Killing 'zombie' cells to improve health in old age

 

Dominick Burton, Research Fellow, Aston University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


 Imagine a world where you could take just a single pill for the treatment or prevention of several age-related diseases. Although still in the realms of science fiction, accumulating scientific data now suggests that despite their biological differences a variety of these diseases share a common cause: senescent cells. This has led scientists to find drugs that can destroy these cells.

When cells become damaged, they either self-destruct (apoptosis) or they lose their ability to grow and remain stuck within the body. These are the non-growing senescent cells that no longer carry out their tasks properly. They spew out chemicals that cause damage to cells nearby, sometimes turning them into “zombies” – hence why they are sometimes referred to as “zombie cells”. Eventually, the damage builds up so much that the function of bodily organs and tissues, such as skin and muscle, becomes impaired. At this point, we identify the changes as disease.

Depending on where these senescent cells gather within the body will determine which disease will develop. Senescent cells have now been shown to be linked to several diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis and cancer.

In 2011 and in 2016, researchers at the Mayo Clinic in the US showed, through the use of genetically engineered (transgenic) mice, that the removal of senescent cells reduced cancer formation, delayed ageing and protected the mice against age-related diseases. The mice also lived 25% longer, on average. A similar result in humans would mean an increase in life expectancy from 80 years to 100 years. It was proof-of-principle studies like these that laid the groundwork and inspired other researchers to build on these findings.

           
  I’ll live how much longer? Kirill Kurashov/Shutterstock.com
         

Killing a few to save the many

It is not known how many senescent cells need to be present to cause damage to the body, but the harmful effects of the chemicals they release can spread quickly. A few zombie cells may have a huge impact. Drugs for specifically killing senescent cells in order to extinguish their destructive force have recently been revealed and tested on mice. The collective term for these drugs is “senolytics”.

In 2016, two research groups independently published findings on the discovery of two new senolytic drugs which target proteins responsible for protecting senescent cells from cell death. Research lead by scientists from the University of Arkansas, US, showed that the drug ABT-263 (Navitoclax) could selectively kill senescent cells in mice, making aged tissues young again. And scientists from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel used the drug ABT-737 to kill senescent cells in the lungs and skin of mice.

There has also been a lot of interest in the role of senescent cells in pulmonary diseases caused by damage to the lungs. Among the risk factors, smoking is known to speed up lung ageing and disease, partly by attacking healthy cells with toxic chemicals from cigarette smoke which can result in cells becoming senescent.

In late 2016, Japanese scientists showed that the removal of senescent cells using genetically engineered mice greatly restored lung function in old mice. A more recent study, lead by scientists at the Mayo Clinic in the US, showed that idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (scarring of the lungs) was linked to an increase in the number of senescent cells and the damaging effects of the chemicals they release. The killing of senescent cells using genetically engineered mice again greatly improved lung function. In the same study, this group also reported the possible use of a combination of drugs, dasatinib and quercetin, to destroy senescent cells.

A study published earlier this month from the University of Arkansas, extended their previous findings on the drug ABT-263 to pulmonary fibrosis. They found that ABT-263 treatment reduced the problems caused by senescent cells and reversed the disease in mice.

There’s money in senolytics

In light of these accumulating and highly promising findings, a number of start-up biotechnology companies have been created to exploit the health benefits of targeting senescent cells.  Probably the most well funded is Unity Biotechnology in the US which raised US$116m for research and development.

It will likely be several years before we see senolytic drugs being tested on humans. If you can’t wait that long, exercise may be the answer. A study published in March 2016 by the Mayo Clinic showed that exercise prevented the accumulation of senescent cells caused by a high-fat diet in mice. So if the regular health benefits of exercise were not enough to get you off the sofa, maybe the anti-ageing benefits will be.

Original Article: The Conversation

Targeting Cellular Senescence: One Drug for Many Diseases?

Cellular senescence is an altered cell state associated with permanent cell cycle arrest and an immunogenic, pro-inflammatory secretome that can contribute to the development and progression of age-related diseases.  Because cellular senescence can occur in different cell types (i.e. pancreatic beta cells, vascular smooth muscle cells, astrocytes) that undertake different biological functions, then their appearance can manifest differently and we refer to these manifestations as different diseases.  These include, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, COPD and cancer.  The mechanisms by which senescent cells can cause disease include:

        (1)  Loss of cellular regenerative capacity.  

        (2) Loss of normal cell function.  

        (3) Persistent pro-inflammatory tissue damage.

        (4) Altering the behaviour of neighbouring cells.

        (5) Protease-mediated degradation of extracellular structural proteins.

Although scientists researching cell senescence have long suspected that senescent cells play an important role in ageing and age-related disease, convincing evidence had not been provided until 2011 when Scientists from the Mayo Clinic in the US published their findings on the elimination of senescent cells in mice.  The elimination of senescent cells using transgenic (genetically engineered) mice delayed the onset of disease, thereby increasing healthspan.  However, likely owing to the use of an accelerated ageing mouse model, no life extension was observed in this instance.  However, a follow-up study by the same group using naturally aged mice lead to delayed tumorigenesis and reduced age-related decline leading to significant increase (up to 35%) in lifespan.  Studies like these thus provide a convincing rationale for developing therapeutic approaches for targeting senescent cells, so-called “senotherapeutics”.  These may include:

1.        Specifically inducing cell death in senescent cells (i.e. small-molecule compounds).
2.        Inhibiting the senescent secretome (i.e. inhibitors of inflammation).
3.        Preventing senescence induction (i.e. telomerase activators, geroprotectors).
4.        Boost immune response towards senescent cells (i.e. immunotherapy).

A few recent studies have published findings regarding the elimination of senescent cells by small-molecule compounds.  Wang et al (2016) identified the compound ABT-263 as a potent inducer of cell death in senescent cells leading to rejuvenation of aged tissue stem cells.  In another study, Yosef et al (2016) identified ABT-737 which through the elimination of senescent cells from the epidermis of the skin of mice lead to increased hair-follicle stem cell proliferation.  Both ABT-263 and ABT-737 inhibit proteins (BCL-2 family) known to play a role in cell survival.

Studies focused on the elimination of senescent cells are only beginning to emerge and will no doubt gain momentum as they show tremendous potential for improving health and wellbeing.  One intriguing notion that may arise from this research is concerned with the question of whether it may one day be possible to treat many diseases with a single drug.  If senescent cells play a role in the development of many different diseases, then a drug that can eliminate senescent cells in all cell types could act as both a preventative and a treatment for many diseases.

One of the obstacles preventing research into senotherapeutics from advancing and ultimately becoming translational to help increase healthspan of individuals within the general public, is funding.  However, this has not discouraged some researchers who were determined enough to acquire funding through the help of crowdfunding.  The Major Mouse Testing Programme (MMTP) raised over $50,000 towards research focused on eliminating senescent cells and is still ongoing (Click Here). 

A new start-up company, CellAge (click here) is also interested in targeting senescent cells and has recently announced a crowdfunding campaign (click here) to raise funds for their ongoing research.  CellAge aims are to “Increase human healthspan and reduce the incidence of age-related diseases by helping the human body eliminate senescent cells.  Our breakthrough technology concept harvests the promise of synthetic biology and recent findings in ageing research to deliver novel products and therapies to enable people to live healthier longer lives”

So if you are interested in stimulating research in this field for the benefit of all, then please make a donation (link here).

