4.5 Review

DNA double-strand break response in stem cells: Mechanisms to maintain genomic integrity

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-GENERAL SUBJECTS
卷 1830, 期 2, 页码 2345-2353

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2012.09.001

关键词

Embryonic stem cell; Induced pluripotent stem cell; DNA damage; Double-strand break repair

资金

  1. Maryland Stem Cell Research fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) represent the point of origin of all cells in a given organism and must protect their genomes from both endogenous and exogenous genotoxic stress. DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are one of the most lethal forms of damage, and failure to adequately repair DSBs would not only compromise the ability of SCs to self-renew and differentiate, but will also lead to genomic instability and disease. Scope of Review: Herein, we describe the mechanisms by which ESCs respond to DSB-inducing agents such as reactive oxygen species (ROS) and ionizing radiation, compared to somatic cells. We will also discuss whether the DSB response is fully reprogrammed in induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and the role of the DNA damage response (DDR) in the reprogramming of these cells. Major Conclusions: ESCs have distinct mechanisms to protect themselves against DSBs and oxidative stress compared to somatic cells. The response to damage and stress is crucial for the maintenance of self-renewal and differentiation capacity in SCs. iPSCs appear to reprogram some of the responses to genotoxic stress. However, it remains to be determined if iPSCs also retain some DDR characteristics of the somatic cells of origin. General Significance: The mechanisms regulating the genomic integrity in ESCs and iPSCs are critical for its safe use in regenerative medicine and may shed light on the pathways and factors that maintain genomic stability, preventing diseases such as cancer. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Biochemistry of Stem Cells. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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