Abstract
Liver diseases are a major burden worldwide, the scope of which is expected to further grow in the upcoming years. Clinically relevant liver dysfunction-related blood markers such as alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase have limited accuracy. Nowadays, liver biopsy remains the gold standard for several liver-related pathologies, posing a risk of complication due to its invasive nature. Liquid biopsy is a minimally invasive approach, which has shown substantial potential in the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of liver diseases by detecting disease-associated particles such as proteins and RNA molecules in biological fluids. Histones are the core components of the nucleosomes, regulating essential cellular processes, including gene expression and DNA repair. Following cell death or activation of immune cells, histones are released in the extracellular space and can be detected in circulation. Histones are stable in circulation, have a long half-life, and retain their post-translational modifications. Here, we provide an overview of the current research on histone-mediated liquid biopsy methods for liver diseases, with a focus on the most common detection methods.
Keywords: Liquid biopsy, Histones; NAFLD/MAFLD; Chronic liver disease; Hepatocellular carcinoma
Introduction
Chronic liver disease (CLD)
CLD is a clinical entity involving a process of progressive destruction and regeneration of the liver parenchyma. CLD refers to a hepatic disease that lasts over six months, and the related deteriorations include the decreased synthesis of clotting factors and other proteins, detoxification of harmful products of metabolism, and excretion of bile.1 Accordingly, CLD consists of a wide range of liver pathologies which include inflammation, liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).1 CLD can be caused by viral infection, including hepatitis B and C, by alcohol misuse as in alcoholic fatty liver disease (AFLD), or by obesity/excessive nutrient intake as in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). NAFLD is present when > 5% of hepatocytes are steatotic in patients who do not consume excessive alcohol consumption (< 20 g/day for women and < 30 g/day for men) and ranges in severity from simple steatosis (fat without significant hepatic inflammation or hepatocellular injury) to steatohepatitis (fat with hepatocellular injury and hepatic inflammation), through to advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, which is a risk factor for HCC.2 AFLD broadly consists of three stages, each increasing in severity. Drinking a large amount of alcohol, even for just a few days, can lead to simple steatosis. Most individuals consuming > 40 g/day of alcohol per day develop simple steatosis; however, only a subset of individuals will develop more advanced disease over a longer period. Between 10–35% of individuals with alcohol-related steatosis who continue drinking heavily will develop it.3 The third stage of alcohol-related liver disease is cirrhosis, where healthy liver tissue has been replaced permanently by scar tissue, involving up to one in every five long-term heavy drinkers who will develop alcohol-related liver cirrhosis.3 AFLD also increases the risk of developing HCC. Chronic alcohol use of more than 80 g/day for more than 10 years increases the risk of HCC by approximately five-fold.4,5 In many patients, AFLD, NAFLD, and hepatitis infection can coexist and synergize to worsen CLD.5,6
The societal burden and the epidemiological figures of CLD are tremendous. An estimated 1.5 billion persons have CLD worldwide, with increasing prevalence and mortality.7 Cirrhosis is the eleventh leading cause of death, accounting for ∼2% of deaths in 2016.8 According to the results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 on the burden of cirrhosis and its trends since 1990, by cause, sex, and age, for 195 countries and territories, CLD caused ∼1.32 million deaths in 2017, with approximately two-thirds inmen.9 In the last three decades, the epidemiology of CLD has changed,10 reflecting the implementation of large-scale hepatitis B vaccination and hepatitis C treatment programs, and CLD is nowadays more often the result of the increasing prevalence of the obesity- and/or metabolic syndrome-associated NAFLD, and increasing alcohol misuse, triggering AFLD.
As CLD is a leading cause of years of working-life loss, second only to ischemic heart disease in Europe, increasing attention has been given to policy actions for marketing, pricing, and taxation of alcohol and unhealthy foods.11
AFLD/NAFLD: MAFLD?
AFLD and NAFLD are CLDs that have similar pathological spectra, ranging from simple hepatic steatosis to steatohepatitis, liver cirrhosis, and HCC (Fig. 1A). In their initial to advanced stages, they are both characterized by the presence of hepatic steatosis, hepatocellular ballooning, and lobular inflammation with or without fibrosis. They are both frequently accompanied by extrahepatic complications, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Among chronic drinkers and obese patients, about 35% and 65–85% develop CLD, respectively.12,13 Since the 1980s, there has been a tendency to separate NAFLD and AFLD as clinical entities. In particular, it was defined that NAFLD develops in the absence of known factors that cause fat accumulation such as alcohol consumption defined as < 30 g/day in men and < 20 g/day in women, viral liver disease, and hereditary disorders.14 Instead, AFLD is caused by heavy chronic alcohol consumption, defined as consumption of more than three standard drinks per day in men, and more than two drinks per day in women, or binge drinking defined as more than five standard drinks in men and more than four in women in a 2 h period.14 Upon liver biopsy, only two subtle histological changes may help to distinguish AFLD from NAFLD, as they are present in AFLD but not in NAFLD: (1) pronounced cholestasis (reduced or stopped bile flow), which is usually indicative of acute decompensation (hepatocyte keratin 7 immunostaining, in this case, becomes more intense), and (2) sclerosing hyaline necrosis, in which the central vein is almost completely obliterated.15 However, these features are not universal, and there is otherwise a substantial overlap in the histological findings between AFLD and NAFLD patients; in the absence of knowledge about the clinical history indicating the nature of the patient’s disease, the histology cannot be decisive for the diagnostic process. At the molecular level, AFLD and NAFLD implicate the involvement of common but also distinct cell signaling mechanisms in the liver parenchyma. A study from Sookoian et al.16 employing integrated omics and system biology approaches cross-comparing enrichment analyses showed that NAFLD is associated with pathways that include insulin signaling, caspases, and mitochondrial-related apoptosis, stress induction of heat shock proteins, cellular proliferation, hypoxia induction, and protein associated with epigenetic regulation. Conversely, AFLD is associated with a more reduced network of disease pathways, mostly focused on modulation of the immune response, toll-like receptor signaling, and cytokines.16 The same study postulated more pervasive systemic complications of NAFLD vs. AFLD, in particular at the cardiovascular level.16 A more recent comprehensive literature review indicated that NAFLD is regulated by the Nrf2/FXR/LXRα/RXR/SREBP-1c, PI3K/AKT/SREBP-1c, AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK)/Sarcoendoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase 2b (SERCA2b), LILRB4/SHP1/TRAF6/NF-κB/MAPK, TXNIP/NLRP3, and TAZ/Ihh signaling pathways, while AFLD is regulated by the SIRT1/AMPK/Lipin-1, PI3K/AKT/Nrf2/PPARγ, p62/Nrf2/KEAP1, STING-IRF3-Bax, C3/CYP2E1/Gly-tRF/SIRT1 and LRP6/Wnt/β-catenin/CYP2E1 signaling pathways, respectively.17 Despite the molecular differences revealed by the mechanistic studies, it is clear that NAFLD and AFLD more often coexist and have overlapping physiopathology. This underscored the need for a change in nomenclature to account for the dual etiology of CLD, which is present in a likely significant proportion of patients with concurrent alcohol consumption and metabolic disturbances. Accordingly, in recent years, NAFLD was re-defined by experts from the European Liver Patients’ Association as metabolic (dysfunction)-associated fatty liver disease, or MAFLD, a more appropriate nomenclature encompassing clinical features independent of alcohol consumption: hepatic steatosis, in addition to one of the following three criteria, namely overweight/obesity, presence of T2DM, or evidence of metabolic dysregulation.18,19 Results from the large NHANES III study demonstrated that MAFLD has a closer association to all-cause and cause-specific mortality, compared with NAFLD, because it excluded participants with lower mortality risk and included participants with higher risk.20 In turn, MAFLD may coexist with other types of CLD, such as viral hepatitis. The relationship and the synergy between these two disease entities are outside the scope of this review and it has been summarized elsewhere.21
Fig. 1. Liquid biopsies in CLD.
(A) Mechanisms of NAFLD. NAFLD progression is marked by: the accumulation of fatty liver (steatosis, illustrated by fat droplets accumulation in the cells and increased collagen production in the extracellular space), inflammation (steatohepatitis, activated immune cells are shown in light gray); cirrhosis (necrosis, necrotic cells are shown in dark gray); HCC with cancer cells shown in green). (B) Liquid biopsy types reported for the respective stages indicated above. (C) Liquid biopsy analytes, acquired by peripheral blood collection, fractionation, and subsequent extraction. CTC, circulating tumor cells; cfDNA, cell-free DNA; circRNA, cicular RNA; lncRNA, long noncoding RNA; miRNA, microRNA. Obtained with BioRender software.
As mentioned, in a minority of NAFLD and AFLD (or MAFLD) patients, there is a progression to steatohepatitis, fibrosis, and ultimately HCC and liver failure (Fig. 1A). Steatohepatitis can begin to be symptomatic and patients may complain of fatigue, malaise, and dull right-upper-quadrant abdominal discomfort. The molecular mechanisms that combine to define the transition to steatohepatitis and progressive disease are complex.22 It is increasingly appreciated that this transition is multifactorial and in addition to genetic factors, alcohol or fat-induced hepatocyte damage, reactive oxygen species, and gut-derived microbial components result in steatosis and inflammatory cell (macrophage and neutrophil leukocyte) recruitment and activation in the liver, as reviewed elsewhere.23–26
There are still not many options in terms of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmacological or nutritional therapies for treating patients with MAFLD. For MAFLD patients, intake of pioglitazone, vitamin E, and abstinence from alcohol consumption are beneficial.27 Also, weight loss and healthy nutrition are common therapeutic strategies.28 In some instances, bariatric surgery may be recommended to achieve and maintain the necessary extent of weight loss required for therapeutic effect.29 Obeticholic acid , identified in 1999 and originally approved for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis , is the only FDA-approved treatment for steatohepatitis.27 Obeticholic acid is a semisynthetic bile acid analog that has the chemical structure of 6α-ethyl-chenodeoxycholic acid. It is a FXR agonist which regulates the expression of transcription factors that reduce bile acid synthesis and hepatic steatosis, and its anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic properties have been demonstrated in several clinical trials.27 Many drugs are in various stages of research, but only a few have currently entered phases II and III, such as FGF-21, PPAR agonists, GLP-1 receptor agonists, THR-β agonists.30,31
Cirrhosis
Liver cirrhosis is highly prevalent worldwide. Its prevalence is increasing in middle-high developed regions and Eastern Europe, while it is decreasing in low-developed regions and Western Sub-Saharan Africa, as ranked by the sociodemographic index.32 It is an end-stage liver disease, where impaired liver function is caused by the formation of fibrosis consequent to damage.33 The latter can be in turn a consequence of different causes, such as obesity, MAFLD, high alcohol consumption, viral hepatitis B (HBV) and/or viral hepatitis C (HCV) infection, autoimmune diseases, cholestatic diseases, and iron or copper overload. Liver cirrhosis typically develops slowly over months or years, and over a long period of inflammation resulting in the substitution of the healthy liver parenchyma with fibrotic tissue and regenerative nodules, in turn, inducing portal hypertension.34 Liver cirrhosis evolves from an asymptomatic phase (compensated) to a symptomatic phase (decompensated). As cirrhosis worsens, symptoms may include itchiness, swelling in the lower legs, fluid build-up in the abdomen that can become spontaneously infected, jaundice, development of spider-like blood vessels in the skin, and dilated veins in the esophagus, stomach, or intestines. More serious complications, resulting in hospitalization, impaired quality of life, and high mortality, include hepatic encephalopathy and HCC. Notably, HCC is the leading cause of death in cirrhotic patients, with a yearly incidence of up to 6%.35 The severity of liver cirrhosis was commonly classified with the Child-Pugh score, which was used for a long time to determine patients who are candidates for liver transplantation, before being replaced by the European Foundation for the Study of Chronic Liver Failure Organ Failure score and by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease in previous decades.36,37
HCC
Liver cancer is one of the most aggressive types of cancer, characterized by a lower than 20% 5-year overall survival rate and increasing disease burden and death incidence. HCC is by far the most common liver malignancy, representing approximately 90% of all cases. Among the most significant risk factors for the development of HCC are cirrhosis, HBV and HCV, chronic alcoholism, and NAFLD.38 There are several scoring systems developed to measure the risk of HCC development. However, these systems lack universal acceptance due to the variability of HCC etiology between geographic regions.39,40 HCC can be generally subdivided into two main classes: proliferative and nonproliferative, which exert distinct clinical features.41 Tumor burden/HCC staging is generally defined by the number and the size of nodules, the presence of vascular invasion, and extrahepatic spread.42,43 Clinical management includes surgical therapies, tumor ablation, transarterial therapies, and systemic therapies.44 HCC is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage when the disease has already spread further than the liver. The multikinase inhibitor Sorafenib was the first FDA-approved systemic drug to treat HCC and is currently a standard first-line therapy.45,46 Nevertheless, the increasing occurrence of drug resistance to Sorafenib in HCC patients47 and the generally very low numbers of targetable somatic mutations in HCC48 indicate the need for novel therapeutic strategies development and early detection biomarker identification. The poor prognosis of HCC has been linked to diagnostic delays,49 and failure to identify high-risk individuals owing to inadequate early detection screening methods.50,51
CLD diagnostic approaches
Patients with simple steatosis are considered at low risk of disease progression. Therefore, NAFLD/MAFLD detection at an early-stage is of utmost importance for appropriate preventive strategies. Noninvasive diagnostic tools are becoming increasingly significant for NAFLD staging and severity assessment: the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL);52 the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) and the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) produced recent guidelines in this regard.53–55 In general, the diagnosis of NAFLD currently requires (1) evidence of hepatic steatosis by imaging or histology, (2) no significant alcohol consumption, (3) no competing causes of hepatic steatosis, and (4) no coexisting causes of CLD. Consistently, with the adoption of MAFLD new nomenclature, clinical practice guidelines have been debated by the APASL on MAFLD and have been recently produced by EASL, AASLD, and APASL.18,56,57 Although overall many similarities exist across guidelines, there are several key areas of guidelines from Europe, Asia, and the USA, including the definition of alcohol consumption, screening, fibrosis assessment, lifestyle intervention, and pharmacological intervention of MAFLD.53 Regardless, current imaging approaches present disadvantages. For instance, ultrasound is insensitive to mild steatosis.31 Computed tomography has low sensitivity and specificity, combined with patient exposure to ionizing radiation.31 Magnetic Resonance Imaging approaches have shown promising results in steatosis/nonalcoholicsteatohepatitis (NASH) detection.58 However, the requirement for trained operators, the high cost, and the inspection time limit their screening application in the clinic. The progression of simple steatosis to NASH poses an increased risk of the development of fibrosis, cirrhosis, and HCC,59,60 indicating the need for accurate methods for steatosis–NASH differentiation. To distinguish NASH from steatosis, current guidelines indicate the necessity of liver biopsy to confirm NASH diagnosis, severity grade, and the level of fibrosis.52,54,55 However, liver biopsies are inconvenient due to the invasiveness of the procedure, and they have limited heterogeneity assessment of the tissue sample since they represent a tiny fraction of the liver parenchyma.61 Current noninvasive diagnostic approaches for assessment of fibrotic stage and disease progression to cirrhosis aregenerally based on tissue stiffness quantification by tissue elastographyapproach, as recommended by the EASL; the AASLD and the APASL.62,63 However, tissue elastography approaches are marked by several drawbacks.64 Finally, HCC surveillance, in cirrhotic or noncirrhotic patients, currently remains an unmet need.65 In general, histopathological diagnosis upon liver biopsy remains a mainstay according to EASL,66 AASLD,67 and APASL guidelines.68 Noninvasive imaging strategies, such as Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging should be used first; ultrasound and FDG PET-scan, have limited sensitivity in particular for early-stage HCC.51,66 Therefore, there is an increasing interest in the identification of circulating HCC biomarkers for early detection.
Liquid Biopsy for Liver-Related Diseases
Liquid biopsy represents a minimally invasive, convenient, and cost-effective method of molecular diagnosis that can provide comprehensive information on the molecular landscapes of liver diseases and can represent approaches to overcome tumor heterogeneity and monitor them in real-time (Fig. 1B, C). A detailed description of the histone/nucleosome-independent liquid biopsy types is beyond the scope of the current review and is therefore briefly discussed below.
