4.6 Article

The xanthine oxidase inhibitor febuxostat suppresses development of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in a rodent model

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.00443.2014

关键词

uric acid; nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; xanthine oxidase inhibitor; hyperuricemia; febuxostat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Xanthine oxidase (XO) is an enzyme involved in the production of uric acid (UA) from purine nucleotides. Numerous recent studies have revealed the likelihood of metabolic syndrome including nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) or steatohepatitis (NASH) to be related to hyperuricemia. However, it remains unclear whether elevated serum UA during the development of NAFLD or NASH is a cause or a consequence of these diseases. In this study, the XO inhibitor febuxostat was administered to two types of NASH model mice. Febuxostat exerted a strong protective effect against NASH development induced by a high-fat diet containing trans fatty acid (HFDT). In contrast, methionine choline-deficient-diet-induced NASH development not accompanied by hyperuricemia showed no UA normalization, suggesting that the ameliorating effect of febuxostat occurs via the normalization of hyperuricemia itself and/or accompanying molecular mechanism(s) such as oxidative stress. In the HFDT-fed mice, hyperuricemia, elevated alanine aminotransferase, and increased Tunnel-positive cells in the liver were normalized by febuxostat administration. In addition, upregulation of fatty acid oxidation-related genes, fibrotic change, and increases in collagen deposition, inflammatory cytokine expressions, and lipid peroxidation in the HFDT-fed mice were also normalized by febuxostat administration. Taken together, these observations indicate that administration of febuxostat has a protective effect against HFDT-induced NASH development, suggesting the importance of XO in its pathogenesis. Thus XO inhibitors are potentially potent therapies for patients with NASH, particularly that associated with hyperuricemia.

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

4.6
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