4.8 Article

Adenine nucleotide translocator mediates the mitochondrial membrane permeabilization induced by lonidamine, arsenite and CD437

期刊

ONCOGENE
卷 20, 期 52, 页码 7579-7587

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1204953

关键词

apoptosis; ATP; cell death; Bcl-2; vMIA; chemotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An increasing number of experimental chemotherapeutic agents induce apoptosis by directly triggering mitochondrial membrane permeabilization (MMP). Here we examined MMP induced by lonidamine, arsenite, and the retinoid derivative CD437. Cells overexpressing the cytomegalovirus-encoded protein vMIA, a protein which interacts with the adenine nucleotide translocator, were strongly protected against the MMP-inducing and apoptogenic effects of lonidamine, arsenite, and CD437. In a cell-free system, lonidamine, arsenite, and CD437 induced the permeabilization of ANT proteoliposomes, yet had no effect on protein-free liposomes. The ANT-dependent membrane permeabilization was inhibited by the two ANT ligands ATP and ADP, as well as by recombinant Bcl-2 protein. Lonidamine, arsenite, and CD437, added to synthetic planar lipid bilayers containing ANT, elicited ANT channel activities with clearly distinct conductance levels of 20+/-7, 100+/-30, and 47+/-7 pS, respectively. Altering the ATP/ADP gradient built up on the inner mitochondrial membrane by inhibition of glycolysis and/or oxidative phosphorylation differentially modulated the cytocidal potential of lonidamine, arsenite, and CD437. Inhibition of F(0)F(1)ATPase without glycolysis inhibition sensitized to lonidamine-induced cell death. In contrast, only the combined inhibition of glycolysis plus F(0)F(1)ATPase sensitized to arsenite-induced cell death. No sensitization to cell death induction by CD437 was achieved by glucose depletion and/or oligomycin addition. These results indicate that ANT is a target of lonidamine, arsenite, and CD437 and unravel an unexpected heterogeneity in the mode of action of these three compounds.

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

4.8
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