4.5 Article

N-Acetylcysteine Prevents 4-Hydroxynonenal- and Amyloid-beta-Induced Modification and Inactivation of Neprilysin in SH-SY5Y Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 179-189

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2010-1226

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; amyloid-beta; antioxidant; degradation; 4-hydroxynonenal; N-acetylcysteine; neprilysin; oxidative stress

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [AG025722, AG029972, HD003352]
  2. Alzheimer's Association [IIRG-08-90524]
  3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
  4. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P30HD003352] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P50AG033514, R03AG025722, R21AG029972] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As one of the dominant amyloid-beta peptide (A beta) proteases, neprilysin (NEP) plays a crucial role in maintaining a physiologic balance between A beta production and catabolism. We have previously shown that NEP is modified by 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE) adducts, resulting in decreased activity in the brain of AD patients and cultured cells. In order to determine whether antioxidants can rescue NEP, SH-SY5Y cells were treated with HNE or A beta, together with N-acetylcysteine for 24 hours, prior to analysis of NEP protein levels, activity, and oxidative modifications. Intracellular NEP developed HNE adducts after 24 hours of HNE or A beta treatment as determined by immunoprecipitation, immunoblotting, and double immunofluorescence staining. N-acetylcysteine at 10 to 100 mu M alleviated HNE adduction after HNE or A beta treatment. In keeping with previous reports, HNE-modified NEP showed decreased catalytic activity. The present study demonstrates that antioxidants can be used to spare NEP from oxidative modification, suggesting a potential mechanism underlying the neuroprotective effects of antioxidants in aging or Alzheimer's disease.

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