4.5 Review

The role of growth factors in the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 1275-1293

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/13543784.13.10.1275

关键词

angiogenesis; IGF; IGFBP; integrins; neovascularisation; proliferative diabetic retinopathy; SDF; TNF; VEGF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most severe of several ocular complications of diabetes. The earliest clinical signs of DR are microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Later signs include dilated, tortuous irregular veins and retinal non-profusion, leading to retinal ischaemia that ultimately results in neovascularisation. Diabetic macular oedema, which involves the breakdown of the blood-retinal barrier, also occurs and is responsible for a major part of vision loss, particularly in Type 2 diabetes. The pathogenesis of DR is very complex. Many biochemical mechanisms have been proposed as explanations for the development and progression of DR. Chronic hyperglycaemia leads to oxidative injury, microthrombi formation, cell adhesion molecule activation, leukostasis and cytokine activation. Next, ischaemia-mediated overexpression of growth factors and cytokines occurs. These factors include vascular endothelial growth factor, insulin-like growth factor-1, angiopoetin-1 and -2, stromal-derived factor-1, fibroblast growth factor-2 and tumour necrosis factor. Because of the complex interplay between these factors, targeting a single growth factor will be unlikely to result in therapeutic inhibition of angiogenesis. These growth factors no doubt act in synergy to mediate the steps of angiogenesis, including protease production, endothelial cell proliferation, migration and tube formation. This review attempts to provide an overview of perspectives regarding the pathogenesis of this disease. The focus, however, is on describing the unique features of selected relevant factors and how each growth factor may act in a synergistic manner with other factors.

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