Interplay between reversible phosphorylation and irreversible ADP-ribosylation of eukaryotic translation elongation factor 2.

The functionality of eukaryotic translation elongation factor 2 (eEF2) is modulated by phosphorylation, eEF2 is simultaneously the molecular target of ADP-ribosylating toxins. We analyzed the interplay between phosphorylation and diphthamide-dependent ADP-ribosylation. Phosphorylation does not require diphthamide, eEF2 without it still becomes phosphorylated. ADP-ribosylation not only modifies the H715 diphthamide but also inhibits phosphorylation of S595 located in proximity to H715, and stimulates phosphorylation of T56. S595 can be phosphorylated by CDK2 and CDK1 which affects EEF2K-mediated T56-phosphorylation. Thus, ADP-ribosylation and S595-phosphorylation by kinases occur within the same vicinity and both trigger T56-phosphorylation. Diphthamide is surface-accessible permitting access to ADP-ribosylating enzymes, the adjacent S595 side chain extends into the interior. This orientation is incompatible with phosphorylation, neither allowing kinase access nor phosphate attachment. S595 phosphorylation must therefore be accompanied by structural alterations affecting the interface to ADP-ribosylating toxins. In agreement with that, replacement of S595 with Ala, Glu or Asp prevents ADP-ribosylation. Phosphorylation (starvation) as well as ADP-ribosylation (toxins) inhibit protein synthesis, both affect the S595/H715 region of eEF2, both trigger T57-phosphorylation eliciting similar transcriptional responses. Phosphorylation is short lived while ADP-ribosylation is stable. Thus, phosphorylation of the S595/H715 'modifier region' triggers transient interruption of translation while ADP-ribosylation arrests irreversibly.

Loss of diphthamide pre-activates NF-κB and death receptor pathways and renders MCF7 cells hypersensitive to tumor necrosis factor.

The diphthamide on human eukaryotic translation elongation factor 2 (eEF2) is the target of ADP ribosylating diphtheria toxin (DT) and Pseudomonas exotoxin A (PE). This modification is synthesized by seven dipthamide biosynthesis proteins (DPH1-DPH7) and is conserved among eukaryotes and archaea. We generated MCF7 breast cancer cell line-derived DPH gene knockout (ko) cells to assess the impact of complete or partial inactivation on diphthamide synthesis and toxin sensitivity, and to address the biological consequence of diphthamide deficiency. Cells with heterozygous gene inactivation still contained predominantly diphthamide-modified eEF2 and were as sensitive to PE and DT as parent cells. Thus, DPH gene copy number reduction does not affect overall diphthamide synthesis and toxin sensitivity. Complete inactivation of DPH1, DPH2, DPH4, and DPH5 generated viable cells without diphthamide. DPH1ko, DPH2ko, and DPH4ko harbored unmodified eEF2 and DPH5ko ACP- (diphthine-precursor) modified eEF2. Loss of diphthamide prevented ADP ribosylation of eEF2, rendered cells resistant to PE and DT, but does not affect sensitivity toward other protein synthesis inhibitors, such as saporin or cycloheximide. Surprisingly, cells without diphthamide (independent of which the DPH gene compromised) were presensitized toward nuclear factor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer in B cells (NF-κB) and death-receptor pathways without crossing lethal thresholds. In consequence, loss of diphthamide rendered cells hypersensitive toward TNF-mediated apoptosis. This finding suggests a role of diphthamide in modulating NF-κB, death receptor, or apoptosis pathways.

Cytomegalovirus downregulates IRE1 to repress the unfolded protein response.

During viral infection, a massive demand for viral glycoproteins can overwhelm the capacity of the protein folding and quality control machinery, leading to an accumulation of unfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). To restore ER homeostasis, cells initiate the unfolded protein response (UPR) by activating three ER-to-nucleus signaling pathways, of which the inositol-requiring enzyme 1 (IRE1)-dependent pathway is the most conserved. To reduce ER stress, the UPR decreases protein synthesis, increases degradation of unfolded proteins, and upregulates chaperone expression to enhance protein folding. Cytomegaloviruses, as other viral pathogens, modulate the UPR to their own advantage. However, the molecular mechanisms and the viral proteins responsible for UPR modulation remained to be identified. In this study, we investigated the modulation of IRE1 signaling by murine cytomegalovirus (MCMV) and found that IRE1-mediated mRNA splicing and expression of the X-box binding protein 1 (XBP1) is repressed in infected cells. By affinity purification, we identified the viral M50 protein as an IRE1-interacting protein. M50 expression in transfected or MCMV-infected cells induced a substantial downregulation of IRE1 protein levels. The N-terminal conserved region of M50 was found to be required for interaction with and downregulation of IRE1. Moreover, UL50, the human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) homolog of M50, affected IRE1 in the same way. Thus we concluded that IRE1 downregulation represents a previously undescribed viral strategy to curb the UPR.

No functional and transductional significance of specific neuropilin 1 siRNA inhibition in colon carcinoma cell lines lacking VEGF receptor 2.

Neuropilins are membrane proteins that mediate effects on tumor cells directly and indirectly by affecting angiogenesis. Recent findings indicate that neuropilin 1 (NRP1) and the associated tyrosine kinase vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) play a regulatory role in developmental angiogenesis as well as in tumor angiogenesis. NRP1 and VEGFR2 might play a role in colon carcinogenesis and development of metastases. The significance of NRP1 expression in colon cancer seems to be controversial. Therefore, we aimed to distinguish between different expression patterns of signalling cascades in human colon carcinoma cell lines in order to analyze the role of NRP1 in tumorigenesis. We analyzed the biological significance of NRP1 in respect to VEGFR, EGFR, neuropilin and their ligands by RT-PCR and western blot with functional knock-out of NRP1 in different colon adenocarcinoma cell lines. There was no expression of VEGFR2 in tumor cell lines. There were cells that expressed: i) only NRP1 (HT-29, LS174T), ii) NRP2 (Colo320) or iii) both (SW480, LoVo). Cells without NRP1 expression strongly expressed EGFR but only when NRP2 was co-expressed. Inhibition of NRP1 expression by RNA interference did not alter growth characteristics in soft agar experiments. Furthermore, there were no differences in intracellular signalling pathways (ERK1/2 or AKT) in NRP1 inhibited cells. In ex vivo transfer experiments animals with tumors from siRNA-NRP1 transfected cells showed no significant inhibition of tumor growth compared to siRNA control. In conclusion, our results question the role of NRP1 function in VEGFR2 negative colon adenocarcinoma cells. NRP1 seems to have no detectable effect on proliferation or migration nor does it induce any changes in intracellular signalling pathways without the expression of VEGFR2. According to our data, further studies are needed to analyze the therapeutic relevance of NRP1 inhibition in vivo.

Diphthamide affects selenoprotein expression: Diphthamide deficiency reduces selenocysteine incorporation, decreases selenite sensitivity and pre-disposes to oxidative stress.

The diphthamide modification of translation elongation factor 2 is highly conserved in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Nevertheless, cells lacking diphthamide can carry out protein synthesis and are viable. We have analyzed the phenotypes of diphthamide deficient cells and found that diphthamide deficiency reduces selenocysteine incorporation into selenoproteins. Additional phenotypes resulting from diphthamide deficiency include altered tRNA-synthetase and selenoprotein transcript levels, hypersensitivity to oxidative stress and increased selenite tolerance. Diphthamide-eEF2 occupies the aminoacyl-tRNA translocation site at which UGA either stalls translation or decodes selenocysteine. Its position is in close proximity and mutually exclusive to the ribosomal binding site of release/recycling factor ABCE1, which harbors a redox-sensitive Fe-S cluster and, like diphthamide, is present in eukaryotes and archaea but not in eubacteria. Involvement of diphthamide in UGA-SECIS decoding may explain deregulated selenoprotein expression and as a consequence oxidative stress, NFkB activation and selenite tolerance in diphthamide deficient cells.

Influence of DPH1 and DPH5 Protein Variants on the Synthesis of Diphthamide, the Target of ADPRibosylating Toxins.

The diphthamide on eukaryotic translation elongation factor 2 (eEF2) is the target of ADPribosylating toxins and -derivatives that serve as payloads in targeted tumor therapy. Diphthamide is generated by seven DPH proteins; cells deficient in these (DPHko) lack diphthamide and are toxin-resistant. We have established assays to address the functionality of DPH1 (OVCA1) and DPH5 variants listed in dbSNP and cosmic databases: plasmids encoding wildtype and mutant DPHs were transfected into DPHko cells. Supplementation of DPH1 and DPH5 restores diphthamide synthesis and toxin sensitivity in DPH1ko and DPH5ko cells, respectively. Consequently, the determination of the diphthamide status of cells expressing DPH variants differentiates active and compromised proteins. The DPH1 frameshift variant L96fs* (with Nterminal 96 amino acids, truncated thereafter) and two splice isoforms lacking 80 or 140 amino acids at their N-termini failed to restore DPH1ko deficiency. The DPH1 frameshift variant R312fs* retained some residual activity even though it lacks a large C-terminal portion. DPH1 missense variants R27W and S56F retained activity while S221P had reduced activity, indicated by a decreased capability to restore diphthamide synthesis. The DPH5 nonsense or frameshift variants E60*, W136fs* and R207* (containing intact N-termini with truncations after 60, 136 or 207 amino acids, respectively) were inactive: none compensated the deficiency of DPH5ko cells. In contrast, missense variants D57G, G87R, S123C and Q170H as well as the frequently occurring DPH5 isoform delA212 retained activity. Sensitivity to ADP-ribosylating toxins and tumor-targeted immunotoxins depends on diphthamide which, in turn, requires DPH functionality. Because of that, DPH variants (in particular those that are functionally compromised) may serve as a biomarker and correlate with the efficacy of immunotoxin-based therapies.