Cellular senescence in the pathogenesis of pulmonary arterial hypertension: the good, the bad and the uncertain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Senescence refers to a cellular state marked by irreversible cell cycle arrest and the secretion of pro-inflammatory and tissue-remodeling factors. The senescence associated secretory phenotype (SASP) impacts the tissue microenvironment and provides cues for the immune system to eliminate senescent cells (SCs). Cellular senescence has a dual nature; it can be beneficial during embryonic development, tissue repair, and tumor suppression, but it can also be detrimental in the context of chronic stress, persistent tissue injury, together with an impairment in SC clearance. Recently, the accumulation of SCs has been implicated in the pathogenesis of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a progressive condition affecting the pre-capillary pulmonary arterial bed. PAH is characterized by endothelial cell (EC) injury, inflammation, and proliferative arterial remodeling, which leads to right heart failure and premature mortality. While vasodilator therapies can improve symptoms, there are currently no approved treatments capable of reversing the obliterative arterial remodeling. Ongoing endothelial injury and dysfunction is central to the development of PAH, perpetuated by hemodynamic perturbation leading to pathological intimal shear stress. The precise role of senescent ECs in PAH remains unclear. Cellular senescence may facilitate endothelial repair, particularly in the early stages of disease. However, in more advanced disease the accumulation of senescent ECs may promote vascular inflammation and occlusive arterial remodeling. In this review, we will examine the evidence that supports a role of endothelial cell senescence to the pathogenesis of PAH. Furthermore, we will compare and discuss the apparent contradictory outcomes with the use of interventions targeting cellular senescence in the context of experimental models of pulmonary hypertension. Finally, we will attempt to propose a framework for the understanding of the complex interplay between EC injury, senescence, inflammation and arterial remodeling, which can guide further research in this area and the development of effective therapeutic strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".