Skip to main content
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology logoLink to Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
. 2018 Dec 6;11:1756284818815184. doi: 10.1177/1756284818815184

Function and therapeutic advances of chemokine and its receptor in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Wei Chen 1, Jing Zhang 2, Hui-Ning Fan 3, Jin-Shui Zhu 4,
PMCID: PMC6295708  PMID: 30574191

Abstract

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) represents a spectrum of hepatic pathology, ranging from simple accumulation of fat in its most benign form, steatohepatitis, to cirrhosis in its most advanced form. The prevalence of NAFLD is 20–30% in adults, and 10–20% of patients with NAFLD progress to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) which is predicted to be the leading cause of liver transplantation over the next 10 years. Therefore, it is essential to explore effective diagnostic and treatment strategies for NAFLD patients. Chemokines are a family of small and highly conserved proteins (molecular weight ranging from 8 to 12 kDa) involved in regulating the migration and activities of hepatocytes, Kupffer cells (KCs), hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), endothelial cells and circulating immune cells. Accumulating data show that chemokine and its receptor act vital roles in the pathogenesis of NAFLD. Herein, we summarize the involvement of the chemokine and its receptor in the pathogenesis of NAFLD and explore the novel pharmacotherapeutic avenues for patients with NAFLD.

Keywords: chemokine, chemokine receptor, hepatocellular carcinoma, NAFLD, steatohepatitis

Introduction

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), firstly described in 1980 by Ludwig et al., 1 is becoming the most frequent chronic liver disease worldwide, and morbidity of NAFLD is up to 20–30% in adults and even higher among obesities and type II diabetes mellitus patients.27 NAFLD represents a spectrum of hepatic pathology, ranging from simple accumulation of fat (‘fatty liver’ or steatosis) in its most benign form, to steatohepatitis, to cirrhosis in its most advanced form.8,9 NAFLD is regarded as the hepatic manifestation of the metabolic syndrome, including central obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is mediated by inflammatory cytokines, mitochondrial dysfunction secondary to nutrient excess and oxidative stress,10,11 resulting in hepatocyte infla-mmation, ballooning, apoptosis, and activation of hepatic stellate cells (HSCs). About 10–20% of patients with NAFLD develop NASH, 12 which is predicted to become the leading cause of liver transplantation over the next decades. 13

Pathogenesis of NAFLD

Nearly 20 years ago, the ‘two hit’ hypothesis was proposed. The ‘first hit’ refers to hepatic steatosis which is a benign form, while the ‘second hit’ consists of oxidative stress and inflammation that leads to severe liver damage. 14 In recent years, the ‘multiple hit’ hypothesis has been put forward for interpreting the progression of NAFLD. As shown in Figure 1, in addition to metabolic factors, innate immune alterations, inflammation response caused by free fatty acids (FFAs), bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS), chemokines, cytokines, and adipokines are implicated in the development of NAFLD-NASH hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).12,1520 Other organs such as adipose tissue, muscle, and intestine also participate in the pathogenesis of NAFLD, and aggravate its systematic metabolic disorder. 10

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The ‘multiple hit’ hypothesis for the progression of NAFLD and natural history of NAFLD: dietary habits, environmental and genetic factors result in the development of insulin resistance, obesity with adipocyte proliferation and changes in the gut microbiome. Insulin resistance leads to increased hepatic DNL and dysfunction of adipose tissue and adipocyte. Fat accumulates in the liver in the form of TG. Contemporarily, this happens with increased lipotoxicity from high levels of FFAs, free CH and other lipid metabolites, which induce mitochondrial dysfunction with oxidative stress and production of ROS and ER stress with activation of UPR. All these factors lead to hepatic inflammation, apoptosis and fibrosis. Also, the altered gut microbiome results in more production of FFAs and CH and increases small bowel permeability. Increased fatty acid absorption causes the activation of inflammasome such as LPS, and the release of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-α.

CH, cholesterol; DNL, de novo lipogenesis; ER, endoplasmic reticulum; FFA, free fatty acid; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; IL, interleukin; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; ROS, reactive oxygen species; TG, triglyceride; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor alpha; UPR, unfolded protein response; VLDL, very low density lipoprotein.

Chemokines and NAFLD

Chemokines, a family of small and highly conserved proteins (with molecular weights ranging from 8 to 12 kDa), are involved in multiple biological processes, including chemotaxis, 21 leukocyte degranulation, 22 hematopoiesis 23 and angiogenesis, 24 and mediate immune cell trafficking and lymphoid tissue maturation.25,26 Although the chemokines have a highly conserved and three-stranded β-sheet/α-helix tertiary structural fold, their quaternary structures vary as compared with their subfamily. As indicated in Figure 2, according to the sequential positions of the first two cysteine residues, chemokines are divided into four main subtypes: CC-chemokines, CXC-chemokines, C-chemokines and CX3C-chemokines,26,27 and possess tiny differences in structure. In CC and CXC chemokines, the first two cysteines are adjacent (CC motif) or separated by one amino acid residue (CXC motif). C chemokines lack the first and third of the cysteines, and CX3C chemokines have three amino acids between the first two cysteine residues.27,28 In terms of the chemokine specific binding with different receptors and vice versa, a superfamily of chemokines has been presented26,2830 (Table 1). As shown in Figure 3, the chemokine receptors, 7-transmembrane G protein-coupled receptors consist of an N-terminus outside the cell surface, three extracellular and three intracellular loops as well as a C-terminus in the cytoplasm.28,31 The interaction between chemokines and their receptors has a key role in the occurrence of liver diseases.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The structure of chemokines. The structures of chemokines are similar with at least three β-pleated sheets (indicated as β1-3) and a C-terminal a-helix. In the CXC chemokine family, the two cysteines nearest the N-termini are separated by a single and variable amino acid. In the CC chemokine family, the two cysteines nearest the N-termini are adjacent. In the C chemokine family, only one cysteine is near its N-terminus. The CX3C chemokine has a typical chemokine-like structure. The two cysteines nearest the N-termini are separated by three amino acids. In addition, the chemokine domain occurs at the end of a long stalk which is largely replaced by mucin-like carbohydrates. The protein is fixed in the membrane and has a short cytoplasmic domain.

Table 1.

The classification of chemokines and their receptors.

Subfamily of chemokine Name of chemokine Other names of chemokine Receptors
C chemokines XCL1 Limphotactin α, SCM-1α XCR1
XCL2 Limphotactin β, SCM-1β XCR1
CC chemokines CCL1 I-309 CCR8
CCL2 MCP-1 CCR2
CCL3 MIP-1α CCR1, CCR5
CCL4 MIP-1β CCR5, CCR8
CCL5 RANTES CCR1, CCR3, CCR5
CCL6 C-10, Mrp-1 CCR1
CCL7 MCP-3 CCR1, CCR2, CCR3
CCL8 MCP-2 CCR1, CCR2, CCR3, CCR5, CCR8
CCL9 MIP-1γ, MRP2 CCR1, CCR3
CCL11 Eotaxin-1 CCR3, CCR5
CCL12 MCP-5 CCR2
CCL13 MCP-4 CCR1, CCR2, CCR3, CCR5
CCL14 HCC-1 CCR1, CCR5
CCL15 HCC-2, Leukotactin-1, MIP-5 CCR1, CCR3
CCL16 HCC-4, LEC, NCC-4, MTN1 CCR1, CCR2, CCR5, CCR8
CCL17 TARC CCR4
CCL18 MIP-4, AMAC1 CCR8
CCL19 ELC, MIP-3β CCR7
CCL20 LARC, MIP-3α CCR6
CCL21 SLC, 6Ckine CCR7
CCL22 MDC CCR4
CCL23 MPIF-1, MIP-3 CCR1, CCR3
CCL24 MPIF-2, Eotaxin-2 CCR3
CCL25 TECK CCR9
CCL26 Eotaxin-3, MIP-4α CCR3, CX3CR1
CCL27 CTAK CCR10
CCL28 MEC CCR3, CCR10
CXC chemokines CXCL1 GROα, MGSA CXCR2
CXCL2 GROβ, MIP-2α CXCR2
CXCL3 GROγ MIP-2β CXCR2
CXCL4 PF-4 CXCR3
CXCL5 ENA-78 CXCR2
CXCL6 GCP-2 CXCR1, CXCR2
CXCL7 NAP-2 CXCR2
CXCL8 IL-8 CXCR1, CXCR2
CXCL9 Mig CXCR3
CXCL10 IP-10 CXCR3
CXCL11 I-TAC CXCR3, CXCR7
CXCL12 SDF-1 CXCR4, CXCR7
CXCL13 BCA-1, BLC CXCR5, CXCR3
CXCL14 BRAK Unknown
CXCL15 Lungkine Unknown
CXCL16 SRPSOX CXCR6
CX3C chemokines CX3CL1 Fractalkine CX3CR1

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

The structure of the typical chemokine receptor. Chemokine receptors are embedded in the lipid bilayer of the cell surface and possess seven transmembrane domains.

The liver tissues are enriched by various kinds of immune cells including Kupffer cells (KCs), resident macrophages, natural killer (NK) cells and other innate immune cells, such as neutrophils, leukocytes, monocytes, and inflammatory macrophages. 32 The adaptive immune system is primarily composed of natural killer T (NKT) cells, B-cells, and T-cells. Thus, immune and inflammatory cells have a central role in the pathogenesis of NAFLD. Steatosis, as the critical stage in the progression of NAFLD, is mediated by hepatic inflammation, 8 and chemokines are key players in regulating the migration and activities of hepatocytes, HSCs, KCs, endothelial cells, and circulating immune cells. Chemokines and their receptors recruit immune and nonimmune cells into the inflamed sites. In the liver, resident hepatic macrophages and KCs are important sensors of tissue injury, and depletion of KCs prevents the development of hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance of NASH.33,34 In addition, resident hepatic macrophages and KCs are predominantly activated by pathogen-associated molecular patterns from invading pathogens, and danger-associated molecular patterns released from injured hepatocytes, cholangiocytes, and stellate cells in response to danger signals. Once activated, KCs release proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, initiate the acute phase response and attract the neutrophils that produce cytotoxic and antimicrobial molecules [reactive oxygen species (ROS), oxidants, defensins]. NKT cells in turn perpetuate inflammatory responses via inflammatory monocytes which differentiate into proinflammatory hepatic macrophages. 35 Therefore, various chemokines, their receptors and chemokine signaling pathways take part in the pathogenesis of NAFLD (Table 2).

Table 2.

Chemokines and their receptors in NAFLD.

