4.7 Article

Heparin-binding determinants of GDNF reduce its tissue distribution but are beneficial for the protection of nigral dopaminergic neurons

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
卷 219, 期 2, 页码 499-506

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2009.07.002

关键词

GDNF; HB-GAM; Heparan sulphates; Neuroprotection; Pleiotrophin; Tissue distribution; 6-OHDA

资金

  1. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  2. Academy of Finland
  3. University of Helsinki
  4. EU FP6 CancerGRID [LSCH-CT-2006-037559]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) protects and repairs dopamine neurons. It binds to GDNF family receptor alpha 1 (GFR alpha 1) and activates receptor tyrosine kinase. Heparan sulphate proteoglycans (HSPGs) also participate in the signalling of GDNF, though binding to HS may hinder the diffusion of infused GDNF We assessed the importance of heparin-binding determinants in the neuroprotective effects of GDNF in the 6-OHDA rat model of Parkinson's disease. We utilized a truncated, non-heparin-binding Delta 38N-GDNF or combined wtGDNF with heparin-binding growth-associated molecule (HB-GAM, pleiotrophin). Tissue diffusion of wtGDNF +/- HB-GAM and Delta 38N-GDNF was also compared. A protective effect against ipsilateral D-amphetamine-induced turning was seen with 10 mu g wtGDNF, 17 mu g HB-GAM + 10 mu g wtGDNF or 10 mu g Delta 38N-GDNF at 8 weeks post lesion. This effect was most pronounced with wtGDNF alone. HB-GAM (17 or 50 mu g) also reduced rotational behaviour, but did not protect dopaminergic cells. Otherwise, the survival of TH-positive cells in the substantia nigra correlated with the behavioural data. Although Delta 38N-GDNF was more widely distributed than wtGDNF (irrespective of its origin), stable in a brain extract, and potent in mitogen-activated kinase assay, it was inferior in vivo. The results imply that GDNF binding to HSs is needed for the optimum neuroprotective effect. (C) 2009 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