Abstract
Bile acids are soluble derivatives of cholesterol produced in the liver that subsequently undergo bacterial transformation yielding a diverse array of metabolites. The bulk of bile acid synthesis takes place in the liver yielding primary bile acids; however, other tissues have also the capacity to generate bile acids (e.g. ovaries). Hepatic bile acids are then transported to bile and are subsequently released into the intestines. In the large intestine, a fraction of primary bile acids is converted to secondary bile acids by gut bacteria. The majority of the intestinal bile acids undergo reuptake and return to the liver. A small fraction of secondary and primary bile acids remains in the circulation and exert receptor-mediated and pure chemical effects (e.g. acidic bile in oesophageal cancer) on cancer cells. In this review, we assess how changes to bile acid biosynthesis, bile acid flux and local bile acid concentration modulate the behavior of different cancers. Here, we present in-depth the involvement of bile acids in oesophageal, gastric, hepatocellular, pancreatic, colorectal, breast, prostate, ovarian cancer. Previous studies often used bile acids in supraphysiological concentration, sometimes in concentrations 1000 times higher than the highest reported tissue or serum concentrations likely eliciting unspecific effects, a practice that we advocate against in this review. Furthermore, we show that, although bile acids were classically considered as pro-carcinogenic agents (e.g. oesophageal cancer), the dogma that switch, as lower concentrations of bile acids that correspond to their serum or tissue reference concentration possess anticancer activity in a subset of cancers. Differences in the response of cancers to bile acids lie in the differential expression of bile acid receptors between cancers (e.g. FXR vs. TGR5). UDCA, a bile acid that is sold as a generic medication against cholestasis or biliary surge, and its conjugates were identified with almost purely anticancer features suggesting a possibility for drug repurposing. Taken together, bile acids were considered as tumor inducers or tumor promoter molecules; nevertheless, in certain cancers, like breast cancer, bile acids in their reference concentrations may act as tumor suppressors suggesting a Janus-faced nature of bile acids in carcinogenesis.
Background
Bile acids (BAs) belong to cholesterol-derived sterols. Due to the side chain carboxyl group and hydroxylation of their steroid ring they are more polar than cholesterol. They have an amphipatic character for which they are known as natural detergents. Majority of cholesterol is excreted by bile acids that are prone to enterohepatic circulation between the gallbladder and the liver. Cholesterol absorption in the intestine and cholesterol secretion into the bile both require bile salts, which are, together with enterohepatic circulation of BAs, crucial for balancing the plasma cholesterol level [1].
BAs are also signaling molecules. They deorphanized the farnesoid X nuclear receptor (FXR) which is now known as a ligand-inducible transcription factor responsive to BAs [2]. It is important to note that BAs are metabolized in a similar manner as xenobiotics, contributing to the cross-talk between the endogenous and xenobiotic metabolism in the liver through nuclear receptors Pregnane X receptor (PXR), constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) and others [3]. While their synthesis takes place exclusively in the liver, the homeostasis and excretion involve multiple organs and compartments in the body. After discovering their signaling role, BAs have been considered as pro-carcinogenic molecules [4,5,6]. However, recent studies have provided evidence that in certain cancers, BAs can have antineoplastic features (e.g. breast cancer [7,8,9,10,11]). This novel, context-dependent, dualistic finding prompted us to thoroughly assess the involvement of BAs in carcinogenesis and cancer progression.
Bile acid biosynthesis
The excess of free cholesterol is toxic to cells and needs to be excreted, primarily through conversion to more polar BAs. The introduction of a hydroxyl group in cholesterol reduces the half-life and directs the oxidized molecule to excretion [12]. BA synthesis is thus the main cholesterol detoxification pathway where multiple cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes are involved in the classical or alternative pathways (Fig. 1). The two major primary BAs in humans are cholic acid (CA) and chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA). They are synthesized in the liver and secreted into the gallbladder as glycine or taurine conjugates [13]. The BA composition in mice substantially differs from the humans which has to be taken into account when using mouse as a model for BA related diseases. The mouse Cyp2c70 metabolizes CDCA to more hydrophilic primary muricholic acids (MCAs) [14].
The first enzyme of the classical BA synthesis pathway is cholesterol 7α-hydroxylase (CYP7A1), leading to 7α-cholesterol in a rate-limiting reaction step, followed by several enzymatic conversions. This enzyme is prone to the negative feedback regulation by BAs and FXR [2]. Sterol 12α-hydroxylase (CYP8B1) lies at the branching point that leads to CA. Sterol 27-hydroxylase (CYP27A1) is needed for both CA and CDCA. In the alternative pathway, cholesterol is first metabolized by CYP27A1 to form 27-hydroxycholesterol that is a substrate for 25-hydroxycholesterol 7α-hydroxylase (CYP7B1) and later other enzymes [15]. The alternative pathway leads majorly to CDCA. The ratio of CA to CDCA is determined by the expression level of CYP8B1, which transforms a di-hydroxylated BA to tri-hydroxylated BA. The alternative pathway is estimated to account for about 10% of cholesterol conversion [16]. Of importance, there are major differences in individual BA synthesis genes in mouse and in humans which may be due also to different biological roles of human and mouse BA species (reviewed in [15]).
Bacterial metabolism of bile acids, production of secondary bile acids
Hepatocytes secrete BAs to the bile canaliculi. By fusing with each other bile canaliculi form bile ducts, which eventually form the hepatic duct that runs to the gallbladder. The gallbladder empties to the duodenum upon feeding and, hence, releases BAs to the gastrointestinal tract. Primary BAs emulsify dietary fats and activate pancreatic lipases in the small bowel. BAs are then reabsorbed through the enterocytes and get to the liver for reuptake and reuse through the portal circulation. This circle is termed the enterohepatic circulation of BAs. A fraction of the reabsorbed BAs enter the systemic circulation (total BA concentration in the serum is < 5 µM in a healthy individual) and exert hormone-like effects [7, 17,18,19,20]. The reference concentrations of the serum, tissue and fecal bile acids are in Tables 1, 2, 3.
BAs are very powerful surfactants [21]; therefore, bacteria, mostly in the large bowel, need to protect themselves against being disintegrated by BAs. For example, lipopolysaccharides serve as membrane components in Gram-negative bacteria to passively ward off external toxins or BAs [22]. In addition to that, bacteria have a more sophisticated enzymatic system to cope with BAs termed BA conversion [23].
The hydroxyl groups and the tauryl or glycyl conjugate on BAs are crucial elements of the molecular structure of BAs for their strong surfactant properties. Therefore, the removal, modification or substitution of these molecular elements diminishes the potentially toxic features of primary BAs and renders them largely apolar. The dehydroxylated primary BAs are called secondary BAs and the main site for converting primary BAs to secondary BAs is the large bowel [24]. Secondary BAs can be resorbed to the portal circulation and are transported to the liver, where, however, hydroxylation and conjugation needs to be restored for reuse. The main secondary BAs in humans are lithocholic acid (LCA), deoxycholic acid (DCA) and to a lesser extent, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) [24, 25].
Bile salt hydrolases (BSHs) are responsible for the deconjugation of BAs, namely the removal of glycine or taurine by breaking the C24 N-acyl bond. Glycine and taurine can be fed into the metabolism of bacteria to be used as an energy source [23]. BSH activity is common among the bacteria inhabiting the small and the large intestines [23]; both aerobic [26] and anaerobic bacteria can deconjugate bile salts [27]. Namely, among the Gram-positive bacteria BSH was identified in Clostridium [27,28,29,30], Enterococcus [27, 31], Bifidobacterium [27, 32, 33], Lactobacillus [34, 35], Streptococcus [36], Eubacterium [37] and Listeria, among Gram-negative bacteria in Bacteroides [30, 38, 39], while among archea Methanobrevibacter smithii and Methanosphera stadmanae [40].
The substituents on the gonane core of BAs can be also modified, the term “secondary BA” typically stands for the removal of 7α or 7β-hydroxyl groups from primary BAs. Clostridiales and Eubacteria were shown to play a major role in dehydroxylation [23, 41,42,43,44,45], although other genre or species were also implicated (e.g. Bacteroidetes, Escherichia) [7, 38, 44, 46, 47]. Although BA deconjugation and dehydroxylation are different processes, they may be linked through regulatory circuits [30]. Other reactions of BAs involve oxidation, and epimerization that can be linked to intestinal Firmicutes (Clostridium, Eubacterium, and Ruminococcus), Bacteroides and Escherichia [23, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44, 45, 48]. Bacterial enzymes involved in secondary BA production are assembled in the BA inducible (bai) operon [24]. Collectively, BA transformation renders secondary BAs hydrophobic and BAs loose their ability to act as detergents or toxins to bacteria. Moreover, these changes are vital in fine-tuning the affinity of BAs to BA receptors.
Interactions between BAs and gut microbiota are bidirectional. Microbiota can transform primary BAs and, hence, modulate the composition of the BA pool [49, 50]. Inversely, BAs can influence the composition of the microbiome as well [51,52,53,54,55,56] and facilitate bacterial translocation to tissues [57], further underlining that notion BAs act as potent drivers of the early intestinal microbiota maturation [58]. Oncobiosis (dysbiosis associated with cancers) [59] can alter the secondary BA pool that may contribute to carcinogenic effects [4, 5, 7, 18]. It is of note that several other non-BA bacterial metabolites are known that play role in carcinogenesis [60,61,62,63,64].
Bile acid transporters
The enterohepatic circulation of BAs depends on BA transporters in the gastrointestinal system. Almost 90% of BAs are involved in circulation due to efficient active transport [65]. Different uptake and efflux BAs transporters are present in the hepatic and intestinal cells (Fig. 2). After BAs are synthesized in the liver they are transported into the bile mainly by the ATP-dependent cassette transporter (BSEP) [65], but also minor transporters, the multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 (MRP2, ABCC2) and the multidrug resistance protein 1 (MDR1, ABCB1) [65]. From the intestinal lumen, BAs are uptaken into the intestinal cells by the major apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter (SLC10A2, ASBT), which transports BAs also across the canalicular membrane in cholangiocytes and renal tubule apical membrane from glomerular filtrate [66]. BAs are then effluxed into the portal circulation by two Solute Carrier Family members, SLC51A or OSTα and SLC51B or OSTβ. The bile acids are then taken back up into hepatocytes by the major transporter the solute carrier family 10 (SLC10A1, NTCP), [65].
A scheme of enterohepatic and systemic circulation of bile acids and the transporters in different human cells. Transporters are coloured according to which part of the circulation they belong to. Blue are efflux and influx transporters, which transport BAs in portal circulation. Grey are efflux transporters, which contribute to bile export into bile and faeces. Green are transporters, which are responsible for BA transport into the systemic circulation. Yellow are transporters involved in the efflux of BAs into urine. ASBT/SLC10A2 sodium-dependent bile acid transporter, BSEP/ABCB11 ATP-dependent cassette transporter, MRP2/ABCC2 multidrug resistance-associated protein 2, MRP3/ABCC3 multidrug resistance-associated protein 3, MRP4/ABCC4 multidrug resistance-associated protein 4, OATP1A2/SLCO1A2 Solute Carrier Organic Anion Transporter Family Member 1A2, OATP1B/SLCO1B Solute Carrier Organic Anion Transporter Family, SLC51A/B or OSTα/β Solute Carrier Family members, SLC10A2/ASBT sodium-dependent bile acid transporter
BAs can enter the systemic circulation via export across the hepatic sinusoidal membrane by OSTα/OSTβ, the multidrug resistance-associated protein 3 (MRP3, ABCC3) and the multidrug resistance-associated protein 4 (MRP4, ABCC4) [67]. The MRP transporters have a role in reducing hepatic BA concentration in cholestatic conditions. MRP3 and MRP4 are also present in cholangiocytes, where they efflux BAs to portal circulation and are part of the cholehepatic shunt together with ASBT [66]. Several transporters are expressed in the kidney, where they participate in BA elimination via urine (Fig. 2) [66, 68, 69]. The Solute Carrier Organic Anion Transporter Family, OATP1B1 or SLCO1B1 and OATP1B3 or SLCO1B3 contribute to the systemic clearance of BAs via liver [70]. Other cells also express BA transporters and can, therefore, uptake BAs from the systemic circulation [68, 69, 71].
Bile acids as signaling molecules
In addition to their role in digestion, BAs act as signaling molecules. BAs can activate membrane receptors (Fig. 3), such as G protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1 (GPBAR1, also known as TGR5), sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2 (S1PR2), muscarinic receptors (CHRM2 and CHRM3) and nuclear receptors (NRs), such as farnesoid X receptor (FXR, NR1H4), PXR (NR1H2), vitamin D receptor (VDR, NR1H1), CAR (NR1H3) and liver X receptor (LXR, NR1H2-3). Each BA can interact with more than one receptor. Receptors are differentially activated by BAs. For example, FXR is activated by CDCA > DCA > LCA > CA [72], while TGR5 is activated by LCA > DCA > CDCA > CA [73, 74], respectively. VDR and PXR are mainly activated by LCA. BAs mediate immune responses [75], gastrointestinal mucosal barrier function, gestation [76], carcinogenesis [11, 18, 56] and metabolic diseases [20]. The activation of BA receptors may lead to the induction of signaling pathways involved in the regulation of several physiological functions, such as glucose, lipid and energy metabolism, as well as, in cancers. Below, we review the mode of action of BA receptors and highlight those receptor-mediated functions that have a key role in regulating the behavior of cancer cells.
The subcellular localization of bile acid receptors. TGR5 G protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1, S1PR2 Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2, CHRM2 Muscarinic receptor-2, CHRM3 Muscarinic receptor-3, FXR Farnesoid X receptor, PXR Pregnane X receptor, CAR Constitutive androstane receptor, VDR Vitamin D receptor, SHP Small heterodimer partner
Cell membrane receptors
G protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1 (GPBAR1, TGR5)
TGR5 is a member of the G protein-coupled receptor superfamily, highly expressed in the epithelium of the gallbladder [77], the intestine [74], the brown adipose tissue and the skeletal muscle [20], as well as in the brain [78]. TGR5 is also expressed in human monocytes/macrophages [73]. TGR5 is not expressed by hepatocytes, while Kupffer cells and liver sinusoidal cells can express the receptor [79].
Secondary BAs LCA and DCA are the most potent, natural ligands for TGR5, but the receptor also responds to CDCA and CA [73, 74] and a set of artificial ligands [80,81,82,83,84] (Table 4). Ligand binding to the TGR5 receptor triggers activation of adenylate cyclase leading to the production of cAMP [73, 74, 85] and the downstream activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2), protein kinase A (PKA), protein kinase B (AKT), mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and Rho kinase [86,87,88,89]. TGR5 activation leads to metabolic changes characterized by energy expenditure and β-oxidation [20, 90]. BA-dependent induction of TGR5 has immunomodulating effects. Most studies point to TGR5-dependent immunosuppression [73, 79, 91,92,93,94] partly due to the suppression of the Toll-Like Receptor 4—Nuclear factor-κB (TLR4–NF‐κB) pathway [91, 93, 94]. In line with that, in a murine model of breast cancer, LCA treatment induced the proportions of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes through TGR5 [7].
Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2 (S1PR2)
Conjugated BAs activate S1PR2 [95,96,97] that upregulates the expression of sphingosine kinase 2 (SphK2), which in turn enhances the level of sphingosine-1-phosphate in the nucleus. Elevated nuclear sphingosine-1-phosphate inhibits the function of histone deacetylases resulting in the upregulation of genes encoding nuclear receptors and enzymes involved in lipid and glucose metabolism [98] Similar to TGR5, ligand binding to S1PR2 can activate different downstream signaling pathways, such as ERK, AKT and/or c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK1/2) [96, 97, 99, 100]. Glycochenodeoxycholic acid (GCDCA) can trigger apoptosis in hepatocytes through activating S1PR2 [101]. S1PR2 is highly expressed in macrophages [102] and has widespread immunological roles [100, 102, 103].
Muscarinic receptors (CHRM2 and CHRM3)
Taurine conjugated BAs can activate muscarinic receptors, the cholinergic receptor muscarinic 2 and 3 (CHRM2 and CHRM3). CHRMs are overexpressed in colon cancer cells and stimulate cell proliferation and invasion [104, 105]. Taurolithocholic acid (TLCA) induces cholangiocarcinoma cell growth via muscarinic acetylcholine receptor and EGFR (epithelial growth factor receptor)/ERK1/2 signaling [106].
Nuclear receptors
Farnesoid X receptor (FXR, NR1H4)
FXR is a member of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily. There are two FXR genes, encoding FXRα and FXRβ of which only FXRα is expressed, FXRβ is present as a non-expressed pseudogene in humans. The FXR receptor heterodimerizes with retinoid X receptor (RXR) and binds to FXR response elements (FXREs) within the regulatory regions of its target genes [107]. BAs are physiological ligands for FXR (with decreasing affinity: CDCA, DCA, LCA, CA) [72]. FXR is expressed mainly in the liver, intestine, kidney and adrenal glands [107].
FXRα controls BA synthesis, transport and detoxification. The activation of FXR receptor by BAs reduces the expression of Cyp7a1 and Cyp8b1, key enzymes of BA biosynthesis pathway. In the liver, FXRα induces the transcription of its target gene encoding small heterodimer partner (SHP, NR5O2), an orphan nuclear hormone receptor (see in detail later) that lacks a DNA binding domain and acts as a transcriptional repressor [108]. SHP inhibits the expression of Cyp7a1 through the inhibition of the interaction with liver receptor homolog-1 (LRH-1, NR5A2) [109]. In addition to LRH-1, SHP also prevents the function of hepatocyte nuclear factor-4α (HNF4α), a positive regulator of Cyp7a1 and Cyp8b1 [110]. In the intestine, FXRα induces the expression of fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) in humans and its mouse homolog fibroblast growth factor 15 (FGF15). The secreted growth factor via portal blood reaches the liver where it binds to its receptor, fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 (FGFR4) and induces JNK and ERK pathways and causes repression of Cyp7a1, thus reducing BA synthesis [111]. In addition to Cyp7a1, Cyp8b1 is also repressed by FXRα via SHP-dependent mechanism involving HNF4α [110].
FXRα is also a key regulator of BA transport by influencing the expression of BA transporters. FXRα activation suppresses BA reuptake to hepatocytes through repressing the expression of NTCP via SHP dependent mechanism [112]. At the same time, FXRα facilitates the efflux of BAs from hepatocytes into bile by enhancing the expression of BSEP and into the systemic circulation via OSTα/β transporter [113]. FXR also upregulates MRP2, which promotes BA secretion into the gallbladder. Finally, FXRα activates the expression of intestinal BA-binding protein (I-BABP) in the ileum which promotes transport of BAs from enterocytes into portal blood [114] whereas limits enterocyte uptake of BAs by reducing ASBT expression. FXRα increases the expression of enzymes involved in the detoxification of BAs, such as cholesterol 25-hydroxylase or cytochrome P450 family 3 subfamily A4 (CYP3A4) [115], dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfotransferase (SULT) 2a1 [116] and uridine 5′-diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 2B4 (UGT2B4) [117]. Many studies have reported the relationship between FXR and inflammation. NF-kB activation suppressed FXR-mediated gene expression, indicating that there is a negative crosstalk between the FXR and NF-kB signaling [118].
Pregnane X receptor (PXR, NR1I2)
In humans, PXR is mainly expressed in the liver and intestine [119]. Among BAs, the most potent ligand of PXR is LCA, and the oxidized, 3-keto form of LCA. PXR acts as a xenobiotic sensor and regulates the expression of genes involved in the detoxification and metabolism of BAs [120]. Upon ligand binding, PXR binds to the promoter of its target gene as a heterodimer with RXR. Activation of PXR induces the uptake of xenobiotics, their modification by phase I enzymes (CYPs, including CYP3A, CYP2B, CYP2C), conjugation by phase II enzymes, such as glutathione S-transferases, UDP-glucuronosyl-transferases (UGTs) and sulfotransferases, and finally elimination by phase III drug transporters including MDR1, MRP2 and organic anion-transporting polypeptide (OATP2) [120]. The activation of PXR prevents cholesterol gallstone disease by regulating BA biosynthesis and transport [121] and protects the liver against LCA-induced toxicity [122,123,124,125]. PXR activation disrupts the interaction between HNF4α and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1 alpha (PGC-1α, PPARGC1A), which is required for the activation of CYP7A1 gene expression, thus reducing the expression of CYP7A1 and inhibiting the synthesis of BAs [126]. PXR activation is anti-inflammatory [127,128,129]. PXR activation facilitates lipogenesis, suppressing β-oxidation and ketogenesis and gluconeogenesis [130,131,132]. Furthermore, PXR through HNF4 and PGC-1α modulates the expression of CYP7A1 [133].
Constitutive androstane receptor (CAR, NR1I3)
CAR is the closest relative to the PXR and is expressed primarily in the liver. First studies identified that CAR has constitutive transcriptional activity in the absence of its ligand [134]. Later, it was reported that the constitutive transcriptional activity of CAR is reversed by androstane metabolites, which are inverse agonists [135]. CAR can be activated by direct ligand binding and indirect activation [136]. In the absence of ligand binding, CAR forms a heterodimer with RXR and transactivates its target genes [137]. CAR recruits coactivators in the nucleus, such as steroid receptor coactivator 1 (SRC-1, NC0A1) and PGC-1 [138]. Similar to PXR, CAR controls the expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters, thereby supporting the detoxification of xenobiotics [120, 139]. In contrast to PXR, it remains unclear whether BAs can function as natural ligands for CAR; nevertheless, there are reports underscoring the involvement of CAR in BA signaling [11].
Vitamin D receptor (VDR, NR1I1)
In humans, VDR is highly expressed in the kidney, intestine, bone as well as in hepatocytes but expressed at low levels in other tissues [140,141,142]. LCA is a potent endogenous VDR ligand [143, 144]; hence, VDR can act as an intestinal BA sensor. VDR activation induces expression of CYP3A that metabolizes LCA [143, 145]. In addition, VDR induces the expression of SULT2A1, MRP3 and ASBT to stimulate BA sulfonation, excretion and transport [146,147,148]. The activated VDR plays a role in the inhibition of BA synthesis via suppression of CYP7A1, thus protecting liver cells during cholestasis [140].
VDR can function as a nuclear receptor and a membrane-bounded receptor. Upon ligand binding, VDR translocates into the nucleus, where it binds to DNA response elements as a heterodimer with RXR to mediate gene transcription. Plasma membrane-associated VDR receptor activates several signaling cascades to inhibit CYP7A1 transcription [142, 149]. It has been shown that the activation of membrane VDR signaling by LCA in the liver activates MEK1/2ERK1/2 pathway, which stimulates nuclear VDR/RXRα heterodimer recruitment of corepressors to inhibit CYP7A1 gene transcription [150]. In biliary epithelial cells, bile salts (CDCA, UDCA) stimulate the expression of cathelicidin, an antimicrobial peptide, via VDR and FXR to control innate immunity [151]. The possible role of VDR in regulating immunity and the role of VDR in different cancer cells and diseases is reviewed in detail elsewhere [152].
Liver X receptor (LXR, NR1H2-3)
LXRs are activated by naturally occurring cholesterol metabolites such as oxysterols and bind to DNA as heterodimers with the RXR [153]. LXRα (NR1H3) and LXRβ (NR1H2) share a high structural homology [154]. LXRβ is ubiquitously expressed, while LXRα is primarily expressed in the liver, the adipose tissue, the intestine and macrophages. Upon ligand activation LXRs regulate gene expression via binding to LXR response elements in the promoter regions of the target genes. LXRα promotes the conversion of cholesterol into BAs through the induction of CYP7A1 expression in the liver. LXRs enhance the efflux of cholesterol from cells [155] and have an anti-inflammatory response in the adipose tissue and macrophages [156]. Hyodeoxycholic acid (HDCA), a naturally occurring secondary BA generated by bacterial C-6 hydroxylation of LCA, is a weak LXRα agonist [157].
Small heterodimer partner (SHP, NR5O2)
SHP is a unique nuclear receptor that contains a ligand-binding domain but lacks the conserved DNA-binding domain. SHP acts as a transcriptional corepressor regulating different metabolic processes, including lipid, glucose, energy homeostasis and BA synthesis via interaction with multiple transcription factors and nuclear receptors (reviewed in [158]). BAs or FGF19 signaling enhances posttranslational modifications of SHP, which modulates the regulatory function of SHP protein [159, 160]. SHP acts as an inhibitory regulator in Hedgehog/Gli signaling pathway [161].
Effects of bile acids in cancers
The role of BAs was implicated in a wide variety of neoplasias (Fig. 4, Tables 5, 6, 7). When assessing the effects of BAs, one has to keep in mind that the concentrations applied in the experiments need to correspond to the reference concentrations in serum or the compartment in question (e.g. parts of the gastrointestinal tract). However, several reports are using substantially higher concentrations than the reference. These studies need to be considered as ones using “therapeutic” concentrations. In the forthcoming chapters, we will review those neoplasias where BAs were implicated in pathogenesis.
Different roles of bile acids and bile acids receptors in a wide variety of cancers. Some BAs have opposite effects, which depend on the cell line, BA concentration and other treatment conditions. The crossed circle symbol marks the tumor suppressor effects and the arrow marks the tumor promoter effects. CA Cholic acid, CAR Constititive androstane receptor, CDCA Chenodeoxycholic acid, CHRM2/M3 Muscarinic receptor 2 and 3, DC Deoxycholate, DCA Deoxycholic acid, FXR Farnesoid X receptor, GCDA Glycochenodeoxycholate acid, GCDC Glycochenodeoxycholate, GDC Glycodeoxycholate, GDCA Glycodeoxycholic acid, GLCA Glycolithocholic acid, GUDCA Glycoursodeoxycholic acid, LCA Lithocholic acid, PXR Pregnane X receptor, S1PR2 Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2, SHP Small heterodimer partner, TCA Taurocholic acid, TCDC Taurochenodeoxycholate, TCDCA Taurochenodeoxycholic acid, TDC Taurodeoxycholate, TDCA Taurodeoxycholic acid, TGR5/GPBAR1 G protein- coupled bile acid receptor 1, TLC Taurolithocholate, TLCA Taurolithocholic acid, TUDCA Tauroursodeoxycholic acid, UDCA Ursodeoxycholic acid, VDR Vitamin D receptor
Oesophageal carcinoma
The development of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and its progression to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) are linked to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Conjugated BAs, mainly taurocholic acid (TCA) and glycocholic acid (GCA) are the main BA constituents in GERD refluxate [162]. Conjugated BA levels in the refluxate from patients with advanced BE or EAC are significantly higher than from patients with benign BE [163]. Conjugated BAs, as TCA or taurodeoxycholic acid (TDCA), promote EAC progression [164, 165] (Table 7). Unconjugated BAs, including DCA and CDCA, induce oxidative stress, DNA damage and inflammation contributing to EAC carcinogenesis, while UDCA protects against DCA-induced injury (Tables 5 and 7).
Apparently, numerous BA receptors as TGR5, S1PR2, FXR and VDR are activated in EAC cells in response to BAs in the refluxate [164,165,166,167]. In good agreement with that, the inhibition of the FXR receptor suppresses tumor cell viability in vitro and reduced tumor formation in nude mouse xenografts [168]. Furthermore, TGR5 is highly expressed in the EAC and precancerous lesions and is associated with worse overall survival [169] suggesting that these observations can be translated to the human situation.
Acidic bile acids bring about oxidative stress, TDCA can induce NADPH Oxidase 5 (NOX5) through TGR5 [164]. Furthermore, bile acids can induce inflammation through FXR activation [170] and the EGFR–STAT3 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 3)—Apurinic/Apyrimidinic Endodeoxyribonuclease 1 (APE1) pathway [171]. Acidic bile salts can also induce epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) through vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling in Barrett's cells [172]. Interestingly, the activation of the EGFR-DNA-PKs (DNA-dependent protein kinase) pathway by insulin-like growth factor binding protein 2 (IGFBP2) protects EAC cells against acidic bile salt-induced DNA damage [173].
Gastric cancer
Carcinogenesis in gastric cancer is a sequential process that includes chronic superficial gastritis, intestinal metaplasia (IM), atrophic gastritis, intramucosal carcinoma, dysplasia and invasive neoplasia [174]. IM is considered a risk factor for gastric tumorigenesis. The concentrations of BAs in gastric juice positively correlate with the degree of intestinal metaplasia [175] and BAs serve a critical multipronged role in the induction of intestinal metaplasia. BAs can enhance caudal-related homeobox family 2 (CDX2) and mucin 2 (MUC2) expression via FXR/NF-κB signaling [176, 177] and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression via induction of SHP [178], all promoting gastric intestinal metaplasia. Acidic bile salts can induce telomerase activity in a c-Myc-dependent fashion [179, 180], while DCA can induce the metaplastic phenotype of gastric cancer cells [181] (see Tables 6 and 7). TGR5 is a key factor in BA-induced gastric metaplasia via HNF4α [181], EGFR and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) [182] activation and promotes EMT in gastric carcinoma cells [183]. TGR5 is overexpressed in gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, and moderate to strong TGR5 staining is associated with decreased patient survival [184]. Nevertheless, there anticarcinogenic effects of bile acids in gastric cancer, as UDCA (Table 5) or DCA in supraphysiological concentrations [185, 186] or 23(S)-mCDCA [187].
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)
Several studies have shown that more hydrophobic BAs as LCA, DCA and CDCA, are the main promoters of liver cancer and can contribute to the development of HCC (see in Table 7) [188,189,190,191,192]. Nevertheless, CDCA (> 100 µM) [193, 194], UDCA and Tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) inhibit HCC cell growth and induce apoptosis [195,196,197,198,199] (see in Tables 5 and 6). Deregulation of BA homeostasis marked by the expression of hepatic BA transporters (BSEP, OSTα/β, MRP2, MDR2-3, NTCP) is diminished leading to increased hepatic BA sequestration and inflammation and reduced FXR signaling [200,201,202,203] in liver cirrhosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis that are risk factors for the development of HCC. In good agreement with that, metabolomics identified long-term elevated serum BAs in HCC patients [204] and children (< 5 years of age) with bile salt export pump deficiency developed HCC [205].
FXR activity is a major inhibitor of HCC carcinogenesis. Whole-body FXR-deficient mice spontaneously develop liver tumors [206, 207] in which the activation of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway and oxidative stress were identified as the major drivers [208,209,210]. Nevertheless, liver-specific FXR deficiency in mice does not induce spontaneous liver tumorigenesis, but may only serve as a tumor initiator [211]. Due to their amphipathic nature, BAs can disrupt the plasma membrane and activate protein kinase C (PKC) and phospholipase A2 (PLA2) inducing the p38-MAPK-p53-NFκB pathway [212, 213]. Inflammation can suppress FXR activity that contributes to bile acid accumulation and carcinogenesis [185, 193, 194, 214].
Interestingly, senescence-associated secretory phenotype has crucial role in promoting obesity-associated HCC development in mice. Administration of high-fat diet to mice induces alterations in the gut microbiota and increases the levels of DCA. Increased DCA level promotes SASP phenotype in hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), which in turn secretes various tumor-promoting factors in the liver, thus facilitating HCC development in mice exposed to chemical carcinogen [6]. SHP has a pleiotropic role in HCC, regulates cell proliferation [215], apoptosis [216], epigenetic changes [217] and inflammation [200, 218], which are associated with the antitumor role of SHP in the development of liver cancer.
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma
BAs are involved in the induction and development of pancreatic adenocarcinoma at multiple stages. Gallstone formation can block bile flow and, therefore, can induce and sustain pancreatitis [219], a risk factor for pancreatic adenocarcinoma [220,221,222]. In fact, several BA species showed a drastic increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients [223]. Treatment of pre-malignant pancreas ductal cells with bile induced carcinogenic transformation [224, 225]. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells BAs decrease susceptibility to apoptosis, boost cell cycle progression, the expression of inflammatory mediators and cellular movement, and, in high concentrations, may perturb biomembranes (Table 7) [220, 226]. UDCA, similar to its previously discussed beneficial properties, prevents EMT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell lines and, therefore, has antineoplastic properties (Table 5) [227].
Colorectal carcinoma (CRC)
The western diet has tumor promoting activity associated with elevated concentrations of colonic BA (mainly LCA and DCA) and increased fecal BA levels, as detected in samples from CRC patients [228]. In animals, a high-fat diet stimulates bile discharge and results in elevated BA levels in the colon [229]. Moreover, cholecystectomy, through prolonging BA exposure of the intestinal mucosa, has been suggested as a risk factor for the development of CRC [230].
BAs induce genetic instability marked by genomic instability and DNA damage via oxidative stress, defects in mitotic checkpoints, cell cycle arrest, improper chromosome alignment and multipolar division [231, 232]. Genomic instability caused by BAs is coupled with apoptosis resistance due to the degradation of p53 and the inhibition of caspase-3 activity [233]. Furthermore, secondary BAs perturb cell membranes and modulate signaling cascades [234, 235]. These all lead to colonic cell hyperproliferation, survival and invasion [236, 237].
The disruptive effect of BAs on colon epithelium evokes a compensatory cell renewal mechanism by inducing colonic epithelial cells to become cancer stem cells (CSCs) through β-catenin signaling (Table 7) [238]. In the CRC rodent model, both LCA and DCA have tumor promoter role on colonic crypt cells in the early stages of colon carcinogenesis [239]; however, it is important to note that BAs are suggested as tumor promoters, but not as mutagenic agents, since they can not induce tumor formation without a carcinogen/mutagen or a genetic alteration [240, 241]. It should be noted that DCA in low concentrations (0.05–0.3 mM) inhibit colonic cell proliferation via cell cycle block and apoptosis pathways (Table 6) [242].
UDCA can reduce the concentration of toxic BA in stool and blood [243] and has shown to protect against CRC by inhibiting CSC and CRC cell formation and proliferation [244, 245], oncogenic signaling pathways [246], as well as, inducing tumor surveillance [247] (Table 5). Moreover, UDCA can reduces CRC recurrence [248], as well as the risk to develop CRC in patients with pre-cancerous conditions, as colitis [249] or primary biliary cirrhosis [250].
Sustained inflammation was implicated in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer due to barrier breach, and bacterial translocation leading to inflammation and neoplastic transformation of colonic epithelial cells [251,252,253]. TGR5 activation by UDCA and LCA may also exert anti-inflammatory responses through TLR4 activation or by reducing pro-inflammatory cytokine production in the colon that can decrease the frequency of developing CRC [254]. BAs can change the gut microbial community [255, 256], suggesting that BAs may also interfere with bacterial translocation.
Breast cancer
The BAs in the breast are of gut origin [257, 258]. Hepatic production of BA is reduced in breast cancer patients as marked by decreasing levels of serum and fecal BAs [7, 259]. Furthermore, bacterial conversion of BAs to secondary BAs is also suppressed, which is the most dominant in in situ and stage I patients [7]. The serum bile acid composition of breast cancer and benign breast disease patients is different; specifically, breast cancer patients had higher serum chenodeoxycholic acid levels and lower dihydroxy tauro-conjugated BA (Tdi-1) and sulfated dihydroxy glyco-conjugated bile acids (Gdi-S-1) [260]. Total fecal bile acid levels are lower in breast cancer patients as compared to controls [259]. LCA concentrations in the breast can be higher than the serum levels [261] (Table 6). Reports showed increased DCA levels in the serum [262] and the breast cyst fluid [263] of breast cancer patients.
LCA is an inhibitor of breast cancer cell proliferation (Table 6) [7, 258, 264]. However, the reports on DCA and UDCA are contradictory [7, 258, 262,263,264] in physiological concentrations, LCA tunes cancer cell metabolism towards a more oxidative state (through AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), PGC-1β and NRF1/NFE2L1) and induces mild oxidative stress through reducing NRF2 (nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2, NFE2L2) expression and inducing Inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) that reverts EMT, reduces VEGF expression, induces antitumor immunity and changes to cancer metabolism that culminates in reduced metastasis formation [7, 11]. In supraphysiological concentrations (> 1 µM) LCA inhibits fatty acid biosynthesis [10] and induces cell death [8,9,10, 265, 266]. LCA does not exert antiproliferative effects in its tissue reference concentrations on non-transformed primary fibroblasts [7]. LCA exerts its antineoplastic effects through the TGR5 [7] (Table 6).
CDCA in supraphysiological concentrations induces MDRs through FXR [265] and modulates estrogen and progesterone receptor-mediated gene transcription [267]. Furthermore, CDCA inhibits tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cell proliferation through the activation of the FXR receptor [268] (Table 6). In contrast to that, a report by Journe and colleagues [269] showed that FXR activation has a positive correlation with estrogen receptor expression and luminal characteristics, as well as supported cancer cell proliferation.
Prostate cancer
Among the BAs LCA, UDCA and CDCA exerted antiproliferative effects in prostate cancer. Activation of FXR by CDCA inhibits proliferation of prostate cancer cells, reduces lipid anabolism via inhibiting Sterol Regulatory Element Binding Transcription Factor 1 (SREBF1) [270] and induces the expression of the tumor suppressor phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) [271] (Table 6). Interestingly, FXR signaling also controls androgen metabolism in prostate cancer cells, its activation reduces the expression of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 2B15 and UGT2B17 within cells and causes a reduction of androgen glucuronidation [272]. Similar to CDCA, LCA has antiproliferative effects in prostate cancer and induces apoptosis, endoplasmic reticulum stress, autophagy and mitochondrial dysfunction [9, 273] (see Table 6). UDCA induces death receptor-mediated apoptosis in human prostate cancer cells [274] (Table 5).
Ovarian cancer
In the serum of ovarian cancer patients, 3b-hydroxy-5-cholenoic acid, GUDCA, DCA and TCDCA levels decreased [275, 276]; importantly, taurochenodeoxycholic acid levels decreased in early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer [276]. Zhou and colleagues have shown that sulfolithocholylglycine and TCA showed changes in the serum of ovarian cancer patients [277]. Changes to the BA pool are so characteristic that Guan and colleagues suggested [278] a set of 12 BAs, including glycolithocholic acid, to be used as markers to separate healthy controls from ovarian cancer patients.
The available studies assessed the effects of BAs at supraphysiological concentrations. These concentrations of BAs are cytotoxic and induce apoptosis likely due to changes to membrane damage [279, 280] that is unlikely at physiological concentrations of BAs [7]. DCA can modulate the expression of breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein (BRCA1) and the estrogen receptor and, through these, can control drug sensitivity of ovarian cancer cells (Table 6) [281]. Furthermore, cholylglycinate interferes with the transport of cisplatin [282] and TCDC sensitizes ovarian carcinoma cells to doxorubicin and Mitomycin [280].
LXR [283,284,285], PXR [286], VDR [287,288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296] or CAR [297, 298] activation was shown to exert protective features against ovarian cancer, similar to BA-elicited effects suggesting that BAs may have a more profound role in protecting against ovarian cancer. These protective effects involved the suppression of proliferation [283, 284, 286], invasion [291], EMT [288], de novo fatty acid biosynthesis [295], the proportions of the cancer stem cell population [289], and the improvement of the efficacy of chemotherapy [285, 297, 298] culminating in better patient survival [292, 293]. Conflicting with these observation on report provided evidence that under certain conditions PXR may support proliferation [299]. BAs can influence the expression and the activity of multiple PARP enzymes [300]; therefore, it is likely that BAs could modulate the efficacy of PARP inhibition that is a novel modality in the chemotherapy of ovarian cancer.
Conclusions
Primary and secondary BAs are long-standing players in carcinogenesis. Although these molecules were considered as initiators of neoplasias, recent advances have shown that the pro- or anticarcinogenic activity of BAs varies among neoplasias [301], most probably due to differences in the expression of BA receptors, transporters and cell-specific differences in the outcome of receptor activation. Key pathways activated in neoplasias by BAs are regulated by nuclear receptors, FXR, CAR, SHP, PXR, LXR and VDR and other membrane receptors such as S1PR2, TGR5, CHRM2 and CHRM3. They activate numerous downstream signaling pathways such as EGFR, STAT3, MAPK, HNF4α, NF-κB, TLR4, SOCS3 and β-catenin just to name some. Furthermore, BAs regulate all aspects of tumor development and progression, the EMT, invasion, metabolism, apoptosis, proliferation, senescence, immune environment and response to chemotherapy.
The effect of BAs on neoplasias also depends on the concentrations used in the studies. While in certain models BAs in low concentration have anti-cancer effects, in superphysiological concentrations BAs have pro-cancer effects. This phenomenon is related to their amphipathic structure and the activation of additional off-target pathways not tiggered at physiological concentration. At high concentrations, BAs may perturb membranes and activate signaling pathways that sense disturbance of membranes, such as PLA2 and PKC. At high concentrations, they are also toxic and activate the detoxifying pathways, which regulate the activity of transporters of steroid hormones and chemotherapeutics. Therefore, we would urge the community to carry out studies where the concentrations of BAs correspond to the reference concentrations established for the tissue or, as a proxy, to the serum reference concentrations. As a continuation of that, in the case of UDCA the therapeutic serum concentrations can also be used as a guide. These data are summarized in Table 1. Such studies would be invaluable to understand the (patho)physiological roles of BAs and would give a good frame for the therapeutic applicability.
Along the same lines, it is apparent that BAs can be considered as possible treatment options in certain cancers. Foremost, UDCA, that is a therapeutically available drug, has beneficial effects in multiple neoplasias (e.g. [227, 248, 302], Table 5) pointing towards the possibility for repurposing UDCA. The picture for other BAs is hazier due to frequent contradictions making it hard to outline applicability. However, before the application of BAs in neoplasias we would need to decipher the cross-talk between BAs and drug metabolism, the effect on drug efficacy and drug availability, and discover the possible adverse effects of BAs, that is currently largely missing. Moreover, it is tempting to consider the manipulation of the intestinal microbiome to affect the levels of selected secondary bile acids in humans. Finally, the modulators of BA receptors should be considered as therapeutic options as well. Given the emerging evidence on the potential anti-cancer effects of BAs, further studies are vital in order to develop novel therapeutic strategies using BAs.
Search strategy and selection criteria
References to this review were identified through the prior knowledge of the authors that was complemented by systematic search of PubMed by using the combinations “Prostate cancer AND (bile acid)”, “Gastric cancer AND (bile acid)”, “Hepatocellular carcinoma AND (bile acid)”, “Oesophageal cancer AND (bile acid)”, “(bile acid) receptors AND cancer”, “(bile acid) receptors AND prostate cancer”, “(bile acid) receptors AND gastric cancer”, “(bile acid) receptors AND hepatocellular carcinoma”, “(bile acid) receptors AND oesophageal cancer”, "(bile acid) AND ABC AND transporter", "(bile acid) AND SLC AND transporter", "(bile acid) AND SLCO AND transporter", "(bile acid) AND transport AND review", “Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) AND the cancer types assessed in the study”, “Pregnane X receptor (PXR) AND the cancer types assessed in the study”, “Constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) AND the cancer types assessed in the study”, “Vitamin D receptor (VDR) AND the cancer types assessed in the study” “Liver X receptor (LXR) AND the cancer types assessed in the study”, “Small heterodimer partner (SHP) AND the cancer types assessed in the study”. Articles published in English were included with no restriction on publication date. All references were checked at Pub Peer, two papers were flagged ([215] and [156]), but when reviewing the reports we decided that the issues raised do not impact on the main message and kept the references.
Availability of supporting data
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
- AKT:
-
Serine/threonine kinase 1
- AMPK:
-
AMP-activated protein kinase
- AP-1:
-
Activator protein-1
- APE1:
-
Apurinic/apyrimidinic endodeoxyribonuclease 1
- ATG5:
-
Autophagy related 5
- BA:
-
Bile acids
- Bai:
-
Bile acid inducible operon
- Bax:
-
Bcl-2-associated X protein
- Bcl-2:
-
B-cell lymphoma 2
- BE:
-
Barrett’s esophagus
- Beclin-1/BECN1:
-
Coiled-coil myosin-like BCL2-interacting protein
- BIRC7/Livin:
-
Baculoviral IAP repeat-containing protein 7
- BSEP/ABCB11:
-
ATP-dependent cassette transporter
- BSH:
-
Bile salt hydrolases
- BRCA1:
-
Breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein
- CA:
-
Cholic acid
- cAMP:
-
Cyclic adenosine monophosphate
- CAR/NR1H3:
-
Constitutive androstane receptor
- CDCA:
-
Chenodeoxycholic acid
- CDX1/2:
-
Caudal type homeobox 1/2
- C/EBPα:
-
CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein alpha
- CHRM2/3:
-
Muscarinic receptor 2/3
- c-Myc:
-
Myc-related translation/localization regulatory factor
- COX2:
-
Cyclooxygenase-2
- CRC:
-
Colorectal carcinoma
- CREB:
-
CAMP response element-binding protein
- CSC:
-
Cancer stem cells
- CYP:
-
Cytochrome P450
- CYP7A1:
-
Cholesterol 7α-hydroxylase
- CYP7B1:
-
25-Hydroxycholesterol 7α-hydroxylase
- CYP8B1:
-
Sterol 12α-hydroxylase
- CYP27A1:
-
Sterol 27-hydroxylase
- CYP3A4:
-
Cytochrome P450 family 3 subfamily
- DC:
-
Deoxycholate
- DCA:
-
Deoxycholic acid
- Dlc1:
-
Deleted in Liver Cancer 1
- DNA-PK:
-
DNA-dependent protein kinase
- DR5:
-
Death receptor 5
- EAC:
-
Oesophageal adenocarcinoma
- EGF:
-
Epidermal growth factor
- EGFR:
-
Epithelial growth factor receptor
- EMT:
-
Epithelial–mesenchymal transition
- EPHA2:
-
EPH Receptor A2
- ER:
-
Estrogen receptor
- ERK:
-
Extracellular signal-regulated kinase
- FAK/PTK2:
-
Focal adhesion kinase
- FAS:
-
Fas Cell Surface Death Receptor
- FGF19:
-
Fibroblast growth factor 19
- FGF15:
-
Fibroblast growth factor 15
- FGFR4:
-
Fibroblast growth factor receptor 4
- FLK1/KDR:
-
Fetal liver kinase 1/Kinase Insert Domain receptor
- FXR/ NR1H4:
-
Farnesoid X receptor
- FXREs:
-
FXR response elements
- GADD153:
-
Growth arrest- and DNA damage-inducible gene 153
- GBC:
-
Gallbladder cancer
- GERD:
-
Gastroesophageal reflux disease
- GCA:
-
Glycocholic acid
- GCDCA:
-
Glycochenodeoxycholic acid
- GCDA:
-
Glycochenodeoxycholate acid
- GCDC:
-
Glycochenodeoxycholate
- GDC:
-
Glycodeoxycholate
- GDCA:
-
Glycodeoxycholic acid
- GLCA:
-
Glycolithocholic acid
- GPBAR1/TGR5:
-
G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor/Takeda-G-protein-receptor-5
- GUDCA:
-
Glycoursodeoxycholic acid
- HCC:
-
Hepatocellular carcinoma
- HDCA:
-
Hyodeoxycholic acid
- HER2:
-
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
- HNF4α:
-
Hepatocyte nuclear factor-4α
- HSC:
-
Hepatic stellate cells
- I-BABP:
-
Intestinal BA-binding protein
- IGFBP2:
-
Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 2
- IKKβ/IKBKB:
-
Inhibitor Of Nuclear Factor Kappa B Kinase Subunit Beta
- IL1:
-
Interleukin 1
- IL6:
-
Interleukin 6
- IL8/CXCL8:
-
Interleukin 8
- iNOS:
-
Inducible nitric oxide synthase
- JAK2:
-
Janus kinase 2
- JNK:
-
C-Jun N-terminal kinase
- JUN:
-
Jun Proto-Oncogene AP-1 Transcription Factor Subunit
- KLF4:
-
Kruppel Like Factor 4
- LBD:
-
Ligand-binding domain
- LCA:
-
Lithocholic acid
- LCT:
-
Lithocholyltaurine
- LOD:
-
Limit of detection
- LRH-1/NR5A2:
-
Liver receptor homolog-1
- LXRα/β/NR1H3-2:
-
Liver X receptor
- mAChR:
-
Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor
- MAPK/MEK:
-
Mitogen-activated protein kinase
- MCA:
-
Muricholic acid
- MCL1:
-
Induced myeloid leukemia cell differentiation protein
- MDM2:
-
Mouse double minute 2
- MDM4:
-
Double Minute 4
- MDR1/ ABCB1:
-
Multidrug resistance protein 1
- MMP2:
-
Matrix metalloproteinase 2
- MMP9:
-
Matrix metalloproteinase 9
- MRP2/ABCC2:
-
Multidrug resistance-associated protein 2
- MRP3/ABCC3:
-
Multidrug resistance-associated protein 3
- MRP4/ABCC4:
-
Multidrug resistance-associated protein 4
- MSK1/RPS6KA5:
-
Nuclear mitogen- and stress-activated protein kinase 1
- mTOR:
-
Mammalian target of rapamycin
- mTORC1:
-
Mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1
- MUC2:
-
Mucin 2
- MUC4:
-
Mucin 4
- MUTYH:
-
MutY DNA Glycosylase
- MYC:
-
Myc proto-oncogene protein
- NB:
-
Neuroblastoma
- NDRG2:
-
N-Myc downstream regulated gene 2
- ND:
-
Not detected
- NF-κB:
-
Nuclear factor κappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells
- NOX5:
-
NADPH Oxidase 5
- NR:
-
Nuclear receptor
- NRF2/NFE2L2:
-
Nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2
- NR4A1/Nur77/TR3/NGFIB:
-
Nuclear receptor subfamily 4 group A member 1
- NSCLC:
-
Non-small cell lung cancer
- NTCP/SLC10A1:
-
Sodium/taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide
- OATP1A2/SLCO1A2:
-
Solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1A2
- OATP1B/SLCO1B:
-
Solute carrier organic anion transporter family
- OATP2:
-
Organic anion-transporting polypeptide
- OCT4/POU5F1:
-
Octamer-binding transcription factor
- OGG1:
-
8-Oxoguanine DNA glycosylase
- PGC-1α:
-
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1 alpha
- PGE2:
-
Prostaglandin E2
- PI3K:
-
Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase
- PKA:
-
Protein kinase A
- PKC:
-
Protein kinase C
- PLA2:
-
Phospholipase A2
- Prx2:
-
Peroxiredoxin II
- PXR/ NR1H2:
-
Pregnane X receptor
- PTEN:
-
Phosphatase and tensin homolog
- p38/MAPK14:
-
P38 MAP kinase
- Rac1:
-
Rac family small GTPase 1
- Raf1:
-
Proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase
- RhoA:
-
Ras homolog family member A
- RNS:
-
Reactive nitrogen species
- ROS:
-
Reactive oxygen species
- RXR:
-
Retinoid X receptor
- S1PR2:
-
Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2
- SHP/ NR5O2:
-
Small heterodimer partner
- SLC10A1/NTCP:
-
Solute carrier family 10
- SLC10A2/ASBT:
-
Sodium-dependent bile acid transporter
- SLC51A/B or OSTα/β:
-
Solute carrier family members
- SRC-1/NC0A1:
-
Steroid receptor coactivator 1
- Smac:
-
Second mitochondria-derived activator of caspase
- SOCS3:
-
Suppressor of cytokine signaling 3
- SphK2:
-
Sphingosine kinase 2
- SRC-1/NC0A1:
-
Steroid receptor coactivator 1
- SREBF:
-
Sterol regulatory element-binding factor
- STAT3:
-
Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3
- SULT:
-
Sulfotransferase
- TCA:
-
Taurocholic acid
- TCDC:
-
Taurochenodeoxycholate
- TCDCA:
-
Taurochenodeoxycholic acid
- TDC:
-
Taurodeoxycholate
- TDCA:
-
Taurodeoxycholic acid
- TERT:
-
Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase
- TGF-β1:
-
Transforming growth factor β-1
- TLC:
-
Taurolithocholate
- TLCA:
-
Taurolithocholic acid
- TLR4:
-
Toll-Like Receptor 4
- TSC1:
-
TSC Complex Subunit 1
- TUDCA:
-
Tauroursodeoxycholic acid
- UCP2:
-
Uncoupling protein-2
- UDCA:
-
Ursodeoxycholic acid
- UGT:
-
UDP-glucuronosyl-transferase
- UGT2B4:
-
Uridine 5′-diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 2B4
- uPAR/PLAUR:
-
Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor
- VDR/NR1H1:
-
Vitamin D receptor
- VEGF:
-
Vascular endothelial growth factor
- WNT:
-
Wingless-type MMTV integration site family
References
Stieger B (2003) Biliary cholesterol secretion: more lessons from plants? J Hepatol 38:843–846
Pellicciari R, Gioiello A, Costantino G (2006) Potential therapeutic applications of farnesoid X receptor (FXR) modulators. Expert Opin Ther Pat 16:333–341
Cai X, Young GM, Xie W (2021) The xenobiotic receptors PXR and CAR in liver physiology, an update. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis 1867:166101
Sipos A, Ujlaki G, Mikó E, Maka E, Szabó J, Uray K, Krasznai Z, Bai P (2021) The role of the microbiome in ovarian cancer: mechanistic insights into oncobiosis and to bacterial metabolite signaling. Mol Med 27:33
Kiss B, Mikó E, Sebő É, Toth J, Ujlaki G, Szabó J, Uray K, Bai P, Árkosy P (2020) Oncobiosis and microbial metabolite signaling in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 12:E1068
Yoshimoto S, Loo TM, Atarashi K, Kanda H, Sato S, Oyadomari S, Iwakura Y, Oshima K, Morita H, Hattori M, Honda K, Ishikawa Y, Hara E, Ohtani N (2013) Obesity-induced gut microbial metabolite promotes liver cancer through senescence secretome. Nature 499:97–101
Miko E, Vida A, Kovacs T, Ujlaki G, Trencsenyi G, Marton J, Sari Z, Kovacs P, Boratko A, Hujber Z, Csonka T, Antal-Szalmas P, Watanabe M, Gombos I, Csoka B, Kiss B, Vigh L, Szabo J, Mehes G, Sebestyen A, Goedert JJ, Bai P (1859) Lithocholic acid, a bacterial metabolite reduces breast cancer cell proliferation and aggressiveness. Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg 2018:958–974
Goldberg AA, Beach A, Davies GF, Harkness TA, Leblanc A, Titorenko VI (2011) Lithocholic bile acid selectively kills neuroblastoma cells, while sparing normal neuronal cells. Oncotarget 2:761–782
Gafar AA, Draz HM, Goldberg AA, Bashandy MA, Bakry S, Khalifa MA, AbuShair W, Titorenko VI, Sanderson JT (2016) Lithocholic acid induces endoplasmic reticulum stress, autophagy and mitochondrial dysfunction in human prostate cancer cells. PeerJ 4:e2445
Luu TH, Bard JM, Carbonnelle D, Chaillou C, Huvelin JM, Bobin-Dubigeon C, Nazih H (2018) Lithocholic bile acid inhibits lipogenesis and induces apoptosis in breast cancer cells. Cell Oncol 41:13–24
Kovács P, Csonka T, Kovács T, Sári Z, Ujlaki G, Sipos A, Karányi Z, Szeőcs D, Hegedűs C, Uray K, Jankó L, Kiss M, Kiss B, Laoui D, Virág L, Méhes G, Bai P, Mikó E (2019) Lithocholic acid, a metabolite of the microbiome, increases oxidative stress in breast cancer. Cancers (Basel) 11:1255
Rezen T, Rozman D, Pascussi JM, Monostory K (1814) Interplay between cholesterol and drug metabolism. Biochim Biophys Acta Proteins Proteom 2011:146–160
Hafner M, Rezen T, Rozman D (2011) Regulation of hepatic cytochromes p450 by lipids and cholesterol. Curr Drug Metab 12:173–185
Honda A, Miyazaki T, Iwamoto J, Hirayama T, Morishita Y, Monma T, Ueda H, Mizuno S, Sugiyama F, Takahashi S, Ikegami T (2020) Regulation of bile acid metabolism in mouse models with hydrophobic bile acid composition. J Lipid Res 61:54–69
Lorbek G, Lewinska M, Rozman D (2012) Cytochrome P450s in the synthesis of cholesterol and bile acids–from mouse models to human diseases. FEBS J 279:1516–1533
Monte MJ, Marin JJ, Antelo A, Vazquez-Tato J (2009) Bile acids: chemistry, physiology, and pathophysiology. World J Gastroenterol 15:804–816
MahmoudianDehkordi S, Arnold M, Nho K, Ahmad S, Jia W, Xie G, Louie G, Kueider-Paisley A, Moseley MA, Thompson JW, John Williams L, Tenenbaum JD, Blach C, Baillie R, Han X, Bhattacharyya S, Toledo JB, Schafferer S, Klein S, Koal T, Risacher SL, Kling MA, Motsinger-Reif A, Rotroff DM, Jack J, Hankemeier T, Bennett DA, De Jager PL, Trojanowski JQ, Shaw LM, Weiner MW, Doraiswamy PM, van Duijn CM, Saykin AJ, Kastenmuller G, Kaddurah-Daouk R (2019) Altered bile acid profile associates with cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease-An emerging role for gut microbiome. Alzheimers Dement 15:76–92
Miko E, Kovacs T, Sebo E, Toth J, Csonka T, Ujlaki G, Sipos A, Szabo J, Mehes G, Bai P (2019) Microbiome-microbial metabolome-cancer cell interactions in breast cancer-familiar, but unexplored. Cells 8(4):E293
Sarin SK, Pande A, Schnabl B (2019) Microbiome as a therapeutic target in alcohol-related liver disease. J Hepatol 70:260–272
Watanabe M, Houten SM, Mataki C, Christoffolete MA, Kim BW, Sato H, Messaddeq N, Harney JW, Ezaki O, Kodama T, Schoonjans K, Bianco AC, Auwerx J (2006) Bile acids induce energy expenditure by promoting intracellular thyroid hormone activation. Nature 439:484–489
Hofmann AF, Mysels KJ (1987) Bile salts as biological surfactants. Colloids Surf 30:145–173
Bertani B, Ruiz N (2018) Function and biogenesis of lipopolysaccharides. EcoSal Plus. https://doi.org/10.1128/ecosalplus.ESP-0001-2018
Ridlon JM, Harris SC, Bhowmik S, Kang DJ, Hylemon PB (2016) Consequences of bile salt biotransformations by intestinal bacteria. Gut Microbes 7:22–39
Ridlon JM, Kang DJ, Hylemon PB (2006) Bile salt biotransformations by human intestinal bacteria. J Lipid Res 47:241–259
Kuang J, Zheng X, Huang F, Wang S, Li M, Zhao M, Sang C, Ge K, Li Y, Li J, Rajani C, Ma X, Zhou S, Zhao A, Jia W (2020) Anti-adipogenic effect of theabrownin is mediated by bile acid alternative synthesis via gut microbiota remodeling. Metabolites 10:1–16
Yesair DW, Himmelfarb P (1970) Hydrolysis of conjugated bile acids by cell-free extracts from aerobic bacteria. Appl Microbiol 19:295–300
Aries V, Hill MJ (1970) Degradation of steroids by intestinal bacteria. I Deconjugation of bile salts. Biochim Biophys Acta 202:526–534
Gopal-Srivastava R, Hylemon PB (1988) Purification and characterization of bile salt hydrolase from Clostridium perfringens. J Lipid Res 29:1079–1085
Masuda N (1981) Deconjugation of bile salts by bacteroids and clostridium. Microbiol Immunol 25:1–11
Van Eldere J, Celis P, De Pauw G, Lesaffre E, Eyssen H (1996) Tauroconjugation of cholic acid stimulates 7 alpha-dehydroxylation by fecal bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:656–661
Wijaya A, Hermann A, Abriouel H, Specht I, Yousif NM, Holzapfel WH, Franz CM (2004) Cloning of the bile salt hydrolase (bsh) gene from Enterococcus faecium FAIR-E 345 and chromosomal location of bsh genes in food enterococci. J Food Prot 67:2772–2778
Jarocki P, Targoński Z (2013) Genetic diversity of bile salt hydrolases among human intestinal bifidobacteria. Curr Microbiol 67:286–292
Tanaka H, Hashiba H, Kok J, Mierau I (2000) Bile salt hydrolase of Bifidobacterium longum-biochemical and genetic characterization. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:2502–2512
De Smet I, Van Hoorde L, VandeWoestyne M, Christiaens H, Verstraete W (1995) Significance of bile salt hydrolytic activities of Lactobacilli. J Appl Microbiol 79:292–301
Oh HK, Lee JY, Lim SJ, Kim MJ, Kim GB, Kim JH, Hong SK, Kang DK (2008) Molecular cloning and characterization of a bile salt hydrolase from Lactobacillus acidophilus PF01. J Microbiol Biotechnol 18:449–456
Salvioli G, Salati R, Bondi M, Fratalocchi A, Sala BM, Gibertini A (1982) Bile acid transformation by the intestinal flora and cholesterol saturation in bile effects of Streptococcus faecium administration. Digestion 23:80–88
Hirano S, Masuda N (1981) Transformation of bile acids by Eubacterium lentum. Appl Environ Microbiol 42:912–915
Marion S, Desharnais L, Studer N, Dong Y, Notter MD, Poudel S, Menin L, Janowczyk A, Hettich RL, Hapfelmeier S, Bernier-Latmani R (2020) Biogeography of microbial bile acid transformations along the murine gut. J Lipid Res 61:1450–1463
Stellwag EJ, Hylemon PB (1976) Purification and characterization of bile salt hydrolase from Bacteroides fragilis subsp. fragilis. Biochim Biophys Acta 452:165–176
Jones BV, Begley M, Hill C, Gahan CG, Marchesi JR (2008) Functional and comparative metagenomic analysis of bile salt hydrolase activity in the human gut microbiome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:13580–13585
Gerard P (2013) Metabolism of cholesterol and bile acids by the gut microbiota. Pathogens 3:14–24
Hirano S, Masuda N, Mukai H, Hirakawa K, Imamura T (1979) Transformation of bile acids by Bacteroides fragilis strains isolated from the human intestine (author’s transl). Nihon Saikingaku Zasshi 34:403–411
Long SL, Gahan CGM, Joyce SA (2017) Interactions between gut bacteria and bile in health and disease. Mol Aspects Med 56:54–65
Ridlon JM, Devendran S, Alves JM, Doden H, Wolf PG, Pereira GV, Ly L, Volland A, Takei H, Nittono H, Murai T, Kurosawa T, Chlipala GE, Green SJ, Hernandez AG, Fields CJ, Wright CL, Kakiyama G, Cann I, Kashyap P, McCracken V, Gaskins HR (2020) The “in vivo lifestyle” of bile acid 7α-dehydroxylating bacteria: comparative genomics, metatranscriptomic, and bile acid metabolomics analysis of a defined microbial community in gnotobiotic mice x. Gut Microbes 11:381–404
Ridlon JM, Hylemon PB (2012) Identification and characterization of two bile acid coenzyme A transferases from Clostridium scindens, a bile acid 7α-dehydroxylating intestinal bacterium. J Lipid Res 53:66–76
Chikai T, Nakao H, Uchida K (1987) Deconjugation of bile acids by human intestinal bacteria implanted in germ-free rats. Lipids 22:669–671
Narushima S, Itoha K, Miyamoto Y, Park SH, Nagata K, Kuruma K, Uchida K (2006) Deoxycholic acid formation in gnotobiotic mice associated with human intestinal bacteria. Lipids 41:835–843
Vital M, Rud T, Rath S, Pieper DH, Schlüter D (2019) Diversity of bacteria exhibiting bile acid-inducible 7α-dehydroxylation genes in the human gut, computational and structural. Biotechnol J 17:1016–1019
Ramírez-Pérez O, Cruz-Ramón V, Chinchilla-López P, Méndez-Sánchez N (2017) The role of the gut microbiota in bile acid metabolism. Ann Hepatol 16:S21–S26
Begley M, Gahan CGM, Hill C (2005) The interaction between bacteria and bile. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:625–651
Garcia-Quintanilla M, Prieto AI, Barnes L, Ramos-Morales F, Casadesus J (2006) Bile-induced curing of the virulence plasmid in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. J Bacteriol 188:7963–7965
Merritt ME, Donaldson JR (2009) Effect of bile salts on the DNA and membrane integrity of enteric bacteria. J Med Microbiol 58:1533–1541
Prieto AI, Ramos-Morales F, Casadesus J (2004) Bile-induced DNA damage in Salmonella enterica. Genetics 168:1787–1794
Schaffler H, Breitruck A (2018) Clostridium difficile—from colonization to infection. Front Microbiol 9:646
Sorg JA, Sonenshein AL (2010) Inhibiting the initiation of Clostridium difficile spore germination using analogs of chenodeoxycholic acid, a bile acid. J Bacteriol 192:4983–4990
Tsuei J, Chau T, Mills D, Wan YJ (2014) Bile acid dysregulation, gut dysbiosis, and gastrointestinal cancer. Exp Biol Med 239:1489–1504
Slocum MM, Sittig KM, Specian RD, Deitch EA (1992) Absence of intestinal bile promotes bacterial translocation. Am Surg 58:305–310
van Best N, Rolle-Kampczyk U, Schaap FG, Basic M, Olde Damink SWM, Bleich A, Savelkoul PHM, von Bergen M, Penders J, Hornef MW (2020) Bile acids drive the newborn’s gut microbiota maturation. Nat Commun 11:3692
Thomas RM, Jobin C (2015) The microbiome and cancer: is the “oncobiome” mirage real? Trends in Cancer 1:24–35
Miko E, Vida A, Bai P (2016) Translational aspects of the microbiome-to be exploited. Cell Biol Toxicol 32:153–156
Sári Z, Kovács T, Csonka T, Török M, Sebő É, Toth J, Tóth D, Mikó E, Kiss B, Szeőcs D, Uray K, Karányi Z, Kovács I, Méhes G, Árkosy P, B. P, (2020) Fecal expression of E. coli lysine decarboxylase (LdcC) is downregulated in E-cadherin negative lobular breast carcinoma. Physiol Int. https://doi.org/10.1556/2060.2020.00016
Sári Z, Mikó E, Kovács T, Boratkó A, Ujlaki G, Jankó L, Kiss B, Uray K, Bai P (2020) Indoxylsulfate, a metabolite of the microbiome has cytostatic effects in breast cancer via activation of AHR and PXR receptors and induction of oxidative stress. Cancers (Basel) 12:2915
Sári Z, Mikó E, Kovács T, Jankó L, Csonka T, Sebő E, Toth J, Tóth D, Árkosy P, Boratkó A, Ujlaki G, Török M, Kovács I, Szabó J, Kiss B, Méhes G, Goedert JJ, Bai P (2020) Indolepropionic acid, a metabolite of the microbiome, has cytostatic properties in breast cancer by activating AHR and PXR receptors and inducing oxidative stress. Cancers (Basel) 12:2411
Kovács T, Mikó E, Vida A, Sebő É, Toth J, Csonka T, Boratkó A, Ujlaki G, Lente G, Kovács P, Tóth D, Árkosy P, Kiss B, Méhes G, Goedert JJ, Bai P (2019) Cadaverine, a metabolite of the microbiome, reduces breast cancer aggressiveness through trace amino acid receptors. Sci Rep 9:1300
Dawson PA, Lan T, Rao A (2009) Thematic review series: Bile acids Bile acid transporters. Am Soc Biochem Mol Biol 2:2340–2357
Claro Da Silva T, Polli JE, Swaan PW (2013) The solute carrier family 10 (SLC10): Beyond bile acid transport. Pergamon, Berlin, pp 252–269
Keppler D (2017) Progress in the molecular characterization of hepatobiliary transporters. Dig Dis 35:197–202
Lee W, Glaeser H, Smith LH, Roberts RL, Moeckel GW, Gervasini G, Leake BF, Kim RB (2005) Polymorphisms in human organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1A2 (OATP1A2): implications for altered drug disposition and central nervous system drug entry. J Biol Chem 280:9610–9617
Hagenbuch B, Stieger B (2013) The SLCO (former SLC21) superfamily of transporters. Place Published, Pergamon, pp 396–412
Suga T, Yamaguchi H, Sato T, Maekawa M, Goto J, Mano N (2017) Preference of conjugated bile acids over unconjugated bile acids as substrates for OATP1B1 and OATP1B3. PLoS ONE 12:e0169719
Roth M, Obaidat A, Hagenbuch B (2012) OATPs, OATs and OCTs: The organic anion and cation transporters of the SLCO and SLC22A gene superfamilies. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, pp 1260–1287
Makishima M, Okamoto AY, Repa JJ, Tu H, Learned RM, Luk A, Hull MV, Lustig KD, Mangelsdorf DJ, Shan B (1999) Identification of a nuclear receptor for bile acids. Science 284:1362–1365
Kawamata Y, Fujii R, Hosoya M, Harada M, Yoshida H, Miwa M, Fukusumi S, Habata Y, Itoh T, Shintani Y, Hinuma S, Fujisawa Y, Fujino M (2003) A G protein-coupled receptor responsive to bile acids. J Biol Chem 278:9435–9440
Maruyama T, Miyamoto Y, Nakamura T, Tamai Y, Okada H, Sugiyama E, Nakamura T, Itadani H, Tanaka K (2002) Identification of membrane-type receptor for bile acids (M-BAR). Biochem Biophys Res Commun 298:714–719
Hang S, Paik D, Yao L, Kim E, Trinath J, Lu J, Ha S, Nelson BN, Kelly SP, Wu L, Zheng Y, Longman RS, Rastinejad F, Devlin AS, Krout MR, Fischbach MA, Littman DR, Huh JR (2019) Bile acid metabolites control TH17 and Treg cell differentiation. Nature 576:143–148
McIlvride S, Dixon PH, Williamson C (2017) Bile acids and gestation. Mol Aspects Med 56:90–100
Keitel V, Cupisti K, Ullmer C, Knoefel WT, Kubitz R, Häussinger D (2009) The membrane-bound bile acid receptor TGR5 is localized in the epithelium of human gallbladders. Hepatology 50:861–870
Poole DP, Godfrey C, Cattaruzza F, Cottrell GS, Kirkland JG, Pelayo JC, Bunnett NW, Corvera CU (2010) Expression and function of the bile acid receptor GpBAR1 (TGR5) in the murine enteric nervous system. Neurogastroenterol Motil 22:814–825
Keitel V, Donner M, Winandy S, Kubitz R, Häussinger D (2008) Expression and function of the bile acid receptor TGR5 in Kupffer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 372:78–84
Sato H, Genet C, Strehle A, Thomas C, Lobstein A, Wagner A, Mioskowski C, Auwerx J, Saladin R (2007) Anti-hyperglycemic activity of a TGR5 agonist isolated from Olea europaea. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 362:793–798
Pellicciari R, Gioiello A, Macchiarulo A, Thomas C, Rosatelli E, Natalini B, Sardella R, Pruzanski M, Roda A, Pastorini E, Schoonjans K, Auwerx J (2009) Discovery of 6alpha-ethyl-23(S)-methylcholic acid (S-EMCA, INT-777) as a potent and selective agonist for the TGR5 receptor, a novel target for diabesity. J Med Chem 52:7958–7961
Rizzo G, Passeri D, De Franco F, Ciaccioli G, Donadio L, Rizzo G, Orlandi S, Sadeghpour B, Wang XX, Jiang T, Levi M, Pruzanski M, Adorini L (2010) Functional characterization of the semisynthetic bile acid derivative INT-767, a dual farnesoid X receptor and TGR5 agonist. Mol Pharmacol 78:617–630
Genet C, Strehle A, Schmidt C, Boudjelal G, Lobstein A, Schoonjans K, Souchet M, Auwerx J, Saladin R, Wagner A (2010) Structure-activity relationship study of betulinic acid, a novel and selective TGR5 agonist, and its synthetic derivatives: potential impact in diabetes. J Med Chem 53:178–190
Zheng C, Zhou W, Wang T, You P, Zhao Y, Yang Y, Wang X, Luo J, Chen Y, Liu M, Chen H (2015) A novel TGR5 activator WB403 promotes GLP-1 secretion and preserves pancreatic β- Cells in type 2 diabetic mice. PLoS ONE 10:1–16
Pols TWH, Noriega LG, Nomura M, Auwerx J, Schoonjans K (2011) The bile acid membrane receptor TGR5 as an emerging target in metabolism and inflammation. J Hepatol 54:1263–1272
Reich M, Deutschmann K, Sommerfeld A, Klindt C, Kluge S, Kubitz R, Ullmer C, Knoefel WT, Herebian D, Mayatepek E, Häussinger D, Keitel V (2016) TGR5 is essential for bile acid-dependent cholangiocyte proliferation in vivo and in vitro. Gut 65:487–501
Masyuk AI, Huang BQ, Radtke BN, Gajdos GB, Splinter PL, Masyuk TV, Gradilone SA, LaRusso NF (2013) Ciliary subcellular localization of TGR5 determines the cholangiocyte functional response to bile acid signaling. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 304:2
Perino A, Pols TWH, Nomura M, Stein S, Pellicciari R, Schoonjans K (2014) TGR5 reduces macrophage migration through mTOR-induced C/EBPβ differential translation. J Clin Investig 124:5424–5436
Rajagopal S, Kumar DP, Mahavadi S, Bhattacharya S, Zhou R, Corvera CU, Bunnett NW, Grider JR, Murthy KS (2013) Activation of G protein-coupled bile acid receptor, TGR5, induces smooth muscle relaxation via both Epac- and PKA-mediated inhibition of RhoA/Rho kinase pathway. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 304:G527-535
Maruyama T, Tanaka K, Suzuki J, Miyoshi H, Harada N, Nakamura T, Miyamoto Y, Kanatani A, Tamai Y (2006) Targeted disruption of G protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1 (Gpbar1/M-Bar) in mice. J Endocrinol 191:197–205
Guo C, Su J, Li Z, Xiao R, Wen J, Li Y, Zhang M, Zhang X, Yu D, Huang W, Chen WD, Wang YD (2015) The G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor Gpbar1 (TGR5) suppresses gastric cancer cell proliferation and migration through antagonizing STAT3 signaling pathway. Oncotarget 6:34402–34413
Wang YD, Chen WD, Yu D, Forman BM, Huang W (2011) The G-Protein-coupled bile acid receptor, Gpbar1 (TGR5), negatively regulates hepatic inflammatory response through antagonizing nuclear factor kappa light-chain enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) in mice. Hepatology 54:1421–1432
Guo C, Chen WD, Wang YD (2016) TGR5, not only a metabolic regulator. Front Physiol 7:1–9
Pols TWH, Nomura M, Harach T, Lo Sasso G, Oosterveer MH, Thomas C, Rizzo G, Gioiello A, Adorini L, Pellicciari R, Auwerx J, Schoonjans K (2011) TGR5 activation inhibits atherosclerosis by reducing macrophage inflammation and lipid loading. Cell Metab 14:747–757
Liu R, Zhao R, Zhou X, Liang X, Campbell DJW, Zhang X, Zhang L, Shi R, Wang G, Pandak WM, Sirica AE, Hylemon PB, Zhou H (2014) Conjugated bile acids promote cholangiocarcinoma cell invasive growth through activation of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 2. Hepatology 60:908–918
Liu R, Li X, Qiang X, Luo L, Hylemon PB, Jiang Z, Zhang L, Zhou H (2015) Taurocholate induces cyclooxygenase-2 expression via the sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 2 in a human cholangiocarcinoma cell line. J Biol Chem 290:30988–31002
Studer E, Zhou X, Zhao R, Wang Y, Takabe K, Nagahashi M, Pandak WM, Dent P, Spiegel S, Shi R, Xu W, Liu X, Bohdan P, Zhang L, Zhou H, Hylemon PB (2012) Conjugated bile acids activate the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2 in primary rodent hepatocytes. Hepatology 55:267–276
Nagahashi M, Takabe K, Liu R, Peng K, Wang X, Wang Y, Hait NC, Wang X, Allegood JC, Yamada A, Aoyagi T, Liang J, Pandak WM, Spiegel S, Hylemon PB, Zhou H (2015) Conjugated bile acid-activated S1P receptor 2 is a key regulator of sphingosine kinase 2 and hepatic gene expression. Hepatology 61:1216–1226
Nagahashi M, Yuza K, Hirose Y, Nakajima M, Ramanathan R, Hait NC, Hylemon PB, Zhou H, Takabe K, Wakai T (2016) The roles of bile acids and sphingosine-1-phosphate signaling in the hepatobiliary diseases. J Lipid Res 57:1636–1643
Yang J, Yang L, Tian L, Ji X, Yang L, Li L (2018) Sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)/S1P receptor 2/3 axis promotes inflammatory M1 polarization of bone marrow-derived monocyte/macrophage via G(α) i/o /PI3K/JNK pathway. Cell Physiol Biochem 49:1677–1693
Karimian G, Buist-Homan M, Schmidt M, Tietge UJF, de Boer JF, Klappe K, Kok JW, Combettes L, Tordjmann T, Faber KN, Moshage H (1832) Sphingosine kinase-1 inhibition protects primary rat hepatocytes against bile salt-induced apoptosis. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis 2013:1922–1929
Hughes JE, Srinivasan S, Lynch KR, Proia RL, Ferdek P, Hedrick CC (2008) Sphingosine-1-phosphate induces an antiinflammatory phenotype in macrophages. Circ Res 102:950–958
Grigorova IL, Schwab SR, Phan TG, Pham TH, Okada T, Cyster JG (2009) Cortical sinus probing, S1P1-dependent entry and flow-based capture of egressing T cells. Nat Immunol 10:58–65
von Rosenvinge EC, Raufman JP (2011) Muscarinic receptor signaling in colon cancer. Cancers 3:971–981
Cheng K, Chen Y, Zimniak P, Raufman JP, Xiao Y, Frucht H (2002) Functional interaction of lithocholic acid conjugates with M3 muscarinic receptors on a human colon cancer cell line. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis 1588:48–55
Amonyingcharoen S, Suriyo T, Thiantanawat A, Watcharasit P, Satayavivad J (2015) Taurolithocholic acid promotes intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma cell growth via muscarinic acetylcholine receptor and EGFR/ERK1/2 signaling pathway. Int J Oncol 46:2317–2326
Forman BM, Goode E, Chen J, Oro AE, Bradley DJ, Perlmann T, Noonan DJ, Burka LT, McMorris T, Lamph WW, Evans RM, Weinberger C (1995) Identification of a nuclear receptor that is activated by farnesol metabolites. Cell 81:687–693
Seol W, Choi HS, Moore DD (1996) An orphan nuclear hormone receptor that lacks a DNA binding domain and heterodimerizes with other receptors. Science 272:1336–1339
Goodwin B, Jones SA, Price RR, Watson MA, McKee DD, Moore LB, Galardi C, Wilson JG, Lewis MC, Roth ME, Maloney PR, Willson TM, Kliewer SA (2000) A regulatory cascade of the nuclear receptors FXR, SHP-1, and LRH-1 represses bile acid biosynthesis. Mol Cell 6:517–526
Zhang M, Chiang JYL (2001) Transcriptional regulation of the human sterol 12α-hydroxylase gene (CYP8B1): roles of hepatocyte nuclear factor 4α in mediating bile acid repression. J Biol Chem 276:41690–41699
Kong B, Wang L, Chiang JYL, Zhang Y, Klaassen CD, Guo GL (2012) Mechanism of tissue-specific farnesoid X receptor in suppressing the expression of genes in bile-acid synthesis in mice. Hepatology 56:1034–1043
Denson LA, Sturm E, Echevarria W, Zimmerman TL, Makishima M, Mangelsdorf DJ, Karpen SJ (2001) The orphan nuclear receptor, shp, mediates bile acid-induced inhibition of the rat bile acid transporter, ntcp. Gastroenterology 121:140–147
Ananthanarayanan M, Balasubramanian N, Makishima M, Mangelsdorf DJ, Suchy FJ (2001) Human bile salt export pump promoter is transactivated by the Farnesoid X receptor/bile acid receptor. J Biol Chem 276:28857–28865
Grobert J, Zaghini I, Fujii H, Jones SA, Kliewer SA, Willson TM, Ono T, Besnard P (1999) Identification of a bile acid-responsive element in the human ileal bile acid-binding protein gene. Involvement of the farnesoid X receptor/9-cis- retinoic acid receptor heterodimer. J Biol Chem 274:29749–29754
Gnerre C, Blättler S, Kaufmann MR, Looser R, Meyer UA (2004) Regulation of CYP3A4 by the bile acid receptor FXR: evidence for functional binding sites in the CYP3A4 gene. Pharmacogenetics 14:635–645
Song CS, Echchgadda I, Baek BS, Ahn SC, Oh T, Roy AK, Chatterjee B (2001) Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfotransferase gene induction by bile acid activated farnesoid X receptor. J Biol Chem 276:42549–42556
Barbier O, Torra IP, Sirvent A, Claudel T, Blanquart C, Duran-Sandoval D, Kuipers F, Kosykh V, Fruchart JC, Staels B (2003) FXR induces the UGT2B4 enzyme in hepatocytes: a potential mechanism of negative feedback control of FXR activity. Gastroenterology 124:1926–1940
Wang YD, Chen WD, Wang M, Yu D, Forman BM, Huang W (2008) Farnesoid X receptor antagonizes nuclear factor κB in hepatic inflammatory response. Hepatology 48:1632–1643
Lamba V, Yasuda K, Lamba JK, Assem M, Davila J, Strom S, Schuetz EG (2004) PXR (NR1I2): splice variants in human tissues, including brain, and identification of neurosteroids and nicotine as PXR activators. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 199:251–265
Wang YM, Ong SS, Chai SC, Chen T (2012) Role of CAR and PXR in xenobiotic sensing and metabolism. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 8:803–817
He J, Nishida S, Xu M, Makishima M, Xie W (2011) PXR prevents cholesterol gallstone disease by regulating biosynthesis and transport of bile salts. Gastroenterology 140:2095–2106
Staudinger JL, Goodwin B, Jones SA, Hawkins-Brown D, MacKenzie KI, LaTour A, Liu Y, Klaassen CD, Brown KK, Reinhard J, Willson TM, Koller BH, Kliewer SA (2001) The nuclear receptor PXR is a lithocholic acid sensor that protects against liver toxicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:3369–3374
Wistuba W, Gnewuch C, Liebisch G, Schmitz G, Langmann T (2007) Lithocholic acid induction of the FGF19 promoter in intestinal cells is mediated by PXR. World J Gastroenterol 13:4230–4235
Xie W, Radominska-Pandya A, Shi Y, Simon CM, Nelson MC, Ong ES, Waxman DJ, Evans RM (2001) An essential role for nuclear receptors SXR/PXR in detoxification of cholestatic bile acids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:3375–3380
Jonker JW, Liddle C, Downes M (2012) FXR and PXR: potential therapeutic targets in cholestasis. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 130:147–158
Li T, Chiang JYL (2005) Mechanism of rifampicin and pregnane X receptor inhibition of human cholesterol 7α-hydroxylase gene transcription. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 288:74–84
Wallace K, Cowie DE, Konstantinou DK, Hill SJ, Tjelle TE, Axon A, Koruth M, White SA, Carlsen H, Mann DA, Wright MC (2010) The PXR is a drug target for chronic inflammatory liver disease. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 120:137–148
Kakizaki S, Yamazaki Y, Takizawa D, Negishi M (2008) New insights on the xenobiotic-sensing nuclear receptors in liver diseases–CAR and PXR. Curr Drug Metab 9:614–621
Cheng J, Shah YM, Gonzalez FJ (2012) Pregnane X receptor as a target for treatment of inflammatory bowel disorders. Trends Pharmacol Sci 33:323–330
Zhou J, Zhai Y, Mu Y, Gong H, Uppal H, Toma D, Ren S, Evans RM, Xie W (2006) A novel pregnane X receptor-mediated and sterol regulatory element-binding protein-independent lipogenic pathway. J Biol Chem 281:15013–15020
Nakamura K, Moore R, Negishi M, Sueyoshi T (2007) Nuclear pregnane X receptor cross-talk with FoxA2 to mediate drug-induced regulation of lipid metabolism in fasting mouse liver. J Biol Chem 282:9768–9776
Kodama S, Moore R, Yamamoto Y, Negishi M (2007) Human nuclear pregnane X receptor cross-talk with CREB to repress cAMP activation of the glucose-6-phosphatase gene. Biochemical Journal 407:373–381
Bhalla S, Ozalp C, Fang S, Xiang L, Kemper JK (2004) Ligand-activated pregnane X receptor interferes with HNF-4 signaling by targeting a common coactivator PGC-1α. Functional implications in hepatic cholesterol and glucose metabolism. J Biol Chem 279:45139–45147
Choi HS, Chung M, Tzameli I, Simha D, Lee YK, Seol W, Moore DD (1997) Differential transactivation by two isoforms of the orphan nuclear hormone receptor CAR. J Biol Chem 272:23565–23571
Forman BM, Tzameli I, Choi HS, Chen J, Simha D, Seol W, Evans RM, Moore DD (1998) Androstane metabolites bind to and deactivate the nuclear receptor CAR- β. Nature 395:612–615
Li H, Wang H (2010) Activation of xenobiotic receptors: Driving into the nucleus. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 6:409–426
Baes M, Gulick T, Choi HS, Martinoli MG, Simha D, Moore DD (1994) A new orphan member of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily that interacts with a subset of retinoic acid response elements. Mol Cell Biol 14:1544–1552
di Masi A, De Marinis E, Ascenzi P, Marino M (2009) Nuclear receptors CAR and PXR: molecular, functional, and biomedical aspects. Mol Aspects Med 30:297–343
Wagner M, Halilbasic E, Marschall HU, Zollner G, Fickert P, Langner C, Zatloukal K, Denk H, Trauner M (2005) CAR and PXR agonists stimulate hepatic bile acid and bilirubin detoxification and elimination pathways in mice. Hepatology 42:420–430
Han S, Chiang JY (2009) Mechanism of vitamin D receptor inhibition of cholesterol 7alpha-hydroxylase gene transcription in human hepatocytes. Drug Metab Dispos 37:469–478
Li Z, Kar Kruijt J, van der Sluis RJ, Van Berkel TJC, Hoekstra M (2013) Nuclear receptor atlas of female mouse liver parenchymal, endothelial, and Kupffer cells. Physiol Genom 45:268–275
Norman AW (2006) Minireview: vitamin D receptor: new assignments for an already busy receptor. Endocrinology 147:5542–5548
Makishima M, Lu TT, Xie W, Whitfield GK, Domoto H, Evans RM, Haussler MR, Mangelsdorf DJ (2002) Vitamin D receptor as an intestinal bile acid sensor. Science 296:1313–1316
Nehring JA, Zierold C, DeLuca HF (2007) Lithocholic acid can carry out in vivo functions of vitamin D. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:10006–10009
Cheng J, Fang ZZ, Kim JH, Krausz KW, Tanaka N, Chiang JYL, Gonzalez FJ (2014) Intestinal CYP3A4 protects against lithocholic acid-induced hepatotoxicity in intestine-specific VDR-deficient mice. J Lipid Res 55:455–465
Chatterjee B, Echchgadda I, Song CS (2005) Vitamin D receptor regulation of the steroid/bile acid sulfotransferase SULT2A1. Methods Enzymol 400:165–191
McCarthy TC, Li X, Sinal CJ (2005) Vitamin D receptor-dependent regulation of colon multidrug resistance-associated protein 3 gene expression by bile acids. J Biol Chem 280:23232–23242
Chen X, Chen F, Liu S, Glaeser H, Dawson PA, Hofmann AF, Kim RB, Shneider BL, Pang KS (2006) Transactivation of rat apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter and increased bile acid transport by 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 via the vitamin D receptor. Mol Pharmacol 69:1913–1923
Huhtakangas JA, Olivera CJ, Bishop JE, Zanello LP, Norman AW (2004) The vitamin D receptor is present in caveolae-enriched plasma membranes and binds 1α,25(OH)2-vitamin D3 in vivo and in vitro. Mol Endocrinol 18:2660–2671
Han S, Li T, Ellis E, Strom S, Chiang JY (2010) A novel bile acid-activated vitamin D receptor signaling in human hepatocytes. Mol Endocrinol 24:1151–1164
Daldebert E, Biyeyeme MJ, Mve B, Mergey M, Wendum D, Firrincieli D, Coilly A, Fouassier L, Corpechot C, Poupon R, Housset C, Chignard N (2009) Bile salts control the antimicrobial peptide cathelicidin through nuclear receptors in the human biliary epithelium. Gastroenterology 136:1435–1443
Nagpal S, Na S, Rathnachalam R (2005) Noncalcemic actions of vitamin D receptor ligands. Endocr Rev 26:662–687
Janowski BA, Willy PJ, Devi TR, Falck JR, Mangelsdorf DJ (1996) An oxysterol signalling pathway mediated by the nuclear receptor LXR alpha. Nature 383:728–731
Svensson S, Östberg T, Jacobsson M, Norström C, Stefansson K, Hallén D, Johansson IC, Zachrisson K, Ogg D, Jendeberg L (2003) Crystal structure of the heterodimeric complex of LXRα and RXRβ ligand-binding domains in a fully agonistic conformation. EMBO J 22:4625–4633
Venkateswaran A, Laffitte BA, Joseph SB, Mak PA, Wilpitz DC, Edwards PA, Tontonoz P (2000) Control of cellular cholesterol efflux by the nuclear oxysterol receptor LXRα. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:12097–12102
Joseph SB, Bradley MN, Castrillo A, Bruhn KW, Mak PA, Pei L, Hogenesch J, O’Connell RM, Cheng G, Saez E, Miller JF, Tontonoz P (2004) LXR-dependent gene expression is important for macrophage survival and the innate immune response. Cell 119:299–309
De Marino S, Carino A, Masullo D, Finamore C, Marchianò S, Cipriani S, Di Leva FS, Catalanotti B, Novellino E, Limongelli V, Fiorucci S, Zampella A (2017) Hyodeoxycholic acid derivatives as liver X receptor α and G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor agonists. Sci Rep 7:1–13
Zhang Y, Hagedorn CH, Wang L (1812) Role of nuclear receptor SHP in metabolism and cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis 2011:893–908
Miao J, Xiao Z, Kanamaluru D, Min G, Yau PM, Veenstra TD, Ellis E, Strom S, Suino-Powell K, Xu HE, Kemper JK (2009) Bile acid signaling pathways increase stability of Small Heterodimer Partner (SHP) by inhibiting ubiquitin-proteasomal degradation. Genes Dev 23:986–996
Miao J, Fang S, Lee J, Comstock C, Knudsen KE, Kemper JK (2009) Functional Specificities of Brm and Brg-1 Swi/Snf ATPases in the Feedback Regulation of Hepatic Bile Acid Biosynthesis. Mol Cell Biol 29:6170–6181
Kim KJ, Kim KH, Cho HK, Kim HY, Kim HH, Cheong JH (2010) SHP (small heterodimer partner) suppresses the transcriptional activity and nuclear localization of Hedgehog signalling protein Gli1. Biochemical Journal 427:413–422
Gotley DC, Morgan AP, Ball D, Owen RW, Cooper MJ (1991) Composition of gastro-oesophageal refluxate. Gut 32:1093–1099
Nehra D, Howell P, Williams CP, Pye JK, Beynon J (1999) Toxic bile acids in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: influence of gastric acidity. Gut 44:598–602
Hong J, Behar J, Wands J, Resnick M, Wang LJ, DeLellis RA, Lambeth D, Souza RF, Spechler SJ, Cao W (2010) Role of a novel bile acid receptor TGR5 in the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Gut 59:170–180
Liu R, Li X, Hylemon PB, Zhou H (2018) Conjugated bile acids promote invasive growth of esophageal adenocarcinoma cells and cancer stem cell expansion via sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 2-mediated yes-associated protein activation. Am J Pathol 188:2042–2058
Zhou Z, Xia Y, Bandla S, Zakharov V, Wu S, Peters J, Godfrey TE, Sun J (2014) Vitamin D receptor is highly expressed in precancerous lesions and esophageal adenocarcinoma with significant sex difference. Hum Pathol 45:1744–1751
De Gottardi A, Dumonceau JM, Bruttin F, Vonlaufen A, Morard I, Spahr L, Rubbia-Brandt L, Frossard JL, Dinjens WN, Rabinovitch PS, Hadengue A (2006) Expression of the bile acid receptor FXR in Barrett’s esophagus and enhancement of apoptosis by guggulsterone in vitro. Mol Cancer 5:48
Guan B, Li H, Yang Z, Hoque A, Xu X (2013) Inhibition of farnesoid X receptor controls esophageal cancer cell growth in vitro and in nude mouse xenografts. Cancer 119:1321–1329
Pang C, LaLonde A, Godfrey TE, Que J, Sun J, Wu TT, Zhou Z (2017) Bile salt receptor TGR5 is highly expressed in esophageal adenocarcinoma and precancerous lesions with significantly worse overall survival and gender differences. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 10:29–37
Capello A, Moons LM, Van de Winkel A, Siersema PD, van Dekken H, Kuipers EJ, Kusters JG (2008) Bile acid-stimulated expression of the farnesoid X receptor enhances the immune response in Barrett esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 103:1510–1516
Bhat AA, Lu H, Soutto M, Capobianco A, Rai P, Zaika A, El-Rifai W (2018) Exposure of Barrett’s and esophageal adenocarcinoma cells to bile acids activates EGFR-STAT3 signaling axis via induction of APE1. Oncogene 37:6011–6024
Zhang Q, Agoston AT, Pham TH, Zhang W, Zhang X, Huo X, Peng S, Bajpai M, Das K, Odze RD, Spechler SJ, Souza RF (2019) Acidic bile salts induce epithelial to mesenchymal transition via VEGF signaling in non-neoplastic Barrett’s cells. Gastroenterology 156:130-144.e110
Zhou Z, Lu H, Zhu S, Gomaa A, Chen Z, Yan J, Washington K, El-Rifai W, Dang C, Peng D (2019) Activation of EGFR-DNA-PKcs pathway by IGFBP2 protects esophageal adenocarcinoma cells from acidic bile salts-induced DNA damage. J Exp Clin Cancer Res CR 38:13
Correa P, Piazuelo MB (2012) The gastric precancerous cascade. J Dig Dis 13:2–9
Matsuhisa T, Arakawa T, Watanabe T, Tokutomi T, Sakurai K, Okamura S, Chono S, Kamada T, Sugiyama A, Fujimura Y, Matsuzawa K, Ito M, Yasuda M, Ota H, Haruma K (2013) Relation between bile acid reflux into the stomach and the risk of atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia: a multicenter study of 2283 cases. Dig Endosc 25:519–525
Yu JH, Zheng JB, Qi J, Yang K, Wu YH, Wang K, Wang CB, Sun XJ (2019) Bile acids promote gastric intestinal metaplasia by upregulating CDX2 and MUC2 expression via the FXR/NF-κB signalling pathway. Int J Oncol 54:879–892
Xu Y, Watanabe T, Tanigawa T, Machida H, Okazaki H, Yamagami H, Watanabe K, Tominaga K, Fujiwara Y, Oshitani N, Arakawa T (2010) Bile acids induce cdx2 expression through the farnesoid x receptor in gastric epithelial cells. J Clin Biochem Nutr 46:81–86
Park MJ, Kim KH, Kim HY, Kim K, Cheong J (2008) Bile acid induces expression of COX-2 through the homeodomain transcription factor CDX1 and orphan nuclear receptor SHP in human gastric cancer cells. Carcinogenesis 29:2385–2393
Wang X, Sun L, Wang X, Kang H, Ma X, Wang M, Lin S, Liu M, Dai C, Dai Z (2017) Acidified bile acids enhance tumor progression and telomerase activity of gastric cancer in mice dependent on c-Myc expression. Cancer Med 6:788–797
Wang X, Zhou P, Sun X, Zheng J, Wei G, Zhang L, Wang H, Yao J, Lu S, Jia P (2015) Acidified bile acids increase hTERT expression via c-myc activation in human gastric cancer cells. Oncol Rep 33:3038–3044
Ni Z, Min Y, Han C, Yuan T, Lu W, Ashktorab H, Smoot DT, Wu Q, Wu J, Zeng W, Shi Y (2020) TGR5-HNF4alpha axis contributes to bile acid-induced gastric intestinal metaplasia markers expression. Cell Death Discovery 6:56
Yasuda H, Hirata S, Inoue K, Mashima H, Ohnishi H, Yoshiba M (2007) Involvement of membrane-type bile acid receptor M-BAR/TGR5 in bile acid-induced activation of epidermal growth factor receptor and mitogen-activated protein kinases in gastric carcinoma cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 354:154–159
Carino A, Graziosi L, D’Amore C, Cipriani S, Marchiano S, Marino E, Zampella A, Rende M, Mosci P, Distrutti E, Donini A, Fiorucci S (2016) The bile acid receptor GPBAR1 (TGR5) is expressed in human gastric cancers and promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition in gastric cancer cell lines. Oncotarget 7:61021–61035
Cao W, Tian W, Hong J, Li D, Tavares R, Noble L, Moss SF, Resnick MB (2013) Expression of bile acid receptor TGR5 in gastric adenocarcinoma. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 304:322–327
Yang HB, Song W, Cheng MD, Fan HF, Gu X, Qiao Y, Lu X, Yu RH, Chen LY (2015) Deoxycholic acid inhibits the growth of BGC-823 gastric carcinoma cells via a p53-mediated pathway. Mol Med Rep 11:2749–2754
Song W, Yang HB, Chen P, Wang SM, Zhao LP, Xu WH, Fan HF, Gu X, Chen LY (2013) Apoptosis of human gastric carcinoma SGC-7901 induced by deoxycholic acid via the mitochondrial-dependent pathway. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 171:1061–1071
Guo C, Qi H, Yu Y, Zhang Q, Su J, Yu D, Huang W, Chen WD, Wang YD (2015) The G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor Gpbar1 (TGR5) inhibits gastric inflammation through antagonizing NF-κB signaling pathway. Front Pharmacol 6:287
Fukase K, Ohtsuka H, Onogawa T, Oshio H, Ii T, Mutoh M, Katayose Y, Rikiyama T, Oikawa M, Motoi F, Egawa S, Abe T, Unno M (2008) Bile acids repress E-cadherin through the induction of Snail and increase cancer invasiveness in human hepatobiliary carcinoma. Cancer Sci 99:1785–1792
Kainuma M, Takada I, Makishima M, Sano K (2018) Farnesoid X receptor activation enhances transforming growth factor β-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Int J Mol Sci 19:1–9
Hu Y, Chau T, Liu HX, Liao D, Keane R, Nie Y, Yang H, Wan YJY (2015) Bile acids regulate nuclear receptor (Nur77) expression and intracellular location to control proliferation and apoptosis. Mol Cancer Res 13:281–292
Jang ES, Yoon JH, Lee SH, Lee SM, Lee JH, Yu SJ, Kim YJ, Lee HS, Kim CY (2014) Sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide mediates dual actions of deoxycholic acid in human hepatocellular carcinoma cells: Enhanced apoptosis versus growth stimulation. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 140:133–144
Nguyen PT, Kanno K, Pham QT, Kikuchi Y, Kakimoto M, Kobayashi T, Otani Y, Kishikawa N, Miyauchi M, Arihiro K, Ito M, Tazuma S (2020) Senescent hepatic stellate cells caused by deoxycholic acid modulates malignant behavior of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 146:3255–3268
Xu Z, Huang G, Gong W, Zhou P, Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Zeng Y, Gao M, Pan Z, He F (2012) FXR ligands protect against hepatocellular inflammation via SOCS3 induction. Cell Signal 24:1658–1664
Langhi C, Pedraz-Cuesta E, Donate Y, Marrero PF, Haro D, Rodríguez JC (2013) Regulation of N-Myc downstream regulated gene 2 by bile acids. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 434:102–109
Lee S, Cho YY, Cho EJ, Yu SJ, Lee JH, Yoon JH, Kim YJ (2018) Synergistic effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on the antitumor activity of sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma cells via modulation of STAT3 and ERK, Internaltion. J Mol Med 42:2551–2559
Liu H, Qin CY, Han GQ, Xu HW, Meng M, Yang Z (2007) Mechanism of apoptotic effects induced selectively by ursodeoxycholic acid on human hepatoma cell lines. World J Gastroenterol 13:1652–1658
Zhu L, Shan LJ, Liu YJ, Chen D, Xiao XG, Li Y (2014) Ursodeoxycholic acid induces apoptosis of hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro. J Dig Dis 15:684–693
Chung GE, Yoon JH, Lee JH, Kim HY, Myung SJ, Yu SJ, Lee SH, Lee SM, Kim YJ, Lee HS (2011) Ursodeoxycholic acid-induced inhibition of DLC1 protein degradation leads to suppression of hepatocellular carcinoma cell growth. Oncol Rep 25:1739–1746
Lim SC, Choi JE, Kang HS, Si H (2010) Ursodeoxycholic acid switches oxaliplatin-induced necrosis to apoptosis by inhibiting reactive oxygen species production and activating p53-caspase 8 pathway in HepG2 hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Cancer 126:1582–1595
Yang CS, Yuk JM, Kim JJ, Hwang JH, Lee CH, Kim JM, Oh GT, Choi HS, Jo EK (2013) Small heterodimer partner-targeting therapy inhibits systemic inflammatory responses through mitochondrial uncoupling protein 2. PLoS ONE 8:e63435
Zollner G, Wagner M, Fickert P, Silbert D, Fuchsbichler A, Zatloukal K, Denk H, Trauner M (2005) Hepatobiliary transporter expression in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int 25:367–379
Halilbasic E, Claudel T, Trauner M (2013) Bile acid transporters and regulatory nuclear receptors in the liver and beyond. J Hepatol 58:155–168
Arab JP, Karpen SJ, Dawson PA, Arrese M, Trauner M (2017) Bile acids and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Molecular insights and therapeutic perspectives. Hepatology 65:350–362
Zhang W, Zhou L, Yin P, Wang J, Lu X, Wang X, Chen J, Lin X, Xu G (2015) A weighted relative difference accumulation algorithm for dynamic metabolomics data: long-term elevated bile acids are risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma. Sci Rep 5:8984
Knisely AS, Strautnieks SS, Meier Y, Stieger B, Byrne JA, Portmann BC, Bull LN, Pawlikowska L, Bilezikçi B, Ozçay F, László A, Tiszlavicz L, Moore L, Raftos J, Arnell H, Fischler B, Németh A, Papadogiannakis N, Cielecka-Kuszyk J, Jankowska I, Pawłowska J, Melín-Aldana H, Emerick KM, Whitington PF, Mieli-Vergani G, Thompson RJ (2006) Hepatocellular carcinoma in ten children under five years of age with bile salt export pump deficiency. Hepatology 44:478–486
Yang F, Huang X, Yi T, Yen Y, Moore DD, Huang W (2007) Spontaneous development of liver tumors in the absence of the bile acid receptor farnesoid X receptor. Can Res 67:863–867
Degirolamo C, Modica S, Vacca M, Di Tullio G, Morgano A, D’Orazio A, Kannisto K, Parini P, Moschetta A (2015) Prevention of spontaneous hepatocarcinogenesis in farnesoid X receptor-null mice by intestinal-specific farnesoid X receptor reactivation. Hepatology 61:161–170
Wolfe A, Thomas A, Edwards G, Jaseja R, Guo GL, Apte U (2011) Increased activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway in spontaneous hepatocellular carcinoma observed in farnesoid X receptor knockout mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 338:12–21
Nomoto M, Miyata M, Yin S, Kurata Y, Shimada M, Yoshinari K, Gonzalez FJ, Suzuki K, Shibasaki S, Kurosawa T, Yamazoe Y (2009) Bile acid-induced elevated oxidative stress in the absence of farnesoid X receptor. Biol Pharm Bull 32:172–178
Smolková K, Mikó E, Kovács T, Leguina-Ruzzi A, Sipos A, Bai P (2020) NRF2 in regulating cancer metabolism. Antioxid Redox Signal 33:966–997
Kong B, Zhu Y, Li G, Williams JA, Buckley K, Tawfik O, Luyendyk JP, Guo GL (2016) Mice with hepatocyte-specific FXR deficiency are resistant to spontaneous but susceptible to cholic acid-induced hepatocarcinogenesis. Am J Physiol Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 310:G295-302
Jia W, Xie G, Jia W (2018) Bile acid-microbiota crosstalk in gastrointestinal inflammation and carcinogenesis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 15:111–128
Bernstein H, Bernstein C, Payne CM, Dvorakova K, Garewal H (2005) Bile acids as carcinogens in human gastrointestinal cancers. Mutat Res 589:47–65
Gadaleta RM, Oldenburg B, Willemsen EC, Spit M, Murzilli S, Salvatore L, Klomp LW, Siersema PD, van Erpecum KJ, van Mil SW (1812) Activation of bile salt nuclear receptor FXR is repressed by pro-inflammatory cytokines activating NF-κB signaling in the intestine. Biochem Biophys Acta 2011:851–858
Zhang Y, Xu P, Park K, Choi Y, Moore DD, Wang L (2008) Orphan receptor small heterodimer partner suppresses tumorigenesis by modulating cyclin D1 expression and cellular proliferation. Hepatology 48:289–298
Zhang Y, Soto J, Park K, Viswanath G, Kuwada S, Abel ED, Wang L (2010) Nuclear receptor SHP, a death receptor that targets mitochondria, induces apoptosis and inhibits tumor growth. Mol Cell Biol 30:1341–1356
He N, Park K, Zhang Y, Huang J, Lu S, Wang L (2008) Epigenetic inhibition of nuclear receptor small heterodimer partner is associated with and regulates hepatocellular carcinoma growth. Gastroenterology 134:793–802
Yang CS, Kim JJ, Kim TS, Lee PY, Kim SY, Lee HM, Shin DM, Nguyen LT, Lee MS, Jin HS, Kim KK, Lee CH, Kim MH, Park SG, Kim JM, Choi HS, Jo EK (2015) Small heterodimer partner interacts with NLRP3 and negatively regulates activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. Nat Communun 6:6115
Gandhi D, Ojili V, Nepal P, Nagar A, Hernandez-Delima FJ, Bajaj D, Choudhary G, Gupta N, Sharma P (2020) A pictorial review of gall stones and its associated complications. Clin Imaging 60:228–236
Feng HY, Chen YC (2016) Role of bile acids in carcinogenesis of pancreatic cancer: An old topic with new perspective. World J Gastroenterol 22:7463–7477
Fu H, Li Y, Bai G, Yin R, Yin C, Shi W, Zhang L, Li R, Zhao R (2019) Persistent cholestasis resulting from duodenal papillary carcinoma in an adolescent male: A case report. Medicine 98:e15708
Thomas RM, Jobin C (2020) Microbiota in pancreatic health and disease: the next frontier in microbiome research, Nature Reviews. Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:53–64
Rees DO, Crick PJ, Jenkins GJ, Wang Y, Griffiths WJ, Brown TH, Al-Sarireh B (2017) Comparison of the composition of bile acids in bile of patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and benign disease. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 174:290–295
Adachi T, Tajima Y, Kuroki T, Mishima T, Kitasato A, Fukuda K, Tsutsumi R, Kanematsu T (2006) Bile-reflux into the pancreatic ducts is associated with the development of intraductal papillary carcinoma in hamsters. J Surg Res 136:106–111
Tucker ON, Dannenberg AJ, Yang EY, Fahey Iii TJ (2004) Bile acids induce cyclooxygenase-2 expression in human pancreatic cancer cell lines. Carcinogenesis 25:419–423
Nagathihalli NS, Beesetty Y, Lee W, Washington MK, Chen X, Lockhart AC, Merchant NB (2014) Novel mechanistic insights into ectodomain shedding of EGFR Ligands Amphiregulin and TGF-α: impact on gastrointestinal cancers driven by secondary bile acids. Can Res 74:2062–2072
Kim YJ, Jeong SH, Kim EK, Kim EJ, Cho JH (2017) Ursodeoxycholic acid suppresses epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cell formation by reducing the levels of peroxiredoxin II and reactive oxygen species in pancreatic cancer cells. Oncol Rep 38:3632–3638
Reddy BS, Wynder EL (1977) Metabolic epidemiology of colon cancer Fecal bile acids and neutral sterols in colon cancer patients and patients with adenomatous polyps. Cancer 39:2533–2539
Murakami Y, Tanabe S, Suzuki T (2016) High-fat diet-induced intestinal hyperpermeability is associated with increased bile acids in the large intestine of mice. J Food Sci 81:H216-222
Lagergren J, Ye W, Ekbom A (2001) Intestinal cancer after cholecystectomy: is bile involved in carcinogenesis? Gastroenterology 121:542–547
Payne CM, Bernstein C, Dvorak K, Bernstein H (2008) Hydrophobic bile acids, genomic instability, Darwinian selection, and colon carcinogenesis. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 1:19–47
Degirolamo C, Modica S, Palasciano G, Moschetta A (2011) Bile acids and colon cancer: solving the puzzle with nuclear receptors. Trends Mol Med 17:564–572
Turner DJ, Alaish SM, Zou T, Rao JN, Wang JY, Strauch ED (2007) Bile salts induce resistance to apoptosis through NF-kappaB-mediated XIAP expression. Ann Surg 245:415–425
Ridlon JM, Wolf PG, Gaskins HR (2016) Taurocholic acid metabolism by gut microbes and colon cancer. Gut Microbes 7:201–215
Huang XP, Fan XT, Desjeux JF, Castagna M (1992) Bile acids, non-phorbol-ester-type tumor promoters, stimulate the phosphorylation of protein kinase C substrates in human platelets and colon cell line HT29. Int J Cancer 52:444–450
Moschetta A, Portincasa P, van Erpecum KJ, Debellis L, Vanberge-Henegouwen GP, Palasciano G (2003) Sphingomyelin protects against apoptosis and hyperproliferation induced by deoxycholate: potential implications for colon cancer. Dig Dis Sci 48:1094–1101
Zimber A, Gespach C (2008) Bile acids and derivatives, their nuclear receptors FXR, PXR and ligands: role in health and disease and their therapeutic potential. Anticancer Agents Med Chem 8:540–563
Farhana L, Nangia-Makker P, Arbit E, Shango K, Sarkar S, Mahmud H, Hadden T, Yu Y, Majumdar AP (2016) Bile acid: a potential inducer of colon cancer stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther 7:181
Hori T, Matsumoto K, Sakaitani Y, Sato M, Morotomi M (1998) Effect of dietary deoxycholic acid and cholesterol on fecal steroid concentration and its impact on the colonic crypt cell proliferation in azoxymethane-treated rats. Cancer Lett 124:79–84
Di Ciaula A, Garruti G, Lunardi Baccetto R, Molina-Molina E, Bonfrate L, Wang DQ, Portincasa P (2017) Bile acid physiology. Ann Hepatol 16:s4–s14. https://doi.org/10.5604/5601.3001.0010.5493
Di Ciaula A, Wang DQ, Molina-Molina E, Lunardi Baccetto R, Calamita G, Palmieri VO, Portincasa P (2017) Bile acids and cancer: direct and environmental-dependent effects. Ann Hepatol 16:s87–s105
Zeng H, Claycombe KJ, Reindl KM (2015) Butyrate and deoxycholic acid play common and distinct roles in HCT116 human colon cell proliferation. J Nutr Biochem 26:1022–1028
Hess LM, Krutzsch MF, Guillen J, Chow HH, Einspahr J, Batta AK, Salen G, Reid ME, Earnest DL, Alberts DS (2004) Results of a phase I multiple-dose clinical study of ursodeoxycholic acid. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 13:861–867
Kim EK, Cho JH, Kim EJ, Kim YJ (2017) Ursodeoxycholic acid inhibits the proliferation of colon cancer cells by regulating oxidative stress and cancer stem-like cell growth. PLoS ONE 12:1–11
Ochsenkuhn T, Marsteller I, Hay U, Diebold J, Paumgartner G, Goke B, Sackmann M (2003) Does ursodeoxycholic acid change the proliferation of the colorectal mucosa? A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Digestion 68:209–216
Im E, Martinez JD (2004) Diet induced changes in the colonic environment and colorectal cancer ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) can inhibit deoxycholic acid (DCA)-induced apoptosis via modulation of EGFR/ Raf-1/ERK signaling in human colon cancer cells. J Nutr 2:483–486
Rigas B, Tsioulias GJ, Allan C, Wali RK, Brasitus TA (1994) The effect of bile acids and piroxicam on MHC antigen expression in rat colonocytes during colon cancer development. Immunology 83:319–323
Alberts DS, Martinez ME, Hess LM, Einspahr JG, Green SB, Bhattacharyya AK, Guillen J, Krutzsch M, Batta AK, Salen G, Fales L, Koonce K, Parish D, Clouser M, Roe D, Lance P (2005) Gastroenterologist, Phase III trial of ursodeoxycholic acid to prevent colorectal adenoma recurrence. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:846–853
Tung BY, Emond MJ, Haggitt RC, Bronner MP, Kimmey MB, Kowdley KV, Brentnall TA (2001) Ursodiol use is associated with lower prevalence of colonic neoplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Ann Intern Med 134:89–95
Serfaty L, De Leusse A, Rosmorduc O, Desaint B, Flejou JF, Chazouilleres O, Poupon RE, Poupon R (2003) Ursodeoxycholic acid therapy and the risk of colorectal adenoma in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis: an observational study. Hepatology 38:203–209
Garrett WS (2015) Cancer and the microbiota. Science 348:80–86
Tjalsma H, Boleij A, Marchesi JR, Dutilh BE (2012) A bacterial driver-passenger model for colorectal cancer: beyond the usual suspects. Nat Rev Microbiol 10:575–582
Raskov H, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC (2017) Linking gut microbiota to colorectal cancer. J Cancer 8:3378–3395
Ward JBJ, Lajczak NK, Kelly OB, O’Dwyer AM, Giddam AK, Ni Gabhann J, Franco P, Tambuwala MM, Jefferies CA, Keely S, Roda A, Keely SJ (2017) Ursodeoxycholic acid and lithocholic acid exert anti-inflammatory actions in the colon. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 312:G550–G558
Islam KB, Fukiya S, Hagio M, Fujii N, Ishizuka S, Ooka T, Ogura Y, Hayashi T, Yokota A (2011) Bile acid is a host factor that regulates the composition of the cecal microbiota in rats. Gastroenterology 141:1773–1781
Devkota S, Wang Y, Musch MW, Leone V, Fehlner-Peach H, Nadimpalli A, Antonopoulos DA, Jabri B, Chang EB (2012) Dietary-fat-induced taurocholic acid promotes pathobiont expansion and colitis in Il10-/- mice. Nature 487:104–108
Javitt NB, Budai K, Miller DG, Cahan AC, Raju U, Levitz M (1994) Breast-gut connection: o