4.6 Article

In chronic pancreatitis, widespread emergence of TRAIL receptors in epithelia coincides with neoexpression of TRAIL by pancreatic stellate cells of early fibrotic areas

期刊

LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
卷 83, 期 6, 页码 825-836

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.LAB.0000073126.56932.46

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TRAIL (TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand) induces apoptosis by cross-linking of the two TRAIL receptors that contain a death domain, TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2. TRAIL-R3 and TRAIL-R4 are receptors that do not transmit an apoptotic signal. Our aim was to determine the expression of TRAIL and its receptors in normal pancreas and chronic pancreatitis. We applied real-time PCR, immunohisto(cyto)chemistry, and nick-end labeling of apoptoses. In normal pancreas, a minor subset of acinar cells coexpressed TRAIL-R2 and TRAIL-R4, whereas ductular epithelium and interstitial fibroblast-like cells (FLC) expressed TRAIL-R4. TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R3 were not detected in normal pancreas. In chronic pancreatitis, the exocrine epithelium strongly expressed TRAIL-R1, -R2, -R4, and, to a lesser extent, TRAIL-R3. Islets focally neoexpressed TRAIL-R1 and -R2 and intensely expressed TRAIL-R4. Changes in TRAIL receptor expression were most pronounced in areas of inflammatory infiltration and active fibrosis. In normal pancreas, expression of TRAIL was low on the mRNA level and undetectable on the protein level. In chronic pancreatitis, FLC in areas of active fibrosis expressed TRAIL. In addition, apoptoses were most numerous in these areas. We show that these FLC are pancreatic stellate cells. Pancreatic stellate cells express TRAIL in vivo and in vitro, and TRAIL expression is enhanced by IFN-gamma. Our findings indicate that the TRAIL/TRAIL receptor system is likely to be involved in chronic pancreatitis and suggest that pancreatic stellate cells may directly contribute to acinar regression by inducing apoptosis of parenchymal cells in a TRAIL-dependent manner.

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