4.4 Article

Kinetics of Neutrophils in Mice Exposed to Radiation and/or Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Treatment

期刊

RADIATION RESEARCH
卷 180, 期 2, 页码 177-188

出版社

RADIATION RESEARCH SOC
DOI: 10.1667/RR3055.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI)-Center of Acute Radiation Research (CARR) grant
  2. NIH [2T32CA009677]
  3. NASA NCC [9-58]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Astronauts have the potential to develop the hematopoietic syndrome as a result of exposure to radiation from a solar particle event (SPE) during exploration class missions. This syndrome is characterized by a reduction in the number of circulating blood cells (cytopenias). In the present study the effects of SPE-like proton and c radiation on the kinetics of circulating neutrophils were evaluated during a one-month time period using mice as a model system. The results revealed that exposure to a 2 Gy dose of either SPE-like proton or c radiation significantly decreased the number of circulating neutrophils, with two nadirs observed on day 4 and day 16 postirradiation. Low circulating neutrophil count (neutropenia) is particularly important because it can increase the risk of astronauts developing infections, which can compromise the success of the mission. Thus, two granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), filgrastim and pegfilgrastim were evaluated as countermeasures for this endpoint. Both forms of G-CSF significantly increased neutrophil counts in irradiated mice, however, the effect of pegfilgrastim was more potent and lasted longer than filgrastim. Using the expression of CD11b, CD18 and the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) as markers of neutrophil activation, it was determined that the neutrophils in the irradiated mice treated with pegfilgrastim were physiologically active. Thus, these results suggest that pegfilgrastim could be a potential countermeasure for the reduced number of circulating neutrophils in irradiated animals. (C) 2013 by Radiation Research Society

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

4.4
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