4.5 Article

Hypoxic Preconditioning Enhances Angiogenic Potential of Bone Marrow Cells With Aging-Related Functional Impairment

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 76, 期 4, 页码 986-994

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-11-0605

关键词

Aging; Angiogenesis; Cell therapy; Hypoxia; Preconditioning

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan
  2. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23791487] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hypoxic preconditioning of bone marrow cells (BMCs) from young healthy individuals can enhance the cells' therapeutic potential. Considering that the response to hypoxia may differ according to the quality of the cells, we assessed the effect of hypoxic preconditioning on BMCs from aged mice and compared the difference in response between BMCs from aged and young mice. Methods and Results: BMCs from young (3 months) and aged (20-22 months) mice were subjected to hypoxic preconditioning by culture for 24h in 2% O-2. Compared with BMCs from young mice, those from aged mice showed significantly fewer CD34- or c-kit-positive stem cells, higher expression of p53, and lower telomerase activity. Adhesion, survival and angiogenic,potency were also lower in BMCs from aged mice, indicating an aging-related impairment. Hypoxia-preconditioned BMCs from aged mice showed enhanced adhesion, survival, and angiogenic potency with the in vitro assessments, as well as the in vivo implantation into ischemic hindlimbs. All the enhancements by hypoxic preconditioning were comparable between BMCs from aged and young mice, although the angiogenic potential of BMCs with and without hypoxic preconditioning was lower in old mice compared with young mice. Conclusions: Similar responses to hypoxia by BMCs from both aged and young mice suggest that hypoxic preconditioning could be a useful method of enhancing the angiogenic potential of BMCs. (Circ J 2012; 76: 986-994)

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