4.6 Article

Targeting lysyl oxidase reduces peritoneal fibrosis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183013

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0900550]
  2. Wellcome Trust [091840/Z/10/Z]
  3. Medical Research Council [G0701127, G0900550] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0701127, G0900550] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Wellcome Trust [091840/Z/10/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Abdominal surgery and disease cause persistent abdominal adhesions, pelvic pain, infertility and occasionally, bowel obstruction. Current treatments are ineffective and the aetiology is unclear, although excessive collagen deposition is a consistent feature. Lysyl oxidase (Lox) is a key enzyme required for crosslinking and deposition of insoluble collagen, so we investigated whether targeting Lox might be an approach to reduce abdominal adhesions. Methods Female C57Bl/6 mice were treated intraperitoneally with multiwalled carbon nanotubes (NT) to induce fibrosis, together with chemical (beta-aminoproprionitrile-BAPN) or miRNA Lox inhibitors, progesterone or dexamethasone. Fibrotic lesions on the diaphragm, and expression of fibrosis-related genes in abdominal wall peritoneal mesothelial cells (PMC) were measured. Effects of BAPN and dexamethasone on collagen fibre alignment were observed by TEM. Isolated PMC were cultured with interleukin-1 alpha (IL-1 alpha) and progesterone to determine effects on Lox mRNA in vitro. Results NT-induced fibrosis and collagen deposition on the diaphragm was ameliorated by BAPN, Lox miRNA, or steroids. BAPN and dexamethasone disrupted collagen fibres. NT increased PMC Lox, Col1a1, Col3a1 and Bmp1 mRNA, which was inhibited by steroids. Progesterone significantly inhibited IL-1 alpha induced Lox expression by PMC in vitro. Conclusion Our results provide proof-of-concept that targeting peritoneal Lox could be an effective approach in ameliorating fibrosis and adhesion development.

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