Back

RNF213 M1-ubiquitinates damaged mitochondria to activate pro-inflammatory NF-κB signaling

Heilig, R.; Glover, H.; Mellor, C.; Cloix, C.; McIlwraith, M.; Paul, N.; Thomason, P.; Prasad, B.; Ahmed, A.; Dupuis, H.; Dalseno, D.; Smith, L.; Hamilton, J.; Hall-Younger, E.; Vringer, E.; Buetow, L.; Roca-Portoles, A.; Montes-Gomez, A.; Clark, G.; Black, A.; Lilla, S.; Zanivan, S.; Carlin, L.; Helgason, V.; Huang, D.; Tait, S. W.

2026-09-22 cell biology
10.64898/2026.09.21.752888 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Through mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP), mitochondria are central to apoptosis. MOMP is pro-inflammatory, impacting diverse processes including anti-tumor immunity and cellular senescence. Despite this, how damaged mitochondria activate inflammation remains unclear. Recent studies have shown that following MOMP, mitochondria are extensively ubiquitinated activating pro-inflammatory NF-{kappa}B signaling. We identify the E3 ligase, RNF213, as essential for pro-inflammatory mitochondrial ubiquitination following MOMP. RNF213 has an established role in pro- inflammatory, cell-autonomous immunity to bacteria and other pathogens. We discover that RNF213 is required for mitochondrial M1-linked (linear) ubiquitination. Interestingly, this was found to be independent of the canonical M1-ubiquitin ligase complex LUBAC. RNF213 can directly catalyze M1-linked ubiquitination. By promoting mitochondrial M1-linked ubiquitination, RNF213 initiates the recruitment of the essential NF{kappa}B adaptor molecule, NEMO, and subsequently activates pro-inflammatory NF-{kappa}B signaling. Collectively, our findings highlight striking similarities between how cells detect damaged mitochondria and intracellular pathogens, leading to inflammation.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The EMBO Journal
○ 309 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.7%
Similar papers in this journal
2
EMBO Reports
○ 263 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 20%
8.8%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Molecular Cell
○ 350 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.6%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Nature Cell Biology
○ 118 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.6%
Similar papers in this journal
6
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Cell Biology
● 392 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
5.4%
8
Cell Reports
○ 1498 papers in training set
Top 8%
5.1%
9
Developmental Cell
○ 196 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.3%
10
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 20%
2.6%
11
Science Signaling
● 65 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
12
Nature Immunology
○ 79 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.5%
14
Cell
○ 431 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.3%
15
Nature Metabolism
○ 69 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
16
Cell Death & Differentiation
○ 48 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
17
Life Science Alliance
● 285 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
18
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology
236 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
19
Journal of Experimental Medicine
● 119 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
20
Immunity
○ 67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
21
Journal of Cell Science
● 393 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
22
PLOS Pathogens
● 820 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
23
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
24
Autophagy
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
Redox Biology
○ 70 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 36%
0.8%
27
Cell Death & Disease
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
28
Nature Neuroscience
○ 252 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
29
mBio
● 833 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.6%
30
Journal of Biological Chemistry
○ 690 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.