Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 23;15(12):e0241576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241576

The yeast mitophagy receptor Atg32 is ubiquitinated and degraded by the proteasome

Nadine Camougrand 1,*, Pierre Vigié 1, Cécile Gonzalez 1,¤, Stéphen Manon 1, Ingrid Bhatia-Kiššová 2
Editor: Cory D Dunn3
PMCID: PMC7757876  PMID: 33362225

Abstract

Mitophagy, the process that degrades mitochondria selectively through autophagy, is involved in the quality control of mitochondria in cells grown under respiratory conditions. In yeast, the presence of the Atg32 protein on the outer mitochondrial membrane allows for the recognition and targeting of superfluous or damaged mitochondria for degradation. Post-translational modifications such as phosphorylation are crucial for the execution of mitophagy. In our study we monitor the stability of Atg32 protein in the yeast S. cerevisiae and show that Atg32 is degraded under normal growth conditions, upon starvation or rapamycin treatment. The Atg32 turnover can be prevented by inhibition of the proteasome activity, suggesting that Atg32 is also ubiquitinated. Mass spectrometry analysis of purified Atg32 protein revealed that at least lysine residue in position 282 is ubiquitinated. Interestingly, the replacement of lysine 282 with alanine impaired Atg32 degradation only partially in the course of cell growth, suggesting that additional lysine residues on Atg32 might also be ubiquitinated. Our results provide the foundation to further elucidate the physiological significance of Atg32 turnover and the interplay between mitophagy and the proteasome.

Introduction

Mitochondria are organelles in charge of many crucial functions in cells. In eukaryotes, they are known to be the powerhouse of cells by producing ATP via oxidative phosphorylation; they are also involved in different synthesis pathways such as the synthesis of certain amino acids and lipids and in signaling pathways, such as apoptosis and calcium. Mitochondrial dysfunctions have been associated with aging and with an increasing number of pathologies, including neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and metabolic perturbation. To maintain cell survival and homeostasis, cells have developed ways to remove superfluous or damaged cell components and organelles such as mitochondria. Mitophagy is one of the processes involved in mitochondrial quality control. Mitophagy is a selective form of autophagy [1, 2]. Macroautophagy (hereafter called autophagy) is conserved among eukaryotic species and involves specific lytic compartments: the vacuole in yeast and lysosomes in mammals. It also involves specific autophagy-related (Atg) proteins. To date, more than 40 Atg proteins have been identified, about half are involved in the core autophagy machinery, and the rest are implicated in specific autophagy processes and regulations.

In mammalian cells, mitophagy and recognition of the mitochondria that need to be removed are complex processes. Two main mechanisms of mitophagy signaling have been identified: ubiquitin-mediated mitophagy and receptor-mediated mitophagy. To be degraded by mitophagy, mitochondria must be labeled with a flag that is recognized by autophagic machinery. For these mitophagy-signaling pathways, ubiquitin/proteins, receptors/adaptors containing the LIR (LC3-interacting region) domain act to recruit LC3 family members for mitochondria and thus induce mitophagy.

In yeast, Atg32 is the only characterized mitophagy receptor, which suggests mitophagy could be a simpler mechanism in yeast than in mammals [3, 4]. The Atg32 protein is an outer mitochondrial membrane protein with its C-terminus in the intermembrane space and its N-terminus in the cytosol [3, 4]. As mammalian protein receptors, Atg32 possesses the Atg8-interacting motif (AIM, LIR domain). When mitophagy is induced, Atg32 interacts with Atg11, a cytosolic adaptor protein required for selective autophagy. Atg11 is believed to target mitochondria to the pre-autophagosomal structure (PAS), where an autophagosome is generated to enclose the mitochondria. At the PAS, Atg32 interacts with Atg8, a protein anchored in autophagosome membranes, and the Atg32-Atg8 interaction facilitates the formation of autophagosomes surrounding mitochondria [36]. Both interactions are required for the recruitment of mitochondria to the phagophore followed by their sequestration within autophagosomes and their degradation in the vacuole.

The Atg32 expression is regulated by multiple factors. It has been shown that N-acetylcysteine (NAC), which increases the cellular level of reduced glutathione (GSH), inhibits mitophagy [7] through suppression of Atg32 expression [4]. Indeed, the absence of an Opi3 protein, an enzyme required in the conversion of phosphatidylethanolamine to phosphatidylcholine, causes an increase in intracellular reduced glutathione, leading to a decrease in Atg32 protein expression [8]. Moreover, the absence of some components of the NatA N-acetyltransferase complex also results in a decrease in Atg32 protein expression [9]. However, the precise role of NatA concerning Atg32 protein remains unclear. In addition, it has been shown that Atg32 phosphorylation on serines 114 and 119, is required for mitophagy activation [10, 11]. More recently, Levchenko et al. detected another post-translational modification of Atg32 when mitophagy was induced by rapamycin treatment in a pep4Δ background, where vacuolar proteolysis is impaired. However, its precise nature remains to be characterized [12].

Because mitophagy induction is highly regulated, we reasoned, as a key mitophagy factor, Atg32 protein may be subject to degradation control. In this study, we monitored the expression and the stability of the Atg32 protein during mitophagy in the yeast S. cerevisiae. We showed the existence of an interplay between mitophagy and the proteasome. We demonstrated that a novel post-translational modification of Atg32, ubiquitination at least on lysine 282 residue, modulated Atg32 protein level during the cell growth. Because uncontrolled mitophagy activation can lead to dire consequences, understanding Atg32 regulation would help us understand the control of mitophagy activity and also the cooperation between the proteasome and mitophagy.

Material and methods

Yeast strains, plasmids and growth conditions

All yeast strains used in this study are listed in the S1 Table and derived from BY4742 (Euroscarf bank). Yeast cells were grown aerobically at 28°C in complete minimal synthetic medium (CMS; 0.175% yeast nitrogen base without amino acids and ammonium sulfate, 0.5% ammonium sulfate, 0.1% potassium phosphate, 0.2% Drop-Mix, 0.01% of auxotrophic amino acids and nucleotide, pH 5.5), supplemented with 2% lactate as a carbon source (CMS-L). Cell growth was followed by optical density at 600 nm. Atg32 expression was examined in cells harvested in the mid-exponential phase of growth (1.5–2 OD600; T0), after 8 h (8 h; late exponential phase), after 1 day (24 h; early stationary phase), and after 2 days (48 h; late stationary phase) of culture. To inhibit the proteasome, 75 μM MG-132 + 0.003% SDS were added to the cell culture at 8 h time point. To inhibit vacuolar proteolysis, 2 mM PMSF was added to the cell culture at 8 h time point; this step was repeated twice during the course of cell growth. For starvation experiments, cells were harvested at the mid-exponential phase of growth (1.5–2 OD600; T0), washed three times with water and incubated in a nitrogen starvation medium (-N; 0.175% yeast nitrogen base without amino acids and ammonium sulfate, and 2% lactate, pH 5.5) for 3-, 6- or 24 h (-N3h, -N6h, -N24h). The pre2-2 mutant strain was unable to grow in the lactate-containing medium; for this reason, the experiments including pre2-2 mutant strain were performed in a CMS medium supplemented with 2% galactose as a carbon source (CMS-G). The pre2-2 mutant strain was a gift of Dr. Sagot (UMR5095 CNRS, France).

Mitophagy was studied in cells expressing the mitochondrial matrix Idp1-GFP protein, and subjected to nitrogen starvation or during different phases of growth. The plasmid pIDP1-GFP was a gift from Dr. Abeliovich (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel). To study autophagy, cells were transformed with plasmid pGFP-ATG8 kindly provided by Dr. Dan Klionsky (Michigan University, USA). The plasmid expressing HA-Atg32 from copper promoter was a gift from Dr. Dan Klionsky. The plasmid expressing Atg32-V5-6HIS from ATG32 promoter was a gift from Axel Athané (UMR5095 CNRS, France). To prepare the pPROM-ATG32-β-galactosidase plasmid, the promoter of ATG32 gene was amplified by PCR using forward primer (5'-GTGATGTATCCACAGGGAATTCCGCTC-3') and reverse primer (5'-CTTTTAGATGAGGATCCTTTACCT-3'), and cloned into BamH1-digested YEp357 plasmid kindly provided by Dr. Pinson (UMR5095 CNRS, France). The plasmid pYES2-ATG32-V5 expressing mutated Atg32K282A-V5 or Atg32-AAAA-V5 proteins were generated using the QuikChange Site-Directed Mutagenesis approach with the following primers: K282A forward (5'-CAATATTCTCAAGGCGCGCCTGTAATA-3'), K282A reverse (5'-GATCGGTATTACAGGCGCGCCTTGAGA-3)'; Rsp5-binding motif forward (5'- AAAGAATACCAATCTCTTTTTGAAGCAQGCGGCAGCTCACGATTCCGCAACATTC-3'); Rsp5-binding motif reverse (5'-TTGCGGGAATGTTGCGGAATCGTGAGCTGCCGCTGCTTCAAAAAGAGATTGGTA-3').

Preparation of protein extracts and western blots

For preparation of total protein extracts, 2 x 107 cells were harvested by centrifugation, washed with water, and resuspended in 450 μl of water and 50 μl of lysis buffer (1.85 M NaOH, 3.5% β-mercaptoethanol). After 10 min on ice, 50 μl of trichloroacetic acid 3 M was added followed by another incubation of 10 min on ice. Proteins were pelleted by centrifugation, 8 min at 13 000 g, washed with acetone and resuspended in 20 μl of 5% SDS and 20 μl of loading buffer (2% β-mercaptoethanol, 2% SDS, 0.1 M Tris-HCl, pH 8.8, 20% glycerol, 0.02% bromophenol blue). Samples were boiled for 5 min and 50 μg of proteins/total protein extracts corresponding to 5 x 106 cells per line were separated by electrophoresis by 12.5% SDS-PAGE and subjected to immunoanalysis with either anti-GFP (Roche), anti-Pgk1 (Invitrogen), anti-porin (Invitrogen), anti-Dpms1 (Invitrogen), anti-HA (Roche), anti-V5 (Invitrogen), anti-HIS (Euromedex) and anti-ubiquitin (Calbiochem) antibodies. Detection was performed with ECL+ reagent (Luminata Forte, Perkin Elmer). Pgk1, the cytosolic phosphoglycerate kinase, was used as a loading control. The Atg32-V5/Pgk1, HA-Atg32/Pgk1 or GFP/GFP + Idp-GFP ratios were quantified by using ImageJ software (NIH). Results of calculations were expressed as the mean ± SEM. To study Atg32-V5 turnover, between 5 and 8 independent experiments were carried out for each tested condition; one representative western blot result is presented for each experimental condition. P-values were assessed using paired Student's t-tests; * P < 0.05 or ** P < 0.01 were considered statistically significant.

For preparation of cell lysates, 5 x 107 cells were broken with glass beads in a buffer containing 0.6 M sorbitol, 20 mM MES pH 6 plus protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche); lysates were centrifuged 10 min at 800 g. The supernatants, an equivalent of 400 μg of proteins, were loaded on 20–55% OptiPrep density gradients in a buffer with 0.6 M sorbitol 20 mM MES pH6, 5 mM EDTA, pH6 plus protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche). Fractions were collected, precipitated with TCA and pellets were resuspended in 20 μl of 5% SDS and 20 μl of loading buffer (2% β-mercaptoethanol, 2% SDS, 0.1 M Tris-HCl, pH 8.8, 20% glycerol, 0.02% bromophenol blue). Samples were boiled for 5 min and 4 μl of samples were separated by 12.5% SDS-PAGE and subjected to immunoanalysis.

Monitoring mitophagy by western blot

BY4742, atg32Δ mutant cells and atg32Δ cells expressing Atg32-V5 and the mitochondrial matrix Idp1-GFP were grown in a CMS-L medium in presence or absence of MG-132 or exposed to nitrogen starvation, respectively. At different times (as indicated in each figure), total protein extracts were prepared from 2 x 107 cells as described above. Extracts were immunoblotted, 12.5% SDS-PAGE gels were used. Under basal condition (T0), only the Idp1-GFP form (75 kDa) was detected with a monoclonal mouse anti-GFP antibody. Upon mitophagy induction, Idp1-GFP (75 kDa) and free GFP (27 kDa) were detected with anti-GFP antibodies. Pgk1 was used as a loading control. Quantification of GFP signals was done using ImageJ software by calculating the ratio of free GFP to total GFP (GFP/GFP + Idp1-GFP). Between 4 and 5 independent experiments were carried out for each experimental condition; one representative western blot result is presented.

Monitoring autophagy by western blot

BY4742 and atg32Δ cells expressing Atg32-V5 and GFP-Atg8 were grown in a CMS-L medium in presence or absence of MG-132. At different times (as indicated in each figure), total protein extracts were prepared from 2 x 107 cells as described above. Extracts were immunoblotted. Under basal condition (T0), only the GFP-Atg8 form (40.6 kDa) was detected with anti-GFP antibody. Upon autophagy induction, GFP-Atg8 localized in autophagosome membranes is delivered into vacuoles, here the proteolysis of GFP-Atg8 releases an intact GFP moiety (27 kDa) that can be detected with anti-GFP antibodies. Pgk1, was used as a loading control. Three independent experiments were carried out for each examined condition; one representative result is shown.

ALP activity

Alkaline phosphatase activity was measured on pho8Δ strain, expressing the mitochondria-targeted truncated version of Pho8, mtPho8Δ60 [13], during the mid-exponential (T0) and the stationary phase (48 h) in absence or presence of MG-132. For each point, 5 x 107 cells expressing mitochondria-targeted Pho8Δ60 (mtPho8Δ60) were harvested and lysed with glass beads in lysis buffer (20 mM PIPES, 0.5% Triton X-100 0.5%, 50 mM KCl, 100 mM potassium acetate, 10 mM MgCl2, 10 μM ZnSO4, 2 mM PMSF). After centrifugation, 20 μl of supernatant were put with 80 μl of water and 400 μl of activity buffer (250 mM Tris HCl pH 8, 0.4% Triton X-100, 10 mM MgCl2, 10 μM ZnSO4, 125 mM p-nitrophenyl-phosphate) during 20 minutes at 30°C. The reaction was stopped by the addition of 500 μl of 1 M glycine pH 11. Activity was then measured by optical density at 400 nm. Protein concentration was measured with the Lowry method. ALP activities were expressed as arbitrary fluorescence units/minute/mg proteins (AU/min/mg). 4 independent experiments were carried out for each condition. Results of quantification were expressed as the mean ± SEM. P-values were assessed using paired Student's t-tests; ** P < 0.01 were considered statistically significant.

β−galactosidase activity

BY4742 cells, expressing β-galactosidase protein under control of ATG32 promoter were grown in a lactate-containing medium and harvested at different time points: mid-exponential phase of growth (T0), late exponential phase of growth (8 h), early stationary phase of growth (24 h) and late stationary phase of growth (48 h). For proteasome inhibition, 75 μM MG-132 + 0.003% SDS were added at 8 h time point. To measure β-galactosidase activity, five OD600 (corresponding to 5.0 x 107 cells) were harvested and broken with glass beads in lysis buffer (100 mM Tris-HCL pH 8, 1 mM DTT, 20% glycerol, 2 mM PMSF) during 4 min at 20 hertz using Mixer Mill MM400 (Retsch). Then, 20 μl of cell lysate were used to measure β-galactosidase activity by absorbance at 420 nm in 60 mM Na2HPO4, 40 mM NaH2PO4, 10 mM KCl, 1 mM MgSO4, 50 mM β-mercaptoethanol, pH 7 and with 0.8 mg/ml of ortho-Nitrophenyl-β-galactoside (ONPG). Protein concentrations were measured using Lowry’s method and activities were normalized to T0. Between 5 and 8 independent experiments were carried out for each experimental condition. Results of quantification were expressed as the mean ± SEM. P-values were assessed using paired Student's t-tests; ** P < 0.01 were considered statistically significant.

