4.6 Article

Myocardial ischemia and reperfusion injury is dependent on both IgM and mannose-binding lectin

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00049.2009

关键词

infarction; inflammation; complement; immunoglobulin M

资金

  1. NIH [HL-56068, HL-52886, HL-79758, DE-016191, DE-017821]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) [BU 1857/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Busche MN, Pavlov V, Takahashi K, Stahl GL. Myocardial ischemia and reperfusion injury is dependent on both IgM and mannose-binding lectin. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 297: H1853-H1859, 2009. First published September 11, 2009; doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00049.2009.-Complement activation has been shown to play an important role in the inflammation and tissue injury following myocardial ischemia and reperfusion (MI/R). Several recent studies from our laboratory demonstrated the importance of mannose-binding lectin (MBL) as the initiation pathway for complement activation and the resulting pathological effects following MI/R. However, other studies from the past suggest an important role of the classical pathway and perhaps natural antibodies. In the present study, we used newly generated genetically modified mice that lack secreted IgM (sIgM), MBL-A, and MBL-C (sIgM/MBL null) in a plasma reconstitution mouse model of MI/R. Following 30 min of ischemia and 4 h of reperfusion, left ventricular ejection fractions were significantly higher in sIgM/MBL null mice reconstituted with MBL null or sIgM/MBL null plasma compared with reconstitution with wild-type (WT) plasma or WT mice reconstituted with WT plasma following MI/R. Serum troponin I concentration, myocardial polymorphonuclear leukocyte infiltration, and C3 deposition were dependent on the combined presence of sIgM and MBL. These results demonstrate that MI/R-induced complement activation, inflammation, and subsequent tissue injury require both IgM and MBL. Thus MBL-dependent activation of the lectin pathway may not be completely antibody independent in I/R models.

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

4.6
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