Introduction
Macroautophagy is a highly dynamic vesicular degradation system that sequesters intracellular components in double membrane autophagosomes and delivers them to the lysosome (Klionsky et al., 2021). Upon induction, the successive recruitment of protein complexes triggers the phosphorylation of lipids, the transfer of lipids from various reservoirs, the recognition of cargoes, the tethering and the fusion (Galluzzi et al., 2017; Nakatogawa, 2020). One of the key players is the ubiquitin-like protein Atg8, which in yeast is required for several steps during autophagy, such as initiation, cargo recognition and engulfment, and vesicle closure (Kirisako et al., 2000; Knorr et al., 2014; Kraft et al., 2012; Nakatogawa et al., 2007; Xie et al., 2008). There are seven isoforms of Atg8 homologs in humans defining two families, the MAP-LC3 (abbreviated as LC3A-a, LC3A-b, LC3B, LC3C) and the GABARAP (GABARAP, GABARAPL1, GABARAPL2; Shpilka et al., 2011). LC3/GABARAP proteins could have both similar and very specific functions during the autophagic flux (Alemu et al., 2012; Grunwald et al., 2020; Joachim et al., 2015; Lystad et al., 2014; Pankiv et al., 2007; Weidberg et al., 2010). LC3/GABARAP proteins can bind numerous proteins through specific motifs (LIR, LC3 interacting Region) and their interactomes are only partially overlapping (Behrends et al., 2010).
The pleiotropy of Atg8/LC3/GABARAP proteins in multiple cellular processes (Galluzzi and Green, 2019; Schaaf et al., 2016) entangles the study of their specific functions in human (Nguyen et al., 2016). Moreover, a series of post-translational modifications, similar to the ubiquitin conjugation, is involved in the membrane targeting of Atg8/LC3/GABARAP proteins. These proteins are initially synthesized as a precursor (P), then cleaved at their C-terminus after the invariant Glycine 116 (form I), and eventually conjugated to phosphatidylethanolamine (form II) at the membrane of autophagosomes (Figure 1A; Kabeya et al., 2004; Kabeya et al., 2000; Scherz-Shouval et al., 2003). Structural analyses have shown that LC3 /GABARAP can adopt an open or close configuration (Coyle et al., 2002). In addition, several other post-translational modifications have been reported, like phosphorylation (Cherra et al., 2010; Herhaus et al., 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2015), deacetylation (Huang et al., 2015) ubiquitination (Joachim et al., 2017) and oligomerization (Chen et al., 2007; Coyle et al., 2002), whose effects on LC3/GABARAP function and localization are largely unknown. The subcellular localization of Atg8/LC3/GABARAP proteins is either diffuse in the cytosol and nucleus, or associated to the membrane of various compartments or the cytoskeleton (Schaaf et al., 2016).
Figure 1.
G116A abolishes the conjugation of LGG-1 to the membrane but not its cleavage.
(A) Schematic representation of the various isoforms of Atg8s proteins after cleavage of the precursor and reversible conjugation to a phosphatidylethanolamine (PE). (B) Diagram of the theoretical proteins produced by the allelic
Figure 1—figure supplement 1.
Description of
(A) Schematic representation of
Figure 1—figure supplement 2.
Identification of LGG-1(G116A) and LGG-1(G116AG117*) forms.
(A) Western blot analysis of affinity purified samples using LC3 traps. Molecular weight markers (kDa) are indicated on the right. (B) Protein sequence, and peptides coverage of LGG-1(G116AG117*) identified by mass spectrometry analyses after trypsin treatment (blue underline). The MS/MS fragmentation of the C-terminal peptide 89–116 (green) identifying the truncated form is shown below. (C) Protein sequence and peptides coverage of LGG-1(G116A) identified by mass spectrometry analyses after trypsin treatment (blue underline). The yellow underline indicates a C-terminal 111–123 peptide identified after trypsin and AspN digestion. The MS/MS fragmentation of the C-terminal peptide 107–121 (red box) identifying the precursor form and peptide 89–116 (green) identifying the cleaved form are shown below. (D–G) Mutant for the protease
Figure 1—figure supplement 3.
GFP::LGG-1(G116A) does not localize to autophagosomes.
(A) Western blot analysis of GFP::LGG-1 and GFP::LGG-1(G116A) using Ab#3, from total protein extracts from young adults. Accumulation of the precursor but absence of form II is observed. Molecular weight markers (kDa) are indicated on the left. (B) Schema of the experimental approach indicating the GFP reporters and the autophagy steps affected upon specific RNAi depletion. A 60 minutes heat-stress at 37 °C induces an autophagy flux. (C–D) In vivo epifluorescence images of GFP::LGG-1(wt) (left columns) and GFP::LGG-1(G116A) (right columns) in the epidermis of
Due to such a versatile and pleiotropic repertoire, it is of particular interest to address the level of redundancy and specificity, including tissue specificity, of the various LC3/GABARAP members, and the possible functions of the forms P and I. In the nematode
The structure of LGG-1/GABARAP and LGG-2/LC3 is highly conserved (Wu et al., 2015) and both proteins are involved in autophagy processes during development, longevity, and stress (Alberti et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2021; Meléndez et al., 2003; Samokhvalov et al., 2008). In particular, the elimination of paternal mitochondria upon fertilization, also called allophagy (Al Rawi et al., 2011; Sato and Sato, 2011), has become a paradigm for dissecting the molecular mechanisms of selective autophagy (Djeddi et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2016). Genetic analyses indicated that LGG-1 and LGG-2 do not have similar functions in autophagy (Alberti et al., 2010; Jenzer et al., 2019; Manil-Ségalen et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2015). During allophagy, LGG-1 is important for the recognition of ubiquitinated cargoes through interaction with the specific receptor ALLO-1 (Sato et al., 2018) and the formation of autophagosomes, whereas LGG-2 is involved in their maturation into autolysosomes and trafficking (Djeddi et al., 2015; Manil-Ségalen et al., 2014). LGG-1 and LGG-2 are also differentially involved during physiological aggrephagy in embryo, with temporal-specific and cargo-specific functions (Wu et al., 2015). Based on the presence of LGG-1 and LGG-2, three populations of autophagosomes have been described in
Using CRISPR-Cas9 editing, we investigated the functions of the non-lipidated cytosolic forms of LGG-1/GABARAP for bulk autophagy, mitophagy and aggrephagy, but also during starvation and longevity as well as apoptotic cell engulfment and morphogenesis. Here, we demonstrate that the non-lipidated form (LGG-1 I), but not the precursor form (LGG-1 P), is sufficient to maintain LGG-1 functions during development and aging. The cleavage of LGG-1 into form I is essential for autophagosome initiation and biogenesis while form II is involved in cargo recognition and autophagosome degradation.
Results
The G116G117 di-Glycine motif is a substrate for cleavage of LGG-1 precursor
The LGG-1 protein is highly conserved from residue 1 to residue 116, sharing 92% and 74% similarity with the human GABARAP and the yeast Atg8, respectively (Manil-Ségalen et al., 2014). However, the GEVEKKE C-terminus of LGG-1 is unusual by its length and the presence of a non-conserved glycine residue in position 117 (Figure 1B, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). As consistent with other
To analyze the functions of LGG-1 P and LGG-1 I, a CRISPR-Cas9 approach was used to substitute the conserved glycine 116 by an alanine, and to generate three specific
To assess whether
The respective protein substitutions were further confirmed by mass spectrometry analyses after affinity purification of LGG-1(G116A) and LGG-1(G116AG117*) (Figure 1—figure supplement 2). The identification of C-terminal peptides validated the expected precursor form in LGG-1(G116A) and its cleavage after A116, and confirmed A116 as the last residue in LGG-1(G116AG117*). These latter forms are called hereafter ‘cleaved form’ and ‘truncated form’, respectively.
