4.7 Article

Novel Role for Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Receptor-1 and Its Ligand VEGF-B in Motor Neuron Degeneration

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 28, 期 42, 页码 10451-10459

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1092-08.2008

关键词

ALS; VEGF-B; Flt1; motor neuron degeneration; intracerebroventricular delivery; therapy

资金

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), Belgium [G 0210.07]
  2. Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT)
  3. Schenking Rimaux-Bartier
  4. Geneeskundige stichting Koningin Elisabeth
  5. Geconcerteerde Onderzoeksacties-Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
  6. Methusalem
  7. Muscular Dystrophy Association
  8. ALS Association
  9. Belgian Federal Science Policy Office [P5/19, P6/43]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although vascular endothelial growth factor-B (VEGF-B) is a homolog of the angiogenic factor VEGF, it has only minimal angiogenic activity, raising the question of whether this factor has other (more relevant) biological properties. Intrigued by the possibility that VEGF family members affect neuronal cells, we explored whether VEGF-B might have a role in the nervous system. Here, we document that the 60 kDa VEGF-B isoform, VEGF-B-186, is a neuroprotective factor. VEGF-B-186 protected cultured primary motor neurons against degeneration. Mice lacking VEGF-B also developed a more severe form of motor neuron degeneration when intercrossed with mutant SOD1 mice. The in vitro and in vivo effects of VEGF-B-186 were dependent on the tyrosine kinase activities of its receptor, Flt1, in motor neurons. When delivered intracerebroventricularly, VEGF-B-186 prolonged the survival of mutant SOD1 rats. Compared with a similar dose of VEGF, VEGF-B-186 was safer and did not cause vessel growth or blood-brain barrier leakiness. The neuroprotective activity of VEGF-B, in combination with its negligible angiogenic/permeability activity, offers attractive opportunities for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据