Blog

  • How Coventry’s sewers starred in The Italian Job

    How Coventry’s sewers starred in The Italian Job

    Richard Williams & Chloee French

    BBC CWR

    Allen Cook

    BBC News, West Midlands

    Listen on BBC Sounds: Minis were filmed in a sewer pipe underneath Coventry for the iconic chase scene in the 1969 movie

    A stretch of sewage pipe underneath Coventry cemented its place in British film history, thanks to a legendary car chase, a French stuntman and a much-loved motoring icon, the Mini.

    In the late 1960s, while producing what would become the classic crime caper, The Italian Job, the filmmakers were stumped.

    They could not find a suitable location in Turin, Italy, to film part of the famous escape through the streets of the city and its sewers.

    Then, as Oscar-winning producer Michael Deeley recalled, luck intervened: “It was completely by chance we discovered a stretch of pipe in Stoke Aldermoor.”

    That find led to the classic scene and, decades later, the exact location, now buried underground, is being tracked down and the story retold by the BBC’s Secret Coventry series.

    Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images Michael Caine, British actor, wearing blue overalls and crouching down with a stack of gold bullion in a publicity still issued for the film, 'The Italian Job', 1969. Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images

    Michael Caine starred in the 1969 film about a crime caper and the theft of gold bullion

    In the heist movie, after stealing a shipment of gold destined for a Turin car factory, the robbers make their escape with the gold in three Minis.

    They drive down steps, leap across gaps between buildings and go through the sewers.

    But for the latter part, they needed a wide enough section of sewer pipe which, as Mr Deeley said, they found in Coventry.

    The 240m (262yd) long pipe was being installed at the time and snaked under part of Stoke Aldermoor, between The Barley Lea and Allard Way.

    Photographs from the time show the Minis being lowered down to the pipes which were already being buried underground.

    Coventry Telegraph Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty Images A Mini is lowered into Coventry sewers during the filming of The Italian Job film. 26th September 1968. A man stands next to a large hole with his arm out, hand down, to indicate the direction of the winching. Several people stand next to a pipe looking up at the Mini in the airCoventry Telegraph Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty Images

    The Minis were winched down to the sewer pipe so they could be filmed

    Neville Goode was the operator of the crane and still remembers the day clearly – though at the time, he had no idea his work was part of film history.

    “It was just putting the cars down the tunnel, no idea why. Nobody told us why it was being done,” he said.

    Only later, after seeing the film, did the reality sink in: “We thought, ‘Hang on, I remember working on that film’.”

    Kevin Conway, a Mini enthusiast, was the driving force behind the installation of a commemorative plaque at the scene in 2019.

    “They arranged for some local cameramen to be able to lower the Minis into the ground and it turned out to be one of the greatest British films ever made,” he said.

    Coventry Telegraph Archive/Coventry Telegraph Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty Images Minis in Coventry sewers during the filming of The Italian Job film. 26th September 1968. Coventry Telegraph Archive/Coventry Telegraph Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty Images

    Remy Julienne was among the stunt drivers who undertook the filming

    Star Michael Caine was not needed for the Coventry filming, but the daredevil behind the wheel in the tunnel was French stunt star Remy Julienne, who orchestrated much of the film’s action.

    They attempted to achieve a full 360-degree roll of the car inside the sewer, but Mr Conway said it ended up that Julienne “crashed a few times”.

    “[Neville] had to take a smashed Mini out of the tunnel, on its side, drag it out and lift it out,” he added.

    A man with short white and brown hair, stands in front of a grassy bank with a metal plaque halfway up it. He wears a white short-sleeves shirt with a blue dotted pattern while holding a bottle in his left hand.

    Kevin Conway led efforts to get a plaque installed at the scene of the filming in Coventry

    But the retired crane operator did come to the stuntman’s aid through a pair of gloves lent to the Frenchman.

    Mr Goode said: “Julienne came out and said there was too much water, it was making the steering wheel slippy so I said, ‘I’ve got a pair of gloves in my cab if you’d like to borrow them, maybe they would help?’

    “So he took those and he kept them.”

    The area above the sewer pipe and the plaque at the spot, installed six years ago, has become a surprising landmark among fans of the film, Mr Conway said.

    “The amount of people that I meet…it’s popping up on Facebook: ‘Here’s me standing beside it’,” he added.

    “Ten feet underneath where that plaque is, was where Remy Julienne sat in the front seat of a Mini and gunned his engine.”

    Continue Reading

  • Mechanisms and Targeted Therapeutic Strategies in Sepsis-Induced Myoca

    Mechanisms and Targeted Therapeutic Strategies in Sepsis-Induced Myoca

    Introduction

    Sepsis is widely recognized as a critical condition triggered by severe infections, and its definition has evolved from Sepsis 1.0 in 1991 to Sepsis 3.0 in 2016.1,2 Sepsis is currently understood as a systemic inflammatory response to infection, where an excessive immune response can lead to multi-organ failure and shock. It remains one of the most common and life-threatening conditions in clinical practice. Due to its high mortality rate and the frequent occurrence of complex complications, sepsis imposes a significant economic and social burden worldwide.2–4 According to data from 409 hospitals in the United States, approximately 1.7 million patients develop sepsis annually, with this number steadily rising.5 A cross-sectional study conducted across 44 hospitals in China found that the 90-day mortality rate for hospitalized sepsis patients was around 35.5%.6 The heart, which is rich in mitochondria, is one of the primary target organs affected by sepsis. Sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction (SIMD) is a poor prognostic indicator in sepsis patients, characterized by adverse outcomes and an increased mortality rate.7 Epidemiological studies suggest that myocardial injury or heart failure is commonly observed in sepsis patients, with an incidence ranging from 10% to 70%.8–10

    During sepsis, myocardial hypoxia, coupled with mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress, leads to cardiac dysfunction and hemodynamic instability. This is primarily manifested by left ventricular dilation, normal or reduced filling pressures, decreased ventricular contractility, and right or left ventricular dysfunction, resulting in a diminished response to volume infusion.11,12 Current treatment strategies for SIMD focus on two main approaches: one involves traditional symptomatic management such as fluid resuscitation and antimicrobial therapy, which often show limited efficacy. The other emerging approach includes advanced technologies like extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and remote ischemic conditioning (RIC), which offer potential benefits for cardiac and pulmonary support in sepsis patients. However, these advanced interventions are costly and increase the financial burden on patients. Furthermore, they are predominantly available in large, tertiary hospitals with specialized intensive care units, making their routine use impractical. Thus, exploring the molecular mechanisms underlying SIMD is critical to developing targeted therapies. Several factors contribute to the pathogenesis of SIMD, including the activation of inflammatory responses, dysregulation of calcium homeostasis, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and cell death.13–16 Recent studies have shown that when the host encounters injury, infection, or viral invasion, pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) are activated. The body’s pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) recognize specific pathogen structures, triggering the release of pro-inflammatory mediators and initiating an inflammatory cascade. A controlled inflammatory response can facilitate immune activation, enabling pathogen clearance and defending against external threats.17 Nevertheless, when the inflammatory response becomes dysregulated, it can trigger immune dysfunction, contributing to sepsis and damage to target organs, including the heart.

    NLRP3 (Nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3) is a well-established cytosolic pattern recognition receptor that plays a pivotal role in cellular responses to stress signals.18 It is predominantly activated during host infections or inflammatory responses, leading to the assembly of the NLRP3 inflammasome, which subsequently induces apoptosis or pyroptosis.18 As a crucial sensor of the innate immune system, NLRP3 detects various DAMPs and initiates inflammatory responses.19 Recent studies have highlighted that NLRP3 modulates several pathophysiological processes, including pyroptosis, oxidative stress, autophagy, and mitochondrial dysfunction. Inhibition of NLRP3 has been shown to mitigate sepsis-induced myocardial injury and improve survival outcomes.20 For example, Zhang et al demonstrated that in a cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) mouse model of sepsis and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated cardiac fibroblasts, corticosteroid treatment effectively suppressed the formation of the NLRP3 inflammasome, caspase-1 activation, and IL-1β secretion, thereby offering protection against myocardial damage.21 Likewise, Qiu et al showed that high-dose ulinastatin (UTI) attenuated NLRP3 inflammasome activation, resulting in myocardial protection and enhanced survival rates in septic rats.22

    Recent research has increasingly underscored the critical role of aberrant NLRP3 inflammasome activation in driving a variety of inflammatory responses, including SIMD. The NLRP3 inflammasome is integral to a range of pathological processes such as pyroptosis, oxidative stress, autophagy, and mitochondrial dysfunction, and it is also involved in modulating the cardiac impairment associated with sepsis. Despite these advances, the current body of research remains dispersed, and a systematic review that consolidates these findings is lacking. Therefore, there is a pressing need for a comprehensive synthesis of the existing literature to enhance our understanding of SIMD. This review aims to provide a thorough analysis of the specific role of the NLRP3 inflammasome and the inflammatory pathways it orchestrates in the pathogenesis of septic myocardial dysfunction. We will focus on the NLRP3 inflammasome’s involvement in various mechanistic pathways, including pyroptosis, oxidative stress, autophagy, mitochondrial injury, exosome secretion, and endoplasmic reticulum stress. Additionally, we will explore how these processes may contribute to the pathophysiological development of SIMD. Finally, the review will summarize the principal signaling pathways implicated in SIMD and briefly discuss current therapeutic strategies and their potential molecular targets for mitigating SIMD.

    NLRP3 Inflammasome

    Composition of NLRP3 Inflammasome

    The NLRP3 inflammasome is a multi-protein complex composed of various intracellular components that recognize and respond to activation signals through cytosolic sensors.23 These sensors include nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain (NBD), nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-like receptors (NLRs), adaptor proteins, and effector molecules.23 The assembly of the inflammasome typically involves PRRs, apoptosis-associated speck-like protein (ASC), and caspase-1. PRRs involved in pathogen recognition are classified into two categories: membrane-bound PRRs, such as Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and C-type lectin receptors, and cytosolic PRRs, such as NLRs and retinoic acid-inducible gene I-like receptors (RIG-I-like receptors).24 Some PRRs are capable of recognizing conserved microbial components or PAMPs, including peptidoglycan.24 They can also detect DAMPs, which are released from cells or tissues undergoing injury, such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP).24 Notably, not all of the aforementioned PRRs are involved in inflammasome formation. For instance, RIG-I-like receptors primarily detect viral RNA in the cytoplasm of infected cells, triggering the synthesis of type I interferons to initiate an antiviral response, but they are not directly related to inflammasome formation.25 To date, five PRRs have been identified that are capable of forming inflammasomes: NLRP1, NLRP3, NLRC4, Pyrin, and AIM2.26–29 These PRRs are considered to play important roles in pathological conditions, such as myocarditis.26–29 The activated inflammasome detects DAMPs released from damaged cells and PAMPs derived from pathogens in the gut-liver axis. The assembly of these complexes induces the activation of caspase-1, which subsequently participates in the caspase-1-dependent pyroptotic pathway. Current research has demonstrated that the NLRP3 inflammasome plays a critical role in the inflammatory response in cardiomyocytes, immune cell activation, and myocardial injury.29 Therefore, the NLRP3 inflammasome is regarded as a key player in the inflammatory response associated with SIMD.30 Targeting the NLRP3 inflammasome for therapeutic intervention in SIMD holds great promise for the future.

    The NLRP3 inflammasome is a large multimeric protein complex with an approximate molecular mass of 700,000 Da, composed of NLRP3, the adaptor protein ASC, and the effector protein caspase-1.31 The assembly of the NLRP3 inflammasome requires interactions between the NLRP3 receptor, the adaptor protein ASC, and pro-caspase-1.31

    NLRP3 is a member of the NLR (nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-like receptor) family, which share a conserved structural framework. NLRP3 itself consists of three main structural domains. Leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domain at the C-terminus, which is primarily responsible for recognizing and binding PAMPs or DAMPs.32 This domain engages with microbial or host-derived signals that trigger immune responses.32 It is vital to note that the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome does not always occur through direct interaction with PAMPs or DAMPs. It can also be triggered by secondary mechanisms, such as disruption of the mitochondrial membrane potential or potassium efflux.33–35 Nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain (NACHT) in the central region, which facilitates self-oligomerization and is involved in mediating the formation of inflammasome complexes. This domain shares similarities with other proteins such as NAIP, CIITA, HET-E, and TP1. Caspase recruitment domain (CARD), pyrin domain (PYD), and baculovirus inhibitor of apoptosis protein repeat (BIR) domains at the N-terminus, which are involved in downstream protein-protein interactions. These domains facilitate the recruitment of other proteins necessary for inflammasome assembly and subsequent activation of caspase-1, leading to pyroptosis and inflammatory responses. Through the coordinated function of these domains, NLRP3 detects a wide range of PAMPs and DAMPs, triggering the assembly of the inflammasome complex and activating caspase-1, which plays a crucial role in the inflammatory response and cellular damage.

    Under basal conditions, the NACHT domain of NLRP3 interacts with the LRR domain, thereby maintaining the protein in a self-inhibited conformation. The NACHT domain, which possesses ATPase activity, represents the central structural and functional unit of NLRs. Upon the detection of PAMPs or DAMPs, NLRP3 undergoes a conformational shift that disrupts its autoinhibition, resulting in the exposure of the NACHT domain and its subsequent oligomerization. This process enables NLRP3 to function as a scaffold for inflammasome assembly.36 The N-terminal PYD of NLRP3 recruits the adaptor protein ASC, which also contains a PYD domain. The CARD of ASC then recruits pro-caspase-1, which contains a CARD domain, facilitating the assembly of the inflammasome complex.36 In addition to these interactions, the domains of NLRP3 and its associated proteins are capable of engaging with other ligands, thereby activating downstream signaling pathways that regulate cellular responses and contribute to the inflammatory response.

    ASC is recognized as a crucial adaptor protein closely involved in the formation of the NLRP3 inflammasome and its associated cell death mechanisms. Current studies on its structure and function reveal that ASC comprises two key domains: the PYD at the C-terminus and the CARD at the N-terminus.37 Under conditions of cell damage or infection, activation of pattern recognition receptors, such as NLRP3, triggers the binding of its PYD domain to ASC, which in turn facilitates the interaction between ASC’s CARD domain and caspase-1, leading to the activation of caspase-1. Activated caspase-1 then cleaves pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-1β and IL-18, thereby initiating their secretion and triggering an inflammatory response.37 Furthermore, during ASC activation, visible intracellular aggregates known as ASC specks are formed. These specks are a result of ASC aggregation and indicate the process of inflammasome assembly. ASC specks are considered a marker of inflammasome activity, and their formation is essential for the detection and study of inflammasome activation.38

    Caspase-1, alternatively referred to as interleukin-1β converting enzyme (ICE), functions as the effector protease within the NLRP3 inflammasome complex. Initially present as an inactive zymogen, caspase-1 is activated through interaction with upstream signals, leading to the formation of a highly conserved protease complex. Caspase-1 is involved in a variety of physiological processes, including signal transduction and transcriptional regulation.39 Its primary role is to cleave precursor forms of interleukins (pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18) into their mature, biologically active forms, IL-1β and IL-18.39 These pro-inflammatory cytokines are critical for the regulation of innate immune responses and play key roles in the pathogenesis of numerous inflammatory and autoimmune disorders.40,41

    Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome

    The activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome facilitates the activation of pro-caspase-1 and the release of key inflammatory cytokines, which is crucial for the onset and progression of septic cardiomyopathy. The mechanism of NLRP3 inflammasome activation is complex, involving various inflammatory pathways and processes.42 The prevailing hypothesis for NLRP3 inflammasome activation is the “two-signal model”, which includes both the “priming” signal and the “activation” signal.43,44 First, the “priming” signal provided by microbial or endogenous molecules is transduced via the TLR signaling pathway, leading to the activation of the NF-κB pathway. The transcriptional activity of NF-κB is tightly regulated by both intracellular and extracellular mechanisms. NF-κB remains inactive in the cytoplasm in complex with IκB.45 Post-translational modifications or ubiquitination of IκB, in response to extracellular signaling, leads to its degradation, enabling NF-κB to translocate to the nucleus and become activated.45 Bacterial components bind to TLRs and activate NF-κB transcriptional activity through the MyD88, IRAK, and TRAF6 signaling cascade.46 As a result, the baseline expression of pro-IL-1β and NLRP3 proteins is significantly increased. Notably, the priming signal also induces post-translational modifications of NLRP3, such as deubiquitination and phosphorylation, to promote subsequent inflammasome activation.47 For instance, NLRP3 can be considered a substrate of the BRISC complex containing the cytoplasmic BRCC3, which deubiquitinates NLRP3 and activates the inflammasome.48 Once the priming signal is complete, various DAMPs and PAMPs trigger the assembly of the NLRP3 inflammasome through homologous interactions within its NACHT domain.

