4.8 Review

Macrophages in the Aging Liver and Age-Related Liver Disease

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02795

关键词

Kupffer cell; monocyte-derived macrophage; chronic liver disease; inflammation; fibrosis; senescence; mitochondria

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [T32-EB001026, F31 DK112633, R01 AG055564]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The number of individuals aged 65 or older is projected to increase globally from 524 million in 2010 to nearly 1. 5 billion in 2050. Aged individuals are particularly at risk for developing chronic illness, while being less able to regenerate healthy tissue and tolerate whole organ transplantation procedures. In the liver, these age-related diseases include non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis, fibrosis, and cirrhosis. Hepatic macrophages, a population comprised of both Kupffer cells and infiltrating monocyte derived macrophages, are implicated in several chronic liver diseases and also play important roles in the homeostatic functions of the liver. The effects of aging on hepatic macrophage population dynamics, polarization, and function are not well understood. Studies performed on macrophages derived from other aged sources, such as the bone marrow, peritoneal cavity, lungs, and brain, demonstrate general reductions in autophagy and phagocytosis, dysfunction in cytokine signaling, and altered morphology and distribution, likely mediated by epigenetic changes and mitochondrial defects, that may be applicable to hepatic macrophages. This review highlights recent findings in macrophage developmental biology and function, particularly in the liver, and discusses the role of macrophages in various age-related liver diseases. A better understanding of the biology of aging that influences hepatic macrophages and thus the progression of chronic liver disease will be crucial in order to develop new interventions and treatments for liver disease in aging populations.

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