Abstract
Human skin is a stratified organ frequently exposed to sun-generated ultraviolet radiation (UVR), which is considered one of the major factors responsible for DNA damage. Such damage can be direct, through interactions of DNA with UV photons, or indirect, mainly through enhanced production of reactive oxygen species that introduce oxidative changes to the DNA. Oxidative stress and DNA damage also associate with profound changes at the cellular and molecular level involving several cell cycle and signal transduction factors responsible for DNA repair or irreversible changes linked to ageing. Crucially, some of these factors constitute part of the signalling known for the induction of biological changes in non-irradiated, neighbouring cells and defined as the bystander effect. Network interactions with a number of natural compounds, based on their known activity towards these biomarkers in the skin, reveal the capacity to inhibit both the bystander signalling and cell cycle/DNA damage molecules while increasing expression of the anti-oxidant enzymes. Based on this information, we discuss the likely polypharmacology applications of the natural compounds and next-generation screening technologies in improving the anti-oxidant and DNA repair capacities of the skin.
Keywords: DNA damage, bystander effect, plant bioactive compounds, artificial intelligence
1. Introduction
Skin is the largest organ of the human body, with primary functions in protection against molecular and physiological damage caused by the environment, and profound capacities to undergo processes of regeneration to repair such damage. It is well recognized that deficiencies in the repair mechanisms of the environmental damage, which can be genetically or non-genetically based, are linked to cellular stress and irreversible changes linked to ageing and premature ageing of the skin [1]. One of the major skin-damaging environmental factors is ultraviolet radiation (UVR), which is responsible for both the direct introduction of mutagenic changes to DNA and indirect effects executed by reactive oxygen species (ROS) and photosensitizing reactions linked to expression of the redox-sensitive signalling molecules [2]. Such molecules have been consistently documented to be involved in the induction of the biological responses in non-irradiated neighbouring cells, including DNA mutagenesis and alterations in gene expression or cell cycle, as a result of the signals received from irradiated cells and defined as the bystander effect. At present, there is an increasing recognition that the damage to genomic DNA is a complex process linked to both direct and indirect exposure of a cell nucleus to radiation, which inevitably involves rapid as well as delayed biochemical responses to such exposure. The biological relationship between irradiated and non-irradiated cells in the bystander effect, in particular the amplification of the original damaging signal, was originally estimated for α particles, demonstrating that irradiation of 1% of the cells can lead to corresponding DNA damage in more than 30% of the cells [3,4]. Presently, the bystander effect is recognized as a significant component of the UVR mode of action, stressing the importance of the search for potential novel molecules with the ability to modulate signalling for enhanced radioprotection [5].
Natural bioactive compounds (NBC), a large group of secondary metabolites from plant sources, have broadly documented protective capacities to counteract the oxidative damage both endogenously in the plant cell and in the animal cell through exogenous applications. These capacities are primarily thought to associate with ROS-scavenging activity determined by specific chemical structures of the compounds. However, the NBC also show complex interactions with the DNA damage and oxidative stress biomarkers, affecting their expression or activity in a multitude of biochemical assays. They therefore have broader applications in protection against photo-damage [6].
Importantly, the activity of a single NBC is rarely limited towards one specific target; instead, the compounds can act synergistically on multiple molecular targets affecting several biological pathways simultaneously. This suggests that the biological processes relevant to homeostatic balance within multi-cellular tissue, including levels of DNA damage and modulation of bystander signalling, can be significantly enhanced through appropriate selection and validation of various NBC using next-generation screening technologies and a polypharmacological approach. In this manuscript, we discuss the protective applications of NBC in this context, focusing on the skin as an important target in applied biomedical and cosmetic science.
2. UVR-induced DNA damage and repair mechanisms in skin cells
Solar UVR is one of the major environmental DNA-damaging factors that lead to photoageing of the skin. UVR affecting the skin belongs to the invisible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation including UVB (280–315 nm) and UVA (315–400 nm), which account for around 95% of all UVR [7]. Both types of radiation penetrate the epidermis; however, only UVA can reach the dermis since it is penetrating the skin more deeply than UVB [8].
2.1. Direct and indirect damage caused to DNA by UVR
UVR, particularly UVB, is absorbed directly by nuclear DNA leading to its damage. UV photons induce GC to TA transitions and formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPD) and less abundant but more mutagenic pyrimidine (6–4PP) photoproducts in the DNA [9–11]. The formation of these lesions is influenced by the state of DNA condensation in a cell nucleus; for example, regions sensitive to CPD formation contain telomeres and 5-methyl cytosine in hetero- and euchromatin, whereas 6–4PPs are uniquely formed in the euchromatin [12–14].
Nuclear DNA is also susceptible to indirect damage, which occurs through absorbance of UV photons by the non-DNA chromophores, leading to the formation of ROS and subsequent DNA photoproducts. Both UVA and UVB stimulate the production of ROS; however, oxidative processes involving mutagenic and cytotoxic effects on DNA are induced mainly by UVA radiation, which has a relatively poor efficiency in introducing direct DNA damage compared to UVB [15,16].
Human skin contains numerous non-DNA chromophores, including riboflavins, porphyrins, haem, bilirubin, melanin precursors, pterins, flavins, tryptophan and urocanic acid [17–19]. The molecules have the capacities to absorb UV photons, which lead to a transient change in molecular structure and the formation of photo-excited state intermediates, with photosensitizing reactions involving energy transfer from triplet state energy electron donors to substrate molecules such as DNA and molecular oxygen [17,20].
Type I reactions give rise to superoxide , hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and hydroxyl radical (OH), while type II reactions result in the formation of singlet oxygen (1O2) that frequently oxidizes guanine in DNA to 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine (8-oxoG). In addition to single-strand breaks (SSB), pyrimidine oxidation products, 8-, 5- or 4-hydroxyadenine and apurinic sites, 8-oxoG is the main oxidized base detected in DNA upon UVR and ROS exposure that can result in a mismatched pairing with adenine leading to G to T and C to A substitutions. ROS, particularly hydroxyl radical, also induce the formation of 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), which is one of the most abundant products of oxidative stress [21–24].
Generation of ROS leads to oxidation of other major macromolecules, which has a further destabilizing indirect effect on DNA. Examples include lipid peroxidation, which generates unsaturated aldehydes causing base alkylation in DNA, protein oxidation that blocks DNA replication and transcription or oxidization of melanin by peroxynitrite with subsequent energy transfer to DNA with the formation of CDPs [25–28].
Several molecular mechanisms of DNA damage responses (DDR) present in skin cells counteract the harmful effects of UVR. Unrepaired DNA damage including CDP, 6–4PP and oxidized bases that distort the DNA structure can block the activity of DNA and RNA polymerases, therefore limiting the rate of replication and transcription processes [29,30]. DNA damage normally limits the cellular proliferation through temporary cell cycle arrest that facilitates the initiation of repair mechanisms to prevent propagation of mutagenic lesions [31].
2.2. Major DNA repair mechanisms
Two main mechanisms of DNA repair are base excision repair (BER) and nucleotide excision repair (NER). BER is responsible for removing small base lesions such as oxidized 8-oxoG or deaminated adenine and repair of the SSB. BER occurs in several steps catalysed by major enzymes: AP-endonuclease (APE1), DNA polymerases (Pol β/δ/ε), flap endonuclease (FEN1) and DNA ligases (LIG3/XRCC1 or LIG1) [32,33].
NER is particularly important for repair of DNA damage induced directly by UVR, such as 6,4-photoproducts and thymine dimers. NER is initiated by recognition of the damage by replication protein A (RPA) and xeroderma pigmentosum, removal of the single-stranded fragment by transcription factor II H (TFIIH, containing ATP-dependent DNA helicases XPB and XPD) and XPF-ERCC1 and XPG endonucleases, synthesis of the complementary sequence by replication factor C (RFC), PCNA and (Pol δ/ε/κ) and ligation by LIG1/FEN1 or LIG3/XRCC1 to form a double-stranded DNA. NER occurs in two forms—global genomic NER (GG-NER) and transcription-coupled NER (TC-NER)—that differ in the initial steps of DNA damage recognition. GG-NER repairs damage in both transcriptionally active and silent regions of DNA, using the proteins that recognize structural distortions such as DNA damage binding (DDB, XPE) and complementation group C (XPC-Rad23B). TC-NER repairs damage only in the transcriptionally active regions, which use RNA polymerase (RNApol) stalls for DNA damage recognition [34–36]. The ageing process of human skin is associated with an observed decline in both BER and NER efficiency. Repair efficiency of 8-oxoG and CPD is decreased in the fibroblasts from aged individuals; moreover, 8-oxoG accumulates already in the middle-aged cells, indicative of relatively faster decrease in BER capacity with age [37].
3. Association between DNA damage and age-related cell signalling through oxidative stress
3.1. Generation of ROS in cellular compartments
In addition to the genomic DNA, the process of photoageing also affects mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). UVR frequently leads to 4977 base pair deletion of DNA, which in turn contributes to enhanced production of ROS by mitochondria and increased levels of ROS-induced mtDNA damage in a feedback cycle [38].
In the cell, ROS is constantly produced in various organelles as a by-product of aerobic metabolism and human skin remains in direct contact with the atmospheric oxygen.
Electron transport chain (ETC) located in the inner mitochondrial membrane proceeds through complex I (NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase), complex II (succinate dehydrogenase), complex III (coenzyme Q: cytochrome c oxidoreductase) and complex IV (cytochrome c oxidase) to O2, resulting in the production of H2O. The electrons can also react prematurely with O2 at complex I and III, leading to the formation of instead of H2O2 [39]. In parallel, mitochondrial nitric oxide synthase (NOS) produces nitric oxide (NO) that can combine with to form peroxynitrite (ONOO−) [40].
Peroxisomal ROS production is driven by flavoenzymes and oxidoreductases, mainly acyl-CoA oxidase (ACO), D-amino acid oxidase (DAO), D-aspartate oxidase (DDO), L-pipecolic acid oxidase (LPIPOX), L-hydroxyacid oxidase (HAO1) and the polyamine oxidase (PAO). The enzymes are involved in the oxidation of fatty acids as well as metabolism of amino acids, glyoxylate and dicarboxylate and produce mainly H2O2 as a by-product of these reactions [41]. In addition, NOS catalyses the oxidation of l-arginine to NO; in the absence of l-arginine, it leads to the formation of [42].
ROS are also produced in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) through oxidation–reduction reactions involving the cytochrome P450, protein disulfide isomerase (PDI) and oxidoreductin-1 (ERO1). Incomplete transfer of electrons from Ero1 to O2 can result in the formation of [43–45].
Finally, ROS can be generated in cytosol as a by-product of the enzymatic activities of cyclooxygenase (COX) and lipoxygenase (LOX) using arachidonic acid as a substrate for synthesis of prostaglandin H2 and leukotrienes. Cellular levels of arachidonic acid are increased in ageing skin, and both COX and LOX have the capacity to produce [46,47].
3.2. Involvement of ROS in signal transduction and cell proliferation
H2O2 is recognized as a secondary messenger with the capacity to activate several redox-sensitive signalling molecules involved in the regulation of cell proliferation and migration. The main molecular targets of these responses are mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERK1/2), c-Jun NH2-terminal kinases (JNK 1/2/3), phosphoinositide 3-kinase/serine-threonine kinase (PI3 K/Akt), protein kinase B (AKT) and transcription factors such as activator protein 1 (AP-1), nuclear factor κ-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) and early growth response 1 (Egr1) [48–52]. The irreversible alterations to these signalling pathways by ROS activate the proto-oncogene pathways that are relevant to skin ageing. Specifically, the delayed generation of ROS by UVR trigger inflammation and cause oxidative stress and DNA damage in non-irradiated neighbouring cells via bystander effect [5,53].
One of the best characterized cellular events that occur in response to damage triggered by UVR exposure is senescence [54–57]. Activation of the senescence programme is associated with irreversible arrest of cell proliferation and development of senescence-associated secretory phenotype [58,59]. Senescent cell phenotype is intrinsically linked to the upregulated and persistent oxidative stress and DNA damage, which have been studied in a number of cell types in the skin, including fibroblasts and melanocytes [60–62]. Generation of the oxidative stress by H2O2 and leads to accumulation of 8-OHdG and the DNA damage is significantly enhanced in the telomeric regions of the chromatin, which are also thought to undergo structural changes in senescence. Senescent fibroblasts also demonstrate an increase in the steady-state levels of 8-OHdG, which can be delayed by treatment with antioxidants [63,64].
Cell proliferation is closely regulated by the signal transduction associated with p53/Rb axis. Tumour suppressor p53 (p53) is a transcription factor normally activated by DNA damage or oxidative stress. Oxidative stress response is mediated by p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases, leading to phosphorylation and stabilization of p53 and transcription of the genes involved in cell cycle arrest. The major regulator of cell cycle arrest mediated by p53 axis is cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21 (p21/Cip1), which controls the activity of cyclin-dependent kinases 2 and 4 (Cdk2/Cdk4) responsible for G1/S-phase cell cycle progression. Activation of p53 is functionally linked to the activation of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein kinases via DNA response elements enabling DNA repair during the cell cycle arrest [32,65–67]. Another mechanism of cell cycle arrest controlled by ATM/ATR in response to DNA damage is the degradation of M-phase inducer phosphatase 1 (Cdc25A), which occurs via checkpoint kinases 1 and 2 (Chk1/2) and leads to the inhibition of the cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (Cdk1)–cyclin B1 complex responsible for G2/M cell cycle progression [68,69]. p53 has also the capacity to downregulate expression of Cdc25A, thus establishing additional mechanisms of cell cycle progression in response to stress [70].
Retinoblastoma protein (pRb) is a tumour suppressor responsible for transitions from the G1 to S-phase of cell cycle through interactions with transcription factor E2F. The G1/S-phase transitions are dependent on the phoshorylation status of pRb, which is regulated by cyclin-dependent kinases Cdk4 and Cdk6, allowing phoshorylated pRb to release E2F and entry into S-phase. Downregulation of pRb phoshorylation by cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p16 (Ink4a) results in the suppression of E2F target genes and cell cycle arrest [71–73]. Expression of p16 is increased by redox-sensitive kinases Erk1/2 and p38 during the oxidative stress and modulation of p16 levels correlates with activation of senescence programme [72,74,75]. Crucially, accumulation of both p16 and p53 is also associated with premature cell senescence, highlighting the central role of p53/Rb axis in control of stress-induced cellular ageing [76].
4. Stratification and anti-oxidant defences of the skin
The skin is a stratified organ that has an endocrine function and provides protection against harmful factors in the environment. The skin is composed of two main layers: the epidermis and dermis. The main cells of the epidermis are keratinocytes, which are organized in several defined layers based on the localization, shape, orientation and expression of the biomarkers. The cells undergo successive programmes of divisions, differentiation and migration from the stratum basale to the stratum granulosum and stratum spinosum, leading to the formation of the stratum corneum that contributes to the skin barrier function [77].
Stratum corneum (cornified envelope) demonstrates distinctly high concentrations of low molecular weight (LMW) antioxidants such as vitamin E, vitamin C, ubiquinol, uric acid and glutathione, particularly in the deeper layers of the compartment [78,79]. A main molecule with the anti-oxidative capacity is glutathione (GSH), which reacts directly with ROS such as H2O2, and OH forming intermediate homodimers via disulfidic bond (GSSG). Oxidized thiol is subsequently reduced by glutathione reductase (GR) in the presence of NADPH to restore GSH [80,81]. Concentrations of GSH are additionally reduced in photoaged skin [82].
LMW antioxidants, together with cysteine-rich small proline-rich proteins (SPRRs), counteract the increase in ROS levels and DNA damage in the cornified envelope, which also undergoes dramatic alterations during skin ageing [83].
The epidermis contains a range of ROS-detoxifying enzymes, which are highly concentrated in the stratum granulosum, lowering ROS levels and providing protection against oxidative stress in suprabasal keratinocytes [84,85].
Skin contains several anti-oxidant enzymes that control the intracellular concentrations of and H2O2. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) converts to H2O2 and O2 [86]. Three isoforms are expressed in the skin: SOD1 in cytosol, SOD2 in mitochondria and SOD3 in the extracellular matrix, with UV irradiation leading to the increase in SOD2 expression [87,88]. Deficiencies in SOD1 or SOD2 are additionally associated with skin atrophy and epidermal thinning characteristic of aged skin [89–91].
Catalase (CAT) is localized to peroxisomes where it reduces H2O2 to H2O and O2 [92]. CAT is expressed particularly abundantly in the stratum corneum where it shows a decreasing gradient of activity towards the surface of the skin [93,94] Epidermal CAT activity is moreover increased in aged and photoaged skin correlating with increased production of ROS [93,95].
Glutathione peroxidase (GPx) catalyses the reduction of H2O2 to H2O in the reaction recycling the GSH and GSSG in the presence of GR/NADPH [96,97]. GPx activity is altered in aged and photoaged skin; with GPx downregulation additionally leading to epidermal hyperplasia [98].
Peroxiredoxins (PRDXs) detoxify ROS through redox reactions involving cysteines forming disulfide bonds at the active centre and subsequent regeneration of the enzyme by thioredoxin reductase (TrxR) [99,100]. PRDX1 and PRDX2 are expressed at high concentration in the stratum granulosum of the epidermis and expression can be additionally induced by UVR [101,102].
Another class of antioxidants is iron-binding transferrin (TF) that blocks formation of OH in Fenton reactions [103].
Compared with the epidermis, the dermis contains relatively low concentrations of both ROS and antioxidants [83]. However, UVA that penetrates the deeper skin compartments can activate the transcription factors controlling the expression of the genes associated with ROS defence in fibroblasts such as nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) [104].
Ageing of the skin is associated with further reduction of antioxidants such as GSH in the dermis [82]. Compared with young skin, both dermal concentration of GSSG and GSSG : GSH ratio are decreased in ageing [105]. These changes are accompanied by a decrease in the activity of ROS-detoxifying enzymes; for example, catalase activity is decreased in the dermis of aged and photoaged skin [94,95]. Deficiencies in other anti-oxidant enzymes, SOD2 or GPx are associated with the phenotypes consistent with skin ageing such as atrophy of dermal connective tissue, dermal inflammation and increased levels of Cox2 [89–91,98].
Skin is maintained by direct communication between the dermal and epidermal compartments and the signalling interactions that originate in the dermis are considered to be vital for proper activity of the epidermal progenitor cells [106]. Changes in the epidermis associated with DNA damage and oxidative stress lead to a decrease in cellular turnover rate, terminal differentiation and organization of the stratum corneum, ultimately affecting skin barrier function [107]. In ageing skin, while the epidermal stem cell (EpiSC) population is protected from ROS damage, the transit-amplifying (TA) cells are more abundant, with a longer cell cycle and consequently less differentiation capacity compared to younger counterparts [108–110]. Decreased barrier function could be caused by not only diminished anti-oxidant defences but also signalling from the deteriorating dermal environment affecting TA population in the epidermis.
5. The effect of natural compounds on skin cells through network interactions with DNA damage and oxidative stress responders
5.1. ROS-regulated signal transduction and radiation-induced bystander signalling
Cellular damage caused by UVR triggers molecular responses not only in the cells directly affected by UV photons but also in the non-irradiated, neighbouring cells via signalling known as the bystander effect [5,53]. The bystander effect involves the molecular signalling interaction between irradiated and non-irradiated cells, and has been originally identified as a biological phenomenon of low-dose ionizing radiation (i.e. α particles and X-rays); however, it is presently also recognized as part of the cellular response to UVR in biological systems. It is thought that in human skin, a UVR-induced bystander effect would be propagated by inflammatory responses and ROS causing further oxidative damage and genomic instability to DNA in non-exposed proximal cells in the tissue [111].
The bystander mechanism relies on the multiple signalling cascades involving redox and cell cycle signalling molecules coded by COX2, ERK1/2, MAPK, JNK, AP-1 and NFκB genes. Cox2 has been additionally demonstrated as one of the central components of the radiation-induced bystander signalling in human dermal fibroblasts. The bystander response also involves reactive nitrogen species and activation of iNOS. At present, several factors such as inhibitors of gap junction-mediated cellular communication, free radicals scavengers or anti-oxidant enzymes SOD and CAT can decrease the bystander response and damage in the neighbouring cells [112–114].
Currently, there is great interest in the identification and application of undiscovered molecules with the capacity to regulate the DNA damage and bystander signalling. Selective regulation of some of the DNA and oxidative stress markers would allow the protection and repair of the complex tissue by addressing the amplified damage that propagates beyond the individual cell.
5.2. Anti-oxidant capacities of natural bioactive compounds
One potentially important and rich source of such activities that is still being characterized is the class of secondary metabolites from plants. When analysed for the effects on the protein targets in skin cells, these NBC have the capacity to downregulate the expression or activity of ROS-activated signal transduction factors and cell cycle/DNA damage proteins while simultaneously upregulating the anti-oxidant enzymes. Examples include compounds with the capacity to inhibit redox-sensitive signalling, which belong to a group of flavonoids ((+)-catechin), monoterpenes (eucalyptol, sabinene) and polyphenols (mangiferin, sauchinone). These compounds downregulate the expression or activity of JNK, p38, Cox2, iNOS, AP-1 and Erk1/2 [115–119]. Compounds belonging to a group of phenolic diterpenes (carnosic acid, carnosol), catechins (epigallocatechin-3-gallate) or phenolic acids (ferulic acid, caffeic acid) also increase the activity of ROS-responsive transcription factors such as Nrf2 or ROS-detoxifying enzymes such as CAT and GPx [120–122]. Both groups of skin cell biomarkers are also responsive to isoflavones (acetyldaidzin, acetylgenistin, acetylglycitin, daizein, 5,7-dimethoxyflavone, genistein, glycitein) and phenolic acids (caffeic acid), which inhibit Cox2, Erk1/2, JNK, p38, iNOS, MAPK and NFκB while activating CAT or GPx [123–127]. Finally, oxidative stress markers can be downregulated concomitantly with the cell cycle/DNA damage proteins such as p53 or p21 by the compounds belonging to diterpenes (acanthoic acid), flavonoids (baicalin) and polyphenols (butein, curcumin, sativanone, sesamin) [128–132].
Secondary metabolites with the capacity to modulate redox signalling and protect against oxidative damage are abundantly found in plant tissue where they play an important role in the defence system and tolerance to a range of environmental stresses that can lead to excessive production of ROS [133–135]. The anti-oxidant properties of the compounds are generally determined by their chemical structure, based on aromatic rings with one or more hydroxyl (–OH) or methoxy (O-CH3) group [136]. Phenolic compounds use these structures by donating electrons or hydrogen atoms and chelating metal cations such as Fe2+ to neutralize and inhibit formation of free radicals [137,138]. Flavonoids constitute a group of phenolic compounds with three rings (A/B phenyl benzopyrone and C pyran) as a basic structure and low redox potential of hydroxyl group. Flavonoids act as scavengers of free radicals, forming oxidized forms that are more stable and less reactive while reducing superoxide, peroxynitrite and hydroxyl radicals through hydrogen donations [137–140].
The NBC could also have the potential to regulate a network of activities and repair mechanisms that are triggered by UVR-induced direct DNA damage and secondary redox-related cellular responses in the skin environment. In addition to direct effects on ROS, the NBC demonstrate likely capacities to affect skin cells in three major areas: (i) inhibition of the proteins involved in cell cycle arrest and senescence, enhancing DNA repair mechanisms induced by DNA photoproducts and DNA oxidation; (ii) activation of ROS-detoxifying enzymes and transcription factors, enhancing the natural anti-oxidant defences in the epidermis and counteracting the cellular ROS as part of by-products of metabolism and UVA damage; and (iii) inhibition of redox-sensitive signalling molecules, activated primarily in the dermis by UVA-induced ROS and constituting a part of the bystander signalling. Collectively, the NBC would fulfil a protective role against propagation of the oxidative stress and DNA damage, amplified stress response and premature ageing of the tissue (figure 1).
Figure 1.
Schematic of the proposed capacities of the NBC in a context of protection against UVR-induced DNA damage in the skin. UVB and UVA affect the DNA either directly to induce the range of photoproducts or indirectly, through non-DNA chromophores and ROS, leading to DNA oxidization. Both forms of DNA damage trigger the repair mechanisms (BER and NER). Persistent DNA damage associates with cell cycle arrest and can lead to cellular senescence, which is executed primarily by p53/pRb axis. Synthesis of ROS also occurs as part of the metabolic reactions in various cellular organelles and is counteracted by LMW antioxidants and ROS-detoxifying enzymes, which are particularly abundant in the epidermis. Redox-sensitive proteins are activated by the oxidative stress caused by UVA, presumably predominantly in the dermis, also forming a part of the signalling causing amplified damage in the neighbouring cells known as the bystander effect. NBC have the capacity to affect the cell cycle arrest/DNA repair axis, stimulate the ROS detoxification and inhibit the redox-sensitive signalling, leading effectively to the inhibition of amplified damage and skin protection.
5.3. Polypharmacology characteristic of NBC versus amplified damage in bystander signalling
Presently, the biological effects of radiation, in addition to DNA damage upon direct cellular exposure, are also recognized to include the non-DNA-targeted effects associated with the bystander effect, adaptive response and radiosensitivity, which are particularly evident at low doses [141–145]. The cellular damage in this instance can be recorded to include the aberrations in DNA or changes in cell cycle and gene expression observed in unirradiated cells as a result of interactions with irradiated cells [146–149]. In classical evidence, a significantly higher amount of DNA damage is detected than it would be expected based on calculations of cell nuclei directly targeted by the radiation, indicative of signal transduction pathways and extracellular factors responsible for the bystander effect [4,150,151]. Similarly, higher fractions of cells with altered gene expression and a significant rise of damaged cells to those normally expected from directly exposed cells are associated with the bystander effect, including human fibroblasts showing a two to threefold increase in the level of damage [152,153]. The radiation-induced bystander effect or tissue responses to low-dose radiation have been associated with occasional stimulation of pro-mitogenic activities in vitro, linked to expression of p53 and p21 or cyclin D1 [151,154]. In addition to activation of biological effects within a low-dose range, the bystander effect also shows a nonlinear dose dependence, with the shape of a dose-dependent curve demonstrating a flattening rather than statistically significant increase with increasing dose, which reflects a saturation of the response above the threshold level [4,155]. The bystander effect therefore amplifies the original damage present within a fraction of the cellular population, which is executed by the redox-dependent signalling pathways as one of the possible outcomes.
The polypharmacology nature of the NBC, namely the ability to affect multiple protein targets simultaneously, could indicate the intrinsic capacities of the molecules to modulate the bystander signalling by synergistic cascade reactions serving as a protective mechanism against tissue damage. NBC working in an integrated system composed of multi-cellular microenvironment and multi-target protein factors could facilitate better recognition of the damage and repair or alternatively replacement of the permanently damaged cells with new progeny or induction of differentiation. It would remain to be identified if the cells highly susceptible to NBC belong to radiosensitive or radioresistant populations. Based on this information, a working model could be proposed to demonstrate the potential biological responses in the multi-cellular tissue exposed to irradiation and NBC. The damaged cells would produce bystander signals, which would be received by and processed within a sensitive subpopulation of the cells, leading to alterations in cell cycle, differentiation or senescence. The presence of NBC would have a radioprotective effect through interactions with the cascade of signal transduction molecules involved in amplification of the bystander signals, potentially enhancing the mechanisms contributing to the replacement of damaged cells and DNA repair (figure 2).
Figure 2.
Schematic diagram illustrating proposed interactions between bystander signalling and NBC through redox- and DNA damage-sensitive molecules. The bystander effect commences with low-level damage induced by interaction of the cell nucleus with radiation. The changes are subsequently amplified in a stochastic manner, leading to an increased population of the cells with alterations in DNA, gene expression and cell cycle kinetics (red squares). NBC (blue squares) have the capacity to downregulate the expression or activity of redox-sensitive signal transduction factors and cell cycle/DNA damage proteins while simultaneously upregulating the anti-oxidant enzymes. This can be executed in synergy, involving multiple protein targets simultaneously, therefore also amplifying the NBC-protective signals. These characteristics would afford the NBC likely capacities towards enhanced modulation or inhibition of the bystander effect while stimulating DNA repair and regeneration of damaged cells.
Molecular effects of various NBC can be captured through in silico interactive networks, demonstrating the synergistic capacities to affect the expression or activity of multiple cellular factors across many pathways. This indicates that the biological activity of the molecules extends far beyond their role as ROS scavengers. Networks involving compound–protein interactions additionally reveal the capacities of NBC as multi-target ingredients, which can also identify the enriched or more conserved clusters involved in such interactions. For example, isoflavones such as daidzein, genistein and glycitein could fulfil a candidate role as modulators of multiple redox-signalling interactions while cell cycle processes could be enhanced by synergistic activities of sativanone and butein. This illustrates that the NBC can act synergistically on multiple molecular targets affecting several biological processes simultaneously, consistent with the mechanisms underlying a polypharmacology approach (figure 3). The synergistic and multi-targeted capacity of NBC can be particularly applicable in potential interactions able to counteract or modulate the molecular network involved in bystander signalling, which remains as yet unresolved.
Figure 3.
Interactive networks created using HexisLab Pro.X in silico platform showing functional links between NBC (blue) and skin cellular targets involved in DDR and redox homeostasis (red). The in silico network is built based on the manually curated data from the literature [115–132]. Red links represent downregulated expression/activity; green links represent upregulated expression/activity.
6. Conclusion and future perspectives
Exposure to environmental UVR is one of the major factors linked to DNA damage in the skin cell. In addition to direct damage, UVR is also a potent inducer of ROS that cause oxidative changes to DNA and activation of redox-responsive signalling molecules and pathways. Some of these factors have been identified as part of the signalling known as the bystander effect, which induces changes and amplifies the original damage present in irradiated cells. Natural compounds from plant sources have the capacity to inhibit the expression or activity of these factors while simultaneously improving the anti-oxidant and DNA repair capacities of skin cells. Recent steady advances in modern skincare formulations also require inclusion of UVR-protective factors. Inhibition and repair of the direct and indirect UVR damage is relevant to a number of skin conditions, including sunburn, uneven skin tone, ageing or photo-sensitive atopic dermatitis. Many of the biomarkers involved in UVR response would be relevant to other skin conditions caused by environmental exposure such as chemical air pollution.
Application of natural, chemically stable and safe ingredients in the dermatology and cosmetic industry represents a promising avenue and a growing trend in the design of novel treatments. The list of compounds discussed here is not comprehensive; however, it can be expanded and appropriately verified using next-generation platform discoveries such as artificial intelligence (AI), deep learning algorithms and in silico screening of biomolecular libraries from natural sources. Such technologies are presently established; in addition, they also enable a fast and cost-effective design and validation of new bio-based products. The technologies resolve the high complexity of biological systems and enable the review of alternate functions of the molecules to repurpose them for new applications, for example, radioprotection. Such an approach will allow comprehensive rapid selection and validation of a range of bioactive compounds with predicted capacities to protect against or repair the molecular damage either individually or in synergy and enhance the desired effect on the skin dictated by future biomedical and cosmetic applications. Future studies based on the natural compounds could also provide more insight into the nature of bystander signalling, to enable its modulation relevant to therapeutic and cosmetic purposes in the field.
Supplementary Material
Data accessibility
This article does not contain any additional data.
Authors' contributions
Both authors contributed to the manuscript and figures production.
Competing interests
We declare we have no competing interests.
Funding
We received no funding for this study.
References
- 1.Krutmann J, Bouloc A, Sore G, Bernard BA, Passeron T. 2017. The skin aging exposome. J. Dermatol. Sci. 85, 152–161. ( 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2016.09.015) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.D'Orazio J, Jarrett S, Amaro-Ortiz A, Scott T. 2013. UV radiation and the skin. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14, 12 222–12 248. ( 10.3390/ijms140612222) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Najafi M, Fardid R, Hadadi GH, Fardid M. 2014. The mechanisms of radiation-induced bystander effect. J. Biomed. Phys. Eng. 4, 163–172. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Nagasawa H, Little JB. 1992. Induction of sister chromatid exchanges by extremely low doses of alpha-particles. Cancer Res. 52, 6394–6396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Dahle J, Kaalhus O, Stokke T, Kvam E. 2005. Bystander effects may modulate ultraviolet A and B radiation-induced delayed mutagenesis. Radiat. Res. 163, 289–295. ( 10.1667/RR3305) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cavinato M, Waltenberger B, Baraldo G, Grade CVC, Stuppner H, Jansen-Durr P. 2017. Plant extracts and natural compounds used against UVB-induced photoaging. Biogerontology 18, 499–516. ( 10.1007/s10522-017-9715-7) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Schuch AP, Garcia CC, Makita K, Menck CF. 2013. DNA damage as a biological sensor for environmental sunlight. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 12, 1259–1272. ( 10.1039/c3pp00004d) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sage E, Girard PM, Francesconi S. 2012. Unravelling UVA-induced mutagenesis. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 11, 74–80. ( 10.1039/c1pp05219e) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Perdiz D, Grof P, Mezzina M, Nikaido O, Moustacchi E, Sage E. 2000. Distribution and repair of bipyrimidine photoproducts in solar UV-irradiated mammalian cells: possible role of Dewar photoproducts in solar mutagenesis. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 26 732–26 742. ( 10.1074/jbc.M001450200) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mouret S, Baudouin C, Charveron M, Favier A, Cadet J, Douki T. 2006. Cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers are predominant DNA lesions in whole human skin exposed to UVA radiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 13 765–13 770. ( 10.1073/pnas.0604213103) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Otoshi E, Yagi T, Mori T, Matsunaga T, Nikaido O, Kim ST, Hitomi K, Ikenaga M, Todo T. 2000. Respective roles of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, (6–4)photoproducts, and minor photoproducts in ultraviolet mutagenesis of repair-deficient xeroderma pigmentosum a cells. Cancer Res. 60, 1729–1735. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Tommasi T, Denissenko MF, Pfeifer GP. 1997. Sunlight induces pyrimidine dimers preferentially at 5-methylcytosine bases. Cancer Res. 57, 4727–4730. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Rochette PJ, Brash DE. 2010. Human telomeres are hypersensitive to UV-induced DNA damage and refractory to repair. PLoS Genet. 6, e1000926 ( 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000926) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Han C, Srivastava AK, Cui T, Wang QE, Wani AA. 2016. Differential DNA lesion formation and repair in heterochromatin and euchromatin. Carcinogenesis 37, 129–138. ( 10.1093/carcin/bgv247) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Wischermann K, et al. 2008. UVA radiation causes DNA strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations and tumorigenic transformation in HaCaT skin keratinocytes. Oncogene 27, 4269–4280. ( 10.1038/onc.2008.70) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Runger TM, Farahvash B, Hatvani Z, Rees A. 2012. Comparison of DNA damage responses following equimutagenic doses of UVA and UVB: a less effective cell cycle arrest with UVA may render UVA-induced pyrimidine dimers more mutagenic than UVB-induced ones. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 11, 207–215. ( 10.1039/c1pp05232b) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Wondrak GT, Jacobson MK, Jacobson EL. 2006. Endogenous UVA-photosensitizers: mediators of skin photodamage and novel targets for skin photoprotection. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 5, 215–237. ( 10.1039/b504573h) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Cadet J, Douki T, Ravanat JL, Di Mascio P. 2009. Sensitized formation of oxidatively generated damage to cellular DNA by UVA radiation. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 8, 903–911. ( 10.1039/b905343n) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Cadet J, Douki T, Ravanat JL. 2015. Oxidatively generated damage to cellular DNA by UVB and UVA radiation. Photochem. Photobiol. 91, 140–155. ( 10.1111/php.12368) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Prasad A, Pospisil P. 2012. Ultraweak photon emission induced by visible light and ultraviolet a radiation via photoactivated skin chromophores: in vivo charge coupled device imaging. J. Biomed. Opt. 17, 085004 ( 10.1117/1.JBO.17.8.085004) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Foote CS. 1968. Mechanisms of photosensitized oxidation. There are several different types of photosensitized oxidation which may be important in biological systems. Science 162, 963–970. ( 10.1126/science.162.3857.963) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Foote CS. 1991. Definition of type I and type II photosensitized oxidation. Photochem. Photobiol. 54, 659 ( 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1991.tb02071.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Caldecott KW. 2008. Single-strand break repair and genetic disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 619–631. ( 10.1038/nrg2380) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kohen R, Nyska A. 2002. Oxidation of biological systems: oxidative stress phenomena, antioxidants, redox reactions, and methods for their quantification. Toxicol. Pathol. 30, 620–650. ( 10.1080/01926230290166724) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Blair IA. 2008. DNA adducts with lipid peroxidation products. J. Biol. Chem. 283, 15 545–15 549. ( 10.1074/jbc.R700051200) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Davies MJ. 2016. Protein oxidation and peroxidation. Biochem. J. 473, 805–825. ( 10.1042/BJ20151227) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Graindorge D, Martineau S, Machon C, Arnoux P, Guitton J, Francesconi S, Frochot C, Sage E, Girard PM. 2015. Singlet oxygen-mediated oxidation during UVA radiation alters the dynamic of genomic DNA replication. PLoS ONE 10, e0140645 ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0140645) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Premi S, et al. 2015. Photochemistry. Chemiexcitation of melanin derivatives induces DNA photoproducts long after UV exposure. Science 347, 842–847. ( 10.1126/science.1256022) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Batista LF, Kaina B, Meneghini R, Menck CF. 2009. How DNA lesions are turned into powerful killing structures: insights from UV-induced apoptosis. Mutat. Res. 681, 197–208. ( 10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.09.001) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kaufmann WK, Cleaver JE. 1981. Mechanisms of inhibition of DNA replication by ultraviolet light in normal human and xeroderma pigmentosum fibroblasts. J. Mol. Biol. 149, 171–187. ( 10.1016/0022-2836(81)90297-7) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Barzilai A, Yamamoto K. 2004. DNA damage responses to oxidative stress. DNA Repair 3, 1109–1115. ( 10.1016/j.dnarep.2004.03.002) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Sancar A, Lindsey-Boltz LA, Unsal-Kacmaz K, Linn S. 2004. Molecular mechanisms of mammalian DNA repair and the DNA damage checkpoints. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 73, 39–85. ( 10.1146/annurev.biochem.73.011303.073723) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Leandro GS, Sykora P, Bohr VA. 2015. The impact of base excision DNA repair in age-related neurodegenerative diseases. Mutat. Res. 776, 31–39. ( 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2014.12.011) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Pascucci B, D'Errico M, Parlanti E, Giovannini S, Dogliotti E. 2011. Role of nucleotide excision repair proteins in oxidative DNA damage repair: an updating. Biochemistry 76, 4–15. ( 10.1134/s0006297911010032) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Menck CF, Munford V. 2014. DNA repair diseases: what do they tell us about cancer and aging? Genet. Mol. Biol. 37, 220–233. ( 10.1590/S1415-47572014000200008) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Costa RM, Chigancas V, Galhardo Rda S, Carvalho H, Menck CF. 2003. The eukaryotic nucleotide excision repair pathway. Biochimie 85, 1083–1099. ( 10.1016/j.biochi.2003.10.017) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Sauvaigo S, Caillat S, Odin F, Nkengne A, Bertin C, Oddos T. 2010. Effect of aging on DNA excision/synthesis repair capacities of human skin fibroblasts. J. Invest. Dermatol. 130, 1739–1741. ( 10.1038/jid.2010.10) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Berneburg M, Gattermann N, Stege H, Grewe M, Vogelsang K, Ruzicka T, Krutmann J. 1997. Chronically ultraviolet-exposed human skin shows a higher mutation frequency of mitochondrial DNA as compared to unexposed skin and the hematopoietic system. J. Invest. Dermatol. 109, 425 ( 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1997.tb08654.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Muller FL, Lustgarten MS, Jang Y, Richardson A, van Remmen H. 2007. Trends in oxidative aging theories. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 43, 477–503. ( 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2007.03.034) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Radi R, Cassina A, Hodara R, Quijano C, Castro L. 2003. Peroxynitrite reactions and formation in mitochondria. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 33, 1451–1464. ( 10.1016/s0891-5849(02)01111-5) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Fransen M, Nordgren M, Wang B, Apanasets O. 2012. Role of peroxisomes in ROS/RNS-metabolism: implications for human disease. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Basis Dis. 1822, 1363–1373. ( 10.1016/j.bbadis.2011.12.001) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Stuehr D, Pou S, Rosen GM. 2001. Oxygen reduction by nitric-oxide synthases. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 14 533–14 536. ( 10.1074/jbc.R100011200) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Benham AM, van Lith M, Sitia R, Braakman I. 2013. Ero1-PDI interactions, the response to redox flux and the implications for disulfide bond formation in the mammalian endoplasmic reticulum. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20110403 ( 10.1098/rstb.2011.0403) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Bhandary B, Marahatta A, Kim HR, Chae HJ. 2012. An involvement of oxidative stress in endoplasmic reticulum stress and its associated diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14, 434–456. ( 10.3390/ijms14010434) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Bae YS, Oh H, Rhee SG, Do Yoo Y. 2011. Regulation of reactive oxygen species generation in cell signalling. Mol. Cells 32, 491–509. ( 10.1007/s10059-011-0276-3) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Kukreja RC, Kontos HA, Hess ML, Ellis EF. 1986. Superoxide generation by prostaglandin synthetase and lipoxygenase in presence of NADH or NADPH. Fed. Proc. 45, 451. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Ziboh VA, Miller CC, Cho YH. 2000. Metabolism of polyunsaturated fatty acids by skin epidermal enzymes: generation of antiinflammatory and antiproliferative metabolites. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 71, 361s–366s. ( 10.1093/ajcn/71.1.361s) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Waris G, Ahsan H. 2006. Reactive oxygen species: role in the development of cancer and various chronic conditions. J. Carcinog. 11, 5–14. ( 10.1186/1477-3163-5-14) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Mehdi MZ, Azar ZM, Srivastava AK. 2007. Role of receptor and nonreceptor protein tyrosine kinases in H2O2-induced PKB and ERK1/2 signalling. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 47, 1–10. ( 10.1385/cbb:47:1:1) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Kensler TW, Wakabayashi N, Biswal S. 2007. Cell survival responses to environmental stresses via the Keap1-Nrf2-ARE pathway. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 47, 89–116. ( 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.46.120604.141046) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Pantano C, Reynaert NL, van der Vliet A, Janssen-Heininger YM. 2006. Redox-sensitive kinases of the nuclear factor-κB signalling pathway. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 8, 1791–1806. ( 10.1089/ars.2006.8.1791) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Beak SM, Lee YS, Kim JA. 2004. NADPH oxidase and cyclooxygenase mediate the ultraviolet B-induced generation of reactive oxygen species and activation of nuclear factor-κB in HaCaT human keratinocytes. Biochimie 86, 425–429. ( 10.1016/j.biochi.2004.06.010) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Dahle J, Kvam E, Stokke T. 2005. Bystander effects in UV-induced genomic instability: antioxidants inhibit delayed mutagenesis induced by ultraviolet A and B radiation. J. Carcinog. 4, 11 ( 10.1186/1477-3163-4-11) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Strozyk E, Kulms D. 2013. The role of AKT/mTOR pathway in stress response to UV irradiation: implication in skin carcinogenesis by regulation of apoptosis, autophagy and senescence. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14, 15 260–15 285. ( 10.3390/ijms140815260) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Debacq-Chainiaux F, et al. 2005. Repeated exposure of human skin fibroblasts to UVB at subcytotoxic level triggers premature senescence through the TGF-beta1 signalling pathway. J. Cell Sci. 118, 743–758. ( 10.1242/jcs.01651) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Chen ZB, et al. 2005. Crucial role of p53-dependent cellular senescence in suppression of Pten-deficient tumorigenesis. Nature 436, 725–730. ( 10.1038/nature03918) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Courtois-Cox S, Williams SMG, Reczek EE, Johnson BW, McGillicuddy LT, Johannessen CM, Hollstein PE, MacCollin M, Cichowski K. 2006. A negative feedback signalling network underlies oncogene-induced senescence. Cancer Cell 10, 459–472. ( 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.003) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Cristofalo VJ, Lorenzini A, Allen RG, Torres C, Tresini M. 2004. Replicative senescence: a critical review. Mech. Ageing Dev. 125, 827–848. ( 10.1016/j.mad.2004.07.010) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Collado M, Blasco MA, Serrano M. 2007. Cellular senescence in cancer and aging. Cell 130, 223–233. ( 10.1016/j.cell.2007.07.003) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Sedelnikova OA, Horikawa I, Zimonjic DB, Popescu NC, Bonner WM, Barrett JC. 2004. Senescing human cells and ageing mice accumulate DNA lesions with unrepairable double-strand breaks. Nat. Cell Biol. 6, 168–170. ( 10.1038/ncb1095) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Blackburn EH. 2005. Telomeres and telomerase: their mechanisms of action and the effects of altering their functions. FEBS Lett. 579, 859–862. ( 10.1016/j.febslet.2004.11.036) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Toussaint O, Medrano EE, von Zglinicki T. 2000. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of stress-induced premature senescence (SIPS) of human diploid fibroblasts and melanocytes. Exp. Gerontol. 35, 927–945. ( 10.1016/s0531-5565(00)00180-7) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Oikawa S, Kawanishi S. 1999. Site-specific DNA damage at GGG sequence by oxidative stress may accelerate telomere shortening. FEBS Lett 453, 365–368. ( 10.1016/s0014-5793(99)00748-6) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Chen Q, Fischer A, Reagan JD, Yan LJ, Ames BN. 1995. Oxidative DNA damage and senescence of human diploid fibroblast cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 4337–4341. ( 10.1073/pnas.92.10.4337) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Giaccia AJ, Kastan MB. 1998. The complexity of p53 modulation: emerging patterns from divergent signals. Gene Dev. 12, 2973–2983. ( 10.1101/gad.12.19.2973) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Bulavin DV, Saito S, Hollander MC, Sakaguchi K, Anderson CW, Appella E, Fornace AJ. 1999. Phosphorylation of human p53 by p38 kinase coordinates N-terminal phosphorylation and apoptosis in response to UV radiation. EMBO J. 18, 6845–6854. ( 10.1093/emboj/18.23.6845) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.van Deursen JM. 2014. The role of senescent cells in ageing. Nature 509, 439–446. ( 10.1038/nature13193) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Shimada M, Nakanishi M. 2006. DNA damage checkpoints and cancer. J. Mol. Hist. 37, 253–260. ( 10.1007/s10735-006-9039-4) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Mitra J, Enders GH. 2004. Cyclin A/Cdk2 complexes regulate activation of Cdk1 and Cdc25 phosphatases in human cells. Oncogene 23, 3361–3367. ( 10.1038/sj.onc.1207446) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Rother K, Kirschner R, Sänger K, Böhlig L, Mössner J, Engeland K. 2007. p53 downregulates expression of the G1/S cell cycle phosphatase Cdc25A. Oncogene 26, 1949–1953. ( 10.1038/sj.onc.1209989) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.McConnell BB, Starborg M, Brookes S, Peters G. 1998. Inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases induce features of replicative senescence in early passage human diploid fibroblasts. Curr. Biol. 8, 351–354. ( 10.1016/s0960-9822(98)70137-x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Bond J, Jones C, Haughton M, DeMicco C, Kipling D, Wynford-Thomas D. 2004. Direct evidence from siRNA-directed ‘knock down’ that p16(Ink4a) is required for human fibroblast senescence and for limiting RAS-induced epithelial cell proliferation. Exp. Cell Res. 292, 151–156. ( 10.1016/j.yexcr.2003.09.021) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Maehara K, Yamakoshi K, Ohtani N, Kubo Y, Takahashi A, Arase S, Jones N, Hara E. 2005. Reduction of total E2F/DP activity induces senescence-like cell cycle arrest in cancer cells lacking functional PRB and p53. J. Cell Biol. 168, 553–560. ( 10.1083/jcb.200411093) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Jenkins NC, Liu T, Cassidy P, Leachman SA, Boucher KM, Goodson AG, Samadashwily G, Grossman D. 2011. The p16(Ink4a) tumor suppressor regulates cellular oxidative stress. Oncogene 30, 265–274. ( 10.1038/onc.2010.419) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Meloche S, Pouyssegur J. 2007. The ERK1/2 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway as a master regulator of the G1- to S-phase transition. Oncogene 26, 3227–3239. ( 10.1038/sj.onc.1210414) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Serrano M, Lin AW, McCurrach ME, Beach D, Lowe SW. 1997. Oncogenic RAS provokes premature cell senescence associated with accumulation of p53 and p16(Ink4a). Cell 88, 593–602. ( 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81902-9) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Wickett RR, Visscher MO. 2006. Structure and function of the epidermal barrier. Am. J. Infect. Contr. 34, S98–S110. ( 10.1016/j.ajic.2006.05.295) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Poljsak B, Dahmane R. 2012. Free radicals and extrinsic skin aging. Dermatol. Res. Pract. 2012, 135206 ( 10.1155/2012/135206) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Weber SU, Thiele JJ, Cross CE, Packer L. 1999. Vitamin C, uric acid, and glutathione gradients in murine stratum corneum and their susceptibility to ozone exposure. J. Invest. Dermatol. 113, 1128–1132. ( 10.1046/j.1523-1747.1999.00789.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Wu G, Fang Y, Yang S, Lupton JR, Turner ND. 2004. Glutathione metabolism and its implications for health. J. Nutr. 134, 489–492. ( 10.1093/jn/134.3.489) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Aung-Htut MT, Ayer A, Breitenbach M, Dawes IW. 2012. Oxidative stresses and ageing. Subcell. Biochem. 57, 13–54. ( 10.1007/978-94-007-2561-4_2) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Rhie G, Shin MH, Seo JY, Choi WW, Cho KH, Kim KH, Park KC, Eun HC, Chung JH. 2001. Aging- and photoaging-dependent changes of enzymic and nonenzymic antioxidants in the epidermis and dermis of human skin in vivo. J. Invest. Dermatol. 117, 1212–1217. ( 10.1046/j.0022-202x.2001.01469.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Vermeij WP, Alia A, Backendorf C. 2011. ROS quenching potential of the epidermal cornified cell envelope. J. Invest. Dermatol. 131, 1435–1441. ( 10.1038/jid.2010.433) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Schafer M, Werner S. 2011. The cornified envelope: a first line of defense against reactive oxygen species. J. Invest. Dermatol. 131, 1409–1411. ( 10.1038/jid.2011.119) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Schafer M, Dutsch S, Keller UAD, Navid F, Schwarz A, Johnson DA, Johnson JA, Werner S. 2010. Nrf2 establishes a glutathione-mediated gradient of UVB cytoprotection in the epidermis. Gene Dev. 24, 1045–1058. ( 10.1101/gad.568810) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.McCord JM, Fridovich I. 1969. Superoxide dismutase. An enzymic function for erythrocuprein (hemocuprein). J. Biol. Chem. 244, 6049–6055. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Forman HJ. 2016. Redox signalling: an evolution from free radicals to aging. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 97, 398–407. ( 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.07.003) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Kwon MJ, Kim B, Lee YS, Kim TY. 2012. Role of superoxide dismutase 3 in skin inflammation. J. Dermatol. Sci. 67, 81–87. ( 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2012.06.003) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Treiber N, et al. 2011. Accelerated aging phenotype in mice with conditional deficiency for mitochondrial superoxide dismutase in the connective tissue. Aging Cell 10, 912 ( 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2010.00658.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Murakami K, Inagaki J, Saito M, Ikeda Y, Tsuda C, Noda Y, Kawakami S, Shirasawa T, Shimizu T. 2009. Skin atrophy in cytoplasmic SOD-deficient mice and its complete recovery using a vitamin C derivative. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 382, 457–461. ( 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.03.053) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Velarde MC, Flynn JM, Day NU, Melov S, Campisi J. 2012. Mitochondrial oxidative stress caused by Sod2 deficiency promotes cellular senescence and aging phenotypes in the skin. Aging 4, 3–12. ( 10.18632/aging.100423) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Glorieux C, Calderon PB. 2017. Catalase, a remarkable enzyme: targeting the oldest antioxidant enzyme to find a new cancer treatment approach. Biol. Chem. 398, 1095–1108. ( 10.1515/hsz-2017-0131) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Hellemans L, Corstjens H, Neven A, Declercq L, Maes D. 2003. Antioxidant enzyme activity in human stratum corneum shows seasonal variation with an age-dependent recovery. J. Invest. Dermatol. 120, 434–439. ( 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12056.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Giacomoni PU, Declercq L, Hellemans L, Maes D. 2000. Aging of human skin: review of a mechanistic model and first experimental data. IUBMB Life 49, 259–263. ( 10.1080/15216540050033104) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Shin MH, Rhie GE, Kim YK, Park CH, Cho KH, Kim KH, Eun HC, Chung JH. 2005. H2O2 accumulation by catalase reduction changes MAP kinase signalling in aged human skin in vivo. J. Invest. Dermatol. 125, 221–229. ( 10.1111/j.0022-202X.2005.23823.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Toppo S, Flohe L, Ursini F, Vanin S, Maiorino M. 2009. Catalytic mechanisms and specificities of glutathione peroxidases: variations of a basic scheme. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1790, 1486–1500. ( 10.1016/j.bbagen.2009.04.007) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Brigelius-Flohe R. 1999. Tissue-specific functions of individual glutathione peroxidises. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 27, 951–965. ( 10.1016/s0891-5849(99)00173-2) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Sengupta A, et al. 2013. Targeted disruption of glutathione peroxidase 4 in mouse skin epithelial cells impairs postnatal hair follicle morphogenesis that is partially rescued through inhibition of COX-2. J. Invest. Dermatol. 133, 1731–1741. ( 10.1038/jid.2013.52) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Wood ZA, Schroder E, Robin Harris J, Poole LB. 2003. Structure, mechanism and regulation of peroxiredoxins. Trends Biochem. Sci. 28, 32–40. ( 10.1016/s0968-0004(02)00003-8) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Ding C, Fan X, Wu G. 2017. Peroxiredoxin 1—an antioxidant enzyme in cancer. J. Cell Mol. Med. 21, 193–202. ( 10.1111/jcmm.12955) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Ito T, et al. 2014. Peroxiredoxin I plays a protective role against UVA irradiation through reduction of oxidative stress. J. Dermatol. Sci. 74, 9–17. ( 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2013.12.002) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Lee SC, Chae HZ, Lee JE, Kwon BD, Lee JB, Won YH, Ahn KY, Kim YP. 2000. Peroxiredoxin is ubiquitously expressed in rat skin: isotype-specific expression in the epidermis and hair follicle. J. Invest. Dermatol. 115, 1108–1114. ( 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2000.00177.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Hentze MW, Muckenthaler MU, Andrews NC. 2004. Balancing acts: molecular control of mammalian iron metabolism. Cell 117, 285–297. ( 10.1016/s0092-8674(04)00343-5) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Schäfer M, Werner S. 2015. Nrf2-A regulator of keratinocyte redox signalling. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 88, 243–252. ( 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.04.018) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Lopez-Torres M, Shindo Y, Packer L. 1994. Effect of age on antioxidants and molecular markers of oxidative damage in murine epidermis and dermis. J. Invest. Dermatol. 102, 476– 480. ( 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12373032) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Jahoda CA, Reynolds AJ. 2001. Hair follicle dermal sheath cells: unsung participants in wound healing. Lancet 358, 1445–1448. ( 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06532-1) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.McCullough JL, Kelly KM. 2006. Prevention and treatment of skin aging. Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 1067, 323–331. ( 10.1196/annals.1354.044) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Racila D, Bickenbach JR. 2009. Are epidermal stem cells unique with respect to aging? Aging 1, 746–750. ( 10.18632/aging.100082) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Charruyer A, Barland CO, Yue LL, Wessendorf HB, Lu Y, Lawrence HJ, Mancianti ML, Ghadially R. 2009. Transit-amplifying cell frequency and cell cycle kinetics are altered in aged epidermis. J. Invest. Dermatol. 129, 2574–2583. ( 10.1038/jid.2009.127) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Stern MM, Bickenbach JR. 2007. Epidermal stem cells are resistant to cellular aging. Aging Cell 6, 439–452. ( 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2007.00318.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Widel M. 2012. Bystander effect induced by UV radiation; why should we be interested? Postepy Hig. Med. Dosw. 66, 828–837. ( 10.5604/17322693.1019532) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Zhou H, Ivanov VN, Gillespie J, Geard CR, Amundson SA, Brenner DJ, Yu Z, Lieberman HB, Hei TK. 2005. Mechanism of radiation-induced bystander effect: role of the cyclooxygenase-2 signaling pathway. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 14 641–14 646. ( 10.1073/pnas.0505473102) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Hei TK, Zhou H, Ivanov VN, Hong M, Lieberman HB, Brenner DJ, Amundson SA, Geard CR. 2008. Mechanism of radiation-induced bystander effects: a unifying model. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 60, 943–950. ( 10.1211/jpp.60.8.0001) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Ivanov VN, Zhou H, Ghandhi SA, Karasic TB, Yaghoubian B, Amundson SA, Hei TK. 2010. Radiation-induced bystander signalling pathways in human fibroblasts: a role for interleukin-33 in the signal transmission. Cell Signal. 22, 1076–1087. ( 10.1016/j.cellsig.2010.02.010) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Tanigawa T, et al. 2014. (+)-Catechin protects dermal fibroblasts against oxidative stress-induced apoptosis. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 14, 133 ( 10.1186/1472-6882-14-133) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Kim JY, Kim SS, Oh TH, Baik JS, Song G, Lee NH, Hyun CG. 2009. Chemical composition, antioxidant, anti-elastase, and anti-inflammatory activities of Illicium anisatum essential oil. Acta Pharm. 59, 289–300 ( 10.2478/v10007-009-0022-y) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Chae S, Piao MJ, Kang KA, Zhang R, Kim KC, Youn UJ, Nam KW, Lee JH, Hyun JW. 2011. Inhibition of matrix metalloproteinase-1 induced by oxidative stress in human keratinocytes by mangiferin isolated from Anemarrhena asphodeloides. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 75, 2321–2325. ( 10.1271/bbb.110465) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Kim HS, Song JH, Youn UJ, Hyun JW, Jeong WS, Lee MY, Choi HJ, Lee HK, Chae S. 2012. Inhibition of UVB-induced wrinkle formation and MMP-9 expression by mangiferin isolated from Anemarrhena asphodeloides. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 689, 38–44. ( 10.1016/j.ejphar.2012.05.050) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Park G, Kim HG, Sim Y, Sung SH, Oh MS. 2013. Sauchinone, a lignan from Saururus chinensis, protects human skin keratinocytes against ultraviolet B-induced photoaging by regulating the oxidative defense system. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 36, 1134–1139. ( 10.1248/bpb.b13-00101) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Carvalho AC, Gomes AC, Pereira-Wilson C, Lima CF. 2015. Redox-dependent induction of antioxidant defenses by phenolic diterpenes confers stress tolerance in normal human skin fibroblasts: Insights on replicative senescence. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 83, 262–272. ( 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.02.022) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Silva AR, Seidl C, Furusho AS, Boeno MM, Dieamant GC, Weffort-Santos AM. 2013. In vitro evaluation of the efficacy of commercial green tea extracts in UV protection. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 35, 69–77. ( 10.1111/ics.12006) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Pluemsamran T, Onkoksoong T, Panich U. 2012. Caffeic acid and ferulic acid inhibit UVA-induced matrix metalloproteinase-1 through regulation of antioxidant defense system in keratinocyte HaCaT cells. Photochem. Photobiol. 88, 961–968. ( 10.1111/j.1751-1097.2012.01118.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Huang CC, Hsu BY, Wu NL, Tsui WH, Lin TJ, Su CC, Hung CF. 2010. Anti-photoaging effects of soy isoflavone extract (aglycone and acetylglucoside form) from soybean cake. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 11, 4782–4795. ( 10.3390/ijms11124782) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Chiang HM, Chiu HH, Liao ST, Chen YT, Chang HC, Wen KC. 2013. Isoflavonoid-rich Flemingia macrophylla extract attenuates UVB-induced skin damage by scavenging reactive oxygen species and inhibiting MAP kinase and MMP expression. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2013, 696879 ( 10.1155/2013/696879) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Kim JK, Mun S, Kim MS, Kim MB, Sa BK, Hwang JK. 2012. 5,7-Dimethoxyflavone, an activator of PPARα/γ, inhibits UVB-induced MMP expression in human skin fibroblast cells. Exp. Dermatol. 21, 211–216. ( 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2011.01435.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Kim SR, et al. 2013. Anti-wrinkle and anti-inflammatory effects of active garlic components and the inhibition of MMPs via NF-κB signalling. PLoS ONE 8, e73877 ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0073877) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Chiang HM, Lin TJ, Chiu CY, Chang CW, Hsu KC, Fan PC, Wen KC. 2011. Coffea arabica extract and its constituents prevent photoaging by suppressing MMPs expression and MAP kinase pathway. Food Chem. Toxicol. 49, 309–318. ( 10.1016/j.fct.2010.10.034) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Park MJ, Bae YS. 2016. Fermented Acanthopanax koreanum root extract reduces UVB- and H2O2-induced senescence in human skin fibroblast cells. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 26, 1224–1233. ( 10.4014/jmb.1602.02049) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Min W, Liu X, Qian Q, Lin B, Wu D, Wang M, Ahmad I, Yusuf N, Luo D. 2014. Effects of baicalin against UVA-induced photoaging in skin fibroblasts. Am. J. Chin. Med. 42, 709–727. ( 10.1142/S0192415X14500463) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Ham SA, Hwang JS, Kang ES, Yoo T, Lim HH, Lee WJ, Paek KS, Seo HG. 2015. Ethanol extract of Dalbergia odorifera protects skin keratinocytes against ultraviolet B-induced photoaging by suppressing production of reactive oxygen species. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 79, 760–766. ( 10.1080/09168451.2014.993916) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Liu YH, Lin YS, Huang YW, Fang SU, Lin SY, Hou WC. 2016. Protective effects of minor components of curcuminoids on hydrogen peroxide-treated human HaCaT keratinocytes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 64, 3598–3608. ( 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b01196) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Lima CF, Pereira-Wilson C, Rattan SI. 2011. Curcumin induces heme oxygenase-1 in normal human skin fibroblasts through redox signalling: relevance for anti-aging intervention. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 55, 430–442. ( 10.1002/mnfr.201000221) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Naghibi F, Mosaddegh M, Motamed SM, Ghorbani A. 2005. Labiatae family in folk medicine in Iran: from ethnobotany to pharmacology. Iran J. Pharm. Res. 2, 63–79. ( 10.22037/ijpr.2010.619) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Grace SG, Logan BA. 2000. Energy dissipation and radical scavenging by the plant phenylpropanoid pathway. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 355, 1499–1510. ( 10.1098/rstb.2000.0710) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Michalak A. 2006. Phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity in plants growing under heavy metal stress. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 15, 523–530. [Google Scholar]
- 136.Balasundram N, Sundram K, Samman S. 2006. Phenolic compounds in plants and agri- industrial by-products: antioxidant activity, occurrence, and potential uses. Food Chem. 99, 191–203. ( 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.07.042) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Dai J, Mumper RJ. 2010. Plant phenolics: extraction, analysis and their antioxidant and anticancer properties. Molecules 15, 7313–7352. ( 10.3390/molecules15107313) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Arora A, Byrem TM, Nair MG, Strasburg GM. 2000. Modulation of liposomal membrane fluidity by flavonoids and isoflavonoids. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 373, 102–109. ( 10.1006/abbi.1999.1525) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Brown EJ, Khodr H, Hider CR, Rice-Evans CA. 1998. Structural dependence of flavonoid interactions with Cu2+ ions: implications for their antioxidant properties. Biochem J. 330, 1173–1178. ( 10.1042/bj3301173) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Huang WY, Cai YZ, Zhang Y. 2009. Natural phenolic compounds from medicinal herbs and dietary plants: potential use for cancer prevention. Nutr. Cancer 62, 1–20. ( 10.1080/01635580903191585) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.Ward J. 1998. New paradigms for low-dose radiation response in Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Conference on Radiation and Health. Radiat. Res. 151, 92–117. ( 10.2307/3579753) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Grosovsky AJ. 1999. Radiation-induced mutations in unirradiated DNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5346–5347. ( 10.1073/pnas.96.10.5346) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Iyer R, Lehnert BE. 2000. Effects of ionizing radiation in targeted and nontargeted cells. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 376, 14–25. ( 10.1006/abbi.1999.1684) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Wolff S. 1998. The adaptive response in radiobiology: evolving insights and implications. Environ. Health Perspect. 106, 1277–1283. ( 10.1289/ehp.98106s1277) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Joiner MC, Marples B, Lambin P, Short SC, Turesson I. 2001. Low-dose hypersensitivity: current status and possible mechanisms. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 49, 379–389. ( 10.1016/s0360-3016(00)01471-1) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.Watson GE, Lorimore SA, Macdonald DA, Wright EG. 2000. Chromosomal instability in unirradiated cells induced in vivo by a bystander effect of ionizing radiation. Cancer Res. 60, 5608–5611. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Zhou H, Randers-Pehrson G, Waldren CA, Vannais D, Hall EJ, Hei TK. 2000. Induction of a bystander mutagenic effect of alpha particles in mammalian cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 2099–2104. ( 10.1073/pnas.030420797) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Sawant SG, Randers-Pehrson G, Geard CR, Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. 2001. The bystander effect in radiation oncogenesis. I. Transformation in C3H 10T1/2 cells in vitro can be initiated in the unirradiated neighbors of irradiated cells. Radiat. Res. 155, 397–401. ( 10.1667/0033-7587(2001)155[0397:tbeiro]2.0.co;2) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Azzam EI, de Toledo SM, Little JB. 2001. Direct evidence for the participation of gap junction- mediated intercellular communication in the transmission of damage signals from alpha-particle irradiated to nonirradiated cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 473–478. ( 10.1073/pnas.011417098) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Lehnert BE, Goodwin EH. 1997. Extracellular factor(s) following exposure to alpha particles can cause sister chromatid exchanges in normal human cells. Cancer Res. 57, 2164–2171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.Iyer R, Lehnert BE. 2000. Factors underlying the cell growth-related bystander responses to alpha particles. Cancer Res. 60, 1290–1298. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Hickman A, Jaramillo R, Lechner J, Johnson N. 1994. Alpha-particle-induced p53 protein expression in a rat lung epithelial cell strain. Cancer Res. 54, 5797–5800. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Belyakov OV, Malcolmson AM, Folkard M, Prise KM, Michael BD. 2001. Direct evidence for a bystander effect of ionizing radiation in primary human fibroblasts. Br. J. Cancer 84, 674–679. ( 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1665) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Markiewicz E, et al. 2015. Nonlinear ionizing radiation-induced changes in eye lens cell proliferation, cyclin D1 expression and lens shape. Open Biol. 5, 150011 ( 10.1098/rsob.150011) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Michael B, Belyakov O, Folkard M, Malcolmson A, Ozols A, Prise K. 2000. Implications of bystander effects for radiobiology. In Proc. of 11th ICRR, Dublin, 18–23 July 1999, pp. 397–402. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
This article does not contain any additional data.



