4.6 Article

Sphingosine-1-phosphate mediates epidermal growth factor-induced muscle satellite cell activation

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
卷 326, 期 1, 页码 112-124

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2014.06.009

关键词

Satellite cells; Skeletal muscle; C2C12; Reserve cells; Sphingosine-1-phosphate; Epidermal growth factor

资金

  1. Japan Science Society [25-412]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Skeletal muscle can regenerate repeatedly due to the presence of resident stem cells, called satellite cells. Because satellite cells are usually quiescent, they must be activated before participating in muscle regeneration in response to stimuli such as injury, overloading, and stretch. Although satellite cell activation is a crucial step in muscle regeneration, little is known of the molecular mechanisms controlling this process. Recent work showed that the bioactive lipid sphingosine-1-phosphate (SIP) plays crucial roles in the activation, proliferation, and differentiation of muscle satellite cells. We investigated the role of growth factors in SIP-mediated satellite cell activation. We found that epidermal growth factor (EGF) in combination with insulin induced proliferation of quiescent undifferentiated mouse myoblast C2C12 cells, which are also known as reserve cells, in serum-free conditions. Sphingosine kinase activity increased when reserve cells were stimulated with EGF. Treatment of reserve cells with the D-erythro-N,N-dimethylsphingosine, Sphingosine Kinase Inhibitor, or siRNA duplexes specific for sphingosine kinase 1, suppressed EGF-induced C2C12 activation. We also present the evidence showing the SW receptor S1P2 is involved in EGF-induced reserve cell activation. Moreover, we demonstrated a combination of insulin and EGF promoted activation of satellite cells on single myofibers in a manner dependent on SPHK and S1P2. Taken together, our observations show that EGF-induced satellite cell activation is mediated by SW and its receptor. (C) 2014 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

4.6
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