4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Glucocorticoids inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor expression in growth plate chondrocytes

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 197, 期 1-2, 页码 35-44

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0303-7207(02)00276-9

关键词

vascular endothelial growth factor; growth plate; chondrocyte; glucocorticoid; dexamethasone; porcine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays an essential role in angiogenesis in the growth plate and ultimately in regulating endochondral ossification. Since longitudinal bone growth is often disturbed in children who are treated with glucocorticoids, we investigated the effects of dexamethasone on VEGF expression by epiphyseal chondrocytes. Cells were cultured from tibial growth plates of neonatal piglets. Using Northern blotting and RT-PCR techniques, the chondrocyte-specific markers aggrecan, collagen II and CD-RAP were detected. Also the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) was expressed. VEGF protein secreted from these cells was examined by ELISA and Western immunoblotting. The VEGF(121) and VEGF(165) isoforms were detected in the supernatant. As determined by RT-PCR, all three major mRNA splice variants were produced, including the species encoding VEGF(189). Dexamethasone (100 nM) inhibited both protein and mRNA expression by approximately 45%. Hydrocortisone (cortisol) and prednisolone also inhibited VEGF secretion, but they were less active than dexamethasone. The inhibitory actions of dexamethasone were almost completely blocked by the GR antagonist Org34116, indicating that the GR mediates these actions. Degradation of the VEGF mRNA was not accelerated by dexamethasone. Therefore, a transcriptional mechanism seems likely. Downregulation of this important growth factor could lead to disruption of the normal invasion of blood vessels in the growth plate, which could contribute to disturbed endochondral ossification and growth. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. 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

4.5
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