| Literature DB >> 32674636 |
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of cyclosporin A (CsA) pre-treatment and etomidate (ETO) post-treatment on lung injury induced by limb ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) in rats.Entities:
Keywords: Etomidate; Fas/FasL; cyclosporin A; ischemia-reperfusion; limbs; lung
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32674636 PMCID: PMC7370568 DOI: 10.1177/0300060520934627
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int Med Res ISSN: 0300-0605 Impact factor: 1.671
Comparison of TNF-α, IL-1β, W/D and PaO2 in each group (n = 30, x + s).
| Group | TNF-α (mg/mL) | IL-1β (ug/L) | W/D | PaO2 (mmHg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | 1.21 ± 0.05 | 0.42 ± 0.02 | 2.3 ± 0.2 | 97 ± 3 |
| I/R | 3.96 ± 0.23[ | 1.43 ± 0.17[ | 5.3 ± 0.4[ | 75 ± 3[ |
| I/R+CsA | 1.93 ± 0.46b | 0.97 ± 0.03b | 4.1 ± 0.5b | 92 ± 2b |
| I/R+ETO | 2.12 ± 0.32c | 0.88 ± 0.03c | 3.8 ± 0.4c | 90 ± 3c |
| I/R+CsA+ETO | 0.71 ± 0.25d | 0.29 ± 0.05d | 2.6 ± 0.7d | 96 ± 2d |
aP < 0.05 compared with sham group; bP < 0.05 and cP < 0.05 compared with I/R group; dbP < 0.05 and dcP < 0.05 compared with I/R+CsA group and I/R+ETO groups, respectively.
Figure 1.Morphological structures of lung immunohistochemical sections in each group by light microscopy (200×). A: Sham group; B: I/R group; C: I/R+CsA group; D: I/R+ETO group; E: I/R+CsA+ETO group.
Comparison of AI and RBS in each group (n = 30, x + s).
| Sham | I/R | I/R+CsA | I/R+ETO | I/R+CsA+ETO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI | 41.39 ± 4.62 | 63.21 ± 3.69[ | 52.43 ± 3.55b | 57.09 ± 4.87c | 39.01 ± 4.27d |
| RBS | 4 ± 1 | 11 ± 2[ | 8 ± 1b | 7 ± 2c | 5 ± 2d |
aP < 0.05 compared with sham group; bP < 0.05 and cP < 0.05 compared with I/R group; dbP < 0.05 and dcP < 0.05 compared with I/R+CsA and I/R+ETO groups, respectively.
Figure 2.Comparison of Hoechst33258 staining in the lung tissues of each group (200×).
Comparison of relative amount of Fas and FasL mRNA in each group (n = 30, x + s).
| Sham | I/R | I/R+CsA | I/R+ETO | I/R+CsA+ETO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fas | 6.87 ± 1.31 | 13.28 ± 1.92[ | 9.91 ± 1.57b | 10.97 ± 1.16c | 7.85 ± 1.56d |
| FasL mRNA | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 1.09 ± 0.02[ | 0.56 ± 0.05b | 0.67 ± 0.03c | 0.41 ± 0.07d |
aP < 0.05 compared with sham group; bP < 0.05 and cP < 0.05 compared with I/R group; dbP < 0.05 and dcP < 0.05 compared with I/R+CsA and I/R+ETO groups, respectively.
Figure 3.Comparison of Fas protein expression in the lung tissues of each group.
Figure 4.Comparison of FasL mRNA levels in the lung tissues of each group.