Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0268149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268149

Monoallelic variants resulting in substitutions of MAB21L1 Arg51 Cause Aniridia and microphthalmia

Hildegard Nikki Hall 1,#, Hemant Bengani 1,#, Robert B Hufnagel 2, Giuseppe Damante 3, Morad Ansari 4, Joseph A Marsh 1, Graeme R Grimes 1, Alex von Kriegsheim 1, David Moore 4, Lisa McKie 1, Jamalia Rahmat 5, Catia Mio 3, Moira Blyth 6, Wee Teik Keng 7, Lily Islam 8, Meriel McEntargart 9, Marcel M Mannens 10, Veronica Van Heyningen 1, Joe Rainger 11,, Brian P Brooks 2,, David R FitzPatrick 1,*
Editor: Anand Swaroop12
PMCID: PMC9681113  PMID: 36413568

Abstract

Classical aniridia is a congenital and progressive panocular disorder almost exclusively caused by heterozygous loss-of-function variants at the PAX6 locus. We report nine individuals from five families with severe aniridia and/or microphthalmia (with no detectable PAX6 mutation) with ultrarare monoallelic missense variants altering the Arg51 codon of MAB21L1. These mutations occurred de novo in 3/5 families, with the remaining families being compatible with autosomal dominant inheritance. Mice engineered to carry the p.Arg51Leu change showed a highly-penetrant optic disc anomaly in heterozygous animals with severe microphthalmia in homozygotes. Substitutions of the same codon (Arg51) in MAB21L2, a close homolog of MAB21L1, cause severe ocular and skeletal malformations in humans and mice. The predicted nucleotidyltransferase function of MAB21L1 could not be demonstrated using purified protein with a variety of nucleotide substrates and oligonucleotide activators. Induced expression of GFP-tagged wildtype and mutant MAB21L1 in human cells caused only modest transcriptional changes. Mass spectrometry of immunoprecipitated protein revealed that both mutant and wildtype MAB21L1 associate with transcription factors that are known regulators of PAX6 (MEIS1, MEIS2 and PBX1) and with poly(A) RNA binding proteins. Arg51 substitutions reduce the association of wild-type MAB21L1 with TBL1XR1, a component of the NCoR complex. We found limited evidence for mutation-specific interactions with MSI2/Musashi-2, an RNA-binding proteins with effects on many different developmental pathways. Given that biallelic loss-of-function variants in MAB21L1 result in a milder eye phenotype we suggest that Arg51-altering monoallelic variants most plausibly perturb eye development via a gain-of-function mechanism.

Introduction

The gene mab-21 was identified through its ability to rescue the Caenorhabditis elegans male abnormal 21 mutants, characterised by a homeotic transformation of the male-specific peripheral sense organs [1]. 11 human paralogs of mab-21 have been identified each with a nucleotidyltransferase domain [2]. The best studied, CGAS [MIM 613973], functions in the innate immune system as a sensor of aberrant cytosolic DNA. The binding of short dsDNA induces a conformation change that activates enzymatic production of a cyclic dinucleotide which then functions as a second messenger in the interferon response cascade [3].

The mab-21 paralog, MAB21L1 [MIM 601280], is a single exon gene located in an intron of NBEA [MIM 604889] which is transcribed on the opposite strand. Biallelic loss-of-function mutations in MAB21L1 cause a developmental disorder characterized by corneal dystrophy, microcephaly, cerebellar hypoplasia and genital anomalies [MIM 618479] [4,5]. The carrier parents of affected individuals were reported to be normal. Mab21l1 null mice are viable but show severe bilateral microphthalmia with a small malformed lens and absence of the iris and ciliary body [PMID 12642482]. Null mice also show delayed calvarial development and male infertility with hypoplasia of the preputial glands [6,7]. Heterozygous mice apparently normal. Homozygosity for an early frameshift mutation in zebrafish mab21l1 resulted in a late embryonic degeneration of the cornea and subsequently the lens [PMID 33570754]. The crystal structure of MAB21L1 indicates a cGAS-like capacity for catalytic activation via ligand binding although both the oligonucleotide activator and the nucleotide product are currently unknown [8].

We and others have previously reported heterozygous de novo missense mutations in MAB21L2 [MIM 604357], the closest human homolog of MAB21L1, associated with severe bilateral eye malformations and skeletal anomalies [MIM 615877] [911]. These variants altered Arg51 with the most severe phenotype associated with Arg51Cys substitutions. A mouse model of this genotype resulted in a phenotype that recapitulated the human disease [12]. Mab21l2 null mice have severe eye malformations and body wall defects with heterozygous null mice being normal [13].

Here we report monoallelic missense variants that are absent for gnomAD and result in substitution of Arg51 or, in a single case, Phe52 residues of MAB21L1 in families with severe aniridia [MIM 106210], a phenotype associated with monoallelic mutations in PAX6 [MIM 607108], and/or microphthalmia. An apparently unrelated family has been recently reported with a heterozygous missense variant in MAB21L1 identical to one that we have identified (c.152G>T p.(Arg51Leu)) associated with microphthalmia and aniridia [14] which provides strong support for the genotype-phenotype association. We present a mouse model of one of these mutations and study the effect of the mutant proteins on the transcriptome and protein interactome using inducible expression of tagged protein in human cells. The results are most consistent with a gain-of-function effect in Arg51-substituted MAB21L1 during embryogenesis.

Materials and methods

Recruitment, consent and mutation analysis

This project used clinical information and biological samples from individuals referred to the Medical Research Council (MRC) Human Genetics Unit Eye Malformation Study. Informed written consent for research was obtained from all families. This cohort was collected and maintained using protocols approved by the Scotland A UK Multicentre Research Ethics Committee, references 06/MRE00/76 and 16/SS/0201. The causative variants were identified using a combination of sequencing approaches: whole exome analysis and candidate gene panel sequencing in the Wellcome Sanger Institute as part of the rare disease component of the UK10K project as described [15] and Sanger sequencing (for details see Results and S1 Table in S7 File). Samples from two families were referred following discussions with the corresponding author for clinical testing in the NHS South East Scotland Regional Genetics Services using MiSeq sequencing of a targeted gene panel which included MAB21L1. All variants were validated using Sanger sequencing of PCR products amplified directly from genomic DNA and were nomenclature-confirmed (https://variantvalidator.org/) (S2 Table in S7 File). All variant numbering is based on the human reference sequences GRCh38 NC_000013.11 (genomic, chr13). For each of the missense variants SIFT [16], PolyPhen [17], CADD [18] and REVEL [19] scores were generated using the DECIPHER web tool [20].

Structural analysis of mutations

The effects of missense mutations were modelled using the crystal structure of MAB21L1 (PDB ID: 5EOM) using FoldX 5.0 [21], which was recently shown to be the top-performing method for the identification of pathogenic missense mutations that affect protein stability [22], using all default parameters and averaging over 10 replicates.

Cloning, protein purification and enzymatic assay

Wild-type human MAB21L1 and the substitution p.(Arg51Leu) were amplified from control and patient DNA respectively and cloned in frame into the pGEX 6P1 vector (GE LifeSciences). Purified protein was isolated from induced E. coli strain BL21 cultures as outlined in Supplemental Materials and Methods. Human OAS1 protein was used as a positive control in the enzymatic assay. A colorimetric method was used to quantitate the amount of pyrophosphate (PPi) product released upon completion of the enzymatic reaction as described [23] and detailed in Supplemental Materials and Methods. The resulting chromophore molybdenum blue produced was quantified by spectrophotometry at A580 nm.

Generation and RNA-based analysis of inducible human cell lines

Full-length human MAB21L1 and Arg51Leu and Arg51Gln substituted forms were amplified from the control and patient DNA and cloned downstream of green fluorescence protein (GFP) in the Gateway pcDNA-DEST53 vector according to the manufacturer’s protocol, resulting in an N-terminal fusion protein. Stable cell lines were generated, selected and maintained using Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK)-293 cells with the Flp-In T-REx system (ThermoFisher) according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. Details of the subcellular fractionation and Western blotting procedures are provided in Supplemental Materials and Methods. RNA sequencing used total RNA extracted from two biological replicates of each cell line after 12 hrs of 1 μg/ml tetracycline treatment using the RNeasy kit (QIAGEN). Random primed cDNA from poly(A) selected RNA was converted into an Illumina sequencing library using RNA Library Prep Kit from Illumina (E7420, NEB, USA) in conjunction with NEBNext® Multiplex Oligos for Illumina (E7335/E7500, NEB, USA). and single-end 50-base pair (bp) reads were generated using a NextSeq 500 (Illumina Inc, SY-415-1002). Transcript-level quantitation was performed using Salmon (v0.8.2) against the GRCh38 Ensembl reference transcriptome (release-89). Transcript-level counts were summarized to gene level using the Bioconductor package tximport (v1.4.0). Differential expression analysis was performed with the Bioconductor package DESeq2 (v1.30.0) using the Wald significance tests.

Immunoprecipitation-mass spectrometry

Three biological replicates of HEK-293-Flp-In T-Rex cells tagged with EGFP, EGFP-MAB21L1 or mutant EGFP-MAB21L1 were seeded in T-75 flask in culturing media supplemented with 1 μg/ml tetracycline. Cells were harvested by trypsin-EDTA, washed by PBS after 12 hrs of tetracycline treatment. Cell lysis and GFP pulldown was perform using GFP Tag Immunomagnetic Beads (Sino Biologicals) according to manufacturer instructions. The pull-down beads were subjected to mass spectrometric analysis and raw data was analysed by the MaxQuant and Andromeda software package as described [24], using the pre-selected conditions for analysis (specific proteases, 2 missed cleavages, 7 amino acids minimum length). Detailed Mass Spectrometry analysis is provided in Supplemental Materials and Methods.

Immunoprecipitation-western blotting

HEK-293-Flp-In T-Rex cells tagged with EGFP, EGFP-MAB21L1 or mutant EGFP-MAB21L1 were seeded in T-25 flask in culturing media supplemented with 1 μg/ml tetracycline. Cells were harvested by trypsin-EDTA, washed by PBS after 12 hrs of tetracycline treatment and lysed with Nonidet P-40 lysis buffer (50mM Tris, pH 8.0, 150mM NaCl, 1.0% Nonidet P-40) in the presence of protease inhibitor(Roche Applied Science) For each immunoprecipitation, 400 μl of cell lysate were incubated with anti-TBL1XR1 antibody (ab24550,Abcam) and anti-MSI2 antibody(ab76148,Abcam) for 5 h at 4°C. Then 20 μl of Dynabeads protein A (Thermo Fischer) were added and rotated for 2 h at 4°C. Bound immune complexes were washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline. For immunoprecipitation of GFP-tagged proteins, Cell lysis and GFP pulldown was perform using GFP Tag Immunomagnetic Beads (Sino Biologicals) according to manufacturer instructions. The immune-complexes were analysed by Western blotting.

Generation and phenotyping of mouse model

All mouse work complied with United Kingdom Home Office regulations, with study protocols approved under Home Office project licences (60/4424, P1914806F). CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing methodology was used to introduce a targeted mutation of the Arg51 residue of Mab21l1 in C57BL/6JCrl zygotes. The CRIPSR design and breeding strategy for the colony are detailed further in Supplemental Materials and Methods and S1 Fig. Adult mutant and control mice were examined at 2–3 months of age unless otherwise stated, using; slit lamp bio microscopy, indirect ophthalmoscopy, Icare tonometry (intraocular pressure measurement) and endoscopic fundus imaging, all as described [25]. On fundus images, 2D optic disc size was measured semi-automatically using the Vampire Annotation Tool [26]. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) using Spectralis (Heidelberg Engineering) was performed as described [27]. For histology mice were culled and enucleated eyes were preserved in Davidson’s fixative and then wax embedded, sectioned and stained with Heamatoxylin and Eosin as previously described [28].

Results

Identification of MAB21L1 monoallelic missense variants altering Arg51

As part of the rare disease component of the UK10K Study [15] 384 mostly unrelated individuals with bilateral eye malformations were batch sequenced using a targeted pull-down of 1000 candidate genes, 100 of which had been chosen on the basis of their involvement in eye development. Filtering for rare variants within these 100 genes identified a heterozygous plausible deleterious variant c.152G>A p.(Arg51Gln) in MAB21L1 (ENST00000379919.6:c.152G>A, ENSP00000369251.4:p.Arg51Gln: Sift; Deleterious (0), PolyPhen; Probably damaging (0.999), CADD 30, REVEL 0.542) in a single individual (Family 511: II:1, Fig 1A and 1B) with bilateral profound aniridia and microphthalmia (Table 1, Fig 1C). In this family the eye malformations were inherited as an autosomal dominant disorder and the MAB21L1 variant segregated with the phenotype (Fig 1A and 1C). The same c.152G>A p.(Arg51Gln) variant was identified in an individual referred from south-east Asian (Family 96571: II:1, Fig 1A) for clinical investigation of bilateral, severe microphthalmia (Table 1). This variant was subsequently also identified in an affected brother (Fig 1A). The affected offspring had inherited the variant from their unaffected mosaic father (Fig 1A, Table 1).

Fig 1. MAB21L1 Arg51 and Phe52 substitution causes microphthalmia and aniridia.

Fig 1

A. Pedigrees are shown for the six families with MAB21L1 variants and bilateral microphthalmia and/or aniridia. The pedigrees are ordered by variant: c.152G>A p.(Arg51Gln) (orange shaded box), c.152G>T p.(Arg51Leu) (green shaded box), c.152G>C p.(Arg51Pro) (yellow shaded box) and c.155T>G p.(Arg52Cys) (pink shaded box). A key to the pedigree symbols is shown to the left (grey shaded box). B. A schematic of MAB21L1 represented as a linear bar and with the first and last amino acid residue numbered. The linear positions of all pathogenic variants are shown: The monoallelic variants in this study are detailed above (red text) and the published biallelic variants are detailed below (bracketed black text). C. Clinical images of individuals with MAB21L1 Arg51-related eye malformations. R, right eye; L, left eye. Family 511 all have profound aniridia, microcornea, choroidal coloboma (just visible in II:1’s L fundus photo) and optic disc anomalies. The progression of disease in II:1 over one decade is shown between with the upper and lower photos, with worsening of phthisis in the right and pannus in the left. An enlarged retroilluminated image of III:1’s L eye is shown highlighting near-total aniridia. Individual 1434 II:1, showing bilateral partial aniridia and microphthalmia, worse on the L. Abbreviations: dn, de novo. Nucleotide and amino acid numbering are based on GenBank NM_005584.5 and GenPept NP_005575.1, respectively.

Table 1. Clinical and molecular features of individuals with MAB21L1 heterozygous variants.

Family ID 96571 511 1434 3413 592 5531
Case II:1 II:2 II:1 III:1 III:2 II:1 I:1 II:1 I:1
Sex male male male male female female ND female male
GRCh38: NC_000013.11 g.35475987C>T g.35475987C>T g.35475987C>A g.35475987C>A g.35475987C>G g.35475984A>C
GenBank: NM_005584.5 c.152G>A c.152G>A c.152G>T c.152G>T c.152G>C c.155T>G
GenPept: NP_005575.1 p.(Arg51Gln) p.(Arg51Gln) p.(Arg51Leu) p.(Arg51Leu) p.(Arg51Pro) p.(Phe52Cys)
Inheritance paternala paternala NDb paternal paternal de novo ND de novo NDc
Growth
Birth Weight z score 2.9 3.05
Age at last assessment, years 7.5 2 48 13 11 23 ND 11 ND
Height z score 2.08 1.2
Weight z score 1.31 0.76
OFC, cm 51 49.5
Ocular features
Microphthalmia BL severe BL BL BL BL BL
Coloboma LE small, inferior to disc RE infero-temporal choroidal; LE small, temporal to disc LE nasal choroidal
Aniridia BL BL BL BL BL BL
Irregular pupil margin BL
Microcornea, mm BL BL: 6 BL: 6
Keratopathy LE opaque vascularised cornea RE opaque cornea BL progressive
Glaucoma BL with surgery LE
Cataract no view LE previous lensectomy BL with RE lenticonus, LE lens instability BL with progressive subluxation BL
Nystagmus LE BL BL BL BL BL
Foveal hypoplasia LE insufficient view BL BL
Optic disc anomaly LE RE no view; LE congenitally excavated appearance, normal colour BL gray hypoplastic BL gray hypoplastic
Myopia BL high BL
Additional details BL no view of internal structures RE no view of internal structures RE phthisis of unknown cause limited phenotypic data limited phenotypic data
Visual acuity BL NPL BL PL BL HM
Non-ocular features
hyperthyroidism (also in mother); normal MRI brain scan, echocardiogram and renal ultrasound BL mild sensorineural hearing loss, normal MRI brain scan

a, the unaffected father was gonosomal mosaic (at a level of approximately 27 percent) for the variant.

b, his deceased father had microphthalmia and aniridia.

c, sporadic case of aniridia.

Abbreviations are BL, bilateral; HM, hand movements; LE, left eye; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; ND, not determined; NPL, no perception of light; PL, perception of light; RE, right eye.

Subsequence sequencing of DNA from unrelated affected individuals referred to the MRC Human Genetics Unit Eye Malformations Study identified an individual with sporadic partial aniridia and microphthalmia (Family 1434: II:1, Fig 1A and 1C) associated with de novo occurrence of MAB21L1 c.152G>T p.(Arg51Leu) (ENST00000379919.6:c.152G>T, ENSP00000369251.4:p.Arg51Leu: Sift; Deleterious (0), PolyPhen; Probably damaging (0.999), CADD 29.6, REVEL 0.682). The same allele was identified in an individual referred with familial aniridia (Family 3413: I:1, Fig 1A) however samples from other affected members of this family were not available for testing. A further de novo missense variant c.152G>C p.(Arg51Pro) (ENST00000379919.6:c.152G>C, ENSP00000369251.4:p.Arg51Pro: Sift; Deleterious (0), PolyPhen; Probably damaging (1), CADD 31, REVEL 0.694) was identified in an individual with a sporadic milder aniridia-spectrum eye malformation (Family 592). Finally, a variant affecting the adjacent codon, c.155T>G p.(Phe52Cys) (ENST00000379919.6:c.155T>G, ENSP00000369251.4:p.Phe52Cys: Sift; Deleterious (0), PolyPhen; Probably damaging (0.969), CADD 32, REVEL 0.745), was identified in an individual with sporadic microphthalmia and aniridia (Family 5531: I:1, Fig 1A, Table 1). Parental samples were not available for testing in Family 5531. Sequencing chromatograms are provided (S2 Fig). None of these variants have been observed in publicly available variant databases.

Clinical phenotype

Pedigrees and clinical images are provided (Fig 1A and 1C), as well as detailed clinical descriptions (Supplemental Clinical Descriptions). The phenotypic features (Table 1) are summarised here. All 6 families had aniridia and/or microphthalmia. Aniridia was present in 4/6 families, microphthalmia in 4/6; and both in 3/6.

Aniridia

The aniridia was partial (moderate loss of iris tissue) in 2/6, unspecified in 1/6, and profound in 1/6. None of the families had a documented normal iris: 1/6 had a milder iris phenotype consisting of an irregular pupillary margin, and the remaining 1/6 had severe microphthalmia.

Microphthalmia/MAC spectrum

Of the MAC spectrum features seen in 4/6: 1/6 had a family member with bilateral severe microphthalmia, no view of the internal ocular structures and no perception of light. 1/6 had a microphthalmia with a chorioretinal colobomata and microcornea (in all 3 family members).

Other ocular features

4/6 had nystagmus, 3/6 with confirmed foveal hypoplasia; in the remaining 2/6 only limited phenotypic data was available. 3/6 families had cataract, 2/6 with lens instability or subluxation. None had aphakia. 1/6 had glaucoma. 2/6 were described as having keratopathy or an opaque cornea, but as both individuals had microphthalmia and one had phthisis this is difficult to interpret. 2/6 had optic disc anomalies, including congenitally excavated and hypoplastic nerves.

Non-ocular features

There were no non-ocular phenotypic features of note. In particular, none of the affected individuals were reported to have genital anomalies.

Enzymatic function of MAB21L1

Wild-type and mutant (p.Arg51Leu) MAB21L1 was purified from E. coli in order to determine whether its predicted enzymatic function could be detected. Using an assay for colorimetric detection of pyrophosphate release [23] we could detect strong activity with 2’-5’-oligoadenylate synthase (OAS) purified by the same methods with ATP as substrate and RNA as activator molecule (Fig 2A). However, no MAB21L1-associated nucleotidyltransferase activity was detected using various nucleoside triphosphates as a substrate along with DNA or RNA as activator molecules (Fig 2A).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

A. Nucleotidyltransferase activity: Graph showing the absence of nucleotidyltransferase activity in MAB21L1 and its mutant form Arg51Leu purified protein. OAS1 protein purified in the same way is a positive control and when incubated with ATP and double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), significant pyrophosphate release is detected indicating nucleotidyl transferase activity. MAB21L1 and Arg51Leu showed no activity with either ATP, CTP, GTP, UTP used as substrate separately or as an equal mixture of NTPs using DNA or RNA as an activator. The error bars represent standard errors.B: Cellular fractionation: Western blot analysis of cytoplasmic (C) and nuclear(N) extracts from HEK293-Flp-In cells with Tetracyclin (TET) inducible expression of GFP-tagged wild-type and mutant MAB21L1(Arg51Leu and Arg51Gln).Wild type and mutant proteins were present in cytoplasm(C) as well as nuclear fraction(N) as detected by anti-GFP antibody. Representative Coomassie stain gel image is shown.C: Differential Gene Expression: Gene expression analysis by RNA Sequencing performed on GFP-tagged wild-type and mutant MAB21L1 (Arg51Leu and Arg51Gln) cells. Heatmap showing top 20 differentially expressed genes in the datasets (padj < .05 and Log2F>1). The RNA sequencing data is available under the GSE166078 series at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/). D: Effect of PAX6 overexpression on SPARC transcripts levels: SPARC transcripts levels were quantified using quantitative RT-PCR using cells expressing GFP tagged Wild type and mutant MAB21L1 with or without overexpressing PAX6. GAPDH transcripts levels were used as normalization control. The levels of SPARC transcripts were significantly reduced in GFP tagged Wild type MAB21L1 cells in presence of overexpressed PAX6. There was no significant difference in the mutant cells in presence or absence of overexpressed PAX6.

Structural analysis of MAB21L1 residue substitutions

We analysed the protein structural context of MAB21L1 substitutions reported above and the single reported biallelic missense variant [4] (Fig 3B) incorporating previously reported MAB21L2 residue substitutions associated with monoallelic or biallelic genotypes [10] (S3 Fig). There is a clear clustering of heterozygous variants, centred at Arg51. All the mutations are predicted to be destabilizing to protein structure (S4 Table in S7 File), except the recessive MAB21L2 substitution Arg247Gln; however, previous experimental work has conclusively demonstrated the destabilizing nature of this variant [8]. The pathogenicity of the recessive variants can almost certainly be explained by a simple loss of function caused by protein destabilization. However, while the heterozygous variants are all predicted to be somewhat disruptive, their clustering suggests a specific effect that involves this region. Thus, it seems plausible that the Arg51 substitutions are altering an interaction with another protein. It is also interesting that Arg51Pro has the mildest protein structural effect and appears to cause a milder phenotype than the other MAB21L1 heterozygous missense variants (Fig 1A, Table 1). Moreover, FoldX predicts a strong destabilizing effect of the Phe52Cys substitution, thus further indicating the structural relevance of this region.

Fig 3. The Effect of disease associated missense variants on protein structure and interactions.

Fig 3

A. A heatmap of the log-transformed quantitative mass spectroscopy (MS) results of biological triplicates of anti-GFP immunoprecipitates (IP) of control (GFP), tagged wild-type (WT) and mutant MAB21L1 (R51L and R51Q) from HEK293 cells. B. Representation of the structure of MAB21L1 with the position of the amino acid substitutions seen in MAB21L1 (L1) and MAB21L2 (L2) annotated. C-E Graphs showing the levels of the following classes of proteins in the GFP IP-MS from biological triplicates: C. MAB21L1. D. The five most abundant proteins interacting with WT, R51L and R51Q forms of MAB21L1 (MEIS1, PBX1, SUGT1, PBX3 & MEIS2), the dotted line box indicates the position of this class of protein on the heatmap. E. Wild-type specific interactor (TBL1XR1) and other components of the NCor complex (NCOR & HDAC3), the position in the heatmap is indicated by the closed arrowhead. F. Western blot analysis of the anti-GFP IP using the anti-TBL1XR1 antibody showing differential but not exclusive binding of the wild-type MAB21L1 compared to the mutant forms G. Mutant specific interactor MSI2/Musashi-2), the position in the heatmap is indicated by the open arrowhead. H. Western blot analysis of the anti-GFP IP using the anti-MSI2 antibody was unable to detect interaction with wild-type or mutant forms of MAB21L1 I-J. anti-MSI2 IP-MS analysis I. MSI2-derived peptides were present in all replicates and cell-lines in the anti-MSI2 IP J. MAB21L1-derived peptides were detectable in all replicates of the mutant forms of MAB21L1 but in only one replicate for the wild-type. Surprisingly peptides derived from endogenous MAB21L1 were detectable in two of the three GFP-only biological replicates.

Creation and Analysis of stable cell lines with inducible expression of wild-type and mutant MAB21L1

We created multiple independent tetracycline-inducible cell lines expressing wild-type MAB21L1 and Arg51leu and Arg51Gln variants as full-length GFP-tagged fusion proteins. Analysis of nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions revealed that MAB21L1 was present in both fraction with no evidence of mislocalisation of mutant forms (Fig 2B). RNAseq was used to assess the effect of MAB21L1 mutant variants on gene expression. Relatively few genes showed consistent differences between mutant and wild-type MAB21L1 (Fig 2C). Of these only SPARC (secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine [MIM 182120]) had any link to eye disease [29,30]. SPARC was significantly upregulated in mutant cell lines compared to wild-type. SPARC has been reported as a PAX6 interactor [31] so we used transient transfection to overexpress exogenous PAX6 in the wild-type and mutant MAB21L1 cells to see if this had any effect on the mutant-specific SPARC upregulation. Interestingly PAX6 had no effect on SPARC expression in mutant cells but induced significant downregulation in cells expressing wild-type GFP-MAB21L1 (Fig 2D). This would be consistent with wild-type MAB21L1 having a role in PAX6 mediated repression of SPARC and that function being lost with Arg51 substitution.

Detection of wild-type and mutant-specific protein interactions

To identify MAB21L1 interactors that are specific either to wild-type or mutant protein we performed immunoprecipitation followed by mass spectrometry (IP-MS) on biological triplicates derived from independent clones of the inducible cell lines expressing GFP alone, wild-type MAB21L1, Arg51Leu MAB21L1 and Arg51Gln MAB21L1. More than 1000 proteins were identified using IP-MS but most were non-specific or inconsistently associated with the genotypes (Fig 3A). The levels of MAB21L1 were similar in wild-type and mutant pull-down samples suggesting uniform pulldown (Fig 3B). 72 proteins showed consistent association with all forms of MAB21L1 with no association with GFP alone. Pathway analysis of these proteins revealed a significant over-representation of RNA-binding proteins and TALE-like homeodomain containing proteins (Table 2). Indeed, four of the five most abundant proteins were transcription factors of this latter class (MEIS1, MEIS2, PBX1 and PBX3) (Fig 3D). A component of the NCor co-repressor complex, TBL1XR1, was the only wild-type MAB21L1-specific protein identified (Fig 3E). Western blot of the GFP IP using an antibody raised against TBL1XR1 showed differential, but not exclusive, binding to wild-type MAB21L1 (Fig 3F). Reciprocal immunoprecipitation using anti- TBL1XR1 antibody was not able to detect either mutant or wild-type forms of MAB21L1 using western blot (S4 Fig). MSI2/Musashi-2 was one of only three proteins showing apparently exclusively association with the mutant forms of MAB21L1 (Fig 3G, the other proteins being LRRFIP1 and GALNT2, S5 Fig). Although we were unable to confirm this interaction using reciprocal IP with a MSI2 antibody on western blot (Fig 3H), the reciprocal IP-MS using this antibody identified MAB21L1 derived peptides in each replicate of the mutant forms of MAB21L1 but only one of the wild-type replicates. This can be considered only limited evidence of a gain of function interactions since the GFP-only MS-IP showed peptides in two of the replicates, presumably derived from endogenous MAB21L1 in HEK293 cells.

Table 2. Significantly enriched terms relating to MAB21L1-interacting proteins using DAVID Functional Annotation Chart.

Category Term Genes Fold Enrich Bonferroni
GO:0044822 poly(A) RNA binding RBM26, NCBP1, POP1, SPATS2, MRPS21, ERAL1, MRPL37, NPM3, DIAPH1, SARS2, ZC3H7A, RBMX2, NUSAP1, FASTKD5, FLNB, METTL16, SNTB2 3.68 1.07E-03
UP_KEYWORDS Phosphoprotein RBM26, PDXDC1, POP1, FLII, GPS1, RNF219, STK4, PFAS, SMG5, TOR1AIP1, STK3, DNAJB1, ATXN3, IPO8, ZC3H7A, SALL2, RBMX2, PHKG2, NUSAP1, FLNB, METTL16, SKP2, MARK3, CEP55, EIF2A, JAGN1, NCBP1, HMGCS1, RIOK3, ZNF281, GLMN, SPATS2, RECQL, PYCR2, CDC7, ERAL1, HAUS5, NPM3, GTF2F2, GPN1, DIAPH1, FASTKD5, RLIM, UBA2, CDC42EP1, GARS, SUGT1, SNTB2 1.66
1.12E-03
UP_KEYWORDS Acetylation RBM26, FLII, STK4, SMG5, STK3, NUSAP1, FLNB, SKP2, EIF2A, NCBP1, HMGCS1, GLMN, RECQL, PYCR2, HAUS5, NPM3, GTF2F2, GPN1, DIAPH1, PRPF4, PPP5C, SARS2, GGCX, FASTKD5, RLIM, UBA2, GARS, SUGT1 2.34
1.89E-03
UP_SEQ_FEATURE DNA-binding region:Homeobox; TALE-type MEIS1, PBX3, MEIS2, PBX1 56.51 1.25E-02
UP_KEYWORDS Nucleus POP1, FLII, GPS1, MRFAP1, STK4, SMG5, TOR1AIP1, STK3, DNAJB1, ATXN3, IPO8, ZC3H7A, SALL2, NUSAP1, SKP2, ZSCAN18, ZNF460, NCBP1, ZNF281, RECQL, PBX3, CDC7, NPM3, GTF2F2, MEIS2, GPN1, PBX1, PRPF4, PPP5C, MEIS1, RLIM, UBA2, SUGT1, INTS9 1.85 0.015

Fold Enrich, fold enrichment over homo sapiens background list; Bonferroni, p value corrected for multiple testing using the Bonferroni method.

Generation and phenotyping of mice with Mab21l1 p.Arg51Leu substitution

We used zygotic genome editing to create a mouse line harbouring Mab21l1 p.Arg51Leu substitution (Mab21l1R51L/+) (S1 Fig). The line was maintained as a co-isogenic strain on this C57BL/6JCrl background. Heterozygous mice were intercrossed to produce viable and fertile homozygotes (Mab21l1R51L/R51L). The ratios of offspring were consistent with Mendelian genetics (S3 Table in S7 File). Mab21l1R51L/+ heterozygote mice showed anomalous, excavated optic discs (Fig 4A and 4B) in 13/13 heterozygotes, confirmed as bilateral in 9/13 (all fundus images are shown in S6 Fig). Quantitative analysis of fundal images show the discs were enlarged compared to wild type (n = 8 Mab21l1R51L/+, n = 4 WT, p = 0.00004,). The excavated optic disc anomaly was observed on Optical Coherence Tomography and histological sectioning (Fig 4C and 4D). Intraocular pressure tested in a subset of mice (n = 2 WT, n = 5 Mab21l1R51L/+, n = 3 Mab21l1R51L/R51L) was within the normal range, consistent with the optic nerve phenotype being a developmental defect rather than glaucomatous phenomenon. Slit lamp examination of the iris and anterior segment appeared normal and the mice displayed no other apparent abnormalities. All homozygous Mab21l1R51L/R51L mice had a severe bilateral panocular eye malformation (Fig 4A and 4B). These included microphthalmia with disorganised anterior and posterior segments. There was marked hyperplasia of pigmented uveal tissue that obscured any possibility of a fundal view on examination. Histological sectioning revealed abnormalities of the cornea, iris, ciliary body, lens, retina and optic nerve (Fig 4C). The most severely affected eyes had only a rudimentary lens and retina, and optic nerve aplasia.

Fig 4. Mab21l1R51L mouse phenotype.

Fig 4

Left hand column shows wild type (WT) mice, middle column Mab21l1R51L/+ heterozygous mice and right hand column homozygous Mab21l1R51L/R51L mice. All mice were examined as young adults, at 2–3 months of age. (A) External photographs, showing normal external appearance of heterozygous and severe microphthalmia in homozygous mice. (B) Representative retinal photographs showing the anomalous, excavated optic disc phenotype (arrow) present in all the 13 heterozygous mice examined, and none of the WT (further images in S6 Fig). No retinal view (or OCT) was possible in homozygous animals as all eyes were microphthalmic, often with uveal tissue obscuring the cornea. (C) H&E-stained wax sections of the mouse eyes, with the abnormal features for each genotype labelled. The excavated optic nerve anomaly of the heterozygous mice is clearly seen. Note these mice had recently-administered dilating drops for fundal examination, but the iris appeared normal on slit lamp examination. Homozygous mice had a severe panocular eye malformation including microphthalmia, severely disorganised retina and uveal tissue, along with hypoplasia or aplasia of both the optic nerve and lens. Eyes from two different age-matched homozygous mice are shown to illustrate the spectrum of microphthalmia. Scale bars = 1 mm. (D) Optical coherence tomography (OCT) of WT and heterozygous mice, showing the enlarged, excavated optic nerve, with some persistent fetal vasculature seen above the optic nerve head.

Discussion

Classical aniridia is a highly distinctive autosomal dominant disorder diagnosed in infancy by the combination of absence of the iris and foveal hypoplasia [32,33]. In adult life a progressive opacification of the cornea results in the relentless loss of their vision; this is currently untreatable and represented a particularly challenging aspect of the disorder for both affected individuals and ophthalmologists. More than 90% of individuals with aniridia have heterozygous mutations detectable at the PAX6 locus that appear to result in loss-of-function [3436]. Rare monoallelic missense variants at specific residues within the PAIRED domain of PAX6 cause a significantly more severe form of classical aniridia with microphthalmia [37] with Fig 1 of that paper demonstrating the striking similarity to the individuals with MAB21L1 mutations reported here. The phenotypic similarity includes the nature of the iris phenotype (with a spectrum including moderate and profound absence of iris, with the loss not limited to one specific part of the iris such as in Gillespie syndrome), the severity of microphthalmia and the other associated ocular features including cataract, lens instability and foveal hypoplasia. The molecular basis of this worse-than-null phenotypic effect in the PAX6 missense cases is unknown but is assumed to be the consequence of altered PAX6 interaction with DNA and/or co-binding partners such as SOX2 [3840].

Given the phenotypic similarity of monoallelic missense variants resulting in PAX6 and Arg51 MAB21L1 substitutions we hypothesize that the developmental function of the wild-type PAX6 and MAB21L1 proteins are interdependent. In this regard, it is interesting to consider similarity between the male-specific sensory rays mis-specification that characterizes the mab-21 mutant class in C. elegans [1] and that seen in mab-18 mutants caused by a mutation at the vab-3 (PAX6) locus [41]. It is also striking that four of the five most abundant proteins recovered by immunoprecipitating MAB21L1 were the transcription factors MEIS1, MEIS2, PBX1 and PBX3. These transcription factors act as both activators [4245] and co-binding partners [46,47] of each other and PAX6. Although these interactions are probably relevant to the developmental role of MAB21L1 it is difficult to link them to disease as they were not significantly altered by either of the Arg51 substitutions we studied.

Using IP-MS we could identify only one protein, TBL1XR1 that interacted with wild-type MAB21L1 but not at all with either mutant form. TBL1XR1 mediates proteasomal degradation of NCor corepressor complex [48]. Western blotting suggested that this interaction with mutant protein was reduced rather than completely ablated (Fig 3F). Although disruption of such an interaction is a reasonable candidate for perturbing a developmental transcriptional cascade it should be noted that this interaction would be completely ablated in the individuals with homozygous loss-of-function mutations in MAB21L1 but these individuals have significantly milder anterior segment anomalies than the individuals carrying Arg51 heterozygous missense variants. We do not therefore consider this loss of protein-protein interaction to be the likely mechanism of disease in the affected individuals we present here.

Three proteins, GALNT2, MSI2 and LRRFIP1, showed apparent mutation-specific interactions suggesting a possible gain of function effect (S5 Fig). GALNT2 is a N-acetyl-d-galactosamine-transferase 2 which localizes to the Golgi which has not previously been implicated in PAX6 function or eye development. Biallelic loss of function mutations in GALNT2 [MIM 602274] cause a neurodevelopmental disorder of O-linked glycosylation [MIM: 618885] [49]. LRRFIP1 [MIM: 603256] is an RNA binding protein that binds double stranded RNA [50]. LRRFIP1 has roles both as a viral sensor in innate immunity [51] and as a regulator of canonical WNT signalling in development [50,52]. There is no direct evidence that LRRFIP1 is involved in eye development or PAX6 function.

MSI/Musashi-2 [MIM 607897] is also an RNA binding protein that regulates the translation of gene products through binding their 3’UTR regions. Its role in both cancer [53] and developmental systems [5456] has been widely studied and it has been shown to form a complex with SOX2 [57]. This seemed a good candidate as a gain-of-function interaction but we could identify only limited evidence for this using reciprocal IP-MS and the interaction was not detectable using western blot analysis following IP. Musashi-1 was also identified as a MAB21L1 interactor but did not show any difference between mutant and wild-type proteins (S5 Fig). Musashi-1 and -2 are required for normal photoreceptor development [58].

The identification of RNA binding proteins as an overrepresented class in the list of mutation agnostic MAB21L1 interactors may be of significant functional relevance. The crystal structure of MAB21L1 suggested that activation of the nucleotidyltransferase activity required a conformational change similar to that of the mab-21 paralog cGAS (S7 Fig). The authors could demonstrate that MAB21L1 bound double stranded RNA but with significantly lower affinity than cGAS [8]. Our work would support their conclusion that any generic oligonucleotides are unlikely to function as MAB21L1 inducers. They go on to suggest that specific mRNA-RNA-binding protein complexes species may bind to MAB21L1 to induce the enzymatic activity. The fact the LRRFIP1 has cGAS like functions in sensing viral dsRNA in the cytoplasm is interesting but given that this interaction is only seen with Arg51 substitutions make this an unlikely endogenous activator. Our favoured hypothesis is that RNA-bound Musashi-2 functions as the in vivo activator, and a competitive antagonistic effect of Musashi-2 binding in the mutant is an important gain-of-function interaction. All the above protein-protein interaction experiments must be treated with caution given that they were performed using GFP-tagged peptides that were very highly and inducibly expressed in HEK293 cells. We suggest that future work should focus on identifying wildtype and mutant MAB21L1-specific interactions under more physiologically and developmentally relevant tissues to identify the molecular basis of the disorder.

There are several notable features regarding the phenotypes associated with monoallelic and biallelic mutation of Mab21l1 in mice. The phenotype in Mab21l1R51L/+ mice is milder than in humans, but the optic disc anomaly is both seen in human cases and consistent with PAX6-associated disease [59]. In the process of this work Seese and colleagues [14] reported the identification of c.152G>T p.(Arg51Leu) variant in MAB21L1 in two affected members of a family which co-segregated with microphthalmia and aniridia. This family appear to be phenotypically very similar to those we have identified and this is further support for the causative nature of substitutions affecting MAB21L1 Arg51. It is interesting that the severe eye malformations in Mab21l1R51L/R51L animals resemble those reported in Mab21l1 null animals [6]. In contradistinction the eye phenotype in null humans is significantly milder than that seen in mice or indeed heterozygous Arg51 substitutions in humans. Together this suggests that there may be significant differences in MAB21L1/Mab21l1 dosage sensitivity and disease mechanism between mice and humans.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Mab21l1 CRIPSR design.

(A) Schematic to illustrate the CRISPR-Cas9 sgRNA guide sequences and their relative locations to the Arginine 51 encoding region of the Mab21l1 locus.(B) Sanger sequencing chromatogram of PCR performed using genomic DNA prepared from a gene edited mouse. The Mab21l1 p.Arg51Leu mutation was introduced (highlighted region), along with the silent substitutions in the flanking regions (red asterisks), which were specific to the repair template.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Sequences of highly specific MAB21L1 heterozygous variants associated with microphthalmia and/or aniridia.

An allelic series of MAB21L1 heterozygous variants at position c.152G was identified in a total of five probands: two familial cases with c.152G>A (p.(Arg51Gln), chromatograms in orange shaded box), two sporadic cases with de novo inheritance of either the recurrent variant c.152G>T (p.(Arg51Leu), upper chromatogram in green shaded box) or the novel variant c.152G>C (p.(Arg51Pro), chromatogram in yellow shaded box), and one familial case with unknown genotypic inheritance of the recurrent variant c.152G>T (p.(Arg51Leu), lower chromatogram in green shaded box). Additionally, a sporadic case with unknown genotypic inheritance was heterozygous for the novel variant c.155T>G (p.(Phe52Cys), chromatogram in pink shaded box) in the adjacent 3’ codon. The chromatogram for each proband is shown, with the Family ID and pedigree case ID detailed to the right. Sanger sequencing was used to screen for and/or validate the variant in each proband, and to test all of the available relatives (data not shown), which established segregation with the phenotype. The schematic (upper right) illustrates the highly specific positioning of the four variants identified. Nucleotide and amino acid numbering is based on GenBank: NM_005584.5 and GenPept: NP_005575.1, respectively.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Dominant and recessive variants of MAB21L1 and MAB21L2.

Schematic representations of the linear form of MAB21L1 (blue filled bar) and MAB21L2 (purple filled bar) are shown, with the first and final amino acids numbered for each protein. For both MAB21L1 and MAB21L2 the linear positions of all published pathogenic variants are detailed on each cognate protein schematic, with the dominant heterozygous variants shown above and the recessive biallelic variants shown below. The MAB21L1 variants identified in this study are all dominantly inherited and are shown in red text. Abbreviations: dn, de novo. Nucleotide and amino acid numbering are based on GenBank NM_005584.5 and GenPept NP_005575.1, respectively.

(DOCX)

S4 Fig. Reciprocal IP using TBL1XR1 antibody.

Western blot analysis of the anti-TBL1XR1 IP using the anti-GFP antibody was unable to detect interaction with wild-type or mutant forms of MAB21L1.TBL1XR1 was detected in all the pull down used as control for pull down experiment.

(DOCX)

S5 Fig. Mutant and WT-specific protein-protein interactions from IP-MS.

A. Graphs of the log-transformed quantitative mass spectroscopy results of biological triplicates of immunoprecipitates of control (GFP), tagged wild-type (WT) and mutant MAB21L1 (R51L and R51Q) from HEK293 cells which identified as single wild-type specific interactor (TBL1XR1) which is a component of the NCor complex. Two other subunits of the NCor complex (NCOR & HDAC3) are shown for comparison. B. Graphs of the three mutant specific interactors (GALNT2, LRRFIP1, MSI2/Musashi-2) and /Musashi-1, a close homolog of MSI2, which shows interaction with all forms of MAB21L1.

(DOCX)

S6 Fig. Fundus images showing the optic nerve anomaly of Mab21l1 R51L heterozygous mice.

Retinal photographs of additional Mab21l1 R51L heterozygous and wild type mice, supplementing the representative, annotated images shown in Fig 4. (A) Photographs from 8 heterozygous Mab21l1 R51L/+ mice, left and right eyes, showing eniarged, excavated anomalous optic nerve heads, often with prominent persistent fetal vasculature. (B) Photographs from 5 wild type mice from the same colony (littermate or cousin controls), showing normal optic nerve heads, illustrating the range of normal. (C, below) On each line, a cartoon of the first fundus image is shown, illustrating the optic disc (black circle) and major blood vessels (radial lines), followed by fundus photographs from one eye of 3 different mice. (i) Mab21l1R51L/+ heterozygous mice (images from 3 mice representative of the optic nerve phenotype taken from images above in (A), versus (ii) age-matched wild type littermate/cousin controls.

(DOCX)

S7 Fig. Human mab-21 paralogs: Peptide sequence and genomic features.

A. Phylogenetic tree of the 11 human mab-21 paralogs and protein alignment (B) and genomic organisation (C) of MAB21L1, MAB21L2 and mab-21. The alignment and phylogenetic tree were generated using MUSCLE https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/muscle/

(DOCX)

S1 File. Supplemental clinical descriptions.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Supplemental materials and methods.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Supplementary raw data table: Pyrophosphate assay.

(XLSX)

S4 File. Supplementary raw data table: Mass spectrometry.

(XLSX)

S5 File

(DOCX)

S6 File

(DOCX)

S7 File

S1 Table. Oligonucleotides used in the MAB21L1/Mab21l1 study: Sequence and protocol details. Underlined sequence denotes universal tags with no homology to MAB21L1. Further details of the biological relatedness microsatellite PCR protocol are available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2000s/media/200614.pdf. S2 Table. MAB21L1 variant nomenclature validation. (https://variantvalidator.org/). S3 Table. Mendelian ratios. Comparison of the observed versus expected ratios of genotypes from intercrosses of the Mab21l1 R51L line mice (n = 14 litters of each type), establishing that the observed ratios were consistent with Mendelian genetics. S4 Table. FoldX values. Molecular modelling performed using FoldX (Delgado et al., 2019) in order to assess the impact of MAB21L1 and MAB21L2 substitutions on protein stability. Nearly all the mutations are destabilizing to protein structure.

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank the patients and families for their participation. For rodent expertise we thank Lorraine Rose, Anna Thornburn, John Campbell, Jacek Mendrychowski and the staff of Central Bioresearch Services.

Data Availability

The RNA sequencing data is available under the GSE166078 series at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/).

Funding Statement

H.N.H. is funded by a Wellcome Trust fellowship (205171_Z_16_Z). D.R.F. is supported by Medical Research Council (MRC) University Unit program grant awarded to the University of Edinburgh. Funding for UK10K was provided by Wellcome under award WT091310.

References

  • 1.Chow KL, Hall DH, Emmons SW. The mab-21 gene of Caenorhabditis elegans encodes a novel protein required for choice of alternate cell fates. Development. 1995;121:3615–3626. doi: 10.1242/dev.121.11.3615 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nikolaidis N, Chalkia D, Watkins DN et al. Ancient origin of the new developmental superfamily DANGER. PLoS One. 2007;2:e204. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Motwani M, Pesiridis S, Fitzgerald KA. DNA sensing by the cGAS-STING pathway in health and disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2019;20:657–674. doi: 10.1038/s41576-019-0151-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rad A, Altunoglu U, Miller R et al. MAB21L1 loss of function causes a syndromic neurodevelopmental disorder with distinctive cerebellar, ocular, craniofacial and genital features (COFG syndrome). J Med Genet. 2019;56:332–339. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105623 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bruel AL, Masurel-Paulet A, Rivière JB et al. Autosomal recessive truncating MAB21L1 mutation associated with a syndromic scrotal agenesis. Clin Genet. 2016. doi: 10.1111/cge.12794 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yamada R, Mizutani-Koseki Y, Hasegawa T, Osumi N, Koseki H, Takahashi N. Cell-autonomous involvement of Mab21l1 is essential for lens placode development. Development. 2003;130:1759–1770. doi: 10.1242/dev.00399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nguyen D, Yamada R, Yoshimitsu N, Oguri A, Kojima T, Takahashi N. Involvement of the Mab21l1 gene in calvarial osteogenesis. Differentiation. 2017;98:70–78. doi: 10.1016/j.diff.2017.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.de Oliveira Mann CC, Kiefersauer R, Witte G, Hopfner KP. Structural and biochemical characterization of the cell fate determining nucleotidyltransferase fold protein MAB21L1. Sci Rep. 2016;6:27498. doi: 10.1038/srep27498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Horn D, Prescott T, Houge G et al. A Novel Oculo-Skeletal syndrome with intellectual disability caused by a particular MAB21L2 mutation. Eur J Med Genet. 2015;58:387–391. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2015.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rainger J, Pehlivan D, Johansson S et al. Monoallelic and biallelic mutations in MAB21L2 cause a spectrum of major eye malformations. Am J Hum Genet. 2014;94:915–923. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.05.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Deml B, Kariminejad A, Borujerdi RH, Muheisen S, Reis LM, Semina EV. Mutations in MAB21L2 result in ocular Coloboma, microcornea and cataracts. PLoS Genet. 2015;11:e1005002. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tsang SW, Guo Y, Chan LH, Huang Y, Chow KL. Generation and characterization of pathogenic Mab21l2(R51C) mouse model. Genesis. 2018;56:e23261. doi: 10.1002/dvg.23261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yamada R, Mizutani-Koseki Y, Koseki H, Takahashi N. Requirement for Mab21l2 during development of murine retina and ventral body wall. Dev Biol. 2004;274:295–307. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2004.07.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Seese SE, Reis LM, Deml B et al. Identification of missense MAB21L1 variants in microphthalmia and aniridia. Hum Mutat. 2021;42:877–890. doi: 10.1002/humu.24218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.UK10K C, Walter K, Min JL et al. The UK10K project identifies rare variants in health and disease. Nature. 2015;526:82–90. doi: 10.1038/nature14962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vaser R, Adusumalli S, Leng SN, Sikic M, Ng PC. SIFT missense predictions for genomes. Nat Protoc. 2016;11:1–9. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2015.123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Adzhubei I, Jordan DM, Sunyaev SR. Predicting functional effect of human missense mutations using PolyPhen-2. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2013;Chapter 7:Unit7.20. doi: 10.1002/0471142905.hg0720s76 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rentzsch P, Witten D, Cooper GM, Shendure J, Kircher M. CADD: predicting the deleteriousness of variants throughout the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D886–D894. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ioannidis NM, Rothstein JH, Pejaver V et al. REVEL: An Ensemble Method for Predicting the Pathogenicity of Rare Missense Variants. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;99:877–885. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.08.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Foreman J, Brent S, Perrett D et al. DECIPHER: Supporting the interpretation and sharing of rare disease phenotype-linked variant data to advance diagnosis and research. Hum Mutat. 2022. doi: 10.1002/humu.24340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Delgado J, Radusky LG, Cianferoni D, Serrano L. FoldX 5.0: working with RNA, small molecules and a new graphical interface. Bioinformatics. 2019;35:4168–4169. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gerasimavicius L, Liu X, Marsh JA. Identification of pathogenic missense mutations using protein stability predictors. Sci Rep. 2020;10:15387. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72404-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Meng H, Deo S, Xiong S et al. Regulation of the interferon-inducible 2’-5’-oligoadenylate synthetases by adenovirus VA(I) RNA. J Mol Biol. 2012;422:635–649. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2012.06.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cox J, Neuhauser N, Michalski A, Scheltema RA, Olsen JV, Mann M. Andromeda: a peptide search engine integrated into the MaxQuant environment. J Proteome Res. 2011;10:1794–1805. doi: 10.1021/pr101065j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jadeja S, Barnard AR, McKie L et al. Mouse slc9a8 mutants exhibit retinal defects due to retinal pigmented epithelium dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56:3015–3026. doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-15735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Perez-Rovira A, MacGillivray T, Trucco E et al. VAMPIRE: Vessel assessment and measurement platform for images of the REtina. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:3391–3394. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6090918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cross SH, Mckie L, Hurd TW et al. The nanophthalmos protein TMEM98 inhibits MYRF self-cleavage and is required for eye size specification. PLoS Genet. 2020;16:e1008583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Findlay AS, McKie L, Keighren M et al. Fam151b, the mouse homologue of C.elegans menorin gene, is essential for retinal function. Sci Rep. 2020;10:437. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-57398-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gilmour DT, Lyon GJ, Carlton MB et al. Mice deficient for the secreted glycoprotein SPARC/osteonectin/BM40 develop normally but show severe age-onset cataract formation and disruption of the lens. EMBO J. 1998;17:1860–1870. doi: 10.1093/emboj/17.7.1860 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Norose K, Clark JI, Syed NA et al. SPARC deficiency leads to early-onset cataractogenesis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:2674–2680. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shubham K, Mishra R. Pax6 interacts with SPARC and TGF-β in murine eyes. Mol Vis. 2012;18:951–956. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hall HN, Williamson KA, FitzPatrick DR. The genetic architecture of aniridia and Gillespie syndrome. Hum Genet. 2019;138:881–898. doi: 10.1007/s00439-018-1934-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lima Cunha D, Arno G, Corton M, Moosajee M. The Spectrum of PAX6 Mutations and Genotype-Phenotype Correlations in the Eye. Genes (Basel). 2019;10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hill RE, Favor J, Hogan BL et al. Mouse small eye results from mutations in a paired-like homeobox-containing gene. Nature. 1991;354:522–525. doi: 10.1038/354522a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ton CC, Hirvonen H, Miwa H et al. Positional cloning and characterization of a paired box- and homeobox-containing gene from the aniridia region. Cell. 1991;67:1059–1074. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90284-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Glaser T, Walton DS, Maas RL. Genomic structure, evolutionary conservation and aniridia mutations in the human PAX6 gene. Nat Genet. 1992;2:232–239. doi: 10.1038/ng1192-232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Williamson KA, Hall HN, Owen LJ et al. Recurrent heterozygous PAX6 missense variants cause severe bilateral microphthalmia via predictable effects on DNA-protein interaction. Genet Med. 2020;22:598–609. doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0685-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kamachi Y, Uchikawa M, Tanouchi A, Sekido R, Kondoh H. Pax6 and SOX2 form a co-DNA-binding partner complex that regulates initiation of lens development. Genes Dev. 2001;15:1272–1286. doi: 10.1101/gad.887101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Inoue M, Kamachi Y, Matsunami H, Imada K, Uchikawa M, Kondoh H. PAX6 and SOX2-dependent regulation of the Sox2 enhancer N-3 involved in embryonic visual system development. Genes Cells. 2007;12:1049–1061. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2443.2007.01114.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kondoh H, Kamachi Y. SOX-partner code for cell specification: Regulatory target selection and underlying molecular mechanisms. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2010;42:391–399. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2009.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang Y, Emmons SW. Specification of sense-organ identity by a Caenorhabditis elegans Pax-6 homologue. Nature. 1995;377:55–59. doi: 10.1038/377055a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhang X, Friedman A, Heaney S, Purcell P, Maas RL. Meis homeoproteins directly regulate Pax6 during vertebrate lens morphogenesis. Genes Dev. 2002;16:2097–2107. doi: 10.1101/gad.1007602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zhang X, Rowan S, Yue Y et al. Pax6 is regulated by Meis and Pbx homeoproteins during pancreatic development. Dev Biol. 2006;300:748–757. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.06.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Carbe C, Hertzler-Schaefer K, Zhang X. The functional role of the Meis/Prep-binding elements in Pax6 locus during pancreas and eye development. Dev Biol. 2012;363:320–329. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.12.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Antosova B, Smolikova J, Klimova L et al. The Gene Regulatory Network of Lens Induction Is Wired through Meis-Dependent Shadow Enhancers of Pax6. PLoS Genet. 2016;12:e1006441. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Grebbin BM, Hau AC, Groß A et al. Pbx1 is required for adult subventricular zone neurogenesis. Development. 2016;143:2281–2291. doi: 10.1242/dev.128033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Agoston Z, Heine P, Brill MS et al. Meis2 is a Pax6 co-factor in neurogenesis and dopaminergic periglomerular fate specification in the adult olfactory bulb. Development. 2014;141:28–38. doi: 10.1242/dev.097295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Perissi V, Aggarwal A, Glass CK, Rose DW, Rosenfeld MG. A corepressor/coactivator exchange complex required for transcriptional activation by nuclear receptors and other regulated transcription factors. Cell. 2004;116:511–526. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(04)00133-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zilmer M, Edmondson AC, Khetarpal SA et al. Novel congenital disorder of O-linked glycosylation caused by GALNT2 loss of function. Brain. 2020;143:1114–1126. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Takimoto M. Multidisciplinary Roles of LRRFIP1/GCF2 in Human Biological Systems and Diseases. Cells. 2019;8. doi: 10.3390/cells8020108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Yang P, An H, Liu X et al. The cytosolic nucleic acid sensor LRRFIP1 mediates the production of type I interferon via a beta-catenin-dependent pathway. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:487–494. doi: 10.1038/ni.1876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Douchi D, Ohtsuka H, Ariake K et al. Silencing of LRRFIP1 reverses the epithelial-mesenchymal transition via inhibition of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. Cancer Lett. 2015;365:132–140. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2015.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kudinov AE, Karanicolas J, Golemis EA, Boumber Y. Musashi RNA-Binding Proteins as Cancer Drivers and Novel Therapeutic Targets. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:2143–2153. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2728 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sutherland JM, McLaughlin EA, Hime GR, Siddall NA. The Musashi family of RNA binding proteins: master regulators of multiple stem cell populations. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013;786:233–245. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-6621-1_13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Park SM, Deering RP, Lu Y et al. Musashi-2 controls cell fate, lineage bias, and TGF-β signaling in HSCs. J Exp Med. 2014;211:71–87. doi: 10.1084/jem.20130736 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bennett CG, Riemondy K, Chapnick DA et al. Genome-wide analysis of Musashi-2 targets reveals novel functions in governing epithelial cell migration. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:3788–3800. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Cox JL, Wilder PJ, Gilmore JM, Wuebben EL, Washburn MP, Rizzino A. The SOX2-interactome in brain cancer cells identifies the requirement of MSI2 and USP9X for the growth of brain tumor cells. PLoS One. 2013;8:e62857. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sundar J, Matalkah F, Jeong B, Stoilov P, Ramamurthy V. The Musashi proteins MSI1 and MSI2 are required for photoreceptor morphogenesis and vision in mice. J Biol Chem. 2020;296:100048. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA120.015714 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Yokoi T, Nishina S, Fukami M et al. Genotype-phenotype correlation of PAX6 gene mutations in aniridia. Hum Genome Var. 2016;3:15052. doi: 10.1038/hgv.2015.52 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Anand Swaroop

31 May 2022

PONE-D-22-11688Monoallelic Variants Resulting in Substitutions of MAB21L1 Arg51 Cause Aniridia and MicrophthalmiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. FitzPatrick,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Anand Swaroop

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an excellent manuscript, which can be improved further by following the suggestions of the reviewers, especially Reviewer 1. Senior authors are experts in the area and should expand a little more in Introduction and Discussion to make the manuscript even more exciting and significant.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This manuscript reports monoallelic variants in a single MAB21L1 residue cause a specific eye phenotype. While a useful report, several simple changes would enhance.

1. The authors should distill the literature on Mab-21 genes, and specifically MAB21L1, into a few pithy paragraphs, to fully introduce the topic. Description of broader MAB21L1 mutation phenotypes, the diverse animal models and their phenotypes, together with published data from other groups, would place their own findings in better context. With such a background, the reader would wish to know if the current patient cohort exhibited aphakia, scrotal anomalies, etc.

2. A strength of this manuscript is that the authors created a knock-in for Mab21l1, which represents a very considerable amount of work. However, description of this and analysis of the mutant, is underdeveloped, missing an opportunity to impress the reader/reviewer regarding the range of approaches used.

3. Use of the term ‘aniridia’ (title, and elsewhere) represents quite loaded phrasing. Depending on the phenotype present, this may be misleading, particularly as it implies a biological link to PAX6 although no such data are provided. Indeed, previous studies provide zero evidence for Pax6 involvement (see below).

As the authors know well, virtually all reported aniridia cases are attributable to PAX6. The odd exception, generally in reports with an n of 1, claim the same phenotype on the basis of low quality clinical images.

If absence of iris tissue represents “aniridia”, it would be much better to include high quality images demonstrating the PAX6 phenotypic spectrum (including retro-illumination ‘shots’ illustrating the lens), side by side with comparable and much higher quality images from their cohort (even from a single pedigree). Presentation of such data would support accurate phenocopying of loss of PAX6. Alternatively, they could explain they see loss of iris tissue, possibly profound loss, and discuss whether this does or does not resemble PAX6-induced disease.

4. The above is important, due to elegant experiments (Development, 2003) which demonstrated that Mab21l1 murine homozygotes fail to develop lens placodes, and consequently exhibit complete loss of the iris. So heterozygous patients having a partial loss of iris phenotype would be consistent. However, Yamada et al. also demonstrated that Pax6 expression was completely preserved (Foxe3 was profoundly altered), suggesting that this is not “classical aniridia” but a loss of iris phenotype. These elements should surely be discussed/explored in the current manuscript. Indeed, switching emphasis from Pax6, clinically and as a mechanistic candidate, provides opportunities to discuss alternatives for which a strong biological basis exists.

5. For instance, another publication identified genes dysregulated in zebrafish mab21l1 mutants. These included both Spalt and Sox transcription factors, and like the prior Foxe3 data, the implications should be discussed.

6. The authors used HEK cells to characterize MAB21L1 mutation, observing few differences in expression compared to wildtype. It would be helpful to comment on this finding in the context that renal phenotypes are not a feature of Mab21l1 mutation, and renal expression of MAB21L1 is very low (GTExPortal).

7. The penultimate sentence of the Figure 1 legend incorrectly states that the upper and lower photos show progression of keratopathy. The photos in fact illustrate phthisis - a much more profound phenotype in which the eye progressively shrinks in size. When phthisis occurs, multiple other phenotypes are induced including frequent corneal vascularization and opacification.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Hildegard Nikki Hall et al. presents a comprehensive and accurate analysis of novel findings related to MAB21L1 missense variants as the cause of Aniridia and Microphthalmia. The manuscript is well-written, contains all needed information either in the manuscript body or in the supplementary information section, and includes a detailed discussion on the obtained results. I have only a minor comment regarding Figure 1:

- In panel "a", there is a symbol for "developmental delay" which is not found in any of the pedigrees. Please check.

- There are many marks in each symbol, including the genotype as a circle in the middle of the symbol. That can cause confusion. I would suggest writing the genotype beneath each symbol of a recruited individual.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0268149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268149.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-11688 Monoallelic Variants Resulting in Substitutions of MAB21L1 Arg51 Cause Aniridia and Microphthalmia

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: This manuscript reports monoallelic variants in a single MAB21L1 residue cause a specific eye phenotype. While a useful report, several simple changes would enhance.

1.

The authors should distil the literature on Mab-21 genes, and specifically MAB21L1, into a few pithy paragraphs, to fully introduce the topic.

Description of broader MAB21L1 mutation phenotypes, the diverse animal models and their phenotypes, together with published data from other groups, would place their own findings in better context.

The C elegans and murine phenotypes associated with loss of function are already mentioned in the introduction. We have expanded the mouse description to now read:

“Mab21l1 null mice are viable but show severe bilateral microphthalmia with a small malformed lens and absence of the iris and ciliary body [PMID 12642482]. Null mice also show delayed calvarial development and male infertility with hypoplasia of the preputial glands”

We have added the following sentences about the recently reported zebrafish model:

“Homozygosity for an early frameshift mutation in zebrafish mab21l1 resulted in a late embryonic degeneration of the cornea and subsequently the lens.”

With such a background, the reader would wish to know if the current patient cohort exhibited aphakia, scrotal anomalies, etc

As far as we are aware there is no evidence of aphakia or genital anomalies in the individuals reported in our manuscript. A sentence to this effect has been added to the clinical section of the results.

2.

A strength of this manuscript is that the authors created a knock-in for Mab21l1, which represents a very considerable amount of work. However, description of this and analysis of the mutant, is underdeveloped, missing an opportunity to impress the reader/reviewer regarding the range of approaches used.

We agree that the mouse work could be developed further. Whilst a range of approaches were indeed used, not all were fruitful and we have only included the useful and relevant findings here. We have expanded the Supplemental Fig S6 to expand the figure concerning the mouse optic disc phenotype.

3.

Use of the term ‘aniridia’ (title, and elsewhere) represents quite loaded phrasing. Depending on the phenotype present, this may be misleading, particularly as it implies a biological link to PAX6 although no such data are provided. Indeed, previous studies provide zero evidence for Pax6 involvement (see below).

As the authors know well, virtually all reported aniridia cases are attributable to PAX6. The odd exception, generally in reports with an n of 1, claim the same phenotype on the basis of low quality clinical images.

If absence of iris tissue represents “aniridia”, it would be much better to include high quality images demonstrating the PAX6 phenotypic spectrum (including retro-illumination ‘shots’ illustrating the lens), side by side with comparable and much higher quality images from their cohort (even from a single pedigree). Presentation of such data would support accurate phenocopying of loss of PAX6. Alternatively, they could explain they see loss of iris tissue, possibly profound loss, and discuss whether this does or does not resemble PAX6-induced disease.

We agree with the above comment, and we also consider classical aniridia to be a PAX6-associated disorder. For this reason we have been careful not to use the term classical aniridia in association with the cases reported here. However, it is important to appreciate that all but one of these cases were referred to our study by very experienced clinicians over many years with a primary diagnosis of aniridia and with a clinical suspicion that there may be a cryptic PAX6 mutation. We regret that we have not been able to obtain better quality clinical images of some of the pedigrees. We have however included, in an updated Figure 1, a new clinical image of one of the individuals which better shows complete loss of iris tissue via retroillumination (family 511), and enlarged some of the iris photos showing partial loss (family 1434). We have added the qualifiers of “profound” and “partial” aniridia to the descriptions in the first section of the Results, and included a section summarising the clinical phenotype features outlined in Table 1.

The overall phenotype of these cases (including iris phenotype, associated significant microphthalmia, and other associated features) are strikingly similar to the severe PAX6 missense cases reported in our 2019 paper PMID 31700164 (Figure 1) and this has been emphasised in the first paragraph of the Discussion.

The phenotypic similarity includes not just the nature of the iris loss phenotype (with a spectrum including moderate and profound absence of iris, with the loss not limited to one specific part of the iris such as in Gillespie syndrome), but also the microphthalmia and other associated ocular features including cataract, lens instability and foveal hypoplasia.

4.

The above is important, due to elegant experiments (Development, 2003) which demonstrated that Mab21l1 murine homozygotes fail to develop lens placodes, and consequently exhibit complete loss of the iris. So heterozygous patients having a partial loss of iris phenotype would be consistent. However, Yamada et al. also demonstrated that Pax6 expression was completely preserved (Foxe3 was profoundly altered), suggesting that this is not “classical aniridia” but a loss of iris phenotype. These elements should surely be discussed/explored in the current manuscript. Indeed, switching emphasis from Pax6, clinically and as a mechanistic candidate, provides opportunities to discuss alternatives for which a strong biological basis exists.

PAX6 is rightly known as a master regulator of eye development. The reviewer will be very aware that the molecular effectors of many developmental functions of PAX6 at different stages of eye development are far from clear. In essence, we are suggesting that MAB21L1 may be one of these effectors. Our hypothesis is that the Arg51 substitutions disrupt this effector function via an effect that is different to that associated with loss of MAB21L1 function. This is completely compatible with PAX6 being “upstream” of MAB21L1.

5.

For instance, another publication identified genes dysregulated in zebrafish mab21l1 mutants. These included both Spalt and Sox transcription factors, and like the prior Foxe3 data, the implications should be discussed.

The zebrafish data is indeed very interesting however our paper is focused on the very striking human genetic features of this disorder and we made a decision when writing the paper that is was not appropriate for us to speculate too much regarding the precise molecular basis of the effect. We respectfully suggest this would be better done by other investigators who will, we hope, follow up on our work.

6.

The authors used HEK cells to characterize MAB21L1 mutation, observing few differences in expression compared to wildtype. It would be helpful to comment on this finding in the context that renal phenotypes are not a feature of Mab21l1 mutation, and renal expression of MAB21L1 is very low (GTExPortal).

Although HEK293 cells were derived from human embryonic kidney tissue, they have been considered cells of complex phenotype for many years. They express markers of neuronal, renal and adrenal progenitors with almost no significant characteristics of adult kidney cells (see PMID: 2602690). We completely accept their limitations, but their tolerance of high-levels of exogenous gene expression is extremely useful experimentally. In our functional studies of genes involved in human eye malformations we also find it helpful that HEK293 cell endogenously express PAX6 and SOX2 at detectable levels, possibly, as part of their neuronal phenotype. We have added the following sentence to the discussion:

“All of the above protein-protein interaction experiments must be treated with caution given that they were performed using GFP-tagged peptides that were very highly and inducibly expressed in HEK293 cells. We suggest that future work should focus on identifying wildtype and mutant MAB21L1-specific interactions under more physiologically and developmentally relevant tissues in order to identify the molecular basis of the disorder.”

7.

The penultimate sentence of the Figure 1 legend incorrectly states that the upper and lower photos show progression of keratopathy. The photos in fact illustrate phthisis - a much more profound phenotype in which the eye progressively shrinks in size. When phthisis occurs, multiple other phenotypes are induced including frequent corneal vascularization and opacification.

In the Clinical Descriptions the phthisis of the right eye is described, and we have amended the Figure 1 legend. The examining clinician describes the right eye as phthisical and the left eye as demonstrating progressive pannus, corneal oedema and band keratopathy. We are therefore reluctant to label both eyes as phthisical given this report but have removed the mention of progressive keratopathy as we agree it could potentially be misleading.

Reviewer #2: 

The manuscript by Hildegard Nikki Hall et al. presents a comprehensive and accurate analysis of novel findings related to MAB21L1 missense variants as the cause of Aniridia and Microphthalmia. The manuscript is well-written, contains all needed information either in the manuscript body or in the supplementary information section, and includes a detailed discussion on the obtained results. I have only a minor comment regarding Figure 1:

- In panel "a", there is a symbol for "developmental delay" which is not found in any of the pedigrees. Please check.

- There are many marks in each symbol, including the genotype as a circle in the middle of the symbol. That can cause confusion. I would suggest writing the genotype beneath each symbol of a recruited individual.

We broadly agree with these comments and have amended the Figure 1. The number of pedigree symbols has been reduced, removing developmental delay and oculocutaneous albinism. The annotation for the genotypes has been simplified for clarity, removing the confusing “N” in the previous version.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE Response to Reviewers comments.docx

Decision Letter 1

Anand Swaroop

7 Oct 2022

Monoallelic Variants Resulting in Substitutions of MAB21L1 Arg51 Cause Aniridia and Microphthalmia

PONE-D-22-11688R1

Dear Dr. FitzPatrick,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Anand Swaroop

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: None.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Anand Swaroop

4 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-11688R1

Monoallelic Variants Resulting in Substitutions of MAB21L1 Arg51 Cause Aniridia and Microphthalmia

Dear Dr. FitzPatrick:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Anand Swaroop

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Mab21l1 CRIPSR design.

    (A) Schematic to illustrate the CRISPR-Cas9 sgRNA guide sequences and their relative locations to the Arginine 51 encoding region of the Mab21l1 locus.(B) Sanger sequencing chromatogram of PCR performed using genomic DNA prepared from a gene edited mouse. The Mab21l1 p.Arg51Leu mutation was introduced (highlighted region), along with the silent substitutions in the flanking regions (red asterisks), which were specific to the repair template.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Sequences of highly specific MAB21L1 heterozygous variants associated with microphthalmia and/or aniridia.

    An allelic series of MAB21L1 heterozygous variants at position c.152G was identified in a total of five probands: two familial cases with c.152G>A (p.(Arg51Gln), chromatograms in orange shaded box), two sporadic cases with de novo inheritance of either the recurrent variant c.152G>T (p.(Arg51Leu), upper chromatogram in green shaded box) or the novel variant c.152G>C (p.(Arg51Pro), chromatogram in yellow shaded box), and one familial case with unknown genotypic inheritance of the recurrent variant c.152G>T (p.(Arg51Leu), lower chromatogram in green shaded box). Additionally, a sporadic case with unknown genotypic inheritance was heterozygous for the novel variant c.155T>G (p.(Phe52Cys), chromatogram in pink shaded box) in the adjacent 3’ codon. The chromatogram for each proband is shown, with the Family ID and pedigree case ID detailed to the right. Sanger sequencing was used to screen for and/or validate the variant in each proband, and to test all of the available relatives (data not shown), which established segregation with the phenotype. The schematic (upper right) illustrates the highly specific positioning of the four variants identified. Nucleotide and amino acid numbering is based on GenBank: NM_005584.5 and GenPept: NP_005575.1, respectively.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Dominant and recessive variants of MAB21L1 and MAB21L2.

    Schematic representations of the linear form of MAB21L1 (blue filled bar) and MAB21L2 (purple filled bar) are shown, with the first and final amino acids numbered for each protein. For both MAB21L1 and MAB21L2 the linear positions of all published pathogenic variants are detailed on each cognate protein schematic, with the dominant heterozygous variants shown above and the recessive biallelic variants shown below. The MAB21L1 variants identified in this study are all dominantly inherited and are shown in red text. Abbreviations: dn, de novo. Nucleotide and amino acid numbering are based on GenBank NM_005584.5 and GenPept NP_005575.1, respectively.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig. Reciprocal IP using TBL1XR1 antibody.

    Western blot analysis of the anti-TBL1XR1 IP using the anti-GFP antibody was unable to detect interaction with wild-type or mutant forms of MAB21L1.TBL1XR1 was detected in all the pull down used as control for pull down experiment.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Fig. Mutant and WT-specific protein-protein interactions from IP-MS.

    A. Graphs of the log-transformed quantitative mass spectroscopy results of biological triplicates of immunoprecipitates of control (GFP), tagged wild-type (WT) and mutant MAB21L1 (R51L and R51Q) from HEK293 cells which identified as single wild-type specific interactor (TBL1XR1) which is a component of the NCor complex. Two other subunits of the NCor complex (NCOR & HDAC3) are shown for comparison. B. Graphs of the three mutant specific interactors (GALNT2, LRRFIP1, MSI2/Musashi-2) and /Musashi-1, a close homolog of MSI2, which shows interaction with all forms of MAB21L1.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Fig. Fundus images showing the optic nerve anomaly of Mab21l1 R51L heterozygous mice.

    Retinal photographs of additional Mab21l1 R51L heterozygous and wild type mice, supplementing the representative, annotated images shown in Fig 4. (A) Photographs from 8 heterozygous Mab21l1 R51L/+ mice, left and right eyes, showing eniarged, excavated anomalous optic nerve heads, often with prominent persistent fetal vasculature. (B) Photographs from 5 wild type mice from the same colony (littermate or cousin controls), showing normal optic nerve heads, illustrating the range of normal. (C, below) On each line, a cartoon of the first fundus image is shown, illustrating the optic disc (black circle) and major blood vessels (radial lines), followed by fundus photographs from one eye of 3 different mice. (i) Mab21l1R51L/+ heterozygous mice (images from 3 mice representative of the optic nerve phenotype taken from images above in (A), versus (ii) age-matched wild type littermate/cousin controls.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Fig. Human mab-21 paralogs: Peptide sequence and genomic features.

    A. Phylogenetic tree of the 11 human mab-21 paralogs and protein alignment (B) and genomic organisation (C) of MAB21L1, MAB21L2 and mab-21. The alignment and phylogenetic tree were generated using MUSCLE https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/muscle/

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Supplemental clinical descriptions.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Supplemental materials and methods.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Supplementary raw data table: Pyrophosphate assay.

    (XLSX)

    S4 File. Supplementary raw data table: Mass spectrometry.

    (XLSX)

    S5 File

    (DOCX)

    S6 File

    (DOCX)

    S7 File

    S1 Table. Oligonucleotides used in the MAB21L1/Mab21l1 study: Sequence and protocol details. Underlined sequence denotes universal tags with no homology to MAB21L1. Further details of the biological relatedness microsatellite PCR protocol are available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2000s/media/200614.pdf. S2 Table. MAB21L1 variant nomenclature validation. (https://variantvalidator.org/). S3 Table. Mendelian ratios. Comparison of the observed versus expected ratios of genotypes from intercrosses of the Mab21l1 R51L line mice (n = 14 litters of each type), establishing that the observed ratios were consistent with Mendelian genetics. S4 Table. FoldX values. Molecular modelling performed using FoldX (Delgado et al., 2019) in order to assess the impact of MAB21L1 and MAB21L2 substitutions on protein stability. Nearly all the mutations are destabilizing to protein structure.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE Response to Reviewers comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The RNA sequencing data is available under the GSE166078 series at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES