Skip to main content
PLOS Genetics logoLink to PLOS Genetics
. 2021 Jul 8;17(7):e1009635. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009635

Nuclear receptors NHR-49 and NHR-79 promote peroxisome proliferation to compensate for aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency in C. elegans

Lidan Zeng 1, Xuesong Li 2, Christopher B Preusch 1, Gary J He 1, Ningyi Xu 3, Tom H Cheung 1,4,5, Jianan Qu 2, Ho Yi Mak 1,*
Editor: Javier E Irazoqui6
PMCID: PMC8291716  PMID: 34237064

Abstract

The intracellular level of fatty aldehydes is tightly regulated by aldehyde dehydrogenases to minimize the formation of toxic lipid and protein adducts. Importantly, the dysregulation of aldehyde dehydrogenases has been implicated in neurologic disorder and cancer in humans. However, cellular responses to unresolved, elevated fatty aldehyde levels are poorly understood. Here, we report that ALH-4 is a C. elegans aldehyde dehydrogenase that specifically associates with the endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria and peroxisomes. Based on lipidomic and imaging analysis, we show that the loss of ALH-4 increases fatty aldehyde levels and reduces fat storage. ALH-4 deficiency in the intestine, cell-nonautonomously induces NHR-49/NHR-79-dependent hypodermal peroxisome proliferation. This is accompanied by the upregulation of catalases and fatty acid catabolic enzymes, as indicated by RNA sequencing. Such a response is required to counteract ALH-4 deficiency since alh-4; nhr-49 double mutant animals are sterile. Our work reveals unexpected inter-tissue communication of fatty aldehyde levels and suggests pharmacological modulation of peroxisome proliferation as a therapeutic strategy to tackle pathology related to excess fatty aldehydes.

Author summary

Fatty aldehydes are generated during the turnover of membrane lipids and when cells are under oxidative stress. Because excess fatty aldehydes form toxic adducts with proteins and lipids, their levels are tightly controlled by a family of aldehyde dehydrogenases whose dysfunction has been implicated in genetic disease and cancer in humans. Here, we characterize mutant C. elegans that lack a conserved, membrane-associated aldehyde dehydrogenase ALH-4. Despite elevated levels of fatty aldehydes, these mutant worms survive by increasing the abundance of peroxisomes, which are important organelles for lipid metabolism. Such peroxisome proliferative response depends on the activation of transcription factors NHR-49 and NHR-79, via putative endocrine signals. Accordingly, the fertility of alh-4 mutant worms relies on NHR-49. Our work suggests a latent mechanism that may be activated during aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency.

Introduction

Glycerophospholipids and sphingolipids are major components of biological membranes [1]. The regulated turnover of their head groups and acyl chains alters membrane structural properties such as fluidity, thickness and curvature. In addition, the modification and cleavage of acyl chains allow them to serve as precursors of signaling molecules. For example, membrane derived polyunsaturated fatty acids are essential precursors of eicosanoids and endocannabinoids that modulate inflammatory response [2]. However, polyunsaturated acyl chains are also prone to attack by reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are generated by metabolic activities and environmental factors [3]. Such peroxidation of PUFAs generates short chain and medium chain fatty aldehydes [4]. In addition, long chain fatty aldehydes can be derived from the metabolism of sphingolipids, etherlipids and fatty alcohols [5]. Reactive fatty aldehydes form covalent adducts with proteins, lipids and nucleic acids and contribute to oxidative stress [6,7]. Therefore, the level of cellular fatty aldehydes is under tight regulation via the conserved aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) superfamily [8].

ALDHs limit cellular stress by catalyzing the NAD(P)+ dependent conversion of fatty aldehydes to fatty acids, which can then be fed into anabolic or catabolic pathways [9]. Unique among ALDH family members is FALDH, also called ALDH3A2, because it associates with the ER or peroxisomal membranes via a transmembrane helix [10,11]. ALDH3A2 catalyzes the oxidation of fatty aldehydes that range from 6–24 carbons [12]. Besides ROS-induced aldehydes, FALDH processes fatty aldehydes from the metabolism of etherlipids (such as plasmalogens), sphingolipids and dietary branched-chained lipids [8]. For example, it is required for converting the sphingosine 1-phosphate metabolite hexadecenal to hexadecenoic acid in the conversion of sphingolipid to glycerolipid [13].

Nuclear receptors are conserved metazoan transcription factors that are distinguished by their C2H2 zinc finger-containing DNA binding domain and ligand binding domain [14]. In humans, nuclear receptors, such as estrogen receptors, are known to bind steroid hormones with high affinity. This is because of the tight fit between the ligand binding pocket with the cognate ligand. However, there were also a number of nuclear receptors, called orphan receptors, which had no known ligands when they were initially identified [15]. Subsequent efforts led to the discovery of fatty acid or cholesterol metabolites as previously unrecognized ligands to some of them. Prime examples include the peroxisome proliferator activated receptors (PPARs). The structures of the ligand binding domain of PPARs reveal a large ligand binding pocket that accommodates a range of fatty acid derivatives and synthetic ligands [16]. PPARs form heterodimers with retinoid X receptors (RXRs) and bind to PPAR response elements (PPREs) to modulate the expression of their target genes [17,18]. Based on genetic and pharmacological studies in vitro, in mice and humans, PPARα and PPARγ have well-established roles for energy homeostasis [19,20]. For example, PPARα is pivotal for the activation of genes that are required for fatty acid uptake and turnover [21].

The nuclear receptor family is greatly expanded in C. elegans. In comparison to 48 nuclear receptors in humans, the C. elegans genome is predicted to encode 284 nuclear receptors [22]. To date, most of them remain uncharacterized and have no known ligands. Nevertheless, a handful of C. elegans nuclear receptors have been shown to regulate developmental dauer arrest, molting, aging or metabolism [2330].

One of the well characterized C. elegans nuclear receptors is NHR-49. Although it bears relatively high sequence similarity to mammalian Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 4 (HNF4), NHR-49 appears to serve similar functions as PPARα [31]. Notably, NHR-49 modulates gene expression programs that govern fatty acid catabolism, desaturation and remodeling under fed and fasted conditions [3134]. As a result, NHR-49 has been implicated in cold adaptation of phospholipid membrane composition and preservation of germline stem cells in starved animals [35,36]. NHR-49 has also been shown to regulate lifespan in response to diffusible molecules [37,38]. NHR-49 partners with different nuclear receptors to regulate distinct sets of target genes [32]. Here, we report that NHR-49 acts with a previously uncharacterized partner, NHR-79 to promote peroxisome proliferation in mutant worms that lack ALH-4, which is the predicted ortholog of mammalian ALDH3A2/FALDH. Based on lipidomic analysis, ALH-4 deficient worms have elevated levels of fatty aldehydes and reduced levels of neutral lipids, phospholipids and sphingolipids. Interestingly, the reproduction of ALH-4 deficient worms was dependent on NHR-49 because alh-4; nhr-49 mutant worms were sterile. Our results reveal a nuclear receptor coordinated peroxisome proliferative response, which effectively counters the accumulation of toxic fatty aldehydes.

Results

Loss of alh-4 function suppresses lipid droplet expansion

The attenuation of peroxisomal β-oxidation causes excess accumulation of triacylglycerol (TAG) in expanded lipid droplets (LDs) in mutant animals that lack the DAF-22 thiolase [39]. This phenotype is most pronounced in the C. elegans intestine, which serves as a major fat storage tissue, and could be readily detected using quantitative Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) microscopy [40] (Fig 1A). To identify genetic regulators of fat storage and LD expansion, we conducted a forward genetic screen for suppressor mutants that reversed the daf-22 mutant phenotypes. A complementation group with three recessive alleles (hj27, hj28, hj29) were identified. Following genetic mapping, targeted sequencing of alh-4 revealed that hj27 is a missense allele and hj28 and hj29 are nonsense alleles of alh-4 (S1A Fig), which encodes a predicted aldehyde dehydrogenase that catalyzes fatty aldehyde into fatty acid. Using CRISPR-mediated genome editing [41], we generated an additional alh-4 deletion allele, hj221 (S1A Fig). We found that alh-4(hj221), as well as RNA interference (RNAi) against alh-4, suppressed LD expansion of daf-22(-) mutant animals (S1B Fig). Therefore, alh-4(hj29) is likely to be a strong loss of function allele.

Fig 1. ALH-4 regulates lipid storage and lipid profile.

Fig 1

(A) Representative Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) images of L4 worms of wild type (WT), daf-22(ok693), alh-4(hj29) and alh-4(hj29); daf-22(ok693). Scale bar = 50μm. (B) Quantification of average SRS signal intensity. n > 16 for all groups. (C) Representative images of lipid droplets in the second intestinal segment of L4 worms. Lipid droplets (LDs) are labeled with mRuby::DGAT-2(hjSi112). Enlarged LDs are marked by arrowheads. Scale bar = 5μm. (D) Quantification of lipid droplet diameter in the second intestinal segment. n = 5 for all groups. (E) Quantification of total lipid droplet number in the second intestinal segment in individual worms. n = 5 for all groups. Two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was applied in B, D & E. (F) Lipidomic analysis of WT and alh-4(-) worms. Quantification of lipid species detected by LC-MS. The value of each species in wild type samples was set as 1. Each dot represents the average value of two technical replicates of each biological sample. n = 3 for all groups. TAG, triacylglycerol; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PS, phosphatidylserine; PI, phosphoinositide; DAG, diacylglycerol. Two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test was applied in F. For all statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. p > 0.1. In all plots, mean ± SEM of each group is shown.

The loss of alh-4 function increased the brood size and the rate of larval development of daf-22(-) worms (S1C–S1D Fig). Using SRS microscopy, we quantitatively measured the effect of ALH-4 deficiency on cellular fat storage. The loss of alh-4 function suppressed fat accumulation and LD expansion of daf-22(-) worms (Fig 1A–1D). In addition, the alh-4(hj29) worms accumulated less fat than wild type worms (Fig 1A–1B). Accordingly, alh-4(hj221) (denoted as alh-4(-) hereafter) worms had significantly less TAG than wild type worms, based on liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis (Fig 1F and S3 Dataset). We observed no significant difference in the pharyngeal pumping rate of wild type and alh-4 mutant worms (S1E Fig), suggesting that the reduction in fat storage was unlikely due to a change in food intake. To compare the size of intestinal LDs in wild type and mutant worms, we used an established LD marker, mRuby::DGAT-2 [42]. The LD size profiles of alh-4(hj29) and daf-22(-); alh-4(hj29) worms almost completely overlapped (S1F Fig). The reduction of LD size was accompanied by an increase in LD number in alh-4(hj29) and daf-22(-); alh-4(hj29) worms, in comparison with wild type and daf-22(-) worms, respectively (Fig 1E). We conclude that the loss of alh-4 function suppresses LD expansion without compromising LD biogenesis.

Tissue specific subcellular localization of ALH-4

Based on sequence homology, ALH-4 appears to be closely related to human Class III aldehyde dehydrogenases (S3A Fig). In agreement with such prediction, LC-MS based lipidomic analysis indicated that alh-4(-) worms accumulated significantly more fatty aldehydes and its related metabolite fatty alcohols, than wild type worms (Figs 1F and S1G, and S3 Dataset). Furthermore, ALH-4 and human ALDH3A2 (also known as FALDH) are the only proteins in this class of enzymes that bear C-terminal tail anchors in the form of a single transmembrane alpha helix. Prior studies indicated that ALDH3A2 associates with peroxisomal membrane and the endoplasmic reticulum via distinct C-terminal tails that are encoded by alternatively spliced exons [10]. Similarly, we noted that three alh-4 isoforms were annotated, based on publicly available RNA sequencing data (Fig 2A). These isoforms differ by their 3’ ends, which encode alternative C-termini that follow a common transmembrane helix. As a first step of determining the expression pattern and intracellular localization of ALH-4 isoforms, we inserted the coding sequence of the green fluorescent protein (GFP) immediately after the start codon of alh-4 by CRISPR-mediated genome editing (Fig 2A). As a result, all three isoforms of ALH-4 were expressed as GFP fusion proteins from the endogenous locus. This GFP knockin strain, alh-4(hj179), retained normal ALH-4 function because LD expansion was unperturbed when daf-22 was mutated, unlike what we observed in daf-22; alh-4(-) worms. We detected strong expression of functional GFP::ALH-4 in the intestine and hypodermis (Fig 2B–2F). Our results suggest that ALH-4 may be important in regulating lipid metabolism in these tissues.

Fig 2. Tissue-specific subcellular localization of ALH-4.

Fig 2

(A) Schematic representation of gfp::alh-4(hj179). Scale bar = 100bp. Alternative splicing results in three ALH-4 isoforms that differ only at the C-terminus. (B-C) Representative images showing the subcellular localization of GFP::ALH-4 in the hypodermis (left). Fluorescence intensity profile from the indicated line scans (right). (B) GFP::ALH-4 largely colocalized with the mitochondria marker, TOMM-20N::mRuby (hjSi489). (C) The bight puncta of GFP::ALH-4 colocalized with the peroxisome marker, tagRFP::PTS1 (hjSi486). (D-F) Representative images showing the subcellular localization of GFP::ALH-4 in the intestine (left). Fluorescence intensity profile from the indicated line scans (right). (D) GFP::ALH-4 largely colocalized with the ER marker, ACS-22::tagRFP (hjSi348). (E) Partial colocalization of GFP::ALH-4 with the lipid droplet marker mRuby::DGAT-2 (hjSi112). (F) GFP::ALH-4 did not colocalize with the mitochondria marker, TOMM-20N::mRuby (hjSi489). Scale bar = 5μm. Mito, mitochondria; PEX, peroxisome; ER, endoplasmic reticulum; LD, lipid droplet.

We used a suite of red fluorescent organelle markers to determine the subcellular localization of GFP::ALH-4. Specifically, mRuby::DGAT-2, ACS-22::tagRFP, and TOMM-20(N)::mRuby, tagRFP::peroxisomal targeting signal 1(PTS1) were used to label LDs, ER, mitochondria and peroxisomes, respectively [43,44]. Live transgenic worms were observed using confocal microscopy. In the hypodermis, we detected co-localization of GFP::ALH-4 signals with red fluorescent signals that labeled mitochondria and peroxisomes (Fig 2B and 2C). In the intestine, GFP::ALH-4 signals co-localized with the ER marker and to a lesser extent, LD and mitochondrial markers (Fig 2D–2F). Therefore, ALH-4 appears to use tail anchors (S2 Fig and S1 Text) to associate with an overlapping set of organelles, where lipid anabolism, storage or catabolism take place. It is conceivable that the fatty acid products of ALH-4 can be channeled into metabolic pathways locally at respective organelles.

The transmembrane domain and the gate-keeper helix are required for ALH-4 function

Having established that ALH-4 associates with organelle membranes with the same mechanism as ALDH3A2, we next sought to determine if ALH-4 and ALDH3A2 share orthologous function. To this end, we expressed a chimeric protein that harbors the ALDH3A2 cytosolic catalytic domain (a.a. 1–465) and the predicted transmembrane helix and C-termini of ALH-4 in alh-4(-) worms (S3B Fig). Our strategy ensured that the ALDH3A2 catalytic domain was targeted to appropriate organelles in C. elegans. Intestinal expression of the chimeric protein, from two independent transgenes, cell-autonomously restored the LD size of alh-4(-) worms (Fig 3A–3C). Our results suggest that ALH-4 and ALDH3A2 most likely share the same function in converting fatty aldehydes to fatty acids, possibly with similar substrate specificity.

Fig 3. Similar to human ALDH3A2, the membrane anchor and gatekeeper regions are necessary for proper ALH-4 function.

Fig 3

(A-C) Lipid droplets in the second intestinal segment of alh-4(-) L4 worms with or without independent extrachromosomal arrays expressing chimeric human ALDH3A2 in the intestine (hjEx27, hjEx28 [vha-6p::GFP::aldh3a2(1-463aa)::alh-4(464aa-stop)]). (A) Representative images of lipid droplets labeled with DHS-3::mRuby (hj200). Scale bar = 5μm. (B) The size distribution of lipid droplets in the second intestinal segment. (C) Quantification of average lipid droplet diameter. n = 8 for all groups. Two independent lines were quantified. (D) Representative images showing the subcellular localization of GFP tagged wild type ALH-4 (hj179) (left), cytosolic ALH-4 harboring a C-terminal deletion (ALH-4ΔC, hj261) (middle) and ALH-4 with a deletion of the gatekeeper region (ALH-4ΔGK, hj264) (right). Organelle-specific targeting was not affected by the deletion of the gatekeeper region. Scale bar = 5μm. (E) The size distribution of lipid droplets in the second intestinal segment. mRuby::DGAT-2 (hjSi112) was used to label lipid droplets. (F) Quantification of lipid droplet size in the second intestinal segment. For all statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). In all plots, mean ± SEM of each group is shown.

Its broad association with membranous organelles led us to ask if membrane association was required for ALH-4 function. Starting with the GFP knockin strain, alh-4(hj179), which expressed full-length GFP::ALH-4 fusion protein from the endogenous locus, we used CRISPR to delete the sequence encoding the transmembrane helix and C-termini of the alh-4 gene (S3B–S3C Fig). The GFP::ALH-4(ΔC) truncated protein retained the entire catalytic domain of ALH-4. As expected, the GFP fusion protein was cytosolic in both intestine and hypodermis (Fig 3D). The expression level of GFP::ALH-4(ΔC) was comparable to GFP::ALH-4 based on the intensity of GFP fluorescence. To assess the function of GFP::ALH-4(ΔC), we used mRuby::DGAT-2 as the LD marker. The average LD size was significantly reduced in animals that expressed GFP::ALH-4(ΔC), in comparison to those that expressed wild type GFP::ALH-4 (Fig 3E–3F). The mutant phenotype was not as pronounced as in alh-4(hj29) worms, suggesting that the function of GFP::ALH-4(ΔC) was severely compromised but not eliminated.

Structure-function analysis of ALDH3A2 indicated that a ‘gate-keeper’ helix is responsible for its substrate selectivity toward long-chain fatty aldehydes in vitro [45]. Deletion of the gate-keeper helix in purified ALDH3A2 strongly reduced its catalytic capacity to long-chain dodecanal and hexadecanal, but not medium-chain octanal [45]. The helix is located immediately N-terminal to the transmembrane helix, and appears to be conserved in ALH-4 (S3B Fig). Therefore, we tested if the gate-keeper helix is required for ALH-4 function in vivo, by deleting its coding sequence from the GFP knockin strain, alh-4(hj179). We found that the organelle targeting of GFP::ALH-4(ΔGK) was unperturbed in the intestine and hypodermis (Fig 3D). In addition, the expression level of GFP::ALH-4(ΔGK) was comparable to GFP::ALH-4 based on the intensity of GFP fluorescence. However, worms expressing GFP::ALH-4(ΔGK) had significantly smaller LDs when compared with those expressing GFP::ALH-4 (Fig 3E and 3F). Our results show that the C-terminal transmembrane domain and the gate-keeper helix are both required for ALH-4 function in vivo. It should be noted that our deletion mutants were designed based on the ALDH3A2 structure, in order to prevent the disruption of globular domains. However, we cannot rule out folding defects of these mutants, which might contribute to their functional deficit. Additional structural studies will be required to address this issue further.

Upregulation of a peroxisome-related gene expression program in ALH-4 deficient worms

The membrane anchored aldehyde dehydrogenase family, to which ALH-4 belongs, is known to play a critical role in converting membrane associated long-chain aliphatic aldehydes to fatty acids [46]. Such conversion is critical to resolve oxidative stress-induced lipid peroxidation and turnover reactive lipids for their utilization in membrane composition, energy production, or storage. Therefore, we hypothesized that ALH-4 deficient worms might be subject to elevated oxidative stress and became susceptible to exogenous stress inducers. To this end, we compared wild type and alh-4(-) worms for their sensitivity to hydrogen peroxide and paraquat. We found that alh-4(-) worms had comparable sensitivity to paraquat as wild type worms (S4A Fig). Surprisingly, alh-4(-) worms were more resistant to hydrogen peroxide than wild type worms, and showed enhanced survival after being exposed to 0.75mM hydrogen peroxide for 4 hours (S4B Fig). Our results suggest that alh-4(-) worms might mount an anti-oxidative response to counter the accumulation of endogenous reactive lipids. Such a hormetic response renders these worms more resistant to some but not all exogenous stress inducers. To elucidate the molecular basis of such response, we compared the gene expression profiles of wild type and alh-4(-) worms by high throughput RNA sequencing.

We classified statistically significant, differentially expressed genes, using the g:Profiler analysis platform [47]. We found that the differentially expressed genes were highly enriched under the KEGG category of ‘peroxisome’ (Fig 4A, and S1 and S2 Datasets). This was followed by categories that were broadly related to fatty acid metabolism. Accordingly, a suite of genes that encode enzymes for peroxisomal function, including fatty acid β-oxidation, were significantly upregulated in alh-4(-) worms (Fig 4B and 4C). We also noted the concerted induction of ctl-1, ctl-2, and ctl-3, which encode peroxisomal catalases that are known to neutralize hydrogen peroxide, generated during peroxisomal fatty acid β-oxidation (Fig 4C).

Fig 4. Induction of peroxisomal fatty acid catabolism in alh-4 mutants.

Fig 4

(A) KEGG pathway analysis of the differentially expressed genes (fold change > 2 and p-value < 0.05, negative binomial test) between wild type (WT) and alh-4(-) worms. The analysis was performed with https://biit.cs.ut.ee/gprofiler/gost. The peroxisome pathway and additional pathways related to lipid metabolism were returned as top hits. (B) Schematic representation of the peroxisomal fatty acid β-oxidation pathway. At the top left corner, triacylglycerols (TAG) in the lipid droplet are hydrolyzed into free fatty acids by lipases. The fatty acids are converted to fatty acyl-CoA by acyl-CoA synthetases. Acyl-CoA oxidases pass electron directly to oxygen and produce hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) while introducing the double bond to fatty acyl-CoA. Hydrogen peroxide is converted to oxygen and water via catalases. ACS, acyl-CoA synthetase; ACOX, acyl-CoA oxidase; ECH, enoyl-CoA hydratase; HACD, hydroxyalkyl-CoA dehydrogenase. (C) Heatmap showing the differential expression of genes encoding peroxisomal fatty acid β-oxidation enzymes in WT and alh-4 worms. The FPKM values are converted to Z-scores. High expression is indicated with red, while low expression is indicated with blue. n = 3 for each group. Only genes showing significant difference (p-value < 0.1) in the expression are shown except acs-1 (p-value = 0.30). (D) Representative images of hypodermal peroxisomes labeled by tagRFP::PTS1 (hjSi486) in WT and alh-4(-) worms (top). Quantification of hypodermal peroxisome number (bottom). (E) Representative images showing the fluorescence signal of DAF-22 tagged with tagRFP (hj234) in WT and alh-4(-) worms (top). Quantification of fluorescence signals (bottom). PEX, peroxisome; LD, lipid droplet. Scale bar = 5μm. In all plots, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. For all statistical test, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test).

Next, we sought to correlate the upregulation of peroxisome related genes in alh-4(-) worms with an increase in peroxisome number or function. We focused on the intestine and hypodermis, where alh-4 was primarily expressed. To this end, we generated tissue-specific, single-copy transgenic reporter strains, which expressed red fluorescent tagRFP that was targeted to the peroxisomal matrix by the peroxisomal targeting signal PTS1. We found that the density of peroxisomes was significantly increased in the hypodermis, but not the intestine (Figs 4D and S4C). To extend this observation, we chose daf-22 as another endogenous reporter gene, because its expression was induced in alh-4(-) worms according to our RNA sequencing data (Fig 4C). We inserted the coding sequence of tagRFP into daf-22 by CRISPR, to yield transgenic worms that expressed a functional tagRFP::DAF-22 fusion protein from its endogenous locus. We observed an overall 2-fold increase of tagRFP::DAF-22 fluorescence signal in alh-4(-) worms (Fig 4E). Taken together, we propose that the enhanced resistance of alh-4(-) worms to hydrogen peroxide is collateral to peroxisome proliferation and the elevation of peroxisomal activity.

Peroxisome proliferation is independent of ATGL-1 directed lipolysis in alh-4 mutant worms

From our gene expression analysis, we noted that atgl-1, which encodes the C. elegans adipose triglyceride lipase (ATGL) ortholog, was slightly induced in alh-4(-) worms (Fig 4B and 4C). ATGL hydrolyzes a fatty acyl chain from TAG to release fatty acids [48]. Fatty acids can then be activated by acyl-CoA synthetases (ACS) to form acyl-CoA before being channeled to anabolic or catabolic pathways, such as β-oxidation. Besides, lipolytic products as well as exogenous fatty acids have been reported to activate PPARs (Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptors) to induce the expression of genes for fatty acid oxidation [49]. It is plausible that fatty acids released from LDs by ATGL-1 can serve as signaling molecules that modulate peroxisome proliferation and function in alh-4(-) worms. To test this hypothesis, we knocked down atgl-1 by RNAi in both WT and alh-4(-) worms. We observed an increase in average intestinal LD size, to a similar extent, in both cases (S4D and S4E Fig). Therefore, ATGL-1 appeared to work in parallel of ALH-4. Furthermore, we found that RNAi against atgl-1 did not alter daf-22 expression or the abundance of hypodermal peroxisomes (S4F–S4G Fig). Our results indicate that lipolysis is not required for the transcriptional response toward ALH-4 deficiency.

NHR-49 and NHR-79 are required for the transcriptional response to ALH-4 deficiency

To identify transcription factors that are responsible for the altered gene expression program in alh-4(-) worms, we focused our bioinformatic analysis on 737 differentially expressed genes (Fig 5A and S1 Dataset). We extracted 1kb sequence 5’ to the start codon of each gene and identified enriched sequence motifs by RSAT [50]. We then queried footprintDB for transcription factors that were predicted to bind these motifs [51], which yielded 42 transcription factors. An additional 10 transcription factors that were reported to regulate fat storage were considered [32,52,53]. Next, we curated a cherry-picked RNAi library of these 52 transcription factors in order to test if their depletion would modulate alh-4(-) phenotypes. To this end, we used the hypodermal peroxisome density and the fluorescence intensity of tagRFP::DAF-22, expressed from the endogenous daf-22 locus, as reporters. Our functional genomic analysis revealed two nuclear receptors, NHR-49 and NHR-79 that are in part responsible for the transcriptional response in alh-4(-) worms. Our work corroborate with a prior study on NHR-49 target genes [54]. Specifically, peroxisome-related genes that were up-regulated in alh-4(-) worms were down-regulated in nhr-49(-) worms (S5A Fig).

Fig 5. Loss of nhr-49 or nhr-79 function suppresses ALH-4 deficiency.

Fig 5

(A) Workflow for RNAi screening based on differentially expressed genes (DEGs) identified by RNA sequencing of wild type (WT) and alh-4(-) worms. 737 genes were found to be differentially expressed with the threshold fold change >2 and p-value < 0.05(negative binomial test). (B) Representative images showing hypodermal peroxisomes labeled by tagRFP::PTS1 (hjSi486), in WT, nhr-49(lf), nhr-79(lf), alh-4(-), alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf) and alh-4(-); nhr-79(lf) L4 worms. An extra-chromosomal array that expressed functional GFP::ALH-4 (hjEx25) was used to propagate alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf) worms. Based on the fluorescence of GFP::ALH-4, alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf) worms with the extra-chromosomal array could be distinguished from those without it. (C) Quantification of hypodermal peroxisome number, n> 20 for each genotype from 3 independent experiments. (D) As in (B), but with animals expressing tagRFP::DAF-22 from the endogenous daf-22 locus. (E) Quantification of tagRFP::DAF-22 fluorescence intensity. n >20 for each genotype from 3 independent experiments. (F) As in (B), but with animals expressing the lipid droplet marker DHS-3::mRuby (hj200). (G) Quantification of lipid droplet size in the second intestinal segment. n = 10 for each genotype from 2 independent experiments. In each plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. For all statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). PEX, peroxisome; LD, lipid droplet. Scale bar = 5μm.

To confirm our results based on RNAi, we introduced nhr-49(lf) or nhr-79(lf) mutant alleles into alh-4(-) worms. The loss of NHR-49 or NHR-79 significantly reduced peroxisome density and tagRFP::DAF-22 fluorescence intensity in alh-4(-) worms (Fig 5B–5E). We detected NHR-49 and NHR-79 expression in the intestine and hypodermis (S5C Fig). It is plausible that NHR-49 and NHR-79 act together in the hypodermis to regulate peroxisome proliferation and function in response to ALH-4 deficiency. Notably, NHR-79 was reported to interact with NHR-49 in yeast two-hybrid assays, albeit with much lower affinity than NHR-66 [32]. We verified these results by co-immunoprecipitation after expressing NHR-49 and NHR-79 or NHR-66 in mammalian cells (S5D Fig, compare lanes 9 and 10).

Next, we asked if NHR-49 and NHR-79 are also responsible for mounting a transcriptional response to ALH-4 deficiency in the intestine. The intestinal LDs in nhr-49(lf) or nhr-79(lf) mutant worms was significantly larger than those in wild type worms (Fig 5F–5G). However, the loss of NHR-49 but not NHR-79 partially corrected the intestinal LD size of alh-4(-) worms (Fig 5F–5G). Therefore, NHR-49 and NHR-79 appear to act independently in the intestine to control LD size.

Intestinal ALH-4 regulates hypodermal peroxisome proliferation

The differential suppression of ALH-4 deficiency in nhr-49(lf) and nhr-79(lf) mutant worms suggests that tissue specific transcriptional programs may operate to sense cellular fatty aldehyde levels. If so, is organismal fatty aldehyde metabolism coordinated between tissues? To this end, we first sought to determine the site of action of ALH-4. We generated two single-copy transgenes that specifically expressed functional GFP::ALH-4 fusion proteins in the intestine or hypodermis of alh-4(-) worms (S6A Fig). The restoration of alh-4 expression, as indicated by GFP fluorescence in the intestine, normalized the intestinal LD size and tagRFP::DAF-22 expression level (Fig 6A, 6C and 6D). Furthermore, the hypodermal peroxisome density and tagRFP::DAF-22 expression of these worms were corrected to the wild type level (Fig 6B–6D). In contrast, hypodermis-specific restoration of ALH-4 expression in alh-4(-) worms failed to normalize intestinal LD size, hypodermal peroxisome density, and tagRFP::DAF-22 expression level in both tissues (Fig 6A–6D). Our results indicate that intestinal ALH-4 regulates intestinal lipid storage cell-autonomously and hypodermal peroxisome proliferation cell-non-autonomously. In alh-4(-) worms, it is plausible that the alteration of cellular fatty aldehyde levels yields signals that act on the intestine and hypodermis in an autocrine and endocrine fashion, respectively.

Fig 6. Tissue specific rescue of alh-4, nhr-49 and nhr-79 mutant animals.

Fig 6

(A) Representative images showing intestinal lipid droplets labeled with DHS-3::mRuby (hj200) (left). Quantification of lipid droplet diameter in the second intestinal segment (right). n = 5 for each group. (B) Representative images showing hypodermal peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::PTS1 (hjSi486) (left). Quantification of hypodermal peroxisomes normalized with the length of the worm in the field of view (right). n ≥ 13 for each group. (C) Representative images of Z-stack of 3 focal planes at 0.5μm interval showing tagRFP::DAF-22 in the intestine (top) and hypodermis (bottom) in wild type (WT), alh-4(-), alh-4(-); hjSi501[vha-6p::alh-4(+)], alh-4(-); hjSi500[dpy-7p::alh-4(+)] worms. (D) Quantification of fluorescence intensity of tagRFP::DAF-22 in each focal plane of Z stacks that encompass the intestine and hypodermis. n = 6 for each group. (E) As in (C), but with wild type (WT), nhr-49(lf), nhr-49(lf); hjSi531[vha-6p:: nhr-49(+)], nhr-49(lf); hjSi537[dpy-7p:: nhr-49(+)] worms. (F) As in (D), but with worms of specified genotypes. n = 5 for WT and n = 6 for other groups (G) As in (C), but with wild type (WT), alh-4(-); nhr-79(lf), alh-4(-); nhr-79(lf); hjSi553[vha-6p:: nhr-79(+)], alh-4(-); nhr-79(lf); hjSi539[dpy-7p:: nhr-79(+)] worms. (H) As in (D), but with worms of specified genotypes. n = 6 for each group. For all statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). PEX, peroxisome; LD, lipid droplet. Scale bar = 5μm.

NHR-49 and NHR-79 act cell-autonomously in response to ALH-4 deficiency

Next, we determined the site of NHR-49 and NHR-79 action. We constructed transgenic worms that expressed GFP fusion of NHR-49 or NHR-79 specifically in the intestine or hypodermis from single copy transgenes, under the control of vha-6 or dpy-7 promoter, respectively. The tissue specific expression of fusion proteins was confirmed by the detection of primarily nuclear fluorescence signals in the appropriate tissues (S6B and S6C Fig). We found that NHR-49 acted cell-autonomously in the intestine and hypodermis. Accordingly, intestinal expression of NHR-49 normalized tagRFP::DAF-22 expression and LD size in the intestine but not hypodermis (Figs 6E, 6F and S6E). Hypodermal expression of NHR-49 specifically normalized hypodermal peroxisome density and tagRFP::DAF-22 expression and had no impact on mutant phenotypes in the intestine (Figs 6E, 6F and S6D). Similar observations were made for NHR-79: restoration of intestinal and hypodermal NHR-79 expression specifically suppressed mutant phenotypes in the respective tissues in a cell-autonomous manner (Fig 6G, 6H and S6F). Taken together, we conclude that NHR-49 and NHR-79 act cell-autonomously in the intestine and hypodermis.

NHR-49 functionally couples with NHR-79 to regulate peroxisome proliferation

Most nuclear receptors function as homodimers or heterodimers. NHR-49 partners with NHR-66, NHR-80 and NHR-13 to regulate distinct aspects of lipid metabolism [32]. NHR-49 also associated with NHR-79, based on co-immunoprecipitation (S5D Fig, lane 9) and yeast two-hybrid assays [32]. Therefore, we asked if NHR-49 and NHR-79 are functionally coupled to regulate fat storage and peroxisome proliferation in response to ALH-4 deficiency. First, we used tagRFP::DAF-22 fusion protein that was expressed from the endogenous daf-22 locus as a reporter. In mutant worms that lacked NHR-49 or NHR-79, the expression of tagRFP::DAF-22 was reduced (Fig 7A and 7B). No further reduction was observed when both nhr-49 and nhr-79 were mutated (Fig 7A and 7B). Therefore, NHR-49 and NHR-79 appeared to act in concert to regulate daf-22 expression. Next, we used an nhr-49 gain-of-function (gf) allele to further substantiate our conclusion. There are three gain of function alleles of nhr-49: nhr-49(et7), nhr-49(et8) and nhr-49(et13) [36]. All alleles enhance the transcriptional activity of NHR-49 while nhr-49(et13) also causes de-repression of genes that are normally repressed by NHR-49 [55]. We chose nhr-49(et8) for our analysis, in order to focus on gene activation by NHR-49, in response to ALH-4 deficiency. We found that daf-22 expression in nhr-49(gf) worms was elevated and such an effect was partially dependent on nhr-79 (Fig 7A and 7B). NHR-49 and NHR-79 appeared to act in a similar manner to regulate hypodermal peroxisome density (Fig 7A and 7C). Next, we measured the intestinal lipid droplet size in nhr-49 and nhr-79 mutant worms. NHR-79 deficiency caused a larger increase in lipid droplet size than NHR-49 deficiency (Fig 7A and 7D). Interestingly, the lipid droplet size in nhr-49(lf) and nhr-79(lf); nhr-49(lf) mutant worms showed no significant difference. In addition, gain of NHR-49 function reduced the lipid droplet size of nhr-79(lf) worms (Fig 7A and 7D). Our results suggest that NHR-49 and NHR-79 do not regulate an identical set of genes to modulate lipid droplet size in the intestine. Taken together, NHR-49 and NHR-79 act together to regulate genes pertaining to peroxisome number and function. However, each of them may have additional functional partners to control fat storage in the intestine.

Fig 7. Functional interaction of NHR-49 and NHR-79.

Fig 7

(A) Representative images showing the fluorescence of tagRFP::DAF-22 (hj234) (top), hypodermal peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::PTS1(hjSi486) (middle), and intestinal lipid droplets labeled with DHS-3::mRuby (hj200) (bottom). (B) Quantification of fluorescence intensity of tagRFP::DAF-22. n > 20 for each group. (C) Quantification of hypodermal peroxisomes normalized with the length of the worm in the field of view. n > 20 for each group. (D) Quantification of lipid droplet size in the second intestinal segment. n = 10 for each group. In each plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. For all statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). PEX, peroxisome; LD, lipid droplet. Scale bar = 5μm.

NHR-49 is required for the growth and reproduction of ALH-4 deficient worms

Despite the accumulation of fatty aldehydes (Fig 1F) and presumably their toxic adducts, alh-4(-) worms did not exhibit heightened sensitivity to oxidative stress (S4A and S4B Fig). We reasoned that NHR-49/NHR-79 dependent peroxisome proliferation could be regarded as a compensatory or hormetic response that maintained the health of alh-4(-) worms. To test this hypothesis, we used the number of progeny as an indicator of normal reproductive development. Both alh-4(-) and nhr-49(lf) mutant worms had a ~30% reduction of brood size (Fig 8A). However, almost all alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf) double mutant worms failed to produce live progeny after they developed into adults (Fig 8A). These sterile worms could be rescued by an extrachromosomal array that carried the wild type alh-4 gene (Fig 8A). Furthermore, alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf) double mutant worms could be distinguished from alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf);Ex[alh-4(+)] and single mutant worms as they show obvious growth delay (Fig 8B). In contrast, the reproduction of alh-4(-) worms was not strictly dependent on NHR-79. Accordingly, alh-4(-); nhr-79(lf) mutant worms remained fertile, although their brood size was reduced in comparison to that of alh-4(-) or nhr-79(lf) single mutant worms (Fig 8A). We conclude that NHR-49 is a key factor that supports the development and reproduction of alh-4 deficient worms, in part because of its broad role in regulating peroxisome proliferation and fat storage.

Fig 8. NHR-49 is required for the growth and reproduction of alh-4(-) worms.

Fig 8

(A) Quantification of brood size of wild type (WT), mutant worms of indicated genotypes. Ex[alh-4(+)] represents hjEx25(dpy-30p::GFP:: alh-4). n ≥ 8 for each group. In the plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. (B) Quantification of body length of wild type (WT), mutant worms of indicated genotypes 44 hours after hatching (left). The representative bright field images of worm body of indicated genotypes (right). Scale bar = 100μm. n = 26 for WT, alh-4(-) and nhr-49(lf). n = 29 for alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf) and alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf); Ex[alh-4(+)]. For statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test) with one exception: the comparison between alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf) and alh-4(-); nhr-49(lf); Ex[alh-4(+)] was done with two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test). (C) A model for NHR-49/NHR-79 dependent peroxisome proliferation in response to ALH-4 deficiency.

Discussion

In this paper, we combined genetic, imaging, and gene expression profiling approaches to identify a peroxisome proliferative response that compensated for ALH-4 deficiency in C. elegans (Fig 8C). We observed concerted induction of genes that encode enzymes for peroxisomal fatty acid catabolism, which contributed to the reduction of neutral lipid storage in alh-4 mutant worms. In addition, the upregulation of peroxisomal catalases in these worms conferred heightened resistance to exogenous hydrogen peroxide, an inducer of oxidative stress. Functional genomic analysis identified NHR-49 and NHR-79 as key transcription factors that were required for peroxisome proliferation in alh-4 mutant worms. Interestingly, NHR-49 and NHR-79 acted cell autonomously in the hypodermis in response to ALH-4 deficiency in the intestine, thus hinting at an unknown endocrine signal that facilitates intestine to hypodermis communication. Our work revealed an unexpected homeostatic mechanism that alleviates fatty aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency.

We originally cloned alh-4 based on the observation that alh-4 loss of function alleles suppressed fat accumulation and LD expansion in daf-22 mutant worms, suggesting that alh-4 acts downstream or in parallel of daf-22. Our subsequent molecular analysis clearly indicates the latter. Interestingly, the expression of daf-22, together with other peroxisomal β-oxidation enzymes, was induced in alh-4 mutant worms. In contrast, the expression of genes encoding mitochondrial β-oxidation enzymes including acyl-CoA synthetases (ACSs), Enoyl-CoA Hydratases (ECHs), Carnitine Palmitoyl Transferases (CPTs), Acyl CoA Dehydrogenases (ACDHs) and thiolases were relatively unperturbed (S2 Dataset, sheet 2). Our results are consistent with the notion that alh-4 deficiency specifically activates peroxisomal fatty acid β-oxidation pathways that act in parallel of the DAF-22 pathway. Therefore, enhanced fatty acid catabolism in the absence of ALH-4 prevented neutral fat storage in daf-22 mutant worms.

By engineering worms that expressed a cytosolic form of ALH-4, we confirmed that membrane association is essential for its proper function. ALH-4 and mammalian FALDH/ALDH3A2 share the same mechanism of using divergent C-termini for tail-anchored organelle-specific association [10,11]. Therefore, it is conceivable that ALH-4 processes fatty aldehydes in situ as they arise in organelle membranes, thus necessitating the distribution of ALH-4 isoforms to multiple organelles. Surprisingly, we found that each of the ALH-4 isoforms was sufficient to rescue alh-4(-) mutant worms (S2 Fig and S1 Text). For example, the expression of ALH-4A, which associates with mitochondria and peroxisomes, relieved the requirement of ALH-4B and ALH-4C on the ER and LDs. It is formally possible that alternative aldehyde dehydrogenases substituted for ALH-4 at the ER and LDs in this case. Nevertheless, our results raised the possibility that fatty aldehydes or their precursors, as part of a membrane lipid, could be transferred from one organelle to another, perhaps via inter-organelle contact sites.

The nuclear receptor NHR-49 partners with NHR-66, NHR-80 and NHR-13 to regulate distinct sets of target genes in lipid catabolism, desaturation and remodeling pathways [32]. Based on quantitative proteomic analysis, there is a good correlation between differentially expressed genes and their corresponding proteins in nhr-49 knock-down worms [56]. Although NHR-49 has long been proposed as a functional ortholog of PPARα [31,34], the direct demonstration of its ability to promote peroxisome proliferation has been elusive. Here, we show that NHR-49, in partnership with NHR-79, is necessary for peroxisome proliferation in wild type and alh-4 mutant worms. Interestingly, although NHR-49 and NHR-79 are both expressed in the intestine and hypodermis, the mRNA level of NHR-49 is >150 times higher than NHR-79 in wild type and alh-4 mutant worms (S5B Fig). In comparison, the expression level of NHR-49 is 5 to 48 times higher than NHR-66, NHR-80 or NHR-13. This is consistent with the notion that NHR-49 serves as a common partner to multiple nuclear receptors in a tissue or context dependent manner. Accordingly, NHR-49 acts with NHR-79 to promote peroxisome proliferation in alh-4 mutant worms. However, NHR-49 and NHR-79 regulate LD size in a divergent manner (Figs 5F, 5G and 7D).

It has been reported that phospholipids and their metabolites can serve as ligands for C. elegans NHRs [24,27,30]. For example, oleoylethanolamide, a PPARα agonist, binds NHR-80 to regulate C. elegans aging [24,57]. Although the polyunsaturated α-linolenic acid was reported to act via NHR-49 to extend C. elegans lifespan [38], no cognate ligand has been identified for NHR-49 or NHR-79 through direct binding assays. Interestingly, exogenous organic peroxide was reported to activate an NHR-49 dependent stress resistance program [54]. Taken together, it is tempting to speculate that excess fatty aldehydes or their metabolites in alh-4 mutant worms may activate NHR-49 or NHR-79. Furthermore, the putative activators should be able to travel from the intestine to the hypodermis. This is because intestinal ALH-4 deficiency can trigger NHR-49/NHR-79 dependent peroxisome proliferation in the hypodermis. To substantiate our hypothesis, further analysis of metabolites that are enriched in alh-4 mutant worms will be necessary.

The loss of FALDH/ALDH3A2 function causes Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome in humans [58]. The prominent phenotypes of spasticity and ichthyosis led to the proposal that the nervous system and skin are particularly reliant on FALDH for the metabolism of sphingolipids and the resolution of fatty aldehydes. The pathology of Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome has been partially recapitulated in FALDH/Aldh3a2 knockout mice [59,60]. Detailed biochemical analysis of lipid species from skin and brain tissues of these knockout mice identified specific alteration in sphingolipid intermediates, which may contribute to keratinocytes and neuronal dysfunction. We note that ALH-4 deficient worms have excess fatty aldehydes or fatty alcohols (Figs 1F and S1G), similar to FALDH deficient fibroblasts [61]. However, we did not detect gross neuronal and epidermal defects based on available assays. This may be attributed to fundamental differences in tissue architecture. For example, it has been hypothesized that myelin dysfunction contributes to neural symptoms in Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome [59]. However, C. elegans neurons are not myelinated. Taken together, instead of directly modeling the human disease, our work reveals a potentially conserved cellular mechanism that compensates for aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency.

The concept of neurons-glia communication via lipid metabolites has been advanced in specific forms of neurodegeneration [62,63]. One therapeutic approach focused on the reduction of ROS, which are regarded as the upstream trigger of cell damage [62]. In principle, the modulation of latent, endogenous pathways may offer alternative therapeutic strategies. It is unclear if cell-cell communication also underlies the pathology of Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome. Our work indicates that an NHR-49 dependent, peroxisome proliferation and lipid detoxification program is required for the health and propagation of ALH-4 deficient worms. By analogy, fine-tuning of peroxisome proliferation or function via PPAR activation may be a probable strategy for treating Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome. Notably, PPARα induces FALDH expression [64] and the PPARα agonist Bezafibrate has been suggested as an agent for treating Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome patients with partially inactivated FALDH [65]. Additional natural and synthetic PPAR ligands have been actively tested as potential treatments for neurologic disorders [66,67]. It is conceivable that the same ligands can be repurposed to benefit Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome patients.

Materials and methods

C. elegans strains and maintenance

C. elegans strains are fed with E. coli OP50 on standard Nematode Growth Medium (NGM) plates at 20°C using standard protocol. Bristol N2 was used as the wild type. Strains carrying the following alleles were originally obtained from the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (CGC): LG II, daf-22(ok693); LG V, nhr-79(gk20); LG I, nhr-49(nr2041), nhr-49(et8).

Mutant alleles first reported in this study are as follows.

LGV, alh-4(hj27), alh-4(hj28), alh-4(hj29), alh-4(hj221)

Knock-in strains obtained with CRISPR-SEC [68]:

alh-4(hj179) [GFP::TEV::loxP::3xFLAG::alh-4],

dhs-3(hj200) [dhs-3::mRuby::TEV::3xFLAG],

daf-22(hj234) [tagRFP::TEV::loxP::3xFLAG::daf-22],

alh-4(hj261) [GFP::TEV::loxP::3XFLAG::alh-4(1-463aa)],

alh-4 (hj264) [GFP::TEV::loxP::3xFLAG::alh-4(449-459aa deletion)],

nhr-49(hj293) [nhr-49::GFP::TEV::3xHA].

Single-copy transgenes obtained with MosSCI [69] or CRISPR-SEC with a sgRNA targeting Mos1 (from Jihong Bai):

hjSi112[vha-6p::3xFLAG::TEV::mRuby::F59A1.10 coding::let-858 3’UTR] IV, hjSi348[vha-6p::acs-22 cDNA::tagRFP::TEV::3xFLAG::let-858 3’ UTR] IV, hjSi486[dpy-7p::tagRFP::PTS1::let-858 3’ UTR] IV, hjSi489[dpy-30p::tomm-20(1-54aa)::mRuby::let-858 3’ UTR] II, hjSi495[dpy-30p::GFP::alh-4c(454-494aa)::let-858 3’ UTR] I, hjSi497[dpy-30p::GFP::alh-4a(454-493aa)::let-858 3’ UTR] I, hjSi499[dpy-30p::GFP::alh-4b(454-493aa)::let-858 3’ UTR] I, hjSi500[dpy-7p::GFP::TEV::loxP::3xFLAG::alh-4::dhs-28 3’UTR] I, hjSi501[vha-6p::GFP::TEV::loxP::3xFLAG::alh-4::dhs-28 3’UTR] I, hjSi506[dpy-7p::GFP::PTS1:: let-858 3’ UTR] IV, hjSi531[vha-6p::nhr-49(a,b isoform cDNA with one short intron)::GFP::HA::dhs-28 3’UTR] II, hjSi537[dpy-7p::nhr-49(a, b isoform cDNA with one short intron)::GFP::HA::dhs-28 3’UTR] II, hjSi539[dpy-7p::GFP::3xFLAG::nhr-79a isoform(cDNA)::dhs-28 3’UTR] IV, hjSi548[vha-6p::mRuby::PTS1::dhs-28 3’ UTR] IV, hjSi553[vha-6p::GFP::3xFLAG::nhr-79a isoform(cDNA)::dhs-28 3’UTR] II, hjSi554[dpy-30p::GFP::TEV::3xFLAG::alh-4a::let-858 3’ UTR] I, hjSi555[dpy-30p::GFP::TEV::3xFLAG::alh-4b::let-858 3’ UTR] I, hjSi556[dpy-30p::GFP::TEV::3xFLAG::alh-4c::let-858 3’ UTR] I.

Extra-chromosomal array strains:

hjEx25[dpy-30p::GFP::TEV::3xFLAG::alh-4::let-858 3’ UTR in pCFJ352]

hjEx26[nhr-79p::mRuby::3xFLAG::nhr-79::nhr-79 3’UTR; tub-1p::GFP::tub-1]

hjEx27, hjEx28 [vha-6p::GFP::TEV::loxP::3xFLAG::aldh3a2(1-463aa from cDNA NM_001031806.2)::alh-4(464aa-stop from N2 genomic DNA):: let-858 3’ UTR; tub-1p::GFP::tub-1]

All strains had been outcrossed with wild type N2 at least twice before being used.

C. elegans genetic screen

The daf-22(ok693) mutant worms were mutagenized with Ethyl Methane Sulfonate (EMS) for suppressors of the expanded LD phenotype, as indicated by C1-BODIPY-C12 staining [39]. F2 progeny from 16340 F1 worms were screened using a fluorescence dissecting microscope. Mutant worms with reduced fluorescence and LD size were retained. Three mutant alleles (hj27, hj28 and hj29) were mapped to alh-4 using a single nucleotide polymorphism–based strategy with the Hawaiian C. elegans isolate CB4856 [70]. Molecular lesions of mutant alleles were determined by targeted Sanger sequencing. hj27 encodes a G to A mutation that causes the substitution of Gly 415 to Glu. hj28 and hj29 are nonsense alleles. hj28 carries a C to T substitution (Gln 301 stop), and hj29 carries a G to A substitution (Trp 236 stop).

RNA interference-based knockdown in C. elegans

The RNA interference (RNAi) constructs were transformed into a modified OP50 strain that is competent for RNAi [71]. Details of RNAi clones for transcription factors are available in S1 Dataset sheet 5. The target sequence in RNAi clones for alh-4 and atgl-1 were amplified by the following primer pairs: [5’-AGTTGTACTCATCATCTCCCCATG-3’, 5’-TCCTCGCCATAAAATTCGTTC-3’] and [5’-TGGAGCATCTTCGTCTTCCTC-3’, 5’-AAAATCATATAAATTTTCAGC-3’], respectively from genomic DNA. OP50 RNAi clones were streaked on LB plates with 100μg/mL ampicillin and tetracycline and cultured with 2xYT with 100μg/mL ampicillin overnight. Fresh liquid culture was seeded onto NGM plates for RNAi. The seeded plates were incubated at room temperature for 1 day and 10 L4 worms were transferred on the seeded RNAi plates. When worms reached day 1 adult, they were transferred to new RNAi plates to lay eggs for overnight and then removed from the plates. F1 worms at L4 stage were used for imaging.

Hydrogen peroxide treatment

Synchronization was done by collecting L1 worms that were hatched within a 2-hour window. 200 L1 worms were transferred to 60mm NGM plates seeded with OP50. After 48 hours, L4 worms were collected with M9, transferred to 1.5mL Eppendorf tubes and washed three times with M9 buffer and then aliquoted into 2 tubes, one for experimental group and the other for negative control. For experimental groups, M9 buffer with hydrogen peroxide was added to worms (final concentration = 0.75mM). For negative control, M9 without hydrogen peroxide was added. Worms were aliquoted into 24 well plates, on average about 20 worms per well and 3 wells for worms collected from 1 plate and then incubated at 20°C for 4 hours. To stop the hydrogen peroxide treatment, OP50 bacteria liquid culture was added. Worms were scored after a recovery period of 30 minutes. Worms that did not show detectable movement were categorized as paralyzed. Paralysis rate = (number of the paralyzed worms / total number of worms) experimental group—(number of the paralyzed worms / total number of worms) negative control group.

Paraquat treatment

The procedure for paraquat treatment is the same as that for hydrogen peroxide treatment except that the worms were incubated in M9 with 100mM paraquat instead of hydrogen peroxide.

Brood size

Individual L4 worms were introduced onto NGM plates seeded with OP50 and transferred to new plates every day until they stopped egg laying. 1.5 days after the mother worms were removed, the number of larvae on each plate was counted. The total number of progeny from each adult worm was calculated and recorded as the brood size.

Growth rate

50–100 adult worms were transferred to NGM plate seeded with OP50 to lay eggs for 1 hour and then 50 eggs were transferred to each new plate. 70 hours after egg laying, larvae were classified as early L4, mid L4, the stage between L4 and adult or adult stage based on the valval morphology.

Pharyngeal pumping rate

L4 worms were transferred onto new NGM plates seeded with OP50, 2 worms per plate. After 24 hours, the pharyngeal pumping of 1-day old adults was video recorded on a dissecting microscope for at least 1min at room temperature. The videos were played with the PotPlayer at 0.3X speed for precise counting of pharyngeal muscle contractions per min.

Fluorescence imaging of C. elegans

Fluorescence images were obtained on a spinning disk confocal microscope (AxioObeserver Z1, Carl Zeiss) equipped with a Neo sCMOS camera (Andor) controlled by the iQ3 software (Andor). The excitation lasers for GFP, tagRFP/ mRuby were 488nm and 561nm and the emission filters were 500-550nm and 580.5–653.5nm, respectively. The images were imported to Imaris 8 (Bitplane) for image processing and analysis and exported as files in ims format. The ims files were further imported into ImageJ for analysis.

The quantification of lipid droplet size

Lipid droplets in the intestinal cells were labeled with fluorescent protein tagged resident lipid droplet proteins. Fluorescence images of L4 larvae were acquired on a spinning disk confocal microscope with a 100x objective. For each worm, a Z-stack was taken at 0.5μm interval and 10μm thickness (21 layers) starting at the layer between the intestinal cell and the hypodermis. From each stack, 10 continuous focal planes were chosen to construct a 3D image. The Z-stack of bright field images was used to determine the outline of the intestinal cells. The lipid droplets in the second intestinal segment were labeled manually with the spot function in the Imaris 8 (Bitplane) and the diameter of each lipid droplet were exported and used to calculate the average diameter of lipid droplets for each worm. When calculating the average lipid droplet diameter, lipid droplets with diameter < 0.5 micrometer were excluded because the diffraction limit of light microscopy preluded their accurate measurement.

The quantification of peroxisome number

Peroxisomes were labeled with fluorescent protein tagged with a PTS1 signal peptide. Fluorescence images of L4 larvae were acquired on a spinning disk confocal microscope with a 63x objective. For each worm, a Z-stack of its anterior region without the head was taken at 0.5μm interval and 4.5μm thickness, focusing on the tissue of interest. A Z-stack of bright field images was also obtained. Z-stack images were imported to Imaris 8 (Bitplane) for 3D reconstruction. The peroxisomes were automatically detected by the spot function with the following algorithm: Enable Region of interest = false; Enable region growing = true; Source channel index = 2; Estimated Diameter = 0.5; Background Subtraction = true; ‘quality’ above 1.000; Region Growing type = Local contrast; Region Growing automatic Threshold = false; Region Growing manual Threshold = 9; Region Growing Diameter = diameter from volume; Create region channel = false. Spots representing mislabeled peroxisomes or the peroxisomes not in the tissue of interest were manually deleted. For the quantification of the hypodermal peroxisomes, only the peroxisomes in the hypodermis close to the coverslip were counted. With the statistics function, the number of peroxisomes can be obtained. The length of the worm body in the view was measured based the bright field images. The peroxisome number was normalized by the length of the worm body in the field of view.

The quantification of DAF-22 fluorescence intensity

To measure the expression level of DAF-22, the coding sequencing of tagRFP was inserted at the 5’ end of the endogenous daf-22 gene by CRISPR, to yield transgenic worms that expressed tagRFP::DAF-22 fusion protein at the endogenous level. Fluorescence images of L4 larvae were acquired on a spinning disk confocal microscope with a 63x objective. For each worm, a Z-stack was taken with 0.5μm interval and 10μm thickness starting at the layer closest to the coverslip with obvious fluorescence signals (i.e. hypodermis) and ending at intestinal layers. A Z-stack of bright field images was also obtained. The field of view included the anterior region of each worm without the head. Using Imaris 8 (Bitplane), the outline of the worm body was manually drawn based on bright field images, the surface function was used to create a worm surface which colocalizes with the surface of the worm. Similarly, a background surface was manually drawn and created in the region of the field without the worm. The average intensity of tagRFP::DAF-22 is the average intensity inside of the worm body surface minus that of the background surface. The normalization of fluorescence intensity was done with the average intensity of WT worms that were imaged at the same time.

RNA-seq of C. elegans

Three biological replicates of N2 and alh-4(-) were synchronized and grown to L4 stage. Sequencing library preparation was done according to a published method [72] with the modifications: the number of worms for each replicate and the reagent for worm lysis were scaled up by 10 fold and the worms were broken with a mini-pestle in a 1.5ml disposable tube on ice instead of cutting. The libraries were pooled and sequenced with the Illumina NextSeq 500 system. The reads were mapped to ce10 genome assembly. The ce10 Illumina iGenome gene annotation was used as a reference for transcripts identification. The downstream gene expression level analysis was done based on the published method [73] to get FPKM (Fragments Per Kilobase Million) values for differential gene expression analysis.

Motif analysis

The list of the differentially expressed genes between WT and alh-4(-) is obtained with the threshold fold change >2 and p-value < 0.05 (negative binomial test). -1000 to -1 sequence relative to the start codon of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were obtained for motif discovery to identify enriched motifs with RSAtool [50]. FootprintDB was used to identify transcription factors that are predicted to bind the enriched motifs [51].

Gene ontology and pathway analysis

The analysis was done with gProfiler [47] using the list of DEGs between WT and alh-4(-) as the input and choosing Caenorhabditis elegans as the organism.

SRS for lipid content measurement

To measure intestinal lipid content, CH2 signal was imaged at 2863.5 cm-1. Live worms at L4 stage were mounted on 8% agarose pad in PBS buffer with 0.2mM levamisole. The focal plane with maximal SRS signals was determined with a 20x air objective (Plan-Apochromat, 0.8 NA, Zeiss). The quantification of the SRS signal was done following a published protocol [74]. In short, the average SRS signal intensity in the intestine region per pixel was calculated with the background signal subtracted. The signal intensity for each worm was normalized with the average value of the WT group for the data display.

Lipid extraction

Lipid were extracted according to a modified version of the methyl-tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) extraction originally developed by Matyash et al [75,76]. 2000 synchronized L4 worms were collected into organic solvent resistant Eppendorf tubes and suspended in 250μL precooled methanol. Subsequently, 875 μL MTBE was added. Worms were lysed with ice cold ultrasonic bath for 30 minutes. Phase separation was induced by adding 210 μL water followed by sonication for 15 minutes. The organic supernatant was collected after centrifugation at 4°C. Re-extraction of the lower phase was done by adding additional 325 μL MTBE. The organic supernatant was collected and combined with those collected previously and evaporated with under a stream of nitrogen at room temperature and then stored at -80°C. Before analysis, lipids were dissolved in 200 μL acetonitrile / isopropanol / water (65/30/5, v/v/v) and a 100 μL aliquot was used for LC-MS analysis per sample.

Liquid chromatography

Lipid separation was done with the Bruker Elute UPLC system (Brucker) on a Bruker intensity Solo 2 C18 column (100 x 2.1 mm ID, 1.7 μm particle size) (Brucker). The column temperature was held at 55°C and the lipids were separated with a gradient from eluent A (acetonitrile / water (60:40, 10 mM NH4 Formate, 0.1% formic acid (v/v)) to eluent B (isopropanol / acetonitrile (90:10, 10 mM NH4 Formate, 0.1% formic acid (v/v)) with a flow rate of 400 μL/min. Gradient conditions: After an isocratic step of 40% B for 2 min, then 43% B for 0.1 min, 50% B for 10min, 54% B for 0.1min, 70% B for 6min and 99% B for 0.1 min. After returning to initial conditions, the column was re-equilibrated for 2 min with the starting conditions.

Trapped ion mobility-PASEF mass spectrometry

Output from liquid chromatography was injected into a trapped ion mobility-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer (timsTOF Pro MS) (Brucker) through an electrospray ion source. The mass spectrometry was powered by the Parallel Accumulation Serial Fragmentation (PASEF). Analysis was performed twice for each sample in both positive and negative electrospray modes. The parameter was modified based on a published method [77]. The mass spectra were scanned over the range of m/z 100 to m/z 1350 while the ion mobility was recorded from 0.55 Vs cm2 to 1.90 Vs cm2. Precursors within ± 1 Th were isolated for MS/MS acquisition. 10 eV was used as collision energy for fragmentation. The acquisition cycle was composed of one full TIMS-MS scan and 2 PASEF MS/MS scans, taking 0.31s. Precursor ions with an intensity within the range of 100–4000 counts was rescheduled. PASEF exclusion release Time was set to 0.1 min. IMS ion charge control was 5x106. The calibration of TIMS was done with the Agilent ESI LC/MS tuning mix (Agilent Technology). The selected ions for the calibration of positive modes were: [m/z, 1/K0: (322.0481, 0.7318 Vs cm-2), (622.0289,0.9848 Vs cm-2), (922.0097, 1.1895 Vs cm-2), (1221,9906, 1.3820 Vs cm-2)] while those for negative modes were: [m/z, 1/K0: (601.9790, 0.8782 Vs cm-2), (1033.9882, 1.2526 Vs cm-2), (1333.9690, 1.4016 Vs cm-2), (1633.9498, 1.5731 Vs cm-2)]. For negative mode, only mass was calibrated but not the mobility.

Lipid annotation and statistical analysis

The mass spectrometry data was analyzed with MetaboScape version 5.0 (Bruker Daltonics), which extracts retention time, m/z, collision cross section and intensity for each chemical detected while assigning MS/MS spectra to it. After obtaining the merged bucket table from both the positive and negative modes, detected chemicals were firstly annotated with Spectral Libraries: MSDIAL- Tandem Mass Spectral Atlas-VS68-pos and MSDIAL- Tandem Mass Spectral Atlas-VS68-neg. and then annotated with analyte lists of fatty aldehydes [FA06], fatty alcohols [FA05], and fatty Acids and Conjugates [FA01], sphingolipids [SP] from LIPID MAPS (https://www.lipidmaps.org/). Finally, entries in the bucket table were annotated with SmartFormula. The intensity was normalized with probabilistic quotient normalization [78]. The following lipid categories were searched: Triacylglycerol (TAG), Phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), Phosphatidylcholine (PC), Phosphatidylserine (PS), Phosphoinositide (PI), ether linked phospholipid, sphingolipid, sphingomyelin, fatty aldehyde/fatty acid (MS information was insufficient to distinguish fatty aldehyde and fatty alcohol), fatty acids and diacylglycerol (DAG). The average intensity of the two technical replicates (0 value was considered as missing value (NA) and therefore ignored) for each chemical detected in that category were summed up to get the total amount for the corresponding categories.

Immunoprecipitation and western blotting

Human embryonic kidney 293 cells cultured in 6-well plates were transfected with ~3 μg plasmid per well using lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The following plasmids were used with their predicted molecular weight noted after their name:

pcDNA5FRT_2xHA::Venus, 29.5 KDa

pcDNA5FRT_FLAG::NHR-49B (87-476aa), 44.1KDa

pcDNA5FRT_2xHA::NHR-66A (191-577aa), 46.5 KDa

pcDNA5FRT_2xHA::NHR-79A (156-463aa), 38.4 KDa

Cells were collected 2 days after transfection in cell lysis buffer (150mM NaCl, 50mM Tris-HCl with 1% NP-40, pH7.8, 1X protease inhibitors [Complete; Roche], 20mM NaF and 1mM PMSF) and lysed by passing through 25G gauge needle 10 times. The supernatant of the cell lysate was incubated with anti-FLAG M2 Magnetic Beads (Sigma-Aldrich). Immunoprecipitation and washing were performed in PBS buffer with 1X protease inhibitors [Complete; Roche], 20mM NaF and 1mM PMSF. Proteins were eluted with 2 × SDS loading buffer and boiled at 70°C for 10mins before SDS-PAGE. For Western blotting, anti-FLAG (F1804, Sigma) and anti-HA (11867423, Roche) antibodies were used for detecting FLAG-tagged and HA-tagged proteins, respectively.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed in GraphPad Prism or Microsoft Excel and the type of statistical test applied was indicated in the figure legend.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Phenotypic characterization of alh-4 mutant worms.

(A) Schematic representation of the alh-4 gene structure. Black boxes, exons; white boxes, untranslated region; line, splicing. The mutation sites in hj28 and hj29 are indicated by red triangle and yellow triangle, respectively. The single nucleotide substitution in both alleles result in a premature stop codon. The mutation site in hj27 is indicated by black triangle and the single nucleotide substitution results in a missense mutation Gly 415 Glu. The deletion region in alh-4 in hj221 is indicated with the blue line. alh-4(hj221) is labeled as alh-4(-) in all figures. Scale bar = 100bp. (B) Representative images of lipid droplets in the second intestinal segment of L4 worms. Lipid droplets were labeled with mRuby::DGAT-2 (hjSi112). Scale bar = 5μm. (C) Quantification of number of progeny of wild type (WT) and mutant worms of indicated genotypes. Two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was applied. (D) Percentage of 50 synchronized worms in the young L4, middle L4, between L4 and adult or adult developmental stage observed at 70 hours after egg laying. (E) Quantification of the pharyngeal pumping rate of WT, alh-4(hj29) and alh-4(hj221) worms. n = 10 for each group. Two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test was applied. (F) Frequency distribution of LD diameter of wild type (WT) and mutant worms of indicated genotypes. Total number of the lipid droplet measured: WT = 1055, alh-4(hj29) = 1628, daf-22(ok693) = 216, alh-4(hj29); daf-22(ok693) = 943. (G) Quantification of indicated fatty aldehydes and fatty alcohols in wild type (WT) and alh-4(-) worms with LC-MS. A significant increase in multiple species of fatty aldehyde/fatty alcohol was observed in alh-4(-) worms in comparison with WT worms. n = 3 for each group except 0 value was considered as missing value (NA) and therefore ignored. Each dot represents the average value of two technical replicates of each biological sample. Two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test was applied. For all plots, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. For all statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Subcellular localization of ALH-4 and transgenic rescue of alh-4(-) worms.

(A) Schematic representation of the structure of transgenes expressing GFP tagged ALH-4 isoforms. The magenta box indicates isoform specific sequence. ALH-4A isoform: AAATATGCTCGCAATCTTCATTGA encoding KYARNLH* ALH-4B isoform: TTCATTTTCCGCTTCTCGGCATAA encoding FIFRFSA*. ALH-4C isoform: GTATGCAGAGGAAAATCAGCTCAATAG encoding VCRGKSAQ*. Scale bar = 100bp. (B—E) GFP::ALH-4A (hjSi554) colocalized with mitochondria labeled with TOMM-20N::mRuby (hjSi489) and peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::DAF-22 (hj234) in the intestine and tagRFP::PTS1 (hjSi486) in the hypodermis. (F) GFP::ALH-4B (hjSi555) colocalized with the ER labeled with ACS-22::tagRFP (hjSi348) in the intestine. (G) No distinct pattern of GFP::ALH-4B was detected in the hypodermis. (H—I) In the intestine, GFP::ALH-4C (hjSi556) colocalized with lipid droplets labeled with DHS-3::mRuby (hj200) and mitochondria labeled with TOMM-20N::mRuby (hjSi489). (J) In the hypodermis, GFP::ALH-4C colocalized with mitochondria labeled with TOMM-20N::mRuby (hjSi489). (K) Table summarizing the subcellular localization of different ALH-4 isoforms in the intestine and hypodermis. (L) Schematic representation of the structure of transgenes expressing GFP fused with the C-terminus of ALH-4 isoforms. Scale bar = 100bp. (M) Representative images showing the subcellular localization of GFP fused with C-terminus of ALH-4 isoforms in the intestine (top) and in the hypodermis (bottom). (N) Table summarizing the results shown in (M). (O) Transgenic rescue of alh-4(-) worms with specific ALH-4 isoforms. Representative images showing intestinal lipid droplets labeled with DHS-3::mRuby(hj200). (P) As in (O), but with representative images showing the hypodermal peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::PTS1(hjSi486). (Q) Quantification of intestinal lipid droplet diameter. n = 5 for each group. (R) Quantification the hypodermal peroxisome number normalized with the length of the worm in the field of view. n ≥ 6 for each group. In each plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). PEX, peroxisome; LD, lipid droplet. Scale bar = 5μm.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Engineered mutations for the disruption of the membrane anchor or gate-keeper region of ALH-4.

(A) Phylogram of human ALDHs and C. elegans ALHs. ALH-4 is most closely related to class III ALDHs based on their primary amino acid sequences. The length of the branch shows the genetic distance. For human proteins with isoforms, the amino acid sequence of the longest isoform was used for sequence comparison. (B) Sequence alignment of human and mouse ALDH3A2 and C. elegans ALH-4A (with Clustal X2). Residue color scheme: hydrophobic (A, L, M, P, I, F, W, V), red; polar (N, C, Q, T, Y, G, S), green; negative charged (D, E), blue; positive charged (H, R, K), yellow. Alignment quality display: ‘*’ for a single, fully conserved residue; ‘:’ for fully conserved of some “strong groups”; ‘.’ for fully conserved of some “weak groups”; Corresponding regions are in grey areas. (C) Schematic representation of gfp::alh-4(Δgk) (hj264) and gfp::alh-4(ΔC) (hj261), which had the gate-keeper region and C-terminal membrane anchor deleted, respectively. The deleted region is indicated. TMD, transmembrane domain. Scale bar = 100bp.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Phenotypic analysis of alh-4(-) worms.

(A) Scatter plot showing the percentage of worms paralyzed after being treated with 100mM Paraquat for 6 hours. Three independent experiments were carried out and each with three biological replicates. The total number of worms measured in 9 biological replicates were 4, 13, 7 for WT and 34, 8,12 for alh-4(-) in the first run; 8, 10, 36 for WT, 19, 12, 13 for alh-4(-) in the second run and 14, 21, 19 for WT and 25, 10, 11 for alh-4(-) in the third run. Data points are color-coded to indicate results from specific experiments. (B) As in (A) but showing the percentage of worms paralyzed after 4 hours treatment with 0.75mM hydrogen peroxide in M9 buffer. The total number of worms measured in 9 biological replicates were 41, 27, 35 for WT and 32, 28, 33 for alh-4(-) in the first run; 16, 21, 22 for WT and 17, 24, 35 for alh-4(-) in the second run and 25, 28, 27 for WT and 29, 28, 29 for alh-4(-) in the third run. (C) Representative images (Z-stack, 0.5 μm intervals, 10 slices) showing the intestinal peroxisomes labeled with mRuby::PTS1 (hjSi548) (top). Quantification of intestinal peroxisome number (bottom). n = 11 each group. (D-E) Differential effects of atgl-1 knockdown by RNAi on peroxisome- and LD-related phenotypes of alh-4(-) worms. (D) Representative images of LDs labeled with DHS-3::mRuby (hj200) in the second intestinal segment. (E) Quantification of the average LD diameter in the second intestinal segment. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). (F) Representative images showing tagRFP::DAF-22 (hj234) in alh-4(-) worms that were subject to control (L4440) or atgl-1 RNAi (left). Quantification of tagRFP::DAF-22 fluorescence (right). n = 8 for each group. (G) As in (F), but with hypodermal peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::PTS1(hjsi486) (left). Quantification of peroxisome number normalized with length of the worms in the field (right). n = 8 for each group. PEX, peroxisome. Scale bar = 5μm. In each plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. (A-C, F-G), *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test).

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Transcriptomic, imaging and biochemical analysis of NHR-49 and NHR-79.

(A) Heatmap showing the up-regulated genes (fold change > 2 and p-value < 0.05, negative binomial test) in alh-4(-) worms in the peroxisome pathway are generally down-regulated in nhr-49(lf) worms. FPKM value is converted to Z-scores. High expression is indicated with red, while low expression is indicated with blue. The data for the WT and nhr-49 groups on the right was extracted from GSE107799 at Gene Expression Omnibus. (B) Histogram showing the mRNA levels of nhr-49, nhr-79, nhr-80, nhr-66 and nhr-13, from RNA sequencing of wild type (WT) and alh-4(-) worms. n = 3 for each group. In the plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test). (C) Visualization of NHR-49::GFP (hj293) from the endogenous locus (top) and the visualization of mRuby::NHR-79 (hjEx26[nhr-79p::nhr-79] (bottom). Both NHR-49::GFP and mRuby::NHR-79 could be detected in the nuclei of intestinal and hypodermal cells. Scale bar = 5μm. (D) Co-immunoprecipitation of NHR-49 and NHR-79. The predicted ligand binding domain of NHR-49B(87-476aa), NHR-79A(156-463aa) and NHR-66A(191-577aa) were transiently expressed as FLAG- or HA-tagged proteins in HEK293T cells. HA::Venus was expressed as a negative control. At least two experiments with independent biological samples were performed. A representative blot is shown. 20% input of each sample was loaded.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Tissue specific rescue of alh-4(-), nhr-49(lf) and nhr-79(lf) worms.

(A) Representative images showing the intestinal specific expression of GFP::ALH-4 in worms carrying hjSi501(left) and the hypodermal specific expression of GFP::ALH-4 in worms hjSi500 (right). (B) Representative images showing the intestinal specific expression of NHR-49A/B::GFP in worms carrying hjSi531 (left) and the hypodermal specific expression of NHR-49A/B::GFP in worms carrying hjSi537 (right). (C) Representative images showing the intestinal specific expression of GFP::NHR-79A in worms carrying hjSi553(left) and the hypodermal specific expression of GFP::NHR-79A in worms carrying hjSi539 (right). (D) Representative images showing hypodermal peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::PTS1 (hjSi486) (top). Quantification of hypodermal peroxisome number in wild type (WT) and mutant worms of indicated genotypes. n ≥ 6 for each group. (E) As in (D), except with intestinal lipid droplets labeled with DHS-3::mRuby (hj200) (top). Quantification of lipid droplets in the second intestinal segment (bottom). n = 6 for each group. (F) As in (D), except with WT and alh-4(-) and nhr-79(-) mutant worms of indicated genotypes. Quantification of hypodermal peroxisome number (bottom). n ≥ 6 for each group. In each plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. For all statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). In all plots, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. PEX, peroxisome; LD, lipid droplet. Scale bar = 5μm.

(TIF)

S1 Dataset. Gene expression profiles of WT and alh-4(-) obtained by RNA-sequencing (sheet 1) and the down-stream analysis.

1. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) analysis (Sheet 2); 2. Gene ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis (Sheet 3); 3. Motif discovery of the promoter region of DEGs (Sheet 4); 4. The transcription factor candidates and RNAi results (Sheet 5). The RNA-sequencing dataset has been deposited in NCBI’s Gene Expression Omnibus and is accessible through GEO Series accession number GSE162792 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE162792).

(XLSX)

S2 Dataset. The metabolic gene expression profiles of WT and alh-4(-).

The genes in following pathways were displayed: KEGG peroxisome pathway (sheet 1); mitochondrial fatty acid β-oxidation (sheet 2); peroxisomal fatty acid β-oxidation (sheet 3); tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA) (sheet 4); lipid binding proteins for lipid transport; fatty acid desaturation (sheet 5).

(XLSX)

S3 Dataset. The signal intensity of the lipids of interest identified by LC-MS in WT and alh-4(-).

Lipids are grouped by the lipid class as indicated in the sheet name. The following information is provided: retention time (RT), the measured m/z value (m/z meas.), the measured neutral mass (M meas.), ions, name, molecular formula, annotation quality (AQ) defined by MetaboScape version 5.0 (Bruker Daltonics), annotation source, the relative mass deviation of the theoretical mass of the ion formula and the measured m/z value (Δm/z), collision cross section value (CCS) and the signal intensity detected in each replicate.

(XLSX)

S4 Dataset. All numerical data that underlies figures with summary statistics (when applicable).

The name of the sheets is consistent with that of the figures.

(XLSX)

S1 Text. Supplementary text on results pertaining to the determinants of organelle specific targeting of ALH-4 isoforms.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Meng Wang and King L. Chow for RNAi reagents and protocols. Jihong Bai, Christian Frøkjær-Jensen and Bob Goldstein for Mos1 and CRISPR reagents. Pui Shuen Wong at the HKUST Bioscience Central Research Facility for RNA sequencing and lipidomic analysis. Yan Li and Xingyu Yang for technical advice. Some strains were provided by the CGC, which is funded by NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (P40 OD010440).

Data Availability

The data is publicly available and can be accessed via https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE162792.

Funding Statement

The work was supported by Research Grants Council GRF 16102118 to HYM. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Harayama T, Riezman H. Understanding the diversity of membrane lipid composition. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2018;19: 281–296. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2017.138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Marion-Letellier R, Savoye G, Ghosh S. Polyunsaturated fatty acids and inflammation. IUBMB Life. 2015;67: 659–667. doi: 10.1002/iub.1428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Negre-Salvayre A, Coatrieux C, Ingueneau C, Salvayre R. Advanced lipid peroxidation end products in oxidative damage to proteins. Potential role in diseases and therapeutic prospects for the inhibitors. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;153: 6–20. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0707395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Guéraud F, Atalay M, Bresgen N, Cipak A, Eckl PM, Huc L, et al. Chemistry and biochemistry of lipid peroxidation products. Free Radic Res. 2010;44: 1098–1124. doi: 10.3109/10715762.2010.498477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ebenezer DL, Fu P, Ramchandran R, Ha AW, Putherickal V, Sudhadevi T, et al. S1P and plasmalogen derived fatty aldehydes in cellular signaling and functions. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Biol Lipids. 2020;1865: 158681. doi: 10.1016/j.bbalip.2020.158681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Esterbauer H, Schaur RJ, Zollner H. Chemistry and biochemistry of 4-hydroxynonenal, malonaldehyde and related aldehydes. Free Radic Biol Med. 1991;11: 81–128. doi: 10.1016/0891-5849(91)90192-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Stadelmann-Ingrand S, Favreliere S, Fauconneau B, Mauco G, Tallineau C. Plasmalogen degradation by oxidative stress: production and disappearance of specific fatty aldehydes and fatty alpha-hydroxyaldehydes. Free Radic Biol Med. 2001;31: 1263–1271. doi: 10.1016/s0891-5849(01)00720-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rizzo WB. Fatty aldehyde and fatty alcohol metabolism: review and importance for epidermal structure and function. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1841: 377–389. doi: 10.1016/j.bbalip.2013.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Singh S, Brocker C, Koppaka V, Chen Y, Jackson BC, Matsumoto A, et al. Aldehyde dehydrogenases in cellular responses to oxidative/electrophilic stress. Free Radical Biology & Medicine. 2013;56: 89–101. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2012.11.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ashibe B, Hirai T, Higashi K, Sekimizu K, Motojima K. Dual Subcellular Localization in the Endoplasmic Reticulum and Peroxisomes and a Vital Role in Protecting against Oxidative Stress of Fatty Aldehyde Dehydrogenase Are Achieved by Alternative Splicing. J Biol Chem. 2007;282: 20763–20773. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M611853200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Costello JL, Castro IG, Camões F, Schrader TA, McNeall D, Yang J, et al. Predicting the targeting of tail-anchored proteins to subcellular compartments in mammalian cells. J Cell Sci. 2017;130: 1675–1687. doi: 10.1242/jcs.200204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kelson TL, Secor McVoy JR, Rizzo WB. Human liver fatty aldehyde dehydrogenase: microsomal localization, purification, and biochemical characterization. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1997;1335: 99–110. doi: 10.1016/s0304-4165(96)00126-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nakahara K, Ohkuni A, Kitamura T, Abe K, Naganuma T, Ohno Y, et al. The Sjögren-Larsson syndrome gene encodes a hexadecenal dehydrogenase of the sphingosine 1-phosphate degradation pathway. Mol Cell. 2012;46: 461–471. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.04.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mangelsdorf DJ, Thummel C, Beato M, Herrlich P, Schütz G, Umesono K, et al. The nuclear receptor superfamily: the second decade. Cell. 1995;83: 835–839. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(95)90199-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Evans RM, Mangelsdorf DJ. Nuclear Receptors, RXR, and the Big Bang. Cell. 2014;157: 255–266. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Xu HE, Lambert MH, Montana VG, Plunket KD, Moore LB, Collins JL, et al. Structural determinants of ligand binding selectivity between the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98: 13919–13924. doi: 10.1073/pnas.241410198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kliewer SA, Umesono K, Noonan DJ, Heyman RA, Evans RM. Convergence of 9-cis retinoic acid and peroxisome proliferator signalling pathways through heterodimer formation of their receptors. Nature. 1992;358: 771–774. doi: 10.1038/358771a0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kojetin DJ, Matta-Camacho E, Hughes TS, Srinivasan S, Nwachukwu JC, Cavett V, et al. Structural mechanism for signal transduction in RXR nuclear receptor heterodimers. Nat Commun. 2015;6: 8013. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dubois V, Eeckhoute J, Lefebvre P, Staels B. Distinct but complementary contributions of PPAR isotypes to energy homeostasis. J Clin Invest. 2017;127: 1202–1214. doi: 10.1172/JCI88894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jeninga EH, Gurnell M, Kalkhoven E. Functional implications of genetic variation in human PPARgamma. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2009;20: 380–387. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2009.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pawlak M, Lefebvre P, Staels B. Molecular mechanism of PPARα action and its impact on lipid metabolism, inflammation and fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2015;62: 720–733. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.10.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Taubert S, Ward JD, Yamamoto KR. Nuclear hormone receptors in nematodes: evolution and function. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology. 2011;334: 49–55. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2010.04.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Brock TJ, Browse J, Watts JL. Genetic regulation of unsaturated fatty acid composition in C. elegans. PLoS Genet. 2006;2: e108. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Folick A, Oakley HD, Yu Y, Armstrong EH, Kumari M, Sanor L, et al. Aging. Lysosomal signaling molecules regulate longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science. 2015;347: 83–86. doi: 10.1126/science.1258857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hayes GD, Frand AR, Ruvkun G. The mir-84 and let-7 paralogous microRNA genes of Caenorhabditis elegans direct the cessation of molting via the conserved nuclear hormone receptors NHR-23 and NHR-25. Development. 2006;133: 4631–4641. doi: 10.1242/dev.02655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Liang B, Ferguson K, Kadyk L, Watts JL. The role of nuclear receptor NHR-64 in fat storage regulation in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS ONE. 2010;5: e9869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lin C-CJ, Wang MC. Microbial metabolites regulate host lipid metabolism through NR5A-Hedgehog signalling. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19: 550–557. doi: 10.1038/ncb3515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Magner DB, Wollam J, Shen Y, Hoppe C, Li D, Latza C, et al. The NHR-8 nuclear receptor regulates cholesterol and bile acid homeostasis in C. elegans. Cell Metab. 2013;18: 212–224. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2013.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Motola DL, Cummins CL, Rottiers V, Sharma KK, Li T, Li Y, et al. Identification of ligands for DAF-12 that govern dauer formation and reproduction in C. elegans. Cell. 2006;124: 1209–1223. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.01.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mullaney BC, Blind RD, Lemieux GA, Perez CL, Elle IC, Faergeman NJ, et al. Regulation of C. elegans fat uptake and storage by acyl-CoA synthase-3 is dependent on NR5A family nuclear hormone receptor nhr-25. Cell Metab. 2010;12: 398–410. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2010.08.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Van Gilst MR, Hadjivassiliou H, Jolly A, Yamamoto KR. Nuclear hormone receptor NHR-49 controls fat consumption and fatty acid composition in C. elegans. PLoS Biol. 2005;3: e53. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pathare PP, Lin A, Bornfeldt KE, Taubert S, Van Gilst MR. Coordinate regulation of lipid metabolism by novel nuclear receptor partnerships. PLoS Genet. 2012;8: e1002645. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ratnappan R, Amrit FRG, Chen S-W, Gill H, Holden K, Ward J, et al. Germline signals deploy NHR-49 to modulate fatty-acid β-oxidation and desaturation in somatic tissues of C. elegans. PLoS Genet. 2014;10: e1004829. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Van Gilst MR, Hadjivassiliou H, Yamamoto KR. A Caenorhabditis elegans nutrient response system partially dependent on nuclear receptor NHR-49. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 13496–13501. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506234102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Angelo G, Van Gilst MR. Starvation protects germline stem cells and extends reproductive longevity in C. elegans. Science. 2009;326: 954–958. doi: 10.1126/science.1178343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Svensk E, Ståhlman M, Andersson C-H, Johansson M, Borén J, Pilon M. PAQR-2 Regulates Fatty Acid Desaturation during Cold Adaptation in C. elegans. PLoS Genet. 2013;9: e1003801. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Burkewitz K, Morantte I, Weir HJM, Yeo R, Zhang Y, Huynh FK, et al. Neuronal CRTC-1 governs systemic mitochondrial metabolism and lifespan via a catecholamine signal. Cell. 2015;160: 842–855. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Qi W, Gutierrez GE, Gao X, Dixon H, McDonough JA, Marini AM, et al. The ω-3 fatty acid α-linolenic acid extends Caenorhabditis elegans lifespan via NHR-49/PPARα and oxidation to oxylipins. Aging Cell. 2017;16: 1125–1135. doi: 10.1111/acel.12651 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhang SO, Box AC, Xu N, Le Men J, Yu J, Guo F, et al. Genetic and dietary regulation of lipid droplet expansion in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107: 4640–4645. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912308107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Li X, Lam WJ, Cao Z, Hao Y, Sun Q, He S, et al. Integrated femtosecond stimulated Raman scattering and two-photon fluorescence imaging of subcellular lipid and vesicular structures. J Biomed Opt. 2015;20: 110501. doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.20.11.110501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dickinson DJ, Ward JD, Reiner DJ, Goldstein B. Engineering the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using Cas9-triggered homologous recombination. Nat Methods. 2013;10: 1028–1034. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Klemm RW, Norton JP, Cole RA, Li CS, Park SH, Crane MM, et al. A conserved role for atlastin GTPases in regulating lipid droplet size. Cell Rep. 2013;3: 1465–1475. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.04.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cao Z, Hao Y, Fung CW, Lee YY, Wang P, Li X, et al. Dietary fatty acids promote lipid droplet diversity through seipin enrichment in an ER subdomain. Nat Commun. 2019;10: 2902. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10835-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Xu N, Zhang SO, Cole RA, McKinney SA, Guo F, Haas JT, et al. The FATP1-DGAT2 complex facilitates lipid droplet expansion at the ER-lipid droplet interface. J Cell Biol. 2012;198: 895–911. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201201139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Keller MA, Zander U, Fuchs JE, Kreutz C, Watschinger K, Mueller T, et al. A gatekeeper helix determines the substrate specificity of Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome enzyme fatty aldehyde dehydrogenase. Nat Commun. 2014;5: 4439. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Demozay D, Mas J-C, Rocchi S, Van Obberghen E. FALDH reverses the deleterious action of oxidative stress induced by lipid peroxidation product 4-hydroxynonenal on insulin signaling in 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Diabetes. 2008;57: 1216–1226. doi: 10.2337/db07-0389 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Reimand J, Arak T, Adler P, Kolberg L, Reisberg S, Peterson H, et al. g:Profiler-a web server for functional interpretation of gene lists (2016 update). Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44: W83–89. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Young SG, Zechner R. Biochemistry and pathophysiology of intravascular and intracellular lipolysis. Genes Dev. 2013;27: 459–484. doi: 10.1101/gad.209296.112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mottillo EP, Bloch AE, Leff T, Granneman JG. Lipolytic products activate peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) α and δ in brown adipocytes to match fatty acid oxidation with supply. J Biol Chem. 2012;287: 25038–25048. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M112.374041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Nguyen NTT, Contreras-Moreira B, Castro-Mondragon JA, Santana-Garcia W, Ossio R, Robles-Espinoza CD, et al. RSAT 2018: regulatory sequence analysis tools 20th anniversary. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46: W209–W214. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sebastian A, Contreras-Moreira B. footprintDB: a database of transcription factors with annotated cis elements and binding interfaces. Bioinformatics. 2014;30: 258–265. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Arda HE, Taubert S, MacNeil LT, Conine CC, Tsuda B, Van Gilst M, et al. Functional modularity of nuclear hormone receptors in a Caenorhabditis elegans metabolic gene regulatory network. Mol Syst Biol. 2010;6: 367. doi: 10.1038/msb.2010.23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mori A, Holdorf AD, Walhout AJM. Many transcription factors contribute to C. elegans growth and fat storage. Genes Cells. 2017;22: 770–784. doi: 10.1111/gtc.12516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Goh GYS, Winter JJ, Bhanshali F, Doering KRS, Lai R, Lee K, et al. NHR-49/HNF4 integrates regulation of fatty acid metabolism with a protective transcriptional response to oxidative stress and fasting. Aging Cell. 2018;17: e12743. doi: 10.1111/acel.12743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lee K, Goh GYS, Wong MA, Klassen TL, Taubert S. Gain-of-Function Alleles in Caenorhabditis elegans Nuclear Hormone Receptor nhr-49 Are Functionally Distinct. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0162708. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Fredens J, Færgeman NJ. Quantitative proteomics by amino acid labeling identifies novel NHR-49 regulated proteins in C. elegans. Worm. 2012;1: 66–71. doi: 10.4161/worm.19044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Fu J, Gaetani S, Oveisi F, Lo Verme J, Serrano A, Rodríguez De Fonseca F, et al. Oleylethanolamide regulates feeding and body weight through activation of the nuclear receptor PPAR-alpha. Nature. 2003;425: 90–93. doi: 10.1038/nature01921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.De Laurenzi V, Rogers GR, Hamrock DJ, Marekov LN, Steinert PM, Compton JG, et al. Sjögren-Larsson syndrome is caused by mutations in the fatty aldehyde dehydrogenase gene. Nat Genet. 1996;12: 52–57. doi: 10.1038/ng0196-52 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kanetake T, Sassa T, Nojiri K, Sawai M, Hattori S, Miyakawa T, et al. Neural symptoms in a gene knockout mouse model of Sjögren-Larsson syndrome are associated with a decrease in 2-hydroxygalactosylceramide. FASEB J. 2019;33: 928–941. doi: 10.1096/fj.201800291R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Naganuma T, Takagi S, Kanetake T, Kitamura T, Hattori S, Miyakawa T, et al. Disruption of the Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome Gene Aldh3a2 in Mice Increases Keratinocyte Growth and Retards Skin Barrier Recovery. J Biol Chem. 2016;291: 11676–11688. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M116.714030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Rizzo WB, Craft DA. Sjögren-Larsson syndrome: accumulation of free fatty alcohols in cultured fibroblasts and plasma. J Lipid Res. 2000;41: 1077–1081. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Chung H-L, Wangler MF, Marcogliese PC, Jo J, Ravenscroft TA, Zuo Z, et al. Loss- or Gain-of-Function Mutations in ACOX1 Cause Axonal Loss via Different Mechanisms. Neuron. 2020;106: 589–606.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.02.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Liu L, MacKenzie KR, Putluri N, Maletić-Savatić M, Bellen HJ. The Glia-Neuron Lactate Shuttle and Elevated ROS Promote Lipid Synthesis in Neurons and Lipid Droplet Accumulation in Glia via APOE/D. Cell Metab. 2017;26: 719–737.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2017.08.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ashibe B, Motojima K. Fatty aldehyde dehydrogenase is up-regulated by polyunsaturated fatty acid via peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha and suppresses polyunsaturated fatty acid-induced endoplasmic reticulum stress. FEBS J. 2009;276: 6956–6970. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2009.07404.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Gloerich J, Ijlst L, Wanders RJA, Ferdinandusse S. Bezafibrate induces FALDH in human fibroblasts; implications for Sjögren-Larsson syndrome. Mol Genet Metab. 2006;89: 111–115. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2006.05.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Fidaleo M, Fanelli F, Ceru MP, Moreno S. Neuroprotective properties of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) and its lipid ligands. Curr Med Chem. 2014;21: 2803–2821. doi: 10.2174/0929867321666140303143455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Moutinho M, Codocedo JF, Puntambekar SS, Landreth GE. Nuclear Receptors as Therapeutic Targets for Neurodegenerative Diseases: Lost in Translation. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2019;59: 237–261. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010818-021807 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Dickinson DJ, Pani AM, Heppert JK, Higgins CD, Goldstein B. Streamlined genome engineering with a self-excising drug selection cassette. Genetics. 2015;200: 1035–1049. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.178335 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Frøkjær-Jensen C, Davis MW, Ailion M, Jorgensen EM. Improved Mos1-mediated transgenesis in C. elegans. Nat Methods. 2012;9: 117–118. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1865 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Davis MW, Hammarlund M, Harrach T, Hullett P, Olsen S, Jorgensen EM. Rapid single nucleotide polymorphism mapping in C. elegans. BMC Genomics. 2005;6: 118. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-6-118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Neve IAA, Sowa JN, Lin C-CJ, Sivaramakrishnan P, Herman C, Ye Y, et al. Escherichia coli Metabolite Profiling Leads to the Development of an RNA Interference Strain for Caenorhabditis elegans. G3 (Bethesda). 2020;10: 189–198. doi: 10.1534/g3.119.400741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Serra L, Chang DZ, Macchietto M, Williams K, Murad R, Lu D, et al. Adapting the Smart-seq2 Protocol for Robust Single Worm RNA-seq. Bio Protoc. 2018;8. doi: 10.21769/BioProtoc.2729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Pertea M, Kim D, Pertea GM, Leek JT, Salzberg SL. Transcript-level expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with HISAT, StringTie and Ballgown. Nat Protoc. 2016;11: 1650–1667. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2016.095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Ramachandran PV, Mutlu AS, Wang MC. Label-free biomedical imaging of lipids by stimulated Raman scattering microscopy. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2015;109: 30.3.1–17. doi: 10.1002/0471142727.mb3003s109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Matyash V, Liebisch G, Kurzchalia TV, Shevchenko A, Schwudke D. Lipid extraction by methyl-tert-butyl ether for high-throughput lipidomics. J Lipid Res. 2008;49: 1137–1146. doi: 10.1194/jlr.D700041-JLR200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Witting M, Maier TV, Garvis S, Schmitt-Kopplin P. Optimizing a ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography-time of flight-mass spectrometry approach using a novel sub-2μm core-shell particle for in depth lipidomic profiling of Caenorhabditis elegans. J Chromatogr A. 2014;1359: 91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.07.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Vasilopoulou CG, Sulek K, Brunner A-D, Meitei NS, Schweiger-Hufnagel U, Meyer SW, et al. Trapped ion mobility spectrometry and PASEF enable in-depth lipidomics from minimal sample amounts. Nat Commun. 2020;11: 331. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-14044-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Dieterle F, Ross A, Schlotterbeck G, Senn H. Probabilistic quotient normalization as robust method to account for dilution of complex biological mixtures. Application in 1H NMR metabonomics. Anal Chem. 2006;78: 4281–4290. doi: 10.1021/ac051632c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gregory P Copenhaver, Javier E Irazoqui

6 Apr 2021

Dear Dr Mak,

Thank you very much for submitting your Research Article entitled 'Nuclear receptors NHR-49 and NHR-79 promote peroxisome proliferation to compensate for aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency in C. elegans' to PLOS Genetics.

The manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic but identified some concerns that we ask you address in a revised manuscript.

We therefore ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer.

In addition we ask that you:

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

2) Upload a Striking Image with a corresponding caption to accompany your manuscript if one is available (either a new image or an existing one from within your manuscript). If this image is judged to be suitable, it may be featured on our website. Images should ideally be high resolution, eye-catching, single panel square images. For examples, please browse our archive. If your image is from someone other than yourself, please ensure that the artist has read and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Note: we cannot publish copyrighted images.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within the next 30 days. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we would ask you to let us know the expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments should be included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist.

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

Please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process.

To resubmit, you will need to go to the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

[LINK]

Please let us know if you have any questions while making these revisions.

Yours sincerely,

Javier E. Irazoqui

Associate Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory P. Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors report that nuclear receptors NHR-49 and NHR-79 play a role in regulating peroxisome proliferation to counteract aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency. They first demonstrated in C. elegans that loss of aldehyde dehydrogenase alh-4 supresses lipid droplet (LD) expansion in daf-22 mutant worms. Next, they showed that ALH-4 associates with different organelles including peroxisomes through membrane anchoring. They also found a significant upregulation of peroxisome-related genes in alh-4(-) worms and that peroxisome proliferation was independent of ATGL-1 directed lipolysis. Next, they identified transcription factors NHR-49 and NHR-79 to be required in response to the lack of ALH-4 and that both regulate peroxisome proliferation. Their data suggest that intestinal ALH-4 regulates hypodermal peroxisome proliferation while NHR-49 and NHR-79 act cell-autonomously.

Overall, the experiments were well designed, executed, and included detailed analysis. The conclusions of the manuscript offer important perspectives on the role of ALH-4, NHR-49, and NHR-79 in peroxisome proliferation. However, there are few points that should be addressed to strengthen the authors’ manuscripts. I recommend the authors to perform additional experiments, to consider alternative explanations to rationalize their data, and/or to more/remove some of their experiments. I highly recommend the publication of the manuscript in PLOS genetics once my points are addressed by the authors.

Major points to address

(1) The forward genetic screen for suppressor mutants that reversed the daf-22 mutant phenotypes seems to be a high labor-intensive screen if phenotype was monitored by SRS and that the difference between WT and daf-22 is not that obvious. No details are provided in the method section. How many clones were screened?

(2) The data of LDs in alh-4(hj221) is not reported. The authors only show alh-4 RNAi in Fig. S1B. LDs in alh-4(hj221) must be reported as it is used in subsequent experiments where it is assumed that the mutant suppress daf-22 LDs phenotype.

(3) The authors reported triglyceride (TAG) levels in WT and alh-4(-) worms. I would have expected the authors to include daf-22 and daf-22; alh-4(-) mutants to their analysis.

(4) Pumping rate are abnormally high in Fig. S1F. It should be around 200-250 pumps/min in WT fed normal diet. Why are the rates double than most publications? Also, the authors should include more than 7 worms per condition.

(5) I find the section where the authors justify why GFP knockin strain retains normal ALH-4 function very confusing (lines 163-169). The authors argue using data that is described later in the text. I do not see the point to argue that their ALH-4 fusion protein is functional at this point by referring to data that is shown later in the text. This section would be more appropriate elsewhere either after Fig. 3 or in the discussion.

(6) The authors went into the distance to determine the subcellular localization of GFP::ALH-4 by using different organelle markers. I think this is very important and informative. However, I would like to see higher magnification to appreciate the localization of ALH-4 within cells.

(7) The number of worms should be clearly reported for all quantification based on fluorescence microscopy images. For instance in Fig. S4A,B, how many worms are reported per condition. The authors should distinguish technical from biological replicates in the figure as they are both reported with the same colour.

(8) It is not clear to me which genes are upregulated or if all of them are upregulated in Fig. 4B.

(9) The interaction seems rather very weak between NHR-49 and NHR-79 and the band corresponding to NHR-79 in the IP seems much higher in MW compared to input. Have the authors tried the reciprocal IP by IPing HA?

(10) Although reporting NHR-49 is required for reproduction of ALH-4 deficient worms is interesting. I do not see how it fits with previous results and how it adds to the understanding of the mechanism. In my view, it should be moved to supplementary data and certainly removed as the last sub-section of the result section.

Minor points to address

(1) I suggest the authors to change the title of line 113 to something more meaningful.

(2) Define LDs in line 115.

(3) Do the authors meant “sequencing” instead of “molecular cloning” in line 121?

(4) Fig. S1C should not appear after Fig. S1D-E. This is a recurrent issue through the manuscript and should be fixed. Figures and figure panels should appear in chronological order through the manuscript. Another example is Fig. S3A that is cited before Fig. S2. Fig. 3D,F are cited before Fig. 2B-F.

(5) The sentence “In agreement with our…” in lines 138-140 is repetitive as it is already reported above.

(6) The authors refer to alh-4 isoforms in lines 157-158 but Fig. 2A does not include any isoforms.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript by Dr. Ho Yi Mak and colleagues identifies a cross-tissue genetic pathway responsible for maintaining body fat mass in C. elegans. The pathway, involving intestinal ALH-4 and hypodermal peroxisomal proliferation downstream of NHR-49 and NHR-79 suggests that the latter responds to and is critical to the defense against excess levels of fatty aldehydes. It is particularly curious that the pathway would not be fully cell autonomous, that is excess aldehydes not dealt with in the tissues that they are generated in, and this adds to the interest of the work. The authors utilize state-of-the-art genetic and genomic methodologies that add strength to the conclusions put forward. In general, I find the conclusions sound, interesting, and robustly deduced. I do have modest concern about the interest level of the topic the broad readership of PLoS Genetics. Additionally, in some areas, the manuscript suffers from methodological and statistical inconsistencies that could be rectified to further strengthen conclusions:

Comment 1: It looks as though for fat mass, the relationship of alh-4 and daf-22 are parallel rather than epistatic; for lipid droplet alternatively the suppression looks epistatic. Please discuss in the text (Fig 1B&D).

Comment 2: Figure legend 1 says that two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test was used, but then the figure legend also says t-tests were applied. Please clarify. Which is it? It is very important that multiple hypotheses be corrected for in the statistical analyses, particularly when multiple measurements are conducted as in 1B, D, E, and F.

Comment 3: what does the X axis represent in figs 2B-F (right panels)? distance? Percentage of total distance? Microns? Please clarify. Also, is it possible to show higher magnification images for co-localization? Is ALH-4 predicted to have an n-terminal mito targeting signal that the authors interfered with by knocking in the GFP at the n-terminus? What compartments didn’t GFP::ALH-4 associate with? The authors find evidence for all compartments having ALH-4 enrichment which could be interesting or, alternatively, confounded.

Comment 4: The TM domain deletion experiment (Fig. 3D-F) could have “failed” to rescue because of defective folding of the mutant protein rather than ineffective targeting to the proper cellular location (organelle or to membranes). This possibility should be addressed. Does the C- terminus harbor glycosylation sites that could be missing when deleted? These also could be involved in proper cellular targeting. The same could be true for the deltaGK mutant.

Comment 5: The relationship of ATGL to ALH-4 looks parallel rather than epistatic with regard to lipid droplet diameter in figure S4D-E), although the comparison between WT and alh-4 mutants on atgl-1 RNAi is not shown. Or if it is not significant, then the conclusion may be justified. As such the comparison is important to justify the conclusions.

Comment 6: Line 311: The loss of NHR-49 but not NHR-79”… should be “partially” corrected. The epistatic relationships with regard to PEX number and DAF-22 expression are much more convincing for epistasis whereas the LD data suggest the relationship is more complex than just nhr-49/79.

Comment 7: I am confused on the presentation of results in Figure 5. The authors indicate in the abstract that alh-4;nhr-49 double mutants are inviable, but proceed to analyze them in Figure 5B-G. The legend does not clearly indicate RNAi and the text suggests double mutants are analyzed. This must be clarified. Also unless the double alh-4;nhr-49 is inviable, it is not clear why this animal is not analyzed for the tissue-specific restorations of nhr-49. I do see in figure 8 that the double mutant makes very few progeny. It would have been interesting to see which of the tissue rescues in figure 5E/F also restore progeny production in the double mutant alh-4; nhr-49.

Minor issues:

I’m not sure if the conclusion is important given the genetic data, but if the upregulation of nhr-49 and nhr-79 at the mRNA level is significant and a point the authors want to substantiate, it should not be done with semiquantitative methodology like extraction of RNAseq data.

“number of progenies” should probably be “number of progeny”. In figure 8 and line 378, etc.

Reviewer #3: Mak and colleagues present a manuscript that describes a new genetic relationship between nhr-49 and nhr-79 in response to loss of the aldehyde dehydrogenase alh-4. This is a well designed and executed study that documents high quality data of the peroxisomal response to these genetic mutations. I found no issues with the methodology, appropriate statistics were used in most experiments, and the overall results are compelling. That said, I believe that there are three major concerns that should be addressed prior to acceptance (two of which can be done with simply editing of the manuscript).

Major concerns:

1. Overall meaning of the results. While the data is compelling, at the end of the manuscript the reader is left wondering why this is important in the grand scheme of things. Why does this genetic interaction exist? what is the purpose of engaging these NHRs in response to loss of a single ALH? Perhaps the manuscript would be aided by an enhanced summary figure that puts into context the physiological significance of the work?

2. Related to #1, the last figure identifies a physiological consequence of the genetic mutations study. The 30% reduction in progeny is a strong piece of data, but I am left wondering if this is a defect in oocyte, sperm, or overall change in reproductive tissue function. The author should test whether mating can rescue this phenotype and/or test if mutant male sperm have a defect in dominating fertilization.

3. Several of the claims in the manuscript are correlative when they could really be tested and shown to be causal.

3a. For example, the authors state "It is plausible that these catalases may protect alh-4(-) worms against exogenous hydrogen peroxide treatment (Fig S4B)." The authors should either test this directly in a ctl mutant background, or move statements like this to the discussion.

3b. Similarly the use of loss of function and gain of function alleles is a strength, but why was this specific nhr-49 gain of function allele chosen? Work from the Taubert lab suggests that different nhr-49gf alleles have specific activities. This should at a minimum be discussed further.

Minor concerns:

Without protein function (biochemical and enzymatic) the authors should limit their interpretations of the data to the genetic interactions.

The use of active and passive voice (and switching in and out of present/past tense) is awkward and should be edited.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Decision Letter 1

Gregory P Copenhaver, Javier E Irazoqui

2 Jun 2021

Dear Dr Mak,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Nuclear receptors NHR-49 and NHR-79 promote peroxisome proliferation to compensate for aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency in C. elegans" has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations!

Please note that the reviewers had some final comments (see below) which you may want to consider as you prepare your final draft for the production team (the editorial team will not need to re-evaluate).

Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional acceptance, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made.

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

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field.  This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about making your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date.

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

Yours sincerely,

Javier E. Irazoqui

Associate Editor

PLOS Genetics

Gregory P. Copenhaver

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

www.plosgenetics.org

Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

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

Comments from the reviewers (if applicable):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed most critical concerns of the reviewers. The quality of the manuscript is significantly improved. I only have one remaining concerned that should be address.

In my initial comment #1, I raised that no details are provided in the method section regarding the screen of daf-22. The authors partially addressed it but I think that more details will be useful to fully appreciate their screen and to be able to conduct similar screens. First, C1-BODIPY-C12 doesn't stain LD specifically. C1-BODIPY-C12 is usually used as marker of fatty acid trafficking. Why was it used instead of BODIPY 493-503? I am still unsure how the authors managed to screen for a small difference in LDs using a dissecting fluorescence microscope. What was the threshold used to define a mutant as suppressors? The number of screened wormed should be indicated in the method as well as the number of worms selected in each steps of the screen.

Reviewer #2: The authors have suitably addressed all of my concerns in this revision. I do not completely agree with the response to my comment on correction for multiple hypothesis testing, particularly in figure 1F, but the authors justify their approach appropriately. As long as the methods are fully disclosed in the legend of the figure this is acceptable. Typically the P value is adjusted for the number of measurements made or the numbers of hypotheses tested, e.g. in RNAseq and in LC-MS or GC-MS for metabolites.

Reviewer #3: the authors have addressed the previous concerns raised.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

Data Deposition

If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository. As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website.

The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly: 

http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-21-00308R1

More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support.

Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present.

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

Press Queries

If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org.

Acceptance letter

Gregory P Copenhaver, Javier E Irazoqui

1 Jul 2021

PGENETICS-D-21-00308R1

Nuclear receptors NHR-49 and NHR-79 promote peroxisome proliferation to compensate for aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency in C. elegans

Dear Dr Mak,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Nuclear receptors NHR-49 and NHR-79 promote peroxisome proliferation to compensate for aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency in C. elegans" has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

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

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Andrea Szabo

PLOS Genetics

On behalf of:

The PLOS Genetics Team

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

plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823

plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Phenotypic characterization of alh-4 mutant worms.

    (A) Schematic representation of the alh-4 gene structure. Black boxes, exons; white boxes, untranslated region; line, splicing. The mutation sites in hj28 and hj29 are indicated by red triangle and yellow triangle, respectively. The single nucleotide substitution in both alleles result in a premature stop codon. The mutation site in hj27 is indicated by black triangle and the single nucleotide substitution results in a missense mutation Gly 415 Glu. The deletion region in alh-4 in hj221 is indicated with the blue line. alh-4(hj221) is labeled as alh-4(-) in all figures. Scale bar = 100bp. (B) Representative images of lipid droplets in the second intestinal segment of L4 worms. Lipid droplets were labeled with mRuby::DGAT-2 (hjSi112). Scale bar = 5μm. (C) Quantification of number of progeny of wild type (WT) and mutant worms of indicated genotypes. Two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was applied. (D) Percentage of 50 synchronized worms in the young L4, middle L4, between L4 and adult or adult developmental stage observed at 70 hours after egg laying. (E) Quantification of the pharyngeal pumping rate of WT, alh-4(hj29) and alh-4(hj221) worms. n = 10 for each group. Two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test was applied. (F) Frequency distribution of LD diameter of wild type (WT) and mutant worms of indicated genotypes. Total number of the lipid droplet measured: WT = 1055, alh-4(hj29) = 1628, daf-22(ok693) = 216, alh-4(hj29); daf-22(ok693) = 943. (G) Quantification of indicated fatty aldehydes and fatty alcohols in wild type (WT) and alh-4(-) worms with LC-MS. A significant increase in multiple species of fatty aldehyde/fatty alcohol was observed in alh-4(-) worms in comparison with WT worms. n = 3 for each group except 0 value was considered as missing value (NA) and therefore ignored. Each dot represents the average value of two technical replicates of each biological sample. Two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test was applied. For all plots, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. For all statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Subcellular localization of ALH-4 and transgenic rescue of alh-4(-) worms.

    (A) Schematic representation of the structure of transgenes expressing GFP tagged ALH-4 isoforms. The magenta box indicates isoform specific sequence. ALH-4A isoform: AAATATGCTCGCAATCTTCATTGA encoding KYARNLH* ALH-4B isoform: TTCATTTTCCGCTTCTCGGCATAA encoding FIFRFSA*. ALH-4C isoform: GTATGCAGAGGAAAATCAGCTCAATAG encoding VCRGKSAQ*. Scale bar = 100bp. (B—E) GFP::ALH-4A (hjSi554) colocalized with mitochondria labeled with TOMM-20N::mRuby (hjSi489) and peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::DAF-22 (hj234) in the intestine and tagRFP::PTS1 (hjSi486) in the hypodermis. (F) GFP::ALH-4B (hjSi555) colocalized with the ER labeled with ACS-22::tagRFP (hjSi348) in the intestine. (G) No distinct pattern of GFP::ALH-4B was detected in the hypodermis. (H—I) In the intestine, GFP::ALH-4C (hjSi556) colocalized with lipid droplets labeled with DHS-3::mRuby (hj200) and mitochondria labeled with TOMM-20N::mRuby (hjSi489). (J) In the hypodermis, GFP::ALH-4C colocalized with mitochondria labeled with TOMM-20N::mRuby (hjSi489). (K) Table summarizing the subcellular localization of different ALH-4 isoforms in the intestine and hypodermis. (L) Schematic representation of the structure of transgenes expressing GFP fused with the C-terminus of ALH-4 isoforms. Scale bar = 100bp. (M) Representative images showing the subcellular localization of GFP fused with C-terminus of ALH-4 isoforms in the intestine (top) and in the hypodermis (bottom). (N) Table summarizing the results shown in (M). (O) Transgenic rescue of alh-4(-) worms with specific ALH-4 isoforms. Representative images showing intestinal lipid droplets labeled with DHS-3::mRuby(hj200). (P) As in (O), but with representative images showing the hypodermal peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::PTS1(hjSi486). (Q) Quantification of intestinal lipid droplet diameter. n = 5 for each group. (R) Quantification the hypodermal peroxisome number normalized with the length of the worm in the field of view. n ≥ 6 for each group. In each plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). PEX, peroxisome; LD, lipid droplet. Scale bar = 5μm.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Engineered mutations for the disruption of the membrane anchor or gate-keeper region of ALH-4.

    (A) Phylogram of human ALDHs and C. elegans ALHs. ALH-4 is most closely related to class III ALDHs based on their primary amino acid sequences. The length of the branch shows the genetic distance. For human proteins with isoforms, the amino acid sequence of the longest isoform was used for sequence comparison. (B) Sequence alignment of human and mouse ALDH3A2 and C. elegans ALH-4A (with Clustal X2). Residue color scheme: hydrophobic (A, L, M, P, I, F, W, V), red; polar (N, C, Q, T, Y, G, S), green; negative charged (D, E), blue; positive charged (H, R, K), yellow. Alignment quality display: ‘*’ for a single, fully conserved residue; ‘:’ for fully conserved of some “strong groups”; ‘.’ for fully conserved of some “weak groups”; Corresponding regions are in grey areas. (C) Schematic representation of gfp::alh-4(Δgk) (hj264) and gfp::alh-4(ΔC) (hj261), which had the gate-keeper region and C-terminal membrane anchor deleted, respectively. The deleted region is indicated. TMD, transmembrane domain. Scale bar = 100bp.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Phenotypic analysis of alh-4(-) worms.

    (A) Scatter plot showing the percentage of worms paralyzed after being treated with 100mM Paraquat for 6 hours. Three independent experiments were carried out and each with three biological replicates. The total number of worms measured in 9 biological replicates were 4, 13, 7 for WT and 34, 8,12 for alh-4(-) in the first run; 8, 10, 36 for WT, 19, 12, 13 for alh-4(-) in the second run and 14, 21, 19 for WT and 25, 10, 11 for alh-4(-) in the third run. Data points are color-coded to indicate results from specific experiments. (B) As in (A) but showing the percentage of worms paralyzed after 4 hours treatment with 0.75mM hydrogen peroxide in M9 buffer. The total number of worms measured in 9 biological replicates were 41, 27, 35 for WT and 32, 28, 33 for alh-4(-) in the first run; 16, 21, 22 for WT and 17, 24, 35 for alh-4(-) in the second run and 25, 28, 27 for WT and 29, 28, 29 for alh-4(-) in the third run. (C) Representative images (Z-stack, 0.5 μm intervals, 10 slices) showing the intestinal peroxisomes labeled with mRuby::PTS1 (hjSi548) (top). Quantification of intestinal peroxisome number (bottom). n = 11 each group. (D-E) Differential effects of atgl-1 knockdown by RNAi on peroxisome- and LD-related phenotypes of alh-4(-) worms. (D) Representative images of LDs labeled with DHS-3::mRuby (hj200) in the second intestinal segment. (E) Quantification of the average LD diameter in the second intestinal segment. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). (F) Representative images showing tagRFP::DAF-22 (hj234) in alh-4(-) worms that were subject to control (L4440) or atgl-1 RNAi (left). Quantification of tagRFP::DAF-22 fluorescence (right). n = 8 for each group. (G) As in (F), but with hypodermal peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::PTS1(hjsi486) (left). Quantification of peroxisome number normalized with length of the worms in the field (right). n = 8 for each group. PEX, peroxisome. Scale bar = 5μm. In each plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. (A-C, F-G), *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test).

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Transcriptomic, imaging and biochemical analysis of NHR-49 and NHR-79.

    (A) Heatmap showing the up-regulated genes (fold change > 2 and p-value < 0.05, negative binomial test) in alh-4(-) worms in the peroxisome pathway are generally down-regulated in nhr-49(lf) worms. FPKM value is converted to Z-scores. High expression is indicated with red, while low expression is indicated with blue. The data for the WT and nhr-49 groups on the right was extracted from GSE107799 at Gene Expression Omnibus. (B) Histogram showing the mRNA levels of nhr-49, nhr-79, nhr-80, nhr-66 and nhr-13, from RNA sequencing of wild type (WT) and alh-4(-) worms. n = 3 for each group. In the plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test). (C) Visualization of NHR-49::GFP (hj293) from the endogenous locus (top) and the visualization of mRuby::NHR-79 (hjEx26[nhr-79p::nhr-79] (bottom). Both NHR-49::GFP and mRuby::NHR-79 could be detected in the nuclei of intestinal and hypodermal cells. Scale bar = 5μm. (D) Co-immunoprecipitation of NHR-49 and NHR-79. The predicted ligand binding domain of NHR-49B(87-476aa), NHR-79A(156-463aa) and NHR-66A(191-577aa) were transiently expressed as FLAG- or HA-tagged proteins in HEK293T cells. HA::Venus was expressed as a negative control. At least two experiments with independent biological samples were performed. A representative blot is shown. 20% input of each sample was loaded.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Tissue specific rescue of alh-4(-), nhr-49(lf) and nhr-79(lf) worms.

    (A) Representative images showing the intestinal specific expression of GFP::ALH-4 in worms carrying hjSi501(left) and the hypodermal specific expression of GFP::ALH-4 in worms hjSi500 (right). (B) Representative images showing the intestinal specific expression of NHR-49A/B::GFP in worms carrying hjSi531 (left) and the hypodermal specific expression of NHR-49A/B::GFP in worms carrying hjSi537 (right). (C) Representative images showing the intestinal specific expression of GFP::NHR-79A in worms carrying hjSi553(left) and the hypodermal specific expression of GFP::NHR-79A in worms carrying hjSi539 (right). (D) Representative images showing hypodermal peroxisomes labeled with tagRFP::PTS1 (hjSi486) (top). Quantification of hypodermal peroxisome number in wild type (WT) and mutant worms of indicated genotypes. n ≥ 6 for each group. (E) As in (D), except with intestinal lipid droplets labeled with DHS-3::mRuby (hj200) (top). Quantification of lipid droplets in the second intestinal segment (bottom). n = 6 for each group. (F) As in (D), except with WT and alh-4(-) and nhr-79(-) mutant worms of indicated genotypes. Quantification of hypodermal peroxisome number (bottom). n ≥ 6 for each group. In each plot, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. For all statistical tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, the actual p-value is displayed when p is between 0.05 and 0.1, n.s. (not significant) p > 0.1 (one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). In all plots, mean ± SEM of each group is shown. PEX, peroxisome; LD, lipid droplet. Scale bar = 5μm.

    (TIF)

    S1 Dataset. Gene expression profiles of WT and alh-4(-) obtained by RNA-sequencing (sheet 1) and the down-stream analysis.

    1. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) analysis (Sheet 2); 2. Gene ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis (Sheet 3); 3. Motif discovery of the promoter region of DEGs (Sheet 4); 4. The transcription factor candidates and RNAi results (Sheet 5). The RNA-sequencing dataset has been deposited in NCBI’s Gene Expression Omnibus and is accessible through GEO Series accession number GSE162792 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE162792).

    (XLSX)

    S2 Dataset. The metabolic gene expression profiles of WT and alh-4(-).

    The genes in following pathways were displayed: KEGG peroxisome pathway (sheet 1); mitochondrial fatty acid β-oxidation (sheet 2); peroxisomal fatty acid β-oxidation (sheet 3); tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA) (sheet 4); lipid binding proteins for lipid transport; fatty acid desaturation (sheet 5).

    (XLSX)

    S3 Dataset. The signal intensity of the lipids of interest identified by LC-MS in WT and alh-4(-).

    Lipids are grouped by the lipid class as indicated in the sheet name. The following information is provided: retention time (RT), the measured m/z value (m/z meas.), the measured neutral mass (M meas.), ions, name, molecular formula, annotation quality (AQ) defined by MetaboScape version 5.0 (Bruker Daltonics), annotation source, the relative mass deviation of the theoretical mass of the ion formula and the measured m/z value (Δm/z), collision cross section value (CCS) and the signal intensity detected in each replicate.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Dataset. All numerical data that underlies figures with summary statistics (when applicable).

    The name of the sheets is consistent with that of the figures.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Text. Supplementary text on results pertaining to the determinants of organelle specific targeting of ALH-4 isoforms.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_PLoSGen_7May.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data is publicly available and can be accessed via https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE162792.


    Articles from PLoS Genetics are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES