4.4 Article

Immunohistochemical distribution of activated nuclear factor κB and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in carbon tetrachloride-induced chronic liver injury in rats

期刊

HISTOCHEMISTRY AND CELL BIOLOGY
卷 123, 期 6, 页码 585-593

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00418-005-0785-2

关键词

NF-kappa B (NF-kappa B); peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs); carbon tetrachloride (CCl4); rat; liver immunohistochemistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the immunohistochemical distribution of active NF-kappa B p65 and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ( PPAR) subtypes alpha and gamma in the different phases of liver steatonecrosis and cirrhosis induced in rats after 3 and 9 weeks of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) intoxication. CCl4 treatment can induce changes in the expression of NF-kappa B and PPARs. Immunohistochemical analysis of liver tissue sections from rats with steatonecrosis or cirrhosis demonstrated a significant increase in the number of NF-kappa B- positive and TNF-alpha-positive hepatocytes and Kupffer cells. In healthy controls, no expression of active NF-kappa B was detected. In previous studies, we have demonstrated that Kupffer cells isolated from rats with CCl4-induced steatonecrosis produced more reactive oxygen intermediates than cells isolated from normal rats. These oxidants could activate NF-kappa B and lead to an overexpression of TNF-alpha, observed in liver tissue sections. After CCl4 ingestion, the rat livers demonstrated a significantly decreased number of hepatocytes expressing PPAR alpha and PPAR gamma and a significantly increased number of ED2-positive Kupffer cells expressing these transcription factors, compared to normal. The activation of the p65 isoform of NF-kappa B correlates negatively with transcription of the alpha and gamma isoforms of PPAR in hepatocytes, and positively in Kupffer cells. These results suggest that the regulation and the role of these two transcription factors differ in the two cell types studied.

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

4.4
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