4.6 Article

The Neurotoxicity of Vesicles Secreted by ALS Patient Myotubes Is Specific to Exosome-Like and Not Larger Subtypes

期刊

CELLS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells11050845

关键词

exosomes; ectosomes; cell-cell communication; motor neurone diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extracellular vesicles play a crucial role in intercellular communication and their study in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is important. The smaller exosome-like vesicles from ALS patients have negative effects on motor neurons, astrocytes, and myotubes, while vesicles from healthy subjects or larger vesicles from ALS or healthy subjects do not exhibit such effects.
Extracellular vesicles can mediate communication between tissues, affecting the physiological conditions of recipient cells. They are increasingly investigated in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, the most common form of Motor Neurone Disease, as transporters of misfolded proteins including SOD1, FUS, TDP43, or other neurotoxic elements, such as the dipeptide repeats resulting from C9orf72 expansions. EVs are classified based on their biogenesis and size and can be separated by differential centrifugation. They include exosomes, released by the fusion of multivesicular bodies with the plasma membrane, and ectosomes, also known as microvesicles or microparticles, resulting from budding or pinching of the plasma membrane. In the current study, EVs were obtained from the myotube cell culture medium of ALS patients or healthy controls. EVs of two different sizes, separating at 20,000 or 100,000 g, were then compared in terms of their effects on recipient motor neurons, astrocytes, and myotubes. Compared to untreated cells, the smaller, exosome-like vesicles of ALS patients reduced the survival of motor neurons by 31% and of myotubes by 18%, decreased neurite length and branching, and increased the proportion of stellate astrocytes, whereas neither those of healthy subjects, nor larger EVs of ALS or healthy subjects, had such effects.

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