| Literature DB >> 24832080 |
Chen-Tseh Zhu1, Paul Ingelmo1, David M Rand1.
Abstract
Dietary restriction (DR) is the most consistent means of extending longevity in a wide range of organisms. A growing body of literature indicates that mitochondria play an important role in longevity extension by DR, but the impact of mitochondrial genotypes on the DR process have received little attention. Mitochondrial function requires proper integration of gene products from their own genomes (mtDNA) and the nuclear genome as well as the metabolic state of the cell, which is heavily influenced by diet. These three-way mitochondrial-nuclear-dietary interactions influence cellular and organismal functions that affect fitness, aging, and disease in nature. To examine these interactions in the context of longevity, we generated 18 "mito-nuclear" genotypes by placing mtDNA from strains of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans onto controlled nuclear backgrounds of D. melanogaster (Oregon-R, w1118, SIR2 overexpression and control) and quantified the lifespan of each mitonuclear genotype on five different sugar:yeast diets spanning a range of caloric and dietary restriction (CR and DR). Using mixed effect models to quantify main and interaction effects, we uncovered strong mitochondrial-diet, mitochondrial-nuclear, and nuclear-diet interaction effects, in addition to three-way interactions. Survival analyses demonstrate that interaction effects can be more important than individual genetic or dietary effects on longevity. Overexpression of SIR2 reduces lifespan variation among different mitochondrial genotypes and further dampens the response of lifespan to CR but not to DR, suggesting that response to these two diets involve different underlying mechanisms. Overall the results reveal that mitochondrial-nuclear genetic interactions play important roles in modulating Drosophila lifespan and these epistatic interactions are further modified by diet. More generally, these findings illustrate that gene-by-gene and gene-by-environment interactions are not simply modifiers of key factors affecting longevity, but these interactions themselves are the very factors that underlie important variation in this trait.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24832080 PMCID: PMC4022469 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004354
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Genet ISSN: 1553-7390 Impact factor: 5.917
Figure 1Diagram of diets used in this study.
The horizontal axis shows the sugar concentration and the vertical axis shows yeast concentration, both as weight/volume. The Roman numerals are the short-hand used in the text and figures, and the numbers in parentheses show the ratios of sugar/yeast. The diets I-II-III span a diet concentration axis reflecting caloric restriction(CR); the diets IV-II-V span a diet composition axis reflecting diet restriction (DR).
Figure 2Mean lifespan response to diet alterations of different mitotypes in OreR (A and B panels) and w 1118 (C and D panels) nuclear backgrounds.
Food concentration gradient is presented in the left panels (A and C) and food composition gradients in the right panels (B and D). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Mitotypes are presented with different markers and line styles. D. simulans mtDNAs have open symbols: siI, square marker with dot line; sm21, triangle marker with dot-dash line; w501, circle marker with double-dot-dash line; D. melanogaster mtDNAs have filled symbols: Zim, filled triangle with dash line; and OreR, filled square with solid line. Different genetic backgrounds, OreR and w 1118, are shown in lower and upper panels respectively.
Summary of hazard ratios on different diets in w 1118 and OreR nuclear genetic backgrounds.
|
| hazard ratio | S.E.M. |
|
| |
|
| |||||
| Diet I | −0.2290 | 0.7953 | 0.0416 | −5.51 | 3.59×10−8 |
| Diet III | 0.6648 | 1.9442 | 0.0423 | 15.70 | 1.51×10−55 |
| Diet IV | 0.6935 | 2.0007 | 0.0424 | 16.36 | 3.69×10−60 |
| Diet V | −0.2120 | 0.8090 | 0.0420 | −5.05 | 4.42×10−8 |
|
| |||||
| Diet I | 0.1123 | 1.1188 | 0.0416 | 2.70 | 0.0069 |
| Diet III | 0.5193 | 1.6809 | 0.0420 | 12.38 | 3.35×10−35 |
| Diet IV | 0.7603 | 2.1390 | 0.0429 | 17.73 | 2.46×10−70 |
| Diet V | 0.4113 | 1.5088 | 0.0416 | 9.88 | 5.08×10−23 |
CR and DR experiments use type II diet as a reference. Negative log(hazard ratio) values indicate that the tested diet causes a lower risk of death, and positive values indicate a higher risk of death, respectively, than type II. See Figure 1 for diets, and Materials and Methods for details.
Mixed effect Cox proportional hazard models for survivorship in w 1118 and OreR CR/DR experiments.
| Nuclear background | ||||||
|
|
| |||||
| Effect | d.f. |
|
|
|
| Compare Models: |
| diet | 4 | 212.56 | 7.48×10−45*** | 403.26 | 5.49×10−86*** | |
| mito | 1 | 156.07 | 8.17×10−36*** | 556.76 | 4.26×10−123*** | Model 0 & 1 |
| species | 1 | 0.1113 | 0.7387 | 3.7314 | 0.0534 † | Model 1 & 2 |
| dietary effects: | ||||||
| depends on mito | 2 | 149.68 | 3.14×10−33 *** | 45.813 | 1.13×10−10*** | Model 2 & 3 |
| depends on mito|species | 1 | 0.0129 | 0.9097 | 0.0001 | 0.9966 | Model 3 & 4 |
| replicate | 1 | 10.659 | 0.0011 ** | 0.0022 | 0.9629 | Model 4 & 5 |
Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘†’.
Model 0: diet. (Note 1).
Model 1: diet + mito.
Model 2: diet + mito|speices + species (Note 2).
Model 3: diet + diet|mito + mito|speices + species (Note 3).
Model 4: diet + diet|(mito|speices + species) + mito|speices + species (Note 4).
Model 5: diet + diet|(mito|speices + species) + mito|speices + species+ replicate.
Note 1: fixed effect, such as diet, is shown with underline.
Note 2: mitochondrial effect, as a random effect, nested within species; ‘species’ and ‘line nested within species’ are treated as categorical variables and not scaled by sequence divergence.
Note 3: additional dietary effect modeled as an effect nested within mitochondrial effect.
Note 4: additional dietary effect modeled as an effect nested within mitochondria and species effects.
Summary of hazard ratios of background effects and w501 mitotype effects in OreR and w 1118 nuclear backgrounds using OreR as the reference nuclear genotype.
|
| hazard ratio | S.E.M. |
|
| |
| Between | 0.7306 | 2.0762 | 0.0168 | 43.58 | 0.0 |
| Between w501 and sm21 mitotypes | (w501 as reference) | ||||
| In | −0.6191 | 0.5384 | 0.0390 | −15.87 | 1.02×10−56 |
| In | 0.0024 | 1.0024 | 0.3705 | 0.06 | 0.952 |
The data come from the results presented in Figure 2.
Contrasts showing the individual effect of the w501 mtDNA on longevity in two nuclear backgrounds and all diet conditions.
| Main-effect models | ||||
|
|
| |||
| Diet conditions |
|
|
|
|
| All 5 diets (df = 1) | 0.6122 (N.S.) | 0.434 | 289.54 | 6.26×10−65 *** |
| CR diets (df = 1) | 0.2842 (N.S.) | 0.594 | 169.78 | 1.37×10−38 *** |
| DR diets (df = 1) | 20.727 | 5.30×10−6 *** | 198.32 | 4.86×10−45 *** |
Significance codes: 0 ‘***’, 0.001 ‘**’, 0.01 ‘*’, 0.05 ‘†’.
Figure 3sm21 and w501 mitotypes effects on mtDNA/nDNA copy number ratio in OreR and w 1118 nuclear background.
Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Figure 4Mean lifespan and standard error of SIR2 overexpression (A and B panels) and control (C and D panels) genotypes in different mitotype background.
Mitotypes are presented with different markers and linestyles following the same scheme of figure 2. Food concentration gradient is presented in the left panels (A and C) and food composition gradients in the right panels (B and D).
Summary of hazard ratios of SIR2 overexpression effects and dietary effects, estimated from SIR2 overexpression experiments with multiple diets.
|
| hazard ratio | S.E.M. |
|
| ||
| Caloric manipulations (Type I, II and III) | ||||||
|
|
| |||||
|
| 0.6570 | 1.9290 | 0.1178 | 5.58 | 2.42×10−8 | |
| dietary effect (in | 0.4707 | 1.6011 | 0.2184 | 21.55 | 5.29×10−103 | |
| dietary effect (in | 0.0536 | 1.0551 | 0.0215 | 2.50 | 0.0132 | |
| S/Y ratio manipulations (Type V, II and IV) | ||||||
|
|
| |||||
|
| 0.8113 | 2.2509 | 0.1197 | 6.78 | 1.21×10−11 | |
| dietary effect (in | 0.4276 | 1.5490 | 0.0220 | 19.86 | 9.03×10−88 | |
| dietary effect (in | 0.5178 | 1.6784 | 0.0231 | 22.45 | 1.28×10−111 |
The magnitude of mitotype effect in SIR2 CR/DR experiments, expressed as variance components.
| w/. si1 | w/o. si1 | |||||
| Nuclear Genotype | mito|species
| species | replicate | mito | replicate | |
| Caloric manipulations (Type I, II and III) | ||||||
|
| 0.1506 | 0.0004 | 0.0018 | 0.0389 | 0.0051 | |
|
| 0.4216 | 0.0004 | 0.0029 | 0.0103 | 0.0058 | |
| Y:S ratio manipulations (Type V, II and IV) | ||||||
|
| 0.3858 | 0.0004 | 0.0016 | 0.0356 | 9.11×10−5 | |
|
| 0.8138 | 0.1634 | 0.0129 | 0.0037 | 0.0138 | |
*mitochondrial effect nested in species effect.
Figure 5SIR2 overexpression level in both sexes of mitotype si1 and OreR.
Error bars represent the standard error of the mean of log(fold change); the differences are not significant in either sex (P>0.05 for both).
Mix effect Cox proportional hazard models for survivorship in SIR2 CR/DR experiment.
| Dietary manipulations | ||||||
| Caloric | (type I, II, III) | Y:S ratio | (type V, II, IV) | |||
| Effect | d.f. |
|
|
|
| Compare Models: |
|
| 1 | 688.14 | 1.13×10−151*** | 739.15 | 9.17×10−163*** | |
| diet | 1 | 233.94 | 8.24×10−53*** | 657.81 | 4.47×10−145*** | Model 0 & 1 |
|
| 1 | 136.99 | 1.21×10−31*** | 3.0785 | 0.07934 † | Model 1 & 2 |
| mtDNA-mitotype | 1 | 988.25 | 6.43×10−217*** | 1694.8 | 0.0*** | Model 2 & 3 |
| mtDNA-species | 1 | 0.0094 | 0.9229 | 0.0003 | 0.9856 | Model 3 & 4 |
| mito- | 1 | 77.272 | 1.49×10−18*** | 64.074 | 1.22×10−15*** | Model 4 & 5a |
| mito-diet interaction | 1 | 53.423 | 2.69×10−13*** | 305.95 | 1.67×10−68*** | Model 4 & 5b |
| replicate | 1 | 0.0072 | 0.9325 | 0.0102 | 0.9196 | Model 5a & 6 |
Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘†’.
Model 0:
Model 1: + diet (Note 2).
Model 2: + diet + |
Model 3: + diet + | + mito.
Model 4: + diet + | + mito|species+ species.
Model 5a: + diet + | + |(mito|species + species) + mito|species + species.
Model 5b: + diet + | + diet|(mito|species + species) + mito|species + species.
Model 6: + diet + | + |(mito|species + species) + mito|species + species + replicate.
Note 1: fixed effect, such as diet, is show with underline.
Note 2: diet is modeled as an ordinal variable rather than a nominal variable.