Periductal bile acid exposure causes cholangiocyte injury and fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: Bile duct integrity is essential for the maintenance of the structure and function of the biliary tree. We previously showed that cholangiocyte injury in a toxic model of biliary atresia leads to increased monolayer permeability. Increased epithelial permeability was also shown in other cholangiopathies. We hypothesized that after initial cholangiocyte injury, leakage of bile acids into the duct submucosa propagates cholangiocyte damage and fibrosis. We thus aimed to determine the impact of bile acid exposure on cholangiocytes and the potential therapeutic effect of a non-toxic bile acid.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Extrahepatic bile duct explants were isolated from adult and neonatal BALB/c mice. Explants were cultured with or without glycochenodeoxycholic acid and ursodeoxycholic acid. They were then fixed and stained.
RESULTS: Explants treated with glycochenodeoxycholic acid demonstrated cholangiocyte injury with monolayer disruption and partial lumen obstruction compared to control ducts. Masson's trichrome stains revealed increased collagen fibers. Myofibroblast marker α-SMA stains were significantly elevated in the periductal region. The addition of ursodeoxycholic acid resulted in decreased cholangiocyte injury and reduced fibrosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Bile acid leakage into the submucosa after initial cholangiocyte injury may serve as a possible mechanism of disease propagation and progressive fibrosis in cholangiopathies.

Introduction

Bile acids are amphipathic end products of cholesterol metabolism [1]. Bile acid composition varies substantially among animal species. In cholestasis, impaired bile flow leads to the accumulation of bile acids, which causes injury and inflammation [2]. Bile acids have intrinsic membranolytic properties, yet under physiologic conditions, cholangiocytes are protected from bile acid toxicity on their apical side. However, apical and basolateral cholangiocyte plasma membranes differ in their lipid and protein composition and fluidity [3]. We hypothesized that an initial insult causes increased epithelial permeability; this results in a bile leak to the basolateral side, which may be more susceptible to the toxic effects of bile acids. This subsequently propagates cholangiocyte injury and periductal fibrosis [4].

We have previously shown that in a toxic model of biliary atresia (BA) there is increased epithelial permeability [5]. BA is a neonatal liver disease that occurs in 1:5000–1:18,000 live births around the world [6]. Severe extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) fibrosis is usually present at the time of diagnosis and the extrahepatic cholangiocyte injury is significantly more pronounced at the time of diagnosis compared to intrahepatic cholangiocytes [7].

Previous work led to the identification of a plant toxin, biliatresone, which causes selective EHBD damage in zebrafish and a BA-like disease in the offspring of livestock exposed in pregnancy [8]. Biliatresone treatment of murine cholangiocyte spheroids leads to rapid loss of cellular tubulin, increased epithelial monolayer permeability, loss of apical polarity, and monolayer disruption [4, 5]. Cholangiocytes in a microfluidic bile duct-on-a-chip showed increased monolayer permeability in response to biliatresone treatment, and this was worse when the application of biliatresone was to the basolateral surface [9].

Chronic cholestatic liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), are often associated with alterations in the tight junctions of cholangiocytes and biliary epithelial cells [10]. E-cadherin is an important adhesion molecule whose loss in knockout mice was associated with periportal inflammation as well as periductal fibrosis, which resembled primary sclerosing cholangitis [11].

Materials and methods

Use of experimental animals

An animal research ethics committee prospectively approved this research (Tel-Aviv University and the Israel Ministry of Health, license number 01-16-098). All the mice that were used were under strict standards of care and experimental planning. The study was administrated in compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines for the involvement of animals in the study. Adult mice were euthanized at six weeks of age or older using carbon dioxide, and neonatal mice were euthanized at the age of 3 days by isoflorane, both followed by cervical dislocation.

Bile acids and EHBD cultures

The concentration of bile acids varies depending on the location in the enterohepatic circulation. The concentration of bile acids in the canaliculus and biliary ductules is high, at 20–40 mmol/L. In the gallbladder, the concentration increases up to 200 mmol/L. These high concentrations are mandatory for sufficient micelle formation [1, 4]. Previous work found that glycochenodeoxycholic acid (GCDCA) concentration in the bile of cholestatic patients was around 4–5 mM [12, 13].

EHBDs were isolated from adult and 3-day-old mice, employing a protocol that was previously described [14]. The EHBDs were treated with GCDCA 5 or 50mM (G0759 Merck) and ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) at 5mM (U5127 Merck). Control ducts were immersed in a biliary epithelial cell medium.

The pH was adjusted to physiological levels. The ducts were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C, 95% O2 and 5% CO2 in a Vitron Dynamic Organ Culture Incubator (San Jose, United States). All the experiments were repeated a minimum of three times, with two technical replicates each.

Staining and imaging

Following the incubation, adult ducts were inserted in a solution of 2% bacto agar and 2.5% gelatin at 4°C for 1 hour, and then placed inside histology cassettes in 70% alcohol. The ducts were fixed in paraffin blocks and sectioned for staining (7 μm sections).

Neonatal ducts were fixed using a whole‐mount staining technique, as previously described [15]. EHBD were fixed in 4% formalin for 15 minutes and washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Then they were permeabilized in Dent’s fixative (80% methanol/20% dimethyl sulfoxide) for 15 minutes and gradually rehydrated with a series of methylene and water solutions. Later, the ducts were washed with PBS and diluent (1× PBS with 0.1% Triton X-100 and 1% goat serum) for 1.5 hours. This was followed by blocking in a diluent solution containing 10% normal goat serum for an additional 2 hours.

Both neonatal and adult ducts were stained using antibodies against the cholangiocyte marker keratin 19 (K19, 1:10, Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, TROMAIII) and for the myofibroblast marker α-smooth muscle actin (mouse α-SMA, Abcam ab7817). Adult bile ducts were also stained for hematoxylin and eosin and Masson trichrome.

Leica SP5 confocal microscope at 40X magnification was used for imaging of neonatal ducts and Axioimager Z2 apotome microscope at 20X-40X for adult ducts. Images were analyzed by using FIJI ImageJ software (https://imagej.net/Fiji/Downloads) employing a standard color threshold. The extent of fibrosis was compared between samples by measuring the thickness of collagen staining surrounding the lumen. In Masson’s trichrome-stained bile ducts, collagen deposition was expressed as the percentage of collagen positive area with relation to the whole duct wall. Quantification of total α-SMA positive area in the bile ducts was automated with a custom ImageJ macro (MeasureSignalWidthV5.ijm) with values that were normalized to control.

Relevant regulations and guidelines were used for all methods.

Results

To determine the effect of bile acids on the surface epithelium of adult cholangiocytes, we added the toxic hydrophobic bile acid GCDCA at 5 mM, to the cholangiocyte media of adult mouse EHBD explants. Ducts treated with GCDCA demonstrated altered duct morphology: cholangiocytes with abnormal nuclear chromatin and disruption of the cholangiocyte monolayer, with visible cell sloughing. This resulted in partial lumen obstruction compared to control ducts, which remained intact (Fig 1a, upper panel). The width of the collagen layer in the submucosa of the GCDCA-treated ducts, as highlighted by Masson’s trichrome staining, was significantly increased (Fig 1a, middle panel and Fig 1b). K19 staining, which is specific for cholangiocytes, further demonstrated loss of the epithelial monolayer, with loss of cell-to-cell adhesion and areas of cholangiocyte clustering (Fig 1a, lower panel). Immunofluorescence staining for α-SMA also demonstrated significantly increased staining in the periductal region in the GCDCA-treated ducts (Fig 1a, lower panel and Fig 1c).

Fig 1

Glycochenodexycholic acid (GCDCA) causes cholangiocyte injury and subepithelial fibrosis in mice extrahepatic bile ducts (EHBDs).

(a) EHBDs were dissected and incubated for 24 hours with and without GCDCA at 5mM. The ducts were then sectioned and stained for hematoxylin and eosin (upper panel), Masson’s trichrome (middle panel), and immunofluorescence: the cholangiocyte marker K19 (green) and the myofibroblast marker α-SMA (red) (lower panel). Disruption of the cholangiocyte layer was observed with all three staining modalities. Marked fibrosis was evident, with a thickened collagen layer highlighted with Masson’s trichrome, and with increased immunofluorescent stain with α-SMA. Scale bar, 50 μm. (b) The extent of collagen deposition was expressed as the proportion (%) of Masson’s trichrome stained area with respect to the total biopsy area (control 31.2% ± 2.93, GCDCA 5mM 44.53% ± 2.23, GCDCA 50mM 71.8% ± 5.13, (n = 18 ducts)). (c) Quantification of the total relative α-SMA positive area in the bile ducts (control 1 ± 0.213 (n = 24), GCDCA 5.6104 ± 0.972, (n = 16)). Data represent mean ± standard error of the mean, N = 4–6 independent experiments.

Next, we determined the effect of GCDCA on the surface epithelium of neonatal ducts. We previously showed, in a toxic model of BA, increased epithelial permeability [5]. Hence, we were interested in observing the response to bile acid leakage in the EHBD of neonatal mice. We treated EHBDs of three-day-old mice with GCDCA. Since neonatal EHBDs can be stained whole mount, we were able to use confocal microscopy to examine changes throughout the duct and to assess lumen integrity. This technique is not feasible with larger ducts. GCDCA caused extensive lumen obstruction and periductular fibrosis in neonatal EHBDs compared to untreated neonatal EHBDs, which remained intact (Fig 2). Additionally, GCDCA-treated ducts had notably greater α-SMA staining in the periductal region (Fig 2a).

Fig 2

Glycochenodexycholic (GCDCA) causes lumen obstruction and subepithelial fibrosis of neonatal extrahepatic bile ducts (EHBDs), while ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) attenuates GCDCA toxicity.

(a) Neonatal EHBD were dissected and incubated for 24 hours in biliary epithelial cell media, with or without GCDCA 5mM, and with GCDCA 5mM combined with UDCA acid 5mM. Immunofluorescent staining for the cholangiocyte marker K19 (green) and the myofibroblast marker α-SMA (red) demonstrated an ameliorating effect of UDCA, with increased lumen integrity and decreased fibrosis. Scale bar, 50 μm. (b) Quantification of the total α-SMA positive area in the bile ducts (control 1 ± 0.255 (n = 20), GCDCA 4.19 ± 0.87 (n = 21), GCDCA +UDCA 1.87 ± 0.48 (n = 15)). Data represent mean ± standard error of the mean, N = 4 independent experiments.

We were also interested in assessing whether the addition of UDCA to GCDCA alters the effects of GCDCA on the neonatal EHBD. Neonatal EHBD treated with both GCDCA and UDCA demonstrated decreased cholangiocyte injury, improved lumen integrity and significantly decreased fibrosis compared to treatment with GCDCA alone, as reflected by reduced α-SMA expression (Fig 2a). This suggests that UDCA can attenuate bile acid toxicity in diseases with increased epithelial permeability.

Discussion

Bile duct integrity is essential for the maintenance of the structure and function of the biliary tree. Disruption of tight junction integrity is part of the pathogenesis of biliary diseases such as ischemic cholangitis, primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma [16]. Iatrogenic bile duct injury during surgery, leading to bile leaks, is associated with significant perioperative morbidity and mortality [17].

The apical surface of cholangiocytes confronts and normally resists the hostile luminal environment, which contains millimolar concentrations of bile acids; the basolateral surface is not exposed to bile and its contents. However, an injury may disrupt cholangiocyte tight junctions and epithelial barrier function, leading to bile leakage into the duct submucosa, with exposure of the basolateral surface of cholangiocytes to bile [16]. Here we showed that bile acid exposure results in cholangiocyte injury and fibrosis.

In BA, the role of bile acids in fibrosis progression is yet to be established. BA is a cholangiopathy that rapidly progresses to cirrhosis [6, 18–21]. In a toxic model of BA, we and colleagues previously showed increased epithelial permeability of injured cholangiocytes, with decreased expression and abnormal localization of the apical tight junction protein ZO-1 [5]. It is possible that an initial insult causes increased permeability, leading to the leakage of toxic bile acids. In the second stage, exposure to toxic bile acids of the basolateral side of the duct may lead to propagation of injury.

We used a novel bile duct explant culture system to delineate the effects of bile acids. We showed that GCDCA causes significant cholangiocyte injury, leading to lumen obstruction and fibrosis. GCDCA is a primary conjugated biliary acid and is known to be toxic and to accumulate in cholestasis [22]. GCDCA deregulates autophagy and causes abnormal expression of mitochondrial antigens, followed by cellular senescence in cholangiocytes [23]. Previous studies demonstrated that GCDCA caused apoptosis in rat liver cells and necrotic cell death in human cells [4]. In our model, GCDCA damage was seen in both neonatal and adult mouse EHBD.

We demonstrated that UDCA ameliorates the toxic effects of GCDCA in EHBD explants. UDCA is a secondary bile acid with choleretic properties. It is used therapeutically in cholestatic liver diseases [24-28]. In cholestasis, hydrophobic bile acids damage ductal cell membranes, while UDCA is a relatively hydrophilic bile acid. Moreover, UDCA exerts anti-inflammatory and protective effects on human epithelial cells of the gastrointestinal tract and has been linked to immunoregulatory responses [29]. Sakisaka et al. described alteration in the tight junction protein 7H6 in livers of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. While in untreated patients, immunostaining for 7H6 was diminished to absent, in livers of patients treated with UDCA, immunostaining was well preserved [10]. Our findings are consistent with the observed beneficial effects of UDCA in cholestatic patients.

This research has several limitations. First, bile acid composition, metabolism, and toxicity vary markedly between species. Therefore, findings in mice may not be directly extrapolated to humans [4]. We showed the effects of only two bile acids; initial experiments with cholic acid showed milder damage than GCDCA, and further research is needed. Lastly, the EHBD explants were cultured in a system that exposes GCDCA not only to the basolateral domain but also to the apical domain of cholangiocytes. We hope that in the future, novel study systems [9] will enable us to differentiate between the apical and basolateral sides and better demonstrate the effects of bile acids on each domain.

In summary, exposure of EHBDs to GCDCA caused cholangiocyte injury and fibrosis. We suggest that this represents a mechanism of propagation of injury after increased epithelial permeability due to initial cholangiocyte damage. More research is needed to characterize disease progression in humans and to determine whether the injury can be reversed at early stages.

3 Jan 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aftab A. Ansari, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: First and foremost, two preliminary remarks should be made here: biliary atresia (BA) is an inflammatory process of the intra- and extra-hepatic biliary tree, leading to ongoing fibrosis and deteriorating liver function. However, according to diagnostic patterns and and surgical treatment, BA ist only defined by the pathological findings along the extrahepatic bile ducts. This contradiction is frequently overseen, when etiologically directed research is performed. The second point is that there is so far no BA-animal model available, which displays precisely the pathomechanism and the course of the human disease. Taking this consideration into account, one should act cautiously when findings in mouse models or cell cultures shall be translationally interpreted.

The authors of the submitted study show that bile acid exposure to isolated extra hepatic bile ducts, which were harvested from adult and neonatal Bab/c-mice, results in cholangiocyte injury and fibrosis. They also demonstrate that ursodeoxycholic acid has a protective effect and reduces the destruction of the epithelial layer of the bile ducts. Limitations of the study are listed by the authors themselves, of which the argument concerning the exposure of the specimens to the bile salts was not restricted to the epithelium but to the bile duct in toto, is the most relevant.

Although the study provides interesting results about the toxic effect of bile salts to bile ducts and the already demonstrated protective value of ursodeoxycholic acid, it is not acceptable to discuss these findings in the context of the pathomechanism of BA. Hence, the observations of this interesting study should be imbedded in any other context while the relevance of the observations could be improved by showing that no isolated intra-hepatic bile ducts react the same way.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

21 Feb 2022

Response to reviewers:

Reviewer 1:

1. First and foremost, two preliminary remarks should be made here: biliary atresia (BA) is an inflammatory process of the intra- and extrahepatic biliary tree, leading to ongoing fibrosis and deteriorating liver function. However, according to diagnostic patterns and surgical treatment, BA is only defined by the pathological findings along the extrahepatic bile ducts. This contradiction is frequently overseen, when etiologically directed research is performed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment and agree that BA is a pan-cholangiopathy. At the time of BA diagnosis the extra-hepatic biliary tree is more effected compared to the intra-hepatic bile ducts; we thus hypothesize that the extra-hepatic cholangiocytes are either more sensitive to injury in the neonate or that there are hepatic mechanism compensating in part for the intra-hepatic cholangiocytes. Here in this study, we specifically aimed to determine the effect of increased permeability of the extra-hepatic bile ducts both to cholangiocytes and to the peri-ductal area. Based on the reviewer suggestion to modify the paper to reflect cholangiopathies in general and not specifically BA, we have edited the text accordingly.

2. The second point is that there is so far no BA-animal model available, which displays precisely the pathomechanism and the course of the human disease. Taking this consideration into account, one should act cautiously when findings in mouse models or cell cultures shall be translationally interpreted.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree with this limitation of the study. Indeed mice research should be interpreted cautiously with future translational work to support those findings both from our labs and other groups. We have emphasized this well taken point in the discussion.

3. The authors of the submitted study show that bile acid exposure to isolated extra hepatic bile ducts, which were harvested from adult and neonatal Balb/c-mice, results in cholangiocyte injury and fibrosis. They also demonstrate that ursodeoxycholic acid has a protective effect and reduces the destruction of the epithelial layer of the bile ducts. Limitations of the study are listed by the authors themselves, of which the argument concerning the exposure of the specimens to the bile salts was not restricted to the epithelium but to the bile duct in toto, is the most relevant. The relevance of the observations could be improved by showing that no isolated intra-hepatic bile ducts react the same way.

Response: This is indeed an important point. We are not aware of a methodology that isolates intra-hepatic bile ducts as a whole rather than single cholangiocytes, and are not caplbe of performing it in our facility. Our study specifically aimed to determine the effect of bile acids exposure to the extra hepatic peri-ductal area and cholangiocytes in the basolateral side. We agree that the results do no imply on intra-hepatic bile ducts and we have refied our discussion to include that.

4. Although the study provides interesting results about the toxic effect of bile salts to bile ducts and the already demonstrated protective value of ursodeoxycholic acid, it is not acceptable to discuss these findings in the context of the pathomechanism of BA. Hence, the observations of this interesting study should be imbedded in any other context. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have accepted this comment in full and substantially reduced the context of biliary atresia throughout the manuscript and adjugsted the discussed the findings in the context of cholangiopathies in general.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Mar 2022

Periductal bile acid exposure causes cholangiocyte injury and fibrosis

PONE-D-21-36274R1

Dear Dr. Waisbourd-Zinman,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aftab A. Ansari, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

7 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-36274R1

Periductal bile acid exposure causes cholangiocyte injury and fibrosis

Dear Dr. Waisbourd-Zinman:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aftab A. Ansari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE