3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

A comparison of the molecular species compositions of mammalian lung surfactant phospholipids

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1095-6433(01)00306-3

关键词

lung surfactant; human; rat; rabbit; guinea pig; electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry phosphatidylcholine; phosphatidylinositol; phosphatidylglycerol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine (PC16:0/16:0) is essential for pulmonary surfactant function, roles for other individual molecular species of surfactant phospholipids have not been established. If any phospholipid species other than PC16:0/16:0 is important for surfactant function, then it may be conserved across animal species. Consequently, we have quantified, by electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry, molecular species compositions of phosphatidylcholine (PC), phosphatidylglycerol (PG) and phosphatidylinositol (PI) in surfactants from human, rabbit, rat and guinea pig lungs. While PC compositions displayed only relatively minor variations across the animal species studied, there were wide variations of PG and PI concentrations and compositions. Human surfactant PG and PI were enriched in the same three monounsaturated species (PG16:0/18:1, PG18:1/18:1 and PG18:0/18:1) with minimal amounts of PG16:0/16:0 or polyunsaturated species, while all animal surfactant PG contained increased concentrations of PG16:0/16:0 and PG16:0/18:2. Animal surfactant PIs were essentially monounsaturated except for a high content of PI18:0/20:4 (29%) in the rat. As these four surfactants all maintain appropriate lung function of the respective animal species, then all their varied compositions of acidic phospholipids must be adequate at promoting the processes of adsorption, film refinement, respreading and collapse characteristic of surfactant. We conclude that this effectively monounsaturated composition of anionic phospholipid molecular species is a common characteristic of mammalian surfactants. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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