4.6 Article

Microencapsulated hepatocytes and islets as in vivo bioartificial liver support system

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 10, 期 14, 页码 2067-2071

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBL GRP CO LTD
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v10.i14.2067

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Research Fund of Heilongjiang Province [D9746]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To confirm the xenotransplantation of microencapsulated hepatocytes and islets as a temporary bioartificial liver support system for mice with acute liver failure (ALF). METHODS: Mice were rendered ALF by a single intraperitoneal injection of D-galactosamine (D-gal) and their tail blood was sampled to examine differences in blood ALT, albumin (ALB), total bilirubin (TB) and glucose (GLU) between 4 experimental groups. Rat hepatocytes and islets were collected and microencapsulated referring to both Sun's and Fritschy's methods. Mice were grouped into control group (CG), free hepatocyte group (FHG), microencapsulated hepatocyte group (MHG) and microencapsulated hepatocyte plus islet group (HIG). Tissue samples were subjected to microscopic and electron microscopic (EM) examinations. RESULTS: The highest survival was observed in HIG, surprisingly at 100%(16/16), while the lowest was in CG at 12.5%(2/16), with inter-group statistical difference P<0.05. ALT levels revealed no statistical difference between groups but the ALB level of HIG descended by the slightest margin {q=(0.54,0.24, 1.33), P<0.05} at the time when it reached the lowest point in all groups. TB of HIG returned to normal reference range (NRR) statistically sooner than that of others after a fierce elevation. No statistical inter-group difference was observed in GLU levels. Fusion between hepatocytes and beta cells was demonstrated giving rise to theoretical assumptions. CONCLUSION: Hepatocytes to be microencapsulated together with islets should be a preferred in vivo hepatic functional supporting system, which can dramatically prolong survival and improve living status.

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