4.7 Article

Functional characterization and biomarker identification in the Brown Norway model of allergic airway inflammation

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 137, 期 2, 页码 263-275

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0704865

关键词

Lung; T lymphocytes; eosinophils; cytokines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1 The antigen-induced inflammatory response in the Brown Norway rat is a model commonly used to assess the impact of novel compounds on airway eosinophilia. A detailed functional, cellular and molecular characterization of this model has not yet been performed within a single study. This information together with the temporal changes in this phenomenon should be known before this model can be used, with confidence, to elucidate the mechanisms of action of novel anti-inflammatory drugs. 2 Antigen challenge caused an accumulation of eosinophils in lung tissue 24 h after challenge. Accumulation of CD2+ T cells was not apparent until after 72 h. 3 Interestingly, mRNA for the Th2 type cytokines interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13 and eotaxin were elevated in lung tissue after challenge and the expression of IL-13 and eotaxin protein increased at around 8 - 12 h. The temporal changes in both the biomarker production and the functional responses are important factors to consider in protocol design prior to initiating a compound screening program. 4 A neutralising antibody (R73) against alphabeta-TCR caused a significant reduction in T cell numbers accompanied by a significant Suppression of eosinophil accumulation. 5 Airway hyperreactivity (AHR) was not apparent in this specific Brown Norway model in sensitized animals after a single or multiple challenges although eosinophil influx was seen in the same animals. 6 In conclusion, this is a convenient pre-clinical model (incorporating the measurement of biomarkers and functional responses) for screening novel small molecule inhibitors and/or biotherapeutics targeted against T cell/eosinophil infiltration/activation.

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