1,721,007 research outputs found

    Effects of specific bile acids on c-fos messenger RNA levels in human colon carcinoma Caco-2 cells

    No full text
    Bile acids may play a role in the pathogenesis of intestinal inflammation by activating the signalling pathways that control cell proliferation, among other cell systems. We investigated the action of different bile acids, particularly chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) and ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), on steady-state and transcriptional regulation of the protooncogene c-fos, involved in the regulation of cell proliferation and differentiation, in colon carcinoma Caco-2 cells. Specific bile acids had a stimulatory effect of on the expression of c-fos mRNA. This proved to be concentration- and time-dependent and may be partly due to an increase in the rate of transcription of the corresponding gene rather than to any change in the stability of mRNA. In Caco-2 cells exposed to 250 μM CDCA for 1 h a maximal increase of c-fos mRNA (~2.5-fold induction over the control) was observed; deoxycholic acid (DCA; 250 μM) and lithocholic acid (LCA; 250 μM) were less effective (~2-fold induction over the control). UDCA and cholic acid (CA) did not modify c-fos gene expression in this cell line. Finally, we investigated the role of protein kinase C (PKC) in transcriptional regulation of the c-fos gene by bile acids. Although induction of c-fos by 12-O-tetradecanoyl 13-acetate (10 nM), a potent PKC activator, was completely antagonised by bis-indolyl-maleimide I (1 μM); only about 40% of the bile acid-mediated rise in c-fos mRNA was blocked. Thus it appears that PKC, as well as other signalling pathways, is involved in CDCA-, DCA- and LCA-induced c-fos gene expression. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore