| Literature DB >> 35739588 |
Gabriella Assante1,2, Sriram Chandrasekaran3,4,5,6, Stanley Ng7, Aikaterini Tourna1,2, Carolina H Chung5, Kowsar A Isse1,2, Jasmine L Banks8,9, Ugo Soffientini1,2, Celine Filippi10, Anil Dhawan10, Mo Liu11, Steven G Rozen11, Matthew Hoare12,13, Peter Campbell7, J William O Ballard14, Nigel Turner8,9, Margaret J Morris8, Shilpa Chokshi1,2, Neil A Youngson15,16,17.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-associated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing worldwide, but the steps in precancerous hepatocytes which lead to HCC driver mutations are not well understood. Here we provide evidence that metabolically driven histone hyperacetylation in steatotic hepatocytes can increase DNA damage to initiate carcinogenesis.Entities:
Keywords: ARLD; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Histone acetylation; NAFLD; Steatosis; Telomerase
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35739588 PMCID: PMC9219160 DOI: 10.1186/s13073-022-01071-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Med ISSN: 1756-994X Impact factor: 15.266
Fig. 1A Histone acetylation and γH2AX levels in livers of control and high-fructose diet mice. B Histone acetylation and γH2AX levels in livers of control and high-fat diet rats. Ci Lipid content of IHH cells cultured in control or oleic acid-supplemented media. Cii Representative fluorescence microscopy image of IHH cells cultured in control or oleic acid-supplemented media (blue nuclear stain and green lipid stain). D Nuclear area measurement of IHH cells cultured in control or oleic acid-supplemented media after DNAse I treatment. Error bars are ± SEM. Histone westerns all groups n = 4, Lipidtox assay n = 7/8, DNaseI Assay n = 3. *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001 in t-test
Fig. 2A Average number of cells with high ɣH2AX after oleic acid or oleic acid plus metabolic inhibitor drug treatments (% compared to control cells). B Representative ɣH2AX immunofluorescence images of control and oleic acid-treated cells (blue nuclear stain, pink ɣH2AX). Error bars are ± SEM. All groups n = 6–8. *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.0001 in t-test of oleic vs oleic plus inhibitor groups
Fig. 3Violin plots showing a comparison of the number of single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in whole genome sequencing from laser capture microdissections of human liver from patients with normal liver (n = 5), alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) (n = 10) or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (n = 19), at A control and B oleic acid peak regions. The median number of SNVs are annotated on the plots. C Stratification of human liver disease cohort by Kleiner fibrosis classification. Significantly more base substitutions are present at oleic acid than control peak regions in patients at each stage of fibrosis (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum test), with most SNVs in both groups in Kleiner score 4 livers
Fig. 4ChIP-qPCR analyses ɣH2AX and H4K16ac levels at PTEN (Ai), TP53 (Aii) and TERT promoter (Aiii) in IHH cells cultured in control media, oleic acid or oleic acid plus inhibitor drugs. Error bars are ± SEM. All treatments n = 3. #,*P < 0.05, ###P < 0.0001 in 1-way ANOVA, * H4K16ac and # ɣH2AX. B ChIP-qPCR analyses ɣH2AX at TP53 and TERT promoter in 3 samples from one human healthy liver and one human fatty liver
Fig. 5A Genome-scale metabolic modelling to simulate the impact of fatty acid treatment and metabolic enzyme inhibition on the metabolic network of hepatocytes. Heatmap of z-transformed reaction flux differences between the oleic acid vs control medium and ACLY, CPT, ACS2 KO vs wild type control in oleic acid-treated cells. p < 0.05 in any condition. B Average number of cells with high ɣH2AX after oleic acid or oleic acid plus drug treatments (% compared to control cells). Error bars are ± SEM. All groups n = 8. *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.0001 in t-test of oleic vs oleic plus inhibitor groups. C Select genes from the RNA-seq showing oleic acid-induced alteration to biological processes, oxidative stress response (GPX1, GPX4), lipotoxicity (ATF4), lipid droplet formation (PLIN2), acetyl-coA metabolism (PDK4, ACSS2, ACLY), β-oxidation (CPT1), the TCA cycle (CS), histone acetylation and chromatin condensation (KAT6B, HMGA1), folate metabolism (MTHFR), retinol dehydrogenase (RDH11) and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH5A1). Garcinol treatment had little or no impact on any of these genes and processes. Error bars are ± SEM. All groups n = 4. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001 in t-test of control vs oleic group, ^P < 0.05 in t-test of garcinol vs oleic group