4.6 Article

Does Reduced IGF-1R Signaling in Igf1r+/- Mice Alter Aging?

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026891

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [AGO-21890]
  2. Beeson Career Development Award [AG-030979, DK-80157, DK-089229, DK-24092 RAD, R01AG026012, AG-19316, AG-13319, AG-23843, AG-26557]
  3. Nathan Shock [1P30-AG-13319]
  4. Department of Veteran's Affairs
  5. University of Texas System

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in insulin/IGF-1 signaling pathway have been shown to lead to increased longevity in various invertebrate models. Therefore, the effect of the haplo-insufficiency of the IGF-1 receptor (Igf1r(+/-)) on longevity/aging was evaluated in C57Bl/6 mice using rigorous criteria where lifespan and end-of-life pathology were measured under optimal husbandry conditions using large sample sizes. Igf1r(+/-) mice exhibited reductions in IGF-1 receptor levels and the activation of Akt by IGF-1, with no compensatory increases in serum IGF-1 or tissue IGF-1 mRNA levels, indicating that the Igf1r(+/-) mice show reduced IGF-1 signaling. Aged male, but not female Igf1r(+/-) mice were glucose intolerant, and both genders developed insulin resistance as they aged. Female, but not male Igf1r(+/-) mice survived longer than wild type mice after lethal paraquat and diquat exposure, and female Igf1r(+/-) mice also exhibited less diquat-induced liver damage. However, no significant difference between the lifespans of the male Igf1r(+/-) and wild type mice was observed; and the mean lifespan of the Igf1r(+/-) females was increased only slightly (less than 5%) compared to wild type mice. A comprehensive pathological analysis showed no significant difference in end-of-life pathological lesions between the Igf1r(+/-) and wild type mice. These data show that the Igf1r(+/-) mouse is not a model of increased longevity and delayed aging as predicted by invertebrate models with mutations in the insulin/IGF-1 signaling pathway.

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