4.3 Article

The pro-fibrotic connective tissue growth factor ( CTGF/CCN2) correlates with the number of necrotic-regenerative foci in dystrophic muscle

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELL COMMUNICATION AND SIGNALING
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 413-421

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12079-017-0409-3

关键词

CTGF/CCN2; Muscular dystrophy; Fibrosis; Inflammation; Necrotic-regenerative focus

资金

  1. Fondecyt [1150106, 3140323]
  2. [CARE-PFB-12/2007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Connective tissue growth factor (CTGF/CCN2) has strong inflammatory and profibrotic activities. Its expression is enhanced in skeletal muscular dystrophies such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a myopathy characterized by exacerbated inflammation and fibrosis. In dystrophic tissue, necrotic-regenerative foci, myofibroblasts, newly-regenerated muscle fibers and necrosis all occur simultaneously. To determine if CCN2 is involved in the appearance of the foci, we studied their presence and characteristics in mdx mice (DMD mouse model) compared to mdx mice hemizygous for CCN2 (mdx-Ccn2+/-). We used laser capture microdissection followed by gene expression and immunofluorescence analyses to investigate fibrotic, inflammation and regeneration markers in damaged and nondamaged areas in mdx and mdx-Ccn2+/-skeletal muscle. Mdx mice foci express elevated mRNAs levels of transforming growth factor type beta, collagen, fibronectin, the myofribroblast marker alpha-SMA, and the myogenic transcription factor myogenin. Mdx foci also show elevated levels of MCP-1 and CD-68 positive cells, indicating that CCN2 could be inducing an inflammatory response. We found a significant reduction in the number of foci in mdx-Ccn2+/-mice muscle. Fibrotic and inflammatory markers were also decreased in these foci. We did not observe any difference in Pax7 mRNA levels, a marker for satellite cells, in mdx mice compared to mdx-Ccn2+/mice. Thus, CCN2 appears to be involved in the fibrotic response as well as in the inflammatory response in the dystrophic skeletal muscle.

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