4.7 Article

General Anesthetics Regulate Autophagy via Modulating the Inositol 1,4,5-Trisphosphate Receptor: Implications for Dual Effects of Cytoprotection and Cytotoxicity

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-11607-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [K08-GM073224, R01GM084979, 3R01GM084979-02S1, 2R01GM084979-06A1]
  2. March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation [12-FY08-167]
  3. Department of Anesthesiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

General anesthetics are both neuroprotective and neurotoxic with unclear mechanisms. General anesthetics may control cell survival via their effects on autophagy by activation of type 1 inositol triphosphate receptor (InsP(3)R-1). DT40 or SH-SY5Y cells with only or over 99% expression of InsP(3)R-1 were treated with isoflurane or propofol. Cell viability was determined by MTT reduction or LDH release assays. Apoptosis was determined by measuring Caspase-3 or by TUNEL assay. Autophagy activity was determined by measuring LC3 II and P62. We evaluated mitochondrial integrity using MitoTracker Green and cytosolic ATP levels. Fura2-AM was used to measure the concentrations of cytosolic calcium ([Ca2+](c)). Propofol significantly increased peak and integrated calcium response (P < 0.001) in cells with InsP(3)R-1 but not in cells with triple knockout of InsP(3)R. Both propofol and isoflurane increased autophagy induction (P < 0.05) in an mTOR-and InsP(3)R-activity dependent manner. Short exposure to propofol adequately activated InsP(3)-1 to provide sufficient autophagy for cytoprotection, while prolonged exposure to propofol induced cell apoptosis via impairment of autophagy flux through over activation of InsP(3)-1. Propofol damaged mitochondria and decreased cytosolic ATP. The effects of general anesthetics on apoptosis and autophagy are closely integrated; both are caused by differential activation of the type 1 InsP(3)R.

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