4.6 Review

From mitochondrial dynamics to arrhythmias

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocel.2009.02.016

关键词

Mitochondrial oscillations; Inner membrane anion channel; Permeability transition; Redox potential; Reactive oxygen species; Sarcolemmal K-ATP channel; Action potential

资金

  1. NIH [R37-HL54598, R33-HL87345, P01-HL081427]
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R37HL054598, R33HL087338, P01HL081427, R33HL087345, R00HL095648] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reactive oxygen species (ROS)-dependent mitochondrial oscillator described in cardiac cells exhibits at least two modes of function under physiological conditions or in response to metabolic and oxidative stress. Both modes depend upon network behavior of mitochondria. Under physiological conditions cardiac mitochondria behave as a network of coupled oscillators with a broad range of frequencies. ROS weakly couples mitochondria under normal conditions but becomes a strong coupling messenger when, under oxidative stress, the mitochondrial network attains criticality. Mitochondrial criticality is achieved when a threshold of ROS is overcome and a certain density of mitochondria forms a cluster that spans the whole cell. Under these conditions, the slightest perturbation triggers a cell-wide collapse of the mitochondrial membrane potential, Delta psi(m), visualized as a depolarization wave throughout the cell which is followed by whole cell synchronized oscillations in Delta psi(m), NADH, ROS, and GSH. This dynamic behavior scales from the mitochondrion to the cell by driving cellular excitability and the whole heart into catastrophic arrhythmias. A network collapse of Delta psi(m), under criticality leads to: (i) energetic failure, (ii) temporal and regional alterations in action potential (AP), (iii) development of zones of impaired conduction in the myocardium, and, ultimately, (iv) a fatal ventricular arrhythmia. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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