Skip to main content
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology logoLink to Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
. 2020 May 5;8:258. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2020.00258

Senescence in Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Functional Alterations, Molecular Mechanisms, and Rejuvenation Strategies

Jing Liu 1,2,, Yue Ding 3,, Zhongmin Liu 1,2,*, Xiaoting Liang 1,4,*
PMCID: PMC7232554  PMID: 32478063

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are multipotent cells capable of self-renewal and differentiation. There is increasing evidence of the therapeutic value of MSCs in various clinical situations, however, these cells gradually lose their regenerative potential with age, with a concomitant increase in cellular dysfunction. Stem cell aging and replicative exhaustion are considered as hallmarks of aging and functional attrition in organisms. MSCs do not proliferate infinitely but undergo only a limited number of population doublings before becoming senescent. This greatly hinders their clinical application, given that cultures must be expanded to obtain a sufficient number of cells for cell-based therapy. Here, we review the current knowledge of the phenotypic and functional characteristics of senescent MSCs, molecular mechanisms underlying MSCs aging, and strategies to rejuvenate senescent MSCs, which can broaden their range of therapeutic applications.

Keywords: aging, mesenchymal stem cells, senescence, mechanism, rejuvenation

Introduction

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were originally isolated from bone marrow (Friedenstein et al., 1968) but have since been detected in many tissues including dental pulp (Gronthos et al., 2002), adipose tissue (Zuk et al., 2002), and umbilical cord blood (Wang et al., 2004). The essential features of this heterogeneous cell population as defined by the International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) in 2006 are adherence to plastic under culture conditions; expression of the cell surface markers CD44, CD90, CD105, and CD73; absence of the hematopoietic markers CD45, CD34, CD14, CD11b, CD79α, CD19, and human leukocyte antigen-DR; and multi-differentiation potential, with the capacity to generate osteoblasts, chondroblasts, and adipocytes (Dominici et al., 2006). According to the recently published ISCT position statement, although the classic set of markers still applies to in vitro-expanded MSCs, surface markers are evolving (Viswanathan et al., 2019). For example, while the definition of MSCs includes CD34 negativity, MSCs can be positive for this marker in vivo (Bellagamba et al., 2018). MSCs can differentiate into cells of ectodermal and endodermal parentage (Al-Nbaheen et al., 2013) and novel surface markers (CD165, CD276, and CD82) have been identified (Shammaa et al., 2020). Moreover, surface marker expression can change under certain culture conditions or when stimulated by a molecule (i.e., interferon-γ) (Stagg et al., 2006). Stringent functional criteria must be met for the designation of a cell as a “stem” cell (Viswanathan et al., 2019; Nolta et al., 2020). MSCs can be safely transplanted autologously or allogeneically as they have low immunogenicity, and thus have many potential applications in cell-based therapy for various disease states (Squillaro et al., 2016). To be clinically useful, MSCs must be expanded in vitro over several population doublings (PDs) to obtain a sufficient number of cells for immediate administration. The age of donors is a major factor determining the lifespan and quality of MSCs (Sethe et al., 2006; Baker et al., 2015); cells from aged donors perform less well than those from young donors because of their reduced proliferative capacity and differentiation potential. For patients with age-related diseases, allogeneic MSCs from healthy young donors are clearly preferable to autologous MSCs. On the other hand, regardless of donor age or whether the cells are autologous or allogeneic, MSCs inevitably acquire a senescent phenotype after prolonged in vitro expansion (Dimmeler and Leri, 2008; Li et al., 2017). In vivo aging refers to donor age, which affects the lifespan of MSCs; in vitro aging is the loss of stem cell characteristics by MSCs as they enter senescence during expansion in culture; and senescence is a state where cells stop dividing, which negatively affects their immunomodulatory and differentiation capacities, leading to reduced efficacy following administration (Fan et al., 2010; Turinetto et al., 2016). Thus, for MSCs to be clinically effective, it is essential to monitor senescence and understand the molecular basis of MSC aging. In this review, we discuss changes that occur in senescent MSCs, current strategies for monitoring senescence and the molecular mechanisms involved, and interventions that can potentially slow or even reverse this process.

Current Status of MSC-Based Therapy

Mesenchymal stem cells were first used therapeutically in human patients in 1995 (Galipeau and Sensebe, 2018) and has since been applied to the treatment of a broad spectrum of diseases. As of January 2020, there were 767 MSC-based trials registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov, most of which are at an early phase (phase I or I/II) (Figure 1A). Although MSCs have been obtained from a variety of human sources, those derived from bone marrow, umbilical cord, and adipose tissue are preferred for clinical applications and account for approximately 65% of MSCs being used (Figure 1B). Due to their multi-differentiation potential and immunomodulatory and paracrine effects, MSCs have been extensively applied in various diseases (Figure 1C). Interestingly, although autologous transplantation was initially favored over allogeneic MSCs, there has been a notable increase in the use of the latter over the past decade (Figure 1D); for example, 11 out of 19 industry-sponsored phase III clinical trials of MSCs used allogeneic transplantation (Wang et al., 2016; Galipeau and Sensebe, 2018). One reason for this popularity is their low immunogenicity—that is, allogeneic MSCs can be safely transplanted without a high risk of rejection by the recipient (Wang D. et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2016). Additionally, candidate patients for cell-based therapy usually have age-related diseases. While the regenerative capacity of MSCs declines markedly with age (Kretlow et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2011), autologous transplantation is not the best option for these patients. However, robust immunologic data from clinical trials using allogeneic MSCs are still lacking. Although MSCs are considered as immunoprivileged, their transdifferentiation into other cell types—a basic property of MSCs–can increase the risk of immunogenicity (Mukonoweshuro et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 2014). Thus, there is still much to learn and optimize in terms of in vivo MSC interactions in pathologic states, which can lead to a better understanding of MSC aging and improve the long-term safety and outcome of MSC engraftment.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Current statistical data for MSC-based clinical trials as of January 2020 (data accessed from ClinicalTrials.gov ∼2020.1). (A–D) Statistics for MSC-based clinical trials in different phases (A), using difference cell sources (B), in different disease states (C), and using autologous or allogeneic transplantation (D).

Features of MSC Senescence

Irrespective of their source, MSCs enter a state of replicative senescence (i.e., in vitro aging, also known as the Hayflick limit) after repeated serial passage in culture when the cells stop dividing after a certain number of PDs (Hayflick and Moorhead, 1961). The maximum number of PDs that can be achieved by MSCs is estimated to be 30 to 40 (Banfi et al., 2002; Baxter et al., 2004). No clear information on passage number has been provided for the 15 MSC products approved to date for clinical use (Table 1). However, given that the differentiation potential of MSCs decreases after extended passages, low-passage cultures are recommended for clinical-scale expansion of cultures (Lechanteur et al., 2016). In the following sections, we discuss heterogeneity and biological and functional changes in MSC senescence (Figure 2).

TABLE 1.

Approved MSC-based medicinal products.

Product name Time of approval MSC source auto/allo Country Company Disease
Hearticellgram-AMI 2011-07-01 BMMSCs auto Korea FCB-Pharmicell Acute myocardial infarction
Cuepistem 2012-01-18 ADMSCs auto Korea Anterogen Crohn’s disease complicated with anal fistula
Cartistem 2012-01-19 UCBMSCs allo Korea Medipost Degenerative arthritis
Prochymal/remestemcel-L 2014-05-02 BMMSCs allo Canada Mesoblastinterna-tionalsar Pediatric acute graft versus host disease (aGvHD)
Neuronata-R 2014-07-30 BMMSCs auto Korea Corestem Lateral sclerosis of spinal cord
Temcell HS 2015-09-20 BMMSCs allo Japan JCR Pharmaceuticals Acute graft versus host disease (aGvHD)
Stempeucel 2016-03 BMMSCs allo India Stempeutics Research Severe limb ischemia caused by thromboangiitis obliterans (Buerger disease)
Alofisel (darvadstrocel, Cx601) 2018-03-27 ADMSCs allo Japan and Belgium Takeda Pharmaceutical Company and TiGenix NV Complex perianal fistulas in Crohn’s disease
Holoclar 2015-02-17 Limbal stem cells auto Italy Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A Restoration of Corneal Epithelium in Patients With Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency
MPC 2010-07 Mesenchymal precursor cell auto Australia Mesoblast Fracture healing and disc healing
ChondroCelect 2009-10-05 Cartilage cells auto Belgium TiGenix NV Osteoarthritis of the knee and repair cartilage damage of femoral condyle in adult knee joint.
Prochymal 2009-12 BMMSCs allo United States Osiris Therapeutics Diabetes mellitus type I
MultiStem 2012-07 BMMSCs allo United States Athersys Hurler’s syndrome/ischemic stroke
Maci 2016-12 Cartilage cells auto United States Osteochondral damages
Hemacord 2011-11 UCBMSCs allo United States New York Blood Center Hemorrhagic disease

Auto, autologous; allo, allogeneic; BMMSCs, bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells; ADMSCs, adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells; UCBMSCs, umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Phenotypic features of senescent MSCs. In vivo and in vitro aging lead to MSC senescence, which is characterized by heterogeneity, biological and functional changes.

Phenotypic Heterogeneity of Senescent MSCs

Despite their global features as defined by the ICST, MSCs are complex cell populations that exhibit heterogeneity depending on the donor, tissue source, and whether they are clonal populations or single cells (Phinney, 2012). MSC heterogeneity comprises proliferation rate, morphology, immunophenotype, multilineage differentiation potential, and senescence (Schellenberg et al., 2012). In symmetric cell division, a self-renewing parent cell divides into two daughter cells with comparable shape and differentiation potential. In contrast, asymmetric cell division yields a self-renewing cell and a non-dividing cell that becomes senescent in culture. These dynamics result in an initially dominant cell population being overtaken by other clonal populations after multiple passages (Figure 3). Heterogeneity in the proliferation potential of cultured MSCs manifests morphologically as subpopulations of small, round, rapidly proliferating cells and slowly dividing, large flattened cells (Mets and Verdonk, 1981; Colter et al., 2001). Using the limiting dilution assay at later passages, it was determined that not every cell is capable of clonal expansion and colony formation at the time of culture establishment (Schellenberg et al., 2012). More importantly, the number of colony-forming unit (CFU) fibroblasts decreased continuously during culture expansion, and were scarcely detected after >20 passages (Schellenberg et al., 2012). Likewise, clonal analysis of single-cell–derived colonies has suggested that not every cell has trilineage (i.e., osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic) potential (Wagner et al., 2008), and subsets with high differentiation potential rapidly decline in number after a few passages (Schellenberg et al., 2012). The age-related heterogeneity of MSCs is thought to be associated with epigenetic status; subpopulations with variable expression of stem cell antigen (Sca)-1 regained the Sca-1 profile of the parent cell after 4–8 days of culture, which was accompanied by epigenetic changes at the lymphocyte antigen 6 complex promoter (Hamidouche et al., 2017). Given the relevance to clinical efficacy, molecular markers of aging in cultured MSCs are needed to reflect senescence-associated alterations. The current understanding of aging-related cellular changes is based primarily on homogeneous bulk cell-derived data; emerging tools for single-cell analysis can help to define the heterogeneity of MSCs.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Influence of asymmetric cell division kinetics on the heterogeneity of MSC senescence. In symmetric cell division, a parent MSC with self-renewal capacity divides into two daughter MSCs that can also self-renew. In asymmetric cell division, a parent MSC with self-renewal capacity divides into one self-renewing and one non-dividing cell that becomes senescent in culture.

As MSC populations with a large proportion of senescent cells are less effective when transplanted, it is critical to detect senescent MSCs during expansion. Surface marker profiling is one approach for identifying and purifying senescent cells from a culture. For example, the expression of CD146—also known as melanoma cell adhesion molecule (MCAM)–was downregulated in MSCs derived from aged donors compared to those from young donors, as well as in MSCs after prolonged in vitro expansion (Gnani et al., 2019). Furthermore, low but not high CD146 expression was associated with a senescent phenotype in MSCs (Jin et al., 2016), and CD146+ MSCs showed increased migratory potential toward degenerating tissues (Wangler et al., 2019). CD264 is another surface marker of in vitro aging in MSCs that is unrelated to the chronologic age of the donor (Madsen et al., 2017); cells expressing this protein exhibit increased senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SA-β-gal) activity and reduced differentiation potential and colony-forming efficiency compared to CD264 MSCs (Madsen et al., 2020). Other surface markers that show altered expression with in vitro/in vivo aging are summarized in Table 2. It should be noted that although these molecules are expressed to varying degrees during the aging process and may be associated with functional changes, there is presently no consensus on whether they can serve as the gold standard for selective purification of young vs. old MSC populations.

TABLE 2.

Surface marker alteration in senescent MSCs.

Surface marker In vivo aging/In vitro aging Type of MSCs PMID
Decreased expression in senescent MSCs
CD146/MCAM in vitro aging Human-BMMSCs 29751774
in vitro aging Human periapical cyst derived MSCs 27406247
in vitro aging Human tonsil derived MSCs 25155898
in vitro aging Human-UCBMSCs 26941359
in vitro aging Human-UCBMSCs 21144825
CD106/VCAM-1 in vitro aging Human-BMMSCs 29751774
in vitro aging Human-BMMSCs 30211967
in vitro aging Human-UCBMSCs 21144825
in vitro aging Human vertebral body spongiosa derived MSCs 19242838
CD90 in vitro aging Human-AFMSCs 27803714
in vitro aging Human-UCBMSCs 21144825
CD105 in vitro aging Human-AFMSCs 27803714
in vitro aging Human-UCBMSCs 21144825
CD44 in vitro aging Human-AFMSCs 27803714
in vitro aging Human-UCBMSCs 21144825
CD49F in vitro aging Human-BMMSCs 26013602
CD34 in vivo aging Human-BMMSCs 23197850
CD133 in vivo aging Human-BMMSCs 23197850
CD166 in vitro aging Human-UCBMSCs 21144825
Increased expression in senescent MSCs
CD264 in vivo aging Human-BMMSCs 28962588
in vivo aging Human-BMMSCs 31612990
HLA/MHC in vitro aging Human-BMMSCs 30211967
in vitro aging Human-ADMSCs 22391697
CD49C in vitro aging Human-BMMSCs 30211967
CD45 in vitro aging Human-ADMSCs 22391697
Controversial
CD271/P75NTR in vivo aging Human-BMMSCs 23197850
in vivo aging Human-BMMSCs 31467563

BMMSCs, bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells; UCBMSCs, umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells; AFMSCs, amniotic fluid derived-mesenchymal stem cells; ADMSCs, adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells.

Biological Properties of Senescent MSCs

Early-passage MSCs are small and have a fibroblast-like spindle shape but acquire a hypertrophic and flat morphology with more podia and actin stress fibers upon extended culture (Stenderup et al., 2003; Mauney et al., 2004; Stolzing and Scutt, 2006). MSCs from passages 1 to 3 have a uniform size but begin to enlarge at passage 5, such that cells at passages 6–9 are 4.8-fold larger than passage 1 cells (Oja et al., 2018). Morphologic features can predict how well cells can adapt to a given condition. Cell and nuclear morphology in MSCs in the first 3 days of osteogenic induction was found to be closely correlated with their long-term (35-day) mineralization capacity (Marklein et al., 2016). A subset of aged MSCs with a small cell size had ATP levels equivalent to those in young MSCs, whereas levels in large-sized cells were comparable to those in the aged parent MSC population (Block et al., 2017). Increased cell size and granularity were positively correlated with MSC autofluorescence; the latter has therefore been proposed as a non-invasive, real-time quantifiable marker for cellular senescence (Bertolo et al., 2019).

Animal cells sense and correct deviations in size by adjusting cell cycle length as well as growth rate (Miettinen et al., 2014), which is increased in small cells and reduced in large cells (Ginzberg et al., 2018). Loss of cell size uniformity can indicate abnormal biosynthesis or cell cycle progression. While the regulation of size homeostasis in relation to senescence is not fully understood, cell enlargement can distinguish senescent subpopulations in culture. Among aged MSCs, SA-β-gal activity is increased in large as compared to small-sized cells (Block et al., 2017). Notably, MSCs immortalized by SV40 (Negishi et al., 2000) or telomerase transfection (Kobune et al., 2003) are significantly smaller than their parent cells.

The enlargement of aging cells and their transformation to a hypertrophic morphology is accompanied by biological changes. A decline in proliferative capacity was reported in MSCs derived from old patients as compared to their healthy young counterparts (Banfi et al., 2002) and in long-term MSC cultures regardless of the cell source. MSCs from young donors had greater mitotic activity (41 ± 10 vs. 24 ± 11 PDs), slower progression to senescence, and an increased rate of proliferation (0.09 ± 0.02 vs. 0.05 ± 0.02 PDs/day) than those from old donors (Stenderup et al., 2003). CFU is a retrospective parameter describing the clonogenic potential of a single cell; decreases in CFU and average colony size are correlated with MSC aging in vitro (Liu et al., 2004).

In addition to impaired proliferation, aging negatively affects MSC migration and homing ability (Liu et al., 2017). Directed migration toward stimuli by MSCs is critical for better functional outcomes in cell-based therapy. Impaired migratory capacity in senescent MSCs in response to pro-inflammatory signals was found to be closely associated with activator protein (AP)-1 pathway inhibition (Sepulveda et al., 2014). Cell migration involves the reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton (Le Clainche and Carlier, 2008). MSCs derived from old donors exhibit reduced response to biological and mechanical signals because their actin cytoskeleton is less dynamic (Kasper et al., 2009). Gene expression profiling has identified several cytokines and chemokines and their receptors important for cell migration–including stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1) and its receptor chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4), tumor necrosis factor receptor (TNFR), IFN-γ receptor (IFNGR), and C-C motif chemokine receptor 7 (CCR7)—that are downregulated in aged MSCs as compared to younger cells (Geissler et al., 2012; Bustos et al., 2014).

Functional Changes Associated With MSC Senescence

A basic strategy for MSC-based regeneration is to replace cells that are lost or impaired by disease with functional cells. It was previously thought that MSCs exert their therapeutic effect through trans-differentiation. During in vitro culture, MSCs progressively lose their capacity to differentiate into adipogenic and osteogenic lineages although the preferred fate is debated, with some studies suggesting that aging shifts the balance in favor of adipocytes at the expense of osteoblastogenesis (Stolzing et al., 2008), and others reporting that osteogenic activity is preserved or even increased in late passages (Wagner et al., 2008) or that both osteogenic and adipogenic potential is lost (Geissler et al., 2012). Age-associated changes in differentiation potential may be related to altered susceptibility to reactive oxidative species (ROS) and apoptosis (Bruedigam et al., 2010); MSCs undergoing osteoblast differentiation showed dose-dependent increases in apoptosis and ROS accumulation upon treatment with rosiglitazone, whereas adipogenesis was unaffected (Jiang et al., 2008). Lineage bias in differentiation is regulated by key signaling pathways, intracellular oxidative stress, and transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms. Gene expression analysis has revealed an age-related downregulation of osteoblast transcription factors such as core binding factor α1 (CBFA1), runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), and distal-less homeobox 5 (DIx5) as well as collagen and osteocalcin, and upregulation of adipogenic factors such as peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPAR-γ) and adipocyte fatty acid-binding protein (aP2) (Jiang et al., 2008). The target genes activated by PPAR-γ are related to lipid metabolism and adipocyte differentiation. Thus, the age-related increase in PPAR-γ expression shifts the fate of MSCs toward adipogenesis, and Wnt/β-catenin signaling regulates MSC differentiation by suppressing PPAR-γ and biasing differentiation toward osteoblastogenesis (Xu et al., 2016).

Aging cells acquire a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) involving the secretion of proteins that can affect the behavior of neighboring cells via autocrine/paracrine mechanisms (Borodkina et al., 2018; Campisi et al., 2019). MSCs have potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive functions and thus have therapeutic potential for inflammation-related diseases. Aged MSCs have a diminished capacity for inhibiting the proliferation of allogeneic peripheral blood mononuclear cells compared to younger cells (Gnani et al., 2019). The activation of SASP factors such as interleukin 6 (IL-6), IL-8, and monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP1) in the conditioned medium of aged MSCs was shown to be increased compared to young MSC cultures at early passages, an effect that was exacerbated at late passages (Gnani et al., 2019). Secretion of SASP-related chemokines/cytokines not only drives responses that reinforce senescence in a cell-autonomous manner but also acts on neighboring cells via a paracrine mechanism to accelerate senescence. For example, factors secreted by aged MSCs were shown to activate pro-inflammatory gene expression in young hematopoietic stem cells and decreased their clonogenic potential (Gnani et al., 2019).

The beneficial effects of MSC-based therapy are attributable to the action of pro-angiogenic paracrine factors. In aged MSCs, the secretion of these factors—including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), placental growth factor (PGF), and hepatic growth factor (HGF)—is reduced, whereas that of anti-angiogenic factors such as thrombospondin-1 (TBS1) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) is increased. Thus, age negatively affects angiogenesis and directly undermines the therapeutic efficacy of MSCs (Efimenko et al., 2011; Khan et al., 2011).

Strategies for Monitoring MSC Senescence

β-D-Galactosidase (β-Gal) is a eukaryotic hydrolase localized in the lysosome that is active at the optimal pH (6.0) in senescent cells but is absent in proliferating cells (Dimri et al., 1995). SA-β-gal activity is suggested as the gold standard for evaluating senescence in cells and can be detected by cytochemistry/histochemistry and fluorescence-based methods. However, when used in combination with other markers, it can yield false-positive/negative results in quiescent cells or upon stress (de Magalhaes et al., 2004; Yang and Hu, 2005). Senescence-associated lysosomal α-L-fucosidase (SA-α-Fuc) has recently been identified as a more robust biomarker in all types of cellular senescence (Hildebrand et al., 2013; Singh and Piekorz, 2013), but there is still limited evidence for its sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing senescent MSCs.

Telomeres are specialized nucleoprotein caps containing repetitive nucleotide sequences that protect chromosomes from end-to-end fusion and prevent the loss of genetic information during DNA replication (Sahin and Depinho, 2010). Telomeres shorten with every cell division and senescence is triggered when they reach a critical length (Baird et al., 2003). As such, telomere length has been used to estimate replicative history and predict senescence in MSCs (Montpetit et al., 2014). There is increasing evidence of an association between diminished proliferative capacity and telomere shortening in MSCs. However, the exact telomere length in senescent MSCs and whether it differs according to cell source, culture conditions, and measurement method is unclear. For example, a telomere length of 10 kb was proposed as a threshold for senescence (Baxter et al., 2004), although another study reported a length of 6.8 ± 0.6 kb in senescent cells (Oja et al., 2018). In addition, a recent study described a mechanism of senescence that is independent of cell division and telomere length, involving activation of classical senescence-associated pathways and yielding a non-canonical SASP (Anderson et al., 2019). Although this phenomenon was first reported in post-mitotic cardiomyocytes, it may also occur in MSCs. Thus, telomere shortening has limitations for the measurement of senescence, and other markers may be more informative under certain conditions.

The senescent state is characterized by cell cycle arrest. Senescence-associated growth arrest is maintained by the activation of several pathways including phosphorylated inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinase 4A (p16INK4A)/phosphorylated retinoblastoma (pRb) and p53/p21WAF1 signaling (Campisi, 2005). p16INK4A is an inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) and induces premature cell senescence via telomere-dependent and -independent mechanisms (Serrano et al., 1993). p16INK4A level was shown to increase with chronological age or PDs of MSCs in culture, and a large proportion of the p16INK4A-positive cells were negative for the proliferation marker Ki67 and positive for SA-β-gal. Inhibiting p16INK4A reduced the number of senescent MSCs and conferred cells with the ability to proliferate (Shibata et al., 2007). Similarly, overexpressing p21WAF1—a CDK inhibitor that acts by dephosphorylating pRb–increases cellular senescence, as evidenced by elevated SA-β-gal activity and telomere shortening (Huang et al., 2004), while inhibiting p21WAF1 in senescent cells restored their replicative capacity. However, p21WAF1 depletion was less efficient at preventing senescence than p53 depletion, suggesting that the latter acts through p21WAF1-independent mechanisms to exert this effect (Gire and Dulic, 2015).

Mesenchymal stem cells-derived microvesicles (MSC-MVs) that mimic the senescent state of the parent MSC have recently emerged as a potential cell-free biomarker for cellular senescence. Senescent late-passage MSCs secrete larger amounts of MSC-MVs of smaller size than those in early passages, and CD105 expression in MSC-MVs decreased with senescence in parent MSCs. RNA sequencing results suggest that most genes that are highly expressed in senescent MSC-MVs are involved in aging-related diseases (Lei et al., 2017). Functionally, senescent MSC-MVs have a lower capacity to promote osteogenesis (Lei et al., 2017) and recruit macrophages and fail to alter macrophage phenotypes (Huang et al., 2019).

Besides the abovementioned markers, new tools and approaches have been proposed to monitor MSC aging such as SiR-actin, a fluorogenic F-actin specific probe that can be used to evaluate actin turnover (Mishra et al., 2019). CyBC9 (another fluorescent probe) combined with high-throughput screening revealed accumulation of mitochondria in senescent MSCs that presumably resulted from the loss of membrane potential (Ang et al., 2019). Thus, senescence can be characterized not by a universal biomarker, but by a set of non-exclusive markers in conjunction with specific biological features.

Role of DNA Damage, ROS, and Autophagy in MSC Senescence

Senescence is a multistep process involving various mechanisms that have not been fully elucidated. One of these is irreversible cell cycle arrest—typically in response to DNA damage—in the presence of growth-promoting stimuli. DNA damage accumulates throughout the lifetime of an organism as a result of DNA replication errors and exposure to endogenous and exogenous mutagens. The DNA damage response (DDR) network can sense and initiate repair of mutations and thereby slow their accumulation. Activation of the DDR network can transiently halt cell cycle progression through stabilization of p53 and transcriptional activation of the CDK inhibitor p21. However, if DNA damage persists, p16INK4A is activated via p38-mitogen-activated protein kinase-mediated mitochondrial dysfunction and ROS production. This results in CDK inhibition and activation of the tumor suppressor Rb1, which induces the onset of senescence (Figure 4; Zhang et al., 2007; Ciccia and Elledge, 2010).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Effect of ROS on MSC senescence.

Reactive oxidative species are a group of oxygen-containing small molecules. Approximately 90% of ROS are generated endogenously by the mitochondrial electron transport machinery (Poyton et al., 2009) but extrinsic factors such as radiation, ultraviolet light, hypoxia, and low temperature can also increase their production. As a metabolic by-product, ROS induce oxidation and various cellular responses through the generation of reactive secondary metabolites. While physiologic levels of ROS are necessary for proliferation and differentiation, an excess can trigger cellular senescence, including in MSCs (Sart et al., 2015). ROS induce DNA damage and accelerates telomere erosion, both of which activate the DDR. Senescent MSCs have elevated levels of ROS compared to normal cells that cause persistent DDR activation, thereby forming a positive feedback loop in the progression of senescence (Figure 4; Yang et al., 2015).

Reactive oxidative species accumulate with advancing age, leading to decreased mitochondrial metabolism. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) encodes 13 polypeptides of the mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) enzyme complexes, 22 tRNAs for mitochondrial biosynthesis, and 16S and 18S rRNA for mitochondria. Because of the absence of efficient repair mechanisms, the mutation rate of mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA. A point mutation in mitochondria-encoded subunit 3 of cytochrome c oxidase was found to be associated with enhanced tissue degeneration and risk of premature aging (Niemann et al., 2017). The mitochondrial free radical theory of aging posits that age-dependent accumulation of mtDNA abnormalities, impaired OXPHOS, and altered expression of antioxidant enzymes lead to increased ROS production, which, in turn, results in progressive mitochondrial dysfunction and global cellular damage in a positive feedback loop (Figure 4; Wang C. H. et al., 2013). However, other studies suggest that mtDNA mutations and mitochondrial dysfunction affect aging independently of ROS production, based on the unexpected observation that genetic manipulations that increased mitochondrial ROS levels and oxidative damage did not accelerate aging in mice (Zhang et al., 2009), whereas those that impaired mitochondrial function without increasing ROS enhanced aging (Kujoth et al., 2005).

Autophagy is a critical process for maintaining cellular homeostasis under physiologic and pathologic conditions. By removing damaged cellular components including proteins and mitochondria, autophagy prevents age-related cellular injury (Wirawan et al., 2012) and allows stem cells to avoid the transformation from a reversible quiescent (G0) state to irreversible senescence (Garcia-Prat et al., 2016). Although ROS are known to stimulate autophagy, the age-related increase in ROS levels reduces autophagic capacity (Yamamoto et al., 2016). In fact, aged MSCs exhibit reduced autophagy, which is correlated with diminished self-renewal capacity and regenerative potential and replicative exhaustion. From a mechanistic standpoint, decreased autophagy results in the loss of proteostasis and increases mitochondrial activity, oxidative stress, and metabolism state in MSCs (Figure 4; Revuelta and Matheu, 2017).

Key aspects of the mechanisms of MSC aging remain unknown, but epigenetic changes (i.e., those occurring in the absence of DNA sequence alterations) such as DNA methylation, histone modification, and chromatin remodeling may play a role (Ozkul and Galderisi, 2016; Cakouros and Gronthos, 2019). For example, dysregulated expression of Brahma-related gene 1 (BRG1), a component of ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complexes, was associated with senescence in MSCs via regulation of NANOG methylation status (Squillaro et al., 2015). Additionally, microenvironmental and hormonal conditions are important factors contributing to MSC aging in vivo. As MSCs exist in a semi-static state, replicative exhaustion is unlikely to occur (Ganguly et al., 2017). There is increasing evidence that the in vivo cellular aging process is caused by chronologic aging of the host and is accelerated by conditions such as obesity and systemic inflammation (Frasca et al., 2017; Franceschi et al., 2018).

Strategies for Rejuvenating Senescent MSCs

Strategies allowing the generation of large numbers of MSCs that have retained their stemness are needed for clinical applications. Here, we summarize current research efforts to prevent MSC senescence.

Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived MSCs (iMSCs) can be passaged more than 40 times without exhibiting features of senescence (Sabapathy and Kumar, 2016). iMSCs retain a donor-specific DNA methylation profile while tissue-specific, senescence-associated, and age-related patterns are erased during reprogramming (Frobel et al., 2014). Recent studies have demonstrated that iMSCs have superior regenerative capacity compared to tissue-derived MSCs in preclinical degenerative disease models (Lian et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). However, the generation of iMSCs from iPSCs requires a significant degree of molecular manipulation, and there are safety concerns regarding the self-renewal and pluripotency of iPSC-derived cells after in vivo transplantation, which have the risk of tumorigenicity and genomic instability (Hynes et al., 2013). In addition, each independent iPSC line has a unique genetic and epigenetic profile that must be characterized. The concept of iMSCs is at its infancy and requires validation from preclinical and clinical studies before it can be clinically useful.

Aging is not a passive or random process but can be modulated through several key signaling molecules/pathways (Kenyon, 2010). Identification of age-related coordinating centers can provide novel targets for therapeutic interventions. Sirtuins (SIRTs) are a class of highly conserved nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide-dependent protein deacylases of which there are 7 (SIRT1–7) in mammals (Vassilopoulos et al., 2011). The role of SIRTs in aging is related to their regulation of energy metabolism, cell death, and circadian rhythm and maintenance of cellular and mitochondrial protein homeostasis (O’Callaghan and Vassilopoulos, 2017). Mitochondrial SIRTs (SIRT3–5) act as stress sensors and regulate protein networks to coordinate the stress response (van de Ven et al., 2017). Overexpression of SIRTs has been investigated as a potential strategy for preventing MSC aging. For instance, SIRT3 expression in MSCs decreased with prolonged culture and its overexpression in later-passage cells restored differentiation capacity and reduced aging-related senescence (Denu, 2017). SIRT1 is required for long-term growth of MSCs and SIRT1 overexpression was shown to delay senescence without loss of adipogenic or osteogenic potential (Yuan et al., 2012). Additionally, SIRT1 expression was shown to be spontaneously upregulated upon osteogenic differentiation and protected MSCs from extracellular oxidative stress (Li et al., 2018).

Genetic engineering has been used to slow MSC aging. Besides SIRTs, several molecules have been identified as potential targets for interventions to prevent senescence (Table 3). Ectopic expression of telomerase reverse transcriptase in MSCs extended their replicative lifespan, which preserved a normal karyotype, promoted telomere elongation, and abolished senescence without loss of differentiation potential (Simonsen et al., 2002). Introduction of Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 4 (ERBB4) in aged MSCs conferred resistance to oxidative stress-induced cell death and rescued the senescence phenotype (Liang et al., 2019). Knocking down macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) in young MSCs induced senescence; conversely, its overexpression in aged MSCs rejuvenated the cells by activating autophagy (Zhang et al., 2019). However, the risk of malignant transformation remains a major barrier for the use of genetics-based approaches in clinical practice.

TABLE 3.

Strategies for MSC rejunvenation.

Interventing approach/medicine Mechanism Rejunvenation of function Target cell PMID
Genetic miR-195 inhibition Induced telomere relengthening Proliferation Human-BMMSCs 26390028
approach Reduced SA-β-gal expression
Restored antiaging factors expression including Tert and SIRT1
Restored phosphorylation of AKT and FOXO1
ERBB4 overexpression Inhibited PI3K/AKT and MAPK/ERK pathways Angiogenesis Mouse-MSCs 25996292, 30566395
Survival
Mobility
Apoptotic resistance
SIRT1 overexpression Decreased H2O2-induced oxidative stress response capabilities Senescent phenotype Rat-MSCs 25034794, 28258519
Increased Ang1, bFGF expressions, decreased TBS1 expressions Angiogenesis
Increased in Bcl-2/Bax ratio Apoptosis
SIRT3 overexpression Reduced ROS Senescent phenotype Human-BMMSCs 28717408
Adipocytes/osteoblasts differentiation
TERT overexpression Increased telomere length, prolonged population doublings Osteoblastic differentiation Human-BMMSCs 12042863
Proliferation
p16INK4A Knockdown Up-regulated TGF-β expression Senescent phenotype Human-BMMSCs 22820504
Increased the percentage of Treg cells
Up-regulated ERK1/2 activation
p21 Knockdown Increased the level of Cyclin E, cyclin-dependent kinase-2 Proliferation Human-BMMSCs 24151513
Increased the phosphorylation of retinoblastoma protein Senescent phenotype
Silencing lincRNA-p21 Interacted with the WNT/β-catenin signaling pathway Proliferation and paracrine function Mouse-BMMSCs 28901439
PTEN or p27(kip1) Knockdown Down-regulated PTEN and p27(kip1) expression Apoptosis, senescence phenotype Human-BMMSCs 25649549
Regulated protein kinase B (AKT) signaling
Enhanced IL-10 and TGF-β and reduced IL-17 and IL-6
Increased Treg/Th17 cells
Nampt overexpression Up-regulated intracellular concentrations of NAD+ and SIRT1 expression and activity Senescence phenotype Rat-BMMSCs 28125705
NANOG overexpression Fortified the actin cytoskeleton and ACTA2 Myogenic differentiation Human-hair follicle MSCs 28125933
Restored contractile function
Dicer1 overexpression Increased miR-17 family (miR-17-5p, miR-20a/b, miR-106a/b and miR-93) Differentiation Human-BMMSCs 25361944
Decreased miR-93, miR-20a and p21 expression Stemness
miR-10a overexpression Repressed the KLF4-Bax/Bcl2 pathway Apoptosis, survival, differentiation Human-BMMSCs 29848383
Activated AKT and stimulated the expression of angiogenic factors Angiogenesis
Lcn2 overexpression Decreased senescence induced by H2O2 Proliferation, cloning Human-BMMSCs 24452457
FGF-21 overexpression Decreased mitochondrial fusion and increased mitochondrial fission Senescent phenotype Human-BMMSCs 31178962
NDNF overexpression Activated the AKT signaling Proliferation Human-BM/ADMSCs 30062183, 31287219
Migration
Angiogenesis
PEDF Knockdown Induced cellular profile changes Proliferation Mouse-BMMSCs 21606086
Migration
MIF overexpression Activated autophagy Cell survival after transplantation Human-BMMSCs 31881006
Reduced cellular senescence
Angiogenesis
Phamacological TMP Inhibited NF-κB signaling Proliferation, cell cycle Rat-BMMSCs 31171713
approach Modulated Ezh2-H3k27me3 Anti-inflammatory and angiogenesis Mouse-BMMSCs 29488314
RSV Regulated SOX2 Multipotency Rat-BM/ADMSCs 25132403, 26456654, 31440387, 27049278
Activated SIRT1 expressison Self-renewal
Decreased ERK and GSK-3β phosphorylation and β-catenin activity Senescence phenotype
Promoted insulin secretion of INS-1 cells via Pim-1 Paracrine function
Artemisinin Activated the c-Raf-ERK1/2-p90rsk-CREB pathway Survival, apoptosis Rat-BMMSCs 31655619
Reduced the level of ROS production
Enhanced the levels of antioxidant enzymes including SOD, CAT and GPx
Increased ERK1/2 phosphorylation
Largazole or TSA Affected histone H3 lysine 9/14 acetylation and histone H3 lysine 4 dimethylation Proliferation Human-UCMSCs 23564418
Osteogenic differentiation
CASIN Reduced Cdc42-GTP Proliferation, differentiation Rat-ADMSCs 29804242
Down-graduated the levels of ROS, p16INK4A and F-actin
Inhibited the ERK1/2 and JNK signaling pathways
DKK1 Hyperactivated the WNT/β-catenin and the p53/p21 pathway Senescence phenotype Human-BMMSCs 24130040
Melatonin Activated Nrf2 gene through the MT1/MT2 receptor pathway Survival, senescence phenotype Canine-ADMSCs 30362962
Stimulated ERAD, alleviated ERS
Inhibited NF-κB pathway
SGJ Promoted lysosomal acidification Senescence phenotype Rat-BMMSCs 30526663
Increased the concentration of H+ and the protein expression of LAMP1/2 Cell morphology
Suppressed the expression of p21 and reduced SA-β-gal positive cells Proliferation
Promoted LC3B but reduced the p62/SQSTM1 protein Autophagy
ABT-263/navitoclax Revealed a senolytic effect Senescence phenotype Human-MSCs 29669575
IDB Increased the expression of Bcl2, Nanog, octamer-binding transcription factor 4, E-cadherin Apoptosis Rat-BMMSCs 29393352
Decreased the expression of N-cadherin and vimentin Migration
Increased proliferating cell nuclear antigen, cyclinD1 and cyclinD3 Proliferation, cloning
Fucoidan Regulated SMP30 and p21 Proliferation, cell cycle Human-ADMSCs 29642406
Regulated CDK2, CDK4, cyclin D1, and cyclin E proteins
Regulated FAK-AKT-TWIST signal transduction
LC Decreased the population doubling time Proliferation, senescence phenotype Rat-ADMSCs 27943151
RAPA Improved immunoregulation Survival, senescent phenotype Human-BMMSCs 27048648
Inhibition of the mTOR signaling pathway
Rg1 Decreased the rate of SA-β-gal positive cells Proliferation Human-BMMSCs 30055206
EGCG Activated Nrf2 Senescence phenotype Human-BMMSCs 27498709
Down-regulated the p53/p21 signaling pathway
DHJST/Ligusticum chuanxiong Up-regulated BMP-2 and RUNX2 gene expression Osteogenic differentiation Human-BMMSCs 28040510
Activated of SMAD 1/5/8 and ERK signaling Senescence phenotype
Curcumin Reduced the population doubling time Proliferation Rat-ADMSCs 29017189
Apocynin Suppressed NADPH oxidase Senescence phenotype Mouse-BMMSCs 26686764
Reduced p53 expression
R-SFN (low doses) Antioxidant properties Proliferation, apoptosis, senescence phenotype Human-BMMSCs 21465338
1,25-VD3 Decreased systemic phosphate levels Proliferation, apoptosis Human-BMMSCs 22242193
Cytokine MIF Interacted with CD74 Self-renewal Rat-BMMSCs 25896286
supplementation Activated AMPK-FOXO3a signaling pathways Senescence phenotype
IGF1 Activated the IGF1R/PI3K/AKT signaling pathway Proliferation Mouse-BMMSCs 31660081
Stemness
Senescence phenotype
FGF/FGF-2 Regulated PI3K/AKT-MDM2 pathway Stemness Human-BMMSCs 21527526, 17532297
Inhibited ROS and TGF-β Proliferation
Recombinant human HSP70 Suppressed expression of p16 and p21 Proliferation Mouse-ADMSCs 27091568
Induced expression of superoxide dismutase and SIRT-1
Jagged1 Activated Notch signaling pathway Senescence phenotype Human-BMMSCs 28151468

Pharmacologic approaches and cytokine supplementation have also shown promise for delaying senescence (Table 3). Inhibiting mechanistic target of rapamycin by rapamycin treatment enhanced autophagy and myogenic differentiation in aged stem cells (Takayama et al., 2017), while pretreatment with MIF rejuvenated MSCs in a state of age-induced senescence by interacting with CD74 and thereby activating 5′AMP-activated protein kinase-Forkhead box O3a signaling (Xia et al., 2015). Pharmacologic antagonism of lysophosphatidic acid, a ubiquitous metabolite in membrane phospholipid synthesis, extended the lifespan of MSCs in culture and increased their clonogenic potential while preserving their capacity for both osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation (Kanehira et al., 2012). However, as the effects of these approaches can vary–for instance, fibroblast growth factor supplementation resulted in the loss of osteogenic/adipocytic differentiation potential in long-term cultures (Gharibi and Hughes, 2012)–further research is needed to evaluate their long-term safety and efficacy.

Conclusion and Future Directions

Mesenchymal stem cells senescence both in vivo and in vitro can affect MSC characteristics, which has important clinical and safety implications. MSCs must be expanded for several PDs to meet clinical dose requirements, but cellular aging significantly hinders the generation of sufficient numbers of cells. In this review, we discussed the properties of senescent MSCs and the functional changes and cellular mechanisms involved, and highlighted potential rejuvenation strategies. However, the current knowledge of senescence is mainly based on bulk-cell data. Recent technical advances such as single-cell RNA sequencing, extended time-lapse in vivo imaging, and genetic lineage tracing will provide a more complete understanding of the MSC aging process, making it possible to slow senescence or even rejuvenate aged MSCs. Additionally, bioinformatics-based analyses of the genome–environment interactions involved in aging can provide potential drug targets for senescence intervention. Given that functional attrition and reduced regenerative potential in stem cells are an important aspect of aging in organisms, MSC rejuvenation holds considerable promise for broadening the applications of MSC-based therapy.

Mesenchymal stem cells-based therapy has several limitations, including the invasive process of collecting the cells and their inherent immunogenicity, as well as the large numbers required to achieve a clinically relevant effect (Berebichez-Fridman and Montero-Olvera, 2018). An increasing number of preclinical trials have reported therapeutic effects exerted by MSC-MVs via paracrine mechanisms in several disease models (Fujita et al., 2018). Whether MSC-MVs are senescent and how senescent MSC-MVs can be identified are outstanding issues to be addressed in future studies.

Author Contributions

JL and YD searched the literature and drafted part of the manuscript. XL and ZL designed the whole study and revised the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Funding. This research was supported in part by the National Natural Science Grant of China (No. 81500207 to XL), the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (Grant No. 17431906600), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFA0105600), and the Major Program of Development Fund for Shanghai Zhangjiang National Innovtaion Demonstration Zone (Stem Cell Strategic Biobank and Stem Cell Clinical Technology Transformation Platform) (ZJ2018-ZD-004).

References

  1. Al-Nbaheen M., Vishnubalaji R., Ali D., Bouslimi A., Al-Jassir F., Megges M., et al. (2013). Human stromal (mesenchymal) stem cells from bone marrow, adipose tissue and skin exhibit differences in molecular phenotype and differentiation potential. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 9 32–43. 10.1007/s12015-012-9365-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson R., Lagnado A., Maggiorani D., Walaszczyk A., Dookun E., Chapman J., et al. (2019). Length-independent telomere damage drives post-mitotic cardiomyocyte senescence. EMBO J. 38:e100492. 10.15252/embj.2018100492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ang J., Lee Y. A., Raghothaman D., Jayaraman P., Teo K. L., Khan F. J., et al. (2019). Rapid Detection of senescent mesenchymal stromal cells by a fluorescent probe. Biotechnol. J. 14:e1800691. 10.1002/biot.201800691 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baird D. M., Rowson J., Wynford-Thomas D., Kipling D. (2003). Extensive allelic variation and ultrashort telomeres in senescent human cells. Nat. Genet. 33 203–207. 10.1038/ng1084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker N., Boyette L. B., Tuan R. S. (2015). Characterization of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in aging. Bone 70 37–47. 10.1016/j.bone.2014.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Banfi A., Bianchi G., Notaro R., Luzzatto L., Cancedda R., Quarto R. (2002). Replicative aging and gene expression in long-term cultures of human bone marrow stromal cells. Tissue Eng. 8 901–910. 10.1089/107632702320934001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Baxter M. A., Wynn R. F., Jowitt S. N., Wraith J. E., Fairbairn L. J., Bellantuono I. (2004). Study of telomere length reveals rapid aging of human marrow stromal cells following in vitro expansion. Stem Cells 22 675–682. 10.1634/stemcells.22-5-675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bellagamba B. C., Grudzinski P. B., Ely P. B., Nader P. J. H., Nardi N. B., da Silva Meirelles L. (2018). Induction of expression of CD271 and CD34 in mesenchymal stromal cells cultured as spheroids. Stem Cells Int. 2018:7357213. 10.1155/2018/7357213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Berebichez-Fridman R., Montero-Olvera P. R. (2018). Sources and clinical applications of mesenchymal stem cells: state-of-the-art review. Sultan Qaboos Univ. Med. J. 18 e264–e277. 10.18295/squmj.2018.18.03.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bertolo A., Baur M., Guerrero J., Potzel T., Stoyanov J. (2019). Autofluorescence is a reliable in vitro marker of cellular senescence in human mesenchymal stromal cells. Sci. Rep. 9:2074. 10.1038/s41598-019-38546-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Block T. J., Marinkovic M., Tran O. N., Gonzalez A. O., Marshall A., Dean D. D., et al. (2017). Restoring the quantity and quality of elderly human mesenchymal stem cells for autologous cell-based therapies. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 8:239. 10.1186/s13287-017-0688-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Borodkina A. V., Deryabin P. I., Giukova A. A., Nikolsky N. N. (2018). “Social life” of senescent cells: what is SASP and why study it? Acta Nat. 10 4–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bruedigam C., Eijken M., Koedam M., van de Peppel J., Drabek K., Chiba H., et al. (2010). A new concept underlying stem cell lineage skewing that explains the detrimental effects of thiazolidinediones on bone. Stem Cells 28 916–927. 10.1002/stem.405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bustos M. L., Huleihel L., Kapetanaki M. G., Lino-Cardenas C. L., Mroz L., Ellis B. M., et al. (2014). Aging mesenchymal stem cells fail to protect because of impaired migration and antiinflammatory response. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 189 787–798. 10.1164/rccm.201306-1043OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cakouros D., Gronthos S. (2019). Epigenetic regulation of bone marrow stem cell aging: revealing epigenetic signatures associated with hematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cell aging. Aging Dis. 10 174–189. 10.14336/AD.2017.1213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Campisi J. (2005). Senescent cells, tumor suppression, and organismal aging: good citizens, bad neighbors. Cell 120 513–522. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Campisi J., Kapahi P., Lithgow G. J., Melov S., Newman J. C., Verdin E. (2019). From discoveries in ageing research to therapeutics for healthy ageing. Nature 571 183–192. 10.1038/s41586-019-1365-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen Z., Han X., Ouyang X., Fang J., Huang X., Wei H. (2019). Transplantation of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived mesenchymal stem cells improved erectile dysfunction induced by cavernous nerve injury. Theranostics 9 6354–6368. 10.7150/thno.34008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ciccia A., Elledge S. J. (2010). The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol. Cell 40 179–204. 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.09.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Colter D. C., Sekiya I., Prockop D. J. (2001). Identification of a subpopulation of rapidly self-renewing and multipotential adult stem cells in colonies of human marrow stromal cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 7841–7845. 10.1073/pnas.141221698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. de Magalhaes J. P., Migeot V., Mainfroid V., de Longueville F., Remacle J., Toussaint O. (2004). No increase in senescence-associated beta-galactosidase activity in Werner syndrome fibroblasts after exposure to H2O2. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1019 375–378. 10.1196/annals.1297.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Denu R. A. (2017). SIRT3 enhances mesenchymal stem cell longevity and differentiation. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2017:5841716. 10.1155/2017/5841716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Dimmeler S., Leri A. (2008). Aging and disease as modifiers of efficacy of cell therapy. Circ. Res. 102 1319–1330. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.108.175943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dimri G. P., Lee X., Basile G., Acosta M., Scott G., Roskelley C., et al. (1995). A biomarker that identifies senescent human cells in culture and in aging skin in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92 9363–9367. 10.1073/pnas.92.20.9363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dominici M., Le Blanc K., Mueller I., Slaper-Cortenbach I., Marini F., Krause D., et al. (2006). Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The international society for cellular therapy position statement. Cytotherapy 8 315–317. 10.1080/14653240600855905 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Efimenko A., Starostina E., Kalinina N., Stolzing A. (2011). Angiogenic properties of aged adipose derived mesenchymal stem cells after hypoxic conditioning. J. Transl. Med. 9:10. 10.1186/1479-5876-9-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fan M., Chen W., Liu W., Du G. Q., Jiang S. L., Tian W. C., et al. (2010). The effect of age on the efficacy of human mesenchymal stem cell transplantation after a myocardial infarction. Rejuvenation Res. 13 429–438. 10.1089/rej.2009.0986 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Franceschi C., Garagnani P., Parini P., Giuliani C., Santoro A. (2018). Inflammaging: a new immune-metabolic viewpoint for age-related diseases. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 14 576–590. 10.1038/s41574-018-0059-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Frasca D., Blomberg B. B., Paganelli R. (2017). Aging, obesity, and inflammatory age-related diseases. Front. Immunol. 8:1745. 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Friedenstein A. J., Petrakova K. V., Kurolesova A. I., Frolova G. P. (1968). Heterotopic of bone marrow. Analysis of precursor cells for osteogenic and hematopoietic tissues. Transplantation 6 230–247. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Frobel J., Hemeda H., Lenz M., Abagnale G., Joussen S., Denecke B., et al. (2014). Epigenetic rejuvenation of mesenchymal stromal cells derived from induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rep. 3 414–422. 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fujita Y., Kadota T., Araya J., Ochiya T., Kuwano K. (2018). Clinical application of mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicle-based therapeutics for inflammatory lung diseases. J. Clin. Med. 7:E355. 10.3390/jcm7100355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Galipeau J., Sensebe L. (2018). Mesenchymal stromal cells: clinical challenges and therapeutic opportunities. Cell Stem Cell 22 824–833. 10.1016/j.stem.2018.05.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ganguly P., El-Jawhari J. J., Giannoudis P. V., Burska A. N., Ponchel F., Jones E. A. (2017). Age-related changes in bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells: a potential impact on osteoporosis and osteoarthritis development. Cell Transplant. 26 1520–1529. 10.1177/0963689717721201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Garcia-Prat L., Martinez-Vicente M., Perdiguero E., Ortet L., Rodriguez-Ubreva J., Rebollo E., et al. (2016). Autophagy maintains stemness by preventing senescence. Nature 529 37–42. 10.1038/nature16187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Geissler S., Textor M., Kuhnisch J., Konnig D., Klein O., Ode A., et al. (2012). Functional comparison of chronological and in vitro aging: differential role of the cytoskeleton and mitochondria in mesenchymal stromal cells. PLoS One 7:e52700. 10.1371/journal.pone.0052700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Gharibi B., Hughes F. J. (2012). Effects of medium supplements on proliferation, differentiation potential, and in vitro expansion of mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 1 771–782. 10.5966/sctm.2010-0031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ginzberg M. B., Chang N., D‘Souza H., Patel N., Kafri R., Kirschner M. W. (2018). Cell size sensing in animal cells coordinates anabolic growth rates and cell cycle progression to maintain cell size uniformity. eLife 7:e26957. 10.7554/eLife.26957 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gire V., Dulic V. (2015). Senescence from G2 arrest, revisited. Cell Cycle 14 297–304. 10.1080/15384101.2014.1000134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gnani D., Crippa S., Della Volpe L., Rossella V., Conti A., Lettera E., et al. (2019). An early-senescence state in aged mesenchymal stromal cells contributes to hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell clonogenic impairment through the activation of a pro-inflammatory program. Aging Cell 18:e12933. 10.1111/acel.12933 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gronthos S., Brahim J., Li W., Fisher L. W., Cherman N., Boyde A., et al. (2002). Stem cell properties of human dental pulp stem cells. J. Dent. Res. 81 531–535. 10.1177/154405910208100806 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hamidouche Z., Rother K., Przybilla J., Krinner A., Clay D., Hopp L., et al. (2017). Bistable epigenetic states explain age-dependent decline in mesenchymal stem cell heterogeneity. Stem Cells 35 694–704. 10.1002/stem.2514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hayflick L., Moorhead P. S. (1961). The serial cultivation of human diploid cell strains. Exp. Cell Res. 25 585–621. 10.1016/0014-4827(61)90192-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hildebrand D. G., Lehle S., Borst A., Haferkamp S., Essmann F., Schulze-Osthoff K. (2013). alpha-Fucosidase as a novel convenient biomarker for cellular senescence. Cell Cycle 12 1922–1927. 10.4161/cc.24944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Huang R., Qin C., Wang J., Hu Y., Zheng G., Qiu G., et al. (2019). Differential effects of extracellular vesicles from aging and young mesenchymal stem cells in acute lung injury. Aging (Albany NY) 11 7996–8014. 10.18632/aging.102314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Huang Y., Corbley M. J., Tang Z., Yang L., Peng Y., Zhang Z. Y., et al. (2004). Down-regulation of p21WAF1 promotes apoptosis in senescent human fibroblasts: involvement of retinoblastoma protein phosphorylation and delay of cellular aging. J. Cell Physiol. 201 483–491. 10.1002/jcp.20125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hynes K., Menicanin D., Han J., Marino V., Mrozik K., Gronthos S., et al. (2013). Mesenchymal stem cells from iPS cells facilitate periodontal regeneration. J. Dent Res. 92 833–839. 10.1177/0022034513498258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Jiang Y., Mishima H., Sakai S., Liu Y. K., Ohyabu Y., Uemura T. (2008). Gene expression analysis of major lineage-defining factors in human bone marrow cells: effect of aging, gender, and age-related disorders. J. Orthop. Res. 26 910–917. 10.1002/jor.20623 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Jin H. J., Kwon J. H., Kim M., Bae Y. K., Choi S. J., Oh W., et al. (2016). Downregulation of melanoma cell adhesion molecule (MCAM/CD146) accelerates cellular senescence in human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 5 427–439. 10.5966/sctm.2015-0109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Kanehira M., Kikuchi T., Ohkouchi S., Shibahara T., Tode N., Santoso A., et al. (2012). Targeting lysophosphatidic acid signaling retards culture-associated senescence of human marrow stromal cells. PLoS One 7:e32185. 10.1371/journal.pone.0032185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Kasper G., Mao L., Geissler S., Draycheva A., Trippens J., Kuhnisch J., et al. (2009). Insights into mesenchymal stem cell aging: involvement of antioxidant defense and actin cytoskeleton. Stem Cells 27 1288–1297. 10.1002/stem.49 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kenyon C. J. (2010). The genetics of ageing. Nature 464 504–512. 10.1038/nature08980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Khan M., Mohsin S., Khan S. N., Riazuddin S. (2011). Repair of senescent myocardium by mesenchymal stem cells is dependent on the age of donor mice. J. Cell Mol. Med. 15 1515–1527. 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009.00998.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kobune M., Kawano Y., Ito Y., Chiba H., Nakamura K., Tsuda H., et al. (2003). Telomerized human multipotent mesenchymal cells can differentiate into hematopoietic and cobblestone area-supporting cells. Exp. Hematol. 31 715–722. 10.1016/s0301-472x(03)00177-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kretlow J. D., Jin Y. Q., Liu W., Zhang W. J., Hong T. H., Zhou G., et al. (2008). Donor age and cell passage affects differentiation potential of murine bone marrow-derived stem cells. BMC Cell Biol. 9:60. 10.1186/1471-2121-9-60 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kujoth G. C., Hiona A., Pugh T. D., Someya S., Panzer K., Wohlgemuth S. E., et al. (2005). Mitochondrial DNA mutations, oxidative stress, and apoptosis in mammalian aging. Science 309 481–484. 10.1126/science.1112125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Le Clainche C., Carlier M. F. (2008). Regulation of actin assembly associated with protrusion and adhesion in cell migration. Physiol. Rev. 88 489–513. 10.1152/physrev.00021.2007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lechanteur C., Briquet A., Giet O., Delloye O., Baudoux E., Beguin Y. (2016). Clinical-scale expansion of mesenchymal stromal cells: a large banking experience. J. Transl. Med. 14:145. 10.1186/s12967-016-0892-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Lee H. J., Kang K. S., Kang S. Y., Kim H. S., Park S. J., Lee S. Y., et al. (2016). Immunologic properties of differentiated and undifferentiated mesenchymal stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood. J. Vet. Sci. 17 289–297. 10.4142/jvs.2016.17.3.289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Lei Q., Liu T., Gao F., Xie H., Sun L., Zhao A., et al. (2017). Microvesicles as potential biomarkers for the identification of senescence in human mesenchymal stem cells. Theranostics 7 2673–2689. 10.7150/thno.18915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Li M., Yan J., Chen X., Tam W., Zhou L., Liu T., et al. (2018). Spontaneous up-regulation of SIRT1 during osteogenesis contributes to stem cells‘ resistance to oxidative stress. J. Cell Biochem. 119 4928–4944. 10.1002/jcb.26730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Li Y., Wu Q., Wang Y., Li L., Bu H., Bao J. (2017). Senescence of mesenchymal stem cells (Review). Int. J. Mol. Med. 39 775–782. 10.3892/ijmm.2017.2912 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Lian Q., Zhang Y., Zhang J., Zhang H. K., Wu X., Zhang Y., et al. (2010). Functional mesenchymal stem cells derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells attenuate limb ischemia in mice. Circulation 121 1113–1123. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.898312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Liang X., Ding Y., Lin F., Zhang Y., Zhou X., Meng Q., et al. (2019). Overexpression of ERBB4 rejuvenates aged mesenchymal stem cells and enhances angiogenesis via PI3K/AKT and MAPK/ERK pathways. FASEB J. 33 4559–4570. 10.1096/fj.201801690R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Liu L., DiGirolamo C. M., Navarro P. A., Blasco M. A., Keefe D. L. (2004). Telomerase deficiency impairs differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Exp. Cell Res. 294 1–8. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2003.10.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Liu M., Lei H., Dong P., Fu X., Yang Z., Yang Y., et al. (2017). Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells from the elderly exhibit decreased migration and differentiation abilities with senescent properties. Cell Transplant. 26 1505–1519. 10.1177/0963689717721221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Madsen S. D., Jones S. H., Tucker H. A., Giler M. K., Muller D. C., Discher C. T., et al. (2020). Survival of aging CD264(+) and CD264(-) populations of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells is independent of colony-forming efficiency. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 117 223–237. 10.1002/bit.27195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Madsen S. D., Russell K. C., Tucker H. A., Glowacki J., Bunnell B. A., O‘Connor K. C. (2017). Decoy TRAIL receptor CD264: a cell surface marker of cellular aging for human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 8:201. 10.1186/s13287-017-0649-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Marklein R. A., Lo Surdo J. L., Bellayr I. H., Godil S. A., Puri R. K., Bauer S. R. (2016). High content imaging of early morphological signatures predicts long term mineralization capacity of human mesenchymal stem cells upon osteogenic induction. Stem Cells 34 935–947. 10.1002/stem.2322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Mauney J. R., Kaplan D. L., Volloch V. (2004). Matrix-mediated retention of osteogenic differentiation potential by human adult bone marrow stromal cells during ex vivo expansion. Biomaterials 25 3233–3243. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Mets T., Verdonk G. (1981). In vitro aging of human bone marrow derived stromal cells. Mech. Ageing Dev. 16 81–89. 10.1016/0047-6374(81)90035-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Miettinen T. P., Pessa H. K., Caldez M. J., Fuhrer T., Diril M. K., Sauer U., et al. (2014). Identification of transcriptional and metabolic programs related to mammalian cell size. Curr. Biol. 24 598–608. 10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Mishra P., Martin D. C., Androulakis I. P., Moghe P. V. (2019). Fluorescence imaging of actin turnover parses early stem cell lineage divergence and senescence. Sci. Rep. 9:10377. 10.1038/s41598-019-46682-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Montpetit A. J., Alhareeri A. A., Montpetit M., Starkweather A. R., Elmore L. W., Filler K., et al. (2014). Telomere length: a review of methods for measurement. Nurs. Res. 63 289–299. 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Mukonoweshuro B., Brown C. J., Fisher J., Ingham E. (2014). Immunogenicity of undifferentiated and differentiated allogeneic mouse mesenchymal stem cells. J. Tissue Eng. 5:2041731414534255. 10.1177/2041731414534255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Negishi Y., Kudo A., Obinata A., Kawashima K., Hirano H., Yanai N., et al. (2000). Multipotency of a bone marrow stromal cell line, TBR31-2, established from ts-SV40 T antigen gene transgenic mice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 268 450–455. 10.1006/bbrc.2000.2076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Niemann J., Johne C., Schroder S., Koch F., Ibrahim S. M., Schultz J., et al. (2017). An mtDNA mutation accelerates liver aging by interfering with the ROS response and mitochondrial life cycle. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 102 174–187. 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.11.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Nolta J. A., Galipeau J., Phinney D. G. (2020). Improving mesenchymal stem/stromal cell potency and survival: proceedings from the International Society of Cell Therapy (ISCT) MSC preconference held in May 2018, Palais des Congres de Montreal, organized by the ISCT MSC Scientific Committee. Cytotherapy 22 123–126. 10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. O’Callaghan C., Vassilopoulos A. (2017). Sirtuins at the crossroads of stemness, aging, and cancer. Aging Cell 16 1208–1218. 10.1111/acel.12685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Oja S., Komulainen P., Penttila A., Nystedt J., Korhonen M. (2018). Automated image analysis detects aging in clinical-grade mesenchymal stromal cell cultures. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 9:6. 10.1186/s13287-017-0740-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Ozkul Y., Galderisi U. (2016). The impact of epigenetics on mesenchymal stem cell biology. J. Cell Physiol. 231 2393–2401. 10.1002/jcp.25371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Phinney D. G. (2012). Functional heterogeneity of mesenchymal stem cells: implications for cell therapy. J. Cell Biochem. 113 2806–2812. 10.1002/jcb.24166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Poyton R. O., Ball K. A., Castello P. R. (2009). Mitochondrial generation of free radicals and hypoxic signaling. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 20 332–340. 10.1016/j.tem.2009.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Revuelta M., Matheu A. (2017). Autophagy in stem cell aging. Aging Cell 16 912–915. 10.1111/acel.12655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Ryan A. E., Lohan P., O‘Flynn L., Treacy O., Chen X., Coleman C., et al. (2014). Chondrogenic differentiation increases antidonor immune response to allogeneic mesenchymal stem cell transplantation. Mol. Ther. 22 655–667. 10.1038/mt.2013.261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Sabapathy V., Kumar S. (2016). hiPSC-derived iMSCs: nextGen MSCs as an advanced therapeutically active cell resource for regenerative medicine. J. Cell Mol. Med. 20 1571–1588. 10.1111/jcmm.12839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Sahin E., Depinho R. A. (2010). Linking functional decline of telomeres, mitochondria and stem cells during ageing. Nature 464 520–528. 10.1038/nature08982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Sart S., Song L., Li Y. (2015). Controlling redox status for stem cell survival, expansion, and differentiation. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2015:105135. 10.1155/2015/105135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Schellenberg A., Stiehl T., Horn P., Joussen S., Pallua N., Ho A. D., et al. (2012). Population dynamics of mesenchymal stromal cells during culture expansion. Cytotherapy 14 401–411. 10.3109/14653249.2011.640669 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Sepulveda J. C., Tome M., Fernandez M. E., Delgado M., Campisi J., Bernad A., et al. (2014). Cell senescence abrogates the therapeutic potential of human mesenchymal stem cells in the lethal endotoxemia model. Stem Cells 32 1865–1877. 10.1002/stem.1654 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Serrano M., Hannon G. J., Beach D. (1993). A new regulatory motif in cell-cycle control causing specific inhibition of cyclin D/CDK4. Nature 366 704–707. 10.1038/366704a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Sethe S., Scutt A., Stolzing A. (2006). Aging of mesenchymal stem cells. Ageing Res. Rev. 5 91–116. 10.1016/j.arr.2005.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Shammaa R., El-Kadiry A. E., Abusarah J., Rafei M. (2020). Mesenchymal stem cells beyond regenerative medicine. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 8:72. 10.3389/fcell.2020.00072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Shibata K. R., Aoyama T., Shima Y., Fukiage K., Otsuka S., Furu M., et al. (2007). Expression of the p16INK4A gene is associated closely with senescence of human mesenchymal stem cells and is potentially silenced by DNA methylation during in vitro expansion. Stem Cells 25 2371–2382. 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Simonsen J. L., Rosada C., Serakinci N., Justesen J., Stenderup K., Rattan S. I., et al. (2002). Telomerase expression extends the proliferative life-span and maintains the osteogenic potential of human bone marrow stromal cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 20 592–596. 10.1038/nbt0602-592 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Singh M., Piekorz R. P. (2013). Senescence-associated lysosomal alpha-L-fucosidase (SA-alpha-Fuc): a sensitive and more robust biomarker for cellular senescence beyond SA-beta-Gal. Cell Cycle 12:1996. 10.4161/cc.25318 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Squillaro T., Peluso G., Galderisi U. (2016). Clinical trials with mesenchymal stem cells: an update. Cell Transplant. 25 829–848. 10.3727/096368915X689622 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Squillaro T., Severino V., Alessio N., Farina A., Di Bernardo G., Cipollaro M., et al. (2015). De-regulated expression of the BRG1 chromatin remodeling factor in bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells induces senescence associated with the silencing of NANOG and changes in the levels of chromatin proteins. Cell Cycle 14 1315–1326. 10.4161/15384101.2014.995053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Stagg J., Pommey S., Eliopoulos N., Galipeau J. (2006). Interferon-gamma-stimulated marrow stromal cells: a new type of nonhematopoietic antigen-presenting cell. Blood 107 2570–2577. 10.1182/blood-2005-07-2793 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Stenderup K., Justesen J., Clausen C., Kassem M. (2003). Aging is associated with decreased maximal life span and accelerated senescence of bone marrow stromal cells. Bone 33 919–926. 10.1016/j.bone.2003.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Stolzing A., Jones E., McGonagle D., Scutt A. (2008). Age-related changes in human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells: consequences for cell therapies. Mech. Ageing Dev. 129 163–173. 10.1016/j.mad.2007.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Stolzing A., Scutt A. (2006). Age-related impairment of mesenchymal progenitor cell function. Aging Cell 5 213–224. 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2006.00213.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Takayama K., Kawakami Y., Lavasani M., Mu X., Cummins J. H., Yurube T., et al. (2017). mTOR signaling plays a critical role in the defects observed in muscle-derived stem/progenitor cells isolated from a murine model of accelerated aging. J. Orthop. Res. 35 1375–1382. 10.1002/jor.23409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Turinetto V., Vitale E., Giachino C. (2016). Senescence in human mesenchymal stem cells: functional changes and implications in stem cell-based therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17:E1164. 10.3390/ijms17071164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. van de Ven R. A. H., Santos D., Haigis M. C. (2017). Mitochondrial sirtuins and molecular mechanisms of aging. Trends Mol. Med. 23 320–331. 10.1016/j.molmed.2017.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Vassilopoulos A., Fritz K. S., Petersen D. R., Gius D. (2011). The human sirtuin family: evolutionary divergences and functions. Hum. Genomics 5 485–496. 10.1186/1479-7364-5-5-485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Viswanathan S., Shi Y., Galipeau J., Krampera M., Leblanc K., Martin I., et al. (2019). Mesenchymal stem versus stromal cells: international society for cell & gene therapy (ISCT(R)) mesenchymal stromal cell committee position statement on nomenclature. Cytotherapy 21 1019–1024. 10.1016/j.jcyt.2019.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Wagner W., Horn P., Castoldi M., Diehlmann A., Bork S., Saffrich R., et al. (2008). Replicative senescence of mesenchymal stem cells: a continuous and organized process. PLoS One 3:e2213. 10.1371/journal.pone.0002213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Wang C. H., Wu S. B., Wu Y. T., Wei Y. H. (2013). Oxidative stress response elicited by mitochondrial dysfunction: implication in the pathophysiology of aging. Exp. Biol. Med. (Maywood) 238 450–460. 10.1177/1535370213493069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Wang D., Zhang H., Liang J., Li X., Feng X., Wang H., et al. (2013). Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in severe and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus: 4 years of experience. Cell Transplant. 22 2267–2277. 10.3727/096368911X582769c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Wang H., Li D., Zhai Z., Zhang X., Huang W., Chen X., et al. (2019). Characterization and therapeutic application of mesenchymal stem cells with neuromesodermal origin from human pluripotent stem cells. Theranostics 9 1683–1697. 10.7150/thno.30487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Wang H. S., Hung S. C., Peng S. T., Huang C. C., Wei H. M., Guo Y. J., et al. (2004). Mesenchymal stem cells in the Wharton‘s jelly of the human umbilical cord. Stem Cells 22 1330–1337. 10.1634/stemcells.2004-0013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Wang L. T., Ting C. H., Yen M. L., Liu K. J., Sytwu H. K., Wu K. K., et al. (2016). Human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for treatment towards immune- and inflammation-mediated diseases: review of current clinical trials. J. Biomed. Sci. 23:76. 10.1186/s12929-016-0289-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Wangler S., Menzel U., Li Z., Ma J., Hoppe S., Benneker L. M., et al. (2019). CD146/MCAM distinguishes stem cell subpopulations with distinct migration and regenerative potential in degenerative intervertebral discs. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 27 1094–1105. 10.1016/j.joca.2019.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Wirawan E., Vanden Berghe T., Lippens S., Agostinis P., Vandenabeele P. (2012). Autophagy: for better or for worse. Cell Res. 22 43–61. 10.1038/cr.2011.152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Xia W., Zhang F., Xie C., Jiang M., Hou M. (2015). Macrophage migration inhibitory factor confers resistance to senescence through CD74-dependent AMPK-FOXO3a signaling in mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 6:82. 10.1186/s13287-015-0076-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Xu C., Wang J., Zhu T., Shen Y., Tang X., Fang L., et al. (2016). Cross-talking between PPAR and WNT signaling and its regulation in mesenchymal stem cell differentiation. Curr. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 11 247–254. 10.2174/1574888x10666150723145707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Yamamoto T., Takabatake Y., Kimura T., Takahashi A., Namba T., Matsuda J., et al. (2016). Time-dependent dysregulation of autophagy: implications in aging and mitochondrial homeostasis in the kidney proximal tubule. Autophagy 12 801–813. 10.1080/15548627.2016.1159376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Yang N. C., Hu M. L. (2005). The limitations and validities of senescence associated-beta-galactosidase activity as an aging marker for human foreskin fibroblast Hs68 cells. Exp. Gerontol. 40 813–819. 10.1016/j.exger.2005.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Yang S. R., Park J. R., Kang K. S. (2015). Reactive oxygen species in mesenchymal stem cell aging: implication to lung diseases. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2015:486263. 10.1155/2015/486263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Yu J. M., Wu X., Gimble J. M., Guan X., Freitas M. A., Bunnell B. A. (2011). Age-related changes in mesenchymal stem cells derived from rhesus macaque bone marrow. Aging Cell 10 66–79. 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2010.00646.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Yuan H. F., Zhai C., Yan X. L., Zhao D. D., Wang J. X., Zeng Q., et al. (2012). SIRT1 is required for long-term growth of human mesenchymal stem cells. J. Mol. Med. (Berl.) 90 389–400. 10.1007/s00109-011-0825-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Zhang R., Chen W., Adams P. D. (2007). Molecular dissection of formation of senescence-associated heterochromatin foci. Mol. Cell Biol. 27 2343–2358. 10.1128/MCB.02019-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Zhang Y., Ikeno Y., Qi W., Chaudhuri A., Li Y., Bokov A., et al. (2009). Mice deficient in both Mn superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase-1 have increased oxidative damage and a greater incidence of pathology but no reduction in longevity. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 64 1212–1220. 10.1093/gerona/glp132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Zhang Y., Zhu W., He H., Fan B., Deng R., Hong Y., et al. (2019). Macrophage migration inhibitory factor rejuvenates aged human mesenchymal stem cells and improves myocardial repair. Aging (Albany NY) 11 12641–12660. 10.18632/aging.102592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Zuk P. A., Zhu M., Ashjian P., De Ugarte D. A., Huang J. I., Mizuno H., et al. (2002). Human adipose tissue is a source of multipotent stem cells. Mol. Biol. Cell 13 4279–4295. 10.1091/mbc.e02-02-0105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES