Review Special Issues

The ubiquitous role of mitochondria in Parkinson and other neurodegenerative diseases

  • Orderly mitochondrial life cycle, plays a key role in the pathology of neurodegenerative diseases. Mitochondria are ubiquitous in neurons as they respond to an ever-changing demand for energy supply. Mitochondria constantly change in shape and location, feature of their dynamic nature, which facilitates a quality control mechanism. Biological studies in mitochondria dynamics are unveiling the mechanisms of fission and fusion, which essentially arrange morphology and motility of these organelles. Control of mitochondrial network homeostasis is a critical factor for the proper function of neurons. Disease-related genes have been reported to be implicated in mitochondrial dysfunction. Increasing evidence implicate mitochondrial perturbation in neuronal diseases, such as AD, PD, HD, and ALS. The intricacy involved in neurodegenerative diseases and the dynamic nature of mitochondria point to the idea that, despite progress toward detecting the biology underlying mitochondrial disorders, its link to these diseases is difficult to be identified in the laboratory. Considering the need to model signaling pathways, both in spatial and temporal level, there is a challenge to use a multiscale modeling framework, which is essential for understanding the dynamics of a complex biological system. The use of computational models in order to represent both a qualitative and a quantitative structure of mitochondrial homeostasis, allows to perform simulation experiments so as to monitor the conformational changes, as well as the intersection of form and function.

    Citation: Georgia Theocharopoulou. The ubiquitous role of mitochondria in Parkinson and other neurodegenerative diseases[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(1): 43-65. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020004

    Related Papers:

    [1] Francesca Froldi, Milán Szuperák, Louise Y. Cheng . Neural stem cell derived tumourigenesis. AIMS Genetics, 2015, 2(1): 13-24. doi: 10.3934/genet.2015.1.13
    [2] Tin Tin Su . Non-autonomous consequences of cell death and other perks of being metazoan. AIMS Genetics, 2015, 2(1): 54-69. doi: 10.3934/genet.2015.1.54
    [3] Xianjue Ma . Context-dependent interplay between Hippo and JNK pathway in Drosophila. AIMS Genetics, 2014, 1(1): 20-33. doi: 10.3934/genet.2014.1.20
    [4] Sarah M. Zimmerman, Roberta Besio, Melissa E. Heard-Lipsmeyer, Milena Dimori, Patrizio Castagnola, Frances L. Swain, Dana Gaddy, Alan B. Diekman, Roy Morello . Expression characterization and functional implication of the collagen-modifying Leprecan proteins in mouse gonadal tissue and mature sperm. AIMS Genetics, 2018, 5(1): 24-40. doi: 10.3934/genet.2018.1.24
    [5] Michael J. Murray . Drosophila models of metastasis. AIMS Genetics, 2015, 2(1): 25-53. doi: 10.3934/genet.2015.1.25
    [6] Carlos Estella, Antonio Baonza . Cell proliferation control by Notch signalling during imaginal discs development in Drosophila. AIMS Genetics, 2015, 2(1): 70-96. doi: 10.3934/genet.2015.1.70
    [7] Jue Er Amanda Lee, Linda May Parsons, Leonie M. Quinn . MYC function and regulation in flies: how Drosophila has enlightened MYC cancer biology. AIMS Genetics, 2014, 1(1): 81-98. doi: 10.3934/genet.2014.1.81
    [8] Helena E. Richardson . Drosophila models of cancer. AIMS Genetics, 2015, 2(1): 97-103. doi: 10.3934/genet.2015.1.97
    [9] Dawei Liu, Zeeshan Shaukat, Rashid Hussain, Mahwish Khan, Stephen L. Gregory . Drosophila as a model for chromosomal instability. AIMS Genetics, 2015, 2(1): 1-12. doi: 10.3934/genet.2015.1.1
    [10] Vadim Chagin, Andrei Zalensky, Igor Nazarov, Olga Mudrak . Preferable location of chromosomes 1, 29, and X in bovine spermatozoa. AIMS Genetics, 2018, 5(2): 113-123. doi: 10.3934/genet.2018.2.113
  • Orderly mitochondrial life cycle, plays a key role in the pathology of neurodegenerative diseases. Mitochondria are ubiquitous in neurons as they respond to an ever-changing demand for energy supply. Mitochondria constantly change in shape and location, feature of their dynamic nature, which facilitates a quality control mechanism. Biological studies in mitochondria dynamics are unveiling the mechanisms of fission and fusion, which essentially arrange morphology and motility of these organelles. Control of mitochondrial network homeostasis is a critical factor for the proper function of neurons. Disease-related genes have been reported to be implicated in mitochondrial dysfunction. Increasing evidence implicate mitochondrial perturbation in neuronal diseases, such as AD, PD, HD, and ALS. The intricacy involved in neurodegenerative diseases and the dynamic nature of mitochondria point to the idea that, despite progress toward detecting the biology underlying mitochondrial disorders, its link to these diseases is difficult to be identified in the laboratory. Considering the need to model signaling pathways, both in spatial and temporal level, there is a challenge to use a multiscale modeling framework, which is essential for understanding the dynamics of a complex biological system. The use of computational models in order to represent both a qualitative and a quantitative structure of mitochondrial homeostasis, allows to perform simulation experiments so as to monitor the conformational changes, as well as the intersection of form and function.


    1. The stem cell niche: restricting immortality

    In all adult animals, continual replenishment of cell populations and, therefore, renewal of body tissues, is of critical importance. However, the majority of cells that make up adult tissues are highly specialised and terminally differentiated. Furthermore, the pluripotent stem cells present during the early stages of embryonic development have long since been depleted. So how is tissue homeostasis maintained? A different type of stem cell, the adult stem cell (ASC), also known as a tissue specific stem cell, is required. ASCs, which constitute only a small fraction of the total mass of a tissue, maintain their existence through self-renewing divisions, but also give rise to the specialised cells that make up the tissues in which they are located. Within these tissues, ASCs reside in a microenvironment called a “stem cell niche”. The concept of a stem cell niche was coined by Schofield in 1978 while discussing mammalian haemopoietic stem cells (HSCs) [1]. However, the first identified, studied, and characterised stem cell niches were those of the Drosophila male and female germlines [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Li and Xie have defined a niche as all the cellular components of the microenvironment surrounding stem cells, including the signals emanating from the support cells [9]. Although niche structures vary widely, even between tissues of the same organism, the conserved role of the stem cell niche as a regulator of stem cell identity and behaviour is now a well-established principle in biology [9,10,11,12].

    Control over ASCs by their niche is of primary interest to cancer research, as it is essential for promoting stem cell maintenance, as well as restricting behaviours such as self-renewal and differentiation. It is easy to imagine stem cells proliferating freely, producing more stem cells and differentiated progeny, but their niches carefully regulate and suppress such behaviour. This is very important for an organism, as a dysfunctional niche may have disastrous consequences. At the very least, a lack of control over stem cell divisions can result in ectopic stem cell proliferation, leading to tissue hyperplasia or neoplasia. At worst, the loss of stem cell control and sustained proliferation may prompt the appearance of proliferative “cancer stem cells”, which behave as stem cells but without restrictions on their behaviours, resulting in tumourigenesis [13,14]. It is hoped that by using model systems that allow for the study of stem cells in vivo, such as the Drosophila gonads, we will gain a better understanding of the mechanisms controlling and preventing such deleterious stem cell behaviour. This review will highlight recent research using the Drosophila germline niches that examines key aspects of the control over stem cell behaviour and general gametogenesis, with a particular focus on those mechanisms which are disrupted in tumourigenesis.

    2. The Drosophila testis

    Drosophilamales have two testes, each a close-ended tubular structure harbouring two stem cell populations: the germline stem cells (GSCs) and the somatic stem cells (SSCs) (Figure 1). Both stem cell types adhere to a cluster of non-proliferative somatic cells called hub cells (HCs) at the apical end of the testis and, together, the HCs, GSCs, and SSCs make up the stem cell niche [2]. Within the niche, 6-9 GSCs surround the HCs, each enclosed by a pair of SSCs [2]. Adhesion between HCs and GSCs orients the mitotic spindle to ensure proper asymmetric stem cell divisions [15], during which one daughter cell retains its stem cell identity and remains attached to the HCs, enclosed by a pair of SSCs, while the other will move away from the HCs and out of the stem cell niche [2,15]. Interestingly, live imaging of the testis has revealed GSCs can also undergo symmetric divisions [16], which will be discussed later on. The GSC daughter that exits the niche is called a gonialblast (GB), and it is enclosed by two non-proliferative SSC daughter cells called somatic cyst cells (SCCs). The GB undergoes four rounds of synchronous transit-amplifying (TA) divisions with incomplete cytokinesis, forming a 16-cell spermatogonial cyst still enclosed by its original SCC partners [4]. 16-cell spermatogonial cysts then enter a growth phase and terminally differentiate into primary spermatocytes, which undergo meiosis to produce 64 haploid spermatids [4].

    Figure 1. Diagram of the Drosophila testis. At the apical tip of the testis, a group of hub cells (HCs) form “the hub”, to which the germline stem cells (GSCs) and somatic stem cells (SSCs) adhere and make up the germline stem cell niche. A pair of SSCs enclose each GSC, all of which then divide asymmetrically to produce a gonialblast (GB) enclosed by a pair of somatic cyst cells (SCCs). The gonialblast undergoes rounds of synchronous transit-amplifying divisions with incomplete cytokinesis to produce a two-, four-, eight-, and finally 16-cell differentiating spermatogonial cyst, all the while enclosed by the non-mitotic SCCs. The 16-cell cyst then grows and differentiates into a spermatocyte, which will eventually undergo meiotic divisions to produce sperm.

    3. The Drosophila ovary

    Drosophila females possess two ovaries, each made up of 12 − 16 ovarioles. Positioned at the apical tip of each ovariole resides a structure called the germarium (Figure 2). Each germarium contains 2− 3 GSCs supported within a niche contributed to by three somatic cell types: the anterior terminal filament cells (TFCs), the cap cells (CCs), and the escort cells (ECs) [8,17]. The GSCs divide asymmetrically, producing a stem cell which remains associated with the niche, and a cystoblast (CB) which exits the niche [3]. As with the male germline, the CB undergoes four rounds of synchronous TA divisions with incomplete cytokinesis, producing a 16-cell germline cyst known as a cystocyte. Unlike the more permanent germ-soma association in the testis, live imaging indicated ECs have fixed positions within the germarium, surrounding and interacting transiently with the developing cysts as they progress through the germarium [18]. Once the 16-cell cystocyte has formed, the ECs are replaced by a monolayer of somatic epithelial follicle cells (FCs) which enwrap the cysts, creating individual egg chambers [19]. These FCs are produced by two follicle stem cells (FSCs) that exist in their own niche, halfway down the germarium [19,20,21,22]. Within the egg chamber, one of the 16 germ cells is selected to differentiate into an oocyte, while the others become polyploid nurse cells, synthesising proteins and transcripts necessary for oocyte development [5,23]. As the egg chamber progresses down the ovariole, the oocyte will undergo meiosis and develop into the female gamete [5,23].

    Figure 2. Diagram of the Drosophila ovary’s germarium. At the apical tip of the germarium are the terminal filament cells (TFCs), which are anterior to the cap cells (CCs). The germline stem cells (GSCs) adhere to the CCs, and are surrounded by the escort cells (ECs), all of which together form the germline stem cell niche. A GSC divides asymmetrically to produce a cystoblast (CB), which undergoes rounds of synchronous transit-amplifying divisions with incomplete cytokinesis to produce a two-, four-, eight-, and finally 16-cell differentiating cystocyte. As the cystocyte develops, it is transiently enclosed by and associates with the ECs. Once the cystocyte reaches 16-cells in size, it will enter the next region of the germarium. Two follicle stem cells (FSCs) exist within their own niches on opposite sides of the germarium, and they both produce proliferative follicle cells (FCs) which will enclose the 16-cell cystocytes in place of the ECs. The FC enclosed cystocytes then proceed to bud off the germarium, forming a developing egg chamber, in which the cystocyte cells will grow and differentiate into 15 nurse cells and one meiotic oocyte.

    4. Asymmetry and symmetry in stem cell divisions

    Upon division, stem cells can produce two daughter cells with different identities. One daughter cell retains self-renewing characteristics, while the other differentiates to replenish and rejuvenate damaged or ageing tissues. This asymmetric stem cell division is thought to have evolved as a simple means of maintaining constancy in the numbers of stem cells and differentiated cells, as well as suppressing tumour formation by preventing an expansion of proliferative stem cell populations [24].

    Cell fate determination is controlled by the relative spatial environments daughter cells find themselves in following cytokinesis, and is largely determined by the position and orientation of the mitotic spindle, controlling the cleavage plane (Figure 3). For example, in the developing neural tissues of mammals, spindle orientation within neuroepithelial and radial-glial cells dictates whether divisions are symmetric or asymmetric [25,26]. Within the Drosophila testis, Apc2, an orthologue of the human tumour suppressor Adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), is critical for anchoring the mother centrosome to the HC-GSC interface, fixing the division plane perpendicular to the niche and so forcing one of the two daughter cells away from the niche [15]. The mother centrosome produces a robust array of microtubules and remains consistently fixed to the HC-GSC interface, while the daughter centrosome has fewer microtubules, and migrates around the cortex [27]. A centrosome orientation checkpoint operates specifically within the GSCs to achieve the necessary asymmetric cell divisions [28]. Thus, with every recurring asymmetric division, the mother centrosome is inherited by the daughter cell associated with the niche. The daughter cell outside the niche is excluded from the self-renewing signals, thereby beginning the differentiation process. Mutations disrupting the link between the centrosome and cell cortex in testis GSCs result in a higher incidence of spindle orientation defects and an excess number of GSCs [15,29]. Similar to the testis, the mitotic spindle within the ovary’s GSCs also orientates perpendicular to the niche to maintain a balance between self-renewal and differentiation. In contrast to testis GSCs, however, proper spindle orientation in an ovary GSC depends on anchorage to the spectrosome, a germline specific organelle located on the apical side of the GSC [30,31]. Localisation of a centrosome and Apc2 to the CC-GSC interface is reportedly controlled by the polarised activation of the small GTPase Rac1 [32]. Intriguingly, studies have shown the mother and daughter centrosomes within Drosophila GSCs have strikingly different characteristics, which correlate with their inheritance. Upon division of GSCs in the ovary, the majority of self-renewing GSCs inherit the newly synthesised daughter centrosome [33]. Asymmetric centrosome inheritance has previously been reported in human neuroblastoma cell lines, where the inheritance of the daughter centrosome was correlated with greater self-renewal potential, and thus an increased likelihood of contributing to malignancy [34].

    Figure 3. Asymmetric and symmetric cell divisions in the testis. Within the testis niche, GSCs are able to undergo both symmetric and asymmetric divisions. While adhering to the HCs, polarity molecules (red crescent) such as Apc2 and E-cad are localised to the HC-GSC interface. Division symmetry depends largely upon spindle orientation, with spindle orientation parallel to the HC-GSC interface leading to stem cell self-renewal via symmetric division, and spindle orientation perpendicular to the HC-GSC interface leading to differentiation via asymmetric division.

    Drosophilatestis GSCs have also been reported as being biased towards segregating the template sister strand of the X and Y chromosomes into the daughter GSC associated with the niche upon asymmetric division, though no such preferential segregation was observed for the autosomal chromatids [35]. Furthermore, histone H3 has been reported to asymmetrically segregate in much the same way as the centrosomes. During asymmetric GSC divisions, the original H3 histones are preferentially segregated into the daughter cell that will take on GSC fate, while the newly synthesized H3 histones are segregated into the differentiating daughter GB [36]. Currently, it is unclear why these cellular components are asymmetrically inherited, but the fact that it appears to be evolutionarily conserved suggests it may play an important role in regulating the molecular properties of self-renewal and differentiation and, therefore, be an important contributing factor for tumour initiation upon disruption.

    For some time, it was believed stable stem cell populations were maintained within the niche solely through continuous asymmetric divisions. However, recent live imaging of the Drosophila testis niche has revealed just how dynamic stem cell maintenance truly is [16]. Although 80% of GSCs underwent their characteristic asymmetric divisions in the niche, GSCs were also shown to be lost through direct differentiation, or gained through symmetric self-renewal [16]. Symmetric GSC divisions in Drosophila ovaries have been observed upon elimination of neighbouring GSCs [8]. These observations are consistent with findings from lineage tracing experiments, which revealed a substantial number of symmetric divisions within mammalian ASC populations to produce two daughter cells with stem cell characteristics [37,38,39,40,41,42]. In tissues such as the intestinal crypts of mammals, where intestinal stem cells (ISCs) undergo high levels of symmetric stem cell divisions [40,41], tissue homeostasis must be achieved through an equal amount of direct differentiation by ISCs. Therefore, maintaining a constant stem cell population is far more involved than previously imagined, though the mechanisms regulating this maintenance are still poorly understood.

    5. Stem cell self-renewal and differentiation

    Stem cells possess two key characteristics: self-renewal and potency. Self-renewal refers to the ability of a stem cell to divide and produce a cell which retains these characteristics. Potency is the ability of stem cells to produce progeny that can undergo differentiation into specialised cell types. These processes of self-renewal and differentiation are also key aspects in tumourigenesis. Many human tumours display a hierarchical organization, containing cells of phenotypic and functional heterogeneity, but are maintained by a small population of self-renewing “cancer stem cells” that potentially originated from a single such cell [43,44,45,46,47,48]. The stem cell niche controls the balance between self-renewal and differentiation, maintaining and regulating stem cell populations through multiple highly conserved extrinsic signals (Figures 4A, B), and is therefore a key player in preventing tumour formation.

    One key regulatory pathway controlling self-renewal in the gonads is the Janus kinase-Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription (Jak-STAT) signalling pathway (Figures 4A, B). Disruptions to Jak-STAT signalling are found in a range of human cancers, with different pathway components functioning as oncogenes as well as tumour suppressors [49,50,51,52,53]. In Drosophila gonads, the ligand Outstretched (Os) (also known as Unpaired) is secreted by the HCs/CCs, binds to the receptor, Domeless (Dome), in sympathetic cells and, via signal transduction, activates the single Drosophila STAT, Stat92E. Activated Stat92E transcriptionally regulates gene expression to promote self-renewal and inhibit differentiation [54,55]. In both the testis and ovary, a loss of Jak-STAT signalling leads to GSC loss by precocious differentiation, while ectopic Jak-STAT signalling induces ectopic GSC proliferation and self-renewal, producing tumour-like masses of undifferentiated cells [17,55,56,57,58,59,60,61].

    Figure 4. Self-renewal and differentiation controlling signalling pathways. (A) In the testis, Jak-STAT signalling, activated in SSCs after secretion of the ligand Os by the HCs, promotes their self-renewal. Hh signalling is also activated in the SSCs after secretion of the ligand Hh by the HCs, and controls SSC self-renewal in parallel to the Jak-STAT pathway. Jak-STAT signalling activation in the SSCs also induces production of the BMP ligands, Dpp/Gbb, which are also produced in the HCs, and then promote BMP signalling in the GSCs, repressing GSC differentiation. Jak-STAT signalling in GSCs promotes their adhesion to the HCs, and hence their maintenance within the niche area. (B) In the ovary, Jak-STAT signalling is activated within the CCs and ECs after secretion of the ligand, Os, by the CCs, induces production of the BMP ligands, Dpp/Gbb, which then activate BMP signalling in the GSCs to promote self-renewal. CCs also secrete the Hh ligand to activate Hh signalling in the ECs, which in turn can also activate BMP signalling in GSCs.

    Another major signalling pathway controlling self-renewal and differentiation in both gonads is the Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) signalling pathway (Figures 4A, B). The mammalian BMP pathway plays a central role in growth, proliferation and differentiation [62]. BMPs also control stem cell self-renewal and cell fate choices in mammals, and it is hypothesised that in playing such a critical role, disruptions to BMP signalling have direct consequences on tumourigenesis [63]. In Drosophila gonads, BMP signalling is activated in the GSCs by the BMP ligands Decapentaplegic (Dpp) and Glass-bottom boat (Gbb), which are secreted by the HCs/CCs and SSCs/ECs. These ligands bind the receptors, Thickveins (Tkv) and Punt (Put), on the GSC surface, initiating a signalling cascade that eventually activates the transcription factor and pathway effector Mothers against dpp (Mad) [64,65]. Activated Mad then acts to repress transcription of the differentiation factor, bag-of-marbles (bam), in the GSCs of both testes and ovaries [64,65,66]. However, once the GSC progeny exit the niche area, BMP signalling wanes, allowing for the expression of bam in the TA cyst cells [64,65,66,67,68]. In the ovary, BMP signalling is sufficient to suppress GSC differentiation and promote self-renewal. Overexpression of BMP signals generates a germarium filled with GSC-like cells incapable of differentiating, while loss of BMP signalling induces premature GSC differentiation [65,69,70]. A steep BMP response gradient is achieved within the germarium through the ubiquitination and proteolysis of Tkv in the CBs, promoting bam expression and concomitant differentiation [71]. In the testis, BMP signalling is necessary for the GSC-intrinsic repression of bam, which would otherwise induce their premature differentiation [64,66,72]. However, in contrast to the female germline, BMP signalling in isolation is insufficient to promote GSC identity within the male germline [64].

    Notch signaling has also been shown to play prominent roles in the formation and maintenance of the GSC niche within both Drosophila gonads [73,74,75]. Expanded Notch activation leads to the formation of ectopic CCs capable of supporting supernumerary GSCs, whereas compromising Notch signaling decreases CC number and, consequently, GSC number [75,76].

    Yet another major signalling pathway regulating stem cell self-renewal in the Drosophila gonads is the Hedgehog (Hh) pathway (Figures 4A, B). In mammals, Hh signalling plays a conserved role in the regulation of cell proliferation and tissue patterning, as well as in stem cell maintenance [77]. Oncogenic disruptions to Hh signalling are thought to play major roles in the development of human cancers such as medulloblastoma [78,79] and basal cell carcinoma [80,81,82]. In Drosophila, the Hh ligand binds to and inactivates its receptor, Patched (Ptc), which relieves inhibition of Smoothened (Smo), allowing a signalling cascade to activate the transcription factor Cubitus interruptus (Ci) [83]. In the Drosophila testis, studies have recently demonstrated that Hh, secreted by the HCs, activates the signalling cascade in the SSCs where it is necessary for their self-renewal [84,85,86]. A loss of ptc leads to ectopic SSC proliferation, while a loss of smo leads to premature differentiation, and this control over SSC fate acts in parallel to Jak-STAT signalling [84,85,86]. In the ovary, Hh signalling from CCs to adjacent ECs is required to activate expression of the BMP ligands Dpp and Gbb to maintain the GSCs [87]. Furthermore, a precise level of Hh signalling is required in the FSCs, with only a slight increase in pathway activity being sufficient to stimulate FSC over-proliferation, and pathway disruption leading to FSC loss [21,88].

    Fascinatingly, despite leaving behind the self-renewing niche signals, the differentiating spermatogonia and cystocytes of the Drosophila testis and ovary, respectively, are able to regress and dedifferentiate into stem cells. Dedifferentiation has important implications in tumourigenesis, as some cancers are suspected to arise due to unrestrained proliferation of dedifferentiated cells that have acquired stem cell-like properties [89]. In the Drosophila ovary, GSCs can be forced to differentiate by transient bam expression. Subsequent removal of this differentiation-inducing signal results in the disintegration of 4- to 8-cell cystocytes, producing germ cells that regenerate a population of functional GSCs within the niche [90]. A similar mechanism also functions in the testis, allowing the spermatogonia to disintegrate and regenerate functional, self-renewing, GSCs [91,92]. The Drosophila gonads could therefore be an informative model for studying the molecular processes that promote dedifferentiation and promote development of tumourigenic cancer stem cells.

    The Drosophila gonads have recently been used in a number of high-throughput studies, which aimed to discover factors involved in stem cell self-renewal [54,93,94,95]. The range of molecular functions associated with the factors identified indicates researchers are still a long way from understanding how stem cell self-renewal is regulated. As an example, one such study screened approximately one quarter of the genes within the Drosophila genome using targeted RNAi knock-down transgenes, identifying factors involved in a huge range of fundamental cellular processes, including; transcription, chromatin regulation, splicing, translation, proteasomes, DNA replication, kinetochore and spindle formation, mitochondrial function, cytokinesis, and ribosome biogenesis [94].

    6. Stem cell competition

    Contrasting with early beliefs that suggested stem cells were immortal, recent evidence has revealed stem cells have a limited life span, and are naturally replaced to ensure the niche is occupied with healthy cells [96]. Emerging evidence has identified stem cells are often in direct competition with neighbouring stem cells and, as a result, can be stochastically replaced [97]. Studying the mechanisms that allow certain cells to outcompete their neighbours has direct relevance to understanding tumourigenesis. Cancerous cells will, invariably, compete with their non-diseased neighbours, and dangerously proliferative cancerous cells will, invariably, win [98,99]. An example of this is seen in a recent study examining the behaviour of human ISCs, which revealed APC mutant crypts contained an expanded population of stem cells that replaced each other more frequently than normal ISCs [100]. It is speculated that the higher proliferation rate in APC mutant cells provided them with a competitive advantage, allowing them to outcompete neighbouring cells and disrupt the homeostatic balance. Therefore, to understand the mechanisms that lead to tumourigenesis, it is important to understand the mechanisms governing normal stem cell competition, as well as biological changes that create stem cells with an enhanced ability to occupy a niche.

    Studies in male and female Drosophila gonads have demonstrated stem cells naturally compete with each other, and can acquire a competitive advantage by deregulation of the mechanisms that normally function to control self-renewal and proliferation (Figures 5A, B). One example of natural competition in the testis is between adjacent GSCs and SSCs for niche occupancy. The Suppressor of cytokine signalling 36E (Socs36E) is essential for suppressing Jak-STAT signalling in SSCs and preventing the displacement of GSCs from the niche [101,102]. Another example of natural competition involves the two FSCs that reside on opposite sides of the germarium in their own, somewhat atypical, stem cell niches [20,21]. The immediate progeny of each FSC are reportedly capable of migrating across the germarium and competing for niche occupancy at the other FSC niche [20,103,104]. In contrast, a variety of genetic lesions are able to confer enhanced competitive potential upon stem cells. Within the Drosophila germarium, differentiation-defective GSCs outcompete normal stem cells for residency within the niche by strengthening niche adhesion through up-regulation of the adherens junction factor shotgun, the Drosophila orthologue of E-cadherin (E-cad) [105]. Also, germarium GSCs that acquire higher levels of the Myc orthologue, diminutive (dm), develop a competitive advantage over neighbouring GSCs with lower dm levels, facilitating the expansion of precancerous stem cells [106]. Furthermore, two recent studies have reported the conserved Hh and Hippo (Hpo) signalling pathways are involved in regulating stem cell competition in the Drosophila gonads [107,108]. Within the ovary, Huang and colleagues demonstrated ectopic Hh signalling leads to over-proliferating FSCs which outcompete their wild-type neighbours due to an up-regulation of the downstream Hpo pathway effector, yorkie (yki), and concomitant Cyclin E (CycE) activity [108]. Similarly, Amoyel and colleagues used the testis to show SSCs can acquire a competitive advantage by becoming more proliferative, through either ectopic Hh signalling or expression of activated Yki [107]. It is tempting to consider that, like in the ovary, Hh signalling is promoting yki expression, and so both systems are behaving in essentially the same way. These findings provide important insights into the behavioural mechanisms of pre-cancerous stem cells and their ability to clonally occupy a tissue niche.

    Figure 5. Competition between stem cells within niches. (A) Within a normal niche, stem cell will remain essentially stable, with any changes to the niche composition due to stochastic cell replacement. (B) If a stem cell acquires a genetic lesion that increases its proliferative capacity or otherwise disrupts inhibitory signals that retard its competitiveness, it may come to dominate the composition of the niche at the expense of all other cells.

    7. Cell adhesion and polarity: maintaining the right connections prevents tumour development

    Cell adhesion and cell polarity play critical roles in managing proper cell and tissue architecture, with their disruption correlating strongly with many human metastatic cancers. Self-renewal promoting niche signals act over a very short range, so stem cells must adhere to their niche in order to be receptive of these signals. In doing so, stem cells are generally polarized with respect to the niche environment in which they reside. Adhesion factors not only regulate cell-cell contact, but also play critical roles in directing the symmetry of divisions and controlling the homeostatic balance between self-renewal and differentiation.

    The factors controlling adhesion and polarity are evolutionarily conserved, with many being first identified to act as tumour suppressors in Drosophila. Within the Drosophila testis, adhesion complex components and regulators, including E-cad [109], β-catenin (Armadillo) [15], integrins [110], and the tumour suppressor Apc2 [15], are asymmetrically localised at the HC-GSC interface to strengthen cell-cell contacts, but also play a role in stem cell maintenance by providing polarity cues by which GSCs orientate their spindles [15,27]. As discussed previously, these adherens junction factors anchor the centrosome to the HC-GSC interface to control spindle orientation [109]. These localised adherens junctions also limit BMP niche signals specifically to the sites of the adherens junctions at the HC-GSC interface in the Drosophila testis [111]. E-cad plays a similar role in the ovary, with high levels of E-cad localised at the CC-GSC interface [112], and in the FSCs E-cad is essential for their maintenance and for anchoring within their niche [113]. Studies involving other Drosophila stem cell populations are also beginning to reveal the mechanisms entwining cell polarity, spindle orientation, and tumourigenesis [114,115].

    Cell adhesion molecules not only play important roles in stem cell maintenance, but also regulate stem cell proliferation, self-renewal, and differentiation within the niche [116,117,118]. A reduction in E-cad levels is well known to be associated with cells undergoing epithelial-mesenchymal transition, which is also a common hallmark of cancer metastasis [119]. E-cad is also known to act as a proliferation suppressor, and a down-regulation of E-cad expression is associated with increased proliferation [120,121]. Upon GSC division in the Drosophila ovary, differentiating stem cell daughters down-regulate E-cad expression, preventing these cells from re-entering the niche [122]. In the ovary, GSC maintenance requires repression of the differentiation promoting factors bam and benign gonial cell neoplasm (bgcn), which act to repress E-cad expression. A lack of E-cad repression in differentiation defective bam or bgcn mutant germ cells partially explains the mechanisms allowing these cells to outcompete their wild-type counterparts [105].

    Critical for germ cell differentiation and proper spermatogenesis is the enclosure of the TA spermatogonia by the SCCs. As these differentiating germ cells exit the Drosophila testis niche, SCCs envelop and remain associated with the developing germline. This germ-soma interaction is essential for both cell-cell communications and the mutual development and differentiation of both cell lineages. As such, disruptions to the adhesive capacity of either lineage can lead to the production of supernumerary stem cells, as well as ectopic rounds of TA divisions, generating tumourous cysts [6,7,123,124,125,126,127]. The Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF) signalling pathway plays a critical role in the generation and maintenance of proper germ-soma interaction. In the testis, Spitz (Spi), an EGF Receptor (EGFR) ligand, is activated by Stem cell tumour (Stet) and secreted by the germline cells, activating the EGFR and the downstream Ras/MAPK signalling cascade in the adjacent somatic cells [126,127]. EGFR activation leads to the differential regulation of the small GTPases, Rac1 and Rho1, via the guanine nucleotide exchange factor, Vav, to promote actin cytoskeletal reorganisation such that the somatic cells are able to envelop the germline cysts [126,128]. The conserved motor protein Dynein light chain-1 (Ddlc-1) has also recently been shown to function in the somatic cells to localise several cell adhesion molecules to the germ-soma boundary, and prevent over-proliferation of the germline [129], although, at present, the mechanism by which this occurs is unknown.

    Recent evidence has suggested the SCCs of the Drosophila testis are polarised, with several cytoskeletal and polarity components, including the tumour suppressor genes, discs large 1 (dlg1), scribbled (scrib), and lethal (2) giant larvae (l(2)gl), localising to the inner surface in contact with the germline [130]. dlg1, scrib and l(2)gl encode scaffold proteins that act cooperatively to regulate apico-basal cell polarity, cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation, and misregulation of the orthologues of these factors is associated with a range of human cancers [131]. Within the Drosophila testis these factors play a critical role in the somatic lineage, regulating somatic cell survival and proper testis development [132,133]. The Dlg1-Scrib-L(2)gl complex has also been studied with respect to apico-basal polarity within the epithelial FC monolayer of the ovary. Scrib, Dlg1, and L(2)gl localise to the lateral membrane of follicle cells, and a loss of any of these factors results in disruptions to cell morphogenesis, multi-layering of the FCs, and an invasion into the underlying germ cells [134], behaviours analogous to those observed in cancer cells upon loss of contact inhibition. Furthermore, reduction of either l(2)gl or dlg1 levels enhances FSC competitiveness, improving their chances for successful invasion of neighbouring FSC niches [103].

    8. Hormonal regulation of stem cell proliferation

    Systemic steroid hormone signals play an extremely important role in animals, signalling to cells and allowing them to respond to changing environmental and physiological conditions, as well as maintaining tissue homeostasis. However, evidence exists implicating some of the best known steroid hormones, oestrogens and androgens (which encompass the human sex hormones) in pathogenic roles in a variety of cancers [135,136,137]. These include breast [138,139], endometrial [140], thyroid [141], colon [142], and prostate cancers [143]. In addition, steroid hormone signalling has recently been shown to promote HSC self-renewal in mice [144].

    In contrast to humans, Drosophila has only one major steroid hormone, twenty-hydroxyecdysone (20E), commonly referred to as ecdysone. Some argue that ecdysone signalling may be equivalent to human sex hormone signalling, particularly that of oestrogens [145,146]. Ecdysone signalling occurs when 20E binds to a heterodimer receptor complex made up of Ecdysone receptor (EcR) and Ultraspiracle (Usp) [147,148]. EcR and Usp are orthologous to human nuclear receptors and, acting as one complex, enter the nucleus and bind complex-specific promoter sequences, effecting transcription. The EcR-Usp heterodimer is also known to associate with at least one co-activator, Taiman (Tai), which is similar to the human AIB1 protein, known to be overexpressed in some breast cancers [149,150].

    Ecdysone signalling is known to be important for the later stages of oogenesis, particularly for proper egg chamber formation and vitellogenesis [151,152,153,154,155]. However, additional research has examined the roles of ecdysone signalling in the germarium, and has demonstrated ecdysone signalling acts directly upon the GSCs to promote their proliferation and maintenance, possibly by indirect positive regulation of BMP signalling through the NURF chromatin remodelling complex [156,157]. Another study by König and colleagues also demonstrated ecdysone promotes BMP signalling in the GSCs, and also identified a somatic role for ecdysone signalling, with tai being required in the ECs to ensure proper germline differentiation [158]. Interestingly, Ables and Drummond-Barbosa had shown tai was dispensable in the GSCs, indicating cell-specific requirements for ecdysone signalling in the germarium [156]. Morris and Spradling also reported a requirement for ecdysone signalling in the somatic cells, suggesting it was necessary for promoting GSC maintenance, as well as proper formation of 16-cell cystocytes [159].

    Knowledge regarding ecdysone signalling in the testis is also relatively new and, in fact, the little research that has been done presents conflicting reports. In contrast to their findings in the ovary, Morris and Spradling determined ecdysone signalling was not required in the somatic cell lineage of the testis [159]. In agreement with Morris and Spradling, a more recent study by Qian and colleagues found that while ecdysone receptor components are all expressed in the somatic cell lineage, their loss causes no apparent defects [159,160]. They did, however, identify a role for ecdysone signalling in opposing EGF signalling; knockdown of ecdysone signalling elements rescues the disruptions to somatic cell enclosure of the germline, and somatic cell differentiation, caused by a temperature sensitive Spi allele [160]. An opposing view to these studies is presented by Li and colleagues, who demonstrate that ecdysone signalling is required in the SSCs for their maintenance and to non-autonomously maintain the GSCs, and that it may act through the NURF complex [161].

    Therefore, it appears there is some confusion regarding precisely how ecdysone signalling works in the germarium and the testis. Indeed, there is debate as to whether ecdysone signalling is even required within the testis. This is an interesting divergence from the ovary, where ecdysone signalling can act autonomously to promote GSC proliferation and maintenance [156].

    9. Maintaining tissue homeostasis through proliferative control

    Given the vast potential of stem cells to produce new tissue, proliferative control is essential for the maintenance of tissue homeostasis and to prevent tissue overgrowth. Cancer cells arise when mutations prevent cells from responding to cues controlling growth, proliferation, and apoptosis. In the Drosophila testis and ovary, several types of proliferation need to be considered. In both sexes, proliferation must be regulated within the various stem cell populations (GSCs, SSCs, and FSCs), as well as the TA divisions of the germline. In the females, there is also proliferation of the FSC progeny to consider, as the FCs are not fully differentiated and continue to divide to produce an epithelial cell monolayer to enclose the maturing germline cyst [20,162]. Proliferative control in both the testis and ovary is not fully understood, though a number of signalling pathways and factors have been shown to be required for maintaining proper proliferative behaviours.

    Cellular quiescence is a major contributing factor to the maintenance of tissue homeostasis; acting to ensure cells do not divide unless required. Two recent studies, examining the normally quiescent Drosophila testis HCs, have identified the potential for these differentiated cells to re-enter the cell-cycle and contribute to the somatic cell lineages of both HCs and SSCs [163,164]. Notably, Hétié and colleagues demonstrated that HCs can be coaxed out of quiescence by ablating the SSC population, or through ectopic expression of the cell cycle regulators Cyclin D (CycD) and Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (Cdk4), with both methods producing fully-functional ectopic HCs and niches [163]. Not only is stem cell behaviour dictated by local niche signals, it is also responsive to external signals, such as diet. Calorie restriction has been shown to increase lifespan and protect against cancer in mammals [165], while prolonged fasting can promote HSC self-renewal and regeneration [45]. In Drosophila, GSC proliferation in both the testis and ovary and FSC proliferation in the ovary are known to be regulated by nutritional signals [162,166,167,168,169]. Protein-rich diets are able to promote high rates of cell division, while protein-deficient diets reduce proliferation [162,166,167]. It is thought that this nutritional response is mediated by insulin signalling [162,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173]. Interestingly, the growth-promoting insulin signalling pathway is known to impact tumourigenesis in humans, particularly in patients also suffering from diseases such as obesity and type 2 diabetes [174].

    Germline proliferation in the Drosophila testis is also regulated by the EGF signalling pathway. This pathway is well known to play a significant role in human tumourigenesis, with oncogenic disruptions in a wide range of cancers, and elevated levels of EGF signalling often being correlated with reduced survival rates [175,176,177]. The EGF signalling pathway has a number of functions during testis development, including the previously discussed role in germ-soma interactions, and disruptions to the pathway can result in ectopic, over-proliferating early germline cells, as well as disrupted germline and somatic cell differentiation [6,7,123,124,125,126,127]. A specific level of EGF pathway activity is required for proper germline enclosure, while it is thought that a higher dose of EGF signalling is needed for proper proliferation and progression through the TA spermatogonial divisions [124]. Attenuating EGF signalling not only disrupts germline enclosure, but can also result in asynchronously dividing germ cell cysts [124]. Within the ovary, EGF signalling is not as well understood. The pathway is known to be activated in the somatic ECs after signalling from the germline, where it is required to regulate somatic enclosure of the germline, as well as germline differentiation [127]. These phenotypes in the ovary are likely due to a link with BMP signalling, whereby EGF signalling in the ECs suppresses the expression of the glypican, dally, which is necessary for BMP signalling and GSC maintenance [178,179,180]. Furthermore, in the Drosophila testis, over-proliferation of the TA spermatogonial cells is prevented by proper BMP signalling. The BMP receptors Put, Saxophone (Sax), as well as the downstream effectors Smad on X (Smox) and Schnurri (Shn), have all been found to function in the SCCs to restrict germ cell proliferation [181,182].

    As Drosophila age, self-renewing signals begin to decline, leading to a loss of stem cells within the niche [183,184]. Furthermore, the proliferation rate of ageing stem cells is reduced due to a higher incidence of misoriented spindles [185]. These age-related declines in GSC number and function can be reversed by increasing self-renewal signals or inducing E-cad expression [183,184]. An age-related decrease in GSC proliferation is also associated with a notable reduction in the levels of the cell cycle regulator String (Stg), the orthologue of Cdc25 [186]. It has been shown that this decrease in proliferation can be reversed by germline specific expression of stg, though this has the undesirable side-effect of inducing a high frequency of germline tumours [186].

    10. Conclusion

    We hope that this review has highlighted the myriad ways the Drosophila testis and ovary can be used as model systems to dissect not only stem cell behaviours and their regulatory systems, but also the mechanisms leading to tumourigenesis. The Drosophila gonads can offer unparalleled insight into stem cell behaviours, especially when combining genetic techniques that allow for the disruption of individual genes within single cells or cell lineages with imaging methods that enable the visualisation of stem cells within their in vivo niches. However, we acknowledge that there is much research we were unable to discuss in this review. Therefore, as we feel it may be of interest to the reader, we would like to note some of these areas and provide references for the reader to explore.

    For example, we have only briefly discussed epigenetic control in the Drosophila gonads. Epigenetic mechanisms are well known to play significant roles in the development of certain human cancers [187]. In Drosophila, epigenetic control of stem cell maintenance and self-renewal, via mechanisms like chromatin remodelling and histone modification, plays a significant role in both the testis [188,189,190,191,192] and the ovary [157,193,194,195]. We were also unable to comprehensively discuss the various signalling pathways controlling stem cell behaviours in both the testis and ovary. For example, the voluminous nature of the research regarding roles for BMP signalling, particularly in the Drosophila ovary, simply put this beyond reach. We recommend some excellent recent reviews which give highly accessible dissections of signalling pathways in both the ovary [196] and testis [197,198]. Another pathway we have not discussed in great detail is the Hpo signalling pathway, a growth-limiting pathway known to be associated with a variety of human cancers [199]. Though the pathway has not been fully dissected in either the testis or ovary, its downstream effector, Yes-associated protein (Yap) in humans and Yki in flies, is thought to play a role as an oncogene in ovarian cancers [200]. There are also some individual genes that have escaped discussion; for example, ken and barbie, a self-renewal factor in the testis [201] and orthologue of B-Cell Lymphoma 6, is commonly disrupted in non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas [202]. Another such gene is headcase, which is necessary for HC maintenance in the testis [203] and is an orthologue of HECA, a commonly deleted gene in some pancreatic and renal cancers [204]. Finally, the process of border cell migration, a key event in egg chamber development, has emerged as an excellent model system by which to examine cell invasion. Research into border cell migration has provided insights into the mechanisms of cancer metastasis, but the field is extensive and far beyond the scope of this review to explore. As such, we recommend two recent reviews [205,206], which will prime the reader for exploring this fascinating topic.

    Acknowledgments

    We thank Sarah Diepstraten for creating the images in this review.

    Conflicts of interest

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.



    Conflict of interest



    The author declares no conflicts of interest.

    [1] Gonatas N, Shy G (1965) Childhood myopathies with abnormal mitochondria. Proceedings of the Vth International Congress of Neuropathology 100: 606-612.
    [2] Baron M, Kudin AP, Kunz WS (2007) Mitochondrial dysfunction in neurodegenerative disorders. Biochem Soc Trans 35: 1228-1231. doi: 10.1042/BST0351228
    [3] DiMauro S (2011) A history of mitochondrial diseases. J Inherit Metab Dis 34: 261-276. doi: 10.1007/s10545-010-9082-x
    [4] Mattson MP, Gleichmann M, Cheng A (2008) Mitochondria in neuroplasticity and neurological disorders. Neuron 60: 748-766. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.010
    [5] Federico A, Cardaioli E, Da Pozzo P, et al. (2012) Mitochondria, oxidative stress and neurodegeneration. J Neurol Sci 322: 254-262. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2012.05.030
    [6] De Vos KJ, Grierson AJ, Ackerley S, et al. (2008) Role of axonal transport in neurodegenerative diseases. Annu Rev Neurosci 31: 151-173. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.31.061307.090711
    [7] Chen H, Chan DC (2009) Mitochondrial dynamics–fusion, fission, movement, and mitophagy–in neurodegenerative diseases. Hum Mol Genet 18: R169-R176. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddp326
    [8] Wang X, Su B, Zheng L, et al. (2009) The role of abnormal mitochondrial dynamics in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. J Neurochem 109: 153-159. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.05867.x
    [9] Büeler H (2009) Impaired mitochondrial dynamics and function in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease. Exp Neurol 218: 235-246. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2009.03.006
    [10] Park JS, Davis RL, Sue CM (2018) Mitochondrial dysfunction in Parkinson's disease: new mechanistic insights and therapeutic perspectives. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 18: 21. doi: 10.1007/s11910-018-0829-3
    [11] Alexiou A, Vlamos P, Volikas K (2010) A Theoretical Artificial Approach on Reducing Mitochondrial Abnormalities in Alzheimer Disease. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Information Technology and Applications in Biomedicin IEEE, 1-4.
    [12] Benard G, Karbowski M (2009) Mitochondrial fusion and division: regulation and role in cell viability. Semin Cell Dev Biol 20: 365-374. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2008.12.012
    [13] Zorov DB, Vorobjev IA, Popkov VA, et al. (2019) Lessons from the Discovery of Mitochondrial Fragmentation (Fission): A Review and Update. Cells 8: 175. doi: 10.3390/cells8020175
    [14] Sheng ZH (2017) The interplay of axonal energy homeostasis and mitochondrial trafficking and anchoring. Trends Cell Biol 27: 403-416. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2017.01.005
    [15] Lin MY, Sheng ZH (2015) Regulation of mitochondrial transport in neurons. Expe Cell Res 334: 35-44. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2015.01.004
    [16] Mishra P, Chan DC (2016) Metabolic regulation of mitochondrial dynamics. J Cell Biol 212: 379-387. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201511036
    [17] Dickey AS, Strack S (2011) PKA/AKAP1 and PP2A/Bβ2 regulate neuronal morphogenesis via Drp1 phosphorylation and mitochondrial bioenergetics. J Neurosci 31: 15716-15726. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3159-11.2011
    [18] Kuznetsov AV, Hermann M, Saks V, et al. (2009) The cell-type specificity of mitochondrial dynamics. Int J Biochem Cell B 41: 1928-1939. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2009.03.007
    [19] Palmer CS, Osellame LD, Stojanovski D, et al. (2011) The regulation of mitochondrial morphology: intricate mechanisms and dynamic machinery. Cell Signal 23: 1534-1545. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2011.05.021
    [20] Chen H, McCaffery JM, Chan DC (2007) Mitochondrial Fusion Protects against Neurodegeneration in the Cerebellum. Cell 130: 548-562. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.06.026
    [21] Twig G, Elorza A, Molina AJ, et al. (2008) Fission and selective fusion govern mitochondrial segregation and elimination by autophagy. EMBO J 27: 433-446. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601963
    [22] Meeusen S, DeVay R, Block J, et al. (2006) Mitochondrial inner-membrane fusion and crista maintenance requires the dynamin-related GTPase Mgm1. Cell 127: 383-395. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.09.021
    [23] Liesa M, Palacín M, Zorzano A (2009) Mitochondrial dynamics in mammalian health and disease. Physiol Rev 89: 799-845. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00030.2008
    [24] Alexander C, Votruba M, Pesch U, et al. (2000) OPA1, encoding a dynamin-related GTPase, is mutated in autosomal dominant optic atrophy linked to chromosome 3q28. Nat Genet 26: 211-215. doi: 10.1038/79944
    [25] Detmer S, Chan D (2007) Functions and dysfunctions of mitochondrial dynamics. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8: 870-879. doi: 10.1038/nrm2275
    [26] Ono T, Isobe K, Nakada K, et al. (2001) Human cells are protected from mitochondrial dysfunction by complementation of DNA products in fused mitochondria. Exp Neurol 28: 272-275.
    [27] Delettre C, Lenaers G, Griffoin JM, et al. (2000) Nuclear gene OPA1, encoding a mitochondrial dynamin-related protein, is mutated in dominant optic atrophy. Nat Genet 26: 207-210. doi: 10.1038/79936
    [28] Hudson G, Amati-Bonneau P, Blakely EL, et al. (2008) Mutation of OPA1 causes dominant optic atrophy with external ophthalmoplegia, ataxia, deafness and multiple mitochondrial DNA deletions: a novel disorder of mtDNA maintenance. Brain 131: 329-337. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm272
    [29] Uo T, Dworzak J, Kinoshita C, et al. (2009) Drp1 levels constitutively regulate mitochondrial dynamics and cell survival in cortical neurons. Exp Neurol 218: 274-285. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2009.05.010
    [30] Ishihara N, Nomura M, Jofuku A, et al. (2009) Mitochondrial fission factor Drp1 is essential for embryonic development and synapse formation in mice. Nat Cell Biol 11: 958-966. doi: 10.1038/ncb1907
    [31] Darshi M, Mendiola VL, Mackey MR, et al. (2011) ChChd3, an inner mitochondrial membrane protein, is essential for maintaining crista integrity and mitochondrial function. J Biol Chem 286: 2918-2932. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.171975
    [32] Koch A, Yoon Y, Bonekamp NA, et al. (2005) A Role for Fis1 in Both Mitochondrial and Peroxisomal Fission in Mammalian Cells. Mol Biol Cell 16: 5077-5086. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e05-02-0159
    [33] Serasinghe M, Yoon Y (2008) The mitochondrial outer membrane protein hFis1 regulates mitochondrial morphology and fission through self-interaction. Exp Cell Res 314: 3494-3507. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2008.09.009
    [34] Otera H, Wang C, Cleland MM, et al. (2010) Mff is an essential factor for mitochondrial recruitment of Drp1 during mitochondrial fission in mammalian cells. J Cell Biol 191: 1141-1158. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201007152
    [35] Knott AB, Perkins G, Schwarzenbacher R, et al. (2008) Mitochondrial fragmentation in neurodegeneration. Nat Rev Neurosci 9: 505-518. doi: 10.1038/nrn2417
    [36] Niemann A, Ruegg M, Padula VL, et al. (2005) Ganglioside-induced differentiation associated protein 1 is a regulator of the mitochondrial network: new implications for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. J Cell Biol 170: 1067-1078. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200507087
    [37] Wagner KM, Rüegg M, Niemann A, et al. (2009) Targeting and function of the mitochondrial fission factor GDAP1 are dependent on its tail-anchor. PloS One 4: e5160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005160
    [38] Chen H, Detmer SA, Ewald AJ, et al. (2003) Mitofusins Mfn1 and Mfn2 coordinately regulate mitochondrial fusion and are essential for embryonic development. J Cell Biol 160: 189-200. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200211046
    [39] Wakabayashi J, Zhang Z, Wakabayashi N, et al. (2009) The dynamin-related GTPase Drp1 is required for embryonic and brain development in mice. J Cell Biol 186: 805-816. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200903065
    [40] Chu CT (2019) Mechanisms of selective autophagy and mitophagy: Implications for neurodegenerative diseases. Neurobiol Dis 122: 23-34. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2018.07.015
    [41] Kageyama Y, Zhang Z, Roda R, et al. (2012) Mitochondrial division ensures the survival of postmitotic neurons by suppressing oxidative damage. J Cell Biol 197: 535-551. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201110034
    [42] Lutz AK, Exner N, Fett ME, et al. (2009) Loss of parkin or PINK1 function increases Drp1-dependent mitochondrial fragmentation. J Biol Chem 284: 22938-22951. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.035774
    [43] Matsuda N, Sato S, Shiba K, et al. (2010) PINK1 stabilized by mitochondrial depolarization recruits Parkin to damaged mitochondria and activates latent Parkin for mitophagy. J Cell Biol 189: 211-221. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200910140
    [44] Narendra DP, Jin SM, Tanaka A, et al. (2010) PINK1 is selectively stabilized on impaired mitochondria to activate Parkin. PLoS Biol 8: e1000298. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000298
    [45] Zhu J, Dagda RK, CHu CT (2011) Monitoring mitophagy in neuronal cell cultures. Methods Mol Biol 793: 325-339. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-328-8_21
    [46] Knott AB, Bossy-Wetzel E (2009) Impairing the Mitochondrial Fission and Fusion Balance: A New Mechanism of Neurodegeneration. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1147: 283-292. doi: 10.1196/annals.1427.030
    [47] Martin LJ (2010) Mitochondrial and Cell Death Mechanisms in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Pharmaceuticals 3: 839-915. doi: 10.3390/ph3040839
    [48] Corrado M, Scorrano L, Campello S (2012) Mitochondrial Dynamics in Cancer and Neurodegenerative and Neuroinflammatory Disease. Int J Cell Biol 2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/729290
    [49] Su B, Wang X, Zheng L, et al. (2010) Abnormal mitochondrial dynamics and neurodegenerative diseases. Biochim Biophys Acta 1802: 135-142. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2009.09.013
    [50] Dauer W, Przedborski S (2003) Parkinson's disease: mechanisms and models. Neuron 39: 889-909. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00568-3
    [51] Chang D, Nalls MA, Hallgrmsdóttir IB, et al. (2017) A meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies identifies 17 new Parkinson's disease risk loci. Nat Genet 49: 1511. doi: 10.1038/ng.3955
    [52] Olanow C, Tatton W (1999) Etiology and pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease. Annu Rev Neurosci 22: 123-144. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.22.1.123
    [53] Koh H, Chung J (2010) PINK1 and Parkin to control mitochondria remodeling. Anat Cell Biol 43: 179-184. doi: 10.5115/acb.2010.43.3.179
    [54] Narendra D, Tanaka A, Suen DF, et al. (2008) Parkin is recruited selectively to impaired mitochondria and promotes their autophagy. J Cell Biol 183: 795-803. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200809125
    [55] Billingsley KJ, Barbosa IA, Bandrés-Ciga S, et al. (2019) Mitochondria function associated genes contribute to Parkinson's Disease risk and later age at onset. NPJ Parkinson's Dis 5: 8. doi: 10.1038/s41531-019-0080-x
    [56] Panayiotou C, Solaroli N, Johansson M, et al. (2010) Evidence of an intact N-terminal translocation sequence of human mitochondrial adenylate kinase 4. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 42: 62-69. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2009.09.007
    [57] Sai Y, Zou Z, Peng K, et al. (2012) The Parkinson's disease-related genes act in mitochondrial homeostasis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36: 2034-2043. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.06.007
    [58] Perier C, Vila M (2012) Mitochondrial biology and Parkinson's disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2: a009332. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a009332
    [59] Comellas G, Lemkau LR, Nieuwkoop AJ, et al. (2011) Structured regions of α-synuclein fibrils include the early-onset Parkinson's disease mutation sites. J Mol Biol 411: 881-895. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.06.026
    [60] Ulmer TS, Bax A (2005) Comparison of structure and dynamics of micelle-bound human α-synuclein and Parkinson disease variants. J Biol Chem 280: 43179-43187. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M507624200
    [61] Nakamura K, Nemani VM, Azarbal F, et al. (2011) Direct membrane association drives mitochondrial fission by the Parkinson disease-associated protein α-synuclein. J Biol Chem 286: 20710-20726. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.213538
    [62] Mori H, Kondo T, Yokochi M, et al. (1998) Pathologic and biochemical studies of juvenile parkinsonism linked to chromosome 6q. Neurology 51: 890-892. doi: 10.1212/WNL.51.3.890
    [63] Mizuno Y, Hattori N, Yoshino H, et al. (2006) Progress in familial Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's Disease and Related Disorders Springer, 191-204. doi: 10.1007/978-3-211-45295-0_30
    [64] Lodi R, Tonon C, Valentino M, et al. (2004) Deficit of in vivo mitochondrial ATP production in OPA1-related dominant optic atrophy. Ann Neurol 56: 719-723. doi: 10.1002/ana.20278
    [65] Mayorov V, Lowrey A, Biousse V, et al. (2008) Mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation in autosomal dominant optic atrophy. BMC Biochem 9: 22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2091-9-22
    [66] Zanna C, Ghelli A, Porcelli AM, et al. (2008) OPA1 mutations associated with dominant optic atrophy impair oxidative phosphorylation and mitochondrial fusion. Brain 131: 352-367. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm335
    [67] Krajewski K, Lewis R, Fuerst D, et al. (2000) Neurological dysfunction and axonal degeneration in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A. Brain 44: 1299-1304.
    [68] Berger P, Young P, Suter U (2002) Molecular cell biology of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. Neurogenetics 4: 1-15. doi: 10.1007/s10048-002-0130-z
    [69] Baloh R, Schmidt R, Pestronk A, et al. (2007) Altered axonal mitochondrial transport in the pathogenesis of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease from mitofusin 2 mutations. J Neurosci 27: 422-430. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4798-06.2007
    [70] Züchner S, Vance J (2006) Molecular genetics of autosomal-dominant axonal Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. Neuromolecular Med 8: 63-74. doi: 10.1385/NMM:8:1-2:63
    [71] Sme F (2010) MFN2 mutations cause severe phenotypes in most patients with CMT2A. Neurology 125: 245-256.
    [72] Cerveny K, Tamura Y (2007) Regulation of mitochondrial fusion and division. Trends Cell Biol 17: 563-569. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2007.08.006
    [73] Poole AC, Thomas RE, Andrews LA, et al. (2008) The PINK1/Parkin pathway regulates mitochondrial morphology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 1638-1643. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709336105
    [74] Yang Y, Ouyang Y, Yang L, et al. (2008) Pink1 regulates mitochondrial dynamics through interaction with the fission/fusion machinery. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 7070-7075. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0711845105
    [75] Valente EM, Abou-Sleiman PM, Caputo V, et al. (2004) Hereditary early-onset Parkinson's disease caused by mutations in PINK1. Science 304: 1158-1160. doi: 10.1126/science.1096284
    [76] Rothfuss O, Fischer H, Hasegawa T, et al. (2009) Parkin protects mitochondrial genome integrity and supports mitochondrial DNA repair. Hum Mol Genet 18: 3832-3850. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddp327
    [77] Mortiboys H, Thomas KJ, Koopman WJ, et al. (2008) Mitochondrial function and morphology are impaired in parkin-mutant fibroblasts. Ann Neurol 64: 555-565. doi: 10.1002/ana.21492
    [78] Büttner S, Bitto A, Ring J, et al. (2008) Functional mitochondria are required for α-synuclein toxicity in aging yeast. J Biol Chem 283: 7554-7560. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M708477200
    [79] Banerjee K, Sinha M, Pham CLL, et al. (2010) α-Synuclein induced membrane depolarization and loss of phosphorylation capacity of isolated rat brain mitochondria: Implications in Parkinson's disease. FEBS Lett 584: 1571-1576. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2010.03.012
    [80] Yao C, El Khoury R, Wang W, et al. (2010) LRRK2-mediated neurodegeneration and dysfunction of dopaminergic neurons in a Caenorhabditis elegans model of Parkinson's disease. Neurobiol Dis 40: 73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2010.04.002
    [81] Wang X, Yan MH, Fujioka H, et al. (2012) LRRK2 regulates mitochondrial dynamics and function through direct interaction with DLP1. Hum Mol Genet 21: 1931-1944. doi: 10.1093/hmg/dds003
    [82] Pich S, Bach D, Briones P, et al. (2005) The Charcot–Marie–Tooth type 2A gene product, Mfn2, up-regulates fuel oxidation through expression of OXPHOS system. Hum Mol Genet 14: 1405-1415. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddi149
    [83] Detmer SA, Chan DC (2007) Complementation between mouse Mfn1 and Mfn2 protects mitochondrial fusion defects caused by CMT2A disease mutations. J Cell Biol 176: 405-414. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200611080
    [84] Niemann A, Berger P, Suter U (2006) Pathomechanisms of Mutant Proteins in Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease. NeuroMolecular Med 8: 217-242. doi: 10.1385/NMM:8:1-2:217
    [85] Noack R, Frede S, Albrecht P, et al. (2012) Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease CMT4A: GDAP1 increases cellular glutathione and the mitochondrial membrane potential. Hum Mol Genet 21: 150-162. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddr450
    [86] Cho D, Nakamura T, Fang J, et al. (2009) S-nitrosylation of Drp1 mediates beta-amyloid-related mitochondrial fission and neuronal injury. Science 324: 102-105. doi: 10.1126/science.1171091
    [87] Olichon A, Baricault L, Gas N (2003) Loss of OPA1 perturbates the mitochondrial inner membrane structure and integrity, leading to cytochrome c release and apoptosis. J Biol Chem 278: 7743-7746. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C200677200
    [88] Lin MT, Beal MF (2006) Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in neurodegenerative diseases. Nature 443: 787. doi: 10.1038/nature05292
    [89] Wang X, Wang W, Li L, et al. (2014) Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. Biochim Biophys Acta 1842: 1240-1247. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2013.10.015
    [90] Smith MA, Rottkamp CA, Nunomura A, et al. (2000) Oxidative stress in Alzheimer's disease. Biochim Biophys Acta 1502: 139-144. doi: 10.1016/S0925-4439(00)00040-5
    [91] Hirai K, Aliev G, Nunomura A, et al. (2001) Mitochondrial abnormalities in Alzheimer's disease. J Neurosci 21: 3017-3023. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-09-03017.2001
    [92] Sun A, Chen Y (1998) Oxidative stress and neurodegenerative disorders. J Biomed Sci 5: 401-414. doi: 10.1007/BF02255928
    [93] Islam MT (2017) Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction-linked neurodegenerative disorders. Neurol Res 39: 73-82. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2016.1251711
    [94] Wang X, Su B, Fujioka H, et al. (2008) Dynamin-like protein 1 reduction underlies mitochondrial morphology and distribution abnormalities in fibroblasts from sporadic Alzheimer's disease patients. Am J Pathol 173: 470-482. doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2008.071208
    [95] Wang X, Su B, Siedlak SL, et al. (2008) Amyloid-β overproduction causes abnormal mitochondrial dynamics via differential modulation of mitochondrial fission/fusion proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105: 19318-19323. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804871105
    [96] Martin M, Hurd D, Saxton W (1999) Kinesins in the nervous system. Cell Mol Life Sci 56: 200-216. doi: 10.1007/s000180050422
    [97] Schnapp BJ, Reese TS (1989) Dynein is the motor for retrograde axonal transport of organelles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 86: 1548-1552. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.5.1548
    [98] Tabb JS, Molyneaux BJ, Cohen DL, et al. (1998) Transport of ER vesicles on actin filaments in neurons by myosin V. J Cell Sci 111: 3221-3234.
    [99] Ligon LA, Steward O (2000) Role of microtubules and actin filaments in the movement of mitochondria in the axons and dendrites of culture hippocampal neurons. Journal Comp Neur 427: 351-361. doi: 10.1002/1096-9861(20001120)427:3<351::AID-CNE3>3.0.CO;2-R
    [100] Hirokawa N (1998) Kinesin and dynein superfamily proteins and the mechanism of organelle transport. Science 279: 519-526. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5350.519
    [101] Gross SP (2004) Hither and yon: A review of bi-directional microtubule-based transport. Phys Biol 1: R1-R11. doi: 10.1088/1478-3967/1/2/R01
    [102] Ligon LA, Tokito M, Finklestein JM, et al. (2004) A direct interaction between cytoplasmic dynein and kinesin I may coordinate motor activity. J Biol Chem 279: 19201-19208. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M313472200
    [103] Stowers R, Megeath L, Górska-Andrzejak J, et al. (2002) Axonal transport of mitochondria to synapses depends on milton, a novel Drosophila protein. Neuron 36: 1063-1077. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(02)01094-2
    [104] Guo X, Macleod G, Wellington A, et al. (2005) The GTPase dMiro is required for axonal transport of mitochondria to Drosophila synapses. Neuron 47: 379-393. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.06.027
    [105] Russo G, Louie K, Wellington A, et al. (2009) Drosophila Miro is required for both anterograde and retrograde axonal mitochondrial transport. J Neurosci 29: 5443-5455. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5417-08.2009
    [106] Koutsopoulos OS, Laine D, Osellame L, et al. (2010) Human miltons associate with mitochondria and induce microtubule-dependent remodeling of mitochondrial networks. Biochim Biophys Acta 1803: 564-574. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2010.03.006
    [107] Wang X, Winter D, Ashrafi G, et al. (2011) PINK1 and Parkin target Miro for phosphorylation and degradation to arrest mitochondrial motility. Cell 147: 893-906. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.018
    [108] Hsieh CH, Shaltouki A, Gonzalez AE, et al. (2016) Functional impairment in miro degradation and mitophagy is a shared feature in familial and sporadic Parkinson's disease. Cell Stem Cell 19: 709-724. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2016.08.002
    [109] Baloh RH (2008) Mitochondrial dynamics and peripheral neuropathy. Neuroscientist 14: 12-18. doi: 10.1177/1073858407307354
    [110] Misko A, Jiang S, Wegorzewska I, et al. (2010) Mitofusin 2 is necessary for transport of axonal mitochondria and interacts with the Miro/Milton complex. J Neurosci 30: 4232-4240. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6248-09.2010
    [111] Ikenaka K, Katsuno M, Kawai K, et al. (2012) Disruption of axonal transport in motor neuron diseases. Int J Mol Sci 13: 1225-1238. doi: 10.3390/ijms13011225
    [112] Mandal A, Drerup CM (2019) Axonal transport and mitochondrial function in neurons. Front Cell Neurosci 13: 373. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2019.00373
    [113] Ader NR (2016) Seeking an in vivo neuronal context for the PINK1/Parkin pathway. J Neurosci 36: 11165-11167. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2525-16.2016
    [114] Metaxakis A, Ploumi C, Tavernarakis N (2018) Autophagy in age-associated neurodegeneration. Cells 7: 37. doi: 10.3390/cells7050037
    [115] Rintoul GL, Reynolds IJ (2010) Mitochondrial trafficking and morphology in neuronal injury. Biochim Biophys Acta 1802: 143-150. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2009.09.005
    [116] Chang DT, Reynolds IJ (2006) Mitochondrial trafficking and morphology in healthy and injured neurons. Prog Neurobiol 80: 241-268. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2006.09.003
    [117] Weihofen A, Thomas K, Ostaszewski B, et al. (2009) Pink1 forms a multiprotein complex with miro and milton, linking Pink1 function to mitochondrial trafficking. Biochemistry 48: 2045-2052. doi: 10.1021/bi8019178
    [118] Yang F, Jiang Q, Zhao J, et al. (2005) Parkin stabilizes microtubules through strong binding mediated by three independent domains. J Biol Chem 280: 17154-17162. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M500843200
    [119] Lee H, Khoshaghideh F, Lee S, et al. (2006) Impairment of microtubule-dependent trafficking by overexpression of α-synuclein. European J Neurosci 24: 3153-3162. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05210.x
    [120] Gillardon F (2009) Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 phosphorylates brain tubulin-beta isoforms and modulates microtubule stability—A point of convergence in Parkinsonian neurodegeneration? J Neurochem 10: 1514-1522. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.06235.x
    [121] Braak E, Sandmann-Keil D, Rüb U, et al. (2001) α-Synuclein immunopositive Parkinson's disease-related inclusion bodies in lower brain stem nuclei. Acta Neuropathol 101: 195-201. doi: 10.1007/s004010000247
    [122] Liu S, Sawada T, Lee S, et al. (2012) Parkinson's disease–associated kinase PINK1 regulates Miro protein level and axonal transport of mitochondria. PLoS Genet 8: e1002537. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002537
    [123] Chu Y, Morfini GA, Langhamer LB, et al. (2012) Alterations in axonal transport motor proteins in sporadic and experimental Parkinson's disease. Brain 135: 2058-2073. doi: 10.1093/brain/aws133
    [124] Abeliovich A, Gitler AD (2016) Defects in trafficking bridge Parkinson's disease pathology and genetics. Nature 539: 207. doi: 10.1038/nature20414
    [125] Züchner S, Mersiyanova I, Muglia M, et al. (2004) Mutations in the mitochondrial GTPase mitofusin 2 cause Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy type 2A. Nat Genet 36: 449-451. doi: 10.1038/ng1341
    [126] Patzkó A, Shy ME (2011) Update on Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 11: 78-88. doi: 10.1007/s11910-010-0158-7
    [127] Shy M (2004) Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: An update. Curr Opin Neurol 17: 579-585. doi: 10.1097/00019052-200410000-00008
    [128] Loiseau D, Chevrollier A, Verny C, et al. (2007) Mitochondrial coupling defect in Charcot–Marie–Tooth type 2A disease. Ann Neurol 61: 315-323. doi: 10.1002/ana.21086
    [129] Stokin G, Lillo C, Falzone T, et al. (2005) Axonopathy and transport deficits early in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's diseases. Science 307: 1282-1288. doi: 10.1126/science.1105681
    [130] Wang X, Su B, Lee H (2009) Impaired balance of mitochondrial fission and fusion in Alzheimer's disease. J Neurosci 29: 9090-9103. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1357-09.2009
    [131] Vickers JC, King AE, Woodhouse A, et al. (2009) Axonopathy and cytoskeletal disruption in degenerative diseases of the central nervous system. Brain Res Bull 80: 217-223. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2009.08.004
    [132] De Vos K, Chapman A, Tennant M, et al. (2007) Familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-linked SOD1 mutants perturb fast axonal transport to reduce axonal mitochondria content. Hum Mol Genet 16: 2720-2728. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddm226
    [133] Shi P, Ström A, Gal J, et al. (2010) Effects of ALS-related SOD1 mutants on dynein- and KIF5-mediated retrograde and anterograde axonal transport. Biochim Biophys Acta 1802: 707-716. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2010.05.008
    [134] Chang D, Rintoul G, Pandipati S, et al. (2006) Mutant huntingtin aggregates impair mitochondrial movement and trafficking in cortical neurons. Neurobiol Dis 22: 388-400. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2005.12.007
    [135] Trushina E, Dyer R, Badger J, et al. (2004) Mutant huntingtin impairs axonal trafficking in mammalian neurons in vivo and in vitro. Mol Cell Biol 24: 8195-8209. doi: 10.1128/MCB.24.18.8195-8209.2004
    [136] Bach D, Pich S, Soriano FX (2003) Mitofusin-2 determines mitochondrial network architecture and mitochondrial metabolism: a novel regulatory mechanism altered in obesity. J Biol Chem 278: 17190-17197. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M212754200
    [137] Chen H, Chomyn A, Chan DC (2005) Disruption of fusion results in mitochondrial heterogeneity and dysfunction. J Biol Chem 280: 26185-26192. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M503062200
    [138] Van Laar VS, Berman SB (2013) The interplay of neuronal mitochondrial dynamics and bioenergetics: implications for Parkinson's disease. Neurobiol Dis 51: 43-55. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2012.05.015
    [139] Coskun P, Wyrembak J, Schriner SE, et al. (2012) A mitochondrial etiology of Alzheimer and Parkinson disease. Biochim Biophys Acta 1820: 553-564. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2011.08.008
    [140] Ryan BJ, Hoek S, Fon EA, et al. (2015) Mitochondrial dysfunction and mitophagy in Parkinson's: from familial to sporadic disease. Trends Biochem Sci 40: 200-210. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2015.02.003
    [141] Van Laar VS, Berman SB (2009) Mitochondrial dynamics in Parkinson's disease. Exp Neurol 218: 247-256. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2009.03.019
    [142] Requejo-Aguilar R, Bolaños JP (2016) Mitochondrial control of cell bioenergetics in Parkinson's disease. Free Radic Biol Med 100: 123-137. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.04.012
    [143] Abramov AY, Gegg M, Grunewald A, et al. (2011) Bioenergetic consequences of PINK1 mutations in Parkinson disease. PLoS One 6: e25622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025622
    [144] Lansbury PT, Lashuel HA (2006) A century-old debate on protein aggregation and neurodegeneration enters the clinic. Nature 443: 774-779. doi: 10.1038/nature05290
    [145] Jain S, Wood NW, Healy DG (2005) Molecular genetic pathways in Parkinson's disease: A review. Clin Sci 109: 355-364. doi: 10.1042/CS20050106
    [146] Winklhofer KF, Haass C (2010) Mitochondrial dysfunction in Parkinson's disease. Biochim Biophy Acta 1802: 29-44. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2009.08.013
    [147] Chen C, Turnbull DM, Reeve AK (2019) Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Parkinson's Disease—Cause or Consequence? Biology 8: 38. doi: 10.3390/biology8020038
    [148] Diot A, Morten K, Poulton J (2016) Mitophagy plays a central role in mitochondrial ageing. Mamm Genome 27: 381-395. doi: 10.1007/s00335-016-9651-x
    [149] Noda S, Sato S, Fukuda T, et al. (2019) Loss of Parkin contributes to mitochondrial turnover and dopaminergic neuronal loss in aged mice. Neurobiol Dis 136: 104717. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2019.104717
    [150] Fivenson EM, Lautrup S, Sun N, et al. (2017) Mitophagy in neurodegeneration and aging. Neurochem Int 109: 202-209. doi: 10.1016/j.neuint.2017.02.007
    [151] Ebrahimi-Fakhari D, Wahlster L, McLean PJ (2012) Protein degradation pathways in Parkinson's disease: curse or blessing. Acta Neuropathol 124: 153-172. doi: 10.1007/s00401-012-1004-6
    [152] Wang W, Wang X, Fujioka H, et al. (2016) Parkinson's disease–associated mutant VPS35 causes mitochondrial dysfunction by recycling DLP1 complexes. Nat Med 22: 54. doi: 10.1038/nm.3983
    [153] Singleton A, Farrer M, Johnson J, et al. (2003) α-Synuclein locus triplication causes Parkinson's disease. Science 302: 841-841. doi: 10.1126/science.1090278
    [154] Regev A, Silverman W, Shapiro E (2001) Representation and simulation of biochemical processes using the π-calculus process algebra. Pac Symp Biocomput 459-470.
    [155] Bonzanni N, Feenstra KA, Fokkink W, et al. (2009) What can formal methods bring to systems biology? International Symposium on Formal Methods Springer, 16-22.
    [156] Theocharopoulou G, Giannakis K, Andronikos T (2015) The mechanism of splitting mitochondria in terms of membrane automata. 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Signal Processing and Information Technology (ISSPIT) IEEE, 397-402. doi: 10.1109/ISSPIT.2015.7394367
    [157] Theocharopoulou G, Vlamos P (2015) Modeling protein misfolding in Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease. GeNeDis 2014 Springer, 91-102. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09012-2_7
    [158] Theocharopoulou G, Bobori C, Vlamos P (2017) Formal models of biological systems. GeNeDis 2016 Springer, 325-338. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56246-9_27
    [159] Corona JC, Duchen MR (2015) Impaired mitochondrial homeostasis and neurodegeneration: towards new therapeutic targets? J Bioenerg Biomembr 47: 89-99. doi: 10.1007/s10863-014-9576-6
    [160] Kitada T, Asakawa S, Hattori N, et al. (1998) Mutations in the parkin gene cause autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism. Nature 392: 605. doi: 10.1038/33416
    [161] Healy DG, Falchi M, O'Sullivan SS, et al. (2008) Phenotype, genotype, and worldwide genetic penetrance of LRRK2-associated Parkinson's disease: a case-control study. Lancet Neurol 7: 583-590. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70117-0
    [162] Peng JY, Lin CC, Chen YJ, et al. (2011) Automatic morphological subtyping reveals new roles of caspases in mitochondrial dynamics. PLoS Comput Biol 7: e1002212. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002212
    [163] Tronstad KJ, Nooteboom M, Nilsson LI, et al. (2014) Regulation and quantification of cellular mitochondrial morphology and content. Curr Pharm Des 20: 5634-5652. doi: 10.2174/1381612820666140305230546
    [164] Zamponi N, Zamponi E, Cannas SA, et al. (2018) Mitochondrial network complexity emerges from fission/fusion dynamics. Sci Rep 8: 363. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-18351-5
    [165] Shah SI, Paine JG, Perez C, et al. (2019) Mitochondrial fragmentation and network architecture in degenerative diseases. PloS One 14: e0223014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223014
    [166] Toglia P, Demuro A, Mak DOD, et al. (2018) Data-driven modeling of mitochondrial dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. Cell Calcium 76: 23-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ceca.2018.09.003
    [167] Dukes AA, Bai Q, Van Laar VS, et al. (2016) Live imaging of mitochondrial dynamics in CNS dopaminergic neurons in vivo demonstrates early reversal of mitochondrial transport following MPP+ exposure. Neurobiol Dis 95: 238-249. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2016.07.020
    [168] Alexiou A, Vlamos P (2012) Evidence for early identification of Alzheimer's disease. In arXiv preprint arXiv 1209.4223.
    [169] Lundkvist J, Naslund J (2007) Gamma-secretase: A complex target for Alzheimer's disease. Curr Opin Pharmacol 7: 112-118. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2006.10.002
    [170] Evin G, Kenche V (2007) BACE inhibitors as potential therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. Recent Pat CNS Drug Discov 2: 188-199. doi: 10.2174/157488907782411783
    [171] Alexiou A, Vlamos P, Rekkas J (2011) Modeling the mitochondrial dysfunction in neurogenerative diseases due to high H+ concentration. Bioinformation 6: 173-175. doi: 10.6026/97320630006173
    [172] Miller KE, Sheetz MP (2004) Axonal mitochondrial transport and potential are correlated. J Cell Sci 117: 2791-2804. doi: 10.1242/jcs.01130
    [173] Oliveira JMA (2011) Techniques to investigate neuronal mitochondrial function and its pharmacological modulation. Curr Drug Targets 12: 762-773. doi: 10.2174/138945011795528895
    [174] Twig G, Hyde B, Shirihai OS (2008) Mitochondrial fusion, fission and autophagy as a quality control axis: the bioenergetic view. Biochim Biophys Acta 1777: 1092-1097. doi: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2008.05.001
    [175] Onyango IG, Dennis J, Khan SM (2016) Mitochondrial dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease and the rationale for bioenergetics based therapies. Aging Dis 7: 201-214. doi: 10.14336/AD.2015.1007
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Helena E. Richardson, Drosophila models of cancer, 2015, 02, 2377-1143, 097, 10.3934/genet.2015.1.97
    2. Maede Eslahi, Negin Nematbakhsh, Narges Dastmalchi, Shahram Teimourian, Reza Safaralizadeh, Signaling Pathways in Drosophila gonadal Stem Cells, 2024, 19, 1574888X, 154, 10.2174/1574888X18666230213144531
    3. John E. La Marca, Sarah T. Diepstraten, Amy Hodge, Hongyan Wang, Adam H. Hart, Helena E. Richardson, W. Gregory Somers, StripandCkanegatively regulate JNK signalling duringDrosophilaspermatogenesis, 2019, 1477-9129, 10.1242/dev.174292
    4. Vartika Sharma, Abhinava K. Mishra, Mousumi Mutsuddi, Ashim Mukherjee, 2019, Chapter 1, 978-981-13-2217-4, 1, 10.1007/978-981-13-2218-1_1
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(6638) PDF downloads(508) Cited by(15)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog