4.7 Review

Mechanisms linking mtDNA damage and aging

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 85, 期 -, 页码 250-258

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.05.005

关键词

MtDNA; Aging; Mutation; Mitochondria; Free radicals

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health [5R01EY010804, 1R01AG036871, 1R01NS079965, 1R21ES025673]
  2. Muscular Dystrophy Association
  3. United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
  4. JM Fund for Mitochondrial Disease Research
  5. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY010804] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [R21ES025673] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS079965] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG036871] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past century, considerable efforts were nude to understand the role of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations and of oxidative stress in aging. The classic mitochondrial free radical theory of aging, in which mtDNA mutations cause genotoxic oxidative stress, which in turn creates more mutations, has been a central hypothesis in the field for decades. In the past few years, however, new elements have discredited this original theory. The major sources of mitochondrial DNA mutations seem to be replication errors and failure of the repair mechanisms, and the accumulation of these mutations as observed in aged organisms seems to occur by clonal expansion and not to be caused by a reactive oxygen species-dependent vicious cycle. New hypotheses of how age-associated mitochondrial dysfunction may lead to aging are based on the role of reactive oxygen species as signaling molecules and on their role in mediating stress responses to age-dependent damage. Here, we review the changes that mtDNA undergoes during aging and the past and most recent hypotheses linking these changes to the tissue failure observed in aging. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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