4.6 Article

Delay in Apoptosome Formation Attenuates Apoptosis in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cell Differentiation

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 289, 期 24, 页码 16905-16913

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M113.536730

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differentiation is an inseparable process of development in multicellular organisms. Mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) represent a valuable research tool to conduct in vitro studies of cell differentiation. Apoptosis as a well known cell death mechanism shows some common features with cell differentiation, which has caused a number of ambiguities in the field. The research question here is how cells could differentiate these two processes from each other. We have investigated the role of the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway and cell energy level during differentiation of mESCs into the cardiomyocytes and their apoptosis. p53 expression, cytochrome c release, apoptosome formation, and caspase-3/7 activation are observed upon induction of both apoptosis and differentiation. However, remarkable differences are detected in time of cytochrome c appearance, apoptosome formation, and caspase activity upon induction of both processes. In apoptosis, apoptosome formation and caspase activity were observed rapidly following the cytochrome c release. Unlike apoptosis, the release of cytochrome c upon differentiation took more time, and the maximum caspase activity was also postponed for 24 h. This delay suggests that there is a regulatory mechanism during differentiation of mESCs into cardiomyocytes. The highest ATP content of cells was observed immediately after cytochrome c release 6 h after apoptosis induction and then decreased, but it was gradually increased up to 48 h after differentiation. These observations suggest that a delay in the release of cytochrome c or delay in ATP increase attenuate apoptosome formation, and caspase activation thereby discriminates apoptosis from differentiation in mESCs.

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