4.6 Article

ROS-Induced Activation of DNA Damage Responses Drives Senescence-Like State in Postmitotic Cochlear Cells: Implication for Hearing Preservation

期刊

MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 56, 期 8, 页码 5950-5969

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12035-019-1493-6

关键词

Oxidative stress; DNA damage responses; Senescence; Age-related hearing loss; Hearing preservation

资金

  1. Fondation de l'Avenir [Et2-675]
  2. Fondation Gueules Cassees

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In our aging society, age-related hearing loss (ARHL) has become a major socioeconomic issue. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) may be one of the main causal factors of age-related cochlear cell degeneration. We examined whether ROS-induced DNA damage response drives cochlear cell senescence and contributes to ARHL from the cellular up to the system level. Our results revealed that sublethal concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) exposure initiated a DNA damage response illustrated by increased gamma H2AX and 53BP1 expression and foci formation mainly in sensory hair cells, together with increased levels of p-Chk2 and p53. Interestingly, postmitotic cochlear cells exposed to H2O2 displayed key hallmarks of senescent cells, including dramatically increased levels of p21, p38, and p-p38 expression, concomitant with decreased p19 and BubR1 expression and positive senescence-associated beta-galactosidase labeling. Importantly, the synthetic superoxide dismutase/catalase mimetic EUK-207 attenuated H2O2-induced DNA damage and senescence phenotypes in cochlear cells in vitro. Furthermore, systemic administration of EUK-207 reduced age-related loss of hearing and hair cell degeneration in senescence-accelerated mouse-prone 8 (SAMP8) mice. Altogether, these findings highlight that ROS-induced DNA damage responses drive cochlear cell senescence and contribute to accelerated ARHL. EUK-207 and likely other antioxidants with similar mechanisms of action could potentially postpone cochlear aging and prevent ARHL in humans.

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