3.9 Article

Role of type II pneumocytes in pathogenesis of radiation pneumonitis:: dose response of radiation-induced lung changes in the transient high vascular permeability period

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AND TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 181-187

出版社

URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.etp.2004.08.003

关键词

lung injury model; radiation pneumonitis; pathogenesis; type II pneumocytes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the dose response of pulmonary changes at 3 weeks after 1-25 Gy irradiation and we investigated the effects of an anti-inflammatory drug. Wistar rats were given a single dose of 1-25 Gy irradiation to the thorax. Group one was treated with saline only, while group two was administered subcutaneously a combination of pentoxifylline (35 mg/kg) and dexamethasone (1 mg/kg) twice per week. Lungs were examined histochemically and number of neutrophile granulocytes, alveolar septal thickness, air/tissue ratio, number of alveoli per field, number of type II pneumocytes per alveolus, and occludin I expression were measured. A significant dose-dependent depletion of type II pneumocytes was found after irradiation with a dose of 1 Gy and higher. Alveolar neutrophils increased after 1 Gy with a dose dependency noted after 10-25 Gy and alveolar septa thickening followed 5-25 Gy. A lower occludin 1 expression was observed in animals irradiated with the doses of 5-20 Gy, indicating an effect on vascular permeability. Anti-inflammatory therapy partially inhibited the increase of neutrophils at all radiation doses and the depletion of type II pneumocytes after doses of 1, 10, and 15 Gy. Occludin I did not decrease in the lungs of rats treated with the anti-inflammatory drugs as it did in most rats treated only with saline. Our results suggest that pneumocytes depletion is a major factor responsible for radiation pneumonitis development and that these changes may be compensated for provided radiation doses are below the threshold. (C) 2004 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

3.9
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