4.7 Article

ER stress promotes mitochondrial DNA mediated type-1 interferon response in beta-cells and interleukin-8 driven neutrophil chemotaxis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.991632

关键词

type 1 diabetes; ER stress; mitochondria; innate immunity; neutrophils

资金

  1. DON Foundation
  2. Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation
  3. IMI2-JU [115797, 945268]
  4. Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
  5. EFPIA
  6. JDRF
  7. Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the role of endoplasmic reticulum stress in type 1 diabetes and reveals that cellular stress can lead to mitochondrial dysfunction and accumulation of cytosolic mitochondrial DNA, triggering neutrophil migration.
Beta-cell destruction in type 1 diabetes (T1D) results from the combined effect of inflammation and recurrent autoimmunity. Accumulating evidence suggests the engagement of cellular stress during the initial stage of the disease, preceding destruction and triggering immune cell infiltration. While the role of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in this process has been largely described, the participation of the other cellular organelles, particularly the mitochondria which are central mediator for beta-cell survival and function, remains poorly investigated. Here, we have explored the contribution of ER stress, in activating type-I interferon signaling and innate immune cell recruitment. Using human beta-cell line EndoC-beta H1 exposed to thapsigargin, we demonstrate that induction of cellular stress correlates with mitochondria dysfunction and a significant accumulation of cytosolic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that triggers neutrophils migration by an IL8-dependent mechanism. These results provide a novel mechanistic insight on how ER stress can cause insulitis and may ultimately facilitate the identification of potential targets to protect beta-cells against immune infiltration.

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