4.5 Article

Inhibition of mitochondrial function in astrocytes: implications for neuroprotection

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 102, 期 4, 页码 1383-1394

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2007.04634.x

关键词

astrocyte; fluorocitrate; ischemia; mitochondria; neuron

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM49831, R01 GM049831-15, R01 GM049831] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS014543, R01 NS053898-01A2, P01 NS037520, NS37520, P01 NS014543, R01 NS053898, NS053898, P50 NS014543] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Much evidence suggests that astrocytes protect neurons against ischemic injury. Although astrocytes are more resistant to some insults than neurons, few studies offer insight into the real time changes of astrocytic protective functions with stress. Mitochondria are one of the primary targets of ischemic injury in astrocytes. We investigated the time course of changes in astrocytic ATP levels, plasma membrane potential, and glutamate uptake, a key protective function, induced by mitochondrial inhibition. Our results show that significant functional change precedes reduction in astrocytic viability with mitochondrial inhibition. Using the mitochondrial inhibitor fluorocitrate (FC, 0.25 mmol/L) that is preferentially taken by astrocytes we found that inhibition of astrocyte mitochondria increased vulnerability of co-cultured neurons to glutamate toxicity. In our studies, the rates of FC-induced astrocytic mitochondrial depolarization were accelerated in mixed astrocyte/neuron cultures. We hypothesized that the more rapid mitochondrial depolarization was promoted by an additional energetic demand imposed be the co-cultured neurons. To test this hypothesis, we exposed pure astrocytic cultures to 0.01-1 mmol/L aspartate as a metabolic load. Aspartate application accelerated the rates of FC-induced mitochondrial depolarization, and, at 1 mmol/L, induced astrocytic death, suggesting that strong energetic demands during ischemia can compromise astrocytic function and viability.

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