黑料网

Antibiotics; Endotoxin-induced inflammation; Nanoparticles; Biocompatibility; Peritoneal macrophages

Introduction

According to these research, biomimetic nanoparticles with numerous cytokine receptors on their membranes may be created using inflammatory cell membranes to reduce the systematic cytokine storm in HLH. Recently, a promising therapeutic platform that inherits the characteristics of donor cells is emerging: cell membranecoated nanoparticles. For instance, compared to polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based nanoparticles, red blood cell (RBC) membranecoated nanoparticles demonstrated favourable biocompatibility and longer circulation time [1]. Additionally, pore-forming poisons, organophosphate poison, and pathogenic antibodies in autoimmune diseases can all be absorbed by RBC membrane-coated nanoparticles, protecting healthy RBCs. Additionally, cytokine absorption and joint damage reduction in inflammatory arthritis have been achieved using neutrophil membrane-coated nanoparticles. By attracting and expelling lipopolysaccharide (LPS), macrophage membrane-coated nanoparticles demonstrated as a detoxifying agent in a sepsis animal model [1,2].

Although many macrophage depletion techniques have shown that macrophages play a crucial role in bone repair, the underlying molecular pathways are not well known. We discovered that the cytokine oncostatin M [OSM or murine (m)OSM] was overexpressed during the early inflammatory phase and that the reduction of macrophages suppressed mOSM expression in this study using a mouse model of tibia injury. By using micro-computed tomography and histology on Osm/Osm mice, we found that there were fewer Osterix+ osteoblastic cells, fewer runt-related transcription factor 2 and alkaline phosphataseexpressing osteoblasts, and significantly less new intramedullar woven bone being formed at the injured site [2,3].

Method

Peritoneal macrophages from primary murine and RAW 264: Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was given orally to cells for 24 hours. LPSinduced macrophage secretion was used to assess the appropriate dose and timing of ciprofloxacin or indomethacin in response to macrophage inflammatory response inflammation [4,5]. The effects of ciprofloxacin and indomethacin on the secretory capabilities and viability of various macrophages were then assessed using flow cytometry and enzyme- linked immunosorbent assay, particularly for the concentrations of interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-10, and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-. By measuring the maximal inhibitory effect of the medicines on proinflammatory variables at each concentration or time point, the ideal ciprofloxacin dose and time course affecting macrophage inflammatory response were identified [3,6].

Result

Within a few hours of a bone injury, the innate immune system is triggered, and the first cells to appear in the inflamed fracture site are platelets, neutrophils, and macrophages. A wide range of inflammatory cytokines, growth factors, and chemokines are then produced in order to promote leukocyte recruitment and to initiate bone healing by activating mesenchymal progenitor cells[7,8]. With the use of the mouse model, we demonstrate that mOSM is a component of this early anabolic cytokine cocktail and plays a significant role in the first stage of bone apposition, or bone modelling, but not in the subsequent remodelling stage. OSM is highly expressed in human shattered bones, according to preliminary findings (data not shown) [9-11].

Conclusion

In vitro, the combination of indomethacin reduced the amount of inflammatory cytokines that macrophages released. The regulating mechanism of medication combinations on innate immune cells that trigger inflammatory reactions is demonstrated in this work. It also offers a novel prospective antibacterial and anti-inflammatory therapeutic approach to avoid and treat future problems.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Messerer D, Halbgebauer R, Nilsson B (2021) . Nat Rev Nephrol 17:91-111.

, ,

2. Glass GE, Chan JK, Freidin A, Feldmann M, Horwood NJ, et al. (2011) . Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:1585-1590.

, ,

3. Alexander KA, Chang MK, Maylin ER, Kohler T, Muller R, et al. (2011) . J Bone Miner Res, 26:1517-1532.

, ,

4. Bauer M, Gerlach H, Vogelmann T (2020) Crit Care 24:239.

, ,

5. Delano MJ, Ward PA (2016) . J Clin Invest 12:623-31.

, ,

6. Scott NA, Andrusaite A, Andersen P (2018) Sci Transl Med 10:e4755.

, ,

7. Guihard P, Danger Y, Brounais B, David E, Brion R, et al. (2012) . Stem Cells 30:762-772.

, ,

8. Biswas SK, Mantovani A. (2010) . Nat Immunol 11:889-96.

, ,

9. Stow JL, Murray RZ. (2013) . Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 24:227-39.

, ,

10. Carswell EA, Old LJ, Kassel RL, Green S, Fiore N, et al. (1975) . Proc Natl Acad Sci 72:3666-70.

, ,

11. Pagan JK, Wylie FG, Joseph S, Widberg C, Bryant NJ, et al. (2003) . Curr Biol 13:156–60.

, ,