4.7 Article

Blockade of exosome generation with GW4869 dampens the sepsis-induced inflammation and cardiac dysfunction

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2015.08.010

关键词

Sepsis; Exosomes; Cardiac dysfunction; Macrophages; Inflammatory response

资金

  1. NIH [2R01HL-087861, R01 GM-112930]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sepsis is an infection-induced severe inflammatory disorder that leads to multiple organ failure. Amongst organs affected, myocardial depression is believed to be a major contributor to septic death. While it has been identified that large amounts of circulating pro-inflammatory cytokines are culprit for triggering cardiac dysfunction in sepsis, the underlying mechanisms remain obscure. Additionally, recent studies have shown that exosomes released from bacteria-infected macrophages are pro-inflammatory. Hence, we examined in this study whether blocking the generation of exosomes would be protective against sepsis-induced inflammatory response and cardiac dysfunction. To this end, we pre-treated RAW264.7 macrophages with GW4869, an inhibitor of exosome biogenesis/ release, followed by endotoxin (LPS) challenge. In vivo, we injected wild-type (WT) mice with GW4869 for 1 h prior to endotoxin treatment or cecal ligation/puncture (CLP) surgery. We observed that pre-treatment with GW4869 significantly impaired release of both exosomes and pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-alpha, IL-1 beta, IL-6) in RAW264.7 macrophages. At 12 h after LPS treatment or CLP surgery, WT mice pre-treated with GW4869 displayed lower amounts of exosomes and pro-inflammatory cytoldnes in the serum than control PBS-injected mice. Accordingly, GW4869 treatment diminished the sepsis-induced cardiac inflammation, attenuated myocardial depression and prolonged survival. Together, our findings indicate that blockade of exosome generation in sepsis dampens the sepsis-triggered inflammatory response and thereby, improves cardiac function and survival. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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