in living humans using a vast dataset of single-cell sequencing of sperm samples. They found 795 sperm with clear swapping of genetic material somewhere between the originally proposed boundary of the PAR and the newly-proposed 2023 boundary.

Once these analyses confirmed that the original location of the PAR boundary remains valid, Page and his team turned their attention to data from the 2023 study that contested this 1989 finding. The researchers focused on 10 male genomes assembled by the outside group, which contained contiguous sequences from the PAR.

Since substitutions on the Y chromosome typically occur at a steady rate, but in the PAR, changes on the X chromosome can transfer to the Y through recombination, the researchers compared the DNA sequences from the ten genomes to determine whether they followed the expected steady rate of change or if they varied.

The team found that close to the originally proposed PAR boundary, the DNA sequences changed at a steady rate. But further away from the boundary, the rate of change varied, suggesting that crossover events likely occurred in this region. Furthermore, the group identified several shared genetic differences between the X and the Y chromosomes of these genomes, which demonstrates that recombination has occurred even closer to the PAR boundary than scientists observed in 1989.

“Ironically, instead of contradicting the original boundary, the 2023 work has helped us refine the location of crossover to an even narrower area near the boundary,” says Page.

Thanks to the efforts of Page’s group at Whitehead Institute, our understanding of the PAR is clearer than ever, and business can go on as usual for researchers investigating sex differences in health and disease.

Bat cells possess a unique antiviral mechanism, preventing the SARS-CoV-2 virus from taking control

Bats have the amazing ability to coexist with viruses that are deadly to humans. New work from the Jaenisch Lab uncovers an antiviral mechanism that allows viruses to enter bat cells but prevents them from replicating.

Shafaq Zia | Whitehead Institute
October 14, 2024

Viruses are masters of stealth. From the moment a virus enters the host’s body, it begins hijacking its cells. First, the virus binds to a specific protein on the cell’s surface through a lock-and-key mechanism. This protein, known as a receptor, facilitates the entry of the virus’s genetic material into the cell. Once inside, this genetic code takes over the cell’s machinery, directing it to produce copies of the virus and assemble new viral particles, which can go on to infect other cells. Upon detecting the invasion, the host’s immune system responds by attacking infected cells in hopes of curbing the virus’s spread.

But in bats, this process unfolds differently. Despite carrying several viruses — Marburg, Ebola, Nipah, among others — bats rarely get sick from these infections. It seems their immune systems are highly specialized, allowing them to live with viruses that would typically be deadly in humans, without any clinical symptoms.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lab of Whitehead Institute Founding Member Rudolf Jaenisch has been investigating the molecular basis of bats’ extraordinary resilience to viruses like SARS-CoV-2. In their latest study, published in the journal PNAS on Oct. 14 , Jaenisch lab postdoc Punam Bisht and colleagues have uncovered an antiviral mechanism in bat cells that allows viruses to enter the cells but prevents them from replicating their genome and completing the hijacking process.

“These cells have elevated expressions of antiviral genes that act immediately, neutralizing the virus before it can spread,” says Jaenisch, a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “What’s particularly interesting is that many of these antiviral genes have counterparts, or orthologs in humans.”

Striking a delicate balance

The innate immune system is the body’s first line of defense against foreign invaders like the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This built-in security system is always on alert, responding swiftly — within minutes to hours — to perceived threats.

Upon detecting danger, immune cells rush to the site of infection, where they target the virus with little precision in attempts to slow it down and buy time for the more specialized adaptive immune system to take over. During this process, these cells release small signaling proteins called cytokines, which coordinate the immune response by recruiting additional immune cells and directing them to the battleground.

If the innate immune response alone isn’t sufficient to defeat the virus, it signals the adaptive immune system for support. The adaptive immune system tailors its attacks to the exact pathogen it is fighting and can even keep records of past infections to launch a faster, more aggressive attack the next time it encounters the same pathogen.

