4.5 Article

AGE-modified albumin containing infusion solutions boosts septicaemia and inflammation in experimental peritonitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY
卷 86, 期 3, 页码 589-597

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1189/jlb.1008646

关键词

sepsis; fluid resuscitation; advanced glycation endproducts; RAGE; colloid

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG/SFB) [405]
  2. Dietmar Hopp Foundation
  3. University Tubingen
  4. National Institutes of Health [DK-19971]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

HSA preparations for i.v. use are administered in critically ill patients. Although increasing intravascular osmotic pressure seems to be a pathophysiologically orientated treatment, clinical trials do not indicate a benefit for mortality in HSA-treated patients. Instead, there is evidence for inflammatory reactions upon infusion of different HSA batches. A neglected issue concerning the safety and quality of these therapeutics is processing-related post-transcriptional protein modifications, such as AGEs. We therefore tested the hypothesis that commercially available infusion solutions contain AGEs and studied whether these protein modifications influence outcome and inflammation in a murine model of sepsis induced by CLP. Screening of different HSA and Ig preparations in this study revealed an up to approximate tenfold difference in the amount of AGE modifications. Application of clinically relevant concentrations of CML-modified HSA in CLP led to increased inflammation and enhanced mortality in wild-type mice but not in mice lacking the RAGE. Lethality was paralleled by increased activation of the proinflammatory transcription factor NF-kappa B, NF-kappa B-dependent gene expression, and infiltration of inflammatory cells in the peritoneal cavity. This study implies that infusion solutions containing a high load of the AGE-modified protein have the potential to activate RAGE/NF-kappa B-mediated inflammatory reactions, causing increased mortality in experimental peritonitis. J. Leukoc. Biol. 86: 589-597; 2009.

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