4.6 Article

Neutrophil-Derived IL-6 Limits Alveolar Barrier Disruption in Experimental Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 182, 期 12, 页码 8056-8062

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.0801323

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health and National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [HL088440, HL075026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IL-6 is a biological marker of ventilator-associated lung injury that may contribute to alveolar barrier dysfunction in acute respiratory distress syndrome. To determine whether IL-6 affects alveolar barrier disruption in a model of ventilator-induced lung injury, we examined alveolar barrier albumin flux in wild-type (WT) mice given an IL-6-blocking Ab (IL6AB) and mice deficient in IL-6 (LL6KO). Albumin flux was significantly higher in mice given IL6AB compared with mice given a control Ab. Unexpectedly, albumin flux was similar in WT and IL6KO mice. To examine the mechanisms for these findings, lung neutrophil accumulation (myeloperoxidase activity) was compared, revealing a correlation between lung neutrophil accumulation and albumin flux. IL6AB mice had significantly more lung neutrophils than WT and IL6KO mice, which were similar. Therefore, to determine whether the cellular source of IL-6 influences neutrophil accumulation and alveolar barrier function, chimeric mice were compared. WT/KO chimeras (WT mice with IL6KO hematopoietic cells) showed significantly greater albumin flux and neutrophil accumulation with mechanical ventilation than WT/WT mice. Neutrophil depletion decreased albumin flux in WT and WT/KO mice. IL6KO neutrophils were more adherent in an in vitro assay compared with WT neutrophils. IL-6 from a hematopoietic cell source limits alveolar barrier disruption potentially by reducing neutrophil contact with the endothelium. Modulation of IL-6 signaling in a cell type-specific fashion may be a therapeutic target for patients with acute lung injury. The Journal of Immunology, 2009, 182: 8056-8062.

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