4.3 Article

Mice with targeted disruption of p8 gene show increased sensitivity to lipopolysaccharide and DNA microarray analysis of livers reveals an aberrant gene expression response -: art. no. 25

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-3-25

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: p8 is a DNA-binding protein induced in many tissues in response to LPS treatment. Hence, p8 could be a mediator of LPS-associated effects or, on the contrary, p8 expression may be part of the protective mechanism of the tissues in response to LPS. Finally, p8 expression in response to LPS could also be a simple epiphenomenon. Methods: To investigate the role of p8 in vivo, we generated p8-deficient mice by gene targeting. Because p8 is a stress protein, we analyzed the response of p8(-/-) mice to a systemic stress induced by LPS injection. Liver was chosen as model organ to monitor alterations in gene expression. Results: LPS resulted in higher serum TNF-alpha concentration and higher mortality rate in p8-deficient mice than in wild-type. Also, liver and pancreas, but not lung, from p8-/- mice showed increased amounts of MPO and HPO. To gain insight into the molecular bases of such susceptibility, we used high density DNA microarrays consisting of similar to 6000 genes and ESTs to compare gene regulation in response to LPS in p8(+/+) and p8(-/-) livers. In wild-type, 105 genes and 73 ESTs were upregulated and 232 genes and 138 ESTs down-regulated. By contrast, 212 genes and 125 ESTs were found up-regulated and 90 genes and 85 ESTs down regulated in p8-/- mice. Among them, only 93 ( 51 induced and 42 repressed) corresponded to the wild-type pattern, demonstrating that p8 deficiency hinders the normal response to LPS, which may account for the increased sensitivity of p8-/- mice to the endotoxin. Conclusions: The large number of genes showing abnormal regulation after LPS suggests that p8 is an important regulatory factor involved in many cellular defence pathways.

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

4.3
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