4.4 Article

Aging results in DNA damage and telomere dysfunction that is greater in endothelial versus vascular smooth muscle cells and is exacerbated in atheroprone regions

期刊

GEROSCIENCE
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 2741-2755

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11357-022-00681-6

关键词

Aging; DNA damage; Telomere dysfunction; Endothelial cell; Vascular smooth muscle cell

资金

  1. University of Utah Population Health Research (PHR) Foundation
  2. National Center for Research Resources
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  4. National Institutes of Health [UL1TR002538, 5UL1TR00106705, 8UL1TR000105, UL1RR025764, R01 AG060395, R01 AG050238, R44 AG053131, R01 AG048366, F31AG076312, T32HL007576]
  5. US Department of Veterans Affairs Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development Service [I01 BX004492]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aging leads to DNA damage and telomere dysfunction in both endothelial cells and vascular smooth muscle cells; however, the effects are more pronounced in endothelial cells and atheroprone arterial regions.
Aging increases the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease which is associated with arterial senescence; however, the mechanisms responsible for the development of cellular senescence in endothelial cells (ECs) and vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) remain elusive. Here, we study the effect of aging on arterial DNA damage and telomere dysfunction. Aging resulted in greater DNA damage in ECs than VSMCs. Further, telomere dysfunction-associated DNA damage foci (TAF: DNA damage signaling at telomeres) were elevated with aging in ECs but not VMSCs. Telomere length was modestly reduced in ECs with aging and not sufficient to induce telomere dysfunction. DNA damage and telomere dysfunction were greatest in atheroprone regions (aortic minor arch) versus non-atheroprone regions (thoracic aorta). Collectively, these data demonstrate that aging results in DNA damage and telomere dysfunction that is greater in ECs than VSMCs and elevated in atheroprone aortic regions.

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

4.4
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