4.6 Article

Neutralization of endotoxin in vitro and in vivo by Bac7(1-35), a proline-rich antibacterial peptide

期刊

SHOCK
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 577-581

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.shk.0000055236.26446.c9

关键词

lipopolysaccharide (LIPS); cathelicidins; Bac7; sepsis; septic shock; peptide; polymyxin B

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lipopolysaccharides (LIPS), or endotoxins, are structural components of gram-negative bacteria implicated in the pathogenesis of septic shock. In this study the antiendotoxin activity of Bac7(1-35), a synthetic peptide based on the sequence of a proline-rich antibacterial peptide from bovine neutrophils, was investigated in vitro and in an experimental rat model of gram-negative septic shock. The ability of Bac7(1-35) to bind LIPS from Escherichia coli O111:B4 was determined using a sensitive Limulus chromogenic assay. In the in vivo study, adult male Wistar rats were given an intraperitoneal injection of 1 x 10(9) colony-forming units of E coli ATCC 25922. All animals were randomized to receive intraperitoneally 1 mg/kg Bac7(1-35), or isotonic sodium chloride solution (control group C-1), 60 mg/kg of piperacillin and 1 mg/Kg polymyxin 13, 1 mg/kg of polymyxin B plus 60 mg/kg of piperacillin, and 1 mg/kg of Bac7(1-35) plus 60 mg/kg of piperacillin. Each group included 15 animals. Bac7(1-35) was found to completely inhibit the LIPS procoagulant activity at approximately 10 muM peptide concentration, as determined by in vitro LAL chromogenic assay. Treatment with Bac7(1-35) resulted in significant decrease in plasma endotoxin levels and lethality rates compared with saline injected control animals. No statistically significant differences were noted between Bac7(1-35) and polymyxin B in reducing all variables measured. These results provide evidence for the ability of Bac7(1-35) to effectively bind LPS and protect animals from lethal effects of this molecule, and point to its potential use for the treatment of endotoxin-induced septic shock.

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