MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Mechanisms Underlying the Induction of a Profibrotic Epithelial Phenotype During Renal Fibrosis

2016· article· en· W2890031011 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Janne Folke Bialik, Matthew Rozycki, Pam Speight, Zena M. Miranda, Stephen G. Szeto, Darren A. Yuen, Qinghong Dan, Katalin Szászi, Stine F. Pedersen, András Kapùs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMyofibroblastFibrosisEpithelial–mesenchymal transitionCell biologyBiologyCancer researchEpitheliumPathologyMedicineDownregulation and upregulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tubulointerstitial fibrosis (TIF) is the final common pathway through which Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), a currently incurable condition affecting 12% of the population, progresses toward renal failure. Tubular injury is a key feature of TIF but the exact role of the epithelium in renal fibrosis remains a matter of debate. While tubular cells have the capacity to transdifferentiate to myofibroblasts via epithelial‐mesenchymal/myofibroblast transition (EMT/EMyT), in vivo only a small subset of myofibroblasts appears to originate from the epithelium. The emerging view is that the injured epithelium is a critical driver of fibrogenic processes via acquiring a profibrotic epithelial phenotype (PEP), characterized by robust cytoskeletal remodeling, a change in oxidative state (ROS production), and enhanced secretion of fibrogenic cytokines. These factors in turn prime interstitial cells, initiating fibroblast‐myofibroblast transition. We have previously shown that two major cytoskeleton‐ and TGFβ‐regulated transcriptional coactivators, myocardin‐ related transcription factor (MRTF) and the Hippo pathway effector TAZ are critical contributors to EMyT. Further, both MRTF and TAZ (and its paralog YAP) have been implicated in organ fibrosis; however, the role of these factors in epithelial reprogramming has not been clarified. We therefore hypothesized that 1) MRTF and TAZ are modulated during fibrogenesis in the epithelium, and 2) they are critical mediators of PEP induction. To test these assumptions we used a) LLC‐PK1 proximal tubular cells challenged by fibrogenic mechanical (cell contact uncoupling, mechanical stretch) and chemical (TGFβ) stimuli; and b) unilateral ureteral obstruction (UUO), a mouse model of kidney fibrosis. Here we show that fibrogenic stimuli 1) induced robust nuclear translocation of MRTF and TAZ in tubular cells and 2) provoked massive upregulation of TAZ mRNA and protein in the epithelium both in vitro and in vivo . The latter effect was verified in tubular samples isolated by laser capture microdissection. Pharmacological or siRNA‐mediated inhibition of MRTF prevented TAZ upregulation indicating a hierarchy between these factors. PEP was associated with a substantial increase in the expression of NADPH oxidase 4 (Nox4), key determinant of the epithelial redox state. Pharmacological or genetic inhibition of MRTF or TAZ/YAP prevented the increase in Nox4 expression in LLC‐PK1 cells. Moreover, treatment of mice with TAZ/YAP inhibitor verteporfin suppressed the UUO‐induced rise in tubular Nox4. Fibrogenic stimuli induced epithelial expression of connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), which was dependent both on MRTF and TAZ/YAP. These stimuli also provoked tubular production of PDGF‐B, Indian Hedgehog and TGFβ. Studies are underway to determine the role of MRTF and TAZ/YAP in the production of these fibrogenic cytokines. In conclusion, we have shown that MRTF and TAZ are critical mediators of PEP during fibrogenesis. Support or Funding Information Kidney Foundation of Canada

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes→French-language works237,207→