Research Area: Genetics

Signaling factor seeking gene
Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
September 25, 2019

Cambridge, MA — During embryonic development, stem cells begin to take on specific identities, becoming distinct cell types with specialized characteristics and functions, in order to form the diverse organs and systems in our bodies. Cells rely on two main classes of regulators to define and maintain their identities; the first of these are master transcription factors, keystone proteins in each cell’s regulatory network, which keep the DNA sequences associated with crucial cell identity genes accessible for transcription — the process by which DNA is “read” into RNA. The other main regulators are signaling factors, which transmit information from the environment to the nucleus through a chain of proteins like a game of cellular telephone. Signaling factors can prompt changes in gene transcription as the cells react to that information.

One long-standing conundrum of how cell identity is determined is that many species, including humans, use the same core signaling pathways, with the same signaling factors, in all of their cells, yet this uniform machinery can cue a diverse array of cell-type specific gene activity, like an identical line of code being entered in many computers and causing each to start running a completely different program. New research from Whitehead Institute Member Richard Young, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published online in Molecular Cell on September 25, sheds light on how the same signaling factor can lead to so many distinct responses — with the help of a mechanism called phase separation.

Co-senior author on the paper Jurian Schuijers, previously a postdoctoral researcher in Young’s lab and now a professor at the Center for Molecular Medicine at the University Medical Center Utrecht, was drawn to this puzzle after previously working in a signaling lab: “Two cells of different types that are right next to each other in the body can receive the exact same signal and have different reactions, and there was not a satisfying explanation for how that happens,” Schuijers says.

Young’s lab had previously found that signaling factors in pathways important for development tend to concentrate at super enhancers, clusters of DNA sequences that increase transcription of crucial cell identity genes. Because super enhancers are established at the genes important to identity in each cell, their activity is cell-type specific, so this co-localization provided a partial explanation of the puzzle, but it raised the question of how signaling factors are recruited to super enhancers. Young found the vague explanations that had been put forward, such as super enhancers being the most accessible DNA to signaling factors and their co-factors, unconvincing.

Young and his team suspected that an explanation for signaling factor recruitment might lie in their research on transcriptional condensates — droplets that form at super enhancers and concentrate transcriptional machinery there using phase separation, meaning the molecules separate out of their surroundings to form a distinct liquid compartment, like a drop of vinegar in a pool of oil. The proteins in condensates can do this because they contain intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs), stretches of amino acids that remain flexible, like wet spaghetti, and do not become fixed into a single shape the way most protein structures do. This property allows them to mesh together to form a condensate. The researchers reasoned that if signaling factors were joining transcriptional condensates, that could explain their concentration at super enhancers.

Young’s team confirmed that signaling factors in several of the most important pathways for embryonic development in mammals — WNT, TGF-β and JAK/STAT — contained IDRs. They further found that these factors were able to use their IDRs to form and join condensates, and that, in mouse cells, they appeared to join the condensates at super enhancers upon activation of their respective pathways.

The researchers then decided to focus on beta catenin, the signaling factor at the end of the Wnt signaling pathway, a pathway essential for development; it helps to coordinate things like body axis patterning and cell fate specification, proliferation and migration. When Wnt signaling goes awry in embryos, they fail to develop, and when it goes awry in adults it is implicated in diseases including cancer. The beta catenin protein has IDRs on both of its ends and a structured middle section, called the Armadillo repeat domain, where it binds to other transcription factors. Typically, beta catenin binds to transcription factors in the TCF/LEF family, which in turn bind to DNA—beta catenin cannot bind to DNA on its own — anchoring the signaling factor at the right site and prompting gene transcription. However, the researchers found that beta catenin could concentrate at super enhancers even when it could not bind to its usual partners, suggesting that transcriptional condensates were a sufficient recruitment mechanism. The researchers then created two abridged beta catenin molecules: one version that only contained the IDRs and one that only contained the Armadillo repeat domain. Both partial factors were able to concentrate at super enhancers, but neither was as effective as the combined whole.

“If you ask most people how these factors find their target locations in the genome, they would say it’s through their DNA binding domains,” says first author Alicia Zamudio, a graduate student in Young’s lab. “This research suggests that factors use both their structured DNA binding domains and their unstructured domains to find the right locations to bind in the genome and to activate target genes.”

One advantage for cells of using IDRs, versus DNA binding alone, might be reducing the time it takes for signaling factors to concentrate near the right genes, the researchers say. Speed is of the essence for some signaling pathways in order for cells to be able to respond quickly to environmental stimuli. Transcriptional condensates are larger in size and much fewer in number than DNA binding sites or DNA-binding co-factors, and so they shrink the space that a signaling factor entering the nucleus must search.

This research could provide new opportunities for drug discovery. Signaling pathways and super enhancers are both co-opted by oncogenes to drive the spread of cancer, so transcriptional condensates could be a promising target to disrupt both oncogenic signaling and oncogene transcription. Young also hopes that this research, which adds to his lab’s growing body of work on transcriptional condensates, will lead to a new appreciation of the disordered regions of proteins.

“For a long time, researchers have mostly ignored the intrinsically disordered regions of proteins — we literally cut them off when identifying the crystal structures — much in the same way that researchers used to study genes and ignore ‘junk DNA,’” Young says. “But, just as with junk DNA, we are discovering that the overlooked, less obviously functional regions of these molecules are very important after all.”

 

This work is supported by NIH grant GM123511 and NSF grant PHY1743900 (R.A.Y.), NIH grant GM117370 (D.J.T.), NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (A.V.Z.), NIH grant T32CA009172 (I.A.K.), and DFG Research Fellowship DE 3069/1-1 (T.M.D.).

 

Written by Greta Friar

***

Richard Young’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 professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

***

Full citation:

“Mediator condensates localize signaling factors to key cell identity genes”

Molecular Cell, published online September 25, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.08.016

Alicia V. Zamudio (1, 2), Alessandra Dall’Agnese (1), Jonathan E. Henninger (1), John C. Manteiga(1, 2), Lena K. Afeyan (1, 2), Nancy M. Hannett (1), Eliot L. Coffey (1, 2), Charles H. Li (1, 2), Ozgur Oksuz (1), Benjamin R. Sabari (1), Ann Boija (1), Isaac A. Klein (1,3), Susana W. Hawken (4), Jan-Hendrik Spille (5), Tim-Michael Decker (6), Ibrahim I. Cisse (5), Brian J. Abraham (1,7), Tong I. Lee (1), Dylan J. Taatjes (6), Jurian Schuijers (1,8,9), and Richard A. Young (1, 2, 9).

1. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA

2. Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

4. Program in Computational and Systems Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139 USA

5. Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA 6. Department of Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303, USA

7. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, 038105, USA

8. Present address: Center for Molecular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.

9. Equal contribution

Understanding genetic circuits and genome organization

Assistant professors Pulin Li and Seychelle Vos are investigating how cells become tissues and the proteins that organize DNA.

Raleigh McElvery | Department of Biology
September 12, 2019

MIT’s Department of Biology welcomed two new assistant professors in recent months: Pulin Li began at the Whitehead Institute in May, and Seychelle Vos arrived at Building 68 in September. Their respective expertise in genetic circuits and genome organization will augment the department’s efforts to explore cell biology at all levels — from intricate molecular structures to the basis for human disease.

“Pulin and Seychelle bring new perspectives and exciting ideas to our research community,” says Alan Grossman, department head. “I’m excited to see them start their independent research programs and look forward to the impact that they will have.”

From cells to tissues

Growing up in Yingkou, China, Li was exposed to science at a young age. Her dad worked for a pharmaceutical company researching traditional Chinese medicine, and Li would spend hours playing with his lab tools and beakers. “I can still vividly remember the smell of his Chinese herbs,” she says. “Maybe that’s part of the reason why I’ve always been interested in biology as it relates to medical sciences.”

She earned her BS in life sciences from Peking University, and went on to pursue a PhD in chemical biology at Harvard University studying hematopoietic stem cells. Li performed chemical screens to find drugs that would make stem cell transplantation in animal models more efficient, and eventually help patients with leukemia. In doing so, she became captivated by the molecular mechanisms that control cell-to-cell communication.

“I would like to eventually go back to developing new therapies and medicines,” she says, “but that translational research requires a basic understanding of how things work at a molecular level.”

As a result, her postdoc at Caltech was firmly rooted in basic biology. She investigated the genetic circuits that underlie cell-cell communication in developing and regenerating tissues, and now aims to develop new methods to study these same processes here at MIT.

Traditional genetic approaches involve breaking components of a system one at a time to investigate the role they play. However, Li’s lab will adopt a “bottom-up” approach that involves building these systems from the ground up, adding the components back into the cell one by one to pinpoint which genetic circuits are sufficient for programming tissue function. “Building up a system, rather than tearing it down, allows you to test different circuit designs, tune important parameters, and understand why a circuit has evolved to perform a specific function,” she explains.

She is most interested in determining which aspects of cellular communication are critical for tissue formation, in hopes of understanding the diversity of life forms in nature, as well as inspiring new methods to engineer or regenerate different tissues.

“My dream would be to put a bunch of genetic circuits into cells in such a way that they could enable the cells to self-organize into certain patterns and shapes, and replace damaged tissues in a patient,” she says.

Proteins that organize DNA

Although Vos was born in South Africa, her family moved so frequently for her father’s job that she doesn’t call any one place home. “If I had to pick, I’d say it would be the middle of the Atlantic Ocean,” she says.

Both of her grandparents on her mother’s side were researchers, and encouraged various scientific escapades, like bringing wolf spiders to kindergarten for show-and-tell. Her grandmother on her father’s side found her early passions “mildly disturbing,” but dutifully fulfilled her requests for high-resolution insect microscopy books nonetheless.

“I really wanted to know how plants and animals worked starting from a young age, thanks to my grandparents,” Vos says.

In high school she was already conducting research on the side at Clemson University, South Carolina, and went on to earn her BS in genetics from the University of Georgia. She began her PhD in molecular cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley intending to study immunology, but surprised herself by becoming taken with structural biology instead.

Purifying proteins and solving structures required a much different skill set than performing screens and manipulating genomes, but she very much enjoyed her work on topoisomerase, the enzyme that modifies DNA so it doesn’t become too coiled.

She continued conducting biochemical and structural research during her postdoc at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Germany. There, she used cryogenic electron microscopy to probe how different RNA polymerase II complexes are regulated during transcription in eukaryotes.

Today, she’s a molecular biologist at her core, but she’s prepared to use “whatever technique gets the answer.” As she explains: “You need biochemistry to solve structures and genetics to understand how they’re working within the whole organism, so it’s all related.”

In her new lab in Building 68, she will continue investigating gene expression, but this time in the context of genome organization. DNA must be compacted in order to fit into a cell, and Vos will study the proteins that organize DNA so it can be compressed without interfering with gene expression. She also wants to know how those same proteins are affected by gene expression.

“How gene regulation impacts compaction is a really critical question to address because different cell types are organized in different ways, and that impacts which genes are ultimately expressed,” she says. “We still don’t really understand how these processes work at an atomic level, so that’s where my expertise in biochemistry and structural biology can be useful.”

When asked what they are most excited about as the school year begins, both Li and Vos say the same thing: the diverse skills and expertise of the students and faculty.

“It’s not just about solving one structure, people here want to understand the entire process,” Vos says. “Biology is a conglomeration of many different fields, and if we can have engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, and others work together, we can begin to tackle pressing questions.”

An emerging view of RNA transcription and splicing

Whitehead Institute scientists find chemical modification contributes to trafficking between non-membrane-bound compartments that control gene expression.

Nicole Davis | Whitehead Institute
August 9, 2019

Cells often create compartments to control important biological functions. The nucleus is a prime example; surrounded by a membrane, it houses the genome. Yet cells also harbor enclosures that are not membrane-bound and more transient, like oil droplets in water. Over the past two years, these droplets (called “condensates”) have become increasingly recognized as major players in controlling genes. Now, a team led by Whitehead Institute scientists helps expand this emerging picture with the discovery that condensates play a role in splicing, an essential activity that ensures the genetic code is prepared to be translated into protein. The researchers also reveal how a critical piece of cellular machinery moves between different condensates. The team’s findings appear in the Aug. 7 online issue of Nature.

“Condensates represent a real paradigm shift in the way molecular biologists think about gene control,” says senior author Richard Young, a member of the Whitehead Institute and professor of biology at MIT. “Now, we’ve added a critical new layer to this thinking that enhances our understanding of splicing as well as the major transcriptional apparatus RNA polymerase II.”

Young’s lab has been at the forefront of studying how and when condensates form as well as their functions in gene regulation. In the current study, Young and his colleagues, including first authors Eric Guo and John Manteiga, focused their efforts on a key transition that happens when genes undergo transcription — an early step in gene activation whereby an RNA copy is created from the genes’ DNA template. First, all of the molecular machinery needed to make RNA, including a large protein complex known as RNA polymerase II, assembles at a given gene. Then, specific chemical modifications to RNA polymerase II allow it to begin transcribing DNA into RNA. This shift from so-called transcription initiation to active transcription also involves another important molecular transition: As RNA molecules begin to grow, the splicing apparatus must also move in and carry out its job.

“We wanted to step back and ask, ‘Do condensates play an important role in this switch, and if so, what mechanism might be responsible?’” explains Young.

For roughly three decades, it has been recognized that the factors required for splicing are stored in compartments called speckles. Yet whether these speckles play an active role in splicing, or are simply storage vessels, has remained unclear.

Using confocal microscopy, the Whitehead team discovered condensates filled with components of the splicing machinery in the vicinity of highly active genes. Notably, these structures exhibited similar liquid-like characteristics to those condensates described in prior studies from Young’s lab that are involved in transcription initiation.

“These findings signaled to us that there are two types of condensates at work here: one involved in transcription initiation and the other in splicing and transcriptional elongation,” said Manteiga, a graduate student in Young’s lab.

With two different condensates at play, the researchers wondered: How does the critical transcriptional machinery, specifically RNA polymerase II, move from one condensate to the other?

Guo, Manteiga, and their colleagues found that chemical modification, specifically the addition of phosphate groups, serves as a kind of molecular switch that alters the protein complex’s affinity for a particular condensate. With fewer phosphate groups, it associates with the condensates for transcription initiation; when more phosphates are added, it enters the splicing condensates. Such phosphorylation occurs on one end of the protein complex, which contains a specialized region known as the C-terminal domain (CTD). Importantly, the CTD lacks a specific three-dimensional structure, and previous work has shown that such intrinsically disordered regions can influence how and when certain proteins are incorporated into condensates.

“It is well-documented that phosphorylation acts as a signal to help regulate the activity of RNA polymerase II,” says Guo, a postdoc in Young’s lab. “Now, we’ve shown that it also acts as a switch to alter the protein’s preference for different condensates.”

In light of their discoveries, the researchers propose a new view of splicing compartments, where speckles serve primarily as warehouses, storing the thousands of molecules required to support the splicing apparatus when they are not needed. But when splicing is active, the phosphorylated CTD of RNA Pol II serves as an attractant, drawing the necessary splicing materials toward the gene where they are needed and into the splicing condensate.

According to Young, this new outlook on gene control has emerged in part through a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together perspectives from biology and physics to learn how properties of matter predict some of the molecular behaviors he and his team have observed experimentally. “Working at the interface of these two fields is incredibly exciting,” says Young. “It is giving us a whole new way of looking at the world of regulatory biology.”

Support for this work was provided by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Cancer Research Institute, Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation, Hope Funds for Cancer Research, Swedish Research Council, and German Research Foundation DFG.

Study furthers radically new view of gene control

Along the genome, proteins form liquid-like droplets that appear to boost the expression of particular genes.

Anne Trafton | MIT News Office
August 8, 2019

In recent years, MIT scientists have developed a new model for how key genes are controlled that suggests the cellular machinery that transcribes DNA into RNA forms specialized droplets called condensates. These droplets occur only at certain sites on the genome, helping to determine which genes are expressed in different types of cells.

In a new study that supports that model, researchers at MIT and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research have discovered physical interactions between proteins and with DNA that help explain why these droplets, which stimulate the transcription of nearby genes, tend to cluster along specific stretches of DNA known as super enhancers. These enhancer regions do not encode proteins but instead regulate other genes.

“This study provides a fundamentally important new approach to deciphering how the ‘dark matter’ in our genome functions in gene control,” says Richard Young, an MIT professor of biology and member of the Whitehead Institute.

Young is one of the senior authors of the paper, along with Phillip Sharp, an MIT Institute Professor and member of MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research; and Arup K. Chakraborty, the Robert T. Haslam Professor in Chemical Engineering, a professor of physics and chemistry, and a member of MIT’s Institute for Medical Engineering and Science and the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT, and Harvard.

Graduate student Krishna Shrinivas and postdoc Benjamin Sabari are the lead authors of the paper, which appears in Molecular Cell on Aug. 8.

“A biochemical factory”

Every cell in an organism has an identical genome, but cells such as neurons or heart cells express different subsets of those genes, allowing them to carry out their specialized functions. Previous research has shown that many of these genes are located near super enhancers, which bind to proteins called transcription factors that stimulate the copying of nearby genes into RNA.

About three years ago, Sharp, Young, and Chakraborty joined forces to try to model the interactions that occur at enhancers. In a 2017 Cell paper, based on computational studies, they hypothesized that in these regions, transcription factors form droplets called phase-separated condensates. Similar to droplets of oil suspended in salad dressing, these condensates are collections of molecules that form distinct cellular compartments but have no membrane separating them from the rest of the cell.

In a 2018 Science paper, the researchers showed that these dynamic droplets do form at super enhancer locations. Made of clusters of transcription factors and other molecules, these droplets attract enzymes such as RNA polymerases that are needed to copy DNA into messenger RNA, keeping gene transcription active at specific sites.

“We had demonstrated that the transcription machinery forms liquid-like droplets at certain regulatory regions on our genome, however we didn’t fully understand how or why these dewdrops of biological molecules only seemed to condense around specific points on our genome,” Shrinivas says.

As one possible explanation for that site specificity, the research team hypothesized that weak interactions between intrinsically disordered regions of transcription factors and other transcriptional molecules, along with specific interactions between transcription factors and particular DNA elements, might determine whether a condensate forms at a particular stretch of DNA. Biologists have traditionally focused on “lock-and-key” style interactions between rigidly structured protein segments to explain most cellular processes, but more recent evidence suggests that weak interactions between floppy protein regions also play an important role in cell activities.

In this study, computational modeling and experimentation revealed that the cumulative force of these weak interactions conspire together with transcription factor-DNA interactions to determine whether a condensate of transcription factors will form at a particular site on the genome. Different cell types produce different transcription factors, which bind to different enhancers. When many transcription factors cluster around the same enhancers, weak interactions between the proteins are more likely to occur. Once a critical threshold concentration is reached, condensates form.

“Creating these local high concentrations within the crowded environment of the cell enables the right material to be in the right place at the right time to carry out the multiple steps required to activate a gene,” Sabari says. “Our current study begins to tease apart how certain regions of the genome are capable of pulling off this trick.”

These droplets form on a timescale of seconds to minutes, and they blink in and out of existence depending on a cell’s needs.

“It’s an on-demand biochemical factory that cells can form and dissolve, as and when they need it,” Chakraborty says. “When certain signals happen at the right locus on a gene, the condensates form, which concentrates all of the transcription molecules. Transcription happens, and when the cells are done with that task, they get rid of them.”

A new view

Weak cooperative interactions between proteins may also play an important role in evolution, the researchers proposed in a 2018 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper. The sequences of intrinsically disordered regions of transcription factors need to change only a little to evolve new types of specific functionality. In contrast, evolving new specific functions via “lock-and-key” interactions requires much more significant changes.

“If you think about how biological systems have evolved, they have been able to respond to different conditions without creating new genes. We don’t have any more genes that a fruit fly, yet we’re much more complex in many of our functions,” Sharp says. “The incremental expanding and contracting of these intrinsically disordered domains could explain a large part of how that evolution happens.”

Similar condensates appear to play a variety of other roles in biological systems, offering a new way to look at how the interior of a cell is organized. Instead of floating through the cytoplasm and randomly bumping into other molecules, proteins involved in processes such as relaying molecular signals may transiently form droplets that help them interact with the right partners.

“This is a very exciting turn in the field of cell biology,” Sharp says. “It is a whole new way of looking at biological systems that is richer and more meaningful.”

Some of the MIT researchers, led by Young, have helped form a company called Dewpoint Therapeutics to develop potential treatments for a wide variety of diseases by exploiting cellular condensates. There is emerging evidence that cancer cells use condensates to control sets of genes that promote cancer, and condensates have also been linked to neurodegenerative disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Huntington’s disease.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Koch Institute Support (core) Grant from the National Cancer Institute.

Multi “-omics” approach uncovers the riches of traditional global medicine
Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
July 22, 2019

Cambridge, MA — Kava (Piper methysticum) is a plant native to the Polynesian islands that people there have used in a calming drink of the same name in religious and cultural rituals for thousands of years. The tradition of cultivating kava and drinking it during important gatherings is a cultural cornerstone shared throughout much of Polynesia, though the specific customs — and the strains of kava — vary from island to island. Over the last few decades, kava has been gaining interest outside of the islands for its pain relief and anti-anxiety properties as a potentially attractive alternative to drugs like opioids and benzodiazepines because kavalactones, the molecules of medicinal interest in kava, use slightly different mechanisms to affect the central nervous system and appear to be non-addictive. Kava bars have been springing up around the United States, kava supplements and teas lining the shelves at stores like Walmart, and sports figures including former and current NFL players in need of safe pain relief are touting its benefits.

This growing usage suggests that there would be a sizeable market for kavalactone based medical therapies, but there are roadblocks to development: for one, kava is hard to cultivate, especially outside of the tropics. Kava takes years to reach maturity, and as a domesticated species that no longer produces seeds it can only be propagated using cuttings. This can make it difficult for researchers to get a large enough quantity of kavalactones for investigations or clinical trials. New research from Whitehead Institute Member and associate professor of biology at MIT Jing-Ke Weng and postdoctoral researcher Tomáš Pluskal, published online in Nature Plants on July 22, describes a way to solve that problem, as well as to create kavalactone variants not found in nature that may be more effective or safe as therapeutics.

“We’re combining historical knowledge of this plant’s medicinal properties, established through centuries of traditional usage, with modern research tools in order to potentially develop new drugs,” Pluskal says.

Weng’s lab has shown that if researchers figure out the genes behind a desirable natural molecule—in this case, kavalactones—they can clone those genes, insert them into species like yeast or bacteria that grow quickly and are easier to maintain in a variety of environments than a temperamental tropical plant, and then get these microbial bio-factories to mass produce the molecule. In order to achieve this, first Weng and Pluskal had to solve a complicated puzzle: how does kava produce kavalactones? There is no direct kavalactone gene; complex metabolites like kavalactones are created through a series of steps using intermediate molecules. Cells can combine these intermediates, snip out parts of them, and add bits onto them to create the final molecule—most of which is done with the help of enzymes, cells’ chemical reaction catalysts. So, in order to recreate kavalactone production, the researchers had to identify the complete pathway plants use to synthesize it, including the genes for all of the enzymes involved.

The researchers could not use genetic sequencing or common gene editing tools to identify the enzymes because the kava genome is huge; it has 130 chromosomes compared to humans’ 46. Instead they turned to other methods, including sequencing the plant’s RNA to survey the genes expressed, to identify the biosynthetic pathway for kavalactones.

“It’s like you have a lot of LEGO pieces scattered on the floor,” Weng says, “and you have to find the ones that fit together to build a certain object.”

Weng and Pluskal had a good starting point: they recognized that kavalactones had a similar structural backbone to chalcones, metabolites shared by all land plants. They hypothesized that one of the enzymes involved in producing kavalactones must be related to the one involved in producing chalcones, chalcone synthase (CHS). They looked for genes encoding similar enzymes and found two synthases that had evolved from an older CHS gene. These synthases, which they call PmSPS1 and PmSPS2, help to shape the basic scaffolding of kavalactones molecules.

Then, with some trial and error, Pluskal found the genes encoding a number of the tailoring enzymes that modify and add to the molecules’ backbone to create a variety of specific kavalactones. In order to test that he had identified the right enzymes, Pluskal cloned the relevant genes and confirmed that the enzymes they encode produced the expected molecules. The team also identified key enzymes in the biosynthetic pathway of flavokavains, molecules in kava that are structurally related to kavalactones and have been shown in studies to have anti-cancer properties.

Once the researchers had their kavalactone genes, they inserted them into bacteria and yeast to begin producing the molecules. This proof of concept for their microbial bio-factory model demonstrated that using microbes could provide a more efficient and scalable production vehicle for kavalactones. The model could also allow for the production of novel molecules engineered by combining kava genes with other genes so the microbes would produce modified kavalactones. This could allow researchers to optimize the molecules for efficiency and safety as therapeutics.

“There’s a very urgent need for therapies to treat mental disorders, and for safer pain relief options,” Weng says. “Our model eliminates several of the bottlenecks in drug development from plants by increasing access to natural medicinal molecules and allowing for the creation of new-to-nature molecules.”

Kava is only one of many plants around the world containing unique molecules that could be of great medicinal value. Weng and Pluskal hope that their model—combining the use of drug discovery from plants used in traditional medicine, genomics, synthetic biology, and microbial mass production—will be used to better harness the great diversity of plant chemistry around the world in order to help patients in need.

 

This work was supported by grants from the Smith Family Foundation, Edward N. and Della L. Thome Memorial Foundation, the Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation, and the National Science Foundation (CHE-1709616). T.P. is a Simons Foundation Fellow of the Helen Hay Whitney Foundation. J.K.W is supported by the Beckman Young Investigator Program, Pew Scholars Program in the Biomedical Sciences (grant number 27345), and the Searle Scholars Program (grant number 15-SSP-162).

 

Written by Greta Friar

 

***

Jing-Ke Weng’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 associate professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

***

 

Full citation:

“The biosynthetic origin of psychoactive kavalactones in kava”

Nature Plants, online July 22, 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41477-019-0474-0

Tomáš Pluskal (1), Michael P. Torrens-Spence (1), Timothy R. Fallon (1,2), Andrea De Abreu (1,2), Cindy H. Shi (1,2), and Jing-Ke Weng (1,2)

1. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, 455 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 USA.

2. Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA.

Genetic study takes research on sex differences to new heights

Differences in male and female gene expression, including those contributing to height differences, found throughout the body in humans and other mammals.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
July 19, 2019

Throughout the animal kingdom, males and females frequently exhibit sexual dimorphism: differences in characteristic traits that often make it easy to tell them apart. In mammals, one of the most common sex-biased traits is size, with males typically being larger than females. This is true in humans: Men are, on average, taller than women. However, biological differences among males and females aren’t limited to physical traits like height. They’re also common in disease. For example, women are much more likely to develop autoimmune diseases, while men are more likely to develop cardiovascular diseases.

In spite of the widespread nature of these sex biases, and their significant implications for medical research and treatment, little is known about the underlying biology that causes sex differences in characteristic traits or disease. In order to address this gap in understanding, Whitehead Institute Director David Page has transformed the focus of his lab in recent years from studying the X and Y sex chromosomes to working to understand the broader biology of sex differences throughout the body. In a paper published in Science, Page, a professor of biology at MIT and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator; Sahin Naqvi, first author and former MIT graduate student (now a postdoc at Stanford University); and colleagues present the results of a wide-ranging investigation into sex biases in gene expression, revealing differences in the levels at which particular genes are expressed in males versus females.

The researchers’ findings span 12 tissue types in five species of mammals, including humans, and led to the discovery that a combination of sex-biased genes accounts for approximately 12 percent of the average height difference between men and women. This finding demonstrates a functional role for sex-biased gene expression in contributing to sex differences. The researchers also found that the majority of sex biases in gene expression are not shared between mammalian species, suggesting that — in some cases — sex-biased gene expression that can contribute to disease may differ between humans and the animals used as models in medical research.

Having the same gene expressed at different levels in each sex is one way to perpetuate sex differences in traits in spite of the genetic similarity of males and females within a species — since with the exception of the 46th chromosome (the Y in males or the second X in females), the sexes share the same pool of genes. For example, if a tall parent passes on a gene associated with an increase in height to both a son and a daughter, but the gene has male-biased expression, then that gene will be more highly expressed in the son, and so may contribute more height to the son than the daughter.

The researchers searched for sex-biased genes in tissues across the body in humans, macaques, mice, rats, and dogs, and they found hundreds of examples in every tissue. They used height for their first demonstration of the contribution of sex-biased gene expression to sex differences in traits because height is an easy-to-measure and heavily studied trait in quantitative genetics.

“Discovering contributions of sex-biased gene expression to height is exciting because identifying the determinants of height is a classic, century-old problem, and yet by looking at sex differences in this new way we were able to provide new insights,” Page says. “My hope is that we and other researchers can repeat this model to similarly gain new insights into diseases that show sex bias.”

