Cited by 132Cholesterol and Lipid MetabolismLipid Membrane Structure and BehaviorCellular transport and secretion

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 45 of the 67 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Molecular basis of accessible plasma membrane cholesterol recognition by the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b

Open access

Abstract

Cholesterol is essential for cell physiology. Transport of the “accessible” pool of cholesterol from the plasma membrane (PM) to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) by ER‐localized GRAMD1 proteins (GRAMD1a/1b/1c) contributes to cholesterol homeostasis. However, how cells detect accessible cholesterol within the PM remains unclear. We show that the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b, a coincidence detector for anionic lipids, including phosphatidylserine (PS), and cholesterol, possesses distinct but synergistic sites for sensing accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids. We find that a mutation within the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b that is associated with intellectual disability in humans specifically impairs cholesterol sensing. In addition, we identified another point mutation within this domain that enhances cholesterol sensitivity without altering its PS sensitivity. Cell‐free reconstitution and cell‐based assays revealed that the ability of the GRAM domain to sense accessible cholesterol regulates membrane tethering and determines the rate of cholesterol transport by GRAMD1b. Thus, cells detect the codistribution of accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids in the PM and fine‐tune the non‐vesicular transport of PM cholesterol to the ER via GRAMD1s.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The GRAM domain of GRAMD1b senses accessible plasma membrane cholesterol through distinct but synergistic sites for cholesterol and anionic lipids, enabling cholesterol-dependent ER–PM tethering and transport. An intellectual-disability-associated R189W mutation specifically abolishes cholesterol sensing, whereas G187L hypersensitizes the domain to cholesterol and enhances transport.

Key findings

  • GRAM1b detects codistribution of accessible cholesterol and phosphatidylserine (PS): FRET was strong with liposomes containing 50% cholesterol and 20% PS, and was reduced by adding 25% sphingomyelin.
  • Cholesterol and anionic lipid recognition use separate sites: basic-patch mutants K161A/R191A bound ~5% to 80% PS liposomes versus ~45% for WT, while R189W bound ~4% to 60% cholesterol liposomes versus ~15% for WT and retained PS binding.
  • R189W impaired membrane tethering and cholesterol transport in vitro; WT GRAMD1b transferred ~1.2 DHE molecules/min, whereas R189W/R191A transferred ~0.
  • G187L increased cholesterol sensitivity without altering PS affinity: at 60% cholesterol, ~30% of GRAM1b–G187L bound versus ~15% of WT; GRAMD1b–G187L transferred ~3.6 DHE molecules/min versus ~1.2 for WT.

Methods

  • In vitro FRET and liposome sedimentation assays with purified GRAM1b variants and synthetic liposomes of defined lipid composition.
  • Cell-free reconstitution using purified near full-length GRAMD1b proteins, PM-like donor liposomes, and ER-like acceptor liposomes to measure membrane tethering by turbidity and DHE transfer by FRET.
  • Cell-based assays in wild-type and GRAMD1 triple-knockout HeLa cells using spinning disk confocal and TIRF microscopy, SREBP-2 cleavage immunoblotting, Amphotericin B resistance, and site-directed mutagenesis.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the exact cholesterol-binding site remains unclear and that how R189 contributes to cholesterol recognition is unknown; it also states that the role of GRAMD1b in mammalian brain development and neuronal function remains unknown.
  • The paper notes that near full-length GRAMD1b with anionic lipid-sensing defective GRAM domain mutations still tethered membranes and transported cholesterol like WT in vitro, suggesting other amino acids outside the GRAM domain may contribute to anionic lipid sensing.
  • The paper reports that SREBP-2 cleavage suppression was reliably detected only after ~90 min, making it difficult to assess enhanced cholesterol transport by G187L on shorter timescales; it also states that sample size was not predetermined and live-cell imaging experiments were not randomized.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15252/embj.2020106524

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 The GRAM domain of GRAMD1b detects the codistribution of accessible cholesterol and PS, which is regulated by sphingomyelin Schematic of the in vitro FRET assay to detect codistribution of phosphatidylserine (PS) and accessible cholesterol in membranes. Liposomes containing PS and cholesterol were mixed with an accessible cholesterol biosensor (ECFP‐D4H) and a PS biosensor (mVenus‐Lact‐C2). ECFP‐D4H was excited at 430 nm and emission from mVenus‐Lact‐C2 due to FRET between ECFP and mVenus was recorded at 525 nm.Representative emission spectra of mixtures containing ECFP‐D4H, mVenus‐Lact‐C2, and liposomes containing indicated compositions of lipids. Note that FRET signal was increased in the presence of both cholesterol (50%) and phosphatidylserine (DOPS) (20%) and that FRET signal was decreased when sphingomyelin (SM) (25%) was additionally incorporated into the liposomes. Asterisks indicate positions of emission maximum of ECFP (*477 nm) and FRET (**525 nm). DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol; SM, sphingomyelin (N‐oleoyl‐D‐erythro‐sphingosylphosphorylcholine).Quantification of the ratio of FRET signal at 525 nm to ECFP emission at 480 nm (FRET/ECFP) (see Materials and Methods) from mixtures as shown in (B) (mean ± SEM, n = 4 independent experiments; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001).Left: Time course of normalized mCherry signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 triple knockout (TKO) HeLa cells expressing mCherry‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (mCherry‐GRAM1b). Cells were pre‐incubated with either control imaging buffer (for control) or imaging buffer containing purified ECFP‐D4H proteins (3 µM) (for masking accessible PM cholesterol) for 30 min at 37°C and imaged with the same buffer conditions. Sphingomyelinase (SMase) treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 32 cells (Control), n = 35 cells (Pre‐incubation w/ ECFP‐D4H); data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0001].Left: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 triple knockout (TKO) HeLa cells expressing EGFP‐tagged GRAM1b (EGFP‐GRAM1b) together with either mCherry for control or mCherry‐Lact‐C2 for PS masking. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 53 cells (mCherry), n = 32 cells (mCherry‐Lact‐C2 OE); data are pooled from four independent experiments for each condition; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0001].Schematics showing the interaction of the GRAM1b with the plasma membrane (PM) before and after sphingomyelinase (SMase) treatment. Left: At rest, subthreshold levels of accessible PM cholesterol, or limited presence of the codistribution of accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids in the inner leaflet of the PM, are not sufficient to induce interaction of the GRAM1b with the PM. Right: Liberation of the sphingomyelin (SM)‐sequestered pool of cholesterol by SMase treatment leads to an increase in accessible PM cholesterol in both inner and outer leaflets (as unsequestered cholesterol can flip‐flop between leaflets), resulting in concomitant increase in the codistribution of accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids, including phosphatidylserine (PS), beyond the threshold in the inner leaflet of the PM, and inducing PM recruitment of the GRAM1b as it detects such codistribution in the PM.
Figure 1 The GRAM domain of GRAMD1b detects the codistribution of accessible cholesterol and PS, which is regulated by sphingomyelin Schematic of the in vitro FRET assay to detect codistribution of phosphatidylserine (PS) and accessible cholesterol in membranes. Liposomes containing PS and cholesterol were mixed with an accessible cholesterol biosensor (ECFP‐D4H) and a PS biosensor (mVenus‐Lact‐C2). ECFP‐D4H was excited at 430 nm and emission from mVenus‐Lact‐C2 due to FRET between ECFP and mVenus was recorded at 525 nm.Representative emission spectra of mixtures containing ECFP‐D4H, mVenus‐Lact‐C2, and liposomes containing indicated compositions of lipids. Note that FRET signal was increased in the presence of both cholesterol (50%) and phosphatidylserine (DOPS) (20%) and that FRET signal was decreased when sphingomyelin (SM) (25%) was additionally incorporated into the liposomes. Asterisks indicate positions of emission maximum of ECFP (*477 nm) and FRET (**525 nm). DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol; SM, sphingomyelin (N‐oleoyl‐D‐erythro‐sphingosylphosphorylcholine).Quantification of the ratio of FRET signal at 525 nm to ECFP emission at 480 nm (FRET/ECFP) (see Materials and Methods) from mixtures as shown in (B) (mean ± SEM, n = 4 independent experiments; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001).Left: Time course of normalized mCherry signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 triple knockout (TKO) HeLa cells expressing mCherry‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (mCherry‐GRAM1b). Cells were pre‐incubated with either control imaging buffer (for control) or imaging buffer containing purified ECFP‐D4H proteins (3 µM) (for masking accessible PM cholesterol) for 30 min at 37°C and imaged with the same buffer conditions. Sphingomyelinase (SMase) treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 32 cells (Control), n = 35 cells (Pre‐incubation w/ ECFP‐D4H); data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0001].Left: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 triple knockout (TKO) HeLa cells expressing EGFP‐tagged GRAM1b (EGFP‐GRAM1b) together with either mCherry for control or mCherry‐Lact‐C2 for PS masking. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 53 cells (mCherry), n = 32 cells (mCherry‐Lact‐C2 OE); data are pooled from four independent experiments for each condition; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0001].Schematics showing the interaction of the GRAM1b with the plasma membrane (PM) before and after sphingomyelinase (SMase) treatment. Left: At rest, subthreshold levels of accessible PM cholesterol, or limited presence of the codistribution of accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids in the inner leaflet of the PM, are not sufficient to induce interaction of the GRAM1b with the PM. Right: Liberation of the sphingomyelin (SM)‐sequestered pool of cholesterol by SMase treatment leads to an increase in accessible PM cholesterol in both inner and outer leaflets (as unsequestered cholesterol can flip‐flop between leaflets), resulting in concomitant increase in the codistribution of accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids, including phosphatidylserine (PS), beyond the threshold in the inner leaflet of the PM, and inducing PM recruitment of the GRAM1b as it detects such codistribution in the PM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure EV1 The GRAM domain of GRAMD1b detects the codistribution of accessible cholesterol and PS, which is regulated by sphingomyelin Liposome sedimentation assays of purified ECFP‐D4H proteins (accessible cholesterol biosensor) and purified mVenus‐Lact‐C2 proteins (phosphatidylserine biosensor). Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified proteins as shown. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments). DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol. Note that the presence of PS does not affect the binding of ECFP‐D4H to cholesterol‐containing liposomes and that the presence of cholesterol does not affect the binding of mVenus‐Lact‐C2 to PS containing liposomes.Schematic of the in vitro FRET assay in the presence of sphingomyelin. Liposomes containing PS, cholesterol, and sphingomyelin were mixed with an accessible cholesterol biosensor (ECFP‐D4H) and a PS biosensor (mVenus‐Lact‐C2). ECFP‐D4H was excited at 430 nm and emission from mVenus‐Lact‐C2 due to FRET between ECFP and mVenus was recorded at 525 nm. The presence of sphingomyelin contributes to sequestration of cholesterol into inaccessible pool, resulting in reduced binding of ECFP‐D4H to liposomes and decrease in FRET as observed in Fig 1B.Representative emission spectra of mixtures containing ECFP‐D4H, mVenus‐Lact‐C2, and liposomes containing cholesterol (50%), phosphatidylserine (DOPS) (20%), and phosphatidylcholine (DOPC) (30%), with or without untagged Lact‐C2 proteins. Asterisks indicate positions of emission maximum of ECFP (*477 nm) and FRET (**525 nm). Note the decrease of FRET signal at 525 nm and increase of ECFP emission at 480 nm upon addition of increasing amount of untagged Lact‐C2 proteins into the mixture.Quantification of the ratio of FRET signal at 525 nm to ECFP emission at 480 nm (FRET/ECFP) (see Materials and Methods) from mixtures as shown in (C) (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions).Representative emission spectra of mixtures containing ECFP‐D4H, mVenus‐Lact‐C2, and liposomes containing cholesterol (50%), phosphatidylserine (DOPS) (20%), and phosphatidylcholine (DOPC) (30%), with or without untagged D4H proteins. Asterisks indicate positions of emission maximum of ECFP (*477 nm) and FRET (**525 nm). Note the decrease of FRET signal at 525 nm and increase of ECFP emission at 480 nm upon addition of increasing amount of untagged D4H proteins into the mixture.Quantification of the ratio of FRET signal at 525 nm to ECFP emission at 480 nm (FRET/ECFP) (see Materials and Methods) from mixtures as shown in (E) (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions).
Figure EV1 The GRAM domain of GRAMD1b detects the codistribution of accessible cholesterol and PS, which is regulated by sphingomyelin Liposome sedimentation assays of purified ECFP‐D4H proteins (accessible cholesterol biosensor) and purified mVenus‐Lact‐C2 proteins (phosphatidylserine biosensor). Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified proteins as shown. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments). DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol. Note that the presence of PS does not affect the binding of ECFP‐D4H to cholesterol‐containing liposomes and that the presence of cholesterol does not affect the binding of mVenus‐Lact‐C2 to PS containing liposomes.Schematic of the in vitro FRET assay in the presence of sphingomyelin. Liposomes containing PS, cholesterol, and sphingomyelin were mixed with an accessible cholesterol biosensor (ECFP‐D4H) and a PS biosensor (mVenus‐Lact‐C2). ECFP‐D4H was excited at 430 nm and emission from mVenus‐Lact‐C2 due to FRET between ECFP and mVenus was recorded at 525 nm. The presence of sphingomyelin contributes to sequestration of cholesterol into inaccessible pool, resulting in reduced binding of ECFP‐D4H to liposomes and decrease in FRET as observed in Fig 1B.Representative emission spectra of mixtures containing ECFP‐D4H, mVenus‐Lact‐C2, and liposomes containing cholesterol (50%), phosphatidylserine (DOPS) (20%), and phosphatidylcholine (DOPC) (30%), with or without untagged Lact‐C2 proteins. Asterisks indicate positions of emission maximum of ECFP (*477 nm) and FRET (**525 nm). Note the decrease of FRET signal at 525 nm and increase of ECFP emission at 480 nm upon addition of increasing amount of untagged Lact‐C2 proteins into the mixture.Quantification of the ratio of FRET signal at 525 nm to ECFP emission at 480 nm (FRET/ECFP) (see Materials and Methods) from mixtures as shown in (C) (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions).Representative emission spectra of mixtures containing ECFP‐D4H, mVenus‐Lact‐C2, and liposomes containing cholesterol (50%), phosphatidylserine (DOPS) (20%), and phosphatidylcholine (DOPC) (30%), with or without untagged D4H proteins. Asterisks indicate positions of emission maximum of ECFP (*477 nm) and FRET (**525 nm). Note the decrease of FRET signal at 525 nm and increase of ECFP emission at 480 nm upon addition of increasing amount of untagged D4H proteins into the mixture.Quantification of the ratio of FRET signal at 525 nm to ECFP emission at 480 nm (FRET/ECFP) (see Materials and Methods) from mixtures as shown in (E) (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure EV2 A basic patch within the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b is critical for anionic lipid recognition ADomain organization of GRAMD1 proteins in comparison to yeast homolog, Lam6/Ltc1.BSequence alignment and secondary structure prediction of the GRAM domains from selected GRAMD1s and their homologs. ESPript 3.0 was used to align amino acid sequences and annotate the secondary structure information. Secondary structure prediction is based on the crystal structure of Lam6/Ltc1 (PDB: 5YQR). K161 and R189 residues of human GRAMD1b are indicated by red asterisks. White letters on a red background: strict identity; Red letters: similarity in a group; Blue frames: similarity across groups.C, DSequence logos showing the graphical representations of sequence similarity between human GRAMD1b and its homologs (see Materials and Methods) of the regions around K161 residue (C) and R189 residue (D) of human GRAMD1b as indicated in (B) (n = 106 aligned sequences). Error bars indicate an approximate Bayesian 95% confidence interval. Black: hydrophobic residues; Green: neutral residues; Blue: basic residues; Red: acidic residues. Note the strong conservation of these K161 and R189 across different species.
Figure EV2 A basic patch within the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b is critical for anionic lipid recognition ADomain organization of GRAMD1 proteins in comparison to yeast homolog, Lam6/Ltc1.BSequence alignment and secondary structure prediction of the GRAM domains from selected GRAMD1s and their homologs. ESPript 3.0 was used to align amino acid sequences and annotate the secondary structure information. Secondary structure prediction is based on the crystal structure of Lam6/Ltc1 (PDB: 5YQR). K161 and R189 residues of human GRAMD1b are indicated by red asterisks. White letters on a red background: strict identity; Red letters: similarity in a group; Blue frames: similarity across groups.C, DSequence logos showing the graphical representations of sequence similarity between human GRAMD1b and its homologs (see Materials and Methods) of the regions around K161 residue (C) and R189 residue (D) of human GRAMD1b as indicated in (B) (n = 106 aligned sequences). Error bars indicate an approximate Bayesian 95% confidence interval. Black: hydrophobic residues; Green: neutral residues; Blue: basic residues; Red: acidic residues. Note the strong conservation of these K161 and R189 across different species.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure EV3 Cholesterol‐sensing property of the GRAM domain is critical for GRAMD1b function Left: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP or EGFP‐tagged GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAMD1b) constructs as indicated. Cholesterol loading [the treatment with cholesterol/methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) complex (200 µM)] is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 32 cells (EGFP), n = 31 cells (EGFP‐GRAMD1b), n = 27 cells [EGFP‐GRAMD1b (R189W)], n = 26 cells [EGFP‐GRAMD1b (R189W/R191A)], data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001]. See also Movie EV2.Confocal images of live HeLa (control) cells and GRAMD1 TKO cells stably expressing EGFP that were additionally transfected with an accessible PM cholesterol biosensor, mCherry‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (mCherry‐GRAM1b). Cells were treated with SMase (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) before imaging. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Note the very weak PM recruitment of mCherry‐GRAM1b in HeLa cells compared to the strong PM recruitment of mCherry‐GRAM1b in GRAMD1 TKO cells. Scale bars, 10 µm.
Figure EV3 Cholesterol‐sensing property of the GRAM domain is critical for GRAMD1b function Left: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP or EGFP‐tagged GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAMD1b) constructs as indicated. Cholesterol loading [the treatment with cholesterol/methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) complex (200 µM)] is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 32 cells (EGFP), n = 31 cells (EGFP‐GRAMD1b), n = 27 cells [EGFP‐GRAMD1b (R189W)], n = 26 cells [EGFP‐GRAMD1b (R189W/R191A)], data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001]. See also Movie EV2.Confocal images of live HeLa (control) cells and GRAMD1 TKO cells stably expressing EGFP that were additionally transfected with an accessible PM cholesterol biosensor, mCherry‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (mCherry‐GRAM1b). Cells were treated with SMase (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) before imaging. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Note the very weak PM recruitment of mCherry‐GRAM1b in HeLa cells compared to the strong PM recruitment of mCherry‐GRAM1b in GRAMD1 TKO cells. Scale bars, 10 µm.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure EV4 G187L mutation specifically increases the cholesterol sensitivity of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b AConfocal images of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing mutant versions of EGFP‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAM1b) as indicated. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Scale bars, 10 µm.BLeft: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) or mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L) as indicated. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) and methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) treatment (5 mM) are indicated. Note that the fluorescence signal was normalized by the value of 75 min time point. Right: Values of ΔF/F75 corresponding to 70 min time point as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 41 cells (WT), n = 40 cells (G187L), data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0001].CA confocal image of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT). Cells were cultured in the medium supplemented with 10% lipoprotein‐deficient serum (LPDS) and mevastatin (50 µM) for 16 h before imaging. An inset shows at higher magnification the region indicated by a white dashed box. Note the absence of PM recruitment. Scale bars, 10 µm.D–FLiposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified wild‐type GRAM1b (WT) and mutant GRAM1b (G187L) proteins. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all the conditions). DPhyPC, 1,2‐diphytanoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine; DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); POPC, 1‐palmitoyl‐2‐oleoyl‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine; DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol. Chemical structures of DPhyPC, DOPC, and POPC are shown below (F).GBoth GRAM1b (WT) and GRAM1b (G187L) proteins sense cholesterol accessibility. The mean values of liposome binding efficiency of purified GRAM1b (WT) and GRAM1b (G187L) proteins as assessed by liposome sedimentation assays in (F) and Fig 6H were presented as a heat map.
Figure EV4 G187L mutation specifically increases the cholesterol sensitivity of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b AConfocal images of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing mutant versions of EGFP‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAM1b) as indicated. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Scale bars, 10 µm.BLeft: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) or mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L) as indicated. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) and methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) treatment (5 mM) are indicated. Note that the fluorescence signal was normalized by the value of 75 min time point. Right: Values of ΔF/F75 corresponding to 70 min time point as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 41 cells (WT), n = 40 cells (G187L), data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0001].CA confocal image of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT). Cells were cultured in the medium supplemented with 10% lipoprotein‐deficient serum (LPDS) and mevastatin (50 µM) for 16 h before imaging. An inset shows at higher magnification the region indicated by a white dashed box. Note the absence of PM recruitment. Scale bars, 10 µm.D–FLiposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified wild‐type GRAM1b (WT) and mutant GRAM1b (G187L) proteins. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all the conditions). DPhyPC, 1,2‐diphytanoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine; DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); POPC, 1‐palmitoyl‐2‐oleoyl‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine; DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol. Chemical structures of DPhyPC, DOPC, and POPC are shown below (F).GBoth GRAM1b (WT) and GRAM1b (G187L) proteins sense cholesterol accessibility. The mean values of liposome binding efficiency of purified GRAM1b (WT) and GRAM1b (G187L) proteins as assessed by liposome sedimentation assays in (F) and Fig 6H were presented as a heat map.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure EV5 G187 is critical for determining the sensitivity of the GRAM domain to accessible PM cholesterol and regulating GRAMD1b‐dependent cholesterol transport Effects of mutation of G187 on the property of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) to sense transient expansions of the accessible pool of PM cholesterol. Quantification of the ratio of PM signals to the cytosolic signals of wild‐type EGFP‐tagged GRAM1b (EGFP‐GRAM1b) (WT) and mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b, as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells, expressing indicated constructs, with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) or with SMase treatment followed by 5 min treatment with Methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) (5 mM) (mean ± SEM, n = 20 cells from two independent experiments for untreated and SMase‐treated conditions; n = 10 cells from one experiment for SMase & MCD‐treated conditions). Amino acids are ranked according to Goldman, Engelman and Steitz (GES) hydrophobicity scale with the most hydrophobic amino acid on the left. Red dashed lines indicate the average values of WT with or without SMase treatment.A representative size exclusion chromatography (SEC) profile of purified mutant GRAMD1b proteins (G187L). The peak fraction was subjected to SDS–PAGE followed by colloidal blue staining.Representative time course of DHE transfer from LPM to LER mediated by GRAMD1b–G187L. Purified GRAMD1b–G187L proteins (0.05 µM, 0.1 µM or 0.2 µM) were added at time 0. Addition of buffer alone (0 µM) was used as a control.Concentration dependency of GRAMD1b‐dependent DHE transfer from LPM to LER. Note the concentration‐dependent DHE transfer mediated by GRAMD1b–WT and GRAMD1b–G187L proteins. Note also the absence of DHE transfer by GRAMD1b‐R189W/R191A proteins at any concentration tested (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all the conditions).Liposome sedimentation assays of purified wild‐type (WT) and mutant (G187L) GRAMD1b proteins. Proteins were incubated with sucrose‐loaded LER. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions).Lysates of wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐tagged GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAMD1b) constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT), G187L mutant (G187L)] were processed by SDS–PAGE and immunoblotted (IB) with anti‐GFP, anti‐GRAMD1b, and anti‐actin antibodies.Left: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated. Cholesterol loading [the treatment with cholesterol/MCD complex (200 µM)] is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 27 cells (EGFP), n = 23 cells (EGFP‐GRAMD1b), n = 26 cells [EGFP‐GRAMD1b (G187L)], data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001]. See also Movie EV4.Amphotericin B resistance of SMase‐treated GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT) or G187L mutant (G187L)]. Left: Cells that had been pre‐treated with SMase (100 mU/ml) for 3 h at 37°C were treated with indicated concentration of Amphotericin B for 20 min at 37ºC. After overnight recovery in culture media, cell viability was measured by detecting ATP present in each well via luminescence (see Materials and Methods). The same number of cells were seeded in each well before SMase treatment. Note the strong resistance against Amphotericin B of GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b–G187L. Right: Quantification of cell viability with increasing amount of Amphotericin B. Note the resistance of GRAMD1 TKO cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b–G187L compared to GRAMD1 TKO cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b–WT (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for each condition).
Figure EV5 G187 is critical for determining the sensitivity of the GRAM domain to accessible PM cholesterol and regulating GRAMD1b‐dependent cholesterol transport Effects of mutation of G187 on the property of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) to sense transient expansions of the accessible pool of PM cholesterol. Quantification of the ratio of PM signals to the cytosolic signals of wild‐type EGFP‐tagged GRAM1b (EGFP‐GRAM1b) (WT) and mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b, as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells, expressing indicated constructs, with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) or with SMase treatment followed by 5 min treatment with Methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) (5 mM) (mean ± SEM, n = 20 cells from two independent experiments for untreated and SMase‐treated conditions; n = 10 cells from one experiment for SMase & MCD‐treated conditions). Amino acids are ranked according to Goldman, Engelman and Steitz (GES) hydrophobicity scale with the most hydrophobic amino acid on the left. Red dashed lines indicate the average values of WT with or without SMase treatment.A representative size exclusion chromatography (SEC) profile of purified mutant GRAMD1b proteins (G187L). The peak fraction was subjected to SDS–PAGE followed by colloidal blue staining.Representative time course of DHE transfer from LPM to LER mediated by GRAMD1b–G187L. Purified GRAMD1b–G187L proteins (0.05 µM, 0.1 µM or 0.2 µM) were added at time 0. Addition of buffer alone (0 µM) was used as a control.Concentration dependency of GRAMD1b‐dependent DHE transfer from LPM to LER. Note the concentration‐dependent DHE transfer mediated by GRAMD1b–WT and GRAMD1b–G187L proteins. Note also the absence of DHE transfer by GRAMD1b‐R189W/R191A proteins at any concentration tested (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all the conditions).Liposome sedimentation assays of purified wild‐type (WT) and mutant (G187L) GRAMD1b proteins. Proteins were incubated with sucrose‐loaded LER. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions).Lysates of wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐tagged GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAMD1b) constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT), G187L mutant (G187L)] were processed by SDS–PAGE and immunoblotted (IB) with anti‐GFP, anti‐GRAMD1b, and anti‐actin antibodies.Left: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated. Cholesterol loading [the treatment with cholesterol/MCD complex (200 µM)] is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 27 cells (EGFP), n = 23 cells (EGFP‐GRAMD1b), n = 26 cells [EGFP‐GRAMD1b (G187L)], data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001]. See also Movie EV4.Amphotericin B resistance of SMase‐treated GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT) or G187L mutant (G187L)]. Left: Cells that had been pre‐treated with SMase (100 mU/ml) for 3 h at 37°C were treated with indicated concentration of Amphotericin B for 20 min at 37ºC. After overnight recovery in culture media, cell viability was measured by detecting ATP present in each well via luminescence (see Materials and Methods). The same number of cells were seeded in each well before SMase treatment. Note the strong resistance against Amphotericin B of GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b–G187L. Right: Quantification of cell viability with increasing amount of Amphotericin B. Note the resistance of GRAMD1 TKO cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b–G187L compared to GRAMD1 TKO cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b–WT (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for each condition).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 A basic patch within the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b is critical for anionic lipid recognition AThe ribbon diagram of the modeled GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) (see Materials and Methods). Amino acid side chains that contribute to the basic patch of GRAM1b are indicated. The bottom panel shows the diagram that was rotated 45° about the indicated axis. N, N‐terminus; C, C‐terminus.BElectrostatic surface representations of the modeled wild‐type GRAM1b (WT) and mutant versions of GRAM1b carrying mutations that are predicted to alter charge distribution of the basic patch (basic patch mutants: K161A, R191A, and K161A/R191A). Blue indicates positively charged surface, while red indicates negatively charged surface at the level of ± 2 kT/e. The electrostatic surface representations were generated by APBS Electrostatics plugin using PyMoL. The dashed boxes indicate the positions of the mutated amino acid residues.C–ELiposome sedimentation assays of wild‐type GRAM1b proteins (WT) and mutant versions of GRAM1b proteins carrying indicated mutations (K161A, R191A, and K161A/R191A). Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified GRAM1b proteins as shown. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions in phosphatidylserine (PS) sensitivity, coincidence detection, and anionic lipid selectivity assays; n = 12 independent experiments for WT, n = 3 independent experiments for K161A and R191A, and n = 6 independent experiments for K161A/R191A in the cholesterol sensitivity assay). DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol; PA, phosphatidic acid (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphate); PI(4)P, phosphatidylinositol 4‐phosphate; PI(4,5)P2, phosphatidylinositol 4,5‐bisphosphate; PI, L‐α‐phosphatidylinositol. Source data are available online for this figure.
Figure 2 A basic patch within the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b is critical for anionic lipid recognition AThe ribbon diagram of the modeled GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) (see Materials and Methods). Amino acid side chains that contribute to the basic patch of GRAM1b are indicated. The bottom panel shows the diagram that was rotated 45° about the indicated axis. N, N‐terminus; C, C‐terminus.BElectrostatic surface representations of the modeled wild‐type GRAM1b (WT) and mutant versions of GRAM1b carrying mutations that are predicted to alter charge distribution of the basic patch (basic patch mutants: K161A, R191A, and K161A/R191A). Blue indicates positively charged surface, while red indicates negatively charged surface at the level of ± 2 kT/e. The electrostatic surface representations were generated by APBS Electrostatics plugin using PyMoL. The dashed boxes indicate the positions of the mutated amino acid residues.C–ELiposome sedimentation assays of wild‐type GRAM1b proteins (WT) and mutant versions of GRAM1b proteins carrying indicated mutations (K161A, R191A, and K161A/R191A). Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified GRAM1b proteins as shown. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions in phosphatidylserine (PS) sensitivity, coincidence detection, and anionic lipid selectivity assays; n = 12 independent experiments for WT, n = 3 independent experiments for K161A and R191A, and n = 6 independent experiments for K161A/R191A in the cholesterol sensitivity assay). DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol; PA, phosphatidic acid (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphate); PI(4)P, phosphatidylinositol 4‐phosphate; PI(4,5)P2, phosphatidylinositol 4,5‐bisphosphate; PI, L‐α‐phosphatidylinositol. Source data are available online for this figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 A GRAMD1b mutation (R189W) associated with intellectual disability specifically impairs binding of the GRAM domain to cholesterol AChemical structures of the sterols tested in (B).BSterol specificity of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) as assessed via liposome sedimentation assays. Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified GRAM1b proteins as indicated. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 6 independent experiments for liposomes containing only DOPC, n = 3 independent experiments for the rest). DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine).CMagnified ribbon diagrams of the modeled GRAM1b showing amino acid side chains that contribute to anionic lipid sensitivity (K161, R191) (blue) and an amino acid side chain of R189 (red), whose substitution to tryptophan (W) is associated with intellectual disability in humans. The bottom panel shows the diagram that was rotated 45° around the indicated axis as shown.D, ELiposome sedimentation assays of wild‐type GRAM1b proteins (WT) and mutant versions of GRAM1b proteins carrying indicated mutations (R189W, R189W/R191A). Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified GRAM1b proteins as shown. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining [mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions in the coincidence detection assay; n = 3 independent experiments for R189W and R189W/R191A, n = 6 independent experiments for WT in phosphatidylserine (PS) sensitivity assay; n = 3 independent experiments for R189W and R189W/R191A, n = 5 independent experiments for WT in cholesterol sensitivity assay]. DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol.FConfocal images of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type (WT) or mutant versions of EGFP‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAM1b) constructs as indicated. Cells were treated with SMase (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) before imaging. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Anionic lipid‐sensing defective mutants (K161A, R191A, and K161A/R191A), a cholesterol‐sensing defective mutant (R189W), and a cholesterol/anionic lipid‐sensing defective mutant (R189W/R191A) are shown. Note the absence of (R189W, R189W/R191A, and K161A/R191A) or significantly reduced (K161A, R191A) PM recruitment of the mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b compared to the strong PM recruitment of wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT). Scale bars, 10 µm.GQuantification of the ratio of PM EGFP‐GRAM1b signals to the cytosolic EGFP‐GRAM1b signals, as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type (WT) or mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) as shown in (F) and Appendix Fig S1B (mean ± SEM, n = 40 cells for WT, and n = 30 cells for other conditions; data are pooled from four independent experiments for WT and three independent experiments for the rest; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0001. n.s. denotes not significant).HLeft: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type (WT) or mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b constructs as indicated. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 126 cells (WT), n = 38 cells (K161A), n = 33 cells (R191A), n = 43 cells (K161A/R191A), n = 46 cells (R189W), n = 44 cells (R189W/R191A); data are pooled from six independent experiments for WT and two independent experiments for the rest; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P = 0.0002 (WT versus K161A) and **P < 0.0001 for the rest]. See also Movie EV1. Source data are available online for this figure.
Figure 3 A GRAMD1b mutation (R189W) associated with intellectual disability specifically impairs binding of the GRAM domain to cholesterol AChemical structures of the sterols tested in (B).BSterol specificity of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) as assessed via liposome sedimentation assays. Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified GRAM1b proteins as indicated. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining (mean ± SEM, n = 6 independent experiments for liposomes containing only DOPC, n = 3 independent experiments for the rest). DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine).CMagnified ribbon diagrams of the modeled GRAM1b showing amino acid side chains that contribute to anionic lipid sensitivity (K161, R191) (blue) and an amino acid side chain of R189 (red), whose substitution to tryptophan (W) is associated with intellectual disability in humans. The bottom panel shows the diagram that was rotated 45° around the indicated axis as shown.D, ELiposome sedimentation assays of wild‐type GRAM1b proteins (WT) and mutant versions of GRAM1b proteins carrying indicated mutations (R189W, R189W/R191A). Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified GRAM1b proteins as shown. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining [mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all conditions in the coincidence detection assay; n = 3 independent experiments for R189W and R189W/R191A, n = 6 independent experiments for WT in phosphatidylserine (PS) sensitivity assay; n = 3 independent experiments for R189W and R189W/R191A, n = 5 independent experiments for WT in cholesterol sensitivity assay]. DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol.FConfocal images of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type (WT) or mutant versions of EGFP‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAM1b) constructs as indicated. Cells were treated with SMase (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) before imaging. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Anionic lipid‐sensing defective mutants (K161A, R191A, and K161A/R191A), a cholesterol‐sensing defective mutant (R189W), and a cholesterol/anionic lipid‐sensing defective mutant (R189W/R191A) are shown. Note the absence of (R189W, R189W/R191A, and K161A/R191A) or significantly reduced (K161A, R191A) PM recruitment of the mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b compared to the strong PM recruitment of wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT). Scale bars, 10 µm.GQuantification of the ratio of PM EGFP‐GRAM1b signals to the cytosolic EGFP‐GRAM1b signals, as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type (WT) or mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) as shown in (F) and Appendix Fig S1B (mean ± SEM, n = 40 cells for WT, and n = 30 cells for other conditions; data are pooled from four independent experiments for WT and three independent experiments for the rest; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0001. n.s. denotes not significant).HLeft: Time course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type (WT) or mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b constructs as indicated. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 126 cells (WT), n = 38 cells (K161A), n = 33 cells (R191A), n = 43 cells (K161A/R191A), n = 46 cells (R189W), n = 44 cells (R189W/R191A); data are pooled from six independent experiments for WT and two independent experiments for the rest; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P = 0.0002 (WT versus K161A) and **P < 0.0001 for the rest]. See also Movie EV1. Source data are available online for this figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 GRAMD1b carrying an intellectual disability mutation (R189W) is defective in membrane tethering and cholesterol transport in vitro Schematic of the dehydroergosterol (DHE) transfer assay in vitro. Plasma membrane‐like liposomes (LPM) [10% phosphatidylserine (PS: DOPS), 30% cholesterol, 2.5% Dansyl‐phosphatidylethanolamine (DNS‐PE), 10% dehydroergosterol (DHE), 47.5% phosphatidylcholine (DOPC)] and endoplasmic reticulum‐like liposomes (LER) [15% DGS‐NTA (Ni), 20% phosphatidylethanolamine (1‐palmitoyl‐2‐oleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphoethanolamine/POPE), 65% DOPC] were incubated with either purified wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT) or purified mutant GRAMD1b proteins carrying GRAM domain mutations (1 mM total lipid, 0.2 μM final protein concentrations in 50 μl reaction volume unless otherwise noted). C‐terminus of GRAMD1b, including the transmembrane domain, was replaced with a hexahistidine tag (His‐tag) to attach purified GRAMD1b proteins to LER via His‐tag DGS‐NTA(Ni) interaction. A fluorometer was used to simultaneously monitor tethering of the liposomes in (B) and transfer of DHE from LPM to LER in (C).Liposome tethering by purified GRAMD1b proteins. Left: Representative time course of liposome tethering, as assessed by turbidity of mixtures containing both LPM and LER together with either wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT), mutant GRAMD1b R189W proteins (R189W), mutant GRAMD1b R189W/R191A proteins (RW/RA), or buffer alone as indicated. Turbidity, as assessed by measuring absorbance values at 405 nm, reflects clustering of liposomes due to tethering of LPM and LER. Right: Values of turbidity corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow (mean ± SEM, n = 6 independent experiments for WT, n = 3 independent experiments for buffer alone, R189W, and RW/RA; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001).DHE transfer between liposomes by purified GRAMD1b proteins. Left: Representative time course of DHE transfer from LPM to LER mediated by either wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT), mutant GRAMD1b R189W proteins (R189W), mutant GRAMD1b R189W/R191A proteins (RW/RA), or buffer alone as indicated. Methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) at 1 mM was used to determine DHE equilibration. Transfer of DHE from LPM to LER resulted in a decrease in fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) between DHE and DNS‐PE in LPM. A series of liposomes with different DHE mol% were prepared to plot a calibration curve to convert FRET signals to DHE molecules transferred (see Appendix Fig S2D and Materials and Methods). Right: Values of DHE transfer rate of GRAMD1b (WT), GRAMD1b (R189W), and GRAMD1b (RW/RA), as estimated by the FRET‐based lipid transfer assay [mean ± SEM, n = 6 independent experiments for WT, n = 3 independent experiments for R189W and RW/RA; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P = 0.0018 (WT versus R189W), **P = 0.0002 (WT versus RW/RA)].
Figure 4 GRAMD1b carrying an intellectual disability mutation (R189W) is defective in membrane tethering and cholesterol transport in vitro Schematic of the dehydroergosterol (DHE) transfer assay in vitro. Plasma membrane‐like liposomes (LPM) [10% phosphatidylserine (PS: DOPS), 30% cholesterol, 2.5% Dansyl‐phosphatidylethanolamine (DNS‐PE), 10% dehydroergosterol (DHE), 47.5% phosphatidylcholine (DOPC)] and endoplasmic reticulum‐like liposomes (LER) [15% DGS‐NTA (Ni), 20% phosphatidylethanolamine (1‐palmitoyl‐2‐oleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphoethanolamine/POPE), 65% DOPC] were incubated with either purified wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT) or purified mutant GRAMD1b proteins carrying GRAM domain mutations (1 mM total lipid, 0.2 μM final protein concentrations in 50 μl reaction volume unless otherwise noted). C‐terminus of GRAMD1b, including the transmembrane domain, was replaced with a hexahistidine tag (His‐tag) to attach purified GRAMD1b proteins to LER via His‐tag DGS‐NTA(Ni) interaction. A fluorometer was used to simultaneously monitor tethering of the liposomes in (B) and transfer of DHE from LPM to LER in (C).Liposome tethering by purified GRAMD1b proteins. Left: Representative time course of liposome tethering, as assessed by turbidity of mixtures containing both LPM and LER together with either wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT), mutant GRAMD1b R189W proteins (R189W), mutant GRAMD1b R189W/R191A proteins (RW/RA), or buffer alone as indicated. Turbidity, as assessed by measuring absorbance values at 405 nm, reflects clustering of liposomes due to tethering of LPM and LER. Right: Values of turbidity corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow (mean ± SEM, n = 6 independent experiments for WT, n = 3 independent experiments for buffer alone, R189W, and RW/RA; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001).DHE transfer between liposomes by purified GRAMD1b proteins. Left: Representative time course of DHE transfer from LPM to LER mediated by either wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT), mutant GRAMD1b R189W proteins (R189W), mutant GRAMD1b R189W/R191A proteins (RW/RA), or buffer alone as indicated. Methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) at 1 mM was used to determine DHE equilibration. Transfer of DHE from LPM to LER resulted in a decrease in fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) between DHE and DNS‐PE in LPM. A series of liposomes with different DHE mol% were prepared to plot a calibration curve to convert FRET signals to DHE molecules transferred (see Appendix Fig S2D and Materials and Methods). Right: Values of DHE transfer rate of GRAMD1b (WT), GRAMD1b (R189W), and GRAMD1b (RW/RA), as estimated by the FRET‐based lipid transfer assay [mean ± SEM, n = 6 independent experiments for WT, n = 3 independent experiments for R189W and RW/RA; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P = 0.0018 (WT versus R189W), **P = 0.0002 (WT versus RW/RA)].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Cholesterol‐sensing property of the GRAM domain is critical for GRAMD1b function Lysates of wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐tagged GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAMD1b) constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT), R189W mutant (R189W), R189W/R191A mutant (RW/RA)] were processed by SDS–PAGE and immunoblotted (IB) with anti‐GFP, anti‐GRAMD1b, and anti‐actin antibodies.Confocal images of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells stably expressing EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated that were additionally transfected with an accessible PM cholesterol biosensor, mCherry‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (mCherry‐GRAM1b). Cells were treated with SMase (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) before imaging. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Note the very weak PM recruitment of mCherry‐GRAM1b in cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b WT, compared to the strong PM recruitment of mCherry‐GRAM1b in cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b R189W mutant (R189W) or EGFP‐GRAMD1b R189W/R191A mutant (RW/RA). Scale bars, 10 µm.Quantification of the ratio of PM mCherry‐GRAM1b signals to the cytosolic mCherry‐GRAM1b signals, as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells expressing mCherry‐GRAM1b with SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) as shown in (B) and Fig EV3B (mean ± SEM, n = 20 cells for each condition; data are pooled from two independent experiments; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001. n.s. denotes not significant).Left: Time course of normalized mCherry signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells stably expressing either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated that were additionally transfected with an accessible PM cholesterol biosensor mCherry‐GRAM1b. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 31 cells (EGFP), n = 28 cells (EGFP‐GRAMD1b WT), n = 23 cells (EGFP‐GRAMD1b R189W), n = 27 cells [EGFP‐GRAMD1b R189W/R191A (RW/RA)]; data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001 (EGFP versus WT and WT versus R189W), **P = 0.0002 (WT versus RW/RA)].Wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT), R189W mutant (R189W), R189W/R191A mutant (RW/RA)], were cultured in the medium supplemented with 10% lipoprotein‐deficient serum (LPDS) and mevastatin (50 µM) for 16 h and then treated with SMase (100 mU/ml) for 3 h at 37°C. Top: Lysates of the cells were processed for SDS–PAGE and IB with anti‐SREBP‐2 and anti‐actin antibodies. Arrows indicate precursor (P) and cleaved (C) forms of SREBP‐2. Bottom: The response rate was obtained by normalizing the ratio of the band intensity of the cleaved SREBP‐2 over the total band intensity of cleaved and precursor forms of SREBP‐2 from the cells with SMase treatment by the one from the cells without SMase treatment for each condition. Note that the suppression of SREBP‐2 cleavage is attenuated in GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells compared to wild‐type control HeLa cells. Note also the rescue by expression of wild‐type EGFP‐GRAMD1b (WT) but not by mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAMD1b [R189W, R189W/R191A (RW/RA)] [mean ± SEM, n = 4 lysates (independent experiments) for each condition; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P = 0.0035 (Control + EGFP versus TKO + EGFP), **P < 0.0001 (TKO + EGFP versus TKO + WT), n.s. denotes not significant].Amphotericin B resistance of SMase‐treated wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT), R189W mutant (R189W), R189W/R191A mutant (RW/RA)]. Left: Cells that had been pre‐treated with SMase (100 mU/ml) for 3 h at 37°C were treated with indicated concentration of Amphotericin B for 20 min at 37ºC. After overnight recovery in culture media, cell viability was measured by detecting ATP present in each well via luminescence (see Materials and Methods). The same number of cells were seeded in each well before SMase treatment. Note the reduced viability of cells with increasing amount of Amphotericin B. Right: Quantification of cell viability with increasing amount of Amphotericin B. Note the resistance of wild‐type control and GRAMD1 TKO cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b (WT) compared to GRAMD1 TKO cells or GRAMD1 TKO cells that stably expressed mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAMD1b [R189W, R189W/R191A (RW/RA)] (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for each condition). Source data are available online for this figure.
Figure 5 Cholesterol‐sensing property of the GRAM domain is critical for GRAMD1b function Lysates of wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐tagged GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAMD1b) constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT), R189W mutant (R189W), R189W/R191A mutant (RW/RA)] were processed by SDS–PAGE and immunoblotted (IB) with anti‐GFP, anti‐GRAMD1b, and anti‐actin antibodies.Confocal images of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells stably expressing EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated that were additionally transfected with an accessible PM cholesterol biosensor, mCherry‐tagged GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (mCherry‐GRAM1b). Cells were treated with SMase (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) before imaging. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Note the very weak PM recruitment of mCherry‐GRAM1b in cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b WT, compared to the strong PM recruitment of mCherry‐GRAM1b in cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b R189W mutant (R189W) or EGFP‐GRAMD1b R189W/R191A mutant (RW/RA). Scale bars, 10 µm.Quantification of the ratio of PM mCherry‐GRAM1b signals to the cytosolic mCherry‐GRAM1b signals, as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells expressing mCherry‐GRAM1b with SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) as shown in (B) and Fig EV3B (mean ± SEM, n = 20 cells for each condition; data are pooled from two independent experiments; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001. n.s. denotes not significant).Left: Time course of normalized mCherry signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells stably expressing either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated that were additionally transfected with an accessible PM cholesterol biosensor mCherry‐GRAM1b. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 31 cells (EGFP), n = 28 cells (EGFP‐GRAMD1b WT), n = 23 cells (EGFP‐GRAMD1b R189W), n = 27 cells [EGFP‐GRAMD1b R189W/R191A (RW/RA)]; data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001 (EGFP versus WT and WT versus R189W), **P = 0.0002 (WT versus RW/RA)].Wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT), R189W mutant (R189W), R189W/R191A mutant (RW/RA)], were cultured in the medium supplemented with 10% lipoprotein‐deficient serum (LPDS) and mevastatin (50 µM) for 16 h and then treated with SMase (100 mU/ml) for 3 h at 37°C. Top: Lysates of the cells were processed for SDS–PAGE and IB with anti‐SREBP‐2 and anti‐actin antibodies. Arrows indicate precursor (P) and cleaved (C) forms of SREBP‐2. Bottom: The response rate was obtained by normalizing the ratio of the band intensity of the cleaved SREBP‐2 over the total band intensity of cleaved and precursor forms of SREBP‐2 from the cells with SMase treatment by the one from the cells without SMase treatment for each condition. Note that the suppression of SREBP‐2 cleavage is attenuated in GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells compared to wild‐type control HeLa cells. Note also the rescue by expression of wild‐type EGFP‐GRAMD1b (WT) but not by mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAMD1b [R189W, R189W/R191A (RW/RA)] [mean ± SEM, n = 4 lysates (independent experiments) for each condition; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P = 0.0035 (Control + EGFP versus TKO + EGFP), **P < 0.0001 (TKO + EGFP versus TKO + WT), n.s. denotes not significant].Amphotericin B resistance of SMase‐treated wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as indicated [wild‐type (WT), R189W mutant (R189W), R189W/R191A mutant (RW/RA)]. Left: Cells that had been pre‐treated with SMase (100 mU/ml) for 3 h at 37°C were treated with indicated concentration of Amphotericin B for 20 min at 37ºC. After overnight recovery in culture media, cell viability was measured by detecting ATP present in each well via luminescence (see Materials and Methods). The same number of cells were seeded in each well before SMase treatment. Note the reduced viability of cells with increasing amount of Amphotericin B. Right: Quantification of cell viability with increasing amount of Amphotericin B. Note the resistance of wild‐type control and GRAMD1 TKO cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b (WT) compared to GRAMD1 TKO cells or GRAMD1 TKO cells that stably expressed mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAMD1b [R189W, R189W/R191A (RW/RA)] (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for each condition). Source data are available online for this figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 G187L mutation specifically increases the cholesterol sensitivity of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b AClose‐up view of the ribbon diagram of the modeled GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) showing amino acid side chains of R189 and other amino acids, lying in the ~4–14 Å vicinity of R189, that were mutated in mini‐mutagenesis screen as shown in (B).BQuantification of the ratio of PM signals to the cytosolic signals of wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) and mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b (R166L, Q173I, F182I, T184V, F186L, G187L, A188S), as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells, expressing indicated constructs, as shown in (D) and Fig EV4A (mean ± SEM, n = 10 cells for each condition; data are pooled from one experiment; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001).CSurface representations of the modeled wild‐type GRAM1b (WT) and mutant GRAM1b carrying G187L mutation (G187L) showing the close proximity of G187 (or G187L) and R189 residues.DConfocal images of live wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells, expressing either wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) or mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L), with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C). Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Note the recruitment of mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L) to the PM even in wild‐type HeLa cells at rest, which was further enhanced by SMase treatment. Scale bars, 10 µm.EQuantification of the ratio of PM signals to the cytosolic signals of wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) and mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L), as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells, expressing indicated constructs, with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C), as shown in (D) (mean ± SEM, n = 10 cells for each condition; data are pooled from one experiment).FA confocal image of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L). Cells were cultured in the medium supplemented with 10% lipoprotein‐deficient serum (LPDS) and mevastatin (50 µM) for 16 h to deplete accessible cholesterol before imaging. An inset shows at higher magnification the region indicated by a white dashed box. Note the absence of PM recruitment (compare to (D)). Scale bars, 10 µm.GTime course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) or mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L) as indicated. Cells were cultured in the medium supplemented with 10% lipoprotein‐deficient serum (LPDS) and mevastatin (50 µM) for 16 h before imaging. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 36 cells (WT), n = 37 cells (G187L), data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P = 0.0003]. Note the rapid PM recruitment of G187L mutant compared to WT. See also Movie EV3.H, ILiposome sedimentation assays of wild‐type GRAM1b (WT) and mutant GRAM1b (G187L). Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified GRAM1b proteins as shown. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining [mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all the conditions; (H) Left (10% PS): Holm–Sidak t‐test for multiple comparisons, *P = 0.022679 at 40% cholesterol, **P = 0.009195 at 50% cholesterol. Right (20% PS): Holm–Sidak t‐test for multiple comparisons, *P = 0.023163 at 30% cholesterol, **P = 0.000327 at 40% cholesterol, *P = 0.017194 at 50% cholesterol. (I) Holm–Sidak t‐test for multiple comparisons, n.s. denotes not significant, **P < 0.000001 at 50% DOPC, 50% cholesterol, *P = 0.011271 at 40% DOPC, 60% cholesterol]. DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol. Source data are available online for this figure.
Figure 6 G187L mutation specifically increases the cholesterol sensitivity of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b AClose‐up view of the ribbon diagram of the modeled GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) showing amino acid side chains of R189 and other amino acids, lying in the ~4–14 Å vicinity of R189, that were mutated in mini‐mutagenesis screen as shown in (B).BQuantification of the ratio of PM signals to the cytosolic signals of wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) and mutant versions of EGFP‐GRAM1b (R166L, Q173I, F182I, T184V, F186L, G187L, A188S), as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells, expressing indicated constructs, as shown in (D) and Fig EV4A (mean ± SEM, n = 10 cells for each condition; data are pooled from one experiment; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001).CSurface representations of the modeled wild‐type GRAM1b (WT) and mutant GRAM1b carrying G187L mutation (G187L) showing the close proximity of G187 (or G187L) and R189 residues.DConfocal images of live wild‐type (control) and GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells, expressing either wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) or mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L), with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C). Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Note the recruitment of mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L) to the PM even in wild‐type HeLa cells at rest, which was further enhanced by SMase treatment. Scale bars, 10 µm.EQuantification of the ratio of PM signals to the cytosolic signals of wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) and mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L), as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis from GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells, expressing indicated constructs, with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C), as shown in (D) (mean ± SEM, n = 10 cells for each condition; data are pooled from one experiment).FA confocal image of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells expressing mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L). Cells were cultured in the medium supplemented with 10% lipoprotein‐deficient serum (LPDS) and mevastatin (50 µM) for 16 h to deplete accessible cholesterol before imaging. An inset shows at higher magnification the region indicated by a white dashed box. Note the absence of PM recruitment (compare to (D)). Scale bars, 10 µm.GTime course of normalized EGFP signal, as assessed by TIRF microscopy, from GRAMD1 TKO (TKO) HeLa cells expressing either wild‐type EGFP‐GRAM1b (WT) or mutant EGFP‐GRAM1b (G187L) as indicated. Cells were cultured in the medium supplemented with 10% lipoprotein‐deficient serum (LPDS) and mevastatin (50 µM) for 16 h before imaging. SMase treatment (100 mU/ml) is indicated. Right: Values of ΔF/F0 corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow [mean ± SEM, n = 36 cells (WT), n = 37 cells (G187L), data are pooled from two independent experiments for each condition; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P = 0.0003]. Note the rapid PM recruitment of G187L mutant compared to WT. See also Movie EV3.H, ILiposome sedimentation assays of wild‐type GRAM1b (WT) and mutant GRAM1b (G187L). Liposomes containing the indicated mole% lipids were incubated with purified GRAM1b proteins as shown. Bound proteins [pellet, (P)] were separated from the unbound proteins [supernatant, (S)], run on SDS–PAGE and visualized by colloidal blue staining [mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments for all the conditions; (H) Left (10% PS): Holm–Sidak t‐test for multiple comparisons, *P = 0.022679 at 40% cholesterol, **P = 0.009195 at 50% cholesterol. Right (20% PS): Holm–Sidak t‐test for multiple comparisons, *P = 0.023163 at 30% cholesterol, **P = 0.000327 at 40% cholesterol, *P = 0.017194 at 50% cholesterol. (I) Holm–Sidak t‐test for multiple comparisons, n.s. denotes not significant, **P < 0.000001 at 50% DOPC, 50% cholesterol, *P = 0.011271 at 40% DOPC, 60% cholesterol]. DOPC, phosphatidylcholine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine); DOPS, phosphatidylserine (1,2‐dioleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phospho‐L‐serine); Chol., cholesterol. Source data are available online for this figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 G187 is critical for determining the sensitivity of the GRAM domain to accessible PM cholesterol and regulating GRAMD1b‐dependent cholesterol transport Effects of mutation of G187 on the property of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) to sense transient expansion of the accessible pool of PM cholesterol. Indicated EGFP‐tagged mutant versions of GRAM1b were expressed in GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells and imaged under confocal microscopy with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) or with SMase treatment followed by 5 min treatment with Methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) (5 mM) to assess their PM recruitment. The mean values (n = 20 cells from two independent experiments for untreated and SMase‐treated conditions; n = 10 cells from one experiment for SMase & MCD‐treated conditions) of the ratio of PM signals to the cytosolic signals, as assessed by line scan analysis, are presented for each condition as a heatmap. Amino acids are ranked according to Goldman, Engelman and Steitz (GES) hydrophobicity scale with the most hydrophobic amino acid on the top. Individual values for each condition are shown in Fig EV5A.Liposome tethering by purified GRAMD1b proteins. Left: Representative time course of liposome tethering, as assessed by turbidity of mixtures containing both LPM and LER together with either wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT), mutant GRAMD1b G187L proteins (G187L), or buffer alone as indicated. Experiments and data analysis were performed as in Fig 4. Right: Values of turbidity corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, *P = 0.0143).DHE transfer between liposomes by purified GRAMD1b proteins. Left: Representative time course of DHE transfer from LPM to LER mediated by either wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT), mutant GRAMD1b G187L proteins (G187L), or buffer alone as indicated. Methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) at 1 mM was used to determine DHE equilibration. Experiments and data analysis were performed as in Fig 4. Right: Values of DHE transfer rate of wild‐type GRAMD1b (WT) and mutant GRAMD1b (G187L), as estimated by the FRET‐based lipid transfer assay (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0014).Confocal images of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP control or EGFP‐tagged GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAMD1b) constructs as indicated. Cells were stained with recombinant mCherry–D4H proteins (10 mg/ml) (accessible PM cholesterol biosensor) for 15 min at room temperature before imaging. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Note that expression of EGFP‐GRAMD1b–WT, but not EGFP‐GRAMD1b–R189W, reduced binding of mCherry‐D4H to the PM, in GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells. Further reduction in mCherry‐D4H binding to the PM was observed in GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b–G187L compared to GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b–WT. Scale bars, 10 µm.Values of mCherry‐D4H signals at the PM after background subtraction, as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis of GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or indicated EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as shown in (D) [mean ± SEM, n = 30 cells for all the conditions; data are pooled from three independent experiments; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001].A model of the molecular basis of accessible PM cholesterol recognition by the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b. At steady state, limited amount of accessible cholesterol (i.e. chemically active cholesterol) in the inner leaflet of the PM is not sufficient for the recruitment of the GRAM domain to the PM. Upon additional cholesterol loading to the PM or liberation of cholesterol from sphingomyelin (SM)‐sequestered pool of inaccessible PM cholesterol (i.e. chemically inactive cholesterol), accessible PM cholesterol transiently increases in the inner leaflet of the PM beyond a certain threshold (as unsequestered cholesterol can spontaneously flip‐flop between the outer and inner leaflets), resulting in increased codistribution of accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids, including phosphatidylserine (PS), in this leaflet, which serves as a platform for PM recruitment of the GRAM domain. The GRAM domain then binds to both accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids, using distinct but synergistic binding sites for cholesterol and anionic lipids, to tether the PM to the ER, and facilitates the StART‐like domain‐dependent extraction and transport of accessible PM cholesterol to the ER. Accessible cholesterol transport to the ER results in suppression of SREBP‐2 cleavage, preventing overaccumulation of cholesterol in cells. Our study identified amino acid residues that are important for cholesterol sensing (G187, R189) and anionic lipid sensing (K161, R191) of the GRAM domain. G187 is critical for determining the sensitivity of the GRAM domain to accessible PM cholesterol, while K161 and R191 contribute to a basic patch of the GRAM domain that is required for sensing anionic lipids, including PS. An intellectual disability‐associated R189W mutation, which specifically results in cholesterol‐sensing defect, impairs the GRAM domain’s ability to sense transient expansions of the accessible pool of PM cholesterol and abolishes GRAMD1b‐mediated PM to ER cholesterol transport.
Figure 7 G187 is critical for determining the sensitivity of the GRAM domain to accessible PM cholesterol and regulating GRAMD1b‐dependent cholesterol transport Effects of mutation of G187 on the property of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) to sense transient expansion of the accessible pool of PM cholesterol. Indicated EGFP‐tagged mutant versions of GRAM1b were expressed in GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells and imaged under confocal microscopy with or without SMase treatment (100 mU/ml for 1 h at 37°C) or with SMase treatment followed by 5 min treatment with Methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) (5 mM) to assess their PM recruitment. The mean values (n = 20 cells from two independent experiments for untreated and SMase‐treated conditions; n = 10 cells from one experiment for SMase & MCD‐treated conditions) of the ratio of PM signals to the cytosolic signals, as assessed by line scan analysis, are presented for each condition as a heatmap. Amino acids are ranked according to Goldman, Engelman and Steitz (GES) hydrophobicity scale with the most hydrophobic amino acid on the top. Individual values for each condition are shown in Fig EV5A.Liposome tethering by purified GRAMD1b proteins. Left: Representative time course of liposome tethering, as assessed by turbidity of mixtures containing both LPM and LER together with either wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT), mutant GRAMD1b G187L proteins (G187L), or buffer alone as indicated. Experiments and data analysis were performed as in Fig 4. Right: Values of turbidity corresponding to the end of the experiment as indicated by the arrow (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, *P = 0.0143).DHE transfer between liposomes by purified GRAMD1b proteins. Left: Representative time course of DHE transfer from LPM to LER mediated by either wild‐type GRAMD1b proteins (WT), mutant GRAMD1b G187L proteins (G187L), or buffer alone as indicated. Methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin (MCD) at 1 mM was used to determine DHE equilibration. Experiments and data analysis were performed as in Fig 4. Right: Values of DHE transfer rate of wild‐type GRAMD1b (WT) and mutant GRAMD1b (G187L), as estimated by the FRET‐based lipid transfer assay (mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments; two‐tailed unpaired Student’s t‐test, **P < 0.0014).Confocal images of live GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP control or EGFP‐tagged GRAMD1b (EGFP‐GRAMD1b) constructs as indicated. Cells were stained with recombinant mCherry–D4H proteins (10 mg/ml) (accessible PM cholesterol biosensor) for 15 min at room temperature before imaging. Insets show at higher magnification the regions indicated by white dashed boxes. Note that expression of EGFP‐GRAMD1b–WT, but not EGFP‐GRAMD1b–R189W, reduced binding of mCherry‐D4H to the PM, in GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells. Further reduction in mCherry‐D4H binding to the PM was observed in GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b–G187L compared to GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed EGFP‐GRAMD1b–WT. Scale bars, 10 µm.Values of mCherry‐D4H signals at the PM after background subtraction, as assessed by confocal microscopy and line scan analysis of GRAMD1 TKO HeLa cells that stably expressed either EGFP or indicated EGFP‐GRAMD1b constructs as shown in (D) [mean ± SEM, n = 30 cells for all the conditions; data are pooled from three independent experiments; Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, **P < 0.0001].A model of the molecular basis of accessible PM cholesterol recognition by the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b. At steady state, limited amount of accessible cholesterol (i.e. chemically active cholesterol) in the inner leaflet of the PM is not sufficient for the recruitment of the GRAM domain to the PM. Upon additional cholesterol loading to the PM or liberation of cholesterol from sphingomyelin (SM)‐sequestered pool of inaccessible PM cholesterol (i.e. chemically inactive cholesterol), accessible PM cholesterol transiently increases in the inner leaflet of the PM beyond a certain threshold (as unsequestered cholesterol can spontaneously flip‐flop between the outer and inner leaflets), resulting in increased codistribution of accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids, including phosphatidylserine (PS), in this leaflet, which serves as a platform for PM recruitment of the GRAM domain. The GRAM domain then binds to both accessible cholesterol and anionic lipids, using distinct but synergistic binding sites for cholesterol and anionic lipids, to tether the PM to the ER, and facilitates the StART‐like domain‐dependent extraction and transport of accessible PM cholesterol to the ER. Accessible cholesterol transport to the ER results in suppression of SREBP‐2 cleavage, preventing overaccumulation of cholesterol in cells. Our study identified amino acid residues that are important for cholesterol sensing (G187, R189) and anionic lipid sensing (K161, R191) of the GRAM domain. G187 is critical for determining the sensitivity of the GRAM domain to accessible PM cholesterol, while K161 and R191 contribute to a basic patch of the GRAM domain that is required for sensing anionic lipids, including PS. An intellectual disability‐associated R189W mutation, which specifically results in cholesterol‐sensing defect, impairs the GRAM domain’s ability to sense transient expansions of the accessible pool of PM cholesterol and abolishes GRAMD1b‐mediated PM to ER cholesterol transport.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

119 Own result · 73 Own interpretation · 17 Supported · 14 Partly supported · 8 Own method · 7 No basis given · 6 No full text of the sources · 5 Not checked yet · 2 Supported so far · 1 Sources not found · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 7 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 72
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
85 of 85
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    How cells sense the accessibility of plasma membrane cholesterol and regulate cholesterol transport from the plasma membrane to the endoplasmic reticulum is poorly understood.

    “Despite its critical importance, how cells sense the accessibility of PM cholesterol and regulate cholesterol transport from the PM to the ER is still poorly understood.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The precise mechanism by which GRAM domains sense transient expansions in the accessible pool of plasma membrane cholesterol and the impact of the intellectual disability-associated missense mutation on GRAMD1b function remain unknown.

    “However, the precise mechanism by which GRAM domains sense transient expansions in the accessible pool of PM cholesterol and the impact that the intellectual disability‐associated missense mutation has on GRAMD1b function both remain unknown.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Sites within the GRAM domain that bind anionic lipids are currently unknown.

    “However, sites within the GRAM domain that bind these anionic lipids are currently unknown.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It remains unclear how GRAMD1 GRAM domains bind most efficiently to membranes that contain both cholesterol and anionic lipids.

    “It also remains unclear how GRAMD1 GRAM domains bind most efficiently to membranes that contain both cholesterol and anionic lipids.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The structural model of GRAM1b based on the Lam6/Ltc1 GRAM domain accurately represents the structure of GRAM1b.

    “We constructed a structural model of GRAM1b using the crystal structure for the GRAM domain of Lam6/Ltc1, a homolog of GRAMD1s in yeast (Fig EV2A and B), as a template (Tong et al, 2018).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The PM-like and ER-like liposomes used in the in vitro transport assay mimic the lipid composition and properties of the plasma membrane and endoplasmic reticulum.

    “We prepared: (i) PM‐like donor liposomes (LPM) that contained PS, cholesterol, Dansyl‐PE (DNS‐PE), and DHE (a fluorescent analog of cholesterol), and (ii) ER‐like acceptor liposomes (LER) that contained Nickel‐labeled lipids (DGS‐NTA) (see Materials and Methods) (Fig 4A).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mCherry-D4H protein specifically binds accessible PM cholesterol.

    “Cells were stained with recombinant mCherry–D4H proteins (10 mg/ml) (accessible PM cholesterol biosensor) for 15 min at room temperature before imaging.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rate of DHE transfer between liposomes reflects the rate of cholesterol transfer by GRAMD1b.

    “DHE transfer between liposomes by purified GRAMD1b proteins.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The modeled structure of the GRAM domain of GRAMD1b accurately represents the three-dimensional arrangement of the residues.

    “Close‐up view of the ribbon diagram of the modeled GRAM domain of GRAMD1b (GRAM1b) showing amino acid side chains of R189 and other amino acids, lying in the ~4–14 Å vicinity of R189, that were mutated in mini‐mutagenesis screen as shown in (B).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The molecular basis for the synergistic binding of GRAM domains to membranes containing both cholesterol and anionic lipids was unclear before this study.

    “However, the molecular basis for the synergistic binding of GRAM domains to membranes that contain both cholesterol and anionic lipids remained unclear.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The R189W mutation in GRAM1b is linked to intellectual disability in humans.

    “Recent human genetic studies identified a missense mutation in GRAM1b that is linked to intellectual disability.”
    “Importantly, the R189W mutation is associated with intellectual disability in humans.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    GRAMD1s are conserved from yeast to humans.

    “Because GRAMD1s are conserved from yeast to humans”
12 of 12

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 87 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 132

Metadata

Authors
Ercan, B., Naito, T., Koh, D. H. Z., Dharmawan, D., & Saheki, Y.
Affiliations
Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Corresponding author
Saheki, Yasunori
Venue
The EMBO Journal
Published
2021-02-19
Volume
40
Issue
6
Pages
e106524-e106524
ISSN
  • 0261-4189 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2075
OpenAlex
W3130489784
Cited by
132
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 10
FWCI
8.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The EMBO Journal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education ‐ Singapore (MOE2017‐T2‐2‐001)
  • Nanyang Technological University (NAP)
  • NTU|Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University (LKCMedicine‐SUG)
  • MEXT|Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Overseas Research Fellowship)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biochemistry › Cholesterol and Lipid Metabolism
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Lipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular transport and secretion
Keywords
cholesterol sensing, phosphatidylserine, cholesterol transport, endoplasmic reticulum, cholesterol homeostasis, membrane tethering
MeSH terms
Protein Domains, Biological Transport, Cell Membrane, Cholesterol, Endoplasmic Reticulum, HeLa Cells, Humans, Membrane Proteins, Intellectual Disability, Phosphatidylserines, Point Mutation, Amino Acid Substitution, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Cell Line, Tumor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review