What peer‑reviewed research has Nicolas Verhoeven authored on mitochondria or autophagy?
Executive summary
Nicolas Verhoeven is documented in the provided sources as a researcher working on mitochondria and autophagy who has co‑authored at least one peer‑reviewed research article on mitochondria/mitophagy and authored a peer‑reviewed review on autophagy in endothelial cells; both pieces focus on mitochondrial quality control and autophagy mechanisms [1] [2]. Reporting beyond these items is limited in the supplied materials, so a comprehensive bibliographic census cannot be produced from these sources alone [3].
1. Co‑authorship on a peer‑reviewed research article describing OMM‑severed, IMM‑ubiquitinated mitochondria
Nicolas Verhoeven is listed as a co‑author on a 2021 Autophagy paper that reports a pathway in which mitochondria with a severed outer mitochondrial membrane (OMM) undergo ubiquitination of inner mitochondrial membrane (IMM) proteins and recruit autophagy machinery, a sequence characterized in PRKN/parkin‑deficient cells [1]. That paper, cited on PubMed, names Yumiko Oshima as lead author with Verhoeven among the co‑authors and characterizes these OMM‑severed, IMM‑ubiquitinated mitochondria as intermediates of mitochondrial proteotoxicity‑induced autophagy, tying mitochondrial membrane dynamics and the ubiquitin‑proteasome system to mitophagy outcomes [1].
2. Peer‑reviewed review article on endothelial cell autophagy where Verhoeven is an author
In 2021 Verhoeven is credited on a FEBS Letters review about endothelial cell autophagy that frames autophagy as central to endothelial homeostasis and mitochondrial quality control and surveys how autophagy and ATG proteins contribute to phagophore formation and autophagosome biogenesis, with mitochondria among potential membrane sources [2]. The FEBS review highlights autophagy’s vasculoprotective functions and also flags unresolved questions and speculative areas—specifically that tumor endothelial cell autophagy might be corrupted by the tumor microenvironment—showing the piece is analytical and cautious about overreach [2].
3. Research themes: mitophagy, mitochondrial quality control, and ubiquitin signaling
Across the documented outputs Verhoeven’s peer‑reviewed work engages core mitochondrial quality‑control themes: mitophagy, mitochondrial fission/fusion dynamics, and ubiquitin‑dependent signaling that targets mitochondrial membranes for autophagic removal [1] [2]. The Autophagy paper specifically links decreased mitochondrial translation fidelity and proteotoxicity to selective IMM ubiquitination and recruitment of autophagy receptors in cells lacking PRKN activity, situating Verhoeven’s contributions inside mechanistic mitophagy research rather than popular discussions of “autophagy” as a lifestyle concept [1].
4. Corroborating biographical and non‑peer sources, and what they add
Multiple non‑peer sources describe Verhoeven as a PhD candidate in Molecular Medicine working in a mitochondria and autophagy laboratory and as the founder of a science‑communication brand, Physionic, but these podcast and profile items are not peer‑reviewed primary literature and therefore do not expand the list of peer‑reviewed publications; they do corroborate his research focus and public engagement in mitochondrial topics [4] [5] [6] [7]. ResearchGate snippets echo the technical content of the Autophagy paper but are derivative and not a substitute for citation of the journal articles themselves [3].
5. Caveats, alternative viewpoints and limits of the available reporting
The supplied sources document at least one original research paper and one review with Verhoeven as an author [1] [2], but they do not constitute a complete bibliographic record; other peer‑reviewed papers by Verhoeven may exist that are not provided here, and the supplied profiles and podcasts should not be taken as peer‑reviewed evidence of authorship [3] [4]. The FEBS review itself acknowledges speculative areas—such as the corruption of autophagy in tumor endothelial cells—demonstrating that some conclusions in the literature remain interpretive and contested [2].