## Abstract Abnormal connective tissues may be a key factor in the development of pelvic supportive disorders. Elastin gene transcripts and elastin synthesis in cultured fibroblasts derived from cardinal ligaments of patients with prolapsus uteri and compared them with those in fibroblasts from age
CHANGES IN ELASTIN-BINDING PROTEIN IN FIBROBLASTS DERIVED FROM CARDINAL LIGAMENTS OF PATIENTS WITH PROLAPSUS UTERI
✍ Scribed by Mari Yamamoto; Kenji Akazawa; Masaru Aoyagi; Naofumi Yamamoto; Kiyotaka Yamamoto
- Publisher
- Elsevier Science
- Year
- 2002
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 325 KB
- Volume
- 26
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1065-6995
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
Prolapsus uteri in pelvic supportive disorders are common in elderly women, and their etiology remains unclear. We examined elastin‐binding proteins (EBPs) and binding sites in cultured cardinal ligament fibroblasts derived from elderly patients with prolapsus uteri (HPLiF) and compared them with those from age‐matched control subjects (HCLiF). Cell attachment to α‐elastin was significantly lower in HPLiF than in HCLiF. Elastin suppressed the higher proliferative activity at near confluency in HPLiF. The 67‐kDa EBP was detectable in HCLiF, whereas HPLiF expressed a 59‐kDa EBP. The expression of EBP was significantly lower in HPLiF. The synthetic peptide Val‐Gly‐Val‐Ala‐Pro‐Gly (VGVAPG), which contains a recognition sequence for the elastin receptor, inhibited the adhesion of HCLiF to α‐elastin at 10^−5^–10^−4^M, but showed no inhibitory activity on the adhesion of HPLiF at 10^−5^M. These results suggest that fibroblasts derived from elderly women with prolapsus uteri can recognize α‐elastin through interactions with the low‐molecular‐size (59‐kDa) EBP for the sequence VGVAPG with low affinity and may contribute to the loss of supportive function in uterine connective tissues.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
The authors examined the growth response of cardinal ligamental fibroblasts derived from patients with prolapsus uteri (HPLiF) and compared it with the response of those from control subjects (HCLiF). The growth rate during the logarithmic growth phase was not different between HPLiF and HCLiF, whil