4.5 Article

Somatic mitochondrial DNA mutations in cortex and substantia nigra in aging and Parkinson's disease

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 71-81

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0197-4580(03)00037-X

关键词

mitochondria; Parkinson's disease; aging; somatic; oxidative stress; acquired mutations; neurodegeneration

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [K08NS001971, K24NS002239] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG020729, K08AG000798] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG20729, K08 AG00798] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [K02 NS4311-01, K08 NS01971, K24 NS02239] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) increases with age in the brain and can induce G:C to T:A and T:A to G:C point mutations. Though rare at any particular site, multiple somatic mtDNA mutations induced by oxidative damage or by other mechanisms may accumulate with age in the brain and thus could play a role in aging and neurodegenerative diseases. However, no prior study has quantified the total burden of mtDNA point mutation subtypes in the brain. Using a highly sensitive cloning and sequencing strategy, we find that the aggregate levels of G:C to T:A and T:A to G:C transversions and of all point mutations increase with age in the frontal cortex (FCtx). In the substantia nigra (SN), the aggregate levels of point mutations in young controls are similar to the levels in the SN or FCtx of elderly subjects. Extrapolation from our data suggests an average of 2.7 (FCtx) to 3.2 (SN) somatic point mutations per mitochondrial genome in elderly subjects. There were no significant differences between Parkinson's disease (PD) patients and age-matched controls in somatic mutation levels. These results indicate that individually rare mtDNA point mutations reach a high aggregate burden in FCtx and SN of elderly subjects. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science 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

4.5
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