4.6 Article

Congenital tracheal malformation in cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-deficient mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 586, 期 13, 页码 3231-3243

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2008.150763

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In cystic fibrosis (CF) patients, the major alteration in pulmonary function is due to peripheral airway obstruction. In the present study, we investigated the possibility that alterations in the extrathoracic airways, particularly in the trachea that expresses high levels of CFTR (CF transmembrane conductance regulator), may contribute to respiratory dysfunction. We performed morphological analyses of the trachea and airway functional studies in adult Cftr knockout (Cftr(-/-)) and F508del-CFTR mice and their controls. Macroscopic and histological examination of the trachea showed the presence of one to seven disrupted or incomplete cartilage rings in Cftr(-/-) mice (23/25) while only a few Cftr(+/+) mice (6/25) had one abnormal ring. Tracheal defects were mainly localized in the proximal trachea. In 14 Cftr(-/-) mice, frontal disruption of the first three to six rings below the cricoid cartilage were associated with upper tracheal constriction. Similar tracheal abnormalities were detected in adult F508del-CFTR and in newborn Cftr(-/-) and F508del-CFTR mice. Tracheal and ventilatory function analyses showed in Cftr(-/-) mice a decreased contractile response of the proximal trachea and a reduced breathing rate due to an increase in the inspiratory and expiratory times. In F508del-CFTR mice, the expiratory time was longer than in controls. Therefore, these structural and functional abnormalities detected in adult and newborn CF mouse models may represent congenital malformations related to CFTR dysfunction. These results raise important questions concerning the mechanisms governing tracheal development within the context of CFTR protein dysfunction and the implication of such abnormalities in the pathogenesis of airway disease in CF.

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