4.7 Article

Lung microvascular and arterial endothelial cells differ in their responses to intercellular adhesion molecule-1 ligation

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.2201007

关键词

intercellular adhesion molecule-1; signaling; lung; endothelial cell

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [F32 HL10177-01, HL 48160, HL 33009] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neutrophil adherence to tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha)-treated human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (PMECs) induces cytoskeletal changes in endothelial cells that require intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1)-dependent signaling events. This study determined whether similar changes occurred in rat PMECs and whether rat pulmonary arterial endothelial cells (PAECs) responded differently. Neutrophil adherence induced an increase in the formation of F-actin and in the apparent stiffness of TNF-alpha-treated rat PMECs. These responses, however, were absent in PAECs. To determine the mechanisms underlying these differences, ICAM-1-mediated signaling events were compared. Upregulation of ICAM-1 by TNF-alpha and redistribution of ICAM-1 induced by cross-linking antibodies were similar in both cell types. However, neutro-phil adherence induced production of reactive oxygen species only in PMECs and not in PAECs. Moreover, phosphorylation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase induced by ICAM-1 cross-linking occurred only in PMECs and not in PAECs. This increase in p38 phosphorylation in PMECs was inhibited by allopurinol, a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. These data demonstrated that whereas TNF-alpha upregulated ICAM-1 and ICAM-1 cross-linking induced a similar redistribution of ICAM-1 on the endothelial cell surface, ICAM-1 ligation initiated p38 activation and cytoskeletal rearrangements only in PMECs and not in PAECs. Thus, neutrophil adhesion through ICAM-1 induced signaling events leading to cytoskeletal changes only in PMECs, the site of neutrophil emigration and edema formation, and not in PAECs.

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