Circulating DNA
Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragments are shed into the circulation from dead cells both in healthy and diseased individuals (Table 1).69–97 However, a much larger amount of cfDNA is normally detected in cancer patients.98–100 Studies have found that cfDNA that originates from tumors, referred to as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is notably shorter, compared with nonmutated cfDNA,69,101,102 and could be used to enrich tumor-derived fragments for further analysis on genomic and epigenomic level. Furthermore, targeted sequencing of ctDNA can detect tumor-associated mutations with high sensitivity, in cases without prior knowledge of their presence in the tumor tissue, indicating strong application for cancer diagnostics and patient stratification for targeted therapy.70,71,103 Positive ctDNA detection and gene analysis in HCC patients prior to surgery was also associated with an increased risk of early recurrence and extrahepatic metastasis.72 Furthermore, continuous assessment of ctDNA could inform on therapy response and disease progression.72,73 Study of cfDNA in liquid biopsies is highly focused on cancer diagnosis, therapy response, and prognosis. However, cfDNA has also shown promising results in NAFLD patient stratification and disease severity. Specifically, levels of 90bp and 222bp cfDNA fragments in the plasma of NAFLD patients, diagnosed with fatty liver, inflammation, and liver stiffness were significantly elevated, compared with healthy individuals, and correlated with disease severity.74 Similarly, levels of methylated cfDNA are significantly higher in nonfibrotic NAFLD patients, compared with NAFLD patients with confirmed fibrosis.75,76 Fibrosis was indicated as the strongest predictor of NAFLD progression and NAFLD-related mortality.104,105 Therefore, circulating cfDNA methylation may be a biomarker for therapy response and stratification of NAFLD patients at high risk of disease progression. However, despite the undeniable value of cfDNA in approaching liver-related disease, cfDNA has a short half-life106 and requires genetic differences to distinguish tumor-derived material.
Table 1. cfDNA in liver diseases.
| Liver-related pathology | Target | Method of detection | Level/result | Suggested function | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pediatric NAFLD | cfDNA methylation | Methylamp global DNA methylation quantification | ↑ in NASH patients, compared with HC and NAFLD children without NASH, positive correlation with histological traits | Risk assessment, diagnosis | 77 |
| NAFLD | Total cfDNA, gene-coding cfDNA, Alu repeat sequences, mitochondrial DNA copies, 5-methyl-2′-deoxycytidine in serum | qPCR, RNAseP detection, ELISA | ↓ cfDNA and RNAse P coding DNA levels, ↑ levels of 5-methyl-2′-deoxycytidine in cirrhotic vs. noncirrhotic patients | Surveillance,monitoring disease progression | 78 |
| Fibrosis in NAFLD and AFLD | Methylation of the PPARγ gene promoter in plasma | Pyrosequencing | Hypermethylation reflects a signature related to severe fibrosis | Differentiation of fibrosis stage | 75 |
| Fibrosis in NAFLD | cfDNA methylation | DNA methylation array | ↑ in patients with nonsignificant fibrosis, compared with significant fibrosis | Differentiation of fibrosis stage | 76 |
| NAFLD | cfDNA levels | qPCR | 90bp cfDNA ↑ in NAFLD patients, compared with HC, correlation with disease severity | Detection, staging | 74 |
| Chronic Hepatitis C, PEG-IFN-alpha and ribavirin treatment | Serum cfDNA: Methylation of SOCS-1 promoter region | Quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction | ↑ SOCS-1 methylation post-treatment associated with better sustained virologic response | Monitoring of treatment response | 79 |
| Liver cirrhosis | Plasma circulating cfDNA, quantification and sequencing | Somatic mutation analysis by NGS | 20 unique variants, including single nucleotide variation s or insertions and deletions | Early detection | 80 |
| Primary HCC in NAFLD patients | TERT mutation in serum cfDNA | Wild-type blocking polymerase chain reaction, Sanger sequencing | Positivity | Early detection | 81 |
| Nonviral liver cancer with fatty liver disease | TERT C228T | Wild-type blocking polymerase chain reaction, Sanger sequencing | Positivity rate ↑ compared with HBV and HCV | Early detection | 82 |
| HCC | Plasma cfDNA – size profile | Chromosome arm-level z-score analysis, qPCR | Shorter DNA fragments associated with tumor-associated copy number alterations,↑ mtDNA in HCC patients, compared with HC, HBV, and cirrhotic patients | Detection, profiling, monitoring | 69 |
| HCC | Plasma cfDNA | Deep sequencing | Detection of somatic mutations in HCC-associated genes | Detection, profiling, monitoring | 70 |
| HCC | Plasma cfDNA | Targeted sequencing with ultra-high coverage and molecular barcoding | Detection of oncogenic mutations in HCC | Detection, profiling, monitoring, prognosis | 71 |
| Recurrent liver cancer post hepatectomy or liver transplantation | Plasma cfDNA | Whole-genome sequencing, Sanger sequencing, PCR, qPCR | ↑ ctDNA with disease progression, ctDNA as microscopic vascular invasion predictor | Detection, profiling, monitoring, prognosis | 72 |
| HCC | Ultra-deep sequencing, Droplet digital PCR of TERT promoter in cfDNA | Sequencing, Droplet digital PCR | Mutation profiles predicting prognosis and therapy response | Profiling, monitoring, therapy response, prognosis | 73 |
| HCC | Plasma circulating Cell-free DNA integrity | qPCR | ↓ cfDNA integrity than those with benign diseases and HC | Diagnosis and surveillance | 83 |
| HCC | Plasma circulating cfDNA, quantification and sequencing | Somatic mutation analysis by NGS | ↑ cfDNA levels post-therapy, associated with disease progression, 28 variants identified, including single nucleotide variationsor insertions and deletions | Prognosis, therapy response prediction | 84 |
| HCC | Methylation profiling of cfDNA, based on 2,321 tissue-based differentially methylated blocks | DNA bisulfite sequencing | Multilayer HCC screening distinguishing early-stage HCC from HC, asymptomatic Hepatitis B surface antigen + or cirrhotic patients | Early detection | 85 |
| HCC | Serum cfDNA: HCCS1 promoter hypermethylation | Methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction | ↑ HCCS1 methylation in HCC, compared with HC and CHB patients, positive correlation with tumor node metastasis stage | Diagnosis, prognosis | 86 |
| HCC | Somatic copy number alterations in cfDNA | Low-pass sequencing | 1q+ and 8q+ : significantly associated with early cancer or high-grade dysplasia | Diagnosis, early detection, surveillance | 87 |
| HCC | CfDNA | NGS technology to acquire genome-wide 5-hmc,Nucleosome footprint, 5′ end motif and fragmentation profiles | Distinct patterns/ landscapes compared with HC, Combining all four methods differentiated differentiate HCC from LC | Diagnosis, surveillance | 88 |
| HCC | HCC-specific methylation marker panel, developed based on HCC tissue | Bisulfite sequencing, molecular-inversion (padlock) probes,prognostic prediction model | 401 selected markers discriminating HCC patients from HC and individuals with HBV/HCV infection, or fatty liver | Determine tumor burden, therapy response, and HCC stage, prognosis | 89 |
| HCC in cirrhotic patients | Plasma cfDNA | HCC blood test (epigenomics AG), DNA methylation panel established by NGS | mSEPT9 positivity, methylation biomarker panel | Early detection, HCC surveillance | 90 |
| HCC in cirrhotic patients | cfDNA methylation profile of p16, SFRP1, LINE1 | Bisulfite modification, multiplex methylated PCR | Methylation of p16, SFRP1, LINE1, and an overall increase in the number of aberrantly-methylated genes was associated with HCC development | Surveillance | 91 |
| HCC in HBV-diagnosed patients | cfDNA methylation | Low-pass whole-genome bisulfite sequencing | cfDNA in intergenic and repeat regions, hypomethylation nearby HBV integration sites differentiates HCC patients from hepatic and cirrhotic patients | Early detection, detecting minimal tumoral residual disease after surgical resection | 92 |
| HCC, average/highrisk for HCC (viral hepatitis, cirrhosis) | cfDNA fragmentation | Whole-genome sequencing | cfDNA fragmentation changes, exhibiting liver cancer-related genomic and chromatin alterations | HCC detection | 93 |
| HCC | cfDNA methylation | DNA methylation datasets processing, machine learning model | Methylation signatures differentiated HCC patients from HC and patients with cirrhosis or with other types of cancers such as colorectal and breast | Detection | 94 |
| HCC and CHB | cfDNA fragmentation | NGS | Somatic mutations, tumor-associated preferred DNA ends | Diagnosis | 95 |
| HBV | cfDNA quantification | Duplex PCR | ↑ in HBV patients, in combination with other markers differentiate inflammation severity | Diagnosis, assessment of liver injury | 96 |
| Liver transplantation | cfDNA quantification | qPCR | ↑ cfDNA levels post-transplantation associated with portal hepatitis and systemic inflammation | Prognosis | 97 |
AFLD, alcoholic fatty liver disease; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; HBV, viral hepatitis B; HC, healthy controls; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HCV, viral hepatitis C; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; NGS, next-generation sequencing; cfDNA, cell-free DNA; ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; mtDNA, mitochondrial DNA.
Circulating noncoding RNAs:long noncoding RNA(lncRNA), micro RNA(miRNA), and circular RNA(circRNA)
NcRNAs are endogenous RNA transcripts that do not code for a protein product. NcRNAs are highly abundant and relatively stable signaling molecules, crucial for gene expression regulation.107 The different types of ncRNAs use distinct regulatory mechanisms: lncRNAs are linear transcripts of > 200 nucleotides, which can function in cis or trans as signals, guides, decoys, scaffolds, or enhancers.108 miRNAs are the most abundant ncRNAs, exerting their inhibitory effect on mRNA stability and translation initiation by binding to DNA, RNA, and proteins.109,110 circRNAs is a covalently closed RNA that is produced by exon skipping or back-splicing of a precursor mRNA. circRNAs modulate various mechanisms such as transcription and translation by acting as transcriptional regulators, protein/RNA sponges, and templates.111 Research on circRNAs is limited. However, due to their closed conformation, circRNAs are highly stable, suggesting promising blood biomarker properties.111 NcRNAs are often deregulated and aberrantly expressed in liver diseases and in many cases are suggested to contribute to disease pathogenesis and disease progression.112,113
ncRNAs present in plasma or serum have shown promising results in distinguishing NAFLD and chronic hepatitis C (CHC)patients from healthy individuals (Table 2).114–134 Particularly, liver fibrosis was characterized by a distinct miRNA, lncRNA, and circRNA profile in circulation, correlating with staging.114–116,135 Furthermore, specific ncRNAs were shown to differentiate between patients with simple steatosis and NASH.115,117 Similarly, GAS5 lncRNA levels in plasma are decreased in patients with cirrhosis, compared with patients with advanced fibrosis.116 Changes in the levels of circulating miRNA have also been highly studied as potential HCC biomarkers.136 As an example, circulating miRNA-16 levels were decreased in the circulation of HCC patients and correlated with tumor size, and other clinical parameters.104,105 Importantly, circulating miRNA-16 was elevated in NAFLD and HCV patients,114 rendering miRNA-16 as a potential biomarker for disease progression. Similarly, plasma miRNA-21 expression was significantly elevated in HCC patients, discriminating HCC patients from healthy individuals and HCC patients from chronic hepatitis. Furthermore, levels of circulating miRNA-21 were decreased following tumor resection and correlated with post-operative tumor recurrence.118 While individual miRNAs have shown promising results, creating panels of several circulating miRNAs/lncRNAs is likely more robust, as indicated for HCC even in early-stage patients,119 cirrhosis, and acute liver failure (ACLF) (Table 2).120
Table 2. Circulating noncoding RNAs in liver diseases.
| Liver-related pathology | Target | Method of detection | Level/result | Suggested function | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAFLD | Serum miRNA-34a and miRNA-122 | qPCR | Higher levels of miRNA-34a and miRNA-122 in NAFLD patients, compared with HC | Surveillance, early detection | 121 |
| NAFLD | Postulated 18 different serum miRNAs | Serum RNAseq analysis | miRNA-192, -27b, -22, -197, and -30c were associated with NAFLD severity, but not with drug-induced liver injury | Detection, diagnosis | 122 |
| Steatosis/NASH | Circulating miRNAs in serum | miRNA expression array and qPCR | A panel of ↑ miRNAs in steatotic or NASH patients, compared with HC, association with increased cardiovascular disease risk and atherogenesis, differentiation of NASH from steatosis, miRNA-122 differentiated liver fibrosis | Surveillance, diagnosis, prognosis | 115 |
| CHB | Circulating miRNAs in serum | miRNA expression array and qPCR | Differential expression of miRNAs in CHB vs. HC and CHB vs. NASH vs. HC | Detection of liver injury | 123 |
| CHB | Serum lincRNA-p21 | qPCR | ↓ lincRNA-p21 in CHB patients than in HC, negative correlation with fibrosis stage in CHB patients | Diagnosis, staging | 24 |
| CHC | Serum miRNA let-7a-5p | qPCR | ↓ in CHC patients with cirrhosis, positive correlation with severity of fibrosis | Diagnosis, staging | 125 |
| CHC, NAFLD | Serum miRNAs | qPCR | ↑ miRNA-122, miRNA-34a, and miRNA-16 in NAFLD and CHC patients than in HC, miRNA-122 and miRNA-34a correlated with disease severity | Detection, staging | 114 |
| NASH | Plasma lncRNA LeXis | qPCR | ↑ LeXis in NASH patients than in steatotic individuals | Diagnosis | 126 |
| NASH | Serum miRNAs | Small RNA sequencing and quantitative reverse transcription PCR | miRNA-21-5p, miRNA-151a-3p, miRNA-192-5p, and miRNA-4449 differentiated NASH from steatotic patients | Diagnosis | 117 |
| NAFLD, fibrosis | Plasma lncRNA GAS5 | qPCR | ↑ GAS5 in advanced fibrosis, ↓ in cirrhotic NAFLD patients | Diagnosis, monitoring of disease progression | 116 |
| AC | Plasma lncRNAs AK054921 and AK128652 | Global transcriptomic profiling by lncRNA microarray, qPCR | LncRNA signature, specific for excessive drinkers, not found in HC and AC, ↑ AK128652 and AK054921, correlating with alcoholic cirrhosis severity and patient survival | Diagnosis, prognosis | 127 |
| Cirrhosis, ACLF | Serum miRNAs | Open array | MiRNAs profiles differentiating cirrhosis disease progression, kidney or liver failure, poor outcome | Monitoring, prognosis | 120 |
| HCC | Serum miRNAs | miRNA expression array and qPCR | miRNA classifier differentiating HCC patients from non-HCC and at-risk patients | Surveillance, early detection | 128 |
| HCC | Plasma lncRNA | LncRNA microarray | HCC patients showed ↑ RP11–160H22.5, XLOC_014172, and LOC149086, compared with HC, association with metastasis, ↓ post-surgery | Surveillance, metastasis prediction, monitoring of disease progression | 129 |
| HCC | Plasma ZFAS1 | qPCR | ↑ ZFAS1 in HCC patients, compared with HC, cirrhotic, or hepatitis B patients | Detection | 130 |
| HCC | Plasma miRNA-21 | qPCR | ↑ in HCC than in chronic hepatitis patients and HC. ↓ miRNA-21 post-surgery, correlating with a lower risk of recurrence | Detection, monitoring, prognosis | 118 |
| HBV–Related HCC | Plasma miRNAs | Microarray and qPCR | MicroRNA panel differentiated HCC from HC, CHB, and cirrhosis | Surveillance, early detection | 119 |
| HCV and HCV-associated HCC | Serum NEAT1 and TUG1 in HCV | qPCR | ↓ NEAT1 and TUG1 in HCV and HCC, compared with HC,↓ TUG1 in HCC patients, compared with HCV and HC | Diagnosis, monitoring of disease progression | 131 |
| HCV-positive cirrhosis and HCC | Serum miRNAs | qPCR | A panel of deregulated miRNAs in HCV-positive cirrhotic and HCV-positive HCC patients | Surveillance, early detection | 132 |
| HCC, Sorafenib treatment | Serum miRNA-221 levels | qPCR | Positive therapy response associated with ↓ miRNA-221 pretreatment levels and ↑ miRNA-221 post-treatment | Therapy response prediction and monitoring | 133 |
| Biliary tract cancer | Plasma miRNA-21 | qPCR | ↑ miRNA-21 in Biliary tract cancerpatients, compared with HC benign biliary disease patients | Detection, diagnosis | 134 |
AC, alcoholic hepatitis; ACLF, acute liver failure; CHB, chronic hepatitis B; CHC, chronic hepatitis C; HBV, viral hepatitis B; HC, healthy controls; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HCV, viral hepatitis C; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; lncRNA, long noncoding RNAs; miRNA, microRNA.
