gms | German Medical Science

Joint-Meeting of the German Society for Neuropathology and Neuroanatomy (DGNN) and the Scandinavian Neuropathological Society (SNS)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neuropathologie und Neuroanatomie

22.09.-24.09.2016, Hamburg

The unfolded protein response in neural stem and progenitor cells

Meeting Abstract

  • presenting/speaker Sascha Steltgens - University Clinics Düsseldorf, Neuropathology, Düsseldorf, Germany
  • Guido Reifenberger - University Clinics Düsseldorf, Neuropathology, Düsseldorf, Germany
  • Christiane Knobbe-Thomsen - University Clinics Düsseldorf, Neuropathology, Düsseldorf, Germany

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neuropathologie und Neuroanatomie. Scandinavian Neuropathological Society. Joint-Meeting of the German Society for Neuropathology and Neuroanatomy (DGNN) and the Scandinavian Neuropathological Society (SNS). Hamburg, 22.-24.09.2016. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2016. Doc16dgnnP44

doi: 10.3205/16dgnn45, urn:nbn:de:0183-16dgnn456

Veröffentlicht: 14. September 2016

© 2016 Steltgens et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). Lizenz-Angaben siehe http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Gliederung

Text

Question: Tumors are exposed to an unfavorable environment leading to several different stress responses. Brain and other tumors with mutations (R132H) in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) gene are exposed to a stress inducing metabolite, namely 2-hydroxygluterate (2-HG). Upon synthesis 2-HG hinders proper collagen maturation in the ER leading to an ER stress response known as unfolded protein response (UPR). Therefore we want to characterize the UPR in neural stem and progenitor cells (NSC) and investigate the influence of tumor relevant mutations.

Methods: Murine NSCs cultured in medium containing fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) were treated with UPR inducing drugs tunicamycin and thapsigargin in vitro. We used classic western blot and quantitative PCR techniques to gain insides into the UPR. These NSCs carried inducible mutations in IDH1 (R132H) or p53 deletions. Further we assessed the cell cycle upon UPR induction by BrdU/7AAD staining and flow cytometric analysis.

Results: With these we gained evidence of different UPR response kinetics and outcomes dependent on cell type and drug. We further investigated the influence of p53 knock out (KO) or the IDH1-R132H mutation on the cell cycle of NSCs under ER stress.

Conclusion: From these observations we concluded, that the UPR is cell type specific and that different tumor relevant mutations, like alterations in p53, modify the signaling outcome.