4.6 Article

Specific mitochondrial calcium overload induces mitochondrial fission in prostate cancer cells

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 1437-1444

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ijo_00000629

关键词

mitochondria; fission; calcium; prostate

类别

资金

  1. VA Merit Review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondria are structurally complex organelles that undergo fragmentation or fission in apoptotic cells. Mitochondrial fission requires the cytoplasmic dynamin-related protein, Drp1, which translocates to the mitochondria during apoptosis and interacts with the mitochondrial protein, Fis1. Finely tuned changes in cellular calcium modulate a variety of intracellular functions; in resting cells, the level of mitochondrial calcium is low, while it is higher during apoptosis. Mitochondria take up Ca2+ via the Uniporter and extrude it to the cytoplasm through the mitochondrial Na+/Ca2+ exchanger. Overload of Ca2+ in the mitochondria leads to their damage, affecting cellular function and survival. The mitochondrial Na+/Ca2+ exchanger was blocked by benzodiazepine, CGP37157 (CGP) leading to increased mitochondrial calcium and enhancing the apoptotic effects of TRAIL, TNF alpha related apoptosis inducing ligand. In the present study, we observed that increasing mitochondrial calcium induced mitochondrial fragmentation, which correlated with the presence of Drp1 at the mitochondria in CGP treated cells. Under these conditions, we observed interactions between Drp1 and Fis1. The importance of Drp1 in fragmentation was confirmed by transfection of dominant negative Drp1 construct. However, fragmentation of the mitochondria was not sufficient to induce apoptosis, although it enhanced TRAIL-induced apoptosis. Furthermore, oligomerization of Bak was partially responsible for the increased apoptosis in cells treated with both COP and TRAIL. Thus, our results show that combination of an apoptogenic agent and an appropriate calcium channel blocker provide therapeutic advantages.

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