ArticleHeliyon2024
The effect of fibroblast growth factor 2 on neovascular vessels depends on the stage of angiogenesis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The exact relationship between fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) and choroidal neovascularization (CNV) remains unclear. In this study, using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and FGF2-tg mice which are transgenic mice with a rhodopsin promoter/FGF2 gene fusion, we aimed to investigate the dynamics of FGF2's role in angiogenesis over time. Methods: We developed laser-induced CNV models of FGF2-tg and wild-type (WT) mice and then separated them into two groups using different laser photocoagulation (PC) conditions. The first group received 3 intense PC shots (1st PC) altogether ( Results: Using OCTA to observe vessel changes within the same individual over time, there was no difference in the timing of vessel transition from the CNV development phase to the CNV regression phase between FGF2-tg and WT mice in the one-time PC group. In contrast, the neovascular vessels in the two-times PC group of FGF2-tg mice were maintained at least 28 days post-2nd PC without regression. In addition, mature vessels surrounded by PDGFRβ positive pericytes and α-SMA positive smooth muscle cells were observed. Real-time qPCR showed a substantial increase in apelin mRNA expression in the one-time PC group of FGF2-tg, rather than VEGF-A (p < 0.05, n = 5 or 6). Moreover, the expression levels of PDGFRβ, apelin, and Ang1 were significantly higher in FGF2-tg mice of two-times PC group than in WT mice (p < 0.05, n = 5 or 6). Conclusions: FGF2 not only promotes neovascularization via the apelin/APJ system, which is independent of VEGF signaling pathway, but also helps maintain and stabilize pre-existing neovascular vessels by stimulating PDGFRβ and Ang1. The effect of FGF2 on the neovascular vessels depends on the stage of angiogenesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.