| Literature DB >> 32774065 |
Keti Tsomaia1, Leila Patarashvili1, Nino Karumidze1, Irakli Bebiashvili1, Elza Azmaipharashvili1, Irina Modebadze2, Diana Dzidziguri2, Marom Sareli3, Sergey Gusev4, Dimitri Kordzaia1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phenomenon of liver regeneration after partial hepatectomy (PH) is still a subject of considerable interest due to the increasing frequency of half liver transplantation on the one hand, and on the other hand, new surgical approaches which allow removal of massive space-occupying hepatic tumors, which earlier was considered as inoperable. Interestingly, the mechanisms of liver regeneration are extensively studied after PH but less attention is paid to the architectonics of the regenerated organ. Because of this, the question "How does the structure of regenerated liver differ from normal, regular liver?" has not been fully answered yet. Furthermore, almost without any attention is left the liver's structural transformation after repeated hepatectomy (of the re-regenereted liver). AIM: To compare the architectonics of the lobules and circulatory bed of normal, re-generated and re-regenerated livers.Entities:
Keywords: Corrosion casts; Hepatocytes hypertrophy; Liver re-regeneration; Liver regeneration; Partial hepatectomy; Ploidy; Remodeling; Repeated hepatectomy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32774065 PMCID: PMC7385567 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i27.3899
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Distribution of the experimental animals by experimental models and research methods
| Control | 6* | 6* | 6* | 6* | 4 | 6 | 3* | 16 |
| Study group 1 (9 mo after PH) | 6** | 6** | 6** | 6** | 4 | 4 | 3** | 14 |
| Study group 2 (6 mo after repeated PH conducted after 9 mo from primary intervention) | 4*** | 4*** | 4*** | 4*** | 2 | 4 | 3*** | 10 |
| Total 40 | ||||||||
Note: A similar number of (*) indicates that the same animals were used for different research methods. PH: Partial hepatectomy; SEM: Scanning electron microscopy.
Figure 1Schematic and histological figures of liver lobule. A: Schematic illustration of mutual compatibility of “classical” and “portal” lobules with hepatic acini. I, II, III – the zones of the acinus. The hatched periportal area “a” – localized in the 1st zone of the acinus. The hatched pericentral area “b” – localized in the 3rd zone of the acinus. Orange arrow – central vein; black arrow – portal triad. B: Pericentral hepatocytes (CK8) ObX40; OcX20; C: Periportal hepatocytes (CK8). ObX40; OcX20.
Data of the morphometric study of hepatocyte areas and perimeters of the 1st and 3rd zones of liver acini of control group, study group 1 and study group 2
| Control group (CG) | 283 ± 88 | 64 ± 10 | 255 ± 66 | 62 ± 8 |
| Study group 1 (SG1) | 331 ± 95 | 71 ± 11 | 348 ± 90 | 71 ± 10 |
| Study group 2 (SG2) | 390 ± 128 | 75 ± 11 | 372 ± 107 | 73 ± 11 |
All measurements are carried out and presented in micrometers. Area, I zone of control group (CG) vs III zone of CG, P < 0.05; Perimeter, I zone CG vs III zone CG, P > 0.05. Area, III zone CG vs study group 1 (SG1), P < 0.05; Perimeter, III zone CG vs SG1, P value < 0.05. Perimeter, I zone CG vs SG1, P < 0.05. Area, I zone SG1 vs III zone SG1, P > 0.05; Perimeter, I zone SG1 vs III zone SG1, P > 0.05. Area, III zone CG vs study group 2 (SG2), P < 0.05; Perimeter, III zone CG vs SG2, P < 0.05. Area, III zone SG1 vs SG2, P < 0.05; Perimeter, III zone SG1 vs SG2, P > 0.05. Area, I zone SG1 vs SG2, P > 0.05; Perimeter, I zone SG1 vs SG2; P value > 0.05. Area, I zone SG2 vs III zone SG2, P > 0.05; Perimeter, I zone SG2 vs III zone SG2, P > 0.05.
Figure 2Hepatocytes’ ploidy in normal (control), regenerated (SG1) and re-regeneration (SG2).
Figure 3Histology and scanning electron microscopy of corrosion casts of the livers from control group. A and B: Liver lobules histology (H&E); C: Liver lobule (histology after Indian ink – gelatin injection); D: Adjacent lobules with intercommunicated sinusoidal meshwork (histology after Indian ink – gelatin injection); E: Connective-tissue sheath (arrow) around the tributary of hepatic vein (Masson’s Trichrome); F: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of corrosion casts of small branches of portal vein and sinusoids; periportal plexus (arrow); G-L: SEM of corrosion casts of sinusoids and related vessels; J and K: SEM of corrosion casts of superficial (sub-capsular) vessels of the liver.
Figure 4Histology and scanning electron microscopy of corrosion casts of regenerated liver (SG1). A and B: Liver tissue histology (Masson’s Trichrome); C: Liver lobules (histology after Indian ink – gelatin injection); D: “mega-lobule” formed by adjacent lobules with intercommunicated sinusoidal meshwork (bordered by yellow line) (histology after Indian ink – gelatin injection); E-J: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of corrosion casts of liver vessels; E and F: “mega-lobules”; G-I: SEM of corrosion casts of sinusoids; J: SEM of vascular corrosion casts of liver lobe; “mega-lobules” (bordered by red line).
Figure 5Histology and scanning electron microscopy of corrosion casts of livers from re-regenerated liver (SG2). A: Liver tissue histology (H&E); B and D: Connective-tissue fibers around the portal triad and perilobular branches (Masson’s Trichrome); C: Liver lobules (histology after Indian ink – gelatin injection); E-I: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of liver vascular corrosion casts; E and F: “mega-lobules”; G-I: SEM of corrosion casts of sinusoids
Figure 6Ductular reaction. A and B: Portal/periportal ductular reaction in SG1 (CK8); C: Intralobular ductular reaction in SG1 (H&E); D-F: Intralobular ductular reaction in SG2 (CK8).