4.2 Article

An in vitro senescence model of gingival epithelial cell induced by hydrogen peroxide treatment

期刊

ODONTOLOGY
卷 110, 期 1, 页码 44-53

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10266-021-00630-3

关键词

Aging; Antioxidants; Hydrogen peroxide; Oxidative stress; Periodontium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study established a senescence model of gingival epithelial cells induced by hydrogen peroxide treatment, demonstrating that 400 μM H2O2 is the optimal concentration for inducing senescence. Treatment of senescence-induced cells with fisetin resulted in downregulation of all senescence markers. These findings can be applied to research on age-related periodontal diseases.
Gingival tissue shows progressive changes with aging and an in vitro model of gingival tissue could be useful in understanding age-associated oral diseases. The present study aims to establish a hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) treatment model to induce aging in human gingival epithelial cells. In addition, fisetin, a flavonoid component studied for the anti-aging property is used to examine if it could reverse the induced senescence. Primary human gingival epithelial progenitor (HGEPp) cells were cultured and treated with different concentrations of H2O2. A cell vitality and morphology, senescence-associated beta-galactosidase (SA-beta-gal) staining, mRNA and protein expression analysis of known senescence markers p16, p21, and p53, and cell cycle assay were performed. The cells showed dose-dependent changes in vitality and morphology, SA-beta-gal staining, relative mRNA and protein expression, and cell cycle assay after H2O2 treatment. Based on these results, 400 mu M H2O2 was considered as an optimal concentration to induce senescence. Treatment of senescence-induced cells with fisetin downregulated all the senescence markers used in this study. In conclusion, a senescence model of gingival epithelial cells induced by hydrogen peroxide treatment was established which could be employed to study age-related periodontal diseases.

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

4.2
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