Function of hTim8a in Complex IV assembly in neuronal cells provides insight into pathomechanism underlying Mohr-Tranebjærg syndrome

  1. Yilin Kang
  2. Alexander J Anderson
  3. Thomas Daniel Jackson
  4. Catherine S Palmer
  5. David P De Souza
  6. Kenji M Fujihara
  7. Tegan Stait
  8. Ann E Frazier
  9. Nicholas J Clemons
  10. Deidreia Tull
  11. David R Thorburn
  12. Malcolm J McConville
  13. Michael T Ryan
  14. David A Stroud
  15. Diana Stojanovski  Is a corresponding author
  1. The University of Melbourne, Australia
  2. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Australia
  3. Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia
  4. Monash University, Australia

Abstract

Human Tim8a and Tim8b are members of an intermembrane space chaperone network, known as the small TIM family. Mutations in TIMM8A cause a neurodegenerative disease, Mohr-Tranebjærg syndrome (MTS), which is characterised by sensorineural hearing loss, dystonia and blindness. Nothing is known about the function of hTim8a in neuronal cells or how mutation of this protein leads to a neurodegenerative disease. We show that hTim8a is required for the assembly of Complex IV in neurons, which is mediated through a transient interaction with Complex IV assembly factors, in particular the copper chaperone COX17. Complex IV assembly defects resulting from loss of hTim8a leads to oxidative stress and changes to key apoptotic regulators, including cytochrome c and Bax, which primes cells for death. Alleviation of oxidative stress by Vitamin E rescues cells from apoptotic vulnerability. We hypothesise that enhanced sensitivity of neuronal cells to apoptosis is the underlying mechanism of MTS.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figure 1 (Table 1); Figure 2 (Table 2) and Figure 3 (Table 3. 4 and 5).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yilin Kang

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alexander J Anderson

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Thomas Daniel Jackson

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Catherine S Palmer

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5124-2400
  5. David P De Souza

    Metabolomics Australia, The Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kenji M Fujihara

    Division of Cancer Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Tegan Stait

    Royal Children's Hospital, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ann E Frazier

    Royal Children's Hospital, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Nicholas J Clemons

    Division of Cancer Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9283-9978
  10. Deidreia Tull

    Metabolomics Australia, The Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. David R Thorburn

    Royal Children's Hospital, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Malcolm J McConville

    Metabolomics Australia, The Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Michael T Ryan

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. David A Stroud

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Diana Stojanovski

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    For correspondence
    d.stojanovski@unimelb.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0199-3222

Funding

Australian Research Council (DP170101249)

  • Diana Stojanovski

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, University of Warsaw, Poland

Publication history

  1. Received: May 28, 2019
  2. Accepted: November 4, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 4, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 18, 2019 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: March 18, 2020 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2019, Kang 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

  • 1,743
    Page views
  • 288
    Downloads
  • 22
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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. Yilin Kang
  2. Alexander J Anderson
  3. Thomas Daniel Jackson
  4. Catherine S Palmer
  5. David P De Souza
  6. Kenji M Fujihara
  7. Tegan Stait
  8. Ann E Frazier
  9. Nicholas J Clemons
  10. Deidreia Tull
  11. David R Thorburn
  12. Malcolm J McConville
  13. Michael T Ryan
  14. David A Stroud
  15. Diana Stojanovski
(2019)
Function of hTim8a in Complex IV assembly in neuronal cells provides insight into pathomechanism underlying Mohr-Tranebjærg syndrome
eLife 8:e48828.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48828

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    John G Dingus, Jonathan CY Tang ... Constance L Cepko
    Research Article

    Conventional antibodies and their derived fragments are difficult to deploy against intracellular targets in live cells, due to their bulk and structural complexity. Nanobodies provide an alternative modality, with well-documented examples of intracellular expression. Despite their promise as intracellular reagents, there has not been a systematic study of nanobody intracellular expression. Here, we examined intracellular expression of 75 nanobodies from the Protein Data Bank. Surprisingly, a majority of these nanobodies were unstable in cells, illustrated by aggregation and clearance. Using comparative analysis and framework mutagenesis, we developed a general approach that stabilized a great majority of nanobodies that were originally unstable intracellularly, without significantly compromising target binding. This approach led to the identification of distinct sequence features that impacted the intracellular stability of tested nanobodies. Mutationally stabilized nanobody expression was found to extend to in vivo contexts, in the murine retina and in E. coli. These data provide for improvements in nanobody engineering for intracellular applications, potentiating a growing field of intracellular interrogation and intervention.