4.5 Article

Gasdermin D-mediated pyroptosis suppresses liver regeneration after 70% partial hepatectomy

期刊

HEPATOLOGY COMMUNICATIONS
卷 6, 期 9, 页码 2340-2353

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/hep4.1973

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81700551, 81702854]
  2. Key Research & Development Project in Zhejiang Province [2018C03083, 2020C03122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals the significance of GSDMD-mediated pyroptosis in liver regeneration. Blocking pyroptosis by deleting GSDMD reduces liver injury and accelerates liver regeneration. This research provides a foundation for enhancing liver restoration in patients with impaired regenerative capacity by targeting GSDMD.
Pyroptosis is a kind of programmed cell death primarily mediated by gasdermin D (GSDMD) and shown to regulate multiple diseases. However, its contribution to liver regeneration, a fine-tuned tissue repair process mediated primarily by hepatocytes after mass loss, remains unclear. Herein, we found that caspase-11/GSDMD-mediated pyroptosis was activated in regenerating liver after 70% partial hepatectomy. Impeding pyroptosis by deleting GSDMD significantly reduced liver injury and accelerated liver regeneration. Mechanistically, GSDMD deficiency up-regulates the activation of hepatocyte growth factor/c-Met and epidermal growth factor receptor mitogenic pathways at the initiation phase. Moreover, activin A and glypican 3 (GPC3), two terminators of liver regeneration, were inhibited when GSDMD was absent. In vitro study suggested the expressions of activin A and GPC3 were induced by interleukin (IL)-1 beta and IL-18, whose maturations were regulated by GSDMD-mediated pyroptosis. Similarly, pharmacologically inhibiting GSDMD recapitulates these phenomena. Conclusion: This study characterizes the role of GSDMD-mediated pyroptosis in liver regeneration and lays the foundation for enhancing liver restoration by targeting GSDMD in liver patients with impaired regenerative capacity.

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

4.5
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