OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether liver regeneration is an angiogenesis-associated phenomenon. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Angiogenesis is predominantly known for its pivotal role in tumor growth. However, angiogenesis could also play a role in physiologic processes involving tissue repair, such as liver regeneration. METHODS: Mice subjected to 70% partial hepatectomy were treated with human angiostatin (100 mg/kg body weight). Regeneration-induced hepatic angiogenesis was determined by assessing intrahepatic microvascular density using CD31 staining of frozen liver sections. Liver regeneration was evaluated by assessing wet liver weights and BrdU incorporation in DNA at regular intervals after partial hepatectomy. Possible direct effects of angiostatin on hepatocytes were studied by assessment of liver enzymes (ASAT, ALAT, bilirubin, lactate dehydrogenase), MTT assay (cytotoxicity), aminophenol production (metabolic function), and TUNEL (apoptosis). RESULTS: In a regenerating liver, microvascular density increased by 38%. Angiostatin significantly inhibited this response by 60%. In addition, angiostatin inhibited liver regeneration by 50.4% and 24.9% on postoperative days 7 and 14, respectively. In control mice liver weights regained normalcy in 8 days, whereas those in angiostatin-treated mice normalized after 21 days. In angiostatin-treated mice, the maximal BrdU incorporation was decreased and delayed. Direct adverse effects of angiostatin on cultured and in vivo hepatocytes were not observed. Angiostatin neither induced necrosis on hematoxylin and eosin staining nor affected serum levels of liver enzymes. CONCLUSIONS: Liver regeneration is accompanied by intrahepatic angiogenesis. Antiangiogenic treatment using angiostatin inhibits both phenomena. The authors conclude that liver regeneration is, at least in part, an angiogenesis-dependent phenomenon.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether liver regeneration is an angiogenesis-associated phenomenon. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Angiogenesis is predominantly known for its pivotal role in tumor growth. However, angiogenesis could also play a role in physiologic processes involving tissue repair, such as liver regeneration. METHODS:Mice subjected to 70% partial hepatectomy were treated with humanangiostatin (100 mg/kg body weight). Regeneration-induced hepatic angiogenesis was determined by assessing intrahepatic microvascular density using CD31 staining of frozen liver sections. Liver regeneration was evaluated by assessing wet liver weights and BrdU incorporation in DNA at regular intervals after partial hepatectomy. Possible direct effects of angiostatin on hepatocytes were studied by assessment of liver enzymes (ASAT, ALAT, bilirubin, lactate dehydrogenase), MTT assay (cytotoxicity), aminophenol production (metabolic function), and TUNEL (apoptosis). RESULTS: In a regenerating liver, microvascular density increased by 38%. Angiostatin significantly inhibited this response by 60%. In addition, angiostatin inhibited liver regeneration by 50.4% and 24.9% on postoperative days 7 and 14, respectively. In control mice liver weights regained normalcy in 8 days, whereas those in angiostatin-treated mice normalized after 21 days. In angiostatin-treated mice, the maximal BrdU incorporation was decreased and delayed. Direct adverse effects of angiostatin on cultured and in vivo hepatocytes were not observed. Angiostatin neither induced necrosis on hematoxylin and eosin staining nor affected serum levels of liver enzymes. CONCLUSIONS: Liver regeneration is accompanied by intrahepatic angiogenesis. Antiangiogenic treatment using angiostatin inhibits both phenomena. The authors conclude that liver regeneration is, at least in part, an angiogenesis-dependent phenomenon.
Authors: H Shimizu; M Miyazaki; Y Wakabayashi; N Mitsuhashi; A Kato; H Ito; K Nakagawa; H Yoshidome; M Kataoka; N Nakajima Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: M Aoki; R Morishita; Y Taniyama; I Kida; A Moriguchi; K Matsumoto; T Nakamura; Y Kaneda; J Higaki; T Ogihara Journal: Gene Ther Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: K Kiroplastis; I Fouzas; E Katsiki; K Patsiaoura; M Daoudaki; A Komninou; E Xolongitas; E Katsika; K Kaidoglou; V Papanikolaou Journal: Hippokratia Date: 2015 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 0.471
Authors: Amit Chaudhary; Mary Beth Hilton; Steven Seaman; Diana C Haines; Susan Stevenson; Peter K Lemotte; William R Tschantz; Xiaoyan M Zhang; Saurabh Saha; Tony Fleming; Brad St Croix Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Steven Seaman; Janine Stevens; Mi Young Yang; Daniel Logsdon; Cari Graff-Cherry; Brad St Croix Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Dipak Panigrahy; Brian T Kalish; Sui Huang; Diane R Bielenberg; Hau D Le; Jun Yang; Matthew L Edin; Craig R Lee; Ofra Benny; Dayna K Mudge; Catherine E Butterfield; Akiko Mammoto; Tadanori Mammoto; Bora Inceoglu; Roger L Jenkins; Mary A Simpson; Tomoshige Akino; Fred B Lih; Kenneth B Tomer; Donald E Ingber; Bruce D Hammock; John R Falck; Vijaya L Manthati; Arja Kaipainen; Patricia A D'Amore; Mark Puder; Darryl C Zeldin; Mark W Kieran Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 11.205