4.6 Review

Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Aging, Mitochondrial Dysfunction, and Cellular Bioenergetics

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00010

关键词

aging; mitochondrial dysfunction; lung fibrosis; bioenergetics; mitophagy; senescence

资金

  1. NIH [R01 HL131789A, R01 HL123766-01A1]
  2. Aging Institute, University of Pittsburgh
  3. Institute for Transfusion Medicine
  4. Hemophilia Center for Western Pennsylvania
  5. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL123766, R01HL131789, T32HL007563] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

At present, the etiology of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) remains elusive. Over the past two decades, however, researchers have identified and described the underlying processes that result in metabolic dysregulation, metabolic reprogramming, and mitochondrial dysfunction observed in the cells of IPF lungs. Metabolic changes and mitochondrial dysfunction in IPF include decreased efficiency of electron transport chain function with increasing production of reactive oxygen species, decreased mitochondrial biogenesis, and impaired mitochondrial macroautophagy, a key pathway for the removal of dysfunctional mitochondria. Metabolic changes in IPF have potential impact on lung cell function, differentiation, and activation of fibrotic responses. These alterations result in activation of TGF-ss and predispose to the development of pulmonary fibrosis. IPF is a disease of the aged, and many of these same bioenergetic changes are present to a lesser extent with normal aging, raising the possibility that these anticipated alterations in metabolic processes play important roles in creating susceptibility to the development of IPF. This review explores what is known regarding the cellular metabolic and mitochondrial changes that are found in IPF, and examines this body of literature to identify future research direction and potential points of intervention in the pathogenesis of IPF.

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