Proximity labeling reveals ZFP36L1 as a central hub for post-transcriptional regulation networks in T cells

  1. Anouk P. Jurgens
  2. Branka Popović
  3. Floris P.J. van Alphen
  4. Leyma Wardak
  5. Antonia Bradarić
  6. Sander Engels
  7. Carmen van der Zwaan
  8. Maartje van den Biggelaar
  9. Arie J. Hoogendijk
  10. Julien Béthune
  11. Monika C. Wolkers

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Effective T cell responses against pathogens require a rapid yet tightly controlled remodeling of the proteome, and RNA binding proteins (RBPs) are key in this process. For instance, the RBP ZFP36L1 prevents excessive protein production and thereby limits immunopathology. ZFP36L1 is primarily known to mediate mRNA decay, but it can also regulate other processes. How its mode of action relates to its interaction partners is, however, not well-understood. Here, we mapped the ZFP36L1 interactome in primary human T cells. Using proximity labeling, we identified known and new interactors that regulate 3’UTR-mediated RNA degradation, deadenylation, stress granule/p-body formation, as well as 5’UTR-mediated translation repression and mRNA decapping. Snapshot analysis uncovered the ZFP36L1 interactome dynamics and RNA (in)dependency throughout T cell activation. Intriguingly, proximity labeling also uncovered regulators of ZFP36L1 protein expression: This included the helicase UPF1, which not only interacts with ZFP36L1 protein but also promotes its protein expression. Altogether, this comprehensive interactome map underlines the versatility of interactions with ZFP36L1 and their possible role in cellular function.

Article activity feed

  1. Review Commons

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

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): The authors map the ZFP36L1 protein interactome in human T cells using UltraID proximity labeling combined with quantitative mass spectrometry. They optimize labeling conditions in primary T cells, profile resting and activated cells, and include a time course at 2, 5, and 16 hours. They complement the interactome with co-immunoprecipitation in the presence or absence of RNase to assess RNA dependence. They then test selected candidates using CRISPR knockouts in primary T cells, focusing on UPF1 and GIGYF1/2, and report effects on global translation, stress, activation markers, and ZFP36L1 protein levels. The work argues that ZFP36L1 sits at the center of multiple post-transcriptional pathways in T cells (which in itself is not a novel finding) and that UPF1 supports ZFP36L1 expression at the mRNA and protein level. The main model system is primary human T cells, with some data in Jurkat cells.

    The core datasets show thousands of identified proteins in total lysates and enriched biotinylated fractions. Known partners from CCR4-NOT, decapping, stress granules, and P-bodies appear, with additional candidates like GIGYF1/2, PATL1, DDX6, and UPF1. Time-resolved labeling suggests shifts in proximity during early activation. Co-IP with and without RNase suggests both RNA-dependent and RNA-independent contacts. CRISPR loss of UPF1 or GIGYF1/2 increases translation at rest and elevates activation markers, and UPF1 loss reduces ZFP36L1 protein and mRNA while MG132 does not rescue protein levels; UPF1 RIP enriches ZFP36L1 mRNA.

    Among patterns worth noting are that the activation state drives the principal variance in both proteome and proximity datasets. Deadenylation, decapping, and granule proteins are consistently near ZFP36L1 across conditions, while some contacts dip at 2 hours and recover by 5 to 16 hours. Mitochondrial ribosomal proteins become more proximal later. UPF1 and GIGYF1 show time-linked behavior and RNase sensitivity that fits roles in mRNA surveillance and translational control. These observations support a dynamic hub model, though they remain proximity-based rather than direct binding maps.

    We thank the reviewer for their careful reading and thoughtful summary. Please find our point-to point response below.

    Major comments

    1. The key conclusions are directionally convincing for a broad and dynamic ZFP36L1 neighborhood in human T cells. The data robustly recover established complexes and add plausible candidates. The time-course and RNase experiments strengthen the claim that interactions shift with activation state and RNA context. The functional tests around UPF1 and GIGYF1/2 point to biological relevance. That said, some statements could be qualified. The statement that ZFP36L1 "coordinates" multiple pathways implies mechanism and directionality that proximity data alone cannot prove. I suggest reframing as "positions ZFP36L1 within" or "supports a model where ZFP36L1 sits within" these networks.

    We thank this reviewer for considering our data ‘directionally convincing, and robust, adding new plausible candidates as interactors with ZFP36L1’. We agree that the proposed wording is more appropriate and will change it accordingly.

    1. UPF1, as an upstream regulator of ZFP36L1 expression, is a promising lead. The reduction of ZFP36L1 protein and mRNA in UPF1 knockout, the non-rescue by MG132, and the UPF1 RIP on ZFP36L1 mRNA together argue that UPF1 influences ZFP36L1 transcript output or processing. This claim would read stronger with one short rescue or perturbation that pins the mechanism. A compact test would be UPF1 re-expression in UPF1-deficient T cells with wild-type and helicase-dead alleles. This is realistic in primary T cells using mRNA electroporation or virus-based systems. Approximate time 2 to 3 weeks, including guide design check and expansion. Reagents and sequencing about 2 to 4k USD depending on donor numbers. This would help separate viability or stress effects from a direct role in ZFP36L1 mRNA handling.

    We agree that a rescue experiment with wild-type and helicase-dead UPF1 in UPF1-deficient primary T cells would be interesting. Unfortunately, however, UPF1 knockout T cells are less viable and divide less (Supp Figure 6B), making further manipulations such as re-expression by viral transduction technically impossible. We will clarify this limitation in the Discussion and will more explicitly indicate that UPF1 promotes ZFP36L1 mRNA and protein expression, while acknowledging that the precise mechanistic contribution of UPF1 (e.g. to transcript processing, export, or surveillance) remain to be fully resolved.

    1. The inference that ZFP36L1 proximity to decapping and deadenylation complexes reflects pathway engagement is reasonable and, frankly, expected. Still, where the manuscript moves from proximity to function, the narrative works best when supported by orthogonal validation. Two compact additions would raise confidence without opening new lines of work. First, a small set of reciprocal co-IPs for PATL1 or DDX6 at endogenous levels in activated T cells, run with and without RNase, would tie the RNase-class assignments to biochemistry. Second, a short-pulse proximity experiment using a reduced biotin dose and shorter labeling window in activated cells would address whether long incubations drive non-specific labeling. Both are feasible in 2 to 3 weeks with minimal extra cost for antibodies and MS runs if the facility is in-house.

    We fully agree with the reviewer that orthogonal biochemical validation is valuable. Therefore, we already combined time-resolved proximity labeling (between 0-2h, 2-5h, and 5-16 hours) with time-resolved ZFP36L1 co-IPs ± RNase, to address the dynamic behavior and potential temporal broadening of the interactome.

    As to running reciprocal co-IPs for PATL1 or DDX6: we had in fact already considered to follow up on PATL1. However, we failed to identified specific antibodies, revealing many unspecific bands (see below). As to DDX6, antibodies suitable for IP have been reported, and we can therefore offer such reciprocal IP as requested.

    To further address the raised points, we will (i) clarify how we define and interpret RNase-sensitive versus RNase-resistant classes (ii) emphasize that some key factors (including PATL1) are already detected in shorter labeling conditions (2 h) in activated T cells (Fig 4C); and (iii) better highlight that the our data provide strong candidates and pathway hypotheses that warrant further mechanistic experimentation in follow-up studies, when moving from proximity to function.

    As to the suggested lowering dose of biotin: As described in Figure S1, this appeared unsuccessful. We owe it to the reported dependence and use of biotin in primary T cells (Ref’s 31-33 of this manuscript). This also included that we could not culture T cells in biotin-free medium prior to labeling, as most protocols would do in cell lines.

    The reviewer also suggested shorter labeling times. Please be advised that the labeling times chosen were based on the reported protein induction and activity on target mRNAs: 1) ZFP36L1 expression peaks at 2h of T cell activation (Zandhuis *et al. *2025; 0.1002/eji.202451641, Petkau et al. 2024; 10.1002/eji.202350700), 3) shows the strongest effects on T cell function between 4-5h, and displays a late phase of activity at 5-16h (Popovic et al. Cell Reports 2023; 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112419). We realize that additional explanation is warranted for this rationale, which we will provide.

    1. Reproducibility is helped by donor pooling, repeated T-cell screens, Jurkat confirmation, and detailed methods including MaxQuant, LIMMA, and supervised patterning. Deposition of MS data is listed. The authors should consider adding a brief, stand-alone analysis notebook in SI or on GitHub with exact filtering thresholds and "shape" definitions, since the supervised profiles are central to claims. This would let others reproduce figures from raw tables with the same code and workflows.

    We thank the reviewer for his or her suggestion and we have done as suggested. We will include the following link in the manuscript: https://github.com/ajhoogendijk/ZFP36L1_UltraID

    1. Replication and statistics are mostly adequate for discovery proteomics. The thresholds are clear, and PCA and correlation frameworks are appropriate. For functional readouts in edited T cells, please make the number of donors and independent experiments explicit in figure legends, and indicate whether statistics are paired by donor. Where viability differs (UPF1), note any gating strategies used to avoid bias in puromycin or activation marker measurements. These clarifications are quick to add.

    Please be advised that the current figure legends already contain the requested information at the bottom (which test used, donor number etc). To highlight this better, we will indicate this point more explicitly in the methods section.

    Minor comments

    1. The UltraID optimization in primary T cells is useful, but the long 16-hour labeling and high biotin should be framed as a compromise rather than a standard. A short statement about potential off-target labeling during extended incubations would set expectations and justify the RNase and time-course controls.

    Please be advised that 1) high biotin was required because primary T cells depend on biotin and 2) increase biotin absorption a 2-7-fold upon activation (Ref 31-33 from the paper). For better time resolution, we included a labeling of 2h (from 0-2h of activation), 3h (from 2-5h) and 9h (from 5-16h) of T cell activation. Nevertheless, we agree that we cannot exclude the risk of off-target labeling, which in fact is inherent to any labeling and pulldown method. We will include such statement in the discussion.

    1. The overlap across T-cell screens and with HEK293T APEX datasets is discussed, but a compact quantitative reconciliation would help. A table that lists shared versus cell-type-specific interactors with brief notes on known expression patterns would make this point concrete.

    We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree and we will include such table.

    1. Figures are generally clear. Where proximity and total proteome PCA are shown, consider adding sample-wise annotations for donor pools and activation time to help readers link variance to biology. Ensure all volcano plots and heatmaps display the exact cutoffs used in text.

    We agree that sample-wise annotations would be a nice addition. However, when testing this for e.g. FIgure 1D&E, such differentiation into individual donors becomes illegible due to the many different variables already present. We therefore decided against it.

    1. Prior work on ZFP36 family roles in decay, deadenylation via CCR4-NOT, granules, and translational control is cited within the manuscript. In a few places, recent proximity and interactome papers could be more explicitly integrated when comparing overlap, especially where conclusions differ by cell type. A concise paragraph in Discussion that lays out what is truly new in primary T cells would help clarify the contribution of this work to the field.

    We appreciate this suggestion and will revise the Discussion accordingly. As to what is new in primary T cells, we would also like to mention that adding H2O2 (required for APEX labeling) to T cells results in immediate cell death can therefore not be employed on T cells. This technical limitation further underscores the valuable contribution of the UltraID-based approach we present here.

    Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

    Nature and type of advance. The study is a technical and contextual advance in mapping ZFP36L1 proximity partners directly in human primary T cells during activation. The combination of time-resolved labeling and RNase-class assignments is informative. The CRIS PR perturbations provide an initial functional bridge from proximity to phenotype, especially for UPF1.

    Context in the literature. ZFP36 family proteins have long been linked to ARE-mediated decay, CCR4-NOT recruitment, and granule localization. The present work confirms those cores and extends them to include decapping and GIGYF1/2-4EHP scaffolds in primary T cells with temporal resolution. The UPF1 link to ZFP36L1 expression adds a plausible surveillance angle that merits follow-up. The cell-type specificity analysis versus HEK293T underscores that proximity networks vary with context.

    Audience. Readers in RNA biology, T-cell biology, and proteomics will find the dataset valuable. Groups studying post-transcriptional regulation in immunity can use the resource to prioritize candidate nodes for mechanistic work.

    Expertise and scope. I work on post-transcriptional regulation, RNA-protein complexes, and T-cell effector biology. I am comfortable evaluating the conceptual claims, experimental design, and statistical treatment. I am not a mass spectrometry specialist, so I rely on the presented parameters and deposited data for MS acquisition specifics.

    To conclude, the manuscript delivers a substantive proximity map of ZFP36L1 in human T cells, with useful temporal and RNA-class information. The UPF1 observations are promising and would benefit from a compact rescue to secure causality. A few minor additions for biochemical validation and transparency in replication would further strengthen the paper.

    We thank the reviewer for this comprehensive and constructive assessment. We agree that our study primarily provides a substantive and well-annotated proximity map of ZFP36L1 in human T cells, including temporal and RNA-class information, and that the UPF1 observations constitute a promising lead that merits more detailed mechanistic analysis in follow-up studies.

    Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): The manuscript by Wolkers and colleagues describes the protein interactome of the RNA-binding protein ZFP36L1 in primary human T-cells. There is inherent value in the use of primary cells of human origin, but there is also value in that the study is quite complete, as it is performed in a variety of conditions: T-cells that have been activated or not, at different time points after activation, and by two methods (co-IP and proximity labeling). One might imagine that this basically covers all what can be detected for this protein in T-cells. The authors report a large amount of new interactors involved at all steps in post-transcriptional regulation. In addition, the authors show that UPF1, a known interactor of ZFP36L1, actually binds to ZFP36L1 mRNA and enhances its levels. In sum, the work provides a valuable resource of ZFP36L1 interactors. Yet, how the data add to the mechanistic understanding of ZFP36L1 functions and/or regulation of ZFP36L1 remains unclear.

    We thank the reviewer for this enthusiasm on our experimental setups, considering the use of primary T cells of inherent value and our study with the variety of conditions complete.

    Major comments:

    1. Fig 2: It is confusing that the Pearson correlation to define ZFP36L1 interactors is changed depending on figure panel. In panels A-C, a correlation {greater than or equal to} 0.6 is used, while panel D uses a correlation > 0.5, which changes the nº of interactors. Then, this is changed again in Fig 3A for some cell types but not for others. Why has this been done? It would be better to stick to the same thresholds throughout the manuscript.

    Please be advised that different correlation thresholds arise from the composition of the individual datasets: they in depth, number of controls, and the overall dynamic range. The initial proximity labeling experiment (Figure 2A–C) had a higher depth and a larger number of suitable control samples, which allowed us to apply a stricter cutoff (r ≥ 0.6). The time-course experiment and some of the cross-cell-type comparisons have fewer controls and somewhat lower depth, which then required a more permissive threshold (e.g. r > 0.5) to retain known core interactors.

    We fully agree that this rationale needs to be explicit. In the revised manuscript we (i) clearly state for each dataset which correlation cutoff is used (ii) emphasize that these thresholds are somewhat arbitrary and should not be directly compared across experiments, and (iii) highlight that our key biological conclusions do not depend on the exact boundary chosen but rather on the consistent enrichment of core complexes and pathways across .

    1. Fig 3A: It would be nice to have the information of this Figure panel as a Table (protein name, molecular process(es), known or novel, previously detected in which cells) in addition to the figure.

    We agree that this would increase the value of our work as a resource to the community, and we will include such table and merge it with the table Reviewer 1 asked about.

    1. Fig 6: To what extent are the effects of UPF1 and GIGFYF1 knock-out on translation and T-cell hyper-activation mediated by ZFP36L1? If deletion of ZFP36L1 itself has no effect on these processes, it seems unlikely that it is involved. In this respect, I am not sure that Fig 6 contributes to the understanding of ZFP36L.

    We appreciate this conceptual question. In our dataset, ZFP36L1 knockout affects T-cell activation markers, but does not recapitulate the increased global translation observed upon UPF1 or GIGYF1/2 deletion. We will discuss this finding more explicitly in the Results and Discussion. We discuss the possibility that other ZFP36 family members (e.g. ZFP36/TTP, ZFP36L2) may partially compensate for the absence of ZFP36L1 in some readouts1. Moreover, we will emphasize that at this point it is not clear whether ZFP36L1’s contribution to UPF1 and GIGYF1 protein levels is direct or indirect.

    We nonetheless consider Fig. 6 an important component of the story, as it demonstrates that proximity partners emerging from the interactome (UPF1, GIGYF1/2) have measurable functional consequences on T cell activation and translational control, thereby illustrating how the resource can guide mechanistic hypotheses. We will now more carefully phrase this as “first indications of mechanism” and avoid implying that these phenotypes are mediated exclusively via ZFP36L1.

    1. Fig 7E: Differences in ZFP36L1 mRNA expression are claimed as a consequence of UPF1 deletion, and indeed there is a clear tendency to reduction of ZFP36L1 mRNA levels upon UPF1 KO. Yet the difference is statistically non-significant. Please, repeat this experiment to increase statistical significance. In addition, a clear discussion on how UPF1 -generally associated to mRNA degradation- contributes to increase ZFP36L1 mRNA levels would be appreciated.

    We would like to refrain from including repeats for increasing statistical power. We find similar trends with n=3 at 0h as with n=7 at 3h of activation (Fig. 7E). We rather would like to stress that despite the width overall expression levels which most probably stems from using primary human material, the overall levels of ZFP36L1 mRNA are lower in UPF1 KO T cells. We will include a point on how UPF1 possibly may contribute to the decreased ZFP36L1 mRNA levels, as suggested.

    1. Fig 6A: The decrease in global translation by GIGFYF1 knock-out upon activation claimed by the authors is not clear in Fig 6A and is non-significant upon quantification. Please, modify narrative accordingly.

    Indeed, this was not phrased well. We will correct our description to match the statistical analysis.

    1. Page 6: The authors state 'This included the PAN2/3 complex proteins which trim poly(A) tails prior to mRNA degradation through the CCR4/NOT complex'. To the best of my knowledge, the CCR4/NOT complex does not degrade the body of the mRNA. Both PAN2/3 and CCR4/NOT are deadenylases that function independently.

    We thank the reviewer for highlighting this inaccuracy. PAN2/3 and CCR4–NOT are indeed both deadenylase complexes that function independently rather than one acting strictly upstream of the other in degrading the mRNA body. We will correct this statement to that PAN2/3 and CCR4–NOT cooperate in poly(A) tail shortening and do not themselves degrade the mRNA body, which is instead handled by the downstream decay machinery.

    1. Please, label all Table sheets. Right now one has to guess what is being shown in most of them. Furthermore, it would be convenient to join all Tables related to the same Figure in one unique Excel with several sheets, rather than having many Tables with only one sheet each.

    We appreciate this suggestion. In the revised supplementary files all table sheets will be clearly labeled to indicate the corresponding figure and dataset, and combined into a single excel file when multiple tables relate to the same figure. We have already done so.

    Minor comments:

    1. Fig 1E: Shouldn't there be a better separation by biotinylation in the UltraID IP principal component analysis? In theory, only biotinylated proteins should be immunoprecipitated.

    In theory this should indeed be the case. However, in practice, pull down experiments always suffer from background stickiness of proteins to tubes, beads etc. Combined, these known background issues highlight the critical addition of control samples, allowing for unequivocal call of proteins that are above background.

    In addition, as we indicated in the manuscript, primary T cells depend on Biotin. This prohibited us to use biotin-free medium, even for a short culture period (it resulted in cell death). Such biotin-free culture steps are included in proximity labeling assays performed in cell lines. Owing to the continuous addition of biotin, some of the ‘background’ biotinylation signal may even be ‘real’. Nevertheless, the higher levels of biotin we added during the labeling results in increased signals, and statistical analysis with these controls identifies which of the proteins are above background, irrespective from the source. We will include a short note on this in the manuscript

    1. Fig 3B-E: Is the labeling not swapped, top (always +) is Biotin and bottom (- or +) is aCD3/aCD28?

    We thank the reviewer for catching this mistake- we have corrected it

    1. Fig 7A data is from another paper, so I suggest to move this panel to Supplementary materials.

    We respectfully disagree. Please be advised that we reanalysed data from published datasets, that resulted in this figure. Re-analysis is a widely accepted method and certainly used for main figure panels. Our re-analysis from Bestenhorn *et al *2025; (10.1016/j.molcel.2025.01.001) confirms that ZFP36L1 interacts with UPF1 and GIGYF1/2 in the RAW 264.7 macrophage cell line, which we consider an important consolidation of our findings. To highlight that this table is a re-analysis of published data, we will include this information (including the reference) below the data. As ‘extracted from Bestenhorn et al'

    1. Fig S1A: Why is there so much labeling in the UltraID only lane without biotin?

    This is a phenomenon also reported by others (Kubitz *et al. *2022; 10.1038/s42003-022-03604-5: Figure 5A). UltraID alone is a small protein of (19.7KD), comparable to TurboID or others (Kubitz *et al. *2022; 10.1038/s42003-022-03604-5). If not tethered to a specific compartment, these proximity labeling moieties can diffuse through the cytoplasm, biotinylating any protein they ‘bump’ into. Please be advised that we included this control to show this effect, to substantiate why we use GFP-UltraID- as control, to limit such background effects. To highlight this point better, we will better articulate this reasoning in the results section.

    1. Fig S1E: Please, explain better. What is WT?

    We thank the reviewer for catching this inconsistency. We will explicitly define “WT” as wild-type primary T cells (non-edited, non-transduced) and clarify how this relates to the other conditions.

    1. Fig S4B: Please, explain the labels on top of the shapes.

    We will update the figure, explaining how the labels above each shape are chosen (e.g. indicating specific clusters, functional categories, or experimental conditions, as appropriate). This should make the reading more intuitive.

    1. Page 3: A time-course of incubation with biotin is lacking in Fig S1B, and thereby it is confusing that the authors direct readers to this figure when an increased to 16h incubation is claimed to be better.

    Please be advised that short labeling times yielded disappointing results in primary human T cells. Therefore all first analyses were performed with 16h biotinylation, as depicted in Figure S1B). Only after achieving good results (presented in Figure 1B), we performed time course experiments (presented in __Figure 4, __lowering incubation times to 2h, 3h and 9h). We realize that this is confusing and we will rephrase this point in page 3.

    Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)): Strengths: A thorough repository of ZFP36L1 interactors in primary human T-cells. A valuable resource for the community. Weaknesses: There is little mechanistic insight on ZFP36L1 function or regulation.

    We would like to highlight that the purpose of our study was to provide a comprehensive interactome of ZFP36L1, and to study the dynamics of these interactions. In addition to known interactors, we identified novel putative interactors of ZFP36L1. We have indeed not followed up on all interactions, which we consider beyond the scope of this manuscript. Rather, we consider our study as a toolbox for the community, that helps in their studies.

    Nevertheless, in Fig 6-7, we show first indications of mechanistic insights on ZFP36L1 interactors, exemplifying how the findings of this resource paper can be used by the community.

    Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    The authors have analyzed the interactome of ZFP36L1 in primary human T cells using a biotin-based proximity labeling method. In addition to proteins that are known to interact with ZFP36L1, the authors defined a multitude of novel interactions involved in mRNA decapping, mRNA degradation pathways, translation repressors, stress granule/p-body formation, and other regulatory pathways. Time-lapse proximity labeling revealed that the ZFP36L1 interactome undergoes remodeling during T cell activation. Co-IP for ZFP36L1 executed in the presence/absence of RNA further revealed the interactome and possible regulators of ZFP36L1, including the helicase UPF1. In addition to interacting with ZFP36L1, UPF1 promotes the ZFP36L1 protein expression, seemingly by binding to the ZFP36L1 mRNA transcript, and in some way stabilizing it. This comprehensive interactome map highlights the widespread interactions of ZFP36L1 with proteins of many types, and its potential roles in diverse T cell processes. Although somewhat descriptive, rather than hypothesis-testing, this work represents an important contribution to understanding the potential roles of the ZFP36 family proteins, and sets up many future experiments which could test molecular details.

    We thank the reviewer for these thoughtful points, and for recognizing our paper as an important contribution for the field as resource, that should support future experiments.

    Major points:

    1. Can the authors discuss the specificity of the antibody for ZFP36L1 used in the Co-IP experiments? The antibody listed in Appendix A is abcam catalog number ab42473, although the catalog number for this antibody (unlike the others major ones used) is not listed in the Methods section - please add this to the Methods to make it easier for readers to find this detail. Could this antibody also be immunoprecipitating ZFP36 or ZFP36L2? Other antibodies have had cross-reactivity for the different family members. It is also notable that this antibody has been discontinued by the manufacturer (https://www.abcam.com/en-us/products/unavailable/zfp36l1-antibody-ab42473). Have the authors tried the current abcam anti-ZFP36L1 antibody being sold, catalog number ab230507?

    We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this important technical point. We have now added the catalog number (ab42473, Abcam) of the anti-ZFP36L1 antibody used for co-IP to the Methods section, in addition to Appendix A, to facilitate reproducibility. The antibody ab42473 has indeed been discontinued by the manufacturer. We have contacted the manufacturer on multiple occasions with no luck.

    We have evaluated multiple alternative anti-ZFP36L1 antibodies, including the currently available Abcam antibody ab230507. In our hands, these alternatives showed weaker or less specific detection of ZFP36L1 compared to the original ZFP36L1 antibody. Only antibody 1A3 recognized ZFP36L1. We therefore used this antibody for the Co-IP. Importantly, even though the signal is lower than the original antibody we used, the migration patterns observed with ab42473 in our co-IP experiments match the expected molecular weight of ZFP36L1 and do not suggest substantial cross-reactivity with ZFP36 or ZFP36L2, which display distinct sizes (we will add the sizes to the WB in figures). We discuss this point briefly in the revised Methods/Results.

    1. On this point, the authors report interactions between ZFP36L1 and its related proteins ZFP36 and ZFP36L2 in the Co-IP experiment (Supp 5C). Did these proteins interact in the proximity labeling? Ideally this could be discussed in the Discussion section.

    ZFP36 and ZFP36L2 were indeed detected as co-precipitating with ZFP36L1 in the co-IP experiments but were not found as high-confidence interactors in the UltraID proximity labeling datasets. Also in the APEX proximity labeling of Bestehorn et al. In RAW macrophage cells, they did not find ZFP36 or ZFP36L1 to interact with ZFP36L1. * *We now explicitly mention this in the Results and discuss it in the Discussion.

    1. Can the authors discuss more fully the limited overlap in identified interactors across the two proximity labeling screens performed in primary T cells (Fig 2C)? Likewise, can the authors comment on the very limited overlap between the screens in T cells and the published ZFP36L1-APEX proximity labelling experiment performed in the HEK293T cell line by Bestehorn et al. (ref 42)? Only 6.8% of proteins found in either T cell screen were found as interactors in this cell line. The authors comment that this may be because "...either expression of certain proteins is cell-type specific, or [because] ZFP36L1 has cell-type specific protein interactions, in addition to its core interactome". While I agree that cell-type specific interactions may be at play, I would think most of the interactors found in the T cell screens are widely expressed proteins necessary for central cell functions.

    First, the apparent overlap percentage depends on depth and filtering. As noted above and now detailed in a new Supplementary table, a core set of decapping, deadenylation, and granule-associated factors is consistently recovered across our T-cell screens and the HEK293T APEX dataset. However, beyond this core protein, overlap is reduced, reflecting several factors: (i) differences in expression levels of many interactors between HEK293T cells and primary T cells; (ii) the activation-dependent nature of ZFP36L1 function in T cells, which cannot be fully mimicked in HEK293T; (iii) different proximity labeling enzymes and fusion constructs (APEX vs UltraID, different tags, expression levels); and (iv) distinct experimental designs and control strategies, which influence statistical filtering and the effective “depth” of each interactome.

    In the revised Discussion and in the new comparative table, we now emphasize that while many of the ZFP36L1 proximity partners identified in T cells are indeed widely expressed, their effective labeling and enrichment are strongly context dependent. We therefore interpret the relatively limited overlap as highlighting both a robust core interactome and substantial context-specific remodeling, rather than as evidence of artifacts in one or the other dataset.

    Minor comments:

    1. In Figure 3D, the legend states that black circles indicate significantly enriched proteins in biotin samples, while grey circles indicate non-significant enrichment. However, some genes, including DCP1A, DDX6, YBX1, have black circles in the -biotin group and grey in the +biotin group, which creates confusion in interpretation.

    We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have accidentally switched the labeling of biotin and activation as pointed out by reviewer 2. Once this is fixed, this comment will also be fixed.

    1. Did the authors find any interactors whose expression is known to be specific to CD4 or CD8 T cells?

    In our current dataset we did not identify interactors whose presence was clearly restricted to CD4 or CD8 T-cells. We agree that differential ZFP36L1 interactomes in defined T-cell subsets represent an interesting avenue for future targeted studies and will outline this is the discussion.

    Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

    The authors present the first comprehensive analysis of the ZFP36L1 interactome in primary T cells. The use of biotin-based proximity labeling enables detection of physiologically relevant interactions in live cells. This approach revealed many novel interactors.

    Strengths include the overall richness of the dataset, and the hypothesis-provoking experiments that could follow in the future. Limitations include somewhat limited overlap with a published proximity labeling dataset from performed in a different cell line, suggesting that there may be artifacts in one or both datasets.

    The audience for this article would include those interested broadly in RNA binding proteins and those interested in post-transcriptional and translational regulation.

    I have immunology expertise on T cell activation and differentiation and expertise on transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression in T cells.

  2. 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 have analyzed the interactome of ZFP36L1 in primary human T cells using a biotin-based proximity labeling method. In addition to proteins that are known to interact with ZFP36L1, the authors defined a multitude of novel interactions involved in mRNA decapping, mRNA degradation pathways, translation repressors, stress granule/p-body formation, and other regulatory pathways. Time-lapse proximity labeling revealed that the ZFP36L1 interactome undergoes remodeling during T cell activation. Co-IP for ZFP36L1 executed in the presence/absence of RNA further revealed the interactome and possible regulators of ZFP36L1, including the helicase UPF1. In addition to interacting with ZFP36L1, UPF1 promotes the ZFP36L1 protein expression, seemingly by binding to the ZFP36L1 mRNA transcript, and in some way stabilizing it. This comprehensive interactome map highlights the widespread interactions of ZFP36L1 with proteins of many types, and its potential roles in diverse T cell processes. Although somewhat descriptive, rather than hypothesis-testing, this work represents an important contribution to understanding the potential roles of the ZFP36 family proteins, and sets up many future experiments which could test molecular details.

    Major points:

    1. Can the authors discuss the specificity of the antibody for ZFP36L1 used in the Co-IP experiments? The antibody listed in Appendix A is abcam catalog number ab42473, although the catalog number for this antibody (unlike the others major ones used) is not listed in the Methods section - please add this to the Methods to make it easier for readers to find this detail. Could this antibody also be immunoprecipitating ZFP36 or ZFP36L2? Other antibodies have had cross-reactivity for the different family members. It is also notable that this antibody has been discontinued by the manufacturer (https://www.abcam.com/en-us/products/unavailable/zfp36l1-antibody-ab42473). Have the authors tried the current abcam anti-ZFP36L1 antibody being sold, catalog number ab230507?

    2. On this point, the authors report interactions between ZFP36L1 and its related proteins ZFP36 and ZFP36L2 in the Co-IP experiment (Supp 5C). Did these proteins interact in the proximity labeling? Ideally this could be discussed in the Discussion section.

    3. Can the authors discuss more fully the limited overlap in identified interactors across the two proximity labeling screens performed in primary T cells (Fig 2C)? Likewise, can the authors comment on the very limited overlap between the screens in T cells and the published ZFP36L1-APEX proximity labelling experiment performed in the HEK293T cell line by Bestehorn et al. (ref 42)? Only 6.8% of proteins found in either T cell screen were found as interactors in this cell line. The authors comment that this may be because "...either expression of certain proteins is cell-type specific, or [because] ZFP36L1 has cell-type specific protein interactions, in addition to its core interactome". While I agree that cell-type specific interactions may be at play, I would think most of the interactors found in the T cell screens are widely expressed proteins necessary for central cell functions.

    Minor comments:

    1. In Figure 3D, the legend states that black circles indicate significantly enriched proteins in biotin samples, while grey circles indicate non-significant enrichment. However, some genes, including DCP1A, DDX6, YBX1, have black circles in the -biotin group and grey in the +biotin group, which creates confusion in interpretation.

    2. Did the authors find any interactors whose expression is known to be specific to CD4 or CD8 T cells?

    Significance

    The authors present the first comprehensive analysis of the ZFP36L1 interactome in primary T cells. The use of biotin-based proximity labeling enables detection of physiologically relevant interactions in live cells. This approach revealed many novel interactors.

    Strengths include the overall richness of the dataset, and the hypothesis-provoking experiments that could follow in the future. Limitations include somewhat limited overlap with a published proximity labeling dataset from performed in a different cell line, suggesting that there may be artifacts in one or both datasets.

    The audience for this article would include those interested broadly in RNA binding proteins and those interested in post-transcriptional and translational regulation.

    I have immunology expertise on T cell activation and differentiation and expertise on transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression in T cells.

  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 #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    The manuscript by Wolkers and colleagues describes the protein interactome of the RNA-binding protein ZFP36L1 in primary human T-cells. There is inherent value in the use of primary cells of human origin, but there is also value in that the study is quite complete, as it is performed in a variety of conditions: T-cells that have been activated or not, at different time points after activation, and by two methods (co-IP and proximity labeling). One might imagine that this basically covers all what can be detected for this protein in T-cells. The authors report a large amount of new interactors involved at all steps in post-transcriptional regulation. In addition, the authors show that UPF1, a known interactor of ZFP36L1, actually binds to ZFP36L1 mRNA and enhances its levels. In sum, the work provides a valuable resource of ZFP36L1 interactors. Yet, how the data add to the mechanistic understanding of ZFP36L1 functions and/or regulation of ZFP36L1 remains unclear.

    Major comments:

    1. Fig 2: It is confusing that the Pearson correlation to define ZFP36L1 interactors is changed depending on figure panel. In panels A-C, a correlation {greater than or equal to} 0.6 is used, while panel D uses a correlation > 0.5, which changes the nº of interactors. Then, this is changed again in Fig 3A for some cell types but not for others. Why has this been done? It would be better to stick to the same thresholds throughout the manuscript.

    2. Fig 3A: It would be nice to have the information of this Figure panel as a Table (protein name, molecular process(es), known or novel, previously detected in which cells) in addition to the figure.

    3. Fig 6: To what extent are the effects of UPF1 and GIGFYF1 knock-out on translation and T-cell hyper-activation mediated by ZFP36L1? If deletion of ZFP36L1 itself has no effect on these processes, it seems unlikely that it is involved. In this respect, I am not sure that Fig 6 contributes to the understanding of ZFP36L.

    4. Fig 7E: Differences in ZFP36L1 mRNA expression are claimed as a consequence of UPF1 deletion, and indeed there is a clear tendency to reduction of ZFP36L1 mRNA levels upon UPF1 KO. Yet the difference is statistically non-significant. Please, repeat this experiment to increase statistical significance. In addition, a clear discussion on how UPF1 -generally associated to mRNA degradation- contributes to increase ZFP36L1 mRNA levels would be appreciated.

    5. Fig 6A: The decrease in global translation by GIGFYF1 knock-out upon activation claimed by the authors is not clear in Fig 6A and is non-significant upon quantification. Please, modify narrative accordingly.

    6. Page 6: The authors state 'This included the PAN2/3 complex proteins which trim poly(A) tails prior to mRNA degradation through the CCR4/NOT complex'. To the best of my knowledge, the CCR4/NOT complex does not degrade the body of the mRNA. Both PAN2/3 and CCR4/NOT are deadenylases that function independently.

    7. Please, label all Table sheets. Right now one has to guess what is being shown in most of them. Furthermore, it would be convenient to join all Tables related to the same Figure in one unique Excel with several sheets, rather than having many Tables with only one sheet each.

    Minor comments:

    1. Fig 1E: Shouldn't there be a better separation by biotinylation in the UltraID IP principal component analysis? In theory, only biotinylated proteins should be immunoprecipitated.

    2. Fig 3B-E: Is the labeling not swapped, top (always +) is Biotin and bottom (- or +) is aCD3/aCD28?

    3. Fig 7A data is from another paper, so I suggest to move this panel to Supplementary materials.

    4. Fig S1A: Why is there so much labeling in the UltraID only lane without biotin?

    5. Fig S1E: Please, explain better. What is WT?

    6. Fig S4B: Please, explain the labels on top of the shapes.

    7. Page 3: A time-course of incubation with biotin is lacking in Fig S1B, and thereby it is confusing that the authors direct readers to this figure when an increased to 16h incubation is claimed to be better.

    Significance

    Strengths: A thorough repository of ZFP36L1 interactors in primary human T-cells. A valuable resource for the community.

    Weaknesses: There is little mechanistic insight on ZFP36L1 function or regulation.

  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 #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    The authors map the ZFP36L1 protein interactome in human T cells using UltraID proximity labeling combined with quantitative mass spectrometry. They optimize labeling conditions in primary T cells, profile resting and activated cells, and include a time course at 2, 5, and 16 hours. They complement the interactome with co-immunoprecipitation in the presence or absence of RNase to assess RNA dependence. They then test selected candidates using CRISPR knockouts in primary T cells, focusing on UPF1 and GIGYF1/2, and report effects on global translation, stress, activation markers, and ZFP36L1 protein levels. The work argues that ZFP36L1 sits at the center of multiple post-transcriptional pathways in T cells (which in itself is not a novel finding) and that UPF1 supports ZFP36L1 expression at the mRNA and protein level. The main model system is primary human T cells, with some data in Jurkat cells.

    The core datasets show thousands of identified proteins in total lysates and enriched biotinylated fractions. Known partners from CCR4-NOT, decapping, stress granules, and P-bodies appear, with additional candidates like GIGYF1/2, PATL1, DDX6, and UPF1. Time-resolved labeling suggests shifts in proximity during early activation. Co-IP with and without RNase suggests both RNA-dependent and RNA-independent contacts. CRISPR loss of UPF1 or GIGYF1/2 increases translation at rest and elevates activation markers, and UPF1 loss reduces ZFP36L1 protein and mRNA while MG132 does not rescue protein levels; UPF1 RIP enriches ZFP36L1 mRNA.

    Among patterns worth noting are that the activation state drives the principal variance in both proteome and proximity datasets. Deadenylation, decapping, and granule proteins are consistently near ZFP36L1 across conditions, while some contacts dip at 2 hours and recover by 5 to 16 hours. Mitochondrial ribosomal proteins become more proximal later. UPF1 and GIGYF1 show time-linked behavior and RNase sensitivity that fits roles in mRNA surveillance and translational control. These observations support a dynamic hub model, though they remain proximity-based rather than direct binding maps.

    Major comments

    The key conclusions are directionally convincing for a broad and dynamic ZFP36L1 neighborhood in human T cells. The data robustly recover established complexes and add plausible candidates. The time-course and RNase experiments strengthen the claim that interactions shift with activation state and RNA context. The functional tests around UPF1 and GIGYF1/2 point to biological relevance. That said, some statements could be qualified. The statement that ZFP36L1 "coordinates" multiple pathways implies mechanism and directionality that proximity data alone cannot prove. I suggest reframing as "positions ZFP36L1 within" or "supports a model where ZFP36L1 sits within" these networks.

    UPF1, as an upstream regulator of ZFP36L1 expression, is a promising lead. The reduction of ZFP36L1 protein and mRNA in UPF1 knockout, the non-rescue by MG132, and the UPF1 RIP on ZFP36L1 mRNA together argue that UPF1 influences ZFP36L1 transcript output or processing. This claim would read stronger with one short rescue or perturbation that pins the mechanism. A compact test would be UPF1 re-expression in UPF1-deficient T cells with wild-type and helicase-dead alleles. This is realistic in primary T cells using mRNA electroporation or virus-based systems. Approximate time 2 to 3 weeks, including guide design check and expansion. Reagents and sequencing about 2 to 4k USD depending on donor numbers. This would help separate viability or stress effects from a direct role in ZFP36L1 mRNA handling.

    The inference that ZFP36L1 proximity to decapping and deadenylation complexes reflects pathway engagement is reasonable and, frankly, expected. Still, where the manuscript moves from proximity to function, the narrative works best when supported by orthogonal validation. Two compact additions would raise confidence without opening new lines of work. First, a small set of reciprocal co-IPs for PATL1 or DDX6 at endogenous levels in activated T cells, run with and without RNase, would tie the RNase-class assignments to biochemistry. Second, a short-pulse proximity experiment using a reduced biotin dose and shorter labeling window in activated cells would address whether long incubations drive non-specific labeling. Both are feasible in 2 to 3 weeks with minimal extra cost for antibodies and MS runs if the facility is in-house.

    Reproducibility is helped by donor pooling, repeated T-cell screens, Jurkat confirmation, and detailed methods including MaxQuant, LIMMA, and supervised patterning. Deposition of MS data is listed. The authors should consider adding a brief, stand-alone analysis notebook in SI or on GitHub with exact filtering thresholds and "shape" definitions, since the supervised profiles are central to claims. This would let others reproduce figures from raw tables with the same code and workflows.

    Replication and statistics are mostly adequate for discovery proteomics. The thresholds are clear, and PCA and correlation frameworks are appropriate. For functional readouts in edited T cells, please make the number of donors and independent experiments explicit in figure legends, and indicate whether statistics are paired by donor. Where viability differs (UPF1), note any gating strategies used to avoid bias in puromycin or activation marker measurements. These clarifications are quick to add.

    Minor comments

    The UltraID optimization in primary T cells is useful, but the long 16-hour labeling and high biotin should be framed as a compromise rather than a standard. A short statement about potential off-target labeling during extended incubations would set expectations and justify the RNase and time-course controls.

    The overlap across T-cell screens and with HEK293T APEX datasets is discussed, but a compact quantitative reconciliation would help. A table that lists shared versus cell-type-specific interactors with brief notes on known expression patterns would make this point concrete.

    Figures are generally clear. Where proximity and total proteome PCA are shown, consider adding sample-wise annotations for donor pools and activation time to help readers link variance to biology. Ensure all volcano plots and heatmaps display the exact cutoffs used in text.

    Prior work on ZFP36 family roles in decay, deadenylation via CCR4-NOT, granules, and translational control is cited within the manuscript. In a few places, recent proximity and interactome papers could be more explicitly integrated when comparing overlap, especially where conclusions differ by cell type. A concise paragraph in Discussion that lays out what is truly new in primary T cells would help clarify the contribution of this work to the field.

    Significance

    Nature and type of advance. The study is a technical and contextual advance in mapping ZFP36L1 proximity partners directly in human primary T cells during activation. The combination of time-resolved labeling and RNase-class assignments is informative. The CRISPR perturbations provide an initial functional bridge from proximity to phenotype, especially for UPF1.

    Context in the literature. ZFP36 family proteins have long been linked to ARE-mediated decay, CCR4-NOT recruitment, and granule localization. The present work confirms those cores and extends them to include decapping and GIGYF1/2-4EHP scaffolds in primary T cells with temporal resolution. The UPF1 link to ZFP36L1 expression adds a plausible surveillance angle that merits follow-up. The cell-type specificity analysis versus HEK293T underscores that proximity networks vary with context.

    Audience. Readers in RNA biology, T-cell biology, and proteomics will find the dataset valuable. Groups studying post-transcriptional regulation in immunity can use the resource to prioritize candidate nodes for mechanistic work.

    Expertise and scope. I work on post-transcriptional regulation, RNA-protein complexes, and T-cell effector biology. I am comfortable evaluating the conceptual claims, experimental design, and statistical treatment. I am not a mass spectrometry specialist, so I rely on the presented parameters and deposited data for MS acquisition specifics.

    To conclude, the manuscript delivers a substantive proximity map of ZFP36L1 in human T cells, with useful temporal and RNA-class information. The UPF1 observations are promising and would benefit from a compact rescue to secure causality. A few minor additions for biochemical validation and transparency in replication would further strengthen the paper.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2025.07.25.666749 on bioRxiv