4.6 Article

Inhibition of lipopolysaccharide-induced inducible nitric oxide synthase and cyclooxygenase-2 gene expression by 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide riboside is independent of AMP-activated protein kinase

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 931-940

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcb.21466

关键词

AICAR; AMPK; iNOS; COX-2; NF-kappa B; macrophages

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies suggest AM P-activated protein kinase (AMPK), an enzyme involved in energy homeostasis, might be a novel signaling pathway in regulating inflammatory response, but the precise intracellular mechanisms are not fully understood. In this study, we have demonstrated that 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide riboside (AICAR), an activator of AMPK, inhibited lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced protein expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in macrophages and microglial cells at the gene transcription level. Data obtained from electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) and promoter activity assay have further confirmed the ability of AICAR to block LPS-mediated NF-kappa B, AP-1, CREB, and C/EBP beta activation. However, AICAR did not affect LPS-mediated IKK, ERK, and p38 activation. Regardless of the ability of AICAR to activate AMPK, the inhibitory effects of AICAR on iNOS and COX2 expression were not associated with AMPK. An adenosine kinase inhibitor 5'-iodotubercidin, which effectively abolished AMPK activation caused by AICAR, did not reverse the anti-inflammatory effect of AICAR. Moreover, another AMPK activator metformin was not able to mimic the effects of AICAR. Direct addition of AICAR in EMSA assay interrupted binding of NF-kappa B, CREB, and C/EBP beta to specific DNA elements. Taken together, this study demonstrates that the anti-inflammatory effects of AICAR against LPS-induced iNOS and COX-2 gene transcription are not associated with AMPK activation, but might be resulting from the direct interference with DNA binding to transcription factors.

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

4.6
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