4.7 Article

Distinct roles for hepcidin and interleukin-6 in the recovery from anemia in mice injected with heat-killed Brucella abortus

期刊

BLOOD
卷 123, 期 8, 页码 1137-1145

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2013-08-521625

关键词

-

资金

  1. Children's Cancer and Blood Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grants [NIDDK-1R01DK090554, 5R01DK095112]
  3. Rubicon fellowship from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [Rubicon 825.12.015]
  4. National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant [F32AT007112]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anemia of inflammation (AI) is commonly observed in chronic inflammatory states and may hinder patient recovery and survival. Induction of hepcidin, mediated by interleukin 6, leads to iron-restricted erythropoiesis and anemia. Several translational studies have been directed at neutralizing hepcidin overexpression as a therapeutic strategy against AI. However, additional hepcidin-independent mechanisms contribute to AI, which are likely mediated by a direct effect of inflammatory cytokines on erythropoiesis. In this study, we used wild-type, hepcidin knockout (Hamp-KO) and interleukin 6 knockout (IL-6-KO) mice as models of AI. AI was induced with heat-killed Brucella abortus (BA). The distinct roles of iron metabolism and inflammation triggered by interleukin 6 and hepcidin were investigated. BA-treated wild-type mice showed increased expression of hepcidin and inflammatory cytokines, as well as transitory suppression of erythropoiesis and shortened red blood cell lifespan, all of which contributed to the severe anemia of these mice. In contrast, BA-treated Hamp-KO or IL-6-KO mice showed milder anemia and faster recovery compared with normal mice. Moreover, they exhibited different patterns in the development and resolution of anemia, supporting the notion that interleukin 6 and hepcidin play distinct roles in modulating erythropoiesis in AI.

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