4.6 Article

Pressure induces loss of gap junction communication and redistribution of connexin 43 in astrocytes

期刊

GLIA
卷 55, 期 10, 页码 1085-1098

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/glia.20527

关键词

astrocytes; connexin-43; hydrostatic pressure; signal transduction

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY-06416] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Astrocytes, the major glia in the nonmyelinated optic nerve head (ONH), connect via gap junctions built of connexin-43 (Cx43) to form a functional syncytium allowing communication and control of ionic and metabolic homeostasis of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) axon. We examined gap junction intercellular communication (GJIC) by scrape loading assays in human ONH astrocytes exposed to hydrostatic (HP) or ambient pressure (CP) in vitro. Immunostaining, immunoprecipitation, and immunoblots were used to detect Cx43 distribution and phosphorylation in astrocytes exposed to HP with/without EGF receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG1478 and AG82 and MAPK inhibitors U0126, PD98059, and SB203580. The data indicates that upon exposure to HP, astrocytes decrease GJIC and exhibit altered cellular localization and phosphorylation of Cx43. Inhibition of EGFR blocked the effects of HP on GJIC and HP-induced Cx43 tyrosine phosphorylation. Inhibitors of MAPK- ERK1/2 and -p38 caused partial closure of GJIC under CP and HP, which was maintained for 6 h. Inhibition of Big Mitogen-Activated Kinase 1/ERK5 (BMK1/ERK5) caused partial closure under CP and HP followed by full recovery after 6 h. Inhibition of MAPK did not affect the HP-induced increase in Cx43 serine 279/282 phosphorylation. We conclude that activation of the EGFR pathway in response to HP leads to decrease of GJIC via tyrosine phosphorylation of Cx43 in ONH astrocytes. In glaucoma under conditions of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), astrocytes may lose GJIC altering the homeostasis of RGC axons, adopting the reactive phenotype, contributing to glaucomatous neuropathy. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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