Preclinical study reveals HNF-1β drives redifferentiation of dedifferentiated tubular epithelial cells in renal fibrosis models, suggesting a therapeutic pathway to reverse kidney scarring.
Tubular epithelial cells (TECs) can be dedifferentiated by repetitive insults, which activate scar-producing cells generated from interstitial cells such as fibroblasts, leading to the accumulation and deposition of extracellular matrix molecules. The dedifferentiated TECs play a crucial role in the development of renal fibrosis. Therefore, renal fibrosis may be attenuated if dedifferentiated TECs are converted back to their normal state (re-epithelialization). However, the mechanism underlying the re-epithelialization remains to be elucidated. In the present study, TGF-β1, a profibrotic cytokine, induced dedifferentiation of cultured TECs, and the dedifferentiated TECs were re-epithelialized by the removal of TGF-β1 stimulation. In the re-epithelialization process, transcription factor hepatocyte nuclear factor 1, beta (HNF-1β) was identified as a candidate molecule involved in inducing re-epithelialization by means of DNA microarray and biological network analysis. In functional validation studies, the re-epithelialization by TGF-β1 removal was abolished by HNF-1β knockdown. Furthermore, the ectopic expression of HNF-1β in the dedifferentiated TECs induced the re-epithelialization without the inhibition of TGF-β/Smad signaling, even in the presence of TGF-β1 stimulation. In mouse renal fibrosis model, unilateral ureteral obstruction model, HNF-1β expression in the TECs of the kidney was suppressed with fibrosis progression. Furthermore, the HNF-1β downregulated TECs resulted in dedifferentiation, which was characterized by expression of nestin. In conclusion, HNF-1β suppression in TECs is a crucial event for the dedifferentiation of TECs, and the upregulation of HNF-1β in TECs has a potential to restore the dedifferentiated TECs into their normal state, leading to the attenuation of renal fibrosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Omata et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: