4.7 Article

Dissecting the complement pathway in hepatic injury and regeneration with a novel protective strategy

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 211, 期 9, 页码 1793-1805

出版社

ROCKEFELLER UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1084/jem.20131902

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R56 AI095657, R01 HL86576, R01 HL082485]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81160066, 31370917]
  3. Guangxi Natural Science Foundation [2013GXNSFCA019012]
  4. Science & Technology Planning Project of Guangxi Province [1140003-79]
  5. Science & Technology Planning Project of Guilin City [20110119-1-8]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liver resection is commonly performed under ischemic conditions, resulting in two types of insult to the remnant liver: ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) and loss of liver mass. Complement inhibition is recognized as a potential therapeutic modality for IRI, but early complement activation products are also essential for liver regeneration. We describe a novel site-targeted murine complement inhibitor, CR2-CD59, which specifically inhibits the terminal membrane attack complex (MAC), and we use this protein to investigate the complement-dependent balance between liver injury and regeneration in a clinical setting of pharmacological inhibition. CR2-CD59 did not impact in vivo generation of C3 and C5 activation products but was as effective as the C3 activation inhibitor CR2-Crry at ameliorating hepatic IRI, indicating that the MAC is the principle mediator of hepatic IRI. Furthermore, unlike C3 or C5 inhibition, CR2-CD59 was not only protective but significantly enhanced hepatocyte proliferation after partial hepatectomy, including when combined with ischemia and reperfusion. Remarkably, CR2-CD59 also enhanced regeneration after 90% hepatectomy and improved long-term survival from 0 to 70%. CR2-CD59 functioned by increasing hepatic TNF and IL-6 levels with associated STAT3 and Akt activation, and by preventing mitochondrial depolarization and allowing recovery of ATP stores.

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

4.7
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