Hernández C, Carrasco E, Casamitjana R, Deulofeu R, García-Arumí J, Simó R. Somatostatin molecular variants in the vitreous fluid: a comparative study between diabetic patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy and nondiabetic control subjects.
Diabetes Care 2005;
28:1941-7. [PMID:
16043736 DOI:
10.2337/diacare.28.8.1941]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
There is growing evidence to indicate that somatostatin could be added to the list of natural antiangiogenic factors that exist in the vitreous fluid. In addition, a deficit of intravitreous somatostatin-like immunoreactivity (SLI) has been found in diabetic patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). In the present study, we have determined the main molecular variants of somatostatin (somatostatin-14 and somatostatin-28) in the vitreous fluid and plasma of nondiabetic control subjects and diabetic patients with PDR. In addition, the contribution of cortistatin, a neuropeptide with strong structural similarities to somatostatin, to SLI and its levels in vitreous and plasma in both nondiabetic and diabetic patients has also been measured. RESERCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Plasma and vitreous fluid from 22 diabetic patients with PDR and 22 nondiabetic control subjects were analyzed. Somatostatin-14, somatostatin-28 and cortistatin were measured by radioimmunoassay but separation by high-performance liquid chromatography was required to measure somatostatin-14.
RESULTS
The predominant molecular form of somatostatin within the vitreous fluid was somatostatin-28 (fivefold higher than somatostatin-14 in control subjects and threefold higher in patients with PDR). Cortistatin significantly contributed to SLI and its intravitreous levels were higher than those detected in plasma (nondiabetic control subjects: 147 [102-837] vs. 78 [24-32] pg/ml; patients with PDR: 187 [87-998] vs. 62 [24-472] pg/ml; P = 0.01 for both). Intravitreous somatostatin-14 was similar in both subjects with PDR and the control group (P = 0.87). By contrast, somatostatin-28 concentration was lower in patients with PDR than in nondiabetic control subjects (350 +/- 32 vs. 595 +/- 66 pg/ml; P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS
Somatostatin-28 is the main molecular variant in the vitreous fluid. The intravitreous SLI deficit detected in patients with PDR is mainly due to somatostatin-28. Cortistatin is abundant in the vitreous fluid and significantly contributes to SLI. These findings could open up new strategies for PDR treatment.
Collapse