Atg32 purification

To purify Atg32 protein, 20 x 107 cells expressing Atg32-V5-6xHIS and grown until late stationary phase (48 h) in the presence of 75 μM MG-132 were collected, and lysates were prepared as described in Becuwe et al. [14]. Cells were precipitated with TCA to a final concentration of 10% overnight at 4°C, and lysed with glass beads for 20 min at 4°C. After centrifugation, the lysate was collected and centrifuged at 16,000 g for 10 min. The pellet was resuspended with 30 μl of 1 M non buffered Tris and 200 μl of guanidinium buffer (6 M GuHCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8, 100 mM K2HPO4, 10 mM imidazole, 100 mM NaCl, and 0.1% Triton X-100) and incubated for 1 h at room temperature on a rotating platform. After centrifugation (16,000 g for 10 min at room temperature), the lysate was loaded on a HisTrap FF Crude column (GE Healthcare Life Sciences). The column was then washed with a speed of 1 ml/min with guanidinium buffer, then with wash buffer 1 (20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 100 mM K2HPO4, 20 mM imidazole, 100 mM NaCl, and 0.1% Triton X-100) and then with wash buffer 2 (20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 100 mM K2HPO4, 10 mM imidazole, 1 M NaCl, and 0.1% Triton X-100). His6-tagged proteins were finally eluted with an elution buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, and 250 mM imidazole). Fractions absorbing at 254 nm were pooled, analyzed by 11% SDS-PAGE and submitted to blue colloidal staining and immuno-analysis.

Sample preparation and protein digestion for MS analysis

After colloidal blue staining, both obtained bands (B1, B2) were cut out from the SDS-PAGE gel and subsequently cut in 1 mm x 1 mm gel pieces. Gel pieces were destained in 25 mM ammonium bicarbonate, 50% acetonitrile (ACN), rinsed twice in ultrapure water and shrunk in ACN for 10 min. After ACN removal, gel pieces were dried at room temperature, covered with the trypsin solution (10 ng/μl in 50 mM NH4HCO3), rehydrated at 4°C for 10 min, and finally incubated overnight at 37°C. Spots were then incubated for 15 min in 50 mM NH4HCO3 at room temperature with rotary shaking. The supernatant was collected, and an H2O/ACN/HCOOH (47.5:47.5:5) extraction solution was added onto gel slices for 15 min. The extraction step was repeated twice. Supernatants were pooled and concentrated in a vacuum centrifuge to a final volume of 100 μl. Digests were finally acidified by the addition of 2.4 μl formic acid (5%, v/v) and stored at -20°C.

nLC-MS/MS analysis

Peptide mixture was analyzed on the Ultimate 3000 nanoLC system (Dionex, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) coupled to the Electrospray Orbitrap Fusion™ Lumos™ Tribrid™ Mass Spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA). Ten microliters of peptide digests were loaded onto a 300-μm-inner diameter x 5-mm C18 PepMapTM trap column (LC Packings) at a flow rate of 10 μL/min. The peptides were eluted from the trap column onto an analytical 75-mm id x 50-cm C18 Pep-Map column (LC Packings) with a 4–40% linear gradient of solvent B in 45 min (solvent A was 0.1% formic acid and solvent B was 0.1% formic acid in 80% ACN). The separation flow rate was set at 300 nL/min. The mass spectrometer operated in positive ion mode at a 1.8-kV needle voltage. Data were acquired using Xcalibur 4.1 software in a data dependent mode. MS scans (m/z 375–1500) were recorded at a resolution of R = 120 000 (at m/z 200) and an AGC target of 4 x 105 ions collected within 50 ms. Dynamic exclusion was set to 60 s and top speed fragmentation in HCD mode was performed over a 3 s cycle. MS/MS scans with a target value of 3 x 103 ions were collected in the ion trap with a maximum fill time of 300 ms. Additionally, only +2 to +7 charged ions were selected for fragmentation. Other settings were as follows: no sheath nor auxiliary gas flow, heated capillary temperature, 275°C; normalized HCD collision energy of 30% and an isolation width of 1.6 m/z. Monoisotopic precursor selection (MIPS) was set to Peptide and an intensity threshold was set to 5 x 103.

Results

Amount of the mitophagy receptor Atg32 decreases during the stationary phase

Mitophagy in yeast is induced during nitrogen starvation, during the stationary phase of growth, or through rapamycin treatment, where cells are grown in a strictly respiratory carbon source medium. To study Atg32 expression in cells grown in a lactate-containing medium (CMS-L), we C-terminally tagged the Atg32 protein with a V5-6HIS epitope (hereafter referred to as Atg32-V5), and the tagged protein was expressed under the control of its promoter. First, we ensured the fusion protein Atg32-V5 was localized to mitochondria by analyzing total cellular extracts from cells harvested in the mid-exponential growth phase on a 20–55% OptiPrep gradient (Fig 1A) or isolated mitochondria on a 20–60% sucrose gradient (S1A Fig). In both cases, Atg32-V5 is colocalized with porin, an outer mitochondrial membrane protein. Moreover, by using mitophagy-dependent processing of the Idp1-GFP technique [15] we showed that Atg32-V5 protein was able to reverse the mitophagy defect of the atg32Δ mutant strain in both the stationary phase of cell growth (Fig 1B) as well as during starvation (S1B Fig). These observations align with the data of Levchenko et al. (2016), who showed that the C-terminal tagging of Atg32 by a ZZ tag did not interfere with mitophagy induced by nitrogen starvation or rapamycin treatment [12].

Fig 1. Atg32-V5 protein localizes to mitochondria and restores mitophagy in atg32Δ mutant strain.

Fig 1

(A) atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 fusion protein were harvested in a mid-exponential phase of growth (T0). Then cells were lysed and lysates were separated in a 20–55% OptiPrep density gradient. Fractions were collected after centrifugation and analyzed by western blots. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5, and anti-Porin antibody was used to detect mitochondria-containing fractions. Pgk1, the cytosolic phosphoglycerate kinase, was used as a cytosolic marker; and Dpms, dolichyl phosphate mannose synthase, was used as an endoplasmic reticulum marker. (B) Mitophagy was assessed using mitophagy-dependent processing of the Idp1-GFP tool in wild-type (BY4742), atg32Δ mutant, or atg32Δ-expressing Atg32-V5. Cells were harvested in a mid-exponential phase of growth (T0), an early stationary phase (24 h), or a late stationary phase (48 h). The total protein extracts corresponding to 5 x 106 cells/50 ug proteins per line were separated by 12.5% SDS-PAGE and analyzed by immunodetection using anti-GFP antibody.

We then determined Atg32 expression from cells harvested in the mid-exponential phase of growth (1.5–2 OD600; T0), after 8 hours (late exponential phase; 8 h), after 1 day (early stationary phase; 24 h), and after 2 days (late stationary phase; 48 h) of culture. We found that under respiratory conditions, the Atg32-V5 protein level decreased during cell growth and almost completely disappeared in the stationary phase (Fig 2A and 2B). Similarly, we observed that when the Atg32 protein was N-terminally tagged with an HA epitope, its amount also decreased gradually during cell growth into the stationary phase (Fig 2C and 2D). It is evident that mitophagy alone cannot be responsible for the decreasing amount of Atg32 protein, as cells in the stationary phase still contain mitochondria, and mitochondrial functions are essential for their viability.

Fig 2. The Atg32 protein is degraded during cell growth.

Fig 2

atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing recombinant proteins were harvested in a mid-exponential phase of growth (T0) and after 8-, 24-, and 48 h from T0. (A,C) Total protein extracts were prepared at indicated times, and samples were analyzed as described in Fig 1B. Anti-V5 and anti-HA antibodies were used to visualize Atg32-V5 or HA-Atg32 recombinant proteins. (B,D) The Atg32-V5/Pgk1 or HA-Atg32/Pgk1 ratios were quantified by using ImageJ software; *P <0.05, **P <0.01.

At the same time, during the first 3 hours of nitrogen starvation, Atg32-V5 levels dropped by 40% on average, changing only minimally and steadying at about 50% of the original amount after 24 hours (S2A and S2B Fig). Moreover, Atg32-V5 degradation was not compromised under normal growth conditions in cells lacking Atg5 or Atg8, two essential autophagy effectors, or Atg11, a protein required for selective autophagy degradation (S3A and S3B Fig). Okamoto et al. (2009) described a similar disappearance of the Atg32 protein in atg7Δ mutant strains [4]. Assuming Atg32 is essential for only mitophagy, this finding was surprising. The reason for this finding is uncertain; however, a small quantity of Atg32 might be sufficient to mediate the selective elimination of mitochondria. Alternatively, a yet to be identified posttranslational modification of Atg32 might function in mitophagy. Also, we cannot exclude the possibility that during respiratory growth, Atg32 might be involved in unknown pathways related to mitochondrial function.

Atg32 turnover can be prevented by inhibition of the proteasome

To understand why the Atg32 protein level decreases when mitophagy is induced, we examined both possibilities that could lead to its reduction: increased degradation and a reduced synthesis of the Atg32 protein. As first, we evaluated the effect of inhibitors of the two main cellular proteolytic pathways (vacuolar-autophagy systems and the ubiquitin-proteasome) on the Atg32 protein level. We observed that the addition of PMSF, an inhibitor of serine proteases that blocks several yeast vacuolar proteases (e.g., proteinase B and carboxypeptidase Y) but does not affect proteasome function, only slightly affected Atg32 protein levels, in an increment probably corresponding to the part of a protein that is degraded by mitophagy (Fig 3A and 3B; 24 h and 48 h). Accordingly, the degradation of Atg32-V5 was not compromised in cells lacking Pep4, a vacuolar protease (Fig 3C and 3D), confirming that degradation of Atg32 in the vacuole does not play a significant role in degradation control of the Atg32 protein.

Fig 3. Degradation of the Atg32 protein is prevented by inhibition of the proteasome.

Fig 3

(A) atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 recombinant protein were harvested at indicated time points. To inhibit the proteasome, 75 μM MG-132 was added to the cell culture at the 8 h time point. To inhibit vacuolar proteolysis, 2 mM PMSF was added to the cell culture at the 8 h time point; this step was repeated several times during the whole course of cell growth. Total protein extracts were prepared, and protein samples were analyzed as described in Fig 1B. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein. Anti-ubiquitin (Ub) was used to detect the level of ubiquitinated proteins. (B) Atg32-V5 expression was quantified as the Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratio; ** P <0.01. (C) BY4742 and pep4Δ mutant cells expressing Atg32-V5 were grown in a CMS-L medium. Cells were harvested in a mid-exponential (T0) and a late stationary phase (48 h) of growth. Total protein extracts were prepared and analyzed by western blots. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein. (D) The Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratio was quantified at T0 and 48 h time points for all tested strains—*P <0.05 and **P <0.01.

Meanwhile, the addition of MG-132, a proteasome inhibitor that reduces the degradation of ubiquitin-conjugated proteins in mammalian cells and effectively blocks the proteolytic activity of the 26S proteasome in yeast, counteracted the Atg32 protein loss observed during the stationary growth phase (Fig 3A, upper panel) and rapamycin treatment (S4A Fig). We observed the same Atg32 protein level dynamic in the BY4742 strain expressing Atg32-V5 (S4B and S4C Fig). Further, inhibition of proteasomal activity stabilized the Atg32 protein in exponentially growing cells, in which there is no detectable mitophagy yet (T8; S4D Fig). However, MG-132 had only a limited effect on Atg32-V5 levels during nitrogen starvation (S2A and S2B Fig). In Figs 3A and S2A (lower panels), the accumulation of ubiquitin-conjugated complexes (Ub) becomes easily detectable because these complexes are not degraded in the presence of MG-132; this serves as evidence that MG-132 is a potent proteasome inhibitor in yeast. Also, the Atg32-V5 level was restored with MG-132 treatment in atg5Δ mutant cells in the stationary phase (S3C Fig).

The addition of MG-132 or PMSF did not significantly affect cell growth or growth yield (S5A Fig). Furthermore, the simultaneous addition of MG-132 and PMSF had no significant cumulative effect on the reduction of Atg32 protein levels (S5B Fig). Consistent with these observations, Atg32 may be degraded in both an autophagy-dependent and autophagy-independent manner.

To answer the question of whether the reduction of the Atg32 protein level during the stationary phase in respiratory conditions is due to a decrease in Atg32 synthesis or an increase in Atg32 degradation, we examined ATG32 promoter activity. We used a construct pPROM-ATG32-lac Z in which the reporter gene lacZ was expressed from the ATG32 promoter. Interestingly, we found that ATG32 promoter activity increased through the course of cell growth (Fig 4A). In the late stationary phase, ATG32 promoter activity increased threefold to fourfold compared to ATG32 promoter activity in cells in the early exponential phase of growth (T0). MG-132 treatment prevented this rise in ATG32 promoter activity (Fig 4A).

Fig 4. Evaluation of ATG32 promoter activity and Atg32 protein stability.

Fig 4

(A) BY4742 cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing β-galactosidase under the ATG32 promoter were harvested in a mid-exponential phase of growth (T0) and after 24 h and 48 h from T0 in the absence or presence of MG-132. After cell lysis, the β-galactosidase activity was measured. Results were obtained from 6 independent experiments and are expressed as the % of T0. The symbol ** indicates significant difference between 48 h in the absence of and 48 h in the presence of MG-132 (P <0.01). (B) atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested in a mid-exponential phase (T0) and then treated with 250 μg/ml of cycloheximide (CHX) in the presence or absence of 75 μM MG-132 for 20 min, 40 min, and 1 h. Total protein extracts were analyzed by western blots. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein. Pgk1 was used as a loading control; Porin was used as a mitochondrial protein marker. At least 3 independent experiments were carried out for each condition. (C) Atg32-V5 expression was quantified as the Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratio; * P <0.05 and **P <0.01.

To evaluate further whether the Atg32 protein is subject to degradation control, we monitored the Atg32 protein turnover. To assess the alteration of Atg32 protein levels, atg32Δ mutant cells expressing ATG32-V5 were grown in a minimal lactate medium, and in the mid-exponential growth treated with cycloheximide (250 μg/ml CHX) to turn off protein expression. After the first 20 minutes of CHX treatment, the Atg32-V5 protein level had already decreased dramatically compared to the levels of the cytosolic protein Pgk1 or of mitochondrial protein porin, indicating that Atg32 turnover is rapid (Fig 4B and 4C). Additionally, Atg32-V5 was significantly stabilized upon treatment by the proteasome inhibitor MG-132; hourly inhibition of the proteasomal turnover in combination with the cycloheximide resulted in a more-than-fourfold increase in the amount of the Atg32 protein (from 15 percent to approximately 68 percent; P = 0.015) (Fig 4B and 4C). These results suggest that the half-life of the Atg32 protein is very short and is degraded by the proteasome.

Consistent with the requirement of the chymotryptic activity of the proteasome in proteasome-mediated proteolysis, Atg32-V5 turnover was impaired in yeast mutant cells that contain a mutation in the protein Pre2 (Fig 5). Pre2 is the β5 subunit of the 20S proteasome, which is required for efficient assembly of the 20S proteasome catabolic core particle essential for degrading the protein into fragments [16]. The expression of the fusion protein Atg32-V5 decreased significantly in the stationary phase in the medium with galactose in the control strain (atg32Δ + Atg32-V5), just as it would in a lactate-containing medium, whereas we observe a less pronounced change for the pre2-2 mutant strain (Fig 5). This supports the hypothesis of the involvement of the proteasome in the disappearance of the Atg32-V5 protein in the stationary phase of cell growth.

Fig 5. Degradation of Atg32 protein is impaired in pre2-2 mutant cells.

Fig 5

(A) atg32Δ and pre2-2 mutant cells transformed with a plasmid expressing Atg32-V5 were grown in a CMS-G medium. Cells were harvested in a mid-exponential phase of growth (T0) and after 8, 24, and 48 h of cell growth. (B) The Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratio was quantified at T0 and 48 h time points for all tested strains—** P <0.01.

Our data showed that under respiratory conditions, the Atg32 protein had a high turnover rate. Its level decreased during mitophagy, whereas ATG32 promoter activity increased suggesting the decrease of the Atg32 protein level during the stationary phase is due to an increase of Atg32 degradation. Our observations support the hypothesis that Atg32 might regulate its own protein level and activity.

The fact that treatment with MG-132 prevented the disappearance of Atg32 indicates that Atg32 protein degradation seems to be directly or indirectly dependent on proteasome activity. These results imply that Atg32 is ubiquitinated and targeted for proteasomal degradation. Accordingly, several bands exhibiting a molecular weight shift of Atg32-V5 (Fig 3A upper panel, asterisk mark; Figs 5A and S3C and S4A and S4B and S5B) ranging between 70 and 190 kDa were identified in protein extracts prepared from cells following MG-132 treatment or in pre2-2 mutant cells. They may correspond to ubiquitinated Atg32 protein forms that were stabilized within cells due to dysfunctional proteasome.

Inhibition of the proteasome with MG-132 stimulates mitophagy

It has been shown that cells lacking the Atg32 protein are deficient in mitophagy induction and that Atg32 overexpression is responsible for an increase in mitophagy [3, 4]. We showed Atg32-V5 is degraded under normal cell growth conditions (Figs 2, 3 and 5 and S4B), but the protein did not disappear in the stationary phase when cells were treated with MG-132 (Figs 2 and 3 and S4B) or in the pre2-2 mutant (Fig 5). To check whether the higher Atg32 protein level in the stationary phase after MG-132 treatment correlated with an increase of mitophagy, we assessed mitophagy induction in cells treated or untreated with MG-132. We first studied mitophagy in BY4742 + Atg32-V5 or atg32Δ + Atg32-V5 cells growing in respiratory conditions and expressing the mitochondrial Idp1-GFP fusion protein. Under basal conditions, Idp1-GFP is exclusively located in the mitochondrial matrix, and only the Idp1-GFP band (Fig 6A and 6B; T0, 75 kDa) can be visualized by immunoanalysis. When mitophagy is induced, mitochondria are trapped within autophagosomes and delivered into the vacuole to be degraded. GFP moiety is much more resistant to hydrolase degradation than Idp1 moiety, and thus residual GFP (27 kDa) will remain in the vacuolar lumen and serves as evidence of mitophagy induction. In untreated control cells, the GFP band first appeared in the mid-exponential phase (8 h), indicating mitophagy was activated (Fig 6A and 6B). MG-132 stimulated both Idp1-GFP cleavage (Fig 6A–6C) and ATG32-V5 level (Fig 3), consistent with the published data [3, 4] demonstrating a direct correlation between Atg32 content and mitophagy activity. To confirm these results, we measured alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity in BY4742 cells expressing the mitochondria-targeted Pho8Δ60 (mtPho8Δ60) protein [15]. In control cells, we observed a twofold increase in ALP activity in the late stationary phase (48 h) compared to the mid-exponential phase (T0; Fig 6D). Furthermore, at the 48 h point, MG-132 treatment induced a fourfold increase in ALP activity compared with that of T0, confirming proteasome inhibition by MG-132 causes an increase in mitophagy in the stationary phase compared to mitophagy of untreated cells. Notably, MG-132 had no stimulating effect on macroautophagy (S6 Fig).

Fig 6. Stabilization of Atg32 protein by proteasome inhibition stimulates mitophagy.

Fig 6

(A,B) atg32Δ mutant (A) and BY4742 (B) cells expressing Atg32-V5 and Idp1-GFP proteins grown in a CMS-L medium were harvested at indicated times of growth. To inhibit the proteasome, 75 μM MG-132 was added to the cell culture at the 8 h time point. Total protein extracts were prepared and analyzed as described in Fig 1B. Proteins were detected using antibodies against GFP or Pgk1. (C) GFP/GFP+Idp1-GFP ratios were quantified at the 24 h and 48 h time points for all tested conditions. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. (D) BY4742 cells expressing mtPHO8Δ60 protein grown in a CMS-L medium were harvested at the mid-exponential (T0) and late stationary (48 h) phases. MG-132 was added as described in (A). ALP activity was measured as described in the Material and Methods section. The symbol ** indicates significant difference between the 48-h time point with and without MG-132 (P <0.01).

Identification of ubiquitination site in Atg32 protein by LC-MS/MS analysis

To confirm our hypothesis that the level and the activity of the Atg32 protein is regulated by ubiquitination, we purified Atg32 protein from atg32Δ mutant cells expressing Atg32-V5-6xHIS harvested in the late stationary growth phase (48 h) in the presence of MG-132. The cell lysate was loaded on an affinity Ni-NTA column, as described in the Material and Methods section. After elution, individual fractions were examined by western blot (S7 Fig) first. The presence of Atg32-V5 was confirmed by immunodetection with antibodies directed against histidine and ubiquitin (S7C and S7D Fig). Subsequently, fractions absorbing at 254 nm (S7A Fig) were pooled together, separated on 11% SDS-PAGE, and submitted to blue colloidal staining (Fig 7A) or immunoanalysis using antibodies directed against histidine and ubiquitin (Fig 7B), respectively.

Fig 7. Atg32 purification and mass spectrometry analysis.

Fig 7

(A) atg32Δ mutant cells expressing Atg32-V5-6HIS were grown in a CMS-L medium until a late stationary phase (48 h) in presence of MG-132. Cells were lysed and loaded on a Ni-NTA column as described in the Material and Methods section. After the last elution, collected fractions absorbing at 254 nm (from 14 to 17) were pooled together, precipitated with TCA. Pellet was resuspended in 60 μl of the loading buffer, 50 μl (eluted fraction) were loaded on a 11% SDS-PAGE. After migration, the gel was colored with colloidal blue. The bands B1 and B2 were excised and analyzed by mass spectrometry. (B) 5 μL of pooled fraction from A (Eluted fraction) were separated in a 11% SDS-PAGE gel. Proteins were analyzed by western blots using antibodies against histidine (anti HIS) or ubiquitin (anti Ub), respectively. Input: 50 μL of cell lysate prepared in (A) was precipitated with TCA, pellet was resuspended in 50 μL of the loading buffer, and 4 μL were loaded on the gel.

Two bands (B1 and B2) were detected by colloidal blue staining (Fig 7A). Nevertheless, Atg32-V5 did not migrate at its expected mass of 58.9 kD. Although we detected a small amount of protein of theoretical size in eluted fractions (S7C Fig), most of the signal was discovered in oligomer form with a high mass (larger than 170 kD) despite the presence of SDS. The shift in mobility of Atg32 after purification is a surprising finding but not impossible to understand. Atg32 is a protein inserted into the outer membrane of the mitochondria. It has already been observed that a mitochondrial membrane protein such as the ATP synthase subunit 9 is mainly found in the form oligomers in SDS-PAGE gel despite the presence of detergents in the gel [17, 18].

To ascertain Atg32 ubiquitination, the B1 and B2 bands were submitted to a standard proteomics workflow as described in the Material and Methods section, including an on-gel proteolysis step and an analysis by LC-MS/MS of peptides. Specifically, trypsin digestion of ubiquitinated proteins cleaves off all but the two C-terminal glycine residues of ubiquitin from the modified protein. These two C-terminal glycine (GG) residues remain linked to the epsilon amino group of the modified lysine residue in the tryptic peptide derived from the digestion of the substrate protein. The presence of the GG on the side chain of that Lys prevents cleavage by trypsin at that site, resulting in an internal modified Lys residue in a formerly ubiquitinated peptide.

Atg32 was unambiguously identified in a sample obtained from the B1 band based on 21 unique peptides leading to 55.6% sequence coverage (Table 1 and S8 Fig). One of these peptides was unambiguously shown to bear the typical GG tag (+144 Da) remaining after tryptic proteolysis of ubiquitination of Lysines using two distinct search engines (SEQUEST and MASCOT) and manual validation (visual inspection of the related MS/MS spectrum). The simultaneous detection into the MS/MS spectrum of 20 b fragments and 22 y fragments (over 22 possible fragments of each) ascertains the presence of a typical GG tag on the lysine 282 and confirms at least one ubiquitination site into Atg32 (Table 1 and S8 Fig). However, the Atg32 protein contains 43 lysines, and only 17 were covered by MS analysis. Thus, 26 lysines remain to be tested. In a sample obtained from the band B2, MS analysis identified a histidine-rich protein which was also found ubiquitinated.

Table 1. List of peptides found after mass spectrometry analysis of Atg32 protein.

Annotated sequence Modifications
[K]. GTLQINFHSDGFIMK. [S] 1xOxidation [M14]
[K]. SLTSSTNSFVMPK.[L] 1xOxidation [M14]
[K]. SMPPDSSSTTIHTCSEAQTGEDK.[G] 1xCarbamidomethil [C14]; 1xOxidation [M2]
[R]. IVQYSQGKPVIPICQPGQVIQVK.[N] 1xCarbamidomethil [C14]; 1xGG [K8]
[R]. IVQYSQGKPVIPICQPGQVIQVK.[N] 1xCarbamidomethil [C14]
[K]. SMPPDSSSTTIHTCSEAQTGEDK.[G] 1xCarbamidomethil [C14]
[K]. SMPPDSSSTTIHTCSEAQTGEDKGLLDPHLSVLELLSK.[T] 1xCarbamidomethil [C14]
[R]. CSSQTTNGSILSSSDTSEEEQELLQAPAADIINIIK.[Q] 1xCarbamidomethil [C1]
[K]. MNTFVLHALSKPLK.[F]
[K]. QGQEGANVVSPSHPFK.[Q]
[M]. VLEYQQR.[E]
[K]. YHDSATFPQYTGIVIIFQELR.[E]
[K]. SLTSSTNSFVMPK.[L]
[K]. SSEFSIDESNR.[I]
[K]. TPFENQDDDGDEDEAFEEDSVTITK.[S]
[R]. TGSSFYQSIPK.[E]
[K]. EYQSLFELPK.[Y]
[K]. EKTPFNEQDDDGDEDEAFEEDSVTITK.[S]
[R]. EMVSLLNR.[I]
[K]. FLENLNK.[S]
[K]. LLFPPVVVTNK.[R]
[K]. LLFPPVVVTNKR.[D]
[R]. LQDLSLEYGEDVNEEDNDDEAIHTK.[S]
[K]. GLLDPHLSVLELLSK.[T]
[K].GTLQINFHSDGFIMK.[S]

Investigation of Atg32 expression in ubiquitination-deficient Atg32 mutants

To understand the specific role of proteasome-mediated Atg32 turnover, the identification of the specific pathway that selects Atg32 for degradation is required.

Because our principal aim was to determine the involvement of lysine 282 residue in Atg32 turnover, we replaced lysine 282 with alanine (mutant K282A). We found that the Atg32K282A-V5 mutant form is also degraded during growth. When compared to wild-type Atg32 protein, there is about 10–15% (P<0.05) more mutant protein in the late stationary phase cells (Fig 8A and 8C; 48 h). The fact that Atg32 expression was not fully restored in the K282A mutant could indicate that additional lysine residues on Atg32 might also be ubiquitinated and thus involved in degradation control and regulation of mitophagy activity of Atg32.

Fig 8. Evaluation of Atg32 degradation in ubiquitination-deficient Atg32 mutants.

Fig 8

atg32Δ cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing wild-type Atg32-V5 or Atg32-V5K282A (A) or Atg32-V5 with mutated RSP5-binding motif (Atg32-AAAA-V5) (B) recombinant proteins were harvested at indicated times. Total protein extracts were prepared, and samples were analyzed by western blots. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein. (C) Wild-type or mutant forms of Atg32-V5 protein levels were quantified as the Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratio. The symbol * indicates significant difference between Atg32-V5 and Atg32K282A-V5 on one side and Atg32-V5 and Atg32-AAAA-V5 on the other side (P < 0.05).

When the Atg32 protein sequence was analyzed, we noticed the presence of an Rsp5-binding motif (Leu-Pro-Lys-Tyr, LPKY) at the position 243–246. The RSP5 gene encodes an essential ubiquitin ligase. Proteasomal substrates are usually first recognized by a ubiquitin ligase (E3), which works with a ubiquitin-activating enzyme (E1) and a ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme (E2) to decorate the substrates with the ubiquitin molecule. Ubiquitin-modified substrates are then delivered to the proteasome for degradation [19]. Because the ubiquitin ligase E3 is the rate-limiting and substrate-recognition component of the proteasome system, we examined the involvement of Rsp5 in Atg32 turnover. We replaced the LPKY motif in the ATG32 sequence with AAAA (Ala-Ala-Ala-Ala), and we evaluated the expression of this mutant protein during cell growth. The turnover rate of the Atg32-AAAA-V5 protein was significantly (P<0.05) impaired compared to the wild-type protein (Fig 8B and 8C). This result thus indicates that the ubiquitination of Atg32 is not a straightforward process and could be (i) executed at various other lysine residues besides lysine 282 and (ii) governed by several E3 ligases (from more than 60 identified) involved in ubiquitin-mediated degradation in the yeast S. cerevisiae.

Next, we assessed mitophagy induction in the stationary phase in the different mutant cells potentially involved in Atg32 ubiquitination, such as Atg32K282A and Atg32-AAAA. We observed that the mitophagy activity in these two mutants is very similar to that of the control strain, with only a slight but significant increase in strains expressing K282A (P<0.05) or Atg32-AAAA (P<0.01) (Fig 9A and 9B).

Fig 9. Evaluation of mitophagy in ubiquitination-deficient Atg32 mutants.

Fig 9

(A) atg32Δ cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Idp1-GFP fusion protein and Atg32-V5 recombinant protein with mutation K282A or mutated Rsp5-binding motif (AAAA) were harvested at indicated times. Mitophagy was assessed using mitophagy-dependent processing of the Idp1-GFP tool as described in Fig 1B. (B) Mitophagy induction was quantified as the ratio of GFP/(Idp1-GFP+GFP). The symbols ** and * indicate significant differences between Atg32-V5 and Atg32-AAAA-V5 (P < 0.01) or between Atg32-V5 and Atg32-K282A (P < 0.05), respectively.

These data suggest the link between Atg32 expression, its turnover, and that mitophagy may be more complex than we expected.

Discussion

Regulation of mitophagy by ubiquitination

Atg32 executes a key role as a receptor for multiple mitophagy inducing pathways and governs the final turnover of mitochondria. Therefore, a thorough regulation of its activity is expected. Besides regulation of its gene expression, post-translational modifications seem to control Atg32-mediated mitophagy. However, the pathways perceiving mitochondrial damage/impairment and Atg32 activation are not fully understood.

In this work, we were interested in (i) the expression and the stability of the Atg32 protein during mitophagy and (ii) the relationship between mitophagy, Atg32, and the proteasome. We observed that the Atg32-V5 protein was expressed in the mid-exponential phase of growth, disappeared progressively with growth, and was almost entirely missing in the stationary phase of growth as well as during longer durations of nitrogen starvation or upon rapamycin treatment. Several groups have already shown that Atg32 protein was expressed during growth in respiratory conditions and disappeared in the stationary phase of growth [4, 20]. Wang et al. (2013) demonstrated that Atg32 is processed by Yme1 protease, resulting in Atg32 C-terminus cleavage, and this processed form is required for mitophagy [20]. We tagged Atg32 protein with a V5 tag in the C-terminus, and this recombinant protein may be subjected to Yme1 dependent processing, resulting in the loss of the V5 tag upon mitophagy induction. However, in Wang et al.’s study, Atg32 processing by Yme1 was weak and slow in cells grown in the presence of lactate as a carbon source, only about 5% of Atg32 was cleaved by Yme1 in both nitrogen starvation and in the stationary phase of growth [20]. Moreover, in the same article, the authors showed the disappearance of Atg32 tagged in N-terminus with a TAP tag in the stationary phase of growth, and we also observed Atg32 turnover with the use of HA-Atg32 fusion protein. Therefore, our results concerning the disappearance of Atg32-V5 in the stationary phase of growth are in line with the published data, and Yme1 probably only plays a minor role in the disappearance of Atg32-V5 recombinant protein in this phase.

Considering the important role of the proteasome in the regulation of numerous proteins of the outer mitochondrial membrane [21, 22], we assessed whether the proteasome is also involved in Atg32 degradation. Indeed, blocking the proteolytic activity of proteasome by MG-132 allowed us to prevent a decline in the Atg32 levels through the course of growth and in the stationary phase and to stabilize the modified form of Atg32. Moreover, in the proteasome pre2-2 mutant strain, the Atg32 levels decreased to a much lesser extent than did control cells. Furthermore, the limited effect of treatment with PMSF, an inhibitor of vacuolar serine proteases, or of the deletion of the vacuolar protease Pep4 indicated that only a small part of Atg32 is degraded by mitophagy. We showed that the half-life of the Atg32 protein is short and that Atg32 protein levels are regulated by proteasome activity. Moreover, our results suggest that this regulatory mechanism is already active in exponentially growing cells, hence, before mitophagy induction. To some extent, our results differ from the observations that Levchenko et al. (2016) published. Besides differences in strains, the only explanation we can offer is that a difference in growing conditions and/or mitophagy induction leads to the involvement of various pathways regulating expression/stability of Atg32; one pathway can be more dependent on vacuolar degradation while another can undergo proteasomal degradation control.

Previous studies have shown that overexpression of Atg32 stimulates mitophagy, while it has long been known that the absence of Atg32 protein causes mitophagy impairment in yeast [3, 4]. These published data suggest that mitophagy is dependent on the amount of Atg32 protein present. Our results are in line with this observation. We showed that upon proteasome inhibition with MG-132, there is an increase in the amount of Atg32 protein, which correlates with the stimulation of mitophagy in the stationary phase of growth when compared to control (untreated) cells. It is expected that during this stimulation/induction of mitophagy, the amount of Atg32 protein is crucial, and our findings suggest that the proteasome may regulate the Atg32 protein amount so that yeast cells can control mitophagy activity.

Recently, it was found that two other Atg proteins are regulated by ubiquitination: Atg14 is degraded by the ubiquitin-proteasome system as a means to modulate autophagy activity [23], and Atg9 is degraded by the proteasome under normal conditions but stabilized upon starvation and rapamycin treatment [24].

Altogether, our data indicate that, as in mammalian cells, an interplay exists between mitochondria degradation by autophagy and the proteasome. It has been shown that outer mitochondrial membrane ubiquitin ligases, such as mammalian MULAN, MARCHV/MITOL, and yeast Mdm30, can ubiquitinate proteins involved in mitochondrial fusion and fission, targeting them for proteasome degradation and thus affecting mitochondrial dynamics [2527]. These ligases ensure outer mitochondrial membrane quality control. Moreover, the Rsp5 E3 ligase has been shown to ubiquitinate Mdm34 and Mdm12, two components of ERMES, and this event is required for efficient mitophagy in yeast [28].

In mammals, mitophagy is governed by two different pathways. Numerous data show that the UPS plays a major role in Parkin-dependent mitophagy. Chan et al. (2011) observed robust recruitment of the 26S proteasome onto mitochondria, leading to widespread degradation of mitochondrial outer membrane proteins via the UPS [29]. Strikingly, activation of the UPS not only precedes mitophagy but is also required for mitophagy. Inhibition of the UPS causes complete abrogation of mitophagy [27]. Tanaka et al. showed that ubiquitination of the mitofusins Mfn1 and Mfn2, two large GTPases that mediate mitochondrial fusion, is induced by Parkin upon membrane depolarization and leads to their degradation in a proteasome- and p97-dependent manner [30]. More recently, Wei et al. showed that proteasome-dependent mitochondrial membrane rupture is necessary for Parkin-mediated mitophagy in mammalian cells, in part via the cytoplasmic exposure to an IMM mitophagy receptor [31]. Concerning the pathway involving receptors, ubiquitination could play a different role. In mammalian cells, such a situation was observed in the case of the FUNDC1 receptor, which is primarily involved in mitophagy during hypoxia. This receptor is regulated by both phosphorylation and ubiquitination [3235]. The mitochondrial PGAM5 phosphatase interacts with and dephosphorylates FUNDC1 serine 13 (Ser-13) residue upon hypoxia or carbonyl cyanide p-trifluoromethoxyphenylhydrazone treatment. Dephosphorylation of FUNDC1 catalyzed by PGAM5 enhances its interaction with LC3. CK2 phosphorylates FUNDC1 to reverse the effect of PGAM5 in mitophagy activation. Indeed, the mitochondrial E3 ligase MARCH5 plays a role in regulating hypoxia-induced mitophagy by ubiquitinating and degrading FUNDC1 to limit excessive mitochondria degradation [34]. Our study shows that, in yeast, in addition to phosphorylation regulation, Atg32-V5 turnover seems to be dependent on proteasome activity, and lysine 282 and Rsp5-binding motif are identified as one of the targets of ubiquitination. The fact that the mutation of the Rsp5-binding motif, Rsp5 being an E3 ligase, slightly but significantly perturbs Atg32 expression and mitophagy could indicate that this E3 ligase is involved in the regulation of Atg32. However, we can not exclude the participation of other E3 ligases. Indeed, the effect of these mutations on mitophagy is rather subtle compared to the data obtained with inhibition of the proteasome by MG-132. This could be due to the presence of various different ubiquitination sites present in ATG32 sequence.

Further study aimed at revealing other potential ubiquitination sites in Atg32 protein as well as examining strains with mutated both ubiquitination and phosphorylation sites could shed more light on this process.

Ubiquitination of mitochondrial proteins can play two different roles: (i) ubiquitination of proteins allows their turnover by proteasomal degradation and, consequently, their abundance and quality control; and (ii) ubiquitination of proteins localized on the outer mitochondrial membrane is a signal to trigger mitophagy. In the case of Atg32 or FUNDC1 mitophagy receptors, different post-translational modifications take place to modulate its activity and regulate mitophagy level. We can hypothesize that ubiquitination will be useful for regulating Atg32’s own expression and controlling the mitophagy level. This would prevent excessive mitochondria degradation and ensure a fine-tuned mitochondria turnover.

Why is Atg32 regulated by multiple posttranslational modifications?

During mitophagy induction, Atg32 is activated by a post-translational modification. This, however, does not answer the question of why the Atg32 protein is subjected to several different post-translational modifications, such as phosphorylations, ubiquitination, or other unknown modifications, and what the roles of these modifications are. Are these modifications dependent on mitophagy induction conditions (e.g., nutrient starvation, stationary phase of growth, or rapamycin treatment)? Previously, we showed that depending on the condition of induction, mitophagy may exploit various signaling pathways [36]. The need of cells to employ various pathways could reflect different purposes of self-eating mitochondria in cell physiology at certain moments, the bioenergetic state/deficit of cells, a cell’s capacity to carry a burden of damaged components, and so on. Upon starvation and in the stationary phase, mitophagy requires the same key proteins, Atg32, Atg11, and Atg8; however, in this study we demonstrated that Atg32 turnover rates differ under both conditions, which supports the idea that Atg32 can be regulated through more than one mechanism. In mammalian cells, mitophagy also has several distinct variants based on the biological distinctions of cells: Type 1 mitophagy, which occurs during nutrient deprivation; Type 2 mitophagy, which is stimulated by mitochondrial damage; and micromitophagy [37].

From the published data, phosphorylation of Atg32 at serine 114 and serine 119 by a serine/threonine protein kinase Ck2 seems to be required for the interaction with the adaptor protein Atg11 and targeting mitochondria for a degradation into the vacuole [38]. Thus, vacuolar degradation is responsible for Atg32 stability bearing this kind of modification. What is the fate of Atg32 on mitochondria that have not been selected for mitophagy? We assumed that Atg32 could be eliminated by a separate pathway of degradation in its unmodified form or after acquiring another type of modification. In fact, our results suggest that Atg32 could also be ubiquitylated, and mitophagy can be regulated by ubiquitination/deubiquitination events.

Additional experiments are needed to further investigate how cells control the level and activity of Atg32 to be able to understand the mechanisms by which cells control selective degradation of mitochondria, and the physiological significance of mitophagy. In addition, an interesting question is whether Atg32 is also involved in other cellular processes. Future studies of yeast will address these important questions.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Atg32-V5 recombinant protein localizes into mitochondria and restores mitophagy in atg32Δ mutant cells upon nitrogen starvation.

(A) atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested in a mid-exponential phase of growth. Then, cells were lysed and purified mitochondria prepared as described in Vigie et al. [34] were loaded on a 20–60% sucrose gradient. Fractions were collected and analyzed by immunodetection. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5, and anti-Porin antibody was used to detect mitochondria-containing fractions. (B) Mitophagy was assessed using mitophagy-dependent processing of the Idp1-GFP tool in atg32Δ mutant and atg32Δ–expressing Atg32-V5. Cells were harvested at indicated times. The total protein extracts corresponding to 5 x 106 cells/50 ug proteins per line were separated by 12.5% SDS-PAGE and analyzed by immunodetection using anti-GFP antibody.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. The Atg32 protein is degraded upon nitrogen starvation.

(A) atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested at indicated times. To inhibit the proteasome, 75 μM MG-132 was added to the cell culture at the beginning of starvation. Total protein extracts were prepared afterwards, and samples were analyzed by western blots. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein; Pgk1 was used as a loading control. Anti-ubiquitin (Ub) was used to detect the level of ubiquitinated proteins. (B) The Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratio was quantified for all tested conditions.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Degradation of Atg32 protein is not impaired in autophagy-deficient mutants under normal growth condition.

(A) atg5Δ, atg8Δ, and atg11Δ mutant cells transformed with a plasmid expressing Atg32-V5 were grown in a CMS-L medium. Cells were harvested at indicated times. (B) The Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratios were quantified at T0 and 48 h time points for all tested strains; ** p<0.01. (C) atg5Δ mutant cells expressing Atg32-V5 were treated with MG-132 at time point 8 h. Cells were harvested at indicated time points and total protein extracts were prepared and analyzed by immunodetection. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein.

(PDF)

S4 Fig

(A) The Atg32 protein is degraded upon rapamycin treatment and stabilized by the proteasome inhibition. atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested at T0 and treated with 0.2 μg/ml rapamycin in presence or absence of 75 μM MG-132 for 3 h, 6 h, and 24 h. Total protein extracts were prepared afterwards, and samples were analyzed by immunodetection. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein. (B) The Atg32 protein is degraded in BY4742 strain. BY4742 cells transformed with a plasmid expressing Atg32-V5 grown in a CMS-L medium were harvested at indicated times. To inhibit proteasome, MG-132 was added to the cell culture at 8 h time point. (C) The Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratios were quantify for all tested conditions—**P<0.01. (D) MG-123 stabilizes the Atg32 protein in exponentially growing cells. atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested at T0 and treated with 75 μM MG-132. Cells were harvested at exponential (T8) and stationary (T24, T48) phase, and total protein extracts were prepared and analyzed by immunodetection. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein.

(PDF)

S5 Fig. The effect of MG-132 and PMSF treatment on cell growth and Atg32-V5 protein degradation.

(A) Addition of proteasome inhibitor MG-132 (75 μM MG-132) and inhibitor of vacuolar proteolysis PMSF (2 mM) do not affect growth and growth yield in atg32Δ mutant cells expressing Atg32-V5 plasmid and grown in a CMS-L medium. The Y-axis is represented in logarithmic scale (n = 5 for control and MG-132; n = 3 for PMSF). (B) atg32Δ cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested at indicated time points. To inhibit proteasome, MG-132 was added to the cell culture at 8 h time point. To inhibit vacuolar proteolysis, 2 mM PMSF was added to the cell culture at T8; this step was repeated twice during the course of cell growth. Total protein extracts were prepared afterwards, and samples were analyzed by western blots. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein. To detect modified Atg32-V5 forms (bands with a higher molecular weight) after MG-132 treatment, two different revelation times of blots are presented.

(PDF)

S6 Fig. Inhibition of the proteasome with MG-132 does not affect autophagy.

BY4742 (A) and atg32Δ mutant (B) cells expressing GFP-Atg8 protein grown in a CMS-L medium in presence or absence of MG-132 were harvested at indicated times. Total protein extracts from 2 x 107 cells were prepared and separated by 12.5% SDS-PAGE gel as described in the Material and Methods section. Proteins were detected using antibodies against GFP or Pgk1.

(PDF)

S7 Fig. Purification of Atg32-V5-6HIS.

(A) Lysate from atg32Δ mutant cells expressing pATG32-V5-6HIS was prepared as described in the Material and Methods section. Next, lysate was loaded on a Ni-NTA column, the non-retained fraction, as well as the two washes W1 and W2, were recovered. The bounded proteins were then eluted and 500 μl fractions were collected. (B-D) 250 μl of each fraction absorbing at 254 nm (from F12 to F22) were precipitated with TCA. Pellets were resuspended in 20 μl of the loading buffer; 10 μl were loaded on the gel to be revealed with the colloidal blue (B) and 5 μl were used for immunodetection with anti-histidine (C) or anti-ubiquitin antibodies (D), respectively.

(PDF)

S8 Fig. Mass spectrometry analysis.

(A) SEQUEST spectra, (B) MASCOT spectra, and (C) Protein coverage.

(PDF)

S1 Table

(PDF)

S1 File

(PDF)

S2 File

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs Sagot, Klionsky, Pinson and Abeliovich, and Mr Athané for the gift of strains and material and Drs Chaignepain and Claverol (CGFB, Bordeaux) for helpful discussions.

Data Availability

All relevant data are available on BioRxiv 652933: https://doi.org/10.1101/652933.

Funding Statement

IBK: Slovak APVV agency (SK-FR-2015-0005) NC and PV: CNRS, the University of Bordeaux and the Doctoral International Program from IDEX of Bordeaux supported by Agence Nationale pour la Recherche (ANR-10-IDEX-03-02) NC and IBK: France/Slovakia collaboration was supported by Campus France (Stefanik n° 35809VC) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Lemasters JJ; Selective mitochondrial autophagy, or mitophagy, as a targeted defense against oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and aging. Rejuvenation Res. 2005; 8: 3–5 10.1089/rej.2005.8.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kissová I, Salin B, Schaeffer J, Bhatia S, Manon S, Camougrand N. Selective and non-selective autophagic degradation of mitochondria in yeast. Autophagy. 2007; 3: 329–336. 10.4161/auto.4034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kanki T, Wang K, Cao Y, Baba M, Klionsky DJ. Atg32 is a mitochondrial protein that confers selectivity during mitophagy. Dev Cell. 2009; 17: 98–109 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.06.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Okamoto K, Kondo-Okamoto N, Ohsumi Y. Mitochondria-anchored receptor Atg32 mediates degradation of mitochondria via selective autophagy. Dev Cell. 2009; 17: 87–97. 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.06.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kondo-Okamoto N, Noda NN, Suzuki SW, Nakatogawa H, Takahashi I, Matsunami M, et al. Autophagy-related protein 32 acts as autophagic degron and directly initiates mitophagy. J Biol Chem. 2012; 287: 10631–10638. 10.1074/jbc.M111.299917 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mao K, Wang K, Liu X, Klionsky DJ. The scaffold protein Atg11 recruits fission machinery to drive selective mitochondria degradation by autophagy. Dev Cell. 2013; 26: 9–18. 10.1016/j.devcel.2013.05.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Deffieu M, Bhatia-Kissová I, Salin B, et al. Glutathione participates in the regulation of mitophagy in yeast. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2009; 284:14828–14837. 10.1074/jbc.M109.005181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sakakibara K, Eiyama A, Suzuki SW, Sakoh-Nakatogawa M, Okumura N, Tani M, et al. Phospholipid methylation controls Atg32-mediated mitophagy and Atg8 recycling. EMBO J. 2015, 34:2703–2719. 10.15252/embj.201591440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Eiyama A, Okamoto K. Protein N-terminal Acetylation by the NatA Complex Is Critical for Selective Mitochondrial Degradation. J Biol Chem. 2015; 290: 25034–25044. 10.1074/jbc.M115.677468 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mao K, Wang K, Zhao M, Xu T, Klionsky DJ. Two MAPK-signaling pathways are required for mitophagy in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Cell Biol. 2011;193: 755–767. 10.1083/jcb.201102092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Aoki Y, Kanki T, Hirota Y, Kurihara Y, Saigusa T, Uchiumi T, et al. Phosphorylation of Serine 114 on Atg32 mediates mitophagy. Mol Biol Cell. 2011; 22: 3206–3217. 10.1091/mbc.E11-02-0145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Levchenko M, Lorenzi I, Dudek J. The Degradation Pathway of the Mitophagy Receptor Atg32 Is Re-Routed by a Posttranslational Modification. Plos One. 2016;11: e0168518 10.1371/journal.pone.0168518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kanki T, Wang K, Baba M, Bartholomew CR, Lynch-Day MA, Du Z, et al. A Genomic Screen for Yeast Mutants Defective in Selective Mitochondria Autophagy. Mol Biol Cell 2009,20:4730–4738. 10.1091/mbc.e09-03-0225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Becuwe M, Vieira N, Lara D, Gomes-Rezende J, Soares-Cunha C, Casal M, et al. A molecular switch on an arrestin-like protein relays glucose signaling to transporter endocytosis. J Cell Biol. 2012,196:247–259. 10.1083/jcb.201109113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Klionsky D et al. Guidelines for the Use and Interpretation of Assays for Monitoring Autophagy. 2012, Autophagy, 8: 445–454. 10.4161/auto.19496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Arendt CS and Hochstrasser M. Eukaryotic 20S proteasome catalytic subunit propeptides prevent active site inactivation by N-terminal acetylation and promote particle assembly. EMBO J. 1999; 18:3575–3585 10.1093/emboj/18.13.3575 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Arselin G, Vaillier J, Graves PV, Velours J. ATP Synthase of Yeast Mitochondria. Isolation of the Subunit H and Disruption of the ATP14 Gene. J Biol Chem. 1996, 271: 20284–20290. 10.1074/jbc.271.34.20284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Velours J, Paumard P, Soubannier V, Spannagel C, Vaillier J, Arselin G, et al. Organization of the yeast ATP synthase F0: a study based on cysteine mutants, thiol modification and cross-linking reagents Biochimica and Biophysica Acta 2000, 1458: 443–456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Finley D, Ulrich HD, Sommer T, Kaiser P. The ubiquitin-proteasome system of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics. 2012; 192:319–360. 10.1534/genetics.112.140467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wang K, Jin M, Liu X, Klionsky DJ. Proteolytic processing of Atg32 by the mitochondrial i-AAA protease Yme1 regulates mitophagy. Autophagy. 2013; 9: 1828–1836. 10.4161/auto.26281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Karbowski M, Youle RJ. Regulating mitochondrial outer membrane proteins by ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2011; 23: 476–482. 10.1016/j.ceb.2011.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Braun RJ and Westermann B. With the Help of MOM: Mitochondrial Contributions to Cellular Quality Control. Trends Cell Biol. 2017; 27: 441–452. 10.1016/j.tcb.2017.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Liu CC, Lin YC, Chen YH, Chen CM, Pang LY, Chen HA, et al. Cul3-KLHL20 ubiquitin ligase governs the turnover of ULK1 and VPS34 complexes to control autophagy termination Mol. Cell, 61 (2016), pp. 84–97 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hu G, Rios L, Yan Z, Jasper AM, Luera D, Luo S, et al. Autophagy regulator Atg9 is degraded by the proteasome. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020; 522:254–258. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.11.089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yonashiro R, Ishido S, Kyo S et al. A novel mitochondrial ubiquitin ligase plays a critical role in mitochondrial dynamics. EMBO Journal 2006; 25: 3618–3626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zhang B, Huang J, Li HL, Liu T, Wang YY, Waterman P, et al. GIDE is a mitochondrial E3 ubiquitin ligase that induces apoptosis and slows growth. Cell Res. 2008; 18: 900–910. 10.1038/cr.2008.75 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cohen MM, Leboucher GP, Livnat-Levanon N, Glickman MH, Weissman AM. Ubiquitin-proteasome-dependent degradation of a mitofusin, a critical regulator of mitochondrial fusion Mol Biol Cell. 2008; 19: 2457–2464. 10.1091/mbc.e08-02-0227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Belgareh-Touzé N, Cavellini L, Cohen MM. Ubiquitination of ERMES components by the E3 ligase Rsp5 is involved in mitophagy. Autophagy 2017; 13: 114–132. 10.1080/15548627.2016.1252889 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chan NC, Salazar AM, Pham AH, Sweredoski MJ, Kolawa NJ, Graham RL, et al. Broad activation of the ubiquitin-proteasome system by Parkin is critical for mitophagy. Hum Mol Genet. 2011; 20: 1726–1737. 10.1093/hmg/ddr048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tanaka A, Cleland MM, Xu S, Narendra DP, Suen DF, Karbowski M, et al. Proteasome and p97 mediate mitophagy and degradation of mitofusins induced by Parkin. J Cell Biol. 2010; 191: 1367–1380. 10.1083/jcb.201007013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wei Y, Chiang WC, Sumpter R Jr, Prashant Mishra P and Beth Levine B. Prohibitin 2 Is an Inner Mitochondrial Membrane Mitophagy Receptor. Cell. 2017; 168: 224–238. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Liu L, Feng D, Chen G, Chen M, Zheng Q, Song P, et al. Mitochondrial outer-membrane protein FUNDC1 mediates hypoxia-induced mitophagy in mammalian cells. Nat Cell Biol. 2012; 14: 177–185. 10.1038/ncb2422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wu W, Tian W, Hu Z, Chen G, Huang L, Li W, et al. ULK1 translocates to mitochondria and phosphorylates FUNDC1 to regulate mitophagy. EMBO Rep. 2014; 15: 566–575. 10.1002/embr.201438501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chen Z, Liu L, Cheng Q, Li Y, Wu H, Zhang W, et al. Mitochondrial E3 ligase MARCH5 regulates FUNDC1 to fine-tune hypoxic mitophagy. EMBO Rep. 2017;18: 495–509. 10.15252/embr.201643309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chen G, Han Z, Feng D, Chen Y, Chen L, Wu H, et al. A regulatory signaling loop comprising the PGAM5 phosphatase and CK2 controls receptor-mediated mitophagy. Mol Cell. 2014; 54: 362–377. 10.1016/j.molcel.2014.02.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vigié P, Cougouilles E, Bhatia-Kiššová I, Salin B, Blancard C, Camougrand N. The mitochondrial phosphatidylserine decarboxylase Psd1 is involved in nitrogen starvation-induced mitophagy in yeast. J Cell Sci. 2019. January 2;132(1). pii: jcs221655. 10.1242/jcs.221655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lemasters JJ. Variants of mitochondrial autophagy: Types 1 and 2 mitophagy and micromitophagy (Type 3). Redox Biol. 2014;2:749–754. 10.1016/j.redox.2014.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kanki T, Kurihara Y, Jin X; Goda T, Ono Y, Aihara M, et al. Casein kinase 2 is essential for mitophagy. EMBO Rep. 2013;14: 788–794. 10.1038/embor.2013.114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Cory D Dunn

14 May 2020

PONE-D-20-11526

The yeast mitophagy receptor Atg32 is ubiquitinated and degraded by the proteasome

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Camougrand,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. 

Two expert reviewers have carefully examined your manuscript, and I have read the manuscript as well.

Certainly, the manuscript requires very considerable revision. Of note, the construct used has not been demonstrated to fully recapitulate the behavior of endogenous Atg32p, due to the presence of a carboxyl-terminal tag and potential over-expression from a plasmid. Mitochondrial localization of your construct has not been adequately demonstrated. It would be important to show that endogenous Atg32p, or a chromosome-integrated, internally tagged Atg32p previously demonstrated to perform as endogenous Atg32p, localizes to mitochondria and behaves similarly in key assays.

Both reviewers raise additional, substantial issues regarding whether the manuscript is technically sound, and these points should be addressed in a revised manuscript.

Finally, the results reported are in conflict with previous findings. In a revised manuscript, the authors should directly address and rationalize differences with earlier publications.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 28 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

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

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

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cory Dunn, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, Camougrand et al examine the regulation of the yeast selective autophagy receptor, Atg32. The authors observe that while Atg32 is specifically expressed during growth in non-fermentable carbon sources, the protein gets degraded in stationary phase, during nitrogen starvation, or rapamycin treatment. The latter two are accordance with previous observations (Levchenko et al, Plos one, 2016). Surprisingly, and in contrast to this published work, the authors determine that protein destabilization is mediated by the proteasome and not by vacuolar degradation. Using a purification/mass spec approach, they identify a potential ubiquitination site on Atg32. Finally, the authors mutagenize the site, finding a subtle stabilization of the protein and, correlatively, a subtle (but statistically insignificant) enhancement in mitophagy. This study is of potential interest because it suggests a balance between Atg32 function and its degradation by the proteasome may fine-regulate mitophagy, which indeed warrants further exploration. However, the results are in direct conflict with published observations, which is not discussed and should be addressed. Additionally, the effects with proteasomal inhibition are only convincingly observed after extended periods of time, raising the concern that the stabilization of Atg32 seen is indirectly due to a stress response rather than acute inactivation of Atg32 degradation. Further, the data suggesting that Atg32 is ubiquitinated in a regulated manner at the K282 site are based on an unconvincing purification approach.

Specific points:

1. Stabilization of Atg32 upon proteasome inhibition is only observed after 24h of treatment in stationary phase growth. The data shown in Fig. 4B after shorter periods of treatment are not quantified or convincing. This raises the concern that the authors are not observing a prevention of the typical Atg32 degradation, but rather a potential cell stress response or adaptation. Under nitrogen starvation conditions, the stabilization the authors claim exist at 3h is unconvincing, and there is no effect during longer term treatment.

The authors also examine Atg32 stability during MG132/rapamycin treatment (Fig. S3), and this time find a compelling effect. However, this is several hours after treatment and also in conflict with data from Levchenko et al (who treated with MG132 for 2h and saw no stabilization of Atg32). This needs to be discussed/addressed by the authors.

2. The data identifying a ubiquitinated form of Atg32 are lacking key controls. The authors purify Atg32, and perform a western blot with ubiquitin. However, there is no western blot indicating that the Coomassie stained band is indeed the purified protein. No input is shown from the purification. This is all particularly concerning given that the protein is supposedly SDS resistant after purification, and no protein is observed at the native size. The authors do identify one single peptide of ubiquitinated protein, which they map to K282, however, it is impossible to assess if this is biologically relevant as the mutagenized protein has a negligible effect.

3. It is not clear whether quantification of all western blots is normalized to Pgk1, however this is required. The authors state in the legends, “Atg32-V5 expression was quantified as the percentage of Atg32-V5 level of T0”.

4. The clarity of the manuscript needs to be improved. The authors should explicitly state growth conditions of their assays. It is not obviously stated that “growth” means allowing cultures to reach saturation after dilution to exponential phase. Specific growth media are not always mentioned. Another example of confusion is the Idp1 degradation assay – while this may be standard for the field, the relationship between its cleavage as an indicator of mitophagy is not explicitly stated.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors found that the mitophagy receptor Atg32 is degraded upon mitophagy induction or under nitrogen starvation conditions. They further showed that the degradation of Atg32 is mediated by the 26S proteasome but not by autophagy. Using mass spectrometry analysis, they identified Lys 282 is an ubiquitination site on Atg32. Intriguingly, the replacement of Lys 282 with Ala did not slow down the degradation rate of Atg32 in their experimental conditions. Overall, the authors concluded that the yeast mitophgy receptor Atg32 can be ubiquitinated and degraded by the proteasome.

Based on the presented data, this reviewer think this manuscript is not technically sound and many critical controls are missing (see below for details). The quantification data are confused, as some blots contain 5 repeats whereas some blots in the same experiments contain 6 repeats (for example, 8 hrs vs. 24 hrs in Fig. 2B and Fig. 3B). Most quantification assays lack statistical analyses. The writing basically sounds good, but typos and errors avoid the reviewer to fully understand the context.

Major problems:

1. The Atg32 degradation assay were performed by using an epitopic-tagged Atg32 construct instead of integrated tagged Atg32, which makes the full story less convincing. This reviewer suggest the authors at least re-examine the stability and ubiquitination of Atg32 using integrated form.

2. In Figure 1A, the authors should examine the localization of Atg32-V5 protein by immunoflorescent staining instead of gradient assay alone. Co-fraction of two protein does not necessarily mean that they spatially localized together. Moreover, in previous results, Dr. Koji Okamoto showed that the C-terminal tagging in Atg32 would disrupt mitochondrial targeting and out-membrane insertion. Therefore, they generated an internally 3xHA-tagged Atg32 variant (Atg32-3HAn) to replace the endogenous protein. This is the major problem in this manuscript.

3. CHX assay is critical to confirm the decrease of Atg32 over the time (upon to 48 hrs) under mitophagy induction is due to protein degradation but not the synthesis of mRNA transcripts. Unfortunately, the whole Figure 4 are somehow disrupted and this reviewer can not see it.

4. In Figure 3, the ubiquitination levels of Atg32 should be examined by immunoprecipitation of Atg32. The ubiquitination levels of total proteins does not mean Atg32 is also ubiquitinated. In addition, PMSF is unstable in aqueous solutions, and its half-life is about 30 min. How the authors exclude the possibility that less protein levels of Atg32 is due to no effect of PMSF after 24 or 48 hours incubation.

5. In Figure 5A, the strain source of pre2-2 should be referred. The authors should clearly describe how they inactivate 20S proteasome using this mutant strain. The positive control is missing in 5A and 5C.

6. In Figure 6D, ATG32 deletion strain should be included as a negative control.

7. From Figure 7 to 10, these data may remove to the supplemental data since they are negative results and the model figure is not closely related to the main conclusion.

8. The discussion part should be more concise.

Minor issues:

1. Page 8, line 170, the font of “107” is weird.

2. Page 11, line 221, remove “we”

3. Page 14, line 291, the blue label should be removed.

4. Page 31, line 709, where shows “against histidine”?

5. Figure 7B, “imput” should be “input”.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-11526.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 23;15(12):e0241576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241576.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Sep 2020

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports

the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls,

replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data

presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

To our knowledge, no specific antibodies against the Atg32 protein are available so far. We

agree that labeling the protein at the locus would have been the ideal construct for every study aiming

to examine stability and expression of the Atg32 protein. However, we believe that the construct we

used in our study to express Atg32 protein with a V5-6HIS label at its C-terminus is a good

compromise. We assert that the ATG32 gene in our construct has been put under the control of its own

promoter. This type of strategy has been used in many published works. Moreover, we did not limit

ourselves to testing a single construct; we also used the plasmid provided by Dr. Klionsky (Michigan

University, USA) which allows the expression of the N-terminal labeled Atg32 protein with the HA tag.

We obtained the same results using both plasmids.

Also, we reversed the phenotype of atg32Δ mutant expressing Atg32-V5 plasmid; the protein is

localized into mitochondria (Fig 1A), and we also included figure S1A to demonstrate mitochondrial

localization of Atg32-V5 using purified mitochondria isolated from atg32Δ mutant cells expressing

Atg32-V5 harvested in the mid-exponential phase. Additionally, we demonstrated that Atg32-V5

restored mitophagy in atg32Δ mutant cells to the level similar in wild-type cells in stationary phase

(Fig 1B) as well upon starvation (Fig S1B).

Further, to confirm the significance of our findings, we used a proteasome mutant pre2-2 viable

in our experimental setup as well as a vacuolar protease mutant pep4D. We believe our results provided

clear evidence that the described changes in stability/turnover of Atg32 protein are not due to

unspecified/long-term stress as suggested by the reviewer. In our study, we focused mainly on the two

most physiological conditions for inducing mitophagy: stationary growth phase and nitrogen

deficiency, rather than the use of rapamycin, which is easier to use but causes more stress to the cells.

We believe that we used proper control in each experiment. All experiments were performed

independently several times, as indicated for each experiment. The sample sizes in the same type of

experiments are identical as described in the Material and Methods section/Figure legends in detail.

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

All experiments were, as indicated for each experiment in Material and Methods section,

performed several times, between 3 and 8 depending on the individual experiment. Not all experiments

were repeated the same number of times; however, each tested/examined condition was repeated

independently at least 3 times.

To present our results, we chose a form that allows us to show the values obtained in each

experiment instead of the more common way of displaying a bar graph with standard deviation. In our

chosen form, it is then possible in some cases to see a different number of points that reflect the

different number of independent experiments performed for that experiment.

P-values were calculated using unpaired Students’ t-tests; * P < 0.05 or ** P < 0.01 were

considered statistically significant. In general, we believe that we performed the statistical analysis

appropriately. However, we apologize for not being completely rigorous and not including statistical

analysis for each result in the previous manuscript. We tried to address this problem in our current

revised version.

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their

manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability

Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its

supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary

statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there

are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—

those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

With our original submission, we also provided a PDF file entitled “Compilation of original

blots” with all original blots presented in the manuscript. It also is available with this revised version.

With the current version, we also provide a document with the data used for the graphs.

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

PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be

clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at

revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, Camougrand et al examine the regulation of the yeast selective

autophagy receptor, Atg32. The authors observe that while Atg32 is specifically expressed during

growth in non-fermentable carbon sources, the protein gets degraded in stationary phase, during

nitrogen starvation, or rapamycin treatment. The latter two are according to previous observations

(Levchenko et al, Plos one, 2016). Surprisingly, and in contrast to this published work, the authors

determine that protein destabilization is mediated by the proteasome and not by vacuolar degradation.

Using a purification/mass spec approach, they identify a potential ubiquitination site on Atg32. Finally,

the authors mutagenize the site, finding a subtle stabilization of the protein and, correlatively, a subtle

(but statistically insignificant) enhancement in mitophagy. This study is of potential interest because it

suggests a balance between Atg32 function and its degradation by the proteasome may fine-regulate

mitophagy, which indeed warrants further exploration. However, the results are in direct conflict with

published observations, which is not discussed and should be addressed.

The majority of the data we obtained do not conflict with the data in the literature. For example,

the decrease in the level of Atg32 protein in the stationary phase was observed, among others, by the

teams of Dr. Ohsumi and Dr. Levchenko. We are familiar with Dr. Levchenko et al.’s (2016) results

published in PlosOne (2016).

We have been working on the study of mitophagy for many years and were the first to show the

selectivity of the process in 2004 (Kissova et al., JBC) and 2007 (Kissova et al., Autophagy). More

importantly, we described the condition in which mitophagy can be observed, and this finding has since

served as an essential tool for all research in this area. Namely, to be able to observe mitophagy, yeast

cells have to be grown in strict respiratory conditions that allow cells to develop fully differentiated

mitochondria and the metabolisms that depend on mitochondria. There is a huge difference in

mitochondrial metabolism between the cells grown in media supplemented with a respiratory carbon

source (e.g., lactate) or with a fermentative carbon source (e.g., glucose).

In his work, Levchenko et al. (2016) used lactate, a respiratory carbon source, which is identical

we use. But there is one essential difference between their and our experimental setup: while we shift

cells first cultivated in a medium with lactate to nitrogen starvation medium with lactate, for the

mitophagy induction, Levchenko et al. used a nitrogen starvation medium supplemented with glucose.

In our setup, cells starved for nitrogen in the presence of a respiratory carbon source, while in

Levchenko et al.’s setup, the cells’ metabolisms are shifted to a different condition. With a shift from

lactate to glucose, not only are mitochondria not needed to the extent they are in respiratory condition,

but the quantity of mitochondria is also regulated by the process of mitochondrial biogenesis. In

accordance with some published results (e.g., Kanki at al, 2009), our unpublished results also showed

that in normal growth conditions (in absence of starvation) a simple shift of cells from respiratory

condition (lactate) to fermentative condition (glucose) does not induce mitophagy, although the

quantity of mitochondria is drastically reduced following such shift in a very short time.

Based on our 40 years of experience with yeast mitochondrial metabolism, it is very difficult to

compare the results obtained in two such diverse experimental setups (Levchenko et al.’s versus ours).

It is easily imaginable that cells have or developed various mechanisms for regulation stability and

quantity of Atg32 in these different conditions. One can be more dependent on vacuolar degradation

while another can undergo proteasomal degradation control.

Moreover, we did not find data on whether Levchenko’s nitrogen starvation medium was

buffered to pH5.5, which we do, and it is important.

Additionally, the effects with proteasomal inhibition are only convincingly observed after extended

periods of time, raising the concern that the stabilization of Atg32 seen is indirectly due to a stress

response rather than acute inactivation of Atg32 degradation.

In our opinion, our results demonstrated a convincing and unambiguous effect of proteasomal

inhibition on the stabilization of Atg32 protein in normal growth conditions.

Let us explain our statement/results in more detail.

In our study, we used the proteasomal inhibitor, MG-132, in two different types of experiments:

First, we examined levels of Atg32 protein in course of the cell growth. We noticed the apparent

decrease in Atg32 levels when cells are entering into a stationary phase of growth—at the time when

mitophagy is induced (Fig. 2). In our experiments, we use control cells (T0) harvested in the midexponential

growth phase that represents the optical density around 1.5–2 OD600. In order to further

elucidate the role of Atg32 in mitophagy and regulation of ATG32 expression, we treated the cells with

the proteasomal inhibitor. MG-132 was added into cell culture at T 8 h (the late-exponential phase).

Cells grew further in inhibitor presence for additional 16 h (early stationary phase, 24 h) or 40 h (late

stationary phase; 48 h). Further, we checked the inhibitor’s effect on the viability of cells (Fig. S5A) to

ensure cells are not affected in our experimental conditions, because longer incubation time could cause

additional stress for cells as the reviewer pointed out. Also, we used time periods of 24 h and 48 h

because those are commonly used to examine mitophagy during normal cell growth/stationary phase.

Although mitophagy can be induced slightly before cells enter into the stationary phase of growth, its

levels are very low before the 24-hour point and cannot be reproducibly detected by immunoblotting

using a standard mitophagy test following the Idp–GFP processing tool that is based on releasing a free

GFP form. In our work, during normal growth conditions, we did not present results from shorter than

24 hours in the presence of inhibitors, so we are not sure what led the reviewer to raise a concern that

stabilization of Atg32 occurs only after long incubation times and may be an indirect effect. The graph

in Figure 3B includes T8 for control conditions, but it does not show point T8 plus MG-132 because

the inhibitor was only added into the medium at that moment. At the 24 h (as well 48 h) time point, the

effect of proteasome inhibition on Atg32 stability is unequivocal, as you can see in Figure 3AB.

Second, after we observed the effect of proteasome inhibition on the Atg32 levels in cells in the

stationary phase, we assessed the alteration of Atg32 protein levels in wild-type yeast cells that were

grown in control media and later treated with cycloheximide to turn off protein expression.

Cycloheximide was added in both the presence and the absence of MG-132, and the positive effects on

stability of Atg32 protein were already observed after a short time of MG-132 treatment—after 20, 40,

or 60 min - Fig. 4B,C.

We think that these results reliably dispel the reviewer’s concern that the stabilization of Atg32

seen is indirectly due to a stress response rather than acute inactivation of Atg32 degradation.

On the other hand, it is important to note that we used two conditions to induce mitophagy:

stationary phase and nitrogen deficiency. We no longer want to use rapamycin because side effects on

various cell functions are significant, and certainly rapamycin treatment can represent stress for cells.

Further, the data suggesting that Atg32 is ubiquitinated in a regulated manner at the K282 site are

based on an unconvincing purification approach.

Could the reviewer kindly specify his reservation regarding his opinion “an unconvincing

purification approach? We believe we follow a standard protocol and purification as described in detail

in the Material and Methods section. At the end of purification, all fractions absorbing at 254 nm were

pooled and analyzed by electrophoresis on 11% SDS-PAGE and submitted to blue colloidal staining

(Fig. 7A: marked as Eluted fraction) and immunoanalysis using antibodies against HIS tag (to detect

Atg32 protein) and antibodies against ubiquitin (Fig. 7B). We would like to note we modified Figure

7B to make this clearer, more details were also added into figure legend. Into our current revised

version, we also included supplemental Fig. S7 that describes purification and detection of Atg32-V5

more in detail.

We agree that the shift in mobility of Atg32 protein after purification is surprising but not

impossible to understand. Atg32 is a protein inserted into the outer membrane of the mitochondria. It

has already been observed and published that some mitochondrial membrane proteins, such as e.g. the

ATP synthase subunit 9 is mainly found in the form of oligomers in SDS-PAGE gel, despite the

presence of detergents in the gel. (FYI: (ref 1) Organization of the yeast ATP synthase F0: a study

based on cysteine mutants, thiol modification and cross-linking reagents Jean Velours, Patrick Paumard

Vincent Soubannier Christelle Spannagel Jacques Vaillier Geneviève Arselin Pierre-Vincent Graves

Biochimica and Biophysica Acta 1458 (2000) 443-456 or (ref 2) ATP Synthase of Yeast Mitochondria

Isolation of the subunit h and disruption of the ATP14 gene * Geneviève Arselin, Jacques Vaillier,

Pierre-Vincent Graves and Jean Velours ‡ JBC vol. 271, No. 34, Issue of August 23, pp. 20284– 20290

1996). The second reference would provide better insight into the problem.

Regarding Levchenko et al article, we understand that it underwent the reviewing process and is

now accepted as a “base” for new findings, but the results presented in their article raises several

questions for us, such as these:

(i) In Figure 2, a band appears around 100 kDa in the delta pep4 strain after treatment with rapamycin.

In Figure 3B, in the delta pep4 delta atgx double mutants treated with rapamycin (time is not

indicated), the band is at 100 kDa plus another band which appears above whose size is not indicated.

(ii) In Figure 3C, a band is indicated by an arrow, but the size is not mentioned.

(iii) In Figure 4A and 4C, after treatment with rapamycin, there is a band at 100 kDa + 1 band between

75 and 100 kDa. It should also be noted that the band revealing Atg32 is wide and diffuse. Could these

additional bands not correspond to protein aggregates containing Atg32 as revealed by western blots

and which would form more in the delta pep4 strain because they are deficient in vacuolar proteases?

Why would it not be due to the stress of “rapamycin + absence of vacuolar proteases?”

To conclude, the data from Levchenko et al. are disturbing: depending on the gels, different

bands are revealed: a band between 75 and 100 kDa, one band at 100 kDa and, in some cases, a band of

high molecular weight greater than 100 kDa

In addition, it has recently been shown that other Atg proteins are also ubiquitinated; this is the case for

Atg9 and Atg14 (Hu et al, 2020, BBRC). The Atg32 protein would be added to this list.

Specific points:

1. Stabilization of Atg32 upon proteasome inhibition is only observed after 24h of treatment in

stationary phase growth. The data shown in Fig. 4B after shorter periods of treatment are not

quantified or convincing. This raises the concern that the authors are not observing a prevention of the

typical Atg32 degradation, but rather a potential cell stress response or adaptation. Under nitrogen

starvation conditions, the stabilization the authors claim exists at 3h is unconvincing, and there is no

effect during longer term treatment.

The experiments presented in Figure 3A and Figure 4B do not give the same information.

Figure 4B gives us information on the half-life of the Atg32 protein in the exponential phase. The

addition of cycloheximide makes it possible to block the synthesis and to see how long the protein is

stable. The results allow us to say that its half-life is shorter than that of a cytosolic (Pgk1) and

mitochondrial (porin) protein. Degradation by the proteasome is involved in Atg32 turnover.

In Figure 3A, MG-132 is added after the 8 h time point (late exponential phase) when cell growth

slows down to enter the stationary phase. The addition of MG-132 at the early- or mid-exponential (T0)

phase of growth is not possible because there would be too much stress for the cells to sustain

inhibition of the proteasome along with the growth.

We re-arranged the order of figures in revised manuscript to make this point clearer.

The authors also examine Atg32 stability during MG132/rapamycin treatment (Fig. S3), and this time

find a compelling effect. However, this is several hours after treatment and also in conflict with data

from Levchenko et al (who treated with MG132 for 2h and saw no stabilization of Atg32). This needs to

be discussed/addressed by the authors.

The only explanation we can offer is that a difference in strains and growing conditions leads to

the involvement of different pathways regulating stability/expression of Atg32. Based on our

experiences, that would not be so surprising. In addition, we used longer rapamycin treatment times.

However, in the study by Levchenko et al., the authors do not mention that they observe the

same level of Atg32 protein in the wild-type and pep4D strains (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 in their study).

We have obtained the same result in our work. Moreover, in the figure legends of their paper, they do

not mention in which medium the cells grew.

2. The data identifying a ubiquitinated form of Atg32 are lacking key controls. The authors purify

Atg32, and perform a western blot with ubiquitin. However, there is no western blot indicating that the

Coomassie stained band is indeed the purified protein. No input is shown from the purification. This is

all particularly concerning given that the protein is supposedly SDS resistant after purification, and no

protein is observed at the native size.

We have modified Figure 7 to show that the bands revealed by the colloidal blue staining were

also detected by anti-HIS and anti-Ub antibodies. Both bands, B1 and B2, were cut and analyzed by

mass spectrometry. The Atg32 protein was found in band B1; band B2 corresponds to a histidine-rich

protein, which was also found ubiquitinated.

For more details, please, see also our answer for a similar question of the first reviewer above.

The authors do identify one single peptide of ubiquitinated protein, which they map to K282, however,

it is impossible to assess if this is biologically relevant as the mutagenized protein has a negligible

effect.

The Atg32 protein has 43 lysines, but the analysis covered only 17 lysines; 26 lysines remain

for study. We added more details in the manuscript.

3. It is not clear whether quantification of all western blots is normalized to Pgk1, however this is

required. The authors state in the legends, “Atg32-V5 expression was quantified as the percentage of

Atg32-V5 level of T0”.

Thank you for the comment. We modified all the graphs following the amount of Atg32-V5

protein (namely figures 2B, 2D, 3B, 3D, 4C, 5B, 8C, S2B, S3B and S4C) - quantification of all western

blots is now normalized to Pgk1.

4. The clarity of the manuscript needs to be improved. The authors should explicitly state growth

conditions of their assays. It is not obviously stated that “growth” means allowing cultures to reach

saturation after dilution to exponential phase.

Thank you for the comment. We have revised the Material and Methods section, added more

information to improve the clarity.

Specific growth media are not always mentioned.

The growth conditions are indicated in each legend of the figures and are always the same -

complete minimal synthetic medium with lactate as carbon source (CMS-L; described in the Material

and Methods section in detail), except for Figures 5A and B, where galactose was used as a carbon

source (CMS-G) because the mutant pre2-2 does not grow in media supplemented with respiratory

carbon source - lactate. This is also explained in the Figure legends as well as in the Results part.

Another example of confusion is the Idp1 degradation assay – while this may be standard for the field,

the relationship between its cleavage as an indicator of mitophagy is not explicitly stated.

Thank you for the comment. It is a test commonly used in all studies focusing on mitophagy in

yeast. We modified the text and described the method following the processing of the Idp-GFP protein

as an indicator of mitophagy induction, the reference and description are also provided in the Material

and Methods section.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors found that the mitophagy receptor Atg32 is degraded

upon mitophagy induction or under nitrogen starvation conditions. They further showed that the

degradation of Atg32 is mediated by the 26S proteasome but not by autophagy. Using mass

spectrometry analysis, they identified Lys 282 is an ubiquitination site on Atg32. Intriguingly, the

replacement of Lys 282 with Ala did not slow down the degradation rate of Atg32 in their experimental

conditions. Overall, the authors concluded that the yeast mitophgy receptor Atg32 can be ubiquitinated

and degraded by the proteasome.

Based on the presented data, this reviewer think this manuscript is not technically sound and many

critical controls are missing (see below for details). The quantification data are confused, as some

blots contain 5 repeats whereas some blots in the same experiments contain 6 repeats (for example, 8

hrs vs. 24 hrs in Fig. 2B and Fig. 3B). Most quantification assays lack statistical analyses. The writing

basically sounds good, but typos and errors avoid the reviewer to fully understand the context.

Indeed, we accumulated more data at 24 h and 48 h of growth because these were the most

important conditions for our study. The 8 h point was not always taken, which explains the difference

in points. We have chosen this presentation for the graphs to show all the data obtained. This question

could have been avoided if we had presented the results in the form of bars.

Major problems:

1. The Atg32 degradation assay were performed by using an epitopic-tagged Atg32 construct instead of

integrated tagged Atg32, which makes the full story less convincing. This reviewer suggest the authors

at least re-examine the stability and ubiquitination of Atg32 using integrated form.

As we already mentioned above, to our knowledge, no specific antibodies against the Atg32

protein are available so far. We agree that labeling the protein at the locus would have been the ideal

construct for every study aiming to examine stability and expression of the Atg32 protein. However, we

believe that the construct we used in our study to express Atg32 protein with a V5-6HIS label at its Cterminus

is a good compromise. We assert that the ATG32 gene in our construct has been put under the

control of its own promoter. This type of strategy has been used in many published works.

2. In Figure 1A, the authors should examine the localization of Atg32-V5 protein by immunoflorescent

staining instead of gradient assay alone. Co-fraction of two protein does not necessarily mean that they

spatially localized together. Moreover, in previous results, Dr. Koji Okamoto showed that the Cterminal

tagging in Atg32 would disrupt mitochondrial targeting and out-membrane insertion.

Therefore, they generated an internally 3xHA-tagged Atg32 variant (Atg32-3HAn) to replace the

endogenous protein. This is the major problem in this manuscript.

We have chosen a biochemical approach to look at the localization of the Atg32 protein, which

is as relevant as fluorescence experiments. Using gradients to fractionate cell extracts has long been

common. The results show that the Atg32 protein is found in the same fraction as the porin that is

localized to the mitochondrial outer membrane when study was performed on total cell lysate (Fig.

1A). In new supplementary figure 1A, we also isolated mitochondria that we loaded on a sucrose

gradient - Atg32-V5 protein was found in the same fractions as porin.

3. CHX assay is critical to confirm the decrease of Atg32 over the time (upon to 48 hrs) under

mitophagy induction is due to protein degradation but not the synthesis of mRNA transcripts.

Unfortunately, the whole Figure 4 are somehow disrupted and this reviewer can not see it.

Perhaps we did not fully clarify our rationale for the experiment with cycloheximide which was

to check the half-life of the Atg32 protein. We modified the text in the manuscript to explain the

purpose of this experiment better.

4. In Figure 3, the ubiquitination levels of Atg32 should be examined by immunoprecipitation of Atg32.

The ubiquitination levels of total proteins does not mean Atg32 is also ubiquitinated.

We agree with this comment. However, the purpose of the ubiquitin blot was to control and

show the effect of MG-132 as an effective inhibitor of proteasome in our experimental setup. We added

an explanation in the manuscript.

In addition, PMSF is unstable in aqueous solutions, and its half-life is about 30 min. How the authors

exclude the possibility that less protein levels of Atg32 is due to no effect of PMSF after 24 or 48 hours

incubation.

We agree with the comment. We added PMSF several times during the experiment, and we

added this information in the manuscript.

In addition, we used the pep4Δ mutant lacking vacuolar proteases and obtained the same results as we

obtained with the use of a vacuolar protease inhibitor (PMSF).

5. In Figure 5A, the strain source of pre2-2 should be referred. The authors should clearly describe how

they inactivate 20S proteasome using this mutant strain.

Dr. Sagot kindly contributed the pre2-2 mutant. We added this information in the text.

Pre2 protein is the β5 subunit of the 20S proteasome and is responsible for the chymotryptic activity of

the proteasome. We added this information in the text.

The positive control is missing in 5A and 5C.

For us, the positive controls were the two strains, atg32Δ + Atg32-V5 and BY4742+ Atg32-V5.

6. In Figure 6D, ATG32 deletion strain should be included as a negative control.

Like processing of the Idp-GFP tool for detection of mitophay by western blot technique, the

mt-PHO8 ALP reporter test is usually used as a biochemical approach to study mitophagy in yeast. To

our knowledge, including the atg32Δ mutant strain (defective for mitophagy) as a negative control is

not always required.

However, we included for the reviewer a figure to show that mitophagy (mtALP activity) is not

induced/elevated over basal level (T0 wild type - 1st column; T0 mutant- 3rd column) during starvation

in atg32Δ mutant (-N6h mutant - 4th column) as compared to wild type where mtALP increased about

3 times at the same time (-N6h wild type - 2nd column). We performed this experiment under the same

conditions as described in Fig. 6D.

7. From Figure 7 to 10, these data may remove to the supplemental data since they are negative results

and the model figure is not closely related to the main conclusion.

While we understand your concern, even if they are negative results, we would like to keep

them among the main results, in accordance with PLOS policy.

8. The discussion part should be more concise.

We modified the Discussion part of the manuscript at places where it seemed to help the clarity

of the manuscript. To improve the clarity of the manuscript, we modified Results, Material and

Methods, figures substantially.

Minor issues: were corrected as needed

1. Page 8, line 170, the font of “107” is weird.

2. Page 11, line 221, remove “we”

3. Page 14, line 291, the blue label should be removed.

4. Page 31, line 709, where shows “against histidine”?

5. Figure 7B, “imput” should be “input

One additional figure for reviewers has been added in the cover letter

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers PONE-D-20-11526.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Cory D Dunn

17 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-11526R1

The yeast mitophagy receptor Atg32 is ubiquitinated and degraded by the proteasome

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Camougrand,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

One expert reviewer has returned comments on your resubmission. This reviewer still has concerns about the manuscript that should be addressed by further revision. Specifically, you must address concerns regarding the different K282A clones and their differential behavior. Furthermore, you should also address the reviewer's query about MG-132 treatment and, if additional experiments are not forthcoming, you should provide all necessary caveats within the text of your manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 01 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cory D. Dunn, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: In the revised manuscript by Camougrand et al, the authors made modest changes to address concerns raised in their original submission. While I have my doubts that their purification strategy is effectively working (ie, a concern is that the oligomerized band is non-specifically cross-reacting with the anti-his antibody), the authors have now provided the requested data. However, it is somewhat glaring that the authors have now removed data from Figure 8 related to the ubiquitinated band they identified via proteomic analysis. They had previously generated two clonal lines of a K282A mutant, one of which showed no change in Atg32 turnover and the other which mildly stabilized Atg32 at the 8h timepoint. In the revised manuscript, the “negative” data is removed while “significantly (P<0.05) impaired” is added to the text. The authors should return “clone 1” to the manuscript for transparency purposes and graphically display the values that led to this conclusion.

My other primary concern regarding lengthy treatment with MG-132 was not addressed. In their response, the authors write that “we did not present results from shorter than 24 hours in the presence of inhibitors, so we are not sure what led the reviewer to raise a concern that stabilization of Atg32 occurs only after long incubation times and may be an indirect effect.” This is exactly the point – because the authors do not examine other time points (for example, 1h, 2h, 4h) after MG-132 addition at 8h, they can only state that 16h of treatment leads to stabilization of Atg32 during stationary growth. While the authors now demonstrate that such treatment does not inhibit cell growth, they also cannot state whether the protein is acutely stabilized or stabilized as part of an adaptive cellular response to prolonged proteasomal inhibition. In exponentially growing cells, where there is no appreciable mitophagy, the authors use short-term MG132 treatment in combination with cycloheximide and observe a very modest inhibition of proteasomal turnover. So while the authors can conclude that Atg32 can be targeted to the proteasome during exponential growth, it is not clear that this is an acute cellular response to regulate mitophagy when cells reach stationary phase. If the authors are unwilling to perform new experiments, they must substantially improve the clarity of the manuscript and acknowledge the potential caveats and alternative explanations of their results.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 23;15(12):e0241576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241576.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Oct 2020

Answers to reviewer 1

Reviewer #1: In the revised manuscript by Camougrand et al, the authors made modest changes to

address concerns raised in their original submission. While I have my doubts that their purification

strategy is effectively working (ie, a concern is that the oligomerized band is non-specifically crossreacting

with the anti-his antibody), the authors have now provided the requested data.

However, it is somewhat glaring that the authors have now removed data from Figure 8 related to

the ubiquitinated band they identified via proteomic analysis. They had previously generated two

clonal lines of a K282A mutant, one of which showed no change in Atg32 turnover and the other

which mildly stabilized Atg32 at the 8h timepoint. In the revised manuscript, the “negative” data is

removed while “significantly (P<0.05) impaired” is added to the text. The authors should return

“clone 1” to the manuscript for transparency purposes and graphically display the values that led

to this conclusion.

We would like to thank you for all your effort and comments. We believe they helped us to

make our manuscript better.

We apologize if the noninclusion in our revised manuscript of the immunoblot result with

clone 1 in Figure 4A gave the impression that we are trying to intentionally select the results that fit

into our story. By no means was this our intent. We only tried to simplify the presentation of the

results and eliminate unnecessary duplication. Let us provide you with a more detailed explanation.

In the original version, we presented in Figure 8A an image of blots for two different clones

(1 and 2). In Figure 8C, there is only one column for the mutant K282A (it does not specify if it is

clone 1 or clone 2). We apologize for not explaining this better in the text—the column (48h)

contains results from 6 independent experiments from 3 different clones that we tested (clone 1 and

clone 2 from Figure 8A plus a third clone that was not mentioned in the manuscript). Also, it has to

be noted that in the original version, the y-axis of the graph in Figure 8C shows the amount of

Atg32-V5 normalized to T0 value of Atg32-V5, which, based on the reviewer's request, was

normalized in the revised version to the amount of Pgk1 at each time.

Again, Figure 8 in the revised version of our manuscript does include the results of 6

independent experiments from 3 individual clones. Because quantification normalized to Pgk1 did

not show significant changes between individual clones (1-2-3), we decided to keep only one of the

clones in part A. When compared to wild-type Atg32 protein, there is about 15% (P<0.05) more

mutant protein in the late stationary phase cells (Fig. 8A, C; 48 h).

For the reviewer, we attach here the immunoblot results obtained from 3 individual clones

with individual quantification for each of them for comparison.

Figure for reviewer only

Figure 8 : first soumission

Figure 8 : second revision

My other primary concern regarding lengthy treatment with MG-132 was not addressed. In their

response, the authors write that “we did not present results from shorter than 24 hours in the

presence of inhibitors, so we are not sure what led the reviewer to raise a concern that stabilization

of Atg32 occurs only after long incubation times and may be an indirect effect.” This is exactly the

point – because the authors do not examine other time points (for example, 1h, 2h, 4h) after MG-

132 addition at 8h, they can only state that 16h of treatment leads to stabilization of Atg32 during

stationary growth. While the authors now demonstrate that such treatment does not inhibit cell

growth, they also cannot state whether the protein is acutely stabilized or stabilized as part of an

adaptive cellular response to prolonged proteasomal inhibition.

In our previous answer we tried to explain to the reviewer that we did not examine the

shorter times (fewer than 16 hours; T24) of treatment with MG-132 because our aim was to study

levels of Atg32 protein at the beginning of and during the stationary phase—the time of cell growth

when mitophagy is induced. We believe that our results provide clear evidence that inhibition of

proteasome activity with MG-132 leads to stabilization of Atg32 during the stationary phase and

that this correlates with an increase in mitophagy activity.

However, to address the reviewer’s comment, we performed an experiment in which MG-

132 was added to the culture at T0 (instead of at T8 as we used during our study) and examined the

levels of Atg32 after 8 hours (exponential phase, no appreciable mitophagy), 24 hours (early

stationary phase, beginning of mitophagy induction), and 48 hours (late stationary phase). The

obtained results were included in the manuscript as supplementary Fig. 4D (for your convenience

the results are attached to this letter as well). As you can see, the level of Atg32p at T8 is about half

compared to the level at T0, and it further decreases to where there is almost no detectable Atg32

when measured at T48. On the contrary, the presence of MG-132 drastically recovers Atg32 levels

in both short (8h) and long (24h and 48h) incubation times. We provide the quantification of the

immunoblot results here as well. We strongly believe these results support the view that the Atg32

protein is acutely stabilized instead of being stabilized as a part of an adaptive cellular response to

prolonged proteasomal inhibition.

New supplementary Figure S4 (with new results in part D - included into manuscript):

Quantification figure S4D- an average from 2 independent experiment (for reviewer only):

In exponentially growing cells, where there is no appreciable mitophagy, the authors use short-term

MG132 treatment in combination with cycloheximide and observe a very modest inhibition of

proteasomal turnover. So while the authors can conclude that Atg32 can be targeted to the

proteasome during exponential growth, it is not clear that this is an acute cellular response to

regulate mitophagy when cells reach stationary phase. If the authors are unwilling to perform new

experiments, they must substantially improve the clarity of the manuscript and acknowledge the

potential caveats and alternative explanations of their results.

Beside our aforementioned explanation, our experiments with cycloheximide (Figs. 4B and

4C) showed that the turnover of the Atg32 protein is extremely rapid compared to other proteins

(porin, Pgk1) and that this turnover involves the activity of the proteasome. This also explains why

the activity of the promoter increases during growth (Fig. 4A). After one hour with the

cycloheximide, the effect of MG-132 is striking and significant (P=0.0146; we included data for

“1h+cycloheximide+MG-132” in Fig. 4C that were missing in the previous version). Respectfully,

we cannot agree with the reviewer’s statement that this change is “very modest.”

Our results support the conclusion that Atg32 can be targeted to the proteasome during

exponential growth as well as favoring an acute cellular response to regulate levels of Atg32 protein

(as an essential mitophagy regulator) when cells reach the stationary phase.

We slightly modified some parts of the Results and Discussion sections to make the text

clearer.

The manuscript was proofread by a native English-speaking person

Attachment

Submitted filename: Answers to reviewer final.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Cory D Dunn

12 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-11526R2

The yeast mitophagy receptor Atg32 is ubiquitinated and degraded by the proteasome

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Camougrand:

Thank you for your manuscript resubmission. I believe that the reviewer comments were addressed appropriately in your latest version, and I do not currently plan on sending the paper again to the reviewers. However, I have received the following guidance from the PLOS ONE staff:

"PLOS ONE now requires that submissions reporting blots or gels include original, uncropped and unadjusted blot/gel image data in addition to complying with our image preparation guidelines described at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements. The revised submission should include the raw blot/gel image data for your review, either in Supporting Information or via a public data repository; the Data Availability Statement should indicate where these data can be found. The original blot/gel image data should (1) represent unadjusted, uncropped images, (2) be provided for all blot/gel data reported in the main figures and Supporting Information, and (3) match the images in the manuscript figure(s). If you have any questions or concerns about the blot/gel data, or about the author’s compliance with the journal’s blot/gel reporting requirements, you can raise these in your next decision letter or email us at plosone@plos.org".

Could you please follow up with a new version of the manuscript which complies with these guidelines?

Also, I have the following minor comments on the manuscript:

Page 24: MG-123 instead of MG-132.

Page 25: 'Youle's lab' 'Levine's lab' - please seek a more formal way to address the work of these laboratories.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cory D. Dunn, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 23;15(12):e0241576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241576.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


12 Oct 2020

Answers to reviewer 1

Reviewer #1: In the revised manuscript by Camougrand et al, the authors made modest changes to address concerns raised in their original submission. While I have my doubts that their purification strategy is effectively working (ie, a concern is that the oligomerized band is non-specifically cross-reacting with the anti-his antibody), the authors have now provided the requested data.

However, it is somewhat glaring that the authors have now removed data from Figure 8 related to the ubiquitinated band they identified via proteomic analysis. They had previously generated two clonal lines of a K282A mutant, one of which showed no change in Atg32 turnover and the other which mildly stabilized Atg32 at the 8h timepoint. In the revised manuscript, the “negative” data is removed while “significantly (P<0.05) impaired” is added to the text. The authors should return “clone 1” to the manuscript for transparency purposes and graphically display the values that led to this conclusion.

We would like to thank you for all your effort and comments. We believe they helped us to make our manuscript better.

We apologize if the noninclusion in our revised manuscript of the immunoblot result with clone 1 in Figure 4A gave the impression that we are trying to intentionally select the results that fit into our story. By no means was this our intent. We only tried to simplify the presentation of the results and eliminate unnecessary duplication. Let us provide you with a more detailed explanation.

In the original version, we presented in Figure 8A an image of blots for two different clones (1 and 2). In Figure 8C, there is only one column for the mutant K282A (it does not specify if it is clone 1 or clone 2). We apologize for not explaining this better in the text—the column (48h) contains results from 6 independent experiments from 3 different clones that we tested (clone 1 and clone 2 from Figure 8A plus a third clone that was not mentioned in the manuscript). Also, it has to be noted that in the original version, the y-axis of the graph in Figure 8C shows the amount of Atg32-V5 normalized to T0 value of Atg32-V5, which, based on the reviewer's request, was normalized in the revised version to the amount of Pgk1 at each time.

Again, Figure 8 in the revised version of our manuscript does include the results of 6 independent experiments from 3 individual clones. Because quantification normalized to Pgk1 did not show significant changes between individual clones (1-2-3), we decided to keep only one of the clones in part A. When compared to wild-type Atg32 protein, there is about 15% (P<0.05) more mutant protein in the late stationary phase cells (Fig. 8A, C; 48 h).

For the reviewer, we attach here the immunoblot results obtained from 3 individual clones with individual quantification for each of them for comparison.

Figure for reviewer only

Figure 8 : first soumission

Figure 8 : second revision

My other primary concern regarding lengthy treatment with MG-132 was not addressed. In their response, the authors write that “we did not present results from shorter than 24 hours in the presence of inhibitors, so we are not sure what led the reviewer to raise a concern that stabilization of Atg32 occurs only after long incubation times and may be an indirect effect.” This is exactly the point – because the authors do not examine other time points (for example, 1h, 2h, 4h) after MG-132 addition at 8h, they can only state that 16h of treatment leads to stabilization of Atg32 during stationary growth. While the authors now demonstrate that such treatment does not inhibit cell growth, they also cannot state whether the protein is acutely stabilized or stabilized as part of an adaptive cellular response to prolonged proteasomal inhibition.

In our previous answer we tried to explain to the reviewer that we did not examine the shorter times (fewer than 16 hours; T24) of treatment with MG-132 because our aim was to study levels of Atg32 protein at the beginning of and during the stationary phase—the time of cell growth when mitophagy is induced. We believe that our results provide clear evidence that inhibition of proteasome activity with MG-132 leads to stabilization of Atg32 during the stationary phase and that this correlates with an increase in mitophagy activity.

However, to address the reviewer’s comment, we performed an experiment in which MG-132 was added to the culture at T0 (instead of at T8 as we used during our study) and examined the levels of Atg32 after 8 hours (exponential phase, no appreciable mitophagy), 24 hours (early stationary phase, beginning of mitophagy induction), and 48 hours (late stationary phase). The obtained results were included in the manuscript as supplementary Fig. 4D (for your convenience the results are attached to this letter as well). As you can see, the level of Atg32p at T8 is about half compared to the level at T0, and it further decreases to where there is almost no detectable Atg32 when measured at T48. On the contrary, the presence of MG-132 drastically recovers Atg32 levels in both short (8h) and long (24h and 48h) incubation times. We provide the quantification of the immunoblot results here as well. We strongly believe these results support the view that the Atg32 protein is acutely stabilized instead of being stabilized as a part of an adaptive cellular response to prolonged proteasomal inhibition.

New supplementary Figure S4 (with new results in part D - included into manuscript):

Quantification figure S4D- an average from 2 independent experiment (for reviewer only):

In exponentially growing cells, where there is no appreciable mitophagy, the authors use short-term MG132 treatment in combination with cycloheximide and observe a very modest inhibition of proteasomal turnover. So while the authors can conclude that Atg32 can be targeted to the proteasome during exponential growth, it is not clear that this is an acute cellular response to regulate mitophagy when cells reach stationary phase. If the authors are unwilling to perform new experiments, they must substantially improve the clarity of the manuscript and acknowledge the potential caveats and alternative explanations of their results.

Beside our aforementioned explanation, our experiments with cycloheximide (Figs. 4B and 4C) showed that the turnover of the Atg32 protein is extremely rapid compared to other proteins (porin, Pgk1) and that this turnover involves the activity of the proteasome. This also explains why the activity of the promoter increases during growth (Fig. 4A). After one hour with the cycloheximide, the effect of MG-132 is striking and significant (P=0.0146; we included data for “1h+cycloheximide+MG-132” in Fig. 4C that were missing in the previous version). Respectfully, we cannot agree with the reviewer’s statement that this change is “very modest.”

Our results support the conclusion that Atg32 can be targeted to the proteasome during exponential growth as well as favoring an acute cellular response to regulate levels of Atg32 protein (as an essential mitophagy regulator) when cells reach the stationary phase.

We slightly modified some parts of the Results and Discussion sections to make the text clearer.

The manuscript was proofread by a native English-speaking person.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Answers to reviewer final.pdf

Decision Letter 3

Cory D Dunn

19 Oct 2020

The yeast mitophagy receptor Atg32 is ubiquitinated and degraded by the proteasome

PONE-D-20-11526R3

Dear Dr. Camougrand,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Cory D. Dunn, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Cory D Dunn

14 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-11526R3

The yeast mitophagy receptor Atg32 is ubiquitinated and degraded by the proteasome

Dear Dr. Camougrand:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Cory D. Dunn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Atg32-V5 recombinant protein localizes into mitochondria and restores mitophagy in atg32Δ mutant cells upon nitrogen starvation.

    (A) atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested in a mid-exponential phase of growth. Then, cells were lysed and purified mitochondria prepared as described in Vigie et al. [34] were loaded on a 20–60% sucrose gradient. Fractions were collected and analyzed by immunodetection. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5, and anti-Porin antibody was used to detect mitochondria-containing fractions. (B) Mitophagy was assessed using mitophagy-dependent processing of the Idp1-GFP tool in atg32Δ mutant and atg32Δ–expressing Atg32-V5. Cells were harvested at indicated times. The total protein extracts corresponding to 5 x 106 cells/50 ug proteins per line were separated by 12.5% SDS-PAGE and analyzed by immunodetection using anti-GFP antibody.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. The Atg32 protein is degraded upon nitrogen starvation.

    (A) atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested at indicated times. To inhibit the proteasome, 75 μM MG-132 was added to the cell culture at the beginning of starvation. Total protein extracts were prepared afterwards, and samples were analyzed by western blots. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein; Pgk1 was used as a loading control. Anti-ubiquitin (Ub) was used to detect the level of ubiquitinated proteins. (B) The Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratio was quantified for all tested conditions.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Degradation of Atg32 protein is not impaired in autophagy-deficient mutants under normal growth condition.

    (A) atg5Δ, atg8Δ, and atg11Δ mutant cells transformed with a plasmid expressing Atg32-V5 were grown in a CMS-L medium. Cells were harvested at indicated times. (B) The Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratios were quantified at T0 and 48 h time points for all tested strains; ** p<0.01. (C) atg5Δ mutant cells expressing Atg32-V5 were treated with MG-132 at time point 8 h. Cells were harvested at indicated time points and total protein extracts were prepared and analyzed by immunodetection. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein.

    (PDF)

    S4 Fig

    (A) The Atg32 protein is degraded upon rapamycin treatment and stabilized by the proteasome inhibition. atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested at T0 and treated with 0.2 μg/ml rapamycin in presence or absence of 75 μM MG-132 for 3 h, 6 h, and 24 h. Total protein extracts were prepared afterwards, and samples were analyzed by immunodetection. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein. (B) The Atg32 protein is degraded in BY4742 strain. BY4742 cells transformed with a plasmid expressing Atg32-V5 grown in a CMS-L medium were harvested at indicated times. To inhibit proteasome, MG-132 was added to the cell culture at 8 h time point. (C) The Atg32-V5/Pgk1 ratios were quantify for all tested conditions—**P<0.01. (D) MG-123 stabilizes the Atg32 protein in exponentially growing cells. atg32Δ mutant cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested at T0 and treated with 75 μM MG-132. Cells were harvested at exponential (T8) and stationary (T24, T48) phase, and total protein extracts were prepared and analyzed by immunodetection. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein.

    (PDF)

    S5 Fig. The effect of MG-132 and PMSF treatment on cell growth and Atg32-V5 protein degradation.

    (A) Addition of proteasome inhibitor MG-132 (75 μM MG-132) and inhibitor of vacuolar proteolysis PMSF (2 mM) do not affect growth and growth yield in atg32Δ mutant cells expressing Atg32-V5 plasmid and grown in a CMS-L medium. The Y-axis is represented in logarithmic scale (n = 5 for control and MG-132; n = 3 for PMSF). (B) atg32Δ cells grown in a CMS-L medium and expressing Atg32-V5 protein were harvested at indicated time points. To inhibit proteasome, MG-132 was added to the cell culture at 8 h time point. To inhibit vacuolar proteolysis, 2 mM PMSF was added to the cell culture at T8; this step was repeated twice during the course of cell growth. Total protein extracts were prepared afterwards, and samples were analyzed by western blots. Anti-V5 antibody was used to visualize Atg32-V5 protein. To detect modified Atg32-V5 forms (bands with a higher molecular weight) after MG-132 treatment, two different revelation times of blots are presented.

    (PDF)

    S6 Fig. Inhibition of the proteasome with MG-132 does not affect autophagy.

    BY4742 (A) and atg32Δ mutant (B) cells expressing GFP-Atg8 protein grown in a CMS-L medium in presence or absence of MG-132 were harvested at indicated times. Total protein extracts from 2 x 107 cells were prepared and separated by 12.5% SDS-PAGE gel as described in the Material and Methods section. Proteins were detected using antibodies against GFP or Pgk1.

    (PDF)

    S7 Fig. Purification of Atg32-V5-6HIS.

    (A) Lysate from atg32Δ mutant cells expressing pATG32-V5-6HIS was prepared as described in the Material and Methods section. Next, lysate was loaded on a Ni-NTA column, the non-retained fraction, as well as the two washes W1 and W2, were recovered. The bounded proteins were then eluted and 500 μl fractions were collected. (B-D) 250 μl of each fraction absorbing at 254 nm (from F12 to F22) were precipitated with TCA. Pellets were resuspended in 20 μl of the loading buffer; 10 μl were loaded on the gel to be revealed with the colloidal blue (B) and 5 μl were used for immunodetection with anti-histidine (C) or anti-ubiquitin antibodies (D), respectively.

    (PDF)

    S8 Fig. Mass spectrometry analysis.

    (A) SEQUEST spectra, (B) MASCOT spectra, and (C) Protein coverage.

    (PDF)

    S1 Table

    (PDF)

    S1 File

    (PDF)

    S2 File

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-11526.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers PONE-D-20-11526.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answers to reviewer final.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answers to reviewer final.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are available on BioRxiv 652933: https://doi.org/10.1101/652933.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES