Research Area: Cell Biology

Parasite research heats up
Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
July 7, 2020

Apicomplexan parasites infect hundreds of millions of people around the world each year. Several species of apicomplexan parasites in the Plasmodium genus cause malaria, while another apicomplexan species, Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii), causes toxoplasmosis, a disease with flu-like symptoms that can be lethal for people with weakened immune systems. In spite of their impact, the biology of these disease-causing parasites is not very well understood and treatment options for infection are limited.

One potential approach to treat infection could be drugs that disrupt the parasites’ calcium signaling, which they rely on to spread from cell to cell in their hosts. The parasites need an influx of calcium in order to burst out of an infected host cell—a process called egress—and move through the host’s body and invade other cells. In previous work, a researcher from Whitehead Institute Member Sebastian Lourido’s lab, Saima Sidik, had tested a large collection of molecules and identified one called enhancer 1 (ENH1), which perturbed the parasites’ calcium levels and prevented egress, as a promising anti-parasitic lead. However, the original experiments did not determine how ENH1 acts. In research published in the journal ACS Chemical Biology on June 29, Alice Herneisen, a graduate student in Lourido’s lab, and Lourido, who is also an assistant professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, used an approach called thermal proteome profiling to discover how ENH1 prevents T. gondii parasites from egress. They identified the main target of ENH1 as a calcium-dependent molecule called CDPK1 that parasites use to prepare for egress, moving between cells, and invasion of host cells. ENH1 binds to and prevents CDPK1 from functioning.

“Advances over the past few decades have made discovering a molecule’s potentially therapeutic activity much easier, but the next step of figuring out how the molecule works is often still a challenge,” Lourido says. “By applying newer expansive approaches, we are starting to build a more holistic picture of the parasites’ cell biology.”

Understanding the biology responsible for a potential drug’s observed effects is important because most drugs require modification before they are ready for human use—they may need to be made less toxic, more potent, or more amenable to the environment of the human body—and these sorts of modifications cannot be made until the molecule and its activity are understood.

Herneisen decided to use a relatively new approach in parasites, thermal proteome profiling, to discover the targets of ENH1—the molecules it binds to, leading to its therapeutic effects. The approach works by graphing how each of the proteins inside the parasite reacts to changes in heat with and without being exposed to ENH1. One advantage of this approach is that it is unbiased, meaning that instead of researchers picking likely targets up front to test, they investigate as many molecules as possible, which can lead to unexpected findings. For example, Lourido has been investigating CDPK1 in other contexts for many years, and based on his lab’s previous understanding of its role would not have expected it to be a main target of ENH1—such surprises can direct research in exciting new directions.

Although CDPK1 is ENH1’s main target, the investigations did not uncover the target that allows ENH1 to cause oscillations in the parasites’ calcium levels. Finding this missing target is one of the lab’s next goals.

“The fact that ENH1 affects multiple aspects of calcium signaling may be what makes it such an effective antiparasitic agent,” Herneisen says. “It’s messing with the parasites on several levels.”

Translation of the research for clinical testing is a long way off, but there are multiple indicators that this is a promising direction for investigation. Not only is calcium signaling key to the parasites’ life cycle and ability to spread inside of a host, but the molecules and mechanisms that the parasites use to modulate calcium levels are very different from the ones found in mammals. This means that a drug that disrupts the parasites’ calcium signaling is unlikely to interfere with calcium signaling in human patients, and so could be deadly to the parasites without harming the patients’ cells.

Written by Greta Friar

***

Sebastian Lourido’s primary affiliation is with Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, where his laboratory is located and all his research is conducted. He is also an assistant professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

***

Herneisen, Alice L. et al. “Identifying the target of an antiparasitic compound in Toxoplasma using thermal proteome profiling.” ACS Chemical Biology, June 29, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.0c00369

Ruth Lehmann

Education

  • Dr. rer. nat., 1985, University of Tübingen
  • MS, 1981, Biology, University of Freiburg

Research Summary

We study germ cells, the only cells in the body naturally able to generate completely new organisms. In addition to the nuclear genome, cytoplasmic information is passed though the egg cell to the next generation. We analyze the organization and regulation of germ line specific RNA-protein condensates, and explore mechanisms used by endosymbionts such as mitochondria and the intracellular bacterium, Wolbachia, to propagate through the cytoplasm of the female germ line.

Awards

  • Vanderbilt Prize in Biomedical Science, 2022
  • Gruber Genetics Prize, 2022
  • Thomas Hunt Morgan Medal, Genetics Society of America, 2021
  • Francis Amory Prize in Reproductive Medicine and Reproductive Physiology, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2020
  • Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science, 2020
  • Keith R. Porter Award, American Society for Cell Biology, 2018
  • Inaugural Klaus Sander Prize, German Society for Developmental Biology, 2017
  • European Molecular Biology Organization, Foreign Associate, 2012
  • Conklin Medal of the Society of Developmental Biology, 2011
  • National Academy of Sciences, Foreign Associate, 2005; Member, 2008
  • American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Member, 1998
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Investigator, 1990 and 1997
Bringing computers into the protein fold

In the lab, Biology Professor Amy Keating researches the interactions of proteins with a mix of modeling and synthetic lab work and diverse minds

School of Science
June 11, 2020

Almost everything in biology is a multistep process, from the metabolization of carbohydrates and fats as fuel to information transcription from DNA and RNA. Without proteins and their interactions, cells couldn’t perform any of these biological tasks. But how do proteins establish their individual roles? And how do they interact with each other?  These questions drive Professor Amy Keating’s research, and both lab experiments and computational modeling are helping her reveal the mysteries behind the basic functions of life.

In Keating’s field of research, as with most areas of science, the use of artificial intelligence is a relatively new – and growing – trend. “It’s pretty scary how fast new methods in machine learning are changing the landscape,” says Keating, who holds appointments in both the Department of Biology and the Department of Biological Engineering. “I think that we will see a disruptive change in protein modeling over the coming years.” She has found that incorporating basic machine learning methods in her own work has generated some success in uncovering how protein sequences determine their interactions.

However, there are limits to using only computational modeling due to the complexities of protein-protein interaction and a general need for empirical data to calibrate the models. Her lab group integrates computation with biological engineering in a laboratory setting. Keating’s team often starts by using computational modeling to narrow down their search from a massive collection of protein structure models. This step limits their output from an effectively infinite space (~1030) to something on the order of 106 potential promising molecules that can be experimentally tested. They can feed the results of experiments into other algorithms that help designate the specific features of the protein that prove important. This process is cyclical, and Keating emphasizes that experimental efforts are crucial for improving the success rate of this kind of work. That is where the lab comes in. There, they do what the computer cannot: they build proteins.

With the disruption of the COVID-19 crisis the Keating lab has focused their attention on computational projects, as well as on reviewing the literature and writing up papers and theses. The members are also using their time at home to brainstorm and plan their research. “We are having multiple group meetings per week by Zoom, including a ‘Keating Group Idea Lab,’ at which everyone throws out ideas, ranging from practical suggestions about current projects to out-there new concepts, for group discussion,” says Keating. “We are confident that we can use this time productively, to advance our science, even as we make long lists of things that we are eager to do as soon as we can get back into the laboratory.”

A topic of current interest to Keating and her group members is interactions among proteins with “short linear motifs” or SLiMs, which are abundant –more than one hundred thousand such motifs are thought to exist in one human. One family of these SLiM-binding proteins regulates movement of cells within the body and is implicated in the spread of cancer cells to a secondary location (metastasis). The lab’s novel mini-protein and peptide designs aim to disrupt these protein interactions and could be useful for eventually disrupting and treating cancer and other diseases.

FOSTERING MULTIPLE INTERACTIONS

Currently, Keating’s research team consists of six students who have backgrounds in almost as many different cultures. Her students’ diversity, which stems not just from different focuses in formal training but also from life experiences, is integral to their success, according to Keating. She wishes that more women like herself and members of underrepresented minority groups who love STEM would consider pursuing academic careers. “It’s hard work, but it’s very rewarding,” she entices. The best thing about being a faculty member, she believes, is having a team of bright minds who contribute unique ideas and insights to a problem and provide information beyond her own areas of expertise.

“I learn facts that they know and I do not. I learn interesting ways of thinking about science and also ways of doing science,” she says, noting that novel ideas in methodology lead to advances in research. “I’ve learned a lot of things about computer science from my students. I’m happy that one of my former biology students is [now] a professor of computer science,” she admits, appreciating his expertise as a benefit in frequent collaborations. “I love that students at MIT question everything.” Keating’s ever-expanding knowledge builds on top of a diverse background gleaned during her time as a student.

Keating’s bachelor’s degree from Harvard University is in physics. During her PhD at University of California, Los Angeles, she shifted to chemistry — specifically computational physical organic chemistry. When browsing for a postdoctoral position, she discovered the work of former MIT Department of Biology faculty and Whitehead Institute member Peter Kim and joined him. She maintained her interest in computation as a tool for biological research, concurrently co-advised by MIT Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Bruce Tidor. It was somewhat down to chance that her academic job search led her to MIT. “I certainly never thought I would be a biology professor, especially at MIT,” she remarks of her convoluted career path through the wide world of science.

But it is an unexpected result for which Keating is grateful. “My undergrad self would have been surprised by the MIT School of Science,” she muses, which makes MIT “so much more than ‘just’ the world’s best engineering school.” That is something of a common misconception about the Institute, she feels. “I think a lot of people outside of MIT don’t know how outstanding our basic science programs are.” Keating is a part of the strong science education at MIT, which is constantly adapting to keep up with the digital age, which led to her receiving the most recent Fund for the Future of Science Award.

“I was thrilled, and pretty surprised, to receive the award; my fantastic colleagues in the School of Science are not people that you want to be competing with.” This support is invaluable to her research on the foundations of biological interactions, and to ensure a robust team that has what it needs to develop important advances.  The curious minds with which she collaborates are equally as invaluable.

“The people at MIT are amazingly smart, curious, and focused on things that I value,” Keating adds, “like good ideas, intellectual rigor, discovering new things, and education.”

This article appeared in the Summer 2020 issue of Science@MIT

Jonathan Weissman

Education

  • PhD, 1993, MIT
  • AB, 1988, Physics, Harvard

Research Summary

We study how cells ensure that proteins fold into their correct shape, as well as the role of protein misfolding in disease and normal physiology. We also build innovative tools for broadly exploring organizational principles of biological systems. These include ribosome profiling, which globally monitors protein translation, CRIPSRi/a for controlling the expression of human genes and rewiring the epigenome, and lineage tracing tools, to record the history of cells.

Awards

  • Ira Herskowitz Award, Genetic Society of America, 2020
  • European Molecular Biology Organization, Member, 2017
  • National Academy of Sciences Award for Scientific Discovery, 2015
  • American Academy of Microbiology, Fellow, 2010
  • National Academy of Sciences, Member, 2009
  • Raymond and Beverly Sackler International Prize in Biophysics, Tel Aviv University, 2008
  • Protein Society Irving Sigal Young Investigator’s Award, 2004
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Assistant Investigator, 2000
  • Searle Scholars Program Fellowship, 1997
  • David and Lucile Packard Fellowship, 1996
3 Questions with Seychelle Vos

An unconventional geneticist uses cryogenic electron microscopy and crystallography to understand gene expression and cell fate.

Lucy Jakub
June 1, 2020

Seychelle Vos arrived in September 2019 as the Department of Biology’s newest assistant professor. Her lab in Building 68 uses cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM), X-ray crystallography, biochemistry, and genetics to study how DNA and its associated proteins are organized inside the cell. Vos received her PhD from the University of California at Berkeley and completed her postdoctoral research at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Germany. She sat down to discuss her structural biology research, and why it’s so important to understand DNA as a physical structure.

Q: Your research is on the proteins that compress DNA so it can fit inside a cellular organelle called the nucleus. How does the genome organize itself in different shapes to perform different functions in the cell, and why is this an important process for us to understand?

A: If we take all the DNA inside of one human cell and stretch it out end to end, it extends 2 meters in length. But it needs to fit into the nucleus, which is only a few microns wide. It’s essentially like stringing a fishing line from here to New Haven and trying to put it in a soccer ball. That’s not an easy thing to do. There are lots of proteins that compact the genome either by wrapping the DNA around themselves or by forming loops in the DNA.

In order to replicate DNA or transcribe it to make a protein, the cell’s molecular machinery needs to be able to access and read it. Depending on how the DNA is wrapped and organized, different genes will be more accessible than others. In a stem cell, essentially any gene can be turned on. But as cells begin to differentiate into kidney cells, liver cells, and so on, only the genes specific to those functions can be turned on. Every cell has its own set of proteins that make it special, and most of that regulation happens at the level of RNA expression.

Our lab wants to understand how DNA organization impacts gene expression at the atomic level. This gets to the crux of how a stem cell becomes a specific cell type, and what happens when those programs go wrong. Without the right kind of compaction you can have cancer phenotypes, because things get turned on that shouldn’t be, or a cell thinks it’s a stem cell again and divides really fast. Many of the proteins we study are involved either in developmental disorders or cancers. If we don’t understand their basic biology, it’s very hard to come up with reasonable ways of treating these diseases.

Q: What was it about structural biology that hooked you during your early career?

A: When I started my PhD at UC Berkeley, I didn’t have much of an interest in structural biology. I thought that I wanted to study the immunology of nucleic acids, and I did my first lab rotation with Jennifer Doudna, one of the biochemists who was instrumental in developing CRISPR-Cas9 as a gene-editing tool. She might seem like a funny first person to do a rotation with if you were doing immunology, but CRISPR is essentially a bacterial immune system, and I went to her lab just to see a completely different way of viewing immunology. During that rotation, I fell in love with crystallography. What’s so beautiful about this technique is that it shows us how different atoms are communicating with each other, and how one molecule might be engaging with another molecule.

For the rest of my rotations as a graduate student, I did research in biochemistry and structural biology labs, and ended up joining James Berger’s lab, which did a combination of both. I worked on a class of enzymes called topoisomerases that bind to DNA and uncoil the DNA when it gets tangled. I was able to solve a number of very interesting structures, and do biochemistry and genetics all at the same time.

During my postdoc I studied RNA polymerase II, the enzyme that makes all the RNAs that turn into proteins in the cell and determine the cell’s identity. I wanted to know how it is regulated after the initiation stage of transcription. One of the proteins I was working with wouldn’t crystallize, and we had to come up with some other ways of seeing it. So we turned to cryo-EM, which had just become a very high-resolution technology — we could actually see the atoms touching each other! That was a game-changer for me. If you told me at the beginning of my PhD that these technologies could become central to my research, I would have told you there’s no way that would happen. But life has surprises.

Q: How does your expertise in genetics and biochemistry help you solve structural problems?

A: I’m definitely not your average structural biologist — I use structural tools to advance the genetics I want to do. My lab uses genetics to inform which protein complexes we want to look at, and then we use cryo-EM and X-ray crystallography to understand how those proteins actually affect RNA polymerase II. With what we learn about the structure, we can go back and use targeted genetic approaches to remove those proteins from the genome and see what happens to gene expression in particular cells. I also have projects where we’ll do a genetic screen first, and then use structural biology and chemistry techniques to get more information. The research is like a giant feedback loop. You need all of those perspectives to really understand the whole system.

Cellular players get their moment in the limelight
Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
May 27, 2020

In order to understand our biology, researchers need to investigate not only what cells are doing, but also more specifically what is happening inside of cells at the level of organelles, the specialized structures that perform unique tasks to keep the cell functioning. However, most methods for analysis take place at the level of the whole cell. Because a specific organelle might make up only a fraction of an already microscopic cell’s contents, “background noise” from other cellular components can drown out useful information about the organelle being studied, such as changes in the organelle’s protein or metabolite levels in response to different conditions.

Whitehead Institute Member David Sabatini and Walter Chen, a former graduate student in Sabatini’s lab and now a pediatrics resident at Boston Children’s Hospital and Boston Medical Center and a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School, developed in recent years a method for isolating organelles for analysis that outstrips previous methods in its ability to purify organelles both rapidly and specifically. They first applied the method to mitochondria, the energy-generating organelles known as the “powerhouses of the cell,” and published their study in Cell in 2016. Subsequently, former Sabatini lab postdoctoral researcher Monther Abu-Remaileh and graduate student Gregory Wyant applied the method to lysosomes, the recycling plants of cells that break down cell parts for reuse, as described in the journal Science in 2017. In collaboration with former Sabatini lab postdoctoral researcher Kivanc Birsoy, Sabatini and Chen next developed a way to use the mitochondrial method in mice, as described in PNAS in 2019. Now, in a paper published in iScience on May 22, Sabatini, Chen, and graduate student Jordan Ray have extended the method for use on peroxisomes, organelles that play essential roles in human physiology.

“It’s gratifying to see this toolkit expand so we can use it to gain insight into the nuances of these organelles’ biology,” Sabatini says.

Using their organellar immunoprecipitation techniques, the researchers have uncovered previously unknown aspects of mitochondrial biology, including changes in metabolites during diverse states of mitochondrial function. They also uncovered new aspects of lysosomal biology, including how nutrient starvation affects the exchange of amino acids between the organelle and the rest of the cell. Their methods could help researchers gain new insights into diseases in which mitochondria or lysosomes are affected, such as mitochondrial respiratory chain disorders, lysosomal storage diseases, and Parkinson’s Disease. Now that Sabatini, Chen, and Ray have extended the method to peroxisomes, it could also be used to learn more about peroxisome-linked disorders.

DEVELOPING A POTENT METHOD

The researchers’ method is based on “organellar immunoprecipitation,” which utilizes antibodies, immune system proteins that recognize specific perceived threats that they are supposed to bind to and help remove from the body. The researchers create a custom tag for each type of organelle by taking an epitope, the section of a typical perceived threat that antibodies recognize and bind to, and fusing it to a protein that is known to localize to the membrane of the organelle of interest, so the tag will attach to the organelle. The cells containing these tagged organelles are first broken up to release all of the cell’s contents, and then put in solution with tiny magnetic beads covered in the aforementioned antibodies. The antibodies on the beads latch onto the tagged organelles. A magnet is then used to collect all of the beads and separate the bound organelles from the rest of the cellular material, while contaminants are washed away. The resulting isolated organelles can subsequently be analyzed using a variety of methods that look at the organelles’ metabolites, lipids, and proteins.

With their method, Chen and Sabatini have developed an organellar isolation technique that is both rapid and specific, qualities that prior methods have typically lacked. The workflow that Chen and Sabatini developed is fast—this new iteration for peroxisomes takes only 10 minutes to isolate the tagged organelles once they have been released from cells. Speed is important because the natural profile of the organelles’ metabolites and proteins begins to change once they are released from the cell, and the longer the process takes, the less the results will reflect the organelle’s native state.

“We’re interested in studying the metabolic contents of organelles, which can be labile over the course of an isolation,” Chen says. “Because of their speed and specificity, these methods allow us to not only better assess the original metabolic profile of a specific organelle but also study proteins that may have more transient interactions with the organelle, which is very exciting.”

PEROXISOMES TAKE THE LIMELIGHT

Peroxisomes are organelles that are important for multiple metabolic processes and contribute to a number of essential biological functions, such as producing the insulating myelin sheaths for neurons. Defects in peroxisomal function are found in various genetic disorders in children and have been implicated in neurodegenerative diseases as well. However, compared to other organelles such as mitochondria, peroxisomes are relatively understudied. Being able to get a close-up look at the contents of peroxisomes may provide insights into important and previously unappreciated biology. Importantly, in contrast to traditional ways of isolating peroxisomes, the new method that Sabatini, Chen, and Ray have developed is not only fast and specific, but also reproducible and easy to use.

“Peroxisomal biology is quite fascinating, and there are a lot of outstanding questions about how they are formed, how they mature, and what their role is in disease that hopefully this tool can help elucidate,” Ray says.

An exciting next step may be to adapt the peroxisome isolation method so it can be used in a mammaliam model organism, such as mice, something the researchers have already done with the mitochondrial version.

“Using this method in animals could be especially helpful for studying peroxisomes because peroxisomes participate in a variety of functions that are essential on an organismal rather than cellular level,” Chen says. Going forward, Chen is interested in using the method to profile the contents of peroxisomes in specific cell types across a panel of different mammalian organs.

While Chen sets out to discover what unknown biology the peroxisome isolation method can reveal, researchers in Sabatini’s lab are busy working on another project: extending the method to even more organelles.

Written by Greta Friar

***

David Sabatini’s primary affiliation is with Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, where his laboratory is located and all his research is conducted. He is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and a professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

***

Citations:

G. Jordan Ray, Elizabeth A. Boydston, Emily Shortt, Gregory A. Wyant, Sebastian Lourido, Walter W. Chen, David M. Sabatini,  “A PEROXO-Tag Enables Rapid Isolation of Peroxisomes from Human Cells,” iScience, May 22, 2020.

Bayraktar et al., “MITO-Tag Mice enable rapid isolation and multimodal profiling of mitochondria from specific cell types in vivo,” PNAS, Jan 2, 2019.

Abu-Remaileh et al., “Lysosomal metabolomics reveals V-ATPase- and mTOR-dependent regulation of amino acid efflux from lysosomes,” Science, Nov 10, 2017.

Chen et al., “Absolute quantification of matrix metabolites reveals the dynamics of mitochondrial metabolism,” Cell, August 25, 2016.

Study finds ‘volume dial’ for turning neural communication up or down
Picower Institute
May 6, 2020

Neuroscientists at MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory have found that a protein acts like a volume dial for the release of neurotransmitters, the chemicals that neurons release across connections called synapses to stimulate muscles or communicate with other neurons in brain circuits. The findings help explain how synapses work and could better inform understanding of some neurological disorders.

Working in the model of fruit flies, the team determined that the protein Synaptotagmin 7 (SYT7), which is also found in humans and other mammals, constrains the number and availability of neurotransmitter-containing blobs, called vesicles, for release at the synapse. Neurons deploy vesicles to sites called “active zones” to release them across synapses, a process called “vesicle fusion.”  When the scientists reduced SYT7, they saw much more neurotransmitter release at synapses. When they increased the protein, neurotransmitter release dropped significantly.

“You can think of this as almost like a radio’s volume dial,” said senior author Troy Littleton, Menicon Professor of Neuroscience in MIT’s Departments of Biology and Brain and Cognitive Sciences. “If a neuron wants to send more signal out all it has to do is basically reduce the levels of SYT7 protein that it is making. It’s a very elegant way for neurons to turn up or down the amount of output that they are giving.”

The study’s co-lead authors are Zhuo Guan, a research scientist, and Mónica C. Quiñones-Frías, who successfully defended her doctoral thesis on the work May 4. She noted that by acting as that volume dial, the protein could change the nature of a synapse’s activity in a circuit, a property called “synaptic plasticity.”

“Syt7 regulates neurotransmission in a dose-dependent manner and can act as a switch for short term synaptic plasticity,” Quiñones-Frías said.

Research scientist Yulia Akbergenova is also a co-author of the study published in eLife.

Synaptic surprise

Important as they are, the study’s findings are not ones the team was originally looking for.

For decades, neuroscientists have known that the synaptotagmin protein family plays key roles in synaptic function. In fact, Littleton’s 1993 doctoral dissertation showed that SYT1 promoted a quick release of neurotransmitters when triggered by an influx of calcium ions. But even with SYT1 disabled, synapses could still release neurotransmitters on a slower timeframe. No one has found what promotes that subsequent slower release, but many scientists had pinned their hopes on it being SYT7.

“That’s been something that the whole field, including my lab, has really been searching for,” Littleton said. “So it was a real surprise when we knocked it out and saw just the opposite of what we expected.”

Mutants and microscopes

To study SYT7 the team focused its experiments on synapses in a well characterized locale: the junction between a fly neuron and muscle. The team not only wanted to see what differences changing the protein’s levels would make in synaptic activity there, but also track how it made those differences.

They changed the amount of SYT7 the neuron could produce by mutating and breeding flies in which the gene was completely eliminated, only one copy could be expressed, or in which the gene was overexpressed, producing more SYT7 than normal. For each of these fly lines they measured the surprising inverse relationship between SYT7 and synaptic transmission.

Also, using a technique the lab invented to visually flag neurotransmitter release every time it happens, they mapped how active individual synapses at the neuron-muscle junction were over time. In flies engineered to produce less SYT7 they saw many more synapses with a high propensity for release than they did in normal flies.

Once they confirmed SYT7’s restrictive role, the natural question was how does SYT7 constrain neurotransmitter release. Synapses are very complex, after all, and crucial aspects of SYT7’s role within that machinery had yet to be characterized.

When they compared synapses in normal flies and those missing SYT7 they didn’t see major differences in anatomy or calcium influx that could explain how SYT7 works to limit release.

They then turned their attention to the cycle in which vesicles release their neurotransmitter cargo and are then sent back into the cell to refill with neurotransmitter before rejoining a pool of vesicles ready for redeployment. Their experiments showed that neurons lacking SYT7 didn’t recycle the vesicles differently but they nevertheless had more vesicles in the readily releasable pool (RRP). Moreover, mutants in which SYT7 was overexpressed substantially limited the vesicles in that pool.

“SYT7 limits release in a dosage-sensitive manner by negatively regulating the number of synaptic vesicles available for fusion and slowing recovery of the RRP following stimulation,” they determined.

The final step was to track down where SYT7 resides in the synaptic machinery. Under the microscope they were able to pin it down in a network of tubes surrounding, but not within the active zones. The vantage point is right where other proteins regulating vesicle trafficking also reside, giving SYT7 a clear opportunity to interact with those proteins to regulate the return of vesicles to the active zones.

Implications for disease and plasticity

Understanding more about SYT7’s role at the synapse in mammals could matter in several ways, Littleton said. Two years ago, researchers showed that the protein is reduced in mice harboring a genetic cause of Alzheimer’s disease. And in February another paper showed that patients with bipolar disorder exhibited lower levels of the protein than people who do not have the disorder. Mice with SYT7 knocked out showed some manic and depressive behaviors.

More fundamentally, Littleton and Quiñones-Frías said, is the flexibility or plasticity it can afford. Because SYT7 regulates neurotransmitter release by slowing down the resupply of releasable vesicles, an increase in its levels can transform a synapse from being the kind that sends out large bursts of signal (and therefore transmits more information) early on and then peters out into one that builds up its signal over time. Such distinctions in release timeframe can make important differences in circuit information processing in the brain.

Although the team was able to identify SYT7’s effect at synapses and show key aspects of how it functions, they still hope to determine the exact mechanism that allows the protein to gate vesicle fusion. That work is ongoing.

The National Institutes of Health and the JPB Foundation provided support for the research.

Stretch and relax
Lucy Jakub
April 13, 2020

Consider the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Though it’s only a couple of millimeters long, its body is intricately complex. But it began, as most animals do, as an amorphous blastula—a hollow ball of dividing cells. During embryonic development, the structures of the body emerge as cells multiply and change shape, sculpting tissues into the mature forms dictated by the genetic code. One of the first structural changes is gastrulation, during which the blastula becomes multilayered with an ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm. In the developing fly, this occurs through a tissue folding mechanism. The first fold is the invagination of the mesoderm, when cells fated to become muscles contract and curl inward, leaving the cells fated to become skin on the exterior.

Biologists have traditionally focused on how cells generate force to understand cell and tissue shape change. But researchers at MIT have found that there’s another important, though often overlooked, player in tissue folding: cell division, or mitosis. By combining live-imaging with genetic mutations of developing Drosophila embryos, they observed that cell constriction and division can act together to promote folding, and that mitosis interferes with the accumulation of motor proteins that allows cells to generate force.

