Yes, that's what the article is about? It's explained in the second half, no? Starting at "But how was this inflammation triggered by mitochondrial DNA leaking out of cells?"
By that interpretation, he misspoke when he said the DNA is sensitive. What he should have said is that the _body_ is sensitive _to_ the DNA. That was my point.
And I only point it out because, given he's an expert on the topic, it's always possible that he actually meant to say it this way and that I, being a layperson, missed something that would explain it.
He's not talking about the DNA being affected (as if it were sensitive to something), he's talking about it _causing_ effects.
If I'm missing something, please correct me. Otherwise I'll assume he misspoke.