Effects of different ischemic preconditioning strategies on physiological and cellular mechanisms of intestinal ischemia/reperfusion injury: Implication from an isolated perfused rat small intestine model.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
06
01
2021
accepted:
19
08
2021
entrez:
3
9
2021
pubmed:
4
9
2021
medline:
23
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Intestinal ischemia/reperfusion (I/R)-injury often results in sepsis and organ failure and is of major importance in the clinic. A potential strategy to reduce I/R-injury is the application of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) during which repeated, brief episodes of I/R are applied. The aim of this study was to evaluate physiological and cellular effects of intestinal I/R-injury and to compare the influence of in-vivo IPC (iIPC) with ex-vivo IPC (eIPC), in which blood derived factors and nerval regulations are excluded. Using an established perfused rat intestine model, effects of iIPC and eIPC on physiological as well as cellular mechanisms of I/R-injury (60 min hypoxia, 30 min reperfusion) were investigated. iIPC was applied by three reversible occlusions of the mesenteric artery in-vivo for 5 min followed by 5 min of reperfusion before isolating the small intestine, eIPC was induced by stopping the vascular perfusion ex-vivo 3 times for 5 min followed by 5 min of reperfusion after isolation of the intestine. Study groups (each N = 8-9 animals) were: iIPC, eIPC, I/R (iIPC group), I/R (eIPC group), iIPC+I/R, eIPC+I/R, no intervention/control (iIPC group), no intervention/control (eIPC group). Tissue morphology/damage, metabolic functions, fluid shifts and barrier permeability were evaluated. Cellular mechanisms were investigated using signaling arrays. I/R-injury decreased intestinal galactose uptake (iIPC group: p<0.001), increased vascular perfusion pressure (iIPC group: p<0.001; eIPC group: p<0.01) and attenuated venous flow (iIPC group: p<0.05) while lactate-to-pyruvate ratio (iIPC group, eIPC group: p<0.001), luminal flow (iIPC group: p<0.001; eIPC group: p<0.05), goblet cell ratio (iIPC group, eIPC group: p<0.001) and apoptosis (iIPC group, eIPC group: p<0.05) were all increased. Application of iIPC prior to I/R increased vascular galactose uptake (P<0.05) while eIPC had no significant impact on parameters of I/R-injury. On cellular level, I/R-injury resulted in a reduction of the phosphorylation of several MAPK signaling molecules. Application of iIPC prior to I/R increased phosphorylation of JNK2 and p38δ while eIPC enhanced CREB and GSK-3α/β phosphorylation. Intestinal I/R-injury is associated with major physiological and cellular changes. However, the overall influence of the two different IPC strategies on the acute phase of intestinal I/R-injury is rather limited.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Intestinal ischemia/reperfusion (I/R)-injury often results in sepsis and organ failure and is of major importance in the clinic. A potential strategy to reduce I/R-injury is the application of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) during which repeated, brief episodes of I/R are applied. The aim of this study was to evaluate physiological and cellular effects of intestinal I/R-injury and to compare the influence of in-vivo IPC (iIPC) with ex-vivo IPC (eIPC), in which blood derived factors and nerval regulations are excluded.
METHODS
Using an established perfused rat intestine model, effects of iIPC and eIPC on physiological as well as cellular mechanisms of I/R-injury (60 min hypoxia, 30 min reperfusion) were investigated. iIPC was applied by three reversible occlusions of the mesenteric artery in-vivo for 5 min followed by 5 min of reperfusion before isolating the small intestine, eIPC was induced by stopping the vascular perfusion ex-vivo 3 times for 5 min followed by 5 min of reperfusion after isolation of the intestine. Study groups (each N = 8-9 animals) were: iIPC, eIPC, I/R (iIPC group), I/R (eIPC group), iIPC+I/R, eIPC+I/R, no intervention/control (iIPC group), no intervention/control (eIPC group). Tissue morphology/damage, metabolic functions, fluid shifts and barrier permeability were evaluated. Cellular mechanisms were investigated using signaling arrays.
RESULTS
I/R-injury decreased intestinal galactose uptake (iIPC group: p<0.001), increased vascular perfusion pressure (iIPC group: p<0.001; eIPC group: p<0.01) and attenuated venous flow (iIPC group: p<0.05) while lactate-to-pyruvate ratio (iIPC group, eIPC group: p<0.001), luminal flow (iIPC group: p<0.001; eIPC group: p<0.05), goblet cell ratio (iIPC group, eIPC group: p<0.001) and apoptosis (iIPC group, eIPC group: p<0.05) were all increased. Application of iIPC prior to I/R increased vascular galactose uptake (P<0.05) while eIPC had no significant impact on parameters of I/R-injury. On cellular level, I/R-injury resulted in a reduction of the phosphorylation of several MAPK signaling molecules. Application of iIPC prior to I/R increased phosphorylation of JNK2 and p38δ while eIPC enhanced CREB and GSK-3α/β phosphorylation.
CONCLUSION
Intestinal I/R-injury is associated with major physiological and cellular changes. However, the overall influence of the two different IPC strategies on the acute phase of intestinal I/R-injury is rather limited.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34478453
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256957
pii: PONE-D-21-00350
pmc: PMC8415612
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0256957Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Mol Histol. 2012 Apr;43(2):171-8
pubmed: 22350813
Surg Today. 2005;35(3):185-95
pubmed: 15772787
Cardiovasc Res. 2008 Aug 1;79(3):377-86
pubmed: 18456674
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018 Jun;32(3):1243-1247
pubmed: 29429928
Ann Thorac Surg. 2003 Feb;75(2):S644-8
pubmed: 12607706
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013 Dec;68(12):1548-54
pubmed: 24473514
Atherosclerosis. 2009 Jun;204(2):334-41
pubmed: 19081095
Exp Cell Res. 2014 Mar 10;322(1):62-70
pubmed: 24394542
Shock. 2002 Nov;18(5):476-80
pubmed: 12412630
J Biol Chem. 1995 Mar 31;270(13):7420-6
pubmed: 7535770
Transplantation. 2006 May 15;81(9):1325-30
pubmed: 16699462
Shock. 2009 Aug;32(2):210-6
pubmed: 19060788
Neurosci Lett. 2000 Jun 23;287(2):113-6
pubmed: 10854725
Ann Surg. 2008 Jun;247(6):929-37
pubmed: 18520219
Mol Med. 2012 Feb 10;18:29-37
pubmed: 22009279
Dig Dis Sci. 2010 Jul;55(7):1866-77
pubmed: 19779973
Am J Physiol. 1995 Oct;269(4 Pt 1):G524-31
pubmed: 7485504
Free Radic Res. 2009 May;43(5):478-84
pubmed: 19353364
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 17;7(1):13382
pubmed: 29042668
Stain Technol. 1948 Jul;23(3):99-108
pubmed: 18867618
Circ Res. 1998 Aug 24;83(4):345-52
pubmed: 9721691
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004 Apr;286(4):G580-7
pubmed: 15010362
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 23;10(3):e0121497
pubmed: 25799493
J Transl Med. 2016 Feb 27;14:60
pubmed: 26920368
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 Aug;158(2):444-51
pubmed: 9700119
Transplant Proc. 2012 Oct;44(8):2304-8
pubmed: 23026580
Surgery. 1971 Nov;70(5):693-702
pubmed: 4399244
Gut. 2020 Oct;69(10):1888-1890
pubmed: 31666293
Shock. 2003 Jul;20(1):91-6
pubmed: 12813375
J Transl Med. 2019 Apr 29;17(1):136
pubmed: 31036020
Dig Dis Sci. 2002 Mar;47(3):590-601
pubmed: 11911348
Lab Invest. 2011 Feb;91(2):294-309
pubmed: 20975661
N Engl J Med. 2007 Sep 13;357(11):1121-35
pubmed: 17855673
Shock. 2005 Mar;23(3):258-63
pubmed: 15718925
Ann Thorac Surg. 1999 Nov;68(5):1905-12
pubmed: 10585102
World J Surg. 1996 May;20(4):411-7
pubmed: 8662128
Nat Commun. 2020 Oct 2;11(1):4950
pubmed: 33009377
Kidney Int. 2004 Aug;66(2):528-31
pubmed: 15253703
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2003 Dec;17(6):943-56
pubmed: 14642859
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2010 Feb;298(2):G304-13
pubmed: 19910525
Pediatr Surg Int. 2020 Dec;36(12):1437-1442
pubmed: 33068141