Fig 2: The plxnd1skt6 allele encodes a functional Plxnd1 receptor putatively impaired in GIPC binding, and its homozygosity induces angiogenesis deficits with low frequency.(A, B) Diagrams of the cytosolic tails of the zebrafish Plxnd1 proteins encoded by the WT (A) and plxnd1skt6 mutant (B) alleles including their C-terminal amino acid sequences. Color-coding is used to highlight the following domains and motifs. GAP1 and GAP2 (Guanosine triphosphatase-Activating Protein domains 1 (left) and 2 (right); black), RBD (Rho GTPase-Binding Domain; green), T-segment (C-terminal segment, includes the GBM; blue), and GBM (GIPC-Binding Motif; magenta). In the WT protein diagram (A), the canonical PBM (PDZ-Binding Motif) is underlined. In the mutant protein diagram (B), the thin horizontal red bar denotes the amino acid sequence replacing the PBM. (C–H) Confocal lateral images of the trunk vasculature (green) of 32 hpf embryos (region dorsal to the yolk extension). Anterior, left; dorsal, up. Scale bars (white horizontal lines), 100 µm. Genotypes indicated on top of each image in yellow font. Angiogenesis deficits are indicated with asterisks as follows: white (DLAV gaps), magenta (truncated Se). In the WT image (C), the vessels are designated with the white font as follows: DLAV (Dorsal Longitudinal Anastomotic Vessel), Se (Segmental Vessel), DA (Dorsal Aorta), and PCV (Posterior Cardinal Vein). The homozygous WT and homozygous plxnd1skt6 mutant embryos (F–H) are siblings derived from the incross of plxnd1skt6/+heterozygotes. (I) Bar graph. Percentage of Se-DLAV in 32 hpf embryos of the indicated genotypes belonging to each of the following four phenotypic classes. Truncated: maximal (red; includes missing Se), moderate (yellow), and minimal (gray). Non-truncated: Full (black). There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of the four phenotypic classes between WT and plxnd1skt6 mutants as assessed by a two-sided Fisher Exact test, p=0.05905. Quantifications. To determine whether plxnd1skt6 complements the plxnd1fov01b null, we analyzed vascular patterning (C–E) and scored Se-DLAV angiogenesis (C, E) in embryos of the following three genotypes: WT (124 Se-DLAV, 11 embryos, an average of 11.27 Se-DLAV/embryo), plxnd1fov01b homozygotes (12 embryos), and plxnd1fov01b/plxnd1fov01b transheterozygotes (162 Se-DLAV, 16 embryos, an average of 10.13 Se-DLAV/embryo). All the WT and transheterozygotes displayed proper vascular patterns indistinguishable from each other and lacked Se-DLAV truncations. All the plxnd1fov01b mutants displayed hyperangiogenic vascular mispatterning. To determine how Plxnd1’s inability to interact with GIPCs impacts angiogenic growth, we scored Se-DLAV angiogenesis (F–I) in sibling embryos of the following two genotypes: Homozygous WT (126 Se-DLAV, 12 embryos, an average of 10.5 Se-DLAV/embryo) and plxnd1skt6 homozygous mutants (124 Se-DLAV, 12 embryos, an average of 10.33 Se-DLAV/embryo). For additional data, graphs and statistical comparisons related to this figure, see Figure 2—figure supplement 1 and Supplementary file 3.

Fig 3: Removal of plxnd1 activity from gipc1skt1(MZ); gipc2skt4(MZ) maternal-zygotic (MZ) double mutants yields a phenotype similar to that of plxnd1 nulls.(A–D) Confocal lateral images of the trunk vasculature (green) of 32 hpf embryos (region dorsal to the yolk extension). Anterior, left; dorsal, up. Scale bars (white horizontal lines), 100 µm. Morpholino injection (un-injected or injected with plxnd1 morpholino) indicated on top, genotypes (WT or gipc1skt1(MZ); gipc2skt4(MZ)) indicated on the left. The un-injected WT picture (A) shows the names of the major vessels in white font: DLAV (Dorsal Longitudinal Anastomotic Vessel), Se (Segmental Vessel), DA (Dorsal Aorta), and PCV (Posterior Cardinal Vein). Vascular defects highlighted as follows: truncated or missing Se (magenta asterisk), thin Se (white greater/less-than signs), DLAV gaps (white asterisk). Quantifications. The following number of embryos were analyzed: WT (four embryos), WT injected with plxnd1 morpholino (four embryos; 4/4 showed a vascular phenotype similar to that of plxnd1fov01b nulls), gipc1skt1(MZ); gipc2skt4(MZ) (12 embryos; 7/12 showed angiogenesis deficits), and gipc1skt1(MZ); gipc2skt4(MZ) injected with plxnd1 morpholino (11 embryos; 11/11 showed a vascular phenotype similar to that of plxnd1fov01b nulls).

Fig 4: PLXND1’s C-terminal GBM and GIPC's GH1 and PDZ domains are the key molecular determinants of the PLXND1-GIPC interaction.(A) Diagrams of the wild-type (WT) and truncated V5-tagged (red) forms of the cytosolic tail of murine PLXND1 (V5-C-mPLXND1) used for co-immunoprecipitation experiments. Color-coding is used to highlight the following domains and motifs. GAP1 and GAP2 (Guanosine triphosphatase-Activating Protein domains 1 and 2; black), RBD (Rho GTPase-Binding Domain; green), T-segment (C-terminal segment, includes the GBM; blue) and, GBM (GIPC-Binding Motif; magenta); see (Gay et al., 2011). (B) Diagrams of the wild-type (WT) and truncated FLAG-tagged (purple) forms of murine GIPC1 (FLAG-mGIPC) used for co-immunoprecipitation experiments. Domains indicated as follows: PDZ (PSD-95/Dlg/ZO-1; green) and GH (GIPC Homology domain) 1 (blue) and 2 (orange); see (Katoh, 2013). (C) Western blots (top) and their quantification (bottom, bar graphs). Numbers indicate lane positions. Left-side Western blot (IPFLAG): FLAG immunoprecipitates and V5 co-immunoprecipitates showing interactions between the indicated V5-C-mPLXND1 and FLAG-mGIPC forms. Right-side Western blot (TCL), expression levels of these proteins in total cell lysates as detected with V5 and FLAG antibodies. Quantifications. n = 3 independent experiments for each protein pair. Left-side bar graph (C). Means of percentual V5/FLAG relative binding [(V5CoIP/V5TCL)/(FLAGIP/FLAGTCL)] between the indicated protein pairs from the IPFLAG Western blot (top left) and the relative abundance of the expression levels of these proteins from the TCL Western blot (top right). Error bars, ± SEM. V5/FLAG relative binding was significantly different (p<0.05) between V5-C-mPLXND1 forms and FLAG-mGIPC, F(2, 6)=22.376, p=0.002, as determined by a one-way ANOVA test. A Tukey post hoc analysis was conducted to determine whether the percentual V5/FLAG relative binding between the three tested pairs of proteins was significantly different (p<0.05; asterisks). Right-side bar graph (C). Means of percentual V5TCL/FLAGTCL relative abundance between the indicated protein pairs from the TCL Western blot (top right). Error bars, ± SEM. A Kruskal-Wallis H test was conducted to determine significant differences (p<0.05) in V5TCL/FLAGTCL relative abundance between the indicated protein pairs. Distributions of V5TCL/FLAGTCL relative abundance were not similar for all groups. The medians of V5TCL/FLAGTCL relative abundances were 92.64 (for V5-C-mPLXND1WT/FLAG-mGIPC1), 87.79 (for V5-C-mPLXND1?CYSEA/FLAG-mGIPC1), and 96.22 (for V5-C-mPLXND1?GBM/FLAG-mGIPC1), but were not statistically significantly different between them (Ramasamy et al., 2015), ?(2)=0.8, p=0.670. (D) Western blots: Top (IPFLAG), FLAG immunoprecipitates and their V5 co-immunoprecipitates showing interactions between the indicated V5-C-mPLXND1 and FLAG-mGIPC forms; bottom, (TCL) detection of the expression levels of these proteins in total cell lysates using antibodies against V5 and FLAG. n = 3 independent experiments for each protein pair. For additional data and statistical comparisons related to this figure, see Supplementary file 1, Supplementary file 2 and Supplementary file 8.

Fig 5: GIPC depletion potentiates SEMA3E-induced, PLXND1-dependent ERK inactivation in HUVEC/TERT2 cells.(A–D) Representative Western blot of active ERK1/2 (pERK) and total ERK1/2 (ERKTotal) from total cell lysates of HUVEC/TERT2 cells under the four conditions (shRNA and gRNA combinations) and the three ligand treatments indicated. Conditions. Control (A; bold black font), PLXND1 loss (B; bold red font), GIPC loss (C; bold green font), and GIPC-PLXND1 double loss (D; bold blue font). Treatments. Vehicle (-) and 2 nM SEMA3E for the indicated times. Cells stably carried a vector coexpressing the Cas9 nuclease and the indicated gRNAs. The alleles of the PLXND1 gRNAs (KOs) are stable and defined (see Supplementary file 1 and Supplementary file 8). (E) Bar graph. Means of percentual relative ERK activity (pERK/ERKTotal) under the described conditions (color coded as above) and treatments. Error bars, ± SEM. Relative ERK activity. Statistically significant differences between pairwise combinations of conditions and treatments are indicated (brackets and asterisks). Quantifications. n = 4 independent experiments per PLXND1 gRNA KO (for a pooled total of 8 experiments); n = 4 independent experiments per non-targeting gRNA (for a pooled total of 8 experiments). One-way ANOVA tests were conducted to determine whether relative ERK activity was significantly different between cells in the control, PLXND1 loss, GIPC loss, and GIPC-PLXND1 double loss conditions across each treatment. There were no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. Relative ERK activity data were normally distributed, for each treatment, as determined by Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p>0.05) except for the SEMA3E 15 min treatment; p=0.031. There was homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene's test (p>0.05) for equality of variances in all conditions. One-way ANOVA tests summary. Relative ERK activity was not statistically significantly different between conditions under vehicle treatment (F(3, 28)=0.004, p=1). Relative ERK activity was statistically significantly different between conditions under SEMA3E 15 min treatment (F(3, 28)=10.291, p<0.0005), effect size was ?2 = 0.46. Relative ERK activity was statistically significantly different between conditions under SEMA3E 45 min treatment (F(3, 28)=28.738, p<0.0005), effect size was ?2 = 0.72. Summary of the four statistically significant differences revealed by Tukey post hoc analysis (between conditions under SEMA3E 15 min treatment). Control versus PLXND1 loss was statistically significantly different (p<0.05): (95% CI (17.2450 to 67.2680); p=0.001). Control versus GIPC- PLXND1 double loss was statistically significantly different (p<0.05): (95% CI (-80.9622 to -12.0628); p=0.005). GIPC loss versus PLXND1 loss was statistically significantly different (p<0.05): (95% CI (17.1753 to 86.0747); p=0.002). GIPC loss versus GIPC-PLXND1 double loss was statistically significantly different (p<0.05): (95% CI (-90.0872 to -21.1878); p=0.001). Summary of the five statistically significant differences revealed by Tukey post hoc analysis (between conditions under SEMA3E 45 min treatment). Control versus PLXND1 loss was statistically significantly different (p<0.05): (95% CI (-59.2432 to -16.5068); p<0.0005). Control versus GIPC-PLXND1 double loss was statistically significantly different (p<0.05): (95% CI (-57.3307 to -14.5943); p<0.0005). GIPC loss versus PLXND1 loss was statistically significantly different (p<0.05): (95% CI 39.9193 to 82.6557); p<0.0005). GIPC loss versus GIPC-PLXND1 loss was statistically significantly different (p<0.05): (95% CI-80.7432 to -38.0068); p<0.0005). Control versus GIPC loss was statistically significantly different (p<0.05): (95% CI (2.0443 to 44.7807); p=0.028). For additional data, graphs, and statistical comparisons related to this figure, see Supplementary file 7.