4.7 Article

Induction of EMT-like phenotypes by an active metabolite of leflunomide and its contribution to pulmonary fibrosis

期刊

CELL DEATH AND DIFFERENTIATION
卷 17, 期 12, 页码 1882-1895

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/cdd.2010.64

关键词

EMT; leflunomide; pulmonary fibrosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drug-induced interstitial lung disease (ILD), particularly pulmonary fibrosis, is a serious clinical concern and myofibroblasts have been suggested to have a major role, with it recently being revealed that some of these myofibroblasts are derived from lung epithelial cells through epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). In this study, we examined the EMT-inducing abilities of drugs known to induce ILD clinically. EMT-like phenotypes were induced by A771726, an active metabolite of leflunomide having an inhibitory effect on dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH). Smad-interacting protein 1 (a transcription factor regulating EMT) and the Notch-signaling pathway but not transforming growth factor-beta was shown to be involved in A771726-induced EMT-like phenotypes. When the cultures were supplemented with exogenous uridine, the A771726-induced EMT-like phenotypes and activation of the Notch-signaling pathway disappeared. Similarly, an A771726 analog without inhibitory activity on DHODH produced no induction, suggesting that this process is mediated through the inhibition of DHODH. In vivo, administration of leflunomide stimulated bleomycin-induced EMT-like phenomenon in pulmonary tissue, and exacerbated bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis, both of which were suppressed by coadministration of uridine. Taken together, these findings suggest that leflunomide-dependent exacerbation of bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis is mediated by stimulation of EMT of lung epithelial cells, providing the first evidence that drug-induced pulmonary fibrosis involves EMT of these cells. Cell Death and Differentiation (2010) 17, 1882-1895; doi:10.1038/cdd.2010.64; published online 21 May 2010

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

4.7
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