SHOWCASE ON RESEARCH

Mitochondria: an Unexpected Force in Innate Immunity Jing Khoo1, Phillip Nagley2 and Ashley Mansell1* 1Centre for Innate Immunity and Infectious Diseases, Monash Institute of Medical Research, Clayton, VIC 3168 2Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and ARC Centre of Excellence in Structural and Functional Microbial Genomics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800 *Corresponding author: [email protected]

We all know from first year biology that mitochondria receptors (PRRs) had finally been discovered and they are the cellular powerhouses, generating energy for revolutionised our understanding of immunology. physiological processes as well as signalling for apoptotic cell death. But a role in innate immunity? In the words of Toll-like Receptors (TLRs): TLRs are evolutionarily Darryl Kerrigan: ‘tell him he’s dreamin’ (1). conserved leucine-rich repeat (LRR) transmembrane Recent studies have shown us, however, that not only receptors that are widely expressed on both immune and do mitochondria provide a platform for innate antiviral non-immune cells (5). TLRs such as TLR1, TLR2, TLR4, signalling but they also take an active role in orchestrating TLR5 and TLR6 are predominately expressed at the cell the innate immune response to disruption of homeostasis. membrane, matching their ability to recognise constituents Furthermore, dysfunctional mitochondria can also act as of bacterial membranes. In contrast, TLR3, TLR7, TLR8 activators of innate immunity, thus placing mitochondria and TLR9 are found in intracellular compartments such squarely at the interface between cellular function and as endosomes, reflecting their requirement of endosomal immune . internalisation of their respective ligands, mainly bacterial and viral nucleic acids. Upon ligand-induced Pattern Recognition Receptors and Innate Immunity receptor dimerisation, a series of cytosolic signalling While only higher vertebrates enjoy the luxury of adaptive mediators are recruited to the receptor complex that immunity, nearly all organisms rely on innate immunity initiates a signal transduction pathway culminating in to provide protection from pathogens and maintain their nuclear localisation and subsequent transcription of homeostasis. Charles Janeway first wrote in 1989 that the prototypic inflammatory transcription factor NF-kB “...primitive effector cells bear receptors that allow recognition (Fig. 1). Activation of NF-kB initiates the pro-inflammatory of certain pathogen-associated molecular patterns that are response characterised by expression of , not found in the host. I term these receptors pattern recognition chemokines, leukotrienes, adhesion factors and a host of receptors” (2). Janeway and Ruslan Medzhitov subsequently associated with cell survival. In the case of TLR4 and published the identification of the first mammalian Toll TLR3, there is the additive activation of the transcription homolog hToll in 1997 (3) which was consequently renamed factor, regulatory factor (IRF)-3, which leads to Toll-like receptor (TLR)-4. TLR4 was next conclusively expression of type I (IFNs). identified as the long sought for receptor for the bacterial product lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (4) which can cause septic RIG-I-like Receptors (RLRs): RLRs, which include shock. The innate immunity sensors or pattern recognition RIG-I, MDA5 and LGP2 (6), are cytosolically localised

Fig. 1. Toll-like receptors (TLRs) act as the sentinels to pathogen infection and initiate the innate immune pro-inflammatory response. TLRs (with various numbers) recognise pathogen products either in the extracellular or endosomal environment and initiate activation and nuclear translocation of the prototypic inflammatory transcription factor NF-kB to drive the inflammatory response. Activation of IRF3 by TLR3 and TLR4 also expresses the antiviral interferon.

Vol 44 No 1 April 2013 AUSTRALIAN BIOCHEMIST Page 17 Mitochondria: an Unexpected SHOWCASE ON Force in Innate Immunity RESEARCH

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of recognition and response of the RIG-I-like receptor (RLR) to viral infection. Cytosolic receptors such as RIG-I and MDA5 recognise RNA produced by replicating viruses, translocating to the mitochondria to interact with MAVS and initiate downstream signalling. Activation of transcription factors such as NF- kB and IRF3 induces the pro-inflammatory responses responsible for clearing the infection. OMM, outer mitochondrial membrane; IMM, inner mitochondrial membrane.

RNA helicases that recognise viral single stranded (ss) an essential for ROS production, reduces the RLR RNA species released into the cytoplasm during viral antiviral response. NLRX1 may play a modulating role in replication in a variety of cell types. They coordinate RLR signalling; such interference with ROS production antiviral programs via NF-kB and IRF3 induction of is increasingly recongised as a ‘fine-tuning’ process for antiviral IFNa/b (Fig. 2). Following detection of ssRNA, PRR immune responses (9). Recently, our studies have RIG-I and MDA5 undergo post-translational modification identified a novel mitochondrial , MUL1, which via the addition of chains, inducing association appears to modulate RLR signalling (10). MUL1 is localised and subsequent activation of mitochondrial antiviral to mitochondria where it interacts with MAVS and signalling (MAVS) protein. As the name suggests, MAVS catalyses RIG-I post-translational modifications that inhibit (also called IPS1, Cardif or Visa) is found in the outer RIG-I-dependent cell signalling. Moreover, depletion mitochondrial membrane and, following activation by of MUL1 boosts the antiviral response and increases RIG-I or MDA5, interacts with downstream signalling proinflammatory cytokines following challenge with the mediators to induce nuclear translocation of IRF3 and RLR ligand poly(I:C) and Sendai virus. This would appear NF-kB. This leads to induction of antiviral IFNa/b. to identify MUL1 as a novel regulator of RLR signalling, This coordinated antiviral response is critical to clearing using mitochondria as a proximal locale to identify and pathogens as quickly as possible to prevent exacerbated modulate RIG-I function. viral infection that could be followed by chronic, persistent infection and inflammation. RIG-I-like Receptor Antiviral Responses are Modulated by Mitochondrial Dynamics Mitochondrial in the Regulation of RIG-I-like Mitochondria are usually observed as a tubular network Receptor Signalling surrounding the nucleus and radiating from the nucleus to The first evidence linking mitochondria to innate immune the fringe of the cell. Mitochondria are highly dynamic such signalling came with the discovery of MAVS. However, that these organelles can fuse with each other or become it was soon found that mitochondria not only provide a fragmented into individual mitochondria (11). Mitochondrial platform to organise signalling, but they also play an active fusion is important for maintaining mitochondrial function role in regulating signal transduction. NLRX1 (NOD- in cells. In humans, the mitochondrial fusion machinery like receptor X1) is a mitochondrially-localised protein involves two sets of key GTPase proteins: the outer membrane originally thought to negatively regulate signalling by mitofusins (MFN1 and MFN2) as well as the inner membrane interacting with MAVS, thus preventing its interaction with optic atrophy 1 (OPA1). Conversely, mitochondrial fission RIG-I on the outer mitochondrial membrane. However, is essential for the division of mitochondria during cell a recent analysis of the mitochondrial topology and proliferation. In mammalian cells, mitochondrial fission is targeting sequence of NLRX1 revealed that it is targeted dependent on a key GTPase protein known as dynamin- to the mitochondrial matrix (7), thus making association related protein 1 (Drp1). with MAVS improbable. NLRX1 may nonetheless behave Recent studies have implicated mitochondrial dynamics like another mitochondrial protein that modulates RLR in the regulation of RLR antiviral signalling by the signalling, namely the receptor for the globular heads of mitochondrial fusion factors MFN1 and MFN2 (Fig. 3). C1q (gC1qR). Though found in the mitochondrial matrix or Arnoult and colleagues initially observed that RIG-I and , gC1qR is processed upon viral infection and then MDA5 signalling, triggered by Sendai virus infection and it translocates to the outer mitochondrial membrane where poly(I:C), respectively were associated with the elongation it suppresses MAVS-mediated signalling. Interestingly, of mitochondrial tubules. Depletion by shRNA of MFN1, ectopic expression of NLRX1 induces production of reactive OPA1, Drp1 and FIS1, to manipulate mitochondrial oxygen species (ROS) in response to TNFa stimulation or elongation and fragmentation, further demonstrated that Shigella bacterial infection (8). NLRX1 also interacts with mitochondrial elongation is required for RLR antiviral the mitochondrial protein, UQCRC2 (7), a matrix-facing and proinflammatory response (12). Alternatively, protein of the respiratory chain complex III involved in encouraging mitochondrial fusion by ablating Drp1 and ROS release. Inhibition or ablation of NADPH oxidase, FIS1 expression resulted in activation of the signalling

