Strain differences may therefore account for the divergent results. There is, however, another explanation. Hikita et al.3 deleted BAX only in hepatocytes of the BAK-deficient mice, using a CRE (cyclization

recombination) transgene driven by the albumin promoter. Hepatocytes not expressing this CRE would die in response to CD95-induced BID cleavage, as would any cell that does not drive this promoter. Might other cells, dying in this BID-dependent (Type II) manner, cause hepatic injury? In an earlier study, hepatocyte expression of a BCL-2 transgene driven by the albumin promoter (BCL-2 efficiently blocks BID-induced cell death) reportedly blocked hepatocyte apoptosis, but not liver destruction.11 This is completely consistent with the findings of Hikita et al.3 Previously, PF-01367338 mw it was noted

that CD95 ligation in vivo induces destruction of vascular endothelium in the liver.12-14 This produces the sinusoidal hemorrhage characteristic of this treatment. As a result, CD95 ligation would be lethal even if hepatocytes were protected. Therefore, although deletion of BID throughout the animal protects hepatocytes, endothelial cells, and the animal as a whole, deletion of BAX and BAK (or expression of BCL-2) specifically in hepatocytes does not. It is an attractive resolution to the apparent paradox. Hikita et al.,3 however, noted some apoptosis in hepatocytes in their engineered animals upon ligation GDC-0068 price of CD95. These might be cells that had failed to flox BAX, as mentioned above, or perhaps more intriguingly, may be dying independently Adenosine of BAX and BAK. The latter possibility is supported by studies showing that metabolic stress (e.g., glucose deprivation)

can sensitize cells for CD95-induced death.15 Certainly, a failure of the blood supply, as discussed above, would cause such stress, and it will be of interest to ascertain if this can convert Type II cells to Type I cells. Finally, one might be enticed to consider the possibility that liver destruction via CD95 ligation may proceed not only by apoptosis but also by necrosis. Several molecular mechanisms whereby necrosis can be “programmed” are known.1 However, Hikita et al.3 showed that cyclophilin D, which is required for some forms of necrosis,16 does not play a role in CD95-induced liver damage in the absence of BAX and BAK. Furthermore, because it has long been known that caspase inhibitors (which preferentially go to the liver in vivo) block CD95 ligation-induced lethality,17 the authors also confirmed that the lethality in their mice was similarly blocked by caspase inhibitors. Tellingly, a recently uncovered pathway of necrosis is antagonized by caspase-8,18, 19 but based on these results, it does not appear to play a role in CD95-mediated liver destruction. The liver is more than hepatocytes.