Abstract

Efficient mitochondrial function is required in tissues with high energy demand such as the heart, and mitochondrial dysfunction is associated with cardiovascular disease. Expression of mitochondrial proteins is tightly regulated in response to internal and external stimuli. Here we identify a novel mechanism regulating mitochondrial content and function, through BUD23-dependent ribosome generation. BUD23 was required for ribosome maturation, normal 18S/28S stoichiometry and modulated the translation of mitochondrial transcripts in human A549 cells. Deletion of Bud23 in murine cardiomyocytes reduced mitochondrial content and function, leading to severe cardiomyopathy and death. We discovered that BUD23 selectively promotes ribosomal interaction with low GC-content 5'UTRs. Taken together we identify a critical role for BUD23 in bioenergetics gene expression, by promoting efficient translation of mRNA transcripts with low 5'UTR GC content. BUD23 emerges as essential to mouse development, and to postnatal cardiac function.

Data availability

RNAseq data have been deposited to ArrayExpress, under the accession code E-MTAB-8673. All proteomics data is included in the supporting files, and raw data have been deposited to PRIDE under the accession code PXD017019.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Matthew Baxter

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    matthew.baxter@ocdem.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3612-2574
  2. Maria Voronkov

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Toryn Poolman

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Gina Galli

    Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Christian Pinali

    Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Laurence Goosey

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Abigail Knight

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Karolina Krakowiak

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Robert Maidstone

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Mudassar Iqbal

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Min Zi

    Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Sukhpal Prehar

    Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Elizabeth J Cartwright

    Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Julie Gibbs

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Laura C Matthews

    Leeds Institute of Medical Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Antony D Adamson

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Neil E Humphreys

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Pedro Rebelo-Guiomar

    Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Michal Minczuk

    Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8242-1420
  20. David A Bechtold

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Andrew Loudon

    Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. David Ray

    OCDEM, University of Oxford, Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    david.ray@ocdem.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Medical Research Council (MR/L010240/1)

  • David Ray

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ulrike Topf, Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were carried out in strict accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (UK) and protocols were approved by an internal ethics committee at the University of Manchester. Every effort was made to minimize suffering. Home office project licence 70/8768 and P3A97F3D1.

Version history

  1. Received: July 30, 2019
  2. Accepted: December 24, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 15, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 5, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Baxter et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,499
    views
  • 376
    downloads
  • 10
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Matthew Baxter
  2. Maria Voronkov
  3. Toryn Poolman
  4. Gina Galli
  5. Christian Pinali
  6. Laurence Goosey
  7. Abigail Knight
  8. Karolina Krakowiak
  9. Robert Maidstone
  10. Mudassar Iqbal
  11. Min Zi
  12. Sukhpal Prehar
  13. Elizabeth J Cartwright
  14. Julie Gibbs
  15. Laura C Matthews
  16. Antony D Adamson
  17. Neil E Humphreys
  18. Pedro Rebelo-Guiomar
  19. Michal Minczuk
  20. David A Bechtold
  21. Andrew Loudon
  22. David Ray
(2020)
Cardiac mitochondrial function depends on BUD23 mediated ribosome programming
eLife 9:e50705.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50705

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50705

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Jun Yang, Shitian Zou ... Xiaochun Bai
    Research Article

    Quiescence (G0) maintenance and exit are crucial for tissue homeostasis and regeneration in mammals. Here, we show that methyl-CpG binding protein 2 (Mecp2) expression is cell cycle-dependent and negatively regulates quiescence exit in cultured cells and in an injury-induced liver regeneration mouse model. Specifically, acute reduction of Mecp2 is required for efficient quiescence exit as deletion of Mecp2 accelerates, while overexpression of Mecp2 delays quiescence exit, and forced expression of Mecp2 after Mecp2 conditional knockout rescues cell cycle reentry. The E3 ligase Nedd4 mediates the ubiquitination and degradation of Mecp2, and thus facilitates quiescence exit. A genome-wide study uncovered the dual role of Mecp2 in preventing quiescence exit by transcriptionally activating metabolic genes while repressing proliferation-associated genes. Particularly disruption of two nuclear receptors, Rara or Nr1h3, accelerates quiescence exit, mimicking the Mecp2 depletion phenotype. Our studies unravel a previously unrecognized role for Mecp2 as an essential regulator of quiescence exit and tissue regeneration.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Stefanie Schmieder
    Insight

    Mutations in the gene for β-catenin cause liver cancer cells to release fewer exosomes, which reduces the number of immune cells infiltrating the tumor.