3.9 Article

Deficiency in Galectin-3 Promotes Hepatic Injury in CDAA Diet-Induced Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

期刊

SCIENTIFIC WORLD JOURNAL
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 1-9

出版社

HINDAWI PUBLISHING CORPORATION
DOI: 10.1100/2012/959824

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture [16790223, 18590324]
  2. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  3. 21st century COE program in Japan
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16790223, 18590324] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasingly recognized as a condition in which excess fat accumulates in hepatocytes. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), a severe form of NAFLD in which inflammation and fibrosis in the liver are noted, may eventually progress to end-stage liver disease. Galectin-3, a beta-galactoside-binding animal lectin, is a multifunctional protein. This protein is involved in inflammatory responses and carcinogenesis. We investigated whether galectin-3 is involved in the development of NASH by comparing galectin-3 knockout (gal3(-/-)) mice and wild-type (gal3(+/+)) mice with choline-deficient L-amino-acid-defined (CDAA) diet-induced NAFLD/NASH. Hepatic injury was significantly more severe in the gal3(-/-) male mice, as compared to the gal(3+/+) mice. Data generated by microarray analysis of gene expression suggested that galectin-3 deficiency causes alterations in the expression of various genes associated with carcinogenesis and lipid metabolism. Through canonical pathway analysis, involvement of PDGF and IL-6 signaling pathways was suggested in galectin-3 deficiency. Significant increase of CD14, Fos, and Jun, those that were related to lipopolysaccharide-mediated signaling, was candidate to promote hepatocellular damages in galectin-3 deficiency. In conclusion, galectin-3 deficiency in CDAA diet promotes NAFLD features. It may be caused by alterations in the expression profiles of various hepatic genes including lipopolysaccharide-mediated inflammation.

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

3.9
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