Click here to close
Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Xenbase and may cause the site to display incorrectly.
We suggest using a current version of Chrome,
FireFox, or Safari.
Comparative analyses of vertebrate CPEB proteins define two subfamilies with coordinated yet distinct functions in post-transcriptional gene regulation.
Duran-Arqué B
,
Cañete M
,
Castellazzi CL
,
Bartomeu A
,
Ferrer-Caelles A
,
Reina O
,
Caballé A
,
Gay M
,
Arauz-Garofalo G
,
Belloc E
,
Mendez R
.
???displayArticle.abstract???
BACKGROUND: Vertebrate CPEB proteins bind mRNAs at cytoplasmic polyadenylation elements (CPEs) in their 3' UTRs, leading to cytoplasmic changes in their poly(A) tail lengths; this can promote translational repression or activation of the mRNA. However, neither the regulation nor the mechanisms of action of the CPEB family per se have been systematically addressed to date.
RESULTS: Based on a comparative analysis of the four vertebrate CPEBs, we determine their differential regulation by phosphorylation, the composition and properties of their supramolecular assemblies, and their target mRNAs. We show that all four CPEBs are able to recruit the CCR4-NOT deadenylation complex to repress the translation. However, their regulation, mechanism of action, and target mRNAs define two subfamilies. Thus, CPEB1 forms ribonucleoprotein complexes that are remodeled upon a single phosphorylation event and are associated with mRNAs containing canonical CPEs. CPEB2-4 are regulated by multiple proline-directed phosphorylations that control their liquid-liquid phase separation. CPEB2-4 mRNA targets include CPEB1-bound transcripts, with canonical CPEs, but also a specific subset of mRNAs with non-canonical CPEs.
CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, these results show how, globally, the CPEB family of proteins is able to integrate cellular cues to generate a fine-tuned adaptive response in gene expression regulation through the coordinated actions of all four members.
Fig. 1. CPEBs are co-expressed and co-regulated by phosphorylation in the meiotic cell cycle. A Endogenous CPEB2 and CPEB3 immunoblots from b-isox-precipitated extracts from the indicated meiotic maturation and early development time points. CPEB2, n = 2; CPEB3, n = 4. Vinculin immunoblot was used as a loading control. The number of oocytes loaded is indicated in parentheses. B Table showing the number of peptide spectrum matches (PSMs) of the CPEBs detected by MS/MS after b-isox-precipitation of meiotic maturation lysates, n = 1. C, D. Western blots of HA-CPEB2 (n = 2) and HA-CPEB3 (n = 2) overexpressing oocytes during meiotic maturation. Vinculin immunoblot was used as a loading control. E Lambda phosphatase assays (λ-PPase) of HA-CPEB2 (n = 2) and HA-CPEB3 (n = 2) overexpressing oocytes at the indicated time points. Western blots of anti-HA and anti-vinculin are shown. F CPEB3 phospho-to-total occurrence ratios determined by MS/MS for the indicated residue positions on prophase I (PI) versus progesterone-treated oocytes (+ Prog.). The ratios were calculated from the pool of 4 biological replicates. Only positions with a relative gain of phosphorylation upon progesterone treatment are displayed. Proline-directed sites are highlighted in bold. Error bars represent the ratio error. G Relative positions of the 18 proline-directed sites in CPEB3. The NTD is white-shaded, whereas the CTD is gray-shaded. H Wild-type (wt) and phosphomimetic (DE) CPEB3-NTD [γ-32P]-ATP incorporation upon incubation with oocyte lysates at the indicated maturation time points (n = 2). I Western blot against HA-tag and endogenous CPEB1 of stage VI ( −) and progesterone stimulated oocytes ( +) overexpressing wild-type HA-CPEB3 (wt), phosphonull HA-CPEB3 (A), and phosphomimetic HA-CPEB3 (DE). Not injected (NI) (n = 6). J Relative positions of the 20 proline-directed sites in CPEB2. The NTD is white-shaded, whereas the CTD is gray-shaded. K [γ-32P]-ATP incorporation by wild-type (wt) or phosphomutant (DE) CPEB2-NTD upon incubation with oocyte lysates at the indicated maturation time points (n = 3). L Western blot against HA-tag and CPEB1 of stage VI ( −) and progesterone stimulated oocytes ( +) overexpressing wild-type HA-CPEB2 (wt), not injected (NI), phosphonull HA-CPEB2 (A), and phosphomimetic HA-CPEB2 (DE) (n = 3). M The mean inhibition of [γ-32P]-ATP incorporation to CPEB2-NTD, CPEB3-NTD, or Histone H1 (H1) by increasing inhibitor concentrations. Data points represent the mean and standard deviation (n ≥ 3). Abbreviations: PI, prophase-I; MI, metaphase-I; MII, metaphase-II; hpf, hours post-fertilization; b-isox, biotinylated-isoxazole; λ-PPase, lambda phosphatase; In, input; Prog. or P, progesterone; DE, phosphomimetic mutant; A, phosphonull mutant; NTD, N-terminal domain; NL, no-lysate; NI, not-injected
Fig. 2. The four CPEBs form cytoplasmic foci that possess distinct biophysical properties. A U-2 OS cells overexpressing either full-length or NTD CPEB1-4-GFP fusions. Scale bar, 10 μm. B Left: percentage of cells displaying “focal,” in blue, versus “diffuse,” in orange, cytoplasmic distribution of full length (FL) CPEB1-4 (1, 2, 3, 4), the latter defined by the absence of foci. Right: fold change (FC) increase in the number of “diffuse” cells in the N-terminal domain (NTD) constructs relative to full length (FL). CPEB1, n = 67; CPEB2, n = 72; CPEB3, n = 65; CPEB4, n = 67; CPEB1-NTD, n = 65; CPEB2-NTD, n = 65; CPEB3-NTD, n = 59; CPEB4-NTD, n = 63. C Quantification of CPEB1-4-GFP cytoplasmic foci features: sphericity, volume and number, and ratio soluble-to-total fluorescence intensity. n as specified for B. D The mean fluorescence recovery upon photobleaching (FRAP) curves of CPEB1-4-GFP. E Distribution of the half-time of recovery (t-half) and recovery fraction parameters obtained from the FRAP curves. CPEB1, n = 82; CPEB2, n = 95; CPEB3, n = 106; CPEB4, n = 109. F U-2 OS cells overexpressing either wt or phosphomimetic CPEB1-4-GFP fusions. Scale bar, 10 μm. G Fraction of cells displaying “focal,” in blue, versus “diffuse,” in orange, cytoplasmic distribution in wt versus phosphomimetic mutants. CPEB1 wt, n = 72; CPEB1-DE (6D-DD), n = 71; CPEB2 wt, n = 74; CPEB2-DE (20 DE), n = 83; CPEB3 wt, n = 65; CPEB3-DE (18 DE), n = 68; CPEB4 wt, n = 73; CPEB4-DE (12 DE), n = 72. In C and E, comparisons between the groups were carried out using the Kruskal–Wallis test (significance level 5%) and post hoc Dunn’s test with Holm’s correction. Significance scale: ****P-adj < 0.0001; ***P-adj < 0.001; **P-adj < 0.01; *P-adj < 0.05, non-significant differences not indicated. Abbreviations: FL, full-length; NTD: N-terminal domain; wt, wild-type; DE, phosphomimetic mutant
Fig. 3. CPEB1 complex composition. A Western blots against the indicated proteins from several fractions of a gel-filtration fast protein liquid chromatography (GF-HPLC) done in PI-oocyte extracts. Approximate size of the fractions is noted above in KDa. B CPEB1 proximome in X. laevis PI oocytes, determined by BioID (n = 4). Hits include proteins enriched in CPEB1-BirA and BirA-CPEB1, relative to BirA alone. Hits meet the following criteria: either they have a positive fold change and P-adj < 0.05 relative to BirA alone or have 3 to 4 missing values in the control against 1 or none in the condition and a high relative abundance (greater than 25th percentile). C Co-immunoprecipitation of endogenous CPEB1 with the indicated HA-tagged baits (n = 2). D Co-immunoprecipitation of endogenous preys with HA-tagged CPEB1 (n = 3). The bands corresponding to PARN are indicated with arrows. E CPEB1, CPEB1(Y365A), and CPEB1-CTD proximomes determined by BioID in X. laevis PI oocytes (n = 4). The hits include the N-terminal and C-terminal BirA fusions and are defined as described in B. The size of the dots indicates the significance of the enrichment. F Co-immunoprecipitation of endogenous preys with HA-tagged CPEB1 and CPEB1(Y365A) (n = 2). G Co-immunoprecipitation of endogenous preys with HA-CPEB1 upon RNase A treatment (n = 3). H Co-immunoprecipitation of endogenous CPEB1 with the indicated HA-tagged baits upon RNase A treatment (n = 2). Abbreviations: I, input; E, elution; NI, not-injected; CTD, C-terminal domain. Indicated molecular weights are expressed in KDa
Fig. 4. Comparative CPEB1-4 complex composition. A BioID-detected changes in the CPEB1(6A) proximome between PI (blue) and MII (yellow) (n = 3). The preys are compared in terms of their enrichment rank. Note that these ranks admit draws. B CPEB1-4 proximomes in X. laevis PI oocytes, determined by BioID (n = 4). Hits include proteins enriched in N-terminal and C-terminal BirA fusions, relative to BirA alone. Hits meet the following criteria: they either have a positive fold change and P-adj < 0.05 relative to BirA alone or have 3 to 4 missing values in the control against 1 or none in the condition and a high relative abundance (greater than 25.th percentile). C STRING network plot of the CPEB proximome in Xenopodinae displaying high confidence interactions (score > 0.7) and only networks with more than one interaction. CPEBs have been highlighted in yellow. D Co-immunoprecipitation of endogenous preys with HA-tagged CPEBs confirmed by Western blot using specific antibodies (n = 3)
Fig. 5. CPEB1 and the CPEB2-4 subfamily target distinct mRNA subsets. A Western blot detection of HA and DDX6 of HA immunoprecipitates from HA-CPEB1-4 overexpressing oocytes (n = 3). The number of oocytes loaded is indicated in parentheses. I, input; E, eluate; NI: not-injected. B Overlap between the CPEB1-4 targets defined from RIP-Seq experiments. Targets are at least fourfold enriched relative to the input (P-adj ≤ 0.05) and twofold relative to the not-injected background control IP (P-adj ≤ 0.05). C Left: CPEB-mRNA enrichment heatmap for targets of at least one CPEB. The enrichment is expressed as the module of the two centered fold changes. The clustering tree was created with the full-linkage method. Right: CPEB1-CPEB2-4 differential enrichment heatmap. Colored genes are enriched at least twofold in one group versus the other (P-adj ≤ 0.05). D RIP-qPCR enrichment (expressed as delta CT) of indicated candidates in the CPEB1 IP relative to CPEB2/3/4 IPs. The candidates are either CPEB1-preferential targets or CPEB2-4-preferential targets, as indicated with dashed lines. Data points represent the mean and standard deviation (n = 3). E Motifs differentially enriched in the 3′ UTRs of targets of any CPEB-, CPEB1-, or CPEB2-4-preferential targets relative to RIP-Seq input minus targets and each group of preferential targets relative to the other, as determined with HOMER. The background used is indicated for the table rows. F AlphaScreen assay of purified CPEB1 and CPEB4 (50 nM) binding to CPE-A or CPE-G oligonucleotides. Error bars represent the standard deviation of the technical replicates (n = 2). The experiment was performed in triplicate. G Gene set enrichment in CPEB1-preferential targets (234 genes), CPEB2-4-preferential targets (414), or non-preferentially regulated targets (shared, 1148) determined with Enrichr. Only ontologies within “pathways” and “ontologies” with significant gene sets are included. Signaling by NOTCH1 (condensed) includes four redundant Reactome 2016 categories. GO MF, CC, and BP refer to molecular function, cellular component, and biological process, respectively. Significance scale: ****P-adj < 0.0001; ***P-adj < 0.001; **P-adj < 0.01; *P-adj < 0.05
Afroz,
A fly trap mechanism provides sequence-specific RNA recognition by CPEB proteins.
2014, Pubmed
Afroz,
A fly trap mechanism provides sequence-specific RNA recognition by CPEB proteins.
2014,
Pubmed
Barnard,
Symplekin and xGLD-2 are required for CPEB-mediated cytoplasmic polyadenylation.
2004,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Bava,
CPEB1 coordinates alternative 3'-UTR formation with translational regulation.
2013,
Pubmed
Beaudoing,
Patterns of variant polyadenylation signal usage in human genes.
2000,
Pubmed
Belloc,
A deadenylation negative feedback mechanism governs meiotic metaphase arrest.
2008,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Benner,
Prospects of Fine-Mapping Trait-Associated Genomic Regions by Using Summary Statistics from Genome-wide Association Studies.
2017,
Pubmed
Calderone,
Sequential Functions of CPEB1 and CPEB4 Regulate Pathologic Expression of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Angiogenesis in Chronic Liver Disease.
2016,
Pubmed
Chao,
Deletion of CPEB3 enhances hippocampus-dependent memory via increasing expressions of PSD95 and NMDA receptors.
2013,
Pubmed
Chen,
Enrichr: interactive and collaborative HTML5 gene list enrichment analysis tool.
2013,
Pubmed
Chen,
CPEB2-dependent translation of long 3'-UTR Ucp1 mRNA promotes thermogenesis in brown adipose tissue.
2018,
Pubmed
de Moor,
The Mos pathway regulates cytoplasmic polyadenylation in Xenopus oocytes.
1997,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Drisaldi,
SUMOylation Is an Inhibitory Constraint that Regulates the Prion-like Aggregation and Activity of CPEB3.
2015,
Pubmed
Fagoonee,
The RNA binding protein ESRP1 fine-tunes the expression of pluripotency-related factors in mouse embryonic stem cells.
2013,
Pubmed
Ferrell,
Ultrasensitivity part II: multisite phosphorylation, stoichiometric inhibitors, and positive feedback.
2014,
Pubmed
Gambarotto,
Ultrastructure expansion microscopy (U-ExM).
2021,
Pubmed
Giangarrà,
Global Analysis of CPEBs Reveals Sequential and Non-Redundant Functions in Mitotic Cell Cycle.
2015,
Pubmed
Guillén-Boixet,
CPEB4 is regulated during cell cycle by ERK2/Cdk1-mediated phosphorylation and its assembly into liquid-like droplets.
2016,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Hake,
CPEB is a specificity factor that mediates cytoplasmic polyadenylation during Xenopus oocyte maturation.
1994,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Huang,
Facilitation of dendritic mRNA transport by CPEB.
2003,
Pubmed
Huang,
N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor signaling results in Aurora kinase-catalyzed CPEB phosphorylation and alpha CaMKII mRNA polyadenylation at synapses.
2002,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Igea,
Meiosis requires a translational positive loop where CPEB1 ensues its replacement by CPEB4.
2010,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Ivshina,
Cytoplasmic polyadenylation element binding proteins in development, health, and disease.
2014,
Pubmed
Kato,
Cell-free formation of RNA granules: low complexity sequence domains form dynamic fibers within hydrogels.
2012,
Pubmed
Kim,
RINGO/cdk1 and CPEB mediate poly(A) tail stabilization and translational regulation by ePAB.
2007,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Kim,
Opposing polymerase-deadenylase activities regulate cytoplasmic polyadenylation.
2006,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Kok,
Human TRBP and PACT directly interact with each other and associate with dicer to facilitate the production of small interfering RNA.
2007,
Pubmed
Konopacka,
RNA binding protein Caprin-2 is a pivotal regulator of the central osmotic defense response.
2015,
Pubmed
Koulouras,
EasyFRAP-web: a web-based tool for the analysis of fluorescence recovery after photobleaching data.
2018,
Pubmed
Kuleshov,
Enrichr: a comprehensive gene set enrichment analysis web server 2016 update.
2016,
Pubmed
Langmead,
Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2.
2012,
Pubmed
Lawrence,
Scalable Genomics with R and Bioconductor.
2014,
Pubmed
Love,
Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2.
2014,
Pubmed
Maillo,
Circadian- and UPR-dependent control of CPEB4 mediates a translational response to counteract hepatic steatosis under ER stress.
2017,
Pubmed
Mendez,
Phosphorylation of CPEB by Eg2 mediates the recruitment of CPSF into an active cytoplasmic polyadenylation complex.
2000,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Mendez,
Phosphorylation of CPE binding factor by Eg2 regulates translation of c-mos mRNA.
2000,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Mendez,
Differential mRNA translation and meiotic progression require Cdc2-mediated CPEB destruction.
2002,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Novoa,
Mitotic cell-cycle progression is regulated by CPEB1 and CPEB4-dependent translational control.
2010,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Pascual,
The RNA binding protein CPEB2 regulates hormone sensing in mammary gland development and luminal breast cancer.
2020,
Pubmed
Pavlopoulos,
Neuralized1 activates CPEB3: a function for nonproteolytic ubiquitin in synaptic plasticity and memory storage.
2011,
Pubmed
Peuchen,
Phosphorylation Dynamics Dominate the Regulated Proteome during Early Xenopus Development.
2017,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Phung,
The X-Linked DDX3X RNA Helicase Dictates Translation Reprogramming and Metastasis in Melanoma.
2019,
Pubmed
Piqué,
A combinatorial code for CPE-mediated translational control.
2008,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Planet,
htSeqTools: high-throughput sequencing quality control, processing and visualization in R.
2012,
Pubmed
Rouhana,
Vertebrate GLD2 poly(A) polymerases in the germline and the brain.
2005,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Roux,
A promiscuous biotin ligase fusion protein identifies proximal and interacting proteins in mammalian cells.
2012,
Pubmed
Setoyama,
Mechanism of degradation of CPEB during Xenopus oocyte maturation.
2007,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Stebbins-Boaz,
Maskin is a CPEB-associated factor that transiently interacts with elF-4E.
1999,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Stepien,
RNA-binding profiles of Drosophila CPEB proteins Orb and Orb2.
2016,
Pubmed
Sun,
Molecular basis for the recognition of the human AAUAAA polyadenylation signal.
2018,
Pubmed
Szklarczyk,
The STRING database in 2017: quality-controlled protein-protein association networks, made broadly accessible.
2017,
Pubmed
Tay,
Germ cell differentiation and synaptonemal complex formation are disrupted in CPEB knockout mice.
2001,
Pubmed
Wang,
Comparative in silico analyses of cpeb1-4 with functional predictions.
2010,
Pubmed
Weill,
Translational control by changes in poly(A) tail length: recycling mRNAs.
2012,
Pubmed
Wühr,
Deep proteomics of the Xenopus laevis egg using an mRNA-derived reference database.
2014,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Yang,
Genome-wide analysis identifies cis-acting elements regulating mRNA polyadenylation and translation during vertebrate oocyte maturation.
2020,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Youn,
High-Density Proximity Mapping Reveals the Subcellular Organization of mRNA-Associated Granules and Bodies.
2018,
Pubmed