4.7 Article

Role of adenosine in airway inflammation in an allergic mouse model of asthma

期刊

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 36-45

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2005.07.008

关键词

adenosine; theophylline; inflammatory cells; bronchoalveolar lavage fluid; inflammatory cell markers; asthma

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-27339] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL027339] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, we examined dynamic changes in cellular profile of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid after adenosine challenge in ragweed sensitized and challenged mice. Mice systemically sensitized and airway challenged with ragweed showed marked airway inflammation manifesting increased eosinophils, lymphocytes, neutrophils and activated macrophages in BAL. Adenosine challenge further enhanced influx of inflammatory cells into BAL, notably neutrophils from 1 to 72 h and eosinophils from 1 to 48 h time-points (p < 0.05), which sharply rose at 6-h time-point following adenosine challenge. Greater infiltration of lymphocytes into BAL was observed at 1 and 72 It and macrophages from 6 to 72 h (p < 0.05) after adenosine challenge. Accordingly, markers of eosinophils, neutrophils and mast cells were analyzed at 6-h time-point after adenosine challenge. Adenosine challenge significantly increased the levels of eosinophil peroxidase, neutrophil myeloperoxidase and hexosaminidase in BAL. There were more significant effects of adenosine challenge on the degranulation of mast cells in the lung than that in blood. The chemoattractant, eotaxin, was detected in BAL, which increased after adenosine challenge. Theophylline, a non-specific adenosine receptor antagonist, prevented adenosine-enhanced infiltration of inflammatory cells and their respective markers. Our findings suggest that adenosine plays an important role in airway inflammation in an allergic mouse model. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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