4.7 Article

Expression of endoplasmic reticulum stress markers in the islets of patients with type 1 diabetes

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 55, 期 9, 页码 2417-2420

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-012-2604-3

关键词

Diabetes mellitus; ER stress; Pancreatic beta cells; Pancreatic islets; Type 1 diabetes

资金

  1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) [17-2009-106]
  2. Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation
  3. European Union
  4. Network for Pancreatic Organ Donors with Diabetes (nPOD)
  5. JDRF
  6. European Regional Development Fund
  7. Walloon Region
  8. Televie programme of the Fond National de la Recherche Scientifique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress may play a role in cytokine-mediated beta cell death in type 1 diabetes, but it remains controversial whether ER stress markers are present in islets from type 1 diabetic individuals. Therefore, we evaluated by immunostaining the expression of markers of the three main branches of the ER stress response in islets from 13 individuals with and 15 controls without type 1 diabetes (eight adults and seven children). Antibodies against the ER stress markers C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP), immunoglobulin heavy chain (BIP) and X-box binding protein 1 (XBP-1) were validated using HeLa cells treated with the ER stressor thapsigargin. These antibodies were then used to stain serial sections of paraffin-embedded pancreas from type 1 diabetic and non-diabetic individuals; samples were also immunostained for CD45, insulin and glucagon. Immunostaining intensities of the ER stress markers were quantified using a software-based, unbiased quantitative approach. Islets from individuals with type 1 diabetes showed increased levels of CHOP and, at least for insulitis-positive and beta cell-containing islets, BIP. XBP-1 expression was not, however, increased. Islet cells from individuals with type 1 diabetes display a partial ER stress response, with evidence of the induction of some, but not all, components of the unfolded protein response.

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