Loss of Resf1 reduces the efficiency of embryonic stem cell self-renewal and germline entry

  1. Matúš Vojtek
  2. Ian Chambers

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Retroelement silencing factor 1 (RESF1) interacts with the key regulators of mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) OCT4 and NANOG, and its absence results in sterility of mice. However, the function of RESF1 in ESCs and germline specification is poorly understood. In this study, we used Resf1 knockout cell lines to determine the requirements of RESF1 for ESC self-renewal and for in vitro specification of ESCs into primordial germ cell-like cells (PGCLCs). We found that deletion of Resf1 in ESCs cultured in serum and LIF reduces self-renewal potential, whereas episomal expression of RESF1 has a modest positive effect on ESC self-renewal. In addition, RESF1 is not required for the capacity of NANOG and its downstream target ESRRB to drive self-renewal in the absence of LIF. However, Resf1 deletion reduces the efficiency of PGCLC differentiation in vitro. These results identify Resf1 as a novel player in the regulation of pluripotent stem cells and germ cell specification.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.26508/lsa.202101190
  2. Review Commons

    Note: This rebuttal was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    Reviewer #1:

    This paper puts together a nice set of data showing that a specific gene called Resf1 when deleted effects the ability of ESCs to self-renew and proceed to germline fates. I believe the data are sound and that they provide the evidence needed for the authors to make their conclusions.While I think the data are presented well and the manuscript is well-written, the "modest" functional results suggest this work would be more suited for a specialized journal.

    We thank Reviewer 1 for their supportive comments.

    Reviewer #2:

    1. In the presence of LIF, there is no difference between Resf1 knockout mESCs and WT mESCs except the expression of Esrrb, Nanog and Pou5f1. What about other genes? RNA-seq is needed to distinguish the two cell lines.

    *Fukuda et al. have shown that deletion of Resf1 leads to misregulation of ~1000 genes (adj. p-value 2) in presence of LIF. This highlights large differences between transcriptomes of Resf1 KO and WT cells that occur despite only a marginal difference in self-renewal efficiency between Resf1 KO cells and WT in the presence of LIF. It is therefore questionable whether the time and resources required to perform the requested RNA-seq would produce data that could unambiguously identify the potential causative effector difference downstream of Resf1. *

    *As an alternative approach, we have reanalysed the Fukuda et al RNA-seq data. We find that Esrrb is significantly downregulated (in agreement with our Q-RT-PCRs), as are Klf4 *and LifR (FDR 1.5). However, our meta-analysis of the Fukuda et al data did not show Pou5f1 and Nanog to be differentially expressed (FDR 1.5). This is in line with the lower level of downregulation of Pou5f1 and Nanog, compared to Esrrb in our Q-RT-PCR data. Notably, our gene expression analyses were performed in 5 biological replicates, whereas Fukuda et al. performed RNA-seq in two biological replicates. We can include the meta-analysis of the Fukuda et al data in our submission. As the change in ESC self-renewal that we see at low LIF concentrations could result from a decrease in Lifr expression, we will verify the change in expression of Lifr by Q-RT-PCR. Importantly, we will do this in a way that discriminates between expression of the transmembrane Lifr and soluble LifR, since the latter acts antagonistically (PMID: 9396734, Chambers, BJ, 1997).

    1. The authors showed Resf1 is not required for Nanog function, so how does Resf1 regulate the expression of pluripotency genes? Through epigenetic modifications or signaling pathways? The authors should design experiments to explain the detailed mechanisms.

    The strength of the immunoblot signal for RESF1 is low, even when Resf1 is expressed episomally. Therefore, although we could try to co-immunoprecipitate with the Resf1-v5 cell line and endogenous Nanog, the expression level of RESF1 may mean this effort is unsuccessful. Given the fact that the result will not affect the conclusions of our study, we do not think this effort is justifiable.

    1. The authors showed that Resf1 interacts with Nanog, but they used forced expressed proteins. Does the endogenous Resf1 interacts with endogenous Nanog? Do they bind to some same DNA sequences?

    *This are important questions to answer. However, many more experiments would be required to reach firm conclusions. The reviewer is right to say that the mechanisms by which Resf1 affects pluripotency are unknown and remain to be answered in future. We therefore propose to improve the text discussing similarities in pluripotency phenotype between deletions of Trim28, SETDB1, YTHDC1 and RESF1. As deletion of RESF1 partner SETDB1 or other proteins involved in repression of retrotransposons lead to downregulation of pluripotency genes and in some cases collapse of ESCs (e.g. PMID: 19884255__, Bilodeau et al. 2009; __PMID: 19884257, Yuan et al. 2009), we hypothesise that the RESF1 phenotype may be explained by affecting SETDB1 chromatin binding and therefore repression of SETDB1 targets. The mild phenotype of RESF1 KO indicates that RESF1 would not be an essential component of this repressor complex but rather “a modulatory protein”. *

    It is also worth noting that the meta-analysis of the RNA-seq data from Fukuda et al. suggests that Resf1-null ESCs may express reduced levels of LifR mRNA, and this is something we plan to investigate.

    1. In figure 5C, some Resf1 positive cells showed Nanog negative. Are these Nanog negative cells pluripotent?

    Nanog-null ESCs are pluripotent (PMID: 18097409, Chambers et al., 2007). In addition, NANOG-negative cells in FCS/LIF cultures can retain pluripotency. Our purpose in this figure was therefore not to say whether NANOG-negative:RESF1-positive cells are pluripotent but to draw attention to the broader expression of RESF1 in FCS/LIF compared to NANOG. Such broader expression has also been noted for other heterogeneously expressed factors (PMID: 31582397, Pantier et al. 2019).

    1. In figure 6A, the naïve mESCs are induced to EpiLCs. Is the transition efficiency of Resf1 knockout cells the same with WT mESCs? The finally obtained PGCLCs should be identified.

    *We show that the key TFs of EpiLC state are expressed similarly in WT and Resf1 KO cells (Supplementary figure 4) and we have data showing that WT and Resf1KO EpiLCs have a similar morphology. Together this suggests an efficient transition to an EpiLC state. Our analysis has identified expression of Blimp1/Ap2g/Prdm14 in Resf1-null cultures. Compared to wild-type cells these levels are reduced up to 3-fold. As this is from an unsorted population and the number of SSEA1/CD61-positive cells is decreased around 2x, this suggests that the PGCLC population formed by Resf1-null cells is reduced in proportion but is otherwise normal. *

    *We will add photographs of EpiLC colonies formed by Resf1 KO and WT cells. *

    1. in figure 5c, the scale bar is missing.

    We will add missing scale bars in the figure 5C.

    Reviewer #3:

    1. What was less clear was an explanation of why colonies 4 and 24 were chosen. Were there other colonies with the desired expression? Was this amount of expression repeated in replicative experiments with approximately 2 colonies only available to be selected?

    Approximately 30 colonies were selected for analysis. Of these, only 2 had deletion of both Resf1 alleles. We will make this point clearer in the text.

    1. Figure 1C, 5C and S2B with microscopic images should include a scale bar.

    Missing scalebars in the Figure 1C will be added. Unfortunately the microscopy setup used to collect the images in Figures 5C and S2B did not allow scalebars to be added at the time of imaging and these cannot be added retrospectively. However, we do not think that inclusion of scalebars, even were it possible would affect the conclusions of our manuscript.

    1. Figure 1E needs a better explanation of the significance, "less clear cut" is not adequate. Reporting statistics, or lack of significance, on the graph would help.

    *We will update the manuscript and the Figure 1E to include results of a statistical analysis (Wilcoxon-rank sum test) comparing formation of AP+ colonies between Resf1 KO and WT cells at different LIF concentrations. These results show that both Resf1 KO cell lines have lower median number of AP+ colonies than WT cells at LIF concentrations 0 and 1 (p.adj. * *

    1. It's translatability to medicine, although perhaps that is not the intention, is somewhat lacking. Is there a naturally occurring situation where LIF is absent that would require this pathway to be used? These were mouse ESC's, perhaps this study could incorporate information about relevant translation to a human condition to aid in the significance. This manuscript suggests a mechanistic evaluation by which self-renewal can occur other than the canonical pathway, which is interesting and can inform the field.

    Our results suggest that RESF1 directly or indirectly supports self-renewal of ESCs. Interestingly, Human cell atlas identified RESF1 expression as a negative predictor of survival of renal cancer and was found to be expressed in testis cancer cells and other cancer tissues. Therefore, RESF1 could promote self-renewal of cancer cells similarly to ESCs. However, this is speculative and needs further studies. As this is both outside of the scope of this manuscript and our expertise, we do not think it prudent for us to pursue this line of inquiry. However, we agree that further studies could evaluate RESF1 function in human tissues, especially pluripotent cells and germ cells. As we show that RESF1 deletion leads to reduced induction of PGCLCs and previous studies showed infertility of Resf1 KO mice, investigating link between human fertility and RESF1 could have implications in reproductive medicine.

    We will improve our discussion to highlight the possible significance of RESF1 function in human fertility.

  3. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #3

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    The authors aimed to study RESF1 in ESC's to understand it's role in germ cell specification and PGCLC differentiation under in vitro experimental challenges.

    The experiments performed and reported were thorough and convincing. Data and methods were clearly explained.

    What was less clear was an explanation of why colonies 4 and 24 were chosen. Were there other colonies with the desired expression? Was this amount of expression repeated in replicative experiments with approximately 2 colonies only available to be selected?

    Figure 1C, 5C ad S2B with microscopic images should include a scale bar.

    Figure 1E needs a better explanation of the significance, "less clear cut" is not adequate. Reporting statistics, or lack of significance, on the graph would help.

    Significance

    Understanding the specific interactions and suggested role of RESF1 in self-renewal is informative on a molecular biology and developmental biology level.

    It's translatability to medicine, although perhaps that is not the intention, is somewhat lacking. Is there a naturally occurring situation where LIF is absent that would require this pathway to be used? These were mouse ESC's, perhaps this study could incorporate information about relevant translation to a human condition to aid in the significance. This manuscript suggests a mechanistic evaluation by which self-renewal can occur other than the canonical pathway, which is interesting and can inform the field.

  4. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    The authors uncovered the new roles of Resf1 in mESC self-renewal and germline entry. They showed that Resf1 deletion reduced mESC self-renewal, and it's not required for Nanog function. In addition, the efficiency of PGCLC specification of Resf1 knockout mESC is less than WT mESC. However, these conclusions are too preliminary and the underlying mechanism is missing.

    Major comments:

    1. In the presence of LIF, there is no difference between Resf1 knockout mESCs and WT mESCs except the expression of Esrrb, Nanog and Pou5f1. What about other genes? RNA-seq is needed to distinguish the two cell lines.
    2. The authors showed Resf1 is not required for Nanog function, so how does Resf1 regulate the expression of pluripotency genes? Through epigenetic modifications or signaling pathways? The authors should design experiments to explain the detailed mechanisms.
    3. The authors showed that Resf1 interacts with Nanog, but they used forced expressed proteins. Does the endogenous Resf1 interacts with endogenous Nanog? Do they bind to some same DNA sequences?
    4. In figure 5C, some Resf1 positive cells showed Nanog negative. Are these Nanog negative cells pluripotent?
    5. In figure 6A, the naïve mESCs are induced to EpiLCs. Is the transition efficiency of Resf1 knockout cells the same with WT mESCs? The finally obtained PGCLCs should be identified.

    Minor comments:

    1. in figure 5c, the scale bar is missing.

    Significance

    The authors uncovered the new roles of Resf1 in mESC self-renewal and germline entry.

  5. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    This paper puts together a nice set of data showing that a specific gene called Resf1 when deleted effects the ability of ESCs to self-renew and proceed to germline fates. I believe the data are sound and that they provide the evidence needed for the authors to make their conclusions.

    Significance

    While I think the data are presented well and the manuscript is well-written, the "modest" functional results suggest this work would be more suited for a specialized journal.

  6. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.25.445589v2 on bioRxiv
  7. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.25.445589v1 on bioRxiv