Matthias Höllerhage1,2, Marc Bickle3, Günter U Höglinger4,5,6. 1. Department of Translational Neurodegeneration, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), 81377, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Neurology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), 81675, Munich, Germany. 3. HT-Technology Development Studio, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 4. Department of Translational Neurodegeneration, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), 81377, Munich, Germany. guenter.hoeglinger@dzne.de. 5. Department of Neurology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), 81675, Munich, Germany. guenter.hoeglinger@dzne.de. 6. Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy), Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU), 81377, Munich, Germany. guenter.hoeglinger@dzne.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We provide an overview about unbiased screens to identify modifiers of alpha-synuclein (αSyn)-induced toxicity, present the models and the libraries that have been used for screening, and describe how hits from primary screens were selected and validated. RECENT FINDINGS: Screens can be classified as either genetic or chemical compound modifier screens, but a few screens do not fit this classification. Most screens addressing αSyn-induced toxicity, including genome-wide overexpressing and deletion, were performed in yeast. More recently, newer methods such as CRISPR-Cas9 became available and were used for screening purposes. Paradoxically, given that αSyn-induced toxicity plays a role in neurological diseases, there is a shortage of human cell-based models for screening. Moreover, most screens used mutant or fluorescently tagged forms of αSyn and only very few screens investigated wild-type αSyn. Particularly, no genome-wide αSyn toxicity screen in human dopaminergic neurons has been published so far. Most unbiased screens for modifiers of αSyn toxicity were performed in yeast, and there is a lack of screens performed in human and particularly dopaminergic cells.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We provide an overview about unbiased screens to identify modifiers of alpha-synuclein (αSyn)-induced toxicity, present the models and the libraries that have been used for screening, and describe how hits from primary screens were selected and validated. RECENT FINDINGS: Screens can be classified as either genetic or chemical compound modifier screens, but a few screens do not fit this classification. Most screens addressing αSyn-induced toxicity, including genome-wide overexpressing and deletion, were performed in yeast. More recently, newer methods such as CRISPR-Cas9 became available and were used for screening purposes. Paradoxically, given that αSyn-induced toxicity plays a role in neurological diseases, there is a shortage of human cell-based models for screening. Moreover, most screens used mutant or fluorescently tagged forms of αSyn and only very few screens investigated wild-type αSyn. Particularly, no genome-wide αSyn toxicity screen in human dopaminergic neurons has been published so far. Most unbiased screens for modifiers of αSyn toxicity were performed in yeast, and there is a lack of screens performed in human and particularly dopaminergic cells.
Authors: Antony A Cooper; Aaron D Gitler; Anil Cashikar; Cole M Haynes; Kathryn J Hill; Bhupinder Bhullar; Kangning Liu; Kexiang Xu; Katherine E Strathearn; Fang Liu; Songsong Cao; Kim A Caldwell; Guy A Caldwell; Gerald Marsischky; Richard D Kolodner; Joshua Labaer; Jean-Christophe Rochet; Nancy M Bonini; Susan Lindquist Journal: Science Date: 2006-06-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Ophir Shalem; Neville E Sanjana; Ella Hartenian; Xi Shi; David A Scott; Tarjei Mikkelson; Dirk Heckl; Benjamin L Ebert; David E Root; John G Doench; Feng Zhang Journal: Science Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Matthias Höllerhage; Joachim N Goebel; Anderson de Andrade; Tobias Hildebrandt; Amalia Dolga; Carsten Culmsee; Wolfgang H Oertel; Bastian Hengerer; Günter U Höglinger Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: A Goffeau; B G Barrell; H Bussey; R W Davis; B Dujon; H Feldmann; F Galibert; J D Hoheisel; C Jacq; M Johnston; E J Louis; H W Mewes; Y Murakami; P Philippsen; H Tettelin; S G Oliver Journal: Science Date: 1996-10-25 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Alex Lan; Ilan Y Smoly; Guy Rapaport; Susan Lindquist; Ernest Fraenkel; Esti Yeger-Lotem Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Mike A Nalls; Nathan Pankratz; Christina M Lill; Chuong B Do; Dena G Hernandez; Mohamad Saad; Anita L DeStefano; Eleanna Kara; Jose Bras; Manu Sharma; Claudia Schulte; Margaux F Keller; Sampath Arepalli; Christopher Letson; Connor Edsall; Hreinn Stefansson; Xinmin Liu; Hannah Pliner; Joseph H Lee; Rong Cheng; M Arfan Ikram; John P A Ioannidis; Georgios M Hadjigeorgiou; Joshua C Bis; Maria Martinez; Joel S Perlmutter; Alison Goate; Karen Marder; Brian Fiske; Margaret Sutherland; Georgia Xiromerisiou; Richard H Myers; Lorraine N Clark; Kari Stefansson; John A Hardy; Peter Heutink; Honglei Chen; Nicholas W Wood; Henry Houlden; Haydeh Payami; Alexis Brice; William K Scott; Thomas Gasser; Lars Bertram; Nicholas Eriksson; Tatiana Foroud; Andrew B Singleton Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2014-07-27 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Fabian Stahl; Philip Denner; Dominik Piston; Bernd O Evert; Laura de Boni; Ina Schmitt; Peter Breuer; Ullrich Wüllner Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jiang Zhu; Sara Pittman; Dhruva Dhavale; Rachel French; Jessica N Patterson; Mohamed Salman Kaleelurrrahuman; Yuanzi Sun; Jaime Vaquer-Alicea; Gianna Maggiore; Christoph S Clemen; William J Buscher; Jan Bieschke; Paul Kotzbauer; Yuna Ayala; Marc I Diamond; Albert A Davis; Conrad Weihl Journal: Mol Neurodegener Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 18.879