Abstract

Mitochondria influence cellular function through both cell-autonomous and non-cell autonomous mechanisms, such as production of paracrine and endocrine factors. Here, we demonstrate that mitochondrial regulation of the secretome is more extensive than previously appreciated, as both genetic and pharmacological disruption of the electron transport chain caused upregulation of the Alzheimer's disease risk factor apolipoprotein E (APOE) and other secretome components. Indirect disruption of the electron transport chain by gene editing of SLC25A mitochondrial membrane transporters as well as direct genetic and pharmacological disruption of either complexes I, III, or the copper-containing complex IV of the electron transport chain, elicited upregulation of APOE transcript, protein, and secretion, up to 49-fold. These APOE phenotypes were robustly expressed in diverse cell types and iPSC-derived human astrocytes as part of an inflammatory gene expression program. Moreover, age- and genotype-dependent decline in brain levels of respiratory complex I preceded an increase in APOE in the 5xFAD mouse model. We propose that mitochondria act as novel upstream regulators of APOE-dependent cellular processes in health and disease.

Data availability

The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE (Deutsch et al., 2020) partner repository with dataset identifiers: PXD038974 and PXD017501.RNAseq data were deposited in GEO with accession GSE201889

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Meghan E Wynne

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Oluwaseun Ogunbona

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alicia R Lane

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6404-7559
  4. Avanti Gokhale

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Stephanie A Zlatic

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Chongchong Xu

    Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Zhexing Wen

    Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Duc M Duong

    Department of Biochemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sruti Rayaprolu

    Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Anna Ivanova

    Department of Biochemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6221-6240
  11. Eric A Ortlund

    Department of Biochemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Eric B Dammer

    Department of Biochemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Nicholas T Seyfried

    Department of Biochemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Blaine R Roberts

    Department of Biochemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Amanda Crocker

    Program in Neuroscience, Middlebury College, Middlebury, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Vinit Shanbhag

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Missouri, Columbia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Michael Petris

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Missouri, Columbia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Nanami Senoo

    Department of Physiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Selvaraju Kandasamy

    Department of Physiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Steven Michael Claypool

    Department of Physiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5316-1623
  21. Antoni Barrientos

    Department of Neurology, University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9018-3231
  22. Aliza Wingo

    Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Thomas S Wingo

    Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7679-6282
  24. Srikant Rangaraju

    Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Allan I Levey

    Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3153-502X
  26. Erica Werner

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    For correspondence
    ewerner@emory.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8183-1601
  27. Victor Faundez

    Department of Cell Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    For correspondence
    vfaunde@emory.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2114-5271

Funding

National Institute on Aging (1RF1AG060285)

  • Victor Faundez

ARCS Foundation Award

  • Alicia R Lane

Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, Emory University (P30AG066511)

  • Victor Faundez

National Institute on Aging (U01AG061357)

  • Nicholas T Seyfried

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F31AG067623)

  • Meghan E Wynne

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (5T32NS007480)

  • Meghan E Wynne

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS11430)

  • Srikant Rangaraju

National Institute on Aging (RF1AG071587)

  • Srikant Rangaraju

National Institute on Aging (F32AG064862)

  • Sruti Rayaprolu

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (1F31NS127419)

  • Alicia R Lane

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Agnieszka Chacinska, IMol Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: May 11, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: December 23, 2022
  3. Accepted: May 11, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: May 12, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: May 31, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Wynne 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

  • 3,896
    views
  • 491
    downloads
  • 8
    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. Meghan E Wynne
  2. Oluwaseun Ogunbona
  3. Alicia R Lane
  4. Avanti Gokhale
  5. Stephanie A Zlatic
  6. Chongchong Xu
  7. Zhexing Wen
  8. Duc M Duong
  9. Sruti Rayaprolu
  10. Anna Ivanova
  11. Eric A Ortlund
  12. Eric B Dammer
  13. Nicholas T Seyfried
  14. Blaine R Roberts
  15. Amanda Crocker
  16. Vinit Shanbhag
  17. Michael Petris
  18. Nanami Senoo
  19. Selvaraju Kandasamy
  20. Steven Michael Claypool
  21. Antoni Barrientos
  22. Aliza Wingo
  23. Thomas S Wingo
  24. Srikant Rangaraju
  25. Allan I Levey
  26. Erica Werner
  27. Victor Faundez
(2023)
APOE expression and secretion are modulated by mitochondrial dysfunction
eLife 12:e85779.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.85779

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.85779

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Tongtong Ma, Ruimin Ren ... Heng Wang
    Research Article

    Current studies on cultured meat mainly focus on the muscle tissue reconstruction in vitro, but lack the formation of intramuscular fat, which is a crucial factor in determining taste, texture, and nutritional contents. Therefore, incorporating fat into cultured meat is of superior value. In this study, we employed the myogenic/lipogenic transdifferentiation of chicken fibroblasts in 3D to produce muscle mass and deposit fat into the same cells without the co-culture or mixture of different cells or fat substances. The immortalized chicken embryonic fibroblasts were implanted into the hydrogel scaffold, and the cell proliferation and myogenic transdifferentiation were conducted in 3D to produce the whole-cut meat mimics. Compared to 2D, cells grown in 3D matrix showed elevated myogenesis and collagen production. We further induced fat deposition in the transdifferentiated muscle cells and the triglyceride content could be manipulated to match and exceed the levels of chicken meat. The gene expression analysis indicated that both lineage-specific and multifunctional signalings could contribute to the generation of muscle/fat matrix. Overall, we were able to precisely modulate muscle, fat, and extracellular matrix contents according to balanced or specialized meat preferences. These findings provide new avenues for customized cultured meat production with desired intramuscular fat contents that can be tailored to meet the diverse demands of consumers.

    1. Cell Biology
    Gang Liu, Yunxuan Hou ... Xiumei Jiang
    Research Article

    Erythropoiesis and megakaryopoiesis are stringently regulated by signaling pathways. However, the precise molecular mechanisms through which signaling pathways regulate key transcription factors controlling erythropoiesis and megakaryopoiesis remain partially understood. Herein, we identified heat shock cognate B (HSCB), which is well known for its iron–sulfur cluster delivery function, as an indispensable protein for friend of GATA 1 (FOG1) nuclear translocation during erythropoiesis of K562 human erythroleukemia cells and cord-blood-derived human CD34+CD90+hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), as well as during megakaryopoiesis of the CD34+CD90+HSCs. Mechanistically, HSCB could be phosphorylated by phosphoinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) to bind with and mediate the proteasomal degradation of transforming acidic coiled-coil containing protein 3 (TACC3), which otherwise detained FOG1 in the cytoplasm, thereby facilitating FOG1 nuclear translocation. Given that PI3K is activated during both erythropoiesis and megakaryopoiesis, and that FOG1 is a key transcription factor for these processes, our findings elucidate an important, previously unrecognized iron–sulfur cluster delivery independent function of HSCB in erythropoiesis and megakaryopoiesis.