4.5 Article

Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 regulates autophagy through a calcium-dependent pathway involving NAADP

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 511-525

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddr481

关键词

-

资金

  1. FEDER
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [SAF2009-11292, 200920I126, BFU2011-29899, GREIB. PT_2011_19]
  3. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria [FIS-PI040262]
  4. Junta de Andalucia [CTS 6816]
  5. Federacion Espanola de Parkinson (FEP)
  6. CSIC
  7. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G013721]
  8. Alzheimer's Research Trust and Research into Ageing (UK)
  9. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G013721/1, BB/G008523/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Medical Research Council [G0001128] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. BBSRC [BB/G008523/1, BB/G013721/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. MRC [G0001128] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in the leucine-rich repeat kinase-2 (LRRK2) gene cause late-onset Parkinson's disease, but its physiological function has remained largely unknown. Here we report that LRRK2 activates a calcium-dependent protein kinase kinase-beta (CaMKK-beta)/ adenosine monophosphate (AMP)-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway which is followed by a persistent increase in autophagosome formation. Simultaneously, LRKR2 overexpression increases the levels of the autophagy receptor p62 in a protein synthesis-dependent manner, and decreases the number of acidic lysosomes. The LRRK2-mediated effects result in increased sensitivity of cells to stressors associated with abnormal protein degradation. These effects can be mimicked by the lysosomal Ca2+-mobilizing messenger nicotinic acid adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NAADP) and can be reverted by an NAADP receptor antagonist or expression of dominant-negative receptor constructs. Collectively, our data indicate a molecular mechanism for LRRK2 deregulation of autophagy and reveal previously unidentified therapeutic targets.

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