26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The nuclear transcription factor FoxG1 affects the sensitivity of mimetic aging hair cells to inflammation by regulating autophagy pathways

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Inflammation is a self-defense response to protect individuals from infection and tissue damage, but excessive or persistent inflammation can have adverse effects on cell survival. Many individuals become especially susceptible to chronic-inflammation-induced sensorineural hearing loss as they age, but the intrinsic molecular mechanism behind aging individuals' increased risk of hearing loss remains unclear. FoxG1 (forkhead box transcription factor G1) is a key transcription factor that plays important roles in hair cell survival through the regulation of mitochondrial function, but how the function of FoxG1 changes during aging and under inflammatory conditions is unknown. In this study, we first found that FoxG1 expression and autophagy both increased gradually in the low concentration lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammation model, while after high concentration of LPS treatment both FoxG1 expression and autophagy levels decreased as the concentration of LPS increased. We then used siRNA to downregulate Foxg1 expression in hair cell-like OC-1 cells and found that cell death and apoptosis were significantly increased after LPS injury. Furthermore, we used d-galactose (D-gal) to create an aging model with hair cell-like OC-1 cells and cochlear explant cultures in vitro and found that the expression of Foxg1 and the level of autophagy were both decreased after D-gal and LPS co-treatment. Lastly, we knocked down the expression of Foxg1 under aged inflammation conditions and found increased numbers of dead and apoptotic cells. Together these results suggest that FoxG1 affects the sensitivity of mimetic aging hair cells to inflammation by regulating autophagy pathways.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

          In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Fox transcription factors: from development to disease.

            Forkhead box (Fox) transcription factors are evolutionarily conserved in organisms ranging from yeast to humans. They regulate diverse biological processes both during development and throughout adult life. Mutations in many Fox genes are associated with human disease and, as such, various animal models have been generated to study the function of these transcription factors in mechanistic detail. In many cases, the absence of even a single Fox transcription factor is lethal. In this Primer, we provide an overview of the Fox family, highlighting several key Fox transcription factor families that are important for mammalian development.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Review: systemic inflammation and Alzheimer's disease.

              There is a great deal of evidence suggesting an important role for systemic inflammation in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. The role of systemic inflammation, and indeed inflammation in general, is still largely considered to be as a contributor to the disease process rather than of aetiological importance although there is emerging evidence to suggest that its role may predate the deposition of amyloid. Therapies aimed at reducing inflammation in individuals with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease have been disappointing and have largely focused on the need to ameliorate central inflammation with little attention to the importance of dampening down systemic inflammation. Novel approaches in this area require a greater understanding of the effects of systemic inflammation on the development and progression of Alzheimer's disease and of the communicating pathways between the systemic and central innate immune systems. © 2012 The Author. Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology © 2012 British Neuropathological Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Redox Biol
                Redox Biol
                Redox Biology
                Elsevier
                2213-2317
                29 October 2019
                January 2020
                29 October 2019
                : 28
                : 101364
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China
                [b ]Key Laboratory for Developmental Genes and Human Disease, Ministry of Education, Institute of Life Sciences, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, China
                [c ]Co-Innovation Center of Neuroregeneration, Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, China
                [d ]Institute for Stem Cell and Regeneration, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, China
                [e ]Jiangsu Province High-Tech Key Laboratory for Bio-Medical Research, Southeast University, Nanjing, 211189, China
                [f ]Xiangyang Central Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Arts and Science, Xiangyang, 441021, China
                [g ]Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China
                [h ]Beijing Key Laboratory of Neural Regeneration and Repair, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. sunyu@ 123456hust.edu.cn
                [∗∗ ]Corresponding author. Co-Innovation Center of Neuroregeneration, Key Laboratory for Developmental Genes and Human Disease, Ministry of Education, Institute of Life Sciences, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, China. renjiec@ 123456seu.edu.cn
                [∗∗∗ ]Corresponding author. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. entwjkong@ 123456hust.edu.cn
                [1]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Article
                S2213-2317(19)30968-1 101364
                10.1016/j.redox.2019.101364
                6920089
                31731101
                a2258e8e-8ab8-4640-9982-73d050e0911f
                © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 17 August 2019
                : 22 October 2019
                : 27 October 2019
                Categories
                Research Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article