4.5 Article

The role of RIP3 in cardiomyocyte necrosis induced by mitochondrial damage of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion

期刊

ACTA BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA SINICA
卷 50, 期 11, 页码 1131-1140

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/abbs/gmy108

关键词

RIP3; Drp1; cardiomyocyte necrosis; myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury; mitochondrial damage

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81300113]
  2. National Undergraduate Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program [201710472004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Myocardial damage caused by myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury (MIRI) is difficult to be alleviated because cardiomyocyte necrosis is an irreversible and unregulated death form. Recently, necroptosis, a necrosis form caused by tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) and Fas ligand (FasL), was found to be regulated by receptor interacting protein 3 (RIP3) and RIP3-receptor interacting protein 1 (RIP1)-mixed lineage kinase domain like protein (MLKL) pathway. But it is unclear whether they also play a regulatory role in MIRI-induced necroptosis. Our previous results showed that in rat MIRI, RIP3 could translocate and express highly in mitochondria. Therefore, it is important to explore proteins that interact with RIP3 which was translocated to mitochondria. The aim of this study was to explore the role of RIP3 in cardiomyocyte necrosis induced by mitochondrial damage of hypoxia/reoxygenation (H/R). Our results showed that H/R could cause RIP3-depended mitochondrial fragmentation and necrosis-based death; and RIP3-promoted H/R-induced necroptosis in H9c2 cells through increasing lactate dehydrogenase release and inhibiting cell viability. This process did not require RIP1 or MLKL but dynamin-related protein 1 (Drp1), which was related to Drp1 activation, reactive oxygen species elevation, and Delta Psi(m) decline. This study provides novel insights into the role of RIP3 in cardiomyocyte injury during H/R. RIP3 may serve as a potential target for the treatment of MIRI.

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

4.5
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