4.6 Article

Protection against Hepatocyte Mitochondrial Dysfunction Delays Fibrosis Progression in Mice

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 175, 期 5, 页码 1929-1937

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2009.090332

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  2. INCA (National Institute of Cancer), France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accumulating evidence indicates that oxidative stress is involved in the physiopathology of liver fibrogenesis. However, amid the global context of hepatic oxidative stress, the specific role of hepatocyte mitochondrial dysfunction in the fibrogenic process is still unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether a targeted protection of hepatocytes against mitochondrial dysfunction could modulate fibrosis progression. We induced liver fibrogenesis by chronic carbon tetrachloride treatment (3 or 6 weeks of biweekly injections) in transgenic mice expressing Bcl-2 in their hepatocytes or in normal control mice. Analyses of mitochondrial DNA, respiratory chain complexes, and lipid peroxidation showed that Bcl-2 transgenic animals were protected against mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress resulting from carbon tetrachloride injury. Picrosirius red staining, alpha-smooth muscle actin immunohistochemistry, and real-time PCR for transforming growth factor-beta and collagen alpha-I revealed that Bcl-2 transgenic mice presented reduced fibrosis at early stages of fibrogenesis. However, at later stages increased nonmitochondrial/nonhepatocytic oxidative stress eventually overcame the capacity of Bcl-2 overexpression to prevent the fibrotic process. in conclusion, we demonstrate for the first time that specific protection against hepatocyte mitochondrial dysfunction plays a preventive role in early stages of fibrogenesis, delaying its onset. However, with the persistence of the aggression, this protection is no longer sufficient to impede fibrosis progression. (Am J Pathol 2009, 175:1929-1937; DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2009.090332)

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