4.5 Article

The effect of different ubiquinones on lifespan in Caenorhabditis elegans

期刊

MECHANISMS OF AGEING AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 130, 期 6, 页码 370-376

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mad.2009.03.003

关键词

Ubiquinone; Mitochondria; Respiration; Reactive oxygen species; C. elegans; Lifespan; Genetics

资金

  1. NIH [GM58881, AG026273]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM058881, R01GM075184] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG026073] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ubiquinone (UQ, Coenzyme Q, CoQ) transfers electrons from complexes I and II to complex III in the mitochondrial electron transport chain. Depending on the degree of reduction, UQ can act as either a pro-or an antioxidant. Mutations disrupting ubiquinone synthesis increase lifespan in both the nematode (clk-1) and the mouse (mclk-1). The mutated nematodes survive using exogenous ubiquinone from bacteria, which has a shorter isoprenyl tail length (UQ(8)) than the endogenous nematode ubiquinone (UQ(9)). The mechanism underlying clk-1s increased longevity is not clear. Here we directly measure the effect of different exogenous ubiquinones on clk-1 lifespan and mitochondrial function. We fed clk-1 engineered bacteria that produced UQ(6), UQ(7), UQ(8), UQ(9) or UQ(10), and measured clk-1s lifespan, mitochondrial respiration, ROS production, and accumulated ROS damage to mitochondrial protein. Regardless of dietary UQ, clk-1 animals have increased lifespan, decreased mitochondrial respiration, and decreased ROS damage to mitochondrial protein than N2. However, clk-1 mitochondria, did not produce less ROS than N2. The simplest explanation of our results is that clk-1 mitochondria scavenge ROS more effectively than wildtype due to the presence of DMQ(9). Moreover, when compared to other dietary quinones, UQ(10) further decreased mitochondrial oxidative damage and extended adult lifespan in clk-1. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.5
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