4.4 Article

Loss of distinct arterial and venous boundaries in mice lacking endoglin, a vascular-specific TGFβ coreceptor

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 261, 期 1, 页码 235-250

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-1606(03)00158-1

关键词

Alk1; Acvrl1; endoglin; hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) arteriovenous malformations; arteriovenous identity

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL077671-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several characteristic morphological and functional differences distinguish arteries from veins. It was thought that hemodynamic forces shaped these differences; however, increasing evidence suggests that morphogenetic programs play a central role in blood vessel differentiation. Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) is a vascular dysplasia characterized by the inappropriate fusion of arterioles with venules. The genes implicated in this disease, ALK1 and endoglin, may be involved in defining the fundamental boundaries between arteries and veins. We previously showed that mice lacking Alk1 lost structural, molecular, and functional distinctions between arteries and veins [Nat. Genet. 26 (2000), 328]. Here, we report that mice lacking endoglin develop arterial-venous malformations and fail to confine intraembryonic hematopoiesis to arteries. In contrast to Alk1 mutants, endoglin mutants do not show profound vessel dilation or downregulation of arterial ephrinB2. Finally, our data indicate that a failure in cardiac cushion formation observed in both strains may be secondary to the peripheral vasculature defect. The phenotypic similarities, yet reduced severity, implicates endoglin as an accessory coreceptor that specifically modulates Alk1 signaling. We propose that endoglin and Alk1 are necessary for the maintenance of distinct arterial-venous vascular beds and that attenuation of the AIM signaling pathway is the precipitating event in the etiology of HHT. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

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