LRRK2 regulates synaptic function through BDNF signaling and actin cytoskeleton

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

LRRK2 protein is familially linked to Parkinson's disease by the presence of several gene variants that all confer a gain-of-function effect on LRRK2 kinase activity.

The authors examine the effects of BDNF stimulation in immortalized neuron-like cells, cultured mouse primary neurons, hIPSC-derived neurons, and synaptosome preparations from the brain. They examine an LRRK2 regulatory phosphorylation residue, LRRK2 binding relationships, and measures of synaptic structure and function.

Strengths:

The study addresses an important research question: how does a PD-linked protein interact with other proteins, and contribute to responses to a well-characterized neuronal signalling pathway involved in the regulation of synaptic function and cell health?

They employ a range of good models and techniques to fairly convincingly demonstrate that BDNF stimulation alters LRRK2 phosphorylation and binding to many proteins. Some effects of BDNF stimulation appear impaired in (some of the) LRRK2 knock-out scenarios (but not all). A phosphoproteomic analysis of PD mutant Knock-in mouse brain synaptosomes is included.

Weaknesses:

The data sets are disjointed, conclusions are sweeping, and not always in line with what the data is showing. Validation of 'omics' data is very light. Some inconsistencies with the major conclusions are ignored. Several of the assays employed (western blotting especially) are likely underpowered, findings key to their interpretation are addressed in only one or other of the several models employed, and supporting observations are lacking.

As examples to aid reader interpretation:

(a) pS935 LRRK2 seems to go up at 5 minutes but goes down below pre-stimulation levels after (at times when BDNF-induced phosphorylation of other known targets remains very high). This is ignored in favour of discussion/investigation of initial increases, and the fact that BDNF does many things (which might indirectly contribute to initial but unsustained changes to pLRRK2) is not addressed.

(b) Drebrin coIP itself looks like a very strong result, as does the increase after BDNF, but this was only demonstrated with a GFP over-expression construct despite several mouse and neuron models being employed elsewhere and available for copIP of endogenous LRRK2. Also, the coIP is only demonstrated in one direction. Similarly, the decrease in drebrin levels in mice is not assessed in the other model systems, coIP wasn't done, and mRNA transcripts are not quantified (even though others were). Drebrin phosphorylation state is not examined.

(c) The large differences in the CRISPR KO cells in terms of BDNF responses are not seen in the primary neurons of KO mice, suggesting that other differences between the two might be responsible, rather than the lack of LRRK2 protein.

(d) No validation of hits in the G2019S mutant phosphoproteomics, and no other assays related to the rest of the paper/conclusions. Drebrin phosphorylation is different but unvalidated, or related to previous data sets beyond some discussion. The fact that LRRK2 binding occurs, and increases with BDNF stimulation, should be compared to its phosphorylation status and the effects of the G2019S mutation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Taken as a whole, the data in the manuscript show that BDNF can regulate PD-associated kinase LRRK2 and that LRRK2 modifies the BDNF response. The chief strength is that the data provide a potential focal point for multiple observations across many labs. Since LRRK2 has emerged as a protein that is likely to be part of the pathology in both sporadic and LRRK2 PD, the findings will be of broad interest. At the same time, the data used to imply a causal throughline from BDNF to LRRK2 to synaptic function and actin cytoskeleton (as in the title) are mostly correlative and the presentation often extends beyond the data. This introduces unnecessary confusion. There are also many methodological details that are lacking or difficult to find. These issues can be addressed.

(1) The writing/interpretation gets ahead of the data in places and this was confusing. For example, the abstract highlights prior work showing that Ser935 LRRK2 phosphorylation changes LRRK2 localization, and Figure 1 shows that BDNF rapidly increases LRRK2 phosphorylation at this site. Subsequent figures highlight effects at synapses or with synaptic proteins. So is the assumption that LRRK2 is recruited to (or away from) synapses in response to BDNF? Figure 2H shows that LRRK2-drebrin interactions are enhanced in response to BDNF in retinoic acid-treated SH-SY5Y cells, but are synapses generated in these preps? How similar are these preps to the mouse and human cortical or mouse striatal neurons discussed in other parts of the paper (would it be anticipated that BDNF act similarly?) and how valid are SH-SY5Y cells as a model for identifying synaptic proteins? Is drebrin localization to synapses (or its presence in synaptosomes) modified by BDNF treatment +/- LRRK2? Or do LRRK2 levels in synaptosomes change in response to BDNF? The presentation requires re-writing to stay within the constraints of the data or additional data should be added to more completely back up the logic.

(2) The experiments make use of multiple different kinds of preps. This makes it difficult at times to follow and interpret some of the experiments, and it would be of great benefit to more assertively insert "mouse" or "human" and cell type (cortical, glutamatergic, striatal, gabaergic) etc.

(3) Although BDNF induces quantitatively lower levels of ERK or Akt phosphorylation in LRRK2KO preps based on the graphs (Figure 4B, D), the western blot data in Figure 4C make clear that BDNF does not need LRRK2 to mediate either ERK or Akt activation in mouse cortical neurons and in 4A, ERK in SH-SY5Y cells. The presentation of the data in the results (and echoed in the discussion) writes of a "remarkably weaker response". The data in the blots demand more nuance. It seems that LRRK2 may potentiate a response to BDNF that in neurons is independent of LRRK2 kinase activity (as noted). This is more of a point of interpretation, but the words do not match the images.

(4) Figure 4F/G shows an increase in PSD95 puncta per unit length in response to BDNF in mouse cortical neurons. The data do not show spine induction/dendritic spine density/or spine morphogenesis as suggested in the accompanying text (page 8). Since the neurons are filled/express gfp, spine density could be added or spines having PSD95 puncta. However, the data as reported would be expected to reflect spine and shaft PSDs and could also include some nonsynaptic sites.

(5) Experimental details are missing that are needed to fully interpret the data. There are no electron microscopy methods outside of the figure legend. And for this and most other microscopy-based data, there are few to no descriptions of what cells/sites were sampled, how many sites were sampled, and how regions/cells were chosen. For some experiments (like Figure 5D), some detail is provided in the legend (20 segments from each mouse), but it is not clear how many neurons this represents, where in the striatum these neurons reside, etc. For confocal z-stacks, how thick are the optical sections and how thick is the stack? The methods suggest that data were analyzed as collapsed projections, but they cite Imaris, which usually uses volumes, so this is confusing. The guide (sgRNA) sequences that were used should be included. There is no mention of sex as a biological variable.

(6) For Figures 1F, G, and E, how many experimental replicates are represented by blots that are shown? Graphs/statistics could be added to the supplement. For 1C and 1I, the ANOVA p-value should be added in the legend (in addition to the post hoc value provided).

(7) Why choose 15 minutes of BDNF exposure for the mass spec experiments when the kinetics in Figure 1 show a peak at 5 mins?

(8) The schematic in Figure 6A suggests that iPSCs were plated, differentiated, and cultured until about day 70 when they were used for recordings. But the methods suggest they were differentiated and then cryopreserved at day 30, and then replated and cultured for 40 more days. Please clarify if day 70 reflects time after re-plating (30+70) or total time in culture (70). If the latter, please add some notes about re-differentiation, etc.

(9) When Figures 6B and 6C are compared it appears that mEPSC frequency may increase earlier in the LRRK2KO preps than in the WT preps since the values appear to be similar to WT + BDNF. In this light, BDNF treatment may have reached a ceiling in the LRRK2KO neurons.

(10) Schematic data in Figures 5A and C and Figures 5B and E are too small to read/see the data.