4.6 Review

The emergence of the mitochondrial genome as a partial regulator of nuclear function is providing new insights into the genetic mechanisms underlying age-related complex disease

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 133, 期 4, 页码 435-458

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-013-1402-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondrial malfunction appears to be intimately associated with age and age-related complex disorders but the precise pathological relevance of such malfunction remains unclear. Mitochondrial, and more specifically bioenergetic, malfunction is commonly encountered in cancer, degenerative disorders and aging. The identification of a mitochondrial-nuclear retrograde signaling pathway in yeast has facilitated the study of the corresponding retrograde signaling mechanisms induced in response to mitochondrial malfunction in mammals including human. Mitochondrial-nuclear crosstalk is critical for the maintenance of cellular homeostasis, and some mitochondrial DNA mutations may perturb crosstalk signaling. However, ascertaining whether mitochondrial malfunction is a cause or a consequence of disease development will be key to determining whether or not impaired crosstalk signaling is of direct pathological and hence therapeutic relevance. Here, we review what is known about the nuclear adaptive compensatory mechanisms induced in response to mitochondrial malfunction. We discuss the role of mitochondrial DNA variants in modulating the penetrance of human inherited disease caused by mutations in the nuclear genome and explore the underlying mechanisms by which they influence the retrograde response. We conclude that mitochondrial DNA variants have the potential to induce molecular signals through the mitochondrial-nuclear crosstalk mechanism, thereby promoting nuclear compensation in response to mitochondrial malfunction. The implications for the development of genetic or pharmaceutical interventions for the treatment of mitochondrial malfunction in complex disease are also explored.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据