4.7 Review

Cardiac mitochondrial bioenergetics, oxidative stress, and aging

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-CELL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 292, 期 6, 页码 C1983-C1992

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpcell.00285.2006

关键词

superoxide anion; longevity; postmitotic; calorie restriction; subsarcolemmal; interfibrillar; exercise

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01-AG-17994, AG-21042] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondria have been a central focus of several theories of aging as a result of their critical role in bioenergetics, oxidant production, and regulation of cell death. A decline in cardiac mitochondrial function coupled with the accumulation of oxidative damage to macromolecules may be causal to the decline in cardiac performance with age. In contrast, regular physical activity and lifelong caloric restriction can prevent oxidative stress, delay the onset of morbidity, increase life span, and reduce the risk of developing several pathological conditions. The health benefits of life long exercise and caloric restriction may be, at least partially, due to a reduction in the chronic amount of mitochondrial oxidant production. In addition, the available data suggest that chronic exercise may serve to enhance antioxidant enzyme activities, and augment certain repair/removal pathways, thereby reducing the amount of oxidative tissue damage. However, the characterization of age-related changes to cardiac mitochondria has been complicated by the fact that two distinct populations of mitochondria exist in the myocardium: subsarcolemmal mitochondria and interfibrillar mitochondria. Several studies now suggest the importance of studying both mitochondrial populations when attempting to elucidate the contribution of mitochondrial dysfunction to myocardial aging. The role that mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress play in contributing to cardiac aging will be discussed along with the use of lifelong exercise and calorie restriction as countermeasures to aging.

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