4.6 Article

Lysophosphatidic acid reduces the organ injury caused by endotoxemia-A role for G-protein-coupled receptors and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma

期刊

SHOCK
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 48-54

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.shk.0000235086.63723.7e

关键词

GW9662; Ki16425; LPS; peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma; sepsis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exogenous lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) has been shown to beneficial in renal ischemia/reperfusion injury, wound healing and colitis. LPA acts via specific G-protein-coupled receptors and also peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma (PPAR-gamma). However, activation of PPAR-gamma is dependent on the presence of an unsaturated acyl chain. Here we investigate the effects of saturated LPA (18:0) and unsaturated LPA (18:1) on the organ injury associated with endotoxemia and the receptors mediating LPA activity. Male Wistar rats received either lipopolysaccharide (LPS, 6 mg/kg i.v.) or vehicle. The PPAR-gamma antagonist GW9662 (1 mg/kg i.v.), the LPA receptor antagonist Ki16425 (0.5 mg/kg i.v.) or vehicle was administered 30 min after LIPS. LPA 18:0 or LIPA 18:1 (1 mg/kg i.v.) or vehicle was administered 1 h after injection of LIPS. Enclotoxemia for 6 h resulted in an increase in serum levels of aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase and creatine kinase. Therapeutic administration of LPA 18:0 or 18:1 reduced the organ injury caused by LPS. LPA 18:0 also attenuated the increase in plasma IL-1 beta caused by LPS. Ki16425, but not GW9662, attenuated the beneficial effects of LPA 18:0, however, Ki16425 and GW9662 attenuated the beneficial effects of 18:1. In conclusion, LPA reduces the organ injury caused by enclotoxemia in the rat. Thus, LPA may be useful in the treatment of shock of various aetiologies. The mechanism of action is related to acyl chain saturation, with LPA 18:0 acting via G-protein-coupled receptors and LPA 18:1 acting via G-protein-coupled receptors and PPAR-gamma.

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