Sir2 histone deacetylase prevents programmed cell death caused by sustained activation of the Hog1 stress‐activated protein kinase
Authors: Mar Martínez-Pastor
Markus Proft
David A Sinclair
Alexandre Vendrell
Francesc Posas
Alberto González-Novo
Amparo Pascual-Ahuir
Journal: EMBO reports (2011)
Discipline: MOLECULAR BIOLOGY & GENETICS
Keywords: yeast; osmolarity; Hog1; SAPK; cell survival
Affiliations: Cell Signaling Unit, Departament de Ciències Experimentals i de la Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona E-08003, Valencia, Spain., Department of Biotechnology, Instituto de Biología Molecular y Celular de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia‐CSIC  Ingeniero Fausto Elio s/n E‐46011 Valencia Spain, Cell Signaling Unit, Departament de Ciències Experimentals i de la Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra  Barcelona E‐08003 Valencia Spain, Department of Pathology and Glenn Labs for Aging Research, Harvard Medical School  Boston Massachusetts 02115 USA

Abstract:  Exposure of yeast to high osmolarity induces a transient activation of the Hog1 stress-activated protein kinase (SAPK), which is required for cell survival under these conditions. However, sustained activation of the SAPK results in a severe growth defect. We found that prolonged SAPK activation leads to cell death, which is not observed in nma111 cells, by causing accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Mutations of the SCF(CDC4) ubiquitin ligase complex suppress cell death by preventing the degradation of Msn2 and Msn4 transcription factors. Accumulation of Msn2 and Msn4 leads to the induction of PNC1, which is an activator of the Sir2 histone acetylase. Sir2 is involved in protection against Hog1-induced cell death and can suppress Hog1-induced ROS accumulation. Therefore, cell death seems to be dictated by the balance of ROS induced by Hog1 and the protective effect of Sir2. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Retracted [3 March 2022] . ----------------------------- This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. Following receipt of whistle-blower complaints, an investigation of this and related papers was conducted. The Editor-in-Chief no longer has confidence in the scientific integrity of this paper. The test program reported in this paper is the same as that reported in Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 204, pp. 809u2013827. The primary test results have been normalised in a different manner in each paper. Material properties and mix designs have been reported in a different manner although are the same. The specimen images shown in Figures 31, 32 and 33 are also reported in [Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 204, pp. 809u2013827 and Applied Sciences, 2020, 10, 7587] having different specimen designations and unacknowledged in either case. Such practice of renaming specimens has the effect of distorting the scientific record and seemingly inflating the amount of data available. Some of the same images can also be found in [Magazine of Concrete Research, 2021, 73, 12, pp 608u2013626; Engineering Structures, 221, 2020, 111,086 and Journal of Building engineering, 36, 2021, 102125], also with different specimen designations and occasionally reported to be entirely different materials [Engineering Structures, 221, 2020, 111086]. The XRD spectra in this paper have been published in other papers by the same group authors, sometimes reported as representing different materials. Figure 6 has been published in [Construction and Building Materials, 2020, 257, 119463; Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 204, pp. 809u2013827, Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 2020, 124291; Journal of Building engineering, 36, 2021, 102125;, Structures, 25, 2020, pp 72u201387; Construction and Building Materials, 314, 2022, 125667; Cement and Concrete Composites, 2021, 122 104121; Mechanics of Materials, 150, 2020, 103,592 and Materials, 14(18), 2021, 5185] reported to be essentially the same material, coarse natural aggregate. In [Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 267, 121806], the same XRD is reported to be a different granite aggregate having different reported chemical composition. Figure 7 has been published in [Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 204, pp. 809u2013827, Journal of Building engineering, 36, 2021, 102125; Cement and Concrete Composites, 2021, 122 104121] reported to be essentially the same material, coarse recycled aggregate. In [Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 267, 121806], the same XRD is reported to be limestone. In [Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 2020, 124291; Structures, 25, 2020, pp 72u201387; Mechanics of Materials, 150, 2020, 103,592 and Materials, 14(18), 2021, 5185] the same XRD is reported to be fine natural aggregate. Figure 8 has been published in [Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 204, pp. 809u2013827, Journal of Building engineering, 36, 2021, 102,125 and Engineering Structures, 249, 2021, 113362] reported to be essentially the same material, recycled aggregate. In [Construction and Building Materials, 2020, 257, 119463], the same XRD is reported to be rubber waste. In [Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 267, 121806] the same XRD is reported to be cement. Communication with one co-author, Jorge De Brito, raised further concerns with the integrity of this work to the extent that he has expressed that he no longer has confidence in its content. , 
 According to the information on the article s page, it has been cited 57 times. (I assume the data is from Scopus.) ![file] ,