Sexual dimorphisms in zonal gene expression in mouse liver
Abstract
Many of the metabolic functions of the liver are localized either in the pericentral region (zone 3) or in the periportal region (zone 1). However, a systematic analysis of the heterogeneity and sexual dimorphism of gene expression in the liver is lacking. Our objective was to obtain sections of intact tissue from zone 1 and zone 3 from both male and female mouse liver, and to measure the patterns of gene expression in these sections. Zone 1 and zone 3 areas were isolated by laser capture microdissection of liver sections, total RNA was isolated and microarray analysis was conducted using Agilent Whole Mouse Genome oligo arrays. To investigate functional characteristics as well as upstream regulators of specific gene lists, we used Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. We identified more than 925 genes in zone 1 and more than 450 genes in zone 3 of both male and female mice. Sexual dimorphism in metabolic functions was present in zone 1 but not zone 3. In zone 1, canonical pathways related to gluconeogenesis were male predominant, while canonical pathways related to hepatic progenitor cells were female predominant. In addition, we also analyzed the upstream regulators of zone-specific genes. SREBF1 was male-specific in zone 1, while TRIM24 was female-specific in zone 3. These results demonstrate the heterogeneity and sexually dimorphic differences in gene expression in the liver.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
SDS was enriched in zone 1 (periportal), while CYP2E1 expression increased in zone 3 (pericentral), as previously described in mouse.
“SDS was enriched in zone 1 (periportal), while CYP2E1 expression increased in zone 3 (pericentral), as previously described in mouse24–27 (Fig. 1c, e, f; Supplementary Fig. 5a).”
From Spatial transcriptomics of healthy and fibrotic human liver at single-cell resolution (2025) · cites this paper as [25]
These observations are consistent with the classic zonation described in human and mouse liver, supporting the MERFISH measurements.
“Collectively, these observations are consistent with the classic zonation described in human and mouse liver4,24–26, supporting our MERFISH measurements.”
From Spatial transcriptomics of healthy and fibrotic human liver at single-cell resolution (2025) · cites this paper as [25]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 34 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Saito, K., Negishi, M., & James Squires, E.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
- Venue
- Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 436
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 730-735
- ISSN
- 0006-291X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2039614549
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 1.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Intramural Research Program of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01ES1005-01)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver physiology and pathology
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Estrogen and related hormone effects
- Keywords
- sexual dimorphism, periportal zone, pericentral zone, gluconeogenesis, hepatic progenitor cells, SREBF1, TRIM24, upstream regulators, mouse liver
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Female, Liver, Male, Mice, Inbred C3H, Quality Control, Sex Characteristics, Transcription, Genetic, Gene Expression Profiling, Mice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review