4.3 Article

Glycogen Content in Hepatocytes is Related with Their Size in Normal Rat Liver but Not in Cirrhotic One

期刊

CYTOMETRY PART A
卷 89A, 期 4, 页码 357-364

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.22811

关键词

hepatocytes; glycogen; dry weight of hepatocytes; ploidy; liver cirrhosis

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [14-50-00068]
  2. Federal Agency of Scientific Organizations (Russia)
  3. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [14-04-32378, 14-04-00730 RFBR]
  4. Russian Science Foundation [14-50-00068] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatocytes differ from one another by the degree of the ploidy, size, position in the liver lobule, and level of the DNA-synthetic processes. It is believed, that the cell size exerts substantial influence on the metabolism of the hepatocytes and the glycogen content in them. The aim of the present study was to test this hypothesis. Methods: Dry weight of hepatocytes, their ploidy and glycogen content were determined in the normal and the cirrhotic rat liver. Liver cirrhosis in rats was produced by chronic inhalation of CCl4 vapours in the course of 6 months. A combined cytophotometric method was used. Dry weight of the cell, its glycogen and DNA content were successively measured on a mapped preparation. Result: Hepatocytes of each ploidy class in the normal and the cirrhotic rat liver accumulated glycogen at the same rate. In the normal liver, there was a distinct correlation between the size of hepatocytes and glycogen content in them. This correlation was observed in each ploidy class, and was especially pronounced in the class of mononucleate tetraploid hepatocytes. In the cirrhotic liver, there was no correlation between the size of the cells and their glycogen content. Conclusions: The impairment of liver lobular structure probably explains the observed lack of correlation between hepatocyte size and their glycogen content in the cirrhotic liver. (C) 2016 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry

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

4.3
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