Suppr超能文献

人用β-丝氨酸干扰素、γ-干扰素或β-丝氨酸干扰素与γ-干扰素联合使用对生物反应调节和临床副作用的直接比较。

A direct comparison of biological response modulation and clinical side effects by interferon-beta ser, interferon-gamma, or the combination of interferons beta ser and gamma in humans.

作者信息

Schiller J H, Storer B, Paulnock D M, Brown R R, Datta S P, Witt P L, Borden E C

机构信息

Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin Clinical Cancer Center, Madison 53792.

出版信息

J Clin Invest. 1990 Oct;86(4):1211-21. doi: 10.1172/JCI114827.

Abstract

To directly compare clinical side effects and biological response modification, IFN-beta ser, IFN-gamma, or the combination of IFN-beta ser plus IFN-gamma was administered to 21 cancer patients. Each IFN or the combination was given intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 in varied order. Each IFN and the combination resulted in significant (P less than 0.05) modulation of IFN-induced proteins. IFN-beta ser was more effective than IFN-gamma in enhancing 2-5A synthetase activity (P = 0.001). IFN-gamma was more effective than IFN-beta ser in enhancing serum beta 2 microglobulin expression (P = 0.05) and indoleamine dioxygenase activity, as assessed by decreased serum tryptophan (P = 0.03). The combination enhanced tryptophan catabolism more effectively than IFN-beta ser in a dose-dependent manner (P less than 0.03). IFN-beta ser/IFN-gamma did not potentiate natural killer cells or antibody-dependent cellular toxicity (ADCC). IFN-beta ser/IFN-gamma enhanced monocyte guanylate cyclase activity, as assessed by serum neopterin, more effectively than IFN-gamma alone (P = 0.005). Both IFNs and the combination resulted in increases in HLA class II expression on monocytes. However, no significant difference in the level of induction of HLA DQ and HLA DR expression between IFN-beta ser/IFN-gamma and either IFN-beta ser or IFN-gamma was noted. Although frequency and servity of side effects of IFN-beta ser, IFN-gamma, or the combination were dose related, induction of induced proteins (with exception of influences on tryptophan catabolism) were not a function of dose administered over the 10-fold range. Continued treatment with the combination intravenously three times a week for 4 wk sustained but did not further potentiate, most of the changes in interferon-induced proteins. Thus, IFN-beta ser and IFN-gamma each resulted in effective and essentially equivalent patterns of induction of induced proteins. When combined, however, these IFNs did not result in potentiation of biological response modification in vivo.

摘要

为了直接比较临床副作用和生物反应调节作用,对21例癌症患者给予血清β干扰素、γ干扰素或血清β干扰素加γ干扰素的联合制剂。每种干扰素或联合制剂在第1、8和15天以不同顺序静脉给药。每种干扰素及联合制剂均能显著(P<0.05)调节干扰素诱导蛋白。在增强2-5A合成酶活性方面,血清β干扰素比γ干扰素更有效(P=0.001)。在增强血清β2微球蛋白表达方面,γ干扰素比血清β干扰素更有效(P=0.05),而通过血清色氨酸降低评估的吲哚胺双加氧酶活性也是如此(P=0.03)。联合制剂比血清β干扰素更有效地以剂量依赖方式增强色氨酸分解代谢(P<0.03)。血清β干扰素/γ干扰素不能增强自然杀伤细胞或抗体依赖性细胞毒性(ADCC)。通过血清新蝶呤评估,血清β干扰素/γ干扰素比单独使用γ干扰素更有效地增强单核细胞鸟苷酸环化酶活性(P=0.005)。两种干扰素及联合制剂均导致单核细胞上HLA-II类表达增加。然而,血清β干扰素/γ干扰素与血清β干扰素或γ干扰素之间在HLA DQ和HLA DR表达诱导水平上未观察到显著差异。尽管血清β干扰素、γ干扰素或联合制剂的副作用频率和严重程度与剂量相关,但诱导蛋白的诱导作用(色氨酸分解代谢的影响除外)并非10倍剂量范围内给药剂量的函数。每周静脉注射联合制剂3次,持续4周,可维持但不会进一步增强干扰素诱导蛋白的大多数变化。因此,血清β干扰素和γ干扰素各自均能有效诱导诱导蛋白,且诱导模式基本相同。然而,联合使用时,这些干扰素在体内并未导致生物反应调节作用增强。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b108/296851/1c4688fdab84/jcinvest00076-0210-a.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验