4.5 Article

Ischemia-reperfusion induces renal tubule pyroptosis via the CHOP-caspase-11 pathway

期刊

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajprenal.00117.2013

关键词

pyroptosis; endoplasmic reticulum stress; C/EBP homologous protein; caspase-11; renal ischemia-reperfusion injury

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30771002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The apoptotic or necrotic death of renal tubule epithelial cells is the main pathogenesis of renal ischemia-reperfusion-induced acute kidney injury (AKI). Pyroptosis is a programmed cell death pathway that depends on the activation of the caspase cascade and IL-1 cytokine family members. However, the role of pyroptosis in AKI induced by ischemia-reperfusion remains unclear. In this study, we found that the levels of the pyroptosis-related proteins, including caspase-1, caspase-11, and IL-1 beta, were significantly increased after 6 h of renal ischemiareperfusion injury (IRI) and peaked at 12 h after IRI. Enhanced pyroptosis was accompanied by elevated renal structural and functional injury. Similarly, hypoxia-reoxygenation injury (HRI) also induced pyroptosis in renal tubule epithelial NRK-52E cells, which was characterized by increased pore formation and elevated lactate dehydrogenase release. In addition, obvious upregulation of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress biomarkers glucose-regulated protein 78 and C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP) preceded the incidence of pyroptosis in cells treated with IRI or HRI. Pretreatment with a low dose of tunicamycin, an inducer of ER stress, relieved IRI-induced pyroptosis and renal tissue injury. Silencing of CHOP by small interfering RNA significantly decreased HRI-induced pyroptosis of NRK-52E cells, as evidenced by reduced caspase-11 activity and IL-1 beta generation. Therefore, we conclude that pyroptosis of renal tubule epithelial cells is a key event during IRI and that CHOP-caspase-11 triggered by overactivated ER stress may be an essential pathway involved in pyroptosis.

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