4.5 Article

S100B protects LAN-5 neuroblastoma cells against Aβ amyloid-induced neurotoxicity via RAGE engagement at low doses but increases Aβ amyloid neurotoxicity at high doses

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 83, 期 5, 页码 897-906

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.20785

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; neuroprotection; Bcl-2; sRAGE; ERK1/2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

At the concentrations normally found in the brain extracellular space the glial-derived protein, S100B, protects neurons against neurotoxic agents by interacting with the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE). It is known that at relatively high concentrations S100B is neurotoxic causing neuronal death via excessive stimulation of RAGE. S100B is detected within senile plaques in Alzheimer's disease, where its role is unknown. The present study was undertaken to evaluate a putative neuroprotective role of S100B against A beta amyloid-induced neurotoxicity. We treated LAN-5 neuroblastoma cultures with toxic amounts of A beta 25-35 amyloid peptide. Our results show that at nanomolar concentrations S100B protects cells against A beta-mediated cytotoxicity, as assessed by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP-fluorescein isothiocyanate nick end-labeling (TUNEL) experiments, by countering the A beta-mediated decrease in the expression of the anti-apoptotic factor Bcl-2. This effect depends on S100B binding to RAGE because S100B is unable to contrast A beta-mediated neurotoxicity in neurons overexpressing a signaling-deficient RAGE mutant lacking the cytosolic and transducing domain. Our data suggest that at nanomolar doses S100B counteracts A beta peptide neurotoxicity in a RAGE-mediated manner. However, at micromolar doses S100B is toxic to LAN-5 cells and its toxicity adds to that of the A beta peptide, suggesting that additional molecular mechanisms may be involved in the neurotoxic process. (C) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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