4.5 Article

Mapping the metabolomic and lipidomic changes in the bleomycin model of pulmonary fibrosis in young and aged mice

期刊

DISEASE MODELS & MECHANISMS
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/dmm.049105

关键词

Pulmonary fibrosis; Bleomycin; Metabolomics; Lipidomics; Aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolic and lipid regulation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is limited. Analysis of the metabolome and lipidome in the bleomycin mouse model of IPF revealed increased tissue turnover, energy production, and inflammatory processes. Age had limited influence on metabolic and lipidomic changes in the model.
Alterations in metabolic pathways were recently recognized as potential underlying drivers of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), translating into novel therapeutic targets. However, knowledge of metabolic and lipid regulation in fibrotic lungs is limited. To comprehensively characterize metabolic perturbations in the bleomycin mouse model of IPF, we analyzed the metabolome and lipidome by mass spectrometry. We identified increased tissue turnover and repair, evident by enhanced breakdown of proteins, nucleic acids and lipids and extracellular matrix turnover. Energy production was upregulated, including glycolysis, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, glutaminolysis, lactate production and fatty acid oxidation. Higher eicosanoid synthesis indicated inflammatory processes. Because the risk of IPF increases with age, we investigated how age influences metabolomic and lipidomic changes in the bleomycininduced pulmonary fibrosis model. Surprisingly, except for cytidine, we did not detect any significantly differential metabolites or lipids between old and young bleomycin-treated lungs. Together, we identified metabolomic and lipidomic changes in fibrosis that reflect higher energy demand, proliferation, tissue remodeling, collagen deposition and inflammation, which might serve to improve diagnostic and therapeutic options for fibrotic lung diseases in the future.

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