N terminus of ASPP2 binds to Ras and enhances Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK activation to promote oncogene-induced senescence

The ASPP2 (also known as 53BP2L) tumor suppressor is a proapoptotic member of a family of p53 binding proteins that functions in part by enhancing p53-dependent apoptosis via its C-terminal p53-binding domain. Mounting evidence also suggests that ASPP2 harbors important nonapoptotic p53-independent functions. Structural studies identify a small G protein Ras-association domain in the ASPP2 N terminus. Because Ras-induced senescence is a barrier to tumor formation in normal cells, we investigated whether ASPP2 could bind Ras and stimulate the protein kinase Raf/MEK/ERK signaling cascade. We now show that ASPP2 binds to Ras–GTP at the plasma membrane and stimulates Ras-induced signaling and pERK1/2 levels via promoting Ras–GTP loading, B-Raf/C-Raf dimerization, and C-Raf phosphorylation. These functions require the ASPP2 N terminus because BBP (also known as 53BP2S), an alternatively spliced ASPP2 isoform lacking the N terminus, was defective in binding Ras–GTP and stimulating Raf/MEK/ERK signaling. Decreased ASPP2 levels attenuated H-RasV12–induced senescence in normal human fibroblasts and neonatal human epidermal keratinocytes. Together, our results reveal a mechanism for ASPP2 tumor suppressor function via direct interaction with Ras–GTP to stimulate Ras-induced senescence in nontransformed human cells.ASPP2, also known as 53BP2L, is a tumor suppressor whose expression is altered in human cancers (1). Importantly, targeting of the ASPP2 allele in two different mouse models reveals that ASPP2 heterozygous mice are prone to spontaneous and γ-irradiation–induced tumors, which rigorously demonstrates the role of ASPP2 as a tumor suppressor (2, 3). ASPP2 binds p53 via the C-terminal ankyrin-repeat and SH3 domain (4–6), is damage-inducible, and can enhance damage-induced apoptosis in part through a p53-mediated pathway (1, 2, 7–10). However, it remains unclear what biologic pathways and mechanisms mediate ASPP2 tumor suppressor function (1). Indeed, accumulating evidence demonstrates that ASPP2 also mediates nonapoptotic p53-independent pathways (1, 3, 11–15).The induction of cellular senescence forms an important barrier to tumorigenesis in vivo (16–21). It is well known that oncogenic Ras signaling induces senescence in normal nontransformed cells to prevent tumor initiation and maintain complex growth arrest pathways (16, 18, 21–24). The level of oncogenic Ras activation influences its capacity to activate senescence; high levels of oncogenic H-RasV12 signaling leads to low grade tumors with senescence markers, which progress to invasive cancers upon senescence inactivation (25). Thus, tight control of Ras signaling is critical to ensure the proper biologic outcome in the correct cellular context (26–28).The ASPP2 C terminus is important for promoting p53-dependent apoptosis (7). The ASPP2 N terminus may also suppress cell growth (1, 7, 29–33). Alternative splicing can generate the ASPP2 N-terminal truncated protein BBP (also known as 53BP2S) that is less potent in suppressing cell growth (7, 34, 35). Although the ASPP2 C terminus mediates nuclear localization, full-length ASPP2 also localizes to the cytoplasm and plasma membrane to mediate extranuclear functions (7, 11, 12, 36). Structural studies of the ASPP2 N terminus reveal a β–Grasp ubiquitin-like fold as well as a potential Ras-binding (RB)/Ras-association (RA) domain (32). Moreover, ASPP2 can promote H-RasV12–induced senescence (13, 15). However, the molecular mechanism(s) of how ASPP2 directly promotes Ras signaling are complex and remain to be completely elucidated.Here, we explore the molecular mechanisms of how Ras-signaling is enhanced by ASPP2. We demonstrate that ASPP2: (i) binds Ras-GTP and stimulates Ras-induced ERK signaling via its N-terminal domain at the plasma membrane; (ii) enhances Ras-GTP loading and B-Raf/C-Raf dimerization and forms a ASPP2/Raf complex; (iii) stimulates Ras-induced C-Raf phosphorylation and activation; and (iv) potentiates H-RasV12–induced senescence in both primary human fibroblasts and neonatal human epidermal keratinocytes. These data provide mechanistic insight into ASPP2 function(s) and opens important avenues for investigation into its role as a tumor suppressor in human cancer.     

