| Literature DB >> 31885770 |
Xiaoran Huang1,2, Hao Zhang3, Xiaoting Liang4, Yimei Hong2, Mengmeng Mao5, Qian Han5, Haiwei He2, Wuyuan Tao2, Guojun Jiang3, Yuelin Zhang2, Xin Li2,1.
Abstract
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have shown beneficial effects in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Nonetheless, the biological properties of adipose-derived MSCs (ASCs) from patients with AAA (AAA-ASCs) remain unclear. This study is aimed at investigating the properties of cell phenotype and function of AAA-ASCs compared with ASCs from age-matched healthy donors (H-ASCs). H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs were studied for cell phenotype, differentiation capacity, senescence, and mitochondrial and autophagic functions. Cellular senescence was examined by senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SA-β-gal) staining. Mitochondrial morphology was determined by MitoTracker staining. Despite the similar surface markers of AAA-ASCs and H-ASCs, AAA-ASCs exhibited altered multidifferentiation potential. Compared with H-ASCs, AAA-ASCs displayed enhanced senescence manifested by increased SA-β-gal activity and decreased proliferation and migration ability. Furthermore, AAA-ASCs showed increased mitochondrial fusion, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and decreased mitochondrial membrane potential. In addition, AAA-ASCs exhibited decreased autophagy level, upregulation of IL-6 and TNF-α secretion, and downregulation of IL-10 secretion compared with H-ASCs. Nonetheless, treatment of AAA-ASCs with rapamycin (an autophagy activator) dramatically reduced secretion of IL-6 and TNF-α and enhanced secretion of IL-10. In conclusion, our study showed that AAA-ASCs exhibit senescence phenomena and decreased cell function. Understanding the specific alterations in AAA-ASCs will help explore novel strategies to restore cell function for AAA treatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31885770 PMCID: PMC6899325 DOI: 10.1155/2019/1305049
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Demographic characteristics of the study subjects.
| Total subjects | Control | AAA |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 13 | — | |
| Age (y), mean ± SEM | 65.75 ± 5.509 | 64.9 ± 9.793 | 0.9377 |
| Male ( | 8 (72.7%) | 11 (84.6%) | — |
| Height (cm), mean ± SEM | 168.1 ± 7.563 | 169.07 ± 7.444 | 0.7478 |
| Weight (kg), mean ± SEM | 64.1 ± 10.021 | 65.31 ± 9.358 | 0.7760 |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SEM | 22.57 ± 2.148 | 22.71 ± 1.967 | 0.8704 |
| BSA (m2), mean ± SEM | 1.692 ± 0.171 | 1.797 ± 0.167 | 0.1591 |
| Smoking ( | 2 (18.2%) | 6 (46.1%) | — |
| Hypertension ( | 2 (18.2%) | 7 (53.8%) | — |
BMI: body mass index; BSA: body surface area; AAA: abdominal aortic aneurysm; BSA = 0.0061∗height (cm) + 0.0128∗weight (kg)–0.1529.
Figure 1Characterization of H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. (a) The surface markers of H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs were examined by flow cytometry. Both YMSCs and AMSCs were positive for the MSC-specific markers CD73, CD90, and CD105 but negative for CD31 and CD45. (b) Adipogenic differentiation evaluated by Oil Red O staining and quantification of adipogenic efficiency in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 200 μm. (c) Osteogenic differentiation evaluated by Alizarin Red staining and quantification of osteogenic efficiency in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 200 μm. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. n = 3. ∗∗p < 0.01.
Figure 2AAA-ASCs displayed increased cellular senescence. (a) Cell growth curves show the lower proliferative ability of AAA-ASCs compared to that of H-ASCs. (b) Representative images of cell morphology and quantitative analysis of cell size in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 200 μm. (c) Representative images of SA-β-gal staining and quantitative analysis of SA-β-gal-positive cells in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 200 μm. (d) Western blotting and quantitative analysis of the expression levels of p53 and p21 in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. (e) Immunostaining of the proliferation marker Ki67 and quantitative analysis of Ki67-positive cells in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 200 μm. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. n = 3. ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Figure 3AAA-ASCs demonstrated increased DNA damage and decreased migration capacity. (a) Representative images of γH2AX staining and quantitative analysis of γH2AX-positive cells in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 50 μm. (b) Quantitative analysis of the telomere length in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. (c) Representative images of scratches of wound healing demonstrating the migration ability and quantification of the wound recovery rate of H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 200 μm. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. n = 3. ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Figure 4Mitochondrial function was decreased in AAA-ASCs. (a) Representative images of mitochondrial morphology determined by MitoTracker staining in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 25 μm. (b) Western blotting and quantitative analysis of the expression level of p-Drp1 ser616/Drp1 and Mfn2 in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. (c) Representative images of ROS determined by MitoSOX staining and quantitative analysis of ROS generation in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 100 μm. (d) Representative images of MMP determined by JC-1 staining and quantitative analysis of MMP in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. (e) The intracellular ATP level in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. n = 3. ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Figure 5Autophagy level was decreased in AAA-ASCs. (a) Representative images of autophagosomes examined by a TEM and quantitative analysis of autophagosomes in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Scale bar = 500 nm. (b) Western blotting and quantitative analysis of the expression level of LC3II/I, Beclin, and p62 in H-ASCs and AAA-ASCs. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. n = 3. ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Figure 6Changes in the secretion of inflammatory factors in AAA-ASCs. (a) Concentration of IL-6 in medium conditioned by H-ASCs, AAA-ASCs, or AAA-ASCs treated with rapamycin. (b) Concentration of TNF-α in medium conditioned by H-ASCs, AAA-ASCs, or AAA-ASCs treated with rapamycin. (c) Concentration of IL-10 in medium conditioned by H-ASCs, AAA-ASCs, or AAA-ASCs treated with rapamycin. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. n = 3.∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.