Cited by 15Skin Protection and AgingDNA Repair MechanismsEffects of Radiation Exposure

Determination of the Action Spectrum of UVR-Induced Mitochondrial DNA Damage in Human Skin Cells

Open access
Latimer, Jennifer A., Lloyd, James J., Diffey, Brian L., Matts, Paul J., Birch-Machin, Mark A.·2015·Journal of Investigative Dermatology

Abstract

Biological responses of human skin to UVR including cancer and aging are largely wavelength-dependent, as shown by the action spectra of UVR-induced erythema and nuclear DNA (nDNA) damage. A molecular dosimeter of UVR exposure is therefore required. Although mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) damage has been shown to be a reliable and sensitive biomarker of UVR exposure in human skin, its wavelength dependency is unknown. The current study solves this problem by determining the action spectrum of UVR-induced mtDNA damage in human skin. Human neonatal dermal fibroblasts and primary human adult keratinocyte cells were irradiated with increasing doses of UVR. Dose-response curves of mtDNA damage were produced for each of the UVR sources and cell types, and an action spectrum for each cell type was determined by mathematical induction. Similarities between these mtDNA damage action spectra and previously determined nDNA damage were observed, with the most detrimental effects occurring over the shorter UVR wavelengths. Notably, a statistically significant (P<0.0001) greater sensitivity to mtDNA damage was observed in dermal fibroblasts compared with keratinocytes at wavelengths >300 nm, possibly indicating a wider picture of depth dependence in sensitivity. This finding has implications for disease/photodamage mechanisms and interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/jid.2015.194

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Latimer, J. A., Lloyd, J. J., Diffey, B. L., Matts, P. J., & Birch-Machin, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Procter & Gamble (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Venue
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
135
Issue
10
Pages
2512-2518
ISSN
0022-202X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1915186499
Cited by
15
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Investigative Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by-nc)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Protection and Aging
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
Keywords
ultraviolet radiation, mitochondrial DNA damage, action spectrum, wavelength dependence, human skin, dermal fibroblasts, keratinocytes, photodamage
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cells, Cultured, DNA Damage, DNA, Mitochondrial, Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation, Fibroblasts, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sampling Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Skin, Ultraviolet Rays, Skin Aging, Keratinocytes, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review