Encyclopedia of Signaling Molecules

2018 Edition
| Editors: Sangdun Choi


Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67199-4_174


Historical Background

Apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF), which is confined to mitochondria of normal healthy cells, was initially described by Kroemer and coworkers (Susin et al. 1999) as the first caspase-independent death effector. Under conditions of cell death induction, AIF is released from mitochondria and translocates to the nucleus where it contributes to chromatin condensation and DNA fragmentation, two features that are classically associated with apoptosis (Hangen et al. 2010a). Since its initial discovery, the structure of the AIF protein has been resolved and the AIF gene has been subjected to genetic manipulations in mice, flies, nematodes, and yeast, revealing the phylogenetically conserved contribution of AIF to cell death, as well as its crucial role in physiological cell survival, proliferation, and differentiation (Hangen et al. 2010a). The recent discovery of disease-aggregating mutations of AIF reflects the relevance of its mitochondrial activity to human health (Sevrioukova 2016).

AIF Protein Synthesis and Regulation

The AIFM1 gene resides on human chromosome X (Xq25-Xq26) and is spread out over 16 exons (Hangen et al. 2010a). The most abundant and ubiquitously expressed AIF transcript (AIF1) is translated in the cytoplasm and imported into the mitochondria of healthy cells with the help of an N-terminal mitochondrial localization signal (MLS) (Fig. 1) (Hangen et al. 2010a). Upon mitochondrial import, the N-terminal part of the MLS is eliminated by a mitochondrial peptidase that cleaves the AIF1 protein after residue M53 (Hangen et al. 2010a). The correct targeting of the protein towards the inner mitochondrial membrane is ensured by the C-terminal part of the MLS that functions as an inner membrane sorting signal (IMSS) and harbors a transmembrane (TM) region (residues 66–84) (Hangen et al. 2010a). As the imported and fully processed AIF is inserted into the inner membrane facing the intermembrane space, it adopts its mature folded configuration through the incorporation of its cofactor flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) (Hangen et al. 2010a). Structural analyses revealed that AIF, which possesses FAD- and NADH-binding segments, exhibits a strong homology to bacterial nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD)-dependent oxidoreductases (Fig. 2) (Hangen et al. 2010a). Although the substrate(s) targeted by the enzymatic in vivo activity of AIF remain elusive, published data indicate that the conformational modifications of AIF must play a tight control over its interaction with the cofactors and protein partners and affect its still unknown enzymatic activity via redox-dependent monomer–dimer transitions (Hangen et al. 2010a, 2015; Sevrioukova 2011, 2016; Elguindy and Nakamaru-Ogiso 2015).
AIFM1, Fig. 1

Mitochondrial localization of AIF in healthy cells. The scheme delineates 1) the import of unprocessed full length AIF into mitochondria; 2) the cleavage of its N-terminal MLS by a mitochondrial peptidase; 3) the insertion of AIF into the inner mitochondrial membrane (IMM), via its N-terminal transmembrane region. OM, outer membrane; IMS, inter membrane space; IM, inner membrane

AIFM1, Fig. 2

Schematic presentation of AIF splice variants. Alternative splice products of human AIF (AIF1, AIF2, AIFsh, AIFsh2, and AIFsh3) are depicted. MLS (blue), IMSS (blue or cream), FAD-binding domain (FAD; light green), NADH-binding domain (NADH; dark green), and the C-terminal domain (green). Numbers correspond to the first and last amino acids of each variant

The primary AIF transcript is subjected to tissue-specific alternative splicing (Hangen et al. 2010a) (Fig. 2). The alternative usage of exon 2 (2a or 2b) allows for the production of two splice variants (AIF1 and AIF2). Exon 2a is included in the most abundant AIF isoform (AIF1). The two isoforms exhibit a limited difference, which is confined to the C-terminal part of their MLS (Hangen et al. 2010b). While AIF1 is expressed in almost all tissues, AIF2 mRNA expression is restricted to brain and retina. The expression of AIF2 is modulated during brain development and in vitro-induced neuronal differentiation (Hangen et al. 2010b). Several additional AIF isoforms have been described (Hangen et al. 2010a; Sevrioukova 2011). AIFsh is a short variant that is produced from an alternative transcript whose transcriptional start site is located within intron 9 of AIFM1. This variant lacks the N-terminal MLS and the enzymatic domain but retains the C-terminal domain (which harbors the proapoptotic segment). Transfection-enforced expression of AIFsh results in its accumulation in the nucleus and triggers apoptosis (Hangen et al. 2010a). Another short form of AIF (AIFsh2) results from the alternative usage of exon 9b, which contains a stop codon. This isoform maintains the conserved mitochondrial localization and redox function but lacks the C-terminal proapoptotic domain (Hangen et al. 2010a). A third short form of AIF (AIFsh3) lacks the mitochondrial localization signal but otherwise resembles AIFsh2 (Hangen et al. 2010a). Quantitative profiling of mRNA expression and proteomics will be required to assess the precise distribution of each isoform in various tissues.

AIF’s Involvement in Cell Death

Upon mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP) – a feature of most, if not all, apoptotic pathways – AIF is released from mitochondria and translocates to the nucleus, where it mediates chromatin condensation and DNA degradation (Hangen et al. 2010a). The mitochondrio-nuclear translocation of AIF has been observed during developmental cell death, in cells that die in response to genotoxic agents, in the context of exitotoxicity induced by glutamate or other NMDA receptor agonists, in hypoxia–ischemia followed by reperfusion, in neurodegeneration, and in pathogen exposure. As a result, it has been hypothesized that AIF’s lethal activity could regulate a wide range of cell death paradigms (Hangen et al. 2010a). Nonetheless, the genetic deletion or downregulation of murine Aifm1 revealed that AIF was not a general death effector and that its contribution to cell death depended on the cell type and/or the apoptotic insult (Hangen et al. 2010a). Today, AIF’s lethal activity is considered to be required for the programmed death of neurons and photoreceptor cells provoked by excitotoxins, hypoxia–ischemia, hypoglycemia, or withdrawal of trophic support, as in the case of retinal detachment (Hangen et al. 2010a). The neuro-specific death activity of AIF was first suspected from in vitro observations, which implicated AIF in poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP-1)-dependent neuronal death and then confirmed through the characterization of the mutant Harlequin (Hq) mice, which carry a hypomorphic Aifm1 mutation that provokes an 80% reduction in the expression level of AIF compared to wild type animals (Hangen et al. 2010a). For example, in vivo excitotoxic studies using kainic acid-induced seizures revealed that the brains of Hq mice developed less hippocampal damage than wild type animals. In addition, compared to wild type animal, the brain of Hq mouse is more resistant to ischemia-induced damage. Likewise, the prevention of AIF’s nucleo-mitochondrial translocation has a neuroprotective effect (Hangen et al. 2010a).

It is generally assumed that the mitochondrial release of AIF requires the proteolytic activity of calcium-dependent cysteine proteases of the calpain family that cleave off the N-terminal transmembrane segment after the leucine 101 (human numbering) and render the protein soluble (Hangen et al. 2010a) (Fig. 3). In neurons that die in response to ischemia or excitotoxicity, it was observed that the proteolytic cleavage of AIF is secondary to the hyperactivation of PARP1, a nuclear DNA repair enzyme involved in the DNA damage response (Hangen et al. 2010a; Sevrioukova 2011). Other mechanisms of AIF release may exist, because the sole accumulation of poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) polymers, generated by PARP1, may cause the release of AIF from mitochondria of dying neurons without any requirement for AIF proteolysis (Hangen et al. 2010a; Sevrioukova 2011). In this latter case, a pool of AIF molecules, which reportedly is associated with the surface of the outer mitochondrial membrane, would be targeted by PAR molecules (Hangen et al. 2010a; Sevrioukova 2011).
AIFM1, Fig. 3

Lethal activities of AIF. In cells undergoing programmed death, the activation of AIF lethal function requires 1) mitochondrial membrane permeabilization in response to lethal signals; 2) the proteolytic activity of a calcium-dependent protease that belongs to calpain family; 3) the solubilization of the membrane-anchored AIF protein; 4) the release of the solubilized protein into the cytosol; and 5) its translocation to the nucleus. The translocation and the chromatin-condensing activity of AIF are positively regulated by its interaction with protein partners, cyclophilin A and histone H2X. The lethal function of AIF is negatively regulated by the interaction with HSP70 or XIAP proteins

The lethal activity of AIF is also determined by the nucleic acid binding potential of AIF. Crystal structures of AIF and mutagenesis experiments revealed the existence of positively charged amino acids that are scattered at the surface of the molecule and that are required for the interaction with DNA or RNA and for the induction of nuclear apoptosis by overexpressed AIF. Recombinant AIF provokes DNA condensation through direct, sequence-independent interactions with single or double stranded DNA (Hangen et al. 2010a). The nondegradative ubiquitination of AIF by XIAP has a negative effect on the capacity of AIF to bind DNA and induce chromatin condensation (Fig. 3) (Lewis et al. 2011). It was recently reported that the resistance of ovarian cancer cells to cisplatin could be overcome by the treatment with a natural food phytochemical hirsutenone that inhibits XIAP/AIF interaction (Farrand et al. 2014). HSP70 was also revealed as a negative regulator of AIF apoptotic function (Fig. 3) (Hangen et al. 2010a). Moreover, AIF interacts with several other proteins, in particular cyclophilin A (Artus et al. 2010; Hangen et al. 2010a) and histone H2AX (Artus et al. 2010) that participate to the activation of the lethal action of nuclear AIF (Fig. 3). The RNA binding activity of AIF that was revealed in vitro also requires further investigation (Hangen et al. 2010a).

AIF Involvement in Cell Survival, Proliferation, and Differentiation

AIF is a bifunctional flavoprotein. Indeed, in addition to its lethal function within the nucleus of dying cell, AIF plays a vital role in healthy cells, due to its impact on mitochondrial bioenergetics (Hangen et al. 2010a). Initially, the revelation of a significant homology between the internal, nonapoptotic, segment of AIF and bacterial NADH-oxidases hinted towards the possibility that AIF could fulfill a nonapoptotic enzymatic function in the mitochondrion of healthy cells (Hangen et al. 2010a). Later, the phenotypic characterization of Harlequin (Hq) mice, a model of late-onset neurodegeneration, was instrumental in highlighting the vital nonapoptotic activity of AIF and its impact on cell survival, proliferation, and differentiation (Hangen et al. 2010a). Hq mice, which harbor a retroviral insertion in the first intron of Aifm1 that causes an 80% reduction in AIF expression, were first noted for growth retardation, fur loss, and the development of ataxia and blindness due to an age-related, oxidative stress-associated progressive loss of terminally differentiated cerebellar and retinal neuron (Hangen et al. 2010a). The impact of AIF hypomorphic Hq mutation on cell metabolism and survival seems to be cell-specific as, in addition to the loss of cerebellar, retinal neurons, and skeletal muscle cells (Hangen et al. 2010a; Armand et al. 2011; Sevrioukova 2011), Hq mice exhibit a T-cell lineage (but not B lineage) block that can be overcome either by antioxidant treatment or by the expression of a recombinant AIF protein that carries a wild type NADH-oxidase domain (Banerjee et al. 2012). It was also observed that hypoxia/ischemia condition is particularly harmful to the hearts of Hq mice and that the administration of the synthetic superoxide dismutase and catalase mimetic EUK8 can reduce cardiac oxidative stress and ameliorate the survival of Hq mice subjected to experimental constriction of the aorta (Hangen et al. 2010a).

As AIF is indispensable for cell survival during embryogenesis, all attempts to create AIF null mice by homologous recombination were unsuccessful and consequently only conditional genetic deletion of AIFm1 was an option for the determination of the in vivo role of AIF in cell survival and organogenesis (Hangen et al. 2010a). For instance, the specific deletion of AIF in the prospective midbrain and cerebellum revealed that AIF is necessary for cell-type specific neurogenesis in the developing brain (Ishimura et al. 2008). A major defect in cortical development and reduced neuronal survival was also observed when AIFm1 was specifically lost in the telencephalon (Cheung et al. 2006). The conditional deletion of AIFm1 in muscle and liver had an important impact on whole-body metabolism and revealed that compared to control littermates, muscle- and liver-specific AIF mutant mice were resistant to diet-induced obesity and diabetes (Pospisilik et al. 2007). It was also reported that with aging, mutant mice with muscle-specific loss of AIF develop severe skeletal muscle atrophy and a dilated cardiomyopathy before becoming lethargic around the age of 5 months (Joza et al. 2005). Recently, the tissue-specific knockout of AIF, in T and B cells, confirmed that the metabolism of T (but not B) lymphocytes depends on the pro-survival function of AIF linked to the maintenance of mitochondrial function (Milasta et al. 2016).

Biochemical analyses of Hq mice or mice with organ-specific AIF defects revealed that the deletion or depletion of AIF leads to a major dysfunction of the mitochondrial respiratory chain (Hangen et al. 2010a) (Fig. 4). Among the five multiprotein complexes that constitute the respiratory chain, complex I (CI) is the most reduced by AIF deficiency and biochemical studies demonstrated that the observed enzymatic dysfunction was the consequence of a posttranscriptional loss of CI protein subunits (Hangen et al. 2010a). Occasionally, dysfunctions of complexes III and IV could also be detected in specific cells or tissues lacking AIF (Hangen et al. 2010a). The global downregulation of AIF in Hq mice also provokes a CI dysfunction that is limited to specific tissues (Hangen et al. 2010a; Milasta et al. 2016). Although the molecular basis for the tissue-specificity of this manifestation is not understood, there is a clear correlation between the downregulation of AIF in degenerating Hq neurons, the progressive aggravation of complex I dysfunction, and the phenotypic evolution of the disease. Thus, Hq mice constitute a valuable tissue-specific model of complex I deficiency (Hangen et al. 2010a). In the past, we proposed that AIF was either necessary for the maintenance or for the biogenesis/assembly of the respiratory chain complex CI subunits (Hangen et al. 2010a). Today, the isolation of the first mitochondrial interactor of AIF, a protein called coiled-coil-helix-coiled-coil-helix domain containing 4 (CHCHD4) allows us to favor the second model involving AIF in the mitochondrial biogenesis/assembly of respiratory chain protein subunits (Fig. 4) (Hangen et al. 2015). CHCHD4 is the human homolog of yeast mitochondrial intermembrane space import and assembly protein 40 (Mia40), which is the core component of unique disulfide relay-dependent import machinery that controls the oxidation-driven mitochondrial import of cysteine motif-carrying proteins (called substrates) (Herrmann and Riemer 2010; Modjtahedi et al. 2016). During the evolution from yeast to mammals, Mia40 has lost its membrane anchorage segment to become CHCHD4, which interacts with its inner membrane-bound partner AIF (Hangen et al. 2015). AIF regulates the biogenesis of respiratory chain complexes by interacting with and by controlling the import of CHCHD4 in the intermembrane space of the mitochondrion (Hangen et al. 2015). Taking into the account our recent observations, we propose a molecular model in which AIF interacts functionally with the CHCHD4-dependent protein import pathway by serving as a platform for the import and the mitochondrial localization of CHCHD4 protein itself (Fig. 4). According to this model, the mitochondrial bioenergetics dysfunctions that are provoked in the absence of AIF are secondary to the deficiency of CHCHD4 (Hangen et al. 2015). Similar to mice carrying Hq mutation in the whole body or tissue-specific knockout of AIF, animals with a heterozygous knockout of CHCHD4 exhibit resistance to weight gain, when exposed to a high-fat diet (Modjtahedi et al. 2015). This observation suggests an extensive metabolic epistasis between AIF and CHCHD4.
AIFM1, Fig. 4

Regulation of mitochondrial respiratory chain biogenesis by AIF and CHCHD4 (schematic presentation). AIF serves as a platform for the import and proper localization of CHCHD4 in the IMS. The cofactor NADH enhances the interaction between AIF and CHCHD4 but fails to do so when AIF is mutated in its NADH binding domain (G308E). Nuclear-encoded proteins, carrying (CX3C)2, (CX9C)2, or other cysteine motifs, are imported and trapped in the IMS through the activity of CHCHD4 oxidase that catalyzes their oxidative folding. CHCHD4 substrates participate either directly or indirectly to the biogenesis of respiratory chain complexes protein subunits. Electron carriers CoQ (coenzyme Q), Cyt c (cytochrome c) are presented. Electrons (red arrow), captured from donor molecules, are transferred through respiratory chain complexes CI to CIV (blue). The proton gradient (H+), produced by the electron transfer, is used by the complex CV for the synthesis of ATP. Total number of nuclear- or mitochondria-encoded respiratory chain subunits is mentioned for each complex

In addition to its involvement in mitochondrial import process in the IMS, AIF could harbor additional functional segments that regulate the structure and/or stability of the inner mitochondrial membrane. This is suggested by the fact that the loss of AIF in the telencephalon entails a degenerative phenotype accompanied by fragmentation of the mitochondrial network and aberrant cristae in cortical neurons (Cheung et al. 2006). The potential inner membrane-stabilizing activity of AIF may reside in its transmembrane segment. This possibility is supported by the description of a brain-specific isoform of AIF (AIF2) that is produced through the alternative usage of exon 2 (Fig. 2) and differs from the ubiquitously expressed AIF (AIF1) only within its transmembrane region (Hangen et al. 2010b). Both AIF1 and AIF2 localize to the same mitochondrial subcompartment and are similar in their capacity to regulate the stability of complex I subunits, yet differ in their membrane anchorage capacity and in their effects on mitochondrial morphology (Hangen et al. 2010b).

AIF Homologs

AIF is the founding member of the AIF family of proteins, whose members share structural and functional features (Fig. 5). This family has two additional members in humans. AIFL, which is ubiquitously encoded by AIFM3 located on chromosome 22 (GeneCards; http://www.genecards.org), is a 605 amino acid protein that localizes to mitochondria but lacks a manifest MLS (Hangen et al. 2010a). The main homology between AIF and AIFL resides in their shared pyridine nucleotide-disulfide oxidoreductase domain (Hangen et al. 2010a) (Fig. 5). AMID (also called PRG3), which is encoded by AIFM2 located on chromosome 10 (GeneCards) is the third member of the family (Fig. 5). No mitochondrial localization sequence (MLS) was found at the N-terminus of AMID but mutagenesis experiments suggest the existence of an internal MLS that targets a fraction of AMID to mitochondria while another fraction is found in the cytosol (Hangen et al. 2010a). AMID is transcriptionally activated by p53, and its expression is downregulated in tumors (Hangen et al. 2010a). AMID binds DNA in a sequence-independent manner, and its enzymatic activity is affected by this interaction (Gong et al. 2007). Moreover, instead of FAD, AMID uses the cofactor 6-hydroxy FAD for its oxidoreductase activity (Marshall et al. 2005). A recent report suggests that both AIF and AMID could also act as NADH:quinone reductases (Elguindy and Nakamaru-Ogiso 2015). Saccharomyces cerevisiae AIF1P (Ynr074cp), which was initially characterized based on its AIF-like pro-death activities, is phylogenetically equidistant from human AIF, AIFL, and AMID (Hangen et al. 2010a).
AIFM1, Fig. 5

AIF homologs. Schematic presentation of the functional domains of human AIF, AMID, and AIFL. Important domains are the FAD-binding domain (green), the NADH-binding domain (dark green), the C-terminal domain (light green), and the Rieske domain (fuchsia)

The Implication of AIF in Disease

Since 2010, several pathogenic AIF mutations have been associated with a large spectrum of human mitochondriopathies that differ in their clinical phenotype and severity (Fig. 6) (Sevrioukova 2016). Functional and structural characterizations of AIF variants should not only help to better understand the molecular basis for the pathogenicity of each mutation but also allow the establishment of the metabolic link between the AIF dysfunctionality and the type, tissue-specificity and severity of the associated-disease (Sevrioukova 2016).
AIFM1, Fig. 6

Map of disease-aggregating human AIF mutations. Protein domains are mitochondrial localization signal (MLS) domain (grey), FAD-binding domain (magenta), NADH-binding domain (green), and C-terminal domain (yellow). The first and last residues encompassing each structural segment are mentioned beneath the schematic representation. The position and the corresponding amino acid substitutions are shown for disease-aggregating mutations (Zong et al. 2015; Sevrioukova 2016). AIF mutations colored in blue are those that were found to have an inhibitory effect on the binding between AIF and CHCHD4 (Hangen et al. 2015; Meyer et al. 2015)

Among the four mutations (AIFΔR201, G308E, G338E, G262S), which have been found associated with severe early onset encephalomyopathies, AIFΔR201 and G308E are the most studied at the structure/function level. AIFΔR201, which consists in the deletion of three base pairs coding for arginine residue 201 of the precursor AIF protein, was described by Ghezzi et al. (2010) while exploring the genetic basis for the X-linked mitochondriopathy manifested in two male infant patients born from monozygotic twin sisters and unrelated fathers. The expression of AIFΔR201 negatively affected OXPHOS. The biochemical examination of fibroblasts from both patients revealed a major defect in CIII and CIV that was partially corrected by the overexpression of recombinant wild type AIF or by continuous culture of mutant fibroblasts in the presence of riboflavin, the precursor of FAD (Ghezzi et al. 2010). Moreover, muscle biopsies from both patients revealed a severe loss of mitochondrial DNA that could be responsible for the combined multicomplex (CI, CIII, and CIV) dysfunction (Ghezzi et al. 2010). Molecular modeling of the mutant AIF, as well as in vitro experiments indicated that the pathogenic AIF protein was unstable and exhibited altered folding and redox properties compared to the nonmutated version of AIF (Ghezzi et al. 2010; Sevrioukova 2016). Moreover, it was revealed that the deletion of arginine 201 enhanced the DNA-binding capacity of the mutant AIF and rendered cells more sensitive to death stimuli (Ghezzi et al. 2010).

Linkage analysis followed by exome sequencing led to the discovery of the missense pathogenic mutation of AIF (G308E) that is associated with a severe prenatal encephalomyopathy (Berger et al. 2011). Structural and biochemical analyses of the AIF variant revealed that the G308E substitution did not affect the general conformation of the protein, but rather perturbed its capacity to bind its cofactor NAD(P)H and to catalyze redox reactions (Sevrioukova 2016). The G308E mutation reduces the capacity of AIF to bind to its mitochondrial interactor CHCHD4 (Fig. 4), shedding new light on the molecular basis for the pathogenicity of this particular mutation (Hangen et al. 2015). Reportedly, the AIFΔR201 mutation, which perturbs the correct conformation of the protein, also compromises the interaction with CHCHD4 (Meyer et al. 2015). Other AIF mutations, which are exemplified by the E493V substitution (Rinaldi et al. 2012), are associated with late onset and slowly progressing mitochondriopathies that exhibit relatively mild clinical phenotypes (Sevrioukova 2016). The pathogenic AIF mutation E493V enhances the apoptotic activity of the protein (without affecting its capacity to control the respiratory activity) and does not affect the in vitro interaction of AIF with CHCHD4 (Hangen et al. 2015), which might explain the milder phenotype of the associated disorder (Sevrioukova 2016).

Recent studies have highlighted the impact of the mitochondrial activity of AIF on the growth and aggressiveness of prostate and pancreatic tumors (Lewis et al. 2012; Scott et al. 2016). Future molecular studies are required for a better understanding of the tissue-specificity and/or the particular metabolic demands of cancer cells that benefit from the pro-survival function of AIF.


AIF that was originally recognized as an apoptosis-inducing factor acting in the nucleus of the dying cell is now emerging as an important protein participating to the regulation of bioenergetics in the mitochondrion of healthy cells. Although the molecular bases for the tissue-specificity and signal-dependency of both lethal and vital functions of AIF remain largely elusive, recent years have witnessed a major progress in the understanding of the pro-survival mitochondrial function of the flavoprotein that is crucial for the biogenesis of the respiratory chain complexes. Thus, CHCHD4 has emerged as the missing link between AIF and the biogenesis of respiratory chain complex I subunits. The number and variety of potential mammalian CHCHD4 substrates suggest that in addition to the biogenesis of specific respiratory chain protein subunits, AIF has the potential to control redox regulation, antioxidant response, lipid homeostasis, and mitochondrial ultrastructure and dynamics (Modjtahedi et al. 2016). The creation of mouse models carrying knock-in mutations in each of the functional domains of AIF, including those that are involved in its interaction with CHCHD4, or in human mitochondrial diseases will be instrumental for a better understanding of the vital and lethal roles of AIF.


  1. Armand AS, Laziz I, Djeghloul D, Lecolle S, Bertrand AT, Biondi O, et al. Apoptosis-inducing factor regulates skeletal muscle progenitor cell number and muscle phenotype. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27283. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027283.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Artus C, Boujrad H, Bouharrour A, Brunelle MN, Hoos S, Yuste VJ, et al. AIF promotes chromatinolysis and caspase-independent programmed necrosis by interacting with histone H2AX. EMBO J. 2010;29:1585–99. doi:10.1038/emboj.2010.43.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee H, Das A, Srivastava S, Mattoo HR, Thyagarajan K, Khalsa JK, et al. A role for apoptosis-inducing factor in T cell development. J Exp Med. 2012;209:1641–53. doi:10.1084/jem.20110306.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger I, Ben-Neriah Z, Dor-Wolman T, Shaag A, Saada A, Zenvirt S, et al. Early prenatal ventriculomegaly due to an AIFM1 mutation identified by linkage analysis and whole exome sequencing. Mol Genet Metab. 2011;104:517–20. doi:10.1016/j.ymgme.2011.09.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheung EC, Joza N, Steenaart NA, McClellan KA, Neuspiel M, McNamara S, et al. Dissociating the dual roles of apoptosis-inducing factor in maintaining mitochondrial structure and apoptosis. EMBO J. 2006;25:4061–73. doi:10.1038/sj.emboj.7601276.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Elguindy MM, Nakamaru-Ogiso E. Apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF) and its family member protein, AMID, are rotenone-sensitive NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductases (NDH-2). J Biol Chem. 2015;290:20815–26. doi:10.1074/jbc.M115.641498.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Farrand L, Kim JY, Byun S, Im-aram A, Lee J, Suh JY, et al. The diarylheptanoid hirsutenone sensitizes chemoresistant ovarian cancer cells to cisplatin via modulation of apoptosis-inducing factor and X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis. J Biol Chem. 2014;289:1723–31. doi:10.1074/jbc.M113.513879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghezzi D, Sevrioukova IF, Invernizzi F, Lamperti C, Mora M, D’Adamo P, et al. Severe X-linked mitochondrial encephalomyopathy associated with a mutation in apoptosis-inducing factor. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;86:639–49.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gong M, Hay S, Marshall KR, Munro AW, Scrutton NS. DNA binding suppresses human AIF-M2 activity and provides a connection between redox chemistry, reactive oxygen species, and apoptosis. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:30331–40. doi:10.1074/jbc.M703713200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hangen E, Blomgren K, Benit P, Kroemer G, Modjtahedi N. Life with or without AIF. Trends Biochem Sci. 2010a;35:278–87. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2009.12.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hangen E, De Zio D, Bordi M, Zhu C, Dessen P, Caffin F, et al. A brain-specific isoform of mitochondrial apoptosis-inducing factor: AIF2. Cell Death Differ. 2010b;17:1155–66. doi:10.1038/cdd.2009.211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hangen E, Feraud O, Lachkar S, Mou H, Doti N, Fimia GM, et al. Interaction between AIF and CHCHD4 regulates respiratory chain biogenesis. Mol Cell. 2015;58:1001–14. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2015.04.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrmann JM, Riemer J. The intermembrane space of mitochondria. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2010;13:1341–58. doi:10.1089/ars.2009.3063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ishimura R, Martin GR, Ackerman SL. Loss of apoptosis-inducing factor results in cell-type-specific neurogenesis defects. J Neurosci. 2008;28:4938–48. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0229-08.2008.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Joza N, Oudit GY, Brown D, Benit P, Kassiri Z, Vahsen N, et al. Muscle-specific loss of apoptosis-inducing factor leads to mitochondrial dysfunction, skeletal muscle atrophy, and dilated cardiomyopathy. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25:10261–72. doi:10.1128/MCB.25.23.10261-10272.2005.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis EM, Wilkinson AS, Davis NY, Horita DA, Wilkinson JC. Nondegradative ubiquitination of apoptosis inducing factor (AIF) by X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis at a residue critical for AIF-mediated chromatin degradation. Biochemistry. 2011;50:11084–96. doi:10.1021/bi201483g.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis EM, Wilkinson AS, Jackson JS, Mehra R, Varambally S, Chinnaiyan AM, et al. The enzymatic activity of apoptosis-inducing factor supports energy metabolism benefiting the growth and invasiveness of advanced prostate cancer cells. J Biol Chem. 2012;287:43862–75. doi:10.1074/jbc.M112.407650.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Marshall KR, Gong M, Wodke L, Lamb JH, Jones DJ, Farmer PB, et al. The human apoptosis-inducing protein AMID is an oxidoreductase with a modified flavin cofactor and DNA binding activity. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:30735–40. doi:10.1074/jbc.M414018200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer K, Buettner S, Ghezzi D, Zeviani M, Bano D, Nicotera P. Loss of apoptosis-inducing factor critically affects MIA40 function. Cell Death Dis. 2015;6:e1814. doi:10.1038/cddis.2015.170.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Milasta S, Dillon CP, Sturm OE, Verbist KC, Brewer TL, Quarato G, et al. Apoptosis-inducing-factor-dependent mitochondrial function is required for T cell but not B cell function. Immunity. 2016;44:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Modjtahedi N, Hangen E, Gonin P, Kroemer G. Metabolic epistasis among apoptosis-inducing factor and the mitochondrial import factor CHCHD4. Cell Cycle. 2015;14:2743–7. doi:10.1080/15384101.2015.1068477.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Modjtahedi N, Tokatlidis K, Dessen P, Kroemer G. Mitochondrial proteins containing coiled-coil-helix-coiled-coil-helix (CHCH) domains in health and disease. Trends Biochem Sci. 2016;41:245–60. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2015.12.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pospisilik JA, Knauf C, Joza N, Benit P, Orthofer M, Cani PD, et al. Targeted deletion of AIF decreases mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation and protects from obesity and diabetes. Cell. 2007;131:476–91. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.08.047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rinaldi C, Grunseich C, Sevrioukova IF, Schindler A, Horkayne-Szakaly I, Lamperti C, et al. Cowchock syndrome is associated with a mutation in apoptosis-inducing factor. Am J Hum Genet. 2012;91:1095–102. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.10.008.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Scott AJ, Wilkinson AS, Wilkinson JC. Basal metabolic state governs AIF-dependent growth support in pancreatic cancer cells. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:286–300. doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2320-3.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sevrioukova IF. Apoptosis-inducing factor: structure, function, and redox regulation. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2011;14:2545–79. doi:10.1089/ars.2010.3445.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sevrioukova IF. Structure/function relations in AIFM1 variants associated with neurodegenerative disorders. J Mol Biol. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2016.05.004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Susin SA, Lorenzo HK, Zamzami N, Marzo I, Snow BE, Brothers GM, et al. Molecular characterization of mitochondrial apoptosis-inducing factor. Nature. 1999;397:441–6. doi:10.1038/17135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Zong L, Guan J, Ealy M, Zhang Q, Wang D, Wang H, et al. Mutations in apoptosis-inducing factor cause X-linked recessive auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. J Med Genet. 2015;52:523–31. doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2014-102961.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1030, Institut Gustave RoussyVillejuifFrance
  2. 2.Gustave Roussy Cancer CampusVillejuifFrance
  3. 3.Faculty of MedicineUniversité Paris-SaclayKremlin-BicêtreFrance
  4. 4.Equipe Labellisée Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Centre de Recherche des CordeliersParisFrance
  5. 5.Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1138ParisFrance
  6. 6.Metabolomics and Cell Biology PlatformsGustave Roussy Cancer CampusVillejuifFrance
  7. 7.Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris CitéParisFrance
  8. 8.Université Pierre et Marie CurieParisFrance
  9. 9.Pôle de Biologie, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HPParisFrance
  10. 10.Department of Women’s and Children’s HealthKarolinska Institute, Karolinska University HospitalStockholmSweden