4.6 Article

Farnesoid X Receptor Critically Determines the Fibrotic Response in Mice but Is Expressed to a Low Extent in Human Hepatic Stellate Cells and Periductal Myofibroblasts

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 175, 期 6, 页码 2392-2405

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2009.090114

关键词

-

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund FWF [P 18613] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nuclear bile acid receptor, farnesoid X receptor (FXR), may play a pivotal role in liver fibrosis. We tested the impact of genetic FXR ablation in four different mouse models. Hepatic fibrosis was induced in wild-type and FXR knock-out mice (FXR-/-) by CCl4 intoxication, 3,5-diethoxycarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocollidine feeding, common bile duct ligation, or Schistosoma mansoni (S.m.)-infection. In addition, we determined nuclear receptor expression levels (FXR, pregnane X receptor (PXR), vitamin D receptor, constitutive androstane receptor (CAR), small heterodimer partner (SHP)) in mouse hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), portal myofibroblasts (MFBs), and human HSCs. Cell type-specific FXR protein expression was determined by immunohistochemistry in five mouse models and prototypic human fibrotic liver diseases. Expression of nuclear receptors was much lower in mouse and human HSCs/MFBs compared with total liver expression with the exception of vitamin D receptor. FXR protein was undetectable in mouse and human HSCs and MFBs. FXR loss had no effect in CCl4-intoxicated and S. m.-infected mice, but significantly decreased liver fibrosis of the bitiary type (common bile duct ligation, 3,5-diethoxycarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocoUidine). These data suggest that FXR loss significantly reduces fibrosis of the biliary type, but has no impact on non-cholestatic liver fibrosis. Since there is no FXR expression in HSCs and MFBs in liver fibrosis, our data indicate that these cells may not represent direct therapeutic targets for FXR ligands. (Am J Pathol 2009, 175;2392-2405; DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2009.090114)

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