But in some infections, the innate immune response can quickly spiral out of control before the adaptive immune response is activated. This phenomenon, called a cytokine storm, is a life-threatening condition characterized by the overproduction of cytokines. These proteins continue to signal the innate immune system for backup even when it’s not necessary, leading to a flood of immune cells at the site of infection, where they inadvertently begin damaging organs and healthy tissues.

Bats, on the other hand, are uniquely equipped to manage viral infections without triggering an overwhelming immune response or allowing the virus to take control. To understand how their innate immune system achieves this delicate balance, Bisht and her colleagues turned their attention to bat cells.

In this study, researchers compared how the SARS-CoV-2 virus replicates in human and bat stem cells and fibroblasts — a type of cell involved in the formation of connective tissue. While fibroblasts are not immune cells, they can secrete cytokines and guide immune response, particularly to help with tissue repair.

After exposing these cells to the SARS-CoV-2 virus for 48 hours, the researchers used a Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) tag to track the virus’s activity. GFP is a fluorescent protein whose genetic code can be added as a tag to a gene of interest. This causes the products of that gene to glow, providing researchers with a visual marker of where and when the gene is expressed.

They observed that over 80% of control cells — derived from the kidneys of African green monkeys and known to be highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 — showed evidence of the virus replicating. In contrast, they did not detect any viral activity in human and bat stem cells or fibroblasts.

In fact, even after introducing the human ACE2 receptor — which SARS-CoV-2 uses to bind and enter cells — into bat cells, the infected bat fibroblasts were able to replicate viral RNA and produce viral proteins, but at much lower levels compared to infected human fibroblasts.

These bat fibroblasts, however, could not assemble these viral proteins into fully infectious virus particles, suggesting an abortive infection, where the virus is able to initiate replication but fails to complete the process and produce progeny viruses.

Using electron microscopy to look inside bat and human cells, they began to understand why: in human cells, SARS-CoV-2 had created special structures called double-membrane vesicles (DMV). These vesicles acted like a bubble, shielding the viral genome from detection and providing it safe space to replicate more effectively. However, these “viral replication factories” were absent in bat fibroblasts.

When the researchers examined the gene expression profiles of these bat fibroblasts and compared them those of infected human cells, they found that although both human and bat cells have genes regulating the release of a type of cytokine called interferons, these genes are already turned on in bat fibroblasts — unlike in human cells — even before virus infection occurs.

These findings suggest that bat cells are in a constant state of vigilance. This allows their innate immune system to stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus in its tracks early on in the replication process before it can entirely hijack cellular machinery.

Surprisingly, this antiviral mechanism does not protect bat cells against all viruses. When the researchers infected bat fibroblasts with Zika virus, the virus was able to replicate and produce new viral particles.

“This means there are still many questions unanswered about how bat cells resist infection,” says Bisht. “COVID-19 continues to circulate, and the virus is evolving quickly. Filling in these gaps in our knowledge will help us develop better vaccines and antiviral strategies.”
The researchers are now focused on identifying the specific genes involved in this antiviral mechanism, and exploring how they interact with the virus during infection.

Brain cell types are affected differently by Rett Syndrome mutation

New research from Jaenisch Lab postdoc Danielle Tomasello focuses on an understudied question: how Rett Syndrome affects cell types in the human brain other than neurons.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
September 6, 2024

Rett Syndrome is a X-chromosome-linked neurodevelopmental disorder; it can lead to loss of coordination, mobility, ability to speak, and use of the hands, among other symptoms. The syndrome is typically caused by mutations within the gene MECP2. Researchers in Whitehead Institute Founding Member Rudolf Jaenisch’s lab have studied Rett Syndrome for many years in order to understand the biological mechanisms that cause disease symptoms, and to identify possible avenues for treatments or a cure. Jaenisch and colleagues have gained many insights into the biology of Rett syndrome and developed tools that can rescue neurons from Rett syndrome symptoms in lab models.

However, much about the biology of Rett Syndrome remains unknown. New research from Jaenisch and postdoc in his lab Danielle Tomasello focuses on an understudied question: how Rett Syndrome affects cell types in the human brain other than neurons. Specifically, Tomasello investigated the effects of Rett Syndrome on astrocytes, a type of brain cell that supports and provides energy for neurons. The work, shared in the journal Scientific Reports on September 6, details changes that occur in Rett syndrome astrocytes, in particular in relation to their mitochondria, and shows how these changes directly impact neurons. The findings provide a new framework for thinking about Rett Syndrome and possible new avenues for therapies.

“By considering Rett Syndrome from a different perspective, this project expands our understanding of a multifaceted and thus far incurable disease,” says Jaenisch, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Energy metabolism in Rett Syndrome

Mitochondria are organelles that generate energy, which cells use to carry out their functions, and mitochondrial dysfunction was known to occur in Rett Syndrome. Jaenisch and Tomasello found that mitochondria in astrocytes are particularly affected, even more so than mitochondria in neurons. Tomasello grew human stem-cell-derived astrocytes in 2D cultures and also grew 3D organoids: mini brain-like tissues that contain multiple cell types growing in a structure that resembles actual brain anatomy. This approach allowed Tomasello to use human cells, rather than an animal model, and to study how cells behave within a brain-like environment.

When the researchers observed Rett astrocytes grown in these conditions, they found that the mitochondria were misshapen: short, small circles instead of large, long ovals. Additional studies showed evidence of the mitochondria experiencing stress and not being able to generate enough energy through their usual processes. The mitochondria did not have enough of the typical proteins they use to make energy, and so began to break down the cell’s supply of the building blocks of proteins, amino acids, for parts to make up for the missing material. Additionally, the researchers observed an increase in reactive oxygen species, byproducts of mitochondrial metabolism that are toxic to the cell.

Further experiments suggested that the cells try to compensate for this mitochondrial stress by increasing transcription of mitochondrial genes. For example, Tomasello found that regions of DNA called promoters that can increase expression of key mitochondrial genes were more open for the cell to use in Rett astrocytes. Altogether, these findings paint a picture of severe mitochondrial dysfunction in Rett astrocytes.

Although mitochondria in Rett neurons did not have such severe defects, astrocytes and neurons have a close relationship. Not only do neurons rely on astrocytes to supply them with energy, they even accept mitochondria from astrocytes to use for themselves. Jaenisch and Tomasello found that neurons take up dysfunctional mitochondria from Rett astrocytes at a higher rate than they take up mitochondria from unaffected astrocytes. This means that the effects of Rett syndrome on astrocytes have a direct effect on neurons: the dysfunctional mitochondria from the astrocytes end up in the neurons, where they cause damage. Tomasello took mitochondria from Rett astrocytes and placed them on both healthy and Rett neurons. In either case, the neurons took up the dysfunctional mitochondria in large numbers and then experienced significant problems. The neurons entered a hyperexcitable state that is ultimately toxic to the brain. The neurons also contained higher levels of reactive oxygen species, the toxic byproducts of mitochondrial metabolism, which can cause widespread damage. These effects occurred even in otherwise healthy neurons that did not themselves contain a Rett-causing MECP2 mutation.

“This shows that in order to understand Rett Syndrome, we need to look beyond what’s happening in neurons to other cell types,” Tomasello says.

Learning about the role that astrocytes play in Rett Syndrome could provide new avenues for therapies. The researchers found that supplying affected astrocytes with healthy mitochondria helped them to recover normal mitochondrial function. This suggests to Tomasello that one possibility for future Rett Syndrome therapies could be something that either targets mitochondria, or supplies additional mitochondria through the bloodstream.

Together, these insights and their possible medical implications demonstrate the importance of taking a broader look at the foundational biology underlying a disease.

Whitehead Institute researchers uncover a new clue toward understanding the molecular basis of Parkinson’s disease

In Parkinson's disease, a mutation that causes protein misfolding can also turn the brain’s immune cells from friends to foes, possibly accelerating the progression of the disease. New Research from the Jaenisch Lab aims to uncover mechanisms that go awry in the brain, which may inform the development of new therapies that can halt or even reverse the progression of neurological conditions such as Parkinson's.

Shafaq Zia | Whitehead Institute
August 29, 2024

Dopamine is more than the “rush molecule”. This chemical messenger, produced by neurons in the midbrain, acts as a traffic controller that regulates the flow of electrical signals between neurons, assisting with brain functions like cognition, attention, movement, and behavior. But, in instances of Parkinson’s disease (PD), a progressive brain disorder, dopamine-producing neurons begin to die at an unprecedented rate, leading to dwindling levels of this vital chemical and impaired neural communication.

The lab of Whitehead Institute’s Founding Member Rudolf Jaenisch studies genetic and epigenetic factors — changes in gene expression that control which genes are turned on and off, and to what extent, without altering the DNA sequence itself — underlying neurological disorders like PD, Alzheimer’s disease, and Rett Syndrome. Their work aims to uncover the mechanisms that go awry in the brain, which may inform the development of new therapies that can halt or even reverse the progression of these conditions.

In their latest work, Jaenisch and former postdoctoral associate Marine Krzisch examine how a mutation in the gene that encodes for alpha-synuclein, a protein regulating the release of dopamine, affects the resident immune cells of the brain called microglia. The researchers’ detailed findings, published in the journal Biological Psychiatry on August 29, reveal that the mutation renders microglia extremely sensitive, worsening the problem of inflammation in the brain and potentially exacerbating damage to neurons in Parkinson’s disease.

“In fact, even when these mutant microglia are transplanted into a healthy, young brain, they have heightened activation upon stimulation, and low levels of the protective antioxidant catalase,” Krzisch says. “This tells us that in Familial Parkinson’s disease, which is due to genetic mutations, these microglia may be playing an important role in neuron degeneration.”

When nature’s origami falters

The human body is home to tens of thousands of unique proteins, each essential for processes sustaining life. These proteins are composed of linear chains of smaller building blocks called amino acids that are linked together in a specific sequence. For the proteins to perform their functions, the amino acid chains must crumple, rotate, and twist into stable three-dimensional structures. The stakes are high — just as precise folds and creases are crucial to the art of origami, even minor errors in the protein folding process can result in dysfunctional proteins that contribute to disease.

To date, scientists have identified over 20 causative genes in which mutations can result in Familial Parkinson’s disease, a rare, genetically inherited form of PD affecting individuals under or around the age of 50. Among them is SNCA, which encodes for alpha-synuclein, a small protein abundant in dopamine-producing neurons.

The A53T mutation in SNCA promotes the formation of dysfunctional alpha-synuclein proteins that clump together — almost like a ball of yarn — within dopamine-producing neurons. The accumulation of these protein clumps, also known as Lewy bodies, triggers inflammatory signaling in the brain, eventually killing the affected neurons. However, prior research has also shown that the A53T mutation accelerates the progression of PD, or the rate at which neurons die, although the full molecular mechanisms underlying this process are not yet fully understood.

To uncover pathways involved in this progression, researchers in the Jaenisch Lab turned their attention to star-shaped patrollers called microglia that protect the brain from foreign invaders and respond to injuries, including protein aggregates within neurons. This immune response includes activated microglia trying to clear out Lewy bodies by digesting them, recruiting additional immune cells to the site of neurons with protein aggregates, and even killing off diseased neurons to limit damage to the brain.

But these friends can quickly turn to foes. Over-activated microglia can also degrade healthy neurons in the brain, prompting Jaenisch, Krzisch, and colleagues to investigate if excessive microglia activation is one pathway that contributes to progression in PD.

Microglia go rogue

To explore how the A53T mutation in the SNCA gene affects microglia function in PD, scientists at the Jaenisch Lab began by growing human myeloid precursors — the cells that eventually develop into microglia — in lab culture and transplanting them into the brains of immune-deprived mice.

Given the complexity of the brain, it’s common for researchers to study brain cells in the Petri dish. “But in cell cultures, microglia do not have the same morphology [form] as in the brain, show signs of chronic activation, and they don’t survive for a very long time,” says Krzisch. “When we transplant them in mice, the precursors differentiate into microglia that look and function like those in the human brain, and survive for the mouse’s lifespan.”

Using this method, the researchers compared the gene expression profiles of A53T-mutant microglia with those that did not carry the mutation, revealing differences in pathways linked to inflammation, microglia activation, and DNA repair. Additionally, when A53T-mutant microglia were exposed to an immune activator called lipopolysaccharide, they exhibited a heightened inflammatory response compared to non-mutant microglia.

In fact, even in non-inflammatory conditions, A53T-mutant microglia had decreased expression of catalase, an enzyme that helps break down harmful reactive oxygen species produced in response to protein aggregates in PD.

Understanding the molecular basis of progression in PD is challenging, which explains why there are currently no drugs to alter the disease’s course. With these findings in hand, researchers at the Jaenisch Lab are now eager to explore how factors like aging also influence microglia function and contribute to an increased rate of progression in PD.

“Overactivation of microglia isn’t the only cause of neuron death in Parkinson’s,” says Jaenisch. “But if we can decrease their activation, it will help us get to the point where we can slow down or actually stop the disease.”

 

Pursuing the secrets of a stealthy parasite

By unraveling the genetic pathways that help Toxoplasma gondii persist in human cells, Sebastian Lourido hopes to find new ways to treat toxoplasmosis.

Anne Trafton | MIT News
August 25, 2024

Toxoplasma gondii, the parasite that causes toxoplasmosis, is believed to infect as much as one-third of the world’s population. Many of those people have no symptoms, but the parasite can remain dormant for years and later reawaken to cause disease in anyone who becomes immunocompromised.

Why this single-celled parasite is so widespread, and what triggers it to reemerge, are questions that intrigue Sebastian Lourido, an associate professor of biology at MIT and member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. In his lab, research is unraveling the genetic pathways that help to keep the parasite in a dormant state, and the factors that lead it to burst free from that state.

“One of the missions of my lab to improve our ability to manipulate the parasite genome, and to do that at a scale that allows us to ask questions about the functions of many genes, or even the entire genome, in a variety of contexts,” Lourido says.

There are drugs that can treat the acute symptoms of Toxoplasma infection, which include headache, fever, and inflammation of the heart and lungs. However, once the parasite enters the dormant stage, those drugs don’t affect it. Lourido hopes that his lab’s work will lead to potential new treatments for this stage, as well as drugs that could combat similar parasites such as a tickborne parasite known as Babesia, which is becoming more common in New England.

“There are a lot of people who are affected by these parasites, and parasitology often doesn’t get the attention that it deserves at the highest levels of research. It’s really important to bring the latest scientific advances, the latest tools, and the latest concepts to the field of parasitology,” Lourido says.

A fascination with microbiology

As a child in Cali, Colombia, Lourido was enthralled by what he could see through the microscopes at his mother’s medical genetics lab at the University of Valle del Cauca. His father ran the family’s farm and also worked in government, at one point serving as interim governor of the state.

“From my mom, I was exposed to the ideas of gene expression and the influence of genetics on biology, and I think that really sparked an early interest in understanding biology at a fundamental level,” Lourido says. “On the other hand, my dad was in agriculture, and so there were other influences there around how the environment shapes biology.”

Lourido decided to go to college in the United States, in part because at the time, in the early 2000s, Colombia was experiencing a surge in violence. He was also drawn to the idea of attending a liberal arts college, where he could study both science and art. He ended up going to Tulane University, where he double-majored in fine arts and cell and molecular biology.

As an artist, Lourido focused on printmaking and painting. One area he especially enjoyed was stone lithography, which involves etching images on large blocks of limestone with oil-based inks, treating the images with chemicals, and then transferring the images onto paper using a large press.

“I ended up doing a lot of printmaking, which I think attracted me because it felt like a mode of expression that leveraged different techniques and technical elements,” he says.

At the same time, he worked in a biology lab that studied Daphnia, tiny crustaceans found in fresh water that have helped scientists learn about how organisms can develop new traits in response to changes to their environment. As an undergraduate, he helped develop ways to use viruses to introduce new genes into Daphnia. By the time he graduated from Tulane, Lourido had decided to go into science rather than art.

“I had really fallen in love with lab science as an undergrad. I loved the freedom and the creativity that came from it, the ability to work in teams and to build on ideas, to not have to completely reinvent the entire system, but really be able to develop it over a longer period of time,” he says.

After graduating from college, Lourido spent two years in Germany, working at the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology. In Arturo Zychlinksy’s lab, Lourido studied two bacteria known as Shigella and Salmonella, which can cause severe illnesses, including diarrhea. His studies there helped to reveal how these bacteria get into cells and how they modify the host cells’ own pathways to help them replicate inside cells.

As a graduate student at Washington University in St. Louis, Lourido worked in several labs focusing on different aspects of microbiology, including virology and bacteriology, but eventually ended up working with David Sibley, a prominent researcher specializing in Toxoplasma.

“I had not thought much about Toxoplasma before going to graduate school,” Lourido recalls. “I was pretty unaware of parasitology in general, despite some undergrad courses, which honestly very superficially treated the subject. What I liked about it was here was a system where we knew so little — organisms that are so different from the textbook models of eukaryotic cells.”

Toxoplasma gondii belongs to a group of parasites known as apicomplexans — a type of protozoans that can cause a variety of diseases. After infecting a human host, Toxoplasma gondii can hide from the immune system for decades, usually in cysts found in the brain or muscles. Lourido found the organism especially intriguing because as a 17-year-old, he had been diagnosed with toxoplasmosis. His only symptom was swollen glands, but doctors found that his blood contained antibodies against Toxoplasma.

“It is really fascinating that in all of these people, about a quarter to a third of the world’s population, the parasite persists. Chances are I still have live parasites somewhere in my body, and if I became immunocompromised, it would become a big problem. They would start replicating in an uncontrolled fashion,” he says.

A transformative approach

One of the challenges in studying Toxoplasma is that the organism’s genetics are very different from those of either bacteria or other eukaryotes such as yeast and mammals. That makes it harder to study parasitic gene functions by mutating or knocking out the genes.

Because of that difficulty, it took Lourido his entire graduate career to study the functions of just a couple of Toxoplasma genes. After finishing his PhD, he started his own lab as a fellow at the Whitehead Institute and began working on ways to study the Toxoplasma genome at a larger scale, using the CRISPR genome-editing technique.

With CRISPR, scientists can systematically knock out every gene in the genome and then study how each missing gene affects parasite function and survival.

“Through the adaptation of CRISPR to Toxoplasma, we’ve been able to survey the entire parasite genome. That has been transformative,” says Lourido, who became a Whitehead member and MIT faculty member in 2017. “Since its original application in 2016, we’ve been able to uncover mechanisms of drug resistance and susceptibility, trace metabolic pathways, and explore many other aspects of parasite biology.”

Using CRISPR-based screens, Lourido’s lab has identified a regulatory gene called BFD1 that appears to drive the expression of genes that the parasite needs for long-term survival within a host. His lab has also revealed many of the molecular steps required for the parasite to shift between active and dormant states.

“We’re actively working to understand how environmental inputs end up guiding the parasite in one direction or another,” Lourido says. “They seem to preferentially go into those chronic stages in certain cells like neurons or muscle cells, and they proliferate more exuberantly in the acute phase when nutrient conditions are appropriate or when there are low levels of immunity in the host.”

New approach enables a closer look at brain cell organelle

Microglia are involved in brain development, as well as neurodegeneration and brain cancer. A new approach from the Jaenisch Lab allows researchers to isolate and analyze microglia phagosomes.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
August 14, 2024

Microglia are the immune system’s front-line enforcers in the brain. They are cells that patrol the brain and destroy anything harmful that they encounter, from invading bacteria to cellular debris. They also remove plaques and prune dysfunctional synapses between neurons. Microglia eliminate their targets by eating them: they envelope material and seal it in bubble-like organelles called phagosomes. A phagosome can then fuse with other organelles that break down its contents.

Microglial phagosomes play important roles in brain development, brain function and a plethora of brain diseases, including neurodegeneration and brain cancer. Therefore, understanding microglial phagosome biology could help to develop new therapies for currently untreatable brain diseases. However, microglia and their organelles have been difficult to study because existing stem cell and animal models insufficiently resemble microglia in the human brain, and because microglia, as vigilant immune patrollers, react to even subtle stimuli and so experimental conditions can trigger changes in the cells that confound analyses.

To overcome those issues, Whitehead Institute Founding Member Rudolf Jaenisch, also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; University of Freiburg Professor of Neuropathology Marco Prinz; and University of Freiburg neuropathologist Emile Wogram, who began this project as a postdoctoral researcher in Jaenisch’s lab, have developed a method to isolate and analyze microglia phagosomes in a rapid, gentle, and unbiased fashion.

In research shared in the journal Immunity on August 15, the researchers describe how they can isolate and profile phagosomes from stem cell-derived microglia and fresh human brain tissue. They also share new insights into phagosome biology in the human brain, regarding synaptic pruning and generation of NAD+, a broadly used molecule in the brain, by microglia.

The method that the researchers developed to isolate phagosomes from cells uses immunoprecipitation, in which antibodies latch on to a specific target protein on an organelle’s surface. When the antibodies are collected, they pull the organelles with them. This technique avoids many chemical perturbations that might alter the microglial profile. Sometimes researchers genetically engineer a target for the antibodies, but in order to isolate phagosomes from human brain tissue, Wogram had to find a naturally expressed target. Eventually, he and colleagues found one: the protein CD68.

The researchers first isolated phagosomes from stem cell-derived microglia. They co-cultured the microglia with other brain cell types to create a more brain-like environment, which led to a better match between brain and stem cell-derived microglia gene expression. They triggered some of the microglia to enter an inflammatory or disease-like state to see how that affected the phagosomes. Additionally, Wogram collaborated with the neurosurgery department at the University of Freiburg to get access to brain tissues immediately after their removal during surgery. He isolated phagosomes from brain tissue within a half hour of its removal, allowing him to profile the organelles before their contents could change much.

The profiles that the researchers built included what proteins and metabolites the phagosomes contained, and the whole-cell gene expression profile. The profiles differed significantly between sets of phagosomes, but the researchers identified a core of consistent proteins, including many known and also some unknown phagosome proteins. The results showed that phagosomes contain sensitive signaling molecules that allow them to react quickly to even subtle environmental stimuli.

Additionally, the protein contents of the co-cultured microglia provided strong evidence that when microglia prune synapses, they predominantly prune the side that sends a signal and not the side that receives one. This insight could be useful for understanding how microglia interact with synapses in health and disease.

The researchers also gained insights into a key metabolic pathway that occurs inside of microglia. In excess, the molecule quinolinic acid can be toxic to neurons; it is implicated as involved in many neurodegenerative diseases. However, cells can use quinolinic acid to make NAD+, a molecule broadly used to carry out essential cellular functions. Microglia are the only brain cells that generate NAD+. Wogram and colleagues found that key steps in this process occur in phagosomes. Phagosomes are therefore necessary both for removing excess quinolinic acid to prevent toxicity and for helping to generate NAD+ in the brain.

Finally, Wogram used brain tissues to compare phagosomes from within a tumor to those in the surrounding healthy tissue. The phagosomes in the tumor contained excess quinolinic acid. Although follow-up studies would be needed to confirm the results, these findings are consistent with research that suggests cancer cells use quinolinic acid to fuel their growth.

Collectively, these findings illuminate aspects of phagosome biology and the roles that phagosomes may play in normal brain development and maintenance, as well as in cancer and neurodegeneration. The researchers also anticipate that their method could prove useful for profiling other organelles, especially when the organelles need to be rapidly isolated from human tissue.