Suppr超能文献

可溶性补体受体1(sCR1)在治疗实验性变应性神经炎方面不如眼镜蛇毒因子有效。

Soluble complement receptor 1 (sCR1) is not as effective as cobra venom factor in the treatment of experimental allergic neuritis.

作者信息

Vriesendorp F J, Flynn R E, Pappolla M A, Koski C L

机构信息

Department of Neurology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, USA.

出版信息

Int J Neurosci. 1997 Dec;92(3-4):287-98. doi: 10.3109/00207459708986406.

Abstract

To further investigate the role of complement activation in Experimental Allergic Neuritis (EAN), the effect of systemic complement blockade by soluble CR1 (sCR1) was compared to complement depletion by Cobra Venom Factor (CVF) in EAN rats immunized with bovine peripheral nerve myelin. EAN rats treated with CVF (n = 10) had significantly reduced clinical scores compared to rats treated with sCR1 (n = 9) or saline (n = 10) (score: sCR1 0.66 +/- 0.7; CVF 0; saline 0.6 +/- 0.8; mean +/- SD). CVF treatment more effectively decreased inflammation and demyelination compared to sCR1 treatment which had only a partial effect (inflammation: sCR1 1.8 +/- 1.4; CVF 0.3 +/- 0.7; saline 1.9 +/- 1.2; demyelination; sCR1 1.3 +/- 1; CVF 0.1 +/- 0.6; saline 1.7 +/- 1.2). In lumbosacral nerve roots significantly less infiltrating ED1 positive macrophages and CD11bc (expressing complement receptor 3 or CR3) positive inflammatory cells were present in CVF treated EAN rats while there was a limited decrease in inflammation in the sCR1 treated animals compared to the saline treated rats (ED1: sCR1 1.4 +/- 1.2; CVF 0.5 +/- 0.6; saline 1.7 +/- 1.2; CD11bc: sCR1 1.9 +/- 1.2; CVF 0.9 +/- 1; saline 2.1 +/- 1.2). Our findings suggest that complement depletion by CVF is more effective than complement blockade by sCR1 in reducing the severity of inflammatory peripheral nerve demyelination.

摘要

为了进一步研究补体激活在实验性变态反应性神经炎(EAN)中的作用,将用可溶性补体受体1(sCR1)进行全身补体阻断的效果与用眼镜蛇毒因子(CVF)进行补体耗竭的效果,在以牛周围神经髓鞘免疫的EAN大鼠中进行了比较。与用sCR1治疗的大鼠(n = 9)或生理盐水治疗的大鼠(n = 10)相比,用CVF治疗的EAN大鼠(n = 10)临床评分显著降低(评分:sCR1 0.66±0.7;CVF 0;生理盐水0.6±0.8;均值±标准差)。与仅具有部分作用的sCR1治疗相比,CVF治疗更有效地减轻了炎症和脱髓鞘(炎症:sCR1 1.8±1.4;CVF 0.3±0.7;生理盐水1.9±1.2;脱髓鞘:sCR1 1.3±1;CVF 0.1±0.6;生理盐水1.7±1.2)。在腰骶神经根中,CVF治疗的EAN大鼠中浸润的ED1阳性巨噬细胞和CD11bc(表达补体受体3或CR3)阳性炎性细胞明显较少,而与生理盐水治疗的大鼠相比,sCR1治疗的动物炎症仅有有限的减轻(ED1:sCR1 1.4±1.2;CVF 0.5±0.6;生理盐水1.7±1.2;CD11bc:sCR1 1.9±1.2;CVF 0.9±1;生理盐水2.1±1.2)。我们的研究结果表明,在减轻炎性周围神经脱髓鞘的严重程度方面,CVF进行补体耗竭比sCR1进行补体阻断更有效。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验