The midnolin-proteasome pathway catches proteins for ubiquitination-independent degradation

Cells use ubiquitin to mark proteins for proteasomal degradation. Although the proteasome also eliminates proteins that are not ubiquitinated, how this occurs mechanistically is unclear. Here, we found that midnolin promoted the destruction of many nuclear proteins, including transcription factors encoded by the immediate-early genes. Diverse stimuli induced midnolin, and its overexpression was sufficient to cause the degradation of its targets by a mechanism that did not require ubiquitination. Instead, midnolin associated with the proteasome via an α helix, used its Catch domain to bind a region within substrates that can form a β strand, and used a ubiquitin-like domain to promote substrate destruction. Thus, midnolin contains three regions that function in concert to target a large set of nuclear proteins to the proteasome for degradation. Description Editor’s summary Eukaryotic cells contain a macromolecular protease called the proteasome that degrades proteins modified by ubiquitin. The proteasome can also degrade proteins that are not ubiquitinated, but how this occurs mechanistically has remained mysterious. Gu et al. identified midnolin, an inducible protein that localizes within the nucleus to promote the proteasomal degradation of numerous transcriptional regulators independently of ubiquitination (see the Perspective by Schilling and Weber-Ban). Midnolin stably associates with the proteasome and uses a structural domain that incorporates a free β strand to “catch” substrates for destruction. Thus, the midnolin-proteasome pathway bypasses the canonical ubiquitination system to achieve selective degradation of many nuclear proteins. —Stella M. Hurtley Midnolin associates with the proteasome to promote degradation of nuclear proteins through a ubiquitination-independent mechanism. INTRODUCTION In mammals, the transcriptional response to growth factor, neuronal, and immune stimuli is mediated by a group of genes called immediate-early genes (IEGs), which encode transcription factors of the Fos, EGR, and NR4A families. IEG proteins are activated stereotypically in virtually all mammalian cells but promote the transcription of late-response genes (LRGs) that are cell-type specific and crucial for the appropriate response to the initial stimulus. The physiological importance of IEGs is underscored by the fact that misregulation of their expression can lead to cancer, immune deficiencies, and neurological disorders. The IEG mRNAs accumulate within minutes after the initial stimulus and, once translated, their proteins are rapidly degraded to allow for a transient burst of protein expression. Although the mechanisms that regulate IEG transcription are well characterized, how IEG proteins are swiftly targeted for destruction has remained mysterious for many years. RATIONALE Eukaryotic cells rely on a macromolecular protease called the proteasome that canonically degrades proteins marked with ubiquitin. It has been suggested that the Fos family is targeted to the proteasome by both ubiquitination-dependent and -independent mechanisms, but the molecular events that orchestrate these processes have remained elusive. We hypothesized that there exists a cellular pathway dedicated to the rapid destruction of c-Fos and other IEG proteins. By harnessing the power of forward genetic screens, we sought to identify the machinery that controls the degradation of these proteins. RESULTS We performed genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 screens to search for genes that regulate the stability of IEG proteins. We found that midnolin, a largely uncharacterized protein in mammals, promoted the proteasomal destruction of IEG proteins from structurally distinct families including c-Fos, FosB, EGR1, and NR4A1. These results prompted us to search for additional midnolin targets. We used the global protein stability (GPS) assay with a human open reading frame library (ORFeome) to assess changes in protein stability for ~12,000 human proteins simultaneously. In addition to IEG proteins, midnolin promoted the degradation of IRF4, NeuroD1, PAX8, GATA1, and many other cell-type–specific transcriptional regulators in the nucleus, where midnolin itself resides. Diverse stimuli that activate IEGs also induced midnolin, and midnolin overexpression was sufficient to cause the destruction of its targets by a mechanism that does not require ubiquitination. Multiple lines of evidence support this ubiquitination-independent mechanism of protein degradation. Midnolin still bound to and promoted the degradation of many targets that had been mutated to lack lysine residues. Moreover, inhibition of the proteasome, but not E1 ubiquitin–activating enzymes, abrogated midnolin function. Additionally, midnolin does not contain RING or HECT domains that are characteristic of E3 ubiquitin ligases or ubiquitin-binding domains found in proteasomal processivity factors such as Rad23. Instead, midnolin engaged substrates using its “Catch” domain, which was necessary and sufficient to interact with unstructured regions within substrates that have the potential to form a β strand upon binding midnolin. These unstructured regions with the propensity to form a β strand were also necessary and sufficient to bind the Catch domain, thus functioning as a midnolin degron. In addition, midnolin stably associated with the proteasome through a C-terminal α helix and promoted the degradation of Catch-bound targets using its N-terminal ubiquitin-like domain. Thus, midnolin contains three conserved structural domains that function in concert to directly target a large set of nuclear proteins to the proteasome for ubiquitination-independent degradation. CONCLUSION Our study suggests that the midnolin-proteasome pathway may represent a general mechanism by which the proteasome bypasses the canonical ubiquitination system to achieve selective degradation of nuclear proteins, many of which are crucial for transcription. Within substrates, midnolin recognizes relatively degenerate amphipathic regions with the potential to form β strands, so the midnolin degron may be a common structural component of numerous proteins. How the midnolin-proteasome pathway is regulated by various cues in diverse cell types to control transcriptional programs will be an important subject of future exploration. The midnolin-proteasome pathway degrades many nuclear proteins independently of ubiquitination. Midnolin is induced by diverse cues, including growth factors and neuronal stimuli. Within the nucleus, midnolin associates with the proteasome through a C-terminal α helix (αHelix-C) and promotes the degradation of bound substrates using an N-terminal ubiquitin-like domain (Ubl). Midnolin achieves selectivity using its Catch domain, which binds an unstructured region within substrates that can form a β strand. Structures shown are AlphaFold models. Figure was created with BioRender.com. NLS, nuclear localization sequence.

[1]  Karl W Barber,et al.  A central role for regulated protein stability in the control of TFE3 and MITF by nutrients. , 2023, Molecular cell.

[2]  Narcrisha S. Norman,et al.  The National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program , 2022, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[3]  Y. Obara,et al.  Insulin Enhances Gene Expression of Midnolin, a Novel Genetic Risk Factor for Parkinson’s Disease, via Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase, Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase and Multiple Transcription Factors in SH-SY5Y Cells , 2022, The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

[4]  B. Clurman,et al.  Two diphosphorylated degrons control c-Myc degradation by the Fbw7 tumor suppressor , 2022, Science advances.

[5]  S. Elledge,et al.  The adaptive immune system is a major driver of selection for tumor suppressor gene inactivation , 2021, Science.

[6]  K. Kavukcuoglu,et al.  Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome , 2021, Nature.

[7]  Oriol Vinyals,et al.  Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold , 2021, Nature.

[8]  Peter Chien,et al.  Cargo competition for a dimerization interface restricts and stabilizes a bacterial protease adaptor , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Itay Koren,et al.  Tying up loose ends: the N-degron and C-degron pathways of protein degradation , 2020, Biochemical Society transactions.

[10]  A. Goldberg,et al.  Proteins containing ubiquitin-like (Ubl) domains not only bind to 26S proteasomes but also induce their activation , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Ramin Rad,et al.  Dual proteome-scale networks reveal cell-specific remodeling of the human interactome , 2020, Cell.

[12]  Stephen J. Elledge,et al.  A glycine-specific N-degron pathway mediates the quality control of protein N-myristoylation , 2019, Science.

[13]  P. Kao,et al.  Inducible expression of immediate early genes is regulated through dynamic chromatin association by NF45/ILF2 and NF90/NF110/ILF3 , 2019, PloS one.

[14]  Sinisa Hrvatin,et al.  ARNT2 Tunes Activity-Dependent Gene Expression through NCoR2-Mediated Repression and NPAS4-Mediated Activation , 2019, Neuron.

[15]  A. Varshavsky N-degron and C-degron pathways of protein degradation , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Michael E. Greenberg,et al.  Activity-Regulated Transcription: Bridging the Gap between Neural Activity and Behavior , 2018, Neuron.

[17]  S. Elledge,et al.  The Eukaryotic Proteome Is Shaped by E3 Ubiquitin Ligases Targeting C-Terminal Degrons , 2018, Cell.

[18]  J. Medina,et al.  Immediate Early Genes, Memory and Psychiatric Disorders: Focus on c-Fos, Egr1 and Arc , 2018, Front. Behav. Neurosci..

[19]  S. Tirrell,et al.  A small-molecule inhibitor of the ubiquitin activating enzyme for cancer treatment , 2018, Nature Medicine.

[20]  N. Zheng,et al.  Ubiquitin Ligases: Structure, Function, and Regulation. , 2017, Annual review of biochemistry.

[21]  F. Drabløs,et al.  Gene regulation in the immediate-early response process. , 2016, Advances in biological regulation.

[22]  Min Liu,et al.  Stuxnet Facilitates the Degradation of Polycomb Protein during Development. , 2016, Developmental Cell.

[23]  David Komander,et al.  Ubiquitin modifications , 2016, Cell Research.

[24]  Alan R. Mardinly,et al.  Sensory experience regulates cortical inhibition by inducing IGF-1 in VIP neurons , 2016, Nature.

[25]  H. Okuno,et al.  Role of Immediate-Early Genes in Synaptic Plasticity and Neuronal Ensembles Underlying the Memory Trace , 2016, Front. Mol. Neurosci..

[26]  Meagan E. Sullender,et al.  Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9 , 2015, Nature Biotechnology.

[27]  Tae-Kyung Kim,et al.  Stimulus-specific combinatorial functionality of neuronal c-fos enhancers , 2015, Nature Neuroscience.

[28]  Peter Chien,et al.  An Adaptor Hierarchy Regulates Proteolysis during a Bacterial Cell Cycle , 2015, Cell.

[29]  Jun S. Liu,et al.  MAGeCK enables robust identification of essential genes from genome-scale CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens , 2014, Genome Biology.

[30]  I. Marín The ubiquilin gene family: evolutionary patterns and functional insights , 2014, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[31]  Harinder Singh,et al.  Transcription factor IRF4 drives dendritic cells to promote Th2 differentiation , 2013, Nature Communications.

[32]  U. Klein,et al.  TCR signaling via Tec kinase ITK and interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4) regulates CD8+ T-cell differentiation , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  Steven L Salzberg,et al.  Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2 , 2012, Nature Methods.

[34]  Helga Thorvaldsdóttir,et al.  Molecular signatures database (MSigDB) 3.0 , 2011, Bioinform..

[35]  Marcel Martin Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads , 2011 .

[36]  U. Klein,et al.  Transcriptional control of adipose lipid handling by IRF4. , 2011, Cell metabolism.

[37]  G. Bhagat,et al.  IRF4 and its regulators: evolving insights into the pathogenesis of inflammatory arthritis? , 2010, Immunological reviews.

[38]  Soichi Wakatsuki,et al.  Ubiquitin-binding domains — from structures to functions , 2009, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[39]  Qikai Xu,et al.  Global Protein Stability Profiling in Mammalian Cells , 2008, Science.

[40]  Athar N. Malik,et al.  Activity-dependent regulation of inhibitory synapse development by Npas4 , 2008, Nature.

[41]  I. Jariel-Encontre,et al.  Fos family protein degradation by the proteasome. , 2008, Biochemical Society transactions.

[42]  L. Staudt,et al.  IRF4 addiction in multiple myeloma , 2008, Nature.

[43]  Qiong Shen,et al.  Transcription factor IRF4 controls plasma cell differentiation and class-switch recombination , 2006, Nature Immunology.

[44]  F. Berger,et al.  Role of N-terminal residues in the ubiquitin-independent degradation of human thymidylate synthase. , 2006, The Biochemical journal.

[45]  Pablo Tamayo,et al.  Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[46]  J. Gibrat,et al.  Protein secondary structure assignment revisited: a detailed analysis of different assignment methods , 2005, BMC Structural Biology.

[47]  C. Acquaviva,et al.  c-Fos Proto-Oncoprotein Is Degraded by the Proteasome Independently of Its Own Ubiquitinylation In Vivo , 2003, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[48]  Philip Coffino,et al.  Ubiquitin-independent Mechanisms of Mouse Ornithine Decarboxylase Degradation Are Conserved between Mammalian and Fungal Cells* 210 , 2003, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[49]  C. Pickart,et al.  Rad23 Ubiquitin-associated Domains (UBA) Inhibit 26 S Proteasome-catalyzed Proteolysis by Sequestering Lysine 48-linked Polyubiquitin Chains* , 2003, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[50]  G. Dittmar,et al.  Proteasome subunit Rpn1 binds ubiquitin-like protein domains , 2002, Nature Cell Biology.

[51]  Li Chen,et al.  Ubiquitin‐associated (UBA) domains in Rad23 bind ubiquitin and promote inhibition of multi‐ubiquitin chain assembly , 2001, EMBO reports.

[52]  M. Barrot,et al.  ΔFosB: A sustained molecular switch for addiction , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[53]  H. Suemori,et al.  Novel nucleolar protein, midnolin, is expressed in the mesencephalon during mouse development. , 2000, Gene.

[54]  S. Matsufuji,et al.  Degradation of ornithine decarboxylase by the 26S proteasome. , 2000, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[55]  J M Sturtevant,et al.  Sidechain interactions in parallel beta sheets: the energetics of cross-strand pairings. , 1999, Structure.

[56]  D. Surmeier,et al.  Expression of the transcription factor ΔFosB in the brain controls sensitivity to cocaine , 1999, Nature.

[57]  Hong Sun,et al.  p27Kip1 ubiquitination and degradation is regulated by the SCFSkp2 complex through phosphorylated Thr187 in p27 , 1999, Current Biology.

[58]  Andrea C. Carrano,et al.  Ubiquitination of p27 is regulated by Cdk-dependent phosphorylation and trimeric complex formation. , 1999, Genes & development.

[59]  Li Chen,et al.  Rad23 links DNA repair to the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway , 1998, Nature.

[60]  T. Mak,et al.  Requirement for the Transcription Factor LSIRF/IRF4 for Mature B and T Lymphocyte Function , 1997, Science.

[61]  S. McMahon,et al.  The role of early growth response gene 1 (egr‐1) in regulation of the immune response , 1996, Journal of leukocyte biology.

[62]  C. Deber,et al.  Alpha-helical, but not beta-sheet, propensity of proline is determined by peptide environment. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[63]  R. Hodges,et al.  Relationship of sidechain hydrophobicity and α‐helical propensity on the stability of the single‐stranded amphipathic α‐helix , 1995 .

[64]  David W. Self,et al.  Induction of a long-lasting AP-1 complex composed of altered Fos-like proteins in brain by chronic cocaine and other chronic treatments , 1994, Neuron.

[65]  C. Mant,et al.  Reversed-phase chromatography of synthetic amphipathic alpha-helical peptides as a model for ligand/receptor interactions. Effect of changing hydrophobic environment on the relative hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of amino acid side-chains. , 1994, Journal of chromatography. A.

[66]  S. Matsufuji,et al.  Ornithine decarboxylase is degraded by the 26S proteasome without ubiquitination , 1992, Nature.

[67]  A. Varshavsky Naming a targeting signal , 1991, Cell.

[68]  D. Ecker,et al.  A multiubiquitin chain is confined to specific lysine in a targeted short-lived protein. , 1989, Science.

[69]  L. Ghoda,et al.  Prevention of rapid intracellular degradation of ODC by a carboxyl-terminal truncation. , 1989, Science.

[70]  A. Varshavsky,et al.  In vivo half-life of a protein is a function of its amino-terminal residue. , 1986, Science.

[71]  Michael E. Greenberg,et al.  Stimulation of 3T3 cells induces transcription of the c-fos proto-oncogene , 1984, Nature.

[72]  W. Kabsch,et al.  Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen‐bonded and geometrical features , 1983, Biopolymers.

[73]  A. Barco,et al.  The Neuronal Activity-Driven Transcriptome , 2014, Molecular Neurobiology.

[74]  M. Barrot,et al.  DeltaFosB: a sustained molecular switch for addiction. , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[75]  R. Hodges,et al.  Relationship of sidechain hydrophobicity and alpha-helical propensity on the stability of the single-stranded amphipathic alpha-helix. , 1995, Journal of peptide science : an official publication of the European Peptide Society.