Literature DB >> 30095407

Reaching the limit.

Benedetta Bolognesi1,2, Ben Lehner1,3,4.   

Abstract

How many copies of a protein can be made before it becomes toxic to the cell?
© 2018, Bolognesi et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  S. cerevisiae; computational biology; glycolysis; overexpression; protein burden; systems biology

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30095407      PMCID: PMC6086656          DOI: 10.7554/eLife.39804

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Elife        ISSN: 2050-084X            Impact factor:   8.140


Related research article Eguchi Y, Makanae K, Hasunuma T, Ishibashi Y, Kito K, Moriya H. 2018. Estimating the protein burden limit of yeast cells by measuring expression limits of glycolytic proteins. eLife 7:e34595. doi: 10.7554/eLife.34595 Cells can be pictured as factories that build proteins, the molecules essential for nearly all of life’s processes. The body tightly controls production levels, because creating too many proteins – also known as protein overexpression – can be harmful to the cell. Yet, it is difficult to know how much of any given protein will be harmful, or why. Indeed, high concentrations of enzymes and other proteins can harm cells in several ways, for example by activating or overloading specific biological pathways, disrupting regulation, or by aggregating together (Vavouri et al., 2009; Tang and Amon, 2013; Makanae et al., 2013). They can also upset the balance in protein complexes or make the different liquid phases separate in the cell (Birchler and Veitia, 2012; Bolognesi et al., 2016). Ultimately, overexpressing any protein will be destructive because it exhausts the resources of the cell to make and transport proteins (Stoebel et al., 2008). However, we did not know how much of a specific protein must be produced to cause this ‘protein burden’ and hinder cell growth. Now, in eLife, Hisao Moriya and colleagues at the universities of Okayama, Kobe and Meiji – including Yuichi Eguchi as first author – report that many members of a group of enzymes can be overexpressed until they form 15% of the total proteins in a yeast cell (Eguchi et al., 2018). Only then do they start to cause damage because of protein burden. This matches the results of previous experiments from the same laboratory, which only focused on a single fluorescent protein that did not interfere with any components of the cell (Kintaka et al., 2016). To discover this limit, Eguchi et al. relied on a method the lab developed in 2006. The technique involves inserting a small portion of DNA, called a plasmid, into the yeast cells. The plasmid carries two genes: the first is essential for growth, and the other codes for one of the enzymes studied. The cell increasingly needs to make new plasmids in order to grow, but this also creates more enzymes. In this ‘tug-of-war’ system, the yeast generates more and more plasmids until the expression of the enzyme of interest becomes harmful; at this point, plasmid production decreases. The number of plasmids in the cell thus reflects the quantity of protein that can be made before it turns toxic. The experiments focused on a set of 29 glycolytic enzymes, which break down sugar in yeast. These enzymes are normally highly expressed in a cell, and their roles are well understood. Out of the 29 proteins, three were not harmful in the experiment and could not be produced in high enough amounts to reach the burden limit. This was because the genes that encoded these enzymes contained sequences that were not optimal for protein production. Another 19 enzymes could be expressed until they formed close to 15% of the total protein content of the cell, which suggests that protein burden is the cause of their toxicity. The fact that even large essential yeast enzymes could be produced up to this limit is unexpected, and it suggests that in many cases the toxicity created by protein overexpression does not depend on the specific characteristics of the proteins. The cost of overexpression may come from the burden it puts on the machinery that assembles proteins in the cell, which requires particularly high levels of energy (Shah et al., 2013). Putting this apparatus under pressure could impair or slow it down; in turn, this may hinder the creation of other proteins and decrease the fitness of the cell. The other steps of protein production, such as ‘reading’ the genes, helping the protein to mature, bringing it to its right location in the cell, and degrading it, also use significant amounts of energy (Rice and McLysaght, 2017). Seven proteins caused harm at concentrations far below the 15% limit, which means that they must damage the cell in other ways than by causing a protein burden. Eguchi et al. identified three mechanisms for this toxicity: the proteins aggregated together, they overloaded a transport system that takes them to a specific cell compartment, or the overexpressed enzymes produced too much catalytic activity (Figure 1). One might have expected this last process to drive the toxic effects of this group of proteins. Yet, killing catalytic activity in the enzymes (by introducing specific mutations) only relieved the toxicity caused by overexpression for two of the 18 proteins that were tested.
Figure 1.

Different mechanisms of toxicity induced by protein overexpression.

Many enzymes involved in glycolysis such as GFP or Pgk1 do not cause any harm until they are overexpressed up to or close to the protein burden limit, which corresponds to 15% of the total proteins in the cell. Proteins that are toxic before reaching this limit cause harm via mechanisms other than the exhaustion of cellular resources. For example, while Tpi1 can still be expressed at relatively high levels (close to 15%), it causes protein aggregation. Enzymes such as Pfk1 or Adh3 can only be expressed at lower levels before they are toxic: Pfk1 causes too much catalytic activity while Adh3 overloads transport systems. Some proteins, for example Glk1, Pyk2 and Pdc1, are not harmful when overexpressed because they simply cannot reach the protein burden limit. Expression of these genes is lower because they use rare codons (sequences that are less optimal for protein production).

Different mechanisms of toxicity induced by protein overexpression.

Many enzymes involved in glycolysis such as GFP or Pgk1 do not cause any harm until they are overexpressed up to or close to the protein burden limit, which corresponds to 15% of the total proteins in the cell. Proteins that are toxic before reaching this limit cause harm via mechanisms other than the exhaustion of cellular resources. For example, while Tpi1 can still be expressed at relatively high levels (close to 15%), it causes protein aggregation. Enzymes such as Pfk1 or Adh3 can only be expressed at lower levels before they are toxic: Pfk1 causes too much catalytic activity while Adh3 overloads transport systems. Some proteins, for example Glk1, Pyk2 and Pdc1, are not harmful when overexpressed because they simply cannot reach the protein burden limit. Expression of these genes is lower because they use rare codons (sequences that are less optimal for protein production). In many cases, removing one mechanism of toxicity increased the level to which an enzyme could be overexpressed, but it still did not allow expression up to the 15% limit. Proteins could therefore be damaging through a range of mechanisms, each of which gets triggered when the concentration in the cell reaches a particular level. While the glycolytic enzymes belong to the same pathway and share extremely similar roles, their overexpression affects cell growth via diverse mechanisms. In other words, the biological role of a protein cannot be used to predict how it will harm the cell. Altogether, these results stimulate important lines of enquiry, such as looking into which of the above mechanisms damage cells when gene expression changes during disease. They also encourage further research so that we could predict at which concentration the expression of every human gene will be harmful in any tissue. And finally, they raise the question: is protein burden what has stopped increased gene expression during evolution?
  10 in total

1.  Intrinsic protein disorder and interaction promiscuity are widely associated with dosage sensitivity.

Authors:  Tanya Vavouri; Jennifer I Semple; Rosa Garcia-Verdugo; Ben Lehner
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2009-07-10       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 2.  Gene balance hypothesis: connecting issues of dosage sensitivity across biological disciplines.

Authors:  James A Birchler; Reiner A Veitia
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  The cost of expression of Escherichia coli lac operon proteins is in the process, not in the products.

Authors:  Daniel M Stoebel; Antony M Dean; Daniel E Dykhuizen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-02-03       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Identification of dosage-sensitive genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using the genetic tug-of-war method.

Authors:  Koji Makanae; Reiko Kintaka; Takashi Makino; Hiroaki Kitano; Hisao Moriya
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 9.043

5.  Rate-limiting steps in yeast protein translation.

Authors:  Premal Shah; Yang Ding; Malwina Niemczyk; Grzegorz Kudla; Joshua B Plotkin
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 41.582

6.  Cellular growth defects triggered by an overload of protein localization processes.

Authors:  Reiko Kintaka; Koji Makanae; Hisao Moriya
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  A Concentration-Dependent Liquid Phase Separation Can Cause Toxicity upon Increased Protein Expression.

Authors:  Benedetta Bolognesi; Nieves Lorenzo Gotor; Riddhiman Dhar; Davide Cirillo; Marta Baldrighi; Gian Gaetano Tartaglia; Ben Lehner
Journal:  Cell Rep       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 9.423

Review 8.  Dosage-sensitive genes in evolution and disease.

Authors:  Alan M Rice; Aoife McLysaght
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 7.431

9.  Estimating the protein burden limit of yeast cells by measuring the expression limits of glycolytic proteins.

Authors:  Yuichi Eguchi; Koji Makanae; Tomohisa Hasunuma; Yuko Ishibashi; Keiji Kito; Hisao Moriya
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 10.  Gene copy-number alterations: a cost-benefit analysis.

Authors:  Yun-Chi Tang; Angelika Amon
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 41.582

  10 in total
  16 in total

Review 1.  Dosage sensitivity of JDPs, a valuable tool for understanding their function: a case study on Caj1 overexpression-mediated filamentous growth in budding yeast.

Authors:  Preeti Sagarika; Neha Dobriyal; Chandan Sahi
Journal:  Curr Genet       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 3.886

2.  Modular transient nanoclustering of activated β2-adrenergic receptors revealed by single-molecule tracking of conformation-specific nanobodies.

Authors:  Rachel S Gormal; Pranesh Padmanabhan; Ravikiran Kasula; Adekunle T Bademosi; Sean Coakley; Jean Giacomotto; Ailisa Blum; Merja Joensuu; Tristan P Wallis; Harriet P Lo; Srikanth Budnar; James Rae; Charles Ferguson; Michele Bastiani; Walter G Thomas; Els Pardon; Jan Steyaert; Alpha S Yap; Geoffrey J Goodhill; Massimo A Hilliard; Robert G Parton; Frédéric A Meunier
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  A Quantitative Tri-fluorescent Yeast Two-hybrid System: From Flow Cytometry to In cellula Affinities.

Authors:  David Cluet; Ikram Amri; Blandine Vergier; Jérémie Léault; Astrid Audibert; Clémence Grosjean; Dylan Calabrési; Martin Spichty
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 5.911

4.  Krüppel-like factor 14, a coronary artery disease associated transcription factor, inhibits endothelial inflammation via NF-κB signaling pathway.

Authors:  Wenting Hu; Haocheng Lu; Jifeng Zhang; Yanbo Fan; Ziyi Chang; Wenying Liang; Huilun Wang; Tianqing Zhu; Minerva T Garcia-Barrio; Daoquan Peng; Y Eugene Chen; Yanhong Guo
Journal:  Atherosclerosis       Date:  2018-09-15       Impact factor: 5.162

5.  Development of Clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum as a Whole Cell Biocatalyst for Production of Chirally Pure (R)-1,3-Butanediol.

Authors:  Alexander Grosse-Honebrink; Gareth T Little; Zak Bean; Dana Heldt; Ruth H M Cornock; Klaus Winzer; Nigel P Minton; Edward Green; Ying Zhang
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-05-13

6.  Functional profiling of long intergenic non-coding RNAs in fission yeast.

Authors:  Shajahan Anver; Cristina Cotobal; Stephan Kamrad; Michal Malecki; Maria Rodriguez-Lopez; Clara Correia-Melo; Mimoza Hoti; StJohn Townsend; Samuel Marguerat; Sheng Kai Pong; Mary Y Wu; Luis Montemayor; Michael Howell; Markus Ralser; Jürg Bähler
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 8.140

7.  The bacterial promoter spacer modulates promoter strength and timing by length, TG-motifs and DNA supercoiling sensitivity.

Authors:  Carlo A Klein; Marc Teufel; Carl J Weile; Patrick Sobetzko
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Hydrophobic Tagging-Mediated Degradation of Transcription Coactivator SRC-1.

Authors:  So Ra Choi; Hee Myeong Wang; Min Hyeon Shin; Hyun-Suk Lim
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  Engineering the Osmotic State of Pseudomonas putida KT2440 for Efficient Cell Disruption and Downstream Processing of Poly(3-Hydroxyalkanoates).

Authors:  Ignacio Poblete-Castro; Carla Aravena-Carrasco; Matias Orellana-Saez; Nicolás Pacheco; Alex Cabrera; José Manuel Borrero-de Acuña
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2020-03-05

10.  Production of trans-cinnamic acid by whole-cell bioconversion from L-phenylalanine in engineered Corynebacterium glutamicum.

Authors:  Jaewoo Son; Jun Hong Jang; In Hyeok Choi; Chang Gyu Lim; Eun Jung Jeon; Hyun Bae Bang; Ki Jun Jeong
Journal:  Microb Cell Fact       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 5.328

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.