The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging - Supernova: Pliki

The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging - Supernova: Pliki The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging - Supernova: Pliki

pliki.supernova.com.pl
from pliki.supernova.com.pl More from this publisher
15.01.2013 Views

178 The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging machinery. In Section 2.4.3 it was explained that, since nearly all mitochondrial proteins are already encoded in the nucleus, a system exists to transport them into mitochondria. This system is now fairly well understood; in particular, we know that the addition of a particular type of sequence at the beginning of such a protein causes it to be imported all the way into the matrix. 5 Therefore, if we simply prepend the nucleotide sequence of such a signal onto each of the inserted genes, there is a chance that the encoded proteins will thereby be transported to mitochondria. Once inside, the presequence is removed and the protein will be indistinguishable (in theory) from what it would have been if it had been constructed in the mitochondrion in the first place. Thus it should be incorporated correctly into the OXPHOS machinery. This sounds straightforward in principle, but would it work? We certainly have reason for hope, since the yeast gene that had been recoded in 1986 1 was properly imported and incorporated, so that it really worked, as long ago as 1988. 6 Other proteins have so far proved harder (see Section 15.9), but there are after all only 13 proteins, 13 problems. 15.3. Regulation of Expression; Copy Number It may have caught the reader’s notice that the proposal discussed above is to incorporate “copies” of the mt-coded genes into the nucleus, but that no mention has yet been made of how many copies. This is indeed an issue of central importance to the proposed treatment, because the mt-coded proteins are all subunits of enzyme complexes, of which other subunits are already nuclear-coded. If the mitochondrion has too much of one subunit relative to another, it may fail to assemble any complexes correctly. This obstacle has been recognised ever since protein import was first proposed as a treatment for aging. 3 In fact, however, we can turn the above observation to our advantage. Since all 13 mt-coded proteins do their work in direct physical combination with nuclear-coded ones, they must normally be generated in exactly the same stoichiometry, relative to those nuclear-coded ones, as they exist in the complete complex—usually 1:1. So, for example, in order to get the right amount of cytochrome b, we could embed our nuclear copy in the same regulatory DNA that naturally surrounds the Rieske protein. In this way we should ensure that exactly two copies of the inserted gene will do the job, since that is the number of copies that cells have of their nuclear-coded genes. How can this be correct, since cells have so many mitochondria, each of which has its own DNA (and in several copies, at that)? Surely that means that we must insert thousands of copies into the nucleus in order to achieve correct levels of expression? Well, we cannot escape the fact that cells manage with two copies of the gene for cytochrome c, etc., compared to thousands of copies of that for cytochrome b etc. Therefore, for some reason the mitochondrially-encoded genes must be transcribed and/or translated thousands of times more slowly than the nuclear-coded ones. The question is, why? Conceptually, there are two possible answers: either there is an intrinsic feature of the genes’ DNA sequence that makes the nuclear ones much easier to translate, or else the transcription and/or translation machinery in the mitochondrion is simply much less efficient than that in the cell. The former alternative is biologically implausible, since the mtDNA is made up of the same chemical constituents as the nuclear DNA. The latter must therefore be correct. But then, if we insert a gene into the nucleus, it will promptly benefit from the more efficient machinery, so it need only be present in the same copy number—two—as the naturally nuclear-coded genes. 15.4. Stoichiometry: Interference by Endogenous Wild-Type mtDNA Germ-line transformation gives us no choice about which cells include the inserted DNA: they all do. Gene therapy may in time be more selective, but probably not at first. This

Transgenic Copies of mtDNA: Techniques and Hurdles means that cells whose mtDNA is perfectly intact, which means nearly all cells, will nevertheless have nuclear (transgenic) copies of it. Thus, there will be a copy number problem after all, since these mitochondrially healthy cells will be expressing twice as much of the mtDNA-encoded proteins as of the solely nuclear-coded ones. A factor of two may not sound like much of a burden, but the assembly of enzyme complexes is a very subtle process which is still poorly understood, so there may be very deleterious effects. Indeed, this may be the reason for the failure, a few years ago, of an in vitro attempt to make a working nuclear-coded ATPase subunit 6. 7 This is discussed further in Section 15.8. If this does turn out to be a barrier, however, there are various way that we might get around it. One is to disable some of the nuclear-coded genes that are responsible for transcribing and/or translating the mitochondrial copies. This would leave the inserted copies as the only functional ones, so the correct stoichiometry would be restored. Also, it would then not matter whether the mitochondrial copies were mutant or not; they would already be functionless. However, this approach has the disadvantage that the disruption of mitochondrial transcription or translation must absolutely be effected only in cells whose inserted mt-coded genes are all working. It is quite possible that gene therapy will (at least at first) be unable to incorporate the engineered DNA into every single cell for which it is intended. If copies of the mitochondrially-coded genes reach, say, 90% of cells, and independently the DNA that disrupts mitochondrial transcription or translation also reaches 90%, then there will on average be 9% of cells which are no longer able to use their mtDNA but which also have no functioning replacement. Since under 1% of cells exhibit OXPHOS failure naturally, this would be worse than doing nothing at all! It would thus be necessary to arrange a very tight linkage between the two treatments, so as to allow mtDNA still to be used in cells where the replacement DNA was ineffective. This may be more easily said than done. A second problem is that all known techniques for disrupting a particular nuclear gene have an error rate, so that they occasionally disrupt miscellaneous other genes too. Such disruption might easily kill the cell, or even induce a tumour. 15.5. Interference by Mutant mt-Coded Proteins An alternative approach to the stoichiometry problem would be to incorporate into the inserted DNA a mechanism that stopped it from being transcribed until such time as the cell got into OXPHOS difficulties. This would have the same effect: until and unless SOS destroys the cell’s OXPHOS capacity, only the mitochondrially-coded copies are used, and after that only the transgenic copies are used (since the mutant copies are useless). It should also be quite easy to arrange, since there will be some fairly unsubtle intracellular signals (such as the up-regulation of the PMOR) that can be used to trigger the switching-on of the inserted genes. The switch itself can be constructed by numerous methods that are already standard molecular biological tools, such as FLP recombination. 8 It may be necessary to make the switch reversible, since cells may transiently get into a state where, for example, the PMOR is briefly asked to work very hard but not because of mtDNA failure; if so, then the detection mechanism would also need to distinguish between OXPHOS recovery due to the action of the transgenic DNA and recovery that would have occurred anyway, since in the former case the switch should clearly not be reversed when OXPHOS recovers. The main shortcoming of this approach to the stoichiometry problem comes from the mutant mtDNA. Some mutations (e.g. in tRNAs) will simply cause no mt-coded protein to be constructed; cells taken over by mutations of that sort should respond properly to the mechanism just outlined. But other mutations may only change the amino acid sequence a little: enough to stop the protein from working, but not enough to stop it from being incorporated into an enzyme complex. It will thus compete with the correct copies being 179

Transgenic Copies <strong>of</strong> mtDNA: Techniques and Hurdles<br />

means that cells whose mtDNA is perfectly intact, which means nearly all cells, will<br />

nevertheless have nuclear (transgenic) copies <strong>of</strong> it. Thus, there will be a copy number problem<br />

after all, since these mitochondrially healthy cells will be expressing twice as much <strong>of</strong> the<br />

mtDNA-encoded proteins as <strong>of</strong> the solely nuclear-coded ones. A factor <strong>of</strong> two may not<br />

sound like much <strong>of</strong> a burden, but the assembly <strong>of</strong> enzyme complexes is a very subtle process<br />

which is still poorly understood, so there may be very deleterious effects. Indeed, this may<br />

be the reason for the failure, a few years ago, <strong>of</strong> an in vitro attempt to make a working<br />

nuclear-coded ATPase subunit 6. 7 This is discussed further in Section 15.8.<br />

If this does turn out to be a barrier, however, there are various way that we might get<br />

around it. One is to disable some <strong>of</strong> the nuclear-coded genes that are responsible for<br />

transcribing and/or translating the mitochondrial copies. This would leave the inserted copies<br />

as the only functional ones, so the correct stoichiometry would be restored. Also, it would<br />

then not matter whether the mitochondrial copies were mutant or not; they would already<br />

be functionless.<br />

However, this approach has the disadvantage that the disruption <strong>of</strong> mitochondrial<br />

transcription or translation must absolutely be effected only in cells whose inserted mt-coded<br />

genes are all working. It is quite possible that gene therapy will (at least at first) be unable to<br />

incorporate the engineered DNA into every single cell for which it is intended. If copies <strong>of</strong><br />

the mitochondrially-coded genes reach, say, 90% <strong>of</strong> cells, and independently the DNA that<br />

disrupts mitochondrial transcription or translation also reaches 90%, then there will on<br />

average be 9% <strong>of</strong> cells which are no longer able to use their mtDNA but which also have no<br />

functioning replacement. Since under 1% <strong>of</strong> cells exhibit OXPHOS failure naturally, this<br />

would be worse than doing nothing at all! It would thus be necessary to arrange a very tight<br />

linkage between the two treatments, so as to allow mtDNA still to be used in cells where the<br />

replacement DNA was ineffective. This may be more easily said than done. A second problem<br />

is that all known techniques for disrupting a particular nuclear gene have an error rate, so<br />

that they occasionally disrupt miscellaneous other genes too. Such disruption might easily<br />

kill the cell, or even induce a tumour.<br />

15.5. Interference by Mutant mt-Coded Proteins<br />

An alternative approach to the stoichiometry problem would be to incorporate into<br />

the inserted DNA a mechanism that stopped it from being transcribed until such time as<br />

the cell got into OXPHOS difficulties. This would have the same effect: until and unless SOS<br />

destroys the cell’s OXPHOS capacity, only the mitochondrially-coded copies are used, and<br />

after that only the transgenic copies are used (since the mutant copies are useless). It should<br />

also be quite easy to arrange, since there will be some fairly unsubtle intracellular signals<br />

(such as the up-regulation <strong>of</strong> the PMOR) that can be used to trigger the switching-on <strong>of</strong> the<br />

inserted genes. <strong>The</strong> switch itself can be constructed by numerous methods that are already<br />

standard molecular biological tools, such as FLP recombination. 8 It may be necessary to<br />

make the switch reversible, since cells may transiently get into a state where, for example,<br />

the PMOR is briefly asked to work very hard but not because <strong>of</strong> mtDNA failure; if so, then<br />

the detection mechanism would also need to distinguish between OXPHOS recovery due to<br />

the action <strong>of</strong> the transgenic DNA and recovery that would have occurred anyway, since in<br />

the former case the switch should clearly not be reversed when OXPHOS recovers.<br />

<strong>The</strong> main shortcoming <strong>of</strong> this approach to the stoichiometry problem comes from the<br />

mutant mtDNA. Some mutations (e.g. in tRNAs) will simply cause no mt-coded protein to<br />

be constructed; cells taken over by mutations <strong>of</strong> that sort should respond properly to the<br />

mechanism just outlined. But other mutations may only change the amino acid sequence a<br />

little: enough to stop the protein from working, but not enough to stop it from being<br />

incorporated into an enzyme complex. It will thus compete with the correct copies being<br />

179

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!