4.3 Article

Reactive nitrogen species control apoptosis and autophagy in K562 cells: implication of TAp73α, induction in controlling autophagy

期刊

FREE RADICAL RESEARCH
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 491-506

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10715762.2018.1449210

关键词

Nitric oxide; nitrosative stress; cellular redox status; autophagy; apoptosis; CML-K562 cell line; TAp73 alpha

资金

  1. DBT, government offices of India [BT/PR12551/BRB/10/02/2009]
  2. UGC, government offices of India [UGC/787/JRF]
  3. CSIR, government offices of India [09/028(0945)/2015-EMR-I]
  4. DST-PURSE programme, government offices of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The biological outcome of nitric oxide (NO) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) in regulating pro survival and pro death autophagic pathways still demand further investigation. In the present study, we investigated the effect of nitrosative stress in K562 cells using NO donor compound DETA-NONOate, peroxynitrite, and SIN-1. Exposure to NO, peroxynitrite, and SIN-1 caused decrease in K562 cell survival. NO induced autophagy but not apoptosis or necrosis in K562 cells. In contrast, peroxynitrite and SIN-1 treatment induced apoptosis in K562 cells. Surprisingly, inhibition of autophagic response using 3-methyladenine led to the induction of apoptosis in K562 cells. Increase in 5'adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) phosphorylation was only observed in the presence of NO donor indicated that AMPK was crucial to induce autophagy in K562 cells. We for the first time discovered a novel role of p73 in autophagy induction under nitrosative stress in K562 cells. TAp73 alpha was only induced upon exposure to NO but not in the presence of peroxynitrite. Reduced glutathione (GSH)/oxidised glutathione (GSSG) ratio remained unaltered upon NO exposure. Our data suggest a complex network of interaction and cross regulations between NO and p73. These data open a new path for therapies based on the abilities of RNS to induce autophagy-mediated cell death.

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

4.3
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