4.6 Article

Autophagy inhibition induces podocyte apoptosis by activating the pro-apoptotic pathway of endoplasmk reticulum stress

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
卷 322, 期 2, 页码 290-301

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2014.01.001

关键词

Autophagy; Apoptosis; Endoplasmic reticulum stress; Podocyte

资金

  1. 973 Science Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology, China [2011CB504000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Podocyte apoptosis is a major factor inducing podocyte depletion that predicts the progressive course of glomerulosclerosis. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying podocyte apoptosis are still not well understood. Autophagy is a lysosomal degradation system involving the degradation and recycling of obsolete, damaged, or harmful cytoplasmic materials and organelles. Recent advances in the understanding of the molecular processes contributing to autophagy have provided insight into the relationship between autophagy and apoptosis. However, their crosstalk remains largely obscure until now. Here, we found that podocytes both in vivo and in vitro always exhibited high basal levels of autophagy, whereas autophagy inhibition could induce podocyte apoptosis, suggesting the pro-survival role of autophagy in podocytes. Besides, we found that autophagy inhibition by 3-methyladenine (3-MA) could induce the activation of endoplasmic reticulum stress even without any external stimulations, whereas knockdown of CHOP could effectively improve podocyte apoptosis and down-regulated expression of slit-diaphragm proteins induced by autophagy inhibition. Collectively, this study demonstrated that autophagy might act as a crucial regulatory mechanism of apoptotic cell death by modulating the balance between the pro-survival pathway and the pro-apoptotic pathway of endoplasmic reticulum stress, which might provide a novel mechanistic insight into the interface between autophagy and apoptosis in the progression of podocyte injury. (C) 2014 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

4.6
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