4.7 Article

A model of human lung fibrogenesis for the assessment of anti-fibrotic strategies in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-18555-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dunhill Medical Trust [R270/1112]
  2. MRC [MR/K018213/1]
  3. British Lung Foundation [PPRG15-8]
  4. National Institute for Health Research Leicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit
  5. MRC [MR/K018213/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [MR/K018213/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive interstitial lung disease with limited therapeutic options. K(Ca)3.1 ion channels play a critical role in TGF beta 1-dependent pro-fibrotic responses in human lung myofibroblasts. We aimed to develop a human lung parenchymal model of fibrogenesis and test the efficacy of the selective K(Ca)3.1 blocker senicapoc. 2 mm(3) pieces of human lung parenchyma were cultured for 7 days in DMEM +/- TGF beta 1 (10 ng/ml) and pro-fibrotic pathways examined by RT-PCR, immunohistochemistry and collagen secretion. Following 7 days of culture with TGF beta 1, 41 IPF-and fibrosis-associated genes were significantly upregulated. Immunohistochemical staining demonstrated increased expression of ECM proteins and fibroblast-specific protein after TGF beta 1-stimulation. Collagen secretion was significantly increased following TGF beta 1-stimulation. These pro-fibrotic responses were attenuated by senicapoc, but not by dexamethasone. This 7 day ex vivo model of human lung fibrogenesis recapitulates pro-fibrotic events evident in IPF and is sensitive to K(Ca)3.1 channel inhibition. By maintaining the complex cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions of human tissue, and removing crossspecies heterogeneity, this model may better predict drug efficacy in clinical trials and accelerate drug development in IPF. K(Ca)3.1 channels are a promising target for the treatment of IPF.

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

4.7
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