| Literature DB >> 33853680 |
Busra Isik1, Roman Thaler2,3, Busra B Goksu1, Sabena M Conley4, Hayder Al-Khafaji1, Arjunmohan Mohan1, Mohsen Afarideh1, Abdelrhman M Abumoawad1, Xiang Y Zhu1, James D Krier1, Ishran M Saadiq1, Hui Tang1, Alfonso Eirin1, LaTonya J Hickson4, Andre J van Wijnen2,3, Stephen C Textor1, Lilach O Lerman1, Sandra M Herrmann5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) is a risk factor for ischemic and hypertensive kidney disease (HKD) for which autologous mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) appears to be a promising therapy. However, MSCs from ARAS patients exhibit impaired function, senescence, and DNA damage, possibly due to epigenetic mechanisms. Hypoxia preconditioning (HPC) exerts beneficial effects on cellular proliferation, differentiation, and gene and protein expression. We hypothesized that HPC could influence MSC function and senescence in ARAS by epigenetic mechanisms and modulating gene expression of chromatin-modifying enzymes.Entities:
Keywords: Adipose mesenchymal stromal cells; Angiogenesis; Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis; Chromatin organization; Epigenetics; Hydroxymethylation; Hypoxia; Mesenchymal stem cells; Senescence
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33853680 PMCID: PMC8048283 DOI: 10.1186/s13287-021-02310-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther ISSN: 1757-6512 Impact factor: 6.832
Characteristics of healthy and ARAS pigs
| Study | Healthy pigs( | ARAS pigs(N = 8) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (kg) | 60.8 ± 6.8 | 62.8 ± 6.5 | 0.6 |
| Heart rate (beats per minute) | 87.1 ± 24.2 | 89.4 ± 18.4 | 0.8 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 120 ± 12.4 | 134 ± 16 | 0.08 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 81.3 ± 13.1 | 100.4 ± 12.8 | 0.01 |
| Mean arterial pressure (mmHg) | 94.3 ± 12.1 | 111.6 ± 13.7 | 0.02 |
| Serum creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 0.0009 |
| Cholesterol (mg/dL) | 77.1 ± 5.5 | 588 ± 104.3 | < 0.0001 |
Fig. 1Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) characterization in normoxic and hypoxic conditions. a Positive MSC markers (CD105, CD73, and CD90) and b negative MSC markers (CD,14, CD34, CD45)
Fig. 2Functional differences between healthy and ARAS MSCs under normoxic and hypoxic conditions. Proliferation was increased under hypoxic conditions in both healthy and ARAS MSC (a) while migration was only improved in ARAS MSC under hypoxic preconditioning (b). *p < 0.05 hypoxia vs normoxia. †p < 0.05 ARAS vs healthy
Fig. 3Hypoxia upregulated pro-angiogenic protein and gene expression in MSC. VEGF release by swine MSC was low in ARAS compared to healthy pigs and augmented but not normalized during hypoxia (a). EGF secretion was elevated in ARAS in comparison to healthy MSC (b). Hypoxia upregulated pro-angiogenic genes (VEGF-a) in healthy and ARAS MSC (c), as well as EGF gene expression in ARAS (D). *p < 0.05 hypoxia vs normoxia. †p < 0.05 ARAS vs healthy
Fig. 4Global epigenetic alterations in ARAS (N = 4) compared to healthy MSCs (N = 5) under normoxic and hypoxic conditions demonstrated by: Dot-blotting showing MSC DNA hydroxymethylation measuring genomic 5-hydroxymethyl-cytosine (5hmC). a Western blotting of histone-3 protein measuring genomic trimethylation on lysine-4 (H3K4me3), 9 (H3K9me3), and 27 (H3K27me3) residues. b Genomic 5hmC was reduced during HPC, while H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 marks in ARAS were elevated as compared to healthy controls at baseline and during HPC. No differences in H3K9 levels. HN healthy normoxia, HH healthy hypoxia, ARAS-N ARAS normoxia, ARAS-H ARAS hypoxia. *p < 0.05 ARAS hypoxia vs ARAS normoxia. #p < 0.05 healthy hypoxia vs healthy normoxia. ‡p < 0.05 ARAS normoxia vs healthy normoxia. †p < 0.05 ARAS hypoxia vs healthy hypoxia
Fig. 5Mesenchymal stem cell senescence decreases under hypoxic preconditioning. Saβ-gal activity levels were increased in ARAS as compared to healthy MSCs and it decreased its activity in both groups during HPC (a). Similarly senescent genes P16 and P21 mRNA expression was increased in ARAS as compared to healthy MSCs at baseline (b, c, respectively), but HPC only decreased P21 in healthy MSCs (c). HPC hypoxia pre-conditioning. *p < 0.05 hypoxia vs normoxia. †p < 0.05 ARAS vs healthy
Fig. 6Comparison of meDIPseq genomic distribution of 5hmC heat maps of ARAS (N = 3) and healthy (N = 3) MSCs. Heat maps of 5hmC average are peaks upregulated in healthy MSC as compared vs ARAS MSCs at baseline (a) and effect of HPC in angiogenic and senescence genes (b) in ARAS MSCs. Heat maps of 5hmC average are peaks upregulated in healthy MSCs as compared vs ARAS MSCs (a) and effect of HPC in angiogenic and senescence genes (b) in ARAS MSCs. HPC hypoxia pre-conditioning