4.6 Article

Absence of IL-1 receptor antagonist impaired wound healing along with aberrant NF-κB activation and a reciprocal suppression of TGF-β signal pathway

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 176, 期 9, 页码 5598-5606

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.176.9.5598

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although enhanced expression of IL-1 family proteins, including IL-1 alpha, IL-1 beta, and IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra) during wound healing has been observed, the pathophysiological roles of these factors, particularly IL-1ra, still remain elusive. We explored skin wound-healing processes in IL-1ra-deficient mice. Compared to wild-type (WT) mice, IL-1ra-deficient mice exhibited impaired wound healing, as evidenced by attenuated collagen deposition and delayed neovascularization. In contrast, neutrophil recruitment was significantly exaggerated, with the augmented expression of IL-1s, TNF-alpha, and CXC chemokines, MIP-2 and KC, in IL-1ra-deficient mice compared with WT mice. Because the transcription of these proinflammatory cytokines and CXC chemokines requires the activation of NF-kappa B, a major target of IL-1- and TNF-alpha-mediated signal pathway, we examined the activation states of NF-kappa B. Nuclear translocation of NF-kappa B p65 was significantly enhanced and prolonged in IL-1ra-deficient mice, compared to that in WT mice. The cross-talk between NF-KB and TGF-beta-mediated signals has been proposed based on in vitro observations. Indeed, compared to WT mice, the amounts of total and phosphorylated Smad2 and Smad3 were decreased with a reciprocal increase in the amount of Smad7 in skin wound sites of IL-1ra-deficient mice. Moreover, the gene expression of vascular endothelial growth factor, a target gene of TGF-beta 1, was decreased in IL-1ra-deficient mice. Thus, the absence of IL-1ra may suppress TGF-beta-mediated signaling pathway, which is crucial for collagen deposition and vascular endothelial growth factor-mediated neovascularization in wound healing.

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