Page 18 AUSTRALIAN BIOCHEMIST Vol 44 No 1 April 2013 SHOWCASE ON Mitochondria: an Unexpected RESEARCH Force in Innate Immunity

Fig. 3. The mitochondria play an integral role in mediating antiviral signalling. Following viral recognition by RLRs and translocation to the mitochondria to interact with MAVS, the mitochondrial dynamics, localisation and interaction with other organelles regulate the spatial and temporal response to pathogen challenge and the subsequent immune response. IFN, interferon; ISG, interferon- stimulated gene.

pathway. Critically, mitochondrial elongation enhanced and the endoplasmic reticulum into mitochondrial immune responses to virus or poly(I:C) stimulation. associated membranes (see below). MAVS was also shown to co-immunoprecipitate MFN1. Collectively, these studies indicate that healthy Thus, it was proposed that MAVS degradation releases mitochondria with intact fusion/fission process and MFN1 to induce further mitochondrial fusion for the membrane integrity are a prerequisite for RLR- and amplification of downstream responses. MAVS-mediated antiviral responses, although the precise Conversely, a more recent study reporting on the role mechanism and relationship between proteins involved in of mitochondrial fusion in MAVS signalling presented mitochondrial dynamics requires further investigation. slightly different results. Onoguchi and colleagues (13) demonstrated that, in response to Sendai virus infection, Mitochondria Coordinate Antiviral Signalling with ectopic expression of MAVS at low levels and endogenous Other Intracellular Compartments expression of MAVS led to the formation of clusters on the Although RLR signalling converges at the level of MAVS mitochondria. MAVS was shown to interact with MFN1 and mitochondria, other intracellular structures are also in co-immunoprecipitation studies. Furthermore, MFN1- involved in transmitting antiviral signalling. STING depletion by siRNA was shown to prevent the MAVS (stimulator of interferon genes) was presented as the clustering. However, in this study, the clustering of MAVS first protein bridging mitochondria and the endoplasmic appeared to be independent of mitochondrial fusion or reticulum for innate antiviral signalling (16) (Fig. 3). fission, since mitochondrial elongation was not observed Although targeted to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), during viral infection. This discrepancy, however, may be STING interacts with MAVS, while STING-deficient due to viral strain differences. MEFs display impaired antiviral responses to Sendai virus A further study reported that RLR-mediated antiviral infection. Importantly, MAVS–STING interaction is more responses were reduced in mouse embryonic fibroblasts prominent in the presence of mitochondrial elongation, (MEFs) deficient in both MFN1 and MFN2 (14). Such MEFs while MFN1 was also observed to interact with the MAVS– still showed substantial antiviral response, suggesting STING complex (12). Therefore, MAVS may transmit that RLR signalling is impaired only when mitochondrial downstream IFN responses from the mitochondria–ER fusion is completely prevented. Moreover, this study also interface in the presence of STING. showed that the mitochondrial inner membrane potential MAVS is also targeted to the , where it is essential for MAVS-mediated antiviral response, can induce antiviral responses in a biphasic manner. since MFN1/2 double knockout MEFS have defective Peroxisomal MAVS was found to trigger a rapid induction membrane potential. of a subset of IFN-stimulated genes (ISGs), whereas Further muddying the waters, MFN2 was reported as mitochondrial MAVS induced a sustained expression of a negative regulator of MAVS signalling (15). MAVS IFN and ISGs (Fig. 3). Expanding on this mitochondrial, was observed to interact with MFN2; further, MFN2 ER and peroxisomal signalling nexus, MAVS was observed depletion led to increased RLR-mediated antiviral and to localise to mitochondrial-associated membrane proinflammatory responses. To date, the mechanism of (MAM) structures that connect the ER and mitochondria. MFN2 regulation of MAVS signalling is also still unclear. Interestingly, MAVS was also found to co-localise with The effect of MFN2 on mitochondrial dynamics during peroxisomal markers, which were observed proximal to the viral infection has not been studied, so it is unknown if the MAMs and mitochondrial junction (17). Further enhancing effect of antiviral signalling is dependent on mitochondrial the role of mitochondrial dynamics in orchestrating dynamics. However, more recent studies have associated signalling, MFN2 is required for the association of MAVS MFN2 regulation of MAVS signalling via the promotion to MAMs. MFN2 depletion resulted in reduced MAVS by MFN2 of relocalisation of MAVS between mitochondria association with the mitochondria (and thus MAMs), Vol 44 No 1 April 2013 AUSTRALIAN BIOCHEMIST Page 19 Mitochondria: an Unexpected SHOWCASE ON Force in Innate Immunity RESEARCH with a concomitant increase in the association with the Initially, like Darryl Kerrigan, we may have been dreaming, peroxisomes, suggesting that MFN2 may play a role in speculating that innate immunity and mitochondria are ‘sorting’ MAVS between organelles. linked . But stranger combinations such as cola and ice cream, Together these studies demonstrate that mitochondrial Shane Warne and Liz Hurley, or vegemite and anything, signalling may be coordinated by these three different appear to work. Contrasting combinations therefore can be organelles with the mitochondria a central conduit, possibly compatible, providing the basis for an efficient and effective at points of organelle contact. process for the maintenance and regulation of homeostasis. And, like Shane Warne, we should be thankful that it does. Good Cop, Bad Cop Finally, to emphasise the possible coevolutionary paths References of symbiotic incorporation of mitochondria into eukaryotic 1. The Castle, 1997. Film. Directed by Rob Sitch. Australia: cells and the development of an immune system, recent Village Roadshow examples have demonstrated that disrupted mitochondria 2. Janeway, C.A., Jr. (1989) Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. themselves can act as inducers of innate inflammation. Biol. 54, 1-13 Several recent studies have noted that mitochondria harbour 3. Medzhitov, R., Preston-Hurlburt, P., and Janeway, C. an array of danger-associated molecular patterns which act A., Jr. (1997) Nature 388, 394-397 as ligands for PRRs (18,19). Mitochondrial DNA and formyl- 4. Poltorak, A., He, X., Smirnova, I., Liu, M.Y., Huffel, peptides were detected by TLR9 following trauma such as C.V., Du, X., Birdwell, D., Alejos, E., Silva, M., Galanos, crush injuries or burns, which induce a clinically dangerous C., Freudenberg, M., Ricciardi-Castagnoli, P., Layton, B., inflammatory state termed systemic inflammatory response and Beutler, B. (1998) Science 282, 2085-2088. syndrome (SIRS) (20). SIRS can be caused by both infectious 5. Kawai, T., and Akira, S. (2010) Nat. Immunol. 11, 373-384 and non-infectious factors. Mitochondria-derived activators 6. Kato, H., Takahasi, K., and Fujita, T. (2011) Immunol. of PRRs can be released from dysfunctional or necrotic Rev. 243, 91-98 mitochondria. Products escaping from mitochondrial 7. Arnoult, D., Soares, F., Tattoli, I., Castanier, C., Philpott, autophagy or mitochondrial ROS have now all been D.J., and Girardin, S.E. (2009) J. Cell Sci. 122, 3161-3168 identified as innate immune ‘danger’ signals, causing a 8. Tattoli, I., Carneiro, L.A., Jehanno, M., Magalhaes, J.G., disruption of homeostasis and consequently stimulating Shu, Y., Philpott, D.J., Arnoult, D., and Girardin, S.E. a robust innate immune response via PRR detection and (2008) EMBO Rep. 9, 293-300 induction of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. 9. Naik, E., and Dixit, V.M. (2011) J. Exp. Med. 208, 417-420 Thus, mitochondria are a ‘double-edged’ sword in innate 10. Jenkins, K., Khoo, J.J., Sadler, A., Piganis, R., Wang, D., immunity. Healthy and functional mitochondria are Borg, N.A., Hjerrild, K., Gould, J., Thomas, B.J., Nagley, required to facilitate antiviral immune signalling; conversely P., Hertzog, P.J., and Mansell, A. (2013) Immunol. Cell dysfunctional or dysregulated mitochondria may provide Biol. Accepted for publication (9 January 2013) danger-associated ligands that are detected by PRRs as a 11. Westermann, B. (2010) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 11, 872- disruption to homeostasis. As such, mitochondria play a 884 critical role in the initiation of innate immune inflammation, 12. Castanier, C., Garcin, D., Vazquez, A., and Arnoult, D. either through dysfunctional mitochondria, or beneficially (2010) EMBO Rep. 11, 133-138 via PRR signal transduction through healthy and dynamic 13. Onoguchi, K., Onomoto, K., Takamatsu, S., Jogi, M., mitochondria. Takemura, A., Morimoto, S., Julkunen, I., Namiki, H., Yoneyama, M., and Fujita, T. (2010) PLoS Pathog. 6, Concluding Remarks e1001012 Despite a billion years of coevolution, the concept of 14. Koshiba, T., Yasukawa, K., Yanagi, Y., and Kawabata, S. mitochondria interacting with, and participating in, our (2011) Sci. Signal. 4, ra7 most ancient means of maintaining cellular homeostasis has 15. Yasukawa, K., Oshiumi, H., Takeda, M., Ishihara, N., not been considered companionable. Recent developments Yanagi, Y., Seya, T., Kawabata, S., and Koshiba, T. however have clearly placed two of our most fundamental (2009) Sci. Signal. 2, ra47 processes at the intersection of a robust and vigilant immune 16. Barber, G.N. (2011) Immunol. Rev. 243, 99-108 response. Clearly there is a close relationship between 17. Horner, S.M., Liu, H.M., Park, H.S., Briley, J., and Gale, innate immune recognition and signal transduction, on the M., Jr. (2011) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14590-14595 one hand, and mitochondrial function and its machinations, 18. Cloonan, S.M., and Choi, A.M. (2012) Cur. Opin. on the other. Research to date has revealed but the tip of Immunol. 24, 32-40 the iceberg. Further studies are required to delineate the role 19. Krysko, D.V., Agostinis, P., Krysko, O., Garg, A.D., in innate immunity of the global structure and individual Bachert, C., Lambrecht, B.N., and Vandenabeele, P. components of mitochondria, as well as the health and (2011) Trends Immunol. 32, 157-164 dysfunction of these organelles. Importantly, given the 20. Zhang, Q., Raoof, M., Chen, Y., Sumi, Y., Sursal, T., expansion and appreciation of the role of PRRs in a plethora Junger, W., Brohi, K., Itagaki, K., and Hauser, C.J. (2010) of diseases, further consideration is warranted into the role, Nature 464, 104-107 and possible therapeutic targeting, of mitochondria in such clinical contexts.

Page 20 AUSTRALIAN BIOCHEMIST Vol 44 No 1 April 2013