4.7 Article

Mechanism of impaired microtubule-dependent peroxisome trafficking and oxidative stress in SPAST-mutated cells from patients with Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep27004

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
  2. Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia Research Foundation Incorporated
  3. Spastic Paraplegia Foundation Incorporated

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hereditary spastic paraplegia (HSP) is an inherited neurological condition that leads to progressive spasticity and gait abnormalities. Adult-onset HSP is most commonly caused by mutations in SPAST, which encodes spastin a microtubule severing protein. In olfactory stem cell lines derived from patients carrying different SPAST mutations, we investigated microtubule-dependent peroxisome movement with time-lapse imaging and automated image analysis. The average speed of peroxisomes in patient-cells was slower, with fewer fast moving peroxisomes than in cells from healthy controls. This was not because of impairment of peroxisome-microtubule interactions because the time-dependent saltatory dynamics of movement of individual peroxisomes was unaffected in patient-cells. Our observations indicate that average peroxisome speeds are less in patient-cells because of the lower probability of individual peroxisome interactions with the reduced numbers of stable microtubules: peroxisome speeds in patient cells are restored by epothilone D, a tubulin-binding drug that increases the number of stable microtubules to control levels. Patient-cells were under increased oxidative stress and were more sensitive than control-cells to hydrogen peroxide, which is primarily metabolised by peroxisomal catalase. Epothilone D also ameliorated patient-cell sensitivity to hydrogen-peroxide. Our findings suggest a mechanism for neurodegeneration whereby SPAST mutations indirectly lead to impaired peroxisome transport and oxidative stress.

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

4.7
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