Quantitative and qualitative differences in the activation of a fibroblast growth factor receptor by different FGF ligands
Krzyscik MA., Karl K., Dudeja P., Krejci P., Hristova K.
Narrative Review, published in Cytokine Growth Factor Rev (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Cytokine Growth Factor Rev (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39043538
- PMCID
- PMC11389727
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2024.07.002
- Citations
- 11
Abstract (original English)
The FGF system is the most complex of all receptor tyrosine kinase signaling networks with 18 FGF ligands and four FGFRs that deliver morphogenic signals to pattern most embryonic structures. Even when a single FGFR is expressed in the tissue, different FGFs can trigger dramatically different biological responses via this receptor. Here we show both quantitative and qualitative differences in the signaling of one of the FGF receptors, FGFR1c, in response to different FGFs. We provide an overview of the recent discovery that FGFs engage in biased signaling via FGFR1c. We discuss the concept of ligand bias, which represents qualitative differences in signaling as it is a measure of differential ligand preferences for different downstream responses. We show how FGF ligand bias manifests in functional data in cultured chondrocyte cells. We argue that FGF-ligand bias contributes substantially to FGF-driven developmental processes, along with known differences in FGF expression levels, FGF-FGFR binding coefficients and differences in FGF stability in vivo.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.