Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

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

Keywords

chemokine chemokine receptor hepatocellular carcinoma NAFLD steatohepatitis

Introduction

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), firstly described in 1980 by Ludwig et al.,¹ is becoming the most frequent chronic liver disease worldwide, and morbidity of NAFLD is up to 20–30% in adults and even higher among obesities and type II diabetes mellitus patients.^2–7 NAFLD represents a spectrum of hepatic pathology, ranging from simple accumulation of fat (‘fatty liver’ or steatosis) in its most benign form, to steatohepatitis, to cirrhosis in its most advanced form.^8,9 NAFLD is regarded as the hepatic manifestation of the metabolic syndrome, including central obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is mediated by inflammatory cytokines, mitochondrial dysfunction secondary to nutrient excess and oxidative stress,^10,11 resulting in hepatocyte infla-mmation, ballooning, apoptosis, and activation of hepatic stellate cells (HSCs). About 10–20% of patients with NAFLD develop NASH,¹² which is predicted to become the leading cause of liver transplantation over the next decades.¹³

Pathogenesis of NAFLD

Nearly 20 years ago, the ‘two hit’ hypothesis was proposed. The ‘first hit’ refers to hepatic steatosis which is a benign form, while the ‘second hit’ consists of oxidative stress and inflammation that leads to severe liver damage.¹⁴ In recent years, the ‘multiple hit’ hypothesis has been put forward for interpreting the progression of NAFLD. As shown in Figure 1, in addition to metabolic factors, innate immune alterations, inflammation response caused by free fatty acids (FFAs), bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS), chemokines, cytokines, and adipokines are implicated in the development of NAFLD-NASH hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).^12,15–20 Other organs such as adipose tissue, muscle, and intestine also participate in the pathogenesis of NAFLD, and aggravate its systematic metabolic disorder.¹⁰

Figure 1.

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

Chemokines and NAFLD

Chemokines, a family of small and highly conserved proteins (with molecular weights ranging from 8 to 12 kDa), are involved in multiple biological processes, including chemotaxis,²¹ leukocyte degranulation,²² hematopoiesis²³ and angiogenesis,²⁴ and mediate immune cell trafficking and lymphoid tissue maturation.^25,26 Although the chemokines have a highly conserved and three-stranded β-sheet/α-helix tertiary structural fold, their quaternary structures vary as compared with their subfamily. As indicated in Figure 2, according to the sequential positions of the first two cysteine residues, chemokines are divided into four main subtypes: CC-chemokines, CXC-chemokines, C-chemokines and CX3C-chemokines,^26,27 and possess tiny differences in structure. In CC and CXC chemokines, the first two cysteines are adjacent (CC motif) or separated by one amino acid residue (CXC motif). C chemokines lack the first and third of the cysteines, and CX3C chemokines have three amino acids between the first two cysteine residues.^27,28 In terms of the chemokine specific binding with different receptors and vice versa, a superfamily of chemokines has been presented^26,28–30 (Table 1). As shown in Figure 3, the chemokine receptors, 7-transmembrane G protein-coupled receptors consist of an N-terminus outside the cell surface, three extracellular and three intracellular loops as well as a C-terminus in the cytoplasm.^28,31 The interaction between chemokines and their receptors has a key role in the occurrence of liver diseases.

Figure 2.

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

Table 1.

The classification of chemokines and their receptors.

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

Figure 3.

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

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

Table 2.

Chemokines and their receptors in NAFLD.

Subfamily of chemokines	Chemokines/receptors of chemokines	Suggested involvement in NAFLD	References
CC chemokines	CCL1-CCR8	Fibrosis	Heymann and colleagues³⁶
	CCL2 and CCR2	Fibrosis, NASH, HCC	Marra and Tacke³⁵; Baeck and colleagues³⁷; Seki and colleagues³⁸; Miura and colleagues³⁹; Marra and Tacke⁴⁰; Obstfeld and colleagues⁴¹; Tamura and colleagues⁴²; Tamura and colleagues⁴³; Mulder and colleagues⁴⁴; Pellicoro and colleagues⁴⁵; Sadeghi and colleagues⁴⁶; Jiang and colleagues⁴⁷
	CCL3 and CCR5	Fibrosis, NASH	Heinrichs and colleagues⁴⁸
	CCL4 and CCR5	Fibrosis, NASH, HCC	Sadeghi and colleagues⁴⁶
	CCL5 and CCR1, CCR5	Fibrosis, NASH, HCC	Seki and Schwabe⁴⁹; Kim and colleagues⁵⁰; Seki and colleagues⁵¹; Berres and colleagues⁵²
	CCL20 and CCR6	Fibrosis, HCC, cholestatic	Chu and colleagues⁵³; Duffaut and Zararoff⁵⁴; Hou and colleagues⁵⁵; Ye and colleagues⁵⁶; Fujii and colleagues⁵⁷; Chen and colleagues⁵⁸
	CCL25-CCR9	Fibrosis	Chu and colleagues⁵⁹
CXC chemokines	CXCL5 and CXCR2	HCC	Sadeghi and colleagues⁴⁶; Zhou and colleagues⁶⁰; Saintigny and colleagues⁶¹; Singh and colleagues⁶²; Matsuo and colleagues⁶³; Zhou and colleagues⁶⁴
	CXCL8	HCC	Jiang and colleagues⁴⁷; Li and colleagues⁶⁵; Yin and colleagues⁶⁶
	CXCL9 and CXCR3	Fibrosis, steatohepatitis, NASH	Wasmuth and colleagues⁶⁷; Tacke and colleagues⁶⁸; Clarklewis and colleagues⁶⁹; Zhang and colleagues⁷⁰; Oo and colleagues⁷¹; Berres and colleagues⁷²
	CXCL10 and CXCR3	Fibrosis, cholestatic, NASH, steatohepatitis	Xu and colleagues⁷³; Zhang and colleagues⁷⁴; Kyoko and colleagues⁷⁵
	CXCL11	Fibrosis	Berres and colleagues⁷⁶
	CXCL12 and CXCR4 CXCR7	Fibrosis, HCC	Ghanem and colleagues⁷⁷; Shah and colleagues⁷⁸; Aghi and colleagues⁷⁹; Xiang and colleagues⁸⁰; Garcia-Irigoyen and colleagues⁸¹; Lin and colleagues⁸²
	CXCL16 and CXCR6	Fibrosis	Pellicoro and colleagues⁴⁵; Geissmann and colleagues⁸³; Wehr and colleagues⁸⁴; Gao and colleagues⁸⁵
CX3C chemokines	CX3CL1	Fibrosis	Efsen and colleagues⁸⁶; Wasmuth and colleagues⁸⁷; Sutti and colleagues⁸⁸; Karlmark and colleagues^89; Aoyama and colleagues⁹⁰

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

CC chemokine and its receptor

CCL2 (also termed MCP-1) and its receptor CCR2 are characterized in many chemokines involved in hepatic diseases including NASH, fibrosis and HCC. CCL2, mainly produced by KCs and HSCs, is conductive to inflammation, fibrosis, and steatosis,³⁵ and recruits macrophages and monocytes into the liver, resulting in the activation of HSCs.^37–39 CCR2 is also expressed in HSCs and macrophages. During the progression of NASH, activation of CCL2–CCR2 axis promotes macrophage accumulation, inflammation responses, fibrosis, and steatosis in the liver as well as in adipose tissue,⁴⁰ and contributes to NASH by recruiting bone marrow-derived monocytes.³⁹ In contrast, CCR2-deficient mice display a decreased accumulation of inflammatory cells in the liver,^39,41 and the inhibition of the CCL2–CCR2 axis causes reduced hepatic fibrosis in experimental fibrosis models.^37,39 Prop-agermanium, as a CCR2 inhibitor, is reported to prevent insulin resistance, steatosis^42,43 and NASH.⁴⁴ The CCL2–CCR2 axis also mediates the liver injury to lead to parenchymal cell necrosis or apoptosis by release of ROS and activation of HSCs and macrophages.⁴⁵ It has been reported that patients with HCC have a lower serum level of CCL2 than cirrhotic patients.⁴⁶

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

Recent studies have shown that the expression of CCL20 is increased in patients with NAFLD fibrosis.⁵³ CCL20 and its exclusive receptor CCR6 contribute to cholestatis and HCC. Accumulation of immune cells in adipose tissue (AT) causes obesity-associated inflammation, insulin resistance and fatty liver. Initially, macrophage-mediated invasion of AT is related to a release of soluble mediators by fat-laden adipocytes⁹¹ and the upregulation of chemokine expression.⁹² It is found that mature adipocytes release CCL20 and stimulate the migration of AT lymphocytes via CCR6.⁵⁴ CCL20 exerts the tumor-promoting effects by inducing cell migration and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) via PI3K/AKT and Wnt/β-catenin pathways and predicts poor survival and tumor recurrence in patients with HCC.⁵⁵ Moreover, HIF-1α-CCL20-indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase (IDO) axis accelerates tumor metastasis by inducing EMT and an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.⁵⁶ CCL20 also enhances the growth of HCC cells via phosphorylation of p44/42 MAPK.⁵⁷ CCR6 possesses elevated expression on the HuH7 cells, resulting in spontaneous secretion of CCL20,⁵⁷ and CCL20–CCR6 axis mediates the migration of circulating FoxP3⁽⁺⁾ Tregs into tumor microenvironment.⁵⁸

CXC chemokine and its receptor

Several CXC-chemokines and their receptors are involved in the progression of NAFLD. Patients with HCC have a higher serum level of CXCL5 than cirrhotic patients.⁴⁶ Increased expression of CXCL5 is correlated with neutrophil infiltration and poor prognosis in patients with HCC.⁶⁰ CXCR2, a CXCL5-specific receptor, is at a high level in many cancer cells and is related to tumorigenesis, tumor angiogenesis and metastasis.^61–63 The CXCL5–CXCR2 axis gives rise to cell spreading by inducing EMT via activation of the PI3K/Akt/GSK-3β/Snail signaling pathway.⁶⁴

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

CXCL10 belongs to the ELR-negative CXC family. In the liver, CXCL10 is mainly secreted by the liver sinusoidal endothelium and hepatocytes in areas of lobular inflammation. The CXCL10 serum level is associated with the severity of lobular inflammation and acts as an independent risk factor for NASH patients. CXCL10 induces inflammation, oxidative stress and fibrosis in experimental steatohepatitis via activation of the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B-cells (NF-κB) pathway.⁷³ In addition, CXCL10 promotes steatosis by stimulating lipogenesis⁷⁴ and cholesterol (FFC) diet-induced macrophage-associated hepatic injury and fibrosis.⁷⁵ As a proinflammatory factor, CXCL10 is implicated in each phase of NASH development.⁷³

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

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

CXCL12, known as stromal-derived factor 1 alpha (SDF1α) is the ligand of CXCR4 and CXCR7. The CXCL12–CXCR4 axis promotes proliferation, survival, invasion, and metastasis,⁷⁷ and mediates interstitial fluid flow to enhance the invasion in HCC cells via the MEK/ERK pathway.⁷⁸ CXCL12 activates CXCR4-expressing HCC cells, lymphocytes and endothelial cells in an autocrine or paracrine manner⁷⁷ and induces tumor vasculature remodeling under hypoxic conditions.⁷⁹ CXCR4 has been demonstrated as upregulated in HCC tissue,⁸⁰ but downregulated in MMP10-deficient HCC, while pharmacological inhibition of CXCR4 significantly reduces MMP10-stimulated HCC cell migration.⁸¹ In addition, CXCR7 expression is upregulated in metastatic HCC, and promotes the growth and invasiveness via activation of the MAPK and angiogenesis signaling pathways.⁸²

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

CX3C chemokine and its receptor

CX3CL1, the only member of the CX3C subfamily of chemokines is widely expressed in immune cells and nonimmune cells. CX3CR1, a member of 7-transmembrane G protein-coupled receptor is the receptor of CX3CL1. CX3CR1 can be expressed by monocytes, macrophages, microglia, T helper (Th) 1 cells, CD8⁺T effector/memory cells, NK cells, γδ T-cells, and dendritic cells (DCs).⁴⁰ Both CX3CL1 and CX3CR1 are expressed throughout the body, but depend highly on cell type-specific organs and tissues. The CX3CL1–CX3CR1 axis promotes liver fibrosis by activation of HSCs, KCs, biliary epithelial cells and liver infiltrating lymphocytes,^86–88 and the interaction between CX3CL1 and CX3CR1 on liver macrophages regulates liver inflammation by enhancing macrophage survival and reducing the anti-inflammatory phenotype.^89,90

Application prospect

In terms of the role of chemokines and their receptors in the pathogenesis of liver diseases, some therapeutic strategies for targeting chemokines and their receptors may highlight a new direction for the treatment of patients with liver diseases. As showed in Table 3, pharmaceutical inhibition of CCR2 contributes to an inhibition of liver inflammation and fibrosis by preventing infiltration of Ly6C-positive macrophages.⁹⁴ Congruously, previous studies showed that pharmacological inhibition of CCL2 or CCR2 significantly ameliorates insulin resistance, steatosis and inflammation in several metabolic disease models.⁹⁵ Of note, cenicriviroc (CVC), a CCR2 and CCR5 antagonist, has the potential to exert anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic activity in animal models. In a phase II study, in obese adults with NASH, CVC does not achieve the ideal effect in the treatment of NAFLD, but shows a reduction in fibrosis scores; a similar result is verified in a phase IIb study in NASH in recent studies.^96–98 Moreover, glutaminyl cyclase inhibitors may alleviate liver inflammation by destabilizing CCL2 in an experimental model of NAFLD.⁹⁹ Besides that, as a CCR5 antagonist, maraviroc shows the ability in ameliorating the development of hepatic steatosis in a mouse model of NAFLD.¹⁰⁰ Pharmacological inhibition of mixed lineage kinase 3 (MLK3) mediates the release of CXCL10-laden extracellular vesicles from lipotoxic hepatocytes.¹⁰¹ Anti-CXCL16 decreases liver macrophage infiltration and fatty liver degeneration in NAFLD.¹⁰² These suggest that chemokines and their receptors may act as potential therapeutic targets of NAFLD. Further investigations of the applications of chemokines and their receptors in NAFLD is needed.

Table 3.

Chemokines and their receptors as therapeutic targets for NAFLD treatment.

Subfamily of chemokines	Chemokines/receptors of chemokines	Suggested involvement in NAFLD	References
CC chemokines	CCL2/CCR2	Liver inflammation, fibrosis, insulin resistance, steatosis	Miura and colleagues⁹⁴; Baeck and colleagues⁹⁵; Tacke⁹⁸; Cynis and colleagues⁹⁹; Tamura and colleagues¹⁰³; Yang and colleagues¹⁰⁴; Tamura and colleagues¹⁰⁵
	CCR5	Hepatic steatosis	Friedman and colleagues⁹⁶; Sanyal and colleagues⁹⁷; Tacke⁹⁸; Pérez-Martínez and colleagues¹⁰⁰
CXC chemokines	CXCL10	NASH	Ibrahim and colleagues¹⁰¹
	CXCL16	Liver macrophage infiltration and steatohepatitis	Wehr and colleagues¹⁰²

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

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Wei Chen and Jing Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Funding

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

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

Ludwig

Viggiano

Mcgill

et al . Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Mayo Clinic experiences with a hitherto unnamed disease. Mayo Clin Proc 1980; 55: 434–438.

Younossi

Koenig

Abdelatif

et al . Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology 2016; 64: 73–84.

Mcpherson

Hardy

Henderson

et al . Evidence of NAFLD progression from steatosis to fibrosing-steatohepatitis using paired biopsies: implications for prognosis and clinical management. J Hepatol 2015; 62: 1148–1155.

Adams

Anstee

Tilg

et al . Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its relationship with cardiovascular disease and other extrahepatic diseases. Gut 2017; 66: 1138–1153.

Singh

Allen

Wang

et al . Fibrosis progression in nonalcoholic fatty liver vs nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of paired-biopsy studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 643–654.

Yki-Järvinen

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease as a cause and a consequence of metabolic syndrome. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014; 2: 901–910.

Satapathy

Sanyal

. Epidemiology and natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Semin Liver Dis 2015; 35(3): 221–235.

Hübscher

SG.

Histological assessment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Histopathology 2006; 49: 450–465.

Ratziu

Bellentani

Cortezpinto

et al . A position statement on NAFLD/NASH based on the EASL 2009 special conference. J Hepatol 2010; 53: 372–384.

10.

Haas

Francque

Staels

Pathophysiology and mechanisms of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Annu Rev Physiol 2016; 78: 181–205.

11.

Dowman

Tomlinson

Newsome

PN.

Pathogenesis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. QJM 2010; 103: 71–83.

12.

Tilg

Moschen

AR.

Evolution of inflammation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: the multiple parallel hits hypothesis. Hepatology 2010; 52: 1836–1846.

13.

Wong

R J

Maria

Ramsey

et al . Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the second leading etiology of liver disease among adults awaiting liver transplantation in the United States. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 547–555.

14.

Day

James

OFW

. Steatohepatitis: a tale of two “hits”? Gastroenterology 1998; 114: 842–845.

15.

Bugianesi

Moscatiello

Ciaravella

et al . Insulin resistance in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Curr Pharm Des 2010; 16: 1941–1951.

16.

Guilherme

Virbasius

Puri

et al . Adipocyte dysfunctions linking obesity to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2008; 9: 367–377.

17.

Cusi

Role of insulin resistance and lipotoxicity in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Liver Dis 2009; 13: 545–563.

18.

Kirpich

Marsano

Mcclain

CJ.

Gut-liver axis, nutrition, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Biochem 2015; 48(13–14): 923–930.

19.

Yilmaz

Review article: is non-alcoholic fatty liver disease a spectrum, or are steatosis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis distinct conditions?

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 36: 815–823.

20.

Buzzetti

Pinzani

Tsochatzis

EA.

The multiple-hit pathogenesis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Metabolism 2016; 65: 1038–1048.

21.

Baggiolini

Chemokines and leukocyte traffic. Nature 1998; 392: 565–568.

22.

Mackay

CR.

Chemokines: immunology’s high impact factors. Nat Immunol 2001; 2: 95–101.

23.

Youn

Mantel

Broxmeyer

Chemokines, chemokine receptors and hematopoiesis. Immunol Rev 2000; 177: 150–174.

24.

Koch

Polverini

Kunkel

et al . Interleukin-8 as a macrophage-derived mediator of angiogenesis. Science 1992; 258: 1798–1801.

25.

Rot

von Andrian

UH.

Chemokines in innate and adaptive host defense: basic chemokinese grammar for immune cells. Annu Rev Immunol 2004; 22: 891–928.

26.

Griffith

Sokol

Luster

AD.

Chemokines and chemokine receptors: positioning cells for host defense and immunity. Annu Rev Immunol 2014; 32: 659–702.

27.

Rollins

BJ.

Chemokines. Blood 1997; 90: 909–928.

28.

ŁukaszewiczZając

Mroczko

Szmitkowski

Chemokines and their receptors in esophageal cancer–the systematic review and future perspectives. Tumour Biol 2015; 36: 5707–5714.

29.

Nagarsheth

Wicha

M S

Zou

Chemokines in the cancer microenvironment and their relevance in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol 2017; 17: 559–572.

30.

Sun

Cheng

Hao

et al . CXCL12 / CXCR4 / CXCR7 chemokine axis and cancer progression. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2010; 29(4): 709–722.

31.

Zlotnik

Yoshie

Chemokines: a new classification system and their role in immunity. Immunity 2000; 12: 121–127.

32.

Ganz

Szabo

Immune and inflammatory pathways in NASH. Hepatol Int 2013; 7(Suppl. 2): 771–781.

33.

Huang

Metlakunta

Dedousis

et al . Depletion of liver Kupffer cells prevents the development of diet-induced hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance. Diabetes 2010; 59: 347–357.

34.

Lanthier

Molendicoste

Cani

et al . Kupffer cell depletion prevents but has no therapeutic effect on metabolic and inflammatory changes induced by a high-fat diet. FASEB J 2011; 25: 4301–4311.

35.

Marra

Tacke

Roles for chemokines in liver disease. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 577–594.e1.

36.

Heymann

Hammerich

Storch

et al . Hepatic macrophage migration and differentiation critical for liver fibrosis is mediated by the chemokine receptor C-C motif chemokine receptor 8 in mice. Hepatology 2012; 55: 898–909.

37.

Baeck

Wei

Bartneck

et al . Pharmacological inhibition of the chemokine C-C motif chemokine ligand 2 (monocyte chemoattractant protein 1) accelerates liver fibrosis regression by suppressing Ly-6C+ macrophage infiltration in mice. Hepatology 2014; 59: 1060–1072.

38.

Seki

De Minicis

Inokuchi

et al . CCR2 promotes hepatic fibrosis in mice. Hepatology 2009; 50: 185–197.

39.

Miura

Yang

Van

et al . Hepatic recruitment of macrophages promotes nonalcoholic steatohepatitis through CCR2. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2012; 302: G1310–G1321.

40.

Marra

Tacke

Roles for chemokines in liver disease. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 577–594.e1.

41.

Obstfeld

Eiji

Marie

et al . C-C chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) regulates the hepatic recruitment of myeloid cells that promote obesity-induced hepatic steatosis. Diabetes 2010; 59: 916–925.

42.

Tamura

Sugimoto

Murayama

et al . Inhibition of CCR2 ameliorates insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis in db/db mice. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2008; 28: 2195–2201.

43.

Tamura

Sugimoto

Murayama

et al . C-C chemokine receptor 2 inhibitor improves diet-induced development of insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis in mice. J Atheroscler Thromb 2010; 17: 219–228.

44.

Mulder

Hoek

AMVD

Kleemann

The CCR2 inhibitor propagermanium attenuates diet-induced insulin resistance, adipose tissue inflammation and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. PLos One 2017; 12: e0169740.

45.

Pellicoro

Ramachandran

Iredale

et al . Liver fibrosis and repair: immune regulation of wound healing in a solid organ. Nat Rev Immunol 2014; 14:181–194.

46.

Sadeghi

Lahdou

Oweira

et al . Serum levels of chemokines CCL4 and CCL5 in cirrhotic patients indicate the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2015; 113: 756–762.

47.

Jiang

Yang

et al . Peri-tumor associated fibroblasts promote intrahepatic metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma by recruiting cancer stem cells. Cancer Lett 2017; 404: 19–28.

48.

Heinrichs

Berres

Nellen

et al . The chemokine CCL3 promotes experimental liver fibrosis in mice. PLos One 2013; 8: e66106.

49.

Seki

Schwabe

RF.

Hepatic inflammation and fibrosis: functional links and key pathways. Hepatology 2015; 61: 1066–1079.

50.

Kim

Abdelfattah

Vasan

et al . Hepatic stellate cells secrete Ccl5 to induce hepatocyte steatosis. Sci Rep 2018; 8: 7499.

51.

Seki

De Minicis

Gwak

et al . CCR1 and CCR5 promote hepatic fibrosis in mice. J Clin Invest 2009; 119: 1858–1870.

52.

Berres

Koenen

Rueland

et al . Antagonism of the chemokine Ccl5 ameliorates experimental liver fibrosis in mice. J Clin Invest 2010; 120: 4129–4140.

53.

Chu

Jin

Chen

et al . CCL20 is up-regulated in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis and is produced by hepatic stellate cells in response to fatty acid loading. J Transl Med 2018; 16: 108.

54.

Duffaut

Zakaroff

GAV

. Interplay between human adipocytes and T lymphocytes in obesity: CCL20 as an adipochemokine and T lymphocytes as lipogenic modulators. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2009; 29: 1608–1614.

55.

Hou

Gong

Chemokine ligand 20 enhances progression of hepatocellular carcinoma via epithelial-mesenchymal transition. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 475–483.

56.

Chen

Bai

et al . Hypoxia-induced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in hepatocellular carcinoma induces an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment to promote metastasis. Cancer Res 2016; 76: 818–830.

57.

Fujii

Itoh

Yamaguchi

et al . Chemokine CCL20 enhances the growth of HuH7 cells via phosphorylation of p44/42 MAPK in vitro. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2004; 322: 1052–1058.

58.

Chen

Lin

Zhou

et al . Selective recruitment of regulatory T cell through CCR6-CCL20 in hepatocellular carcinoma fosters tumor progression and predicts poor prognosis. PLoS One 2011; 6: e24671.

59.

Chu

Nakamoto

Ebinuma

et al . C-C motif chemokine receptor 9 positive macrophages activate hepatic stellate cells and promote liver fibrosis in mice. Hepatology 2013; 58: 337–350.

60.

Zhou

Dai

Zhou

et al . Overexpression of CXCL5 mediates neutrophil infiltration and indicates poor prognosis for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2012; 56: 2242–2254.

61.

Saintigny

Massarelli

Lin

et al . CXCR2 expression in tumor cells is a poor prognostic factor and promotes invasion and metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 2013; 73: 571–582.

62.

Singh

Sadanandam

Varney

et al . Small interfering RNA-mediated CXCR1 or CXCR2 knock-down inhibits melanoma tumor growth and invasion. Int J Cancer 2010; 126: 328–336.

63.

Matsuo

Raimondo

Woodward

et al . CXC-Chemokine/CXCR2 biologic axis promotes angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo in pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 1027–1037.

64.

Zhou

et al . CXCR2/CXCL5 axis contributes to epithelial-mesenchymal transition of HCC cells through activating PI3K/Akt/GSK-3β/Snail signaling. Cancer Lett 2015; 358: 124–135.

65.

Yang

Biskup

et al . Co-expression of CXCL8 and HIF-1α is associated with metastasis and poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget 2015; 6: 22880–22889.

66.

Yin

Huang

et al . Macrophages activating chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 8/miR-17 cluster modulate hepatocellular carcinoma cell growth and metastasis. Am J Transl Res 2017; 9: 2403–2411.

67.

Wasmuth

Lammert

Zaldivar

et al . Antifibrotic effects of CXCL9 and its receptor CXCR3 in livers of mice and humans. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 309–319.

68.

Tacke

Zimmermann

Berres

et al . Serum chemokine receptor CXCR3 ligands are associated with progression, organ dysfunction and complications of chronic liver diseases. Liver Int 2011; 31: 840–849.

69.

Clarklewis

Mattioli

Gong

et al . Structure-function relationship between the human chemokine receptor CXCR3 and its ligands. J Biol Chem 2003; 278: 289–295.

70.

Zhang

Han

Man

et al . CXC chemokine receptor 3 promotes steatohepatitis in mice through mediating inflammatory cytokines, macrophages and autophagy. J Hepatol 2016; 64: 160–170.

71.

Shetty

Adams

DH.

The role of chemokines in the recruitment of lymphocytes to the liver. Dig Dis 2010; 28: 31–44.

72.

Berres

Nellen

Wasmuth

HE.

Chemokines as immune mediators of liver diseases related to the metabolic syndrome. Dig Dis 2010; 28: 192–196.

73.

Zhang

Jennie

et al . C-X-C motif chemokine 10 in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: role as a pro-inflammatory factor and clinical implication. Expert Rev Mol Med 2016; 18: e16.

74.

Zhang

Shen

Man

et al . CXCL10 plays a key role as an inflammatory mediator and a non-invasive biomarker of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J Hepatol 2014; 61: 1365–1375.

75.

Kyoko

Freeman

Bronk

et al . CXCL10-mediates macrophage, but not other innate immune cells-associated inflammation in murine nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 28786.

76.

Berres

Lehmann

Jansen

et al . Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 11 levels predict survival in cirrhotic patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Liver Int 2016; 36: 386–394.

77.

Ghanem

Riveiro

Paradis

et al . Insights on the CXCL12-CXCR4 axis in hepatocellular carcinoma carcinogenesis. Am J Transl Res 2014; 6: 340–352.

78.

Shah

Bouchard

Shieh

AC.

Interstitial fluid flow increases hepatocellular carcinoma cell invasion through CXCR4/CXCL12 and MEK/ERK signaling. PLos One 2015; 10: e0142337.

79.

Aghi

Cohen

Scadden

et al . Tumor stromal-derived factor-1 recruits vascular progenitors to mitotic neovasculature, where microenvironment influences their differentiated phenotypes. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 9054–9064.

80.

Xiang

Zeng

Tang

et al . Chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma patients increases the risk of bone metastases and poor survival. BMC Cancer 2009; 9:176.

81.

García-Irigoyen

Latasa

Carotti

et al . Matrix metalloproteinase 10 contributes to hepatocarcinogenesis in a novel crosstalk with the stromal derived factor 1/C-X-C chemokine receptor 4 axis. Hepatology 2015; 62: 166–178.

82.

Lin

Han

Wang

et al . CXCR7 stimulates MAPK signaling to regulate hepatocellular carcinoma progression. Cell Death Dis 2014; 5: e1488.

83.

Geissmann

Cameron

Sidobre

et al . Intravascular immune surveillance by CXCR6+ NKT cells patrolling liver sinusoids. PLoS Biol 2005; 3: e113.

84.

Wehr

Baeck

Heymann

et al . Chemokine receptor CXCR6-dependent hepatic NK T Cell accumulation promotes inflammation and liver fibrosis. J Immunol 2013; 190: 5226–5236.

85.

Gao

Radaeva

Park

Liver natural killer and natural killer T cells: immunobiology and emerging roles in liver diseases. J Leukoc Biol 2009; 86: 513–528.

86.

Efsen

Grappone

Defranco

RMS

et al . Up-regulated expression of fractalkine and its receptor CX3CR1 during liver injury in humans. J Hepatol 2002; 37: 39–47.

87.

Wasmuth

Zaldivar

Berres

et al . The fractalkine receptor CX3CR1 is involved in liver fibrosis due to chronic hepatitis C infection. J Hepatol 2008; 48: 208–215.

88.

Sutti

Heymann

Bruzzì

et al . CX3CR1 modulates the anti-inflammatory activity of hepatic dendritic cells in response to acute liver injury. Clin Sci (Lond) 2017; pii: CS20171025.

89.

Karlmark

Zimmermann

Roderburg

et al . The fractalkine receptor CX₃CR1 protects against liver fibrosis by controlling differentiation and survival of infiltrating hepatic monocytes. Hepatology 2010; 52: 1769–1782.

90.

Aoyama

Inokuchi

Brenner

et al . CX3CL1-CX3CR1 interaction prevents CCl4-induced liver inflammation and fibrosis. Hepatology 2010; 52: 1390–1400.

91.

Kanneganti

Dixit

VD.

Immunological complications of obesity. Nat Immunol 2012; 13: 707–712.

92.

Barnes

Yang

et al . Chronic inflammation in fat plays a crucial role in the development of obesity-related insulin resistance. J Clin Invest 2003; 112: 1821–1830.

93.

Mukaida

Pathophysiological roles of interleukin-8/CXCL8 in pulmonary diseases. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2003; 284: 566–577.

94.

Miura

Yang

Van

et al . Hepatic recruitment of macrophages promotes nonalcoholic steatohepatitis through CCR2. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2012; 302: G1310.

95.

Baeck

Wehr

Karlmark

et al . Pharmacological inhibition of the chemokine CCL2 (MCP-1) diminishes liver macrophage infiltration and steatohepatitis in chronic hepatic injury. Gut 2012; 61: 416–426.

96.

Friedman

Sanyal

Goodman

et al . Efficacy and safety study of cenicriviroc for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in adult subjects with liver fibrosis: CENTAUR phase 2b study design. Contemp Clin Trials 2016; 47: 356–365.

97.

Sanyal

Ratziu

Harrison

et al . Cenicriviroc placebo for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis with liver fibrosis: results from the year 1 primary analysis of the phase 2b CENTAUR study. Hepatology 2016; 64: 1118A–1119A.

98.

Tacke

Cenicriviroc for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2018; 27: 301–311.

99.

Cynis

Kehlen

Haegele

et al . Inhibition of Glutaminyl Cyclases alleviates CCL2-mediated inflammation of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in mice. Int J Exp Pathol 2013; 94: 217–225.

100.

Pérez-Martínez

Pérez-Matute

Aguilera-Lizarraga

et al . Maraviroc, a CCR5 antagonist, ameliorates the development of hepatic steatosis in a mouse model of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69: 1903–1910.

101.

Ibrahim

Hirsova

Tomita

et al . Mixed lineage kinase 3 mediates release of C-X-C motif ligand 10-bearing chemotactic extracellular vesicles from lipotoxic hepatocytes. Hepatology 2016; 63: 731–744.

102.

Wehr

Baeck

Ulmer

et al . Pharmacological inhibition of the chemokine CXCL16 diminishes liver macrophage infiltration and steatohepatitis in chronic hepatic injury. PLos One 2014; 9: e112327.

103.

Tamura

Sugimoto

Murayama

et al . C-C chemokine receptor 2 inhibitor improves diet-induced development of insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis in mice. J Atheroscler Thromb 2010; 17: 219–228.

104.

Yang

Iglayreger

Kadouh

et al . Inhibition of the chemokine (C–C motif) ligand 2/chemokine (C–C motif) receptor 2 pathway attenuates hyperglycaemia and inflammation in a mouse model of hepatic steatosis and lipoatrophy. Diabetologia 2009; 52: 972–981.

105.

Tamura

Sugimoto

Murayama

et al . Inhibition of CCR2 ameliorates insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis in db/db mice. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2008; 28: 2195–2201.

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

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Pathogenesis of NAFLD

Chemokines and NAFLD

CC chemokine and its receptor

CXC chemokine and its receptor

CX3C chemokine and its receptor

Application prospect

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

Conflict of interest statement

References