The Elusive Philosopher's Stone in Young Blood.
Haipeng Sun,Yibin Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.115.307645
IF: 23.213
2015-01-01
Circulation Research
Abstract:HomeCirculation ResearchVol. 117, No. 11The Elusive Philosopher’s Stone in Young Blood Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBThe Elusive Philosopher’s Stone in Young Blood Haipeng Sun and Yibin Wang Haipeng SunHaipeng Sun From the Key Laboratory of Cell Differentiation and Apoptosis of Ministry of Education, Department of Pathophysiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; and Division of Molecular Medicine, Departments of Anesthesiology, Medicine and Physiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Search for more papers by this author and Yibin WangYibin Wang From the Key Laboratory of Cell Differentiation and Apoptosis of Ministry of Education, Department of Pathophysiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; and Division of Molecular Medicine, Departments of Anesthesiology, Medicine and Physiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Search for more papers by this author Originally published6 Nov 2015https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.307645Circulation Research. 2015;117:906–908According to legend, soon after the first Chinese Qin Emperor united China around 250 BC, he sent out a troop of young men and women to search for the elixir of life in the eastern seas to extend his life forever. With great expectation and fanfare, the searching party departed but never returned. However, our quests for the elusive life-renewing Philosopher’s Stone have never ceased either in Harry Potter’s wizard world or in biomedical research, and a sighting of the magical rejuvenating power continues to generate excitement and understandably high expectations.Article, see p 926In 2005, a landmark study by Conboy et al1 first demonstrated the rejuvenating power of the blood of young animals using a heterochronic parabiosis approach where the circulation of a young and an old mouse was surgically joined together. This finding set off a race to find the putative systemic circulating factor(s) that can reverse aging. Since 2013, in a series of reports, researchers, including Harvard scientists Amy Wagers and Richard Lee, have found that blood from young mice could reverse aging-related pathological features in muscle and brain following a heterochronic parabiosis procedure.2–4 In particular, circulating growth differentiation factor 11 (GDF11) was identified as the serum factor responsible for the rejuvenating power in the young blood.2–4 These reports generated a wave of commentaries from leading scientific journals and sensational reports from mainstream news outlets, relating these observations to the discovery of the mythic elixir of life given the apparent therapeutic implications for aging-related illnesses.5–10GDF11 is a member of the transforming growth factor superfamily, originally identified as a homologous gene of another well-known muscle-derived hormone, myostatin.11 Previous genetic studies in mice have established that GDF11 is essential for postnatal survival and regulates anterior to posterior patterning of the axial skeleton,11,12 as well as the temporal differentiation of retinal ganglion cells.13 It is now known that GDF11 has widespread expression and function in multiple systems.14,15 Two key pieces of data led to its identification as the humoral factor in young blood responsible for the rejuvenating effect on the paired older mice following the parabiosis procedure. First, GDF11 protein levels in plasma and mRNA levels in the spleen were found to be lower in the old mice (2 years of age) relative to the young mice (2 months of age).2 More directly, restoring serum levels of GDF11 with intravenous injection of a recombinant form of GDF11 protein can significantly reverse age-related cardiac hypertrophy and improve muscle and brain function.2–4 It is worth noting that GDF11 is not a panacea for all forms of pathologies. The original Cell report clearly indicated that GDF11 treatment had no effect on pressure-overload–induced pathological hypertrophy in the heart,2 highlighting the specific antiaging effect of GDF11. However, a recent study published in Cell Metabolism led by Novartis scientist David Glass raised significant questions on these 2 key conclusions with countering evidences.16 First, they found that the proteomic and immunoblotting methods used by Loffredo et al2 in the Cell report actually not only detected GDF11 but also cross-reacted significantly with its homologous protein myostatin because of 90% sequence identity. In fact, the circulating GDF11, when measured using a new and more specific anti-GDF11 immunoassay, could not be detected in the plasma from either old or young mice but showed a trend toward higher levels in aged rats or humans.16 Furthermore, treatment with GDF11 in vitro or injecting recombinant GDF11 in vivo inhibited myoblast differentiation and skeletal muscle regeneration, associated with similar signaling and molecular signatures as treatment with myostatin.16 On the basis of these observations, the Novartis group proposed that inhibiting GDF11, rather than enhancing its activity, is actually a potential strategy to promote skeletal muscle regeneration.In this current issue of Circulation Research, researchers led by Steve Houser from Temple University also report a largely negative observation of the effect of GDF11 on age-related cardiac hypertrophy.17 Similar to the observations made by the laboratory of Glass, Smith et al17 found that the anti-GDF11 antibody from Abcam used in the initial Cell report can cross-react with both GDF11 and myostatin. Although another GDF11 antibody from R&D Systems seems to be more specific for GDF11, the detection sensitivity is too low to measure the serum level of GDF11 in mice from either young or old groups. Therefore, the premise of reduced circulating GDF11 as an underlying contributor to the aging process in older animal could not be validated in mice. Furthermore, when circulating GDF11 was elevated by daily injections of a recombinant form of GDF11 for 4 weeks, no significant effect could be detected in the aged mouse hearts in terms of weight, myocyte size, contractile function, and pathological gene induction.17 These 2 new studies add to another recent report18 arguing against the validity of the initial claim that GDF11 is a circulating factor in young blood responsible for its effect to reverse age-related pathological changes in heart and muscle.19–21These seemingly contradictory results highlight the need to address some of the key questions raised on the GDF11 hypothesis. Is GDF11 a specific antiaging circulating factor, and if so, how? From earlier genetic analysis, GDF11 and its close homologue myostatin function through a common receptor, activin receptor IIB, and have redundant but not entirely overlapping functions in vivo.22 Indeed, a report by Egerman et al16 showed that GDF11 and myostatin had a nearly identical downstream signaling pattern and gene expression profile in cultured human skeletal muscle–derived myoblasts. However, there is still a gap in our knowledge about the downstream molecular events specific for GDF11-mediated effects in either cells or intact animals. This concern is compounded by the lack of high-quality antibodies with sufficient specificity and sensitivity to accurately measure GDF11 levels across different animal models and laboratories. One potential approach is to rely on more definitive genetic evidence to prove or disprove the functional role of GDF11 in the aging process. For example, the effect of genetic inactivation of GDF11 on aging should be carefully examined in heterozygous GDF11 null mice or in tissue-specific knockout models.Is GDF11 sufficient to reverse the aging process in heart, muscle, and brain? This was first demonstrated by intravenous injection for 4 weeks of a recombinant form of GDF11 protein in aged animals.2–4 However, there is no uniform quality control or quantitative comparison for the potency of the GDF11 recombinant proteins used in different studies from different laboratories. This issue is of particular importance as GDF11, like myostatin and other transforming growth factor-β family members, is processed via proteolytic maturation into a biologically active dimer form. As indicated in the report by Loffredo et al,2 the antiaging effect of GDF11 seems to be dose dependent. For example, only the highest tested concentration of GDF11 was shown to be able to prevent cardiomyocyte hypertrophy in vitro, and elevated plasma GDF11 was only reliably achieved with the highest dose tested.2 Again, more definitive genetic evidence is needed where elevated circulating GDF11 levels can be accomplished through inducible transgenic approaches, so that the long-term functional effect on heart, muscle, and brain can be evaluated.Finally, there are important and potentially significant differences in the study design between the current report and the original study in Cell. Although the Harvard team procured the recombinant GDF11 protein from PeproTech,2 the Temple laboratory obtained theirs from R&D Systems.17 Again, without quantitative measurements for GDF11-specific activity other than common downstream events shared with myostatin, it is not clear whether these 2 products have the same antiaging potency at the given doses in vivo. Moreover, the Harvard study tested the effect of GDF11 injection on 2-year-old female mice,2 whereas the Temple study examined the same treatment in 2-year-old male mice.17 It is well accepted that aging process is sex-dependent and can be influenced by sex hormones in the heterochronic parabiosis procedure.23 Therefore, it is surprising that neither study tested GDF11 treatment in both sexes.It is important to note that none of these controversies questions the remarkable effect of young blood on aged progenitor cell function as observed in the original heterochronic parabiosis experiment a decade ago.1 Clearly, the quest is still on to find the elusive Philosopher’s Stone hidden in the young blood to retard tissue aging via improved regeneration and repair.19 Until more studies are performed with more definitive evidence, the controversy and debate about GDF11 in aging is likely to continue.Sources of FundingThis work was in part supported by Ministry of Science and Technology of China grant 2012BAI02B05; National Institute of Health grants HL108186, HL103205, HL098954, and HL080111 (to Y. Wang); and American Heart Association (AHA) Western States Affiliate Post-doctoral Fellowship Award and AHA Science Development grant (to H. Sun).DisclosuresNone.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.Correspondence to Yibin Wang, PhD, 650 Charles E. Young Dr, Room CHS 569, Los Angeles, CA 90095. E-mail [email protected]References1. Conboy IM, Conboy MJ, Wagers AJ, Girma ER, Weissman IL, Rando TA. Rejuvenation of aged progenitor cells by exposure to a young systemic environment.Nature. 2005; 433:760–764. doi: 10.1038/nature03260.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Loffredo FS, Steinhauser ML, Jay SM, et al. Growth differentiation factor 11 is a circulating factor that reverses age-related cardiac hypertrophy.Cell. 2013; 153:828–839. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.015.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Sinha M, Jang YC, Oh J, et al. Restoring systemic GDF11 levels reverses age-related dysfunction in mouse skeletal muscle.Science. 2014; 344:649–652. doi: 10.1126/science.1251152.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Katsimpardi L, Litterman NK, Schein PA, Miller CM, Loffredo FS, Wojtkiewicz GR, Chen JW, Lee RT, Wagers AJ, Rubin LL. Vascular and neurogenic rejuvenation of the aging mouse brain by young systemic factors.Science. 2014; 344:630–634. doi: 10.1126/science.1251141.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Villeda SA, Plambeck KE, Middeldorp J, et al. Young blood reverses age-related impairments in cognitive function and synaptic plasticity in mice.Nat Med. 2014; 20:659–663. doi: 10.1038/nm.3569.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Laviano A. Young blood.N Engl J Med. 2014; 371:573–575. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcibr1407158.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Hall SS. Young blood.Science. 2014; 345:1234–1237. doi: 10.1126/science.345.6202.1234.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Bitto A, Kaeberlein M. Rejuvenation: it’s in our blood.Cell Metab. 2014; 20:2–4. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2014.06.007.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Andersen RE, Lim DA. An ingredient for the elixir of youth.Cell Res. 2014; 24:1381–1382. doi: 10.1038/cr.2014.107.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Leinwand LA, Harrison BC. Young at heart.Cell. 2013; 153:743–745. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.038.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. McPherron AC, Lawler AM, Lee SJ. Regulation of anterior/posterior patterning of the axial skeleton by growth/differentiation factor 11.Nat Genet. 1999; 22:260–264. doi: 10.1038/10320.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Oh SP, Yeo CY, Lee Y, Schrewe H, Whitman M, Li E. Activin type IIA and IIB receptors mediate Gdf11 signaling in axial vertebral patterning.Genes Dev. 2002; 16:2749–2754. doi: 10.1101/gad.1021802.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Kim J, Wu HH, Lander AD, Lyons KM, Matzuk MM, Calof AL. GDF11 controls the timing of progenitor cell competence in developing retina.Science. 2005; 308:1927–1930. doi: 10.1126/science.1110175.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. McPherron AC. Metabolic functions of myostatin and GDF11.Immunol Endocr Metab Agents Med Chem. 2010; 10:217–231. doi: 10.2174/187152210793663810.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Esteve P, Bovolenta P. Secreted inducers in vertebrate eye development: more functions for old morphogens.Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2006; 16:13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2006.01.001.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Egerman MA, Cadena SM, Gilbert JA, et al. GDF11 increases with age and inhibits skeletal muscle regeneration.Cell Metab. 2015; 22:164–174. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.05.010.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Smith SC, Zhang X, Zhang X, et al. GDF11 does not rescue aging-related pathological hypertrophy.Circ Res. 2015; 117:926–932. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.307527.LinkGoogle Scholar18. Rodgers BD, Eldridge JA. Reduced circulating gdf11 is unlikely responsible for age-dependent changes in mouse heart, muscle, and brain.Endocrinology. 2015; 156:3885–3888.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. Scudellari M. Ageing research: blood to blood.Nature. 2015; 517:426–429. doi: 10.1038/517426a.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. Kaiser J. Regenerative medicine. ‘Rejuvenating’ protein doubted.Science. 2015; 348:849. doi: 10.1126/science.348.6237.849.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21. Brun CE, Rudnicki MA. GDF11 and the Mythical Fountain of Youth.Cell Metab. 2015; 22:54–56. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.05.009.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22. McPherron AC, Huynh TV, Lee SJ. Redundancy of myostatin and growth/differentiation factor 11 function.BMC Dev Biol. 2009; 9:24. doi: 10.1186/1471-213X-9-24.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23. Sinha I, Sinha-Hikim AP, Wagers AJ, Sinha-Hikim I. Testosterone is essential for skeletal muscle growth in aged mice in a heterochronic parabiosis model.Cell Tissue Res. 2014; 357:815–821. doi: 10.1007/s00441-014-1900-2.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Liu W, Zhou L, Zhou C, Zhang S, Jing J, Xie L, Sun N, Duan X, Jing W, Liang X, Zhao H, Ye L, Chen Q and Yuan Q (2016) GDF11 decreases bone mass by stimulating osteoclastogenesis and inhibiting osteoblast differentiation, Nature Communications, 10.1038/ncomms12794, 7:1, Online publication date: 1-Nov-2016. November 6, 2015Vol 117, Issue 11 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.307645PMID: 26541677 Originally publishedNovember 6, 2015 KeywordsagingGdf11 protein, mouserejuvenationhypertrophyEditorialsPDF download Advertisement SubjectsAgingHypertrophy