4.8 Review

Cytokine-Ion Channel Interactions in Pulmonary Inflammation

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01644

关键词

epithelial sodium channel; Na+/K+-ATPase; tumor necrosis factor; TNF tip peptide; pneumonia; acute respiratory distress syndrome; lung transplantation; ischemia-reperfusion injury

资金

  1. Lungen-und Atmungsstiftung Bern
  2. Augusta University
  3. ADA [1 -16-IBS-196]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lungs conceptually represent a sponge that is interposed in series in the bodies' systemic circulation to take up oxygen and eliminate carbon dioxide. As such, it matches the huge surface areas of the alveolar epithelium to the pulmonary blood capillaries. The lung's constant exposure to the exterior necessitates a competent immune system, as evidenced by the association of clinical immunodeficiencies with pulmonary infections. From the in utero to the postnatal and adult situation, there is an inherent vital need to manage alveolar fluid reabsorption, be it postnatally, or in case of hydrostatic or permeability edema. Whereas a wealth of literature exists on the physiological basis of fluid and solute reabsorption by ion channels and water pores, only sparse knowledge is available so far on pathological situations, such as in microbial infection, acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome, and in the pulmonary reimplantation response in transplanted lungs. The aim of this review is to discuss alveolar liquid clearance in a selection of lung injury models, thereby especially focusing on cytokines and mediators that modulate ion channels. Inflammation is characterized by complex and probably time-dependent co-signaling, interactions between the involved cell types, as well as by cell demise and barrier dysfunction, which may not uniquely determine a clinical picture. This review, therefore, aims to give integrative thoughts and wants to foster the unraveling of unmet needs in future research.

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

4.8
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