4.7 Article

LEF1 isoforms regulate cellular senescence and aging

期刊

AGING CELL
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acel.14024

关键词

aging; cellular senescence; IPF; LEF1; lung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study of aging and its mechanisms, such as cellular senescence, has provided valuable insights into age-related pathologies. Through the analysis of transcriptional profiles, the lymphoid enhancer binding factor 1 (LEF1) has been identified as an important regulator of gene expression in lung cells, which is associated with aging and cellular senescence.
The study of aging and its mechanisms, such as cellular senescence, has provided valuable insights into age-related pathologies, thus contributing to their prevention and treatment. The current abundance of high-throughput data combined with the surge of robust analysis algorithms has facilitated novel ways of identifying underlying pathways that may drive these pathologies. For the purpose of identifying key regulators of lung aging, we performed comparative analyses of transcriptional profiles of aged versus young human subjects and mice, focusing on the common age-related changes in the transcriptional regulation in lung macrophages, T cells, and B immune cells. Importantly, we validated our findings in cell culture assays and human lung samples. Our analysis identified lymphoid enhancer binding factor 1 (LEF1) as an important age-associated regulator of gene expression in all three cell types across different tissues and species. Follow-up experiments showed that the differential expression of long and short LEF1 isoforms is a key regulatory mechanism of cellular senescence. Further examination of lung tissue from patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, an age-related disease with strong ties to cellular senescence, revealed a stark dysregulation of LEF1. Collectively, our results suggest that LEF1 is a key factor of aging, and its differential regulation is associated with human and murine cellular senescence.

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

4.7
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