Glycine 116 is essential for lipidation of LGG-1 after cleavage
To confirm western blot analyses, we next performed immunofluorescence in the embryo to analyze the subcellular localization of LGG-1 protein from the various alleles. At the one-cell-stage and around 100 cells-stage, two selective autophagy processes have been well characterized, removing paternal mitochondria and maternal aggregates, respectively (Al Rawi et al., 2011; Sato and Sato, 2011; Zhang et al., 2009). The punctate staining, observed in the wild-type animals (Figure 1D) with two independent anti-LGG-1 antibodies, was characteristic for the autophagosomes formed during each process, and was absent in the
We performed cellular fractionation of membrane vesicles to test whether LGG-1(G116A) and LGG-1(G116AG117*) are associated with autophagosomes. Compared with ER resident SEL-1 or ER-associated CDC-48, the LGG-1(wt) protein was detected in both the cytosolic fraction and the membrane pellet and could only be extracted with high salt or the detergent Triton X-100. In contrast to LGG-1(wt), both LGG-1(G116A) and LGG-1(G116AG117*) were absent in the membrane pellet fraction (Figure 1M), suggesting defective lipidation of both LGG-1 mutant proteins. In an alternative approach, we observed the localization of overexpressed GFP::LGG-1 and GFP::LGG-1(G116A) (Manil-Ségalen et al., 2014) after induction of autophagic flux by acute heat stress (aHS) (Chen et al., 2021; Kumsta et al., 2017). After aHS, GFP::LGG-1 formed numerous puncta that further accumulated when autolysosome formation was impaired by depletion of RAB-7 or EPG-5 (Figure 1—figure supplement 3). In contrast, in GFP::LGG-1(G116A), puncta were not reduced under any condition. Electron microscopy and immunogold labeling confirmed that GFP::LGG-1 was frequently detected to autophagosome membranes (Manil-Ségalen et al., 2014), whereas GFP::LGG-1(G116A) was rarely detected in association with autophagosomes and in these rare cases was predominantly localized in the lumen (Figure 1—figure supplement 3). Taken together, these results suggest that the G116A mutation does not allow conjugation of LGG-1 to the autophagosome membrane despite its cleavage. LGG-1(G116AG117A) represents only a precursor form and LGG-1(G116AG117*) only a truncated form, whereas LGG-1(G116A) produces both a precursor and a cleaved form. This allele series provides an ideal situation to study the respective roles of the precursor and form I in absence of lipidated form II.
The essential function of LGG-1 during development is dependent of its cleavage but not its conjugation
The developmental phenotypes of the mutants
Figure 2.
(A–G) DIC images of embryos after morphogenesis in
Neither
These data indicate that the cleaved LGG-1(G116A) and the truncated LGG-1(G116AG117*) forms, but not the precursor, are sufficient to recapitulate the normal development and viability, independently of membrane conjugation. These data suggest that cleavage of the C-terminus is necessary for LGG-1 developmental functions.
Autophagy is functional in LGG-1(G116A)
To address the functionality of LGG-1 precursor and form I, we analyzed autophagy-related processes that have been well characterized during
Figure 3.
Autophagy is functional in
(A–E) In vivo epifluorescence images of paternal mitochondria (HSP-6::GFP) at the 1 cell and 15 cells stages in
Figure 3—figure supplement 1.
Autophagy is functional in
(A–B) In vivo epifluorescence images of paternal mitochondria (left, mitotracker) and corresponding DIC images (right) at the 1–4 cells and 20–50 cells stages in
Figure 3—figure supplement 2.
Atg8(G116A) and Atg8(G116AR117*) are functional for vacuolar shaping but not for autophagy in
(A) Schematic representation of wild-type and mutant Atg8 proteins. (B) Autophagic activity is abolished in
Bulk autophagy was then studied by starvation of the first stage larvae (Figure 3G). While
The autophagic capacity of LGG-1(G116A) protein, but not LGG-1(G116AG117*) or LGG-1(G116AG117A), was further documented by the elimination of apoptotic corpses in the embryo (Figure 3I, and Figure 3—figure supplement 1; Jenzer et al., 2019).
Overall, these data demonstrate that, despite its defect to localize to autophagosomes, LGG-1(G116A) achieves both selective and bulk autophagy during physiological and stress conditions. This is the first in vivo evidence that the autophagy functions of LGG-1/GABARAP can be uncoupled from its membrane conjugation. The non-functionality of LGG-1(G116AG117A) suggests that the precursor form is not responsible of LGG-1(G116A) autophagy activity. Despite an identical protein sequence, the truncated LGG-1(G116AG117*) is not functional in autophagy, indicating that the cleavage of the C-terminus from the precursor is essential for the functionality of LGG-1(G116A). Moreover, the normal development of
Autophagy but not developmental functions of LGG-1(G116A) partially depends on LGG-2
Our previous study has shown a partial redundancy of LGG-1 and LGG-2 during starvation survival, and longevity (Alberti et al., 2010), which raises the possibility of functional compensation of
Similar to the single mutants
Figure 4.
Autophagy but not developmental function of LGG-1(G116A) partially depends on LGG-2.
(A–F) DIC images of embryos and bright field images of adults in
Next, we analyzed the autophagy functions in
Interestingly, this detailed analysis also revealed a slight delay in the elimination of paternal mitochondria in
The degradation of autophagosomes is delayed in LGG-1(G116A)
The autophagic flux and the dynamics of autophagosome formation were compared between
Figure 5.
The degradation of autophagosomes is delayed in
(A–F) Confocal images of LGG-2 immunofluorescence in 2 cells, 4 cells, and 15 cells in
Figure 5—figure supplement 1.
Colocalization quantification of HSP-6::GFP and LGG-2.
Quantification of puncta positive for the paternal mitochondria marker HSP-6::GFP, the autophagosomal marker LGG-2 and both, in early embryos
The autophagic structures in
Figure 6.
The cleaved LGG-1 is sufficient for autophagosome biogenesis.
(A–J) Electron microscopy images of autophagosomes in
Altogether, these data indicate that the cleaved, but not the truncated, LGG-1 form I is able to form functional autophagosomes with a delayed degradation.
The lipidated LGG-1 is involved in the coordination between cargo recognition and autophagosome biogenesis
To better understand the function of LGG-1 form I during autophagy flux, we next analyzed a developmental aggrephagy process (Figure 7). The Zhang lab has demonstrated that aggregate-prone proteins are degraded through autophagy in
Figure 7.
The lipidated LGG-1 is involved in the coordination between cargo recognition and autophagosome biogenesis.
(A–E) Confocal images of ATG-18::GFP (green) and LGG-2 (red) immunofluorescence in
Figure 7—figure supplement 1.
LGG-1(G116A) function in aggrephagy is dependent on UNC-51 and EPG-2.
(A–H) In vivo confocal images of ATG-18::GFP, showing the initiation of autophagosome biogenesis, in 50–100 cells embryos for
Quantification of SEPA-1::GFP in late embryo showed that
Finally, the interactions between cargoes and autophagosomes were studied in
Altogether, the analyses of LGG-1(G116A) indicate that many of the functions of LGG-1 in autophagy can be achieved by the cleaved, non-lipidated form I. However, the lipidation of LGG-1 appears to be important for the coordination between cargo recognition and autophagosome biogenesis and for the correct degradation of the autophagosome.
Discussion
The most surprising result of this study is the discovery that LGG-1(G116A) is functional for many autophagy processes, covering physiological or stress conditions and selective or bulk autophagy. To our knowledge, it is the first report demonstrating that different autophagy processes are fully achieved in vivo in a non-lipidated LC3/GABARAP mutant. In cultured cells, an elegant CRISPR strategy allowed to knock out together the six LC3/GABARAP homologs, but point mutations of the conserved glycine have not been reported (Nguyen et al., 2016). Most of the studies on the terminal glycine used transgenic overexpression constructs (Chen et al., 2007; Kabeya et al., 2004). Interestingly, one study reported that part of the autophagy functions of GABARAPL1 is independent of its lipidation (Poillet-Perez et al., 2017). Several studies have used mutations in the conjugation machinery (Atg3, Atg5, Atg7) or the Atg4 protease to analyze the role of the form I (Hill et al., 2019; Hirata et al., 2017; Nishida et al., 2009; Ohnstad et al., 2020; Vujić et al., 2021). A non-canonical autophagy has been reported in
Our data show no evidence for an intrinsic function of the LGG-1 precursor but the importance of its active cleavage. This finding is not surprising because in many species the Atg8 precursor is not detected, suggesting that the cleavage occurs very soon after or even during translation. Moreover, phylogenetic analyses of LC3/GABARAP show no conservation in sequence and length of the C-terminus but the presence of at least one residue after the conserved G116. The hypothesis of a selective constraint on the cleavage but not on the C-terminus sequence could explain the persistence of a precursor form. Further studies are necessary to clarify the precise implication of the di-glycine G116G117 in the process.
Albeit a similar sequence, the difference of functionality between the cleaved LGG-1(G116A) and the truncated LGG-1(G116AG117*) suggests that the cleavage allows a first level of specificity for LGG-1 functions. The normal development of
Our observations in yeast also support an autophagy independent function of Atg8 form I in vacuolar shaping. Non-autophagic functions for LC3/GABARAP have been identified in yeast and higher eukaryotes (Ishii et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018; Schaaf et al., 2016; Wesch et al., 2020), but the roles of the cytosolic forms are poorly documented especially in the context of the development. The two Atg8 homologs of
The major goal of this study was to bring new insights concerning the implication of LGG-1 form I in various steps of autophagy. Numerous studies identified interacting partners of Atg8/LC3/GABARAP family during autophagy but its mechanistic function for autophagosome biogenesis is still debated. In yeast, the amount of Atg8 regulates the level of autophagy and controls phagophore expansion, but is mainly released from the phagophore assembly site during autophagosome formation (Xie et al., 2008). In vitro studies using liposomes or nanodiscs suggested that Atg8 is a membrane-tethering factor and promotes hemifusion (Nakatogawa et al., 2007), membrane tubulation (Knorr et al., 2014), or membrane-area expansion and fragmentation (Maruyama et al., 2021). Another study showed that Atg8–PE assembles with Atg12–Atg5-Atg16 into a membrane scaffold that is recycled by Atg4 (Kaufmann et al., 2014). A similar approach with LGG-1 supports a role in tethering and fusion activity (Wu et al., 2015). In vivo, the functions of these proteins could depend on their amount, their posttranslational modifications, and the local composition of the membrane. For instance, an excess of lipidation of the overexpressed LGG-1 form I mediates the formation of enlarged protein aggregates and impedes the degradation process (Wu et al., 2015). A recent report showed that the phosphorylation of LC3C and GABARAP-L2 impedes their binding to ATG4 and influences their conjugation and de-conjugation (Herhaus et al., 2020).
Our genetic data suggest that form I of LGG-1 is sufficient for initiation, elongation, and closure of autophagosomes but that lipidated LGG-1 is important for the cargo sequestering and the dynamics of degradation. However, the partial redundancy with LGG-2 is presumably an important factor during these processes. If the main functions of LGG-1 reside in its capacity to bind multiple proteins, the localization to autophagosome membrane through lipidation is an efficient but not unique way to gather cargoes and autophagy complexes. Furthermore, the possibility that non-positive LGG-1/LGG-2 autophagosomes could mediate cargo degradation questions the use of Atg8/GABARAP/LC3 family as a universal marker for autophagosomes. Overall, our results confirm the high level of plasticity and robustness of autophagosome biogenesis.
Materials and methods
Key resources table
Reagent type (species) or resource | Designation | Source or reference | Identifiers | Additional information |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gene ( |
| Wormbase | WBGene00002980 | |
Strain, strain background ( | N2 | CGC |
| |
Genetic reagent ( | DA2123 | CGC |
| |
Genetic reagent ( | GK1057 | Sato and Sato, 2011 |
| |
Genetic reagent ( | HZ455 | CGC |
| |
Genetic reagent ( | HZ1685 | CGC | ||
Genetic reagent ( | MAH247 | CGC |
| |
Genetic reagent ( | RD202 | Legouis lab |
| |
Genetic reagent ( | lgg-1(Δ) | Mitani lab | NBRP: tm3489 | |
Genetic reagent ( | lgg-2(tm5755) | Mitani lab | NBRP: tm5755 | |
Genetic reagent ( | RD363; lgg-1(Δ112–123) | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD367; lgg-1(G116A) | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD368; lgg-1(Δ100–123) | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD420; lgg-1(G116AG117*) | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD421; lgg-1(G116AG117A) | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD425 | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD435 | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD436 | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD440 | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD446 | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD447 | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD448 | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD449 | This paper | ||
Genetic reagent ( | RD450 | This paper | ||
Strain, strain background ( | BY4742 | Euroscarf |
| |
Genetic reagent ( | OC513 | YKO collection | BY4742, | |
Genetic reagent ( | OC612 | YKO collection | BY4742, | |
Genetic reagent ( | OC608‐OC609 | This paper | BY4742, | |
Genetic reagent ( | OC610‐OC611 | This paper | BY4742, | |
Genetic reagent ( | OC613 | This paper | BY4742, | |
Genetic reagent ( | OC614 | This paper | BY4742, | |
Genetic reagent ( | OC615 | This paper | BY4742, | |
Genetic reagent ( | OC616‐OC617 | This paper | BY4742, | |
Genetic reagent ( | OC618‐OC619 | This paper | BY4742, | |
Strain strain background ( | OP50 | CGC | see Material and Methods | |
Genetic reagent ( | JA-C32D5.9 | Open Biosystem | ||
Genetic reagent ( | JA-C56C10.12 | Open Biosystem | ||
Genetic reagent ( | JA-Y55F3AM.4 | Open Biosystem | ||
Genetic reagent ( | JA-M7.5 | Open Biosystem | ||
Genetic reagent ( | JA-W03C9.3 | Open Biosystem | ||
Genetic reagent ( | JA- Y39G10AR.10 | Open Biosystem | ||
