4.5 Article

Vasculopathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: role of specific angiogenic modulators

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 67, 期 3, 页码 339-349

出版社

SERVICIO PUBLICACIONES UNIVERSIDAD NAVARRA
DOI: 10.1007/s13105-011-0080-8

关键词

Advanced glycosylation end products; Angiogenesis; Basic fibroblast growth factor; Oxidative stress; Type 2 diabetes mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is largely defined by hyperglycemia that promotes vascular complications. Abnormal angiogenesis has been claimed to have a role in this disease. This study aimed to investigate serum levels of both conventional and other markers of angiogenesis not well studied before in diabetes, and to correlate findings with age of the patients, glycemic control, presence of microvascular complications, and oxidative stress. Thirty-eight patients with T2DM and 13 age-and sex-matched healthy persons representing controls were recruited. Serum levels of basic fibroblast growth factor (b-FGF) was measured by immunosorbent assay kit; advanced glycosylation end products, platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor (PD-ECGF), cathepsin-D (CD), gangliosides, hyaluronic acid (HA), nitric oxide (NO), lipid peroxides (LPER), superoxide dismutase, and total thiols by chemical methods; and copper (Cu) by atomic absorption flame photometry. Advanced glycosylation end products and angiogenic factors (b-FGF, PD-ECGF, CD, gangliosides, HA, and Cu) were significantly higher in patients than controls. Oxidative stress markers, NO, and LPER were significantly higher while total thiols were significantly lower in patients than controls. These changes were more pronounced with age, poor glycemic control, and presence of microvascular complications. Angiogenesis dysfunction coinciding with elevated levels of many angiogenic growth factors may point to their malfunctioning due to oxidative stress and/or protein glycation at the factor and the receptor levels. This necessitates further investigations.

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

4.5
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