Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Methods & Resources
    • Author Interviews
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Collections
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Journal of Human Immunity
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Life Science Alliance
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Journal of Human Immunity
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research
  • My alerts
Life Science Alliance

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Methods & Resources
    • Author Interviews
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Collections
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Follow LSA on Bluesky
  • Follow lsa Template on Twitter
Review
Transparent Process
Open Access

Cellular stress and epigenetic regulation in adult stem cells

Joey Llewellyn, Rithvik Baratam, Luka Culig, View ORCID ProfileIsabel Beerman  Correspondence email
Joey Llewellyn
Epigenetics and Stem Cell Unit, Translational Gerontology Branch, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD, USA
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rithvik Baratam
Epigenetics and Stem Cell Unit, Translational Gerontology Branch, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD, USA
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luka Culig
Epigenetics and Stem Cell Unit, Translational Gerontology Branch, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD, USA
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Isabel Beerman
Epigenetics and Stem Cell Unit, Translational Gerontology Branch, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD, USA
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Isabel Beerman
  • For correspondence: isabel.beerman@nih.gov
Published 30 September 2024. DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202302083
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Stem cells are a unique class of cells that possess the ability to differentiate and self-renew, enabling them to repair and replenish tissues. To protect and maintain the potential of stem cells, the cells and the environment surrounding these cells (stem cell niche) are highly responsive and tightly regulated. However, various stresses can affect the stem cells and their niches. These stresses are both systemic and cellular and can arise from intrinsic or extrinsic factors which would have strong implications on overall aging and certain disease states. Therefore, understanding the breadth of drivers, namely epigenetic alterations, involved in cellular stress is important for the development of interventions aimed at maintaining healthy stem cells and tissue homeostasis. In this review, we summarize published findings of epigenetic responses to replicative, oxidative, mechanical, and inflammatory stress on various types of adult stem cells.

Introduction

What are stem cells?

Stem cells are defined as cells with unique abilities for repairing and maintaining functional tissues throughout the body via differentiation and self-renewal. They are found to exist in both embryonic and adult tissues, in which different types of stem cells are defined based on their differentiation potential and the tissue they reside in.

Embryonic stem cells primarily exist during early development and are critical for giving rise to more specialized cells in the body. These stem cells can be classified as either totipotent or pluripotent (1, 2). Totipotent stem cells can differentiate into extra-embryonic tissues such as the placenta and all specialized cells, one example being zygotes. They exist only during early embryonic development. Pluripotent embryonic stem cells are capable only of differentiating into the three primary germ layers and are found during embryonic development in the inner mass of blastocysts. Induced pluripotent stem cells generated by reprogramming adult cells are like these embryonic pluripotent cells (3, 4). Adult stem cells exist in small populations within specific niches of functional tissues, such as BM, adipose tissue, or skeletal muscle. Each adult stem cell population displays different behaviors, morphology, and gene expression profiles to meet the demands of the tissue they serve. When compared with embryonic stem cells, their differentiating potential is limited to one or more cell lineages; however, these stem cells are also capable of self-renewal (5).

What is stress?

Stress as a concept has been used in various fields and has evolved and been expanded significantly in recent times (reviewed by reference 6). For the purposes of this review, we will define stress as a state when biological, physiological, or psychological homeostasis has been challenged by a condition (stressor) and requires compensatory responses (stress response) to prevent an accumulation of acquired insults to reestablish normal conditions. However, when a stressor is introduced at a low enough intensity, the body may gain some form of benefit such as a more robust tolerance to varying stressors, an overall reduction in all-cause mortality, or anabolic muscle growth for increases in raw strength; of course, dependent on the stressor introduced (7, 8, 9, 10, 11). This form of stress is known as eustress, and the biphasic dose response has been defined as hormesis (12). The hormetic effects of varying stressors, however, typically take place in controlled environments (e.g., saunas and curated diets) or survival-based situations (e.g., food scarcity). Thus, stress is often experienced negatively when resulting in an acute or chronic accumulation of insults to the organism. Stress can be experienced on varying levels—such as systemic and (sub)cellular. Cellular stress affects the cell body, proteomic, genomic, and epigenomic levels, and is elicited by stressors originating extra- or intracellularly. In this review, we will mainly focus on the stressors involved in cellular stress.

Extrinsic cellular stresses are often caused by external events the organism is exposed to and may often result in hormetic effects under the appropriate intensities. One example that has gained recent attention within the scientific and health/fitness communities over the past decade is heat stress and its robust induction of the heat shock response (13). When an organism is exposed to mild heat stress an evolutionarily conserved family of proteins called heat shock proteins (HSPs) are robustly expressed, relative to intracellular baseline levels, and localize within the cytoplasm and various organelles of the cell. Once activated, HSPs act as chaperones to participate in native protein quality management and stabilization if proteins are misfolded, denatured, or have aggregated during exposure to said stress. Interestingly this pathway is also activated by other forms of stress (14), and if unmanaged, proteins that have entered a de-stabilized conformation will have their normal function impaired and become more vulnerable to additional changes that could lead to cell damage and ultimately death (15, 16, 17).

Intrinsic cellular stress is unfavorable condition caused by several cellular processes either in conjunction or independent of one another. For example, oxidative stress arises from within the cellular microenvironment and is caused by an imbalance between the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in cells and the capacity of the cellular system to clear out these oxidative free radicals (18). This imbalance is generally known to be detrimental to cells in which an accumulation of insults such as DNA damage and inflammation may lead to malignancies such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases (19). These forms of stress, and others, will be discussed below.

Stem cells

Hematopoietic stem cell (HSC)

HSCs are defined by their lifelong self-renewal capacity and multipotency to differentiate into all cell types that comprise the blood and immune systems. HSCs are a heterogeneous population of cells mostly found in the BM (Fig 1A) with potential to generate a large repertoire of cells, ranging from erythrocytes (red blood cells) that carry oxygen, thrombocytes (platelets) which facilitate coagulation factors for clotting, and cells of the innate and adaptive/learned immune systems such as granulocytes, monocytes, natural killer (NK) cells, B cells, and T cells which recognize and fight off foreign substances (20, 21, 22, 23). Many of these cells also have a high turnover rate, with 86% of human cell turnover coming from red blood cells and neutrophils suggesting robust maintenance of the HSC compartment must occur throughout life to ensure continued production of these cells (24). Numerous studies in mouse and human models have shown the multipotent differentiation and self-renewal capacity of HSCs is critical for maintaining the blood and immune systems throughout an organism’s lifespan with a loss of this tight regulation leading to maladies such as BM failure, stem cell exhaustion, and leukemia (25, 26, 27, 28, 29). HSCs are maintained in a quiescent state, where they remain metabolically conservative, possibly reducing the induction of intracellular stresses and potential insults to their function (30). Tight regulation of cell-cycle entry is critical for HSC preservation, where both cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic regulators are involved. Extrinsic regulation includes factors secreted from the BM niche, of which neighboring cells (mesenchymal stem cells [MSC], adipocytes, osteoblasts, perivascular cells, endothelial cells, arterioles, and sympathetic nervous neurons) secrete adhesion molecules, cytokines, growth factors, and other proteins into the ECM that either drive HSC cell-cycle entry or revert it back to quiescence, aiding in stem cell function or maintenance, respectively (Fig 1A) (31, 32, 33, 34, 35).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1. Stem cells and their niche.

(A) Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) are largely found residing in the bone marrow microenvironment. Cycling HSCs are found to localize near the sinusoid whereas those that are quiescent tend to localize closer to the endosteal (bone-lining) wall. Cells neighboring HSCs in the bone marrow (e.g., mesenchymal stem cells [MSCs] and arteriole endothelial cells) often hold roles in regulating HSC function and maintenance via the secretion of cytokines, growth factors, and other small molecules. (B) Mesenchymal/stromal stem cells (MSCs) are found to reside in several adult (adipose tissue, compact bone, bone marrow, dental pulp, liver) and embryonic (endometrium, placenta, umbilical cord) tissues. MSCs directly regulate cellular function and maintenance of nearby cells within their respective niches, including adult stem cells, through several secretory mechanisms. (C) The existence of neural stem cells (NSCs) has been established in rodents in the subgranular zone of the hippocampal dentate gyrus and the subventricular zone of the lateral ventricles. Subventricular zone NSCs produce (inhibitory) oligodendrocytes and interneurons, whereas subgranular zone NSCs generate (excitatory) granule neurons. The controversy regarding the existence and activity of NSCs in humans has not yet been fully resolved. (D) The niche residency of intestinal stem cells (ISCs) has been established largely within the crypt base (below the villi) along the intestinal epithelium. Their location has been long debated; however, their exact position along the crypt base has yet to be fully resolved. ISCs hold multipotent differentiation capacity, where ISCs adjacent to longer villi are biased towards producing enterocytes whereas those adjacent to shorter villi will largely produce secretory cells (e.g., goblet cells). (E) Muscle/satellite stem cells (MuSCs) are uniquely identified by their anatomical location between the basal lamina and myofiber of skeletal muscle tissue. Unlike other adult stem cell niches, the MuSC local microenvironment is anatomically dynamic during muscle regeneration and attributable to regulatory networks by MuSCs and other functionally diverse resident cells.

To gain a multidisciplinary understanding of the complex system and balance of human HSC biology, mouse models have been widely used ever since the early 1960s when HSCs were first conceptualized from BM transplantation assays (36). Advancements made in the technology and methodologies for transplantation studies, ex-vivo/in-vivo culturing, gene expression manipulation, and other assays performed on mice allowed us to gain more targeted and high-throughput insight into human HSC function and maintenance; this insight demonstrated conservation of HSC function and maintenance between mice and humans. However, it has also been revealed that there are numerous critical differences between human and mouse HSCs regarding phenotype, function, and regulation of maintenance and multilineage differentiation that cannot be overlooked. One area of importance involves the immunophenotypic characterization of HSCs and hematopoietic progenitor cell, surface markers, which they differ between humans and mice. These differences in immunotypic profiles also confer functional differences despite both human and murine HSCs having similar mechanisms and phenotypes. For example, Flt-3 is also expressed in mice, but its importance lies in regulating lymphopoiesis, not HSC maintenance or function when compared with human HSCs (37). In murine HSCs, c-Kit provides a higher degree of survival than Flt-3 whereas the opposite holds true for human HSCs (38). One of the most striking differences between human and mouse immunophenotypic markers is CD34. In the murine system, HSCs are classified as CD34−, whereas human HSCs are characterized as CD34+. Intriguingly, a population of CD34− human HSCs has recently been identified in the cord blood (39); however, it is unclear if this population of megakaryocyte/erythrocyte-biased HSCs also exists in adult BM.

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC)

MSCs are a population of cells residing mostly in the BM and connective tissues (Fig 1B) that manage the production of numerous stromal tissue-type lineages (40). These include adipocytes (fat cells), hypertrophic chondrocytes (cartilage cells), stromal cells, tendon/ligament fibroblasts, myocytes (muscle cells), and osteoblasts (bone cells). One misconception relating to its stem cell identity is that MSCs are believed to be equivalent regardless of their tissue of origin. As reviewed by Phinney and Sensebé (41), not all MSCs originating from several distinct adult tissues are equivalent despite sharing similar genome expression profiles and phenotypes. In recent years, in vitro and in vivo studies comparing MSCs from different tissues further demonstrated the differences in several cellular facets, such as immunophenotypic markers, growth kinetics, and secretome profiles (42, 43).

One important property of MSCs is their ability to immediately respond to signals because of increased stromal tissue demands and mount the appropriate regenerative mechanisms (44). This is in part because of its homing ability allowing these cells to migrate to sites of injury or inflammation. Once MSCs have reached their target site, they actively differentiate to produce the appropriate cell type/s (45). An additional property of MSCs regarding their therapeutic potential is their immunomodulatory properties by which these cells are able to suppress immune responses through the secretion of extracellular vesicles containing anti-inflammatory cytokines and direct interaction with immune cells (46).

MSCs can be characterized by their ability to adhere to plastic surfaces, form colonies, and differentiate into adipocytes, chondroblasts, or osteoblasts in vitro (47). In addition, MSCs can be identified by a combination of cell surface markers. Human MSCs (hMSCs) express CD73, CD90, and CD105, although it lack the expression of a pan hematopoietic marker CD45, CD11b, CD14, CD19, CD45, CD79a, and HLA-DR (48). Mouse MSCs are identified by their expression of Sca1, CD29, CD44, CD73, CD105, CD106. It is important to note that a unique panel of markers unequivocally defining MSCs is still being developed, so in addition to a combination of cell surface markers, functional assays (e.g., differentiation and immunomodulatory assays) are often used to establish the stemness of the population (49, 50).

The therapeutic potential of MSCs in various disease models and injuries has been studied in both human and murine models. Their regenerative capacity in bone and tissue repair exhibits promising therapeutic potential because of their availability, multilineage differentiation capacity and immunomodulatory effects, as shown in autologous and allogenic MSC-based transplantation studies (51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). However, their clinical applications are still an area of research and debate, considering that several challenges remain such as the optimization of isolation and expansion protocols and long-term effects, among others (58).

Neural stem cell (NSC)

Whereas the existence and activity of NSCs have been established in many animals, from mice (59) to macaques (60, 61), there remains a bit of controversy about whether neurogenesis, the process of generating new neurons from NSCs, occurs in adult humans. In short, certain studies using an array of methods (ranging from radioactive carbon-based cell-birth dating to immunohistochemistry) found evidence of ongoing neurogenesis up to the ninth decade of life, with a modest age-associated decline (62, 63, 64, 65). Conversely, some studies that used immunohistochemistry or single-nucleus RNA-seq found no robust evidence of adult neurogenesis in humans (66, 67). Until this debate is resolved through advances in technology (e.g., magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, more cells profiled by sc/sn RNA-seq, etc.) and/or in tissue processing (fixation, short postmortem delay, epitope retrieval, etc.), the studies mentioned above are the strongest proof of persistent neurogenesis in adult humans.

Neurogenesis itself is considered to occur in two canonical areas of the brain—the subgranular zone (SGZ) of the hippocampal dentate gyrus (DG) and the subventricular zone of the lateral ventricles (Fig 1C), with an age-associated decline (68). We will just briefly mention that adult neurogenesis has been reported in some other brain areas as well—from the neocortex (69) and the cerebellum (70) to the amygdala (71), but will not focus on them in this review. Adult neurogenesis can be broadly divided into several distinct stages: (1) proliferation—division of progenitor cells, (2) differentiation—selection of the neuronal fate of newborn daughter cells, and (3) survival—long-lasting incorporation of cells into the circuitry. Given that NSCs are the source of new neurons in the adult brain, they represent a potential therapeutic target for numerous disorders, ranging from mood disorders such as major depression, to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, which are usually associated with deficits in neurogenesis (62, 72, 73, 74).

Adult NSCs are multipotent, they generate lineage-specific cell types which are restricted based on the neurogenic area they belong to (75), similar to MSCs. Specifically, in the SGZ, NSCs generate cells that are committed to excitatory granule neuron and astrocytic fates (76), whereas in the subventricular zone, they produce inhibitory oligodendrocytes and interneurons (77) (Table 1). The quiescent NSCs in the SGZ are also called type-1 radial glia-like cells (RGLs) and can be further split into type α cells and type β cells based on their morphology and response to pro-proliferative stimuli. It is the type α cells that give rise to granule neurons and astrocytes, whereas type β cells do not proliferate and their identity is less clear. Because type β cells express both stem cell markers (e.g., Nestin, Sox2) and mature astrocytic markers such as S100β, it is hypothesized that they may be in an intermediate state between quiescent RGLs and astrocytes (78). When the quiescent RGLs are activated, there are two paths they can follow—(a) symmetrical or (b) asymmetrical division. Path (a) leads to self-renewal via generation of new RGLs, whereas (b) leads to proliferating intermediate progenitor cells, or type-2 cells, which can be further subdivided to type-2a and type-2b cells. Type-2a cells continue to express Sox2, an NSC marker, whereas type-2b cells express DCX, usually used as a marker of immature neurons (79). These type-2 cells give rise to bipolar neuroblasts (type-3 cells) which become immature neurons, and subsequently, a subset of them (50% in rats) (80) will become mature and integrated granule neurons with axonal projections into the CA3 region of the hippocampus. These newborn neurons have multiple important roles, ranging from pattern separation (81, 82), resilience to and remission from stress (83, 84, 85) to learning and memory (86, 87). Whereas the effects of regulators of NSC proliferation in the context of aging have recently been summarized elsewhere (88), in this review, we will describe the effects of stressors on NSCs.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of epigenetic responses to stress in adult stem cells.

Intestinal stem cell (ISC)

ISCs differentiate into all specialized cells making up the intestinal epithelium belonging to the absorptive (enterocytes) or secretory (goblet, entero-endocrine, tuft, and Paneth cells) lineages. The intestinal epithelium is lined with a continuum of crypts and villi that is required to rapidly turnover every few days (127). To maintain normal gut function in the absorption of important macro- and micronutrients from digested foods and symbiotic relationships with microbes, ISCs are biased towards the absorptive lineage, where enterocytes comprise roughly 90% of total terminally differentiated cells; cells downstream of the secretory lineage comprise of roughly 1–10% (128). The organization of the intestinal tract is such that varying sections house villi of different lengths, to which longer villi will typically contain enterocytes for digestion and absorption functions and shorter villi containing mostly goblet cells for the secretion of mucus to provide lubrication for the passage of undigested food towards the colon. An example of this is the duodenum which houses longer villi, of which digestion and absorption of food takes place and is facilitated by enterocytes.

With each subsequent differentiation, the progeny of ISCs migrate along the crypt-villus axis. As such, the crypt-villus axis holds three distinguished zones based on the degree of differentiation of ISCs moving upwards from the crypt base and along the villus: the stem cell zone, transit-amplifying (TA) zone, and mature cell zone (Fig 1D). ISCs within basal crypt niches undergo symmetric cell division, where each division results in two identical daughter cells, either both retaining stemness or both committing to differentiation. This process ensures a balanced production of new stem cells and differentiated progeny, maintaining tissue homeostasis. Within the niche, ISCs experience neutral competition for space, where central ISCs, located deeper in the crypt, have a positional advantage, increasing their likelihood of self-renewal compared with border ISCs, which are more prone to displacement and differentiation (129). This spatial hierarchy and competitive dynamic result in a stochastic pattern of ISC turnover, where over time, individual crypts drift towards monoclonality, ultimately being maintained by a single ISC lineage (130). Through symmetric cell division, ISCs give rise to rapidly cycling daughter cells known as TA cells will then undergo a decrease in replication to terminally differentiate into cells of the intestinal epithelium (131, 132, 133).

The characterization of ISC identity using cell surface markers has been established for both humans and mice (134). Human ISCs may be identified as CD44+CD24loCD166+GRP78lo/−c-Kit−. Similarly, mouse ISCs may be identified as CD44+CD24−/loCD166+. ISC niche residency is a topic that has been long debated for the past few decades. There are currently two competing models: the “stem cell zone” model (135) and the “+4” model (136).

The “stem cell zone” model first proposed the identification of cell-cycle active crypt base columnar (CBC) cells containing phagocytic activity with the purpose of clearing dead cells at the base of intestinal crypts as shown in irradiated mice containing radiolabeled phagosomes (137). CBC cells were also thought to be ancestors to specialized cells of the four major ISC lineages. It was not until the late 1990s that this model was further refined through clonal analysis of intestinal epithelial progenitor cells involving the induction of gene mutation for heritable cellular phenotypes within crypts (135). This demonstrated that cells of the four major lineages contained the unique mutation, strongly suggesting the presence of a population of multipotent stem cells. This model became more established upon the identification of the CBC cell-specific marker lgr5 (leucine-rich repeat-containing G protein-coupled receptor 5), a gene target of the WNT signaling, in mouse models of both in vivo and ex vivo assays (138, 139).

The “+4” model was first postulated in the late 1970s in mouse models of cell-tracking assays incorporating radiolabeled nucleotides in intestinal epithelial cells exposed to different forms of irradiation (136). Epithelial cells at varying positions along the intestinal crypt were examined; it was discovered that endothelial cells around the +4 position of the crypt (above the Paneth cell compartment) (Fig 1D) were found to retain radiolabeled nucleotides and were the most radiosensitive, showing typical behavior of quiescent/slow replicating cells and stem cells, respectively. This model was further established in the 2000s with the discovery of the +4 stem cell marker bmi1 (a component of the polycomb repressive complex 1 [PRC1]) (140, 141), Hopx (homeodomain-containing protein) (142), Lrig1 (leucine-rich repeats and immunoglobulin-like domains 1) (143), Tert (telomerase reverse transcriptase) (144), and others. However, most of these stem cell markers were found to be unreliable in defining an additional stem cell compartment aside from LGR5+ CBC cells shown by single-molecule mRNA FISH in mouse intestinal sections; this assay displayed a broad expression for these markers within other specialized cells, such as Dcamkl1 tuft cells (145). Nonetheless, these models have characterized a population of stem cell-like cells residing around the +4 position of the intestinal crypt that contributes to intestinal regeneration.

Muscle stem cell (MuSC)

MuSCs, also known as satellite cells, are a type of adult stem cell that resides in skeletal muscle tissue (146) (Fig 1E). These cells play an active role in muscle growth, maintenance, and repair under homeostatic conditions and in response to injury.

MuSCs are small, quiescent cells located between the basal lamina and the sarcolemma of skeletal muscle fibers (147). Human MuSCs are characterized by their expression of several markers including Pax7, M-cadherin, α7-integrin, CD56, CD82, and CD318 (148). Mouse MuSCs may be characterized and isolated by their expression of β1-integrin, CXCR4, VCam1, α7-integrin, and CD34 with Sca1, CD31, CD45, Mac1, and Ter119 exclusion (149). Mouse MuSCs are also identified by Pax1 expression; however, it is not used for its isolation. One of the unique characteristics of MuSCs is their ability to self-renew and differentiate into myocytes (muscle cells). Upon activation, MuSCs exit quiescence and undergo proliferation, generating a pool of myoblasts that can differentiate into mature muscle fibers. MuSCs also can regenerate themselves through asymmetric division, in which one daughter cell remains a stem cell, whereas the other differentiates into a myoblast. This ensures that the MuSC pool is maintained throughout an organism’s lifetime.

MuSCs play a critical role in muscle growth, maintenance, and repair. During muscle growth, MuSCs proliferate and differentiate into myoblasts, which fuse with existing muscle fibers to increase muscle mass. Whereas MuSCs are important for muscle growth, MuSCs may not be needed for muscle maintenance. Genetic deletion of Myf6 in skeletal muscles leads to the exhaustion of the MuSC pool in adult mice. However, despite the depletion of MuSCs, muscle differentiation remains unaffected, indicating that Myf6 specifically influences the stem cell population rather than the differentiation process itself (150). MuSCs remain quiescent but are poised to activate and repair muscle tissue in response to injury or damage. When activated, MuSCs proliferate and generate mature muscle fibers. This process is tightly regulated by various signaling pathways, including Notch, Wnt, and TGF-β. Dysregulation of these pathways can lead to impaired muscle regeneration and muscle-wasting conditions such as muscular dystrophy.

The activity of MuSCs is tightly regulated by various signaling pathways and transcription factors (147). One of the key regulators of MuSCs is the transcription factor Pax7. Loss of Pax7 results in a depletion of MuSCs and impaired muscle regeneration. In addition to Pax7, Notch signaling is required for the activation of MuSCs and the generation of myoblasts. Wnt signaling also promotes the proliferation and differentiation of MuSCs, whereas TGF-β signaling inhibits MuSC activation and promotes fibrosis (the development of mature myofibers).

Stress-Induced Epigenetic Alterations

The broad mechanisms involving the transfer of genetic information to the production and modification of the biochemically functional proteins involve transcription, translation, and protein modification. To allow for specialized cells to arise, intra-/intercellular networks to form, and various cellular functions to run efficiently, mechanisms for tight regulation of gene expression must be established. Epigenetics is defined by heritable and stable chemical alterations imposed on the chromatin landscape and gene silencing without altering the DNA sequence. The epigenetic mechanisms involved establish a critical layer of control, predominately within the nucleus, that overall regulates gene expression and silencing. These mechanisms are classified into four major classes: histone modification, chromatin accessibility, DNA methylation, and noncoding RNA.

Cellular stress can be generally defined as an event causing and/or condition resulting in an acute or chronic shift from a physiological homeostatic state in which a given cell optimally thrives. Intrinsic cellular responses will then act accordingly to restore homeostasis, preventing potential macromolecular damage performed onto DNA, RNA, proteins, and lipids, as well as other insults, that could result in short-/long-term effects detrimental to the function of a cell. It is important to note that depending on the type of stress, degree of insult, and adaptive capacity of the cell, specific defensive mechanisms may be mounted and could induce hormetic effects. One example involves the intracellular accumulation of mis-/unfolded proteins because of various stresses such as oxidative stress and heat shock that could lead to cell death. To address this, increased activation of chaperone proteins (e.g., hsp70) and the unfolded protein response pathway are mounted as a cytoprotective mechanism (151). For the focus of this review, we will cover a handful of the major stresses involved in several hallmarks of aging within stem cells: replicative stress, oxidative stress, mechanical stress, and inflammatory stress.

Replicative stress

Replication stress is caused by the formation of interstrand cross-links during DNA replication and is characterized by replication fork stalling or a slowdown in DNA synthesis, ultimately resulting in genome instability, the progressive accrual of DNA damage, and the development of various diseases. These interstrand cross-links, which covalently link the two strands of the DNA helix, prevent the normal unwinding of DNA required for replication and transcription. Replication stress is caused by DNA lesions or obstacles induced by endogenous agents such as ROS and metabolic byproducts, or exogenous agents such as UV radiation, chemical exposure, and certain chemotherapy drugs. The presence of these obstacles disrupts the normal progression of the replication machinery, leading to the formation of single-stranded DNA regions and the activation of DNA damage response (DDR) pathways. Over time, the inability to efficiently resolve replication stress can contribute to chromosomal aberrations, mutations, and an increased risk of oncogenesis and other genetic disorders.

The transition from quiescence to the cell cycle in stem cells is critically affected by epigenetic changes that become dysregulated during aging. For example, a study identifies a marked increase in H3K4me3 at the promoter and first exon of the Hoxa9 gene in aged HSCs, driven by the recruitment of the Mll1 complex and its scaffold protein Wdr5 (152). This epigenetic alteration leads to the aberrant activation of developmental pathways, including Wnt, TGF-β, and JAK/STAT signaling, which are inhibitors of satellite cell function in aging muscle. These changes are linked to increased DNA replication stress, as the overexpression of Hoxa9 in young cells mimics aging-associated defects, such as heightened apoptosis and reduced cell proliferation. This overexpression also suppresses cell-cycle regulators and induces senescence genes.

HSC

The lifelong self-renewal capacity of HSCs is crucial for blood regeneration and giving rise to immune cells. This is supported by their quiescent state, where HSCs remain dormant and are metabolically conservative, thus reducing the induction of intracellular stress. When needed, HSCs are required to respond quickly and efficiently to a given situation where increased blood demands and/or cellular output for various immune responses, such as inflammation caused by bacterial infection. With the ability to rapidly jumpstart the appropriate intracellular processes for myeloid- or lymphoid-directed differentiation, comes a price that exposes HSCs to replication stress considering the immediate demand for DNA replication and high turnover rate. This is why it is proposed that the stem cells will differentiate to a progenitor cell without self-renewing potential and the bulk of the demand is met by increasing progenitor cells when protecting the stem cell population. However, when HSCs experience acute/chronic replicative stress, conserved response pathways such as the ATR-mediated DDR and ATM-mediated apoptotic priming pathways are activated to prevent and resolve genotoxic insults that arise (96, 153, 154, 155). Epigenetic alterations and responses, such as histone modifications, have been studied to better understand and elucidate the cellular defense mechanisms that HSCs mount to resolve replication stress and the potential for insults negatively impacting genome stability and cell survival.

In HSCs from young (6–12 wk) and old (22–30 mo) C57BL/6 mice, a study compared the prevalence and impact of replicative stress in an age-dependent manner and investigated a novel function of yH2AX as an epigenetic regulator (29). Old cycling HSCs under ionizing-radiation-induced replicative stress in vitro displayed an accumulation of yH2AX foci without DDR activation accompanied by impaired S phase progression of the cell cycle, increase in senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SA-β-Gal) and Cdkn2a (p16) expression, decrease in DNA helicase components MCM4 and MCM6 gene/protein expression, and presence of chromosomal breaks. Induced replicative stress in young HSCs displayed similar effects and functional decline as old HSCs in vitro or after BM transplantation, however, to a lesser extent. To further elucidate the molecular mechanism(s) driving the observed effects, this study also demonstrated that yH2AX signals accumulated on ribosomal DNA (rDNA) in the nucleolus and was associated with decreased 47S rRNA transcripts and ribosomal biogenesis in quiescent old HSCs. This was not a result of replicative stress-induced mutagenic impact on rDNA, rather, it is suggested that nucleolar yH2AX acts as an epigenetic histone modification that represses rDNA gene expression because of failed dephosphorylation by yH2AX phosphatase PP4c as it was mis-localized in quiescent old HSCs, primarily being found in the cytoplasm. PP4c was found in both the nucleus and cytoplasm of cycling and quiescent young HSCs under replicative stress. Persistent yH2AX that arise from replicative stress thus may be a long-term or permanent histone modification silencing rDNA and downstream translation of critical regulators of HSC function and maintenance.

Ott1 (also known as RNA Binding Motif 15 [RBM15]), holds broad regulatory roles in hematopoiesis and is required to preserve HSC quiescence during replicative stress, but not steady-state conditions. This was found in Ott1 KO mice where HSCs derived from young mice displayed premature aging phenotypes such as higher sensitivity to replicative stress, increased myeloid lineage output bias, and increased expansion (90). Ott1 KO HSCs were also found to have a significant reduction in quiescent cells. Part of the protective role of Ott1 in replicative stress is its regulation of the Thpo/c-Mpl axis via c-Mpl H4 deacetylation and H3K4me3 involving histone deacetylase and methyltransferase Hdac3 and Setd1b, respectively (156) (Fig 2A). c-Mpl is a transmembrane hematopoietic cytokine receptor promoting quiescence or proliferation of HSCs in a Thpo concentration-dependent manner, to which it is Ott1-dependent.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2. A schematic illustration of epigenetic changes in HSCs because of various stressors.

(A) HSCs under IR-induced replicative stress displayed an accumulation of yH2AX foci without DDR activation accompanied by impaired S phase progression, senescence markers, and a decrease in DNA helicase components. Ott1 maintains HSC quiescence during replicative stress, where HSCs exhibit premature aging phenotypes. EZH2 is down-regulated in murine HSCs under severe replicative stress, leading to stem cell exhaustion. CBP is a transcriptional coactivator and histone acetyltransferase involved in several processes, such as differentiation, proliferation, and gene regulation. (B) PRC1 and PRC2 complexes are key epigenetic regulators in gene silencing via histone modifications. Autophagy regulates oxidative stress by clearing mitochondria, but its repression increases hypomethylation in genes that accelerate myeloid differentiation. (C) Inflammatory signals reduce expression of the histone demethylase UTX/KDM6A, impairing DNA repair and increasing oxidative stress. Global gene expression analyses have identified down-regulation of SWI/SNF-related genes, which are involved in chromatin remodeling and transcriptional silencing. Inflamed HSCs show increased expression of P-selectin (Selp), driven by heightened NF-κB pathway activity, which up-regulates inflammation-related genes and contributes to HSC functional decline. Chronic inflammation also induces a senescence-associated secretory phenotype in HSCs, thereby perpetuating inflammation and impairing HSC function.

Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are well known as epigenetic histone modifiers (157) and are found to be involved in preventing and during replicative stress response (158, 159, 160). Enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) is a PcG protein and well-characterized histone methyltransferase known for its role as a transcriptional repressor (89, 161). It is thought that replicative stress contributes to chromatin instability via the loss of histone methylation motifs that facilitate DNA condensation, among other factors (162). EZH2 was found to be heavily down-regulated in murine HSCs experiencing severe replicative stress because of serial transplantations when displaying signs of stem cell exhaustion (163). When EZH2 was overexpressed in exhausted HSCs, long-term self-renewal and fitness was restored, as was repopulation capacity.

The CREB-binding protein (CBP), and its paralog p300, have been well defined as crucial transcriptional coactivators and histone acetyltransferases in a wide array of cellular processes in development and adult tissue homeostasis such as stem cell differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis (164, 165, 166, 167, 168). CBP regulates gene expression through two different mechanisms: (1) by acting as a scaffold for the recruitment of transcriptional complexes to RNA polymerase machinery and (2) direct involvement in protein and histone lysine acetylation (97, 164, 169). In HSCs derived from young Cbp conditional KO mice, conditional ablation of CBP was found to result in overall dysregulation of HSC homeostasis and reconstitution capacity when met with replicative stress as observed in a BM transplantation assay (170). These HSCs were found to display aberrant regulation of the cell cycle, where stem and progenitor cells largely remained in the quiescent state, and increased apoptosis in the LSK population, contributing to cellular exhaustion. Furthermore, a genome-wide analysis showed that CBP was bound to loci regions involved in several critical HSC transcriptional networks/regulators, including the Heptad network, members of the Kruppel-like factor family (Klf2, Klf10, and Klf13), Runx1, Gfi1b, and Gata2 (171). This was strongly associated with the down-regulation of Heptad target genes involved in HSC differentiation, cell-cycle regulation, and self-renewal in Cbp KO mice and overlap in genes bound by CBP and Heptad factors. This demonstrates the direct regulation of CBP on critical HSC-specific transcriptional networks that are critical for ensuring HSC survival and maintenance under stressed conditions. Considering its epigenetic function, CBP may modulate these networks and corresponding transcription factors via histone and protein acetylation. However, additional studies investigating the epigenetic influence and long-term alterations CBP has on HSCs in these networks and factors would need to be performed.

The current studies show that replicative stress can activate several factors to elicit epigenetic alterations primarily as histone modifiers for preserving HSC quiescence and normal function (Table 1). The roles of several histone modifiers previously mentioned hold cytoprotective roles in HSCs against phenotypes like what is seen in an aging context, namely increased expansion and myeloid-biased differentiation. Replicative stress-induced down-regulation of histone methyltransferase EZH2 led to chromatin instability via resulted HSC exhaustion. These histone modifiers are also involved in evolutionarily conserved replicative stress response pathways, such as DDR pathways. To our knowledge, there are no published studies reporting the effects of replicative stress on other facets of the epigenetic landscape, namely DNA methylation and noncoding RNAs, but these would be an area of interest to further investigate.

MSC

MSCs have not been reported to have extensive replicative stress, although autologous MSC-based studies have elucidated a protective role that epigenetic alterations have in aging MSCs in response to stress and other negative aging-associated phenotypes.

One of the common phenotypes of replication stress in adult somatic cells is cellular exhaustion induced by age-associated ER stress caused by impaired proteostasis via the accumulation of un- and misfolded proteins. This has been primarily observed in hMSCs in natural and premature aging disease models (100, 172). As a consequence of age-associated cell exhaustion and ER stress, organelle homeostasis becomes disrupted considering the ER is connected to or in contact with membrane-bound organelles such as the nuclear envelope (NE) or Golgi apparatus and mitochondria. However, the exact causal molecular mechanisms have yet to be fully understood. In vitro functional assays involving hMSCs demonstrated that ER stress sensing/ER transmembrane protein activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) maintains organelle homeostasis and protects hMSCs directly from ER and, arguably, replicative stress (173). This was shown in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated ATF6-/-–induced hMSCs from hESCs, where hMSCs displayed accelerated cellular senescence, structural dysregulation in the ER, NE, mitochondria, and heterochromatin. These effects were also present in FOS-deficient hMSCs, suggesting a critical role for FOS as a downstream mediator of ATF6 in ER stress response. FOS is a novel ATF6 target gene in hMSCs that encodes for a leucine zipper protein forming a transcriptional complex (AP-1) with factors of the JUN family. The epigenetic influence of ATF6 is present as seen in heterochromatin disorganization; however, the mechanistic role in this phenomenon was not elucidated. Considering the transcriptional regulatory role of ATF6 in ER stress response, additional genome-wide assays, such as chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) and RT–PCR analysis, would help shed light on additional novel gene targets encoding direct epigenetic regulators.

Whereas MSCs are less prone to replicative stress, recent studies have found that age-associated replication stress-induced ER stress can cause accelerated cellular senescence, structural dysregulation of several organelles and, on the epigenetic level, heterochromatin in these cells (173). However, there are only a few studies that have reported replicative stress-associated epigenetic alterations, namely regarding histone accessibility and perhaps modifications (Table 1). Because of the lack of studies in this area, further studies are required to elucidate the mechanisms involved in the replicative stress-induced epigenetic alterations in MSCs and on other regulatory factors regarding all facets of epigenetics. This investigation would be of great interest for the current MSC therapies to address and resolve major challenges from cell isolation protocols to clinical application (174).

ISC

ISCs are required to self-renew and differentiate at a high rate to regenerate the intestinal epithelium to maintain proper function and, thus, are subjected to replicative stress. This replicative stress has been linked to genome-wide alterations to the DNA methylome in highly proliferative tissues, including the intestinal epithelium, where methylation levels increased (114, 115, 175, 176). The ISC compartment is also subjected to hypermethylation as demonstrated in a computational model of ISC DNA repair showing the indirect influence of stress response on DNA methylation (177). In silico simulations displayed that promoter regions marked with H3K27me3 were found to undergo DNA hypermethylation during DNA repair in response to replicative stress in moderately irradiated ISCs (Fig 4A). This was associated with an increase in de novo DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) activity recruited to open chromatin regions undergoing repair and containing low levels of DNA methylation. The hypermethylation of gene promoters in open chromatin regions remained stable even after DNA repair, thus inducing long-term alterations to the epigenome. Consequences associated with this alteration include the development of aging phenotypes and tumorigenesis (178, 179).

Investigating the influence of replicative stress on the epigenetic landscape within ISCs is of importance because of its subjectivity to this intercellular stressor. The above studies have reported that replicative stress-induced epigenetic alterations and effects on regulators have been observed on the DNA and histone levels (Table 1), but further investigation on their mechanisms and downstream effects is needed. At the DNA level, hypermethylation at promoter regions took place and remained stable even after DNA repair. This long-term alteration could allow for ailments such as cancer and age-associated phenotypes to develop over time. It is of interest to investigate stress response pathways such as those involved in DDR and tolerance that may induce an intracellular state (e.g., open chromatin) prone to de novo epigenetic modifications.

Oxidative stress

In cells and tissues, an imbalance between the production and detoxification of ROS will induce oxidative stress. Free radicals and oxidants such as superoxide radicals, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, and diatomic oxygen are known ROS that upon accumulation will negatively affect several intracellular structures, such as organelle membranes, DNA, and protein. DNA lesions caused by oxidative stress are commonly because of the formation of ROS-induced 8-OHdG structures on DNA, which has demonstrated alterations within the epigenome resulting in overall genomic mutagenesis and consequential development of cancers (180, 181). In addition, oxidative stress has been shown to be associated with aging as it drives aging- and senescence-associated phenotypes in cells (182, 183). This has also been reported within several stem cell compartments under an aging, developmental, disease, and stress response context (184, 185, 186, 187, 188). These negative correlations have also been extended to epigenetic regulatory networks within several stem cell compartments.

HSC

Oxidative stress has been causally linked to aging-associated phenotypes in HSCs, including an accumulation of DNA damage, apoptosis, telomere shortening, poor reconstitution capacity and loss of quiescence (91, 184, 189, 190). Within the last decade, there have been studies demonstrating the protective and maintenance role of conserved epigenetic regulators in HSCs, one of which involves PcG proteins.

PcG proteins are well known to be epigenetic regulators in gene silencing via histone modifications catalyzed by two major complexes, PRC1 and PRC2. PRC1 monoubiquitylates histone H2A at lysine 119 (H2AK119ub1), whereas PRC2 mono-, di-, and tri-methylates histone H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27me1/2/3) (191). Among the two PcG complexes, Bmi1, a subunit of PRC1, has been reported to have critical roles in maintaining the self-renewal and multipotent differentiating capacities in HSCs (192, 193, 194, 195) (Fig 2B). Collectively, it has been well established that Bmi1 is essential for the maintenance of normal HSC function under homeostatic conditions. In competition repopulation assays and in vitro studies, Bmi1 has been shown to confer protection against both replicative and oxidative stress in highly purified CD34− LSK HSCs from Tie2-Cre;R26StopFLBmi1 mice where Bmi1 (92). In addition, purified CD34-LSK HSCs from Tie2-Cre;R26StopFLBmi1 mice cultured in buthionine sulfoximine, for oxidative stress induction, showed significantly more colonies than control HSCs with buthionine sulfoximine. This suggests that Bmi1 can enhance and maintain the self-renewal capacity as part of its cytoprotective role against oxidative stress. Intracellular ROS levels were also measured and found to be similar in HSCs and downstream progenitors between those with overexpressed Bmi1 and the control. From this observation, Bmi1 could then be described to confer resistance to oxidative stress in HSCs not by regulating the production/accumulation of ROS, rather through some unknown mechanism that allows HSCs to tolerate high levels of ROS. This is an interesting contrast to another study reporting that Bmi1 is essential for regulating a set of genes critical for mitochondrial function and ROS production (196).

The mitochondria are a known origin of ROS as they facilitate oxidative metabolism. If left metabolically active without regulation, aging-associated phenotypes such as altered fate decisions and dysregulated self-renewal maintenance may occur in HSCs. This is especially detrimental to the HSC compartment as it is necessary to largely remain quiescent to retain lifelong functionality. Autophagy has been reported to have an active role in regulating oxidative stress through suppressing metabolism by clearing mitochondria in young and old HSCs from mice (197). When autophagy was repressed, qRT-PCR and gene ontology analysis in HSCs showed a significant increase in hypomethylation in regions expressing genes involved in fate decisions upon the activation of oxidative metabolism. This was associated with accelerated myeloid differentiation, a known aging hallmark in HSCs. Interestingly, when comparing populations of old HSCs, only a small subset can activate autophagy despite an overall competency for autophagy induction. In consideration of these findings, age may be associated with lessened resistance against oxidative stress in older HSCs, causing long-term alterations in the methylome that confers aging-associated phenotypes.

There are clear indications of altered epigenetic mechanisms both in response to and a result of oxidative stress, under certain conditions such as aging (Table 1). Bmi1, a subunit of the histone modifier PRC1, displayed cytoprotective roles in enhancing tolerance against oxidative stress in HSCs. Its mode of action pertains to the maintenance and enhancement of HSC self-renewal capacity; however, the mechanism behind this is unknown. Investigating this pathway and the role of PRC1 in modifying the ubiquitination landscape among histones would be is warranted. Conversely, when left to its own devices, oxidative stress is shown to induce hypomethylation in regions promoting myeloid differentiation, thus altering HSC fate decisions towards the myeloid lineage similar to changes in the aged HSCs compartment where there is an expansion of myeloid biased stem cells (101, 198). These studies have only unveiled replicative stress-induced epigenetic alterations on the DNA and histone levels and its regulators. Thus, it would be of interest to elucidate the molecular mechanisms and additional potential epigenetic regulators involved in these long-term insults to the epigenome during oxidative stress for the regenerative potential of BM transplantation. In addition, investigating the cytoprotective roles of epigenetic regulators in response to oxidative stress would identify targets for epigenetic therapies involving hematopoietic diseases, such as leukemia.

MSC

MSCs have widely demonstrated its therapeutic potential in tissue repair and overall regenerative capacities in transplantation studies. However, transplantation and prolonged culturing of MSCs is associated with the induction of oxidative stress, resulting in MSC exhaustion and accelerated aging (102, 103).

Emerging evidence has reported the role of epigenetic regulations and alterations contributing to oxidative stress or mounting antioxidant defense mechanisms against it. In human endometrium-derived MSCs (hMESCs), prolonged DDR activation and increased yH2AX foci because of ROS-induced DNA damage were observed (103) (Fig 3A). It is the first study to report a molecular mechanism driving premature senescence of hMESCs under oxidative stress. hMESCs exposed to sublethal oxidative stress exhibited premature senescence, which is suggested to be attributed to increased p38MAPK/MAPKAPK-2 pathway activation. The downstream effects of p38MAPK activation involved permanent ROS production, resulting in prolonged DDR signaling. DDR activation is known to induce phosphorylation of yH2AX in mammalian cells and tissues (199). It could then be said that oxidative stress is causally linked to yH2AX formation as a potential epigenetic histone modification, simply rather than a DNA damage marker. To address this notion, further investigation showing overlap of yH2AX as an epigenetic regulator of rDNA or novel transcriptional regulatory roles is needed.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3. A schematic illustration of epigenetic changes in MSCs because of various stressors.

(A) In MSCs, ROS-induced DNA damage induced prolonged DDR activation and increased yH2AX foci driving premature senescence. In addition, miR-210, miR-29a-3p, and miR-30c-5p confer resistance to oxidative stress in MSCs, although upstream regulatory mechanisms of these miRNAs require further investigation. In aging MSCs, oxidative stress inhibits osteogenic differentiation by increasing EZH2 levels, which elevate H3K27me3 at the Foxo1 promoter. (B) Dnmt3b was found to bind to the Shh promoter region and directly catalyze hypermethylation. HDAC1 negatively correlates with osteogenesis by deacetylating the Jag1 promoter in BMSCs, down-regulating JAG1 and the NOTCH signaling pathway, whereas mechanical stimulation reduces HDAC1 levels, rescuing JAG1-mediated osteogenesis. (C) Histone variant mH2A1.1 modifications play a significant role in epigenetic regulation via the TLR4 pathway, inducing SASP. Increased H3K9me3 in aged MSCs leads to a repressive chromatin state, cellular senescence, reduced self-renewal capacity, and elevated expression of aging-related genes such as Cdkn2a (p16) and Cdkn1a (p21), with KDM4B loss exacerbating these effects by raising H3K9me3 and HP1α levels, ultimately impairing MSC functionality and regenerative capacity. Overexpression of AHCY leads to genome hypermethylation, whereas CBX3/HP1γ contributes to increased levels of H3K9me3.

microRNA-210 (miR-210) has been reported to confer resistance to oxidative stress in MSCs both in in vitro and in vivo settings. In functional assays on cultured MSCs isolated from the BM of Sprague-Dawley rats, overexpression of miR-210 resulted in a significant reduction in apoptosis and an increase in cell viability under oxidative stress in a concentration-dependent manner (200). This was accompanied by an increase in SOD activity and a decrease in malonaldehyde and ROS concentrations, all of which are reliable markers of oxidative stress (201, 202, 203). miR-210 was found to be a key activator in the c-Met pathway, of which it acts upstream of ROS generation. Under oxidative stress without miR-210 overexpression, c-Met was found to be repressed, resulting in increased levels of ROS. However, the exact mechanisms were not addressed. This suggests that ROS acts as a suppressor of the c-Met pathway, thus down-regulating downstream targets involved in clearing ROS. However, upon robust miR-210-mediated activation of c-Met, antioxidant defenses may be mounted. Both in vitro and in vivo studies using mice with acute liver failure and isolated human adipose-derived MSCs reported that under oxidative stress, miR-210 is naturally up-regulated from basal levels to maintain normal MSC function and clear cellular and mitochondrial ROS through ROS inhibitor iron-sulfur cluster assembly protein 1/2 (ISCU1/2) (104). Through treatment with the small molecule zeaxanthin dipalmitate (ZD), basal levels of miR-210 were increased and maintained at relatively high levels through inhibition of the PKC/MAPK/ERK pathway, which enhanced cell survival and resistance to oxidative stress in both in vitro and transplantation studies. Although pharmacological overexpression of miR-210 shows positive clinical application in enhancing MSC-based transplantation therapies, further investigation into the natural regulation of miR-210 under oxidative would be interesting.

Additional miRNAs, namely miR-29a-3p and miR-30c-5p, have also been shown to confer resistance and cytoprotection under oxidative stresses through computational and experimental approaches. Global depletion of miRNAs performed in hMSCs through silencing DiGeorge syndrome critical region 8 (DGCR8) gene, which is essential for miRNA biogenesis (105), resulted in impaired stem cell function, proliferation, premature senescence, and increased ROS production (204). Computational and in vitro analysis of antioxidant function and regulation revealed decreased SOD2 expression because of DNMT3A-mediated hypermethylation of upstream regulatory regions with respect to the SOD2 gene. Furthermore, miRNAs miR-29a-3p and miR-30c-5p demonstrated direct regulation of DNMT3A, to which overexpression of these miRNAs rescued hMSCs from oxidative stress and premature senescence. This suggests a novel stress response pathway against damaging ROS levels involving the miR-29a-3p/miR-30c-5p/DNMT3A/SOD2 axis. The regulation of these miRNAs, however, was not addressed. Further investigation on the upstream regulatory mechanisms controlling miRNA levels would further establish and elucidate this novel oxidative stress response axis.

Downstream effects of oxidative stress were found to extend to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) on an epigenetic level. In young human heart MSCs under replicative and oxidative stress-induced premature senescence, mtDNA methylation increased considerably, whereas subsequent COX2 gene expression decreased (205). Cytochrome c oxidase (COX) (also known as complex IV) catalyzes the reduction in oxygen to water in the electron transport chain. COX2 is one of three core mtDNA-encoded subunits forming complex IV (106). Given its enzymatic function, decreased expression of COX2 would induce mitochondrial dysregulation and allow for diatomic ROS accumulation. The mechanism in which COX2 mtDNA methylation occurs was partially elucidated through the treatment of 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (AdC), an inhibitor of DNMT1. Upon DNMT1 inhibition, COX2 mtDNA methylation decreased with subsequent increased protein expression. This was not surprising considering that DNMT1 contains a mitochondrial targeting sequence (206). The exact mechanistic function of DNMT1 in mtDNA methylation was not addressed nor was the association of the specific methylated CpG COX2 sites to COX2 suppression and mode of regulation. A functional analysis demonstrated a causal link between oxidative (and replicative) stress to epigenetic alterations taking place on the mtDNA methylome, specifically to the COX2 gene. Further investigations on the molecular mechanisms and associations of key epigenetic regulators, such as DNMT1, to mtDNA under stressed conditions are warranted.

On the flipside of downstream epigenetic alterations and responses to stress, upstream phenomena are also critical in elucidating the crosstalk between the epigenome and stress. In aging BM-derived MSCs, oxidative stress inhibits osteogenic differentiation through Wnt gene suppression in a mouse model of osteoporosis facilitated by increased levels of EZH2, a conserved methyltransferase of histone H3K27 trimethylation (207). Aging MSCs that also displayed EZH2 overexpression had higher levels of ROS and conversely displayed a significant reduction because of EZH2 knockdown. Through CHIP and RT–PCR analysis, EZH2 was shown to increase H3K27me3 levels in the promoter region of Foxo1 and was supported by lower expression levels. FOXO1 is a critical transcriptional regulator of antioxidant agents such as CAT and SOD2. Thus, EZH2 elicits oxidative stress by allowing ROS levels to increase as a result of down-regulating FOXO1-mediated antioxidant agents. EZH2 perhaps could become an effective pharmacological target for epigenetic therapy in reversing oxidative stress induced by varying factors outside of aging.

In clinical settings, MSCs are highly regarded for their therapeutic potential as previously mentioned. However, protocols in the expansion and usage of MSCs need further optimization because of their being prone to oxidative stress (102, 103). The current studies show potential means for improving MSC survivability and viability via ROS reduction, namely through miRNA induction as reported above (Table 1). It would be of interest to further investigate the mechanism in the biogenesis and downstream effects of these miRNAs in MSCs undergoing oxidative stress. In addition, functional and transplantation assays involving external induction of these miRNAs in primary MSCs would be critical for gauging its efficacy and practical usage. In addition, external inhibition of epigenetic regulators promoting ROS production such as EZH2 (207), could prove to be an effective means of reducing oxidative stress when expanding and transplanting MSCs in a clinical setting (Table 1). These studies warrant further investigation into these epigenetic factors and identifying others.

NSC

Adult neurogenesis, which is essential for brain function, is characterized by a high rate of energy consumption and thus leads to the accumulation of ROS. Effective clearance of ROS is widely recognized as one of the critical factors in promoting brain rejuvenation and preventing disease progression (208). Conversely, accumulation of ROS promotes DNA damage and cell death, which may contribute to the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases such as AD (88, 209).

One of the causes of significant increases of ROS production in NSCs is mitochondrial dysfunction. It has been suggested that this dysfunction, which results in increased ROS and impaired mitochondrial respiration, underlies defects in adult neurogenesis during aging (116). Some have suggested that antioxidant compounds (e.g., docosahexaenoic acid) may abate the adverse effects of ROS and, therefore, improve adult neurogenesis and delay the onset of neurodegeneration (208, 209). Oxidative stress sensing also has a role in regulating the balance between self-renewal and differentiation of NSCs. Namely, whereas increased ROS levels are typically associated with NSC proliferation and differentiation, recent findings showed that quiescent NSCs in the hippocampus exhibited the highest levels of ROS, adding a level of complexity to the relationship between redox regulation and NSC fate decision (210). Oxidative stress also up-regulates SIRT1, which can suppress NSC self-renewal and shift their fate towards the astroglial lineage (210). To improve the cognitive healthspan, it would be interesting to examine how compounds that are explored in the geroscience context, such as spermidine and fisetin, and which reduce oxidative stress and neuroinflammation, act specifically on NSCs.

ISC

Studies investigating the epigenetic response or modulations in ISCs under oxidative stress are scarce. This itself warrants further investigation considering the causal and protective roles of several epigenetic regulators seen in other stem cell compartments. In support of this, Park et al were the first to show direct evidence of age- and oxidative stress-induced accumulation of DNA damage in ISCs, alongside the use of yH2AvD, analogous to mammalian yH2AX, as a biomarker (211) (Table 1) (Fig 4B). Several studies have shown yH2AX as a short- and long-term epigenetic histone modification recruiting chromatin remodeling proteins for increasing chromatin accessibility during DNA damage repair (212, 213, 214). As mentioned previously, in old cycling HSCs, yH2AX was reported as a long-term histone modification suppressing rDNA and subsequent ribosome biogenesis (29). Collectively, yH2AX, and perhaps its analog yH2AvD, displays an epigenetic role largely under stress-induced DNA damage in somatic cells, including stem cells. Further investigations to elucidate this notion would be needed.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4. A schematic illustration of epigenetic changes in ISCs because of various stressors.

(A) Replicative stress has been linked to genome-wide hypermethylation to the DNA methylome in the intestinal epithelium. Simulations displayed that promoter regions marked with H3K27me3 were found to undergo DNA hypermethylation during DNA repair in response to replicative stress in irradiated ISCs. This was associated with an increase in DNMT activity recruited to open chromatin regions undergoing repair and containing low levels of DNA methylation. (B) ISCs under oxidative stress demonstrate age- and stress-induced DNA damage accumulation in ISCs using yH2AvD which suppresses ribosome biogenesis. (C) Signaling molecules such as Wnt, Bmp, and Notch, produced by Paneth cells, regulate ISC fate and function by allowing Atoh1 transcription factor to bind, enabling cells to revert to a primitive state. Epigenetic modifications such as the incorporation of histone variant H2A.Z mediated by Znhit1, are central to ISC plasticity, influencing key genes such as Lgr5 and TGF-β crucial for self-renewal and differentiation, with specific roles for MTG8, MTG16, and Id3 in modulating chromatin accessibility and maintaining ISC identity.

MuSC

Epigenetic regulation of MuSCs is required to maintain stem cell homeostasis and myogenic differentiation potential for skeletal muscle repair. Part of this process, and during endurance exercise, involves a slight increase in skeletal muscle ROS production for ensuring healthy mitochondrial function and adaptations (215). However, excess ROS production may still arise and induce oxidative stress (119). Bmi1 is shown to maintain MuSC pools and myogenesis during muscle via repression of the ink4a locus (216, 217) after muscle injury and during oxidative stress. In addition, Bmi1 overexpression in mouse models of dystrophinopathies and DMD patients induced enhanced metallothionein 1 (MT1)-mediated protection against oxidative stress, which improved muscle strength and regeneration (218, 219). Functional analysis on MT1-mediated oxidative stress displayed increased ROS and 8-OHdG in cultured MuSCs of MT1 knockdown mice when compared with controls. The mechanism underlying the observed MT1-mediated protection against oxidative stress has not been addressed and warrants further investigation. Bmi1 is involved in gene silencing through histone modifications as an integral component of PRC1, which suggests that MT1 enhancement is a result of repressing a MT1 repressor (Fig 6A). In MuSCs of DMD patients and quiescent cells, Bmi1 and MT1 expression levels were reduced both at the protein and RNA levels (219). Increased Bmi1 was associated with an enhanced energetic state, marked by increased ATP production during in vitro and in vivo studies of human DMD MuSCs (219). Interestingly, ROS generation did not increase, possibly because of MT1- and PRDX2-mediated antioxidant activities. PRDX2 is an antioxidant enzyme that scavenges cellular peroxides and facilitates redox homeostasis (220). Bmi1 confers resistance to oxidative stress in MuSCs, perhaps through gene silencing of repressors and/or transcription factors contributing to increased mitochondrial ROS generation.

As a result of cellular maintenance and myogenic differentiation, ROS levels in MuSCs are allowed to increase without passing a certain threshold that would otherwise induce oxidative stress. In response to increasing ROS levels, the Bmi1 has shown to facilitate histone modifications which in turn mounts antioxidative mechanisms conferring resistance to oxidative stress (Table 1). However, its direct role and mechanism has yet to be elucidated. This warrants further investigation into the role of histone modifiers, and other epigenetic regulators, in response to rising ROS levels and effects on antioxidative mechanisms.

Mechanical stress

Mechanical stress can be defined by deformation of dynamic cellular structures, such as the cytoskeleton, because of mechanical forces and its resistance to deformation (221). The mechanical force applied to cells elicits a physical stimulation or activation of cell surface receptors (such as integrins and cadherins) that either mediate communication with the ECM or adjacent cells.

MSC

Skeletal loading (increased mechanical stress on bone) has been shown to be essential in regulating BM MSCs (BMSCs) for osteogenic differentiation during bone repair, development, and mineralization (107, 222, 223, 224). Epigenetic modifications involving DNA methylation and histone modifications are reported to regulate osteogenesis in response to mechanical stimulation in different manners.

In vitro studies on mouse MSCs cultured in media conditioned from mouse osteocyte cultures shortly exposed (24 h) to fluid shear stress (a proxy for mechanical stress) displayed a decrease in DNA methylation in adipogenic and osteogenic markers by at least 25% and 30%, respectively (225). Although genes within these regions become more accessible, transcriptomic analysis revealed increased expression in only late osteogenic markers and little to no change in early osteogenic markers and overall adipogenic markers. DNA methylation decreased to a higher degree in late osteogenic markers, allowing for its expression. It is possible that downstream pathways of mechanical stress prime MSCs for osteogenic differentiation through expression of late markers and increased gene accessibility in early markers via decreased DNA methylation. The connection between mechanical stress and direct effects on epigenetic modifications is intriguing, and it will be interesting to better understand these relationships.

Additional osteogenic-promoting DNA regions in BMSCs also underwent hypomethylation upon mechanical stimulation as shown in in vivo and in vitro studies (226). In BMSCs of young mice, mechanical stimulation via cyclic mechanical stretch was shown to activate the Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway, demonstrating a role as an endogenous mediator for promoting osteogenesis. Under normal conditions, methylation of the promoter and enhancing regions of Sonic hedgehog (Shh), a direct upstream activator of the Hh signaling pathway, was present, resulting in gene silencing (227, 228). Through ChIP analysis, Dnmt3b was found to bind to the Shh promoter region and directly catalyze hypermethylation. However, mechanical stimuli on BMSCs demonstrated direct down-regulation of Dnmt3b protein levels accompanied by downstream up-regulation of Shh and subsequent activation of Shh-mediated osteogenesis. Regarding Shh demethylation, no mechanism nor epigenetic regulator was addressed. Ten-eleven translocation (TET) enzymes are conserved dioxygenases that mediate DNA demethylation and have been reported to regulate osteogenic differentiation in MSCs by increasing chromatin accessibility (229). TET-mediated demethylation possibly has a direct role in Shh up-regulation by reversing Dnmt3b-mediated methylation.

Histone deacetylases (HDACs) are negatively correlated with osteogenesis, namely with the expression of osteogenic markers in MSCs (112, 230). In BMSCs of mice and healthy human donors, HDAC1-mediated histone H3 deacetylation of the Jag1 promoter was present, resulting in down-regulation of JAG1 (231). JAG1 is a direct activator of the NOTCH signaling pathway and is essential for the induction of osteogenic differentiation in BMSCs (232, 233). The downstream effects of JAG1 down-regulation included the repression of the NOTCH signaling pathway and ultimately inhibited osteogenesis (Fig 3B). Mechanical stimulation via cyclic mechanical stretching enhanced osteogenesis, even in mice that underwent skeletal unloading. ChIP analysis revealed that mechanical stimuli directly down-regulated HDAC1 protein levels, which in turn rescued JAG1-mediated osteogenesis. This was supported by increased levels of osteogenic markers including ALP, COL1a1, and OCN.

BMSCs have demonstrated they maintain stem cell identity through epigenetic repression via DNA methylation and/or histone H3 deacetylation of promoter regions belonging to osteogenic differentiation-promoting genes (Table 1). Upon mechanical stimulation, the reversal of these epigenetic modifications is elicited through direct regulation of their respective modifiers, which is critical for bone development and formation. As such, hypomethylation and acetylation acts as an “ON” switch for osteogenesis in BMSCs upon mechanical stress whereas hypermethylation and deacetylation act as an “OFF” switch. In the current literature, mechanical stress-induced hypomethylation and acetylation were reported to have conferred osteogenic priming in MSCs (Table 1). It would be of interest to further investigate the mechanism involved in the interplay between these epigenetic alterations for developing interventions against bone-weakening ailments (e.g., osteoporosis). These epigenetic regulators also show potential as targets for enhancing BMSC-based transplantation or direct pharmacological manipulation.

MuSC

Skeletal muscle loading (increased mechanical stress on skeletal muscle tissue) activates the regulatory networks governing myogenic differentiation of MuSCs, which in turn can induce an anabolic hypertrophic response, enhanced tissue function, and overall muscle regeneration (234, 235). Epigenetic regulators involved in maintaining stem cell identity or promoting myogenic differentiation have been reported to be differentially expressed upon exposure to mechanical stress.

In vitro and in vivo analysis using adult mice revealed protein arginine methyltransferases 5 and 7 (PRMT5/7) to promote MuSC self-renewal and myogenic differentiation during muscle regeneration (120, 121). Arguably, mechanical stress may be strongly connected in consideration that strenuous mechanical activities such as weightlifting are well-established inducers of muscle regeneration (122). PRMT5/7 catalyzes the transfer of methyl groups onto arginine residues of proteins, including histones (123, 124, 236, 237). The inactivation or KO of PRMT5/7 in adult MuSCs underwent cell-cycle arrest and premature senescence, which in turn inhibited muscle regeneration. CHiP analysis revealed a direct role of PRMT5 in repressing p21 expression via histone dimethylation of H3R8 (H3R8me2) in two of four regulatory sites upstream of the murine p21 gene: upstream enhancer-like region (En) and p53 binding site (p53BS). However, inactivation of p21 in MuSCs of Prmt5 KO mice resulted only in increased MuSC proliferation and number of myogenic colonies, but it did not fully restore muscle regenerative capacity. This suggests that PRMT5 is involved in an epigenetic regulatory network governing several facets of MuSC function and maintenance outside of p21 regulation. Differing from PRMT5, PRMT7 regulates p21 expression via DNMT3b-mediated hypermethylation of two CpGs at the p21 promoter (Fig 6B). In addition, Dnmt3b and p21 promoter regions exhibited decreased H4R3me2 levels and a decrease and increase in the activation mark H3K4me3, respectively. However, a CHiP analysis of PRMT7 at each promoter site was not performed, which warrants further investigation into a possible direct regulatory role for p21 expression.

The epigenetic regulatory roles of PRMT5 and 7 in promoting muscle regeneration displayed a contrasting interplay between histone methylation sites of tumor suppressor genes p21 and p53 and Dnmt3b promoter regions (Table 1). In addition, PRMT7 facilitated DNMT3b-mediated DNA hypermethylation of the p21 promoter region. The epigenetic mechanisms displayed during muscle regeneration were not addressed under mechanically stressed conditions However, it is arguable that these epigenetic alterations behave similarly, if not the same, in MuSCs under direct mechanical stress as muscle regeneration takes place after mechanically stressed muscle after strenuous exercise and muscle tissue hypertrophy (122). It would be intriguing to perform additional studies confirming this notion. The effects of mechanical stress on MuSCs have been widely studied (238); however, studies regarding its influence on the epigenetic landscape are scarce and would be of interest to further investigate.

Inflammatory stress

Inflammation is a crucial immune response designed to protect the body from adverse stimuli, such as injury and pathogens. It is characterized by the activation of immune cells, release of cytokines, and increased blood flow to affected areas. During acute inflammation, this defense system works to remove these damaging agents and begin the process of restoring tissue function. Failure to eradicate factors causing the acute inflammation can lead to chronic inflammation if left unchecked. Chronic inflammatory diseases involve consistent inflammation that can damage tissues and weaken tissue function, further driving inflammation (239). Inflammation is seen to be prevalent in aging tissues, as gene analysis between young and aged tissues shows up-regulation of genes associated with inflammation (240). In addition, chronic inflammation expedites the aging process of immune cells, leading to compromised immune function and inability to clear senescent cells.

HSC

Inflammation serves as a key trigger for activating dormant HSCs during infections or other hematological stresses (241). Immature HSCs typically in a quiescent state, can be prompted to proliferate by inflammatory stimuli, acting as a reserve directed to produce mature blood cells during stress (242, 243). However, prolonged chronic or acute inflammatory stress can debilitate HSCs, leading to reduced regenerative ability and a bias towards myeloid cell differentiation, thereby impacting long-term function (244).

HSCs are critically influenced by inflammation and infections, impacting their functionality, differentiation, and long-term viability. Acute inflammation is typically a transient response aimed at restoring tissue homeostasis, but chronic inflammation can disrupt HSC homeostasis. Infections and persistent inflammatory signals can lead to an overproduction of myeloid cells at the expense of lymphoid cells, which skews the differentiation of HSCs. This myeloid bias, often observed in aged individuals, is driven by pro-inflammatory cytokines like IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-α, and IFN-γ (93, 126, 245, 246, 247, 248). These cytokines can disrupt the BM niche by altering the interactions between HSCs and their supportive microenvironment. For instance, IFN-γ can displace HSCs from quiescence-promoting CAR cells via increased BST2 expression (95). This relocalization reduces the influence of quiescence maintaining signals from CAR cells, prompting HSC activation and increased differentiation. The BST2 interaction enhances HSC binding to E-selectin, facilitating movement within the BM and subsequently more prone to activation and depletion. In addition, IL-1 significantly accelerates HSC differentiation, as demonstrated by the faster division rates and enhances expansions of HSCs treated with IL-1 (248). This effect is mediated through early activation of the transcription factor PU.1, which drives myeloid lineage commitment. The study goes further to show that, chronic exposure to IL-1 results in a sustained increase in myeloid cell production at the expense of other lineages but compromises the long-term regenerative capacity of HSCs. Continuous activation through inflammatory signals can exhaust HSCs, reducing their ability to stay quiescent, self-renew, and maintain long-term hematopoiesis.

Specific epigenetic regulators are affected by inflammatory signals, exacerbating the aging and functional decline of HSCs. The histone demethylase UTX/KDM6A, which maintains HSC potential decreases in expression with age and inflammation. This reduction leads to an aged gene expression profile in HSCs, characterized by impaired DNA repair mechanisms and increased oxidative stress (94). Mice with deficient UTX exhibited trilineage dysplasia, a condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in humans. Inflammatory cytokines can also influence the activity of enzymes such as DNMT3A and TET2, which are crucial for DNA methylation and demethylation processes. For example, elevated levels of TNF-α enhances the proliferative advantage of TET2 deficient HSCs (249), and IFN-γ can drive expansion of DNMT3A knockout cells (250). Mutations in these genes are commonly found in clonal hematopoiesis and are associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies. Inflammatory conditions can further promote the expansion of these mutated HSC clones, increasing the likelihood of disease progression.

One notable change is the increased expression of P-selection, a cell surface adhesion molecule associated with physiological stress, including inflammation and aging (251). In HSCs, there is a substantial rise in P-selectin (Selp or CD62P) levels on the surface of aged and inflamed HSCs (98, 252). With age, HSCs exhibit increased expression of P-selectin, which typically is exclusive to activated platelets and endothelial cells during an inflammatory response (99). This suggests that HSCs are exposed to a heightened inflammatory state within the BM. The NF-κB pathway, a critical mediator of inflammation and selp expression, is significantly activated in aged HSCs, as evidenced by enhanced nuclear localization of the p65 subunit older cells (253). This activation results in the up-regulation of several inflammation-related genes, which further perpetuates the inflammatory state and contributes to overall functional decline in HSCs (Fig 2C). Another striking example is the inappropriate expression of the IgK gene in aged HSCs, which is not normally active in these cells but becomes highly expressed because of a loss of epigenetic regulation at the IgK locus. Furthermore, global analyses of gene expression have identified significant down-regulation of genes involved in chromatin remodeling and transcriptional silencing, such as the SWI/SNF-related chromatin remodeling genes (253, 254). This lack of regulation suggests a broader loss of transcriptional control across the genome, leading to inappropriate gene activation and increased risk of genomic instability.

Lastly, chronic inflammation affects HSCs through the induction of a senescence-associated secretory phenotype. Senescent HSCs secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines, growth factors, and proteases that create a feedback loop, perpetuating the inflammatory state and further impairing HSC function (255). This senescence-associated secretory phenotype contributes to the chronic inflammatory environment in the BM niche, exacerbating the decline in HSC function and promoting the development of hematopoietic disorders.

On the other hand, transient immune challenges can imprint long-term functional modifications. Acute LPS exposure triggers rapid, temporary changes in HSC proliferation and gene expression, which normalize within days (110). However, LPS also induces persistent alterations in chromatin accessibility, specifically in myeloid lineage enhancers, enhancing the responsiveness of genes involved in immunity. The transcription factor C/EBPβ is crucial for maintaining these LPS-induced epigenetic marks and gene expression changes. The deletion of C/EBPβ eliminated the long-term epigenetic marks and gene expression changes induced by LPS, highlighting its role as a pioneer factor that initiates and sustains chromatin accessibility. Direct TLR4 signaling in HSCs is essential for these modifications, as TLR4-deficient HSCs show significantly reduced chromatin changes and responsiveness. This strategic adaptation enables a rapid and robust immune response upon reinfection. In another study, findings reveal that such impairments can be irreversible, with no recovery observed even after a year (108). Exposure to inflammation or bacterial infection leads to a permanent depletion of functional HSCs, resulting in accelerated aging and the emergence of blood and BM phenotypes typically seen in elderly humans but not in aged laboratory mice. During and after inflammatory challenges, HSCs fail to undergo self-renewal, highlighting a cumulative inhibitory effect of discrete inflammatory events over time. This research positions early and mid-life inflammation as a key mediator of lifelong defects in tissue maintenance and regeneration, significantly impacting HSC functionality and potentially leading to age-associated hematologic diseases. Early inflammatory responses inscribe a lasting memory in HSPCs, which can enhance the host’s innate immunity against future infections.

MSC

MSCs are profoundly influenced by inflammatory environments, leading to significant epigenetic modifications that impact their functionality and therapeutic potential. Inflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α and IL-1β, can induce changes in DNA methylation and histone modification, thereby altering the expression of genes involved in MSC differentiation, proliferation, and migration. These epigenetic changes can enhance or impair the regenerative capacity of MSCs. For instance, inflammation-induced hypomethylation can up-regulate genes that enhance MSC migration and immunosuppression, whereas hypermethylation may silence genes crucial for tissue repair. hMSCs conditioned with Skov-3 medium for 16 d exhibited high levels of tumor associated fibroblasts markers Tn-C, TSP, and FSP and increased expression of a-SMA, FAP, and desmin, which are associated with cell migration and tissue remodeling (111). The same study shows that MSCs contribute to the tumor microenvironment by secretive immunosuppressive and tumor-promoting factors, HFG, EGF, and IL-6, indicating that inflammation-induced hypomethylation can activate genes that support MSC migration and enhance immunosuppressive functions, aiding in tumor progression. Alternatively, the presence of mice MSCs in tumor microenvironment was associated with enhanced fibrotic response, suggesting hypermethylation of genes that are crucial for normal repair, leading to fibrosis as opposed to normal healing (109).

In addition to DNA methylation, histone modifications also play a significant role in the epigenetic regulation of MSCs under inflammatory conditions. In MDS, MSCs in the BM are reprogrammed to support disease progression. In these MDS-MSCs, histone variant isoform mH2A1.1 up-regulation drives pro-inflammatory signaling via the TLR4 pathway, inducing a senescence-associated secretory phenotype and alters the proteomic and metabolic profiles of MSCs (256) (Fig 3C). Further proteomic analysis has shown up-regulation of several proteins, including AHCY and CBX3/HP1γ. Overexpression of AHCY, a protein part of the DNMT1 interactome, leads to genome hypermethylation, whereas CBX3/HP1γ contributes to increased levels of H3K9me3.

Increased H3K9me3 in aged MSCs is associated with several detrimental effects on their functionality and regenerative capacity. Removing KDM4B leads to increased MSC aging and senescence, indicating that higher H3K9me3 levels contribute to this. Losing KDM4B significantly raises the levels of H3K9me3 and HP1α clusters as MSCs age, promoting a more repressive chromatin state (257). Elevated H3K9me3 also significantly increases the nuclear size of MSCs after multiple cell divisions and leads to higher expression of aging-related genes such as Cdkn2a (p16) and Cdkn1a (p21). Overall, the accumulation of H3K9me3 in aged MSCs is linked to increased cellular senescence, reduced self-renewal capacity, and the formation of senescence-associated heterochromatin foci, contributing to the decline in their regenerative potential and functionality.

During aging, MSCs experience significant epigenetic changes driven by chronic inflammation, exacerbating cellular senescence. Inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α and IL-6 activate the NF-κB pathway, perpetuating a pro-inflammatory environment through ROS (125). This chronic inflammation leads to DNA methylation changes in genes regulating the cell cycle, DNA repair, and differentiation. For instance, hypermethylation of the Dlx5 impairs MSC differentiation. Senescent MSCs show altered gene expression, including miRNAs, resulting in reduced proliferation and structural changes. Oxidative stress further drives these epigenetic alterations, increasing susceptibility to malignant transformation.

ISC

ISCs play a crucial role in maintaining the homeostasis and regeneration of the intestinal epithelium, but their function and regulation can be significantly altered by inflammatory processes, particularly through epigenetic modifications. Key proteins such as IFN-γ and STAT1 are pivotal in mediating these effects. IFN-γ-STAT1 signaling pathway becomes hyperactive during inflammation, leading to up-regulation of MHC-II in aged ISCs (258). The heightened STAT1 transcription factor signaling leads to increased surface expression of MHC-II in aged ISCs. This interaction facilitates CD4+ T-cell engagement, perpetuating a cycle of inflammation and immune response.

Epigenetically, inflammation induces significant changes in chromatin accessibility within ISCs. These modifications were examined using single-cell RNA sequencing and gene set enrichment analysis to identify differentially expressed genes and altered pathways. A study revealed that aged ISCs exhibit specific changes in chromatin that remain stable even when cultured in organoids ex vivo (258). These changes include increased accessibility at inflammation-associated loci, which promote a state of sustained inflammation within the epithelium. The differential gene expression analysis identified significant DEGs across various cell types in the intestinal epithelium, indicating that inflammation affects not only ISCs but also TA cells and enterocyte progenitors.

Inflammation triggers a complex array of epigenetic modifications in ISCs, influencing their function and regenerative capacity. Key proteins such as Hopx and Atoh1 are involved in these modifications, playing significant roles in the regulation of ISC differentiation and maintenance (142, 259). During chronic inflammation, such as in inflammatory bowel disease, ISCs are exposed to persistent inflammatory signals that can lead to lasting changes in their gene expression profiles. Inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-11 and type I interferons, have been shown to influence ISC behavior. IL-11, for example, is necessary for mucosal regeneration, whereas type I interferons can impair recovery and reduce ISC proliferation. These inflammatory signals can induce epigenetic modifications, such as DNA methylation, histone modifications, and changes in chromatin structure. For instance, prolonged ER stress and hypoxia, common in chronic inflammation, activate the unfolded protein response, which is crucial for ISC proliferation and differentiation. Studies have shown that HNF4α, a transcription factor involved in ER stress response, is essential for intestinal epithelial repair, linking inflammation-induced ER stress to epigenetic regulation of ISC function (260, 261).

Epigenetic regulation because of inflammation can result in the activation or repression of specific genes that are critical for ISC function. For example, studies using ChIP have demonstrated that inflammatory cytokines can lead to increased histone acetylation at loci associated with pro-inflammatory genes, enhancing their expression. Conversely, DNA methylation analysis has shown that inflammation can cause hypermethylation of genes involved in maintaining stem cell pluripotency, thereby reducing their expression and impairing the regenerative capacity of ISCs. In addition, single-cell RNA sequencing of ISCs isolated from inflamed tissues has revealed altered expression patterns of key regulatory genes, highlighting the impact of chronic inflammation on the epigenetic landscape of these cells.

Recent evidence suggests that not only TA cells but also fully differentiated intestinal epithelial cells possess the potential to de-differentiate and replenish the damaged ISC niche. This raises critical questions about the inherent fate of these cells and the epigenetic mechanisms underlying their differentiation. Signaling molecules such as Wnt, Bmp, and Notch, produced by Paneth cells and myofibroblasts, play a pivotal role in regulating ISC fate and function (260). These pathways interact with the chromatin landscape, which, when in a permissive state, facilitates the binding of lineage-defining transcription factors such as Atoh1 (262). This chromatin accessibility allows for dynamic responses to injury, enabling differentiated cells to revert to a more primitive state and contribute to epithelial repair. Such plasticity is critical in maintaining intestinal homeostasis, particularly in response to acute injuries where the rapid regeneration of the epithelial barrier is essential.

Epigenetic modifications, particularly those involving chromatin structure, are central to the regulation of ISC plasticity. Histone variants, such as H2A.Z, play a significant role in remodeling chromatin and altering gene expression (263). The incorporation of H2A.Z into specific genomic regions, mediated by components such as Znhit1, influences the expression of key genes such as Lgr5 and TGF-β, which are crucial for ISC self-renewal and differentiation (264) (Fig 4C). Deleting ZNHIT1 impacts ISC differentiation directly, without altering Wnt signaling, underscoring its specific role in regulating chromatin dynamics and gene expression in ISCs. Moreover, the transcriptional co-repressors MTG8 and MTG16, and factors such as Id3, modulate chromatin accessibility, maintaining ISC identity and controlling differentiation into secretory lineages (265). The interplay between these epigenetic regulators and transcription factors ensures a balanced differentiation process, allowing for efficient repair and regeneration of the intestinal epithelium.

Neural stem cell (NSC)

NSCs play a pivotal role in neurogenesis, essential for maintaining brain plasticity throughout life. Neuroinflammation in the central nervous system is unique because of the blood-brain barrier, separating the CNS from the peripheral immune system when still allowing an immunological response. Microglia, the resident immune cells in the CNS, are pivotal in initiating innate immune responses through pattern recognition receptors that detect danger signals from dying cells and microorganisms. Upon activation, microglia undergo morphological changes and release nitric oxide, ROS, and various pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, orchestrating a robust M1 response. This M1 response, can lead to chronic inflammation if not properly regulated, with potential long-term consequences for surrounding neural cells (266). Conversely, M2 microglia release anti-inflammatory cytokines such as TGF-β and IL-10, promoting neuroprotection and tissue repair, although the M2 response is often transient in various CNS injury models.

LPS, commonly used to model inflammation in vitro, have been shown to adversely affect NSC viability and differentiation. In LPS-treated NSCs, key epigenetic changes occur, especially involving histone modifications. For instance, prolonged LPS exposure increases the expression of Jmjd2b, a histone demethylase, and NF-κB p65, indicating their roles in inflammation-induced epigenetic regulation (267) (Fig 5). Jmjd2b targets the trimethylated lysine on H3K9me3, a mark typically associated with repressed chromatin, and demethylates it to maintain an open chromatin state conducive to gene transcription. This epigenetic alteration was confirmed through expression analysis and ChIP assays, which revealed reduced H3K9me3 levels at promoters of genes such as Notch1 and IL-1β in long-term LPS-treated cells. The knockdown of Jmjd2b led to decreased expression of various genes, including p65, iNOS, Bcl2, and TGF-β, highlighting its regulatory influence. Pathway analyses further identified down-regulated genes such as NF-κB, Sema3e, Wnt, and Lef1, involved in neurogenesis and cellular differentiation processes. Thus, inflammation through LPS-induced pathways profoundly alters the epigenetic landscape of NSCs, primarily via histone demethylation, which affects key genes and pathways essential for NSC function and neurogenesis. Understanding these mechanisms provides crucial insights into the interplay between inflammation and NSC regulation (268).

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5. A schematic illustration of epigenetic changes in NSCs because of stress.

LPS adversely affects NSC viability and differentiation by inducing key epigenetic changes, particularly histone modifications, with prolonged LPS exposure increasing Jmjd2b and NF-κB p65 expression, leading to reduced H3K9me3 levels at gene promoters essential for NSC function and neurogenesis, thus profoundly altering the epigenetic landscape of NSCs.

Alternatively, inflammation or injury can cause astrocytes to become reactive, reacquiring characteristics such as neural progenitor cells (NPCs), with pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α playing a key role in this reprogramming. Research exploring the transcriptome and epigenetic profiles of astrocyte populations has revealed that changes in epigenetic markers, such as histone modifications associated with active promoters, such as H3K4me3 (117), and with repressed promoters, such as H3K27me3 (118), accompany shifts in cellular potential (268). Experimental studies using the mouse NPC line CTX12 have demonstrated that astrocytes’ plasticity and capacity for dedifferentiation are influenced by their differentiation conditions. This understanding of astrocytes’ latent neurogenic potential and the epigenetic mechanisms regulating it is vital for developing regenerative medicine strategies. Notably, reactive astrocytes, naturally present at injury sites, offer a promising target for brain repair mechanisms, underscoring the role of inflammation in activating pathways that reprogram astrocytes to a more plastic, NPC-like state.

MuSC

Aging-related systemic inflammation exerts profound effects on MuSCs, driving substantial alterations in their epigenetic landscape and contributing to their functional decline. Inflammatory signals, particularly those mediated through CCR2 ligands such as CCL2, CCL7, and CCL8, play a pivotal role in this process. These signals elevate the levels of CCR2 chemokines, leading to increased CCr2 expression in myogenic progenitors. This heightened CCR2 activity inhibits MP fusion into myofibers by activating MAPKp38δ/γ signaling and phosphorylating MyoD, which suppresses myogenic commitment factor Myogenin. As a result, the regenerative capacity of muscle is impaired, as myogenic progenitors are less able to form the multinucleated myotubes needed for effective muscle repair exacerbating the decline in muscle function seen with aging (269).

Chronic exposure to these inflammatory signals leads to a significant reduction in the activity of Kmt5a, an enzyme crucial for the monomethylation H4K20. The diminished activity of Kmt5a and the resultant decline in H4K20me1 disrupt MuSC quiescence by down-regulating Notch target genes, essential for maintaining stem cell dormancy. This disruption is exacerbated in aged MuSCs, which exhibit lower levels of both Kmt5a and H4K20me1, creating an epigenetic environment that predisposes them to premature activation and subsequent cell death via ferroptosis (270 Preprint). Reduced Kmt5a activity leads to decreased levels of H4K20me1, a histone modification critical for the formation of constitutive heterochromatin and proper cell-cycle progression. This reduction disrupts the transcriptional programs necessary for MuSC quiescence and survival. Specifically, the loss of H4K20me1 results in the repression of Notch signaling components, including Notch, Jag1, Numb, and Rbpj, through increased promoter-proximal pausing, leading to decreased expression of quiescence-associated genes, such as Hes1 and Hey1, and increased expression of activation-associated genes, such as Myf5 and Dek. Furthermore, the persistent reduction in H4K20me1 prime MuSCs for ferroptosis, characterized by abnormal iron metabolism, elevated intracellular iron levels, increased ROS, and lipid peroxidation. This epigenetic reprogramming, driven by inflammation, sensitizes MuSCs to inflammatory signals, leading to their premature exit from quiescence, susceptibility to ferroptosis, and impaired regenerative capacity.

In young muscle, injury induces a coordinated inflammatory response, starting with the recruitment of neutrophils, eosinophils, and macrophages. This triggers a pro-inflammatory phase that promotes myogenic proliferation through cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-α (113, 271) followed by an anti-inflammatory phase aiding differentiation and repair via TGF-β and IGF-1 (272, 273). However, in aged muscle this becomes chronic, leading to persistent inflammation that hampers regeneration (274) (Fig 6C). For example, increased IL-6 signaling in aged mice causes MuSC exhaustion and atrophy. Epigenetically, chronic inflammation disrupts p38α/β MAPK, linked to PRC2, adding repressive H3K27me3 marks on myogenic gene promoters such as Pax7 (247). After activation by TNF-α, the p38α kinase phosphorylates EZH2 which enhances the binding affinity of EZH2 to transcription factor YY1. The p38α, YY1, and EZH2 complex is recruited to the Pax7 promoter, catalyzing the trimethylation of H3K27. PAX7 directly influences myogenic gene expression by inducing chromatin modifications through histone methyltransferase complexes (275). Notably, PAX7 up-regulates Myf5, a key regulator of muscle commitment, via association with the Wdr5-Ash2L-MLL2 HMT complex, which methylates histone H3K4. This marks chromatin as active, facilitating the activation of MYF5. ChIP studies confirmed that PAX7 recruits this complex to gene promoters, promoting H3K4 methylation and ensures transcription of myogenic genes. In addition, PAX7’s association with demethylated and trimethylated H3K4 regions shows its role in maintaining active chromatin states.

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6. A schematic illustration of epigenetic changes in MuSCs because of various stressors.

(A) Bmi1 is shown to maintain MuSC pools and myogenesis during muscle via repression of the ink4a locus after muscle injury and during oxidative stress. Bmi1 overexpression in mouse models and patients enhances MT1-mediated protection against oxidative stress, improving muscle strength and regeneration, likely through gene silencing mechanisms involving PRC1. (B) PRMT5 represses p21 expression via H3R8 dimethylation at regulatory sites upstream of the murine p21 gene. PRMT7 regulates p21 expression through DNMT3b-mediated hypermethylation at the p21 promoter, influencing H4R3me2 and H3K4me3 levels. (C) Inflammatory signals, especially CCR2 ligands, elevate CCR2 expression in myogenic progenitors, inhibiting their fusion into myofibers by activating MAPKp38δ/γ signaling and phosphorylating MyoD. Chronic inflammatory signals reduce Kmt5a activity, leading to a decline in H4K20me1 levels, disrupting MuSC quiescence by down-regulating Notch target genes. In addition, chronic inflammation disrupts p38α/β MAPK, adding repressive H3K27me3 marks on myogenic gene promoters such as Pax7.

In pathological conditions such as muscular dystrophies, persistent inflammation drives extensive epigenetic reprogramming. Chronic inflammation in these diseases elevates levels of cytokines that continuously activate pathways leading to both DNA methylation and histone modifications. This reprogramming not only suppresses myogenic differentiation but also enhances fibrogenic pathways, shifting the balance towards fibrosis and muscle degeneration (276).

Conclusion

Adult stem cells experience major forms of cellular stress such as replicative, oxidative, mechanical, and inflammatory stress, and these stresses have been reported to mostly elicit significant negative impacts detrimental to stem cell function via epigenetic alterations. However, depending on the stress type, namely mechanical stress, it is not especially harmful and, rather, may regulate certain stem cell populations and promote regenerative effects. Replicative stress, resulting from repeated cell division, induces epigenetic alterations on the DNA and, largely, histone levels in HSC, MSC, and ISCs. Histone modifiers Ott1, PcG proteins (i.e., EZH2), and CBP in HSCs mitigate replicative stress, preventing phenotypes such as increased expansion, skewed differentiation bias, and increased susceptibility to cell death and senescence. Histone variant substitution was found to only take place in HSC and ISCs involving DDR markers yH2AX and macroH2A1.1, respectively, under replicative stress outside of other cellular stressors and adult stem cells in literature. Both substituted variants accumulate and are suggested to be established permanently, leading to the impaired stem cell maintenance and regenerative capacities. Oxidative stress, caused by the imbalance between ROS and antioxidant defense mechanisms, can damage cellular macromolecules and reduce stem cell viability and differentiation capacity. Mechanical stress, arising from physical forces acting on stem cells, can alter cell shape, cytoskeletal organization, and gene expression, affecting stem cell fate decisions. A few of these stress-induced phenotypes are also seen in a similar fashion in an aging context. These include a skewed differentiation output towards the myeloid lineage and increased expansion under oxidative stress in young HSCs and dysregulation of organelle homeostasis in MSCs under replicative stress. Oxidative stress can also cause epigenetic alterations, including DNA damage and modification of histone proteins, resulting in changes in chromatin structure and gene expression. Furthermore, mechanical stress can affect epigenetic regulation by altering the chromatin conformation, DNA accessibility, and gene expression profiles. Studies have shown that these stresses can lead to changes in the expression of key epigenetic regulators, including DNMTs and histone-modifying enzymes, which in turn can influence stem cell differentiation and self-renewal. Inflammation can also exert significant epigenetic effects on al stem cells, such as altering DNA methylation patterns and histone modifications, which may impair their regenerative capacity and promote senescence. Chronic inflammatory signals can lead to persistent epigenetic changes that disrupt stem cell function and contribute to age-related decline in tissue regeneration. The reported stresses discussed can occur uniquely or in combination, leading to complex interactions and effects on adult stem cells. Understanding the consequences of stress has important implications for optimizing or developing novel therapeutic strategies and protocols, such as stem cell transplantation therapies and expansion protocols, as there may be negative consequences of enforcing robust expansion of stem cells. Thus, understanding how these stresses impact epigenetic regulation in adult stem cells is critical for developing strategies to optimize their regenerative potential in tissue repair and regeneration. To visually summarize the epigenetic changes in each cell type, we created detailed figures for HSCs (Fig 2), MSCs (Fig 3), ISCs (Fig 4), NSCs (Fig 5), and MuSCs (Fig 6). Further research is needed to elucidate the precise mechanisms by which these stresses affect epigenetic regulation in stem cells and to identify potential therapeutic interventions to minimize their negative effects on stem cell function.

Acknowledgements

This manuscript was supported by Intramural Research Funds from the NIA/NIH.

Author Contributions

  • J Llewellyn: conceptualization and writing—original draft, review, and editing.

  • R Baratam: conceptualization, supervision, validation, and writing—original draft, review, and editing.

  • L Culig: conceptualization, resources, supervision, funding acquisition, validation, project administration, and writing—original draft, review, and editing.

  • I Beerman: conceptualization, resources, supervision, funding acquisition, project administration, and writing—original draft, review, and editing.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

  • Received April 7, 2023.
  • Revision received September 16, 2024.
  • Accepted September 16, 2024.
  • © 2024 Llewellyn et al.
Creative Commons logoCreative Commons logohttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This article is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International, as described at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Evans MJ,
    2. Kaufman MH
    (1981) Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature 292: 154–156. doi:10.1038/292154a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Martin GR
    (1981) Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 78: 7634–7638. doi:10.1073/pnas.78.12.7634
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Takahashi K,
    2. Tanabe K,
    3. Ohnuki M,
    4. Narita M,
    5. Ichisaka T,
    6. Tomoda K,
    7. Yamanaka S
    (2007) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131: 861–872. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Takahashi K,
    2. Yamanaka S
    (2006) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126: 663–676. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Clevers H
    (2015) What is an adult stem cell? Science 350: 1319–1320. doi:10.1126/science.aad7016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Lu S,
    2. Wei F,
    3. Li G
    (2021) The evolution of the concept of stress and the framework of the stress system. Cell Stress 5: 76–85. doi:10.15698/cst2021.06.250
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Andrianova NV,
    2. Buyan MI,
    3. Bolikhova AK,
    4. Zorov DB,
    5. Plotnikov EY
    (2021) Dietary restriction for kidney protection: Decline in nephroprotective mechanisms during aging. Front Physiol 12: 699490. doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.699490
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Georgoulis I,
    2. Feidantsis K,
    3. Giantsis IA,
    4. Kakale A,
    5. Bock C,
    6. Pörtner HO,
    7. Sokolova IM,
    8. Michaelidis B
    (2021) Heat hardening enhances mitochondrial potential for respiration and oxidative defence capacity in the mantle of thermally stressed Mytilus galloprovincialis. Sci Rep 11: 17098. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-96617-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Hartmann AM,
    2. Dell’Oro M,
    3. Kessler CS,
    4. Schumann D,
    5. Steckhan N,
    6. Jeitler M,
    7. Fischer JM,
    8. Spoo M,
    9. Kriegel MA,
    10. Schneider JG, et al.
    (2021) Efficacy of therapeutic fasting and plant-based diet in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (NutriFast): Study protocol for a randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ Open 11: e047758. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047758
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Posnakidis G,
    2. Aphamis G,
    3. Giannaki CD,
    4. Mougios V,
    5. Bogdanis GC
    (2022) The addition of high-load resistance exercises to a high-intensity functional training program elicits further improvements in body composition and strength: A randomized trial. Sports (Basel) 10: 207. doi:10.3390/sports10120207
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Yalcin YS,
    2. Aydin BN,
    3. Sayadujjhara M,
    4. Sitther V
    (2022) Antibiotic-induced changes in pigment accumulation, photosystem II, and membrane permeability in a model cyanobacterium. Front Microbiol 13: 930357. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.930357
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Mattson MP
    (2008) Hormesis defined. Ageing Res Rev 7: 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2007.08.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Patrick RP,
    2. Johnson TL
    (2021) Sauna use as a lifestyle practice to extend healthspan. Exp Gerontol 154: 111509. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2021.111509
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Dubey A,
    2. Prajapati KS,
    3. Swamy M,
    4. Pachauri V
    (2015) Heat shock proteins: A therapeutic target worth to consider. Vet World 8: 46–51. doi:10.14202/vetworld.2015.46-51
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Hafen PS,
    2. Preece CN,
    3. Sorensen JR,
    4. Hancock CR,
    5. Hyldahl RD
    (2018) Repeated exposure to heat stress induces mitochondrial adaptation in human skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol (1985) 125: 1447–1455. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00383.2018
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Singh R,
    2. Kølvraa S,
    3. Bross P,
    4. Christensen K,
    5. Bathum L,
    6. Gregersen N,
    7. Tan Q,
    8. Rattan SIS
    (2010) Anti-inflammatory heat shock protein 70 genes are positively associated with human survival. Curr Pharm Des 16: 796–801. doi:10.2174/138161210790883499
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Yamada PM,
    2. Amorim FT,
    3. Moseley P,
    4. Robergs R,
    5. Schneider SM
    (2007) Effect of heat acclimation on heat shock protein 72 and interleukin-10 in humans. J Appl Physiol (1985) 103: 1196–1204. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00242.2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Sies H
    (2015) Oxidative stress: A concept in redox biology and medicine. Redox Biol 4: 180–183. doi:10.1016/j.redox.2015.01.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Pizzino G,
    2. Irrera N,
    3. Cucinotta M,
    4. Pallio G,
    5. Mannino F,
    6. Arcoraci V,
    7. Squadrito F,
    8. Altavilla D,
    9. Bitto A
    (2017) Oxidative stress: Harms and benefits for human health. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2017: 8416763. doi:10.1155/2017/8416763
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Abramson S,
    2. Miller RG,
    3. Phillips RA
    (1977) The identification in adult bone marrow of pluripotent and restricted stem cells of the myeloid and lymphoid systems. J Exp Med 145: 1567–1579. doi:10.1084/jem.145.6.1567
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Ando K,
    2. Yahata T,
    3. Sato T,
    4. Miyatake H,
    5. Matsuzawa H,
    6. Oki M,
    7. Miyoshi H,
    8. Tsuji T,
    9. Kato S,
    10. Hotta T
    (2006) Direct evidence for ex vivo expansion of human hematopoietic stem cells. Blood 107: 3371–3377. doi:10.1182/blood-2005-08-3108
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Armstrong L,
    2. Stojkovic M,
    3. Dimmick I,
    4. Ahmad S,
    5. Stojkovic P,
    6. Hole N,
    7. Lako M
    (2004) Phenotypic characterization of murine primitive hematopoietic progenitor cells isolated on basis of aldehyde dehydrogenase activity. Stem Cells 22: 1142–1151. doi:10.1634/stemcells.2004-0170
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Bhatia M,
    2. Wang JC,
    3. Kapp U,
    4. Bonnet D,
    5. Dick JE
    (1997) Purification of primitive human hematopoietic cells capable of repopulating immune-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94: 5320–5325. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.10.5320
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Sender R,
    2. Milo R
    (2021) The distribution of cellular turnover in the human body. Nat Med 27: 45–48. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01182-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Bonnet D,
    2. Dick JE
    (1997) Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med 3: 730–737. doi:10.1038/nm0797-730
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Krivtsov AV,
    2. Twomey D,
    3. Feng Z,
    4. Stubbs MC,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. Faber J,
    7. Levine JE,
    8. Wang J,
    9. Hahn WC,
    10. Gilliland DG, et al.
    (2006) Transformation from committed progenitor to leukaemia stem cell initiated by MLL–AF9. Nature 442: 818–822. doi:10.1038/nature04980
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Lapidot T,
    2. Sirard C,
    3. Vormoor J,
    4. Murdoch B,
    5. Hoang T,
    6. Caceres-Cortes J,
    7. Minden M,
    8. Paterson B,
    9. Caligiuri MA,
    10. Dick JE
    (1994) A cell initiating human acute myeloid leukaemia after transplantation into SCID mice. Nature 367: 645–648. doi:10.1038/367645a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Somervaille TC,
    2. Cleary ML
    (2006) Identification and characterization of leukemia stem cells in murine MLL-AF9 acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Cell 10: 257–268. doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2006.08.020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Flach J,
    2. Ba kker ST,
    3. Mohrin M,
    4. Conroy PC,
    5. Pietras EM,
    6. Reynaud D,
    7. Alvarez S,
    8. Diolaiti ME,
    9. Ugarte F,
    10. Forsberg EC, et al.
    (2014) Replication stress is a potent driver of functional decline in ageing haematopoietic stem cells. Nature 512: 198–202. doi:10.1038/nature13619
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Shyh-Chang N,
    2. Ng HH
    (2017) The metabolic programming of stem cells. Genes Dev 31: 336–346. doi:10.1101/gad.293167.116
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Hooper AT,
    2. Butler JM,
    3. Nolan DJ,
    4. Kranz A,
    5. Iida K,
    6. Kobayashi M,
    7. Kopp HG,
    8. Shido K,
    9. Petit I,
    10. Yanger K, et al.
    (2009) Engraftment and reconstitution of hematopoiesis is dependent on VEGFR2-mediated regeneration of sinusoidal endothelial cells. Cell Stem Cell 4: 263–274. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2009.01.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Naveiras O,
    2. Nardi V,
    3. Wenzel PL,
    4. Hauschka PV,
    5. Fahey F,
    6. Daley GQ
    (2009) Bone-marrow adipocytes as negative regulators of the haematopoietic microenvironment. Nature 460: 259–263. doi:10.1038/nature08099
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Sugimura R,
    2. He XC,
    3. Venkatraman A,
    4. Arai F,
    5. Box A,
    6. Semerad C,
    7. Haug JS,
    8. Peng L,
    9. Zhong XB,
    10. Suda T, et al.
    (2012) Noncanonical Wnt signaling maintains hematopoietic stem cells in the niche. Cell 150: 351–365. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.041
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Sugiyama T,
    2. Kohara H,
    3. Noda M,
    4. Nagasawa T
    (2006) Maintenance of the hematopoietic stem cell pool by CXCL12-CXCR4 chemokine signaling in bone marrow stromal cell niches. Immunity 25: 977–988. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2006.10.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Yu Z,
    2. Yang W,
    3. He X,
    4. Chen C,
    5. Li W,
    6. Zhao L,
    7. Liu L,
    8. Liu J,
    9. Xie L,
    10. Zhang Y, et al.
    (2022) Endothelial cell-derived angiopoietin-like protein 2 supports hematopoietic stem cell activities in bone marrow niches. Blood 139: 1529–1540. doi:10.1182/blood.2021011644
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    1. Becker AJ,
    2. McCULLOCH EA,
    3. Till JE
    (1963) Cytological demonstration of the clonal nature of spleen colonies derived from transplanted mouse marrow cells. Nature 197: 452–454. doi:10.1038/197452a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Sitnicka E,
    2. Bryder D,
    3. Theilgaard-Mönch K,
    4. Buza-Vidas N,
    5. Adolfsson J,
    6. Jacobsen SEW
    (2002) Key role of flt3 ligand in regulation of the common lymphoid progenitor but not in maintenance of the hematopoietic stem cell pool. Immunity 17: 463–472. doi:10.1016/s1074-7613(02)00419-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Sitnicka E,
    2. Buza-Vidas N,
    3. Larsson S,
    4. Nygren JM,
    5. Liuba K,
    6. Jacobsen SEW
    (2003) Human CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells capable of multilineage engrafting NOD/SCID mice express flt3: Distinct flt3 and c-kit expression and response patterns on mouse and candidate human hematopoietic stem cells. Blood 102: 881–886. doi:10.1182/blood-2002-06-1694
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Sumide K,
    2. Matsuoka Y,
    3. Kawamura H,
    4. Nakatsuka R,
    5. Fujioka T,
    6. Asano H,
    7. Takihara Y,
    8. Sonoda Y
    (2018) A revised road map for the commitment of human cord blood CD34-negative hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Commun 9: 2202. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04441-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Pittenger MF,
    2. Mackay AM,
    3. Beck SC,
    4. Jaiswal RK,
    5. Douglas R,
    6. Mosca JD,
    7. Moorman MA,
    8. Simonetti DW,
    9. Craig S,
    10. Marshak DR
    (1999) Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science 284: 143–147. doi:10.1126/science.284.5411.143
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Phinney DG,
    2. Sensebé L
    (2013) Mesenchymal stromal cells: Misconceptions and evolving concepts. Cytotherapy 15: 140–145. doi:10.1016/j.jcyt.2012.11.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Kozlowska U,
    2. Krawczenko A,
    3. Futoma K,
    4. Jurek T,
    5. Rorat M,
    6. Patrzalek D,
    7. Klimczak A
    (2019) Similarities and differences between mesenchymal stem/progenitor cells derived from various human tissues. World J Stem Cells 11: 347–374. doi:10.4252/wjsc.v11.i6.347
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Petrenko Y,
    2. Vackova I,
    3. Kekulova K,
    4. Chudickova M,
    5. Koci Z,
    6. Turnovcova K,
    7. Kupcova Skalnikova H,
    8. Vodicka P,
    9. Kubinova S
    (2020) A comparative analysis of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells derived from different sources, with a focus on neuroregenerative potential. Sci Rep 10: 4290. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61167-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Le Blanc K,
    2. Mougiakakos D
    (2012) Multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells and the innate immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 12: 383–396. doi:10.1038/nri3209
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Caplan AI,
    2. Correa D
    (2011) The MSC: An injury drugstore. Cell Stem Cell 9: 11–15. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2011.06.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Uccelli A,
    2. Moretta L,
    3. Pistoia V
    (2008) Mesenchymal stem cells in health and disease. Nat Rev Immunol 8: 726–736. doi:10.1038/nri2395
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Dominici M,
    2. Le Blanc K,
    3. Mueller I,
    4. Slaper-Cortenbach I,
    5. Marini F,
    6. Krause D,
    7. Deans R,
    8. Keating A,
    9. Prockop D,
    10. Horwitz E
    (2006) Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy 8: 315–317. doi:10.1080/14653240600855905
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Ullah I,
    2. Subbarao RB,
    3. Rho GJ
    (2015) Human mesenchymal stem cells - current trends and future prospective. Biosci Rep 35: e00191. doi:10.1042/bsr20150025
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Barry F,
    2. Boynton RE,
    3. Liu B,
    4. Murphy JM
    (2001) Chondrogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow: Differentiation-dependent gene expression of matrix components. Exp Cell Res 268: 189–200. doi:10.1006/excr.2001.5278
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Ragni E,
    2. Viganò M,
    3. Rebulla P,
    4. Giordano R,
    5. Lazzari L
    (2013) What is beyond a qRT-PCR study on mesenchymal stem cell differentiation properties: How to choose the most reliable housekeeping genes. J Cell Mol Med 17: 168–180. doi:10.1111/j.1582-4934.2012.01660.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Dai W,
    2. Hale SL,
    3. Martin BJ,
    4. Kuang JQ,
    5. Dow JS,
    6. Wold LE,
    7. Kloner RA
    (2005) Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in postinfarcted rat myocardium: Short- and long-term effects. Circulation 112: 214–223. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.527937
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Lee RH,
    2. Pulin AA,
    3. Seo MJ,
    4. Kota DJ,
    5. Ylostalo J,
    6. Larson BL,
    7. Semprun-Prieto L,
    8. Delafontaine P,
    9. Prockop DJ
    (2009) Intravenous hMSCs improve myocardial infarction in mice because cells embolized in lung are activated to secrete the anti-inflammatory protein TSG-6. Cell Stem Cell 5: 54–63. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2009.05.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Hofstetter CP,
    2. Schwarz EJ,
    3. Hess D,
    4. Widenfalk J,
    5. El Manira A,
    6. Prockop DJ,
    7. Olson L
    (2002) Marrow stromal cells form guiding strands in the injured spinal cord and promote recovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 2199–2204. doi:10.1073/pnas.042678299
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Iso Y,
    2. Spees JL,
    3. Serrano C,
    4. Bakondi B,
    5. Pochampally R,
    6. Song YH,
    7. Sobel BE,
    8. Delafontaine P,
    9. Prockop DJ
    (2007) Multipotent human stromal cells improve cardiac function after myocardial infarction in mice without long-term engraftment. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 354: 700–706. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.01.045
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Amado LC,
    2. Saliaris AP,
    3. Schuleri KH,
    4. St John M,
    5. Xie JS,
    6. Cattaneo S,
    7. Durand DJ,
    8. Fitton T,
    9. Kuang JQ,
    10. Stewart G, et al.
    (2005) Cardiac repair with intramyocardial injection of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells after myocardial infarction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 11474–11479. doi:10.1073/pnas.0504388102
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Glassberg MK,
    2. Minkiewicz J,
    3. Toonkel RL,
    4. Simonet ES,
    5. Rubio GA,
    6. DiFede D,
    7. Shafazand S,
    8. Khan A,
    9. Pujol MV,
    10. LaRussa VF, et al.
    (2017) Allogeneic human mesenchymal stem cells in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis via intravenous delivery (AETHER): A phase I safety clinical trial. Chest 151: 971–981. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Pittenger MF,
    2. Discher DE,
    3. Péault BM,
    4. Phinney DG,
    5. Hare JM,
    6. Caplan AI
    (2019) Mesenchymal stem cell perspective: Cell biology to clinical progress. NPJ Regen Med 4: 22. doi:10.1038/s41536-019-0083-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Galipeau J,
    2. Sensébé L
    (2018) Mesenchymal stromal cells: Clinical challenges and therapeutic opportunities. Cell Stem Cell 22: 824–833. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2018.05.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Altman J,
    2. Das GD
    (1965) Autoradiographic and histological evidence of postnatal hippocampal neurogenesis in rats. J Comp Neurol 124: 319–335. doi:10.1002/cne.901240303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Gould E,
    2. Reeves AJ,
    3. Fallah M,
    4. Tanapat P,
    5. Gross CG,
    6. Fuchs E
    (1999) Hippocampal neurogenesis in adult Old World primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 5263–5267. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.9.5263
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Hao ZZ,
    2. Wei JR,
    3. Xiao D,
    4. Liu R,
    5. Xu N,
    6. Tang L,
    7. Huang M,
    8. Shen Y,
    9. Xing C,
    10. Huang W, et al.
    (2022) Single-cell transcriptomics of adult macaque hippocampus reveals neural precursor cell populations. Nat Neurosci 25: 805–817. doi:10.1038/s41593-022-01073-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. Moreno-Jimenez EP,
    2. Flor-García M,
    3. Terreros-Roncal J,
    4. Rábano A,
    5. Cafini F,
    6. Pallas-Bazarra N,
    7. Ávila J,
    8. Llorens-Martín M
    (2019) Adult hippocampal neurogenesis is abundant in neurologically healthy subjects and drops sharply in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Med 25: 554–560. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0375-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Spalding KL,
    2. Bergmann O,
    3. Alkass K,
    4. Bernard S,
    5. Salehpour M,
    6. Huttner HB,
    7. Boström E,
    8. Westerlund I,
    9. Vial C,
    10. Buchholz BA, et al.
    (2013) Dynamics of hippocampal neurogenesis in adult humans. Cell 153: 1219–1227. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Boldrini M,
    2. Fulmore CA,
    3. Tartt AN,
    4. Simeon LR,
    5. Pavlova I,
    6. Poposka V,
    7. Rosoklija GB,
    8. Stankov A,
    9. Arango V,
    10. Dwork AJ, et al.
    (2018) Human hippocampal neurogenesis persists throughout aging. Cell Stem Cell 22: 589–599.e5. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2018.03.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Tobin MK,
    2. Musaraca K,
    3. Disouky A,
    4. Shetti A,
    5. Bheri A,
    6. Honer WG,
    7. Kim N,
    8. Dawe RJ,
    9. Bennett DA,
    10. Arfanakis K, et al.
    (2019) Human hippocampal neurogenesis persists in aged adults and Alzheimer's disease patients. Cell Stem Cell 24: 974–982.e3. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2019.05.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Sorrells SF,
    2. Paredes MF,
    3. Cebrian-Silla A,
    4. Sandoval K,
    5. Qi D,
    6. Kelley KW,
    7. James D,
    8. Mayer S,
    9. Chang J,
    10. Auguste KI, et al.
    (2018) Human hippocampal neurogenesis drops sharply in children to undetectable levels in adults. Nature 555: 377–381. doi:10.1038/nature25975
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Franjic D,
    2. Skarica M,
    3. Ma S,
    4. Arellano JI,
    5. Tebbenkamp ATN,
    6. Choi J,
    7. Xu C,
    8. Li Q,
    9. Morozov YM,
    10. Andrijevic D, et al.
    (2022) Transcriptomic taxonomy and neurogenic trajectories of adult human, macaque, and pig hippocampal and entorhinal cells. Neuron 110: 452–469.e14. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2021.10.036
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Apple DM,
    2. Solano-Fonseca R,
    3. Kokovay E
    (2017) Neurogenesis in the aging brain. Biochem Pharmacol 141: 77–85. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2017.06.116
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. ↵
    1. Gould E,
    2. Vail N,
    3. Wagers M,
    4. Gross CG
    (2001) Adult-generated hippocampal and neocortical neurons in macaques have a transient existence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 10910–10917. doi:10.1073/pnas.181354698
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. Ponti G,
    2. Peretto P,
    3. Bonfanti L
    (2008) Genesis of neuronal and glial progenitors in the cerebellar cortex of peripuberal and adult rabbits. PLoS One 3: e2366. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002366
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Shapiro LA,
    2. Ng K,
    3. Zhou QY,
    4. Ribak CE
    (2009) Subventricular zone-derived, newly generated neurons populate several olfactory and limbic forebrain regions. Epilepsy Behav 14: 74–80. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2008.09.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Boldrini M,
    2. Hen R,
    3. Underwood MD,
    4. Rosoklija GB,
    5. Dwork AJ,
    6. Mann JJ,
    7. Arango V
    (2012) Hippocampal angiogenesis and progenitor cell proliferation are increased with antidepressant use in major depression. Biol Psychiatry 72: 562–571. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.04.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Eisch AJ,
    2. Petrik D
    (2012) Depression and hippocampal neurogenesis: A road to remission? Science 338: 72–75. doi:10.1126/science.1222941
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Arber C,
    2. Lovejoy C,
    3. Harris L,
    4. Willumsen N,
    5. Alatza A,
    6. Casey JM,
    7. Lines G,
    8. Kerins C,
    9. Mueller AK,
    10. Zetterberg H, et al.
    (2021) Familial Alzheimer's disease mutations in PSEN1 lead to premature human stem cell neurogenesis. Cell Rep 34: 108615. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108615
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Taupin P
    (2007) Adult neural stem cells: The promise of the future. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 3: 753–760. doi:10.2147/ndt.s2289
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Rolando C,
    2. Erni A,
    3. Grison A,
    4. Beattie R,
    5. Engler A,
    6. Gokhale PJ,
    7. Milo M,
    8. Wegleiter T,
    9. Jessberger S,
    10. Taylor V
    (2016) Multipotency of adult hippocampal NSCs in vivo is restricted by drosha/NFIB. Cell Stem Cell 19: 653–662. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2016.07.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. ↵
    1. Ghosh HS
    (2019) Adult neurogenesis and the promise of adult neural stem cells. J Exp Neurosci 13: 1179069519856876. doi:10.1177/1179069519856876
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. ↵
    1. Gebara E,
    2. Bonaguidi MA,
    3. Beckervordersandforth R,
    4. Sultan S,
    5. Udry F,
    6. Gijs PJ,
    7. Lie DC,
    8. Ming GL,
    9. Song H,
    10. Toni N
    (2016) Heterogeneity of radial glia-like cells in the adult hippocampus. Stem Cells 34: 997–1010. doi:10.1002/stem.2266
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Disouky A,
    2. Lazarov O
    (2021) Adult hippocampal neurogenesis in Alzheimer's disease. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 177: 137–156. doi:10.1016/bs.pmbts.2020.09.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. ↵
    1. Dayer AG,
    2. Ford AA,
    3. Cleaver KM,
    4. Yassaee M,
    5. Cameron HA
    (2003) Short-term and long-term survival of new neurons in the rat dentate gyrus. J Comp Neurol 460: 563–572. doi:10.1002/cne.10675
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Sahay A,
    2. Scobie KN,
    3. Hill AS,
    4. O’Carroll CM,
    5. Kheirbek MA,
    6. Burghardt NS,
    7. Fenton AA,
    8. Dranovsky A,
    9. Hen R
    (2011) Increasing adult hippocampal neurogenesis is sufficient to improve pattern separation. Nature 472: 466–470. doi:10.1038/nature09817
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Franca TFA,
    2. Bitencourt AM,
    3. Maximilla NR,
    4. Barros DM,
    5. Monserrat JM
    (2017) Hippocampal neurogenesis and pattern separation: A meta-analysis of behavioral data. Hippocampus 27: 937–950. doi:10.1002/hipo.22746
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Hill AS,
    2. Sahay A,
    3. Hen R
    (2015) Increasing adult hippocampal neurogenesis is sufficient to reduce anxiety and depression-like behaviors. Neuropsychopharmacology 40: 2368–2378. doi:10.1038/npp.2015.85
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Culig L,
    2. Surget A,
    3. Bourdey M,
    4. Khemissi W,
    5. Le Guisquet AM,
    6. Vogel E,
    7. Sahay A,
    8. Hen R,
    9. Belzung C
    (2017) Increasing adult hippocampal neurogenesis in mice after exposure to unpredictable chronic mild stress may counteract some of the effects of stress. Neuropharmacology 126: 179–189. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.09.009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. ↵
    1. Canales JJ
    1. Culig L,
    2. Belzung C
    (2016) . In In Adult Neurogenesis in the Hippocampus. Canales JJ (ed.). pp 207–228. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
  86. ↵
    1. Terranova JI,
    2. Ogawa SK,
    3. Kitamura T
    (2019) Adult hippocampal neurogenesis for systems consolidation of memory. Behav Brain Res 372: 112035. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Yau SY,
    2. Li A,
    3. So KF
    (2015) Involvement of adult hippocampal neurogenesis in learning and forgetting. Neural Plast 2015: 717958. doi:10.1155/2015/717958
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Culig L,
    2. Chu X,
    3. Bohr VA
    (2022) Neurogenesis in aging and age-related neurodegenerative diseases. Ageing Res Rev 78: 101636. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2022.101636
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. ↵
    1. Simon JA,
    2. Lange CA
    (2008) Roles of the EZH2 histone methyltransferase in cancer epigenetics. Mutat Res 647: 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2008.07.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Xiao N,
    2. Jani K,
    3. Morgan K,
    4. Okabe R,
    5. Cullen DE,
    6. Jesneck JL,
    7. Raffel GD
    (2012) Hematopoietic stem cells lacking Ott1 display aspects associated with aging and are unable to maintain quiescence during proliferative stress. Blood 119: 4898–4907. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-01-403089
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. ↵
    1. Tie G,
    2. Messina KE,
    3. Yan J,
    4. Messina JA,
    5. Messina LM
    (2014) Hypercholesterolemia induces oxidant stress that accelerates the ageing of hematopoietic stem cells. J Am Heart Assoc 3: e000241. doi:10.1161/JAHA.113.000241
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Nakamura S,
    2. Oshima M,
    3. Yuan J,
    4. Saraya A,
    5. Miyagi S,
    6. Konuma T,
    7. Yamazaki S,
    8. Osawa M,
    9. Nakauchi H,
    10. Koseki H, et al.
    (2012) Bmi1 confers resistance to oxidative stress on hematopoietic stem cells. PLoS One 7: e36209. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036209
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Yamashita M,
    2. Passegue E
    (2019) TNF-alpha coordinates hematopoietic stem cell survival and myeloid regeneration. Cell Stem Cell 25: 357–372 e357. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2019.05.019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  94. ↵
    1. Sera Y,
    2. Nakata Y,
    3. Ueda T,
    4. Yamasaki N,
    5. Koide S,
    6. Kobayashi H,
    7. Ikeda KI,
    8. Kobatake K,
    9. Iwasaki M,
    10. Oda H, et al.
    (2021) UTX maintains the functional integrity of the murine hematopoietic system by globally regulating aging-associated genes. Blood 137: 908–922. doi:10.1182/blood.2019001044
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Florez MA,
    2. Matatall KA,
    3. Jeong Y,
    4. Ortinau L,
    5. Shafer PW,
    6. Lynch AM,
    7. Jaksik R,
    8. Kimmel M,
    9. Park D,
    10. King KY
    (2020) Interferon gamma mediates hematopoietic stem cell activation and niche relocalization through BST2. Cell Rep 33: 108530. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108530
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  96. ↵
    1. Gutierrez-Martinez P,
    2. Hogdal L,
    3. Nagai M,
    4. Kruta M,
    5. Singh R,
    6. Sarosiek K,
    7. Nussenzweig A,
    8. Beerman I,
    9. Letai A,
    10. Rossi DJ
    (2018) Diminished apoptotic priming and ATM signalling confer a survival advantage onto aged haematopoietic stem cells in response to DNA damage. Nat Cell Biol 20: 413–421. doi:10.1038/s41556-018-0054-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. ↵
    1. Gu W,
    2. Roeder RG
    (1997) Activation of p53 sequence-specific DNA binding by acetylation of the p53 C-terminal domain. Cell 90: 595–606. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80521-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Zou Y,
    2. Jung KJ,
    3. Kim JW,
    4. Yu BP,
    5. Chung HY
    (2004) Alteration of soluble adhesion molecules during aging and their modulation by calorie restriction. FASEB J 18: 320–322. doi:10.1096/fj.03-0849fje
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Geng JG,
    2. Chen M,
    3. Chou KC
    (2004) P-selectin cell adhesion molecule in inflammation, thrombosis, cancer growth and metastasis. Curr Med Chem 11: 2153–2160. doi:10.2174/0929867043364720
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Zhang J,
    2. Lian Q,
    3. Zhu G,
    4. Zhou F,
    5. Sui L,
    6. Tan C,
    7. Mutalif RA,
    8. Navasankari R,
    9. Zhang Y,
    10. Tse HF, et al.
    (2011) A human iPSC model of Hutchinson Gilford Progeria reveals vascular smooth muscle and mesenchymal stem cell defects. Cell Stem Cell 8: 31–45. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2010.12.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Beerman I,
    2. Bhattacharya D,
    3. Zandi S,
    4. Sigvardsson M,
    5. Weissman IL,
    6. Bryder D,
    7. Rossi DJ
    (2010) Functionally distinct hematopoietic stem cells modulate hematopoietic lineage potential during aging by a mechanism of clonal expansion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 5465–5470. doi:10.1073/pnas.1000834107
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. ↵
    1. Brandl A,
    2. Meyer M,
    3. Bechmann V,
    4. Nerlich M,
    5. Angele P
    (2011) Oxidative stress induces senescence in human mesenchymal stem cells. Exp Cell Res 317: 1541–1547. doi:10.1016/j.yexcr.2011.02.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Borodkina A,
    2. Shatrova A,
    3. Abushik P,
    4. Nikolsky N,
    5. Burova E
    (2014) Interaction between ROS dependent DNA damage, mitochondria and p38 MAPK underlies senescence of human adult stem cells. Aging 6: 481–495. doi:10.18632/aging.100673
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Liu Y,
    2. Xiong Y,
    3. Xing F,
    4. Gao H,
    5. Wang X,
    6. He L,
    7. Ren C,
    8. Liu L,
    9. So KF,
    10. Xiao J
    (2017) Precise regulation of miR-210 is critical for the cellular homeostasis maintenance and transplantation efficacy enhancement of mesenchymal stem cells in acute liver failure therapy. Cell Transplant 26: 805–820. doi:10.3727/096368916x694274
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  105. ↵
    1. Guo W-T,
    2. Wang Y
    (2019) Dgcr8 knockout approaches to understand microRNA functions in vitro and in vivo. Cell Mol Life Sci CMLS 76: 1697–1711. doi:10.1007/s00018-019-03020-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  106. ↵
    1. Abramson J,
    2. Svensson-Ek M,
    3. Byrne B,
    4. Iwata S
    (2001) Structure of cytochrome c oxidase: A comparison of the bacterial and mitochondrial enzymes. Biochim Biophys Acta 1544: 1–9. doi:10.1016/s0167-4838(00)00241-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Mauney JR,
    2. Sjostorm S,
    3. Blumberg J,
    4. Horan R,
    5. O’Leary JP,
    6. Vunjak-Novakovic G,
    7. Volloch V,
    8. Kaplan DL
    (2004) Mechanical stimulation promotes osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells on 3-D partially demineralized bone scaffolds in vitro. Calci Tissue Int 74: 458–468. doi:10.1007/s00223-003-0104-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. ↵
    1. Bogeska R,
    2. Mikecin AM,
    3. Kaschutnig P,
    4. Fawaz M,
    5. Büchler-Schäff M,
    6. Le D,
    7. Ganuza M,
    8. Vollmer A,
    9. Paffenholz SV,
    10. Asada N, et al.
    (2022) Inflammatory exposure drives long-lived impairment of hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal activity and accelerated aging. Cell Stem Cell 29: 1273–1284.e8. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2022.06.012
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  109. ↵
    1. Klopp AH,
    2. Spaeth EL,
    3. Dembinski JL,
    4. Woodward WA,
    5. Munshi A,
    6. Meyn RE,
    7. Cox JD,
    8. Andreeff M,
    9. Marini FC
    (2007) Tumor irradiation increases the recruitment of circulating mesenchymal stem cells into the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Res 67: 11687–11695. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1406
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. ↵
    1. de Laval B,
    2. Maurizio J,
    3. Kandalla PK,
    4. Brisou G,
    5. Simonnet L,
    6. Huber C,
    7. Gimenez G,
    8. Matcovitch-Natan O,
    9. Reinhardt S,
    10. David E, et al.
    (2020) C/EBPbeta-dependent epigenetic memory induces trained immunity in hematopoietic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 26: 657–674.e8. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2020.01.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. ↵
    1. Spaeth EL,
    2. Dembinski JL,
    3. Sasser AK,
    4. Watson K,
    5. Klopp A,
    6. Hall B,
    7. Andreeff M,
    8. Marini F
    (2009) Mesenchymal stem cell transition to tumor-associated fibroblasts contributes to fibrovascular network expansion and tumor progression. PLoS One 4: e4992. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004992
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Lee HW,
    2. Suh JH,
    3. Kim AY,
    4. Lee YS,
    5. Park SY,
    6. Kim JB
    (2006) Histone deacetylase 1-mediated histone modification regulates osteoblast differentiation. Mol Endocrinol 20: 2432–2443. doi:10.1210/me.2006-0061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Steyn PJ,
    2. Dzobo K,
    3. Smith RI,
    4. Myburgh KH
    (2019) Interleukin-6 induces myogenic differentiation via JAK2-STAT3 signaling in mouse C2C12 myoblast cell line and primary human myoblasts. Int J Mol Sci 20: 5273. doi:10.3390/ijms20215273
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  114. ↵
    1. Noreen F,
    2. Röösli M,
    3. Gaj P,
    4. Pietrzak J,
    5. Weis S,
    6. Urfer P,
    7. Regula J,
    8. Schär P,
    9. Truninger K
    (2014) Modulation of age- and cancer-associated DNA methylation change in the healthy colon by aspirin and lifestyle. J Natl Cancer Inst 106: dju161. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju161
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. ↵
    1. Herberg M,
    2. Siebert S,
    3. Quaas M,
    4. Thalheim T,
    5. Rother K,
    6. Hussong M,
    7. Altmüller J,
    8. Kerner C,
    9. Galle J,
    10. Schweiger MR, et al.
    (2019) Loss of Msh2 and a single-radiation hit induce common, genome-wide, and persistent epigenetic changes in the intestine. Clin Epigenetics 11: 65. doi:10.1186/s13148-019-0639-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  116. ↵
    1. Khacho M,
    2. Harris R,
    3. Slack RS
    (2019) Mitochondria as central regulators of neural stem cell fate and cognitive function. Nat Rev Neurosci 20: 34–48. doi:10.1038/s41583-018-0091-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Mikkelsen TS,
    2. Ku M,
    3. Jaffe DB,
    4. Issac B,
    5. Lieberman E,
    6. Giannoukos G,
    7. Alvarez P,
    8. Brockman W,
    9. Kim TK,
    10. Koche RP, et al.
    (2007) Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 448: 553–560. doi:10.1038/nature06008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. ↵
    1. Bernstein BE,
    2. Meissner A,
    3. Lander ES
    (2007) The mammalian epigenome. Cell 128: 669–681. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.01.033
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. ↵
    1. Damal Villivalam S,
    2. Ebert SM,
    3. Lim HW,
    4. Kim J,
    5. You D,
    6. Jung BC,
    7. Palacios HH,
    8. Tcheau T,
    9. Adams CM,
    10. Kang S
    (2021) A necessary role of DNMT3A in endurance exercise by suppressing ALDH1L1-mediated oxidative stress. EMBO J 40: e106491. doi:10.15252/embj.2020106491
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  120. ↵
    1. Blanc RS,
    2. Vogel G,
    3. Chen T,
    4. Crist C,
    5. Richard S
    (2016) PRMT7 preserves satellite cell regenerative capacity. Cell Rep 14: 1528–1539. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2016.01.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. ↵
    1. Zhang T,
    2. Günther S,
    3. Looso M,
    4. Künne C,
    5. Krüger M,
    6. Kim J,
    7. Zhou Y,
    8. Braun T
    (2015) Prmt5 is a regulator of muscle stem cell expansion in adult mice. Nat Commun 6: 7140. doi:10.1038/ncomms8140
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Fukada S-I,
    2. Akimoto T,
    3. Sotiropoulos A
    (2020) Role of damage and management in muscle hypertrophy: Different behaviors of muscle stem cells in regeneration and hypertrophy. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res 1867: 118742. doi:10.1016/j.bbamcr.2020.118742
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  123. ↵
    1. Chung JH,
    2. Sloan S,
    3. Scherle P,
    4. Vaddi K,
    5. Sif S,
    6. Lapalombella R,
    7. Baiocchi RA
    (2019) PRMT5 is a key epigenetic regulator that promotes transcriptional activation in mantle cell lymphoma by regulating the lysine methyltransferase SETD7 and MLL1 activity. Blood 134: 2777. doi:10.1182/blood-2019-131020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  124. ↵
    1. Feng Y,
    2. Maity R,
    3. Whitelegge JP,
    4. Hadjikyriacou A,
    5. Li Z,
    6. Zurita-Lopez C,
    7. Al-Hadid Q,
    8. Clark AT,
    9. Bedford MT,
    10. Masson JY, et al.
    (2013) Mammalian protein arginine methyltransferase 7 (PRMT7) specifically targets RXR sites in lysine- and arginine-rich regions. J Biol Chem 288: 37010–37025. doi:10.1074/jbc.M113.525345
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  125. ↵
    1. Mattiucci D,
    2. Maurizi G,
    3. Leoni P,
    4. Poloni A
    (2018) Aging- and senescence-associated changes of mesenchymal stromal cells in myelodysplastic syndromes. Cell Transpl 27: 754–764. doi:10.1177/0963689717745890
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  126. ↵
    1. Essers MA,
    2. Offner S,
    3. Blanco-Bose WE,
    4. Waibler Z,
    5. Kalinke U,
    6. Duchosal MA,
    7. Trumpp A
    (2009) IFNalpha activates dormant haematopoietic stem cells in vivo. Nature 458: 904–908. doi:10.1038/nature07815
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. ↵
    1. Crosnier C,
    2. Stamataki D,
    3. Lewis J
    (2006) Organizing cell renewal in the intestine: Stem cells, signals and combinatorial control. Nat Rev Genet 7: 349–359. doi:10.1038/nrg1840
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. ↵
    1. Umar S
    (2010) Intestinal stem cells. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 12: 340–348. doi:10.1007/s11894-010-0130-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. ↵
    1. Ritsma L,
    2. Ellenbroek SIJ,
    3. Zomer A,
    4. Snippert HJ,
    5. de Sauvage FJ,
    6. Simons BD,
    7. Clevers H,
    8. van Rheenen J
    (2014) Intestinal crypt homeostasis revealed at single-stem-cell level by in vivo live imaging. Nature 507: 362–365. doi:10.1038/nature12972
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. ↵
    1. Snippert HJ,
    2. van der Flier LG,
    3. Sato T,
    4. van Es JH,
    5. van den Born M,
    6. Kroon-Veenboer C,
    7. Barker N,
    8. Klein AM,
    9. van Rheenen J,
    10. Simons BD, et al.
    (2010) Intestinal crypt homeostasis results from neutral competition between symmetrically dividing Lgr5 stem cells. Cell 143: 134–144. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.09.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. ↵
    1. Bjerknes M,
    2. Cheng H
    (1981) The stem-cell zone of the small intestinal epithelium. I. Evidence from Paneth cells in the adult mouse. Am J Anat 160: 51–63. doi:10.1002/aja.1001600105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. ↵
    1. Moore KA,
    2. Lemischka IR
    (2006) Stem cells and their niches. Science 311: 1880–1885. doi:10.1126/science.1110542
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  133. ↵
    1. Wright NA
    (2000) Epithelial stem cell repertoire in the gut: Clues to the origin of cell lineages, proliferative units and cancer. Int J Exp Pathol 81: 117–143. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2613.2000.00146.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. ↵
    1. Wang F,
    2. Scoville D,
    3. He XC,
    4. Mahe MM,
    5. Box A,
    6. Perry JM,
    7. Smith NR,
    8. Lei NY,
    9. Davies PS,
    10. Fuller MK, et al.
    (2013) Isolation and characterization of intestinal stem cells based on surface marker combinations and colony-formation assay. Gastroenterology 145: 383-395.e1-21. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.050
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. ↵
    1. Bjerknes M,
    2. Cheng H
    (1999) Clonal analysis of mouse intestinal epithelial progenitors. Gastroenterology 116: 7–14. doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(99)70222-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. ↵
    1. Potten CS
    (1977) Extreme sensitivity of some intestinal crypt cells to X and gamma irradiation. Nature 269: 518–521. doi:10.1038/269518a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. ↵
    1. Cheng H
    (1974) Origin, differentiation and renewal of the four main epithelial cell types in the mouse small intestine. II. Mucous cells. Am J Anat 141: 481–501. doi:10.1002/aja.1001410404
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. ↵
    1. Barker N,
    2. van Es JH,
    3. Kuipers J,
    4. Kujala P,
    5. van den Born M,
    6. Cozijnsen M,
    7. Haegebarth A,
    8. Korving J,
    9. Begthel H,
    10. Peters PJ, et al.
    (2007) Identification of stem cells in small intestine and colon by marker gene Lgr5. Nature 449: 1003–1007. doi:10.1038/nature06196
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. ↵
    1. Sato T,
    2. Vries RG,
    3. Snippert HJ,
    4. van de Wetering M,
    5. Barker N,
    6. Stange DE,
    7. van Es JH,
    8. Abo A,
    9. Kujala P,
    10. Peters PJ, et al.
    (2009) Single Lgr5 stem cells build crypt-villus structures in vitro without a mesenchymal niche. Nature 459: 262–265. doi:10.1038/nature07935
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. ↵
    1. Sangiorgi E,
    2. Capecchi MR
    (2008) Bmi1 is expressed in vivo in intestinal stem cells. Nat Genet 40: 915–920. doi:10.1038/ng.165
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. ↵
    1. Yan KS,
    2. Chia LA,
    3. Li X,
    4. Ootani A,
    5. Su J,
    6. Lee JY,
    7. Su N,
    8. Luo Y,
    9. Heilshorn SC,
    10. Amieva MR, et al.
    (2012) The intestinal stem cell markers Bmi1 and Lgr5 identify two functionally distinct populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 466–471. doi:10.1073/pnas.1118857109
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  142. ↵
    1. Takeda N,
    2. Jain R,
    3. LeBoeuf MR,
    4. Wang Q,
    5. Lu MM,
    6. Epstein JA
    (2011) Interconversion between intestinal stem cell populations in distinct niches. Science 334: 1420–1424. doi:10.1126/science.1213214
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  143. ↵
    1. Powell AE,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Li Y,
    4. Poulin EJ,
    5. Means AL,
    6. Washington MK,
    7. Higginbotham JN,
    8. Juchheim A,
    9. Prasad N,
    10. Levy SE, et al.
    (2012) The pan-ErbB negative regulator Lrig1 is an intestinal stem cell marker that functions as a tumor suppressor. Cell 149: 146–158. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. ↵
    1. Breault DT,
    2. Min IM,
    3. Carlone DL,
    4. Farilla LG,
    5. Ambruzs DM,
    6. Henderson DE,
    7. Algra S,
    8. Montgomery RK,
    9. Wagers AJ,
    10. Hole N
    (2008) Generation of mTert-GFP mice as a model to identify and study tissue progenitor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 10420–10425. doi:10.1073/pnas.0804800105
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  145. ↵
    1. Itzkovitz S,
    2. Lyubimova A,
    3. Blat IC,
    4. Maynard M,
    5. van Es J,
    6. Lees J,
    7. Jacks T,
    8. Clevers H,
    9. van Oudenaarden A
    (2011) Single-molecule transcript counting of stem-cell markers in the mouse intestine. Nat Cell Biol 14: 106–114. doi:10.1038/ncb2384
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. ↵
    1. Conboy IM,
    2. Rando TA
    (2005) Aging, stem cells and tissue regeneration: Lessons from muscle. Cell Cycle 4: 407–410. doi:10.4161/cc.4.3.1518
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  147. ↵
    1. Sambasivan R,
    2. Tajbakhsh S
    (2015) Adult skeletal muscle stem cells. Results Probl Cell Differ 56: 191–213. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44608-9_9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. ↵
    1. Uezumi A,
    2. Nakatani M,
    3. Ikemoto-Uezumi M,
    4. Yamamoto N,
    5. Morita M,
    6. Yamaguchi A,
    7. Yamada H,
    8. Kasai T,
    9. Masuda S,
    10. Narita A, et al.
    (2016) Cell-surface protein profiling identifies distinctive markers of progenitor cells in human skeletal muscle. Stem Cell Rep 7: 263–278. doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.07.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  149. ↵
    1. Maesner CC,
    2. Almada AE,
    3. Wagers AJ
    (2016) Established cell surface markers efficiently isolate highly overlapping populations of skeletal muscle satellite cells by fluorescence-activated cell sorting. Skeletal Muscle 6: 35. doi:10.1186/s13395-016-0106-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  150. ↵
    1. Lazure F,
    2. Blackburn DM,
    3. Corchado AH,
    4. Sahinyan K,
    5. Karam N,
    6. Sharanek A,
    7. Nguyen D,
    8. Lepper C,
    9. Najafabadi HS,
    10. Perkins TJ, et al.
    (2020) Myf6/MRF4 is a myogenic niche regulator required for the maintenance of the muscle stem cell pool. EMBO Rep 21: e49499. doi:10.15252/embr.201949499
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  151. ↵
    1. Mosser DD,
    2. Caron AW,
    3. Bourget L,
    4. Denis-Larose C,
    5. Massie B
    (1997) Role of the human heat shock protein hsp70 in protection against stress-induced apoptosis. Mol Cell Biol 17: 5317–5327. doi:10.1128/mcb.17.9.5317
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  152. ↵
    1. Schworer S,
    2. Becker F,
    3. Feller C,
    4. Baig AH,
    5. Köber U,
    6. Henze H,
    7. Kraus JM,
    8. Xin B,
    9. Lechel A,
    10. Lipka DB, et al.
    (2016) Epigenetic stress responses induce muscle stem-cell ageing by Hoxa9 developmental signals. Nature 540: 428–432. doi:10.1038/nature20603
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  153. ↵
    1. Pilzecker B,
    2. Buoninfante OA,
    3. van den Berk P,
    4. Lancini C,
    5. Song JY,
    6. Citterio E,
    7. Jacobs H
    (2017) DNA damage tolerance in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114: E6875-e6883. doi:10.1073/pnas.1706508114
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  154. ↵
    1. Singh S,
    2. Jakubison B,
    3. Keller JR
    (2020) Protection of hematopoietic stem cells from stress-induced exhaustion and aging. Curr Opin Hematol 27: 225–231. doi:10.1097/MOH.0000000000000586
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  155. ↵
    1. Beerman I,
    2. Seita J,
    3. Inlay MA,
    4. Weissman IL,
    5. Rossi DJ
    (2014) Quiescent hematopoietic stem cells accumulate DNA damage during aging that is repaired upon entry into cell cycle. Cell Stem Cell 15: 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2014.04.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. ↵
    1. Xiao N,
    2. Laha S,
    3. Das SP,
    4. Morlock K,
    5. Jesneck JL,
    6. Raffel GD
    (2015) Ott1 (Rbm15) regulates thrombopoietin response in hematopoietic stem cells through alternative splicing of c-Mpl. Blood 125: 941–948. doi:10.1182/blood-2014-08-593392
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  157. ↵
    1. Blackledge NP,
    2. Klose RJ
    (2021) The molecular principles of gene regulation by polycomb repressive complexes. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 22: 815–833. doi:10.1038/s41580-021-00398-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  158. ↵
    1. Klusmann I,
    2. Wohlberedt K,
    3. Magerhans A,
    4. Teloni F,
    5. Korbel JO,
    6. Altmeyer M,
    7. Dobbelstein M
    (2018) Chromatin modifiers Mdm2 and RNF2 prevent RNA:DNA hybrids that impair DNA replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115: E11311-e11320. doi:10.1073/pnas.1809592115
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  159. ↵
    1. Piunti A,
    2. Rossi A,
    3. Cerutti A,
    4. Albert M,
    5. Jammula S,
    6. Scelfo A,
    7. Cedrone L,
    8. Fragola G,
    9. Olsson L,
    10. Koseki H, et al.
    (2014) Polycomb proteins control proliferation and transformation independently of cell cycle checkpoints by regulating DNA replication. Nat Commun 5: 3649. doi:10.1038/ncomms4649
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. ↵
    1. Spaapen F,
    2. Eijssen LMT,
    3. Adriaens ME,
    4. Welting TJ,
    5. Prickaerts P,
    6. Salvaing J,
    7. Dahlmans VEH,
    8. Surtel DAM,
    9. Kruitz F,
    10. Kuijer R, et al.
    (2017) PRC1 prevents replication stress during chondrogenic transit amplification. Epigenomes 1: 22. doi:10.3390/epigenomes1030022
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  161. ↵
    1. Duan R,
    2. Du W,
    3. Guo W
    (2020) EZH2: A novel target for cancer treatment. J Hematol Oncol 13: 104. doi:10.1186/s13045-020-00937-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  162. ↵
    1. Villeponteau B
    (1997) The heterochromatin loss model of aging. Exp Gerontol 32: 383–394. doi:10.1016/S0531-5565(96)00155-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  163. ↵
    1. Kamminga LM,
    2. Bystrykh LV,
    3. de Boer A,
    4. Houwer S,
    5. Douma J,
    6. Weersing E,
    7. Dontje B,
    8. de Haan G
    (2006) The polycomb group gene Ezh2 prevents hematopoietic stem cell exhaustion. Blood 107: 2170–2179. doi:10.1182/blood-2005-09-3585
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  164. ↵
    1. Bannister AJ,
    2. Kouzarides T
    (1996) The CBP co-activator is a histone acetyltransferase. Nature 384: 641–643. doi:10.1038/384641a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  165. ↵
    1. Akinsiku OE,
    2. Soremekun OS,
    3. Soliman MES
    (2021) Update and potential opportunities in CBP [cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) response element-binding protein (CREB)-Binding protein] research using computational techniques. Protein J 40: 19–27. doi:10.1007/s10930-020-09951-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  166. ↵
    1. Bedford DC,
    2. Kasper LH,
    3. Fukuyama T,
    4. Brindle PK
    (2010) Target gene context influences the transcriptional requirement for the KAT3 family of CBP and p300 histone acetyltransferases. Epigenetics 5: 9–15. doi:10.4161/epi.5.1.10449
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. ↵
    1. Dyson HJ,
    2. Wright PE
    (2016) Role of intrinsic protein disorder in the function and interactions of the transcriptional coactivators CREB-binding protein (CBP) and p300. J Biol Chem 291: 6714–6722. doi:10.1074/jbc.R115.692020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  168. ↵
    1. Vo N,
    2. Goodman RH
    (2001) CREB-binding protein and p300 in transcriptional regulation. J Biol Chem 276: 13505–13508. doi:10.1074/jbc.R000025200
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  169. ↵
    1. Chan HM,
    2. La Thangue NB
    (2001) p300/CBP proteins: HATs for transcriptional bridges and scaffolds. J Cell Sci 114: 2363–2373. doi:10.1242/jcs.114.13.2363
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  170. ↵
    1. Chan WI,
    2. Hannah RL,
    3. Dawson MA,
    4. Pridans C,
    5. Foster D,
    6. Joshi A,
    7. Göttgens B,
    8. Van Deursen JM,
    9. Huntly BJP
    (2011) The transcriptional coactivator Cbp regulates self-renewal and differentiation in adult hematopoietic stem cells. Mol Cell Biol 31: 5046–5060. doi:10.1128/MCB.05830-11
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  171. ↵
    1. Wilson NK,
    2. Foster SD,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Knezevic K,
    5. Schütte J,
    6. Kaimakis P,
    7. Chilarska PM,
    8. Kinston S,
    9. Ouwehand WH,
    10. Dzierzak E, et al.
    (2010) Combinatorial transcriptional control in blood stem/progenitor cells: Genome-wide analysis of ten major transcriptional regulators. Cell Stem Cell 7: 532–544. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2010.07.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  172. ↵
    1. Zhou S,
    2. Greenberger JS,
    3. Epperly MW,
    4. Goff JP,
    5. Adler C,
    6. Leboff MS,
    7. Glowacki J
    (2008) Age-related intrinsic changes in human bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and their differentiation to osteoblasts. Aging Cell 7: 335–343. doi:10.1111/j.1474-9726.2008.00377.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. ↵
    1. Wang S,
    2. Hu B,
    3. Ding Z,
    4. Dang Y,
    5. Wu J,
    6. Li D,
    7. Liu X,
    8. Xiao B,
    9. Zhang W,
    10. Ren R, et al.
    (2018) ATF6 safeguards organelle homeostasis and cellular aging in human mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Discov 4: 2. doi:10.1038/s41421-017-0003-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. ↵
    1. Zhou T,
    2. Yuan Z,
    3. Weng J,
    4. Pei D,
    5. Du X,
    6. He C,
    7. Lai P
    (2021) Challenges and advances in clinical applications of mesenchymal stromal cells. J Hematol Oncol 14: 24. doi:10.1186/s13045-021-01037-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  175. ↵
    1. Thalheim T,
    2. Herberg M,
    3. Galle J
    (2018) Linking DNA damage and age-related promoter DNA hyper-methylation in the intestine. Genes (Basel) 9: 17. doi:10.3390/genes9010017
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  176. ↵
    1. Maegawa S,
    2. Hinkal G,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Shen L,
    5. Zhang L,
    6. Zhang J,
    7. Zhang N,
    8. Liang S,
    9. Donehower LA,
    10. Issa JPJ
    (2010) Widespread and tissue specific age-related DNA methylation changes in mice. Genome Res 20: 332–340. doi:10.1101/gr.096826.109
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  177. ↵
    1. Thalheim T,
    2. Hopp L,
    3. Herberg M,
    4. Siebert S,
    5. Kerner C,
    6. Quaas M,
    7. Schweiger MR,
    8. Aust G,
    9. Galle J
    (2020) Fighting against promoter DNA hyper-methylation: Protective histone modification profiles of stress-resistant intestinal stem cells. Int J Mol Sci 21: 1941. doi:10.3390/ijms21061941
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  178. ↵
    1. Teschendorff AE,
    2. Menon U,
    3. Gentry-Maharaj A,
    4. Ramus SJ,
    5. Weisenberger DJ,
    6. Shen H,
    7. Campan M,
    8. Noushmehr H,
    9. Bell CG,
    10. Maxwell AP, et al.
    (2010) Age-dependent DNA methylation of genes that are suppressed in stem cells is a hallmark of cancer. Genome Res 20: 440–446. doi:10.1101/gr.103606.109
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  179. ↵
    1. Schlesinger Y,
    2. Straussman R,
    3. Keshet I,
    4. Farkash S,
    5. Hecht M,
    6. Zimmerman J,
    7. Eden E,
    8. Yakhini Z,
    9. Ben-Shushan E,
    10. Reubinoff BE, et al.
    (2007) Polycomb-mediated methylation on Lys27 of histone H3 pre-marks genes for de novo methylation in cancer. Nat Genet 39: 232–236. doi:10.1038/ng1950
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  180. ↵
    1. Nishida N,
    2. Arizumi T,
    3. Takita M,
    4. Kitai S,
    5. Yada N,
    6. Hagiwara S,
    7. Inoue T,
    8. Minami Y,
    9. Ueshima K,
    10. Sakurai T, et al.
    (2013) Reactive oxygen species induce epigenetic instability through the formation of 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine in human hepatocarcinogenesis. Dig Dis 31: 459–466. doi:10.1159/000355245
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  181. ↵
    1. Yasui M,
    2. Kanemaru Y,
    3. Kamoshita N,
    4. Suzuki T,
    5. Arakawa T,
    6. Honma M
    (2014) Tracing the fates of site-specifically introduced DNA adducts in the human genome. DNA Repair 15: 11–20. doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.01.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  182. ↵
    1. Coluzzi E,
    2. Colamartino M,
    3. Cozzi R,
    4. Leone S,
    5. Meneghini C,
    6. O’Callaghan N,
    7. Sgura A
    (2014) Oxidative stress induces persistent telomeric DNA damage responsible for nuclear morphology change in mammalian cells. PLoS One 9: e110963. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110963
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  183. ↵
    1. Tchirkov A,
    2. Lansdorp PM
    (2003) Role of oxidative stress in telomere shortening in cultured fibroblasts from normal individuals and patients with ataxia-telangiectasia. Hum Mol Genet 12: 227–232. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddg023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  184. ↵
    1. Aires R,
    2. Porto ML,
    3. de Assis LM,
    4. Pereira PAN,
    5. Carvalho GR,
    6. Côco LZ,
    7. Vasquez EC,
    8. Pereira TMC,
    9. Campagnaro BP,
    10. Meyrelles SS
    (2021) DNA damage and aging on hematopoietic stem cells: Impact of oxidative stress in ApoE(−)/(−) mice. Exp Gerontol 156: 111607. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2021.111607
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  185. ↵
    1. Jonson I,
    2. Ougland R,
    3. Klungland A,
    4. Larsen E
    (2013) Oxidative stress causes DNA triplet expansion in Huntington's disease mouse embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Res 11: 1264–1271. doi:10.1016/j.scr.2013.08.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  186. ↵
    1. Kieroń M,
    2. Żekanowski C,
    3. Falk A,
    4. Wężyk M
    (2019) Oxidative DNA damage signalling in neural stem cells in Alzheimer's disease. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2019: 2149812. doi:10.1155/2019/2149812
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  187. ↵
    1. Xu D,
    2. Liu L,
    3. Zhao Y,
    4. Yang L,
    5. Cheng J,
    6. Hua R,
    7. Zhang Z,
    8. Li Q
    (2020) Melatonin protects mouse testes from palmitic acid-induced lipotoxicity by attenuating oxidative stress and DNA damage in a SIRT1-dependent manner. J Pineal Res 69: e12690. doi:10.1111/jpi.12690
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  188. ↵
    1. Zhang G,
    2. Ma J,
    3. Wu Z,
    4. Cao G,
    5. Song R,
    6. Sun R,
    7. Chen A,
    8. Wang Y,
    9. Yin S
    (2022) ACOT7 protects epidermal stem cells against lipid peroxidation. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 58: 549–557. doi:10.1007/s11626-022-00703-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  189. ↵
    1. Khatri R,
    2. Krishnan S,
    3. Roy S,
    4. Chattopadhyay S,
    5. Kumar V,
    6. Mukhopadhyay A
    (2016) Reactive oxygen species limit the ability of bone marrow stromal cells to support hematopoietic reconstitution in aging mice. Stem Cell Dev 25: 948–958. doi:10.1089/scd.2015.0391
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  190. ↵
    1. Woolthuis CM,
    2. Mariani N,
    3. Verkaik-Schakel RN,
    4. Brouwers-Vos AZ,
    5. Schuringa JJ,
    6. Vellenga E,
    7. de Wolf JTM,
    8. Huls G
    (2014) Aging impairs long-term hematopoietic regeneration after autologous stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 20: 865–871. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.03.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  191. ↵
    1. Simon JA,
    2. Kingston RE
    (2009) Mechanisms of polycomb gene silencing: Knowns and unknowns. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10: 697–708. doi:10.1038/nrm2763
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  192. ↵
    1. Iwama A,
    2. Oguro H,
    3. Negishi M,
    4. Kato Y,
    5. Morita Y,
    6. Tsukui H,
    7. Ema H,
    8. Kamijo T,
    9. Katoh-Fukui Y,
    10. Koseki H, et al.
    (2004) Enhanced self-renewal of hematopoietic stem cells mediated by the polycomb gene product Bmi-1. Immunity 21: 843–851. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2004.11.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  193. ↵
    1. Lessard J,
    2. Sauvageau G
    (2003) Bmi-1 determines the proliferative capacity of normal and leukaemic stem cells. Nature 423: 255–260. doi:10.1038/nature01572
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  194. ↵
    1. Oguro H,
    2. Yuan J,
    3. Ichikawa H,
    4. Ikawa T,
    5. Yamazaki S,
    6. Kawamoto H,
    7. Nakauchi H,
    8. Iwama A
    (2010) Poised lineage specification in multipotential hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells by the polycomb protein Bmi1. Cell stem cell 6: 279–286. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2010.01.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  195. ↵
    1. Park IK,
    2. Qian D,
    3. Kiel M,
    4. Becker MW,
    5. Pihalja M,
    6. Weissman IL,
    7. Morrison SJ,
    8. Clarke MF
    (2003) Bmi-1 is required for maintenance of adult self-renewing haematopoietic stem cells. Nature 423: 302–305. doi:10.1038/nature01587
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  196. ↵
    1. Liu J,
    2. Cao L,
    3. Chen J,
    4. Song S,
    5. Lee IH,
    6. Quijano C,
    7. Liu H,
    8. Keyvanfar K,
    9. Chen H,
    10. Cao LY, et al.
    (2009) Bmi1 regulates mitochondrial function and the DNA damage response pathway. Nature 459: 387–392. doi:10.1038/nature08040
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  197. ↵
    1. Ho TT,
    2. Warr MR,
    3. Adelman ER,
    4. Lansinger OM,
    5. Flach J,
    6. Verovskaya EV,
    7. Figueroa ME,
    8. Passegué E
    (2017) Autophagy maintains the metabolism and function of young and old stem cells. Nature 543: 205–210. doi:10.1038/nature21388
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  198. ↵
    1. Mejia-Ramirez E,
    2. Florian MC
    (2020) Understanding intrinsic hematopoietic stem cell aging. Haematologica 105: 22–37. doi:10.3324/haematol.2018.211342
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  199. ↵
    1. Firsanov DV,
    2. Solovjeva LV,
    3. Svetlova MP
    (2011) H2AX phosphorylation at the sites of DNA double-strand breaks in cultivated mammalian cells and tissues. Clin Epigenetics 2: 283–297. doi:10.1007/s13148-011-0044-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  200. ↵
    1. Xu J,
    2. Huang Z,
    3. Lin L,
    4. Fu M,
    5. Gao Y,
    6. Shen Y,
    7. Zou Y,
    8. Sun A,
    9. Qian J,
    10. Ge J
    (2014) miR-210 over-expression enhances mesenchymal stem cell survival in an oxidative stress environment through antioxidation and c-Met pathway activation. Sci China Life Sci 57: 989–997. doi:10.1007/s11427-014-4725-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  201. ↵
    1. Lai L,
    2. Yan L,
    3. Gao S,
    4. Hu CL,
    5. Ge H,
    6. Davidow A,
    7. Park M,
    8. Bravo C,
    9. Iwatsubo K,
    10. Ishikawa Y, et al.
    (2013) Type 5 adenylyl cyclase increases oxidative stress by transcriptional regulation of manganese superoxide dismutase via the SIRT1/FoxO3a pathway. Circulation 127: 1692–1701. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.112.001212
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  202. ↵
    1. Wen YD,
    2. Wang H,
    3. Kho SH,
    4. Rinkiko S,
    5. Sheng X,
    6. Shen HM,
    7. Zhu YZ
    (2013) Hydrogen sulfide protects HUVECs against hydrogen peroxide induced mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress. PLoS One 8: e53147. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053147
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  203. ↵
    1. Xu J,
    2. Qian J,
    3. Xie X,
    4. Lin L,
    5. Zou Y,
    6. Fu M,
    7. Huang Z,
    8. Zhang G,
    9. Su Y,
    10. Ge J
    (2012) High density lipoprotein protects mesenchymal stem cells from oxidative stress-induced apoptosis via activation of the PI3K/Akt pathway and suppression of reactive oxygen species. Int J Mol Sci 13: 17104–17120. doi:10.3390/ijms131217104
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  204. ↵
    1. Jung Y-D,
    2. Park S-K,
    3. Kang D,
    4. Hwang S,
    5. Kang M-H,
    6. Hong S-W,
    7. Moon J-H,
    8. Shin J-S,
    9. Jin D-H,
    10. You D, et al.
    (2020) Epigenetic regulation of miR-29a/miR-30c/DNMT3A axis controls SOD2 and mitochondrial oxidative stress in human mesenchymal stem cells. Redox Biol 37: 101716. doi:10.1016/j.redox.2020.101716
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  205. ↵
    1. Sun X,
    2. Wang Z,
    3. Cong X,
    4. Lv Y,
    5. Li Z,
    6. Rong L,
    7. Yang T,
    8. Yu D
    (2021) Mitochondrial gene COX2 methylation and downregulation is a biomarker of aging in heart mesenchymal stem cells. Int J Mol Med 47: 161–170. doi:10.3892/ijmm.2020.4799
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  206. ↵
    1. Mishra M,
    2. Kowluru RA
    (2015) Epigenetic modification of mitochondrial DNA in the development of diabetic retinopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56: 5133–5142. doi:10.1167/iovs.15-16937
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  207. ↵
    1. Jing H,
    2. Liao L,
    3. An Y,
    4. Su X,
    5. Liu S,
    6. Shuai Y,
    7. Zhang X,
    8. Jin Y
    (2016) Suppression of EZH2 prevents the shift of osteoporotic MSC fate to adipocyte and enhances bone formation during osteoporosis. Mol Ther 24: 217–229. doi:10.1038/mt.2015.152
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  208. ↵
    1. Yuan TF,
    2. Gu S,
    3. Shan C,
    4. Marchado S,
    5. Arias-Carrion O
    (2015) Oxidative stress and adult neurogenesis. Stem Cell Rev Rep 11: 706–709. doi:10.1007/s12015-015-9603-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  209. ↵
    1. Taupin P
    (2010) A dual activity of ROS and oxidative stress on adult neurogenesis and Alzheimer's disease. Cent Nerv Syst Agents Med Chem 10: 16–21. doi:10.2174/187152410790780172
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  210. ↵
    1. Hwang I,
    2. Tang D,
    3. Paik J
    (2021) Oxidative stress sensing and response in neural stem cell fate. Free Radic Biol Med 169: 74–83. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2021.03.043
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  211. ↵
    1. Park J-S,
    2. Lee SH,
    3. Na HJ,
    4. Pyo JH,
    5. Kim YS,
    6. Yoo MA
    (2012) Age- and oxidative stress-induced DNA damage in Drosophila intestinal stem cells as marked by gamma-H2AX. Exp Gerontol 47: 401–405. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2012.02.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  212. ↵
    1. Ayoub N,
    2. Jeyasekharan AD,
    3. Bernal JA,
    4. Venkitaraman AR
    (2009) Paving the way for H2AX phosphorylation: Chromatin changes in the DNA damage response. Cell Cycle 8: 1494–1500. doi:10.4161/cc.8.10.8501
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  213. ↵
    1. Srivastava N,
    2. Gochhait S,
    3. de Boer P,
    4. Bamezai RNK
    (2009) Role of H2AX in DNA damage response and human cancers. Mutat Res 681: 180–188. doi:10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.08.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  214. ↵
    1. Xu Y,
    2. Price BD
    (2011) Chromatin dynamics and the repair of DNA double strand breaks. Cell Cycle 10: 261–267. doi:10.4161/cc.10.2.14543
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  215. ↵
    1. Henríquez-Olguin C,
    2. Knudsen JR,
    3. Raun SH,
    4. Li Z,
    5. Dalbram E,
    6. Treebak JT,
    7. Sylow L,
    8. Holmdahl R,
    9. Richter EA,
    10. Jaimovich E, et al.
    (2019) Cytosolic ROS production by NADPH oxidase 2 regulates muscle glucose uptake during exercise. Nat Commun 10: 4623. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12523-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  216. ↵
    1. Asp P,
    2. Blum R,
    3. Vethantham V,
    4. Parisi F,
    5. Micsinai M,
    6. Cheng J,
    7. Bowman C,
    8. Kluger Y,
    9. Dynlacht BD
    (2011) Genome-wide remodeling of the epigenetic landscape during myogenic differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: E149–E158. doi:10.1073/pnas.1102223108
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  217. ↵
    1. Robson LG,
    2. Di Foggia V,
    3. Radunovic A,
    4. Bird K,
    5. Zhang X,
    6. Marino S
    (2011) Bmi1 is expressed in postnatal myogenic satellite cells, controls their maintenance and plays an essential role in repeated muscle regeneration. PLoS One 6: e27116. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027116
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  218. ↵
    1. Di Foggia V,
    2. Zhang X,
    3. Licastro D,
    4. Gerli MFM,
    5. Phadke R,
    6. Muntoni F,
    7. Mourikis P,
    8. Tajbakhsh S,
    9. Ellis M,
    10. Greaves LC, et al.
    (2014) Bmi1 enhances skeletal muscle regeneration through MT1-mediated oxidative stress protection in a mouse model of dystrophinopathy. J Exp Med 211: 2617–2633. doi:10.1084/jem.20140317
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  219. ↵
    1. Dibenedetto S,
    2. Niklison-Chirou M,
    3. Cabrera CP,
    4. Ellis M,
    5. Robson LG,
    6. Knopp P,
    7. Tedesco FS,
    8. Ragazzi M,
    9. Di Foggia V,
    10. Barnes MR, et al.
    (2017) Enhanced energetic state and protection from oxidative stress in human myoblasts overexpressing BMI1. Stem Cell Rep 9: 528–542. doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.06.009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  220. ↵
    1. Winterbourn CC,
    2. Hampton MB
    (2015) Redox biology: Signaling via a peroxiredoxin sensor. Nat Chem Biol 11: 5–6. doi:10.1038/nchembio.1722
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  221. ↵
    1. Matthews BD,
    2. Overby DR,
    3. Mannix R,
    4. Ingber DE
    (2006) Cellular adaptation to mechanical stress: Role of integrins, Rho, cytoskeletal tension and mechanosensitive ion channels. J Cell Sci 119: 508–518. doi:10.1242/jcs.02760
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  222. ↵
    1. Damaraju S,
    2. Matyas JR,
    3. Rancourt DE,
    4. Duncan NA
    (2014) The effect of mechanical stimulation on mineralization in differentiating osteoblasts in collagen-I scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A 20: 3142–3153. doi:10.1089/ten.TEA.2014.0026
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  223. ↵
    1. Damaraju S,
    2. Matyas JR,
    3. Rancourt DE,
    4. Duncan NA
    (2015) The role of gap junctions and mechanical loading on mineral formation in a collagen-I scaffold seeded with osteoprogenitor cells. Tissue Eng Part A 21: 1720–1732. doi:10.1089/ten.TEA.2014.0522
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  224. ↵
    1. David V,
    2. Martin A,
    3. Lafage-Proust MH,
    4. Malaval L,
    5. Peyroche S,
    6. Jones DB,
    7. Vico L,
    8. Guignandon A
    (2007) Mechanical loading down-regulates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma in bone marrow stromal cells and favors osteoblastogenesis at the expense of adipogenesis. Endocrinology 148: 2553–2562. doi:10.1210/en.2006-1704
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  225. ↵
    1. Chen JC,
    2. Chua M,
    3. Bellon RB,
    4. Jacobs CR
    (2015) Epigenetic changes during mechanically induced osteogenic lineage commitment. J Biomech Eng 137: 020902. doi:10.1115/1.4029551
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  226. ↵
    1. Wang C,
    2. Shan S,
    3. Wang C,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Li J,
    6. Hu G,
    7. Dai K,
    8. Li Q,
    9. Zhang X
    (2017) Mechanical stimulation promote the osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow stromal cells through epigenetic regulation of Sonic Hedgehog. Exp Cell Res 352: 346–356. doi:10.1016/j.yexcr.2017.02.021
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  227. ↵
    1. ten Haaf A,
    2. Franken L,
    3. Heymann C,
    4. von Serenyi S,
    5. Cornelissen C,
    6. de Hoon JPJ,
    7. Veeck J,
    8. Lüscher B,
    9. Knüchel R,
    10. Dahl E
    (2011) Paradox of sonic hedgehog (SHH) transcriptional regulation: Alternative transcription initiation overrides the effect of downstream promoter DNA methylation. Epigenetics 6: 465–477. doi:10.4161/epi.6.4.14952
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  228. ↵
    1. Yakushiji N,
    2. Suzuki M,
    3. Satoh A,
    4. Sagai T,
    5. Shiroishi T,
    6. Kobayashi H,
    7. Sasaki H,
    8. Ide H,
    9. Tamura K
    (2007) Correlation between Shh expression and DNA methylation status of the limb-specific Shh enhancer region during limb regeneration in amphibians. Dev Biol 312: 171–182. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.09.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  229. ↵
    1. Wang L,
    2. You X,
    3. Ruan D,
    4. Shao R,
    5. Dai HQ,
    6. Shen W,
    7. Xu GL,
    8. Liu W,
    9. Zou W
    (2022) TET enzymes regulate skeletal development through increasing chromatin accessibility of RUNX2 target genes. Nat Commun 13: 4709. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32138-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  230. ↵
    1. Maroni P,
    2. Brini AT,
    3. Arrigoni E,
    4. de Girolamo L,
    5. Niada S,
    6. Matteucci E,
    7. Bendinelli P,
    8. Desiderio MA
    (2012) Chemical and genetic blockade of HDACs enhances osteogenic differentiation of human adipose tissue-derived stem cells by oppositely affecting osteogenic and adipogenic transcription factors. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 428: 271–277. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.10.044
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  231. ↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Wang CD,
    3. Zhang N,
    4. Tong WX,
    5. Zhang YF,
    6. Shan SZ,
    7. Zhang XL,
    8. Li QF
    (2016) Mechanical stimulation orchestrates the osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells by regulating HDAC1. Cell Death Dis 7: e2221. doi:10.1038/cddis.2016.112
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  232. ↵
    1. Shimizu T,
    2. Tanaka T,
    3. Iso T,
    4. Doi H,
    5. Sato H,
    6. Kawai-Kowase K,
    7. Arai M,
    8. Kurabayashi M
    (2009) Notch signaling induces osteogenic differentiation and mineralization of vascular smooth muscle cells: Role of Msx2 gene induction via notch-RBP-Jk signaling. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 29: 1104–1111. doi:10.1161/atvbaha.109.187856
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  233. ↵
    1. Zhu F,
    2. Sweetwyne MT,
    3. Hankenson KD
    (2013) PKCδ is required for Jagged-1 induction of human mesenchymal stem cell osteogenic differentiation. Stem Cells 31: 1181–1192. doi:10.1002/stem.1353
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  234. ↵
    1. Aguilar-Agon KW,
    2. Capel AJ,
    3. Fleming JW,
    4. Player DJ,
    5. Martin NRW,
    6. Lewis MP
    (2021) Mechanical loading of tissue engineered skeletal muscle prevents dexamethasone induced myotube atrophy. J Muscle Res Cell Motil 42: 149–159. doi:10.1007/s10974-020-09589-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  235. ↵
    1. Aguilar-Agon KW,
    2. Capel AJ,
    3. Martin NRW,
    4. Player DJ,
    5. Lewis MP
    (2019) Mechanical loading stimulates hypertrophy in tissue-engineered skeletal muscle: Molecular and phenotypic responses. J Cell Physiol 234: 23547–23558. doi:10.1002/jcp.28923
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  236. ↵
    1. Liu F,
    2. Xu Y,
    3. Lu X,
    4. Hamard PJ,
    5. Karl DL,
    6. Man N,
    7. Mookhtiar AK,
    8. Martinez C,
    9. Lossos IS,
    10. Sun J, et al.
    (2020) PRMT5-mediated histone arginine methylation antagonizes transcriptional repression by polycomb complex PRC2. Nucleic Acids Res 48: 2956–2968. doi:10.1093/nar/gkaa065
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  237. ↵
    1. Zurita-Lopez CI,
    2. Sandberg T,
    3. Kelly R,
    4. Clarke SG
    (2012) Human protein arginine methyltransferase 7 (PRMT7) is a type III enzyme forming ω-NG-monomethylated arginine residues. J Biol Chem 287: 7859–7870. doi:10.1074/jbc.M111.336271
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  238. ↵
    1. Evano B,
    2. Tajbakhsh S
    (2018) Skeletal muscle stem cells in comfort and stress. NPJ Regen Med 3: 24. doi:10.1038/s41536-018-0062-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  239. ↵
    1. Nathan C,
    2. Ding A
    (2010) Nonresolving inflammation. Cell 140: 871–882. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  240. ↵
    1. de Magalhaes JP,
    2. Curado J,
    3. Church GM
    (2009) Meta-analysis of age-related gene expression profiles identifies common signatures of aging. Bioinformatics 25: 875–881. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp073
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  241. ↵
    1. Clapes T,
    2. Lefkopoulos S,
    3. Trompouki E
    (2016) Stress and non-stress roles of inflammatory signals during HSC emergence and maintenance. Front Immunol 7: 487. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2016.00487
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  242. ↵
    1. Takizawa H,
    2. Boettcher S,
    3. Manz MG
    (2012) Demand-adapted regulation of early hematopoiesis in infection and inflammation. Blood 119: 2991–3002. doi:10.1182/blood-2011-12-380113
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  243. ↵
    1. Yang D,
    2. de Haan G
    (2021) Inflammation and aging of hematopoietic stem cells in their niche. Cells 10: 1849. doi:10.3390/cells10081849
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  244. ↵
    1. He H,
    2. Wang J
    (2021) Inflammation and hematopoietic stem cells aging. Blood Sci 3: 1–5. doi:10.1097/BS9.0000000000000063
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  245. ↵
    1. Baldridge MT,
    2. King KY,
    3. Boles NC,
    4. Weksberg DC,
    5. Goodell MA
    (2010) Quiescent haematopoietic stem cells are activated by IFN-gamma in response to chronic infection. Nature 465: 793–797. doi:10.1038/nature09135
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  246. ↵
    1. Ho YH,
    2. Del Toro R,
    3. Rivera-Torres J,
    4. Rak J,
    5. Korn C,
    6. García-García A,
    7. Macías D,
    8. González-Gómez C,
    9. Del Monte A,
    10. Wittner M, et al.
    (2019) Remodeling of bone marrow hematopoietic stem cell niches promotes myeloid cell expansion during premature or physiological aging. Cell Stem Cell 25: 407–418.e6. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2019.06.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  247. ↵
    1. Palacios D,
    2. Mozzetta C,
    3. Consalvi S,
    4. Caretti G,
    5. Saccone V,
    6. Proserpio V,
    7. Marquez VE,
    8. Valente S,
    9. Mai A,
    10. Forcales SV, et al.
    (2010) TNF/p38α/polycomb signaling to Pax7 locus in satellite cells links inflammation to the epigenetic control of muscle regeneration. Cell Stem Cell 7: 455–469. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2010.08.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  248. ↵
    1. Pietras EM,
    2. Mirantes-Barbeito C,
    3. Fong S,
    4. Loeffler D,
    5. Kovtonyuk LV,
    6. Zhang S,
    7. Lakshminarasimhan R,
    8. Chin CP,
    9. Techner JM,
    10. Will B, et al.
    (2016) Chronic interleukin-1 exposure drives haematopoietic stem cells towards precocious myeloid differentiation at the expense of self-renewal. Nat Cell Biol 18: 607–618. doi:10.1038/ncb3346
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  249. ↵
    1. Abegunde SO,
    2. Buckstein R,
    3. Wells RA,
    4. Rauh MJ
    (2018) An inflammatory environment containing TNFα favors Tet2-mutant clonal hematopoiesis. Exp Hematol 59: 60–65. doi:10.1016/j.exphem.2017.11.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  250. ↵
    1. Hormaechea-Agulla D,
    2. Matatall KA,
    3. Le DT,
    4. Kain B,
    5. Long X,
    6. Kus P,
    7. Jaksik R,
    8. Challen GA,
    9. Kimmel M,
    10. King KY, et al.
    (2021) Chronic infection drives Dnmt3a-loss-of-function clonal hematopoiesis via IFNgamma signaling. Cell Stem Cell 28: 1428–1442 e1426. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2021.03.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  251. ↵
    1. Sullivan C,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Shan Y,
    4. Hu Y,
    5. Peng C,
    6. Zhang H,
    7. Kong L,
    8. Li S
    (2011) Functional ramifications for the loss of P-selectin expression on hematopoietic and leukemic stem cells. PLoS One 6: e26246. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026246
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  252. ↵
    1. Tedder TF,
    2. Steeber DA,
    3. Chen A,
    4. Engel P
    (1995) The selecting: Vascular adhesion molecules. FASEB J 9: 866–873. doi:10.1096/fasebj.9.10.7542213
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  253. ↵
    1. Chambers SM,
    2. Shaw CA,
    3. Gatza C,
    4. Fisk CJ,
    5. Donehower LA,
    6. Goodell MA
    (2007) Aging hematopoietic stem cells decline in function and exhibit epigenetic dysregulation. PLoS Biol 5: e201. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  254. ↵
    1. Andrades A,
    2. Peinado P,
    3. Alvarez-Perez JC,
    4. Sanjuan-Hidalgo J,
    5. García DJ,
    6. Arenas AM,
    7. Matia-González AM,
    8. Medina PP
    (2023) SWI/SNF complexes in hematological malignancies: Biological implications and therapeutic opportunities. Mol Cancer 22: 39. doi:10.1186/s12943-023-01736-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  255. ↵
    1. Hu D,
    2. Yuan S,
    3. Zhong J,
    4. Liu Z,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. Liu L,
    7. Li J,
    8. Wen F,
    9. Liu J,
    10. Zhang J
    (2021) Cellular senescence and hematological malignancies: From pathogenesis to therapeutics. Pharmacol Ther 223: 107817. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2021.107817
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  256. ↵
    1. Giallongo C,
    2. Dulcamare I,
    3. Giallongo S,
    4. Duminuco A,
    5. Pieragostino D,
    6. Cufaro MC,
    7. Amorini AM,
    8. Lazzarino G,
    9. Romano A,
    10. Parrinello N, et al.
    (2023) MacroH2A1.1 as a crossroad between epigenetics, inflammation and metabolism of mesenchymal stromal cells in myelodysplastic syndromes. Cell Death Dis 14: 686. doi:10.1038/s41419-023-06197-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  257. ↵
    1. Deng P,
    2. Yuan Q,
    3. Cheng Y,
    4. Li J,
    5. Liu Z,
    6. Liu Y,
    7. Li Y,
    8. Su T,
    9. Wang J,
    10. Salvo ME, et al.
    (2021) Loss of KDM4B exacerbates bone-fat imbalance and mesenchymal stromal cell exhaustion in skeletal aging. Cell Stem Cell 28: 1057–1073.e7. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2021.01.010
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  258. ↵
    1. Funk MC,
    2. Gleixner JG,
    3. Heigwer F,
    4. Vonficht D,
    5. Valentini E,
    6. Aydin Z,
    7. Tonin E,
    8. Del Prete S,
    9. Mahara S,
    10. Throm Y, et al.
    (2023) Aged intestinal stem cells propagate cell-intrinsic sources of inflammaging in mice. Dev Cell 58: 2914–2929.e7. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2023.11.013
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  259. ↵
    1. Tomic G,
    2. Morrissey E,
    3. Kozar S,
    4. Ben-Moshe S,
    5. Hoyle A,
    6. Azzarelli R,
    7. Kemp R,
    8. Chilamakuri CSR,
    9. Itzkovitz S,
    10. Philpott A, et al.
    (2018) Phospho-regulation of ATOH1 is required for plasticity of secretory progenitors and tissue regeneration. Cell Stem Cell 23: 436–443.e7. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2018.07.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  260. ↵
    1. Rees WD,
    2. Tandun R,
    3. Yau E,
    4. Zachos NC,
    5. Steiner TS
    (2020) Regenerative intestinal stem cells induced by acute and chronic injury: The saving grace of the epithelium? Front Cell Dev Biol 8: 583919. doi:10.3389/fcell.2020.583919
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  261. ↵
    1. Tuncer S,
    2. Sade-Memişoğlu A,
    3. Keşküş AG,
    4. Sheraj I,
    5. Güner G,
    6. Akyol A,
    7. Banerjee S
    (2020) Enhanced expression of HNF4α during intestinal epithelial differentiation is involved in the activation of ER stress. FEBS J 287: 2504–2523. doi:10.1111/febs.15152
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  262. ↵
    1. Kim TH,
    2. Li F,
    3. Ferreiro-Neira I,
    4. Ho LL,
    5. Luyten A,
    6. Nalapareddy K,
    7. Long H,
    8. Verzi M,
    9. Shivdasani RA
    (2014) Broadly permissive intestinal chromatin underlies lateral inhibition and cell plasticity. Nature 506: 511–515. doi:10.1038/nature12903
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  263. ↵
    1. Liang X,
    2. Shan S,
    3. Pan L,
    4. Zhao J,
    5. Ranjan A,
    6. Wang F,
    7. Zhang Z,
    8. Huang Y,
    9. Feng H,
    10. Wei D, et al.
    (2016) Structural basis of H2A.Z recognition by SRCAP chromatin-remodeling subunit YL1. Nat Struct Mol Biol 23: 317–323. doi:10.1038/nsmb.3190
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  264. ↵
    1. Zhao B,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Jiang N,
    4. Yang L,
    5. Sun S,
    6. Zhang Y,
    7. Wen Z,
    8. Ray L,
    9. Liu H,
    10. Hou G, et al.
    (2019) Znhit1 controls intestinal stem cell maintenance by regulating H2A.Z incorporation. Nat Commun 10: 1071. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09060-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  265. ↵
    1. Baulies A,
    2. Angelis N,
    3. Foglizzo V,
    4. Danielsen ET,
    5. Patel H,
    6. Novellasdemunt L,
    7. Kucharska A,
    8. Carvalho J,
    9. Nye E,
    10. De Coppi P, et al.
    (2020) The transcription co-repressors MTG8 and MTG16 regulate exit of intestinal stem cells from their niche and differentiation into enterocyte vs secretory lineages. Gastroenterology 159: 1328–1341.e3. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.012
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  266. ↵
    1. Neher JJ,
    2. Neniskyte U,
    3. Zhao JW,
    4. Bal-Price A,
    5. Tolkovsky AM,
    6. Brown GC
    (2011) Inhibition of microglial phagocytosis is sufficient to prevent inflammatory neuronal death. J Immunol 186: 4973–4983. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1003600
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  267. ↵
    1. Das ND,
    2. Choi MR,
    3. Jung KH,
    4. Park JH,
    5. Lee HT,
    6. Das A,
    7. Kim SH,
    8. Chai YG
    (2013) Functional analysis of histone demethylase Jmjd2b on lipopolysaccharide-treated murine neural stem cells (NSCs). Neurotox Res 23: 154–165. doi:10.1007/s12640-012-9346-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  268. ↵
    1. Michelucci A,
    2. Bithell A,
    3. Burney MJ,
    4. Johnston CE,
    5. Wong KY,
    6. Teng SW,
    7. Desai J,
    8. Gumbleton N,
    9. Anderson G,
    10. Stanton LW, et al.
    (2016) The neurogenic potential of astrocytes is regulated by inflammatory signals. Mol Neurobiol 53: 3724–3739. doi:10.1007/s12035-015-9296-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  269. ↵
    1. Blanc RS,
    2. Kallenbach JG,
    3. Bachman JF,
    4. Mitchell A,
    5. Paris ND,
    6. Chakkalakal JV
    (2020) Inhibition of inflammatory CCR2 signaling promotes aged muscle regeneration and strength recovery after injury. Nat Commun 11: 4167. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17620-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  270. ↵
    1. Blanc RS,
    2. Shah N,
    3. Salama NAS,
    4. Meng FW,
    5. Mousaei A,
    6. Yang BA,
    7. Aguilar CA,
    8. Chakkalakal JV,
    9. Onukwufor JO,
    10. Murphy PJ
    , et al (2024) Epigenetic erosion of H4K20me1 induced by inflammation drives aged stem cell ferroptosis. Res Sq. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3937628/v1 (Preprint posted March 15, 2024).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  271. ↵
    1. Ji SQ,
    2. Neustrom S,
    3. Willis GM,
    4. Spurlock ME
    (1998) Proinflammatory cytokines regulate myogenic cell proliferation and fusion but have no impact on myotube protein metabolism or stress protein expression. J Interferon Cytokine Res 18: 879–888. doi:10.1089/jir.1998.18.879
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  272. ↵
    1. Kim J,
    2. Lee J
    (2017) Role of transforming growth factor-β in muscle damage and regeneration: Focused on eccentric muscle contraction. J Exerc Rehabil 13: 621–626. doi:10.12965/jer.1735072.536
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  273. ↵
    1. Yoshida T,
    2. Delafontaine P
    (2020) Mechanisms of IGF-1-mediated regulation of skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy. Cells 9: 1970. doi:10.3390/cells9091970
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  274. ↵
    1. Sousa-Victor P,
    2. Gutarra S,
    3. García-Prat L,
    4. Rodriguez-Ubreva J,
    5. Ortet L,
    6. Ruiz-Bonilla V,
    7. Jardí M,
    8. Ballestar E,
    9. González S,
    10. Serrano AL, et al.
    (2014) Geriatric muscle stem cells switch reversible quiescence into senescence. Nature 506: 316–321. doi:10.1038/nature13013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  275. ↵
    1. McKinnell IW,
    2. Ishibashi J,
    3. Le Grand F,
    4. Punch VGJ,
    5. Addicks GC,
    6. Greenblatt JF,
    7. Dilworth FJ,
    8. Rudnicki MA
    (2008) Pax7 activates myogenic genes by recruitment of a histone methyltransferase complex. Nat Cell Biol 10: 77–84. doi:10.1038/ncb1671
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  276. ↵
    1. Lukjanenko L,
    2. Jung MJ,
    3. Hegde N,
    4. Perruisseau-Carrier C,
    5. Migliavacca E,
    6. Rozo M,
    7. Karaz S,
    8. Jacot G,
    9. Schmidt M,
    10. Li L, et al.
    (2016) Loss of fibronectin from the aged stem cell niche affects the regenerative capacity of skeletal muscle in mice. Nat Med 22: 897–905. doi:10.1038/nm.4126
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Life Science Alliance.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cellular stress and epigenetic regulation in adult stem cells
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Life Science Alliance
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Life Science Alliance web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Stem cell stress
Joey Llewellyn, Rithvik Baratam, Luka Culig, Isabel Beerman
Life Science Alliance Sep 2024, 7 (12) e202302083; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202302083

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Stem cell stress
Joey Llewellyn, Rithvik Baratam, Luka Culig, Isabel Beerman
Life Science Alliance Sep 2024, 7 (12) e202302083; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202302083
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
Issue Cover

In this Issue

Volume 7, No. 12
December 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Cover (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Masthead (PDF)
Advertisement

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Stress-Induced Epigenetic Alterations
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Aging
  • Stem Cells

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Cited By...

  • A tumor-suppressive role of the PRC1 Polycomb epigenetic complex in the maintenance of adult Drosophila intestinal stem cell identity
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Molecular mechanisms of EPI and PE fate determination
  • Three case studies of computational modelling of pathogens
Show more Review

Similar Articles

EMBO Press LogoRockefeller University Press LogoCold Spring Harbor Logo

Content

  • Home
  • Newest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Guidelines
  • License, copyright, Fee

Other Services

  • Alerts
  • Bluesky
  • X/Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • Editors & Staff
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Feedback
  • Licensing and Reuse
  • Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2575-1077
© 2025 Life Science Alliance LLC

Life Science Alliance is registered as a trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trade Mark Office and in the European Union Intellectual Property Office.