4.6 Article

Mast cells play a pivotal role in ischaemia reperfusion injury to skeletal muscles

期刊

LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
卷 84, 期 9, 页码 1103-1111

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/labinvest.3700126

关键词

mast cells; engraftment; ischaemia reperfusion injury; mast cell-depleted mice; skeletal muscle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ischaemia reperfusion (IR) injury is a serious complication of cardiovascular disease, transplantation and replantation surgery. Once established there is no effective method of treatment. Although studies using mast cell-depleted (W-f/W-f) mice implicate mast cells in this pathology, they do not exclude a contribution by other deficiencies expressed in Wf/Wf mice. In order to obtain conclusive evidence for the role of mast cells, we engrafted cultured bone marrow-derived mast cells (BMMC) from normal mice into their W-f/W-f littermates. After 12 weeks, the hind limbs of W-f/W-f engrafted Wf/Wf and normal littermates were subjected to IR injury. Muscle viability was assessed by both morphology and by nitroblue tetrazolium histochemical assay. Here, we present conclusive evidence for a causal role of mast cells in IR injury. Our data show that muscles from Wf/Wf mice subjected to IR have a significantly greater proportion of viable fibres than normal littermates subjected to identical injury (78.9+/-5.2 vs 27.2+/-3.7%, respectively). When W-f/W-f IR-resistant mice were engrafted with BMMC from normal littermates and subjected to IR, the proportion of viable muscle fibres was significantly reduced (78.9+/-5.2 vs 37.0+/-6.5%). Thus, engraftment of BMMC into W-f/W-f mice restores the susceptibility of skeletal muscle to IR injury irrespective of other abnormalities in W-f/W-f mice. In this model, the numerical density of mast cells undergoes a significant decrease within 1 h of reperfusion, indicating extensive mast cell degranulation. We conclude that mast cells are pivotal effector cells in the pathogenesis of IR injury of murine skeletal muscle.

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