4.2 Article

Distinct organ-specific up- and down-regulation of IGF-I and IGF-II mRNA in various organs of a GH-overexpressing transgenic Nile tilapia

期刊

TRANSGENIC RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 231-240

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11248-009-9314-8

关键词

Growth hormone; IGF-I; IGF-II; Transgenic; Liver; Muscle; Gills; Kidney; Intestine; Heart; Spleen; Brain; Pituitary

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [111028, 118165]
  2. Hartmann Muller Foundation for Medical Research [1115]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several lines of GH-overexpressing fish have been produced and characterized concerning organ integrity, growth, fertility and health but few and contradictory data are available on IGF-I that mediates most effects of GH. Furthermore, nothing is known on IGF-II. Thus, the expression of both IGFs in liver and various extrahepatic sites of adult transgenic (GH-overexpressing) tilapia and age-matched wild-type fish was determined by real-time PCR. Both IGF-I and IGF-II mRNA were found in all organs investigated and were increased in gills, kidney, intestine, heart, testes, skeletal muscle and brain of the transgenics (IGF-I: 1.4-4-fold; IGF-II: 1.7-4.2-fold). Except for liver, brain and testis the increase in IGF-I mRNA was higher than that in IGF-II mRNA. In pituitary, no significant change in IGF-I or IGF-II mRNA was detected. In spleen, however, IGF-I and IGF-II mRNA were both decreased in the transgenics, IGF-I mRNA even by the 19-fold. In agreement, in situ hybridisation revealed a largely reduced number of IGF-I mRNA-containing leukocytes and macrophages when compared to wild-type. These observations may contribute to better understanding the reported impaired health of GH-transgenic fish. Growth enhancement of the transgenics may be due to the increased expression of both IGF-I and IGF-II in extrahepatic sites. It is also reasonable that the markedly enhanced expression of liver IGF-II mRNA that may mimick an early developmental stage is a further reason for increased growth.

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

4.2
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