4.2 Article

Molecular mechanisms of the LPS-induced non-apoptotic ER stress-CHOP pathway

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 147, 期 4, 页码 471-483

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jb/mvp189

关键词

CHOP; ER stress; PERK; XBP1; LPS

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [18590301, 20590310, 19790563]
  2. Takeda Science Foundation
  3. Mitsubishi Pharma Research Foundation
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20590310, 19790563, 18590301] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The expression of C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP), which is an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress-induced transcription factor, induces apoptosis. Our previous study demonstrated that lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced CHOP expression does not induce apoptosis, but activates a pro-IL-1 beta activation process. However, the mechanism by which CHOP activates different pathways, depending on the difference in the inducing stimuli, remains to be clarified. The present study shows that LPS rapidly activates the ER function-protective pathway, but not the PERK pathway in macrophages. PERK plays a major role in CHOP induction, and other ER stress sensors-mediated pathways play minor roles. The induction of CHOP by LPS was delayed and weak, in comparison with CHOP induction by ER stress-inducer thapsigargin. In addition, LPS-pre-treatment or overexpression of ER chaperone, IgH chain binding protein (BiP), prevented ER stress-mediated apoptosis. LPS plus IFN-gamma-treated macrophages produce a larger amount of nitric oxide (NO) in comparison with LPS-treated cells. Treatment with the NO donor, SNAP (S-nitro-N-acetyl-dl-penicillamine), induces CHOP at an earlier period than LPS treatment. The depletion of NO retards CHOP induction and prevents apoptosis in LPS plus IFN-gamma-treated cells. We concluded that apoptosis is prevented in LPS-treated macrophages, because the ER function-protective mechanisms are induced before CHOP expression, and induction level of CHOP is low.

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

4.2
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