4.6 Article

Nitric oxide-enhanced caspase-3 and acidic sphingomyelinase interaction: A novel mechanism by which airway epithelial cells escape ceramide-induced apoptosis

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
卷 313, 期 4, 页码 816-823

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2006.12.001

关键词

ceramide; apoptosis; nitric oxide; acidic sphingomyelinase

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [C06 RR-12088-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL07013, HL-66189, HL-71871, R01 HL071871] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reactive nitrogen species (RNS) are implicated in the pathophysiology of inflammatory lung diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The molecular mechanisms and signaling events involved in lung cell injury by RNS are still poorly understood. In the current study, we observe a novel anti-apoptotic response to nitric oxide (NO) exposure (via the NO donors 3-morpholine-syndnonimine (SIN1) or papa-NONOate) of human airway epithelial (HAE) cells. No exposure via the NO donors increased cellular ceramide levels via ceramide synthase but did not trigger an apoptotic response. Rather, exposure to the No donors promoted an increase in the protein-protein interaction between acidic sphingomyelinase (aSMase) and caspase-3, with aSMase sequestering caspase-3 and preventing its cleavage. In contrast, when aSMase was silenced in HAE cells or was knocked out in mice, an increase in cleaved caspase-3 was observed, This elevated caspase-3 cleavage was further augmented upon NO exposure (via SIN1 or papa-NONOate) of HAE cells and could be prevented by an inhibitor to ceramide synthase. These results demonstrate a novel mechanism of NO modulation of apoptosis, in which HAE cells exposed to NO via an NO donor induces ceramide generation via ceramide synthase. However, this ceramide induction does not lead to apoptosis unless aSMase is knocked down, allowing the release of caspase-3, its activation and execution of apoptosis. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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