4.6 Article

Blockade of the receptor for advanced glycation end products attenuates acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity in mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 682-688

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04225.x

关键词

acetaminophen; cytokines; hepatotoxicity; mice; receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: Severe injury to the liver, such as that induced by toxic doses of acetaminophen, triggers a cascade of events leading to hepatocyte death. It is hypothesized that activation of the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) might contribute to acetaminophen-induced liver toxicity by virtue of its ability to generate reactive oxygen species, at least in part via nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase, and thereby activate downstream signaling pathways leading to cellular injury. Methods: A model was employed in which toxic doses of acetaminophen (1125 mg/kg) were administered to C57BL/6 mice. To block RAGE, mice received murine soluble (s) RAGE, the extracellular ligand binding domain of the receptor that acts as a decoy to interrupt ligand-RAGE signaling. Results: Animals treated with sRAGE displayed increased survival compared with vehicle treatment, and markedly decreased hepatic necrosis. Consistent with an important role for RAGE-triggered oxidant stress in acetaminophen-induced injury, a significant reduction of nitrotyrosine protein adducts was observed in hepatic tissue in sRAGE-treated versus vehicle-treated mice receiving acetaminophen, in parallel with significantly increased levels of glutathione. In addition, pro-regenerative cytokines tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 were increased in sRAGE-treated versus vehicle-treated mice. Conclusion: These findings implicate RAGE-dependent mechanisms in acetaminophen-induced liver damage and suggest that blockade of this pathway may impart beneficial effects in toxin-induced liver 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