4.5 Article

Age-related changes in membrane lipid composition, fluidity and respiratory burst in rat peritoneal neutrophils

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 124, 期 1, 页码 95-102

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2249.2001.01490.x

关键词

neutrophil; respiratory burst; membrane fluidity; lipid composition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The O-2(.-) production has been studied in rat peritoneal neutrophils of different age (3, 12 and 24 months), in order to analyse whether the neutrophil respiratory burst is modified with increasing age. To stimulate NADPH oxidase, the enzyme responsible for the respiratory burst, two stimuli that act in different way have been used: phorbol myristate acetate (PMA) and N-formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine (N-FMLP). Production of O-2(.-) decreased with age in neutrophils stimulated with N-FMLP (about 40%), but not in the stimulated with PMA. No difference in NADPH oxidase activity was found with age. The NADPH is supplied to the respiratory burst mainly by the pentose phosphate shunt. A progressive and significant decrease in the two most important enzymes of this route, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase, was detected as a function of age; in spite of this reduction, the NADPH produced by cells from old animals seems not limiting for the O-2(.-) production. The N-FMLP-induced decrease in the O-2(.-) production may be related to the age-dependent increase in the membrane fluidity observed. A decline in the cholesterol/phospholipid ratio and a rise in the total polyunsaturated fatty acids content were found, that correlated well with the increase in the membrane fluidity. The decrease (50%) of phosphatidylinositols in the 24-month-old animals may be also related to the age-impairment in the respiratory burst found after stimulation with N-FMLP. These studies suggest that the age-related alterations in neutrophil may result in diminished neutrophil function and increased susceptibility to infection in the ageing.

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

4.5
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