4.1 Article

Fibrogenic effects of crocidolite, amosite, and chrysotile asbestos fibers on lung fibroblasts

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY
卷 101, 期 1-2, 页码 148-164

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02772248.2019.1625358

关键词

Chrysotile; amosite; crocidolite; lung fibrosis; fibroblast; oxidative stress

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIT) [2017R1E1A1A01078335]
  2. Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation
  3. Institute of Clinical Medicine Research, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Asbestos causes fibrotic lung diseases such as asbestosis and lung scarring, but the molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of specific types of asbestos fibers are not fully understood. The objective of this study was to investigate the fibrogenic activity of commonly used asbestos types crocidolite (serpentine) and amosite and chrysotile (amphiboles) which differ in general toxicity. IMR-90 lung fibroblasts were exposed to various concentrations of crocidolite, amosite, and chrysotile and analyzed for viability, adhesion, cell damage, functional activity, and expression of genes associated with fibrosis, cell stress, and toxicity responses. Exposure of fibroblasts to the three asbestos fibers for 48h did not affect cellular functions such as filamentous actin distribution and mitochondrial activity. PCR microarray profiling of the expression of 84 genes central to fibrogenesis revealed that chrysotile significantly upregulated the transcription of genes encoding pro-fibrotic cytokines and downregulated genes related to the transforming growth factor-beta superfamily, whereas the effects of crocidolite and amosite on pro-fibrotic gene expression were much weaker. There was no significant difference in the expression of oxidative stress- and toxic response-related genes among the three asbestos types. These results provide new evidence that chrysotile has a stronger pro-fibrotic potential than amosite and crocidolite.

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

4.1
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