Mitochondrial temperature homeostasis resists external metabolic stresses

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Terzioglu and co-workers tested the provocative hypothesis that mitochondria maintain an internal temperature considerably higher than cytosolic/external environmental temperature due to the inherent thermodynamic inefficiency of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. As a follow-up to a prior paper from some of the same authors, the goal of this study was to conduct additional experiments to assess mitochondrial temperature in cultured cells. Consistent with the prior work, the authors provide consistent evidence that the temperature of mitochondria in four different types of cultured mammalian cells, as well as cells from Drosophila (poikilotherms), is 15oC or more above the external temperature at which cells are maintained (e.g., 37oC). Additional evidence shows that mitochondria maintain higher temperatures under several different types of cellular metabolic stresses predicted to decrease the dependence on OxPhos, adding to the notion that natural thermodynamic inefficiency and heat generation may be an important, and potentially regulated, characteristic of mitochondrial metabolism.

Strengths
Demonstration that both a fluorescent (Mito Thermo Yellow) and a genetic-based (mito-gTEMP) mitochondrial targeted temperature probe elicit similar quantitative changes in mitochondrial temperature under different experimental conditions is a strength. The addition of the genetic probe to the current study supports prior findings using the fluorescent probe and thus achieves a primary objective of the study.

The experiments are well-designed and executed. Specific attention given to potential artifacts affecting probe signal and/or non-specific effects from the different experimental interventions is a strength.

The use of different cultured cell lines from different organisms provides additional evidence of elevated temperature as a general property of functioning mitochondria, representing additional validation.

Weakness:
While the findings and potential interpretations put forward by the authors are intriguing, the severity of the interventions (e.g., mitochondrial complex-specific inhibitors, inhibition of protein synthesis) and the absence of simultaneous or parallel measurements of other key bioenergetic parameters (i.e., membrane potential, oxygen consumption rate, etc.) limits the ability to interpret potential cause and effect - whether the thermogenesis aspect of OxPhos is being sensed and regulated, or whether temperature changes are more of a biproduct of adjustments in OxPhos flux under the experimental circumstances. In other words, the physiological relevance of the findings remains unclear.

Related, several of the interventions are employed to either increase or decrease dependence on OxPhos flux, but no outcome measures are reported to document whether the intended objective was achieved (e.g., increased OxPhos flux in low glucose plus galactose, decreased ATP demand-OxPhos flux with anisomycin, etc.).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

An important paper that confirms the validity of the initial findings of Chretien et al regarding the hot temperatures at which the mitochondrion is operating. There are certain gaps in the literature covered in its list of cited references and, as a consequence, in the argumentation of the paper - but these can be easily fixed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The goal of this study was to use a combination of fluorescent dyes and genetically encoded reporters to estimate the temperature of mitochondria. The authors provide additional evidence that they claim to support "hot" mitochondria.

Strengths:
1. The authors use several methods, including a mitochondrial fluorescent reporter dye, as well as a genetically encoded gTEMP temperature probe, to estimate mitochondrial temperature.
2. The authors couple these measurements with other perturbation of mitochondria, such as OXPHOS inhibitors, to show consistency

Weaknesses:
1. The methodology for inferring mitochondrial temperature is not well-established to begin with and requires additional controls for interpretation.
a. Very little benchmarking is done of the "basal" fluorescence ratio, and whether that fluorescence ratio actually reflects true organelle temperature. For instance, the authors should in parallel compare between different organelles to see if only mitochondria appear "hot" or whether this is some calibration error. Another control is to use different incubator temperatures and see how mitochondrial (vs other organelle) temperature varies as a function of external temperature.
b. The authors do not rigorously control for other factors that may also be changing fluorescence and may be confounders to the delta fluorescence (eg, delta calcium in response to mito inhibitors, membrane potential, redox status, ROS, etc.). There should be additional calibration for all potential confounders.
c. It was unclear where the mito-targeted dyes/probes localized in terms of mitochondrial compartment. Regardless, one important control would be to target these dyes to each of the different compartments eg. Matrix vs IMS vs outer membrane to determine if a gradient of temperatures can be observed.
d. Can these probes be used in isolated mitochondria and other isolated organelles. Such data would also help to clarify whether the high temperature is a specific to mitochondria.
2. The authors should try to calibrate their fluorescence inference of temperature with an alternative method and benchmark to others in the field. For instance, Okabe et al Nat Comm 2012 used a polymeric thermometer to measure temperature and reported 33degC cytoplasm and 35degC nucleus. Can the authors also show a ~2degC difference in their hands between those two compartments, and under those conditions are mitochondria still 10degC hotter?
3. There are some theoretical considerations and critiques about temperature imaging in cells (eg Baffou et al Nat Methods 2014; Lane et al Plos Biology 2018), and the possible magnitude of theoretical variation between compartments. The authors should address some of those theoretical concerns, either experimentally or in the discussion.

Based on the aforementioned weaknesses, in my opinion, the authors did not achieve their Aims to accurately determine the temperature of mitochondria. The results, while interesting, are preliminary and require additional controls before conclusions can be drawn. Previous studies have indicated intra-organelle temperature variations within cells; typically, previous reports have estimated that the variation is within a few degrees (Okabe et al Nat Comm 2012). Only one report has previously suggested that mitochondria are at 50degC (Cretien, Plos biology 2018). The study does not substantially clarify the true temperature of mitochondria or resolve potential discrepancies in previous estimates of mitochondrial temperature.