Visualization of Trypanosoma brucei flagellar pocket collar biogenesis identifies two new cytoskeletal structures

Marie Zelená; Elina Casas; Chloé Lambert; Nicolas Landrein; Denis Dacheux; Eloïse Bertiaux; Kim Ivan Abesamis; Gang Dong; Vladimir Varga; Derrick Roy Robinson; Mélanie Bonhivers

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003429

. 2025 Oct 9;23(10):e3003429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003429

Visualization of Trypanosoma brucei flagellar pocket collar biogenesis identifies two new cytoskeletal structures

Marie Zelená ^1,^#, Elina Casas ^2,^#, Chloé Lambert ², Nicolas Landrein ², Denis Dacheux ^2,³, Eloïse Bertiaux ², Kim Ivan Abesamis ⁴, Gang Dong ⁴, Vladimir Varga ¹, Derrick Roy Robinson ², Mélanie Bonhivers ^2,^*

Editor: André Schneider⁵

PMCID: PMC12527162 PMID: 41066504

Abstract

Understanding how cells assemble internal structures is central to cell biology. In Trypanosoma brucei, the flagellar pocket (FP) is essential for nutrient uptake, and immune evasion, and its formation depends on a cytoskeletal structure called the flagellar pocket collar (FPC). However, the mechanisms underlying FPC assembly remain poorly understood. In this study, we used cutting-edge ultrastructure expansion microscopy (U-ExM) to investigate FPC biogenesis in T. brucei. We mapped the formation of the proximal part of the new microtubule quartet (nMtQ) alongside flagellum growth, providing new insights into its assembly. Additionally, we tracked the localization dynamics of key structural proteins—BILBO1, MORN1, and BILBO2—during the biogenesis of the FPC and the hook complex (HC). Notably, we identified two previously undetected structures: the proFPC and the transient FPC-interconnecting fiber (FPC-IF), both of which appear to play crucial roles in linking and organizing cellular components during cell division. By uncovering these novel aspects of FPC biogenesis, our study significantly advances the understanding of cytoskeletal organization in trypanosomes and opens new avenues for exploring the functional significance of these structures.

The flagellar pocket collar (FPC) is a cytoskeletal structure essential for nutrient uptake and immune evasion in Trypanosoma brucei . This study uses ultrastructure expansion microscopy to provide novel insights into FPC biogenesis and uncovers two previously unknown cytoskeletal structures.

Introduction

The biogenesis of cytoskeletal structures is a fundamental process that shapes eukaryotic cell architecture and function. It is essential for maintaining cell shape, facilitating intracellular transport, driving cell division, and enabling cellular motility. This process involves the synthesis of monomeric proteins, their polymerization into higher-order assemblies, and the coordinated action of various regulatory proteins and signaling pathways. In many protist parasites, which possess highly organized cytoskeletal architectures, these mechanisms are particularly critical as they transition between hosts, undergoing distinct morphological stages.

Trypanosomatids are flagellated protist parasites responsible for devastating human and animal diseases, including human African sleeping sickness, Nagana, Chagas disease, and leishmaniasis. Trypanosome morphology and biochemistry have revealed a dense subpellicular microtubule cytoskeleton that forms a corset-like structure, restricting vesicular trafficking across most of the cell surface [1]. This tightly cross-linked cortical cytoskeleton precludes processes such as endocytosis, exocytosis, and phagocytosis at sites other than the flagellar pocket (FP), a specialized invagination of the plasma membrane at the base of the flagellum. As such, the FP serves as the sole site for endo- and exocytosis and is essential for nutrient uptake, protein secretion, immune evasion, and cell morphogenesis [2–4]. This architectural constraint likely reflects an evolutionary trade-off: limiting dynamic membrane trafficking elsewhere in order to maintain a highly organized and efficient system centred on the FP. This specialization enables critical adaptations for parasite survival, including hydrodynamic flow-based clearance of immune complexes and rapid turnover of surface proteins [2,3].

The FP is a conserved feature among trypanosomatids, and these parasites have evolved specialized structures within the FP distal region to enhance its function. This region, referred to as the neck, is tightly enclosed around the flagellum by the flagellar pocket collar (FPC), a key cytoskeletal structure [4–6]. While flagellar or ciliary pockets are present in many eukaryotic cells [7], including mammalian primary and motile ciliated cells where they support cilia-associated vesicular trafficking [8], the FPC is a unique cytoskeletal structure exclusive to kinetoplastids. It forms a stable, electron-dense ring that encircles the distal end of the FP and plays an essential role in FP biogenesis, membrane trafficking, cell viability and pathogenicity [4,9]. The FP and FPC are closely associated with the hook complex (HC), a cryptic MORN1 protein containing structure [10] and the proximal part of a distinct set of four microtubules known as the microtubule quartet (MtQ) [5,6]. Originally described in T. brucei [5], the MtQ is a conserved feature among kinetoplastids, but its organization and associations can differ substantially. For example, in Trypanosoma cruzi and Paratrypanosoma, MtQ-related microtubules contribute to the cytostome architecture, and Leishmania species exhibit additional cytoplasmic and pocket-associated microtubules [11–14].

In G1-phase T. brucei cells, the MtQ arises between the mature and pro-basal bodies of the flagellum, wraps around the FP (this is the proximal part of the MtQ and is the main focus of this research), and extends along the entire length of the cell body parallel to the flagellum. Although its precise functions remain unclear, the MtQ is believed to help define FP architecture and assist in the formation of the new FP during cell division. Importantly, in T. brucei, a Polo-like kinase (TbPLK) is one of the earliest proteins to associate with the new forming MtQ during the cell cycle [15] suggesting that it may play a pivotal role in initiating or coordinating the early events of MtQ assembly.

The cytoskeleton-associated HC, located distal and adjacent to the FPC, forms a hook-like structure in close proximity to the FPC (reviewed in [10]). The first identified HC protein, MORN1, is essential in the bloodstream form of T. brucei, and its depletion disrupts the endomembrane system, although its molecular function remains unclear [16,17].

BILBO1, a kinetoplastid-specific protein, was the first T. brucei FPC protein to be identified [4]. It is a protein that polymerizes both in vivo and in vitro [18,19] serving as a structural backbone of the FPC and interacting with multiple binding partners including TbKINX1B (a basal body kinesin), BILBO2 (an FPC protein), and FPC4 (a MtQ-binding protein) [20–22]. These interactions suggest a strong functional link between BILBO1 and microtubule-based structures such as the MtQ. Notably, BILBO1 also interacts with BHALIN, a protein localized to the HC, reinforcing the tight structural association between the FPC and the HC [23]. To date, BILBO1 remains the only protein proven to be essential for the overall biogenesis of the FPC, FP, and HC, positioning it as a master organizer for these structures [4,22,23].

Tomography studies on T. brucei have characterized the morphology of the FPC and its association with cytoskeletal structures, including the MtQ, highlighting their close association [9,24,25]. Importantly, FP formation begins with the emergence of a ridge between the old and new FPs [25], but its biogenesis is dependent on the FPC [4]. However, the precise mechanisms governing FPC formation during the cell cycle remain largely unknown.

In this study, we characterize the T. brucei cell cycle-related stages of FPC formation at high resolution using ultrastructure expansion microscopy (U-ExM), revealing that FPC biogenesis occurs de novo yet remains closely associated with the existing FPC and proximal aspect of the MtQ. Additionally, we identify a previously uncharacterized transient filamentous structure, termed the FPC-interconnecting fiber (FPC-IF), which contains several FPC-related proteins. Finally, we explore the role of FPC biogenesis in FP formation and function, providing new insights into the assembly and regulation of these essential cytoskeletal structures.

Results

Spef1 tracking and U-ExM reveal sequential MtQ formation and flagellum elongation during the cell cycle

To gain a clearer understanding of MtQ formation, we leveraged the advanced imaging capabilities of U-ExM in T. brucei [14,21,26] and combined this approach with the generation of specific cell lines. We first developed a cell line expressing an endogenously tagged _HASpef1 protein, which labels the proximal aspect of the MtQ between the basal bodies and the FPC as previously described [27]. U-ExM was then applied to detergent-extracted _HASpef1-expresssing cells (cytoskeletons). Co-immunolabelling of Spef1 and tubulin allowed us to visualize the formation of the new MtQ (nMtQ) and track new flagellum (nFg) elongation throughout the cell cycle (Fig 1).

In G1-phase cells, Spef1 was detected on the old MtQ (oMtQ) (Fig 1a). As the cell cycle progressed, Spef1 labelling appeared on the newly forming nMtQ (Fig 1b). This nascent nMtQ was not located within the inter-basal body region but instead positioned adjacent to and on the outer periphery of the pro-basal body (proBB). As the nMtQ extended, it remained continuously labelled by Spef1 and gradually approached the oMtQ (Fig 1c-e).

Consistent with previous observations [25], the nFg subsequently rotates around the old flagellum (oFg) while remaining attached to it, repositioning the nMtQ to a more posterior location within the cell (Fig 1f and 1g). Following this rotation, two new proBBs were clearly observed: one associated with the old basal body and the other with the new basal body. Notably, the nMtQ extended to the oMtQ before the formation of the new transition zone (Fig 1d), indicating that nMtQ formation and extension precede nFg elongation.

Sequential BILBO1 localization reveals key steps in FPC biogenesis and identifies novel proFPC and FPC-interconnecting structures

Previous electron microscopy and epifluorescence studies using a polyclonal antibody against BILBO1 have localized this protein to the FPC, as well as along the MtQ and basal bodies [4,16,20]. To gain further insights into FPC formation, we used U-ExM to examine BILBO1 localization throughout the cell cycle in relation to Spef1 and tubulin labelling on expanded cytoskeletons (Fig 2).

In early G1-phase cells (Stage 1, Fig 2 Aa), BILBO1 appears as a flattened corkscrew or spring washer-like structure at the FPC. The MtQ, labelled with Spef1, threads through the groove of the FPC (Fig 2 Ab). In addition to the primary FPC-associated signal, weaker BILBO1 labelling is observed distally from the FPC in two linear structures: one along some of the distal aspect of the MtQ (Fig 2) and another corresponding to the _mycCAAP1-decorated centrin arm [28] (S1 Fig). As soon as the nMtQ becomes detectable, BILBO1 colocalizes with it, adjacent to the proBB (Stage 2, Fig 2Ba and 2b). Notably, tubulin and BILBO1 co-labelling confirms that the FPC remains tubulin-negative throughout the cell cycle, indicating that tubulin is not a component of the FPC or involved in its biogenesis. Interestingly, at this stage, BILBO1 is absent from the proximal aspect of the oMtQ. However, as the nMtQ extends towards the old FPC, it remains BILBO1-positive (Fig 2Ca), and once the nMtQ reaches close proximity to the old FPC, a BILBO1 signal is also observed on the oMtQ (Fig 2Cb and 2c). The absence of cells in an intermediate state suggests that BILBO1 recruitment to the oMtQ occurs rapidly.

As the nFg grows, a newly formed BILBO1-positive structure emerges, wrapping around the region of the transition zone of the growing flagellum and forming a semi-circular structure that connects the old and new MtQs (Stage 3, Fig 2D). This structure, which we termed the proFPC, serves as the foundation for the formation of the new FPC (nFPC) assembly. At this stage, tubulin labelling reveals two newly formed proBBs (Fig 2Db, arrows).

As the nFg continues to grow and approaches the oFPC, a novel BILBO1-positive, tubulin-negative fibrous structure emerges, linking the old and nFPCs (Stage 4, Fig 2E). This structure, which we termed the FPC-IF, represents also a previously uncharacterized component of FPC biogenesis. The precise mechanism by which BILBO1 is targeted to these structures remains unclear.

As the nFg rotates around the old flagellum before exiting the FP, its distal tip remains attached to the side of the old flagellum via the flagellum connector (FC) [25,29]. This rotation, coupled with the movement of the nBB repositions the nMtQ to a more posterior location with the cell. Consequently, the nFPC adopts its characteristic corkscrew-like morphology (Stage 5, Fig 2F). Notably, at this stage, the oFPC now adopts an open-circle configuration, creating an enlarged gap (Fig 2Fb and 2Fc). This gap likely serves as the passage of the growing nFg as it exits the oFPC while remaining attached to the old flagellum via the FC.

Following BB segregation and subsequent separation of the nFg from the oFg, we observed the disappearance of MtQ-associated BILBO1 labelling and the loss of the FPC-IF. This suggests two key events: (i) cessation of BILBO1 targeting, recruitment or transport (if any) to the FPCs and (ii) the transient nature of the FPC-IF (Stage 6).

To determine whether the quantity of BILBO1 at the oFPC remains stable throughout the cell cycle, we quantified its fluorescence intensity in two distinct regions: one directly surrounding the oFPC (yellow area) and another encompassing the oFPC and extending towards the BB region (cyan area) (Fig 2G).

Quantification of BILBO1 labelling at the oFPC and at the area of nFPC formation (MtQ, proFPC, FPC-IF) reveals that an equivalent amount of BILBO1 is present in the newly forming structures compared to the mature oFPC (Fig 2G). Given that the early stages of nFPC biogenesis occur at the level of the basal body, and that no reduction in BILBO1 is observed at the oFPC, these findings suggest that nFPC formation involves de novo recruitment of BILBO1, rather than redistribution from the existing structure.

Cytoskeletal dynamics and FPC-IF formation: shaping the flagellar pocket

To investigate the biogenesis of the FP and localize the proFPC and the FPC-IF relative to the FP membrane, we performed immunolabelling with a polyclonal antibody against BILBO1 [16] on expanded whole cells (Fig 3). This is complemented with NHS-Ester Atto 594 labelling of cellular proteins [30] which delineated the FP (purple, Figs 3 and S2c) as an empty space (Figs 3 and S2e-S2g). This method successfully revealed the localization of key FP-associated cytoskeletal structures, including the flagellum, basal bodies, the MtQ, the FPC, and FP boundaries (S2 Fig). We mapped each step of FPC biogenesis, including the formation of the nMtQ (Fig 3Ab), proFPC (Fig 3Ac-Ae), nFg (Fig 3Ac-Ai), FPC-IF (Fig 3Ad and 3Ae), and nFPC (Fig 3Ag-Ai), in relation to the FP.

Whilst the precise timing of FPC-IF formation remains uncertain, our imaging confirmed that the proFPC forms in the cytosolic compartment beneath the base of the FP, and connects the two MtQ structures. Consistent with the previous U-ExM cytoskeletal data (Fig 2), the FPC-IF extends along the anterior side of the FP connecting the proFPC and the oFPC. Following nFg rotation, the FPC-IF disappears (Fig 3Ah), coinciding with a corresponding loss of most BILBO1 labelling on the MtQs (Fig 3Ag). Notably, we observed the relaxation of the oFPC into an open conformation (Fig 3Ai), with this structural transition facilitating nFg exit from the old FPC despite remaining attached to the oFg via the FC. Additionally, two distinct FPs were observed as soon as the nFPC was formed (Fig 3Ag).

Measurements in whole cell samples showed that the nFg elongates from stage 2 in a linear fashion (Fig 3Ba) and the distances between the oBB and the oFPC indicate that the mature FPC remains relatively stationary along the oFg during the cell cycle (Fig 3Bb). As previously described in [31], the oBB-nBB distance increases during the cell cycle (Fig 3Bb). In contrast, the distance between the nBB and the proFPC/nFPC reveals that the proFPC forms early in the process of nFg growth (Fig 3Ba and 3Bc). The distance between the nBB and nFPC increases between stage 4 and stage 5, and coincides with the timing of nFg rotation, before stabilizing between stages 5 and 6 (Fig 3Bc). These observations suggest three possible scenarios: (i) the proFPC moves upwards along the growing nFg and (ii) the nBB moves downward into the cell. However, it is most likely that both processes occur simultaneously or at specific time points. Indeed, the first scenario is supported by the observed reduction in the distance between the nFPC and oFPC from stage 4 to stage 5, suggesting that the nFPC progressively moves closer to the cell surface (Fig 3Bd). The second scenario is supported by the relatively large change in the nBB-nFPC distance between stage 4 and 5 (Fig 3Bc). Additionally, these observations indicate that the new FP is not fully distinguishable morphologically until the nFPC is completely formed (Fig 3Af), implying that pocket completion depends directly on the formation of the nFPC.

MORN1 localization during the cell cycle reveals parallel biogenesis pathways for the FPC and the HC

In G1-phase expanded cytoskeletons, MORN1 localized to the bilobe structure [10], which comprises the HC and the centrin arm, positioned adjacent to the distal side of the FPC (Figs 4Aa and S1). This localization pattern is consistent with previous findings [16,21] and closely mirrored that of BILBO1 throughout the cell cycle. In addition to marking the old HC (oHC), MORN1 was detected in expanded cytoskeletons along both MtQs (Fig 4Ab and 4Ac), around the newly forming axoneme (proFPC Stage 3, Fig 4Ad), and later within a filamentous structure connecting to the oHC (FPC-IF Stage 4, Fig 4Ae). This sequential localization pattern culminated in the eventual separation of the old and new HC structures (Fig 4Af). The striking similarity between MORN1 and BILBO1 labelling strongly suggests that MORN1 is consistently present within BILBO1-positive structures throughout the cell cycle, highlighting the functional interplay between the two structures. This hypothesis was supported by observations in a cell line expressing HA-tagged BILBO1 (S3 Fig). Co-labelling experiments, combined with NHS-ester staining, revealed that MORN1 consistently colocalizes with BILBO1-positive structures throughout the cell cycle. However, we detected notable phenotypic alterations in this cell line, indicating that the tag may interfere with BILBO1 function. Given the central role of BILBO1 in FPC architecture, we chose not to pursue further analysis with this cell line to avoid misinterpretation due to potential tagging artefacts.

MORN1 labelling in expanded whole cells (Fig 4B) further emphasized the similarities between the FPC and the HC formation, showing MORN1-decorated MtQs and the emergence of a proFPC-like structure (named proHC in Fig 4Be) linking the two MtQs. This structure subsequently migrates away from the nBB, giving rise to an nHC. However, in these expanded whole cells, MORN1 was not detected on the nMtQ prior to its presence on the oMtQ. This discrepancy is most likely due to differences in labelling sensitivity, as MORN1 is clearly detected on the nMtQ in expanded cytoskeletons (Fig 4A).

Notably, MORN1 was never observed at the BB-proximal end of the MtQ in either detergent-extracted cytoskeleton or whole-cell samples. As previously described, MORN1 appeared only when the nMtQ reached the oFPC level, indicating that BILBO1 associates with the MtQs prior to MORN1. Interestingly, Fig 4B panel G clearly shows the formation of a distinct, flask-shaped nFP forming as the distance between the nBB and the proFPC increases. This observation reinforces the idea that not only the FPC is required to maintain the pocket neck in a closed state, but it also actively contributes to FP formation.

BILBO1 and BILBO2 colocalization reveals the distinct molecular composition of the proFPC and FPC-IF

In this study, we identified three previously uncharacterized cytoskeletal structures, the proFPC, the pro-HC and the FPC-IF. Our analysis revealed that they are tubulin-negative but contain BILBO1 and MORN1. Furthermore, the absence of a Spef1 signal within these structures indicates that they lack this known MtQ-associated protein (Fig 5A).

Fig 5 — A. Co-labelling of BILBO1 (yellow) and Spef1 (cyan). B. Co-labelling of BILBO1 (yellow) and BILBO2 (magenta). Scale bars: 5 μm.

Further investigations revealed that BILBO2, a direct interacting partner of BILBO1 and a known FPC component [21], colocalizes with BILBO1 along both the new and old MtQ throughout the cell cycle (Fig 5Ba, 5Bb). Notably, BILBO2 was also detected in the proFPC and the FPC-IF, reinforcing that these structures consist of specific, highly organized molecular components rather than transient, amorphous assemblies (Fig 5Bc and 5Bd). These findings underscore the specialized nature of the proFPC and FPC-IF and their important role in the cytoskeletal organization of T. brucei.

BILBO1, MORN1, and BILBO2 localize to a cytoskeletal structure adjacent to the MtQ

To better understand the spatial organization of Spef1 relative to the MtQ, we performed co-immunolabelling of tubulin and Spef1, followed by fluorescence intensity profiling (Fig 6A). The resulting Spef1 intensity profile revealed two distinct peaks flanking the central tubulin peak, suggesting that Spef1 preferentially localizes on specific microtubules within the MtQ. Measurements of the peak pixel intensities of tubulin and Spef1 showed a mean separation of 0.12 ± 0.015 µm (mean ± SEM) (Fig 6A and 6E). Considering an expansion factor of 4.2× and the 25 nm diameter of a microtubule, this corresponds to an in vivo distance of ~28 nm. These results indicate that Spef1 is preferentially enriched along the two distal microtubules of the MtQ, rather than uniformly distributed across all four. In contrast, the mean distance between the peak intensities of tubulin (MtQ) and either BILBO1 or MORN1 was 0.28 µm ± 0.030 and 0.30 µm ± 0.026, respectively (Fig 6B, 6C and 6E), corresponding to roughly an in vivo distance of 70 nm. This suggests that BILBO1 and MORN1 are not directly localized on MtQ microtubules. Finally, co-labelling experiments with BILBO1 and BILBO2 revealed a smaller inter-peak distance of 0.07 µm ± 0.012, or ~16 nm in vivo, suggesting that these proteins co-localize within a distinct structure adjacent to the MtQ.

Fig 6 — A. Representative images and intensity peaks measurements comparing the MtQ (tubulin, magenta) and Spef1 labelling. B. Representative images and intensity peaks measurements comparing the MtQ (tubulin, magenta) and the BILBO1-positive filament. C. Representative images and intensity peaks measurements of the MtQ (tubulin, magenta) and the MORN1-positive filament. D. Representative images and intensity peaks measurements of the BILBO1-positive filament (yellow) and BILBO2 (magenta). E. Statistical comparison of inter-peak distances between markers. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05, and is indicated on the graph as follows: p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***), and non-significant comparison as “ns.” The raw measurements underlying the quantitative analyses are presented in S1 Data. Scale bars in A, B, and C: 1 μm.

These findings suggest that BILBO1, MORN1, and BILBO2 positioned between the basal body and the FPC, localize to a cytoskeletal structure or protein complex associated with the MtQ, but are not directly integrated into it. Alternatively, BILBO1 and MORN1 could be confined to a single microtubule within the MtQ, but this hypothesis is inconsistent with the observed Spef1 localization pattern and inter-protein distance measurements. Therefore, the data support the existence of a specialized cytoskeletal structure adjacent to the MtQ that houses these proteins.

BILBO1 knockdown disrupts MtQ orientation but not its assembly

In BILBO1 RNAi-induced knockdown cells, key phenotypes include partial detachment of the nFg at the distal end, the failure to assemble an nFPC, FP, flagellum attachment zone (FAZ), and disorganization of the HC [4,22]. Initial electron microscopy studies of thin sections from BILBO1 RNAi cells did not detect the presence of a newly formed MtQ associated with the nFg and basal body [4,22]. To further investigate whether the formation of the nMtQ depends on BILBO1, we re-examined the BILBO1 RNAi phenotype in expanded samples, using anti-tubulin and anti-MORN1 antibodies. In cytoskeletons of wild-type cells, each flagellum is associated with an MtQ and an HC (Fig 7Aa). However, in BILBO1 RNAi-induced cells, MORN1 and tubulin labelling revealed that the partially detached nFg remains linked to a pro-basal body and a tubulin-positive structure, likely corresponding to the nMtQ (Fig 7B). This finding suggests that MtQ formation can proceed independently of BILBO1 and the FPC.

Interestingly, in BILBO1 RNAi-induced cells (e.g., Fig 7B), the nMtQ and its associated MORN1-positive component exhibited a misoriented trajectory, deviating from the typical alignment along the FP and the FAZ. These observations indicate that while MtQ biogenesis is independent of the nFPC, its correct spatial orientation relies on the FPC. This dependency also extends to the HC structure. Moreover, since no nFPC was formed, it is possible that the proFPC or FPC-IF were either incomplete or absent, suggesting an indirect requirement for BILBO1 in their formation.

Longitudinal electron microscopy sections of WT whole cells, taken from the proximal region of the flagellum (where the central pair is visible), rarely reveal transverse sections of the MtQ. However, in one example (Fig 7Ca), the MtQ appears as an electron-dense region adjacent to the FP membrane. In contrast, in BILBO1 RNAi cells, the absence of an FP correlated with the mislocalization or partial displacement of the MtQ (Fig 7C, 7Cb and 7Cc). These findings further support the idea that BILBO1 is essential for the correct positioning and orientation of the MtQ even though its initial assembly does not require BILBO1.

Discussion

In this study, we employed U-ExM to investigate the biogenesis of the FPC in T. brucei, revealing previously unresolved details of FPC and HC formation. When combined with NHS-ester protein labelling, U-ExM enabled the imaging of novel transient structures involved in FPC/HC assembly and provided the essential cellular context to complement antibody-based protein localization. The high-resolution capabilities of U-ExM offered new insights into the dynamic processes underlying FPC formation. Using these techniques, we uncovered critical interdependencies between the FPC, HC, and MtQ. These findings redefine the molecular composition, functional roles, and dynamic processes of FPC and FP biogenesis.

FPC biogenesis occurs de novo

While the spatial coordination of events leading to FP formation and division was elegantly illustrated in previous work [32], the specific mechanisms of FPC biogenesis and function remained elusive. As schematized in Fig 8, our findings refine their model, demonstrating that FPC biogenesis occurs de novo, initiating at the pro-basal body (proBB) beneath the FP membrane. A nascent MtQ (nMtQ) extends along the proBB. Notably, previous work demonstrated that the nBB and nMtQ are decorated with BILBO1, even though the transition fiber protein TFK1 is not yet detected at the proBB [20,33]. This suggests that nMtQ formation precedes proBB docking, or both events occur concomitantly. As the nMtQ extends and wraps around the FP, it unites with the old FPC. Subsequently, a BILBO1-MORN1-BILBO2-positive filament (the FPC-IF) forms de novo, linking the proFPC to the oFPC at the anterior side of the FP. Just before or during pro-basal/BB body docking at the FP membrane, the oMtQ also becomes decorated with these three proteins. Both MtQs are then linked via the semi-circular proFPC structure, which originates near the nBB transition fibers beneath the FP and serves as the foundation for the nFPC.

Fig 8 — This diagram illustrates the sequential formation and maturation of the new FPC (nFPC) in six stages, based on ultrastructure expansion microscopy data. Key cytoskeletal components and intermediate structures involved in FPC assembly are indicated. **Stage 1** (G1 phase): Cells possess a single flagellum (old flagellum, oFG, magenta), a single FPC (oFPC, yellow), and a mature microtubule quartet (oMtQ, cyan). No new structures are detectable at this stage. **Stage 2**: The new MtQ (nMtQ, cyan) begins to extend from the vicinity of the pro-basal body (proBB, purple) that matures through the formation of the transition fibres (black triangles), initiating new FPC (nFPC) biogenesis. BILBO1 (yellow) is recruited to the nMtQ early, followed by its recruitment to the oMtQ. This suggests an early role for BILBO1 in scaffolding the developing collar. **Stage 3**: The new flagellum (nFg, purple) begins elongating from the proBB. Simultaneously, the pro-FPC (proFPC, green and black), an immature FPC precursor, appears at the base of the nFg, marked by BILBO1 recruitment. This structure anchors to the nMtQ and the oMtQ. BILBO2 and MORN1also localize to this structure, although they are not depicted in the schematic for clarity. At this stage, new probasal bodies (proBBs, magenta for the proBB associated with the oFg, purple for the proBB associated with the nFg) are observed in association with both the oFg and the nFg, marking an important transition point in the basal body duplication cycle. **Stage 4**: As the nFg elongates and approaches the oFg. At this stage, a novel structure, the FPC-interconnecting fibre (FPC-IF, green) appears, physically linking the oFPC and the proFPC. The nFg basal body undergoes rotational movement relative to the oFg basal body, indicating rearrangement of the cytoskeletal and membrane architecture. **Stage 5**: the new flagellar pocket collar (nFPC, black and green) completes its maturation, forming a helical or corkscrew-like structure. The oFPC undergoes a relaxation or opening event that allows the nFg to exit and emerge from its own fully formed flagellar pocket (not depicted in the schematic for clarity), independent from the oFPC. The disassembly of the FPC-IF likely facilitates this separation, ensuring proper positioning of the nFPC and associated cytoskeletal components for subsequent cell division. **Stage 6**: The two mature FPCs and associated flagella are now fully segregated and associated with individualized FPs. The cell prepares for cytokinesis, with both daughter cells inheriting a complete FP-FPC complex. Note: To simplify the representation, the microtubule quartets anterior to the FPCs and the flagellar pockets are not depicted. Standardized terminology used here: oFPC (old FPC), nFPC (new FPC), proFPC (precursor of the nFPC structure), FPC-IF (FPC-interconnecting fibre), and oFG/nFg (old/new flagellum).

As the nFg elongates within the FP, the distance between its new basal body and the proFPC increases, while the basal body undergoes rotary movement towards a more posterior cell position. While the precise mechanism underlying interbasal body movements remains elusive, our data suggest a dynamic interplay between flagellum elongation and FPC remodeling. Several possibilities exist: (i) the proFPC moves along the flagellum, contributing to ridge and new FP formation, (ii) the proFPC remains stationary while the nFg elongates, or (iii) a combination of both, where the proFPC initially stays in place but later moves along the flagellum as it extends. Our data support the third hypothesis, in which the proFPC remains static at first but later migrates as the flagellum elongates. When the nFg approaches the oFPC, the FPC-IF links the proFPC and oFPC. As the nFg rotates posteriorly, the proFPC closes into a corkscrew-like structure to form the mature nFPC. The FPC-IF then rapidly disappears, although whether this occurs via coordinated disassembly or degradation remains unknown. This disappearance marks the final separation of the two FPC structures. We observed a shift in the chronology of proFPC movement: in cytoskeletons it occurs from stages 3–4 (Fig 2), whereas in whole cells, it is delayed until stages 4–5 (Fig 3). We propose that this discrepancy represents an artefact of detergent extraction, arising from the absence of the FP membrane, which in whole cells may normally provide slight resistance to proFPC displacement.

Importantly, we show that the oFPC relaxes into an open circular structure, allowing the nFg to exit the oFPC while its distal tip remains attached to the oFg via the FC, before restructuring into its compact, corkscrew-like conformation. This requires precise protein coordination, although the exact mechanism remains unknown. These findings align with research from the Keith Gull lab, supporting the hypothesis that FPC biogenesis occurs de novo [34].

MtQ biogenesis is independent of the FPC and required for flagellum attachment

We observed that nMtQ formation and extension occur before significant flagellum elongation, suggesting that MtQ biogenesis precedes flagellum growth. This is in agreement with previous findings on early cytoskeletal formation in trypanosomes [25]. In BILBO1 RNAi knockdown cells, proFPC and FPC-IF formation is disrupted, yet the nMtQ still forms near the pro-basal body. This suggests that MtQ biogenesis is independent of the FPC, HC, and FP but relies on an alternative, unidentified mechanism. Furthermore, it is unclear if there is a link with potential transport along the entire MtQ for supporting FAZ assembly and its ER attachment, but the absence of the FAZ and disturbed ER plus the misorientated MtQ in induced BILBO1 RNAi knockdown cells ([4], and this work) is in line with the potential role of the MtQ in providing a platform for transport of FAZ constituents and ER-attachment.

While FPC and HC proteins localize to the MtQ, proFPC, and FPC-IF, the precise mechanism by which they are trafficked to these structures remains unclear. Proteins may be recruited directly from the cytoplasm or are transported along the microtubules by motors. However, several kinesins are positioned on the proximal MtQ, [20,35], and given the theoretical polarity of the MtQ, with microtubule plus-ends orientated away from basal body, their positioning is consistent with a role in anterograde transport from the basal body region towards the FPC.

Nature of BILBO1-positive structures and insights into HC and FP formation

Our study reveals that BILBO1 forms or contributes to a polymer running parallel to the MtQs and associating with the proFPC and FPC-IF. The polymerization properties of BILBO1, demonstrated both in vivo and in vitro [18,19], along with its interaction with proteins such as BILBO2 [20–23], suggest that BILBO1 may be a key candidate for polymer formation along the MtQs and for de novo structures such as proFPC and FPC-IF.

Our findings also suggest that the BILBO1-MORN1-BILBO2-positive structure at the nMtQ most probably corresponds to the previously described “tendril” [16], which facilitates FPC biogenesis, parallels the nMtQ, and contains a dynamic pool of MORN1. We propose that BILBO1 provides a molecular skeleton for protein recruitment during FPC biogenesis [18,20,21,23] consistent with BILBO1 RNAi knockdowns showing disrupted nMtQ orientation, impaired recruitment of FAZ and interstitial zone layer proteins [36], and mislocalized HC components [23,37]. These findings highlight BILBO1 as a central organizer of multiple FP-associated structures. Our model aligns with previous studies [38], showing that FP formation precedes flagellum separation during proventricular stage development. It is unclear if the proFPC is involved in ridge formation in the early stages of pocket division. However, we propose that BILBO1, via the proFPC, is directly involved in ridge formation after nFg rotation, but the precise mechanisms and driving forces remain to be elucidated. However, in procyclic forms, the FC, an electron-dense structure linking the tip of the nFg to the lateral aspect of the old flagellum, has been proposed to transmit forces that guide basal body separation and flagellar elongation [29]. The timing of these events is notable: the early rotation and limited anterior displacement of the new basal body and associated structures occur while the FC is still actively migrating. This suggests the FC may contribute to positioning during early proFPC assembly. However, the more pronounced posteriorward migration of the nBB typically occurs after FC migration has ceased [39], indicating that the FC may not be the primary force-generating mechanisms throughout the entire process. In bloodstream forms, which lack a flagella connector, a distinct transmembrane structure called the groove has been described at the tip of the nFg [40]. While this may serve as an alternative structural interface or impose mechanical constraints, its formation appears to occur only after the nFg has exited the FP. Therefore, its role in early BB and proFPC positioning remains uncertain. Importantly, studies in IFT20 and DHC1b RNAi procyclic cells, in which new axoneme assembly is impaired, demonstrate that BB rotation and separation can still occur in the absence of a new axoneme [39]. These findings argue against a model in which the FC exerts force exclusively via the axoneme. Instead, we propose that early proFPC dynamics may rely on other mechanisms, potentially involving BB-associated motor proteins, local membrane remodeling, or cytoskeletal interactions.

Unresolved questions in FPC and HC formation

The mechanisms driving the proFPC semicircle structure initiation and the processes that generate the template linking the new and oMtQs remain unclear. BILBO1, which interacts with multiple proteins [20–23], may recruit factors essential for membrane docking and FPC-IF formation. Additionally, it may associate with motor proteins that drive proFPC movement along the axoneme, contributing to new FP formation. Notably, several kinesin were localized at the proximal MtQ [28,35] including TbKINX1B [20]. While TbKINX1B knockdown did not prevent FPC biogenesis in cultured procyclic cells, it caused FPC reorientation to the anterior side of the nucleus, suggesting a role in FPC positioning. In bloodstream forms, TbKINX1B is essential, and its knockdown resulted in formation of enlarged FPs, further supporting an FP/FPC-related function. The exact trigger for proFPC movement remains unknown, but this sliding mechanism likely involves motor proteins that position the maturing FPC closer to the cell surface. This repositioning may facilitate ridge formation, a key step in FP formation.

The transient FPC-IF is described in our study as a novel, short-lived structure that appears to link specific cellular components (the oFPC, the nFPC, the FP membrane) during the biogenesis of the nFPC in T. brucei. Its rapid and stage-specific appearance suggests that it may function as a dynamic organizational scaffold, coordinating the spatial positioning of cytoskeletal elements and membrane domains during the emergence of the nFg and the maturation of the new FP. Given the central role of the FP in endocytosis and immune evasion in T. brucei, the transient nature of the FPC-IF may reflect a tightly regulated mechanism for preserving membrane compartmentalization and trafficking fidelity during division. Although direct functional evidence remains limited, the transient FPC-IF likely plays a critical role in coordinating the morphogenesis of the FPC in T. brucei. By transiently linking the old and newly forming FPCs, the FPC-IF may act as a mechanical and spatial scaffold that ensures proper positioning and segregation of key cytoskeletal components such as BILBO1 and MORN1. This linkage likely stabilizes the FP neck region during the major membrane and cytoskeletal remodeling events that accompany flagellum duplication and FP formation. The dynamic assembly of the FPC-IF may also facilitate the targeting or stabilization of membrane-associated proteins, contributing to the establishment of specialized membrane domains within the FP that are critical for its endocytic and exocytic function. As the FP serves as the exclusive site of endocytosis and exocytosis in T. brucei, including for surface glycoprotein trafficking, maintaining its integrity is essential for immune evasion. Additionally, disruption of FP biogenesis, via incorrect FPC-IF function or positioning, could compromise endocytic efficiency and immune evasion by mislocalizing surface proteins. Moreover, the precise but transient appearance of the FPC-IF at the interface of the oFPC and nFPCs suggests a role in shaping membrane curvature and compartmentalization during FP morphogenesis. Collectively, these observations support the notion that the FPC-IF integrates cytoskeletal organization, membrane remodeling, and trafficking to ensure proper FP inheritance and functionality. The disassembly of the FPC-IF likely facilitates proper positioning of the nFPC and associated cytoskeletal components for subsequent cell division. We further speculate that analogous structures may exist in other kinetoplastids, such as T. cruzi and Leishmania, where conserved FP/FPC architecture suggests the potential for similar mechanisms.

We suggest that the regulatory mechanisms governing proFPC and FPC-IF formation are orchestrated by a cascade of spatially and temporally controlled protein–protein interactions. A central player in this process is BILBO1, which acts as a master organizer of FPC assembly and is recruited early to nascent sites of FPC biogenesis. Its early presence at the proFPC and nMtQ suggests that it may serve as the initial structural seed for complex assembly. This may relate to BILBO1’s intrinsic ability to self-polymerize into distinct morphologies, either linear (e.g., FPC-IF) or circular (e.g., mature FPC), depending on local cues. Spatial regulation of BILBO1 polymerization may be modulated by calcium or post-translational modifications such as phosphorylation [18]. The initiation of proFPC assembly likely depends on the spatial definition of nucleation sites, near the base of the forming nMtQ. Subsequent extension along the oMtQ and around the nascent FP neck may reflect guided polymerization. Additional components, such as TbKINX1B and FPC-associated proteins [20–23], may be recruited through direct interactions with BILBO1 polymers and contribute to anchoring or remodeling. Cell cycle–regulated kinases such as NRKC (involved in BB separation) [41] and TbPLK [15] (which localizes to the nMtQ early in the cycle) may further orchestrate this process by phosphorylating scaffolding or adaptor proteins that act as docking platforms. Disassembly of transient structures such as the FPC-IF may be driven by active depolymerization or destabilization events, mimicking mechanisms observed for other cytoskeletal assemblies.

Conclusions

This study provides key insights into the biogenesis of the key structures FPC, MtQ, and flagellum in trypanosomes. We show that while MtQ formation occurs independently of BILBO1, its proper orientation depends on an intact FPC, underscoring their interplay. Further investigation into the molecular mechanisms governing MtQ orientation and the role of the FPC-IF in FPC formation will enhance our understanding of FP and FPC biogenesis.

Materials and methods

Cell lines, culture, and transfection

Procyclic (PCF) cell lines SmOxP427 and SmOxP927 co-expressing the T7 RNA polymerase and tetracycline repressor [42] were grown at 27°C in SDM-79 medium supplemented with 2–2.5 mg/mL hemin, 26 μM sodium bicarbonate, 10% (v/v) complement-deactivated FBS, and 1 μg/mL puromycin. For transfection, cells were grown to 5 × 10⁶–1.0 × 10⁷ cells.mL⁻¹, then 3 × 10⁷ cells were electroporated using transfection buffer as previously described [43,44] with 10 μg of PCR product using the program X-001 of the Nucleofector II, AMAXA apparatus (Biosystems), or 1 × 10⁷ cells were electroporated with 45 µL of PCR product using the BTX ECM 830 electroporator (3 pulses, 2,000 V, length 100 µs, interval 100 ms, unipolar). After transfection, clones were obtained by serial dilution and maintained in logarithmic phase growth. Selection antibiotics were added to the media according to the transfected product (neomycin 10 μg/mL, hygromycin 25 μg/mL, phleomycin 5 μg/mL, and blasticidin 20 µg/mL).

The BILBO1 stem-loop RNAi vector p3960SL was previously described in [4]. BILBO1 RNAi was induced for 48H with 10 μg/mL tetracycline. Endogenous 10 × Myc-Nter tagged BILBO2 cell line was described in [21]. Spef1 (10xHA tag at its N-terminus or C-terminus) Centrin arm associated protein 1 (CAAP1) (10xmyc at its N-terminus), and BILBO1 (3xHA at its C-terminus) were endo-tagged using the pPOTv7 vector as described in [45].

Immunofluorescence

Wide-field and epifluorescence microscopy.

Cells were harvested, washed in PBS, and processed for immunolabelling on methanol-fixed detergent-extracted cells (cytoskeleton, CSK) as described in [22]. The antibodies used and their dilutions are listed in S1 Table. Images were acquired on a Zeiss Imager Z1 microscope, using a Photometrics Coolsnap HQ2 camera, with a 100 × Zeiss objective (NA 1.4) using Metamorph software (Molecular Devices), and processed with ImageJ (NIH). The U-ExM wide-field images were deblurred with Metamorph Deconvolution 2D.

Ultrastructure-expansion microscopy.

U-ExM on detergent-extracted cytoskeletons. The U-ExM protocol has been adapted from [46]. Briefly, 4 × 10⁶ mid-log phase cells were washed in PBS and loaded onto poly-L-lysine 0.1% solution -coated 12 mm coverslips in 24-well plates and cells left to adhere for 5–10 min. Cells were extracted for a few seconds with PBS NP40 (Igepal) 0.25%. Cells were then covered with 1 mL of activation solution (0.7% formaldehyde, 1% Acrylamide in PBS) for 3.5 h at 37°C. For the gelation step, the coverslips were gently deposited on top of a 35 μl drop of MS solution (23% sodium acrylate, 10% acrylamide, 0.1% bisacrylamide 0.5% TEMED and 0.5% ammonium persulfate in PBS) for 5 min then transferred at 37°C and incubated for 1 h in a moist chamber. The coverslips were then transferred to a 6-well plate in 1 mL of denaturation solution (200 mM SDS, 200 mM sodium chloride, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 9.0) with agitation at RT for 15–30 min to detach the gel from the coverslip. The gel was then moved into a 1.5 mL Eppendorf centrifuge tube filled with denaturation solution and incubated at 95°C for 90 min. Gels were expanded in 100mL of deionized water (3 × 30 min) then incubated 3 × 10 min in 100mL of PBS. Small pieces of the gels were processed for immunolabelling as follows. The gels were preincubated in blocking solution (PBS, 1%–2% BSA and 0.2% Tween20 or PBS only) for 30 min at 37°C, and then with the primary antibodies (see S1 Table for the reference and dilutions) overnight at 37°C with shaking. After three washes in 1 mL blocking solution, the gels were incubated with the secondary antibodies diluted in blocking solution for 4.5 h in the dark at 37°C with slow agitation. After three washes in blocking solution, gels were expanded in 100 mL of deionized water (3 × 30 min). An expansion factor was determined using the ratio between the size of the coverslip (12 mm) and the size of the gels after the first expansion and was 4.2-fold.

U-ExM on whole cells. The U-ExM protocol on whole cells was performed as previously described in [14]. Briefly, 2x10⁶ cells were washed 2x in PBS, fixed with 4% formaldehyde and 4% acrylamide in PBS, seeded onto 12 mm round coverslips washed in NaOH, and incubated overnight. Next day, the coverslips were gently washed in PBS and inverted cell side down onto a 50 µL drop of polymerizing monomer solution (19% sodium acrylate, 10% acrylamide, 0.1% N,N’-methylenebisacrylamide, 0.5% TEMED, 0.5% ammonium persulfate in PBS). The gels were allowed to settle for 5 min at RT, then incubated at 37°C for 30 min. The coverslips were then carefully removed from the gels by slight expansion of the gels in dH₂O, and the gels were immediately transferred into denaturation buffer and incubated at 95°C for 1 h. After denaturation, gels were expanded by washing in dH₂O 3 × 20 min and subsequently shrunk in PBS for 30 min. For antibody staining, one-fourth of the gel was cut with a razor and incubated in primary antibody diluted in blocking buffer (2% BSA, 0.02% sodium azide in PBS) 6 h to overnight. The unbound primary antibody was removed by washing in PBS 3 × 20 min and the gels were subsequently incubated in secondary antibody diluted in blocking buffer 6 h to overnight. The unbound secondary antibody was removed by washed 3 × 20 min in PBS and the gels were incubated 90 min in 20 µg/mL fluorescent NHS ester (ATTO 594 or ATTO 488) in PBS. Finally, the gels were washed 3 × 20 min in PBS and expanded 2 × 30 min in dH₂O prior to imaging.

Confocal microscopy

For imaging expanded cytoskeletons, we used a Leica SP8 on an upright stand microscope DM6000 (Leica Microsystems, Mannheim, Germany), with a HCX Plan Apo CS 63X oil NA 1.40 objective. The lasers used were Diode 405 nm, OPSL 488, OPL 552 nm and Diode 638. The system was equipped with a conventional scanner (10 to 2,800 Hz) and four internal detectors (two conventional PMT and two hybrid detectors). The images were deconvolved in Huygens Pro and processed with ImageJ and Fiji software [47,48]. The quantification in Fig 2G was obtained as follows. Eighteen slices of U-ExM confocal images were flattened with Fiji (Z-project SUM), and two areas were manually defined: a close area around the old FPC (excluding the BILBO1 labelling distal to the FPC), and the area from the old FPC to the basal bodies and including the old FPC and the MtQs. Fig 2G indicates the integrated fluorescence of BILBO1 at the old FPC as a percentage of the total fluorescence in the total area.

For imaging expanded whole cells, a Leica DMi8 with TCS SP8 confocal head (Leica Microsystems, Mannheim, Germany) equipped with the HC Plan APO CS2 63x oil NA 1.40 objective, a 20 mW 488 nm and a 20 mW 552 nm solid-state lasers, a standard scanner (1–1,800 Hz line frequency), and 5 detectors (2 × PMT and 3 × HyD), and a Leica DMi8 with STELLARIS 8 confocal head, with HC Plan APO 86x water immersion NA 1.20 objective, wide-range white light laser with pulse picker (WLL PP), conventional linear scanner (1–2,600 Hz line frequency), and five supersensitive hybrid detectors were used. The images were deconvolved using Huygens professional. To visualize the stages of FPC biogenesis, the data were segmented in Bitplane Imaris software by manual segmentation combined with intensity thresholding.

Electron microscopy

A total of 50 mL of mid-log phase WT or 48-h BILBO1 RNAi-induced cells were harvested by centrifugation at 1,000g for 15 min. Block preparation and EM protocol were performed as in [41].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism. Distance measurements in Fig 6E were obtained for four target protein combinations (Spef1-Tubulin as control, BILBO1-Tubulin, MORN1-Tubulin, BILBO1-BILBO2 with 18–21 measurements (1 or 2 measurements per image). The distribution of each dataset was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk normality test. Since two of the four groups (Spef1-Tubulin, BILBO1-BILBO2) deviated significantly from a normal distribution (p ≤ 0.05), a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to evaluate overall group differences. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05, and is indicated on the graph as follows: p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***), and non-significant comparison as “ns.” In Fig 2G, following normality test, ANOVA test was performed with a statistical significance defined as p ≤ 0.05.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. U-ExM immunofluorescence images showing that a sub-population of BILBO1 (yellow) and MORN1 (cyan) localize close to the centrin arm, which is indicated by _mycCAAP1 labelling (magenta).

Scale bars: 1 μm.

(TIF)

pbio.3003429.s001.tif^{(816.9KB, tif)}

S2 Fig. NHS ester labelling of whole expanded cells.

a 3D rendering of two cells labelled with NHS ester (gray) and an antibody against BILBO1 (yellow). b A single Z-plane of the same data viewed through the orthoslicer. The arrow points to the flagellar pocket (FP), which is not visible in whole-cell rendering. c Segmentation of the data shown in (a) and (b). The cell surface (transparent gray) was segmented from the NHS ester signal by intensity thresholding. Microtubule-based structures at the flagellum base (solid gray) were segmented by manual masking combined with intensity thresholding. The FP (purple, arrow) was modelled by manual segmentation, and the BILBO1 signal (yellow) was segmented by intensity thresholding. d Maximum intensity projection of NHS ester labelling (inverted LUT). NHS ester labels organelles and structures within the cell, such as the nucleus (N), mitochondrion (M), glycosomes (G), the flagellum (Fg), and the basal bodies (BB). e A single Z-plane of the data in (d). Slicing through the volume reveals additional details, such as the shape of the flagellar pocket (FP). f-i Details of single Z-planes of the data represented in (d) and (e). f,g Details of the flagellar pocket. h Nucleus with visible nucleolus (arrow). i Detail of glycosomes (arrows). Scale bars: 10 μm in a-e, 5 μm in f-i.

(TIF)

pbio.3003429.s002.tif^{(2.6MB, tif)}

S3 Fig. Colocalization of MORN1 and BILBO1.

Here, BILBO1 (yellow) is tagged with a C-terminal 3xHA-tag and labelled with an anti-HA antibody. MORN1 (cyan) is labelled with a MORN1 antibody. Scale bar: 2 µm physical distance (correspond to 0.43 µm after correction for the 4.6 fold expansion factor). a—Stage 1. b—Stage 2. c—Stage 4 during new flagellar pocket collar (pro-FPC) formation. d—Stage 4 with the interconnecting fibre (IF).

(TIF)

pbio.3003429.s003.tif^{(5.8MB, tif)}

S1 Table. List of antibodies and NHS ester reagents used in this study.

This table provides detailed information on all primary and secondary antibodies, as well as NHS ester-based fluorescent reagents, used throughout the experiments. For each item, the table lists the target or label, host species (for antibodies), fluorophore, supplier, catalog number or reference, and dilution or concentration used.

(PDF)

pbio.3003429.s004.pdf^{(115.3KB, pdf)}

S1 Data. Raw measurements underlying the quantitative analyses presented in Figs 2G, 3B, and 6E.

(XLSX)

pbio.3003429.s005.xlsx^{(24KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

We thank the ProParacyto group members for stimulating discussions. We thank B. Morriswood for the anti-MORN1 antibody and critical reading of the manuscript, K. Ersfeld for the 9E10 anti-myc antibody, and S. Dean for the pPOTv7 vectors. We thank Martin Bablon (Freelance artist - Paris, France) for his help to design the scheme in Fig 8. We also acknowledge the Bordeaux Imaging Centre, a service unit of the CNRS-INSERM and Bordeaux University, a member of the national infrastructure France BioImaging supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR-10-INBS-04). The help of Christel Poujol, Magali Mondin, and Mónica Fernández Monreal is acknowledged. We also acknowledge the Light Microscopy Core Facility, IMG, Prague, Czech Republic, supported by MEYS – LM2023050, MEYS – CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/18_046/0016045 and MEYS – CZ.02.01.01/00/23_015/0008205, for their support with the confocal imaging and image analysis presented herein.

Abbreviations:

BB: basal body
FAZ: flagellum attachment zone
FP: flagellar pocket
FPC: flagellar pocket collar
FPC-IF: flagellar pocket collar-interconnecting fiber
HC: hook complex
MtQ: microtubule quartet
nBB: new basal body
nFg: new flagellum
nFP: new flagellar pocket
nHC: new hook complex
nMtQ: new microtubule quartet
oBB: old basal body
oFg: old flagellum
oHC: old hook complex
oMtQ: old microtubule quartet
proBB: pro-basal body
proFPC: pro-flagellar pocket collar
U-ExM: ultra-structure expansion microscopy

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

M.B. was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) Structu-Ring [grant ANR-20-CE91-0003] (https://anr.fr/), the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) (https://www.cnrs.fr/en), and the Université de Bordeaux (https://www.u-bordeaux.fr/en). D.R.R. was supported by the Laboratoire d’Excellence « Alliance Française contre les Maladies Parasitaires » (LabEx ParaFrap) (https://www.labex-parafrap.fr/en/) from the ANR [grant ANR-11-LABX-0024], the CNRS and the Université de Bordeaux. V.V. was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (GA ČR) [project 23-07370S] (https://gacr.cz). G.D. was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [grant I5960-B2] (https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/). K.I.A. was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [grant I5960-B2, PhD fellowship] (https://www.fwf.ac.at/en). E.B. was supported by the LabEx Parafrap [grant ANR-11-LABX-0024], the CNRS, and the Université de Bordeaux. D.D. was supported by the CNRS and the Université de Bordeaux, and Bordeaux INP (https://www.bordeaux-inp.fr/en). C.L. was supported by a PhD student fellowship from [grant ANR-20-CE91-0003]. E.C. was supported by the ANR [grant ANR-20-CE91-0003]. M.Z. was supported by a PhD student fellowship from the Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic (https://cuni.cz/UKEN-1.html).

References

1.Gull K. The cytoskeleton of trypanosomatid parasites. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1999;53:629–55. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.53.1.629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Engstler M, Pfohl T, Herminghaus S, Boshart M, Wiegertjes G, Heddergott N. Hydrodynamic flow-mediated protein sorting on the cell surface of trypanosomes. Cell. 2007;131(3):505–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Field MC, Carrington M. The trypanosome flagellar pocket. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7(11):775–86. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Bonhivers M, Nowacki S, Landrein N, Robinson DR. Biogenesis of the trypanosome endo-exocytotic organelle is cytoskeleton mediated. PLoS Biol. 2008;6(5):e105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Sherwin T, Gull K. The cell division cycle of Trypanosoma brucei brucei: timing of event markers and cytoskeletal modulations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1989;323(1218):573–88. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1989.0037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Vickerman K. On the surface coat and flagellar adhesion in trypanosomes. J Cell Sci. 1969;5(1):163–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Benmerah A. The ciliary pocket. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2013;25(1):78–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2012.10.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Ghossoub R, Molla-Herman A, Bastin P, Benmerah A. The ciliary pocket: a once-forgotten membrane domain at the base of cilia. Biol Cell. 2011;103(3):131–44. doi: 10.1042/BC20100128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Lacomble S, Vaughan S, Gadelha C, Morphew MK, Shaw MK, McIntosh JR, et al. Three-dimensional cellular architecture of the flagellar pocket and associated cytoskeleton in trypanosomes revealed by electron microscope tomography. J Cell Sci. 2009;122(Pt 8):1081–90. doi: 10.1242/jcs.045740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Morriswood B. Form, fabric, and function of a flagellum-associated cytoskeletal structure. Cells. 2015;4(4):726–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Alcantara CL, Vidal JC, Souza W de, Cunha-e-Silva NL. The three-dimensional structure of the cytostome-cytopharynx complex of Trypanosoma cruzi epimastigotes. J Cell Sci. 2014;127(10):2227–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Skalický T, Dobáková E, Wheeler RJ, Tesařová M, Flegontov P, Jirsová D, et al. Extensive flagellar remodeling during the complex life cycle of Paratrypanosoma, an early-branching trypanosomatid. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(44):11757–62. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1712311114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Wheeler RJ, Sunter JD, Gull K. Flagellar pocket restructuring through the Leishmania life cycle involves a discrete flagellum attachment zone. J Cell Sci. 2016;129(4):854–67. doi: 10.1242/jcs.183152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Gorilak P, Pružincová M, Vachova H, Olšinová M, Schmidt Cernohorska M, Varga V. Expansion microscopy facilitates quantitative super-resolution studies of cytoskeletal structures in kinetoplastid parasites. Open Biol. 2021;11(9):210131. doi: 10.1098/rsob.210131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Ikeda KN, de Graffenried CL. Polo-like kinase is necessary for flagellum inheritance in Trypanosoma brucei. J Cell Sci. 2012;125(Pt 13):3173–84. doi: 10.1242/jcs.101162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Esson HJ, Morriswood B, Yavuz S, Vidilaseris K, Dong G, Warren G. Morphology of the trypanosome bilobe, a novel cytoskeletal structure. Eukaryot Cell. 2012;11(6):761–72. doi: 10.1128/EC.05287-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Morriswood B, He CY, Sealey-Cardona M, Yelinek J, Pypaert M, Warren G. The bilobe structure of Trypanosoma brucei contains a MORN-repeat protein. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2009;167(2):95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2009.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Florimond C, Sahin A, Vidilaseris K, Dong G, Landrein N, Dacheux D. BILBO1 Is a Scaffold Protein of the Flagellar Pocket Collar in the Pathogen Trypanosoma brucei. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Vidilaseris K, Shimanovskaya E, Esson HJ, Morriswood B, Dong G. Assembly mechanism of Trypanosoma brucei BILBO1, a multidomain cytoskeletal protein. J Biol Chem. 2014;289(34):23870–81. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M114.554659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Perdomo D, Berdance E, Lallinger-Kube G, Sahin A, Dacheux D, Landrein N, et al. TbKINX1B: a novel BILBO1 partner and an essential protein in bloodstream form Trypanosoma brucei. Parasite. 2022;29:14. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2022015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Isch C, Majneri P, Landrein N, Pivovarova Y, Lesigang J, Lauruol F, et al. Structural and functional studies of the first tripartite protein complex at the Trypanosoma brucei flagellar pocket collar. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(8):e1009329. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Albisetti A, Florimond C, Landrein N, Vidilaseris K, Eggenspieler M, Lesigang J, et al. Interaction between the flagellar pocket collar and the hook complex via a novel microtubule-binding protein in Trypanosoma brucei. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(11):e1006710. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Broster Reix CE, Florimond C, Cayrel A, Mailhé A, Agnero-Rigot C, Landrein N, et al. Bhalin, an Essential Cytoskeleton-Associated Protein of Trypanosoma brucei Linking TbBILBO1 of the Flagellar Pocket Collar with the Hook Complex. Microorganisms. 2021;9(11):2334. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9112334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Gadelha C, Rothery S, Morphew M, McIntosh JR, Severs NJ, Gull K. Membrane domains and flagellar pocket boundaries are influenced by the cytoskeleton in African trypanosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(41):17425–30. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909289106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Lacomble S, Vaughan S, Gadelha C, Morphew MK, Shaw MK, McIntosh JR. Basal body movements orchestrate membrane organelle division and cell morphogenesis in Trypanosoma brucei. J Cell Sci. 2010;123(17):2884–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Kalichava A, Ochsenreiter T. Ultrastructure expansion microscopy in Trypanosoma brucei. Open Biol. 2021;11(10):210132. doi: 10.1098/rsob.210132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Gheiratmand L, Brasseur A, Zhou Q, He CY. Biochemical Characterization of the Bi-lobe Reveals a Continuous Structural Network Linking the Bi-lobe to Other Single-copied Organelles in Trypanosoma brucei*. J Biol Chem. 2013. Feb 1;288(5):3489–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Zhou Q, Kurasawa Y, Hu H, Souza Onofre T, Li Z. An orphan kinesin in Trypanosoma brucei regulates hook complex assembly and Golgi biogenesis. mBio. 2024;0(0):e02634-24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Moreira-Leite FF, Sherwin T, Kohl L, Gull K. A trypanosome structure involved in transmitting cytoplasmic information during cell division. Science. 2001;294(5542):610–2. doi: 10.1126/science.1063775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.M’Saad O, Bewersdorf J. Light microscopy of proteins in their ultrastructural context. Nature Communications. 2020;11:3850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Robinson DR, Sherwin T, Ploubidou A, Byard EH, Gull K. Microtubule polarity and dynamics in the control of organelle positioning, segregation, and cytokinesis in the trypanosome cell cycle. J Cell Biol. 1995;128(6):1163–72. doi: 10.1083/jcb.128.6.1163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Wheeler RJ, Sunter JD. Coordination of the cell cycle in trypanosomes. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2019;73(1):133–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Ramanantsalama MR, Landrein N, Casas E, Salin B, Blancard C, Bonhivers M, et al. TFK1, a basal body transition fibre protein that is essential for cytokinesis in Trypanosoma brucei. J Cell Sci. 2022;135(11):jcs259893. doi: 10.1242/jcs.259893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Portman N. Deconstructing the trypanosome cytoskeleton: from structures to functions via components and complexes. 2011. [cited 2025 February 3]. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e04fef74-b111-4992-aad6-ddb3169ff95b
35.Benz C, Müller N, Kaltenbrunner S, Váchová H, Vancová M, Lukeš J, et al. Kinetoplastid-specific X2-family kinesins interact with a kinesin-like pleckstrin homology domain protein that localizes to the trypanosomal microtubule quartet. Mol Microbiol. 2022;118(3):155–74. doi: 10.1111/mmi.14958 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Höög JL, Lacomble S, Bouchet-Marquis C, Briggs L, Park K, Hoenger A, et al. 3D Architecture of the Trypanosoma brucei Flagella Connector, a Mobile Transmembrane Junction. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(1):e0004312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Morriswood B, Schmidt K. A MORN Repeat Protein Facilitates Protein Entry into the Flagellar Pocket of Trypanosoma brucei. Eukaryot Cell. 2015;14(11):1081–93. doi: 10.1128/EC.00094-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Lemos M, Mallet A, Bertiaux E, Imbert A, Rotureau B, Bastin P. Timing and original features of flagellum assembly in trypanosomes during development in the tsetse fly. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):169. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04026-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Absalon S, Kohl L, Branche C, Blisnick T, Toutirais G, Rusconi F, et al. Basal body positioning is controlled by flagellum formation in Trypanosoma brucei. PLoS One. 2007;2(5):e437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Smithson L, Ihuoma Akazue P, Findlater L, Gwira TM, Vaughan S, Sunter JD. Diversity in new flagellum tip attachment in bloodstream form African trypanosomes. Mol Microbiol. 2022;118(5):510–25. doi: 10.1111/mmi.14979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Pradel LC, Bonhivers M, Landrein N, Robinson DR. NIMA-related kinase TbNRKC is involved in basal body separation in Trypanosoma brucei. J Cell Sci. 2006;119(Pt 9):1852–63. doi: 10.1242/jcs.02900 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Poon SK, Peacock L, Gibson W, Gull K, Kelly S. A modular and optimized single marker system for generating Trypanosoma brucei cell lines expressing T7 RNA polymerase and the tetracycline repressor. Open Biol. 2012;2(2):110037. doi: 10.1098/rsob.110037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Wirtz E, Leal S, Ochatt C, Cross GA. A tightly regulated inducible expression system for conditional gene knock-outs and dominant-negative genetics in Trypanosoma brucei. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1999;99(1):89–101. doi: 10.1016/s0166-6851(99)00002-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Schumann Burkard G, Jutzi P, Roditi I. Genome-wide RNAi screens in bloodstream form trypanosomes identify drug transporters. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2011;175(1):91–4. doi: 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2010.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Dean S, Sunter J, Wheeler RJ, Hodkinson I, Gluenz E, Gull K. A toolkit enabling efficient, scalable and reproducible gene tagging in trypanosomatids. Open Biol. 2015;5(1):140197. doi: 10.1098/rsob.140197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Gambarotto D, Zwettler FU, Le Guennec M, Schmidt-Cernohorska M, Fortun D, Borgers S, et al. Imaging cellular ultrastructures using expansion microscopy (U-ExM). Nat Methods. 2019;16(1):71–4. doi: 10.1038/s41592-018-0238-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):676–82. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):671–5. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003429.r001

Decision Letter 0

Richard Hodge

8 May 2025

Dear Dr Bonhivers,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Flagellar pocket collar biogenesis: Cytoskeletal organization and novel structures in a unicellular pathogen" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology. Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you as we consulted with an academic editor about your submission.

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 May 10 2025 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,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003429.r002

Decision Letter 1

Richard Hodge

5 Jun 2025

Dear Dr Bonhivers,

Thank you for your patience while your manuscript "Flagellar pocket collar biogenesis: Cytoskeletal organization and novel structures in a unicellular pathogen" 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 three independent reviewers.

As you will see, the reviewers are all very positive about your study and think it provides a strong contribution to trypanosome cell biology. 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 we might need to consult with the reviewers, depending on the nature of the revisions.

In addition to these revisions, you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests shortly.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 2 months. 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.

Best regards,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

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

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1: The trypanosome flagellar pocket with its pocket collar is a unique structure of Kinetoplastids, whose function, assembly and composition is still not fully understood. In this publication, the authors have analysed the division of the trypanosome flagellar pocket with all the attached features (hook complex, flagellar pocket collar, basal bodies, flagella). They employed UExM on detergent extracted cytoskeleton and whole cells, in combination with NHS total protein stain and a range of specific antibodies. The revisited the BILBO1 RNAi phenotype and could describe the function of BILBO1 more accurately.

This work constitutes an impressive bit of excellently-performed cell biology on a highly complex 3D structure. The authors describe the division in novel detail, and discover a few new sub-structures, such as the flagellar-pocket-collar-interconnecting fibre (a transient structure present during division). They show that the FPC remains tubulin-negative during the entire cell cycle. This work is an excellent addition to the trypanosome cell biology, and I have only a few minor comments.

* Introduction: could the authors state on how unique the flagellar pocket collar is, given that flagellar pockets appear to be present in many cells?

* Figure 6: The measurements appear to be based on 2-3 single measurements, it would benefit from a larger number of measurements and a bit of statistics.

* MORN1 and BILBO1 give rather similar stains, indicating (partial) colocalization, but the authors could not directly show this, due to technical issues. I do not know the nature of the technical issues, but if these are minor and could be solved (for example by creating a new cell line with a different epitope tag etc), it would be nice to see the direct comparison between these two proteins.

* Line 186: "With the exception of the G1-phase cells (where no nFPC is being formed) and the period when the FPC-IF is detected, the oFPC consistently accounts for approximately 40% of the total BILBO1 fluorescence, remaining close to 50% throughout the cell cycle. This indirectly suggests that nFPC biogenesis occurs de novo, rather than through redistribution of BILBO1 from the oFPC." I failed to understand this: If there would be redistribution of BILBO1 from the oFPC rather than de novo assembly, why would you expect different percentages?

* Given that this is a rather complex, 3-dimensional structure: would it be possible, to include a model of the pocket division to the discussion part, summarising all the major structures and findings? This would help the non-expert readers a lot.

* Line 126: Typo (expressing)

Reviewer #2: This paper describes a microscopy-based analysis of biogenesis of one of the key vital cytoskeletal structures in Trypanosoma brucei parasites, the hook complex/flagellar collar structure.

The paper is very single method-focused, but applies it very well, making use of the power of expansion microscopy. This is a powerful application, as these are highly structured structures which are on the edge of being resolved by conventional light microscopy, but well-resolved by expansion microscopy, maximising the value of this approach. Also, some of these structures, particularly the hook complex, are not readily visible by electron microscopy, making this a powerful approach for targeted consideration of known proteins. This comprehensively maps how this vital structure duplicates for cell division, providing insights into complex flagellar pocket morphogenesis.

A limitation is that expansion microscopy cannot distinguish between assembled material and material which is in transient structures or simply being transported. Flux of material will bias the visualised protein to assembled material, but this is a limitation. It was not always clear whether samples for particular experiments are cytoskeletons or whole cells, where material in transport is more likely to be extracted. Please try consistently indicate in the text and figures.

It is powerful that BILBO and MORN are antibody to native protein, avoids problems with assembly differences for tagged/untagged allele, or subtle defects due to a tag. However, more care should be taken describing the microtubule quartet, as it extends along the entire FAZ. The SPEF1 positive portion (and BILBO/MORN association) is only the proximal microtubule quartet, and that should be made clear whenever the microtubule quartet is discussed (given the abbreviation-heavy text, pMtQ for proximal microtubule quartet might be useful).

Much as the core data is qualitative. However, all figures would benefit from sample size indications. Making it clear from how many examples the selected example is representative of - both number of sample preparations and number of cells from which the example was selected. For example:

Figure 1: For each, representative example from how many. But, this matches tomography data, so less important to have high confidence, it meets expectations.

Figure 2: For each, representative example from how many. Particularly important to give confidence in the complex structures in stages 4, 5.

Figure 3: A, representative example from how many, B, sample size per data point.

Figure 4: For each, representative example from how many. Like Figure 3, confidence in the stage 4 and 5 examples.

Figure 6: Represantative of how many, and preferably add a mini bar chart of separation with a few data points per measurement.

Overall I found the text well written, easy to understand, well cited, etc. including the hard to describe complex three dimensional rearrangement in the results. I have a few minor comments about phrasing descriptions in the introduction and discussion.

Introduction

Line 75: Not well supported to describe the cortical cytoskeleton as a limitation. May well be a key advantage in different areas, and advantageous to concentrate all endo/exocytosis in one structure.

Line 81: May be worth noting similarity/analogy to feeding grooves and similar structures at the base of flagella in free living flagellates. Not vital though.

Line 86: Formally, the microtubule quartet is conserved, but there is diversity around this. The cytostome microtubules in cruzi and cytostome-containing monoxenous species like Paratrypanosoma, the additional pocket and cytoplasmic microtubules in Leishmania. More nuance would be good.

Line 88: Again, clarify about whether this is formally known for all trypanosomatid species, as the text structure implies that it is true/known.

Line 105: Clarify species where this evidence comes from, ie. T. brucei.

Line 110: State "in T. brucei".

Line 342: An extremely early event is Aurora Kinase association with the MtQ, worth quickly incorporating this point.

Line 353: Some more clarity about force generation here would be useful. The procyclic form flagella connector, vs. bloodstream form groove may provide a force.

Line 380: IFT is exceptionally specific to flagella, this would be very odd. Worth some consideration on likely trafficking direction of kinesins, although I realise this can be hard to predict. More generally, do you think there is any informative link with potential transport of material along the entire microtubule quartet, for supporting eg. FAZ assembly or coordinating ER attachment?

Line 401: Do I understand correctly that the new flagellar pocket collar does not have a presence in the early ridge between the dividing pockets? Possibly worth reversing this statement to say that your results show that it is unlikely that collar or hook complex rearrangements are fully responsible for early ridge formation.

Reviewer #3 (Markus Engstler, signs review):

General

This is an excellent manuscript that presents a comprehensive and technically rigorous analysis of flagellar pocket collar biogenesis in Trypanosoma brucei, using advanced ultrastructure expansion microscopy.

The identification and characterization of two previously undescribed structures, the pro-flagellar pocket collar (proFPC) and the FPC-interconnecting fibre (FPC-IF), represent a major advance in our understanding of how new FPCs are assembled de novo during the cell cycle. The application of ultrastructure expansion microscopy is particularly powerful here, enabling unprecedented resolution of spatial and temporal dynamics of FPC, HC, and MtQ components. These discoveries revise and extend existing models of FPC biogenesis and may also provide broader insights relevant to ciliary pocket formation in other eukaryotic systems.

Major

1. Mechanistic interpretation of proFPC and FPC-IF formation

While the structural characterization of these elements is excellent, the manuscript could benefit from a more detailed discussion on potential molecular mechanisms underlying their formation. The authors briefly mention motor proteins such as TbKINX1B, but do not elaborate on possible regulatory or recruitment pathways. A more speculative discussion here would add value without requiring additional experiments.

2. Functional implications and broader context

The authors are encouraged to elaborate further on the potential biological role of the transient FPC-IF and the significance of its rapid disappearance. How might these structures contribute to flagellar pocket dynamics, immune evasion, or membrane remodeling? Even in the absence of direct experimental data, this would help position the work more broadly within parasite cell biology.

3. Clarity and terminology

Consider standardizing terminology when referring to old/new structures (e.g., oFPC/nFPC vs. proFPC). In some instances, the transitions between stages and structures could be clearer. A table or expanded legend in Figure 8 summarizing each step in the proposed biogenesis pathway would aid readability.

Minor

Line 96: "…serving as a the structural backbone…"

Abstract: Consider condensing the background portion to strengthen the focus on findings.

A useful model figure, but the legend should be expanded to clarify each structure and its temporal context.

Figure legends: Ensure all abbreviations (e.g., FC, BB, FAZ) are defined on first use in figure legends, not just the main text.

Data and methods

The methodological descriptions are thorough and appropriate. The use of detergent-extracted and whole-cell U-ExM, coupled with well-validated antibodies, is convincing. Data availability is clearly addressed.

While the morphological data and imaging results are compelling, the manuscript would benefit from greater transparency and rigor in the reporting of quantitative analyses.

Specifically:

Please clarify the number of biological replicates and individual cells measured for each quantitative analysis (e.g., fluorescence intensity in Figure 2G, distances in Figure 3B).

For datasets involving continuous measurements (e.g., nBB-nFPC distances), consider reporting descriptive statistics such as mean ± SD or using graphical formats (e.g., box plots) that reflect data distribution.

Indicate whether quantification was performed in a blinded fashion and whether statistical comparisons (e.g., tests for significance between stages) were applied where appropriate.

While these additions are not critical for validating the overall conclusions, they would significantly enhance the statistical rigor and reproducibility of the study.

Conclusion

This is a highly original and well-executed study that makes a strong contribution to the field. It is suitable for publication in PLOS Biology pending minor revisions.

PLoS Biol. 2025 Oct 9;23(10):e3003429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003429.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 2

8 Sep 2025

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PBIOLOGY-D-25-01442R1 .docx

pbio.3003429.s008.docx^{(69.3KB, docx)}

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003429.r004

Decision Letter 2

Richard Hodge

11 Sep 2025

Dear Dr Bonhivers,

Thank you for your patience while we considered your revised manuscript "Flagellar pocket collar biogenesis: Cytoskeletal organization and novel structures in a unicellular pathogen" for publication as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors and the Academic Editor.

Based on our Academic Editor's assessment of your revision, I am pleased to say that we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, provided you address the following data and other policy-related requests that I have provided below (A-D):

(A) We routinely suggest changes to titles to ensure maximum accessibility for a broad, non-specialist readership. In this case, we would suggest a minor edit to the title, as follows. Please ensure you change both the manuscript file and the online submission system, as they need to match for final acceptance:

"Visualization of Trypanosoma brucei flagellar pocket collar biogenesis identifies two new cytoskeletal structures"

(B) 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:

-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).

-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:

Figure 3B, 6A-E

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).

(C) Please also ensure that each of the relevant 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.

(D) Per journal policy, if you have generated any custom code during the course of this investigation, please make it available without restrictions. Please ensure that the code is sufficiently well documented and reusable, and that your Data Statement in the Editorial Manager submission system accurately describes where your code can be found.

Please note that we cannot accept sole deposition of code in GitHub, as this could be changed after publication. However, you can archive this version of your publicly available GitHub code to Zenodo. Once you do this, it will generate a DOI number, which you will need to provide in the Data Accessibility Statement (you are welcome to also provide the GitHub access information). See the process for doing this here: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/archiving-a-github-repository/referencing-and-citing-content

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

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.

In addition to these revisions, you may need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests shortly. If you do not receive a separate email within a few days, please assume that checks have been completed, and no additional changes are required.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two 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://plos.org/published-peer-review-history/

*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*

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

Best wishes,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

PLoS Biol. 2025 Oct 9;23(10):e3003429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003429.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 3

18 Sep 2025

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_PBIOLOGY-D-25-01442R1__auresp_3.docx

pbio.3003429.s009.docx^{(69.3KB, docx)}

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003429.r006

Decision Letter 3

Richard Hodge

19 Sep 2025

Dear Dr Bonhivers,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, André Schneider, I am pleased to say that we can 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/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study.

Best wishes,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. U-ExM immunofluorescence images showing that a sub-population of BILBO1 (yellow) and MORN1 (cyan) localize close to the centrin arm, which is indicated by _mycCAAP1 labelling (magenta).

Scale bars: 1 μm.

(TIF)

pbio.3003429.s001.tif^{(816.9KB, tif)}

S2 Fig. NHS ester labelling of whole expanded cells.

(TIF)

pbio.3003429.s002.tif^{(2.6MB, tif)}

S3 Fig. Colocalization of MORN1 and BILBO1.

(TIF)

pbio.3003429.s003.tif^{(5.8MB, tif)}

S1 Table. List of antibodies and NHS ester reagents used in this study.

(PDF)

pbio.3003429.s004.pdf^{(115.3KB, pdf)}

S1 Data. Raw measurements underlying the quantitative analyses presented in Figs 2G, 3B, and 6E.

(XLSX)

pbio.3003429.s005.xlsx^{(24KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PBIOLOGY-D-25-01442R1 .docx

pbio.3003429.s008.docx^{(69.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_PBIOLOGY-D-25-01442R1__auresp_3.docx

pbio.3003429.s009.docx^{(69.3KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

[pbio.3003429.ref001] 1.Gull K. The cytoskeleton of trypanosomatid parasites. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1999;53:629–55. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.53.1.629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref002] 2.Engstler M, Pfohl T, Herminghaus S, Boshart M, Wiegertjes G, Heddergott N. Hydrodynamic flow-mediated protein sorting on the cell surface of trypanosomes. Cell. 2007;131(3):505–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref003] 3.Field MC, Carrington M. The trypanosome flagellar pocket. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7(11):775–86. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref004] 4.Bonhivers M, Nowacki S, Landrein N, Robinson DR. Biogenesis of the trypanosome endo-exocytotic organelle is cytoskeleton mediated. PLoS Biol. 2008;6(5):e105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref005] 5.Sherwin T, Gull K. The cell division cycle of Trypanosoma brucei brucei: timing of event markers and cytoskeletal modulations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1989;323(1218):573–88. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1989.0037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref006] 6.Vickerman K. On the surface coat and flagellar adhesion in trypanosomes. J Cell Sci. 1969;5(1):163–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref007] 7.Benmerah A. The ciliary pocket. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2013;25(1):78–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2012.10.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref008] 8.Ghossoub R, Molla-Herman A, Bastin P, Benmerah A. The ciliary pocket: a once-forgotten membrane domain at the base of cilia. Biol Cell. 2011;103(3):131–44. doi: 10.1042/BC20100128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref009] 9.Lacomble S, Vaughan S, Gadelha C, Morphew MK, Shaw MK, McIntosh JR, et al. Three-dimensional cellular architecture of the flagellar pocket and associated cytoskeleton in trypanosomes revealed by electron microscope tomography. J Cell Sci. 2009;122(Pt 8):1081–90. doi: 10.1242/jcs.045740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref010] 10.Morriswood B. Form, fabric, and function of a flagellum-associated cytoskeletal structure. Cells. 2015;4(4):726–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref011] 11.Alcantara CL, Vidal JC, Souza W de, Cunha-e-Silva NL. The three-dimensional structure of the cytostome-cytopharynx complex of Trypanosoma cruzi epimastigotes. J Cell Sci. 2014;127(10):2227–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref012] 12.Skalický T, Dobáková E, Wheeler RJ, Tesařová M, Flegontov P, Jirsová D, et al. Extensive flagellar remodeling during the complex life cycle of Paratrypanosoma, an early-branching trypanosomatid. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(44):11757–62. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1712311114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref013] 13.Wheeler RJ, Sunter JD, Gull K. Flagellar pocket restructuring through the Leishmania life cycle involves a discrete flagellum attachment zone. J Cell Sci. 2016;129(4):854–67. doi: 10.1242/jcs.183152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref014] 14.Gorilak P, Pružincová M, Vachova H, Olšinová M, Schmidt Cernohorska M, Varga V. Expansion microscopy facilitates quantitative super-resolution studies of cytoskeletal structures in kinetoplastid parasites. Open Biol. 2021;11(9):210131. doi: 10.1098/rsob.210131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref015] 15.Ikeda KN, de Graffenried CL. Polo-like kinase is necessary for flagellum inheritance in Trypanosoma brucei. J Cell Sci. 2012;125(Pt 13):3173–84. doi: 10.1242/jcs.101162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref016] 16.Esson HJ, Morriswood B, Yavuz S, Vidilaseris K, Dong G, Warren G. Morphology of the trypanosome bilobe, a novel cytoskeletal structure. Eukaryot Cell. 2012;11(6):761–72. doi: 10.1128/EC.05287-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref017] 17.Morriswood B, He CY, Sealey-Cardona M, Yelinek J, Pypaert M, Warren G. The bilobe structure of Trypanosoma brucei contains a MORN-repeat protein. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2009;167(2):95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2009.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref018] 18.Florimond C, Sahin A, Vidilaseris K, Dong G, Landrein N, Dacheux D. BILBO1 Is a Scaffold Protein of the Flagellar Pocket Collar in the Pathogen Trypanosoma brucei. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref019] 19.Vidilaseris K, Shimanovskaya E, Esson HJ, Morriswood B, Dong G. Assembly mechanism of Trypanosoma brucei BILBO1, a multidomain cytoskeletal protein. J Biol Chem. 2014;289(34):23870–81. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M114.554659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref020] 20.Perdomo D, Berdance E, Lallinger-Kube G, Sahin A, Dacheux D, Landrein N, et al. TbKINX1B: a novel BILBO1 partner and an essential protein in bloodstream form Trypanosoma brucei. Parasite. 2022;29:14. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2022015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref021] 21.Isch C, Majneri P, Landrein N, Pivovarova Y, Lesigang J, Lauruol F, et al. Structural and functional studies of the first tripartite protein complex at the Trypanosoma brucei flagellar pocket collar. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(8):e1009329. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref022] 22.Albisetti A, Florimond C, Landrein N, Vidilaseris K, Eggenspieler M, Lesigang J, et al. Interaction between the flagellar pocket collar and the hook complex via a novel microtubule-binding protein in Trypanosoma brucei. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(11):e1006710. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref023] 23.Broster Reix CE, Florimond C, Cayrel A, Mailhé A, Agnero-Rigot C, Landrein N, et al. Bhalin, an Essential Cytoskeleton-Associated Protein of Trypanosoma brucei Linking TbBILBO1 of the Flagellar Pocket Collar with the Hook Complex. Microorganisms. 2021;9(11):2334. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9112334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref024] 24.Gadelha C, Rothery S, Morphew M, McIntosh JR, Severs NJ, Gull K. Membrane domains and flagellar pocket boundaries are influenced by the cytoskeleton in African trypanosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(41):17425–30. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909289106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref025] 25.Lacomble S, Vaughan S, Gadelha C, Morphew MK, Shaw MK, McIntosh JR. Basal body movements orchestrate membrane organelle division and cell morphogenesis in Trypanosoma brucei. J Cell Sci. 2010;123(17):2884–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref026] 26.Kalichava A, Ochsenreiter T. Ultrastructure expansion microscopy in Trypanosoma brucei. Open Biol. 2021;11(10):210132. doi: 10.1098/rsob.210132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref027] 27.Gheiratmand L, Brasseur A, Zhou Q, He CY. Biochemical Characterization of the Bi-lobe Reveals a Continuous Structural Network Linking the Bi-lobe to Other Single-copied Organelles in Trypanosoma brucei*. J Biol Chem. 2013. Feb 1;288(5):3489–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref028] 28.Zhou Q, Kurasawa Y, Hu H, Souza Onofre T, Li Z. An orphan kinesin in Trypanosoma brucei regulates hook complex assembly and Golgi biogenesis. mBio. 2024;0(0):e02634-24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref029] 29.Moreira-Leite FF, Sherwin T, Kohl L, Gull K. A trypanosome structure involved in transmitting cytoplasmic information during cell division. Science. 2001;294(5542):610–2. doi: 10.1126/science.1063775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref030] 30.M’Saad O, Bewersdorf J. Light microscopy of proteins in their ultrastructural context. Nature Communications. 2020;11:3850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref031] 31.Robinson DR, Sherwin T, Ploubidou A, Byard EH, Gull K. Microtubule polarity and dynamics in the control of organelle positioning, segregation, and cytokinesis in the trypanosome cell cycle. J Cell Biol. 1995;128(6):1163–72. doi: 10.1083/jcb.128.6.1163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref032] 32.Wheeler RJ, Sunter JD. Coordination of the cell cycle in trypanosomes. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2019;73(1):133–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref033] 33.Ramanantsalama MR, Landrein N, Casas E, Salin B, Blancard C, Bonhivers M, et al. TFK1, a basal body transition fibre protein that is essential for cytokinesis in Trypanosoma brucei. J Cell Sci. 2022;135(11):jcs259893. doi: 10.1242/jcs.259893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref034] 34.Portman N. Deconstructing the trypanosome cytoskeleton: from structures to functions via components and complexes. 2011. [cited 2025 February 3]. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e04fef74-b111-4992-aad6-ddb3169ff95b

[pbio.3003429.ref035] 35.Benz C, Müller N, Kaltenbrunner S, Váchová H, Vancová M, Lukeš J, et al. Kinetoplastid-specific X2-family kinesins interact with a kinesin-like pleckstrin homology domain protein that localizes to the trypanosomal microtubule quartet. Mol Microbiol. 2022;118(3):155–74. doi: 10.1111/mmi.14958 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref036] 36.Höög JL, Lacomble S, Bouchet-Marquis C, Briggs L, Park K, Hoenger A, et al. 3D Architecture of the Trypanosoma brucei Flagella Connector, a Mobile Transmembrane Junction. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(1):e0004312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref037] 37.Morriswood B, Schmidt K. A MORN Repeat Protein Facilitates Protein Entry into the Flagellar Pocket of Trypanosoma brucei. Eukaryot Cell. 2015;14(11):1081–93. doi: 10.1128/EC.00094-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref038] 38.Lemos M, Mallet A, Bertiaux E, Imbert A, Rotureau B, Bastin P. Timing and original features of flagellum assembly in trypanosomes during development in the tsetse fly. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):169. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04026-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref039] 39.Absalon S, Kohl L, Branche C, Blisnick T, Toutirais G, Rusconi F, et al. Basal body positioning is controlled by flagellum formation in Trypanosoma brucei. PLoS One. 2007;2(5):e437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref040] 40.Smithson L, Ihuoma Akazue P, Findlater L, Gwira TM, Vaughan S, Sunter JD. Diversity in new flagellum tip attachment in bloodstream form African trypanosomes. Mol Microbiol. 2022;118(5):510–25. doi: 10.1111/mmi.14979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref041] 41.Pradel LC, Bonhivers M, Landrein N, Robinson DR. NIMA-related kinase TbNRKC is involved in basal body separation in Trypanosoma brucei. J Cell Sci. 2006;119(Pt 9):1852–63. doi: 10.1242/jcs.02900 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref042] 42.Poon SK, Peacock L, Gibson W, Gull K, Kelly S. A modular and optimized single marker system for generating Trypanosoma brucei cell lines expressing T7 RNA polymerase and the tetracycline repressor. Open Biol. 2012;2(2):110037. doi: 10.1098/rsob.110037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref043] 43.Wirtz E, Leal S, Ochatt C, Cross GA. A tightly regulated inducible expression system for conditional gene knock-outs and dominant-negative genetics in Trypanosoma brucei. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1999;99(1):89–101. doi: 10.1016/s0166-6851(99)00002-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref044] 44.Schumann Burkard G, Jutzi P, Roditi I. Genome-wide RNAi screens in bloodstream form trypanosomes identify drug transporters. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2011;175(1):91–4. doi: 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2010.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref045] 45.Dean S, Sunter J, Wheeler RJ, Hodkinson I, Gluenz E, Gull K. A toolkit enabling efficient, scalable and reproducible gene tagging in trypanosomatids. Open Biol. 2015;5(1):140197. doi: 10.1098/rsob.140197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref046] 46.Gambarotto D, Zwettler FU, Le Guennec M, Schmidt-Cernohorska M, Fortun D, Borgers S, et al. Imaging cellular ultrastructures using expansion microscopy (U-ExM). Nat Methods. 2019;16(1):71–4. doi: 10.1038/s41592-018-0238-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref047] 47.Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):676–82. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3003429.ref048] 48.Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):671–5. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Visualization of Trypanosoma brucei flagellar pocket collar biogenesis identifies two new cytoskeletal structures

Marie Zelená

Elina Casas

Chloé Lambert

Nicolas Landrein

Denis Dacheux

Eloïse Bertiaux

Kim Ivan Abesamis

Gang Dong

Vladimir Varga

Derrick Roy Robinson

Mélanie Bonhivers

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Results

Spef1 tracking and U-ExM reveal sequential MtQ formation and flagellum elongation during the cell cycle

Fig 1. U-ExM images showing co-immunolabelling of tubulin and HASpef1 on expanded cytoskeletons.

Sequential BILBO1 localization reveals key steps in FPC biogenesis and identifies novel proFPC and FPC-interconnecting structures

Fig 2. U-ExM immunofluorescence images showing localization of BILBO1 on expanded cytoskeletons.

Cytoskeletal dynamics and FPC-IF formation: shaping the flagellar pocket

Fig 3. A. Representation of the flagellar pocket region in successive stages of flagellar pocket division and new flagellar pocket collar formation.

MORN1 localization during the cell cycle reveals parallel biogenesis pathways for the FPC and the HC

Fig 4. U-ExM immunofluorescence images depicting the formation of the hook vomplex (HC).

BILBO1 and BILBO2 colocalization reveals the distinct molecular composition of the proFPC and FPC-IF

Fig 5. U-ExM immunofluorescence images on expanded cytoskeletons showing that the pro-flagellar pocket collar (proFPC) and FPC-interconnecting fibre (FPC-IF) both contain FPC-specific proteins.

BILBO1, MORN1, and BILBO2 localize to a cytoskeletal structure adjacent to the MtQ

Fig 6. U-ExM immunofluorescence images on expanded cytoskeletons and intensity peaks measurements showing the spatial relationship between the microtubule quartet (MtQ) (tubulin, magenta) and different markers.

BILBO1 knockdown disrupts MtQ orientation but not its assembly

Fig 7. MORN1 (yellow) and tubulin (magenta) labelling on WT cells and BILBO1 RNAi-induced cells.

Discussion

FPC biogenesis occurs de novo

Fig 8. Schematic model of the flagellar pocket collar (FPC) biogenesis during the cell cycle of Trypanosoma brucei.

MtQ biogenesis is independent of the FPC and required for flagellum attachment

Nature of BILBO1-positive structures and insights into HC and FP formation

Unresolved questions in FPC and HC formation

Conclusions

Materials and methods

Cell lines, culture, and transfection

Immunofluorescence

Wide-field and epifluorescence microscopy.

Ultrastructure-expansion microscopy.

Confocal microscopy

Electron microscopy

Statistical analysis

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations:

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Richard Hodge

Roles

Decision Letter 1

Richard Hodge

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 2

Richard Hodge

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 3

Decision Letter 3

Richard Hodge

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

Fig 1. U-ExM images showing co-immunolabelling of tubulin and _HASpef1 on expanded cytoskeletons.