4.6 Article

Antiangiogenic effect of silicate nanoparticle on retinal neovascularization induced by vascular endothelial growth factor

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.nano.2011.09.003

关键词

Oxygen induced retinopathy; Retinal neovascularization; Silicate nanoparticle; Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor

资金

  1. MEST/NRF [2011-0027723, 2011-0017910]
  2. Seoul National University [032-2011-0060]
  3. KRCF
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2009-0090895] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Angiogenesis-related blindness indicates the spectrum of retinal diseases that are caused by pathological angiogenesis, resulting in catastrophic vision loss. We aimed to demonstrate the antiangiogenic effect of silicate nanoparticles (SiNPs) on the retinal neovascularization. No direct toxicity of SiNPs was observed on retinal neuronal or endothelial cells, nor on the retinal tissue. Furthermore, intravitreal injection of SiNPs effectively reduced anomalous retinal angiogenesis in oxygen-induced retinopathy mice. SiNPs also effectively inhibited in vitro vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-induced angiogenesis. Via suppression of VEGF receptor-2 phosphorylation induced by VEGF, SiNPs blocked ERK 1/2 activation. SiNPs could be an inhibitor of the potency and safety of retinal neovascularization that is mediated by VEGF and utilized in the treatment of angiogenesis-related blindness. From the Clinical Editor: In this important preclinical study, silicate NP-s are studied to address retinal neovascularization, an important pathomechanism of different retinal diseases that could lead to catastrophic vision loss. The authors conclude that SiNP-s could be utilized as inhibitors of retinal neovascularization mediated by VEGF and propose future applications in the treatment of angiogenesis-related blindness. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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