4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

A2A adenosine receptor activation improves survival in mouse models of endotoxemia and sepsis

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 189, 期 10, 页码 1897-1904

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/386311

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01-HL 37942] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [1 R41 AI46852-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Sepsis is currently treated with antibiotics and various adjunctive therapies that are not very effective. Methods. Mouse survival ( 4 - 5 days) and peritoneal and blood bacteria counts were determined after challenge with intraperitoneal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or live Escherichia coli. Results. The A(2A) adenosine receptor (AR) agonist 4-{3-[6-amino-9-(5-ethylcarbamoyl-3,4-dihydroxy-tetrahydrofuran- 2-yl)-9H-purin-2-yl]-prop-2-ynyl}-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid methyl ester (ATL146e; 0.05 - 50 mug/kg) protected mice from challenge with LPS, and protection occurred when treatment was delayed up to 24 h after challenge. Deletion of the A(2A) AR gene, Adora2a, inhibited protection by ATL146e. A putative A(3)AR agonist, N-6- iodobenzyladenosine-5'-N-methyluronamide (IB-MECA; 500 mug/kg but not 5 or 50 mug/kg) protected mice from challenge with LPS. The protective effects of both ATL146e and IB-MECA were counteracted by the A(2A) AR selective antagonist 4-(2-[7-amino-2-[2-furyl][1,2,4] triazolo[2,3- a][1,3,5] triazin-5-yl- amino] ethyl)- phenol. In the live E. coli model, treatment with ATL146e (50 mug/kg initiated 8 h after infection) increased survival in mice treated with ceftriaxone (5 days) from 40% to 100%. Treatment with ATL146e did not affect peritoneal numbers of live E. coli at the time of death or 120 h after infection but did increase numbers of peritoneal neutrophils and decreased the number of live E. coli in blood. Conclusions. AR agonists increase mouse survival in endotoxemia and sepsis via A(2A) AR-mediated mechanisms and reduce the number of live bacteria in blood.

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