4.2 Article

Regulatory effects of hydrogen sulfide on alveolar epithelial cell endoplasmic reticulum stress in rats with acute lung injury

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 67-73

出版社

ZHEJIANG UNIV SCH MEDICINE
DOI: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2015.01.012

关键词

Hydrogen sulfide; Acute lung injury; Endoplasmic reticulum stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The present study was undertaken to examine the regulatory effect of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) on endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar epithelial cells of rats with acute lung injury (ALI) induced by oleic acid (OA). METHODS: Seventy-two male Sprague Dawley (SD) rats were divided into control group, oleic acid-induced ALI group (OA group), oleic acid-induced ALI with sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) pretreatment group (OA+NaHS group), and sodium hydrosulfide treatment group (NaHS group). Rats of each group were further subdivided into 3 subgroups. Index of quantitative assessment of histological lung injury (IQA), wet/dry weight ratio (W/D) and H2S level of lung tissues were measured. The expressions of endoplasmic reticulum stress markers including glucose-regulated protein 78 (GRP78) and alpha-subunit of eukaryotic translation initiation factor-2 (eIF2 alpha) in lung tissues were measured by immunohistochemical staining and Western blotting. RESULTS: The IQA score and W/D ratio of lung tissues at the three time points significantly increased in rats injected with OA, but significantly decreased in other rats injected with OA and NaHS. The level of H2S in lung tissue at the three time points significantly decreased in rats injected with OA, but significantly increased in other rats injected with both OA and NaHS. GRP78 and elF2 alpha decreased in rats injected with OA, but increased in other rats injected with both OA and NaHS, especially at 4-hour and 6-hour time points. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that H2S could promote alveolar epithelial cell endoplasmic reticulum stress in rats with ALI.

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

4.2
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