4.8 Article

Paradoxical effects of short- and long-term interleukin-6 exposure on liver injury and repair

期刊

HEPATOLOGY
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 474-484

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hep.21087

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM-6360301] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [NIDDK 62314] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is an important mediator of liver regeneration and repair that is also elevated in chronic liver diseases, including fatty liver of obesity and cirrhosis. IL-6 has been reported both to delay and accelerate liver regeneration. We examined the effects on liver injury and regeneration of a continuous administration of exogenous IL-6 to mice by injection of an IL-6-expressing CHO-cell line in athymic nude mice and by osmotic mini-pump delivery of recombinant murine IL-6. Short-term IL-6 administration (1-2 days) accelerated early recovery of liver mass, whereas more long-term administration (5-7 days) markedly impaired liver regeneration. Similarly, short-term IL-6 treatment increased hepatic resistance to the lethal effects of the Fas agonist Jo-2, but on more prolonged IL-6 exposure the Jo-2 resistance vanished. IL-6 administration initially induced expression of the anti-apoptotic proteins Bcl-2 and BCI-X-L, correlating with protection against Fas-mediated cell death. More prolonged IL-6 administration, however, resulted in marked induction of the proapoptotic protein Bax. This result coincided with increased activation of the type 11 or intrinsic, mitochondrial path to cell death, manifested by increased caspase-9 activation and increased cytochrome c release after Jo-2 exposure. These data demonstrate that IL-6 can function acutely to improve hepatic regeneration and repair, but that more chronic exposure not only abolishes the protective effects of IL-6, but actually sensitizes the liver to injury and death. In conclusion, elevated IL-6 in certain chronic liver diseases contributes to an increased likelihood of liver failure after 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

4.8
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