4.5 Article

NF-kappa B p50/RelA and c-Rel-containing dimers: opposite regulators of neuron vulnerability to ischaemia

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 108, 期 2, 页码 475-485

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05783.x

关键词

Bcl-xL; brain ischaemia; c-Rel; primary cortical neurons; RelA; SK-N-SH

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Scientific Research - PRIN
  2. Center of Study and Research on Ageing, Brescia
  3. MIUR Center of Excellence for Innovative Diagnostics and Therapeutics (IDET) of Brescia University
  4. Rotary Club Rodengo Abbazia, Brescia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diverse nuclear factor-kappa B subunits mediate opposite effects of extracellular signals on neuron survival. While RelA is activated by neurotoxic agents, c-Rel drives neuroprotective effects. In brain ischaemia RelA and p50 factors rapidly activate, but how they associate with c-Rel to form active dimers and contribute to the changes in diverse dimer activation for neuron susceptibility is unknown. We show that in both cortical neurons exposed to oxygen glucose deprivation (OGD) and mice subjected to brain ischaemia, activation of p50/RelA was associated with inhibition of c-Rel/RelA dimer and no change p50/c-Rel. Targeting c-Rel and RelA expression revealed that c-Rel dimers reduced while p50/RelA enhanced neuronal susceptibility to anoxia. Activation of p50/RelA complex is known to induce the pro-apoptotic Bim and Noxa genes. We now show that c-Rel-containing dimers, p50/c-Rel and RelA/c-Rel, but not p50/RelA, promoted Bcl-xL transcription. Accordingly, the OGD exposure induced Bim, but reduced Bcl-xL promoter activity and decreased the content of endogenous Bcl-xL protein. These findings demonstrate that within the same neuronal cell, the balance between activation of p50/RelA and c-Rel-containing complexes fine tunes the threshold of neuron vulnerability to the ischaemic insult. Selective targeting of different dimers will unravel new approaches to limit ischaemia-associated apoptosis.

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