L-Plastin nanobodies perturb matrix degradation, podosome formation, stability and lifetime in THP-1 macrophages

Podosomes are cellular structures acting as degradation ‘hot-spots’ in monocytic cells. They appear as dot-like structures at the ventral cell surface, enriched in F-actin and actin regulators, including gelsolin and L-plastin. Gelsolin is an ubiquitous severing and capping protein, whereas L-plastin is a leukocyte-specific actin bundling protein. The presence of the capping protein CapG in podosomes has not yet been investigated. We used an innovative approach to investigate the role of these proteins in macrophage podosomes by means of nanobodies or Camelid single domain antibodies. Nanobodies directed against distinct domains of gelsolin, L-plastin or CapG were stably expressed in macrophage-like THP-1 cells. CapG was not enriched in podosomes. Gelsolin nanobodies had no effect on podosome formation or function but proved very effective in tracing distinct gelsolin populations. One gelsolin nanobody specifically targets actin-bound gelsolin and was effectively enriched in podosomes. A gelsolin nanobody that blocks gelsolin-G-actin interaction was not enriched in podosomes demonstrating that the calcium-activated and actin-bound conformation of gelsolin is a constituent of podosomes. THP-1 cells expressing inhibitory L-plastin nanobodies were hampered in their ability to form stable podosomes. Nanobodies did not perturb Ser5 phosphorylation of L-plastin although phosphorylated L-plastin was highly enriched in podosomes. Furthermore, nanobody-induced inhibition of L-plastin function gave rise to an irregular and unstable actin turnover of podosomes, resulting in diminished degradation of the underlying matrix. Altogether these results indicate that L-plastin is indispensable for podosome formation and function in macrophages

Mutant small heat-shock protein 27 causes axonal Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and distal hereditary motor neuropathy.

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is the most common inherited neuromuscular disease and is characterized by considerable clinical and genetic heterogeneity. We previously reported a Russian family with autosomal dominant axonal CMT and assigned the locus underlying the disease (CMT2F; OMIM 606595) to chromosome 7q11-q21 (ref. 2). Here we report a missense mutation in the gene encoding 27-kDa small heat-shock protein B1 (HSPB1, also called HSP27) that segregates in the family with CMT2F. Screening for mutations in HSPB1 in 301 individuals with CMT and 115 individuals with distal hereditary motor neuropathies (distal HMNs) confirmed the previously observed mutation and identified four additional missense mutations. We observed the additional HSPB1 mutations in four families with distal HMN and in one individual with CMT neuropathy. Four mutations are located in the Hsp20-alpha-crystallin domain, and one mutation is in the C-terminal part of the HSP27 protein. Neuronal cells transfected with mutated HSPB1 were less viable than cells expressing the wild-type protein. Cotransfection of neurofilament light chain (NEFL) and mutant HSPB1 resulted in altered neurofilament assembly in cells devoid of cytoplasmic intermediate filaments

Relative contribution of mutations in genes for autosomal dominant distal hereditary motor neuropathies : a genotype-phenotype correlation study

Distal hereditary motor neuropathy (HMN) is a clinically and genetically heterogeneous group of disorders affecting spinal alpha-motor neurons. Since 2001, mutations in six different genes have been identified for autosomal dominant distal HMN; glycyl-tRNA synthetase (GARS), dynactin 1 (DCTN1), small heat shock 27 kDa protein 1 (HSPB1), small heat shock 22 kDa protein 8 (HSPB8), Berardinelli-Seip congenital lipodystrophy (BSCL2) and senataxin (SETX). In addition a mutation in the (VAMP)-associated protein B and C (VAPB) was found in several Brazilian families with complex and atypical forms of autosomal dominantly inherited motor neuron disease. We have investigated the distribution of mutations in these seven genes in a cohort of 112 familial and isolated patients with a diagnosis of distal motor neuropathy and found nine different disease-causing mutations in HSPB8, HSPB1, BSCL2 and SETX in 17 patients of whom 10 have been previously reported. No mutations were found in GARS, DCTN1 and VAPB. The phenotypic features of patients with mutations in HSPB8, HSPB1, BSCL2 and SETX fit within the distal HMN classification, with only one exception; a C-terminal HSPB1-mutation was associated with upper motor neuron signs. Furthermore, we provide evidence for a genetic mosaicism in transmitting an HSPB1 mutation. This study, performed in a large cohort of familial and isolated distal HMN patients, clearly confirms the genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of distal HMN and provides a basis for the development of algorithms for diagnostic mutation screening in this group of disorders

EFNS guidelines for the molecular diagnosis of neurogenetic disorders: motoneuron, peripheral nerve and muscle disorders

Objectives:  These EFNS guidelines on the molecular diagnosis of motoneuron disorders, neuropathies and myopathies are designed to summarize the possibilities and limitations of molecular genetic techniques and to provide diagnostic criteria for deciding when a molecular diagnostic work‐up is indicated.Search strategy:  To collect data about planning, conditions and performance of molecular diagnosis of these disorders, a literature search in various electronic databases was carried out and original papers, meta‐analyses, review papers and guideline recommendations reviewed.Results:  The best level of evidence for genetic testing recommendation (B) can be found for the disorders with specific presentations, including familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth 1A, myotonic dystrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. For a number of less common disorders, a precise description of the phenotype, including the use of immunologic methods in the case of myopathies, is considered as good clinical practice to guide molecular genetic testing.Conclusion:  These guidelines are provisional and the future availability of molecular‐genetic epidemiological data about the neurogenetic disorders under discussion in this article will allow improved recommendation with an increased level of evidence