4.6 Article

Damage at the root of cell renewal-UV sensitivity of human epidermal stem cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 64, 期 1, 页码 16-22

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2011.06.010

关键词

Human skin; Epidermal stem cells; DNA damage; UV irradiation; CPD; Photoaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The epidermis harbors adult stem cells that reside in the basal layer and ensure the continuous maintenance of tissue homeostasis. Various studies imply that stem cells generally possess specific defense mechanisms against several forms of exogenous stress factors. As sun exposition is the most prevalent impact on human skin, this feature would be of particular importance in terms of sensitivity to UV-induced DNA damage. Objective: To investigate whether human epidermal stem cells are susceptible to UV-induced DNA damage and subsequent functional impairment. Methods: A method to isolate human epidermal stem cells from suction blister epidermis was established and validated. Volunteers were treated with solar-simulated irradiation on test areas of the forearm and stem cells were isolated from suction blister material of this region. DNA damage was analyzed by staining for cyclobutane thymidine dimers. The functional consequences of UV-induced damages were assessed by colony forming efficiency assays and gene expression analyses. Results: Compared to an unirradiated control, stem cells isolated from areas that were exposed to solar-simulated radiation showed significantly more DNA lesions. Although the number of stem cells was not reduced by this treatment, a functional impairment of stem cells could be shown by reduced colony forming efficiency and altered gene expression of stem cell markers. Conclusions: Despite their essential role in skin maintenance, epidermal stem cells are sensitive to physiological doses of UV irradiation in vivo. (C) 2011 Japanese Society for Investigative Dermatology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据