4.4 Article

Expression and mechanical modulation of matrix metalloproteinase-1 and -2 genes in facial and cranial sutures

期刊

CELL AND TISSUE RESEARCH
卷 321, 期 3, 页码 465-471

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00441-005-1136-2

关键词

matrix metalloproteinase; bone; osteoblasts; mechanical strain; craniofacial sutures; gene expression; rat (Sprague Dawley, male)

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [EB02332] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE13964] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Craniofacial sutures create a soft tissue interface between various calvarial and facial bones. Facial and cranial sutures show differences in their surrounding anatomical structures and local mechanical strain environments. Despite previous attempts to identify the expression of matrix metalloproteinase genes (MMPs) in cranial sutures, little is known regarding whether facial and cranial sutures differ in MMP expression. We have investigated the expression of MMP-1 and MMP-2 in the premaxillomaxillary suture (PMS; facial suture) and the frontoparietal suture (FPS; cranial suture) in 32-day-old rats with or without the application of cyclic loading. Expression of MMP-1 and MMP-2 was detected by the reverse transcription/polymerase chain reaction technique. At 32 days of postnatal development (n=6), both MMP-1 and MMP-2 were reproducibly expressed in the facial PMS, in comparison with negligible MMP-1 and MMP-2 expression in the cranial FPS. In six age- and sex-matched control rats, cyclic loading at 4 Hz and 1000 mN was applied to the maxilla for two 20-min episodes within a 12-h interval. In some (but not all) cases, cyclic loading induced marked expression of MMP-1 and MMP-2 in the PMS and FPS in comparison with corresponding non-loaded controls. These data confirm our previous finding that short doses of cyclic loading upregulate MMP-2 expression in craniofacial sutures and suggest the possibility that facial and cranial sutures differ in matrix degradation rates during postnatal development.

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

4.4
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