4.2 Article

Leptin Downregulates LPS-Induced Lung Injury: Role of Corticosterone and Insulin

期刊

CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 835-846

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000358656

关键词

Leptin; Insulin, corticosterone, acute lung injury; Lipopolysaccharide; Lung inflammation

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Complex Fluids INCT
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [12/51104-8, 10/01404-0, 12/02270-2, 12/10512-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: We investigated the effects of leptin in the development of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced acute lung inflammation (ALI) in lean mice. Methods: Mice were administered leptin (1.0 mu g/g) or leptin (1.0 mu g/g) followed by LPS (1.5 mu g/g) intranasally. Additionally, some animals were given LPS (1.5 mu g/g) or saline intranasally alone, as a control. Tissue samples and fluids were collected six hours after instillation. Results: We demonstrated that leptin alone did not induce any injury. Local LPS exposure resulted in significant acute lung inflammation, characterized by a substantial increase in total cells, mainly neutrophils, in bronchoalveolar lavages (BAL). We also observed a significant lymphocyte influx into the lungs associated with enhanced lung expression of chemokines and cytokines (KC, RANTES, TNF-alpha, IFN-beta, GM-CSF and VEGF). LPS-induced ALI was characterized by the enhanced expression of ICAM-1 and iNOS in the lungs. Mice that received LPS showed an increase in insulin levels. Leptin, when administered prior to LPS instillation, abolished all of these effects. LPS induced an increase in corticosterone levels, and leptin potentiated this event. Conclusion: These data suggest that exogenous leptin may promote protection during sepsis, and downregulation of the insulin levels and upregulation of corticosterone may be important mechanisms in the amelioration of LPS-induced ALI.Copyright (c) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.2
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