Tracking maternal proteins uncovers a central role for the residual body in organelle recycling during Toxoplasma gondii replication

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

[Editors' note: this version has been assessed by the Reviewing Editor without further input from the original reviewers. The authors have addressed the comments raised in the previous round of review.]

Summary:

This work asks the question of how different organelles and structures in the apicomplexan parasite Toxoplasma gondii are recycled and/or segregated to the daughter cells during cell replication. In particular, they consider an unusual cell structure called the residual body that links replicating cells during the intracellular infection stage of this parasite. The residual body has historically been considered a 'dumping ground' for unnecessary relics of the mother cell during division, but this notion is increasingly being revised. Indeed, cell replication in Toxoplasma is often misinterpreted as cell division (cytokinesis), but in fact, the cell replicates its organelles and structures to multiple 10s of copies in seemingly distinctly formed daughter cells, but cytokinesis is delayed for many such cycles and typically only occurs simultaneously with parasite egress from its host cell. The residual body is, in fact, the connection between these pre-cytokinetic replicated daughters, and effectively, this is still a single cell at this stage. The authors have previously shown that an actin network extends through the residual body between these daughter cells, and ER and mitochondria common to all cells are also linked through this structure. This study examining the fates of organelles during cell replication is timely for continuing our understanding of how this fascinating component of the cell participates in these processes. The authors use Halo-tags as their principal tool to track discrete populations of proteins, labelling their organelle locations, and this provides beautiful insight into these processes.

Strengths:

Using dyes conjugated to Halo tags this work elegantly tracks the fates of proteins synthesised by an original 'mother' cell over several replication cycles of pre-cytokinetic 'daughters'. Using this tool, they show that some organelles are made intact just once and that some of these can be subsequently sorted to the daughters (micronemes and rhoptries) while others are dismantled (IMC) and the daughters must make their own. A third set of organelles (largely synthesis, sorting and metabolic compartments) are divided and inherited, and new daughter-synthesised proteins are added to the preexisting maternal proteins in these structures. A role for actin and myosin is clearly demonstrated for micronemes and rhoptries, and this correlates with their relatively late inheritance into the developing daughters. Overall, this work gives clarity to the behaviours of several cell structures during replication and paves the way to better understanding the mechanisms that drive the differences between structures and the universality of these processes in other apicomplexan parasites. In particular, this study shows that the residue body is a region of the cell syncytium that organelles can be actively transported from. Therefore, it is a space that can actively contribute to the segregation of the late segregating micronemes and rhoptries.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Toxoplasma gondii is an obligate intracellular parasite and the causative agent of toxoplasmosis. Parasite invasion of host cells, intracellular replication, and subsequent egress, which results in destruction of the infected cell, are central to pathogenicity. This manuscript focuses on understanding how maternal resources, specifically cellular organelles, are shared between daughter parasites during cell division. Many organelles are present as a single copy, making their division and inheritance essential for successful replication. In T. gondii, our understanding of how organelles are divided during cell division remains limited, and this study helps address this important knowledge gap.

Strengths:

The major strength of this study is the use of a Halo-based pulse-chase assay to characterize patterns of organelle inheritance and to monitor protein synthesis, turnover, and movement. This approach will be of considerable interest to the field. Using this method, the authors identify three major modes of organelle inheritance:

(1) Organelles present in multiple copies (such as micronemes and rhoptries) are partitioned between daughter parasites, with additional contributions from newly formed vesicles. Newly synthesized and pre-existing material remain as distinct populations within the cell.

(2) Single-copy organelles, such as the Golgi and apicoplast, are expanded through the incorporation of newly synthesized material before division.

(3) Cytoskeletal structures are synthesized de novo during each round of cell division.

These findings provide a more refined understanding of organelle inheritance and demonstrate that secretory organelles are not generated entirely de novo during each round of division, as was previously thought.

The paper places particular emphasis on the fate of maternal micronemes and rhoptries during division. The data show that (1) during division in wild-type cells, maternal micronemes and rhoptries are detectable in the residual body (RB); however, the majority of these organelles are localized within the parasite body, either at the apical or basal ends of the daughter parasites (Fig. 6). (2) In the absence of the myosin motor MyoF, micronemes and rhoptries accumulate in the residual body and are not properly trafficked to the daughter cells. Upon restoration of MyoF protein levels, these organelles redistribute to the daughter cells, although in an uneven manner.

Weaknesses:

The second half of the paper focuses on a more detailed characterization of microneme and rhoptry recycling. While the authors propose that the RB acts as a central hub for recycling both organelles, the current data do not fully support this conclusion.
The model that microneme and rhoptry recycling is RB-dependent relies largely on the MyoF depletion phenotype and the limited detection of maternal organelles in the RB of wild-type parasites. Alternative models remain plausible, including direct trafficking to daughter cells, with RB accumulation upon MyoF depletion reflecting impaired trafficking rather than an obligatory RB-dependent recycling pathway, as now discussed by the authors.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Knoerzer-Suckow et al. explore the mechanisms of organelle inheritance during endodyogeny in Toxoplasma gondii using an innovative dual-labeling approach to track the distribution of maternal organelles into daughter parasites. They can clearly distinguish between maternal and daughter-derived organelles using their dual-labeling Halo Tag approach. They reveal that different organelles are trafficked to daughter parasites in three broad patterns they have binned into groups. Their findings reveal a role for MyoF in the inheritance of micronemes and rhoptries, and notably, they observe that the inner membrane complex (IMC) is not recycled. Instead, the IMC undergoes a pronounced relocalization to the posterior of the maternal cell, where it is likely targeted for degradation.

Strength:

The data surrounding their MyoF knockdown experiments, IMC degradation, and trafficking of MIC2 after auxin washout are convincing. These data add to the knowledge of how organelle inheritance occurs in T. gondii, increasing the field's understanding of endodyogeny.

Weakness:

The inability to achieve higher temporal resolution due to phototoxicity precluded tracking of single micronemes, thus it remains possible that some micronemes follow a path similar to rhoptries and enter daughter cells before development of the residual body while others are recycled via the residual body.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Public Reviews:

Weaknesses:

(1) In addressing the question of residual body participation in sorting of organelles, a clear definition of this structure is required including when and where it is delineated from the posterior of a mother cell during the formation of daughter structures. The authors' definition is as follows: 'The RB originates from the collapse of the maternal parasite during daughter cell budding and occupies the space previously occupied by the mother cell.' As such, a clear marker of the mother cell 'collapse' is required, but such a marker is not identified or used in the study to separate what might be considered an active part of the mother cell during early daughter formation, and the residual body. This might seem like moot a point, but it would help to give clarity to notions of recycling and 'reservoirs'. Mother cells retain their active invasion apparatus until very late in daughter formation and the need for micronemes and rhoptries to be released from this service late in the process might explain why they are only then trafficked to the cell posterior and then into the daughters. So, is this a distinct 'residual body' body function/reservoir or just a spatial constraint of this sequence of daughter formation? The authors elegantly show that MyoF is necessary for segregation of micronemes and rhoptries into daughters, and that MyoF depletion leads to accumulation of these organelles within the residual body. Moreover, restored expression of MyoF can then recover these organelles. This clearly demonstrates the activity of the residual body as part of the syncytium space that participates in the maintenance of the vacuole. But does it imply that this space necessarily handles all inherited micronemes and rhoptries as a 'trafficking hub'? My concern with the lack of a clear definition could provide some misinterpretation or overinterpretation of the contribution residual body.

We thank the reviewer for raising this conceptual point. We agree that, in the absence of a molecular marker that uniquely defines the nascent RB, the precise transition between posterior maternal cytoplasm and a morphologically distinct RB cannot be determined during early daughter formation. We have therefore clarified our terminology in the revised manuscript and define the RB operationally as the posterior compartment/connection between daughter parasites. We also avoid assigning early posterior trafficking events unambiguously to a fully formed RB. We further agree that the current data do not establish that all inherited micronemes and rhoptries must transit through the RB. We have therefore revised the Results and Discussion and softened terminology such as “central trafficking hub” and now conclude that the RB represents an important dynamic compartment in organelle recycling and redistribution, without implying that it is an obligatory intermediate for every inherited secretory organelle.

(2) A further, remarkable conclusion is that maternal micronemes are evenly segregated into daughters through an active process for 'balanced microneme inheritance'. The proportion of maternal micronemes is quantified up to the 8-cell stage and shown to be not significantly different between cells. But would this result be expected with random assortment at this stage? The authors model the probability of a 32-cell stage vacuole occurring with each daughter having within 0-3 maternal micronemes and this is considered unlikely. However, the authors neither present the modelling for the 8cell stage or show quantification of 32-cell vacuoles. They do show some images of large vacuoles, but it is not possible to determine the distribution of maternal micronemes in these images. A regulated process of segregation would require a complex mechanism where some form of microneme counting would be required to create the proposed balance. It is, therefore, important to have strong data supporting such a hypothesis, but this is not currently presented.

We agree that the previous wording implied a mechanistic conclusion beyond what can be established from the present dataset. We have therefore revised the manuscript so that the relatively even distribution of maternal micronemes at the 8-cell stage is presented as an observation that is consistent with a non-random or regulated partitioning process, rather than evidence for an established microneme-counting mechanism. The 32-cell model is now presented as supportive rather than definitive evidence, and we explicitly acknowledge that the quantitative experimental dataset was obtained at the 8-cell stage. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

(1) The second half of the paper focuses on a more detailed characterization of microneme and rhoptry recycling. The authors strongly argue that the RB is a central hub for recycling micronemes and rhoptries; however, this conclusion is not fully supported by the data. For example, the authors state…Thus, the model that all microneme and rhoptry trafficking is RB-dependent is based primarily on the MyoF depletion phenotype (which results in RB accumulation) together with the observation that a relatively small amount of maternal microneme and rhoptry material is detectable in the RB of wild-type parasites. Although the authors' interpretation-that recycling is RB-dependent-is one possible explanation, alternative models are not discussed. For example, an alternative possibility is that the majority of micronemes and rhoptries are trafficked directly from the apical end of the mother parasite to the daughter cells without passing through the RB. In this scenario, only a subset of the organelles would enter the residual body, perhaps reflecting imperfect trafficking efficiency rather than an obligatory recycling step. Loss of MyoF would impair this trafficking pathway, resulting in the accumulation of secretory organelles within the RB. In other words, RB accumulation could be a consequence of MyoF depletion rather than evidence that all trafficking in wild-type parasites normally proceeds through the RB. This alternative interpretation seems particularly relevant for the rhoptries, given that the authors themselves state that "M-RON2 was integrated into daughter rhoptries prior to mother cell collapse and formation of the RB."

We agree with the reviewer that the current data do not establish obligatory transit of all maternal micronemes and rhoptries through the RB. We have revised the manuscript throughout to make this distinction explicit. In particular, we now emphasize that maternal MIC2 can be directly observed entering the RB, whereas most maternal RON2 is incorporated into daughter rhoptries before mother-cell collapse and formation of a morphologically distinct RB. This observation leaves open the possibility that a substantial fraction of maternal rhoptries is transferred directly from the mother to developing daughters. We have also revised our interpretation of the MyoF-depletion phenotype. The accumulation of maternal MIC2 and RON2 in the RB following MyoF depletion demonstrates that MyoF is required for efficient redistribution of both organelle populations, but does not by itself demonstrate that both normally follow an identical spatial route through the RB. We now explicitly state that their precise trafficking routes and timing may differ.

We nevertheless retain the conclusion that the RB is a dynamic compartment involved in organelle recycling because maternal MIC2 can be directly observed entering and leaving this compartment, and material accumulated there following MyoF depletion can subsequently be redistributed after restoration of MyoF.

(2) Figure S10C. To determine whether microneme degradation occurs in the RB, the authors quantified the fluorescence intensity of individual micronemes in control parasites and following auxin washout, showing that after redistribution the fluorescence intensity of individual vesicles is unchanged. However, this is not the appropriate analysis to address the question being asked. To conclude that micronemes are not degraded, the authors would need to quantify the total fluorescence intensity within the entire vacuole. For example, if half of the micronemes were degraded, the remaining micronemes would be expected to retain the same fluorescence intensity as those in the control parasites. Thus, unchanged fluorescence intensity of individual vesicles does not exclude the possibility that degradation has occurred.

We agree with this criticism and have revised the interpretation of the experiment accordingly. We no longer conclude that the analysis excludes microneme degradation. We now explicitly acknowledge that analysis of individual recovered micronemes cannot exclude degradation of a fraction of the total microneme population during RB retention. Thus, the experiment supports preservation of MIC2 signal in the recovered organelles but is no longer presented as evidence that no microneme degradation occurs.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Weakness:

The inability to achieve higher temporal resolution due to phototoxicity precluded tracking of single micronemes, thus it remains possible that some micronemes follow a path similar to rhoptries and enter daughter cells before development of the residual body while others are recycled via the residual body. 

We agree and have incorporated this limitation into the revised interpretation. Our live imaging demonstrates that maternal MIC2 can enter the RB and subsequently redistribute to daughter parasites, but it does not establish that every individual maternal microneme follows this route. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this distinction, which has helped us clarify the model presented in the Results and Discussion.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Carruthers and Sibley, 1997, is still the cited ref for Tic20 in the apicoplast despite the authors saying that would correct this to a van Dooren publication.

Corrected

(2) In Figure 2B three biological replicates were used however there are no error bars shown. The only reason for performing replicates is the observe the variance in the data, so if this is not shown the replicates are effectively meaningless. I strongly advice that error bars are given to indicate this seeing that the data in this figure form the basis of the major conclusions of the study. It might be necessary to show this in supplemental forms with fewer proteins if the error bars are too difficult to see in the combined figure.

We agree and have corrected Figure 2B to display the variability between the three independent biological replicates. Error bars now represent the standard deviation.

(3) Line 136: Can you conclude that these inheritance patterns are 'organelle-specific' when each organelle is only sampled with one or two proteins. Isn't it better to conclude that these are protein-specific, with the hypothesis that they might represent the orgnalle as a whole. I imagine that some proteins in organelles such as the apicoplast have shorter half-lives than others, and therefore some apicoplast proteins might behave like 'Group 3' proteins.

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We agree that individual proteins within the same organelle may differ in their turnover kinetics and that analysis of one or two markers cannot establish that every molecular component of an organelle behaves identically. However, we do not think that describing the observations exclusively as protein-specific inheritance would fully reflect the biological process investigated here. The proteins analysed are established markers of defined organelles, and our conclusions are based not only on changes in fluorescence intensity, but also on the localization, morphology, partitioning, and spatial relationship between maternally inherited and newly synthesized organelle populations.

This is particularly evident for micronemes and rhoptries, where maternal and de novo material remain spatially separated and individual organelles can be followed during inheritance.

In addition, the microneme phenotype observed with MIC2 was confirmed using AMA1, MIC4, and MIC8.

We therefore retain the terminology of organelle inheritance, while acknowledging that individual proteins within a given organelle may exhibit different turnover kinetics and that the markers analysed may not represent the behaviour of every molecular component of the organelle.

(4) Line 222: It is an odd phrase to suggest that the Golgi, ER etc 'bypass' the residual body, which suggests an active avoidance mechanism. Would the authors also conclude that the nucleus 'bypasses' the RB? Moreover, the ER and mitochondria are actually known to be present in the RB forming continuous organelles between daughters in a vacuole. So again, this might be an overstatement that mispresents how the RB participates in vacuole functions.

We agree and have removed the term “bypass.” The revised text now states only that we did not observe comparable accumulation of the analysed Golgi, ER, or apicoplast markers in the RB during inheritance. This avoids implying an active avoidance mechanism and is compatible with the known continuity of ER and mitochondria through the RB.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Minor comments:

Figure 8F and Video S6: The authors should specify the time point after IAA washout at which live imaging was initiated. Does time 0 in the video correspond to the point at which IAA was removed?

We have clarified this in the Results and Methods. Auxin was removed after 24 h of replication, and live imaging was subsequently initiated. Time 0 in Figure 8F and Video S6 corresponds to the first acquired frame after auxin washout.

Figure S10 should read auxin, not auxine.

Corrected

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

I have no further suggestions. Congratulations to the authors for a lovely study.