ARTICLE: Phenotypes and progression pathways in severe malaria

Precision identification of high-risk phenotypes and progression pathways in severe malaria without requiring longitudinal data
Iain G Johnston, Till Hoffmann, Sam F Greenbury, Ornella Cominetti, Muminatou Jallow, Dominic Kwiatkowski, Mauricio Barahona, Nick S Jones, Climent Casals-Pascual
npj Digital Medicine 2 63 (2019)

We recently published an article here in npj Digital Medicine using maths (including HyperTraPS) to learn more about severe malaria, a disease that kills over 400 000 people (mainly African children) a year. Severe malaria is challenging in the clinic because its symptoms and progress vary a lot from patient to patient. Our approach helps learn about this variability and identify high-risk patients and pathways. You can read our blog article about the paper on the npj Digital Medicine community blog here!

ARTICLE: The cell's power station policies

Energetic costs of cellular and therapeutic control of stochastic mitochondrial DNA populations

Hanne Hoitzing, Payam A Gammage, Lindsey van Haute, Michal Minczuk, Iain G Johnston, Nick S Jones

PLoS Computational Biology 15 e1007023 (2019)

(Hanne's also written a post about this paper, you can read it here)

Our cells are filled with populations of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecules, which encode vital cellular machinery that supports our energy requirements. The cell invests energy in maintaining its mtDNA population, like us using electricity-powered tools to help maintain our power stations. Our cellular power stations can vary in quality (for example, mutations can damage mtDNA), and are subject to random influences. How should the cell best invest energy in controlling and maintaining its power stations? And can we use this answer to design better therapies to address damaged mtDNA?

In a new paper here in PLoS Computational Biology, we attempt to answer this question using mathematical modelling, linking with genetic experiments done by our excellent collaborators at Cambridge (Payam Gammage, Lindsey Van Haute and Michal Minczuk). We first expand a mathematical model for how diverse mtDNA populations within cells change over time – building new power stations and decommissioning old ones, under the “governance” of the cell. We then produce an “energy budget” for the cellular “society” – describing the costs of building, decommissioning, and maintaining different power stations, and the corresponding profits of energy generation.

We find some surprising results. First, it can get harder to maintain a good energy budget in a tissue (a collection of individual cellular “societies”) over time, even if demands stay the same and average mtDNA quality doesn’t change. This is because the cell-to-cell variability in mtDNA quality does increase, carrying with it an added energetic challenge. This increased challenge could be a contributing factor to the collection of problems involved in ageing.

An overview of our approach. A mathematical model for the processes and "budget" involved in controlling mtDNA populations makes a general set of biological predictions and explains gene-therapy observations

Next, we found that cells with only low-quality mtDNA can perform worse than cells with a mix of low- and high-quality mtDNA. This is because low-quality mtDNA may consume less cellular resource, although global efficiency is decreased. Linked to this, removal of low-quality mtDNA (decommissioning bad power stations) alone is not always the best strategy to improve performance. Instead, jointly elevating low- and high-quality mtDNA levels, avoiding this detrimental mixed regime, is the best strategy for some situations. These insights may help explain some of the negative effects recently observed in cells with mixed mtDNA populations.

Our theory suggests that mixed mtDNA populations may do worse than pure ones, even if the pure population is a low-functionality mutant. Image from Hanne's post here 

We identified how best to control cellular mtDNA populations across the full range of possible populations, and used this insight to link with exciting gene therapies where low-quality mtDNA is preferentially removed through an experimental intervention (using so-called “endonucleases” to cut particular mtDNA molecules). We found that strong, single treatments will be outperformed by weaker, longer-term treatments, and identified how the mtDNA variability we know is present can practically effect the outcome of these therapies. We hope that the principles found in this work both add to our basic understanding of ageing and mixed (“heteroplasmic”) mitochondrial populations, and may inform more efficient therapeutic approaches in the future. Iain, Hanne, Nick

ARTICLE: Tension and Resolution

Tension and resolution: dynamic, evolving populations of organelle genomes within plant cells
IG Johnston
Molecular Plant 12 764 (2019)

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are compartments in cells that power complex life. Both started out billions of years ago as independent organisms with complete genomes, that were acquired by ancestral cells. Since these endosymbioses, the genomes of mitochondria (mt) and chloroplasts (cp) have become stripped down. Modern mt and cp have lost lots of genes either completely or the “host” cell nucleus. Mt and cp now exist in dynamic populations within the cells of modern organisms. In plants and algae, the two co-exist, sharing responsibility for the energy balance of the organism – and hence ultimately powering and feeding life, including the human population.

Plant mt and cp populations are weird. Different plants and algae have very different mt and cp genomes – some huge (many megabases, several chromosomes in the case of some mt) and some tiny. Unlike the more familiar animal (and human) case, plant mt genomes readily recombine, mixing up their structures and genetic content within the cell. Both mt and cp move around plant cells rapidly – we’re not sure why, particular for mt. Again, unlike animal mt, neither plant mt not cp are particularly prone to meet up and fuse into big networks – they usually stay as individual compartments, except for short interactions. We do know that if we perturb the physical or genetic dynamics of organelles, the plant suffers – which we can sometimes exploit in breeding efficient crops.

 Populations of mitochondria (A green, B) and chloroplasts (A blue, C) moving in the plant cell

In a recent review article here in Molecular Plant, we reviewed current knowledge about these dynamics and speculated about what principles these populations of mt and cp may be responding to. We first asked why mt and cp may retain different sets of genes in different species – a question we’ve touched upon before here (blog). Retaining more genes in organelles may have the “pro” of making individual organelles more independent, and better at responding to demands (see John Allen’s CoRR hypothesis, e.g. here). But there’s the “con” that organelles are dangerous places, and genes retained there may be more subject to damage than in the safe haven of the nucleus. So individual plants may choose to retain mt and cp genes for dynamism, or shift them to the nucleus for robustness. Neither extreme is perfect – there are always pros and cons – leading to a tension to which different plants have selected different resolutions.

Pursuing this line, we next speculated that because plants are immobile (and hence unable to move away from challenging conditions), they may favour the “dynamism” side over the “robustness” side. This would explain why they often retain more organelle genes than motile organisms, but would also predict that they face a double challenge: (i) more organelle genes and (ii) exposure to more challenging environments, both of which may lead to genetic damage. This could be a reason why plant organelles undergo recombination – as a way of ameliorating genetic damage. But again, there are pros and cons: the “pro” of fixing genetic damage is balanced by the “con” of recombination mixing and confusing genetic structure. Perhaps this is why the physical behaviour of plant organelles is different to that in animals – keeping mt and cp separate may limit the amount of recombination that can take place, allowing the plant to control this second pro-con tradeoff.

 

(left) the proposed tension between robustness (i) and dynamism (ii). Perhaps plants are more (ii)-like because they need to respond to fluctuating conditions... because of their immobility (right) with hypothesised knock-on consequences.

All of these ideas are presented as hypotheses, and we proposed some ways that a combination of new experiment and theory can help make progress understanding these complex, vital systems in future. Watch this space! Iain

ARTICLE: Coupling mitochondrial physics and genetics

Mitochondrial Network State Scales mtDNA Genetic Dynamics
Juvid Aryaman, Charlotte Bowles, Nick S. Jones and Iain G. Johnston
Genetics Early online July 10, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.119.302423

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) populations within our cells encode vital energetic machinery. MtDNA is housed within mitochondria, cellular compartments lined by two membranes, that lead a very dynamic life. Individual mitochondria can fuse when they meet, and fused mitochondria can fragment to become individual smaller mitochondria, all the while moving throughout the cell. The reasons for this dynamic activity remain unclear (we’ve compared hypotheses about them before here and here, with blog articles here). But what influence do these physical mitochondrial dynamics have on the genetic composition of mtDNA populations?

MtDNA populations can, naturally or as a result of gene therapies, consist of a mixture of different mtDNA types. Typically, different cells will have different proportions of, say, type A and type B. For example, one cell may be 20% type A, another cell may be 40% type A, and a third may be 70% type A. This variability matters because when a certain threshold (often around 60%) is crossed for some mtDNA types, we get devastating diseases.

We previously showed mathematically (blog) and experimentally (blog) that this cell-to-cell variability in mtDNA proportions (often called “heteroplasmy variance” and sometimes referred to via the “mtDNA bottleneck”) is expected to increase linearly over time. However, this analysis pictured mtDNAs as individual molecules, outside of their mitochondrial compartments. When mitochondria fuse to form larger compartments, their mtDNA is more protected: smaller mitochondria (and their internal mtDNA) are subject to greater degradation. More degradation means more replication, and more opportunities for the fraction of a particular type of mtDNA to change per unit time. In a new paper here in Genetics, we show (using a mathematical tour de force by Juvid) that this protection can dramatically influence cell-to-cell mtDNA variability. Specifically, the rate of heteroplasmy variance increase is scaled by the proportion of mitochondria that exist in a fragmented state. (It turns out that it's the proportion of itochondria that are fragmented that's important -- not whether the rate of fission-fusion is fast or slow).

This has knock-on effects for how the cell can best get rid of low-quality mutant mtDNA. In particular, if mitochondria are allowed to fuse based on their quality (“selective fusion”), we show that intermediate rates of fusion are best for removing mutants. Too much fusion, and all mtDNA is protected; too little, and good mtDNA cannot be sorted from bad mtDNA using the mitochondrial network. This mechanism could help explain why we see different levels of mitochondrial fusion in different conditions. More broadly, this link between mitochondrial physics and genetics (which we’ve also speculated about here (blog) and here) suggests one way that selective pressures and tradeoffs could influence mitochondrial dynamics, giving rise to the wide variety of behaviours that remain unexplained. Juvid, Nick, and Iain

ARTICLE: Getting to the root of the problem

Model selection and parameter estimation for root architecture models using likelihood-free inference
Clare Ziegler, Rosemary J. Dyson, Iain G. Johnston
J Roy Soc Interface (online, doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2019.0293 , 2019)

Roots bridge plants and soil, making vital contributions to crops, the environment, and fundamental biology. Because of this importance, understanding how roots grow under different conditions is a key scientific target. Experimental approaches to study roots can be challenging: being underground, it’s hard to observe root systems without perturbing them. Computer models can help here: we can simulate root growth and the “architecture” of root systems under lots of different conditions, without having to dig up and destroy real plants.

 
Observing roots growing underground is hard, but not impossible: here's a shot from our "minirhizotron" experiments using underground cameras to watch roots grow in an experimental woodland facility (see article here, and 3D version here!)

As computers have become more powerful, more and more sophisticated models for root growth and architecture have emerged. These simulation approaches typically take as input a set of parameters, and produce as output a model root system. These parameters are numbers describing, for example, the rates of root elongation, distances between lateral root branches, and so on – there may be dozens, or hundreds, of parameters in a sophisticated root model.

The output of a model depends strongly on these parameter values. So how can we choose the “right” ones? We may know some from experiments – for example, the widths of roots can be readily measured. But others may be less easy to observe. It is quite common to make educated guesses at these parameters, and see if the resulting root system “looks right”. This approach has a few issues – it can be subjective, and doesn’t give us information on how flexible our guesses are. For example, is a growth rate of 0.1cm per day just as likely as 0.5cm per day, or 0.02cm per day? And how can we tell if one version of a model does “better” than another, and is more supported by real observations?

In a new paper here in Journal of the Royal Society Interface, we propose a platform to provide answers to these questions, using so-called “approximate Bayesian computation” or ABC. This is a way of learning which parameter values and models are most compatible with observed data, by running many simulations with many different choices, and comparing the output of each choice to our observations using specific criteria. This replaces the subjective “looks right” and explores a wide set of parameterisations, allowing us to learn what ranges of values are most likely given our data. We can also use ABC to compare different mechanisms for root growth, finding which is most supported by observation. This helps us gain scientific insight and ensures that the outputs of our models can be more reliably intepreted.

Overview of our approach. Using ABC allows us to identify governing parameters and mechanisms for root growth that are most supported by real observations.

We tested our ABC approach with synthetic observations from models of thale cress and narrowleaf lupin, confirming that we can recover the parameter values we put in. We then used real thale cress plants (wild and mutant) to show that our platform distinguishes genetically different plants and identifies most-likely parameters and model structures for real root growth. We used the platform to select models for growth and branching, showing how it can be used to compare existing models from the literature. We hope that this approach can be used to further help improve the interpretability and rigour of plant modelling and simulation! Iain and Clare

ARTICLE: Plant stem cells strive towards equality

Jackson, Matthew DB, et al. "Global Topological Order Emerges through Local Mechanical Control of Cell Divisions in the Arabidopsis Shoot Apical Meristem." Cell Systems 8 53 (2019).

 
We recently wrote this paper (available in Cell Systems here -- and featured on the journal's front cover below!) about how cells are globally organised through local behaviour in an important plant organ. There's a blog article about the paper on "The Node", a developmental biology blog, here:

http://thenode.biologists.com/plant-stem-cells-strive-towards-equality/research/

ARTICLE: How mitochondria can vary, and consequences for human health

(cross-posted from Imperial Mitochondriacs)

Mitochondria are components of the cell which are involved in generating “energy currency” molecules called ATP across much of complex life. Since many mitochondria exist within single cells (often hundreds or thousands), it is possible for the characteristics of individual mitochondria to vary within cells, and within tissues. This variation of mitochondrial characteristics can affect biological function and human health.

Since mitochondria possess their own, small, circular, DNA molecules (mtDNA), we can split mitochondrial characteristics into two categories: genetic and non-genetic. In our review, we discuss a number of aspects in which mitochondria vary, from both genetic and non-genetic perspectives. 

In terms of mitochondrial genetics, the amount of mtDNA per cell is variable. When a cell divides, its daughters receive a share of its parents mtDNA, but the split isn’t precisely 50/50, so cell division can cause variability in the number of mtDNAs per cell. As mtDNAs are replicated and degraded over time, errors in the copying process may give rise to mtDNA mutations, which may spread throughout a cell. Factors such as: the total amount, the rate of degradation/replication, the mean fraction of mutants, and the extent of fragmentation in the mitochondrial network, can all influence how variable the fraction of mutated mtDNAs becomes through time (see here for a preview of some upcoming work on this topic). The total amount, and mutated fraction of mtDNAs, are implicated in diseases such as neurodegeneration, as well as the ageing process.

Apart from genetic variations, there are many non-genetic features of mitochondria which also vary within and between cells. Changes in mtDNA sequence can change the amino-acid sequence of the proteins encoded by mtDNA, causing structural changes in the molecular machines which generate ATP. The shape of the membranes of mitochondria are also highly variable, and respond to mitochondrial activity through quantities such as pH, where mitochondrial activity itself may depend on mtDNA sequence. The previous two examples (mitochondrial protein and membrane structure) demonstrate how the genetic state of mitochondria may influence their non-genetic characteristics. Mitochondrial non-genetic characteristics may also influence the genetic state: for instance, mitochondrial membrane potential can influence the probability of a mitochondria being degraded, along with its mtDNA.

The inter-dependence of genetic and non-genetic characteristics demonstrate the complex feedback loops linking these two aspects of mitochondrial physiology. We suggest here that, since changes in mitochondrial genetics occur more slowly than most physical aspects of mitochondrial physiology, understanding mitochondrial genetics may be especially important in explaining phenomena such as ageing, which appears to be closely related to mitochondrial heterogeneity. You can freely access our work, which has recently been published in Frontiers in Genetics, as “Mitochondrial Heterogeneity” https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2018.00718/full Juvid, Iain and Nick.