Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28035899›Full record

ArticleeLife2016

Peripherally administered orexin improves survival of mice with endotoxin shock.

Yasuhiro Ogawa, Yoko Irukayama-Tomobe, Nobuyuki Murakoshi, Maiko Kiyama, Yui Ishikawa, Naoto Hosokawa, Hiromu Tominaga, Shuntaro Uchida, Saki Kimura, Mika Kanuka and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The poikilothermic hypothesis of sepsis.Critical care (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yasuhiro OgawaInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Yoko Irukayama-TomobeInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Nobuyuki MurakoshiDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Maiko KiyamaInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Yui IshikawaInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Naoto HosokawaInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Hiromu TominagaInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Shuntaro UchidaInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Saki KimuraDepartment of Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Mika KanukaInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Miho MoritaInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Michito HamadaDepartment of Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Satoru TakahashiDepartment of Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Yu HayashiInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Masashi YanagisawaInternational Institute for Integrative Sleep Medicine (WPI-IIIS), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7358-4022
University of Tsukuba · JPHoward Hughes Medical Institute · US

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response to infection, accounting for the most common cause of death in intensive care units. Here, we report that peripheral administration of the hypothalamic neuropeptide orexin improves the survival of mice with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) induced endotoxin shock, a well-studied septic shock model. The effect is accompanied by a suppression of excessive cytokine production and an increase of catecholamines and corticosterone. We found that peripherally administered orexin penetrates the blood-brain barrier under endotoxin shock, and that central administration of orexin also suppresses the cytokine production and improves the survival, indicating orexin's direct action in the central nervous system (CNS). Orexin helps restore body temperature and potentiates cardiovascular function in LPS-injected mice. Pleiotropic modulation of inflammatory response by orexin through the CNS may constitute a novel therapeutic approach for septic shock.

Indexed as

AnimalsBlood-Brain BarrierBody Temperature RegulationBradycardiaChemokine CCL3Chemokine CCL4Disease Models, AnimalGene Expression RegulationHumansInjections, SubcutaneousInterferon-gammaInterleukin-17LipopolysaccharidesMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLCcl3 protein, mouseCcl4 protein, mouseChemokine CCL3Chemokine CCL4Interferon-gammaInterleukin-17LipopolysaccharidesOrexinsTumor Necrosis Factor-alphacentral nervous systemimmunologymouseneuroscienceorexinsepsis

Identifiers

PMID28035899
PMCPMC5245965
OpenAlexW2565052042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.