Stem Cells and Oxidants: Too Little of a Bad Thing
Jie Liu,Toren Finkel
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2013.06.007
IF: 29
2013-01-01
Cell Metabolism
Abstract:Oxidants are thought to damage cells, and stem cells are viewed as particularly vulnerable to oxidative stress. Now, a new study (Morimoto et al., 2013Morimoto H. Iwata K. Ogonuki N. Inoue K. Atsuo O. Kanatsu-Shinohara M. Morimoto T. Yabe-Nishimura C. Shinohara T. Cell Stem Cell. 2013; 12: 774-786Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar) suggests that the self-renewal of certain stem cells may actually require reactive oxygen species (ROS). Oxidants are thought to damage cells, and stem cells are viewed as particularly vulnerable to oxidative stress. Now, a new study (Morimoto et al., 2013Morimoto H. Iwata K. Ogonuki N. Inoue K. Atsuo O. Kanatsu-Shinohara M. Morimoto T. Yabe-Nishimura C. Shinohara T. Cell Stem Cell. 2013; 12: 774-786Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar) suggests that the self-renewal of certain stem cells may actually require reactive oxygen species (ROS). It wouldn't be surprising if people interested in the physiology of reactive oxygen species (ROS) felt a certain kinship with Miles Monroe. As some may recall, Miles Monroe is the name of Woody Allen's character in the classic comedy Sleeper (1973). In the movie, Allen plays the neurotic owner of the "Happy Carrot" health food store who is cryogenically frozen without his consent. Awakened two hundred years later, he finds that his old breakfast of wheat germ, organic honey, and tiger's milk has been replaced with what science has now established as the far healthier alternatives: deep fat, steak, and cream pies. As the futuristic scientists in the movie explain, those 20th century notions of what was thought to be unhealthy are "precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true." A "precisely the opposite" result can occasionally happen in science, the latest example of which can be found in a fascinating new manuscript by Morimoto et al., 2013Morimoto H. Iwata K. Ogonuki N. Inoue K. Atsuo O. Kanatsu-Shinohara M. Morimoto T. Yabe-Nishimura C. Shinohara T. Cell Stem Cell. 2013; 12: 774-786Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar recently published in Cell Stem Cell. In this manuscript, the authors demonstrate that, rather than being harmful, ROS are in fact required for spermatogonial stem cell (SSC) self-renewal (Morimoto et al., 2013Morimoto H. Iwata K. Ogonuki N. Inoue K. Atsuo O. Kanatsu-Shinohara M. Morimoto T. Yabe-Nishimura C. Shinohara T. Cell Stem Cell. 2013; 12: 774-786Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar). This study must be viewed in the context of the relatively recent and rather tumultuous evolution of what is understood about how ROS function in cells. Long viewed as merely toxic byproducts of aerobic respiration, the perception of ROS began to change when oxidants were demonstrated to be purposely produced by cells in response to growth factor stimulation and seemingly necessary for downstream signaling (Sundaresan et al., 1995Sundaresan M. Yu Z.X. Ferrans V.J. Irani K. Finkel T. Science. 1995; 270: 296-299Crossref PubMed Scopus (2311) Google Scholar). In many cases, the enzymatic source of ROS production was not the mitochondria but instead the NOX family of widely expressed NADPH oxidases (Lambeth, 2004Lambeth J.D. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2004; 4: 181-189Crossref PubMed Scopus (2453) Google Scholar). This family of oxidases was first described in phagocytic cells, where they generate ROS for host defense and their activity is regulated by the Ras superfamily of small GTPases. A similar regulatory role for the Ras family of small GTPase is also evident for ROS production in nonphagocytic cells (Sundaresan et al., 1996Sundaresan M. Yu Z.X. Ferrans V.J. Sulciner D.J. Gutkind J.S. Irani K. Goldschmidt-Clermont P.J. Finkel T. Biochem. J. 1996; 318: 379-382Crossref PubMed Scopus (440) Google Scholar). While these studies seemed to partially rehabilitate the reputation of ROS, other work seemed to solidify their toxic nature. This was particularly evident when it came to the biology of stem cells. Predominantly analyzing the hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) system, various genetic models (including deletion of the ATM protein kinase), knockout of transcription factors (such as Prdm16 or members of the FoxO family), or removal of epigenetic factors (such as Bmi1), all demonstrated that an increase in stem cell ROS levels resulted in a subsequent impairment in various stem cell properties, including a profound reduction in self-renewal capacity (Wang et al., 2013Wang K. Zhang T. Dong Q. Nice E.C. Huang C. Wei Y. Cell Death Dis. 2013; 4: e537Crossref PubMed Scopus (200) Google Scholar). Thus, it seemed clear that the unique capacity of stem cells to divide and give rise to new stem cells (e.g., self-renew) appeared exquisitely sensitive to a rise in ROS levels. In this context, the new result of Morimoto et al., 2013Morimoto H. Iwata K. Ogonuki N. Inoue K. Atsuo O. Kanatsu-Shinohara M. Morimoto T. Yabe-Nishimura C. Shinohara T. Cell Stem Cell. 2013; 12: 774-786Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar further upends what we thought we knew about ROS and stem cell self-renewal. The system they analyzed involved SSCs, cells that undergo continuous self-renewal in the male testis in order to produce a continuous supply of spermatozoa. Previous studies had demonstrated that male germline cells could be cultured in vitro with the aid of factors such as glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) and fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), proteins normally secreted by supporting Sertoli cells (Kanatsu-Shinohara et al., 2003Kanatsu-Shinohara M. Ogonuki N. Inoue K. Miki H. Ogura A. Toyokuni S. Shinohara T. Biol. Reprod. 2003; 69: 612-616Crossref PubMed Scopus (810) Google Scholar). Furthermore, these investigators had shown that germline cells could be maintained in a cytokine-free environment when they were engineered to express a constitutively activated form of the Ras GTPase (Lee et al., 2009Lee J. Kanatsu-Shinohara M. Morimoto H. Kazuki Y. Takashima S. Oshimura M. Toyokuni S. Shinohara T. Cell Stem Cell. 2009; 5: 76-86Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (115) Google Scholar). These Ras-transduced cells appeared to bypass the need for trophic factors and demonstrated long-term self-renewal capacity. The current study sought to address what might be downstream of Ras that mediates SSC self-renewal. One clue that Morimoto et al., 2013Morimoto H. Iwata K. Ogonuki N. Inoue K. Atsuo O. Kanatsu-Shinohara M. Morimoto T. Yabe-Nishimura C. Shinohara T. Cell Stem Cell. 2013; 12: 774-786Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar pursued in this recent study was that stimulation of germline cells with FGF2 or GDNF appeared to result in increased ROS levels. Moreover, pharmacological treatment with antioxidants or using various chemical inhibitors of the NOX enzymes appeared to reduce the in vitro and in vivo self-renewal capacity of SSCs. In contrast, supplementing germline cultures with low, continuous levels of exogenous hydrogen peroxide appeared to substantially increase the number of SSCs. Taken together, these results suggest that NOX-generated hydrogen peroxide was a necessary requirement for effective self-renewal in SSCs. This point was further emphasized when the authors demonstrated that Nox1-deficient SSCs had a self-renewal deficit that was particularly evident after serial transplantation into recipient testis. How can we make sense of these latest results, which seem to argue that ROS are surprisingly required for SSC self-renewal? In particular, how does this new result fit in with multiple previous sets of observations suggesting that a rise in ROS is clearly detrimental to stem cell self-renewal capacity? One simple explanation may be that the current study employing SSCs and the past studies employing predominantly HSCs represent observations of different stem cells with different sets of biological requirements. Perhaps more appealing is the issue of degree. Clearly, high, continuous, and unregulated levels of ROS appear bad for stem cells. That point was evident in the current study, since when high, rather than low, amounts of hydrogen peroxide levels were used, SSC self-renewal was indeed impaired. In contrast, the current manuscript would argue that reducing ROS too much can also be harmful. Thus, redox homeostasis in stem cells follows what might be called the Goldilocks rule that requires ROS levels to be not too high, not too low, but just right to maintain functional integrity (Figure 1). Perhaps these results should not come as a complete surprise. For instance, while most observations are consistent with a detrimental effect for ROS, at least one previous study showed that reducing ROS levels too much inhibited the self-renewal capacity of neural stem cells (Le Belle et al., 2011Le Belle J.E. Orozco N.M. Paucar A.A. Saxe J.P. Mottahedeh J. Pyle A.D. Wu H. Kornblum H.I. Cell Stem Cell. 2011; 8: 59-71Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (576) Google Scholar). Similarly, studies in Drosophila suggest that in certain hematopoietic progenitors, increased ROS levels act as a brake that blocks differentiation of these immature progenitor cells into more mature cell types (Owusu-Ansah and Banerjee, 2009Owusu-Ansah E. Banerjee U. Nature. 2009; 461: 537-541Crossref PubMed Scopus (564) Google Scholar). Thus, whether ROS are good or bad and whether they act as an inhibitor or promoter for stemness and self-renewal seems to be still open for debate. Now, if we could only reopen the debate between wheat germ and cream pies. ROS Are Required for Mouse Spermatogonial Stem Cell Self-RenewalMorimoto et al.Cell Stem CellJune 06, 2013In BriefPhysiological levels of ROS are required for spermatogonial stem cell self-renewal. Full-Text PDF Open Archive