4.7 Article

Targeting the isoprenoid pathway to abrogate progression of pulmonary fibrosis

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 86, 期 -, 页码 47-56

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.04.031

关键词

Macrophage; Reactive oxygen species; Mitochondria; Pulmonary fibrosis; Rac1; Isoprenoid; Pathway

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [2R01ES015981-07, R01ES014871]
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development [1BX001135-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fibrotic remodeling in lung injury is a major cause of morbidity. The mechanism that mediates the ongoing fibrosis is unclear, and there is no available treatment to abate the aberrant repair. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) have a critical role in inducing fibrosis by modulating extracellular matrix deposition. Specifically, mitochondrial hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) production by alveolar macrophages is directly linked to pulmonary fibrosis as inhibition of mitochondrial H2O2 attenuates the fibrotic response in mice. Prior studies indicate that the small GTP-binding protein, Rac1, directly mediates H2O2 generation in the mitochondrial intermembrane space. Geranylgeranylation of the C-terminal cysteine residue (Cys(189)) is required for Rac1 activation and mitochondria! import. We hypothesized that impairment of geranylgeranylation would limit mitochondrial oxidative stress and, thus, abrogate progression of pulmonary fibrosis. By targeting the isoprenoid pathway with a novel agent, digeranyl bisphosphonate (DGBP), which impairs geranylgeranylation, we demonstrate that Rac1 mitochondrial import, mitochondrial oxidative stress, and progression of the fibrotic response to lung injury are significantly attenuated. These observations reveal that targeting the isoprenoid pathway to alter Rac1 geranylgeranylation halts the progression of pulmonary fibrosis after lung injury. (C) 2015 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