4.5 Article

SIRT1/FoxO3 axis alteration leads to aberrant immune responses in bronchial epithelial cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR MEDICINE
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 2272-2282

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.13509

关键词

bronchial epithelial cells; cigarette smoke; SIRT1/FoxO3; inflammation; immune response; ageing

资金

  1. Italian National Research Council
  2. University Medical Center Groningen
  3. Italian National Research Council
  4. University Medical Center Groningen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammation and ageing are intertwined in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The histone deacetylase SIRT1 and the related activation of FoxO3 protect from ageing and regulate inflammation. The role of SIRT1/FoxO3 in COPD is largely unknown. This study evaluated whether cigarette smoke, by modulating the SIRT1/FoxO3 axis, affects airway epithelial pro-inflammatory responses. Human bronchial epithelial cells (16HBE) and primary bronchial epithelial cells (PBECs) from COPD patients and controls were treated with/without cigarette smoke extract (CSE), Sirtinol or FoxO3 siRNA. SIRT1, FoxO3 and NF-kB nuclear accumulation, SIRT1 deacetylase activity, IL-8 and CCL20 expression/release and the release of 12 cytokines, neutrophil and lymphocyte chemotaxis were assessed. In PBECs, the constitutive FoxO3 expression was lower in patients with COPD than in controls. Furthermore, CSE reduced FoxO3 expression only in PBECs from controls. In 16HBE, CSE decreased SIRT1 activity and nuclear expression, enhanced NF-kB binding to the IL-8 gene promoter thus increasing IL-8 expression, decreased CCL20 expression, increased the neutrophil chemotaxis and decreased lymphocyte chemotaxis. Similarly, SIRT1 inhibition reduced FoxO3 expression and increased nuclear NF-kB. FoxO3 siRNA treatment increased IL-8 and decreased CCL20 expression in 16HBE. In conclusion, CSE impairs the function of SIRT1/FoxO3 axis in bronchial epithelium, dysregulating NF-kB activity and inducing pro-inflammatory responses.

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