4.6 Review

Cellular Senescence: The Sought or the Unwanted?

期刊

TRENDS IN MOLECULAR MEDICINE
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 871-885

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.molmed.2018.08.002

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC1302400]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [81472709, 31671425]
  3. Key Lab of Stem Cell Biology of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. National 1000 Young Talents Research Program of China
  5. US Department of Defense (DoD) Prostate Cancer Research Program (PCRP) [PC111703]
  6. National Institutes of Health [TR000005 T1]
  7. Give Breast Cancer The Boot program
  8. Friends for an Earlier Breast Cancer Test program
  9. Cancer Research UK (CRUK) [A12011]
  10. Breast Cancer Now [2012MayPR070, 2012NovPhD016]
  11. UK Medical Research Council [MR/N012097/1]
  12. CRUK Imperial Centre
  13. Imperial Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC)
  14. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Center (BRC)
  15. Medical Research Council [MR/N012097/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  16. MRC [MR/N012097/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellular senescence is a process that results in irreversible cell-cycle arrest, and is thought to be an autonomous tumor-suppressor mechanism. During senescence, cells develop distinctive metabolic and signaling features, together referred to as the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP). The SASP is implicated in several aging-related pathologies, including various malignancies. Accumulating evidence argues that cellular senescence acts as a double-edged sword in human cancer, and new agents and innovative strategies to tackle senescent cells are in development pipelines to counter the adverse effects of cellular senescence in the clinic. We focus on recent discoveries in senescence research and SASP biology, and highlight the potential of SASP suppression and senescent cell clearance in advancing precision medicine.

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