4.4 Article

The role of replicative senescence in chronic allograft nephropathy

期刊

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
卷 34, 期 9, 页码 924-928

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1016/S0046-8177(03)00340-X

关键词

chronic allograft nephropathy; replicative senescence; telomere

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strong evidence suggests that replicative senescence is involved in vivo because senescent cells have been detected in human tissues associated with physiological and pathological aging processes. Chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) appears to be a major determinant of long-term survival in kidney transplantation. Several mechanisms are potentially involved; the aim of this study was to assess the impact of replicative senescence in CAN. Replicative senescent cells were detected on renal tissue cryosection using expression of a specific marker, senescence-associated beta-galactosidase (SA-beta-Gal) at pH 6. A total of 80 frozen renal samples (67 cases of CAN and 13 controls) were studied. To validate this marker, we measured in situ telomere length in cells expressing or not expressing SA-beta-Gal using a validated quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization technique. The presence of senescent cells was correlated with clinicopathologic data. Telomere length was significantly lower in cells expressing SA-P-Gal than in cells that did not. Replicative senescence was present in 45 out of 67 (67%) biopsy specimens and was significantly associated with the severity of CAN. No correlation with the notion of a previous episode of acute tubular necrosis, acute rejection, extra-renal epuration, duration of cold ischemia, and the delay between transplantation and biopsy was observed. However, the age of the donor, but not that of the recipient, was correlated with the occurrence of senescent cells. These results suggest that replicative senescence is a mechanism that might be involved in the development of CAN. The age of the donor appears to be the major determinant factor in replicative senescence. (C) 2003 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

4.4
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