4.6 Article

Effect of epithelium ATP release on cyclic pressure-induced airway mucus secretion

期刊

BIOSCIENCE REPORTS
卷 34, 期 -, 页码 1-6

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BSR20130109

关键词

ATP; calcium; cyclic pressure; mucins

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81370111]
  2. China-Russia Cooperation Research Foundation [31211120168]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cyclic mechanical effect of airflow during breathing creates the optimal airway hydration state. MUC (mucin) 5AC is an important component of the airway mucus. The formation of MUC5AC is related to ATP and intracellular calcium in the epithelial cells. In this study, we evaluated the effect of ATP release from intracellular calcium in epithelial cells on cyclic pressure-induced mucus secretion in the airway. 16HBE (human bronchial epithelial cells) were cultured in vitro on cyclically tilted cultured plates and divided into five groups: control, tilt, tilt and BAPTA-AM (1,2-bis-(o-aminophenoxy) ethane-N,N,N',N'-tetra-acetic acid-acetoxymethyl ester), tilt and EGTA and tilt and RB-2 (reactive blue-2). The shear stress and compressive stress were induced by the surface tension of the liquid, atmospheric pressure and liquid gravity. Cell activity, MUC5AC mRNA expression level, MUC5AC protein expression level and ATP release and intracellular calcium changes were measured with the MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide) assay, RT-PCR (reverse transcription-PCR), HPLC and inverted fluorescence microscope, respectively. We detected that cyclic pressure significantly increased MUC5AC secretion and ATP release. The enhanced ATP release could be inhibited by both BAPTA-AM and RB-2, while EGTA did not have a suppressive effect. BAPTA-AM, EGTA and RB-2 did not obviously inhibit MUC5AC mRNA expression. Cyclic pressure did not induce MUC5AC secretion in the airway mucus epithelium via Ca2+-dependent ATP release, and nearly all Ca2+ was provided by stored intracellular Ca2+.

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