↓ Skip to main content

Regenerative Capacity of Old Muscle Stem Cells Declines without Significant Accumulation of DNA Damage

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Regenerative Capacity of Old Muscle Stem Cells Declines without Significant Accumulation of DNA Damage
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0063528
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy Cousin, Michelle Liane Ho, Rajiv Desai, Andrea Tham, Robert Yuzen Chen, Sunny Kung, Christian Elabd, Irina M. Conboy

Abstract

The performance of adult stem cells is crucial for tissue homeostasis but their regenerative capacity declines with age, leading to failure of multiple organs. In skeletal muscle this failure is manifested by the loss of functional tissue, the accumulation of fibrosis, and reduced satellite cell-mediated myogenesis in response to injury. While recent studies have shown that changes in the composition of the satellite cell niche are at least in part responsible for the impaired function observed with aging, little is known about the effects of aging on the intrinsic properties of satellite cells. For instance, their ability to repair DNA damage and the effects of a potential accumulation of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) on their regenerative performance remain unclear. This work demonstrates that old muscle stem cells display no significant accumulation of DNA DSBs when compared to those of young, as assayed after cell isolation and in tissue sections, either in uninjured muscle or at multiple time points after injury. Additionally, there is no significant difference in the expression of DNA DSB repair proteins or globally assayed DNA damage response genes, suggesting that not only DNA DSBs, but also other types of DNA damage, do not significantly mark aged muscle stem cells. Satellite cells from DNA DSB-repair-deficient SCID mice do have an unsurprisingly higher level of innate DNA DSBs and a weakened recovery from gamma-radiation-induced DNA damage. Interestingly, they are as myogenic in vitro and in vivo as satellite cells from young wild type mice, suggesting that the inefficiency in DNA DSB repair does not directly correlate with the ability to regenerate muscle after injury. Overall, our findings suggest that a DNA DSB-repair deficiency is unlikely to be a key factor in the decline in muscle regeneration observed upon aging.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
United States 2 3%
Japan 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 74 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 24%
Researcher 16 20%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Engineering 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 10 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2021.
All research outputs
#13,136,747
of 23,163,378 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#103,952
of 197,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,284
of 196,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,416
of 4,890 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,163,378 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 196,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,890 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.