Assessment of the influence of subacute phenobarbitone administration on multi-tissue cell proliferation in the rat using bromodeoxyuridine immunocytochemistry
- 20 Downloads
The effects of daily administration of phenobarbitone on the mitotic rates of several tissues were investigated by bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) immunocytochemistry. Phenobarbitone (80 mg/kg per day) was dosed to AP Wistar male rats for up to 7 days and BrdU (10 mg/ml) was given by infusion at a rate of 10 μl/h via subcutaneously implanted osmotic minipumps for 2 days prior to necropsy on days 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. BrdU-labelled nuclei were visualised by peroxidase-antiperoxidase immunocytochemistry and counts of the numbers of labelled cells (labelling index, LI%) made from at least 1000 cells per tissue section(s). The LIs of several tissues (testis, adrenal cortex and medulla, kidney distal convoluted tubule and exocrine pancreas) showed no statistical difference by comparison with controls. Several tissues exhibited characteristic responses to phenobarbitone administration. Pituitary and endocrine pancreas LIs were decreased while those of thyroid, liver and kidney proximal convoluted tubule were increased. The pattern of LI increase was unique to each tissue with liver (median and lateral lobes) increased two-fold on day 3 and returning to control levels thereafter while kidney proximal tubule LI rose gradually with time and remained elevated on day 7. Thyroid LI on day 1 was almost double that of day 0 control and increased steadily thereafter. These data illustrate the varied responses of different tissues to phenobarbitone exposure, namely, depression and stimulation of mitosis. The causation of these functional changes is discussed in relation to direct and indirect effects on functional parameters, especially enzyme induction, alterations in hormonal and growth factor status and receptor regulation.
Key wordsCell proliferation Phenobarbitone Immunocytochemistry Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) Liver Kidney Pituitary Adrenal Testis Thyroid Pancreas
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bars R, Mitchell AM, Wolf CR, Elcombe CR (1989) Heterogeneous induction of cytochromes P-450 in hepatocytes in vitro and in vivo. In: Schuster I (ed.) Cytochrome P-450: biochemistry and biophysics. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 841 -844Google Scholar
- Boobis AR, Caldwell J, De Matteis F, Elcombe CR (1985) Microsomes and drug oxidations. Taylor and Francis, London PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- De Sandro V, Chevrier M, Boddaert A, Melcion C, Cordier A, Richert L (1991) Comparison of the effects of propylthiouracil, amiodarone, diphenylhydantoin, phenobarbital and 3-methylcholanthrene on hepatic and renal T4 metabolism and thyroid gland function in rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 111: 263 -278PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kan M, Zhang G, Zarnegar R, Michalopoulos G, Myoken Y, McKeehan WL, Stevens JI (1991) Hepatocyte growth factor/hepatopoietin A stimulates the growth of rat kidney proximal tubule cells (RPTE), rat non-parenchymal liver cells, human melanoma cells, mouse keratinocytes and stimulates anchorage-independent growth of SV-40 transformed RPTE. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 174: 331–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lu AYH, West SB (1978) Reconstituted mammalian mixed-function oxidases: requirements, specificities and other properties. Pharmacol Ther A 2: 337–358Google Scholar
- Marsmann DS, Cattley RC, Conway JG, Popp JA (1988) Relationship of hepatic peroxisome proliferation and replicative DNA synthesis to the hepatocarcinogenicity of the peroxisome proliferators di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and [4-chloro-6-(2,3-xylidino)-2-pyrimidinylthio] acetic acid (Wy-14, 643) in rats. Cancer Res 48: 6739–6744PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mirsalis JC, Steinmetz KL (1990) The role of hyperplasia in liver carcinogenesis. Prog Clin Biol Res 369: 149–161Google Scholar
- Schwartz M, Peres G, Buchmann H, Friedberg T, Waxman DJ, Kunz W (1987) Phénobarbital induction of cytochrome P-450 in normal and preneoplastic liver: comparison of enzyme and mRNA expression as detected by immunocytochemistry and in situ hybridization. Carcinogenesis 5: 143–153Google Scholar