Drosophila seminal protein ovulin mediates ovulation through female octopamine neuronal signaling

Across animal taxa, seminal proteins are important regulators of female reproductive physiology and behavior. However, little is understood about the physiological or molecular mechanisms by which seminal proteins effect these changes. To investigate this topic, we studied the increase in Drosophila melanogaster ovulation behavior induced by mating. Ovulation requires octopamine (OA) signaling from the central nervous system to coordinate an egg’s release from the ovary and its passage into the oviduct. The seminal protein ovulin increases ovulation rates after mating. We tested whether ovulin acts through OA to increase ovulation behavior. Increasing OA neuronal excitability compensated for a lack of ovulin received during mating. Moreover, we identified a mating-dependent relaxation of oviduct musculature, for which ovulin is a necessary and sufficient male contribution. We report further that oviduct muscle relaxation can be induced by activating OA neurons, requires normal metabolic production of OA, and reflects ovulin’s increasing of OA neuronal signaling. Finally, we showed that as a result of ovulin exposure, there is subsequent growth of OA synaptic sites at the oviduct, demonstrating that seminal proteins can contribute to synaptic plasticity. Together, these results demonstrate that ovulin increases ovulation through OA neuronal signaling and, by extension, that seminal proteins can alter reproductive physiology by modulating known female pathways regulating reproduction.Throughout internally fertilizing animals, seminal proteins play important roles in regulating female fertility by altering female physiology and, in some cases, behavior after mating (reviewed in refs. 1–3). Despite this, little is understood about the physiological mechanisms by which seminal proteins induce postmating changes and how their actions are linked with known networks regulating female reproductive physiology.In Drosophila melanogaster, the suite of seminal proteins has been identified, as have many seminal protein-dependent postmating responses, including changes in egg production and laying, remating behavior, locomotion, feeding, and in ovulation rate (reviewed in refs. 2 and 3). For example, the Drosophila seminal protein ovulin elevates ovulation rate to maximal levels during the 24 h following mating (4, 5), and the seminal protein sex peptide (SP) suppresses female mating receptivity and increases egg-laying behavior for several days after mating (6–10). However, although a receptor for SP has been identified (11), along with elements of the neural circuit in which it is required (12–14), SP’s mechanism of action has not yet been linked to regulatory networks known to control postmating behaviors. Thus, a crucial question remains: how do male-derived seminal proteins interact with regulatory networks in females to trigger postmating responses?We addressed this question by examining the stimulation of Drosophila ovulation by the seminal protein ovulin. In insects, ovulation, defined here as the release of an egg from the ovary to the uterus, is among the best understood reproductive processes in terms of its physiology and neurogenetics (15–27). In D. melanogaster, ovulation requires input from neurons in the abdominal ganglia that release the catecholaminergic neuromodulators octopamine (OA) and tyramine (17, 18, 28). Drosophila ovulation also requires an OA receptor, OA receptor in mushroom bodies (OAMB) (19, 20). Moreover, it has been proposed that OA may integrate extrinsic factors to regulate ovulation rates (17). Noradrenaline, the vertebrate structural and functional equivalent to OA (29, 30), is important for mammalian ovulation, and its dysregulation has been associated with ovulation disorders (31–38). In this paper we investigate the role of neurons that release OA and tyramine in ovulin’s action. For simplicity, we refer to these neurons as “OA neurons” to reflect the well-established role of OA in ovulation behavior (16–20, 22).We investigated how action of the seminal protein ovulin relates to the conserved canonical neuromodulatory pathway that regulates ovulation physiology (39–41). We found that ovulin increases ovulation and egg laying through OA neuronal signaling. We also found that ovulin relaxes oviduct muscle tonus, a postmating process that is also mediated by OA neuronal signaling. Finally, subsequent to these effects we detected an ovulin-dependent increase in synaptic sites between OA motor neurons and oviduct muscle, suggesting that ovulin’s stimulation of OA neurons could have increased their synaptic activity. These results suggest that ovulin affects ovulation by manipulating the gain of a neuromodulatory pathway regulating ovulation physiology.     

Reconstitution of long and short patch mismatch repair reactions using Saccharomyces cerevisiae proteins

A problem in understanding eukaryotic DNA mismatch repair (MMR) mechanisms is linking insights into MMR mechanisms from genetics and cell-biology studies with those from biochemical studies of MMR proteins and reconstituted MMR reactions. This type of analysis has proven difficult because reconstitution approaches have been most successful for human MMR whereas analysis of MMR in vivo has been most advanced in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Here, we describe the reconstitution of MMR reactions using purified S. cerevisiae proteins and mispair-containing DNA substrates. A mixture of MutS homolog 2 (Msh2)–MutS homolog 6, Exonuclease 1, replication protein A, replication factor C-Δ1N, proliferating cell nuclear antigen and DNA polymerase δ was found to repair substrates containing TG, CC, +1 (+T), +2 (+GC), and +4 (+ACGA) mispairs and either a 5′ or 3′ strand interruption with different efficiencies. The Msh2–MutS homolog 3 mispair recognition protein could substitute for the Msh2–Msh6 mispair recognition protein and showed a different specificity of repair of the different mispairs whereas addition of MutL homolog 1–postmeiotic segregation 1 had no affect on MMR. Repair was catalytic, with as many as 11 substrates repaired per molecule of Exo1. Repair of the substrates containing either a 5′ or 3′ strand interruption occurred by mispair binding-dependent 5′ excision and subsequent resynthesis with excision tracts of up to ∼2.9 kb occurring during the repair of the substrate with a 3′ strand interruption. The availability of this reconstituted MMR reaction now makes possible detailed biochemical studies of the wealth of mutations identified that affect S. cerevisiae MMR.DNA mismatch repair (MMR) is a critical DNA repair pathway that is coupled to DNA replication in eukaryotes where it corrects misincorporation errors made during DNA replication (1–9). This pathway prevents mutations and acts to prevent the development of cancer (10, 11). MMR also contributes to gene conversion by repairing mispaired bases that occur during the formation of recombination intermediates (3, 4, 12). Finally, MMR acts to suppress recombination between divergent but homologous DNA sequences, thereby preventing the formation of genome rearrangements that can result from nonallelic homologous recombination (4, 13–15).Our knowledge of the mechanism of eukaryotic MMR comes from several general lines of investigation (3–9). Studies of bacterial MMR have provided a basic mechanistic framework for comparative studies (5). Genetic and cell-biology studies, primarily in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, have identified eukaryotic MMR genes, provided models for how their gene products define MMR pathways, and elucidated some of the details of how MMR pathways interact with replication (1–4). Reconstitution studies, primarily in human systems, have identified some of the catalytic features of eukaryotic MMR (7–9, 16, 17). Biochemical and structural studies of S. cerevisiae and human MMR proteins have provided information about the function of individual MMR proteins (6–9).In eukaryotic MMR, mispairs are bound by MutS homolog 2 (Msh2)–MutS homolog 6 (Msh6) and Msh2–MutS homolog 3 (Msh3), two partially redundant complexes of MutS-related proteins (3, 4, 18, 19). These complexes recruit a MutL-related complex, called MutL homoloh 1 (Mlh1)–postmeiotic segregation 1 (Pms1) in S. cerevisiae and Mlh1–postmeiotic segregation 2 (Pms2) in human and mouse (3, 4, 20–23). The Mlh1–Pms1/Pms2 complex has an endonuclease activity suggested to play a role in the initiation of the excision step of MMR (24, 25). Downstream of mismatch recognition is a mispair excision step that can be catalyzed by Exonuclease 1 (Exo1) (26–28); however, defects in both S. cerevisiae and mouse Exo1 result in only a partial MMR deficiency, suggesting the existence of additional excision mechanisms (26, 27, 29). DNA polymerase δ, the single-strand DNA binding protein replication protein A (RPA), the sliding clamp proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), and the clamp loader replication factor C (RFC) are also required for MMR at different steps, including activation of Mlh1–Pms1/Pms2, stimulation of Exo1, potentially in Exo1-independent mispair excision, and in the gap-filling resynthesis steps of MMR (3, 16, 17, 24, 27, 30–36). Although much is known about these core MMR proteins, it is not well understood how eukaryotic MMR is coupled to DNA replication (1, 2), how excision is targeted to the newly replicated strand (1, 25, 37–39), or how different MMR mechanisms such as Exo1-dependent and -independent subpathways are selected or how many such subpathways exist (1, 24, 27, 29).S. cerevisiae has provided a number of tools for studying MMR, including forward genetic screens for mutations affecting MMR, including dominant and separation-of-function mutations, the ability to evaluate structure-based mutations in vivo, cell biological tools for visualizing and analyzing MMR proteins in vivo, and overproduction of individual MMR proteins for biochemical analysis. However, linking these tools with biochemical systems that catalyze MMR reactions in vitro for mechanistic studies has not yet been possible. Here, we describe the development of MMR reactions reconstituted using purified proteins for the analysis of MMR mechanisms.     

The evolution of self-control

Cognition presents evolutionary research with one of its greatest challenges. Cognitive evolution has been explained at the proximate level by shifts in absolute and relative brain volume and at the ultimate level by differences in social and dietary complexity. However, no study has integrated the experimental and phylogenetic approach at the scale required to rigorously test these explanations. Instead, previous research has largely relied on various measures of brain size as proxies for cognitive abilities. We experimentally evaluated these major evolutionary explanations by quantitatively comparing the cognitive performance of 567 individuals representing 36 species on two problem-solving tasks measuring self-control. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that absolute brain volume best predicted performance across species and accounted for considerably more variance than brain volume controlling for body mass. This result corroborates recent advances in evolutionary neurobiology and illustrates the cognitive consequences of cortical reorganization through increases in brain volume. Within primates, dietary breadth but not social group size was a strong predictor of species differences in self-control. Our results implicate robust evolutionary relationships between dietary breadth, absolute brain volume, and self-control. These findings provide a significant first step toward quantifying the primate cognitive phenome and explaining the process of cognitive evolution.Since Darwin, understanding the evolution of cognition has been widely regarded as one of the greatest challenges for evolutionary research (1). Although researchers have identified surprising cognitive flexibility in a range of species (2–40) and potentially derived features of human psychology (41–61), we know much less about the major forces shaping cognitive evolution (62–71). With the notable exception of Bitterman’s landmark studies conducted several decades ago (63, 72–74), most research comparing cognition across species has been limited to small taxonomic samples (70, 75). With limited comparable experimental data on how cognition varies across species, previous research has largely relied on proxies for cognition (e.g., brain size) or metaanalyses when testing hypotheses about cognitive evolution (76–92). The lack of cognitive data collected with similar methods across large samples of species precludes meaningful species comparisons that can reveal the major forces shaping cognitive evolution across species, including humans (48, 70, 89, 93–98).To address these challenges we measured cognitive skills for self-control in 36 species of mammals and birds (Fig. 1 and Tables S1–S4) tested using the same experimental procedures, and evaluated the leading hypotheses for the neuroanatomical underpinnings and ecological drivers of variance in animal cognition. At the proximate level, both absolute (77, 99–107) and relative brain size (108–112) have been proposed as mechanisms supporting cognitive evolution. Evolutionary increases in brain size (both absolute and relative) and cortical reorganization are hallmarks of the human lineage and are believed to index commensurate changes in cognitive abilities (52, 105, 113–115). Further, given the high metabolic costs of brain tissue (116–121) and remarkable variance in brain size across species (108, 122), it is expected that the energetic costs of large brains are offset by the advantages of improved cognition. The cortical reorganization hypothesis suggests that selection for absolutely larger brains—and concomitant cortical reorganization—was the predominant mechanism supporting cognitive evolution (77, 91, 100–106, 120). In contrast, the encephalization hypothesis argues that an increase in brain volume relative to body size was of primary importance (108, 110, 111, 123). Both of these hypotheses have received support through analyses aggregating data from published studies of primate cognition and reports of “intelligent” behavior in nature—both of which correlate with measures of brain size (76, 77, 84, 92, 110, 124).Open in a separate windowFig. 1.A phylogeny of the species included in this study. Branch lengths are proportional to time except where long branches have been truncated by parallel diagonal lines (split between mammals and birds ∼292 Mya).With respect to selective pressures, both social and dietary complexities have been proposed as ultimate causes of cognitive evolution. The social intelligence hypothesis proposes that increased social complexity (frequently indexed by social group size) was the major selective pressure in primate cognitive evolution (6, 44, 48, 50, 87, 115, 120, 125–141). This hypothesis is supported by studies showing a positive correlation between a species’ typical group size and the neocortex ratio (80, 81, 85–87, 129, 142–145), cognitive differences between closely related species with different group sizes (130, 137, 146, 147), and evidence for cognitive convergence between highly social species (26, 31, 148–150). The foraging hypothesis posits that dietary complexity, indexed by field reports of dietary breadth and reliance on fruit (a spatiotemporally distributed resource), was the primary driver of primate cognitive evolution (151–154). This hypothesis is supported by studies linking diet quality and brain size in primates (79, 81, 86, 142, 155), and experimental studies documenting species differences in cognition that relate to feeding ecology (94, 156–166).Although each of these hypotheses has received empirical support, a comparison of the relative contributions of the different proximate and ultimate explanations requires (i) a cognitive dataset covering a large number of species tested using comparable experimental procedures; (ii) cognitive tasks that allow valid measurement across a range of species with differing morphology, perception, and temperament; (iii) a representative sample within each species to obtain accurate estimates of species-typical cognition; (iv) phylogenetic comparative methods appropriate for testing evolutionary hypotheses; and (v) unprecedented collaboration to collect these data from populations of animals around the world (70).Here, we present, to our knowledge, the first large-scale collaborative dataset and comparative analysis of this kind, focusing on the evolution of self-control. We chose to measure self-control—the ability to inhibit a prepotent but ultimately counterproductive behavior—because it is a crucial and well-studied component of executive function and is involved in diverse decision-making processes (167–169). For example, animals require self-control when avoiding feeding or mating in view of a higher-ranking individual, sharing food with kin, or searching for food in a new area rather than a previously rewarding foraging site. In humans, self-control has been linked to health, economic, social, and academic achievement, and is known to be heritable (170–172). In song sparrows, a study using one of the tasks reported here found a correlation between self-control and song repertoire size, a predictor of fitness in this species (173). In primates, performance on a series of nonsocial self-control control tasks was related to variability in social systems (174), illustrating the potential link between these skills and socioecology. Thus, tasks that quantify self-control are ideal for comparison across taxa given its robust behavioral correlates, heritable basis, and potential impact on reproductive success.In this study we tested subjects on two previously implemented self-control tasks. In the A-not-B task (27 species, n = 344), subjects were first familiarized with finding food in one location (container A) for three consecutive trials. In the test trial, subjects initially saw the food hidden in the same location (container A), but then moved to a new location (container B) before they were allowed to search (Movie S1). In the cylinder task (32 species, n = 439), subjects were first familiarized with finding a piece of food hidden inside an opaque cylinder. In the following 10 test trials, a transparent cylinder was substituted for the opaque cylinder. To successfully retrieve the food, subjects needed to inhibit the impulse to reach for the food directly (bumping into the cylinder) in favor of the detour response they had used during the familiarization phase (Movie S2).Thus, the test trials in both tasks required subjects to inhibit a prepotent motor response (searching in the previously rewarded location or reaching directly for the visible food), but the nature of the correct response varied between tasks. Specifically, in the A-not-B task subjects were required to inhibit the response that was previously successful (searching in location A) whereas in the cylinder task subjects were required to perform the same response as in familiarization trials (detour response), but in the context of novel task demands (visible food directly in front of the subject).     

Exchange protein directly activated by cAMP plays a critical role in bacterial invasion during fatal rickettsioses

Rickettsiae are responsible for some of the most devastating human infections. A high infectivity and severe illness after inhalation make some rickettsiae bioterrorism threats. We report that deletion of the exchange protein directly activated by cAMP (Epac) gene, Epac1, in mice protects them from an ordinarily lethal dose of rickettsiae. Inhibition of Epac1 suppresses bacterial adhesion and invasion. Most importantly, pharmacological inhibition of Epac1 in vivo using an Epac-specific small-molecule inhibitor, ESI-09, completely recapitulates the Epac1 knockout phenotype. ESI-09 treatment dramatically decreases the morbidity and mortality associated with fatal spotted fever rickettsiosis. Our results demonstrate that Epac1-mediated signaling represents a mechanism for host–pathogen interactions and that Epac1 is a potential target for the prevention and treatment of fatal rickettsioses.Rickettsiae are responsible for some of the most devastating human infections (1–4). It has been forecasted that temperature increases attributable to global climate change will lead to more widespread distribution of rickettsioses (5). These tick-borne diseases are caused by obligately intracellular bacteria of the genus Rickettsia, including Rickettsia rickettsii, the causative agent of Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) in the United States and Latin America (2, 3), and Rickettsia conorii, the causative agent of Mediterranean spotted fever endemic to southern Europe, North Africa, and India (6). A high infectivity and severe illness after inhalation make some rickettsiae (including Rickettsia prowazekii, R. rickettsii, Rickettsia typhi, and R. conorii) bioterrorism threats (7). Although the majority of rickettsial infections can be controlled by appropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy if diagnosed early, up to 20% of misdiagnosed or untreated (1, 3) and 5% of treated RMSF cases (8) result in a fatal outcome caused by acute disseminated vascular endothelial infection and damage (9). Fatality rates as high as 32% have been reported in hospitalized patients diagnosed with Mediterranean spotted fever (10). In addition, strains of R. prowazekii resistant to tetracycline and chloramphenicol have been developed in laboratories (11). Disseminated endothelial infection and endothelial barrier disruption with increased microvascular permeability are the central features of SFG rickettsioses (1, 2, 9). The molecular mechanisms involved in rickettsial infection remain incompletely elucidated (9, 12). A comprehensive understanding of rickettsial pathogenesis and the development of novel mechanism-based treatment are urgently needed.Living organisms use intricate signaling networks for sensing and responding to changes in the external environment. cAMP, a ubiquitous second messenger, is an important molecular switch that translates environmental signals into regulatory effects in cells (13). As such, a number of microbial pathogens have evolved a set of diverse virulence-enhancing strategies that exploit the cAMP-signaling pathways of their hosts (14). The intracellular functions of cAMP are predominantly mediated by the classic cAMP receptor, protein kinase A (PKA), and the more recently discovered exchange protein directly activated by cAMP (Epac) (15). Thus, far, two isoforms, Epac1 and Epac2, have been identified in humans (16, 17). Epac proteins function by responding to increased intracellular cAMP levels and activating the Ras superfamily small GTPases Ras-proximate 1 and 2 (Rap1 and Rap2). Accumulating evidence demonstrates that the cAMP/Epac1 signaling axis plays key regulatory roles in controlling various cellular functions in endothelial cells in vitro, including cell adhesion (18–21), exocytosis (22), tissue plasminogen activator expression (23), suppressor of cytokine signaling 3 (SOCS-3) induction (24–27), microtubule dynamics (28, 29), cell–cell junctions, and permeability and barrier functions (30–37). Considering the critical importance of endothelial cells in rickettsioses, we examined the functional roles of Epac1 in rickettsial pathogenesis in vivo, taking advantage of the recently generated Epac1 knockout mouse (38) and Epac-specific inhibitors (39, 40) generated from our laboratory. Our studies demonstrate that Epac1 plays a key role in rickettsial infection and represents a therapeutic target for fatal rickettsioses.     

Degenerate target sites mediate rapid primed CRISPR adaptation

Prokaryotes encode adaptive immune systems, called CRISPR-Cas (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats–CRISPR associated), to provide resistance against mobile invaders, such as viruses and plasmids. Host immunity is based on incorporation of invader DNA sequences in a memory locus (CRISPR), the formation of guide RNAs from this locus, and the degradation of cognate invader DNA (protospacer). Invaders can escape type I-E CRISPR-Cas immunity in Escherichia coli K12 by making point mutations in the seed region of the protospacer or its adjacent motif (PAM), but hosts quickly restore immunity by integrating new spacers in a positive-feedback process termed “priming.” Here, by using a randomized protospacer and PAM library and high-throughput plasmid loss assays, we provide a systematic analysis of the constraints of both direct interference and subsequent priming in E. coli. We have defined a high-resolution genetic map of direct interference by Cascade and Cas3, which includes five positions of the protospacer at 6-nt intervals that readily tolerate mutations. Importantly, we show that priming is an extremely robust process capable of using degenerate target regions, with up to 13 mutations throughout the PAM and protospacer region. Priming is influenced by the number of mismatches, their position, and is nucleotide dependent. Our findings imply that even outdated spacers containing many mismatches can induce a rapid primed CRISPR response against diversified or related invaders, giving microbes an advantage in the coevolutionary arms race with their invaders.Bacteria and Archaea are regularly exposed to bacteriophages and other mobile genetic elements, such as plasmids. To control the competing effects of horizontal gene transfer, a spectrum of resistance strategies have evolved in prokaryotes (1). One of the most widespread and well-characterized are the CRISPR-Cas (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats–CRISPR-associated) systems, which provide bacterial “adaptive immunity” (1–8). Simply, CRISPR-Cas functions in three major steps. First, in a process termed “adaptation,” short sequences are derived from the invading element and incorporated into a CRISPR array (9). CRISPR arrays are composed of short repeats that are separated by the foreign-derived sequences, termed “spacers.” Second, CRISPRs are transcribed into a pre-CRISPR RNA (pre-crRNA), which is then processed into short crRNAs, which encompass portions of the repeats and most—or all—of the spacer. Finally, as part of a Cas ribonucleoprotein complex, the crRNAs guide a sequence-specific targeting of complementary nucleic acids (for recent reviews, see refs. 1–7).CRISPR-Cas systems are divided into three major types (I–III) and further categorized into subtypes (e.g., I-A to I-F) (10). The mechanisms of both crRNA generation and interference differ between the types and there are even significant differences between closely related subtypes. However, Cas1 and Cas2 are the only two Cas proteins completely conserved across all CRISPR-Cas systems and they are crucial for adaptation in Escherichia coli (10–12). The acquisition of new spacers is the most poorly understood stage in CRISPR-Cas immunity, mainly hindered by the paucity of robust laboratory assays to monitor this process (reviewed in ref. 9). Streptococcus thermophilus is highly proficient at spacer acquisition and provided much of the early insight into adaptation, showing that new spacers are typically acquired at one end of the CRISPR array from either phages (13–15) or plasmids (16). Recently, spacer acquisition has been detected in a variety of other systems (11, 12, 17–20). Adjacent to the expanding end of the array is the leader region, which harbors the promoter for pre-crRNA expression and sequences important for spacer acquisition (12, 21). Recent studies in E. coli in the type I-E system have shown that spacer acquisition can occur from phages and plasmids either when the Cas1 and Cas2 proteins are overexpressed or if the native cas genes are up-regulated, because of deletion of hns (11, 12, 20–22). The DNA targets (termed “protospacers”) of newly acquired spacers are consistently flanked by protospacer-adjacent motifs (PAMs), with the E. coli type I-E consensus 5′-protospacer-CTT-3′. PAMs were originally identified computationally (23) and were shown to play a role in interference in an early study (14). The importance of PAMs in the recognition and selection of precursor-spacers (prespacers) during adaptation was demonstrated unequivocally using assays that were independent of interference (12, 21). The simple overexpression of Cas1 and Cas2, in the absence of other cas genes, demonstrated these are the only Cas proteins essential for adaptation and are likely to recognize PAMs (12).Adaptation consists of two related stages, termed “naïve” and “primed” (9). Naïve adaptation occurs when a bacterium harboring a CRISPR-Cas system is infected by a new foreign element that it has not previously encountered. Although the acquisition of a new spacer can result in effective protection from the element, point mutations within the protospacer or PAM allow the element to escape CRISPR-Cas targeting (14, 24, 25). This aspect had been viewed as a weakness of CRISPR-Cas interference, but recent studies show that a positive feedback loop—called priming—occurs, which enables one or more new spacers to be acquired (11, 20, 22). Specifically, single mutations within either the PAM or the seed region of the protospacer, although inactive for interference, promote the rapid acquisition of new spacers from the same target (11). Priming is proposed to allow an effective response against viral or plasmid escapees through the incorporation of new spacers. Unlike naïve adaptation, priming is more complex, and in type I-E systems requires Cas1, Cas2, crRNA, the targeting complex termed Cascade [CRISPR-associated complex for antiviral defence, composed of Cse1, Cse2, Cas7, Cas5, and Cas6e (26–28)] and the Cas3 nuclease/helicase (11). Interestingly, the vast majority of spacers acquired through priming are derived from the same DNA strand as the original priming spacer (11, 20, 22). In addition, priming in E. coli was abolished by two mutations in the protospacer and PAM regions (11).In this study, we generated a mutagenic variant library of a protospacer and PAM region and used both individual high-throughput plasmid-loss assays and next-generation sequencing to determine the limits of both direct interference and indirect interference through priming. Our results demonstrate that direct interference tolerates mutations mostly at very specific positions in the protospacer, whereas priming tolerates extensive mutation of the PAM and protospacer regions. The results have wide evolutionary consequences for primed acquisition and could explain the retention of multiple “older” spacers in CRISPR arrays.     

Identification of divergent type VI secretion effectors using a conserved chaperone domain

The type VI secretion system (T6SS) is a lethal weapon used by many bacteria to kill eukaryotic predators or prokaryotic competitors. Killing by the T6SS results from repetitive delivery of toxic effectors. Despite their importance in dictating bacterial fitness, systematic prediction of T6SS effectors remains challenging due to high effector diversity and the absence of a conserved signature sequence. Here, we report a class of T6SS effector chaperone (TEC) proteins that are required for effector delivery through binding to VgrG and effector proteins. The TEC proteins share a highly conserved domain (DUF4123) and are genetically encoded upstream of their cognate effector genes. Using the conserved TEC domain sequence, we identified a large family of TEC genes coupled to putative T6SS effectors in Gram-negative bacteria. We validated this approach by verifying a predicted effector TseC in Aeromonas hydrophila. We show that TseC is a T6SS-secreted antibacterial effector and that the downstream gene tsiC encodes the cognate immunity protein. Further, we demonstrate that TseC secretion requires its cognate TEC protein and an associated VgrG protein. Distinct from previous effector-dependent bioinformatic analyses, our approach using the conserved TEC domain will facilitate the discovery and functional characterization of new T6SS effectors in Gram-negative bacteria.Protein secretion systems play a pivotal role in bacterial interspecies interaction and virulence (1, 2). Of the known secretion systems in Gram-negative bacteria, the type VI secretion system (T6SS) enables bacteria to compete with both eukaryotic and prokaryotic species through delivery of toxic effectors (2–4). The T6SS is a multicomponent nanomachine analogous to the contractile bacteriophage tail (5). First characterized in Vibrio cholerae (6) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (7), the T6SS has now been identified in ∼25% of Gram-negative bacteria, including many important pathogens (2, 8), and has been implicated as a critical factor in niche competition (9–11).The T6SS structure is composed of an Hcp inner tube, a VipAB outer sheath that wraps around the Hcp tube, a tip complex consisting of VgrG and PAAR proteins, and a membrane-bound baseplate (2, 4, 12). Sheath contraction drives the inner Hcp tube and the tip proteins, VgrG and PAAR, outward into the environment and neighboring cells (13, 14). The contracted sheath is then dissembled by an ATPase ClpV and recycled for another T6SS assembly and contraction event (12, 15, 16). Two essential T6SS baseplate components, VasF and VasK, are homologous to the DotU and IcmF proteins of the type IV secretion system (T4SS) in Legionella pneumophila (17).Bacteria often possess multiple copies of VgrG and PAAR genes that form the tip of T6SS, and deletion of VgrG and PAAR genes abolishes T6SS secretion (14). Some VgrG and PAAR proteins carry functional extension domains and thus act as secreted T6SS effectors, as exemplified by the VgrG1 actin cross-linking domain (6), VgrG3 lysozyme domain in V. cholerae (18, 19), and the nuclease domain of the PAAR protein RhsA in Dickeya dadantii (20). Known T6SS effectors can target a number of essential cellular components, including the actin and membrane of eukaryotic cells (18, 21, 22) and the cell wall, membrane, and DNA of bacterial cells (3, 18–20, 23, 24). Each antibacterial effector coexists with an antagonistic immunity protein that confers protection during T6SS-mediated attacks between sister cells (3, 18, 24). Interestingly, T6SS-mediated lethal attacks induce the generation of reactive oxygen species in the prey cells (25), similar to cells treated with antibiotics (26, 27).For non-VgrG/PAAR–related effectors, their translocation requires either binding to the inner tube Hcp proteins as chaperones or binding to the tip VgrG proteins (2, 14, 28). T6SS-dependent effectors can be experimentally identified by comparing the secretomes of WT and T6SS mutants (3, 29–31) and by screening for T6SS-encoded immunity proteins (18). Because known effectors lack a common secretion signal, bioinformatic identification of T6SS effectors is challenging. A heuristic approach based on the physical properties of effectors has been used to identify a superfamily of peptidoglycan-degrading effectors in bacteria (32). A recent study identified a common N-terminal motif in a number of T6SS effectors (31). However, this motif does not exist in the T6SS effector TseL in V. cholerae (18).In this study, we report that VC1417, the gene upstream of tseL, encodes a protein with a highly conserved domain, DUF4123. We show that VC1417 is required for TseL delivery and interacts with VgrG1 (VC1416) and TseL. Because of the genetic linkage of VC1417 and TseL and its importance for TseL secretion, we postulated that genes encoding the conserved DUF4123 domain proteins are generally located upstream of genes encoding putative T6SS effectors. Using the conserved domain sequence, we bioinformatically predicted a large family of effector proteins with diverse functions in Gram-negative bacteria. We validated our prediction by the identification and characterization of a new secreted effector TseC and its antagonistic immunity protein TsiC in Aeromonas hydrophila SSU. Our results demonstrate a new effective approach to identify T6SS effectors with highly divergent sequences.     

Protons are a neurotransmitter that regulates synaptic plasticity in the lateral amygdala

Stimulating presynaptic terminals can increase the proton concentration in synapses. Potential receptors for protons are acid-sensing ion channels (ASICs), Na⁺- and Ca²⁺-permeable channels that are activated by extracellular acidosis. Those observations suggest that protons might be a neurotransmitter. We found that presynaptic stimulation transiently reduced extracellular pH in the amygdala. The protons activated ASICs in lateral amygdala pyramidal neurons, generating excitatory postsynaptic currents. Moreover, both protons and ASICs were required for synaptic plasticity in lateral amygdala neurons. The results identify protons as a neurotransmitter, and they establish ASICs as the postsynaptic receptor. They also indicate that protons and ASICs are a neurotransmitter/receptor pair critical for amygdala-dependent learning and memory.Although homeostatic mechanisms generally maintain the brain’s extracellular pH within narrow limits, neural activity can induce transient and localized pH fluctuations. For example, acidification may occur when synaptic vesicles, which have a pH of ∼5.2–5.7 (1–3), release their contents into the synapse. Studies of mammalian cone photoreceptors showed that synaptic vesicle exocytosis rapidly reduced synaptic cleft pH by an estimated 0.2–0.6 units (4–6). Transient synaptic cleft acidification also occurred with GABAergic transmission (7). Some, but not all, studies also reported that high-frequency stimulation (HFS) transiently acidified hippocampal brain slices, likely as a result of the release of synaptic vesicle contents (8, 9). Neurotransmission also induces a slower, more prolonged alkalinization (10, 11). In addition to release of synaptic vesicle protons, neuronal and glial H⁺ and HCO₃⁻ transporters, channels, H⁺-ATPases, and metabolism might influence extracellular pH (10–12).ASICs are potential targets of reduced extracellular pH. ASICs are Na⁺-permeable and, to a lesser extent, Ca²⁺-permeable channels that are activated by extracellular acidosis (13–19). In the brain, ASICs consist of homotrimeric and heterotrimeric complexes of ASIC1a, ASIC2a, and ASIC2b. The ASIC1a subunit is required for acid-activation in the physiological range (>pH 5.0) (20, 21). Several observations indicate that ASIC are located postsynaptically. ASICs are located on dendritic spines. Although similar to glutamate receptors, they are also present on dendrites and cell bodies (20, 22–24). ASIC subunits interact with postsynaptic scaffolding proteins, including postsynaptic density protein 95 and protein interacting with C-kinase-1 (20, 24–29). In addition, ASICs are enriched in synaptosome-containing brain fractions (20, 24, 30).Although these observations raised the possibility that protons might be a neurotransmitter, postsynaptic ASIC currents have not been detected in cultured hippocampal neurons (31, 32), and whether localized pH transients might play a signaling role in neuronal communication remains unclear. In previous studies of hippocampal brain slices, extracellular field potential recordings suggested impaired hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP) in ASIC1a^−/− mice (20), although another study did not detect an effect of ASIC1a (33). Another study using microisland cultures of hippocampal neurons suggested that the probability of neurotransmitter release increased in ASIC1a^−/− mice (32).Here, we tested the hypothesis that protons are a neurotransmitter and that ASICs are the receptor. Criteria to identify substances as neurotransmitters have been proposed (34). Beg and colleagues (35) used these criteria to conclude that protons are a transmitter released from Caenorhabditis elegans intestine to cause muscle contraction. Key questions about whether protons meet criteria for a neurotransmitter are: Does presynaptic stimulation increase the extracellular proton concentration? Do protons activate currents in postsynaptic cells? Can exogenously applied protons reproduce effects of endogenous protons? What is the postsynaptic proton receptor? We studied lateral amygdala brain slices because amygdala-dependent fear-related behavior depends on a pH reduction (36). In addition, ASICs are abundantly expressed there, and ASIC1a^−/− mice have impaired fear-like behavior (36–38).