The structural characteristics of photoageing in mice caused by the effects of ultraviolet A radiation

• Autorzy: Savic S. , Smiljic S. , Lestarevic S. , Ilic A. , Mijovic M. , Mandic P. , Djerkovic B.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: Due to its deep penetration into the dermis, ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation is considered a primary factor in skin photoageing. The aim of this study is to use a qualitative and quantitative analysis to determine the structural parameters of skin photoageing in mice exposed to UVA radiation, with or without the application of a photoprotective cream. Materials and methods: The experiment consisted of the radiation of female BALBc mice in a solarium by UVA rays, up to total dosages of 7800 J/cm² and 12500 J/cm². A total of 78 animals were divided into four experimental and two control groups. All animals were shaved and the animals in two experimental groups were treated with a photoprotective cream half an hour before exposure. The samples of the treated skin were stained with haematoxylin-eosin and Van-Gieson staining methods. All measurements, except for the presence of dyskeratosis, were taken using ImageJ 150i software. Results: In the study, the signs of skin photoageing were more evident in untreated groups of animals. Dyskeratosis was more frequent in both of the untreated groups of animals (p = 0.004 and p = 0.003). The lowest values of epidermal thickness (13.8 ± 2.6 μm and 12.7 ± 2.3 μm) were present in both of the untreated groups of animals (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). The highest values of stratum corneum thickness (34.3 ± 8.5 μm) were observed in the untreated, shorter radiated group of animals (p < 0.001) which was irradiated for the shortest period of time. Beside the control groups, the highest length of dermo-epidermal junction was recorded in the group of treated, longer radiated animals (1467.6 ± 94.6 μm; p = 0.373). The lowest values of dermal thickness (115.9 ± 10.5 μm and 134.8 ± 21.8 μm) and volumetric density of the collagen fibres (31.92 ± 3.19% and 29.40 ± 4.54%) were present in both untreated groups of animals (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.035). Conclusions: Skin photoageing was most pronounced in the groups of animals irradiated without the application of photoprotective cream. (Folia Morphol 2020; 79, 3: 548–556)

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Morphologica
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: 79
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.548-556,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Savic S.

• Department of Histology and Embryology, Medical Faculty Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

autor

Smiljic S.

• Department of Physiology, Medical Faculty Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

autor

Lestarevic S.

• Department of Histology and Embryology, Medical Faculty Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

autor

Ilic A.

• Department of Medical Statistic and Informatics, Medical Faculty Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

autor

Mijovic M.

• Department of Pathology, Medical Faculty Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

autor

Mandic P.

• Department of Anatomy, Medical Faculty Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

autor

Djerkovic B.

• Department of Pathology, Medical Faculty Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

Bibliografia

• 1. Amano S. Characterization and mechanisms of photoageing-related changes in skin. Damages of basement membrane and dermal structures. Exp Dermatol. 2016; 25 Suppl 3: 14–19, doi: 10.1111/exd.13085, indexed in Pubmed: 27539897.
• 2. Amaro-Ortiz A, Yan B, D’Orazio JA. Ultraviolet radiation, aging and the skin: prevention of damage by topical cAMP manipulation. Molecules. 2014; 19(5): 6202–6219, doi: 10.3390/molecules19056202, indexed in Pubmed: 24838074.
• 3. Battie C, Jitsukawa S, Bernerd F, et al. New insights in photoaging, UVA induced damage and skin types. Exp Dermatol. 2014; 23 (Suppl 1): 7–12, doi: 10.1111/exd.12388, indexed in Pubmed: 25234829.
• 4. Battie C, Verschoore M. Cutaneous solar ultraviolet exposure and clinical aspects of photodamage. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2012; 78 (Suppl 1): S9–SS14, doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.97350, indexed in Pubmed: 22710112.
• 5. Beani JC. [Ultraviolet A-induced DNA damage: role in skin cancer]. Bull Acad Natl Med. 2014; 198(2): 273–295, indexed in Pubmed: 26263704.
• 6. Bertsch S, Csontos K, Schweizer J, et al. Effect of mechanical stimulation on cell proliferation in mouse epidermis and on growth regulation by endogenous factors (chalones). Cell Tissue Kinet. 1976; 9(5): 445–457, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2184.1976.tb01295.x, indexed in Pubmed: 135644.
• 7. Bilaç C, Şahin MT, Öztürkcan S. Chronic actinic damage of facial skin. Clin Dermatol. 2014; 32(6): 752–762, doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2014.02.014, indexed in Pubmed: 25441468.
• 8. Bosch R, Philips N, Suárez-Pérez JA, et al. Mechanisms of photoaging and cutaneous photocarcinogenesis, and photoprotective strategies with phytochemicals. Antioxidants (Basel). 2015; 4(2): 248–268, doi: 10.3390/antiox4020248, indexed in Pubmed: 26783703.
• 9. Caberlotto E, Ruiz L, Miller Z, et al. Effects of a skin-massaging device on the ex-vivo expression of human dermis proteins and in-vivo facial wrinkles. PLoS One. 2017; 12(3): e0172624, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172624, indexed in Pubmed: 28249037.
• 10. Chen CYO, Smith A, Liu Y, et al. Photoprotection by pistachio bioactives in a 3-dimensional human skin equivalent tissue model. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2017; 68(6): 712–718, doi: 10.1080/09637486.2017.1282437, indexed in Pubmed: 28122479.
• 11. Chen J, Luo J, Tan Y, et al. Effects of low-dose ALA-PDT on fibroblast photoaging induced by UVA irradiation and the underlying mechanisms. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2019; 27: 79–84, doi: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2019.05.006, indexed in Pubmed: 31075320.
• 12. Cortat B, Garcia CC, Quinet A, et al. The relative roles of DNA damage induced by UVA irradiation in human cells. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2013; 12(8): 1483–1495, doi: 10.1039/c3pp50023c, indexed in Pubmed: 23824260.
• 13. Duarte I, Rotter A, Malvestiti A, et al. The role of glass as a barrier against the transmission of ultraviolet radiation: an experimental study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2009; 25(4): 181–184, doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0781.2009.00434.x, indexed in Pubmed: 19614895.
• 14. Dupont E, Gomez J, Bilodeau D. Beyond UV radiation: a skin under challenge. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2013; 35(3): 224–232, doi: 10.1111/ics.12036, indexed in Pubmed: 23406155.
• 15. Eckhart L, Tschachler E, Gruber F. Autophagic control of skin aging. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019; 7: 143, doi: 10.3389/fcell.2019.00143, indexed in Pubmed: 31417903.
• 16. Evans-Johnson JA, Garlick JA, Johnson EJ, et al. A pilot study of the photoprotective effect of almond phytochemicals in a 3D human skin equivalent. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2013; 126: 17–25, doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2013.07.006, indexed in Pubmed: 23892186.
• 17. Gomes-Neto A, Aguilera P, Prieto L, et al. Efficacy of a daily protective moisturizer with high UVB and UVA photoprotection in decreasing ultraviolet damage: evaluation by reflectance confocal microscopy. Acta Derm Venereol. 2017; 97(10): 1196–1201, doi: 10.2340/00015555-2736, indexed in Pubmed: 28661544.
• 18. Gonzaga ER. Role of UV light in photodamage, skin aging, and skin cancer: importance of photoprotection. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2009; 10 (Suppl 1): 19–24, doi: 10.2165/0128071-200910001-00004, indexed in Pubmed: 19209950.
• 19. Harberts E, Fishelevich R, Liu J, et al. MyD88 mediates the decision to die by apoptosis or necroptosis after UV irradiation. Innate Immun. 2014; 20(5): 529–539, doi: 10.1177/1753425913501706, indexed in Pubmed: 24048771.
• 20. Hung CF, Fang CL, Al-Suwayeh SA, et al. Evaluation of drug and sunscreen permeation via skin irradiated with UVA and UVB: comparisons of normal skin and chronologically aged skin. J Dermatol Sci. 2012; 68(3): 135–148, doi: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2012.09.005, indexed in Pubmed: 23026054.
• 21. Kammeyer A, Luiten RM. Oxidation events and skin aging. Ageing Res Rev. 2015; 21: 16–29, doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2015.01.001, indexed in Pubmed: 25653189.
• 22. Karran P, Brem R. Protein oxidation, UVA and human DNA repair. DNA Repair. 2016; 44: 178–185, doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.05.024.
• 23. Khavkin J, Ellis DAF. Aging skin: histology, physiology, and pathology. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2011; 19(2): 229–234, doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2011.04.003, indexed in Pubmed: 21763983.
• 24. Kligman LH, Gebre M, Alper R, et al. Collagen metabolism in ultraviolet irradiated hairless mouse skin and its correlation to histochemical observations. J Invest Dermatol. 1989; 93(2): 210–214, doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12277573, indexed in Pubmed: 2474028.
• 25. Kligman L. The hairless mouse model for photoaging. Clin Dermatol. 1996; 14(2): 183–195, doi: 10.1016/0738-081x(95)00154-8.
• 26. Lagarrigue SG, George J, Questel E, et al. In vivo quantification of epidermis pigmentation and dermis papilla density with reflectance confocal microscopy: variations with age and skin phototype. Exp Dermatol. 2012; 21(4): 281–286, doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2012.01451.x, indexed in Pubmed: 22417304.
• 27. Lan CCE, Hung YT, Fang AH, et al. Effects of irradiance on UVA-induced skin aging. J Dermatol Sci. 2019; 94(1): 220–228, doi: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2019.03.005, indexed in Pubmed: 30956032.
• 28. Leccia MT, Lebbe C, Claudel JP, et al. New Vision in Photoprotection and Photorepair. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2019; 9(1): 103–115, doi: 10.1007/s13555-019-0282-5, indexed in Pubmed: 30674003.
• 29. Liu Y, Chan F, Sun H, et al. Resveratrol protects human keratinocytes HaCaT cells from UVA-induced oxidative stress damage by downregulating Keap1 expression. Eur J Pharmacol. 2011; 650(1): 130–137, doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2010.10.009, indexed in Pubmed: 20951123.
• 30. Longo C, Casari A, Beretti F, et al. Skin aging: in vivo microscopic assessment of epidermal and dermal changes by means of confocal microscopy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013; 68(3): e73–e82, doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.08.021, indexed in Pubmed: 22000768.
• 31. Marionnet C, Pierrard C, Lejeune F, et al. Modulations of gene expression induced by daily ultraviolet light can be prevented by a broad spectrum sunscreen. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2012; 116: 37–47, doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2012.08.001, indexed in Pubmed: 22960577.
• 32. Mouret S, Leccia MT, Bourrain JL, et al. Individual photosensitivity of human skin and UVA-induced pyrimidine dimers in DNA. J Invest Dermatol. 2011; 131(7): 1539–1546, doi: 10.1038/jid.2011.47, indexed in Pubmed: 21430702.
• 33. Nechifor MT, Niculiţe CM, Urs AO, et al. UVA irradiation of dysplastic keratinocytes: oxidative damage versus antioxidant defense. Int J Mol Sci. 2012; 13(12): 16718–16736, doi: 10.3390/ijms131216718, indexed in Pubmed: 23222638.
• 34. Ou-Yang H, Stamatas G, Kollias N. Dermal contributions to UVA-induced oxidative stress in skin. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2009; 25(2): 65–70, doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0781.2009.00403.x, indexed in Pubmed: 19292780.
• 35. Pattison DI, Rahmanto AS, Davies MJ. Photo-oxidation of proteins. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2012; 11(1): 38–53, doi: 10.1039/c1pp05164d, indexed in Pubmed: 21858349.
• 36. Pittayapruek P, Meephansan J, Prapapan O, et al. Role of matrix metalloproteinases in photoaging and photocarcinogenesis. Int J Mol Sci. 2016; 17(6), doi: 10.3390/ijms17060868, indexed in Pubmed: 27271600.
• 37. Prasedya ES, Syafitri SM, Geraldine BA, et al. UVA photoprotective activity of brown macroalgae. Biomedicines. 2019; 7(4): 77, doi: 10.3390/biomedicines7040077, indexed in Pubmed: 31569807.
• 38. Quan T, Little E, Quan H, et al. Elevated matrix metalloproteinases and collagen fragmentation in photodamaged human skin: impact of altered extracellular matrix microenvironment on dermal fibroblast function. J Invest Dermatol. 2013; 133(5): 1362–1366, doi: 10.1038/jid.2012.509, indexed in Pubmed: 23466932.
• 39. Rünger TM, Farahvash B, Hatvani Z, et al. Comparison of DNA damage responses following equimutagenic doses of UVA and UVB: a less effective cell cycle arrest with UVA may render UVA-induced pyrimidine dimers more mutagenic than UVB-induced ones. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2012; 11(1): 207–215, doi: 10.1039/c1pp05232b, indexed in Pubmed: 22005748.
• 40. Schuch AP, Lago JC, Yagura T, et al. DNA dosimetry assessment for sunscreen genotoxic photoprotection. PLoS One. 2012; 7(6): e40344, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040344, indexed in Pubmed: 22768281.
• 41. Scott TL, Christian PA, Kesler MV, et al. Pigment-independent cAMP-mediated epidermal thickening protects against cutaneous UV injury by keratinocyte proliferation. Exp Dermatol. 2012; 21(10): 771–777, doi: 10.1111/exd.12012, indexed in Pubmed: 23078399.
• 42. Wurm EMT, Longo C, Curchin C, et al. In vivo assessment of chronological ageing and photoageing in forearm skin using reflectance confocal microscopy. Br J Dermatol. 2012; 167(2): 270–279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.10943.x, indexed in Pubmed: 22428802.
• 43. Xia Q, Chiang HM, Yin JJ, et al. UVA photoirradiation of benzo[a]pyrene metabolites: induction of cytotoxicity, reactive oxygen species, and lipid peroxidation. Toxicol Ind Health. 2015; 31(10): 898–910, doi: 10.1177/0748233713484648, indexed in Pubmed: 23552265.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2019.0119