4.5 Article

Kinetics of inflammatory response of astrocytes induced by TLR3 and TLR4 ligation

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 205-212

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.21088

关键词

double stranded RNA; lipopolysaccharide; cytokines; nitric oxide; signal transduction pathways

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R21NS051787] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS051787] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are sentinels of the innate immune system that recognize an array of exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules. The ligation of the receptors triggers inflammatory response necessary for pathogen elimination and for the healing process. In the present study we examined inflammatory response of astrocytes elicited by the ligation of TLR3 and TLR4. Astrocytic cultures established from newborn rat brains were exposed to double stranded RNA (dsRNA) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), the ligands for TLR3 and TLR4, respectively. The expression of cytokine genes was determined by RNase protection assay, and the generation of nitric oxide (NO) was measured by Griess technique. Both ligands upregulated the expression of several cytokines (i.e., IL-1 alpha, IL-1 beta, IL-6, TNF alpha GM-CSF, LT beta, and TGF beta 3) and downregulated the expression of MIF, but have no effect on the expression of IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, TGF beta 1, TGF beta 2, TNF beta and IFN gamma. Although dsRNA upregulated the expression of IFN beta, LPS did not indicating that the TRIF-dependent branch of TLR4 signaling is inactive in astrocytes. Proinflammatory response as seen from upregulated cytokine expression and NO generation reached a peak within the first day of exposure, and was subsequently abrogated. The cells also became refractory to subsequent stimulation by the ligands indicating the existence of negative feedback mechanisms that control proinflammatory response in astrocytes. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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