“What the results tell us is that the cell cycle and cell division might need to be tightly regulated relative to other shape changes that are happening in the tissue,” says Adam Martin, the senior author of the study published on March 13 in Molecular Biology of the Cell. “They present a new paradigm for thinking about how tissue shape might be regulated during development, and provide insight into what might cause birth defects in humans.” Clint Ko PhD ’20, a former graduate student in the Martin lab, was lead author of the study.

In 2000, three different labs identified a genetic mutation that caused premature cell division in developing Drosophila embryos. They found that the gene tribbles, named for the fuzzy, rapidly-reproducing animals in Star Trek, regulates cell division in the mesoderm of the fly, ensuring that cells only divide at the appropriate time. When that gene is deleted, cell division occurs before the mesoderm can properly internalize. What was notable about this mutant was that the blastula never folded, and remained a ball of cells instead of an envelope of tissue with an inside and an outside. This observation led researchers to believe that cell cycle regulation somehow regulates tissue folding. But, at the time, there was no live-imaging technology to visualize how cells changed in the developing embryo.

By using a fluorescent protein to visualize chromosome condensation, which marks the start of mitosis and the cell’s preparation for division, the researchers were able to use live-cell imaging to see how premature division might be interfering with cell constriction. When a cell prepares to divide, it expands and becomes rounded, before elongating—shape changes that exert force on neighboring cells. But something else was going on, too.Specifically, researchers in the Martin lab wanted to see what was happening to networks of the motor protein myosin, which allows cells to contract, in the tribbles mutant. Myosin is the same protein that allows our muscle tissue to contract when we flex. To facilitate tissue folding in the developing fly, myosin is concentrated at the top of the cells in the mesoderm, where they form the surface of the blastula. As this myosin constricts, the outer surface of the tissue shrinks and contracts inward.

“We noticed that when the cells are dividing, the apical myosin networks that are present disappear,” says Ko. Cells that had already begun to contract relaxed when they entered mitosis, indicating that it’s a loss of contractility in the tribbles mutant that prevents folding. The researchers suspect that this reversal occurs because mitosis disrupts signaling from the gene RhoA, which regulates contractility and cell shape changes during development. An undergraduate researcher in the lab, Prateek Kalakuntla, showed that regulation of RhoA changes at the start of mitosis.

“Initially we were just curious about the tribbles mutant,” says Ko. “But then we started exploring other ways of looking at how cell divisions affect myosin accumulation in cells.” They utilized a mutation in which the gene fog, which is located upstream of myosin activation on the genome, was overexpressed. (Fog is short for “folded gastrulation.”) Cells in the Drosophila ectoderm don’t normally contract, but with ectopic fog overexpression, those cells activated myosin, too. With live-cell imaging, the researchers observed furrows develop across the ectoderm.

“It was a bit unexpected to see these tissues folding when they shouldn’t be folding,” says Ko. Specifically, the folds occurred along the boundaries of mitotic domains, regions of spatiotemporally patterned cell divisions that occur in coordinated pulses. “That led to this sort of novel idea that cell divisions—particularly when they’re in this pattern where they’re interspersed between contractile cells—can actually promote tissue folding.”

Understanding the genetic basis for tissue folding, and how our genes control the development of specific bodily features, can help determine how birth defects arise during development. “If cell cycle control is misregulated during development, it could actually alter the shape of that tissue,” says Martin. The study paves the way for further research into how exactly the location of myosin in the cell is regulated, and how it is affected at the molecular level by cell division.

“We observed that when these cells enter mitosis, the localization of myosin activators changes. But we don’t really know how it changes,” says Ko. “That would be a pretty interesting research problem, especially considering that it’s such an integral part of force generation in cells.” Kalakuntla has begun investigating what controls these regulators, which will be an avenue of future research for the lab.

Top image: Myosin networks, in green, contract cell membranes in the mesoderm of a developing Drosophila embryo. Credit: Martin lab.

Citation:
“Apical Constriction Reversal upon Mitotic Entry Underlies Different Morphogenetic Outcomes of Cell Division”
Molecular Biology of the Cell, online March 4, 2020, DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E19-12-0673
Clint S. Ko, Prateek Kalakuntla, and Adam C. Martin