Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Parkinson’s Disease
Volume 2016, Article ID 2613401, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2613401
Review Article

Chaperone-Mediated Autophagy and Mitochondrial Homeostasis in Parkinson’s Disease

1Department of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, The Fourth Military Medical University, 569 Xinsi Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710038, China
2Department of Pharmacology and Neurology, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

Received 27 December 2015; Revised 4 April 2016; Accepted 29 May 2016

Academic Editor: Matthew Gegg

Copyright © 2016 Ruixin Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Parkinson’s disease (PD), a complex neurodegenerative disorder, is pathologically characterized by the formation of Lewy bodies and loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc). Mitochondrial dysfunction is considered to be one of the most important causative mechanisms. In addition, dysfunction of chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA), one of the lysosomal proteolytic pathways, has been shown to play an important role in the pathogenesis of PD. An exciting and important development is recent finding that CMA and mitochondrial quality control may be linked. This review summarizes the studies revealing the link between autophagy and mitochondrial function. Discussions are focused on the connections between CMA and mitochondrial failure and on the role of MEF2D, a neuronal survival factor, in mediating the regulation of mitochondria in the context of CMA. These new findings highlight the need to further explore the possibility of targeting the MEF2D-mitochondria-CMA network in both understanding the PD pathogenesis and developing novel therapeutic strategies.

1. Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer’s disease. It affects about 1% of people above 60 years of age [1]. Rigidity, bradykinesia, postural instability, and tremors are the four characteristic clinic features of PD. Parkinson’s disease is caused by the loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc), which leads to decreased dopamine (DA) levels in the dorsal striatum [2, 3]. Pathologically, the cytoplasm of SNc dopaminergic neurons in the brain of PD patients is characterized with the presence of Lewy bodies, which represents aggregation of proteins including α-synuclein [4]. Current treatment available for PD offers only symptomatic relief but cannot modify the disease progression. Nor can it slow down the progress of the disease. Although over 90% of PD cases are sporadic, the remaining 10% have a family inheritance [5]. Mutations in PARK 1 (SNAC) and PARK 8 (LRRK2) cause autosomal-dominant PD, while mutations in PARK2 (PARKIN), PARK6 (PINK1), and PARK7 (DJ-1) are responsible for autosomal recessive PD [5]. Neurons in both familial and sporadic PD cases display the same key pathophysiological features. Extensive research on PD pathogenesis has firmly established mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and impaired protein clearance as the key cellular processes altered in both familial and sporadic PD [68]. Interestingly, mutations in PARKIN, PINK1, and DJ-1 all lead to mitochondrial dysfunction [9, 10].

Growing evidence shows recently that autophagy, a protein clearance pathway, is critical for maintaining mitochondrial homeostasis and is impaired in neurodegenerative disorders such as PD [11, 12]. Autophagy is a cellular self-eating process in which lysosomes degrade intracellular components including proteins and other organelles. Autophagy is active under the normal basal metabolic condition as well as activated upon stress such as starvation, both of which are important to maintain cellular homeostasis [13]. There are three types of autophagy, microautophagy, macroautophagy, and chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA). These processes involve different mechanisms and may serve different cellular functions [14, 15]. Both macroautophagy, which is termed mitophagy when targeting mitochondria, and CMA are associated with mitochondrial function [1620]. Many studies indicate that autophagy level is often downregulated in various neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Huntington’s disease (HD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) [2123], and impaired autophagic function may in varying degree contribute to the neurodegenerative process. For PD, increasing evidence shows that dysfunction of mitophagy and CMA appears to be particularly prominent and a key pathogenic theme common to multiple genetic risk factors associated with the disease [9, 17, 24, 25].

2. Mitophagy and Parkinson’s Disease

Mitophagy selectively removes damaged mitochondria. The process of mitophagy needs two key proteins, PINK1 and Parkin. The genes encoding these two proteins are mutated in autosomal recessive parkinsonism [9], supporting the idea that dysfunction of mitophagy caused by PINK1 and PARKIN mutation may be an important mechanism in PD pathogenesis.

PINK1 is a key protein in the pathway of mitophagy [9]. Structurally, the C terminus of PINK1 is predicted to be a kinase domain while its N terminus contains a mitochondrial targeting sequence, which helps it locate onto mitochondrial outer membrane and transfers it into mitochondria [26]. PINK1 accumulates specifically on dysfunctional mitochondria and recruits Parkin from the cytosol [27, 28]. Parkin is an E3 ubiquitin ligase with an N-terminal ubiquitin-like domain and a C-terminal ubiquitin ligase domain [29, 30]. After being recruited to the damaged mitochondria, Parkin ubiquitinates substrates on the damaged mitochondria to instigate their elimination by autophagy [31, 32]. Mutations in both PINK1 and Parkin reduce their ability to eliminate dysfunctional mitochondria, indicating that PINK1 and Parkin are essential for mitochondrial quality control [3335]. Accumulation of dysfunctional mitochondria causes stress to the SNc DA neurons. A reduction in mitophagic activity following a loss of either PINK1 or Parkin function may trigger or exacerbate the loss of homeostasis and viability of these neurons, contributing to PD pathogenesis [3639].

Although mitophagy plays a crucial role in mitochondria quality control, it can only recognize mitochondria that have already been damaged and remove them. PINK1 and Parkin also regulate mitochondria via nonmitophagy processes. Mitochondria are cellular respiratory factory and have a high oxidative level. This oxidative environment can often damage individual mitochondrial proteins without causing irreparable mitochondrial damage. In such cases, it is best for cells to dispose the damaged individual proteins via proteolytic pathways to maintain mitochondrial homeostasis without the need for mitochondria removal and biogenesis. PINK1 and Parkin appear to also participate in these pathways. For example, an interesting in vivo study showed that the turnover of many mitochondrial respiratory chain subunits is impaired when Parkin and PINK1 are mutated [40]. Furthermore, this impairment caused by Parkin mutation seems to be greater than it is in Atg7 mutant. This finding cannot be simply explained by the model that Parkin acts upstream of Atg7 to promote mitophagy. Instead, it is more consistent with the notion that in addition to mitophagy PINK1-Parkin pathway may promote the selective turnover of mitochondrial proteins such as the respiratory complex subunits [40]. PINK1 and Parkin are also related to the biogenic pathway of mitochondria derived vesicles (MDVs), in which vesicles of budding off mitochondria with a specific repertoire of cargo proteins are ultimately targeted to lysosomes for degradation [41]. In this study, Parkin colocalizes with MDVs in a PINK1-dependent manner and stimulates their formation in response to antimycin A, a potent generator of reactive oxygen species (ROS). And once formed, the MDVs target to lysosomes for degradation in a manner independent of canonical mitophagy. These findings implicate that PINK1 and Parkin participate in a mitochondrial quality control pathway besides mitophagy. Moreover, Parkin mediates the ubiquitination of some outer mitochondrial membrane (OMM) proteins such as Mitofusins (Mfns) and Miro1 to regulate their function or degradation by proteasome [9, 42]. PINK1 may also be involved in this process by acting as ubiquitin kinase. Through Mfns, PINK1 and Parkin can potentially regulate mitochondrial fission and fusion.

3. CMA and Cellular Homeostasis in Parkinson’s Disease

Chaperone-mediated autophagy, one of the lysosomal proteolysis pathways, is characterized by its specificity in selective degradation of substrate proteins. This process can be divided into four steps: (1) recognizing substrate proteins and targeting them to the lysosomes; (2) binding to lysosomal receptor and unfolding of substrate proteins; (3) translocating substrates into lysosomes; and (4) degrading substrates in the lysosomal lumen [25]. The substrate proteins of CMA are recognized in the cytosol by the chaperone protein heat shock-cognate protein of 70 KDa (Hsc70) via a pentapeptide motif similar to KFERQ in sequence [43, 44]. This motif is not in strict conformance with a specific amino acid residue sequence but is like a pattern recognition motif related to the charge and hydrophobicity of amino acid residues [45, 46]. Posttranslational modifications such as phosphorylation and acetylation can facilitate an imperfect motif acquiring more effective recognition [4749]. It is predicted that almost 30% of cytosolic proteins have a KFERQ-like motif, but only a few of them have been experimentally confirmed as CMA substrates [50].

Once recognized by Hsc70, the substrate is targeted to the surface of lysosomal membrane and bound to the cytosolic tail of the lysosome-associated membrane protein type 2A (LAMP2A) [51]. LAMP2A exists as monomer at the lysosome membrane. During CMA, it oligomerizes to form a multiprotein complex to facilitate the translocation of substrates into the lysosomal lumen [52]. Before substrate protein translocation, it needs to be unfolded. This is mediated by Hsc70 and its co-chaperones [53]. Translocation of the substrate proteins into the lysosomal lumen requires a lysosomal resident form of Hsc70 (lys-Hsc70) [54]. The mechanism by which lys-Hsc70 facilitates substrate protein translocation remains unknown. After substrate translocation, LAMP2A rapidly disassembles from the translocational multimer-complex into monomers to which substrates can bind again [52]. Thus, the rate of CMA is modulated by the level of LAMP2A and the rate of assembly/disassembly of the translocation complex [25].

With its highly selective mechanism, CMA is especially suited for removing misfolded, oxidized, or damaged cytosolic proteins under both physiological and pathological conditions [50, 55]. This removal is not only an amino acid recycling pathway, but also a mechanism of balancing cellular homeostasis. Under moderate oxidative stress, which is related to and can cause mitochondrial dysfunction, CMA is often activated to accelerate the elimination of proteins damaged by oxidative stress [56]. Consequently, blocking the upregulation of CMA under those conditions leads to the accumulation of proteins damaged by oxidative stress and impairs mitochondrial function and cellular viability [57]. CMA is also activated under other stress conditions such as exposure to prolonged starvation [58] and hypoxia [59]. It appears that CMA is an essential stress response mechanism that is required to maintain cellular homeostasis through the removal of damaged proteins under various conditions.

There are multiple lines of evidence for the impairment of CMA activity in both familial and sporadic PD [60, 61]. Two critical proteins mutated in familial PD, α-synuclein and leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2), are both degraded by lysosomes via CMA [6264]. α-synuclein is a key factor in PD pathogenesis. The accumulation of both wild-type and mutant α-synuclein, which is caused by the dysfunction of autophagy-lysosome pathways including macroautophagy and CMA, causes SNc neuron loss [6466]. One proposed pathogenic mechanism by which mutant α-synuclein may exert stress is interference of cellular protein homeostasis through the blockade of CMA process [62]. Mutation in LRRK2 is the most common cause of familial PD. Although wild-type LRRK2 itself is degraded by CMA, the most common pathogenic mutant form of LRRK2, G2019S, is poorly degraded by this pathway. Moreover, LRRK2 mutants or high levels of WT LRRK2 bind to the lysosomal membrane and inhibit the assembly of the CMA translocation complex [63]. Furthermore, mutation of UCHL1, which is also associated with familial PD, has also been shown to inhibit CMA process [67, 68]. Thus, CMA controls the turnover of several proteins whose mutation is linked to familial PD. Inhibition of CMA appears to be a key common mechanism through which multiple proteins associated with familial PD exert their toxic effect.

4. MEF2D, CMA, and Oxidative Stress in Parkinson’s Disease

Myocyte enhancer factor 2 (MEF2) is initially identified as a transcription factor vital for muscle cell differentiation [69]. There are four isoforms of MEF2, MEF2A-MEF2D. MEF2s share a highly homologous sequence of the first 86 amino acids at the N-terminus, which participates in MEF2s hetero- or homodimerization and their binding to an A/T rich cis-acting DNA element. The C-terminal sequence of MEF2s is diverse and responsible for MEF2-mediated transcription activation. MEF2s can be modulated by posttranslational modifications such as phosphorylation at the C-terminus and interaction with other cofactors [70].

Although MEF2s are first identified in muscle cells, recent studies have revealed that MEF2s play an important role in several cellular pathways in neurons including neuronal survival [7072]. It has been shown that neuronal activity activates MEF2 by p38-mediated phosphorylation. Inhibition of MEF2s blocks the neuronal activity-induced survival of cerebellar granule neurons, leading to their apoptosis.

The connection between MEF2D and Parkinson’s disease started with the finding that cyclin dependent kinase 5 (Cdk5) directly phosphorylates MEF2D at Ser444 under stress conditions [73], which leads to an impairment of MEF2D transcriptional function. It was shown subsequently that phosphorylation of MEF2D at Ser444 promotes its degradation by caspases, leading to a sharp reduction of MEF2D level and neuronal death [74]. It was late demonstrated that this Cdk5-mediated inhibition of MEF2D is involved in 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine- (MPTP-) induced loss of DA neurons in a mouse model of PD [75, 76]. Therefore, MPTP-induced loss of SNc DA neurons in vivo may be in part due to Cdk5-mediated modulation of MEF2D [77].

In addition to being modulated by Cdk5, MEF2D is also regulated by CMA [78]. MEF2D has several imperfect KFERQ-like motifs at the N-terminus, mediating its interaction with Hsc70 and degradation by CMA. The blockage of CMA leads to an increase of cellular MEF2D level, and the accumulated MEF2D shows a decrease in DNA binding ability. Thus, the inhibition of CMA significantly impairs MEF2D function. Furthermore, degradation of MEF2D by CMA can be blocked by both wild-type and mutant α-synuclein. Though efforts were made to understand how the increase in the level of wild-type α-synuclein causes PD, the pathogenic mechanisms underlying it toxicity remain unclear. The finding that increased level of wild-type α-synuclein interferes CMA-mediated degradation and homeostasis of MEF2D provides a mechanism by which aberrant increase in wild-type α-synuclein induces neuronal death.

SNc DA neurons show increased oxidative stress in PD. Oxidative stress is considered to be a key mechanism that either triggers or exacerbates the pathological process in PD. How oxidative stress modulates neuronal activity is an intense and important area of investigation. Recent studies show that a short-term exposure to 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA), a neurotoxin used to model PD in rodents, leads to oxidization of MEF2D [79]. MEF2D can be oxidized at cysteine residues and carbonylated. Oxidized MEF2D loses its DNA binding ability as well as gene transcription control and is preferentially removed by CMA, which is activated by moderate oxidative stress as a protective response [79]. High levels of α-synuclein, neurotoxins, and excitotoxicity are known to cause excessive oxidative stress [8082], which not only oxidizes MEF2D but also inhibits CMA. Therefore, the combination of losing both survival factor such as MEF2D and CMA protection may underlie, at least in part, the toxic effects of those diverse stress conditions. Oxidative stress is widely considered to be one of the key mechanisms that trigger or exacerbate the pathological process in PD [8385]. Given the vital role of MEF2D in the survival of SNc DA neurons [78] and CMA-mediated protection, enhancing MEF2D or CMA should be explored further as a therapeutic strategy for PD.

5. MEF2D and Mitochondrial Function in Parkinson’s Disease

MEF2s have been studied as a nuclear factor for its dynamic roles in many cellular processes. For example, previous research of MEF2A in muscle indicates that MEF2A regulates mitochondrial function through controlling nuclear gene expression [86]. However, this nuclear centric role of MEF2s has been expanded with the unexpected finding of MEF2 function outside the nucleus in mitochondria [87].

In an elegant study [87], researchers showed that a portion of MEF2D is localized in mitochondria in neuronal cells. This localization is mediated by the N-terminal 33 amino acid residues of MEF2D and requires mitochondria heat shock protein 70 (mtHsp70). Functionally, MEF2D regulates mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) expression. mtDNA is a circular DNA, containing 16,569-base-pair-length genome that encodes 13 genes for subunit components of oxidative phosphorylation and its own tRNAs and rRNAs [88]. It has a heavy (H) strand and a light (L) strand determined by buoyant densities. The L strand encodes a single polypeptide, NADH dehydrogenase 6 (ND6), an essential component of complex I [89, 90]. Mutations in the ND6 gene or changes of its transcriptional level are associated with PD [91, 92]. Mitochondrial MEF2D binds to mtDNA in the coding region of the ND6 gene through a MEF2 site (5′-C73CTATTTATG82-3′) to directly control the transcription of ND6 gene [87]. Inhibition of mitochondrial MEF2D activity reduces the levels of ND6 mRNA and protein. Reduction of ND6 level, triggered by the loss of mitochondrial MEF2D function, decreases complex I level and activity, reduces the level of ATP, and increases the level of H2O2. These findings demonstrate that mitochondrial MEF2D directly regulates ND6 and affects mitochondrial function. Increasing mitochondrial MEF2D level promotes the survival of SNc DA neurons under MPTP-induced toxicity. In both postmortem PD patient brains and MPTP model of PD, MEF2D colocalization with mitochondria is reduced, which correlates with and accounts for the reduced transcription of ND6 gene in these specimens.

Complex I deficiency has been shown to occur in the mitochondria in PD [93, 94]. The discovery of MEF2D-ND6 axis demonstrates clearly that loss of mitochondrial MEF2D contributes to the mitochondrial dysfunction and may underlie part of the pathogenic process in PD. Since the level and activity of mitochondrial MEF2D are also regulated by oxidative stress and CMA [79], together, these findings provide another pathway by which CMA may closely modulate mitochondrial activity via regulation of MEF2D.

6. CMA and New Targets in Mitochondrial Homeostasis

As mentioned previously, CMA maintains cellular homeostasis in basal conditions through a highly selective protein degradation mechanism. It is predicted that almost 30% of cytosolic proteins have a KFERQ-like motif. Although only a few of them have been experimentally confirmed as CMA substrates, it highlights the huge potential for CMA being involved in regulating many important cellular processes. We investigated our previous unpublished data showing many possible CMA substrates are correlative with mitochondria function. By comparing the levels of proteins by mass spectrum analysis following up- or downregulation of LAMP2A, we identified the proteins whose levels changed sharply in a LAMP2A sensitive manner following activation of CMA. Among these proteins, a majority of them are involved in mitochondrial function (unpublished data). Furthermore, our analysis revealed that a decrease in CMA activity is correlated closely with a significant increase in the level of ROS and decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential. Identifying and validating the individual protein substrates of CMA that are directly involved in mediating these mitochondrial changes should provide us with mechanistic insights into how CMA specifically regulates mitochondrial homeostasis under both physiological and pathological conditions.

To this end, our recent work on regulation of DJ-1 by CMA provides such an example. DJ-1, also known as PARK7, is a mitochondria related protein that regulates the organellar function and morphology and antioxidative response [95]. Mutation of DJ-1 gene leads to mitochondrial defects and is associated with autosomal recessive familial PD [96]. Our study showed that DJ-1 is a direct CMA substrate [97]. Moreover, CMA preferentially degrades the nonfunctional and oxidatively damaged DJ-1 and protects cells against neurotoxin-induced mitochondrial damage and stress. Thus, our identification of CMA in maintaining mitochondrial homeostasis via regulation of DJ-1 serves to highlight and strengthen the notion that there is a strong and critical link between CMA and mitochondria.

7. Conclusion

Mitochondrial dysfunction is an important cellular feature in PD pathogenesis. In addition to the evidence of mitophagy failure as a cause for mitochondrial damage, recent studies support a strong link between CMA and mitochondria and a role for loss of CMA activity in mitochondrial dysfunction.

CMA has the potential to regulate many cellular pathways and maintains cellular homeostasis. Furthermore, it protects cells from diverse stress conditions and promotes cellular viability, especially neurons. Although CMA has been shown to participate in some cellular processes, few studies have investigated whether and how CMA directly regulates mitochondrial function. Since CMA plays a vital role in protecting neurons from stress and SNc DA neurons are especially sensitive to mitochondrial dysfunction, it is essential for us to clarify the role of CMA in mitochondrial dysfunction in PD pathogenesis.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by FMMU Research Foundation (Qian Yang), Chinese National 973 Project (Grant no. 2011CB510000) (Qian Yang), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 31371400) (Qian Yang).

References

  1. L. M. de Lau and M. M. Breteler, “Epidemiology of Parkinson's disease,” Lancet Neurology, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 525–535, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. A. E. Lang and A. M. Lozano, “Parkinson's disease. First of two parts,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 15, pp. 1044–1053, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. A. E. Lang and A. M. Lozano, “Parkinson's disease: second of two parts,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 16, pp. 1130–1143, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. G. Spillantini, R. A. Crowther, R. Jakes, M. Hasegawa, and M. Goedert, “α-Synuclein in filamentous inclusions of Lewy bodies from Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95, no. 11, pp. 6469–6473, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. M. Spatola and C. Wider, “Genetics of Parkinson's disease: the yield,” Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, vol. 20, supplement 1, pp. S35–S38, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. D. Vilchez, I. Saez, and A. Dillin, “The role of protein clearance mechanisms in organismal ageing and age-related diseases,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, article 5659, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. C. Corona and M. R. Duchen, “Impaired mitochondrial homeostasis and neurodegeneration: towards new therapeutic targets?” Journal of Bioenergetics and Biomembranes, vol. 47, no. 1-2, pp. 89–99, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. Y. Han, J. S. Kim, and J. H. Son, “Mitochondrial homeostasis molecules: regulation by a trio of recessive Parkinson's disease genes,” Experimental Neurobiology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 345–351, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. A. M. Pickrell and R. J. Youle, “The roles of PINK1, parkin, and mitochondrial fidelity in parkinson's disease,” Neuron, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 257–273, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. Y. Sai, Z. Zou, K. Peng, and Z. Dong, “The Parkinson's disease-related genes act in mitochondrial homeostasis,” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 2034–2043, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. P. K. Kamat, A. Kalani, P. Kyles, S. C. Tyagi, and N. Tyagi, “Autophagy of mitochondria: a promising therapeutic target for neurodegenerative disease,” Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 707–719, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. Y. C. Wong and E. L. F. Holzbaur, “Optineurin is an autophagy receptor for damaged mitochondria in parkin-mediated mitophagy that is disrupted by an ALS-linked mutation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 111, no. 42, pp. E4439–E4448, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. N. Mizushima, B. Levine, A. M. Cuervo, and D. J. Klionsky, “Autophagy fights disease through cellular self-digestion,” Nature, vol. 451, no. 7182, pp. 1069–1075, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. D. J. Klionsky, “The molecular machinery of autophagy: unanswered questions,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 7–18, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. C. Massey, C. Zhang, and A. M. Cuervo, “Chaperone-mediated autophagy in aging and disease,” Current Topics in Developmental Biology, vol. 73, pp. 205–235, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. A. Schiavi and N. Ventura, “The interplay between mitochondria and autophagy and its role in the aging process,” Experimental Gerontology, vol. 56, pp. 147–153, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. E. Lionaki, M. Markaki, K. Palikaras, and N. Tavernarakis, “Mitochondria, autophagy and age-associated neurodegenerative diseases: new insights into a complex interplay,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta—Bioenergetics, vol. 1847, no. 11, pp. 1412–1423, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. W. Xie, L. Zhang, H. Jiao et al., “Chaperone-mediated autophagy prevents apoptosis by degrading BBC3/PUMA,” Autophagy, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 1623–1635, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. S. Rambold and J. Lippincott-Schwartz, “Mechanisms of mitochondria and autophagy crosstalk,” Cell Cycle, vol. 10, no. 23, pp. 4032–4038, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. H. Wei, L. Liu, and Q. Chen, “Selective removal of mitochondria via mitophagy: distinct pathways for different mitochondrial stresses,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta—Molecular Cell Research, vol. 1853, no. 10, pp. 2784–2790, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. T. Hara, K. Nakamura, M. Matsui et al., “Suppression of basal autophagy in neural cells causes neurodegenerative disease in mice,” Nature, vol. 441, no. 7095, pp. 885–889, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. G. Mariño, F. Madeo, and G. Kroemer, “Autophagy for tissue homeostasis and neuroprotection,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 198–206, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. H. Son, J. H. Shim, K.-H. Kim, J.-Y. Ha, and J. Y. Han, “Neuronal autophagy and neurodegenerative diseases,” Experimental and Molecular Medicine, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 89–98, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. X. Liu, S. Huang, X. Wang, B. Tang, W. Li, and Z. Mao, “Chaperone-mediated autophagy and neurodegeneration: connections, mechanisms, and therapeutic implications,” Neuroscience Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 407–415, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. A. M. Cuervo and E. Wong, “Chaperone-mediated autophagy: roles in disease and aging,” Cell Research, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 92–104, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. E. M. Valente, P. M. Abou-Sleiman, V. Caputo et al., “Hereditary early-onset Parkinson's disease caused by mutations in PINK1,” Science, vol. 304, no. 5674, pp. 1158–1160, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. D. Narendra, A. Tanaka, D.-F. Suen, and R. J. Youle, “Parkin is recruited selectively to impaired mitochondria and promotes their autophagy,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 183, no. 5, pp. 795–803, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. C. Vives-Bauza, C. Zhou, Y. Huang et al., “PINK1-dependent recruitment of Parkin to mitochondria in mitophagy,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 378–383, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. H. Shimura, N. Hattori, S.-I. Kubo et al., “Familial Parkinson disease gene product, parkin, is a ubiquitin-protein ligase,” Nature Genetics, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 302–305, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. V. A. Hristova, S. A. Beasley, R. J. Rylett, and G. S. Shaw, “Identification of a Novel Zn2+-binding Domain in the Autosomal Recessive Juvenile Parkinson-related E3 Ligase Parkin,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 284, no. 22, pp. 14978–14986, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. S. Geisler, K. M. Holmström, D. Skujat et al., “PINK1/Parkin-mediated mitophagy is dependent on VDAC1 and p62/SQSTM1,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 119–131, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. N. Matsuda, S. Sato, K. Shiba et al., “PINK1 stabilized by mitochondrial depolarization recruits Parkin to damaged mitochondria and activates latent Parkin for mitophagy,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 189, no. 2, pp. 211–221, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. D. P. Narendra, S. M. Jin, A. Tanaka et al., “PINK1 is selectively stabilized on impaired mitochondria to activate Parkin,” PLoS Biology, vol. 8, no. 1, article e1000298, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. S. Geisler, K. M. Holmström, A. Treis et al., “The PINK1/Parkin-mediated mitophagy is compromised by PD-associated mutations,” Autophagy, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 871–878, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. J.-Y. Lee, Y. Nagano, J. P. Taylor, K. L. Lim, and T.-P. Yao, “Disease-causing mutations in parkin impair mitochondrial ubiquitination, aggregation, and HDAC6-dependent mitophagy,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 189, no. 4, pp. 671–679, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. J. Zhu, K. Z. Q. Wang, and C. T. Chu, “After the banquet: mitochondrial biogenesis, mitophagy, and cell survival,” Autophagy, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1663–1676, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. L. Dupuis, “Mitochondrial quality control in neurodegenerative diseases,” Biochimie, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 177–183, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. R. L. A. de Vries and S. Przedborski, “Mitophagy and Parkinson's disease: be eaten to stay healthy,” Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, vol. 55, pp. 37–43, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. N. Hattori, S. Saiki, and Y. Imai, “Regulation by mitophagy,” International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, vol. 53, pp. 147–150, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. E. S. Vincow, G. Merrihew, R. E. Thomas et al., “The PINK1-Parkin pathway promotes both mitophagy and selective respiratory chain turnover in vivo,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 110, no. 16, pp. 6400–6405, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. G.-L. McLelland, V. Soubannier, C. X. Chen, H. M. McBride, and E. A. Fon, “Parkin and PINK1 function in a vesicular trafficking pathway regulating mitochondrial quality control,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 282–295, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. S. A. Sarraf, M. Raman, V. Guarani-Pereira et al., “Landscape of the PARKIN-dependent ubiquitylome in response to mitochondrial depolarization,” Nature, vol. 496, no. 7445, pp. 372–376, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. A. M. Cuervo, “Chaperone-mediated autophagy: selectivity pays off,” Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 142–150, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. J. F. Dice, “Chaperone-mediated autophagy,” Autophagy, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 295–299, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. J. F. Dice, “Peptide sequences that target cytosolic proteins for lysosomal proteolysis,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 305–309, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. W. Li, Q. Yang, and Z. Mao, “Chaperone-mediated autophagy: machinery, regulation and biological consequences,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 749–763, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. L. M. Thompson, C. T. Aiken, L. S. Kaltenbach et al., “IKK phosphorylates Huntingtin and targets it for degradation by the proteasome and lysosome,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 187, no. 7, pp. 1083–1099, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. C. Quintavalle, S. Di Costanzo, C. Zanca et al., “Phosphorylation-regulated degradation of the tumor-suppressor form of PED by chaperone-mediated autophagy in lung cancer cells,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 229, no. 10, pp. 1359–1368, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. A. E. Majeski and J. F. Dice, “Mechanisms of chaperone-mediated autophagy,” International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 2435–2444, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. Z. Cai, W. Zeng, K. Tao, E. Zhen, B. Wang, and Q. Yang, “Chaperone-mediated autophagy: roles in neuroprotection,” Neuroscience Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 452–458, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. A. M. Cuervo and J. F. Dice, “A receptor for the selective uptake and degradation of proteins by lysosomes,” Science, vol. 273, no. 5274, pp. 501–503, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. U. Bandyopadhyay, S. Kaushik, L. Varticovski, and A. M. Cuervo, “The chaperone-mediated autophagy receptor organizes in dynamic protein complexes at the lysosomal membrane,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 28, no. 18, pp. 5747–5763, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. N. Salvador, C. Aguado, M. Horst, and E. Knecht, “Import of a cytosolic protein into lysosomes by chaperone-mediated autophagy depends on its folding state,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 275, no. 35, pp. 27447–27456, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. F. A. Agarraberes and J. F. Dice, “A molecular chaperone complex at the lysosomal membrane is required for protein translocation,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 114, no. 13, pp. 2491–2499, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. S. Kaushik and A. M. Cuervo, “Chaperone-mediated autophagy: a unique way to enter the lysosome world,” Trends in Cell Biology, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 407–417, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. R. Kiffin, C. Christian, E. Knecht, and A. M. Cuervo, “Activation of chaperone-mediated autophagy during oxidative stress,” Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 4829–4840, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. A. C. Massey, S. Kaushik, G. Sovak, R. Kiffin, and A. M. Cuervo, “Consequences of the selective blockage of chaperone-mediated autophagy,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 15, pp. 5805–5810, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. A. M. Cuervo, E. Knecht, S. R. Terlecky, and J. F. Dice, “Activation of a selective pathway of lysosomal proteolysis in rat liver by prolonged starvation,” American Journal of Physiology—Cell Physiology, vol. 269, no. 5, part 1, pp. C1200–C1208, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. E. Dohi, S. Tanaka, T. Seki et al., “Hypoxic stress activates chaperone-mediated autophagy and modulates neuronal cell survival,” Neurochemistry International, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 431–442, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. L. Alvarez-Erviti, M. C. Rodriguez-Oroz, J. M. Cooper et al., “Chaperone-mediated autophagy markers in Parkinson disease brains,” Archives of Neurology, vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 1464–1472, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. K. E. Murphy, A. M. Gysbers, S. K. Abbott et al., “Lysosomal-associated membrane protein 2 isoforms are differentially affected in early Parkinson's disease,” Movement Disorders, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1639–1647, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. A. M. Cuervo, L. Stafanis, R. Fredenburg, P. T. Lansbury, and D. Sulzer, “Impaired degradation of mutant α-synuclein by chaperone-mediated autophagy,” Science, vol. 305, no. 5688, pp. 1292–1295, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. S. J. Orenstein, S.-H. Kuo, I. Tasset et al., “Interplay of LRRK2 with chaperone-mediated autophagy,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 394–406, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. T. Vogiatzi, M. Xilouri, K. Vekrellis, and L. Stefanis, “Wild type α-synuclein is degraded by chaperone-mediated autophagy and macroautophagy in neuronal cells,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 283, no. 35, pp. 23542–23556, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. T.-F. Jiang and S.-D. Chen, “Dysfunction of two lysosome degradation pathways of α-synuclein in Parkinson's disease: potential therapeutic targets?” Neuroscience Bulletin, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 649–657, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. M. Xilouri, O. R. Brekk, and L. Stefanis, “α-Synuclein and protein degradation systems: a reciprocal relationship,” Molecular neurobiology, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 537–551, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. T. Kabuta, A. Furuta, S. Aoki, K. Furuta, and K. Wada, “Aberrant interaction between Parkinson disease-associated mutant UCH-L1 and the lysosomal receptor for chaperone-mediated autophagy,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 283, no. 35, pp. 23731–23738, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. T. Kabuta and K. Wada, “Insights into links between familial and sporadic Parkinson's disease: physical relationship between UCH-L1 variants and chaperone-mediated autophagy,” Autophagy, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 827–829, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. Y.-T. Yu, R. E. Breitbart, L. B. Smoot, Y. Lee, V. Mahdavi, and B. Nadal-Ginard, “Human myocyte-specific enhancer factor 2 comprises a group of tissue-restricted MADS box transcription factors,” Genes and Development, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1783–1798, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. Z. Mao and X. Wang, “Expression, function, and regulation of transcription factor MEF2 in neurons,” in Transcription Factors in the Nervous System, G. Thiel, Ed., chapter 14, pp. 285–305, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  71. K. A. Heidenreich and D. A. Linseman, “Myocyte enhancer factor-2 transcription factors in neuronal differentiation and survival,” Molecular Neurobiology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 155–165, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. Z. Mao, A. Bonni, F. Xia, M. Nadal-Vicens, and M. E. Greenberg, “Neuronal activity-dependent cell survival mediated by transcription factor MEF2,” Science, vol. 286, no. 5440, pp. 785–790, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. X. Gong, X. Tang, M. Wiedmann et al., “Cdk5-mediated inhibition of the protective effects of transcription factor MEF2 in neurotoxicity-induced apoptosis,” Neuron, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 33–46, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. X. Tang, X. Wang, X. Gong et al., “Cyclin-dependent kinase 5 mediates neurotoxin-induced degradation of the transcription factor myocyte enhancer factor 2,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 25, no. 19, pp. 4823–4834, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. P. D. Smith, S. J. Crocker, V. Jackson-Lewis et al., “Cyclin-dependent kinase 5 is a mediator of dopaminergic neuron loss in a mouse model of Parkinson's disease,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 23, pp. 13650–13655, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. P. D. Smith, M. P. Mount, R. Shree et al., “Calpain-regulated p35/cdk5 plays a central role in dopaminergic neuron death through modulation of the transcription factor myocyte enhancer factor 2,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 440–447, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. Q. Yang and Z. Mao, “Dysregulation of autophagy and Parkinson's disease: the MEF2D link,” Apoptosis, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1410–1414, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. Q. Yang, H. She, M. Gearing et al., “Regulation of neuronal survival factor MEF2D by chaperone-mediated autophagy,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5910, pp. 124–127, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. L. Gao, H. She, W. Li et al., “Oxidation of survival factor MEF2D in neuronal death and Parkinson's disease,” Antioxidants and Redox Signaling, vol. 20, no. 18, pp. 2936–2948, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. E. C. Stack, J. L. Ferro, J. Kim et al., “Therapeutic attenuation of mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in neurotoxin models of Parkinson's disease,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—Molecular Basis of Disease, vol. 1782, no. 3, pp. 151–162, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. A. Mehta, M. Prabhakar, P. Kumar, R. Deshmukh, and P. L. Sharma, “Excitotoxicity: bridge to various triggers in neurodegenerative disorders,” European Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 698, no. 1–3, pp. 6–18, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. E. Deas, N. Cremades, P. R. Angelova et al., “Alpha-synuclein oligomers interact with metal ions to induce oxidative stress and neuronal death in Parkinson's disease,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 376–391, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  83. S. R. Subramaniam and M.-F. Chesselet, “Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in Parkinson's disease,” Progress in Neurobiology, vol. 106-107, pp. 17–32, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. V. Dias, E. Junn, and M. M. Mouradian, “The role of oxidative stress in Parkinson's disease,” Journal of Parkinson's Disease, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 461–491, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. J. Blesa, I. Trigo-Damas, A. Quiroga-Varela, and V. R. Jackson-Lewis, “Oxidative stress and Parkinson’s disease,” Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, vol. 9, article 91, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. F. J. Naya, B. L. Black, H. Wu et al., “Mitochondrial deficiency and cardiac sudden death in mice lacking the MEF2A transcription factor,” Nature Medicine, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 1303–1309, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. H. She, Q. Yang, K. Shepherd et al., “Direct regulation of complex I by mitochondrial MEF2D is disrupted in a mouse model of Parkinson disease and in human patients,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 930–940, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. S. Anderson, A. T. Bankier, B. G. Barrell et al., “Sequence and organization of the human mitochondrial genome,” Nature, vol. 290, no. 5806, pp. 457–465, 1981. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. Y. Bai and G. Attardi, “The mtDNA-encoded ND6 subunit of mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase is essential for the assembly of the membrane arm and the respiratory function of the enzyme,” EMBO Journal, vol. 17, no. 16, pp. 4848–4858, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. M. Falkenberg, N.-G. Larsson, and C. M. Gustafsson, “DNA replication and transcription in mammalian mitochondria,” Annual Review of Biochemistry, vol. 76, pp. 679–699, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  91. S. Kösel, E. M. Grasbon-Frodl, U. Mautsch et al., “Novel mutations of mitochondrial complex I in pathologically proven Parkinson disease,” Neurogenetics, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 197–204, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. P. M. Keeney, J. Xie, R. A. Capaldi, and J. P. Bennett Jr., “Parkinson's disease brain mitochondrial complex I has oxidatively damaged subunits and is functionally impaired and misassembled,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 26, no. 19, pp. 5256–5264, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. A. H. V. Schapira, J. M. Cooper, D. Dexter, P. Jenner, J. B. Clark, and C. D. Marsden, “Mitochondrial complex I deficiency in Parkinson's disease,” The Lancet, vol. 333, no. 8649, p. 1269, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. A. H. V. Schapira, J. M. Cooper, D. Dexter, J. B. Clark, P. Jenner, and C. D. Marsden, “Mitochondrial complex I deficiency in Parkinson's disease,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 823–827, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. M. K. McCoy and M. R. Cookson, “DJ-1 regulation of mitochondrial function and autophagy through oxidative stress,” Autophagy, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 531–532, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. V. Bonifati, P. Rizzu, M. J. van Baren et al., “Mutations in the DJ-1 gene associated with autosomal recessive early-onset parkinsonism,” Science, vol. 299, no. 5604, pp. 256–259, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  97. B. Wang, Z. Cai, K. Tao et al., “Essential control of mitochondrial morphology and function by chaperone-mediated autophagy through degradation of PARK7,” Autophagy, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar