4.7 Article

Pancreatic duct cells in human islet cell preparations are a source of angiogenic cytokines interleukin-8 and vascular endothelial growth factor

期刊

DIABETES
卷 57, 期 8, 页码 2128-2136

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db07-1705

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE-Engraftment and function of human islet cell implants is considered to be dependent on their rapid and adequate revascularization. Studies with rodent islet grafts have shown that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression by P-cells can promote this process. The present work examines whether human islet preparations produce VEGF as well as interleukin (IL)-8, another angiogenic protein, and assesses the role of contaminating duct cells in VEGF and IL-8-mediated angiogenesis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-Human islet and pancreatic duct cell preparations are compared for their respective expression and production of VEGF and IL-8 during culture as well as following transplantation in nonobese diabetic (NOD)/scid mice. The associated angiogenic effects are measured in an in vitro aortic ring assay and in an in vivo chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane assay. RESULTS-Cultured pancreatic duct cells expressed 3- and 10-fold more VEGF and IL-8, respectively, than cultured human islet endocrine cells and released both proteins at angiogenic levels. The angiogenic effect of purified duct cells was higher than that of purified endocrine islet cells and was completely blocked by a combination of IL-8 and VEGF antibodies. Human duct cell implants under the kidney capsule of NOD/scid mice expressed higher levels of IL-8 and VEGF than human islet cell implants and induced circulating IL-8 and VEGF levels during the first day posttransplantation. CONCLUSIONS-Human duct cell-released IL-8 and VEGF may help revascularization of currently used human islet cell grafts. Further work should examine whether and when this effect can prevail over other inflammatory and immune influences of this cell type.

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