4.6 Article

Structural and functional changes in heparan sulfate proteoglycan expression associated with the myofibroblastic phenotype

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 162, 期 3, 页码 977-989

出版社

AMER SOC INVESTIGATIVE PATHOLOGY, INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63892-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The principal cells implicated as the source of the extracellular matrix in areas of progressive fibrosis are fibroblasts with the phenotypic appearance of myofibroblasts. This report describes differences in heparan sulfate proteoglycan expression between myofibroblasts and normal fibroblasts, associated with impaired responses to fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2). Although both cell types responded to platelet-derived growth factor, myofibroblasts, unlike fibroblasts, did not proliferate to FGF-2. A response was acquired, however, when myofibroblasts were incubated with FGF-2 in the presence of heparan sulfate (HS) and heparin. Selective digestion with pronase, NaOH/NaBH4, heparinase I, or low pH nitrous acid showed that each HS-glycosaminoglycan region comprised a pronase-resistant peptide separating two HS chains. The HS-glycosaminoglycan chains from myofibroblasts were larger (K-av, 0.32; molecular weight, 50 kd) than those from fibroblasts (K-av, 0.4; molecular weight, 33 kd), although their disaccharide composition was identical. The chains from myofibroblasts, however, contained three, compared to two, heparinase 1-resistant sequences separated by larger contiguous areas of low sulfation. Furthermore, although there was no difference in FGF-2-binding affinity between the two cell types I the chains secreted by myofibroblasts had twice the binding capacity of those from fibroblasts. Thus, it is likely that the difference in response to FGF-2 is because of a difference in FGF-2 sequestration and receptor interaction with FGF-2-HS complexes. A comparative investigation into HS fine structure is being undertaken to examine these findings in more detail.

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