4.8 Article

Exchange Protein Directly Activated by cAMP 2 Enhances Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Induced Pulmonary Disease in Mice

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.757758

关键词

EPAC2; RSV; pulmonary disease; immune response; inflammation

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [P01 AI062885, R01 AI116812] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R21 AG069226] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

RSV is a common cause of lower respiratory tract infections in young children, and EPAC2 has been identified as a potential therapeutic target for RSV. Deficiency or inhibition of EPAC2 plays a critical role in experimental RSV infection-induced airway diseases.
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the most common cause of lower respiratory tract infection in young children. It is also a significant contributor to upper respiratory tract infections, therefore, a major cause for visits to the pediatrician. High morbidity and mortality are associated with high-risk populations including premature infants, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. However, no effective and specific treatment is available. Recently, we discovered that an exchange protein directly activated by cyclic AMP 2 (EPAC2) can serve as a potential therapeutic target for RSV. In both lower and upper epithelial cells, EPAC2 promotes RSV replication and pro-inflammatory cytokine/chemokine induction. However, the overall role of EPAC2 in the pulmonary responses to RSV has not been investigated. Herein, we found that EPAC2-deficient mice (KO) or mice treated with an EPAC2-specific inhibitor showed a significant decrease in body weight loss, airway hyperresponsiveness, and pulmonary inflammation, compared with wild-type (WT) or vehicle-treated mice. Overall, this study demonstrates the critical contribution of the EPAC2-mediated pathway to airway diseases in experimental RSV infection, suggesting the possibility to target EPAC2 as a promising treatment modality for RSV.

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

4.8
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