LRRK2 is a negative regulator of Mycobacterium ... - The EMBO Journal

0 downloads 0 Views 820KB Size Report
Apr 24, 2018 - affect phagosome maturation" is not answered. The last point on in vivo is less critical. We all know that the mouse model does not reproduce.
The EMBO Journal - Peer Review Process File

LRRK2 is a negative regulator of Mycobacterium tuberculosis phagosome maturation in macrophages Anetta Härtlova, Susanne Herbst, Julien Peltier, Angela Rodgers, Orsolya Bilkei-Gorzo, Antony Fearns, Brian D. Dill, Heyne Lee, Rowan Flynn, Sally A. Cowley, Paul Davies, Patrick A. Lewis, Ian G. Ganley, Jennifer Martinez, Dario R. Alessi, Alastair D. Reith, Matthias Trost and Maximiliano G. Gutierrez

Review timeline:

Submission date: Editorial Decision: Revision received: Editorial Decision: Revision received: Accepted:

24 November 2017 19 December 2017 15 February 2018 23 March 2018 5 April 2018 24 April 2018

Editor: Hartmut Vodermaier Transaction Report: (Note: With the exception of the correction of typographical or spelling errors that could be a source of ambiguity, letters and reports are not edited. The original formatting of letters and referee reports may not be reflected in this compilation.) Please note that the manuscript was previously reviewed at another journal. Since the original reviews are not subject to The EMBO Journal's transparent review process policy, the reports and author response cannot be published. 1st Editorial Decision

19 December 2017

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript together with the previous reports and responses to The EMBO Journal for our consideration. I have now heard back from two arbitrating referees, who had agreed to look both at the paper as well as at the previous referees' concerns and your responses. In light of their comments, we shall be happy to consider a revised version further for publication, pending the addition of the revisions already proposed in your response letter, as well as addressing the various minor arbitrator comments and the first two major concerns of arbitrator 1. Among the points raised in the original review, assessing trafficking and bacterial growth in the presence of IFN gamma appears to be one of the key issues to be addressed during revision. On the other hand, in agreement with arbitrator 2 I conclude that further follow-up on the molecular mechanism of LRRK2 action would not be essential within the scope of the present study, nor would investigations of LRRK2 macrophage roles in conditional knock-outs be needed. When preparing your revision and point-by-point response letter to the original and the new comments, please remember that our policy to allow only a single round of major revision makes it important to carefully answer to all points raised during this round. If necessary, we might also discuss an extension of the regular three-months revision period, during which any competing work published elsewhere would not negatively affect our final assessment of your own study. Please also refer to the sections below for additional information on preparing, formatting and uploading a revised manuscript. Should you have any further questions related to this decision or your revision, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you again for the opportunity to consider this study for The EMBO Journal! I look forward to receiving your revision.

© European Molecular Biology Organization

1

The EMBO Journal - Peer Review Process File

-----------------------------------------------REFEREE REPORTS Arbitrator #1: I have several major concerns: The first one is that the effects they see with the LRRK2 KD or KO are quite small relative to the wild type. They actually used state of the art technique for subcellular trafficking, however I am cautious about their determination of intracellular CFUs by the old bacterial titration technique. Actually they see only a two-fold difference in numbers over a 3-days kinetic study (Fig 1A,B), which can be meaningful if at the same time a proper quantification of the macrophage survival is done on the same samples. This can easily be done by quantitative imaging and they authors should really provide this piece of data. Also standard controls should be used for the imaging of LAMP-1 recruitment, as for instance heat-killed bacteria; although we are confident that M. Gutierrez is really expert in this. The second major concern is on the use of GSK2578215A inhibitor. This compound is used at quite high concentration- ie 1 microM- when specified. I could also not find the concentrations used in Figure 1D, are they higher? In log-2 scale? Similarly as above, as it is a compound targeting host signaling, could the authors check for the cytotoxicitiy of this compound on the macrophage. Indeed, at 30% toxicity in macrophages can already lead to a 50% loss of bacteria counts, which is the order of magnitude that they see. Also did the author show that in their conditions of Mtbmacrophage infection, the inhibitor actually impaired LRRK2 activity? This would be important to verify the target exposure. The third major concern is about the molecular mechanism that involves LRRK2. As suggested by the reviewer, I believe more analysis should be done on this. The main question of "how does it affect phagosome maturation" is not answered. The last point on in vivo is less critical. We all know that the mouse model does not reproduce human TB and to know more of the effect of LRRK2 in macrophages, I believe the author should resort to better tools available now, ie macrophage specific LRRK2 KO mice. One minor concern: Why are the elevated LC3B levels in LRRK2 KO macrophages (Fig. S2B-C) not detected in Fig. S2D before gamma interferon is added? Arbitrator #2: The study brings a substantial amount of novel knowledge on the role of the LRRK2 kinase in phagosome biology in general, and in M. tuberculosis intracellular trafficking and pathogenesis in particular. The authors' reply to previous reviewers' comments are overall satisfactory. The link between in vitro and in vivo observations could be clarified by performing a limited number of additional experiments, in particular the one suggested by Referee 2, and could be better discussed.

Specific comments over previous reviews. Reviewer 1 I agree with the authors that identifying the LRRK2 substrates, including Rab GTPases, and elucidating the very function of these substrates in the reported phenotypes would represent a formidable amount of additional work that goes far beyond the scope of the present manuscript. Other comments made by this Referee can be addressed in a revised version.

© European Molecular Biology Organization

2

The EMBO Journal - Peer Review Process File

Reviewer 2 As proposed by the Referee, assessing the influence of IFN-gamma on bacterial growth in WT and KO macrophages is a key experiment that might help explain the phenotypes observed in vivo. Other comments made by this Referee can be addressed in a revised version. Reviewer 3 I agree with the Referee that more work is needed to dissect the very mechanism(s) involved in LRRK2-mediated regulation of the PI3K complex and Rubicon. Yet, I consider that the present study, if properly revised to address the referees' comments, brings sufficient novel knowledge that will stimulate further research by the authors or other groups. Additional comments In Fig 3E, data using MLI-2 is not shown and in Fig 3F, data with WT only is not shown. This should be fixed. Line 148 "(Figure 1N-O)" should be "(Figure 1N"). Fig 5C in the text refers to panel D in the figure.

1st Revision - authors' response

15 February 2018

Many thanks for the reviews of our paper entitled “LRRK2 is a negative regulator of Mycobacterium tuberculosis phagosome maturation in macrophages”. We have now addressed and elaborated on the reviewer’s remarks. Specifically, we have now added new data: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Bafilomycin controls in WT and LRRK2 KO macrophages (new Fig. 2) A2016T KI controls in phagosomal proteolysis (new Fig. 3) Loading controls for phagosomal proteins (new Fig. 5) Additional siRNA for Rubicon (new Fig. 5) Effect of the inhibitor in macrophages (new Fig. S1) Cell viability assays (new Fig S1) Image-based analysis of survival (new Fig. S1) Gamma-interferon effect on survival (new Fig. S1) Total lysosomal morphology and activity (new Fig. S2) Autophagy flux controls (new Fig. S3) Sorting strategy for phagoFACS (new Fig. S4) Western blot for Rubicon KO and validation of antibody (new Fig. S5)

We believe that the new data and modified manuscript should satisfy the reviewer’s and arbitrator’s remarks and substantially reinforced the manuscript. -----------------------------------------------Arbitrator #1: The first one is that the effects they see with the LRRK2 KD or KO are quite small relative to the wild type. They actually used state of the art technique for subcellular trafficking, however I am cautious about their determination of intracellular CFUs by the old bacterial titration technique. Actually, they see only a two-fold difference in numbers over a 3-days kinetic study (Fig 1A, B), which can be meaningful if at the same time a proper quantification of the macrophage survival is done on the same samples. This can easily be done by quantitative imaging and they should really provide this piece of data. Also, standard controls should be used for the imaging of LAMP-1 recruitment, as for instance heat-killed bacteria; although we are confident that M. Gutierrez is really expert in this. We agree that quantitative imaging is sometimes more accurate than CFUs. We have included quantitative data showing bacterial replication and the results are similar (new Figure S1). We also

© European Molecular Biology Organization

3

The EMBO Journal - Peer Review Process File

performed a control of the imaging with LAMP-1 comparing Mtb WT and the mutant RD1 (Lerner et al., 2017; Schnettger et al., 2017). We see a significant increase in the percentage of Mtb RD1 mutant positive for LAMP-1, as expected from our previous work (see figure below).

The second major concern is on the use of GSK2578215A inhibitor. This compound is used at quite high concentration- ie 1 microM- when specified. I could also not find the concentrations used in Figure 1D, are they higher? In log-2 scale? Similarly, as above, as it is a compound targeting host signaling, could the authors check for the cytotoxicitiy of this compound on the macrophage. Indeed, at 30% toxicity in macrophages can already lead to a 50% loss of bacteria counts, which is the order of magnitude that they see. Also did the author show that in their conditions of Mtbmacrophage infection, the inhibitor actually impaired LRRK2 activity? This would be important to verify the target exposure. This is a very important point, we have tested toxicity and it is not affected in macrophages (data is now included in new Figure S1). We would like to mention that this concentration is commonly used in most of the work using this inhibitor. Second point is also very important, it is generally difficult to have a marker of LRRK2 activation, so we have used the most common used one that measured the autophosphorylation in serine 935. We now provide this data (new Figure S1B). The third major concern is about the molecular mechanism that involves LRRK2. As suggested by the reviewer, I believe more analysis should be done on this. The main question of "how does it affect phagosome maturation" is not answered. Please see comments above. The last point on in vivo is less critical. We all know that the mouse model does not reproduce human TB and to know more of the effect of LRRK2 in macrophages, I believe the author should resort to better tools available now, ie macrophage specific LRRK2 KO mice. One minor concern: Why are the elevated LC3B levels in LRRK2 KO macrophages (Fig. S2B-C) not detected in Fig. S2D before gamma interferon is added? The arbitrator is right that the levels of LC3-II in LRRK2 KO macrophages seems not to be higher. However, we have done this analysis several times and this is the case (as reported in the literature and other figures of this work). In fact, if the LC3II/LC3-I ratio is considered, then it is higher in LRRK2 KO for that particular gel. We believe these differences could be attributed to different batches of the anti-LC3 antibody.

Arbitrator #2: Reviewer 1: I agree with the authors that identifying the LRRK2 substrates, including Rab GTPases, and elucidating the very function of these substrates in the reported phenotypes would represent a formidable amount of additional work that goes far beyond the scope of the present manuscript. Other comments made by this Referee can be addressed in a revised version. Thanks, we have addressed these comments. Reviewer 2: As proposed by the Referee, assessing the influence of IFN-gamma on bacterial growth in WT and KO macrophages is a key experiment that might help explain the phenotypes observed in vivo. Other comments made by this Referee can be addressed in a revised version.

© European Molecular Biology Organization

4

The EMBO Journal - Peer Review Process File

We agreed this was an important point. We have added these experiments (see above and new Figure S1), addressing the reviewer’s comments. Reviewer 3: I agree with the Referee that more work is needed to dissect the very mechanism(s) involved in LRRK2-mediated regulation of the PI3K complex and Rubicon. Yet, I consider that the present study, if properly revised to address the referees' comments, brings sufficient novel knowledge that will stimulate further research by the authors or other groups. Thanks, we believe that is the revised version we addressed these concerns. Additional comments In Fig 3E, data using MLI-2 is not shown and in Fig 3F, data with WT only is not shown. This should be fixed. Line 148 "(Figure 1N-O)" should be "(Figure 1N"). Fig 5C in the text refers to panel D in the figure. Many thanks. We now show the data with the WT condition (new Figure 3) and modified the text accordingly.

2nd Editorial Decision

23 March 2018

Thank you again for submitting your revised manuscript for our consideration. Our two arbitrating referees have now assessed it once more, and in light of their feedback copied below, we shall be happy to offer publication of the study, after some remaining editorial issues will have been addressed. As you will see, arbitrator 1 is concerned about the preparation of the revised version, including missing experimental detail, possibly discrepant figure legends, and insufficient discussion of newly added data - I therefore would like to ask you to address these issues in a final version, and to provide a response to these comments. -----------------------------------------------ARBITRATOR REPORTS Arbitrator #1: Concerning the first comment, the authors have included quantitative data from an image-based technique and displayed the results in new Figure S1. At present, the legend of Fig S1 does not match with the Figure display. Panels E, F, G, H and I should be exchanged by panels G, H, I, E and F. Also the authors refer only briefly to these data on line 150 mentioning that they use the same technique as in their Schnettger paper. I would have appreciated to have more details in the present manuscript. Our second comment was on the putative cytotoxicity of GSK2578215A. The authors have monitored LDH release from Mtb infected macrophages in presence of the chemical inhibitor and the data are presented in Figure S1. Again, the legend of Fig S1 does not match with the Figure display. A, B and C should be C, A and B. Again, I could not find enough details about the experiment. There is no indication about the timing of the LDH measurement. Also it is strange that the authors have not reported LDH data for higher concentrations up to 10 microM, could this mean that the compound becomes toxic at 2 microM or higher. What is the selectivity ratio (activity/toxicity)? I am not pleased about the "please see comments above" for my third concern. I agree that this could be the work of a new post-doc that will benefit from solid preliminary findings and substantial funding from the recently secured EU-ERC-CSG grant in the team. Currently the results lack the molecular mechanisms, which are now expected in the TB field for high impact papers. Indeed, there are more and more host proteins involved in Mtb phagosome maturation and there is hardly any detailed mechanistic study about them. The Gutierrez team is in a privileged situation to make real breakthrough in this field and the field really counts on them. At this point, I wonder whether the authors have uploaded the right supplementary files. The authors discuss about the LCE3II/LC3-I ratio; however, on the Fig S3 there is no WB quantification. Overall, we feel that the revised version was written too hastily and would recommend the manuscript to be sent back to the authors.

© European Molecular Biology Organization

5

The EMBO Journal - Peer Review Process File

Arbitrator #2: The authors' revisions even further convinced me that this study brings a substantial amount of novel knowledge on the role of the LRRK2 kinase in phagosome biology in general, and in M. tuberculosis intracellular trafficking and pathogenesis in particular. The authors' reply to previous reviewers' comments are now fully satisfactory, and the link between in vitro and in vivo observations has been clarified by performing additional experiments and is better discussed.

2nd Revision - authors' response

5 April 2018

Many thanks for the reviews and feedback of our paper entitled “LRRK2 is a negative regulator of Mycobacterium tuberculosis phagosome maturation in macrophages”. We apologise for the mislabelling of 2 panels in Figure S1, Figure S3 was actually okay. We have now corrected this. Moreover, we have also added more details on the methods used for image analysis as requested by the arbitrator 1. Please see attached point-by point reply. -----------------------------------------------Point by point reply to arbitrator 1: Concerning the first comment, the authors have included quantitative data from an image-based technique and displayed the results in new Figure S1. At present, the legend of Fig S1 does not match with the Figure display. Panels E, F, G, H and I should be exchanged by panels G, H, I, E and F. Also the authors refer only briefly to these data on line 150 mentioning that they use the same technique as in their Schnettger paper. I would have appreciated to have more details in the present manuscript. We sincerely apologize for the incorrect Fig S1 legend; it was due to a swap in the panels. We have now corrected this. We also added more information regarding the single cell quantification as described in Schnettger et al., 2017. Our second comment was on the putative cytotoxicity of GSK2578215A. The authors have monitored LDH release from Mtb infected macrophages in presence of the chemical inhibitor and the data are presented in Figure S1. Again, the legend of Fig S1 does not match with the Figure display. A, B and C should be C, A and B. Again, I could not find enough details about the experiment. There is no indication about the timing of the LDH measurement. Also it is strange that the authors have not reported LDH data for higher concentrations up to 10 microM, could this mean that the compound becomes toxic at 2 microM or higher. What is the selectivity ratio (activity/toxicity)? Again, apologies for the mislabeling of the panels in the Fig S1 that have been corrected now. We have now included a detailed protocol of the LDH measurements. We did not use concentrations higher than 1 µM for long-term studies and therefore did not feel the need to test higher concentrations for toxicity. As reported by Reith et al, we confirmed that 1 µM of GSK257821A achieves maximum LRRK2 kinase inhibition as measured by the abolished pS935 LRRK2 phosphorylation. Additionally, Reith et al reported an increase in off-target effects of the GSK257821A LRRK2 inhibitor at 10 µM making it an unsuitable concentration to use.

© European Molecular Biology Organization

6

The EMBO Journal - Peer Review Process File

Figure 1 GSK2578215A dose titration in BMDM WT macrophages. Data shows mean + SEM of three independent experiments. I am not pleased about the "please see comments above" for my third concern. I agree that this could be the work of a new post-doc that will benefit from solid preliminary findings and substantial funding from the recently secured EU-ERC-CSG grant in the team. Currently the results lack the molecular mechanisms, which are now expected in the TB field for high impact papers. Indeed, there are more and more host proteins involved in Mtb phagosome maturation and there is hardly any detailed mechanistic study about them. The Gutierrez team is in a privileged situation to make real breakthrough in this field and the field really counts on them. I understand the arbitrator’s frustration. I believe this study does provide a mechanistic link between LRRK2 and PI3K activity via Rubicon on phagosome function. This aspect is very important for research on the LRRK2 in general and goes beyond tuberculosis. There has been great interest over the last decade in LRRK2 function and this study reports for first time a cellular function for LRRK2 in macrophages. This work is therefore not only important for the TB field but also for investigators working on Parkinson’s disease, LRRK2 and innate immunity. I do agree that a mechanism linking the kinase activity of LRRK2 with phagosome function is crucial. However, working with this kinase is not an easy task. Only people working with this large kinase are aware of this and a key example is the fact that after 15 years of intensive research, the function of LRRK2 is still unknown. Moreover, we lack tools to investigate mechanisms in detail. It is likely that phosphorylation of Rab GTPases by LRRK2 contributes to the regulation of phagosome function. We are currently generating the tools to investigate this further. I hope our work will stimulate research on the cellular function of LRRK2 and its role in the innate immune response in general (as kindly suggested by arbitrator 2). At this point, I wonder whether the authors have uploaded the right supplementary files. The authors discuss about the LCE3II/LC3-I ratio; however, on the Fig S3 there is no WB quantification. We did not refer to LC3II/LC3I ratio in the text or discussion. The WB quantification in Fig S3 was originally included and it shows the LC3II/tubulin ratio. The WB signal ratio between LC3-I and LC3-II has been used to determine changes in the extent of autophagy. However, due to differential levels of expression, a consensus has emerged whereby overall levels of LC3-II are normalized to a loading control, such as α-tubulin (Kimura et al., 2009).

3rd Editorial Decision

24 April 2018

Thank you for submitting your final revised manuscript for our consideration. After having assessed your final referee responses and carefully gone through all materials, I am pleased to inform you that we have now accepted it for publication in The EMBO Journal!

© European Molecular Biology Organization

7

EMBO  PRESS   YOU  MUST  COMPLETE  ALL  CELLS  WITH  A  PINK  BACKGROUND  ê PLEASE  NOTE  THAT  THIS  CHECKLIST  WILL  BE  PUBLISHED  ALONGSIDE  YOUR  PAPER

USEFUL  LINKS  FOR  COMPLETING  THIS  FORM

Corresponding  Author  Name:  Maximiliano  Gutierrez  and  Matthias  Trost Journal  Submitted  to:  EMBO  Journal Manuscript  Number:    EMBOJ-­‐2017-­‐98694R

http://www.antibodypedia.com http://1degreebio.org

Reporting  Checklist  For  Life  Sciences  Articles  (Rev.  June  2017)

http://www.equator-­‐network.org/reporting-­‐guidelines/improving-­‐bioscience-­‐research-­‐reporting-­‐the-­‐arrive-­‐guideline

This  checklist  is  used  to  ensure  good  reporting  standards  and  to  improve  the  reproducibility  of  published  results.  These  guidelines  are   consistent  with  the  Principles  and  Guidelines  for  Reporting  Preclinical  Research  issued  by  the  NIH  in  2014.  Please  follow  the  journal’s   authorship  guidelines  in  preparing  your  manuscript.    

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/olaw.htm http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/Ethicsresearchguidance/Useofanimals/index.htm

A-­‐  Figures   1.  Data The  data  shown  in  figures  should  satisfy  the  following  conditions:

http://ClinicalTrials.gov http://www.consort-­‐statement.org http://www.consort-­‐statement.org/checklists/view/32-­‐consort/66-­‐title

è the  data  were  obtained  and  processed  according  to  the  field’s  best  practice  and  are  presented  to  reflect  the  results  of  the   experiments  in  an  accurate  and  unbiased  manner. è figure  panels  include  only  data  points,  measurements  or  observations  that  can  be  compared  to  each  other  in  a  scientifically   meaningful  way. è graphs  include  clearly  labeled  error  bars  for  independent  experiments  and  sample  sizes.  Unless  justified,  error  bars  should   not  be  shown  for  technical  replicates. è if  n<  5,  the  individual  data  points  from  each  experiment  should  be  plotted  and  any  statistical  test  employed  should  be   justified è Source  Data  should  be  included  to  report  the  data  underlying  graphs.  Please  follow  the  guidelines  set  out  in  the  author  ship   guidelines  on  Data  Presentation.

http://www.equator-­‐network.org/reporting-­‐guidelines/reporting-­‐recommendations-­‐for-­‐tumour-­‐marker-­‐prognostic-­‐s http://datadryad.org http://figshare.com http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ega

2.  Captions

http://biomodels.net/

Each  figure  caption  should  contain  the  following  information,  for  each  panel  where  they  are  relevant: è è è è

http://biomodels.net/miriam/ http://jjj.biochem.sun.ac.za http://oba.od.nih.gov/biosecurity/biosecurity_documents.html http://www.selectagents.gov/

a  specification  of  the  experimental  system  investigated  (eg  cell  line,  species  name). the  assay(s)  and  method(s)  used  to  carry  out  the  reported  observations  and  measurements   an  explicit  mention  of  the  biological  and  chemical  entity(ies)  that  are  being  measured. an  explicit  mention  of  the  biological  and  chemical  entity(ies)  that  are  altered/varied/perturbed  in  a  controlled  manner.

è the  exact  sample  size  (n)  for  each  experimental  group/condition,  given  as  a  number,  not  a  range; è a  description  of  the  sample  collection  allowing  the  reader  to  understand  whether  the  samples  represent  technical  or   biological  replicates  (including  how  many  animals,  litters,  cultures,  etc.). è a  statement  of  how  many  times  the  experiment  shown  was  independently  replicated  in  the  laboratory. è definitions  of  statistical  methods  and  measures: Ÿ common  tests,  such  as  t-­‐test  (please  specify  whether  paired  vs.  unpaired),  simple  χ2  tests,  Wilcoxon  and  Mann-­‐Whitney   tests,  can  be  unambiguously  identified  by  name  only,  but  more  complex  techniques  should  be  described  in  the  methods   section; Ÿ are  tests  one-­‐sided  or  two-­‐sided? Ÿ are  there  adjustments  for  multiple  comparisons? Ÿ exact  statistical  test  results,  e.g.,  P  values  =  x  but  not  P  values  <  x; Ÿ definition  of  ‘center  values’  as  median  or  average; Ÿ definition  of  error  bars  as  s.d.  or  s.e.m.   Any  descriptions  too  long  for  the  figure  legend  should  be  included  in  the  methods  section  and/or  with  the  source  data.  

In  the  pink  boxes  below,  please  ensure  that  the  answers  to  the  following  questions  are  reported  in  the  manuscript  itself.   Every  question  should  be  answered.  If  the  question  is  not  relevant  to  your  research,  please  write  NA  (non  applicable).     We  encourage  you  to  include  a  specific  subsection  in  the  methods  section  for  statistics,  reagents,  animal  models  and  human   subjects.    

B-­‐  Statistics  and  general  methods

Please  fill  out  these  boxes  ê  (Do  not  worry  if  you  cannot  see  all  your  text  once  you  press  return)

1.a.  How  was  the  sample  size  chosen  to  ensure  adequate  power  to  detect  a  pre-­‐specified  effect  size?

Empirically  determined  in  respect  of  previous  experiments.    At  least  two  independent  experiments   were  conducted  containing  technical  triplicates  per  experiments.  

1.b.  For  animal  studies,  include  a  statement  about  sample  size  estimate  even  if  no  statistical  methods  were  used.

Sample  size  determined  by  knowing  variation  from  previous  experiments  

2.  Describe  inclusion/exclusion  criteria  if  samples  or  animals  were  excluded  from  the  analysis.  Were  the  criteria  pre-­‐ established?

Animals  that  yielded  zero  CFU  at  early  time  points  were  considered  to  be  under  the  dection  limit   of  the  assay  and  therefore  excluded  from  the  CFU  analysis.  

3.  Were  any  steps  taken  to  minimize  the  effects  of  subjective  bias  when  allocating  animals/samples  to  treatment  (e.g.   randomization  procedure)?  If  yes,  please  describe.  

Animals  were  randomly  distributed  over  cages  after  infection.  Each  cage  was  allocated  a  time   point  randomly.  

For  animal  studies,  include  a  statement  about  randomization  even  if  no  randomization  was  used.

As  above.  

4.a.  Were  any  steps  taken  to  minimize  the  effects  of  subjective  bias  during  group  allocation  or/and  when  assessing  results   All  marker  association  analysed  using  immunofluorescence  data  was  quantified  by  an  automated   (e.g.  blinding  of  the  investigator)?  If  yes  please  describe. macro  using  ImageJ  software.  During  image  acquisition,  the  channel  visualising  the  marker  in   question,  was  not  visible  for  the  researcher.   4.b.  For  animal  studies,  include  a  statement  about  blinding  even  if  no  blinding  was  done

Research  personell  conducting  the  animal  studies  were  not  blinded.  However,  experiments  and   analysis  were  conducted  by  different  people.  The  person  analysing  the  data  (eg  histology)  was   blinded  by  receiving  data  coded  as  animal  1,  2,  etc.    

5.  For  every  figure,  are  statistical  tests  justified  as  appropriate?

Yes

Do  the  data  meet  the  assumptions  of  the  tests  (e.g.,  normal  distribution)?  Describe  any  methods  used  to  assess  it.

Yes,  normal  distribution  was  assessed  using  F  test  in  Prism

Is  there  an  estimate  of  variation  within  each  group  of  data?

Yes

Is  the  variance  similar  between  the  groups  that  are  being  statistically  compared?

Yes

C-­‐  Reagents 6.  To  show  that  antibodies  were  profiled  for  use  in  the  system  under  study  (assay  and  species),  provide  a  citation,  catalog   Supplier  information  and  catalog  and  clone  numbers  are  provided  in  the  Materials  and  Methods   number  and/or  clone  number,  supplementary  information  or  reference  to  an  antibody  validation  profile.  e.g.,   section  for  all  antibodies  used.   Antibodypedia  (see  link  list  at  top  right),  1DegreeBio  (see  link  list  at  top  right). 7.  Identify  the  source  of  cell  lines  and  report  if  they  were  recently  authenticated  (e.g.,  by  STR  profiling)  and  tested  for   mycoplasma  contamination.

WT  and  LRRK2  KO  RAW264.7  macrophages  were  optained  from  ATCC  prior  to  this  study,   maintained  at  the  cell  service  facility  of  the  Francis  Crick  Institute.    The  cells  are  frequently  tested   for  mycoplasma  contamination  at  the  facility.  

*  for  all  hyperlinks,  please  see  the  table  at  the  top  right  of  the  document

D-­‐  Animal  Models 8.  Report  species,  strain,  gender,  age  of  animals  and  genetic  modification  status  where  applicable.  Please  detail  housing   and  husbandry  conditions  and  the  source  of  animals.

Species.  Gender,  age,  genetic  modifications  and  housing,  husbandry  conditions  and  source  of   animals  are  as  described  in  Material  and  Methods.  

9.  For  experiments  involving  live  vertebrates,  include  a  statement  of  compliance  with  ethical  regulations  and  identify  the   Ethical  statement  can  be  found  in  Materials  and  Methods  section.   committee(s)  approving  the  experiments.

10.  We  recommend  consulting  the  ARRIVE  guidelines  (see  link  list  at  top  right)  (PLoS  Biol.  8(6),  e1000412,  2010)  to  ensure   Confirmed.   that  other  relevant  aspects  of  animal  studies  are  adequately  reported.  See  author  guidelines,  under  ‘Reporting   Guidelines’.  See  also:  NIH  (see  link  list  at  top  right)  and  MRC  (see  link  list  at  top  right)  recommendations.    Please  confirm   compliance.

E-­‐  Human  Subjects 11.  Identify  the  committee(s)  approving  the  study  protocol.

National  Health  Service,  Health  Research  Authority,  NRES  Committee  South  Central  –  Berkshire,   UK,  -­‐  REC  10/H0505/71

12.  Include  a  statement  confirming  that  informed  consent  was  obtained  from  all  subjects  and  that  the  experiments   conformed  to  the  principles  set  out  in  the  WMA  Declaration  of  Helsinki  and  the  Department  of  Health  and  Human   Services  Belmont  Report.

Consent  statement  can  be  found  in  Materials  and  Methods

13.  For  publication  of  patient  photos,  include  a  statement  confirming  that  consent  to  publish  was  obtained.

NA

14.  Report  any  restrictions  on  the  availability  (and/or  on  the  use)  of  human  data  or  samples.

NA

15.  Report  the  clinical  trial  registration  number  (at  ClinicalTrials.gov  or  equivalent),  where  applicable.

NA

16.  For  phase  II  and  III  randomized  controlled  trials,  please  refer  to  the  CONSORT  flow  diagram  (see  link  list  at  top  right)   and  submit  the  CONSORT  checklist  (see  link  list  at  top  right)  with  your  submission.  See  author  guidelines,  under   ‘Reporting  Guidelines’.  Please  confirm  you  have  submitted  this  list.

NA

17.  For  tumor  marker  prognostic  studies,  we  recommend  that  you  follow  the  REMARK  reporting  guidelines  (see  link  list  at   NA top  right).  See  author  guidelines,  under  ‘Reporting  Guidelines’.  Please  confirm  you  have  followed  these  guidelines.

F-­‐  Data  Accessibility 18:  Provide  a  “Data  Availability”  section  at  the  end  of  the  Materials  &  Methods,  listing  the  accession  codes  for  data   generated  in  this  study  and  deposited  in  a  public  database  (e.g.  RNA-­‐Seq  data:  Gene  Expression  Omnibus  GSE39462,   Proteomics  data:  PRIDE  PXD000208  etc.)  Please  refer  to  our  author  guidelines  for  ‘Data  Deposition’.

Data  availability  statement  can  be  found  in  Materials  and  Methods.

Data  deposition  in  a  public  repository  is  mandatory  for:   a.  Protein,  DNA  and  RNA  sequences   b.  Macromolecular  structures   c.  Crystallographic  data  for  small  molecules   d.  Functional  genomics  data   e.  Proteomics  and  molecular  interactions 19.  Deposition  is  strongly  recommended  for  any  datasets  that  are  central  and  integral  to  the  study;  please  consider  the   Data  availability  statement  can  be  found  in  Materials  and  Methods. journal’s  data  policy.  If  no  structured  public  repository  exists  for  a  given  data  type,  we  encourage  the  provision  of   datasets  in  the  manuscript  as  a  Supplementary  Document  (see  author  guidelines  under  ‘Expanded  View’  or  in   unstructured  repositories  such  as  Dryad  (see  link  list  at  top  right)  or  Figshare  (see  link  list  at  top  right). 20.  Access  to  human  clinical  and  genomic  datasets  should  be  provided  with  as  few  restrictions  as  possible  while   NA respecting  ethical  obligations  to  the  patients  and  relevant  medical  and  legal  issues.  If  practically  possible  and  compatible   with  the  individual  consent  agreement  used  in  the  study,  such  data  should  be  deposited  in  one  of  the  major  public  access-­‐ controlled  repositories  such  as  dbGAP  (see  link  list  at  top  right)  or  EGA  (see  link  list  at  top  right). 21.  Computational  models  that  are  central  and  integral  to  a  study  should  be  shared  without  restrictions  and  provided  in  a   NA machine-­‐readable  form.    The  relevant  accession  numbers  or  links  should  be  provided.  When  possible,  standardized   format  (SBML,  CellML)  should  be  used  instead  of  scripts  (e.g.  MATLAB).  Authors  are  strongly  encouraged  to  follow  the   MIRIAM  guidelines  (see  link  list  at  top  right)  and  deposit  their  model  in  a  public  database  such  as  Biomodels  (see  link  list   at  top  right)  or  JWS  Online  (see  link  list  at  top  right).  If  computer  source  code  is  provided  with  the  paper,  it  should  be   deposited  in  a  public  repository  or  included  in  supplementary  information.

G-­‐  Dual  use  research  of  concern 22.  Could  your  study  fall  under  dual  use  research  restrictions?  Please  check  biosecurity  documents  (see  link  list  at  top   right)  and  list  of  select  agents  and  toxins  (APHIS/CDC)  (see  link  list  at  top  right).  According  to  our  biosecurity  guidelines,   provide  a  statement  only  if  it  could.

No