Mitochondrial function in spinal cord injury and regeneration.

Many people around the world suffer from some form of paralysis caused by spinal cord injury (SCI), which has an impact on quality and life expectancy. The spinal cord is part of the central nervous system (CNS), which in mammals is unable to regenerate, and to date, there is a lack of full functional recovery therapies for SCI. These injuries start with a rapid and mechanical insult, followed by a secondary phase leading progressively to greater damage. This secondary phase can be potentially modifiable through targeted therapies. The growing literature, derived from mammalian and regenerative model studies, supports a leading role for mitochondria in every cellular response after SCI: mitochondrial dysfunction is the common event of different triggers leading to cell death, cellular metabolism regulates the immune response, mitochondrial number and localization correlate with axon regenerative capacity, while mitochondrial abundance and substrate utilization regulate neural stem progenitor cells self-renewal and differentiation. Herein, we present a comprehensive review of the cellular responses during the secondary phase of SCI, the mitochondrial contribution to each of them, as well as evidence of mitochondrial involvement in spinal cord regeneration, suggesting that a more in-depth study of mitochondrial function and regulation is needed to identify potential targets for SCI therapeutic intervention.

Nilotinib impairs skeletal myogenesis by increasing myoblast proliferation.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are effective therapies with demonstrated antineoplastic activity. Nilotinib is a second-generation FDA-approved TKI designed to overcome Imatinib resistance and intolerance in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Interestingly, TKIs have also been shown to be an efficient treatment for several non-malignant disorders such fibrotic diseases, including those affecting skeletal muscles. METHODS: We investigated the role of Nilotinib on skeletal myogenesis using the well-established C2C12 myoblast cell line. We evaluated the impact of Nilotinib during the time course of skeletal myogenesis. We compared the effect of Nilotinib with the well-known p38 MAPK inhibitor SB203580. MEK1/2 UO126 and PI3K/AKT LY294002 inhibitors were used to identify the signaling pathways involved in Nilotinib-related effects on myoblast. Adult primary myoblasts were also used to corroborate the inhibition of myoblasts fusion and myotube-nuclei positioning by Nilotinib. RESULTS: We found that Nilotinib inhibited myogenic differentiation, reducing the number of myogenin-positive myoblasts and decreasing myogenin and MyoD expression. Furthermore, Nilotinib-mediated anti-myogenic effects impair myotube formation, myosin heavy chain expression, and compromise myotube-nuclei positioning. In addition, we found that p38 MAPK is a new off-target protein of Nilotinib, which causes inhibition of p38 phosphorylation in a similar manner as the well-characterized p38 inhibitor SB203580. Nilotinib induces the activation of ERK1/2 and AKT on myoblasts but not in myotubes. We also found that Nilotinib stimulates myoblast proliferation, a process dependent on ERK1/2 and AKT activation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that Nilotinib may have important negative effects on muscle homeostasis, inhibiting myogenic differentiation but stimulating myoblasts proliferation. Additionally, we found that Nilotinib stimulates the activation of ERK1/2 and AKT. On the other hand, we suggest that p38 MAPK is a new off-target of Nilotinib. Thus, there is a necessity for future studies to investigate the long-term effects of TKIs on skeletal muscle homeostasis, along with potential detrimental effects in cell differentiation and proliferation in patients receiving TKI therapies.