4.7 Review

Deregulated TGF-β/BMP Signaling in Vascular Malformations

期刊

CIRCULATION RESEARCH
卷 121, 期 8, 页码 981-999

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.309930

关键词

cell differentiation; mutation; signal transduction; transforming growth factors; vascular malformations

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Special Program Molecular Clinical Oncology 5x1000
  2. European Community (V-EPC [Inherited Dysfunctions of Brain Microcirculation])
  3. European Community (European Research Council)
  4. European Community (BtRAIN [Brain Barriers Training] Innovative Training Network)
  5. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  6. Swedish Research Council
  7. [TELETHON-GGP14149]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Correct organization of the vascular tree requires the balanced activities of several signaling pathways that regulate tubulogenesis and vascular branching, elongation, and pruning. When this balance is lost, the vessels can be malformed and fragile, and they can lose arteriovenous differentiation. In this review, we concentrate on the transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta/bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) pathway, which is one of the most important and complex signaling systems in vascular development. Inactivation of these pathways can lead to altered vascular organization in the embryo. In addition, many vascular malformations are related to deregulation of TGF-beta/BMP signaling. Here, we focus on two of the most studied vascular malformations that are induced by deregulation of TGF-beta/BMP signaling: hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) and cerebral cavernous malformation (CCM). The first of these is related to loss-of-function mutation of the TGF-beta/BMP receptor complex and the second to increased signaling sensitivity to TGF-beta/BMP. In this review, we discuss the potential therapeutic targets against these vascular malformations identified so far, as well as their basis in general mechanisms of vascular development and stability.

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

4.7
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