4.7 Article

Long-term induction of β-CGRP mRNA in rat lungs by allergic inflammation

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 76, 期 2, 页码 163-177

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2004.05.038

关键词

calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP); allergic inflammation; bronchial asthma; neuroendocrine cells; neuroepithelial bodies (NEBs); rat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is one of the major neuropeptides released from sensory nerve endings and neuroendocrine cells of the lung. Two CGRP isoforms, alpha-and beta-CGRP, have been identified in rats and humans, but no studies have attempted to reveal direct evidence of differences in action or location of these isoforms in allergic inflammation (AI). We investigated mRNA expressions of alpha-and beta-CGRP in lungs, nodose ganglia (NG), and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of an animal model for AI of the airways, utilizing a model created by sensitizing Brown Norway (BN) rats with ovalbumin (OVA). By semiquantitative RT-PCR analysis, long-lasting enhanced expression of the beta-CGRP mRNA was shown in the lungs of the AI rats (14.5 -fold enhancement at 6 hr, 8.1-fold at 24 hr, and 3.7-fold at 120 hr after OVA-challenge compared to the level in the lungs of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)-challenged control rats). In contrast, the mRNA expression of the alpha-CGRP in AI lungs showed only a transient increase after OVA-challenge (2.7-fold at 6 hr) followed by a lower level of expression (0.5-fold at 48 hr and 0.6-fold at 120 hr). The mRNA expressions of both isoforms in NG, but not in DRG, were transiently up-regulated at 6 hr after antigen challenge. In situ RT-PCR in combination with immunohistochemical analysis revealed that beta-CGRP was expressed in neuroendocrine cells in clusters (termed neuroepithelial bodies [NEBs]) in AI lungs. These results indicate that the long-term induction of beta-CGRP in NEBs may play an important role in pulmonary AI such as bronchial asthma. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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