CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Excess Peroxisomes Are Degraded by Autophagic Machinery in Mammals

Iwata, Jun-ichi, Ezaki, Junji, Komatsu, Masaaki, Yokota, Sadaki, Ueno, Takashi, Tanida, Isei, Chiba, Tomoki, Tanaka, Keiji, Kominami, Eiki·2006·Journal of Biological Chemistry
DOI 10.1074/jbc.m512283200
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Peroxisomes are degraded by autophagic machinery termed "pexophagy" in yeast; however, whether this is essential for peroxisome degradation in mammals remains unknown. Here we have shown that Atg7, an essential gene for autophagy, plays a pivotal role in the degradation of excess peroxisomes in mammals. Following induction of peroxisomes by a 2-week treatment with phthalate esters in control and Atg7-deficient livers, peroxisomal degradation was monitored within 1 week after discontinuation of phthalate esters. Although most of the excess peroxisomes in the control liver were selectively degraded within 1 week, this rapid removal was exclusively impaired in the mutant liver. Furthermore, morphological analysis revealed that surplus peroxisomes, but not mutant hepatocytes, were surrounded by autophagosomes in the control. Our results indicated that the autophagic machinery is essential for the selective clearance of excess peroxisomes in mammals. This is the first direct evidence for the contribution of autophagic machinery in peroxisomal degradation in mammals.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1074/jbc.m512283200

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Lazarow, 1985, Annu. Rev. Cell Biol., 1, 489, 10.1146/annurev.cb.01.110185.002421 · DOI
  2. Heiland, 2005, FEBS J., 272, 2362, 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2005.04690.x · DOI
  3. Reddy, 1980, Nature, 283, 397, 10.1038/283397a0 · DOI
  4. Reddy, 1983, CRC Crit. Rev. Toxicol., 12, 1, 10.3109/10408448309029317 · DOI
  5. Nicholls-Grzemski, 1992, Biochem. Pharmacol., 7, 1395, 10.1016/0006-2952(92)90193-M · DOI
  6. Vanden Henvel, 1999, Toxicol. Sci., 47, 1, 10.1093/toxsci/47.1.1 · DOI
  7. Yokota, 1993, Eur. J. Cell Biol., 61, 67
  8. Subramani, 1998, Physiol. Rev., 78, 171, 10.1152/physrev.1998.78.1.171 · DOI
  9. Farre, 2004, Trends Cell Biol., 14, 515, 10.1016/j.tcb.2004.07.014 · DOI
  10. Kim, 2001, J. Cell Biol., 153, 381, 10.1083/jcb.153.2.381 · DOI
  11. Stromhaug, 2001, J. Biol. Chem., 276, 42422, 10.1074/jbc.M104087200 · DOI
  12. Bellu, 2001, J. Biol. Chem., 276, 44570, 10.1074/jbc.M107599200 · DOI
  13. Bellu, 2003, Microsc. Res. Tech., 61, 161, 10.1002/jemt.10325 · DOI
  14. Ano, 2005, Mol. Biol. Cell, 16, 446, 10.1091/mbc.e04-09-0842 · DOI
  15. Klionsky, 1999, Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol., 15, 1, 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.15.1.1 · DOI
  16. Kim, 2000, Annu. Rev. Biochem., 69, 303, 10.1146/annurev.biochem.69.1.303 · DOI
  17. Kissova, 2004, J. Biol. Chem., 279, 39068, 10.1074/jbc.M406960200 · DOI
  18. Lemasters, 2005, Rejuvenation Res., 8, 3, 10.1089/rej.2005.8.3 · DOI
  19. Tanida, 1999, Mol. Biol. Cell, 10, 1367, 10.1091/mbc.10.5.1367 · DOI
  20. Mizushima, 1998, Nature, 395, 395, 10.1038/26506 · DOI
  21. Ichimura, 2000, Nature, 408, 488, 10.1038/35044114 · DOI
  22. Yuan, 1999, Mol. Biol. Cell, 10, 1353, 10.1091/mbc.10.5.1353 · DOI
  23. Tanida, 2001, J. Biol. Chem., 276, 1701, 10.1074/jbc.C000752200 · DOI
  24. Tanida, 2002, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 292, 256, 10.1006/bbrc.2002.6645 · DOI
  25. Tanida, 2002, J. Biol. Chem., 277, 13739, 10.1074/jbc.M200385200 · DOI
  26. de Duve, 1955, Biochem. J., 60, 604, 10.1042/bj0600604 · DOI
  27. Usuda, 1991, J. Histochem. Cytochem., 39, 95, 10.1177/39.1.1670581 · DOI
  28. Tsukamoto, 1990, J. Cell Biol., 110, 651, 10.1083/jcb.110.3.651 · DOI
  29. Ezaki, 1995, J. Neurochem., 64, 733, 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1995.64020733.x · DOI
  30. Yokota, 2001, J. Histochem. Cytochem., 49, 613, 10.1177/002215540104900508 · DOI
  31. Yokota, 2003, Microsc. Res. Tech., 61, 151, 10.1002/jemt.10324 · DOI
  32. Shintani, 2004, J. Biol. Chem., 279, 29889, 10.1074/jbc.M404399200 · DOI
  33. Onodera, 2004, J. Biol. Chem., 279, 16071, 10.1074/jbc.M312706200 · DOI
  34. Nakagawa, 2004, Science, 306, 1037, 10.1126/science.1103966 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Iwata, J.-I., Ezaki, J., Komatsu, M., Yokota, S., Ueno, T., Tanida, I., Chiba, T., Tanaka, K., & Kominami, E.
Venue
Journal of Biological Chemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-02
Volume
281
Issue
7
Pages
4035-4041
ISSN
0021-9258
DOI
10.1074/jbc.m512283200
Cited by
212
References
4
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review