Allorecognition Proteins in an Invertebrate Exhibit Homophilic Interactions

Report

Allorecognition Proteins in an Invertebrate Exhibit Homophilic Interactions Highlights

Authors

d

Alr1 and Alr2 allow Hydractinia colonies to distinguish self from conspecifics

Uma B. Karadge, Minja Gosto, Matthew L. Nicotra

d

Alr1 and Alr2 proteins bind homophilically across opposing cell membranes

Correspondence

d

Allelic isoforms of these proteins only bind to themselves or similar isoforms

In Brief

d

Isoform-specific binding could be the mechanism of allorecognition specificity

[email protected]

Karadge et al. discover that the Hydractinia allorecognition proteins Alr1 and Alr2 are self-ligands that bind to each other across adjacent cell membranes. Allelic polymorphism at both proteins gives rise to multiple isoforms, each of which binds only to themselves, suggesting a mechanism for allorecognition specificity.

Accession Numbers KT599482

Karadge et al., 2015, Current Biology 25, 1–6 November 2, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.030

Please cite this article in press as: Karadge et al., Allorecognition Proteins in an Invertebrate Exhibit Homophilic Interactions, Current Biology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.030

Current Biology

Report Allorecognition Proteins in an Invertebrate Exhibit Homophilic Interactions Uma B. Karadge,1 Minja Gosto,1 and Matthew L. Nicotra1,2,* 1Department

of Surgery and the Thomas E. Starzl Transplantation Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.030 2Department

SUMMARY

Sessile colonial invertebrates—animals such as sponges, corals, bryozoans, and ascidians—can distinguish between their own tissues and those of conspecifics upon contact [1]. This ability, called allorecognition, mediates spatial competition and can prevent stem cell parasitism by ensuring that colonies only fuse with self or close kin. In every taxon studied to date, allorecognition is controlled by one or more highly polymorphic genes [2–8]. However, in no case is it understood how the proteins encoded by these genes discriminate self from non-self. In the cnidarian Hydractinia symbiolongicarpus, allorecognition is controlled by at least two highly polymorphic allorecognition genes, Alr1 and Alr2 [3, 5, 9–12]. Sequence variation at each gene predicts allorecognition in laboratory strains such that colonies reject if they do not share a common allele at either locus, fuse temporarily if they share an allele at only one locus, or fuse permanently if they share an allele at both genes [5, 9]. Here, we show that the gene products of Alr1 and Alr2 (Alr1 and Alr2) are self-ligands with extraordinary specificity. Using an in vitro cell aggregation assay, we found that Alr1 and Alr2 bind to themselves homophilically across opposing cell membranes. For both proteins, each isoform bound only to itself or to an isoform of nearly identical sequence. These results provide a mechanistic explanation for the exquisite specificity of Hydractinia allorecognition. Our results also indicate that hydroids have evolved a molecular strategy of self-recognition that is unique among characterized allorecognition systems within and outside invertebrates. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Invertebrate allorecognition systems have evolved in response to two selective pressures. First, most colonial invertebrates begin their lives as motile larvae that settle on densely populated surfaces, metamorphose into sessile adults, and spend the rest of their lives competing with each other for space [13, 14]. At the same time, colonies routinely encounter themselves

when they grow around objects, recover from disease, or regrow following fragmentation. Rather than compete, these isogeneic colonies peacefully coexist and, in some taxa, will even fuse to form a larger colony [15, 16]. Allorecognition genes allow colonies to accurately distinguish self from non-self and mount appropriate competitive responses. These genes are highly polymorphic. Tens to hundreds of alleles can exist in populations, with natural selection maintaining rare ones because they are reliable markers of self. In several species, correctly identifying ‘‘self’’ also serves a second, critical function; it prevents germline parasitism [17–19]. These species possess pluripotent stem cells capable of differentiating into germ cells throughout their lifespan. Fusion permits these stem cells to migrate between colonies and compete for access to the germline, with potentially catastrophic fitness costs for the loser [20, 21]. Allorecognition loci mitigate this risk by restricting fusion to self or close kin. The molecular basis of allorecognition has been intensely studied in two model systems, the protochordate, Botryllus schlosseri, and the hydroid, Hydractinia symbiolongicarpus. In these species, strikingly similar programs of inbreeding, genetic mapping, and positional cloning resulted in the discovery of strikingly dissimilar gene complexes [3, 5, 22–24]. In Botryllus, this gene complex is called the fuhc (for fusion/histocompatibility) [2]. Colonies fuse if they share one or both fuhc haplotypes and reject if they share none. Five genes within the fuhc have thus far been shown to play a role in allorecognition: cfuhctm, which encodes a single-pass transmembrane protein with three tandem immunoglobulin (Ig)-like domains in its extracellular portion [6, 25]; cfuhcsec, which encodes a predicted secreted protein with two EGF domains [6, 25]; fester and uncle fester, each encoding transmembrane proteins with single extracellular sushi domains [7, 26]; and BHF, which encodes a small intracellular protein with no obvious homologs [8]. Three of these, cfuhctm, cfuhcsec, and BHF, bear polymorphisms that co-segregate with allorecognition responses, suggesting that they could function as allodeterminants [6, 8, 25]. The fourth gene, fester, is polymorphic, but this variation does not co-segregate with allorecognition responses [7, 27]. The fifth gene, uncle fester, is not polymorphic, making it unlikely to be involved in selfdiscrimination [26]. Although the mechanism of self/non-self discrimination in Botryllus is not known, it has been hypothesized that fester could undergo extensive alternative splicing to acquire specificity for the particular cfuhctm alleles present in a colony, thus creating a colony-specific receptor-ligand pair [7]. Further details on Botryllus allorecognition can be found in a recent review [28].

Current Biology 25, 1–6, November 2, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved 1

Please cite this article in press as: Karadge et al., Allorecognition Proteins in an Invertebrate Exhibit Homophilic Interactions, Current Biology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.030

A

Alr2

1

2

3

1

2

Figure 1. Ectopic Expression of Single Alr1 and Alr2 Proteins Causes CHO Cells to Aggregate

E

SP

IgSF-like

Alr1

SP FLAG

(A) Domain architecture and cloning strategy for Alr1 and Alr2. Coding sequences of Alr1 or Alr2 were cloned into the mammalian expression vector pFLAG-CMV3 such that the expressed protein bore a mammalian N-terminal pre-protrypsin leader sequence and a FLAG octopeptide followed by the sequence of Alr1/2 starting immediately after the Hydractinia signal peptide. See also Table S1. (B and C) Surface expression of FLAG-Alr1/2 on CHO cells. CHO cells were transiently co-transfected with pmCherry-C1 (red) and either pFLAGAlr1f (B) or pFLAG-Alr2f (C) and then subsequently fixed and stained with a mouse anti-FLAG primary antibody followed by an Alexa-488-conjugated goat anti-mouse secondary antibody (green) and DAPI (blue) and then imaged with confocal microscopy. Scale bars, 10 mm. (D) CHO cells co-express GFP and FLAG-Alr1f. Contour plot validating co-expression of GFP and FLAG-Alr1f in a representative flow cytometry experiment. CHO cells were transiently co-transfected with pFLAG-Alr1f and pmaxGFP, incubated for 24 hr, stained with mouse anti-FLAG primary antibody and an Alexa-647-conjugated goat antimouse secondary antibody, and visualized via flow cytometry. (E–H) CHO cells co-expressing FLAG-Alr1f (E), FLAG-Alr1r (F), FLAG-Alr2f (G), or FLAG-Alr2r (H), and GFP form multicellular aggregates. (I) CHO cells expressing only the GFP reporter construct do not aggregate. In (E)–(I), the left image is a bright-field image, and the right image is blue-light fluorescence. Scale bars, 100 mm.

TM Alr1/2

pFLAG-CMV3

F B

C

G

RFP DAPI FLAG-Alr1

D 105

RFP DAPI FLAG-Alr2

24%

6%

H

104

FLAG-ALR1f

103

102 0

60% 0 102 GFP

10% 103

104

I

105

In Hydractinia, allorecognition is controlled by a gene complex containing at least two allorecognition genes, Alr1 and Alr2 [5, 9, 10]. Colonies fuse if they share at least one allele at both genes, fuse temporarily if they share an allele at only one gene, and reject if they do not share any alleles at either gene. Alr1 and Alr2 both encode single-pass transmembrane proteins with extracellular regions containing a membrane-proximal ‘‘spacer’’ and either two or three N-terminal immunoglobulin superfamily (IgSF)-like domains, respectively [14, 15]. The extracellular regions of both proteins are highly polymorphic. In laboratory strains and several pairs of wild-type colonies, polymorphisms in Alr1 and Alr2 co-segregate with allorecognition responses in a manner consistent with their role as allodeterminants [11, 12]. As in Botryllus, the Hydractinia allorecognition molecules do not bear strong homologies to other proteins, except for the presence of IgSF-like folds. The mechanism by which Alr1 and Alr2 discriminate self from non-self has also remained elusive. Additional details of the Hydractinia allorecognition system have been reviewed elsewhere [1, 29]. In Alr1 and Alr2, the conspicuous concentration of amino acid variation in the extracellular region suggests that the interactions

responsible for self-discrimination occur at the cell surface. Moreover, the domain architectures of both proteins resemble that of several types of receptors and cell-adhesion molecules known to act as self-ligands by binding to themselves across opposing cell membranes (homophilic trans interactions) [30, 31]. We therefore hypothesized that Alr1 and Alr2 might function via homophilic trans interactions and, further, that the protein isoforms encoded by different alleles would only bind to very similar or identical partners, providing a molecular mechanism for self-discrimination. To test whether Alr1 and Alr2 are capable of homophilic trans interactions, we used a mammalian cell-aggregation assay, which can detect whether cells that normally do not adhere to each other do so upon expression of an ectopic surface protein [32]. Fulllength alleles were isolated from two laboratory strains that fuse to themselves but reject each other and are homozygous for alternative alleles at Alr1 and Alr2 (genotypes: Alr1f/fAlr2f/f or Alr1r/rAlr2r/r). We then created mammalian expression constructs containing FLAG-epitope tagged fusion proteins for Alr1f, Alr1r, Alr2f, or Alr2r (Figure 1A). Transient transfection of these constructs into Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells demonstrated

2 Current Biology 25, 1–6, November 2, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

Please cite this article in press as: Karadge et al., Allorecognition Proteins in an Invertebrate Exhibit Homophilic Interactions, Current Biology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.030

Figure 2. Homophilic Binding of Alr1 and Alr2 Is Isoform Specific (A) Bi-colored cell aggregate formed when CHO cells transiently transfected with FLAG-Alr1f and GFP were co-incubated with CHO cells transiently transfected with FLAG-Alr1f and RFP. (B) Same as (A) but with Alr1r. (C) Single-color aggregates formed when CHO cells transiently transfected with Alr1f and GFP and were subsequently co-incubated with cells transiently transfected with Alr1r and RFP. (D) Bi-colored cell aggregate formed when CHO cells transiently transfected with FLAG-Alr2f and GFP were co-incubated with CHO cells transiently transfected with FLAG-Alr2f and RFP. (E) Same as (D) but with Alr2r. (F) Single-color aggregates formed when CHO cells were transiently transfected with Alr2f and GFP and subsequently co-incubated with cells transiently transfected with Alr2r and RFP.

that each isoform was successfully expressed on the cell surface (Figures 1B and 1C). When transiently co-transfected into CHO cells along with a GFP reporter construct, GFP+FLAG+cells were detectable within 24 hr (Figure 1D). These cultures were subsequently dissociated into single-cell suspensions and then incubated with agitation and examined for the presence of multicellular aggregates. Within 4 hr, GFP+ cells formed multicellular aggregates, while GFP
cells remained solitary (Figures 1E–1H). Control cells transfected with GFP alone did not form aggregates (Figure 1I). These data indicate that Alr1 and Alr2 are capable of mediating homophilic trans interactions. To test whether homophilic binding is isoform specific, we repeated the cell aggregation assays by mixing cell lines ex-

pressing different Alr1 or Alr2 isoforms that were color-coded by co-transfection with either a GFP or RFP reporter. As expected, cells expressing the same isoform but different fluorescent proteins formed bicolored aggregates (Figures 2A, 2B, 2D, and 2E). However, cells expressing different isoforms and reporters segregated to form single-color aggregates, with no evidence of co-localization of the two fluorescent markers (Figures 2C and 2F). This provided further evidence that the Alr proteins can mediate homophilic trans interactions and demonstrated that these homophilic interactions only occur between the same isoform. Thus, the Alr alleles that determine allorecognition responses in our laboratory strains encode cell-surface proteins that discriminate self from non-self via isoform-specific homophilic binding. Natural populations of Hydractinia maintain hundreds of distinct Alr2 alleles [33, 34], and Alr1 is expected to be similarly polymorphic [12]. To test whether isoform-specific homophilic binding is a general property of Alr proteins, we cloned four additional Alr1 alleles and two additional Alr2 alleles with sequences that differed from the alleles above. Each allele was then cotransfected into CHO cells with a GFP or RFP reporter and tested in an aggregation assay. In all cases, cells expressing an Alr gene product formed multicellular aggregates, indicating that homophilic binding is a general property of ALR proteins (Figure 3A). The specificity of this binding was investigated in further assays in which the six Alr1 and four Alr2 alleles were tested in all pairwise combinations (Figure 3A). The results confirmed that each protein isoform was capable of mediating hemophilic, but not heterophilic, trans interactions. The lone instance of heterophilic binding was between Alr1f and Alr1LH07-82a, which differ by only four amino acids in their extracellular regions (Figure 3B). This indicates that self-recognition does not require a perfect sequence match, but instead that binding specificities are likely determined by amino acids at key positions in the extracellular region. Taken together, these studies indicate that isoform-specific homophilic binding is the mechanism by which the Hydractinia allorecognition proteins discriminate self from non-self. This mechanism appears to be unique among the genetic systems that have evolved for intraspecific recognition. In social amoebae [35, 36], basidiomycete fungi [37, 38], and three classes of angiosperms [39], the protein-protein interactions responsible for self-discrimination have been elucidated. Although the identity of these recognition molecules varies widely, their genomic organizations and molecular logic are similar. Each involves two or more linked genes encoding protein products that directly bind to each other. Each gene is polymorphic, and the proteins encoded by these genes can only mediate self-recognition in certain allelic combinations. Moreover, tight linkage ensures these allelic combinations are inherited as haplotypes. In contrast, Hydractinia has evolved a completely different molecular strategy: a system of highly polymorphic genes, each encoding a cell-surface protein that binds only to itself or very similar isoforms. It may seem implausible for such a large number of Alr1 and Alr2 alleles to evolve if each new gene product must simultaneously preserve the ability to bind to itself, but not to others. However, insects have evolved precisely this strategy as the basis of neural self-avoidance [40]. Drosophila neurons express a cell adhesion molecule called Dscam. Alternative splicing of

Current Biology 25, 1–6, November 2, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved 3

Please cite this article in press as: Karadge et al., Allorecognition Proteins in an Invertebrate Exhibit Homophilic Interactions, Current Biology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.030

Figure 3. Multiple Alr1 and Alr2 Alleles Exhibit Isoform-Specific Homophilic Binding

r

LH

f

f

r

LH

Alr2 06 LH -82 07 a LH -43 07 a LH -46 06 a -4 9a

Alr1

09 LH - 4 E 09 0 6 -3 2F 03

A

f

f

r

r

LH06-82a

LH09-4E06

LH07-43a

LH09-32F03

LH07-46a

no binding

LH06-49a

binding

(A) Summary of aggregation assays performed with additional Alr1 and Alr2 isoforms. (B) Number and location of amino acid differences between isoforms tested in (A). Each row represents a pairwise combination of Alr1 (top) or Alr2 (bottom) isoforms tested. For each pair, the number and location of mismatched amino acids is shown with respect to the IgSF-like domains and spacer region, as illustrated in the cartoon. Outcome of each binding assay is shown in right-hand column. The average length of each extracellular domain is shown in parentheses. Size of domain 1 excludes FLAG tag and linker. Intensity of red coloration indicates relative amount of variation.

B domain I (115.3 aa)

Alr1

domain II (98.1 aa)

spacer (113.1 aa)

isoform 1 F

isoform 2 LH06_82a

# mismatched amino acids 0

1

3

yes

F

LH06_49a

12

0

15

no

LH06_49a

LH06_82a

12

1

18

no

LH07_43a

LH07_46a

14

11

2

no

F

LH07_43a

17

10

43

no

LH06_82a

LH07_43a

17

11

40

no

F

LH07_46a

21

13

43

no

LH06_82a

LH07_46a

21

14

39

no

F

R

24

0

2

no

R

LH06_82a

24

1

3

no

R

LH06_49a

25

0

17

no

LH06_49a

LH07_43a

26

10

49

no

LH06_49a

LH07_46a

29

13

49

no

R

LH07_43a

31

10

41

no

R

LH07_46a

31

13

41

no

domain 1 (101.5 aa)

domain II (79 aa)

domain III (79 aa)

Alr2

binding?

spacer (105 aa)

isoform 1

isoform 2

F

R

17

0

1

1

no

R

LH09-4E06

22

5

3

2

no

F

LH09-4E06

23

5

3

1

no

LH09-4E06

LH09-32F03

28

7

1

R

LH09-32F03

32

8

2

F

LH09-32F03

35

8

2

# mismatched amino acids

-

+ # mismatches

Dscam can generate 19,008 different ectodomains, each of which binds only to itself [41, 42]. Neurons stochastically express different isoforms, and homophilic binding between identical isoforms on sister neurites causes them to repel and avoid forming self-synapses [43]. This isoform-specific binding is the result of

variation at three extracellular Ig-like domains. Each is encoded by an exon that is independently spliced into the fulllength gene from a block of 12, 48, or 33 alternative sequences. Each Ig-like domain binds only to the identical domain in an opposing molecule [44, 45], and just one mismatched domain is sufficient to prevent full-length Dscam isoforms from binding [41, 42]. Thus, the Dscam locus has evolved 93 Ig-like domains, each with a unique binding specificity. We suspect further study of the Hydractinia system will demonstrate that it has similarly evolved hundreds of binding specificities via the IgSF-like domains of Alr1 and Alr2. In fact, the only salient difference between these two systems appears to be that all variation in Dscam is encoded in the genome, while in Hydractinia this polymorphism is maintained in populations as a pool of alleles, each with a remarkable ability to distinguish self from non-self.

binding? EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Alr1 and Alr2 Sequences For cloning of Alr1 and Alr2 alleles from inbred strains, RNA was extracted from whole colonies no 2 using the RNAqueous Total RNA Isolation Kit (Life Technologies) and cDNA synthesized using Superno 2 script III Reverse Transcriptase (Life Technologies) no 1 with either random hexamers or gene-specific primers according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Full-length alleles were amplified by PCR with Phusion DNA Polymerase (New England Biolabs) and cloned into pCR-BLUNT-II-TOPO (Life Technologies). For additional Alr1 alleles, coding sequences were amplified from cDNA libraries for four field-collected colonies, as reported [33] using Phusion DNA polymerase with degenerate primers. For Alr1LH06-49a and Alr1LH06-82a, primers used were 50 -ATGTATGCTGCCT CAACCTTGACTT-30 and 50 -TGCGATCGATATTGCACTAATTCAC-30 in the initial PCR and 50 -ATGCTGCCTCAACCTTGACTTAGAC-30 and 50 -TGCA CTAATTCACGTGACAGCTTCT-30 in a subsequent nested reaction. For

4 Current Biology 25, 1–6, November 2, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

Please cite this article in press as: Karadge et al., Allorecognition Proteins in an Invertebrate Exhibit Homophilic Interactions, Current Biology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.030

Alr1LH07-43a and Alr1LH07-46a, primers used were 50 -TGTATGCTGCYTCA ACCTTGA-30 and 50 -TCATCTGGTGGTGRTGAACGT-30 in the initial PCR, and 50 -TGCTGCYTCAACCTTGASTT-30 and 50 -TGGTGGTGRTGAACGTC CTC-30 in a subsequent nested reaction. Transcripts of Alr1 exhibit alternative splicing of exon 4, resulting in a long isoform and a short isoform that lacks 14 amino acids in the extracellular region immediately proximal to the transmembrane helix. We isolated and tested the long isoforms of each allele. Additional Alr2 alleles were a gift from Dr. Leo Buss (Yale University) and were from the collection of full-length Alr2 alleles reported in [34]. Table S1 lists the GenBank accession of each full-length allele used in this study. Mammalian Expression Allorecognition alleles were cloned into the mammalian expression vector pFLAG-CMV3 (Sigma), which includes an N-terminal FLAG tag. For each allele, a coding sequence was amplified that included the extracellular region beginning immediately after the predicted signal peptide cleavage site, the transmembrane domain, and a portion of the cytoplasmic tail. The Alr1f, Alr1r, Alr2f, and Alr2r alleles were cloned into the multiple cloning site of pFLAG-CMV3 (Sigma) via restriction-enzyme based cloning. Wild-type alleles were cloned into a version of pFLAG-CMV3 modified to allow cloning to be performed via ligation-independent cloning [46]. Table S1 provides annotated amino acid sequences of the Alr1/2 ectodomains that were created. Plasmids were transiently transfected into CHO-K1 cells using TransIT-CHO (Mirus Bio) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For fluorescent labeling of the cells that took up the ALR expression construct, prior to transfection the ALR expression constructs were mixed with plasmids encoding either GFP (pmaxGFP, Lonza) or RFP (pmCherry-C1, Clontech Laboratories) at molar ratios of 10:1 ALR construct:fluorescent reporter construct. CHO cells were cultured in Ham’s F12, Kaighn’s Modification Media (HyClone) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 100 units/ml penicillin, and 100 mg/ml streptomycin (Sigma). Confocal Microscopy CHO-K1 cells were grown on 22-mm2 sterilized glass coverslips (Fisher Scientific) coated with poly-L-lysine solution (Sigma catalog no. P4707). Cells were then co-transfected with pmCherry-C1 (Clontech) and either pFLAG-Alr1f or pFLAG-Alr2f. Transfected cells were washed with PBS and fixed in 2% paraformaldehyde (VWR, 100503-916) for 15 min at room temperature. Fixed cells were blocked in 2% BSA (Sigma, A9418) for 45 min at room temperature and stained with a 1:1,000 dilution of mouse anti-FLAG antibody (Sigma F1804) for 60 min at room temperature, washed with PBB (PBS and 0.5% BSA), stained with a 1:1,000 dilution of Alexa-488-conjugated goat anti-mouse antibody (Life Technologies A21235), and finally washed with PBB. Nuclei were counterstained with 1 mg/ml DAPI for 1 min at room temperature. Coverslips with stained cells were washed with PBS, briefly air-dried, and mounted on glass microscope slides using a homemade gelvatol (PVA, glycerol, and sodium azide) mounting medium. Cells were imaged using a Nikon A1 s216.6 confocal microscope. Figures were constructed using a single 0.5-mm scan slice. Flow Cytometry CHO cells transfected as described above were incubated for 24 hr and then resuspended by incubating for 5 min with 0.25% Trypsin/0.02% EDTA (Sigma), followed by the addition of cell-culture media. Cells were then washed and resuspended in staining buffer (PBS, 2% FBS, and 2 mM EDTA) and stained for 20 min on ice with a mouse anti-FLAG primary antibody (clone M2, Sigma catalog no. F1804) at 1:500 dilution, washed, and then stained for 20 min on ice with an Alexa-647-conjugated goat anti-mouse secondary antibody (Life Technologies catalog no. A21235) at a 1:500 dilution. Cells were then washed in staining buffer and analyzed on a Becton Dickinson LSR II flow cytometer. Aggregation Assays Previously transfected cells were dissociated via 5 min incubation with 0.25% Trypsin/0.02% EDTA solution (Sigma), and washed in complete CHO culture medium (Ham’s F/12 Kaign’s Modification, 10% fetal bovine serum, 100 U/ml penicillin, and 100 mg/ml streptomycin) and counted. For each aggregation assay, a total of 5 3 104 cells were added to one well of a 24-well lowadhesion plate (Corning) in a total volume of 500 ml complete medium, 70 U/ml

DNase I (Sigma), and 2 mM EGTA (Sigma). For tests of two alleles, 2.5 3 104 cells from each transfection were mixed together. The plate was then incubated for 4 hr at 37 C in 5% CO2 on an orbital rotator at 80–90 RPM. Assays were then visualized with an inverted fluorescence microscope. Assays of each allele were repeated a minimum of three times. ACCESSION NUMBERS The accession number for the Alr1LH06-49a allele reported in this paper is GenBank: KT599482. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Supplemental Information includes one table and can be found with this article online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.030. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Conceptualization, U.B.K. and M.L.N.; Methodology, U.B.K. and M.L.N.; Investigation, U.B.K., M.G., and M.L.N.; Writing – Original Draft, U.B.K. and M.L.N.; Writing – Review and Editing, U.B.K., M.G., and M.L.N.; Supervision, M.L.N.; Funding Acquisition, M.L.N. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank S. Watkins and G. Gibson of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Biological Imaging for assistance with confocal microscopy, W. Wojtowicz and S. Price for advice on the aggregation assays, and L. Buss, S. Dellaporta, F. Lakkis, and S. Sanders for discussion and comments. This work was supported by NSF grant IOS1255975, NIH grant T32AI074490, and a seed grant from the Thomas E. Starzl Transplantation Institute. Received: June 17, 2015 Revised: August 31, 2015 Accepted: September 11, 2015 Published: October 8, 2015 REFERENCES 1. Rosengarten, R.D., and Nicotra, M.L. (2011). Model systems of invertebrate allorecognition. Curr. Biol. 21, R82–R92. 2. Scofield, V.L., Schlumpberger, J.M., West, L.A., and Weissman, I.L. (1982). Protochordate allorecognition is controlled by a MHC-like gene system. Nature 295, 499–502. 3. Mokady, O., and Buss, L.W. (1996). Transmission genetics of allorecognition in Hydractinia symbiolongicarpus (Cnidaria:Hydrozoa). Genetics 143, 823–827. 4. Hughes, R.N., Manrı´quez, P.H., Morley, S., Craig, S.F., and Bishop, J.D. (2004). Kin or self-recognition? Colonial fusibility of the bryozoan Celleporella hyalina. Evol. Dev. 6, 431–437. 5. Cadavid, L.F., Powell, A.E., Nicotra, M.L., Moreno, M., and Buss, L.W. (2004). An invertebrate histocompatibility complex. Genetics 167, 357–365. 6. De Tomaso, A.W., Nyholm, S.V., Palmeri, K.J., Ishizuka, K.J., Ludington, W.B., Mitchel, K., and Weissman, I.L. (2005). Isolation and characterization of a protochordate histocompatibility locus. Nature 438, 454–459. 7. Nyholm, S.V., Passegue, E., Ludington, W.B., Voskoboynik, A., Mitchel, K., Weissman, I.L., and De Tomaso, A.W. (2006). fester, A candidate allorecognition receptor from a primitive chordate. Immunity 25, 163–173. 8. Voskoboynik, A., Newman, A.M., Corey, D.M., Sahoo, D., Pushkarev, D., Neff, N.F., Passarelli, B., Koh, W., Ishizuka, K.J., Palmeri, K.J., et al. (2013). Identification of a colonial chordate histocompatibility gene. Science 341, 384–387. 9. Powell, A.E., Nicotra, M.L., Moreno, M.A., Lakkis, F.G., Dellaporta, S.L., and Buss, L.W. (2007). Differential effect of allorecognition loci on

Current Biology 25, 1–6, November 2, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved 5

Please cite this article in press as: Karadge et al., Allorecognition Proteins in an Invertebrate Exhibit Homophilic Interactions, Current Biology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.030

phenotype in Hydractinia symbiolongicarpus (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa). Genetics 177, 2101–2107.

29. Buss, L.W. (1990). Competition within and between encrusting clonal invertebrates. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5, 352–356.

10. Powell, A.E., Moreno, M., Gloria-Soria, A., Lakkis, F.G., Dellaporta, S.L., and Buss, L.W. (2011). Genetic background and allorecognition phenotype in Hydractinia symbiolongicarpus. G3 (Bethesda) 1, 499–504.

30. Cannons, J.L., Tangye, S.G., and Schwartzberg, P.L. (2011). SLAM family receptors and SAP adaptors in immunity. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 29, 665–705.

11. Nicotra, M.L., Powell, A.E., Rosengarten, R.D., Moreno, M., Grimwood, J., Lakkis, F.G., Dellaporta, S.L., and Buss, L.W. (2009). A hypervariable invertebrate allodeterminant. Curr. Biol. 19, 583–589.

31. Schreiber, J., Langhorst, H., Juttner, R., and Rathjen, F.G. (2014). The IgCAMs CAR, BT-IgSF, and CLMP: structure, function, and diseases. Adv. Neurobiol. 8, 21–45.

12. Rosa, S.F., Powell, A.E., Rosengarten, R.D., Nicotra, M.L., Moreno, M.A., Grimwood, J., Lakkis, F.G., Dellaporta, S.L., and Buss, L.W. (2010). Hydractinia allodeterminant alr1 resides in an immunoglobulin superfamily-like gene complex. Curr. Biol. 20, 1122–1127.

32. Katsamba, P., Carroll, K., Ahlsen, G., Bahna, F., Vendome, J., Posy, S., Rajebhosale, M., Price, S., Jessell, T.M., Ben-Shaul, A., et al. (2009). Linking molecular affinity and cellular specificity in cadherin-mediated adhesion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 11594–11599.

13. Jackson, J.B.C. (1985). Distribution and Ecology of Clonal and Aclonal Benthic Invertebrates (Yale University Press).

33. Rosengarten, R.D., Moreno, M.A., Lakkis, F.G., Buss, L.W., and Dellaporta, S.L. (2011). Genetic diversity of the allodeterminant alr2 in Hydractinia symbiolongicarpus. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28, 933–947.

14. Jackson, J.B.C. (1977). Competition on Marine Hard Substrata - Adaptive Significance of Solitary and Colonial Strategies. Am. Nat. 111, 743–767. 15. Hughes, R.N. (1989). A Functional Biology of Clonal Animals (Chapman and Hall). 16. Sebens, K.P. (1987). The Ecology of Indeterminate Growth in Animals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 371–407. 17. Buss, L.W. (1987). The Evolution of Individuality (Princeton University Press).

34. Gloria-Soria, A., Moreno, M.A., Yund, P.O., Lakkis, F.G., Dellaporta, S.L., and Buss, L.W. (2012). Evolutionary genetics of the hydroid allodeterminant alr2. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29, 3921–3932. 35. Hirose, S., Benabentos, R., Ho, H.-I., Kuspa, A., and Shaulsky, G. (2011). Self-recognition in social amoebae is mediated by allelic pairs of tiger genes. Science 333, 467–470.

18. Buss, L.W. (1983). Evolution, development, and the units of selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80, 1387–1391.

36. Chen, G., Wang, J., Xu, X., Wu, X., Piao, R., and Siu, C.-H. (2013). TgrC1 mediates cell-cell adhesion by interacting with TgrB1 via mutual IPT/TIG domains during development of Dictyostelium discoideum. Biochem. J. 452, 259–269.

19. Buss, L.W. (1982). Somatic cell parasitism and the evolution of somatic tissue compatibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79, 5337–5341.

37. Paoletti, M., and Saupe, S.J. (2009). Fungal incompatibility: evolutionary origin in pathogen defense? BioEssays 31, 1201–1210.

20. Stoner, D.S., Rinkevich, B., and Weissman, I.L. (1999). Heritable germ and somatic cell lineage competitions in chimeric colonial protochordates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9148–9153.

38. Ku¨es, U., James, T.Y., and Heitman, J. (2011). Mating type in Basidiomycetes: unipolar, bipolar, and tetrapolar patterns of sexuality. In Evolution of Fungi and Fungal-Like Organisms, S. Po¨ggeler, and J. Wo¨stemeyer, eds. (Springer-Verlag), pp. 97–160.

21. Stoner, D.S., and Weissman, I.L. (1996). Somatic and germ cell parasitism in a colonial ascidian: possible role for a highly polymorphic allorecognition system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 15254–15259. 22. De Tomaso, A.W., Saito, Y., Ishizuka, K.J., Palmeri, K.J., and Weissman, I.L. (1998). Mapping the genome of a model protochordate. I. A low resolution genetic map encompassing the fusion/histocompatibility (Fu/HC) locus of Botryllus schlosseri. Genetics 149, 277–287. 23. De Tomaso, A.W., and Weissman, I.L. (2003). Initial characterization of a protochordate histocompatibility locus. Immunogenetics 55, 480–490. 24. de Tomaso, A.W., and Weissman, I.L. (2003). Construction and characterization of large-insert genomic libraries (BAC and fosmid) from the Ascidian Botryllus schlosseri and initial physical mapping of a histocompatibility locus. Mar. Biotechnol. (NY) 5, 103–115. 25. Nydam, M.L., Netuschil, N., Sanders, E., Langenbacher, A., Lewis, D.D., Taketa, D.A., Marimuthu, A., Gracey, A.Y., and De Tomaso, A.W. (2013). The candidate histocompatibility locus of a Basal chordate encodes two highly polymorphic proteins. PLoS ONE 8, e65980. 26. McKitrick, T.R., Muscat, C.C., Pierce, J.D., Bhattacharya, D., and De Tomaso, A.W. (2011). Allorecognition in a basal chordate consists of independent activating and inhibitory pathways. Immunity 34, 616–626.

39. Iwano, M., and Takayama, S. (2012). Self/non-self discrimination in angiosperm self-incompatibility. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 15, 78–83. 40. Zipursky, S.L., and Grueber, W.B. (2013). The molecular basis of selfavoidance. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 36, 547–568. 41. Wojtowicz, W.M., Wu, W., Andre, I., Qian, B., Baker, D., and Zipursky, S.L. (2007). A vast repertoire of Dscam binding specificities arises from modular interactions of variable Ig domains. Cell 130, 1134–1145. 42. Wojtowicz, W.M., Flanagan, J.J., Millard, S.S., Zipursky, S.L., and Clemens, J.C. (2004). Alternative splicing of Drosophila Dscam generates axon guidance receptors that exhibit isoform-specific homophilic binding. Cell 118, 619–633. 43. Neves, G., Zucker, J., Daly, M., and Chess, A. (2004). Stochastic yet biased expression of multiple Dscam splice variants by individual cells. Nat. Genet. 36, 240–246. 44. Sawaya, M.R., Wojtowicz, W.M., Andre, I., Qian, B., Wu, W., Baker, D., Eisenberg, D., and Zipursky, S.L. (2008). A double S shape provides the structural basis for the extraordinary binding specificity of Dscam isoforms. Cell 134, 1007–1018.

27. Nydam, M.L., and De Tomaso, A.W. (2012). The fester locus in Botryllus schlosseri experiences selection. BMC Evol. Biol. 12, 249.

45. Meijers, R., Puettmann-Holgado, R., Skiniotis, G., Liu, J.H., Walz, T., Wang, J.H., and Schmucker, D. (2007). Structural basis of Dscam isoform specificity. Nature 449, 487–491.

28. Taketa, D.A., and De Tomaso, A.W. (2015). Botryllus schlosseri allorecognition: tackling the enigma. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 48, 254–265.

46. Aslanidis, C., and de Jong, P.J. (1990). Ligation-independent cloning of PCR products (LIC-PCR). Nucleic Acids Res. 18, 6069–6074.

6 Current Biology 25, 1–6, November 2, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved