| Literature DB >> 33129276 |
Linshi Wu1,2, Yinping Wang1,2, Sibo Zhu3,4, Xunxia Bao4, Zhiliang Fu4, Timing Zhen4, Zhiqing Yuan1,2, Qiwei Li1,2, Zheng Deng1,2, Jianhua Sun1,2, Tao Chen5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of gallbladder disease (GBD) is related to bile acid (BA) metabolism, and the rate of BA circulation increases the risk of biliary cancer. However, it is unclear whether patterns of circulating bile acids (BAs) change in patients with benign GBDs such as gallbladder stones and polyps. Herein, we compared and characterised plasma BA profiles in patients with cholecystolithiasis and non-neoplastic polyps with healthy controls, and explored relationships between plasma BA profiles, demographics, and laboratory test indices.Entities:
Keywords: Bile acids; Gallbladder; Gallbladder stones; Polyps
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33129276 PMCID: PMC7603702 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01512-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 3.067
Clinical and demographic data of participants
| All | Healthy | Cholecystolithiasis | Non-neoplastic Polyps | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 330 | 13 | 292 | 25 | |
| Male | 123 (37.27%) | 6 (46.15%) | 107 (36.64%) | 10 (40%) | 0.753 |
| Female | 207 (62.73%) | 7 (53.85%) | 185 (63.36%) | 15 (60%) | 0.753 |
| Age (mean ± SD) | 51.87 ± 14.05 | 60.85 ± 22.96 | 51.9 ± 13.41 | 46.88 ± 13.85 | 0.035 |
| BMI (mean ± SD) | 24.27 ± 12.68 | 24.55 ± 4.34 | 24.27 ± 3.58 | 24.01 ± 2.95 | 0.787 |
| Hypentension | 93 (28.18%) | 3 (23.08%) | 86 (29.45%) | 4 (16%) | 0.327 |
| Non-hypertension | 237 (71.82%) | 10 (76.92%) | 206 (70.55%) | 21 (84%) | 0.327 |
| Diabetes | 17 (5.15%) | 1 (7.69%) | 16 (5.48%) | 0 (0) | 0.451 |
| Non-diabetes | 313 (94.85%) | 12 (92.31%) | 276 (94.52%) | 25 (100%) | 0.451 |
| INR (mean ± SD) | 0.94 ± 0.06 | 0.95 ± 0.08 | 0.94 ± 0.06 | 0.94 ± 0.06 | 0.970 |
| AST (mean ± SD) | 21.2 ± 7.08 | 24.48 ± 9.5 | 21.04 ± 7.03 | 21.36 ± 6.12 | 0.290 |
| ALT (mean ± SD) | 24.06 ± 16.19 | 31.11 ± 20.87 | 24.15 ± 16.31 | 19.28 ± 10.01 | 0.283 |
| TBIL (mean ± SD) | 12.66 ± 5.42 | 11.55 ± 4.74 | 12.75 ± 5.54 | 12.22 ± 4.26 | 0.705 |
*Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare continuous variables and chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables
Fig. 1PCA cluster analysis showed that the samples of BAs in the healthy group (red) showed high PC1 and PC2 values. a The main reason for this difference was the change in GCA, TCDCA, and GCDCA content between patients and healthy people. b, c There is no obvious difference between blood test and demography in cluster analysis
Fig. 2Plasma bile acid profile is significantly altered in GBD. a Stack bar plot representing proportion of total primary and secondary BAs. b Heat map display of the spectrum of BA profile across three study groups. c–f Glycine and taurine conjugates of cholate and chenodeoxycholate. BA bile acid; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 3Plasma BAs along Primary BA pathway. Patients with non-neoplastic polyps demonstrate significantly decreased a conjugated cholate and b total conjugated primary BAs. Patients with cholecystolithiasis demonstrate significantly increased proportions of conjugated to unconjugated c cholate (CA) and e primary BAs. d cholecystolithiasis and non-neoplastic polyps did not show a significantly higher median ratio for conjugated to unconjugated CDCA. f Significantly increased ratio of total primary cholate (CA) to chenodeoxycholate (CDCA) in non-neoplastic polyps compared to cholecystolithiasis (the data of cdef graph is processed by ‘log10’ to get the ratio. x < 1, log10(x) < 0)
Fig. 4Secondary plasma bile acid changes in cholecystolithiasis and non-neoplastic polyps. a Secondary BA significantly decreased in non-neoplastic polyps. b Ratio of secondary to primary BA is significantly higher in cholecystolithiasis. c, e Subjects with non-neoplastic polyps had significantly lower ursodeoxycholate (UDCA) and tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) versus cholecystolithiasis and healthy. d, f Lithocholate (LCA) and glycyurdeoxycholic acid (GUDCA) is significantly reduced in non-neoplastic polyps
Fig. 5Correlation between bile acid changes and demographic indicators and blood biochemical indicators
Fig. 6The possible mechanism of UDCA in GBD treatment. UDCA is attractive drug candidates for the treatment of GBD, since it may affect inflammatory response, unique BA profile and intestinal microbial community structure. BAs may also alter the influence of oestrogen on cholesterol metabolism, explaining why females suffer more from GDB than males. Furthermore, hypertension and obesity may serve as risk predictors of GBD. This figure was created by the author (Xunxia Bao)