Unravelling druggable signalling networks that control F508del-CFTR proteostasis

  1. Ramanath Narayana Hegde
  2. Seetharaman Parashuraman
  3. Francesco Iorio
  4. Fabiana Ciciriello
  5. Fabrizio Capuani
  6. Annamaria Carissimo
  7. Diego Carrella
  8. Vincenzo Belcastro
  9. Advait Subramanian
  10. Laura Bounti
  11. Maria Persico
  12. Graeme Carlile
  13. Luis Galietta
  14. David Y Thomas
  15. Diego Di Bernardo
  16. Alberto Luini  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Research Council, Italy
  2. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, United Kingdom
  3. Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Italy
  4. University of Rome, La Sapienza, Italy
  5. Institute of Protein Biochemistry, Italy
  6. KU Leuven University, Italy
  7. McGill University, Canada
  8. Institute of Giannina Gaslini, Italy

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by mutations in CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). The most frequent mutation (F508del-CFTR) results in altered proteostasis, i.e., in the misfolding and intracellular degradation of the protein. The F508del-CFTR proteostasis machinery and its homeostatic regulation are well studied, while the question whether 'classical' signalling pathways and phosphorylation cascades might control proteostasis remains barely explored. Here, we have unravelled signalling cascades acting selectively on the F508del-CFTR folding-trafficking defects by analysing the mechanisms of action of F508del-CFTR proteostasis regulator drugs through an approach based on transcriptional profiling followed by deconvolution of their gene signatures. Targeting multiple components of these signalling pathways resulted in potent and specific correction of F508del-CFTR proteostasis and in synergy with pharmacochaperones. These results provide new insights into the physiology of cellular proteostasis and a rational basis for developing effective pharmacological correctors of the F508del-CFTR defect.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ramanath Narayana Hegde

    Institute of Protein Biochemistry, National Research Council, Naples, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Seetharaman Parashuraman

    Institute of Protein Biochemistry, National Research Council, Naples, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Francesco Iorio

    Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fabiana Ciciriello

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Fabrizio Capuani

    Department of Physics, University of Rome, La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Annamaria Carissimo

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Diego Carrella

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Vincenzo Belcastro

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Advait Subramanian

    National Research Council, Institute of Protein Biochemistry, Naples, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Laura Bounti

    KU Leuven University, Naples, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Maria Persico

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Graeme Carlile

    Department of Biochemistry, McIntyre Medical Sciences Building, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Luis Galietta

    U.O.C. Genetica Medica, Institute of Giannina Gaslini, Genova, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. David Y Thomas

    Department of Biochemistry, McIntyre Medical Sciences Building, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Diego Di Bernardo

    Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine, Pozzuoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Alberto Luini

    Institute of Protein Biochemistry, National Research Council, Naples, Italy
    For correspondence
    a.luini@ibp.cnr.it
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Suzanne R Pfeffer, Stanford University School of Medicine, United States

Version history

  1. Received: July 25, 2015
  2. Accepted: November 26, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 23, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 28, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: February 18, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Hegde et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,692
    views
  • 638
    downloads
  • 21
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ramanath Narayana Hegde
  2. Seetharaman Parashuraman
  3. Francesco Iorio
  4. Fabiana Ciciriello
  5. Fabrizio Capuani
  6. Annamaria Carissimo
  7. Diego Carrella
  8. Vincenzo Belcastro
  9. Advait Subramanian
  10. Laura Bounti
  11. Maria Persico
  12. Graeme Carlile
  13. Luis Galietta
  14. David Y Thomas
  15. Diego Di Bernardo
  16. Alberto Luini
(2015)
Unravelling druggable signalling networks that control F508del-CFTR proteostasis
eLife 4:e10365.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10365

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10365

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Ryan T Bell, Harutyun Sahakyan ... Eugene V Koonin
    Research Article

    A comprehensive census of McrBC systems, among the most common forms of prokaryotic Type IV restriction systems, followed by phylogenetic analysis, reveals their enormous abundance in diverse prokaryotes and a plethora of genomic associations. We focus on a previously uncharacterized branch, which we denote coiled-coil nuclease tandems (CoCoNuTs) for their salient features: the presence of extensive coiled-coil structures and tandem nucleases. The CoCoNuTs alone show extraordinary variety, with three distinct types and multiple subtypes. All CoCoNuTs contain domains predicted to interact with translation system components, such as OB-folds resembling the SmpB protein that binds bacterial transfer-messenger RNA (tmRNA), YTH-like domains that might recognize methylated tmRNA, tRNA, or rRNA, and RNA-binding Hsp70 chaperone homologs, along with RNases, such as HEPN domains, all suggesting that the CoCoNuTs target RNA. Many CoCoNuTs might additionally target DNA, via McrC nuclease homologs. Additional restriction systems, such as Type I RM, BREX, and Druantia Type III, are frequently encoded in the same predicted superoperons. In many of these superoperons, CoCoNuTs are likely regulated by cyclic nucleotides, possibly, RNA fragments with cyclic termini, that bind associated CARF (CRISPR-Associated Rossmann Fold) domains. We hypothesize that the CoCoNuTs, together with the ancillary restriction factors, employ an echeloned defense strategy analogous to that of Type III CRISPR-Cas systems, in which an immune response eliminating virus DNA and/or RNA is launched first, but then, if it fails, an abortive infection response leading to PCD/dormancy via host RNA cleavage takes over.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Skander Kazdaghli, Iordanis Kerenidis ... Philip Teare
    Research Article

    Imputing data is a critical issue for machine learning practitioners, including in the life sciences domain, where missing clinical data is a typical situation and the reliability of the imputation is of great importance. Currently, there is no canonical approach for imputation of clinical data and widely used algorithms introduce variance in the downstream classification. Here we propose novel imputation methods based on determinantal point processes (DPP) that enhance popular techniques such as the multivariate imputation by chained equations and MissForest. Their advantages are twofold: improving the quality of the imputed data demonstrated by increased accuracy of the downstream classification and providing deterministic and reliable imputations that remove the variance from the classification results. We experimentally demonstrate the advantages of our methods by performing extensive imputations on synthetic and real clinical data. We also perform quantum hardware experiments by applying the quantum circuits for DPP sampling since such quantum algorithms provide a computational advantage with respect to classical ones. We demonstrate competitive results with up to 10 qubits for small-scale imputation tasks on a state-of-the-art IBM quantum processor. Our classical and quantum methods improve the effectiveness and robustness of clinical data prediction modeling by providing better and more reliable data imputations. These improvements can add significant value in settings demanding high precision, such as in pharmaceutical drug trials where our approach can provide higher confidence in the predictions made.