Because height is so well studied, the researchers had access to public data on the identity of hundreds of genes that affect height. Naqvi decided to see how many of those height genes appeared in the researchers’ new dataset of sex-biased genes, and whether the genes’ sex biases corresponded to the expected effects on height. He found that sex-biased gene expression contributed approximately 1.6 centimeters to the average height difference between men and women, or 12 percent of the overall observed difference.

The scope of the researchers’ findings goes beyond height, however. Their database contains thousands of sex-biased genes. Slightly less than a quarter of the sex-biased genes that they catalogued appear to have evolved that sex bias in an early mammalian ancestor, and to have maintained that sex bias today in at least four of the five species studied. The majority of the genes appear to have evolved their sex biases more recently, and are specific to either one species or a certain lineage, such as rodents or primates.

Whether or not a sex-biased gene is shared across species is a particularly important consideration for medical and pharmaceutical research using animal models. For example, previous research identified certain genetic variants that increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes specifically in women; however, the same variants increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes indiscriminately in male and female mice. Therefore, mice would not be a good model to study the genetic basis of this sex difference in humans. Even when the animal appears to have the same sex difference in disease as humans, the specific sex-biased genes involved might be different. Based on their finding that most sex bias is not shared between species, Page and colleagues urge researchers to use caution when picking an animal model to study sex differences at the level of gene expression.

“We’re not saying to avoid animal models in sex-differences research, only not to take for granted that the sex-biased gene expression behind a trait or disease observed in an animal will be the same as that in humans. Now that researchers have species and tissue-specific data available to them, we hope they will use it to inform their interpretation of results from animal models,” Naqvi says.

The researchers have also begun to explore what exactly causes sex-biased expression of genes not found on the sex chromosomes. Naqvi discovered a mechanism by which sex-biased expression may be enabled: through sex-biased transcription factors, proteins that help to regulate gene expression. Transcription factors bind to specific DNA sequences called motifs, and he found that certain sex-biased genes had the motif for a sex-biased transcription factor in their promoter regions, the sections of DNA that turn on gene expression. This means that, for example, a male-biased transcription factor was selectively binding to the promoter region for, and so increasing the expression of, male-biased genes — and likewise for female-biased transcription factors and female-biased genes. The question of what regulates the transcription factors remains for further study — but all sex differences are ultimately controlled by either the sex chromosomes or sex hormones.

The researchers see the collective findings of this paper as a foundation for future sex-differences research.

“We’re beginning to build the infrastructure for a systematic understanding of sex biases throughout the body,” Page says. “We hope these datasets are used for further research, and we hope this work gives people a greater appreciation of the need for, and value of, research into the molecular differences in male and female biology.”

This work was supported by Biogen, Whitehead Institute, National Institutes of Health, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and generous gifts from Brit and Alexander d’Arbeloff and Arthur W. and Carol Tobin Brill.

Researchers identify important proteins hijacked by pathogens during cell-to-cell spread
Raleigh McElvery
July 9, 2019

Listeria monocytogenes, the food-borne bacterium responsible for listeriosis, can creep from one cell to the next, stealthily evading the immune system. This strategy of cell-to-cell spread allows them to infect many different cell types, and can spur complications like meningitis. Yet the molecular details of this spread remain a mystery.

In a paper recently published in Molecular Biology of the Cell, researchers from the MIT Department of Biology, University of California, Berkeley, and Chan Zuckerberg Biohub are beginning to piece together the elusive means by which Listeria moves from one cell to the next. This mode of transport, the scientists suggest, looks a lot like trans-endocytosis, a process that healthy, uninfected cells use to exchange organelles and various cytoplasmic components. In fact, the two processes are so similar that Listeria may be co-opting the host cell’s trans-endocytosis machinery for its own devices.

Although the particulars of trans-endocytosis are poorly understood, the process permits neighboring cells to exchange materials via membrane-bound compartments called vacuoles, which release their cargo upon reaching their final destination.

Much like trans-endocytosis, cell-to-cell spread relies on vacuoles to ferry Listeria. First, the pathogen commandeers the host cell’s own machinery to assemble a tail of proteins that allows it to rocket around inside the cell and ram against both the membrane of the host and that of the adjacent cell. The resulting protrusion is then somehow engulfed into a double-membrane vacuole, and the bacteria burst through their containment to begin the process anew in the recipient cell.

“There’s been a lot of work looking at Listeria cell-to-cell spread,” says Rebecca Lamason, the Robert A. Swanson (1969) Career Development Assistant Professor in the MIT Department of Biology and senior author on the study. “But we still don’t really understand the molecular mechanisms that allow the bacteria to manipulate the membrane to promote engulfment. Depending on what we uncover, we might also be able to apply that information to better grasp how an uninfected cell regulates trans-endocytosis.”

Lamason and her team anticipated that the same proteins implicated in trans-endocytosis would also be involved in Listeria cell-to-cell spread, which would indicate that the pathogen was appropriating these proteins for its own purposes. The researchers made a list of 115 host genes of interest, and then used an RNAi screen to identify just 22 that are critical for cell-to-cell spread.

They were excited to find that, of those 22 genes, several are also implicated in endocytosis, which suggests Listeria is using a similar strategy. These include genes encoding caveolin proteins that control membrane trafficking and remodeling, as well as another protein called PACSIN2 that interacts with caveolins to regulate protrusion engulfment.

Now that the researchers have pinpointed these key proteins, the next step is to determine how they work together in order to promote cell-to-cell spread — especially since the protrusions created by Listeria are much larger than those required for trans-endocytosis.

“As we drill down even deeper into the molecular mechanisms, it will be interesting to see where trans-endocytosis and cell-to-cell spread differ, and where they are similar,” Lamason says. “Our hope is that investigating the mechanisms of bacterial spread will reveal fundamental insights into host intercellular communication.”

Citation:
“RNAi screen reveals a role for PACSIN2 and caveolins during bacterial cell-to-cell spread”
Molecular Biology of the Cell, online June 26, 2019, DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E19-04-0197
Allen G. Sanderlin, Cassandra Vondrak, Arianna J. Scricco, Indro Fedrigo, Vida Ahyong, and Rebecca L. Lamason

Unusual labmates: Lighting up the lab
July 7, 2019

Unusual Labmates is a series that explores some of the more unusual models used for research at Whitehead Institute. From rare plants to luminescent beetles to regenerative starfish and worms, these organisms and their unusual traits provide insights into the underlying biology and incredible diversity of living things.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate student Tim Fallon is standing in a field in New Jersey, holding a net and waiting for the last glimmers of sunlight to disappear. As the trees surrounding the field fade into shadow, Fallon watches the ground intently. The air is still and then, hovering above the grass, a small point of light appears. It floats through the air in a concave upwards arc and winks out. Soon, more lights follow suit. These are fireflies, unassuming beetles by day, but at night they put on a dazzling luminescent display in the hope of attracting a mate. Fallon sweeps his net through the air, capturing some of them. He has traveled to New Jersey with other members of Whitehead Institute Member and associate professor of biology at MIT Jing-Ke Weng’s lab to collect specimens of Photinus pyralis, the big dipper firefly, in order to sequence a firefly genome for the very first time.

