4.6 Article

CD59a deficiency exacerbates ischemia-reperfusion injury in mice

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 165, 期 3, 页码 825-832

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63345-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [G0000771] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0000771] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G0000771] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Wellcome Trust [071467] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The terminal complement components C5a and the membrane attack complex are involved in the pathogenesis of ischemia-reperfusion injury in many organs. CD59 is the major regulator of membrane attack complex formation. Mice deficient in the Cd59a gene (mCd59a-/-) were used to investigate the role of CD59 in renal ischemia-reperfusion injury. Unilateral ischemia-reperfusion injury was induced by clamping the left renal pedicle for 30 minutes under general anesthetic. Mice were studied at 72 hours and 2 weeks after ischemia-reperfusion injury. mCd59a-/- Mice developed significantly greater tubular injury (P = 0.01), tubulointerstitial apoptosis (P = 0.02), and neutrophil influx (P = 0.04) than controls at 72 hours after ischemia-reperfusion. Two weeks after ischemia-reperfusion, mCd59a-/- mice exhibited more severe tubular damage predominantly in a cortico-medullary distribution than controls (P = 0.02). Quantification of interstitial leukocytes revealed significantly greater numbers of infiltrating lymphocytes (but not macrophages) in mCd59a-/- mice than controls (P = 0.04) at 2 weeks. At both time points, significantly more C9 (as a marker of membrane attack complex) deposition occurred in a peritubular distribution in mCd59a-/- mice than controls. in conclusion, these results demonstrate that the lack of CD59a, by allowing unregulated membrane attack complex deposition, exacerbates both the tubular injury and the interstitial leukocyte infiltrate after ischemia-reperfusion injury in mice.

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