4.6 Article

In Vivo Characterization of Neutrophil Extracellular Traps in Various Organs of a Murine Sepsis Model

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111888

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [KAKENHI 25462052, 25462771]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25462771] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) represent extracellular microbial trapping and killing. Recently, it has been implicated in thrombogenesis, autoimmune disease, and cancer progression. The aim of this study was to characterize NETs in various organs of a murine sepsis model in vivo and to investigate their associations with platelets, leukocytes, or vascular endothelium. NETs were classified as two distinct forms; cell-free NETs that were released away from neutrophils and anchored NETs that were anchored to neutrophils. Circulating cell-free NETs were characterized as fragmented or cotton-like structures, while anchored NETs were characterized as linear, reticular, membranous, or spot-like structures. In septic mice, both anchored and cell-free NETs were significantly increased in postcapillary venules of the cecum and hepatic sinusoids with increased leukocyte-endothelial interactions. NETs were also observed in both alveolar space and pulmonary capillaries of the lung. The interactions of NETs with platelet aggregates, leukocyte-platelet aggregates or vascular endothelium of arterioles and venules were observed in the microcirculation of septic mice. Microvessel occlusions which may be caused by platelet aggregates or leukocyte-platelet aggregates and heterogeneously decreased blood flow were also observed in septic mice. NETs appeared to be associated with the formation of platelet aggregates or leukocyte-platelet aggregates. These observational findings may suggest the adverse effect of intravascular NETs on the host during a sepsis.

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