4.7 Article

Role of anti-angiogenic factor endostatin in the pathogenesis of experimental ulcerative colitis

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 88, 期 1-2, 页码 74-81

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2010.10.026

关键词

Endostatin; Matrix metalloproteinase-9; VEGF; Ulcerative colitis

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Merit Review [VAMR0710-580]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and pathologic angiogenesis have been demonstrated to play a pathogenic role in the development and progression of inflammatory bowel disease. Thus, we hypothesized that the potent anti-angiogenic factor endostatin might play a beneficial role in experimental ulcerative colitis (UC). Main methods: We used three animal models of UC: (1) induced by 6% iodoacetamide (IA) in rats, or (2) by 3% dextran sulfate sodium (DSS) in matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) knockout (KO) and wild-type mice, and (3) interleukin-10 (IL-10) KO mice. Groups of MMP-9 KO mice with DSS-induced UC were treated with endostatin or water for 5 days. Key findings: We found concomitant upregulation of VEGF, PDGF, MMP-9 and endostatin in both rat and mouse models of UC. A positive correlation between the levels of endostatin or VEGF and the sizes of colonic lesions was seen in IA-induced UC. The levels and activities of MMP-9 were also significantly increased during UC induced by IA and IL-10 KO. Deletion of MMP-9 decreased the levels of endostatin in both water- and DSS-treated MMP-9 KO mice. Treatment with endostatin significantly improved DSS-induced UC in MMP-9 KO mice. Significance: 1) Concomitantly increased endostatin is a defensive response to the increased VEGF in UC, 2) MMP-9 is a key enzyme to generate endostatin which may modulate the balance between VEGF and endostatin during experimental UC, and 3) endostatin treatment plays a beneficial role in UC. Thus, antiangiogenesis seems to be a new therapeutic option for UC. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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