| Literature DB >> 29488325 |
Stijn Mouton1, Magda Grudniewska1, Lisa Glazenburg1, Victor Guryev1, Eugene Berezikov1.
Abstract
Animals show a large variability of lifespan, ranging from short-lived as Caenorhabditis elegans to immortal as Hydra. A fascinating case is flatworms, in which reversal of aging by regeneration is proposed, yet conclusive evidence for this rejuvenation-by-regeneration hypothesis is lacking. We tested this hypothesis by inducing regeneration in the sexual free-living flatworm Macrostomum lignano. We studied survival, fertility, morphology, and gene expression as a function of age. Here, we report that after regeneration, genes expressed in the germline are upregulated at all ages, but no signs of rejuvenation are observed. Instead, the animal appears to be substantially longer lived than previously appreciated, and genes expressed in stem cells are upregulated with age, while germline genes are downregulated. Remarkably, several genes with known beneficial effects on lifespan when overexpressed in mice and C. elegans are naturally upregulated with age in M. lignano, suggesting that molecular mechanism for offsetting negative consequences of aging has evolved in this animal. We therefore propose that M. lignano represents a novel powerful model for molecular studies of aging attenuation, and the identified aging gene expression patterns provide a valuable resource for further exploration of anti-aging strategies.Entities:
Keywords: aging; flatworms; gene expression; regeneration; rejuvenation; stem cells
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29488325 PMCID: PMC5946080 DOI: 10.1111/acel.12739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging Cell ISSN: 1474-9718 Impact factor: 9.304
Figure 1Experimental design, survival, morphology, and age‐related fertility of Macrostomum lignano. (a) Schematic representation of the experimental setup. RNA of worms was collected at all indicated ages (M = months). In addition, fertility (f) and the number of worms with cysts (c) were quantified at the age of 2, 12, and 26 months. The study included three conditions: intact (NC, green), once cut (OC, blue), and multiple cut (MC, purple) animals. How worms are obtained for each condition is visualized below the timeline. The gray area represents the animals collected for studies, while the animals above represent the aging culture. (b) Survival of intact and multiple cut Macrostomum lignano DV1 animals. For both conditions, the five separate replicates, each starting with 100 individuals, and the average survival curve in bold are visualized. (c) Average mortality rates of intact and multiple cut worms. Note the temporal increase at the age of about a year for multiple cut worms. (d) Morphology of Macrostomum lignano as a function of age. Young intact worm without morphological abnormalities (2 months) and aged intact worms (12 and 26 months) are shown. Most noticeable are the lack of eyes and the presence of cysts (indicated with asterisk), which vary in size, location, and number per worm. Scale bar 100 μm. (e) Percentage of worms with cysts as a function of age. (f) Fertility of the three conditions at the age of 12 and 26 months. For both ages, a control of young 2‐month‐old worms is included (*p < .05)
Figure 2Clustering of treatment and age groups of Macrostomum lignano based on gene expression. (a) Principal component analysis based on the top 1,000 most variable genes in the dataset. Samples are clustered primarily by age and not by treatment. (b) Heatmap and hierarchical clustering of samples based on the same 1,000 most variable genes as in (a)
Figure 3Differentially expressed genes after single and multiple regenerations in different age groups. (a–e) 4M, 6M, 10M, 12M, and 26M time points, respectively. (f, g) Overlap between genes upregulated (f) and downregulated (g) after regeneration in different age groups
Figure 4Temporal patterns of gene expression as a function of age. By dividing the studied period into three intervals (2–6 months, 6–12 months, and 12–26 months), eight temporal patterns of gene expression can be identified. Transcripts enriched in proliferating germline cells are represented in blue, and transcripts enriched in somatic neoblasts in orange
Enrichment of various gene categories among genes differentially expressed with age
| Dataset | Expression with age | GenAge | Genome maintenance | Germline | Neoblasts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Down‐Down‐Down | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Down‐Down‐Up | ns | ns | 0.13 | 0.15 | |
| Down‐Up‐Down | ns | ns | 0.49 | ns | |
| Down‐Up‐Up | 1.38 | 1.51 | 0.25 | 3.72 | |
| Up‐Down‐Down | ns | ns | 5.94 | 0.24 | |
| Up‐Down‐Up | ns | ns | ns | 0.3 | |
| Up‐Up‐Down | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Up‐Up‐Up | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Increased at 26M vs. 2M | 1.36 | ns | 0.58 | 2.93 | |
| Decreased at 26M vs. 2M | 0.75 | 0.46 | 1.49 | 0.07 | |
|
| Increased at D10 vs. D3 | 0.61 | 0.45 | ||
| Decreased at D10 vs. D3 | ns | ns | |||
| Mouse intestinal | Increased at 20M vs. 2M | ns | 0.23 | ||
| Stem cells | Decreased at 20M vs. 2M | ns | ns | ||
| Mouse liver | Increased at 21M vs. 3M | ns | 0.41 | ||
| Decreased at 21M vs. 3M | ns | ns | |||
| Mouse skin | Increased at 30M vs. 2M | ns | 0.39 | ||
| Decreased at 30M vs. 2M | 0.74 | ns | |||
| Zebrafish skin | Increased at 42M vs. 5M | 0.66 | 0.41 | ||
| Decreased at 42M vs. 5M | ns | 1.47 |
ns, not significant.
This study.
Rangaraju et al., 2015.
Nalapareddy et al., 2017.
Bochkis et al., 2014.
Mansfeld et al., 2015.
Figure 5Differentially expressed genes between 2‐M‐old and 26‐M‐old animals. (a) Fold change plot of statistically significant differentially expressed genes, with neoblast and germline genes indicated in different color. (b) Verification of gene expression changes for selected genes by RT‐qPCR. The graph is normalized on the expression level of the target gene in the 2‐month‐old animals. The corresponding RNA‐seq data in the form of counts per million (CPM), with calculated fold changes, are given below the graph
“Regulation of Biological Quality” homologs upregulated with age in Macrostomum lignano
| AACS, AAK1, ABCB1, ABCG2, ACACA, ACADVL, ACE, ACHE, ACO1, ACP5, ACTB, ACTG1, ADCY1, ADD1, ADIPOR2, AK3, AKAP1, AKAP10, AKR1B1, ALDH9A1, AMPD2, ANK2, ANK3, ANPEP, |
Genes from the GenAge database are in bold.