4.6 Review

RAGE and tobacco smoke: insights into modeling chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2012.00301

关键词

RAGE; COPD; tobacco; mouse model

资金

  1. Flight Attendant's Medical Research Institute
  2. Brigham Young University Mentoring Environment grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CORD) is a progressive condition characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airspace remodeling, leading to airflow limitation that is not completely reversible. Smoking is the leading risk factor for compromised lung function stemming from CORD pathogenesis. First- and second-hand cigarette smoke contain thousands of constituents, including several carcinogens and cytotoxic chemicals that orchestrate chronic lung inflammation and destructive alveolar remodeling. Receptors for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) are multi-ligand cell surface receptors primarily expressed by diverse lung cells. RAGE expression increases following cigarette smoke exposure and expression is elevated in the lungs of patients with CORD. RAGE is responsible in part for inducing pro inflammatory signaling pathways that culminate in expression and secretion of several cytokines, chemokines, enzymes, and other mediators. In the current review, new transgenic mouse models that conditionally over-express RAGE in pulmonary epithelium are discussed. When RAGE is over expressed throughout embryogenesis, apoptosis in the peripheral lung causes severe lung hypoplasia. Interestingly, apoptosis in RAGE transgenic mice occurs via conserved apoptotic pathways also known to function in advanced stages of CORD. RAGE over-expression in the adult lung models features of CORD including pronounced inflammation and loss of parenchymal tissue. Understanding the biological contributions of RAGE during cigarette smoke-induced inflammation may provide critically important insight into the pathology of CORD.

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