« Previous
Next »
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 116, Issue 1
, Pages
65-72
, July 2005
Modulation of GM-CSF release by enantiomers of β-agonists in human airway smooth muscle
-
GM-CSF release with enantiomers and propranolol (10 μmol/L; hatched bars) relative to control (dashed line; [enantiomer]
=
0). (R)-albuterol (n
=
6), (S)-albuterol (n
=
4), (R)-
+
(S)-albuterol (n
=
4), (R,R)-fGM-CSF release with enantiomers and propranolol (10 μmol/L; hatched bars) relative to control (dashed line; [enantiomer]
=
0). (R)-albuterol (n
=
6), (S)-albuterol (n
=
4), (R)-
+
(S)-albuterol (n
=
4), (R,R)-formoterol (n
=
6), (S,S)-formoterol (n
=
4), or (R,R)-
+
(S,S)-formoterol (n
=
4). Symbols indicate P < .05 for comparison versus ∗respective control, +respective enantiomer at same concentration, ∧respective (R)-enantiomer at same concentration, and #(R)-albuterol at same concentration. -
A, GM-CSF release by HASMC with propranolol (○) and ICI-118,511 (•). ∗P < .05 compared with control (0 μmol/L propranolol=467 pg/mL ± 4 pg/mL; 0 μmol/L ICI-118,551=1079 pg/mL ± 28 pg/mL); n=5 experimeA, GM-CSF release by HASMC with propranolol (○) and ICI-118,511 (•). ∗P < .05 compared with control (0 μmol/L propranolol
=
467 pg/mL ± 4 pg/mL; 0 μmol/L ICI-118,551
=
1079 pg/mL ± 28 pg/mL); n
=
5 experiments per concentration. B, Intracellular cAMP levels in HASMC with propranolol (n
=
2) and ICI-118,551 (n
=
4); significance as in A; mean baseline cAMP
=
1.9 pmol/mL ± 0.1 pmol/mL. -
Propranolol concentration and GM-CSF release response relationship versus single concentration (10 μmol/L) of either (R)-albuterol (left) or (R,R)-formoterol (right) in HASMC. Symbols indicate P < .05Propranolol concentration and GM-CSF release response relationship versus single concentration (10 μmol/L) of either (R)-albuterol (left) or (R,R)-formoterol (right) in HASMC. Symbols indicate P < .05 for comparison versus∗ respective control (0 μmol/L propranolol), ∧(R)-albuterol at same concentration; n
=
5 experiments/bar. -
Intracellular cAMP with increasing (R)-albuterol alone (□; n=2) and with increasing (R)-albuterol plus propranolol (•; 0 μmol/L or 10 μmol/L; n=2), expressed as a function of baseline intracellular cAIntracellular cAMP with increasing (R)-albuterol alone (□; n
=
2) and with increasing (R)-albuterol plus propranolol (•; 0 μmol/L or 10 μmol/L; n
=
2), expressed as a function of baseline intracellular cAMP in HASMC with no drugs added (horizontal dashed line; 1.2 pmol/mL ± 0.4 pmol/mL). -
GM-CSF release with dibutyryl cAMP alone (•) and with dibutyryl cAMP plus propranolol (○; 100 μmol/L),∗P < .05; versus 0 μmol/L dibutyryl cAMP, †P < .05; versus dibutyryl cAMP alone at same concentratGM-CSF release with dibutyryl cAMP alone (•) and with dibutyryl cAMP plus propranolol (○; 100 μmol/L),∗P < .05; versus 0 μmol/L dibutyryl cAMP, †P < .05; versus dibutyryl cAMP alone at same concentration; r2
>
.99 for regression of both data sets; horizontal dashed line indicates control GM-CSF release with 0 μmol/L dibutyryl cAMP (1672 pg/mL ± 22 pg/mL); n
=
5 experiments per set. -
Effects of dexamethasone (Dex) in combination with enantiomers. GM-CSF expressed as ratios relative to –Dex, 0 enantiomer control (range: 1800-2700 pg/mL); percentage change values as shown. ∗P < .05Effects of dexamethasone (Dex) in combination with enantiomers. GM-CSF expressed as ratios relative to –Dex, 0 enantiomer control (range: 1800-2700 pg/mL); percentage change values as shown. ∗P < .05 vs –Dex, 0 agonist (no drugs) control; +P < .05 vs –Dex, 10 μmol/L agonist; ∧P < .05 vs +Dex, 0 agonist; n
=
4-10 experiments/bar.
Supported by the American Respiratory Alliance of Western Pennsylvania and Sepracor, Inc.Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: Bill Ameredes and William Calhoun have consultant arrangements with Sepracor, Inc, receive grant/research support from Sepracor, Inc, and are on the speakers' bureau for Sepracor, Inc.
PII: S0091-6749(05)00526-9
doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2005.03.007
© 2005 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
« Previous
Next »
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 116, Issue 1
, Pages
65-72
, July 2005
