| Literature DB >> 31388629 |
Eloy D Hernandez1, Lianxing Zheng2, Young Kim1, Bin Fang1, Bo Liu1, Reginald A Valdez2,3, William F Dietrich2, Paul V Rucker1, Donatella Chianelli1, James Schmeits1, Dingjiu Bao1, Jocelyn Zoll1, Claire Dubois1,4, Glenn C Federe1, Lihao Chen2, Sean B Joseph1,5, Lloyd B Klickstein2, John Walker1, Valentina Molteni1, Peter McNamara1, Shelly Meeusen1, David C Tully6, Michael K Badman2, Jie Xu1, Bryan Laffitte1,4.
Abstract
Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonism is emerging as an important potential therapeutic mechanism of action for multiple chronic liver diseases. The bile acid-derived FXR agonist obeticholic acid (OCA) has shown promise in a phase 2 study in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Here, we report efficacy of the novel nonbile acid FXR agonist tropifexor (LJN452) in two distinct preclinical models of NASH. The efficacy of tropifexor at <1 mg/kg doses was superior to that of OCA at 25 mg/kg in the liver in both NASH models. In a chemical and dietary model of NASH (Stelic animal model [STAM]), tropifexor reversed established fibrosis and reduced the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score and hepatic triglycerides. In an insulin-resistant obese NASH model (amylin liver NASH model [AMLN]), tropifexor markedly reduced steatohepatitis, fibrosis, and profibrogenic gene expression. Transcriptome analysis of livers from AMLN mice revealed 461 differentially expressed genes following tropifexor treatment that included a combination of signatures associated with reduction of oxidative stress, fibrogenesis, and inflammation.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31388629 PMCID: PMC6672390 DOI: 10.1002/hep4.1368
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hepatol Commun ISSN: 2471-254X
Figure 1Tropifexor regulates FXR target genes in human hepatocytes. (A) Chemical structure of tropifexor. (B) Tropifexor dose dependently induced the expression of FXR target genes SHP and BSEP in primary human hepatocytes. Data are representative of three independent experiments using hepatocytes from three independent donors. Values are displayed as mean ± SEM; n = 3. *P < 0 .05 versus vehicle using one‐way ANOVA with Dunnett's test.
Figure 2Tropifexor ameliorates NASH‐like symptoms in the STAM model. (A) Schematic representation of induction of STAM disease in mice. Normal group represents animals that received neither STZ nor high fat and were killed at week 9; baseline group represents animals that developed the disease up to week 9 and were killed before treatment initiation. NASH control group represents animals that developed the disease up to week 9 but were killed at week 12 without receiving either vehicle or drug. NASH treatment groups include animals that developed the disease up to week 9 and were treated from weeks 9 to 12 with tropifexor (0.03 to 0.3 mg/kg), OCA (25 mg/kg), or respective vehicles. (B) NAFLD activity score, hepatic triglycerides, and sirius red‐positive areas were significantly reduced with tropifexor treatment (n = 7). Values are represented as mean ± SEM. *P < 0.01, **P < 0.001, and ***P < 0.0001 compared to vehicle control by one‐way ANOVA with Dunnett's test. (C) H&E‐stained and (D) sirius red‐stained (without counterstain) liver sections from control or STAM disease animals show improvement in liver damage and fibrosis with tropifexor treatment, respectively. (E) Plasma cholesterol levels were significantly reduced in tropifexor‐treated mice only at the 0.3‐mg/kg dose but were not significantly reduced in OCA‐treated STAM mice. Values are represented as mean ± SEM. *P < 0.01 compared to vehicle control by one‐way ANOVA with Dunnett's test. Abbreviations: TG, triglyceride; w, weeks.
Figure 3Tropifexor reverses fibrosis in a diet‐driven insulin‐resistant model of NASH. (A) Schematic representation of the diet‐driven mouse model for induction of NASH. Control animals received standard chow (10% kcal from fat, with no fructose or cholesterol), and NASH animals received high fat (40% kcal), high fructose (20% by weight), and high cholesterol (2% by weight) from 6 to 26 weeks. NASH animals were subsequently treated for 4 weeks with tropifexor (0.1, 0.3, or 0.9 mg/kg), OCA (25 mg/kg), or respective vehicles. (B) Serum markers AST and ALT were markedly elevated in NASH animals before dosing and were reduced in a dose‐dependent manner following 4 weeks of dosing with tropifexor but not OCA. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 compared to vehicle control by two‐way ANOVA with Dunnett's test. (C) Trichrome‐stained liver sections show dose‐dependent improvement in liver damage, and (D) IBA1‐stained liver sections show dose‐dependent decrease in infiltration of crown‐like macrophages (arrowheads) following treatment with tropifexor. (E) Hepatic triglyceride levels, collagen ratio as determined by trichrome‐positive areas, and IBA1‐positive areas were significantly reduced with tropifexor. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 compared to vehicle control by one‐way ANOVA with Dunnett's test. (F) Expression levels of profibrogenic markers Col1a1 and Timp1 were also reduced in livers of tropifexor‐treated animals in a dose‐dependent manner. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 compared to vehicle control by one‐way ANOVA with Dunnett's test. Abbreviations: CHOL, cholesterol; FRUC, fructose; TG, triglyceride; w, weeks.
Figure 4RNA sequencing identifies unique NASH‐ and tropifexor‐mediated signatures in NASH livers. The AMLN model was used for RNAseq. (A) Heat maps of selected DEGs in NASH livers treated with vehicle; low (0.1 mg/kg), mid (0.3 mg/kg), or high (0.9 mg/kg) dose of tropifexor; or 25 mg/kg of OCA (left panel). Heat maps of a set of unique DEGs in response to tropifexor treatment in NASH livers (right panel). (B) qRT‐PCR analysis to validate the differential expression of select genes identified by RNAseq. Expression levels of Gsta4, Gstt3, and Cyp2e1 as markers of oxidative stress; Col1a1, Acta2, and Timp1 as markers of fibrosis; and Aif1, Ccl2, and Cd86 as markers of inflammation were quantified. Values are represented as mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001 compared to vehicle control. Abbreviations: Acta2, α‐smooth muscle actin; Aif1, allograft inflammatory factor 1; A.U., arbitrary units; Ccl2, chemokine (C‐C motif) ligand 2; Cd86, clusters of differentiation 86; Gsta4, glutathione S‐transferase alpha 4; Gstt3, glutathione S‐transferase theta 3; Veh, vehicle.