4.3 Article

Increased expression of epidermal fatty acid-binding protein by alveolar macrophages during acute rejection of rat lungs

期刊

APMIS
卷 118, 期 10, 页码 791-800

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2010.02662.x

关键词

Alveolar epithelial cell type II; bronchoalveolar lavage; lung transplantation

资金

  1. University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg
  2. Medical faculty of the University of Giessen
  3. Excellence Cluster Cardiopulmonary System

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the lung, epidermal fatty acid-binding protein (E-FABP) is expressed by alveolar macrophages (AM) and alveolar epithelial cells type II (AEII). E-FABP may regulate macrophage activation and is involved in the metabolism of surfactant phospholipids. As macrophage activation and surfactant dysfunction are associated with rejection, we hypothesize that E-FABP expression is changed during acute rejection of pulmonary grafts. Orthotopic left lung transplantations were performed in the Dark Agouti to Lewis and in the isogeneic Lewis to Lewis rat strain combinations. E-FABP expression was analyzed in the lung by immunohistochemistry, immunoblotting and quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Alveolar leukocytes obtained by bronchoalveolar lavage were analyzed by RT-PCR. Immunohistochemistry of isografts revealed strong E-FABP immunoreactivity in AEII and a moderate immunoreactivity in AM. In allografts undergoing acute rejection, AM exhibiting increased E-FABP immunoreactivity accumulated. Immunoblots revealed a single band at 15 kDa, which corresponds to the expected molecular mass of E-FABP. The levels of E-FABP mRNA were higher in allografts than in isografts and control lungs. Furthermore, alveolar leukocytes isolated by bronchoalveolar lavage from allografts displayed higher E-FABP mRNA expression levels than leukocytes from isografts and controls. In conclusion, we demonstrate for the first time upregulation of E-FABP expression in AM during severe inflammation.

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

4.3
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