Abstract
Stem cells persist for long periods in the body and experience many intrinsic and extrinsic stresses. For this reason, they present a powerful and effective DNA repair system in order to properly fix DNA damage and avoid the onset of a degenerative process, such as neoplastic transformation or aging. In this chapter, we compare the DNA repair ability of pluripotent stem cells (ESCs, iPSCs, and Muse cells) and other adult stem cells. We also describe personal investigations showing a robust and effective capacity of Muse cells in sensing and repairing DNA following chemical and physical stress. Muse cells can repair DNA through base and nucleotide excision repair mechanisms, BER and NER, respectively. Furthermore, they present a pronounced capacity in repairing double-strand breaks by the nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) process. The studies addressing the role of DNA damage repair in the biology of stem cells are of paramount importance for comprehension of their functions and, also, for setting up effective and safe stem cell-based therapy.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Tower J (2012) Stress and stem cells. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol 1(6):789–802
Richardson C, Yan S, Vestal CG (2015) Oxidative stress, bone marrow failure, and genome instability in hematopoietic stem cells. Int J Mol Sci 16(2):2366–2385
Ruzankina Y, Asare A, Brown EJ (2008) Replicative stress, stem cells and aging. Mech Ageing Dev 129(7–8):460–466
Chakarov S et al (2014) DNA damage and mutation. Types of DNA damage. Biodiscovery 11:1–10
Branzei D, Foiani M (2008) Regulation of DNA repair throughout the cell cycle. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9(4):297–308
Dexheimer TS (2013) DNA repair pathways and mechanisms. In: Mathews LA, Cabarcas SM, Hurt E (eds) DNA repair of cancer stem cells. Springer, New York, pp 19–32
Alessio N et al (2016) Mesenchymal stromal cells having inactivated RB1 survive following low irradiation and accumulate damaged DNA: Hints for side effects following radiotherapy. Cell Cycle 16(3):251–258
Zanichelli F et al (2012) Dose-dependent effects of R-sulforaphane isothiocyanate on the biology of human mesenchymal stem cells, at dietary amounts, it promotes cell proliferation and reduces senescence and apoptosis, while at anti-cancer drug doses, it has a cytotoxic effect. Age (Dordr) 34(2):281–293
Ilic D, Ogilvie C (2017) Concise review: human embryonic stem cells-what have we done? What are we doing? Where are we going? Stem Cells 35(1):17–25
Hong Y et al (2007) Protecting genomic integrity in somatic cells and embryonic stem cells. Mutat Res 614(1–2):48–55
Lin Q, Donahue SL, Ruley HE (2006) Genome maintenance and mutagenesis in embryonic stem cells. Cell Cycle 5(23):2710–2714
Tichy ED, Stambrook PJ (2008) DNA repair in murine embryonic stem cells and differentiated cells. Exp Cell Res 314(9):1929–1936
Maynard S et al (2008) Human embryonic stem cells have enhanced repair of multiple forms of DNA damage. Stem Cells 26(9):2266–2274
Savatier P et al (2002) Analysis of the cell cycle in mouse embryonic stem cells. Methods Mol Biol 185:27–33
Adams BR et al (2010) Dynamic dependence on ATR and ATM for double-strand break repair in human embryonic stem cells and neural descendants. PLoS One 5(4):e10001
Francis R, Richardson C (2007) Multipotent hematopoietic cells susceptible to alternative double-strand break repair pathways that promote genome rearrangements. Genes Dev 21(9):1064–1074
Adams BR et al (2010) ATM-independent, high-fidelity nonhomologous end joining predominates in human embryonic stem cells. Aging (Albany NY) 2(9):582–596
Bogomazova AN et al (2011) Error-prone nonhomologous end joining repair operates in human pluripotent stem cells during late G2. Aging (Albany NY) 3(6):584–596
Lengner CJ (2010) iPS cell technology in regenerative medicine. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1192:38–44
Yamanaka S, Blau HM (2010) Nuclear reprogramming to a pluripotent state by three approaches. Nature 465(7299):704–712
Fan J et al (2011) Human induced pluripotent cells resemble embryonic stem cells demonstrating enhanced levels of DNA repair and efficacy of nonhomologous end-joining. Mutat Res 713(1–2):8–17
Bracker TU et al (2006) Stringent regulation of DNA repair during human hematopoietic differentiation: a gene expression and functional analysis. Stem Cells 24(3):722–730
Hsu PH, Hanawalt PC, Nouspikel T (2007) Nucleotide excision repair phenotype of human acute myeloid leukemia cell lines at various stages of differentiation. Mutat Res 614(1–2):3–15
Casorelli I et al (2007) Methylation damage response in hematopoietic progenitor cells. DNA Repair (Amst) 6(8):1170–1178
Nijnik A et al (2007) DNA repair is limiting for haematopoietic stem cells during ageing. Nature 447(7145):686–690
Hildrestrand GA et al (2007) The capacity to remove 8-oxoG is enhanced in newborn neural stem/progenitor cells and decreases in juvenile mice and upon cell differentiation. DNA Repair (Amst) 6(6):723–732
Nouspikel T, Hanawalt PC (2000) Terminally differentiated human neurons repair transcribed genes but display attenuated global DNA repair and modulation of repair gene expression. Mol Cell Biol 20(5):1562–1570
Nowak E et al (2006) Radiation-induced H2AX phosphorylation and neural precursor apoptosis in the developing brain of mice. Radiat Res 165(2):155–164
Galderisi U, Giordano A (2014) The gap between the physiological and therapeutic roles of mesenchymal stem cells. Med Res Rev 34(5):1100–1126
Wakao S et al (2011) Multilineage-differentiating stress-enduring (muse) cells are a primary source of induced pluripotent stem cells in human fibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108(24):9875–9880
Wakao S et al (2012) Regenerative effects of mesenchymal stem cells: contribution of muse cells, a novel pluripotent stem cell type that resides in mesenchymal cells. Cells 1(4):1045–1060
Dezawa M (2016) Muse cells provide the pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells: direct contribution of muse cells to tissue regeneration. Cell Transplant 25:849–861
Alessio N et al (2018) Stress and stem cells: adult muse cells tolerate extensive genotoxic stimuli better than mesenchymal stromal cells. Oncotarget 9(27):19328–19341
Freeman AK, Monteiro AN (2010) Phosphatases in the cellular response to DNA damage. Cell Commun Signal 8:27
Shibata A et al (2011) Factors determining DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice in G2 phase. EMBO J 30(6):1079–1092
Fu S et al (2012) gamma-H2AX kinetics as a novel approach to high content screening for small molecule radiosensitizers. PLoS One 7(6):e38465
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Squillaro, T., Alessio, N., Di Bernardo, G., Özcan, S., Peluso, G., Galderisi, U. (2018). Stem Cells and DNA Repair Capacity: Muse Stem Cells Are Among the Best Performers. In: Dezawa, M. (eds) Muse Cells. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 1103. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56847-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56847-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-56845-2
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-56847-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)