4.8 Article

Increased hepatotoxicity of tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand in diseased human liver

期刊

HEPATOLOGY
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 1498-1508

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hep.21846

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [MC_U132685863, MC_U132615750] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U132615750, MC_U132685863] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U132685863, MC_U132615750] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) induces apoptosis in tumor cells but not in most normal cells and has therefore been proposed as a promising antitumor agent. Recent experiments suggested that isolated primary human hepatocytes but not monkey liver cells are susceptible to certain TRAIL agonists, raising concerns about the use of TRAIL in cancer treatment. Whether TRAIL indeed exerts hepatotoxicity in vivo and how this is influenced by chemotherapeutic drugs or liver disease are completely unknown. Employing different forms of recombinant TRAIL, we found that the cytokine can induce proapoptotic caspase activity in isolated human hepatocytes. However in marked contrast, these different TRAIL preparations induced little or no cytotoxicity when incubated with tissue explants of fresh healthy liver, an experimental model that may more faithfully mimic the in vivo situation. In healthy liver, TRAIL induced apoptosis only when combined with histone deacetylase inhibitors. Strikingly, however, TRAIL alone triggered massive apoptosis accompanied by caspase activation in tissue explants from patients with liver steatosis or hepatitis C viral infection. This enhanced sensitivity of diseased liver was associated with an increased expression of TRAIL receptors and up-regulation of proapoptotic Bcl-2 proteins. Conclusions: These results suggest that clinical trials should be performed with great caution when TRAIL is combined with chemotherapy or administered to patients with inflammatory liver diseases.

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

4.8
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