4.7 Article

Strong carcinogenic stress response induction of preneoplastic cells positive for GST-P in the rat liver: Physiological mechanism for initiation

Journal

LIFE SCIENCES
Volume 200, Issue -, Pages 42-48

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2018.02.041

Keywords

Initiation; Hepatocarcinogenesis; Glutathione S-transferase; 2-acetylaminofluorene; Vibratome

Funding

  1. Nippon Boehringer-Ingelheim Company (Osaka, Japan)
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [61210002, 60570104, 05807009, 07457579]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [07457579, 05807009, 60570104] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To identify experimental conditions that induce preneoplastic cells positive for glutathione S-transferase P-form (GST-P) in the rat liver by new approaches, and analysis of the mechanism of cancer initiation based on the findings. Main methods: The experimental protocols employed to induce GST-P+ preneoplastic cells in rat liver were as follows. Protocol 1: adult rats were fed basal diet containing 2-acetylaminofluorene (AAF, 0.02% by wt) and high concentrations of N-acetyl-L-cysteine (0.5%) over 10 weeks. Protocol 2: rats were subjected to partial hepatectomy (2/3PH), followed by an AAF (0.04%) diet for two more weeks. Vibratome-prepared liver sections were then immunostained for GST-P. Key findings: GST-P was inducible in the rat liver in response to the strong carcinogenic stress by AAF in the two experimental protocols. When examined immunocytochemically with vibratome sections, the biliary tracts of hepatocytes, GST-P+ single hepatocytes and foci were heavily positive for the marker enzyme in addition to ordinary cytosolic staining of preneoplastic cell populations. The biliary tracts of hepatocytes were severely injured, and the excretory portions of GST-P+ single hepatocytes were significantly injured.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available