Participation of liver stem cells in cholangiocarcinogenesis after aflatoxin B 1 exposure of glutathione S-transferase A3 knockout mice

Abstract

Aflatoxin B₁, arguably the most potent human carcinogen, induces liver cancer in humans, rats, trout, ducks, and so on, but adult mice are totally resistant. This resistance is because of a detoxifying enzyme, mouse glutathione S-transferase A3, which binds to and inactivates aflatoxin B₁ epoxide, preventing the epoxide from binding to DNA and causing mutations. Glutathione S-transferase A3 or its analog has not been detected in any of the sensitive species, including humans. The generation of a glutathione S-transferase A3 knockout (represented as KO or -/-) mice has allowed us to study the induction of liver cancer in mice by aflatoxin B₁. In contrast to the induction of hepatocellular carcinomas in other species, aflatoxin B₁ induces cholangiocarcinomas in GSTA3-/- mice. In other species and in knockout mice, the induction of liver cancer is preceded by extensive proliferation of small oval cells, providing additional evidence that oval cells are bipolar stem cells and may give rise to either hepatocellular carcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma depending on the nature of the hepatocarcinogen and the species of animal. The recent development of mouse oval cell lines in our laboratory from aflatoxin B₁-treated GSTA3-/- mice should provide a new venue for study of the properties and potential of putative mouse liver stem cells.

Keywords

Liver stem cells oval cells cholangiocarcinoma hepatocellular carcinoma glutathione S-transferase A3 mouse liver tumor

Liver cancer and aflatoxin B₁

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the 5th most common cancer worldwide^1,2 and the incidence is increasing. In the United States, HCC ranks 5th in males and 8th in females among most common cause of cancer death.³ Early-stage HCC can sometimes be treated with surgery, an option, however, for only a small number of patients. Transplantation may be considered for those with small tumors that have not metastasized, whereas sorafenib is a targeted drug for patients who are not candidates for surgery. Even with advanced treatment, the 1- and 5-year mortality rates are 43% and 71%, respectively.^3,4 Globally, most cases of HCC occur in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa where, along with chronic hepatitis, dietary exposure to a carcinogen aflatoxin B₁ (AFB₁) is the important risk factor.^5–11 Introduction of vaccines for hepatitis B virus (HBV) and selection of alternative crops have greatly reduced HCC in high-risk areas.¹² Aflatoxin (AFB₁), a product of Aspergillus flavus mold contamination, is widespread in many foods, such as dairy, grains, and peanuts^13–15 as well as in marijuana (NY State Toxicology Laboratory). Its contribution to the etiology of HCC in the United States is not known,^16,17 although overall extrinsic and environmental factors are considered responsible for most HCCs.¹⁸

AFB₁ and GSTA3

Whereas AFB₁ is one of the most potent hepatocarcinogens in humans; wild-type (WT) mice are highly resistant due to binding and detoxification of the AFB₁ epoxide by glutathione S-transferase (GSTA3). Upon ingestion, AFB₁ is activated by cytochrome P450 (CYP)-mediated oxidation to AFB₁-exo-8,9-epoxide (AFBO),^19–22 which then forms AFB₁–N7-guanine adducts and produces mutations (Figure 1), for example, in the p53 gene.^23–25 In the mouse, protection against adducts occurs by detoxification of AFBO by glutathione-S-transferase 3 (GSTA3)-mediated conjugation of AFBO with reduced glutathione (GSH)^19,26,27 (Figure 2). GSTA3 is the major constitutively expressed GST in the mouse liver, accounting for about 35% of the total GST activity in males and 47% in females.^28,29 GSTA3 has narrow substrate specificity: it is the only GST responsible for detoxification of AFBO in the mouse.^30–32 Besides AFB₁, hydroperoxides are also substrates for GSTA3³³ and thus GSTA3 is a component of cellular antioxidant defense. GSTA3 expression, at least in part, is controlled by the transcription factor Nrf2.^34–36 The GSTA3 promoter, like other GSTs, contains functional antioxidant response elements that Nrf2 binds to after induction with antioxidants.^34–36 Humans do not have an equivalent to GSTA3 and are, like other species (rat, hamster, trout, etc.), very sensitive to toxic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic effects of AFB₁.

Figure 1.

Metabolic activation and DNA binding of AFB₁. The 8–9 carbons are modified to produce AFB₁-exo-8,9-epoxide. The epoxide is highly activated and binds to DNA (AFB₁–N7-guanine).

Figure 2.

Detoxification of activated AFB₁ 8,9-epoxide by glutathione S-transferase.

GSTA3-/- (knockout) mouse

Adult WT mice are highly resistant to AFB₁-induced liver injury and cancer development due to the high activity of GSTA3.^26,32 Ordinarily, only neonatal mice are susceptible to AFB₁ treatment,^37,38 which correlates with hepatocyte proliferation and low GST activity³⁹ in newborns. We have constructed a GSTA3 knockout (KO) mouse (GSTA3-/-), which is sensitive to the toxic and mutagenic effects of AFB₁ ⁴⁰ and thus behaves analogously to humans in regard to AFB₁ metabolism. The GSTA3-/- mice display striking differences in response to AFB₁ compared to WT mice. Whereas WT mice are resistant to the effects of AFB₁ at the doses of up to 60 mg/kg, the highest dose of AFB₁ that is not lethal to GSTA3-/- mice is only 1–1.2 mg/kg. Also, the GSTA3-/- mice show several hundred-fold more mutagenic AFB₁–N7-guanine adducts than WT mice, with females having about three times more adducts than males, as measured by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (Figure 3).⁴¹ We further characterized the GSTA3-/- mice and found that there is no compensatory up-regulation of other GST subunits (P1, M1, M5, and A4).⁴¹ In fact, there is an overall reduction in the most abundant mouse subunits, P1 and M1, with a greater decrease in GSTP1 in females than in males. There is no change in the levels of microsomal epoxide hydrolases that activate AFB₁, except for an increase in CYP1A2 in male, but not female, KO mice. The urinary excretion of AFB₁–N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a product of glutathione adduction of AFB₁, is dramatically reduced in GSTA3-/- mice.

Figure 3.

AFB₁–DNA adducts in WT and GSTA3-/- male and female mice. AFB₁–DNA adduct formation 2 h after 0.87 mg/kg AFB₁.

GSTA3-/- mice: single dose of AFB₁

The highest non-lethal, intraperitoneal (i.p.), dose for GSTA3-/- mice is 1.25 mg/kg for males and 1 mg/kg for females. Both males and females react with acute liver injury, manifested macroscopically as a pale liver and histologically as necrosis. In female mice, 1 mg/kg of AFB₁ produces significant acute liver injury followed by gradual regeneration. The liver is uniformly pale; histologically, it changes from ballooning hepatocytes into massive necrosis and hemorrhage by day 5. The most interesting feature of injury and regeneration is extensive oval cell (OC) proliferation, which is first seen on day 7, increases and remains prominent for up to 35 days post AFB₁ (OCs on day 10 are shown in Figure 4(b) and (c)).⁴¹ Male -/- mice require about a 25% higher AFB₁ dose to produce acute toxicity, with a narrow window between lethality (>1.5 mg/kg) and minimal/no effect (1 mg/kg). Liver injury in males is less extensive and repair is shorter with less extensive OC proliferation. We are still not sure why there is a gender difference when a single AFB₁ dose is used, since both male and female -/- mice show similar activities of AFB₁ metabolizing enzymes (mouse P450 1A2 and 3A11) and similar levels of AFB₁-epoxide (measured as urine AFB₁–NAC). However, when given repeated AFB₁ injections, males display prolonged injury and OC expansion as extensive as that seen in female mice.

Figure 4.

Massive oval cell proliferation after a single AFB₁ dose (1 mg/kg). (a) GSTA3-/- female mouse liver, no AFB₁. P—portal vein, C—central vein (200×). (b, c) GSTA3-/- female mouse, 10 days after AFB₁. Numerous oval cells (arrows). (c) is a higher magnification (400×) of the square in (b) (200×). (d) GSTA3-/- female mouse, 30 days after AFB₁. Numerous oval cells (arrows) (200×). H&E.

GSTA3-/- mice: repeated AFB₁ dosing and tumor formation

We have developed several models of repeated AFB₁ injections (e.g. monthly and bi-monthly (up to 10) injections of 1 mg/kg and weekly and bi-weekly (up to 24) injections of 0.5 mg/kg that result in extensive liver injury and extensive proliferation of OCs in both males and females that progress to the development of premalignant foci, nodules,⁴² and tumors). For example, 10 monthly doses of 1 mg/kg result in distorted livers and macro- and microscopic liver nodules, including HCCs. However, in a more extensive study, cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs) were produced when AFB₁ is administered for a long time period, in a similar sequence of changes leading to tumors (Figure 5).⁴¹ Thus, male and female mice were treated once per week with 0.5 mg/kg AFB₁ for 12 weeks (4 males, 5 females) and 24 weeks (5 males, 6 females) and the livers were analyzed at 12 and 8 months, respectively, after the last AFB₁ injection. All mice had grossly distorted livers, with cysts, and type I nodules⁴² and tumors, with 24 injections resulting in more numerous and coalescing lesions than 12 injections (Figure 5(a)–(d)). Histologically, these lesions consisted of numerous hepatocellular nodules (mostly of the early or Becker type I grade), cholangiomas, and CCAs (Figure 5(e)–(l)). No distant metastases were found. All vehicle (dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO))-treated control mice (5 males and 5 females, 12 and 24 weekly injections) had normal livers.

Figure 5.

Gross (a–d) and microscopic (e–l) lesions in GSTA3-/- mice treated with weekly (12 or 24) AFB₁ injections (0.5 mg/kg). (a) Normal (control) liver, male mouse, 24 injections of vehicle (DMSO) (L, M, R, C—left, middle, right, and caudate lobes). (b) Cysts (short arrows in the middle lobe) and tumor (long arrow in the left lobe), male, 12 injections. (c) Multiple type 1 nodules (short arrows) and tumors (long arrows in the left and right), male, 24 injections. (d) Liver composed of coalescing type I nodules (arrows), female, 24 injections. (e–l) H&E staining. (e) Small type 1 hepatocellular nodule (arrows), male, 12 injections (100×). (f) Large type 1 nodule (arrows), female, 24 injections (40×). (g) Three type 1 nodules (arrows), male, 12 injections (40×). (h) Multifocal cholangiomas (arrows), male, 12 injections (40×). (i) Cholangioma (long arrows) and cholangiocarcinoma (short arrows), female, 24 injections (100×). (j) Early cholangiocarcinoma (arrows), male, 24 injections (100×). (k) Large adenoma and small cholangiocarcinoma (arrows), male, 12 injections (40×). (l) Cholangiocarcinoma (arrows), female, 24 injections (100×).

OCs as liver stem and liver cancer stem cells

In healthy liver, mature epithelial cells (hepatocytes and cholangiocytes) are responsible for maintaining homeostasis without the need for involvement of stem cells. The stem cell compartment is located in the region of the smallest branches of the biliary tree (canals of Hering) and that space (niche) is shared with other, non-parenchymal, cells (stellate, Kupffer, endothelial) that support their stemness features.^43–49 However, after injury that is too extensive for mature cells to repair or when proliferation of hepatocytes is inhibited, stem cells become active and proliferate and differentiate until the liver regenerates. The hepatic stem cells are rare cells that divide asymmetrically and can be identified with antibodies against a range of markers, some old and others recently discovered (e.g. CK19/A6/OV-6, α-fetoprotein (AFP), CD133, HNF1β, Sox9, osteopontin, EpCAM, etc.). When activated, stem cells give rise to transit amplifying cells, which divide symmetrically and expand. As these cells expand, they retain some markers of stem cells and gain new ones, some of which may be specific (e.g. Foxl1, Lgr5, Trop2).^45,46,48 Depending on the nature of initial injury (hepatocytic or cholangiocytic), transit amplifying cells finally differentiate into either hepatocytes or cholangiocytes, likely under the control of different signaling pathways (Wnt/HGF and EGFR/Notch1, respectively).

OCs are either stem cells or early transit amplifying cells, but until we confirm their dual-lineage potency, we prefer to use this morphologically descriptive and historic term.⁵⁰ OCs may present histologically as single cells, cords of cells growing between hepatocytes or in the form of ductules, and are identified with a variety of antigenic markers, depending on the species and underlying pathology. They are seen in human livers associated with severe tissue damage and can be induced experimentally in several species, mostly in various models in rats and, less frequently and at very much reduced numbers, in mice.^51–55 Markers of OCs in mouse are not necessarily shared by OCs in rats⁵⁶ so we will limit this discussion to mouse OCs only. Their possible origin (cholangiocytes, canals of Hering, or peribiliary, but also hepatocytes, stellate cells, or extrahepatic), identity, and role (differentiation into hepatocytes, bile duct cells, or both) are not resolved and are the subject of numerous reports and review discussions.^{43–49,57–66}

When seen in the context of carcinogen exposure, OCs are thought to function as cancer stem cells that are capable of developing into hepatocellular and/or cholangiocellular carcinomas.^65,67 Thus, the study of OCs in animal models is important from two perspectives: as progeny of normal stem cells, for their potential use in regeneration therapy, and as cancer stem cells, as the cells of origin of liver cancer. Both male and female GSTA3-/- mice react to AFB₁ exposure with massive OC expansion. This provides, for the first time, a mouse model for the study of the role of OCs in normal liver regeneration and in hepatocarcinogenesis.

There are several other ways to induce OCs in mouse liver, from employing certain chemicals to spontaneous induction in transgenic or KO mice. However, the majority of reports rely on only two models: 3,5-diethoxycarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocollidine (DDC) diet⁵⁷,^62,68–83 and, less frequently, choline-deficient/ethionine-supplemented (CDE) diet.^83–89 Both of these models induce a relatively very low level ductular-type OC response compared to the AFB₁ response in the KO mice and do not induce liver tumors, and neither agent is relevant for human health. In contrast, the OC proliferation seen in GSTA3-/- mice is associated with the clinically relevant environmental carcinogen (AFB₁), is sustained over many weeks, is much more severe, is morphologically different from DDC or CDE, and results in the development of neoplastic liver lesions. The pattern of OC expansion in GSTA3-/- mice is similar to regimens that utilize CDE diet in rats,⁹⁰ whereas DDC, CDE, and other models in mice are similar to rat regimens that use 2-acetylaminofluorene (2-AAF), where ductules are a common feature.^52,53,91,92 The pattern of OC expansion likely represents the cell type they originated from, that is, ductules from ductular stem cells and single-type OCs from periductular stem cells.^65,66,93 Other models in mouse, such as acetaminophen (APAP),^56,94 dipin/partial hepatectomy,^95–97 diethylnitrosamine (DEN),⁹⁸ cocaine/phenobarbital,⁹⁹ CCl₄ injections,^100,101 ethanol and high-fat diet,^102,103 and 2-AAF/partial hepatectomy,⁸⁸ are far less frequently employed. OCs have also been described in several transgenic and KO mice models.^104–113

Like cocaine in the phenobarbital/cocaine mouse model of OC proliferation,⁹⁹ AFB₁ is one of the few xenobiotics that acutely damages the periportal zone of the liver lobule and not the central zone.^114,115 OC proliferation is a prominent feature of AFB₁ injury in rats,^116–118 woodchucks,¹¹⁹ and ducks¹²⁰ but has never been described in mice until now. The ease of inducing these cells and their large numbers, in both males and females, make AFB₁-treated GSTA3-/- mice an ideal model to study the role of liver stem cells during regeneration and carcinogenesis. Markers of mouse OCs range from well-established, such as AFP,^99,100,121 A6,^{69,70,76,96,104} and CK19/OV-6 or pan-CK,^56,84,102 to those reported in recent years, mostly in mice given DDC diet, such as CD24a,⁷¹ CD34,^69,106 CD44,^75,108,122 CD49f,¹⁰⁹ CD133,^109,110,123 Sca-1,⁶⁹ c-Kit,¹⁰¹ Dlk-1/Pref-1,^124,125 EpCAM,^75,101 TROP2,⁷⁵ ABCG2,⁵⁶ Foxl1,^74,126 E-cadherin,¹⁰⁸ and Bgp1.¹⁰¹ The most useful ones are those that are not shared with other liver cell types and expressed on cell surface, so that they can be used for both tracing and isolation. The practical difficulty, however, is that most OC markers are also present on other cells such as biliary (e.g. CK19, A6, Sox9, osteopontin, EpCAM, CD49f, c-Met) and hematopoietic (e.g. CD133, c-Kit, Thy-1, Sca-1, Flt-3) cells and on fetal or dividing hepatocytes (AFP).

Most recently, the fate of liver stem and OCs in a mouse has been investigated by tracing the cells over long periods of time using genetic markers such as green, yellow, or red fluorescent proteins (GFP, YFP, and RFP, respectively). These are most commonly employed in a system of two transgenic mice: a specific promoter-driven Cre recombinase mouse and a loxP mouse with florescent marker gene (Cre/loxP system).^{80–82,126–132} Again, the DDC- and CDE-diet-induced injuries are almost always used to activate stem cells and mimic regeneration, and a carcinogen (e.g. DEN) is used to induce liver tumor development. Overall, whereas some report the necessary role of stem cells for liver regeneration or tumor development,^{74,81,126,128} others find that stem cells are not involved or that mature hepatocytes and cholangiocytes are sufficient for regeneration^{80,83,129–131} reviewed in Grompe⁶¹ or as cancer-initiating cells.^132,133 Stellate cells¹³⁴ and even extrahepatic cells^135,136 have also been implicated as a possible source of liver stem or mature liver cells.

OC proliferation in mice in vivo

Extensive proliferation of OCs is a prominent feature in GSTA3-/- mice following AFB₁-induced liver injury. A single i.p. injection of AFB₁ (1 mg/kg) results in the appearance of OCs starting at around day 7 and continues for several weeks (Figure 4(b)–(d)). OCs spread from the portal zone, occupy the entire liver lobule, and are present even at day 30 post AFB₁ (Figure 4(d)) after which they start to decrease in numbers. This proliferation is spatially and temporally the most extensive we have seen in any of the mouse model of OCs, including the commonly used DDC diet model. Also, whereas DDC injures bile ducts and thus produces exclusively ductular cell proliferation, OC proliferation in GSTA3-/- mice, in contrast, is much more extensive, and they form fewer ductules and frequently grow out as individual cells or form single-file strings of cells. Thus, in appearance, this response resembles the OC response seen in rats following CDE diet. Besides morphology, OCs are identified immunohistochemically using antibodies against bile duct/OC-specific markers A6 and pan-cytokeratin (pan-CK; Figure 6). We found that they also label with markers specific for immature and progenitor cells of other tissues, such as β-catenin, CD133, and EpCAM (Figure 7(b)–(d)). We used antibodies against CD133, expressed on hematopoietic and some tissue-specific stem cells, and EpCAM, expressed on small liver ductules, to isolate OCs from the liver (see below). A single injection of AFB₁ produces more extensive liver injury in female than in male GSTA3-/- mice, and thus we see little OCs in males after one AFB₁ dose. However, we found that repeated exposure, for example, weekly 0.5 mg AFB₁/kg for 4 weeks and longer, produces injury in both sexes, with extensive OC proliferation that is indistinguishable between males and females (Figure 8).

Figure 6.

Oval cells are identified by staining with A6 and pan-cytokeratin markers. At 15 days after AFB₁ (1 mg/kg), numerous (a) A6- and (b) pan-CK-labeled oval cells (arrows) are seen in the livers of GSTA3-/- mice (200×).

Figure 7.

Oval cells labeled with stem cell markers: (a) pan-CK, (b) β-catenin, (c) CD133, and (d) EpCAM, 30 days after a single AFB₁ dose in female GSTA3-/- mice (200×).

Figure 8.

Oval cells in male GSTA3-/- mice. Numerous hepatic pan-CK+ oval cells in male mice treated with AFB₁ for 4 or more weeks: (a) 200× and (b) 400×.

Isolation of OCs

We used antibodies against CD133 and EpCAM, markers associated with the early-appearing liver progenitors^45,46,123 to isolate OCs, following the protocol described by Hohne et al.,¹³⁷ with modifications. Female GSTA3-/- mice were injected i.p. with 1 mg/kg AFB₁ and euthanized at day 15, when OCs expand over the entire liver lobule, and the livers were perfused through portal vein with collagenase.¹³⁸ After perfusion, the livers were minced in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) with 0.5% collagenase type IV, 0.01% pronase, and 0.01% DNase. A Percoll gradient was prepared in a 50-mL tube by sequentially layering 10 mL of 70%, 50%, and 30% Percoll. The cell fraction at the interface between 30% and 50% Percoll was collected and then selected for CD133+ and EpCAM+ cells on fluorescence-activated cell sorter (FACS; Figure 9, fraction P7, arrow). Those cells were then placed in the culture containing William’s E Medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 5 mg/mL insulin, and 5 mM hydrocortisone, mHGF, and hEGF. So far, several cell lines, originating from a single cell, have been established; three of those have been selected, passaged, and studied in detail.

Figure 9.

Sorting of CD133+ and EpCAM+ oval cells (P7, arrow) by FACS from AFB₁-injured GSTA3-/- mouse liver.

AFP secretion by OCs

A number of primary colonies show increasing secretion of AFP (Figure 10). The AFP secreted by these colonies into the culture medium was measured by sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) developed in our laboratory. The amount of AFP was calculated from the linear portion of the standard curve. This expression is similar to that seen in cultures of fetal hepatocytes and AFP-secreting hepatomas in rats.

Figure 10.

Oval cells secrete α-fetoprotein in culture (measured by ELISA).

Detection of liver stem cell markers by immunofluorescence

We used fluorescent immunocytochemistry to detect the expression of oval and progenitor cell markers and coexpression of hepatocyte/cholangiocyte markers on the three cell lines. Thus, Figure 11 shows the expression of cholangiocyte/OC-specific markers pan-CK and A6 in cultured cells, whereas Figure 12 shows the expression (and coexpression) of stem cell markers CD133 and EpCAM. Cultured OCs also coexpress albumin (hepatocyte marker) and pan-CK (cholangiocyte/OC marker; Figure 13 (a)–(c)) and AFP (immature hepatocyte/stem cell marker) and pan-CK (cholangiocyte/OC marker; Figure 13 (d)-(f)). Thus, they are bi-potent, a characteristic of progenitor cells.

Figure 11.

Cultured oval cells labeled with oval cell/cholangiocyte markers: (a) A6 (b, green) and (c) OV-6 (d, red).

Figure 12.

Cultured oval cells express progenitor cell markers EpCAM (a, green) and CD133 (c, red) in the same cells (d). (b) DAPI.

Figure 13.

Cultured cells are bi-potent. They coexpress albumin (a, green) and pan-CK (b, red) in the same cells (c), and coexpress α-fetoprotein (d, green) and pan-CK (e, red) in the same cells (f).

Detection of liver stem cell markers by western blotting

We performed western blotting to confirm and quantitate the expression of select markers in the cultured OC lines. WT mouse liver, GSTA3-/- mouse liver, and Hepa1-6 cells (mouse hepatoma) were used as controls. As expected, from immunofluorescent data, OCs express markers of mature and immature hepatocytes (albumin and AFP; Figure 14) and progenitor cell markers (CD133 and EpCAM). The expression of albumin was lower than that in WT mouse liver but at similar levels as in mouse hepatoma cell. Cultured cells also express at least one microsomal P450 enzyme (1A2) that is responsible for AFB₁ metabolism in the mouse (not shown).

Figure 14.

Western blot analysis of albumin and α-fetoprotein (AFP) in cultured oval cells (LSC 1-3) and in mouse hepatoma.

Transplanted OCs give rise to tumors

Cells were implanted subcutaneously (in the leg and neck) into C57Bl/6J (strain of GSTA3-/- mice) and severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice and tumors developed in both (Figure 15(a)). Histologically, tumors display malignant features and a mixture of ductal-like and undifferentiated (Figure 15(b)) and sarcoma-like and undifferentiated (Figure 15(c) and (d)) morphology. Tumor cells are locally invasive, spreading into the underlying muscle (arrows in Figure 15(b) and (d)). Distant metastases (e.g. lung) were not found.

Figure 15.

Oval cells give rise to tumors in C57Bl and SCID mice (a). They show a mixture of ductal (b) and sarcoma-like (c, d) histology. Arrows point to invasion into the underlying muscle. (b, c, d)—H&E staining, 100×.

Cell lineages during hepatocarcinogenesis

From the 1950s onward, extensive studies on the development of liver cancer in rats exposed to various hepatocarcinogens demonstrated results that appeared to be conflicting. The prevailing theory was that liver cancer arose from hepatocytes through a series of morphologic intermediates including foci and nodules (see reviews^139–142 selected from over 50 on the same subject). With some exceptions,^143,144 OCs were considered ductal cells and not part of the carcinogenic process.^145,146 However, more extensive studies, using different carcinogenic regimens and AFP and selected monoclonal antibodies as markers for various liver cell populations, a new theory involving liver cell lineage was proposed^43,147–149 (Figure 16). Thus, since all the cells in the liver lineage may be induced to proliferation, including the mature liver cells, liver cancers may arise from hepatocytes, ductal cells, or putative liver stem cells (OCs). The above results on the induction of CCAs after extensive OC proliferation in GSTA3-/- mice treated with AFB₁ suggest that this induction may be analogous to that of furan in rats, where CCAs are seen. The difference is that furan-induced CCAs are preceded by ductal proliferation, whereas AFB₁-induced CCAs are preceded by OC proliferation. Figure 16 includes the possibility of progenitor cells in the ducts or adjacent to the ducts. By the time OC proliferation is readily detectable, it is impossible to tell from whence they came.¹⁵⁰ In the analysis of the proliferating OCs that appear very early after exposure to hepatocarcinogens, the first cells to be labeled with tritiated thymidine (DNA synthesis) are periductular.¹⁵¹ More recently, evidence that CCAs may arise from hepatocytes was obtained using plasmid transfection of hepatocytes with oncogenes.¹⁵² This is a highly artificial system and may actually be the exception that proves the rule.

Figure 16.

Cellular origin of proliferating cells in the liver lineage during chemical hepatocarcinogenesis in the rat. Diethylnitrosamine (DEN) induces hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that arises from small microcarcinomas. The Solt–Farber model induces the proliferation of ductal cells preceding HCC. Cyclic AAF causes diffuse the proliferation of periductal oval cells. Furan induces ductal proliferation and cholangiocarcinomas.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by the NIH grant R01CA161694.

ORCID iD

Zoran Ilic

References

Mittal

El-Serag

. Epidemiology of HCC: consider the population. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47: S2–S7.

Laursen

. A preventable cancer. Nature 2014; 516: S2–S3.

American Cancer Society Facts Figures, 2015, http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-044552.pdf

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IACR). Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence in 2012, http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx

Beasley

Hwang

Lin

et al . Hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis B virus. A prospective study of 22 707 men in Taiwan. Lancet 1981; 2: 112933.

Sell

. Mouse models to study the interaction of risk factors for human liver cancer. Cancer Res 2003; 63: 7553–7562.

Groopman

Kensler

. Role of metabolism and viruses in aflatoxin-induced liver cancer. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2005; 206: 131–137.

Wild

Montesano

. A model of interaction: aflatoxins and hepatitis viruses in liver cancer aetiology and prevention. Cancer Lett 2009; 286: 22–28.

Liu

. Global burden of aflatoxin-induced hepatocellular carcinoma: a risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 2010; 118: 818–824.

10.

Liu

Chang

Marsh

et al . Population attributable risk of aflatoxin-related liver cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 2125–2136.

11.

Bai

Chen

et al . The p53 mutation spectrum in hepatocellular carcinoma from Guangxi, China: role of chronic hepatitis B virus infection and aflatoxin B1 exposure. Liver Int 2015; 35: 999–1009.

12.

Sell

. Prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma: vaccination and dietary changes show promise to eliminate most cases of human liver cancer. J Carcinogene Mutagene 2012; 3: e108.

13.

Van Rensburg

Cook Mozaffari

Van Schalkwyk

. Hepatocellular carcinoma and dietary aflatoxin in Mozambique and Transkei. Br J Cancer 1985; 51: 713–726.

14.

Aguilar

Harris

Sun

et al . Geographic variation of p53 mutational profile in non-malignant human liver. Science 1994; 264: 1317–1319.

15.

Sun

et al . Measurement of individual aflatoxin exposure among people having different risk for primary hepatocellular carcinoma. In: Hayashi

(ed.) Diet, nutrition and cancer. Utrecht: Japan Society Press, 1986, pp. 225–235.

16.

Chen

Wang

et al . Elevated aflatoxin exposure and increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 1996; 24: 38–42.

17.

Tabor

. Strongly supported features of the association between hepatitis B virus and hepatocellular carcinoma. In: Tabor

Bisulgi

Purcell

(eds) Etiology, pathology and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in North America. The Woodlands, TX: Portfolio, 1991, pp. 107–117.

18.

Powers

Zhu

et al . Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development. Nature 2016; 529: 43–47.

19.

Eaton

Ramsdell

Neal

. Biotransformation of aflatoxin B1. In: Eaton

Groopman

(eds) The toxicology of aflatoxins: human health, veterinary and agricultural significance, 1994, pp. 45–72.

20.

O’Brien

Moss

Judah

et al . Metabolic basis of the species difference to Aflatoxin B1 induced hepatotoxicity. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 1983; 114: 813–821.

21.

Eaton

Gallagher

. Mechanism of aflatoxin carcinogenesis. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1994; 34: 135–172.

22.

Gorelick

. Risk assessments for aflatoxin B1. I. Metabolism of aflatoxin B1 by different species. Risk Analysis 1990; 10: 539–559.

23.

Kobertz

Wang

Wogan

et al . An intercalation inhibitor altering the target selectivity of DNA damaging agents: synthesis of site-specific aflatoxin B1 adducts in a p53 mutational hotspot. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997; 94: 9579–9584.

24.

Bressac

Kew

Wands

et al . Selective G to T mutations of p53 gene in hepatocellular carcinoma from southern Africa. Nature 1991; 350: 429–431.

25.

Hsu

Metcalf

Sun

et al . Mutational hotspots in the p53 gene in human hepatocellular carcinomas. Nature 1991; 350: 427–428.

26.

Hayes

Pulford

. The glutathione S-transferase supergene family: regulation of GST and the contribution of the isoenzymes to cancer chemoprotection and drug resistance. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 1995; 30: 445–600.

27.

Quinn

Crane

Kocal

et al . Protective activity of different hepatic cytosolic glutathione S-transferases against DNA-binding metabolites of aflatoxin B1. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1990; 105: 351–363.

28.

Board

. The use of glutathione transferase-knockout mice as pharmacological and toxicological models. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2007; 3: 421–433.

29.

Knight

Choudhuri

Klaassen

. Constitutive mRNA expression of various glutathione S-transferase isoforms in different tissues of mice. Toxicol Sci 2007; 100: 513–524.

30.

Eaton

Gallagher

. Mechanisms of aflatoxin carcinogenesis. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1994; 34: 135–172.

31.

Hayes

Nguyen

Judah

et al . Cloning of cDNAs from fetal rat liver encoding a mouse glutathione S-transferase Yc polypeptides. The Yc2 subunit is expressed in adult rat liver resistant to the hepatocarcinogen aflatoxin B1. J Biol Chem 1994; 269: 20707–20717.

32.

Hayes

Judah

Neal

et al . Molecular cloning and heterologous expression of a cDNA encoding a mouse glutathione S transferase Yc subunit possessing high catalytic activity for aflatoxin B1-8,9-epoxide. Biochem J 1992; 285: 173–180.

33.

Yang

Sharma

Zimniak

et al . Role of alpha class glutathione S-transferases as antioxidant enzymes in rodent tissues. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2002; 182: 105–115.

34.

Hayes

Chanas

Henderson

et al . The Nrf2 transcription factor contributes both to the basal expression of glutathione S-transferases in mouse liver and to their induction by the chemopreventive synthetic antioxidants, butylated hydroxyanisole and ethoxyquin. Biochem Soc Trans 2000; 28: 33–41.

35.

Jowsey

Jiang

Itoh

et al . Expression of the aflatoxin B1-8,9-epoxide-metabolizing murine glutathione S-transferase A3 subunit is regulated by the Nrf2 transcription factor through an antioxidant response element. Mol Pharmacol 2003; 64: 1018–1028.

36.

Hayes

Flanagan

Jowsey

. Glutathione transferases. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2005; 45: 51–88.

37.

Vesselinovitch

Kokar

Mihailovich

et al . Carcinogenicity of diethylnitrosamine in newborn, infant, and adult mice. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1984; 108: 60–65.

38.

Vesselinovitch

Mihailovich

Wagon

et al . Aflatoxin B1, a hepatocarcinogen in the infant mouse. Cancer Res 1972; 32: 2289–2291.

39.

Shupe

Sell

. Low hepatic glutathione S-transferase and increased hepatic DNA adduction contribute to increased tumorigenicity of aflatoxin B1 in newborn and partially hepatectomized mice. Toxicology Lett 2004; 148: 1–9.

40.

Ilic

Crawford

Vakharia

et al . A3 knockout mice are sensitive to acute cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of aflatoxin B1. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2010; 242: 241–246.

41.

Crawford

Ilic

Guest

et al . Characterization of liver injury, oval cell proliferation and cholangiocarcinogenesis in glutathione S-transferase A3 knockout mice. Carcinogenesis 2017; 38: 717–727.

42.

Becker

. Morphological classification of mouse liver tumors based on biological characteristics. Cancer Res 1982; 42: 3918–3923.

43.

Sell

Leffert

. Liver cancer stem cells. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2800–2805.

44.

Sell

. On the stem cell origin of cancer. Am J Pathol 2010; 176: 2584–2594.

45.

Dolle

Theise

Schmelzer

et al . EpCAM and the biology of hepatic stem/progenitor cells. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2015; 308: G233–G250.

46.

Verhulst

Best

van Grunsven

et al . Advances in hepatic stem/progenitor cell biology. EXCLI J 2015; 14: 33–47.

47.

Itoh

Miyajima

. Liver regeneration by stem/progenitor cells. Hepatology 2014; 59: 1617–1626.

48.

Hindley

Mastrogiovanni

Huch

. The plastic liver: differentiated cells, stem cells, every cell? J Clin Invest 2014; 124: 5099–5102.

49.

Kordes

Haussinger

. Hepatic stem cell niches. J Clin Invest 2013; 125: 1874–1880.

50.

Farber

. Similarities in the sequence of early histological changes induced in the liver of the rat by ethionine, 2-acetylamino-fluorene, and 3’-methyl-4-dimethylaminoazobenzene. Cancer Res 1956; 16: 142–148.

51.

Chen

Zern

et al . The diversity and plasticity of adult hepatic progenitor cells and their niche. Liver Int 2017; 37: 1260–1271.

52.

Kuhlmann

Peschke

. Hepatic progenitor cells, stem cell and AFP expression in models of liver injury. Int J Pathol 2006; 87: 343–359.

53.

Cantz

Manns

Ott

. Stem cells in liver regeneration and therapy. Cell Tissue Res 2008; 331: 271–282.

54.

Bird

Lorenzini

Forbes

. Activation of stem cells in hepatic diseases. Cell Tissue Res 2008; 331: 283–300.

55.

Oertel

Shafritz

. Stem cells, cell transplantation and liver repopulation. Biochem Biophys Acta 2008; 1782: 61–74.

56.

Jelnes

Santoni-Rugiu

Rasmussen

et al . Remarkable heterogeneity displayed by oval cells in rat and mouse models of stem cell-mediated liver regeneration. Hepatology 2007; 45: 1462–1470.

57.

Michalopoulos

Khan

. Liver stem cells: experimental findings and implications for human liver disease. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 876–882.

58.

Michalopoulos

. Principles of liver regeneration and growth homeostasis. Compr Physiol 2013; 3: 485–513.

59.

Michalopoulos

. Advances in liver regeneration. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 8: 897–907.

60.

Greenbaum

. The ductal plate: a source of progenitors and hepatocytes in the adult liver. Gastroenterology 2011; 141: 1152–1155.

61.

Grompe

. Liver stem cells, where art thou? Cell Stem Cell 2014; 15: 257–258.

62.

Tan

Shuh

Cohen

. Liver injury models for induction of hepatic oval cells in rodents. J Liver Res Disord Ther 2015; 1(1): 00005.

63.

Lemaigre

. Determining the fate of hepatic cells by lineage tracing: facts and pitfalls. Hepatology 2015; 61: 2100–2103.

64.

Tanimizu

Mitaka

. Re-evaluation of liver stem/progenitor cells. Organogenesis 2014; 10: 208–215.

65.

Sell

Dunsford

. Evidence for the stem cell origin of hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Pathol 1989; 134: 1347–1363.

66.

Sell

. Cellular origin of hepatocellular carcinomas. Sem Cell Dev Biol 2002; 13: 419–424.

67.

Papoulas

Theocharis

. Primary liver tumors: origin and target therapy. Expert Opin Ther Targets 2009; 13: 957–965.

68.

Preisseger

K-H

Factor

Fuchsbichler

et al . Atypical ductular proliferation and its inhibition by TGF beta1 in the DDC mouse model for chronic alcoholic liver disease. Lab Invest 1999; 79: 103–109.

69.

Petersen

Grossbard

Hatch

et al . Mouse A6-positive hepatic oval cells also express several hematopoietic stem cell markers. Hepatology 2003; 37: 632–640.

70.

Kurobe

Jeong

et al . Wnt/beta-catenin signaling in murine hepatic transit amplifying progenitor cells. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 1579–1591.

71.

Ochser

Strick-Marchand

Qiu

et al . Transcriptional profiling of bipotential embryonic liver cells to identify liver progenitor cell surface markers. Stem Cells 2007; 25: 2476–2487.

72.

Swenson

Kuwahara

Krause

et al . Physiological variations of stem cell factor and stromal-derived factor-1 in murine models of liver injury and regeneration. Liver Int 2008; 28: 308–318.

73.

Dorrell

Erker

Lanxon-Cookson

et al . Surface markers for the murine oval cell response. Hepatology 2008; 48: 1282–1291.

74.

Sackett

Hurtt

et al . Foxl1 is a marker of bipotential hepatic progenitor cells in mice. Hepatology 2009; 49: 920–929.

75.

Okabe

Tsukuhara

Tanaka

et al . Potential hepatic stem cells reside in EpCAM+ cells of normal and injured mouse liver. Development 2009; 136: 1951–1960.

76.

Thompson

Awuah

Singh

et al . Disparate cellular basis of improved liver repair in beta-catenin-overexpressing mice after long-term exposure to 3,5-diethoxycarbonyl-1,4-dihydrocollidine. Am J Pathol 2010; 177: 1812–1822.

77.

Dolle

Best Mei

Battah

et al . The quest for liver progenitor cells: a practical point of view. J Hepatol 2010; 52: 117–129.

78.

Suzuki

Sekiya

Onishi

et al . Flow cytometric isolation and clonal identification of self-renewing bipotent hepatic progenitor cells in adult mouse liver. Hepatology 2008; 48: 1964–1978.

79.

Dorell

Erker

Schug

et al . Prospective isolation of a bipotential clonogenic liver progenitor cell in adult mice. Genes Dev 2011; 25: 1193–1203.

80.

Malato

Naqvi

Schurman

et al . Fate tracing of mature hepatocytes in mouse liver homeostasis and regeneration. J Clin Invest 2011; 121: 4850–4860.

81.

Shin

Walton

Aoki

et al . Foxl1-Cre-marked adult hepatic progenitors have clonogenic and bilineage differentiation potential. Genes Dev 2011; 25: 1185–1192.

82.

Yanger

Zong

Maggs

et al . Robust cellular reprogramming occurs spontaneously during liver regeneration. Genes Dev 2013; 27: 719–724.

83.

Rodrigo-Torres

Affò

Coll

et al . The biliary epithelium gives rise to liver progenitor cells. Hepatology 2014; 60: 1367–1377.

84.

Akhurst

Croager

Farley-Roche

et al . A modified choline-deficient, ethionine-supplemented diet protocol effectively induces oval cells in mouse liver. Hepatology 2001; 34: 515–522.

85.

Oben

Roskams

Yang

et al . Sympathetic nervous system inhibition increases hepatic progenitors and reduces liver injury. Hepatology 2003; 38: 664–673.

86.

Marchand-Strick

Masse

Weiss

et al . Lymphocytes support oval cell-dependent liver regeneration. J Immunol 2008; 181: 2764–2771.

87.

Yang

Jung

Omenetti

et al . Fate-mapping evidence that hepatic stellate cells are epithelial progenitors in adult mouse livers. Stem Cells 2008; 26: 2104–2113.

88.

Arai

Yokosuka

Fukai

et al . Gene expression profiles in liver regeneration with oval cell induction. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2004; 317: 370–376.

89.

Passman

Strauss

McSpadden

et al . A modified choline-deficient, ethionine-supplemented diet reduces morbidity and retains a liver progenitor cell response in mice. Dis Models Mech 2015; 8: 1635–1641.

90.

Novikoff

Ikeda

Hixson

et al . Characterization of and interactions between bile ductule cells and hepatocytes in early stages of rat hepatocarcinogenesis induced by ethionine. Am J Pathol 1991; 139: 1352–1368.

91.

Chisari

Filippi

Buras

et al . Structural and pathological effects of synthesis of hepatitis B virus large envelope polypeptide in transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1987; 84: 6909–6913.

92.

Sell

Ilic

. Liver stem cells. Austin, TX: Landes Bioscience, 1997.

93.

Sell

. Comparison of liver progenitor cells in human atypical ductular reactions with those seen in experimental models of liver injury. Hepatology 1998; 27: 317–331.

94.

Kofman

Morgan

Kirschenbaum

et al . Dose- and time-dependent oval cell reaction in acetaminophen-induced murine liver injury. Hepatology 2005; 41: 1252–1261.

95.

Engelhardt

Factor

Poltoranina

et al . Common antigens of mouse oval and biliary epithelial cells. Expression on newly formed hepatocytes. Differentiation 1990; 45: 29–37.

96.

Factor

Radaeva

Thorgeirsson

. Origin and fate of oval cells in dipin-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in the mouse. Am J Pathol 1994; 145: 409–422.

97.

Braun

Thompson

Sandgren

. Hepatic microenvironment affects oval cell localization in albumin-urokinase-type plasminogen activator transgenic mice. Am J Pathol 2003; 162: 195–202.

98.

Yan

Smith

Enno

et al . Short-term DEN-induced oval cell responses in three strains of mice. Pathology 1994; 26: 154–160.

99.

Rosenberg

Ilic

Yin

et al . Proliferation of hepatic lineage cells of normal C57BL and interleukin-6 knockout mice after cocaine-induced periportal injury. Hepatology 2000; 31: 948–955.

100.

Engelhardt

Baranov

Lazareva

et al . Ultrastructural localisation of alpha-fetoprotin (AFP) in regenerating mouse liver poisoned with CCl4. 1. Reexpression of AFP in differentiated hepatocytes. Histochemistry 1984; 80: 401–407.

101.

Gleiberman

Encinas

Mignone

et al . Expression of nestin-green fluorescent protein transgene marks oval cells in the adult liver. Dev Dyn 2005; 234: 413–421.

102.

Roskams

Yang

Koteish

et al . Oxidative stress and oval cell accumulation in mice and humans with alcoholic and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Am J Pathol 2003; 163: 1301–1311.

103.

Brown

Witek

Omenetti

et al . Accumulation of hedgehog-responsive progenitors parallels alcoholic liver disease severity in mice and humans. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1532–1543.

104.

Bennoun

Rissel

Engelhardt

et al . Oval cell proliferation in early stages of hepatocarcinogenesis in simian virus 40 large T transgenic mice. Am J Pathol 1993; 143: 1326–1336.

105.

Richards

Yoder

Isfort

et al . Oval cell proliferation associated with the murine insertional mutation TgN737Rpw. Am J Pathol 1996; 149: 1919–1930.

106.

Freitas

Fracchiolla

Baronzio

et al . Stem cell recruitment and liver de-differentiation in MMTV-neu (ErbB-2) transgenic mice. Anticancer Res 2003; 23: 3783–3794.

107.

Warskulat

Borsch

Reinehr

et al . Chronic liver disease is triggered by taurine transporter knockout in the mouse. FASEB J 2006; 20: 574–576.

108.

Ueberham

Aigner

Ueberham

et al . E-cadherin as a reliable cell surface marker for the identification of liver specific stem cells. J Mol Hist 2007; 38: 359–368.

109.

Rountree

Senadheera

Mato

et al . Expansion of liver cancer stem cells during aging in methionine adenosyltransferase 1A-deficient mice. Hepatology 2008; 47: 1288–1297.

110.

Rountree

Ding

et al . Expansion of CD133-expressing liver cancer stem cells in liver-specific phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome 10-deleted mice. Stem Cells 2009; 27: 290–299.

111.

Pritchard

Nagy

. Hepatic fibrosis is enhanced and accompanied by robust oval cell activation after chronic carbon tetrachloride administration to Egr-1-deficient mice. Am J Pathol 2010; 176: 2743–2752.

112.

Dunsford

Sell

Chisari

. Hepatocarcinogenesis due to chronic liver cell injury in hepatitis B virus transgenic mice. Cancer Res 1990; 50: 3400–3407.

113.

Huang

Chisari

. Strong, sustained hepatocellular proliferation precedes hepatocarcinogenesis in hepatitis B surface antigen transgenic mice. Hepatology 1995; 21: 620–626.

114.

Newberne

Butler

. Acute and chronic effects of aflatoxin on the liver of domestic and laboratory animals: a review. Cancer Res 1969; 29: 236–250.

115.

Cullen

Ruebner

. A histologic classification of chemical-induced injury of the liver. In: Meeks

Harriosn

Bull

(eds) Hepatotoxicology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991, pp. 67–93.

116.

Moore

Nakazawa

Ishikawa

. Selection pressure and altered hepatocellular islands after a single injection of aflatoxin B1. Jpn J Cancer Res 1988; 79: 187–194.

117.

Green

Carthew

Heuillet

et al . Cytokeratin expression during AFB1-induced carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 1990; 11: 1175–1182.

118.

Piscaglia

Shupe

Pani

et al . Establishment of cancer cell lines from rat hepatocholangiocarcinoma and assessment of the role of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor and hepatocyte growth factor in their growth, motility and survival. J Hepatol 2009; 51: 77–92.

119.

Radaeva

Bannasch

. Changes in catalase and glucose-6-phosphatase distribution patterns within oval cell compartment as possible differentiation markers during viral hepatocarcinogenesis in woodchucks. Differentiation 1996; 60: 169–178.

120.

Sell

Huff

et al . Aflatoxin exposure produces serum alpha-fetoprotein elevations and marked oval cell proliferation in young male Pekin ducklings. Pathology 1998; 30: 34–39.

121.

Jalanko

Rouslahti

. Differential expression of AFP and GGT in chemical and spontaneous hepatocarcinogenesis. Cancer Res 1979; 39: 3495–3501.

122.

Chiu

Sheu

Chen

et al . Global gene expression profiling reveals a key role of CD44 in hepatic oval-cell reaction after 2-AAF/CCl4 injury in rodents. Histochem Cell Biol 2009; 132: 479–489.

123.

Rountree

Barsky

et al . A CD133-expressing murine liver oval cell population with bilineage potential. Stem Cells 2007; 25: 2419–2429.

124.

Tanimizu

Saito

Mostow

et al . Long-term culture of hepatic progenitors derived from mouse Dlk+ hepatoblasts. J Cell Sci 2004; 117: 6425–6434.

125.

Yanai

Nakamura

Hijioka

et al . Dlk-1, a cell surface antigen on foetal hepatic stem/progenitor cells, is expressed in hepatocellular, colon, pancreas and breast carcinomas at high frequency. J Biochem 2010; 148: 85–92.

126.

Shin

Upadhyay

Greenbaum

et al . Ablation of Foxl1-Cre-labeled hepatic progenitor cells and their descendants impairs recovery of mice from liver injury. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 192–202.

127.

Tarlow

Pelz

Naugler

et al . Bipotential adult liver progenitors are derived from chronically injured mature hepatocytes. Cell Stem Cell 2014; 15: 605–618.

128.

Espanol-Suner

Carpentier

Van Hul

et al . Liver progenitor cells yield functional hepatocytes in response to chronic liver injury in mice. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 1564–1575.

129.

Schaub

Malato

Gormond

et al . Evidence against a stem cell origin of new hepatocytes in a common mouse model of chronic liver injury. Cell Rep 2014; 8: 933–939.

130.

Yanger

Knigin

Zong

et al . Adult hepatocytes are generated by self-duplication rather than stem cell differentiation. Cell Stem Cell 2014; 15: 340–349.

131.

Tarlow

Finegold

Grompe

. Clonal tracing of Sox9(+) liver progenitors in mouse oval cell injury. Hepatology 2014; 60: 278–289.

132.

Espanol-Suner

Mederacke

et al . Hepatocellular carcinoma originates from hepatocytes and not from the progenitor/biliary compartment. J Clin Invest 2015; 125: 3891–3903.

133.

Gournay

Auvigne

Pichard

et al . In vivo cell lineage analysis during chemical hepatocarcinogenesis in rats using retroviral-mediated gene transfer: evidence for dedifferentiation of mature hepatocytes. Lab Invest 2002; 82: 781–788.

134.

Kordes

Sawitza

Gotze

et al . Hepatic stellate cells contribute to progenitor cells and liver regeneration. J Clin Invest 2014; 124: 5503–5515.

135.

Alison

Vig

Russo

et al . Hepatic stem cells: from inside and outside the liver? Cell Prolif 2004; 37: 1–21.

136.

Theise

. Stem cell plasticity: recapping the decade, mapping the future. Exp Hematol 2010; 38: 529–539.

137.

Hohne

Zieroth

Veser

et al . Carcinogen-induced diploid hepatocytes: sensitive target cells for transformation by mutated c-Ha-ras oncogene. Mol Carcinog 1993; 7: 180–189.

138.

Marceau

Germain

Goyette

et al . Cell of origin of distinct cultured rat liver epithelial cells, as typed by cytokeratin and surface component selective expression. Biochem Cell Biol 1986; 64: 788–802.

139.

Farber

. Pathogenesis of liver cancer. Arch Pathol 1974; 98: 145–148.

140.

Farber

. The multistep nature of cancer development. Cancer Res 1984; 44: 4217–4223.

141.

Farber

. Chemical carcinogenesis: a current biological perspective. Carcinogenesis 1984; 5: 1–5.

142.

Bannasch

. Sequential cellular changes during chemical carcinogenesis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1984; 108: 11–22.

143.

Gillman

Gilbert

Spence

. Some factors regulating the structural integrity of the intrahepatic bile ducts with special reference to primary carcinoma of the liver and vitamin A. Cancer 1954; 6: 1109–1154.

144.

Wilson

Leduc

. Role of cholangioles in restoration of the liver of the mouse after dietary injury. J Pathol Bacteriol 1958; 76: 441–449.

145.

Rubin

. The origin and fate of proliferated bile ductular cells. Exp Mol Pathol 1964; 3: 279–286.

146.

Grisham

Porta

. Origin and fate of proliferated hepatic ductal cells in the rat: electron microscopic and autoradiographic studies. Exp Mol Pathol 1964; 3: 242–261.

147.

Sell

. Distribution of alpha-fetoprotein- and albumin-containing cells in the livers of Fischer rats fed four cycles of N-2-fluorenylacetamide. Cancer Res 1978; 38: 3107–3113.

148.

Sell

. Heterogeneity of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and albumin containing cells in normal and pathological permissive states for AFP production: AFP containing cells induced in adult rats recapitulate the appearance of AFP containing hepatocytes in fetal rats. Oncodev Biol Med 1980; 1: 93–105.

149.

Dunsford

Karnasuta

Hunt

et al . Monoclonal antibodies identify different lineages of chemically induced hepatocellular carcinoma in rats. Cancer Res 1989; 49: 4894–4900.

150.

Bird

Boulter

et al . Hepatic progenitor cells of biliary origin with liver repopulation capacity. Nat Cell Biol 2015; 17: 971–983.

151.

Sell

Salman

. Light- and electron-microscopic autoradiographic analysis of proliferating cells during the early stages of chemical hepatocarcinogenesis in the rat induced by feeding N-2-fluorenylacetamide in a choline-deficient diet. Am J Pathol 1984; 114: 287–300.

152.

Fan

Malato

Calvisi

et al . Cholangiocarcinomas can originate from hepatocytes in mice. J Clin Invest 2012; 122: 2911–2195.

Participation of liver stem cells in cholangiocarcinogenesis after aflatoxin B 1 exposure of glutathione S-transferase A3 knockout mice

Abstract

Keywords

Liver cancer and aflatoxin B1

AFB1 and GSTA3

GSTA3-/- (knockout) mouse

GSTA3-/- mice: single dose of AFB1

GSTA3-/- mice: repeated AFB1 dosing and tumor formation

OCs as liver stem and liver cancer stem cells

OC proliferation in mice in vivo

Isolation of OCs

AFP secretion by OCs

Detection of liver stem cell markers by immunofluorescence

Detection of liver stem cell markers by western blotting

Transplanted OCs give rise to tumors

Cell lineages during hepatocarcinogenesis

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References

Liver cancer and aflatoxin B₁

AFB₁ and GSTA3

GSTA3-/- mice: single dose of AFB₁

GSTA3-/- mice: repeated AFB₁ dosing and tumor formation