4.6 Article

Mechanisms of modulation of cytokine release by human cord blood monocytes exposed to high concentrations of caffeine

期刊

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 101-109

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pr.2016.50

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [HL-072748]
  2. Thomas Wilson Sanitarium for Children of Baltimore City
  3. Sheila S. and Lawrence C. Pakula, M.D. Endowment for Neonatal Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Serum caffeine concentrations >20 mu g/ml (100 mu mol/l) in infants treated for apnea of prematurity increases TNF-alpha and decreases IL-10, changes that perhaps are linked to comorbidities. We hypothesize that this proinflammatory cytokine profile may be linked to differential binding of caffeine to adenosine receptor subtypes (AR), inhibition of phosphodiesterases (PDEs), and modulation of toll-like receptors (TLR). METHODS: Lipopolysaccharide-activated cord blood monocytes (CBM) from 19 infants were exposed to caffeine (0-200 mu mol/l) with or without previous exposure to A(1)R, A(3)R, or PDE IV antagonists to determine changes in dose-response curves. Cytokines levels (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)), intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) accumulation (enzyme immunoassay (EIA)), and TLR gene expression (real time qRT PCR) were measured. RESULTS: Caffeine at <= 100 mu mol/l decreased TNF-alpha levels (similar to 25%, P = 0.01) and cAMP. All caffeine concentrations decreased IL-10 levels (17-35%, P < 0.01). A(1)R, A(3)R, and PDE blockades decreased TNIF-alpha (31, 21, and 88%, P <= 0.01), but not IL-10. Caffeine further decreased TNF-alpha following A(3)R and PDE blockades. Caffeine concentrations directly correlated to TLR4 gene expression (r = 0.84; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Neither A(3)R, nor PDE blockades are involved in caffeine's modulation of cytokine release. by CBM at any concentration. Besides A(1)R blockade, caffeine's upregulation of TLR4 may promote inflammation at high concentrations.

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

4.6
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