Circulating HCC cells
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are tumor cells of primary or metastatic origin that are detected in the blood or lymphatic circulation following intravasation. CTCs have undergone epithelial-mesenchymal transition and are considered highly metastatic.137,138 To survive in the circulation CTCs can form clusters, increasing their metastatic potential, stemness features, and plasticity.139 CTCs are a scarce population of cells, carrying crucial features that can inform on the tumor characteristics and impact HCC diagnosis and treatment regimen.
The value of CTCs in the field of liquid biopsies is undisputed. CTC research has led to remarkable progress in the noninvasive diagnostic, prognostic, and therapy response monitoring of cancer, including HCC.140–142 Sequencing of CTCs isolated from metastatic HCC patients revealed liver cancer-characteristic mutations, including low-frequency variants.143 Furthermore, CTC count predicted poor prognosis and post-operative disease recurrence.143,144 PD-L1+ CTCs have been shown to distinguish between early and advanced stage HCC and are suggested as a promising biomarker for immunotherapy patient stratification and therapy response monitoring.145,146 Compared with ctDNA and circulating ncRNAs, CTCs can be analyzed at the genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic levels as single cells or in bulk, providing a detailed scope of tumor-associated signatures.147 However, because of their limited presence in circulation, many clinically relevant challenges occur regarding their effective, pure, unbiased, and affordable capturing, which are critical for downstream analysis. CTCs can be detected based on several characteristics such as size, charge, density, and expression of cell-surface marker,148 even in vivo.149,150 The first and only FDA-approved CTC capturing method relies on the selection of EpCAM+ CTCs as EpCAM has been universally recognized as a CTC detection marker.151,152 Nevertheless, it has been increasingly appreciated that solely EpCAM+ expression could be insufficient for CTC enrichment153,154 as EpCAMlow/negative CTCs are missed. Furthermore, EpCAM-based detection of CTC was found highly inefficient in HCC with approximately 25% CTC detection rate.155 Instead, novel methods are focused on distinct hallmarks such as ploidy subtraction enrichment and immunostaining-fluorescence in situ hybridization , which has shown promising results in capturing CTCs expressing distinct biomarkers and establishing their prognostic value.156 Nevertheless, there is no perfect system for CTC caption, and future work is likely marked by the combined application of several methods.
Extracellular vesicles (EVs)
EVs are cargo-carrying particles, released from cells in the extracellular space, inducing crucial cell-cell signaling cascades in normal physiology or pathological processes.157 EVs vary in size, release mechanism, and the nature of the loaded cargo (protein, lipids, metabolites, and nucleic acids). The molecules found in EVs may carry essential information on the cell-of-origin or the underlying trigger of EV release. Increasing evidence implicates EVs as key players in the pathology of several liver diseases, including NAFLD, AFLD, viral hepatitis, and HCC.158 EVs can signal to cells in close proximity or be transported to distal sites to act as long-range signals.159 EVs have been purified from most mammalian cells and bodily fluids. Furthermore, cellular compounds transferred by EVs are protected from the hostile environment of the circulation and other degradation stimuli in the extracellular space, making them highly stable. Given that EVs are loaded with only a subset of molecules, which could be otherwise barely detected in the total volume of body fluids, EVs have emerged as a promising liquid biopsy approach (Table 3).160–177 Several EV-based biomarkers, including proteins and miRNAs, have been reported in the serum or plasma of people with liver disease. For instance, decreased levels of miRNA-718 in serum EVs of HCC patients were associated with aggressiveness and recurrence following liver transplantation,160 while high levels of EV-associated miRNA-21 correlated with cirrhosis and advanced tumor stage.161 Similarly, elevated levels of several circulating EV-associated miRNAs were found in alcoholic hepatitis (AH), ASH, and AFLD patients.178,179 EVs enriched with six sphingolipids were significantly elevated in AH patients, compared with healthy individuals, heavy drinkers, NASH patients, and alcoholic cirrhosis patients.158 Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) encapsulated in EVs was also shown to promote inflammation, which is in line with the EV-enclosed mtDNA in NASH patients.180 Furthermore, proteomic analysis of circulating EVs has identified differential proteomic profiles, differentiating precirrhotic NASH, cirrhotic NASH, and healthy individuals.162
Table 3. EVs in liver diseases.
| Liver-related pathology | Target | Method ofdetection | Level/result | Suggestedfunction | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NASH | Total circulating EVs and hepatocyte-derived EVs | Differential centrifugation and size-exclusion chromatography, flow cytometry, electron microscopy, western blotting, and dynamic light scattering | Positive correlation between NASH characteristics and total or hepatocyte-derived EVs, proteomic signatures differentiating precirrhotic/cirrhotic patients from HC | Surveillance, detection, diagnosis | 162 |
| NAFLD – pre and post-weight loss | Total EVs, hepatocyte-specific EVs, lipid and sphingolipids analysis | Differential ultracentrifugationand quantified by nanoparticle tracking analysis | ↓ total EVs and hepatocyte-specific EVs post weight loss, a positive correlation between hepatocyte-specific EVs and NAFLD clinical parameters | Detection, diagnosis, monitoring | 163 |
| ALD vs NAFLD | Proteomic analysis of serum extracellular vesicles | Centrifugation, Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, protein identification, and label-free quantification using the MaxQuant platform | A panel of proteins differentiated between ALD and NAFLD | Diagnosis | 164 |
| NAFLD/NASH, CHC | Microparticles from immune cells in serum | Differential centrifugation, Fluorescence-activated cell scanning | EV profiles correlating with inflammation severity and fibrotic stage | Surveillance, early detection, diagnosis | 165 |
| CHB, DeCi | EVs and EV miRNA in serum | Centrifugation, miRNA-seq, and qPCR arrays | Severe liver injury associated with the highest concentration of EVs, compared with DeCi and HC patients, miRNAs as predictors of disease progression | Surveillance, early detection | 166 |
| AIH | EV-encapsulated miRNAs in serum | Microarray, digital PCR | ↑ EV-miRNA-557 in AIH, compared with patients with NASH, Primary biliary cholangitis, and HC that are correlated with relapse | Diagnosis | 167 |
| AH | Sphingolipids encapsulated in EVs | Тandem mass spectroscopy | ↑ EVs and EV sphingolipid cargo in AH patients, compared with HC, heavy drinkers, end-stage-liver disease, and DeCi | Detection, survival prediction, monitoring | 168 |
| CHC | Soluble CD81 in the exosomal serum fraction | Differential centrifugation, immunoblotting, and densitometry | Patients with CHC - ↑ CD81, associated with inflammation and fibrosis severity, cured CHC patients – CD81 levels, similar to HC | Detection, diagnosis, monitoring | 169 |
| CHC | EV proteome in serum | Affinity purification, shotgun and targeted proteomics | SAP and PPBP were ↓ with liver fibrosis severity | Diagnosis, staging | 170 |
| HCV | Exosome-encapsulated miRNA-19a | Exosome isolation (ExoQuick), qPCR | ↑ in HCV patients with fibrosis, compared withHC and fibrotic patients with non-HCV-related liver pathology | Diagnosis | 171 |
| HCC | MiRs in exosomes from serum | Ultracentrifuge, microarray | ↓ exosomal miRNA-718 in patients with tumor recurrence following liver transplantation | Monitoring, prediction of recurrence | 160 |
| HCC and CCA | AnnexinV+ EpCAM+ CD147+ taMPs in serum | Differential centrifugation, Fluorescence-activated cell scanning | ↑ in HCC and CCA, differentiating nonliver cancers or other liver disorders. ↓ taMPs post tumor resection | Detection, diagnosis, monitoring | 172 |
| HCC, CCA, Primary sclerosing cholangitis | Proteome of serum EVs | NTA, mass spectrometry | Differentially expressed proteins in EVs, showing promising diagnostic capacity between the distinct groups | Diagnosis | 173 |
| CCA | EVs in human bile | Nanoparticle tracking analysis, qPCR miRNA arrays, qPCR | Development of biliary vesicle miRNA-based panel differentiating CCA from biliary obstruction and bile leak syndromes | Surveillance, detection | 174 |
| HCC | Extracellular vesicle-derived lncRNAs | qPCR based on differentially expressed lncRNAs in HCC tissue | ↑ EV-derived LINC00853 in all-stage HCC, including AFP-negative HCC, compared withHC, chronic hepatitis, and liver cirrhosis | Surveillance, early detection | 175 |
| HCC | Serum exosomal microRNA | qPCR | ↑ exosomal miRNA signature in HCC patients, compared with CHB and LC,↓ miRNA signature when compared with CHB | Surveillance, early detection | 176 |
| HCC | miRNA-21 in serum exosomes | qPCR | ↑ in HCC than CHB or HC, correlating with cirrhosis and tumor stage | Detection, diagnosis | 161 |
| HCC recurrence | Exosomal miRNAs in serum | Ultracentrifugation, microarray, qPCR | ↓ miRNA-718 levels correlated with HCC tumor aggressiveness | Monitoring, prognosis | 160 |
| Liver metastasis in CRC | Plasma EV | Ultracentrifugation, tethered cationic lipoplex nanoparticlestechnology | CRC-derived sEVs with enriched microRNA-21-5p positively correlated with liver metastasis | Detection, disease progression | 177 |
AH, alcoholic hepatitis; AIH, autoimmune hepatitis; ALD, alcoholic liver disease; CCA, cholangiocarcinoma; CHC, chronic hepatitis C; CRC, colorectal carcinoma; DeCi, decompensated cirrhosis; EVs, extracellular vesicles; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HCV, viral hepatitis C; LC, liver cirrhosis; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; NTA, nanoparticle tracking analysis; lncRNA, long noncoding RNA; miRNA, microRNA; taMPs, tumor-associated microparticles.
However, in line with the capturing-related challenges with CTCs, the detection and enrichment methods of EVs come with various limitations and factors affecting the yield.181,182 Despite the substantial progress in EV isolation, standardization of EV procedures and nomenclature is yet to progress, delaying their clinical applications.
Histones
Methods for isolation and analysis of liquid biopsies have rapidly evolved over the past few years, thus providing details on the development and progression of liver diseases, treatment strategies, and patient stratification. Their long half-life and stability in the bloodstream render histones and histone complexes valuable liquid biopsies. Anti-nucleosome antibodies are more than two-fold more sensitive, compared with antibodies against DNA.183 Furthermore, in contrast to CTC and EVs, circulating histones do not require complex extraction methods, which affect the downstream analysis. The purpose of the following sections of this review is to provide an overview of circulating histones as liquid biopsies and their application for the detection, prognosis, and monitoring of hepatic disease progression and outcomes.
Extracellular/circulating histones
DNA in eukaryotic cells is compacted into chromatin by wrapping around histone proteins, generating protein-DNA complexes referred to as nucleosomes. Each nucleosome comprises a histone octamer: one tetramer H2A-H2B, two H3-H4 dimers, and approximately 147 base pairs of DNA.184 Neighboring nucleosomes are connected through a short DNA stretch bound by histone H1, referred to as a linker histone creating the structure of chromatin.184 Nucleosomes are highly dynamic structures,185,186 regulating key cellular processes, including gene transcription, replication, and DNA repair through particularly ordered signaling cascades.186 Both core and linker histones can be epigenetically modified through post-translational modifications (PTMs), altering protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions, resulting in nucleosome occupancy or position changes, activation/suppression of gene expression, and cell division.185,187,188 Nucleosome function can also be altered on a structural level by the incorporation of histone variants, which have defined functions such as macroH2A1.2, H2AX, and H2AZ in DNA repair,189,190 or tissue-specific expression as the histone variants H3T and H3.5 in testicular cells.189 It is widely accepted that the correct organization and regulation of nucleosomes and chromatin are crucial for genome stability.185,191
Studies have shown that histones and histone complexes are also detected in the extracellular space and the bloodstream, following release by damaged cells and activated immune cells. Upon release, extracellular histones function as damage-associated molecular pattern molecules, exerting cytotoxic and pro-inflammatory activity.192–194 Neutrophils have been shown to utilize a distinct immune defense mechanism, referred to as neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), in which histones, DNA, and other factors such as granule proteins are released in the extracellular space.195 NETs can cause a further histone release by inducing a specialized form of neutrophil cell death,195 resulting in a self-sustained inflammatory cascade and cell death.196–199 Furthermore, studies have shown that NETs are associated with pathogenesis and could act as effectors in disease maintenance or progression, as found in HCC.200–202 Importantly, histone H3 citrullination is an essential epigenetic change in NETs formation and it is widely utilized as NETs marker.203,204 Given that NETs have been suggested as potential biomarkers for disease prognosis and therapy response,205,206 accurate detection of extracellular histones is essential. Furthermore, while previously NETs have been considered neutrophil-specific, current research has found that other innate immune cells, including macrophages, mast cells, and eosinophils207 can fight pathogens by extracellular traps, further indicating the role of histones in the extracellular space.
An increasing number of studies suggest that circulating histones, post-translationally modified histones, and histone complexes are differentially detected in the plasma or serum of patients with liver-associated diseases, including HCC, indicating potential biomarker function.
Extracellular histones in liver diseases
Histones have been mostly studied as a component of NETs and have been studied in the context of liver disease for many years, most significantly concerning the epigenetic changes involved in liver pathogenesis and epigenetic-based therapeutics. The role of histones in liver disease is a vast topic and has been reviewed elsewhere.208–213 For this review, we will focus on the role of extracellular histones in liver pathology. Wang et al.214 recently showed that NETs are associated with cancer development and progression by modulating gene expression in naïve CD4+ T-cells in a TLR4-mediated manner, favoring Treg differentiation, resulting in repressed immunosurveillance in NASH mouse model and increased incidence of HCC development. Inhibition of NETs suppressed Treg activity and tumor burden in NASH-HCC models, directly linking histones with liver disease progression. Similarly, in the surgical stress murine model induced by liver ischemia-reperfusion injury, downregulation of NETs formation caused a reduction in the development and progression of metastatic liver disease.200 HCC is often caused by the progression of liver fibrosis to liver cirrhosis and subsequent cancer nodule formation. Recently, Wang et al.215 showed that induction of fibrosis in mice caused a drastic increase in circulating histones. Furthermore, direct histone treatment of LX2 human hepatic stellate cells caused activation of collagen I production and α-SMA through TLR4- MYD88 signaling. The administration of either noncoagulant heparin (NAHP) or TLR4-blocking antibody resulted in decreased Aminotransferase levels and histology-based liver injury score, suggesting histone inhibition as a potential therapeutic approach. However, it should be mentioned that no difference in extracellular histones was observed between carbon tetrachloride and carbon tetrachloride+ NAHP treated groups.215 Therefore, heparin could have exerted its liver protective function irrespective of coagulation and extracellular histone neutralization.
NETs have also been implicated as drivers of earlier stages of liver disease. Tanshinone IIA has been suggested to exert its anti-inflammatory and anti-steatotic effect in NASH-induced mice at least partially by regulating NETs.216 NET production is also drastically elevated in the circulation of AH patients and mice, together with a specific subpopulation of low-density neutrophils that exert defective properties. The authors showed that alcohol induces the activation of cultured human neutrophils, causing nonlytic NETs release in high-density neutrophils, which subsequently become low-density neutrophils with diminished homing capacity and clearance.217
Chen et al.218 further showed that extracellular H3 could induce ferroptosis in hepatic macrophages and ACLF model mice. Importantly, treatment with anti-H3 antibody suppressed cell damage and pro-inflammatory cytokine production in vitro and in vivo. Histone H4 has been also shown to directly induce hydrogen peroxide production in neutrophils in a calcium- and cell adhesion-dependent manner, resulting in degranulation and pro-inflammatory cytokine release. Mechanistically, the authors showed that histone H4 causes a prolonged increase in neutrophil intracellular calcium, membrane depolarization, and rapid permeabilization,219 suggesting a potential molecular mechanism behind the drastic neutrophil activation in liver diseases.220
Together, previous studies have indicated the role of histones in liver disease, the potential molecular mechanisms, and the promising therapeutic benefit of anti-histone therapy. Nevertheless, many questions remain, the main one being: can we use circulating extracellular histones as a biomarker for liver disease detection and monitoring in patients?
Methods of detection
Circulating histones and histone complexes can be detected by several methods, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), proteomic analysis, and imaging approaches including single-molecule imaging and ImageStream.
