| Literature DB >> 28264657 |
Marcello Persico1, Mario Masarone2, Antonio Damato3, Mariateresa Ambrosio3, Alessandro Federico4, Valerio Rosato5, Tommaso Bucci2, Albino Carrizzo3, Carmine Vecchione6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: NAFLD is associated to Insulin Resistance (IR). IR is responsible for Endothelial Dysfunction (ED) through the impairment of eNOS function. Although eNOS derangement has been demonstrated in experimental models, no studies have directly shown that eNOS dysfunction is associated with NAFLD in humans. The aim of this study is to investigate eNOS function in NAFLD patients.Entities:
Keywords: Endothelial dysfunction; Insulin resistance; Metabolic syndrome; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28264657 PMCID: PMC5340006 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0592-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 3.067
Clinical characteristics of our study population and controls
| Variable | Controls | Overall NAFLD |
| NAFL | NASH |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 45,55 ± 10,24 | 49,89 ± 1,05 | 0.176 | 48,58 ± 10,874 | 50.27 ± 10.254 | 0.566 |
| Sex M/F | 10/5 | 38/16 | 0.784 | 14/7 | 24/9 | 0.634 |
| BMI | 22,91 ± 2,76 | 30,17 ± 3,86 | <0.001 | 29,51 ± 3,31 | 30,6 ± 4,21 | 0.320 |
| Hypertension | 0 | 21 [38,9%] | 0.005 | 7 [33,3%] | 14 [42,4%] | 0.521 |
| Diabetes | 0 | 11 [22,2%] | 0.057 | 4 [19,0%] | 7 [21,2%] | 0.847 |
| Dyslipidemia | 0 | 35 [64,8%] | <0.001 | 16 [76,2%] | 19 [57,6%] | 0.163 |
| Obesity | 3 [20,00%] | 29 [53,7%] | 0.021 | 12 [57,1%] | 17 [51,5%] | 0.686 |
| Insulin | – | 17,65 ± 5,95 | – | 14,08 ± 2,06 | 21,18 ± 6,98 | <0.001 |
| HOMA | – | 4,36 ± 1,72 | – | 3,10 ± 0,08 | 5,24 ± 1,58 | <0.001 |
| Metabolic Syndrome | 0 | 19 [35,2%] | 0.007 | 7 [33,3%] | 12 [36,4%] | 0.820 |
| Cirrhosis | 0 | 6 [11,1%] | 0.177 | 0 | 6 [18,2%] | 0.077 |
| ALT | 26,44 ± 9,56 | 67,56 ± 44,37 | <0.001 | 66,00 ± 43,65 | 68,33 ± 46,64 | 0.085 |
Histological scores [mean ± SD] according to Kleiner score in NAFLD patients
| Overall | NAFL | NASH |
| 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steatosis [0–3] | 1.8 ± 0.9 | 1.4 ± 0.7 | 2,1 ± 1.1 | 0.0122 | −1.241/−0.159 |
| Lobular Inflammation [0–2] | 1.9 ± 1.0 | 0.9 ± 0.7 | 2.2 ± 1.2 | 0.0001 | −1.881/−0.719 |
| Hepatocellular Ballooning [0–2] | 1.16 ± 0.7 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 1.9 ± 1.1 | 0.0001 | −1.688/−0.712 |
| Fibrosis [0–4] | 1.9 ± 0.9 | 0.5 ± 1.0 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 0.0001 | −2.926/−1.874 |
| NAS*mean ± SD | 4.7 ± 0.9 | 3.6 ± 1.2 | 6.9 ± 1.4 | 0.0001 | −2.252/−1.348 |
*NAFLD activity score: in parenthesis median and range
Fig. 1Dose-response curves of phenylephrine-precontracted aorta rings to supernatants derived from stimulated platelets isolated from NASH, Steatosis patients (“NAFL”) or Control subjects. Steatosis vs. controls:*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.001; NASH vs. Steatosis: #, p < 0.05; ##, p < 0,001; NASH vs. controls: ‡, p < 0.05
Fig. 2Representative immunoblotting of eNOS phosphorylation at serine residue 1177 and Akt in threonine 308 in platelets and relative densitometric analysis for p-eNOS (left panel), p-Akt (central panel) and eNOS (right panel)
Fig. 3Immunohistochemistry of p-eNOS in the liver. Immunohistochemistry was performed on liver from three experimental condition: CTRL [control], NASH and Steatosis (“NAFL”). Insets represent higher magnification micrographs of p-eNOS immunoreactivity
Fig. 4Flow-mediated dilation evaluation of patients and controls in our study population