| Literature DB >> 35698242 |
Margot A Cousin1,2, Emma L Veale3, Nikita R Dsouza4, Swarnendu Tripathi4, Robyn G Holden3, Maria Arelin5, Geoffrey Beek6, Mir Reza Bekheirnia7, Jasmin Beygo8, Vikas Bhambhani6, Martin Bialer9, Stefania Bigoni10, Cyrus Boelman11, Jenny Carmichael12, Thomas Courtin13, Benjamin Cogne14, Ivana Dabaj15,16, Diane Doummar17, Laura Fazilleau18, Alessandra Ferlini10, Ralitza H Gavrilova2,19, John M Graham20, Tobias B Haack21,22, Jane Juusola23, Sarina G Kant24,25, Saima Kayani26, Boris Keren27, Petra Ketteler8,28, Chiara Klöckner29, Tamara T Koopmann24, Teresa M Kruisselbrink2,19, Alma Kuechler8, Laëtitia Lambert30,31, Xénia Latypova14, Robert Roger Lebel32, Magalie S Leduc7, Emanuela Leonardi33,34, Andrea M Lewis7, Wendy Liew35, Keren Machol7,36, Samir Mardini37, Kirsty McWalter23, Cyril Mignot27, Julie McLaughlin9, Alessandra Murgia33,34, Vinodh Narayanan38, Caroline Nava27, Sonja Neuser29, Mathilde Nizon14, Davide Ognibene10, Joohyun Park22, Konrad Platzer29, Céline Poirsier39, Maximilian Radtke29, Keri Ramsey38, Cassandra K Runke19, Maria J Guillen Sacoto23, Fernando Scaglia7,36,40, Marwan Shinawi41, Stephanie Spranger42, Ee Shien Tan35, John Taylor12, Anne-Sophie Trentesaux18, Filippo Vairo2,19, Rebecca Willaert23, Neda Zadeh43,44, Raul Urrutia4,45, Dusica Babovic-Vuksanovic2,19, Michael T Zimmermann46,47,48, Alistair Mathie49,50, Eric W Klee51,52,53.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genomics enables individualized diagnosis and treatment, but large challenges remain to functionally interpret rare variants. To date, only one causative variant has been described for KCNK9 imprinting syndrome (KIS). The genotypic and phenotypic spectrum of KIS has yet to be described and the precise mechanism of disease fully understood.Entities:
Keywords: Computational protein modeling; Electrophysiology; KCNK9 imprinting syndrome; Neurodevelopmental disorder; TASK3 channel
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35698242 PMCID: PMC9195326 DOI: 10.1186/s13073-022-01064-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Med ISSN: 1756-994X Impact factor: 15.266
Fig. 1Individuals with KCNK9 imprinting syndrome. A KCNK9 coding exons showing all variants by predicted protein change using ProteinPaint (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital). The number in the circle represents the number of families described with the variant, no number = 1 family. Previously published variants are gray. B TASK3 protein topology schematic showing the location of variants. C Conservation of residues affected by variants. Bars in top line indicate variant position. D Front and profile photos of individuals with KCNK9 variants. The age at time of photograph is: P2.1: 1y 6 m, P3.1: 9y, P6.1: 10y 3 m, P7.1: 9y, P8.1: 1y 5 m, P9.1: 12y-18y, P9.2: 12y-18y, P12.1: 2y 2 m; P13.1: 6y 1 m, P15.1: 58y, P16.1: 17y, P18.1 (updated photo, Pt. 1, Graham et al. 2016): 6y, P23.1: 1y 3 m, P24.1: left 3 m, right 5y, P27.1: 6y 1 m, P27.2: 8y1m, P27.3: 28y, P29.1: 8y 1 m. y = years; m = months. E Facial analysis using Face2Gene Research application (FDNA Inc. Boston, MA) of individuals with KCNK9 imprinting syndrome (frontal photos of P3.1, P6.1, P7.1, P8.1, P9.1, P12.1, P13.1, P16.1, P18.1, P19.1*, P20.1*, P21.1*, 23.1, P24.1 (3 m photo), 25.1*, 27.1, and 29.1 compared to age, sex, and ethnicity matched controls. The aggregated binary comparison (AUC = area under the curve, ROC = receiver operating characteristic) demonstrates a significant difference between the two cohorts (P < 0.05). *used published photos
Phenotypes of individuals with KCNK9 variation
Fig. 2TASK3 structure and variant locations. A We modeled TASK3 in an explicit environment and show the dimer colored by monomer. We omit the environment from other images for simplicity. B We mark the locations of variants observed in our cohort. Pink spheres mark sites of variants in one monomer and cyan sphere in the other. R303C and A320T fall outside of the modelable region. C We show the same view of TASK3, colored by features of the structure that we will use in describing the effects of genomic variants. We colored only one monomer since features overlap. The trans-membrane (TM) helices form the core of the structure and three of them form a type of 3-helix bundle (3-HB). TIG motifs form the lower section of the selectivity filter and are colored black. The C-terminus is predicted to fold along the intracellular-facing side and may participate in a gating mechanism. Most variants are on the intracellular-facing side or facing into the interior central chamber, indicated by an i. D G236R places positively charged Arginine side chains facing inside of the channel, not only occluding it but likely adding a cation blockade. E From our MD simulations, we also observed consistent conformational changes associated with G236R. F The variant M159I, which occurs within the 3-HBs, was also associated with a consistent change in N-terminal helix orientation. G Three different variants of R131 are observed and have effects on 3-HB organization and orientation relative to the N-terminal helix
KCNK9 variants in this study assessed for TASK3 structure- and dynamics-based changes
| Protein variant | ΔΔG | ΔFour-body Pot. | ΔSRLF | ΔPC | Transport events | ΔElec surface | Selectivity Filter [K | Δ[K | Blinded prediction d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R131S | 1.36 ± 0.17 | − 2.63 | 1.13 | PC2 (2.6σ) | 8 | + | 0.39 | ––– | Occluded-permissive |
| R131H | 1.05 ± 0.17 | − 1.48 | 1.26 | n.s. | 4 | + | 1.42 | – | Mixed-permissive |
| R131P | 6.87 ± 0.65 | 4.34 | − 0.71 | PC2 (− 1.1σ) PC3 (1.5σ) | 10 | -- | 1.08 | –– | Mono-permissive |
| M132R | 2.74 ± 0.10 | 14.77 | − 1.21 | PC3 (− 1.1σ) | 14 | n.s | 2.30 | + | Mixed-permissive |
| F135del | NA | NA | NA | PC3 (− 2.4σ) | 9 | n.s | 1.52 | – | Mixed-permissive |
| M156V | 2.54 ± 0.17 | − 3.75 | 1.22 | n.s. | 6 | + | 0.62 | ––– | Permissive |
| M159I | 8.01 ± 0.52 | − 22.18 | 0.86 | n.s. | 8 | + | 1.93 | n.s | Permissive |
| F164C | 3.48 ± 0.43 | − 31.18 | − 0.55 | PC1 (1.2σ) | 8 | n.s | 2.92 | ++ | Permissive |
| T199A | 0.92 ± 0.14 | 1.83 | 0.08 | PC2 (− 2.7σ) PC3 (2.3 ) | 12 | + | 1.93 | n.s | Permissive |
| Y205C | 4.01 ± 0.63 | − 5.57 | 2.94 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| G236R | − 2.59 ± 0.54 | − 3.41 | − 0.46 | PC2 (− 2.8σ) PC3 (1.6σ) | 0 | ++ | 0.25 | ––– | Occluded |
| G236R & A237T | − 2.40 ± 0.54 | 0.32 | NA | PC1 (− 2.0σ) PC3 (− 2.4σ) | 10 | ++ | 0.81 | –– | Occluded-attenuated |
| A237D | 5.36 ± 0.17 | 13.51 | − 1.85 | PC2 (− 1.3σ) | 8 | n.s | 1.37 | – | Permissive |
| A237T | 0.13 ± 0.07 | − 0.60 | − 0.76 | PC2 (− 2.9σ) | 4 | + | 1.80 | n.s | Moderately permissive |
| M249T | 6.41 ± 0.83 | 5.09 | 0.59 | PC2 (− 3.1σ) PC3 (1.2σ) | 1 | -- | 2.00 | n.s | Permissive |
SRLF single residue level frustration, NA not applicable, n.d. not determined
a PC alterations of at least 1 standard deviation (σ) away from WT are noted; others are labeled as not significant (n.s.); data used ignored the C-terminus (see Methods)
b Compared to a WT value of 2 transport events
c Defined based on the K+ radial distribution functions (Fig. S4 and S5) at 6.9 Å from residues 94 and 200. Comparisons are to the WT value of 1.8
d Using only the computational simulation data, we predict if the variants will impair potassium transport or not
Fig. 3Functional alterations in TASK3 are associated with altered ion distribution. We show, here, selected examples with broader characterization in Additional File 6: Fig. S6 and S7. A We show smoothed K+ RDF for selected variants, with M159I and R131H showing WT-like but lower presence of K+ around the selectivity filter and a depletion for G236R. B The smoothed K+ RDF centered at residue 236, which is towards the cytoplasmic face, again shows a drastic depletion for G236R, less drastic for R131H, and a more modest change for M159I. C Smoothed K+ RDF centered around the selectivity filter shows that the significant depletion for G236R is partially rescued by the A237T double-variant with a modest increase for A237T alone. This is consistent with previously reported experimental assays that showed A237T to be a partial compensating variant for G236R
Fig. 4Effect of individual protein changes on channel regulation by various modulators. A Boxes highlighted blue denote an increase in the measured parameter compared with matched WT controls where ↑P < 0.05, ↑↑P < 0.01, and ↑↑↑P < 0.001, and ↑↑↑↑P < 0.0001, determined using an unpaired Student’s t-test. Boxes highlighted gray denote a decrease in the measured parameter compared with WT, where ↓ P < 0.05, ↓↓P < 0.01, ↓↓↓P < 0.001, and ↓↓↓↓P < 0.0001. White boxes signify no change in effect from WT (←→P ≥ 0.05). Green boxes signify non-functional variants and mirror GFP-only transfected cells. B Current amplitude vs time. C Current amplitude vs Voltage. D Inhibition by acidic pH. E Inhibition by muscarine. ***P < 0.001 and ****P < 0.0001 for between group differences, determined using an unpaired Student’s t-test. Square or circle symbols represent individual data points for each condition and channel. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. pA, picoamp; pF, picofarad; VREV, reversal potential; ms, millisecond; mV, millivolt; M3, muscarinic receptor 3
Fig. 5Combining experimental and computational approaches adds mechanistic detail to interpreting genetic variants. A Most DNA sequence-based algorithm predicts our cohort’s variants uniformly, but there is a stark lack of consensus among them. Each genomic score was thresholded according to how we used them to the ACMG classification PP3 criteria. B Our experiments clarified specific functional changes for each mutated protein, resulting in an in vivo impact class and C updating the ACMG classification of each variant. D Computational assays were additionally summarized and demonstrated variant-specific changes to key regions of the protein and resulting in a predicted impact class (further detail in Additional file 2: Table S1). E The impact classes from experimental and computational approaches were highly concordant, demonstrating the potential for computational tools to enhance the information available for interpreting genetic variants. We summarized concordance using a bubble plot with radius proportional to the number of variants in each class. Variants are colored according to their ACMG Class, and bubbles are colored according to Impact Class (left side computational and right in vitro)