4.8 Article

Epigenetic control of intestinal barrier function and inflammation in zebrafish

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1424089112

关键词

inflammation; Uhrf1; DNA methylation; tumor necrosis factor; zebrafish

资金

  1. NIH [DP2 3034656, R01-DK081426, P01-DK094779, 1DP2-OD008614]
  2. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1108132]
  3. Duke Multidisciplinary Fellowship in Pediatric Lung Disease Grant [5T32HL098099-02]
  4. NIH National Research Service Award [F32-DK098885-01A1]
  5. NIH NRSA [F32-DK094592]
  6. March of Dimes Foundation [5-FY12-93]
  7. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - Grand Challenges Explorations Initiative [OPP1108132] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1108132] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intestinal epithelium forms a barrier protecting the organism from microbes and other proinflammatory stimuli. The integrity of this barrier and the proper response to infection requires precise regulation of powerful immune homing signals such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF). Dysregulation of TNF leads to inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), but the mechanism controlling the expression of this potent cytokine and the events that trigger the onset of chronic inflammation are unknown. Here, we show that loss of function of the epigenetic regulator ubiquitin-like protein containing PHD and RING finger domains 1 (uhrf1) in zebrafish leads to a reduction in tnfa promoter methylation and the induction of tnfa expression in intestinal epithelial cells (IECs). The increase in IEC tnfa levels is microbe-dependent and results in IEC shedding and apoptosis, immune cell recruitment, and barrier dysfunction, consistent with chronic inflammation. Importantly, tnfa knockdown in uhrf1 mutants restores IEC morphology, reduces cell shedding, and improves barrier function. We propose that loss of epigenetic repression and TNF induction in the intestinal epithelium can lead to IBD onset.

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