4.7 Article

Functional and pharmacological characterization of a VEGF mimetic peptide on reparative angiogenesis

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 303-311

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2012.04.011

关键词

Angiogenesis; Endothelial cell; Peptide; VEGF; Nitric oxide; Reparative medicine

资金

  1. Ministero dell'Universita e Ricerca [200875WHMR]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is the main regulator of physiological and pathological angiogenesis. Low molecular weight molecules able to stimulate angiogenesis have interesting medical application for example in regenerative medicine, but at present none has reached the clinic. We reported that a VEGF mimetic helical peptide, QK, designed on the VEGF helix sequence 17-25, is able to bind and activate the VEGF receptors, producing angiogenesis. In this study we evaluate the pharmacological properties of peptide QK with the aim to propose it as a VEGF-mimetic drug to be employed in reparative angiogenesis. We show that the peptide QK is able to recapitulate all the biological activities of VEGF in vivo and on endothelial cells. In experiments evaluating sprouting from aortic ring and vessel formation in an in vivo angiogenesis model, the peptide QK showed biological effects comparable with VEGF. At endothelial level, the peptide up-regulates VEGF receptor expression, activates intracellular pathways depending on VEGFR2, and consistently it induces endothelial cell proliferation, survival and migration. When added to angiogenic factors (VEGF and/or FGF-2), QK produces an improved biological action, which resulted in reduced apoptosis and accelerated in vitro wound healing. The VEGF-like activity of the short peptide QK, characterized by lower cost of production and easier handling compared to the native glycoprotein, suggests that it is an attractive candidate to be further developed for application in therapeutic angiogenesis.(C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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