Fermenting cells were grown under Fe-deficient and Fe-overload conditions, and their Fe contents were examined using biophysical spectroscopies. The high-affinity Fe import pathway was active only in Fe-deficient cells. Such cells contained ~150 μM Fe, distributed primarily into nonheme high-spin (NHHS) Fe(II) species and mitochondrial Fe. Most NHHS Fe(II) was not located in mitochondria, and its function is unknown. Mitochondria isolated from Fe-deficient cells contained [Fe(4)S(4)](2+) clusters, low- and high-spin hemes, S = (1)/(2) [Fe(2)S(2)](+) clusters, NHHS Fe(II) species, and [Fe(2)S(2)](2+) clusters. The presence of [Fe(2)S(2)](2+) clusters was unprecedented; their presence in previous samples was obscured by the spectroscopic signature of Fe(III) nanoparticles, which are absent in Fe-deficient cells. Whether Fe-deficient cells were grown under fermenting or respirofermenting conditions had no effect on Fe content; such cells prioritized their use of Fe to essential forms devoid of nanoparticles and vacuolar Fe. The majority of Mn ions in wild-type yeast cells was electron paramagnetic resonance-active Mn(II) and not located in mitochondria or vacuoles. Fermenting cells grown on Fe-sufficient and Fe-overloaded medium contained 400-450 μM Fe. In these cells, the concentration of nonmitochondrial NHHS Fe(II) declined 3-fold, relative to that in Fe-deficient cells, whereas the concentration of vacuolar NHHS Fe(III) increased to a limiting cellular concentration of ~300 μM. Isolated mitochondria contained more NHHS Fe(II) ions and substantial amounts of Fe(III) nanoparticles. The Fe contents of cells grown with excessive Fe in the medium were similar over a 250-fold change in nutrient Fe levels. The ability to limit Fe import prevents cells from becoming overloaded with Fe.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holmes‐Hampton et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: