4.7 Article

Effective in vivo treatment of acute lung injury with helical, amphipathic peptoid mimics of pulmonary surfactant proteins

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-25009-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health [2 R01 HL067984]
  2. National Science Foundation [BES-0101195, CHE-0404704]
  3. 3 M Corporation fellowship
  4. NIH Biotechnology Training Fellowship
  5. Molecular Foundry
  6. Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute lung injury (ALI) leads to progressive loss of breathing capacity and hypoxemia, as well as pulmonary surfactant dysfunction. ALI's pathogenesis and management are complex, and it is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Exogenous surfactant therapy, even for research purposes, is impractical for adults because of the high cost of current surfactant preparations. Prior in vitro work has shown that poly-N-substituted glycines (peptoids), in a biomimetic lipid mixture, emulate key biophysical activities of lung surfactant proteins B and C at the air-water interface. Here we report good in vivo efficacy of a peptoid-based surfactant, compared with extracted animal surfactant and a synthetic lipid formulation, in a rat model of lavage-induced ALI. Adult rats were subjected to whole-lung lavage followed by administration of surfactant formulations and monitoring of outcomes. Treatment with a surfactant protein C mimic formulation improved blood oxygenation, blood pH, shunt fraction, and peak inspiratory pressure to a greater degree than surfactant protein B mimic or combined formulations. All peptoid-enhanced treatment groups showed improved outcomes compared to synthetic lipids alone, and some formulations improved outcomes to a similar extent as animal-derived surfactant. Robust biophysical mimics of natural surfactant proteins may enable new medical research in ALI treatment.

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