Sequence-based reagent | CrRNA(s) | Paix et al., 2015 | ||
Sequence-based reagent | CrRNA(s) | This paper | ||
Sequence-based reagent | Repair template | Paix et al., 2015; | ||
Sequence-based reagent | Repair template | This paper | ||
Sequence-based reagent | Repair template | This paper | ||
Sequence-based reagent | Repair template | This paper | ||
Sequence-based reagent | Universal tracrRNA | Dharmacon GE | U-002000–05 | 5’AACAGCAUAGCAAGUUAAAAUAAGGCU |
Peptide, recombinant protein | Dharmacon | CAS11201 | Edit-R Cas9 Nuclease Protein, 1000 pmol | |
Antibody | anti‐LGG‐1 (rabbit polyclonal) | Springhorn and Hoppe, 2019 | Ab#3 WB (1:3000) | |
Antibody | anti‐LGG‐1 (rabbit polyclonal) | Al Rawi et al., 2011 | Ab#1 WB (1:200) IF(1:100) | |
Antibody | anti‐LGG‐2 (rabbit polyclonal) | Manil-Ségalen et al., 2014 | WB (1:200) IF (1:200) | |
Antibody | anti‐Tubulin (mouse monoclonal) | Sigma | 078K4763 | WB (1:1000) |
Antibody | anti-SEL-1 (rabbit polyclonal) | Hoppe’s lab | WB (1:8000) | |
Antibody | anti-CDC-48.1 (rabbit polyclonal) | Hoppe’s lab | WB (1:5000) | |
Antibody | Anti-Rabbit HRP (goat polyclonal) | Promega | W401B | WB (1:5000) |
Antibody | Anti-mouse HRP (goat polyclonal) | Promega | W4021 | WB (1:10,000) |
Antibody | anti-GABARAP (rabbit polyclonal) | Chemicon | AB15278 | IF (1:200) |
Antibody | anti-GFP (mouse monoclonal) | Roche | 1814460 | IF (1:250) |
Antibody | anti-mouse IgG Alexa Fluor488 (goat polyclonal) | Molecular Probes | A11029 | IF (1:500 to 1:1000) |
Antibody | anti-rabbit IgG Alexa Fluor488 (goat polyclonal) | Molecular Probes | A110034 | IF (1:500 to 1:1000) |
Antibody | anti-rabbit IgG Alexa Fluor568 (goat polyclonal) | Sigma-Aldrich | A11036 | IF (1:500 to 1:1000) |
Antibody | anti-GFP (rabbit polyclonal) | Abcam | ab6556 | (Immunogold 1:10) |
Antibody | anti-rabbit IgG (goat polyclonal) | Biovalley | 810.011 | Coupled to 10 nm colloidal gold particles (Immunogold 1:20) |
Chemical compound, drug | EPON | Agar Scientific | R1165 | see Materials and methods |
Chemical compound, drug | lead citrate | Sigma‐Aldrich | 15326 | see Materials and methods |
Chemical compound, drug | LRWHITE | Electron Microscopy Sciences | 14381 | see Materials and methods |
Peptide, recombinant protein | LC3 traps | Quinet et al., 2022 | Molecular traps for LGG-1 | |
Commercial assay or kit | Super Signal Pico Chemiluminescent Substrate | Thermo Scientific | 34579 | see Materials and methods |
Commercial assay or kit | NuPAGE 4%‐12% Bis‐ Tris gel | Life Technologies | NP0321BOX | see Materials and methods |
Software, algorithm | ImageJ | http://imagej.nih.gov/ij | see Materials and methods | |
Software, algorithm | Fidji | https://fiji.sc/ | see Materials and methods | |
Software, algorithm | Prism | GraphPad | see Materials and methods | |
Software, algorithm | R software | https://www.r-project.org/ | see Materials and methods | |
Software, algorithm | Crispr | http://Crispr.mit.edu | see Materials and methods | |
Software, algorithm | Crispor | http://crispor.org | see Materials and methods | |
Other | MitoTracker Red CMXRos | Molecular Probes | M7512 | see Materials and methods |
Further information and requests for resources and reagents should be directed to the corresponding author, Renaud Legouis ([email protected]).
Nematode strains were grown on nematode growth media [for 500 ml H2O: 1.5 g NaCl (Sigma-Aldrich, 60142), 1.5 g bactopeptone (Becton-Dickinson, 211677), 0.5 ml cholesterol (Sigma-Aldrich, C8667) 5 mg/ml, 10 g bacto agar (Becton-Dickinson, 214010) supplemented with 500 µl CaCl2 (Sigma-Aldrich, C3306) 1 M, 500 µl MgSO4 (Sigma-Aldrich, M5921) 1 M, 10 ml KH2PO4 (Sigma-Aldrich, P5655) 1 M, 1650 µl K2HPO4 (Sigma-Aldrich, 60356) 1 M] and fed with
CRISPR-Cas9
A CRISPR-Cas9 approach optimized for
Nematode starvation and lifespan
For starvation experiments, adult hermaphrodites were bleached to obtain synchronized L1 larvae. L1 were incubated in 0.5 mL sterilized M9 at 20 °C on spinning wheel. At each time point, an aliquot from each sample tube was placed on a plate seeded with
RNA mediated interference
RNAi by feeding was performed as described (Kamath et al., 2003). Fourth‐larval stage (L4) animals or embryos were raised onto 1 mM isopropyl‐D‐β‐thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG)‐containing nematode growth media (NGM) plates seeded with bacteria (
Western blot and cellular fractionation
The worms were collected after centrifugation in M9 and then mixed with the lysis buffer described previously (Springhorn and Hoppe, 2019) (25 mM tris-HCl, pH7.6; 150 mM NaCl; 1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) 1% Triton X-100; 1% sodium deoxycholate (w/v); 1% SDS (w/v)) containing glass beads (Sigma-Aldrich 425–600 µm G8772100G). They were then denatured using Precellys 24 machine at 6000 rpm with incubation for about 5 min twice to cool down the sample. The protein extracts are then centrifuged at 15,000 rpm and separated on a NuPAGE 4%‐12% Bis‐Tris gel (Life Technologies, NP0321BOX). The non‐specific sites are then blocked after the incubation for one hour with PBS Tween 0.1% (Tris Base NaCl, Tween20) BSA 2%. Blots were probed with anti‐LGG‐1 (1:3000 rabbit Ab#3 Springhorn and Hoppe, 2019 or 1:200 Ab#1 Al Rawi et al., 2011), anti‐LGG‐2 (1:200 rabbit), anti‐Tubulin (1:1000 mouse; Sigma, 078K4763), anti-SEL-1 (1:8000, rabbit), anti-CDC-48.1 (1:5000, rabbit) and revealed using HRP‐conjugated antibodies (1: 5000 promega W401B and 1:10,000 promega W4021) and the Super Signal Pico Chemiluminescent Substrate (Thermo Fisher Scientific, 34579). Signals were revealed on a Las3000 photoimager (Fuji) and quantified with Image Lab software. For cellular fractionation, 4000 age-synchronized worms (day 1 of adulthood) were collected from NGM/OP-50 plates, washed three times with M9 buffer and transferred to NGM plates without OP-50 to induce starvation. Worms were starved at 20 °C for 7 hr, and then transferred to fractionation buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT, 1 mM PMSF, and protease inhibitor cocktail). For cell lysis, worms were homogenized 50 times using a Dounce homogenizer and sonicated for 20 s at 60% amplitude. Cell lysates were centrifuged at 500 RCF and 4 °C for 5 min to remove cell debris and the nuclear fraction. The supernatant was centrifuged again at 20,000 RCF and 4 °C for 90 min to separate soluble (cytosolic) and insoluble (membrane) fractions. Supernatant and pellet were separated and the pellet was resuspended in 150 μL of fractionation buffer. From this step, input samples were prepared for Western blot analysis. Subsequently, 30 μL of the pellet sample was mixed with 3 μL each of fractionation buffer, 3 μL 5 M NaCl, and 3 μL Triton X-100. Treated pellet samples were incubated on ice for 1 hour and then centrifuged at 20,000 RCF and 4 °C for 60 min. The resulting supernatants and pellets were again separated and analyzed by Western blotting.
Immunofluorescence and light microscopy
Fifty adult hermaphrodites were cut to release the early embryos on a previously poly-L-lysinated slide (0.1%). Late embryos were deposited using a flattened platinum wire and bacteria as glue. Embryos were prepared for immunofluorescence staining by freeze-fracture and methanol fixation 30 min at –20 °C, incubated 40 min in 0.5% Tween, 3% BSA, PBS solution, and washed twice 30 min in 0.5% Tween PBS solution. Incubation overnight at 4 °C overnight with the primary antibodies anti-LGG-1(rabbit 1:100) anti-GABARAP (rabbit 1:200) (1: 200), anti-LGG-2 (rabbit 1:100) was followed by two washes, 2 hr incubation at room temperature with the secondary antibodies, Alexa488 and Alexa 568 (1: 1000), and two washes. Embryos were mounted in DABCO and imaged on an AxioImagerM2 microscope (Zeiss) equipped with Nomarski optics, coupled to a camera (AxioCam506mono) or a confocal Leica TCS SP8 microscope with serial z sections of 0.5–1 µm. Images were analyzed, quantified and processed using ImageJ or Fiji softwares.
For live imaging samples were mounted on a 2% agarose pad and larvae were immobilized by 40 mM sodium azide. For MitoTracker staining, adult worms were transferred to NGM agar plates containing 3.7 µM of Red CMXRos (Molecular Probes, Invitrogen) and incubated for overnight in the dark.
Electronic microscopy
One-day adults were transferred to M9 20% BSA (Sigma‐Aldrich, A7030) on 1% phosphatidylcholine (Sigma-Aldrich) pre-coated 200 µm deep flat carriers (Leica Biosystems), followed by cryo‐immobilization in the EMPACT‐2 HPF apparatus (Leica Microsystems; Vienna Austria) as described (Jenzer et al., 2019). Cryo‐substitution was performed using an Automated Freeze‐substitution System (AFS2) with integrated binocular lens, and incubating chamber (Leica Microsystems; Wetzlar, Germany) with acetone. Blocks were infiltrated with 100% EPON, and embedded in fresh EPON (Agar Scientific, R1165). Ultrathin sections of 80 nm were cut on an ultramicrotome (Leica Microsystems, EM UC7) and collected on a formvar and carbon‐coated copper slot grid (LFG, FCF‐2010‐CU‐50). Sections were contrasted with 0,05% Oolong tea extract (OTE) for 30 min and 0.08 M lead citrate (Sigma‐Aldrich, 15326) for 8 min. Sections were observed with a Jeol 1400 TEM at 120 kV and images acquired with a Gatan 11 Mpixels SC1000 Orius CCD camera.
Affinity purification of LGG-1
One mg of total proteins from
Mass spectrometry
Protein samples affinity purification were prepared using the single-pot, solid-phase-enhanced sample-preparation (SP3) approach as described (Hughes et al., 2019). Samples were mixed with 10 µl of 10 µg/µl solution of Sera-Mag SpeedBeadsTM hydrophilic and hydrophobic magnetics beads (GE healthcare, ref 45152105050250 and 65152105050250) with a bead to sample ratio of 10:1. After a binding step in 50% ethanol in water, and three successive washes with 80% ethanol in water, sample were digested with 100 µl of a 5 ng/µl sequencing grade modified trypsin solution (PROMEGA). Fifty µl of Trypsin-generated peptides were vacuum dried, resuspended in 10 µl of loading buffer (2% acetonitrile and 0.05% Trifluoroacetic acid in water) and analyzed by nanoLC-MSMS using a nanoElute liquid chromatography system (Bruker) coupled to a timsTOF Pro mass spectrometer (Bruker). Briefly, peptides were loaded on an Aurora analytical column (ION OPTIK, 25cm x75µm, C18, 1.6 µm) and eluted with a gradient of 0–35% of solvent B for 100 min. Solvent A was 0.1% formic acid and 2% acetonitrile in water, and solvent B was 99.9% acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid. MS and MS/MS spectra were recorded and converted into mgf files. Proteins identification were performed with Mascot search engine (Matrix science, London, UK) against a database composed of all LGG-1 sequences including the wild-type and mutant sequences. Database searches were performed using semi-trypsin cleavage specificity with five possible miscleavages. Methionine oxidation was set as variable modification. Peptide and fragment tolerances were set at 15 ppm and 0.05 Da, respectively. A peptide mascot score threshold of 13 was set for peptide identification. C-terminal peptides were further validated manually.
Quantification and statistical analysis
All experiments were done at least three times. All data summarization and statistical analyses were performed by using either the GraphPad-Prism or the R software (https://www.r-project.org/). The Shapiro-Wilk’s test was used to evaluate the normal distribution of the values and the Hartley Fmax test for similar variance analysis. Data derived from different genetic backgrounds were compared by Student t test, Anova, Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. The Fisher’s exact test was used for nominal variables. Longevity was assessed using Log-Rank (Mantel-Cox) test. Error bars are standard deviations and boxplot representations indicate the minimum and maximum, the first (Q1/25th percentile), median (Q2/50th percentile) and the third (Q3/75th percentile) quartiles. NS (Not Significant) p>0.05; * 0.05>p > 0.01, **0.01>p > 0.001, *** 0.001>p > 0.0001 and **** p<0.0001. Exact values of n and statistical tests used can be found in the figure legends.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023, Leboutet et al. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
The ubiquitin-like proteins Atg8/LC3/GABARAP are required for multiple steps of autophagy, such as initiation, cargo recognition and engulfment, vesicle closure and degradation. Most of LC3/GABARAP functions are considered dependent on their post-translational modifications and their association with the autophagosome membrane through a conjugation to a lipid, the phosphatidyl-ethanolamine. Contrarily to mammals,
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer