4.6 Article

Intravesical Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide stimulates an increase in bladder nerve growth factor

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 87, 期 7, 页码 697-702

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02138.x

关键词

bladder; lipopolysaccharide; nerve growth factor; pain; inflammation

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 57258, R01 DK 49471] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate the effects of the intravesical instillation of Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide (LPS) on nerve growth factor (NGF, which may mediate the pain associated with inflammation) protein and mRNA in the bladders of mice. Materials and methods E. coli LPS was instilled into the bladders of female mice: the whole-bladder NGF content was then determined by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and the NGF mRNA content of the bladder determined by semiquantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Bladder NGF was also evaluated by immunohistochemistry in some of the mice. Results LPS stimulated a significant increase in bladder NGF 90 min after instillation, but bladder NGF content was significantly less than that in bladders of control mice 3 and 7 h after LPS instillation. Twenty-four hours after the intravesical infusion of saline or LPS, there was no difference in NGF content in bladders from saline or LPS-infused mice. Immunohistochemistry confirmed the presence of increased NGF in the mucosa of detrusor from bladders 90 min after LPS instillation. Bladder NGF mRNA increased more slowly in response to LPS, acid 7 and 24 h after LPS instillation the relative abundance of NGF mRNX was 1.5 and 2.0 times greater in LPS-infused bladders. respectively. Conclusions E. coli LPS can stimulate increased NGF message and protein in the bladder. The increase in NGF protein preceded the increase in mRNA, suggesting that this increase was not the result of gene transcription. It is possible that NGF participates in the pathogenesis of pain associated with bacterial cystitis.

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