3.9 Article

The FoxM1 transcription factor is required to maintain pancreatic β-cell mass

期刊

MOLECULAR ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 1853-1866

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/me.2006-0056

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R56 DK071052-01, U24 DK59637, R01 DK54687-07] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The FoxM1 transcription factor is highly expressed in proliferating cells and activates several cell cycle genes, although its requirement appears to be limited to certain tissue types. Embryonic hepato-blast-specific inactivation of Foxm1 results in a dramatic reduction in liver outgrowth and subsequent late gestation lethality, whereas inactivation of Foxm1 in adult liver impairs regeneration after partial hepatectomy. These results prompted us to examine whether FoxM1 functions similarly in embryonic outgrowth of the pancreas and beta-cell proliferation in the adult. We found that FoxM1 is highly expressed in embryonic and neonatal endocrine cells, when many of these cells are proliferating. Using a Cre-lox strategy, we generated mice in which Foxm1 was inactivated throughout the developing pancreatic endoderm by embryonic d 15.5 (Foxm1(Delta panc)). Mice lacking Foxm1 in their entire pancreas were born with normal pancreatic and beta-cell mass; however, they displayed a gradual decline in beta-cell mass with age. Failure of postnatal beta-cell mass expansion resulted in impaired islet function by 6 wk of age and overt diabetes by 9 wk. The decline in beta-cell mass in Foxm1(Delta panc) animals is due to a dramatic decrease in postnatal beta-cell replication and a corresponding increase in nuclear localization of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, p27(Kip1), a known target of FoxM1 inhibition. We conclude that Foxm1 is essential to maintain normal beta-cell mass and regulate postnatal beta-cell turnover. These results suggest that mechanisms regulating embryonic beta-cell proliferation differ from those used postnatally to maintain the differentiated cell population.

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

3.9
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