
==== Front
J Transl Med
J Transl Med
Journal of Translational Medicine
1479-5876
BioMed Central London

5365
10.1186/s12967-024-05365-7
Letter to the Editor
Beware of the structural heterogeneity among SIRPB1 isoforms
Alarcón-Martín E 12
Bravo MJ mjbravo@uma.es

1
Royo JL jlroyo@uma.es

1
1 https://ror.org/036b2ww28 grid.10215.37 0000 0001 2298 7828 Departamento de Especialidades Quirúrgicas, Bioquímica e Inmunología, Facultad de Medicina, University of Malaga, Málaga, Spain
2 https://ror.org/00tse2b39 grid.410675.1 0000 0001 2325 3084 Research Center and Memory Clinic, ACE Alzheimer Center Barcelona, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
9 9 2024
9 9 2024
2024
22 83028 5 2024
30 5 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100017048 ACE Foundation ACE Foundation Fundación SantAngelaFundación SantAngela issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcTo the Editor,

It has been recently published that the SIRPB1 expression is upregulated in gliomas, which had an adverse effect on the immune milieu and correlated poorly with patient survival [1]. Geng and coworkers show SIRPB1 activation by a specific antibody results in SYK phosphorylation and subsequent activation of the signaling pathway. Co-culture experiments demonstrated that macrophages with SIRPB1 knockout showed decreased IL1RA, CCL2, and IL-8, which were recovered upon ectopic expression of SIRPB1 but reduced again following treatment with SYK inhibitor. Critically, lower overall survival rates were associated to increased SIRPB1 expression. This is not the first time that the role of SIRPB1 has been analyzed in the context of solid tumors. In prostate cancer, inhibiting SIRPB1 lowers CDK4 expression, which reduced prostate cancer cell proliferation by arresting the cell cycle in cell xenografts [2]. In these cells, SIRPB1 downstream pathway was associated to increasing AKT phosphorylation what was found crucial for prostate cancer cell proliferation. In addition, it has also been reported that SIRPB1 participates in breast cancer progression [3]. Chen and coworkers reported that the engulfment of mesenchymal stem cells by cancer cells leads to significant changes in gene expression profiles of breast cancer cells, with an upregulation of genes encoding extracellular and cell surface proteins including SIRPB1. In the context of the interaction between breast cancer cells and mesenchymal stem cells, SIRPB1 could be involved in promoting invasion and metastasis by facilitating the interaction between cancer cells and mesenchymal stem cells in the tumor microenvironment.

All these studies refer to SIRPB1 as a 398 aa-long membrane protein with an apparent weight of 55 kDa. However recent genetic and molecular studies reveal that the SIRPB1 locus contains a common copy-number variation (CNV), represented by a frequent (≈ 20%, minor allele frequency) insertion found in all human populations. The insertion allele changes the SIRPB1 protein structure leading to four different protein-coding isoforms [4]. This implies that approximately 36% of the general population contains at least one copy of the insertion allele and therefore their immune cells express not only the most common one, named isoform 205, but also isoforms 201, 202 and 204 depending on their specific genotype (Table 1).

Table 1 Description of the SIRPB1 isoforms

SIRPB1 Isoform	Alternative name	Length	UniProt	SIRPB1 CNV genotype	
Del/Del	Ins/Del	Ins/Ins	
201		180	H9KV29	NO	YES	YES	
202	213	398	Q5TFQ8-1	NO	YES	YES	
204		181	O00241-2	YES	YES	NO	
205		398	O00241-1	YES	YES	YES	
The table presents a brief description of the SIRPB1 isoforms. Only those leading to full-length protein-coding isoforms were include. The corresponding UniProt code is provided. SIRPB1 copy-number genotype is illustrated as Deletion (Del) or insertion (Ins)

Differences among these isoforms are not minor and affect both gene expression and protein structure. Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) data available for SIRPB1 shows that isoform 205 exhibits the highest expression levels, followed by 204 and finally 201. Isoform 202 shows minimal expression in any tissue. However, isoform 213 shares the same resulting protein with different messenger RNA and exhibits slightly more ubiquitous expression (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Heatmap generated from GTEx data, illustrating the tissue expression of RNA from SIRPB1 gene isoforms. The isoforms selected for this study due to their ability to encode proteins are highlighted in red. Additionally, isoforms preselected that share amino acid sequences with the isoforms highlighted in red are marked in orange

From the protein-structure point of view, we also find differences among their structural domains. Interpro analysis revealed that all SIRPB1 isoforms feature a signal peptide, concordant with their membrane subcellular localization of all isoforms. However, they differ in the number of Ig-like domains: one for SIRPB1-201 and − 204, while three for SIRPB1-202 and − 205. This also implicates that the western-blot analysis available in the literature showing a unique 55 kDa band is only compatible with isoforms 202 and 205 (Fig. 2), while > 35% of the population also express isoforms 201 and 204.

Fig. 2 The image displays the different domains of SIRPB1 isoforms. In green, we have the signal peptide; in dark blue, the Ig-LikeV domain; in light blue, the Ig-LikeC domain; in brown, the transmembrane domain; and in pink, the cytosolic domain. The values below mark the cysteines that are not relevant for dimerization, either because they are in the signal peptide or because they form a disulfide bridge (marked with a red connection between two values). The remaining cysteines available for potential dimerization are marked in red, as well as the charged lysines of the transmembrane domain

These structural differences are crucial as they may be involved in the protein’s function and their implication in different pathologies. The extracellular domains are responsible for interacting with potential ligands or associated proteins. We have recently described that isoforms 201 and 205 are capable of inducing beta-amyloid phagocytosis via DAP12 in transfected HEK293 cells, while isoforms 202 and 204 do not. The ligands in a solid tumor context still remain elusive. Regarding dimerization, we should highlight that Liu and coworkers reported the effect of point mutation assays, what defined SIRPB1 as a homodimer, with cysteine 320 being key to the structure [4]. However, only isoform 205 contains this cysteine, which suggests that the other three isoforms might be functional as monomers. Finally, we have to take into account that SIRPB1 does not contain an intracellular domain, which turns its transmembrane domain as a crucial way of transducing the extracellular signal. Again, we find here a key difference between isoforms. While isoforms 201, 204, and 205 share the same transmembrane domain, isoform 202 has an alternative sequence. When theie binding affinity for DAP12 transmembrane domain was evaluated in vitro, we found that isoform 204 transmembrane domain has a lower affinity for DAP12 [5]. With all these data in mind, a detail evaluation of the technical aspects of the literature, including the last paper described by Geng and coworkers [1], showed that the conclusions are based on just one of these isoforms: SIRPB1-205. This does not invalidate Geng’s team data, but might be limiting our comprehension of the true role of SIRPB1 in solid tumor progression. Thus, future studies shall consider the SIRPB1 protein structure heterogeneity to determine which isoform/s are implicated in the different phenotypes studied so far.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Fundació ACE (Barcelona) and Fundación SantAngela (Sevilla) their support.

Author contributions

EA-M performed the structural analysis. MJB and JLR conceived and wrote the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by OTRI contracts from Fundació ACE (Barcelona) and Fundacion SantAngela (Sevilla).

Data availability

All data for this study are publicly available.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare no competing financial interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

MJ Bravo and JL Royo contributed equally to this work.
==== Refs
References

1. Geng R Zhao Y Xu W Ma X Jiang Y Han X Zhao L Li Y SIRPB1 regulates inflammatory factor expression in the glioma microenvironment via SYK: functional and bioinformatics insights J Transl Med 2024 22 338 10.1186/s12967-024-05149-z 38594692
Geng R, Zhao Y, Xu W, Ma X, Jiang Y, Han X, Zhao L, Li Y. SIRPB1 regulates inflammatory factor expression in the glioma microenvironment via SYK: functional and bioinformatics insights. J Transl Med. 2024;22:338.38594692 10.1186/s12967-024-05149-z
2. Qiong Song S Qin LE Pascal C Zou W Wang H Tong J Zhang WJ Catalona R Dhir M Morrell GK Balasubramani Yi Lu, Zhou Wang SIRPB1 promotes prostate Cancer cell proliferation via akt activation Prostate 2020 80 352 64 10.1002/pros.23950 31905248
Qiong Song S, Qin LE, Pascal C, Zou W, Wang H, Tong J, Zhang WJ, Catalona R, Dhir M, Morrell GK, Balasubramani. Yi Lu, Zhou Wang SIRPB1 promotes prostate Cancer cell proliferation via akt activation. Prostate. 2020;80:352–64.31905248 10.1002/pros.23950
3. Chen YC Gonzalez ME Burman B Zhao X Anwar T Tran M Medhora N Hiziroglu AB Lee W Cheng YH Choi Y Yoon E Kleer CG Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal cell engulfment reveals metastatic advantage in breast Cancer Cell Rep 2019 25 3916 e39265 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.05.084
Chen YC, Gonzalez ME, Burman B, Zhao X, Anwar T, Tran M, Medhora N, Hiziroglu AB, Lee W, Cheng YH, Choi Y, Yoon E, Kleer CG. Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal cell engulfment reveals metastatic advantage in breast Cancer. Cell Rep. 2019;25:3916–e39265.10.1016/j.celrep.2019.05.084
4. Liu Y Soto I Tong Q Chin A Bühring HJ Wu T Zen K Parkos CA SIRPβ1 is expressed as a disulfide-linked homodimer in leukocytes and positively regulates neutrophil transepithelial migration J Biol Chem 2005 280 36132 40 10.1074/jbc.M506419200 16081415
Liu Y, Soto I, Tong Q, Chin A, Bühring HJ, Wu T, Zen K, Parkos CA. SIRPβ1 is expressed as a disulfide-linked homodimer in leukocytes and positively regulates neutrophil transepithelial migration. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:36132–40.16081415 10.1074/jbc.M506419200
5. García-Alberca JM de Rojas I Sánchez-Mejías E Garrido-Martín D González-Palma L Jiménez S Royo JL An insertion within SIRPβ1 shows a dual Effect over Alzheimer’s Disease Cognitive decline altering the Microglial response J Alzheimer’s Dis 2024 98 601 18 10.3233/JAD-231150 38427484
García-Alberca JM, de Rojas I, Sánchez-Mejías E, Garrido-Martín D, González-Palma L, Jiménez S, Royo JL. An insertion within SIRPβ1 shows a dual Effect over Alzheimer’s Disease Cognitive decline altering the Microglial response. J Alzheimer’s Dis. 2024;98:601–18.38427484 10.3233/JAD-231150
