4.7 Article

VEGF-R blockade causes endothelial cell apoptosis, expansion of surviving CD34+ precursor cells and transdifferentiation to smooth muscle-like and neuronal-like cells

期刊

FASEB JOURNAL
卷 21, 期 13, 页码 3640-3652

出版社

FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL
DOI: 10.1096/fj.07-8432com

关键词

pulmonary hypertension; human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [5P01 HL66254-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Severe pulmonary hypertension (PH) is characterized by complex precapillary arteriolar lesions, which contain phenotypically altered smooth muscle ( SM) and endothelial cells (EC). We have demonstrated that VEGF receptor blockade by SU5416 {3-[(2,4-dimethylpyrrol-5-yl)methylidenyl]-indolin 2-one} in combination with chronic hypoxia causes severe angioproliferative PH associated with arterial occlusion in rats. We postulate that endothelial-mesenchymal transdifferentiation can take place in the occlusive lesions and that endothelium-derived mesenchymal cells can further differentiate toward a SM phenotype. To examine this hypothesis, we incubated human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (HPMVEC) with SU5416 and analyzed these cells utilizing quantitative-PCR, immunofluorescent staining and flow cytometry analysis. In vitro studies in HPMVEC demonstrated that SU5416 suppressed PGI(2)S gene expression while potently inducing COX-2, VEGF, and TGF-beta(1) expression; and caused transdifferentiation of mature vascular endothelial cells (defined by Dil-ac-LDL, Lectin and Factor VIII) to SM-like (as defined by expression of alpha-SM actin) transitional cells, coexpressing both endothelial and SM markers. SU5416 expanded the number of CD34 and/or c-kit positive cells and caused transdifferentiation of CD34 positive cells but not negative cells. In conclusion, our data show that SU5416 generated a selection pressure that killed some EC and expanded progenitor-like cells to transdifferentiate to SM-like and neuronal-like cells.

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