Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Science. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 29.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3003433

A Size Threshold Limits Prion Transmission and Establishes Phenotypic Diversity**


According to the prion hypothesis, atypical phenotypes arise when a prion protein adopts an alternative conformation and persist when that form assembles into self-replicating aggregates. Amyloid formation in vitro provides a model for this protein-misfolding pathway, but the mechanism by which this process interacts with the cellular environment to produce transmissible phenotypes is poorly understood. Using the yeast prion Sup35/[PSI+], we found that protein conformation determined the size distribution of aggregates through its interactions with a molecular chaperone. Shifts in this range created variations in aggregate abundance among cells due to a size threshold for transmission, and this heterogeneity, along with aggregate growth and fragmentation, induced age-dependent fluctuations in phenotype. Thus, prion conformations may specify phenotypes as population averages in a dynamic system.

Prion proteins adopt a spectrum of conformations or strains, which create phenotypes of distinct severity and stability in vivo (1-3). These phenotypes are linked to the assembly of the protein into aggregates that, at unique rates, template the conversion of newly-made prion protein to a similar state and are fragmented (4). But, how do these biochemical events translate into distinct phenotypes? One possibility is an “abundance-based” model, in which phenotypes are linked to an equilibrium between aggregated and soluble prion protein that determines protein activity and the number of heritable prions (propagons) (5, 6). However, the conversion and fragmentation reactions also create heterogeneity in aggregate size, raising the possibility of a second, “size-based” model in which a subpopulation of aggregates establishes and propagates phenotypes (7).

To distinguish between these models, we focused on the [PSI+]Weak and [PSI+]Strong conformations of the yeast prion protein Sup35, which create phenotypes of different stabilities in vivo (8). To sustain these phenotypes in a dividing culture, Sup35 protein in the prion conformation must be inherited (7). To test whether conformational differences impact phenotypic stability by altering protein transmissibility, we monitored Sup35-GFP transfer to daughter cells. Using fluorescence loss in photobleaching (FLIP), a [PSI+]Weak strain transferred half as much Sup35-GFP (~15% vs. ~30%; Fig. 1A) and contained ~50% fewer propagons than a [PSI+]Strong strain (Fig. 1B). Thus, conformation-based differences in protein transmission correlate with phenotypic inheritance.

Figure 1
Propagons correlate with transmitted Sup35. (A) Sup35-GFP transmission to daughters was determined by FLIP (mean ± SEM). [PSI+]Strong (open circles: SY81, N=11), [psi] (black squares: SY85, N=7), and [PSI+]Weak (gray diamonds: punctate ...

Following from the models, differences in aggregate abundance and/or size may create this variation in prion protein transmission (5, 7), and indeed, [PSI+]Weak strains differ from [PSI+]Strong strains by the accumulation of fewer but larger aggregates (9-12). To distinguish between these possibilities, we simulated prion propagation via each transmission mechanism (13). For the “abundance-based” model, we were unable to recapitulate the severity and stability of [PSI+]Weak and [PSI+]Strong phenotypes (Fig. S5) (13). In contrast with a “size-based” model, we recapitulated all experimentally observed characteristics that distinguish these strains, including the relationship between the products of their conversion and fragmentation rates, the stabilities of their phenotypes, and their aggregate size distributions (see Table 1, Figs. S6-S10) (11-13). The latter model only captured the [PSI+]Weak and [PSI+]Strong states when the transmission size threshold was set within the range that distinguishes their aggregates (≤30 monomers/aggregate, Fig. S9) (11, 12) and when fragmentation was modeled as an enzyme-limited process dependent on the catalyst for this reaction, the molecular chaperone Hsp104 (Figs. S8AB, S9) (14-16).

Table 1
Comparison of [PSI+]Weak and [PSI+]Strong Characteristics From Simulated and Experimental Observations

To experimentally test the hypothesis that aggregate size rather than abundance establishes conformation-based phenotypes, we altered Sup35 expression, which will impact phenotypic stability differently in the two models. For the “size-based” model, phenotypic stability decreases with Sup35 overexpression because aggregates increase in size (Fig. 2A) and decrease in transmissibility; however, for the “abundance-based” model, phenotypic stability increases because more aggregates are produced (5, 13). Severe overexpression of prion proteins in yeast decreases phenotypic stability (17-19), which may reflect the assembly of alternative complexes (20-22). To circumvent this potential complication, we reversibly and modestly (~4-6-fold) changed Sup35-GFP expression using a tetracycline-responsive promoter (Fig. S11). As predicted by the “size-based” model (Fig. 2A), larger aggregates appeared with Sup35-GFP overexpression (Fig. 2B), and this size shift induced a ~50% decrease in propagons (Fig. 2C), a ~70-fold decrease in phenotypic stability (Fig. 2D), and a ~50% decrease in Sup35-GFP transmission (Fig. 2E). Conversely, transient repression of Sup35-GFP synthesis shifted aggregates to smaller sizes (Fig. 2B) and suppressed the inheritance defects, increasing propagons and Sup35-GFP transmission by 50% (Figs. 2C, E). These correlations between prion protein expression and heritability support the “size-based” model.

Figure 2
A size threshold limits aggregate transmission. (A) Aggregate size distributions for [PSI+]Strong with wildtype (dotted) or 4X Sup35 (solid) or the latter following repression of Sup35 synthesis for one generation (gen; dashed) were determined by stochastic ...

To further discriminate between the models, we characterized daughter-derived Sup35 directly. For the “abundance-based” model, daughters contain aggregates of similar size and abundance to their mothers (Fig. S8C). However, for the “size-based” model, daughters contain smaller and fewer aggregates than their mothers (Fig. S10 and Table 1), and the size of these aggregates is conformation-independent due to the selection imposed by transmission. Indeed, daughter-derived Sup35-GFP was transmitted with equal efficiency to mothers in [PSI+]Strong and [PSI+]Weak strains (Fig. 2F), and [PSI+]Strong daughters, isolated by centrifugal elutriation (Fig. S12), contained only ~17% of the aggregates in the total population (Fig. 2G), again satisfying the “size-based” model predictions. Thus, aggregate size rather than abundance determines phenotypic stability in vivo.

How does this framework create phenotypes of different severity? Sup35 is a translation release factor whose activity is compromised by its conformational conversion and assembly into aggregates (23). Thus, cell-to-cell variation in aggregate abundance created by the “size-based” model (Figs. (Figs.2G,2G, S10 and Table 1) raises the possibility that [PSI+] phenotypes reflect population averages of Sup35 activities. Consistent with this idea, individual [PSI+] cells accumulated Sup35-GFP in different physical states (Fig. 3A). This variation was more severe for the less efficiently transmitted [PSI+]Weak conformation, where only ~67% of cells accumulated Sup35-GFP in a primarily aggregated form (i.e. punctate, less efficiently transmitted fluorescence) in contrast with ~92% of [PSI+]Strong cells (Figs. (Figs.1A,1A, ,3A).3A). This heterogeneity in Sup35 physical state correlated with cell-to-cell variation in activity. While the range of translation termination activities in a population of [PSI+]Strong cells expressing a stop codon readthrough reporter (GST-UGA-eGFP-PEST) overlapped only minimally with that of a non-prion [psi] strain (~17%; Fig. 3B), [PSI+]Weak activities overlapped significantly with those of [psi] (~53%) and [PSI+]Strong (~38%) (Fig. 3B). Thus, “size-based” transmission of aggregates creates phenotypic diversity within a population.

Figure 3
“Size-based” transmission of aggregates creates population heterogeneity and fluctuations. (A) Sup35-GFP fluorescence pattern (left; punctate: white, diffuse: black) was quantified (right; mean ± SD; N=3) in [PSI+]Strong (SY81), ...

Despite these single-cell variations, [PSI+] strains form phenotypically homogeneous rather than sectored colonies (24). To explore the molecular basis of this disconnect, we asked how single-cell variation is produced and maintained. According to our simulations (Table 1) and biochemical analysis (Fig. 2G), mother cells contain more aggregates than their daughters. To determine if cell-to-cell variations in Sup35 activity (Fig. 3B) similarly correspond to replicative age, we isolated subpopulations of a [PSI+]Weak culture expressing GST-UGA-eGFP-PEST by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and determined the number of bud scars on cells in each fraction. Young cells were strongly enriched in the fraction with the most accurate translation termination, where 90% of the cells had produced less than two daughters (Fig. 3C). In contrast, nearly half (~48%) of the cells in the fraction with the least accurate translation termination had produced three or more daughters (Fig. 3C).

This link between replicative age and phenotypic severity suggests that cells change during aging. Indeed, when young cells were isolated and cultured to regenerate a population, cells with reduced translation termination activity reappeared (Fig. 3D). What is the mechanism underlying this phenotypic transition? According to our simulations, the limited number of aggregates inherited by a daughter progressively amplifies to a steady-state plateau as that cell ages (Fig. 3E). Thus, early daughters will inherit fewer aggregates than later daughters. Indeed, propagons transmitted to successive daughters increased through the third generation and then remained relatively constant (Fig. 3F). Our observations provide a mechanistic explanation for previously observed cell-to-cell variability in propagons (6, 25) and reveal age-dependent [PSI+] phenotypes at the single cell level.

Thus, the seemingly static phenotypes associated with prion protein conformations may actually reflect highly dynamic pathways of prion protein biogenesis in dividing cells. For any given cell, the complement of aggregates and the phenotype fluctuate in response to the interplay between the protein misfolding pathway and its cellular environment, creating a self-regenerating system that settles to a stable population average for each conformation. Thus, the cellular environment has profound effects on the phenotypic manifestations of prion protein conformations.

The dynamic “size-based” system that we have uncovered may contribute to the physiological consequences of protein misfolding in ways that are not possible for an “abundance-based” process. The phenotypic variation established and maintained through the events described here strengthens the argument that the prion mechanism, like other epigenetic processes, facilitates selection in new environments and thereby evolution (26). According to our model, access to an advantageous state may not require a [prion]/[PRION+] phenotypic switch (27) but, instead, may always be present within a population. In mammals, variation in aggregate size may similarly affect protein transmissibility between non-dividing cells and the spread of pathology in prion and perhaps other protein misfolding disorders, such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and Huntington’s diseases (28-30). Indeed, prion protein conformation and expression, parameters that alter aggregate size, are more reliable predictors of the clinical course of disease than the presence of protease resistant aggregates per se (1).

Supplementary Material

supplementary data


**This manuscript has been accepted for publication in Science. This version has not undergone final editing. Please refer to the complete version of record at The manuscript may not be reproduced or used in any manner that does not fall within the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act without the prior, written permission of AAAS.

References and Notes

1. Collinge J, Clarke AR. A general model of prion strains and their pathogenicity. Science. 2007;318:930. [PubMed]
2. Benkemoun L, Saupe SJ. Prion proteins as genetic material in fungi. Fungal Genet Biol. 2006;43:789. [PubMed]
3. Prusiner SB. Novel proteinaceous infectious particles cause scrapie. Science. 1982;216:136. [PubMed]
4. Pezza JA, Serio TR. Prion Propagation: The Role of Protein Dynamics. Prion. 2007;1:36. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Tanaka M, Collins SR, Toyama BH, Weissman JS. The physical basis of how prion conformations determine strain phenotypes. Nature. 2006;442:585. [PubMed]
6. Cox B, Ness F, Tuite M. Analysis of the generation and segregation of propagons: entities that propagate the [PSI+] prion in yeast. Genetics. 2003;165:23. [PubMed]
7. Sindi SS, Serio TR. Prion dynamics and the quest for the genetic determinant in protein-only inheritance. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2009;12:623. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Derkatch IL, Chernoff YO, Kushnirov VV, Inge-Vechtomov SG, Liebman SW. Genesis and variability of [PSI] prion factors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics. 1996;144:1375. [PubMed]
9. Uptain SM, Sawicki GJ, Caughey B, Lindquist S. Strains of [PSI+] are distinguished by their efficiencies of prion-mediated conformational conversion. EMBO J. 2001;20:6236. [PubMed]
10. Zhou P, Derkatch IL, Uptain SM, Patino MM, Lindquist S, et al. The yeast non-Mendelian factor [ETA+] is a variant of [PSI+], a prion-like form of release factor eRF3. EMBO J. 1999;18:1182. [PubMed]
11. Kryndushkin DS, Alexandrov IM, Ter-Avanesyan MD, Kushnirov VV. Yeast [PSI+] prion aggregates are formed by small Sup35 polymers fragmented by Hsp104. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:49636. [PubMed]
12. Bagriantsev SN, Kushnirov VV, Liebman SW. Analysis of amyloid aggregates using agarose gel electrophoresis. Meth Enz. 2006;412:33. [PubMed]
13. see supporting online material.
14. Ness F, Ferreira P, Cox BS, Tuite MF. Guanidine hydrochloride inhibits the generation of prion “seeds” but not prion protein aggregation in yeast. Mol Cell Biol. 2002;22:5593. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Satpute-Krishnan P, Langseth SX, Serio TR. Hsp104-Dependent Remodeling of Prion Complexes Mediates Protein-Only Inheritance. PLoS Biol. 2007;5:e24. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Haslberger T, Bukau B, Mogk A. Towards a unifying mechanism for ClpB/Hsp104-mediated protein disaggregation and prion propagation. Biochem Cell Biol. 2010;88:63. [PubMed]
17. Edskes HK, Gray VT, Wickner RB. The [URE3] prion is an aggregated form of Ure2p that can be cured by overexpression of Ure2p fragments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:1498. [PubMed]
18. Allen KD, Wegrzyn RD, Chernova TA, Muller S, Newnam GP, et al. Hsp70 chaperones as modulators of prion life cycle: novel effects of Ssa and Ssb on the Saccharomyces cerevisiae prion [PSI+] Genetics. 2005;169:1227. [PubMed]
19. Crapeau M, Marchal C, Cullin C, Maillet L. The cellular concentration of the yeast Ure2p prion protein affects its propagation as a prion. Mol Biol Cell. 2009;20:2286. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Salnikova AB, Kryndushkin DS, Smirnov VN, Kushnirov VV, Ter-Avanesyan MD. Nonsense suppression in yeast cells overproducing Sup35 (eRF3) is caused by its non-heritable amyloids. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:8808. [PubMed]
21. Rikhvanov EG, Romanova NV, Chernoff YO. Chaperone effects on prion and nonprion aggregates. Prion. 2007;1:217. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Kushnirov VV, Vishnevskaya AB, Alexandrov IM, Ter-Avanesyan MD. Prion and nonprion amyloids: a comparison inspired by the yeast Sup35 protein. Prion. 2007;1:179. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Serio TR, Lindquist SL. [PSI+]: an epigenetic modulator of translation termination efficiency. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1999;15:661. [PubMed]
24. Cox B. [PSI], a cytoplasmic suppressor of super-suppression in yeast. Heredity. 1965;20:505.
25. Byrne LJ, Cole DJ, Cox BS, Ridout MS, Morgan BJ, et al. The number and transmission of [PSI] prion seeds (Propagons) in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e4670. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Halfmann R, Alberti S, Lindquist S. Prions, protein homeostasis, and phenotypic diversity. Trends Cell Biol. 2010;20:125. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Lancaster AK, Bardill JP, True HL, Masel J. The spontaneous appearance rate of the yeast prion [PSI+] and its implications for the evolution of the evolvability properties of the [PSI+] system. Genetics. 2010;184:393. [PubMed]
28. Silveira JR, Raymond GJ, Hughson AG, Race RE, Sim VL, et al. The most infectious prion protein particles. Nature. 2005;437:257. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Frost B, Diamond MI. Prion-like mechanisms in neurodegenerative diseases. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11:155. [PubMed]
30. Brundin P, Melki R, Kopito R. Prion-like transmission of protein aggregates in neurodegenerative diseases. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010;11:301. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Pezza JA, Langseth SX, Raupp Yamamoto R, Doris SM, Ulin SP, et al. The NatA acetyltransferase couples Sup35 prion complexes to the [PSI+] phenotype. Mol Biol Cell. 2009;20:1068. [PMC free article] [PubMed]