4.5 Article

Lipopolysaccharide exposure makes allergic airway inflammation and hyper-responsiveness less responsive to dexamethasone and inhibition of iNOS

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 951-959

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02514.x

关键词

asthma; eosinophil airway inflammation; hyper-responsiveness; lipopolysaccharide; nitric oxide; ovalbumin; steroid; 1400W

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Allergic airway disease can be refractory to anti-inflammatory treatment, whose cause is unclarified. Therefore, in the present experiment, we have tested the hypothesis that co-exposure to lipopolysacharide (Lps) and allergen results in glucocorticoid-resistant eosinophil airway inflammation and hyper-responsiveness (AHR). Ovalbumin (Ova)-sensitized BALB/c mice were primed with 10 mu g intranasal Lps 24 h before the start of Ova challenges (20 min on 3 consecutive days). Dexamethasone (5 mg/kg/day) was given on the last 2 days of Ova challenges. AHR, cellular build-up, cytokine and nitrite concentrations of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and lung histology were examined. To assess the role of iNOS-derived NO in airway responsiveness, mice were treated with a selective inhibitor of this enzyme (1400W) 2 h before AHR measurements. More severe eosinophil inflammation and higher nitrite formation were found in Lps-primed than in non-primed allergized mice. After Lps priming, AHR and concentrations of T-helper type 2 cytokines in BALF were decreased, but still remained significantly higher than in controls. Eosinophil inflammation was partially, while nitrite production and AHR were observed to be largely dexamethasone resistant in Lps-primed allergized animals. 1400W effectively and rapidly diminished the AHR in Ova-sensitized and challenged mice, but failed to affect it after Lps priming plus allergization. In conclusion, Lps inhalation may exaggerate eosinophil inflammation and reduce responsiveness to anti-inflammatory treatment in allergic airway disease.

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