4.6 Review

Airway surface liquid homeostasis in cystic fibrosis: pathophysiology and therapeutic targets

期刊

THORAX
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 284-U91

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207588

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cystic Fibrosis Trust [SRC003]
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/M008797/1]
  3. Newcastle University Wellcome Trust
  4. Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) [AMS-SGCL6-Brodlie] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Cystic Fibrosis Trust [SRC003] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [MR/M008797/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. MRC [MR/M008797/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting disease characterised by recurrent respiratory infections, inflammation and lung damage. The volume and composition of the airway surface liquid (ASL) are important in maintaining ciliary function, mucociliary clearance and antimicrobial properties of the airway. In CF, these homeostatic mechanisms are impaired, leading to a dehydrated and acidic ASL. ASL volume depletion in CF is secondary to defective anion transport by the abnormal cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator protein (CFTR). Abnormal CFTR mediated bicarbonate transport creates an unfavourable, acidic environment, which impairs antimicrobial function and alters mucus properties and clearance. These disease mechanisms create a disordered airway milieu, consisting of thick mucopurulent secretions and chronic bacterial infection. In addition to CFTR, there are additional ion channels and transporters in the apical airway epithelium that play a role in maintaining ASL homeostasis. These include the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC), the solute carrier 26A (SLC26A) family of anion exchangers, and calcium-activated chloride channels. In this review we discuss how the ASL is abnormal in CF and how targeting these alternative channels and transporters could provide an attractive therapeutic strategy to correct the underlying ASL abnormalities evident in CF.

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