4.6 Article

Correlation of Different Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells to Stages of Diabetic Retinopathy: First In Vivo Data

期刊

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-1748

关键词

-

资金

  1. Austrian Diabetes Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To investigate vasculogenic circulating progenitor cells (CPCs), endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), and mature EPCs in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) with or without diabetic retinopathy (DR). METHODS. A case-control study comparing 90 patients with T1DM with and without DR was performed. Patients were studied and staged for retinopathy according to the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) classification. Ninety patients were included: 30 without DR (control [CO]), 30 with mild nonproliferative DR (mNPDR), 10 with moderate-severe NPDR (msNPDR), 10 with mild-moderate proliferative diabetic retinopathy (mmPDR), and 10 with high-risk PDR (hrPDR). CPCs (CD34/CD133), EPCs (CD34/CD133/CD309), and mature EPCs (CD34/CD133/CD309/CD31) were enumerated by flow cytometry. RESULTS. EPCs were reduced in mNPDR (114 +/- 66; P < 0.001) and msNPDR (77 +/- 40; P = 0.042) compared with CO (244 +/- 115). In contrast, EPCs were unchanged in mmPDR (248 +/- 155) compared with CO. Strikingly, EPCs were augmented in hrPDR (389 +/- 124) compared with all other stages. Numbers of undifferentiated progenitor cells (CPCs) did not differ among CO, mmPDR, and hrPDR. Augmentation (3x) of mature EPCs in hrPDR (325 +/- 118; P < 0.001) compared with CO (100 +/- 49) but against all other stages of DR was observed. The percentage of mature EPCs/EPCs was augmented in an ETDRS classification-dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS. In patients with T1DM with DR, EPCs undergo stage-related regulation. In nonproliferative retinopathy, a reduction of EPCs was observed, and in proliferative retinopathy, a dramatic increase of mature EPCs was observed. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50: 392-398) DOI:10.1167/iovs.08-1748

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