Fireflies have been around for more than one hundred million years, and in that time have diverged into more than 2,000 species and spread to every continent except Antarctica. The beetles (despite their name, fireflies are actually beetles) are widely known, and often beloved, for their enchanting courtship rituals, but they have also piqued the interest of scientists, who have harnessed the gene behind their light emitting capability for use in research. However, for all of fireflies’ appeal, they are a difficult animal to work with in the lab, and much of their biology remains shrouded in mystery. In the hopes of improving that situation, Weng, Fallon, and collaborators—including Sarah Lower, assistant professor of biology at Bucknell University, and Yuichi Oba, professor at Chubu University in Japan—have been investigating fireflies, primarily by sequencing and analyzing their genomes. This research is providing insights into the evolution of fireflies’ light-producing ability, the biomolecular pathways the fireflies use to luminesce, and could perhaps even inform how the use of firefly-based luminescence in research can be improved.

The chemistry of light

Fireflies produce light using two main ingredients: an enzyme called luciferase and the small molecule luciferin. Luciferase facilitates a chemical reaction that oxidizes the luciferin, and one product of the reaction is light. In the 1980s, researchers recreated the process in plants and plant cells by cloning the firefly gene responsible for the luciferase enzyme from big dipper fireflies and then inserting it into the genomes of their specimens in the lab.[1] When they injected luciferin into the specimens, they began to glow – just like fireflies. Researchers now use this approach in both plant and animal models to track various aspects of biology. They can link the luminescence to a trait or process, and then measure the level of light emitted. For example, researchers can fuse the luciferase gene to a gene of interest such that the two genes will be expressed as one. Then they introduce luciferin to the system and measure the light output using very sensitive equipment that can sense minute changes. The more light that is emitted, the higher the activity level of both luciferase and the gene of interest. This is a widely used assay that, Fallon says, every biologist uses or at least learns about during their training. Luciferase-luciferin has many applications, and along with tracking gene expression it has also been used to track cancer metastasis, monitor medical treatment efficacy, and check for microbial contamination—including on space vehicles such as the Mars Curiosity Rover.[2] The extreme sensitivity of luciferin-luciferase tests makes them an attractive choice in many experiments.

In spite of the widespread use of firefly luminescence, a lot about it still isn’t known, especially when it comes to luciferin. While the gene encoding luciferase has been identified, luciferin is thought to be created through a process involving multiple genes, and the complete set of those genes is unknown, as are the steps involved in the production of luciferin: the intermediate molecules produced and how they are modified to reach the final product. Although Weng’s lab generally studies plants and focuses on understanding how plants evolved biochemical pathways to produce unique small molecules with traits of interest, particularly those with medicinal value, when Fallon joined the lab, he convinced Weng that investigating the unknowns of the small molecule luciferin was a similar and suitable project.

Fireflies in the wild

When Fallon joined the Weng lab, there were not a lot of research tools available for investigating fireflies, starting with the lack of a sequenced genome. Only a handful of firefly genes had even ever been identified. Weng and his collaborators crowdfunded the money to sequence the first firefly genome, and then received funding to sequence a second firefly species and a bioluminescent click beetle, providing a wealth of new data to explore.

The lack of tools for firefly research was due in part to how difficult it is to rear fireflies in the lab, which makes them tricky animals to study. Fireflies are very sensitive to changes in their environments, and in the lab it’s difficult to mimic the right vegetation, climate, seasonal shifts, and other factors that the beetles rely on to time their metamorphoses and thrive.

Unpredictable environmental changes are becoming a common challenge for fireflies beyond the lab as well, due to the impact of humans on their habitats. Fireflies’ sensitivity to these changes may be causing their disappearance. Anecdotally, many people have fond memories of seeing fireflies every summer when they were younger and can attest to the absence of fireflies in those same places now. A large citizen science research project called Firefly Watch is currently underway to figure out the extent to which firefly populations are declining across the United States (U.S.).[3] And in a case indicative of a larger problem, conservation groups recently submitted an urgent petition to recognize the Bethany Beach firefly, whose key habitat in Delaware is at risk due to human development, as the first endangered firefly species in the U.S.[4]

A significant manmade disruption to the fireflies’ habitats is light pollution. Fireflies find each other by signaling with light, but their lanterns are no match for electricity; a firefly trying to outshine a streetlamp might as well be facing off with the sun. For species that evolved faint glows to flash in the dead of night, in the dark of forests, finding a place where their light can be seen is getting harder and harder. Big dipper fireflies have fared better than many others species. They’re large, with bright lanterns, and they tend to flash at twilight, so they are used to competing with some ambient light. Unsurprisingly, big dipper fireflies remain abundant in the wild, including in and near cities. They can be spotted all over the eastern and midwestern U.S., where they are easily identifiable thanks to the distinctive J-shape—resembling the curve of a dipper—that they make as they flash.

Big dipper fireflies have been important in biology research—it is from them that the firefly luciferase gene was first cloned—and so they were the first species that Fallon and his collaborators chose for their genome sequencing project. However, big dipper fireflies fare no better than other firefly species in a lab setting. No one has ever successfully reared big dipper fireflies through a full lifecycle (from egg to egg) in the lab, Fallon says. So, in spite of the ease of collecting big dipper fireflies in the eastern U.S., in order to get a population of fireflies going in the lab, Fallon had to look elsewhere: to Japan.

In Japan, fireflies are beloved. Watching them is a popular summer pastime, and they are celebrated in myths, songs, and other media. The two dominant species are both aquatic in their larval stages: the heike-botaru (Aquatica lateralis), which mostly lives in flooded rice paddy fields, and the larger and brighter genji-botaru (Luciola cruciata), which lives in streams and rivers. Both species need clean bodies of water to survive, and so their numbers have diminished in cities—but unlike in America, Japan has not allowed fireflies to fade away quietly into the night. As fireflies have grown scarcer, breeding centers have begun rearing the insects in large numbers, using big facilities that can recreate the fireflies’ natural habitat on a scale not possible in a U.S. lab. Fireflies are sometimes bred for conservation purposes, such as an effort to bolster the heike population in the water by the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. The fireflies are also bred for spectacle, released during summer festivals and firefly-watching events in the city to recreate the lost experience of glow-filled nights. The Fussa firefly festival has drawn large crowds for more than fifty years.

Rearing insects is also a relatively common pastime in Japan. When Fallon was looking for a type of firefly that would be a good addition to the genome sequencing project and could survive in lab conditions, he learned of the heike, which are kept in captivity and used in research in Japan. Although heike are still very sensitive to small changes in their environments, they have been demonstrated to survive for multiple generations indoors, unlike the big dipper firefly. The larvae are aquatic, and maintaining a controlled aquarium is also easier than a terrarium, Fallon says. Fallon received his fireflies from a collaborator in Japan, firefly expert Dr. Yuichi Oba, a professor at Chubu University. Oba works with Haruyoshi Ikeya, a high school teacher in Yokohama, Japan who cracked the code of rearing heike fireflies indoors several decades ago; the population from which Fallon received his specimens has been lab-bred since its original capture in 1990. Fallon received tips from Oba on how to successfully rear the fireflies—though not all of these could be followed, due to stricter regulations for how to keep the fireflies contained in the U.S., where the United States Department of Agriculture considers them a potential plant pest.

Fireflies in the lab

Fallon rears the fireflies in a small room separate from the main space of the Weng lab. The room is tightly packed with supplies and various aquariums: Fallon must move the firefly specimens between environments as they go through their lifecycle. There is tinfoil over the windows so when Fallon switches the lights off the room becomes a darkroom, where he can observe the fireflies flashing.

Maintaining a lab population serves a number of purposes. First of all, collecting fireflies is time-consuming, limited by season, and in the case of foreign species, involves further transportation and regulatory roadblocks. When collecting specimens in the wild, it’s easy to find adults, but harder to get access to every stage of the lifecycle, especially eggs and pupae, the way you can in the lab. Having a lab population also ensures that you are working with one species, whereas when collecting in the wild it can be easy to get a mixed-up batch—one field may contain a dozen similar-looking species—and molecular biology research requires species-specific material. Overall, having a lab population means access to live specimens whenever you need them: whenever the researchers have a new research question to answer or a new experiment to run. However, maintaining this beneficial resource is not a simple feat.

Rearing fireflies in captivity is difficult in part because each stage of their life cycle has different requirements. Fireflies hatch from eggs, which the heike lay in moss near water. Heike larvae live in water, where they spend most of their lifespan, usually around one year, though in the lab this stage can be as short as six months. During this time, the larvae typically go through five or six instars, or stages of growth between molting. Insects must molt in order to grow, as their size is restricted by their exoskeletons. The heike’s first instar is only a few millimeters long, while the final instar may grow to be closer to two centimeters.

For most of their time as larvae, the specimens live in shoebox sized aquariums inside a metal cabinet. Fallon feeds them bladder snails and waits for them to grow. When the larvae are in their later instars, around the right size and age to pupate, Fallon moves them into another aquarium with a mock riverbank inside, with a soil mixture devised by Haruyoshi Ikeya. The riverbank is necessary because the firefly larvae move to land to pupate. First, they begin to exhibit what is called climbing or landing behavior, during which they will flash—fireflies are capable of emitting light at all stages of their lifecycle. The flashes may be a signal to help coordinate pupation. If a larva doesn’t synchronize with the others when it is ready to pupate, there won’t be any mates around when it hatches. Fireflies don’t live very long as adults, so they must find a mate quickly. In the lab, once the adults hatch, Fallon moves them into another container to prevent them from drowning in the water of the mock river, and hopes that they mate. If they are successful, then the female lays her eggs in the moss Fallon provides, starting the cycle over again.

The fireflies are not easy to keep alive in lab conditions, so the researchers have been experimenting with different conditions for rearing them, like keeping them in boxes of different sizes, changing the aeration of their water, and providing different spaces for the adults to rest when they first hatch.

“We’ve been iterating through a lot of different ways to rear them,” Fallon says. “It’s not like with fruit flies, where you could leave two alone in a room with a banana, and soon you’ve got more fruit flies than you know what to do with. The fireflies are really quite finicky. Over time we’re learning what works and what doesn’t.”

One thing that Fallon has learned from rearing fireflies is how often they glow, during every part of their life cycle. The heike lay their eggs in clumps, which are cumulatively visible to the naked eye. Big dipper firefly eggs also luminesce, but faintly enough that it’s only visible using a sensitive camera. If there’s an evolutionary advantage to having the eggs luminesce, it’s not known. The larvae’s ability to glow is typically believed to be, at least in part, an aposematic signal: a warning to potential predators that the larvae are toxic so the predators won’t try to eat them. Other species use bright colors for the same purpose—think of brilliantly colored poison dart frogs or the popular mnemonic “red touches yellow kills a fellow” used to identify venomous coral snakes—and what’s brighter than something that glows in the dark?

Fireflies’ toxicity comes from chemicals called lucibufagins. Only some firefly species produce these, though the rest may benefit by association if predators associate glowing beetles with a bitter meal. Fallon has noticed that the heike larvae will glow anytime they appear threatened or are faced with the unfamiliar, like if he jostles the box they live in. This threat response is consistent with the expectations for an aposematic signal, but the heike larvae also glow in other conditions, such as during their climbing behavior right before they pupate—and the pupae glow as well. The adults, meanwhile, can also warn off predators with their flashes but primarily luminesce to communicate and find a mate. Different firefly species have distinct flash patterns, as do males and females, allowing adults to identify a suitable partner—and allowing anyone with enough firefly knowledge to identify different species just by watching their flashes.

In every stage of life, fireflies have adapted to make the most of their light-emitting ability. Once they had the genome sequences and firefly specimens in hand, Weng and Fallon wanted to find out how.

What can we learn from fireflies?

The researchers used the firefly genomes to delve into the biomolecular pathways that fireflies use to create light. They identified a luciferin-derived molecule in fireflies that may be a storage form for luciferin, as well as the gene encoding the enzyme that converts luciferin into this molecule. They have also been looking into fireflies’ mechanism for recycling luciferin. The one significant handicap of using luciferase-luciferin in research is that, since the genes encoding luciferin are unknown, the chemical must be fed or injected into specimens manually. This limits the duration of experiments based on when the luciferin is used up, or requires disrupting specimens to reinject them. In the wild, fireflies are able to reuse their luciferin molecules after they have been oxidized to produce light; if researchers could figure out how they do this, it could potentially be applied in the lab.

One major mystery surrounding fireflies that the researchers wanted to solve was whether beetles evolved the ability to luminesce once, or multiple times. Fireflies are one of at least four beetle families that can luminesce—the others are click beetles (Elateridae), glowworm beetles or railroad worms (Phengodidae), and starworms (Rhagophthalmidae). These different beetles all use similar chemistry to luminesce: similar luciferase enzymes and structurally identical luciferins. This commonality suggests that luminescence evolved in a shared ancestor of the four families, and was lost in other related beetles that do not luminesce. However, as Charles Darwin noted, the families of luminescent beetles are very different morphologically, including having distinct light organs—the click beetle emits light from lanterns by its head, whereas the fireflies emit light from their rears. These dissimilarities in shape suggested that the beetle families each evolved luminescence separately; if the light organs evolved from a common ancestor, researchers would expect them to resemble each other. Complicating the matter is that not every species in these families can luminesce; while all known fireflies can emit light, only some click beetles can. This suggests that even within the bioluminescent beetle families, luminescence has evolved multiple times, or been lost multiple times, or some combination thereof.

In order to solve this puzzle, the researchers sequenced the genome of three beetles and compared them: the big dipper firefly, the heike firefly, and the cucubano click beetle (Ignelater luminosus), which is also capable of luminescence. The last common ancestor of heike and big dipper fireflies lived over 100 million years ago, making them good candidates for evolutionary comparison. The researchers found evidence that fireflies and click beetles evolved luminescence independently. They pinpointed where the luciferase gene was in each species’ genome, and what its neighbors were—in the fireflies, the gene was surrounded by genes involved in fatty acid metabolism, suggesting that it evolved from one of these. Meanwhile, the researchers found the click beetle’s luciferase gene in a completely different genetic neighborhood, suggesting that it evolved separately and from a different ancestral gene.

It may seem unusual for such an extraordinary trait as luminescence to have evolved multiple times, but in fact it is a trait that evolution constantly stumbles upon, Fallon says. Beetles are far from the only creatures capable of emitting light; bioluminescence has also evolved in many niches, including in species of fish, coral, jellyfish, squid, snails, fungi, and bacteria.

Fireflies’ luminescence is not a unique trait, but it’s one worth preserving. From fireflies lighting up the night sky at summer festivals and in backyards, to children chasing them through the grass trying to capture a little magic in their hands, to researchers exploring biology with the help of the ultra-sensitive luciferase gene, people benefit from sharing our world with these dazzling little beetles. With the new data coming out of labs like Weng’s, further research benefits from fireflies’ light-making machinery may be on the horizon.

Fallon has learned a lot about the difficulties of rearing fireflies as he tries to maintain a sustainable population in the lab; meanwhile conservationists are struggling to protect populations of fireflies out in the wild. Even the wild population from which Fallon’s fireflies were originally captured no longer exists. Though the species survives, that particular population’s habitat disappeared, leaving the lab-bred beetles as their only legacy. The more that researchers learn about fireflies, the better equipped we may be to protect them from the sort of environmental vulnerabilities that killed off the Weng lab fireflies’ ancestors—both for the sake of the fireflies themselves, and for own sake as spectators and researchers.

Credits

Written by Greta Friar

Video by Conor Gearin

Audio production by Conor Gearin

Cover video by Radim Schreiber / FireflyExperience.org

“The chemistry of light” title card photo by Tim Fallon

“Fireflies in the wild” title card photo by Radim Schreiber / FireflyExperience.org

“Fireflies in the lab” title card photo by Conor Gearin

“What can we learn from fireflies?” title card photo by Conor Gearin

Special thanks to Radim Schreiber, Tim Fallon and Jing-Ke Weng

Works cited:

[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/234/4778/856

[2] https://www.science.gov/topicpages/p/planetary+protection+protocols

[3] https://www.massaudubon.org/get-involved/citizen-science/firefly-watch

[4] https://xerces.org/2019/05/15/bethany-beach-firefly/

Pulin Li

Education

  • PhD, 2012, Chemical Biology, Harvard University
  • BS, 2006, Life Sciences, Peking University

Research Summary

We are curious about how circuits of interacting genes in individual cells enable multicellular functions, such as self-organizing into structured tissues. To address this question, we analyze genetic circuits in natural systems, combining quantitative measurements and mathematical modeling. In parallel, we test the sufficiency of the circuits and understand their design principles by multi-scale reconstitution, from genes to circuits to multicellular behavior, using synthetic biology and bioengineering tools. Together, we aim to provide both a quantitative understanding of embryonic development and new ways to engineer tissues.

Awards

  • New Innovator Award, National Institutes of Health Common Fund’s High-Risk, High-Reward Research Program, 2021
  • R.R. Bensley Award in Cell Biology, American Association for Anatomy, 2021
  • Santa Cruz Developmental Biology Young Investigator Award, 2016
  • NIH Pathway to Independence Award K99/R00 (NICHD), 2016
  • American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellowship, 2015
Measuring chromosome imbalance could clarify cancer prognosis

A study of prostate cancer finds “aneuploid” tumors are more likely to be lethal than tumors with normal chromosome numbers.

Anne Trafton | MIT News Office
May 13, 2019

Most human cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Any deviation from this number can be fatal for cells, and several genetic disorders, such as Down syndrome, are caused by abnormal numbers of chromosomes.

For decades, biologists have also known that cancer cells often have too few or too many copies of some chromosomes, a state known as aneuploidy. In a new study of prostate cancer, researchers have found that higher levels of aneuploidy lead to much greater lethality risk among patients.

The findings suggest a possible way to more accurately predict patients’ prognosis, and could be used to alert doctors which patients might need to be treated more aggressively, says Angelika Amon, the Kathleen and Curtis Marble Professor in Cancer Research in the Department of Biology and a member of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research.

“To me, the exciting opportunity here is the ability to inform treatment, because prostate cancer is such a prevalent cancer,” says Amon, who co-led this study with Lorelei Mucci, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Konrad Stopsack, a research associate at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, is the lead author of the paper, which appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of May 13. Charles Whittaker, a Koch Institute research scientist; Travis Gerke, a member of the Moffitt Cancer Center; Massimo Loda, chair of pathology and laboratory medicine at New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine; and Philip Kantoff, chair of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering; are also authors of the study.

Better predictions

Aneuploidy occurs when cells make errors sorting their chromosomes during cell division. When aneuploidy occurs in embryonic cells, it is almost always fatal to the organism. For human embryos, extra copies of any chromosome are lethal, with the exceptions of chromosome 21, which produces Down syndrome; chromosomes 13 and 18, which lead to developmental disorders known as Patau and Edwards syndromes; and the X and Y sex chromosomes. Extra copies of the sex chromosomes can cause various disorders but are not usually lethal.

Most cancers also show very high prevalence of aneuploidy, which poses a paradox: Why does aneuploidy impair normal cells’ ability to survive, while aneuploid tumor cells are able to grow uncontrollably? There is evidence that aneuploidy makes cancer cells more aggressive, but it has been difficult to definitively demonstrate that link because in most types of cancer nearly all tumors are aneuploid, making it difficult to perform comparisons.

Prostate cancer is an ideal model to explore the link between aneuploidy and cancer aggressiveness, Amon says, because, unlike most other solid tumors, many prostate cancers (25 percent) are not aneuploid or have only a few altered chromosomes. This allows researchers to more easily assess the impact of aneuploidy on cancer progression.

What made the study possible was a collection of prostate tumor samples from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Physicians’ Health Study, run by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health over the course of more than 30 years. The researchers had genetic sequencing information for these samples, as well as data on whether and when their prostate cancer had spread to other organs and whether they had died from the disease.

Led by Stopsack, the researchers came up with a way to calculate the degree of aneuploidy of each sample, by comparing the genetic sequences of those samples with aneuploidy data from prostate genomes in The Cancer Genome Atlas. They could then correlate aneuploidy with patient outcomes, and they found that patients with a higher degree of aneuploidy were five times more likely to die from the disease. This was true even after accounting for differences in Gleason score, a measure of how much the patient’s cells resemble cancer cells or normal cells under a microscope, which is currently used by doctors to determine severity of disease.

The findings suggest that measuring aneuploidy could offer additional information for doctors who are deciding how to treat patients with prostate cancer, Amon says.

“Prostate cancer is terribly overdiagnosed and terribly overtreated,” she says. “So many people have radical prostatectomies, which has significant impact on people’s lives. On the other hand, thousands of men die from prostate cancer every year. Assessing aneuploidy could be an additional way of helping to inform risk stratification and treatment, especially among people who have tumors with high Gleason scores and are therefore at higher risk of dying from their cancer.”

“When you’re looking for prognostic factors, you want to find something that goes beyond known factors like Gleason score and PSA [prostate-specific antigen],” says Bruce Trock, a professor of urology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research. “If this kind of test could be done right after a prostatectomy, it could give physicians information to help them decide what might be the best treatment course.”

Amon is now working with researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health to explore whether aneuploidy can be reliably measured from small biopsy samples.

Aneuploidy and cancer aggressiveness

The researchers found that the chromosomes that are most commonly aneuploid in prostate tumors are chromosomes 7 and 8. They are now trying to identify specific genes located on those chromosomes that might help cancer cells to survive and spread, and they are also studying why some prostate cancers have higher levels of aneuploidy than others.

“This research highlights the strengths of interdisciplinary, team science approaches to tackle outstanding questions in prostate cancer,” Mucci says. “We plan to translate these findings clinically in prostate biopsy specimens and experimentally to understand why aneuploidy occurs in prostate tumors.”

Another type of cancer where most patients have low levels of aneuploidy is thyroid cancer, so Amon now hopes to study whether thyroid cancer patients with higher levels of aneuploidy also have higher death rates.

“A very small proportion of thyroid tumors is highly aggressive and lethal, and I’m starting to wonder whether those are the ones that have some aneuploidy,” she says.

The research was funded by the Koch Institute Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Bridge Project and by the National Institutes of Health, including the Koch Institute Support (core) Grant.