4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Oestrogen upregulates the expression levels and functional activities of duodenal mucosal CFTR and SLC26A6

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 101, 期 11, 页码 1371-1382

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/EP085803

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The incidence of duodenal ulcer is markedly lower in women than men, but the cause of the sex difference is not clear. The cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the solute-linked carrier 26 gene family A6 (SLC26A6) are two key bicarbonate transport proteins that mediate duodenal mucosal bicarbonate secretion, which is an important protective factor against acid-induced duodenal injury. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of oestrogen on the expressions and functional activities of CFTR and SLC26A6 in duodenal mucosa. We found that the expression levels of duodenal CFTR and SLC26A6 were markedly higher in young (20- to 30-year-old) women than in young men and old (60- to 70-year-old) women and men. The expression levels of CFTR and SLC26A6 in young women were markedly higher in preovulatory phases than in premenstrual phases, which was consistent with the changes of serum estradiol concentrations. Further results showed that duodenal CFTR and SLC26A6 expression levels in female mice were markedly decreased after ovariectomy, and supplementation with estradiol reversed the changes in CFTR and SLC26A6. 17-Estradiol increased CFTR and SLC26A6 expression levels of human duodenocytes in experiments in vitro. Functional experiments showed that basal and forskolin- and prostaglandin E-2-stimulated duodenal bicarbonate secretion in ovariectomized mice was markedly decreased and, likewise, supplementation with 17-estradiol reversed the changes. In conclusion, endogenous oestrogen upregulates the expressions and functional activities of CFTR and SLC26A6 in duodenal mucosa, which could contribute to protection of the duodenum and explain the sex difference in the prevalence of duodenal ulcer.

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

4.3
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