Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2024 Mar 11;22(3):e3002543. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002543

Proteasome inhibition triggers tissue-specific immune responses against different pathogens in C. elegans

Manish Grover 1, Spencer S Gang 2,¤, Emily R Troemel 2, Michalis Barkoulas 1,*
Editor: Hans-Uwe Simon3
PMCID: PMC10957088  PMID: 38466732

Abstract

Protein quality control pathways play important roles in resistance against pathogen infection. For example, the conserved transcription factor SKN-1/NRF up-regulates proteostasis capacity after blockade of the proteasome and also promotes resistance against bacterial infection in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. SKN-1/NRF has 3 isoforms, and the SKN-1A/NRF1 isoform, in particular, regulates proteasomal gene expression upon proteasome dysfunction as part of a conserved bounce-back response. We report here that, in contrast to the previously reported role of SKN-1 in promoting resistance against bacterial infection, loss-of-function mutants in skn-1a and its activating enzymes ddi-1 and png-1 show constitutive expression of immune response programs against natural eukaryotic pathogens of C. elegans. These programs are the oomycete recognition response (ORR), which promotes resistance against oomycetes that infect through the epidermis, and the intracellular pathogen response (IPR), which promotes resistance against intestine-infecting microsporidia. Consequently, skn-1a mutants show increased resistance to both oomycete and microsporidia infections. We also report that almost all ORR/IPR genes induced in common between these programs are regulated by the proteasome and interestingly, specific ORR/IPR genes can be induced in distinct tissues depending on the exact trigger. Furthermore, we show that increasing proteasome function significantly reduces oomycete-mediated induction of multiple ORR markers. Altogether, our findings demonstrate that proteasome regulation keeps innate immune responses in check in a tissue-specific manner against natural eukaryotic pathogens of the C. elegans epidermis and intestine.


Protein quality control pathways play important roles in resistance against pathogen infection. This study shows that proteasome regulation keeps innate immune responses in check in a tissue-specific manner, against natural eukaryotic pathogens of the C. elegans epidermis and intestine.

Introduction

The evolutionary history of Caenorhabditis elegans is shaped by various biotic interactions in its natural habitat [1]. These interactions include beneficial and pathogenic microbes, which trigger a diverse set of responses in C. elegans [1]. Studying C. elegans under some conditions encountered in its natural environment can provide novel insights, such as new functions for genes lacking functional annotation in the genome [1]. For example, the identification of oomycetes as natural pathogens of C. elegans revealed a previously uncharacterized family of chitinase-like (chil) genes as immune response effectors, which can modify cuticle properties to prevent oomycete attachment and consequently infection [2]. Most chil genes are not expressed in lab culture conditions and can only be induced upon pathogen recognition together with a broader subset of genes previously described as the oomycete recognition response (ORR) [3]. C. elegans can similarly mount specific responses against other natural pathogens as well, for example, the intracellular pathogen response (IPR) against microsporidia and the Orsay virus [4,5].

While the nematode is likely to use its sensory capabilities to detect pathogens and activate pathogen-specific responses [6], it also uses surveillance immunity as a broad way to tackle pathogenic attacks [7]. Pathogens can hijack the host cellular machinery to support their growth and development, and in doing so, they may disrupt core cellular processes, such as transcription, translation, protein turnover, and mitochondrial respiration. As a result, disruption to these processes can be sensed as a pathogenic attack leading to activation of immune responses [810]. For example, inhibition of translation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa exotoxin A leads to activation of immune response genes through transcription factors such as ZIP-2 and CEBP-2 [8,9,11]. Disruption of mitochondrial proteostasis by P. aeruginosa also induces immune responses [12,13]. Similarly, RNAi and microbial toxin perturbation of various core cellular processes induces detoxification enzymes and aversion behavior in C. elegans [10]. Likewise, the IPR can be induced either by inhibition of the purine salvage pathway as seen in pnp-1 mutants [14,15] or by blockade of the major protein degradation machinery in the cell, the proteasome [4,16].

A major player regulating proteostasis upon proteasome blockade is the conserved transcription factor SKN-1/NRF [17,18]. One of its isoforms, SKN-1A (NRF1/NFE2L1 in humans), is normally localized in the endoplasmic reticulum membrane where it is glycosylated and then targeted for proteasomal degradation (Fig 1A) [19]. However, upon proteasome blockade, the glycosylated isoform escapes degradation and is edited by PNG-1 (NGLY1 in humans), a conserved N-glycanase that converts the N-glycosylated asparagine residues to aspartic acid, and the edited protein then translocates to the nucleus [19]. Inside the nucleus, DDI-1 (DDI2 in humans), a conserved aspartic protease, cleaves the N-terminal region of the protein, and this processed SKN-1A is now activated to up-regulate expression of proteasomal subunits to increase proteostasis capacity in a bounce-back response (Fig 1A) [1921]. In addition to its role in promoting proteostasis capacity, SKN-1 is also required to respond to oxidative stress [22] and promotes resistance to bacterial pathogens, such as the human pathogens P. aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis [2325].

Fig 1. Proteasome impairment activates ORR in C. elegans.

Fig 1

(A) Schematic showing the proteasome surveillance pathway and the stepwise activation of SKN-1A for transcription of proteasomal subunits. (B) L4 stage C. elegans showing constitutive chil-27p::GFP expression in ddi-1(icb156), png-1(icb121), and skn-1a(mg570) mutant animals. Note that skn-1a and png-1 show a stronger, full body activation of the chil-27p::GFP marker in comparison to ddi-1 mutants, which might reflect the fact that png-1 and skn-1a are essential components of the proteasome surveillance pathway, while ddi-1 has been shown to be dispensable [19]. Scale bar is 100 μm. (C) Venn comparisons showing significant overlap between up-regulated genes in the transcriptome of ddi-1(icb156) and skn-1a(mg570) mutant, and BTZ-treated animals with ORR (RF 13.8, p < 6.171e-50 for comparison with ddi-1; RF 13.6, p < 5.518e-101 for comparison with BTZ and RF 36.0, p < 1.249e-59 value for comparison with skn-1a). (D) ddi-1(mg572), png-1(ok1654), and skn-1a(mg570) mutant animals exhibit reduced susceptibility to infection by M. humicola as compared to WT C. elegans (n = 60 per condition, performed in triplicates, p < 0.001 based on log-rank test, a representative graph for one of the 3 replicates is shown). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data. BTZ, bortezomib; ORR, oomycete recognition response.

Here, we show that, in contrast to previous studies demonstrating a protective role for SKN-1 in promoting resistance against bacterial pathogens, mutants in the SKN-1A-driven proteasome surveillance pathway result in constitutive expression of ORR and IPR and consequently exhibit resistance against infection by oomycetes and microsporidia. Rescue of skn-1a specifically in the epidermis or the intestine was sufficient to restore wild-type levels of infection by oomycetes and microsporidia, respectively. Moreover, we report that the ORR/IPR genes induced in common in these programs, are also regulated through the proteasome and can be induced in distinct tissues depending on the exact trigger. Notably, we show that by increasing proteasome function, there is a partial inhibition of oomycete-mediated induction of ORR markers, suggesting that the response to pathogens may directly involve stabilization of factors normally degraded by the proteasome. Therefore, our findings, together with other studies in flies and mammals [2629], highlight how proteasome regulation keeps a range of innate immune responses in check in a tissue-specific manner.

Results

Mutants in the proteasome surveillance pathway show constitutive activation of the ORR

We performed a chemical mutagenesis screen on animals carrying the chil-27p::GFP reporter, which is not expressed in wild-type animals under standard growth conditions, but is strongly induced upon recognition of oomycete pathogens [2,30]. We obtained several independent mutants with constitutive epidermal expression of chil-27p::GFP, either in a graded manner with maximum GFP expression in the head region as previously reported [2], or strong expression throughout the body in late larval stages and early adults (Fig 1B). Three mutations were mapped to ddi-1 and png-1, 2 genes known to play a role in the proteasome surveillance pathway by regulating SKN-1A [18,19] (Figs 1A and S1A). To determine if the non-synonymous ddi-1(icb156) mutation isolated from the screen represented a gain or loss-of-function allele, we tested existing strong loss-of-function ddi-1 mutants carrying either a deletion within the gene (mg571) or a mutation in the active site of the protein (mg572) [18]. In both cases, we found similar chil-27p::GFP induction (S1B Fig), confirming that ddi-1(icb156) represents a loss-of-function allele. Similarly, the recovery of a frameshift and a nonsense mutation in png-1 suggested that constitutive chil-27p::GFP expression is likely attributed to loss-of-function of the gene, which was further confirmed using the independently derived png-1(ok1654) deletion allele [31] (S1B Fig).

As PNG-1 and DDI-1 are required to activate SKN-1A, we analyzed chil-27p::GFP expression upon loss-of-function of skn-1a. Here, we found constitutive expression throughout the body of the animal (Fig 1B). The response was also recapitulated by skn-1 RNAi (S1B Fig), which is known to affect both skn-1a and skn-1c isoforms as the entire skn-1c sequence is shared by skn-1a (S2A Fig). Because PNG-1 is required specifically for activation of the SKN-1A isoform and SKN-1C does not undergo sequence editing [19], the involvement of SKN-1C in activating chil-27p::GFP seemed unlikely. However, to test this possibility, we performed wdr-23 RNAi on skn-1a(mg570) mutant animals. WDR-23 is a WD40 protein known to specifically suppress SKN-1C function, inhibition which is released, for example, under oxidative stress to allow SKN-1C activation [32,33]. We found that wdr-23 RNAi did not suppress chil-27p::GFP induction in skn-1a(mg570) mutants, while it activated a gst-4p::tdTomato reporter in wild type as expected (S2B Fig). Furthermore, we treated skn-1a(mg570) animals with skn-1 RNAi to address the possibility of skn-1c isoform contributing to chil-27p::GFP induction in the absence of skn-1a. However, skn-1 RNAi did not have any effect on the expression of chil-27p::GFP in skn-1a mutants (S2B Fig). Altogether, these results suggest that the skn-1c isoform does not regulate expression of chil-27p::GFP, which is induced specifically by the loss of the skn-1a isoform.

Mutants in skn-1a have reduced proteasome subunit gene expression and, as a result, experience proteasome dysfunction [34]. Reduced proteasomal subunit gene expression may affect the induction of immune programs through non-proteolytic roles that have recently been ascribed to proteasomal subunits. If this were the case, then induction would not be affected by proteasome impairment via bortezomib (BTZ) drug treatment [35]. To determine if impairment of proteasome function can induce the ORR, we performed RNAseq analysis of ddi-1(icb156) mutants versus wild-type controls and compared the set of up-regulated genes with those previously reported for inhibition of proteasomal activity by BTZ drug treatment [36], oomycete recognition response [3], and skn-1a loss-of-function [36]. A significant overlap was identified between all these datasets (Figs 1C and S1C, and S1 Table). Wild-type animals treated with high dose of BTZ show induction of chil-27 as previously described [16], and this induction is rapid at the chil-27 mRNA level within 15 min post exposure to the drug as opposed to 1 h required upon exposure to oomycete extract (S3A and S3B Fig), which further suggested a link between the induction of ORR and proteasome dysfunction. The physiological consequence of activated ORR was revealed by an infection assay where ddi-1(mg572), png-1(ok1654), and skn-1a(mg570) mutants showed enhanced survival in the presence of the oomycete pathogen Myzocytiopsis humicola (Fig 1D). The enhanced survival phenotype was recapitulated both by skn-1 RNAi treated WT or skn-1a(mg570) animals (S2C Fig), as well as BTZ-treated animals (S3C Fig). These findings are consistent with ORR induction in skn-1a mutants being protective against oomycete infection and associated with loss of proteasomal activity, as opposed to reduced proteasomal gene expression having an impact independent of proteasomal activity.

Proteasome impairment in the epidermis is sufficient to induce the ORR

Induction of the ORR requires cross-tissue communication with chemosensory neurons likely sensing the pathogen and signaling to the epidermis where induction of chil genes takes place to combat the infection [3]. Having discovered that proteasome inhibition can activate the ORR, we wanted to determine whether this inhibition is required in a tissue-specific manner or not. To address this question, we performed tissue-specific rescue of skn-1a(mg570) mutants by expressing skn-1a under a rab-3p (pan-neuronal), dpy-7p (epidermal), or vha-6p (intestinal) promoter. We found that only the epidermal rescue of skn-1a repressed expression of chil-27p::GFP (Fig 2A). We further investigated this question by performing tissue-specific RNAi of the proteasomal subunit rpt-5 [10,37,38], where we found that only epidermal RNAi of rpt-5 was able to induce chil-27p::GFP expression (Fig 2B). We also tested the survival of tissue-specific rescued lines of skn-1a in the presence of M. humicola and found only epidermal overexpression of skn-1a to rescue the enhanced oomycete resistance phenotype (Fig 2C). These findings demonstrate that proteasome impairment, or rescue of proteasome surveillance function specifically in the epidermis, regulates the ORR and oomycete resistance.

Fig 2. Proteasome impairment in the epidermis is sufficient to activate the ORR.

Fig 2

(A) Epidermal (dpy-7p), neuronal (rab-3p), and intestinal (vha-6p) rescue of skn-1a function in skn-1a(mg570). Note loss of GFP puncta in the body (shown by arrowheads) corresponding to chil-27p::GFP expression specifically upon epidermal rescue (3 independent transgenic lines analyzed, representative image shown). In all cases, myo-2p::GFP has been used as a co-injection marker that labels the pharynx. (B) Tissue-specific proteasome dysfunction induced by epidermal-specific, intestine-specific, and neuronal-enhanced RNAi of rpt-5 (n > 50 per condition, performed in triplicates, representative image shown). Scale bars in A and B are 100 μm. (C) Survival analysis of skn-1a(mg570) mutants with skn-1a function rescued in neurons (rab-3p::skn-1a), epidermis (dpy-7p::skn-1a), and intestine (vha-6p::skn-1a) (n = 60 per condition, performed in triplicates, p < 0.001 based on log-rank test, a representative graph for one of the 3 replicates is shown). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data. ORR, oomycete recognition response.

Previous work has led to the identification of other epidermal regulators of ORR, namely, the receptor tyrosine kinase OLD-1 [39] that is specific to oomycete recognition, and the PALS-22/PALS-25 antagonistic paralogs [16,30], which regulate the immune response against both oomycetes and microsporidia. We thus asked whether activation of ORR upon proteasome dysfunction requires old-1 or pals-25. Here, we performed skn-1 RNAi on animals carrying a deletion in old-1 or pals-25, along with wild-type animals as control, and found no difference in chil-27p::GFP induction (S4 Fig). These results suggest that epidermal proteasome dysfunction acts either downstream of OLD-1 and PALS-25-mediated signaling, or as a parallel trigger leading to the activation of ORR.

Oomycete extract exposure does not cause broad proteasome dysfunction

Since epidermal proteasome dysfunction triggers the ORR, we tested whether impairment of proteasome function occurs upon exposure to oomycete extract. Proteasomal subunit expression is observed as a bounce-back response upon proteasome dysfunction [20]. Even though significant overlap was obtained between ORR, and genes up-regulated upon proteasome dysfunction (Fig 1D), none of the proteasomal components were found to be induced as a part of the ORR (Fig 3A). For example, the induction of the rpt-3p::GFP reporter [18] was only observed upon BTZ treatment, but not upon treatment with oomycete extract (Fig 3B). Similarly, we did not see accumulation of ubiquitylated substrates reported by a sur-5p::UbV-GFP marker [40] upon extract exposure, while we did observe induction of the marker upon inhibition of proteasome activity by BTZ treatment (Fig 3C). These results suggest that oomycete extract exposure is unlikely to cause broad proteasome dysfunction in C. elegans.

Fig 3. Oomycete extract exposure does not cause broad proteasome dysfunction, and activation of the proteasome partially inhibits induction of ORR genes by oomycete extract.

Fig 3

(A) Heat map showing log2 fold change in the expression of proteasome components upon treatment with oomycete extract as opposed to BTZ treatment. None of these genes are induced as part of the ORR and are shown in white. The numerical data for the heat map is available in Supporting information S1 Data. (B) Induction of rpt-3p::GFP is observed upon BTZ treatment, but not upon extract treatment (n > 50, performed in triplicates, representative image shown). (C) Induction of sur-5p::UbV-GFP is observed upon BTZ treatment, but not upon extract treatment (n > 50, performed in triplicates, representative image shown). Scale bar in panels B and C is 100 μm. (D) RT-qPCR showing reduced induction of genes specific to ORR or genes in the overlap between ORR and IPR upon extract treatment in animals with constitutive expression of the activated form of SKN-1A [skn-1a(cut, 4ND) in skn-1a(mg570)] or constitutive activation of the proteasome [pas-3(α3ΔN)] (**p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001 based on unpaired t test in comparison to extract-treated wild type). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data. BTZ, bortezomib; IPR, intracellular pathogen response; ORR, oomycete recognition response.

To test the potential direct involvement of proteasomal regulation for activation of the ORR upon oomycete exposure, animals constitutively expressing proteasomal subunits through a constitutively activated SKN-1A [skn-1a(cut, 4ND)] [19] or animals having a hyperactive proteasome (pas-3(α3ΔN) [41] were treated with extract and expression of multiple ORR genes was analyzed by RT-qPCR. We found partial but significant reduction in the expression of analyzed ORR genes upon extract treatment in both cases (Fig 3D). It must be noted that none of these genes have detectable expression in the absence of extract, and their levels of expression in skn-1a(mg570) mutants are significantly lower compared to extract-exposed wild-type animals (S5 Fig). These results suggest that pathogen-mediated induction of the ORR epidermal signaling pathway may partly require stabilization of a factor constitutively degraded by the proteasome under uninfected conditions.

Impairment of the SKN-1A bounce-back response also leads to activation of resistance against intracellular intestinal pathogens

It is known that proteasome blockade by BTZ treatment can activate the IPR in C. elegans [16], which is the protective transcriptional program against intracellular intestinal pathogens like Nematocida parisii and the Orsay virus [4,5]. To determine if mutants in the proteasome surveillance pathway also show constitutive activation of the IPR, we compared RNAseq datasets generated for skn-1a mutants and BTZ-treated animals with the IPR gene list. We found significant overlap between IPR and up-regulated genes in skn-1a mutants (Fig 4A and 4B and S1 Table). To investigate whether loss of skn-1a also leads to increased resistance against intestinal pathogens, we assayed the skn-1a(mg570) mutant for resistance against the intestinal pathogen N. parisii. Here, we found that skn-1a(mg570) mutants had increased resistance to N. parisii (Fig 4C), which was rescued in this case specifically by intestinal (vha-6p) expression of skn-1a (Fig 4D). These results demonstrate that impairment of the SKN-1A proteasome surveillance pathway also induces resistance to intracellular pathogens of the intestine, and this impairment can be rescued specifically by SKN-1A function in the intestine.

Fig 4. Proteasome impairment in the intestine leads to activation of the IPR.

Fig 4

(A) Venn diagram showing significant overlap of IPR with up-regulated genes in skn-1a mutants (RF 84.4, p < 1.790e-72) and IPR with BTZ-treated animals (RF 21.4, p < 8.653e-84). (B) Venn diagram showing that overlap between ORR and IPR involves genes induced upon BTZ treatment. (C) skn-1a(mg570) mutants display increased resistance to N. parisii at 30 hpi relative to WT animals when infected at young adult. The pals-22(jy1) mutant was used as a positive control for its known increased resistance to N. parisii. (D) Intestinal rescue of skn-1a, but not epidermal or neuronal rescue, restores the resistance of skn-1a(mg570) mutants to N. parisii infection to WT levels. Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test was used for statistical analysis (**** p < 0.0001, *** p < 0.001. n = 150 animals per genotype). The numerical data for all 3 replicates of panels C and D is available in Supporting information S1 Data. BTZ, bortezomib; IPR, intracellular pathogen response; ORR, oomycete recognition response.

We have previously reported that approximately half of the IPR genes are also present in the ORR list [3], which was rather surprising given the distinct infection strategies and tissue tropism between oomycetes and intestinal-infecting microsporidia [42]. We hypothesized that the IPR and ORR programs might share significant overlap because they both involve regulation by the proteasome. Remarkably, we observed that almost all common ORR and IPR genes (40 out of 41 genes) were also regulated by BTZ treatment (Fig 4B and S1 Table). We reasoned that these shared immune response genes may be induced in different tissues following an ORR or IPR trigger. To test this possibility, we made use of single molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization (smFISH) to determine in which tissue selected genes present in the overlap between ORR and IPR are induced, namely, pals-5, B0507.8, skr-3, and cul-6. Animals carrying GFP-labeled epidermal nuclei (dpy-7p::GFP-H2B) were treated with oomycete extract to activate the ORR and with prolonged heat stress (24 h at 30°C) [5] to induce the IPR. These 2 triggers were chosen in lieu of active infections because they induce responses in a more consistent manner across a population. Treatment with BTZ was performed to simultaneously activate both ORR and IPR. Consistent with our initial hypothesis, we found that all genes were induced specifically in the epidermis upon activation of ORR and in the intestine upon activation of IPR, while BTZ treatment led to induction in both tissues (Figs 5 and S6).

Fig 5. Common ORR and IPR genes can be induced in a tissue-specific manner.

Fig 5

Sections of straightened L2 stage animals showing mRNA distribution of some common ORR and IPR genes, namely, B0507.8 (A), pals-5 (B), cul-6 (C), and skr-3 (D) by smFISH upon 4 h extract treatment (ORR), prolonged heat stress at 30°C for 24 h (IPR) and 2 h of BTZ treatment (proteasome dysfunction). Epidermal nuclei are labeled in green with the dpy-7p::GFP-H2B marker. Co-localization of mRNA with green nuclei indicates epidermal expression as shown in zoomed-in panels (shown in magenta). Dashed yellow lines outline the intestine and orange arrows point to smFISH signal. Images are presented so that epidermal nuclei in the head region are in focus. The intensity of the GFP signal from out of focus epidermal nuclei in the posterior part of the body is reduced to highlight the signal in the intestine. Scale bar is 10 μm. See S6 Fig for quantification. BTZ, bortezomib; IPR, intracellular pathogen response; ORR, oomycete recognition response; smFISH, single molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization.

Previous studies have linked skn-1 to immunity against bacterial infection with skn-1 loss-of-function mutants reported as being hypersusceptible to bacterial infection [2325]. However, previous studies were performed with RNAi or mutants that affect multiple isoforms of skn-1, and so it has not been clear whether skn-1a specifically is involved in bacterial immunity. We investigated this question by examining skn-1a(mg570) animals for increased susceptibility to P. aeruginosa (PA14) infection [43]. In this assay, pals-22(icb89) mutants and skn-1 RNAi-treated animals were used as positive controls, as both have been shown to result in enhanced susceptibility towards PA14 infection [16,24]. The susceptibility of skn-1a(mg570) animals to PA14 was found to be comparable to wild-type animals, while both skn-1 RNAi and pals-22 mutants showed increased susceptibility as expected (S7 Fig). The fact that skn-1 RNAi targets both a and c isoforms, but skn-1a(mg570) animals are not hypersusceptible to PA14 suggests that the requirement of SKN-1 to combat PA14 infection is either associated with the function of SKN-1C or both isoforms have redundant roles in this case. Taken together, these results suggest that different skn-1 isoform perturbations could lead to different host immunity outcomes in a pathogen-specific way.

Discussion

We demonstrate in this study that mutations in the SKN-1A proteasome surveillance pathway in C. elegans activate the ORR and IPR immune responses employed against distinct natural pathogens that infect through the epidermis or colonize the intestine. Our previous work indicated that blockade of the proteasome leads to induction of IPR genes, which are distinct from SKN-1-regulated genes [4,16], but the connection between the SKN-1-regulated pathway and the ORR/IPR was not clear. Here, we show that both loss of SKN-1A, an ER-localized transcription factor, and impairment of proteasome function induce the genes in common to both ORR and IPR. Furthermore, increasing proteasome function through constitutive proteasomal subunit gene expression or hyperactivity of the proteasome partially inhibits oomycete extract-mediated induction of ORR signature genes. Taken together, we hypothesize that some proteasomally regulated factor(s) normally keep the ORR and IPR immune responses in check in the absence of infection, and upon exposure to specific pathogens such factors can be stabilized in the associated tissue triggering the rapid induction of the respective immune programs (Fig 6). A similar phenomenon has been shown to regulate activation of NF-κB in Drosophila, where IMD is proteasomally degraded owing to permanent presence of UbK48 linkages, which are lost upon bacterial infection thereby stabilizing the protein and activating the pathway [26,27]. Likewise, Uba1-mediated proteasomal degradation of IRF3 in Zebrafish keeps activation of IFN signaling and activation of anti-viral immune response in check [44]. While our findings are consistent with a potential direct role for the proteasome in stabilizing factors that may be necessary for ORR/IPR induction, we cannot rule out that the bounce-back response pathway may also act in parallel. Given that the activation of the chil-27p::GFP marker is observed only in late larval stages in skn-1a mutants or with high doses of BTZ in wild-type animals, we speculate that the extent of proteasome dysfunction may determine the level of activation of the immune response programs. Furthermore, SKN-1A has been recently shown to be involved in lipid homeostasis so it is likely to also influence host immunity in more complex ways and beyond its role in the regulation of proteasome function [45].

Fig 6. Model based on the findings of this study.

Fig 6

The model highlights the interplay of SKN-1A-mediated proteasomal gene expression and activation of ORR and IPR in the epidermis and the intestine, respectively. 1. Under normal conditions, proteasomal degradation of unknown positive regulators (denoted as X factor) keeps activation of immune responses in check. 2. When proteasome dysfunction happens either by BTZ treatment or loss-of-function of skn-1a, X-factor escapes degradation and activates ORR and IPR in the epidermis and the intestine. Simultaneously, BTZ-mediated inhibition increases proteasomal gene expression as a bounce-back response. Such X factors could be directly involved in the tissue-specific signaling pathway activated upon oomycete or microsporidia exposure, respectively, in the epidermis and the intestine. Alternatively, they could regulate ORR and IPR gene induction in parallel to the pathogen-induced signaling pathway. BTZ, bortezomib; IPR, intracellular pathogen response; ORR, oomycete recognition response.

Unwanted activation of immune responses is often accompanied by trade-offs emphasizing the importance of keeping them in check [46]. For example, in pals-22 loss-of-function mutants, constitutive activation of ORR/IPR provides them protection from oomycetes and microsporidia [3]. However, pals-22 mutants also exhibit slow development, reduced lifespan, and increased pathogen load upon exposure to P. aeruginosa [16]. Likewise, pals-17 loss-of-function mutants exhibit constitutive activation of IPR and immunity to intracellular pathogens, but impaired development and reproduction [47]. While skn-1a(mg570) mutants develop normally like wild-type C. elegans, they too exhibit increased age-associated protein aggregation and consequently have a reduced lifespan [34], so similar trade-offs may also come into play in this case and involve proteotoxicity-driven defects that may exacerbate upon stressful conditions. Likewise, human patients with proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (PRAAS) show hyperactivation of IFN signaling, but often suffer with severe neurodevelopmental anomalies and skeletal defects [28,29,48].

Our study also highlights the importance of isoform-specific functions for skn-1. While skn-1b is neuronally expressed and regulates satiety and metabolic homeostasis [49], skn-1a and skn-1c are likely to have distinct immunomodulatory functions acting in a pathogen-specific way. Previous studies that reported a requirement of skn-1 for bacterial resistance used either skn-1 RNAi or skn-1 mutant alleles that affected both a and c isoforms [24,25]. However, we now show that skn-1a mutants show enhanced resistance to infection by eukaryotic natural pathogens and do not show enhanced susceptibility to PA14, which suggests that bacterial immunity is likely to be driven by SKN-1C or that SKN-1A/C isoforms might have redundant roles in this case. This result also aligns with the fact that just like NRF2 in humans, SKN-1C regulates response to oxidative stress in C. elegans [22], and bacterial pathogens have been shown to trigger ROS production in the host [23].

While proteasome-mediated suppression of inflammatory/immune responses might be an evolutionarily conserved phenomenon, the exact mechanisms of how immune responses are kept in check are likely to differ. For example, activation of type-I interferon signaling in mammals as a consequence of proteasome dysfunction has been attributed to ER stress and activation of the unfolded protein response (UPR) [28,50,51]. This is unlikely to be the case in the context of oomycete recognition as we have previously shown that introducing ER stress does not induce chil-27p::GFP [2]. Similarly, markers of proteotoxic stress are not induced as a part of the ORR/IPR programs, which makes them distinct from other stress-induced responses. Whether proteasomal regulation of the same factors keeps immune responses in check in the C. elegans epidermis and intestine is currently unknown. In the epidermis, the receptor tyrosine kinase OLD-1 is fully required for mounting the ORR and is likely regulated by the proteasome [39]; however, old-1 knockouts are still able to mount the ORR upon skn-1a perturbation ruling out OLD-1 as the main driving factor. In the intestine, ZIP-1 is a plausible candidate because it is degraded by the proteasome under basal conditions and has been shown to be required for induction of a subset of IPR genes [52]. Future work will elucidate the exact proteasomally regulated triggers of ORR/IPR and address whether these are shared or not between different tissues in C. elegans.

Materials and methods

C. elegans strains and pathogen maintenance

C. elegans strains were cultured on NGM plates seeded with E. coli OP50 at 20°C under standard conditions as previously described [53]. The list of all the strains used in this study is provided in S2 Table. We refer to skn-1(mg570) mutants throughout the manuscript as skn-1a(mg570) to stress that only isoform a is affected. Both M. humicola and N. parisii were maintained as described previously [2,42].

EMS mutagenesis

L4 stage WT animals carrying the chil-27p::GFP reporter (icbIs4) were mutagenized with 24 mM ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) (Sigma) in 4 ml M9, for 4 h with intermittent mixing by inversion. Worm pellets were then washed 10 times with 15 ml M9 to completely get rid of EMS from the suspension and worms were plated onto 90 mm NGM plate seeded with E. coli OP50. After 24 h, 300 adults were randomly picked and divided into thirty 90 mm plates carrying 10 animals in each. After 72 h at 20°C, all F1 gravid adults in each plate were individually bleached and respective pool of F2 embryos were collected onto new plates. Around 60,000 haploid genomes were screened to identify animals showing constitutive activation of chil-27p::GFP. The causative mutations were mapped to ddi-1 and png-1 by crossing to the highly polymorphic CB4856 strain, and 15–25 F2 recombinants were pooled in equal proportion to obtain genomic DNA for whole-genome sequencing of each independent mutant, performed by BGI (Hong Kong). WGS data was analyzed using the CloudMap Hawaiian variant mapping pipeline to identify causative mutations [54].

Oomycete M. humicola infection assays

Five M. humicola infected (dead) animals were added to the lawn of E. coli OP50 on 3 NGM plates and 20 live L4 animals for each genotype were transferred individually to each plate (n = 60 per condition per repeat). Dead animals with visible sporangia were scored every 48 h and live animals were transferred to a new NGM plate with 6 M. humicola infected (dead) animals. Dead animals without evidence of infection or animals missing from the plate were censored. Infection assays were performed in triplicates at 20°C on 30 mm NGM plates seeded with 100 μl E. coli OP50. For infection assays upon skn-1 RNAi, embryos were collected by bleaching gravid adults and were grown on E. coli HT115 (control RNAi) or skn-1 RNAi bacteria until the adult stage, which were then used to perform infection assay as described above. Similarly, embryos from WT animals were grown on E. coli OP50 until early L4 stage and then were transferred to OP50 plates with 20 μm of BTZ (Sigma) or DMSO (Thermo Scientific) (control, <0.1%) for 24 h before using them for infection assay.

P. aeruginosa PA14 infection assays

A total of 100 μl of overnight grown PA14 culture in LB was spread on a 55 mm NGM plate containing 10 μg/ml FuDR. The plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 h, and 90 Day 1 adults grown on NGM-OP50 or NGM-HT115/skn-1 RNAi in the presence of FuDR were transferred to 3 plates each containing 30 animals (in triplicates) and incubated at 25°C. The number of animals alive was counted every 24 h and dead animals defined as unresponsive to touch were removed from the plate. The experiment was continued until all animals on the plate were dead.

Microsporidia N. parisii infection assays

The 600 synchronized L1 stage worms for each genotype were plated to NGM + E. coli OP50-1 and grown to the young adult life stage at 23°C (48 h for all stains except for pals-22(jy1) mutants, which are developmentally delayed [5] and therefore were grown for 52 h). The 600 young adults were washed off the plate with M9 + 0.1% Tween-20 (M9-T), pelleted, and the supernatant was removed. The worms were then mixed with 2 million N. parisii spores (strain ERTm1), 50 μl of 10× concentrated E. coli OP50-1, and M9 to a final volume of 300 μl. The infection mix was top-plated over the entire surface of a 6-cm NGM plate, dried at room temperature, and transferred to 25°C for 3 h. Following the 3 h pulse infection, the worms were collected from the infection plate with M9-T into a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube, pelleted, and then washed 3 additional times with 1 ml of M9-T. The infected worms were then transferred to an NGM + E. coli OP50-1 plate without N. parisii spores and returned to 25°C for an additional 27 h. Infected animals were then fixed in 100% acetone and incubated at 46°C overnight with FISH probes conjugated to the red Cal Fluor 610 fluorophore that hybridize to N. parisii ribosomal RNA (Biosearch Technologies). Samples were analyzed for N. parisii meronts [55] using an ImageXpress Nano plate reader using the 4× objective (Molecular Devices, LLC). The worm area was traced using FIJI software and the average red fluorescence intensity of each worm was quantified with the background fluorescence of the well subtracted, and 50 animals per genotype were quantified for each experimental replicate, and 3 independent infection experiments were performed.

For the tissue-specific skn-1a rescue strains MBA1660, MBA1661, and MBA1662, approximately 100 bus-1p::GFP-expressing worms were manually picked onto N. parisii infection assay plates. For consistency, approximately 100 adults for WT and skn-1a(mg570) controls were also picked in the same manner and pulse infection was performed as described above. To remove any potential bias, the order in which strains were picked was randomized from assay to assay, and the 30 hpi endpoints were staggered to account for picking time. Fixation and FISH hybridization were performed as described above. For quantification, fixed animals for each strain were mounted to a 5% agarose pad on a microscope slide and imaged on a Zeiss AxioImager M1 compound microscope using a 2.5× objective. The worm area was traced using FIJI software and the average red fluorescence intensity of each worm was quantified with the background fluorescence of the slide subtracted. In some samples, we observed dim red autofluorescence from embryos inside the adult gonad. Thus, this region of the worm was omitted in all samples when tracing the worm area. Analysis with the ImageXpress plate reader and Zeiss AxioImager produced different arbitrary values for N. parisii FISH pixel intensity. However, the fold difference in infection between WT animals and skn-1a(mg570) mutants was similar (WT animals are approximately 1.5-fold more infected than skn-1a(mg570)) by both imaging and quantification methods, and 50 animals per genotype were quantified for each experimental replicate, and 3 independent infection experiments were performed.

RNAseq

For transcriptome analysis, synchronized L4 stage animals were collected in triplicates for RNA extraction using TRIzol (Invitrogen) and isopropanol/ethanol precipitation. RNA sequencing was completed by BGI (Hong Kong). Kallisto [56] was used for alignments with the WS283 transcriptome from Wormbase. Count analysis was performed using Sleuth [57] along with a Wald test to calculate log2fold changes. All RNAseq data files are publicly available from the NCBI GEO database under the accession number GSE241087.

RT-qPCR

Synchronized L4 stage animals with 4-h extract treatment or without were collected in TRIzol (Invitrogen) followed by RNA extraction using isopropanol/ethanol precipitation. RNA was quantified using NanoDrop (Thermo Scientific) and its quality was analyzed by gel electrophoresis. cDNA was synthesized using 2 μg RNA with Superscript IV (Invitrogen) and Oligo(dT) primers as per manufacturer’s instructions. Real-time PCR was performed using qPCR primer pairs listed in S2 Table and LightCycler480 SYBR Green I Master Mix (Roche) in a LightCycler480 instrument, and Ct values were derived using the LightCycler480 software and second derivative maximum method. All experiments were performed in biological triplicates and changes in expression were calculated via the 2-ΔΔCt method.

Microscopy

Animals to be imaged were picked into a drop (5 to 7 μl) of M9 containing sodium azide (50 μm) on an agarose (1%) pad made on a glass slide. Coverslip was added once the animals were paralyzed, and the pad was almost dry. chil-27p::GFP/col-12p::mCherry expression was observed on Zeiss Axio Zoom V16 microscope and images were taken using the associated ZEN Microscopy software. For rpt-3p::GFP and sur-5::UbV-GFP, animals were treated with oomycete extract or 20 μm BTZ with DMSO control for 24 h at early L2 stage and expression was observed on Zeiss Compound microscope (AxioScope A1) at 40× magnification and images were taken using OCULAR. For chil-27p::GFP expression upon BTZ treatment, early L4 stage animals were treated with different doses of BTZ for 24 h and adults were imaged as described above.

Molecular cloning and transgenesis

To generate constructs for tissue-specific rescue of skn-1a(mg570) mutant, skn-1a fragment was amplified from N2 cDNA using primers skn-1a_fullF and skn-1a_fullR. Promoter fragments, namely, rab-3p and vha-6p were amplified from N2 genomic DNA using primer pairs BJ97-pRab-3Fwd, rab-3rev-skn1, bj97 vha-6 Fwd, and vha-6 Rev skn-1a, respectively. The terminator sequence from 3′UTR of unc-54 was PCR amplified from N2 genomic DNA using primers unc-54-F-skn1a and BJ36_unc-54terR. Plasmids for neuronal and intestinal rescue were assembled with specific promoter, skn-1a and unc-54 3′UTR fragments ligated into SpeI (FastDigest)-digested pBJ97 by Gibson cloning. To make the epidermal rescue plasmid, skn-1a was PCR amplified from N2 cDNA using primers dpy-7_skn-1F and dpy-7_skn-1R and was assembled into PmeI(FastDigest)-digested pIR6 by Gibson cloning. All constructs were individually injected into skn-1a(mg570) at 5 ng/μl with 25 ng/μl of pRJM163 (bus-1p::GFP) as the co-injection marker and 80 ng/μl of pBJ36 as carrier DNA. The transgenic strains thus created were used for microsporidia pathogen load assays. Similarly, all constructs were individually also injected in the strain MBA1055, which is skn-1a(mg570) mutant with chil-27p::GFP reporter in the background. For these injections, 5 ng/μl of rescue plasmid with 5 ng/μl of myo-2p::GFP as co-injection marker and 100 ng/μl of pBJ36 as carrier DNA was used. The transgenic strains thus created were analyzed for expression of chil-27p::GFP in skn-1a(mg570) mutants.

RNAi

RNAi by feeding was used as the means to induce gene knockdown in C. elegans as previously described [58]. The RNAi clone for skn-1 was obtained from the ORFeome Library (Horizon Discovery) [59] and for wdr-23 and rpt-5 were obtained from the Ahringer Library (Source BioScience) [60]. Both the clones were confirmed by sequencing prior to use. Embryos collected by bleaching gravid adults were added onto NGM plates seeded with E. coli HT115 and contained 1 mM IPTG (Sigma) to induce expression of dsRNA. After 72 h of incubation at 20°C, animals at L4/adult stage were scored for chil-27p::GFP expression (n > 50). The strains used for tissue-specific RNAi were generated by introducing the chil-27p::GFP reporter in previously described strains listed in S2 Table with their associated references.

smFISH

For inducing the ORR, synchronized L2 stage animals were treated with oomycete extract for 4 h. For inducing IPR, animals were subjected to prolonged heat stress by incubating synchronized L1s at 30°C for 24 h. For causing proteasome dysfunction, synchronized L2 stage animals were treated with 20 μm BTZ treatment for 15 min or 2 h. Following requisite treatment along with relevant controls, animals were fixed with 4% formaldehyde (Sigma-Aldrich) in 1× PBS (Ambion) for 45 min and were permeabilised with 70% ethanol for 24 h. Hybridization was performed at 30°C for 16 h. List of oligos included in all the probes can be found in S2 Table. Imaging was performed in an inverted and fully motorized epifluorescence microscope (Nikon Ti-eclipse) with an iKon M DU-934 CCD camera (Andor) controlled via the NIS-Elements software (Nikon) using the 100× objective. Detailed protocol can be found in [61].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Proteasome surveillance mutants and skn-1 RNAi show constitutive chil-27p::GFP expression.

(A) Gene structure of ddi-1 and png-1 showing the positions of mutant alleles used in this study. (B) Quantification of induction of chil-27p::GFP in the mutants obtained from the EMS screen, ddi-1(icb156), png-1(icb112), png-1(icb121) along with active-site mutant of ddi-1(mg572), in-frame gene deletion of ddi-1(mg571), png-1(ok1654), skn-1a(mg570) and upon skn-1 RNAi (n > 50, ****p-value < 0.0001, *** p-value < 0.001 based on chi-square test). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data. (C) Venn comparisons showing significant overlap between up-regulated genes in the transcriptome of ddi-1(icb156) and skn-1a(mg570) mutant with bortezomib (BTZ)-treated animals (RF 6.0, p < 4.347e-43 and RF 18.6, p < 4.453e-88, respectively).

(TIF)

pbio.3002543.s001.tif (1.8MB, tif)
S2 Fig. Effect of loss or gain of SKN-1C function on skn-1a(mg570) mutants.

(A) Gene structure of skn-1a and skn-1c isoforms with protein domain organization. (B) Both loss (skn-1 RNAi) or gain (wdr-23 RNAi) of SKN-1C function does not affect chil-27p::GFP expression in skn-1a(mg570) (control RNAi) animals. skn-1a(mg570) animals are sensitive to RNAi as shown by the gfp RNAi treatment leading to complete loss of chil-27p::GFP expression (left panel). wdr-23 RNAi activates SKN-1C and leads to expression of gst-4p::tdTomato as shown in the right panel. (n > 50 per condition, performed in triplicates, representative image shown). Scale bar is 100 μm. (C) Survival curve of WT and skn-1a(mg570) animals treated and untreated with skn-1 RNAi in the presence of the oomycete M. humicola (n = 60 per condition, performed in triplicates, p < 0.001 based on log-rank test, a representative graph for one of the 3 replicates is shown). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

(TIF)

pbio.3002543.s002.tif (3.4MB, tif)
S3 Fig. Bortezomib (BTZ) treatment induces chil-27 expression.

(A) chil-27p::GFP expression in WT animals treated with different doses of BTZ at early L4 stage for 24 h (n > 50 for each condition, performed in triplicates, representative image shown). (B) Z-stack of L2 stage WT animals showing expression of chil-27 mRNA upon 15 min and 1 h post extract and BTZ treatment. Scale bar is 100 μm in (A) and 10 μm in (B). (C) Survival curve of WT animals treated with DMSO or 20 μm BTZ in the presence of the oomycete M. humicola (n = 60 per condition, performed in triplicates, p < 0.001 based on log-rank test, a representative graph for one of the 3 replicates is shown). The numerical data for all 3 replicates of panels S3A and C is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

(TIF)

pbio.3002543.s003.tif (6.6MB, tif)
S4 Fig. Epistasis analysis of skn-1 and other regulators of the ORR.

skn-1 RNAi induces chil-27p::GFP expression in pals-25(jy81) and old-1(ok1273) mutant animals. Scale bar for all panels is 100 μm, and n > 50 per condition, performed in triplicates, representative image shown.

(TIF)

pbio.3002543.s004.tif (4.2MB, tif)
S5 Fig. RT-qPCR for selected ORR genes in extract-treated, untreated, and skn-1a(mg570) mutants.

In the absence of extract treatment in animals with constitutive expression of the activated form of SKN-1A[skn-1a(cut, 4ND) in skn-1a(mg570)] or constitutive activation of the proteasome [pas-3(α3ΔN)] no expression of ORR genes was observed similar to wild-type animals. Note that ORR gene expression in skn-1a(mg570) mutants is lower compared to extract-treated wild-type animals (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001 based on unpaired t test). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

(TIF)

pbio.3002543.s005.tif (1.2MB, tif)
S6 Fig. Quantification of expression of common ORR and IPR genes shown in Fig 5.

Whole animal mRNA quantification by smFISH for 4 genes, namely, B0507.8 (A), pals-5 (B), cul-6 (C), and skr-3 (D) in L2-stage animals subjected to prolonged heat stress (30°C for 24 h), extract treatment (4 h), and 20 μm BTZ treatment (2 h) (n = 12 in each condition and one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used to assess statistical significance, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001). The numerical data for graphs A–D is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

(TIF)

pbio.3002543.s006.tif (1.2MB, tif)
S7 Fig. skn-1a(mg570) mutants do not show hyper-susceptibility to P. aeruginosa PA14.

Survival analysis of adult C. elegans on PA14 where bacteria was spread on the plate (n = 90 per condition, performed in triplicates, p < 0.001 based on log-rank test, a representative graph for one of the 3 replicates is shown). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

(TIF)

pbio.3002543.s007.tif (901.7KB, tif)
S1 Table. Differentially expressed genes in ddi-1(icb156) mutants as compared to WT animals, along with datasets used to make Venn diagrams, and the list of overlapping genes in different conditions.

(XLSX)

pbio.3002543.s008.xlsx (317.1KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. List of strains, oligos, and smFISH probes used in the study.

(XLSX)

pbio.3002543.s009.xlsx (21.2KB, xlsx)
S1 Data. Numerical data for all graphs presented in the study.

(XLSX)

pbio.3002543.s010.xlsx (42.8KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Domenica Ippolito and Kenneth Liu for comments on the manuscript. Some strains were provided by the CGC, which is funded by NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (P40 OD010440). We thank Gary Ruvkun, Thorsten Hoppe, Keith Choe, and David Smith for strains.

Abbreviations

BTZ

bortezomib

EMS

ethyl methanesulfonate

IPR

intracellular pathogen response

ORR

oomycete recognition response

PRAAS

proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndrome

smFISH

single molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization

UPR

unfolded protein response

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. All RNAseq files are available from the NCBI GEO database (accession number GSE241087).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, UK (219448/Z/19/Z to MB) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, UK (BB/X001865/1 to MB and ERT). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Schulenburg H, Felix MA. The natural biotic environment of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 2017;206(1):55–86. doi: 10.1534/genetics.116.195511 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5419493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Osman GA, Fasseas MK, Koneru SL, Essmann CL, Kyrou K, Srinivasan MA, et al. Natural infection of C. elegans by an oomycete reveals a new pathogen-specific immune response. Curr Biol. 2018;28(4):640–8 e5. Epub 2018/02/06. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.029 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fasseas MK, Grover M, Drury F, Essmann CL, Kaulich E, Schafer WR, Barkoulas M. Chemosensory neurons modulate the response to oomycete recognition in Caenorhabditis elegans. Cell Rep. 2021;34(2):108604. Epub 2021/01/14. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108604 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7809619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bakowski MA, Desjardins CA, Smelkinson MG, Dunbar TL, Lopez-Moyado IF, Rifkin SA, et al. Ubiquitin-mediated response to microsporidia and virus infection in C. elegans. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10(6):e1004200. Epub 20140619. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004200 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4063957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Reddy KC, Dror T, Sowa JN, Panek J, Chen K, Lim ES, et al. An intracellular pathogen response pathway promotes proteostasis in C. elegans. Curr Biol. 2017;27(22):3544–53 e5. Epub 2017/11/07. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.10.009 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5698132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Liu Y, Sun J. Detection of pathogens and regulation of immunity by the Caenorhabditis elegans nervous system. MBio. 2021;12(2). Epub 2021/04/01. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02301-20 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8092265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pukkila-Worley R. Surveillance immunity: an emerging paradigm of innate defense activation in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12(9):e1005795. Epub 2016/09/16. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005795 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5025020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dunbar TL, Yan Z, Balla KM, Smelkinson MG, Troemel ER. C. elegans detects pathogen-induced translational inhibition to activate immune signaling. Cell Host Microbe. 2012;11(4):375–86. Epub 2012/04/24. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2012.02.008 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3334869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McEwan DL, Kirienko NV, Ausubel FM. Host translational inhibition by Pseudomonas aeruginosa exotoxin A triggers an immune response in Caenorhabditis elegans. Cell Host Microbe. 2012;11(4):364–74. Epub 2012/04/24. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2012.02.007 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3334877. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Melo JA, Ruvkun G. Inactivation of conserved C. elegans genes engages pathogen- and xenobiotic-associated defenses. Cell. 2012;149(2):452–66. Epub 2012/04/17. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.050 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3613046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Reddy KC, Dunbar TL, Nargund AM, Haynes CM, Troemel ER. The C. elegans CCAAT-enhancer-binding protein gamma is required for surveillance immunity. Cell Rep. 2016;14(7):1581–9. Epub 2016/02/16. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.01.055 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4767654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pellegrino MW, Nargund AM, Kirienko NV, Gillis R, Fiorese CJ, Haynes CM. Mitochondrial UPR-regulated innate immunity provides resistance to pathogen infection. Nature. 2014;516(7531):414–7. Epub 2014/10/03. doi: 10.1038/nature13818 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4270954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tjahjono E, Kirienko NV. A conserved mitochondrial surveillance pathway is required for defense against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. PLoS Genet. 2017;13(6):e1006876. Epub 2017/07/01. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006876 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5510899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tecle E, Chhan CB, Franklin L, Underwood RS, Hanna-Rose W, Troemel ER. The purine nucleoside phosphorylase pnp-1 regulates epithelial cell resistance to infection in C. elegans. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(4):e1009350. Epub 2021/04/21. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009350 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8087013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lazetic V, Batachari LE, Russell AB, Troemel ER. Similarities in the induction of the intracellular pathogen response in Caenorhabditis elegans and the type I interferon response in mammals. BioEssays. 2023;45(11):e2300097. Epub 20230904. doi: 10.1002/bies.202300097 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Reddy KC, Dror T, Underwood RS, Osman GA, Elder CR, Desjardins CA, et al. Antagonistic paralogs control a switch between growth and pathogen resistance in C. elegans. PLoS Pathog. 2019;15(1):e1007528. Epub 2019/01/15. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007528 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6347328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Blackwell TK, Steinbaugh MJ, Hourihan JM, Ewald CY, Isik M. SKN-1/Nrf, stress responses, and aging in Caenorhabditis elegans. Free Radic Biol Med. 2015;88(Pt B):290–301. Epub 2015/08/02. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.06.008 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4809198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lehrbach NJ, Ruvkun G. Proteasome dysfunction triggers activation of SKN-1A/Nrf1 by the aspartic protease DDI-1. elife. 2016;5. Epub 2016/08/17. doi: 10.7554/eLife.17721 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4987142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lehrbach NJ, Breen PC, Ruvkun G. Protein sequence editing of SKN-1A/Nrf1 by peptide:N-glycanase controls proteasome gene expression. Cell. 2019;177(3):737–50 e15. Epub 2019/04/20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.03.035 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6574124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Radhakrishnan SK, Lee CS, Young P, Beskow A, Chan JY, Deshaies RJ. Transcription factor Nrf1 mediates the proteasome recovery pathway after proteasome inhibition in mammalian cells. Mol Cell. 2010;38(1):17–28. Epub 2010/04/14. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.02.029 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2874685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Li X, Matilainen O, Jin C, Glover-Cutter KM, Holmberg CI, Blackwell TK. Specific SKN-1/Nrf stress responses to perturbations in translation elongation and proteasome activity. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(6):e1002119. Epub 2011/06/23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002119 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3111486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.An JH, Blackwell TK. SKN-1 links C. elegans mesendodermal specification to a conserved oxidative stress response. Genes Dev. 2003;17(15):1882–93. Epub 2003/07/19. doi: 10.1101/gad.1107803 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC196237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hoeven R, McCallum KC, Cruz MR, Garsin DA. Ce-Duox1/BLI-3 generated reactive oxygen species trigger protective SKN-1 activity via p38 MAPK signaling during infection in C. elegans. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(12):e1002453. Epub 2012/01/05. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002453 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3245310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Papp D, Csermely P, Soti C. A role for SKN-1/Nrf in pathogen resistance and immunosenescence in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8(4):e1002673. Epub 2012/05/12. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002673 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3343120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wu C, Karakuzu O, Garsin DA. Tribbles pseudokinase NIPI-3 regulates intestinal immunity in Caenorhabditis elegans by controlling SKN-1/Nrf activity. Cell Rep. 2021;36(7):109529. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109529 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8393239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Khush RS, Cornwell WD, Uram JN, Lemaitre B. A ubiquitin-proteasome pathway represses the Drosophila immune deficiency signaling cascade. Curr Biol. 2002;12(20):1728–37. Epub 2002/10/29. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(02)01214-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Engel E, Viargues P, Mortier M, Taillebourg E, Coute Y, Thevenon D, et al. Identifying USPs regulating immune signals in Drosophila: USP2 deubiquitinates Imd and promotes its degradation by interacting with the proteasome. Cell Commun Signal. 2014;12:41. Epub 2014/07/17. doi: 10.1186/s12964-014-0041-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4140012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ebstein F, Poli Harlowe MC, Studencka-Turski M, Kruger E. Contribution of the unfolded protein response (UPR) to the pathogenesis of proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (PRAAS). Front Immunol. 2019;10:2756. Epub 2019/12/13. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02756 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6890838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Brehm A, Liu Y, Sheikh A, Marrero B, Omoyinmi E, Zhou Q, et al. Additive loss-of-function proteasome subunit mutations in CANDLE/PRAAS patients promote type I IFN production. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(11):4196–211. Epub 2015/11/03. doi: 10.1172/JCI81260 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4639987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gang SS, Grover M, Reddy KC, Raman D, Chang YT, Ekiert DC, et al. A pals-25 gain-of-function allele triggers systemic resistance against natural pathogens of C. elegans. PLoS Genet. 2022;18(10):e1010314. Epub 2022/10/04. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010314 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9560605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Consortium CeDM. large-scale screening for targeted knockouts in the Caenorhabditis elegans genome. G3 (Bethesda). 2012;2(11):1415–25. Epub 2012/11/23. doi: 10.1534/g3.112.003830 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3484672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Choe KP, Przybysz AJ, Strange K. The WD40 repeat protein WDR-23 functions with the CUL4/DDB1 ubiquitin ligase to regulate nuclear abundance and activity of SKN-1 in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol Cell Biol. 2009;29(10):2704–15. Epub 2009/03/11. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01811-08 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2682033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lo JY, Spatola BN, Curran SP. WDR23 regulates NRF2 independently of KEAP1. PLoS Genet. 2017;13(4):e1006762. Epub 20170428. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006762 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5428976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lehrbach NJ, Ruvkun G. Endoplasmic reticulum-associated SKN-1A/Nrf1 mediates a cytoplasmic unfolded protein response and promotes longevity. elife. 2019;8. Epub 2019/04/12. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44425 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6459674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Olaitan AO, Aballay A. Non-proteolytic activity of 19S proteasome subunit RPT-6 regulates GATA transcription during response to infection. PLoS Genet. 2018;14(9):e1007693. Epub 2018/09/29. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007693 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6179307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhang P, Qu H-Y, Wu Z, Na H, Hourihan J, Zhang F, et al. ERK signaling licenses SKN-1A/NRF1 for proteasome production and proteasomal stress resistance. bioRxiv. 2021:2021.01.04.425272. doi: 10.1101/2021.01.04.425272 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Calixto A, Chelur D, Topalidou I, Chen X, Chalfie M. Enhanced neuronal RNAi in C. elegans using SID-1. Nat Methods. 2010;7(7):554–9. Epub 2010/06/01. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1463 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2894993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Espelt MV, Estevez AY, Yin X, Strange K. Oscillatory Ca2+ signaling in the isolated Caenorhabditis elegans intestine: role of the inositol-1,4,5-trisphosphate receptor and phospholipases C beta and gamma. J Gen Physiol. 2005;126(4):379–92. Epub 2005/09/28. doi: 10.1085/jgp.200509355 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2266627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Drury F, Grover M, Hintze M, Saunders J, Fasseas MK, Constantinou C, et al. A PAX6-regulated receptor tyrosine kinase pairs with a pseudokinase to activate immune defense upon oomycete recognition in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023;120(39):e2300587120. Epub 20230919. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2300587120 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10523662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Segref A, Kevei E, Pokrzywa W, Schmeisser K, Mansfeld J, Livnat-Levanon N, et al. Pathogenesis of human mitochondrial diseases is modulated by reduced activity of the ubiquitin/proteasome system. Cell Metab. 2014;19(4):642–52. Epub 2014/04/08. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2014.01.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Anderson RT, Bradley TA, Smith DM. Hyperactivation of the proteasome in Caenorhabditis elegans protects against proteotoxic stress and extends lifespan. J Biol Chem. 2022;298(10):102415. Epub 2022/08/26. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2022.102415 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9486566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Troemel ER, Felix MA, Whiteman NK, Barriere A, Ausubel FM. Microsporidia are natural intracellular parasites of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Biol. 2008;6(12):2736–52. Epub 2008/12/17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060309 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2596862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tan MW, Mahajan-Miklos S, Ausubel FM. Killing of Caenorhabditis elegans by Pseudomonas aeruginosa used to model mammalian bacterial pathogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(2):715–20. Epub 1999/01/20. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.2.715 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC15202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chen DD, Jiang JY, Lu LF, Zhang C, Zhou XY, Li ZC, et al. Zebrafish Uba1 degrades IRF3 through K48-Linked ubiquitination to inhibit IFN production. J Immunol. 2021;207(2):512–22. Epub 2021/07/02. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.2100125 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Castillo-Quan JI, Steinbaugh MJ, Fernandez-Cardenas LP, Pohl NK, Wu Z, Zhu F, et al. An antisteatosis response regulated by oleic acid through lipid droplet-mediated ERAD enhancement. Sci Adv. 2023;9(1):eadc8917. Epub 20230104. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adc8917 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9812393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zera AJ, Harshman LG. The physiology of life history trade-offs in animals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2001;32(1):95–126. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lažetić V, Blanchard MJ, Bui T, Troemel ER. Multiple pals gene modules control a balance between immunity and development in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Pathog. 2023;19(7):e1011120. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1011120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yan K, Zhang J, Lee PY, Tao P, Wang J, Wang S, et al. Haploinsufficiency of PSMD12 causes proteasome dysfunction and subclinical autoinflammation. Arthritis Rheum. 2022;74(6):1083–90. Epub 2022/01/27. doi: 10.1002/art.42070 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9321778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tataridas-Pallas N, Thompson MA, Howard A, Brown I, Ezcurra M, Wu Z, et al. Neuronal SKN-1B modulates nutritional signalling pathways and mitochondrial networks to control satiety. PLoS Genet. 2021;17(3):e1009358. Epub 2021/03/05. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009358 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7932105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Cetin G, Studencka-Turski M, Venz S, Schormann E, Junker H, Hammer E, et al. Immunoproteasomes control activation of innate immune signaling and microglial function. Front Immunol. 2022;13:982786. Epub 2022/10/25. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.982786 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9584546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Waad Sadiq Z, Brioli A, Al-Abdulla R, Cetin G, Schutt J, Murua Escobar H, et al. Immunogenic cell death triggered by impaired deubiquitination in multiple myeloma relies on dysregulated type I interferon signaling. Front Immunol. 2023;14:982720. Epub 2023/03/21. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.982720 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10018035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lazetic V, Wu F, Cohen LB, Reddy KC, Chang YT, Gang SS, et al. The transcription factor ZIP-1 promotes resistance to intracellular infection in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):17. Epub 2022/01/12. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27621-w ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8748929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Stiernagle T. Maintenance of C. elegans. WormBook. 2006:1–11. Epub 20060211. doi: 10.1895/wormbook.1.101.1 PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4781397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Minevich G, Park DS, Blankenberg D, Poole RJ, Hobert O. CloudMap: a cloud-based pipeline for analysis of mutant genome sequences. Genetics. 2012;192(4):1249–69. Epub 2012/10/12. doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.144204 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3512137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Estes KA, Szumowski SC, Troemel ER. Non-lytic, actin-based exit of intracellular parasites from C. elegans intestinal cells. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(9):e1002227. Epub 2011/09/29. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002227 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3174248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bray NL, Pimentel H, Melsted P, Pachter L. Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(5):525–7. Epub 20160404. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3519 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Pimentel H, Bray NL, Puente S, Melsted P, Pachter L. Differential analysis of RNA-seq incorporating quantification uncertainty. Nat Methods. 2017;14(7):687–90. Epub 20170605. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4324 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Timmons L, Court DL, Fire A. Ingestion of bacterially expressed dsRNAs can produce specific and potent genetic interference in Caenorhabditis elegans. Gene. 2001;263(1–2):103–12. Epub 2001/02/27. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1119(00)00579-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Reboul J, Vaglio P, Tzellas N, Thierry-Mieg N, Moore T, Jackson C, et al. Open-reading-frame sequence tags (OSTs) support the existence of at least 17,300 genes in C. elegans. Nat Genet. 2001;27(3):332–6. Epub 2001/03/10. doi: 10.1038/85913 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kamath RS, Fraser AG, Dong Y, Poulin G, Durbin R, Gotta M, et al. Systematic functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using RNAi. Nature. 2003;421(6920):231–7. Epub 2003/01/17. doi: 10.1038/nature01278 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hintze M, Koneru SL, Gilbert SPR, Katsanos D, Lambert J, Barkoulas M. A cell fate switch in the Caenorhabditis elegans seam cell lineage occurs through modulation of the wnt asymmetry pathway in response to temperature increase. Genetics. 2020;214(4):927–39. Epub 20200127. doi: 10.1534/genetics.119.302896 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7153939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Paula Jauregui, PhD

1 Sep 2023

Dear Dr. Barkoulas,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Impairment of the SKN-1A/NRF1 proteasome surveillance pathway triggers tissue-specific protective immune responses against distinct natural pathogens in C. elegans." for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. After your manuscript has passed the checks it will be sent out for review. To provide the metadata for your submission, please Login to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology) within two working days, i.e. by Sep 03 2023 11:59PM.

If your manuscript has been previously peer-reviewed at another journal, PLOS Biology is willing to work with those reviews in order to avoid re-starting the process. Submission of the previous reviews is entirely optional and our ability to use them effectively will depend on the willingness of the previous journal to confirm the content of the reports and share the reviewer identities. Please note that we reserve the right to invite additional reviewers if we consider that additional/independent reviewers are needed, although we aim to avoid this as far as possible. In our experience, working with previous reviews does save time.

If you would like us to consider previous reviewer reports, please edit your cover letter to let us know and include the name of the journal where the work was previously considered and the manuscript ID it was given. In addition, please upload a response to the reviews as a 'Prior Peer Review' file type, which should include the reports in full and a point-by-point reply detailing how you have or plan to address the reviewers' concerns.

During the process of completing your manuscript submission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

pjaureguionieva@plos.org

Decision Letter 1

Paula Jauregui, PhD

12 Oct 2023

Dear Dr. Barkoulas,

Thank you for your patience while your manuscript "Impairment of the SKN-1A/NRF1 proteasome surveillance pathway triggers tissue-specific protective immune responses against distinct natural pathogens in C. elegans." went through peer-review at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

In light of the reviews, which you will find at the end of this email, we are pleased to offer you the opportunity to address the comments from the reviewers in a revision that we anticipate should not take you very long. We will then assess your revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments with our Academic Editor aiming to avoid further rounds of peer-review, although might need to consult with the reviewers, depending on the nature of the revisions.

In particular, the academic editor and us think that the requests from reviewer #2 are not necessary for publication. We consider important that you address the issues from reviewer #3, and please also address the issues from reviewer #1.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 month. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension.

At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we withdraw the manuscript.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point-by-point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Revised Article with Changes Highlighted " file type.

*Resubmission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this resubmission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

pjaureguionieva@plos.org

----------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1: C elegans immunity.

Reviewer #2: C elegans gene regulation.

Reviewer #3: Proteasome misregulation.

Reviewer #1: This paper is full of superb surprises. First the screen for the genetic pathway that activates a chitinase response to an oomycete infection surprisingly finds two of the 3 components of the skn-1a proteasomal response pathway. It demonstrates how a great GFP screen can rather instantly tell the authors what pathway they are studying. The involvement of png-1 and ddi-1 and skn-1a was not AT ALL predictable from first principles of innate immunity. So the authors find themselves in a superb intersection between semi mature fields. And it is highly interesting that proteasome homeostasis is a central player in response to oomycete infection.

The rescue of the skn-1a resistance in hypodermis in figure 3 is convincing.

The smFish in Figure 5 was really difficult for me to discern. It is not a color blind issue. Perhaps better labeling would "sell" the commonality of the response to the various pathogens and BTZ.

This is the main conclusion and it is well proven by the experiments in Figures 1 to 5: "we hypothesize that some proteasomally regulated

320 factor(s) normally keep the ORR and IPR immune responses in check in the absence

321 of infection, and upon exposure to specific pathogens such factors can be stabilized

322 in the associated tissue triggering the rapid induction of the respective immune

323 programmes (Figure 6)."

SKN-1A is one of the rare transcription factors that goes to the ER, an organelle at the center of secreted protein responses to pathogens. So the finding that skn-1a is at the center of ORR is really cool. Perhaps another sentence in the discussion to get the readers up to speed.

Small points

1. Figure 1C is really supplemental....showing locations of alleles is only worthy of a main display figure if there is something interesting about locations or types of mutations.

2. Figure 1E Y axis should be labelled with "% survival w oomycete infection" (always aim to make Figures interpretable without having to read Figure legends for key hints).

3. Figure2C is not visible to the Red Green Color blind without activating color blind accessibility triggers.

Reviewer #2: This interesting manuscript describes a homeostatic relationship between two responses to eukaryotic pathogens and the proteasome, with a key role being played by SKN-1A/Nrf1, the master transcriptional regulator of proteasome subunit gene transcription. The authors uncovered this relationship through a genetic screen that led them to regulators of SKN-1A. The results are of interest not only to the pathogenesis and immunity fields but also generally, because they uncover a pathway of crosstalk between immune defenses and the ubiquitin proteasome system. An additional benefit is that the paper defines a new example of evidence that discriminates between the functions of SKN-1A/Nrf1 and SKN-1C/Nrf2, which are expressed from alternatively spliced isoforms of the same gene. Studies in this area frequently conflate or confuse the functions of these two proteins, which are each important in aging, stress resistance, metabolism, and now immunity. The manuscript is well-written and the data are of high quality, with an important exception noted below.

Major comment:

The time has past (or should be past) when it is sufficient to present pictures of grouped worms or individual images to assess gene expression. The former is highly subjective and unreliable, and the latter (i.e. Fig. 5) gives us no indication of the numbers analyzed or reproducibility. This is no longer allowed at most top journals. I hesitate to ask the authors to repeat all of these experiments (the ideal situation), but they really should take significant steps in this direction like repeating ANY experiments that are not clear on/off situations with scoring and quantification, statistics. They should also indicate the numbers of animals analyzed and consistency of results for ALL such experiments. In today's world some experiments should be scored blindly, as well.

It is interesting that the authors have implicated proteasomal homeostasis in these immunity pathways, but the paper would have more impact if they determined what regulator(s) was/were targeted by the proteasome. The Troemel lab has implicated the transcription factor ZIP-1 in the IPR but this, oddly, was not mentioned. Could this factor or another candidate be targeted by the proteasome? Sorting this out is not necessarily essential for this paper but would greatly strengthen it.

Other comments:

In addition to the experiments performing wdr-23 RNAi, a complementary approach for ruling out functions for SKN-1C would be to perform skn-1 RNAi in WT and skn-1a mutant strains in parallel. This should be applied to the gene expression and pathogenesis studies, or at least some of them. It is a direct way to address SKN-1C functions that could strengthen the claims made.

A recent study (PMID: 36598980) implicated SKN-1A in fat/lipid metabolism and showed that its absence increases stored fat levels. Given that availability of specific fats has been implicated in other immune responses, this should be considered or at least discussed. Were any SKN-1A-regulated fat metabolism genes picked up in the datasets described here?

As an alternative model, is it known whether the genes involved in these immune responses have conserved recognition sequences that would be bound by SKN-1A and repressed?

Very minor: The Lehrbach 2016 eLife paper is a landmark in this area and should be cited earlier, in the introduction.

Reviewer #3: The conserved SKN-1A/Nrf1 transcription factor regulates proteasome subunit gene expression to ensure adequate proteasome function. In this study, Grover et al show that mutations that disrupt SKN-1A/Nrf1 in C. elegans lead to misregulation an innate immune signaling pathway called the oomycete recognition response (ORR). Given previous work suggesting that both the ORR, and a related immune response to intracellular pathogens (the IPR), are activated in animals experiencing proteasome dysfunction, this finding prompted the authors to explore the relationship between skn-1, the proteasome, and immunity in C. elegans.

Overall, this work advances the field by making a novel link between SKN-1/Nrf and innate immune regulation and refines our understanding of the interplay between the proteasome and C. elegans immune regulation that had been hinted by previous studies. The interest to a wider scientific audience is somewhat limited without mechanistic insight into the regulatory mechanism(s) that link proteasome dysfunction to innate immune control, but addressing this issue would be better left to future studies. I recommend that this work is suitable for publication in PLoS Biology with minor changes and limited additional experiments to address the comments listed below.

Comments.

The authors show that skn-1a mutants show increased expression of ORR genes and resistance to oomycete infection and propose that both of these effects are the result of impaired proteasome function in skn-1a mutants. However, SKN-1A/Nrf1 may also regulate other genes aside from the proteasome subunits. The argument that the skn-1a mutants' resistance to oomycete infection results from reduced proteasome function (rather that misregulation of other skn-1a target genes) would be strengthened by testing the effect of BTZ treatment or proteasome subunit RNAi on resistance to oomycete infection.

Related to the above point - knock-down of proteasome subunits by RNAi sensitizes C. elegans to infection by N. parisii (Bakowski et al 2014, PMID: 24945527), suggesting that the proteasome is required for defense against infection by this pathogen. In this study, the authors find that skn-1a mutants (in which proteasome subunit expression is reduced) are resistant to N. parisii infection. It would be interesting for the authors to include a discussion of this discrepancy. One interesting possibility could be that the proteasome has protective roles in combatting infection, in addition to a role in regulating immune responses. In that case, differing degrees of proteasome dysfunction may have different results on immunity. I.e., mild proteasome dysfunction might enhance pathogen resistance through ORR/IPR activation, whereas severe proteasome dysfunction could increase sensitivity by disrupting proteasome-dependent immune defenses. This could be tested by comparing the effects of different BTZ concentrations on C. elegans' sensitivity to infection.

The evidence that hyperactivation of the proteasome attenuates immune responses (fig 3D) needs to be strengthened and/or interpreted more cautiously:

Firstly, in this experiment the expression of ORR genes in skn-1a(cut, 4nd) and pas-3∆N animals treated with extract is compared to WT animals treated with extract as a control. The authors conclude that: 'hyperactivity of the proteasome significantly inhibits oomycete extract-mediated chil-27 gene induction.' However, the data presented do not distinguish between the possibility that animals with hyperactive proteasomes are defective in induction of chil-27, Vs simply show reduced chil-27 expression levels regardless of exposure to extract. The levels of chil-27 mRNA must be compared between WT and both skn-1a(cut, 4nd) and pas-3∆N in the absence of oomycete extract. If chil-27 mRNA level is identical in the absence of extract, this supports the statement that induction is defective. But if uninduced chil-27 mRNA level is also reduced, this would suggest that proteasome hyperactivation generally reduces chil-27 mRNA levels (but does not necessarily disrupt the pathogen-responsive signaling pathway that induces chil-27 and other ORR genes in response to extract).

Secondly, animals with hyperactive proteasomes (skn-1a(cut, 4nd) and pas-3∆N) express ORR genes at relatively high levels compared to uninduced WT in response to oomycete extract exposure, even if expression levels are slightly lower than in similarly induced WT animals. So it is unclear whether this change in immune gene expression has any functional significance. This should be addressed by measuring the effect of skn-1a(cut, 4nd) and pas-3∆N on survival following oomycete infection.

In Fig 5, prolonged heat-stress was used as a proxy for inducing the IPR, could the authors please explain why this was used instead of pathogen exposure? Since prolonged heat stress would presumably affect all tissues of the animal, why does prolonged heat stress only activate the intestinal IPR but not the hypodermal ORR?

The differing phenotype caused by skn-1(RNAi) Vs the skn-1a mutant is used to infer that the role of skn-1 in PA14 resistance is more likely to be associated with SKN-1C isoform. But these data are equally consistent with the possibility that SKN-1A and SKN-1C isoforms are redundant for this function. The text should be modified to include this possibility.

The idea that different skn-1 isoforms are 'pathogen-specific' should be supported by experiments to address the role of SKN-1C in resistance to eukaryotic pathogens. This could be done by testing whether skn-1(RNAi) - ie kockdown of both skn-1a and skn-1c - alters the resistance of WT and/or the hyper-resistant skn-1a mutants to oomycete or N. parisii infection.

Minor comments.

Typo: On line 103, the NGLY1 gene is referred to as NGLY

NRF1 should also be referred to as NFE2L1 (at least when NRF1 is first mentioned in the introduction at line 99) to avoid confusion with Nuclear Respiratory Factor 1, which can also be referred to by the acronym NRF1.

Decision Letter 2

Ines Alvarez-Garcia

18 Dec 2023

Dear Dr Barkoulas,

Thank you for your patience while we considered your revised manuscript entitled "Impairment of the SKN-1A/NRF1 proteasome surveillance pathway triggers tissue-specific protective immune responses against distinct natural pathogens in C. elegans" for publication as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors and by the Academic Editor.

Based on our Academic Editor's assessment of your revision, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the data and other policy-related requests stated below.

In addition, we would like you to consider a suggestion to improve the title:

"Proteasome inhibition triggers tissue-specific immune responses against different pathogens in C. elegans"

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within three weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable, if not applicable please do not delete your existing 'Response to Reviewers' file.)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Press*

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, please ensure you have opted out of Early Article Posting on the submission form. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Ines

--

Ines Alvarez-Garcia, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

ialvarez-garcia@plos.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA POLICY: IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it:

Fig. 1D; Fig. 2C; Fig. 3A, D; Fig. 4C, D; Fig. S1B; Fig. S2C; Fig. S3A, C; Fig. S5; Fig. S6A-D and Fig. S7

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on WHERE THE UNDERLYING DATA CAN BE FOUND, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

Decision Letter 3

Ines Alvarez-Garcia

9 Feb 2024

Dear Dr Barkoulas,

Thank you for the submission of your revised Research Article entitled "Proteasome inhibition triggers tissue-specific immune responses against different pathogens in C. elegans" for publication in PLOS Biology. On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Hans-Uwe Simon, I am delighted to let you know that we can in principle accept your manuscript for publication, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email you should receive within 2-3 business days from our colleagues in the journal operations team; no action is required from you until then. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have completed any requested changes.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have previously opted in to the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may opt out on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Many congratulations and thanks again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Sincerely, 

Ines

--

Ines Alvarez-Garcia, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

ialvarez-garcia@plos.org

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Proteasome surveillance mutants and skn-1 RNAi show constitutive chil-27p::GFP expression.

    (A) Gene structure of ddi-1 and png-1 showing the positions of mutant alleles used in this study. (B) Quantification of induction of chil-27p::GFP in the mutants obtained from the EMS screen, ddi-1(icb156), png-1(icb112), png-1(icb121) along with active-site mutant of ddi-1(mg572), in-frame gene deletion of ddi-1(mg571), png-1(ok1654), skn-1a(mg570) and upon skn-1 RNAi (n > 50, ****p-value < 0.0001, *** p-value < 0.001 based on chi-square test). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data. (C) Venn comparisons showing significant overlap between up-regulated genes in the transcriptome of ddi-1(icb156) and skn-1a(mg570) mutant with bortezomib (BTZ)-treated animals (RF 6.0, p < 4.347e-43 and RF 18.6, p < 4.453e-88, respectively).

    (TIF)

    pbio.3002543.s001.tif (1.8MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Effect of loss or gain of SKN-1C function on skn-1a(mg570) mutants.

    (A) Gene structure of skn-1a and skn-1c isoforms with protein domain organization. (B) Both loss (skn-1 RNAi) or gain (wdr-23 RNAi) of SKN-1C function does not affect chil-27p::GFP expression in skn-1a(mg570) (control RNAi) animals. skn-1a(mg570) animals are sensitive to RNAi as shown by the gfp RNAi treatment leading to complete loss of chil-27p::GFP expression (left panel). wdr-23 RNAi activates SKN-1C and leads to expression of gst-4p::tdTomato as shown in the right panel. (n > 50 per condition, performed in triplicates, representative image shown). Scale bar is 100 μm. (C) Survival curve of WT and skn-1a(mg570) animals treated and untreated with skn-1 RNAi in the presence of the oomycete M. humicola (n = 60 per condition, performed in triplicates, p < 0.001 based on log-rank test, a representative graph for one of the 3 replicates is shown). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

    (TIF)

    pbio.3002543.s002.tif (3.4MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Bortezomib (BTZ) treatment induces chil-27 expression.

    (A) chil-27p::GFP expression in WT animals treated with different doses of BTZ at early L4 stage for 24 h (n > 50 for each condition, performed in triplicates, representative image shown). (B) Z-stack of L2 stage WT animals showing expression of chil-27 mRNA upon 15 min and 1 h post extract and BTZ treatment. Scale bar is 100 μm in (A) and 10 μm in (B). (C) Survival curve of WT animals treated with DMSO or 20 μm BTZ in the presence of the oomycete M. humicola (n = 60 per condition, performed in triplicates, p < 0.001 based on log-rank test, a representative graph for one of the 3 replicates is shown). The numerical data for all 3 replicates of panels S3A and C is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

    (TIF)

    pbio.3002543.s003.tif (6.6MB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Epistasis analysis of skn-1 and other regulators of the ORR.

    skn-1 RNAi induces chil-27p::GFP expression in pals-25(jy81) and old-1(ok1273) mutant animals. Scale bar for all panels is 100 μm, and n > 50 per condition, performed in triplicates, representative image shown.

    (TIF)

    pbio.3002543.s004.tif (4.2MB, tif)
    S5 Fig. RT-qPCR for selected ORR genes in extract-treated, untreated, and skn-1a(mg570) mutants.

    In the absence of extract treatment in animals with constitutive expression of the activated form of SKN-1A[skn-1a(cut, 4ND) in skn-1a(mg570)] or constitutive activation of the proteasome [pas-3(α3ΔN)] no expression of ORR genes was observed similar to wild-type animals. Note that ORR gene expression in skn-1a(mg570) mutants is lower compared to extract-treated wild-type animals (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001 based on unpaired t test). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

    (TIF)

    pbio.3002543.s005.tif (1.2MB, tif)
    S6 Fig. Quantification of expression of common ORR and IPR genes shown in Fig 5.

    Whole animal mRNA quantification by smFISH for 4 genes, namely, B0507.8 (A), pals-5 (B), cul-6 (C), and skr-3 (D) in L2-stage animals subjected to prolonged heat stress (30°C for 24 h), extract treatment (4 h), and 20 μm BTZ treatment (2 h) (n = 12 in each condition and one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used to assess statistical significance, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001). The numerical data for graphs A–D is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

    (TIF)

    pbio.3002543.s006.tif (1.2MB, tif)
    S7 Fig. skn-1a(mg570) mutants do not show hyper-susceptibility to P. aeruginosa PA14.

    Survival analysis of adult C. elegans on PA14 where bacteria was spread on the plate (n = 90 per condition, performed in triplicates, p < 0.001 based on log-rank test, a representative graph for one of the 3 replicates is shown). The numerical data for all 3 replicates is available in Supporting information S1 Data.

    (TIF)

    pbio.3002543.s007.tif (901.7KB, tif)
    S1 Table. Differentially expressed genes in ddi-1(icb156) mutants as compared to WT animals, along with datasets used to make Venn diagrams, and the list of overlapping genes in different conditions.

    (XLSX)

    pbio.3002543.s008.xlsx (317.1KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. List of strains, oligos, and smFISH probes used in the study.

    (XLSX)

    pbio.3002543.s009.xlsx (21.2KB, xlsx)
    S1 Data. Numerical data for all graphs presented in the study.

    (XLSX)

    pbio.3002543.s010.xlsx (42.8KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

    pbio.3002543.s011.pdf (130.1KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pbio.3002543.s012.docx (15.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. All RNAseq files are available from the NCBI GEO database (accession number GSE241087).


    Articles from PLOS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES