4.5 Article

Glutaredoxin 2 prevents aggregation of mutant SOD1 in mitochondria and abolishes its toxicity

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 19, 期 22, 页码 4529-4542

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddq383

关键词

-

资金

  1. ALS Association [1706]
  2. Telethon-Italy [GGP07018]
  3. MIUR [PRIN 2008J2LRWZ_002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vulnerability of motoneurons in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) arises from a combination of several mechanisms, including protein misfolding and aggregation, mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative damage. Protein aggregates are found in motoneurons in models for ALS linked to a mutation in the gene coding for Cu,Zn superoxide dismutase (SOD1) and in ALS patients as well. Aggregation of mutant SOD1 in the cytoplasm and/or into mitochondria has been repeatedly proposed as a main culprit for the degeneration of motoneurons. It is, however, still debated whether SOD1 aggregates represent a cause, a correlate or a consequence of processes leading to cell death. We have exploited the ability of glutaredoxins (Grxs) to reduce mixed disulfides to protein thiols either in the cytoplasm and in the IMS (Grx1) or in the mitochondrial matrix (Grx2) as a tool for restoring a correct redox environment and preventing the aggregation of mutant SOD1. Here we show that the overexpression of Grx1 increases the solubility of mutant SOD1 in the cytosol but does not inhibit mitochondrial damage and apoptosis induced by mutant SOD1 in neuronal cells (SH-SY5Y) or in immortalized motoneurons (NSC-34). Conversely, the overexpression of Grx2 increases the solubility of mutant SOD1 in mitochondria, interferes with mitochondrial fragmentation by modifying the expression pattern of proteins involved in mitochondrial dynamics, preserves mitochondrial function and strongly protects neuronal cells from apoptosis. The toxicity of mutant SOD1, therefore, mostly arises from mitochondrial dysfunction and rescue of mitochondrial damage may represent a promising therapeutic strategy.

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

4.5
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