4.6 Article

Intestinal preconditioning prevents inflammatory response by modulating heme oxygenase-1 expression in endotoxic shock model

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.00154.2007

关键词

cytokines; LPS; intestinal injury; HO-1; oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gut mucosal injury observed during ischemia-reperfusion is believed to trigger a systemic inflammatory response leading to multiple organ failure. It should be interesting to demonstrate this relationship between gut and multiple organ failure in a sepsis model. Intestinal preconditioning (PC) can be used as a tool to assess the effect of intestinal ischemia in inflammatory response after LPS challenge. The aim of this study was to investigate the protective effect of PC against LPS-induced systemic inflammatory and intestinal heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) expression. ES was performed with LPS (10 mg/kg iv) with or without PC, which was done before LPS. Rats were first subjected to sham surgery or PC with four cycles of 1 min ischemia and 4 min of reperfusion 24 h before LPS challenge or saline administration. PC significantly reduced fluid requirements, lung edema, intestinal lactate production, and intestinal injury. Inflammatory mRNA expressions for intestine and lung ICAM and TNF were significantly reduced after PC, and these effects were significantly abolished by zinc-protoporphyrin (a specific HO-1 activity inhibitor) and mimicked by bilirubin administration. Intestinal PC selectively increased HO-1 mRNA expression in intestine, but we have observed no expression in lungs. These findings demonstrate that intestinal injury is a important event for inflammatory response and multiple organ injury after LPS challenge. Intestinal HO-1 expression attenuates LPS-induced multiple organ failure by modulating intestine injury and its consequences on inflammatory response. Identification of the exact mechanisms responsible for intestine HO-1 induction may lead to the development of new pharmacological interventions.

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