4.5 Article

SIRT3 deficiency delays diabetic skin wound healing via oxidative stress and necroptosis enhancement

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR MEDICINE
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 4415-4427

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.15100

关键词

diabetes mellitus; necroptosis; oxidative stress; Sirtuin 3; skin fibroblasts; skin wound healing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81872541, 81703099]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sirtuin 3 (SIRT3) plays a vital role in several dermatological diseases. However, the role and detailed mechanism of SIRT3 in diabetic wound healing are unknown well yet. To explore possible involvement of SIRT3 and necroptosis in diabetic skin wound healing, SIRT3 knockout (KO) mice and 129S1/SvImJ wild-type (WT) mice were injected with streptozotocin (STZ), and mice skin fibroblasts were exposed to high glucose (HG). It was found that SIRT3 expression decreased in the skin of diabetic patients. SIRT3 deficiency delayed healing rate, reduced blood supply and vascular endothelial growth factor expression, promoted superoxide production, increased malondialdehyde (MDA) levels, decreased total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC), reduced superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and aggravated ultrastructure disorder in skin wound of diabetic mice. SIRT3 deficiency inhibited mice skin fibroblasts migration with HG stimulation, which was restored by SIRT3 overexpression. SIRT3 deficiency also suppressed alpha-smooth muscle actin (alpha-SMA) expression, enhanced superoxide production but decreased mitochondrial membrane potential with HG stimulation after scratch. SIRT3 deficiency further elevated receptor-interacting protein kinase 3 (RIPK3), RIPK1 and caspase 3 expression both in vitro and in vivo. Collectively, SIRT3 deficiency delayed skin wound healing in diabetes, the mechanism might be related to impaired mitochondria function, enhanced oxidative stress and increased necroptosis. This may provide a novel therapeutic target to accelerate diabetic skin wound healing.

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

4.5
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