4.7 Article

Vascular endothelial cell growth factors promote the in vitro development of rat photoreceptor cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 20, 期 18, 页码 6781-6788

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-18-06781.2000

关键词

retina; rhodopsin; CNTF; amacrine cells; photoreceptor progenitor cell; vascular endothelial cell growth factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have identified and characterized a novel trophic effect of vascular endothelial cell growth factor (VEGF) on photoreceptor cells. Treatment of retinal cultures, derived from postnatal day 1 (P1) rats, with VEGF-2 resulted in a dose- and time-dependent increase in the level of rhodopsin protein, as determined by ELISA assay. After 7-9 d of treatment the VEGF-1 or VEGF-2, at a concentration of 10 ng/ml, induced a 200-300% increase in rhodopsin protein and a 220% increase in the number of rhodopsin-immunopositive cells. Treatment with VEGF-2 induced a 250% increase in the number of syntaxin-immunopositive cells and a 67% increase in high-affinity GABA uptake, both markers for amacrine cells. In contrast, there was no increase in the non-neuronal cell populations. VEGF-2 induced a 200-300% increase in the number of bromodeoxyuridine-labeled (BrdU) retinal cells within 48 hr of treatment. After 3 d in culture both the basal and stimulated levels of BrdU incorporation were reduced, suggesting that the proliferative effect of VEGF was restricted developmentally. Furthermore, there was a developmentally dependent increase in the mitogenic response to VEGF-2, with retinal cultures derived from E15, E20, or P1 animals demonstrating a 50, 100, and 300% increase in thymidine incorporation, respectively. However, VEGF treatment resulted in an increase in the number of rhodopsin-immunopositive cells only when the cultures were derived from P1 animals. Therefore, retinal progenitor cells appear to be targets for VEGF, and thus VEGF may be involved in the regulation of the early developmental program of retinal neurogenesis.

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