4.7 Article

Synergism between rhinovirus infection and oxidant pollutant exposure enhances airway epithelial cell cytokine production

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 110, 期 7, 页码 665-670

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.02110665

关键词

bronchial epithelium; ICAM-1; IL-8; nasal epithelium; nitrogen dioxide; oxidant stress; ozone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Of the several factors believed to exacerbate asthmatic symptoms, air pollution and viral infections are considered to be particularly important. Although evidence indicates that each of these respiratory insults individually can increase asthma severity in susceptible individuals, we know little about the extent to which exposure to environmental oxidant pollutants can influence the course of respiratory viral infection and its associated inflammation. To investigate the interaction of these two stimuli within their common epithelial cell targets in the upper and lower respiratory tracks, we infected primary human nasal epithelial cells and cells of the BEAS-2B line grown at the air-liquid interface with human rhinovirus type 16 (RV16) and exposed them to NO2 (2.0 ppm) or O-3 (0.2 ppm) for 3 hr. Independently, RV16, NO2, and O-3 rapidly increased release of the inflammatory cytokine interieukin-8 through oxidant-dependent mechanisms. The combined effect of RV16 and oxidant ranged from 42% to 250% greater than additive for NO2 and from 41% to 67% for O-3. We abrogated these effects by treating the cells with the antioxidant N-cetylcysteine. Surface expression of intercellular adhesion molecule I (ICAM-1) underwent additive enhancement in response to combined stimulation. These data indicate that oxidant pollutants can amplify the generation of proinflammatory cytokines by RV16-infected cells and suggest that virus-induced inflammation in upper and lower airways may be exacerbated by concurrent exposure to ambient levels of oxidants commonly encountered the indoor and outdoor environments.

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