4.5 Article

Inhibition of corneal inflammation by liposomal delivery of short-chain, C-6 ceramide

期刊

JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY
卷 83, 期 6, 页码 1512-1521

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1189/jlb.0108076

关键词

ceramide; nanoparticles; liposomes; cornea; chemokines

资金

  1. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R03EY015800, R01EY014362, P30EY011373] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NEI NIH HHS [R03 EY015800, P30 EY011373, R01 EY014362, R01 EY 14362, P30 EY 11373, EY 015800] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ceramide is recognized as an antiproliferative and proapoptotic sphingolipid metabolite; however, the role of ceramide in inflammation is not well understood. To determine the role of C6-ceramide in regulating inflammatory responses, human corneal epithelial cells were treated with C6-ceramide in 80 nm diameter nanoliposome bilayer formulation (Lip-C6) prior to stimulation with UV-killed Staphylococcus aureus. Lip-C6 (5 mu M) inhibited the phosphorylation of proinflammatory and proapoptotic MAP kinases JNK and p38 and production of neutrophil chemotactic cytokines CXCL1, CXCL5, and CXCL8. Lip-C6 also blocked CXC chemokine production by human and murine neutrophils. To determine the effect of Lip-C6 in vivo, a murine model of corneal inflammation was used in which LPS or S. aureus added to the abraded corneal surface induces neutrophil infiltration to the corneal stroma, resulting in increased corneal haze. Mice were treated topically with 2 nMoles (811 ng) Lip-C6 or with control liposomes prior to, or following, LPS or S. aureus stimulation. We found that corneal inflammation was significantly inhibited by Lip-C6 but not control liposomes given prior to, or following, activation by LPS or S. aureus. Furthermore, Lip-C6 did not induce apoptosis of corneal epithelial cells in vitro or in vivo, nor did it inhibit corneal wound healing. Together, these findings demonstrate a novel, anti-inflammatory, nontoxic, therapeutic role for liposomally delivered short-chain ceramide.

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

4.5
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