Ischemic postconditioning decreases
Endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS)
inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS)
ischemia/reperfusion injury (I/R injury)
liver
resection
Journal
Translational gastroenterology and hepatology
ISSN: 2415-1289
Titre abrégé: Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101683450
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
19
10
2018
accepted:
14
01
2019
entrez:
12
3
2019
pubmed:
12
3
2019
medline:
12
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Both pre- and postconditioning have been shown to protect the liver parenchyma from ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury during hepatectomy by altering the production of NO. However, to date there is no study to compare their effect on the inducible nitric oxide synthase ( We designed a prospective experimental cohort comprising of three groups (sham group-SG, preconditioning-PrG and postconditioning group-PoG) and consisting of 10 animals per group. All animals underwent extended hepatectomy (70%) under prolonged warm ischemia either after preconditioning or followed by postconditioning or without any protective maneuver (SG). Following reperfusion blood samples and liver biopsies were obtained at the start of reperfusion (0 hours), at 6 and 12 hours post reperfusion. At the beginning of reperfusion iNOS expression was significantly reduced in the PoG in comparison to the SG (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.012; Mann-Whitney U test, P<0.0005 Bonferroni correction) and continued to remain at low levels until 6 hours post reperfusion (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.01; Mann-Whitney U test, P<0.0005-Bonferroni correction) This difference was eliminated by 12 hours. No significant differences were found in the expression of eNOS between groups and within time measurements. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were found increased at the start of reperfusion; their levels continued to increase by 6 hours in all groups, however only in the PoG the increase attended statistical significance at 12 hours after reperfusion. ALT levels presented only minor alterations during the course of reperfusion. The PrG was found to have more intense hepatocellular injury at the start of reperfusion than the PoG however, that appeared to gradually settle by 12 hours in contrast to PoG where the hepatocellular injury continued to deteriorate. PoG appeared to decrease iNOS overexpression more effectively than PrG in comparison to animals who have undergone no protective maneuver (SG). However, PrG was more effective than PoG in ameliorating the hepatocellular injury observed at 12 hours after the ischemic insult.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Both pre- and postconditioning have been shown to protect the liver parenchyma from ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury during hepatectomy by altering the production of NO. However, to date there is no study to compare their effect on the inducible nitric oxide synthase (
METHODS
METHODS
We designed a prospective experimental cohort comprising of three groups (sham group-SG, preconditioning-PrG and postconditioning group-PoG) and consisting of 10 animals per group. All animals underwent extended hepatectomy (70%) under prolonged warm ischemia either after preconditioning or followed by postconditioning or without any protective maneuver (SG). Following reperfusion blood samples and liver biopsies were obtained at the start of reperfusion (0 hours), at 6 and 12 hours post reperfusion.
RESULTS
RESULTS
At the beginning of reperfusion iNOS expression was significantly reduced in the PoG in comparison to the SG (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.012; Mann-Whitney U test, P<0.0005 Bonferroni correction) and continued to remain at low levels until 6 hours post reperfusion (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.01; Mann-Whitney U test, P<0.0005-Bonferroni correction) This difference was eliminated by 12 hours. No significant differences were found in the expression of eNOS between groups and within time measurements. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were found increased at the start of reperfusion; their levels continued to increase by 6 hours in all groups, however only in the PoG the increase attended statistical significance at 12 hours after reperfusion. ALT levels presented only minor alterations during the course of reperfusion. The PrG was found to have more intense hepatocellular injury at the start of reperfusion than the PoG however, that appeared to gradually settle by 12 hours in contrast to PoG where the hepatocellular injury continued to deteriorate.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
PoG appeared to decrease iNOS overexpression more effectively than PrG in comparison to animals who have undergone no protective maneuver (SG). However, PrG was more effective than PoG in ameliorating the hepatocellular injury observed at 12 hours after the ischemic insult.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30854492
doi: 10.21037/tgh.2019.01.04
pii: tgh-04-2019.01.04
pmc: PMC6378242
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2000 Sep 7;275(3):715-9
pubmed: 10973788
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2001 Jan;280(1):H198-207
pubmed: 11123234
Methods. 2001 Dec;25(4):402-8
pubmed: 11846609
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 Aug;18(8):891-902
pubmed: 12859717
J Immunol. 2003 Nov 1;171(9):4561-8
pubmed: 14568929
Hepatology. 2006 Mar;43(3):464-73
pubmed: 16496305
Pathobiology. 2007;74(1):42-9
pubmed: 17496432
J Hepatol. 2007 Oct;47(4):598-607
pubmed: 17692984
Ann Surg. 1908 Oct;48(4):541-9
pubmed: 17862242
Shock. 2008 Jun;29(6):692-702
pubmed: 17909454
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Jul 16;100(14):988-95
pubmed: 18612135
Liver Int. 2008 Jul;28(6):767-80
pubmed: 18647141
BMJ. 2009 Apr 02;338:a3167
pubmed: 19342403
BMJ. 2009 Apr 06;338:a3166
pubmed: 19349342
Liver Transpl. 2009 Oct;15(10):1172-82
pubmed: 19790166
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2009 Dec;8(6):586-90
pubmed: 20007074
Ann Surg Innov Res. 2010 Mar 26;4:2
pubmed: 20346153
PLoS Biol. 2010 Jun 29;8(6):e1000412
pubmed: 20613859
World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Dec 28;16(48):6098-103
pubmed: 21182224
Life Sci. 2011 Mar 28;88(13-14):598-605
pubmed: 21300075
Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2012 Apr;26(2):115-24
pubmed: 22000660
J Biomed Sci. 2011 Oct 28;18:79
pubmed: 22035453
Liver Int. 2012 Apr;32(4):531-43
pubmed: 22316165
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2012 Aug 1;303(3):G435-41
pubmed: 22421619
J Inflamm (Lond). 2012 Nov 26;9(1):47
pubmed: 23181483
J Surg Res. 2013 Aug;183(2):742-51
pubmed: 23485075
Surg Today. 2014 Nov;44(11):2201-7
pubmed: 24519397
PLoS One. 2014 May 07;9(5):e96508
pubmed: 24806446
Transplant Proc. 2014 Jul-Aug;46(6):1867-71
pubmed: 25131056
J Invest Surg. 2016;29(2):67-73
pubmed: 26375364
Surg Clin North Am. 2016 Apr;96(2):219-28
pubmed: 27017861
Biomed Pharmacother. 2016 Dec;84:305-313
pubmed: 27665476
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Apr 14;23(14):2505-2510
pubmed: 28465634
J Neurochem. 1995 Aug;65(2):677-8
pubmed: 7542313
J Hepatol. 1995 Jun;22(6):696-9
pubmed: 7560864
Transplantation. 1993 Jun;55(6):1265-72
pubmed: 7685932
Transplantation. 1997 May 15;63(9):1225-33
pubmed: 9158014
Liver Transpl Surg. 1996 Mar;2(2):99-104
pubmed: 9346633