ABSTRACT
Different brain cell types play distinct roles in brain development and disease. Molecular characterization of cell-specific mechanisms using cell type-specific approaches at the protein (proteomic) level can provide biological and therapeutic insights. To overcome the barriers of conventional isolation-based methods for cell type-specific proteomics, in vivo proteomic labeling with proximity-dependent biotinylation of cytosolic proteins using biotin ligase TurboID, coupled with mass spectrometry (MS) of labeled proteins, emerged as a powerful strategy for cell type-specific proteomics in the native state of cells without the need for cellular isolation. To complement in vivo proximity labeling approaches, in vitro studies are needed to ensure that cellular proteomes using the TurboID approach are representative of the whole-cell proteome and capture cellular responses to stimuli without disruption of cellular processes. To address this, we generated murine neuroblastoma (N2A) and microglial (BV2) lines stably expressing cytosolic TurboID to biotinylate the cellular proteome for downstream purification and analysis using MS. TurboID-mediated biotinylation captured 59% of BV2 and 65% of N2A proteomes under homeostatic conditions. TurboID labeled endolysosome, translation, vesicle, and signaling proteins in BV2 microglia and synaptic, neuron projection, and microtubule proteins in N2A neurons. TurboID expression and biotinylation minimally impacted homeostatic cellular proteomes of BV2 and N2A cells and did not affect lipopolysaccharide-mediated cytokine production or resting cellular respiration in BV2 cells. MS analysis of the microglial biotin-labeled proteins captured the impact of lipopolysaccharide treatment (>500 differentially abundant proteins) including increased canonical proinflammatory proteins (Il1a, Irg1, and Oasl1) and decreased anti-inflammatory proteins (Arg1 and Mgl2).
Subject(s)
Microglia , Proteome , Animals , Mice , Microglia/metabolism , Proteome/metabolism , Biotin/metabolism , Proteomics/methods , Lipopolysaccharides/pharmacology , Lipopolysaccharides/metabolism , Cell Line , Neurons/metabolism , BiotinylationABSTRACT
Cells orchestrate histone biogenesis with strict temporal and quantitative control. To efficiently regulate histone biogenesis, the repetitive Drosophila melanogaster replication-dependent histone genes are arrayed and clustered at a single locus. Regulatory factors concentrate in a nuclear body known as the histone locus body (HLB), which forms around the locus. Historically, HLB factors are largely discovered by chance, and few are known to interact directly with DNA. It is therefore unclear how the histone genes are specifically targeted for unique and coordinated regulation. To expand the list of known HLB factors, we performed a candidate-based screen by mapping 30 publicly available ChIP datasets and 27 factors to the Drosophila histone gene array. We identified novel transcription factor candidates, including the Drosophila Hox proteins Ultrabithorax, Abdominal-A and Abdominal-B, suggesting a new pathway for these factors in influencing body plan morphogenesis. Additionally, we identified six other transcription factors that target the histone gene array: JIL-1, Hr78, the long isoform of fs(1)h as well as the generalized transcription factors TAF-1, TFIIB, and TFIIF. Our foundational screen provides several candidates for future studies into factors that may influence histone biogenesis. Further, our study emphasizes the powerful reservoir of publicly available datasets, which can be mined as a primary screening technique.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cells orchestrate histone biogenesis with strict temporal and quantitative control. To efficiently regulate histone biogenesis, the repetitive Drosophila melanogaster replication-dependent histone genes are arrayed and clustered at a single locus. Regulatory factors concentrate in a nuclear body known as the histone locus body (HLB), which forms around the locus. Historically, HLB factors are largely discovered by chance, and few are known to interact directly with DNA. It is therefore unclear how the histone genes are specifically targeted for unique and coordinated regulation. RESULTS: To expand the list of known HLB factors, we performed a candidate-based screen by mapping 30 publicly available ChIP datasets of 27 unique factors to the Drosophila histone gene array. We identified novel transcription factor candidates, including the Drosophila Hox proteins Ultrabithorax (Ubx), Abdominal-A (Abd-A), and Abdominal-B (Abd-B), suggesting a new pathway for these factors in influencing body plan morphogenesis. Additionally, we identified six other factors that target the histone gene array: JIL-1, hormone-like receptor 78 (Hr78), the long isoform of female sterile homeotic (1) (fs(1)h) as well as the general transcription factors TBP associated factor 1 (TAF-1), Transcription Factor IIB (TFIIB), and Transcription Factor IIF (TFIIF). CONCLUSIONS: Our foundational screen provides several candidates for future studies into factors that may influence histone biogenesis. Further, our study emphasizes the powerful reservoir of publicly available datasets, which can be mined as a primary screening technique.