2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Mesenchymal stromal cells from amniotic fluid are less prone to senescence compared to those obtained from bone marrow: An in vitro study : ALESSIO et al.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Concise review: the surface markers and identity of human mesenchymal stem cells.

          The concept of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is becoming increasingly obscure due to the recent findings of heterogeneous populations with different levels of stemness within MSCs isolated by traditional plastic adherence. MSCs were originally identified in bone marrow and later detected in many other tissues. Currently, no cloning based on single surface marker is capable of isolating cells that satisfy the minimal criteria of MSCs from various tissue environments. Markers that associate with the stemness of MSCs await to be elucidated. A number of candidate MSC surface markers or markers possibly related to their stemness have been brought forward so far, including Stro-1, SSEA-4, CD271, and CD146, yet there is a large difference in their expression in various sources of MSCs. The exact identity of MSCs in vivo is not yet clear, although reports have suggested they may have a fibroblastic or pericytic origin. In this review, we revisit the reported expression of surface molecules in MSCs from various sources, aiming to assess their potential as MSC markers and define the critical panel for future investigation. We also discuss the relationship of MSCs to fibroblasts and pericytes in an attempt to shed light on their identity in vivo. © 2014 AlphaMed Press.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            DNA damage foci at dysfunctional telomeres.

            We report cytologic and genetic data indicating that telomere dysfunction induces a DNA damage response in mammalian cells. Dysfunctional, uncapped telomeres, created through inhibition of TRF2, became associated with DNA damage response factors, such as 53BP1, gamma-H2AX, Rad17, ATM, and Mre11. We refer to the domain of telomere-associated DNA damage factors as a Telomere Dysfunction-Induced Focus (TIF). The accumulation of 53BP1 on uncapped telomeres was reduced in the presence of the PI3 kinase inhibitors caffeine and wortmannin, which affect ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK. By contrast, Mre11 TIFs were resistant to caffeine, consistent with previous findings on the Mre11 response to ionizing radiation. A-T cells had a diminished 53BP1 TIF response, indicating that the ATM kinase is a major transducer of this pathway. However, in the absence of ATM, TRF2 inhibition still induced TIFs and senescence, pointing to a second ATM-independent pathway. We conclude that the cellular response to telomere dysfunction is governed by proteins that also control the DNA damage response. TIFs represent a new tool for evaluating telomere status in normal and malignant cells suspected of harboring dysfunctional telomeres. Furthermore, induction of TIFs through TRF2 inhibition provides an opportunity to study the DNA damage response within the context of well-defined, physically marked lesions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Factors determining DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice in G2 phase.

              DNA non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR) function to repair DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) in G2 phase with HR preferentially repairing heterochromatin-associated DSBs (HC-DSBs). Here, we examine the regulation of repair pathway usage at two-ended DSBs in G2. We identify the speed of DSB repair as a major component influencing repair pathway usage showing that DNA damage and chromatin complexity are factors influencing DSB repair rate and pathway choice. Loss of NHEJ proteins also slows DSB repair allowing increased resection. However, expression of an autophosphorylation-defective DNA-PKcs mutant, which binds DSBs but precludes the completion of NHEJ, dramatically reduces DSB end resection at all DSBs. In contrast, loss of HR does not impair repair by NHEJ although CtIP-dependent end resection precludes NHEJ usage. We propose that NHEJ initially attempts to repair DSBs and, if rapid rejoining does not ensue, then resection occurs promoting repair by HR. Finally, we identify novel roles for ATM in regulating DSB end resection; an indirect role in promoting KAP-1-dependent chromatin relaxation and a direct role in phosphorylating and activating CtIP.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Cellular Physiology
                J Cell Physiol
                Wiley
                00219541
                November 2018
                November 2018
                June 15 2018
                : 233
                : 11
                : 8996-9006
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Experimental Medicine, Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Section; University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli; Naples Italy
                [2 ]Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences; G. D’Annunzio University Chieti-Pescara; Chieti Italy
                [3 ]Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences; G. D’Annunzio University Chieti-Pescara; Chieti Italy
                [4 ]Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurological, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, 2nd Division of Neurology; Center for Rare Diseases and InterUniversity Center for Research in Neurosciences, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli; Naples Italy
                [5 ]Sbarro Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Center for Biotechnology, Temple University; Philadelphia Pennsylvania
                [6 ]Institute of Bioscience and Bioresources, CNR; Naples Italy
                Article
                10.1002/jcp.26845
                29904927
                40eac536-a5fa-4b50-b462-3aa76a0d73da
                © 2018

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article