Retinoschisin is encoded by the gene responsible for X-linked retinoschisis (XLRS), an early onset macular degeneration that results in a splitting of the inner layers of the retina and severe loss in vision. Retinoschisin is predominantly expressed and secreted from photoreceptor cells as a homo-oligomer protein; it then associates with the surface of retinal cells and maintains the retina cellular architecture. Many missense mutations in the XLRS1 gene are known to cause intracellular retention of retinoschisin, indicating that the secretion process of the protein is a critical step for its normal function in the retina. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying retinoschisin's secretion remain to be fully elucidated. In this study, we investigated the role of the F-actin cytoskeleton in the secretion of retinoschisin by treating Weri-Rb1 cells, which are known to secrete retinoschisin, with cytochalasin D, jasplakinolide, Y-27632, and dibutyryl cGMP. Our results show that cytochalasin D and jasplakinolide inhibit retinoschisin secretion, whereas Y-27632 and dibutyryl cGMP enhance secretion causing F-actin alterations. We also demonstrate that high concentrations of taxol, which hyperpolymerizes microtubules, inhibit retinoschisin secretion. Our data suggest that retinoschisin secretion is regulated by the F-actin cytoskeleton, that cGMP or inhibition of ROCK alters F-actin structure enhancing the secretion, and that the microtubule cytoskeleton is also involved in this process.

The ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) is a highly conserved and tightly regulated biochemical pathway that degrades the majority of proteins in eukaryotic cells. Importantly, the UPS is responsible for counteracting altered protein homeostasis induced by a variety of proteotoxic stresses. We previously reported that Rpt6, the ATPase subunit of the 19S regulatory particle (RP) of the 26S proteasome, is phosphorylated in mammalian neurons at serine 120 in response to neuronal activity. Furthermore, we found that Rpt6 S120 phosphorylation, which regulates the activity and distribution of proteasomes in neurons, is relevant for proteasome-dependent synaptic remodeling and function. To better understand the role of proteasome phosphorylation, we have constructed models of altered Rpt6 phosphorylation in S. cerevisiae by introducing chromosomal point mutations that prevent or mimic phosphorylation at the conserved serine (S119). We find that mutants which prevent Rpt6 phosphorylation at this site (rpt6-S119A), had increased susceptibility to proteotoxic stress, displayed abnormal morphology and had reduced proteasome activity. Since impaired proteasome function has been linked to the aggregation of toxic proteins including the Huntington's disease (HD) related huntingtin (Htt) protein with expanded polyglutamine repeats, we evaluated the extent of Htt aggregation in our phospho-dead (rpt6-S119A) and phospho-mimetic (rpt6-S119D) mutants. We showed Htt103Q aggregate size to be significantly larger in rpt6-S119A mutants compared to wild-type or rpt6-S119D strains. Furthermore, we observed that phosphorylation of endogenous Rpt6 at S119 is increased in response to various stress conditions. Together, these data suggest that Rpt6 phosphorylation at S119 may play an important function in proteasome-dependent relief of proteotoxic stress that can be critical in protein aggregation pathologies.

BAG3 is a multi-domain hub that connects two classes of chaperones, small heat shock proteins (sHSPs) via two isoleucine-proline-valine (IPV) motifs and Hsp70 via a BAG domain. Mutations in either the IPV or BAG domain of BAG3 cause a dominant form of myopathy, characterized by protein aggregation in both skeletal and cardiac muscle tissues. Surprisingly, for both disease mutants, impaired chaperone binding is not sufficient to explain disease phenotypes. Recombinant mutants are correctly folded, show unaffected Hsp70 binding but are impaired in stimulating Hsp70-dependent client processing. As a consequence, the mutant BAG3 proteins become the node for a dominant gain of function causing aggregation of itself, Hsp70, Hsp70 clients and tiered interactors within the BAG3 interactome. Importantly, genetic and pharmaceutical interference with Hsp70 binding completely reverses stress-induced protein aggregation for both BAG3 mutations. Thus, the gain of function effects of BAG3 mutants act as Achilles heel of the HSP70 machinery.

Hsp70 chaperone systems are very versatile machines present in nearly all living organisms and in nearly all intracellular compartments. They function in many fundamental processes through their facilitation of protein (re)folding, trafficking, remodeling, disaggregation, and degradation. Hsp70 machines are regulated by co-chaperones. J-domain containing proteins (JDPs) are the largest family of Hsp70 co-chaperones and play a determining role functionally specifying and directing Hsp70 functions. Many features of JDPs are not understood; however, a number of JDP experts gathered at a recent CSSI-sponsored workshop in Gdansk (Poland) to discuss various aspects of J-domain protein function, evolution, and structure. In this report, we present the main findings and the consensus reached to help direct future developments in the field of Hsp70 research.

J-domain proteins (JDPs) are the largest family of chaperones in most organisms, but much of how they function within the network of other chaperones and protein quality control machineries is still an enigma. Here, we report on the latest findings related to JDP functions presented at a dedicated JDP workshop in Gdansk, Poland. The report does not include all (details) of what was shared and discussed at the meeting, because some of these original data have not yet been accepted for publication elsewhere or represented still preliminary observations at the time.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.