4.6 Article

Corticotropin-releasing factor receptor subtype 2 in human colonic mucosa: Down-regulation in ulcerative colitis

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 19, 期 9, 页码 1416-1423

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i9.1416

关键词

Colonic mucosa; Corticotropin-releasing factor; Corticotropin-releasing factor receptor; Human immunodeficiency virus; Ulcerative colitis; Urocortin

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases R01 grant [DK-57238]
  2. Veteran Administration Research Career Scientist Award
  3. NIH [DK-78676]
  4. [DK-41301]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To assess corticotropin-releasing factor receptor 2 (CRF2) expression in the colon of healthy subjects and patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: We examined CRF2 gene and protein expression in the distal/sigmoid colonic mucosal biopsies from healthy subjects and patients with UC (active or disease in remission), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and functional bowel disease (FBD) by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Gene expression of CRF2 was demonstrated in the normal human colonic biopsies, but not in the human colorectal adenocarcinoma cell line Caco2. Receptor protein localization showed immunoreactive CRF2 receptors in the lamina propria and in the epithelial cells of the distal/sigmoid biopsy samples. Interestingly, CRF2 immunoreactivity was no longer observed in epithelial cells of patients with mild-moderately active UC and disease in remission, while receptor protein expression did not change in the lamina propria. No differences in CRF2 expression profile were observed in distal/sigmoid intestinal biopsies from HIV infection and FBD patients, showing no signs of inflammation. CONCLUSION: The down-regulation of the CRF2 receptor in the distal/sigmoid biopsies of UC patients is indicative of change in CRF2 signalling associated with the process of inflammation. (C) 2013 Baishideng. 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

4.6
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