Category: Whitehead Institute

Whitehead Institute Member Jonathan Weissman joins global Cancer Grand Challenges team

Whitehead Institute Member Jonathan Weissman has been named to a newly funded Cancer Grand Challenges team that will tackle one of the most elusive frontiers in cancer biology: the “dark proteome.”

Mackenzie White | Whitehead Institute
March 4, 2026

Whitehead Institute Member Jonathan Weissman has been named to a newly funded Cancer Grand Challenges team that will tackle one of the most elusive frontiers in cancer biology: the “dark proteome.”

The interdisciplinary team, ILLUMINE, will receive up to $25 million over approximately five years through Cancer Grand Challenges to investigate proteins expressed by cancer cells that don’t correspond exactly to known genes. These include proteins produced from previously unrecognized regions of the genome, proteins created from offset start sites of known genes, and proteins with altered amino acid sequences that cannot be explained by known DNA mutations. The origins and functions of this dark proteome remain largely unknown.

Cancer Grand Challenges is a global research initiative co-founded in 2020 by Cancer Research UK and the National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health) in the United States. The initiative supports a global community of diverse, world-class research teams to come together, think differently, and take on some of cancer’s toughest challenges.

The ILLUMINE team is led by Reuven Agami of the Netherlands Cancer Institute and brings together clinicians, advocates, and scientists across eight institutions in four countries. The team is funded by Cancer Research UK, the National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Research Institute, and KiKa (Children Cancer Free Foundation) through Cancer Grand Challenges. It is one of five new teams announced this year, representing a total investment of $125 million.

Weissman, also a professor of biology at MIT and an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, studies how proteins are produced and folded inside cells, and how disruptions in these processes contribute to disease. His laboratory developed ribosome profiling, a technique that reveals which parts of the genome are actively being translated into proteins inside cells.

This method is directly relevant to the dark proteome challenge. If cancer cells generate proteins from unexpected regions of the genome, understanding when and how those proteins are made is critical. Weissman’s lab continues to refine tools that measure protein production at scale, helping to illuminate these hidden products and their potential role in cancer.

By comprehensively identifying and characterizing the dark proteome, the ILLUMINE team aims to uncover novel, potentially universal tumor antigens — cancer cell molecules that are recognizable by the immune system — and develop innovative immunotherapies for hard-to-treat cancers.

Collectively, the newly funded teams unite researchers from nine countries and 34 institutions, bringing together more than 40 investigators to address long-standing barriers in cancer research.

Dr. David Scott, Director of Cancer Grand Challenges, said of the initiative: “Together, we’re creating opportunities for bold team science that could redefine what’s possible for people affected by cancer.”

How changes on the Y chromosome may make species reproductively incompatible

Closely related species often produce infertile offspring, especially in males. New research from the Yamashita Lab identifies a cellular defect that contributes to this phenomenon in fruit flies, which may help explain how diverging species become reproductively incompatible.

Mackenzie White | Whitehead Institute
March 6, 2026

In a new study published in Molecular Biology and Evolution on February 16, Whitehead Institute Member Yukiko Yamashita, graduate student in her lab Adrienne Fontan, and senior scientist in her lab Romain Lannes identify a cellular defect that contributes to this phenomenon in fruit flies. This finding may help explain how diverging species become reproductively incompatible.

The team found that in hybrid males, several genes required for sperm production fail during an early step in gene expression. Because these genes cannot be processed correctly, cells are unable to produce the proteins needed for sperm formation.

The researchers studied hybrids produced from two closely related fruit fly species that diverged from a common ancestor roughly 250,000 years ago. Although these species can still mate in the laboratory, their hybrid males cannot produce functional sperm.

To investigate why, the researchers focused on genes located on the Y chromosome that are essential for sperm development.

“These genes on the Y chromosome are required to produce sperm,” says co-first author and Yamashita lab senior scientist Romain Lannes. “They are very large and difficult for the cell to process, and in the hybrid, it’s a total failure—the hybrid cannot make them.”

Like all genes, these Y-linked genes work by first producing an RNA copy of their DNA instructions. Before the RNA can be used to make proteins, cells must remove segments that do not contain coding information and join the remaining pieces together.

In hybrid flies, this process frequently fails.

Instead of assembling the RNA pieces in the correct order, the cell sometimes flips the order of pieces. The resulting molecule cannot produce a functional protein. Because the affected genes are required for sperm development, the defect prevents hybrid males from making sperm.

The researchers traced the problem to a distinctive feature of these genes: their unusual size.

Much of their length consists of repetitive DNA embedded within the gene. These repetitive sequences, known as satellite DNA, consist of short DNA patterns repeated many times in a row.

“Satellite DNA is made of short repeated sequences that can extend for very long regions,” says Yamashita who is also a professor of biology at MIT and an HHMI Investigator. “Because they don’t encode proteins and are difficult to analyze with standard genetic tools, people historically didn’t study them much.”

One notable property of satellite DNA is that it changes quickly over evolutionary time. Even closely related species can carry very different versions of these sequences.

The researchers suspect that these differences contribute to the defect they observed. Each species may evolve cellular systems adapted to handle its own repetitive DNA. When DNA from two species is combined in a hybrid, those systems may no longer function properly.

Large genes already pose challenges for the cell’s gene-processing machinery, Yamashita explained. In hybrids, those challenges appear to become harder to overcome.

“Even in a pure species, these big genes are challenging to process,” says Yamashita. “But that species has evolved ways to deal with that challenge. When you combine two species in a hybrid, that system can break.”

The findings also offer insight into a widely observed pattern in evolutionary biology: when hybrids between species are sterile, the sex with two different sex chromosomes is often the one affected. In fruit flies and humans, males carry an X and a Y chromosome, while females carry two X chromosomes.

Because the Y chromosome evolves rapidly and contains many repetitive sequences, it may be particularly sensitive to incompatibilities that arise when species interbreed.

The researchers say fruit flies provide a useful model for investigating these questions because they reproduce quickly and are easy to study in the laboratory. The two species used in the study diverged relatively recently, allowing scientists to examine the early stages of reproductive isolation between species.

Although the work focused on flies, the researchers think similar processes could occur in other organisms. Rapid changes in the Y chromosome are observed across many species, including mammals.

“I’m really interested in understanding why species split and become incompatible,” says Yamashita.

The team is now exploring whether the computational approaches developed in this study could help investigate human diseases involving extremely large genes. Some human genes span millions of DNA bases and can be difficult for cells to process correctly, including genes implicated in muscular and neurological disorders.

By identifying a specific failure in gene processing, the study provides a clearer picture of how genetic differences between species can disrupt reproduction.

Adrienne Fontan, Romain Lannes, Jaclyn M Fingerhut, Jullien M Flynn, Yukiko M Yamashita, ­­­”Defective splicing of Y-chromosome-linked gigantic genes contributes to hybrid male sterility in Drosophila,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2026; https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msag045

 

3 Questions with new faculty member Zuri Sullivan: Exploring the mechanisms underlying changes during infection

Zuri Sullivan, a new assistant professor of biology and Whitehead Institute member, studies why we get sick, and whether aspects of illness, such as disrupted appetite, contribute to host defense.

Lillian Eden | Department of Biology
February 20, 2026

With respiratory illness season in full swing, a bad night’s sleep, sore throat, and desire to cancel dinner plans could all be considered hallmark symptoms of the flu, Covid-19 or other illnesses. Although everyone has, at some point, experienced illness and these stereotypical symptoms, the mechanisms that generate them are not well understood.

Zuri Sullivan, a new assistant professor in the MIT Department of Biology and core member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, works at the interface of neuroscience, microbiology, physiology, and immunology to study the biological workings underlying illness. In this interview, she describes her work on immunity thus far as well as research avenues — and professional collaborations — she’s excited to explore at MIT.

Q: What is immunity, and why do we get sick in the first place?

A: We can think of immunity in two ways: the antimicrobial programs that defend against a pathogen directly, and sickness, the altered organismal state that happens when we get an infection.

Sickness itself arises from brain-immune system interaction. The immune system is talking to the brain, and then the brain has a system-wide impact on host defense via its ability to have top-down control of physiologic systems and behavior. People might assume that sickness is an unintended consequence of infection, that it happens because your immune system is active, but we hypothesize that it’s likely an adaptive process that contributes to host defense.

If we consider sickness as immunity at the organismal scale, I think of my work as bridging the dynamic immunological processes that occur at the cellular scale, the tissue scale, and the organismal scale. I’m interested in the molecular and cellular mechanisms by which the immune system communicates with the brain to generate changes in behavior and physiology, such as fever, loss of appetite, and changes in social interaction.

Q: What sickness behaviors fascinate you?

A: During my thesis work at Yale University, I studied how the gut processes different nutrients and the role of the immune system in regulating gut homeostasis in response to different kinds of food. I’m especially interested in the interaction between food, the immune system, and the brain. One of the things I’m most excited about is the reduction in appetite, or changes in food choice, because we have what I would consider pretty strong evidence that these may be adaptive.

Sleep is another area we’re interested in exploring. From their own subjective experience, everyone knows that sleep is often altered during infection.

I also don’t just want to examine snapshots in time. I want to characterize changes over the course of an infection. There’s probably going to be individual variability, which I think may be in part because pathogens are also changing over the course of an illness — we’re studying two different biological systems interacting with each other.

Q: What sorts of expertise are you hoping to recruit to your lab, and what collaborations are you excited about pursuing?

A: I really want to bring together different areas of biology to think about organism-wide questions. The thing that’s most important to me is people who are creative — I’d rather trainees come in with an interesting idea than a perfectly formed question within the bounds of what we already believe to be true. I’m also interested in people who would complement my expertise; I’m fascinated by microbiology, but I don’t have any formal training.

The Whitehead Institute is really invested in interdisciplinary work, and there’s a natural synergy between my work and the other labs in this small community at the Whitehead Institute.

I’ve been collaborating with Sebastian Lourido’s lab for a few years, looking at how Toxoplasma gondii influences social behavior, and I’m excited to invest more time in that project. I’m also interested in molecular neuroscience, which is a focus of Siniša Hrvatin’s lab. That lab is interested in the hypothalamus, and trying to understand the mechanisms that generate torpor. My work also focuses on the hypothalamus because it regulates homeostatic behaviors that change during sickness, such as appetite, sleep, social behavior, and body temperature.

By studying different sickness states generated by different kinds of pathogens — parasites, viruses, bacteria — we can ask really interesting questions about how and why we get sick.

New insights into a hidden process that protects cells from harmful mutations

To make up for the loss of an important gene's function, cells are known to ramp up activity of other genes with similar functions. New research from the Weissman Lab reveals insights into how cells coordinate this response.

Shafaq Zia | Whitehead Institute
February 12, 2026

Some genetic mutations that are expected to completely stop a gene from working surprisingly cause only mild or even no symptoms. Researchers in previous studies have discovered one reason why: cells can ramp up the activity of other genes that perform similar functions to make up for the loss of an important gene’s function. A new study, published Feb. 12 in the journal Science, from the lab of Whitehead Institute Member Jonathan Weissman now reveals insights into how cells can coordinate this compensation response.

Cells are constantly reading instructions stored in DNA. These instructions, called genes, tell them how to make the many proteins that carry out complex processes needed to sustain life. But first, they need to make a temporary copy of these genetic instructions called messenger RNA, or mRNA.

As part of normal maintenance, cells routinely break down these temporary messages. This process helps control gene activity — or how much protein is made from a given gene — and ensures that old or unnecessary messages don’t accumulate. Cells also destroy faulty mRNAs that contain errors. These messages, if used, could produce damaged proteins that clump together and interfere with normal cellular processes.

In 2019, external studies suggested that this cleanup could be serving as more than just a quality-control check. The researchers showed that when faulty mRNAs are broken down, this breakdown can signal cells to activate the compensation response. These works also suggested that cells decide which backup genes to turn up based on how closely these genes resemble the mRNA that’s being degraded.

But mRNA decay is a process that happens in the cytoplasm, outside the nucleus where DNA, and thereby genes, are stored. So, Mohamed El-Brolosy, a postdoc in the Weissman Lab and lead author of the study, and colleagues wondered how those two processes in different compartments of the cell could be connected. Understanding this mechanism with greater depth could enable development of therapeutics that trigger it in a targeted fashion.

The researchers started by investigating a specific gene that scientists know triggers a compensation response when its mRNA is destroyed by causing a closely related gene to become more active. To find out which molecules within the cell aid this process, the researchers systematically switched other genes off, one at a time.

That’s when they found a protein called ILF3. When the gene encoding this protein was turned off, cells could no longer ramp up the activity of the backup gene following mRNA decay.

Upon further investigation, the researchers identified small RNA fragments — left behind when faulty mRNAs are destroyed — underlying this response. These fragments contain a special sequence that acts like an “address”. The team proposed that this address guides ILF3 to related backup genes that share the same sequence as the faulty mRNA.

In fact, when they introduced mutations in this sequence, the cells’ compensation response dropped, suggesting that the system relies on precise sequence matching to target the correct backup genes.

“That was very exciting for us,” says Weissman, who is also a professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). “It showed us that this isn’t a generic stress response. It’s a regulated system.”

