The pro-regenerative effects of hyperIL6 in drug-induced liver injury are unexpectedly due to competitive inhibition of IL11 signaling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally accepted that IL6-mediated STAT3 signaling in hepatocytes, mediated via glycoprotein 130 (gp130; IL6ST), is beneficial and that the synthetic IL6:IL6ST fusion protein (HyperIL6) promotes liver regeneration. Recently, autocrine IL11 activity that also acts via IL6ST but uses ERK rather than STAT3 to signal, was found to be hepatotoxic. Here we examined whether the beneficial effects of HyperIL6 could reflect unappreciated competitive inhibition of IL11-dependent IL6ST signaling. In human and mouse hepatocytes, HyperIL6 reduced N-acetyl-p-aminophenol (APAP)-induced cell death independent of STAT3 activation and instead, dose-dependently, inhibited IL11-related signaling and toxicities. In mice, expression of HyperIl6 reduced ERK activation and promoted STAT3-independent hepatic regeneration (PCNA, Cyclin D1, Ki67) following administration of either IL11 or APAP. Inhibition of putative intrinsic IL6 trans-signaling had no effect on liver regeneration in mice. Following APAP, mice deleted for Il11 exhibited spontaneous liver repair but HyperIl6, despite robustly activating STAT3, had no effect on liver regeneration in this strain. These data show that synthetic IL6ST binding proteins such as HyperIL6 can have unexpected, on-target effects and suggest IL11, not IL6, as important for liver regeneration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".