4.7 Article

Levels of target activation predict antifibrotic responses to tyrosine kinase inhibitors

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 72, 期 12, 页码 2039-2046

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203729

关键词

Fibroblasts; Systemic Sclerosis; Treatment

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim
  2. Celgene
  3. Bayer Pharma
  4. Actelion
  5. Pfizer
  6. Ergonex
  7. BMS
  8. JB Therapeutics, Anaphore, Inc
  9. Sanofi-Aventis
  10. Novartis
  11. Array Biopharma
  12. Versus Arthritis [19427] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To assess whether the discrepancy between the strong antifibrotic effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in animal models and the inconsistent results in clinical studies might be related to the activation levels of drug targets. Methods Skin sections of bleomycin, TSK1, Fra-2 transgenic mice, SSc patients and controls were analysed by histology and immunohistochemistry. Subgroups of mice were treated with the TKIs nilotinib or imatinib. Differences in the activation levels of the TKI targets p-PDGFR (platelet derived growth factor ) and p-c-abl were assessed. Results In bleomycin and TSK1 mice, expression of activated p-PDGFR (platelet derived growth factor receptor ) and p-c-abl was ubiquitous with strong upregulation compared with controls. Treatment with TKIs resulted in successful target inhibition and consequently reduced dermal fibrosis. In the Fra-2 model, the activation levels of p-PDGFR and p-c-abl were much lower than in the bleomycin and the TSK1 models. Accordingly, nilotinib did not prevent dermal fibrosis and target inhibition was unsuccessful. Notably, in skin biopsies of SSc patients, the mean activation levels of TKI targets were only moderate and in the majority of patients resembled those of the non-responsive Fra-2 model. Conclusions Animal models for proof-of-concept studies should be selected based on a similar activation level and expression pattern of drug targets as in human SSc.

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