| Literature DB >> 33122687 |
Yoshihiko Tashiro1,2,3, Hiroto Nishino1,2, Takashi Higuchi1,2, Norihiko Sugisawa1,2, Yasunari Fukuda1,2, Jun Yamamoto1,2, Sachiko Inubushi1,2, Takeshi Aoki4, Masahiko Murakami3, Shree Ram Singh5, Michael Bouvet2, Robert M Hoffman6,7.
Abstract
Ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) during liver-metastasis resection for treatment of colon cancer may increase the risk of further metastasis. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPARγ) activation has been observed to exert a protective effect against IRI and IRI-induced metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of the PPARγ agonist pioglitazone on tumor metastasis and liver injury following IRI in a mouse model of colon cancer. Pioglitazone (30 mg/kg weight) was administered orally 1.5 h before and 2 h after the initiation of ischemia and was orally administrated daily to mice from day 0-21. SL4-cancer cells expressing red fluorescent protein (SL4-RFP) (1 × 106) were injected into the spleen. Fifteen minutes after injection, the hepatoduodenal ligament was clamped with a vessel clip, and released 5 min later. Liver, blood and tumor samples were taken from mice in order to determine if inflammation was induced by IRI. The effect of pioglitazone on liver metastasis was assessed. Furthermore, the effect of pioglitazone to control the inflammatory response during IRI progression was examined. Liver metastasis along with MMP-9 activation and the production of inflammatory cytokines were resistant to pioglitazone. Our results indicate that liver metastasis and associated inflammation in mice were resistant to pioglitazone.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33122687 PMCID: PMC7596558 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-75210-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Treatment schema. Treatment protocol. Pioglitazone (30 mg/kg weight) was administered orally 1.5 h before and 2 h after the initiation of ischemia. SL4-RFP cells 1 × 106 was injected into the spleen. After 15 min, the hepatoduodenal ligament was clamped with a vessel clip, which was released after 5 min. After the procedure, Pioglitazone was orally administrated daily to mice from day 0–21.
Figure 2Effect of pioglitazone on liver damage after IRI. (A, B) Serum level of AST and ALT were measured with standard kits (AST and ALT; n = 7). Values represent the mean ± SD. *P < 0.05.
Figure 3Effect of pioglitazone on MMP-9 after IRI. MMP-9 serum levels were determined by ELISA in mice treated with pioglitazone, or with vehicle (n = 5). (A and B) Values represent the mean ± SD.
Figure 4Effect of pioglitazone on inflammatory responses after IRI. The total number of white blood cells (WBC) was determined in the peripheral blood of Pioglitazone-treated or vehicle-treated mice (n = 4) (A). Pioglitazone did not inhibit inflammatory cytokines after IRI (n = 5) (B and C). Values represent the mean ± SD.
Figure 5Effect of pioglitazone on hepatic metastasis after IRI. (A) Macroscopic and microscopic evaluation in the control and pioglitazone groups 21 days after spleen injection of cancer cells and IRI. Liver sections from treated and untreated mice were stained with hematoxylin–eosin (H&E) (after 21 d) (B) mouse liver weight at day 21 (n = 7/group). Data represent mean ± SD. Serum level of AST and ALT were measured with standard kits at 21 d (n = 7) (C and D). Values represent the mean ± SD.