4.3 Article

Decreased Ratio of VEGF165b/VEGF in Aqueous Humor Predicts Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy

期刊

OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
卷 63, 期 6, 页码 517-523

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000508250

关键词

Diabetic retinopathy; VEGF(165)b; VEGF; Progression

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81800853, 81800852]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Different splicing of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene results in 2 families of VEGF, the proangiogenic isoforms (VEGF(xxx)a) and the antiangiogenic isoforms (VEGF(xxx)b). VEGF(165)b is the major antiangiogenic isoform of VEGF and the most studied member of the VEGF(xxx)b family so far. Objectives: To determine the concentration of VEGF(165)b and VEGF in the aqueous humor (AH) in diabetic eyes with or without diabetic retinopathy (DR) and to address the predictive value of VEGF(165)b/VEGF ratio for progression of DR. Methods: AH samples from 20 eyes in healthy controls (CON group), 40 eyes in diabetic patients without DR (nDR group), and 30 eyes in diabetic patients with mild nonproliferative DR (DR group) were collected. All of the patients were followed up for at least 5 years. VEGF(165)b and VEGF levels of AH samples were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The predictive value of the initial VEGF(165)b/VEGF ratio for progression of DR was studied. Results: The mean concentration of VEGF(165)b significantly decreased in diabetic eyes vs. controls. The mean concentration of VEGF significantly increased in the DR group vs. the CON group. The VEGF(165)b/VEGF ratio was significantly lower in diabetic patients compared to the CON group. The VEGF(165)b/VEGF ratio was significantly lower in diabetic patients compared to the control group. The mean follow-up was 66.1months (range 60-71 months). The risk of DR progression was greater with a lower VEGF(165)b/VEGF ratio. Conclusion: The VEGF(165)b/VEGF ratio is lower in the AH of DR patients and the decreased ratio of VEGF(165)b/VEGF predicts DR progression.

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

4.3
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