4.6 Article

Protection of the Cyp1a2(-/-) null mouse against uroporphyria and hepatic injury following exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

期刊

TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
卷 173, 期 2, 页码 89-98

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/taap.2001.9167

关键词

CYP1A2; 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; uroporphyria; liver damage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) on the liver of C57BL/6J mice is a model for clinical sporadic porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT). There is massive uroporphyria, inhibition of uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase (UROD) activity, and hepatocellular damage. A variety of evidence implicates the CYP1A2 enzyme as necessary for mouse uroporphyria. Here we report that, 5 weeks after a single oral dose of TCDD (75 mug/kg), Cyp1a2(+/+) wild-type mice showed severe uroporphyria and greater than 90% decreases in UROD activity; in contrast, despite exposure to this potent agent Cyp1a2(-/-) knockout mice displayed absolutely no increases in hepatic porphyrin levels, even after prior iron overload, and no detectable inhibition of UROD activity. Plasma levels of alanine-aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST)-although elevated in both genotypes after TCDD exposure-were significantly less in Cyp1a2(-/-) than in Cyp1a2(+/+) mice, suggesting that the absence of CYP1A2 also affords partial protection against TCDD-induced liver toxicity. Histological examination confirmed a decrease in hepatocellular damage in TCDD-treated Cyp1a2(-/-) mice; in particular, there was no bile duct damage or proliferation that in the Cyp1a2(+/+) mice might be caused by uroporphyrin. We conclude that CYP1A2 is both necessary and essential for the potent uroporphyrinogenic effects of TCDD in mice, and that CYP1A2 also plays a role in contributing to TCDD-induced hepatocellular injury. This study has implications for both the toxicity assessment of TCDD and the hepatic injury seen in PCT patients. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

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