ELISA
There are several ELISAs developed to detect histone subtypes, specific PTMs, or nucleosomes. In a study comparing patients with local, locally advanced, or metastatic prostate cancer (PC) following therapy by ELISA-based detection of specific plasma components, H3K27me3 levels were inversely correlated with metastatic PC and showed the ability to differentiate patients with localized and metastatic disease.221 A subsequent study utilized an ELISA-based assay consisting of antibody-mediated nucleosome immobilization and incorporation of antibodies detection histone variants or histone modifications of interest, to show the diagnostics potential of circulating nucleosomes in distinguishing PC patients from healthy controls or individuals with benign disease.222 The authors identified a panel of five nucleosome-associated marks in serum that achieved a higher disease-predictive score, compared with the common pancreatic tumor biomarker, carbohydrate antigen 19–9. The same assay was subsequently applied to the serum of people referred for colorectal cancer (CRC)-related endoscopic screening. Of the 12 epigenetic epitopes measured on circulating nucleosomes, the assay revealed two groups of four markers that differentiated early-stage CRC patients from healthy individuals, and healthy individuals from people with benign polyps, respectively.223 These results indicate that ELISA is a powerful approach, detecting differences in circulating histones and histone complexes between groups and could be used to assess their biomarker properties. Nevertheless, ELISA is characterized by antigen detection bias such as histone PTMs with high concentration due to the generally low sensitivity of the assay. Furthermore, while multiplexed ELISAs have been developed, increasing the assay significance and power as a detection and quantification approach, they are currently limited to the multiplexed detection of H3, H4, and post-translationally modified H3/H4.224,225
Proteomics
While ELISA is a time-efficient assay, providing multiplex opportunities that do not require a highly specialized scientist, ELISA has considerable bias in regards to antibody sensitivity and specificity, detection of known histone modifications, antigen concentration, and accessibility of antigen target.226 To tackle these limitations, one can choose to rely on proteomic analyses. Van den Ackerveken et al.227 developed an epigenetic profiling approach on circulating nucleosomes, based on intact H3.1-positive nucleosome capturing by immunoprecipitation, liquid chromatography, and tandem mass spectrometry. An alternative nucleosome isolation approach to immunoprecipitation is a previously described acid-based extraction, which applies trichloroacetic acid -mediated total protein precipitation, followed by histone extraction by 0.2 M H2SO4.228 Multiple reaction monitoring targeted mass spectrometry, involving heavy-isotope labeled Spike-In peptides,229 is another approach proven powerful in identifying and quantifying histone proteins230 and histone PTMs.231 Alternative MS approaches are isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification and tandem mass tag MS, both of which have been previously applied in plasma proteome assessment.232 Overall, MS allows for an antibody-independent measurement of histone levels and a systemic nonbiased analysis of histone-associated PTMs.
Single-molecule imaging and Image stream
Recently, Fedyuk et al.233 developed a single-molecule imaging approach EPINUC that assesses the epigenetic signature of circulating nucleosomes, detecting individual histone PTMs and their combinatorial pattern on individual nucleosomes by total internal reflection microscopy. EPINUC differentiated patients with late-stage CRC from healthy individuals based on the epigenetic profile of circulating nucleosomes. EPINUC is yet to be utilized on other cancer types such as HCC and early-stage patients. ImageStream device combines the sensitivity of flow cytometry with the detailed phenotypic abilities of cellular imaging, allowing for the detection of multiple biomarkers and the acquisition of up to 12 channels. Furthermore, ImageStream is able to detect particles in the range of 1 µm to 20 nm as shown by analysis of calibration beads.234 ImageStream acquires a large number of images per sample, providing for fast collection of morphology-based and fluorescent signal-based data. Furthermore, ImageStream can be coupled with open-source artificial intelligence software, creating the possibility for a fully automated quantification. ImageStream has been proven valuable in the liquid biopsy field, especially in the detection and characterization of CTCs. Previously, the focus was on developing reliable methods for CTC extraction and quantification and determining their prognostic ability in terms of disease progression and therapy response. Current research aims to further increase and better estimate the clinical potential of CTCs by characterizing their features and behavior. ImageStream detects the expression of multiple markers on a single CTC, allowing for simultaneous positive and negative selection, as shown for esophageal, hepatocellular, thyroid, ovarian, and lung cancers.235,236
Similarly, an increasing number of studies indicate the value of ImageStream in detecting circulating histones and addressing their effect on the surrounding cells in various contexts. For instance, ImageStream was applied to assess NETs levels in both murine and human whole blood samples, based on the expression of NETs components, including positive staining for H3Cit,237,238 bypassing time-consuming analysis and potential bias. Similarly, anti-histone antibodies detecting histones H1, H2A, H2B, H3, and H4 were utilized as a marker of Eosinophil extracellular traps , allowing tracing the origin of Eosinophil extracellular traps -associated particles of interest as nuclear, rather than mitochondrial.239 ImageStream-mediated analysis showed that following trauma extracellular H4 exerts cytotoxic function on platelets, resulting in ballooning and H4-retaining microparticle secretion, which binds to leukocytes. These findings strongly suggest that ImageStream is a powerful tool not only to detect circulating histones but also to track extracellular histones-mediated cell-cell communication and the resulting intracellular changes. ImageStream-mediated detection of circulating histones has also been applied for liver-associated diseases that will be discussed in the following section.77,240 Nevertheless, ImageStream-based analysis of circulating histones in blood samples of HCC patients or animal models is currently lacking.
Circulating histones as markers and predictors of NAFLD/NASH
To decrease the risk of disease progression and determine the most optimal treatment approach, it is essential to discriminate between NAFLD and NASH patients. Current data on promising noninvasive NAFLD/NASH diagnostic approaches including imaging and biomarkers is scarce. Nevertheless, circulating histones and histone complexes have been indicated as potential NAFLD biomarkers. Circulating nucleosomes have been found elevated in obese individuals and correlated with fatty liver and poor metabolic health.241 Given that obesity and metabolic syndrome are among the main risk factors of NAFLD development, it could be hypothesized that nucleosomes render prognostic value. ImageStream has been recently applied to the serum and plasma of lean MAFLD240 and NAFLD77 patients, respectively. While high levels of circulating nucleosomes are reported in various diseases and conditions, including obesity-associated MAFLD,241 nucleosomes showed poor association with nonobese (lean or overweight) MAFLD or NASH. However, serum nucleosomes were found significantly elevated in grade 3 steatosis, compared with grade 1 lean MAFLD patients. Looking at histones onan individual level, circulating macroH2A1.1 and macroH2A1.2 histones, either as individual proteins or as a dimer with H2B, were significantly decreased in steatotic grade 3 lean/nonobese MAFLD patients, compared with grade 1. Conversely, H2A and H2A/H2B complex were significantly elevated in overweight MAFLD, but not in lean MAFLD patients. Together, circulating histones macroH2A1.2, H2B, and H4 were associated with MAFLD disease severity, further suggesting potential prognostic and patient stratification properties (Table 4).77,240-250 Interestingly, pediatric NAFLD patients were characterized by contrasting histone expression signature in circulation. Specifically, serum levels of macroH2A1.2 in NAFLD children were significantly elevated compared with healthy controls. However, no difference in circulating macroH2A1.2 was observed between children with or without NASH. Furthermore, macroH2A1.2 showed an inverse correlation, having the strongest correlation with early-stage steatosis and the weakest with NAFLD Activity Score (NAS).77 Together, these findings indicate the prognostic significance of macroH2A1.1 in early NAFLD stages but not in disease progression to NASH. It should be noted that high-risk individuals such as those with T2DM or metabolic syndrome were not included in the studies. It would be interesting to evaluate whether such a histone signature could differentiate between people at risk and those that have developed the initial stages of liver disease.
Table 4. Circulating histones and histone complexes in liver diseases.
| Liver-related pathology | Target | Method of detection | Level in circulation | Suggested function | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obesity, MAFLD | Nucleosomes | ELISA | Increased | Diagnosis, fatty liver, poor metabolic health | 241 |
| Lean MAFLD grade 3 steatosis | Nucleosomes | ELISA | Increased | Disease/severity staging | 240 |
| Lean/nonobese MAFLD | macroH2A1.1, macroH2A1.2 | ImageStream | Decreased | Diagnosis | 240 |
| Overweight MAFLD | H2B, H2A/H2B complex | ImageStream | Increased | Diagnosis | 240 |
| MAFLD | macroH2A1.2, H2B, and H4 | ImageStream | Decreased | Disease/severity staging | 240 |
| Pediatric NAFLD | macroH2A1.2 | ImageStream | Increased | Detection | 77 |
| Pediatric NAFLD | macroH2A1.2 | ImageStream | Decreased in advanced steatotic children | Disease/severity staging | 77 |
| HCC post locoregional transarterial chemoembolization therapy | Nucleosomes | ELISA | Increased | Detection of a positive therapy response | 242 |
| HCC post Sorafenib treatment | H3K27me3, H3K36me3 | ELISA | Decreased | Detection of apositive therapy response | 243 |
| HCC post-Sorafenib treatment | H3K27me3/H3K36me3 ratio | ELISA | Increased | Prediction of therapy resistance and disease progression | 243 |
| HCC post-RFA | Nucleosomes | ELISA | Transiently increased and subsequently decreased | Detection of a positive therapy response | 244 |
| HBV-related ACLF | H4 | ELISA | Increased | Detection, prognosis | 245 |
| Cirrhosis, ACLF | Nucleosomes | ELISA | Increased cirrhosis < ACLF | Detection | 246 |
| ACLF, grade I–IV | Nucleosomes | ELISA | Increased grade I/II < grade III/IV | Detection, staging, prognosis | 247 |
| ACLF (HBV-related), conventional therapy and Qingchangligan | Nucleosomes | ELISA | Decreased nucleosomes and pro-inflammatory cytokines following conventional therapy + Qingchangligan, compared withconventional therapy alone | Therapeutic | 248 |
| PGD | Nucleosomes | ELISA | Transiently increased and subsequently decreased | Detection, prognosis | 249 |
| Hepatectomy | Histone H3 | ELISA | Low levels of post-surgical (24h) H3 levels were associated with delayed liver function recovery | Prognostic | 250 |
ACLF, acute liver failure; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; HBV, viral hepatitis B; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; MAFLD, metabolic (dysfunction)-associated fatty liver disease; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; PGD, primary graft dysfunction; RFA, radiofrequency ablation.
The progression of early-stage NAFLD to NASH is marked by the induction of inflammation, which among other pathways can be directly induced by NETs-associated histone release.193,251,252 In line with that, increased levels of NETs were detected in the circulation of patients diagnosed with NASH,201 cirrhosis, or HCC,253 compared with normal livers.
Recently developed DNA sequencing-coupled bioinformatic approaches indicated that the retained epigenetic profile on plasma/serum nucleosome-associated DNA could predict the tissue-of-origin of the circulating fragments. Sadeh et al.254 applied active marks-mediated chromatin immunoprecipitation of nucleosomal DNA on the plasma of patients with diverse liver-associated pathologies, including NAFLD/NASH patients. Interestingly, based on the region characterized by the active mark, the authors determined differential gene expression profiles that could be traced back to specific liver zones or condition-related transcriptional pathways.254 The method allows for noninvasive genetic-independent identification of differentially regulated pathways through unbiased analysis, which could potentially distinguish crucial clinical features of the disease. Nevertheless, such an approach requires extensive technology and trained personnel, making it currently challenging for potential routine clinical practice.
Circulating histones in liver dysfunction, transplantation, and HCC
An increasing number of studies are reporting the strong diagnostics and monitoring value of circulating nucleosomes in several solid malignancies.222,223,227,233 Nevertheless, no difference in nucleosome levels was found between chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and HCC,246,255 (Table 4) suggesting that HCC development following CHB is not associated with further elevated nucleosome content. This finding also indicates that solely measuring nucleosome levels is unable to distinguish HCC cases in high-risk individuals. The lack of specificity of circulating nucleosomes is further supported by the fact that nucleosomes in plasma and serum are elevated in several other types of cancer and benign conditions.256 However, elevated nucleosome content in the serum of HCC patients 24 h post locoregional transarterial chemoembolization therapy was found as an independent marker of therapy response, with elevated circulating nucleosomes 24 h post-therapy correlating with disease progression.242 Changes in nucleosome levels were also detected following hepatic radiofrequency ablation (RFA),244 which is also applied as a first-line HCC treatment.257,258 Specifically, a drastic transient increase in circulating nucleosomes was observed 24 h post-treatment, compared with the pre-RFA state, which correlated with liver damage and upregulated pro-inflammatory markers MPO, interleukin (IL)-6, and IL10. Interestingly, the values of circulating nucleosomes decreased back to pretreatment levels after four weeks.244 However, how these values correlate with the patient therapy response four weeks post-treatment was not addressed. Furthermore, the serum histone content in the HCC-induced mouse model was significantly increased, compared with HCC-free animals, and recapitulated the elevated extracellular histone levels in HCC tissues.228 More important, circulating histones in HCC rat serum had epigenetic signatures characteristic of both human and rat HCC tumor tissues, including hypo-acetylation at H4K16 and hypomethylation H4K20.228 Changes in post-translationally modified circulating histone levels from baseline to post-therapy were also shown to predict patient response and outcomes following Sorafenib treatment. A decrease of H3K27me3 and H3K36me3 post-treatment was associated with a detectable response to Sorafenib. Conversely, an increased H3K27me3/H3K36me3 ratio was correlated with therapy resistance and disease progression.243 It should be noted that a clear definition of a time point for post-treatment sample collection is not specified. Furthermore, changes in the post-translational modification levels are not addressed in the patients that showed stable disease at first visit, but progressive disease at follow-up assessments. Therefore, we cannot address how changes in the modifications of interest correlate with the disease alteration. These findings suggest that epigenetic profiling of circulating histones can be used as a patient stratification approach and therapy response biomarker. However, whether changes in circulating histone level post-therapy reflect disease progression or remission, and whether pretreatment levels of circulating histones are indicative of short/sustained therapeutic response is currently unclear as longitudinal studies are lacking.
Circulating H4 histones were drastically increased in ACLF patients, compared with healthy individuals/CHB/HBV-related liver cirrhosis.245 In line with these findings, nucleosomes were significantly elevated in the serum of ACLF patients246,247 and primary graft dysfunction (PGD),249 compared with healthy individuals and patients without PGD development, respectively. Blasi et al.246 also reported significantly elevated plasma nucleosome levels in patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis (DeCi) , compared with healthy individuals, and in ACLF patients, compared with acutely DeCi. While cirrhotic patients were also included in the study of Wen et al.,247 patients were grouped as CLD, which includes inflammation, liver cirrhosis, and HCC. Importantly, circulating histones correlated with ACLF severity and predicted patient prognosis.245,247 Upon incubation of ACLF245,247and PGD249 from patient serum with human L02 hepatocytes and monocytic U937 cells, the authors found elevated L02 cell death and cytokine induction in U937 cells. Importantly, these effects were abrogated following heparin treatment, which binds histones,259–261 and anti-histone antibody administration.249 In ACLF mouse models, NAHP was able to diminish inflammation and liver injury,247 indicating (1) that histones exert their function irrespective of coagulation; and (2) the potential therapeutic value of anti-histone therapy in ACLF and liver transplantation-related dysfunction. In line with these findings, a subsequent study showed that a transiently increased nucleosome level followed by a partial decrease, instead of a decline back to baseline values, in patient plasma following liver transplantation was associated with early complications, including acute kidney injury, early allograft dysfunction, and decreased survival.262
Studies on individual circulating histones and histone PTMs are currently scarce compared with studies addressing nucleosomes in plasma or serum. Furthermore, while differences in plasma nucleosome levels have been detected between some patient groups, for example, cirrhosis vs. ACLF patients,246 and low vs. high-grade ACLF247), nucleosome levels vary substantially between the cohorts of patients with ACLF,246,247 and might be influenced by patient stratification, and the methodological approach, indicating the need for standardization.
Translational impact of liver liquid biopsy
Liquid biopsy is a continuously growing field, with new development in biomarker/s panel selection, methods, and ameliorated standardization approaches. It is essential to establish models that characterize the most suitable liquid biopsy type for a specific disease or condition, aiming at diagnosis, characterization, monitoring, or patient stratification.
Early detection of liver diseases is crucial for prognosis and patient quality of life. While currently applied enzyme biomarkers have long-established value for liver disease detection, they often present low sensitivity and specificity. For early-stage liver disease monitoring and detection, a biomarker should be suitable for routine screenings, fast, cost-effective, and easy to perform. Liquid biopsy biomarkers such as cfDNA-derived variants and epigenetic alterations, ncRNAs, and EVs have been shown to differentiate specific diseases not only from healthy individuals but also from patients with closely related diseases/conditions. Furthermore, compared with cfDNA and lncRNAs, EV isolation and analysis currently requires approaches that might not be applicable in every clinical laboratory. In comparison, while data suggest that circulating histones and histone complexes might be further studied as an early detection biomarker for several liver diseases, current research lack comparison with other liver pathologies.
Liver disease staging relies on tissue biopsy and imaging analysis. Liquid biopsy markers like circulating histones, nucleosomes, cfDNA, ncRNAs, and EVs are associated with liver disease severity and could provide diagnostic value at a relatively low cost and analysis time. EVs may contain important information regarding liver disease severity but require more elaborate processing and analysis. Furthermore, such noninvasive analysis could be clinically valuable when a set of detection biomarkers is developed to replace the need for invasive tissue biopsy.
The genetic signature is of utmost importance for appropriate diagnosis and treatment regimen definition, especially in liver malignancy diagnosis. To that end, CTCs and ctDNA have the greatest potential. Nevertheless, the concentration of CTCs and ctDNA in circulation is a crucial factor of such a liquid biopsy method. CTCs enter the circulation during intravasation, the initial stage of the metastatic cascade. Therefore, patients with a nonmetastatic early-stage of the respective malignant liver disease might not benefit from such analysis. However, ctDNA is released in circulation upon cell death. Cell turnover (proliferation and apoptosis) is often high in cancer, favoring the detection of ctDNA in plasma/serum of patients with localized disease. That allows for early detection and characterization of the disease phenotype such as the identification of potentially targetable markers and therefore, timely intervention through local or systemic treatment. It should be noted that advanced sequencing technology should be in place to perform such analysis. Alternatively, external institutions might be involved, which would likely increase the processing time. Furthermore, frequent genetic and epigenetic alterations, targetable mutations, or clinical-trial-relevant targets could be easily addressed by targeted polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which drastically decreases the processing time.
Circulating histones and post-translationally modified histones have shown promising results for treatment monitoring (surgical, conservative, or palliative). It is unclear whether specific histones, histones variants, or histones modifications might detect responses to particular treatments. However, changes in circulating nucleosomes, H3K27me3/H3K36me3, and histone H3 levels were shown to occur rapidly following RFA, Sorafenib therapy, and hepatectomy. Similarly, while the levels of circulating nucleosomes in plasma or serum lack sensitivity in detecting specific organ-specific diseases, they might be a valuable method for therapy response monitoring and disease progression surveillance. Subsequent studies should focus on acquiring data from longitudinal studies with large cohorts that would shed light on some essential questions such as (1) how the circulating histone levels correlate with disease progression and progression-free survival; and (2) could circulating histones be used for patient therapy stratification?
Conclusions
There is a growing need for minimally invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis, staging, prognosis, monitoring, and personalized management of liver diseases. Increasing evidence indicates the potential diagnostic, prognostic, and monitoring value of circulating nucleosomes, histones, and histone complexes in liver diseases. In this respect, histones joined DNA-based biomarkers in the market arena of epigenetic-based companion diagnostic tests (CDx), used as a companion to a therapeutic drug to determine its applicability to a specific patient.263 Nevertheless, results and suggested conclusions should be taken with caution, since data has been gathered from retrospective studies, some of which predominantly have a small sample size and/or lack high-risk groups. Furthermore, the currently nonstandardized circulating histone analysis and the interstudy variability pose challenges to the clinical application of circulating histones in liver disease assessment. Patients with early-stage liver diseases often do not show differential levels of circulating histones or histone complexes, limiting their value for disease diagnosis and prevention. While circulating histones have shown promising results for monitoring HCC therapy response and disease progression, current data on their potential in HCC detection is limited. Future studies should aim for large patient cohorts including various liver-related and liver-independent diseases. To increase the specificity of circulating histones, studies could focus on developing liver disease-predictive models combining several histone variants, complexes, and PTMs.
Abbreviations
- AASLD
American Association for the Study of Liver Disease
- ACLF
Acute liver failure
- AFLD
Alcoholic fatty liver disease
- AH
Alcoholic hepatitis
- APASL
Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver
- CCA
Cholangiocarcinoma
- cfDNA
Cell-free DNA
- CHB
Chronic hepatitis B
- CHC
Chronic hepatitis C
- CLD
Chronic liver disease
- CRC
Colorectal cancer
- ctDNA
Circulating tumor DNA
- CTCs
Circulating tumor cells
- DeCi
Decompensated cirrhosis
- EASL
European Association for the Study of the Liver
- ELISA
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
- EVs
Extracellular vesicles
- FDA
Food and Drug Administration
- HBV
Viral hepatitis B, HC, Healthy controls
- HCC
Hepatocellular carcinoma
- HCV
Viral hepatitis C
- lncRNAs
Long noncoding RNAs
- miRNAs
MicroRNAs
- mtDNA
Mitochondrial DNA
- NAFLD
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
- NAHP
Noncoagulant heparin
- NASH
Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
- NEAT1
Nuclear enriched abundant transcript 1
- NETs
Neutrophil extracellular traps
- NGS
Next-generation sequencing
- PC
Prostate cancer
- PEG-IFN-alpha
Pegylatedinterferon-alpha
- PGD
Primary graft dysfunction
- PPBP
Pro-platelet basic protein
- PTMs
Post-translational modifications
- RFA
Radiofrequency ablation
- SAP
Serum amyloid P component
- T2DM
Type 2 diabetes mellitus
- TACE
Transarterial chemoembolization
- taMPs
Tumor-associated microparticles
References
- 1.Sharma A, Nagalli S. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023. Chronic Liver Disease. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554597/ [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Dyson JK, Anstee QM, McPherson S. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a practical approach to treatment. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2014;5(4):277–286. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2013-100404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Seitz HK, Bataller R, Cortez-Pinto H, Gao B, Gual A, Lackner C, et al. Alcoholic liver disease. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4(1):16. doi: 10.1038/s41572-018-0014-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Joshi K, Kohli A, Manch R, Gish R. Alcoholic Liver Disease: High Risk or Low Risk for Developing Hepatocellular Carcinoma? Clin Liver Dis. 2016;20(3):563–580. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2016.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Morgan TR, Mandayam S, Jamal MM. Alcohol and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(5 Suppl 1):S87–S96. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Li ZM, Kong CY, Zhang SL, Han B, Zhang ZY, Wang LS. Alcohol and HBV synergistically promote hepatic steatosis. Ann Hepatol. 2019;18(6):913–917. doi: 10.1016/j.aohep.2019.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Moon AM, Singal AG, Tapper EB. Contemporary Epidemiology of Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(12):2650–2666. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Cheemerla S, Balakrishnan M. Global Epidemiology of Chronic Liver Disease. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) 2021;17(5):365–370. doi: 10.1002/cld.1061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.GBD 2017 Cirrhosis Collaborators The global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis by cause in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(3):245–266. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30349-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Younossi Y, Golabi P, Mishra A, Rafiq N, et al. Epidemiology of chronic liver diseases in the USA in the past three decades. Gut. 2020;69(3):564–568. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Karlsen TH, Sheron N, Zelber-Sagi S, Carrieri P, Dusheiko G, Bugianesi E, et al. The EASL-Lancet Liver Commission: protecting the next generation of Europeans against liver disease complications and premature mortality. Lancet. 2022;399(10319):61–116. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01701-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Fabbrini E, Sullivan S, Klein S. Obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: biochemical, metabolic, and clinical implications. Hepatology. 2010;51(2):679–689. doi: 10.1002/hep.23280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Osna NA, Donohue TM, Jr, Kharbanda KK. Alcoholic Liver Disease: Pathogenesis and Current Management. Alcohol Res. 2017;38(2):147–161. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Idalsoaga F, Kulkarni AV, Mousa OY, Arrese M, Arab JP. Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Alcohol-Related Liver Disease: Two Intertwined Entities. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020;7:448. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Theise ND. Histopathology of alcoholic liver disease. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) 2013;2(2):64–67. doi: 10.1002/cld.172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Sookoian S, Pirola CJ. Systems biology elucidates common pathogenic mechanisms between nonalcoholic and alcoholic-fatty liver disease. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58895. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Zhang P, Wang W, Mao M, Gao R, Shi W, Li D, et al. Similarities and Differences: A Comparative Review of the Molecular Mechanisms and Effectors of NAFLD and AFLD. Front Physiol. 2021;12:710285. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.710285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Eslam M, Newsome PN, Sarin SK, Anstee QM, Targher G, Romero-Gomez M, et al. A new definition for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: An international expert consensus statement. J Hepatol. 2020;73(1):202–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.03.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Eslam M, Sanyal AJ, George J, International Consensus Panel MAFLD: A Consensus-Driven Proposed Nomenclature for Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(7):1999–2014.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Huang Q, Zou X, Wen X, Zhou X, Ji L. NAFLD or MAFLD: Which Has Closer Association With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality?-Results From NHANES III. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021;8:693507. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.693507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Wang X, Xie Q. Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD) and Viral Hepatitis. J Clin Transl Hepatol. 2022;10(1):128–133. doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2021.00200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Hardy T, Oakley F, Anstee QM, Day CP. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Pathogenesis and Disease Spectrum. Annu Rev Pathol. 2016;11:451–496. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pathol-012615-044224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Schuster S, Cabrera D, Arrese M, Feldstein AE. Triggering and resolution of inflammation in NASH. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15(6):349–364. doi: 10.1038/s41575-018-0009-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hosseini N, Shor J, Szabo G. Alcoholic Hepatitis: A Review. Alcohol Alcohol. 2019;54(4):408–416. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agz036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Aron-Wisnewsky J, Vigliotti C, Witjes J, Le P, Holleboom AG, Verheij J, et al. Gut microbiota and human NAFLD: disentangling microbial signatures from metabolic disorders. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;17(5):279–297. doi: 10.1038/s41575-020-0269-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Eslam M, George J. Genetic contributions to NAFLD: leveraging shared genetics to uncover systems biology. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;17(1):40–52. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0212-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Peng C, Stewart AG, Woodman OL, Ritchie RH, Qin CX. Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis: A Review of Its Mechanism, Models and Medical Treatments. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:603926. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.603926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Pouwels S, Sakran N, Graham Y, Leal A, Pintar T, Yang W, et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a review of pathophysiology, clinical management and effects of weight loss. BMC Endocr Disord. 2022;22(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12902-022-00980-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sheka AC, Adeyi O, Thompson J, Hameed B, Crawford PA, Ikramuddin S. Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: A Review. JAMA. 2020;323(12):1175–1183. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Wattacheril J, Issa D, Sanyal A. Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH) and Hepatic Fibrosis: Emerging Therapies. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018;58:649–662. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Dufour JF, Anstee QM, Bugianesi E, Harrison S, Loomba R, Paradis V, et al. Current therapies and new developments in NASH. Gut. 2022;71(10):2123–2134. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Ye F, Zhai M, Long J, Gong Y, Ren C, Zhang D, et al. The burden of liver cirrhosis in mortality: Results from the global burden of disease study. Front Public Health. 2022;10:909455. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.909455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Qu W, Ma T, Cai J, Zhang X, Zhang P, She Z, et al. Liver Fibrosis and MAFLD: From Molecular Aspects to Novel Pharmacological Strategies. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021;8:761538. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.761538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Ginès P, Krag A, Abraldes JG, Solà E, Fabrellas N, Kamath PS. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1359–1376. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01374-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Trinchet JC, Bourcier V, Chaffaut C, Ait Ahmed M, Allam S, Marcellin P, et al. Complications and competing risks of death in compensated viral cirrhosis (ANRS CO12 CirVir prospective cohort) Hepatology. 2015;62(3):737–750. doi: 10.1002/hep.27743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Singal AK, Kamath PS. Model for End-stage Liver Disease. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2013;3(1):50–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2012.11.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Jalan R, Perricone G, Moreau R, Arroyo V, Williams R. Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A New Disease or an Old One Hiding in Plain Sight? Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) 2020;15(Suppl 1):S45–S51. doi: 10.1002/cld.859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Lambert MP, Paliwal A, Vaissière T, Chemin I, Zoulim F, Tommasino M, et al. Aberrant DNA methylation distinguishes hepatocellular carcinoma associated with HBV and HCV infection and alcohol intake. J Hepatol. 2011;54(4):705–715. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2010.07.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Suresh D, Srinivas AN, Kumar DP. Etiology of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Special Focus on Fatty Liver Disease. Front Oncol. 2020;10:601710. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.601710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Burton A, Balachandrakumar VK, Driver RJ, Tataru D, Paley L, Marshall A, et al. Regional variations in hepatocellular carcinoma incidence, routes to diagnosis, treatment and survival in England. Br J Cancer. 2022;126(5):804–814. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01509-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Calderaro J, Ziol M, Paradis V, Zucman-Rossi J. Molecular and histological correlations in liver cancer. J Hepatol. 2019;71(3):616–630. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Kinoshita A, Onoda H, Fushiya N, Koike K, Nishino H, Tajiri H. Staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current status and future perspectives. World J Hepatol. 2015;7(3):406–424. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i3.406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Bednarsch J, Czigany Z, Heise D, Joechle K, Luedde T, Heij L, et al. Prognostic evaluation of HCC patients undergoing surgical resection: an analysis of 8 different staging systems. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021;406(1):75–86. doi: 10.1007/s00423-020-02052-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.de Lope CR, Tremosini S, Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J. Management of HCC. J Hepatol. 2012;56(Suppl 1):S75–S87. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8278(12)60009-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):378–390. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0708857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Kudo M, Finn RS, Qin S, Han KH, Ikeda K, Piscaglia F, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10126):1163–1173. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30207-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Tang W, Chen Z, Zhang W, Cheng Y, Zhang B, Wu F, et al. The mechanisms of sorafenib resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma: theoretical basis and therapeutic aspects. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5(1):87. doi: 10.1038/s41392-020-0187-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Zehir A, Benayed R, Shah RH, Syed A, Middha S, Kim HR, et al. Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat Med. 2017;23(6):703–713. doi: 10.1038/nm.4333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Patel N, Yopp AC, Singal AG. Diagnostic delays are common among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13(5):543–549. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Atiq O, Tiro J, Yopp AC, Muffler A, Marrero JA, Parikh ND, et al. An assessment of benefits and harms of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2017;65(4):1196–1205. doi: 10.1002/hep.28895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Tzartzeva K, Obi J, Rich NE, Parikh ND, Marrero JA, Yopp A, et al. Surveillance Imaging and Alpha Fetoprotein for Early Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(6):1706–1718.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL)., European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)., European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(6):1388–1402. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Ando Y, Jou JH. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Recent Guideline Updates. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) 2021;17(1):23–28. doi: 10.1002/cld.1045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Wong VW, Chan WK, Chitturi S, Chawla Y, Dan YY, Duseja A, et al. Asia-Pacific Working Party on Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease guidelines 2017-Part 1: Definition, risk factors and assessment. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33(1):70–85. doi: 10.1111/jgh.13857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Chitturi S, Wong VW, Chan WK, Wong GL, Wong SK, Sollano J, et al. The Asia-Pacific Working Party on Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease guidelines 2017-Part 2: Management and special groups. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33(1):86–98. doi: 10.1111/jgh.13856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Eslam M, Sarin SK, Wong VW, Fan JG, Kawaguchi T, Ahn SH, et al. The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of metabolic associated fatty liver disease. Hepatol Int. 2020;14(6):889–919. doi: 10.1007/s12072-020-10094-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Fouad YM, Gomaa A, El Etreby RM, AbdAllah M, Attia D. Editorial: The Metabolic (Dysfunction)-Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD) and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) Debate: Why the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Consensus Process is Not Representative. Med Sci Monit. 2022;28:e938066. doi: 10.12659/MSM.938066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Dulai PS, Sirlin CB, Loomba R. MRI and MRE for non-invasive quantitative assessment of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in NAFLD and NASH: Clinical trials to clinical practice. J Hepatol. 2016;65(5):1006–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.06.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Ascha MS, Hanouneh IA, Lopez R, Tamimi TA, Feldstein AF, Zein NN. The incidence and risk factors of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology. 2010;51(6):1972–1978. doi: 10.1002/hep.23527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Rinella ME, Sanyal AJ. Management of NAFLD: a stage-based approach. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;13(4):196–205. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2016.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Arun J, Jhala N, Lazenby AJ, Clements R, Abrams GA. Influence of liver biopsy heterogeneity and diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in subjects undergoing gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2007;17(2):155–161. doi: 10.1007/s11695-007-9041-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Yoshiji H, Nagoshi S, Akahane T, Asaoka Y, Ueno Y, Ogawa K, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis 2020. Hepatol Res. 2021;51(7):725–749. doi: 10.1111/hepr.13678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Shiha G, Ibrahim A, Helmy A, Sarin SK, Omata M, Kumar A, et al. Asian-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) consensus guidelines on invasive and non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis: a 2016 update. Hepatol Int. 2017;11(1):1–30. doi: 10.1007/s12072-016-9760-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Ozturk A, Grajo JR, Dhyani M, Anthony BW, Samir AE. Principles of ultrasound elastography. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018;43(4):773–785. doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1475-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Costentin CE, Layese R, Bourcier V, Cagnot C, Marcellin P, Guyader D, et al. Compliance With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance Guidelines Associated With Increased Lead-Time Adjusted Survival of Patients With Compensated Viral Cirrhosis: A Multi-Center Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(2):431–442.e10. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.04.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.European Association for the Study of the Liver EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018;69(1):182–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, Sirlin CB, Abecassis MM, Roberts LR, et al. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):358–380. doi: 10.1002/hep.29086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Tang H, Huang Y, Duan W, Li C, Meng X, Dong J. A concise review of current guidelines for the clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia. Transl Cancer Res. 2017;6(6):1214–1225. doi: 10.21037/tcr.2017.11.05. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Jiang P, Chan CW, Chan KC, Cheng SH, Wong J, Wong VW, et al. Lengthening and shortening of plasma DNA in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(11):E1317–E1325. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500076112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Ng CKY, Di Costanzo GG, Tosti N, Paradiso V, Coto-Llerena M, Roscigno G, et al. Genetic profiling using plasma-derived cell-free DNA in therapy-naïve hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a pilot study. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(5):1286–1291. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Lee HW, Kim E, Cho KJ, Park HJ, Seo J, Lee H, et al. Applications of molecular barcode sequencing for the detection of low-frequency variants in circulating tumour DNA from hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int. 2022;42(10):2317–2326. doi: 10.1111/liv.15356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Ono A, Fujimoto A, Yamamoto Y, Akamatsu S, Hiraga N, Imamura M, et al. Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis for Liver Cancers and Its Usefulness as a Liquid Biopsy. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;1(5):516–534. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2015.06.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.von Felden J, Craig AJ, Garcia-Lezana T, Labgaa I, Haber PK, D’Avola D, et al. Mutations in circulating tumor DNA predict primary resistance to systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncogene. 2021;40(1):140–151. doi: 10.1038/s41388-020-01519-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Karlas T, Weise L, Kuhn S, Krenzien F, Mehdorn M, Petroff D, et al. Correlation of cell-free DNA plasma concentration with severity of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Transl Med. 2017;15(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s12967-017-1208-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Hardy T, Zeybel M, Day CP, Dipper C, Masson S, McPherson S, et al. Plasma DNA methylation: a potential biomarker for stratification of liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Gut. 2017;66(7):1321–1328. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Sun QF, Tang LJ, Wang MJ, Zhu PW, Li YY, Ma HL, et al. Potential Blood DNA Methylation Biomarker Genes for Diagnosis of Liver Fibrosis in Patients With Biopsy-Proven Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:864570. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.864570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Buzova D, Braghini MR, Bianco SD, Lo Re O, Raffaele M, Frohlich J, et al. Profiling of cell-free DNA methylation and histone signatures in pediatric NAFLD: A pilot study. Hepatol Commun. 2022;6(12):3311–3323. doi: 10.1002/hep4.2082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Chrysavgis L, Papatheodoridi A, Cholongitas E, Koutsilieris M, Papatheodoridis G, Chatzigeorgiou A. Significance of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Species in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(16):8849. doi: 10.3390/ijms22168849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Tseng KC, Chou JL, Huang HB, Tseng CW, Wu SF, Chan MW. SOCS-1 promoter methylation and treatment response in chronic hepatitis C patients receiving pegylated-interferon/ribavirin. J Clin Immunol. 2013;33(6):1110–1116. doi: 10.1007/s10875-013-9903-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Alunni-Fabbroni M, Weber S, Öcal O, Seidensticker M, Mayerle J, Malfertheiner P, et al. Circulating Cell-Free DNA Combined to Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Early Detection of HCC in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13(3):521. doi: 10.3390/cancers13030521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Akuta N, Kawamura Y, Kobayashi M, Arase Y, Saitoh S, Fujiyama S, et al. TERT Promoter Mutation in Serum Cell-Free DNA Is a Diagnostic Marker of Primary Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Oncology. 2021;99(2):114–123. doi: 10.1159/000510366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Akuta N, Kawamura Y, Suzuki F, Kobayashi M, Arase Y, Saitoh S, et al. Serum TERT C228T is an important predictor of non-viral liver cancer with fatty liver disease. Hepatol Int. 2022;16(2):412–422. doi: 10.1007/s12072-022-10313-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Huang A, Zhang X, Zhou SL, Cao Y, Huang XW, Fan J, et al. Plasma Circulating Cell-free DNA Integrity as a Promising Biomarker for Diagnosis and Surveillance in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Cancer. 2016;7(13):1798–1803. doi: 10.7150/jca.15618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Alunni-Fabbroni M, Rönsch K, Huber T, Cyran CC, Seidensticker M, Mayerle J, et al. Circulating DNA as prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a translational exploratory study from the SORAMIC trial. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):328. doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-2079-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Luo B, Ma F, Liu H, Hu J, Rao L, Liu C, et al. Cell-free DNA methylation markers for differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-02201-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Tian MM, Fan YC, Zhao J, Gao S, Zhao ZH, Chen LY, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma suppressor 1 promoter hypermethylation in serum. A diagnostic and prognostic study in hepatitis B. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2017;41(2):171–180. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2016.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Fateen W, Johnson PJ, Wood HM, Zhang H, He S, El-Meteini M, et al. Characterisation of dysplastic liver nodules using low-pass DNA sequencing and detection of chromosome arm-level abnormalities in blood-derived cell-free DNA. J Pathol. 2021;255(1):30–40. doi: 10.1002/path.5734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Chen L, Abou-Alfa GK, Zheng B, Liu JF, Bai J, Du LT, et al. Genome-scale profiling of circulating cell-free DNA signatures for early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients. Cell Res. 2021;31(5):589–592. doi: 10.1038/s41422-020-00457-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Xu RH, Wei W, Krawczyk M, Wang W, Luo H, Flagg K, et al. Circulating tumour DNA methylation markers for diagnosis and prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Mater. 2017;16(11):1155–1161. doi: 10.1038/nmat4997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Lewin J, Kottwitz D, Aoyama J, deVos T, Garces J, Hasinger O, et al. Plasma cell free DNA methylation markers for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with cirrhosis: a case control study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s12876-021-01714-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Huang Y, Wei L, Zhao RC, Liang WB, Zhang J, Ding XQ, et al. Predicting hepatocellular carcinoma development for cirrhosis patients via methylation detection of heparocarcinogenesis-related genes. J Cancer. 2018;9(12):2203–2210. doi: 10.7150/jca.24024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Zhang H, Dong P, Guo S, Tao C, Chen W, Zhao W, et al. Hypomethylation in HBV integration regions aids non-invasive surveillance to hepatocellular carcinoma by low-pass genome-wide bisulfite sequencing. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):200. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01667-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Foda ZH, Annapragada AV, Boyapati K, Bruhm DC, Vulpescu NA, Medina JE, et al. Detecting Liver Cancer Using Cell-Free DNA Fragmentomes. Cancer Discov. 2023;13(3):616–631. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-22-0659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Gonçalves E, Gonçalves-Reis M, Pereira-Leal JB, Cardoso J. DNA methylation fingerprint of hepatocellular carcinoma from tissue and liquid biopsies. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):11512. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-15058-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Jiang P, Sun K, Tong YK, Cheng SH, Cheng THT, Heung MMS, et al. Preferred end coordinates and somatic variants as signatures of circulating tumor DNA associated with hepatocellular carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(46):E10925–E10933. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1814616115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Xia WY, Gao L, Dai EH, Chen D, Xie EF, Yang L, et al. Liquid biopsy for non-invasive assessment of liver injury in hepatitis B patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(29):3985–3995. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i29.3985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Krenzien F, Katou S, Papa A, Sinn B, Benzing C, Feldbrügge L, et al. Increased Cell-Free DNA Plasma Concentration Following Liver Transplantation Is Linked to Portal Hepatitis and Inferior Survival. J Clin Med. 2020;9(5):1543. doi: 10.3390/jcm9051543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Tokuhisa Y, Iizuka N, Sakaida I, Moribe T, Fujita N, Miura T, et al. Circulating cell-free DNA as a predictive marker for distant metastasis of hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(10):1399–1403. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Valpione S, Gremel G, Mundra P, Middlehurst P, Galvani E, Girotti MR, et al. Plasma total cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a surrogate biomarker for tumour burden and a prognostic biomarker for survival in metastatic melanoma patients. Eur J Cancer. 2018;88:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.10.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Hamfjord J, Guren TK, Dajani O, Johansen JS, Glimelius B, Sorbye H, et al. Total circulating cell-free DNA as a prognostic biomarker in metastatic colorectal cancer before first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(7):1088–1095. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Mouliere F, Chandrananda D, Piskorz AM, Moore EK, Morris J, Ahlborn LB, et al. Enhanced detection of circulating tumor DNA by fragment size analysis. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10(466):eaat4921. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aat4921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Markus H, Chandrananda D, Moore E, Mouliere F, Morris J, Brenton JD, et al. Refined characterization of circulating tumor DNA through biological feature integration. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):1928. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-05606-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Mayo-de-Las-Casas C, Jordana-Ariza N, Garzón-Ibañez M, Balada-Bel A, Bertrán-Alamillo J, Viteri-Ramírez S, et al. Large scale, prospective screening of EGFR mutations in the blood of advanced NSCLC patients to guide treatment decisions. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(9):2248–2255. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Ekstedt M, Hagström H, Nasr P, Fredrikson M, Stål P, Kechagias S, et al. Fibrosis stage is the strongest predictor for disease-specific mortality in NAFLD after up to 33 years of follow-up. Hepatology. 2015;61(5):1547–1554. doi: 10.1002/hep.27368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, Adams LA, Bjornsson ES, Charatcharoenwitthaya P, et al. Liver Fibrosis, but No Other Histologic Features, Is Associated With Long-term Outcomes of Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):389–97.e10. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Diehl F, Schmidt K, Choti MA, Romans K, Goodman S, Li M, et al. Circulating mutant DNA to assess tumor dynamics. Nat Med. 2008;14(9):985–990. doi: 10.1038/nm.1789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Esteller M. Non-coding RNAs in human disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(12):861–874. doi: 10.1038/nrg3074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Statello L, Guo CJ, Chen LL, Huarte M. Gene regulation by long non-coding RNAs and its biological functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021;22(2):96–118. doi: 10.1038/s41580-020-00315-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Cai Y, Yu X, Hu S, Yu J. A brief review on the mechanisms of miRNA regulation. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2009;7(4):147–154. doi: 10.1016/S1672-0229(08)60044-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Breving K, Esquela-Kerscher A. The complexities of microRNA regulation: mirandering around the rules. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2010;42(8):1316–1329. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2009.09.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Geng X, Jia Y, Zhang Y, Shi L, Li Q, Zang A, et al. Circular RNA: biogenesis, degradation, functions and potential roles in mediating resistance to anticarcinogens. Epigenomics. 2020;12(3):267–283. doi: 10.2217/epi-2019-0295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Yu F, Zheng J, Mao Y, Dong P, Li G, Lu Z, et al. Long non-coding RNA APTR promotes the activation of hepatic stellate cells and the progression of liver fibrosis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015;463(4):679–685. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.05.124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.DiStefano JK, Gerhard GS. Long Noncoding RNAs and Human Liver Disease. Annu Rev Pathol. 2022;17:1–21. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pathol-042320-115255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Cermelli S, Ruggieri A, Marrero JA, Ioannou GN, Beretta L. Circulating microRNAs in patients with chronic hepatitis C and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023937. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Pirola CJ, Fernández Gianotti T, Castaño GO, Mallardi P, San Martino J, Mora Gonzalez Lopez Ledesma M, et al. Circulating microRNA signature in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: from serum non-coding RNAs to liver histology and disease pathogenesis. Gut. 2015;64(5):800–812. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-306996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Han MH, Lee JH, Kim G, Lee E, Lee YR, Jang SY, et al. Expression of the Long Noncoding RNA GAS5 Correlates with Liver Fibrosis in Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Genes (Basel) 2020;11(5):545. doi: 10.3390/genes11050545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Kim TH, Lee Y, Lee YS, Gim JA, Ko E, Yim SY, et al. Circulating miRNA is a useful diagnostic biomarker for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):14639. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-94115-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Tomimaru Y, Eguchi H, Nagano H, Wada H, Kobayashi S, Marubashi S, et al. Circulating microRNA-21 as a novel biomarker for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012;56(1):167–175. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2011.04.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Zhou J, Yu L, Gao X, Hu J, Wang J, Dai Z, et al. Plasma microRNA panel to diagnose hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(36):4781–4788. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.2697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Blaya D, Pose E, Coll M, Lozano JJ, Graupera I, Schierwagen R, et al. Profiling circulating microRNAs in patients with cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure. JHEP Rep. 2021;3(2):100233. doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2021.100233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Salvoza NC, Klinzing DC, Gopez-Cervantes J, Baclig MO. Association of Circulating Serum miR-34a and miR-122 with Dyslipidemia among Patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153497. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.López-Riera M, Conde I, Quintas G, Pedrola L, Zaragoza Á, Perez-Rojas J, et al. Non-invasive prediction of NAFLD severity: a comprehensive, independent validation of previously postulated serum microRNA biomarkers. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):10606. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28854-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Zhang H, Li QY, Guo ZZ, Guan Y, Du J, Lu YY, et al. Serum levels of microRNAs can specifically predict liver injury of chronic hepatitis B. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(37):5188–5196. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i37.5188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Yu F, Zhou G, Huang K, Fan X, Li G, Chen B, et al. Serum lincRNA-p21 as a potential biomarker of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B patients. J Viral Hepat. 2017;24(7):580–588. doi: 10.1111/jvh.12680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Matsuura K, Aizawa N, Enomoto H, Nishiguchi S, Toyoda H, Kumada T, et al. Circulating let-7 Levels in Serum Correlate With the Severity of Hepatic Fibrosis in Chronic Hepatitis C. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5(11):ofy268. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Park JG, Kim G, Jang SY, Lee YR, Lee E, Lee HW, et al. Plasma Long Noncoding RNA LeXis is a Potential Diagnostic Marker for Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis. Life (Basel) 2020;10(10):E230. doi: 10.3390/life10100230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Yang Z, Ross RA, Zhao S, Tu W, Liangpunsakul S, Wang L. LncRNA AK054921 and AK128652 are potential serum biomarkers and predictors of patient survival with alcoholic cirrhosis. Hepatol Commun. 2017;1(6):513–523. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Lin XJ, Chong Y, Guo ZW, Xie C, Yang XJ, Zhang Q, et al. A serum microRNA classifier for early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre, retrospective, longitudinal biomarker identification study with a nested case-control study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):804–815. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00048-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Tang J, Jiang R, Deng L, Zhang X, Wang K, Sun B. Circulation long non-coding RNAs act as biomarkers for predicting tumorigenesis and metastasis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2015;6(6):4505–4515. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.2934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Luo P, Liang C, Zhang X, Liu X, Wang Y, Wu M, et al. Identification of long non-coding RNA ZFAS1 as a novel biomarker for diagnosis of HCC. Biosci Rep. 2018;38(4):BSR20171359. doi: 10.1042/BSR20171359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Mohyeldeen M, Ibrahim S, Shaker O, Helmy H. Serum expression and diagnostic potential of long non-coding RNAs NEAT1 and TUG1 in viral hepatitis C and viral hepatitis C-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Biochem. 2020;84:38–44. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Oksuz Z, Serin MS, Kaplan E, Dogen A, Tezcan S, Aslan G, et al. Serum microRNAs; miR-30c-5p, miR-223-3p, miR-302c-3p and miR-17-5p could be used as novel non-invasive biomarkers for HCV-positive cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol Biol Rep. 2015;42(3):713–720. doi: 10.1007/s11033-014-3819-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Fornari F, Pollutri D, Patrizi C, La Bella T, Marinelli S, Casadei Gardini A, et al. In Hepatocellular Carcinoma miR-221 Modulates Sorafenib Resistance through Inhibition of Caspase-3-Mediated Apoptosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(14):3953–3965. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Kishimoto T, Eguchi H, Nagano H, Kobayashi S, Akita H, Hama N, et al. Plasma miR-21 is a novel diagnostic biomarker for biliary tract cancer. Cancer Sci. 2013;104(12):1626–1631. doi: 10.1111/cas.12300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Liu C, Hou X, Mo K, Li N, An C, Liu G, et al. Serum non-coding RNAs for diagnosis and stage of liver fibrosis. J Clin Lab Anal. 2022;36(10):e24658. doi: 10.1002/jcla.24658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Ge W, Yu DC, Li QG, Chen X, Zhang CY, Ding YT. Expression of serum miR-16, let-7f, and miR-21 in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and their clinical significances. Clin Lab. 2014;60(3):427–434. doi: 10.7754/clin.lab.2013.130133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Baccelli I, Schneeweiss A, Riethdorf S, Stenzinger A, Schillert A, Vogel V, et al. Identification of a population of blood circulating tumor cells from breast cancer patients that initiates metastasis in a xenograft assay. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(6):539–544. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Hodgkinson CL, Morrow CJ, Li Y, Metcalf RL, Rothwell DG, Trapani F, et al. Tumorigenicity and genetic profiling of circulating tumor cells in small-cell lung cancer. Nat Med. 2014;20(8):897–903. doi: 10.1038/nm.3600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Schuster E, Taftaf R, Reduzzi C, Albert MK, Romero-Calvo I, Liu H. Better together: circulating tumor cell clustering in metastatic cancer. Trends Cancer. 2021;7(11):1020–1032. doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2021.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Bidard FC, Peeters DJ, Fehm T, Nolé F, Gisbert-Criado R, Mavroudis D, et al. Clinical validity of circulating tumour cells in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(4):406–414. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70069-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.Qi LN, Xiang BD, Wu FX, Ye JZ, Zhong JH, Wang YY, et al. Circulating Tumor Cells Undergoing EMT Provide a Metric for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2018;78(16):4731–4744. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-2459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Lin D, Shen L, Luo M, Zhang K, Li J, Yang Q, et al. Circulating tumor cells: biology and clinical significance. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021;6(1):404. doi: 10.1038/s41392-021-00817-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Kelley RK, Magbanua MJ, Butler TM, Collisson EA, Hwang J, Sidiropoulos N, et al. Circulating tumor cells in hepatocellular carcinoma: a pilot study of detection, enumeration, and next-generation sequencing in cases and controls. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:206. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1195-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Sun YF, Xu Y, Yang XR, Guo W, Zhang X, Qiu SJ, et al. Circulating stem cell-like epithelial cell adhesion molecule-positive tumor cells indicate poor prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection. Hepatology. 2013;57(4):1458–1468. doi: 10.1002/hep.26151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Winograd P, Hou S, Court CM, Lee YT, Chen PJ, Zhu Y, et al. Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Circulating Tumor Cells Expressing PD-L1 Are Prognostic and Potentially Associated With Response to Checkpoint Inhibitors. Hepatol Commun. 2020;4(10):1527–1540. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.Su K, Guo L, He K, Rao M, Zhang J, Yang X, et al. PD-L1 expression on circulating tumor cells can be a predictive biomarker to PD-1 inhibitors combined with radiotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2022;12:873830. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.873830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Visal TH, den Hollander P, Cristofanilli M, Mani SA. Circulating tumour cells in the -omics era: how far are we from achieving the ‘singularity’? Br J Cancer. 2022;127(2):173–184. doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-01768-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Sharma S, Zhuang R, Long M, Pavlovic M, Kang Y, Ilyas A, et al. Circulating tumor cell isolation, culture, and downstream molecular analysis. Biotechnol Adv. 2018;36(4):1063–1078. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.03.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Saucedo-Zeni N, Mewes S, Niestroj R, Gasiorowski L, Murawa D, Nowaczyk P, et al. A novel method for the in vivo isolation of circulating tumor cells from peripheral blood of cancer patients using a functionalized and structured medical wire. Int J Oncol. 2012;41(4):1241–1250. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2012.1557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.He Y, Shi J, Shi G, Xu X, Liu Q, Liu C, et al. Using the New CellCollector to Capture Circulating Tumor Cells from Blood in Different Groups of Pulmonary Disease: A Cohort Study. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):9542. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-09284-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.Cristofanilli M, Budd GT, Ellis MJ, Stopeck A, Matera J, Miller MC, et al. Circulating tumor cells, disease progression, and survival in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(8):781–791. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Alix-Panabières C, Pantel K. Challenges in circulating tumour cell research. Nat Rev Cancer. 2014;14(9):623–631. doi: 10.1038/nrc3820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Gosens MJ, van Kempen LC, van de Velde CJ, van Krieken JH, Nagtegaal ID. Loss of membranous Ep-CAM in budding colorectal carcinoma cells. Mod Pathol. 2007;20(2):221–232. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Wang L, Balasubramanian P, Chen AP, Kummar S, Evrard YA, Kinders RJ. Promise and limits of the CellSearch platform for evaluating pharmacodynamics in circulating tumor cells. Semin Oncol. 2016;43(4):464–475. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2016.06.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Gao Y, Fan WH, Song Z, Lou H, Kang X. Comparison of circulating tumor cell (CTC) detection rates with epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and cell surface vimentin (CSV) antibodies in different solid tumors: a retrospective study. PeerJ. 2021;9:e10777. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Wang L, Li Y, Xu J, Zhang A, Wang X, Tang R, et al. Quantified postsurgical small cell size CTCs and EpCAM(+) circulating tumor stem cells with cytogenetic abnormalities in hepatocellular carcinoma patients determine cancer relapse. Cancer Lett. 2018;412:99–107. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2017.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.Yates AG, Pink RC, Erdbrügger U, Siljander PR, Dellar ER, Pantazi P, et al. In sickness and in health: The functional role of extracellular vesicles in physiology and pathology in vivo: Part I: Health and Normal Physiology: Part I: Health and Normal Physiology. J Extracell Vesicles. 2022;11(1):e12151. doi: 10.1002/jev2.12151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158.Newman LA, Muller K, Rowland A. Circulating cell-specific extracellular vesicles as biomarkers for the diagnosis and monitoring of chronic liver diseases. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2022;79(5):232. doi: 10.1007/s00018-022-04256-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159.Eguchi A, Mulya A, Lazic M, Radhakrishnan D, Berk MP, Povero D, et al. Microparticles release by adipocytes act as “find-me” signals to promote macrophage migration. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0123110. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160.Sugimachi K, Matsumura T, Hirata H, Uchi R, Ueda M, Ueo H, et al. Identification of a bona fide microRNA biomarker in serum exosomes that predicts hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(3):532–538. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161.Wang H, Hou L, Li A, Duan Y, Gao H, Song X. Expression of serum exosomal microRNA-21 in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:864894. doi: 10.1155/2014/864894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Povero D, Yamashita H, Ren W, Subramanian MG, Myers RP, Eguchi A, et al. Characterization and Proteome of Circulating Extracellular Vesicles as Potential Biomarkers for NASH. Hepatol Commun. 2020;4(9):1263–1278. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163.Nakao Y, Amrollahi P, Parthasarathy G, Mauer AS, Sehrawat TS, Vanderboom P, et al. Circulating extracellular vesicles are a biomarker for NAFLD resolution and response to weight loss surgery. Nanomedicine. 2021;36:102430. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2021.102430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.Nguyen HQ, Lee D, Kim Y, Bang G, Cho K, Lee YS, et al. Label-free quantitative proteomic analysis of serum extracellular vesicles differentiating patients of alcoholic and nonalcoholic fatty liver diseases. J Proteomics. 2021;245:104278. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2021.104278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165.Kornek M, Lynch M, Mehta SH, Lai M, Exley M, Afdhal NH, et al. Circulating microparticles as disease-specific biomarkers of severity of inflammation in patients with hepatitis C or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(2):448–458. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.04.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166.Liu M, Liu X, Pan M, Zhang Y, Tang X, Liu W, et al. Characterization and microRNA Expression Analysis of Serum-Derived Extracellular Vesicles in Severe Liver Injury from Chronic HBV Infection. Life (Basel) 2023;13(2):347. doi: 10.3390/life13020347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167.Abe K, Suzuki R, Fujita M, Hayashi M, Takahashi A, Ohira H. Circulating extracellular vesicle-encapsulated microRNA-557 induces a proinflammatory immune response and serves as a diagnostic or relapse marker in autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatol Res. 2022;52(12):1034–1049. doi: 10.1111/hepr.13829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168.Sehrawat TS, Arab JP, Liu M, Amrollahi P, Wan M, Fan J, et al. Circulating Extracellular Vesicles Carrying Sphingolipid Cargo for the Diagnosis and Dynamic Risk Profiling of Alcoholic Hepatitis. Hepatology. 2021;73(2):571–585. doi: 10.1002/hep.31256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169.Welker MW, Reichert D, Susser S, Sarrazin C, Martinez Y, Herrmann E, et al. Soluble serum CD81 is elevated in patients with chronic hepatitis C and correlates with alanine aminotransferase serum activity. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e30796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170.Shirai K, Hikita H, Sakane S, Narumi R, Adachi J, Doi A, et al. Serum amyloid P component and pro-platelet basic protein in extracellular vesicles or serum are novel markers of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C patients. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0271020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171.Devhare PB, Sasaki R, Shrivastava S, Di Bisceglie AM, Ray R, Ray RB. Exosome-Mediated Intercellular Communication between Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Hepatocytes and Hepatic Stellate Cells. J Virol. 2017;91(6):e02225-16. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02225-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172.Julich-Haertel H, Urban SK, Krawczyk M, Willms A, Jankowski K, Patkowski W, et al. Cancer-associated circulating large extracellular vesicles in cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2017;67(2):282–292. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.02.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173.Arbelaiz A, Azkargorta M, Krawczyk M, Santos-Laso A, Lapitz A, Perugorria MJ, et al. Serum extracellular vesicles contain protein biomarkers for primary sclerosing cholangitis and cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatology. 2017;66(4):1125–1143. doi: 10.1002/hep.29291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174.Li L, Masica D, Ishida M, Tomuleasa C, Umegaki S, Kalloo AN, et al. Human bile contains microRNA-laden extracellular vesicles that can be used for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis. Hepatology. 2014;60(3):896–907. doi: 10.1002/hep.27050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175.Kim SS, Baek GO, Ahn HR, Sung S, Seo CW, Cho HJ, et al. Serum small extracellular vesicle-derived LINC00853 as a novel diagnostic marker for early hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol Oncol. 2020;14(10):2646–2659. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176.Sohn W, Kim J, Kang SH, Yang SR, Cho JY, Cho HC, et al. Serum exosomal microRNAs as novel biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma. Exp Mol Med. 2015;47(9):e184. doi: 10.1038/emm.2015.68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177.Shao Y, Chen T, Zheng X, Yang S, Xu K, Chen X, et al. Colorectal cancer-derived small extracellular vesicles establish an inflammatory premetastatic niche in liver metastasis. Carcinogenesis. 2018;39(11):1368–1379. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgy115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178.Saha B, Momen-Heravi F, Kodys K, Szabo G. MicroRNA Cargo of Extracellular Vesicles from Alcohol-exposed Monocytes Signals Naive Monocytes to Differentiate into M2 Macrophages. J Biol Chem. 2016;291(1):149–159. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.694133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 179.Eguchi A, Lazaro RG, Wang J, Kim J, Povero D, Willliams B, et al. Extracellular vesicles released by hepatocytes from gastric infusion model of alcoholic liver disease contain a MicroRNA barcode that can be detected in blood. Hepatology. 2017;65(2):475–490. doi: 10.1002/hep.28838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180.Garcia-Martinez I, Santoro N, Chen Y, Hoque R, Ouyang X, Caprio S, et al. Hepatocyte mitochondrial DNA drives nonalcoholic steatohepatitis by activation of TLR9. J Clin Invest. 2016;126(3):859–864. doi: 10.1172/JCI83885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181.Mateescu B, Kowal EJ, van Balkom BW, Bartel S, Bhattacharyya SN, Buzás EI, et al. Obstacles and opportunities in the functional analysis of extracellular vesicle RNA - an ISEV position paper. J Extracell Vesicles. 2017;6(1):1286095. doi: 10.1080/20013078.2017.1286095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182.Brennan K, Martin K, FitzGerald SP, O’Sullivan J, Wu Y, Blanco A, et al. A comparison of methods for the isolation and separation of extracellular vesicles from protein and lipid particles in human serum. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1039. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-57497-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183.Gutiérrez-Adrianzén OA, Koutouzov S, Mota RM, das Chagas Medeiros MM, Bach JF, de Holanda Campos H. Diagnostic value of anti-nucleosome antibodies in the assessment of disease activity of systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective study comparing anti-nucleosome with anti-dsDNA antibodies. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(8):1538–1544. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184.Luger K, Mäder AW, Richmond RK, Sargent DF, Richmond TJ. Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8 A resolution. Nature. 1997;389(6648):251–260. doi: 10.1038/38444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185.Burgess RJ, Zhang Z. Histone chaperones in nucleosome assembly and human disease. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2013;20(1):14–22. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186.Hogan AK, Foltz DR. Reduce, Retain, Recycle: Mechanisms for Promoting Histone Protein Degradation versus Stability and Retention. Mol Cell Biol. 2021;41(6):e0000721. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00007-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187.Bannister AJ, Kouzarides T. Regulation of chromatin by histone modifications. Cell Res. 2011;21(3):381–395. doi: 10.1038/cr.2011.22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 188.Andonegui-Elguera MA, Cáceres-Gutiérrez RE, López-Saavedra A, Cisneros-Soberanis F, Justo-Garrido M, Díaz-Chávez J, et al. The Roles of Histone Post-Translational Modifications in the Formation and Function of a Mitotic Chromosome. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(15):8704. doi: 10.3390/ijms23158704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 189.Martire S, Banaszynski LA. The roles of histone variants in fine-tuning chromatin organization and function. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21(9):522–541. doi: 10.1038/s41580-020-0262-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 190.Giallongo S, Řeháková D, Biagini T, Lo Re O, Raina P, Lochmanová G, et al. Histone Variant macroH2A1.1 Enhances Nonhomologous End Joining-dependent DNA Double-strand-break Repair and Reprogramming Efficiency of Human iPSCs. Stem Cells. 2022;40(1):35–48. doi: 10.1093/stmcls/sxab004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191.Husmann D, Gozani O. Histone lysine methyltransferases in biology and disease. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2019;26(10):880–889. doi: 10.1038/s41594-019-0298-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 192.Xu J, Zhang X, Pelayo R, Monestier M, Ammollo CT, Semeraro F, et al. Extracellular histones are major mediators of death in sepsis. Nat Med. 2009;15(11):1318–1321. doi: 10.1038/nm.2053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193.Xu J, Zhang X, Monestier M, Esmon NL, Esmon CT. Extracellular histones are mediators of death through TLR2 and TLR4 in mouse fatal liver injury. J Immunol. 2011;187(5):2626–2631. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1003930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194.Allam R, Scherbaum CR, Darisipudi MN, Mulay SR, Hägele H, Lichtnekert J, et al. Histones from dying renal cells aggravate kidney injury via TLR2 and TLR4. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23(8):1375–1388. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2011111077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195.Block H, Rossaint J, Zarbock A. The Fatal Circle of NETs and NET-Associated DAMPs Contributing to Organ Dysfunction. Cells. 2022;11(12):1919. doi: 10.3390/cells11121919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 196.Hakkim A, Fürnrohr BG, Amann K, Laube B, Abed UA, Brinkmann V, et al. Impairment of neutrophil extracellular trap degradation is associated with lupus nephritis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(21):9813–9818. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909927107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197.Abrams ST, Zhang N, Manson J, Liu T, Dart C, Baluwa F, et al. Circulating histones are mediators of trauma-associated lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187(2):160–169. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201206-1037OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198.Barrero CA, Perez-Leal O, Aksoy M, Moncada C, Ji R, Lopez Y, et al. Histone 3.3 participates in a self-sustaining cascade of apoptosis that contributes to the progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(6):673–683. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201302-0342OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 199.Nakazawa D, Kumar SV, Marschner J, Desai J, Holderied A, Rath L, et al. Histones and Neutrophil Extracellular Traps Enhance Tubular Necrosis and Remote Organ Injury in Ischemic AKI. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28(6):1753–1768. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2016080925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 200.Tohme S, Yazdani HO, Al-Khafaji AB, Chidi AP, Loughran P, Mowen K, et al. Neutrophil Extracellular Traps Promote the Development and Progression of Liver Metastases after Surgical Stress. Cancer Res. 2016;76(6):1367–1380. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 201.van der Windt DJ, Sud V, Zhang H, Varley PR, Goswami J, Yazdani HO, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps promote inflammation and development of hepatocellular carcinoma in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology. 2018;68(4):1347–1360. doi: 10.1002/hep.29914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 202.Yang LY, Luo Q, Lu L, Zhu WW, Sun HT, Wei R, et al. Increased neutrophil extracellular traps promote metastasis potential of hepatocellular carcinoma via provoking tumorous inflammatory response. J Hematol Oncol. 2020;13(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13045-019-0836-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 203.Mauracher LM, Posch F, Martinod K, Grilz E, Däullary T, Hell L, et al. Citrullinated histone H3, a biomarker of neutrophil extracellular trap formation, predicts the risk of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16(3):508–518. doi: 10.1111/jth.13951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 204.Nomura K, Miyashita T, Yamamoto Y, Munesue S, Harashima A, Takayama H, et al. Citrullinated Histone H3: Early Biomarker of Neutrophil Extracellular Traps in Septic Liver Damage. J Surg Res. 2019;234:132–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 205.Ruiz-Limon P, Ladehesa-Pineda ML, Castro-Villegas MDC, Abalos-Aguilera MDC, Lopez-Medina C, Lopez-Pedrera C, et al. Enhanced NETosis generation in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: utility as biomarker for disease activity and anti-TNF-α therapy effectiveness. J Biomed Sci. 2020;27(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12929-020-00634-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 206.Kaltenmeier CT, Yazdani H, van der Windt D, Molinari M, Geller D, Tsung A, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps as a novel biomarker to predict recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with primary hepatic malignancies. HPB (Oxford) 2021;23(2):309–320. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.06.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 207.Pertiwi KR, de Boer OJ, Mackaaij C, Pabittei DR, de Winter RJ, Li X, et al. Extracellular traps derived from macrophages, mast cells, eosinophils and neutrophils are generated in a time-dependent manner during atherothrombosis. J Pathol. 2019;247(4):505–512. doi: 10.1002/path.5212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 208.Lee JH, Friso S, Choi SW. Epigenetic mechanisms underlying the link between non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases and nutrition. Nutrients. 2014;6(8):3303–3325. doi: 10.3390/nu6083303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 209.Hardy T, Mann DA. Epigenetics in liver disease: from biology to therapeutics. Gut. 2016;65(11):1895–1905. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 210.Moran-Salvador E, Mann J. Epigenetics and Liver Fibrosis. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;4(1):125–134. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.04.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 211.Del Campo JA, Gallego-Durán R, Gallego P, Grande L. Genetic and Epigenetic Regulation in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(3):911. doi: 10.3390/ijms19030911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 212.Liu YR, Wang JQ, Huang ZG, Chen RN, Cao X, Zhu DC, et al. Histone deacetylase-2: A potential regulator and therapeutic target in liver disease (Review) Int J Mol Med. 2021;48(1):131. doi: 10.3892/ijmm.2021.4964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 213.Rodríguez-Sanabria JS, Escutia-Gutiérrez R, Rosas-Campos R, Armendáriz-Borunda JS, Sandoval-Rodríguez A. An Update in Epigenetics in Metabolic-Associated Fatty Liver Disease. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021;8:770504. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.770504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 214.Wang H, Zhang H, Wang Y, Brown ZJ, Xia Y, Huang Z, et al. Regulatory T-cell and neutrophil extracellular trap interaction contributes to carcinogenesis in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J Hepatol. 2021;75(6):1271–1283. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.07.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 215.Wang Z, Cheng ZX, Abrams ST, Lin ZQ, Yates ED, Yu Q, et al. Extracellular histones stimulate collagen expression in vitro and promote liver fibrogenesis in a mouse model via the TLR4-MyD88 signaling pathway. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(47):7513–7527. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i47.7513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 216.Xu L, Liu X, Jia T, Sun Y, Du Y, Wei S, et al. Tanshinone IIA Ameliorates Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis in Mice by Modulating Neutrophil Extracellular Traps and Hepatocyte Apoptosis. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022;2022:5769350. doi: 10.1155/2022/5769350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 217.Cho Y, Bukong TN, Tornai D, Babuta M, Vlachos IS, Kanata E, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps contribute to liver damage and increase defective low-density neutrophils in alcohol-associated hepatitis. J Hepatol. 2023;78(1):28–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.08.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 218.Chen Q, Zhang Q, Cao P, Shi C, Zhang L, Wang L, et al. NOD2-mediated HDAC6/NF-κb signalling pathway regulates ferroptosis induced by extracellular histone H3 in acute liver failure. J Cell Mol Med. 2022;26(21):5528–5538. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.17582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 219.Hsieh IN, Deluna X, White MR, Hartshorn KL. Histone H4 directly stimulates neutrophil activation through membrane permeabilization. J Leukoc Biol. 2021;109(4):763–775. doi: 10.1002/JLB.3A0620-342R. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 220.Liu K, Wang FS, Xu R. Neutrophils in liver diseases: pathogenesis and therapeutic targets. Cell Mol Immunol. 2021;18(1):38–44. doi: 10.1038/s41423-020-00560-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 221.Deligezer U, Yaman F, Darendeliler E, Dizdar Y, Holdenrieder S, Kovancilar M, et al. Post-treatment circulating plasma BMP6 mRNA and H3K27 methylation levels discriminate metastatic prostate cancer from localized disease. Clin Chim Acta. 2010;411(19-20):1452–1456. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2010.05.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 222.Bauden M, Pamart D, Ansari D, Herzog M, Eccleston M, Micallef J, et al. Circulating nucleosomes as epigenetic biomarkers in pancreatic cancer. Clin Epigenetics. 2015;7:106. doi: 10.1186/s13148-015-0139-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 223.Rahier JF, Druez A, Faugeras L, Martinet JP, Géhénot M, Josseaux E, et al. Circulating nucleosomes as new blood-based biomarkers for detection of colorectal cancer. Clin Epigenetics. 2017;9:53. doi: 10.1186/s13148-017-0351-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 224.Lillico R, Sobral MG, Stesco N, Lakowski TM. HDAC inhibitors induce global changes in histone lysine and arginine methylation and alter expression of lysine demethylases. J Proteomics. 2016;133:125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2015.12.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 225.Parira T, Figueroa G, Laverde A, Casteleiro G, Gomez Hernandez ME, Fernandez-Lima F, et al. Novel detection of post-translational modifications in human monocyte-derived dendritic cells after chronic alcohol exposure: Role of inflammation regulator H4K12ac. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):11236. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11172-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 226.Fegan JE, Yu RH, Islam EA, Schryvers AB. Development of a non-biased, high-throughput ELISA for the rapid evaluation of immunogenicity and cross-reactivity. J Immunol Methods. 2021;493:113037. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2021.113037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 227.Van den Ackerveken P, Lobbens A, Turatsinze JV, Solis-Mezarino V, Völker-Albert M, Imhof A, et al. A novel proteomics approach to epigenetic profiling of circulating nucleosomes. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7256. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86630-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 228.Reddy D, Khade B, Pandya R, Gupta S. A novel method for isolation of histones from serum and its implications in therapeutics and prognosis of solid tumours. Clin Epigenetics. 2017;9:30. doi: 10.1186/s13148-017-0330-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 229.Bronsema KJ, Bischoff R, van de Merbel NC. High-sensitivity LC-MS/MS quantification of peptides and proteins in complex biological samples: the impact of enzymatic digestion and internal standard selection on method performance. Anal Chem. 2013;85(20):9528–9535. doi: 10.1021/ac4015116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 230.García-Giménez JL, Romá-Mateo C, Carbonell N, Palacios L, Peiró-Chova L, García-López E, et al. A new mass spectrometry-based method for the quantification of histones in plasma from septic shock patients. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):10643. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-10830-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 231.Biggar KK, Charih F, Liu H, Ruiz-Blanco YB, Stalker L, Chopra A, et al. Proteome-wide Prediction of Lysine Methylation Leads to Identification of H2BK43 Methylation and Outlines the Potential Methyllysine Proteome. Cell Rep. 2020;32(2):107896. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 232.Keshishian H, Burgess MW, Gillette MA, Mertins P, Clauser KR, Mani DR, et al. Multiplexed, Quantitative Workflow for Sensitive Biomarker Discovery in Plasma Yields Novel Candidates for Early Myocardial Injury. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015;14(9):2375–2393. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M114.046813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 233.Fedyuk V, Erez N, Furth N, Beresh O, Andreishcheva E, Shinde A, et al. Multiplexed, single-molecule, epigenetic analysis of plasma-isolated nucleosomes for cancer diagnostics. Nat Biotechnol. 2023;41(2):212–221. doi: 10.1038/s41587-022-01447-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 234.Headland SE, Jones HR, D’Sa AS, Perretti M, Norling LV. Cutting-edge analysis of extracellular microparticles using ImageStream(X) imaging flow cytometry. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5237. doi: 10.1038/srep05237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 235.Dent BM, Ogle LF, O’Donnell RL, Hayes N, Malik U, Curtin NJ, et al. High-resolution imaging for the detection and characterisation of circulating tumour cells from patients with oesophageal, hepatocellular, thyroid and ovarian cancers. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(1):206–216. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29680. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 236.Ogle LF, Orr JG, Willoughby CE, Hutton C, McPherson S, Plummer R, et al. Imagestream detection and characterisation of circulating tumour cells - A liquid biopsy for hepatocellular carcinoma? J Hepatol. 2016;65(2):305–313. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 237.Gavillet M, Martinod K, Renella R, Harris C, Shapiro NI, Wagner DD, et al. Flow cytometric assay for direct quantification of neutrophil extracellular traps in blood samples. Am J Hematol. 2015;90(12):1155–1158. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 238.Ginley BG, Emmons T, Lutnick B, Urban CF, Segal BH, Sarder P. Computational detection and quantification of human and mouse neutrophil extracellular traps in flow cytometry and confocal microscopy. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):17755. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-18099-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 239.Lingblom C, Andersson K, Wennerås C. Kinetic studies of galectin-10 release from eosinophils exposed to proliferating T cells. Clin Exp Immunol. 2021;203(2):230–243. doi: 10.1111/cei.13540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 240.Buzova D, Maugeri A, Liguori A, Napodano C, Lo Re O, Oben J, et al. Circulating histone signature of human lean metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) Clin Epigenetics. 2020;12(1):126. doi: 10.1186/s13148-020-00917-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 241.Lo Re O, Maugeri A, Hruskova J, Jakubik J, Kucera J, Bienertova-Vasku J, et al. Obesity-induced nucleosome release predicts poor cardio-metabolic health. Clin Epigenetics. 2019;12(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13148-019-0797-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 242.Kohles N, Nagel D, Jüngst D, Durner J, Stieber P, Holdenrieder S. Relevance of circulating nucleosomes and oncological biomarkers for predicting response to transarterial chemoembolization therapy in liver cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:202. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 243.Salani F, Latarani M, Casadei-Gardini A, Gangadharannambiar P, Fornaro L, Vivaldi C, et al. Predictive significance of circulating histones in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib. Epigenomics. 2022;14(9):507–517. doi: 10.2217/epi-2021-0383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 244.Gu T, Ge Y, Song Y, Fu Z, Zhang Y, Wang G, et al. Hepatic radiofrequency ablation causes an increase of circulating histones in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2015;75(7):621–627. doi: 10.3109/00365513.2015.1050689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 245.Li X, Gou C, Yao L, Lei Z, Gu T, Ren F, et al. Patients with HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure have increased concentrations of extracellular histones aggravating cellular damage and systemic inflammation. J Viral Hepat. 2017;24(1):59–67. doi: 10.1111/jvh.12612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 246.Blasi A, Patel VC, Adelmeijer J, Azarian S, Aziz F, Fernández J, et al. Plasma levels of circulating DNA are associated with outcome, but not with activation of coagulation in decompensated cirrhosis and ACLF. JHEP Rep. 2019;1(3):179–187. doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2019.06.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 247.Wen Z, Lei Z, Yao L, Jiang P, Gu T, Ren F, et al. Circulating histones are major mediators of systemic inflammation and cellular injury in patients with acute liver failure. Cell Death Dis. 2016;7(9):e2391. doi: 10.1038/cddis.2016.303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 248.Ding L, Zhang X, Li L, Gou C, Luo X, Yang Y, et al. Qingchangligan formula alleviates acute liver injury by attenuating extracellular histone-associated inflammation. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;103:140–146. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.01.121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 249.Li X, Gou C, Pang Y, Wang Y, Liu Y, Wen T. Extracellular histones are clinically associated with primary graft dysfunction in human liver transplantation. RSC Adv. 2019;9(18):10264–10271. doi: 10.1039/C9RA00425D. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 250.Novruzov N, Ersan V, Bayramov N, Otlu B, Aliyev E, Ince V, et al. Extracellular Histones H3 as a Prognostic Blood Marker for Delayed Liver Function Recovery After Donor Hepatectomy. Transplant Proc. 2021;53(7):2305–2311. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2021.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 251.Wen Z, Liu Y, Li F, Ren F, Chen D, Li X, et al. Circulating histones exacerbate inflammation in mice with acute liver failure. J Cell Biochem. 2013;114(10):2384–2391. doi: 10.1002/jcb.24588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 252.Huang H, Tohme S, Al-Khafaji AB, Tai S, Loughran P, Chen L, et al. Damage-associated molecular pattern-activated neutrophil extracellular trap exacerbates sterile inflammatory liver injury. Hepatology. 2015;62(2):600–614. doi: 10.1002/hep.27841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 253.Zenlander R, Havervall S, Magnusson M, Engstrand J, Ågren A, Thålin C, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps in patients with liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):18025. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-97233-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 254.Sadeh R, Sharkia I, Fialkoff G, Rahat A, Gutin J, Chappleboim A, et al. Author Correction: ChIP-seq of plasma cell-free nucleosomes identifies gene expression programs of the cells of origin. Nat Biotechnol. 2021;39(5):642. doi: 10.1038/s41587-021-00853-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 255.Papatheodoridi A, Karakousis N, Lembessis P, Chatzigeorgiou A, Papatheodoridis GV. The Significance of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Markers in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Pathogens. 2021;10(11):1524. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10111524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 256.Holdenrieder S, Stieber P, Bodenmüller H, Busch M, Fertig G, Fürst H, et al. Nucleosomes in serum of patients with benign and malignant diseases. Int J Cancer. 2001;95(2):114–120. doi: 10.1002/1097-0215(20010320)95:2<114::aid-ijc1020>3.0.co;2-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 257.Lencioni R, Cioni D, Crocetti L, Franchini C, Pina CD, Lera J, et al. Early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: long-term results of percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation. Radiology. 2005;234(3):961–967. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2343040350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 258.Livraghi T, Meloni F, Di Stasi M, Rolle E, Solbiati L, Tinelli C, et al. Sustained complete response and complications rates after radiofrequency ablation of very early hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: Is resection still the treatment of choice? Hepatology. 2008;47(1):82–89. doi: 10.1002/hep.21933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 259.KENT PW, HICHENS M, WARD PF. Displacement fractionation of deoxyribonucleoproteins by heparin and dextran sulphate. Biochem J. 1958;68(4):568–572. doi: 10.1042/bj0680568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 260.Demidenko O, Tsvetkova S. Action of heparin on protein fractions of isolated nuclei and on their DNA content. Histochemistry. 1978;57(3):265–271. doi: 10.1007/BF00492086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 261.Wildhagen KC, García de Frutos P, Reutelingsperger CP, Schrijver R, Aresté C, Ortega-Gómez A, et al. Nonanticoagulant heparin prevents histone-mediated cytotoxicity in vitro and improves survival in sepsis. Blood. 2014;123(7):1098–1101. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-07-514984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 262.Faria LC, Andrade AMF, Trant CGMC, Lima AS, Machado PAB, Porto RD, et al. Circulating levels of High-mobility group box 1 protein and nucleosomes are associated with outcomes after liver transplant. Clin Transplant. 2020;34(7):e13869. doi: 10.1111/ctr.13869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 263.Valla V, Alzabin S, Koukoura A, Lewis A, Nielsen AA, Vassiliadis E. Companion Diagnostics: State of the Art and New Regulations. Biomark Insights. 2021;16:11772719211047763. doi: 10.1177/11772719211047763. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]