3.8 Article

Capillary plexus development in the day five to day six chick chorioallantoic membrane is inhibited by cytochalasin D and suramin

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY
卷 292, 期 3, 页码 241-254

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jez.10014

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) is a valuable model for evaluating angiogenesis and vasculogenesis. Our purpose was to characterize the formation of the CAM vasculature, in particular the capillary plexus, between days five and six after fertilization and to examine the mode of action of cytochalasin D and suramin on vascular development during this interval. The CAM increased 20-fold in size between days five and six, during which time the capillary plexus forms by both migration of mesodermal blood vessels toward the ectoderm and by the formation of new vessels from angioblasts near the ectoderm. Between days five and six, the CAM becomes thinner, and the density of the mesodermal cells decreases. To determine the mode of action of anti-angiogenic drugs on the day five to day six CAM, various concentrations of cytochalasin D or suramin were added directly to day five CAMs, and their effects were evaluated on day six. Both drugs significantly inhibited CAM growth, altered branching patterns of the major vessels, decreased area of the major vessels, and inhibited the formation of the capillary plexus by inhibiting both vasculogenesis and the migration of mesodermal blood vessels to the ectoderm. Cytochalasin D also inhibited compartmentalization of the plexus. Cytochalasin D and suramin were inhibitory at similar doses. This study provides new information on early CAM development, establishes the mode of action and dose dependency of cytochalasin D and suramin on day five to day six CAMs, and demonstrates that the day five to day six CAM provides a useful assay to examine the effect of anti-angiogenic drugs on blood vessel development, including capillary plexus formation. (C) 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

3.8
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