SPARC, an upstream regulator of connective tissue growth factor in response to transforming growth factor β stimulation

XD Zhou, MM Xiong, FK Tan, XJ Guo… - Arthritis & Rheumatism …, 2006 - Wiley Online Library
XD Zhou, MM Xiong, FK Tan, XJ Guo, FC Arnett
Arthritis & Rheumatism: Official Journal of the American College …, 2006Wiley Online Library
Objective To differentiate the effects of inhibition of specific small interfering RNA (siRNA) of
SPARC (secreted protein, acidic and rich in cysteine) and siRNA of connective tissue growth
factor (CTGF) in cultured human fibroblasts, and to identify potential interrelationships
between SPARC and CTGF. Methods Fibroblasts from skin biopsy specimens of 2 normal
individuals were transfected with siRNA of SPARC and siRNA of CTGF. The fibroblasts were
stimulated with or without transforming growth factor β1 (TGFβ1) and examined by real‐time …
Objective
To differentiate the effects of inhibition of specific small interfering RNA (siRNA) of SPARC (secreted protein, acidic and rich in cysteine) and siRNA of connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) in cultured human fibroblasts, and to identify potential interrelationships between SPARC and CTGF.
Methods
Fibroblasts from skin biopsy specimens of 2 normal individuals were transfected with siRNA of SPARC and siRNA of CTGF. The fibroblasts were stimulated with or without transforming growth factor β1 (TGFβ1) and examined by real‐time quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction to determine the transcription levels of several extracellular matrix genes.
Results
After exogenous TGFβ1 stimulation, both SPARC siRNA and CTGF siRNA showed a protective role against overexpression of collagen genes. Following TGFβ1 stimulation, SPARC siRNA–transfected fibroblasts showed a greater reduction in expression of the collagen genes compared with CTGF siRNA–transfected fibroblasts, as well as a significantly decreased expression of CTGF (P < 0.05). Using linear structure equations to quantitatively model a genetic network based on expression levels of each gene, a positive regulatory role of SPARC on CTGF, COL1A2, COL3A1, COL11A1, and TIMP3 was observed. However, the regulatory role of CTGF on SPARC appeared to be negative and very small, while the positive regulatory effects of CTGF on COL1A2, COL3A1, COL11A1, and TIMP3 were less than those of SPARC.
Conclusion
The results of this quantitative comparison support the hypothesis that in these cultured fibroblasts, the regulatory effects of SPARC on some major extracellular matrix structural components are greater than those of CTGF. In addition, SPARC appears to regulate CTGF in a predominantly positive manner, while CTGF may act as a negative feedback control on SPARC following TGFβ stimulation.
Wiley Online Library