4.8 Article

Comprehensive Genetic Characterization of Mitochondrial Ca2+ Uniporter Components Reveals Their Different Physiological Requirements In Vivo

Journal

CELL REPORTS
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 1541-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.04.033

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. MRC [MC_ UU_ 00015/4, MC-A070-5PSB0, MC_UU_00015/6]
  2. ERC [309742]
  3. Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Finalizzata'' [GR-2011-02351151]
  4. MRC studentships via the MRC MBU
  5. EMBO Long-Term Fellowship - European Commission FP7 (Marie Curie Actions, LTFCOFUND2013) [ALTF 740-2015, GA-2013-609409]
  6. NIH [P40OD018537, 2P40OD010949]
  7. MRC [MC_UP_1501/1, MC_UU_00015/6, MC_UU_00015/4] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [309742] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake is an important mediator of metabolism and cell death. Identification of components of the highly conserved mitochondrial Ca2+ uniporter has opened it up to genetic analysis in model organisms. Here, we report a comprehensive genetic characterization of all known uniporter components conserved in Drosophila. While loss of pore-forming MCU or EMRE abolishes fast mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake, this results in only mild phenotypes when young, despite shortened lifespans. In contrast, loss of the MICU1 gatekeeper is developmentally lethal, consistent with unregulated Ca2+ uptake. Mutants for the neuronally restricted regulator MICU3 are viable with mild neurological impairment. Genetic interaction analyses reveal that MICU1 and MICU3 are not functionally interchangeable. More surprisingly, loss of MCU or EMRE does not suppress MICU1 mutant lethality, suggesting that this results from uniporter-independent functions. Our data reveal the interplay among components of the mitochondrial Ca2+ uniporter and shed light on their physiological requirements in vivo.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available