Opposing Regulation of PROX1 by Interleukin-3 Receptor and NOTCH Directs Differential Host Cell Fate Reprogramming by Kaposi Sarcoma Herpes Virus

Lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) are differentiated from blood vascular endothelial cells (BECs) during embryogenesis and this physiological cell fate specification is controlled by PROX1, the master regulator for lymphatic development. When Kaposi sarcoma herpes virus (KSHV) infects host cells, it activates the otherwise silenced embryonic endothelial differentiation program and reprograms their cell fates. Interestingly, previous studies demonstrated that KSHV drives BECs to acquire a partial lymphatic phenotype by upregulating PROX1 (forward reprogramming), but stimulates LECs to regain some BEC-signature genes by downregulating PROX1 (reverse reprogramming). Despite the significance of this KSHV-induced bidirectional cell fate reprogramming in KS pathogenesis, its underlying molecular mechanism remains undefined. Here, we report that IL3 receptor alpha (IL3Rα) and NOTCH play integral roles in the host cell type-specific regulation of PROX1 by KSHV. In BECs, KSHV upregulates IL3Rα and phosphorylates STAT5, which binds and activates the PROX1 promoter. In LECs, however, PROX1 was rather downregulated by KSHV-induced NOTCH signal via HEY1, which binds and represses the PROX1 promoter. Moreover, PROX1 was found to be required to maintain HEY1 expression in LECs, establishing a reciprocal regulation between PROX1 and HEY1. Upon co-activation of IL3Rα and NOTCH, PROX1 was upregulated in BECs, but downregulated in LECs. Together, our study provides the molecular mechanism underlying the cell type-specific endothelial fate reprogramming by KSHV

Mitochondrial tumour suppressors: A genetic and biochemical update

Since the discovery 5 years ago that the D-subunit of succinate dehydrogenase ( SDHD) can behave as a classic tumour suppressor, other nuclear-encoded mitochondrial proteins (SDHB, SDHC and fumarate hydratase) have been implicated in tumour susceptibility. Mutations in these proteins are principally involved in familial predisposition to benign tumours, but the spectrum of inherited lesions is increasingly recognized to include malignant tumours, such as malignant phaeochromocytomas and renal cell carcinomas. Here we review recent advances in the field of mitochondrial tumour suppressors, the biochemical pathway that links mitochondrial dysfunction with tumorigenesis, and potential therapeutic approaches to these malignancies

Proposed recommendations for diagnosing and managing individuals with glutaric aciduria type I: second revision

Glutaric aciduria type I (GA-I; synonym, glutaric acidemia type I) is a rare inherited metabolic disease caused by deficiency of glutaryl-CoA dehydrogenase located in the catabolic pathways of L-lysine, L-hydroxylysine, and L-tryptophan. The enzymatic defect results in elevated concentrations of glutaric acid, 3-hydroxyglutaric acid, glutaconic acid, and glutaryl carnitine in body tissues, which can be reliably detected by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (organic acids) and tandem mass spectrometry (acylcarnitines). Most untreated individuals with GA-I experience acute encephalopathic crises during the first 6 years of life that are triggered by infectious diseases, febrile reaction to vaccinations, and surgery. These crises result in striatal injury and consequent dystonic movement disorder; thus, significant mortality and morbidity results. In some patients, neurologic disease may also develop without clinically apparent crises at any age. Neonatal screening for GA-I us being used in a growing number of countries worldwide and is cost effective. Metabolic treatment, consisting of low lysine diet, carnitine supplementation, and intensified emergency treatment during catabolism, is effective treatment and improves neurologic outcome in those individuals diagnosed early; treatment after symptom onset, however, is less effective. Dietary treatment is relaxed after age 6 years and should be supervised by specialized metabolic centers. The major aim of this second revision of proposed recommendations is to re-evaluate the previous recommendations (Kölker et al. J Inherit Metab Dis 30:5-22, 2007b; J Inherit Metab Dis 34:677-694, 2011) and add new research findings, relevant clinical aspects, and the perspective of affected individuals