Limited potential of resolvin D1 in treatment of cholestatic liver fibrosis.
Lipid mediator
bile duct ligation (BDL)
mouse model
n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids
Journal
Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition
ISSN: 2304-3881
Titre abrégé: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr
Pays: China (Republic : 1949- )
ID NLM: 101600750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
entrez:
9
11
2020
pubmed:
10
11
2020
medline:
10
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Several studies suggest a role for EPA- and DHA-derived pro-resolving mediators like resolvins in reversing metabolic and inflammatory disturbances seen in various chronic diseases. Here, we investigated the effects of resolvin D1 (RvD1) on bile duct ligation (BDL)-induced cholestatic liver injury. Mice were treated daily with RvD1 or 0.1% ethanol (control) from the day of BDL until the final observation time points. Blood and liver tissue were collected 2, 5 and 14 days after BDL for different analyses. RvD1 treatment of mice had no impact on the extent of cholestatic liver injury upon BDL, neither in the acute phase nor in the progressive state of liver fibrosis. Although RvD1 treatment resulted in a significantly reduced activity of hepatic stellate cells as well as reduced deposition of extracellular matrix 2 days after BDL, mice were not protected from inflammation and further fibrosis progression. These data indicate that RvD1 has a limited therapeutic potential to treat cholestatic liver diseases, as it has no significant impact on regression of hepatic necroinflammation and fibrotic changes in bile duct-ligated mice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several studies suggest a role for EPA- and DHA-derived pro-resolving mediators like resolvins in reversing metabolic and inflammatory disturbances seen in various chronic diseases. Here, we investigated the effects of resolvin D1 (RvD1) on bile duct ligation (BDL)-induced cholestatic liver injury.
METHODS
METHODS
Mice were treated daily with RvD1 or 0.1% ethanol (control) from the day of BDL until the final observation time points. Blood and liver tissue were collected 2, 5 and 14 days after BDL for different analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
RvD1 treatment of mice had no impact on the extent of cholestatic liver injury upon BDL, neither in the acute phase nor in the progressive state of liver fibrosis. Although RvD1 treatment resulted in a significantly reduced activity of hepatic stellate cells as well as reduced deposition of extracellular matrix 2 days after BDL, mice were not protected from inflammation and further fibrosis progression.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These data indicate that RvD1 has a limited therapeutic potential to treat cholestatic liver diseases, as it has no significant impact on regression of hepatic necroinflammation and fibrotic changes in bile duct-ligated mice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33163509
doi: 10.21037/hbsn.2019.08.07
pii: hbsn-09-05-587
pmc: PMC7603936
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
587-596Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
2020 Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/hbsn.2019.08.07). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Nature. 2014 Jun 5;510(7503):92-101
pubmed: 24899309
Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2019 Jan;140:42-46
pubmed: 30553402
Dig Dis Sci. 2010 Mar;55(3):631-41
pubmed: 19856102
Exp Ther Med. 2014 Jun;7(6):1481-1485
pubmed: 24926330
Biochem Pharmacol. 2012 Nov 15;84(10):1359-65
pubmed: 22981383
Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2015 Aug 27;6:e109
pubmed: 26312413
Mol Aspects Med. 2018 Dec;64:135-146
pubmed: 29544992
Br J Pharmacol. 2018 Jun;175(12):2441-2453
pubmed: 29569721
World Rev Nutr Diet. 2011;102:22-29
pubmed: 21865816
Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 20;6:30029
pubmed: 27435808
FASEB J. 2009 Jun;23(6):1946-57
pubmed: 19211925
Chem Rev. 2011 Oct 12;111(10):5922-43
pubmed: 21766791
Oncol Rep. 2016 Jan;35(1):307-17
pubmed: 26531230
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2018 Apr;39(4):387-401
pubmed: 29499974
Respir Res. 2012 Dec 02;13:110
pubmed: 23199346
J Immunol. 2011 Nov 15;187(10):5408-18
pubmed: 22013115
Carcinogenesis. 2011 Jun;32(6):897-903
pubmed: 21421544
Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2016 Nov;14(9):417-430
pubmed: 27710160
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jan 26;107(4):1660-5
pubmed: 20080636
Curr Gene Ther. 2015;15(3):215-27
pubmed: 25619889
Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2016 Mar 17;7:e153
pubmed: 26986653
Adv Nutr. 2015 Nov 13;6(6):694-702
pubmed: 26567194
Exp Mol Pathol. 2015 Apr;98(2):295-9
pubmed: 25681756
Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2018 Jan;243(1):1-12
pubmed: 29065724
Eur Surg Res. 2015 Dec;55(4):328-340
pubmed: 26505734
J Immunol. 2008 Dec 15;181(12):8677-87
pubmed: 19050288
PLoS One. 2014 May 16;9(5):e97637
pubmed: 24836606
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2016 Sep;1861(9 Pt A):1025-1035
pubmed: 27317426
Int Immunol. 2019 Aug 23;31(9):569-577
pubmed: 30722032
Cancer Causes Control. 2015 Mar;26(3):367-76
pubmed: 25534918
Curr Top Med Chem. 2011;11(6):629-47
pubmed: 21261595
Clin Nutr. 2018 Feb;37(1):37-55
pubmed: 28139281
Vitam Horm. 2013;91:97-105
pubmed: 23374714
Mol Endocrinol. 2014 Aug;28(8):1316-28
pubmed: 24978197
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015 Apr;1851(4):469-84
pubmed: 25149823
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2014 Jun 1;277(2):118-23
pubmed: 24709673
FASEB J. 2014 Feb;28(2):836-48
pubmed: 24249635
Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2012 Feb 26;349(2):248-54
pubmed: 22118966
BMC Syst Biol. 2015 Nov 20;9:83
pubmed: 26589287
Nat Rev Immunol. 2008 May;8(5):349-61
pubmed: 18437155
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 3;12(2):e0171249
pubmed: 28158236
Int Immunopharmacol. 2017 Oct;51:140-147
pubmed: 28837866
J Cell Sci. 2013 Sep 1;126(Pt 17):4037-47
pubmed: 23788426
Semin Liver Dis. 2015 May;35(2):119-31
pubmed: 25974898
J Nutr Biochem. 2019 Jan;63:35-43
pubmed: 30321750
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2016 Mar 1;310(5):G303-9
pubmed: 26702138
FASEB J. 2011 Jul;25(7):2399-407
pubmed: 21478260
J Biol Chem. 2007 Mar 30;282(13):9323-34
pubmed: 17244615