4.6 Article

Inhibition of monocyte-like cell extravasation protects from neurodegeneration in DBA/2J glaucoma

期刊

MOLECULAR NEURODEGENERATION
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13024-018-0303-3

关键词

Glaucoma; Retinal ganglion cell; Optic nerve; Monocyte; Vascular leakage; Extravasation; Platelet; Neuroinflammation; RNA-sequencing

资金

  1. Karolinska Institutet
  2. [EY011721]
  3. [EY021525]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundGlaucoma is characterized by the progressive dysfunction and loss of retinal ganglion cells. Recent work in animal models suggests that a critical neuroinflammatory event damages retinal ganglion cell axons in the optic nerve head during ocular hypertensive injury. We previously demonstrated that monocyte-like cells enter the optic nerve head in an ocular hypertensive mouse model of glaucoma (DBA/2J), but their roles, if any, in mediating axon damage remain unclear.MethodsTo understand the function of these infiltrating monocyte-like cells, we used RNA-sequencing to profile their transcriptomes. Based on their pro-inflammatory molecular signatures, we hypothesized and confirmed that monocyte-platelet interactions occur in glaucomatous tissue. Furthermore, to test monocyte function we used two approaches to inhibit their entry into the optic nerve head: (1) treatment with DS-SILY, a peptidoglycan that acts as a barrier to platelet adhesion to the vessel wall and to monocytes, and (2) genetic targeting of Itgam (CD11b, an immune cell receptor that enables immune cell extravasation).ResultsMonocyte specific RNA-sequencing identified novel neuroinflammatory pathways early in glaucoma pathogenesis. Targeting these processes pharmacologically (DS-SILY) or genetically (Itgam / CD11b knockout) reduced monocyte entry and provided neuroprotection in DBA/2J eyes.ConclusionsThese data demonstrate a key role of monocyte-like cell extravasation in glaucoma and demonstrate that modulating neuroinflammatory processes can significantly lessen optic nerve injury.

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