Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
Institute
Structural biology often employs a combination of experimental and computational approaches to unravel the structure-function paradigm of biological macromolecules. This thesis aims to approach this combination by the application of Pulsed Electron-Electron Double Resonance (PELDOR/DEER) spectroscopy and structural modelling. In this respect, PELDOR spectroscopy in combination with site-directed spin labelling (SDSL) of proteins is frequently used to gain distance restraints in the range from 1.8 to 8 nm. The inter-spin distance and the flexibility of the spin labelled protein domains are encoded in the oscillation and the dampening of the PELDOR signal. The intrinsic flexibility of the commonly used MTSSL (1-Oxyl-2,2,5,5-tetramethylpyrroline-3-methyl) spin label itself can be an obstacle for structural modelling if the flexibility of the label is large compared to the flexibility of the protein domains. In this thesis the investigation of two multi-domain proteins by the 4-pulse PELDOR sequence is presented. At first, the N-terminal polypeptide transport-associated (POTRA) domains of anaOmp85, a rigid three domain protein, giving well-defined PELDOR distance restraints, is investigated. The experimental restraints are used for structure refinement of the X-ray structure and reveal a strong impact of the intrinsic flexibility of MTSSL on the accuracy of structural refinement. The second example, K48-linked diubiquitin, is a highly flexible multi-domain protein on which the flexibility of MTSSL is of minor impact on structural modelling. In this case, the distance restraints are utilized to determine conformational ensembles. Due to the high intrinsic flexibility already characterizing diubiquitin the recently developed 7-pulse Carr-Purcell (CP) PELDOR sequence was applied to investigate longer ubiquitin chains. This sequence enables to measure dipolar oscillations with an extended time window, allowing a good separation between inter- and intramolecular contributions even for long distance and broad conformational distributions, thereby providing an increased accuracy of the obtained distance distributions.
Cancer cells, in general and especially Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) cells have been reported to be highly susceptible to oxidative stress. Based on this knowledge we examined whether the inhibition of the two main antioxidant defense pathways, i.e. the thioredoxin (TRX) and the glutathione (GSH) system, represents a possible new strategy to induce cell death in RMS. To do so, we combined the -glutamylcysteine synthetase (γGCL) inhibitor buthionine sulfoximine (BSO) or the cystine/glutamate antiporter (xc-) inhibitor erastin (ERA), both GSH depleting enzymes, with the thioredoxinreductase (TrxR) inhibitor auranofin (AUR) to evaluate synergistic cell death in the alveolar RMS (ARMS) cell line RH30 and the embryonal RMS (ERMS) cells RD.
Furthermore, we tried to unravel the underlying molecular mechanisms of AUR/BSO or AUR/ERA treatment in RMS cells. Thereby we showed that AUR/BSO as well as AUR/ERA treatment leads to proteasome inhibition characterized by the accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins, which is in agreement with the already published ability of AUR to inhibit proteasomeassociated deubiquitinases (DUBs) aside from TrxR. As a consequence, the protein levels of ubiquitinated short-lived proteins, like NOXA and MCL-1, increase upon treatment with AUR/BSO or AUR/ERA. Consistently, we could detect an increased binding of NOXA to MCL-1. Interestingly, not only NOXA protein levels but also mRNA levels rise upon treatment, pointing to a transcriptional regulation of pro-apoptotic NOXA through AUR/BSO or AUR/ERA combination treatment. The fact that siRNA mediated knockdown of NOXA rescues cells from combination treatment-induced cell death strengthens the role of NOXA as an important regulator of cell death induction. Apart from proteasome inhibition and subsequent NOXA accumulation, AUR cooperates with BSO or ERA to trigger BAX/BAK activation, which is needed for cell death induction, too. Additionally, loss of mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) as well as caspase activation and PARP cleavage is detected after treatment of RMS cells with AUR/BSO or AUR/ERA.
Except of apoptotic cell death we also detected features of iron-dependent ferroptosis after treatment with AUR/BSO or AUR/ERA. This is not surprising, since BSO and ERA already have been described to induce ferroptotic cell death. Although lipid peroxidation takes place in both cell lines, only in RH30 cells, cell death seems to be partially ferroptosis-dependent, since especially in this cell line AUR/BSO- or AUR/ERA-induced cell death can be rescued with different ferroptosis inhibitors.
Although both combination treatments, AUR/BSO as well as AUR/ERA, induce production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), only the thiol-containing ROS scavengers GSH and its precursor N-acetylcysteine (NAC), but not the non-thiolcontaining antioxidant α-Tocopherol (α-Toc), consistently prevent proteasome inhibition, NOXA accumulation and cell death.
Additionally, we demonstrated that BSO and ERA abolish AUR-mediated upregulation of GSH thereby releasing the AUR cytotoxic effect on RMS cells, in line with the described ability of cysteines to inhibit the function of AUR. Together, this points to the conclusion that GSH depletion, rather than an increase in ROS levels, is important for AUR/BSO- or AUR/ERA-induced cell death.
In conclusion, through revealing that the antitumor activity of AUR is enhanced in combination with GSH depleting agents, we identified redox homeostasis as a new and promising target for the treatment of RMS cells.
Rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common paediatric soft-tissue sarcoma, and for tumour recurrence, the prognosis is still unfavourable. The current standard therapy consisting of surgery, radiation and combined chemotherapy does not consider the specific biology of this tumour.
Histone deacetylases (HDACs) and the Lysine-specific demethylase-1 (LSD1) are two epigenetic modifiers which are both part of repressor complexes leading to transcriptional silencing of target genes. Whereas HDACs lead to deacetylation of several lysine-residues within the histone tail, LSD1 is specific for demethylation of H3K4me2 and H3K4me1, as well as in a different context for H3K9me2. Rhabdomyosarcoma is reported to harbour high levels of LSD1, but the functional relevance is yet unclear. HDAC inhibition proved to be effective as single agent treatment, however, the proximity of HDAC1/2 and LSD1 in repressor complexes at the DNA implies a suitable rationale for a combination therapy potentially leading to cooperative effects on target gene transcription. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the potential of a combined LSD1 and HDAC inhibition for cell death induction in rhabdomyosarcoma cell lines. Whereas LSD1 inhibitors failed to induce cell death on their own, the combined inhibition of HDACs and LSD1 resulted in highly synergistic cell death induction. This effect extended to several combinations of LSD1 and HDAC inhibitors as well as to four different rhabdomyosarcoma cell lines, two of embryonal and two of alveolar histology.
With the use of the HDAC inhibitor JNJ-26481585 and the reversible LSD1 inhibitor GSK690, we demonstrated that the cell death induced by the combination matches with the details of intrinsic mitochondrial apoptosis. JNJ-26481585/GSK690-induced cell death is partially caspase-dependent and leads to caspase cleavage, followed by substrate cleavage as shown for PARP, as well as loss of the mitochondrial membrane potential.
Furthermore, JNJ-26481585 and GSK690 acted together to transcriptionally upregulate the proapoptotic proteins NOXA, BIM and BMF, which resulted in respective changes on protein level for both cell lines. However, the antiapoptotic BCL-2 family proteins BCL-2, MCL-1 and BCL-xL displayed only minor changes in protein levels upon treatment with GSK690 and JNJ-26481585, which did not rely on transcriptional activity. Therefore, the increase in proapoptotic proteins induces a shift towards proapoptotic signalling at the mitochondrial membrane. This shift is functionally relevant since knockdown of a proapoptotic protein or overexpression of one of the antiapoptotic proteins BCL-2 and MCL-1, as well as a stabilized mutant MCL-1, can significantly protect from GSK690/JNJ-26481585-induced cell death.
Knockdown of the mitochondrial membrane protein BAK, which is directly guarding the mitochondrial membrane integrity, potently protected from GSK690/JNJ-26481585- induced cell death, directly linking the shift in the BCL-2 family proteins to the observed loss of mitochondrial membrane potential and the further downstream activation of caspases. Furthermore, treatment with JNJ-26481585 and GSK690 resulted in a cell cycle arrest in G2/M phase, indicating additional effects on the tumour cells beside apoptosis induction. Taken together, the combined inhibition of LSD1 and HDACs is a promising strategy for rhabdomyosarcoma treatment.
In dieser Dissertation wurde die Rolle des Proteins Carboxypeptidase E (CPE) im Glioblastom (GBM) untersucht. Ursprünglich wurde CPE in der neuroendokrinen Regulation beschrieben, wo es die Reifung der meisten Neuropeptide und Hormone reguliert und somit Einfluss auf Stoffwechsel und humorale Effekte hat (Fricker et al., 1982; Fricker & Snyder, 1982 and 1983; Davidson & Hutton, 1987; Shen & Loh, 1997; Lou et al., 2005). Ab 1989 wurde CPE in unterschiedlichen Tumorentitäten nachgewiesen (Grimwood et al., 1989; Manser et al., 1991), jedoch ohne Hinweise, welche Bedeutung das Protein dort haben könnte. Erst im letzten Jahrzehnt konnten sowohl pro- als auch anti-tumorigene Wirkungen von CPE gezeigt werden. Die beschriebenen Wirkungen von CPE sind jedoch von dessen Isoform abhängig. Das ∂(delta)N-trunkierte CPE zeigte sich mit erhöhtem Tumorwachstum und schlechter Überlebensprognose in verschiedenen Krebsentitäten assoziiert (Murthy et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2013). Im Gegensatz dazu verringerte sezerniertes CPE (sCPE) im Fibrosarkom und Glioblastom die Zellmigration, was einen anti-tumorigenen Effekt suggeriert (Höring et al., 2012; Murthy et al., 2013a). Die Molekularmechanismen, die für die Regulation der Migration zuständig sind, sind jedoch kaum untersucht. Die meisten Untersuchungen von sCPE in Normal- und Tumorgewebe beschränken sich hauptsächlich auf Apoptose und Zellüberleben (Skalka et al., 2013; Murthy et al., 2013b; Cheng et al., 2013; Selvaraj et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2015). Die vorliegende Arbeit ist demzufolge die erste Studie, die sich dem Mechanismus der Migrationsregulation durch sCPE im Glioblastom widmet.
Humane Gliome stellen die größte und bösartigste Gruppe hirneigener Tumore dar. Bösartige Gliome sind höchst resistent gegen alle zurzeit verfügbaren Behandlungsmethoden. Einer der Hauptgründe dafür ist, dass die Tumorzellen durch diffuse Infiltration in das Gehirn einwandern können. Ferner sind Gliomzellen metabolisch sehr aktiv und können sich dadurch an schnell verändertes Milieu anpassen (Fack et al., 2015; Demeure et al., 2016). Über die grundlegenden Mechanismen für diese Art des infiltrierenden Tumorwachstums ist bisher noch nicht viel bekannt. Zurzeit sind nur wenige Schlüsselfaktoren beschrieben, die den sogenannten Mechanismus der Migration oder Proliferation ("go or grow") in bösartigen Tumoren beeinflussen: wenige Transkriptionsfaktoren, miRNAs sowie metabolische Faktoren. Interessanterweise, sind miRNAs zum Teil mit der Regulation des Metabolismus in Tumorzellen assoziiert. Eine vorangehende Studie aus unserem Labor hat sCPE aufgrund seines Potentials, Zellwanderung zu verringern, als einen weiteren Schlüsselfaktor identifiziert. Wir konnten zeigen, dass sCPE in der Gliomzelllinie LNT-229 zur einer differentiellen Regulation von Migration und Proliferation führt (Höring et al., 2012). Die vorliegende Arbeit widmet sich nun der Frage nach den genauen zugrundeliegenden Mechanismen, wie sCPE seine Effekte auf molekularer Ebene vermittelt. Darüber hinaus soll geklärt werden, ob sCPE auch in der metabolischen Adaptation eine Rolle spielt und dadurch ebenfalls die Gliomzellmigration beeinflußen kann.
The focus of this research was to understand the molecular mechanism that lies behind the insertion of tail-anchored membrane proteins into the ER membrane of yeast cells. State-of-art instruments such as LILBID, and Cryo-EM, combined with the introduction of direct electron detectors, were used to analyze the proteins that capture tail-anchored proteins near the ER membrane and help their releases from a chaperone, an ATPase named Get3. Get3 escorts TA proteins to the ER membrane, where both Get3 and the TA proteins interact sequentially to Get3 membrane bound receptors Get1 and Get2. Get1 and Get2 are homologs of mammalian WRB and CAML.
The native host was used to separately produce Get1, Get2, and the Get2/Get1 single chain constructs. The studies showed that when Get1 is expressed alone, Get1 does not seems to be located in the ER membrane but rather in microbodies like shape organelles (or peroxisome). Interestingly, Get1 seems to be located in the ER membrane when it is linked to Get2 as single chain construct.
The localization study of Get2/Get1 fused to GFP shows from the fluorescence intensity that Get2/Get1.GFP has a tube-like morphology or membrane-enclosed sacs (cisterna), implying that Get2/Get1 is actually targeted to the ER membrane and is likely functional. In other words, Get1 and Get2 stabilize each other in the ER membrane.
The expression of Get2/Get1 was found to be already optimum when expressed as single chain construct because the fluorescence counts did not improve when additives such as DMSO or histidine were added. However, when Get1 and Get2 are expressed separately, additives improve their protein production yield. In 1 liter culture, Get1 yield is increased by about 3 mg and Get2 by 1.8 mg. This can be explained by the space that Get1 and Get2 should occupy within the ER membrane as they must coexist with other membrane components to maintain the homeostasis of the cell. Hence, if there were no gain for single chain construct expression, it meant that Get2/Get1 was already well expressed on its own in ER membrane and has reached its optimum expression without the help of additives. The Get2/Get1 overexpression is more stable, tolerated and less toxic for the cells to express it at a high level.
DDM has proved to be the best detergent from the detergents tested to solubilize Get1, Get2, and Get2/Get1.
Thereafter, Get1, Get2 (data not shown), and Get2/Get1 were successfully purified in DDM micelles.
Furthermore, for the first time using LILBID, the actual study has shown that Get1 and Get2 are predominantly a heterotetramer (2xGet1 and 2xGet2) but higher oligomerization may exist as well.
Get3 binds to Get1 in a biphasic way with a specific strong binding of an affinity of 57 nM and the second of 740 nM nonspecific indicative of heterogeneity within the interaction between Get1 and Get3. This heterogeneity is caused by the presence of different conformation of either protein. However, in order to characterize a high-resolution structure model of a specific target one needs highly homogenous and identical molecules of the target protein or complex in solution. The homogeneity increases the chances of growing crystals during crystallography as the good homogeneity will likely generate a perfect packing of unit cells stack (also known as crystal lattice) in the three-dimensional spaces. The same truth goes for the single particles analysis Cryo-EM, especially for smaller complexes where having less or no conformation alterations of specific targets will enable the researcher to classify the particles in 2D and 3D, therefore improving the signal-to-noise-ratio that will ultimately lead to high-resolution structure determination.
Get1, Get2/Get1 and chimeric variants (tGet2/Get1, T4l.Get2/Get1, T4l.Get2.apocyte.Get1) were crystallized but none of the crystals could diffract due to heterogeneity.
This heterogeneity was not only occurring upon the binding of Get3 to its membrane receptors, but seems to be already present within the receptors themselves through possibly different conformation.
In this Ph.D. thesis, the heterogeneity of purified Get2 and Get1 as complex or individually in detergent is then, so far, the limiting factor for obtaining a high-resolution structure model of Get1 and Get2. As mentioned above, the heterogeneity observed was not due to the quality of the sample preparation but rather to the effect of different conformations that could have been native, or just because of the micelle used, as it was proven by the 3-D heterogeneity classification by Cryo-EM.
In general, crosslinking is one way to keep the integrity of protein complexes, however it appeared not to improve the sample quality when it was analyzed in micelles. Often the integrity of some membrane proteins is affected when they are solubilized and purified in detergents.
Finally, in this study, the structural map of Get2 and Get1 complex linked with chimeric protein T4 lysozyme and apocytochrome C b562RIL gene was obtained at 10 Å. However, this single chain construct has a density map corresponding to heterodimer species (one Get1 and Get2). Therefore, based on those data the tertiary structure of Get2/Get1 in micelle is poorly defined. It could be that the membrane extraction in DDM and the purification destabilizes the structure of the complex.