Horizontal transfer of whole mitochondria restores tumorigenic potential in mitochondrial DNA-deficient cancer cells

Abstract

Recently we showed that generation of tumours in syngeneic mice by cells devoid of mitochondrial (mt) DNA (ρ0 cells) is linked to acquisition of the host mtDNA. However, the mechanism of mtDNA movement between cells remains unresolved. To determine whether transfer of mtDNA involves whole mitochondria, we injected B16ρ0 mouse melanoma cells into syngeneic C57BL/6Nsu9-DsRed2 mice that express red fluorescent protein in their mitochondria. We document that mtDNA is acquired by transfer of whole mitochondria from the host animal, leading to normalisation of mitochondrial respiration. Additionally, knockdown of key mitochondrial complex I (NDUFV1) and complex II (SDHC) subunits by shRNA in B16ρ0 cells abolished or significantly retarded their ability to form tumours. Collectively, these results show that intact mitochondria with their mtDNA payload are transferred in the developing tumour, and provide functional evidence for an essential role of oxidative phosphorylation in cancer.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lan-Feng Dong

    School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jaromira Kovarova

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Martina Bajzikova

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ayenachew Bezawork-Geleta

    School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. David Svec

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Berwini Endaya

    School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Karishma Sachaphibulkij

    School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ana R Coelho

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Natasa Sebkova

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Anna Ruzickova

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Science, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. An S Tan

    Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Katarina Kluckova

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Kristyna Judasova

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Science, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Katerina Zamecnikova

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Zuzana Rychtarcikova

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Vinod Gopalan

    School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Margaryta Sobol

    Institute of Molecular Genetics, Czech Academy of Science, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Bing Yan

    School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Bijay Pattnaik

    CSIR Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, New Delhi, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Naveen Bhatraju

    CSIR Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, New Delhi, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Jaroslav Truksa

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Pavel Stopka

    Department of Zoology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Pavel Hozak

    Institute of Molecular Genetics, Czech Academy of Science, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Alfred Lam

    School of Medicine, Griffith University, Southport, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Radislav Sedlacek

    Institute of Molecular Genetics, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Paulo Oliveira

    Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Cantanhede, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Mikael Kubista

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Anurag Agrawal

    CSIR Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, New Delhi, India
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Katerina Dvorakova-Hortova

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  30. Jakub Rohlena

    Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Science, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  31. Michael V Berridge

    Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand
    For correspondence
    mberridge@malaghan.org.nz
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  32. Jiri Neuzil

    School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, Australia
    For correspondence
    j.neuzil@griffith.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2478-2460

Funding

Australian Research Council

  • Jiri Neuzil

Czech Science Foundation

  • Jiri Neuzil

BIOCEV European Regional Development Fund

  • Jiri Neuzil

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ralph DeBerardinis, UT Southwestern Medical Center, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the Czech Republic All animal procedures and experimental protocols were approved by the Local Ethics Committee (Animal Ethics Number 18/2015).

Version history

  1. Received: October 9, 2016
  2. Accepted: February 13, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 14, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: February 15, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: March 27, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2017, Dong 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

  • 7,438
    views
  • 1,521
    downloads
  • 206
    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. Lan-Feng Dong
  2. Jaromira Kovarova
  3. Martina Bajzikova
  4. Ayenachew Bezawork-Geleta
  5. David Svec
  6. Berwini Endaya
  7. Karishma Sachaphibulkij
  8. Ana R Coelho
  9. Natasa Sebkova
  10. Anna Ruzickova
  11. An S Tan
  12. Katarina Kluckova
  13. Kristyna Judasova
  14. Katerina Zamecnikova
  15. Zuzana Rychtarcikova
  16. Vinod Gopalan
  17. Margaryta Sobol
  18. Bing Yan
  19. Bijay Pattnaik
  20. Naveen Bhatraju
  21. Jaroslav Truksa
  22. Pavel Stopka
  23. Pavel Hozak
  24. Alfred Lam
  25. Radislav Sedlacek
  26. Paulo Oliveira
  27. Mikael Kubista
  28. Anurag Agrawal
  29. Katerina Dvorakova-Hortova
  30. Jakub Rohlena
  31. Michael V Berridge
  32. Jiri Neuzil
(2017)
Horizontal transfer of whole mitochondria restores tumorigenic potential in mitochondrial DNA-deficient cancer cells
eLife 6:e22187.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22187

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22187

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Camille Dantzer, Justine Vaché ... Violaine Moreau
    Research Article

    Immune checkpoint inhibitors have produced encouraging results in cancer patients. However, the majority of ß-catenin-mutated tumors have been described as lacking immune infiltrates and resistant to immunotherapy. The mechanisms by which oncogenic ß-catenin affects immune surveillance remain unclear. Herein, we highlighted the involvement of ß-catenin in the regulation of the exosomal pathway and, by extension, in immune/cancer cell communication in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We showed that mutated ß-catenin represses expression of SDC4 and RAB27A, two main actors in exosome biogenesis, in both liver cancer cell lines and HCC patient samples. Using nanoparticle tracking analysis and live-cell imaging, we further demonstrated that activated ß-catenin represses exosome release. Then, we demonstrated in 3D spheroid models that activation of β-catenin promotes a decrease in immune cell infiltration through a defect in exosome secretion. Taken together, our results provide the first evidence that oncogenic ß-catenin plays a key role in exosome biogenesis. Our study gives new insight into the impact of ß-catenin mutations on tumor microenvironment remodeling, which could lead to the development of new strategies to enhance immunotherapeutic response.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Fang Huang, Zhenwei Dai ... Yang Wang
    Research Article

    Aberrant alternative splicing is well-known to be closely associated with tumorigenesis of various cancers. However, the intricate mechanisms underlying breast cancer metastasis driven by deregulated splicing events remain largely unexplored. Here, we unveiled that RBM7 is decreased in lymph node and distant organ metastases of breast cancer as compared to primary lesions and low expression of RBM7 is correlated with the reduced disease-free survival of breast cancer patients. Breast cancer cells with RBM7 depletion exhibited an increased potential for lung metastasis compared to scramble control cells. The absence of RBM7 stimulated breast cancer cell migration, invasion, and angiogenesis. Mechanistically, RBM7 controlled the splicing switch of MFGE8, favoring the production of the predominant isoform of MFGE8, MFGE8-L. This resulted in the attenuation of STAT1 phosphorylation and alterations in cell adhesion molecules. MFGE8-L exerted an inhibitory effect on the migratory and invasive capability of breast cancer cells, while the truncated isoform MFGE8-S, which lack the second F5/8 type C domain had the opposite effect. In addition, RBM7 negatively regulates the NF-κB cascade and an NF-κB inhibitor could obstruct the increase in HUVEC tube formation caused by RBM7 silencing. Clinically, we noticed a positive correlation between RBM7 expression and MFGE8 exon7 inclusion in breast cancer tissues, providing new mechanistic insights for molecular-targeted therapy in combating breast cancer.