Action of reactive oxygen species on colonic mucus secretions

Iain A. Brownlee*, John Knight, Peter W. Dettmar, Jeffrey P. Pearson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) have been implicated in the pathogenesis of many colonic diseases. Mucus is the colon's first line of defence against luminal agents. This study has therefore characterised ROS action on colonic mucus secretions. ROS were produced using peroxide-based systems of different concentrations. The effects of these systems were tested on native colonic mucus gels, isolated colonic mucins, and in vivo models. Colonic mucus gels were resistant to ROS breakdown. Mucins were susceptible to ROS attack, causing loss of terminal sugars and protein and mucin fragmentation. The in vivo thickness of the mucus barrier was reduced by up to 50% by ROS (above 5 mM peroxide). A 5 mM peroxide caused a significant increase in resting mucus thickness of ca. 15%. All ROS-generating systems caused mucosal damage once the loosely adherent mucus had been removed. As native mucus gel is more resistant to ROS damage than purified mucin, nonmucin components of mucus may have extensive ROS-scavenging properties. Low levels of luminal colonic ROS increase the protection afforded by the mucus barrier in vivo. Higher levels of ROS significantly reduce this protection. In vitro modeling of mucus degradation by ROS does not necessarily correlate with the dynamic, in vivo situation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)800-808
Number of pages9
JournalFree Radical Biology and Medicine
Volume43
Issue number5
Early online date24 May 2007
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2007
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Colon
  • Crohn's disease
  • Intravital microscopy
  • Mucin
  • Mucus
  • Reactive oxygen species
  • Rheology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Action of reactive oxygen species on colonic mucus secretions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this