1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0006-8993(97)01495-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Topographical distribution of [125I]-glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in unlesioned and MPTP-lesioned rhesus monkey brain following a bolus intraventricular injection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
21
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2) their occurrence was more prevalent at later time points than at one month. While we do not have a definitive identification of these structures, it is possible that they are associated with extracellular matrix complexes (Lapchak et al, 1998;Ruoslahti, 1996;Venstrom and Reichardt, 1993).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…2) their occurrence was more prevalent at later time points than at one month. While we do not have a definitive identification of these structures, it is possible that they are associated with extracellular matrix complexes (Lapchak et al, 1998;Ruoslahti, 1996;Venstrom and Reichardt, 1993).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Heparin binding has been shown to limit the biodistribution of GDNF, thereby affecting its therapeutic targeting following an intracranial injection (Gash et al, 2005; Lapchak et al, 1998). Unlike mature GDNF, both DNSP-5 and DNSP-11 do not bind heparin (Figure 2), thus suggesting that the GDNF prosequence-derived peptides would have enhanced volume of distribution properties when delivered intracranially.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, GDNF has not advanced beyond phase II clinical trials, primarily due to challenges attributed to the direct intracranial delivery of large proteins (Gash et al, 2005; Lang et al, 2006; Patel and Gill, 2007; Salvatore et al, 2006). Furthermore, GDNF binds heparin with high affinity (Lin et al, 1994; Lin et al, 1993), and likely other heparin-related molecules abundant in the brain matrix (Rickard et al, 2003; Sariola and Saarma, 2003), which hinders its predictable biodistribution following a direct injection (Gash et al, 2005; Lapchak et al, 1998; Patel and Gill, 2007; Piltonen et al, 2009; Salvatore et al, 2006). While additional delivery strategies have been examined to improve GDNF delivery and distribution in vivo , including: convection enhanced delivery (CED) (Fiandaca et al, 2008; Hamilton et al, 2001; Morrison et al, 2007); co-infusion with heparin during CED (Hamilton et al, 2001); removal of the GDNF N-terminal heparin binding domain (Piltonen et al, 2009); viral vector delivery (Kordower et al, 2000; Ramaswamy et al, 2009; Wang et al, 2002); and encapsulated GDNF-producing cells (Lindner et al, 1995; Lindvall and Wahlberg, 2008), an alternate approach to circumvent these delivery and distribution challenges would be to utilize small, neurotrophic-like functional molecules.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has been recently attributed to its propargyl moiety, which is a very poor inhibitor of MAOÀA and B [34] and has been shown to possess neurorescue activity and increase GDNF and BDNF mRNA by a mechanism involving nuclear factorÀkappaB (NFÀjB) activation [18,24]. A limited availability of neurotrophic factors (GDNF, BDNF) has been suggested to contribute to the mechanism of DA neurodegeneration in PD [35] while they promote DA neurorescue in the mice and nonÀhuman MPTP models [36][37][38][39][40][41]. GDNF has failed to show a similar response in PD subjects [42], mainly because of lack of transport across blood brain barrier.…”
Section: Future Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%