4.8 Article

Aging promotes the development of diet-induced murine steatohepatitis but not steatosis

期刊

HEPATOLOGY
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 995-1004

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/hep.26099

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK061498, AG031782, DK041296, DK020541]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Education [PR2010-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in humans increases with age. It is unknown whether this association is secondary to the increased incidence of risk factors for NAFLD that occurs with aging, reflects the culmination of years of exposure to lifestyle factors such as a high-fat diet (HFD), or results from physiological changes that characterize aging. To examine this question, the development of NAFLD in response to a fixed period of HFD feeding was examined in mice of different ages. Mice aged 2, 8, and 18 months were fed 16 weeks of a low-fat diet or HFD. Increased body mass and insulin insensitivity occurred in response to HFD feeding irrespective of the age of the mice. The amount of HFD-induced hepatic steatosis as determined biochemically and histologically was also equivalent among the three ages. Liver injury occurred exclusively in the two older ages as reflected by increased serum alanine aminotransferase levels, positive terminal deoxynucleotide transferasemediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end-labeling, and caspase activation. Older mice also had an elevated innate immune response with a more pronounced polarization of liver and adipose tissue macrophages into an M1 phenotype. Studies of cultured hepatocytes from young and old mice revealed that aged cells were selectively sensitized to the Fas death pathway. Conclusion: Aging does not promote the development of hepatic steatosis but leads to increased hepatocellular injury and inflammation that may be due in part to sensitization to the Fas death pathway and increased M1 macrophage polarization. (HEPATOLOGY 2013)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据