4.3 Article

Comparison of epidermal growth factor and heparin-binding epidermal growth factor-like growth factor for prevention of experimental necrotizing enterocolitis

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181788618

Keywords

epidermal growth factor; heparin-binding epidermal growth factor-like growth factor; intestinal injury; rat

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD39657] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a devastating gastrointestinal disease of prematurely born infants. Epidermal growth factor (EGF) and heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor (HB-EGF) have protective effects against intestinal injury. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of oral administration of HB-EGF, EGF, or both on the incidence of NEC in a neonatal rat model. Materials and Methods: Premature rats were fed by hand and exposed to asphyxia and cold stress to develop NEC. Four diets were used: formula (NEC), formula supplemented with 500 ng/ mL HB-EGF (HB), 500 ng/mL EGF (EGF), or a combination of both (E+HB). Ileal injury, endogenous HB-EGF production, expression of EGF receptors, goblet cell density, and expression of apoptotic proteins were evaluated. Results: Oral administration of either EGF or HB-EGF significantly reduced the incidence of NEC; however, EGF provided better protection in physiologically relevant doses. Simultaneous administration of both growth factors did not result in any synergistic protective effect against NEC. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in ileal gene expression of EGF receptors or HB-EGF. However, the balance of apoptotic proteins in the ileum was shifted in favor of cell survival in EGF-treated rats. This mechanism may be responsible for the higher efficiency of EGF protection against NEC. Conclusions: These data suggest that a physiological dosage of EGF or a pharmacological dosage of HB-EGF could be used for prevention of NEC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available