Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Listeria hijacks host mitophagy through a novel mitophagy receptor to evade killing

Nature Immunology volume 20, pages 433–446 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Cells use mitophagy to remove damaged or unwanted mitochondria to maintain homeostasis. Here we report that the intracellular bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes exploits host mitophagy to evade killing. We found that L. monocytogenes induced mitophagy in macrophages through the virulence factor listeriolysin O (LLO). We discovered that NLRX1, the only Nod-like receptor (NLR) family member with a mitochondrial targeting sequence, contains an LC3-interacting region (LIR) and directly associated with LC3 through the LIR. NLRX1 and its LIR motif were essential for L. monocytogenes–induced mitophagy. NLRX1 deficiency and use of a mitophagy inhibitor both increased mitochondrial production of reactive oxygen species and thereby suppressed the survival of L. monocytogenes. Mechanistically, L. monocytogenes and LLO induced oligomerization of NLRX1 to promote binding of its LIR motif to LC3 for induction of mitophagy. Our study identifies NLRX1 as a novel mitophagy receptor and discovers a previously unappreciated strategy used by pathogens to hijack a host cell homeostasis system for their survival.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: L. monocytogenes induces mitophagy in macrophages.
Fig. 2: NLRX1 is a novel mitophagy receptor.
Fig. 3: NLRX1 is essential for L. monocytogenes–induced mitophagy.
Fig. 4: L. monocytogenes hijacks host mitophagy for its survival both in vitro and in vivo.
Fig. 5: L. monocytogenes–induced mitophagy decreases mitochondrial ROS production and promotes bacterial survival.
Fig. 6: Conventional autophagy is required for L. monocytogenes–induced mitophagy.
Fig. 7: L. monocytogenes induces mitophagy mainly through LLO.
Fig. 8: L. monocytogenes induces NLRX1 oligomerization for mitophagy activation through release of LRR-domain-mediated autoinhibition.

Data availability

All summary or representative data generated and supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper. Full scans of all blots and gels are shown in Supplementary Dataset 1. All primary data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Green, D. R. & Levine, B. To be or not to be? How selective autophagy and cell death govern cell fate. Cell 157, 65–75 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Green, D. R., Galluzzi, L. & Kroemer, G. Mitochondria and the autophagy–inflammation–cell death axis in organismal aging. Science 333, 1109–1112 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Youle, R. J. & Narendra, D. P. Mechanisms of mitophagy. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 12, 9–14 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Birgisdottir, A. B., Lamark, T. & Johansen, T. The LIR motif—crucial for selective autophagy. J. Cell Sci. 126, 3237–3247 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stolz, A., Ernst, A. & Dikic, I. Cargo recognition and trafficking in selective autophagy. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 495–501 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pickles, S., Vigie, P. & Youle, R. J. Mitophagy and quality control mechanisms in mitochondrial maintenance. Curr. Biol. 28, R170–R185 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ashrafi, G. & Schwarz, T. L. The pathways of mitophagy for quality control and clearance of mitochondria. Cell Death Differ. 20, 31–42 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Palikaras, K., Lionaki, E. & Tavernarakis, N. Mechanisms of mitophagy in cellular homeostasis, physiology and pathology. Nat. Cell Biol. 20, 1013–1022 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lazarou, M. et al. The ubiquitin kinase PINK1 recruits autophagy receptors to induce mitophagy. Nature 524, 309–314 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Medzhitov, R. Recognition of microorganisms and activation of the immune response. Nature 449, 819–826 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bhavsar, A. P., Guttman, J. A. & Finlay, B. B. Manipulation of host-cell pathways by bacterial pathogens. Nature 449, 827–834 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Portnoy, D. A., Auerbuch, V. & Glomski, I. J. The cell biology of Listeria monocytogenes infection: the intersection of bacterial pathogenesis and cell-mediated immunity. J. Cell Biol. 158, 409–414 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Barsig, J. & Kaufmann, S. H. The mechanism of cell death in Listeria monocytogenes–infected murine macrophages is distinct from apoptosis. Infect. Immun. 65, 4075–4081 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mizumura, K. et al. Mitophagy-dependent necroptosis contributes to the pathogenesis of COPD. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 3987–4003 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Givvimani, S. et al. Mitochondrial division/mitophagy inhibitor (Mdivi) ameliorates pressure overload induced heart failure. PLoS One 7, e32388 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stavru, F., Bouillaud, F., Sartori, A., Ricquier, D. & Cossart, P. Listeria monocytogenes transiently alters mitochondrial dynamics during infection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3612–3617 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gomez-Sanchez, R. et al. Mitochondrial impairment increases FL-PINK1 levels by calcium-dependent gene expression. Neurobiol. Dis. 62, 426–440 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kalvari, I. et al. iLIR: a web resource for prediction of Atg8-family interacting proteins. Autophagy 10, 913–925 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chuenchor, W., Jin, T., Ravilious, G. & Xiao, T. S. Structures of pattern recognition receptors reveal molecular mechanisms of autoinhibition, ligand recognition and oligomerization. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 26, 14–20 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lei, Y. et al. The mitochondrial proteins NLRX1 and TUFM form a complex that regulates type I interferon and autophagy. Immunity 36, 933–946 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. West, A. P. et al. TLR signalling augments macrophage bactericidal activity through mitochondrial ROS. Nature 472, 476–480 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sonoda, J. et al. Nuclear receptor ERRα and coactivator PGC-1β are effectors of IFN-γ-induced host defense. Genes Dev. 21, 1909–1920 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. West, A. P., Shadel, G. S. & Ghosh, S. Mitochondria in innate immune responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 11, 389–402 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Philipson, C. W. et al. Modeling the regulatory mechanisms by which NLRX1 modulates innate immune responses to Helicobacter pylori infection. PLoS One 10, e0137839 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Xia, X. et al. NLRX1 negatively regulates TLR-induced NF-κB signaling by targeting TRAF6 and IKK. Immunity 34, 843–853 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Soares, F. et al. NLRX1 does not inhibit MAVS-dependent antiviral signalling. Innate Immun. 19, 438–448 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhou, R., Yazdi, A. S., Menu, P. & Tschopp, J. A role for mitochondria in NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Nature 469, 221–225 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim, S. et al. Listeria monocytogenes is sensed by the NLRP3 and AIM2 inflammasome. Eur. J. Immunol. 40, 1545–1551 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hamon, M. A., Ribet, D., Stavru, F. & Cossart, P. Listeriolysin O: the Swiss army knife of Listeria. Trends Microbiol. 20, 360–368 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Czuczman, M. A. et al. Listeria monocytogenes exploits efferocytosis to promote cell-to-cell spread. Nature 509, 230–234 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Mitchell, G. et al. Avoidance of autophagy mediated by PlcA or ActA is required for Listeria monocytogenes growth in macrophages. Infect. Immun. 83, 2175–2184 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones, S. & Portnoy, D. A. Characterization of Listeria monocytogenes pathogenesis in a strain expressing perfringolysin O in place of listeriolysin O. Infect. Immun. 62, 5608–5613 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Nemani, N., Shanmughapriya, S. & Madesh, M. Molecular regulation of MCU: implications in physiology and disease. Cell Calcium 74, 86–93 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. He, Y., Zeng, M. Y., Yang, D., Motro, B. & Nunez, G. NEK7 is an essential mediator of NLRP3 activation downstream of potassium efflux. Nature 530, 354–357 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kofoed, E. M. & Vance, R. E. Innate immune recognition of bacterial ligands by NAIPs determines inflammasome specificity. Nature 477, 592–595 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hu, Z. et al. Crystal structure of NLRC4 reveals its autoinhibition mechanism. Science 341, 172–175 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Khaminets, A. et al. Regulation of endoplasmic reticulum turnover by selective autophagy. Nature 522, 354–358 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hernandez, L. D., Pypaert, M., Flavell, R. A. & Galan, J. E. A Salmonella protein causes macrophage cell death by inducing autophagy. J. Cell Biol. 163, 1123–1131 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Moore, C. B. et al. NLRX1 is a regulator of mitochondrial antiviral immunity. Nature 451, 573–577 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Tattoli, I. et al. NLRX1 is a mitochondrial NOD-like receptor that amplifies NF-κB and JNK pathways by inducing reactive oxygen species production. EMBO Rep. 9, 293–300 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Shadel, G. S. & Horvath, T. L. Mitochondrial ROS signaling in organismal homeostasis. Cell 163, 560–569 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Acker, H. & Coenye, T. The role of reactive oxygen species in antibiotic-mediated killing of bacteria. Trends Microbiol. 25, 456–466 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Itakura, E. & Mizushima, N. p62 targeting to the autophagosome formation site requires self-oligomerization but not LC3 binding. J. Cell Biol. 192, 17–27 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Anand, P. K. et al. NLRP6 negatively regulates innate immunity and host defence against bacterial pathogens. Nature 488, 389–393 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Bueno, M. et al. PINK1 deficiency impairs mitochondrial homeostasis and promotes lung fibrosis. J. Clin. Invest. 125, 521–538 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ding, J. et al. Pore-forming activity and structural autoinhibition of the gasdermin family. Nature 535, 111–116 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ho, P. C., Tsui, Y. C., Feng, X., Greaves, D. R. & Wei, L. N. NF-κB-mediated degradation of the coactivator RIP140 regulates inflammatory responses and contributes to endotoxin tolerance. Nat. Immunol. 13, 379–386 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (91842306, 81430036, 81830018, 91429307, 91542119 and 31470179), the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFA0507402) and the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB19000000). GFP-LC3 vector was provided by Q. Chen (Nan Kai University). Bacterial strains of DP-L4317 and DP-L6173 were provided by D.A. Portnoy (University of California).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Yifan Zhang, Yikun Yao.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CAS Key Laboratory of Tissue Microenvironment and Tumor, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science, Shanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China

    Yifan Zhang, Yikun Yao, Xiaoxu Qiu, Guodong Wang, Zheng Hu, Siyuan Chen, Zhengxi Wu, Hanchao Gao & Youcun Qian

  2. Hematology Center of the Cyrus Tang Medical Institute, Jiangsu Institute of Hematology, Collaborative Innovation Center of Hematology, Key Laboratory of Stem Cells and Biomedical Materials of Jiangsu Province and Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Radioprotection, Soochow University School of Medicine, Suzhou, China

    Na Yuan & Jianrong Wang

  3. College of Animal Science and Technology, Key Laboratory of Applied Technology on Green-Eco-Healthy Animal Husbandry of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang A&F University, Lin’an, China

    Houhui Song

  4. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, China

    Stephen E. Girardin

  5. School of Life Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China

    Youcun Qian

Authors
  1. Yifan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yikun Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaoxu Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guodong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zheng Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Siyuan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zhengxi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Na Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hanchao Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jianrong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Houhui Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Stephen E. Girardin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Youcun Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.Q. and Y.Z. designed the experiments and wrote the manuscript; Y.Z. and Y.Y. conducted the experiments and analyzed the data. X.Q., G.W., Z.H., S.C., H.G. and Z.W. helped with experiments. S.E.G., H.S., J.W. and N.Y. provided reagents. Y.Q. supervised the study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Youcun Qian.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 CCCP and L.m induce mitophagy response in mouse PMs.

a,b, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA (a) (n=3) and western blot analysis of mitochondria markers TIM23 and HSP60 (b) in mouse PMs after CCCP stimulation (30μM) for the indicated time points. c,d, Mitochondria membrane potential (Δψm) determined by TMRM staining after L.m infection (c) or CCCP (30μM) stimulation (d). (n=3). e, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA in mouse PMs infected with L.m at MOI 5 with or without CQ (n=3). f, Western blot analysis of mitochondria markers TIM23 and HSP60 treated as in (e). g, Light microscopy analysis of mouse PM morphology after L.m infection at the indicated time points at MOI 5. TNF+ZVAD as a positive control for cell death. Scale bars, 100μm. h,i, Western blot analysis of cleaved caspase-3 (h) or caspase-1 (i) after L.m infection at the indicated time points at MOI 5 in PMs. TNF+CHX (TC) and LPS+ATP (L+A) as positive controls. j. LDH release from mouse PMs after L.m infection at MOI 5 for the indicated time points or CCCP treatment (n=4). TNF+ZVAD (TZ) as a positive control. k, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA of mouse PMs infected with L.m and treated with or without Mdivi-1 (20μM) for 3h (n=3). l, Δψm after L.m infection or CCCP stimulation for 6h in the THP1 macrophages (n=3). m, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA in THP1 macrophages infected with L.m at MOI 5 with or without CQ (n=3). n, Western blot analysis of mitochondria markers TIM23 and HSP60 treated as in (m). o, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA of THP1 macrophages infected with L.m and treated with or without Mdivi-1 for 3h (n=3). Data are representative of three (a-l) or two independent experiments (m-o) and represent mean ± SEM (a,c-e,j-m,o). Two-sided Student’s t-test was used to measure significance.

Supplementary Figure 2 Mitophagy induction was analyzed after S.Typhimurium, E.coli or C. rodentium infection.

a, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA after Salmonella enterica Typhimurium (S.T) infection in mouse PMs at MOI 5 for the indicated time points (n=3). b,c, Western blot analysis of mitochondria markers TIM23 and HSP60 (b) in mouse PMs after S.T infection as in (a) and densitometric quantification of TIM23/GAPDH and HSP60/GAPDH ratios (c) of (b). (n=3 independent experiments). d, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA after E.coli infection in mouse PMs at MOI 30 for the indicated time points (n=3). e,f, Western blot analysis of mitochondria markers TIM23 and HSP60 (e) in mouse PMs after E.coli infection as in (d) and densitometric quantification of TIM23/GAPDH and HSP60/GAPDH ratios (f) of (e). (n=3 independent experiments). g, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA after C. rodentium infection in mouse PMs at MOI 30 for the indicated time points (n=3). h,i, Western blot analysis of mitochondria markers TIM23 and HSP60 (h) in mouse PMs after C. rodentium infection as in (g) and densitometric quantification of TIM23/GAPDH and HSP60/GAPDH ratios (i) of (g). (n=3 independent experiments). j,k, TMRM staining (j) or Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA (k) in HeLa cells after L.m (MOI 50) or S.T (MOI 50) infection for the indicated time points. (n=3). l, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA in HT29 cells at the indicated time points after treatment as in (k) (n=3). Data are representative of three (a-i) or two (j-l) independent experiments and represent mean ± SEM (a,c-d,f-g,i-l). Two-sided Student’s t-test was used to measure significance.

Supplementary Figure 3 L.m may induce mitophagy through a previously unknown pathway.

a, Western blot analysis of PINK1 accumulation in THP1 macrophages after L.m (MOI 5) infection or CCCP stimulation. b, Parkin subcellular location in mouse PMs after L.m (MOI 5) infection or CCCP (30μM) stimulation for 6h. c, Confocal microscopy analysis of mitochondrial marker HSP60 co-localized with ubiquitin (Ub) in mouse PMs after L.m infection at MOI 5 or CCCP stimulation for 3h. Scale bars, 5μm. d, Quantification of the Pearson’s co-localization coefficient between HSP60 and Ub as shown in (c). 30 cells were counted in each group from two different experiments. e, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA in mouse PMs that were treated with siRNAs of Pink1 or Prkn and then infected with L.m (MOI 5) or CCCP (30μM) stimulation for 3h (n=3). f,g, PINK1 (f) (n=3) or Parkin (g) Knock-down efficiency in (e). h,i, Q-PCR analysis of PINK1 mRNA in THP1 macrophages (h) or mouse PMs (i) infected with L.m (MOI 5) for 3h or CCCP stimulation for 3h. (n=3). j, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA in mouse PMs that were treated with siRNAs for the indicated mitophagy receptors and then infected with L.m (MOI 5) or CCCP stimulation. (n=3). k, The gene knock-down efficiency in (j) (n=3). Data are representative of three (a-b,e-k) or two (c-d) independent experiments and represent mean ± SEM (d-f,h-k). Two-sided Student’s t-test was used to measure significance.

Supplementary Figure 4 NLRX1 is partially required for CCCP-induced mitophagy.

a, Confocal microscopy analysis of LC3-GFP co-localized with wild-type NLRX1-HA (NLRX1-WT-HA) or NLRX1-dLIR-HA overexpressed in GFP-LC3 stable HeLa cells without or with CCCP (10µM) stimulation for 2h. Representative microscopic images with higher magnification of the indicated area in square. Scale bars, 10µm. b, Quantification of pearson’s co-localization coefficient between LC3-GFP and wild-type NLRX1-HA or NLRX1-dLIR-HA as shown in (a). 30 cells were counted in each group from two different experiments. c, Representative microscopic images showing intracellular distribution of wild-type NLRX1-HA or NLRX1-dLIR-HA with mitochondria marker HSP60 in HeLa cells. Scale bars, 5µm. d, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA in mouse PMs treated with CCCP (30µM) for the indicated time points (n=3). e, Western blot analysis of mitochondria marker TIM23 treated as in (d). f, Densitometric quantification of TIM23/GAPDH ratios of (e). (n=3 independent experiments). g, Western blot analysis of LC3-II after glucose and serum starvation treatment with or without CQ for the indicated time points. h, Densitometric quantification of LC3-II/GAPDH ratios of (g). (n=3 independent experiments). Data are representative of three (d-h) or two (a-c) independent experiments and represent mean ± SEM (b,d,f,h). Two-sided Student’s t-test was used to measure significance.

Supplementary Figure 5 NLRX1 does not affect the production of type I IFN or inflammatory cytokines after L.m infection.

a-c, ELISA analysis of TNF in spleen (a) (day 0, n=3 and day 3, n=6) and serum (b) (day 3, n=6), and IL-1β in spleen (c) (day 0, n=4 and day 3, n=6) from Nlrx1fl/fl or Nlrx1fl/flLys2-cre mice after intraperitoneally L.m infection for 3 days. d-g, Q-PCR analysis of Tnf in spleen (d) and liver (e), Il6 in spleen (f), and Ifnb in spleen (g) from Nlrx1fl/fl or Nlrx1fl/flLys2-cre mice after L.m infection for 3 days. (day0, n=4 and day3, n=6). h, Western blot analysis of p-IκBα and p-P65 in WT or Nlrx1–/– PMs infected with L.m (MOI 5) for the indicated time points. i-m, Q-PCR analysis of Tnf (i) (n=3), Il6 (j) (n=3) and Ifnb (l) (n=3) or ELISA analysis of IL-6 (k) (n=4) and IL-1β (m) (n=4) of WT or Nlrx1–/– PMs after L.m infection for the indicated time points. Data are representative of three independent experiments (a-m) and represent mean ± SEM (a-g,i-m). Two-sided Student’s t-test was used to measure significance.

Supplementary Figure 6 LLO secreted from L.m induces mitophagy in macrophages but not in epithelial cells.

a-c, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA in mouse PMs, treated with or without isolated L.m DNA or RNA (1μg/ml) (a), transfected with or without isolated L.m DNA or RNA (1μg/ml) by Lipofectmine 2000 (b), or treated with or without HKLM (heat killed L.m) (MOI 5) (c) for the indicated time points. (n=3). d-g, Δψm measured by TMRM staining (d,f) or Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA (e,g) in HeLa cells (d,e) or HT29 cells (f,g) with or without LLO stimulation (100ng/ml) for the indicated time points. (n=3). h, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA in mouse PMs infected with L.m-EGDe Δhly bacteria complemented with LLO expression (L.m-EGDe CΔhly) at MOI 5 (n=3). i,j, Intracellular L.m loads in J774 cells (i) or mouse PMs (j) infected with L.m-EGDe or L.m-EGDe Δhly strain (MOI 5 or MOI 30) for the indicated time points. (n=3). k, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA levels in mouse PMs infected with L.m-EGDe Δhly strain (MOI 30) at indicated time points (n=3). l, Intracellular L.m loads in wild-type (WT) or Nlrx1–/– PMs infected with L.m-EGDe strain (MOI 5) for 6h (n=3). m, Bacteria loads in the liver and spleen from WT or Nlrx1–/– mice i.p. infected with 2.5x105 CFU L.m-EGDe strain for 3 days (n=3). n, mtROS in WT or Nlrx1–/– PMs infected with L.m-EGDe or L.m-EGDe Δhly for 6h (n=3). Data are representative of three (a-c) or two (d-n) independent experiments and represent mean ± SEM (a-n). two-sided Student’s t-test was used to measure significance.

Supplementary Figure 7 LLO induces calcium influx to promote mitochondria damage and mitophagy.

a-b, Δψm analyzed by TMRM staining (a) or Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA (b) in mouse PMs after LLO treatment in the present of BAPTA-AM (25µM) stimulation or KCl (90mM) medium. (n=3). c, The Fluo-4 intensity over time determined by FACS in mouse PMs after LLO treatment (LLO was added at 180s) with or without BAPTA-AM. d,e, Δψm (d) (Mock, n=3 and LLO, n=4) and Q-PCR of mtDNA/nDNA (e) (n=3) in siNC and siMcu mouse PMs after LLO treatment. f, Mcu Knock-down efficiency in (d,e) (n=3). g,h, Q-PCR of NLRX1 mRNA (g) (n=4) and western blot analysis of NLRX1 (h) in the indicated cell lines. i, Western blot analysis of NLRX1 in HeLa, HeLa with NLRX1 overexpression (HeLa-NLRX1) and THP1 macrophages. j, Q-PCR analysis of mtDNA/nDNA in the indicated cells as in (i) treated with LLO (n=3). Data are representative of two (a-j) independent experiments and represent mean ± SEM (a-b,d-g,j). Two-sided Student’s t-test was used to measure significance.

Supplementary Figure 8 ER-tagged NLRX1-dLRR is sufficient to induce ER-phagy.

a, Confocal microscopy analysis of ER marker CLIMP-63 co-localized with Flag-tagged dmt-NLRX1, ret-dmt-NLRX1, ret-dmt-NLRX1-dLRR or ret-dmt-NLRX1-dLRR-dLIR in U2OS cells. Scale bars, 5μm. b, Quantification of the Pearson’s co-localization coefficient between CLIMP-63 and the individual Flag-tag proteins as shown in (a). 20 cells were counted in each group from two different experiments. c, Oligomerization of ret-dmt-NLRX1 or ret-dmt-NLRX1-dLRR overexpressed in 293T cells. d, Western blot analysis of ER marker CLIMP-63 after overexpression of the indicated proteins as in (a). e, Densitometric quantification of CLIMP-63/Actin ratios of (d). (n=3 independent experiments). f, Confocal microscopy analysis of LC3 co-localized with Flag-tag ret-dmt-NLRX1, ret-dmt-NLRX1-dLRR or ret-dmt-NLRX1-dLRR-dLIR in U2OS cells. Representative images are shown. Scale bars, 5μm. g, Quantification of the Pearson’s co-localization coefficient between LC3 and the individual Flag-tag protein as shown in (f). Cells were counted in each group from two different experiments. (n=20 in ret-dmt-NLRX1 or ret-dmt-NLRX1-dLRR-dLIR group; n=30 in ret-dmt-NLRX1-dLRR group). h, The model for L.m-induced mitophagy through a novel mitophagy receptor NLRX1. In quiescent macrophages, NLRX1 localized on mitochondria is maintained in a monomeric autoinhibition state by its LRR associated with NACHT. L.m infection or LLO stimulation decreases mitochondria membrane potential, releases its LRR suppression and induces NLRX1 oligomerization to expose its LIR motif to associate with LC3 for mitophagy induction. Data are representative of two (a-c,f,g) or three (d,e) independent experiments and represent mean ± SEM (b,e,g). Two-sided Student’s t-test was used to measure significance.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–8 and Supplementary Dataset 1

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Yao, Y., Qiu, X. et al. Listeria hijacks host mitophagy through a novel mitophagy receptor to evade killing. Nat Immunol 20, 433–446 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0324-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0324-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing