4.6 Article

Targeting pancreatic islets with phage display assisted by laser pressure catapult microdissection

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Volume 166, Issue 2, Pages 625-636

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)62283-3

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P50 CA 90270, CA 90810, CA 78512, U54 CA090810, R01 CA088106, P50 CA090270, R01 CA078512, CA 88106] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 59157, R01 HL059157, P01 HL024136, HL 24136] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Heterogeneity of the microvasculature in different organs has been well documented by multiple methods including in vivo phage display. However, less is known about the diversity of blood vessels within functionally distinct regions of organs. Here, we combined in vivo phage display with laser pressure catapult microdissection to identify peptide ligands for vascular receptors in the islets of Langerhans in the murine pancreas. Protein database analyses of the peptides, CVSNPRWKC and CHVLWSTRC, showed sequence identity to two ephrin A-type ligand homologues, A2 and A4. Confacal microscopy confirmed that most immunoreactivity of CVSNPRWKC and CHVLWSTRC phage was associated with blood vessels in pancreatic islets. Antibodies recognizing EphA4, a receptor for ephrin-A ligands, were similarly associated with islet blood vessels. Importantly, binding of both islet-homing phage and anti-EphA4 antibody was strikingly increased in blood vessels of pancreatic islet tumors in RIP-Tag2 transgenic mice. These results indicate that endothelial cells of blood vessels in pancreatic islets preferentially express EphA4 receptors, and this expression is increased in tumors. Our findings show in vivo phage display and laser pressure catapult microdissection can be combined to reveal endothelial cell specialization within focal regions of the microvasculature.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available