4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Retinoid signaling directs secondary lineage selection in pancreatic organogenesis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 36, 期 8, 页码 1150-1156

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/jpsu.2001.25734

关键词

retinoid; pancreas; embryo; ducts; acini

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: Retinoid signaling plays an important role in many differentiation pathways. Retinoid signaling has been implicated in the induction of differentiation by pancreatic ductal cancer cell lines and in patients with pancreatic cancer. The authors wished to better understand the role of retinoid signaling in pancreatic development. Methods: Embryonic pancreas was harvested from mice at serial gestational ages and immunohistochemical analysis was performed for retinoic acid receptors (RAR-alpha, RAR-beta, RAR-gamma), and retinoid X receptors (RXR-alpha, RXR-beta, and RXR-gamma). Also, early embryonic pancreases were cultured for 7 days with exogenous 9-cis retinoic acid (9cRA) or all-trans retinoic acid (atRA) and analyzed histologically and immunohistochemically. Results: Retinoid receptors were expressed in a lineage-specific distribution, with stronger expression for many in the exocrine compartment. The receptors were not often expressed until late gestation. Exogenous 9cRA induced predominantly ducts instead of acini, plus more mature endocrine (islet) architecture. Exogenous atRA induced predominantly acini instead of ducts, with no apparent endocrine effect. Conclusions: Retinoids may have an important role in pancreatic differentiation, with a particular effect on secondary lineage selection between ductal and acinar phenotype. Because the control of ductal versus acinar differentiation has been implicated strongly in the pathogenesis of pancreatic ductal carcinoma, these results may lay the groundwork for studies in the mechanism of induced differentiation of pancreatic ductal cancer by retinoids. J Pediatr Surg 36:1150-1156. Copyright (C) 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company.

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