CD31 induces inflammatory response by promoting hepatic inflammatory response and cell apoptosis
Authors: Q Jiang
Y Wang
A-P Deng
X-H Zheng
Y-Y Li
J Liu
G-Y Cheng
Q Zhou
Journal: European review for medical and pharmacological sciences (2018)
Discipline: PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
Keywords: CD31; paracetamol-induced liver injury; drug-induced hepatitis; inflammatory cytokines; macrophages
Affiliations: Department of Pharmacy, The Central Hospital of Wuhan, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. .

Abstract:  Objective: To investigate whether CD31 could regulate paracetamol-induced liver injury, thereby providing a new direction for the prevention and treatment of drug-induced hepatitis. Materials and methods: Wild-type (WT) mice were treated with acetaminophen (APAP) (250 mg/kg) or isodose of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). 1, 3, 6 and 12 h after the treatment, the messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein expression level of CD31 in the liver of mice were determined by Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Western blotting, respectively. Once CD31 was confirmed to be involved in APAP-induced liver injury, the acute liver injury model in WT mice and CD31 gene deficient (CD31-/-) mice induced by APAP was established. Serum samples were collected at 8 and 24 h after APAP injection (250 mg/kg), and the activity of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was measured. The liver tissues of mice were isolated and analyzed by hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining. Meanwhile, mononuclear cells (MNCs) were isolated from the liver tissues of mice. The number of infiltrating macrophages and neutrophils was detected by flow cytometry, and the activation level of these cells was analyzed. The expression levels of proinflammatory cytokines in liver tissues, such as TNF-α, IL-1β, keratinocyte chemoattractant (KC), MCP-1 and IL-6, were determined by RT-PCR. The expression levels of cytokines in serum were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Moreover, the protein expression levels of JNK, Caspase-3, and cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1) in liver tissues were detected by Western blotting. Results: After APAP treatment, we found that WT mice were more sensitive to APAP-induced liver injury. The level of ALT in WT mice was significantly higher than that of CD31-/- mice, meanwhile, more necrotic or apoptotic cells were found in WT mice. Results also indicated that the expression levels of inflammatory cytokines, including KC, IL-1β, MCP-1 and IL-6, were significantly higher in WT mice. Meanwhile, the number of infiltrating macrophages and neutrophils in the liver tissues of WT mice were much more than that of CD31-/- mice. Conclusions: APAP-treated CD31-/- mice exhibited less liver injury when compared with WT mice. We also confirmed that CD31 was greatly involved in APAP-induced inflammatory response by promoting hepatic inflammatory and cell apoptosis, which might provide a new strategy for the prevention and treatment of drug-induced hepatitis. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 This paper begins with some boilerplate definitions, but makes an unfortunate, elementary mistake in the conversion between Cartesian and spherical coordinates, writing  xn = r cos u03b8n where obviously a *product* of cosine terms is required. The error appears to have started in the now-retracted paper [Li Vetro (2015)] . Here, the present text is above, and the corresponding passage from Li Vetro below. The error also appears in [Huang (2016)] - submitted simultaneously with this paper - along with the rest of the present text. ![file] Continuing a comparison between the present text and Li Vetro, now at left and right respectively: ![file] The phrases  We put a rather strong assumption on  surrounded by a finite number of mutually disjoint closed hypersurfaces [are quite distinctive] . They appear as well in Li Vetro, with [Xue (2014)] as a possible origin, though other authors found them useful and we find them also repeated in [Qiao Pan (2016)] and in the subsequently-retracted paper [Wang et al (2016)] . But these are boilerplate definitions so the reuse is understandable. , 
 As noted, the text of the present paper was repeated in [Huang (2016)] . The two versions were submitted on 29 and 28 October 2015 respectively. Here are some parallel passages, with Huang at left and Wan at right. ![] ![] The Huang paper was subsequently cited six times - by [Huang (2017)] , [Jiang (2016)] , [Qiao (2017)] , [Qiao (2018)] , [Qiao (2019)](http: www.acadsci.fi mathematica Vol44 vol44pp1191-1206.pdf), and [Liquan Wan (2017)] . That last citation puzzles me. Why did the present author cite Huang s version of the present paper, rather than respond to his or her own paper directly? ,