4.6 Article

Null mutation of gp91phox reduces muscle membrane lysis during muscle inflammation in mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 553, 期 3, 页码 833-841

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.051912

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR047855, AR47721, AR47855, R01 AR047721] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Muscle inflammation is a common feature in muscle injury and disease. Recently, investigators have speculated that inflammatory cells may increase or decrease muscle damage following modified muscle use, although there are few experimental observations to confirm either possibility. In the present study, a null mutation of gp91(phox) in neutrophils prevented superoxide production in cytotoxicity assays in which muscle cells were targets, and prevented most neutrophil-mediated cytolysis of muscle cells in comparison to wild-type neutrophils in vitro. We further tested whether deficiency in superoxide production caused a decrease in muscle membrane damage in vivo during modified muscle use. Gp91(phox) null mutant mice and wild-type mice were subjected to 10 days of muscle hindlimb unloading followed by reloading through return to normal locomotion, which induced muscle membrane lesions and muscle inflammation. Membrane lesions were quantified by measuring the presence of extracellular marker dye in reloaded soleus muscle fibres. There was a 90 % reduction in the number of fibres showing extensive membrane injury in gp91(phox) null mice compared to controls. Mutation of gp91(phox) did not change the concentration of neutrophils or macrophages in the reloaded muscle. Furthermore, muscle fibre growth during the reloading period was unaffected by the reduction in membrane injury. Together, these findings show that neutrophils can induce muscle membrane lysis through superoxide-mediated events, and indicate that superoxide-mediated membrane damage in vivo is not required for myeloid cell chemotaxis or muscle growth during muscle reloading.

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