Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jun 29;15(6):e0235198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235198

Eye lens crystallin proteins inhibit the autocatalytic amyloid amplification nature of mature α-synuclein fibrils

Ricardo Gaspar 1,2,¤,*, Tommy Garting 1, Anna Stradner 1,*
Editor: Peter Schuck3
PMCID: PMC7323979  PMID: 32598365

Abstract

Parkinson´s disease is characterized by the accumulation of proteinaceous aggregates in Lewy bodies and Lewy Neurites. The main component found in such aggregates is α-synuclein. Here, we investigate how bovine eye lens crystallin proteins influence the aggregation kinetics of α-synuclein at mildly acidic pH (5.5) where the underlying aggregation mechanism of this protein is dominated by secondary nucleation of monomers on fibril surface providing an autocatalytic amyloid amplification process. Bovine α-, βH- and γB-crystallins were found to display chaperone-like activity inhibiting α-synuclein aggregation. This effect was shown to be time-dependent, with early additions of α-crystallin capable of retarding and even inhibiting aggregation during the time frame of the experiment. The inhibitory nature of crystallins was further investigated using trap and seed kinetic experiments. We propose crystallins interact with mature α-synuclein fibrils, possibly binding along the surfaces and at fibril free ends, inhibiting both elongation and monomer-dependent secondary nucleation processes in a mechanism that may be generic to some chaperones that prevent the onset of protein misfolding related pathologies.

Introduction

Protein homeostasis is essential for health and survival of cells. With aging in vivo quality control systems become less efficient of maintaining a stable and functional proteome [1]. This gives rise to protein misfolding and aberrant aggregation associated with multiple neurodegenerative disorders, such as, Parkinson´s disease (PD) [2,3]. PD neurodegeneration results from the accumulation of intercellular and intracellular deposits of amyloid aggregates. Both the formation of protein-rich aggregates and spreading of the pathology throughout the brain are hallmarks of the disorder [4]. The main component found in these inclusion bodies is a protein known as α-synuclein (α-syn) [5]. α-Syn is a 140 amino-acid long acidic protein with three distinct regions: an N-terminal lipid-binding region, a hydrophobic central region and a C-terminal acidic tail. In vivo α-syn can be found with both an unfolded conformation in the cytosol and with α-helical conformation associated to lipid membranes [6]. Due to its ability to interact with lipid membranes and location in the brain, it is suggested to play a role in synaptic pool maintenance and vesicle trafficking [6,7].

Interestingly, in addition to α-syn, several heat shock proteins are co-localized in amyloid plaques, including α-crystallin. Studies have shown an upregulation in the brain of αB-crystallin in PD, Alzheimer´s disease and Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease [8,9]. αB-Crystallin has been shown to be a potent in vitro fibril formation inhibitor of α-syn wild-type, and mutant forms A30P and A53T [10]. Furthermore, αB-crystallin significantly reduces the in vitro aggregation of α-syn extracted and purified from the brain tissue of transgenic mice [11].

α-, β- and γ-Crystallins are the crucial structural proteins within the eye lens and are all responsible for its stability and transparency [1215]. However, α-crystallins are the main protein components of mammalian eye lens, sharing sequence similarities with small heat-shock peptides. α-Crystallins are composed of two closely related 20 kDa polypeptide chains, αA (acidic) and αB (basic), that self-associate forming larger oligomeric complexes of 30–50 subunits [1214]. The ratio of αA to αB is estimated to be 3:1 [12]. αA- and αB-crystallin are 173 and 175 amino-acid long peptides, respectively [16]. For a long time α-crystallin was thought to be exclusively expressed in the eye lens. Such idea was abandoned as it was discovered to occur in other tissues, such as, heart, skeletal tissue, kidney and brain [12,14,17]. α-Crystallins have an isoelectric point of 4 and have been suggested to start to lose subunits at pH 5–6 [18]. In the case of oligomeric β- and monomeric γ-crystallin, each is built up out of four Greek key motifs organized into two domains [15]. β-crystallins are highly polydisperse oligomers comprising 20–30 kDa subunits, forming complexes of 50–200 kDa [19] with an isoelectric point of ca. 8 [18]. In this work, we use the high molecular weight βH-crystallin with an average molecular weight of 200 kDa. γ-Crystallins are found as monomers of ca. 20 kDa and with an isoelectric point between 7–8 [15,20]. Here, we use γB-crystallin, which has a molecular weight of ca. 21 kDa. Structurally the domains of both β- and γ-crystallin are similar [21].

In the present study, our goal was to investigate the influence of bovine α-, βH- and γB- crystallin proteins on α-syn aggregation. This is possible as we have identified conditions governing reproducible α-syn aggregation kinetics [22]. The experiments were performed at mildly acidic pH, physiologically relevant as they mimic conditions found in particular cellular lumens, such as, endosomes and lysosomes. Under such experimental conditions, secondary nucleation processes are enhanced and strongly accelerate the aggregation kinetics of α-syn and as a result are the main source of new aggregates [4,22]. As a result of a high rate constant for secondary nucleation, nuclei generated from secondary nucleation usually dominate over primary nucleation from very early in the aggregation reaction an onwards [23,24]. For comparison purposes, at neutral pH, the rate constant of elongation and higher-order assembly of fibrils was found to be much higher than primary nucleation and secondary processes [4].

Results

The effect of α-crystallin proteins on α-syn fibril formation

To investigate the effect of α-crystallin proteins on α-syn fibril formation, aggregation kinetics was monitored using thioflavin-T (ThT) as a probe to detect amyloid formation. The aggregation experiments were performed at mildly acidic pH (pH 5.5) in non-binding PEGylated plates under quiescent conditions. Under these experimental conditions, primary nucleation of α-syn is undetectably slow. For that reason, preformed fibrils often termed seeds, are added to the sample reaction in known amounts (counted as monomer equivalents), to trigger aggregation by enhancing secondary processes [22]. For this, a fixed α-syn monomer concentration in the presence of three different α-syn seed concentrations was incubated with α-crystallin with concentrations ranging from 0 to 2 mg/ml (Fig 1A–1C). In the absence of α-crystallin (black traces, Fig 1), the aggregation takes place within a few hours, in agreement with earlier findings [4,22]. By definition, secondary nucleation leads to an acceleration of the aggregation at early time points, which is manifested through observable ThT sigmoidal traces that have concave shapes [4,22]. Addition of α-crystallin progressively retards and even inhibits fibril formation within the time frame of the experiment. The effect is most evident at the lowest α-syn seed concentration (Fig 1C). In the samples where aggregation occurs in the presence of α-crystallin, the ThT plateaus exhibit lower fluorescence intensities which suggests a decrease in the levels of ThT-positive α-syn aggregates. This may be a result of the inhibitory effect or an interference with the ThT signal.

Fig 1. Seeded aggregation kinetics of α-syn in the presence of α-crystallin.

Fig 1

The aggregation kinetics of 20 μM α-syn monomer was monitored using ThT fluorescence in the presence of three different seed concentrations (A) 3 μM, (B) 1 μM and (C) 0.3 μM with α-crystallin concentrations ranging from 0.002 to 2 mg/ml in 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5 under quiescent conditions at 37°C with color codes shown in panel C. The figures show the average trace of at least three experimental repeats. The following panels show normalized aggregation kinetic traces for 20 μM α-syn monomer in the presence of (D) 3 μM and (E) 1 μM seed with α-crystallin concentrations ranging from 0–0.02 mg/ml. The figures show the experimental repeats dotted with the fits as solid lines. (F) Fitted values of the rate constant product k2k+ as a function of α-crystallin concentrations.

To ensure that the observed decrease in ThT fluorescence intensity with increasing amounts of α-crystallin (Fig 1) is due to a decrease in total mass of α-syn aggregates formed, the amount of monomeric α-syn was measured along the aggregation reaction (S1 Methods in S1 Text). This experiment consisted of monitoring the aggregation kinetics using ThT and in parallel following monomer depletion for samples taken at different time points by measuring UV absorbance at 280 nm both in the presence and absence of α-crystallin (S1 Fig). In the absence of α-crystallin, for both seed concentrations tested (0.3 and 3 μM) we observe that when fibrils are formed, the amount of monomer concentration in solution decreases. This observed decrease in monomer concentration in solution measured at different time points coincides with the strong increase in ThT fluorescence intensity. In the presence of low α-crystallin (0.01 mg/ml) and low amount of seeds, there is no observable decrease in α-syn monomer concentration over 40 h, which is consistent with no increase in ThT fluorescence in the same time frame. In the case of high α-crystallin (0.05 mg/ml) and high α-syn seed concentrations, ThT fluorescence only shows a slight increase in intensity at the beginning of the aggregation reaction, matching the α-syn monomer concentration which also slightly decreases. It is evident from this experiment that the presence of α-crystallin leads to a decrease in the total amount of aggregates formed.

Kinetic analysis

The experimental data for the two highest seed concentrations tested (3 and 1 μM) in the range where aggregation occurred, up to 0.02 mg/ml α-crystallin, was analyzed by fitting an aggregation kinetic model that includes secondary nucleation and elongation (Fig 1D and 1E) [25]. The aim was to gain from the experimental data information related to the effect of α-crystallin on the rate constants for nucleation and elongation. The successful determination of such mechanistic insights rely heavily on the purity of the protein samples and on the reporter dye (ThT) in the sense that there is a linear correlation between signal and total aggregate mass. As the reaction occurs in the presence of seeds, the contribution from primary nucleation (kn) is overruled and therefore its rate constant becomes negligible [4,22]. The resulting fits provide estimates of the product of the rate constants of elongation (k+) and secondary nucleation (k2). The obtained values of the product k2k+ are plotted as a function of α-crystallin concentration in Fig 1F. We find that k2k+ decreases progressively with increasing α-crystallin concentration.

To facilitate the understanding on a molecular level, it is useful to provide the crystallin concentration not only in mg/mL but also in molar units. Here it is however worth mentioning that at this pH it has been suggested that the native α-crystallin may start to lose subunits [18], and therefore a mixture of (mainly) oligomeric and (a smaller amount of) monomeric entities with unknown exact ratio might be present. A 2 mg/ml solution of α-crystallin would thus approximately correspond to 2.5 μM of native α-crystallin (i.e. in its oligomeric form) or 100 μM monomeric mixture of αA/αB-crystallins (assuming that an oligomer consists on average of about 40 subunits) in the extreme but unrealistic case of full dissociation of native α-crystallin, respectively.

The effect of βH- and γB-crystallins on α-syn aggregation

Similar kinetic experiments were also performed with βH- and γB-crystallin only for the intermediate α-syn seed concentration (1 μM). For oligomeric βH-crystallin the inhibitory effect was shown to be similar to that of α-crystallin (Figs 1B vs 2A). For monomeric γB-crystallins the inhibition of fibril formation was slightly less efficient (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. Seeded aggregation kinetics of α-syn monomer in the presence of βH- and γB-crystallin.

Fig 2

The aggregation kinetics of 20 μM α-syn was monitored using ThT for α-syn alone (black traces) and in the presence of (A) βH- or (B) γB-crystallin at concentrations ranging from 0.002 to 2 mg/ml for one α-syn seed concentration, 1 μM, in 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5 under quiescent conditions at 37°C. The experimental average trace of at least two repeats is shown. For stoichiometric purposes, 2 mg/ml of the high molecular weight oligomeric βH-crystallin approximately corresponds to a molar concentration of 10 μM, while for monomeric γB-crystallin it is roughly 95 μM.

Trap and seed kinetic experiment

A set of experiments referred to as the trap and seed were performed to further evaluate if the effect of crystallins is indeed linked to the catalytic nature of α-syn fibrils (Fig 3). α-Syn seeds pre-incubated in the presence and absence of α- or γB-crystallin were trapped by filtration in low-binding GH Polypro (GHP) membrane filter plates with a 200 nm cutoff. Freshly purified α-syn monomer was then added and incubated with the trapped fibrils for 2 h and again filtered. The flow-through was collected, supplemented with ThT and placed in a plate reader at 37°C under quiescent conditions (Fig 3). It is observed that α-syn seeds that were not pre-incubated with crystallins trigger monomer aggregation (Filtrate 1; Fig 3A). This result is consistent with the interpretation that the trapped fibrils provide an autocatalytic surface for the monomer added, generating small oligomeric species that pass through the filter and further grow and catalyze aggregation of the remaining monomer in solution. This is also consistent with previous studies [22]. Relevant to highlight is that the GHP filter plates used in this experiment do not trigger α-syn aggregation, shown by incubating monomeric α-syn in the absence of seeds in these plates (Control). For both cases, seeds pre-incubated with 0.2 and 2 mg/ml of either α- or γB-crystallin were no longer capable of seeding the aggregation reaction during the time frame of the experiment (Filtrates 2 and 3 for α-crystallin; Filtrates 4 and 5 for γB-crystallin, respectively; Fig 3B and 3C).

Fig 3. Trap and seed kinetic experiment.

Fig 3

3 μM α-syn seeds without and with pre-incubation with α- or γB-crystallin were trapped by filtration in GHP filter membrane plates with a 200 nm cutoff. The trapped fibrils without any pre-treatment were then incubated for 2 h with freshly purified α-syn monomer and newly filtered ((A) Filtrate 1). The same procedure was performed for the trapped fibrils that had been pre-incubated for 2 h with two concentrations 0.2 and 2 mg/ml of either α-crystallin ((B) Filtrate 2 and 3, respectively) or γB-crystallin ((C) Filtrate 4 and 5, respectively). The flow-through was collected in non-binding PEGylated plates supplemented with ThT and monitored in a plate reader under quiescent conditions at 37°C. The figures show the individual aggregation kinetic traces of at least three experimental repeats.

The effect of α-crystallin depends on when it is introduced to the aggregation reaction

In addition, we investigated the ability of α-crystallin to inhibit α-syn fibril formation when added at different time points along the aggregation reaction (Figs 4 and S2). Additions made at early time points have a strong effect on α-syn aggregation, retarding aggregation when compared to α-syn alone (black traces). The addition of α-crystallin seems to retard/inhibit aggregation if added before t1/2, which is the time at which the ThT fluorescence reaches 50% of the total fluorescence intensity. This effect is seen for both seed concentrations. These results further strengthen that the effect of crystallin proteins may be on the autocatalytic nature of α-syn seeds.

Fig 4. Aggregation kinetics of α-syn in the presence of α-crystallin added at different time points along the aggregation reaction.

Fig 4

Seeded aggregation kinetics was monitored using ThT for 20 μM α-syn alone (black traces) and in the presence of two different α-crystallin concentrations (A) 0.01 mg/ml and (B) 0.05 mg/ml in 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5 under quiescent conditions at 37°C. α-Crystallin was added at different time points along the aggregation reaction, 0, 1, 2 and 20 h, indicated by vertical dashed lines with matching color code. The t1/2 is also indicated by a black dashed vertical line. The average of at least three experimental repeats is shown.

Discussion

There are many mechanisms suggested to be involved in the development of PD, such as, accumulation of misfolded protein aggregates, incompetent protein clearance, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and genetic mutations [5]. With aging chaperone activity becomes disrupted affecting both the appropriate levels and conformations of proteins [26]. Chaperone activity has been vastly investigated in association to amyloid-related disorders and shown in several studies capable of inhibiting fibril formation for different amyloid peptides, such as, α-syn, Aβ and PolyQ peptides by affecting different microscopic events of the aggregation mechanism [2731]. Interestingly, αB-crystallin which displays chaperone-like activity accumulates in the central nervous system and co-localizes in Lewy bodies of patients with PD [10,32] and was found to be a major component of ubiquitinated inclusions bodies in human degenerative diseases [33]. Both αB-crystallin and hsp27 are expressed at elevated levels in the brains of patients with Alzheimer´s disease [3436].

We have here investigated the effect of crystallins on α-syn aggregation. Aggregation kinetic experiments were conducted at mildly acidic pH, physiologically relevant as it mimics solution conditions found in intracellular compartments, such as, lysosomes and endosomes. The aggregation mechanism of α-syn at mildly acidic pH is dominated by monomer-dependent secondary nucleation [4,22]. This leads to the generation of larger amounts of smaller oligomeric species which are thought to be the most cytotoxic species. Curiously, it has been shown that α-crystallins prevent both β- and γ-crystallins from heat-induced aggregation [13,37], while all three bovine crystallins form β-sheet enriched amyloid fibrils under denaturing and acidic pH conditions [19]. For that reason, a preliminary experiment was conducted incubating bovine crystallins at mildly acidic conditions (pH 5.5) supplemented with ThT and placed in a plate reader to monitor for fibril formation for ~45 h. No increase in ThT fluorescence intensity was observed (data not shown). All bovine crystallins here investigated were shown to inhibit α-syn aggregation evident from the ThT kinetic experiments. While the effect of all three crystallins were quite similar, oligomeric α- and βH- were shown to be slightly more efficient (Table 1). The observed extensive inhibitory effect of crystallin proteins far below equimolar amounts of α-syn is a first indication that their mechanism of action is not to interact with and reduce free α-syn monomer in solution but possibly to interact with the aggregated species affecting there catalytic nature. It is relevant to mention that at these experimental solution conditions, α-crystallins have been reported to start to lose subunits [18] and thus might exist as a mixture of oligomers in equilibrium with a small amount of their subunits (monomers). The chaperone activity of α-crystallin has been previously attributed to its dissociation into smaller species which expose higher degree of hydrophobicity compared to the larger oligomers [26]. It is generally accepted that α-crystallin suppresses aggregation through hydrophobic interactions [16]. Interestingly, here it is shown that bovine crystallin proteins influence the aggregation kinetics either as monomeric (α-subunits and/or γB) or oligomeric (α and/or βH) entities, as well as, with a positive (βH and γB) or negative (α) net charge. In addition, similar ThT experiments were performed with a control protein, lysozyme, resulting in a similar (though slightly reduced) potency of inhibition of fibril formation when compared to crystallins (S3 Fig). These results suggest that this inhibitory mechanism displayed by crystallin proteins appear to be more generalized and dependent on generic physical-chemical parameters rather than a specialized chaperone function.

Table 1. Lowest crystallin protein concentrations which efficiently inhibit α-syn fibril formation in the presence of 1 μM α-syn seeds (Figs 1B and 2A and 2B).

Lowest concentration which efficiently inhibits α-syn fibril formation in the presence of 1 μM α-syn seeds
Crystallin Mass concentration (mg/ml) Molar concentration of oligomers (μM) Molar concentration of monomers/subunits (μM)
α(a) 0.06 0.075 3 (b)
βH(c) 0.02 0.1 0.8 (d)
γB(e) 0.1 --- 4.75

(a) Occurring mainly in its oligomeric form (native α-crystallin). Mw ca. 800 kDa.

(b) On average ca. 40 subunits/oligomer

(c) Occurring in its oligomeric form. Mw ca. 200 kDa

(d) On average ca. 8 subunits/oligomer

(e) Occurring as monomers. Mw ca. 21 kDa

The chaperone-like mechanism of crystallins remains unclear and many different scenarios have been proposed. αB-crystallin has been suggested to interact transiently with monomeric species of ApoC-II, inducing fibril-incompetent conformations promoting fibril dissociation [38]. αB-crystallin has also been shown to bind to amyloid fibrils of Aβ, α-syn and insulin and inhibit elongation [39,40]. Moreover, the inhibition of α-crystallin has been postulated to be a result of an interaction with nucleus species preventing its progression into amyloid fibrils [8]. To elucidate the inhibitory mechanism of crystallins a trap and seed kinetic experiment was performed. α-Syn seeds without and with a pre-incubation with crystallin proteins were trapped in filter membrane plates and incubated for a 2 h period with freshly purified α-syn monomer. After this incubation period, the samples were newly filtered, supplemented with ThT and aggregation kinetics monitored. In the absence of crystallin, α-syn seeds were shown to be catalytic, suggesting that in a reaction between α-syn seeds and monomer, smaller oligomeric species are generated. These aggregated species were small enough to pass through the filter and further grow and aggregate the remaining monomer. However, in the cases where α-syn seeds had been pre-incubated with either α- or γB-crystallin, these seeds no longer displayed this catalytic effect. This result implies that the inhibitory effect may arise as a result of an interaction between crystallins and mature α-syn fibrils. One can hypothesize that crystallins may interact along the surfaces and free ends of the fibrils inhibiting both elongation and monomer-dependent secondary nucleation. These findings are highly relevant as secondary nucleation increases rapidly both the load of oligomeric species and fibrils. This also falls in line with previous findings where the chaperone-activity of α-crystallins was suggested to act as “holdases”, holding proteins in large soluble aggregates [26]. Inhibition of secondary nucleation of α-syn was shown to occur by the homologous protein β-syn [41]. Several studies have also shown that substoichiometric concentrations of transthyretin (TTR) [42], Brichos [30], antibody fragments [43] and several small molecules [44] inhibit secondary nucleation of Aβ peptide.

Finally, we then investigated the ability of α-crystallin to inhibit α-syn fibril formation when added at different time points along the aggregation reaction. Early additions of α-crystallin, before t1/2, were shown capable of retarding aggregation. However, additions of α-crystallin after t1/2 no longer displayed such effect. Similar observations have been reported for ApoC-II [8]. Furthermore, inhibition studies of amyloid-β fibril formation using either polymeric nanoparticles or Brichos domains also found t1/2 to be the critical point, where additions prior to t1/2 affected fibril formation opposing to additions made at time points after t1/2 [45,46].

Material and methods

α-syn expression and purification

Human α-syn was expressed in E. coli and purified using heat treatment, ion exchange and gel-filtration chromatography, as previously described [47]. A key procedure to achieving reproducible experiments is to use pure samples as starting material. Gel-filtration is a crucial step to isolate pure monomeric α-syn in degassed 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5. Only protein sample corresponding to the central region of the peak was collected. Freshly purified α-syn was prepared and handled always on ice to avoid initiation of the aggregation process. The peptide concentration was determined by absorbance at 280 nm using an extinction coefficient ε = 5800 l.mol-1cm-1.

Crystallin protein preparation

Crystallins (α, βH and γB) were obtained using the procedure established by Thurston [48; S2 Methods in S1 Text] from fresh calf-lenses provided as a by-product from a slaughterhouse. The eye-lenses were stored at 4°C in a 52.4 mM Phosphate buffer consisting of 34 mM Na2HPO4; 18.4 mM NaH2PO4; 1 mM EDTA (prevents enzymatic degradation)); 1 mM DTT (prevents oxidation) and 0.02 wt% NaN3 (prevents bacterial growth). This buffer, that is also used as storage medium for the extracted α- and βH-crystallins, has a pH of 7.1 and an ionic strength of c.a. 175 mM. The γB–rich lens nuclei are separated from the α- and β-rich coronas (cortical) and transferred to a NaAc-buffer consisting of 275 mM acetic acid, 100 mM NaOH and 0.02 wt% NaN3 with a pH of 4.5. The lens cell walls are broken down using an electrical grinder and the final slurry filtered to retrieve a mixture of eye-lens proteins. The individual crystallins, in the case of α and βH, and a mix of different γ were extracted by passing the different mixtures through a size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) column containing Superdex 200 prep grade and eluting with excess buffer. The different fractions corresponding to α- and βH-crystallins were collected and stored at 4°C (S4 Fig). The γ-mixture was filtered and degassed before passed through a SP Sepharose Fast Flow ion-exchange (IEX) column and the proteins (including γB) individually eluted using a NaAc-buffer with a salt gradient at pH 4.8 consisting of 275 mM Acetic acid; 167.5 mM NaOH; 0.02wt% NaN3; 0–325 mM NaCl (S5 Fig). The protein buffers were exchanged using Amicon Ultra Centrifugal Devices, 10 kDa for α and β and 3 kDa for γB, to 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5. The protein concentrations were determined by absorbance at 280 nm, using extinction coefficients α = 0.845 [49], βH = 2.3 [50] and γB = 2.18 [48]. The hydrodynamic radius (Rh) of α- and βH-crystallin proteins in dilute solutions obtained from Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) experiments at pH 7.1 (phosphate buffer used during the SEC preparation procedure) and pH 5.5 (MES buffer used for the aggregation kinetics experiments), were shown to remain almost constant (S6 Fig and S7 Fig, respectively; S3 Methods in S1 Text).

Thioflavin-T aggregation kinetics assay

To monitor fibril formation, 100 μl samples were aliquoted in 96-well non-binding PEGylated plates (Half-area, 3881 Corning plates), supplemented with 20 μM ThT and sealed with a plastic film to avoid evaporation. Plates were incubated at 37°C under quiescent conditions in a plate reader (FluoStar Omega, BMG Labtech, Offenburg, Germany).

The experimental data were fitted by the following equation using the Amylofit online interface [25]:

M(t)M()=1(B++C+B++C+eκtB+C+eκtB+C+)k2κKekt

Where,

B± = (k ± ǩ) / (2κ)

C± = ±λ2 / (2κ2)

κ = √{2k+k2m(0)n2+1}

λ = √{2k+knm(0)nc}

k = √{2κ2/[n2(n2+1)]+2λ2/nc}

ǩ = √{k2-4C+C-κ2}

Trap and seed assay

α-Syn seeds were made from 40 μM monomeric α-syn under shaking conditions at 37°C in Eppendorf tubes. Versatile GH-Polypro filter membranes of low-binding AcroPrep 96-well filter plates (Pall Life Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI) were initially washed with experimental buffer and saturated with monomeric α-syn. After, α-syn seeds with and without crystallin pre-treatment (2 h incubation) were trapped on these filter plates by filtration applying vacuum for 10 s and discarding the flow-through. The filtration was done using a MultiScreenHTS vacuum (Millipore) manifold. Monomeric α-syn was incubated with the trapped aggregates and newly filtered. This flow through was collected in 96-well non-binding PEGylated plates, supplemented with ThT and fluorescence intensity monitored in a plate reader at 37°C under quiescent conditions.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. α-syn monomer depletion during the aggregation reaction.

The seeded aggregation kinetics for 20 μM α-syn alone (black lines) and in the presence of α-crystallin (blue lines) was monitored using ThT. In parallel, samples along the aggregation reaction were aliquoted and centrifuged for 10 minutes at 13,000 g. The monomer concentration in the supernatant was measured by UV absorbance at 280 nm (open symbols and dashed lines). (A) 0.3 μM α-syn seeds alone and in the presence of 0.01 mg/ml α-crystallin; (B) 3 μM α-syn seeds alone and in the presence of 0.05 mg/ml α-crystallin. The experimental averages of at least three experimental repeats are shown. Important to highlight, the small artifacts seen in the ThT traces are due to the opening of the plate reader to remove samples for monomer concentration determination.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Aggregation kinetics of α-syn in the presence of α-crystallin added at different time points along the aggregation reaction.

Seeded aggregation kinetics was monitored using ThT for 20 μM α-syn alone (black traces) and in the presence of two different α-crystallin concentrations (A) 0.01 mg/ml and (B) 0.05 mg/ml in 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5 under quiescent conditions at 37°C. α-Crystallin was added at different time points along the aggregation reaction, 0, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20 h. The average of at least three experimental repeats is shown.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Seeded aggregation kinetics of α-syn in the presence of lysozyme.

The aggregation kinetics of 20 μM α-syn monomer was monitored using ThT fluorescence in the presence of 1 μM seed concentration with Lysozyme concentrations ranging from 0.002 to 2 mg/ml in 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5 under quiescent conditions at 37°C with color codes shown to the left. The figures show the average trace of at least three experimental repeats.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Size-exclusion chromatography of the cortical extract to retrieve α- and βH-crystallin.

Chromatogram of cortical calf eye lens extract after passing through the SEC column which allows for the extraction of α- and βH-crystallin, with the collected fractions indicated by the vertical lines. Also visible are low molecular weight β variants, as well as a mixture of γ-crystallin variants.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Size-exclusion and ion exchange chromatography of the nuclear extract to retrieve γB-crystallin.

(a) A typical chromatogram of the nuclear calf eye lens extract after having passed a SEC column where a mixture of γ-crystallin variants is obtained by collecting the indicated elution volume. (b) Resulting chromatogram from an IEX column after passing the mixture of γ-crystallin variants shown in (a). This allows for the collection of purified γB-crystallin while the other variants of γ-crystallin are discarded.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Hydrodynamic radius of α-crystallin proteins at pH = 7.1 and 5.5.

Correlation functions from DLS measurements on α-crystallin solutions at pH 7.1 (left) and pH 5.5 (right). Open symbols: data; red line: 2nd order cumulant fit. See text for details (S3 Methods in S1 Text).

(PDF)

S7 Fig. Hydrodynamic radius of βH-crystallin proteins at pH = 7.1 and 5.5.

Correlation functions from DLS measurements on βH-crystallin solutions at pH 7.1 (left), and pH 5.5 (right). Open symbols: data; red line: 2nd order cumulant fit. See text for details.

(PDF)

S1 Text

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Emma Sparr and Sara Linse for expert discussion, inputs in the experiments, data analysis and paper revision. We are particularly grateful to Alessandro Gulotta for the precious help with the Dynamic Light Scattering experiments.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (Project Grant KAW 2014.0052), the Swedish Research Council (VR Grant 2016-03301) and the Faculty of Science at Lund University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Dobson CM. Protein folding and misfolding. Nature 2003; 884–890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sambashivan S and Eisenberg D. Recent advances in decoding the structure of amyloid fibril. Published in BTi 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marshall KE and Serpell LC. Insights into the structure of amyloid fibrils. The Open Biology Journal 2009; 2: 185–192. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Buell AK, Galvagnion C, Gaspar R, Sparr E, Vendruscolo M, Knowles TPJ, et al. Solution conditions determine the relative importance of nucleation and growth processes in α-synuclein aggregation. PNAS 2014; 111: 7671–7676. 10.1073/pnas.1315346111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Maiti P, Manna J and Dunbar GL. Current understanding of the molecular mechanism in Parkinson´s disease: Targets for potential treatments. Translational Neurodegeneration 2017; 6:28 10.1186/s40035-017-0099-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Emamzadeh FN. α-Synuclein structure, functions and interactions. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2016; 21:29 10.4103/1735-1995.181989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Burré J. The synaptic function of α-synuclein. Journal of Parkinson´s Disease 2015;5(4): 699–713. 10.3233/JPD-150642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hatters DM, Lindner RA, Carver JA and Howlett GJ. The molecular chaperone, α-Crystallin, inhibits amyloid formation by apolipoprotein C-II. J. Biol. Chem. 2001;276(36): 33755–33761. 10.1074/jbc.M105285200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liu Y, Zhou Q, Tang M, Fu N, Shao W, Zhang S, et al. Upregulation of αB-crystallin expression in the substantia nigra of patients with Parkinson´s disease. Neurobiology of Aging 2015; 1686–1691. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rekas A, Adda CG, Aquilina JA, Barnham KJ, Sunde M, Galatis D, et al. Interaction of the molecular chaperone αB-crystallin with α-synuclein: effects on amyloid fibril formation and chaperone activity. J. Mol. Biol. 2004;340: 1167–1183. 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.05.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang J, Martin E, Gonzales V, Borchelt DR and Lee MK. Differential regulation of small heat shock proteins in transgenic mouse models of neurodegeneration diseases. Neurobiol. Aging 2008; 29(4):586–597. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.11.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Reddy GB, Das KP, Petrash JM and Surewicz WK. Temperature-dependent chaperone activity and structural properties of Human αA- and αB-Crystallins. J. Biol. Chem. 1999;275(7): 4565–4570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kumar PN and Reddy GB. Modulation of α-Crystallin chaperone activity: A target to prevent or delay cataract? IUBMB Life 2009;65(5): 485–495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Groenen PJ, Merck KB, de Jong WW and Bloemendal H. Structure and modifications of the junior chaperone α-crystallin. From lens transparency to molecular pathology. Eur. J. Biochem. 1994;225(1): 1–19. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1994.00001.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bloemendal H, de Jong W, Jaenicke R, Lubsen NH, Slingsby C and Tardieu A. Ageing and vision: structure, stability and functions of lens crystallins. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 2004;86: 407–485. 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2003.11.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Reddy GB, Kumar PA and Kumar MS. Chaperone-like activity and hydrophobicity of α-Crystallin. IUBMB Life 2006;58(11): 632–641. 10.1080/15216540601010096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sax CM and Piatigorsky J. Expression of the α-crystallin/small heat-shock protein/molecular chaperone genes in the lens and other tissues. Adv. Enzymol. Relat. Areas Mol. Biol. 1994;69: 155–201. 10.1002/9780470123157.ch5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tardieu A. α-Crystallin quaternary structure and interactive properties control eye lens transparency. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 1998;22: 211–217. 10.1016/s0141-8130(98)00018-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Meehan S, Berry Y, Luisi B, Dobson CM, Carver JA and MacPhee CE. Amyloid fibril formation by lens Crystallin proteins and its implications for cataract formation. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279(5): 3413–3419. 10.1074/jbc.M308203200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.McDermott MJ, Gawinowicz-kolks MA, Chiesa R and Spector A. The disulfide content of calf γ-crystallin. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1988;262(2): 609–19. 10.1016/0003-9861(88)90413-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Slingsby C and Clout NJ. Structure of the crystallins. Eye 1999;13: 395–402. 10.1038/eye.1999.113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gaspar R, Meisl G, Buell AK, Young L, Kaminski CF, Knowles TPJ, et al. Secondary nucleation of monomers on fibril surface dominates α-synuclein aggregation and provides autocatalytic amyloid amplification. QRB-Discovery 2007;50(e6): 1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Linse S. Monomer-dependent secondary nucleation in amyloid formation. Biophys. Rev. 2107;9(4): 329–338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Arosio P, Knowles TPJ and Linse S. On the lag phase in amyloid fibril formation. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015;17: 7606 10.1039/c4cp05563b [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Meisl G, Kirkegaard JB, Arosio P, Michaels TCT, Vendruscolo M, Dobson CM, et al. Molecular mechanisms of protein aggregation from global fitting of kinetic models. Nature Protocols 2016;11: 252–272. 10.1038/nprot.2016.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cox D, Carver JA and Ecroyd H. Preventing α-synuclein aggregation: The role of the small heat-shock molecular chaperone proteins. BBA 2014; 1830–1843. 10.1016/j.bbadis.2014.06.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Månsson C, van Cruchten RTP, Weininger U, Yang X, Cukalevski R, Arosio P, et al. Conserved S/T-residues of the human chaperone DNAJB6 are required for effective inhibition of Aβ42 amyloid fibril. Biochemistry 2018;57(32): 4891–4902. 10.1021/acs.biochem.8b00353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Aprile FA, Arosio P, Fusco G, Chen SW, Kumita JR, Dhulesia A, et al. Inhibition of α-synuclein fibril elongation by HSP70 is governed by a kinetic binding competition between α-synuclein species. Biochemistry 2017;56(9): 1177–1180. 10.1021/acs.biochem.6b01178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Arosio P, Michaels TCT, Linse S, Månsson C, Emanuelsson C, Presto J, et al. Kinetic analysis reveals the diversity of microscopic mechanisms through which molecular chaperones suppress amyloid formation. Nat. Commun. 2016;7: 10948 10.1038/ncomms10948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cohen SIA, Arosio P, Presto J, Kurudenkandy FR, Biverstal H, Dolfe L, et al. A molecular chaperone breaks the catalytic cycle that generated toxic Aβ oligomers. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2015;22(3): 207–213. 10.1038/nsmb.2971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kakkar V, Månsson C, de Mattos EP, Bergink S, van der Zwaag M, van Waarde MAWH, et al. The S/T-rich motif in the DNAJB6 chaperone delays polyglutamine aggregation and the onset of disease in a mouse model. Mol. Cell. 2016;62(2): 272–283. 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Iwaki T, Wisniewski T, Iwaki A, Corbin E, Tomokane N, Tateishi J, et al. Accumulation of αB-crystallin in central nervous system glia and neurons in pathologic conditions. Am. J. Pathol. 1992;140(2): 345–56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lowe J, McDermott H, Pike I, Splendlove I, Landon M and Mayer RJ. αB-crystallin expression in non-lenticular tissues and selective presence in ubiquitinated inclusion bodies in human disease. J. Pathol. 1992;166: 61–68. 10.1002/path.1711660110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Renkawek K, Voorter CEM, Bosman GJCGM, van Workum FPA and de Jong WW. Expression of αB-crystallin in Alzheimer disease. Acta Neuropathol. 1994;87: 155–160. 10.1007/BF00296185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Renkawek K, Bosman GJCGM and de Jong WW. Expression of small heat-shock protein hsp-27 in reactive gliosis in Alzheimer disease and other types of dementia. Acta Neuropathol. 1994;87: 511–519. 10.1007/BF00294178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Iwaki T, Kume-Iwaki A, Liem RKH and Goldman JE. αB-Crystallin is expressed in non-lenticular tissues and accumulates in Alexander´s disease brain. Cell 1989;57: 71–78. 10.1016/0092-8674(89)90173-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Horwitz J. α-Crystallin can function as a molecular chaperone. PNAS 1992;89: 10449–10453. 10.1073/pnas.89.21.10449 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Binger KJ, Ecroyd H, Yang S, Carver JA, Howlett GJ and Griffin MDW. Avoiding the oligomeric state: αB-crystallin inhibits fragmentation and induces dissociation of apolipoprotein C-II amyloid fibrils. FASEB J. 2013;27: 1214–1222. 10.1096/fj.12-220657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Shammas SL, Waudby CA, Wang S, Buell AK, Knowles TPJ, Ecroyd H, et al. Binding of the molecular chaperone αB-Crystallin to Aβ amyloid fibrils inhibits fibril elongation. Biophysical Journal 2011;101: 1681–1689. 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.07.056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Waudby CA, Knowles TPJ, Devlin GL, Skepper JN, Ecroyd H, Carver JA, et al. The interaction of αB-crystallin with mature α-synuclein amyloid fibrils inhibits their elongation. Biophysical Journal 2010;98: 843–851. 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.10.056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Brown JWP, Buell AK, Michaels TCT, Meisl G, Carozza J, Flagmeier P, et al. β-Synuclein suppresses both the initiation and amplification steps of α-Synuclein aggregation via competitive binding to surfaces. Scientific Reports 2016; 6:36010 10.1038/srep36010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ghadami SA, Chia S, Ruggeri FS, Meisl G, Bemporad F, Habchi J, et al. Transthyretin inhibits primary and secondary nucleations of amyloid-β and reduces the toxicity of its oligomers. Biomacromolecules 2020; 21:1112–1125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Aprile FA, Sormanni P, Perni M, Arosio P, Linse S, Knowles TPJ, et al. Selective targeting of primary and secondary nucleation pathways in Aβ42 aggregation using a rational antibody scanning method. Sci. Adv. 2017; 3:e1700488 10.1126/sciadv.1700488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Habchi J, Chia S, Limbocker R, Mannini B, Ahn M, Perni M, et al. Systematic development of small molecules to inhibit specific microscopic steps of Aβ42 aggregation in Alzheimer´s disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017; 114(2):E200–E208. 10.1073/pnas.1615613114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cabaleiro-Lago C, Quinlan-Pluck F, Lynch I, Lindman S, Minogue AM, Thulin E, et al. Inhibition of amyloid-β protein fibrillation by polymeric nanoparticles. JACS 2008;130(46): 15437–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Willander H, Presto J, Askarieh G, Biverstål H, Frohm B, Knight SD, et al. BRICHOS domains efficiently delay fibrillation of amyloid β-peptide. J. Biol. Chem. 2012;287(37): 31608–17. 10.1074/jbc.M112.393157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Grey M, Linse S, Nilsson H, Brundin P and Sparr E. Membrane interaction of α-synuclein in different aggregation states. Journal of Parkinson´s disease 2011;359–371. 10.3233/JPD-2011-11067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Thurston GM. Liquid-liquid phase separation and static light scattering of concentrated ternary mixtures of bovine α- and γB-crystallins. J. Chem. Phys. 2006;124: 134909 10.1063/1.2168451 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Foffi G, Savin G, Bucciarelli S, Dorsaz N, Thurston GM, Stradner A, et al. Hard sphere-like glass transition in eye lens α-crystallin solutions. PNAS 2014;111: 16748–16753. 10.1073/pnas.1406990111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tardieu AT, Veretout F, Krop B and Slingsby C. Protein interactions in the calf eye lens: interactions between β-crystallins are repulsive whereas in γ-crystallins they are attractive. Eur. Phys. J. D. 1992;1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Peter Schuck

15 May 2020

PONE-D-20-11144

Eye lens crystallin proteins inhibit the autocatalytic amyloid amplification nature of mature α-synuclein fibrils

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Ricardo Gaspar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. As you can see below, the reviewers overall like the study, but their comments were not completely favorable throughout.  They made some suggestions for changes which I would.like to invite you to consider.  I'm sure you are aware that PLOS ONE has slightly different publication criteria than most journals, and I feel this issue may impact your responses.  I am looking forward to a revised version of the manuscript that responds to the points raised during the review process.  

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter Schuck

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper describes the effects of purified bovine lens crystallin fractions on a-synuclein fibril formation in vitro. All three fractions tested inhibited fibril formation in similar ways. The experimental design is straightforward.

The effect of aB-crystallin in this type of experiment has been shown before. aB is a bona fide small heat shock protein and has wide activities in preventing aggregation of unfolding proteins. However, b- and g-crystallins are quite different proteins with no structural relationship to aB/sHSPs. It is interesting that they have such similar effects. It would suggest that the inhibition is not directly related to the sHSP chaperone properties of aB.

It has been suggested (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24582830) that all crystallins, even of different evolutionary origins, have properties, probably related to the organization of the protein surface, that allow them to exist under conditions of molecular crowding without aggregation. These properties may extend to stabilizing interactions with other cellular proteins, such as those of the cytoskeleton. However, in these experiments, it is not clear whether this is a specialized function of crystallins or a generalized effect of heterologous proteins interfering with fibril assembly. This would be clearer if the authors included a negative control using other soluble globular proteins (say lysozyme) to show they have no effect in the assay.

Reviewer #2: In the manuscript, the authors demonstrated that alpha-, beta-, and gamma-crystalin inhibit amplification of aS amyloid in vitro. The conclusion is not entirely surprising, as alpha-crystalin was previously shown to act as molecular chaperon against amyloid formation. However, the reviewer does not support its publication in the journal, since the current manuscript contains multiple flaws, and represents only phenomenological descriptions without insight into the nature of inhibition. 

1.Regarding to Figure 1, the reviewer recommends the authors to repeat the same experiment at pH 7.4, where other processes of amyloid formation are operative. Such experiment provides insights into the nature of amyloid inhibition by crystalins, and improves the physiological relevance of the experiment.

2. In the experiment shown in Figure S1, the authors examined the residual amount of aS monomer in the supernatant. This experiment is of importance, because several small compounds decrease ThT fluorescence without reducing the total amount of amyloid fibrils. However, two concerns arise regarding the experimental procedure. At first, it remains unclear whether the supernatant is truly devoid of aS amyloid fibrils (regarding to this point, centrifugation time and speed are not provided in the manuscript). I recommend the authors to measure ThT fluorescence before and after the centrifugation to examine what percentage of amyloid fibrils are precipitated by the centrifugation. Secondary, UV absorbance is not an accurate measure of protein concentration in a mixture containing two different proteins. Protein concentration should be determined by SDS-PAGE after separating aS from crystalins and measuring the band intensity.

3.The trap and seed kinetic experiment is tricky and less understandable. At first, it is difficult for me to understand which solutions marked by "filtrate 1", "control", "filtrate 2", etc., are filtrated once or twice. Furthermore, this experiment seems to contain a critical flaw: it was not proven that crystalins do not pass through the 200 nm filter. If not, crystalins will present in the trapped fraction at a high concentration, and inhibit generation of small oligomer in the next reaction. Crystalins form multimers, possibly larger than 200 nm. Furthermore, crystalins can interact with aS amyloid fibrils, which also potentially inhibit their flow-through.

4.In the abstract and discussion sections, the author hypothesized that crystalins might interact with aS fibrils. This hypothesize should be tested to provide insight into the nature of inhibition. For example, as described in doi: 10.1021/cn500019c, co-sedimentation assay is a simple method to detect interaction between amyloid fibrils and proteins. SPR analysis is alternative.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, Gaspar et al. investigate the effects of three types of crystallin proteins on the seeded amyloid fibril formation of alpha-synuclein at mildly acidic pH. The main finding is that the reaction of fibril formation is inhibited by these chaperone-like proteins. While it is not clear how relevant crystallins are for alpha-synuclein amyloid fibril formation in vivo, the study is nevertheless interesting and relevant. Not least because we still lack basic mechanistic understanding of alpha-synuclein amyloid formation under these conditions and any additional piece of information, also specific modes of action of inhibitors, is of value.

Overall I think the study is well-performed and the conclusions are mostly justified. However, I think that a few aspects need to be characterised/discussed in some more detail:

1) Some data needs to be shown from the purification of the proteins, such as SEC chromatograms, in order to give the reader a feel for how pure these preparations are, which are extracted from bovine eyes. Also, I would like to see a characterisation of the final chaperone preparations, at least in terms of their overall size distribution. Here, DLS, analytical ultracentrifugaion or microfluidic diffusional sizing would be appropriate techniques. Such measurements should be done both at pH 7, where the crystallins are extracted, as well as at pH 5.5, where the kinetic experiments are done.

2) Overall, the arguments that the crystallins inhibit secondary nucleation is supported by the data, in particular by the trap and seed experiments. However, the data also shows a different slope at time 0, which suggests an effect on elongation. This should be investigated in more detail, in order to be able to provide an estimate of the relative effects on elongation and secondary nucleation. Another noteworthy feature in the kinetic data is that the curves in the presence of inhibitor reach a plateau at lower ThT fluorescence intensities than the level in the absence of inhibtor. I guess for the amylofit analysis, the assumption was made that the ThT level is exactly proportional to the fibril concentration (this should be stated somewhere). That would mean that the inhibitor not only changes the kinetics, but also the final equilibrium position. This is interesting, as it should only happen with inhibitors that can interact with the monomer, and hence are able to shift the equilibrium. This seems not to be the case, however, for the crystallins. This should be commented on.

3) An estimate should be provided for the stoichimetry of fibril binding of the crystallins. For example one could incubate fibrils and crystallins and then spin them down and see how much of the crystallin is spund down together with the fibrils. This would be important to be able to compare its effect with that of other chaperones that can inhibit secondary nucleation in other amyloid systems, such as Abeta (e.g. Brichos chaperone). Also, there should be a somewhat more extensive discussion of the existing literature of secondary nucleation inhibitors in general and alpha-synuclein in particular, as some recent studies have presented efficient inhibition of alpha-synuclein secondary nucleation at highly sub-stoichiomtric ratio.

**********

6. 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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

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. Registration is free. 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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 29;15(6):e0235198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235198.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Jun 2020

Resubmission of revised version of PONE-D-20-11144:

“Eye lens crystallin proteins inhibit the autocatalytic amyloid amplification nature of mature α-synuclein fibrils” by Ricardo Gaspar, Tommy Garting and Anna Stradner.

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for the reviewer reports for our manuscript PONE-D-20-11144.

We are very happy with the positive feedback and grateful to the reviewers for the numerous thoughtful comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

We have now carefully and substantially revised the manuscript along these comments and feel that this has considerably increased the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

Please find below a point-by-point response to all the comments and criticism raised by the three reviewers.

We hope that with these changes our manuscript is now acceptable for publication as a Research Article in PLOS ONE.

We thank you in advance for your time and your consideration of our submission.

Sincerely yours,

Ricardo Gaspar

Detailed response to the reviewers’ comments

The original comments by the reviewers are repeated in italic for clarity, our answers are highlighted in red, and the revisions made are highlighted in blue in this response letter and marked in yellow in the revised manuscript (pdf).

REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS:

Reviewer #1:

This paper describes the effects of purified bovine lens crystallin fractions on a-synuclein fibril formation in vitro. All three fractions tested inhibited fibril formation in similar ways. The experimental design is straightforward. The effect of aB-crystallin in this type of experiment has been shown before. aB is a bona fide small heat shock protein and has wide activities in preventing aggregation of unfolding proteins. However, b- and g-crystallins are quite different proteins with no structural relationship to aB/sHSPs. It is interesting that they have such similar effects. It would suggest that the inhibition is not directly related to the sHSP chaperone properties of aB. It has been suggested (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24582830) that all crystallins, even of different evolutionary origins, have properties, probably related to the organization of the protein surface, that allow them to exist under conditions of molecular crowding without aggregation. These properties may extend to stabilizing interactions with other cellular proteins, such as those of the cytoskeleton. However, in these experiments, it is not clear whether this is a specialized function of crystallins or a generalized effect of heterologous proteins interfering with fibril assembly. This would be clearer if the authors included a negative control using other soluble globular proteins (say lysozyme) to show they have no effect in the assay.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and for pointing out this extremely interesting paper. We agree with the reviewer and have added an experiment with lysozyme (shown in supplementary information). We feel that with the data shown for all three crystallins and the negative control experiment from lysozyme, this strongly suggests that the inhibitory effect on fibril formation appears to be more generalized and dependent on generic physical-chemical parameters rather than a specialized chaperone function attributed to small heat-shock proteins, as alpha-crystallin.

We have added a respective discussion to the revised manuscript. It now reads on page 12:

“In addition, similar ThT experiments were performed with a control protein, lysozyme, resulting in a similar (though slightly reduced) potency of inhibition of fibril formation when compared to crystallins (Fig S3 in SI). These results suggest that this inhibitory mechanism displayed by crystallin proteins appear to be more generalized and dependent on generic physical-chemical parameters rather than a specialized chaperone function.”

The following figure was added in supporting information (Fig S3):

“Fig S3. Seeded aggregation kinetics of α-syn in the presence of Lysozyme. The aggregation kinetics of 20 µM α-syn monomer was monitored using ThT fluorescence in the presence of 1 µM seed concentration with Lysozyme concentrations ranging from 0.002 to 2 mg/ml in 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5 under quiescent conditions at 37ºC with color codes shown to the left. The figures show the average trace of at least three experimental repeats.”

Reviewer #2:

In the manuscript, the authors demonstrated that alpha-, beta-, and gamma-crystallin inhibit amplification of aS amyloid in vitro. The conclusion is not entirely surprising, as alpha-crystallin was previously shown to act as molecular chaperon against amyloid formation. However, the reviewer does not support its publication in the journal, since the current manuscript contains multiple flaws, and represents only phenomenological descriptions without insight into the nature of inhibition.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the feedback related to our manuscript. While the effect for alpha-crystallin may not be entirely surprising, this is the first study to the best of our knowledge that reports similar effects for beta- and gamma-crystallin. It is extremely interesting that crystallin proteins of different evolutionary origins and with no structural relationship share similar effects on fibril formation. This was very nicely postulated in a paper suggested by Reviewer #1 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24582830). The results here presented imply that the inhibitory effect on fibril formation may have origins in more generalized and generic physical-chemical parameters rather than specialized chaperone function attributed to small heat-shock proteins. This picture is also supported by negative control experiments using lysozyme, as suggested by Reviewer #1, and as detailed and discussed in our response to Reviewer #1, as well as, in the revised manuscript.

1. Regarding to Figure 1, the reviewer recommends the authors to repeat the same experiment at pH 7.4, where other processes of amyloid formation are operative. Such experiment provides insights into the nature of amyloid inhibition by crystallins, and improves the physiological relevance of the experiment.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. In our research group we have previously contributed several important findings related to the aggregation mechanism of alpha-synuclein. In our study [Buell et al “Solution conditions determine the relative importance of nucleation and growth processes in alpha-synuclein aggregation”, 2014, PNAS, 111(21):7671-6], we have e.g. demonstrated that the aggregation mechanism of alpha-synuclein is pH dependent, where at neutral pH homogenous primary nucleation and secondary processes are undetectable. At this pH the rate of elongation and higher-order assembly of fibrils was found to be much higher. Further investigation resulted in [Gaspar et al, “Secondary nucleation of monomers on fibril surface dominates alpha-synuclein aggregation and provides autocatalytic amyloid amplification”, 2017, QRB-D, 50:e6], where we clearly demonstrated that at mildly acidic pH the overall mechanistic character of aggregation is changed, elucidating that the molecular mechanism underlying the aggregation process at mildly acidic pH is dominated by monomer-dependent secondary nucleation.

Moreover, while neutral pH may add more physiological relevance to the study, it overlaps to some degree with what has been performed already by [Wauby et al in 2010, “The Interaction of αB-Crystallin with Mature α-Synuclein Amyloid Fibrils Inhibits Their Elongation”, 2010, Biophys J, 98(5): 843-851]. Noteworthy, and many times overlooked, is that acidic pH is found in some lumens of intracellular compartments, such as exosomes and lysosomes, making this pH range also very desirable in mimicking particular physiological conditions.

Wauby et al have thus already successfully demonstrated that alphaB-crystallin inhibits elongation at neutral pH conditions [2010, Biophys J, 98(5): 843-851]. In addition to the physiological relevance of acidic pH, one of the main questions of our study is whether the crystallin protein family also has similar effects on secondary nucleation which is “switched on” at acidic pH. The reasoning behind such concerns is the fact that secondary nucleation consists of a double treat, rapidly increasing the load of fibrillar mass and smaller oligomeric species often linked to cytotoxicity.

2. In the experiment shown in Figure S1, the authors examined the residual amount of aS monomer in the supernatant. This experiment is of importance, because several small compounds decrease ThT fluorescence without reducing the total amount of amyloid fibrils. However, two concerns arise regarding the experimental procedure. At first, it remains unclear whether the supernatant is truly devoid of aS amyloid fibrils (regarding to this point, centrifugation time and speed are not provided in the manuscript). I recommend the authors to measure ThT fluorescence before and after the centrifugation to examine what percentage of amyloid fibrils are precipitated by the centrifugation. Secondary, UV absorbance is not an accurate measure of protein concentration in a mixture containing two different proteins. Protein concentration should be determined by SDS-PAGE after separating aS from crystalins and measuring the band intensity.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree and have added the additional description of the method in the legend of the corresponding figure, which now includes the centrifugation speed and time. We acknowledge that although UV absorbance is not the ideal quantitative tool, it is a very nice approach and has been corroborated in parallel by complementary ex situ methods, as described in the paper [Arosio et al “On the lag phase in amyloid fibril formation” 2015, Phys Chem Chem Phys, 17(12): 7606-18]. This method was also proven useful in our own work [Grey et al, “Acceleration of alpha-synuclein aggregation by exosomes” 2014, J Biol Chem, 290(5): 2969-2982].

Concerning measuring ThT fluorescence before/after centrifugation, this would not lead to precise quantification as a result of low signal-to-noise ratio of ThT, failing to detect small concentration of aggregates as shown in [Arosio et al, “Quantification of the concentration of Abeta42 propagons during the lag phase by an amyloid chain reaction assay” 2014, JACS, 136(1): 219-225].

Finally, we fully agree that SDS-PAGE would be the ideal technique for quantification. However, it is still clearly evident from our data that the amount of fibrils decreases, which is the main message intended to convey with this additional supplementary experiment.

3.The trap and seed kinetic experiment is tricky and less understandable. At first, it is difficult for me to understand which solutions marked by "filtrate 1", "control", "filtrate 2", etc., are filtrated once or twice. Furthermore, this experiment seems to contain a critical flaw: it was not proven that crystalins do not pass through the 200 nm filter. If not, crystalins will present in the trapped fraction at a high concentration, and inhibit generation of small oligomer in the next reaction. Crystalins form multimers, possibly larger than 200 nm. Furthermore, crystalins can interact with aS amyloid fibrils, which also potentially inhibit their flow-through.

Response: We have attempted to make the experimental description of the trap and seed assay clearer for the reader. All filtrates enumerated were filtered twice: once to trap the fibrils where the flow-through was discarded, and a second time to collect the monomer that had been incubated with the trapped aggregates which was supplemented with ThT and used to monitor aggregation. The control, the only condition that has been filtered only once, refers to the sample of monomeric alpha synuclein incubated alone with the filter plates used in this experiment. As alpha-synuclein is extremely sensitive to extrinsic factors, such as the surface material of the reservoir where it is studied, it is important to verify whether the surface material alone is capable of triggering aggregation, as is the case when using Polystyrene plates, reported in Gaspar et al, “Secondary nucleation of monomers on fibril surface dominates alpha-synuclein aggregation and provides autocatalytic amyloid amplification”, 2017, QRB-D, 50:e6.

The idea of the trap and seed assay is exactly to trap crystallin-alpha synuclein complexes. What we observe is that both gamma-crystallin as well as alpha-crystallin pre-incubated with fibrils and subsequently trapped by filtration lead to a loss of the catalytic ability of such aggregates when incubated with freshly purified alpha-synuclein monomer. We can thus conclude that the inhibitory effect is related to an interaction between these two components, crystallin proteins and alpha-synuclein aggregates. This information is not directly extracted in the case where all components are mixed at time 0 (Figures 1 and 2). We can also exclude that (free) crystallins will be trapped as f.e. multimers in the filter. Their size, even in the case of the multisubunit alpha-crystallin (ca. 20nm in diameter), is well below the 200nm cutoff of the filter. We have added detailed information on the crystallin preparation and characterization of the sizes of the individual crystallins in the revised version of SI (see Figs S4-S7 and S2 and S3 Methods in SI) to make this clearer to the reader.

Changes in the revised manuscript: we have extended the description of the trap and seed experiments to make it clearer to the reader. The modified text now reads as follows:

Page 16-17: “α-Syn seeds were made from 40 µM monomeric α-syn under shaking conditions at 37ºC in Eppendorf tubes. Versatile GH-Polypro filter membranes of low-binding AcroPrep 96-well filter plates (Pall Life Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI) were initially washed with experimental buffer and saturated with monomeric α-syn. After, α-syn seeds with and without crystallin pre-treatment (2 h incubation) were trapped on these filter plates by filtration applying vacuum for 10 s and discarding the flow-through. The filtration was done using a MultiScreenHTS vacuum (Millipore) manifold. Monomeric α-syn was incubated with the trapped aggregates and newly filtered. This flow through was collected in 96-well non-binding PEGylated plates, supplemented with ThT and fluorescence intensity monitored in a plate reader at 37ºC under quiescent conditions. ”

4. In the abstract and discussion sections, the author hypothesized that crystallins might interact with aS fibrils. This hypothesize should be tested to provide insight into the nature of inhibition. For example, as described in doi: 10.1021/cn500019c, co-sedimentation assay is a simple method to detect interaction between amyloid fibrils and proteins. SPR analysis is alternative.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this very nice suggestion, which would indeed be very interesting. It is once again worth mentioning that Wauby et al in 2010 nicely showed alphaB-crystallin-alpha-synuclein complexes with immunoelectron microscopy [2010, Biophys J, 98(5): 843-851]. Moreover, and as outlined in our reply to question 3, we firmly believe that our trap and seed experiments strongly support our hypothesis of an interaction between crystallins and alpha-synuclein fibrils.

Reviewer #3:

In this manuscript, Gaspar et al. investigate the effects of three types of crystallin proteins on the seeded amyloid fibril formation of alpha-synuclein at mildly acidic pH. The main finding is that the reaction of fibril formation is inhibited by these chaperone-like proteins. While it is not clear how relevant crystallins are for alpha-synuclein amyloid fibril formation in vivo, the study is nevertheless interesting and relevant. Not least because we still lack basic mechanistic understanding of alpha-synuclein amyloid formation under these conditions and any additional piece of information, also specific modes of action of inhibitors, is of value.

Overall I think the study is well-performed and the conclusions are mostly justified. However, I think that a few aspects need to be characterised/discussed in some more detail:

Response: We are very grateful to the reviewer for his/her positive feedback on the manuscript.

1. Some data needs to be shown from the purification of the proteins, such as SEC chromatograms, in order to give the reader a feel for how pure these preparations are, which are extracted from bovine eyes. Also, I would like to see a characterisation of the final chaperone preparations, at least in terms of their overall size distribution. Here, DLS, analytical ultracentrifugaion or microfluidic diffusional sizing would be appropriate techniques. Such measurements should be done both at pH 7, where the crystallins are extracted, as well as at pH 5.5, where the kinetic experiments are done.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have accordingly complemented the revised SI with detailed information regarding the purification incl. chromatograms and characterization of crystallins using DLS at both pH 7 and 5.5.

The respective section can be found on page 23 – 26 in SI.

2. Overall, the arguments that the crystallins inhibit secondary nucleation is supported by the data, in particular by the trap and seed experiments. However, the data also shows a different slope at time 0, which suggests an effect on elongation. This should be investigated in more detail, in order to be able to provide an estimate of the relative effects on elongation and secondary nucleation. Another noteworthy feature in the kinetic data is that the curves in the presence of inhibitor reach a plateau at lower ThT fluorescence intensities than the level in the absence of inhibtor. I guess for the amylofit analysis, the assumption was made that the ThT level is exactly proportional to the fibril concentration (this should be stated somewhere). That would mean that the inhibitor not only changes the kinetics, but also the final equilibrium position. This is interesting, as it should only happen with inhibitors that can interact with the monomer, and hence are able to shift the equilibrium. This seems not to be the case, however, for the crystallins. This should be commented on.

Response: We appreciate the very nice suggestions from the reviewer. To decompose the combined rate constants k+k2 into individual k+ and k2 would require many additional experiments. For k+, at least an estimation of fibril length from, for example, cryo-EM images would be required. The individual rates obtained in this manner would therefore also contain a source of uncertainty. Another downside is the fact that only one alpha synuclein monomer concentration was tested.

Concerning the amylofit analysis, the information in the text has been updated and made clear.

On page 7, it now reads:

“The successful determination of such mechanistic insights rely heavily on the purity of the protein samples and on the reporter dye (ThT) in the sense that there is a linear correlation between signal and total aggregate mass.”

To address the question related to the lower ThT plateau, we have also added on Page 5 the following:

“In the samples where aggregation occurs in the presence of α-crystallin, the ThT plateaus exhibit lower fluorescence intensities which suggests a decrease in the levels of ThT-positive α-syn aggregates. This may be a result of the inhibitory effect or an interference with the ThT signal.”

3. An estimate should be provided for the stoichimetry of fibril binding of the crystallins. For example one could incubate fibrils and crystallins and then spin them down and see how much of the crystallin is spund down together with the fibrils. This would be important to be able to compare its effect with that of other chaperones that can inhibit secondary nucleation in other amyloid systems, such as Abeta (e.g. Brichos chaperone). Also, there should be a somewhat more extensive discussion of the existing literature of secondary nucleation inhibitors in general and alpha-synuclein in particular, as some recent studies have presented efficient inhibition of alpha-synuclein secondary nucleation at highly sub-stoichiomtric ratio.

Response: We again thank the reviewer for the suggestion. A more extensive literature search has been performed and some relevant studies have been added in the discussion where it now reads on page 13: “Inhibition of secondary nucleation of α-syn was shown to occur by the homologous protein β-syn [47]. Several studies have also shown that substoichiometric concentrations of transthyretin (TTR) [48], Brichos [30], antibody fragments [49] and several small molecules [50] inhibit secondary nucleation of Aβ peptide”.

While we have found many additional studies with small molecules including anle138b, BIOD303, fasudil, squalamine, EGCG, among others polyols, polyphenols and aromatic molecules, these were not included in the revised manuscript as we believe they fall outside the scope of the manuscript.

With respect to the stoichiometry experiment, we fear that if one were to spin down crystallin together with fibrils, free crystallin may also be dragged down leading to an overestimation. We believe from table 1 in the manuscript, it is evident from the minimal concentration that one observes inhibition, that the effect occurs far below equimolar concentrations, therefore very much in line with other recent reported substochiometric inhibitors of secondary nucleation.

On Page 11 of the revised manuscript we have thus added the following statement: “The observed extensive inhibitory effect of crystallin proteins far below equimolar amounts of α-syn is a first indication that their mechanism of action is not to interact with and reduce free α-syn monomer in solution but possibly to interact with the aggregated species affecting there catalytic nature.”,

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Peter Schuck

11 Jun 2020

Eye lens crystallin proteins inhibit the autocatalytic amyloid amplification nature of mature α-synuclein fibrils

PONE-D-20-11144R1

Dear Dr. Ricardo Gaspar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Peter Schuck

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Peter Schuck

16 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-11144R1

Eye lens crystallin proteins inhibit the autocatalytic amyloid amplification nature of mature α-synuclein fibrils

Dear Dr. Gaspar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Peter Schuck

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. α-syn monomer depletion during the aggregation reaction.

    The seeded aggregation kinetics for 20 μM α-syn alone (black lines) and in the presence of α-crystallin (blue lines) was monitored using ThT. In parallel, samples along the aggregation reaction were aliquoted and centrifuged for 10 minutes at 13,000 g. The monomer concentration in the supernatant was measured by UV absorbance at 280 nm (open symbols and dashed lines). (A) 0.3 μM α-syn seeds alone and in the presence of 0.01 mg/ml α-crystallin; (B) 3 μM α-syn seeds alone and in the presence of 0.05 mg/ml α-crystallin. The experimental averages of at least three experimental repeats are shown. Important to highlight, the small artifacts seen in the ThT traces are due to the opening of the plate reader to remove samples for monomer concentration determination.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Aggregation kinetics of α-syn in the presence of α-crystallin added at different time points along the aggregation reaction.

    Seeded aggregation kinetics was monitored using ThT for 20 μM α-syn alone (black traces) and in the presence of two different α-crystallin concentrations (A) 0.01 mg/ml and (B) 0.05 mg/ml in 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5 under quiescent conditions at 37°C. α-Crystallin was added at different time points along the aggregation reaction, 0, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20 h. The average of at least three experimental repeats is shown.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Seeded aggregation kinetics of α-syn in the presence of lysozyme.

    The aggregation kinetics of 20 μM α-syn monomer was monitored using ThT fluorescence in the presence of 1 μM seed concentration with Lysozyme concentrations ranging from 0.002 to 2 mg/ml in 10 mM MES buffer pH 5.5 under quiescent conditions at 37°C with color codes shown to the left. The figures show the average trace of at least three experimental repeats.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Size-exclusion chromatography of the cortical extract to retrieve α- and βH-crystallin.

    Chromatogram of cortical calf eye lens extract after passing through the SEC column which allows for the extraction of α- and βH-crystallin, with the collected fractions indicated by the vertical lines. Also visible are low molecular weight β variants, as well as a mixture of γ-crystallin variants.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Size-exclusion and ion exchange chromatography of the nuclear extract to retrieve γB-crystallin.

    (a) A typical chromatogram of the nuclear calf eye lens extract after having passed a SEC column where a mixture of γ-crystallin variants is obtained by collecting the indicated elution volume. (b) Resulting chromatogram from an IEX column after passing the mixture of γ-crystallin variants shown in (a). This allows for the collection of purified γB-crystallin while the other variants of γ-crystallin are discarded.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Hydrodynamic radius of α-crystallin proteins at pH = 7.1 and 5.5.

    Correlation functions from DLS measurements on α-crystallin solutions at pH 7.1 (left) and pH 5.5 (right). Open symbols: data; red line: 2nd order cumulant fit. See text for details (S3 Methods in S1 Text).

    (PDF)

    S7 Fig. Hydrodynamic radius of βH-crystallin proteins at pH = 7.1 and 5.5.

    Correlation functions from DLS measurements on βH-crystallin solutions at pH 7.1 (left), and pH 5.5 (right). Open symbols: data; red line: 2nd order cumulant fit. See text for details.

    (PDF)

    S1 Text

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES