4.6 Article

Microvesicles from the plasma of elderly subjects and from senescent endothelial cells promote vascular calcification

期刊

AGING-US
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 778-789

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/aging.101191

关键词

aging; senescence; microvesicles; vascular calcification; endothelial cells; vascular smooth muscle cells

资金

  1. Plan Nacional Proyectos de Investigacion en Salud of Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) Fondos Feder European Grants [PI11/01536, PI12/01489, PI14/00806, PI15/01785]
  2. Red de Investigacion Renal [RD16/0009/0034]
  3. Junta de Andalucia Grants [P010-CTS-6337, P11-CTS7352]
  4. program Ayuda Postdoctoral Programa Propio from Universidad de Alcala, Madrid, Spain
  5. Consejeria de Innovacion, Ciencia y Empresa, Junta de Andalucia [CTS-6337, P11-CTS-7352]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vascular calcification is commonly seen in elderly people, though it can also appear in middle-aged subjects affected by premature vascular aging. The aim of this work is to test the involvement of microvesicles (MVs) produced by senescent endothelial cells (EC) and from plasma of elderly people in vascular calcification. The present work shows that MVs produced by senescent cultured ECs, plus those found in the plasma of elderly subjects, promote calcification in vascular smooth muscle cells. Only MVs from senescent ECs, and from elderly subjects' plasma, induced calcification. This ability correlated with these types of MVs' carriage of: a) increased quantities of annexins (which might act as nucleation sites for calcification), b) increased quantities of bone-morphogenic protein, and c) larger Ca contents. The MVs of senescent, cultured ECs, and those present in the plasma of elderly subjects, promote vascular calcification. The present results provide mechanistic insights into the observed increase in vascular calcification-related diseases in the elderly, and in younger patients with premature vascular aging, paving the way towards novel therapeutic strategies.

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