Fine-tuned repression of Drp1 driven mitochondrial fission primes a 'stem/progenitor-like state' to support neoplastic transformation

Abstract

Gene knockout of the master regulator of mitochondrial fission, Drp1, prevents neoplastic transformation. Also, mitochondrial fission and its opposing process of mitochondrial fusion are emerging as crucial regulators of stemness. Intriguingly, stem/progenitor cells maintaining repressed mitochondrial fission are primed for self-renewal and proliferation. Using our newly derived carcinogen transformed human cell model we demonstrate that fine-tuned Drp1 repression primes a slow cycling 'stem/progenitor-like state', which is characterized by small networks of fused mitochondria and a gene-expression profile with elevated functional stem/progenitor markers (Krt15, Sox2 etc) and their regulators (Cyclin E). Fine tuning Drp1 protein by reducing its activating phosphorylation sustains the neoplastic stem cell markers. Whereas, fine-tuned reduction of Drp1 protein maintains the characteristic mitochondrial shape and gene-expression of the primed 'stem/progenitor-like state' to accelerate neoplastic transformation, and more complete reduction of Drp1 protein prevents it. Therefore, our data highlights a 'goldilocks'; level of Drp1 repression supporting stem/progenitor state dependent neoplastic transformation.

Data availability

Details pertaining to the sc-RNAseq experiment are available as Supplementary data Tables 1, 2, 3. Raw, analyzed and meta data are available in Gene expression omnibus (GEO GSE171772).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Brian Spurlock

    Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9757-4494
  2. Danitra Parker

    Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Malay Kumar Basu

    Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Anita Hjelmeland

    Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sajina GC

    Cell Developmental and Integrative Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2676-2794
  6. Shanrun Liu

    Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Gene P Siegal

    Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Alan Gunter

    Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Aida Moran

    Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kasturi Mitra

    Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    kasturi@uab.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3718-7094

Funding

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R33ES025662)

  • Kasturi Mitra

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Utpal Banerjee, University of California, Los Angeles, 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 National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (IACUC-21347) of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. All mice were be examined daily, and were euthanized by CO2 inhalation, and death confirmed by cervical dislocation, as approved by the IACUC protocol.

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: March 5, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: March 15, 2021
  3. Accepted: September 8, 2021
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: September 21, 2021 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: October 7, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Spurlock 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

  • 2,522
    views
  • 308
    downloads
  • 5
    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. Brian Spurlock
  2. Danitra Parker
  3. Malay Kumar Basu
  4. Anita Hjelmeland
  5. Sajina GC
  6. Shanrun Liu
  7. Gene P Siegal
  8. Alan Gunter
  9. Aida Moran
  10. Kasturi Mitra
(2021)
Fine-tuned repression of Drp1 driven mitochondrial fission primes a 'stem/progenitor-like state' to support neoplastic transformation
eLife 10:e68394.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68394

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68394

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kevin Nuno, Armon Azizi ... Ravindra Majeti
    Research Article

    Relapse of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is highly aggressive and often treatment refractory. We analyzed previously published AML relapse cohorts and found that 40% of relapses occur without changes in driver mutations, suggesting that non-genetic mechanisms drive relapse in a large proportion of cases. We therefore characterized epigenetic patterns of AML relapse using 26 matched diagnosis-relapse samples with ATAC-seq. This analysis identified a relapse-specific chromatin accessibility signature for mutationally stable AML, suggesting that AML undergoes epigenetic evolution at relapse independent of mutational changes. Analysis of leukemia stem cell (LSC) chromatin changes at relapse indicated that this leukemic compartment underwent significantly less epigenetic evolution than non-LSCs, while epigenetic changes in non-LSCs reflected overall evolution of the bulk leukemia. Finally, we used single-cell ATAC-seq paired with mitochondrial sequencing (mtscATAC) to map clones from diagnosis into relapse along with their epigenetic features. We found that distinct mitochondrially-defined clones exhibit more similar chromatin accessibility at relapse relative to diagnosis, demonstrating convergent epigenetic evolution in relapsed AML. These results demonstrate that epigenetic evolution is a feature of relapsed AML and that convergent epigenetic evolution can occur following treatment with induction chemotherapy.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Ibtisam Ibtisam, Alexei F Kisselev
    Short Report

    Rapid recovery of proteasome activity may contribute to intrinsic and acquired resistance to FDA-approved proteasome inhibitors. Previous studies have demonstrated that the expression of proteasome genes in cells treated with sub-lethal concentrations of proteasome inhibitors is upregulated by the transcription factor Nrf1 (NFE2L1), which is activated by a DDI2 protease. Here, we demonstrate that the recovery of proteasome activity is DDI2-independent and occurs before transcription of proteasomal genes is upregulated but requires protein translation. Thus, mammalian cells possess an additional DDI2 and transcription-independent pathway for the rapid recovery of proteasome activity after proteasome inhibition.