4.6 Article

The insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) I and II bind to articular cartilage via the IGF-binding proteins

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 275, 期 8, 页码 5860-5866

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.275.8.5860

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR33236] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bovine articular cartilage discs (3 mm diameter x 400 mu m thick) were equilibrated in buffer containing I-125-insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I (4 degrees C) +/- unlabeled IGF-I or IGF-II, Competition for binding to cartilage discs by each unlabeled IGF was concentration-dependent, with ED50 values for inhibition of I-125-IGF-I binding of 11 and 10 nM for IGF-I and -II, respectively, and saturation by 50 nM, By contrast, an analog of IGF-I with very low affinity for the insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins (IGF-BPs), des-(1-3)-IGF-I, was not competitive with I-125-IGF-I for cartilage binding even at 100-400 nM. Binding of the I-125-labeled IGF-II isoform to cartilage was competed for by unlabeled ICE-I or -II, with ED(50)s of 160 and 8 nM, respectively. This probably reflected the differential affinities of the endogenous IGF-BPs (IGF-BP-6 and -2) for IGF-II/IGF-I. Transport of I-125-IGF-I was also measured in an apparatus that allows diffusion only across the discs (400 mu m), by addition to one side and continuous monitoring of efflux on the other side. The time lag for transport of I-125-IGF was 266 min, an order of magnitude longer than the theoretical prediction for free diffusion in the matrix. I-125-IGF-I transport then reached a steady state rate (% efflux of total added I-125-IGF/unit time), which was subsequently accelerated similar to 2-fold by addition of an excess of unlabeled IGF-I, Taken together, these results indicate that IGF binding to cartilage, mostly through the IGF-BPs, regulates the transport of IC;Fs in articular cartilage, probably contributing to the control of their paracrine activities.

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