Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2021 Sep 16;17(9):e1009918. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009918

Histone demethylase LSD1 promotes RIG-I poly-ubiquitination and anti-viral gene expression

Qi-Xin Hu 1,2, Hui-Yi Wang 1,2, Lu Jiang 1,2, Chen-Yu Wang 1,2, Lin-Gao Ju 3, Yuan Zhu 3, Bo Zhong 1,4, Min Wu 1,2,*, Zhen Wang 1,2,*, Lian-Yun Li 1,2,*
Editor: Stacy M Horner5
PMCID: PMC8445485  PMID: 34529741

Abstract

Under RNA virus infection, retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I) in host cells recognizes viral RNA and activates the expression of type I IFN. To investigate the roles of protein methyltransferases and demethylases in RIG-I antiviral signaling pathway, we screened all the known related enzymes with a siRNA library and identified LSD1 as a positive regulator for RIG-I signaling. Exogenous expression of LSD1 enhances RIG-I signaling activated by virus stimulation, whereas its deficiency restricts it. LSD1 interacts with RIG-I, promotes its K63-linked polyubiquitination and interaction with VISA/MAVS. Interestingly, LSD1 exerts its function in antiviral response not dependent on its demethylase activity but through enhancing the interaction between RIG-I with E3 ligases, especially TRIM25. Furthermore, we provide in vivo evidence that LSD1 increases antiviral gene expression and inhibits viral replication. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that LSD1 is a positive regulator of signaling pathway triggered by RNA-virus through mediating RIG-I polyubiquitination.

Author summary

RIG-I signaling pathway is critical for human cells to defend from RNA virus infection, such as SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus, and Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV). LSD1 is a histone demethylase regulating transcription. The current study reveals a novel function of LSD1 in regulating the activation of RIG-I signaling pathway. LSD1 interacts with RIG-I and promotes RIG-I poly-ubiquitination independent of its demethylase activity. LSD1 facilitates the interaction between RIG-I and its ubiquitin E3 ligase TRIM25, which is crucial for recruitment of downstream proteins. The mice with LSD1 deficiency are susceptible to virus infection and have lower survival rate. Taken together, our findings demonstrate a novel molecular mechanism for regulating the anti-viral RIG-I signaling pathway.

Introduction

Innate immunity is the first barrier against pathogen invasion, such as viruses and bacteria [13]. Pathogens are recognized by specific pattern recognition receptors, which induce a cascade of immune responses, and finally eliminated by interferons and cytokines [4,5]. Several families of pattern recognition receptors have been identified, including Toll-like receptors (TLRs), retinoic acid–inducible gene I (RIG-I)–like receptors (RLRs), cyclic GMP–AMP synthase (cGAS) like receptors, NOD-like receptors, and C-type lectin receptors [2,3]. RNA viruses, such as Sendai virus (SeV) and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), are recognized by RLRs when infecting cells. RIG-I, melanoma differentiation-associated gen 5 (MDA5) and DExH-box helicase 58 (DHX58, also known as LGP2) are three types of RLRs, and they all belong to the DEA(D/H) box RNA helicase family [6,7]. RIG-I recognizes the 5’ end triphosphate of RNA virus genome or double-stranded RNA to sense virus infection [810]. After that, RIG-I interacts with virus-induced signaling adaptor (VISA, also called MAVS or IPS1) to stimulate it. Activated VISA/MAVS promotes phosphorylation of TANK binding kinase 1 (TBK1) and the subsequent phosphorylation of interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3). Phosphorylated IRF3 enters nucleus to turn on the expression of type I interferons [4,6,7,1118].

Factors of innate immune system are often modified post-translationally, such as polyubiquitination and phosphorylation, which is important for pathway activation [1922]. For example, K63-linked polyubiquitination on RIG-I is required for the activation of downstream signaling pathway [2325]; On the other hand, RIG-I with K48-linked polyubiquitination is degraded to restrict immune response at late period of antiviral response [26,27]. RGI-I’s ubiquitination is fine-tuned by ubiquitin ligases and deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs) [28,29]. Tripartite motif containing 4 (TRIM4), tripartite motif containing 25 (TRIM25) and ring finger protein 135 (RNF135) are responsible for K63-linked polyubiquitination of RIG-I, whereas CYLD lysine 63 deubiquitinase (CYLD) negatively regulates it through deubiquitination [25,3034]. Ring finger protein 125 (RNF125) is essential for RIG-I K48-linked ubiquitination and the subsequent degradation [27]. In the current study, we report lysine demethylase 1A (KDM1A, also called LSD1), a demethylase for histone H3, promotes activation of RIG-I signaling pathway through enhancing RIG-I’s K63-linked polyubiquitination.

LSD1 is the first reported ‘eraser’ of histone methylation which demethylates lysine 4 (H3K4) and lysine 9 (H3K9) on histone H3 [3538]. Besides, LSD1 has a wide range of functions in many cell processes, such as autophagy, differentiation, tumorigenesis, as well as immunity [3949]. Interestingly, LSD1 exhibits opposite functions during infections of different viruses. As reported, inhibition of LSD1 restricts herpesvirus infection, shedding, and recurrence, through epigenetic suppression of viral genomes [43], while LSD1 represses influenza A virus infection by erasing monomethylation on lysine 88 of interferon induced transmembrane protein 3 (IFITM3) [40]. IFITM3 is an IFN-induced antiviral protein which inhibits the entry of viruses to host cells by preventing viral fusion with cholesterol depleted endosomes [40,5052]. In the current study, we found that LSD1 serves as a positive regulator of RIG-I signaling pathway activated by RNA virus, which further expands the important roles of LSD1 in anti-viral innate immunity.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Mice were maintained in the special pathogen-free facility of College of Life Sciences at Wuhan University. All the animal operations were following the laboratory animal guidelines of Wuhan University and approved by the Animal Experimentations Ethics Committee of Wuhan University (Protocol NO. 14110B). No patient study was involved and the consent to participate is not applicable.

Cell lines, tissue culture and transfection

HEK293T cells, L929 cells and Vero cells were purchased from the Cell Bank of Chinese Academy and were cultured in DMEM (Gibco) supplemented with 10% FBS (Biological Industries) and 1% penicillin and streptomycin (HyClone). HEK293T cells were transfected with Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen) or calcium phosphate. SeV and VSV-GFP were gifted by Dr. Hong-Bing Shu of Wuhan University, and then amplified in our lab.

Transfection of 293T was performed with a standard calcium phosphate precipitation method [53]. Transfection of siRNAs and other cell lines was performed with lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen) with the manufacturer’s protocol.

Mice

Lsd1f/+ mice on the C57BL/6 background were purchased from Jackson lab. Lyz2-Cre mice C57BL/6J were gifted from Dr. Bo Zhong (College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University,). Mice genotype identification was performed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of DNA isolated from the tail using the following primers: Kdm1a-loxp-F, GCTGGATTGAGTTGGTTGTG; Kdm1a-loxp-R, CTGCTCCTGAAAGACCTGCT; Lyz2-cre-F, GCCTGCATTACCGGTCGATGC; Lyz2-cre-R, CAGGGTGTTATAAGCAATCCC.

Antibodies and reagents

Antibodies and reagents were purchased from the indicated merchants: Monoclonal antibodies against β-actin (Abclonal, AC026, RRID: AB_2768234), RIG-I (Abclonal, A0550, RRID: AB_2757259), LSD1 (Abclonal, A1156, RRID: AB_2721240), TBK1 (CST, 3504, RRID: AB_2255663), TBK1 pS172 (CST, 5483, RRID: AB_10693472), IRF3 (CST, 11904, RRID: AB_2722521; Santa Cruz, sc-9082, RRID: AB_2264929), IRF3 pS396 (CST, 4947, RRID:AB_823547), Myc-tag (Abclonal, AE010, RRID: AB_2770408), GFP (Abclonal, AE012, RRID: AB_2770402), HA-tag (Origene, TA180128, RRID: AB_2622290), Flag-tag (Sigma-Aldrich, F3165, RRID: AB_259529), Low Molecular Weight Poly (I:C) (Invivogen, Cat# tlrl-picw).

RNA interference, reverse transcription and quantitative RT-PCR

The indicated cells were transfected with small interfering RNA (siRNA, LSD1 siRNA 1#: AAGGAAAGCUAGAAGAAAAUU, 2#: CAGAAGGCCUAGACAUUAAUU) and were scraped down and collected by centrifugation. Total RNA was extracted with an RNA extraction kit (Aidlab or CWBIO) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Approximately 1 ug total RNA was used for reverse transcription with a first-strand cDNA synthesis kit (Vazyme). The amount of mRNA was assayed by quantitative PCR. Data shown are the relative abundance of the indicated mRNAs normalized to that of ACTB mRNA (Homo sapiens) or Gapdh mRNA (Mus musculus). The sequences of primers are shown in S1 Table. Assays were repeated at least three times.

Co-immunoprecipitation and ubiquitination analysis

HEK293T cells were harvested and lysed in NP-40 lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl [pH 7.4], 150 mM NaCl, 0.5% NP-40) with proteinase inhibitors. For ubiquitination assays, cells were lysed in RIPA lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl [pH 7.4], 150 mM NaCl, 0.1% SDS, 0.5% NP40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate) with proteinase inhibitors and then sonicated for 1 minute. The supernatant was then incubated with protein G beads (GE Healthcare) and desired antibodies at 4°C for 4 h. The beads were spun down and washed three times with lysis buffer. The final drop of wash buffer was vacuumed out and SDS loading buffer was added to the beads, followed by immunoblotting.

Immunoblotting analysis

Protein extracts were separated by SDS-PAGE and transferred to nitrocellulose filter membranes. After blocking with 5% skim milk in Tris-buffered saline and 0.1% Tween (TBS-T), the membranes were incubated with the desired primary antibodies overnight at 4°C. Then the membranes were washed and incubated with the appropriate secondary antibodies at room temperature for 1 h. The blots were detected by Clarity Western ECL Substrate (BIO-RAD). For cell assay, at least triplicate biological experiments were performed.

Preparations of BMDMs, BMDCs and MLFs

For preparation of BMDMs, bone marrow cells were cultured in 10% M-CSF-containing conditional medium from L929 cells for 3–5 days. For preparation of BMDCs, bone marrow cells were cultured in medium containing murine GM-CSF (50 ng/mL) for 6–8 days. Primary lung fibroblasts were isolated from lungs of 8-week old mice. In brief, lungs were minced and digested in calcium and magnesium free HBSS containing 10 mg/mL type II collagenase and 20 mg/mL DNase I for 1 hour at 37°C. Cell suspension was centrifuged at 1500 rpm for 5 min. The cells were then plated in DMEM containing 10% FBS, 1% penicillin and streptomycin.

Plaque forming unit (PFU) assay

Vero cells were seeded into 12-well plates 1 day before measurement. Supernatants of VSV-infected cells were frozen and thawed twice, then centrifuged at 12,000 rpm for 5 min. Supernatants were serially diluted on the monolayer of Vero cells for 2 days, and PFU was measured.

H&E staining

Tissues were isolated from indicated male mice, rinsed in ice-cold PBS, fixed in 4% poly-formaldehyde for 48 h at 4°C, then dehydrated, embedded in paraffin and sectioned. 4 μm tissue sections were used for staining. The tissue sections were deparaffinized and then rehydrated. After staining with Mayer’s hematoxylin dye for 5–7 min, the sections were washed with water, sealed with neutral gum after air drying, and finally examined with Olympus BX51 microscope.

Results

LSD1 is required for activation of RIG-I signal pathway

To investigate novel mechanisms regulating RIG-I pathway, we screened a siRNA library targeting all the known methyltransferases and demethylases for genes regulating the activation of RIG-I signaling pathway. The library was designed in the lab and synthesized by the company, which contains all known and predicted protein methyltransferases and demethylases, as well as their related genes. WDR82 and TTLL12 were identified from the screen and reported as repressors of the pathway [54,55]. LSD1/KDM1A, a demethylase of histone H3K4 and H3K9, was also identified from the screen. To confirm the discovery, two independent siRNAs were used to knock down LSD1 in HEK293T cells, and quantitative RT-PCR result indicated that the mRNA levels of IFN-β and two IFN-induced genes (ISG54 and ISG56) induced by SeV decreased after LSD1 depletion (Fig 1A–1C). Similarly, knockdown of LSD1 impaired poly(I:C)-induced expression of IFNB1, ISG54 and ISG56 in HEK293T cells (Fig 1B and 1C). To further confirm the role of LSD1 in the innate immune response to RNA viruses, a HEK293T cell line with stable-expressed HA-LSD1 was constructed (Fig 1D). Consistently, exogenous expression of LSD1 enhanced SeV-induced expression of IFNB1, ISG54 and ISG56 in cells (Fig 1E). Similar results were observed in cells induced by poly(I:C) treatment (Fig 1F). These data together demonstrated that LSD1 is involved in regulation of IFNB1 and ISGs expression.

Fig 1. LSD1 promotes RNA virus-triggered signal pathway.

Fig 1

(A) HEK293T cells were transfected with negative control siRNA (siNC) or LSD1 siRNAs (1#, 2#). The cells were infected with SeV for 12 hr. The relative mRNA levels of IFNB1, ISG54, and ISG56 were detected by RT-qPCR. (B) HEK293T cells transfected with negative control siRNA (siNC) or LSD1 siRNAs (1#, 2#) and were transfected with poly(I:C) for 10h. The mRNA levels of IFNB1, ISG54, and ISG56 were detected by RT-qPCR. (C) HEK293T cells were transfected with negative control siRNA (siNC) or LSD1 siRNAs (1#, 2#), and analyzed by western blotting. (D) Stable expression of HA-tagged LSD1 in HEK293T cells was examined by western blotting. (E) LSD1-293T and control cells were infected with SeV for 12 hr. The relative mRNA levels of IFNB1, ISG54, and ISG56 were detected by RT-qPCR. (F) EV-293T and LSD1-293T and control cells were transfected with poly(I:C) for 10h. The relative mRNA levels of IFNB1, ISG54, and ISG56 were detected by RT-qPCR. Data are presented as means ± SD of three independent experiments. Student’s t test was used for statistical calculation. ns, no significance. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.

LSD1 impairs virus replication in cultured cells

To investigate whether LSD1 affects virus replication in cells, we used an engineered VSV virus with GFP integration in the genome. HEK293T cells were transfected with LSD1 siRNAs and infected with VSV-GFP. The depletion of LSD1 significantly increased the amount of green fluorescence, which represented VSV-GFP in cells (Fig 2A). Western blotting was performed to verify GFP expression (Fig 2B and 2C). The viral titers of VSV were measured with plaque assay which also showed that the virus amount was higher in LSD1-depleted cells (Fig 2D). Consistently, exogenous expression of LSD1 significantly decreased the amount of VSV-GFP fluorescence and GFP protein (Fig 2E and 2F), as well as the viral titers (Fig 2G). Experiments in A549 cells showed that LSD1 also regulates IFNB1 expression in A549 cells (S1A–S1C Fig). These data indicated that LSD1 represses the replication of RNA viruses in cells.

Fig 2. LSD1 inhibits virus replication.

Fig 2

(A-D) HEK293T cells transfected with siNC or siLSD1 (1#, 2#) were infected with VSV-GFP (MOI = 1) for 8 hr. (A) The replication of VSV-GFP were observed by fluorescence microscopy (left). The intensity of GFP fluorescence were analyzed by ImageJ (right). (B&C) Infected cells were lysed and analyzed by western blotting with indicated Abs. The relative amount of LSD1 was quantified with ImageJ software. (D) VSV titers in supernatants of HEK293T cells were tested by plaque forming unit (PFU) assay. (E-G) LSD1-293T and control cells were infected with VSV-GFP (MOI = 1) for 8h. (E) The replication of VSV-GFP were observed by fluorescence microscopy (left). The intensity of GFP fluorescence were analyzed by ImageJ (right). (F) Infected cells were lysed and analyzed by western blotting with indicated Abs. (G) VSV titers in supernatants of the HEK293T cells were tested by plaque forming unit (PFU) assay. Data are presented as means ± SD of three independent experiments. Student’s t test was used for statistical calculation. ns, no significance. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.

LSD1 interacts with RIG-I

To figure out the mechanisms of LSD1 in regulating RIG-I signal pathway, we first analyzed the activation of TBK1 and IRF3, two critical factors of RIG-I pathway, by measuring their phosphorylation with western blot. LSD1 depletion decreased the poly(I:C)-induced TBK1 and IRF3 phosphorylation in HEK293T cells (Figs 3A and S1D). Consistently, the poly(I:C)-induced TBK1 and IRF3 phosphorylation were higher when LSD1 was over expressed (Figs 3B and S1E). These suggest LSD1 is involved in TBK1 and IRF3 phosphorylation upon pathway activation and perhaps at the upstream of TBK1.

Fig 3. LSD1 is associated with RIG-I.

Fig 3

(A) NC and LSD1 knock-down HEK293T cells were transfected with poly(I:C) for indicated hours. The phosphorylation levels of IRF3 and TBK1 were analyzed by western blotting. (B) LSD1-293T and control cells were transfected with poly(I:C) for indicated hours, and the phosphorylation levels of IRF3 and TBK1 were analyzed by western blotting. The relative amount of phosphorylated IRF3 and TBK1 was quantified with ImageJ software and labelled under the corresponding bands. (C) HEK293T cells were transfected with Flag-tagged LSD1 and HA-tagged RIG-I plasmid for 24 hr. Lysates were co-immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag body and immunoblotting analysis with indicated Abs. (D) HEK293T cells were infected with SeV for the indicated time and co-immunoprecipitated and immunoblotting were performed with indicated Abs. (E) Schematic of full-length RIG-I and its truncation. (F) HEK293T cells were transfected with Flag-tagged RIG-I full length or truncations and HA-tagged LSD1 for 24 hr, followed by co-immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis with indicated Abs. (G) Schematic of full-length LSD1 and its truncated mutants. (H) HEK293T cells were transfected with HA-tagged LSD1 or its truncations and Flag-tagged RIG-I for 24 hr, followed by co-immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis with indicated Abs.

Then an immunoprecipitation survey was carried out to identify the proteins associated with LSD1 in RIG-I pathway. The results indicated that LSD1 specifically interacts with RIG-I (Fig 3C). The interaction between endogenous LSD1 and RIG-I was successfully detected with or without SeV treatment (Fig 3D). The interaction between exogenous expressed LSD1 and VISA was also detected, but not that between endogenous proteins. So, we think probably LSD1 only interacts with RIG-I, but not with VISA at the endogenous level. To characterize the domains responsible for the interaction, we made a series of RIG-I truncations (Fig 3E). The data of immunoprecipitation assays indicated that LSD1 interacted both CARD and dCARD fragments and full-length RIG-I, among which CARD fragment was the strongest (Fig 3F). Four LSD1 truncations were then constructed, and the co-immunoprecipitation results suggested LSD1 interacts with RIG-I independent of its SWIRM domain (Fig 3G and 3H). Collectively, these data indicate that LSD1 interacts with multiple domains of RIG-I.

LSD1 enhances K63-linked polyubiquitination of RIG-I

RIG-I is a key molecule to initiate the cascade of RIG-I signaling pathway, and its K63-linked polyubiquitination is required for MAVS/VISA recruitment and downstream events. Modifications on RIG-I by different forms of polyubiquitination chains emerged as critical for the pathway activation [15,5660]. We investigated the impact of LSD1 on RIG-I polyubiquitination by different ubiquitin chains. HA-LSD1, Flag-RIG-I, and Myc-ubiquitin (Ub) were co-expressed in cells, and in vivo ubiquitination assay was performed with anti-Flag IP and anti-Myc western blotting. The result indicated that exogenous expressed LSD1 promotes RIG-I polyubiquitination dramatically (Fig 4A). Further characterization indicated that LSD1 promotes the K63-linked polyubiquitination chain on RIG-I, but not the K48-linked (Fig 4B). To investigate whether LSD1 regulates MDA5, we used EMCV, one virus known to activate signaling through MDA5, to treat cells and LSD1 knockdown did not cause difference in IFNB1 expression (S2A Fig). Further studies showed that although over-expressed LSD1 interacted with MDA5, it could not enhance MDA5 ubiquitination (S2B–S2D Fig). These indicated that LSD1 specifically functions on RIG-I, but not MDA5. A gradual increasing dose of HA-LSD1 was expressed in cells, and the result indicated the level of RIG-I K63-linked polyubiquitination increased along with LSD1 expression (Fig 4C). We then investigated whether LSD1 regulates the interaction between RIG-I and VISA interaction. HA-LSD1, HA-VISA and Flag-RIG-I plasmids were co-transfected in cells and co-immunoprecipitation was performed. The result showed that LSD1 promoted RIG-I and VISA interaction (Fig 4D).

Fig 4. LSD1 enhances RIG-I K63-linked ubiquitination.

Fig 4

(A) Flag-RIG-I and Myc-Ub together with control or HA-LSD1 were expressed in HEK293T for 24 hr, followed by immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis as indicated. (B) The experiments were performed as in (A), except K48 only or K63 only ubiquitin plasmid was used instead of wild-type Ub. (C) HEK293T cells were transfected with Flag-RIG-I and Myc-K63-Ub together with a gradient dose of HA-LSD1 for 24 hr, followed by immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis with the indicated antibodies. (D) HEK293T were transfected with indicated plasmids for 24 hr, followed by immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis. (E) HEK293T cells were transfected with Myc-K63O-Ub (ubiquitin with all lysine mutated to arginine except K63) and Flag-RIG-I or its truncations together with a control or HA-LSD1 expression plasmid for 24 hr, followed by immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis as indicated. The relative amount of ubiquitinated RIG-I was quantified with ImageJ software and labelled under the corresponding bands. L.E. means long exposure, and S.E. for short exposure. (F) HEK293T cells were transfected with Myc-K63O-Ub and Flag-RIG-I or its mutants together with control or HA-LSD1 for 24 hr, followed by immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting as indicated. 5KR refers to K849R, K851R, K888R, K907R and K909R; 3KR for K154R, K164R and K172R; 8KR for all the above 8 sites. The relative amount of ubiquitinated RIG-I was quantified with ImageJ software and labelled under the corresponding bands. (G) HEK293T cells were transfected with Flag-RIG-I and Myc-K63O-Ub together with control or HA-LSD1 truncations for 24 hr, followed by immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis as indicated.

To map the residues of RIG-I whose polyubiquitination are regulated by LSD1, we first determined the domains regulated by LSD1. Two truncations of RIG-I, Flag-CARD or Flag-dCARD, were co-expressed with HA-LSD1 and Myc-Ub in cells, respectively. The result of ubiquitination assay suggested exogenous expressed LSD1 promotes polyubiquitination of both truncations (Figs 4E and S3A), consistent with the previous immunoprecipitation result (Fig 3F). According to previous reports [25,3033,61], 8 lysine-specific point mutants were constructed. Lysine at 154, 164 and 172 are reported to be targeted for CARD polyubiquitination, and lysine at K849, K851, K888, K907 and K909 are for dCARD polyubiquitination. However, all the 8 single-point mutants (K to R) only showed very tiny decrease of polyubiquitination promoted by LSD1. Then 3KR (K154R, K164R and K172R), 5KR (K849R, K851R, K888R, K907R and K909R) and all 8KR (all 8 lysines to arginines) mutants were constructed. Only the 8KR mutant showed significant impairment of LSD1-enhanced RIG-I polyubiquitination (Figs 4F and S3B–S3D). To map the domains of LSD1 responsible for RIG-I polyubiquitination, HA-LSD1 truncations, Flag-RIG-I and Myc-Ub were co-expressed in HEK293T cells for in vivo ubiquitination assay. All the truncations improved RIG-I polyubiquitination except SWIRM domain (Fig 4G). We further examined the functions of LSD1 truncations, and found that LSD1-C and -E fragments could up-regulate IFNB1 expression and repress VSV, but not LSD1-A, which was consistent with their ability in regulating RIG-I ubiquitination (S4A–S4C Fig). Taken together, our results proved that LSD1 promotes the activation of RIG-I signaling pathway through facilitating RIG-I K63-linked polyubiquitination and VISA/MAVS recruitment. These data suggest that exogenous expressed LSD1 is capable of promoted ubiquitination of multiple residues, and binding and ubiquitination of RIG-I by LSD1 seem to be two separate events.

RIG-I polyubiquitination regulated by LSD1 is not dependent on demethylation

LSD1 is reported to demethylate mono-/di-methylation of histone H3K4 and H3K9, as well as non-histone proteins [40,62]. To determine whether the demethylase activity is required for LSD1 in regulating RIG-I polyubiquitination, an enzymatic dead K661A mutant of LSD1 is constructed [63,64]. Co-immunoprecipitation of HA-LSD1 and Flag-RIG-I showed no difference between LSD1 wild type (WT) and mutant (Fig 5A). Ubiquitination assay indicated K661A was able to increase RIG-I polyubiquitination, similar to LSD1 WT (Fig 5B). Overexpression of WT or K661A LSD1 in HEK293T cells both enhanced SeV- or poly(I:C)-induced transcription of IFNB1, ISG54 and ISG56 (Figs 5C, S5A and S5B), and no significant difference was detected between WT and K661A mutant. For further validation, LSD1 and K661A mutant were expressed in LSD1 knockdown cells, and quantitative RT-PCR results indicated both WT and mutant LSD1 rescued the phenotype caused by LSD1 knockdown (S5C Fig). Both WT and mutated LSD1 suppressed viral replication as well (S5D Fig). However, K661A mutant showed weaker inhibitory effect than WT (S5D Fig). As recently reported, LSD1 restricts RNA virus infection by erasing IFITM3-K88 monomethylation, which is an IFN-induced antiviral protein disrupting the entry of viruses to host cells [40,50]. These data indicated LSD1 represses virus replication through multiple pathways, and LSD1 functions on RIG-I polyubiquitination independent of its demethylase activity.

Fig 5. LSD1 enhances the interaction between RIG-I and E3 ligases.

Fig 5

(A) Flag-RIG-I plasmids and HA-LSD1 or K661A mutant were expressed in HEK293T for 24h. Lysates were co-immunoprecipitated and immunoblotted analysis with indicated Abs. (B) HEK293T cells were transfected with Flag-RIG-I and Myc-K63O-Ub together with a control or HA-LSD1 or K661A mutant expression plasmid for 24 h, followed by immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis with the indicated Abs. (C) Control 293T, LSD1-293T and K661A-293T cells were infected with SeV for 12 hr (left) or transfected with poly(I:C) for 10h (right). The relative mRNA levels of IFNB1 were detected by RT-qPCR. (D) HEK293T cells were transfected with Flag-tagged LSD1 and three HA-tagged E3 ligases respectively for 24 hr, followed by co-immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis with indicated Abs. (E) HEK293T cells were transfected with the indicated plasmids for 24 hr, followed by co-immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting analysis. (F) HEK293T cells were lipo-transfected with siNC or LSD1 siRNA. After 12 hr, HEK293T cells were transfected with indicated plasmids for 24 hr, and interactions between RIG-I and E3 ligases were examined by co-immunoprecipitation. The relative amount of LSD1 was quantified with ImageJ software and labelled under the corresponding bands. * means nonspecific bands. (G) Myc-Ub-K63O (ubiquitin with all lysine mutated to arginine except K63) and Flag wild type and indicated mutants were co-expressed in HEK293 wild type or LSD1 knockdown cells. Ubiquitination assay was then performed. 5KR refers to K849R, K851R, K888R, K907R and K909R. (H) Wide-type and LSD1-KD HEK293T cells were transfected with Flag-RIG-I and Myc-K63O-Ub together with control plasmid or HA-TRIM25, HA-RNF135 for 24 hr, followed by immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting as indicated. (I&J) Wide-type and TRIM25 KO cells were transfected with negative control siRNA (siNC) or LSD1 siRNAs 1#. Cells were transfected with indicated plasmids for 24h, and infected with SeV for 10 hr before immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting (I); or cells were treated with SeV for 12 hr, IFNB1 relative mRNA level of were detected by RT-qPCR (J). Data are presented as means ± SD of three independent experiments. Student’s t test was used for statistical calculation. ns, no significance. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.

LSD1 promotes the interaction between RIG-I and specific E3 ligases

E3 ubiquitin ligases TRIM4, TRIM25 and RNF135 are reported involved in RIG-I K63-linked polyubiquitination under RNA virus invasion [25,3033,61]. TRIM4 targets K154, K164 and K172 of RIG-I, K172 for TRIM25, and K849, K851, K888, K907 and K909 for RNF135. Based on these discoveries, we speculated that LSD1 might regulate the interaction between RIG-I and ubiquitin K63-linked E3 ligases. Flag-LSD1 and HA-E3 ligases were co-expressed in cells respectively, and co-immunoprecipitation assay indicated exogenous expressed LSD1 interacts with all the three E3 ligases (Fig 5D). Co-immunoprecipitation assays suggested all of LSD1 truncations interacted with three E3 ligases except its SWIRM domain (S6A Fig). The co-immunoprecipitation of LSD1 and E3 truncations showed LSD1 probably interacted with E3 ligases through their C-terminals but not RING domain (S6B and S6C Fig). Then, we studied the interaction between RIG-I and TRIM4, TRIM25 or RNF135 with or without LSD1 exogenous expression. The results showed that when co-expressed with LSD1, RIG-I pulled down more TRIM4, TRIM25 and RNF135 (Fig 5E). It is consistent with the result about polyubiquitinated residue survey (Fig 4F). When exogenous expressed, LSD1 showed a pan effect of RIG-I polyubiquitination enhancement, as a result all the 8 lysine polyubiquitination could be promoted by LSD1. Moreover, all the three E3 ligases did not affect the interaction of RIG-I and LSD1 (S6D Fig), which indicates LSD1 interacts with RIG-I without E3 ligases.

It is quite surprising that LSD1 regulates the interaction between RIG-I and all three E3s. Thus, we investigated the interaction of RIG-I with three E3s in absence of endogenous LSD1. The result indicated when LSD1 was knocked down, RIG-I recruited much less TRIM25, whereas TRIM4 and RNF135 were not affected (Figs 5F and S7A), suggesting that at the endogenous protein level, LSD1 mainly promotes the interaction between RIG-I and TRIM25. TRIM25 mainly catalyzes poly-ubiquitination on lysine 172 on RIG-I [25]. To confirm the above result, we generated LSD1 knockdown HEK293 cell line with CRISPR technique, and examined the poly-ubiquitination level in the absence of LSD1. The results showed that LSD1 deficiency impaired poly-ubiquitination of RIG-I wild type and most of the tested mutants, but not K172R, which further supported that LSD1 mainly regulates LSD1 through TRIM25 and K172 ubiquitination in vivo (Figs 5G and S7B). We then utilized a TRIM25 knockout cell line and found that RIG-I poly ubiquitination promoted by LSD1 was impaired in the absence of TRIM25 (S7C Fig); and LSD1 expression could enhance RIG-I polyubiquitination catalyzed by low amount of TRIM25 (S7D Fig). We then expressed TRIM25 or RNF135 in wild type or LSD1 knockdown cells, and found that the ability of TRIM25 to ubiquitinate RIG-I was greatly impaired without LSD1, but RNF135 did not change obviously (Fig 5H). We further knocked down LSD1 in TRIM25 knockout cells, and found that LSD1 deficiency decreased RIG-I polyubiquitination and IFNB1 expression in wild type cells, but not in TRIM25 knockout cells (Fig 5I and 5J). Co-immunoprecipitation assays showed that interaction between LSD1 and RIG-I was not dependent on TRIM25 or RIG-I ubiquitination (S8A–S8C Fig). These data together demonstrated LSD1 promoted RIG-I K63-linked polyubiquitination through enhancing the interaction of RIG-I and ubiquitin E3 ligase TRIM25, probably not TRIM4 or RNF135.

Lsd1 deficiency inhibits RNA virus-triggered RIG-I signaling in vivo

We next investigated the role of Lsd1 in antiviral response in vivo. We generated Lsd1 conditional knockout mice by crossing Lsd1 f/+ with lyz2-cre mice. We isolated lung fibroblasts (MLFs), bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (BMDCs) and bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMDMs) from the above mouse model and infected with VSV and SeV, respectively. Quantitative RT-PCR experiments indicated that Lsd1 deficiency impaired virus-induced transcription of Ifnb1, Isg56, Il-6 and Cxcl10 genes in MLFs, BMDMs and BMDCs (Figs 6A and 6B; S9A–S9D). Consistently, Lsd1 deficiency inhibited the phosphorylation of Tbk1and Irf3 induced by SeV infection in MLFs, BMDCs and BMDMs (Figs 6C, S9E and S9F). Collectively, these data suggest that LSD1 is required for the proper activation of RNA virus-stimulated RIG-I signaling pathway in primary murine cells.

Fig 6. Lsd1 is required for Rig-i-mediated innate immune response.

Fig 6

(A&B)Lyz2- Lsd1fl/+ and Lyz2+ Lsd1fl/+ MLFs were left uninfected or infected with SeV(A) or VSV(B) for 10h. The relative mRNA levels of Ifnb1, Isg56, Il-6, Cxcl10 were detected by RT-qPCR. (C) Lyz2- Lsd1fl/+ and Lyz2+ Lsd1fl/+ MLFs were left un-infected or infected with SeV for the indicated times, followed by immunoblotting analysis with indicated Abs. (D) 8-week-old Lyz2- Lsd1fl/+ and Lyz2+ Lsd1fl/+ mice were tail-intravenous injected with VSV at 10^8 PFU per mouse (n = 5 for each genotype group) for 12h. Total RNA from mice liver, lung and spleen were extracted and the relative mRNA level of Ifnb1 were detected by RT-qPCR. (E&F) VSV genome RNA (E) and VSV titers(F) of tissues from infected mice in (A-C) were tested with qPCR and PFU analysis, respectively. (G) Hematoxylin and eosin staining of lung sections from mice in (A). Scale bars, 100 μm (for 10×) and 50 μm (for 20×). (H) Lsd1fl/+ Lyz2-cre- and Lsd1 fl/+ Lyz2-cre+ mice were intraperitoneal injected with VSV at 10^8 PFU per mouse (n = 10 for each genotype group). The survival rates of mice were recorded. Data are means ± SEM and are representative of three biological replicates. Student’s t test was used for statistical calculation. ns, no significance. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.

To further explore the roles of LSD1 in host defense against viral infection in vivo, we used VSV to infect Lsd1f/+ with and without Lyz2-cre mice by tail-intravenous injection. Quantitative RT-PCR results indicated VSV-induced transcription of Ifnb1, Isg54, Il-6 and Cxcl10 in blood were impaired in Lsd1f/+Lyz2-cre mice compared to the control mice. Similar results were obtained in mice liver, lung and spleen (Figs 6D, S10A–S10C). Moreover, viral titer and number of genomic copies of VSV in the lung and spleen were much higher in Lsd1 f/+Lyz2-cre mice than those in the control group (Fig 6E and 6F). Meanwhile, pathological analysis revealed that VSV infection resulted in increased alveolar wall thickening, and severe edema in the lungs of Lsd1 f/+Lys2-cre mice compared with Lsd1 f/+ mice (Fig 6G). Lsd1 deficient mice also had much lower survival rate upon VSV challenge (Fig 6H). Together, these results suggest that LSD1 is required for RIG-I signaling and host defense against RNA virus in vivo.

Discussion

In the current study, we reveal a novel role of LSD1 in regulating antiviral RIG-I signaling. LSD1 promotes the activation of RIG-I pathway and represses the replication of RNA virus in vivo and in vitro. It interacts with RIG-I and enhances K63-linked polyubiquitination of RIG-I to promote signal transduction. Shan et al. reported LSD1 restricts RNA virus invasion by erasing IFITM3-K88 monomethylation [40]. Our study demonstrates that LSD1 not only regulates one of the antiviral products, but also acts as a critical positive regulator of RIG-I signaling pathway, which actually affects the expression of much more anti-viral genes. Thus, our study illustrates it as one of the important players in innate immunity.

Many literatures have shown that LSD1 exerts its roles through its demethylase activity. Our study proved that LSD1 promotes RIG-I polyubiquitination through facilitating the interaction between RIG-I and TRIM25. Both wild type and mutant LSD1 were able to inhibit virus replication compared to control samples. Based on our results, we speculate it is possible that the interaction between LSD1 and RIG-I changes RIG-I conformation and then facilitates the recognition by ubiquitin E3 ligases. Recently, several studies have also showed that LSD1 functions independent of its enzyme activity [65]. These studies together expand the functions of LSD1 beyond a demethylase.

LSD1 was generally considered as a protein functioning in nuclei; however, our immune-staining assays showed that it was also localized both in nuclei and cytoplasm in some cells. Then it is possible for it to interact with RIG-I, which is localized in cytoplasm. Then it is interesting what the regulatory mechanism is to control LSD1 localization, which is critical for its cellular functions.

Our data showed exogenous expression of LSD1 enhanced TRIM4, TRIM25 and RNF135-linked RIG-I polyubiquitination. However, LSD1 depletion mainly impaired the interaction between RIG-I and TRIM25, but not TRIM4 or RNF135. The results observed with exogenous expressed LSD1 were probably some artifacts caused by gene over expression. Interestingly, we found that LSD1 interacts with RIG-I without virus treatment, and it promoted RIG-I poly-ubiquitination but did not activate IFNB1 expression without virus. These indicated that RIG-I polyubiquitination activated by LSD1 alone is not sufficient to activate the pathway, and some other factors are required, which should be investigated in the future studies. Taken together, our results indicate that LSD1 regulates RIG-I signaling mainly via recruiting TRIM25 and promoting K172-linked polyubiquitination of RIG-I. Of course, we cannot exclude the possibility that LSD1 may function through other E3 ligases during certain circumstance.

To sum up, our study demonstrates LSD1 as a positive regulator of RIG-I signaling through promoting RIG-I K63 polyubiquitination and the interaction between RIG-I and TRIM25. Considering the abnormal activation of immune response is connected with many diseases, such as COVID-19, our study may provide important theoretical information for developing novel clinical strategies.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. LSD1 regulates IFNB1 expression in A549 cells.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. LSD1 is not involved in IFNB1 expression activated by EMCV.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Functional studies of LSD1 truncations.

(PDF)

S4 Fig. Functions of LSD1 truncations.

(PDF)

S5 Fig. LSD1’s function is independent of demethylase activity.

(PDF)

S6 Fig. LSD1 interacts with ubiquitin E3 ligases of RIG-I.

(PDF)

S7 Fig. LSD1 mediates TRIM25-dependent RIG-I polyubiquitination.

(PDF)

S8 Fig. LSD1 interacts with RIG-I independent of TRIM25.

(PDF)

S9 Fig. Effects of Lsd1-deficiency on RIG-I signaling in murine primary cells.

(PDF)

S10 Fig. Lsd1 Is Required for Rig-i-Mediated Innate Immune Response in mice.

(PDF)

S1 Table. List of primers for qPCR.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We appreciate Dr. Hong-Bing Shu of Wuhan University for sharing reagents and project discussion.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2016YFA0502100) (MW), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (MW), National Natural Science Foundation of China to MW (31771503 and 81972647) and LL (31670874), Science and Technology Department of Hubei Province of China (2017ACA095) (MW). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sun L, Liu S, Chen ZJ. SnapShot: pathways of antiviral innate immunity. Cell. 2010;140(3):436–e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kugelberg E. Pattern recognition receptors: curbing gut inflammation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2014;14(9):583. doi: 10.1038/nri3735 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Takeuchi O, Akira S. Pattern recognition receptors and inflammation. Cell. 2010;140(6):805–20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Loo YM, Gale M Jr. Immune signaling by RIG-I-like receptors. Immunity. 2011;34(5):680–92. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Seth RB, Sun L, Chen ZJ. Antiviral innate immunity pathways. Cell Res. 2006;16(2):141–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.cr.7310019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yoneyama M, Onomoto K, Jogi M, Akaboshi T, Fujita T. Viral RNA detection by RIG-I-like receptors. Curr Opin Immunol. 2015;32C:48–53. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2014.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fitzgerald ME, Rawling DC, Vela A, Pyle AM. An evolving arsenal: viral RNA detection by RIG-I-like receptors. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2014;20:76–81. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2014.05.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hornung V, Ellegast J, Kim S, Brzózka K, Jung A, Kato H, et al. 5’-Triphosphate RNA is the ligand for RIG-I. Science (New York, NY). 2006;314(5801):994–7. doi: 10.1126/science.1132505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pichlmair A, Schulz O, Tan CP, Näslund TI, Liljeström P, Weber F, et al. RIG-I-mediated antiviral responses to single-stranded RNA bearing 5’-phosphates. Science (New York, NY). 2006;314(5801):997–1001. doi: 10.1126/science.1132998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schlee M, Roth A, Hornung V, Hagmann CA, Wimmenauer V, Barchet W, et al. Recognition of 5’ triphosphate by RIG-I helicase requires short blunt double-stranded RNA as contained in panhandle of negative-strand virus. Immunity. 2009;31(1):25–34. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2009.05.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Xu LG, Wang YY, Han KJ, Li LY, Zhai Z, Shu HB. VISA is an adapter protein required for virus-triggered IFN-beta signaling. Molecular cell. 2005;19(6):727–40. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.08.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sun Q, Sun L, Liu HH, Chen X, Seth RB, Forman J, et al. The specific and essential role of MAVS in antiviral innate immune responses. Immunity. 2006;24(5):633–42. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2006.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Meylan E, Curran J, Hofmann K, Moradpour D, Binder M, Bartenschlager R, et al. Cardif is an adaptor protein in the RIG-I antiviral pathway and is targeted by hepatitis C virus. Nature. 2005;437(7062):1167–72. doi: 10.1038/nature04193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kawai T, Takahashi K, Sato S, Coban C, Kumar H, Kato H, et al. IPS-1, an adaptor triggering RIG-I- and Mda5-mediated type I interferon induction. Nat Immunol. 2005;6(10):981–8. doi: 10.1038/ni1243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Corn JE, Vucic D. Ubiquitin in inflammation: the right linkage makes all the difference. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2014;21(4):297–300. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wang YY, Ran Y, Shu HB. Linear ubiquitination of NEMO brakes the antiviral response. Cell Host Microbe. 2012;12(2):129–31. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2012.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Liu S, Chen J, Cai X, Wu J, Chen X, Wu YT, et al. MAVS recruits multiple ubiquitin E3 ligases to activate antiviral signaling cascades. eLife. 2013;2:e00785. doi: 10.7554/eLife.00785 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lei CQ, Zhong B, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Wang S, Shu HB. Glycogen synthase kinase 3β regulates IRF3 transcription factor-mediated antiviral response via activation of the kinase TBK1. Immunity. 2010;33(6):878–89. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2010.11.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu J, Qian C, Cao X. Post-Translational Modification Control of Innate Immunity. Immunity. 2016;45(1):15–30. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.06.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kumar R, Mehta D, Mishra N, Nayak D. Role of Host-Mediated Post-Translational Modifications (PTMs) in RNA Virus Pathogenesis. 2020;22(1). doi: 10.3390/ijms22010323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhou Y, He C, Wang L, Ge B. Post-translational regulation of antiviral innate signaling. 2017;47(9):1414–26. doi: 10.1002/eji.201746959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Liu S, Cai X, Wu J, Cong Q, Chen X, Li T, et al. Phosphorylation of innate immune adaptor proteins MAVS, STING, and TRIF induces IRF3 activation. Science (New York, NY). 2015;347(6227):aaa2630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Maelfait J, Beyaert R. Emerging role of ubiquitination in antiviral RIG-I signaling. Microbiology and molecular biology reviews: MMBR. 2012;76(1):33–45. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.05012-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Okamoto M, Kouwaki T, Fukushima Y, Oshiumi H. Regulation of RIG-I Activation by K63-Linked Polyubiquitination. Frontiers in immunology. 2017;8:1942. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01942 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gack MU, Shin YC, Joo CH, Urano T, Liang C, Sun L, et al. TRIM25 RING-finger E3 ubiquitin ligase is essential for RIG-I-mediated antiviral activity. Nature. 2007;446(7138):916–20. doi: 10.1038/nature05732 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bu L, Wang H, Hou P, Guo S, He M, Xiao J, et al. The Ubiquitin E3 Ligase Parkin Inhibits Innate Antiviral Immunity Through K48-Linked Polyubiquitination of RIG-I and MDA5. Frontiers in immunology. 2020;11:1926. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Arimoto K, Takahashi H, Hishiki T, Konishi H, Fujita T, Shimotohno K. Negative regulation of the RIG-I signaling by the ubiquitin ligase RNF125. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(18):7500–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611551104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cui J, Song Y, Li Y, Zhu Q, Tan P, Qin Y, et al. USP3 inhibits type I interferon signaling by deubiquitinating RIG-I-like receptors. Cell research. 2014;24(4):400–16. doi: 10.1038/cr.2013.170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wang L, Zhao W, Zhang M, Wang P, Zhao K, Zhao X, et al. USP4 positively regulates RIG-I-mediated antiviral response through deubiquitination and stabilization of RIG-I. Journal of virology. 2013;87(8):4507–15. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00031-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gao D, Yang YK, Wang RP, Zhou X, Diao FC, Li MD, et al. REUL is a novel E3 ubiquitin ligase and stimulator of retinoic-acid-inducible gene-I. PLoS One. 2009;4(6):e5760. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hayman TJ, Hsu AC. RIPLET, and not TRIM25, is required for endogenous RIG-I-dependent antiviral responses. 2019;97(9):840–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Oshiumi H, Matsumoto M, Hatakeyama S, Seya T. Riplet/RNF135, a RING finger protein, ubiquitinates RIG-I to promote interferon-beta induction during the early phase of viral infection. The Journal of biological chemistry. 2009;284(2):807–17. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M804259200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yan J, Li Q, Mao AP, Hu MM, Shu HB. TRIM4 modulates type I interferon induction and cellular antiviral response by targeting RIG-I for K63-linked ubiquitination. J Mol Cell Biol. 2014;6(2):154–63. doi: 10.1093/jmcb/mju005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Friedman CS, O’Donnell MA, Legarda-Addison D, Ng A, Cárdenas WB, Yount JS, et al. The tumour suppressor CYLD is a negative regulator of RIG-I-mediated antiviral response. EMBO reports. 2008;9(9):930–6. doi: 10.1038/embor.2008.136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lee MG, Wynder C, Cooch N, Shiekhattar R. An essential role for CoREST in nucleosomal histone 3 lysine 4 demethylation. Nature. 2005;437(7057):432–5. doi: 10.1038/nature04021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Forneris F, Binda C, Vanoni MA, Mattevi A, Battaglioli E. Histone demethylation catalysed by LSD1 is a flavin-dependent oxidative process. FEBS letters. 2005;579(10):2203–7. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2005.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shi Y, Lan F, Matson C, Mulligan P, Whetstine JR, Cole PA, et al. Histone demethylation mediated by the nuclear amine oxidase homolog LSD1. Cell. 2004;119(7):941–53. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2004.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Metzger E, Wissmann M, Yin N, Muller JM, Schneider R, Peters AH, et al. LSD1 demethylates repressive histone marks to promote androgen-receptor-dependent transcription. Nature. 2005;437(7057):436–9. doi: 10.1038/nature04020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hatzi K, Geng H, Doane AS, Meydan C, LaRiviere R, Cardenas M, et al. Histone demethylase LSD1 is required for germinal center formation and BCL6-driven lymphomagenesis. 2019;20(1):86–96. doi: 10.1038/s41590-018-0273-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Shan J, Zhao B, Shan Z, Nie J, Deng R, Xiong R, et al. Histone demethylase LSD1 restricts influenza A virus infection by erasing IFITM3-K88 monomethylation. PLoS pathogens. 2017;13(12):e1006773. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006773 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ambrosio S, Ballabio A. Histone methyl-transferases and demethylases in the autophagy regulatory network: the emerging role of KDM1A/LSD1 demethylase. 2019;15(2):187–96. doi: 10.1080/15548627.2018.1520546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wang Z, Long QY, Chen L, Fan JD, Wang ZN, Li LY, et al. Inhibition of H3K4 demethylation induces autophagy in cancer cell lines. Biochimica et biophysica acta Molecular cell research. 2017;1864(12):2428–37. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2017.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hill JM, Quenelle DC, Cardin RD, Vogel JL, Clement C, Bravo FJ, et al. Inhibition of LSD1 reduces herpesvirus infection, shedding, and recurrence by promoting epigenetic suppression of viral genomes. Science Translational Medicine. 2014;6(265):265ra169–265ra169. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3010643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Sheng W, LaFleur MW, Nguyen TH, Chen S, Chakravarthy A, Conway JR, et al. LSD1 Ablation Stimulates Anti-tumor Immunity and Enables Checkpoint Blockade. Cell. 2018;174(3):549–63 e19. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Leiendecker L, Jung PS. LSD1 inhibition induces differentiation and cell death in Merkel cell carcinoma. 2020;12(11):e12525. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202012525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Egolf S, Aubert Y, Doepner M, Anderson A, Maldonado-Lopez A, Pacella G, et al. LSD1 Inhibition Promotes Epithelial Differentiation through Derepression of Fate-Determining Transcription Factors. Cell reports. 2019;28(8):1981–92.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.07.058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ambrosio S, Saccà CD, Amente S, Paladino S, Lania L, Majello B. Lysine-specific demethylase LSD1 regulates autophagy in neuroblastoma through SESN2-dependent pathway. Oncogene. 2017;36(48):6701–11. doi: 10.1038/onc.2017.267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Park DE, Cheng J, McGrath JP, Lim MY, Cushman C, Swanson SK, et al. Merkel cell polyomavirus activates LSD1-mediated blockade of non-canonical BAF to regulate transformation and tumorigenesis. 2020;22(5):603–15. doi: 10.1038/s41556-020-0503-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Anastas JN, Zee BM, Kalin JH, Kim M, Guo R, Alexandrescu S, et al. Re-programing Chromatin with a Bifunctional LSD1/HDAC Inhibitor Induces Therapeutic Differentiation in DIPG. Cancer cell. 2019;36(5):528–44.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Amini-Bavil-Olyaee S, Choi YJ, Lee JH, Shi M, Huang IC, Farzan M, et al. The antiviral effector IFITM3 disrupts intracellular cholesterol homeostasis to block viral entry. Cell host & microbe. 2013;13(4):452–64. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2013.03.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Stacey MA, Clare S, Clement M, Marsden M, Abdul-Karim J, Kane L, et al. The antiviral restriction factor IFN-induced transmembrane protein 3 prevents cytokine-driven CMV pathogenesis. The Journal of clinical investigation. 2017;127(4):1463–74. doi: 10.1172/JCI84889 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Everitt AR, Clare S, Pertel T, John SP, Wash RS, Smith SE, et al. IFITM3 restricts the morbidity and mortality associated with influenza. Nature. 2012;484(7395):519–23. doi: 10.1038/nature10921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wu M, Xu LG, Zhai Z, Shu HB. SINK is a p65-interacting negative regulator of NF-kappaB-dependent transcription. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(29):27072–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M209814200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ju LG, Zhu Y, Lei PJ, Yan D, Zhu K, Wang X, et al. TTLL12 Inhibits the Activation of Cellular Antiviral Signaling through Interaction with VISA/MAVS. Journal of immunology. 2017;198(3):1274–84. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zhu K, Wang X, Ju LG, Zhu Y, Yao J, Wang Y, et al. WDR82 Negatively Regulates Cellular Antiviral Response by Mediating TRAF3 Polyubiquitination in Multiple Cell Lines. Journal of immunology. 2015;195(11):5358–66. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1500339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tseng PH, Matsuzawa A, Zhang W, Mino T, Vignali DA, Karin M. Different modes of ubiquitination of the adaptor TRAF3 selectively activate the expression of type I interferons and proinflammatory cytokines. Nat Immunol. 2010;11(1):70–5. doi: 10.1038/ni.1819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Zhong B, Zhang Y, Tan B, Liu TT, Wang YY, Shu HB. The E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF5 targets virus-induced signaling adaptor for ubiquitination and degradation. Journal of immunology. 2010;184(11):6249–55. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0903748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Li S, Zheng H, Mao AP, Zhong B, Li Y, Liu Y, et al. Regulation of virus-triggered signaling by OTUB1- and OTUB2-mediated deubiquitination of TRAF3 and TRAF6. The Journal of biological chemistry. 2010;285(7):4291–7. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.074971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Qin Y, Zhou MT, Hu MM, Hu YH, Zhang J, Guo L, et al. RNF26 temporally regulates virus-triggered type I interferon induction by two distinct mechanisms. PLoS pathogens. 2014;10(9):e1004358. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zhong B, Zhang L, Lei C, Li Y, Mao AP, Yang Y, et al. The ubiquitin ligase RNF5 regulates antiviral responses by mediating degradation of the adaptor protein MITA. Immunity. 2009;30(3):397–407. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2009.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Oshiumi H, Miyashita M, Matsumoto M, Seya T. A distinct role of Riplet-mediated K63-Linked polyubiquitination of the RIG-I repressor domain in human antiviral innate immune responses. PLoS pathogens. 2013;9(8):e1003533. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Huang J, Sengupta R, Espejo AB, Lee MG, Dorsey JA, Richter M, et al. p53 is regulated by the lysine demethylase LSD1. Nature. 2007;449(7158):105–8. doi: 10.1038/nature06092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kim SA, Zhu J, Yennawar N, Eek P, Tan S. Crystal Structure of the LSD1/CoREST Histone Demethylase Bound to Its Nucleosome Substrate. Mol Cell. 2020;78(5):903–14 e4. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.04.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Lee MG, Wynder C, Bochar DA, Hakimi MA, Cooch N, Shiekhattar R. Functional interplay between histone demethylase and deacetylase enzymes. Mol Cell Biol. 2006;26(17):6395–402. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00723-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Gu F, Lin Y, Wang Z, Wu X, Ye Z, Wang Y, et al. Biological roles of LSD1 beyond its demethylase activity. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2020;77(17):3341–50. doi: 10.1007/s00018-020-03489-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jing-hsiung James Ou, Stacy M Horner

18 May 2021

Dear Dr. Wu,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Histone demethylase LSD1 promotes RIG-I poly-ubiquitination and anti-viral gene expression" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

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

Sincerely,

Stacy M Horner

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Jing-hsiung James Ou

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

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

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

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

Reviewer #1: The manuscript by Hu et al. reports the identification of histone demethylase LSD1 as a positive regulator of the RIG-I signaling pathway. Silencing and ectopic expression of LSD1 confirmed its role in regulating antiviral ISG/cytokine responses and VSV replication. Biochemical evidence showed that LSD1 interacted with RIG-I and promoted its K63-linked polyubiquitination, and this effect was independent of its demethylase activity and was likely due to promoting interaction between RIG-I and E3 ligases, particularly TRIM25. Lastly, the role of LSD1 in the regulation of cytokine responses and viral replication in vivo was corroborated by using VSV challenge of myeloid cell lineage conditional KO mice.

The manuscript extends the antiviral function of LSD1 to RLR-mediated innate immune responses and presents a good amount of data exploring the potential mechanism by which LSD1 regulates RIG-I. The study is expected to be of high interest to the field. However, some of the mechanistic insights are obscured by an abundance of negative data that were likely due to overexpression artifacts and are difficult to interpret. Therefore, a defined role for LSD1 in regulating RIG-I-mediated antiviral innate immunity should be further strengthened by additional experiments.

Reviewer #2: RIG-I is one of the central innate immune sensors of invading RNA (and some DNA) viruses. Tri (or di) phosphorylated RNA produced upon viral infection is recognized by RIG-I and a signaling cascade ultimately leading to the induction of type-I IFNs (via IRF3/NF-kB) and other pro-inflammatory cytokines (NF-kB) is initiated. For full activation of RIG-I it has to be post-translationally modified by K63-linked ubiquitination, which is mediated by e.g. TRIM25, RNF135, TRIM4 and/or MEX3C.

In this manuscript Hu and co-authors propose that the methyltransferase LSD1 positively regulates RIG-I signaling by enhancing the interaction of RIG-I with the E3 ligase TRIM25, which promotes K63-linked polyubiquitination and the interaction with MAVS/VISA. Accordingly, LSD1 overexpression increases SeV/poly(I:C)-induced expression of antiviral genes and inhibits replication of VSV. Knockdown experiments show the opposite effect, which was also confirmed in LSD1-deficient mice. Further, the function of LSD1 is not dependent on its methylase activity.

In summary, in an updated version this manuscript would provide novel and interesting insight into the regulation of the innate immunity sensor RIG-I. The study is well planned, defines a phenotype and novel (albeit moderate) regulator of RLR signaling -that is relevant in vivo- but the mechanistic analyses fall short and do not (yet) support the main conclusions.

Reviewer #3: The authors of this manuscript found that the histone demethylase LSD1 could interact with RIG-I, and that knockdown of LSD1 expression reduced poly(I:C) or SeV-induced IFN-beta and ISG production. In addition, overexpression of LSD1 enhanced the K63-ubiquitination of RIG-I. The authors also showed that LSD1 could be involved in the interaction between RIG-I and TRIM25. Finally, the research applied conditional LSD1 knockout mice to demonstrate the role of LSD1 in IFN-beta and antiviral response. The findings of this research are quite interesting in the research field of innate immune response. Although the authors provided many biochemical evidences to correlate LSD1 and RIG-I activation in the manuscript, several points should be further clarified before drawing the conclusion.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

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

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

Reviewer #1: 1. The silencing effect of LSD siRNA was marginal in Fig 2B (and, in fact, in many other panels), though there seemed to be a statistically significant phenotype on VSV replication (Fig 2C). Is this related to the cell type (293T) used in which endogenous LSD1 was hard to deplete? Have the authors tried other cell types such as lung epithelial cells or fibroblasts that are also more physiologically relevant to VSV infection? It appears that the entire study, except for the ex vivo data in Fig 6, was performed in HEK 293T cells. The data on the phenotype on cytokine induction and viral replication should be confirmed using at least one more relevant cell type, such as A549 cells, or primary cells preferably.

2. In Fig 4, the potentiating effect of LSD1 on RIG-I polyubiquitination was only examined in the context of LSD1 overexpression, which should be validated by LSD1 silencing. Specifically, since LSD1 interacted strongly with the 2CARD (Fig 3F), which is known to undergo robust K63-linked polyubiquitination without the requirement of Ub overexpression, the silencing experiment should be preferentially conducted using the 2CARD construct. For mapping ubiquitination sites in the context of LSD1 overexpression (Fig 4F), the experimental setting should include key E3 ligase co-expression (or stimulation with a RIG-I ligand), as there was essentially not even a difference between the WT and nKR mutants in ubiquitination levels in the absence of LSD1. In addition to the nKR controls, the focus should be placed on K172R and K788R as both sites are the major ubiquitination sites by TRIM25 and Riplet, respectively (Gack et al. 2007; Oshiumi et al. 2013). A limiting concentration of LSD1 might also have to be experimentally determined so that it does not overwhelm the system thereby masking any effect on the KR mutants (see also point #5).

3. The data in Fig 5G are somewhat misleading as WT RIG-I was the least ubiquitinated compared to other KR mutants; samples should be loaded on the same gel for an unbiased comparison. Nevertheless, Fig 5G does clearly point to TRIM25 as the LSD1 target and the K172 as the major site of ubiquitination promoted by LSD1. However, how do these data reconcile with that in Fig 4F then? As the authors were proposing an interesting model where LSD1 potentially bridges the interaction between TRIM25 and RIG-I, additional data showing that LSD1 can sensitize a limiting amount of TRIM25 to catalyze RIG-I ubiquitination to a similar level as does a high concentration of TRIM25 only would further strengthen their proposed model.

Reviewer #2: In general, the effects of LSD1 are very moderate. The authors could consider using LSD1 KO cells, if feasible for their experiments.

Fig. 3: LSD1 was described as mainly, if not exclusively nuclear. How is an association with the cytoplasmic RIG-I/TRIM25 complex rationalized? The authors need to show that in a cell LSD1/RIG-I/TRIM25 can be found in a similar localization. This issue has to be addressed experimentally.

Fig. 4A: Ubiquitination of RIG-I is dramatically increased by LSD1 expression; however, it seems to not activate RIG-I as in cells overexpression of LSD1 does not stimulate ISG expression. Compare also Fig. 5C. Can the authors explain why this is the case, and whether the ubiquitination of RIG-I they observe then even contributes to RIG-I activation?

Fig 4E/F and text lines 255-256: Text and Fig 4E and 4F are not consistent. 4E: It does not look like LSD1 promotes Flag-CARD ubiquitination, the levels seem to be equal with and without LSD1. In contrast 4F indicates that LSD1 ubiquitinates CARD (3KR) and dCARD (5KR) to comparable levels. How do the authors explain that the classically by TRIM25 ubiquitinated lysines can be removed and still enhanced ubiquitination is observed for LSD1 overexpression if its mechanism is TRIM25 dependent? Fig. 4E: How can ubiquitination of RIG-IdCARD be promoted if RIG-IdCARD does not interact with LSD1? The passage in the manuscript (lines 255/256) states that 4E is consistent with the IP from Fig 3F, which is not the case. The current inconsistencies suggest to me that the proposed mechanism is not completely correct. The authors need to provide more evidence to support their conclusions and explain why some of the current data is not supporting this hypothesis. For example: In TRIM25KO cells, does LSD1 still promote ubiquitination of RIG-I? Is the RIG-I/TRIM25/LSD1 complex formed in the absence of RIG-I ubiquitination (e.g. using the 8R mutant).

Fig. 4: For all ubiquitination assays please show the input myc (ubiquitin) blots. This is mandatory to exclude differences in the input levels that could affect the IP.

Reviewer #3: 1. The authors showed that the expression of IFN-beta and ISGs was changed by knockdown or overexpression of LSD1 in the Figure 1. However, it cannot conclude that “LSD1 plays an important role in promoting RIG-I signaling” (line 194) from the results. From this part of the results, it can only conclude that LSD1 is involved in regulation of IFN-beta and ISG expression.

2. From the results in Figure 3, the authors could only conclude that LSD1 could affect TBK1 and IRF3 phosphorylation, not really “functions upstream of TBK1” (lines 214-215), unless the authors determine the LSD1’s role in IFN-beta expression under TBK1 overexpression.

3. The results showed that the endogenous LSD1 interacts with RIG-I even at “0 h” after SeV infection (Fig. 3D, lane 2). Does this mean that endogenous LSD1 could interact with RIG-I and facilitate RIG-I K63 ubiquitination/activation without any stimulation? However, overexpression of LSD1 itself seems not to activate IFN-beta (Fig. 1F). The authors have to explain the controversial results.

4. The results for determining the region of LSD1 for RIG-I interaction showed that multiple regions in LSD1 can interact with the RIG-I (Fig. 3H). Does overexpression of each LSD1 construct (B-E) enhance IFN-beta/ISG expression under poly(I:C) or SeV stimulation and suppress viral replication?

5. The construct B of the truncated LSD1 interacts with RIG-I well (Fig. 3H). However, the truncated LSD1 does not enhance much K63 ubiquitination (Fig. 4G). The authors should explain this phenomenon.

6. The conclusion described in lines 229-230 should be modified, unless the authors can map the site in LSD1 for RIG-I interaction and show that the RIG-I binding site mutant of LSD1 loses the ability for stimulating RIG-I polyubiquitination.

7. In the Fig. 4E, the overexpression of LSD1 did not enhance polyubiquitiation of RIG-I-CARDs (Fig 4E, lane 1 vs 2). It has been known that the ubiquitination of K172 in RIG-I CARDs is mainly mediated by TRIM25. The result showed that LSD1 could interact with TRIM25 (Fig. 5D and E). Why LSD1 overexpression did not enhance polyubiquitiation of RIG-I-CARDs?

8. In Supp Fig. 1C, the knockdown efficiency of LSD1 looks perfect (no LSD1 was detected in lanes 3 and 4), not like in the Fig. 1C, 2B and 3A. However, the reduction of SeV-activated IFN-beta/ISG expression looks similar. The authors may have to perform a dose-dependent experiment (knockdown or overexpression of LSD1) to conclude that LSD1 is involved in regulation of IFN activation.

9. In the Fig. 5F, the knockdown efficiency was around 50%. However, the TRIM25-RIG-I interaction was almost abolished (lane 5 vs 6). Could the authors explain it?

10. The authors might show the localization of LSD1 and RIG-I in cells upon SeV infection to demonstrate these proteins can be colocalized in the physiological condition.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

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

Reviewer #1: 1. It is quite clear from the data that LSD1, by silencing or overexpression, affected IFN/ISG expression (Fig 1). However, whether this effect was through specific regulation of RIG-I was insufficiently proven. Silencing LSD1 upon RIG-I or MDA5 overexpression should be performed to determine specificity. Relating to this point, in Fig 3C, MDA5 or MAVS should be included as controls to confirm RIG-I specificity.

2. From the mapping data in Fig 3F, the conclusion in lines 225-227 stating LSD1 interacted weakly with ΔCARD seems incorrect. Full-length RIG-I, despite being expressed more than ΔCARD, bound even lesser to LSD1. How to explain this?

3. The ex vivo and in vivo data in Fig 6 convincingly show the antiviral effect of LSD1. It would be nice if the authors could perform additional data to link these data to RIG-I/TRIM25, for example by performing 1 experiment in cells from these mice. Moreover, why was the tail-intravenous route chosen over intranasal for VSV challenge? Were there any data on animal survival?

Reviewer #2: Fig. 2B/5F: the LSD1 KD efficacy is relatively low and varies a lot, please quantify for 3 independent replicates.

Fig. 2B Please remove the panel or at least add a VSV protein, not just GFP.

Fig. 2 It would have been more convincing if a second virus would have been included.

Fig3 A and B: Please quantify the levels of p-IRF3/IRF3 and p-TBK1/TBK1 of 3 independent experiments

Fig. 3C: How can the authors say specifically, if only RIG-I was tested, was a larger panel checked?

Fig 3F: Indicate that HA-LSD1 was overexpressed. Further, the LSD1 Input is not equal.

How can you explain that LSD1 interacts with Flag-CARD, but not the full-length RIG-I? Please at least address and discuss.

Fig 4E/F: Please quantify the ubiquitination levels of 3 independent experiments.

Fig 4B: Please use another replicate where the actin level of the (-) K63 lane are not drastically lower

Fig 5F: It seems like HA-RNF135 decreases LSD1 expression (there is nearly no LSD1 detectable in the Input). Was this effect observed in all 3 experiments or was it just observed on this occasion?

Fig. 5F: Bubble in blot at the crucial band, has to be replaced in a final version.

Fig. 6: Show survival of mice when challenged.

Abstract line 25: RIG-I stands for retinoic acid-inducible gene I and not for retinoic acid-inducible I gene receptor

Line 332: Lsd1 - LSD1

Line 340: Tbk1, Irf3 - TBK1, IRF3

Line 651: rig.i, Lsd1 - RIG-I, LSD1

Please improve the consistency of the manuscript. Sometimes the IPs are labeled as IP: Flag (e.g. Fig 4D) and sometimes as Flag IP (e.g Fig 4F), qPCRs are labelled with either IFNB1.. (e.g Fig. 1) or Ifnb1…- (e.g Fig 6, Fig S3), WBs with either p-IRF3 (e.g. Fig 3) or p-Irf3 (e.g. Fig S3).

Please remove the overstatements in line 196, line 176

Reviewer #3: 1. The materials and methods of the manuscript were not described clearly:

(1) The Sendai virus and GFP-tagged VSV were used in the research, but there is no description in the materials and methods. How much SeV was used for stimulation? How was the GFP-VSV generated or obtained?

(2) The source or reference for the siRNA library was not mentioned in the text.

(3) The reference for calcium phosphate transfection is suggested to be added.

(4) What kind of poly(I:C) was used in the research?

2. In the Fig. 5D, two bands were detected for TRIM25, as marked by the authors. Could the authors explain it?

3. The authors should denote what the Myc-Ub-K63O is in the legends of Fig. 4E and Fig. 5G.

**********

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

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here on PLOS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

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

Decision Letter 1

Jing-hsiung James Ou, Stacy M Horner

19 Aug 2021

Dear Dr. Wu,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Histone demethylase LSD1 promotes RIG-I poly-ubiquitination and anti-viral gene expression" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on your response to the first round of reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to our recommendations, indicated here.

(1) Much of the data provided in the response to reviewers is quite compelling, and I would suggest that it should be shown in the manuscript or supplemental data as it increases the rigor, significance, and impact. Specifically, I would suggest including Response Figure 1, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10.

(2) In addition, please add a discussion of how the cytoplasmic RIG-I and the often nuclear LSD1 could be interacting to the discussion. I don’t think that you need to show the data of Response Figure 6, just describe what might be happening or that you acknowledge that its perplexing and/or interesting.

(3) A discussion of how binding and ubiquitination of RIG-I by LSD1 are two separate events should be included, either in the results (lines 290) or as a point in the discussion, as this important point could be confusing to some.

(4) Thank you for including the quantifications in Fig. 2B, 3A, 3B, 4E, 4F, 5F. Please show the SD of the quantifications of all three replicates to give the reader an idea of the variation among replicates (for example, 0.63-/+ .2).

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the editorial comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

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

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

Sincerely,

Stacy M Horner

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Jing-hsiung James Ou

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

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

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

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

References:

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.

Decision Letter 2

Jing-hsiung James Ou, Stacy M Horner

26 Aug 2021

Dear Dr. Wu,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Histone demethylase LSD1 promotes RIG-I poly-ubiquitination and anti-viral gene expression' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

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

Best regards,

Stacy M Horner

Associate Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Jing-hsiung James Ou

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

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

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Acceptance letter

Jing-hsiung James Ou, Stacy M Horner

1 Sep 2021

Dear Dr. Wu,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Histone demethylase LSD1 promotes RIG-I poly-ubiquitination and anti-viral gene expression," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

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

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. LSD1 regulates IFNB1 expression in A549 cells.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. LSD1 is not involved in IFNB1 expression activated by EMCV.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Functional studies of LSD1 truncations.

    (PDF)

    S4 Fig. Functions of LSD1 truncations.

    (PDF)

    S5 Fig. LSD1’s function is independent of demethylase activity.

    (PDF)

    S6 Fig. LSD1 interacts with ubiquitin E3 ligases of RIG-I.

    (PDF)

    S7 Fig. LSD1 mediates TRIM25-dependent RIG-I polyubiquitination.

    (PDF)

    S8 Fig. LSD1 interacts with RIG-I independent of TRIM25.

    (PDF)

    S9 Fig. Effects of Lsd1-deficiency on RIG-I signaling in murine primary cells.

    (PDF)

    S10 Fig. Lsd1 Is Required for Rig-i-Mediated Innate Immune Response in mice.

    (PDF)

    S1 Table. List of primers for qPCR.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rev2 letter to Editors.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES