Although mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have demonstrated beneficial effects on experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), preconditioning may be required to potentiate their therapeutic effects. Additionally, administration of cell-free products, such as extracellular vesicles (EVs) obtained from MSC-conditioned media, might be as effective as MSCs. In this study, we comparatively evaluated the effects of MSCs, preconditioned or not with serum collected from mice with pulmonary or extrapulmonary ARDS (ARDSp and ARDSexp, respectively), and the EVs derived from these cells on lung inflammation and remodeling in ARDSp and ARDSexp mice. Administration of MSCs (preconditioned or not), but not their EVs, reduced static lung elastance, interstitial edema, and collagen fiber content in both ARDSp and ARDSexp. Although MSCs and EVs reduced alveolar collapse and neutrophil cell counts in lung tissue, therapeutic responses were superior in mice receiving MSCs, regardless of preconditioning. Despite higher total cell, macrophage, and neutrophil counts in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in ARDSp than ARDSexp, MSCs and EVs (preconditioned or not) led to a similar decrease. In ARDSp, both MSCs and EVs, regardless of preconditioning, reduced levels of tumor necrosis factor- (TNF-) α, interleukin-6, keratinocyte chemoattractant (KC), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and transforming growth factor- (TGF-) β in lung homogenates. In ARDSexp, TNF-α, interleukin-6, and KC levels were reduced by MSCs and EVs, preconditioned or not; only MSCs reduced VEGF levels, while TGF-β levels were similarly increased in ARDSexp treated either with saline, MSCs, or EVs, regardless of preconditioning. In conclusion, MSCs yielded greater overall improvement in ARDS in comparison to EVs derived from the same number of cells and regardless of the preconditioning status. However, the effects of MSCs and EVs differed according to ARDS etiology.
During PSV, PEEP of 5 cmH2O, but not a PEEP of 2 cmH2O, reduced lung damage and inflammatory markers while maintaining epithelial cell integrity.
BackgroundEmphysema is a progressive disease characterized by irreversible airspace enlargement followed by a decline in lung function. It also causes extrapulmonary effects, such as loss of body mass and cor pulmonale, which are associated with shorter survival and worse clinical outcomes. Ghrelin, a growth-hormone secretagogue, stimulates muscle anabolism, has anti-inflammatory effects, promotes vasodilation, and improves cardiac performance. Therefore, we hypothesized that ghrelin might reduce lung inflammation and remodelling as well as improve lung mechanics and cardiac function in experimental emphysema.MethodsForty female C57BL/6 mice were randomly assigned into two main groups: control (C) and emphysema (ELA). In the ELA group (n=20), animals received four intratracheal instillations of pancreatic porcine elastase (PPE) at 1-week intervals. C animals (n=20) received saline alone (50 μL) using the same protocol. Two weeks after the last instillation of saline or PPE, C and ELA animals received ghrelin or saline (n=10/group) intraperitoneally (i.p.) daily, during 3 weeks. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), echocardiography, lung mechanics, histology, and molecular biology were analysed.ResultsIn elastase-induced emphysema, ghrelin treatment decreased alveolar hyperinflation and mean linear intercept, neutrophil infiltration, and collagen fibre content in the alveolar septa and pulmonary vessel wall; increased elastic fibre content; reduced M1-macrophage populations and increased M2 polarization; decreased levels of keratinocyte-derived chemokine (KC, a mouse analogue of interleukin-8), tumour necrosis factor-α, and transforming growth factor-β, but increased interleukin-10 in lung tissue; augmented static lung elastance; reduced arterial pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular hypertrophy on echocardiography; and increased lean mass.ConclusionIn the elastase-induced emphysema model used herein, ghrelin not only reduced lung damage but also improved cardiac function and increased lean mass. These findings should prompt further studies to evaluate ghrelin as a potential therapy for emphysema.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-017-0668-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundIn patients with emphysema, invasive mechanical ventilation settings should be adjusted to minimize hyperinflation while reducing respiratory effort and providing adequate gas exchange. We evaluated the impact of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and pressure support ventilation (PSV) on pulmonary and diaphragmatic damage, as well as cardiac function, in experimental emphysema.MethodsEmphysema was induced by intratracheal instillation of porcine pancreatic elastase in Wistar rats, once weekly for 4 weeks. Control animals received saline under the same protocol. Eight weeks after first instillation, control and emphysema rats were randomly assigned to PCV (n = 6/each) or PSV (n = 6/each) under protective tidal volume (6 ml/kg) for 4 h. Non-ventilated control and emphysema animals (n = 6/group) were used to characterize the model and for molecular biology analysis. Cardiorespiratory function, lung histology, diaphragm ultrastructure alterations, extracellular matrix organization, diaphragmatic proteolysis, and biological markers associated with pulmonary inflammation, alveolar stretch, and epithelial and endothelial cell damage were assessed.ResultsEmphysema animals exhibited cardiorespiratory changes that resemble human emphysema, such as increased areas of lung hyperinflation, pulmonary amphiregulin expression, and diaphragmatic injury. In emphysema animals, PSV compared to PCV yielded: no changes in gas exchange; decreased mean transpulmonary pressure (Pmean,L), ratio between inspiratory and total time (Ti/Ttot), lung hyperinflation, and amphiregulin expression in lung; increased ratio of pulmonary artery acceleration time to pulmonary artery ejection time, suggesting reduced right ventricular afterload; and increased ultrastructural damage to the diaphragm. Amphiregulin correlated with Pmean,L (r = 0.99, p < 0.0001) and hyperinflation (r = 0.70, p = 0.043), whereas Ti/Ttot correlated with hyperinflation (r = 0.81, p = 0.002) and Pmean,L (r = 0.60, p = 0.04).ConclusionsIn the model of elastase-induced emphysema used herein, PSV reduced lung damage and improved cardiac function when compared to PCV, but worsened diaphragmatic injury.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40635-016-0107-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that a time-controlled adaptive ventilation strategy would open and stabilize alveoli by controlling inspiratory and expiratory duration. Time-controlled adaptive ventilation was compared with volume-controlled ventilation at the same levels of mean airway pressure and positive end-release pressure (time-controlled adaptive ventilation)/positive end-expiratory pressure (volume-controlled ventilation) in a Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced pneumonia model. DESIGN: Animal study. SETTING: Laboratory investigation. SUBJECTS: Twenty-one Wistar rats. INTERVENTIONS: Twenty-four hours after pneumonia induction, Wistar rats (n = 7) were ventilated with time-controlled adaptive ventilation (tidal volume = 8 mL/kg, airway pressure release ventilation for a Thigh = 0.75–0.85 s, release pressure (Plow) set at 0 cm H2O, and generating a positive end-release pressure = 1.6 cm H2O applied for Tlow = 0.11–0.14 s). The expiratory flow was terminated at 75% of the expiratory flow peak. An additional 14 animals were ventilated using volume-controlled ventilation, maintaining similar time-controlled adaptive ventilation levels of positive end-release pressure (positive end-expiratory pressure=1.6 cm H2O) and mean airway pressure = 10 cm H2O. Additional nonventilated animals (n = 7) were used for analysis of molecular biology markers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After 1 hour of mechanical ventilation, the heterogeneity score, the expression of pro-inflammatory biomarkers interleukin-6 and cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant-1 in lung tissue were significantly lower in the time-controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure groups (p = 0.008, p = 0.011, and p = 0.011, respectively). Epithelial cell integrity, measured by E-cadherin tissue expression, was higher in time-controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure (p = 0.004). Time-controlled adaptive ventilation animals had bacteremia counts lower than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure animals, while time-controlled adaptive ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation with similar positive end-release pressure animals had similar colony-forming unit counts. In addition, lung edema and cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant-1 gene expression were more reduced in time-controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar positive end-release pressure groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the model of pneumonia used herein, at the same tidal volume and mean airway pressure, time-controlled adaptive ventilation, compared with volume-controlled ventilation, was associated with less lung damage and bacteremia and reduced gene expression of mediators associated with inflammation.
Although bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSCs) from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) appear to be phenotypically and functionally similar to BM-MSCs from healthy sources in vitro, the impact of COPD on MSC metabolism and mitochondrial function has not been evaluated. In this study, we aimed to comparatively characterize MSCs from healthy and emphysematous donors (H-MSCs and E-MSCs) in vitro and to assess the therapeutic potential of these MSCs and their extracellular vesicles (H-EVs and E-EVs) in an in vivo model of severe emphysema. For this purpose, C57BL/6 mice received intratracheal porcine pancreatic elastase once weekly for 4 weeks to induce emphysema; control animals received saline under the same protocol. Twenty-four hours after the last instillation, animals received saline, H-MSCs, E-MSCs, H-EVs, or E-EVs intravenously. In vitro characterization demonstrated that E-MSCs present downregulation of anti-inflammatory (TSG-6, VEGF, TGF-β, and HGF) and anti-oxidant (CAT, SOD, Nrf2, and GSH) genes, and their EVs had larger median diameter and lower average concentration. Compared with H-MSC, E-MSC mitochondria also exhibited a higher respiration rate, were morphologically elongated, expressed less dynamin-related protein-1, and produced more superoxide. When co-cultured with alveolar macrophages, both H-MSCs and E-MSCs induced an increase in iNOS and arginase-1 levels, but only H-MSCs and their EVs were able to enhance IL-10 levels. In vivo, emphysematous mice treated with E-MSCs or E-EVs demonstrated no amelioration in cardiorespiratory dysfunction. On the other hand, H-EVs, but not H-MSCs, were able to reduce the neutrophil count, the mean linear intercept, and IL-1β and TGF-β levels in lung tissue, as well as reduce pulmonary arterial hypertension and increase the right ventricular area in a murine model of elastase-induced severe emphysema. In conclusion, E-MSCs and E-EVs were unable to reverse cardiorespiratory dysfunction, whereas H-EVs administration was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular and respiratory damage in experimental severe emphysema.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.