Protein disulfide isomerase A6 (PDIA6) interacts with protein kinase RNA‐like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) and inositol requiring enzyme (IRE)‐1 and inhibits their unfolded protein response signaling. In this study, shRNA silencing of PDIA6 expression in insulin‐producing mouse cells reduced insulin production (5‐fold) and, consequently, glucose‐stimulated insulin secretion (3‐4‐fold). This inhibition of insulin release was independent of the PDIA6‐PERK interaction or PERK activity. Acute inhibition of PERK did not change the short‐term response of β cells to glucose. Rather, PDIA6 affected insulin secretion by modulating one of the activities of IRE1. At 11 mM glucose and lower, the regulated IRE1‐dependent decay (RIDD) of the mRNA activity of IRE1 was activated, but not its X‐box binding protein (XBP)‐1 splicing activity. In the absence of PDIA6, RIDD activity toward insulin transcripts was enhanced up to 4‐fold, as shown by molecular assays in cultured cells and the use of a fluorescent reporter in intact islets. Such physiologic activation of IRE1 by glucose contrasted with IRE1 activation by chemical stress, when both IRE1 activities were induced. Thus, whereas the stimulus determines the quality of IRE1 signaling, PDIA6 attenuates multiple enzymatic activities of IRE1, maintaining its signaling within a physiologically tolerable range.—Eletto, D., Eletto, D., Boyle, S., Argon, Y. PDIA6 regulates insulin secretion by selectively inhibiting the RIDD activity of IRE1. FASEB J. 30, 653‐665 (2016). www.fasebj.org

The sensors of the unfolded protein response react to endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress by transient activation of their enzymatic activities, which initiate various signaling cascades. In addition, the sensor IRE1α exhibits stress‐induced clustering in a transient time frame similar to activation of its endoRNase activity. Previous work had suggested that the clustering response and RNase activity of IRE1α are functionally linked, but here we show that they are independent of each other and have different behaviors and modes of activation. Although both clustering and the RNase activity are responsive to luminal stress conditions and to depletion of the ER chaperone binding protein, RNase‐inactive IRE1α still clusters and, conversely, full RNase activity can be accomplished without clustering. The clusters formed by RNase‐inactive IRE1α are much larger and persist longer than those induced by ER stress. Clustering requires autophosphorylation, and an IRE1α mutant whose RNase domain is responsive to ligands that bind the kinase domain forms yet a third type of stress‐independent cluster, with distinct physical properties and half‐lives. These data suggest that IRE1α clustering can follow distinct pathways upon activation of the sensor.—Ricci, D., Marrocco, I., Blumenthal, D., Dibos, M., Eletto, D., Vargas, J., Boyle, S., Iwamoto, Y., Chomistek, S., Paton, J. C., Paton, A. W., Argon, Y. Clustering of IRE1α depends on sensing ER stress but not on its RNase activity. FASEB J. 33, 9811–9827 (2019). www.fasebj.org

ER stress leads to upregulation of multiple folding and quality control components, known as the unfolded protein response (UPR). Glucose Regulated Proteins 78 and 94 (GRP78/BiP and GRP94) are often upregulated coordinately as part of this homeostatic response. Given that ER chaperones have distinct sets of clients, we asked how cells respond to ablation of individual chaperones. The cellular responses to silencing BiP, GRP94, HSP47, PDIA6 and OS-9, were distinct. When BiP was silenced, a widespread UPR was observed, but when GRP94 was either inhibited or depleted by RNAi, the expression of only some genes, notably BiP and protein disulfide isomerase A6 (PDIA6) was induced. Silencing of HSP47 or OS-9 did not lead to any compensatory induction of other genes. The selective response to GRP94 depletion was distinct from a typical ER stress response, both because other UPR target genes were not affected and because the canonical UPR signaling branches were not activated. The response to silencing of GRP94 did not preclude further UPR induction when chemical stress was imposed. Importantly, re-expression of wild-type GRP94 in the silenced cells prevented the up-regulation of BiP and PDIA6, while re-expression of an ATPase-deficient GRP94 mutant did not, indicating that cells monitor the state of activity of GRP94. These findings suggest that cells are able to distinguish among folding resources and generate distinct responses.

Microbial infections are sensed by the host immune system by recognizing signature molecules called Pathogen-Associated Molecular Patterns—PAMPs. The binding of these biomolecules to innate immune receptors, called Pattern Recognition Receptors (PRRs), alerts the host cell, activating microbicidal and pro-inflammatory responses. The outcome of the inflammatory cascade depends on the subtle balance between the bacterial burn and the host immune response. The role of PRRs is to promote the clearance of the pathogen and to limit the infection by bumping inflammatory response. However, many bacteria, including Helicobacter pylori, evolved to escape PRRs’ recognition through different camouflages in their molecular pattern. This review examines all the different types of H. pylori PAMPs, their roles during the infection, and the mechanisms they evolved to escape the host recognition.