4.6 Article

Dasatinib Reduces Lung Inflammation and Fibrosis in Acute Experimental Silicosis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147005

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community [HEALTH-F4-2011-282095]
  2. Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  3. Rio de Janeiro State Research Foundation (FAPERJ) (CNPq)
  4. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silicosis is an occupational lung disease with no effective treatment. We hypothesized that dasatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, might exhibit therapeutic efficacy in silica-induced pulmonary fibrosis. Silicosis was induced in C57BL/6 mice by a single intratracheal administration of silica particles, whereas the control group received saline. After 14 days, when the disease was already established, animals were randomly assigned to receive DMSO or dasatinib (1 mg/kg) by oral gavage, twice daily, for 14 days. On day 28, lung morphofunction, inflammation, and remodeling were investigated. RAW 264.7 cells (a macrophage cell line) were incubated with silica particles, followed by treatment or not with dasatinib, and evaluated for macrophage polarization. On day 28, dasatinib improved lung mechanics, increased M2 macrophage counts in lung parenchyma and granuloma, and was associated with reduction of fraction area of granuloma, fraction area of collapsed alveoli, protein levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-1 beta, transforming growth factor-beta, and reduced neutrophils, M1 macrophages, and collagen fiber content in lung tissue and granuloma in silicotic animals. Additionally, dasatinib reduced expression of iNOS and increased expression of arginase and metalloproteinase-9 in silicotic macrophages. Dasatinib was effective at inducing macrophage polarization toward the M2 phenotype and reducing lung inflammation and fibrosis, thus improving lung mechanics in a murine model of acute silicosis.

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