4.0 Article

Anchoring Hepatic Gene Expression with Development of Fibrosis and Neoplasia in a Toxicant-induced Fish Model of Liver Injury

期刊

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
卷 41, 期 5, 页码 744-760

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0192623312464308

关键词

dimethylnitrosamine; liver; fibrosis; neoplasia; medaka; Oryzias latipes; gene expression

资金

  1. Center for Comparative Medicine and Translational Research at NCSU
  2. Ruth L. Kirschstein national research service award, NCSU's comparative medicine and translational research training program [T32 RR024394]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fish have been used as laboratory models to study hepatic development and carcinogenesis but not for pathogenesis of hepatic fibrosis. In this study, a dimethylnitrosamine-induced fish model of hepatic injury was developed in Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) and gene expression was anchored with the development of hepatic fibrosis and neoplasia. Exposed livers exhibited mild hepatocellular degenerative changes 2 weeks' postexposure. Within 6 weeks, hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis was evident with development of neoplasia by 10 weeks. Stellate cell activation and development of fibrosis was associated with upregulation of transforming growth factor beta 1 (tgfb1), tgfb receptor 2, mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 3 (smad3a), smad3b, beta-catenin (ctnnb1), myc, matrix metalloproteinase (mmp2), mmp14a, mmp14b, tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase (timp) 2a, timp2b, timp3, collagen type I alpha 1a (col1a1a), and col1a1b and a less pronounced increase in mmp13 and col4a1 expression. Tgfb receptor I expression was unchanged. Immunohistochemistry suggested that biliary epithelial cells and stellate cells were the main producers of TGF-1. This study identified a group of candidate genes likely to be involved in the development of hepatic fibrosis and demonstrated that the TGF- pathway likely plays a major role in the pathogenesis. These results support the medaka as a viable fish model of hepatic fibrosis.

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

4.0
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