3 resultados para mucosa development
em DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center
Resumo:
The hypothesis to be tested is that there are two distinct types of chronic responses in irradiated normal tissues, each resulting from damage to different cell populations in the tissue. The first is a sequala of chronic epithelial depletion in which the tissue's integrity cannot be maintained, i.e. a "consequential" chronic response. The other response is due to cell loss in the connective tissue and/or vascular stroma, i.e. a "primary" chronic response. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis in the murine colon by first, establishing a model of each chronic response and then, by determining whether the responses differed in timing of expression, histology, and expression of specific collagen types. The model of late damage used was colonic obstructions/strictures induced by a single dose of 27 Gy ("consequential" response) and two equal doses of 14.75 Gy (t = 10 days) ("primary" response). "Consequential" lesions appeared as early as 5 weeks after 27 Gy and were characterized by a deep mucosal ulceration and a thickened fibrotic serosa containing excessive accumulations of collagen types I and III. Both types were commingled in the scar at the base of the ulcer. Fibroblasts were synthesizing pro-collagen types I and III mRNA 10 weeks prior to measurable increases in collagen. A significant decrease in the ratio of collagen types I:III was associated with the "consequential" response at 4-5 months post-irradiation. The "primary" response, on the other hand, did not appear until 40 weeks after the split dose even though the total dose delivered was approximately the same as that for the "consequential" response. The "primary" response was characterized with an intact mucosa and a thickened fibrotic submucosa which contained excessive amounts of only collagen type I. An increased number of fibroblasts were synthesizing pro-collagen type I mRNA nearly 25 weeks before collagen type I levels were increased. The "primary" response lesion had a significantly elevated collagen type I:III ratio at 10-13 months post-irradiation. These data show a clear difference between the two chronic response and suggest that not all chronic responses share a common pathogenesis, but depend on the cell population in the tissue that is damaged. ^
Resumo:
The role of adrenal and thyroid hormones on the development of chief and parietal cells was studied in the rat. Administration of corticosterone or thyroxine in the first and second postnatal weeks resulted in the precocious appearance of pepsinogen in the oxyntic gland mucosa and an increase in basal acid output. When pups were adrenalectomized or made hypothyroid, both pepsinogen and basal acid secretion were lowed. Corticosterone injection increased pepsinogen content and acid secretion to levels higher than those of control in hypothyroid and adrenalectomized rats while thyroxine had no such effect in adrenalectomized rats. Morphologically, chief cells responded to corticosterone or thyroxine with increases in both zymogen granules and RER. Chief cells, however, contained less zymogen granules and RER in adrenalectomized and hypothyroid rats. Corticosterone was effective in restoring the normal morphological appearance of chief cells in the hypothyroid rats while thyroxine had no effect in the adrenalectomized rats. In response to corticosterone or thyroxine, parietal cells in normal animals appeared to contain more mitochondria, tubulovesicles and intracellular canaliculi than those of control. Unlike chief cells, parietal cells retained normal ultrastructure in the absence of adrenal and thyroid hormones. These data indicate that (1) corticosterone is necessary for the functional and morphological development of chief cells; (2) the morphological development of parietal cells does not appear to depend upon corticosterone, (3) the effect of thyroxine on the development of chief and parietal cells is due to corticosterone. ^
Resumo:
The mammalian Forkhead Box (Fox) transcription factor (FoxM1) is implicated in tumorgenesis. However, the role and regulation of FoxM1 in gastric cancer remain unknown.^ I examined FoxM1 expression in 86 cases of primary gastric cancer and 57 normal gastric tissue specimens. I found weak expression of FoxM1 protein in normal gastric mucosa, whereas I observed strong staining for FoxM1 in tumor-cell nuclei in various gastric tumors and lymph node metastases. The aberrant FoxM1 expression is associated with VEGF expression and increased angiogenesis in human gastric cancer. A Cox proportional hazards model revealed that FoxM1 expression was an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis. Furthermore, overexpression of FoxM1 by gene transfer significantly promoted the growth and metastasis of gastric cancer cells in orthotopic mouse models, whereas knockdown of FoxM1 expression by small interfering RNA did the opposite. Next, I observed that alteration of tumor growth and metastasis by elevated FoxM1 expression was directly correlated with alteration of VEGF expression and angiogenesis. In addition, promotion of gastric tumorigenesis by FoxM1 directly and significantly correlated with transactivation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression and elevation of angiogenesis. ^ To further investigate the underlying mechanisms that result in FoxM1 overexpression in gastric cancer, I investigated FoxM1 and Krüppel-like factor 4 (KLF4) expressions in primary gastric cancer and normal gastric tissue specimens. Concomitance of increased expression of FoxM1 protein and decreased expression of KLF4 protein was evident in human gastric cancer. Enforced KLF4 expression suppressed FoxM1 protein expression. Moreover, a region within the proximal FoxM1 promoter was identified to have KLF4-binding sites. Finally, I found an increased FoxM1 expression in gastric mucosa of villin-Cre -directed tissue specific Klf4-null mice.^ In summary, I offered both clinical and mechanistic evidence that dysregulated expression of FoxM1 play an important role in gastric cancer development and progression, while KLF4 mediates negative regulation of FoxM1 expression and its loss significantly contributes to FoxM1 dysregulation. ^