| Literature DB >> 33126224 |
Jan Frohlich1, Kristina Kovacovicova1, Tommaso Mazza2, Maria R Emma3, Daniela Cabibi4, Michelangelo Foti5, Cyril Sobolewski5, Jude A Oben6, Marion Peyrou7,8, Francesc Villarroya7,8,9, Maurizio Soresi4, Rita Rezzani10,11, Melchiorre Cervello3, Francesca Bonomini10,11, Anna Alisi12, Manlio Vinciguerra1,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Growth Differentiation Factor 11 (GDF11) is an anti-aging factor, yet its role in liver diseases is not established. We evaluated the role of GDF11 in healthy conditions and in the transition from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).Entities:
Keywords: NAFLD; NASH; fibrosis; growth differentiation factor 11; liver
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33126224 PMCID: PMC7655202 DOI: 10.18632/aging.104182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Figure 1Correlation between GDF11 mRNA levels, clinico-pathologic characteristics and gene expression in morbidly obese patients (n=33). Correlations between GDF11 mRNA levels and (A) NAFLD or NASH, (B) Kleiner score (0-8) and (C) expression levels of Col1A1, SREBP1, PPARγ and CPT1 in the whole cohort of morbidly obese patients (n=33) and subgroups with NAFLD (n=20) or NASH (n=13). The Pearson correlation’s coefficient is shown.
Pearson’s correlation between mRNA levels of GDF11 and genes involved in lipid metabolism in our cohort of obese patients.
| Pearson r | 0.456 | 0.04332 | 0.527 | 0.3398 | 0.444 | 0.3189 |
| P value | 0.0067 | 0.8078 | 0.0014 | 0.0493 | 0.0085 | 0.066 |
| NAFLD | GDF11. vs. Col1A | GDF11. vs. FASN | GDF11. vs. PPARG | GDF11. vs. CPT1 | GDF11. vs. SREBP1 | GDF11. vs. PPARa |
| Pearson r | -0.366 | -0.2601 | 0.3157 | -0.0023 | 0.3559 | 0.3276 |
| P value | 0.1125 | 0.2682 | 0.1751 | 0.9922 | 0.1235 | 0.1585 |
| NASH | GDF11. vs. Col1A | GDF11. vs. FASN | GDF11. vs. PPARG | GDF11. vs. CPT1 | GDF11. vs. SREBP1 | GDF11. vs. PPARa |
| Pearson r | 0.7581 | 0.3356 | 0.6657 | 0.7411 | 0.5368 | 0.4897 |
| P value | 0.0027 | 0.2623 | 0.013 | 0.0038 | 0.0585 | 0.0894 |
Analysis was carried out in all patients (n=33) or they were divided into two subgroups according to the presence NAFLD (n=20) or NASH (n=13).
Figure 2Association of GDF11 expression with liver fibrosis. GDF11 mRNA levels in morbidly obese patients (n=33), according to their fibrosis score, determined by histological assessment (F0-F4). * p<0.05 versus F0 (T-test).
Figure 3GDF11 induces HSCs activation in mice. 16-18 months old wild type C57/BL6J mice (n=5 mice per group) were injected daily (for nine days) with either GDF11 (1 mg/kg) or saline. (A) Representative images of H&E stained livers (200x magnification) from the livers of CTL and GDF11-treated mice. (B) Quantitative morphometric analysis of total lipid area (%) as in (A). (C) Representative images of αSMA immunostaining (200x magnification) in the livers of CTL and GDF11-treated mice. (D) Quantitative morphometric analysis of αSMA immunostaining (% of total imaged area, n=5 per group, at least fifteen randomly chosen fields per sample were evaluated). Data are represented as the mean ± SD. ** p<0.01 (Mann-Whitney U-test).
Figure 4GDF11 accelerates NAFLD progression in obese mice. Obese ( Graphs showing (A) average weight gain during the experiment and (B) average food consumption per cage (n=2 mice per cage). (C) Representative images of H&E stained livers from CTL and GDF11-treated ob/ob mice (n=6 mice per group, 200x magnification). (D) Quantitative morphometric analyses of total lipid area (% of imaged area) as in (C) (n=6 per group, at least fifteen randomly chosen fields per sample were evaluated). (E) Representative images of Masson’s trichrome histological staining to visualize liver fibrosis in CTL and GDF11-treated ob/ob mice (n=6 per group, at least fifteen randomly chosen fields per animal were evaluated, 200x magnification). The red arrow indicates area with increased staining. (F) Morphometric quantification of liver fibrosis (% of total imaged area) (n=6 per group, at least fifteen randomly chosen fields per sample were evaluated). (G) Representative images of αSMA immunostained livers from CTL and GDF11-treated ob/ob mice (n=6 per group, 200x magnification). (H) Quantitative morphometric analyses of total αSMA stained area (%) as in (G) (n=6 per group). (I) Representative images of F4/80 immunostained livers from CTL and GDF11-treated ob/ob mice (n=6 per group, 200x magnification). (J) Quantitative morphometric analyses of total F4/80 stained area (%) as in (I) (n=6 per group at least fifteen randomly chosen fields per sample were evaluated). Data are represented as the mean±SD (or indicated otherwise) * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 (Mann-Whitney U-test).
Figure 5Anti-fibrogenic pathways are inhibited after GDF11 treatment in the liver of (A) Principal Component Analysis applied to expression profiles of 179 genes in control and GDF11-treated livers from ob/ob mice (n=3 per group). (B) Volcano plot displaying differences in gene expression (|log2 fold-change| >2, -log10 p-value >1.3). The top 4 outliers, not in the plot, are evidenced in terms of fold change (FC) and significance (p-value). (C) Heatmap showing differences in mRNA expression levels between control and GDF11-treated ob/ob mice (n=3 per group). (D) Bar plot reporting biological pathways in crescent statistical significance order (bar length), together with the functional inhibition score of the pathways (z-score value within the bar) and the differentially expressed genes representing each pathway.
Figure 6Stellate cells are activated and produce ECM components after GDF11 exposure. (A) Activation of the LX2 stellate cell line by GDF11 (100 ng/ml) or TGF-β (100 ng/ml, positive control) (scale= 100μm). (B) The nuclear translocation ratio of SMAD2/3 complexes after GDF11 and TGF-β treatment (n=3 per group). (C) Cell viability was assessed in LX2 cells, treated with different doses of GDF11 (25, 50, 100 ng/ml) for 48 hours, by using alamarBlue™ Cell Viability Reagent. (D) Relative mRNA expression of liver fibrosis/stellate cells activation markers in LX2 cells after exposure to GDF11 (100 ng/ml) or TGF-β (100 ng/ml). (E) Protein expression levels of liver fibrosis/stellate cells activation markers in LX2 cells after GDF11 or TGF-β exposure. Protein expression of selected effectors (pSMAD2, COL1A1, αSMA, vimentin (VIM), actin, GAPDH) were quantitatively assessed by immunoblotting in LX2 cells exposed or not for 48 h to GDF11 (50 or 100 ng/ml) or stimulated for 48h with TGF-β (100 ng/ml). Images are representative of three independent experiments. (F) Data quantification represents the means ± SD. * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001 (Mann-Whitney U-test).