Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2020 Jun 18;18(6):e3000679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000679

Acute inhibition of centriolar satellite function and positioning reveals their functions at the primary cilium

Özge Z Aydin 1,#, Sevket Onur Taflan 1,#, Can Gurkaslar 1, Elif Nur Firat-Karalar 1,*
Editor: Renata Basto2
PMCID: PMC7326281  PMID: 32555591

Abstract

Centriolar satellites are dynamic, membraneless granules composed of over 200 proteins. They store, modify, and traffic centrosome and primary cilium proteins, and help to regulate both the biogenesis and some functions of centrosomes and cilium. In most cell types, satellites cluster around the perinuclear centrosome, but their integrity and cellular distribution are dynamically remodeled in response to different stimuli, such as cell cycle cues. Dissecting the specific and temporal functions and mechanisms of satellites and how these are influenced by their cellular positioning and dynamics has been challenging using genetic approaches, particularly in ciliated and proliferating cells. To address this, we developed a chemical-based trafficking assay to rapidly and efficiently redistribute satellites to either the cell periphery or center, and fuse them into stable clusters in a temporally controlled way. Induced satellite clustering at either the periphery or center resulted in antagonistic changes in the pericentrosomal levels of a subset of proteins, revealing a direct and selective role for their positioning in protein targeting and sequestration. Systematic analysis of the interactome of peripheral satellite clusters revealed enrichment of proteins implicated in cilium biogenesis and mitosis. Importantly, induction of peripheral satellite targeting in ciliated cells revealed a function for satellites not just for efficient cilium assembly but also in the maintenance of steady-state cilia and in cilia disassembly by regulating the structural integrity of the ciliary axoneme. Finally, perturbing satellite distribution and dynamics inhibited their mitotic dissolution, and mitotic progression was perturbed only in cells with centrosomal satellite clustering. Collectively, our results for the first time showed a direct link between satellite functions and their pericentrosomal clustering, suggested new mechanisms underlying satellite functions during cilium assembly, and provided a new tool for probing temporal satellite functions in different contexts


What happens when centriolar satellites are not in the right place at the right time? By redistributing satellites to the periphery or center of the cell and assessing the consequences of their mispositioning, this study reveals novel functions for satellites during mitosis, cilium maintenance, and cilium disassembly and suggests new mechanisms.

Introduction

The mammalian centrosome/cilium complex consists of the centrosome, the cilium, and the centriolar satellites, which together regulate polarity, signaling, proliferation, and motility in cells and thereby development and homeostasis in organisms. Centriolar satellites (hereafter satellites) are 70–100-nm membraneless electron-dense granules that localize and move around centrosomes and cilia [1]. Satellite assembly is scaffolded by the large coiled-coil protein pericentriolar material 1 (PCM1), which physically interacts with many known and putative centrosome proteins [2,3]. Satellite resident proteins function in a wide range of cellular processes, including cilium assembly, ciliary transport, centriole duplication, mitotic regulation, and microtubule dynamics and organization, and include proteins mutated in developmental and neuronal disorders [4,5]. Accordingly, acute or constitutive loss of satellites through depletion or deletion of PCM1 resulted in defects in cilium assembly, ciliary signaling, epithelial cell organization, and autophagy [58]. Satellites mediate their functions in part by regulating the cellular abundance or centrosomal and ciliary targeting of specific proteins [69]. These results, together with their microtubule-mediated active transport, led to the current model, which defines satellites as trafficking modules and/or storage sites for their protein residents.

Although satellites are ubiquitous structures in vertebrate cells, their number and distribution changes in a context-dependent way. For example, in most cell types, satellites are predominantly clustered around the centrosome, and to a lesser extent scattered throughout the cytoplasm [10]. However, in specialized cell types, their distribution varies from clustering at the nuclear envelope in myotubes and at the apical side of polarized epithelial cells, to being scattered throughout the cell body in neurons [1012]. In addition to their cell type–specific distribution, satellite properties can also be influenced by extracellular stimuli. For example, genotoxic stress causes satellites to disperse throughout the cytoplasm, and during mitosis, satellites dissolve and subsequently reassemble upon mitotic exit [13,14]. The mitotic dissolution of PCM1 is regulated by a dual specificity tyrosine phosphorylation-regulated kinase 3 (DYRK3)-dependent mechanism and is a line of evidence for liquid-like behavior of satellites [13]. Consistent with such behavior, satellite granules were shown to undergo fusion and fission events with each other and the centrosome in epithelial cells [15]. These context-dependent variations in satellite properties suggest that their cellular distribution and remodeling have important implications for their functions, although the mechanisms remain unknown.

There are two key unknowns that pertain to our understanding of satellite functions as discrete protein complexes. First, despite its highly regulate nature, whether and, if so, how satellite distribution contributes to their functions is not known. Second, previous approaches that used depletion or deletion of PCM1 to study satellite functions were limited in uncovering their temporal functions, such as the ones during cilium maintenance and mitosis. Addressing these questions is an essential step in defining their relationship with centrosomes and cilia, and thereby the inter-organelle communication within the vertebrate centrosome/cilium complex. To this end, we used chemical manipulation to efficiently and rapidly target satellites to the microtubule plus ends at the cell periphery or microtubule minus ends at the cell center. Satellites targeted to these locations formed stable assemblies, and we showed that satellite proximity to centrosomes and cilia is required for their functions in centrosomal protein targeting, mitotic progression and cilium assembly, maintenance, and disassembly.

Results

Development and validation of the inducible satellite trafficking assay

Satellites cluster around the centrosome in most cell types, suggesting that their proximity to the centrosomes is important for their functions. To uncover temporal functions of satellites and to elucidate how their pericentrosomal clustering contributes to their functions, we developed an inducible satellite trafficking assay to target satellites away from the centrosomes to the cell periphery and determined the molecular and cellular consequences (Fig 1A). To correlate the associated phenotypes with satellite proximity to the centrosomes, we in parallel targeted satellites to the cell center (Fig 1A). Our approach makes use of the inducible dimerization of the FK506 binding protein 12 (FKBP) and FKBP12-rapamycin-binding (FRB) domain of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) by rapamycin or its cell-permeable analog, rapalog [16,17]. Due to the long half-life of rapamycin interaction with FKBP and FRB (about 17.5 hours), the dimerization is essentially irreversible [18]. This FKBP-FRB-based rapamycin-inducible heterodimerization approach was previously used to spatiotemporally manipulate specific cellular structures and catalytic activities such as the removal of intraflagellar transport 20 (IFT20) and intraflagellar transport 74 (IFT74) from cilia and sequestration at the mitochondria [19], ciliary targeting of cytosolic carboxypeptidase 5 (CCP5) tubulin deglutamylase [20], and recruitment of molecular motors to endosomes, peroxisomes, and the nucleus [2124].

Fig 1. Inducible dimerization of PCM1 with constitutively active motor domains targets satellites to the cell periphery or center.

Fig 1

Development and validation of the inducible satellite trafficking assay. (A) Representation of satellite redistribution to cell periphery or center upon inducible dimerization of the satellite scaffolding protein PCM1 with the constitutively active plus and minus end–directed molecular motor proteins. (B) Design of the inducible satellite-trafficking assay. PCM1 was tagged with GFP at the N terminus and FKBP at the C terminus. Co-expression of GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b (1–269 aa)-FRB and subsequent rapamycin induction targets satellites to the cell periphery, where microtubule plus ends are concentrated. Co-expression of GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-BICD2 (1–198 aa)-FRB and subsequent rapamycin induction targets satellites to the cell center, where microtubule minus ends are concentrated. (C, D) Representative images for satellite distribution in control and rapamycin-treated HeLa cells. Cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour. Twenty-four hours after rapamycin induction, cells were fixed and stained with antibodies against GFP, PCM1, and gamma-tubulin. DNA was stained with DAPI. Cell edges are outlined. Scale bar, 5 μm. (E, F) Endogenous PCM1 exhibits the same localization pattern as GFP-PCM1-FKBP. Pericentrosomal PCM1 levels was quantified at 6 hours and 24 hours after rapamycin treatment of cells expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with (E) HA-Kif5b-FRB or (F) HA-BICD2-FRB. Average mean intensity of pericentrosomal levels in control cells were normalized to 1. n ≥ 25 cells per experiment. Data represent mean value from two experiments per condition, ±SD (****p < 0.0001). (G) Dynamics of satellite redistribution to the cell periphery or center upon rapamycin addition. Cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB were imaged before and after rapamycin addition using time-lapse microscopy. Imaging was performed more frequently (every 2 minutes) in BICD2-expressing cells relative to Kif5b-expressing cells (every 5 minutes). Representative still frames from time-lapse experiments were shown. Cell edges are outlined. Time, minutes after rapamycin addition. Scale bar, 5 μm. (H) Satellites concentrate around mother centriole in cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-BICD2-FRB after rapamycin treatment. Cells were stained for GFP, mother centriole marker Cep164, and gamma-tubulin. DNA was stained with DAPI. Cell edges are outlined. Scale bar, 5 μm. (I) Peripheral and centrosomal satellite clusters were maintained upon microtubule depolymerization. Cells with peripheral or centrosomal satellite clusters were treated with nocodazole for 1 hour and imaged every 3 minutes by time-lapse microscopy. Representative still frames from time-lapse experiments were shown. Cell edges are outlined. Scale bar, 5 μm. Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S1 Data. BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5B; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; Rapa, rapamycin.

We adapted this assay for satellites by co-expressing FKBP fusion of satellites with the FRB fusion of constitutively active plus end or minus end–directed motor domains (Fig 1B). We tagged the satellite-scaffolding protein PCM1 with green fluorescent protein (GFP) at the N terminus for visualization of satellites and with FKBP at the C terminus for inducible dimerization with the motor domains (Fig 1B). Analogous to GFP-PCM1 and endogenous PCM1, GFP-PCM1-FKBP localized to satellites in transfected human cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cells without altering their distribution (S1A Fig). To target satellites to the microtubule plus ends at the cell periphery, we induced their recruitment to the FRB fusion of constitutively active kinesin-1 hemagglutinin (HA)–kinesin family member 5B (Kif5b) (1–269 aa) motor domain (hereafter, HA-Kif5b-FRB or Kif5b), which lacks the tail region required for interaction with endogenous cargoes and thus can only bind to satellites via the FKBP-FRB dimerization (Fig 1B) [23]. HA-Kif5b-FRB localized to the cytosol and did not affect the distribution of satellites (S1B Fig). To target satellites to the microtubule minus ends at the cell center, we induced their recruitment to the FRB fusion of the constitutively active N terminus of dynein/dynactin cargo adaptor bicaudal D homolog 2 (BICD2; 1–198 aa) (hereafter HA-BICD2-FRB or BICD2), which interacts with dynein and dynactin but lacks the cargo-binding domain (Fig 1B) [23]. HA-BICD2-FRB localized diffusely throughout the cytosol in low-expressing cells and formed granules in high-expressing cells (S1B Fig). In contrast to HA-Kif5b, we noticed that HA-BICD2 expression by itself resulted in satellite dispersal throughout the cytosol (S1B Fig), likely through outcompeting endogenous activating adaptors that couple satellites to the dynein-dynactin complex. Of note, this is consistent with its previous characterization as a dominant-negative mutant that impairs dynein-dynactin function [2527]. Although the activating adaptors required for minus end–directed movement of satellites are not known, our results validate that chemical dimerization of BICD2 with satellites is sufficient to induce their centrosomal clustering (Fig 1D, S1D Fig).

To test the feasibility of the inducible satellite trafficking assay, we first determined the localization of satellites in transfected HeLa cells before and after rapamycin addition by live imaging and quantitative immunofluorescence. In cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b-FRB, satellites had their typical pericentrosomal clustering pattern in the absence of rapamycin (Fig 1C, S1C Fig). Satellite localization ranged from clustering around the centrosomes to scattering throughout the cytosol in cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-BICD2, depending on ectopic BICD2 expression levels (Fig 1D, S1D Fig). Upon rapamycin addition to cells expressing HA-Kif5b-FRB and GFP-PCM1-FKBP, satellites were targeted to the cell periphery, where the majority of microtubule plus ends localize (Fig 1C and 1G, S1C Fig, S1 Movie). In contrast, in cells expressing HA-BICD2-FRB and GFP-PCM1-FKBP, rapamycin addition resulted in clustering of satellites at the centrosome (Fig 1D and 1G, S1D Fig, S2 Movie). Notably, we observed partial distribution of both GFP-PCM1-FKBP and PCM1 to the cell periphery or center upon rapamycin addition in a subset of cells, likely due to insufficient expression of the active motors relative to the satellites (S1E Fig). The integrity and organization of the microtubule network remained unaltered in both cases upon rapamycin-induced redistribution of satellites (S1F Fig).

Importantly, localization of endogenous PCM1 tightly correlated with the localization of GFP-PCM1-FKBP before and after rapamycin addition (Fig 1C and 1D), which is in agreement with PCM1 self-dimerization through its N-terminal coiled-coil domains [10]. To determine the targeting efficiency of endogenous PCM1, we quantified its pericentrosomal levels by measuring fluorescence signal intensities within a 3-μm2 circle encompassing the centrosome. We found that pericentrosomal levels decreased significantly in Kif5b-expressing (peripherally targeted) cells (6 hours: Control: 1 ± 0.5, Rapa: 0.3 ± 0.5, p < 0.0001; 24 hours: Control: 1.1 ± 0.5, Rapa: 0.3 ± 0.4, p < 0.0001) and increased significantly in BICD2-expressing (centrosomally targeted) cells (6 hours: Control: 1 ± 0.4, Rapa: 3.5 ± 1.1, p < 0.0001; 24 hours: Control: 1 ± 0.5, Rapa: 4.8 ± 1.9, p < 0.0001) at 6 hours and 24 hours after rapamycin induction (Fig 1E and 1F). As controls, rapamycin treatment of control cells or cells expressing only GFP-PCM1-FKBP did not perturb satellite distribution in cells, as assessed by staining cells with anti-PCM1 antibody (S1G Fig). Together, these results validated rapid and efficient redistribution of satellites to the cell periphery or center upon rapamycin-induced dimerization.

In Kif5b-expressing cells, satellites formed large clusters that were heterogeneously distributed at the peripheral cell protrusions, whereas in BICD2-expressing cells, they formed a single cluster at the centrosome (Fig 1C and 1D). A similar heterogeneous distribution pattern at the periphery was also observed when GFP-PCM1-FKBP was co-expressed with the motor domain of another kinesin, Kif17 (S1H Fig). Staining of BICD2-expressing cells for satellites and the mother centriole protein Cep164 revealed tight clustering of satellites around the mother centriole (Fig 1H). Given that a subset of centrosomal microtubules are anchored at the subdistal appendages of the mother centrioles, this localization pattern suggests preferential trafficking of satellites along these microtubules [28]. Because satellite targeting to the cell periphery or center was dependent on microtubules, we next examined whether these satellite cluster(s), once they formed, were maintained independently of microtubules or not. The clusters remained mostly intact and did not split into smaller granules upon depolymerization of microtubules by nocodazole treatment, suggesting that satellite granules fuse into stable solid-like clusters when forced into close proximity (Fig 1I, S3 Movie, S4 Movie). Together, these results show that rapamycin-induced dimerization of satellites with molecular motors irreversibly perturbs their distribution and size, and thus this assay provides a tool to investigate satellite functions in a temporally controlled manner.

Satellites exert variable effects on pericentrosomal abundance of their residents

Previous work has shown that the cellular loss of satellites, by acute or chronic depletion of PCM1, alters the centrosomal levels and dynamics of a subset of proteins [58,29]. Given that satellites interact with and store a wide range of centrosome proteins, their pericentrosomal localization is likely required for efficient protein targeting to the centrosomes. To test this and to determine which proteins are regulated by satellites, we co-transfected HeLa cells with the indicated constructs and used quantitative immunofluorescence to measure the pericentrosomal levels of various known satellite proteins by measuring fluorescence signal intensities within a 3-μm2 circle encompassing the centrosome. We chose satellite proteins that also localize to different parts of the centrosome (e.g., pericentriolar material, distal appendages, centriole linker) and are implicated in different centrosome/cilium-associated cellular functions (Fig 2A and 2B). As controls, we quantified the transfected cells in which GFP-PCM1-FKBP localized, like endogenous PCM1, and excluded the ones that were impaired for pericentrosomal satellite clustering due to overexpression of molecular motors. For quantifying centrosomal levels in cells with peripheral or centrosomal satellite clustering after rapamycin treatment, we only accounted for the cells that exhibited complete redistribution to the cell center or periphery.

Fig 2. Proper satellite distribution is required for pericentrosomal abundance of satellite residents at varying levels.

Fig 2

Effects of satellite redistribution to the cell periphery or center on pericentrosomal abundance of multiple satellite residents with varying functions and subcentrosomal localizations. (A) Spatial localization of the selected proteins at the centrosome. (B) Summary of the results for the changes in the pericentrosomal abundance of the indicated proteins and their associated functions and spatial localizations at the centrosome and cilia. “Localization at peripheral clusters” represents the group of proteins that concentrate with PCM1 at the periphery upon rapamycin addition to cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b-FRB. (C) HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour followed by fixation at 24 hours. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were processed in parallel as controls. Cells were stained with anti-GFP to identify cells with complete redistribution to the cell periphery or center, and anti-gamma-tubulin to mark the centrosome and antibodies against the indicated proteins. Images represent centrosomes in cells from the same coverslip taken with the same camera settings. DNA was stained by DAPI. Fluorescence intensity at the centrosome was quantified, and average means of the levels in control cells at 6 hours were normalized to 1. n ≥ 25 cells per experiment. Data represent mean value from two experiments per condition, ±SD (***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001). Cell edges are outlined. Scale bars, 10 μm, all insets show 4× enlarged centrosomes. Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S2 Data. a.u., arbitrary unit; BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; C-Nap1, centrosomal Nek2-associated protein 1; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; MIB1, mindbomb E3 ubiquitin ligase 1; n.s., nonsignificant; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; Rapa, rapamycin.

The pericentrosomal levels of the ciliogenesis factors, including the transition zone component Cep290, the mindbomb E3 ubiquitin ligase 1 (Mib1), Cep131, and Cep72, increased significantly in centrosomally targeted BICD2-expressing cells and decreased significantly in peripherally targeted Kif5b-expressing cells at 6 and 24 hours after rapamycin treatment (Fig 2C, S2A Fig). We note that these proteins were also recruited to the PCM1-positive clusters at the cell periphery in Kif5b-expressing cells (Fig 2B and 2C). Pericentrosomal accumulation of other satellite proteins implicated in cilium assembly and centriole duplication, including KIAA0753, coiled-coil domain containing 14 (CCDC14), and oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 (OFD1), were affected similarly upon satellite mispositioning (S2B Fig). In contrast, there was no significant change in the pericentrosomal levels of the centriole duplication factors Cep63 and Cep152, the distal appendage protein Cep164, the centriole component centrin, and the centrosomal linker protein centrosomal Nek2-associated protein 1 (C-Nap1) in cells with peripheral satellite clustering (Fig 2B, S2A Fig). Additionally, except for centrin, these proteins were not recruited to the peripheral aggregates in Kif5b-expressing cells.

We next examined the potential role of satellite positioning in regulating the daughter centriole composition by using the rapamycin-treated BICD2-expressing cells, which leads to satellite accumulation around the mother centriole (Fig 1I). We chose the daughter centriole protein Cep120 for further study as it was identified in the satellite proteome, and 60% of its centrosomal pool was shown to be mobile [3,30,31]. We stained HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-BICD2 before and after rapamycin addition with Cep120, the centrosome marker gamma-tubulin, and the mother centriole marker Cep164 (S3A Fig). Despite its enrichment in the daughter centriole in control cells, Cep120 was strongly enriched in the mother centriole in BICD2-expressing cells (S3A Fig). This indicates that satellite positioning regulates the enrichment of Cep120 at the daughter centriole.

Satellite interactome is highly enriched in microtubule-associated proteins, including the key regulators of microtubule nucleation and dynamics, such as gamma-tubulin and the components of the HAUS/Augmin complex [2,3]. While the centrosomal gamma-tubulin levels did not change in cells with peripheral satellite clustering, gamma-tubulin concentrated at the peripheral satellite clusters (S3B Fig). To test whether recruitment of gamma-tubulin to these clusters results in microtubule nucleation, we performed microtubule regrowth experiments in inner medullary collecting duct (IMCD3) cells stably expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b. After inducing peripheral accumulation of satellites by rapamycin, microtubules were depolymerized by nocodazole treatment. Following nocodazole washout, cells were fixed and stained for alpha-tubulin at the indicated time points (S3C Fig, S3D Fig). Despite prominent microtubule nucleation at the centrosomes, microtubule nucleation was not initiated at the peripheral gamma-tubulin–positive clusters. Thus, the concentration of gamma-tubulin at the peripheral satellites does not assign them microtubule organizing center (MTOC) activity, which might be due to lack of modifications or regulatory proteins required for microtubule nucleation.

The majority of the satellite interactome remained unaltered upon peripheral targeting

To determine whether and, if so, how the composition of satellites changed upon their peripheral targeting, we took a systematic approach. To this end, we applied the Biotin Identification (BioID) proximity labeling approach and identified the PCM1 proximity interactome before and after rapamycin treatment in Kif5b-expressing cells. PCM1-FKBP was fused to Myc-BirA* at the N terminus and co-expressed with HA-Kif5b in HEK293T cells. Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP localized to and induced biotinylation at the satellites, as assessed by staining for Myc, streptavidin, and gamma-tubulin (Fig 3A). As expected, localized biotinylation was observed at the pericentrosomal granules in control cells and at the peripheral satellite clusters in rapamycin-treated cells (Fig 3A). Given that satellites are biotinylated at the periphery away from the centrosomes, their proteome will likely exclude the contaminating interactions of PCM1 with the centrosome due to their close proximity.

Fig 3. The proximity interactome of PCM1 at the peripheral clusters is enriched for proteins implicated in ciliogenesis and mitosis.

Fig 3

The proximity PCM1 interactome of satellites were identified using the BioID approach. (A) HEK293T cells were transfected with Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP and induced for peripheral targeting of satellites with rapamycin treatment for 1 hour. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were used as a control. After 18 hours biotin incubation, cells were fixed and stained for Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP expression with anti-Myc, biotinylated proteins with streptavidin, and centrosomes with gamma-tubulin. DNA was stained with DAPI. Scale bar, 10 μm; cell edges are outlined. (B) Biotinylated proteins from lysates from cells expressing Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP (−rapamycin or +rapamycin) were pulled down with streptavidin chromatography and samples were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and western blotting with streptavidin to detect biotinylated proteins and with anti-Cep131 (positive control). IS, initial sample used for streptavidin pulldowns; Beads, biotinylated and captured proteins. (C, D) GO-enrichment analysis of the proximity interactors of PCM1 after rapamycin treatment based on their (C) biological processes and (D) cellular compartment. The x-axis represents the log-transformed p-value (Fisher’s exact test) of GO terms. Source data can be found in S4 Data. (E) The cilium-associated proteins in the interactome of peripheral satellites were determined based on GO-enrichment analysis and previous studies. Different functional modules of ciliogenesis were plotted in the “peripheral PCM1 interaction network” using Cytoscape. BioID, Biotin Identification; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GO, Gene Ontology; MT, microtubule; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; Rapa, rapamycin.

For mass spectrometry experiments, HEK293T cells were co-transfected with HA-Kif5b and Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP, treated with rapamycin 24 hours post-transfection for 1 hour, and incubated with biotin for 18 hours. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin and cells expressing Myc-BirA* only were used as controls. Efficient streptavidin pulldown of Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP and biotinylated proteins were confirmed by western blotting (Fig 3B). Biotinylated proteins from two technical and two experimental replicates for each condition were identified by mass spectrometry and analyzed by significance analysis of interactome (SAINT) to identify high-confidence interactions (S1 Table). SAINT analysis identified 541 proximity interactions for PCM1 before rapamycin treatment and 601 interactions after rapamycin treatment (Bayesian false discovery rate [BFDR] <0.01) (S2 Table). The control and peripheral PCM1 interactomes shared 476 components, while 65 proteins were specific to peripheral satellites and 125 proteins were specific to control cells (S4A Fig). The proteins enriched (>1.25-fold relative to control) or depleted (<0.75-fold relative to control) at the peripheral satellites, with their associated Gene Ontology (GO) biological processes, are shown in S4 Fig. The 71% overlap before and after rapamycin treatment shows that the composition of the PCM1 proximity interactome remains mostly unaltered upon peripheral targeting of satellites. The peripheral PCM1 interactome is significantly enriched in previously identified MTOC, centrosome, satellite, and microtubule cytoskeleton components based on GO analysis (Fig 3C and 3D). Of note, we did not identify enrichment for components of microtubule cargoes such as endosomes and lysosomes, which shows that the effects of the mispositioning assay are specific to satellites (Fig 3D).

GO analysis of the proteins identified in the PCM1 interactome of peripheral satellites for biological processes revealed significant enrichment for processes related to cilium assembly and mitotic progression (Fig 3C, S3 Table). Given that satellite-less epithelial cells were mainly defective in cilium assembly, we aimed to use this dataset to gain insight into the specific ciliary processes regulated by satellites [7,8]. To this end, we determined the PCM1 proximity interactors that were previously implicated in primary cilium biogenesis and functions [32,33], and generated an interaction network by classifying them based on their ciliary functions and interactions (Fig 3E). Among the highly represented categories are the microtubule-associated proteins previously localized to cilia such as coiled-coil domain containing 66 (CCDC66), centrosome and spindle pole associated protein 1 (CSPP1), and microtubule-associated protein 4 (MAP4) and centrosome/satellite proteins that regulate cilium biogenesis and function. Additionally, ciliary trafficking complexes IFT-B, kinesin 2, and dynein; proteins implicated in ciliary vesicle formation, septins, and transition zone components were also identified in the proteome of peripheral satellite clusters. Collectively, systematic analysis of the composition of peripheral satellites suggest cilium- and mitosis-related cellular processes as potential satellite functions.

Peripheral centriolar satellite clustering results in defective cilium assembly, maintenance, and disassembly

Given that our results thus far showed that satellites and associated centrosome proteins can be targeted to the periphery rapidly and efficiently in an inducible way, we employed this assay to investigate temporal satellite functions in ciliated and proliferating cells. Satellite-less PCM1−/− kidney and retina epithelial cells had significant defects in their ability to assemble primary cilia [7,8]. We therefore first examined whether pericentrosomal clustering of satellites is also required for cilium assembly. To this end, we generated IMCD3 and IMCD3::PCM1−/− cells that stably express GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b-FRB (hereafter IMCD3peripheral and IMCD3 PCM1 knockout [KO]peripheral cells). Rapamycin induction resulted in localization of satellites at the cell periphery in both cell lines (Fig 4A, S5A Fig). Expression of GFP-PCM1-FKBP restored the ciliogenesis defect of IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells, confirming that this fusion protein is fully functional (IMCD3 PCM1 KO: 56% ± 2.9%, IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral: 67.6% ± 2.1%) (S5B Fig). We were unable to generate cells stably co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-BICD2-FRB, likely due to the lethality of constitutive BICD2 expression and subsequent inhibition of dynein activity. Therefore, we investigated the consequences of perturbing satellite proximity to the centrosome on cilium assembly only in cells with peripheral satellite clustering. To this end, IMCD3peripheral and IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, serum-starved for 48 hours, and the percentage of ciliated cells was quantified by staining cells for ADP ribosylation factor-like GTPases 13b (Arl13b), a marker for the ciliary membrane, and acetylated tubulin, a marker for the ciliary axoneme (Fig 4B). While control cells ciliated at 67.6% ± 1.1%, IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells ciliated at 48.5% ± 5% (p < 0.01) (S5B Fig). Notably, the cilia that formed in these cells were also significantly shorter in length (−Rapa: 2.9 μm ± 1, +Rapa: 2.5 μm ± 0.92, p < 0.01) (Fig 4C). Similarly, IMCD3peripheral cells had a significant reduction in their ciliation efficiency relative to control cells (control: 77.35% ± 2.3%, IMCD3peripheral: 54.4% ± 2.0%) (p < 0.01) (S5C Fig). As a control for the possible effects of rapamycin on cilium assembly, we performed these experiments in IMCD3 cells treated with rapamycin and found that the concentrations and incubation times we used did not affect ciliogenesis efficiency (p = 0.87) (S5D Fig).

Fig 4. Pericentrosomal satellite clustering is required for efficient cilium assembly, maintenance, and disassembly.

Fig 4

(A, B, C) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on cilium assembly dynamics and cilium length. (A) Representative images of ciliated and unciliated cells with peripheral satellite clustering relative to ciliated control IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells. Cell edges are outlined. Scale bar, 10 μm. (B) The experimental protocol for assaying cilium assembly dynamics by immunofluorescence analysis. Control and rapamycin-treated IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells stably expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b-FRB were induced for satellite redistribution to periphery by 1 hour after rapamycin treatment. After rapamycin washout, cells were incubated in complete medium for 5 hours and serum-starved for the indicated time points. The percentage of ciliated cells was determined by staining for acetylated tubulin in cells with complete satellite redistribution to the periphery as assessed by GFP staining. (C) Quantification of cilium length in control and rapamycin-treated IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral 48 hours post serum starvation. Results shown are the mean of two independent experiments ± SD (>50 cells/experiment, **p < 0.01). (D) Quantification of percentage of ciliated control and rapamycin-treated IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells before serum starvation and at 2, 6, 16, 24, and 48 hours after serum starvation. Results shown are the mean of two independent experiments ± SD (>50 cells/experiment, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, n.s., nonsignificant). (D) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on cilium maintenance. Cells were serum-starved for 48 hours, treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, and percentage of ciliated cells was determined over 24 hours by staining for acetylated tubulin. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were used as a control. The same experiments were also performed in the presence of 2 μM tubacin. Data represent the mean value from two experiments per condition. (F) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on cilium disassembly. Cells were serum-starved for 48 hours, treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, induced by serum-stimulation, and the percentage of ciliated cells was determined over 6 hours by staining for acetylated tubulin. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were used as a control. The same experiments were also performed in the presence of 2 μM tubacin. Data represent mean value from two experiments per condition. Error bars = SD; source data can be found in S5 Data. Acet., acetylated tubulin; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; IMCD3, inner medullary collecting duct; Kif5b, Kinesin family member 5b; KO, knockout; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; Rapa, rapamyccin; Tuba, tubacin.

To gain insight into the mechanisms underlying the ciliogenesis defects of IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells, we examined their cilium assembly dynamics by quantifying percentage of ciliated cells at different time points post serum starvation. Peripheral satellite clustering resulted in a significant decrease in the fraction of ciliated cells only 16, 24, and 24 hours after serum starvation (Fig 4D). The lack of ciliogenesis defects in rapamycin-treated cells at 2 and 6 hours post serum starvation suggests that proper satellite positioning is not required for the early stages of ciliogenesis in IMCD3 cells, such as recruitment of periciliary/ciliary vesicles to the mother centriole and mother centriole maturation [34].

The inducible nature of the satellite trafficking assay enabled us to study the temporal function of satellites in ciliated cells during primary cilium maintenance and disassembly, which could not have been tested in satellite-less PCM1−/− cells [7,8]. Given that IMCD3peripheral and IMCD3 KOperipheral cells behaved similarly in ciliogenesis experiments, we performed these experiments only in IMCD3peripheral cells. To study the function of satellites in regulation of steady-state cilia stability, cells were serum starved for 48 hours, treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, and the percentage of cilia was quantified in a time-course manner after rapamycin washout (Fig 4E). As expected, the percentage of ciliation did not change over 24 hours in control cells (Fig 4E, S5E Fig). However, induction of peripheral satellite clustering resulted in a 22% decrease in the percentage of ciliated cells at 6 hours after rapamycin treatment (control: 69% ± 0.5%, Rapa: 47.6% ± 3.3%, p < 0.0001). The fraction of ciliated cells continued to decrease over time until only 38% ± 1% of cells retained primary cilia after 24 hours of rapamycin treatment, compared to the stable 69.5% ± 0.5% of control cells (p < 0.0001) (Fig 4E, S5E Fig). Rapamycin treatment had no effect on maintenance of control cells (S5D Fig). Next, we examined whether satellite mispositioning can affect cilium disassembly after serum restimulation. To this end, cells were serum starved for 48 hours, treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, and the percentage of cilia was quantified over a 6-hour serum-stimulation time course (Fig 4F, S5F Fig). In control cells, the percentage of ciliation decreased from 68.5% ± 0.5% to 56% ± 1% at 2 hours, 46% ± 0% at 4 hours, and to 38% ± 4.5% at 6 hours (Fig 4F, S5F Fig). In rapamycin-treated cells, there was a rapid and significantly greater decrease in the fraction of ciliated cells at 2 hours, from 68.5% ± 0.5% to 45% ± 0% (Fig 4F, S5F Fig), which corresponds to the first wave of cilium disassembly [35,36]. After 6 hours post serum addition, only 30.5% ± 2.5% of cells with peripheral satellite localization had cilia, compared to 38% ± 4% of control cells (p = 0.15) (Fig 4F, S5F Fig). The enhanced deciliation and disassembly phenotypes upon peripheral satellite clustering identified satellites as regulators of cilium maintenance and disassembly in addition to their reported functions in assembly.

The maintenance and disassembly of cilium requires modifications of the axonemal tubulins [34]. A major event that promotes cilium disassembly is the phosphorylation of histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) by Aurora A kinase and subsequent deacetylation of the modified tubulins of the ciliary axoneme and cortactin [37,38]. To test whether satellites regulate cilium maintenance and disassembly in a HDAC6-dependent manner, we performed cilium maintenance and disassembly experiments in control and rapamycin-treated cells using tubacin as a potent and selective inhibitor of HDAC6 deacetylase activity [38]. Analogous to control cells, tubacin treatment rescued the enhanced cilium disassembly phenotype of rapamycin-treated cells at 4 and 6 hours (4 hours: Rapa: 38% ± 4.5%, tubacin+Rapa: 49.5% ± 1.5% (p < 0.01); 6 hours: Rapa: 30.5% ± 2.5%, tubacin+Rapa: 45% ± 1%, p < 0.01), but did not rescue the cilium maintenance defects at 6,12, or 24 hours (p > 0.05) (Fig 4E and 4F). These results show differential requirements for the regulation of cilium maintenance and disassembly, and suggest that satellites function in cilium disassembly by regulating the structural integrity of the ciliary axoneme upstream of HDAC6.

Centrosomal and peripheral satellite clusters do not dissolve during mitosis, and display differential mitotic phenotypes

Satellite integrity and localization is dynamically modulated during cell division, and the functional significance of these changes remains poorly understood [6,13]. The enrichment of key regulators of microtubule nucleation and dynamics and mitosis such as nuclear mitotic apparatus (NUMA), polo-like kinase 1 (Plk1), and cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (CDK1) in the satellite proteome suggests functions for satellites during mitosis [2,3]. Unexpectedly, satellite-less IMCD3 and retinal pigmented epithelial (RPE1) PCM1 KO cells did not exhibit defects in cell proliferation, cell cycle progression, and mitotic times, which could be due to the activation of compensatory mechanisms [7]. To address this possibility and to investigate whether and, if so, how satellites contribute to mitosis, we assayed the mitotic behavior of cells upon rapamycin induction of satellite redistribution. First, we examined the mitotic dynamics of centrosomal and peripheral satellite clusters using immunofluorescence and time-lapse imaging. In control HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b, as expected, satellites dissolved during mitosis, which was accompanied by an increase in the soluble cytoplasmic pool of PCM1 (Fig 5A). In rapamycin-treated cells, the satellite clusters at the periphery did not dissolve during mitosis and localized to the cell periphery during metaphase and anaphase, followed by accumulation at the cytokinetic bridge (Fig 5A). Similar mitotic behavior was observed in IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells after rapamycin treatment, as assessed by time-lapse imaging (Fig 5B). In rapamycin-treated HeLa cells co-expressing HA-BICD2 and GFP-PCM1-FKBP, the satellite clusters at the centrosome also did not dissolve and remained associated with the spindle poles (Fig 5A). Notably, a fraction of cells had satellite clusters at both poles, while the rest had the cluster only in one pole (Fig 5A). These results together show that the satellite clusters at the centrosome and periphery do not undergo mitotic dissolution.

Fig 5. Peripheral satellite clusters persist during mitosis and do not compromise mitotic progression.

Fig 5

(A) Effect of satellite clustering at the cell periphery and the center on satellite integrity and dynamics during mitosis. Control and rapamycin-treated HeLa cells were fixed 24 hours after rapamycin treatment and stained for GFP, Cep131, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. Dashed boxes indicate the spindle poles; “unequal” indicates unequal segregation of satellite clusters between spindle poles and “equal” indicates equal segregation. Scale bar, 10 μm. (B) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on mitotic dynamics of satellites and mitotic progression. IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells were imaged every 4.5 minutes for 16 hours. Satellite clusters did not dissolve during mitosis in rapamycin-treated cells but dissolved in control cells. Representative brightfield and fluorescence still frames from time-lapse experiments were shown. Cell edges are outlined. Scale bar, 10 μm. (C) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on mitotic progression. Percentage of control and rapamycin-treated mitotic cells were imaged by the time-lapse imaging, and videos were analyzed to classify mitotic cells into categories of cells that completed mitosis, cells that underwent apoptosis, and cells arrested in mitosis for more than 5 hours. n > 20 cells per experiment. Data represent mean ± SD of three independent experiments. (D) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on duration of mitosis and cytokinesis. Mitotic time was quantified as the time interval from nuclear envelope breakdown to anaphase onset. Cytokinesis time was quantified as the time from anaphase onset to cytokinetic cleavage. n > 20 mitotic cells per experiment. Data represent mean ± SD of two independent experiments. Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S6 Data. FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GFP, green fluorescent protein; IMCD3, inner medullary collecting duct; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; KOperipheral, knockoutperipheral; ns, nonsignificant; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; Rapa, rapamycin.

To examine the phenotypic consequences of satellite mispositioning and inhibition of their mitotic dissolution, we analyzed the movies before and after rapamycin treatment to quantify the percentage of mitotic cells that (1) completed mitosis, (2) underwent apoptosis, (3) arrested in mitosis for more than 5 hours. In IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells with peripheral satellite clustering, there was not significant change in the fraction of mitotic cells that arrested in mitosis or underwent apoptosis, as assessed by membrane blebbing and DNA fragmentation (3 independent experiments, p > 0.05) (Fig 5C). Next, we quantified the mitotic and cytokinesis time for the group of control and rapamycin-treated IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells that completed mitosis during the time of imaging. Mitotic time was determined as the time from nuclear envelope breakdown to anaphase onset by using mCherry-H2B dynamics or brightfield images as references. While the average mitotic time was 31.4 ± 2.9 minutes for IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells that are not treated with rapamycin (n = 26), it was 32.8 ± 2.4 for IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells after rapamycin treatment (n = 27) (2 independent experiments, p > 0.05) (Fig 5D). Cytokinesis time was quantified as the time frame between anaphase onset and cleavage, and it was similar between control and rapamycin-treated cells (−Rapa: 32.9 ± 6.7 minutes [n = 20], +Rapa: 48.6 ± 12.9 [n = 27]) (Fig 5D). Rapamycin treatment by itself did not affect mitotic and cytokinesis times (S6A Fig).

In parallel to characterization of IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral stable cells, we investigated the mitotic phenotypes associated with peripheral or centrosomal satellite clustering in HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b or HA-BICD2. Analogous to rapamycin-treated IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells, HeLa cells with peripheral satellite clusters did not have defects in mitotic progression (S6B and S6C Fig) and had similar mitotic times as compared with control cells (S6E and S6F Fig). In contrast, HeLa cells with centrosomal satellite clusters had significant defects both in mitotic progression and mitotic times. Specifically, we found a significant decrease in the fraction of cells that completed mitosis (−Rapa: 85.5% ± 4.8%, +Rapa: 14.8% ± 10.8%, p < 0.01) (S6B and S6D Fig). After a prolonged mitotic arrest, 63.3% ± 9.8% of these cells underwent apoptosis relative to the 8.4% ± 5.7% control apoptotic cells (p < 0.01) (S6B and S6D Fig). Finally, the average mitotic times were 37.8 ± 1.7 minutes for control cells (n = 36 mitotic cells) and 114.3 ± 15.3 for BICD2-expressing cells (n = 26 cells) (p < 0.0001), as assessed by dynamics of chromosomes stained with silicone rhodamine (SIR)-Hoechst dye (S6E and S6F Fig). Collectively, these results show that proper satellite distribution and remodeling is required for mitotic progression.

Discussion

We developed a chemically inducible satellite trafficking assay that allowed us to rapidly and specifically target satellites to the cell periphery and used this new tool to study satellite functions in a temporally controlled way in ciliated and proliferating cells. Application of this assay in epithelial cells for the first time, to our knowledge, identified functions for satellites not just for cilium assembly but also for cilium maintenance, cilium disassembly, and mitosis. Targeted and systematic quantification of the satellite proteome at the cell periphery suggested defective centrosomal targeting of proteins implicated in these processes as possible mechanisms underlying these phenotypes. In addition to probing temporal satellite functions, our results for the first time, to our knowledge, also revealed a direct link between satellite functions and their cellular positioning. Importantly, we note that the satellite-trafficking assay provides a powerful tool for future studies aimed at investigating cell type–specific functions and mechanisms of satellites. Its use in specialized cell types, in particular the ones with non-centrosomal MTOCs such as differentiated muscle cells and polarized epithelial cells, has the potential to provide new insight into why and how satellite distribution varies in different contexts.

Inducible peripheral satellite targeting in ciliated cells revealed novel functions for satellites as positive regulators of cilium maintenance and disassembly. Cilium disassembly upon serum stimulation in IMCD3 cells occurs predominantly by whole-cilium shedding, which requires HDAC6 activity [35]. Enhanced cilium disassembly defect of rapamycin-induced IMCD3peripheral cells was partially restored by HDAC6 inhibition, suggesting that satellites function upstream of HDAC6. Because HDAC6 was not identified in the satellite interactome, it is likely that satellites are not direct regulators of HDAC6 activity and that they might take part in cilium disassembly through regulating other disassembly regulators such as PLK1 [2,3]. Of note, PLK1 is part of the peripheral satellite proteome we generated in this study. Importantly, tubacin treatment did not rescue the cilium maintenance defect, highlighting differential regulation of cilium maintenance and disassembly through independent and/or overlapping mechanisms. Given that we identified the IFT-B components including IFT20, IFT81, IFT57, IFT46, and IFT74 in the proteome of peripheral satellites in Kif5b-expressing cells, we propose that perturbation of IFT trafficking through sequestration of IFT components at the peripheral satellite clusters might underlie the cilium maintenance defects. Supporting this mechanism, sequestration of IFT20 and IFT74 at the mitochondria using the rapamycin-dimerization approach in ciliated fibroblasts resulted in a similar defect in cilium maintenance [19]. Defective IFT-B complex targeting could also explain the cilium assembly and shorter cilia phenotypes associated with peripheral satellite clustering. Together with previous work that identified regulatory roles for satellites in IFT88 targeting to the basal body and cilia [7], our results indicate the presence of a critical but poorly understood regulatory relationship between satellites and the IFT-B complex. Whether IFT-B complex is regulated at the assembly, activity and/or targeting level by satellites remain as critical outstanding questions.

Satellites are remodeled under certain physiological conditions, and the cell cycle is the best-characterized context for studying satellite remodeling [39]. A recent study identified DYRK3 as the key regulator of mitotic dissolution of multiple membraneless organelles, including satellites, and showed that its inhibition resulted in prolonged mitosis, mitotic arrest, and multipolar spindle formation [13]. Our results revealed that the satellite clusters formed in the cell periphery or the center in rapamycin-treated cells did not dissolve during mitosis, which might be due to fusion of satellites into solid-like aggregates or to inhibition of DYRK3 activity. Notably, cells with centrosomal satellite clusters, but not with peripheral clusters, displayed mitotic phenotypes. The mitotic phenotypes cannot be explained by inhibition of the mitotic dissolution of satellite clusters, and future studies are required to determine how satellite clustering at the centrosome compromises mitotic progression.

Depletion or deletion of various centrosome proteins perturbs cellular positioning of satellites either by inducing their dispersal throughout the cytoplasm or tighter concentration at the centrosome [5,39]. The satellite distribution defects have been proposed to underlie the phenotypes associated with loss of these proteins, such as defective ciliogenesis. However, these loss-of-function studies remained insufficient in directly testing this proposed link. The results of our study provide direct evidence for the functional significance of proper satellite positioning during primary cilium-associated processes and thus strengthen the conclusions of the previous work on how perturbed satellite localization might contribute to the function of their residents.

Satellites are proposed to mediate their functions in the context of centrosomes and cilia by trafficking proteins to or away from the centrosome and by sequestering centrosome proteins to limit their recruitment at the centrosome [5,39]. Using quantitative analysis of pericentrosomal levels of multiple centrosome proteins upon satellite redistribution and proximity mapping of peripheral satellite clusters, we found that only a subset of proteins required proper satellite distribution for their centrosomal localization. While these results provide further support to the functions of satellites in protein targeting, they also raise questions that pertain to why and how satellites do not regulate all their residents at this level. To gain insight into the rules that govern satellite selectivity, we categorized proteins regulated by satellites based on their evolutionary conservation pattern, functions, subcentrosomal localization, and interactions. These analyses did not reveal a tight relationship between these properties and satellite-mediated regulation. The only relationship that stood out was the one between proteins that interact and regulate the same cellular process, such as the CCDC14-KIAA0753 centriole duplication module and Cep72-Cep290 ciliogenesis module [4042]. Co-regulation of these proteins suggests functions for satellites in mediating assembly of these complexes and/or their targeting to the centrosome as a complex.

Microtubules and molecular motors were shown to cooperate with satellites to regulate active protein targeting of satellite residents to the centrosome [5]. Because our results revealed a new functional relationship between proper pericentrosomal satellite positioning and centrosome/cilia-mediated processes, we propose a complementary way by which microtubules and motors regulate satellite-mediated functions. Our results suggest that they cooperate to maintain satellite proximity around the centrosome and that this is required for timely and efficient exchange of proteins between centrosomes and satellites. Notably, satellite granules fuse and form stable aggregates when forced into close proximity at the cell center or periphery [15], suggesting that cells have mechanisms to inhibit aggregation of satellites. Future studies are required to address several key questions that pertain to satellite mechanisms and cellular distribution: What is the precise mechanism that establishes and maintains pericentrosomal satellite clustering and inhibit their aggregation? Do satellites exchange material with the centrosome through active transport or simple diffusion? What are the upstream signaling pathways that induce protein release from satellites?

The direct link between cellular satellite positioning and their functions revealed by this study corroborates the notion that functions associated with different cellular compartments are regulated by their distinct spatial distribution within cells [43]. This relationship has been reported for multiple organelles and functions. One example is the nutrient-induced peripheral and starvation-induced perinuclear positioning of lysosomes, which was proposed to coordinate mTOR activity and autophagosome biogenesis during cellular anabolic and catabolic responses [44]. Another example is the requirement for proper mitochondrial positioning during T-cell activation to allow sustained local Ca+2 influx and during neuronal differentiation to allow terminal axon branching [4547].

Materials and methods

Cell culture, transfection, and transduction

Human cervical cancer HeLa and human embryonic kidney HEK293T cells were cultured with Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) medium (Pan Biotech, Cat. # P04-03590, Germany) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin. Mouse kidney medulla collecting duct cells IMCD3:Flip-In cells were cultured with DMEM/F12 50/50 medium (Pan Biotech, Cat. # P04-41250, Germany) supplemented with 10% FBS (Life Technologies, Ref. #10270–106, Lot #42Q5283K, Carslbad, CA) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin (Gibco, Cat. # 1540–122, Gaithersburg, MD). All cell lines were authenticated by Multiplex Cell Line Authentication (MCA) and were tested for mycoplasma by MycoAlert Mycoplasma Detection Kit (Lonza, Germany).

IMCD3 and HeLa cells were transfected with the plasmids using Lipofectamine 2000 according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). For serum starvation experiments, IMCD3 cells were washed twice with PBS and incubated with DMEM/F12 supplemented with 0.5% FBS for the indicated times. For cilium maintenance experiments, IMCD3 cells were serum starved for 48 hours, incubated with rapamycin for 1 hour, and fixed at the indicated times. For serum stimulation experiments, ciliated IMCD3 cells were incubated with rapamycin for 1 hour, then with DMEM/F12 50/50 supplemented with 10% FBS, and fixed at the indicated times. For rapamycin induction experiments, cells were treated with 100 nm or 500 nm rapamycin (Millipore, Cat #553210, Burlington, MA) for 1 hour followed by 2× PBS washout. To induce microtubule depolymerization, cells were treated with 10 μg/mL nocodazole (Sigma-Aldrich, Cat. #M1404, St. Louis, MO) or vehicle (dimethyl sulfoxide) for one hour at 37°C. For microtubule regrowth experiments, cells were washed 3× with PBS after microtubule depolymerization, incubated in warm media for the indicated times, fixed, and stained. For HDAC inhibition, cells were treated with 2 μm tubacin (Cayman Chemicals, Cat #13691, Ann Arbor, MI) for the indicated times.

IMCD3 cells stably expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b-FRB were generated by co-transfecting cells with expression vectors followed by selection with 750 μg/mL G418 for 2 weeks and immunofluorescence-based screens for positive colonies. IMCD3 cells stably expressing mCherry-H2B were generated by infecting cells with mCherry-H2B–expressing lentivirus.

Plasmids

Full-length cDNA of Homo sapiens PCM1 was amplified from peGFP-C1-PCM1 and cloned into peGFP-C1 (Clontech, Mountain View, CA) without stop codon using XhoI and KpnI sites. The cDNA of FKBP was amplified from PEX-RFP-FKBP by PCR and cloned into peGFP-PCM1 using KpnI and BamHI sites. PCM1-FKBP was amplified from the peGFP-C1-PCM1-FKBP by PCR and cloned into pcDNA3.1-myc-BirA* using XhoI and BamHI sites, pC4M-F2E-PEX-RFP-FKBP, PCI-neo-HA-BICD2-N (1–594)-FRB, pCI-neo-HI-Kif5b (1–807)-FRB, and pβactin-GFP-FRB-Kif17 (1–546) [22,23,48].

Immunofluorescence and antibodies

Cells were grown on coverslips, washed twice with PBS, and fixed in either ice-cold methanol at −20°C for 10 minutes or 4% PFA in cytoskeletal buffer (10 mM PIPES, 3 mM MgCl2, 100 mM NaCl, 300 mM sucrose, pH 6.9) supplemented with 5 mM EGTA and 0.1% Triton X for 15 minutes at 37°C. After PBS wash, cells were blocked with 3% BSA (Capricorn Scientific, Cat. #BSA-1T, Germany) in PBS + 0.1% Triton X-100 followed by incubation with primary antibodies in blocking solution for 1 hour at room temperature. Cells were washed three times with PBS and incubated with secondary antibodies and DAPI (Thermo Scientific, Cat #D1306, Waltham, MA) at 1:2,000 for 45 minutes at room temperature. Following three washes with PBS, cells were mounted using Mowiol mounting medium containing N-propyl gallate (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). Primary antibodies used for immunofluorescence were mouse anti-acetylated tubulin (clone 6-11B, 32270, Thermo Fischer, Waltham, MA) at 1:10,000, mouse anti–gamma-tubulin (Sigma-Aldrich, clone GTU-88, T5326, St. Louis, MO) at 1:1,000, mouse anti-GFP (Thermo Scientific, A-11120, clone 3E6) 1:750, mouse anti–alpha-tubulin (Sigma-Aldrich, DM1A, St. Louis, MO) at 1:1,000, rabbit anti-CEP152 (Bethyl Laboratories, A302-480A, Montgomery, TX) at 1:500, rabbit anti-KIAA0753 (Sigma-Aldrich, HPA023494, St. Louis, MO) at 1:1,000, rabbit anti-CCDC14 (Genetex, GTX120754, Irvine, CA) at 1:1,000, rabbit anti-OFD1 (Proteintech, 22851-1-AP, Rosemont, IL) at 1:500, rabbit anti-Cep131 (Proteintech, 25757-1-AP, Rosemont, IL) at 1:1,000, mouse anti-centrin 3 (Abnova, H0007070-MO1, clone 3E6, Taiwan) at 1:500, rabbit anti-Cep290 (Abcam, ab84870, Cambridge, MA) at 1:1,000, anti-rabbit Cep72 (Bethyl Laboratories, A301-298A, Montgomery, TX) at 1:1,000, rabbit anti-Cep63 (Millipore, 61292 Burlington, MA) at 1:1,000, rabbit anti-MIB1 (Sigma-Aldrich, M5948, St. Louis, MO) at 1:1,000, mouse anti-C-NAP1 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, sc 390540, Santa Cruz, CA) at 1:1,000, rabbit anti IFT88 (Proteintech, 13967-1-AP, Rosemont, IL) at 1:250, mouse GT335 (Adipogen, A27791601, San Diego, CA), rabbit Arl13B (Neuromab, Clone N295B/66, Davis, CA) at 1:500, and anti-Ninein (Abcam, ab4447, Cambridge, MA) at 1:500. Rabbit anti-PCM1, anti-Cep120, and anti-GFP antibodies were generated and used for immunofluorescence as previously described (Firat-Karalar et al., 2014). Secondary antibodies used for immunofluorescence experiments were Alexa Fluor 488-, 568-, or 633-coupled (Life Technologies, Carslbad, CA), and they were used at 1:2,000. Biotinylated proteins were detected with streptavidin coupled to Alexa Fluor 488 or 594 (1:1,000; Life Technologies, Carslbad, CA).

Microscopy and image analysis

Time-lapse live imaging was performed with Leica SP8 confocal microscope equipped with an incubation chamber mounted on an automized stage. For cell cycle experiments, asynchronous cells were plated on LabTek dishes (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA) and imaged at 37°C with 5% CO2 with a frequency of 4.5 minutes per frame, with 1-μm step size and 12-μm stack size in 512 × 512 pixel format at a specific position using an HC PL APO CS2 40× 1.3 NA oil objective. For time-lapse imaging experiments, HeLa cells were stained with SIR-Hoechst for visualization of chromosomes (100 nm, Spirochrome, Switzerland). For centrosomal protein level quantifications, images were acquired with Leica DMi8 inverted fluorescent microscope with a stack size of 10 μm and step size of 0.5 μm using an HC PL APO CS2 63× 1.4 NA oil objective. Higher resolution images were taken by using an HC PL APO CS2 63× 1.4 NA oil objective with Leica SP8 confocal microscope equipped with the SVI Huygens deconvolution suite.

Quantitative immunofluorescence for pericentrosomal levels of select proteins was performed by acquiring a z-stack of control and depleted cells using identical gain and exposure settings. The maximum-intensity projections were assembled from z-stacks. The centrosome region for each cell were defined by staining for a centrosomal marker gamma-tubulin. The region of interest that encompassed the centrosome was defined as a circle of 3-μm2 area centered at the centrosome in each cell. Total pixel intensity of fluorescence within the region of interest was measured using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD). Background subtraction was performed by quantifying the fluorescence intensity of a region of equal dimensions in the area proximate to the centrosome. Statistical analysis was done by normalizing these values to their mean. Primary cilium formation was assessed by counting the total number of cells and the number of cells with primary cilia, as detected by DAPI and acetylated tubulin or Arl13b staining, respectively. Ciliary length was measured using acetylated tubulin or Arl13b as the ciliary length marker. All values were normalized relative to the mean of the control cells (= 1).

For functional assays, quantification and analysis were performed only in cells that exhibited complete redistribution of satellites to the cell periphery or center. Complete redistribution to the cell periphery was defined by lack of centrosomal GFP-PCM1-FKBP signal in the pericentrosomal area within a 3-μm2 area centered on the centrosome. Complete redistribution to the cell center was defined by the lack of GFP-PCM1-FKBP signal in the cytoplasm beyond the 3 μm2 pericentrosomal area. As controls, cells that were not treated with rapamycin in which satellites display their typical distribution pattern were quantified.

Biotin-streptavidin affinity purification

BioID pulldown experiments were performed as previously described [49]. Briefly, HEK293T cells were transfected with myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP or myc-BirA*. Twenty-four hours post transfection, cells were incubated with DMEM-supplemented 10% FBS and 50 μM biotin for 18 hours. Cells were lysed in lysis buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 500 mM NaCI, 0.4% SDS, 5 mM EDTA, 1 mM DTT, 2% Triton X-100, protease inhibitors), and soluble fractions were incubated overnight at 4°C with streptavidin agarose beads (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA). Beads were washed twice with wash buffer 1 (2% SDS in dH2O), once with wash buffer 2 (0.2% deoxycholate, 1% Triton X-100, 500 mM NaCI, 1 mM EDTA, and 50 mM Hepes, pH 7.5), once with wash buffer 3 (250 mM LiCI, 0.5% NP-40, 0.5% deoxycholate, 1% Triton X-100, 500 mM NaCI, 1 mM EDTA, and 10 mM Tris, pH 8.1), and twice with wash buffer 4 (50 mM Tris, pH 7.4, and 50 mM NaCI). Ten percent of the sample was analyzed by western blotting to assess pulldown, and 90% of the sample was analyzed by mass spectrometry.

Mass spectrometry and data analysis

After on-bead tryptic digest of biotinylated proteins, peptides were analyzed by online C18 nanoflow reversed-phase nano liquid chromatography (Dionex Ultimate 3000 RS LC, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) combined with orbitrap mass spectrometer (Q Exactive Orbitrap, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA). Samples were separated in an in-house packed 75 μm i.d. × 23-cm C18 column (Reprosil-Gold C18, 3 μm, 200 Å, Dr. Maisch) using 75-minute linear gradients from 5%–25%, 25%–40%, 40%–95% acetonitrile in 0.1% formic acid with 300 nL/minute flow in 90 minutes of total run time. The scan sequence began with an MS1 spectrum (Orbitrap analysis; resolution 70,000; mass range 400–1,500 m/z; automatic gain control [AGC] target 1 × 106; maximum injection time, 32 ms). Up to 15 of the most intense ions per cycle were fragmented and analyzed in the orbitrap with data-dependent acquisition (DDA). MS2 analysis consisted of collision-induced dissociation (higher-energy collisional dissociation [HCD]) (resolution 17,500; AGC 1 × 106; normalized collision energy [NCE] 26; maximum injection time, 85 ms). The isolation window for MS/MS was 2.0 m/z. Raw files were processed with Thermo Proteome Discoverer 1.4.

Carbamidomethylation of cysteine was used as fixed modification, and acetylation (protein N termini) and oxidation of methionine were used as variable modifications. Maximal two missed cleavages were allowed for the tryptic peptides. The precursor mass tolerance was set to 10 ppm, and both peptide and protein false discovery rates (FDRs) were set to 0.01. The database search was performed against the human Uniprot database (release 2016).

Mass spectrometry data for each sample were derived from two biological and two technical replicates. Spectral counts of identified proteins were used to calculate the BFDR and probability of possible protein–protein interaction by SAINTexpress v.3.6.3 with -L option [50]. Proteins were filtered out according to SAINTscore (>0.5) and BFDR (<0.05). The cutoffs for enrichment (>1.25-fold relative to control) and depletion (0.75-fold relative to control) of proteins in cells with peripheral clusters were determined empirically by assessing which range in the comparative analysis include proteins we validated using immunofluorescence as part of peripheral clusters or previously implicated in cilium biogenesis. Interaction maps were drawn using Cytoscape. GO-enrichment analysis was done using EnrichR. The significantly altered GO categories (biological process and cellular compartment) were selected with a Bonferroni-adjusted cutoff p-value of 0.05.

Statistical analysis

Statistical results and average and standard deviation values were computed and plotted by using Prism8 (GraphPad, La Jolla, CA). Two-tailed t tests and one-way and two-way ANOVA tests were applied to compare the statistical significance of the measurements. Error bars reflect SD. The following key is used for asterisk placeholders for p-values in the figures: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Development and validation of the inducible trafficking assay.

(A) Localization of GFP-PCM1 and GFP-PCM1-FKBP in cells. HeLa cells were transfected with GFP-PCM1 or GFP-PCM1-FKBP, fixed after 24 hours, and stained for GFP, PCM1, and DAPI. (B) Effects of HA-BICD2-FRB or HA-Kif5b-FRB expression on satellite distribution. HeLa cells were transfected with HA-BICD2-FRB or HA-Kif5b-fRB, fixed after 24 hours, and stained for HA, PCM1, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. (C, D) Validation of GFP-PCM1-FKBP and endogenous PCM1 mispositioning upon rapamycin-induced dimerization in cells. Hela cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with (C) HA-Kif5b-FRB or (D) HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed 24 hours after transfection, and stained for GFP, HA, PCM1, and DAPI. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were processed in parallel as controls. (E) Representation of partial distribution of satellites upon rapamycin induction. HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed 24 hours after transfection, and stained for GFP, HA, PCM1, and DAPI. Partial distribution was defined by GFP-PCM1-FKBP signal in the pericentrosomal area in Kif5b-expressing cells and signal in the region excluding the centrosomal area in BICD2-expressing cells. (F) Expression of GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB and their redistribution upon rapamycin induction do not perturb the microtubule network. Cells were stained for GFP, alpha-tubulin, and DAPI. (G) Rapamycin treatment did not perturb satellite distribution in wild-type cells and cells expressing only GFP-PCM1-FKBP. Cells were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed after 24 hours, and stained for GFP or PCM1, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. (H) Co-expression of GFP-PCM1-FKBP with the constitutively active HA-Kif17 (1–181 aa)-FRB targets satellites to the cell periphery, where satellite clusters are heterogeneously distributed. Transfected HeLa cells were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed after 24 hours, and stained for GFP, PCM1, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. Scale bars, 10 μm; all insets show 4× enlarged centrosomes. BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Effects of satellite mispositioning on the pericentrosomal levels of various satellite residents.

(A) HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour followed by fixation at 6 and 24 hours. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin and exhibited pericentrosomal clustering of GFP-PCM1-FKBP–like endogenous PCM1 of wild-type cells were processed in parallel with controls. Cells were stained with antibodies anti-GFP to identify cells with complete redistribution to the cell periphery or center, anti–gamma-tubulin to mark the centrosome, and antibodies against the indicated proteins. Fluorescence intensity at the centrosome was quantified and average means of the levels in control cells were normalized to 1. n ≥ 25 cells per experiment. Data represent the mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD (**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, n.s. nonsignificant). Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S3 Data. (B) Control and rapamycin-treated cells were stained for GFP, gamma-tubulin, and indicated satellite proteins. Images represent centrosomes in cells from the same coverslip taken with the same camera settings. DNA was stained with DAPI. Cell edges are outlined. Scale bars, 10 μm; all insets show 4× enlarged centrosomes. BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Effects of satellite misdistribution on microtubule nucleation and daughter centriole composition.

(A) The daughter centriole protein Cep120 was redistributed to the mother centriole in BICD2-expresing cells with centrosomal satellite accumulation. HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed at 24 hours, and stained for GFP, Cep120, Cep164, and DAPI. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were used as a control. (B) Gamma-tubulin localization in control cells and in Kif5b-expressing cells with peripheral satellite clustering. HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed at 24 hours, and stained for GFP, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. Images represent centrosomes in cells from the same coverslip taken with the same camera settings. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were processed in parallel as a control. Fluorescence intensity at the centrosome was quantified, and average mean of the levels in control cells were normalized to 1. n ≥ 25 cells per experiment. Data represent mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD (n.s. nonsignificant, ****p < 0.0001). Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S3 Data. (C) Effect of gamma-tubulin accumulation at the peripheral satellites on microtubule nucleation. Rapamycin-treated IMCD3peripheral cells were treated with DMSO or 10 μg/mL nocodazole for 1 hour. After microtubule depolymerization, cells were washed, incubated with complete media for the indicated times, fixed, and stained for GFP, alpha-tubulin, and DAPI. (C) Rapamycin-treated IMCD3peripheral cells were treated with DMSO or 10 μg/mL nocodazole for 1 hour. After microtubule depolymerization, cells were washed, fixed 10 minutes after nocodozole washout, and stained for GFP, alpha-tubulin, ninein, and DAPI. Scale bars, 10 μm; all insets show 3× enlarged centrosomes. BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Comparative analysis of the PCM1 proximity interactome of control cells and cells with peripheral satellite targeting.

(A) The control and peripheral PCM1 interactomes share 476 components. A total of 65 proteins were specific to peripheral satellites and 125 proteins were specific to control cells. (B) GO-enrichment analysis of the proteins enriched (>1.25-fold relative to control) and depleted (<0.75-fold relative to control) in cells with peripheral satellite clustering after rapamycin treatment based on their biological processes. The x-axis represents the log-transformed p-value (Fisher’s exact test) of GO terms. Source data can be found in S4 Data. GO, Gene Ontology; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Effects of rapamycin treatment and satellite peripheral localization on cilium assembly, maintenance, and disassembly.

(A) Validation of IMCD3peripheral cells for expression of HA-Kif5b and GFP-PCM1-FKBP. Control and rapamycin-induced IMCD3peripheral cells were stained for GFP, HA, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. (B) GFP-PCM1-FKBP restores ciliogenesis defects of satellite-less IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells and peripheral satellite clustering compromises their ciliogenesis efficiency. IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells stably expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b-FRB (−Rapa and +Rapa) and IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells were serum-starved for 48 hours, and the percentage of ciliated cells was determined by staining for acetylated-tubulin. Results shown are the mean of three independent experiments ± SD (= 50 cells/experiment, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). (C) Quantification of the percentage of ciliogenesis in control and rapamycin-treated IMCD3peripheral cells 48 hours after serum starvation. Results shown are the mean of two independent experiments ± SD (= 50 cells/experiment, **p < 0.01). (D) Rapamycin treatment by itself in IMCD3 cells does not affect the efficiency of ciliogenesis and cilium maintenance. The experiments were performed in IMCD3 cells following the experimental outline for ciliogenesis and maintenance experiments in Fig 4, and the fraction of ciliated cells were quantified after 48 hours of serum starvation for the cilium assembly experiment and 24 hours after rapamycin treatment for maintenance experiments. Results shown are the mean of two independent experiments ± SD (= 200 cells/experiment). (E) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on cilium maintenance. IMCD3peripheral cells were serum-starved for 48 hours, treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, and the percentage of ciliated cells was determined over 24 hours by staining for acetylated tubulin. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were used as a control. Data represent the mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD (***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001). (F) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on cilium disassembly. IMCD3peripheral were serum-starved for 48 hours, treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, induced by serum stimulation, and the percentage of ciliated cells was determined over 6 hours by staining for acetylated tubulin. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were used as a control. Data represent mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD (*p < 0.1). Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S5 Data. FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; IMCD3peripheral, inner medullary collecting duct; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; KO, knockout; n.s., nonsignificant; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; Rapa, rapamycin

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Phenotypic consequences of satellite redistribution to the cell center or cell periphery on mitotic progression and time.

(A) Rapamycin treatment itself does not affect mitotic time and cytokinesis time of IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells. Control and rapamycin-treated IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells were imaged over 16 hours using time-lapse imaging. Mitotic and cytokinesis times were quantified. Data represent mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD. (B) Effect of peripheral and centrosomal satellite clustering on mitotic dynamics of satellites and mitotic progression of HeLa cells. GFP-PCM1-FKBP was co-transfected to HeLa cells with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB, treated with rapamycin, and imaged every 4.5 minutes for 16 hours. Representative brightfield and GFP-PCM1-FKBP fluorescence still frames from time-lapse experiments for the different phenotypes quantified were shown. Cell edges are outlined. Scale bar, 10 μm. (C, D) Quantification of (B). Percentage of control, and rapamycin-treated mitotic cells were imaged by the time-lapse imaging and videos were analyzed to classify mitotic cells into categories of cells that completed mitosis, cells that underwent apoptosis, and cells arrested in mitosis for more than 5 hours. n > 20 cells per experiment. Data represent mean ± SD of three independent experiments. (E) Effect of peripheral and centrosomal satellite clustering on mitotic time in HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRAB. Control and rapamycin-treated cells were stained with SIR-DNA and imaged by time-lapse microscopy. (F) Quantification of (E). n > 20 mitotic cells per experiment. Data represent mean ± SD of two independent experiments. Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S6 Data. BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; IMCD3, inner medullary collecting duct; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; KO, knockout; n.s., non-significant; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; SIR, silicone rhodamine

(TIF)

S1 Table. Raw mass spectrometry data for Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP with and without rapamycin treatment in Kif5b-expressing cells.

Mass spectrometry analysis of proximity interactors of Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP proteins. Proximity interactors from two experimental and two technical replicates for each condition were analyzed by SAINT. FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; SAINT, significance analysis of interactome

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Unique proteins identified in control and rapamycin-treated Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP.

Proteins with BFDR (<0.01) values were defined as part of the PCM1 interactomes. Tab 1: Unique peptides identified in control and rapamycin-treated cells (−Rapa versus +Rapa). Tab 2: Proteins enriched (>1.25-fold relative to control), depleted (<0.75-fold relative to control), and unaltered in rapamycin-treated cells relative to control cells. BFDR, Bayesian false discovery rate; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; Rapa, rapamycin

(XLSX)

S3 Table. GO-enrichment analysis of the PCM1 interactors at the cell periphery.

Proximity interactors of Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP were classified into GO categories using the EnrichR analysis program. FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GO, Gene Ontology; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(XLSX)

S1 Movie. Live imaging of HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b before and after rapamycin treatment.

FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(AVI)

S2 Movie. Live imaging of HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b before and after rapamycin treatment.

FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(AVI)

S3 Movie. Live imaging of rapamycin-induced HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b after nocodazole treatment.

FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(AVI)

S4 Movie. Live imaging of rapamycin-induced HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-BICD2 after nocodazole treatment.

BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(AVI)

S1 Data. Quantification of pericentrosomal PCM1 levels before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 1E and 1F. PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(XLSX)

S2 Data. Quantification of pericentrosomal levels of indicated proteins before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 2C.

(XLSX)

S3 Data. Quantification of pericentrosomal levels of indicated proteins before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

The data and statistical analysis that correspond to S2A Fig and S3B Fig.

(XLSX)

S4 Data. Quantification of GO categories enriched in PCM1 proximity maps.

The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 3C and 3D and S4B Fig. GO, Gene Ontology; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(XLSX)

S5 Data. Quantification of cilium assembly, maintenance, and disassembly phenotypes before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 4C–4F and S5B–S5F Fig.

(XLSX)

S6 Data. Quantification of mitotic progression and mitotic time in IMCD3 and HeLa cells before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 5C and 5D and S6A, 6C, S6D and S6F Fig. IMCD3, inner medullary collecting duct

(XLSX)

S1 Raw Images. Western blot confirmation of pulldown of biotinylated proteins and myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP in BioID experiments.

The unprocessed western blot data for Fig 3B. BioID, Biotin Identification; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge all members of Firat-Karalar laboratory and Jennifer Wang from the Stearns laboratory at Stanford University for insightful discussions regarding this work. FKBP and FRB constructs were a kind gift from Lukas Kapitein (Utrecht University). We acknowledge the Koç University Proteomics Facility for mass spectrometry analysis, Altug Kamacioglu for the SAINT analysis of the mass spectrometry data, and Mudasir Banday for cloning support. We acknowledge Life Science Editors for manuscript editing assistance. We acknowledge the members of the University of Washington Cilia Journal club for providing feedback on the bioRxiv version of our manuscript.

Abbreviations

AGC

automatic gain control

Arl13b

ADP ribosylation factor-like GTPases 13b

BFDR

Bayesian false discovery rate

BICD2

bicaudal D homolog 2

BioID

Biotin Identification

C-Nap1

centrosomal Nek2-associated protein 1

CCDC14

coiled-coil domain containing 14

CCDC66

coiled-coil domain containing 66

CCP5

cytosolic carboxypeptidase 5

CDK1

cyclin-dependent kinase 1

CSPP1

centrosome and spindle pole associated protein 1

DDA

data-dependent acquisition

DMEM

Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium

DYRK3

dual specificity tyrosine phosphorylation-regulated kinase 3

FBS

fetal bovine serum

FKBP

FK506 binding protein 12

FRB

FKBP12-rapamycin-binding

GFP

green fluorescent protein

GO

Gene Ontology

HA

hemagglutinin

HCD

higher-energy collisional dissociation

HDAC6

histone deacetylase 6

IFT20

intraflagellar transport 20

IFT74

intraflagellar transport 74

IMCD3

inner medullary collecting duct 3

Kif5b

kinesin family member 5B

KO

knockout

MAP4

microtubule-associated protein 4

MIB1

mindbomb E3 ubiquitin ligase 1

MTOC

microtubule organizing center

mTOR

mammalian target of rapamycin

NCE

normalized collision energy

NUMA

nuclear mitotic apparatus

OFD1

oral-facial-digital syndrome 1

PCM1

pericentriolar material 1

Plk1

polo-like kinase 1

RPE1

retinal pigmented epithelial

SAINT

significance analysis of interactome

SIR

silicone rhodamine

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by European Research Council Starting Grant 679140 to ENF-K (https://erc.europa.eu/starting-grants), Royal Society Newton Advanced Fellowship NA160060 to ENF-K (https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/grants/newton-advanced-fellowships/), European Molecular Biology Organization Installation Grant 3622 to ENF-K (https://www.embo.org/funding-awards/installation-grants), and European Molecular Biology Organization Young Investigator Award to ENF-K (https://www.embo.org/funding-awards/young-investigators). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kubo A, Sasaki H, Yuba-Kubo A, Tsukita S, Shiina N. Centriolar satellites: molecular characterization, ATP-dependent movement toward centrioles and possible involvement in ciliogenesis. J Cell Biol. 1999;147(5):969–80. Epub 1999/12/01. 10.1083/jcb.147.5.969 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gheiratmand L, Coyaud E, Gupta GD, Laurent EM, Hasegan M, Prosser SL, et al. Spatial and proteomic profiling reveals centrosome-independent features of centriolar satellites. EMBO J. 2019. Epub 2019/06/05. 10.15252/embj.2018101109 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Quarantotti V, Chen JX, Tischer J, Gonzalez Tejedo C, Papachristou EK, D'Santos CS, et al. Centriolar satellites are acentriolar assemblies of centrosomal proteins. EMBO J. 2019. Epub 2019/06/05. 10.15252/embj.2018101082 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Odabasi E, Batman U, Firat-Karalar EN. Unraveling the mysteries of centriolar satellites: time to rewrite the textbooks about the centrosome/cilium complex. Mol Biol Cell. 2020;31(9):866–72. Epub 2020/04/15. 10.1091/mbc.E19-07-0402 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Prosser SL, Pelletier L. Centriolar satellite biogenesis and function in vertebrate cells. J Cell Sci. 2020;133(1). Epub 2020/01/04. 10.1242/jcs.239566 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dammermann A, Merdes A. Assembly of centrosomal proteins and microtubule organization depends on PCM-1. J Cell Biol. 2002;159(2):255–66. Epub 2002/10/31. 10.1083/jcb.200204023 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Odabasi E, Gul S, Kavakli IH, Firat-Karalar EN. Centriolar satellites are required for efficient ciliogenesis and ciliary content regulation. EMBO Rep. 2019. Epub 2019/04/27. 10.15252/embr.201947723 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wang L, Lee K, Malonis R, Sanchez I, Dynlacht BD. Tethering of an E3 ligase by PCM1 regulates the abundance of centrosomal KIAA0586/Talpid3 and promotes ciliogenesis. eLife. 2016;5 10.7554/eLife.12950 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Joachim J, Razi M, Judith D, Wirth M, Calamita E, Encheva V, et al. Centriolar Satellites Control GABARAP Ubiquitination and GABARAP-Mediated Autophagy. Curr Biol. 2017;27(14):2123–36 e7. 10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.021 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kubo A, Tsukita S. Non-membranous granular organelle consisting of PCM-1: subcellular distribution and cell-cycle-dependent assembly/disassembly. J Cell Sci. 2003;116(Pt 5):919–28. Epub 2003/02/07. 10.1242/jcs.00282 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Srsen V, Fant X, Heald R, Rabouille C, Merdes A. Centrosome proteins form an insoluble perinuclear matrix during muscle cell differentiation. BMC Cell Biol. 2009;10:28 Epub 2009/04/23. 10.1186/1471-2121-10-28 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vladar EK, Stearns T. Molecular characterization of centriole assembly in ciliated epithelial cells. J Cell Biol. 2007;178(1):31–42. Epub 2007/07/04. 10.1083/jcb.200703064 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rai AK, Chen JX, Selbach M, Pelkmans L. Kinase-controlled phase transition of membraneless organelles in mitosis. Nature. 2018;559(7713):211–6. 10.1038/s41586-018-0279-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Villumsen BH, Danielsen JR, Povlsen L, Sylvestersen KB, Merdes A, Beli P, et al. A new cellular stress response that triggers centriolar satellite reorganization and ciliogenesis. EMBO J. 2013;32(23):3029–40. Epub 2013/10/15. 10.1038/emboj.2013.223 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Conkar D, Bayraktar H, Firat-Karalar EN. Centrosomal and ciliary targeting of CCDC66 requires cooperative action of centriolar satellites, microtubules and molecular motors. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):14250 Epub 2019/10/05. 10.1038/s41598-019-50530-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Clackson T, Yang W, Rozamus LW, Hatada M, Amara JF, Rollins CT, et al. Redesigning an FKBP-ligand interface to generate chemical dimerizers with novel specificity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(18):10437–42. Epub 1998/09/02. 10.1073/pnas.95.18.10437 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hoogenraad CC, Wulf P, Schiefermeier N, Stepanova T, Galjart N, Small JV, et al. Bicaudal D induces selective dynein-mediated microtubule minus end-directed transport. EMBO J. 2003;22(22):6004–15. Epub 2003/11/12. 10.1093/emboj/cdg592 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hosoi H, Dilling MB, Shikata T, Liu LN, Shu L, Ashmun RA, et al. Rapamycin causes poorly reversible inhibition of mTOR and induces p53-independent apoptosis in human rhabdomyosarcoma cells. Cancer Res. 1999;59(4):886–94. Epub 1999/02/24. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Eguether T, Cordelieres FP, Pazour GJ. Intraflagellar transport is deeply integrated in hedgehog signaling. Mol Biol Cell. 2018;29(10):1178–89. Epub 2018/03/16. 10.1091/mbc.E17-10-0600 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hong SR, Wang CL, Huang YS, Chang YC, Chang YC, Pusapati GV, et al. Spatiotemporal manipulation of ciliary glutamylation reveals its roles in intraciliary trafficking and Hedgehog signaling. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1732 Epub 2018/05/02. 10.1038/s41467-018-03952-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bentley M, Banker G. A Novel Assay to Identify the Trafficking Proteins that Bind to Specific Vesicle Populations. Curr Protoc Cell Biol. 2015;69:13 8 1–2. Epub 2015/12/02. 10.1002/0471143030.cb1308s69 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kapitein LC, Schlager MA, Kuijpers M, Wulf PS, van Spronsen M, MacKintosh FC, et al. Mixed microtubules steer dynein-driven cargo transport into dendrites. Curr Biol. 2010;20(4):290–9. Epub 2010/02/09. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.052 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kapitein LC, Schlager MA, van der Zwan WA, Wulf PS, Keijzer N, Hoogenraad CC. Probing intracellular motor protein activity using an inducible cargo trafficking assay. Biophys J. 2010;99(7):2143–52. 10.1016/j.bpj.2010.07.055 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wilson MH, Holzbaur EL. Nesprins anchor kinesin-1 motors to the nucleus to drive nuclear distribution in muscle cells. Development. 2015;142(1):218–28. Epub 2014/12/18. 10.1242/dev.114769 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Guardia CM, De Pace R, Sen A, Saric A, Jarnik M, Kolin DA, et al. Reversible association with motor proteins (RAMP): A streptavidin-based method to manipulate organelle positioning. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(5):e3000279 Epub 2019/05/18. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000279 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hoogenraad CC, Akhmanova A, Howell SA, Dortland BR, De Zeeuw CI, Willemsen R, et al. Mammalian Golgi-associated Bicaudal-D2 functions in the dynein-dynactin pathway by interacting with these complexes. EMBO J. 2001;20(15):4041–54. Epub 2001/08/03. 10.1093/emboj/20.15.4041 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Teuling E, van Dis V, Wulf PS, Haasdijk ED, Akhmanova A, Hoogenraad CC, et al. A novel mouse model with impaired dynein/dynactin function develops amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)-like features in motor neurons and improves lifespan in SOD1-ALS mice. Hum Mol Genet. 2008;17(18):2849–62. Epub 2008/06/27. 10.1093/hmg/ddn182 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Piel M, Meyer P, Khodjakov A, Rieder CL, Bornens M. The respective contributions of the mother and daughter centrioles to centrosome activity and behavior in vertebrate cells. J Cell Biol. 2000;149(2):317–30. Epub 2000/04/18. 10.1083/jcb.149.2.317 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hames RS, Crookes RE, Straatman KR, Merdes A, Hayes MJ, Faragher AJ, et al. Dynamic recruitment of Nek2 kinase to the centrosome involves microtubules, PCM-1, and localized proteasomal degradation. Mol Biol Cell. 2005;16(4):1711–24. Epub 2005/01/22. 10.1091/mbc.e04-08-0688 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Betleja E, Nanjundappa R, Cheng T, Mahjoub MR. A novel Cep120-dependent mechanism inhibits centriole maturation in quiescent cells. eLife. 2018;7 Epub 2018/05/10. 10.7554/eLife.35439 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mahjoub MR, Xie Z, Stearns T. Cep120 is asymmetrically localized to the daughter centriole and is essential for centriole assembly. J Cell Biol. 2010;191(2):331–46. Epub 2010/10/20. 10.1083/jcb.201003009 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kohli P, Hohne M, Jungst C, Bertsch S, Ebert LK, Schauss AC, et al. The ciliary membrane-associated proteome reveals actin-binding proteins as key components of cilia. EMBO Rep. 2017;18(9):1521–35. 10.15252/embr.201643846 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mick DU, Rodrigues RB, Leib RD, Adams CM, Chien AS, Gygi SP, et al. Proteomics of Primary Cilia by Proximity Labeling. Dev Cell. 2015;35(4):497–512. 10.1016/j.devcel.2015.10.015 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mirvis M, Stearns T, James Nelson W. Cilium structure, assembly, and disassembly regulated by the cytoskeleton. Biochem J. 2018;475(14):2329–53. 10.1042/BCJ20170453 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mirvis M, Siemers KA, Nelson WJ, Stearns TP. Primary cilium loss in mammalian cells occurs predominantly by whole-cilium shedding. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(7):e3000381 Epub 2019/07/18. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000381 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sanchez I, Dynlacht BD. Cilium assembly and disassembly. Nat Cell Biol. 2016;18(7):711–7. 10.1038/ncb3370 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pugacheva EN, Jablonski SA, Hartman TR, Henske EP, Golemis EA. HEF1-dependent Aurora A activation induces disassembly of the primary cilium. Cell. 2007;129(7):1351–63. 10.1016/j.cell.2007.04.035 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ran J, Yang Y, Li D, Liu M, Zhou J. Deacetylation of alpha-tubulin and cortactin is required for HDAC6 to trigger ciliary disassembly. Sci Rep. 2015;5:12917 10.1038/srep12917 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hori A, Toda T. Regulation of centriolar satellite integrity and its physiology. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2017;74(2):213–29. 10.1007/s00018-016-2315-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Firat-Karalar EN, Rauniyar N, Yates JR 3rd, Stearns T. Proximity interactions among centrosome components identify regulators of centriole duplication. Curr Biol. 2014;24(6):664–70. Epub 2014/03/13. 10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.067 S0960-9822(14)00132-8 [pii]. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kodani A, Yu TW, Johnson JR, Jayaraman D, Johnson TL, Al-Gazali L, et al. Centriolar satellites assemble centrosomal microcephaly proteins to recruit CDK2 and promote centriole duplication. eLife. 2015;4 10.7554/eLife.07519 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Stowe TR, Wilkinson CJ, Iqbal A, Stearns T. The centriolar satellite proteins Cep72 and Cep290 interact and are required for recruitment of BBS proteins to the cilium. Mol Biol Cell. 2012;23(17):3322–35. Epub 2012/07/07. 10.1091/mbc.E12-02-0134 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.van Bergeijk P, Hoogenraad CC, Kapitein LC. Right Time, Right Place: Probing the Functions of Organelle Positioning. Trends Cell Biol. 2015. 10.1016/j.tcb.2015.10.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Korolchuk VI, Saiki S, Lichtenberg M, Siddiqi FH, Roberts EA, Imarisio S, et al. Lysosomal positioning coordinates cellular nutrient responses. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13(4):453–60. Epub 2011/03/12. 10.1038/ncb2204 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Courchet J, Lewis TL Jr., Lee S, Courchet V, Liou DY, Aizawa S, et al. Terminal axon branching is regulated by the LKB1-NUAK1 kinase pathway via presynaptic mitochondrial capture. Cell. 2013;153(7):1510–25. Epub 2013/06/26. 10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.021 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Korolchuk VI, Rubinsztein DC. Regulation of autophagy by lysosomal positioning. Autophagy. 2011;7(8):927–8. Epub 2011/04/28. 10.4161/auto.7.8.15862 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Schwindling C, Quintana A, Krause E, Hoth M. Mitochondria positioning controls local calcium influx in T cells. J Immunol. 2010;184(1):184–90. Epub 2009/12/02. 10.4049/jimmunol.0902872 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lipka J, Kapitein LC, Jaworski J, Hoogenraad CC. Microtubule-binding protein doublecortin-like kinase 1 (DCLK1) guides kinesin-3-mediated cargo transport to dendrites. EMBO J. 2016;35(3):302–18. Epub 2016/01/14. 10.15252/embj.201592929 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Conkar D, Culfa E, Odabasi E, Rauniyar N, Yates JR 3rd, Firat-Karalar EN. Centriolar satellite protein CCDC66 interacts with CEP290 and functions in cilium formation and trafficking. J Cell Sci. 2017. 10.1242/jcs.196832 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Teo G, Liu G, Zhang J, Nesvizhskii AI, Gingras AC, Choi H. SAINTexpress: improvements and additional features in Significance Analysis of INTeractome software. J Proteomics. 2014;100:37–43. Epub 2014/02/12. 10.1016/j.jprot.2013.10.023 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Lauren A Richardson

3 Feb 2020

Dear Dr Firat-Karalar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Acute inhibition of centriolar satellite function and positioning reveals their functions at the primary cilium" for consideration as a Short Reports by PLOS Biology.

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

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

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Feb 05 2020 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

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

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

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

Kind regards,

Lauren A Richardson, Ph.D

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 1

Ines Alvarez-Garcia

13 Mar 2020

Dear Dr Firat-Karalar,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Acute inhibition of centriolar satellite function and positioning reveals their functions at the primary cilium" for consideration as a Short Report at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by three independent reviewers.

As you will see, the reviewers all seem very positive and find your conclusions interesting and significant for the field. However, they also recommend that you perform some experiments to strengthen the conclusions and also ask you to clarify several points.

In light of the reviews (attached below), we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome re-submission of a much-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 2 months.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

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

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

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

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

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

*Re-submission Checklist*

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

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

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

*Published Peer Review*

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

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

*PLOS Data Policy*

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

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

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

*Protocols deposition*

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

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

Sincerely,

Ines

--

Ines Alvarez-Garcia, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road

Cambridge, CB4 3DN

+44 1223–442810

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

Reviewers’ comments

Rev. 1:

The manuscript by Aydin et al. deals with the fascinating and contentious issue of the function of centriolar satellites. They developed a clever rapamycin inducible approach to translocate satellites either to the cell periphery or to the centrosome. Using these tools they perform BioID mass spec analysis to try and determine the components of the satellites away from the potentially contaminating centrosome. Using this approach they found many of the known satellite proteins but also identified some that may warrant a deeper look based on the differential enrichment. Finally and most significantly they utilize these tools to address a more nuanced function for satellites and identify 2 novel functions in cilia maintenance and disassembly. I think this is an interesting paper that has identified some important and novel functions for satellites. However there a couple of experiments that could potentially really strengthen the paper and are worth considering.

Comments:

My primary suggestion to improve this paper would be to perform the functional experiments with the BICD2-PCM1 constructs. The authors state "In contrast to HA-Kif5b, we noticed that HA-BICD2 expression by itself resulted in satellite dispersal throughout the cytosol (Fig. S1B), which is consistent with its previous characterization as a dominant negative mutant that impairs dynein-dynactin function [24-26]. Therefore, we did not use BICD2-based centrosomal satellite clustering as a way to assay satellite functions in ciliated and proliferating cells." However, I feel that an opportunity has been missed. While I agree that the DN dispersal phenotype complicates things, I still think that there is something to be gained from the forced enrichment of PCM1 at the centrosome (which is considerable). Does this enrichment disperse in a cell cycle dependent manner (e.g. Fig 5A) or is it forced to maintain its centrosomal localization and if so to what end. Similarly, one could predict that this enrichment might enhance ciliogenesis or maintenance above WT levels or slow disassembly. This analysis feels lacking from the data.

In Figure S3C it is hard to make the firm conclusion that the ectopic satellites are not acting as an MTOC. This is due to the large amount of MTs after 15min, I think doing it at 5min would provide more useful information. Or perhaps showing the lack of a MT - end protein such as ninein.

Minor:

The description of Cep164 localization as a ring like localization seems misleading. I suspect that it is likely spherical but that given a the imaging plane looks ring like.

"Cep120 was strongly enriched in the mother centriole in BICD2-expressing cells (Fig. 3A)." Should be Fig. S3A.

On Page 10 Figure 3D should be 3E.

Error bars on Figure S5A

I found these sentences confusing: "While 70.9% ± 3.3 of control cells were ciliated, only 52.8% ± 0.9 of IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells were ciliated (p<0.01) (Fig. 4C). Similarly, only 77.35% ± 1.65% IMCDperipheral cells ciliated relative to 54.4% ± 1.4 control ciliating population (p<0.01 ) (Fig. 4D)." please clarify.

The figures need to be cleaned up with proper scale bars and such. 5A cells do not seem to be at the same scale.

The movies were not properly referenced in the text.

Rev. 2: Philippe Bastin – please note that this reviewer has waived anonymity

This manuscript addresses the role of the cellular positioning of centrosome satellites in their function. For this, the authors use an elegant approach to conditionally reposition the central satellite protein PCM1 to the cell periphery (use of kinesin) or the cell centre (use of dynein). After a clear and well-documented description of the system, two major findings came up:

(1) Some centrosomal proteins are "trapped" with PCM1 and have limited/no access to the centrosome while others are not affected, indicated two possible pathways for centrosomal targeting. This is supported by immunofluorescence assays and proteomic studies with proximity labelling.

(2) The system is used to investigate convincingly the contribution of PCM1 and centriolar satellites in the maintenance and the disassembly of the primary cilium whereas inhibition of satellite dispersion during mitosis does not seem to cause mitotic defects

Overall, it is a nice piece of work that is well executed and well written. The authors also discuss the limitations of their system (for example satellite dispersion upon HA-BICD2 expression). The message of the paper will be of interest for cell biologists interested in organelle function and positioning, an important theme in developmental and cellular biology. One might say that the results were somehow expected since structures matter where they are but this reviewer believes in data and getting experimental evidence is therefore essential. The data reported are quite compelling, although they could be further discussed. I have several suggestions that I hope will contribute to improve the manuscript. Most things can be addressed without further experiments (or by including data that are possibly available), although some experiments could bring useful information (see below). In my view, reviewing is a dialogue and I will be happy to read the response of the authors.

1. The discussion is a bit superficial and focuses a lot on future work, it somehow looks more similar to a grant application. This reviewer believes that the authors have nice and exciting data that deserve more exhaustive discussion. Here are a few thoughts: centrosomal proteins seem to fall in two categories: those that rely on PCM1 and those that don't. What is the relationship between proteins belonging to each of this group? Are they known to interact? What about the conservation profile? PCM1 is not present in all eukaryotic species. Does its presence somehow correlate with the presence of proteins that rely on satellite for centrosomal targeting? Is there a relationship with proteins associated to cilia or only found at the centrosome level?

2. I was a bit surprised to see that cilium length was not reported (although the use of ARL13b/acetylated tubulin for measurements is mentioned in M&M). Possibly the authors have the data. The reason why it is not mentioned might be found in a recent publication of the same group (Odabasi et al EMBO19) that showed that deletion of PCM1 reduces the number of cilia but not the length of remaining cilia in IMCD3 cells. In any case, the length of the remaining cilia should be discussed here. It is possible that the phenotype would be more pronounced if it was taken into account. I agree it sounds unlikely given the KO results but as said above, evidence is better. Nevertheless, it would not be the first time that a mutant/modification of a protein (in this case its location) induces a stronger phenotype than a deletion.

If cilium length is unaffected, that means we are in an "all or nothing" situation. Either cells manage to do a cilium of normal length, either they don't and in that case. How do the authors interpret this? This is worth discussing.

3. This reviewer likes the proteomic data but is a bit amazed that some of the results are not experimentally validated/investigated a bit further. For example, the presence of many members of the intraflagellar transport B (IFTB) complex is remarkable and could suggest a depletion of these factors essential for cilium elongation. This could help answering the question raised above. In case enough IFTB proteins are available, the cilium might elongate. If not, IFT trafficking might be insufficient to sustain ciliogenesis initiation. This could be relevant in case the cilium forms like in Chlamydomonas where most of the IFT material is injected at once at the onset of ciliogenesis (see papers of Wallace Marshall MBoC2005; JCB2009). I could not find the information for IMCD cilium assembly though. Immuofluorescence with anti-IFT antibodies in conditions where PCM1 and satellites are sent to the periphery could be very useful in proving (or not) this hypothesis. I know that the quality of anti-IFT antibodies in mammalian cells has been an issue for the field, but I will be happy to hear the opinion of the authors.

4. Finally, the authors did an excellent job for the investigation of cilium maintenance and disassembly with several data points (Fig. 4E&F). By contrast, only one time point is shown for the assembly (48h, Fig. 4B). At that stage, cilia are likely to have reached mature length. This is unfortunate because following how cilia grow with intermediate time points would give really nice insights on the way they rely on PCM1 proper location for construction. I don't know if the authors have done this experiment already (it's possibly another story!) but I would advise them to have a try.

Philippe Bastin, Institut Pasteur, Paris.

Rev. 3:

This manuscript documents the development of methods based on rapamycin-induced heterodimerization of FKBP and FRB to redistribute pericentriolar satellites from their normal positions, loosely dispersed around the centrosome, either to clusters at the periphery of the cell (minus the centrosome) or to a single large cluster focused on the mother centriole. The methods are validated in great detail. The authors then use immunofluorescence microscopy to analyze how select satellite proteins change in abundance when the satellites are repositioned. Using BioID, they next determine that the satellite interactome remains relatively unaltered when the satellites are redistributed to peripheral clusters. The authors then carry out studies to determine how ciliary assembly, maintenance, and disassembly are affected by repositioning of the satellites to the cell periphery. The results provide the first direct evidence that proximity of the satellites to the cilium’s base is important for primary cilium maintenance and disassembly. In addition to extending the general importance of cell organelle positioning for function of the cell organelle, the results raise interesting questions for future research. In general, the manuscript is scholarly, well written, and scientifically sound; it is appropriate for publication in PLOS Biology. However, it would be improved if the following issues were addressed prior to publication.

P. 4: The major section that begins here is called “Results and Discussion.” There also is a “Discussion” section that begins on p. 14. The section beginning on p. 4 probably should be simply “Results.”

P. 5: The phrase “co-expressing the FKBP-fusion of satellites as the cargo of interest” is awkward and unclear.

P. 5: HA-BICD2 expression by itself caused satellite dispersal, presumably as a result of its previously documented dominant-negative effect on dynein-dynactin function. Here or later, briefly explain why addition of rapamycin to these cells nevertheless results in clustering of satellites at the centrosome, presumably due to dynein moving on microtubules to their minus ends.

P. 7: Clustering of satellites is dependent on microtubules, but the clusters do not disperse when microtubules are depolymerized. Briefly discuss the likely reason that the clusters remain intact in the absence of microtubules.

P. 8: “except for centrin.” I could not find data for centrin. Add “data not shown”?

P. 9: “Despite prominent microtubule nucleation at the centrosomes, microtubule nucleation was not initiated at the peripheral gama-tubulin-positive clusters.” This conclusion is not supported by Fig. S3C. In the figure, it appears that there may be microtubule nucleation proportional to the amount of gamma-tubulin in the peripheral cluster as compared to the centrosome. Please provide clearer example or rephrase conclusion. In same sentence, change “gama-tubulin” to “gamma-tubulin.” In same figure panel, place numbers over inset columns corresponding to boxes in large image.

P. 10. The authors discuss “proteins enriched (>1.25 fold relative to control) or depleted (<0.75 fold relative to control).” Cutoffs of >1.25 fold and <0.75 fold do not seem very stringent for concluding that proteins are enriched or depleted. Please explain why these cutoffs were chosen and why such small changes are meaningful.

P. 10: “To gain insight into the specific ciliary processes that satellites regulate, we determined the PCM1 proximity interactors associated with the primary cilium in previous studies and classified them based on their functions in the ciliogenesis program in an interaction network (Fig. 3D).” Please provide citations for “previous studies.” “(Fig. 3D)” here should be “(Fig. 3E).”

P. 11: “Expression of GFP-PCM1-FKBP restored the ciliogenesis defect of IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells, confirming that this fusion protein is fully functional (Fig. S5A).” Without error bars on Fig S5A, it is not clear that this conclusion is supported by the data. Please add error bars or revise statement.

P. 19: “The region of interest that encompassed the centrosome was defined as a circle 3 μm2 area centered at the centrosome in each cell.” This and similar definitions currently in the Materials and Methods section are sufficiently important for understanding the experiments that they probably should be in the relevant places in the Results section.

P. 24: “Images represent centrosomes in cells from the same coverslip taken with the same camera settings.” As written, I am not sure this statement is needed or even relevant to the images shown. It presumably refers to the data in the scatterplots.

P. 29: “Figure S5. Rapamycin treatment does not interfere with ciliogenesis, cilium maintenance and cilium disassembly.” The title of the legend is confusing as Fig. S5D does show an experiment in which rapamycin treatment (and peripheral clustering) has an effect on ciliary maintenance. Perhaps rephrase title of figure legend.

The authors acknowledge Life Science Editors for editing assistance. The writing is indeed well edited up to about p. 9, and then becomes more error prone until the Discussion. Minor errors or omissions:

P. 8: 6th line from bottom: “(Fig. 3A)” should be “Fig. S3A.”

P. 9, “. . . how the composition of satellites upon their peripheral targeting . . .” Insert “changed” after “satellites”?

P. 10, line 8: I could not find a “Table 2.” This probably should be “Table S2.”

P. 10, last sentence: “composition peripheral satellites.” Insert “of” after “composition”?

P. 11: “we used IMCD3peripheral experiments for subsequent experiments at the cilia.” Replace first “experiments” with “cells”? Replace “at” with “on”?

P. 14: Decimal place is indicated by period two places (31.4; 32.8) but by comma three places (32,95; 48,56; 12,94).

P. 15: “suggesting that satellites functions upstream of HDAC6.” Replace “functions” with “function.”

P. 20: “After on-based tryptic digest.” What is “on-based”?

P. 27, Figure S1 legend: “excluding therosomal area in BICD2-expressing cells.” “therosomal”??

P. 27, Figure S1 legend: “F) Coexpression of GFP-PCM1-FKBP with the constitutively active HA-Kif17.” “F” should be “H.”

Figure S2B: Add “gamma” to “-tubulin” at top left.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review of PBIOLOGY-D-20-00224.docx

Decision Letter 2

Ines Alvarez-Garcia

27 Apr 2020

Dear Elif,

Thank you for submitting your revised Short Report entitled "Acute inhibition of centriolar satellite function and positioning reveals their functions at the primary cilium" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now discussed your revision with the other editors and obtained advice from the Academic Editor.

We're delighted to let you know that we're now editorially satisfied with your manuscript. However before we can formally accept your paper and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication. Please also make sure to address the data and other policy-related requests noted at the end of this email.

*Copyediting*

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

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

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

*Published Peer Review History*

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

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

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

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

*Submitting Your Revision*

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include a cover letter, a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable), and a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

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

Best wishes,

Ines

--

Ines Alvarez-Garcia, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road

Cambridge, CB4 3DN

+44 1223–442810

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

DATA POLICY:

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

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

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

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

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

Fig. 1E, F; Fig. 2C; Fig. 3C, D; Fig. 4C, D, E, F; Fig. 5C, D; Fig. S2A; Fig. S3B; Fig. S4B; Fig. S5B, C, D, E, F and Fig. S6A, C, D, F

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

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

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

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

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare and upload them now. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

Decision Letter 3

Ines Alvarez-Garcia

4 Jun 2020

Dear Dr Firat-Karalar,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Renata Basto, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Short Reports in PLOS Biology.

The files will now enter our production system. You will receive a copyedited version of the manuscript, along with your figures for a final review. You will be given two business days to review and approve the copyedit. Then, within a week, you will receive a PDF proof of your typeset article. You will have two days to review the PDF and make any final corrections. If there is a chance that you'll be unavailable during the copy editing/proof review period, please provide us with contact details of one of the other authors whom you nominate to handle these stages on your behalf. This will ensure that any requested corrections reach the production department in time for publication.

Early Version

The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. 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.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

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

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Alice Musson

Publishing Editor,

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Ines Alvarez-Garcia,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Development and validation of the inducible trafficking assay.

    (A) Localization of GFP-PCM1 and GFP-PCM1-FKBP in cells. HeLa cells were transfected with GFP-PCM1 or GFP-PCM1-FKBP, fixed after 24 hours, and stained for GFP, PCM1, and DAPI. (B) Effects of HA-BICD2-FRB or HA-Kif5b-FRB expression on satellite distribution. HeLa cells were transfected with HA-BICD2-FRB or HA-Kif5b-fRB, fixed after 24 hours, and stained for HA, PCM1, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. (C, D) Validation of GFP-PCM1-FKBP and endogenous PCM1 mispositioning upon rapamycin-induced dimerization in cells. Hela cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with (C) HA-Kif5b-FRB or (D) HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed 24 hours after transfection, and stained for GFP, HA, PCM1, and DAPI. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were processed in parallel as controls. (E) Representation of partial distribution of satellites upon rapamycin induction. HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed 24 hours after transfection, and stained for GFP, HA, PCM1, and DAPI. Partial distribution was defined by GFP-PCM1-FKBP signal in the pericentrosomal area in Kif5b-expressing cells and signal in the region excluding the centrosomal area in BICD2-expressing cells. (F) Expression of GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB and their redistribution upon rapamycin induction do not perturb the microtubule network. Cells were stained for GFP, alpha-tubulin, and DAPI. (G) Rapamycin treatment did not perturb satellite distribution in wild-type cells and cells expressing only GFP-PCM1-FKBP. Cells were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed after 24 hours, and stained for GFP or PCM1, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. (H) Co-expression of GFP-PCM1-FKBP with the constitutively active HA-Kif17 (1–181 aa)-FRB targets satellites to the cell periphery, where satellite clusters are heterogeneously distributed. Transfected HeLa cells were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed after 24 hours, and stained for GFP, PCM1, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. Scale bars, 10 μm; all insets show 4× enlarged centrosomes. BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Effects of satellite mispositioning on the pericentrosomal levels of various satellite residents.

    (A) HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour followed by fixation at 6 and 24 hours. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin and exhibited pericentrosomal clustering of GFP-PCM1-FKBP–like endogenous PCM1 of wild-type cells were processed in parallel with controls. Cells were stained with antibodies anti-GFP to identify cells with complete redistribution to the cell periphery or center, anti–gamma-tubulin to mark the centrosome, and antibodies against the indicated proteins. Fluorescence intensity at the centrosome was quantified and average means of the levels in control cells were normalized to 1. n ≥ 25 cells per experiment. Data represent the mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD (**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, n.s. nonsignificant). Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S3 Data. (B) Control and rapamycin-treated cells were stained for GFP, gamma-tubulin, and indicated satellite proteins. Images represent centrosomes in cells from the same coverslip taken with the same camera settings. DNA was stained with DAPI. Cell edges are outlined. Scale bars, 10 μm; all insets show 4× enlarged centrosomes. BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Effects of satellite misdistribution on microtubule nucleation and daughter centriole composition.

    (A) The daughter centriole protein Cep120 was redistributed to the mother centriole in BICD2-expresing cells with centrosomal satellite accumulation. HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-BICD2-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed at 24 hours, and stained for GFP, Cep120, Cep164, and DAPI. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were used as a control. (B) Gamma-tubulin localization in control cells and in Kif5b-expressing cells with peripheral satellite clustering. HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB were treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, fixed at 24 hours, and stained for GFP, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. Images represent centrosomes in cells from the same coverslip taken with the same camera settings. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were processed in parallel as a control. Fluorescence intensity at the centrosome was quantified, and average mean of the levels in control cells were normalized to 1. n ≥ 25 cells per experiment. Data represent mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD (n.s. nonsignificant, ****p < 0.0001). Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S3 Data. (C) Effect of gamma-tubulin accumulation at the peripheral satellites on microtubule nucleation. Rapamycin-treated IMCD3peripheral cells were treated with DMSO or 10 μg/mL nocodazole for 1 hour. After microtubule depolymerization, cells were washed, incubated with complete media for the indicated times, fixed, and stained for GFP, alpha-tubulin, and DAPI. (C) Rapamycin-treated IMCD3peripheral cells were treated with DMSO or 10 μg/mL nocodazole for 1 hour. After microtubule depolymerization, cells were washed, fixed 10 minutes after nocodozole washout, and stained for GFP, alpha-tubulin, ninein, and DAPI. Scale bars, 10 μm; all insets show 3× enlarged centrosomes. BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Comparative analysis of the PCM1 proximity interactome of control cells and cells with peripheral satellite targeting.

    (A) The control and peripheral PCM1 interactomes share 476 components. A total of 65 proteins were specific to peripheral satellites and 125 proteins were specific to control cells. (B) GO-enrichment analysis of the proteins enriched (>1.25-fold relative to control) and depleted (<0.75-fold relative to control) in cells with peripheral satellite clustering after rapamycin treatment based on their biological processes. The x-axis represents the log-transformed p-value (Fisher’s exact test) of GO terms. Source data can be found in S4 Data. GO, Gene Ontology; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Effects of rapamycin treatment and satellite peripheral localization on cilium assembly, maintenance, and disassembly.

    (A) Validation of IMCD3peripheral cells for expression of HA-Kif5b and GFP-PCM1-FKBP. Control and rapamycin-induced IMCD3peripheral cells were stained for GFP, HA, gamma-tubulin, and DAPI. (B) GFP-PCM1-FKBP restores ciliogenesis defects of satellite-less IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells and peripheral satellite clustering compromises their ciliogenesis efficiency. IMCD3 PCM1 KOperipheral cells stably expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b-FRB (−Rapa and +Rapa) and IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells were serum-starved for 48 hours, and the percentage of ciliated cells was determined by staining for acetylated-tubulin. Results shown are the mean of three independent experiments ± SD (= 50 cells/experiment, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). (C) Quantification of the percentage of ciliogenesis in control and rapamycin-treated IMCD3peripheral cells 48 hours after serum starvation. Results shown are the mean of two independent experiments ± SD (= 50 cells/experiment, **p < 0.01). (D) Rapamycin treatment by itself in IMCD3 cells does not affect the efficiency of ciliogenesis and cilium maintenance. The experiments were performed in IMCD3 cells following the experimental outline for ciliogenesis and maintenance experiments in Fig 4, and the fraction of ciliated cells were quantified after 48 hours of serum starvation for the cilium assembly experiment and 24 hours after rapamycin treatment for maintenance experiments. Results shown are the mean of two independent experiments ± SD (= 200 cells/experiment). (E) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on cilium maintenance. IMCD3peripheral cells were serum-starved for 48 hours, treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, and the percentage of ciliated cells was determined over 24 hours by staining for acetylated tubulin. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were used as a control. Data represent the mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD (***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001). (F) Effect of peripheral satellite clustering on cilium disassembly. IMCD3peripheral were serum-starved for 48 hours, treated with rapamycin for 1 hour, induced by serum stimulation, and the percentage of ciliated cells was determined over 6 hours by staining for acetylated tubulin. Cells that were not treated with rapamycin were used as a control. Data represent mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD (*p < 0.1). Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S5 Data. FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; IMCD3peripheral, inner medullary collecting duct; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; KO, knockout; n.s., nonsignificant; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; Rapa, rapamycin

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Phenotypic consequences of satellite redistribution to the cell center or cell periphery on mitotic progression and time.

    (A) Rapamycin treatment itself does not affect mitotic time and cytokinesis time of IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells. Control and rapamycin-treated IMCD3 PCM1 KO cells were imaged over 16 hours using time-lapse imaging. Mitotic and cytokinesis times were quantified. Data represent mean value from two experiments per condition ± SD. (B) Effect of peripheral and centrosomal satellite clustering on mitotic dynamics of satellites and mitotic progression of HeLa cells. GFP-PCM1-FKBP was co-transfected to HeLa cells with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRB, treated with rapamycin, and imaged every 4.5 minutes for 16 hours. Representative brightfield and GFP-PCM1-FKBP fluorescence still frames from time-lapse experiments for the different phenotypes quantified were shown. Cell edges are outlined. Scale bar, 10 μm. (C, D) Quantification of (B). Percentage of control, and rapamycin-treated mitotic cells were imaged by the time-lapse imaging and videos were analyzed to classify mitotic cells into categories of cells that completed mitosis, cells that underwent apoptosis, and cells arrested in mitosis for more than 5 hours. n > 20 cells per experiment. Data represent mean ± SD of three independent experiments. (E) Effect of peripheral and centrosomal satellite clustering on mitotic time in HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP with HA-Kif5b-FRB or HA-BICD2-FRAB. Control and rapamycin-treated cells were stained with SIR-DNA and imaged by time-lapse microscopy. (F) Quantification of (E). n > 20 mitotic cells per experiment. Data represent mean ± SD of two independent experiments. Error bars = SD. Source data can be found in S6 Data. BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; FRB, FKBP12-rapamycin-binding; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; IMCD3, inner medullary collecting duct; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; KO, knockout; n.s., non-significant; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; SIR, silicone rhodamine

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Raw mass spectrometry data for Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP with and without rapamycin treatment in Kif5b-expressing cells.

    Mass spectrometry analysis of proximity interactors of Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP proteins. Proximity interactors from two experimental and two technical replicates for each condition were analyzed by SAINT. FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; SAINT, significance analysis of interactome

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Unique proteins identified in control and rapamycin-treated Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP.

    Proteins with BFDR (<0.01) values were defined as part of the PCM1 interactomes. Tab 1: Unique peptides identified in control and rapamycin-treated cells (−Rapa versus +Rapa). Tab 2: Proteins enriched (>1.25-fold relative to control), depleted (<0.75-fold relative to control), and unaltered in rapamycin-treated cells relative to control cells. BFDR, Bayesian false discovery rate; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1; Rapa, rapamycin

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. GO-enrichment analysis of the PCM1 interactors at the cell periphery.

    Proximity interactors of Myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP were classified into GO categories using the EnrichR analysis program. FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GO, Gene Ontology; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (XLSX)

    S1 Movie. Live imaging of HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b before and after rapamycin treatment.

    FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (AVI)

    S2 Movie. Live imaging of HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b before and after rapamycin treatment.

    FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (AVI)

    S3 Movie. Live imaging of rapamycin-induced HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-Kif5b after nocodazole treatment.

    FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, hemagglutinin; Kif5b, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (AVI)

    S4 Movie. Live imaging of rapamycin-induced HeLa cells co-expressing GFP-PCM1-FKBP and HA-BICD2 after nocodazole treatment.

    BICD2, bicaudal D homolog 2; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HA, kinesin family member 5b; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (AVI)

    S1 Data. Quantification of pericentrosomal PCM1 levels before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

    The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 1E and 1F. PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data. Quantification of pericentrosomal levels of indicated proteins before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

    The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 2C.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Data. Quantification of pericentrosomal levels of indicated proteins before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

    The data and statistical analysis that correspond to S2A Fig and S3B Fig.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Data. Quantification of GO categories enriched in PCM1 proximity maps.

    The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 3C and 3D and S4B Fig. GO, Gene Ontology; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (XLSX)

    S5 Data. Quantification of cilium assembly, maintenance, and disassembly phenotypes before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

    The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 4C–4F and S5B–S5F Fig.

    (XLSX)

    S6 Data. Quantification of mitotic progression and mitotic time in IMCD3 and HeLa cells before and after rapamycin induction of satellite mispositioning.

    The data and statistical analysis that correspond to Fig 5C and 5D and S6A, 6C, S6D and S6F Fig. IMCD3, inner medullary collecting duct

    (XLSX)

    S1 Raw Images. Western blot confirmation of pulldown of biotinylated proteins and myc-BirA*-PCM1-FKBP in BioID experiments.

    The unprocessed western blot data for Fig 3B. BioID, Biotin Identification; FKBP, FK506 binding protein 12; PCM1, pericentriolar material 1

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review of PBIOLOGY-D-20-00224.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PointByPointResponse_final.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PointByPointResponse_final.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES