Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2019 Dec 12;15(12):e1008129. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008129

Organising the cell cycle in the absence of transcriptional control: Dynamic phosphorylation co-ordinates the Trypanosoma brucei cell cycle post-transcriptionally

Corinna Benz 1,¤, Michael D Urbaniak 1,*
Editor: Jeremy C Mottram2
PMCID: PMC6907760  PMID: 31830130

Abstract

The cell division cycle of the unicellular eukaryote Trypanosome brucei is tightly regulated despite the paucity of transcriptional control that results from the arrangement of genes in polycistronic units and lack of dynamically regulated transcription factors. To identify the contribution of dynamic phosphorylation to T. brucei cell cycle control we have combined cell cycle synchronisation by centrifugal elutriation with quantitative phosphoproteomic analysis. Cell cycle regulated changes in phosphorylation site abundance (917 sites, average 5-fold change) were more widespread and of a larger magnitude than changes in protein abundance (443 proteins, average 2-fold change) and were mostly independent of each other. Hierarchical clustering of co-regulated phosphorylation sites according to their cell cycle profile revealed that a bulk increase in phosphorylation occurs across the cell cycle, with a significant enrichment of known cell cycle regulators and RNA binding proteins (RBPs) within the largest clusters. Cell cycle regulated changes in essential cell cycle kinases are temporally co-ordinated with differential phosphorylation of components of the kinetochore and eukaryotic initiation factors, along with many RBPs not previously linked to the cell cycle such as eight PSP1-C terminal domain containing proteins. The temporal profiles demonstrate the importance of dynamic phosphorylation in co-ordinating progression through the cell cycle, and provide evidence that RBPs play a central role in post-transcriptional regulation of the T. brucei cell cycle.

Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD013488.

Author summary

Correct control of the cell division cycle is of great importance in all eukaryotes. In Trypanosoma brucei, cell cycle control is also an important component of parasite virulence in the mammalian host, as the proliferative slender form of T. brucei must exit the cell cycle at high parasite burden and differentiate to the division arrested stumpy form, prolonging host survival and allowing pre-adaption for transmission to the insect vector. Trypanosomes have a paucity of transcriptional control, an essential component of cell cycle regulation in model eukaryotes, and rely nearly exclusively on post-transcriptional regulation. We have used phosphoproteomic analysis of synchronised cells to identify >900 cell cycle regulated phosphorylation sites, revealing that dynamic phosphorylation of RNA binding proteins and translation initiation factors play a role in the post-transcriptional regulation of the cell cycle. The wealth of data represents a resource that can be used to drive further studies of diverse cell cycle regulated events.

Introduction

Growth and division of the eukaryotic cell relies on the temporal control of proteins involved in the regulation and progression of the cell cycle. Typically, temporal control is achieved at both the transcriptional level, primarily through transcription factors, and at the protein level by dynamic phosphorylation and degradation. In yeast, a network of transcription factors act in a concerted manner to control the transcription of cell-cycle effectors such as cyclins and Cyclin Dependent Kinases (CDKs) [1, 2]. The interplay of protein phosphorylation through protein kinase and phosphatase feedback loops produces a cyclical change in the CDK—cyclin activity over the cell-cycle, further mediated by targeted proteolytic degradation. The balance of phosphorylation appears to be particularly critical for later stages in the cell cycle, as increasing phosphorylation of selected proteins proceeds mitosis, followed by bulk dephosphorylation on mitotic exit [3, 4].

The kinetoplastids are an early diverged unicellular eukaryotic group that display atypical genome organisation and regulation of gene expression. Several members of the group are of medical and veterinarian importance including Trypanosoma cruzi which causes Chagas disease, Leishmania spp. which causes Leishmaniasis, and Trypanosoma brucei which causes African sleeping sickness in human and Nagana in domestic cattle. T. brucei has a complex digenetic lifecycle between a mammalian host and a tsetse fly vector, and differentially regulates its gene expression to adapt to its host environment despite a near-complete lack of transcription control [5, 6]. Protein coding genes are transcribed by RNA pol II in polycistronic transcription units of functionally unrelated genes which are co-transcriptionally processed by 5’ trans splicing and 3’ polyadenylation to mature mRNA. Post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression occurs through differential mRNA processing, export from the nucleus, translation [7], and mRNA stability [8], and there is growing evidence of the importance of the role of RNA binding proteins (RBPs), particularly in the control of lifecycle-specific gene expression [5].

The cell cycle of T. brucei is highly organised and tightly controlled, reflecting the need to co-ordinate not only nuclear division, but also the division and segregation of the mitochondrial kinetoplast DNA and its single copy organelles such as the ER, Golgi and flagellum [9, 10]. Although many cell cycle regulators such as CDK and cyclins are conserved [11, 12], some cell cycle check points are missing, and absence of transcription factor mediated regulation of gene expression necessitates cell-cycle coordination that is divergent from model eukaryotes. Despite the atypical control mechanisms, studies on synchronised cell populations have revealed that gene expression is regulated over the cell cycle at both the transcript and protein level. Profiling of synchronised cell populations using RNAseq identified 528 differentially regulated mRNAs [13], whilst quantitative proteomics identified 384 differentially regulated proteins [14]. However, only 83 genes were identified as cell cycle regulated (CCR) in both studies, which is likely to reflect both differing experimental approaches as well as differences in the level at which regulation occurs.

A potential mechanism to overcome the paucity of transcriptional control in kinetoplastids is to substitute the use of RBPs for transcription factors in the regulation of the cell cycle. In T. brucei the pumilio/Fem-3 RNA-binding domain containing protein PUF9 is regulated at both the transcript and protein level across the cell cycle [13, 14], and binds an RNA motif present in three targets LIGKA, PNT1 and CPC2 which results in the stabilisation of their mRNA during S-phase [15]. Ablation of PUF9 by RNAi or point mutation of the RNA motif abolishes transcript cycling in the targets and causes cell cycle defects. In the related kinetoplastid Crithidia fasiculata, an RNA motif identified in the transcripts of TOP2, DHFR-TS, KAP3 and RPA1 that peak in early S-phase [16] has been shown to bind a Cycling Sequence Binding Protein II complex (CSBPII) consisting of two RBPs (CfRBP33 & CfRBP45) and a poly A binding protein (CfPABP) [17]. CfRBP33 and CfRBP45 are uniformly expressed but differentially phosphorylated over the cell cycle, with phosphorylation of CfRBP33 preventing RNA binding, but phosphorylation of CfRBP45 promoting RNA binding, providing a direct link between dynamic phosphorylation of RBPs and regulation of transcript abundance. Syntenic homologues of CfRBP33 and CfRBP45 have been identified in the T. brucei genome, but are referred to as TbCSBPII-33 (Tb927.11.7140) and TbCSBPII-45 (Tb927.5.760) to avoid confusion with an unrelated RNA binding motif protein RBP33 (Tb927.8.990). A similar consensus motif can be identified in the T. brucei homologues TbTOP2, TbKAP3 and TbDHFR-TS, and their transcripts also vary across the cell cycle [13], supporting suggestions that the mechanism is conserved in T. brucei. Interestingly, we have previously reported the phosphorylation of TbCSBPII-33, TbCSBPII-45, PUF9 and other RBPs in asynchronous T. brucei cells [18], suggesting that the link between dynamic phosphorylation of RBPs and regulation of transcript abundance may be widespread.

In the present study we use an unbiased approach to elucidate the role of phosphorylation in the post-transcriptional regulation of the T. brucei cell cycle by quantifying the global changes in phosphorylation site and protein abundance that occur, and relate these observations to CCR events. We have exploited our recently optimised centrifugal elutriation synchronisation protocol for procyclic form (Pcf) T. brucei [19] in combination with SILAC based quantitative phosphoproteomics [18, 20] to identify 917 CCR phosphorylation sites and 443 CCR proteins. These data reveal that widespread changes in phosphorylation site abundance occur across the cell cycle in known cell cycle regulators and many RBPs, suggesting that RBPs may function as novel elements of cell cycle regulation.

Results

Quantitative proteomic and phosphoproteomic analysis to monitor changes over the cell cycle

To quantify the change in phosphorylation site and protein abundance occurring over the cell cycle, we combined SILAC labelling of Pcf T. brucei cells with counter-flow centrifugal elutriation to select tightly synchronised cell populations (Fig 1A). We have optimised a protocol for counter-flow centrifugal elutriation that is able to select a high quality population of early G1 cells (95–97% G1) that have uniform size and DNA content, which when placed back into culture progress through the cell cycle without lag and maintain synchrony into three subsequent cell cycles [19]. SILAC labelled Pcf T. brucei cells were obtained by growth in SDM-79 SILAC media [20] supplemented with normal (Light) or 2H, 13C, 15N isotopically labelled (Heavy) L-Arginine and L-Lysine for at least 7 cell division prior to enrichment of an early G1 population by elutriation. Additional points in the cell cycle were obtained by placing the early G1 population back into culture in fresh SILAC media, or by direct elutriation from the asynchronous culture. The position of each sample in the cell cycle was determined by analysis of DNA content using flow cytometry, which was then used to group the samples into six cell cycle time points corresponding to early G1 (EG1), late G1 (LG1), early S (ES), late S (LS), early G2/M (EG2M), and late G2/M (LG2M) (Fig 1B and S1 Table). The procedure was repeated, including label-swapping experiments where the identity of the SILAC label is switched, until three biological replicates were obtained at each of the six cell cycle time points. Since conventional SILAC labelling is limited to three isotopic labels (Light, Medium and Heavy), a variation of ‘spike-in SILAC’ [21] was employed whereby a Medium SILAC labelled asynchronous cell population was used as an internal control to allow comparison across multiple samples (Fig 1B).

Fig 1. Schematic overview of the experimental workflow.

Fig 1

A. An early G1 population was selected from an asynchronous culture of SILAC labelled cells using counter-flow centrifugal elutriation [19] and cultured prior to harvest at various time points, with position in the cell cycle recorded by flow cytometry of DNA content. B. Samples were grouped into recognisable cell cycle time points, and differentially labelled time points were combined with a medium-labelled asynchronous control. The combined sample was processed to tryptic peptides and subjected to Fe-IMAC to separate the peptides from phosphopeptides, which were then processed in parallel. High pH reverse phase separation was used to fractionate the sample, and concatenated to 5 fractions prior to LC-MS/MS analysis. DDA–Data dependent acquisition; MSA–Multi-stage activation.

To facilitate analysis, a robust and reproducible sample preparation workflow was developed that balanced the depth of coverage with the cost of analysis (Fig 1B). An equal number of cells from each of two cell cycle time points (Light and Heavy) and the asynchronous control (Medium) were combined prior to denaturation, reductive alkylation and tryptic digest using filter-aided sample preparation [22]. Tryptic peptides and phosphopeptides were separated by Fe-IMAC [23] and processed in parallel using high pH reversed phase fractionation [24] to reduce complexity prior to analysis by liquid chromatography (LC)—tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS).

Analysis of the combined 135 LC-MS/MS runs quantified a total of 10,119 phosphorylation sites on 2,695 phosphoproteins with >0.95 localisation probability, and quantified a total of 4,629 proteins. To identify the phosphorylation sites and proteins regulated over the cell cycle, the biological replicates were averaged and normalised to the EG1 sample (95–97% G1) to give abundance ratios relative to the start of the cell cycle, then filtered to exclude species not observed at all six time points, leaving 5,949 phosphorylation sites on 2,045 phosphoproteins (S2 Table) and 3,619 proteins (S3 Table). Phosphorylation sites and proteins were classified as CCR if they had a maximum fold change (FCMax) ≥ 3-fold across the cell cycle for phosphorylation sites or FCMax ≥ 1.5-fold for proteins. According to these criteria our analysis identified 917 CCR phosphorylation sites (on 586 proteins) with an average of 5.4-fold change (S4 Table), and 443 CCR proteins with an average of 1.9-fold change (S5 Table). We visualized the data by calculating the peak time (tpeak), the point in the cell cycle where the phosphorylation site or protein abundance reaches a maximum, and used this value to order the expression profiles in increasing tpeak (Fig 2A). The data was also projected onto a polar plot of tpeak versus FCMax to visualize the magnitude of the change in the abundance at the time of peak expression (Fig 2B). The CCR phosphorylation site are depleted in G1 time points compared to S and G2/M time points, whereas the CCR proteins are more evenly distributed across the six cell cycle time points, suggesting that changes in protein phosphorylation are more closely correlated with progression through the cell cycle than changes in protein abundance.

Fig 2. Cell cycle regulated phosphorylation sites and proteins.

Fig 2

A. Species ordered in increasing peak time (tpeak) and rendered as a heat map of fold change scaled to the unit integer. B. CCR species projected on a polar plot of peak time tpeak (angle of polar coordinate) versus the maximum fold change FCMax.(distance from the centre). Five phosphorylation sites showing > 100-fold change were excluded for clarity.

The overall changes in phosphorylation status observed were of a larger magnitude and were more numerous than the changes at the protein level (Fig 3A). Of the 5,949 phosphorylation sites quantified at all six time points 4,393 (74%) were also quantified at the protein level, demonstrating the high coverage of the proteomic data. From the 917 phosphorylation sites classified as CCR 610 phosphorylation sites (66%) were also quantified at the protein level but only 147 (16%) of the CCR phosphorylation sites were classified as also CCR at the protein level (Fig 3B). Of the 610 CCR phosphorylation site also quantified at the protein level, 541 (88%) still showed FCMax ≥ 3-fold across the cell cycle after changes in protein abundance were taken into account. The lack of overlap between the CCR phosphorylation sites and CCR proteins suggest that the changes in phosphorylation that occur across the cell cycle are for the most part independent of changes in protein abundance.

Fig 3. Comparison of cell cycle regulated phosphorylation sites and proteins.

Fig 3

A. Venn diagram of overlap at the protein level (proteins and phosphoproteins). B. Scatter plot of overlap at the phosphorylation site level (proteins versus phosphorylation sites); Grey, not CCR; Purple, phosphorylation site CCR; Orange, protein CCR; Red, protein and phosphorylation site CCR.

Clustering of cell cycle regulated phosphorylation sites and proteins

To examine the patterns of co-regulation amongst the CCR phosphorylation sites and proteins, unrestrained hierarchical clustering was performed using the Euclidean distance of the complete profile to cluster together species showing similar patterns of temporal regulation over the cell cycle. Hierarchical clustering divided the 917 CCR phosphorylation site into 30 clusters of between 124 and 2 members (Clusters Phos-01 to Phos-30, Fig 4). The six largest phosphorylation site clusters Phos-01 to Phos-06 contained 56% of all the CCR phosphorylation sites, and each of these clusters showed a trend of increasing phosphorylation across the cell cycle (Fig 4B and 4C). Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of the six largest phosphorylation site clusters using GO Slim ontology identified a number of significantly enriched (P < 0.05) GO terms dominated by processes involved in cell cycle regulation including “mitotic cell cycle”, “cell cycle” and “chromosome segregation” (4/6 clusters) and “cell division” (3/6 clusters). Interestingly “RNA binding” and “mRNA Binding” were also significantly enriched (3/6 clusters), supporting the proposal that RNA binding proteins play a role in the regulation of the cell cycle.

Fig 4. Hierarchical clustering of cell cycle regulated phosphorylation sites.

Fig 4

A. Unrestrained hierarchical clustering was performed using Euclidean distance of the complete linkage, generating 30 clusters (Phos-01 to Phos-30). The relationship between the clusters is rendered as a tree, and the profiles are rendered as a heat map. B. Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of clusters Phos-01 –Phos-06 (red bars), containing >50% of the CCR phosphorylation sites, identifies GO terms related to cell cycle and mRNA. C. Individual phosphorylation sites profiles by cluster; number of cluster members is given in brackets, and the profiles are coloured by the Euclidean distance from the centre (mean profile).

Hierarchical clustering of the 443 CCR proteins using the same similarity cut-off produced 29 clusters of between 32 and 4 members (Clusters Prot-01 to Prot-29, S2 and S3 Figs). The sizes of the protein clusters were more evenly distributed than the sizes of the phosphorylation site clusters, with the largest 10 clusters Prot-01 to Prot-10 containing ~50% of all CCR proteins. Only 3/10 of the largest protein profiles showed a consistent increase across the cell cycle, and Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis identified more diverse significantly enriched terms (P < 0.05), with fewer involved in the cell cycle (S4 Fig).

Cell cycle regulation of protein kinases

The T. brucei genome contains between 176–182 putative protein kinases (PKs) [25, 26], and our data contains 54 CCR phosphorylation sites (average FCMax 5-fold) on 37 PKs, with 12 PKs CCR at the protein level (average FCMax 2-fold) (S5 Fig). PKs with CCR phosphorylation sites include many that have been demonstrated to be essential, and where RNAi ablation in the bloodstream form causes a cell cycle defect, including CLK1/KKT10, CRK3, KKT3, MAPK6, PK50, PLK, RCK, TOR4, TLK2 and WEE1 [2729]. In addition the data set contains 8 CCR phosphorylation sites (average FCMax 10-fold) on 3 cyclins, and 3 cyclins are CCR at the protein level (average FCMax of 2-fold). Some essential cell cycle kinases such as CRK1, CRK6, CRK9, GSK3 and AUK1 were not observed, potentially due to their low abundance.

The CDK related kinase 3 (CRK3) and its partner mitotic cyclin 6 (CYC6) are essential for the G2/M transition in T. brucei [11, 12]. The abundance of CRK3 alters 2.5-fold over the cell cycle (Fig 5A), and the protein contains 2 CCR phosphorylation sites pT33 (FCMax 7-fold) and pY34 (FCMax 9-fold) that appear to correspond with the inhibitory sites pT14 and pY15 on human CDK1 [2]. No phosphorylation of CRK3 occurred at the T-loop threonine residue, which typically is required to increase CDK activity, consistent with the observation that T-loop phosphorylation is not required for Leishmania CRK3 protein kinase activity [30]. The abundance of CYC6 alters 1.6-fold over the cell cycle and the protein contains 6 CCR phosphorylation sites (Fig 5B) pS13 and pS16 (FCMax 7-fold each) and pS47, pS59, pS71 and pS111 (FCMax 15 to 25-fold). Several of the CRK3 and CYC6 phosphorylation sites show similar temporal regulation with three CYC6 sites (pS59, pS71 and pS111) and CRK3 pT33 present in Cluster Phos-02, and CYC6 pS47 and CRK3 pY34 present in Cluster Phos-03. Expression of a truncated CYC6 protein fusion (GFP-NLS-CYC6Δ1–57) to remove a putative destruction box (residues 54–57) arrests the nucleus in a metaphase-like state but does not prevent cytokinesis [31], and the lack of the S13, S16 and S47 CCR phosphorylation sites may contribute to this effect through the loss of CCR negative charge that results. Kinase motif enrichment analysis for the canonical CDK phosphorylation site motif (pS/pT)PX(R/K) shows significant enrichment within the Cluster Phos-02 (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR 3.4 × 10−8) with 28 putative CDK phosphorylation sites on 25 proteins. The only other phosphorylation site cluster to be significantly enriched (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR < 0.05) for canonical CDK motifs was Cluster Phos-01 (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR 1.1 × 10−3), which also contains the WEE1 pS101 site (FCMax 9-fold) (Fig 5C). In humans, WEE1 is responsible for the inhibitory phosphorylation of CDK1 Y15, and itself inhibited by phosphorylation [2]. The co-ordinated patterns of temporal regulation for phosphorylation of CRK3, CYC6 and WEE1 corresponding with enrichment of CDK phosphorylation site motifs supports the suggestion that the 49 putative CDK phosphorylation sites identified may be targeted by CRK3-CYC6 and have an important role in cell cycle progression. However, the absence of CRK3 T-loop phosphorylation and the temporal correlation of canonical CDK activity with CRK3 phosphorylation on pT33 and pY34 suggest that alternative mechanisms of control may operate.

Fig 5. Cell cycle regulated protein kinases and RNA binding proteins.

Fig 5

Changes in protein or phosphorylation site abundance relative to EG1. Orange–protein; Purple hues–phosphorylation sites. A. CRK3 protein, Y34 and T33. B. CYC6 protein, S13, S17, S111, S47 and S59. C. WEE1 S101. D. PLK protein, S338 and T469. E. RCK protein and S344. F. MAPK6 proteins and Y176, G. PUF9 protein and S617. H. RMM1 protein and S98. I. SLBP2 S221, T3 and T400. For clarity only CCR phosphorylation sites are shown.

The T. brucei PLK is required for cytokinesis and displays dynamic localisation during the cell cycle, localising to the basal body in ES phase and distal tip of the flagellum attachment zone (FAZ) during G2/M [32, 33]. The abundance of PLK is regulated over the cell cycle (FCMax 2-fold), and the protein has two CCR phosphorylation sites pS388 and pT469 (both FCMax 15-fold) that are found in Cluster Phos-03 (Fig 5D). Phosphorylation of the PLK T-loop at pT198 and pT202 was observed to increase across the cell cycle, but was excluded from our analysis as these sites could not be quantified at all six time points. Annotation enrichment analysis for previously identified putative PLK substrates and binders [34, 35] showed that Cluster Phos-03 is significantly enriched (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR 8.7 × 10−9) for putative PLK substrates (12 sites) and Cluster Phos-01 is significantly enriched for both PLK substrates (10 sites) and binders (6 sites) (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR 9.9 × 10−6 and 0.013). PLK substrates present in Clusters Phos-01 and Phos-03 include TOEFAZ/CIF1, Flagella connector protein 1, hook complex protein (Tb927.10.8820) and FAZ15. Although the previously identified phosphorylation sites on the putative PLK substrates were typically observed, they were not usually classified as CCR, and a distinct set of phosphorylation sites were identified as CCR including the sites TOEFAZ/CIF1 pT650, Flagella connector protein 1 pS879 and hook complex protein pS547 that match the canonical PLK Polo Box Domain (PBD) binding motif S(pS/pT)(X/P). The presence of a PLK PBD binding motif was also observed in the SAS-4 protein (pS748, Cluster Phos-03) which localises to the distal tip of the FAZ [36] and associates with TOEFAZ/CIF1 [37], suggesting it may have a role in PLK localisation.

Two PKs show a very distinct peak in phosphorylation site abundance at a single time point; MAPK6 pY176 (FCMax 4-fold) and RCK pS344 (FCMax 9-fold) that both peak at the EG2M only (Fig 5E and 5F) and belong to Cluster Phos-10 (24 members). Ablation of either MAPK6 or RCK by RNAi causes a cytokinesis defect in bloodstream form parasites [27], and ablation of MAPK6 in the procyclic form causes a cytokinesis defect related to stalled furrow ingression [29]. These observations suggest that these phosphorylation sites may be required to complete cytokinesis.

Dynamic phosphorylation of kinetochore proteins

The kinetochore proteins of T. brucei have recently been identified, and although they bear little sequence similarity to other eukaryotic kinetochore components they appear to be functional homologues [38, 39]. Of the 49 phosphorylation sites observed on kinetochore proteins, 22 are classified as CCR with an average FCMax of 10-fold, and 5 kinetochore proteins are classified as CCR at the protein level (KKT8, KKT10, KKT17, KKT18, KKT19) with an average FCMax of 3-fold. The CCR phosphorylation sites occur in 8 different clusters and show peaks in abundance that occur from ES to LG2M that broadly correspond with their reported complex formation and sub-cellular localisation during the cell cycle [38], suggesting that the dynamic phosphorylation may play an important role in kinetochore assembly (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Phosphorylation of the kinetochore is temporally regulated.

Fig 6

Schematic of predicted kinetochore proteins complexes [38], with CCR phosphorylation sites and proteins rendered as a heat map of fold change scaled to the unit integer. KKT–kinetoplastid kinetochore; KKIP–kinetoplastid kinetochore interacting protein; red–CCR; black–not CCR, grey–not observed.

The largest changes in phosphorylation of the kinetochore proteins (FCMax >30-fold) occurs on KKT1 (pS1183) and KKT7 (pS16, pS453) that peak during LS and remain high through G2/M and, which together with KKT5 and KKT6 (not observed), form a complex that localises to the kinetochore from S-phase through G2/M. In contrast, the phosphorylation of KKT13 at pS205, pS214 and pS250 reaches a maximum during S-phase and decreases in G2/M, correlating with its punctate nuclear localisation only observed during S-phase. Dynamic phosphorylation of three components of the complex composed of KKT8, KKT9, KKT10, KKT11, KKT12 and KKT19 is observed, with phosphorylation of KKT8 pT5, KKT9 pT196, and KKT9 pS297 (average FCMax 25-fold) peaking during LS/EG2M then decreasing, whilst phosphorylation of the essential protein kinase CLK1/KKT10 at pT41 and pS74 (average FCMax 11-fold) peaks only during LG2M. Both KKT8 and KKT10 protein abundance increases 5-fold over the cell cycle and is co-ordinated with their increased phosphorylation (Fig 6).

Whilst the majority of kinetochore phosphorylation sites increases in abundance across the cell cycle, the abundance of the essential protein kinase KKT3 pS791 is highest in EG1 and progressively falls 3.5-fold by LG2M. KKT3 has previously been shown to be enriched in centromeric regions of the mega-base chromosomes [38] and contains a pS771 site within a putative DNA binding SPKK domain, which although not classified as CCR, steadily increases in abundance 2-fold over the cell cycle peaking in LG2M. The phosphorylation of the kinase KKT2 that forms a complex with KKT3 and KKT4 (neither CCR) displays an opposite pattern of phosphorylation change to KKT3, with KKT2 pS5, pS508 and pS856 low in G1 and peaking in G2/M. Recently, Saldivia et al have shown that the phosphorylation of KKT2 S508 is essential for KKT2 function and kinetochore assembly, and that KKT2 S508 is phosphorylated by CLK1/KKT10 [40]. The phosphatase KKIP7 also displays an atypical cell cycle abundance, with KKIP7 pS142 and pS275 falling from EG1 to reach a minimum in S-phase before rising sharply in G2/M, correlating with the localisation of KKIP7 to the kinetochore only in metaphase [39].

Dynamic phosphorylation of RNA binding proteins

In addition to proteins containing recognisable RNA binding domains, mRNA tethering screens and crosslinking proteomics have identified additional T. brucei proteins that interact directly with mRNA [41, 42]. The CCR phosphorylation sites are significantly enriched for RBPs (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR 9.2 × 10−3) and include 79 CCR phosphorylation sites (average FCMax 5-fold) on 51 RNA binding proteins (RBPs) (S6 Fig). Likewise, CCR regulated proteins are significantly enriched for RBPs (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR 7.8 × 10−3) with 13 RBPs CCR at the protein level. Six RBPs were CCR at the protein level alone and 7 at both the protein and phosphorylation site level, although of these 13 only PUF9 (8-fold) and the PSP1 C-terminal domain (PCD) containing proteins PCD1 (6-fold) and PCD2 (4-fold) changed > 2-fold at the protein level. RBPs with CCR phosphorylation sites included representatives of a number of well characterised groups such as Zinc-finger proteins (15 sites), annotated RNA-binding proteins (15 sites) and Pumilio/Fem-3 proteins (7 sites).

PUF9 has previously been observed to be regulated at the transcript [13] and protein level (5-fold) [14], and causes an S-phase peak of three target transcripts LIGKA, PNT1 and CPC2 [15]. In addition to regulation at the protein level, we observe phosphorylation site PUF9 pS617 to be strongly CCR (Fig 5), suggesting that dynamic phosphorylation contributes to the regulation and/or function of PUF9. We do not observe any of the three PUF9 targets proteins, so are unable to confirm whether they cycle at the protein level. Although PUF2, PUF3 and PUF4 are not CCR at the protein level (FCMax ≤ 1.5-fold), each has CCR phosphorylation sites, providing evidence that these PUFs may also have a role in stabilising a subset of mRNAs over the cell cycle.

The SR-related protein TbRMM1 has been shown to associate with mRNA and have a role in modulating chromatin structure [43], with ablation by RNA interference producing cell cycle defects [44]. Our data shows that TbRMM1 is not CCR at the protein level, but that phosphorylation of pS98 is moderately up-regulated during S-phase (Fig 5).

The histone mRNA stem-loop-binding protein TbSLBP2 (Tb927.3.870) has recently been reported to be transiently expressed during the cell-cycle and form a novel complex with the mRNA cap binding TbeIF4E-2, supporting a potential role in the differential selection of mRNA for translation [45]. We do not observe phosphorylation of TbeIF4E-2, but observe phosphorylation of TbSLBP2 pT3, pS221 and pT400 to be strongly up-regulated in S-phase (Fig 5), and a more moderate up-regulation of TbSLBP1 (Tb927.3.1910) pS39, pT49, pS71 in S-phase, but were unable to quantify either at the protein level. In mammals phosphorylation of SLBP pT60 by cyclin A/Cdk1 triggers degradation of the protein at the end of S-phase [46]. Whilst the protein domain architecture differs in T. brucei [45], the phosphorylation sites SLBP1 pT49 and SLBP2 pT3 both occur in the canonical CDK sequence recognition motif, suggesting that the effect may be conserved.

Dynamic phosphorylation of translational machinery

Amongst the RBPs with CCR phosphorylation sites there is a significant enrichment of the GO term “translational initiation factor activity” (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR 2.7 × 10−3). The T. brucei genome has an expanded complement of components of the eIF4F cap-dependent initiation complex subunits with two eIF4A, six eIF4E and five eIF4G variants, providing an opportunity for greater complexity in translational control. The TbeIF4F complex composed of TbeIF4A-1, TbeIF4E-4 and TbeIF4G-3 interacts with poly A binding protein 1 (PABP1), and CRK1-dependent phosphorylation of TbeIF4E-4 and PABP1 has recently been shown to be required for the G1/S cell cycle transition [47]. However, as site directed mutagenesis of all seven putative CRK1 phosphorylation sites on TbeIF4E-4 and all three putative CRK1 phosphorylation sites on PABP1 was used, it remains unclear which of the site(s) is required. Of the 3 phosphorylation sites we observe on PABP1, only pT484 (Cluster Phos-10) is classified as CCR and first increases 2-fold in S-phase, then 3.5-fold in early G2/M (Fig 7A). Of the 11 phosphorylation sites we observe on TbeIF4E-4 none are classified as CCR, although pS152 and pS154 on TbeIF4E-4 both increase 2.5-fold in S phase. TbeIF4A-1 was also observed to be phosphorylated at three sites, but none were classed as CCR, and TbeIF4G-3 was not observed to be phosphorylated. As global phosphoproteomics measures the average change in phosphorylation status, we cannot rule out the possibility that changes in the specific TbeIF4E-4—TbeIF4G-3—TbeIF4A-1 complex are higher.

Fig 7. Dynamic phosphorylation of the translational machinery.

Fig 7

A. Schematic of eIF4F complexes with CCR phosphorylation sites rendered as a heat map of fold change scaled to the unit integer. The components bound to DED1 have not been identified in T. brucei. B. Cumulative growth curve of tetracycline inducible RNAi of DED1.2 in two independent clones, with qRT-PCR inset confirming ablation of DED1.2 mRNA at 48h. C. Flow cytometry analysis of DNA content of DED1.2 RNAi time course shows accumulation of a sub-G1 population. D. Microscopy of DAPI stained DED1.2 RNAi time course shows disintegration of nuclear integrity.

A second TbeIF4F complex composed of TbeIF4A-1, TbeIF4E-3, and either TbeIF4G-3 or TbeIF4G-4 has been identified, and ablation of TbeIF4E-3 by RNAi is rapidly lethal [48]. Whilst 4 TbeIF4G-4 phosphorylation sites were not CCR, dynamic phosphorylation of TbeIF4E-3 was strongly up-regulated in early G2/M (FCMax 5- to 10-fold) at four closely spaced sites pT153, pT158, pT153 and pS162 that occur in the unusual N-terminal extension (Fig 7A), suggesting that phosphorylation of the TbeIF4A-1—TbeIF4E-3—TbeIF4G-3/4 complex may promote translation at the G2M transition.

In the closely related kinetoplastid Leishmania two homologues of the DEAD box RNA helicase DED1/DDX3 protein (LeishDED1.1 and LeishDED1.1) form a complex with eIF4G and eIF4E, and have a role in translation initiation [49]. We observe that CCR phosphorylation of TbDED1.2 (Tb927.9.12510) at pS48 was up regulated in early G2/M (FCMax 5-fold) at a site not found in TbDED1.1 (Tb927.10.14550), whilst the protein level of TbDED1.2 was unchanged (Fig 7A). Since genetic ablation of mRNA by RNA interference (RNAi) causes a strong growth defect for TbDED1.2 but not TbDED1.1 [49], we decided to investigate if ablation of TbDED1.2 resulted in a cell cycle defect. Genetic ablation of TbDED1.2 was performed using tetracycline-inducible RNAi in two independent clones, with induction of RNAi resulting in efficient ablation of mRNA after 24 h and cessation of growth after 48 hours (Fig 7B). Analysis of DNA content by flow cytometry showed cessation of growth was accompanied by a reduction in G1 cells and an accumulation of cells in G2/M at 48 h, with a subsequent reduction of cells in G2/M and accumulation of a sub-G1 population lacking the normal nuclear material at 72 and 96 h (Figs 7C and S7). Microscopy of DAPI stained cells revealed that upon RNAi induction, a sub-population of cells displayed reduced nuclear integrity, or had lost the nucleus entirely (termed zoids) (Fig 7D). These observations suggest that ablation of TbDED1.2 results in cells that are failing to correctly complete G2/M, potentially due to failure of replication or stalled mitosis, but subsequently proceed through cytokinesis to produce cells with insufficient nuclear material. Taken together these observations suggest a novel role for the T. brucei homologue of DED1/DDX3 in the cell cycle, and suggest that TbDED1.2—TbeIF4E- TbeIF4G complex may act to regulate a subset of transcripts across the cell cycle in response to dynamic phosphorylation.

PSP1 C-terminal domain containing proteins are cell cycle regulated

There are 11 proteins in the T. brucei genome that contain a PSP1-C terminal domain (Pfam:PF04468; S7 Table), a domain of unclear biological function that was originally identified in yeast due to its ability to suppress mutations in DNA polymerase alpha and delta [50]. Our data set detects 8 PSP1 C-terminal Domain (PCD) proteins, and classifies them all as CCR at the level of phosphorylation site and/or protein abundance (Fig 8).

Fig 8. Cell cycle regulated PSP1-C terminal domain containing proteins.

Fig 8

Schematic representation of protein showing the PSP1-C domain and CCR phosphorylation sites, with CCR proteins and/or phosphorylation sites rendered as a heat map of Log2 Fold change. CSBPII33 –Tb927.11.7140; CSBPI45 –Tb927.5.760; PCD1 –Tb927.11.14750; PCD2 –Tb927.11.4180; PCD3 –Tb927.10.9910; PCD4 –Tb927.10.9910; PCD5 –Tb927.10.11630; PIE8 –Tb927.6.2850.

Three PCD proteins PCD1, PCD2 and PCD3 change in abundance at both the phosphorylation site (FCMax 5.8 to 25-fold) and protein level (FCMax 3.8 to 6.0-fold) across the cell cycle, and have amongst the largest changes in abundance observed. The PCD1, PCD2 and PCD3 transcripts are known to be CCR [13], and their change in protein abundance across the cell cycle has recently been reported [14]. Three other PSP1 domain proteins TbCSBPII-33, TbCSBPII-45 and PCD4 have CCR phosphorylation sites (FCMax 4.6 to 17-fold), but are not regulated at the protein level (FCMax ≤ 1.5-fold). Whilst the mRNA level of the putative TbCSBPII-33 and TbCSBPII-45 targets TbTOP2, TbKAP3 and TbDHFR-TS varies across the cell cycle [13], none of the proteins were classified as CCR in our proteomic analysis. The PCD protein PIE8 (Protein Associated with ESAG8, Tb927.6.2850) had a single CCR phosphorylation site (FCMax 7.3-fold) and was not identified in our protein data, but has been reported to be regulated at both the transcript [13] and protein level [14]. PCD5 (Tb927.10.11630) was found to be moderately CCR at the protein level (FCMax 1.7-fold), but not at the phosphorylation site level (FCMax ≤ 3-fold). As PCD1, PCD2, PCD4, PCD6 and TbCSBPII-33 directly bind mRNA [41], we investigated whether a selection of the PCD proteins have a role in the post-transcriptional regulation of the cell cycle.

In situ tagging of an endogenous allele was used to monitor the expression and localisation of PCD1, PCD2, PCD3, TbCSBPII-33 and TbCSBPII-45 during the cell cycle. Proteins were tagged with either a triple HA epitope or mNeonGreen at the N-terminus to maintain the endogenous 3’UTR and minimise disruption of any post-transcriptional regulation [51]. The sub-cellular localisation of the five HA-PCD proteins was determined using anti-HA immunofluorescence microscopy to visualise the HA-tagged proteins (S8 Fig). All five proteins had punctate cytosolic localisation, consistent with a role in mRNA binding. Their localisation did not alter in 1N1K, 1N2K or 2N2K cells, suggesting that sub-cellular localisation is not significantly altered over the cell cycle in response to changes in phosphorylation site or protein abundance

Tagged cell lines were synchronised by counter-flow centrifugal elutriation, placed back into culture, and the position within the cell cycle monitored by flow cytometry. Expression of the tagged protein across the cell cycle was monitored by either flow cytometry (PCD1 and PCD3) or by western blotting when protein abundance was low. The protein expression profile of the synchronised cells was in good agreement with the proteomic data, with expression of PCD1, PCD2 and PCD3 peaking in S-phase cells and no significant change in abundance of TbCSBPII-33 and TbCSBPII-45 (Fig 9). Genetic ablation of each of the HA-tagged PCD proteins was performed using tetracycline-inducible RNAi in two independent clones. Upon induction of RNAi by addition of tetracycline, western blots showed strong ablation of PCD1, PCD2, PCD3 and CSBPII-45 protein levels within 24 h but resulted in no significant change in parasite growth (Fig 9, right panel) or the proportion of cells in each cell cycle phase over seven days despite western blots confirming ablation was maintained throughout the period of induction (S9 Fig). The ablation of CSBPII-33 protein upon induction of RNAi was slower with maximum ablation achieved after 48 h, potentially reflecting slower protein turnover, but still resulted in no significant change in parasite growth (Fig 9, right panel) or the proportion of cells in each cell cycle phase over seven days. These observations demonstrate that whilst the PCD proteins are CCR, their localisation is not dynamically regulated and the individual proteins are likely not essential for successful completion of the cell cycle.

Fig 9. PSP1-C domain containing proteins are CCR but not essential.

Fig 9

Left panel–CCR changes in phosphorylation site and protein abundance relative to early G1 (EG1). Centre panel–Expression profile of tagged proteins in cells synchronised in early G1 by centrifugal elutriation; flow cytometry of PI stained cells for cell cycle position, and corresponding analysis of protein expression by flow cytometry (mNeonGreen) or western blot (HA). Right panel–cumulative cell growth with and without induction of RNAi by addition of tetracycline for two independent cell lines; insets show western blot of HA-tagged proteins and KMX1 tubulin loading control.

The T. brucei CSBPII complex

To determine the composition of the putative TbCSBPII complex, we performed anti-HA immunoprecipitation (IP) of the HA-tagged TbCSBPII-33 and TbCSBPII-45 from SILAC labelled cells and quantified the enrichment of proteins isolated relative to the parental untagged cell line. Western blots of the unbound and bound fractions confirmed that efficient IP of HA-TbCSBPII-33 and HA-TbCSBPII-45 occurred (S10 Fig). When performing IP with HA-TbCSBPII-45 bait the most enriched protein was TbCSBPII-45 (40-fold) as expected, but surprisingly TbCSBPII-33 was not enriched (< 1.1-fold), and only moderate enrichment of the poly A binding protein PABP2 (5-fold) was observed (Fig 10A, S6 Table). Gene Ontology enrichment analysis of the 26 proteins enriched > 4-fold in the HA-TbCSBPII-45 IP identified significantly over-represented GO terms relating to the ribosome (P = 5.8 × 10−14), translation (P = 1.8 × 10−19) and RNA binding (P = 1.2 × 10−3). For IP with HA-TbCSBPII-33 bait the most enriched protein was TbCSBPII-33 (275-fold), but surprisingly PCD4 was also highly enriched (228-fold) whilst the PABP2 was moderately enriched (53-fold), and TbCSBPII-45 was not enriched (< 1.5-fold) (Fig 10B, S6 Table). Gene Ontology enrichment analysis of the 140 proteins enriched > 4-fold in the HA-TbCSBPII-33 IP identified significantly over-represented GO terms relating to the ribosome (P = 6.2 × 10−50), translation (P = 2.3 × 10−68) and mRNA binding (P = 3.3 × 10−41). Plotting the average enrichment of proteins in HA-TbCSBPII-33 IP against the HA-TbCSBPII-45 IP shows that the two protein do not co-purify, and that each enriched a slightly different subset of proteins (Fig 10C). Interestingly, both TbCSBPII-33 and PCD4 have been found to bind mRNA, as demonstrated for the CfCSBPII proteins, whereas TbCSBPII-45 has not. A BLAST search with the CfRBP45 protein sequence (AY729047.1, 45 kDa) against the T. brucei genome identified TbCSBPII-45 (E value 4 × 10−70, 79 kDa), PCD1 (E value 1 × 10−33, 42 kDa) and PCD4 (E value 3 × 10−30, 49kDa), although only TbCSBPII-45 was syntenic. TbCSBPII-45 has an N-terminal extension in making it almost twice as long as the Crithidia protein and other CSBPII-45 homologs in Leishmania, suggesting that gene duplication and diversification has occurred in T. brucei. Whilst we cannot eliminate the possibility that the introduction of the HA tag has disrupted the function of the tagged proteins, the co-immunoprecipitation of TbCSBPII-33 and PCD4 is consistent with formation of a TbCSBPII-33 –PCD4 complex that is likely to include mRNA, and that interacts with the translation machinery in the ribosome as well as other RBPs including PABP2.

Fig 10. Immunoprecipitation of the T. brucei CSBPII complex proteins.

Fig 10

A. IP of HA-TbCSBPII-45 with anti-HA beads from SILAC labelled cells (M or H) versus parental cells (L), biological replicates with label swap. B. IP of HA-TbCSBPII-33 with anti-HA beads from SILAC labelled cells (M or H) versus parental cells (L), biological replicates with label swap. C. Comparison of IP with HA-TbCSBPII-33 and HA-TbCSBPII-45 using averaged SILAC ratios from biological replicates. Grey–proteins identified in both replicates, Red–ribosomal proteins, Blue—TbCSBPII-45, Green–TbCSBPII-33, Purple–PCD4, Yellow–PABP2.

Discussion

The regulation of the eukaryotic cell cycle relies on three main strategies; regulation of transcription mediated by transcription factors, dynamic phosphorylation mediated by opposing action of protein kinases and phosphatases, and targeted protein degradation via the ubiquitin-proteasome system. The early branching eukaryote T. brucei contains many identifiable proteins kinases and phosphatases, and has a functional ubiquitin-proteasome system, but a paucity of transcription control [5, 6] requires a reliance on post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. Analysis of the T. brucei CCR phosphoproteome confirms that a bulk increase in phosphorylation abundance occurs across the cell cycle resulting in peak phosphorylation in mitosis. An additional peak in phosphorylation abundance that occurs during S-phase could be due to initiation of nuclear replication or related to division of kinetoplast DNA, which occurs concurrently to nuclear S phase in the cell cycle [51]. In addition to known cell cycle players, the CCR phosphoproteome contains many proteins which were not previously known to have a role in cell cycle regulation, including a number of RBPs, eIF4F complexes, and many hypothetical proteins with no identifiable sequence homology. The differential regulation of RBPs and eIF4F complexes provides further evidence that they may act as functional surrogates for the lack of regulated transcription factors through post-transcriptional gene regulation.

Our analysis of cell cycle synchronised Pcf cells identifies a total of 10,119 phosphorylation sites, of which 4,284 have not previously been reported including 408 CCR sites. The total number of phosphorylation sites observed is comparable to our previous studies where 10,095 phosphorylation sites were identified from asynchronous Pcf and bloodstream form (Bsf) cells [18] and 10,159 phosphorylation sites identified from ex vivo stumpy Bsf cells [52], and is an order of magnitude greater than the first global study of Bsf T. brucei that identified 1204 phosphorylation sites [53]. Each study is able to identify unique sites (S11 Fig), consistent with the differences in sample origin, processing and data analysis, suggesting that many phosphorylation site remain to be identified. The relatively similar overall total number of sites identified in our phosphoproteomic studies may reflect a limit to the number of sites it is possible to identify in a single study using the current methodology.

Changes in phosphorylation status observed were of a larger magnitude and more numerous than the changes at the protein level, indeed only 32 proteins were found to change > 3-fold compared to 917 phosphorylation sites. The cell cycle proteome of Pcf T. brucei has recently been reported by Crozier et al who used centrifugal elutriation with LC-MS with tandem mass tag (TMT) based quantitation to classify 384 proteins (>1.3-fold change) as CCR [14]. We only observe 179 of these CCR proteins at all six time points and only classify 62 of them as CCR (>1.5-fold change, Pearson correlation 0.546), which can in part be explained by differences in methodology, criteria used to select CCR proteins, and the stochastic nature of data dependent mass spectrometry. The cell cycle transcriptome of Pcf T. brucei classified 530 transcripts as potentially CCR and we observe 279 of the corresponding proteins at all six time points, but only classify 56 as CCR. The low overlap between proteomic and transcriptomic data is in agreement with the results of Crozier at al [14], and only 26 CCR proteins are common to all three data sets (S12 Fig). Interpretation of these differences is hampered by our current inability to separate technical contributions (i.e. different methodologies and coverage) to this phenomenon from the more interesting biological basis (i.e. different levels of regulation, active protein degradation). Additional studies using comparable methodologies and time points are needed before biologically meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Our data set classifies 8 PSP1 C-terminal Domain (PCD) proteins as CCR at the level of phosphorylation site and/or protein abundance, yet genetic ablation of five of these proteins failed to produce a growth or cell cycle defect, suggesting that they are functionally redundant. Such functional redundancy does not preclude a key role in cell cycle regulation, as a degree of redundancy in the essential processes involved in cell replication is likely to be advantageous to the organism. Indeed, it has previously been shown that genetic ablation of many T. brucei cyclins and CDKs does not produce a growth or cell cycle defect despite their clear involvement [11, 27].

The PSP1 C-terminal domain (PSP1-C) was originally identified in yeast due to its ability to suppress mutations in DNA polymerase alpha and delta, but was not originally linked to the cell cycle [50]. The PSP1-C domain is widely distributed in prokaryotes and some eukaryotic lineages including fungi and yeast (2 in S. cerevisea, 1 in S. pombe), but is absent from humans, fly and worms and expanded in the kinetoplastids (11 in T. brucei). Previously it has been reported that T. brucei contains 13 PCD proteins [14, 41], but only 11 are annotated in TriTrypDB [54] and Interpro [55]; the additional protein Tb927.6.2000 contained the unrelated PSP domain, whilst Tb927.10.9330 had no identifiable domains. Despite the name, PSP1-C domains are often located in the N-terminal half of the protein, and are nearly always the only identifiable domain present. Whilst there is some evidence that T.brucei PCDs may bind mRNA, this has been found for only 4 of the 11 proteins, suggesting that the PSP1-C domain itself may not be involved.

The C. fasiculata CSBPII complex proteins CfRBP33 & CfRBP45 which both contain PSP1-C domains were identified by their binding to an RNA motif found in 4 CCR mRNAs [17]. The proteins are uniformly expressed but differentially phosphorylated over the cell cycle in vivo, and in vitro phosphorylation of CfRBP33 and CfRBP45 modulates their binding to the target RNA motif. However, it has not been demonstrated that the two proteins form a complex, as opposed to competing for the same target sequence, nor has it been demonstrated that the proteins are required for cycling of the target mRNAs in vivo. Our data suggests that the CSBPII complex has diverged in T. brucei, as we fail to detect any cell cycle regulation amongst the T. brucei homologues of the CSBPII target proteins. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the syntenic homologues of the CSBPII complex in T. brucei TbCSBPII-33 & TbCSBPII-45 do not form a complex in vivo, but instead TbCSBPII-33 specifically co-purifies with PCD4, a non-syntenic orthologue of CfRBP45. Further work is needed to identify potential mRNA targets of these and other PCD proteins, and to verify the effect of dynamic phosphorylation upon their ability to bind RNA.

In summary, this study represents the first in-depth quantitative analysis of changes in the phosphoproteome that occur across the cell cycle in T. brucei. The identification of many hundred CCR phosphorylation sites confirms the importance of many known cell cycle proteins and implicates many more as having a potential role in the cell cycle. The data presented here will be of value to the trypanosome research community, and provides an important insight into mechanisms of post-transcriptional gene regulation that are likely to prove of relevance to the wider community as well.

Materials and methods

Cell culture and synchronisation

The stable isotope labelling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) labelling of T. brucei 427 Lister procyclic form (Pcf) cells was performed as described previously [18, 20]. Elutriation was performed essentially as described in [19]. Further details of SILAC labelling and synchronisation can be found in S1 Methods.

Flow cytometry

Approximately 2 × 106 cells were pelleted, washed once with PBS and fixed in 1 ml of 70% methanol in 1 × PBS and stored at 4°C overnight. Following a PBS-Triton (0.2%) wash, samples were incubated with 10 μg/ml propidium iodide (Sigma) and 9.6 μg/ml of RNAseA (Sigma) at 37°C for 45 min. Note that the presence of Triton was essential for SmOxP9 cells only. Samples were analysed on a FACS Canto II (BD) collecting 50,000 events, and data processed in Flowing Software 2.5.1 (http://flowingsoftware.btk.fi/) using doublet discrimination.

Preparation of proteomic samples

2 × 108 cells per time point were harvested by centrifugation at 1,000 × g for 10 min at 4 0C, and the supernatant removed. Following a wash with 1 × PBS, cells were lysed at 1 × 109 cells/ml in ice-cold lysis buffer (0.1 μM TLCK, 1 μg/ml Leupeptin, Phosphatase Inhibitor Cocktail II (Calbiochem), 1 mM PMSF, 1 mM Benzamidine) for 5 min at RT before transfer to -80°C for storage. Briefly, samples were combined according to the experimental regimen, subjected to FASP and tryptic digest [18, 22], and peptides separated from phosphopeptides using Fe-IMAC was performed as described by Ruprecht et al [23]. Samples were fractionated using the High pH Fractionation kit (ThermoFisher), and the eluates concatenated into five fractions. Further details of sample processing can be found in S1 Methods.

Mass spectrometry data acquisition

Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was performed by the FingerPrints Proteomic Facility at the University of Dundee. Liquid chromatography was performed on a fully automated Ultimate U3000 Nano LC System (Dionex) fitted with a 1 × 5 mm PepMap C18 trap column and a 75 μm × 15 cm reverse phase PepMap C18 nanocolumn (LC Packings, Dionex). Samples were loaded in 0.1% formic acid (buffer A) and separated using a binary gradient consisting of buffer A (0.1% formic acid) and buffer B (90% MeCN, 0.08% formic acid). Peptides were eluted with a linear gradient from 5 to 40% buffer B over 65 min. The HPLC system was coupled to an LTQ Orbitrap Velos Pro mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific) equipped with a Proxeon nanospray ion source. For phosphoproteomic analysis, the mass spectrometer was operated in data dependent mode to perform a survey scan over a range 335–1800 m/z in the Orbitrap analyzer (R = 60,000), with each MS scan triggering fifteen MS2 acquisitions of the fifteen most intense ions using multistage activation on the neutral loss of 98 and 49 Thomsons in the LTQ ion trap [56]. For proteomic analysis, the mass spectrometer was operated in data dependent mode with each MS scan triggering fifteen MS2 acquisitions of the fifteen most intense ions in the LTQ ion trap. The Orbitrap mass analyzer was internally calibrated on the fly using the lock mass of polydimethylcyclosiloxane at m/z 445.120025.

Mass spectrometry data processing

Data was processed using MaxQuant [57] version 1.6.1.0 which incorporates the Andromeda search engine [58]. Proteins were identified by searching a protein sequence database containing T. brucei brucei 927 annotated proteins (Version 37, 11,074 protein sequences, TriTrypDB [54], http://www.tritrypdb.org/) supplemented with frequently observed contaminants (porcine trypsin, bovine serum albumins and mammalian keratins). Search parameters specified an MS tolerance of 6 ppm, an MS/MS tolerance at 0.5 Da and full trypsin specificity, allowing for up to two missed cleavages. Carbamidomethylation of cysteine was set as a fixed modification and oxidation of methionine, N-terminal protein acetylation and N-pyroglutamate were allowed as variable modifications. The experimental design included matching between runs for the concatenated fractions in each experiment. Analysis of the multistage activation phosphoproteomic data used the same parameters, except for the addition of phosphorylation of serine, threonine and tyrosine residues as variable modifications and the grouping of the two technical replicates together. Peptides were required to be at least 7 amino acids in length, with false discovery rates (FDRs) of 0.01 calculated at the levels of peptides, proteins and modification sites based on the number of hits against the reversed sequence database.

SILAC ratios for phosphorylation sites were calculated using only data from the phosphoproteomic experiments, and SILAC ratios for proteins were calculated using only data from the proteomic experiments. SILAC ratios were calculated where at least one peptide could be uniquely mapped to a given protein group and required a minimum of two SILAC pairs. To account for any errors in the counting of the number of cells in each sample prior to mixing, the distribution of SILAC ratios was normalised within MaxQuant at the peptide level so that the median of log2 ratios is zero, as described by Cox et al.[57]. We have deposited the Thermo RAW files and search results in ProteomeXchange (http://www.proteomexchange.org) consortium via the Pride partner repository [59] with the dataset identifier PXD013488, enabling researchers to access the data presented here. Data was visualized using Perseus 1.6.1.3 [60] and further information on the identified proteins was obtained from the function genomic database TriTrypDB [54]. The selection of cell cycle regulated proteins and phosphorylation sites and associated statistical analysis is described in detail in the Supporting Information (S1 Methods). To make our data accessible to the scientific community, we have submitted the results of our study to TriTrypDB, enabling researchers to access the data presented here.

Cell lines and growth curves

Pcf Trypanosoma brucei Lister 427 and SmOxP9 [61] cells were grown at 28 ˚C without CO2 in SDM-79 (containing 1 μg/ml puromycin for the latter). Transfection of Pcf cells was essentially as described in [62] using a BTX electroporator. Pcf RNAi lines were induced at a density of 1 × 106 cells/ml with 1 μg/ml of tetracyclin, and counted and diluted back to the starting density daily for a period of 7 days.

Plasmid constructs

For N-terminal HA-tagging at the endogenous locus, fragments of the beginning of the ORF and the 5’UTR of the gene of interest were cloned into pHG80 [62] using XbaI—XhoI and XhoI -BamHI restriction sites respectively. The resulting plasmids were linearised with XhoI before transfection. The RNAit program (http://dag.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/RNAit/) was used to design specific primers to amplify fragments for cloning into p2T7-177 [63] using BamHI and XhoI restriction sites. The resulting RNAi plasmids were linearised with NotI prior to transfection. To tag proteins with a fluorescent tag at their N-termini, the pPOTv4-mNeonGreen plasmid was used as a template for PCR reactions as described in [64]. Selection for all tagging constructs was with 10 μg/ml blasticidin.

Western blots

The equivalent of 2 × 106 cells (prepared by boiling in 2× Laemmli buffer) was loaded per lane onto a BioRad Stain-free SDS PAGE gel. Total protein was visualised using a BioRad Gel Doc EZ Imager before transfer of proteins to nitrocellulose or PVDF membranes using semi-dry transfer. Membranes were blocked in 5% milk-phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) for 1 hr at room temperature prior to incubation in primary antibody (anti-HA at 1:1,000, mouse hybridoma clone 12CA5) in PBS overnight at 4°C. Following two 5 min washes in PBS, blots were incubated with horse radish peroxidase (HRP)-coupled secondary antibody (α-mouse used at 1:2,000 dilution; Cell Signalling) at room temperature for 1 h before two further washes in PBS. The detection of tubulin using mouse anti-tubulin KMX-1 primary (1:100; Gift from Keith Gull, Oxford) and anti-mouse-HRP secondary (1:20,000, GE Healthcare) was used to verify equal sample loading. Signals were developed using the Clarity ECL substrate (BioRad) on a BioRad GelDoc XPS+ imager.

Immunofluorescence

For anti-HA staining, Pcf cells were washed in 1 × PBS, spread onto glass slides, allowed to settle for 5 min at room temperature (RT), then fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in 1 × PBS for 10 min at RT. Following storage and permeabilisation in 100% methanol at -20°C for 20 min, slides were rehydrated in 1 × PBS for 5 min before proceeding with antibody staining. Primary antibody (anti-HA at 1:100, mouse hybridoma clone 12CA5) in PBS was added to the slides and incubated for 1 h at room temperature. Following two washes with 1 × PBS, secondary antibody (AlexaFluor596-coupled goat anti-mouse IgG at 1:200, Molecular Probes) was added, and the slides incubated for 1 h at RT. Following two washes with 1 × PBS, the slides were sealed with Fluoroshield containing DAPI (Sigma) and examined on an Applied Precision DeltaVison microscope at 60× magnification.

Immunoprecipitation

5 × 108 SILAC labelled cells were harvested by centrifugation at 1,000 × g for 10 min at 4 0C, the supernatant removed and the pellet washed in 1 × PBS before cells were lysed in ice-cold lysis buffer (50 mM Tris, pH7.6, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 0.1% NP-40, 1mM EDTA, 1mM EGTA, 0.1 mM TLCK, 1 μg/ml Leupeptin, Phosphatase Inhibitor Cocktail II (Calbiochem), 1 mM PMSF, 1 mM Benzamidine) for 15 min on ice. The lysate was cleared by centrifugation at 14,000 × g for 10 min at 4 0C, the supernatant removed and incubated with anti-HA coupled magnetic beads (ThermoFisher) for 3 h at 4°C. Following 3 washes with wash buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 7.6, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 0.1% NP-40), HA-tagged proteins were eluted by incubation with HA peptide (ThermoFisher) for 2 × 15 minutes at 37°C. The elutions were combined according to the experimental regimen, concentrated in ultra-diafiltration columns (Amicon, 10 kDa Molecular weight cut off) and buffer exchanged to 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate. Samples were reductively alkylated by addition of a final concentration of 5 mM DTT for 1 h at 37°C, followed by 15 mM iodoacetamide for 30 min at RT in the dark. The reaction was diluted 1:4 with 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate and incubated with 1 μg of Trypsin Gold (Promega) at 37°C for more than 18 h before desalting, lyophilisation and analysis by liquid chromatography—mass spectrometry as described above.

Supporting information

S1 Methods. Supporting information on materials, methods and data processing.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Histogram of Log2 FCMax demonstrating non-normal data distribution.

A. Phosphorylation site FCMax. B. Protein FCMax; Blue–Non–regulated, Red–Cell cycle regulated. Image prepared in Perseus [60].

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Hierarchical clustering of cell cycle regulated proteins.

The protein ratios were Z-transformed and unrestrained hierarchical clustering performed using Euclidean distance of the complete linkage, with 29 clusters (Prot-01 to Prot-29) defined using a minimum distance threshold of < 2.5. The relationship between the clusters is rendered as a tree, and the Z-transformed phosphorylation site profiles are represented as a heat map. Image prepared in Perseus [60].

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Clusters produced by hierarchical clustering of cell cycle regulated proteins.

The protein ratios were Z-transformed and unrestrained hierarchical clustering performed using Euclidean distance of the complete linkage. The number of proteins in each cluster is given in brackets, and the profiles are coloured by the Euclidean distance from the centre (mean profile) of the cluster. Image prepared in Perseus [60].

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Comparison of Gene Ontology enrichment in cell cycle regulated protein clusters.

Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis using GO Slim ontology with P < 0.05 was performed on the largest clusters representing >50% of the CCR proteins (red bars), and the occurrence of GO terms related to cell cycle tabulated.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Heat map of cell cycle regulated protein kinase and cyclins.

CCR protein kinase and cyclins rendered as a heat map of the log2 fold change relative to EG1, grouped by family.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Heat map of cell cycle regulated RNA binding proteins.

CCR Proteins containing recognisable RNA binding domains or identified from mRNA tethering screens and crosslinking proteomics [4142] are rendered as a heat map of the log2 fold change relative to EG1, grouped by proteins features. ZFP–zinc finger proteins; Translation–eIF and associated proteins; PSP1 –PSP1 C-terminal domain; RBP–RNA binding motif; PUF—Pumilio/Fem-3 domain; HRH–Histone RNA hairpin; Hyp. Con–hypothetical conserved proteins; Misc.–miscellaneous.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Flow cytometry analysis DED1.2 RNAi time course.

PI staining allows DNA content to be measured, demonstrating an accumulation of a sub-G1 population after 48 h of RNAi induction.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Localisation of cell cycle regulated PSP1-C domain containing proteins does not alter over the cell cycle.

HA tagging endogenous tagging and immunofluorescence microscopy revealed the proteins have punctate localisation within the cytosol. No change in localisation occurred over the cell cycle, as judged by examining images with differing nucleus and kinetoplast counts.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Tetracycline inducible RNAi of HA-tagged PCD proteins.

Aliquots of cells from the respective RNAi time course were subjected to Western blotting and flow cytometry. Western blots with anti-HA confirmed efficient knockdown of the HA-tagged proteins, with an anti-KMX-1 (tubulin) used a loading control. Flow cytometry of PI-stained cells revealed that the proportion of cells in different cell cycle time points was unchanged.

(TIF)

S10 Fig. Immunoprecipitation of the T. brucei CSBPII complex proteins.

IP of HA-TbCSBPII-33, HA-TbCSBPII-45, and the parental 427 cells with anti-HA beads, subjected to anti-HA western blotting. HA-tagged proteins can be observed in the eluent. S–starting material; FT–flow through; E–eluent.

(TIF)

S11 Fig. Venn diagram of the overlap of global phosphoproteomic studies.

Benz (2019)– 10,119 phosphorylation site observed in synchronised Pcf cells (current study); Domingo-S (2015)– 10,159 phosphorylation sites observed in ex vivo Stumpy Bsf cells [52]; Urbaniak (2013)– 10,095 phosphorylation sites observed in Pcf and Bsf cells [18]; Nett (2009)– 1,190 sites observed in Bsf cells [53].

(TIF)

S12 Fig. Venn diagram of the overlap of the two CCR proteomes and the CCR transcriptome.

CCR proteins– 443 proteins identified in the present study; Crozier CCR– 174/384 CCR proteins reported by Crozier et al. [14] were quantified at all six time points; CCR mRNA– 279/528 CCR transcripts reported by Archer et al. [13] were quantified at all six time points. Shading represent percentage overlap.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Metadata for cell cycle proteomics samples.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. 5,949 Phosphorylation sites quantified at all six time points.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. 3,619 Proteins quantified at all six time points.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. 917 cell cycle regulated phosphorylation sites.

(XLSX)

S5 Table. 443 Cell cycle regulated proteins.

(XLSX)

S6 Table. Immunoprecipitation of T. brucei CSBPII.

(XLSX)

S7 Table. PSP1-C terminal domain containing proteins present in T. brucei.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof Keith Gull (School of Pathology, Oxford, UK) for providing the KMX-1 antibody and Dougie Lamont of the FingerPrints Proteomic Facility (Dundee, UK) for helpful discussions.

Data Availability

The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD013488. Other data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study is funded by a New Investigator Research Grant to MDU from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council https://bbsrc.ukri.org/ (BB/M009556/1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Simon Itamar, Barnett John, Hannett Nancy, Harbison Christopher T., Rinaldi Nicola J., Volkert Thomas L., et al. Serial Regulation of Transcriptional Regulators in the Yeast Cell cycle. Cell. 2001;106:697–708. 10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00494-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Morgan DO. Principles of CDK regulation. Nature. 1995;374:131–4. 10.1038/374131a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pagliuca FW, Collins MO, Lichawska A, Zegerman P, Choudhary JS, Pines J. Quantitative proteomics reveals the basis for the biochemical specificity of the cell-cycle machinery. Mol Cell. 2011;43(3):406–17. 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.05.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Olsen JV, Vermeulen M, Santamaria A, Kumar C, Miller ML, Jensen LJ, et al. Quantitative phosphoproteomics reveals widespread full phosphorylation site occupancy during mitosis. Sci Signal. 2010;3(104):ra3 10.1126/scisignal.2000475 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Clayton C. The regulation of trypanosome gene expression by RNA-binding proteins. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9(11):e1003680 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Clayton CE. Life without transcritpional control? From fly to man and back again. EMBO J. 2002;21(8):881–1888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vasquez JJ, Hon CC, Vanselow JT, Schlosser A, Siegel TN. Comparative ribosome profiling reveals extensive translational complexity in different Trypanosoma brucei life cycle stages. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Manful T, Fadda A, Clayton C. The role of the 5'-3' exoribonuclease XRNA in transcriptome-wide mRNA degradation. RNA. 2011;17(11):2039–47. 10.1261/rna.2837311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McKean PG. Coordination of cell cycle and cytokinesis in Trypanosoma brucei. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2003;6(6):600–7. 10.1016/j.mib.2003.10.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Li Z. Regulation of the cell division cycle in Trypanosoma brucei. Eukaryot Cell. 2012;11(10):1180–90. 10.1128/EC.00145-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Li Z, Wang CC. A PHO80-like cyclin and a B-type cyclin control the cell cycle of the procyclic form of Trypanosoma brucei. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(23):20652–8. 10.1074/jbc.M301635200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tu X, Wang CC. The involvement of two cdc2-related kinases (CRKs) in Trypanosoma brucei cell cycle regulation and the distinctive stage-specific phenotypes caused by CRK3 depletion. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(19):20519–28. 10.1074/jbc.M312862200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Archer SK, Inchaustegui D, Queiroz R, Clayton C. The cell cycle regulated transcriptome of Trypanosoma brucei. PloS one. 2011;6(3):e18425 10.1371/journal.pone.0018425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Crozier TWM, Tinti M, Wheeler RJ, Ly T, Ferguson MAJ, Lamond AI. Proteomic Analysis of the Cell Cycle of Procylic Form Trypanosoma brucei. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2018;17(6):1184–95. 10.1074/mcp.RA118.000650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Archer SK, Luu VD, de Queiroz RA, Brems S, Clayton C. Trypanosoma brucei PUF9 regulates mRNAs for proteins involved in replicative processes over the cell cycle. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(8):e1000565 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000565 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pasion SG, Brown GW, Brown LM, Ray DS. Periodic expression of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA replication genes during the trypanosomatid cell cycle. J Cell Sci. 1994;107:3515–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mittra B, Ray DS. Presence of a poly(A) binding protein and two proteins with cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation in Crithidia fasciculata mRNA cycling sequence binding protein II. Eukaryot Cell. 2004;3(5):1185–97. 10.1128/EC.3.5.1185-1197.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Urbaniak MD, Martin DM, Ferguson MA. Global quantitative SILAC phosphoproteomics reveals differential phosphorylation is widespread between the procyclic and bloodstream form lifecycle stages of Trypanosoma brucei. Journal of proteome research. 2013;12(5):2233–44. 10.1021/pr400086y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Benz C, Dondelinger F, McKean PG, Urbaniak MD. Cell cycle synchronisation of Trypanosoma brucei by centrifugal counter-flow elutriation reveals the timing of nuclear and kinetoplast DNA replication. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):17599 10.1038/s41598-017-17779-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Urbaniak MD, Guther MLS, Ferguson MAJ. Comparative SILAC Proteomic Analysis of Trypanosoma brucei Bloodstream and Procyclic Lifecycle Stages. PloS one. 2012;7(5):e36619 10.1371/journal.pone.0036619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ishihama Y, Sato T, Tabata T, Miyamoto N, Sagane K, Nagasu T, et al. Quantitative mouse brain proteomics using culture-derived isotope tags as internal standards. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(5):617–21. 10.1038/nbt1086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wisniewski JR, Zougman A, Nagaraj N, Mann M. Universal sample preparation method for proteome analysis. Nat Methods. 2009;6(5):359–62. 10.1038/nmeth.1322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ruprecht B, Koch H, Medard G, Mundt M, Kuster B, Lemeer S. Comprehensive and reproducible phosphopeptide enrichment using iron immobilized metal ion affinity chromatography (Fe-IMAC) columns. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015;14(1):205–15. 10.1074/mcp.M114.043109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yang F, Shen Y, Camp DG, 2nd, Smith RD. High-pH reversed-phase chromatography with fraction concatenation for 2D proteomic analysis. Expert Rev Proteomics. 2012;9(2):129–34. 10.1586/epr.12.15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Parsons M, Worthey EA, Ward PN, Mottram JC. Comparative analysis of the kinomes of three pathogenic trypanosomatids: Leishmania major, Trypanosoma brucei and Trypanosoma cruzi. BMC Genomics. 2005;6:127 10.1186/1471-2164-6-127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Urbaniak MD, Mathieson T, Bantscheff M, Eberhard D, Grimaldi R, Miranda-Saavedra D, et al. Chemical proteomic analysis reveals the drugability of the kinome of Trypanosoma brucei. ACS chemical biology. 2012;7(11):1858–65. 10.1021/cb300326z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jones NG, Thomas EB, Brown E, Dickens NJ, Hammarton TC, Mottram JC. Regulators of Trypanosoma brucei cell cycle progression and differentiation identified using a kinome-wide RNAi screen. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10(1):e1003886 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hammarton TC, Kramer S, Tetley L, Boshart M, Mottram JC. Trypanosoma brucei Polo-like kinase is essential for basal body duplication, kDNA segregation and cytokinesis. Mol Microbiol. 2007;65(5):1229–48. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05866.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wei Y, Li Z. Distinct roles of a mitogen-activated protein kinase in cytokinesis between different life cycle forms of Trypanosoma brucei. Eukaryot Cell. 2014;13(1):110–8. 10.1128/EC.00258-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gomes FC, Ali NO, Brown E, Walker RG, Grant KM, Mottram JC. Recombinant Leishmania mexicana CRK3:CYCA has protein kinase activity in the absence of phosphorylation on the T-loop residue Thr178. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2010;171(2):89–96. 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2010.03.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hayashi H, Akiyoshi B. Degradation of cyclin B is critical for nuclear division in Trypanosoma brucei. Biol Open. 2018;7(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Umeyama T, Wang CC. Polo-like kinase is expressed in S/G2/M phase and associated with the flagellum attachment zone in both procyclic and bloodstream forms of Trypanosoma brucei. Eukaryot Cell. 2008;7(9):1582–90. 10.1128/EC.00150-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.de Graffenried CL, Ho HH, Warren G. Polo-like kinase is required for Golgi and bilobe biogenesis in Trypanosoma brucei. J Cell Biol. 2008;181(3):431–8. 10.1083/jcb.200708082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.McAllaster MR, Ikeda KN, Lozano-Nunez A, Anrather D, Unterwurzacher V, Gossenreiter T, et al. Proteomic identification of novel cytoskeletal proteins associated with TbPLK, an essential regulator of cell morphogenesis in Trypanosoma brucei. Mol Biol Cell. 2015;26(17):3013–29. 10.1091/mbc.E15-04-0219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hu H, Zhou Q, Li Z. A Novel Basal Body Protein That Is a Polo-like Kinase Substrate Is Required for Basal Body Segregation and Flagellum Adhesion in Trypanosoma brucei. J Biol Chem. 2015;290(41):25012–22. 10.1074/jbc.M115.674796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hu H, Zhou Q, Li Z. SAS-4 Protein in Trypanosoma brucei Controls Life Cycle Transitions by Modulating the Length of the Flagellum Attachment Zone Filament. J Biol Chem. 2015;290(51):30453–63. 10.1074/jbc.M115.694109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hilton NA, Sladewski TE, Perry JA, Pataki Z, Sinclair-Davis AN, Muniz RS, et al. Identification of TOEFAZ1-interacting proteins reveals key regulators of Trypanosoma brucei cytokinesis. Mol Microbiol. 2018;109(3):306–26. 10.1111/mmi.13986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Akiyoshi B, Gull K. Discovery of unconventional kinetochores in kinetoplastids. Cell. 2014;156(6):1247–58. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.D'Archivio S, Wickstead B. Trypanosome outer kinetochore proteins suggest conservation of chromosome segregation machinery across eukaryotes. J Cell Biol. 2017;216(2):379–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Saldivia M, Rao SPS, Fang E, Myburgh E, Brown E, Wollman AJM, et al. Targeting the trypanosome kinetochore with CLK1 protein kinase inhibitors. BioRxiv. 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lueong S, Merce C, Fischer B, Hoheisel JD, Erben ED. Gene expression regulatory networks in Trypanosoma brucei: insights into the role of the mRNA-binding proteome. Mol Microbiol. 2016;100(3):457–71. 10.1111/mmi.13328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Erben ED, Fadda A, Lueong S, Hoheisel JD, Clayton C. A genome-wide tethering screen reveals novel potential post-transcriptional regulators in Trypanosoma brucei. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10(6):e1004178 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Naguleswaran A, Gunasekera K, Schimanski B, Heller M, Hemphill A, Ochsenreiter T, et al. Trypanosoma brucei RRM1 is a nuclear RNA-binding protein and modulator of chromatin structure. MBio. 2015;6(2):e00114 10.1128/mBio.00114-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Levy GV, Banuelos CP, Nittolo AG, Ortiz GE, Mendiondo N, Moretti G, et al. Depletion of the SR-Related Protein TbRRM1 Leads to Cell Cycle Arrest and Apoptosis-Like Death in Trypanosoma brucei. PloS one. 2015;10(8):e0136070 10.1371/journal.pone.0136070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Freire ER, Moura DMN, Bezerra MJR, Xavier CC, Morais-Sobral MC, Vashisht AA, et al. Trypanosoma brucei EIF4E2 cap-binding protein binds a homolog of the histone-mRNA stem-loop-binding protein. Curr Genet. 2018;64(4):821–39. 10.1007/s00294-017-0795-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Koseoglu MM, Graves LM, Marzluff WF. Phosphorylation of threonine 61 by cyclin a/Cdk1 triggers degradation of stem-loop binding protein at the end of S phase. Mol Cell Biol. 2008;28(14):4469–79. 10.1128/MCB.01416-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.An T, Liu Y, Gourguechon S, Wang CC, Li Z. CDK Phosphorylation of Translation Initiation Factors Couples Protein Translation with Cell-Cycle Transition. Cell Rep. 2018;25(11):3204–14 e5. 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.11.063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Freire ER, Dhalia R, Moura DM, da Costa Lima TD, Lima RP, Reis CR, et al. The four trypanosomatid eIF4E homologues fall into two separate groups, with distinct features in primary sequence and biological properties. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2011;176(1):25–36. 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2010.11.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zinoviev A, Akum Y, Yahav T, Shapira M. Gene duplication in trypanosomatids—two DED1 paralogs are functionally redundant and differentially expressed during the life cycle. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2012;185(2):127–36. 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2012.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Formosa T, Nittis T. Suppressors of the temperature sensitivity of DNA polymerase alpha mutations in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Gen Genet. 1998;257(4):461–8. 10.1007/s004380050670 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Benz C, Lo W, Fathallah N, Connor-Guscott A, Benns HJ, Urbaniak MD. Dynamic regulation of the Trypanosoma brucei transferrin receptor in response to iron starvation is mediated via the 3'UTR. PloS one. 2018;13(12):e0206332 10.1371/journal.pone.0206332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Domingo-Sananes MR, Szoor B, Ferguson MA, Urbaniak MD, Matthews KR. Molecular control of irreversible bistability during trypanosome developmental commitment. J Cell Biol. 2015;211(2):455–68. 10.1083/jcb.201506114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nett IRE, Martin DMA, Miranda-Saavedra D, Lamont D, Barber JD, Mehlert A, et al. The phopshoproteome of bloodstream form Trypanosoma brucei, causative agent of African sleeping sickness. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2009;87:1527–38. 10.1074/mcp.M800556-MCP200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Aslett M, Aurrecoechea C, Berriman M, Brestelli J, Brunk BP, Carrington M, et al. TriTrypDB: a functional genomic resource for the Trypanosomatidae. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(Database issue):D457–62. 10.1093/nar/gkp851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mitchell Alex L, Attwood Teresa K, Babbitt Patricia C, Blum Matthias, Bork Peer, Bridge Alan, et al. InterPro in 2019: improving coverage, classification and access to protein sequence annotations. Nucleic Acid Res. 2019;47:D351–D60. 10.1093/nar/gky1100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Schroeder MJ, Shabanowitz J, Schwartz JC, Hunt DF, Coon JJ. A neutral loss activation method for improved phosphopeptide sequence analysis by quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometry. Analytical chemistry. 2004;76(13):3590–8. 10.1021/ac0497104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Cox J, Mann M. MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26(12):1367–72. 10.1038/nbt.1511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Cox J, Neuhauser N, Michalski A, Scheltema RA, Olsen JV, Mann M. Andromeda: a peptide search engine integrated into the MaxQuant environment. Journal of proteome research. 2011;10(4):1794–805. 10.1021/pr101065j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Vizcaino JA, Cote RG, Csordas A, Dianes JA, Fabregat A, Foster JM, et al. The PRoteomics IDEntifications (PRIDE) database and associated tools: status in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D1063–9. 10.1093/nar/gks1262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Tyanova S, Temu T, Sinitcyn P, Carlson A, Hein MY, Geiger T, et al. The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data. Nat Methods. 2016;13(9):731–40. 10.1038/nmeth.3901 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.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 10.1098/rsob.110037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Benz C, Clucas C, Mottram JC, Hammarton TC. Cytokinesis in bloodstream stage Trypanosoma brucei requires a family of katanins and spastin. PloS one. 2012;7(1):e30367 10.1371/journal.pone.0030367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Wickstead B, Ersfeld K, Gull K. Targeting of a tetracycline-inducible expression system to the transcriptionally silent minichromosomes of Trypanosoma brucei. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2002;125:211–6. 10.1016/s0166-6851(02)00238-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.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 10.1098/rsob.140197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

David Horn, Jeremy C Mottram

5 Aug 2019

Dear Mick:

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Organising the cell cycle in the absence of transcriptional control: Dynamic phosphorylation co-ordinates the Trypanosoma brucei cell cycle post-transcriptionally" (PPATHOGENS-D-19-01221) for review by PLOS Pathogens. Your manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic but identified some aspects of the manuscript that should be improved.

We therefore ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations before we can consider your manuscript for acceptance. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer.

In addition, when you are ready to resubmit, please be prepared to provide the following:

(1) A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 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.

(2) Two versions of the manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within 60 days or less. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we ask that you let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

[LINK]

If you have any questions or concerns while you make these revisions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Jeremy C. Mottram

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

David Horn

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Grant McFadden

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-2556-3526

***********************

The referees find the manuscript to be interesting, of a very high standard and likely to be a valuable resource to the community. As you can see, the referees have raised several concerns. No further experimental work is required and no sections need to be removed, however, but it would be helpful to include some comparison with previously published proteomics datasets (including your own) and to address the issue of "thresholds". Reference to the data in Saldivia et al. (2019) bioRxiv 10.1101/616417 could provide the experimental validation for the role of phosphorylation in kinetochore function, which has been requested by one of the referees.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: Benz and Urbaniak present quantitative proteomics and phosphoproteomics on procyclic Trypanosoma brucei cells synchronised by elutriation. They follow ~3600 proteins and ~6000 phosphosites through the full cell cycle, showing that phosphorylation changes are more numerous and of greater magnitude than protein level changes (or mRNA by comparison to previous work). Ordering the profiles according to time stage of maximum abundance, they describe the burst of phosphosites peaking during entry into S and M phases in particular and define 29 and 30 clusters of protein and phosphosite behaviours, respectively, some of which are associated with different gene ontologies. 2 phosphosite clusters with high-G2/M profiles are significantly enriched in likely CDK sites, while possible PLK sites are enriched in one of these and another which peaks during S phase.

The authors describe the detected protein/phosphosite changes occurring on particular sets of proteins: protein kinases, kinetochore proteins, RNA-binding proteins and components of the translation machinery. Based on some of these observations, they knockdown a protein with putative role in translation initiation (TbDED1.2) and show reduction in cells with DNA content expected for S and G2/M, and accumulation of cells with less than 2C content, concluding that might be due to this protein regulating transcripts in a phospho-dependent manner.

Finally, they describe a class of CCR proteins/phosphosites in trypanosomes, including previously described proteins associated with cycling transcripts, that areunited by the presence of a PCP1 domain. Analysis of these proteins recapitulated profiles from the proteomics data, but produced no defect on depletion. Immunopurification of 2 of them (CSBPII-33 and -45) did not isolate the same complex as described in Crithidia, but showed a possible interaction with translation machinery.

How trypanosomes control the cell cycle is of clear scientific importance – especially given the divergent nature of many of the systems involved and that changes in mRNA (and even protein levels) probably don't contribute to the same degree as in other systems. The proteomics and phosphoproteomics data here appear to be of very high quality, and the extent and analysis of these data make a really substantial contribution to mapping and understanding this system. There are previous (non-cell cycle) phosphoproteomes published for trypanosomes [Nett et al. (2009) Mol Cell Proteomics, Urbaniak et al. (2013) J Proteome Res] and also a cell cycle proteome [Crozier et al. (2018) Mol Cell Proteomics], but these data are clearly distinct in scale and bringing together protein level changes with the first quantitation of phosphosite changes across the cell cycle makes this a dataset of considerable interest in an important model parasite that I can see gathering a lot of citations.

After the presentation of the proteomic data, however, I found the analyses of the specific protein sets increasingly descriptive and 'bitty'. The analysis of cell cycle regulation of kinases (and cyclins) was reasonably compelling, particularly as there was evidence of association of specific kinase motifs with specific cell cycle profiles (is there evidence of other motifs associated with unknown kinases that can be seen from these clusters?). The analysis of the kinetochore also seemed to add to the understanding of the system – although the analysis needs to incorporate recent data on KKT2 phosphorylation by CLK1/KKT10 deposited on bioRxiv (Saldivia et al. (2019) bioRxiv 10.1101/616417). However, data on RNA binding proteins and much of that on translation machinery was purely descriptive and should in my opinion be removed or moved to supplement. The data on TbDED1.2 added little to the manuscript and the conclusions are very speculative. The discovery of the association of PCP1 and cell cycle regulation is an interesting finding, although the lack of an observable defect on knockdown obviously leaves something of a mechanistic gap.

I realise that the attempt here is to add 'new biology' to avoid the proteomic data being dismissed as descriptive or too specialist. In my opinion, the quantitative proteomics here are of sufficient importance for understanding trypanosome (and leishmania) growth, that they cannot be dismissed in this way, and that some of the add-ons are actually detracting from these findings. I recommend that if these proteomics data are bolstered (see below) and some of the more speculative/descriptive elements later removed, this work is suitable for publication in PLoS Pathogens and likely to attract a good readership.

Reviewer #2: In the manuscript "Organising the cell cycle in the absence of transcriptional control: Dynamic phosphorylation co-ordinates the Trypanosoma brucei cell cycle post-transcriptionally", Benz & Urbaniak systematically study the contribution of protein phosphorylation to cell cycle regulation in African trypanosomes. Several studies that addressed changes in protein or transcription profiles during cell cycle progression exist already but to my knowledge, this is the first approach to evaluate the function of dynamic phosphorylation during this process. Synchronisation of the cells by elutriation is a well-established and suitable method for this purpose. The authors identified more than 900 cell cycle-regulated phosphorylation sites, some of them in proteins that have not been associated with cell cycle control, yet. Although this study is mainly descriptive, this set of data is without doubt a valuable resource for the community.

The manuscript is well written and concise. The design of the study is in general well thought though and performed with high experimental quality and adequate sample size. Since I am not a MS expert, I cannot comment on technical details or suitability of bioinformatic methods.

There is nothing wrong with the descriptive part of the study (clustering of the phosphorylation site, cell cycle regulation of kinases and dynamic phosphorylation of specific protein groups). However, an experiment to confirm that any the novel CCR phosphorylation sites are indeed involved in cell cycle control would improve the manuscript substantially (see below).

Reviewer #3: The manuscript describes:

1. An analysis of changes in protein abundance over a cell cycle in elutriation synchronised cells.

2. The indentification of protein phosphorylation sites that vary over the cell cycle

3. Some tests of the observations (or hypotheses drawn from the measurements) using reverse genetics.

The work is meticulous and the measurements described with clarity. The validity of the measurements are discussed.

I enjoyed reading the manuscript and it an exemplary mass spec analysis of an very interesting biological phenomenon.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: The thresholds for being ‘cell cycle regulated’ appear arbitrary (3-fold for phosphosites and 1.5-fold for protein). To a certain extent these will always be the case, but a substantial portion of the conclusions in the manuscript are based on comparisons of either protein or phosphosites that are ‘CCR’ (either overall numbers or specific proteins) – or comparison to other sets which use different thresholds (e.g. Crozier et al. (2018) Mol Cell Proteomics wherein a 1.3-fold threshold is used). As such, some rationale should be provided as to why these thresholds have been used. Or at least some exploration of how the conclusions might be affected by implementation of alternative thresholds. It would also be very helpful to see some representation of the distribution of the data with respect to the threshold somewhere in the manuscript rather than only presenting already filtered data.

The proteomics data add to/supersede three related (phospho)proteomic datasets [Nett et al. (2009) Mol Cell Proteomics, Urbaniak et al. (2013) J Proteome Res, Crozier et al. (2018) Mol Cell Proteomics]. Some comparison to Crozier et al. is made in the discussion, and it is not necessarily easy to make direct comparisons due to difference in methodology, but it would be extremely useful to the reader to see more information on how these data relate to previous. Which of the phosphosites seen in the non-cell cycle data are also seen in these data? The number of observed sites has increased, but what is the overlap? Is there any link between CCR phosphosites and those changing between lifecycle stage? As mentioned, there is little overlap between the CCR protein set here and in Crozier et al., but how much of this might be thresholding effects? Is their correlation in CCR? It is not necessary to address all these question, but some consideration would greatly aid the reader in navigating between the sets.

The profiles of phosphosite/proteins are really useful in understanding the cell cycle and being able to conceptualise them as archetypes is in my opinion a substantial contribution – as exemplified by the ability to see associate specific phosphosite motifs to particular archetypes (although this is not explored further). A small number of these profile clusters are shown in Fig.4, but I recommend that they are all liberated from the supplement and brought to the main manuscript. In addition, there is clearly information in the relationships between the clusters (for example in the relative similarity of 855 and 874, and their dissimilarity to 862/884) and between protein-level and phosphosite clusters. It would be really useful to see the heirarchical structure of the similarities between the clusters, and especially in the similarities between phosphosite behaviours and protein profiles. How do the clusters relate to the ordering based on peak time seen in Fig 2?

In my opinion, the sections “Dynamic phosphorylation of RNA binding proteins” and “Dynamic phosphorylation of translation machinery” should be removed or, if not removed, substantially augmented to produce more tangible mechanistic insight. If the data are kept, some measure of significance for the observed changes must be included. Given that classification of DNA content into G1, S, G2/M by flow cytometry is highly dependent on the sample preparation, gating, etc. histograms of the raw data should also be included in supplement. Surely the distinction between 'failure of replication or stalled mitosis' can be made from the flow cytometry data?

Non-essentiality cannot be inferred from knockdown [line 471/2] as it is unclear how much protein would be required to fulfil any (unknown) function.

CSBPII-33 shows clear co-IP with PCD4, but other than that it is unclear which interactions are genuine and which noise. Interaction with ribosomal proteins is consistent with the proposed role in translation, but these are also very high abundance proteins that commonly contaminate IP. Since neither the anticipated interaction between CSBPII-33 and -45 or clear binding to PABP2 is seen, more data will be needed to either discriminate more clear signal/noise or show that tagging has not disrupted function (an alternative tag at the C-terminus?).

Reviewer #2: line123: the authors claim that cells "maintain synchrony into subsequent cell cycles". This is a little misleading. To my knowledge, cells lose synchrony quickly within a few cell cycles. The authors should show the data or state this more precisely.

line 287 As mentioned above, ONE experiment to confirm that the identified CCR phosphorylation sites are indeed involved in cell cycle control would improve the manuscript substantially. For example, would over expression of MAPK6 or RCK mutants without their CCR phosphorylation sites show a dominant negative (cytokinesis) phenotype?

line 302: A similar experiments is possible with the identified kinetochore protein phosphorylation sites, which may play a role in kinetochore assembly (or maybe not).

Reviewer #3: There are no major issues

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: The naming of the clusters is unhelpful - e.g. 30 clusters for phosphosite profiles with ids in the range 735-886. I assume these are in some way linked to something “under the hood” of the analysis, but it doesn't aid in comprehension. Could the authors consider changing? It would be really useful to have some obvious distinction in the naming between clusters at the protein level and those at the phosphosite.

Given the apparent usefulness of the clusters, why are they only used in the section on protein kinases? To which clusters do the kinetochore kinases belong? Do most kinetochore proteins belong to the same cluster?

What are the 5 sites with >100-fold change excluded from Fig 2 and where in the cycle do they fall?

Currently, the PRIDE ID does not resolve to any data. I’m assuming this is only that the data are embargoed, but would need resolving before publication.

There is a weird distinction between “cell cycle” (e.g. RNA binding) and “unrelated” (e.g. microtubule organizing center) in the GO terms in Fig.4. How is this distinction being made?

Reviewer #2: Fig1B I assume that the percentage of cells in a specific cell cycle is based on the gates set in Fig1A. Has that been confirmed by nuclei/kinetoplast configuration?

line 173/174: It is an over-interpretation to claim that changes in phosphorylation are more important that changes in in protein abundance (based on on the profiles) without functional data

Reviewer #3: Line 121: ‘high quality population’ - what does this mean? Give a percentage of cells that fitted within the defined parameters for G1

Line 241: a few words to explain T loop

Line 248: how might the lack of the 3 phosphorylation sites contribute to the metaphase arrest in caused by the destruction box deleted cyclin

Line 262: reference needed

Line 403: delete ‘are’

Line 452: why is a punctuate pattern in the cytoplasm consistent with mRNA binding?

Line 550: the discussion of the differences between datasets from different labs is very useful. These dirty little secrets need more open discussion. Perhaps the authors could give the overlap between the phosphorylation sites detected here and their earlier paper to provide information on contributors to variation.

Very minor points

The authors often use ‘results’ when they mean measurements or observations and ‘Our data show’ when they mean their interpretation of the data

Finally, and to be very pedantic, data is plural.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Decision Letter 1

David Horn, Jeremy C Mottram

7 Oct 2019

Dear Mick,

We are pleased to inform that your manuscript, "Organising the cell cycle in the absence of transcriptional control: Dynamic phosphorylation co-ordinates the Trypanosoma brucei cell cycle post-transcriptionally", has been editorially accepted for publication at PLOS Pathogens. 

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted and sent to production, you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive by email within a week. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

IMPORTANT NOTES

(1) Please note, once your paper is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plospathogens@plos.org.

(2) Copyediting and Proofreading: The corresponding author will receive a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. 

(3) Appropriate Figure Files: Please remove all name and figure # text from your figure files. Please also take this time to check that your figures are of high resolution, which will improve the readbility of your figures and help expedite your manuscript's publication. Please note that figures must have been originally created at 300dpi or higher. Do not manually increase the resolution of your files. For instructions on how to properly obtain high quality images, please review our Figure Guidelines, with examples at: http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/figures.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

(4) Striking Image: Please upload a striking still image to accompany your article if one is available (you can include a new image or an existing one from within your manuscript). Should your paper be accepted, this image will be considered for our monthly issue image and may also appear on our website to feature your article. Please upload this as a separate file, selecting "striking image" as the file type upon upload. Please also include a separate "Other" file with a caption, including credits and any potential copyright information. Please do not include the caption in the main article file. If your image is from someone other than yourself, please ensure that the artist has read and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License at http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/content-license. Please note that PLOS cannot publish copyrighted images.

(5) Press Release or Related Media: If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team in advance at plospathogens@plos.org as soon as possible. We ask that you contact us within one week to plan ahead of our fast Production schedule. If you need to know your paper's publication date for related media purposes, you must coordinate with our press team, and your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. 

(6)  PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager.  To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field.  This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager

(7) Update your Profile Information: Now that your manuscript has been provisionally accepted, please log into Editorial Manager and update your profile, if needed. Go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens, log in, and click on the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page. Please update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. 

(8) LaTeX users only: Our staff will ask you to upload a TEX file in addition to the PDF before the paper can be sent to typesetting, so please carefully review our Latex Guidelines http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/latex in the meantime.

(9) If you have associated protocols in protocols.io, please ensure that you make them public before publication to guarantee immediate access to the methodological details.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens. 

Best regards,

Jeremy C. Mottram

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

David Horn

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Grant McFadden

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-2556-3526

***********************************************************

One reviewer made the following comment: Non-essentiality cannot be inferred from knockdown [line 471/2] as it is unclear how much protein

would be required to fulfil any (unknown) function.

Authors' Response: We have demonstrated that knockdown of the five PSP1-C domain containing proteins

using inducible RNAi ablates the tagged proteins to levels undetectable by western blotting (Fig 9

& S7), yet do not observe any significant growth defect or cell cycle defect for 7 days (~21 cell

cycles). Therefore, we feel it is justified to infer that the individual proteins are not essential for

successful completion of the cell cycle.

The editors feel that the reviewer is correct and the authors have not addressed this adequately. A simple solution for the authors would be to insert "likely" not essential, as non-essentality cannot be proven by RNAi. This could be done by submitting a revised manuscript, or at the proof stage.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Acceptance letter

David Horn, Jeremy C Mottram

8 Nov 2019

Dear Dr. Urbaniak,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Organising the cell cycle in the absence of transcriptional control: Dynamic phosphorylation co-ordinates the Trypanosoma brucei cell cycle post-transcriptionally," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Grant McFadden

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-2556-3526

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Methods. Supporting information on materials, methods and data processing.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Histogram of Log2 FCMax demonstrating non-normal data distribution.

    A. Phosphorylation site FCMax. B. Protein FCMax; Blue–Non–regulated, Red–Cell cycle regulated. Image prepared in Perseus [60].

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Hierarchical clustering of cell cycle regulated proteins.

    The protein ratios were Z-transformed and unrestrained hierarchical clustering performed using Euclidean distance of the complete linkage, with 29 clusters (Prot-01 to Prot-29) defined using a minimum distance threshold of < 2.5. The relationship between the clusters is rendered as a tree, and the Z-transformed phosphorylation site profiles are represented as a heat map. Image prepared in Perseus [60].

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Clusters produced by hierarchical clustering of cell cycle regulated proteins.

    The protein ratios were Z-transformed and unrestrained hierarchical clustering performed using Euclidean distance of the complete linkage. The number of proteins in each cluster is given in brackets, and the profiles are coloured by the Euclidean distance from the centre (mean profile) of the cluster. Image prepared in Perseus [60].

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Comparison of Gene Ontology enrichment in cell cycle regulated protein clusters.

    Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis using GO Slim ontology with P < 0.05 was performed on the largest clusters representing >50% of the CCR proteins (red bars), and the occurrence of GO terms related to cell cycle tabulated.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Heat map of cell cycle regulated protein kinase and cyclins.

    CCR protein kinase and cyclins rendered as a heat map of the log2 fold change relative to EG1, grouped by family.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Heat map of cell cycle regulated RNA binding proteins.

    CCR Proteins containing recognisable RNA binding domains or identified from mRNA tethering screens and crosslinking proteomics [4142] are rendered as a heat map of the log2 fold change relative to EG1, grouped by proteins features. ZFP–zinc finger proteins; Translation–eIF and associated proteins; PSP1 –PSP1 C-terminal domain; RBP–RNA binding motif; PUF—Pumilio/Fem-3 domain; HRH–Histone RNA hairpin; Hyp. Con–hypothetical conserved proteins; Misc.–miscellaneous.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Flow cytometry analysis DED1.2 RNAi time course.

    PI staining allows DNA content to be measured, demonstrating an accumulation of a sub-G1 population after 48 h of RNAi induction.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Localisation of cell cycle regulated PSP1-C domain containing proteins does not alter over the cell cycle.

    HA tagging endogenous tagging and immunofluorescence microscopy revealed the proteins have punctate localisation within the cytosol. No change in localisation occurred over the cell cycle, as judged by examining images with differing nucleus and kinetoplast counts.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. Tetracycline inducible RNAi of HA-tagged PCD proteins.

    Aliquots of cells from the respective RNAi time course were subjected to Western blotting and flow cytometry. Western blots with anti-HA confirmed efficient knockdown of the HA-tagged proteins, with an anti-KMX-1 (tubulin) used a loading control. Flow cytometry of PI-stained cells revealed that the proportion of cells in different cell cycle time points was unchanged.

    (TIF)

    S10 Fig. Immunoprecipitation of the T. brucei CSBPII complex proteins.

    IP of HA-TbCSBPII-33, HA-TbCSBPII-45, and the parental 427 cells with anti-HA beads, subjected to anti-HA western blotting. HA-tagged proteins can be observed in the eluent. S–starting material; FT–flow through; E–eluent.

    (TIF)

    S11 Fig. Venn diagram of the overlap of global phosphoproteomic studies.

    Benz (2019)– 10,119 phosphorylation site observed in synchronised Pcf cells (current study); Domingo-S (2015)– 10,159 phosphorylation sites observed in ex vivo Stumpy Bsf cells [52]; Urbaniak (2013)– 10,095 phosphorylation sites observed in Pcf and Bsf cells [18]; Nett (2009)– 1,190 sites observed in Bsf cells [53].

    (TIF)

    S12 Fig. Venn diagram of the overlap of the two CCR proteomes and the CCR transcriptome.

    CCR proteins– 443 proteins identified in the present study; Crozier CCR– 174/384 CCR proteins reported by Crozier et al. [14] were quantified at all six time points; CCR mRNA– 279/528 CCR transcripts reported by Archer et al. [13] were quantified at all six time points. Shading represent percentage overlap.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Metadata for cell cycle proteomics samples.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. 5,949 Phosphorylation sites quantified at all six time points.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. 3,619 Proteins quantified at all six time points.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. 917 cell cycle regulated phosphorylation sites.

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table. 443 Cell cycle regulated proteins.

    (XLSX)

    S6 Table. Immunoprecipitation of T. brucei CSBPII.

    (XLSX)

    S7 Table. PSP1-C terminal domain containing proteins present in T. brucei.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD013488. Other data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES