4.7 Article

Circulating mitochondrial DNA is a proinflammatory DAMP in sickle cell disease

期刊

BLOOD
卷 137, 期 22, 页码 3116-3126

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.2020009063

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sickle cell disease is driven by chronic inflammation associated with elevated cell-free DNA, specifically mitochondrial DNA, in patients. The abnormal retention of mitochondria in circulating red blood cells of patients contributes to the increased levels of cf-mtDNA. High levels of cf-mtDNA in patient plasma trigger the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps, implicating activation of the cGAS-STING pathway.
The pathophysiology of sickle cell disease (SCD) is driven by chronic inflammation fueled by damage associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). We show that elevated cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in patients with SCD is not just a prognostic biomarker, it also contributes to the pathological inflammation. Within the elevated cfDNA, patients with SCD had a significantly higher ratio of cell-free mitochondrial DNA (cf-mtDNA)/cell-free nuclear DNA compared with healthy controls. Additionally, mitochondrial DNA in patient samples showed significantly disproportionately increased hypomethylation compared with healthy controls, and it was increased further in crises compared with steady-state. Using flow cytometry, structured illumination microscopy, and electron microscopy, we showed that circulating SCD red blood cells abnormally retained their mitochondria and, thus, are likely to be the source of the elevated cf-mtDNA in patients with SCD. Patient plasma containing high levels of cf-mtDNA triggered the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) that was substantially reduced by inhibition of TANK-binding kinase 1, implicating activation of the cGAS-STING pathway. cf-mtDNA is an erythrocytic DAMP, highlighting an underappreciated role for mitochondria in sickle 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

4.7
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