4.6 Article

Aging and endothelial progenitor cell telomere length in healthy men

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 47-50

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2009.016

Keywords

aging; endothelial progenitor cells; telomeres

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL076434, HL077450, RR00051]
  2. American Heart Association [0555678Z]
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [M01RR000051] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL076434, R01HL077450] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Telomere length declines with age in mature endothelial cells and is thought to contribute to endothelial dysfunction and atherogenesis. Bone marrow-derived circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are critical to vascular health as they contribute to both reendothelialization and neovascularization. We tested the hypothesis that EPC telomere length decreases with age in healthy adult humans. Methods: Peripheral blood samples were collected from 40 healthy, non-obese, sedentary men: 12 young (age 21-34 years), 12 middle-aged (43-55 years) and 16 older (57-68 years). Putative EPCs were isolated from peripheral blood mononuclear cells and telomere length was determined using genomic DNA preparation and Southern hybridization techniques. Results: EPC telomere length (base pairs) was; 20% (p=0.01) lower in the older (8492 +/- 523 bp) compared to the middle-aged (10,565 +/- 572 bp) and young (10,205 +/- 501 bp) men. Of note, there was no difference in EPC telomere length between the middle-aged and young men. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that EPC telomere length declines with age in healthy, sedentary men. Interestingly, telomere length was well preserved in the middle-aged compared to young men, suggesting that EPC telomere shortening occurs after the age of 55 years.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available