Autophagy in Atherosclerosis: Not All Foam Cells Are Created Equal
2022; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 130; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circresaha.122.320857
ISSN1524-4571
AutoresGordon A. Francis, Babak Razani,
Tópico(s)Phagocytosis and Immune Regulation
ResumoHomeCirculation ResearchVol. 130, No. 6Autophagy in Atherosclerosis: Not All Foam Cells Are Created Equal Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAutophagy in Atherosclerosis: Not All Foam Cells Are Created Equal Gordon A. Francis and Babak Razani Gordon A. FrancisGordon A. Francis Correspondence to: Gordon A. Francis, MD, Rm 166 Burrard Bldg., St. Paul's Hospital, 1066 Burrard St., Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Email E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1691-3758 Department of Medicine, Centre for Heart Lung Innovation, Providence Research, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (G.A.F.). and Babak RazaniBabak Razani Babak Razani, MD, PhD, 660 South Euclid Ave., Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, 63110, Email E-mail Address: [email protected]. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine (B.R.), Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. Department of Pathology and Immunology (B.R.), Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. John Cochran VA Medical Center, St. Louis, MO (B.R.). Originally published17 Mar 2022https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.122.320857Circulation Research. 2022;130:848–850This article is a commentary on the followingAutophagy Is Differentially Regulated in Leukocyte and Nonleukocyte Foam Cells During AtherosclerosisDecades of research using genetically modified hyperlipidemic mice has led to the conclusion that atherosclerosis is primarily a macrophage-driven process.1 Smooth muscle cells (SMCs), the other main cell type in atherosclerotic lesions, have been depicted mostly as forming the protective fibrous cap over a vulnerable core of inflamed and dying or dead macrophages. What has been largely forgotten or de-emphasized is that in human atherosclerosis-prone arteries, the intima is a thick layer containing predominantly SMCs and their secreted proteoglycans, a feature absent from mouse arteries,2,3 with macrophages and other leukocytes being relatively sparse until later stages of plaque development (Figure [A through F]).2,4 Throughout all stages of human atherosclerosis, SMCs are the most abundant cell type, whereas in mouse lesions, they are thought to contribute ≈36% of total cells in advanced plaque,5 though in both cases they frequently masquerade as macrophages.5,6Article, see p 831Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure. Diffuse intimal thickening, macrophages, and smooth muscle cell (SMC) foam cells in early human atherosclerosis.A, Anti-SMC actin antibody staining of thoracic aorta in young adult male showing preponderance of SMCs in the diffusely thickened intima (I) and media (M). B, Anti-macrophage antibody HAM56 (anti human macrophage antibody 56) of the same lesion demonstrating macrophages confined largely to the immediate subendothelial region. C, Higher magnification of HHF35 staining demonstrating SMC foam cells near the base of the intima. Adapted from Adapted from Katsuda et al4 with permission. Copyright © 1992, Elsevier. D, Grade 2 fatty streak in right coronary artery of a 44-y-old male showing diffuse thickening in intima relative to media. Arrowheads indicate the internal elastic lamina. E, Same tissue stained with Sudan IV showing lipid staining primarily in deeper intima. F, Macrophage staining with anti-CD68 (cluster of differentiation 68). Adapted from Nakashima et al2 with permission. Copyright © 2007, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. G, Atherosclerotic plaque depicting differences between a macrophage and an SMC in the fate of hydrolyzed cholesteryl esters (CEs) from uptake of modified lipids such as aggregated LDL (agLDL) or oxidized LDL (oxLDL). Free cholesterol (FC) generated by LAL (lysosomal acid lipase) is re-esterified in endoplasmic reticulum (ER) by ACAT (acyl-CoA-acyltransferase) to CE accumulating in cytosolic lipid droplets. Lipophagy then delivers these CEs to lysosomes where LAL can rehydrolyze to FC for efflux by ABCA1 or ABCG1 transporters to ApoA-I (apolipoprotein A-I)/HDL (high-density lipoprotein).Earlier studies by Gown, Stary, Wissler and colleagues4 indicated the presence of large numbers of SMC foam cells in the deep intima in early human atherogenesis. Based on these studies and evidence of impaired expression of the key cholesterol exporter ABCA1 by intimal SMCs,6 the Francis group has studied the relative contribution of SMCs and macrophages to the total plaque foam cell population. Allahverdian et al6 found that SMCs are the source of at least 50% of all foam cells in human coronary plaque, while Wang et al3 reported that in both nonlineage-tracing and SMC lineage-tracing ApoE (apolipoprotein E)-null mice, 65% to 70% of foam cells from mouse aortic atheromas are SMC derived. The latter study also demonstrated aortic SMC foam cells are different from macrophage foam cells in that they lack cytoplasmic lipid droplet granularity as evidenced by low side scatter in flow cytometry analysis, despite similar levels of cholesteryl esters.3 This study and others suggest the definition of a bona fide foam cell does not require the presence of cytoplasmic lipid droplets. In 2021, Dubland et al7 reported that vascular SMCs in humans and mice have markedly lower baseline expression of Lipa/LAL (lysosomal acid lipase) than macrophages and that SMC foam cells sequester lipoprotein-derived cholesteryl esters within their lysosomes, providing an explanation for the difference in sites of cholesteryl ester storage between SMC and macrophage foam cells in vivo.Understanding differences and similarities in lipid uptake, storage, and efflux between plaque SMCs and macrophages will be critical in determining how cholesterol metabolic dysfunction occurs in these cells and how novel therapeutics can be leveraged to mitigate atherosclerosis. In the current issue of Circulation Research, Robichaud et al8 contribute to this phenotyping by assessing the relative impairment in autophagy of SMCs and macrophages and whether this might provide further clues into mobilizing cholesterol from foam cells in atherosclerotic plaque. The importance of autophagy dysfunction in foam cell formation has been increasingly recognized in the last decade, first described in plaque macrophages.9 Although it remains unclear whether neutral lipid stores are targeted for autophagic degradation or delivered to lysosomes by bulk autophagy (ie, selective versus nonselective autophagy), derangements in lipophagy are clear contributors to excess lipid storage of plaque cells.10 In this regard, attempts at parsing the differences in autophagy/lipophagy dysfunction between plaque SMCs and macrophages are important given SMCs appear to contribute the majority of foam cells in humans6 and now in more than 1 mouse model of atherosclerosis.3,8To discriminate SMC and macrophage populations in the plaque with regard to both autophagosome formation and lysosome acidity/function, Robichaud et al8 took advantage of the often-used GFP-LC3 mouse model together with LysoTracker staining. They observed clear differences between these populations isolated from lesions, which they further characterized in vitro using cultured cells of each type. However, given the dynamic nature of autophagy in cells, its accurate evaluation is challenging in cell culture and more so in vivo, where classic autophagic markers cannot be easily studied in real time and in inducible fashion.11 At the level of tissues including atherosclerotic plaques, an evaluation of autophagy at snapshots in time is often the only way possible. Albeit challenging, assessing autophagy flux in vivo can be performed in mouse models by systemic administration of lysosome inhibitors such as chloroquine with or without autophagy induction by starvation.11 Other tools including use of dually fluorescent GFP-RFP-LC3 or a combination of GFP-LC3 and mCherry-LC3 transgenic mice coupled with optical imaging can provide a more nuanced assessment of autophagy flux.12 Whether these options have enhanced utility for a more complete assessment of autophagy in the atherosclerotic plaque should be the focus of future studies. Another important consideration is that conventional autophagy markers such as LC3 are designed for the assessment of bulk macroautophagy, leaving open the possibility of differences in selective autophagy pathways (eg, mitophagy, aggrephagy, and lipophagy).10 The Mito-Keima and MitoQC systems have been leveraged for evaluation of mitophagy in vivo while colocalization of p62/SQSTM1 with polyubiquitinated protein aggregates has been used in the assessment of aggrephagy in tissues.13,14 Due to our rudimentary understanding of the machinery involved in lipophagy and a dearth of effective tools for its assessment in vivo,10 characterizing differences in the lipid homeostasis of foam cells in atherosclerotic plaques remains a challenge.Another important issue in direct comparison of SMCs and macrophage foam cells is how comparable the cell types are in the various assays. In their first-pass analysis, Robichaud et al assess autophagy markers and autophagy flux differences in lipid-loaded bone marrow–derived macrophages and SMCs isolated from thoracic aortas of mice. Given inherent differences between these bone marrow–derived macrophages and SMC lineages, they astutely buttress their findings using macrophages and SMCs differentiated from a common embryonic stem cell lineage. In either cell culture model, inherent differences in lipid content, the progression of autophagy/lipophagy, and cholesterol efflux lead to the conclusion that SMC foam cells have a lower capacity to hydrolyze neutral lipid stores than macrophage foam cells. The applicability of these findings to SMCs and macrophages of the plaque remains unclear and will need to be determined in future studies. Furthermore, given the known elaboration of macrophage markers by SMCs during atherogenesis, any efforts in this area will need to take advantage of the several mouse lines currently available to trace SMC lineages in vivo.Finally, it is important to discuss lipid loading methods used to evaluate lipid homeostasis in vitro and their applicability to the in vivo setting. To study lipophagy in cultured cells, the authors utilize aggregated LDL (low-density lipoprotein) to load cholesterol into macrophages but resort to methyl-β cyclodextrin to load free cholesterol into SMCs. This difference is needed to facilitate generation of a cytosolic cholesteryl ester substrate pool in SMCs for the lipophagy studies. While that pool forms readily in macrophages loaded with aggregated LDL, the most likely vehicle for forming foam cells in vivo, it does not form in SMCs, presumably on the basis of the intrinsic low LAL in vascular SMCs and resulting inability to deliver free cholesterol derived from lipoprotein cholesteryl esters to the endoplasmic reticulum for reforming into cytoplasmic cholesteryl esters (Figure [G]).7 While this method of cholesterol loading allows assessment of autophagy/lipophagy, it raises questions about the in vivo relevance of the findings. It is possible that SMCs of the plaque might take up free cholesterol generated by hydrolysis of extracellular LDL or aggregated LDL by LAL exocytosed by macrophages. However, the low cytosolic lipid droplets of SMC foam cells isolated from mouse lesions and the recent finding that these cells do not mimic the gene profile produced by methyl-β cyclodextrin–cholesterol loading in vitro15 suggest plaque SMC foam cells might not have a large cytosolic lipid droplet pool available for lipophagy in vivo.Overall, Robichaud et al perform elegant work characterizing the foam cell landscape of atherosclerotic plaques and determine that derangements in autophagy/lipophagy might explain critical differences between SMC and macrophage foam cells. Their work raises several interesting possibilities that will need to be dissected further in vivo to determine whether lipophagy defects are related to or separate from the low LAL in SMCs. Their work adds to the notion that foam cells of the plaque cannot be viewed as a monolith. Our understanding of critical differences between SMC and macrophage foam cells will serve as the basis for future therapies aimed at reducing the residual cholesterol burden of atherosclerosis not removed by existing therapies.Article InformationSources of FundingThis work was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) project grant PJT 156137 to G.A. Francis and National Institutes of Health (NHI) R01 HL125838 and Veterans Affairs Merit Award (VA MERIT) I01 BX003415 to B. Razani.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.For Sources of Funding and Disclosures, see page 850.Correspondence to: Gordon A. Francis, MD, Rm 166 Burrard Bldg., St. Paul's Hospital, 1066 Burrard St., Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Email gordon.[email protected]ubc.caBabak Razani, MD, PhD, 660 South Euclid Ave., Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, 63110, Email [email protected]edu.References1. Moore KJ, Sheedy FJ, Fisher EA. Macrophages in atherosclerosis: a dynamic balance.Nat Rev Immunol. 2013; 13:709–721. doi: 10.1038/nri3520CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Nakashima Y, Fujii H, Sumiyoshi S, Wight TN, Sueishi K. Early human atherosclerosis: accumulation of lipid and proteoglycans in intimal thickenings followed by macrophage infiltration.Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2007; 27:1159–1165. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.106.134080LinkGoogle Scholar3. Wang Y, Dubland JA, Allahverdian S, Asonye E, Sahin B, Jaw JE, Sin DD, Seidman MA, Leeper NJ, Francis GA. Smooth muscle cells contribute the majority of foam cells in ApoE (apolipoprotein E)-deficient mouse atherosclerosis.Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2019; 39:876–887. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.119.312434LinkGoogle Scholar4. Katsuda S, Boyd HC, Fligner C, Ross R, Gown AM. Human atherosclerosis. III. Immunocytochemical analysis of the cell composition of lesions of young adults.Am J Pathol. 1992; 140:907–914.MedlineGoogle Scholar5. Shankman LS, Gomez D, Cherepanova OA, Salmon M, Alencar GF, Haskins RM, Swiatlowska P, Newman AA, Greene ES, Straub AC, et al. KLF4-dependent phenotypic modulation of smooth muscle cells has a key role in atherosclerotic plaque pathogenesis.Nat Med. 2015; 21:628–637. doi: 10.1038/nm.3866CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Allahverdian S, Chehroudi AC, McManus BM, Abraham T, Francis GA. Contribution of intimal smooth muscle cells to cholesterol accumulation and macrophage-like cells in human atherosclerosis.Circulation. 2014; 129:1551–1559. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.005015LinkGoogle Scholar7. Dubland JA, Allahverdian S, Besler KJ, Ortega C, Wang Y, Pryma CS, Boukais K, Chan T, Seidman MA, Francis GA. Low LAL (lysosomal acid lipase) expression by smooth muscle cells relative to macrophages as a mechanism for arterial foam cell formation.Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2021; 41:e354–e368. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.120.316063LinkGoogle Scholar8. Robichaud S, Rasheed A, Pietrangelo A, Doyoung Kim A, Boucher DM, Emerton C, Vijithakumar V, Gharibeh L, Fairman G, Mak E, et al. Autophagy is differentially regulated in leukocyte and nonleukocyte foam cells during atherosclerosis.Circ Res. 2022; 130:831–847. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.320047LinkGoogle Scholar9. Ouimet M, Franklin V, Mak E, Liao X, Tabas I, Marcel YL. Autophagy regulates cholesterol efflux from macrophage foam cells via lysosomal acid lipase.Cell Metab. 2011; 13:655–667. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2011.03.023CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Zhang X, Evans TD, Jeong SJ, Razani B. Classical and alternative roles for autophagy in lipid metabolism.Curr Opin Lipidol. 2018; 29:203–211. doi: 10.1097/MOL.0000000000000509CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, Abeliovich H, Abildgaard MH, Abudu YP, Acevedo-Arozena A, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.Autophagy. 2021; 17:1–382. doi: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Gottlieb RA, Andres AM, Sin J, Taylor DP. Untangling autophagy measurements: all fluxed up.Circ Res. 2015; 116:504–514. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.303787LinkGoogle Scholar13. Sun N, Malide D, Liu J, Rovira II, Combs CA, Finkel T. A fluorescence-based imaging method to measure in vitro and in vivo mitophagy using mt-Keima.Nat Protoc. 2017; 12:1576–1587. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.060CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Sergin I, Bhattacharya S, Emanuel R, Esen E, Stokes CJ, Evans TD, Arif B, Curci JA, Razani B. Inclusion bodies enriched for p62 and polyubiquitinated proteins in macrophages protect against atherosclerosis.Sci Signal. 2016; 9:ra2. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aad5614CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Conklin AC, Nishi H, Schlamp F, Örd T, Õunap K, Kaikkonen MU, Fisher EA, Romanoski CE. Meta-analysis of smooth muscle lineage transcriptomes in atherosclerosis and their relationships to in vitro models.Immunometabolism. 2021; 3:e210022. doi: 10.20900/immunometab20210022MedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Shao B, Xu H, Zhao Y, Zheng X, Wang F and Zhao G (2022) NLRP3 Inflammasome in Atherosclerosis: Putting Out the Fire of Inflammation, Inflammation, 10.1007/s10753-022-01725-x, 46:1, (35-46), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2023. Scipione C and Cybulsky M (2022) Early atherogenesis: new insights from new approaches, Current Opinion in Lipidology, 10.1097/MOL.0000000000000843, 33:5, (271-276), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2022. Related articlesAutophagy Is Differentially Regulated in Leukocyte and Nonleukocyte Foam Cells During AtherosclerosisSabrina Robichaud, et al. Circulation Research. 2022;130:831-847 March 18, 2022Vol 130, Issue 6 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2022 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.122.320857PMID: 35298303 Originally publishedMarch 17, 2022 Keywordsinflammationmacrophagescholesterolatherosclerosisautophagymuscle, smoothEditorialsPDF download Advertisement
Referência(s)