4.6 Article

Dynein Dysfunction Reproduces Age-Dependent Retromer Deficiency Concomitant Disruption of Retrograde Trafficking Is Required for Alteration in β-Amyloid Precursor Protein Metabolism

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 186, 期 7, 页码 1952-1966

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2016.03.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Funding for Longevity Sciences from the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology [25-20]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is widely accepted that beta-amyloid (A beta) protein plays a pivotal role in Alzheimer disease pathogenesis, and accumulating evidence suggests that endocytic dysfunction is involved in A beta pathology. Retromer, a conserved multisubunit complex, mediates the retrograde transport of numerous kinds of cargo from endosomes to the trans-GoLgi network. Several studies have found that retromer deficiency enhances A beta pathology both in vitro and in vivo. Cytoplasmic dynein, a microtubule-based motor protein, mediates minus-end-directed vesicle transport via interactions with dynactin, another microtubule-associated protein that also interacts with retromer. Aging attenuates the dynein-dynactin interaction, and dynein dysfunction reproduces age-dependent endocytic disturbance, resulting in the intracellular accumulation of beta-amyloid precursor protein (APP) and its beta-cleavage products, including A beta. Here, we report that aging itself affects retromer trafficking in cynomolgus monkey brains. In addition, dynein dysfunction reproduces this type of age-dependent retromer deficiency (ie, the endosomal accumulation of retromer-related proteins and APP. Moreover, we found that knockdown of Rab7, Rab9, or Rab11 did not alter endogenous APP metabolism, such as that observed in aged monkey brains and in dynein-depleted cells. These findings suggest that dynein dysfunction can cause retromer deficiency and that concomitant disruption of retrograde trafficking may be the key factor underlying age-dependent A beta pathology.

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

4.6
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