4.5 Article

Prostaglandin E2 receptor subtype EP2-and EP4-regulated gene expression profiling in human ciliary smooth muscle cells

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL GENOMICS
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 348-360

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00012.2010

关键词

gene regulation; glaucoma; intraocular pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reitmair A, Lambrecht NW, Yakubov I, Nieves A, Old D, Donde Y, Dinh D, Burk R, Sachs G, Im WB, Wheeler L. Prostaglandin E-2 receptor subtype EP2-and EP4-regulated gene expression profiling in human ciliary smooth muscle cells. Physiol Genomics 42: 348-360, 2010. First published June 15, 2010; doi: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00012.2010.-Prostanoids are an important class of intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering antiglaucoma agents that act primarily via increased uveo-scleral aqueous humor outflow through the ciliary body. We have developed two novel PGE(2) analogs that are specific agonists for the PGE(2) receptor subtypes EP2 and EP4, respectively. To identify gene regulatory networks and key players that mediate the physiological effects observed in vivo, we performed genomewide expression studies using human ciliary smooth muscle cells. Quantitative real-time RT-PCR confirmed a largely overlapping gene expression profile subsequent to EP2 and EP4 agonist treatment, with 65 significantly regulated genes identified overall, 5 being specific for the EP2 agonist and 6 specific for the EP4 agonist. We found predicted functional cAMP-response elements in promoter regions of a large fraction of the predominantly upregulated genes, which suggests that the cAMP signaling pathway is the most important intracellular signaling pathway for these agonists in these cells. Several target genes were identified that, as part of complex regulatory networks, are implicated in tissue remodeling processes and osmoregulation (e. g., AREG, LOXL3, BMP2, AQP3) and thus may help elucidate the mechanism of action of these IOP-lowering drugs involving the uveo-scleral outflow path.

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

4.5
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