4.7 Article

Mitochondrial translation and dynamics synergistically extend lifespan in C. elegans through HLH-30

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELL BIOLOGY
卷 219, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1083/jcb.201907067

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council Starting grant [638290]
  2. VIDI grant from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) [91715305]
  3. Velux Stiftung [1063]
  4. E-Rare-2, the ERA-Net for Research on Rare Diseases (ZonMw) [40-44000-98-1008]
  5. Federation of European Biochemical Society
  6. VENI grant from ZonMw [09150161810014]
  7. National Institutes of Health F32 Ruth Kirchstein Fellowship [F32GM119190]
  8. ERC [Proteomics 4D ERC-20140AdG 670821]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondrial form and function are closely interlinked in homeostasis and aging. Inhibiting mitochondrial translation is known to increase lifespan in C. elegans, and is accompanied by a fragmented mitochondrial network. However, whether this link between mitochondrial translation and morphology is causal in longevity remains uncharacterized. Here, we show in C. elegans that disrupting mitochondrial network homeostasis by blocking fission or fusion synergizes with reduced mitochondrial translation to prolong lifespan and stimulate stress response such as the mitochondrial unfolded protein response, UPRMT. Conversely, immobilizing the mitochondrial network through a simultaneous disruption of fission and fusion abrogates the lifespan increase induced by mitochondrial translation inhibition. Furthermore, we find that the synergistic effect of inhibiting both mitochondrial translation and dynamics on lifespan, despite stimulating UPRMT, does not require it. Instead, this lifespan-extending synergy is exclusively dependent on the lysosome biogenesis and autophagy transcription factor HLH-30/TFEB. Altogether, our study reveals the mechanistic crosstalk between mitochondrial translation, mitochondrial dynamics, and lysosomal signaling in regulating longevity.

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