4.5 Article

Cucurbitacin E ameliorates lipopolysaccharide-evoked injury, inflammation and MUC5AC expression in bronchial epithelial cells by restraining the HMGB1-TLR4-NF-κB signaling

期刊

MOLECULAR IMMUNOLOGY
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 571-577

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.molimm.2019.09.008

关键词

Asthma; CuE; Human bronchial epithelial cells; Insult and inflammation; MUCSAC; HMGB1-TLR4-NF-kappa B pathway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of airway affecting people from childhood to old age, and is characterized by airway epithelial dysfunction. Cucurbitacin E (CuE), a tetracyclic triterpene isolated from Cucurbitaceae plants, has been recently proved to exert anti-inflammation and immunology regulation activities. Nevertheless, its roles in asthma remains poorly defined. In the current study, CuE had little cytotoxicity on cell viability of human bronchial epithelial cell line BEAS-2B. Moreover, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) exposure inhibited cell viability and induced cell apoptosis, which was reversed following CuE pretreatment. Additionally, CuE administration suppressed LPS-induced inflammatory cytokine production, including TNF-alpha, IL-6, and IL-8. Simultaneously, supplementation with CuE decreased the transcripts and releases of mucin 5AC (MUC5AC) in LPS-treated BEAS-2B cells. Intriguingly, CuE inhibited LPS-evoked activation of the high-mobility group box1 (HMGB1)-TLR4-NF-kappa B signaling by reducing the expression of HMGB1, TLR4 and p-p65 NF-kappa B. Notably, restoring this pathway by elevating HMGB1 expression largely offset the protective function of CuE against LPS-triggered cell injury, inflammatory response and MUC5AC expression. Consequently, these findings highlight that CuE can ameliorate human bronchial epithelial cell insult and inflammation under LPS-simulated asthmatic conditions by blocking the HMGB1-TLR4-NF-kappa B signaling, thereby supporting its usefulness as a promising therapeutic agent against asthma.

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

4.5
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