Toxoplasma Effector MAF1 Mediates Recruitment of Host Mitochondria and Impacts the Host Response

Recent information has revealed the functional diversity and importance of mitochondria in many cellular processes including orchestrating the innate immune response. Intriguingly, several infectious agents, such as Toxoplasma, Legionella, and Chlamydia, have been reported to grow within vacuoles surrounded by host mitochondria. Although many hypotheses have been proposed for the existence of host mitochondrial association (HMA), the causes and biological consequences of HMA have remained unanswered. Here we show that HMA is present in type I and III strains of Toxoplasma but missing in type II strains, both in vitro and in vivo. Analysis of F1 progeny from a type II×III cross revealed that HMA is a Mendelian trait that we could map. We use bioinformatics to select potential candidates and experimentally identify the polymorphic parasite protein involved, mitochondrial association factor 1 (MAF1). We show that introducing the type I (HMA+) MAF1 allele into type II (HMA-) parasites results in conversion to HMA+ and deletion of MAF1 in type I parasites results in a loss of HMA. We observe that the loss and gain of HMA are associated with alterations in the transcription of host cell immune genes and the in vivo cytokine response during murine infection. Lastly, we use exogenous expression of MAF1 to show that it binds host mitochondria and thus MAF1 is the parasite protein directly responsible for HMA. Our findings suggest that association with host mitochondria may represent a novel means by which Toxoplasma tachyzoites manipulate the host. The existence of naturally occurring HMA+ and HMA- strains of Toxoplasma, Legionella, and Chlamydia indicates the existence of evolutionary niches where HMA is either advantageous or disadvantageous, likely reflecting tradeoffs in metabolism, immune regulation, and other functions of mitochondria. © 2014 Pernas et al

Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Global COVID-19 Stroke Registry

Recent case-series of small size implied a pathophysiological association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe large-vessel acute ischemic stroke. Given that severe strokes are typically associated with poor prognosis and can be very efficiently treated with recanalization techniques, confirmation of this putative association is urgently warranted in a large representative patient cohort to alert stroke clinicians, and inform pre- and in-hospital acute stroke patient pathways. We pooled all consecutive patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke in 28 sites from 16 countries. To assess whether stroke severity and outcomes (assessed at discharge or at the latest assessment for those patients still hospitalized) in patients with acute ischemic stroke are different between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching analyses of our COVID-19 patients with non-COVID-19 patients registered in the Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne Registry between 2003 and 2019. Between January 27, 2020, and May 19, 2020, 174 patients (median age 71.2 years; 37.9% females) with COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke were hospitalized (median of 12 patients per site). The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4-18). In the 1:1 matched sample of 336 patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was higher in patients with COVID-19 (10 [IQR, 4-18] versus 6 [IQR, 3-14]), P=0.03; (odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.08-2.65] for higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score). There were 48 (27.6%) deaths, of which 22 were attributed to COVID-19 and 26 to stroke. Among 96 survivors with available information about disability status, 49 (51%) had severe disability at discharge. In the propensity score-matched population (n=330), patients with COVID-19 had higher risk for severe disability (median mRS 4 [IQR, 2-6] versus 2 [IQR, 1-4], P<0.001) and death (odds ratio, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.22-8.30]) compared with patients without COVID-19. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 associated ischemic strokes are more severe with worse functional outcome and higher mortality than non-COVID-19 ischemic strokes

The role of the mitochondria and the endoplasmic reticulum contact sites in the development of the immune responses

Abstract Mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) contact sites (MERCs) are dynamic modules enriched in subset of lipids and specialized proteins that determine their structure and functions. The MERCs regulate lipid transfer, autophagosome formation, mitochondrial fission, Ca2+ homeostasis and apoptosis. Since these functions are essential for cell biology, it is therefore not surprising that MERCs also play a critical role in organ physiology among which the immune system stands by its critical host defense function. This defense system must discriminate and tolerate host cells and beneficial commensal microorganisms while eliminating pathogenic ones in order to preserve normal homeostasis. To meet this goal, the immune system has two lines of defense. First, the fast acting but unspecific innate immune system relies on anatomical physical barriers and subsets of hematopoietically derived cells expressing germline-encoded receptors called pattern recognition receptors (PRR) recognizing conserved motifs on the pathogens. Second, the slower but very specific adaptive immune response is added to complement innate immunity. Adaptive immunity relies on another set of specialized cells, the lymphocytes, harboring receptors requiring somatic recombination to be expressed. Both innate and adaptive immune cells must be activated to phagocytose and process pathogens, migrate, proliferate, release soluble factors and destroy infected cells. Some of these functions are strongly dependent on lipid transfer, autophagosome formation, mitochondrial fission, and Ca2+ flux; this indicates that MERCs could regulate immunity

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field