Subfamily of chemokines Chemokines/receptors of chemokines Suggested involvement in NAFLD References
CC chemokines CCL1-CCR8 Fibrosis Heymann and colleagues 36
CCL2 and CCR2 Fibrosis, NASH, HCC Marra and Tacke 35 ; Baeck and colleagues 37 ; Seki and colleagues 38 ; Miura and colleagues 39 ; Marra and Tacke 40 ; Obstfeld and colleagues 41 ; Tamura and colleagues 42 ; Tamura and colleagues 43 ; Mulder and colleagues 44 ; Pellicoro and colleagues 45 ; Sadeghi and colleagues 46 ; Jiang and colleagues 47
CCL3 and CCR5 Fibrosis, NASH Heinrichs and colleagues 48
CCL4 and CCR5 Fibrosis, NASH, HCC Sadeghi and colleagues 46
CCL5 and CCR1, CCR5 Fibrosis, NASH, HCC Seki and Schwabe 49 ; Kim and colleagues 50 ; Seki and colleagues 51 ; Berres and colleagues 52
CCL20 and CCR6 Fibrosis, HCC, cholestatic Chu and colleagues 53 ; Duffaut and Zararoff 54 ; Hou and colleagues 55 ; Ye and colleagues 56 ; Fujii and colleagues 57 ; Chen and colleagues 58
CCL25-CCR9 Fibrosis Chu and colleagues 59
CXC chemokines CXCL5 and CXCR2 HCC Sadeghi and colleagues 46 ; Zhou and colleagues 60 ; Saintigny and colleagues 61 ; Singh and colleagues 62 ; Matsuo and colleagues 63 ; Zhou and colleagues 64
CXCL8 HCC Jiang and colleagues 47 ; Li and colleagues 65 ; Yin and colleagues 66
CXCL9 and CXCR3 Fibrosis, steatohepatitis, NASH Wasmuth and colleagues 67 ; Tacke and colleagues 68 ; Clarklewis and colleagues 69 ; Zhang and colleagues 70 ; Oo and colleagues 71 ; Berres and colleagues 72
CXCL10 and CXCR3 Fibrosis, cholestatic, NASH, steatohepatitis Xu and colleagues 73 ; Zhang and colleagues 74 ; Kyoko and colleagues 75
CXCL11 Fibrosis Berres and colleagues 76
CXCL12 and CXCR4 CXCR7 Fibrosis, HCC Ghanem and colleagues 77 ; Shah and colleagues 78 ; Aghi and colleagues 79 ; Xiang and colleagues 80 ; Garcia-Irigoyen and colleagues 81 ; Lin and colleagues 82
CXCL16 and CXCR6 Fibrosis Pellicoro and colleagues 45 ; Geissmann and colleagues 83 ; Wehr and colleagues 84 ; Gao and colleagues 85
CX3C chemokines CX3CL1 Fibrosis Efsen and colleagues 86 ; Wasmuth and colleagues 87 ; Sutti and colleagues 88 ; Karlmark and colleagues89; Aoyama and colleagues 90

HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

CC chemokine and its receptor

CCL2 (also termed MCP-1) and its receptor CCR2 are characterized in many chemokines involved in hepatic diseases including NASH, fibrosis and HCC. CCL2, mainly produced by KCs and HSCs, is conductive to inflammation, fibrosis, and steatosis, 35 and recruits macrophages and monocytes into the liver, resulting in the activation of HSCs.3739 CCR2 is also expressed in HSCs and macrophages. During the progression of NASH, activation of CCL2–CCR2 axis promotes macrophage accumulation, inflammation responses, fibrosis, and steatosis in the liver as well as in adipose tissue, 40 and contributes to NASH by recruiting bone marrow-derived monocytes. 39 In contrast, CCR2-deficient mice display a decreased accumulation of inflammatory cells in the liver,39,41 and the inhibition of the CCL2–CCR2 axis causes reduced hepatic fibrosis in experimental fibrosis models.37,39 Prop-agermanium, as a CCR2 inhibitor, is reported to prevent insulin resistance, steatosis42,43 and NASH. 44 The CCL2–CCR2 axis also mediates the liver injury to lead to parenchymal cell necrosis or apoptosis by release of ROS and activation of HSCs and macrophages. 45 It has been reported that patients with HCC have a lower serum level of CCL2 than cirrhotic patients. 46

Other CC-chemokines and their receptors also participate in the progression of NAFLD. The expression of CCL5 and its receptors CCR1 and CCR5 is increased in liver macrophages and HSCs and facilitates liver fibrogenesis. 49 CCL5 secreted by HSCs directly induces steatosis and proinflammatory factors in healthy hepatocytes through interacting with its receptor, CCR5. 50 CCR1 and CCR5 mediate profibrogenic effects in bone marrow-derived cells and resident liver cells, and promote the migration of HSCs through a redox-sensitive and PI3K-dependent pathway. 51 CCL3 (MIP-1α) and CCL4 (MIP-1β) are upregulated in mouse liver fibrogenesis models and human fibrosis samples, favor mouse liver fibrosis via increasing proliferation and migration of HSCs, and associate with stellate cell activation and liver immune cell infiltration. 48 Inhibition of CCR1 and (or) CCR5 represses the progression of liver fibrosis in mice.51,52 Moreover, pharmacologic inhibition of CCL5 facilitates fibrosis regression in mice. 52 Beyond that, the serum levels of CCL4 and CCL5 are higher in HCC patients than those in cirrhotic patients, indicating that CCL4 and CCL5 as inflammatory chemokines are used to predict the presence of HCC. 46 Additionally, CCL1-CCR8 and CCL25-CCR9 pathways also play critical roles in promoting liver fibrosis by recruiting macrophages.36,59

Recent studies have shown that the expression of CCL20 is increased in patients with NAFLD fibrosis. 53 CCL20 and its exclusive receptor CCR6 contribute to cholestatis and HCC. Accumulation of immune cells in adipose tissue (AT) causes obesity-associated inflammation, insulin resistance and fatty liver. Initially, macrophage-mediated invasion of AT is related to a release of soluble mediators by fat-laden adipocytes 91 and the upregulation of chemokine expression. 92 It is found that mature adipocytes release CCL20 and stimulate the migration of AT lymphocytes via CCR6. 54 CCL20 exerts the tumor-promoting effects by inducing cell migration and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) via PI3K/AKT and Wnt/β-catenin pathways and predicts poor survival and tumor recurrence in patients with HCC. 55 Moreover, HIF-1α-CCL20-indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase (IDO) axis accelerates tumor metastasis by inducing EMT and an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. 56 CCL20 also enhances the growth of HCC cells via phosphorylation of p44/42 MAPK. 57 CCR6 possesses elevated expression on the HuH7 cells, resulting in spontaneous secretion of CCL20, 57 and CCL20–CCR6 axis mediates the migration of circulating FoxP3(+) Tregs into tumor microenvironment. 58

CXC chemokine and its receptor

Several CXC-chemokines and their receptors are involved in the progression of NAFLD. Patients with HCC have a higher serum level of CXCL5 than cirrhotic patients. 46 Increased expression of CXCL5 is correlated with neutrophil infiltration and poor prognosis in patients with HCC. 60 CXCR2, a CXCL5-specific receptor, is at a high level in many cancer cells and is related to tumorigenesis, tumor angiogenesis and metastasis.6163 The CXCL5–CXCR2 axis gives rise to cell spreading by inducing EMT via activation of the PI3K/Akt/GSK-3β/Snail signaling pathway. 64

CXCL8, known as interleukin (IL)-8, is a proinflammatory CXC chemokine with the properties of tumorigenicity and angiogenesis in cancer. 93 The CXCL8 level is increased in HCC tissues and cell lines, and coexpression of HIF-1α and CXCL8 induces HCC progression and metastasis via activation of the AKT/mTOR/STAT3 pathway, indicating that CXCL8 is a prognostic marker and a potential target for HCC. 65 Macrophages are a major component of tumor stroma involved in HCC progression. Recently, macrophages activated by co-cultured liver cancer cells produce higher levels of CXCL8, induce CXCL8/miR-17 cluster, and promote HCC cell proliferation and metastasis. 66 Additionally, tissue-derived fibroblasts, CCL2, CXCL1, and CXCL8 are upregulated in HCC and accelerate its progression. 47

CXCL10 belongs to the ELR-negative CXC family. In the liver, CXCL10 is mainly secreted by the liver sinusoidal endothelium and hepatocytes in areas of lobular inflammation. The CXCL10 serum level is associated with the severity of lobular inflammation and acts as an independent risk factor for NASH patients. CXCL10 induces inflammation, oxidative stress and fibrosis in experimental steatohepatitis via activation of the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B-cells (NF-κB) pathway. 73 In addition, CXCL10 promotes steatosis by stimulating lipogenesis 74 and cholesterol (FFC) diet-induced macrophage-associated hepatic injury and fibrosis. 75 As a proinflammatory factor, CXCL10 is implicated in each phase of NASH development. 73

CXCL9 serum level is also associated with genotypes and severity of liver fibrosis in patients.67,68 CXCR3 is the receptor of multiple ligands such as CXCL4, CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL11, 69 and displays a role in the development of steatohepatitis.70,75 CXCR3 contributes to the expansion of liver inflammation to the parenchyma by inducing endothelial transmigration and T-cell chemotaxis to the liver lobule. 71 Increased expression of CXCR3 is confirmed in human NAFLD liver tissues and experimental steatohepatitis models, while the blockade of CXCR3 reverses the established steatohepatitis. 70 CXCR3 promotes cholesterol-induced steatohepatitis and NASH, 75 facilitates lipid accumulation, inflammatory cell infiltration and ER stress, 70 and induces macrophage infiltration and Th1 and Th17 immune response in steatohepatitis.70,72

CXCL11 serum level is increased in patients with liver fibrosis, nonalcoholic cirrhosis and high portal pressure, and is used to predict long-time survival of cirrhotic patients bearing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. 76

CXCL12, known as stromal-derived factor 1 alpha (SDF1α) is the ligand of CXCR4 and CXCR7. The CXCL12–CXCR4 axis promotes proliferation, survival, invasion, and metastasis, 77 and mediates interstitial fluid flow to enhance the invasion in HCC cells via the MEK/ERK pathway. 78 CXCL12 activates CXCR4-expressing HCC cells, lymphocytes and endothelial cells in an autocrine or paracrine manner 77 and induces tumor vasculature remodeling under hypoxic conditions. 79 CXCR4 has been demonstrated as upregulated in HCC tissue, 80 but downregulated in MMP10-deficient HCC, while pharmacological inhibition of CXCR4 significantly reduces MMP10-stimulated HCC cell migration. 81 In addition, CXCR7 expression is upregulated in metastatic HCC, and promotes the growth and invasiveness via activation of the MAPK and angiogenesis signaling pathways. 82

CXCL16 is considered to be a survival and maturation factor for patrolling hepatic NKT cells. 83 Hepatic macrophages express a high level of CXCL16 at the early stage of liver injury, thus promoting the rapid accumulation of NKT cells to the injured parts of the intrahepatic tissue. Furthermore, CXCL16-mediated accumulation of NKT cells exhibits the potential to amplify inflammatory signals in the early stage of inflammation, 84 and CXCL16–CXCR6 axis acts in the migration of hepatic NKT cells to promote CCl4-induced liver fibrosis.45,85

CX3C chemokine and its receptor

CX3CL1, the only member of the CX3C subfamily of chemokines is widely expressed in immune cells and nonimmune cells. CX3CR1, a member of 7-transmembrane G protein-coupled receptor is the receptor of CX3CL1. CX3CR1 can be expressed by monocytes, macrophages, microglia, T helper (Th) 1 cells, CD8+T effector/memory cells, NK cells, γδ T-cells, and dendritic cells (DCs). 40 Both CX3CL1 and CX3CR1 are expressed throughout the body, but depend highly on cell type-specific organs and tissues. The CX3CL1–CX3CR1 axis promotes liver fibrosis by activation of HSCs, KCs, biliary epithelial cells and liver infiltrating lymphocytes,8688 and the interaction between CX3CL1 and CX3CR1 on liver macrophages regulates liver inflammation by enhancing macrophage survival and reducing the anti-inflammatory phenotype.89,90

Application prospect

In terms of the role of chemokines and their receptors in the pathogenesis of liver diseases, some therapeutic strategies for targeting chemokines and their receptors may highlight a new direction for the treatment of patients with liver diseases. As showed in Table 3, pharmaceutical inhibition of CCR2 contributes to an inhibition of liver inflammation and fibrosis by preventing infiltration of Ly6C-positive macrophages. 94 Congruously, previous studies showed that pharmacological inhibition of CCL2 or CCR2 significantly ameliorates insulin resistance, steatosis and inflammation in several metabolic disease models. 95 Of note, cenicriviroc (CVC), a CCR2 and CCR5 antagonist, has the potential to exert anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic activity in animal models. In a phase II study, in obese adults with NASH, CVC does not achieve the ideal effect in the treatment of NAFLD, but shows a reduction in fibrosis scores; a similar result is verified in a phase IIb study in NASH in recent studies.9698 Moreover, glutaminyl cyclase inhibitors may alleviate liver inflammation by destabilizing CCL2 in an experimental model of NAFLD. 99 Besides that, as a CCR5 antagonist, maraviroc shows the ability in ameliorating the development of hepatic steatosis in a mouse model of NAFLD. 100 Pharmacological inhibition of mixed lineage kinase 3 (MLK3) mediates the release of CXCL10-laden extracellular vesicles from lipotoxic hepatocytes. 101  Anti-CXCL16 decreases liver macrophage infiltration and fatty liver degeneration in NAFLD. 102 These suggest that chemokines and their receptors may act as potential therapeutic targets of NAFLD. Further investigations of the applications of chemokines and their receptors in NAFLD is needed.

Table 3.

Chemokines and their receptors as therapeutic targets for NAFLD treatment.

Subfamily of chemokines Chemokines/receptors of chemokines Suggested involvement in NAFLD References
CC chemokines CCL2/CCR2 Liver inflammation, fibrosis, insulin resistance, steatosis Miura and colleagues 94 ; Baeck and colleagues 95 ; Tacke 98 ; Cynis and colleagues 99 ; Tamura and colleagues 103 ; Yang and colleagues 104 ; Tamura and colleagues 105
CCR5 Hepatic steatosis Friedman and colleagues 96 ; Sanyal and colleagues 97 ; Tacke 98 ; Pérez-Martínez and colleagues 100
CXC chemokines CXCL10 NASH Ibrahim and colleagues 101
CXCL16 Liver macrophage infiltration and steatohepatitis Wehr and colleagues 102

NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

Acknowledgments

Wei Chen and Jing Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Footnotes

Funding: This study was supported by grants from the National Nature Science Foundation of China (nos. 81573747 & 81873143), Shanghai Science and Technology Commission Western Medicine Guide project (no. 17411966500), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine Transformation medicine and Innovation Center research project (no. TM201723) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine doctoral innovation fund (no. BXJ201737).

Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Wei Chen, Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, China.

Jing Zhang, Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, China.

Hui-Ning Fan, Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, China.

Jin-Shui Zhu, Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Yishan Road 600, Shanghai 200233, China.

References

  • 1. Ludwig J, Viggiano TR, Mcgill DB, et al. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Mayo Clinic experiences with a hitherto unnamed disease. Mayo Clin Proc 1980; 55: 434–438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, et al. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology 2016; 64: 73–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Mcpherson S, Hardy T, Henderson E, et al. Evidence of NAFLD progression from steatosis to fibrosing-steatohepatitis using paired biopsies: implications for prognosis and clinical management. J Hepatol 2015; 62: 1148–1155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Adams LA, Anstee QM, Tilg H, et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its relationship with cardiovascular disease and other extrahepatic diseases. Gut 2017; 66: 1138–1153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Singh S, Allen AM, Wang Z, et al. Fibrosis progression in nonalcoholic fatty liver vs nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of paired-biopsy studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 643–654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Yki-Järvinen H. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease as a cause and a consequence of metabolic syndrome. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014; 2: 901–910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Satapathy SK, Sanyal AJ. Epidemiology and natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Semin Liver Dis 2015; 35(3): 221–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Hübscher SG. Histological assessment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Histopathology 2006; 49: 450–465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Ratziu V, Bellentani S, Cortezpinto H, et al. A position statement on NAFLD/NASH based on the EASL 2009 special conference. J Hepatol 2010; 53: 372–384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Haas JT, Francque S, Staels B. Pathophysiology and mechanisms of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Annu Rev Physiol 2016; 78: 181–205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Dowman JK, Tomlinson JW, Newsome PN. Pathogenesis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. QJM 2010; 103: 71–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Tilg H, Moschen AR. Evolution of inflammation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: the multiple parallel hits hypothesis. Hepatology 2010; 52: 1836–1846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Wong R J, Maria A, Ramsey C, et al. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the second leading etiology of liver disease among adults awaiting liver transplantation in the United States. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 547–555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Day CP, James OFW. Steatohepatitis: a tale of two “hits”? Gastroenterology 1998; 114: 842–845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Bugianesi E, Moscatiello S, Ciaravella MF, et al. Insulin resistance in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Curr Pharm Des 2010; 16: 1941–1951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Guilherme A, Virbasius JV, Puri V, et al. Adipocyte dysfunctions linking obesity to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2008; 9: 367–377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Cusi K. Role of insulin resistance and lipotoxicity in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Liver Dis 2009; 13: 545–563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Kirpich IA, Marsano LS, Mcclain CJ. Gut-liver axis, nutrition, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Biochem 2015; 48(13–14): 923–930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Yilmaz Y. Review article: is non-alcoholic fatty liver disease a spectrum, or are steatosis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis distinct conditions? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 36: 815–823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Buzzetti E, Pinzani M, Tsochatzis EA. The multiple-hit pathogenesis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Metabolism 2016; 65: 1038–1048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Baggiolini M. Chemokines and leukocyte traffic. Nature 1998; 392: 565–568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Mackay CR. Chemokines: immunology’s high impact factors. Nat Immunol 2001; 2: 95–101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Youn BS, Mantel C, Broxmeyer H. Chemokines, chemokine receptors and hematopoiesis. Immunol Rev 2000; 177: 150–174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Koch AE, Polverini PJ, Kunkel SL, et al. Interleukin-8 as a macrophage-derived mediator of angiogenesis. Science 1992; 258: 1798–1801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Rot A, von Andrian UH. Chemokines in innate and adaptive host defense: basic chemokinese grammar for immune cells. Annu Rev Immunol 2004; 22: 891–928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Griffith JW, Sokol CL, Luster AD. Chemokines and chemokine receptors: positioning cells for host defense and immunity. Annu Rev Immunol 2014; 32: 659–702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Rollins BJ. Chemokines. Blood 1997; 90: 909–928. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. ŁukaszewiczZając M, Mroczko B, Szmitkowski M. Chemokines and their receptors in esophageal cancer–the systematic review and future perspectives. Tumour Biol 2015; 36: 5707–5714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Nagarsheth N, Wicha M S, Zou W. Chemokines in the cancer microenvironment and their relevance in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol 2017; 17: 559–572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Sun X, Cheng G, Hao M, et al. CXCL12 / CXCR4 / CXCR7 chemokine axis and cancer progression. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2010; 29(4): 709–722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Zlotnik A, Yoshie O. Chemokines: a new classification system and their role in immunity. Immunity 2000; 12: 121–127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Ganz M, Szabo G. Immune and inflammatory pathways in NASH. Hepatol Int 2013; 7(Suppl. 2): 771–781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Huang W, Metlakunta A, Dedousis N, et al. Depletion of liver Kupffer cells prevents the development of diet-induced hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance. Diabetes 2010; 59: 347–357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Lanthier N, Molendicoste O, Cani PD, et al. Kupffer cell depletion prevents but has no therapeutic effect on metabolic and inflammatory changes induced by a high-fat diet. FASEB J 2011; 25: 4301–4311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Marra F, Tacke F. Roles for chemokines in liver disease. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 577–594.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Heymann F, Hammerich L, Storch D, et al. Hepatic macrophage migration and differentiation critical for liver fibrosis is mediated by the chemokine receptor C-C motif chemokine receptor 8 in mice. Hepatology 2012; 55: 898–909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Baeck C, Wei X, Bartneck M, et al. Pharmacological inhibition of the chemokine C-C motif chemokine ligand 2 (monocyte chemoattractant protein 1) accelerates liver fibrosis regression by suppressing Ly-6C+ macrophage infiltration in mice. Hepatology 2014; 59: 1060–1072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Seki E, De Minicis S, Inokuchi S, et al. CCR2 promotes hepatic fibrosis in mice. Hepatology 2009; 50: 185–197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Miura K, Yang L, Van RN, et al. Hepatic recruitment of macrophages promotes nonalcoholic steatohepatitis through CCR2. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2012; 302: G1310–G1321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Marra F, Tacke F. Roles for chemokines in liver disease. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 577–594.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Obstfeld AE, Eiji S, Marie T, et al. C-C chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) regulates the hepatic recruitment of myeloid cells that promote obesity-induced hepatic steatosis. Diabetes 2010; 59: 916–925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Tamura Y, Sugimoto M, Murayama T, et al. Inhibition of CCR2 ameliorates insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis in db/db mice. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2008; 28: 2195–2201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Tamura Y, Sugimoto M, Murayama T, et al. C-C chemokine receptor 2 inhibitor improves diet-induced development of insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis in mice. J Atheroscler Thromb 2010; 17: 219–228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Mulder P, Hoek AMVD, Kleemann R. The CCR2 inhibitor propagermanium attenuates diet-induced insulin resistance, adipose tissue inflammation and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. PLos One 2017; 12: e0169740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Pellicoro A, Ramachandran P, Iredale JP, et al. Liver fibrosis and repair: immune regulation of wound healing in a solid organ. Nat Rev Immunol 2014; 14:181–194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Sadeghi M, Lahdou I, Oweira H, et al. Serum levels of chemokines CCL4 and CCL5 in cirrhotic patients indicate the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2015; 113: 756–762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Jiang J, Ye F, Yang X, et al. Peri-tumor associated fibroblasts promote intrahepatic metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma by recruiting cancer stem cells. Cancer Lett 2017; 404: 19–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Heinrichs D, Berres ML, Nellen A, et al. The chemokine CCL3 promotes experimental liver fibrosis in mice. PLos One 2013; 8: e66106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Seki E, Schwabe RF. Hepatic inflammation and fibrosis: functional links and key pathways. Hepatology 2015; 61: 1066–1079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Kim BM, Abdelfattah AM, Vasan R, et al. Hepatic stellate cells secrete Ccl5 to induce hepatocyte steatosis. Sci Rep 2018; 8: 7499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Seki E, De Minicis S, Gwak GY, et al. CCR1 and CCR5 promote hepatic fibrosis in mice. J Clin Invest 2009; 119: 1858–1870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Berres ML, Koenen RR, Rueland A, et al. Antagonism of the chemokine Ccl5 ameliorates experimental liver fibrosis in mice. J Clin Invest 2010; 120: 4129–4140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Chu X, Jin Q, Chen H, et al. CCL20 is up-regulated in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis and is produced by hepatic stellate cells in response to fatty acid loading. J Transl Med 2018; 16: 108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Duffaut C, Zakaroff GAV. Interplay between human adipocytes and T lymphocytes in obesity: CCL20 as an adipochemokine and T lymphocytes as lipogenic modulators. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2009; 29: 1608–1614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Hou KZ, Fu ZQ, Gong H. Chemokine ligand 20 enhances progression of hepatocellular carcinoma via epithelial-mesenchymal transition. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 475–483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Ye LY, Chen W, Bai XL, et al. Hypoxia-induced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in hepatocellular carcinoma induces an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment to promote metastasis. Cancer Res 2016; 76: 818–830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Fujii H, Itoh Y, Yamaguchi K, et al. Chemokine CCL20 enhances the growth of HuH7 cells via phosphorylation of p44/42 MAPK in vitro. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2004; 322: 1052–1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Chen KJ, Lin SZ, Zhou L, et al. Selective recruitment of regulatory T cell through CCR6-CCL20 in hepatocellular carcinoma fosters tumor progression and predicts poor prognosis. PLoS One 2011; 6: e24671. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Chu PS, Nakamoto N, Ebinuma H, et al. C-C motif chemokine receptor 9 positive macrophages activate hepatic stellate cells and promote liver fibrosis in mice. Hepatology 2013; 58: 337–350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Zhou SL, Dai Z, Zhou ZJ, et al. Overexpression of CXCL5 mediates neutrophil infiltration and indicates poor prognosis for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2012; 56: 2242–2254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Saintigny P, Massarelli E, Lin S, et al. CXCR2 expression in tumor cells is a poor prognostic factor and promotes invasion and metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 2013; 73: 571–582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Singh S, Sadanandam A, Varney ML, et al. Small interfering RNA-mediated CXCR1 or CXCR2 knock-down inhibits melanoma tumor growth and invasion. Int J Cancer 2010; 126: 328–336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Matsuo Y, Raimondo M, Woodward TA, et al. CXC-Chemokine/CXCR2 biologic axis promotes angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo in pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 1027–1037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Zhou SL, Zhou ZJ, Hu ZQ, et al. CXCR2/CXCL5 axis contributes to epithelial-mesenchymal transition of HCC cells through activating PI3K/Akt/GSK-3β/Snail signaling. Cancer Lett 2015; 358: 124–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Li XP, Yang XY, Biskup E, et al. Co-expression of CXCL8 and HIF-1α is associated with metastasis and poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget 2015; 6: 22880–22889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Yin Z, Huang J, Ma T, et al. Macrophages activating chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 8/miR-17 cluster modulate hepatocellular carcinoma cell growth and metastasis. Am J Transl Res 2017; 9: 2403–2411. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Wasmuth HE, Lammert F, Zaldivar MM, et al. Antifibrotic effects of CXCL9 and its receptor CXCR3 in livers of mice and humans. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 309–319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Tacke F, Zimmermann HW, Berres ML, et al. Serum chemokine receptor CXCR3 ligands are associated with progression, organ dysfunction and complications of chronic liver diseases. Liver Int 2011; 31: 840–849. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Clarklewis I, Mattioli I, Gong JH, et al. Structure-function relationship between the human chemokine receptor CXCR3 and its ligands. J Biol Chem 2003; 278: 289–295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Zhang X, Han J, Man K, et al. CXC chemokine receptor 3 promotes steatohepatitis in mice through mediating inflammatory cytokines, macrophages and autophagy. J Hepatol 2016; 64: 160–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Oo YH, Shetty S, Adams DH. The role of chemokines in the recruitment of lymphocytes to the liver. Dig Dis 2010; 28: 31–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Berres ML, Nellen A, Wasmuth HE. Chemokines as immune mediators of liver diseases related to the metabolic syndrome. Dig Dis 2010; 28: 192–196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Xu Z, Zhang X, Jennie L, et al. C-X-C motif chemokine 10 in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: role as a pro-inflammatory factor and clinical implication. Expert Rev Mol Med 2016; 18: e16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Zhang X, Shen J, Man K, et al. CXCL10 plays a key role as an inflammatory mediator and a non-invasive biomarker of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J Hepatol 2014; 61: 1365–1375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Kyoko T, Freeman BL, Bronk SF, et al. CXCL10-mediates macrophage, but not other innate immune cells-associated inflammation in murine nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 28786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Berres ML, Lehmann J, Jansen C, et al. Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 11 levels predict survival in cirrhotic patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Liver Int 2016; 36: 386–394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Ghanem I, Riveiro ME, Paradis V, et al. Insights on the CXCL12-CXCR4 axis in hepatocellular carcinoma carcinogenesis. Am J Transl Res 2014; 6: 340–352. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Shah AD, Bouchard MJ, Shieh AC. Interstitial fluid flow increases hepatocellular carcinoma cell invasion through CXCR4/CXCL12 and MEK/ERK signaling. PLos One 2015; 10: e0142337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Aghi M, Cohen KR, Scadden D, et al. Tumor stromal-derived factor-1 recruits vascular progenitors to mitotic neovasculature, where microenvironment influences their differentiated phenotypes. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 9054–9064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Xiang Z, Zeng Z, Tang Z, et al. Chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma patients increases the risk of bone metastases and poor survival. BMC Cancer 2009; 9:176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. García-Irigoyen O, Latasa MU, Carotti S, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase 10 contributes to hepatocarcinogenesis in a novel crosstalk with the stromal derived factor 1/C-X-C chemokine receptor 4 axis. Hepatology 2015; 62: 166–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Lin L, Han MM, Wang F, et al. CXCR7 stimulates MAPK signaling to regulate hepatocellular carcinoma progression. Cell Death Dis 2014; 5: e1488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Geissmann F, Cameron TO, Sidobre S, et al. Intravascular immune surveillance by CXCR6+ NKT cells patrolling liver sinusoids. PLoS Biol 2005; 3: e113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Wehr A, Baeck C, Heymann F, et al. Chemokine receptor CXCR6-dependent hepatic NK T Cell accumulation promotes inflammation and liver fibrosis. J Immunol 2013; 190: 5226–5236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Gao B, Radaeva S, Park O. Liver natural killer and natural killer T cells: immunobiology and emerging roles in liver diseases. J Leukoc Biol 2009; 86: 513–528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Efsen E, Grappone C, Defranco RMS, et al. Up-regulated expression of fractalkine and its receptor CX3CR1 during liver injury in humans. J Hepatol 2002; 37: 39–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Wasmuth HE, Zaldivar MM, Berres ML, et al. The fractalkine receptor CX3CR1 is involved in liver fibrosis due to chronic hepatitis C infection. J Hepatol 2008; 48: 208–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Sutti S, Heymann F, Bruzzì S, et al. CX3CR1 modulates the anti-inflammatory activity of hepatic dendritic cells in response to acute liver injury. Clin Sci (Lond) 2017; pii: CS20171025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Karlmark KR, Zimmermann HW, Roderburg C, et al. The fractalkine receptor CX₃CR1 protects against liver fibrosis by controlling differentiation and survival of infiltrating hepatic monocytes. Hepatology 2010; 52: 1769–1782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Aoyama T, Inokuchi S, Brenner DA, et al. CX3CL1-CX3CR1 interaction prevents CCl4-induced liver inflammation and fibrosis. Hepatology 2010; 52: 1390–1400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Kanneganti TD, Dixit VD. Immunological complications of obesity. Nat Immunol 2012; 13: 707–712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Xu H, Barnes GT, Yang Q, et al. Chronic inflammation in fat plays a crucial role in the development of obesity-related insulin resistance. J Clin Invest 2003; 112: 1821–1830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93. Mukaida N. Pathophysiological roles of interleukin-8/CXCL8 in pulmonary diseases. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2003; 284: 566–577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94. Miura K, Yang L, Van RN, et al. Hepatic recruitment of macrophages promotes nonalcoholic steatohepatitis through CCR2. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2012; 302: G1310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95. Baeck C, Wehr A, Karlmark KR, et al. Pharmacological inhibition of the chemokine CCL2 (MCP-1) diminishes liver macrophage infiltration and steatohepatitis in chronic hepatic injury. Gut 2012; 61: 416–426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Friedman S, Sanyal A, Goodman Z, et al. Efficacy and safety study of cenicriviroc for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in adult subjects with liver fibrosis: CENTAUR phase 2b study design. Contemp Clin Trials 2016; 47: 356–365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97. Sanyal AJ, Ratziu V, Harrison S, et al. Cenicriviroc placebo for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis with liver fibrosis: results from the year 1 primary analysis of the phase 2b CENTAUR study. Hepatology 2016; 64: 1118A–1119A. [Google Scholar]
  • 98. Tacke F. Cenicriviroc for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2018; 27: 301–311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99. Cynis H, Kehlen A, Haegele M, et al. Inhibition of Glutaminyl Cyclases alleviates CCL2-mediated inflammation of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in mice. Int J Exp Pathol 2013; 94: 217–225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100. Pérez-Martínez L, Pérez-Matute P, Aguilera-Lizarraga J, et al. Maraviroc, a CCR5 antagonist, ameliorates the development of hepatic steatosis in a mouse model of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69: 1903–1910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101. Ibrahim SH, Hirsova P, Tomita K, et al. Mixed lineage kinase 3 mediates release of C-X-C motif ligand 10-bearing chemotactic extracellular vesicles from lipotoxic hepatocytes. Hepatology 2016; 63: 731–744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102. Wehr A, Baeck C, Ulmer F, et al. Pharmacological inhibition of the chemokine CXCL16 diminishes liver macrophage infiltration and steatohepatitis in chronic hepatic injury. PLos One 2014; 9: e112327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103. Tamura Y, Sugimoto M, Murayama T, et al. C-C chemokine receptor 2 inhibitor improves diet-induced development of insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis in mice. J Atheroscler Thromb 2010; 17: 219–228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104. Yang SJ, Iglayreger HB, Kadouh HC, et al. Inhibition of the chemokine (C–C motif) ligand 2/chemokine (C–C motif) receptor 2 pathway attenuates hyperglycaemia and inflammation in a mouse model of hepatic steatosis and lipoatrophy. Diabetologia 2009; 52: 972–981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105. Tamura Y, Sugimoto M, Murayama T, et al. Inhibition of CCR2 ameliorates insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis in db/db mice. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2008; 28: 2195–2201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES