Mitochondrial redox adaptations enable alternative aspartatesynthesis in SDH-deficient cells

  1. Madeleine L Hart
  2. Evan Quon
  3. Anna-Lena BG Vigil
  4. Ian A Engstrom
  5. Oliver J Newsom
  6. Kristian Davidsen
  7. Pia Hoellerbauer
  8. Samantha M Carlisle
  9. Lucas B Sullivan  Is a corresponding author
  1. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, United States
  2. New Mexico State University, United States

Abstract

The oxidative tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle is a central mitochondrial pathway integrating catabolic conversions of NAD+ to NADH and anabolic production of aspartate, a key amino acid for cell proliferation. Several TCA cycle components are implicated in tumorigenesis, including loss of function mutations in subunits of succinate dehydrogenase (SDH), also known as complex II of the electron transport chain (ETC), but mechanistic understanding of how proliferating cells tolerate the metabolic defects of SDH loss is still lacking. Here, we identify that SDH supports human cell proliferation through aspartate synthesis but, unlike other ETC impairments, the effects of SDH inhibition are not ameliorated by electron acceptor supplementation. Interestingly, we find aspartate production and cell proliferation are restored to SDH-impaired cells by concomitant inhibition of ETC complex I (CI). We determine that the benefits of CI inhibition in this context depend on decreasing mitochondrial NAD+/NADH, which drives SDH-independent aspartate production through pyruvate carboxylation and reductive carboxylation of glutamine. We also find that genetic loss or restoration of SDH selects for cells with concordant CI activity, establishing distinct modalities of mitochondrial metabolism for maintaining aspartate synthesis. These data therefore identify a metabolically beneficial mechanism for CI loss in proliferating cells and reveal how compartmentalized redox changes can impact cellular fitness.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files; Source Data files have been provided for Figures 1-8.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Madeleine L Hart

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Evan Quon

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Anna-Lena BG Vigil

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ian A Engstrom

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Oliver J Newsom

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kristian Davidsen

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3821-6902
  7. Pia Hoellerbauer

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Samantha M Carlisle

    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Lucas B Sullivan

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    lucas@fredhutch.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6745-8222

Funding

National Cancer Institute (P30CA015704)

  • Lucas B Sullivan

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM095421)

  • Madeleine L Hart

National Cancer Institute (R00CA218679-03S1)

  • Madeleine L Hart

National Cancer Institute (R00CA218679)

  • Lucas B Sullivan

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM147118)

  • Lucas B Sullivan

Andy Hill Cancer Research Endowment (CARE Award)

  • Lucas B Sullivan

National Cancer Institute (U54CA132381)

  • Samantha M Carlisle
  • Lucas B Sullivan

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Mark S Sharpley, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All mouse work was performed in accordance with FHCC-approved IACUC protocol 51069 and AAALAS guidelines and ethical regulations.

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: March 14, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: March 15, 2022
  3. Accepted: March 6, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: March 8, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: March 9, 2023 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record published: March 20, 2023 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2023, Hart 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

  • 3,698
    views
  • 477
    downloads
  • 14
    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. Madeleine L Hart
  2. Evan Quon
  3. Anna-Lena BG Vigil
  4. Ian A Engstrom
  5. Oliver J Newsom
  6. Kristian Davidsen
  7. Pia Hoellerbauer
  8. Samantha M Carlisle
  9. Lucas B Sullivan
(2023)
Mitochondrial redox adaptations enable alternative aspartatesynthesis in SDH-deficient cells
eLife 12:e78654.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78654

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78654

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Birol Cabukusta, Shalom Borst Pauwels ... Jacques Neefjes
    Research Article

    Numerous lipids are heterogeneously distributed among organelles. Most lipid trafficking between organelles is achieved by a group of lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) that carry lipids using their hydrophobic cavities. The human genome encodes many intracellular LTPs responsible for lipid trafficking and the function of many LTPs in defining cellular lipid levels and distributions is unclear. Here, we created a gene knockout library targeting 90 intracellular LTPs and performed whole-cell lipidomics analysis. This analysis confirmed known lipid disturbances and identified new ones caused by the loss of LTPs. Among these, we found major sphingolipid imbalances in ORP9 and ORP11 knockout cells, two proteins of previously unknown function in sphingolipid metabolism. ORP9 and ORP11 form a heterodimer to localize at the ER-trans-Golgi membrane contact sites, where the dimer exchanges phosphatidylserine (PS) for phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate (PI(4)P) between the two organelles. Consequently, loss of either protein causes phospholipid imbalances in the Golgi apparatus that result in lowered sphingomyelin synthesis at this organelle. Overall, our LTP knockout library toolbox identifies various proteins in control of cellular lipid levels, including the ORP9-ORP11 heterodimer, which exchanges PS and PI(4)P at the ER-Golgi membrane contact site as a critical step in sphingomyelin synthesis in the Golgi apparatus.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Kien Xuan Ngo, Huong T Vu ... Taro Uyeda
    Research Article

    The mechanism underlying the preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin and the expansion of clusters toward the pointed-end side of actin filaments remains poorly understood. To address this, we conducted a principal component analysis based on available filamentous actin (F-actin) and C-actin (cofilins were excluded from cofilactin) structures and compared to monomeric G-actin. The results strongly suggest that C-actin, rather than F-ADP-actin, represented the favourable structure for binding preference of cofilin. High-speed atomic force microscopy explored that the shortened bare half helix adjacent to the cofilin clusters on the pointed end side included fewer actin protomers than normal helices. The mean axial distance (MAD) between two adjacent actin protomers along the same long-pitch strand within shortened bare half helices was longer (5.0–6.3 nm) than the MAD within typical helices (4.3–5.6 nm). The inhibition of torsional motion during helical twisting, achieved through stronger attachment to the lipid membrane, led to more pronounced inhibition of cofilin binding and cluster formation than the presence of inorganic phosphate (Pi) in solution. F-ADP-actin exhibited more naturally supertwisted half helices than F-ADP.Pi-actin, explaining how Pi inhibits cofilin binding to F-actin with variable helical twists. We propose that protomers within the shorter bare helical twists, either influenced by thermal fluctuation or induced allosterically by cofilin clusters, exhibit characteristics of C-actin-like structures with an elongated MAD, leading to preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin.