4.5 Article

Mitochondrial recycling and aging of cardiac myocytes: the role of autophagocytosis

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
卷 38, 期 8, 页码 863-876

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0531-5565(03)00114-1

关键词

aging; autophagy; lysosomes mitochondria; myocardium; oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanisms of mitochondrial alterations in aged post-mitotic cells, including formation of so-called 'giant' mitochondria, are poorly understood. To test whether these large mitochondria might appear due to imperfect autophagic mitochondrial turnover, we inhibited autophagocytosis in cultured neonatal rat cardiac myocytes with 3-methyladenine. This resulted in abnormal accumulation of mitochondria within myocytes, loss of contractility, and reduced survival time in culture. Unlike normal aging, which is associated with slow accumulation of predominantly large defective mitochondria, pharmacological inhibition of autophagy caused only moderate accumulation of large (senescent-like) mitochondria but dramatically enhanced the numbers of small mitochondria, probably reflecting their normally more rapid turnover. Furthermore, the 3-methyladenine-induced accumulation of large mitochondria was irreversible, while small mitochondria gradually decreased in number after withdrawal of the drug. We, therefore, tentatively conclude that large mitochondria selectively accumulate in aging post-mitotic cells because they are poorly autophagocytosed. Mitochondrial enlargement may result from impaired fission, a possibility supported by depressed DNA synthesis in large mitochondria. Nevertheless, enlarged mitochondria retained immunoreactivity for cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1, implying that mitochondrial genes remain active in defective mitochondria. Our findings suggest that imperfect autophagic recycling of these critical organelles may underlie the progressive mitochondrial damage, which characterizes aging post-mitotic cells. (C) 2003 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

4.5
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