|
|
Retraction: Fulminant liver failure models with subsequent encephalopathy in the mouse |
Ann-Marie T Baine, Tomohide Hori, Feng Chen, Lindsay B Gardner, Shinji Uemoto and Justin H Nguyen |
Jacksonville, Florida, USA
Author Affiliations: Department of Neuroscience (Baine AMT, Hori T, Chen F and Gardner LB), and Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Transplantation (Nguyen JH), Mayo Clinic in Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA; Divisions of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary, Transplant and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan (Uemoto S)
Corresponding Author: Tomohide Hori, PhD, MD, Department of Neuroscience, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Birdsall Research Bldg., #323, 3rd floor, 4500 San Pablo Rd., Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA (Tel: +1-904-953-2449; Fax: +1-904-953-7117; Email: hori.tomohide@mayo.edu) |
|
|
Abstract Retraction in Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2012 Apr;11(2):202.
BACKGROUND: A reliable model of fulminant liver failure (FLF) is urgently required in this research field. This study aimed to develop a murine FLF model.
METHODS: We used three groups of male C57BL/6 mice: control, with azoxymethane treatment (AOM group), and with galactosamine and tumor necrosis factor-alpha treatment (Gal+TNF-α group). The effects of body temperature (BT) control on survival in all three groups were investigated. Using BT control, we compared the survival, histopathological findings and biochemical/coagulation profiles between the two experimental groups. The effects of hydration on international normalized ratios of prothrombin time (PT-INRs) were also checked. Dose-dependent survival curves were constructed for both experimental groups. Neurological behavior was assessed using a coma scale.
RESULTS: No unexpected BT effects were seen in the control group. The AOM group, but not the Gal+TNF-α group, showed a significant difference in survival curves between those with and without BT care. Histopathological assessment showed consistent FLF findings in both experimental groups with BT care. There were significant differences between the experimental groups in aspartate aminotransferase levels and PT-INRs, and significant differences in PT-INRs between the sufficiently and insufficiently hydrated groups. There were significant differences between FLF models in the duration of each coma stage, with significant differences in stages 1 and 3 as percentages of the disease state (stages 1-4). The two FLF models with BT care showed different survival curves in the dose-dependent survival study.
CONCLUSIONS: AOM provides a good FLF model, but requires a specialized environment and careful BT control. Other FLF models may also be useful, depending on the research purpose. Thoughtful attention to caregiving and close observation are indispensable for successful FLF models.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|