4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 5A small interference RNA-liposome complexes reduce inflammation and increase survival in murine models of severe sepsis and acute lung injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 198, 期 9, 页码 1407-1414

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/592222

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [1K08AI65461-01A1, K08 AI065461, R56 AI015614, K08 AI065461-04, R01 AI015614, CAD AI 15614] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Many novel therapeutics have failed to reduce all-cause mortality associated with severe sepsis. Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 5A (eIF5A) is a regulator of apoptosis as well as inflammatory cell activation, making it a potential target for sepsis therapy. Methods. In a murine model of severe sepsis, mice were intraperitoneally challenged with lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Mice were treated both before and after LPS challenge with liposome complexes containing either an eIF5A-specific or control small interference RNA (siRNA), and both survival and serum concentrations of inflammatory cytokines were monitored. The ability of eIF5A siRNA to reduce inflammatory cytokines was also tested in a model of acute lung injury established by intranasal administration of LPS to mice. Results. There was a statistically significant increase in the rate of survival for mice intraperitoneally challenged with LPS that received eIF5A siRNA, compared with that noted for mice that received control siRNA (71% vs. 5%; P < .001), as well as a reduction in cytokine expression in serum. Concentrations of proinflammatory cytokines were also reduced in the lung homogenates and serum of mice that were intranasally challenged with LPS and received eIF5A siRNA (P <= .05). Conclusions. eIF5A siRNA-liposome complexes reduced inflammation and contributed to increased survival in a model of severe sepsis, decreased inflammation in a model of acute lung injury, and should be considered for clinical use.

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

4.7
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