4.6 Article

A rat model reproducing key pathological responses of alcoholic chronic pancreatitis

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.00006.2007

关键词

ethanol; inflammatory response; pancreatic stellate cells; cerulein; cyclosporin A

资金

  1. PHS HHS [P50-A11999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although alcohol abuse is the major cause of chronic pancreatitis, the pathogenesis of alcoholic chronic pancreatitis (ACP) remains obscure. A critical obstacle to understanding the mechanism of ACP is lack of animal models. Our objective was to develop one such model. Rats were pair-fed for 8 wk ethanol or control Lieber-DeCarli liquid diet. For the last 2 wk, they received cyclosporin A (CsA; 20 mg/kg once daily) or vehicle. After 1 wk on CsA, one episode of acute pancreatitis was induced by four 20 mu g/kg injections of cerulein (Cer); controls received saline. Pancreas was analyzed 1 wk after the acute pancreatitis. CsA or Cer treatments alone did not result in pancreatic injury in either control (C)- or ethanol (E)- fed rats. We found, however, that alcohol dramatically aggravated pathological effect of the combined CsA+Cer treatment on pancreas, resulting in massive loss of acinar cells, persistent inflammatory infiltration, and fibrosis. Macrophages were prominent in the inflammatory infiltrate. Compared with control-fed C+CsA+Cer rats, their ethanol-fed E + CsA + Cer counterparts showed marked increases in pancreatic NF-kappa B activation and cytokine/ chemokine mRNA expression, collagen and fibronectin, the expression and activities of matrix metalloproteinase-2 and - 9, and activation of pancreatic stellate cells. Thus we have developed a model of alcohol-mediated postacute pancreatitis that reproduces three key responses of human ACP: loss of parenchyma, sustained inflammation, and fibrosis. The results indicate that alcohol impairs recovery from acute pancreatitis, suggesting a mechanism by which alcohol sensitizes pancreas to chronic injury.

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