    The activation signal in the second step can occur via three main pathways: the first involves extracellular ATP, which stimulates ion channels, promoting K+ efflux and the formation of membrane channels, directly facilitating the assembly and activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome.33 The P2X7 receptor acts as a cation channel activated by ATP, allowing K+ efflux.49 K+ efflux is widely recognized as a key mechanism in NLRP3 inflammasome activation.50 The second pathway involves the internalization of extracellular crystals or specific particles, such as calcium or chloride ions, leading to lysosomal rupture and facilitating the aggregation and activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome.34 The third pathway involves PAMPs and DAMPs, which, through ROS-dependent signaling, enhance intracellular ROS production and promote NLRP3 inflammasome assembly and activation.35 Studies have shown that NLRP3 activators can initiate the production of mitochondrial ROS (mtROS), which further oxidize mtDNA. mtDNA, a potent inducer of IL-1β production, can co-localize with NLRP3 and promote inflammasome activation.51–53

    In addition to the aforementioned factors, some non-degradable substances can activate the NLRP3 inflammasome through “frustrated phagocytosis”. Many non-digestible particles are taken up by macrophages into intracellular phagolysosomes, leading to the release of stress-related substances and lysosomal proteases into the cytoplasm. For example, Cathepsin B, a representative lysosomal protease, can activate the NLRP3 inflammasome.54,55

    The Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome in SIMD

    Multiple studies have demonstrated that the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome regulates myocardial inflammation in sepsis-induced myocardial injury through various intracellular pathways, including oxidative stress, pyroptosis, autophagy, mitochondrial dysfunction, exosome response, and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. In the following sections, we will elaborate on the role of the NLRP3 inflammasome in septic cardiomyopathy from these perspectives.

    Role of the NLRP3 Inflammasome in Pyroptosis-Mediated Pathogenesis of SIMD

    Pyroptosis is a form of programmed cell death that functions as a defensive response to cellular injury or infection; however, when dysregulated, it can contribute to extensive tissue damage and the onset of sepsis. This process is largely mediated by members of the gasdermin (GSMD) protein family, which form pores in the plasma membrane, leading to the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β and IL-18.56 Key features of pyroptosis include the formation of membrane pores, cellular swelling, membrane rupture, and the subsequent release of inflammatory mediators and cellular contents into the extracellular space.57,58 The excessive release of these cytokines plays a central role in driving the inflammatory cascade seen in sepsis. As such, pyroptosis is closely associated with both the systemic inflammatory response and the resultant organ dysfunction in sepsis, particularly in the context of SIMD. In a study by Kalbitz et al, it was observed that in a CLP-induced sepsis model, the expression levels of NLRP3 and IL-1β were markedly elevated in the left ventricular myocardium.59 Notably, in mice with NLRP3 gene knockdown, both cardiovascular damage and plasma levels of IL-1β and IL-6 were significantly reduced compared to wild-type controls. These findings suggest that the NLRP3 inflammasome plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of SIMD by driving pyroptosis-mediated myocardial injury59 (Figure 1).

    Figure 1 Role of the NLRP3 Inflammasome in Pyroptosis-Mediated Pathogenesis of SIMD. NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated pyroptosis can be classified into two distinct types based on the dependence on caspase-1. In caspase-1-dependent pyroptosis, the process is initiated by the assembly of the inflammasome. In contrast, caspase-1-independent pyroptosis is triggered by the interaction between caspase-4, caspase-5, or caspase-11 (depending on the species) and LPS.

    Classic Pathways of Pyroptosis in SIMD

    The prevailing view in the field of SIMD suggests that the classical pyroptosis pathway can be classified into two types based on whether or not it depends on caspase-1.50 In the classical caspase-1-dependent pyroptosis pathway, when the body recognizes DAMPs and PAMPs in response to various endogenous and exogenous stimuli, the NLRP3 inflammasome is activated by these signals. The inflammasome then interacts with the adaptor protein ASC, leading to the activation of pro-caspase-1, which is subsequently cleaved into active caspase-1.60 On one hand, active caspase-1 cleaves Gasdermin D (GSDMD), a protein belonging to the GSDM family, which is a key player in pyroptosis. The structure of GSDMD consists of a toxic N-terminal domain and a C-terminal inhibitory domain connected by a flexible linker. Upon cleavage of the C-terminal domain, the N-terminal domain of GSDMD is recruited to the cell membrane, where it interacts with lipids, forming intermediate structures known as pre-pores.61 These pre-pores undergo conformational rearrangement, forming oligomeric arcs that further transition into ring-like structures, which ultimately form membrane pores.61 This pore formation leads to the release of cellular contents and triggers pyroptosis.61 Electron microscopy reveals that the inner diameter of the GSDMD-N pore is 10–15 nm, allowing the passage of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β and IL-18, thereby enhancing the inflammatory response.62,63 Additionally, the transcription of GSDMD is regulated by multiple molecules.64 For example, in adipocytes, NF-κB can activate the transcription of GSDMD, while in endothelial or macrophage cells, activation of IRF1/2 can enhance GSDMD expression.65–67 As a key effector molecule of the inflammasome, inhibiting the cleavage and oligomerization of GSDMD can block its role in pyroptosis, potentially providing a therapeutic strategy for disease treatment. On the other hand, activated caspase-1 cleaves and activates the precursor forms of IL-1β and IL-18. The mature cytokines are then released extracellularly, further amplifying the inflammatory response.

    In the caspase-1-independent pyroptosis pathway, following LPS stimulation, caspase-4, caspase-5, and caspase-11 can directly bind to LPS and become activated, leading to the cleavage of GSDMD and the exposure of its N-terminal domain, initiating pyroptosis. Furthermore, the activation of caspase-4/5/11 also activates the Pannexin-1 channel and facilitates the release of K+ ions, which in turn activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, leading to the activation of caspase-1 and further pyroptosis via the caspase-1-dependent pathway.68 Notably, the NLRP3 inflammasome/caspase-1/IL-1β pathway is implicated in the development of SIMD due to excessive inflammation.69,70 In a mouse model of SIMD, Busch et al observed that compared to wild-type septic mice, NLRP3 knockout mice exhibited lower serum levels of IL-1β, reduced cardiac and cardiomyocyte atrophy, improved cardiac diastolic and systolic functions, and increased survival rates.71 Furthermore, Intermedin1-53 (IMD1-53) suppressed NLRP3 activity through the NLRP3/caspase-1/IL-1β pathway in septic cardiomyocytes, thereby alleviating SIMD.72 In conclusion, targeting NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated pyroptosis to mitigate SIMD presents a promising new therapeutic target for the prevention and treatment of septic cardiomyopathy.

    Classic Signaling Pathways of Pyroptosis in SIMD

    Studies have shown that the ER/SIRT1/NLRP3/GSDMD signaling pathway, mediated by the NLRP3 inflammasome, is one of the classical pathways involved in SIMD, regulating pyroptosis and contributing to the pathogenesis of SIMD.73 Inhibiting this signaling pathway effectively suppresses pyroptosis and alleviates the symptoms of SIMD.73 Additionally, the STING-IRF3 pathway can activate the NLRP3 inflammasome, further participating in the progression of SIMD. In an endotoxemic model mimicking Gram (-) bacterial sepsis via LPS, Li et al found that after LPS treatment, STING undergoes perinuclear translocation, interacts with interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3), and phosphorylates IRF3.74 The phosphorylated IRF3 is subsequently transported to the nucleus, where it increases NLRP3 expression and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, triggering myocardial cell apoptosis and pyroptosis, ultimately leading to heart dysfunction. Knockout of the STING gene, inhibition of IRF3 phosphorylation, and blocking its nuclear translocation significantly reduced NLRP3-mediated myocardial inflammation and improved sepsis-induced myocardial injury.74 Similarly, the SMC4/NEMO signaling pathway has been identified as a promoter of NLRP3 vesicle activation, inducing myocardial cell pyroptosis and contributing to SIMD development.75

    Moreover, transcription factors play a crucial role in the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome, influencing the onset and progression of sepsis-induced myocardial disease. NF-κB facilitates the activation and assembly of the NLRP3 inflammasome by upregulating the transcription of NLRP3 and pro-IL-1β.76 The p65 subunit directly binds to the NLRP3 gene promoter, regulating LPS-induced NLRP3 expression in brain microvascular endothelial cells (BMECs).77 Interestingly, the expression of nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) is negatively correlated with the activation of pyroptosis and the development of sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction.78,79 Based on these findings, some researchers propose that melatonin, by activating the Nrf2 pathway and inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome formation, could alleviate sepsis-induced myocardial injury.80

    In summary, when the NLRP3 inflammasome is activated by a range of danger signals, including hypoxia, PAMPs, DAMPs, and molecules associated with metabolic disturbances (such as ATP and K), the GSDMD pores open, and IL-1β and IL-18 are released into the bloodstream. This leads to widespread inflammatory responses and immune dysregulation, ultimately triggering sepsis and sepsis-induced myocardial injury. Therefore, targeting the inhibition of the NLRP3 inflammasome and its associated pyroptosis pathway may represent a potential therapeutic strategy for SIMD.

    The Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome via Oxidative Stress in SIMD

    ROS are by-products of oxygen metabolism and possess highly reactive properties. They primarily include peroxides, superoxides, hydroxyl radicals, and singlet oxygen.81 ROS participate in various physiological processes such as differentiation, proliferation, necrosis, autophagy, and apoptosis by acting as signaling molecules or regulatory factors, often functioning as transcriptional activators.82 In this context, maintaining appropriate cellular ROS levels is essential for redox homeostasis.83 Furthermore, ROS serve as antimicrobial agents, capable of directly destroying microbial pathogens.84 However, an excess of ROS can have detrimental effects. For instance, oxidative stress arises from an imbalance between ROS production and antioxidant defense mechanisms.85 Studies have shown that during sepsis, stressors such as hypoxia led to an overproduction of ROS, which induces significant cellular apoptosis and organ dysfunction, contributing to sepsis and target organ damage.86 Additionally, ROS are known to promote apoptosis, mitochondrial oxidation, and alterations in cellular signaling pathways. It is well-established that the onset of sepsis is associated with a range of dysregulated inflammatory responses, and ROS have been found to be closely linked to the NLRP3 inflammasome in inflammation. Therefore, the roles of ROS and the NLRP3 inflammasome in sepsis and related organ damage are of great interest. Research on the interaction between ROS and the NLRP3 inflammasome in the pathophysiological processes of septic cardiomyopathy primarily focuses on the following areas (Figure 2).

    Figure 2 The Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome via Oxidative Stress in SIMD. Sepsis-induced oxidative stress promotes the generation of ROS through mitochondrial oxidation. The activation of P2X7 receptors by PAMPs and DAMPs triggers the influx of Ca2+ and the efflux of K+. The resulting calcium overload and ROS disrupt mitochondrial integrity, leading to the release of cytochrome C into the cytoplasm. This process facilitates the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasomes and induces apoptosis. Additionally, LPS activates the NF-κB signaling pathway, which promotes the expression of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18. Subsequently, activated caspase-1 cleaves pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms.

    The Production of ROS Is Partially Dependent on the Activation of NLRP3 in SIMD

    NLRP3 is a widely recognized cellular stress sensor, whose activation is closely associated with the generation of ROS and subsequent inflammasome activation.87,88 Studies have shown that LPS triggers ROS production through the activation of TLR4, a key event in the initial activation of NLRP3.89,90 The P2X7 receptor, a trimeric ATP-gated cation channel, facilitates increased membrane permeability, resulting in potassium (K⁺) efflux. During sepsis and its associated renal and myocardial injuries, ATP stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome activation via P2X7 receptor-mediated feedback mechanisms, leading to the processing and release of IL-1β.91,92 The production of ROS is often linked to K⁺ efflux, suggesting that a decrease in intracellular K⁺ concentrations may play a role in inducing ROS generation during NLRP3 inflammasome activation.93 Therefore, it can be hypothesized that ROS production in sepsis-induced myocardial injury may be dependent on the synergistic activation of the P2X7 receptor and the NLRP3 inflammasome.94 Based on this, targeting the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome and inhibiting excessive ROS production and oxidative stress may offer a novel therapeutic strategy for sepsis-related cardiomyopathy.

    ROS Promotes the Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome in SIMD

    Recent studies have indicated that ROS are potential signals for the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. Two main hypotheses have been proposed regarding the role of ROS in promoting NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The first hypothesis involves thioredoxin-interacting protein (TXNIP). It has been demonstrated that ROS are sensed by a complex consisting of thioredoxin (TXN) and TXNIP.94 The TXNIP-TRX system, along with NADPH and thioredoxin reductase (TRX-R), forms a redox system.94 TRX exists in different isoforms, including TRX1 (12 kDa) in the cytoplasm and TRX2 (15.5 kDa) in the mitochondria.95 TRX functions to reduce oxidized proteins, leading to the oxidation of its two cysteine residues, and alternates between oxidized (inactive) and reduced (active) states.96 Oxidized TRX is converted to its reduced form via NADPH-dependent TRX-R activity, which catalyzes the transfer of electrons from NADPH to oxidized TRX, thereby regulating the cellular redox balance.97 The primary physiological function of the TRX system is to remove ROS and protect cells from oxidative damage while maintaining a reducing intracellular environment. TRX1 and TRX2 regulate ROS levels in the cytoplasm and mitochondria, respectively. However, TXNIP inhibits the antioxidant activity of TRX.98 Under physiological conditions, TXNIP is localized to the nucleus, preventing its translocation to the cytoplasm. Under ROS-overproducing conditions, TXNIP upregulates its expression by inhibiting the phosphorylation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which triggers the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic translocation of TXNIP, leading to endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondrial stress.99 On one hand, the translocation of TXNIP from the nucleus to the cytoplasm promotes its interaction with TRX1, inhibiting TRX1 activity.100 On the other hand, TXNIP translocated to the mitochondria, where it binds to TRX2 via disulfide bonds, inhibiting the reducing function of TRX2 and oxidizing it, forming the TXNIP/TRX2 complex.96 TXNIP dissociates TRX2 from apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 (ASK1), triggering mitochondrial ROS generation and inducing ASK1 phosphorylation.101 Phosphorylated ASK1 stimulates cytochrome c (Cyto c) release, leading to caspase 3 activation and mitochondrial apoptosis.101 As mentioned earlier, NF-κB activation is considered the first step in NLRP3 inflammasome activation.102 The second step involves the direct interaction between TXNIP and NLRP3, which is redox-state-dependent. The activation of pro-inflammatory pathways promotes the nuclear-to-mitochondrial translocation of TXNIP, where it forms a complex with TRX2. This process promotes mitochondrial ROS accumulation, oxidizing TRX2 and releasing TXNIP in the mitochondria.101,103 TXNIP binds to the pyrin domain of NLRP3, followed by the recruitment of ASC’s CARD domain, which interacts with the pro-caspase-1 precursor.104 These interactions result in the formation of the NLRP3 inflammasome and the cleavage of pro-caspase-1, leading to the activation of caspase-1 and triggering a widespread inflammatory response. Therefore, the association between TXNIP and NLRP3 is not a direct ROS-sensing mechanism but rather a secondary effect under oxidative stress conditions.105 Li et al found that LPS stimulation promotes ROS generation, further inducing the translocation of NLRP3 from the nucleus. Isolated TXNIP can directly interact with NLRP3 and form the inflammasome, ultimately causing myocardial cell damage.74 Yang et al discovered that knockdown of TXNIP expression inhibited NLRP3 inflammasome activation, accompanied by ROS production and increased activity of catalase and manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD), which alleviated SIMD.106

    The second hypothesis is related to mtROS and mtDNA. Mitochondria are the primary sites for ROS production and are also the key cellular organelles targeted by ROS. NLRP3 activation factors can initiate the generation of mtROS, which can further oxidize mtDNA.107,108 Ultimately, mtDNA acts as a potent inducer of IL-1β production and can co-localize with NLRP3, promoting the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome and triggering septic shock and target organ damage.51,53,109,110 Shimada et al observed the co-localization of mtDNA and NLRP3 through microscopy, confirming their interaction.53 Qin et al found that Suhuang antitussive capsule (Suhuang) inhibits the inflammatory response and target organ damage of sepsis by maintaining mitochondrial homeostasis and suppressing ROS production and NLRP3 inflammasome activation.111

    ROS-Mediated Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome May Trigger Apoptosis in SIMD

    Previous studies have indicated that excessive ROS can induce apoptosis through both endogenous and exogenous pathways. In the exogenous pathway, Fas ligand participates in ROS production, subsequently recruiting the Fas-associated death domain and initiating apoptosis. In the endogenous pathway, mitochondrial damage, along with a cascade of caspase activation and oxidative stress, leads to the release of damaged cytochrome c and DNA, triggering apoptosis. In septic cardiomyopathy, excessive ROS can open mitochondrial permeability transition pores (mPTPs), resulting in the release of cytochrome c, apoptosis-inducing factor, mtDNA, and other factors into the extracellular space, which in turn activates the NLRP3 inflammasome and induces septicemia and septic myocardial injury. Additionally, caspase-1 activation following NLRP3 inflammasome stimulation exacerbates mitochondrial damage, increases cell membrane permeability, and enhances endothelial permeability to small molecules, thereby promoting apoptosis through a positive feedback loop.112 Song et al demonstrated that geniposide (GE) activates AMPKα to inhibit myocardial ROS accumulation, thereby blocking NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated cardiomyocyte apoptosis and improving cardiac function in septic mice.113 Similarly, Atractylenolide I was found to downregulate the PARP1/NLRP3 signaling pathway, inhibit LPS-induced M1 polarization in RAW 264.7 cells, and reduce oxidative stress and apoptosis in H9c2 cells, thus alleviating septic myocardial injury.114

    Taken together, the prevailing view suggests that ROS and the NLRP3 inflammasome exert a reciprocal enhancing effect. However, some studies have also found that ROS can participate in autophagy to inhibit DAMPs and PAMPs, thereby limiting NLRP3-mediated inflammatory responses. Therefore, the interaction between ROS and the NLRP3 inflammasome in the pathogenesis of septic cardiomyopathy is complex. Further research is needed to elucidate the specific molecular mechanisms underlying this process.

    The Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome via Mitochondrial Damage in SIMD

    The myocardium, characterized by its high mitochondrial content, plays a crucial role in cellular energy metabolism. In the pathogenesis and progression of sepsis, myocardial hypoxia triggers mitochondrial damage or dysfunction, leading to metabolic disturbances, oxidative stress, immune dysregulation, and energy depletion in cardiomyocytes. Ultimately, this results in myocardial injury and functional failure, severely impacting the prognosis of septic patients. In the pathophysiology of SIMD, mitochondrial dysfunction is primarily characterized by the activation of oxidative stress, increased mitochondrial membrane permeability, mitochondrial uncoupling, disturbances in mitochondrial bioenergetics, and mitochondrial autophagy. Recent studies suggest that cellular stress, induced by factors such as infection or external stimuli, can precipitate mitochondrial dysfunction, which, in turn, triggers the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome through multiple signaling pathways. This process further exacerbates septic myocardial damage. In SIMD, the interplay between mitochondrial dysfunction and NLRP3 inflammasome activation is primarily manifested in two central mechanisms (Figure 3).

    Figure 3 The Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome via mitochondrial damage in SIMD. Mitochondrial damage leads to the accumulation of ROS within the cell. ROS are released into the cytoplasm, where they interact with NLRP3 proteins, thereby triggering the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. Impaired mitochondria can also induce a high influx of Ca2+ through the mitochondrial calcium uniporter and produce large amounts of ROS, leading to the release of mtDNA into the cytoplasm, which further activates the NLRP3 inflammasome and induces apoptosis. However, the activation of the kinase 1/Parkin pathway promotes the removal of damaged and dysfunctional mitochondria, reduces the levels of ROS and mtDNA, and inhibits the activity of the NLRP3 inflammasome. After mitochondrial damage, cardiolipin redistributes to the outer mitochondrial membrane and directly interacts with the LRR domain of NLRP3 to activate the inflammasome.

    Mitochondrial Damage Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome in SIMD

    Mitochondria represent the primary source of mtROS, which play a critical role in cellular stress responses. The accumulation of ROS within the mitochondria subsequently spills over into the cytoplasm, where it interacts with the NLRP3 protein, thereby initiating the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome.115 Excessive ROS production not only triggers the inflammasome pathway but also activates downstream inflammatory cascades mediated by TLRs, contributing to the exacerbation of myocardial injury in the context of sepsis.116 In addition to inflammasome activation, ROS accumulation promotes oxidative modifications of cellular macromolecules, such as proteins and DNA, which leads to structural damage to mitochondria.117 This damage increases mitochondrial membrane permeability and activates apoptotic pathways, including the release of cytochrome c, which triggers cardiomyocyte apoptosis.117 Recent studies by Bronner et al have shown that inositol-requiring enzyme 1α (IRE1α) can mediate ROS-dependent translocation of NLRP3 to the mitochondrial-associated endoplasmic reticulum membrane, thereby facilitating the activation of the caspase signaling axis and the pro-apoptotic protein Bid.118 This interaction further enhances the release of mitochondrial DAMPs, which contribute to the amplification of NLRP3 inflammasome formation. In the pathophysiology of SIMD, mitochondrial dysfunction is central to disease progression. Moreover, damaged mitochondria facilitate excessive calcium influx via the mitochondrial calcium uniporter (MCU), further elevating ROS levels and promoting the release of mitochondrial DNA into the cytoplasm. These events converge to activate the NLRP3 inflammasome, driving an inflammatory response and ultimately leading to cardiomyocyte apoptosis, which plays a pivotal role in SIMD.112

    It is noteworthy that sepsis and organ dysfunction are primarily characterized by hypoxia and ROS production. Hypoxia-induced mitochondrial dysfunction not only activates the NLRP3 inflammasome but also alters cellular metabolic pathways, inducing metabolic reprogramming. Under normal conditions, cells utilize transport proteins to uptake long-chain fatty acids, facilitating their oxidation within the mitochondria to generate acetyl-CoA, FADH2, and NADH. These metabolites further participate in the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and enter the electron transport chain to produce ATP. However, during sepsis, cellular hypoxia and metabolic alterations lead to a metabolic shift from fatty acid oxidation (FAO)-driven oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) to glycolysis via the activation of the HIF-α (hypoxia-inducible factor) signaling pathway. Glycolysis provides ATP by generating pyruvate, which is subsequently converted to lactate, in order to meet the energy demands of immune responses.119 Studies have shown that lidocaine significantly inhibits the secretion of inflammatory cytokines induced by LPS, exerting anti-inflammatory effects through the suppression of hypoxia inducible factor-1(HIF-1α)-mediated glycolysis.120 In conclusion, mitochondrial dysfunction induced by cellular hypoxia not only activates the NLRP3 inflammasome but also induces metabolic reprogramming, playing a crucial role in the pathogenesis of septic cardiomyopathy.

    Mitochondrial Autophagy Can Suppress the Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome in SIMD

    As previously discussed, mitochondrial dysfunction can trigger excessive ROS release, leading to the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, in sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy, mitochondrial damage can also activate mitochondrial autophagy mechanisms. Specifically, this occurs through the activation of the AMPK/Parkin pathway, which facilitates the clearance of damaged and dysfunctional mitochondria, thereby reducing ROS and mtDNA levels, and inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation.121 The application of mitochondrial autophagy inhibitors has been pointed to facilitate NLRP3 inflammasome activation.122

    Based on the interaction between mitochondrial dysfunction and NLRP3 inflammasome activation, this mechanism can be considered as a potential novel therapeutic target for SIMD. For instance, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-alpha (PGC-1α) and Nrf2 are critical factors regulating mitochondrial biogenesis.123 Studies have shown that Nrf2 modulates NLRP3 inflammasome activity through two pathways. First, Nrf2 suppresses NLRP3 inflammasome activation by upregulating the expression of antioxidant genes, thereby reducing the generation of ROS.124 Second, Nrf2 inhibits the activation of the NF-κB signaling pathway, reducing the expression of inflammatory mediators such as caspase-1, IL-1β, and IL-18, further suppressing NLRP3 inflammasome activity. It is worth mentioning cardiolipin. Cardiolipin is a unique phospholipid that does not form bilayers, with a specific structure consisting of two acylated phosphatidyl groups connected by a glycerol bridge.125 It is localized to the inner mitochondrial membrane and redistributes to the outer mitochondrial membrane upon mitochondrial destabilization.126 Given that mitochondria are endosymbionts of early eukaryotic cells and cardiolipin is exclusively found in mitochondria and bacteria, it is hypothesized that cardiolipin may be revealed as an endogenous PAMP during mitochondrial dysfunction and sensed by NLRP3.127 Currently, it is believed that cardiolipin may play a role in the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome, either by serving as a docking site for inflammasome assembly and subsequent activation on mitochondria, or as a direct activating ligand for NLRP3.127 Furthermore, experimental studies by Shankar S. Iyer et al have shown that under various stress conditions, cardiolipin redistributes to the outer mitochondrial membrane, where it directly binds to the LRR domain of NLRP3, positioning NLRP3 on the mitochondria and activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.127 Nonetheless, the exact mechanism of cardiolipin translocation to the outer mitochondrial membrane and its role in the pro-inflammatory pathway of NLRP3 inflammasome activation remains unclear and requires further investigation.128

    The Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome via Exosome in SIMD

    Exosomes are extracellular vesicles derived from endosomes, typically ranging in size from 30 to 150 nanometers, making them one of the smallest types of extracellular vesicles, which may contain a diverse array of complex molecules provided by the parent cell, including proteins, lipids, mRNA, miRNA, and DNA.129,130 Unlike other extracellular vesicles, exosomes are formed by the fusion of intracellular multivesicular bodies with the plasma membrane, thereby releasing their contents into the extracellular space. In contrast, other extracellular vesicles are actively released by the cell. Furthermore, exosomes exhibit greater complexity in terms of both molecular weight and the variety of molecules they contain.129 In recent years, exosomes have been recognized for their significant roles in the pathogenesis and progression of various diseases, including neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, liver diseases, and heart failure. Similar to other extracellular vesicles, exosomes selectively capture their “cargo” rather than passively packaging it. The uptake of this cargo is dependent on the type of cell that produces the exosomes.131 Exosomes have increasingly been identified as key carriers of signaling molecules during inflammation, effectively transferring proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids to regulate the metabolic state of target cells in numerous diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neurodegenerative disorders. In the context of inflammasomes, the interaction between exosomes and the NLRP3 inflammasome is considered to play a critical role in the onset and progression of inflammation-related diseases, particularly in systemic inflammatory responses (eg, systemic inflammatory myocardial injury, SIMD). For instance, Xu et al observed that inhibiting miR-484 in an LPS-induced sepsis cardiomyocyte model effectively reduced the formation of NLRP3 inflammasomes, thereby downregulating the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines (such as TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6), alleviating cardiomyocyte apoptosis, and promoting cardiomyocyte viability recovery.132 Similarly, miR-495 has been shown to improve damage and inflammation in cardiac microvascular endothelial cells by inhibiting the NLRP3 inflammasome signaling pathway.133 Liu et al’s research demonstrated that miR-129-5p, by targeting TRPM7 and inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation, alleviated cardiomyocyte injury.134 Further molecular studies have suggested that miRNAs may regulate the transcriptional expression of NLRP3 by directly binding to its 3’ untranslated region (UTR). For example, Li et al discovered that in sepsis cardiomyopathy patients and in septic cardiomyocyte injury models, long non-coding RNA ZFAS1, acting as a competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA), indirectly modulates the expression of SESN2, thereby reducing sepsis-induced myocardial cell damage.135

    Current literature suggests that exosome-mediated interactions with the NLRP3 inflammasome play a significant role in the pathophysiology of SIMD, highlighting their potential as promising therapeutic targets for SIMD. However, the precise molecular mechanisms governing these interactions remain poorly understood. Consequently, further research is warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and their implications for future therapeutic strategies.

    The Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome via ER Stress in SIMD

    ER stress is a cellular response activated to cope with conditions such as the accumulation of misfolded and unfolded proteins within the ER lumen and dysregulation of calcium homeostasis.136 This response involves pathways such as the unfolded protein response (UPR), the ER overload response, and caspase-12 mediated apoptosis.136 Physiological UPR refers to the process by which cells manage mild ER stress under normal physiological conditions.137 During this process, the ER senses the accumulation of misfolded or unfolded proteins and activates a series of signaling pathways to initiate the stress response.137 The goal of this response is to restore ER function, promote proper protein folding, and adjust protein synthesis to maintain normal cellular function.137 This stress response is typically reversible and helps cells cope with transient stress. However, when the stress load becomes overwhelming and intracellular homeostasis is disrupted, physiological UPR may no longer maintain normal cellular function.137,138 Excessive ER stress triggers inflammatory signals within the cell, activating the NLRP3 inflammasome and leading to widespread inflammatory responses137,138(Figure 4).

    Figure 4 The Role of NLRP3 Inflammasome via ER stress in SIMD. Under normal conditions, GRP78 binds to and inhibits three transmembrane UPR signaling factors localized in the ER: IRE1, ATF6, and PERK. However, during ER stress, the UPR is activated through these three ER sensors—PERK, IRE1, and ATF6—which subsequently trigger the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. Excessive ROS production can induce ER stress. Moreover, ER stress activates PERK and IRE1, which promote the expression of TXNIP, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.

    Abbreviations: TXNIP, Thioredoxin-interacting protein; XBP1, X-box Binding Protein 1; sXBP1, spliced XBP1; ATF4, Activating transcription factor 4; ATF6, Activating Transcription Factor 6; DDIT3, DNA Damage-Inducible Transcript 3; EIF2α, Eukaryotic Initiation Factor 2α; GRP78, Glucose-Regulated Protein 78.

    The UPR is a cellular mechanism that helps mitigate ER stress by enhancing the ER’s protein-folding capacity, repairing mildly misfolded proteins, and ultimately clearing irreversibly misfolded proteins.139 The UPR involves multiple signaling pathways aimed at promoting the proper folding of proteins in the ER, reducing overall protein synthesis, and activating ER-associated degradation (ERAD) pathways to remove accumulated misfolded proteins. In cases of excessive or unresolved ER stress, the UPR also triggers apoptotic cascades. A key protein in the UPR process is the chaperone GRP78, which regulates protein synthesis, folding, and assembly.140 GRP78 acts not only as a sensor of misfolded proteins but also as an initiator of UPR signaling cascades.141 Under normal conditions, GRP78 binds to and inhibits the activity of three ER-resident transmembrane UPR signaling proteins: inositol-requiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6), and protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK). However, upon the accumulation of misfolded proteins during ER stress, GRP78 recognizes the error and releases these signaling factors, allowing them to bind to misfolded proteins, thus activating UPR signaling and downstream cascades.142 These factors cooperate to promote correct protein folding and clear misfolded proteins. Although this is the classical mechanism of recognizing misfolded proteins in the ER, increasing evidence suggests that misfolded proteins may also directly interact with IRE1 or PERK, initiating the UPR.143,144 Moreover despite being a protective response, in cases of severe and prolonged ER stress, the UPR can lead to cellular toxicity.145

    Recent studies have revealed a close relationship between ER stress, UPR, and inflammatory responses.146,147 A number of investigations have shown that sepsis and sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy are closely linked to excessive ROS production. Thus, enhancing cellular antioxidant defenses or promoting ROS clearance may help restore redox balance and improve pathological conditions in various disease models.148 Excessive ROS generation can induce ER stress, referred to as ROS-induced ER stress,149 which is one of the mechanisms of cell apoptosis mediated by ROS. ER stress -induced apoptosis in cardiomyocytes has been recognized as a primary mechanism of myocardial injury.150,151 Further research has also highlighted the role of the NLRP3 inflammasome in the development of various inflammatory diseases, including sepsis and sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. In this context, the interplay between ER stress and the NLRP3 inflammasome and their potential synergistic roles in the pathogenesis of sepsis and SIMD have become important areas of investigation.

    The UPR is the most significant and widely studied pathway for ER stress. In mammals, UPRs are mediated by three ER stress sensors: IRE1, PERK, and ATF6. Research suggests that ER stress serves as an endogenous trigger for the NLRP3 inflammasome.152 These three ER stress sensors can activate the NLRP3 inflammasome through complex mechanisms, leading to cellular damage, often involving the TXNIP/NLRP3 pathway.

    Upon activation, IRE1α phosphorylates and dimerizes, activating its RNase domain and catalyzing the removal of 26 nucleotides from the XBP1 mRNA sequence, allowing its translation.153 X-box binding protein 1 (XBP1) is a key regulator of genes involved in ER-associated degradation (ERAD) and protein folding.153 Additionally, IRE1α activation triggers the TNF receptor-associated factor 2 (TRAF2) and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) signaling modules, which initiate inflammatory responses.154 Studies indicate that IRE1α overexpression due to ER stress activates XBP1s or stimulates JNK phosphorylation through ASK1, which in turn activates C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP), inducing TXNIP overexpression. TXNIP is then translocated to the mitochondria, where it forms a complex with TRX2.103 This process promotes ROS accumulation and the oxidation of TRX2, releasing TXNIP, which subsequently activates the NLRP3 inflammasome through interaction with NLRP3, triggering an inflammatory response.104 Second, PERK, a type I transmembrane kinase, is activated under ER stress. Its activation induces the phosphorylation of the eukaryotic initiation factor 2α (eIF2α) subunit, which inhibits protein synthesis.155 Under ER stress, sustained phosphorylation of eIF2α induces ATF4 expression, leading to the activation of CHOP and the subsequent activation of the TXNIP/NLRP3 inflammasome.155,156 Third, upon activation of the UPR, ATF6 directly encodes XBP1, which enhances CHOP expression.157 Similar to the IRE1α and PERK pathways, overexpression of CHOP leads to TXNIP overexpression and activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome.101 Liu et al found that silencing TXNIP inhibited NLRP3 inflammasome activation and reduced cardiomyocyte apoptosis induced by ischemia/reperfusion.158 Similarly, studies in a SIMD rat model observed increased expression of TXNIP, NLRP3, IL-1β, and IL-18.106

    In addition to the TXNIP/NLRP3 pathway, Yang et al found that inhibiting the IRE1α pathway alleviates NLRP3 activity and IL-1β production, thereby reducing inflammation and ROS in sepsis and organ injury models.152 Activated IRE1 also triggers mitochondrial damage through caspase-2 and BID, leading to NLRP3 inflammasome activation.159 The ER is a calcium ion reservoir, and during ER stress, an imbalance in the ER leads to excessive calcium influx into the mitochondria through the ER-mitochondria contact points (MAM), resulting in mitochondrial calcium overload and damage.160 This overload causes excessive mtROS production, mitochondrial DNA damage, and cardiolipin damage, all of which activate the NLRP3 inflammasome.44,128,161 Consequently, calcium dysregulation serves as a secondary effect of ER membrane instability and subsequent inflammatory responses, rather than directly inducing membrane instability.162 Calcium changes are critical signaling events in cellular stress responses, indirectly promoting NLRP3 inflammasome activation.162 In experimental models of various inflammatory diseases, including sepsis, reducing ER stress and the interaction between ER stress and the NLRP3 inflammasome through pharmacological or gene therapy strategies has successfully alleviated pathology associated with inflammation.118,163 Melatonin and liver X receptor agonists have been shown to attenuate sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction by inhibiting ER stress.164,165

    The aforementioned findings highlight the critical role of the interaction between ER stress and the NLRP3 inflammasome in the pathogenesis of septic myocardial injury. However, the precise mechanisms by which ER stress triggers the activation and inflammatory functions of the NLRP3 inflammasome remain unclear. To date, there has been no in-depth investigation directly exploring the role of ERS markers, such as GRP78, IRE1α, PERK, or ATF6α, within the NLRP3 inflammasome signaling cascade. Future research is required to further elucidate the specific molecular mechanisms underlying the interplay between ER stress and the NLRP3 inflammasome in septic cardiomyopathy. This will be crucial for the development of targeted therapeutic strategies for SIMD.

    Targeted Therapy for SIMD Focusing on the NLRP3 Inflammasome

    As previously highlighted, the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome is a critical factor in the pathogenesis of sepsis and SIMD, contributing to disease progression through mechanisms such as pyroptosis, ROS, mitochondrial dysfunction, exosome release, and ERS stress. These interconnected pathological processes play a significant role in the onset and advancement of SIMD. Consequently, targeting the NLRP3 inflammasome has emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy for both the prevention and treatment of SIMD (Table 1). For instance, melatonin has been shown to modulate the Nrf2 signaling pathway, thereby inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation and mitigating myocardial injury induced by sepsis.80 In a similar vein, geniposide (GE) exerts its effects by activating AMPKα, which suppresses the accumulation of myocardial ROS and prevents NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated cardiomyocyte apoptosis, leading to improved outcomes in SIMD.113 Given the pivotal role of NLRP3 inflammasome activation and its involvement in multiple pathological processes, including pyroptosis and oxidative stress, targeting the NLRP3 inflammasome represents a promising therapeutic approach and an important area for future research in the treatment of SIMD.

    Table 1 Therapeutic Strategies Based on NLRP3 Inflammasome in SIMD

    Limitation

    In this review, while we have thoroughly explored the role of the NLRP3 inflammasome in septic cardiomyopathy, several limitations remain to be addressed. First, our research lacks clinical trial data, and as a result, our conclusions are primarily based on animal models and in vitro experiments. Although these experimental findings provide important insights into the mechanisms of the NLRP3 inflammasome, their validation in clinical settings remains insufficient. Therefore, future studies should design and conduct more clinical trials to verify the theories and discoveries we have proposed. Secondly, our research identified the involvement of the NLRP3 inflammasome in multiple intracellular signaling pathways, including mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and endoplasmic reticulum stress. These pathways may exhibit overlapping and interactive effects to some extent. However, the current study has not fully elucidated the precise relationships and interactions between these pathways. Therefore, future research needs to further investigate the cross-talk between these signaling pathways in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted role of the NLRP3 inflammasome in septic cardiomyopathy. In conclusion, although this study provides new insights into the role of the NLRP3 inflammasome in septic cardiomyopathy, we acknowledge the limitations of the current research. We look forward to future studies that will complement and refine these findings through more clinical investigations and in-depth mechanistic studies.

    Conclusion

    In summary, we explored the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome as a central mechanism in the pathogenesis of SIMD, with a particular focus on its interactions with various pathological processes, including pyroptosis, oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage, exosome release, and endoplasmic reticulum stress. The findings suggest that the NLRP3 inflammasome may serve as a potential therapeutic target or a preventive approach for SIMD. While significant progress has been made in the development of NLRP3 inflammasome-targeted therapies, existing research has predominantly been confined to cell lines and animal models, with a lack of clinical evidence to support these findings. Therefore, there is an urgent need for more clinical studies focusing on the application of NLRP3 inflammasome-based therapies.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank Department of Emergency Medical, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Department of Nuclear Medical, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University and Department of Pediatrics Emergency Medical, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University for supporting this work.

    Author Contributions

    All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

    Disclosure

    All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this work.

    References

    1. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med. 1992;20:864–874. doi:10.1097/00003246-199206000-00025

    2. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–810. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287

    3. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet. 2020;395:200–211. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7

    4. Sakr Y, Jaschinski U, Wittebole X. Sepsis in intensive care unit patients: worldwide data from the intensive care over nations audit. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5(12):ofy313. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy313

    5. Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, et al. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009-2014. JAMA. 2017;318:1241–1249. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.13836

    6. Xie J, Wang H, Kang Y. The epidemiology of sepsis in Chinese ICUs: a national cross-sectional survey. Crit Care Med. 2020;48:e209–e218. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004155

    7. Zeng X-M, Liu D-H, Han Y, Huang Z-Q, Zhang J-W, Huang Q. Assessment of inflammatory markers and mitochondrial factors in a rat model of sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction. Am J Transl Res. 2020;12:901–911.

    8. Hollenberg SM, Singer M. Pathophysiology of sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18:424–434. doi:10.1038/s41569-020-00492-2

    9. Frencken JF, Donker DW, Spitoni C, et al. Myocardial injury in patients with sepsis and its association with long-term outcome. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11(2):e004040. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.117.004040

    10. Bessière F, Khenifer S, Dubourg J, Durieu I, Lega J-C. Prognostic value of troponins in sepsis: a meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:1181–1189. doi:10.1007/s00134-013-2902-3

    11. Sanfilippo F, Corredor C, Fletcher N. Left ventricular systolic function evaluated by strain echocardiography and relationship with mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):183. doi:10.1186/s13054-018-2113-y

    12. Martin L, Derwall M, Al Zoubi S, et al. the septic heart: current understanding of molecular mechanisms and clinical implications. Chest. 2019;155(2):427–437. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.1037

    13. Feng D, Guo L, Liu J, et al. DDX3X deficiency alleviates LPS-induced H9c2 cardiomyocytes pyroptosis by suppressing activation of NLRP3 inflammasome. Exp Ther Med. 2021;22:1389. doi:10.3892/etm.2021.10825

    14. Ruan W, Ji X, Qin Y, et al. Harmine alleviated sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction by modulating macrophage polarization via the STAT/MAPK/NF-κB pathway. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:792257. doi:10.3389/fcell.2021.792257

    15. Ehrman RR, Sullivan AN, Favot MJ. Pathophysiology, echocardiographic evaluation, biomarker findings, and prognostic implications of septic cardiomyopathy: a review of the literature. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):112. doi:10.1186/s13054-018-2043-8

    16. Song C, Zhang Y, Pei Q, et al. HSP70 alleviates sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy by attenuating mitochondrial dysfunction-initiated NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated pyroptosis in cardiomyocytes. Burns Trauma. 2022;10:tkac043. doi:10.1093/burnst/tkac043

    17. Conway-Morris A, Wilson J, Shankar-Hari M. Immune activation in sepsis. Crit Care Clin. 2018;34:29–42. doi:10.1016/j.ccc.2017.08.002

    18. Rivera A, Siracusa MC, Yap GS, Gause WC. Innate cell communication kick-starts pathogen-specific immunity. Nat Immunol. 2016;17:356–363. doi:10.1038/ni.3375

    19. Chen H, Mao X, Meng X, et al. Hydrogen alleviates mitochondrial dysfunction and organ damage via autophagy‑mediated NLRP3 inflammasome inactivation in sepsis. Int J Mol Med. 2019;44:1309–1324. doi:10.3892/ijmm.2019.4311

    20. Fusco R, Siracusa R, Genovese T, Cuzzocrea S, Di Paola R. Focus on the role of NLRP3 inflammasome in diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:4223. doi:10.3390/ijms21124223

    21. Zhang B, Liu Y, Sui Y-B, et al. Cortistatin inhibits NLRP3 inflammasome activation of cardiac fibroblasts during sepsis. J Card Fail. 2015;21(5):426–433. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.01.002

    22. Qiu J, Xiao X, Gao X, Zhang Y. Ulinastatin protects against sepsis‑induced myocardial injury by inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Mol Med Rep. 2021;24:730. doi:10.3892/mmr.2021.12369

    23. Luo J, Zhou Y, Wang M, Zhang J, Jiang E. Inflammasomes: potential therapeutic targets in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cell Commun Signal. 2024;22:596. doi:10.1186/s12964-024-01974-3

    24. Li X, Hu X, You H, Zheng K, Tang R, Kong F. Regulation of pattern recognition receptor signaling by palmitoylation. iScience. 2025;28(2):111667. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.111667

    25. Hromić-Jahjefendić A, Aljabali AAA. Analysis of the immune response in COVID-19. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2025;213:31–71.

    26. Liao Y, Liu K, Zhu L. Emerging roles of inflammasomes in cardiovascular diseases. Front Immunol. 2022;13:834289. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.834289

    27. Calabrese L, Fiocco Z, Mellett M, et al. Role of the NLRP1 inflammasome in skin cancer and inflammatory skin diseases. Br J Dermatol. 2024;190(3):305–315. doi:10.1093/bjd/ljad421

    28. Du L, Wang X, Chen S, Guo X. The AIM2 inflammasome: a novel biomarker and target in cardiovascular disease. Pharmacol Res. 2022;186:106533. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106533

    29. Fan X-Y, Liao X-Q, Wang Z-Y, Zhao -J-J, Hu Z-X. Mechanisms of NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated pyroptosis in chronic heart failure and research progress in traditional Chinese medicine. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2024;49:2106–2116. doi:10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20231212.708

    30. Jin Y, Fleishman J, Ma Y. NLRP3 inflammasome targeting offers a novel therapeutic paradigm for sepsis-induced myocardial injury. DDDT. 2025;19:1025–1041. doi:10.2147/DDDT.S506537

    31. Swanson KV, Deng M, Ting JP-Y. The NLRP3 inflammasome: molecular activation and regulation to therapeutics. Nat Rev Immunol. 2019;19:477–489. doi:10.1038/s41577-019-0165-0

    32. O’Brien WT, Pham L, Symons GF, et al. The NLRP3 inflammasome in traumatic brain injury: potential as a biomarker and therapeutic target. J Neuroinflammation. 2020;17(1):104. doi:10.1186/s12974-020-01778-5

    33. Muñoz-Planillo R, Kuffa P, Martínez-Colón G, Smith B, Rajendiran T, Núñez G. K+ efflux is the common trigger of NLRP3 inflammasome activation by bacterial toxins and particulate matter. Immunity. 2013;38(6):1142–1153. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2013.05.016

    34. He Y, Hara H, Núñez G. Mechanism and regulation of NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Trends Biochem Sci. 2016;41:1012–1021. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2016.09.002

    35. Wu J, Lv T, Liu Y, et al. The role of quercetin in NLRP3-associated inflammation. Inflammopharmacology. 2024;32(6):3585–610. doi:10.1007/s10787-024-01566-0

    36. Shen S, Wang Z, Sun H, Ma L. Role of NLRP3 inflammasome in myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury and ventricular remodeling. Med Sci Monit. 2022;28:e934255. doi:10.12659/MSM.934255

    37. Zhang W-J, Li K-Y, Lan Y, Zeng H-Y, Chen S-Q, Wang H. NLRP3 inflammasome: a key contributor to the inflammation formation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2023;174:113683. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2023.113683

    38. Lobanova E, Zhang YP, Emin D. ASC specks as a single-molecule fluid biomarker of inflammation in neurodegenerative diseases. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):9690. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53547-0

    39. Napodano C, Carnazzo V, Basile V, et al. NLRP3 inflammasome involvement in heart, liver, and lung diseases-A Lesson from cytokine storm syndrome. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:16556. doi:10.3390/ijms242316556

    40. Lu H-F, Zhou Y-C, Hu T-Y. Unraveling the role of NLRP3 inflammasome in allergic inflammation: implications for novel therapies. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1435892. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1435892

    41. Gupta S, Cassel SL, Sutterwala FS, Dagvadorj J. Regulation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by autophagy and mitophagy. Immunol Rev. 2025;329(1):e13410. doi:10.1111/imr.13410

    42. Danielski LG, Giustina AD, Bonfante S, Barichello T, Petronilho F. The NLRP3 inflammasome and its role in sepsis development. Inflammation. 2020;43:24–31. doi:10.1007/s10753-019-01124-9

    43. Gong T, Jiang W, Zhou R. Control of inflammasome activation by phosphorylation. Trends Biochem Sci. 2018;43:685–699. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2018.06.008

    44. Gong T, Yang Y, Jin T, Jiang W, Zhou R. Orchestration of NLRP3 inflammasome activation by ion fluxes. Trend Immunol. 2018;39:393–406. doi:10.1016/j.it.2018.01.009

    45. Zhang J, Zhang R, Li W, Ma X-C, Qiu F, Sun C-P. IκB kinase β (IKKβ): structure, transduction mechanism, biological function, and discovery of its inhibitors. Int J Biol Sci. 2023;19(13):4181–4203. doi:10.7150/ijbs.85158

    46. Ibrahim A, Saleem N, Naseer F, et al. From cytokines to chemokines: understanding inflammatory signaling in bacterial meningitis. Mol Immunol. 2024;173:117–126. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2024.07.004

    47. Song N, Liu Z-S, Xue W. NLRP3 phosphorylation is an essential priming event for inflammasome activation. Molecular Cell. 2017;68:185–197.e6. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2017.08.017

    48. Py BF, Kim M-S, Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg H, Yuan J. Deubiquitination of NLRP3 by BRCC3 critically regulates inflammasome activity. Molecular Cell. 2013;49:331–338. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2012.11.009

    49. Mishra A, Behura A, Kumar A, et al. P2X7 receptor in multifaceted cellular signalling and its relevance as a potential therapeutic target in different diseases. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2021;906:174235. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174235

    50. Jiang H, Gong T, Zhou R. The strategies of targeting the NLRP3 inflammasome to treat inflammatory diseases. Adv Immunol. 2020;145:55–93.

    51. Zhong Z, Liang S, Sanchez-Lopez E, et al. New mitochondrial DNA synthesis enables NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Nature. 2018;560:198–203. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0372-z

    52. Zhong Z, Umemura A, Sanchez-Lopez E, et al. NF-κB restricts inflammasome activation via elimination of damaged mitochondria. Cell. 2016;164:896–910. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.057

    53. Shimada K, Crother T, Karlin J, et al. Oxidized mitochondrial DNA activates the NLRP3 inflammasome during apoptosis. Immunity. 2012;36:401–414.

    54. Halle A, Hornung V, Petzold GC. The NALP3 inflammasome is involved in the innate immune response to amyloid-β. Nat Immunol. 2008;9:857–865. doi:10.1038/ni.1636

    55. Hornung V, Bauernfeind F, Halle A. Silica crystals and aluminum salts activate the NALP3 inflammasome through phagosomal destabilization. Nat Immunol. 2008;9:847–856. doi:10.1038/ni.1631

    56. Tang D, Kang R, Berghe TV, Vandenabeele P, Kroemer G. The molecular machinery of regulated cell death. Cell Res. 2019;29:347–364. doi:10.1038/s41422-019-0164-5

    57. Cookson BT, Brennan MA. Pro-inflammatory programmed cell death. Trend Microbiol. 2001;9:113–114. doi:10.1016/S0966-842X(00)01936-3

    58. Galluzzi L, Vitale I, Aaronson SA, et al. Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the nomenclature committee on cell death 2018. Cell Death Differ. 2018;25:486–541. doi:10.1038/s41418-017-0012-4

    59. Kalbitz M, Fattahi F, Grailer JJ, et al. Complement‐induced activation of the cardiac NLRP3 inflammasome in sepsis. FASEB J. 2016;30:3997–4006. doi:10.1096/fj.201600728R

    60. Kayagaki N, Stowe IB, Lee BL. Caspase-11 cleaves gasdermin D for non-canonical inflammasome signalling. Nature. 2015;526:666–671. doi:10.1038/nature15541

    61. Ding J, Wang K, Liu W, et al. Pore-forming activity and structural autoinhibition of the gasdermin family. Nature. 2016;535:111–116. doi:10.1038/nature18590

    62. Barnett KC, Ting JP-Y. Mitochondrial GSDMD pores DAMPen pyroptosis. Immunity. 2020;52:424–426. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.02.012

    63. Xiaodong L, Xuejun X. GSDMD-mediated pyroptosis in retinal vascular inflammatory diseases: a review. Int Ophthalmol. 2023;43:1405–1411. doi:10.1007/s10792-022-02506-z

    64. Li Z, Ji S, Jiang M-L, Xu Y, Zhang C-J. The regulation and modification of GSDMD signaling in diseases. Front Immunol. 2022;13:893912. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.893912

    65. Jin X, Dong X, Sun Y, Liu Z, Liu L, Gu H. Dietary fatty acid regulation of the NLRP3 inflammasome via the TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway affects chondrocyte pyroptosis. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022;2022(2022):3711371. doi:10.1155/2022/3711371

    66. Kayagaki N, Lee BL, Stowe IB, et al. IRF2 transcriptionally induces GSDMD expression for pyroptosis. Sci Signal. 2019;12:eaax4917. doi:10.1126/scisignal.aax4917

    67. Benaoudia S, Martin A, Puig Gamez M, et al. A genome‐wide screen identifies IRF2 as a key regulator of caspase‐4 in human cells. EMBO Rep. 2019;20:e48235. doi:10.15252/embr.201948235

    68. Liu X, Zhang Z, Ruan J. Inflammasome-activated gasdermin D causes pyroptosis by forming membrane pores. Nature. 2016;535(7610):153–158. doi:10.1038/nature18629

    69. Fisher CJ, Slotman GJ, Opal SM, et al. Initial evaluation of human recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in the treatment of sepsis syndrome: a randomized, open-label, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:12–21. doi:10.1097/00003246-199401000-00008

    70. Van Tassell BW, Raleigh JMV, Abbate A. Targeting interleukin-1 in heart failure and inflammatory heart disease. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2015;12:33–41. doi:10.1007/s11897-014-0231-7

    71. Busch K, Kny M, Huang N. Inhibition of the NLRP3/IL-1β axis protects against sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. J Cachexia, Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021;12(6):1653–1668. doi:10.1002/jcsm.12763

    72. Wu D, Shi L, Li P. Intermedin1-53 protects cardiac fibroblasts by inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation during sepsis. Inflammation. 2018;41:505–514. doi:10.1007/s10753-017-0706-2

    73. Huang W, Wang X, Xie F, Zhang H, Liu D. Serum NLRP3: a biomarker for identifying high-risk septic patients. Cytokine. 2022;149:155725. doi:10.1016/j.cyto.2021.155725

    74. Li N, Zhou H, Wu H. STING-IRF3 contributes to lipopolysaccharide-induced cardiac dysfunction, inflammation, apoptosis and pyroptosis by activating NLRP3. Redox Biol. 2019;24:101215.

    75. Yang Z, Pan X, Wu X. TREM −1 induces pyroptosis in cardiomyocytes by activating NLRP3 inflammasome through the SMC4 / NEMO pathway. FEBS J. 2023;290:1549–1562. doi:10.1111/febs.16644

    76. Wen R, Liu Y-P, Tong -X-X, Zhang T-N, Yang N. Molecular mechanisms and functions of pyroptosis in sepsis and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:962139. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.962139

    77. Chen S, Tang C, Ding H. Maf1 Ameliorates Sepsis-Associated Encephalopathy by Suppressing the NF-kB/NLRP3 Inflammasome Signaling Pathway. Front Immunol. 2020;11:594071. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.594071

    78. Pu Q, Gan C, Li R. Atg7 deficiency intensifies inflammasome activation and pyroptosis in Pseudomonas sepsis. J Immunol. 2017;198:3205–3213. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1601196

    79. Li Z, Liu T, Feng Y, et al. PPARγ alleviates sepsis-induced liver injury by inhibiting hepatocyte pyroptosis via inhibition of the ROS/TXNIP/NLRP3 signaling pathway. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022;2022:1–15.

    80. Rahim I, Sayed RK, Fernández-Ortiz M, et al. Melatonin alleviates sepsis-induced heart injury through activating the Nrf2 pathway and inhibiting the NLRP3 inflammasome. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2021;394(2):261–277. doi:10.1007/s00210-020-01972-5

    81. Zhao S, Chen F, Yin Q, Wang D, Han W, Zhang Y. Reactive oxygen species interact with NLRP3 inflammasomes and are involved in the inflammation of sepsis: from mechanism to treatment of progression. Front Physiol. 2020;11:571810. doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.571810

    82. Fu C, Weng S, Liu D, et al. Review on the role of mitochondrial dysfunction in septic encephalopathy. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2024;83(1):135–145. doi:10.1007/s12013-024-01493-5

    83. Ray PD, Huang B-W, Tsuji Y. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) homeostasis and redox regulation in cellular signaling. Cell Signal. 2012;24:981–990. doi:10.1016/j.cellsig.2012.01.008

    84. Fang FC. Antimicrobial actions of reactive oxygen species. mBio. 2011;2:e00141–11. doi:10.1128/mBio.00141-11

    85. Rauf A, Khalil AA, Awadallah S, et al. Reactive oxygen species in biological systems: pathways, associated diseases, and potential inhibitors—A review. Food sci nutr. 2024;12(2):675–693. doi:10.1002/fsn3.3784

    86. Sahoo DK, Wong D, Patani A, et al. Exploring the role of antioxidants in sepsis-associated oxidative stress: a comprehensive review. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2024;14:1348713. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2024.1348713

    87. Zhao Q, Liu G, Ding Q, et al. The ROS/TXNIP/NLRP3 pathway mediates LPS-induced microglial inflammatory response. Cytokine. 2024;181:156677. doi:10.1016/j.cyto.2024.156677

    88. Pétrilli V, Papin S, Dostert C, et al. Activation of the NALP3 inflammasome is triggered by low intracellular potassium concentration. Cell Death Differ. 2007;14(9):1583–1589. doi:10.1038/sj.cdd.4402195

    89. Zhou T, Qian H, Zheng N, Lu Q, Han Y. GYY4137 ameliorates sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy via NLRP3 pathway. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2022;1868:166497. doi:10.1016/j.bbadis.2022.166497

    90. West AP, Brodsky IE, Rahner C. TLR signalling augments macrophage bactericidal activity through mitochondrial ROS. Nature. 2011;472(7344):476–480. doi:10.1038/nature09973

    91. Liu Z, Pan H, Zhang Y. Ginsenoside-Rg1 attenuates sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction by modulating mitochondrial damage via the P2X7 receptor-mediated Akt/GSK-3β signaling pathway. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2022;36(1):e22885. doi:10.1002/jbt.22885

    92. Arulkumaran N, Sixma ML, Pollen S, et al. P2X 7 receptor antagonism ameliorates renal dysfunction in a rat model of sepsis. Physiol Rep. 2018;6:e13622. doi:10.14814/phy2.13622

    93. Kowaltowski AJ, de Souza-Pinto NC, Castilho RF, Vercesi AE. Mitochondria and reactive oxygen species. Free Radic Biol Med. 2009;47:333–343. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.05.004

    94. Tschopp J, Schroder K. NLRP3 inflammasome activation: the convergence of multiple signalling pathways on ROS production? Nat Rev Immunol. 2010;10:210–215. doi:10.1038/nri2725

    95. Spindel ON, World C, Berk BC. Thioredoxin interacting protein: redox dependent and independent regulatory mechanisms. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2012;16:587–596. doi:10.1089/ars.2011.4137

    96. Yoshihara E, Masaki S, Matsuo Y, Chen Z, Tian H, Yodoi J. Thioredoxin/Txnip: redoxisome, as a redox switch for the pathogenesis of diseases. Front Immunol. 2014;4:514. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2013.00514

    97. Gao P, He -F-F, Tang H. NADPH oxidase-induced NALP3 inflammasome activation is driven by thioredoxin-interacting protein which contributes to podocyte injury in hyperglycemia. J Diabetes Res. 2015;2015(2015):504761. doi:10.1155/2015/504761

    98. He L, He T, Farrar S, et al. Antioxidants maintain cellular redox homeostasis by elimination of reactive oxygen species. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2017;44(2):532–553. doi:10.1159/000485089

    99. Saxena G, Chen J, Shalev A. Intracellular shuttling and mitochondrial function of thioredoxin-interacting protein. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(6):3997–4005. doi:10.1074/jbc.M109.034421

    100. Cao X, He W, Pang Y, Cao Y, Qin A. Redox-dependent and independent effects of thioredoxin interacting protein. Biol Chem. 2020;401:1215–1231.

    101. Park S-J, Kim Y, Li C. Blocking CHOP-dependent TXNIP shuttling to mitochondria attenuates albuminuria and mitigates kidney injury in nephrotic syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(35):e2116505119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2116505119

    102. Luo B, Huang F, Liu Y, et al. NLRP3 inflammasome as a molecular marker in diabetic cardiomyopathy. Front Physiol. 2017;8:519. doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00519

    103. Zhou R, Tardivel A, Thorens B, Choi I, Tschopp J. Thioredoxin-interacting protein links oxidative stress to inflammasome activation. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:136–140. doi:10.1038/ni.1831

    104. Panse M, Kluth O, Lorza-Gil E, et al. Palmitate and insulin counteract glucose-induced thioredoxin interacting protein (TXNIP) expression in insulin secreting cells via distinct mechanisms. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0198016.

    105. Choi E-H, Park S-J. TXNIP: a key protein in the cellular stress response pathway and a potential therapeutic target. Exp Mol Med. 2023;55:1348–1356. doi:10.1038/s12276-023-01019-8

    106. Yang C, Xia W, Liu X, Lin J, Wu A. Role of TXNIP/NLRP3 in sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction. Int J Mol Med. 2019;44:417–426.

    107. Cortés-Rojo C, Rodríguez-Orozco AR. Importance of oxidative damage on the electron transport chain for the rational use of mitochondria-targeted antioxidants. Mini Rev Med Chem. 2011;11:625–632. doi:10.2174/138955711795906879

    108. Guo C, Sun L, Chen X, Zhang D. Oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage and neurodegenerative diseases. Neural Regen Res. 2013;8:2003–2014. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5374.2013.21.009

    109. Dominguini D, Michels M, Wessler LB, Streck EL, Barichello T, Dal-Pizzol F. Mitochondrial protective effects caused by the administration of mefenamic acid in sepsis. J Neuroinflammation. 2022;19(1):268. doi:10.1186/s12974-022-02616-6

    110. Mohsin M, Tabassum G, Ahmad S, Ali S, Ali Syed M. The role of mitophagy in pulmonary sepsis. Mitochondrion. 2021;59:63–75. doi:10.1016/j.mito.2021.04.009

    111. Qin W, Tong X, Liang R. Preservation of mitochondrial homeostasis is responsible for the ameliorative effects of Suhuang antitussive capsule on non-resolving inflammation via inhibition of NF-κB signaling and NLRP3 inflammasome activation. J Ethnopharmacol. 2021;271:113827. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2021.113827

    112. Yu J, Nagasu H, Murakami T. Inflammasome activation leads to Caspase-1-dependent mitochondrial damage and block of mitophagy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:15514–15519. doi:10.1073/pnas.1414859111

    113. Song P, Shen D-F, Meng -Y-Y. Geniposide protects against sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction through AMPKα-dependent pathway. Free Radic Biol Med. 2020;152:186–196.

    114. Wang D, Lin Z, Zhou Y. Atractylenolide I ameliorates sepsis-induced cardiomyocyte injury by inhibiting macrophage polarization through the modulation of the PARP1/NLRP3 signaling pathway. Tissue Cell. 2024;89:102424. doi:10.1016/j.tice.2024.102424

    115. Zhou R, Yazdi AS, Menu P, Tschopp J. A role for mitochondria in NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Nature. 2011;469:221–225. doi:10.1038/nature09663

    116. Ren G, Zhou Q, Lu M, Wang H. Rosuvastatin corrects oxidative stress and inflammation induced by LPS to attenuate cardiac injury by inhibiting the NLRP3/TLR4 pathway. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2021;99:964–973. doi:10.1139/cjpp-2020-0321

    117. Xu P, Zhang W-Q, Xie J, et al. Shenfu injection prevents sepsis-induced myocardial injury by inhibiting mitochondrial apoptosis. J Ethnopharmacol. 2020;261:113068. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2020.113068

    118. Bronner DN, Abuaita B, Chen X, et al. Endoplasmic reticulum stress activates the inflammasome via NLRP3- and Caspase-2-driven mitochondrial damage. Immunity. 2015;43(3):451–462. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2015.08.008

    119. Piñeros Alvarez AR, Glosson-Byers N, Brandt S. SOCS1 is a negative regulator of metabolic reprogramming during sepsis. JCI Insight. 2017;2(13):e92530. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.92530

    120. Lin S, Jin P, Shao C. Lidocaine attenuates lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammatory responses and protects against endotoxemia in mice by suppressing HIF1α-induced glycolysis. Int Immunopharmacol. 2020;80:106150. doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2019.106150

    121. Lin Q, Li S, Jiang N, et al. PINK1-parkin pathway of mitophagy protects against contrast-induced acute kidney injury via decreasing mitochondrial ROS and NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Redox Biol. 2019;26:101254. doi:10.1016/j.redox.2019.101254

    122. Su S-H, Wu Y-F, Lin Q, Wang D-P, Hai J. URB597 protects against NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inhibiting autophagy dysfunction in a rat model of chronic cerebral hypoperfusion. J Neuroinflammation. 2019;16:260. doi:10.1186/s12974-019-1668-0

    123. Li PA, Hou X, Hao S. Mitochondrial biogenesis in neurodegeneration. J Neurosci Res. 2017;95:2025–2029. doi:10.1002/jnr.24042

    124. Liu X, Zhang X, Ding Y. Nuclear factor E2-related factor-2 negatively regulates NLRP3 inflammasome activity by inhibiting reactive oxygen species-induced NLRP3 priming. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2017;26(1):28–43. doi:10.1089/ars.2015.6615

    125. O’Neill LAJ. Cardiolipin and the Nlrp3 inflammasome. Cell Metab. 2013;18:610–612. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2013.10.013

    126. Chu CT, Bayır H, Kagan VE. LC3 binds externalized cardiolipin on injured mitochondria to signal mitophagy in neurons: implications for Parkinson disease. Autophagy. 2014;10:376–378. doi:10.4161/auto.27191

    127. Liu J, Wang T, He K, Xu M, Gong J-P. Cardiolipin inhibitor ameliorates the non-alcoholic steatohepatitis through suppressing NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019;23:8158–8167. doi:10.26355/eurrev_201909_19036

    128. Liu Q, Zhang D, Hu D, Zhou X, Zhou Y. The role of mitochondria in NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Mol Immunol. 2018;103:115–124. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2018.09.010

    129. Brennan K, Martin K, FitzGerald SP, et al. A comparison of methods for the isolation and separation of extracellular vesicles from protein and lipid particles in human serum. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1039. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-57497-7

    130. Ali-Khiavi P, Mohammadi M, Masoumi S, et al. The therapeutic potential of exosome therapy in sepsis management: addressing complications and improving outcomes”. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2024. doi:10.1007/s12013-024-01564-7

    131. Muralidharan-Chari V, Clancy JW, Sedgwick A, D’Souza-Schorey C. Microvesicles: mediators of extracellular communication during cancer progression. J Cell Sci. 2010;123:1603–1611. doi:10.1242/jcs.064386

    132. Xu M, Li X-Y, Song L, et al. miR-484 targeting of Yap1-induced LPS-inhibited proliferation, and promoted apoptosis and inflammation in cardiomyocyte. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2021;85(2):378–385. doi:10.1093/bbb/zbaa009

    133. Zhou T, Xiang D-K, Li S-N, et al. MicroRNA-495 ameliorates cardiac microvascular endothelial cell injury and inflammatory reaction by suppressing the NLRP3 inflammasome signaling pathway. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2018;49(2):798–815. doi:10.1159/000493042

    134. Liu S, Liao Q, Xu W, Zhang Z, Yin M, Cao X. MiR-129-5p protects H9c2 cardiac myoblasts from hypoxia/reoxygenation injury by targeting TRPM7 and inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2021;77(5):586–593. doi:10.1097/FJC.0000000000000991

    135. An L, Yang T, Zhong Y, et al. Molecular pathways in sepsis-induced cardiomyocyte pyroptosis: novel finding on long non-coding RNA ZFAS1/miR-138-5p/SESN2 axis. Immunol Lett. 2021;238:47–56. doi:10.1016/j.imlet.2021.07.003

    136. Zhang X, Xu C, Ji L, Zhang H. Endoplasmic reticulum stress in acute pancreatitis: exploring the molecular mechanisms and therapeutic targets. Cell Stress Chaperones. 2025;30:119–129. doi:10.1016/j.cstres.2025.03.001

    137. Zhang Y, Guo S, Fu X, Zhang Q, Wang H. Emerging insights into the role of NLRP3 inflammasome and endoplasmic reticulum stress in renal diseases. Int Immunopharmacol. 2024;136:112342. doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2024.112342

    138. Walter P, Ron D. The unfolded protein response: from stress pathway to homeostatic regulation. Science. 2011;334:1081–1086. doi:10.1126/science.1209038

    139. Bohnert KR, McMillan JD, Kumar A. Emerging roles of ER stress and unfolded protein response pathways in skeletal muscle health and disease. J Cell Physiol. 2018;233:67–78. doi:10.1002/jcp.25852

    140. Zeng H, Liu Y, Liu X, et al. Interplay of α-synuclein oligomers and endoplasmic reticulum stress in parkinson’s disease: insights into cellular dysfunctions. Inflammation. 2024. doi:10.1007/s10753-024-02156-6

    141. Dekkers MC, Lambooij JM, Pu X, et al. Extracellular vesicles derived from stressed beta cells mediate monocyte activation and contribute to islet inflammation. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1393248. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1393248

    142. Sigurdsson V, Miharada K. Regulation of unfolded protein response in hematopoietic stem cells. Int J Hematol. 2018;107:627–633. doi:10.1007/s12185-018-2458-7

    143. Gardner BM, Walter P. Unfolded proteins are Ire1-activating ligands that directly induce the unfolded protein response. Science. 2011;333:1891–1894. doi:10.1126/science.1209126

    144. Ron D, Walter P. Signal integration in the endoplasmic reticulum unfolded protein response. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007;8:519–529. doi:10.1038/nrm2199

    145. Lin JH, Li H, Yasumura D, et al. IRE1 signaling affects cell fate during the unfolded protein response. Science. 2007;318(5852):944–949. doi:10.1126/science.1146361

    146. Pathinayake PS, Hsu AC-Y, Waters DW, et al. Understanding the unfolded protein response in the pathogenesis of asthma. Front Immunol. 2018;9:175. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.00175

    147. Gundamaraju R, Vemuri R, Chong WC, Bulmer AC, Eri R. Bilirubin attenuates ER stress-mediated inflammation, escalates apoptosis and reduces proliferation in the LS174T colonic epithelial cell line. Int J Med Sci. 2019;16:135–144. doi:10.7150/ijms.29134

    148. Kakihana Y, Ito T, Nakahara M, Yamaguchi K, Yasuda T. Sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction: pathophysiology and management. J Intensive Care. 2016;4:22. doi:10.1186/s40560-016-0148-1

    149. Ding W, Yang L, Zhang M, Gu Y. Reactive oxygen species-mediated endoplasmic reticulum stress contributes to aldosterone-induced apoptosis in tubular epithelial cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2012;418:451–456. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.01.037

    150. Li D, Cong Z, Yang C, Zhu X. Inhibition of LPS-induced Nox2 activation by VAS2870 protects alveolar epithelial cells through eliminating ROS and restoring tight junctions. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020;524:575–581. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.01.134

    151. Liu Z-W, Zhu H-T, Chen K-L. Protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) signaling pathway plays a major role in reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced apoptosis in diabetic cardiomyopathy. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2013;12:158. doi:10.1186/1475-2840-12-158

    152. Shao R, Lou X, Xue J. Thioredoxin-1 regulates IRE1α to ameliorate sepsis-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation and oxidative stress in Raw 264.7 cell. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2023;45(3):277–286. doi:10.1080/08923973.2022.2138431

    153. Yoshida H, Matsui T, Yamamoto A, Okada T, Mori K. XBP1 mRNA is induced by ATF6 and spliced by IRE1 in response to ER stress to produce a highly active transcription factor. Cell. 2001;107:881–891. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00611-0

    154. Hetz C, Papa FR. The unfolded protein response and cell fate control. Mol Cell. 2018;69:169–181. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2017.06.017

    155. Rozpedek W, Pytel D, Mucha B, Leszczynska H, Diehl JA, Majsterek I. The role of the PERK/eIF2α/ATF4/CHOP signaling pathway in tumor progression during endoplasmic reticulum stress. Curr Mol Med. 2016;16(6):533–544. doi:10.2174/1566524016666160523143937

    156. Yan W, Frank CL, Korth MJ. Control of PERK eIF2α kinase activity by the endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced molecular chaperone P58 IPK. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:15920–15925. doi:10.1073/pnas.252341799

    157. Hu H, Tian M, Ding C, Yu S. The C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP) transcription factor functions in endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced apoptosis and microbial infection. Front Immunol. 2018;9:3083. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.03083

    158. Liu Y, Lian K, Zhang L. TXNIP mediates NLRP3 inflammasome activation in cardiac microvascular endothelial cells as a novel mechanism in myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury. Basic Res Cardiol. 2014;109:415. doi:10.1007/s00395-014-0415-z

    159. Hise AG, Tomalka J, Ganesan S. An essential role for the NLRP3 inflammasome in host defense against the human fungal pathogen Candida albicans. Cell Host Microbe. 2009;5:487–497. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2009.05.002

    160. Gómez-Suaga P, Bravo-San Pedro JM, González-Polo RA, Fuentes JM, Niso-Santano M. ER–mitochondria signaling in Parkinson’s disease. Cell Death Dis. 2018;9:337. doi:10.1038/s41419-017-0079-3

    161. Murakami T, Ockinger J, Yu J, et al. Critical role for calcium mobilization in activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:11282–11287. doi:10.1073/pnas.1117765109

    162. Li W, Cao T, Luo C, et al. Crosstalk between ER stress, NLRP3 inflammasome, and inflammation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2020;104:6129–6140. doi:10.1007/s00253-020-10614-y

    163. Liu L, Wu H, Zang J, et al. 4-phenylbutyric acid reveals good beneficial effects on vital organ function via anti-endoplasmic reticulum stress in septic rats. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:e689–701. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001662

    164. Saïd-Sadier N, Padilla E, Langsley G, Ojcius DM. Aspergillus fumigatus stimulates the NLRP3 inflammasome through a pathway requiring ROS production and the Syk tyrosine kinase. PLoS One. 2010;5:e10008. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010008

    165. Kumar H, Kumagai Y, Tsuchida T, et al. Involvement of the NLRP3 inflammasome in innate and humoral adaptive immune responses to fungal beta-glucan. J Immunol. 2009;183:8061–8067. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.0902477

    166. Joshi S, Kundu S, Priya VV, Kulhari U, Mugale MN, Sahu BD. Anti-inflammatory activity of carvacrol protects the heart from lipopolysaccharide-induced cardiac dysfunction by inhibiting pyroptosis via NLRP3/Caspase1/Gasdermin D signaling axis. Life Sci. 2023;324:121743. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2023.121743

    167. Wu C, Chen Y, Zhou P, Hu Z. Recombinant human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 plays a protective role in mice with sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction through multiple signaling pathways dependent on converting angiotensin II to angiotensin 1-7. Ann Transl Med. 2023;11:13. doi:10.21037/atm-22-6016

    168. Chen P, An Q, Huang Y, Zhang M, Mao S. Prevention of endotoxin-induced cardiomyopathy using sodium tanshinone IIA sulfonate: involvement of augmented autophagy and NLRP3 inflammasome suppression. Eur J Pharmacol. 2021;909:174438. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174438

    169. Li S, Guo Z, Zhang ZY. Protective effects of NLRP3 inhibitor MCC950 on sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2021;35:141–150. doi:10.23812/20-662-A

    170. Dai S, Ye B, Chen L, Hong G, Zhao G, Lu Z. Emodin alleviates LPS -induced myocardial injury through inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Phytother Res. 2021;35:5203–5213. doi:10.1002/ptr.7191

    171. Li Q, Zhang M, Zhao Y, Dong M. Irisin protects against LPS-stressed cardiac damage through inhibiting inflammation, apoptosis, and pyroptosis. Shock. 2021;56:1009–1018. doi:10.1097/SHK.0000000000001775

    172. Wang J, Zhu Q, Wang Y, Peng J, Shao L, Li X. Irisin protects against sepsis-associated encephalopathy by suppressing ferroptosis via activation of the Nrf2/GPX4 signal axis. Free Radic Biol Med. 2022;187:171–184. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2022.05.023

    173. Wei A, Liu J, Li D, et al. Syringaresinol attenuates sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction by inhibiting inflammation and pyroptosis in mice. Eur J Pharmacol. 2021;913:174644. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174644

    174. Zhang Y, Lv Y, Zhang Q. ALDH2 attenuates myocardial pyroptosis through breaking down Mitochondrion-NLRP3 inflammasome pathway in septic shock. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1125866. doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1125866

    175. Rathkey JK, Zhao J, Liu Z, et al. Chemical disruption of the pyroptotic pore-forming protein gasdermin D inhibits inflammatory cell death and sepsis. Sci Immunol. 2018;3(26):eaat2738. doi:10.1126/sciimmunol.aat2738

    176. Li H, Li X, Xu G, Zhan F. Minocycline alleviates lipopolysaccharide-induced cardiotoxicity by suppressing the NLRP3/Caspase-1 signaling pathway. Sci Rep. 2024;14:21180. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-72133-4

    177. Duan F, Li L, Liu S, et al. Cortistatin protects against septic cardiomyopathy by inhibiting cardiomyocyte pyroptosis through the SSTR2-AMPK-NLRP3 pathway. Int Immunopharmacol. 2024;134:112186. doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2024.112186

    178. Kim M-J, Bae SH, Ryu J-C, et al. SESN2/sestrin2 suppresses sepsis by inducing mitophagy and inhibiting NLRP3 activation in macrophages. Autophagy. 2016;12(8):1272–1291. doi:10.1080/15548627.2016.1183081

    179. Ji T, Liu Q, Yu L, et al. GAS6 attenuates sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction through NLRP3 inflammasome-dependent mechanism. Free Radic Biol Med. 2024;210:195–211. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2023.11.007

    180. Sun H-J, Zheng G-L, Wang Z-C, et al. Chicoric acid ameliorates sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy via regulating macrophage metabolism reprogramming. Phytomedicine. 2024;123:155175. doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2023.155175

    181. Zhu -X-X, Meng X-Y, Zhang A-Y, et al. Vaccarin alleviates septic cardiomyopathy by potentiating NLRP3 palmitoylation and inactivation. Phytomedicine. 2024;131:155771. doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2024.155771

    182. Deng C, Liu Q, Zhao H, et al. Activation of NR1H3 attenuates the severity of septic myocardial injury by inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome. Bioeng Transl Med. 2023;8:e10517. doi:10.1002/btm2.10517

    183. Wang L, Zhao H, Xu H, et al. Targeting the TXNIP-NLRP3 interaction with PSSM1443 to suppress inflammation in sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction. J Cell Physiol. 2021;236(6):4625–4639. doi:10.1002/jcp.30186

    184. Zhang J, Wang L, Xie W, et al. Melatonin attenuates ER stress and mitochondrial damage in septic cardiomyopathy: a new mechanism involving BAP31 upregulation and MAPK-ERK pathway. J Cell Physiol. 2020;235(3):2847–2856. doi:10.1002/jcp.29190

    185. Wang L-X, Ren C, Yao R-Q, et al. Sestrin2 protects against lethal sepsis by suppressing the pyroptosis of dendritic cells. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2021;78(24):8209–8227. doi:10.1007/s00018-021-03970-z

    186. Han D, Li X, Li S, et al. Reduced silent information regulator 1 signaling exacerbates sepsis-induced myocardial injury and mitigates the protective effect of a liver X receptor agonist. Free Radic Biol Med. 2017;113:291–303. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.10.005

    187. Wu Q-R, Yang H, Zhang H-D, et al. IP3R2-mediated Ca2+ release promotes LPS-induced cardiomyocyte pyroptosis via the activation of NLRP3/Caspase-1/GSDMD pathway. Cell Death Discov. 2024;10(1):91. doi:10.1038/s41420-024-01840-8

    Continue Reading

  • Is your brain 15 seconds behind? Study reveals you are seeing the past, not the present |

    Is your brain 15 seconds behind? Study reveals you are seeing the past, not the present |

    Have you ever felt fully present and aware of your surroundings? A groundbreaking 2022 study published in Science Advances suggests that what we perceive as the present moment may actually be an illusion. According to researchers, your brain could be showing you a visual representation that’s up to 15 seconds old. This surprising phenomenon, recently highlighted by Popular Mechanics and , reveals that our brains blend past visual inputs to create a stable, seamless view of the world. In reality, we may constantly be seeing the past carefully edited by the brain to feel like “now.” Explore how your brain does this and why.

    Scientists discover why your brain shows you a delayed version of reality

    The human brain doesn’t process the visual world in real time. Instead, it delays and blends images from the recent past to create a stable and smooth picture of what’s around us. Scientists call this effect a

    “previously unknown visual illusion,”

    one that shields us from the chaotic nature of moment-to-moment perception.Rather than a flaw, this delay is a survival feature helping us cope with constant sensory input in a dynamic world. Think about how quickly your environment changes — blinking lights, shifting shadows, moving objects, or your own eyes darting across a room. Processing every single change instantly would overwhelm your brain.To avoid sensory overload, your brain uses a process called serial dependence — it blends what you’re seeing now with what you saw a few moments ago. This technique results in visual smoothing, giving you the impression of a calm, unchanging scene. In other words, your brain sacrifices precision for peace of mind.

    Your brain’s visual perception is a 15-second illusion—here’s how it works

    The study found that our brains may be relying on visual snapshots from up to 15 seconds in the past. That means what you perceive as the “present moment” is an edited replay of earlier visual input.This delay helps us function in a constantly changing environment by preventing cognitive fatigue. It’s a kind of biological buffering — like your brain is constantly editing a video, always playing back the last few seconds to ensure continuity. Far from being a glitch, this feature offers a massive evolutionary benefit. By focusing on consistency rather than hyper-accurate real-time feedback, the brain allows us to:

    • Stay focused on tasks
    • Reduce distraction
    • Respond more calmly in unpredictable situations

    In a fast-moving world, this smoothing effect ensures our attention isn’t hijacked by every minor change around us.

    What does it mean to “Live in the Moment”

    This discovery challenges a central idea in mindfulness and philosophy — the concept of being fully present. If our visual reality is based on the past, then the “now” we believe we’re living in is not truly present, but rather a curated experience shaped by our brain’s memory and guesswork.It raises intriguing questions:

    • Can we ever perceive reality objectively?
    • Is consciousness just a story our brain tells us?
    • What does “the present” even mean in neuroscience?

    You’re seeing the past — and your brain doesn’t want you to know.


    Continue Reading

  • Rosters locked in for start of FIBA U18 Women’s EuroBasket

    Rosters locked in for start of FIBA U18 Women’s EuroBasket

    LA PALMA (Spain) – The final rosters at the FIBA U18 Women’s EuroBasket 2025 are now confirmed ahead of Saturday’s tip-off, as the summer’s action of Youth EuroBaskets commence.

    There are 16 participating nations looking to take the title in La Palma, Spain, including defending champions France, who claimed their third triumph in 2024.

    Click below to see each team’s roster:

    Group A: France, Israel, Montenegro, Serbia
    Group B: Belgium, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal
    Group C: Finland, Greece, Italy, Slovenia
    Group D: Czechia, Poland, Spain, Türkiye

    The teams have been split into four groups of four with three days of action ahead of the Round of 16 and Quarter-Finals, which follow the first rest day. The Semi-Finals will be played after the second rest day, before the tournament concludes on Sunday, July 13.

    Meanwhile, the FIBA U18 Women’s EuroBasket 2025, Division B in Alytus and Vilnius, Lithuania, is already underway having started on Friday. The competition runs from July 4-13, as 21 nations aim for promotion.

    All games at the Youth EuroBaskets this summer are streamed, live and for free, on FIBA’s official YouTube channel.

    ###

    About FIBA
    FIBA (fiba.basketball) – the world governing body for basketball, is an independent association formed by 212 National Basketball Federations throughout the world. It is recognized as the sole competent authority in basketball by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

    For further information about FIBA, visit fiba.basketball or follow FIBA on facebook.com/fiba, x.com/fiba, instagram.com/fiba and youtube.com/fiba.


    Continue Reading

  • How to get tickets for Birmingham show

    How to get tickets for Birmingham show

    Shehnaz Khan

    BBC News, West Midlands

    Reuters Lewis Capaldi holds up a peace sign to the crowd as he walk on the Pyramid Stage at Glastonbury. He has chin-length brown hair and wears a white t-shirt and dark jacket.
Reuters

    Lewis Capaldi will perform at the Utilita Arena on 23 September

    Lewis Capaldi is to perform in Birmingham on his upcoming tour following an emotional comeback at the Glastonbury Festival.

    The Scottish singer took two years away from the spotlight to focus on his mental health, returning to the festival’s Pyramid Stage for a surprise set on 27 June.

    Capaldi has now announced he will embark on a 10-date tour of the UK and Ireland, with a show at Birmingham’s Utilita Arena on 23 September.

    The 28-year-old said the arena shows, which also include dates in London and Manchester, would be the only ones he will play in Europe this year.

    Announcing the shows, Capaldi wrote on his social media: “About time I got back to work… hope to see you out there.”

    He will kick off his tour in Sheffield on 7 September, before shows in cities such Aberdeen, Nottingham and Cardiff and a final show in Dublin on 29 September.

    Capaldi, who has Tourette’s, last performed at Glastonbury in 2023, where he lost his voice and struggled to finish his set, with the audience stepping in to help him finish his final song.

    He later announced he was taking a break from the spotlight to get his “physical and mental health in order” and to “adjust to the impact” of his Tourette’s diagnosis.

    “Glastonbury, it’s so good to be back,” Capaldi said at the festival on Friday. “I’m not going to say much up here today because if I did I might start crying.”

    Where can I get Lewis Capaldi tickets?

    Getty Images Lewis Capaldi plays the Pyramid Stage, against a backdrop showing his name in bold capital letters
Getty Images

    Capaldi returned to the Glastonbury Festival, on 27 June, after two years away from the live circuit

    Lewis Capaldi will perform at the Utilita Arena in Birmingham on 23 September.

    Pre-sale tickets for the tour are confirmed to go on sale from 09:00 BST on 8 July.

    General sale tickets will be available at the same time, on 10 July.

    Tickets will be available to purchase through Ticketmaster.

    How much do Lewis Capaldi tickets cost?

    According to the Utilita Arena’s website, standard tickets for Capaldi’s show in Birmingham are priced between £26.20 and £86.20.

    Depending on ticket type, prices will likely vary from venue to venue.

    A maximum of four tickets per person and household applies, with tickets in excess of the limit cancelled.

    What time will the concert start and finish?

    PA Media Lewis Capaldi performs on stage, while holding a guitar.PA Media

    Capaldi took a break after his last performance, at Glastonbury in 2023, to focus on his mental health

    Doors for Capaldi’s show in Birmingham open at 18:30 BST.

    Exact show times haven’t been made available yet, but they will likely be announced closer to the time.

    The star will also be joined in Birmingham by special guests, Skye Newman and Aaron Rowe.

    The Utilita Arena also has a curfew of 23:00 BST, Live Nation said on its website.

    Continue Reading

  • James Webb telescope snaps collision between two galaxy clusters

    James Webb telescope snaps collision between two galaxy clusters

    The image shows the location and mass of dark matter

    What’s the story

    NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope has captured an image of the Bullet Cluster, a massive collision between two galaxy clusters.
    The image, taken in partnership with NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, not only shows the location and mass of dark matter, but also shows the way toward one day finding out what it is made of.
    The hot gas within Bullet Cluster is shown in false-color pink by Chandra, while JWST mapped the inferred location of dark matter in blue.

    Research hotspot

    What is the Bullet Cluster?

    Located 3.9 billion light-years away, the Bullet Cluster has been a key player in dark matter studies.
    In 2006, Hubble and Chandra imaged the cluster and detected its dark matter by observing how light from distant galaxies was gravitationally lensed by the mass of dark matter.
    Galaxy cluster collisions serve as perfect laboratories for testing theories about dark matter due to their massive scale and potential particle interactions.

    Enhanced mapping

    How the 2 galaxy clusters passed through each other

    A team led by Sangjun Cha from Yonsei University and James Jee from both Yonsei and UC Davis used JWST to get a detailed look at the Bullet Cluster.
    The new picture shows that as the two individual galaxy clusters in the Bullet Cluster collided, their galaxies and dark matter halos passed right through each other.
    This suggests that dark matter particles might not interact much with each other, unlike hot gas clouds which collide head-on.

    Unsolved puzzles

    ‘Hammerhead’ shape in larger sub-cluster

    The refined map of dark matter shows an elongated “hammerhead” shape in the larger sub-cluster, which Jee says “cannot be easily explained by a single head-on collision.”
    This suggests that the elongated, clumpy mass of dark matter could have formed when this particular sub-cluster collided and merged with another galactic cluster billions of years ago.
    Despite these discoveries, the issue of high collision velocities between the two sub-clusters remains unresolved.

    Continue Reading

  • Male Breast Cancer: Evaluating the Current Landscape of Diagnosis and

    Male Breast Cancer: Evaluating the Current Landscape of Diagnosis and

    Introduction

    Male breast cancer is a rare malignancy, accounting for 0.5–1% of all breast cancer cases worldwide, with approximately 2,500 new cases diagnosed annually in the United States.1 Clinical presentation most often involves a painless breast mass, and approximately half of patients have lymph node involvement at diagnosis.2 Diagnostic evaluation relies on mammography and ultrasonography when a breast mass is suspected, since routine screening is not recommended for asymptomatic men.3,4 Pathologic confirmation is essential, and genetic counseling and testing are recommended for all men with breast cancer due to the high prevalence of hereditary mutations.5,6 Treatment strategies for MBC are largely extrapolated from female breast cancer (FBC) due to the paucity of prospective, male-specific trials.2,5 According to Corrigan et al, male patients accounted for only 0.087% of participants across 131 breast cancer clinical trials.7 Mastectomy remains the most common surgical approach, though breast-conserving surgery with sentinel lymph node biopsy is a safe alternative in selected cases.4,6,8 Adjuvant endocrine therapy, primarily tamoxifen for 5–10 years, is the mainstay for hormone receptor–positive disease, while an aromatase inhibitor (AI) should only be used in combination with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog if tamoxifen is contraindicated.5,8,9 The role of chemotherapy and targeted therapies is determined by standard indications, with gene expression assays such as Oncotype DX increasingly used to guide adjuvant therapy decisions.4,5,10 This comprehensive narrative review synthesizes the latest research on MBC using literature searches of current best practices and aims to provide an up-to-date summary of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, highlight knowledge gaps, and underscore the need for increased inclusion of men in breast cancer research and clinical trials.

    Epidemiology of MBC

    MBC is a rare malignancy, globally accounting for approximately 0.6–1% of all breast cancer cases and about 0.3% of all cancers in men.5 Incidence rates for MBC have increased modestly over recent decades, with age-adjusted rates rising from 0.85 per 100,000 in 1975 to 1.19 per 100,000 in 2015 in the United States.11 MBC patients are diagnosed at an older age than FBC patients (mean age 67 vs 62 years) and often present with more advanced disease.5 Comorbidities are more prevalent in MBC due to the older age at diagnosis, and these comorbid conditions may contribute to the observed differences in overall survival between men and women.12 In addition, men with breast cancer have an increased risk of second primary malignancies, including melanoma, prostate, and gastrointestinal cancers, which further complicates management and impacts long-term outcomes.12 Mortality rates for MBC are also higher than for FBC; large registry-based studies demonstrate that men have a 1.3- to 1.5-fold increased risk of death compared to women, even after adjustment for age, stage, and treatment.11,13 A population-based cohort study of patients from the United Kingdom diagnosed with breast cancer demonstrated the survival probability for females one, five, and ten years after diagnosis was 95.1%, 80.2%, and 68.4%, and for males 92.9%, 69.0%, and 51.3%.14 Despite propensity score matching for age, stage, and treatment, some studies report that the survival gap between MBC and FBC narrows, but does not disappear, signaling that comorbidities and other non-cancer-related factors are contributors to excess mortality in men.12,13,15,16 These findings underscore the need for tailored approaches to diagnosis and management in MBC, with particular attention to comorbidity assessment and optimization.

    Risk Factors for MBC

    Several risk factors have been identified for the development of MBC, including genetic mutations, hormonal imbalances, Black ethnicity, exposure to radiation, and family history.5 The most well-known genetic risk factors for MBC are BRCA2 and BRCA1 mutations, which are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Genetic predisposition to breast cancer is broadly similar between men and women, but there are important sex-specific features. BRCA2 is the predominant high-penetrance gene in MBC, while BRCA1 is more prominent in FBC.17 Recent large-scale analyses have affirmed that BRCA2 pathogenic variants confer a substantially higher risk of MBC than BRCA1, with relative risks of 44.0 for BRCA2 and 4.3 for BRCA1.18 Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with increased risks of pancreatic and stomach cancers, with BRCA2 further linked to elevated prostate cancer risk.18 A large Italian case-control study demonstrated that pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2, particularly moderate-penetrance genes such as PALB2 and ATM, are also associated with a significantly increased risk of MBC.19 PALB2 variants conferred a sevenfold increased risk (OR: 7.28), and ATM variants a fivefold increased risk (OR: 4.79).19 Carriers of these variants were more likely to have a personal or family history of cancer, supporting the use of multigene panel testing in MBC patients to guide risk management and clinical decision-making.19 Klinefelter syndrome also increases the risk of MBC due to the extra X chromosome, which increases estrogen levels.20 Other etiologies of hyperestrogenism in men that increase the risk of breast cancer include obesity, liver disease, or exogenous hormone exposure.1 Finally, family history of breast cancer is among the compelling risk factors for MBC, with approximately 15–20% of cases having a family member with the disease, compared with 7% in the general male population.21

    Clinical Presentation

    MBC is typically diagnosed at an older age than FBC, with average ages of 68 and 62 years, respectively.22 MBC is also diagnosed at more advanced stages, with larger tumors and more nodal involvement, and up to 47% of men having axillary nodal involvement at the time of diagnosis.22,23 The delayed stage at diagnosis may be due to limited awareness of presenting symptoms, which most commonly include a painless, firm breast lump and may be accompanied by nipple retraction, discharge, bleeding, or skin ulceration.22 Most MBC tumors are hormone-positive and ductal in etiology, reflecting the lower incidence of lobular carcinoma in men.22 For unknown reasons, papillary histology appears to be more frequent in men than in women.1 Other histological subtypes of breast cancer are rare in men.

    Diagnostic Approaches

    Mammography and ultrasonography are commonly used in the evaluation of MBC. The American College of Radiology recommends ultrasound for men aged <25 years with an indeterminate palpable mass, and mammography is performed if suspicious or indeterminate features are noted on the ultrasound.24 For men aged ≥25 years with an indeterminate palpable breast mass, a diagnostic mammogram is useful for distinguishing benign from malignant breast masses.24 Carrasco et al demonstrated in a series of 638 patients that ultrasonography had a lower sensitivity of 88.9% compared to 95% for mammography in distinguishing benign from malignant disease but had a similarly high specificity of 95.3%.25 There is no relevant literature regarding the use of breast MRI for the initial evaluation of MBC; therefore, it is not indicated for evaluation of palpable breast masses in men.24 Once a suspicious lesion is detected, a core needle biopsy or fine-needle aspiration is essential to confirm histopathological diagnosis.

    Treatment Strategy for Early-Stage Disease

    Surgical treatment for early-stage MBC is based on early-stage FBC and has evolved over time. After reports demonstrated that sentinel lymph node sampling was as feasible and accurate in MBC as it was in FBC, it slowly replaced axillary lymph node dissection as the standard of care for staging MBC with a clinically node-negative axilla.26,27 Similarly, mastectomy has traditionally been considered the standard surgical approach for male breast cancer, whereas lumpectomy is less commonly performed due to limited breast tissue and the typical proximity of tumors to the nipple–areolar complex. However, a review of The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database of MBC patients from 1983 to 2009 who underwent either mastectomy or lumpectomy demonstrated that lumpectomy was not independently associated with worse breast cancer-specific survival (odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.37) or overall survival (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.98–1.27) after controlling for age, race, stage, grade, and administration of radiotherapy.28 In a retrospective analysis of 8,445 MBC patients from the National Cancer Database, breast-conserving therapy (BCT) was associated with improved survival compared to mastectomy.29 Additionally, a prospective multi-institutional cohort study reported low postoperative complication rates with BCT, comparable to those seen in the FBC population.30 While the underlying mechanisms of these associations require further investigation, current evidence suggests that BCT is a safe and feasible treatment option in MBC, offering clinically meaningful survival benefits.

    Guidelines for adjuvant radiotherapy in early-stage MBC are limited, and postoperative radiation therapy is frequently underutilized in patients with MBC. Cardoso et al demonstrated that 45% of MBC patients treated with BCT, regardless of nodal status, and 30.7% of patients with lymph node positive tumors treated with mastectomy were not provided adjuvant radiotherapy.31 Generally, adjuvant radiation therapy should be provided according to the guidelines developed for FBC as multiple studies have suggested a clinically meaningful benefit for radiation therapy in men with early and locally advanced stages.32 For example, a SEER database analysis of males with stage I–III breast cancer between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that postoperative radiation therapy was associated with improved survival, especially after breast-conserving surgery, for those with four or more positive lymph nodes or large primary tumors (T3/T4).33 Similarly, a 2018 meta-analysis of 29 studies involving 10,065 men (23% with T4 tumors, 50% node-positive, and 93% having undergone mastectomy) found that 64% received adjuvant radiation, which was associated with improved locoregional control, overall survival, and distant metastasis-free survival.34 Further investigations are necessary to improve our understanding and wider utilization of adjuvant radiotherapy for MBC.

    In recent years, gene expression profile testing has guided adjuvant chemotherapy decisions and estimated the risk of distant recurrence in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2 negative early-stage breast cancer. The use of Oncotype DX and other genomic assays in MBC is based on extrapolation from FBC data, due to the rarity of MBC and the lack of male-specific clinical trial evidence.10 A SEER database review of this assay in 322 MBC patients demonstrated a larger proportion of men had an RS >31 and RS <10 compared to women, suggesting differences in tumor biology between men and women; the analysis also reported that increasing RS risk categories (RS <18, 18–30, and ≥31) were associated with decreased 5-year breast cancer-specific survival (99%, 96%, and 81%, respectively) and overall survival (93%, 86%, and 70%, respectively).35 Among those with an RS ≥31, 67% of MBC patients and 71% of FBC patients received chemotherapy in the SEER analysis.35 Although these results suggest the prognostic value of genomic assays in MBC, there is a lack of clinical trial data demonstrating the benefits of chemotherapy. Therefore, chemotherapy with or without HER2-targeted therapy should be recommended for males with breast cancer according to the guidelines for females with breast cancer.36

    The majority of male breast cancers are hormone receptor–positive, with approximately 99% expressing estrogen receptors (ER) and 81% expressing progesterone receptors (PR).31 In early-stage MBC with hormone receptor positive tumors, tamoxifen, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, is the most utilized adjuvant endocrine therapy, and has been demonstrated to reduce recurrence risk and improve overall survival based on observational studies.37,38 A meta-analysis by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group showed that tamoxifen significantly reduced the risk of recurrence in patients with MBC, corresponding to its efficacy in FBC. In contrast, retrospective studies have demonstrated worse survival outcomes among patients with MBC treated with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) than among those treated with tamoxifen.39 Thus, AI monotherapy is not preferred in MBC, although men with hormone receptor positive breast cancer who have contraindications to tamoxifen may be offered a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist with an AI, which may help overcome the lack of estradiol suppression with AI monotherapy.12 Although there are no clinical trials on early-stage MBC to guide the optimal duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy, extrapolation from FBC studies suggests that the duration should be at least five years, with an extended duration of ten years in men with a high risk of recurrence.40 Adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors can also be used in MBC with a high risk of recurrence, as demonstrated in the MonarchE trial, which enrolled 21 male patients (0.7%) in the intent-to-treat population and showed that abemaciclib with endocrine therapy resulted in absolute improvements in 3-year invasive disease-free survival and distant recurrence-free survival rates of 5.4% and 4.2%, respectively.41

    Treatment Strategy for Advanced-Stage Disease

    According to NCCN guidelines, the management of advanced breast cancer in men is generally aligned with established approaches used in women. Metastatic hormone receptor positive disease is treated with endocrine therapies such as tamoxifen, a GnRH agonist combined with an AI, or fulvestrant.5 Unlike FBC, concurrent administration of a GnRH analog is recommended when an AI is used in MBC.36 A prospective, randomized Phase II study in MBC found that combining an AI with a GnRH agonist led to greater suppression of serum estradiol levels compared to historical controls treated with AI monotherapy.9 In addition, population studies have shown improved responses with the combination of an AI and a GnRH analog over AI monotherapy, likely due to the inadequate suppression of testicular estrogen production by AIs alone.42 Collectively, these findings support the use of combined AI and GnRH agonist therapy in men. A pooled literature analysis also demonstrated the efficacy of fulvestrant monotherapy, with a median progression-free survival of 5 months, comparable to efficacy in females.43 Finally, evidence supporting the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in men remains limited, as the pivotal clinical trials evaluating these agents have predominantly included female participants. Kraus et al demonstrated that palbociclib combined with endocrine therapy was associated with a longer median treatment duration and higher real-world response rates compared to endocrine therapy alone, with a safety profile consistent with that observed in women, supporting the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in metastatic hormone receptor positive MBC.44 Another retrospective study of MBC patients treated with either palbociclib (n=16) or ribociclib (n=9), in combination with a GnRH analog and either fulvestrant or an AI, reported a median progression-free survival of 10 months in the second-line setting—comparable to outcomes observed in the MONALEESA-3 and PALOMA-3 trials involving postmenopausal women.45–47 Other therapies, such as mTOR inhibitors, PIK3CA inhibitors, or other specific targeted agents, lack specific clinical trial data for MBC, and recommendations regarding these agents are extrapolated from studies of female participants and real-world data. Similarly, recommendations regarding chemotherapy, HER2-targeted agents, immunotherapy, and PARP inhibitors in advanced MBC have been extrapolated from FBC.48

    Conclusion

    In summary, MBC is a rare disease that is typically diagnosed at an older age and more advanced stage than FBC, with distinct risk profiles and unique challenges in diagnosis and management. Current therapeutic strategies for MBC are largely extrapolated from FBC due to the underrepresentation of men in clinical trials and the scarcity of male-specific prospective or randomized data. This review is limited by the current evidence base on MBC, which is largely derived from retrospective and registry-based studies characterized by small sample sizes and substantial heterogeneity across study design and outcome reporting. These methodological limitations reduce the generalizability of findings and hinder the ability to draw definitive conclusions about optimal management strategies in men. Furthermore, important biological and clinical differences between MBC and FBC—such as hormone receptor status, genetic predisposition, and tumor biology—may not be fully captured or addressed by current treatment paradigms that are primarily derived from studies in women. Future research should prioritize inclusion of men in clinical trials, promote multinational data collaboration, and support the development of tailored management strategies that reflect the distinct biology and clinical course of MBC. Addressing these gaps will be essential to improving outcomes and quality of life for men diagnosed with this disease.

    Author Contributions

    All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in the drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

    Funding

    The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

    Disclosure

    The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

    References

    1. Giordano SH, Cohen DS, Buzdar AU, Perkins G, Hortobagyi GN. Breast carcinoma in men: a population-based study. Cancer. 2004;101(1):51–57. doi:10.1002/cncr.20312

    2. Zheng G, Leone JP. Male breast cancer: an updated review of epidemiology, clinicopathology, and treatment. J Oncol. 2022;2022:1–11. doi:10.1155/2022/1734049

    3. Bhardwaj PV, Gupta S, Elyash A, Teplinsky E. Male breast cancer: a review on diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Curr Oncol Rep. 2024;26(1):34–45. doi:10.1007/s11912-023-01489-z

    4. Khan NAJ, Tirona M. An updated review of epidemiology, risk factors, and management of male breast cancer. Med Oncol. 2021;38(4):39. doi:10.1007/s12032-021-01486-x

    5. Hassett MJ, Somerfield MR, Baker ER, et al. Management of male breast cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(16):1849–1863. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03120

    6. Rutherford CL, Goodman D, Lannigan A. A systematic literature review of the management, oncological outcomes and psychosocial implications of male breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48(10):2104–2111. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2022.06.004

    7. Corrigan KL, Mainwaring W, Miller AB, et al. Exclusion of men from randomized phase iii breast cancer clinical trials. Oncologist. 2020;25(6):e990–e992. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0871

    8. Lin AP, Huang TW, Tam KW. Treatment of male breast cancer: meta-analysis of real-world evidence. Br J Surg. 2021;108(9):1034–1042. doi:10.1093/bjs/znab279

    9. Reinisch M, Seiler S, Hauzenberger T, et al. Efficacy of endocrine therapy for the treatment of breast cancer in men: results from the MALE Phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(4):565–572. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7442

    10. Ray SK, Mukherjee S. Clinical aspect of male breast cancer: a burgeoning and unaddressed issue. Mol Biol Rep. 2025;52(1):452. doi:10.1007/s11033-025-10558-4

    11. Wang F, Shu X, Meszoely I, et al. Overall mortality after diagnosis of breast cancer in men vs women. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(11):1589. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2803

    12. Giordano SH. Breast cancer in men. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(24):2311–2320. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1707939

    13. Graf M, Gerken M, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, et al. Clinical, therapeutic and prognostic differences between male and female patients with breast cancer—a comparison of 2510 men and 307,634 women in a registry-based study in Germany. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2025;151(6):181. doi:10.1007/s00432-025-06220-y

    14. Barclay NL, Burn E, Delmestri A, et al. Trends in incidence, prevalence, and survival of breast cancer in the United Kingdom from 2000 to 2021. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):19069. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-69006-1

    15. Han Y, Wang J, Wang Z, Xu B. Sex-based heterogeneity in the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of breast cancer: a population-based analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.642450

    16. Scomersi S, Giudici F, Cacciatore G, et al. Comparison between male and female breast cancer survival using propensity score matching analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):11639. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-91131-4

    17. Valentini V, Bucalo A, Conti G, et al. Gender-specific genetic predisposition to breast cancer: BRCA genes and beyond. Cancers. 2024;16(3):579. doi:10.3390/cancers16030579

    18. Li S, Silvestri V, Leslie G, et al. Cancer risks associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(14):1529–1541. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.02112

    19. Bucalo A, Conti G, Valentini V, et al. Male breast cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2: an Italian case-control study. Eur J Cancer. 2023;188:183–191. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2023.04.022

    20. Cook B, Nayar S, Filson S, Yap T. The incidence of male breast cancer in Klinefelter Syndrome and its proposed mechanisms. Breast. 2024;78:103827. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2024.103827

    21. Giordano SH, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN. Breast cancer in men. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(8):678–687. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-8-200210150-00013

    22. van den Bruele AB, Williams A, Weiss A, Collaborators from the Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Site Work Group. Commentary and updates on the management of male breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025;32(4):2265–2270. doi:10.1245/s10434-024-16756-x

    23. Mathew J, Perkins GH, Stephens T, Middleton LP, Yang WT. Primary breast cancer in men: clinical, imaging, and pathologic findings in 57 patients. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(6):1631–1639. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1076

    24. Niell BL, Lourenco AP, Expert Panel on Breast Imaging, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® Evaluation of the symptomatic male breast. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(11S):S313–S320. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.09.017

    25. Muñoz Carrasco R, Alvarez Benito M, Muñoz Gomariz E, Raya Povedano JL, Martínez Paredes M. Mammography and ultrasound in the evaluation of male breast disease. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(12):2797–2805. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1867-7

    26. Albo D, Ames FC, Hunt KK, Ross MI, Singletary SE, Kuerer HM. Evaluation of lymph node status in male breast cancer patients: a role for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;77(1):9–14. doi:10.1023/a:1021173902253

    27. Boughey JC, Bedrosian I, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Comparative analysis of sentinel lymph node operation in male and female breast cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203(4):475–480. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.06.014

    28. Cloyd JM, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wapnir IL. Outcomes of partial mastectomy in male breast cancer patients: analysis of SEER, 1983–2009. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(5):1545–1550. doi:10.1245/s10434-013-2918-5

    29. Bateni SB, Davidson AJ, Arora M, et al. Is breast-conserving therapy appropriate for male breast cancer patients? A National Cancer Database Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(7):2144–2153. doi:10.1245/s10434-019-07159-4

    30. Elmi M, Sequeira S, Azin A, Elnahas A, McCready DR, Cil TD. Evolving surgical treatment decisions for male breast cancer: an analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(2):427–434. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4830-y

    31. Cardoso F, Bartlett JMS, Slaets L, et al. Characterization of male breast cancer: results of the EORTC 10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male Breast Cancer Program. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(2):405–417. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx651

    32. Korde LA, Zujewski JA, Kamin L, et al. Multidisciplinary meeting on male breast cancer: summary and research recommendations. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(12):2114–2122. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5729

    33. Wu P, He D, Zhu S, et al. The role of postoperative radiation therapy in stage I-III male breast cancer: a population-based study from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. Breast. 2022;65:41–48. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2022.06.004

    34. Jardel P, Vignot S, Cutuli B, et al. Should adjuvant radiation therapy be systematically proposed for male breast cancer? A systematic review. Anticancer Res. 2018;38(1):23–31. doi:10.21873/anticanres.12187

    35. Massarweh SA, Sledge GW, Miller DP, McCullough D, Petkov VI, Shak S. Molecular characterization and mortality from breast cancer in men. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(14):1396–1404. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.8861

    36. Gao Y, Goldberg JE, Young TK, Babb JS, Moy L, Heller SL. Breast cancer screening in high-risk men: a 12-year longitudinal observational study of male breast imaging utilization and outcomes. Radiology. 2019;293(2):282–291. doi:10.1148/radiol.2019190971

    37. Harlan LC, Zujewski JA, Goodman MT, Stevens JL. Breast cancer in men in the United States: a population-based study of diagnosis, treatment, and survival. Cancer. 2010;116(15):3558–3568. doi:10.1002/cncr.25153

    38. Giordano SH, Perkins GH, Broglio K, et al. Adjuvant systemic therapy for male breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104(11):2359–2364. doi:10.1002/cncr.21526

    39. Eggemann H, Altmann U, Costa SD, Ignatov A. Survival benefit of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor in male and female breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144(2):337–341. doi:10.1007/s00432-017-2539-7

    40. Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, et al. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9869):805–816. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61963-1

    41. Harbeck N, Rastogi P, Martin M, et al. Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(12):1571–1581. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.015

    42. Doyen J, Italiano A, Largillier R, Ferrero JM, Fontana X, Thyss A. Aromatase inhibition in male breast cancer patients: biological and clinical implications. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(6):1243–1245. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp450

    43. Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Chrysikos D, Dimopoulos MA, Psaltopoulou T. Fulvestrant and male breast cancer: a pooled analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149(1):269–275. doi:10.1007/s10549-014-3240-z

    44. Kraus AL, Yu-Kite M, Mardekian J, et al. Real-world data of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer in men. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2022;111(1):302–309. doi:10.1002/cpt.2454

    45. Yıldırım HÇ, Mutlu E, Chalabiyev E, et al. Clinical outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4-6 (CDK 4-6) inhibitors in patients with male breast cancer: a multicenter study. Breast. 2022;66:85–88. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2022.09.009

    46. Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, et al. Overall Survival with ribociclib plus fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):514–524. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911149

    47. Turner NC, Slamon DJ, Ro J, et al. Overall survival with palbociclib and fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1926–1936. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1810527

    48. Duma N, Hoversten KP, Ruddy KJ. Exclusion of male patients in breast cancer clinical trials. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018;2(2):pky018. doi:10.1093/jncics/pky018

    Continue Reading

  • Sha’carri Richardson reveals injury, eyes 100m title defense at 2025 Prefontaine Classic

    Sha’carri Richardson reveals injury, eyes 100m title defense at 2025 Prefontaine Classic

    Sha’Carri Richardson faces a stacked 100m field at the 2025 Prefontaine Classic

    Richardson will be up against a formidable field in the women’s 100m at the Eugene Diamond League, which features an all-star Paris 2024 rematch, with reigning Olympic gold medallist Julien Alfred and bronze medallist Melissa Jefferson-Wooden at the starting line.

    Alfred, St. Lucia’s first-ever Olympic gold medallist, finished second to Richardson at the 2024 Prefontaine Classic—and she’ll undoubtedly be aiming to go one better this time. At the pre-race press conference, Alfred reflected on her complicated history at Hayward Field, where she won her first NCAA title at age 21, but later false-started in her debut World Championships. “I have a loving relationship with Hayward Field,” she said. “I’m looking forward to going out there tomorrow, making it count, and hoping for a better outcome.”

    Jefferson-Wooden, who trains alongside Richardson, clocked a personal best of 10.73 seconds in the women’s 100m at Grand Slam Track’s Philadelphia meet on 1 June. Her approach to the race remains steady: “Taking it literally one day, one practice, one meet at a time, and focusing on every single part that gets me to where I want to be. So that’s what I’m looking forward to tomorrow.”

    Jefferson-Wooden also spoke about the strength of her training group, which includes Richardson and Olympic 4x100m relay gold medallist Twanisha Terry, who took second in Tokyo with a time of 11.42 seconds and will also be on the 100m starting line in Eugene, “We do a great job of bringing out the best in one another,” Jefferson-Wooden added.

    Continue Reading

  • India vs England 2nd Test: Barmy Army roars as Jamie Smith silences Bharat Army in Edgbaston epic | Cricket News

    India vs England 2nd Test: Barmy Army roars as Jamie Smith silences Bharat Army in Edgbaston epic | Cricket News

    England’s Jamie Smith plays a shot on day three of the second Test. (AP Photo)

    England’s newest batting sensation helps local fan group Barmy Army rediscover voice against ‘rivals’ Bharat ArmyBIRMINGHAM: Four days before the series started, Rob Key, the managing director of the England men’s cricket team, told TOI that he was looking forward to seeing how England’s wicketkeeper-batter Jamie Smith would respond to India counterpart Rishabh Pant’s performances. He called it “the battle of two entertaining counter-attacking wicketkeepers”, and definitely the match-up to watch out for.

    IND vs ENG 2nd Test: Rain Arrives After Stumps on Day 3 | What It Means for India’s Batting

    Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW!On Friday, one had to be at the Eric Hollies stand, a section of the Edgbaston famous for seating the loudest England fan community — the famed Barmy Army — to understand why Smith is the fastest-rising new cricketing sensation here. Eric Hollies is primarily remembered for spoiling Don Bradman’s farewell party, dismissing him for a duck in his last innings to leave the Don stranded just short of a 100-run average in Test cricket. The stand named after him celebrated wildly on Friday as Smith’s onslaught spoiled India’s party.

    Poll

    Did Jamie Smith’s performance exceed your expectations?

    The counterpoint to the Barmy Army here is, of course, the Bharat Army, the Indian cricket fan group, which was just starting to clear its throat to sing some anthems.However, Rakesh Patel, the founding member of the Bharat Army, could only look on helplessly as the Eric Hollies stand heaved and Smith went about shredding the Indian attack. Half an hour before lunch, the conversations among both sets of fans started to flow in weird directions.The blows from Smith’s bat seemed to be breaking the spirits of the Bharat Army fans, so much so that some muttered that they would be happy to take a draw from this Test. The Headingley horror was still fresh in their minds. England were still 300 runs adrift of India’s 587 when a shift in the mood of the England fans became palpable.As Smith swept Ravindra Jadeja through mid-wicket for his century, one of the most entertaining and crucial centuries in England’s recent history, the Barmy Army broke into rapturous celebrations. Their usual chants reached near-deafening decibel levels in the Eric Hollies Stand.They don’t have a song for Smith yet, as they do for the more established players like Joe Root, Ben Stokes or even Harry Brook. But Smith had offered them enough to improvise. They turned towards the Bharat Army section and started singing, “You are not singing now!”As lunch was called and one took leave, Patel assured, “It gets nasty by day-end. But both sets of fans have set values. No one crosses the line. There could be one or two who may get swayed emotionally but they are pulled back by the rest of the pack.”If it was Smith in the morning session, the Barmy Army sang, “Harry, Harry Brooook. Harry, Harry Broooook” after the stellar sixth-wicket, 303-run partnership came to an end.


    Continue Reading

  • Māori All Blacks 26 – 29 Scotland: match report – Scottish Rugby

    1. Māori All Blacks 26 – 29 Scotland: match report  Scottish Rugby
    2. Whangārei welcomes buzz ahead of rare sporting spectacle as it hosts Māori All Blacks and Scotland  RNZ
    3. Stafford McDowall named to captain Scotland against the New Zealand Maori  MSN
    4. Stafford McDowall: How Scotland will respond to ‘proper’ Maori All Blacks Haka  Scotland Rugby News
    5. Stafford McDowall eyeing up ‘cool experience’ facing former Scotland call-up Forbes  BBC

    Continue Reading