4.6 Article

Expression of ABCG5 and ABCG8 is required for regulation of biliary cholesterol secretion

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 280, 期 10, 页码 8742-8747

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M411080200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL72304, HL20948] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The major pathway for elimination of cholesterol in mammals is via secretion into bile. Biliary cholesterol secretion is mediated by the ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters ABCG5 (G5) and ABCG8 (G8) and is stimulated by cholesterol and by the non-cholesterol steroids cholate and diosgenin. To define the relationship between G5G8 expression and biliary cholesterol secretion, we measured G5 and G8 mRNA levels and biliary cholesterol concentrations in genetically manipulated mice expressing 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, or 16 copies of the two genes. Biliary cholesterol levels varied directly with G5G8 copy number and hepatic mRNA levels over a > 16-fold range. Thus neither delivery of cholesterol to the transporter nor levels of cholesterol acceptors in bile were limiting under these conditions. In wild-type mice, cholate and diosgenin both increased biliary cholesterol concentrations 2-3-fold. The increase in biliary cholesterol content was dependent on expression of G5 and G8; neither steroid increased biliary cholesterol levels in G5G8(-/-) mice. Cholate treatment was associated with a farnesoid X receptor (FXR)-dependent increase in hepatic mRNA and protein levels of G5 and G8. In contrast to cholate, diosgenin treatment did not affect G5G8 expression. Diosgenin increased the expression of several pregnane X receptor (PXR) target genes and the choleretic effect of diosgenin was reduced by similar to70% in PXR knock-out mice. Thus G5 and G8 are required to modulate biliary cholesterol secretion in response to cholate and diosgenin, but the choleretic effects of these two steroids are mediated by different mechanisms requiring FXR and PXR, respectively.

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