Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of FXR in Liver Inflammation During Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis

  • Liver & Xenobiotic Metabolism (G Guo, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Pharmacology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

About 15–25% of patients with simple steatosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease progresses to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and the underlying mechanism for this progression has not been elucidated. NASH ultimately could progress to cirrhosis, an irreversible condition.

Recent Findings

Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) has been studied for its role in modulating inflammation, and the expression of FXR is down-regulated during NASH development. FXR deficiency has shown to progress and exacerbate NASH development, and FXR activation has been protective against liver inflammation associated with NASH. The expression of factors in both the adaptive and innate immune response in the liver are regulated in a FXR-dependent and -independent manner.

Summary

Therefore, understanding key signaling pathways of liver inflammation in NASH is important to determine essential components that predispose, progress, or exacerbate NASH. FXR has been identified as a therapeutic target for NASH to prevent liver inflammation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • of importance, •• of major importance

  1. Li T, Apte U. Bile acid metabolism and signaling in cholestasis, inflammation, and cancer. Adv Pharmacol. 2015;74:263–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Matsubara T, Li F, Gonzalez FJ. FXR signaling in the enterohepatic system. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2013;368(1–2):17–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhu Y, et al. Fatty liver diseases, bile acids, and FXR. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2016;6(5):409–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhu Y, Li F, Guo GL. Tissue-specific function of farnesoid X receptor in liver and intestine. Pharmacol Res. 2011;63(4):259–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Yuan ZQ, Li KW. Role of farnesoid X receptor in cholestasis. J Dig Dis. 2016;17(8):501–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Manley S, Ding W. Role of farnesoid X receptor and bile acids in alcoholic liver disease. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2015;5(2):158–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sinal CJ, et al. Targeted disruption of the nuclear receptor FXR/BAR impairs bile acid and lipid homeostasis. Cell. 2000;102(6):731–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganz M, Szabo G. Immune and inflammatory pathways in NASH. Hepatol Int. 2013;7(Suppl 2):771–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Meli R, Mattace Raso G, Calignano A. Role of innate immune response in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: metabolic complications and therapeutic tools. Front Immunol. 2014;5:177.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bieghs V, Trautwein C. The innate immune response during liver inflammation and metabolic disease. Trends Immunol. 2013;34(9):446–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sutti S, Bruzzi S, Albano E. The role of immune mechanisms in alcoholic and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a 2015 update. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;10(2):243–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Satapathy SK, Sanyal AJ. Epidemiology and natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Semin Liver Dis. 2015;35(3):221–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Caligiuri A, Gentilini A and Marra F. Molecular pathogenesis of NASH. Int J Mol Sci. 2016; 17(9).

  14. Day CP, James OF. Steatohepatitis: a tale of two “hits”? Gastroenterology. 1998;114(4):842–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ibrahim SH, et al. Animal models of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: eat, delete, and inflame. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61(5):1325–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bjursell M, et al. Ageing Fxr deficient mice develop increased energy expenditure, improved glucose control and liver damage resembling NASH. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e64721.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kong B, et al. Farnesoid X receptor deficiency induces nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in low-density lipoprotein receptor-knockout mice fed a high-fat diet. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2009;328(1):116–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Szabo G, Iracheta-Vellve A. Inflammasome activation in the liver: focus on alcoholic and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2015;39(Suppl 1):S18–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Miura K, et al. Toll-like receptor 2 and palmitic acid cooperatively contribute to the development of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis through inflammasome activation in mice. Hepatology. 2013;57(2):577–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rivera CA, et al. Toll-like receptor-4 signaling and Kupffer cells play pivotal roles in the pathogenesis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J Hepatol. 2007;47(4):571–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Miura K, et al. Toll-like receptor 9 promotes steatohepatitis by induction of interleukin-1beta in mice. Gastroenterology. 2010;139(1):323–34. e7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Csak T, et al. Both bone marrow-derived and non-bone marrow-derived cells contribute to AIM2 and NLRP3 inflammasome activation in a MyD88-dependent manner in dietary steatohepatitis. Liver Int. 2014;34(9):1402–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang YG, et al. The involvement of NLRX1 and NLRP3 in the development of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in mice. J Chin Med Assoc. 2013;76(12):686–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ganz M, et al. Progression of non-alcoholic steatosis to steatohepatitis and fibrosis parallels cumulative accumulation of danger signals that promote inflammation and liver tumors in a high fat-cholesterol-sugar diet model in mice. J Transl Med. 2015;13:193.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Magee N, Zou A, Zhang Y. Pathogenesis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: interactions between liver parenchymal and nonparenchymal cells. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:5170402.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Sutti S, et al. Is there a role for adaptive immunity in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis? World J Hepatol. 2015;7(13):1725–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Sutti S, et al. Adaptive immune responses triggered by oxidative stress contribute to hepatic inflammation in NASH. Hepatology. 2014;59(3):886–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Leroux A, et al. Toxic lipids stored by Kupffer cells correlates with their pro-inflammatory phenotype at an early stage of steatohepatitis. J Hepatol. 2012;57(1):141–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lawrence T. The nuclear factor NF-kappaB pathway in inflammation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2009;1(6):a001651.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang YD, et al. Farnesoid X receptor antagonizes nuclear factor kappaB in hepatic inflammatory response. Hepatology. 2008;48(5):1632–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Daly C, Rollins BJ. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (CCL2) in inflammatory disease and adaptive immunity: therapeutic opportunities and controversies. Microcirculation. 2003;10(3–4):247–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ito M, et al. Longitudinal analysis of murine steatohepatitis model induced by chronic exposure to high-fat diet. Hepatol Res. 2007;37(1):50–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Haukeland JW, et al. Systemic inflammation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is characterized by elevated levels of CCL2. J Hepatol. 2006;44(6):1167–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. • Li L, et al. Activation of farnesoid X receptor downregulates monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 in murine macrophage. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015;467(4):841–6. This manuscript provides a direct role of FXR in the adpative immune response and anti-inflammatory pathways with the down-regulation of Mcp-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang S, et al. Farnesoid X receptor agonist WAY-362450 attenuates liver inflammation and fibrosis in murine model of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J Hepatol. 2009;51(2):380–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pathil A, et al. Ursodeoxycholyl lysophosphatidylethanolamide improves steatosis and inflammation in murine models of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2012;55(5):1369–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Balasubramaniyan N, Ananthanarayanan M, Suchy FJ. Nuclear factor-kappaB regulates the expression of multiple genes encoding liver transport proteins. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2016;310(8):G618–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim MS, et al. Repression of farnesoid X receptor during the acute phase response. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(11):8988–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kemper JK, et al. FXR acetylation is normally dynamically regulated by p300 and SIRT1 but constitutively elevated in metabolic disease states. Cell Metab. 2009;10(5):392–404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee J, et al. Genomic analysis of hepatic farnesoid X receptor binding sites reveals altered binding in obesity and direct gene repression by farnesoid X receptor in mice. Hepatology. 2012;56(1):108–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. • Kim DH, et al. A dysregulated acetyl/SUMO switch of FXR promotes hepatic inflammation in obesity. EMBO J. 2015;34(2):184–99. The manuscript demonstrates that acetylation/sumolyation of FXR alters transcriptional pathways related to inflammation. SUMO-modified FXR is identified to be involved in the transrepression of NF-κB and inhibits pro-inflammatory gene expression thus showing FXR has a role in anti-inflammation. This created a direct connection between FXR, NF-κB, and inflammation, which supports emerging research in FXR protection against inflammation associated with NASH.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gruys E, et al. Acute phase reaction and acute phase proteins. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2005;6(11):1045–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Yoneda M, et al. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein is an independent clinical feature of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and also of the severity of fibrosis in NASH. J Gastroenterol. 2007;42(7):573–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ndumele CE, et al. Hepatic steatosis, obesity, and the metabolic syndrome are independently and additively associated with increased systemic inflammation. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2011;31(8):1927–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang S, et al. Suppression of interleukin-6-induced C-reactive protein expression by FXR agonists. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009;379(2):476–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. •• Porez G, et al. The hepatic orosomucoid/alpha1-acid glycoprotein gene cluster is regulated by the nuclear bile acid receptor FXR. Endocrinology. 2013;154(10):3690–701. This is the first publication to demonstrate that members in the lipocalin gene family are putative FXR target genes, specifically Lcn13 was the most downregulated gene in FXR KO mice and Orm3 was the most up-regulated gene in FXR KO mice. This manuscript supports further research into FXR-mediated regulation of lipocalins involved in the acute phase response.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhan L, et al. Genome-wide binding and transcriptome analysis of human farnesoid X receptor in primary human hepatocytes. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e105930.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. • Ye D, et al. Lipocalin-2 mediates non-alcoholic steatohepatitis by promoting neutrophil-macrophage crosstalk via the induction of CXCR2. J Hepatol. 2016;65(5):988–97. This manuscript demonstrates the direct role of lipocalin 2 in NASH, and mechanistically supports previous publications with obeservations of the role of lipocalin 2 in NASH of murine and human models. In addition, it demonstrates the importance of acute phase proteins in inflammation related to NASH.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Auguet T, et al. Liver lipocalin 2 expression in severely obese women with non alcoholic fatty liver disease. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2013;121(2):119–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Semba T, et al. The FLS (fatty liver Shionogi) mouse reveals local expressions of lipocalin-2, CXCL1 and CXCL9 in the liver with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013;13:120.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Wieser V, et al. Lipocalin 2 drives neutrophilic inflammation in alcoholic liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(4):872–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Cai Y, et al. The detrimental role played by Lipocalin-2 in alcoholic fatty liver in mice. Am J Pathol. 2016;186(9):2417–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Suzuki K, et al. Molecular evolution of epididymal lipocalin genes localized on mouse chromosome 2. Gene. 2004;339:49–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cho KW, et al. Lipocalin-13 regulates glucose metabolism by both insulin-dependent and insulin-independent mechanisms. Mol Cell Biol. 2011;31(3):450–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sheng L, et al. Lipocalin 13 protein protects against hepatic steatosis by both inhibiting lipogenesis and stimulating fatty acid beta-oxidation. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(44):38128–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Goodwin B, et al. A regulatory cascade of the nuclear receptors FXR, SHP-1, and LRH-1 represses bile acid biosynthesis. Mol Cell. 2000;6(3):517–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Watanabe M, et al. Bile acids lower triglyceride levels via a pathway involving FXR, SHP, and SREBP-1c. J Clin Investig. 2004;113(10):1408–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Chen F, et al. Liver receptor homologue-1 mediates species- and cell line-specific bile acid-dependent negative feedback regulation of the apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(22):19909–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Smalling RL, et al. Genome-wide transcriptome analysis identifies novel gene signatures implicated in human chronic liver disease. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2013;305(5):G364–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Myronovych A, et al. The role of small heterodimer partner in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease improvement after sleeve gastrectomy in mice. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014;22(11):2301–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Neuschwander-Tetri BA, et al. Farnesoid X nuclear receptor ligand obeticholic acid for non-cirrhotic, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (FLINT): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9972):956–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Musso G, Cassader M, Gambino R. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: emerging molecular targets and therapeutic strategies. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(4):249–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Pathil A, et al. The synthetic bile acid-phospholipid conjugate ursodeoxycholyl lysophosphatidylethanolamide suppresses TNFalpha-induced liver injury. J Hepatol. 2011;54(4):674–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kim JK, et al. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid and ursodeoxycholic acid have an additive effect in attenuating diet-induced nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in mice. Exp Mol Med. 2014;46:e127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the NIH Grant, GM104037, to support Dr. Grace L. Guo’s research and the NIH/NIEHS Training Grant, T32ES007148, to support Dr. Laura E. Armstrong’s post-doctoral training.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    Laura E. Armstrong & Grace L. Guo

  2. Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    Laura E. Armstrong & Grace L. Guo

  3. Center for Lipid Research, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Grace L. Guo

Authors
  1. Laura E. Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grace L. Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grace L. Guo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Laura E. Armstrong and Grace L. Guo declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Liver & Xenobiotic Metabolism

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Armstrong, L.E., Guo, G.L. Role of FXR in Liver Inflammation During Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Curr Pharmacol Rep 3, 92–100 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40495-017-0085-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40495-017-0085-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation