4.7 Article

Nanoscopic quantification of sub-mitochondrial morphology, mitophagy and mitochondrial dynamics in living cells derived from patients with mitochondrial diseases

期刊

JOURNAL OF NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12951-021-00882-9

关键词

Nanoscope; Mitochondrial disease; Cristae; Mitophagy

资金

  1. Hadley J. Foundation
  2. National Institute of Child Health Development [1R01HD092989]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SLC25A46 mutations lead to mitochondrial respiratory dysfunction, possibly due to damaged mitochondrial cristae. This study used live-cell nanoscope imaging to observe the structure and behavior, providing a practical evaluation method for the pathogenesis of mitochondrial morphological abnormalities.
SLC25A46 mutations have been found to lead to mitochondrial hyper-fusion and reduced mitochondrial respiratory function, which results in optic atrophy, cerebellar atrophy, and other clinical symptoms of mitochondrial disease. However, it is generally believed that mitochondrial fusion is attributable to increased mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), which is inconsistent with the decreased OXPHOS of highly-fused mitochondria observed in previous studies. In this paper, we have used the live-cell nanoscope to observe and quantify the structure of mitochondrial cristae, and the behavior of mitochondria and lysosomes in patient-derived SLC25A46 mutant fibroblasts. The results show that the cristae have been markedly damaged in the mutant fibroblasts, but there is no corresponding increase in mitophagy. This study suggests that severely damaged mitochondrial cristae might be the predominant cause of reduced OXPHOS in SLC25A46 mutant fibroblasts. This study demonstrates the utility of nanoscope-based imaging for realizing the sub-mitochondrial morphology, mitophagy and mitochondrial dynamics in living cells, which may be particularly valuable for the quick evaluation of pathogenesis of mitochondrial morphological abnormalities.

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