Why the study?
Does the Ang-(1-7)/Mas axis protect against hypothermia and mortality in mice with LPS-induced endotoxemia?
Does the Ang-(1-7)/Mas axis protect against hypothermia and mortality in mice with LPS-induced endotoxemia?
The Ang-(1-7)/Mas axis protects mice from LPS-induced hypothermia and mortality by inhibiting cytokine production.
Mas deficiency worsens murine endotoxemia outcomes; hypothesis-generating for Ang-(1-7)/Mas modulation in sepsis, no clinical implications yet.
The renin-angiotensin (Ang) system is involved in maintaining cardiovascular function by regulating blood pressure and electrolyte homeostasis. More recently, alternative pathways within the renin-angiotensin system have been described, such as the ACE-2/Ang-(1-7)/Mas axis, with opposite effects to the ones of the ACE/Ang-II/AT1 axis. Correspondingly, our previous work reported that Ang-(1-7) via its receptor Mas inhibits the mRNA expression of the proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-α increased by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in mouse peritoneal macrophages. These data led us to investigate the functional role of the Ang-(1-7)/Mas axis in an in vivo LPS model. In this work, we present evidence that Ang-(1-7) via Mas significantly reduced the LPS-increased production of circulating cytokines, such as IL-6, IL-12, and CXCL-1. This inhibitory effect was mediated by Mas because it was not detectable in Mas-deficient (Mas) mice. Accordingly, IL-6, CXCL-1, and CXCL-2 levels were higher after LPS treatment in the absence of Mas. Mas mice were less resistant to LPS-induced endotoxemia, their survival rate being 50% compared with 95% in wild-type mice. Telemetric analyses showed that Mas mice presented more pronounced LPS-induced hypothermia with a 3°C lower body temperature compared with wild-type mice. Altogether, our findings suggest that Ang-(1-7) and Mas inhibit LPS-induced cytokine production and hypothermia and thereby protect mice from the fatal consequences of endotoxemia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Souza et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: