4.4 Article

Irinotecan-Induced Mucositis Is Associated with Goblet Cell Dysregulation and Neural Cell Damage in a Tumour Bearing DA Rat Model

期刊

PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 955-965

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.1007/s12253-019-00644-x

关键词

Mucositis; Chemotherapy; Enteric nervous system; Mucus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Irinotecan-induced mucositis is a major oncological problem. Goblet cells secrete mucus, protecting the intestinal mucosa, with secretion altered during mucositis. The enteric nervous system is involved in regulating gut motility and secretion. The aim of this study was to determine whether enteric neural cells and goblet cells are altered following irinotecan treatment. Tumour-bearing Dark Agouti rats were administered a single dose of 175 mg/kg of irinotecan intraperitoneally and 0.01 mg/kg atropine subcutaneously. Experimental and untreated control rats were killed at times 6, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 h after treatment. Jejunum and colon samples were formalin fixed. Haematoxylin and eosin staining, Alcian Blue-PAS staining, and immunohistochemistry with S-100 antibody (neural cell marker) were carried out. Statistical analyses were carried out using Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunns post test, Mann Whitney U test and nonlinear regression. Total goblet cells decreased at 72 h compared with controls in the colon (p < 0.05). The percentage of cavitated goblet cells decreased compared to all other time points at 120 h in the colon. The number of S-100 positive cells in the submucosal plexus decreased in the colon (p = 0.0046) and in the myenteric plexus of the jejunum and colon (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0022, respectively), when comparing treated with control. Enteric ganglia in the myenteric plexus of the jejunum decreased at 24 h and 96 h. Irinotecan-induced mucositis is associated with increases in mucus secretion, and enteric neural cell change. These changes may contribute to the pathophysiology of mucositis through the dysregulation of neural signalling.

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

4.4
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