4.7 Article

HSPA12B attenuates acute lung injury during endotoxemia in mice

期刊

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 599-606

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2015.09.022

关键词

Acute lung injury; HSPA12B; Endotoxemia; Vascular leakage; Inflammation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81370260, 81371450, 81170321]
  2. Jiangsu Province's Outstanding Medical Academic Leader program [LJ201124]
  3. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)
  4. Collaborative Innovation Center for Cardiovascular Disease Translational Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute lung injury (ALI) is a critical manifestation of sepsis/septic shock. Heat shock protein A12B (HSPA12B), an endothelial cell-expressed heat shock protein, shows a negative regulation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammation in myocardium and endothelial cells. However, it is unclear whether HSPA12B exerts protective effects against ALI during sepsis/septic shock. In this study, we treated HSPA12B transgenic mice (Tg) and wild type littermates (WT) with LPS for 6 h to induce endotoxemia. LPS treatment significantly caused pulmonary injuries as evidenced by microarchitecture destruction, vascular leakage and neutrophil recruitment in lungs of WT mice. However, the LPS-induced pulmonary injuries were significantly attenuated in Tg mice. Moreover, the LPS-induced activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERKs) and upregulation of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) and Cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) were inhibited in Tg lungs compared with that in WT mice. Additionally, Tg lungs showed a significant lower level of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) compared with WT mice. Our results demonstrate a pulmonary protective effect of HSPA12B against endotoxin challenge, which indicates management of HSPA12B expression could serve as a potential therapeutic target for ALI during sepsis/septic shock. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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