SUMO control of nervous system development.

In the last decades, the post-translational modification system by covalent attachment of the SUMO polypeptide to proteins has emerged as an essential mechanism controlling virtually all the physiological processes in the eukaryotic cell. This includes vertebrate development. In the nervous system, SUMO plays crucial roles in synapse establishment and it has also been linked to a variety of neurodegenerative diseases. However, to date, the involvement of the modification of specific targets in key aspects of nervous system development, like patterning and differentiation, has remained largely elusive. A number of recent works confirm the participation of target-specific SUMO modification in critical aspects of nervous system development. Here, we review pioneering and new findings demonstrating the essential role SUMO plays in neurogenesis and other facets of neurodevelopment, which will help to precisely understand the variety of mechanisms SUMO utilizes to control most fundamental processes in the cell.

The Sumo proteome of proliferating and neuronal-differentiating cells reveals Utf1 among key Sumo targets involved in neurogenesis.

Post-translational modification by covalent attachment of the Small ubiquitin-like modifier (Sumo) polypeptide regulates a multitude of processes in vertebrates. Despite demonstrated roles of Sumo in the development and function of the nervous system, the identification of key factors displaying a sumoylation-dependent activity during neurogenesis remains elusive. Through a SILAC (stable isotope labeling by/with amino acids in cell culture)-based proteomic approach, we have identified the Sumo proteome of the model cell line P19 under proliferation and neuronal differentiation conditions. More than 300 proteins were identified as putative Sumo targets differentially associated with one or the other condition. A group of proteins of interest were validated and investigated in functional studies. Among these, Utf1 was revealed as a new Sumo target. Gain-of-function experiments demonstrated marked differences between the effects on neurogenesis of overexpressing wild-type and sumoylation mutant versions of the selected proteins. While sumoylation of Prox1, Sall4a, Trim24, and Utf1 was associated with a positive effect on neurogenesis in P19 cells, sumoylation of Kctd15 was associated with a negative effect. Prox1, Sall4a, and Kctd15 were further analyzed in the vertebrate neural tube of living embryos, with similar results. Finally, a detailed analysis of Utf1 showed the sumoylation dependence of Utf1 function in controlling the expression of bivalent genes. Interestingly, this effect seems to rely on two mechanisms: sumoylation modulates binding of Utf1 to the chromatin and mediates recruitment of the messenger RNA-decapping enzyme Dcp1a through a conserved SIM (Sumo-interacting motif). Altogether, our results indicate that the combined sumoylation status of key proteins determines the proper progress of neurogenesis.

Control of neuronal differentiation by sumoylation of BRAF35, a subunit of the LSD1-CoREST histone demethylase complex.

The LSD1-CoREST histone demethylase complex is required to repress neuronal genes in nonneuronal tissues. Here we show that sumoylation of Braf35, one of the subunits of the complex, is required to maintain full repression of neuron-specific genes and for occupancy of the LSD1-CoREST complex at its gene targets. Interestingly, expression of Braf35 was sufficient to prevent neuronal differentiation induced by bHLH neurogenic transcription factors in P19 cells and in neuronal progenitors of the chicken embryo neural tube. Sumoylation of Braf35 is required for this antineurogenic activity. We also show that iBraf, a paralogue of Braf35, forms heterodimers with Braf35. Braf35-iBraf heterodimerization impairs Braf35 interaction with the LSD1-CoREST complex and inhibits Braf35 sumoylation. Consistent with these results, iBraf prevents the antineurogenic activity of Braf35 in vivo. Our data uncover a mechanism of regulation of the LSD1-CoREST complex and provide a molecular explanation for the antagonism between Braf35 and iBraf in neuronal differentiation.