Literature DB >> 28669222

Comparison of serological assessments in the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in bile duct ligation mice.

Chengxia Xie1, Bo Ma1, Ning Wang1, Lin Wan1,2.   

Abstract

Liver fibrosis assessment is essential to make a prognosis and to determine the appropriate anti-fibrosis treatment. Non-invasive serum markers are widely studied in patients to assess liver fibrosis due to the limitations of liver biopsy. When using animal models to study the mechanism and intervention of hepatic fibrosis, serum markers might be useful for the continuous assessment of liver fibrosis in individual animals, which could avoid the influence of biological differences between individuals. However, it is unclear whether serum markers can assess hepatic fibrosis in the animal model. In the present study, we evaluated and compared the ability of four serum markers to assess liver fibrosis in bile duct ligation mice. According to the stages of liver fibrosis assessed by pathological changes, mice in this study were divided into five groups (F0, F1, F2, F3, and F4). Subsequently, four serum markers, aspartate aminotransferase-to-alanine aminotransferase ratio (AAR), aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), fibrosis index based on the 4 factors (FIB-4), and Forns Index, were calculated for each group. Furthermore, the correlations between serum markers and pathological stages and the ability of serological markers to evaluate liver fibrosis were analyzed. AAR, APRI, FIB-4, and Forns Index could significantly distinguish F0-2 from F3-4 mice. APRI, FIB-4, and Forns Index could detect F0-3 from F4 mice. Among these four markers, FIB-4 was the best able to distinguish ≥F2 and ≥F3, with area under the curve values of 0.882 and 0.92, respectively. Forns Index was best for diagnosing F4 with area under the curve value of 0.879. These results demonstrated that serum markers could be used for assessing liver fibrosis in bile duct ligation mice, and therefore, these markers might lead to more accurate diagnostic and therapeutic studies through continuous monitoring in individual animals. Impact statement The assessment of liver fibrosis is essential for making a prognosis and determining the appropriate anti-fibrosis treatment. In studies focusing on the mechanism and treatment of liver fibrosis using animal models, it would be more accurate to continuously evaluate liver fibrosis in a single animal to avoid individual biological differences. Unfortunately, it is difficult to perform continuous assessment through liver biopsy in the most commonly used rodent models. It is unclear whether serum markers, which have been used in hepatic fibrosis patients, could be used in animal models. Our results demonstrate that serum markers could be used for assessing liver fibrosis in bile duct ligation mice. This study might contribute to more accurate diagnostic and therapeutic studies through continuous monitoring in individual animals.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Liver fibrosis; bile duct ligation; mice; serum markers

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28669222      PMCID: PMC5544170          DOI: 10.1177/1535370217718179

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)        ISSN: 1535-3699


  34 in total

1.  An enzymic test for the diagnosis of viral hepatitis; the transaminase serum activities.

Authors:  F DE RITIS; M COLTORTI; G GIUSTI
Journal:  Clin Chim Acta       Date:  1957-02       Impact factor: 3.786

Review 2.  Non-invasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.

Authors:  Yoav Lurie; Muriel Webb; Ruth Cytter-Kuint; Shimon Shteingart; Gerardo Z Lederkremer
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-11-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection.

Authors:  Richard K Sterling; Eduardo Lissen; Nathan Clumeck; Ricard Sola; Mendes Cassia Correa; Julio Montaner; Mark S Sulkowski; Francesca J Torriani; Doug T Dieterich; David L Thomas; Diethelm Messinger; Mark Nelson
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 17.425

4.  FibroIndex, a practical index for predicting significant fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

Authors:  Masahiko Koda; Yoshiko Matunaga; Manri Kawakami; Yukihiro Kishimoto; Takeaki Suou; Yoshikazu Murawaki
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 17.425

5.  Zinc supplementation suppresses the progression of bile duct ligation-induced liver fibrosis in mice.

Authors:  Fang Shi; Qin Sheng; Xinhua Xu; Wenli Huang; Y James Kang
Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)       Date:  2014-11-27

6.  Identification of chronic hepatitis C patients without hepatic fibrosis by a simple predictive model.

Authors:  Xavier Forns; Sergi Ampurdanès; Josep M Llovet; John Aponte; Llorenç Quintó; Eva Martínez-Bauer; Miquel Bruguera; Jose Maria Sánchez-Tapias; Juan Rodés
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 17.425

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of APRI and FIB-4 for predicting hepatitis B virus-related liver fibrosis accompanied with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Guangqin Xiao; Feng Zhu; Min Wang; Hang Zhang; Dawei Ye; Jiayin Yang; Li Jiang; Chang Liu; Lunan Yan; Renyi Qin
Journal:  Dig Liver Dis       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.088

Review 8.  Contribution of myeloid cell subsets to liver fibrosis in parasite infection.

Authors:  Alain Beschin; Patrick De Baetselier; Jo A Van Ginderachter
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 7.996

9.  A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

Authors:  Chun-Tao Wai; Joel K Greenson; Robert J Fontana; John D Kalbfleisch; Jorge A Marrero; Hari S Conjeevaram; Anna S-F Lok
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 17.425

Review 10.  Hepatitis C virus-induced hepatocarcinogenesis.

Authors:  Birke Bartosch; Robert Thimme; Hubert E Blum; Fabien Zoulim
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2009-05-23       Impact factor: 25.083

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.