4.5 Article

Dose-Response Relationship between Norepinephrine and Erythropoiesis: Evidence for a Critical Threshold

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 163, 期 2, 页码 E85-E90

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.03.051

关键词

BFU-E; CFU-E; bone marrow; 6-hydroxydopamine; catecholamine; chemical sympathectomy

类别

资金

  1. NIH [K08GM078304-01]
  2. Clowes ACS/AAST Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Severe traumatic injury elicits a neuroendocrine response that activates the sympathetic nervous system. Our previous work suggests that norepinephrine (NE) influences the bone marrow (BM) erythropoietic response. However, the dose-response relationship between NE and erythropoiesis remains unclear. Materials and Methods. Two days following chemical sympathectomy with 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) or injection with saline vehicle (SHAM), male Sprague-Dawley rats were infused continuously with either saline (NS) or increasing doses of NE for 5 d via osmotic pumps. Erythropoiesis was assessed by growth of erythroid progenitor colonies (BFU-E and CFU-E for early and late progenitors, respectively). Results. Following chemical sympathectomy with 6-OHDA, both BFU-E and CFU-E growth is inhibited (42%* and 43%* versus 100% SHAM, *P < 0.05). SHAM rats with continuous infusion of exogenous NE show a clear dose-response inhibition of both BFU-E and CFU-E colony growth. In the 6-OHDA rats, continuous infusion of NE restored BFU-E and CFU-E growth at 10(-8) g/h and 10(-9) g/h, respectively. Conclusions. Erythroid precursor colony growth is inhibited in sympathectomized rats. In addition, supraphysiologic doses of exogenous NE inhibit normal erythropoiesis in a dose-dependent fashion. Following chemical sympathectomy with 6-OHDA, exogenous NE restores erythropoiesis in a narrow window. Therefore, NE has a complex interaction within the BM and the elevation of NE following traumatic injury impacts BM erythropoietic function. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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