4.4 Article

Replens prevents preterm birth by decreasing type I interferon strengthening the cervical epithelial barrier

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aji.13192

关键词

cervical remodeling; inflammation; preterm birth

资金

  1. Department of Women's Health at Hartford Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Problem A breakdown of the cervical epithelial barrier has been associated with preterm cervical remodeling. It is unknown if Replens, the vehicle for vaginal progesterone, alters cervical epithelial junctional proteins impacting cervical remodeling and preterm birth. Method of study E17 CD-1 pregnant mice received an intrauterine injection of saline or lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Effect of intravaginal Replens given on day E16 and on E17 coincident with LPS was tested. A second experiment determined if an antibody to the interferon receptor (IFNaR) blocked the effects of LPS. Mice were killed after six hours, the preterm birth rate was recorded, and the serum and cervices were collected for analysis. Additionally, the epithelial cell barrier was assessed using an in vitro permeability assay. Results Replens decreased the rate of LPS-induced preterm birth within six hours, from 87.5% to 37.5% (P < .005). LPS + IFNaR antibody decreased the rate of preterm birth or vaginal bleeding compared to LPS + control antibody mice, 43.8% vs 87%, respectively (P < .01). E-Cadherin in the mouse serum was increased by LPS, an effect mitigated by treatment with Replens (P < .0001) or the IFNaR antibody (P < .01). Replens + LPS decreased the expression of IFN-beta (P < .01). The anti-IFNaR, as well as Replens, decreased the expression of MMP13 (P < .05) compared to LPS mice. Replens also prevented the LPS-induced increase in permeability (P < .001). Conclusion Replens prevents preterm birth by decreasing the interferon-induced upregulation of MMP13 and the degradation of the cell adhesion protein E-Cadherin. Further studies are needed to determine if Replens can be useful as treatment for preterm birth.

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