Abstract

Mitochondrial dysfunction caused by aberrant Complex I assembly and reduced activity of the electron transport chain is pathogenic in many genetic and age-related diseases. Mice missing the Complex I subunit NADH dehydrogenase [ubiquinone] iron-sulfur protein 4 (NDUFS4) are a leading mammalian model of severe mitochondrial disease that exhibit many characteristic symptoms of Leigh Syndrome including oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, brain lesions, and premature death. NDUFS4 knockout mice have decreased expression of nearly every Complex I subunit. As Complex I normally contains at least 8 iron-sulfur clusters and more than 25 iron atoms, we asked whether a deficiency of Complex I may lead to iron perturbations thereby accelerating disease progression. Consistent with this, iron supplementation accelerates symptoms of brain degeneration in these mice while iron restriction delays the onset of these symptoms, reduces neuroinflammation, and increases survival. NDUFS4 knockout mice display signs of iron overload in the liver including increased expression of hepcidin, and show changes in iron responsive element-regulated proteins consistent with increased cellular iron that were prevented by iron restriction. These results suggest that perturbed iron homeostasis may contribute to pathology in Leigh Syndrome and possibly other mitochondrial disorders.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files or are publicly available via Dryad (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.xpnvx0khb).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. CJ Kelly

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Reid K Couch

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Vivian T Ha

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Camille M Bodart

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Judy Wu

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Sydney Huff

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Nicole T Herrel

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Hyunsung D Kim

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Azaad O Zimmermann

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jessica Shattuck

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Yu-Chen Pan

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Matt Kaeberlein

    Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    kaeber@uw.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1311-3421
  13. Anthony S Grillo

    Department of Chemistry, University of Cincinnati, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    grilloas@uc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3283-6585

Funding

National Institutes of Health (F32 NS110109)

  • Anthony S Grillo

National Institutes of Health (R01 NS098329)

  • Matt Kaeberlein

National Institutes of Health (P30 AG013280)

  • Matt Kaeberlein

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Experiments, procedures, and protocols described herein to care for, and handle, mice were reviewed and approved (protocol 4359-03) by the University of Washington Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and strictly adhered to guidelines described in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright

© 2023, Kelly 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

  • 2,837
    views
  • 365
    downloads
  • 10
    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. CJ Kelly
  2. Reid K Couch
  3. Vivian T Ha
  4. Camille M Bodart
  5. Judy Wu
  6. Sydney Huff
  7. Nicole T Herrel
  8. Hyunsung D Kim
  9. Azaad O Zimmermann
  10. Jessica Shattuck
  11. Yu-Chen Pan
  12. Matt Kaeberlein
  13. Anthony S Grillo
(2023)
Iron status influences mitochondrial disease progression in Complex I-deficient mice
eLife 12:e75825.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75825

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75825

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Marius Landau, Sherif Elsabbagh ... Joachim E Schultz
    Research Article

    The biosynthesis of cyclic 3′,5′-adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) by mammalian membrane-bound adenylyl cyclases (mACs) is predominantly regulated by G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Up to now the two hexahelical transmembrane domains of mACs were considered to fix the enzyme to membranes. Here, we show that the transmembrane domains serve in addition as signal receptors and transmitters of lipid signals that control Gsα-stimulated mAC activities. We identify aliphatic fatty acids and anandamide as receptor ligands of mAC isoforms 1–7 and 9. The ligands enhance (mAC isoforms 2, 3, 7, and 9) or attenuate (isoforms 1, 4, 5, and 6) Gsα-stimulated mAC activities in vitro and in vivo. Substitution of the stimulatory membrane receptor of mAC3 by the inhibitory receptor of mAC5 results in a ligand inhibited mAC5–mAC3 chimera. Thus, we discovered a new class of membrane receptors in which two signaling modalities are at a crossing, direct tonic lipid and indirect phasic GPCR–Gsα signaling regulating the biosynthesis of cAMP.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Shraddha KC, Kenny H Nguyen ... Thomas C Boothby
    Research Article

    The conformational ensemble and function of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are sensitive to their solution environment. The inherent malleability of disordered proteins, combined with the exposure of their residues, accounts for this sensitivity. One context in which IDPs play important roles that are concomitant with massive changes to the intracellular environment is during desiccation (extreme drying). The ability of organisms to survive desiccation has long been linked to the accumulation of high levels of cosolutes such as trehalose or sucrose as well as the enrichment of IDPs, such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins or cytoplasmic abundant heat-soluble (CAHS) proteins. Despite knowing that IDPs play important roles and are co-enriched alongside endogenous, species-specific cosolutes during desiccation, little is known mechanistically about how IDP-cosolute interactions influence desiccation tolerance. Here, we test the notion that the protective function of desiccation-related IDPs is enhanced through conformational changes induced by endogenous cosolutes. We find that desiccation-related IDPs derived from four different organisms spanning two LEA protein families and the CAHS protein family synergize best with endogenous cosolutes during drying to promote desiccation protection. Yet the structural parameters of protective IDPs do not correlate with synergy for either CAHS or LEA proteins. We further demonstrate that for CAHS, but not LEA proteins, synergy is related to self-assembly and the formation of a gel. Our results suggest that functional synergy between IDPs and endogenous cosolutes is a convergent desiccation protection strategy seen among different IDP families and organisms, yet the mechanisms underlying this synergy differ between IDP families.