4.6 Article

Mild Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Promotes Retinal Neovascularization via Induction of BiP/GRP78

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060517

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gifu pharmaceutical University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress occurs as a result of accumulation of unfolded or misfolded proteins in the ER and is involved in the mechanisms of various diseases, such as cancer and neurodegeneration. The goal of the present study was to clarify the relationship between ER stress and pathological neovascularization in the retina. Proliferation and migration of human retinal microvascular endothelial cells (HRMEC) were assessed in the presence of ER stress inducers, such as tunicamycin and thapsigargin. The expression of ER chaperone immunoglobulin heavy-chain binding protein (BiP), known as Grp78, was evaluated by real time RT-PCR, immunostaining, and Western blotting. Tunicamycin or thapsigargin was injected into the intravitreal body of oxygen-induced retinopathy (OIR) model mice at postnatal day 14 (P14) and retinal neovascularization was quantified at P17. The expression and localization of BiP in the retina was also evaluated in the OIR model. Exposure to tunicamycin and thapsigargin increased the proliferation and migration of HRMEC. Tunicamycin enhanced the expression of BiP in HRMEC at both the mRNA level and at the protein level on the cell surface, and increased the formation of a BiP/T-cadherin immunocomplex. In OIR model mice, retinal neovascularization was accelerated by treatments with ER stress inducers. BiP was particularly observed in the pathological vasculature and retinal microvascular endothelial cells, and the increase of BiP expression was correlated with retinal neovascularization. In conclusion, ER stress may contribute to the formation of abnormal vasculature in the retina via BiP complexation with T-cadherin, which then promotes endothelial cell proliferation and migration.

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