4.7 Article

Natural and engineered chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 agonists prevent acute respiratory distress syndrome after lung ischemia-reperfusion injury and hemorrhage

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-68425-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [R01GM107495, T32GM008750]
  2. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs through the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program [W81XWH-15-1-0262]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared therapeutic properties of natural and engineered chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) agonists in a rat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) model utilizing the PaO2/FiO(2)-ratio as a clinically relevant primary outcome criterion. Ventilated rats underwent unilateral lung ischemia from t=0-70 min plus hemorrhage to a mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) of 30 mmHg from t=40-70 min, followed by reperfusion/fluid resuscitation until t=300 min. Natural CXCR4 agonists (CXCL12, ubiquitin) and engineered CXCL12 variants (CXCL12(1), CXCL2(2), CXCL12K27A/R41A/R47A, CXCL12 (3-68)) were administered within 5 min of fluid resuscitation. Animals treated with vehicle or CXCL12 (3-68) reached criteria for mild and moderate ARDS between t=90-120 min and t=120-180 min, respectively, and remained in moderate ARDS until t=300 min. Ubiquitin, CXCL12, CXCL12(1) and CXCL12(2) prevented ARDS development. Potencies of CXCL12/CXCL12(1)/CXCL12(2) were higher than the potency of ubiquitin. CXCL12K27A/R41A/R47A was inefficacious. CXCL12(1)>CXCL12 stabilized MAP and reduced fluid requirements. CXCR4 agonists at doses that preserved lung function reduced histological injury of the post-ischemic lung and reduced mortality from 55 to 9%. Our findings suggest that CXCR4 protein agonists prevent development of ARDS and reduce mortality in a rat model, and that development of new engineered protein therapeutics with improved pharmacological properties for ARDS is possible.

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