4.7 Article

Hepatocyte growth factor affects satellite cell activation and differentiation in regenerating skeletal muscle

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-CELL PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 278, Issue 1, Pages C174-C181

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpcell.2000.278.1.C174

Keywords

muscle repair; muscle differentiation; trauma; myoblasts; growth factors

Funding

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR-43410] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE-11987] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [R29AR043410] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL &CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [R01DE011987] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) is the only known growth factor that activates quiescent satellite cells in skeletal muscle. We hypothesized that local delivery of HGF may enhance regeneration after trauma by increasing the number of myoblasts available for restoring normal tissue architecture. Injection of HGF into muscle at the time of injury increases myoblast number but does not enhance tissue repair as determined using quantitative histological analyses. Rather; depending on the dose and the timing of HGF administration relative to the injury, regeneration can be inhibited. The greatest inhibitory effect is observed when HGF is administered on the day of injury and continued for 3 days, corresponding to the time when satellite cell activation, proliferation, and early differentiation normally occur. To establish a mechanism for this inhibition, we show that HGF can act directly on primary muscle cells to block differentiation. These results demonstrate that 1) exogenous HGF synergizes with factors in damaged muscle to increase myoblast number, 2) regeneration is not regulated solely by myoblast number, and 3) HGF inhibits muscle differentiation both in vitro and in vivo.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available