4.6 Article

Strain-Dependent Increases in Retinal Inflammatory Proteins and Photoreceptor FGF-2 Expression in Streptozotocin-Induced Diabetic Rats

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 50, 期 11, 页码 5396-5404

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-3474

关键词

-

资金

  1. Allergan, Inc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. Inflammation is thought to play a role in disease progression and vision loss in diabetic retinopathy (DR). However, the level of inflammation and the role of cytokines and growth factors in the early stages of this disease are poorly understood. Streptozotocin (STZ)-induced hyperglycemia in rats is widely used as a model of diabetic retinopathy, and therefore this model was used to better define the inflammatory response and the impact of the genetic background. METHODS. The expression of a panel of 57 inflammatory proteins and growth factors in the retina of three rat strains was compared by using a highly sensitive flow cytometry-based assay. Hyperglycemia was induced in Brown Norway (BN), Long-Evans (LE), and Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats, and protein expression in the retina was measured 4 weeks and 3 months later. RESULTS. The data revealed a subtle, but reproducible, inflammatory response in the retina of SD, but not in those of BN or LE, rats. Upregulation of fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-2 in the photoreceptor nuclear layer coincided with the inflammatory response in SD rats and may constitute a neuroprotective mechanism. Reduced expression of genes involved in the phototransduction pathway indicates altered photoreceptor function. CONCLUSIONS. Taken together, these data show that inflammatory changes in the diabetic rat retina are highly strain dependent, and SD rats exhibit low-level inflammation similar to that observed in diabetic patients. Therefore, SD rats may be a good model for the study of early inflammatory changes in human diabetic retinopathy. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:5396-5404) DOI:10.1167/iovs.09-3474

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