Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Jul 12;17(7):e0271308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271308

Sex-, age-, and organ-dependent improvement of bile acid hydrophobicity by ursodeoxycholic acid treatment: A study using a mouse model with human-like bile acid composition

Hajime Ueda 1, Akira Honda 1,2,*, Teruo Miyazaki 2, Yukio Morishita 3, Takeshi Hirayama 1, Junichi Iwamoto 1, Nobuhiro Nakamoto 4, Tadashi Ikegami 1
Editor: Gianfranco D Alpini5
PMCID: PMC9275687  PMID: 35819971

Abstract

Cyp2a12-/-Cyp2c70-/- double knockout (DKO) mice have a human-like hydrophobic bile acid (BA) composition and show reduced fertility and liver injury. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is a hydrophilic and cytoprotective BA used to treat various liver injuries in humans. This study investigated the effects of orally administered UDCA on fertility and liver injury in DKO mice. UDCA treatment prevented abnormal delivery (miscarriage and preterm birth) in pregnant DKO mice, presumably by increasing the hydrophilicity of serum BAs. UDCA also prevented liver damage in six-week-old DKO mice, however liver injury emerged in UDCA-treated 20-week-old female, but not male, DKO mice. In 20-week-old male UDCA-treated DKO mice, conjugated plus unconjugated UDCA proportions in serum, liver, and bile were 71, 64, and 71% of the total BAs, respectively. In contrast, conjugated plus unconjugated UDCA proportions in serum, liver, and bile of females were 56, 34, and 58% of the total BAs, respectively. The UDCA proportion was considerably low in female liver only and was compensated by highly hydrophobic lithocholic acid (LCA). Therefore, UDCA treatment markedly reduced the BA hydrophobicity index in the male liver but not in females. This appears to be why UDCA treatment causes liver injury in 20-week-old female mice. To explore the cause of LCA accumulation in the female liver, we evaluated the hepatic activity of CYP3A11 and SULT2A1, which metabolize LCAs to more hydrophilic BAs. However, there was no evidence to suggest that either enzyme activity was lower in females than in males. As female mice have a larger BA pool than males, excessive loading of LCAs on the hepatic bile salt export pump (BSEP) may be the reason for the hepatic accumulation of LCAs in female DKO mice with prolonged UDCA treatment. Our results suggest that the improvement of BA hydrophobicity in DKO mice by UDCA administration is sex-, age-, and organ-dependent.

Introduction

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is synthesized in the liver and is a major primary bile acid (BA) in nutria [1] and some species in Ursidae [2]. In humans, UDCA is not a primary BA and is made by intestinal bacteria from a primary BA, chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) [3]. Therefore, UDCA is not a principal constituent of the total BA pool in humans. More than a half-century ago, UDCA was reported as a unique BA having cytoprotective and anti-cholestatic properties. Since then, UDCA has been used for the treatment of various hepatobiliary diseases, including cholelithiasis, primary biliary cholangitis, chronic hepatitis, and drug-induced liver injury [4].

The mouse is the most commonly used laboratory animal to extrapolate investigations about human hepatobiliary diseases such as cholelithiasis [5], autoimmune hepatitis [6], primary biliary cholangitis [6], primary sclerosing cholangitis [6], and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [7]. However, the BA compositions in mice and humans are substantially different. For example, cholic acid (CA) and CDCA are end products in the human liver, whereas CDCA is further metabolized to muricholic acids (MCAs) by CYP2C70 in the mouse liver (Fig 1) [8]. In addition, CA and CDCA are metabolized by the gut microbiota into secondary BAs, deoxycholic acid (DCA) and lithocholic acid (LCA), respectively, and mouse liver CYP2A12 but not human liver enzymes can convert these secondary BAs to primary BAs [8]. Therefore, the hepatobiliary concentrations of secondary BAs are almost deficient in mice compared with those in humans.

Fig 1. Comparison of bile acid (BA) metabolism between human and mouse.

Fig 1

CA and CDCA are end products in the human liver, but the mouse liver further metabolizes CDCA to MCAs by CYP2C70. In addition, the mouse liver can convert secondary BAs, DCA and LCA, into CA and CDCA by CYP2A12. Because of the low intestinal re-absorption rate (human and mouse) and small CDCA pool (wild-type mouse), the enterohepatic circulation of LCA is usually less (thin arrows) than those of other BAs (thick arrows). Knockout of the Cyp2a12 and Cyp2c70 genes results in mice with a human-like hydrophobic BA composition. Cyp2a12 and Cyp2c70 are genes responsible for hepatic BA 7α-hydroxylation and CDCA 6β-hydroxylation, respectively.

To overcome these limitations, we recently generated Cyp2a12-/-Cyp2c70-/- double knockout (DKO) mice. These mice have a human-like BA composition lacking MCAs and increasing CDCAs, DCAs, and LCAs. However, due to the increased hydrophobicity of BAs, these mice exhibited liver injury, reduced fertility, and high post-weaning mortality [8]. UDCA is less hydrophilic than mouse MCAs but more hydrophilic than human principal BAs, CA, CDCA, DCA, and LCA [9]. Therefore, we hypothesized that UDCA administration might improve liver damage, fertility, and post-weaning mortality in DKO mice.

In the present study, we orally administered UDCA to both male and female DKO mice and evaluated the effects on the health problems of these mice. The results demonstrated that UDCA significantly improved fertility and post-weaning mortality in DKO mice. UDCA also improved liver injury in DKO mice at six weeks of age in both sexes. However, at 20 weeks of age, the improvement in liver damage was maintained only in males.

Materials and methods

Animals

Cyp2a12-/-Cyp2c70-/- DKO mice were prepared in the manner described previously [8]. Mice were kept under a regular 12-hour light-dark cycle (light period: 6:00–18:00) with free access to regular chow (CRF-1, Oriental Yeast Co., Ltd., Japan) and water in pathogen-free conditions. The UDCA solution was prepared by diluting ursodeoxycholate 2367.4 mg/100 mL injection (DS Pharma Animal Health Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan) with distilled water to a final concentration of 75 mg/100 mL. This solution was administered in the drinking water after weaning at three weeks of age, equivalent to a dose of 150 mg/kg/day. Matings were made at nine weeks of age (n = 85). Pregnancy and delivery rates were compared between groups treated with UDCA (n = 75) and untreated controls (n = 10). The litters were also maintained with UDCA and divided randomly into two groups: one (male, n = 16; female, n = 13) in which UDCA was discontinued at six weeks of age and the other (male, n = 4; female, n = 4) was continued until 20 weeks of age. After fasting for four hours with free access to water, the animals were euthanized by exsanguination under combination anesthesia with medetomidine, midazolam, and butorphanol. The serum, gallbladder, liver, small intestine, and feces were collected and frozen at –80°C until analysis. The Animal Experiment Committee of Tokyo Medical University approved the experimental design (Permission #H30-0069, H31-0064, R2-0013, and R3-0010).

Liver function analysis

Serum activities of alanine and aspartate transaminases (ALT and AST) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were measured by colorimetric assays using Transaminase CII-Test Wako and LabAssay ALP (FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, Osaka, Japan), respectively.

Determination of BA concentrations

The concentrations of each BA in the liver, bile, small intestine, feces, and serum were measured using a LC-MS/MS method, as described previously [8].

Determination of lipid concentrations

Total cholesterol concentrations in the liver and serum were determined by colorimetric assay using Cholesterol E-Test Wako (FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation). In addition, serum and hepatic concentrations of sterols and oxysterols were determined using the previously described LC-MS/MS method [8].

Histopathological examination

Liver samples were fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin and embedded in paraffin blocks. Each paraffin block was cut into 4 μm sections and stained using hematoxylin and eosin. Immunohistochemical (IHC) stain was carried out using an auto-stain system with the exclusive reagents (Discovery XT system, VENTANA®, Roche Diagnostics K.K., Basel, Schweiz) and Mouse on Mouse blocking method [10]. Deparaffinized 4 μm thick specimens of liver tissue were heated with Tris-EDTA buffer pH 7.8 or citrate-based buffer pH 6.5 at 95°C for 30–60 minutes for antigen retrieval and then were blocked with purified normal mouse IgG (FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation) and Protein Concentrate solutions (M.O.M.® Immunodetection Kit, Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) for 1 hour and 5 minutes, respectively. After that, the specimens were incubated with each of the primary polyclonal antibodies of F4/80 (1:400; Proteintech®, Rosemont, IL), cytokeratin 19 (CK19, 1:4000; Proteintech®), and myeloperoxidase (MPO, pre-diluted; VENTANA®) for 32 min at 37°C. Thereafter, the incubations with secondary antibody and detection were developed using the VENTANA ultraView universal DAB detection kit (VENTANA®), and the nucleus and cytoplasm were stained by the Hematoxylin II Counterstain (VENTANA®) and the bluing reagent (VENTANA®), respectively. Specific immunoreaction of the primary antibodies was confirmed by incubation without each antibody.

Determination of mRNA expression

An aliquot of the liver specimen was stored in RNAlater (Thermo Fisher Scientific) at -80°C until RNA isolation. Then, as described previously [8], total RNA extraction, reverse transcription, and real-time quantitative PCR were performed. The sequences of the oligonucleotide primer pairs used to amplify mRNAs are shown in the S1 Table. mRNA expression levels were standardized to those of Gapdh, and the mean expression levels in male UDCA-untreated mice were set to 1.0.

Preparation of liver microsomes

The liver specimen was homogenized with a loose-fitting Teflon pestle in 4 volumes of 3 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) containing 0.25 M sucrose and 0.1 mM EDTA. The homogenate was centrifuged at 700 g for 10 min, the supernatant was re-centrifuged at 7,000 g for 20 min, and the supernatant was further centrifuged at 105,000 g for 90 min. The pellet was suspended in 100 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) containing 1 mM EDTA, 5 mM dithiothreitol, 50 mM KCl, and 20% glycerol (v/v).

Enzyme assays

The activities of hepatic microsomal 6α-hydroxylation, 6β-hydroxylation, and 7α-hydroxylation of taurolithocholic acid (TLCA) were measured according to a method described previously [8]. Briefly, microsomes were incubated with 200 μM of TLCA and NADPH generating system, and BAs were extracted with Bond Elut C18 cartridges. Taurohyodeoxycholic acid (THDCA), tauromurideoxycholic acid (TMDCA), and TCDCA were quantified by LC-MS/MS. In addition, hepatic microsomal cholesterol 7α-hydroxylase (CYP7A1) activities were assayed as described previously [11].

Determination of serum FGF15 concentrations

Serum fibroblast growth factor 15 (FGF15) levels were measured by mouse FGF15 ELISA kit (Catalog #MBS2700661, MyBiosource, Inc., San Diego, CA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Statistics

Data are expressed as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical significance of the contingency between the two kinds of classification was evaluated using the Fisher’s exact test. Statistically significant differences between groups were evaluated using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey–Kramer test. For all analyses, significance was accepted at the level of p < 0.05. Correlations were tested by calculating non-parametric Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, rs. All statistical analyses were conducted using Prism (ver. 9.1.0) software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

Results

Effects of UDCA administration on the breeding efficiency of DKO mice

The reproductive capacity of DKO mice was lower than that of wild-type mice, and 20% to 25% of the mice unexpectedly died within a week of weaning (four weeks of age) [8]. UDCA administration did not improve the pregnancy rate or the number of pups per litter but significantly improved the normal delivery rate by inhibiting miscarriage and preterm birth (Table 1). In addition, UDCA treatment completely prevented unexpected deaths after weaning.

Table 1. Effects of UDCA administration on the fertility of DKO mice.

Parameter Groups With UDCA Without UDCA P-value
Pregnancy / Mating Mating n = 75 n = 10 NS
Pregnancy 53 a (70.7%) 8 (80.0%)
No pregnancy 22 (29.3%) 2 (20.0%)
Delivery / Pregnancy Pregnancy n = 43a n = 8 < 0.005
Normal delivery 43 (100%) 5 (62.5%)
Abnormal deliveryb 0 (0%) 3 (37.5%)
Number of pups / Litter Normal delivery n = 43 n = 5
Number of pups 226 26
Per litter 5.3 5.2

aTen pregnant individuals were euthanized for population control.

bAbnormal delivery includes miscarriage and preterm birth. Fisher exact tests were used to assess the association of UDCA administration with pregnancy and delivery rates. NS, not significant.

Effects of UDCA treatment on liver injury of DKO mice

Liver function tests at 20 weeks of age were compared between DKO mice continuously treated with UDCA and those discontinued UDCA at six weeks of age (Fig 2A). In UDCA-untreated (discontinued at six weeks) 20-week-old mice, serum ALT activities were above the normal range. UDCA treatment significantly reduced the ALT levels in male but not female mice. Serum AST activities were normal or marginally elevated in UDCA-untreated mice, and UDCA treatment tended to increase the levels in female mice, although the difference was not statistically significant. ALP activities in both sexes were almost normal and were not changed significantly by UDCA administration. We compared liver histopathology among UDCA-untreated and treated 20-week-old mice in both sexes (Fig 2B). In comparison, UDCA-treated six-week-old DKO mice showed no significant histological findings (S1 Fig), supported by normal serum ALT activities (S2 Fig). In both sexes of 20-week-old mice, we observed bile ductular reaction, infiltration of neutrophils and lymphocytes, and focal necrosis of hepatocytes, irrespective of UDCA treatment. However, the chronic inflammation and hepatocyte damage were generally mild in male UDCA-treated mice compared with the other three groups of mice. The proliferation of bile ductular structure was confirmed by IHC stain of CK19 (S3 Fig). Infiltration of macrophages were assessed by IHC stain of F4/80 and mRNA expression levels of Cd68 and Cd163 (S4 Fig), and that of neutrophils and T cells were determined by IHC stain of MPO and mRNA expression levels of Mpo, Cd4, and Cd8 (S5 Fig).

Fig 2. Effects of UDCA treatment on liver injury.

Fig 2

DKO mice were bred under UDCA administration, and offspring in both sexes were divided into two groups: one stopped receiving UDCA at six weeks of age while the other continued UDCA until 20 weeks. (A) Serum activities of AST, ALT, and ALP in mice at 20 weeks with (+) or without (discontinued) (-) UDCA treatment. The blue shaded areas indicate the normal ranges. (B) Representative histopathologic features of the livers at the age of 20 weeks with or without UDCA treatment. Hematoxylin/eosin stain. Scale bars, 100 μm. Arrows indicate ductular reaction (black), infiltration of immune cells (red), and focal necrosis of hepatocytes (blue). (C) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of inflammatory cytokines in mice at 20 weeks with or without UDCA treatment. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001 were considered statistically significantly different by the Tukey-Kramer test.

Hepatic mRNA expression levels of inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor-α (Tnfa), interleukin-1β (Il1b), chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (Ccl2), and transforming growth factor-β1 (Tgfb1) were compared in 20-week-old mice treated with and without (discontinued) UDCA. UDCA treatment did not affect Il1b expression but significantly upregulated Tnfa, Ccl2, and Tgfb1 in female mice (Fig 2C).

