UNLABELLED: Liver regeneration is impaired following partial hepatectomy (PH) in mice with genetic obesity and hepatic steatosis and also in wild-type mice fed a high-fat diet. These findings contrast with other data showing that liver regeneration is impaired in mice in which hepatic lipid accumulation is suppressed by either pharmacologic leptin administration or by disrupted glucocorticoid signaling. These latter findings suggest that hepatic steatosis may actually be required for normal liver regeneration. We have reexamined this relationship using several murine models of altered hepatic lipid metabolism. Liver fatty acid (FA) binding protein knockout mice manifested reduced hepatic triglyceride (TG) content compared to controls, with no effect on liver regeneration or hepatocyte proliferation. Examination of early adipogenic messenger RNAs revealed comparable induction in liver from both genotypes despite reduced hepatic steatosis. Following PH, hepatic TG was reduced in intestine-specific microsomal TG transfer protein deleter mice, which fail to absorb dietary fat, increased in peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha knockout mice, which exhibit defective FA oxidation, and unchanged (from wild-type mice) in liver-specific FA synthase knockout mice in which endogenous hepatic FA synthesis is impaired. Hepatic TG increased in the regenerating liver in all models, even in animals in which lipid accumulation is genetically constrained. However, in no model -- and over a >90-fold range of hepatic TG content -- was liver regeneration significantly impaired following PH. CONCLUSION: Although hepatic TG content is widely variable and increases during liver regeneration, alterations in neither exogenous or endogenous lipid metabolic pathways, demonstrated to promote or diminish hepatic steatosis, influence hepatocyte proliferation.
UNLABELLED: Liver regeneration is impaired following partial hepatectomy (PH) in mice with genetic obesity and hepatic steatosis and also in wild-type mice fed a high-fat diet. These findings contrast with other data showing that liver regeneration is impaired in mice in which hepatic lipid accumulation is suppressed by either pharmacologic leptin administration or by disrupted glucocorticoid signaling. These latter findings suggest that hepatic steatosis may actually be required for normal liver regeneration. We have reexamined this relationship using several murine models of altered hepatic lipid metabolism. Liver fatty acid (FA) binding protein knockout mice manifested reduced hepatic triglyceride (TG) content compared to controls, with no effect on liver regeneration or hepatocyte proliferation. Examination of early adipogenic messenger RNAs revealed comparable induction in liver from both genotypes despite reduced hepatic steatosis. Following PH, hepatic TG was reduced in intestine-specific microsomal TG transfer protein deleter mice, which fail to absorb dietary fat, increased in peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha knockout mice, which exhibit defective FA oxidation, and unchanged (from wild-type mice) in liver-specific FA synthase knockout mice in which endogenous hepatic FA synthesis is impaired. Hepatic TG increased in the regenerating liver in all models, even in animals in which lipid accumulation is genetically constrained. However, in no model -- and over a >90-fold range of hepatic TG content -- was liver regeneration significantly impaired following PH. CONCLUSION: Although hepatic TG content is widely variable and increases during liver regeneration, alterations in neither exogenous or endogenous lipid metabolic pathways, demonstrated to promote or diminish hepatic steatosis, influence hepatocyte proliferation.
Authors: Manuel A Fernández; Cecilia Albor; Mercedes Ingelmo-Torres; Susan J Nixon; Charles Ferguson; Teymuras Kurzchalia; Francesc Tebar; Carlos Enrich; Robert G Parton; Albert Pol Journal: Science Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Michael D Wheeler; Olivia M Smutney; Jennifer F Check; Ivan Rusyn; R Schulte-Hermann; Ronald G Thurman Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Caroline Améen; Ulrika Edvardsson; Anna Ljungberg; Lennart Asp; Peter Akerblad; Anna Tuneld; Sven-Olof Olofsson; Daniel Lindén; Jan Oscarsson Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2004-11-09 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Elizabeth P Newberry; Yan Xie; Susan Kennedy; Xianlin Han; Kimberly K Buhman; Jianyang Luo; Richard W Gross; Nicholas O Davidson Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2003-10-08 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: S S Lee; T Pineau; J Drago; E J Lee; J W Owens; D L Kroetz; P M Fernandez-Salguero; H Westphal; F J Gonzalez Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Barbara P Atshaves; Gregory G Martin; Heather A Hostetler; Avery L McIntosh; Ann B Kier; Friedhelm Schroeder Journal: J Nutr Biochem Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 6.048
Authors: Angela M Gajda; Yin Xiu Zhou; Luis B Agellon; Susan K Fried; Sarala Kodukula; Walter Fortson; Khamoshi Patel; Judith Storch Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Montse Pauta; Noemi Rotllan; Frances Vales; Ana Fernandez-Hernando; Ryan M Allen; David A Ford; Montserrat Marí; Wladimiro Jiménez; Angel Baldán; Manuel Morales-Ruiz; Carlos Fernández-Hernando Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Daniela Bartoli; Danilo Piobbico; Marina Maria Bellet; Anna Maria Bennati; Rita Roberti; Maria Agnese Della Fazia; Giuseppe Servillo Journal: Cell Cycle Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 4.534