3.9 Article

Innate Immunity and Glucocorticoids: Potential Regulatory Mechanisms in Epididymal Biology

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 614-624

出版社

AMER SOC ANDROLOGY, INC
DOI: 10.2164/jandrol.111.013565

关键词

Male reproductive tract; steroid receptor; inflammation; rat; epididymitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammation is a primordial host response to invasion by pathogens or tissue injury. During infection, microbes can activate immune cells through pattern-recognition receptors, such as Toll-like receptors, an evolutionarily conserved family of receptors that mediate innate immunity in a wide range of organisms. Infection also triggers an increase in glucocorticoid levels as part of the stress response. The scenario indicates that these signals have to be well integrated to mount an effective host response to infection and injury. The mechanisms by which innate and adaptive immunity are regulated, as well as the intersection of these responses with glucocorticoids and the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) in the epididymis, an organ essential for the transport, maturation, storage, and protection of the spermatozoa, are not well understood. In this review we bring together recent data demonstrating the cellular and biochemical machinery involved in the response of the adult rat epididymis to a bacterial product challenge. We also illustrate the basic aspects of the expression, localization, function, and regulation of the GR by steroid hormones (androgens and glucocorticoids) within the epididymis. We conclude with considerations of controversial or still unanswered topics about GR, now emerging as a regulatory step in epididymal biology, its functional relationship with androgens and androgen receptor, and the innate immune response of the epididymis. How these topics may be of interest as part of future research in the area, and how they ultimately can help us to better understand the epididymal function under noninflammatory and inflammatory conditions, are also discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据