4.6 Review

Role of toll-like receptors in the development of sepsis

期刊

SHOCK
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 315-321

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/shk.0b013e318157ee55

关键词

pathogen-associated molecular pattern; systemic response; innate immunity; organ injury

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM008721, R01 GM040586] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM040586, T32GM008721] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The outcome of sepsis and septic shock has not significantly improved in recent decades despite the development of numerous drugs and supportive care therapies. To reduce sepsis-related mortality, a better understanding of molecular mechanism(s) associated with the development of sepsis and sepsis-related organ injury is essential. There is increasing evidence that Toll-like receptors (TLRs) play a key role in the mediation of systemic responses to invading pathogens during sepsis. However, the role of TLRs in the development of sepsis and in sepsis-related organ injury remains debatable. In this review, we focus on the biological significance of TLRs during sepsis. Medline was searched for pertinent publications relating to TLRs, with emphasis on their clinical and pathophysiological importance in sepsis. In addition, a summary of the authors own experimental data from this field was set in the context of current knowledge regarding TLRs. In both animal models and human sepsis, TLRs are highly expressed on monocytes/macrophages, and this TLR expression may not simply be a ligand-specific response in such an environment. The fact that TLR signaling enables TLRs to recognize harmful mediators induced by invading pathogens may be associated with a positive feedback loop for the inflammatory response among different cell populations. This mechanism(s) may contribute to the organ dysfunction and mortality that occurs in sepsis. A better understanding of TLR biology may unveil novel therapeutic approaches for sepsis.

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

4.6
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