4.7 Article

Lysophosphatidylcholine reduces the organ injury and dysfunction in rodent models of Gram-negative and Gram-positive shock

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 148, 期 6, 页码 769-777

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0706788

关键词

endotoxin; lipoteichoic acid; lysophosphatidylcholine; LPC; LPS; oxidised lipoprotein; peptidoglycan; sepsis; shock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1 Lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC) modulates the inflammatory response and reduces mortality in animal models of sepsis. Here, we investigate the effects of LPC from synthetic (sLPC) and natural, soy bean derived LPC, (nLPC) sources on the organ injury/dysfunction caused by systemic administration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or peptidoglycan (PepG) and lipoteichoic acid (LTA). 2 Rats were subjected to (i) endotoxaemia (LPS 6 mg kg(-1) i.v.) and treated with sLPC (1-100 mg kg(-1)), (ii) endotoxaemia and treated with nLPC (10 mg kg(-1)) or (iii) Gram-positive shock (PepG 10 mg kg(-1) and LTA 3 mg kg(-1) i.v.) and treated with sLPC (10 mg kg(-1)). 3 Endotoxaemia or Gram-positive shock for 6 h resulted. in increases in serum makers of renal dysfunction and liver, pancreatic and neuromuscular injury. 4 Administration of sLPC, at 1 or 2 It after LPS, dose dependently (1-10 mg kg(-1)) reduced the organ injury/dysfunction. High doses of sLPC (30 and 100 mg kg(-1)) were shown to be detrimental in endotoxaemia. sLPC also afforded protection against the organ injury/dysfunction caused by Gram-positive shock. nLPC was found to be protective in endotoxaemic animals. 5 The beneficial effects of sLPC were associated with an attenuation in circulating levels of interleukin-1 beta (IL-1 beta). 6 In conclusion, LPC dose and time dependently reduces the organ injury and circulating IL-1 beta levels caused by Gram-negative or Gram-positive shock in the rat. Thus, we speculate that appropriate doses of LPC may be useful in reducing the degree of organ injury and dysfunction associated with shock of various aetiologies.

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