4.6 Article

Activation of A3 adenosine receptors attenuates lung injury after in vivo reperfusion

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 101, 期 5, 页码 1153-1159

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200411000-00015

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A(3) adenosine receptor (AR) activation worsens or protects against renal and cardiac ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury, respectively. The aims of the current study were to examine in an in vivo model the effect of A(3)AR activation on IR lung injury and investigate the mechanism by which it exerts its effect. Methods: The arterial branch of the left lower lung lobe in intact-chest, spontaneously breathing cats was occluded for 2 h and reperfused for 3 h (IR group). Animals were treated with the selective A3 receptor agonist IB-MECA (300 mug/kg intravenously) given 15 min before ischemia or with IB-MECA as described, with pretreatment 15 min earlier with the selective A3AR antagonist MRS-1191, the nonsulfonylurea adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channel-blocking agent U-37883A, or the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor N-w-nitro-L-arginine benzyl ester. Results: IB-MECA markedly (P < 0.01) reduced the percentage of injured alveoli (IR, 48 +/- 4%; IB-MECA, 18 +/- 2%), wet:dry weight ratio (IR, 8.2 +/- 0.4; IB-MECA, 4 +/- 2), and myeloperoxidase activity (IR, 0.52 +/- 0.06 U/g; IB-MECA, 0.17 +/- 0.04 U/g). This protective effect was completely blocked by pretreatment with the selective A3AR antagonist MRS-1191 and the adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channel blocking agent U-37883A but not the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor N-w-nitro-L-arginine benzyl ester. Conclusions: In the feline lung, the A3AR agonist IB-MECA confers a powerful protection against IR lung injury. This effect is mediated by a nitric oxide synthase-independent pathway and involves opening of adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channels. Therefore, selective activation of A3AR may be an effective means of protecting the reperfused lung.

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