The researchers’ findings point toward new therapeutic possibilities, where boosting the activity of a related gene could mitigate symptoms of certain genetic diseases. More broadly, their work characterizes a mysterious layer of gene regulation.

El-Brolosy, M. A., et al. (2026). Mechanisms linking cytoplasmic decay of translation-defective mRNA to transcriptional adaptation. Science, 391, eaea1272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aea1272

New chemical method makes it easier to select desirable traits in crops

Whitehead Institute Member Mary Gehring and colleagues offer a new method for generating large-scale genetic changes without irradiation.

Mackenzie White | Whitehead Institute
January 8, 2026

Crops increasingly need to thrive in a broader range of conditions, including drought, salinity, and heat. Traditional plant breeding can select for desirable traits, but is limited by the genetic variation that already exists in plants. In many crops, domestication and long-term selection have narrowed genetic diversity, constraining efforts to develop new varieties.

To work around these limits, researchers have developed ways to introduce helpful traits, such as drought or salt tolerance, into plants through mutation breeding. This deliberately introduces random genetic changes into plants. Then researchers screen the genetically altered plants to see which have acquired useful traits. One widely used approach relies on radiation to generate structural variants—large-scale DNA changes that can affect multiple genes at once. However, irradiation introduces logistical and regulatory hurdles that restrict who can use it and which crops can be studied.

In a paper published in PLOS Genetics on December 18, Whitehead Institute Member Mary Gehring and colleagues offer a new method for generating large-scale genetic changes without irradiation.

Lead author Lindsey Bechen, the Gehring lab manager; Gehring; former postdoc P.R.V. Satyaki (now a faculty member at the University of Toronto); and their colleagues developed the approach by exposing germinating seeds to etoposide, a chemotherapy drug, during early growth.

The drug interferes with an enzyme that helps manage DNA structure during cell division. When cells attempt to repair the resulting breaks in their DNA, errors in the repair process can produce large-scale rearrangements in the genome. Seeds collected from treated plants carry these changes in a heritable form.

The process relies on standard laboratory tools: seeds are germinated on growth medium containing the drug, then transferred to soil to complete their life cycle.

“I was surprised at how efficient it was,” says Gehring, who is also a professor of biology at MIT and an HHMI Investigator. “The diversity of new traits that you could see just by looking at the plants in the first generation was extensive.”

The researchers demonstrated the method in Arabidopsis thaliana, a model plant widely used in genetic studies. Roughly two-thirds of treated plant lines showed visible differences, including changes in leaf shape, plant size, pigmentation, and fertility. Genetic analyses linked these traits to deletions, duplications, and rearrangements of DNA segments.

In several cases, the team linked specific plant traits to individual genetic changes. A dwarf plant with thick stems and unusual leaves carried a large change that disrupted a gene involved in leaf development. Another plant, marked by green-and-white mottled leaves, carried a deletion in the gene IMMUTANS—the same gene identified in radiation-induced mutants described more than 60 years ago.

Beyond Arabidopsis, Gehring’s lab is applying the technique to pigeon pea, a drought-tolerant legume and an important source of dietary protein in parts of Asia and Africa. Pigeon pea is an underutilized crop with the potential to become a staple crop—if its lack of genetic diversity, caused by a historical cultivation bottleneck, can be overcome. Often referred to as orphan crops, species like pigeon pea receive limited research attention and often lack the genetic variation needed for breeding improved varieties.

“All of the traits that we might want to see in pigeon pea are not present in the existing population,” says Gehring. “The idea is to do a large-scale mutation experiment to increase genetic diversity.”

The team, which includes Gehring lab postdoc Sonia Boor, is now screening treated pigeon pea lines for salt tolerance, a trait that shapes where crops can be grown and how they perform in saline soils. Although pigeon pea takes longer to grow than Arabidopsis, the researchers have reached the second generation and identified several lines that show promising responses under saline conditions.

The researchers’ chemical approach may also be beneficial for crops that are difficult to modify using gene-editing tools such as CRISPR. Although CRISPR enables precise genetic changes, it often relies on genetic transformation, a technically challenging step for many plant species.

“A lot of species that one works with, either in agriculture or horticulture, are not amenable to genetic transformation,” says Gehring.

The new method complements existing genetic tools rather than replacing them. By providing a more accessible alternative to irradiation, chemical mutation could expand the availability of large-scale genetic changes and novel plant varieties.

Looking ahead, Gehring’s lab plans to develop comprehensive collections of Arabidopsis mutants carrying well-characterized structural variants. Such resources could help researchers better understand how large-scale changes in genome structure influence plant development and performance, informing future efforts to study and enhance crops.

Bechen, L. L., Ahsan, N., Bahrainwala, A., Gehring, M., & Satyaki, P. R. (2025). A simple method to efficiently generate structural variation in plants. PLOS Genetics, 21(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011977
Alternate proteins from the same gene contribute differently to health and rare disease

Whitehead Institute Member Iain Cheeseman, graduate student Jimmy Ly, and colleagues propose that researchers and clinicians may be able to get more information from patients’ genomes by looking at them in a different way.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
November 7, 2025

In a paper published in Molecular Cell on November 7, Whitehead Institute Member Iain Cheeseman, graduate student Jimmy Ly, and colleagues propose that researchers and clinicians may be able to get more information from patients’ genomes by looking at them in a different way.

The common wisdom is that each gene codes for one protein. Someone studying whether a patient has a mutation or version of a gene that contributes to their disease will therefore look for mutations that affect the “known” protein product of that gene. However, Cheeseman and others are finding that the majority of genes code for more than one protein. That means that a mutation that may seem insignificant because it does not appear to affect the known protein could nonetheless alter a different protein made by the same gene. Now, Cheeseman and Ly have shown that mutations affecting one or multiple proteins from the same gene can contribute differently to disease.

In their paper, the researchers first share what they have learned about how cells make use of the ability to generate different versions of proteins from the same gene. Then, they examine how mutations that affect these proteins contribute to disease. Through a collaboration with co-author Mark Fleming, the pathologist-in-chief at Boston Children’s Hospital, they provide two case studies of patients with atypical presentations of a rare anemia linked to mutations that selectively affect only one of two proteins produced by the gene implicated in the disease.

“We hope this work demonstrates the importance of considering whether a gene of interest makes multiple versions of a protein, and what the role of each version is in health and disease,” Ly says. “This information could lead to better understanding of the biology of disease, better diagnostics, and perhaps one day to tailored therapies to treat these diseases.”

Rethinking how cells use genes

Cells have several ways to make different versions of a protein, but the variation that Cheeseman and Ly study happens during protein production from genetic code. Cellular machines build each protein according to the instructions within a genetic sequence that begins at a “start codon” and ends at a “stop codon.” However, some genetic sequences contain more than one start codon, many that are hiding in plain sight. If the cellular machinery skips the first start codon and detects a second one, it may build a shorter version of the protein. In other cases, the machinery may detect a section that closely resembles a start codon at a point earlier in the sequence than its typical starting place, and build a longer version of the protein.

These events may sound like mistakes: the cell’s machinery accidentally creating the wrong version of the correct protein. To the contrary, protein production from these alternate starting places is an important feature of cell biology that exists across species. When Ly traced when certain genes evolved to produce multiple proteins, he found that this is a common, robust process that has been preserved throughout evolutionary history for millions of years.

Ly shows that one function this serves is to send versions of a protein to different parts of the cell. Many proteins contain zip code-like sequences that tell the cell’s machinery where to deliver them so the proteins can do their jobs. Ly found many examples in which longer and shorter versions of the same protein contained different zip codes and ended up in different places within the cell.

In particular, Ly found many cases in which one version of a protein ended up in mitochondria, structures that provide energy to cells, while another version ended up elsewhere. Because of the mitochondria’s role in the essential process of energy production, mutations to mitochondrial genes are often implicated in disease.

Ly wondered what would happen when a disease-causing mutation eliminates one version of a protein but leaves the other intact, causing the protein to only reach one of its two intended destinations. He looked through a database containing genetic information from people with rare diseases to see if such cases existed, and found that they did. In fact, there may be tens of thousands of such cases. However, without access to the people, Ly had no way of knowing what the consequences of this were in terms of symptoms and severity of disease.

Meanwhile, Cheeseman had begun working with Boston Children’s Hospital to foster collaborations between Whitehead Institute and the hospital’s researchers and clinicians to accelerate the pathway from research discovery to clinical application. Through these efforts, Cheeseman and Ly met Fleming.

One group of Fleming’s patients have a type of anemia called SIFD—Sideroblastic Anemia with B-Cell Immunodeficiency, Periodic Fevers, and Developmental Delay—that is caused by mutations to the TRNT1 gene. TRNT1 is one of the genes Ly had identified as producing a mitochondrial version of its protein and another version that ends up elsewhere: in the nucleus.

Fleming shared anonymized patient data with Ly, and Ly found two cases of interest in the genetic data. Most of the patients had mutations that impaired both versions of the protein, but one patient had a mutation that eliminated only the mitochondrial version of the protein, while another patient had a mutation that eliminated only the nuclear version.

When Ly shared his results, Fleming revealed that both of those patients had very atypical presentations of SIFD, supporting Ly’s hypothesis that mutations affecting different versions of a protein would have different consequences. The patient who only had the mitochondrial version was anemic but developmentally normal. The patient missing the mitochondrial version of the protein did not have developmental delays or chronic anemia but did have other immune symptoms, and was not correctly diagnosed until his fifties. There are likely other factors contributing to each patient’s exact presentation of the disease, but Ly’s work begins to unravel the mystery of their atypical symptoms.

Cheeseman and Ly want to make more clinicians aware of the prevalence of genes coding for more than one protein, so they know to check for mutations affecting any of the protein versions that could contribute to disease. For example, several TRNT1 mutations that only eliminate the shorter version of the protein are not flagged as disease-causing by current assessment tools. Cheeseman lab researchers including Ly and graduate student Matteo Di Bernardo are now developing a new assessment tool for clinicians, called SwissIsoform, that will identify relevant mutations that affect specific protein versions, including mutations that would otherwise be missed.

“Jimmy and Iain’s work will globally support genetic disease variant interpretation and help with connecting genetic differences to variation in disease symptoms,” Fleming says. “In fact, we have recently identified two other patients with mutations affecting only the mitochondrial versions of two other proteins, who similarly have milder symptoms than patients with mutations that affect both versions.”

Long term, the researchers hope that their discoveries could aid in understanding the molecular basis of disease and in developing new gene therapies: once researchers understand what has gone wrong within a cell to cause disease, they are better equipped to devise a solution. More immediately, the researchers hope that their work will make a difference by providing better information to clinicians and people with rare diseases.

“As a basic researcher who doesn’t typically interact with patients, there’s something very satisfying about knowing that the work you are doing is helping specific people,” Cheeseman says. “As my lab transitions to this new focus, I’ve heard many stories from people trying to navigate a rare disease and just get answers, and that has been really motivating to us, as we work to provide new insights into the disease biology.”

Jimmy Ly, Matteo Di Bernardo, Yi Fei Tao, Ekaterina Khalizeva, Christopher J. Giuliano, Sebastian Lourido, Mark D. Fleming, Iain M. Cheeseman. “Alternative start codon selection shapes mitochondrial function and rare human diseases.” Molecular Cell, November 7, 2025. DOI: https://10.0.3.248/j.molcel.2025.10.013

Research Threads: One lab’s detective work reveals secrets of immortal cells

Most cells in our body live and die. But the germline, the cells that produce eggs and sperm, must carry on forever. How the germline successfully produces the next generation is a long-studied question. Through a string of discoveries made over years, the Yamashita lab is teasing apart how the germline remains immortal.

Madeleine Turner | Whitehead Institute
October 7, 2025

Most cells in our body live and die. But the germline, the cells that produce eggs and sperm, must carry on forever. How the germline successfully produces the next generation is a long-studied question. Research Threads examines how answering one question uncovers more questions to be solved. In our first installment of Research Threads, we follow the research of Whitehead Institute Member Yukiko Yamashita. Through a string of discoveries made over years, the Yamashita lab is teasing apart how the germline remains immortal.

“The germline is the only cell type responsible for transmitting the genome from generation to generation,” Whitehead Institute Member Yukiko Yamashita says. “We’ve done that for 1.5 billion years.”

The germline is the population of cells in an organism that give rise to gametes, either egg or sperm cells. These gametes contain genetic information, encoded in DNA, needed to produce the next generation. The act of transmitting this information — the instructions that a new individual needs to develop and function — is like a relay race that never ends. While a skin or gut cell may be prone to genetic errors and is generally replaceable, germline stem cells (GSCs) must maintain their genomes with precision. Otherwise, any mistakes or imbalances would be inherited by offspring and accumulated over generations, potentially driving a species to extinction. In other words, to keep passing the baton in this relay, the germline must be faithfully preserved.

Although germline preservation is paramount to the existence and survival of a species, some fundamental parts of its biology have remained a mystery. Yamashita, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, has focused her research on unraveling the secrets of the germline. To study these cells’ immortality, her lab utilizes the model organism Drosophila melanogaster, or the fruit fly. Along the way, research in the Yamashita lab has highlighted how the process of scientific discovery can be circuitous, often pulling scientists in surprising directions, revealing new questions and avenues to explore.

For decades, scientists had observed an aspect of germline behavior that was hard to explain. Most cells in the body divide to produce two identical copies, or daughter cells. GSCs in male fruit flies, however, divide “asymmetrically,” meaning they yield two daughter cells that are not identical. Instead, one daughter cell becomes a new GSC, while the other goes on to become a gamete, in this case a sperm cell. It might be easy to assume that asymmetric cell division is about producing gametes while maintaining a pool of stem cells. But an additional detail complicates this theory: when a daughter cell is on the path to becoming sperm, it can loop back around to become another stem cell, instead of continuing differentiation to become a sperm cell.

“If it can do that, why divide asymmetrically in the first place?” Yamashita says.

To shed light on why GSCs divide asymmetrically, researchers wanted to know how genetic information was actually divvied up between daughter cells. “After I started my own lab, there was this question hanging in the field,” Yamashita says. It made sense to find some difference in inheritance, DNA-based or otherwise: something to distinguish between the daughter fated to become a gamete, and the other that would remain in the GSC pool.

Preparing for division, a cell duplicates its DNA. Chromosomes happen to be shaped like the letter “X” as a result of this duplication: the left and right sides of the “X” are called matching sister chromatids, each a copy of the other. Later in cell division, these two sister chromatids part ways, winding up in separate daughter cells.

In 2013, Yamashita and her former graduate student, Swathi Yadlapalli, made a strange but important discovery. In fruit flies, for the X and Y chromosomes (the sex chromosomes), sister chromatids were not being sorted randomly. Instead, one was more likely to go to the daughter cell that would become a gamete; the other to the daughter on the GSC track. There had to be a reason for this preference, but no one had an explanation.

Initial experiments did not reveal obvious differences between these sister chromatid pairs. “Everyone would say, ‘oh, there’s probably some sort of epigenetic information in there,” Yamashita says, referring to heritable changes not carried in DNA. With few promising leads, the lab decided to take a systematic approach. George Watase, then a postdoc in the lab, began the painstaking work of removing different a parts of flies’ X chromosomes, seeing if the absence of any particular element would disrupt the pattern of preferential segregation.

“We thought it was going to be satellite DNA,” Yamashita says, referring to large swathes of DNA in the genome that are highly repetitive but don’t code for any genes. (While this initial guess was wrong, it kickstarted a separate project in the lab — one which led to discovering the unexpected role that satellite DNA plays when one species forks into two.)

Eventually the team narrowed in on the true culprit: ribosomal DNA (rDNA). The primary role of rDNA is to produce the components that make up ribosomes. Ribosomes, in turn, perform the crucial task of synthesizing proteins.

“We didn’t like this finding in the beginning. I always say that ribosomal DNA is ‘too important to be interesting.’ You don’t get excited about something you really need, like toilet paper,” Yamashita says. “In the case of ribosomal DNA, bacteria needs it, humans need it, everybody needs it.”

But what did rDNA have to do with asymmetric cell division in the germline?

“Around that time, we started reading lots of papers,” Yamashita says. “Then we discovered a phenomenon called rDNA magnification. These were studies from the 1960s and ’80s — most of the people in my lab were not even born yet.”

These studies from decades ago described mutant flies that lacked a sufficient amount of rDNA and, as a result, had a “bobbed” phenotype, or appearance. Since these flies possessed fewer ribosomes to produce proteins, the bristles on their back were shorter; the protective cuticle covering their bodies weakened. But when they reproduced, many of their offspring possessed a normal amount of rDNA. These observations pointed towards a mechanism that allowed flies to replenish their supply of rDNA.

At the time rDNA magnification was first observed, the phenomenon was regarded as an oddity, something that only happened in mutant flies and did not have physiological relevance. But Yamashita realized there was a connection between rDNA magnification and asymmetric division in the germline.

To make enough protein, a cell must produce ample ribosomes. To do that, the fruit fly genome contains hundreds of copies of rDNA in a row. But the DNA replication process can struggle to handle so many rDNA copies strung together, and can sometimes experience a hiccup, resulting in the loss of rDNA copies with each new division. It’s an outcome that might be okay on occasion, but would wreak havoc over many generations.

“All of a sudden, [rDNA magnification] was not about a mutant chromosome,” Yamashita says. “We were like, holy moly. This is about germline immortality.”

Soon many different pieces became part of a cohesive story: asymmetric cell division is not about producing a balance of gametes and stem cells; it’s about maintaining rDNA in the germline. Sister chromatids are almost identical — but one contains more copies of rDNA than the other, and that copy is fated to stay in the GSC pool. Through this asymmetry, the germline is replenished of rDNA; it can pass the baton to the next generation.

“For quite some time, for so many observations that everyone knew in the field, we felt we had an explanation. But from that ‘aha!’ moment, we took multiple years to test everything,” Yamashita says.

In subsequent years, the Yamashita lab pinned down additional details about how rDNA is diverted back to the germline. First, in 2022, the team identified a specific protein, which they named Indra, which binds to rDNA. The presence of Indra helps assign the sister chromatid containing more rDNA copies to the GSC daughter cell.

Their next discovery was another plot twist. If one sister chromatid contained more rDNA than the other, and those rDNA copies weren’t appearing out of thin air, it meant that one chromatid needed to be stealing rDNA from its sister. The lab discovered a genetic element that facilitated this transfer: a retrotransposon.

Retrotransposons are usually considered “genetic parasites,” copying and pasting themselves into the genome. In an attempt to reinsert itself, this particular retrotransposon, called R2, slices open sections containing rDNA on both chromatids. As the cell repairs these breaks, it may inadvertently stitch copies of rDNA from one chromosome to the other, creating an unequal number of copies between the two.

“Not many people thought retrotransposons could be beneficial to the host. They’re seen as parasites,” Yamashita says. “But it turns out that they are essential for germline immortality.”

Sometimes, one research project is a spin off of a spin off. That was true for Xuefeng Meng, a graduate student in the lab who was working on satellite DNA, the genetic element that turned out to be unrelated to asymmetric cell division, but was interesting in its own right.

While studying satellite DNA, Meng noticed that a particular stock of flies had a problem producing normal sperm, that their cells’ nuclei were abnormally packaged. The problem had to do with a gene called Stellate on the flies’ X chromosome. While most flies have few copies of Stellate, these flies had a higher number of copies.

Stellate was already known in the field as a meiotic driver, or “selfish-gene”: a genetic element that has evolved ways to preferentially transmit itself to the next generation. Some meiotic drivers, including Stellate, are on the sex chromosomes and, when not suppressed, cause an excess of either male or female progeny. In this case, Stellate produces a protein, Ste, which is found to concentrate in Y-carrying cells during meiosis, the specialized type of cell division that produces gametes (meiosis follows the earlier round of asymmetric cell division described above). High concentrations of Ste impede the proper packaging of nuclei in cells, leading to their eventual death. When Stellate is widely expressed, fewer male flies emerge in the next generation.

But here lies an inherent tension: if a selfish gene is too good at propagating itself, and produces only males or females, its host species would go extinct — and so would the gene. Meng and Yamashita were interested in this paradox. Through this work, they identified a novel mechanism that keeps Stellate in check. To balance selfish propagation with the host species’ survival, Stellate has a built-in system for pumping the brakes. After Ste concentrates in Y-carrying cells during the first meiotic division, the protein is unevenly distributed a second time. This second step spares a portion of Y-carrying cells that go on to create males.

How the germline is able to counter disruptive forces, thereby renewing itself, continues to be a ripe research area. Researchers still don’t know all the secrets to how a line of cells can achieve perpetuity — but the Yamashita lab continues to investigate the question.

“What I really like about people in my lab is that they don’t jump to the easiest conclusion,” Yamashita says. “If you start embracing surprise, then good things happen. Because you are surprised, you start testing your finding in multiple ways. Then you can build confidence about the result.”

Notes

Xuefeng Meng and Yukiko Yamashita (2025). “Intrinsically weak sex chromosome drive through sequential asymmetric meiosis.” Science Advances. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adv7089

Jonathan O. Nelson, Tomohiro Kumon, Yukiko M. Yamashita. (2023) “rDNA magnification is a unique feature of germline stem cells.” PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2314440120

Jonathan O. Nelson, Alyssa Slicko, Yukiko M. Yamashita. (2023) “The retrotransposon R2 maintains Drosophila ribosomal DNA repeats.” PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2221613120

George J. Watase, Jonathan O. Nelson, Yukiko M. Yamashita. (2022) “Nonrandom sister chromatid segregation mediates rDNA copy number maintenance in Drosophila.” Science Advances. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo4443

Madhav Jagannathan and Yukiko Yamashita. (2021) “Defective satellite DNA clustering into chromocenters underlies hybrid incompatibility in Drosophila.” Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab221

Swathi Yadlapalli and Yukiko Yamashita (2013) “Chromosome-specific nonrandom sister chromatid segregation during stem-cell division.” Nature. 10.1038/nature12106

Inflammation jolts “sleeping” cancer cells awake, enabling them to multiply again

A paper from the Weinberg Lab indicates that inflammation may be a factor in how metastatic cancer cells, those that have broken away from the original tumor, can erupt into a frenzy of growth and division months, years, or decades after initial treatment, seeding new, life-threatening tumors.

Shafaq Zia | Whitehead Institute
September 3, 2025

This migration of cancer cells, called metastasis, is especially common in breast cancer. For many patients, the disease can return months—or even decades—after initial treatment, this time in an entirely different organ.

Whitehead Institute Founding Member Robert Weinberg, also the Daniel K. Ludwig Professor for Cancer Research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has spent decades unraveling the complex biology of metastasis and pursuing research that could improve survival rates among patients with metastatic breast cancer—or prevent metastasis altogether.

In their latest study, Weinberg, postdoctoral fellow Jingwei Zhang, and colleagues ask a critical question: what causes these dormant cancer cells to erupt into a frenzy of growth and division? The group’s findings, published Sept. 1 in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), point to a unique culprit.

This awakening of dormant cancer cells, they’ve discovered, isn’t a spontaneous process. Instead, the wake-up call comes from the inflamed tissue surrounding the cells. One trigger for this inflammation is bleomycin, a common chemotherapy drug that can scar and thicken lung tissue.

“The inflammation jolts the dormant cancer cells awake,” Weinberg says. “Once awakened, they start multiplying again, seeding new life-threatening tumors in the body.”

Decoding metastasis

There’s a lot that scientists still don’t know about metastasis, but this much is clear: cancer cells must undergo a long and arduous journey to achieve it. The first step is to break away from their neighbors within the original tumor.

Normally, cells stick to one another using surface proteins that act as molecular “velcro” but some cancer cells can acquire genetic changes that disrupt the production of these proteins and make them more mobile and invasive, allowing them to detach from the parent tumor.

Once detached, they can penetrate blood vessels and lymphatic channels, which act as highways to distant organs.

While most cancer cells die at some point during this journey, a few persist. These cells exit the bloodstream and invade different tissues—lungs, liver, bone, and even the brain—to give birth to new, often more aggressive tumors.

“Almost 90% of cancer-related deaths occur not from the original tumor but when cancer cells spread to other parts of the body,” says Weinberg. “This is why it’s so important to understand how these ‘sleeping’ cancer cells can wake up and start growing again.”

Setting up shop in new tissue comes with changes in surroundings—the “tumor microenvironment”—to which the cancer cells may not be well-suited. These cells face constant threats, including detection and attack by the immune system.

To survive, they often enter a protective state of dormancy that puts a pause on growth and division. This dormant state also makes them resistant to conventional cancer treatments, which often target rapidly dividing cells.

To investigate what makes this dormancy reversible months or years down the line, researchers in the Weinberg Lab injected human breast cancer cells into mice. These cancer cells were modified to produce a fluorescent protein, allowing the scientists to track their behavior in the body.

The group then focused on cancer cells that had lodged themselves in the lung tissue. By examining them for specific proteins—Ki67, ITGB4 and p63—that act as markers of cell activity and state, the researchers were able to confirm that these cells were in a non-dividing, dormant state.

Previous work from the Weinberg Lab had shown that inflammation in organ tissue can provoke dormant breast cancer cells to start growing again. In this study, the team tested bleomycin—a chemotherapy drug known to cause lung inflammation—that can be given to patients after surgery to lower the risk of cancer recurrence.

The researchers found that lung inflammation from bleomycin was sufficient to trigger the growth of large lung cancer colonies in treated mice—and to shift the character of these once dormant cells to those that are more invasive and mobile.

Zeroing in on the tumor microenvironment, the team identified a type of immune cells, called M2 macrophages, as drivers of this process. These macrophages release molecules called epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ligands, which bind to receptors on the surface of dormant cancer cells. This activates a cascade of signals that provoke dormant cancer cells to start multiplying rapidly.

But EGFR signaling is only the initial spark that ignites the fire. “We found that once dormant cancer cells are awakened, they retain what we call an ‘awakening memory,’” Zhang says. “They no longer require ongoing inflammatory signals from the microenvironment to stay active [growing and multiplying]—they remember the awakened state.”

While signals related to inflammation are necessary to awaken dormant cancer cells, exactly how much signaling is needed remains unclear. “This aspect of cancer biology is particularly challenging because multiple signals contribute to the state change in these dormant cells,” Zhang says.

The team has already identified one key player in the awakening process but understanding the full set of signals and how each contributes is far more complex—a question they are continuing to investigate in their new work.

Studying these pivotal changes in the lives of cancer cells—such as their transition from dormancy to active growth—will deepen our scientific understanding of metastasis and, as researchers in the Weinberg Lab hope, lead to more effective treatments for patients with metastatic cancers.

Rudolf Jaenisch awarded Ogawa-Yamanaka Stem Cell Prize

Rudolf Jaenisch is recognized for his trailblazing contributions to epigenetics and stem cell biology, which have shaped modern regenerative medicine.

Sarah Stanley | Gladstone Institutes
August 28, 2025

Rudolf Jaenisch, MD, was announced today as the recipient of the 2025 Ogawa-Yamanaka Stem Cell Prize by Gladstone Institutes. He was selected for his trailblazing contributions to epigenetics and stem cell biology. His pivotal discoveries have profoundly advanced our understanding of gene regulation, cellular reprogramming, and the potential of regenerative medicine.

A founding member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Jaenisch is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is widely recognized for his role in establishing the use in science of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells—adult cells that have been reprogrammed into an embryonic stem cell–like state with the potential to become any cell type in the body.

Among his many achievements, Jaenisch was the first to show the potential therapeutic applications of iPS cells after they were discovered by Gladstone Senior Investigator Shinya Yamanaka, MD, PhD. In fact, Jaenisch effectively cured mice of sickle cell anemia by using iPS cells that had been derived from the animals’ own skin cells and in which the disease-causing genetic defect had been corrected.

“Until then, iPS cells were just an exciting lab tool—but Dr. Jaenisch provided the first real proof that they could be used to treat human disease,” says Deepak Srivastava, MD, chair of the selection committee, president of Gladstone Institutes, and director of the Rodenberry Stem Cell Center at Gladstone. “We’re very happy to recognize his outstanding career with this year’s award. His many contributions to stem cell research and disease modeling have helped shape modern regenerative medicine as we know it.”

Jaenisch has been at the forefront of exploring, expanding, and refining the processes by which iPS cells are created and applied in labs around the world. His work has opened the door to the development of therapies for a wide range of genetic and degenerative diseases.

Since its establishment in 2015, the Ogawa-Yamanaka Stem Cell Prize has honored scientists and doctors leading groundbreaking work in translational regenerative medicine using reprogrammed cells. Each year, it is made possible by a generous gift from the Hiro and Betty Ogawa family.

The prize, supported by Gladstone and Cell Press, also pays tribute to Yamanaka, whose discovery of iPS cells earned him a Nobel Prize in 2012 and is tightly intertwined with Jaenisch’s work.

“Shinya’s discovery completely transformed the world of stem cell science and opened up so many promising new paths for understanding and addressing disease,” Jaenisch says. “What an honor it is to be recognized for my contributions in this field.”

One of Jaenisch’s earliest marks on science came in 1974, when he co-created the first transgenic animal—an organism whose genetic material has been intentionally altered by adding foreign genes—with pioneering embryologist Beatrice Mintz, PhD. This work became the foundation for genetically engineered animal models, which are used in nearly every area of biomedical research today.

“This single study was a major leap in molecular biology,” says Srivastava. “It gave birth to the very concept of modeling human diseases in animals, allowing scientists to deliberately change an animal’s genetic code in order to study the mechanisms of disease and test therapies.”

In his more than 40 years at the Whitehead Institute, Jaenisch has led research exploring how stem cells and reprogramming technologies could be harnessed to better understand and treat disease. In the process, he has continued to develop innovative tools, including adapting CRISPR technology for gene editing and epigenome editing in stem cell systems.

An independent committee of international stem cell experts selected Jaenisch for the 2025 Ogawa-Yamanaka Stem Cell Prize from a highly competitive pool of nominees. As this year’s winner, he will receive an unrestricted prize of $150,000. Gladstone will host a ceremony on December 1, 2025, in San Francisco, California, where Jaenisch will deliver a scientific lecture and be presented with the award.

About Gladstone Institutes

Gladstone Institutes is an independent, nonprofit life science research organization that uses visionary science and technology to overcome disease. Established in 1979, it is located in the epicenter of biomedical and technological innovation, in the Mission Bay neighborhood of San Francisco. Gladstone has created a research model that disrupts how science is done, funds big ideas, and attracts the brightest minds.

About Rudolf Jaenisch

Rudolf Jaenisch, MD, is a founding member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a pioneer of transgenic science, in which an animal’s genetic makeup is altered.

Jaenisch received his MD from the University of Munich in 1967 and carried out postdoctoral research at Princeton University, Fox Chase Institute for Cancer Research, and the Salk Institute. Before joining Whitehead in 1982, he was head of the Department of Tumor Virology at the Heinrich Pette Institute at the University of Hamburg.

His current research focuses on the epigenetic regulation of gene expression, which has led to major advances in creating embryonic stem cells and iPS cells, as well as their therapeutic applications. His lab also focuses on the epigenetic mechanisms involved in cancer and brain development, as well as coronavirus biology.

Jaenisch has co-authored more than 500 research papers and received various awards during his career, including the Max Delbrück Medal, the Vilcek Prize, the National Medal of Science, the Wolf Prize in Medicine, and the Otto Warburg Medal. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and an elected member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. He also was president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research in 2014–15.

About the Ogawa-Yamanaka Stem Cell Prize

The Ogawa-Yamanaka Stem Cell Prize recognizes individuals whose original translational research has advanced cellular reprogramming technology for regenerative medicine. Supported by Gladstone Institutes, in partnership with Cell Press, the prize was established in 2015 through a generous gift from Betty and Hiro Ogawa. It has been maintained through their sons, Andrew and Marcus Ogawa, to honor the Ogawas’ memory by continuing the philanthropic legacy they shared during their 46-year marriage. It also recognizes the importance of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), discovered by Gladstone Senior Investigator and Nobel laureate Shinya Yamanaka, MD, PhD.

Past recipients include Masayo Takahashi, MD, PhD, in 2015; Douglas Melton, PhD, in 2016; Lorenz Studer, MD, in 2017; Marius Wernig, MD, PhD, in 2018; Gordon Keller, PhD, in 2019; Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, PhD, in 2022; Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, PhD, in 2023; and Rusty Gage, PhD, in 2025.

The 2025 selection committee was composed of George Daley, MD, PhD, dean of Harvard Medical School; Hideyuki Okano, MD, PhD, dean of the School of Medicine at Keio University; Deepak Srivastava, MD, president of Gladstone Institutes and director of the Roddenberry Stem Cell Center at Gladstone; Lorenz Studer, MD, director of the Center for Stem Cell Biology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Fiona Watt, FRS, FMedSci, director of the Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine at King’s College, London; and Shinya Yamanaka, MD, PhD, senior investigator at Gladstone and director emeritus of the Center for iPS Cell Research and Application at Kyoto University.

Locally produced proteins help mitochondria function

One of the ways that cells ensure proteins end up where they're needed is creating them at that location, through a process called localized translation. New research from the Weissman Lab has expanded our understanding localized translation at mitochondria and sheds light on the organizational principles of genes and the proteins they encode.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
August 27, 2025

Now, Weissman, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an HHMI Investigator, and postdoc in his lab Jingchuan Luo have expanded our knowledge of localized translation at mitochondria, structures that generate energy for the cell. In a paper published in Cell on August 27, they share a new tool, LOCL-TL, for studying localized translation in close detail, and describe the discoveries it enabled about two classes of proteins that are locally translated at mitochondria.

The importance of localized translation at mitochondria relates to their unusual origin. Mitochondria were once bacteria that lived within our ancestors’ cells. Over time the bacteria lost their autonomy and became part of the larger cells, which included migrating most of their genes into the larger cell’s genome in the nucleus. Cells evolved processes to ensure that proteins needed by mitochondria that are encoded in genes in the larger cell’s genome get transported to the mitochondria. Mitochondria retain a few genes in their own genome, so production of proteins from the mitochondrial genome and that of the larger cell’s genome must be coordinated to avoid mismatched production of mitochondrial parts. Localized translation may help cells to manage the interplay between mitochondrial and nuclear protein production—among other purposes.

How to detect local protein production

For a protein to be made, genetic code stored in DNA is read into RNA, and then the RNA is read or translated by a ribosome, a cellular machine that builds a protein according to the RNA code. Weissman’s lab previously developed a method to study localized translation by tagging ribosomes near a structure of interest, and then capturing the tagged ribosomes in action and observing the proteins they are making. This approach, called proximity-specific ribosome profiling, allows researchers to see what proteins are being made where in the cell. The challenge that Luo faced was how to tweak this method to capture only ribosomes at work near mitochondria.

Ribosomes work quickly, so a ribosome that gets tagged while making a protein at the mitochondria can move on to making other proteins elsewhere in the cell in a matter of minutes. The only way researchers can guarantee that the ribosomes they capture are still working on proteins made near the mitochondria is if the experiment happens very quickly.

Weissman and colleagues had previously solved this time sensitivity problem in yeast cells with a ribosome-tagging tool called BirA that is activated by the presence of the molecule biotin. BirA is fused to the cellular structure of interest, and tags ribosomes it can touch—but only once activated. Researchers keep the cell depleted of biotin until they are ready to capture the ribosomes, to limit the time when tagging occurs. However, this approach does not work with mitochondria in mammalian cells because they need biotin to function normally, so it cannot be depleted.

Luo and Weissman adapted the existing tool to respond to blue light instead of biotin. The new tool, LOV-BirA, is fused to the mitochondria’s outer membrane. Cells are kept in the dark until the researchers are ready. Then they expose the cells to blue light, activating LOV-BirA to tag ribosomes. They give it a few minutes and then quickly extract the ribosomes. This approach proved very accurate at capturing only ribosomes working at mitochondria.

The researchers then used a method originally developed by the Weissman lab to extract the sections of RNA inside of the ribosomes. This allows them to see exactly how far along in the process of making a protein the ribosome is when captured, which can reveal whether the entire protein is made at the mitochondria, or whether it is partly produced elsewhere and only gets completed at the mitochondria.

“One advantage of our tool is the granularity it provides,” Luo says. “Being able to see what section of the protein is locally translated helps us understand more about how localized translation is regulated, which can then allow us to understand its dysregulation in disease and to control localized translation in future studies.”

Two protein groups are made at mitochondria

Using these approaches, the researchers found that about twenty percent of the genes needed in mitochondria that are located in the main cellular genome are locally translated at mitochondria. These proteins can be divided into two distinct groups with different evolutionary histories and mechanisms for localized translation.

One group consists of relatively long proteins, each containing more than 400 amino acids or protein building blocks. These proteins tend to be of bacterial origin—present in the ancestor of mitochondria—and they are locally translated in both mammalian and yeast cells, suggesting that their localized translation has been maintained through a long evolutionary history.

Like many mitochondrial proteins encoded in the nucleus, these proteins contain a mitochondrial targeting sequence (MTS), a zip code that tells the cell where to bring them. The researchers discovered that most proteins containing an MTS also contain a nearby inhibitory sequence that prevents transportation until they are done being made. This group of locally translated proteins lacks the inhibitory sequence, so they are brought to the mitochondria during their production.

Production of these longer proteins begins anywhere in the cell, and then after approximately the first 250 amino acids are made, they get transported to the mitochondria. While the rest of the protein gets made, it is simultaneously fed into a channel that brings it inside the mitochondria. This ties up the channel for a long time, limiting import of other proteins, so cells can only afford to do this simultaneous production and import for select proteins. The researchers hypothesize that these bacterial-origin proteins are given priority as an ancient mechanism to ensure that they are accurately produced and placed within mitochondria.

The second locally translated group consists of short proteins, each less than 200 amino acids long. These proteins are more recently evolved, and correspondingly, the researchers found that the mechanism for their localized translation is not shared by yeast. Their mitochondrial recruitment happens at the RNA level. Two sequences within regulatory sections of each RNA molecule that do not encode the final protein instead code for the cell’s machinery to recruit the RNAs to the mitochondria.

The researchers searched for molecules that might be involved in this recruitment, and identified the RNA binding protein AKAP1, which exists at mitochondria. When they eliminated AKAP1, the short proteins were translated indiscriminately around the cell. This provided an opportunity to learn more about the effects of localized translation, by seeing what happens in its absence. When the short proteins were not locally translated, this led to the loss of various mitochondrial proteins, including those involved in oxidative phosphorylation, our cells’ main energy generation pathway.

In future research, Weissman and Luo will delve deeper into how localized translation affects mitochondrial function and dysfunction in disease. The researchers also intend to use LOCL-TL to study localized translation in other cellular processes, including in relation to embryonic development, neural plasticity, and disease.

“This approach should be broadly applicable to different cellular structures and cell types, providing many opportunities to understand how localized translation contributes to biological processes,” Weissman says. “We’re particularly interested in what we can learn about the roles it may play in diseases including neurodegeneration, cardiovascular diseases, and cancers.”

Luo et al. “Proximity-specific ribosome profiling reveals the logic of localized mitochondrial translation.” Cell, August 27, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2025.08.002