4.7 Article

Genomewide mechanisms of chronological longevity by dietary restriction in budding yeast

期刊

AGING CELL
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acel.12749

关键词

aging; cell cycle; cell cycle arrest; chronological lifespan; dietary restriction; genomewide profiling; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Ste12; transcription factors

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia de Mexico CONACYT [CB2015/164889]
  2. University of California Institute for Mexico and the United States UC-MEXUS [CN15-48]
  3. Consejo de Investigacion sobre Salud y Cerveza de Mexico, A.C.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary restriction is arguably the most promising nonpharmacological intervention to extend human life and health span. Yet, only few genetic regulators mediating the cellular response to dietary restriction are known, and the question remains which other regulatory factors are involved. Here, we measured at the genomewide level the chronological lifespan of Saccharomyces cerevisiae gene deletion strains under two nitrogen source regimens, glutamine (nonrestricted) and gamma-aminobutyric acid (restricted). We identified 473 mutants with diminished or enhanced extension of lifespan. Functional analysis of such dietary restriction genes revealed novel processes underlying longevity by the nitrogen source quality, which also allowed us to generate a prioritized catalogue of transcription factors orchestrating the dietary restriction response. Importantly, deletions of transcription factors Msn2, Msn4, Snf6, Tec1, and Ste12 resulted in diminished lifespan extension and defects in cell cycle arrest upon nutrient starvation, suggesting that regulation of the cell cycle is a major mechanism of chronological longevity. We further show that STE12 overexpression is enough to extend lifespan, linking the pheromone/invasive growth pathway with cell survivorship. Our global picture of the genetic players of longevity by dietary restriction highlights intricate regulatory cross-talks in aging cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据