Effects of UDCA treatment on BA pool and fecal BA excretion

We compared the composition of BAs in the enterohepatic circulation and feces in 20-week-old DKO mice treated with or without UDCA. The total BA pool in each group was calculated by summing the amounts of all BAs in the liver, gallbladder, and small intestine. Although glycine-conjugated BAs were also detected, they were excluded because their proportion was less than 1% of taurine-conjugated BAs. UDCA administration markedly increased proportions and amounts of UDCAs and decreased CDCAs in the total BA pool (Fig 3A, S2 and S3 Tables). The total BA pool in female DKO mice was significantly larger than in males, irrespective of UDCA treatment, and the pools tended to increase after treatment with UDCA in both sexes (Fig 3B). In addition, UDCA treatment markedly increased fecal excretion of BAs (Fig 3B). In UDCA-treated DKO mice, the fecal proportions of UDCAs were significantly increased, but the most abundant fecal BAs in these mice were unconjugated LCA in both sexes (Fig 3A, S4 and S5 Tables).

Fig 3. Effects of UDCA treatment on BA pool and fecal BA excretion.

Fig 3

DKO mice at 20 weeks of age, with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment, were compared. (A) Composition of BAs in the total BA pool and feces. The total BA pool in the enterohepatic circulation was calculated by adding total BAs in the liver, gallbladder, and small intestine. The broken line indicates the boundary between conjugated and unconjugated BAs. (B) BA amounts in the total pool and feces. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01 were considered statistically significantly different by the Tukey-Kramer test.

Effects of UDCA treatment on BA composition and concentrations in serum, liver, and bile

To investigate sex difference mechanisms of UDCA induced liver injury, we compared BA composition, concentrations, and hydrophobicity indexes in serum, liver, and bile among male and female DKO mice with or without UDCA treatment. The analyses of BA compositions and concentrations in the liver indicated that the proportion (Fig 4A and S6 Table) and concentration (Fig 4B and S7 Table) of TLCAs were markedly elevated in female UDCA-treated mice compared with male UDCA-treated mice. However, biliary TLCA proportions were quite similar between male and female UDCA-treated mice (Fig 4A and S8 Table), although the total biliary BA amount in female mice was more than double that in male mice (Fig 4B and S9 Table). Regarding serum BA compositions, conjugated BAs were increased in UDCA-treated mice compared with UDCA-untreated mice (Fig 4A and S10 Table). The proportions (Fig 4A and S10 Table) and concentrations (Fig 4B and S11 Table) of serum LCAs were not significantly different between male and female mice treated with UDCA. UDCA treatment significantly decreased serum and biliary hydrophobicity indexes in both sexes of mice (Fig 4C). The liver hydrophobicity index was also decreased in male UDCA-treated mice but was unchanged in female UDCA-treated mice due to the accumulation of TLCA. Serum ALT activities were highly correlated with hydrophobicity indexes in the liver (rs = 0.9127, n = 19, p < 0.0001), suggesting the accumulation of TLCA in the liver causes liver injury in female mice after UDCA treatment.

Fig 4. Comparison of BA compositions, concentrations, and hydrophobicity indices among serum, liver, and bile.

Fig 4

DKO mice at 20 weeks of age, with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment, were compared. (A) BA compositions in serum, liver, and bile. The broken lines indicate the boundary between conjugated and unconjugated BAs. (B) BA concentrations in serum, liver, and bile. *P < 0.05 was considered statistically significantly different from UDCA treated male mice by the Tukey-Kramer test. (C) Hydrophobicity indices of total BAs in serum, liver, and bile. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ****P < 0.0001 were considered statistically significantly different by the Tukey-Kramer test.

Comparative activities of LCA detoxification between male and female DKO mice

To explore why UDCA treatment causes hepatic TLCA accumulation and liver injury, especially in female DKO mice, we measured LCA detoxification activity in the liver. As shown in Fig 5A, most LCA is conjugated with taurine in the liver. Although WT mice convert almost all hepatic TLCA to T-βMCA through TCDCA; DKO mice do not have this pathway. Therefore, three additional pathways detoxifying LCAs by 3α-sulfation, 6α-hydroxylation, and 6β-hydroxylation [12] appear important in DKO mice. SULT2A1 catalyzes 3α-sulfation of LCA and TLCA to form LCA-3-sulfate (LCA-3S) and TLCA-3S. However, hepatic LCA-3S and TLCA-3S concentrations and mRNA expression levels of Sult2a1 did not support the hypothesis that SULT2A1 was downregulated in UDCA-treated female mice (Fig 5B). Hydroxylation of LCA (TLCA) at 6α- and 6β-positions are catalyzed by CYP3A11 and form HDCA (THDCA) and MDCA (TMDCA), respectively. However, the possibility that CYP3A11 was downregulated in UDCA-treated female mice was also ruled out by the results of HDCA and MDCA concentrations and mRNA expression levels of Cyp3a11 in the liver (Fig 5C).

Fig 5. Comparison of LCA detoxification activities.

Fig 5

DKO mice at 20 weeks of age, with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment, were compared. (A) Proposed metabolic pathways for LCA in mice. (B) Hepatic concentrations of LCA-3S and TLCA-3S and mRNA expression levels of Sult2a1. (C) Hepatic concentrations of HDCAs (HDCA + THDCA) and MDCAs (MDCA + TMDCA) and mRNA expression levels of Cyp3a11. (D) Hepatic microsomal enzyme activities that catalyze 6α-, 6β-, and 7α-hydroxylations of TLCA. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01 were considered statistically significantly different by the Tukey-Kramer test.

In addition to determining hepatic BA concentrations and mRNA expression levels, we directly measured hepatic microsomal enzyme activities that catalyze 6α-, 6β-, and 7α-hydroxylation of TLCA (Fig 5D). However, a significant reduction of these enzyme activities was not observed in UDCA-treated female mice. In DKO mice, we detected significant activity of TLCA 7α-hydroxylation, despite lacking Cyp2a12. Therefore, it is suggested that TLCA 7α-hydroxylase activity is catalyzed not only by CYP2A12 but also by CYP2A22 [8]. However, the fact that TLCA 7α-hydroxylase was not upregulated in UDCA-treated DKO mice indicates that the accumulated LCAs do not induce Cyp2a22.

Regulation of Cyp3a11 and Sult2a1 expression by nuclear receptors in DKO mice

As shown in Fig 5C and 5B, Cyp3a11 in both sexes and Sult2a1 in females were significantly upregulated by treatment with UDCA. Nuclear receptors, pregnane X receptor (PXR, NR1I2), constitutive androstane receptor (CAR, NR1I3), and vitamin D receptor (VDR, NR1I1), are all known to stimulate the expression of Cyp3a11. However, Cyp2b10, a target gene of CAR, was not upregulated in UDCA-treated mice (Fig 6A). Therefore, PXR and VDR appear to be primary LCA receptors that upregulate hepatic Cyp3a11 in this model. Conversely, the regulation of Sult2a1 is complex. Previous studies have shown that CAR, VDR, hepatocyte nuclear factor 4α (HNF4α, NR2A1), and liver X receptor α (LXRα, NR1H3) upregulate while PXR and FXR downregulate Sult2a1. In our UDCA treated mice, the stimulation of Sult2a1 was not explained by the activation of CAR (target gene: Cyp2b10) or HNF4α or deactivation of PXR (target gene: Cyp3a11) or FXR (target genes: Shp and Bsep). Because LXRα target genes, i.e., Srebp1, Abcg5, and Abcg8, were virtually upregulated in these mice, the activation of LXRα and VDR may have stimulated Sult2a1 in this model.

Fig 6. Effects of UDCA treatment on hepatic cholesterol and BA metabolism.

Fig 6

DKO mice at 20 weeks of age, with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment were compared. (A) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of nuclear receptors and their target genes. (B) Hepatic concentrations of cholesterol and oxysterols. CHOL, cholesterol; HC, hydroxycholesterol; EC, epoxycholesterol. (C) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of the key enzyme in the cholesterol biosynthetic pathway and serum sterol concentrations associated with cholesterol metabolism. (D) Hepatic activities and mRNA expression levels of key enzymes in the BA biosynthetic pathways and serum concentrations of FGF15. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ****P < 0.0001 were considered statistically significantly different by the Tukey-Kramer test.

To determine the reason for the activation of LXRα in UDCA-treated DKO mice, we quantified hepatic concentrations of cholesterol and LXRα ligand oxysterols. As shown in Fig 6B, both sexes of UDCA-treated mice showed significantly elevated hepatic cholesterol and 25-hydroxycholesterol concentrations. Hepatic cholesterol accumulation was not due to increased cholesterol biosynthesis, intestinal cholesterol absorption, or decreased biliary cholesterol excretion. Hepatic expression levels of HMG-CoA reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme in the cholesterol biosynthetic pathway, and serum lathosterol and 7-dehydrocholesterol concentrations, indicators of cholesterol biosynthesis, were not increased in UDCA-treated DKO mice (Fig 6C). In addition, serum concentrations of sitosterol and campesterol, surrogate markers of cholesterol absorption, did not increase (Fig 6C), and hepatic Abcg5 and Abcg8, transporters for the excretion of cholesterol into bile, did not decrease in these mice (Fig 6A). Since UDCA-treated mice tended to have downregulated Cyp7a1 and Cyp8b1, the inhibited classic bile acid biosynthetic pathway may explain the increased hepatic cholesterol concentrations in these mice (Fig 6D).

Discussion

In DKO mice without UDCA treatment, the infertility rate was approximately 20% (Table 1), higher than that of wild-type C57BL/6J mice (~6%, unpublished observation). Testes express BA responsive membrane receptor, Takeda G-protein receptor 5 (TGR5) [13], and nuclear FXR [14]. It has been reported that BAs reduce sperm production through the activation of TGR5 [15]. In addition, the activation of FXR induces apoptosis of germ cells by decreasing testosterone synthesis [16] or suppresses sperm production by maintaining an undifferentiated germ cell pool in an androgen-independent manner [17]. In females, the roles of BAs on oocyte maturation are still unknown, however effects are suspected [18]. Though, the deactivation of TGR5 and FXR by UDCA treatment did not improve the low pregnancy rate of the DKO mice.

On the other hand, UDCA treatment markedly improved frequent miscarriage and preterm birth (Table 1) and unexpected deaths after weaning [8]. Frequent preterm birth is a characteristic feature of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) [19]. A recent report demonstrated that serum total BA concentrations directly correlated with the preterm birth rates in pregnant women, including ICP [20]. In addition, serum BAs but not liver injury induced preterm delivery in pregnant mice [20]. The upregulation of myometrial oxytocin receptors by CA is thought to be one of the factors for preterm delivery [21]. In female DKO mice, serum total BA concentration was more than twice as high as that in female wild-type mice [8]. UDCA treatment further increased the serum total BA concentration in female DKO mice but completely prevented abnormal delivery. Although no reports compare the effects of different BAs on preterm birth, reducing the serum BA hydrophobicity index by UDCA treatment might have inhibited abnormal delivery (Fig 4B and 4C). In contrast, UDCA treatment was ineffective in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes in patients with ICP [22]. Therefore, it is unclear whether pregnant DKO mice would be a good model for ICP.

Discontinuation of UDCA at six weeks of age returned the BA composition to the original human-like composition and induced liver injury within two weeks (S2 Fig). On the other hand, continuous administration of UDCA prevented hepatotoxicity in males, but liver damage appeared in females after raising until 20 weeks of age (Fig 2B). Therefore, we performed a BA analysis of each organ to determine the reason for liver damage in UDCA-treated female DKO mice. BA composition in the enterohepatic circulation (total pool) and feces indicated that most UDCA was transformed into LCA by gut microbiota, and higher proportions of TLCA in the enterohepatic circulation were observed in DKO mice with UDCA than in those without UDCA (Fig 3A). In addition, the proportion and concentration of LCAs in the liver from UDCA-treated mice were significantly higher in females than in males. However, serum and biliary proportion and concentration of LCAs were not significantly different between UDCA-treated male and female mice (Fig 4A and 4B). These results suggest that 20-week-old female DKO mice are more likely to accumulate TLCA in the liver when UDCA is administered. As a result, UDCA treatment did not reduce the BA hydrophobicity index, only in the liver of female mice (Fig 4C). In addition, serum ALT activities varied among UDCA-treated female mice, and the mouse with higher ALT levels had a higher concentration of TLCA in liver tissue.

Why does TLCA accumulate in the liver of female DKO mice after long-term administration of UDCA? LCAs are sulfate-conjugated at the 3α-position in the liver to form LCAs-3S. This conjugation is a significant pathway to protect against LCA-induced hepatotoxicity [23], and SULT2A1 catalyzes this reaction [24]. However, our data suggest that reducing SULT2A1 activity does not cause the accumulation of TLCA in the UDCA-treated female mice because hepatic Sult2a1 expression and the concentrations of hepatic LCAs-3S increased in the female mice (Fig 5B). Other pathways to detoxify LCAs are hydroxylations at the 6α and 6β positions to form HDCAs and MDCAs, respectively. Human CYP3A is known to catalyze both reactions [25], and the latter reaction may also be catalyzed by CYP2C70 in WT mice [26] but not in DKO mice. However, hepatic Cyp3a11 expression, activity, and concentrations of hepatic HDCA and MDCA did not decrease in UDCA-treated female mice (Fig 5C and 5D). Thus, we cannot elucidate the cause of TLCA accumulation in the liver of female mice by reducing detoxifying enzyme activity.

Another possible cause of TLCA accumulation in the liver of female mice is the insufficient biliary excretion of TLCA due to higher production of LCAs and/or larger BA pool size, including LCAs. For the former, the expression of hepatic Cyp8b1 was significantly lower in females than in males (Fig 6D), which suggests that the female CDCA/CA production ratio is higher than that in males. In addition to the exogenously added UDCA, significant CDCA synthesis may have contributed to the higher production of LCA in female DKO mice. For the latter, in both wild-type C57BL/6 and CD-1 mice, the BA pools are larger in females than males [27], which may be the opposite of what has been found in humans [28]. In addition, liver BA concentrations, including TLCA, were also higher in female C57BL/6 mice than males [29]. In our study, the BA pool in female DKO mice was larger than in males irrespective of UDCA treatment (Fig 3B). It is not clear whether TLCA is an excellent substrate for mouse BSEP like human BSEP [30], but the hepatic expression of BSEP did not upregulate despite the accumulated LCA in UDCA-treated female mice (Fig 6A). LCA is reported to decrease expression of BSEP through FXR antagonist activity [31], which may explain the reason for the inhibited upregulation of BSEP in the female DKO mice. It may be mentioned here that basolateral BA efflux transporters are also important for hepatic BA clearance. Organic solute transporter β (OSTβ) is regulated by FXR, while multidrug resistance-associated proteins 3 and 4 (MRP3 and MRP4) are controlled by FXR independent manner [32]. In UDCA-treated female DKO mice, these transporters were not significantly upregulated either (S6 Fig).

The increased serum LCA concentration from high-dose UDCA treatment has also been reported in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis [33]. These patients received UDCA at a dose of 28 to 30 mg/kg/day, while we calculated the UDCA amount administered to our DKO mice was approximately 150 mg/kg/day. The patients’ proportions of serum LCA, DCA, UDCA, CDCA, and CA were 8%, 8%, 74%, 4%, and 6%, respectively, which were similar to DKO mice treated with UDCA. In addition, female and older patients were reported to be more likely to have a marked increase in their LCA concentration after UDCA treatment [33]. Thus, as far as the serum was compared, BA composition after high-dose UDCA administration was similar in humans and DKO mice. Our aged female mice showed an unexpected increase in hepatic TLCA proportion compared with serum and bile. Therefore, even if we do not observe the abnormally increased serum LCA proportion, we may have to suspect elevated hepatic LCA concentration when liver injury appears during high-dose UDCA treatment.

Mice fed with 1% (w/w) LCA show acute intrahepatic cholestasis due to the obstruction of small bile ducts by LCA crystals (bile infarcts) [34]. These mice had markedly elevated serum ALT and ALP levels, but our UDCA-treated female DKO mice showed only moderately elevated ALT and normal ALP. Thus, liver injury in our mice was milder than in the LCA-fed mice. The UDCA-treated female DKO mice showed increased hepatic expression of inflammatory cytokines, Tnfa, Ccl2, and Tgfb1, but Il1b expression was not upregulated. The inhibited upregulation of Il1b in UDCA-treated DKO mice may be due to the increased hepatic concentrations of 25-HC (Fig 6B). It was reported that 25-HC synthesized by cholesterol 25-hydroxylase (CH25H) suppressed Il1b mRNA, protein expression, and inflammasome activity [35]. Although we did not measure the expression of Ch25h, another 25-HC producing enzyme, Cyp3a11 [36], was significantly upregulated in these mice.

Conclusion

UDCA administration to DKO mice significantly improved fertility and post-weaning mortality, presumably by making serum BAs more hydrophilic. UDCA treatment also prevented liver injury in both sexes of young DKO mice but caused hepatotoxicity in older female mice due to the accumulation of hydrophobic TLCA in the liver. These data suggest that the improvement of BA hydrophobicity by UDCA administration is sex-, age-, and organ-dependent. We must be aware of these pitfalls when using UDCA in DKO mice and possibly in humans.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Author checklist.

(PDF)

S1 Fig. Liver histopathology of UDCA-treated mice at a 6-week-old age.

Both male and female UDCA-treated 6-week-old DKO mice showed no significant histological findings. Hematoxylin/eosin stain. Scale bars, 100 μm. UDCA (+), with UDCA.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Effects of UDCA discontinuation on BA composition and liver injury.

DKO mice were bred under UDCA administration, and offspring in both sexes stopped receiving UDCA at 6 weeks old. The changes in biliary BA compositions and serum ALT activities after discontinuation of UDCA are shown. Data represent the means of duplicate determinations. The broken line indicates the boundary between conjugated and unconjugated BAs.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Immunohistochemical presentation of ductular reaction by immunohistochemical staining CK19.

Expression of CK19 in the livers of DKO mice at the age of 6 weeks with (+) UDCA and 20 weeks with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment. Red arrows indicate ductular reaction by immunohistochemical staining CK19. Scale bars, 100 μm.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Immunohistochemistry and mRNA expression levels for macrophages.

(A) Expression of F4/80 in the livers of DKO mice at the age of 6 weeks with (+) UDCA and 20 weeks with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment. Red arrows indicate infiltration of macrophages by immunohistochemical staining F4/80. Scale bars, 100 μm. (B) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of Cd68 and Cd163 in DKO mice at 20 weeks with or without UDCA treatment. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001 were considered statistically significantly different by the Tukey-Kramer test.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Immunohistochemistry and mRNA expression levels for neutrophils and T cells.

(A) Expression of MPO in the liver of female DKO mice at the age of 20 weeks with (+) UDCA treatment. Red arrows indicate infiltration of neutrophils by immunohistochemical staining MPO. Scale bars, 100 μm. (B) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of Cd4, Cd8a, and Mpo in DKO mice at 20 weeks with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM. ***P < 0.001 was considered statistically significantly different by the Tukey-Kramer test.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Hepatic mRNA expression levels of basolateral BA efflux transporters.

mRNA expression levels of Mrp3, Mrp4, and Ostb in the liver of DKO mice at the age of 20 weeks with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Sequences of oligonucleotide primers for qRT-PCR.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on BA composition of total BA pool.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on BA concentration of total BA pool.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on fecal BA composition.

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on fecal BA concentration.

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on hepatic BA composition.

(DOCX)

S7 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on hepatic BA concentration.

(DOCX)

S8 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on biliary BA composition.

(DOCX)

S9 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on biliary BA concentration.

(DOCX)

S10 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on serum BA composition.

(DOCX)

S11 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on serum BA concentration.

(DOCX)

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Hideto Takahashi, Raku Kato, Shiro Uehara, and Takahiro Machiura (The Jackson Laboratory Japan, Inc.) for the breeding and care of the mice.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/index.html, KAKENHI Grant Numbers 17H04167 (A.H.), 18K07920 (J.I.), and 21K11603 (T.H.), and by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED), https://www.amed.go.jp/en/index.html, under Grant Numbers JP21ek0109416 (N.N.), JP22fk0210073 (T.I.), JP23fk0210096 (N.N.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Tint GS, Bullock J, Batta AK, Shefer S, Salen G. Ursodeoxycholic acid, 7-ketolithocholic acid, and chenodeoxycholic acid are primary bile acids of the nutria (Myocastor copus). Gastroenterology. 1986; 90(3):702–9. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(86)91126-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hagey LR, Crombie DL, Espinosa E, Carey MC, Igimi H, Hofmann AF. Ursodeoxycholic acid in the Ursidae: biliary bile acids of bears, pandas, and related carnivores. J Lipid Res. 1993; 34(11):1911–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fedorowski T, Salen G, Tint GS, Mosbach E. Transformation of chenodeoxycholic acid and ursodeoxycholic acid by human intestinal bacteria. Gastroenterology. 1979; 77(5):1068–73. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(79)80079-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ikegami T, Matsuzaki Y. Ursodeoxycholic acid: mechanism of action and novel clinical applications. Hepatol Res. 2008; 38(2):123–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2007.00297.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wang TY, Portincasa P, Liu M, Tso P, Wang DQ. Mouse models of gallstone disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2018; 34(2):59–70. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Liu SP, Bian ZH, Zhao ZB, Wang J, Zhang W, Leung PSC, et al. Animal models of autoimmune liver diseases: a comprehensive review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2020; 58(2):252–71. doi: 10.1007/s12016-020-08778-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Farrell G, Schattenberg JM, Leclercq I, Yeh MM, Goldin R, Teoh N, et al. Mouse models of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: toward optimization of their relevance to human nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology. 2019; 69(5):2241–57. doi: 10.1002/hep.30333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Honda A, Miyazaki T, Iwamoto J, Hirayama T, Morishita Y, Monma T, et al. Regulation of bile acid metabolism in mouse models with hydrophobic bile acid composition. J Lipid Res. 2020; 61(1):54–69. doi: 10.1194/jlr.RA119000395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Heuman DM. Quantitative estimation of the hydrophilic-hydrophobic balance of mixed bile salt solutions. J Lipid Res. 1989; 30(5):719–30. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Miyazaki T, Doy M, Unno R, Honda A, Ikegami T, Itoh S, et al. Regulatory T cells and liver pathology in a murine graft versus host response model. Hepatol Res. 2009;39(6):585–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2009.00495.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Honda A, Salen G, Shefer S, Batta AK, Honda M, Xu G, et al. Bile acid synthesis in the Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome: effects of dehydrocholesterols on cholesterol 7α-hydroxylase and 27-hydroxylase activities in rat liver. J Lipid Res. 1999; 40(8):1520–8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2275(20)33396-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhang Y, Klaassen CD. Effects of feeding bile acids and a bile acid sequestrant on hepatic bile acid composition in mice. J Lipid Res. 2010; 51(11):3230–42. Epub 2010/07/31. doi: 10.1194/jlr.M007641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Maruyama T, Miyamoto Y, Nakamura T, Tamai Y, Okada H, Sugiyama E, et al. Identification of membrane-type receptor for bile acids (M-BAR). Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002; 298(5):714–9. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(02)02550-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Volle DH, Duggavathi R, Magnier BC, Houten SM, Cummins CL, Lobaccaro J-MA, et al. The small heterodimer partner is a gonadal gatekeeper of sexual maturation in male mice. Genes Dev. 2007; 21(3):303–15. doi: 10.1101/gad.409307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Baptissart M, Vega A, Martinot E, Pommier AJ, Houten SM, Marceau G, et al. Bile acids alter male fertility through G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1 signaling pathways in mice. Hepatology. 2014; 60(3):1054–65. doi: 10.1002/hep.27204 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Baptissart M, Martinot E, Vega A, Sédes L, Rouaisnel B, De Haze A, et al. Bile acid-FXRα pathways regulate male sexual maturation in mice. Oncotarget. 2016; 7(15):19468–82. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Martinot E, Sèdes L, Baptissart M, Holota H, Rouaisnel B, Damon-Soubeyrand C, et al. The bile acid nuclear receptor FXRα is a critical regulator of mouse germ cell fate. Stem Cell Rep. 2017; 9(1):315–28. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.05.036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nagy RA, Hollema H, Andrei D, Jurdzinski A, Kuipers F, Hoek A, et al. The origin of follicular bile acids in the human ovary. Am J Pathol. 2019; 189(10):2036–45. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2019.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Piechota J, Jelski W. Intrahepatic cholestasis in pregnancy: review of the literature. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(5):1361. doi: 10.3390/jcm9051361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.You S, Cui A-M, Hashmi SF, Zhang X, Nadolny C, Chen Y, et al. Dysregulation of bile acids increases the risk for preterm birth in pregnant women. Nat Commun. 2020; 11(1):2111. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15923-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Germain AM, Kato S, Carvajal JA, Valenzuela GJ, Valdes GL, Glasinovic JC. Bile acids increase response and expression of human myometrial oxytocin receptor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(2):577–82. doi: 10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00545-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chappell LC, Bell JL, Smith A, Linsell L, Juszczak E, Dixon PH, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (PITCHES): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019; 394(10201):849–60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31270-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kitada H, Miyata M, Nakamura T, Tozawa A, Honma W, Shimada M, et al. Protective role of hydroxysteroid sulfotransferase in lithocholic acid-induced liver toxicity. J Biol Chem. 2003; 278(20):17838–44. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M210634200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chatterjee B, Echchgadda I, Song CS. Vitamin D receptor regulation of the steroid/bile acid sulfotransferase SULT2A1. Methods Enzymol. 2005; 400:165–91. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(05)00010-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Xie W, Radominska-Pandya A, Shi Y, Simon CM, Nelson MC, Ong ES, et al. An essential role for nuclear receptors SXR/PXR in detoxification of cholestatic bile acids. Proc Natl Acad Sci. U.S.A. 2001;98(6):3375–80. doi: 10.1073/pnas.051014398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lin Q, Tan X, Wang W, Zeng W, Gui L, Su M, et al. Species differences of bile acid redox metabolism: tertiary oxidation of deoxycholate is conserved in preclinical animals. Drug Metab Dispos. 2020; 48(6):499–507. doi: 10.1124/dmd.120.090464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Turley SD, Schwarz M, Spady DK, Dietschy JM. Gender-related differences in bile acid and sterol metabolism in outbred CD-1 mice fed low- and high-cholesterol diets. Hepatology. 1998; 28(4):1088–94. doi: 10.1002/hep.510280425 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bennion LJ, Drobny E, Knowler WC, Ginsberg RL, Garnick MB, Adler RD, et al. Sex differences in the size of bile acid pools. Metabolism. 1978; 27(8):961–9. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(78)90140-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fu ZD, Csanaky IL, Klaassen CD. Gender-divergent profile of bile acid homeostasis during aging of mice. PLoS One. 2012; 7(3):e32551. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yamaguchi K, Murai T, Yabuuchi H, Kurosawa T. Measurement of the transport activities of bile salt export pump using LC-MS. Anal Sci. 2009; 25(9):1155–8. doi: 10.2116/analsci.25.1155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yu J, Lo JL, Huang L, Zhao A, Metzger E, Adams A, et al. Lithocholic acid decreases expression of bile salt export pump through farnesoid X receptor antagonist activity. J Biol Chem. 2002; 277(35):31441–7. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M200474200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Boyer JL, Trauner M, Mennone A, Soroka CJ, Cai S-Y, Moustafa T, et al. Upregulation of a basolateral FXR-dependent bile acid efflux transporter OSTα-OSTβ in cholestasis in humans and rodents. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2006; 290(6):G1124–30. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00539.2005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sinakos E, Marschall H-U, Kowdley KV, Befeler A, Keach J, Lindor K. Bile acid changes after high-dose ursodeoxycholic acid treatment in primary sclerosing cholangitis: relation to disease progression. Hepatology. 2010; 52(1):197–203. doi: 10.1002/hep.23631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Fickert P, Fuchsbichler A, Marschall H-U, Wagner M, Zollner G, Krause R, et al. Lithocholic acid feeding induces segmental bile duct obstruction and destructive cholangitis in mice. Am J Pathol. 2006; 168(2):410–22. doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2006.050404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Reboldi A, Dang EV, McDonald JG, Liang G, Russell DW, Cyster JG. Inflammation. 25-Hydroxycholesterol suppresses interleukin-1-driven inflammation downstream of type I interferon. Science. 2014; 345(6197):679–84. doi: 10.1126/science.1254790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Honda A, Miyazaki T, Ikegami T, Iwamoto J, Maeda T, Hirayama T, et al. Cholesterol 25-hydroxylation activity of CYP3A. J Lipid Res. 2011; 52(8):1509–16. doi: 10.1194/jlr.M014084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gianfranco D Alpini

8 Mar 2022

PONE-D-22-05356Sex-, age-, and organ-dependent improvement of bile acid hydrophobicity by ursodeoxycholic acid treatment: A study using a mouse model with human-like bile acid compositionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Akira Honda,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.  The study has merit and we encourage resubmission.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the Full ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines checklist, a document that aims to improve experimental reporting and reproducibility of animal studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: https://arriveguidelines.org/sites/arrive/files/Author%20Checklist%20-%20Full.pdf (PDF). Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting study by Ueda et al. In this study, using a novel and recently developed human bile acid mouse mode, the Cyp2a12-/-Cyp2c70-/- double knockout (DKO) mice, it is reported that treatment with UDCA markedly improved or prevented abnormal delivery in pregnant DKO mice. However, there were severe liver injury in female, but not male UDCA, treated DKO mice. It was shown that LCA levels were higher in female DKO livers. Other studies conducted did not show a clear mechanism responsible for increased LCA in female mouse livers, including phase I metabolism or cholesterol homeostasis.

This study is very significant and comprehensive, as the new DKO model provides a new animal model with human bile acid profile to study the role of bile acids in the development of human liver diseases. Furthermore, the development of this model brings many questions that remain unanswered, which are very important to the bile acid field. There is one area in which the authors may consider is the degree of cholestasis in the female DKO mice over time, this can be done by determine the expression of several genes that are known to be altered including Mrp3 Mrp4, as well as Ostb in the liver (although the group determined CAR activity, but only narrowly). The group did determine Cyp7a1 and Cyp8b1 gene expression that were suppressed in the female mice under UDCA treatment. This is because it is possible that in female DKO mice, treatment of UDCA may exacerbate liver injury if degree of cholestasis has been more severe. Furthermore, the role of intestine FXR pathway could be determined, as UDCA is shown a FXR antagonist in the gut, which may reduce Fgf15 signaling. However, during severe cholestasis, inflammation may be more dominate than FXR pathways in the regulation of bile acid synthesis.

Reviewer #2: The authors present an interesting study on the effect of UDCA on fertility and secondary BA circulation in male and female mice at 6 and 20 week time points. The following edits are recommended for consideration of publication.

Comments:

1. More details describing the figures and tables should be included in the legends. For example, Figure 1 has thick and thin arrows but the legend does not describe what these mean. In Table 1 there are (+) and (-), but there is no indication as to what this could mean, WT and KO?

2. Isolation of microsomes should be more detailed, this method is unusual/uncommon and would be beneficial for readers to understand how it was achieved, briefly.

3. Tukey-kramer and Fisher are post hoc tests, meaning that an initial test (multiple groups = ANOVA) would have to be performed. The authors should review the statistical analysis methods and ensure clear indication of analysis performed in this manuscript.

4. Histological damage should be clearly marked with arrows, stars, arrowheads, etc. Further, ductular reaction and immune cell infiltration should be stained for and quantified with IHC for CK-19 (bile duct mass), F4/80 or CD68 (macrophage marker), and CD4/8 for T cells, and MPO for monocytes. These efforts will increase understanding and impact to the readers of the results determined by the authors.

5. The increased fecal excretion and pool of TBA indicate that UDCA administration in Female DKO mice may increase BA production. The authors should focus on investigating the role of CYP genes responsible for BA synthesis and the role of ASBT in the intestine of these mice (since small intestine was collected). These studies along with estrogen signaling may allow the authors to increase the impact and novel approach to this study.

6. It is alarming that UDCA treatment increased inflammation (seen in PCR) in the liver of female DKO. Does this indicate that the benefits of UDCA (lower miscarriage) comes at the cost of mother hepatic injury?

7. The discussion needs to be shortened to succinctly indicate where this study stands in the current literature. While it is important to emphasize key findings of this study, continuous confirmation of the previous DKO study dampens these data impact. It is recommended that the authors increase citation of works on BAs in pregnant women to identify any connections between this work and that of pregnant cholestasis.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Grace Guo

Reviewer #2: Yes: Vik Meadows

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 12;17(7):e0271308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271308.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Jun 2022

Replies to the comments from PLOS ONE reviewers:

Reviewer #1:

This study is very significant and comprehensive, as the new DKO model provides a new animal model with human bile acid profile to study the role of bile acids in the development of human liver diseases. Furthermore, the development of this model brings many questions that remain unanswered, which are very important to the bile acid field. There is one area in which the authors may consider is the degree of cholestasis in the female DKO mice over time, this can be done by determine the expression of several genes that are known to be altered including Mrp3 Mrp4, as well as Ostb in the liver (although the group determined CAR activity, but only narrowly). The group did determine Cyp7a1 and Cyp8b1 gene expression that were suppressed in the female mice under UDCA treatment. This is because it is possible that in female DKO mice, treatment of UDCA may exacerbate liver injury if degree of cholestasis has been more severe. Furthermore, the role of intestine FXR pathway could be determined, as UDCA is shown a FXR antagonist in the gut, which may reduce Fgf15 signaling. However, during severe cholestasis, inflammation may be more dominate than FXR pathways in the regulation of bile acid synthesis.

RESPONSE: Thank you for the reviewer’s comments. We think hepatic BA concentration is the best marker to assess a degree of cholestasis. Serum ALP activity is a useful surrogate marker for cholestasis in humans, but it is not very sensitive in mice because main mouse serum ALP isoenzyme is bone-derived one (Hatayama et al. J. Toxicol. Sci. 36:211-219, 2011). As suggested by the reviewer, we have measured hepatic mRNA expression levels of Mrp3, Mrp4, and Ostb and added them to S6 Fig. UDCA treatment tended to upregulate Mrp3 and Mrp4 expressions (Fxr independent) in both sexes, but the differences were not statistically significant. The expression levels of Ostb (FXR dependent) in females tended to be higher than those in males, but UDCA did not change the expressions significantly in both sexes. Thus, although hepatic BA concentrations, especially TLCA, were markedly elevated in female UDCA-treated DKO mice, significant upregulations of these transporters were not observed. The results suggest that TLCA may not be an effective activator of these transporters, or inflammation may be more dominant than FXR pathways in the regulation of BA transport as well as BA synthesis. We have added some discussion on the basolateral BA efflux transporters (lines 430-434).

Reviewer #2:

1. More details describing the figures and tables should be included in the legends. For example, Figure 1 has thick and thin arrows but the legend does not describe what these mean. In Table 1 there are (+) and (-), but there is no indication as to what this could mean, WT and KO?

RESPONSE: Thank you for the reviewer’s suggestions. We have revised legends of figures and tables to describe more detailed information. In Figure 1, thick and thin arrows mean the enterohepatic circulation of LCA is usually less (thin arrows) than those of other BAs (thick arrows). In Table 1, (+) and (-) mean pregnancy and no pregnancy. In Figures 2-6, (+) and (-) mean with and without UDCA treatment.

2. Isolation of microsomes should be more detailed, this method is unusual/uncommon and would be beneficial for readers to understand how it was achieved, briefly.

RESPONSE: We have added more detailed microsome preparation method to Materials and methods section (lines 155-161).

3. Tukey-kramer and Fisher are post hoc tests, meaning that an initial test (multiple groups = ANOVA) would have to be performed. The authors should review the statistical analysis methods and ensure clear indication of analysis performed in this manuscript.

RESPONSE: We agree to the reviewer’s comment, but our Fisher is not Fisher’s least significant difference test but Fisher’s exact probability test. We used the Tukey–Kramer test after one-way ANOVA but did not mention it in the text. We have revised the Statistics section in Materials and Methods (lines 178-181).

4. Histological damage should be clearly marked with arrows, stars, arrowheads, etc. Further, ductular reaction and immune cell infiltration should be stained for and quantified with IHC for CK-19 (bile duct mass), F4/80 or CD68 (macrophage marker), and CD4/8 for T cells, and MPO for monocytes. These efforts will increase understanding and impact to the readers of the results determined by the authors.

RESPONSE: Thank you for the reviewer’s valuable comments. We have marked histological damages with arrows in Figure 2B. We have confirmed the proliferation of bile ductular structure by IHC stain of CK19 (S3 Fig), infiltration of macrophages by IHC stain of F4/80 and mRNA expression levels of Cd68 and Cd163 (S4 Fig), and that of neutrophils and T cells by IHC stain of MPO and mRNA expression levels of Mpo, Cd4, and Cd8 (S5 Fig). We have added this information to the Result section (lines 214-217).

5. The increased fecal excretion and pool of TBA indicate that UDCA administration in Female DKO mice may increase BA production. The authors should focus on investigating the role of CYP genes responsible for BA synthesis and the role of ASBT in the intestine of these mice (since small intestine was collected). These studies along with estrogen signaling may allow the authors to increase the impact and novel approach to this study.

RESPONSE: UDCA administration markedly increased the proportion of UDCA with a considerable reduction of CA and CDCA in the BA pool of female DKO mice. Since UDCA is not a central primary BA in mice, the increase in the BA pool in UDCA treated female DKO mice is likely due to UDCA ingestion itself, not increased BA production. Female DKO mice had larger BA pools than male DKO mice regardless of UDCA administration. We compared CYP7A1 activity and Cyp27a1 expression between the sexes (Fig.6D), but there was no significant increase in either enzyme in females. We collected the small intestines in this study but used them all to measure the BA pool. We previously measured ileal Asbt expressions in DKO mice (Ref. #8), and we found no significant difference between the sexes. In addition, unlike mice, males have larger BA pools than females in humans. Thus, the mechanism of the sex difference in the BA pool size remains unknown and is not simply an effect of estrogen.

6. It is alarming that UDCA treatment increased inflammation (seen in PCR) in the liver of female DKO. Does this indicate that the benefits of UDCA (lower miscarriage) comes at the cost of mother hepatic injury?

RESPONSE: Thank you for the reviewer’s question. Mothers do not have a hepatic injury since matings are made at nine weeks of age in our usual experiments. More prolonged UDCA treatment (20 weeks) causes liver injury in female DKO mice. If UDCA is administered only during pregnancy, older mice may be able to give birth normally without liver damage. However, we have never done that.

7. The discussion needs to be shortened to succinctly indicate where this study stands in the current literature. While it is important to emphasize key findings of this study, continuous confirmation of the previous DKO study dampens these data impact. It is recommended that the authors increase citation of works on BAs in pregnant women to identify any connections between this work and that of pregnant cholestasis.

RESPONSE: Thank you for the reviewer’s comments. We have deleted the discussion part that continuously confirms the previous Cyp2c70 KO study (between line 402 and line 403). As suggested by the reviewer, the connection between pregnant DKO mice and intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) may be interesting. Increased serum hydrophobic BAs (due to altered BA composition or cholestasis) and frequent premature delivery are common features (Ref. #19). However, UDCA treatment prevented premature delivery in DKO mice while it was ineffective in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes in patients with ICP (Ref. #22). Therefore, it is unclear whether pregnant DKO mice would be a good model for ICP. We have added these considerations and references to the Discussion (lines 374-377 and 384-386).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Gianfranco D Alpini

13 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-05356R1Sex-, age-, and organ-dependent improvement of bile acid hydrophobicity by ursodeoxycholic acid treatment: A study using a mouse model with human-like bile acid compositionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Akira Honda,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.  Please address a few minor comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The concerns were well addressed. The author have done a good job addressing the raised concerns. Further experimental data were supplied to support the conclusion.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed reviewer comments, but the CK-19 staining does not stain bile ducts. The arrows seem to indicate focal macrophage clusters instead of bile ducts. It is apparent in all images since CK-19 does not demark the bile ducts near portal veins. I would suggest that the authors review this manuscript here (PMID: 32961356) and obtain more specific CK-19 antibodies that will allow them to stain and quantify the CK-19 staining to measure bile duct mass/ductular reaction. CK-19 positivity should not exist in the sinusoidal space or within the parenchyma as it is only expressed by cholangiocytes in the liver.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Vik Meadows

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 12;17(7):e0271308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271308.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 Jun 2022

Replies to the comment from Reviewer #2:

The authors have addressed reviewer comments, but the CK-19 staining does not stain bile ducts. The arrows seem to indicate focal macrophage clusters instead of bile ducts. It is apparent in all images since CK-19 does not demark the bile ducts near portal veins. I would suggest that the authors review this manuscript here (PMID: 32961356) and obtain more specific CK-19 antibodies that will allow them to stain and quantify the CK-19 staining to measure bile duct mass/ductular reaction. CK-19 positivity should not exist in the sinusoidal space or within the parenchyma as it is only expressed by cholangiocytes in the liver.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the reviewer’s valuable comments and suggestions. We performed CK-19 staining using different mouse IgG blocking reagents and obtained better results. We have replaced the previous pictures with better ones (S3 Fig) and revised the Histopathological examination section in the manuscript (lines 133-137). In addition to CK-19, we again stained F4/80 (S4 Fig) and MPO (S5 Fig) with better conditions and replaced the previous pictures with new ones.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_R2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Gianfranco D Alpini

28 Jun 2022

Sex-, age-, and organ-dependent improvement of bile acid hydrophobicity by ursodeoxycholic acid treatment: A study using a mouse model with human-like bile acid composition

PONE-D-22-05356R2

Dear Dr. Honda,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Gianfranco D Alpini

4 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-05356R2

Sex-, age-, and organ-dependent improvement of bile acid hydrophobicity by ursodeoxycholic acid treatment: A study using a mouse model with human-like bile acid composition

Dear Dr. Honda:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Author checklist.

    (PDF)

    S1 Fig. Liver histopathology of UDCA-treated mice at a 6-week-old age.

    Both male and female UDCA-treated 6-week-old DKO mice showed no significant histological findings. Hematoxylin/eosin stain. Scale bars, 100 μm. UDCA (+), with UDCA.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Effects of UDCA discontinuation on BA composition and liver injury.

    DKO mice were bred under UDCA administration, and offspring in both sexes stopped receiving UDCA at 6 weeks old. The changes in biliary BA compositions and serum ALT activities after discontinuation of UDCA are shown. Data represent the means of duplicate determinations. The broken line indicates the boundary between conjugated and unconjugated BAs.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Immunohistochemical presentation of ductular reaction by immunohistochemical staining CK19.

    Expression of CK19 in the livers of DKO mice at the age of 6 weeks with (+) UDCA and 20 weeks with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment. Red arrows indicate ductular reaction by immunohistochemical staining CK19. Scale bars, 100 μm.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Immunohistochemistry and mRNA expression levels for macrophages.

    (A) Expression of F4/80 in the livers of DKO mice at the age of 6 weeks with (+) UDCA and 20 weeks with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment. Red arrows indicate infiltration of macrophages by immunohistochemical staining F4/80. Scale bars, 100 μm. (B) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of Cd68 and Cd163 in DKO mice at 20 weeks with or without UDCA treatment. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001 were considered statistically significantly different by the Tukey-Kramer test.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Immunohistochemistry and mRNA expression levels for neutrophils and T cells.

    (A) Expression of MPO in the liver of female DKO mice at the age of 20 weeks with (+) UDCA treatment. Red arrows indicate infiltration of neutrophils by immunohistochemical staining MPO. Scale bars, 100 μm. (B) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of Cd4, Cd8a, and Mpo in DKO mice at 20 weeks with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM. ***P < 0.001 was considered statistically significantly different by the Tukey-Kramer test.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Hepatic mRNA expression levels of basolateral BA efflux transporters.

    mRNA expression levels of Mrp3, Mrp4, and Ostb in the liver of DKO mice at the age of 20 weeks with (+) or without (-) UDCA treatment. Each column and error bar represents the mean and SEM.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Sequences of oligonucleotide primers for qRT-PCR.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on BA composition of total BA pool.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on BA concentration of total BA pool.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on fecal BA composition.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on fecal BA concentration.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on hepatic BA composition.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on hepatic BA concentration.

    (DOCX)

    S8 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on biliary BA composition.

    (DOCX)

    S9 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on biliary BA concentration.

    (DOCX)

    S10 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on serum BA composition.

    (DOCX)

    S11 Table. Effects of UDCA treatment on serum BA concentration.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_R2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES