Tumors and cultured mammalian cells maintain a roughly constant ratio of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to nuclear DNA copies — the mitonuclear ratio (MNR) — even after whole-genome doubling, and heteroplasmic mtDNA lesions trigger adaptive increases in mtDNA copy number. The molecular pathways that sense nuclear genome dosage or cell size and adjust mtDNA replication and degradation to hold this ratio, and whether adaptive copy-number increases restore mitochondrial function or merely provoke compensatory transcription, are not identified. This problem asks for that mechanism and for a systematic, lesion-class- and cell-background-resolved account of the functional consequences of perturbing mitonuclear balance.

Background

Human cells carry thousands of copies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), a small maternally inherited genome encoding 13 oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) subunits plus rRNAs and tRNAs. Individual mtDNA molecules are packaged in protein-DNA complexes called nucleoids, whose major packaging factor is TFAM. The fraction of mtDNA molecules carrying a given mutation is termed heteroplasmy. Because respiratory complexes are assembled stoichiometrically from mtDNA-encoded and nuclear-DNA-encoded subunits, cells must keep mtDNA copy number proportioned to nuclear DNA (nuDNA) content and to mitochondrial mass — a balance referred to as the mitonuclear ratio (MNR), the ratio of mtDNA copies to haploid nuclear genomes.

Several observations frame the mechanistic question. Mitochondrial content and functionality scale with cell size (Miettinen and Björklund, Dev Cell 2016), and in budding yeast mtDNA copy number rises with cell volume through nuclear-encoded limiting factors — the mtDNA polymerase Mip1 and the TFAM homolog Abf2, whose amounts grow in proportion to cell volume (Seel et al., Nat Struct Mol Biol 2023). In plants, experimentally induced whole-genome doubling (WGD, duplication of the entire nuclear chromosome set) elevates organellar genome copy number (Gyorfy et al., Plant J 2021). At the population level, human germline nuclear variation controls mtDNA copy number and heteroplasmy (Gupta et al., Nature 2023), establishing nuclear genetic control of mtDNA amount without identifying a cell-level sensing pathway. In mitochondrial disease models, artificially increasing mtDNA copy number can ameliorate the pathology of one heteroplasmic mutation (Filograna et al., Sci Adv 2019), hinting that copy-number adaptation can be functional — but this has not been tested systematically.

Kim et al. (Nat Genet 2024) made this quantitative in cancer. Using Direct Library Prep (DLP+), an amplification-free single-cell whole-genome sequencing method that measures mtDNA copy number, mtDNA genotype, and nuDNA copy number in the same cell, they profiled 72,275 cells from cell lines, patient-derived xenografts, and primary tumors. They found extensive cell-to-cell variation in mtDNA copy number strongly associated with cell size; nearly stoichiometric doubling of mtDNA copy number after WGD, implying that MNR, not absolute copy number, is the regulated quantity; clone-specific MNR differences whose transcriptional consequences include elevated mtDNA-encoded OXPHOS and innate-immune-related expression and depleted hypoxic gene expression, while nuDNA-encoded OXPHOS transcription was not consistently changed; and heteroplasmy-dependent adaptive increases in mtDNA copy number for both germline noncoding and somatic truncating variants. The paper concludes that 'a combination of passive and active mechanisms homeostatically coordinate absolute mtDNA copy number and nuDNA ploidy' but names no molecular pathway, and states that 'neither the regulatory principles controlling this cell-to-cell variation nor the phenotypes arising from variation to mtDNA copy number in individual cells are well-understood.' Since then, adjacent work has clarified pieces of mtDNA copy-number control — a proton-motive-force-based balance between mtDNA replication and proliferation-driven dilution in K562 cells (Rath and Mootha, bioRxiv 2025), nucleoid-density regulation and rapid replication/degradation flux in quiescent human cells (Wolf et al., bioRxiv 2026), single-cell CRISPR perturbation of mtDNA-maintenance genes revealing integrated-stress-response outputs (Burr et al., Nat Struct Mol Biol 2026), and growth-kinetics feedback maintaining mitochondrial volume in fission yeast (Chacko et al., Curr Biol 2025) — but none of these addresses how mammalian cells couple mtDNA copy number to nuclear ploidy or cell size, or how the adaptive response depends on the functional class of the mtDNA lesion.

Problem Statement

Identify the molecular mechanism by which mammalian cells homeostatically maintain the mitonuclear ratio (MNR) — the number of mtDNA copies per haploid nuclear genome — and determine the functional consequences of its adaptive modulation. Specifically: (1) which molecular pathways sense nuclear genome dosage (for example, the ploidy change produced by whole-genome doubling) and/or cell size, and how do cells adjust mtDNA replication, degradation/turnover, or nucleoid partitioning so that mtDNA copy number scales stoichiometrically with nuDNA ploidy, as observed in single-cell tumor data? Since the available evidence indicates that 'a combination of passive and active mechanisms homeostatically coordinate absolute mtDNA copy number and nuDNA ploidy', the mechanism may involve active sensing pathways, passive processes such as cell-cycle-coupled mtDNA replication and proliferation-driven dilution, or a combination. Determine whether the observed near-stoichiometric scaling of mtDNA copy number with nuDNA ploidy results from an active sensing pathway — naming the sensed quantity (nuclear genome dosage and/or cell size) and identifying the signalling-to-effector link that adjusts mtDNA replication, degradation/turnover, or nucleoid partitioning — or instead is the passive consequence of cell-cycle-coupled mtDNA replication and proliferation-driven dilution, or a combination of both. In either case, assigning the relative weight of the active and passive contributions at that level of mechanism suffices, and a compartment-resolved quantitative decomposition of each process is not required. (2) Across functional classes of mtDNA lesions (complex I subunits, complex IV subunits, tRNA or rRNA or noncoding variants) and across cellular backgrounds (cell-of-origin contexts, including transformed and nontransformed cells), determine whether the heteroplasmy-dependent adaptive increase in mtDNA copy number restores mitochondrial respiratory function or instead produces compensatory transcriptional changes without functional rescue — an investigation Kim et al. suggest 'may prove insightful'. For (2), the required case set is at least one lesion from each of the classes listed, each in at least one transformed and at least one nontransformed cell background, with the functional outcome reported separately for each; whether that outcome is uniform across classes and backgrounds is itself part of the report. (3) Establish whether clone-specific MNR variation causally alters cellular fitness (for example proliferation), rather than being merely correlated with transcriptional states. The common objective uniting these questions is a causal, mechanism-level account of how nuclear and mitochondrial genome copy numbers are coordinated in individual cells and what that coordination does for cell physiology in cancer.

References

  1. Kim M, Gorelick AN, Vàzquez-García I, Williams MJ, Salehi S, Shi H, Weiner AC, Ceglia N, Funnell T, Park T, Boscenco S, O'Flanagan CH, Jiang H, Grewal D, Tang C, Rusk N, Gammage PA, McPherson A, Aparicio S, Shah SP, Reznik E. Single-cell mtDNA dynamics in tumors is driven by coregulation of nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. Nature Genetics 56(5):889-899 (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41588-024-01724-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01724-8 (source of the open question; full text PMC11096122)
  2. Seel A, Padovani F, Mayer M, Finster A, Bureik D, Thoma F, Osman C, Klecker T, Schmoller KM. Regulation with cell size ensures mitochondrial DNA homeostasis during cell growth. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 30:1549-1560 (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41594-023-01091-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-023-01091-8
  3. Miettinen TP, Björklund M. Cellular allometry of mitochondrial functionality establishes the optimal cell size. Developmental Cell 39(3):370-382 (2016). DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2016.09.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2016.09.004
  4. Gyorfy MF, Miller ER, Conover JL, Grover CE, Wendel JF, Sloan DB, Sharbrough J. Nuclear-cytoplasmic balance: whole genome duplications induce elevated organellar genome copy number. The Plant Journal 108(1):219-230 (2021). DOI: 10.1111/tpj.15436. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.15436
  5. Gupta R, Kanai M, Durham TJ, Tsuo K, McCoy JG, Kotlys AV, Zhou W, Chinnery PF, Karczewski KJ, Calvo SE, Neale BM, Mootha VK. Nuclear genetic control of mtDNA copy number and heteroplasmy in humans. Nature 620:839-848 (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06426-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06426-5
  6. Filograna R, Koolmeister C, Upadhyay M, Pajak A, Clemente P, Wibom R, Simard ML, Wredenberg A, Freyer C, Stewart JB, Larsson NG. Modulation of mtDNA copy number ameliorates the pathological consequences of a heteroplasmic mtDNA mutation in the mouse. Science Advances 5(4):eaav9824 (2019). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aav9824. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav9824
  7. Chacko L, Nakaoka H, Morris RG, Marshall WF, Ananthanarayanan V. Mitochondrial function regulates cell growth kinetics to maintain mitochondrial homeostasis. Current Biology 35:5278-5288 (2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2025.09.046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2025.09.046 (preprint: bioRxiv 2025, DOI 10.1101/2025.03.31.646474)
  8. Rath S, Mootha VK. The proton motive force maintains mtDNA euploidy by balancing mtDNA replication with cell proliferation. bioRxiv preprint (2025). DOI: 10.1101/2025.10.27.684790. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.10.27.684790
  9. Wolf DM, Mjeku E, Segawa M, Casey A, Belaadi N, Franklin RJM, Murphy MP, Prudent J, Jones NS, Chinnery PF. Single-nucleoid imaging in whole cells defines the dynamics of the mtDNA life cycle. bioRxiv preprint (2026). DOI: 10.64898/2026.06.01.725017. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.01.725017
  10. Burr SP, Auckland K, Glynos A, Dhawanjewar A, Ryall C, Wei W, Hynes-Allen A, Prater M, Sczaniecka-Clift M, Prudent J, Chinnery PF, van den Ameele J. MitoPerturb-Seq identifies gene-specific single-cell responses to mitochondrial DNA depletion and heteroplasmy. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 33:711-723 (2026). DOI: 10.1038/s41594-026-01779-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-026-01779-7
  11. Boscenco S, Tait-Mulder J, Kim M, Tang C, Park T, McNulty F, Lilla S, Zanivan S, Huerta-Uribe A, Nalbant B, Zucker M, Sumpton D, Monteuuis G, Jackson CB, Wei W, Chinnery PF, Chaligné R, Lareau CA, Reznik E, Gammage P. Functionally dominant hotspot mutations of mitochondrial ribosomal RNA genes in cancer. Nature Genetics 57(11):2705-2714 (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s41588-025-02374-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-025-02374-0
  12. Hsieh Y-H, Kautz P, Nitsch L, Giguelay AM, Liebold J, Dimitrova V, Contreras Castillo S, Jungen F, Zsurka G, Trombly G, Schuelke M, Kunz WS, Lareau CA, Ludwig LS. Single-cell multi-omic analysis of mitochondrial mutational mosaicism and dynamics. Nature Communications 17:2532 (2026). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-70399-y. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-70399-y
  13. Daunesse M, Sundaram V, Kentepozidou E, Connelly J, Anderson CJ, López-Bigas N, Semple C, Odom DT, Taylor MS, Roller M, Aitken SJA, Flicek P. Germline and somatic variation influence nuclear-mitochondrial crosstalk in tumourigenesis. bioRxiv preprint (2025). DOI: 10.1101/2025.02.11.637769. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.11.637769
  14. Yates J, Kraft A, Boeva V. Filtering cells with high mitochondrial content depletes viable metabolically altered malignant cell populations in cancer single-cell studies. Genome Biology 26:91 (2025). DOI: 10.1186/s13059-025-03559-w. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-025-03559-w
  15. Lareau CA, Chapman M, Penter L, Nawy T, Pe'er D, Ludwig LS. Artifacts in single-cell mitochondrial DNA mutation analyses misinform phylogenetic inference. bioRxiv preprint (2024). DOI: 10.1101/2024.07.28.605517. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.28.605517