4.5 Article

Different effects of growth factors on proliferation and matrix production of normal and fibrotic human lung fibroblasts

期刊

LUNG
卷 183, 期 4, 页码 225-237

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00408-004-2534-z

关键词

pulmonary fibrogenesis; TNF alpha; TGF beta; UIP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives and methods: In idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), proliferation of fibroblasts and increased matrix deposition result in pulmonary damage and respiratory insufficiency. We cultured human fibroblasts from lung biopsies of healthy adults and of three patients with IPF (histologically usual interstital pneumonitis, UIP) in order to compare proliferation ([H-3]thymidine incorporation, cell count) and matrix protein expression (immune fluorescence, quantification of fibronectin synthesis using time-resolved immune fluorescence) of normal and UIP fibroblasts in response to various growth factors. Findings: The growth factors platelet-derived growth factor-BB (PDGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1), insulin-like growth factor-2 (IGF-2), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF alpha), Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF beta(1)), and fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2) stimulate proliferation of normal lung fibroblasts significantly more than proliferation of UIP fibroblasts. Immunofluorescence reveals extensive expression of collagen I, collagen III, and fibronectin induced by serum, TGF beta(1), and TNF alpha. This expression is more pronounced in UIP fibroblasts than in normal fibroblasts. Quantification of fibronectin synthesis reveals an enhanced fibronectin synthesis by UIP fibroblasts in response to PDGF, EGF, IGF-1, IGF-2, TNF alpha, TGF beta(1), and FGF-2). Conclusions: Fibroblasts from normal and UIP lungs differ in their response to growth factors: Whereas normal fibroblasts show a predominantly proliferative response, UIP fibroblasts show an enhanced synthetic activity. Different fibroblast responses may contribute to progressive pulmonary fibrosis in patients with UIP.

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

4.5
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