Advertisement

Acta Neuropathologica

, Volume 135, Issue 2, pp 179–199 | Cite as

Cofactors influence the biological properties of infectious recombinant prions

  • Natalia Fernández-Borges
  • Michele A. Di Bari
  • Hasier Eraña
  • Manuel Sánchez-Martín
  • Laura Pirisinu
  • Beatriz Parra
  • Saioa R. Elezgarai
  • Ilaria Vanni
  • Rafael López-Moreno
  • Gabriele Vaccari
  • Vanessa Venegas
  • Jorge M. Charco
  • David Gil
  • Chafik Harrathi
  • Claudia D’Agostino
  • Umberto Agrimi
  • Tomás Mayoral
  • Jesús R. Requena
  • Romolo Nonno
  • Joaquín CastillaEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Prion diseases are caused by a misfolding of the cellular prion protein (PrP) to a pathogenic isoform named PrPSc. Prions exist as strains, which are characterized by specific pathological and biochemical properties likely encoded in the three-dimensional structure of PrPSc. However, whether cofactors determine these different PrPSc conformations and how this relates to their specific biological properties is largely unknown. To understand how different cofactors modulate prion strain generation and selection, Protein Misfolding Cyclic Amplification was used to create a diversity of infectious recombinant prion strains by propagation in the presence of brain homogenate. Brain homogenate is known to contain these mentioned cofactors, whose identity is only partially known, and which facilitate conversion of PrPC to PrPSc. We thus obtained a mix of distinguishable infectious prion strains. Subsequently, we replaced brain homogenate, by different polyanionic cofactors that were able to drive the evolution of mixed prion populations toward specific strains. Thus, our results show that a variety of infectious recombinant prions can be generated in vitro and that their specific type of conformation, i.e., the strain, is dependent on the cofactors available during the propagation process. These observations have significant implications for understanding the pathogenesis of prion diseases and their ability to replicate in different tissues and hosts. Importantly, these considerations might apply to other neurodegenerative diseases for which different conformations of misfolded proteins have been described.

Keywords

Cofactors In vitro propagation Infectious recombinant prions Prion strains PMCA TSE 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported financially by Spanish Government Grants AGL2015-65046-C2-1-R, PCIN‐2013‐065 and BFU2013-48436-C2-1-P, and a Basque Government Grant 2014111157. The authors would like to thank the following for their support: IKERBasque foundation, vivarium and maintenance from CIC bioGUNE and Patricia Piñeiro and Maite Pérez for technical support. Oxford Protein Production Facility UK (OPPF) for the plasmid pOPIN E, Dr. Ester Vázquez Fernández for useful advice in the initial steps. Dr. Mark P. Dagleish (Moredun Research Institute) for useful discussion and advice.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

401_2017_1782_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 2304 kb) Fig. S1 Biochemical characterization of two distinct misfolded rec-PrPs. a Western blot representing two duplicates of L-seeded-02 and H-seeded-02, two misfolded rec-PrPs generated after serial PMCA propagation (see Fig. 1). Two distinct migration patterns were observed (Low and High) after digestion with 85 µg/ml of Proteinase-K (PK). b Western blot of amplified L-seeded-02 and H-seeded-02 seeds subjected to a single round of 24-h recPMCA. Each misfolded rec-PrP was subjected to serial dilutions (from 10−1 to 10−8) previous to in vitro propagation. The L-seeded-02 seed was able to amplify until a dilution of 10−5 while the H-seeded-02 seed amplified until dilution of 10−8. All the samples were digested with 85 µg/ml of PK. Despite all the samples were run at the same time, the blot was cropped as indicated by the vertical dotted line to avoid displaying unrelated samples. c PK-resistance assay of the two distinct misfolded rec-PrPs. Representative Western blot of the resistance of L-seeded-02 and H-seeded-02 misfolded rec-PrPs to increasing concentrations of PK. The samples were treated for 1 h at 42 °C with 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 600, 800, 1600 and 2000 μg/ml of PK. Both misfolded proteins showed a high resistance to PK digestion (up to 400 μg/ml) with L-seeded-02 showing higher resistance (at least 2,000 μg/ml). Membranes were developed with SAF83 monoclonal antibody (1:400). Mw: Molecular weight. Fig. S2 Biochemical analysis of Proteinase K (PK)-resistant PrPSc in brain homogenates from bank vole I109 inoculated with different misfolded rec-PrPs. a The same Western blot with mAb 9A2 (1:400) shown in Fig. 3a is here compared with a replica blot revealed with mAb 12B2 (1:500), as indicated. With both antibodies, the two voles infected with H/L-seeded-03 and having classical PrPSc show clearly different glycosylation patterns. Note that, while the brain-derived classical prion strains, CWD and scrapie, show similar signal intensities with the two antibodies, PrPSc from voles infected with recombinant prions (H/L-seeded-03) seems weaker with 12B2 than with 9A2. As 9A2 and 12B2 maps, two nearby epitopes in the region cleaved by PK (amino acids 99-101 and 89-93, respectively) the relative presence of the 12B2 epitope is a measure of the N-terminal cleavage by PK and thus, indirectly, of conformational differences among PrPSc aggregates. b Measurements of the signal ratio between 9A2 and 12B2 replica blots where a high signal ratio indicates a less N-terminal PK-cleavage site. Note that, the ratio is higher in PrPSc from voles infected with recombinant prions (H/L-seeded-03) than in CWD or scrapie, in keeping with their lower apparent molecular weight, suggesting that N-terminal cleavage by PK is less N-terminal in these samples. PrPSc from the two animals showing a classical PrPres pattern are thus different between them (glycotype) and also from PrPSc in voles infected with CWD or scrapie (differential antibody binding). Fig. S3 Molecular and pathological and phenotypes in vole-adapted prion strains derived from recombinant prions. a Biochemical analysis of PK-resistant PrPSc in brain homogenates from bank vole I109 after second passage of PMCA-derived vole CWD and misfolded rec-PrPs (H-seeded-01, H-seeded-02, L-seeded-Dextran, H-seeded-No cofactor). Representative vole brain homogenates were digested with 200 µg/ml of PK and analyzed by Western blot with monoclonal antibodies 9A2 (1:400) and 12B2 (1:500). Overall, all inocula preserved the original PrPSc type, H-seeded-01 and H-seeded-02 propagating atypical 7 kDa protease-resistant PrPSc, and cofactor-selected recombinant prions propagating classical PrPSc. b As 9A2 and 12B2 maps two nearby epitopes in the region cleaved by PK (amino acids 99-101 and 89-93, respectively), the relative presence of the 12B2 epitope is a measure of the N-terminal cleavage by PK and thus, of conformational differences among PrPSc aggregates. This can be measured by the signal ratio between 9A2 and 12B2 replica blots, where a high signal ratio indicates a less N-terminal PK-cleavage site and correlates with a lower apparent MW. Note that, the ratio is higher in PrPSc from voles infected with recombinant prions than in CWD, suggesting that cleavage by PK is less N-terminal in these samples. Furthermore, a different N-terminal cleavage can be observed even between H-seeded-No cofactor and L-seeded-Dextran. c Patterns of neurodegeneration assessed by lesion profiles (left column) and PET-blot analysis of deposition of PK-resistant PrPSc with monoclonal antibody 6C2 (1:300). H-seeded-01 and H-seeded-02 showed overlapping distribution of spongiform degeneration and PrPSc deposition, characterized by strong PrPSc deposition in white matter tracts, such as the alveus of the hippocampus, corpus callosum and fiber bundles in the striatum and blind involvement of subcortical areas. In contrast, subcortical involvement and grey matter PrPSc deposition were the hallmarks of H-seeded-No cofactor, which closely mirrored the phenotype observed after primary passage of the same inoculum (compare with Fig. 6), despite the dramatic reduction of the incubation times (424 dpi vs. 82 dpi). L-seeded-Dextran showed both, cortical and subcortical involvement. Of note, along with PrPSc deposition in grey matter areas, also white matter deposition was observed in L-seeded-Dextran. Fig. S4 In vitro propagation of unseeded misfolded rec-PrPs (generated in cofactor-containing substrate) using brain-based PMCA. a Rounds (R1-R5) of serial PMCA using bank vole or transgenic mice overexpressing bank vole I109 PrP (TgVole) brain homogenates as substrates. The misfolded rec-PrPs: H-unseeded-No cofactor, L-unseeded-Dextran, H-unseeded-RNA and H-unseeded-Plasmid were used as seeds in replicates of four through five rounds of serial PMCA. Tubes were considered positives if a classical PrPres pattern was observed on Western blot. With the exception of H-unseeded-No cofactor, the rest of the samples were efficiently propagated over a mammalian substrate, with L-unseeded-Dextran and H-unseeded-RNA being particularly efficient seeds. These results correlate strongly with those observed in Fig. 5a. b Four tubes of round 5 of each PMCA-propagated sample were digested with 85 µg/ml of Proteinase-K (PK) and analyzed by Western blot using monoclonal antibody Saf83 (1:400). Both TgVole-based and bank vole-based substrates were similarly efficient. At least two biochemical patterns based on migration properties are shown; a low migration of the L-unseeded-Dextran and a high migration of the H-unseeded-Plasmid. All unseeded samples remained negatives. Control substrates: undigested bank vole or TgVole whole brain homogenates. Mw: Molecular weight. Fig. S5 Electronic microscopy analysis of the cofactor-selected misfolded rec-PrPs. a Cryo-EM images of the cofactor-selected misfolded rec-PrPs. The sample was concentrated 100 times by sedimentation without Proteinase-K (PK)-digestion. Rod-like structures, of 100 to 200 nm in length, are conspicuous. The rods are made up of 10 nm wide fibrils laterally associated or bundled, and are very similar to those seen in preparations of GPI-anchorless PrPSc isolated from brain [64]. Scale bars: 200 nm. b Negative stain TEM images of the dextran-selected misfolded rec-PrP (L-seeded-Dextran) and mouse GPI-anchorless PrPSc. Samples were deposited on freshly glow-discharged carbon-coated gold grids and stained with 5% uranyl acetate. As with cryo-EM images, rods visible in the misfolded rec-PrP samples are very similar to those seen in GPI-anchorless PrPSc samples obtained from brain. Scale bars: 100 and 500 nm. Fig. S6 Modelling the generation and selection of different misfolded rec-PrPs Cartoon showing the putative generation of three different misfolded rec-PrPs (purple, orange and blue figures) after serial rounds of unseeded recPMCA. Different misfolding ratios are obtained as consequence as the presence of brain homogenate (BH) components. A filter representing a specific component (putative cofactor) is drawn as sieve to filter (preferential propagation of) just certain misfolded rec-PrPs. The serial rounds of PMCA select positively the recombinant prion strain that is favoured at expenses of the rest of the strains that could even disappear after a larger number of rounds. Fig. S7 Schematic representation of in vitro propagated recombinant prions and histopathological findings associated to their inoculation in bank vole. An overview of the procedures performed and the results generated along this work. The scheme has been divided in two parts: in vitro and in vivo (bioassay) studies. The in vitro part shows how different types of substrates (Prnp 0/0 brain homogenate and specific cofactors) generated different misfolded rec-PrPs. The bioassay part shows the prion strains resulting in vivo and the major histopathological findings observed after their inoculation in bank vole.

References

  1. 1.
    Aguilar-Calvo P, Xiao X, Bett C, Erana H, Soldau K, Castilla J, Nilsson KP, Surewicz WK, Sigurdson CJ (2017) Post-translational modifications in PrP expand the conformational diversity of prions in vivo. Sci Rep 7:43295.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43295 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aguzzi A (2006) Prion diseases of humans and farm animals: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. J Neurochem 97:1726–1739.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03909.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atarashi R, Moore RA, Sim VL, Hughson AG, Dorward DW, Onwubiko HA, Priola SA, Caughey B (2007) Ultrasensitive detection of scrapie prion protein using seeded conversion of recombinant prion protein. Nat Methods 4:645–650.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth1066 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baron GS, Hughson AG, Raymond GJ, Offerdahl DK, Barton KA, Raymond LD, Dorward DW, Caughey B (2011) Effect of glycans and the glycophosphatidylinositol anchor on strain dependent conformations of scrapie prion protein: improved purifications and infrared spectra. Biochemistry 50:4479–4490.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bi2003907 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barria MA, Mukherjee A, Gonzalez-Romero D, Morales R, Soto C (2009) De novo generation of infectious prions in vitro produces a new disease phenotype. PLoS Pathog 5:e1000421.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000421 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benestad SL, Sarradin P, Thu B, Schonheit J, Tranulis MA, Bratberg B (2003) Cases of scrapie with unusual features in Norway and designation of a new type, Nor98. Vet Rec 153:202–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beringue V, Adjou KT, Lamoury F, Maignien T, Deslys JP, Race R, Dormont D (2000) Opposite effects of dextran sulfate 500, the polyene antibiotic MS-8209, and Congo red on accumulation of the protease-resistant isoform of PrP in the spleens of mice inoculated intraperitoneally with the scrapie agent. J Virol 74:5432–5440CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bessen RA, Kocisko DA, Raymond GJ, Nandan S, Lansbury PT, Caughey B (1995) Non-genetic propagation of strain-specific properties of scrapie prion protein. Nature 375:698–700.  https://doi.org/10.1038/375698a0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bidhendi EE, Bergh J, Zetterstrom P, Andersen PM, Marklund SL, Brannstrom T (2016) Two superoxide dismutase prion strains transmit amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-like disease. J Clin Invest 126:2249–2253.  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI84360 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bruce ME (1993) Scrapie strain variation and mutation. Br Med Bull 49:822–838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruce ME (2003) TSE strain variation. Br Med Bull 66:99–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castilla J, Gonzalez-Romero D, Saa P, Morales R, De Castro J, Soto C (2008) Crossing the species barrier by PrP(Sc) replication in vitro generates unique infectious prions. Cell 134:757–768.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.07.030 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castilla J, Gutierrez-Adan A, Brun A, Doyle D, Pintado B, Ramirez MA, Salguero FJ, Parra B, Segundo FD, Sanchez-Vizcaino JM, Rogers M, Torres JM (2004) Subclinical bovine spongiform encephalopathy infection in transgenic mice expressing porcine prion protein. J Neurosci 24:5063–5069.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5400-03.200424/21/5063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castilla J, Morales R, Saa P, Barria M, Gambetti P, Soto C (2008) Cell-free propagation of prion strains. EMBO J 27:2557–2566.  https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2008.181 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castilla J, Saa P, Hetz C, Soto C (2005) In vitro generation of infectious scrapie prions. Cell 121:195–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.02.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi JK, Cali I, Surewicz K, Kong Q, Gambetti P, Surewicz WK (2016) Amyloid fibrils from the N-terminal prion protein fragment are infectious. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:13851–13856.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610716113 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Collinge J (2010) Medicine. Prion strain mutation and selection. Science 328:1111–1112.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1190815 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Collinge J, Clarke AR (2007) A general model of prion strains and their pathogenicity. Science 318:930–936.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138718 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deleault NR, Geoghegan JC, Nishina K, Kascsak R, Williamson RA, Supattapone S (2005) Protease-resistant prion protein amplification reconstituted with partially purified substrates and synthetic polyanions. J Biol Chem 280:26873–26879.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M503973200 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deleault NR, Harris BT, Rees JR, Supattapone S (2007) Formation of native prions from minimal components in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:9741–9746.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702662104 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deleault NR, Lucassen RW, Supattapone S (2003) RNA molecules stimulate prion protein conversion. Nature 425:717–720.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01979 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deleault NR, Piro JR, Walsh DJ, Wang F, Ma J, Geoghegan JC, Supattapone S (2012) Isolation of phosphatidylethanolamine as a solitary cofactor for prion formation in the absence of nucleic acids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8546–8551.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204498109 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deleault NR, Walsh DJ, Piro JR, Wang F, Wang X, Ma J, Rees JR, Supattapone S (2012) Cofactor molecules maintain infectious conformation and restrict strain properties in purified prions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:E1938–E1946.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206999109 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Di Bari MA, Nonno R, Castilla J, D’Agostino C, Pirisinu L, Riccardi G, Conte M, Richt J, Kunkle R, Langeveld J, Vaccari G, Agrimi U (2013) Chronic wasting disease in bank voles: characterisation of the shortest incubation time model for prion diseases. PLoS Pathog 9:e1003219.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003219 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Elezgarai SR, Fernández-Borges N, Erana H, Sevillano A, Moreno J, Harrathi C, Saá P, Gil D, Kong Q, Requena JR, Andreoletti O, Castilla J (2017) Generation of a new infectious recombinant prion: a model to understand Gerstmann–Sträussler–Scheinker syndrome. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09489-3 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Erana H, Venegas V, Moreno J, Castilla J (2017) Prion-like disorders and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: an overview of the mechanistic features that are shared by the various disease-related misfolded proteins. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 483:1125–1136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.08.166 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Espinosa JC, Nonno R, Di Bari M, Aguilar-Calvo P, Pirisinu L, Fernandez-Borges N, Vanni I, Vaccari G, Marin-Moreno A, Frassanito P, Lorenzo P, Agrimi U, Torres JM (2016) PrPC governs susceptibility to prion strains in bank vole, while other host factors modulate strain features. J Virol 90:10660–10669.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01592-16 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fehlinger A, Wolf H, Hossinger A, Duernberger Y, Pleschka C, Riemschoss K, Liu S, Bester R, Paulsen L, Priola SA, Groschup MH, Schatzl HM, Vorberg IM (2017) Prion strains depend on different endocytic routes for productive infection. Sci Rep 7:6923.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-07260-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fernandez-Borges N, de Castro J, Castilla J (2009) In vitro studies of the transmission barrier. Prion 3:220–223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fernández-Borges N, Erana H, Elezgarai SR, Harrathi C, Venegas V, Castilla J (2017) A quick method to evaluate the effect of the amino acid sequence in the misfolding proneness of the prion protein. In: Lawson VA (ed) Prions: methods and protocols. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ghaemmaghami S, Ahn M, Lessard P, Giles K, Legname G, DeArmond SJ, Prusiner SB (2009) Continuous quinacrine treatment results in the formation of drug-resistant prions. PLoS Pathog 5:e1000673.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000673 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gonzalez-Montalban N, Lee YJ, Makarava N, Savtchenko R, Baskakov IV (2013) Changes in prion replication environment cause prion strain mutation. FASEB J 27:3702–3710.  https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.13-230466 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heilbronner G, Eisele YS, Langer F, Kaeser SA, Novotny R, Nagarathinam A, Aslund A, Hammarstrom P, Nilsson KP, Jucker M (2013) Seeded strain-like transmission of beta-amyloid morphotypes in APP transgenic mice. EMBO Rep 14:1017–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2013.137 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jackson WS, Borkowski AW, Faas H, Steele AD, King OD, Watson N, Jasanoff A, Lindquist S (2009) Spontaneous generation of prion infectivity in fatal familial insomnia knockin mice. Neuron 63:438–450.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.07.026 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jones EM, Surewicz WK (2005) Fibril conformation as the basis of species- and strain-dependent seeding specificity of mammalian prion amyloids. Cell 121:63–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.01.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim JI, Cali I, Surewicz K, Kong Q, Raymond GJ, Atarashi R, Race B, Qing L, Gambetti P, Caughey B, Surewicz WK (2010) Mammalian prions generated from bacterially expressed prion protein in the absence of any mammalian cofactors. J Biol Chem 285:14083–14087.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.C110.113464 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Legname G, Baskakov IV, Nguyen HO, Riesner D, Cohen FE, DeArmond SJ, Prusiner SB (2004) Synthetic mammalian prions. Science 305:673–676.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100195305/5684/673 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li J, Browning S, Mahal SP, Oelschlegel AM (2010) Weissmann C Darwinian evolution of prions in cell culture. Science 327:869–872.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183218 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maggioni GM, Mazzotti M (2015) Modelling the stochastic behaviour of primary nucleation. Faraday Discuss 179:359–382.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c4fd00255e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mahal SP, Baker CA, Demczyk CA, Smith EW, Julius C, Weissmann C (2007) Prion strain discrimination in cell culture: the cell panel assay. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:20908–20913.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710054104 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Makarava N, Kovacs GG, Bocharova O, Savtchenko R, Alexeeva I, Budka H, Rohwer RG, Baskakov IV (2010) Recombinant prion protein induces a new transmissible prion disease in wild-type animals. Acta Neuropathol 119:177–187.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-009-0633-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Makarava N, Savtchenko R, Alexeeva I, Rohwer RG, Baskakov IV (2016) New molecular insight into mechanism of evolution of mammalian synthetic prions. Am J Pathol 186:1006–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.11.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Manson JC, Clarke AR, Hooper ML, Aitchison L, McConnell I, Hope J (1994) 129/Ola mice carrying a null mutation in PrP that abolishes mRNA production are developmentally normal. Mol Neurobiol 8:121–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02780662 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meyer-Luehmann M, Coomaraswamy J, Bolmont T, Kaeser S, Schaefer C, Kilger E, Neuenschwander A, Abramowski D, Frey P, Jaton AL, Vigouret JM, Paganetti P, Walsh DM, Mathews PM, Ghiso J, Staufenbiel M, Walker LC, Jucker M (2006) Exogenous induction of cerebral beta-amyloidogenesis is governed by agent and host. Science 313:1781–1784.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131864 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morales R, Abid K, Soto C (2007) The prion strain phenomenon: molecular basis and unprecedented features. Biochim Biophys Acta 1772:681–691.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2006.12.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nandi PK, Leclerc E (1999) Polymerization of murine recombinant prion protein in nucleic acid solution. Arch Virol 144:1751–1763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nonno R, Di Bari MA, Cardone F, Vaccari G, Fazzi P, Dell’Omo G, Cartoni C, Ingrosso L, Boyle A, Galeno R, Sbriccoli M, Lipp HP, Bruce M, Pocchiari M, Agrimi U (2006) Efficient transmission and characterization of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease strains in bank voles. PLoS Pathog 2:e12.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.0020012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Parchi P, Chen SG, Brown P, Zou W, Capellari S, Budka H, Hainfellner J, Reyes PF, Golden GT, Hauw JJ, Gajdusek DC, Gambetti P (1998) Different patterns of truncated prion protein fragments correlate with distinct phenotypes in P102L Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:8322–8327CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Peelaerts W, Bousset L, Van der Perren A, Moskalyuk A, Pulizzi R, Giugliano M, Van den Haute C, Melki R, Baekelandt V (2015) alpha-Synuclein strains cause distinct synucleinopathies after local and systemic administration. Nature 522:340–344.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14547 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pirisinu L, Di Bari MA, D’Agostino C, Marcon S, Riccardi G, Poleggi A, Cohen ML, Appleby BS, Gambetti P, Ghetti B, Agrimi U, Nonno R (2016) Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease subtypes efficiently transmit in bank voles as genuine prion diseases. Sci Rep 6:20443.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20443 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pirisinu L, Marcon S, Di Bari MA, D’Agostino C, Agrimi U, Nonno R (2013) Biochemical characterization of prion strains in bank voles. Pathogens 2:446–456.  https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens2030446 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Saa P, Castilla J, Soto C (2006) Ultra-efficient replication of infectious prions by automated protein misfolding cyclic amplification. J Biol Chem 281:35245–35252.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M603964200 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Saborio GP, Permanne B, Soto C (2001) Sensitive detection of pathological prion protein by cyclic amplification of protein misfolding. Nature 411:810–813.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35081095 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Safar J, Wille H, Itri V, Groth D, Serban H, Torchia M, Cohen FE, Prusiner SB (1998) Eight prion strains have PrP(Sc) molecules with different conformations. Nat Med 4:1157–1165.  https://doi.org/10.1038/2654 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schmitz M, Dittmar K, Llorens F, Gelpi E, Ferrer I, Schulz-Schaeffer WJ, Zerr I (2016) Hereditary human prion diseases: an update. Mol Neurobiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-016-9918-y Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shaked GM, Meiner Z, Avraham I, Taraboulos A, Gabizon R (2001) Reconstitution of prion infectivity from solubilized protease-resistant PrP and nonprotein components of prion rods. J Biol Chem 276:14324–14328.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M007815200M007815200 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sim VL, Caughey B (2009) Ultrastructures and strain comparison of under-glycosylated scrapie prion fibrils. Neurobiol Aging 30:2031–2042.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2008.02.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stohr J, Condello C, Watts JC, Bloch L, Oehler A, Nick M, DeArmond SJ, Giles K, DeGrado WF, Prusiner SB (2014) Distinct synthetic Abeta prion strains producing different amyloid deposits in bigenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:10329–10334.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408968111 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Supattapone S (2014) Elucidating the role of cofactors in mammalian prion propagation. Prion 8:100–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Taniguchi-Watanabe S, Arai T, Kametani F, Nonaka T, Masuda-Suzukake M, Tarutani A, Murayama S, Saito Y, Arima K, Yoshida M, Akiyama H, Robinson A, Mann DM, Iwatsubo T, Hasegawa M (2016) Biochemical classification of tauopathies by immunoblot, protein sequence and mass spectrometric analyses of sarkosyl-insoluble and trypsin-resistant tau. Acta Neuropathol 131:267–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-015-1503-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Terry C, Wenborn A, Gros N, Sells J, Joiner S, Hosszu LL, Tattum MH, Panico S, Clare DK, Collinge J, Saibil HR, Wadsworth JD (2016) Ex vivo mammalian prions are formed of paired double helical prion protein fibrils. Open Biol 6:160035.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.160035 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vanik DL, Surewicz KA, Surewicz WK (2004) Molecular basis of barriers for interspecies transmissibility of mammalian prions. Mol Cell 14:139–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Vanni I, Migliore S, Cosseddu GM, Di Bari MA, Pirisinu L, D’Agostino C, Riccardi G, Agrimi U, Nonno R (2016) Isolation of a defective prion mutant from natural scrapie. PLoS Pathog 12:e1006016.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006016 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vazquez-Fernandez E, Vos MR, Afanasyev P, Cebey L, Sevillano AM, Vidal E, Rosa I, Renault L, Ramos A, Peters PJ, Fernandez JJ, van Heel M, Young HS, Requena JR, Wille H (2016) The structural architecture of an infectious mammalian prion using electron cryomicroscopy. PLoS Pathog 12:e1005835.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005835 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Vidal E, Fernandez-Borges N, Pintado B, Erana H, Ordonez M, Marquez M, Chianini F, Fondevila D, Sanchez-Martin MA, Andreoletti O, Dagleish MP, Pumarola M, Castilla J (2015) Transgenic mouse bioassay: evidence that rabbits are susceptible to a variety of prion isolates. PLoS Pathog 11:e1004977.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004977 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wang F, Wang X, Yuan CG, Ma J (2010) Generating a prion with bacterially expressed recombinant prion protein. Science 327:1132–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183748 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Watts JC, Giles K, Bourkas ME, Patel S, Oehler A, Gavidia M, Bhardwaj S, Lee J, Prusiner SB (2016) Towards authentic transgenic mouse models of heritable PrP prion diseases. Acta Neuropathol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1585-6 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Watts JC, Giles K, Patel S, Oehler A, DeArmond SJ, Prusiner SB (2014) Evidence that bank vole PrP is a universal acceptor for prions. PLoS Pathog 10:e1003990.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003990 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Watts JC, Giles K, Stohr J, Oehler A, Bhardwaj S, Grillo SK, Patel S, DeArmond SJ, Prusiner SB (2012) Spontaneous generation of rapidly transmissible prions in transgenic mice expressing wild-type bank vole prion protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:3498–3503.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121556109 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Weissmann C, Flechsig E (2003) PrP knock-out and PrP transgenic mice in prion research. Br Med Bull 66:43–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Weissmann C, Li J, Mahal SP, Browning S (2011) Prions on the move. EMBO Rep 12:1109–1117.  https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.192 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wenborn A, Terry C, Gros N, Joiner S, D’Castro L, Panico S, Sells J, Cronier S, Linehan JM, Brandner S, Saibil HR, Collinge J, Wadsworth JD (2015) A novel and rapid method for obtaining high titre intact prion strains from mammalian brain. Sci Rep 5:10062.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10062 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yehiely F, Bamborough P, Da Costa M, Perry BJ, Thinakaran G, Cohen FE, Carlson GA, Prusiner SB (1997) Identification of candidate proteins binding to prion protein. Neurobiol Dis 3:339–355.  https://doi.org/10.1006/nbdi.1997.0130 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zou WQ, Puoti G, Xiao X, Yuan J, Qing L, Cali I, Shimoji M, Langeveld JP, Castellani R, Notari S, Crain B, Schmidt RE, Geschwind M, Dearmond SJ, Cairns NJ, Dickson D, Honig L, Torres JM, Mastrianni J, Capellari S, Giaccone G, Belay ED, Schonberger LB, Cohen M, Perry G, Kong Q, Parchi P, Tagliavini F, Gambetti P (2010) Variably protease-sensitive prionopathy: a new sporadic disease of the prion protein. Ann Neurol 68:162–172.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.22094 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalia Fernández-Borges
    • 1
  • Michele A. Di Bari
    • 2
  • Hasier Eraña
    • 1
  • Manuel Sánchez-Martín
    • 3
    • 4
  • Laura Pirisinu
    • 2
  • Beatriz Parra
    • 5
  • Saioa R. Elezgarai
    • 1
  • Ilaria Vanni
    • 2
  • Rafael López-Moreno
    • 1
  • Gabriele Vaccari
    • 2
  • Vanessa Venegas
    • 1
  • Jorge M. Charco
    • 1
  • David Gil
    • 1
  • Chafik Harrathi
    • 1
  • Claudia D’Agostino
    • 2
  • Umberto Agrimi
    • 2
  • Tomás Mayoral
    • 5
  • Jesús R. Requena
    • 6
  • Romolo Nonno
    • 2
  • Joaquín Castilla
    • 1
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.CIC bioGUNE, Parque tecnológico de BizkaiaDerioSpain
  2. 2.Department of Veterinary Public Health and Food SafetyIstituto Superiore di SanitàRomeItaly
  3. 3.Servicio de Transgénesis, Nucleus, Universidad de SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  4. 4.IBSAL, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  5. 5.Laboratorio Central de Veterinaria (LCV)MadridSpain
  6. 6.CIMUS Biomedical Research Institute & Department of Medical SciencesUniversity of Santiago de Compostela-IDISSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  7. 7.IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for ScienceBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations