66 research outputs found

    The dopamine D1 receptor is expressed and induces CREB phosphorylation and MUC5AC expression in human airway epithelium

    Get PDF
    Background Dopamine receptors comprise two subgroups, Gs protein-coupled “D1-like” receptors (D1, D5) and Gi-coupled “D2-like” receptors (D2, D3, D4). In airways, both dopamine D1 and D2 receptors are expressed on airway smooth muscle and regulate airway smooth muscle force. However, functional expression of the dopamine D1 receptor has never been identified on airway epithelium. Activation of Gs-coupled receptors stimulate adenylyl cyclase leading to cyclic AMP (cAMP) production, which is known to induce mucus overproduction through the cAMP response element binding protein (CREB) in airway epithelial cells. We questioned whether the dopamine D1 receptor is expressed on airway epithelium, and whether it promotes CREB phosphorylation and MUC5AC expression. Methods We evaluated the protein expression of the dopamine D1 receptor on native human airway epithelium and three sources of cultured human airway epithelial cells including primary cultured airway epithelial cells, the bronchial epithelial cell line (16HBE14o-), and the pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma cell line (NCI-H292) using immunohistochemistry and immunoblotting. To characterize the stimulation of cAMP through the dopamine D1 receptor, 16HBE14o- cells and NCI-H292 cells were treated with dopamine or the dopamine D1 receptor agonists (SKF38393 or A68930) before cAMP measurements. The phosphorylation of CREB by A68930 in both 16HBE14o- and NCI-H292 cells was measured by immunoblot. The effect of dopamine or A68930 on the expression of MUC5AC mRNA and protein in NCI-H292 cells was evaluated by real-time PCR and immunofluorescence staining, respectively. Results The dopamine D1 receptor protein was detected in native human airway epithelium and three sources of cultured human airway epithelial cells. Dopamine or the dopamine D1-like receptor agonists stimulated cAMP production in 16HBE14o- cells and NCI-H292 cells, which was reversed by the selective dopamine D1-like receptor antagonists (SCH23390 or SCH39166). A68930 significantly increased phosphorylation of CREB in both 16HBE14o- and NCI-H292 cells, which was attenuated by the inhibitors of PKA (H89) and MEK (U0126). Expression of MUC5AC mRNA and protein were also increased by either dopamine or A68930 in NCI-H292 cells. Conclusions These results suggest that the activation of the dopamine D1 receptor on human airway epithelium could induce mucus overproduction, which could worsen airway obstructive symptoms

    Global series: Complex regional pain syndrome: abstracts from the International Association for the Study of Pain complex regional pain syndrome SIG virtual symposia 2021

    Get PDF
    The aim of this IASP complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) SIG Global Series 2021 was to bring together clinicians including those from developing countries to better understand the clinical presentation of complex regional pain syndrome in countries with less well-published patient populations. The purpose was to learn from each other about the range of treatments, successful outcomes, and challenges experienced. These meeting proceedings comprise abstracts from nine countries that span 4 continents and are summaries of online presentations delivered by speakers representing these countries over the course of 2 symposia. The symposia were attended by a global audience of approximately 360 people. Patients with CRPS were described and treated by clinicians from countries across Asia (Pakistan, Jordan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore), South America (Brazil and Peru), Africa (South Africa), and Europe (Norway). This reflects that CRPS exists across borders, ethnicities, and cultures. These proceedings provide a broader perspective within the international pain community about how we can better understand and treat CRPS across the globe

    A many-analysts approach to the relation between religiosity and well-being

    Get PDF
    The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N=10,535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β=0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β=0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates

    A Many-analysts Approach to the Relation Between Religiosity and Well-being

    Get PDF
    The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N = 10, 535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β = 0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β = 0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates
    corecore