4.7 Article

H2O2 signals via iron induction of VL30 retrotransposition correlated with cytotoxicity

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 52, 期 10, 页码 2072-2081

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2012.03.021

关键词

VL30; Retrotransposition; Oxidative stress; Hydrogen peroxide; Iron; Cytotoxicity; Free radicals

资金

  1. Empirikion Foundation, Greece

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of oxidative stress on mobilization of endogenous retroviruses and their effects on cell fate is unknown. We investigated the action of H2O2 on retrotransposition of an EGFP-tagged mouse LTR-retrotransposon, VL30, in an NIH3T3 cell-retrotransposition assay. H2O2 treatment of assay cells caused specific retrotranspositions documented by UV microscopy and PCR analysis. Flow cytometric analysis revealed an unusually high dose- and time-dependent retrotransposition frequency induced, similar to 420,000-fold at 40 mu M A H2O2 compared to the natural frequency, which was reduced by ectopic expression of catalase. Remarkably, H2O2 moderately induced the RNA expression of retrotransposon B2 without affecting the basal expression of VL30s and L1 and significantly induced the expression of various endogenous reverse transcriptase genes. Further, whereas treatment with 50 mu M FeCl2 alone was ineffective, cotreatment with 10 mu M H2O2 and 50 mu M FeCl2 caused a 6-fold higher retrotransposition induction than H2O2 alone, which was associated with cytotoxicity. H2O2- or H2O2/FeCl2-induced retrotransposition was significantly reduced by the iron chelator DFO or the antioxidant NAC, respectively. Furthermore, both H2O2-induced retrotransposition and associated cytotoxicity were inhibited after pretreatment of cells with DFO or the reverse transcriptase inhibitors efavirenz and etravirine. Our data show for the first time that H2O2, acting via iron, is a potent stimulus of retrotransposition contributing to oxidative stress-induced cell damage. (C) 2012 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

4.7
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