4.6 Article

Lack of CFTR in Skeletal Muscle Predisposes to Muscle Wasting and Diaphragm Muscle Pump Failure in Cystic Fibrosis Mice

期刊

PLOS GENETICS
卷 5, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000586

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. BREATHE
  4. Fonds de la recherche en sante du Quebec
  5. McGill University Health Centre Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cystic fibrosis (CF) patients often have reduced mass and strength of skeletal muscles, including the diaphragm, the primary muscle of respiration. Here we show that lack of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) plays an intrinsic role in skeletal muscle atrophy and dysfunction. In normal murine and human skeletal muscle, CFTR is expressed and colocalized with sarcoplasmic reticulum-associated proteins. CFTR-deficient myotubes exhibit augmented levels of intracellular calcium after KCl-induced depolarization, and exposure to an inflammatory milieu induces excessive NF-kB translocation and cytokine/chemokine gene upregulation. To determine the effects of an inflammatory environment in vivo, sustained pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa was produced, and under these conditions diaphragmatic force-generating capacity is selectively reduced in Cftr(-/-) mice. This is associated with exaggerated pro-inflammatory cytokine expression as well as upregulation of the E3 ubiquitin ligases (MuRF1 and atrogin-1) involved in muscle atrophy. We conclude that an intrinsic alteration of function is linked to the absence of CFTR from skeletal muscle, leading to dysregulated calcium homeostasis, augmented inflammatory/atrophic gene expression signatures, and increased diaphragmatic weakness during pulmonary infection. These findings reveal a previously unrecognized role for CFTR in skeletal muscle function that may have major implications for the pathogenesis of cachexia and respiratory muscle pump failure in CF patients.

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