4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Mechanical ventilation alters airway nucleotides and purinoceptors in lung and extrapulmonary organs

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1165/rcmb.2004-0177OC

关键词

mechanical ventilation; nucleotide; purinoceptor; ventilator-induced lung injury

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [1 K08 HL72836-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [K08HL072836] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [T32GM008450] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extracellular nucleotides are stress-responsive ligands that mediate a variety of cellular processes via purinoceptors. We hypothesized that mechanical ventilation (MV) would alter the extracellular adenyl-nucleotide profile and purinoceptor expression in lung and extrapulmonary tissues. Twenty-eight rats were randomized to: (i) unventilated control animals; (H) tidal volume (VT; 6 ml/kg); (iii) VT (6 ml/kg) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP; 5 cm H2O); (iv) VT (12 ml/kg); or (v) VT (12 ml/kg) and PEEP (5 cm H2O)Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was analyzed for adenyl-nucleotides. Pulmonary, hepatic, and renal tissues were assessed for P2Y4, P2Y6, P2X7, A(3), and A(2b) receptor expression by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and Fas/Fas ligand mRNA was quantified in the lung. MV produced volume-dependent changes in BAL nucleotides; AMP and adenosine increased, whereas ATP and ADP proportions decreased. Large-volume MV increased A(2b) mRNA and decreased P2X7 in the lung; mRNA changes in lung Fas ligand paralleled P2X7. PEEP normalized BAL nucleotide profiles and A(2b) expression. Injurious MV reduced hepatic and renal P2X7 mRNA; PEEP normalized these levels in both tissues. Large-volume MV also decreased renal A(2b) mRNA. MV alters the BAL adenyl-nucleotide profile and purinoceptor patterns in lung, liver, and kidney. PEEP normalizes the BAL nucleotide profile and receptor patterns in lung and extrapulmonary tissues.

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