4.7 Article

Light- and sodium azide-induced death of RGC-5 cells in culture occurs via different mechanisms

期刊

APOPTOSIS
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 425-437

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10495-011-0574-4

关键词

Light-insult; Sodium azide-insult; Mitochondria; Necroptosis; Apoptosis

资金

  1. Fundacion BBVA, Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have shown that light impinging on the retina in situ has the capacity to kill neuronal and non-neuronal cells in vitro by interacting directly with mitochondrial constituents. A number of fluorophores are associated with mitochondria which can potentially absorb different wave-lengths of light, including cytochrome oxidase. The aim of the present study was to compare the death mechanism of a light insult to RGC-5 cells in culture with that of sodium azide. Sodium azide's main toxic action is in inhibiting the function of cytochrome oxidase in the mitochondrial electron transport chain. Our studies showed that light and sodium azide kill RGC-5 cells via different mechanisms although some similarities do occur. Both inducers of cell death caused the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), the expression of phosphatidylserine, the breakdown of DNA and the activation of p38 MAPK, resulting in its translocation from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. However, light-induced cell death occurs via necroptosis, in that it was inhibited by necrostatin-1 and was caspase-independent. This was not the case for sodium azide, where the death process was caspase-dependent, occurred via apoptosis and was unaffected by necrostatin-1. Moreover, light caused an activation of the apoptosis inducing factor (AIF), c-Jun, JNK and HO-1, but it did not affect alpha fodrin or caspase-3. In contrast, sodium azide caused the activation of alpha fodrin and the stimulation of caspase-3 content without influencing AIF, c-Jun, JNK or HO-1. Therefore we conclude that light does not have a specific action on cytochrome oxidase in mitochondria to cause 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

4.7
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