NO-IL-6/10-IL-1ß axis: a new pathway in steatotic and non-steatotic liver grafts from brain-dead donor rats.

Introduction: Brain death (BD) and steatosis are both risk factors for organ dysfunction or failure in liver transplantation (LT). Material and methods: Here, we examine the role of interleukin 6 (IL- 6) and IL-10 in LT of both non-steatotic and steatotic liver recovered from donors after brain death (DBDs), as well as the molecular signaling pathways underlying the effects of such cytokines. Results: BD reduced IL-6 levels only in nonsteatotic grafts, and diminished IL-10 levels only in steatotic ones. In both graft types, BD increased IL-1ß, which was associated with hepatic inflammation and damage. IL-6 administration reduced IL-1ß only in non-steatotic grafts and protected them against damage and inflammation. Concordantly, IL-1ß inhibition via treatment with an IL-1 receptor antagonist caused the same benefits in non-steatotic grafts. Treatment with IL-10 decreased IL-1ß only in steatotic grafts and reduced injury and inflammation specifically in this graft type. Blockading the IL-1ß effects also reduced damage and inflammation in steatotic grafts. Also, blockade of IL-1ß action diminished hepatic cAMP in both types of livers, and this was associated with a reduction in liver injury and inflammation, then pointing to IL-1ß regulating cAMP generation under LT and BD conditions. Additionally, the involvement of nitric oxide (NO) in the effects of interleukins was evaluated. Pharmacological inhibition of NO in LT from DBDs prompted even more evident reductions of IL-6 or IL-10 in non-steatotic and steatotic grafts, respectively. This exacerbated the already high levels of IL-1ß seen in LT from DBDs, causing worse damage and inflammation in both graft types. The administration of NO donors to non-steatotic grafts potentiated the beneficial effects of endogenous NO, since it increased IL-6 levels, and reduced IL-1ß, inflammation, and damage. However, treatment with NO donors in steatotic grafts did not modify IL-10 or IL-1ß levels, but induced more injurious effects tan the induction of BD alone, characterized by increased nitrotyrosine, lipid peroxidation, inflammation, and hepatic damage. Conclusion: Our study thus highlights the specificity of new signaling pathways in LT from DBDs: NO-IL-6-IL-1ß in non-steatotic livers and NO-IL-10-IL-1ß in steatotic ones. This opens up new therapeutic targets that could be useful in clinical LT.

The Role of Neuregulin-1 in Steatotic and Non-Steatotic Liver Transplantation from Brain-Dead Donors.

BACKGROUND: Brain death (BD) and steatosis are key risk factors to predict adverse post-transplant outcomes. We investigated the role of Neuregulin-1 (NRG1) in rat steatotic and non-steatotic liver transplantation (LT) from brain death donors (DBD). METHODS: NRG1 pathways were characterized after surgery. RESULTS: NRG1 and p21-activated kinase 1 (PAK1) levels increased in steatotic and non-steatotic grafts from DBDs. The abolishment of NRG1 effects reduced PAK1. When the effect of either NRG1 nor PAK1 was inhibited, injury and regenerative failure were exacerbated. The benefits of the NRG-1-PAK1 axis in liver grafts from DBDs were associated with increased vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGFA) and insulin growth factor-1 (IGF1) levels, respectively. Indeed, VEGFA administration in non-steatotic livers and IGF1 treatment in steatotic grafts prevented damage and regenerative failure resulting from the inhibition of either NRG1 or PAK-1 activity in each type of liver. Exogenous NRG1 induced greater injury than BD induction. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the benefits of endogenous NRG1 in liver grafts from DBDs and underscores the specificity of the NRG1 signaling pathway depending on the type of liver: NRG1-PAK1-VEGFA in non-steatotic livers and NRG1-PAK1-IGF1 in steatotic livers. Exogenous NRG1 is not an appropriate strategy to apply to liver grafts from DBD.

Insights into Growth Factors in Liver Carcinogenesis and Regeneration: An Ongoing Debate on Minimizing Cancer Recurrence after Liver Resection.

Hepatocellular carcinoma has become a leading cause of cancer-associated mortality throughout the world, and is of great concern. Currently used chemotherapeutic drugs in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma lead to severe side effects, thus underscoring the need for further research to develop novel and safer therapies. Liver resection in cancer patients is routinely performed. After partial resection, liver regeneration is a perfectly calibrated response apparently sensed by the body's required liver function. This process hinges on the effect of several growth factors, among other molecules. However, dysregulation of growth factor signals also leads to growth signaling autonomy and tumor progression, so control of growth factor expression may prevent tumor progression. This review describes the role of some of the main growth factors whose dysregulation promotes liver tumor progression, and are also key in regenerating the remaining liver following resection. We herein summarize and discuss studies focused on partial hepatectomy and liver carcinogenesis, referring to hepatocyte growth factor, insulin-like growth factor, and epidermal growth factor, as well as their suitability as targets in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Finally, and given that drugs remain one of the mainstay treatment options in liver carcinogenesis, we have reviewed the current pharmacological approaches approved for clinical use or research targeting these factors.

Role of Dietary Nutritional Treatment on Hepatic and Intestinal Damage in Transplantation with Steatotic and Non-Steatotic Liver Grafts from Brain Dead Donors.

Herein, we investigate whether: (1) the administration of glucose or a lipid emulsion is useful in liver transplantation (LT) using steatotic (induced genetically or nutritionally) or non-steatotic livers from donors after brain death (DBDs); and (2) any such benefits are due to reductions in intestinal damage and consequently to gut microbiota preservation. In recipients from DBDs, we show increased hepatic damage and failure in the maintenance of ATP, glycogen, phospholipid and growth factor (HGF, IGF1 and VEGFA) levels, compared to recipients from non-DBDs. In recipients of non-steatotic grafts from DBDs, the administration of glucose or lipids did not protect against hepatic damage. This was associated with unchanged ATP, glycogen, phospholipid and growth factor levels. However, the administration of lipids in steatotic grafts from DBDs protected against damage and ATP and glycogen drop and increased phospholipid levels. This was associated with increases in growth factors. In all recipients from DBDs, intestinal inflammation and damage (evaluated by LPS, vascular permeability, mucosal damage, TLR4, TNF, IL1, IL-10, MPO, MDA and edema formation) was not shown. In such cases, potential changes in gut microbiota would not be relevant since neither inflammation nor damage was evidenced in the intestine following LT in any of the groups evaluated. In conclusion, lipid treatment is the preferable nutritional support to protect against hepatic damage in steatotic LT from DBDs; the benefits were independent of alterations in the recipient intestine.