Spatial Models of Piezoproteins and Networks of Protein-Protein Interactions in Trichoplax Animals (Placozoa)

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The marine free-living organism Trichoplax (phylum Placozoa) resembles the unicellular amoeba in shape and type of movement. Trichoplax diverged from the main evolutionary tree in the Neoproterozoic Era and is one of the simplest models of a multicellular animal, as well as a strong example of the ensemble of interacting cells in an organism during its development and movement. Two orthologs of mouse Piezo1 protein (6B3R) were found in two Trichoplax haplotypes H1 and H2 as a result of a search for similar sequences in the NCBI databases. Spatial models of the corresponding proteins, XP_002112008.1 and RDD46920.1, were created based on the structural alignment using a 6KG7 (mouse Piezo2) template. The analysis of domain structures was performed, and a limited graph of protein‒protein interactions of the hypothetical mechanosensor XP_002112008.1 was constructed. The possibility of signal transduction from the mechanoreceptor to membrane complexes, cytoplasm and cell nucleus was shown. It is assumed that mechanosensory receptors of Trichoplax are involved in the perception of force stimuli between neighboring cells and the environment. Based on the obtained data, we propose to use the primitive Trichoplax organism as the simplest multicellular model for mechanical and morphogenetic movements.

About the authors

A. V. Kuznetsov

Kovalevsky Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Russian Academy of Sciences; Sevastopol State University; Branch of the Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: vtyurinad@gmail.com
Russia, 299011, Sevastopol; Russia, 299053, Sevastopol; Russia, 299001, Sevastopol

I. Yu. Grishin

Branch of the Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: vtyurinad@gmail.com
Russia, 299001, Sevastopol

D. N. Vtyurina

Semenov Federal Research Center for Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: vtyurinad@gmail.com
Russia, 119991, Moscow

References

  1. Niethammer P. (2021) Components and mechanisms of nuclear mechanotransduction. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 37, 233‒256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-120319-030049
  2. Fajardo-Cavazos P., Nicholson W.L. (2021) Mechanotransduction in prokaryotes: a possible mechanism of spaceflight adaptation. Life (Basel). 11(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11010033
  3. Jin P., Jan L.Y., Jan Y.N. (2020) Mechanosensitive ion channels: structural features relevant to mechanotransduction mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 43, 207‒229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-070918-050509
  4. Marshall K.L., Lumpkin E.A. (2012) The molecular basis of mechanosensory transduction. Adv Exp. Med. Biol. 739, 142‒155. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1704-0_9
  5. Clapham D.E. (2007) Calcium signaling. Cell. 131(6), 1047‒1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.028
  6. Perozo E. (2006) Gating prokaryotic mechanosensitive channels. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7(2), 109‒119. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm1833
  7. Arnadóttir J., Chalfie M. (2010) Eukaryotic mechanosensitive channels. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 39, 111‒137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125836
  8. Earley S., Santana L.F., Lederer W.J. (2021) The physiological sensor channels TRP and piezo: nobel prize in physiology or medicine. Physiol. Rev. 102(2), 1153‒1158. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00057.2021
  9. Du G., Chen W., Li L., Zhang Q. (2022) The potential role of mechanosensitive ion channels in substrate stiffness-regulated Ca2+ response in chondrocytes. Connect. Tissue Res. 63(5), 453‒462. https://doi.org/10.1080/03008207.2021.2007902
  10. Coste B., Mathur J., Schmidt M., Earley T.J., Ranade S., Petrus M.J., Dubin A.E., Patapoutian A. (2010) Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels. Science. 330(6000), 55‒60. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193270
  11. Fang X.Z., Zhou T., Xu J.Q., Wang Y.X., Sun M.M., He Y.J., Pan S.W., Xiong W., Peng Z.K., Gao X.H., Shang Y. (2021) Structure, kinetic properties and biological function of mechanosensitive Piezo channels. Cell Biosci. 11(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13578-020-00522-z
  12. Barzegari A., Omidi Y., Ostadrahimi A., Gueguen V., Meddahi-Pellé A., Nouri M., Pavon-Djavid G. (2020) The role of Piezo proteins and cellular mechanosensing in tuning the fate of transplanted stem cells. Cell Tissue Res. 381(1), 1‒12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-020-03191-z
  13. Ge J., Li W., Zhao Q., Li N., Chen M., Zhi P., Li R., Gao N., Xiao B., Yang M. (2015) Architecture of the mammalian mechanosensitive Piezo1 channel. Nature. 527(7576), 64‒69. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15247
  14. Coste B., Xiao B., Santos J.S., Syeda R., Grandl J., Spencer K.S., Kim S.E., Schmidt M., Mathur J., Dubin A.E., Montal M., Patapoutian A. (2012) Piezo proteins are pore-forming subunits of mechanically activated channels. Nature. 483(7388), 176‒181. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10812
  15. Coste B., Murthy S.E., Mathur J., Schmidt M., Mechioukhi Y., Delmas P., Patapoutian A. (2015) Piezo1 ion channel pore properties are dictated by C-terminal region. Nat. Commun. 6, 7223. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8223
  16. Syeda R., Florendo M.N., Cox C.D., Kefauver J.M., Santos J.S., Martinac B., Patapoutian A. (2016) Piezo1 channels are inherently mechanosensitive. Cell Rep. 17(7), 1739‒1746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.10.033
  17. Syed T., Schierwater B. (2002) The evolution of the Placozoa: a new morphological model. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments. 82(1), 315‒324. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03043791
  18. Srivastava M., Begovic E., Chapman J., Putnam N.H., Hellsten U., Kawashima T., Kuo A., Mitros T., Salamov A., Carpenter M.L., Signorovitch A.Y., Moreno M.A., Kamm K., Grimwood J., Schmutz J., Shapiro H., Grigoriev I.V., Buss L.W., Schierwater B., Dellaporta S.L., Rokhsar D.S. (2008) The Trichoplax genome and the nature of placozoans. Nature. 454(7207), 955‒960. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07191
  19. Kamm K., Osigus H.J., Stadler P.F., DeSalle R., Schierwater B. (2018) Trichoplax genomes reveal profound admixture and suggest stable wild populations without bisexual reproduction. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 11168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29400-y
  20. Smith C.L., Varoqueaux F., Kittelmann M., Azzam R.N., Cooper B., Winters C.A., Eitel M., Fasshauer D., Reese T.S. (2014) Novel cell types, neurosecretory cells, and body plan of the early-diverging metazoan Trichoplax adhaerens. Curr. Biol. 24(14), 1565‒1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.046
  21. Wenderoth H. (1990) Cytoplasmic vibrations due to flagellar beating in Trichoplax adhaerens F. E. Schulze (Placozoa). Z. Naturforsch. 45, 715‒722. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-1990-0624
  22. Armon S., Bull M.S., Aranda-Diaz A., Prakash M. (2018) Ultrafast epithelial contractions provide insights into contraction speed limits and tissue integrity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 115(44), E10333‒E10341. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802934115
  23. Kuznetsov A.V., Halaimova A.V., Ufimtseva M.A., Chelebieva E.S. (2020) Blocking a chemical communication between Trichoplax organisms leads to their disorderly movement. Int. J. Parallel Emergent Distributed Systems. 35(4), 473‒482. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445760.2020.1753188
  24. Kuznetsov A.V., Vainer V.I., Volkova Y.M., Kartashov L.E. (2021) Motility disorders and disintegration into separate cells of Trichoplax sp. H2 in the presence of Zn2+ ions and L-cysteine molecules: a systems approach. Biosystems. 206, 104444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2021.104444
  25. Ueda T., Koya S., Maruyama Y.K. (1999) Dynamic patterns in the locomotion and feeding behaviors by the placozoan Trichoplax adhaerence. Biosystems. 54(1–2), 65‒70. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0303-2647(99)00066-0
  26. Smith C.L., Reese T.S., Govezensky T., Barrio R.A. (2019) Coherent directed movement toward food modeled in Trichoplax, a ciliated animal lacking a nervous system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 116(18), 8901‒8908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815655116
  27. Velankar S., Burley S.K., Kurisu G., Hoch J.C., Markley J.L. (2021) The protein data bank archive. Methods Mol. Biol. 2305, 3‒21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1406-8_1
  28. Altschul S.F., Gish W., Miller W., Myers E.W., Lipman D.J. (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215(3), 403‒410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2
  29. Kelley L.A., Mezulis S., Yates C.M., Wass M.N., Sternberg M.J. (2015) The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. Nat. Protoc. 10(6), 845‒858. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2015.053
  30. Sayle R.A., Milner-White E.J. (1995) RASMOL: biomolecular graphics for all. Trends Biochem. Sci. 20(9), 374. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-0004(00)89080-5
  31. Mistry J., Chuguransky S., Williams L., Qureshi M., Salazar G.A., Sonnhammer E.L.L., Tosatto S.C.E., Paladin L., Raj S., Richardson L.J., Finn R.D., Bateman A. (2021) Pfam: the protein families database in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 49(D1), D412‒D419. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa913
  32. Szklarczyk D., Gable A.L., Nastou K.C., Lyon D., Kirsch R., Pyysalo S., Doncheva N.T., Legeay M., Fang T., Bork P., Jensen L.J., von Mering C. (2021) The STRING database in 2021: customizable protein-protein networks, and functional characterization of user-uploaded gene/measurement sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 49(D1), D605‒D612. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa1074
  33. Guo Y.R., MacKinnon R. (2017) Structure-based membrane dome mechanism for Piezo mechanosensitivity. Elife. 6, e33660. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33660
  34. Wang L., Zhou H., Zhang M., Liu W., Deng T., Zhao Q., Li Y., Lei J., Li X., Xiao B. (2019) Structure and mechanogating of the mammalian tactile channel PIEZO2. Nature. 573(7773), 225‒229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1505-8
  35. Grigorov M.G. (2005) Global properties of biological networks. Drug Discov. Today. 10(5), 365‒372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(05)03369-6
  36. Ranade S.S., Syeda R., Patapoutian A. (2015) Mechanically activated ion channels. Neuron. 87(6), 1162‒1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.08.032
  37. Фадеева М.В., Курченко В.М., Кузнецов А.В. (2022) Описание семейства катионных TRPА1-каналов Trichoplax adhaerens. Актуальные вопросы биологической физики и химии. БФФХ-2022: материалы XVII Междунар. науч. конф. г. Севастополь, РФ, 2022. с. 201‒202.
  38. Фадеева М.В., Сергеева Е.В., Рыбакова К.А., Кузнецов А.В. (2022) Характеристика семейства катионных TRPA1-каналов Trichoplax sp. H2 (Placozoa). Актуальные вопр. биол. физики и химии. 7(3), 493‒450.
  39. Scheres B., van der Putten W.H. (2017) The plant perceptron connects environment to development. Nature. 543(7645), 337‒345. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22010
  40. Timsit Y., Grégoire S.P. (2021) Towards the idea of molecular brains. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(21), 11868. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222111868
  41. Cox C.D., Bavi N., Martinac B. (2019) Biophysical principles of ion-channel-mediated mechanosensory transduction. Cell Rep. 29(1), 1‒12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2019.08.075
  42. Lewis A.H., Grandl J. (2021) Piezo1 ion channels inherently function as independent mechanotransducers. Elife. 10, e70988. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70988
  43. Yang X., Lin C., Chen X., Li S., Li X., Xiao B. (2022) Structure deformation and curvature sensing of PIEZO1 in lipid membranes. Nature. 604(7905), 377‒383. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04574-8
  44. Young M., Lewis A.H., Grandl J. (2022) Physics of mechanotransduction by Piezo ion channels. J. Gen. Physiol. 154(7), e202113044. https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.202113044

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2023 А.В. Кузнецов, И.Ю. Гришин, Д.Н. Втюрина