4.7 Article

Absence of Distinguishing Senescence Traits in Human Melanocytic Nevi

Journal

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
Volume 132, Issue 9, Pages 2226-2234

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jid.2012.126

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) [633004]
  2. Cancer Council of NSW
  3. Health Department of NSW through Sydney West Area Health Service
  4. Australian Cancer Research Foundation
  5. Cancer Institute New South Wales Research Fellowship
  6. NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cellular senescence permanently restricts the replicative capacity of cells in response to various stress signals, including aberrant activation of oncogenes. The presence of predictive senescence markers in human premalignant lesions suggests that senescence may function as a genuine tumor suppressor. These markers are not exclusive to the senescence program, however, and it is possible that their expression in vivo does not discriminate irreversible from reversible forms of proliferative arrest. In this study, we aimed to clarify whether human nevus cells can be distinguished from primary and transformed melanocytes by examining the expression of eight senescence markers, including those previously purported to define nevi as senescent tumors. Specifically, we analyzed effectors of senescence, including p16(INK4a), p53, and DNA damage (gamma-H2AX), as well as predictive markers of senescence including Ki67, PML, senescence-associated beta-galactosidase, heterochromatic foci (H3K9Me, 4'-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole), and nuclear size. We found that these commonly accepted senescence markers do not in fact distinguish nevi from precursor/normal and transformed/malignant melanocytes. We conclude that on the basis of current evidence it cannot be reasonably inferred that nevi are permanently growth arrested via senescence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available