text:
|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français
The author(s) have made the following declarations about their contributions: Conceived and designed the experiments: ZS ZD XF MPH JS ADG. Performed the experiments: ZS ZD XF MPH JS ADG. Analyzed the data: ZS ZD XF MPH AC JS ADG. Wrote the paper: JS ADG.
TDP-43 and FUS are RNA-binding proteins that form cytoplasmic inclusions in some forms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). Moreover, mutations in TDP-43 and FUS are linked to ALS and FTLD. However, it is unknown whether TDP-43 and FUS aggregate and cause toxicity by similar mechanisms. Here, we exploit a yeast model and purified FUS to elucidate mechanisms of FUS aggregation and toxicity. Like TDP-43, FUS must aggregate in the cytoplasm and bind RNA to confer toxicity in yeast. These cytoplasmic FUS aggregates partition to stress granule compartments just as they do in ALS patients. Importantly, in isolation, FUS spontaneously forms pore-like oligomers and filamentous structures reminiscent of FUS inclusions in ALS patients. FUS aggregation and toxicity requires a prion-like domain, but unlike TDP-43, additional determinants within a RGG domain are critical for FUS aggregation and toxicity. In further distinction to TDP-43, ALS-linked FUS mutations do not promote aggregation. Finally, genome-wide screens uncovered stress granule assembly and RNA metabolism genes that modify FUS toxicity but not TDP-43 toxicity. Our findings suggest that TDP-43 and FUS, though similar RNA-binding proteins, aggregate and confer disease phenotypes via distinct mechanisms. These differences will likely have important therapeutic implications.
Many human neurodegenerative diseases are associated with the abnormal accumulation of protein aggregates in the neurons of affected individuals. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, is a fatal human neurodegenerative disease caused primarily by a loss of motor neurons. Recently, mutations in a gene called fused in sarcoma (FUS) were identified in some ALS patients. The basic mechanisms by which FUS contributes to ALS are unknown. We have addressed this question using protein biochemistry and the genetically tractable yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We defined the regions of biochemically pure FUS protein that contribute to its aggregation and toxic properties. We then used genome-wide screens in yeast to identify genes and cellular pathways involved in the toxicity of FUS. Many of the FUS toxicity modifier genes that we identified in yeast have clear homologs in humans, suggesting that these might also be relevant for the human disease. Together, our studies provide novel insight into the basic mechanisms associated with FUS aggregation and toxicity. Moreover, our findings open new avenues that could be explored for therapeutic intervention.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also called Lou Gehrig's disease, is a devastating neurodegenerative disease. It is a rapidly progressing motor neuron wasting disorder that leads to paralysis and death typically within 2–5 years of onset. There are no cures or effective treatments. Given the similarities in presentation and pathology of familial and sporadic disease, study of genes mutated in familial disease can shed light on mechanisms of both familial ALS and the more common sporadic form. The first familial gene associated with ALS was SOD1 [1], and much research over the past 10–15 years has focused on mechanisms by which mutant SOD1 may cause motor neuron dysfunction and loss [2].
Insight into ALS changed dramatically in 2006 when the 43 kDa TAR-DNA-binding protein (TDP-43) was identified as a protein that accumulates abnormally in the ubiquitinated pathological lesions that characterize brain and spinal cord tissue of almost every non-SOD1 ALS patient [3]–[5]. Similar TDP-43 inclusions were also identified in degenerating neurons in a subset of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD-TDP) cases [3]–[5]. TDP-43 is an RNA-binding protein with two RNA recognition motifs (RRMs) and a glycine rich domain [6]. In 2008, several groups independently reported the identification of over 30 different mutations in the TDP-43 gene (TARDBP) in various sporadic and familial ALS patients [6]–[10]. TDP-43 mutations were subsequently identified in various FTLD-TDP cases [11],[12]. Taken together, these studies strongly suggest that TDP-43 is a new human neurodegenerative disease protein. Wild-type (WT) TDP-43 accumulates abnormally in cytoplasmic, ubiquitinated inclusions in degenerating neurons of ALS and FTLD-TDP patients, and mutations in the TDP-43 gene are linked with disease in rare familial and sporadic cases. Despite these advances, how TDP-43 contributes to disease, which domain of TDP-43 drives aggregation, and how ALS-linked mutations affect TDP-43 function and aggregation remained unclear.
To address these deficits, we investigated the pathogenic properties of TDP-43 in yeast. The yeast system is simple and fast and has highly conserved fundamental pathways that allow powerful insights into complex human neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and ALS [13]. Therefore, we developed a yeast model of TDP-43 to study TDP-43 biology as well as the mechanisms of TDP-43 aggregation and toxicity. Expression of human TDP-43 in yeast resulted in cytoplasmic aggregation and toxicity, thus modeling key aspects of human TDP-43 proteinopathies. These studies revealed that RRM2 and the C-terminal domain of TDP-43 (Figure 1A) are required for aggregation and toxicity [14]. Notably, all but one of over 30 ALS-linked mutations reside in the C-terminal domain, which the yeast system defined as critical for toxicity. Moreover, a combination of pure protein studies and in vivo analyses in yeast demonstrated that ALS-linked TDP-43 mutations render TDP-43 more aggregation-prone and enhance toxicity [15]. These studies demonstrated that the aggregation propensity and severity of toxicity of TDP-43 variants observed in ALS could be recapitulated in yeast. Moreover, we have discovered a potent genetic modifier of TDP-43 toxicity in yeast, Pbp1, which is connected with ALS in humans [16]. The human homolog of Pbp1, ataxin 2, harbors a polyglutamine tract that is greatly expanded (>34 glutamines) in spinocerebellar ataxia type 2 [16]. Importantly, intermediate-length polyQ expansions (~27–33 glutamines) in ataxin 2 are a significant genetic risk factor for ALS in humans [16]. Clearly, the power of yeast genetics can be exploited to define basic disease mechanisms of fundamental importance to human neurodegenerative disease.
Shortly following the identification of mutations in TDP-43 in ALS, mutations in another gene encoding an RNA-binding protein, FUS (fused in sarcoma; also known as TLS, translocated in liposarcoma), were connected to familial ALS [17],[18]. Additional mutations in FUS have recently been identified in sporadic ALS cases and in a subset of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD-FUS) cases [19],[20]. FUS is normally a nuclear protein, but ALS patients harboring FUS mutations exhibit prominent neuronal cytoplasmic FUS accumulations that appear devoid of TDP-43 [18]. Several other examples of neurodegenerative disease are beginning to emerge where the predominant disease phenotype is the cytoplasmic aggregation of wild-type FUS. These include some cases of juvenile ALS [21], basophilic inclusion body disease [22], as well as the majority of tau- and TDP-43-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration cases [23]. Moreover, FUS is also aggregated in Huntington's disease; spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) type 1, 2, and 3; and dentatorubropallidoluysian atrophy [24],. These findings extend the spectrum of disorders associated with FUS aggregation beyond ALS and FTLD-FUS and suggest the importance of understanding mechanisms of aggregation of WT as well as mutant FUS.
FUS was initially discovered as part of a chromosomal translocation associated with human myxoid liposarcomas [26]. Subsequent studies have revealed roles for FUS in transcription, RNA processing, and RNA transport [27]–[29]. In neurons, FUS is localized to the nucleus but is transported to dendritic spines at excitatory post-synapses in a complex with RNA and other RNA-binding proteins [30]. In further support of a role of FUS in maintaining neuronal architecture, primary hippocampal neurons cultured from FUS knockout mouse embryos display defects in spine morphology and decreased spine density [31]. It remains unclear, however, how loss of this function of FUS or perhaps a novel toxic gain-of-function associated with FUS mutations contribute to ALS. Importantly, it is also uncertain whether FUS is intrinsically aggregation-prone. Indeed, FUS might simply be a marker of disease that is sequestered by other aggregated components.
FUS and TDP-43 possess a similar domain structure. Like TDP-43, FUS has an RRM and a glycine-rich domain (Figure 1A). Moreover, using a bioinformatic algorithm designed to identify yeast prion domains [32], we recently identified novel "prion-like" domains in the N-terminal domain of FUS (amino acids 1–239) and in the C-terminal domain of TDP-43 (amino acids 277–414) (Figure 1A, Figure S1) [33]. Similar to prion domains found in yeast prion proteins such as Sup35, Ure2, and Rnq1, this domain is enriched in uncharged polar amino acids (especially asparagine, glutamine, and tyrosine) and glycine [32],[34]. This type of domain encodes all the information necessary to form a prion in yeast [27]–. It should be noted, however, that this type of domain is not found in all prion proteins, including HET-s from Podospora anserina and mammalian prion protein (PrP) [33],[34]. Remarkably, by using this bioinformatic algorithm [32] to score and rank the human proteome (27,879 human proteins) for prion-like properties, FUS and TDP-43 ranked 15th and 69th, respectively [33]. Our findings raise the intriguing possibility that RRM proteins with predicted prion-like domains may be particularly relevant to ALS [15],[33],[35],[36]. Virtually all the ALS-linked mutations in TDP-43 lie in its prion-like domain [33]. By contrast, only a few of the ALS-linked mutations in FUS lie in its prion-like domain [33]. Indeed, the majority of ALS-linked FUS mutations reside at the extreme C-terminal region [37]. The identification of two RNA-binding proteins with a similar domain architecture that aggregate and are sometimes mutated in ALS and FTLD gives rise to the emerging concept that RNA metabolic pathways may play a major role in ALS and FTLD pathogenesis [38].
Despite these similarities between TDP-43 and FUS, it is unknown whether TDP-43 and FUS aggregate and cause toxicity by similar mechanisms. Here, we address this issue and establish, for the first time, two vital weapons in the fight against FUS proteinopathies, which have been critical in advancing our basic understanding of various other protein misfolding disorders, including Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and TDP-43 proteinopathies [13]–[16],[39]–[45]. First, we establish a simple yeast model of FUS aggregation and toxicity. Second, we reconstitute FUS misfolding and aggregation using pure protein. These two approaches have served as important foundations for understanding mechanistic aspects of numerous neurodegenerative disorders and have empowered countless advances. We establish that, as for TDP-43, the RRM and the prion-like domain of FUS are required for aggregation and toxicity in yeast. However, in contrast to TDP-43, we find that additional determinants within the first RGG domain (Figure 1A) are also critical for FUS aggregation and toxicity. Importantly, we demonstrate that pure FUS is inherently aggregation-prone in the absence of other components and this behavior requires determinants in the prion-like domain and first RGG domain of FUS (Figure 1A). Aggregates formed by pure FUS are filamentous and resemble those formed by FUS in degenerating motor neurons of ALS patients. ALS-linked TDP-43 mutations can promote aggregation in vitro with pure proteins and in yeast [15]. By contrast, we find that ALS-linked FUS mutations do not promote aggregation per se. Finally, using two genome-wide screens in yeast, we identified several genes and pathways as potent modifiers of FUS toxicity. Many of the genes that we discovered in the yeast screens have human homologs. Thus, they are likely to provide insight into the specific cellular pathways perturbed by FUS accumulation and may ultimately suggest novel avenues for therapeutic investigation. Surprisingly, almost all of the genetic modifiers had no effect on TDP-43 toxicity in yeast. These key differences between FUS and TDP-43 will help guide the design of therapeutic interventions aimed at mitigating FUS aggregation in disease.
To model aspects of FUS pathology in yeast, we first transformed yeast cells with a high-copy 2 micron (2 µ) plasmid containing human FUS fused to the yellow fluorescent protein (YFP; Figure 1B). Because TDP-43 was toxic to yeast [14], we placed FUS-YFP expression under the control of a tightly regulated galactose-inducible promoter (Figure 1B) to prevent deleterious effects during routine passage. After growing transformants in non-inducing conditions (raffinose media), we induced expression of FUS-YFP in galactose-containing media. Overexpression is a common tool to study the aggregation and toxicity of numerous proteins ranging from alpha-synuclein to TDP-43 [14],[39],[45]. It provides a method to elicit protein misfolding by increasing protein concentration and exceeding proteostatic buffers [46]. Moreover, overexpression is likely to yield key information because an established cause of several human neurodegenerative diseases is increased expression of aggregation-prone proteins, such as alpha-synuclein, amyloid precursor protein, and TDP-43 [47]–[49]. Following 4–6 h of induction, we visualized FUS-YFP localization by fluorescence microscopy (Figure 1C). Whereas the control, YFP alone, was localized diffusely throughout the cytoplasm and nucleus, FUS-YFP localized to the cytoplasm where it formed numerous foci (Figure 1C). FUS-YFP showed a similar cytoplasmic localization pattern when expressed from a low-copy galactose-inducible CEN plasmid (unpublished data). The FUS localization pattern was strikingly similar to that of TDP-43 in yeast (Figure 1C and [14]), in terms of size, shape, and quantity of foci in the cytoplasm (Figure 1C). Indeed when co-expressed in the same cell, FUS-YFP and TDP-43-CFP co-localized to the same cytoplasmic foci (Figure S2). Thus, TDP-43 and FUS inclusions partition to a similar compartment in yeast.
Next, we employed a weaker promoter (glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GPD) promoter) to express FUS at lower levels. Here, FUS-YFP localized to both the nucleus and cytoplasm, where it was diffusely distributed (Figure S3). Similar results were seen with even weaker yeast promoters (CYC1 and NOP1; unpublished data). Thus, the FUS expression level plays a key role in FUS localization and aggregation in yeast. These data predict that sequence variants or copy number variants in the FUS gene that increase FUS expression might also contribute to ALS, FTLD-FUS, and other FUS proteinopathies. Indeed, a variant in the 3′UTR of the TDP-43 gene increases TDP-43 expression and contributes to FTLD-TDP [47]. Moreover, motor neurons express higher levels of FUS than other tissues, which might render them more vulnerable to FUS misfolding events [50].
In mammalian cells, FUS is normally restricted to the nucleus [51]–[55]. By contrast, in yeast, FUS is mostly localized to the cytoplasm. This difference suggests that the non-canonical FUS nuclear localization signal (NLS; amino acids 500–526) might not be very efficient in yeast. Indeed, in an accompanying manuscript, Ju et al. present data that directly support this hypothesis [56]. Alternatively, FUS might require post-translational modifications to localize to the nucleus, which do not occur in yeast. In an effort to restrict FUS to the nucleus, we fused a strong heterologous NLS (the SV40 NLS [57]) to the N-terminus of FUS. The SV40 NLS was sufficient to largely restrict FUS to the nucleus, but some cytoplasmic localization was also observed (Figure 1F). Importantly, restricting FUS to the nucleus eliminated aggregation (Figure 1F). Thus, FUS accumulation in the cytoplasm contributes to its aggregation. Despite the differences between FUS localization in yeast and mammalian cells, we can clearly use the genetically tractable yeast system to model FUS cytoplasmic aggregation, a critical pathological event in ALS and FTLD [17],[18]. Furthermore, defective nuclear import of FUS might be a key upstream event in ALS [52].
Having established that FUS, like TDP-43, forms cytoplasmic inclusions when expressed in yeast, we next asked if cytoplasmic aggregation of FUS was toxic. To assess FUS toxicity, we performed spotting assays on galactose media. Expressing FUS-YFP or untagged FUS inhibited growth, whereas YFP had no effect (Figure 1E). Thus, as for TDP-43, FUS expression in yeast was cytotoxic. Cytotoxicity correlated positively with cytoplasmic aggregation. First, expressing FUS at lower levels from the GPD promoter did not induce cytoplasmic FUS inclusions (Figure S3) and did not confer toxicity (unpublished data). Second, restricting FUS to the nucleus with the SV40 NLS (Figure 1F) greatly reduced toxicity (Figure 1G). These data suggest that cytoplasmic FUS aggregation is a critical pathological event in ALS and that neurodegeneration might be caused by a toxic gain of function in the cytoplasm.
Importantly, not every human RNA-binding protein aggregates and is toxic when expressed at high levels in yeast. Indeed, we expressed 132 human proteins containing RRMs in yeast. Of these, 35 (including TDP-43 and FUS) aggregated and were toxic (A.D.G. unpublished observations; Figure 1C). It will be important to determine whether any of these RRM-bearing proteins, aside from FUS and TDP-43, are connected to neurodegenerative disease. Moreover, it will be important to define whether common sequence determinants among these 35 RRM-bearing proteins promote aggregation and toxicity. One striking feature of FUS and TDP-43, as well as at least seven other human RNA-binding proteins that are toxic and aggregate in yeast, is the presence of a prion-like domain (Figure 1A; A.D.G. unpublished observations) [33].
We noticed that FUS-YFP cytoplasmic accumulations in yeast are highly dynamic under various growth conditions (Z.S., X.D.F., and A.D.G., unpublished observations). This dynamic behavior was reminiscent of RNA processing bodies (P-bodies) and stress granules. P-bodies and stress granules play important roles in regulating the translation, degradation, and localization of mRNAs. The pathways regulating the incorporation of RNAs and RNA-binding proteins into these structures are highly conserved from yeast to human [58]. Under various stress situations, including heat shock and oxidative stress, TDP-43 and FUS localize to these transient subcellular compartments and sites of RNA processing [59]–[62]. Moreover, even under normal conditions some ALS-linked FUS mutants localize to stress granules [51]–[55]. Thus, we tested whether FUS could induce stress granule or P-body formation in yeast and whether FUS localized to these structures. We expressed FUS-YFP or YFP alone in yeast cells harboring RFP- or CFP-tagged stress granule or P-body markers (Figure 2). To detect stress granules we used Pbp1-CFP and to detect P-bodies we used Dcp2-RFP [63]. Expressing YFP alone did not affect the localization of the P-body or stress granule components, which were diffuse under normal conditions (Figure 2A,B; unpublished data). However, FUS expression induced the formation of P-bodies and stress granules and FUS-YFP colocalized with both of these structures (Figure 2A,B). Thus, FUS localizes to and induces the formation of RNA granules in yeast as it does in human cells [51],[53]–[55]. These RNA granule assembly pathways are highly conserved from human to yeast. Thus, yeast provides a powerful system to dissect how FUS associates with these structures and to identify genetic and chemical modifiers of this process.
To determine sequence features of FUS that were sufficient and necessary for aggregation and toxicity in yeast, we next performed a structure-function analysis. We recently used a similar approach for TDP-43 and determined that the C-terminal prion-like domain was required for aggregation and toxicity [14]. Underscoring the power of this approach, similar results have been reported for the C-terminal domain of TDP-43 in mammalian cells and in animal models [64],[65]. Moreover, all but one of the recently identified human ALS-linked TDP-43 mutations are located in this same C-terminal region [6]. We generated a series of FUS truncations (Figure 3A). We expressed each of the truncated FUS constructs as YFP-fusions and determined their subcellular localization (Figure 3B) and toxicity (Figure 3D). Immunoblotting confirmed that all of the fusion proteins were expressed at comparable levels (Figure 3C; unpublished data).
Full-length FUS formed multiple cytoplasmic inclusions in yeast (Figures 1C, ,3B).3B). Interestingly, removing the last 25 residues of FUS, which harbor most of the ALS-linked mutations [37], did not affect aggregation (Figure 3B, construct 1–501). This result is consistent with a recent report that a similar FUS truncation mutant (R495X) is connected with a severe ALS phenotype [51]. A larger C-terminal deletion also had little effect on cytoplasmic aggregation (Figure 3B, construct 1–453). Thus, C-terminal portions of FUS are not essential for cytoplasmic aggregation.
For TDP-43, the C-terminal prion-like domain is necessary but not sufficient for cytoplasmic aggregation [14]. TDP-43 also requires a portion of RRM2 (Figure 1A) [14]. However, for FUS, the N-terminal prion-like domain and the RRM resulted in an entirely nuclear localized protein (Figure 3B, construct 1–373; Figure S4). Adding back the first RGG domain (amino acids 371–422) was sufficient to restore cytoplasmic aggregation (Figure 3B, construct 1–422). Thus, in contrast to our findings with TDP-43 [14], the prion-like domain and the RRM of FUS (Figure 3B, construct 1–373) were insufficient to confer cytoplasmic aggregation. Additional C-terminal determinants within the first RGG domain are required to confer cytoplasmic aggregation (Figure 3B, construct 1–422).
Next, we asked if deletion of portions of the N-terminal prion-like domain of FUS, which spans the QGSY-rich domain and a portion of the Gly-rich domain (amino acids 1–239) (Figure 1A), prevented aggregation. Indeed, the generation of large cytoplasmic inclusions required most of the N-terminal QGSY-rich domain (Figure 3B, compare constructs 1–501, 50–526, 100–526, and 165–526) (Figure 3A,B). Deletion of the entire N-terminal QGSY-rich domain (construct 165–526) yielded mostly diffuse cytoplasmic staining with occasional small foci (Figure 3A,B). However, shorter N-terminal constructs comprising just the N-terminal QGSY-rich domain or this domain plus the Gly-rich domain did not aggregate and were localized in the nucleus (Figure 3B, constructs 1–168 and 1–269; Figure S4). Thus, the N-terminal prion-like domain of FUS is necessary but not sufficient for aggregation. Rather, FUS requires sequences in both the N-terminal region and the C-terminal region for robust formation of large cytoplasmic inclusions. Accordingly, large N-terminal deletions were diffusely localized within the cytoplasm, with only occasional small cytoplasmic puncta (Figure 3B, constructs 165–526, 267–526, 285–526, and 368–526). Thus, in distinction to TDP-43, which requires its C-terminal prion-like domain and a portion of RRM2 (Figure 1A) to aggregate in yeast [14], FUS requires its N-terminal prion-like domain, RRM, and first RGG domain to aggregate in yeast (Figures 1A, ,3A).3A). This key difference will have important implications for the design of therapeutic strategies aimed at preventing or reversing aggregation.
Our domain mapping experiments in yeast indicate that the first RGG domain of FUS (amino acids 371–422) is important for driving aggregation (e.g., Figure 3B, compare constructs 1–373 and 1–422) and that sequences in the N-terminal prion-like domain (amino acids 1–239) are also important (e.g., Figure 3B, compare constructs 50–526 and 165–526). To test these predictions in mammalian cells, we transfected several of these deletion constructs (as C-terminal V5 epitope tag fusions) in COS-7 cells. In contrast to yeast cells, where full-length FUS (construct 1–526) forms cytoplasmic inclusions, and consistent with previous reports in mammalian cells [17],[18],[51],[52], full-length FUS localized almost exclusively to the nucleus, forming occasional cytoplasmic foci (Figure 4). This difference between the localization of full-length FUS in yeast (almost entirely cytoplasmic and forms inclusions) versus mammalian cells (almost entirely nuclear and diffuse) is also seen with TDP-43 (e.g., compare [66] and [14]) and might reflect differences in the efficacy of the FUS and TDP-43 nuclear localization signals in yeast and mammals. Indeed, Ju et al. demonstrate that the FUS NLS (amino acids 500–526) is ineffective in yeast [56].
Consistent with our yeast data, FUS constructs 1–269 and 1–373 localized almost exclusively to the nucleus in a diffuse pattern, although there was more cytoplasmic staining with 1–373 (Figure 4). These results were surprising since these constructs lack the C-terminal NLS defined in other studies [52],[54]. However, these results are consistent with those of Kino et al., who find that FUS 1–278 is localized to the nucleus and FUS 1–360 is localized to the nucleus as well as the cytoplasm [54]. These data suggest that additional determinants of nuclear localization exist in the FUS primary sequence. Indeed, scanning the FUS primary sequence using NLStradumus [67] revealed three NLS sequences in FUS comprising residues 241–251, 381–395, and 480–521. These two additional NLS sequences (241–251 and 381–395) might help explain why all of the FUS constructs in Figure 4 have some ability to localize to the nucleus.
Strikingly, as we observed in yeast, addition of the first RGG domain (construct 1–422) resulted in prominent cytoplasmic FUS aggregation in COS-7 cells (Figure 4). FUS construct 50–526 aggregated in yeast (Figure 3B) and mammalian cells (Figure 4). However, the morphology of the 50–526 inclusions was distinct from those formed by 1–422 (one or two large tight inclusions per cell with 1–422 versus numerous amorphous inclusions with 50–526). These data indicate that the domains of FUS required for aggregation in yeast (especially the first RGG domain) are also critical for FUS aggregation in mammalian cells. Moreover, these data validate the yeast system as a useful platform for interrogating mechanisms and genetic modifiers (see below) of FUS aggregation and toxicity.
Having determined the regions of FUS required for aggregation in yeast, we next determined which regions of FUS contributed to toxicity (Figure 3D). As with FUS aggregation, the last 25 amino acids of FUS, where many of the ALS-linked mutations occur [37], were not required for toxicity (Figure 3D, construct 1–501). Indeed, 1–501 was slightly more toxic than full-length FUS (Figure 3D). This finding is consistent with the severe ALS phenotype linked to FUS R495X [51]. Similar to TDP-43, the prion-like domain of FUS was required but not sufficient for toxicity (Figure 3D, compare constructs 1–526, 1–168, 1–269, and 267–526). As for aggregation, most of the N-terminal prion-like domain of FUS (amino acids 1–239) was needed for toxicity (Figure 3D, compare constructs 1–501, 50–526, and 100–526) and larger N-terminal deletions were not toxic (Figure 3D, compare constructs 165–526, 267–526, 285–526, and 368–526). However, unlike TDP-43 [14], adding back the RRM to the prion-like domain did not restore toxicity (Figure 3D, construct 1–373). Rather, for toxicity the RRM and the first RGG domain were required in addition to the prion-like domain (Figure 3D, compare constructs 1–373 and 1–422). However, 1–422 was not as toxic as full-length FUS, and additional C-terminal sequences were required to confer full toxicity (Figure 3D, compare constructs 1–422, 1–453, and 1–501). These findings are consistent with a pathogenic FUS truncation mutant (amino acids 1–466) connected with sporadic ALS [68].
Next, we tested whether FUS must bind RNA and aggregate to be toxic in yeast. Thus, we mutated conserved phenylalanine residues within the FUS RRM to leucine (Phe305, 341, 359, 368Leu) that would disrupt RNA binding [69]. These mutations were sufficient to mitigate toxicity but had no effect on cytoplasmic aggregation (Figure 3E,F). Analogous mutations to the RRMs of TDP-43 disable RNA binding [69] and also mitigate toxicity in yeast [16]. Taken together, these data indicate that the N-terminal prion-like domain, first RGG domain, and RRM (likely via RNA binding) of FUS contribute to toxicity. Identifying the specific RNA targets of FUS (for example, see [70]) will provide key insights into mechanisms of toxicity associated with FUS aggregation in disease. Overall, compared to TDP-43, FUS aggregation and toxicity in yeast is a more complex multi-domain process. Importantly, our studies define the prion-like FUS N-terminal domain and first RGG domain as potential targets to prevent or reverse FUS aggregation and toxicity.
To determine whether FUS is intrinsically prone to aggregation, we purified bacterially expressed recombinant FUS as a soluble protein under native conditions. However, expression of various constructs including N- and C-terminal His-tagged FUS in various bacterial strains failed to yield soluble protein. The solubility of various proteins, including TDP-43 and polyglutamine, can be enhanced by the addition of a glutathione-S-transferase (GST) tag [15],[41],[71]. Even so, FUS bearing a C-terminal GST-tag was also insoluble in various bacterial strains. Fortunately, an N-terminal GST-tag allowed FUS to be purified as a soluble protein under native conditions. GST-FUS remained soluble for extended periods and was competent to bind RNA in mobility shift assays (Figure 5A). To study FUS aggregation, we added tobacco etch virus (TEV) protease to cleave at a single unique site and specifically remove the N-terminal GST-tag (Figure 5B). This strategy has been utilized successfully to study the aggregation of extremely aggregation-prone proteins, including polyglutamine [41],[43]. Upon addition of TEV protease, FUS aggregated extremely rapidly (Figure 5C). By contrast, GST-FUS remained predominantly soluble (Figure 5C). Under identical conditions neither GST nor TEV protease aggregated (Figure 5C). Aggregation was dependent on FUS concentration in three ways: at higher FUS concentrations, the maximum amplitude or endpoint of turbidity was increased, the length of lag phase was reduced and the rate of aggregation during assembly phase was accelerated (Figure 5C). Sedimentation analysis revealed that after addition of TEV protease, FUS entered the pellet fraction, whereas GST-FUS remained largely soluble (Figure 5D). Indeed, there was very little FUS in the supernatant fraction at any time, indicating that aggregation occurred rapidly after proteolytic liberation of FUS from GST (Figure 5D). The aggregates formed by FUS did not react with the amyloid-diagnostic dye Thioflavin-T and were SDS-soluble, in contrast to those formed by NM, the prion domain of yeast prion protein Sup35 (Figure 5E,F). Thus, pure FUS forms aggregates that are likely non-amyloid in nature, just like the aggregated species of FUS observed in ALS and FTLD patients [5],[72],[73].
The rapid aggregation of FUS occurred without agitation of the reaction (Figures 5C, ,6A).6A). Remarkably, under these conditions, even TDP-43 did not aggregate (Figure 6A). TDP-43 requires many hours to aggregate unless the reaction is agitated [15]. Agitation had little effect on the rate of FUS aggregation (Figure 6A,B), indicating that under these conditions FUS aggregation is energetically favorable. Even when the reaction was agitated, TDP-43 aggregation was still considerably slower than FUS aggregation (Figure 6B). In particular, the lag period prior to aggregation was longer for TDP-43 than for FUS (Figure 6B). This extended lag period was not due to different rates of FUS or TDP-43 cleavage by TEV protease, which were extremely similar (unpublished data). Rather, nucleation of aggregation is apparently more rate limiting for TDP-43 than it is for FUS. Collectively, these data suggest that, even in comparison to TDP-43, FUS is extremely aggregation prone. These data are also in keeping with the higher prion-like domain score of FUS compared to TDP-43 [33]. In vivo, such rapid FUS aggregation is most likely precluded by the proteostasis network [46]. However, FUS likely escapes these safeguards in disease situations where proteostatic buffers may have declined with age or because of environmental triggers. Irrespective of the factors that may elicit FUS aggregation in disease, pure protein assays akin to the one we report here have been powerful tools to dissect the mechanisms underlying the aggregation of various disease-connected proteins, including TDP-43 and polyglutamine [15],[41],[43].
Next, we determined how the N- and C-terminal domains of FUS contribute to aggregation of the pure protein. Consistent with observations in yeast (Figure 3B), deletion of the N-terminal prion-like domain of FUS yielded protein (267–526) that remained soluble over the time course of the assay as determined by turbidity and sedimentation analysis (Figure 7A,B). These data suggest that the prion-like domain of FUS is required for aggregation. Curiously, however, but also consistent with observations in yeast, a protein bearing the prion-like domain and adjacent C-terminal sequences (1–373) did not aggregate under these conditions (Figure 7A,B). Even at higher concentrations (20 µM), neither FUS 267–526 nor FUS 1–373 aggregated. Moreover, if the reaction was subsequently agitated at 700 rpm for an additional 60 min neither FUS 267–526 nor FUS 1–373 aggregated.
Next, we tested FUS 1–422, a minimal fragment of FUS able to confer toxicity and aggregation in yeast (Figure 3B,D). FUS 1–422 aggregated with similar kinetics to full-length FUS as determined by sedimentation analysis (Figure 7B). Curiously, however, at these concentrations (2.5–5 µM) FUS 1–422 aggregates did yield a signal by turbidity (Figure 7A). Higher concentrations of FUS 1–422 (20 µM) were required to generate aggregates detectable by turbidity (Figure 7A). These concentration differences in the turbidity measurements for full-length FUS and FUS 1–422 suggest that there are large disparities in the sizes of the aggregates formed by these two proteins because turbidity readily detects large but not small aggregates [74]–[76]. A similar finding has been made with PrP, where deletion of the N-terminal domain reduces the formation of larger turbid aggregates, without affecting the formation of smaller aggregates [74]. These data suggest that the C-terminal region, comprising amino acids 423–526, while dispensable for aggregation per se (Figure 7B), promotes the formation of large macroscopic aggregates of FUS that are detected by turbidity (Figure 7A).
Electron microscopy (EM) confirmed that pure FUS 1–373 and FUS 267–526 do not form aggregated species in isolation (Figure 8A,B). Rather, these proteins persist as small oligomeric particles (Figure 8A,B). In the absence of TEV protease, both FUS and FUS 1–422 did not aggregate but remained as small oligomeric species (Figure 8C,D). After addition of TEV protease, FUS and FUS 1–422 rapidly populated oligomeric forms, which adopted a pore-like conformation reminiscent of pathological oligomers formed by TDP-43, α-synuclein, and Aβ42 (Figure 8E) [15],[42]. FUS 1–422 rapidly aggregated in an ordered manner to generate separated filamentous structures (Figure 8C). Likewise, full-length FUS also rapidly formed linear polymers (Figure 8D). In both cases, these filaments were approximately 15–20 nm in diameter and could extend several micrometers in length (Figure 8C,D). Consistent with turbidity measurements, the polymers formed by full-length FUS became tangled and stacked against one another to form extremely large and complex macroscopic networks (Figure 8D,F). FUS 1–422 polymers remained more separated with limited lateral interaction (Figure 8C,F). These ultrastructural observations explain why FUS 1–422 aggregates are more difficult to detect by turbidity.
Importantly, the filamentous structures formed by both FUS and FUS 1–422 bear striking resemblance to the FUS aggregates observed in the degenerating motor neurons of ALS patients [21],[77]. In motor neurons of patients with juvenile ALS, FUS forms filamentous aggregates with a uniform diameter of 15–20 nm, which are often associated with small granules [21],[77]. The filamentous structures formed by FUS and FUS 1–422 in isolation (Figure 8C,D,F) are extremely similar to those observed in spinal motor neurons in Figure 3C of Huang et al. [21]. In vitro, small FUS or FUS 1–422 oligomers are often found clustered up against the filamentous structures (Figure 8C,D,F). These oligomers may correspond to the granular structures observed in association with filamentous FUS aggregates in motor neurons of ALS patients [21],[77]. In sum, these observations suggest that in isolation FUS is intrinsically capable of forming the aggregated structures observed in motor neurons of ALS patients.
Taken together, the biochemical and EM data suggest that FUS aggregation requires multiple domains in both N- and C-terminal regions. Specifically, determinants in the N-terminal prion-like domain (1–239) and the first C-terminal RGG domain (374–422) are essential for the formation of filamentous structures. More C-terminal regions (423–526) are then required for the formation of large macroscopic aggregates detected by turbidity.
FUS mutations have been connected with some familial and sporadic ALS cases [37]. We next used the yeast model to test the effects of some of these mutations on FUS aggregation and toxicity (Figure 9A). For TDP-43, we have used this approach to determine that ALS-linked mutations increase TDP-43 aggregation and toxicity [15]. This increased toxicity of mutant TDP-43 in yeast has been supported by independent studies in mammalian cells and animal models [9],[78]–[80]. To assess aggregation, we expressed YFP-tagged fusions of WT FUS and 12 different ALS-linked FUS mutants in yeast. These FUS variants were all expressed at similar levels (Figure 9B). Moreover, comparison of the number of proportion of yeast cells with three or more foci revealed that ALS-linked FUS mutations do not promote FUS aggregation in yeast (Figure 9C,D). Indeed, FUS aggregation was slightly reduced in various ALS-linked FUS variants, although this reduction was not statistically significant (Figure 9C,D). Consistent with these observations, the ALS-linked FUS variants—H517Q, R521C, and R521G—aggregated with very similar kinetics to WT in pure protein aggregation assays, although aggregation was slightly retarded in these mutants (Figure 9E). Collectively, these data suggest that this set of ALS-linked FUS mutations, clustered in the extreme C-terminal region of FUS, do not promote FUS aggregation per se. Furthermore, we did not observe any significant difference in toxicity between WT and ALS-linked FUS variants (Figure 9F). These data are in contrast to TDP-43, where several ALS-linked mutations promote aggregation and toxicity [15].
It seems likely that in disease, these C-terminal ALS-linked FUS mutations promote pathological events that are primarily upstream of aggregation and toxicity. One obvious upstream event is mislocalization to the cytoplasm. Indeed, studies in mammalian cells suggest that ALS-linked FUS mutations can disrupt nuclear import [52]. In yeast, FUS is already localized predominantly to the cytoplasm (Figures 1C, ,9C),9C), so in this setting the ALS-linked mutants are no more toxic than WT (Figure 9C,D,F). Thus, even though FUS and TDP-43 are related RNA-binding proteins, the mechanisms by which ALS-linked mutations contribute to disease might be different for each protein [52]. Consequently, different therapeutic strategies might be needed for FUS and TDP-43 proteinopathies. To examine this idea further, we performed two genome-wide screens in yeast to (1) identify genetic modifiers of FUS toxicity and (2) determine whether genetic modifiers of FUS toxicity also affected TDP-43 toxicity.
Of the many experimental benefits afforded by the yeast system [13], the chief advantage is the ability to perform high-throughput genetic modifier screens. Therefore, to provide insight into cellular mechanisms underpinning FUS toxicity, we performed two unbiased yeast genetic modifier screens to identify genes that enhance or suppress FUS toxicity. We reasoned that the genes identified by these screens would illuminate cellular pathways perturbed by abnormal FUS accumulation and suggest potential novel targets for therapeutic intervention. Similar approaches have elucidated modifiers of the Parkinson's disease protein α-synuclein [39],[40],[45],[81], a mutant form of the Huntington's disease protein huntingtin [44],[45], and more recently, the ALS protein TDP-43 ([16]; A. Elden and A.D.G. unpublished). In the latter example, the yeast system allowed definition of a common genetic risk factor for ALS in humans [16].
First, we performed a plasmid overexpression screen (Figure 10A). We individually transformed 5,500 yeast genes, which comprise the Yeast FLEXGene plasmid overexpresssion library [82], into a yeast strain harboring an integrated galactose-inducible FUS expression plasmid. We then identified yeast genes that suppressed or enhanced FUS toxicity when overexpressed (Figure 10B). We repeated the screen three independent times and only selected hits that reproduced all three times. Genes from the screen that enhanced FUS toxicity, but also caused toxicity when overexpressed in WT yeast cells, were eliminated because these were unlikely to be specific to FUS. We also eliminated certain genes involved in carbohydrate metabolism or galactose-regulated gene expression because, based on previous screens with this library, we have found that they simply affect expression from the galactose-regulated promoter and are unlikely to relate to FUS biology. Indeed, most of these were also recovered as hits in screens with a galactose-regulated toxic huntingtin, α-syn or TDP-43 ([16],[39],[44],[45],[81]; A. Elden and A.D.G. unpublished). Finally, we retested 10 random plasmids (six suppressors and four enhancers) by transforming them into a fresh yeast strain harboring the integrated FUS expression plasmid and performed spotting assays and all 10 of these were confirmed (Figure S5).
Following the above validation and filtering procedures, we identified 24 genes that suppressed and 10 genes that enhanced FUS toxicity when overexpressed (Table 1). The largest functional class enriched in the screen included RNA-binding proteins and proteins involved in RNA metabolism (Figure 10C). Thus, RNA metabolic pathways play a key role in FUS pathogenesis. Importantly, of 71 genes from this library that modify α-synuclein toxicity in yeast [39],[40], only two (Cdc4 and Tps3) affected FUS toxicity. This lack of overlap underscores the specificity of the screen for FUS biology and pathobiology. Moreover, this specificity indicates that the screen does not simply identify generic cellular responses to misfolded proteins. Even more remarkably, out of the 40 yeast genes that we have found to modify TDP-43 toxicity when overexpressed ([16] and A. Elden and A.D.G. unpublished observations), only two (Fmp48 and Tis11) affected FUS toxicity. Thus, despite being similar RNA-binding proteins, the mechanisms by which FUS and TDP-43 contribute to disease are likely to be very different.
Several of the yeast genes that modified FUS toxicity have human homologs. Thus, pathways involved in FUS toxicity in yeast are likely conserved to man. Interestingly, FUS has recently been shown to co-localize with stress granules in transfected cells [51],[52]. Furthermore, cytoplasmic FUS-positive inclusions in ALS and FTLD-U patients contain stress granule markers [51],[52]. Stress granules and P-bodies are transient cytoplasmic structures containing RNAs and RNA binding proteins, including translation initiation factors and the polyA-binding protein (PABP-1), which are sites where cells sequester mRNAs, during situations of stress, to inhibit translation initiation [83]. Notably, we identified two translation initiation factors (Tif2 and Tif3) and Pab1, the yeast homolog of human PABP-1, which is involved in stress granule assembly in yeast, as suppressors of FUS toxicity (Table 1). Thus, in addition to being markers of FUS-positive inclusions in disease, stress granule components might play an important role in mediating FUS toxicity. Approaches aimed at manipulating stress granule assembly might be an effective therapeutic approach.
As an initial step to extend our findings from yeast to mammalian cells, we selected genes from our overexpression screen for further analysis in a mammalian cell culture FUS toxicity model. We tested two distinct suppressor genes, FBXW7 and EIF4A1, which are the human homologs of yeast Cdc4 and Tif2, respectively (Table 1). We transfected HEK293T cells with WT FUS or two ALS-linked FUS mutants, R521C and R521H. The FUS mutants were more toxic than WT FUS, which only slightly reduced viability (Figure 10D). Co-transfection with FBXW7 or EIF4A1 suppressed toxicity of WT FUS as well as the ALS-linked FUS mutants (Figure 10D). Similar results were observed in COS-7 cells (unpublished data). The FUS toxicity modifier genes and pathways identified in our yeast screens will have to be validated in neuronal cells and eventually animal models. However, the ability of FBXW7 and EIF4A1 to suppress toxicity in human cells, which are separated from yeast by ~1 billion years of evolution, provides evidence that highly conserved genetic interactions involving FUS, discovered in yeast, can be highly relevant to mammalian cells.
To complement the yeast overexpression screen, we also performed a deletion screen. The yeast genome contains ~6,000 yeast genes and ~4,850 of these are non-essential [84],[85]. We used synthetic genetic array (SGA) analysis [86],[87] to introduce a FUS expression plasmid into each non-essential yeast deletion strain by mating (Figure 11A). Following sporulation, we selectively germinated meiotic progeny containing both the FUS plasmid and the gene deletion. We compared growth of each strain on glucose (FUS expression "off") to that on galactose (FUS expression "on"). We identified some yeast deletions that enhanced FUS toxicity (aggravating interaction) and others that suppressed toxicity (alleviating interaction) (Figure 11B). As for the overexpression screen, we repeated the deletion screen three independent times and only selected hits that reproduced all three times and filtered out deletion strains that grew poorly on galactose-containing media, even in the absence of FUS (using published data on yeast deletion strain fitness on galactose and in house measurements of the yeast deletion collection grown on galactose). Genetic interactions were further confirmed by random spore analysis and the integrity of the deletions verified by sequencing the deletion specific bar codes. We also independently confirmed six random hits by remaking the deletions, confirming the deletions by PCR, and then transforming those deletion strains with the FUS expression plasmid and performing spotting assays.
We indentified 36 deletions that suppressed FUS toxicity and 24 that enhanced toxicity (Table 2). Deletions of yeast genes involved in RNA metabolic processes, ribosome biogenesis, and cellular stress responses were enriched as hits (Figure 11C). Many of these genes have human homologs (Table 2). One interesting deletion suppressor was Sse1, a member of the Hsp70 chaperone family, which promotes Sup35 prion formation [88] and might also promote FUS aggregation. Two other notable deletion suppressors were Pub1 (TIAL1 in human) and Lsm7 (LSM7 in human), components of stress granules and P-bodies, respectively. Furthermore, TIAL1 (and Pub1) contains a prion-like domain [32],[89], which can template the aggregation of the polyQ protein huntingtin [90], suggesting that FUS aggregation and cytoplasmic sequestration might be templated by similar mechanisms [24],[91]. Again, as for the plasmid overexpression screen, genetic manipulations that affect stress granule components are sufficient to mitigate FUS toxicity. And, as for the overexpression screen, there was little overlap between the FUS and TDP-43 modifier genes. In a broader sense, the collection of deletion suppressors of FUS toxicity is an interesting class, because these could represent attractive therapeutic targets for small molecule inhibitors or RNA interference. Taken together, the genetic modifiers uncovered by the yeast overexpression and deletion screens provide insight into the pathways affected by FUS. The way is now open to develop therapeutic strategies that target these pathways.
We have established a pure protein aggregation assay and a yeast model to gain insight into how FUS contributes to disease pathogenesis. We have recently used a similar approach to define mechanisms underpinning TDP-43 aggregation and toxicity [14], as well as the pathogenic mechanism of ALS-linked TDP-43 mutants [15]. Using the yeast system we have also identified potent modifiers of TDP-43 toxicity [16]. One such modifier is ataxin 2, which can harbor intermediate-length polyQ expansions that are associated with increased risk for ALS in humans [16]. Like TDP-43, we find that, in isolation, FUS is an intrinsically aggregation-prone protein. FUS rapidly assembles into pore-like oligomeric species and filamentous structures that closely resemble the ultrastructure of FUS aggregates in degenerating motor neurons of ALS patients. Thus, all the information needed to assemble these structures is encoded in the primary sequence of FUS. Like TDP-43, expression of FUS in yeast results in cytoplasmic FUS aggregation, colocalization of these inclusions with stress granules and toxicity, modeling key features seen in human disease [17],[18],[21],[23],[52]. In further similarity to TDP-43, disabling the RNA binding activity of FUS reduced toxicity. Thus, we propose that the misfolded forms of FUS likely cause toxicity by binding to and sequestering essential RNAs or perhaps by interfering with the normal shuttling, stability, or metabolism of RNA. Importantly, FUS immunoreactive cytoplasmic inclusions now appear to characterize ALS and FTLD broadly, not only rare cases linked to FUS mutations [21],[23],[92]. Together these advances make it clear that FUS is a key aggregated protein in ALS, just as α-synuclein is in Parkinson's disease and huntingtin is in Huntington's disease [33].
Despite these similarities, we have uncovered key differences in the regions of the proteins that dictate aggregation and toxicity. For TDP-43, pure protein data and results from yeast and other model systems suggest that the C-terminal prion-like domain (Figure 1A) [33] plays a major role in driving aggregation [14],[15],[66],[93]. For FUS, we find that the N-terminal region, containing a predicted prion-like domain (Figure 1A) [33], is also important for aggregation in vitro and for aggregation and toxicity in yeast cells. However, C-terminal regions in FUS, particularly the first RGG domain, are also critical. Intriguingly, the first RGG domain also contains a short region (amino acids 391–407) that is detected by an algorithm designed to isolate prion-like domains [32],[33] but does not quite reach significance (Figure S1). The requirement for two specific, disparate portions of FUS for the ordered formation of filamentous structures raises the possibility that communication between the N-terminal prion-like domain (amino acids 1–239) and first RGG domain (amino acids 374–422) might mediate a self-organizing assembly process. This process might even involve an intermolecular domain swap: a common mechanism that usually involves domains at the N- and C-terminal ends of proteins and can promote the polymerization of filamentous structures in various designed and natural proteins [94]–[96]. Thus, strategies aimed at targeting either the appropriate N- or C-terminal portions of FUS could be effective at mitigating FUS aggregation in disease. Indeed, our in vitro and yeast models could open up new therapeutic avenues and provide the basic screening system to isolate specific molecules able to antagonize and reverse FUS aggregation and toxicity.
With regard to toxicity, the minimal toxic FUS fragment comprises the N-terminal prion-like domain, RRM, and the first RGG domain (1–422). These findings contrast with TDP-43, where the prion-like domain plus RRM2 are sufficient to drive aggregation and toxicity [14]. Indeed, a proteolytic fragment corresponding to these portions of TDP-43 is a pathogenic signature of ALS and FTLD-TDP [3]. By contrast, a similar pathogenic FUS fragment has not been identified in ALS or FTLD-FUS patients, which likely reflects the fact that the equivalent regions of FUS (1–373) are insufficient for aggregation and toxicity.
Mutations in the C-terminal domains of FUS and TDP-43 have both been linked to ALS [6],[37]. Interestingly, whereas some ALS-linked mutations in TDP-43 can increase stability, aggregation, cytoplasmic accumulation, and toxicity in yeast, mammalian cells, and animal models [15],[16],[78],[80],[97], the mechanisms by which FUS mutations contribute to disease appear to be distinct. Our results in yeast and with pure protein show that C-terminal FUS mutations do not promote aggregation per se. Instead of enhancing aggregation, these mutations, especially those in the extreme C-terminal region of the protein (amino acids 502–526), disrupt a NLS, leading to increased cytoplasmic accumulation of FUS [52]. Interestingly, the severity of the effects of the mutations on FUS localization in cells correlate well with age of onset of ALS in humans, with stronger mutations resulting in earlier disease onset and more cytoplasmic FUS accumulation [52]. These results suggest distinct mechanisms by which ALS-linked FUS and TDP-43 mutations contribute to disease.
Despite these differences, both TDP-43 and FUS have been shown to re-localize to stress granules and P-bodies, transient sites of RNA processing that assemble during cellular stress or injury and are conserved from yeast to man [59],[60],[62],[98]. Both TDP-43 and FUS have been purified in a complex with one another and with various components of the RNA processing machinery, including stress granules and P-bodies [62],[97]. Moreover, stress granule markers, including PABP-1, are present in disease-associated cytoplasmic FUS accumulations [52]. ALS-linked FUS mutants appear more prone to entering stress granules [51]. However, it remains unclear whether stress granule assembly contributes to FUS toxicity or is simply a downstream consequence of cellular stress associated with degeneration. Our identification of several key P-body and stress granule components as potent genetic modifiers of FUS toxicity suggests a mechanistic connection that, if validated in animal models, represents a potentially tractable new therapeutic angle. We also note that for the majority of overexpression or deletion suppressors that we have examined so far, we do not see a major difference in FUS aggregation. This suggests that these genes act downstream or in parallel to FUS aggregation. Alternatively, these modifiers may affect FUS aggregation (e.g., composition or dynamics of FUS inclusions) in subtle ways that we have so far not been able to visualize.
Curiously, there was a conspicuous lack of overlap between genetic modifiers of FUS toxicity and TDP-43 toxicity. These genetic data suggest two interesting possibilities. On one hand, targeting the modifiers in common between TDP-43 and FUS might have broad therapeutic utility for ALS. On the other hand, defining the key differences between FUS and TDP-43 pathogenic mechanisms will empower a more accurate understanding of how these seemingly similar proteins might contribute to disease in different ways.
What is the connection between TDP-43, FUS, and ALS? Does each protein contribute separately to the disease, or do they share a common disease pathway? The lack of overlap in genetic modifiers suggests that the precise mechanism of TDP-43 and FUS toxicity may be subtly different. Moreover, initial reports suggested FUS cytoplasmic accumulations were specific to rare cases of ALS, owing to FUS mutations, and that these inclusions were devoid of TDP-43 aggregates [17]. However, in one study, using optimized antigen-unmasking methods, FUS cytoplasmic immunoreactivity has recently been detected broadly in sporadic and familial ALS, including cases with TDP-43 aggregates, as well as cases without FUS mutations [92]. Further, FUS and TDP-43 have been found to physically associate in a complex [97], indicating that both TDP-43 and FUS, even in the WT state, likely contribute broadly to ALS pathogenesis. Therefore, defining mechanisms by which WT versions of these proteins are toxic to cells, as we report here for FUS and in previous studies for TDP-43 [14]–[16], will likely be informative to not only rare familial cases but to the much more common sporadic forms as well.
The discovery of RNA-binding proteins TDP-43 and FUS in ALS has re-invigorated the focus on RNA processing pathways in ALS [5],[37],[99]. Our identification of potent genetic modifiers of FUS toxicity in yeast, including a large number of conserved RNA metabolism genes, as well as key stress granule components, will provide a toehold for future studies aimed at elucidating the mechanisms by which FUS interfaces with these RNA processing pathways in disease. However, our study also suggests caution in assuming, based on sequence and structural similarity, that both TDP-43 and FUS contribute to disease via the same or similar mechanisms [38]. While there are clear similarities between the two proteins, there are also important differences, which we have defined here. Furthermore, the fact that genetic modifiers uncovered in screens for TDP-43 and FUS proteotoxicty are surprisingly distinct argues further that there are likely different underlying pathogenic mechanisms for FUS and TDP-43 proteinopathies. This conceptual framework we have established will aid the development of novel therapeutic approaches.
Yeast cells were grown in rich media (YPD) or in synthetic media lacking uracil and containing 2% glucose (SD/-Ura), raffinose (SRaf/-Ura), or galactose (SGal/-Ura).
A FUS Gateway entry clone was obtained from Invitrogen, containing full-length human FUS in the vector pDONR221. A Gateway LR reaction was used to shuttle FUS into Gateway-compatible yeast expression vectors (pAG vectors, [100], http://www.addgene.org/yeast_gateway). To generate C-terminally YFP-tagged FUS constructs, a two-step PCR protocol was used to amplify FUS (or truncated versions) without a stop codon and incorporate the Gateway attB1 and attB2 sites along with a Kozak consensus sequence. Resulting PCR products were shuttled into pDONR221 using a Gateway BR reaction. The entry clones (FUSnostop) were then used in LR reactions with pAG426Gal-ccdB-YFP to generate the 2 micron FUS-YFP fusion constructs and pAG416Gal-ccdB-YFP to generate the CEN FUS-YFP constructs. Primer sequences are available upon request. To generate the integrating FUS construct, the FUS entry clone was used in an LR reaction with pAG303Gal-ccdB. Expression constructs for TDP-43 have been described previously [14],[15].
ALS-linked point mutations, based on [38], were introduced into FUS using the QuickChange Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kit (Agilent) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Mutations were verified by DNA sequencing. To disable FUS RNA binding, we mutated four conserved phenylalanine residues (aa 305, 341, 359, 368) within the FUS RNA recognition motif (RRM) to leucine.
Two micron plasmid constructs (e.g., pAG426Gal-FUS-YFP) were transformed into BY4741 (MATa his3 leu2 met15 ura3). The FUS integrating strain was generated by linearizing pAG303Gal-FUS by Nhe I restriction digest, followed by transformation into the w303 strain (MATa can1-100, his3-11,15, leu2-3,112, trp1-1, ura3-1, ade2-1).
To introduce the SV40 NLS to the N-terminus of FUS, we used PCR, incorporating DNA sequences encoding the SV40 NLS (PPKKKRKV), optimized for yeast translation (CCA CCA AAA AAA AAA AGA AAA GTT) into the forward primer, following a start codon (ATG) and in frame with FUS. We verified the construct by DNA sequencing.
Yeast procedures were performed according to standard protocols [101]. We used the PEG/lithium acetate method to transform yeast with plasmid DNA [102]. For spotting assays, yeast cells were grown overnight at 30°C in liquid media containing raffinose (SRaf/-Ura) until they reached log or mid-log phase. Cultures were then normalized for OD600, serially diluted and spotted onto synthetic solid media containing glucose or galactose lacking uracil and were grown at 30°C for 2–3 d.
Yeast lysates were subjected to SDS/PAGE (4%–12% gradient, Invitrogen) and transferred to a PVDF membrane (Invitrogen). Membranes were blocked with 5% nonfat dry milk in PBS for 1 h at room temperature. Primary antibody incubations were performed overnight at 4°C or at room temperature for 1–2 h. After washing with PBS, membranes were incubated with a horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibody for 1 h at room temperature, followed by washing in PBS+0.1% Tween 20 (PBST). Proteins were detected with Immobilon Western HRP Chemiluminescent Substrate (Millipore). Primary antibody dilutions were as follows: anti-GFP monoclonal antibody (Roche), 15,000; Phosphoglycerate Kinase 1 (PGK1) antibody (Invitrogen), 1500; glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), 15,000; FUS rabbit polyclonal antibody (Bethyl), 110,000. HRP-conjugated anti-mouse and anti-rabbit secondary antibodies were used at 15,000.
For fluorescence microscopy experiments, single colony isolates of the yeast strains were grown to mid-log phase in SRaf/-Ura media at 30°C. Cultures were spun down and resuspended in the same volume of SGal/-Ura to induce expression of the FUS constructs. Cultures were induced with galactose for 4–6 h before being stained with DAPI to visualize nuclei and processed for microscopy. Images were obtained using an Olympus IX70 inverted microscope and a Photometrics CoolSnap HQ 12-bit CCD camera. Z-stacks of several fields were collected for each strain. The images were deblurred using a nearest neighbor algorithm in the Deltavision Softworx software and representative cells were chosen for figures.
To assess differences in aggregation between wild-type and mutant FUS, yeast cultures were grown, induced, and processed as described above after having normalized all yeast cultures to OD600nm=0.2 prior to galactose induction. After 6 h of induction, the identities of the samples were blinded to the observer before being examined. Several fields of cells were randomly chosen using the DAPI filter to prevent any bias towards populations of cells with increased amounts of aggregation in addition to obtaining the total number of cells in any given field. At least 200 cells per sample were counted for each replicate. Only cells with greater than three foci under the YFP channel were considered as cells with aggregating FUS.
Plasmids of 5,500 full-length yeast ORFs (Yeast FLEXGene collection, [82]) were dried in individual wells of 96-well microtiter plates and transformed into a strain expressing FUS integrated at the HIS3 locus. A standard lithium acetate transformation protocol was modified for automation and used by employing a BIOROBOT Rapidplate 96-well pipettor (Qiagen). The transformants were grown in synthetic deficient media lacking uracil (SD-Ura) with glucose. 48 h later, the cultures were inoculated into fresh SRaf-Ura media and allowed to reach stationary phase. Then the cells were spotted on to SD-Ura + glucose and SD-Ura + galactose agar plates. Suppressors and enhancers of FUS were identified on galactose plates after 2–3 d of growth at 30°C. The entire screen was repeated three times and only hits that reproduced all three times were selected for further validation. Toxicity enhancers were further tested in WT yeast cells to eliminate genes that were simply toxic when overexpressed. Immunoblotting was performed to test all modifiers for their effect on FUS expression.
This screen was performed as described in [86],[87],[103], with some modifications, using a Singer RoToR HDA (Singer Instruments, Somerset, UK). The galactose-inducible FUS expression construct (pAG416Gal-FUS-YFP) was introduced into MATα strain Y7092 (gift from C. Boone) to generate the query strain. This query strain was mated to the yeast haploid deletion collection of non-essential genes (MATa, each gene deleted with KanMX cassette (confers resistance to G418)). Haploid mutants harboring the FUS expression plasmid were grown in the presence of glucose (FUS expression "off") or galactose (FUS expression "on"). Following growth at 30°C for 2 d, plates were photographed and colony sizes measured by ImageJ image analysis software, based on [104]. The entire screen was repeated three times and only hits that reproduced all three times were selected for further validation by random spore analysis on DNA sequencing of deletion strain bar codes. Deletion strains that grew poorly on galactose were eliminated based on published data on deletion strain fitness on galactose as well as in house measurements using the yeast deletion collection.
FUS and FUS deletion mutants were expressed and purified from Escherichia coli as GST-tagged proteins. FUS constructs were generated in GV13 to yield a TEV protease cleavable GST-FUS protein, GST-TEV-FUS, and overexpressed in E. coli BL21 DE3 cells (Agilent). Protein was purified over a glutathione-sepharose column (GE) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Proteins were eluted from the glutathione sepharose with 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 200 mM trehalose, and 20 mM glutathione. After purification, proteins were concentrated to 10 µM or greater using Amicon Ultra-4 centrifugal filter units (10 kDa molecular weight cut-off; Millipore). Protein was then centrifuged for 30 min at 16,100 g to remove any aggregated material. After centrifugation, the protein concentration was determined by Bradford assay (Bio-Rad) and the proteins were used immediately for aggregation reactions. GST-TEV-TDP-43 was purified as described [15].
RNA-binding assays were performed as described [105]. Briefly, FUS RNA probe was transcribed by T7 polymerase from DNA template (5′-GTAATACGACTCACTATAGGGGAAAATTAATGTGTGTGTGTGGAAAATT-3′) with 32P-labeled UTP. Probes were gel-purified and adjusted to 104 c.p.m./µl specific activity. Standard binding reactions were carried out in 10 µl, with a final concentration of 4 mM MgCl2, 25 mM phosphocreatine, 1.25 mM ATP, 1.3% polyvinyl alcohol, 25 ng of yeast tRNA, 0.8 mg of BSA, 1 mM DTT, 0.1 µl Rnasin (Promega, 40 U/ml), 75 mM KCl, 10 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 0.1 mM EDTA, 10% glycerol, and 0.15 µM to 5 µM GST-FUS or GST. Binding reactions were incubated for 20 min at 30°C with 32P-labeled probe. After binding, heparin was added to a final concentration of 0.5 µg/ml; reactions were analyzed on a 4.5% native gel (Acrylamide/Bis 29:1, BioRad).
Aggregation was initiated by the addition of TEV protease (Invitrogen) to GST-TEV-FUS (2.5–5 µM) in assembly buffer (AB): 100 mM TrisHCl pH 8, 200 mM trehalose, 0.5 mM EDTA, and 20 mM glutathione. Aggregation reactions were incubated at 22°C for 0–90 min with or without agitation at 700 rpm in an Eppendorf Thermomixer. No aggregation occurred unless TEV protease was added to separate GST from FUS or TDP-43. Turbidity was used to assess aggregation by measuring absorbance at 395 nm. For sedimentation analysis, reactions were centrifuged at 16,100 g for 10 min at 25°C. Supernatant and pellet fractions were then resolved by SDS-PAGE and stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue, and the amount in either fraction determined by densitometry in comparison to known quantities of FUS. For electron microscopy (EM) of in vitro aggregation reactions, protein samples (20 µl of a 2.5 µM solution) were adsorbed onto glow-discharged 300-mesh Formvar/carboncoated copper grid (Electron Microscopy Sciences) and stained with 2% (w/v) aqueous uranyl acetate. Excess liquid was removed, and grids were allowed to air dry. Samples were viewed using a JEOL 1010 transmission electron microscope.
We used fluorescent markers of P-bodies and stress granules and live cell imaging to monitor stress granule and P-body formation in yeast, based on standard protocols [63]. First, we transformed yeast strain BY4741 with pAG423GAL-FUS-YFP. This strain was then transformed with plasmids encoding P-body markers (Lsm1-mCherry, LEU2 or Dcp2-RFP, LEU2) or stress granule markers (Pub1-RFP, URA3 or CFP-Pbp1, URA3) separately. Transformants were grown overnight to mid-log phase in raffinose-containing media. To induce expression of FUS-YFP, galactose was added to 2% and cells were incubated at 30°C for 4 h and then processed for microscopy. We used a spinning disk confocal microscope to monitor the YFP, CFP, and RFP signals in live cells. For each channel, 60 z-sections were acquired at 0.1 µm increments at 23°C. Figures display the maximum projection of each channel.
HEK293T cells were plated in 96-well format and transfected with FuGene (Roche) according to the manufacturer's instructions. 72 h post-transfection, MTT (3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) (Sigma) was added to each well and incubated for 3 h at 37°C. Acidic Isoproponal (40 mM HCl) was then added to each well to solubilize the blue formazan crystals. Absorbance of each well was read with a Tecan Safire II plate reader using 570 nm for absorbance and 630 nm as a reference wavelength. Absorbance measurements were normalized to the absorbance of untransfected cells and used to calculate a percent viability for each condition.
Prion domain prediction algorithm identifies prion-like domains in TDP-43 (top) and FUS/TLS (bottom). Note that the prion-like domain (PrD) of TDP-43 is located in the C-terminal region, whereas the PrD of FUS/TLS is in the N-terminal region. There is an additional peak of PrD character predicted by the algorithm in FUS/TLS aa 391–407. For additional details on design and implementation of this prion domain prediction algorithm, see [33],[34].
FUS and TDP-43 co-localize in yeast cells. FUS-YFP and TDP-43-CFP were co-transformed into yeast cells and their localization visualized by fluorescence microscopy. FUS-YFP and TDP-43-CFP co-localized to the same subcellular foci (arrows).
FUS localizes to the nucleus and cytoplasm when expressed at lower levels. Yeast strain YEF6030 (YEF473a NUP57-mCherry-His3), harboring a nuclear envelope marker, to visualize the nucleus in live cells, was transformed with 416GPD-FUS-YFP. FUS localization in live cells was visualized using a spinning disc confocal microscope. At this level of expression, FUS-YFP localized to the nucleus (arrows) and cytoplasm in a diffuse pattern.
FUS truncation proteins localize to the nucleus. DAPI stained cells confirm nuclear localization of FUS truncation constructs 1–168aa, 1–269aa, and 1–373aa (also see Figure 3 of main text).
Verifying FUS toxicity modifiers from plasmid overexpression screen. Spotting assay showing serial dilutions of yeast cells expressing FUS along with empty vector control, four enhancers, or six suppressors from the screen.
We thank Dan Ramos, Pier Hart, and Renske Erion for assistance with the yeast genetic screens and Sarah Glenn and Kristen Lynch for assistance with the RNA-binding studies. We thank Jasmine Zhao of the PENN CDB Microscopy Core for expert assistance with microscopy. We thank Alex Chavez for providing the CYC1 and NOP1 yeast promoter plasmids and Jasmine Smith for advice on the SV40 NLS experiments. We thank Roy Parker for providing some of the yeast stress granule and P-body markers and Cornelia Kurischko for advice on visualizing stress granules and P-bodies in yeast. We thank Julien Couthouis and Rose Li for help with some of the FUS and TDP-43 plasmid constructs. We thank Mark Lemmon and Morgan DeSantis for comments on the manuscript and helpful suggestions. We also thank the Petsko and Lindquist laboratories for communicating their results with us prior to publication.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
This work was supported by a grant from the Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins (A.D.G. and J.S.), an NIH Director's New Innovator Award 1DP2OD004417-01 (A.D.G), NIH R01 NS065317 (A.D.G.), an NIH Director's New Innovator Award 1DP2OD002177-01 (J.S.), NIH R21 NS067354-0110 (J.S.), a University of Pennsylvania Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center Pilot and Feasibility grant, and an Ellison Medical Foundation New Scholar in Aging Award (J.S.). A.D.G. is a Pew Scholar in the Biomedical Sciences, supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers.


text:
The Odyssey of Art O'Hara
John Loranger knows how to start a story. From the very first line of his new novel, The Odyssey of Art O'Hara, he grabs readers and pulls them right along with his... Read More
John Loranger knows how to start a story. From the very first line of his new novel, The Odyssey of Art O'Hara, he grabs readers and pulls them right along with his... Read More
In The Lantern, an intriguing tale that effortlessly spans time and place, award-winning author Joanne Lewis presents a mystery of Italian architectural history that follows two... Read More
At its best, historical fiction allows the reader to become immersed in another world, presenting a character's life and issues in a way that fully develops the setting. The... Read More
This unconventional historical novel set during the Russian Revolution focuses on Lenin's wife, Nadya Krupskaya, and not her more famous husband. Nadya is already committed to... Read More
It is a smart and talented author who can take a well-known Bible legend and turn it into a work of historical fiction that is not only entertaining and engaging but also... Read More
The concept of sanctuary often carries religious overtones, and there is indeed something personally sacred about any place where an individual feels safe and secure. Ben A.... Read More
"Don Christopherens was a man who came alive on a ship. A thing to behold was his certainty of signal from wave and wind and cloud," writes Diego Colon, a Taino native who... Read More
There were few places as glamorous as Cannes, France, in the early twentieth century, and few women as lovely and mysterious as a Russian princess. For Princess Samaroff's... Read More
When under duress, the mind wanders, traveling with little logic and searching for something to anchor itself upon. Such is the journey related in the English translation of The... Read More
Set in 1907, Weldon B. Durham's novel Tides of Grace is a captivating beginning to his planned series featuring protagonist Grace Lampley. For seventeen-year-old Grace,... Read More
"Now we, the Turks, have become the enemy in our own country," laments a refugee leading a convoy of villagers fleeing the advancing Serbian army. Cries similar to this one... Read More
In her latest work, Francesca Noumoff offers an account of Elonora, a Russian Holocaust survivor and violinist whose love for music sheltered her through hardship. The book is... Read More

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Jack and Sabina
Jack and Sabina were referred to Siphila Sonke in January 2009 by the Themba Care Hospice. They were both very ill with TB and had no income. Siphila Sonke provided them with an emergency food parcel and then assisted them in obtaining the necessary disability grants.
Jack and Sabina expressed their wish to get married so the Siphila Sonke volunteers who were looking after them gave them a Bible and set up an appointment for them with Reverend Neil Meyer from the Elgin United Church. On 29 November 2009, they were married by Rev Meyer at the Imizamo Church, followed by a wonderful lunch reception held in Bev Morgan's (Chairlady of Siphila Sonke) garden.
When his health permitted it, Jack ran the gardening project at Siphila Sonke. Sabina attended a course in home-based care through St John's Ambulance (with Siphila Sonke's facilitation and encouragement) and was employed by Themba Care Hospice. She now lives near family in Cape Town, where she relocated to after the death of Jack during 2013.


text:
Ask Your Health Question and Get an Answer ASAP
Pain on the left side, relieved by food, history of Ibuprofen points to peptic ulcer disease. Following may help you;
1) Stop Ibuprofen, instead take acetaminophen / paracetamol instead, if needed.
2) Prilosec
3) Tums / Maalox
Please feel free for your follow up questions.
Dr. Arun


text:
realmagick.com The shrine of knowledge.
Hindu Colour Symbols
A selection of articles related to hindu colour symbols.
Original articles from our library related to the Hindu Colour Symbols. See Table of Contents for further available material (downloadable resources) on Hindu Colour Symbols.
- About Reiki Symbols
- "Instead of seeking many other medicines to cure their illness, I wish people would always honor their own body's healing ability and take good care of themselves." Meiji Emperor A symbol is a communication element intended to simply represent or...
Body Mysteries >> Reiki
- The Four Symbols of Usui Reiki Ryoho
- " It is not God's will merely that we should be happy, but that we should make ourselves happy." Immanuel Kant According to many traditional teachers the Reiki symbols are sacred and therefore secret and should only be seen by insiders, meaning...
Body Mysteries >> Reiki
- Synaesthesia: The Crossing of the Senses
- "We interpret one sense by another." William Hazlitt "Although medicine has known about synaesthesia for three centuries, it keeps forgetting that it knows. Richard Cytowic, in "Synaesthesia: Phenomenology and Neuropsychology a Review of...
Modern Science >> Synesthesia
- Discovery and Development of Reiki
- "The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of wellbeing becomes." The Dalai Lama The traditional story of the discovery of Reiki is as historically correct as the biblical report of the life of Jesus - it is molded and...
Body Mysteries >> Reiki
- The Living Tradition of Thelema
- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. What Crowley began, others must continue and develop or Thelema will become but a memory in the history of the Western Mystery Tradition. Yes, he was a Prophet and the Ipsissimus that one could say invented...
Mystic Sciences >> Magick
- The Sacred Wheel: The Sabbats
- The Wheel of the Year honors the never ending cycle of life, death, and rebirth. It expresses the belief which Pagan religions hold that time is circular, not linear. The Sabbats are derived from the rich traditions of seasonal festivals as celebrated by...
Paganism & Wicca >> Holidays
- Healing with Reiki
- "Happiness is a sort of action" Aristotle A Reiki healing is a great example of letting everything be as it is, of doing by not doing but just simply being there, of going with the flow. One of the truths of Reiki namely is, that the healee - not...
Body Mysteries >> Reiki
Hindu Colour Symbols is described in multiple online sources, as addition to our editors' articles, see section below for printable documents, Hindu Colour Symbols books and related discussion.
Suggested Pdf Resources
- Color Symbolism in Hinduism
- Color Symbolism in Hinduism. For the Hindu, colors play a very important role in the religion and culture and have a very deep significance, transcending purely ...
- www.wou.edu
- Colours across cultures - Global Propaganda
- This paper was first published with the title "Translating colours in web site localisation" in .... 2.6 Colour Symbolism per Country.
- globalpropaganda.com
- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of RESEARCH –GRANTHAALAYAH
- bride on her most important day, colour of India has, over time, become synonymous ... COLOR SYMBOLISM IN HINDUISM – For the Hindu, color play a very ...
- granthaalayah.com
- A Unit on Hindu symbolism in Indian art - The University of Texas at
- The goal of this unit is to define Hinduism via visual symbols where they appear in sculpture, painting, and ..... Color associated with this God: Attributes: Avatars:.
- www.utexas.edu
- A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Symbolic Meanings of Color
- This color symbolism arises from cultural, mythical, historical, religious ...... with blue beards and wigs, and the Hindu divinity Krishna is portrayed as blue. Still,.
- memo.cgu.edu.tw
Suggested News Resources
- Photographer Noroc Mihaela's stunning portraits of women include a Bollywood star
- Says the photographer of her inclusion: 'Sonam is not just a huge star in India, but also a great person, and a symbol of beauty and success for many. My wish was to ... stars for me.
- Dear Anupam Kher, don't diss intellectuals while trying to be one
- They're waved in parliament and in television news studios as symbols of reliability even if what's written on them is untrue. ...
- Rare breeds of roosters on show
- The selling price depended on factors such as eye colour – white or pearl, short combs and thick beaks and long and beautiful tail. Each bird weighed around 5.5 to ...
- Creativity on ramp
- Inspired by Lord Shiva's avatar, she will use his symbols like the Trishul, conch shell and cannabis leaves in the form of ingenious prints and sparkling embroidery techniques. Saturday will see Ragini Ahuja opening the show.
- Tribal festival gets bigger
- A unique feature of the Jatara is that it is devoid of idol worship and Vedic rituals; only two wooden poles and containers of vermilion (Kumkuma barini) as symbols of Goddesses are worshipped.
Suggested Web Resources
- Meaning of Different Colours in Hinduism - Sanskriti - Indian Culture
- Feb 23, 2014 In Hinduism, colours play a very important role and have deep significance, transcending purely decorative values. Hindu artists use colours on ...
- www.sanskritimagazine.com
- Color Symbolism in Hinduism
- Color Symbolism in Hinduism. For the Hindu, colors play a very important role in the religion and culture and have a very deep significance, transcending purely ...
- www.wou.edu
- Symbolic Colors of India | Sensational Color
- The symbolism of color stands out and controls every aspect of life in India, be it ... color associated with one of the most revered goddesses in Hindu mythology ...
- www.sensationalcolor.com
- Why is the color Saffron so important in Hinduism, as well as - Quora
- Fire is a symbol of sacrifice and renouncing ego. During Yajna (fire worship), ... These three thus became the holiest colors of Hinduism.
- www.quora.com
- Color Meanings
- In Hindu belief, red represents the Kundalini or genital chakra. ... The bright golden color yellow lies between green and orange on the visible spectrum and ...
- www.windlegends.org
Great care has been taken to prepare the information on this page. Elements of the content come from factual and lexical knowledge databases, realmagick.com library and third-party sources. We appreciate your suggestions and comments on further improvements of the site.
Hindu Colour Symbols Topics
Related searchesgametzcom
santeria dictionary
ali baba story summary
test cricket test status
chaos magic symbols and deities
About - Contact - Advertising
© 2000 - 2016 Realmagick.com, All Rights Reserved.
© 2000 - 2016 Realmagick.com, All Rights Reserved.


text:
Posted by ESPN.com's Bill Williamson
There are many reasons why Shannon Sharpe wants to be voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday in his first time on the ballot.
One of those reasons is Derrick Thomas.
Sharpe and Thomas had several memorable battles in the 1990s as AFC West enemies with the Denver Broncos and Kansas City Chiefs. As a tight end, Sharpe worked against Thomas, an outside linebacker, several times. In a famous "Monday Night Football" clash, Sharpe goaded Thomas into losing his cool, resulting in the superstar pass rusher being suspended for a game after three personal fouls. Sharpe was fined for his actions in the game.
More than 10 years after the most famous battle the two had against each other, Sharpe couldn't think of a more fitting player to go into the Canton, Ohio museum with than his former adversary. Thomas died in 2000 at the age of 33 after complications from injuries sustained in an auto accident.
"All of the years I've ever played in the NFL, I don't think I faced a better, tougher, more dominating outside linebacker than Derrick Thomas," Sharpe said this week. "It would be an honor to go into the Pro Football Hall of Fame with him."
Saturday, Sharpe and Thomas' family will find out if the two AFC West legends will become NFL immortals. The two are among 17 finalists for induction. The voting results will be announced Saturday.
"Yes, I hope we both get in," Sharpe said. "It would be very important for my family to see me get in and I'm sure it would be very important to Derrick's family as well. This would be a nice final honor for such a great player who meant so much to the Chiefs."
The Hall of Fame voting can be very unpredictable. Even though Sharpe is remembered as one of the best receiving tight ends ever to play in the NFL and as a game-changing player, he might not be a certain first-time selection. Some voters might lump Sharpe in with other receivers and he could be subject to a logjam. Cris Carter and Andre Reed might get the majority of the votes going to receivers.
Even though many believe Sharpe, who won two Super Bowls with Denver and another while with Baltimore, should be a no-questions-asked first-ballot inductee, he is not sizing himself for the yellow Hall Of Fame jacket quite yet. Last year, he saw Carter not get in on his first chance. Sharpe winced every time his friend and Denver teammate Gary Zimmerman got overlooked. Zimmerman, who retired after the 1997 season, finally was elected last year despite being known as one of the premier left tackles of his era.
"I hope the voters look at my numbers and they can look at it as a tight end or as a receiver, whatever they like, and I want them to look at the teams I played on and the way I played," Sharpe said. "All I know is I put everything I could into my career and I can't put anymore into it. All I can do is what I've done. Hopefully, it is enough."
Thomas has been a finalist before and with Harry Carson and Fred Dean getting in recently, many think Thomas' time could be now.
Thomas certainly has Hall Of Fame worthy numbers.
He was a nine-time Pro Bowl player and a member of the NFL's 1990s All-Decade team. He had an NFL record seven sacks in a game and a league-standard 45 career forced fumbles. He also registered 126.5 career sacks.
Thomas was arguably the most feared pass rusher of the 1990s.
"Derrick was a player that could dominate a game," said Denver Hall of Fame quarterback John Elway in a quote provided from the Chiefs' public relations staff.
"His explosive talents were so great that he could dictate to an offense pass and run blocking schemes as well as the plays that were called. He was such an impact player that you always had to know where he was on the field. His career statistics more than speak to his exceptional career as not only as a pass rusher but also as an overall defensive player."
Added Buffalo Hall Of Fame quarterback Jim Kelly (also provided by the Chiefs): ""Throughout my professional career I played against many Hall of Famers. Derrick Thomas definitely fits that mold. His quickness, his intensity and his love for the game was matched by only a few players. We actually game planned for No. 58. I needed to know where he was lined up at all times, as did my offensive line. Not many teams would actually game plan around one player, but the Buffalo Bills certainly did every time we faced him."
Sharpe was also a player opposing teams game planned for. Saturday, Sharpe hopes his and Thomas' impact on the game will be recognized.
"The best thing about the Hall Of Fame is you can't be voted out of it," Sharpe said. "You are not a reigning Hall Of Famer like you are a reigning Super Bowl champion. You are a Hall Of Famer for forever .... That would be pretty special."


text:
Zambia says sustainable trade, infrastructure development, gender equality and empowerment, peace, health and education are among key prerequisites to the development of Africa.
16 hours ago
In March 2016, IBM opened its first Cloud Data Centre in South Africa, providing cloud services to enterprise clients. Just a month later, SAP announced that it was partnering with South Africa's Dimension Data to launch SAP HANA Enterprise Cloud, a cloud platform offering a range of business intelligence solutions for its growing African market.
Brett Parker 1 day ago
Pay-as-you-go (PAYG) solar is a big deal in Africa, with companies like M-KOPA Solar and PEG Ghana making waves. Over in Uganda, another such company is seeing significant success from the model, even without external investment.
Tom Jackson 2 days ago
ABUJA, Nigeria - South Africa's MTN has denied it illegally transferred $13.9 billion from Nigeria in the latest scandal to hit the telecom firm in its largest market in the continent.
2 days ago
Ghanaian startup AF Radio has launched its free Android app after months of testing in partnership with local station 3FM 92.7, claiming to be the only app in the Google Play Store that lets users play back African radio shows as soon as they air.
Tom Jackson 21 Oct 2016
CAIRO, Egypt - The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has announced the results of its first Media Award for the Near East and North Africa. Twenty journalists from different countries in the region participated with more than 50 print media, online, TV and Radio reports, covering many vital topics relating to food and agriculture.
20 Oct 2016
Established just five years ago, Botswana's Competition Authority has helped reinject millions of dollars into local businesses and save thousands of jobs in an economy where unemployment persists at around 20%.
20 Oct 2016
CAIRO, Egypt - Marriott International has announced plans to debut Element Hotels, the stylish eco-incubator brand in Egypt, in early 2019. Located in Cairo's upscale Heliopolis district and slated to be the largest Element Hotel in the Middle East and Africa, Element Cairo is being developed by Abraj Misr Urban Development and is owned by Middle East Real Estate for Development (MERED), an Egyptian limited liability company.
19 Oct 2016


text:
Page d'accueil - Seclock vis, écrous et clés sécurité
Tri-Wing® (trójskrzydłowe wyżłobienie) wkręt do metalu
Śruba zrywalna
Śruba Snake Eyes® Spanners
Nakrętki zrywalne
Śruba torx ze szpilką (6-Lobe)
Śruba Cinstar (pięciogwizdkowe wyżłobienie ze szpilką)
Śruba zabezpieczająca Seclock
Śrubka zabezpieczająca Seclock do obudowy komputera
Klucz specjalny Seclock
Tufnut® nakrętki zabezpieczające
Ecrous antivol
Vis antivol
Télécharger le catalogue en PDF
S'abonner à ce flux RSS
Looking for a ibuprofen? Not a problem!
Click Here
If you would like to receive additional info about ibuprofen kindly visit
Pharmacy Lookup.
Guaranteed Worldwide Shipping
Discreet Package
Low Prices
24/7/365 Customer Support
100% Satisfaction Guaranteed.
Cash on delivery ibuprofen overnight
how to get anadin ibuprofen online coupon free shipping maryland
200 mg ibuprofen for kids
paracetamol-ibuprofen on sale in australia
free shipping ibuprofen
buy in online anadin ibuprofen in internet tab no prescription colorado
approved paracetamol-ibuprofen ups overseas shop verkoop
expire does ibuprofen
pharmacy anadin ibuprofen online diners club cod accepted wyoming
expire does ibuprofen
200 mg ibuprofen for kids
purchase anadin ibuprofen online western union without prescription delaware
dmso fluconazole ibuprofen
cyclosporin ibuprofen lipid peroxidation
no script paracetamol-ibuprofen buy pills online
us ibuprofen without prescription
ibuprofen mobic instead of
alternate ibuprofen and geodon for fever
cyclosporin ibuprofen advice
levaquin ibuprofen interactions
cheap anadin ibuprofen with free shipping
how can i buy paracetamol-ibuprofen generic worldwide
can i purchase ibuprofen online discount fedex china
nurofen gel ibuprofen doctor
diclofenac versus ibuprofen
ranitidine ibuprofen interactions
ibuprofen mobic instead of
600 microgynon ibuprofen
ibuprofen together prednisone
alternate ibuprofen and bonine for fever
non prescription drugs similar to paracetamol-ibuprofen
online overnight shipping ibuprofen
imodium 500 and ibuprofen
ibuprofen a arthritis remedy contains 75.69 c
Cheap ibuprofen usa
next day paracetamol-ibuprofen online
200 mg ibuprofen for kids
dmso fluconazole ibuprofen
buy ibuprofen no rx cheap
how can i buy paracetamol-ibuprofen generic worldwide
use of ibuprofen in pregnancy
ativan ibuprofen interactions
comprar generic name zupar paracetamol-ibuprofen
ibuprofen allergy rash medication spiriva make with atrovent
drug screen ibuprofen
paracetamol-ibuprofen order now
cyclosporin ibuprofen lipid peroxidation
cheap ibuprofen usa
rocaltrol ibuprofen interactions
terapie pro tlakove ibuprofen vysoke krve. olmetec le generique
ibuprofen and alcohol use
buy in online anadin ibuprofen in internet tab no prescription colorado
buy in online anadin ibuprofen in internet tab no prescription colorado
want rabais worldwide paracetamol-ibuprofen selling amex
online overnight shipping ibuprofen
surdosage ibuprofen rheumatoid arthritis
non prescription drugs similar to paracetamol-ibuprofen
paracetamol-ibuprofen 30g how can i purchase
paracetamol-ibuprofen pharmacies
online pharmacy paracetamol-ibuprofen order
200 mg ibuprofen for kids
surdosage ibuprofen rheumatoid arthritis
is it safe to take ibuprofen with cipro
cod ibuprofen overnight saturday no prescription
ivermectin ibuprofen interactions
ibuprofen at 39 weeks pregnant
to treat whipworms ibuprofen
how to get anadin ibuprofen online coupon free shipping maryland
levaquin ibuprofen interactions
next day paracetamol-ibuprofen online
to treat whipworms ibuprofen
buy ibuprofen in sydney
urecholine ibuprofen interactions
get now paracetamol-ibuprofen on sale
ibuprofen a arthritis remedy contains 75.69 c
Terapie pro tlakove ibuprofen vysoke krve. olmetec le generique
non prescription drugs similar to paracetamol-ibuprofen
bactroban ibuprofen interactions
alternate ibuprofen and bonine for fever
alternate ibuprofen and ephedrine for fever
drug screen ibuprofen
urecholine ibuprofen interactions
paracetamol-ibuprofen order now
diclofenac versus ibuprofen
buy in online anadin ibuprofen in internet tab no prescription colorado
paracetamol-ibuprofen online in canada
paracetamol-ibuprofen order now
free shipping ibuprofen
This training may be incorporated inside curriculum of your respective pharmacy technician program or perhaps you may have to obtain an intern position your local pharmacy. Learning college writing
free shipping ibuprofen
is very important to a career in additional ways. You need to go through a formal hearing with this, and also you need
free shipping ibuprofen
to have documentation showing that you cannot work. Obstetricians and gynecologists are physicians who are experts in women's health. The pharmacist asserted my identification was no longer considered valid with the state because it had expired.
Click on the 'Contact Us' prompt in the top right hand corner of the Drugs - For - Cost. Some fields, like journalism, require constant intensive writing while attending college and inside the field. Now, we'll talk next about the process of filling a prescription. It's actually like reading someone information leaflet on your computer screen, all of the things which you need to know about a particular kind of medicine is right there. One pause and this unique store and you will probably be hooked.
One month after leaving my position I have not felt the need for any mind altering medications and will not believe I was at the point where I needed them. Next time you head to have a prescription filled, be sure you be patient using the technician. As a graphic designer, understanding of Adobe Creative Suite, i. An online generic pharmacy is certain to get its rankings determined by the average of the criteria involved. To prepare for the PCAT test, some from the students signup at brick-and-mortar coaching lessons and hope that this tutors at these coaching classes contain it right.
You will get exactly whatever you want from your Canadian drugstore internet. A Pharm - D is not a
free shipping ibuprofen
Ph - D but more comparable to an MD or DDS. LPNs and RNs taking this course receive two credits. Prices can differ by way of a few dollars or even more depending about the pharmacy chosen. These "physicians" and "nurses" are as phony like a three dollar bill.
Few of best colleges are selling comprehensive packages in their programs. People utilizing a gift shop or boutique are looking to acquire unique, elite, eclectic or fashionable gifts. 5 milligrams, if it should have been 10 milligrams. For instance, you can utilize low estrogen birth control pills, for example Alesse, Fe, Yasmin, Loestrin while others available with any discount pharmacy or women's online pharmacy. There was obviously a time within this country when women can't buy simple contraceptive measures in the counter.
Tous droits réservés


text:
I made this for my daughter's birthday. All of it is cake covered in fondant. Had a little trouble with the fondant on top but was still very happy with it :)
CakeCentral.com is the world's largest cake community for cake decorating professionals and enthusiasts.
(if this is a private computer)
Yes please, register now!