4.1 Article

Association between intestinal lymphangiectasia and expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase in dogs with lymphoplasmacytic enteritis

Journal

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICAL SCIENCE
Volume 84, Issue 1, Pages 20-24

Publisher

JAPAN SOC VET SCI
DOI: 10.1292/jvms.21-0363

Keywords

dog; immunohistochemistry; inducible nitric oxide synthase; intestinal lymphangiectasia; lymphoplasmacytic enteritis

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [19J22813]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19J22813] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intestinal lymphangiectasia (IL) is a common complication in dogs. This study aimed to investigate the potential role of inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) in the development of IL in dogs with lymphoplasmacytic enteritis (LPE). The results showed that there was a significant increase in iNOS expression in the duodenal tissues of dogs with IL-negative or IL-positive LPE compared to control dogs. However, there was no significant difference in iNOS expression between IL-positive and IL-negative tissues, suggesting that factors other than nitric oxide may contribute to the development of IL in dogs with LPE.
Intestinal lymphangiectasia (IL) is a common complication in dogs. Since nitric oxide (NO) is known to relax the lymphatic vessel, we evaluated inducible NO synthase (iNOS) expression using immunohistochemistry in 13 dogs with lymphoplasmacytic enteritis (LPE) with or without IL. The duodenal iNOS expressing cells were significantly increased in dogs with IL negative or IL-positive LPE dogs (P=0.025, P=0.007) compared with control dogs. However, there was no significant difference in iNOS expression between IL-positive and IL-negative tissues. Based on these results, there is no clear evidence for the NO overproduction in the pathogenesis of IL in dogs with LPE. Factors other than NO could, thus, contribute to IL in dogs with LPE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available