Physiological and pathological consequences of cellular senescence

Abstract

Cellular senescence, a permanent state of cell cycle arrest accompanied by a complex phenotype, is an essential mechanism that limits tumorigenesis and tissue damage. In physiological conditions, senescent cells can be removed by the immune system, facilitating tumor suppression and wound healing. However, as we age, senescent cells accumulate in tissues, either because an aging immune system fails to remove them, the rate of senescent cell formation is elevated, or both. If senescent cells persist in tissues, they have the potential to paradoxically promote pathological conditions. Cellular senescence is associated with an enhanced pro-survival phenotype, which most likely promotes persistence of senescent cells in vivo. This phenotype may have evolved to favor facilitation of a short-term wound healing, followed by the elimination of senescent cells by the immune system. In this review, we provide a perspective on the triggers, mechanisms and physiological as well as pathological consequences of senescent cells.

LINK: Burton and Krizhanovsky (2014) Physiological and pathological consequences of cellular senescence

Guest Blog: Harold Katcher: Is Prevention of Ageing within our Grasp?

Introduction

Slowly but steadily knowledge about the human body has progressed and new ideas of animal ageing have immerged. The classic model of ageing, based on “accumulation of errors” has become an outdated notion. Instead, evidence suggests that ageing, at least in part, is likely the result of a failure in the function of cells (such as stem cells) required for cellular regeneration. Replacing impaired stem cells with fully functional stem cells should thus prevent/treat age-associated pathologies allowing us to live healthier longer lives.

What We Think We Know

We were once taught that the essential differences between animals and plants were that plants are mostly non-living, except for a layer or bud of special cambium cells, called meristems; unlike animals, plants grew from their outside surfaces and tips – while animals grew from the inside by the division of somatic cells. These notions have since been replaced with one in which specialized cells, called stem cells, (the animals' “meristematic” tissue) or progenitor cells (like stem cells, only less pleuripotent and of a limited lifespan), that can differentiate into, and replace, various diverse cell-types, (in contrast to somatic cells which cannot). (Janzen et al 2006). It has become clear that the many impairments of the ageing body are due to ageing stem/progenitor cell populations.

For example, muscle loss in the elderly (sarcopenia) appears to be the result of decreasing numbers of stem cells. (Hawke T.J..& Garry, D.J-. 2001). Muscle satellite cells which lie between the sarcolemma and the basement membrane of terminally differentiated muscle fibers, provide muscle precursor cells that are then incorporated into muscle fibers (Mauro, A . 1961). Satellite cells from aged individuals display an impaired proliferative ability when compared with satellite cells from a young individual, thus possibly resulting in sarcopenia. In organs like the liver that depend on progenitor cells for tissue repair and replacement, progenitor cell impairment would also result in deficiencies in wound healing and thus presentation of age-associated pathologies.

The loss of immune function, commonly observed within the elderly, makes them more susceptible to various diseases, infections and cancers. As in the case of ageing tissues, a lack of functional cells characterizes an aged immune system. Conversely, in this instance, stem cell populations do not decline, but instead there is an increase in the stem cell populations (i.e. hematopoietic stem cells, HSCs) that reside within the bone marrow (Sudo et al. 2000). However, unlike young HSCs, the ratio of the many potential cell-types that the HSC population generates changes with ageing. For example, aged HSCs move away from production of lymphoid line cells (T and B lymphocytes and NK cells) and towards the production of myeloid line cells (monocyte/macrophages, RBC, thrombocytes, granulocytes) cells. This age-associated reduction lymphoid cells, which forms the adaptive immune system, is thought to result in the age-associated decreased immune response (Chambers et al. 2007). The increased fraction of myeloid precursor HSCs appears to contribute to the myeloid leukemias that occur among the elderly (Rossi et al.).

So how can we combat the effects of functionally declining stem/progenitor stem cell populations? Solutions such as stem cell cloning and telomere elongation through telomerase therapy have been suggested, but is this really necessary? Is there a way to rejuvenate aged stem cells from within out own bodies, giving them the ability to constantly maintain high cell numbers in the organs they populate, cells with high proliferative capacity, rapid responses to wounding? It has become apparent that this possibility may exist.

A New Paradigm - Evidence accumulates

Several line of evidence suggest that the standard model of ageing, based on “error accumulation” is incorrect. Several studies in which tissues or organs are transplanted from donor animals have shown that the ability of the graft to be successful (by measures of ability to proliferate or recover from wounds) depends not on the donor's age, but on the age of the recipient. Such studies have shown that HSCs from aged immunodeficient donors gave normal responses in young recipients (Harrison et al 1977), and that aged HSCs could be coaxed to produce lymphoid cells by being placed together with young osteolineage cells (Mayack, S,R. And Wagers, A. 2008). Additionally, transplanted aged muscle responded to the internal environment of a young recipient by showing the same sort of wound- repair as young muscle.

The most important experiment investigating the effect of environment (specifically the humoral environment) was performed in 2007 by Irina Conboy and a later confirmation came with experiments performed by Mayack's group in 2010. While earlier in vivo experiments showed that tissues and organs obtained from aged donors could effectively be rejuvenated by being placed in the bodies of young recipients, it was not clear which factors were acting to rejuvenate these aged organs. Were there local tissue interactions, were there positive factors in young recipients that caused a revitalization of the old organs, or perhaps negative factors in aged bodies preventing cells from proliferating? Were cells from the young recipients colonizing these aged organs? How much did the environment of the aged cells influence their phenotype?

Conboy et al (2005) used a procedure called parabiosis (Finerty, J. 1952) to pair the circulatory systems of two mice. They now effectively shared the same blood, but not interactions between tissues of the parabionts (other than blood cells), thereby narrowing down the possible factors influencing the cells of the parabionts. In a nicely controlled experiment, mice were paired in either isochronic parabiosis or heterochronic parabiotic associations – in the isochronic cases two mice of the same age were tied together – either a young-young pairing or an old-old pairing and the heterochronous association a young mouse (2-3 months) was coupled to an old mouse (19-26 months) and were kept in this pairing for five weeks. After that time, it was found that in heterochronic pairings, but not in isochronic pairings old muscle satellite cells returned to youthful performance in terms of effecting wound healing and increased proliferative capacity. Another insightful experiment narrowed the range of responsible factors. In vitro experiments showed that exposure of aged cells to young serum was sufficient to rejuvenate aged HSCs, muscle satellite stem cells as well as liver progenitor cells. As the paired mice parabionts have distinctive chromosomal markers it was assured that the old organs weren't being colonized by young cells.

Further experiments extending the concept that the environment controlled the age-phenotype of the cell, was provided by Mayack et al (2010). Mayack used Conboy's method of parabiosis together with parallel in vitro studies using serum to provide the external environment. Both sets of experiments also showed that young serum was caple of rejuvenating aged HSCs. Mayack's group however showed that the cells rejuvenated by the young environment were the bone stromal cells. It was these rejuvenated stromal cells that later interacted with aged HSCs to set back their phenotypic-age. The parallel in vivo/in vitro experiments performed by these groups showed that the rejuvenation of cells was a function of a factor or factors carried in the serum. The explanations proposed; that either young blood diluted inhibitory factors present in aged blood, or brought new levels of stimulatory factors carried by young blood, or both.

While neither experiment could discriminate between these alternatives, both showed that the cells' environment was responsible for an ageing-phenotype (the panoply of genes expressed, its proliferative potential, various molecular markers of ageing). The one conclusion that can be taken for certain is that factors in the blood of the young animal were able to rejuvenate a variety of different stem/ progenitor cell lines in vivo, and that, in particular, as show by the in vitro experiments, factors present in the serum of young animals rejuvenate the stem and progenitor cells of aged animals. The conclusion reached by the groups involved in this research was that blood borne determinants, both positive and negative might be isolated, and eventually added to or removed from the blood of the ageing. So for the first time in history, there is a reasonable prospect to achieve what mankind has sought for all of history. There may finally be a therapeutic approach for the treatment of ageing and thus, disease. Evidence of such inhibitory factors in the blood of aged mice (McCay et al. 1957) and stimulatory factors in the serum of young mice (Hadad et al 1988), have already been detected.

Conclusions

The answers to extending healthy life span is now within our grasp – what if our own stem cells could be rejuvenated? With only the four cell types proven to be “rejuvenate-able”, (1) muscle loss could be eliminated, (2) the immune system made effective again, (3) bone now capable of making osteoblasts for growth and strength and (4) the liver able to perform its functions as in youth. Other cell types may also be positively influenced, leading to youthful changes such as, new hair growth, smooth skin, improved memory from neuron regeneration. The possibilities are endless. If viewed in this light, it is obvious what should be done – this new model should be tested and tested on people – and the means to test it? A practical medically approved procedure, cheap while being at the same time, able to provide all of the factors needed to rejuvenate cells is available right now! This is a procedure that any consenting physician could perform tomorrow.

I am not going to talk about it now – like all great secrets, once told it becomes obvious –“ no duh, why hasn't it already been tried.” Join me and we'll perhaps try it together. (hkatcher@earthlink.net.)

Papers of Interest

Chambers, S.M. et al. Ageing hematopoietic decline in function and exhibit epigenetic dysregulation. PLOS Biology (5) e201

Conboy et al. Rejuvenation of aged progenitor cells by exposure to a young systemic environment Nature (433) 760 -764 (2005)

Finerty, J. Parabiosis in physiological studies Physiol. Rev. (32) 277 – 302 (1952)

Hadad, E. J. et al Lymphocyte induced angiogenesis factor is produced by L3T4 murine lymphocytes and its production declines with age. Cancer Immunol Immunother (26) 31- 34 (1988)

Harrison et. al. Stem cell lines from an old immunodeficient donors give normal response in young J. Immunology (118)1223 – 1228 (1977)

Hawke, T.J. And Garry, D.J. Myogenic satellite cells: physiology to molecular biology J. Appl. Physiol (91) 534 – 551 (2001)

Janzen, V. et al. Stem-cell ageing modified by the cyclin-dependant kinase inhibit p12INK4a . Nature (443) 421- 426 (2006)

Mauro, A. Satellite cell of skeletal muscle fibers. J. Biolphys.Biochem. Cytol (9) 493 – 495 (1961)

McCay et al. Parabiosis between young and old rats Gerontologia; (1):7-17 ( 1957)

Mayack, S.R. et al. Systemic signals regulate ageing and rejuvenation of blood stem cell niches Nature (463)495-500 (2010)

Mayack, S.R. & Wagers, A Osteolineage niche cells initiate hematopoietic stem cell mobilization Blood (112) 519 – 532 (2008)

Rossi, D.G., Jamieson, C.H. & Weissman, I.L. Stem cells and the pathways to ageing and cancer. Cell (132) 681-696 (2008)

Sudo, K. et al. Age-associated characteristics of murine hematopoietic stem cells. J. Exp. Med (193) 1273 – 1280 (2000)

Replicative lifespan of fibroblasts in ageing studies

A recent paper by Maier and Westendorp (2009) focused on the replicative capacity of fibroblasts from patients with accelerated ageing syndromes, patients with age-related diseases and donors of varying chronological age. Their findings were as follows:

(1) Fibroblasts from patients with accelerated ageing syndromes are lower when compared with strains from age-matched controls.

(2) No difference in replicative capacity was found in fibroblasts from patients with age-related diseases when compared to age-matched controls.

(3) No relationship between replicative capacity of fibroblasts and donor age.

It is probably not surprising that there is a lower replicative capacity in skin fibroblasts taken from patients with Werner- and Hutchinson-Gilford syndrome patients as the mechanisms underlying these syndromes are probably universally found throughout all the somatic cells in these patients. For example, Werner syndrome is caused by a mutation in the WRN gene and is associated with short telomeres and accelerated cellular senescence (Cox and Faragher, 2007). This mutation is going to be present in all cell types, therefore it does not matter which cell type is investigated, the result of a reduced replicative capacity is likely to be the same. However, the same result is unlikely to be true when investigating the replicative capacity of skin fibroblasts in subjects suffering from diseases associated with a completly different cell type.

Maier and Westendorp investigated the replicative capacity of skin fibroblasts in patients with age-related disease. However, some of the diseases classed as age related in this instance are not. These include cystic fibrosis and familial Alzheimer’s disease. This is not the main point in question. It is not surprising that there is no relationship between the replicative capacity of skin fibroblasts in patients suffering from say cardiovascular disease or diabetes because this cell type has no involvement in the development or progression of those particular diseases. If they looked at cell types related to a particular disease such as vascular endothelial cells in cardiovascular disease (Minamino et al, 2002), microglial cells in Alzheimer’s (Streit et al 2007) or pancreatic beta cells in diabetes (Sone and Kagawa, 2005) they would most likely see a decline in replicative capacity compared to age-matched controls. This was the case for lung fibroblasts in lung emphysema, demonstrated in this investigation.

Different cell types have different replicative capacities, have different functions, are maintained within different environments and thus undergo varying degrees of stresses. In addition to this, there are risk factors such as sun exposure, smoking and diet which have the potential to accelerate cellular ageing. As such, different tissues age at different rates. Therefore, the presence of disease in one tissue is not necessarily going to reflect the biological condition of another. The replicative capacity of skin fibroblasts is not necessarily going to be influenced by the presence of disease in other tissues.

A theoretical scenario where a particular disease may impact on the replicative capacity of skin fibroblasts, is if the presence of disease uses up the stem cell/progenitor cell reserve needed for cellular repair and replacement, or somehow impacts on the functioning of stem cell/progenitor cells. In this instance, damaged or lost skin cells can no longer be replaced by the stem cell/progenitor cell reserve, causing local cells to divide and replace instead. This in turn reduces the replicative capacity of those cells. This may occur in advanced stages of a disease where constant cell replacement has been undertaken. This may explain results of studies investigated in this paper which demonstrated that the replicative capacity of fibroblasts in patients with severe diabetes was diminished when compared with controls, but was insignificantly decreased in patients with mild to moderate diabetes. Also, Kuki et al (2006) has demonstrated that endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) cultured under high glucose levels (associated with diabetes) undergo accelerated senescence. The presence of elevated oxidised low density lipoproteins (ox-LDL) observed in diabetics has also been shown to reduce the number and impair function of circulating EPCs. In addition to this, it is known that stem cells lose the capacity for self renewal when removed from the stem cell niche, suggesting that the local environment plays a crucial role in determining stem cell behaviour (Boyle et al, 2007). Therefore, the presence of diseases in advanced stages, especially those associated with inflammation, may alter the environment of stem cell niches and thus impacting on their ability to function. In this scenario, the presence of disease has the potential to impact other tissues by impairing the function of stem/progenitor cells needed for repair and maintenance.

It has often been shown that a decline in the replicative capacity of fibroblasts is correlated with an increase in chronological age of a donor. However, if the health state of donors is taken into consideration and only “healthy” subjects are investigated in this regard, there appears to be no correlation (Cristofalo et al, 1998). This suggests that the replicative capacity of a tissue only reflects biological age and not chronological age. Of course it is true, that a longer a person lives, the increased likelihood that cells become damaged, lost and replaced and this in turn would reduce the replicative capacity of those cells. However, if factors which result in cellular damage/loss such as the presence of disease (not necessarily age-related), infection or environmental factors such as smoking and sun exposure are reduced, then damage/loss of cells is reduced and the replicative capacity of those cells remains high.

Maier and Westendorp suggest an alternative explanation for the lack of relationship between donor age and replicative lifespan of skin fibroblasts: “The overall replicative capacity might decline with age but rare fibroblasts clones with extended replicative potential continue to be present at old age but do not nessesarily reflect the properties of the overall population. Therefore, the replicative capacity in vitro reflects only the expansive propagation of the longest surviving clone, which seems to have comparable in vitro characteristics when obtained from young and old individuals.”

Data on the replicative capacity of cells in regard to ageing and age-related disease is only important because the shorter the replicative capacity of a tissue, the increased likelihood that senescent cells will appear or are present. The presence of senescent cells in tissues is thought to play a role in ageing and age-related disease. Thus, it is more important to investigate the distribution and frequency of senescent cells in tissues associated with accelerated ageing syndromes, age-related diseases and chronological age.

Chris Patil: Ageing Research and the Media

Chris Patil of Ouroboros is a postdoctoral fellow, currently working with Judith Campisi in the Life Sciences division of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Here is Chris's response to the question I recently sent to a number of biogerontologists:

.

The main purpose of ageing research at present is NOT to make people young and immortal as is often publicised in the media, but instead to prevent/combat disease and disability, allowing everyone to live healthier lives for longer. Is this media representation of ageing research detrimental to the true focus of ageing research? If you disagree with the main purpose of ageing research outlined in the question please state why?

.

.

I don’t believe in a monolithic entity called “aging research”, and consequently I don’t believe that that entity has a “true focus”. Aging is a huge field; there are any number of ways to engage with it; there is consequently tremendous diversity among scientists who consider themselves to be involved in aging research. There are distinct sub-communities, certainly, which can be classified according to their priorities and focus; in comparisons between these sub-communities, patterns do emerge. For instance, I’ve noticed a tradeoff between immediacy and scope — that is, those whose work can benefit elderly people today tend to have fairly modest ambitions compared to those whose labors will take some time to bear fruit. A lot of this has to do with individual priorities, and where individual scientists feel like they can do the most good and/or do the work that makes them happiest.

.

I feel most comfortable speaking for myself and my community — let’s call us “academic biogerontologists” -- whom I’m going to (conveniently) define as the set of individuals devoted primarily to the production of fundamental research in the biology of aging, who primarily work in universities or similarly organized institutions, and whose work is primarily published in peer-reviewed journals.

.

For academic biogerontologists, there are two related aims of aging research. The explicit, near-term goal is improving our understanding of the aging process at multiple levels — at the cellular and molecular levels, but also (as tools get better) at the level of cell-cells interactions (i.e., tissues) as well as the gemisch of global gene expression studies that fall under the “systems biology” umbrella. The (occasionally) implicit, longer-term goal is to use this understanding to create interventions that will improve the health and happiness of human beings — and here the ambitions range from the treatment of single aging-related diseases to therapies that will delay or even reverse the aging process itself.

.

For us, the two processes go hand in hand, and both are essential. Fundamental research into the mechanisms of aging is constantly revealing new connections between well-studied systems (like nutritional control of cell growth) and the basic biology of aging. It is from these connections, from this knowledge, that the interventionist tools of the future will emerge. Both sorts of work can and should be undertaken simultaneously, if not by the same groups then in an open community where there is a great deal of communication across the aisle, so that both types of scholars are learning from each other at an optimum rate. Indeed, we’re beginning to see some of the first pharmaceuticals developed by academic-industrial collaborations and academic spinoff companies; it’s an exciting time.

.

One thing that we are constantly learning from basic studies is that as much as we know (especially, as much as we’ve learned in the past 15 years or so, a period that I think of as the dawning era of the modern biology of aging), we could always know more. One example is the recent discovery in model organisms that stem cells don’t function well in aged microenvironments — in aged niches, they either don’t regenerate well or become dysregulated; for those of you just joining us, having dysregulated telomerase-positive immortal cells in your body is potentially a fairly bad thing. These recent observations have caused us to seriously rethink the strategies that will be required to effectively use stem cell transplantation in the treatment of age-related disease. So I don’t think we’re ever going to reach the point where we can take off our gloves and say, “This is a solved problem; no more fundamental research for us!” Not that I think anyone is seriously advocating a moratorium on future basic studies, any more than they were advocating injecting old people with huge doses of undifferentiated cells. There are differences of opinion on the relative import of basic vs applied work but inasmuch as both fields are far smaller than they should be I don’t think the time has arrived for debating tradeoffs between the two.

.

But I’ve digressed extensively. Do I think that media representations are positive or negative? To the extent that they spread the word in a measured way, like the piece in the Economist earlier this year. I think they’re largely positive. Even when individual articles get their “zing” from focusing on what I consider to be quite long-term goals, I think they still do a tremendous amount of good by raising consciousness about the biology of aging. We’re entering a period of history when people will become more and more willing to appreciate the benefit of long-term thinking, especially as related to technology — we’re already seeing that with the environment, and I think aging research and anti-aging medicine will be another example. One of my scientific heroes, Carl Sagan, popularized space exploration and even the nascent field of exobiology by making bold statements about the longest-term and wildest possibilities, and in so doing he inspired a generation of young scientists. I don’t see any reason why aging should be different: As long as we’re scientifically responsible, honest about the current state of affairs, and reasonable in our predictions, why shouldn’t we emphasize the long-term payoff of our work? Full steam ahead!

.

Chris

.

Ouroboros

.

Aubrey de Grey: Ageing research and the media

I recently emailed a number of biogerontologists the following question:

The main purpose of ageing research at present is NOT to make people young and immortal as is often publicised in the media, but instead to prevent/combat disease and disability, allowing everyone to live healthier lives for longer. Is this media representation of ageing research detrimental to the true focus of ageing research? If you disagree with the main purpose of ageing research outlined in the question please state why?

.

One of the first people to respond to this question was Aubrey de Grey with the following:

.

Your premise is somewhat wide of the mark, in that most people who do research into aging actually regard any appreciable therapeutic benefit from their work as a very remote possibility (in both senses - unlikely, and very distant in time if it happens at all). Thus, their purpose is merely to **understand** aging, rather in the way that the purpose of meteorologists is to understand the weather, as opposed to actually doing anything about it.

.

However, there is indeed a small but growing minority of gerontologists (including myself) who do identify the postponement of aging as our main purpose, not least because we are more optimistic than the majority of our colleagues with regard to the possibility of success. For us, you have it exactly right: the goal is to prevent people from going downhill as they become chronologically older. The problem is, we recognise that this will have a side-effect (which most of us regard as a side-benefit, but that's another issue altogether): people won't tend to die peacefully in their sleep either, any more than healthy 30-year-olds do, until and unless they get to an age at which the therapies we develop cease to work. Worse yet (he said, sarcastically), for those of us (like myself) who claim that the therapies that will first make a major impact on aging will be bona fide rejuvenation therapies, i.e. therapies that restore the molecular and cellular (and higher-order) structure of the body to something like the way it was in young adulthood, the situation is particularly extreme, because the likely rate at which such technologies will be improved following their initial development is such that the therapies will never cease to work: aging will be postponed faster than it occurs, so it will never catch up with us. (This is the phenomenon that I've termed "longevity escape velocity".) Thus, I predict that people's life expectancies will be determined only by their incidence of death from causes not related to their age, like accidents and nearby supernovae. That is the simple and inescapeable conclusion of the work I do. Clearly it means people still have a non-zero risk of death each year (or indeed each day) - but unfortunately it does sound awfully like immortality if you're the sort of journalist who wants to sell papers, so that's how it tends to get described.

.

So to your main question: is this detrimental? Yes, I believe it is immensely detrimental. (I don't precisely blame the journalists in question, you understand - they're just doing what they're paid to do - but still.) Ultimately, the reason why calling my goal "immortality" sells papers is because it trivialises it - it confuses my work with something that we all know is impossible, i.e. the technological elimination of any risk of death. And an awful lot of people need that confusion - they need to be helped to believe that what I'm doing is really not science but just entertainment. Why do they need that? Because they've made their peace with aging. They've spent their lives in the situation where there was no hope for escaping this terrible, yet rather distant, fate - so they've had the choice of either (a) spending their time preoccupied by that, or (b) putting it out of their minds and getting on with their miserably short lives, making the best of a bad job. And of course the rational thing to do in such a situation, even if it entails quite unbelievably irrational rationalisations, is (b). So now this troublemaker comes along and says there may be a chance. Now, if I were saying "Hey, here is the actual therapy, today, proven and provided", there'd be no problem - just as when Pasteur worked out that hygiene was a good idea, or whatever. But unfortunately all I'm offering is a **chance** that in a few **decades** we will have that techniology. And an awful lot of people don't want to get their hopes up, for fear of having them dashed.... so they stick to what they know, their faith that aging really is still inevitable. But at the same time, they desperately want, in their heart of hearts, to know as soon as possible when breakthroughs are made - which is why I do at least two media interviews every WEEK even though I don't even do any experiments of my own. But that exposure to my work needs to be camouflaged as entertainment in order to be palatable.

.

So, clearly, what I would dearly like to occur is for the media to have the guts to tell my story like it is, and to dare/embarrass/coerce their audience into thinking about it properly and then getting off their backsides and contributing whatever they can (money, activism, whatever) to the crusade to save 100,000 lives per day. But as I said, the journalists in question don't get paid to make their audience uncomfortable, so I'm not holding my breath.

.

Cheers,

.

Aubrey

.

http://www.mfoundation.org/aging2008/

Why do senescent cells accumulate in tissues?

If the accumulation of senescent cells are so detrimental to the tissues in which they reside, why haven’t we evolved mechanisms to remove them? The answer is that we probably have, but the mechanism which removes them from the tissues becomes impaired as with age.

To understand how this removal system may work, we need to look at the phenotype of senescent cells. Although a large number of the changes which occur during cellular senescence may be cell specific, there appears to be features which are common to the majority of senescent cell types. These include the secretion of growth factors, matrix degrading proteins (MMPs) and the production of cytokines. Since these factors are a common feature, it is likely that they have a common function and are not just a random consequence of the changes which occur during senescence.

One possibility is that senescent cells are removed by the immune system. Senescent cells secrete cytokines to attract immune cells to their location (for their removal), secrete matrix degrading proteins to allow the immune cells easy access and secrete growth factors to stimulate the proliferation of surrounding cells for its replacement once the cell is removed. However, since the immune system itself is governed by ageing mechanisms, its ability to remove senescent cells gradually decreases, therefore the accumulation of senescent cells gradually increases.

The majority of the work on the immune clearance of unwanted cells has been carried out in cancer research. The prevalence of cancer as we all know increases with age, and this may be due to an ageing immune system, consequently resulting in an impaired ability to remove cancer cells as they appear. Over the past several years it has become clear that the immune system plays a crucial role in preventing cancer. As a consequence, there has been a great deal of interest in using our bodies own immune system to recognise and destroy cancer cells (FDA, cancer research uk), a process which could potentially be used to target and destroy senescent cells in ageing tissues.

Publication

DGA Burton (2008) Cellular senescence, ageing and disease. AGE

The need for an effective biomarker of senescent cells

An effective biomarker of cellular senescence is required so senescent cells can be visualised both in vitro and in vivo, allowing their frequency and distribution to be monitored in ageing and diseased tissues.

At present, the most commonly used method to detect senescent cells is a modified beta-galactosidase assay (Dimri et al, 1995). Detectable β-galactosidase at pH 6 was found to increase during replicative senescence of fibroblast cultures in vitro and in vivo and was absent in immortal cell cultures. This was termed senescent-associated β-galactosidase or SA-β-Gal. However, since this first report, there have been numerous studies that have demonstrated SA-β-Gal staining in non-senescent cells.

For example, it has been reported that SA-β-Gal activity is detectable in quiescent cultures of Swiss 3T3 as well as some types of human cancer cells that were chemically stimulated to differentiate (Yegorov et al, 1998). After 21 days in culture, Swiss 3T3 cells in low serum displayed 40-50% SA-β-Gal positive cells and cells treated to differentiate after 13 days displayed as high as 75% staining. Another study looked at the expression of SA-β-Gal in human ovarian surface epithelial cells (HOSE 6-3) undergoing immortalisation by the human papilloma viral oncogene E6 and E7 (Litaker et al, 1998). They found that HOSE 6-3 cells expressing SA-β-Gal was highest (39%) when cells were at crisis. After this stage when cells achieved immortalisation status SA-β-Gal activity sharply decreased (1.3%).

Severino et al (2000) specifically focused on determining the robustness of SA-β-Gal activity as a marker of replicative senescence . This study characterised changes in SA-β-Gal staining in a variety of different conditions. SA-β-Gal activity was found to be elevated in confluent non-transformed fibroblast cultures, in immortal fibroblast cultures that had reached a high cell density and in low-density young, normal cultures oxidatively challenged by treatment with H2O2. They concluded that although SA-β-Gal staining is increased under a variety of different conditions, the interpretation of increased staining remains unclear.

SA-β-Gal staining has also been shown to be a marker for differentiation of human prostate epithelial cells (HPEC) (Untergasser et al, 2003). HPEC cells stimulated with transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β), resulted in an increase in SA-β-Gal activity but showed no terminal growth arrest nor induction of important senescent-associated genes such as p16. It was therefore suggested that TGF-β could contribute to the increased number of SA-β-Gal positive epithelial cells observed in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

A recent report demonstrated that fibroblasts from patients with autosomal recessive G(M1)-gangliosidosis, which have defective lysosomal beta-galactosidase did not express SA-β-Gal at late passage even though they underwent replicative senescence (Lee et al, 2006). It was also demonstrated that cells depleted of GLB1 (the gene encoding lysosomal beta-D-galactosidase) mRNA underwent senescence but failed to express SA-β-Gal. SA-β-Gal activity is therefore dependent upon lysosomal mass rather than growth state. If this is indeed the case, SA-β-GAL staining would most likely underestimate the percentage of senescent cells in a sample.

DISEASE FOCUS: Atherosclerosis and vascular calcification

Vascular calcification

Vascular calcification is a prominent feature of advanced atherosclerotic lesions. Vascular calcification refers to the deposition of calcium phosphate mineral in the intima or media of arterial walls, leading to reduced elasticity and compliance. The mechanism underlying vascular calcification is currently unknown. However, a number of studies have suggested that the process of vascular calcification is similar to the mineralisation process observed in bone (Abedin et al, 2004). This is based on the observation that bone-associated proteins such as osteocalcin, osteonectin, bone morphogenic proteins (BMP) and matrix Gla proteins (MGP) have been detected in vascular calcifications (Trion et al, 2004). VSMC appear to be an important factor in vascular calcification, since VSMC within calcified plaques have been shown to express osteoblast and chondrocyte-like gene expression profiles (Tyson et al, 2003). MGP, osteonectin, osteprotergerin and aggrecan were constitutively expressed by VSMC in normal arteries but were found to be down-regulated in calcified arteries. Since MPG has been shown to inhibit calcification, its down-regulation observed in these plaques may be the key factor in initiating vascular calcification. Little is known about the mechanisms governing vascular calcification.

DISEASE FOCUS: Atherosclerosis and vascular calcification

Inflammation and atherosclerosis

Atherosclerosis was once considered to be predominantly a lipid storage disease but mounting evidence suggests that inflammation is critical at every stage, from initiation to progression and eventually plaque rupture (Paoletti et al 2004).

Inflamed endothelial cells in the lining of arteries release pro-inflammatory cytokines which provide a chemotactic stimulus to adhere leukocytes and monocytes, directing their migration into the intima (Boisvert, 2004). These inflammatory cells release pro-inflammatory mediators responsible for differentiating monocytes to lipid-laden macrophages, foam cells (Frostegard et al 1999). These foam cells also secrete proinflammatory cytokines that amplify the local inflammatory response in the lesion (Libby, 2002). The secretion of cytokines and growth factors stimulate the migration and proliferation of SMC. These cytokines also stimulate the secretion of matrix degrading proteins from SMC which permits the penetration of SMC through the elastic laminae and extracellular matrix (ECM) of the growing plaque. Inflammatory mediators can inhibit ECM protein synthesis and increase expression of matrix degrading proteins by foam cells within the intimal lesion (Libby, 2002). Since the strength of the plaques fibrous cap is due to the extracellular matrix, its degradation would result in loss of strength and increased chance of rupture.

.

Cellular senescence and atherosclerosis

.

It has been suggested that injury to endothelial cells results in endothelial dysfunction which may lead to the development of atherosclerotic plaques (Kitamoto and Egashira, 2004). How this initial damage to endothelial cells occurs is currently speculative, but there is increasing evidence to postulate that this initial endothelial dysfunction may be the result of cellular senescence.

Early histological studies of advanced human atherosclerotic lesions suggested the presence of senescent endothelial cells (Burrig et al, 1991). Endothelial cells exhibiting the morphological features of senescence were frequently found on the plaque surface. The presence of senescent cells within plaques was also found in studies of vascular cells in culture, derived from human atherosclerotic plaques (Bennett et al 1998). VSMC derived from atherosclerotic plaques were shown to have lower rates of proliferation and underwent senescence earlier than cells derived from normal vessels. With the emergence of a biomarker (SA-β-Gal) which could detect senescent cells in vivo, a more direct approach for investigating cellular senescence in diseased tissue was undertaken (Fenton et al, 2001). This study sought to detect the presence of senescent cells in injured rabbit carotid arteries. Results indicated the accumulation of senescent cells in the neointima and media of all injured vessels, in contrast to the near absence of such cells in control vessels. Similar investigations have also been carried out on human atherosclerotic plaques (Vasile et al 2001, Minamino et al 2002). Both these studies demonstrated the presence of senescent vascular endothelial cells in vivo at sites of atherosclerotic plaque formation as detected by SA- β-Gal.

More recently due to advances in molecular biology, there have been numerous investigations involving the biology of telomeres in atherosclerosis. One such study examined telomere length in cells from atherosclerotic plaques and normal vessels and demonstrated that VSMC from plaques had markedly shorter telomeres compared with normal VSMC (Matthews et al 2006). This shortening was found to be closely associated with increasing severity of atherosclerosis. As with previously mentioned studies, these VSMC demonstrate morphological features of senescence when cultured in vitro. A similar study investigated telomere lengths of endothelial cells (EC) from coronary artery disease (CAD) and also found that telomeres were significantly shorter in CAD compared with normal arteries (Ogami et al, 2004). Since both VSMC and EC of atherosclerotic plaques have been shown to have senescent cells present and cellular senescence is generally attributed to the attrition of telomeres, the presence of cells with shorter telomeres in these tissues is therefore not surprising.

The above studies provide evidence for the presence of senescent cells in atherosclerotic plaques, but provide little explanation for their occurrence. This is less true for senescent SMC, since their presence can be explained by stimulated proliferation and migration observed in atherosclerosis. SMC have a finite replicative capacity, most likely as a result of telomere shortening, therefore, constant rounds of cell division would eventually result in the cell becoming senescent. The presence of senescent SMC would therefore only be observed in late stage plaque development, since this is when SMC are stimulated to migrate and proliferate.

Since the initiation of plaque development begins at EC, an explanation for why there may be senescent cells present is harder to explain. One possibility is that senescent EC cells in atherosclerotic plaques is most likely due to proliferative exhaustion as a result of replacing lost and damaged cells. As previously discussed, plaque formation is commonly seen within arteries at areas of high shear stress. It is therefore possible that such high shear stress could lead to the loss of ECs in these areas, which subsequently need to be replaced. This would result in an increase in cell turnover at those sites and consequently the occurrence of senescent EC. Since senescent cells in general can be classed as dysfunctional, it may be the presence of senescent EC within the endothelium which is the initiating factor in plaque formation. Further evidence for this may be provided if the expression profile of senescent vascular ECs were compared with vascular ECs of lesion-prone sites within arteries.

Since the recruitment and accumulation of leukocytes and monocytes is an important step in the development of atherosclerosis, the expression of proteins such as intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM1) and vascular cell adhesion molecular-1 (VCAM-1), important mediators of leukocyte and monocyte adherence have been investigated. One study looked at the expression of VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 at lesion-prone sites on the endothelium in ApoE-deficient mice (which are more prone to lesion development) (Nakashima et al, 1998). Staining for VCAM-1 showed localised staining at lesion-prone sites in ApoE-/- mice and only weak staining limited to sites of altered blood flow in control mice. ICAM-1 was the most prominent adhesion molecule in lesion prone sites and was up-regulated in ApoE -/- mice and control mice. If ICAM-1 is being up-regulated as a result of senescent cell formation, it is not surprising that it is found up-regulated in both ApoE -/- and control mice, since the same high shear stress is most likely occurring in both mice. Another study specifically investigated whether endothelial dysfunction was the result of endothelial cell senescence by inducing senescence in human aortic endothelial cells (HAECs) and examining the expression of ICAM-1 and endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity (eNOS) (Minamino et al, 2002). Results showed that ICAM-1 expression was increased and eNOS activity decreased in senescent HAECs. There are numerous studies that have shown eNOS activity to be decreased during endothelial dysfunction and this decrease is thought to play a critical role in the development and progression of atherosclerosis (Yang et al, 2006). Up-regulation of ICAM-1 and a decrease in eNOS activity in both senescent endothelial cells and at lesion-prone sites, strongly suggests that senescent cells are a significant contributing factor in initiation of atherosclerotic plaque formation.

Replicative capacity of cells from disease states

The gradual appearance of senescent cells may contribute to the development of age-related disease. However, the presence of disease by other mechanisms may result in accelerated senescence. Disease may cause tissue damage which leads to cellular turnover for the purpose of replacing lost cells. This exhausts the replicative capacity of the cells and accelerates the appearance of senescent cells. For example Goldstein and co-workers (1978) looked at the replicative lifespan of fibroblasts from normal, prediabetic, diabetic donors. Diabetes mellitus is a common genetically determined disorder associated with reduced life expectancy. This study confirmed earlier findings that there is an inverse correlation between donor age and replicative lifespan, but emphasised the importance of physiological state of the donors. Normal cell strains showed significantly better growth capacity than diabetic and prediabetic cells. The results indicated that with an increasing predisposition to diabetes, there is a progressive decrease in replicative capacity.

Another group investigating atherosclerosis took vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMC) from human atherosclerotic plaques and grew them in culture (Bennett et al, 1998). Results showed that VSMCs taken from plaques have lower rates of proliferation and underwent senescence earlier than cells derived from normal vessels.

A more recent study looked at the replicative capacity of osteoblasts in Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with Osteoarthritis (OA) (Yudoh et al, 2000). The results indicated that the replicative capacity of osteoblasts decreased gradually with donor age and this decrease was higher in RA patients than with OA patients at any donor age. They also reported an increase in senescent osteoblastic cells with age in both groups in which the rate of expression of senescent cells was higher in RA patients than with age-matched OA patients.

Tesco et al (1993) looked at the replicative capacity of fibroblasts in patients with familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) to examine whether features compatible with a systemic premature aging were present. Data showed that there was no significant difference in replicative capacity of fibroblasts between FAD patients and controls. This is not a surprising result, since the fibroblasts studied are unrelated to the development of FAD and if features of premature ageing were present they would have most likely manifested themselves as other diseases other than just Alzheimer’s. For example, Werner’s syndrome is a premature ageing disorder which displays a multitude of age-related afflictions including diabetes and heart disease (Kipling and Faragher, 1997). When fibroblasts were taken from patients with Werner’s syndrome and grown in culture, the number of population doublings achieved was smaller compared with normal cells of a similar chronological age (Martin et al, 1970)

These studies suggest that disease is an important factor contributing to the exhaustion of the replicative capacity of cells. However, it is possible that some diseases arise as a result of the gradual increase in senescent cells with time. It is also possible that unknown factors result in accelerated senescence, which subsequently manifests itself as a biological impairment or disease.

.

Factors, other than disease, which may contribute to cellular injury and cell loss, may be environmental such as UV radiation, chemical damage from smoking and foods, and normal biological damage from general wear and tear.

Relationship between replicative capacity and organismal ageing

Leonard Hayflick was the first to propose that the senescence of normal cells may contribute to the organismal ageing. Investigations into this proposal started by comparing the replicative potential of cells, usually fibroblasts, extracted from individuals at various ages.

The first of these studies showed an inverse relationship between donor age and the number of population doublings achieved in vitro (Martin et al, 1970). This study looked at the replicative lifespan of fibroblasts taken from 100 subjects with an age range from foetal to 90 years. These cells were cultured and the number of population doublings before entering senescence was recorded. The results showed that the replicative potential decreased as donor age increased. A later study showed similar results (Schneider, 1979). This study looked at the ability of fibroblasts taken from young (20-35 years) and old (65+ years) to proliferate in culture. It was reported that cell cultures from old human donors have a reduction in their proliferative capacity. A more recent study looked at the replicative capacity of human adrenocortical cells to proliferate as a function of donor age (Yang et al, 2001). Again, it was found that younger cells have a higher proliferative capability than the old. In this instance, population doubling fell from 50 for foetal cells to almost a total lack of division in culture from older cells.

To investigate the possible link between replicative lifespan and organismal ageing, a few studies compared replicative capacity with longevity in animals. One such study investigated the relationship between longevity of eight mammalian species (mouse, rat, rat-kangaroo, mink, rabbit, bat, horse and human) and the lifespan of normal fibroblasts in vitro (Röhme, 1981). It was reported that there was a direct relationship found between the longevity of the eight mammalian species and the replicative capacity of their cultured fibroblasts. A much later, but similar study, compared animal life spans and in vitro replicative capacity of skin fibroblasts in groupings of small, middle, large, and very large breeds of dogs of specific ages (Li et al, 1996). It was found that the life spans were inversely correlated to the frame sizes of the breeds. It was shown that all the small breeds studied have a longer life span than that of the large breeds. The replicative capacity of fibroblasts from the large dogs (Great Dane and Irish Wolfhound) was significantly decreased compared with that of the small dogs. The reasoning behind these observations may again be due to varying degrees of cell turnover between the species. Large dogs consist of more cells than small dogs and as a result more cell turnover was initially required in their development compared to small dogs. This increase in cell turnover would subsequently lead to a decrease in replicative potential and an increase in the rate of senescent cell formation.

Interestingly, a recent study looked at the replicative capacity of 124 skin fibroblast cell lines from donors of different ages which were medically examined and declared “healthy” (Cristofalo et al, 1998). Healthy people were used specifically as previous studies, discussed later, have shown that disease states may accelerate the reduction in replicative capacity. Results indicated that there was no significant correlation between the replicative capacity of the cell lines and donor age. In the same study, a comparison of multiple cell lines established from the same donors of different ages also failed to show any significant differences. It was concluded that the replicative capacity of fibroblasts in vitro does not correlate with donor age. However, differences in replicative capacity with age may only be observed as a result of increased cell turnover in response to disease and cellular injury. Therefore, a healthy old person who has had little or no cellular injuries or disease would have had little cell turnover and therefore have cells which may have a replicative capacity similar to someone much younger. Thus, this study supports the notion that replicative capacity is an indicator of biological age.

Replicative capacity of tissues from normal human populations

The maximum replicative potential for mitotic cells varies between different cell types. Some cell types, such as endothelial cells, may have a maximum replicative capacity around 30 cPD (cumulative population doublings) while other cell types such as embryonic fibroblasts may have a maximum replicative capacity of 100 cPD. For example, one early study looked at the replicative capacities of several different tissue types (skeletal muscle, bone marrow spicules and mesial of the midupper arm) taken from donors of the same age (Martin et al, 1970). It was found that the replicative capacity of these tissues, despite being taken from the same individual, displayed variation in their replicative capacity. Cultures derived from skin fibroblasts achieved the greatest number of population doublings, bone marrow spicules the least and skeletal muscle giving intermediate results. There are a number of explanations for these observations. The first is that all cells do have the same replicative capacity, but the replicative history (rate of cell turnover) of each tissue at the time of extraction is so different that such variation is observed. Some tissues may have undergone a higher rate of cellular turnover than others, thereby exhausting its replicative capacity earlier. The second is that the replicative history of each tissue is similar, but it is the length of the telomeres between tissues that differs. Some tissues may senesce sooner than others because they started out with shorter telomeres. It is unlikely that these explanations alone are correct. A combination of the two is the most likely cause for such variation in replicative capacity. Tissues differ in both their replicative history and replicative capacities.

The results also show that the replicative capacity of the same tissues between individuals of the same age also differs. This difference may again be due to the same differences which effect proliferative variability between different tissues of the same individual. For example, one individual may have a shorter replicative capacity in a particular tissue than another of the same age due to increases in cell turnover, maybe in response to disease or injury, or maybe differences in initial telomere lengths. Cultured human embryonic fibroblasts were found to senesce at 50±10 cPD (Hayflick and Moorehead, 1961). This meant that some cultures were senescent only after 40 cPD while others at 60 cPD. These differences in replicative lifespan may be a consequence of the stochastic mechanism which triggers a cell to senesce. Therefore, the difference in replicative capacities of the same tissues between individuals of the same age may also be due to the stochastic events which govern a cell becoming senescent. Thus, the replicative capacity of a tissue measures biological age and not chronological age. Unfortunately there have been few studies looking at the replicative capacity of different tissues from the same individuals. This would have given a better insight into the relationship between chronological and biological age.

Replicative senescence at the cellular level in vitro

Historical overview

Until the middle of the 20th century, it was widely held that normal mitotic tissue could not age in a degenerative sense because it had an indefinite capacity to proliferate. This view had developed for two reasons. Firstly, the Nobel laureate Alexis Carrel appeared to have demonstrated the long-term cultivation of normal chick fibroblasts for periods considerably in excess of the lifetime of the animal (Parker, 1938; Witkowski, 1990). Secondly, the technical difficulties associated with tissue culture techniques until the 1950s rendered the duplication of Carrel’s studies very difficult for all but a few highly specialized laboratories (Parker, 1938). Ageing was not the primary research interest of these centres. Thus, it was not until a series of classic experiments by Hayflick & Moorhead in the early 1960s which demonstrated that cultures of normal human fibroblasts did not have an infinite capacity to expand, brought about the idea of intrinsically immortal mitotic tissue into question. Their work demonstrated that, after a finite period of growth, cultures of normal human fibroblasts became completely composed of viable but non-dividing cells (Hayflick & Moorhead 1961; Hayflick 1965). These initial observations have been reproduced in hundreds of studies, and since that time virtually all human mitotic cell types subjected to rigorous study have been shown to undergo this cellular senescence in culture.

Dynamics of normal cell populations.

The early observation by Hayflick and Moorehead (1961) that cultured cells have a maximum limit on the number of divisions before entering senescence lead to the assumption that all cells in a given culture divide roughly the same number of times before entering senescence. Hayflick considered the senescence of cultures was marked by three distinct phases. In Phase 1 the initial culture, was considered to terminate with the formation of the first confluent sheet of cells. Phase 2 was characterised by vigorous growth requiring repeated subculture. In phase 3, the senescence of the culture was characterised by the cessation of mitosis. In this model it was assumed that cultures were composed of a homogenous population of cells which were either all growing (Phase 1 or 2) or all non-growing (Phase 3) and that failure to grow was due to cell death (Kalashnik et al, 2000). The notion that senescence was cell death was soon disproved with the demonstration that RNA synthesis occurred in these cells (Macieira-Coelho et al, 1966). Evidence against the idea that cultures were composed of homogenous populations was provided by a number of different studies. Cristofalo and Scharf (1973) demonstrated the presence of senescent cells in early passage cultures using long pulse-labelling experiments on embryonic fibroblasts. 3H-thymidine labels those cells which have entered S-phase (dividing cells), and since senescence cells are halted in G1 they cannot enter S-phase, and so the percentage of unlabelled cells can be calculated. It was shown that senescent cells are present in early passage cultures and that the percentage of senescent cells gradually increases with each serial passage of the culture. This observation was explained by experiments demonstrating that cultured fibroblasts are composed of cells which display variation in proliferative potential (Smith and Whitney, 1980). Related experiments also showed that two cells arising from a single mitosis differed in their ability to proliferate by as many as eight doublings (Jones et al, 1985). Using the miniclone technique the replicative capacity of individual cells growing in bulk culture can be measured as well as the sizes of colonies generated by dividing cells (Ponton et al, 1983). Results showed that the percentage of glial cells capable of dividing gradually decreases with every new passage. This data is based on the broad distribution of colony sizes which showed a shift from many large colonies to more small colonies as population doublings increased.

Modern techniques for measuring the dynamics of normal cell populations involve measuring not only the senescent fraction of cells, but also the proliferating and apoptotic fraction. The most commonly used method to visualise senescent cells both in culture and in vivo is the senescence-associated beta-galactosidase assay (SA-β-Gal) (Dimri et al, 1995). Although this is a safer method than using 3H-thymidine labels, its robustness as a biomarker is questionable since the assay is dependent upon lysosomal mass (and cell size) rather than growth state (Lee et al, 2006). Cellular proliferation markers such as bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) and Ki67 are commonly used to label and calculate the proliferating fraction. For measuring the apoptotic fraction, terminal transferase dUTP nick end labelling (TUNEL) is a commonly used method. This assay can detect DNA fragmentation that results from apoptotic signaling cascades.

An example of these methods being used for determining the growth dynamics of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) can be observed in a paper by Kalashnik et al (2000). Results show a gradual decline in the growth fraction as measured by Ki67, an increase in the senescent fraction and the apoptotic fraction remaining unchanged with each serial passage.

These findings thus suggest that the mechanisms resulting in cellular senescence is a stochastic process. As the proliferative capacity of cells declines with age or with increasing population doublings, the mechanism leading to cellular senescence is one in which these stochastic events gradually increases.