4.5 Article

Hydraulic conductance of pulmonary microvascular and macrovascular endothelial cell monolayers

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajplung.00317.2005

关键词

capillary permeability; pulmonary edema; VE-cadherin; gadolinium

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL-66299] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endothelial cells isolated from pulmonary arteries ( RPAEC) and microcirculation ( RPMVEC) of rat lungs were grown to confluence on porous filters and mounted on an Ussing-type chamber. Transmembrane pressure ( Delta P) was controlled by the reservoir height, and the filtration rate corrected for surface area ( J(v)/A) was measured by timing fluid movement in a calibrated micropipette. These parameters were used to calculate hydraulic conductance ( Lp) by using linear regression of J(v)/A on Delta P. Mean Lp values for newly confluent RPAEC monolayers were 22 times higher than those for RPMVEC monolayers ( 28.6 +/- 5.6 vs. 1.30 +/- 0.50 x 10(-7) cm.s(-1).cmH(2)O(-1); P <= 0.01). After confluence was reached, electrical resistance and Lp remained stable in RPAEC but continued to change in RPMVEC with days in culture. Both phenotypes exhibited an initial time-dependent sealing response, but Lp also had an inverse relationship to Delta P in RPMVEC monolayers >= 4 days postconfluence that was attributed to cell overgrowth rather than junctional length. In a comparison of the cadherin contents, E-cadherin was predominant in RPMVEC, but VE-cadherin was predominant in RPAEC. At a constant Delta P of 40-45 cmH(2)O for 2 h, J(v)/A increased 225% in RPAEC monolayers but did not change significantly in RPMVEC monolayers. Significant decreases in Lp were obtained after treatment with 5% albumin, GdCl3, or isoproterenol plus rolipram in both phenotypes. Thus lung microvascular endothelial cells exhibited a significantly lower Lp than conduit vessel endothelium, which would limit alveolar flooding relative to perivascular edema cuff formation during increased pulmonary vascular pressures.

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

4.5
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