4.7 Article

RIPK3 deficiency or catalytically inactive RIPK1 provides greater benefit than MLKL deficiency in mouse models of inflammation and tissue injury

期刊

CELL DEATH AND DIFFERENTIATION
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 1565-1576

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/cdd.2016.46

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Necroptosis is a caspase-independent form of cell death that is triggered by activation of the receptor interacting serine/threonine kinase 3 (RIPK3) and phosphorylation of its pseudokinase substrate mixed lineage kinase-like (MLKL), which then translocates to membranes and promotes cell lysis. Activation of RIPK3 is regulated by the kinase RIPK1. Here we analyze the contribution of RIPK1, RIPK3, or MLKL to several mouse disease models. Loss of RIPK3 had no effect on lipopolysaccharide-induced sepsis, dextran sodium sulfate-induced colitis, cerulein-induced pancreatitis, hypoxia-induced cerebral edema, or the major cerebral artery occlusion stroke model. However, kidney ischemia-reperfusion injury, myocardial infarction, and systemic inflammation associated with A20 deficiency or high-dose tumor necrosis factor (TNF) were ameliorated by RIPK3 deficiency. Catalytically inactive RIPK1 was also beneficial in the kidney ischemia-reperfusion injury model, the high-dose TNF model, and in A20(-/-) mice. Interestingly, MLKL deficiency offered less protection in the kidney ischemia-reperfusion injury model and no benefit in A20(-/-) mice, consistent with necroptosis-independent functions for RIPK1 and RIPK3. Combined loss of RIPK3 (or MLKL) and caspase-8 largely prevented the cytokine storm, hypothermia, and morbidity induced by TNF, suggesting that the triggering event in this model is a combination of apoptosis and necroptosis. Tissue-specific RIPK3 deletion identified intestinal epithelial cells as the major target organ. Together these data emphasize that MLKL deficiency rather than RIPK1 inactivation or RIPK3 deficiency must be examined to implicate a role for necroptosis in disease.

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