Abstract

The clinical and largely unpredictable heterogeneity of phenotypes in patients with mitochondrial disorders demonstrates the ongoing challenges in the understanding of this semi-autonomous organelle in biology and disease. Previously, we used the gene-breaking transposon to create 1200 transgenic zebrafish strains tagging protein-coding genes (1), including the lrpprc locus. Here we present and characterize a new genetic revertible animal model that recapitulates components of Leigh Syndrome French Canadian Type (LSFC), a mitochondrial disorder that includes diagnostic liver dysfunction. LSFC is caused by allelic variations in the LRPPRC gene, involved in mitochondrial mRNA polyadenylation and translation. lrpprc zebrafish homozygous mutants displayed biochemical and mitochondrial phenotypes similar to clinical manifestations observed in patients, including dysfunction in lipid homeostasis. We were able to rescue these phenotypes in the disease model using a liver-specific genetic model therapy, functionally demonstrating a previously under-recognized critical role for the liver in the pathophysiology of this disease.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data is provided along with the manuscript. Raw sequencing data has been uploaded on NCBI SRA. ID: PRJNA683704

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ankit Sabharwal

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4355-0355
  2. Mark D Wishman

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Roberto Lopez Cervera

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. MaKayla R Serres

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jennifer L Anderson

    Department of Embryology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Shannon R Holmberg

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Bibekananda Kar

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Anthony J Treichel

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4393-7034
  9. Noriko Ichino

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7009-8299
  10. Weibin Liu

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jingchun Yang

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Yonghe Ding

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Yun Deng

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Jean M Lacey

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. William J Laxen

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Perry R Loken

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Devin Oglesbee

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Steven Arthur Farber

    Department of Embryology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8037-7312
  19. Karl J Clark

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9637-0967
  20. Xiaolei Xu

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4928-3422
  21. Stephen C Ekker

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
    For correspondence
    ekker.stephen@mayo.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0726-4212

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM63904)

  • Stephen C Ekker

National Institutes of Health (DA14546)

  • Stephen C Ekker

Marriott Foundation

  • Stephen C Ekker

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

  • Stephen C Ekker

National Institutes of Health (DK093399)

  • Steven Arthur Farber

Carnegie Institution for Science

  • Steven Arthur Farber

G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation

  • Steven Arthur Farber

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All adult zebrafish and embryos were maintained according to the guidelines established by Mayo Clinic Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC number: A34513-13-R16).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Wenbiao Chen, Vanderbilt University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: December 15, 2020
  2. Accepted: November 16, 2022
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 21, 2022 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: November 22, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Sabharwal 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

  • 172
    Page views
  • 50
    Downloads
  • 0
    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. Ankit Sabharwal
  2. Mark D Wishman
  3. Roberto Lopez Cervera
  4. MaKayla R Serres
  5. Jennifer L Anderson
  6. Shannon R Holmberg
  7. Bibekananda Kar
  8. Anthony J Treichel
  9. Noriko Ichino
  10. Weibin Liu
  11. Jingchun Yang
  12. Yonghe Ding
  13. Yun Deng
  14. Jean M Lacey
  15. William J Laxen
  16. Perry R Loken
  17. Devin Oglesbee
  18. Steven Arthur Farber
  19. Karl J Clark
  20. Xiaolei Xu
  21. Stephen C Ekker
(2022)
Genetic therapy in a mitochondrial disease model suggests a critical role for liver dysfunction in mortality
eLife 11:e65488.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65488

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Physics of Living Systems
    Guizela Huelsz-Prince, Rutger Nico Ulbe Kok ... Jeroen S van Zon
    Research Article

    During renewal of the intestine, cells are continuously generated by proliferation. Proliferation and differentiation must be tightly balanced, as any bias toward proliferation results in uncontrolled exponential growth. Yet, the inherently stochastic nature of cells raises the question how such fluctuations are limited. We used time-lapse microscopy to track all cells in crypts of growing mouse intestinal organoids for multiple generations, allowing full reconstruction of the underlying lineage dynamics in space and time. Proliferative behavior was highly symmetric between sister cells, with both sisters either jointly ceasing or continuing proliferation. Simulations revealed that such symmetric proliferative behavior minimizes cell number fluctuations, explaining our observation that proliferating cell number remained constant even as crypts increased in size considerably. Proliferative symmetry did not reflect positional symmetry but rather lineage control through the mother cell. Our results indicate a concrete mechanism to balance proliferation and differentiation with minimal fluctuations that may be broadly relevant for other tissues.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Amrita A Iyer, Ishwar Hosamani ... Andrew K Groves
    Research Article

    Reprogramming of the cochlea with hair-cell-specific transcription factors such as ATOH1 has been proposed as a potential therapeutic strategy for hearing loss. ATOH1 expression in the developing cochlea can efficiently induce hair cell regeneration but the efficiency of hair cell reprogramming declines rapidly as the cochlea matures. We developed Cre-inducible mice to compare hair cell reprogramming with ATOH1 alone or in combination with two other hair cell transcription factors, GFI1 and POU4F3. In newborn mice, all transcription factor combinations tested produced large numbers of cells with the morphology of hair cells and rudimentary mechanotransduction properties. However, 1 week later, only a combination of ATOH1, GFI1 and POU4F3 could reprogram non-sensory cells of the cochlea to a hair cell fate, and these new cells were less mature than cells generated by reprogramming 1 week earlier. We used scRNA-seq and combined scRNA-seq and ATAC-seq to suggest at least two impediments to hair cell reprogramming in older animals. First, hair cell gene loci become less epigenetically accessible in non-sensory cells of the cochlea with increasing age. Second, signaling from hair cells to supporting cells, including Notch signaling, can prevent reprogramming of many supporting cells to hair cells, even with three hair cell transcription factors. Our results shed light on the molecular barriers that must be overcome to promote hair cell regeneration in the adult cochlea.