The current literature raises critical questions regarding the understanding of aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity that center around the trafficking and compartmentation of aminoglycosides within the endosomal/lysosomal and cytosolic compartments. Further identification of the intracellular mechanisms and the proteins/pathways involved will play a pivotal role in developing needed therapeutic approaches. However, this is difficult in mammalian cells due to their inherent complexity. Therefore, given the tremendous genetic, genomic, and proteomic advantages of yeast and the demonstrated similarities between yeast and mammalian cells, we have begun to utilize yeast to understand the pathways important in inducing gentamicin toxicity.
In light of our findings, we reexamined the literature for potential relationships between gentamicin and the hypersensitive mutants uncovered by Blackburn and Avery that were not linked to the function of either the C/HOPS or GARP complexes or to chaperones critical for regulating translation. In this manner, we were able to formulate a network among these gentamicin-sensitive genes and the Arf1/2 GTPases based on both genetic and physical interactions (from the
Saccharomyces Genome Database [SGD]). This network also includes the components of the phosphatidylinositol (PtdIns) pathway Sac1 and Pik1. Sac1 is a PtdIns(4)P phosphatase whose loss increases sensitivity to gentamicin (
3), while Pik1 is a PtdIns(4)P kinase that generates a pool necessary for proper Golgi trafficking (
11,
41,
51). Thus, it is likely that PtdIns(4)P is a key regulator of Arf-dependent Golgi function, possibly as a direct effector of Arf or its regulators, such as Gcs1, an Arf-GAP, or Gea1/2, which are Arf-GEFs. Interestingly, cationic amphiphilic compounds, such as gentamicin, are known to cause an accumulation of phospholipids in mammals (
2). Based on these data and the role of Sac1 in yeast hypersensitivity to gentamicin, it will be informative to determine whether accumulation of phospholipids, especially that of PtdIns(4)P, plays a protective role in gentamicin exposure. Sps1 (
18), Sac1 (
40), and Chs1 are directly involved in the deposition of chitin, and Cax1 and Mnn9 are likely to be involved in the proper posttranslational modification of Chs3. Interestingly, although
MNN9 was identified in the screen for mutants hypersensitive to gentamicin, it encodes a member of the α-1,6-mannosyltransferase complex; a deletion of any of the six genes (
ANP1,
HOC1,
MNN9,
MNN10,
MNN11,
VAN1) encoding components of this transferase confers sensitivity to calcofluor white, and many of these deletions are synthetically lethal with chitin synthase mutations (
21).
As a direct test of a role for Arf in gentamicin toxicity, we found that cells expressing only a defective allele of
ARF1 are hypersensitive to gentamicin (Fig. ). Only some mutant alleles of
ARF1 cause cells to become sensitive to gentamicin; however,
arf1-
16 strains are the most sensitive. Interestingly, the temperature-sensitive phenotype of a strain carrying
arf1-
16 is suppressed by overexpression of
GLO3, which encodes an alternative Arf1 GTPase-activating protein to Gcs1, but that of the
arf1-
11 or
arf1-
18 strain is not (
52). These data, coupled with the greater sensitivity of
arf1-
16 to gentamicin, suggest the particularly susceptible gentamicin target may be the interaction between Arf and Glo3 (and possibly Gcs1). In their original gentamicin sensitivity screen, Blackburn and Avery found
gcs1Δ mutants to be hypersensitive to gentamicin (
3). Originally, we found that the loss of
GCS1 caused a subtle growth defect in response to gentamicin in our background. However, we have found that strains lacking either essential pair of ARF GTPase-encoding genes (
gcs1Δ/
age2Δ or
gcs1Δ/
glo3Δ) but kept viable by a partially defective allele of
GCS1 are much more sensitive to gentamicin. Furthermore, cells lacking
GEA2 and expressing only a temperature-sensitive allele of
GEA1 are also sensitive to gentamicin, while
sec7 mutants are not. These results suggest that gentamicin interferes with a subset of Arf functions. For example, the Arf-GEFs Gea1/Gea2 and the Arf-GAPs Gcs1/Glo3 regulate Arf function during the formation of COPI (
coat
protein complex I) vesicles for Golgi complex-to-ER retrograde trafficking (
31). Robinson et al. (
36) have shown that Arf and the other essential pair of GAPs, Age2 and Gcs1, are key regulators of endosome-to-Golgi complex trafficking. It has also been shown that the Gcs1-and-Age2 pair of Arf-GAPs is important in the trafficking of proteins from the
trans-Golgi network to the plasma membrane (
32). A conditional double mutant is defective in the secretion of invertase as well as the delivery of Ste3 to the plasma membrane and CPY to the vacuole. Thus, gentamicin appears to interfere with at least two distinct Arf functions—Golgi complex-to-ER retrograde trafficking and endosome-to-Golgi complex trafficking. A defect in Golgi complex-to-ER trafficking is also consistent with the sensitivity of CPY processing to gentamicin in
arf1 mutant strains. Often defects in CPY processing are caused by improper recycling of the ER cargo receptors, such as Rer1 and Erv14, back to the ER (
14,
27). Furthermore,
GLO3 is a high-copy-number suppressor of
arf1-
16, the
arf1 mutant found to be most sensitive to gentamicin (
52). The genetic and physical interactions between the Arf pathway components and gentamicin are similar to those between the Arf pathway and brefeldin A. Brefeldin A interferes with Arf function by disrupting the Sec7-dependent exchange of GDP for GTP on Arf (
23,
28,
39). Thus, it will be interesting to determine whether gentamicin disrupts Arf function via a similar mechanism involving the Gea proteins or one of the Arf-GAPs. Interestingly, the cluster of mutants that cause hypersensitivity to brefeldin A is very different from that involved in gentamicin hypersensitivity, possibly because of the specificity for either the Sec7-Arf function or the Gea1/2-Arf function (
25).
A major effect of gentamicin in mammalian cells is the effect on the process of endocytosis (
22). This is similar to the deposition of chitin, which is controlled by regulating the movement of Chs3 from internal membrane stores to the cell surface (
7,
12). Both processes require Arf activity (
45). Thus, the functions of Arf are likely to be very similar in yeast and mammalian cells. In fact, human Arf1 or human Arf4 can rescue an
arf1 arf2 double yeast mutant (
19). Thus, Arf function is highly conserved between yeast and humans. One can consider the activation of the cell wall stress response by gentamicin as simply a measure of Arf disruption. The gentamicin-inhibited trafficking events may be analogous to the defects seen during lysosomal vesicle fusion in the kidney proximal tubule cells of rats treated with gentamicin (
15). While Arf will clearly be regulating a different set of endocytic events in mammals, if gentamicin directly interferes with Arf activity, it is likely that gentamicin will interfere with Arf function similarly in yeast and mammals. In fact, we demonstrate here that when yeast cells have the function of their essential pair of Arf1 and Arf2 replaced by mammalian
ARF genes, these cells have the kind of gentamicin sensitivity more typically associated with mammals than with yeast.
Based on our recent findings (
47) and those of Blackburn and Avery (
3), we propose the following model for gentamicin toxicity (Fig. ). Gentamicin enters a yeast cell; however, most of the gentamicin is delivered to the vacuole and is relatively nontoxic. In cells lacking a functional Nhx1 endocytic proton transporter, the C/HOPS complex or the GARP complex, vesicular movement of gentamicin to the vacuole is impaired, causing missorting of vesicles, ultimately resulting in an increase in the cytoplasmic gentamicin concentration, which is toxic. Translational termination has long been proposed to be a target of the aminoglycosides and of gentamicin in particular (see the introduction). Normally, the toxic effects of gentamicin are lessened through the activities of the chaperones associated with translational termination—Zuo1, Ssz1, Ssb1, and Ssb2. However, in their absence or in the presence of greater cytoplasmic gentamicin concentrations, gentamicin becomes toxic. Our data also suggest that the Arf1 protein itself or an associated protein or target of Arf1/2-dependent trafficking may be a direct target of gentamicin. This is suggested by the increased sensitivity seen in cells exposed to gentamicin that lack any one of a number of regulators of Arf activity. Finally, the C/HOPS and GARP complexes, as well as the regulators of translational termination and the Arf pathway, have mammalian homologs, suggesting that similar gentamicin interactions take place in mammalian cells. While we see no evidence for mitochondrial involvement in yeast resistance to gentamicin, it is well known that the mitochondrial translation machinery is typically sensitive to antibiotics affecting bacterial translation. Thus, a closer examination of the effects of gentamicin on mitochondrial translation is warranted.