Deciphering OPA1 mutations pathogenicity by combined analysis of human, mouse and yeast cell models

OPA1 is the major gene responsible for Dominant Optic Atrophy (DOA) and the syndromic form DOA “plus”. Over 370 OPA1 mutations have been identified so far, although their pathogenicity is not always clear. We have analyzed one novel and a set of known OPA1 mutations to investigate their impact on protein functions in primary skin fibroblasts and in two “ad hoc” generated cell systems: the MGM1/OPA1 chimera yeast model and the Opa1−/− MEFs model expressing the mutated human OPA1 isoform 1. The yeast model allowed us to confirm the deleterious effects of these mutations and to gain information on their dominance/recessivity. The MEFs model enhanced the phenotypic alteration caused by mutations, nicely correlating with the clinical severity observed in patients, and suggested that the DOA “plus” phenotype could be induced by the combinatorial effect of mitochondrial network fragmentation with variable degrees of mtDNA depletion. Overall, the two models proved to be valuable tools to functionally assess and define the deleterious mechanism and the pathogenicity of novel OPA1 mutations, and useful to testing new therapeutic interventions

Deciphering OPA1 mutations pathogenicity by combined analysis of human, mouse and yeast cell models

OPA1 is the major gene responsible for Dominant Optic Atrophy (DOA) and the syndromic form DOA “plus”. Over 370 OPA1 mutations have been identified so far, although their pathogenicity is not always clear. We have analyzed one novel and a set of known OPA1 mutations to investigate their impact on protein functions in primary skin fibroblasts and in two “ad hoc” generated cell systems: the MGM1/OPA1 chimera yeast model and the Opa1−/− MEFs model expressing the mutated human OPA1 isoform 1. The yeast model allowed us to confirm the deleterious effects of these mutations and to gain information on their dominance/recessivity. The MEFs model enhanced the phenotypic alteration caused by mutations, nicely correlating with the clinical severity observed in patients, and suggested that the DOA “plus” phenotype could be induced by the combinatorial effect of mitochondrial network fragmentation with variable degrees of mtDNA depletion. Overall, the two models proved to be valuable tools to functionally assess and define the deleterious mechanism and the pathogenicity of novel OPA1 mutations, and useful to testing new therapeutic interventions

Drug repositioning as a therapeutic strategy for neurodegenerations associated with OPA1 mutations

none11noOPA1 mutations are the major cause of dominant optic atrophy (DOA) and the syndromic form DOA plus, pathologies for which there is no established cure. We used a ‘drug repurposing’ approach to identify FDA-approved molecules able to rescue the mitochondrial dysfunctions induced by OPA1 mutations. We screened two different chemical libraries by using two yeast strains carrying the mgm1I322M and the chim3P646L mutations, identifying 26 drugs able to rescue their oxidative growth phenotype. Six of them, able to reduce the mitochondrial DNA instability in yeast, have been then tested in Opa1 deleted mouse embryonic fibroblasts expressing the human OPA1 isoform 1 bearing the R445H and D603H mutations. Some of these molecules were able to ameliorate the energetic functions and/or the mitochondrial network morphology, depending on the type of OPA1 mutation. The final validation has been performed in patients’ fibroblasts, allowing to select the most effective molecules. Our current results are instrumental to rapidly translating the findings of this drug repurposing approach into clinical trial for DOA and other neurodegenerations caused by OPA1 mutationsopenAleo, Serena J; Del Dotto, Valentina; Fogazza, Mario; Maresca, Alessandra; Lodi, Tiziana; Goffrini, Paola; Ghelli, Anna; Rugolo, Michela; Carelli, Valerio; Baruffini, Enrico; Zanna, ClaudiaAleo, Serena J; Del Dotto, Valentina; Fogazza, Mario; Maresca, Alessandra; Lodi, Tiziana; Goffrini, Paola; Ghelli, Anna; Rugolo, Michela; Carelli, Valerio; Baruffini, Enrico; Zanna, Claudi

Drug repositioning as a therapeutic strategy for neurodegenerations associated with OPA1 mutations

OPA1 mutations are the major cause of Dominant Optic Atrophy (DOA) and the syndromic form DOA plus, pathologies for which there is no established cure. We used a 'drug repurposing' approach to identify FDA-approved molecules able to rescue the mitochondrial dysfunctions induced by OPA1 mutations. We screened two different chemical libraries by using two yeast strains carrying the mgm1I322M and the chim3P646L mutations, identifying twenty-six drugs able to rescue their oxidative growth phenotype. Six of them, able to reduce the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) instability in yeast, have been then tested in Opa1 deleted mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) expressing the human OPA1 isoform 1 bearing the R445H and D603H mutations. Some of these molecules were able to ameliorate the energetic functions and/or the mitochondrial network morphology, depending on the type of OPA1 mutation. The final validation has been performed in patients' fibroblasts, allowing to select the most effective molecules. Our current results are instrumental to rapidly translating the findings of this drug repurposing approach into clinical trial for DOA and other neurodegenerations caused by OPA1 mutations

Deciphering OPA1 mutations pathogenicity by combined analysis of human, mouse and yeast cell models

OPA1 is the major gene responsible for Dominant Optic Atrophy (DOA) and the syndromic form DOA “plus”. Over 370 OPA1 mutations have been identified so far, although their pathogenicity is not always clear. We have analyzed one novel and a set of known OPA1 mutations to investigate their impact on protein functions in primary skin fibroblasts and in two “ad hoc” generated cell systems: the MGM1/OPA1 chimera yeast model and the Opa1−/− MEFs model expressing the mutated human OPA1 isoform 1. The yeast model allowed us to confirm the deleterious effects of these mutations and to gain information on their dominance/recessivity. The MEFs model enhanced the phenotypic alteration caused by mutations, nicely correlating with the clinical severity observed in patients, and suggested that the DOA “plus” phenotype could be induced by the combinatorial effect of mitochondrial network fragmentation with variable degrees of mtDNA depletion. Overall, the two models proved to be valuable tools to functionally assess and define the deleterious mechanism and the pathogenicity of novel OPA1 mutations, and useful to testing new therapeutic interventions

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field