Atypical mitochondrial fission upon bacterial infection.
ABSTRACT We recently showed that infection by Listeria monocytogenes causes mitochondrial network fragmentation through the secreted pore-forming toxin listeriolysin O (LLO). Here, we examine factors involved in canonical fusion and fission. Strikingly, LLO-induced mitochondrial fragmentation does not require the traditional fission machinery, as Drp1 oligomers are absent from fragmented mitochondria following Listeria infection or LLO treatment, as the dynamin-like protein 1 (Drp1) receptor Mff is rapidly degraded, and as fragmentation proceeds efficiently in cells with impaired Drp1 function. LLO does not cause processing of the fusion protein optic atrophy protein 1 (Opa1), despite inducing a decrease in the mitochondrial membrane potential, suggesting a unique Drp1- and Opa1-independent fission mechanism distinct from that triggered by uncouplers or the apoptosis inducer staurosporine. We show that the ER marks LLO-induced mitochondrial fragmentation sites even in the absence of functional Drp1, demonstrating that the ER activity in regulating mitochondrial fission can be induced by exogenous agents and that the ER appears to regulate fission by a mechanism independent of the canonical mitochondrial fission machinery.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In addition to established membrane remodeling roles in various cellular locations, actin has recently emerged as a participant in mitochondrial fission. However, the underlying mechanisms of its participation remain largely unknown. We report that transient de novo F-actin assembly on the mitochondria occurs upon induction of mitochondrial fission and F-actin accumulates on the mitochondria without forming detectable submitochondrial foci. Impairing mitochondrial division through Drp1 knockout or inhibition prolonged the time of mitochondrial accumulation of F-actin and also led to abnormal mitochondrial accumulation of the actin regulatory factors cortactin, cofilin, and Arp2/3 complexes, suggesting that disassembly of mitochondrial F-actin depends on Drp1 activity. Furthermore, down-regulation of actin regulatory proteins led to elongation of mitochondria, associated with mitochondrial accumulation of Drp1. In addition, depletion of cortactin inhibited Mfn2 down-regulation- or FCCP-induced mitochondrial fragmentation. These data indicate that the dynamic assembly and disassembly of F-actin on the mitochondria participates in Drp1-mediated mitochondrial fission. © 2015 Li et al.The Journal of Cell Biology 12/2014; 208(1). DOI:10.1083/jcb.201404050 · 9.69 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Human infection with Cryptococcus neoformans, a common fungal pathogen, follows deposition of yeast spores in the lung alveoli. The subsequent host-pathogen interaction can result in eradication, latency, or extrapulmonary dissemination. Successful control of C. neoformans infection is dependent on host macrophages, but macrophages display little ability to kill C. neoformans in vitro. Recently, we reported that ingestion of C. neoformans by mouse macrophages induces early cell cycle progression followed by mitotic arrest, an event that almost certainly reflects host cell damage. The goal of the present work was to understand macrophage pathways affected by C. neoformans toxicity. Infection of macrophages by C. neoformans was associated with alterations in protein translation rate and activation of several stress pathways, such as hypoxia-inducing factor-1-α, receptor-interacting protein 1, and apoptosis-inducing factor. Concomitantly we observed mitochondrial depolarization in infected macrophages, an observation that was replicated in vivo. We also observed differences in the stress pathways activated, depending on macrophage cell type, consistent with the nonspecific nature of C. neoformans virulence known to infect phylogenetically distant hosts. Our results indicate that C. neoformans infection impairs multiple host cellular functions and undermines the health of these critical phagocytic cells, which can potentially interfere with their ability to clear this fungal pathogen. Copyright © 2015 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.
Article: Mitochondria: A target for bacteria[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Eukaryotic cells developed strategies to detect and eradicate infections. The innate immune system, which is the first line of defence against invading pathogens, relies on the recognition of molecular patterns conserved among pathogens. Pathogen Associated Molecular Pattern binding to Pattern Recognition Receptor triggers the activation of several signalling pathways leading to the establishment of a pro-inflammatory state required to control the infection. In addition, pathogens evolved to subvert those responses (with passive and active strategies) allowing their entry and persistence in the host cells and tissues. Indeed, several bacteria actively manipulate immune system or interfere with the cell fate for their own benefit. One can imagine that bacterial effectors can potentially manipulate every single organelle in the cell. However, the multiple functions fulfilled by mitochondria especially their involvement in the regulation of innate immune response, make mitochondria a target of choice for bacterial pathogens as they are not only a key component of the central metabolism through ATP production and synthesis of various biomolecules but they also take part to cell signalling through ROS production and control of calcium homeostasis as well as the control of cell survival/programmed cell death. Furthermore, considering that mitochondria derived from an ancestral bacterial endosymbiosis, it is not surprising that a special connection does exist between this organelle and bacteria. In this review, we will discuss different mitochondrial functions that are affected during bacterial infection as well as different strategies developed by bacterial pathogens to subvert functions related to calcium homeostasis, maintenance of redox status and mitochondrial morphology. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.Biochemical Pharmacology 02/2015; 94(3). DOI:10.1016/j.bcp.2015.02.007 · 4.65 Impact Factor