4.6 Article

Low-density Lipoprotein Receptor-related Protein-1 (LRP1) Mediates Autophagy and Apoptosis Caused by Helicobacter pylori VacA

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 287, 期 37, 页码 31104-31115

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M112.387498

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan
  2. Improvement of Research Environment for Young Researchers from the Japan Science and Technology Agency
  3. National Institutes of Health, NHLBI
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24501338, 24790419, 22300169] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Helicobacter pylori infection, vacuolating cytotoxin (VacA)-induced mitochondrial damage leading to apoptosis is believed to be a major cause of cell death. It has also been proposed that VacA-induced autophagy serves as a host mechanism to limit toxin-induced cellular damage. Apoptosis and autophagy are two dynamic and opposing processes that must be balanced to regulate cell death and survival. Here we identify the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein-1 (LRP1) as the VacA receptor for toxin-induced autophagy in the gastric epithelial cell line AZ-521, and show that VacA internalization through binding to LRP1 regulates the autophagic process including generation of LC3-II from LC3-I, which is involved in formation of autophagosomes and autolysosomes. Knockdown of LRP1 and Atg5 inhibited generation of LC3-II as well as cleavage of PARP, a marker of apoptosis, in response to VacA, whereas caspase inhibitor, benzyloxycarbonyl-VAD-fluoromethylketone (Z-VAD-fmk), and necroptosis inhibitor, Necrostatin-1, did not inhibit VacA-induced autophagy, suggesting that VacA-induced autophagy via LRP1 binding precedes apoptosis. Other VacA receptors such as RPTP alpha, RPTP beta, and fibronectin did not affect VacA-induced autophagy or apoptosis. Therefore, we propose that the cell surface receptor, LRP1, mediates VacA-induced autophagy and apoptosis.

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