CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 144Liver physiology and pathologyPeptidase Inhibition and AnalysisLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fibroblast Activation Protein Activates Macrophages and Promotes Parenchymal Liver Inflammation and Fibrosis

Open access
Yang, Ai-Ting, Kim, Yong-Ook, Yan, Xu-Zhen, Abe, Hiroyuki, Aslam, Misbah, Park, Kyoung-Sook, Zhao, Xin-Yan, Jia, Ji-Dong, Klein, Thomas, You, Hong, Schuppan, Detlef·2023·Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology
DOI 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2022.12.005PMC PMC9972574
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is expressed on activated fibroblast. Its role in fibrosis and desmoplasia is controversial, and data on pharmacological FAP inhibition are lacking. We aimed to better define the role of FAP in liver fibrosis in vivo and in vitro. METHODS: FAP expression was analyzed in mice and patients with fibrotic liver diseases of various etiologies. Fibrotic mice received a specific FAP inhibitor (FAPi) at 2 doses orally for 2 weeks during parenchymal fibrosis progression (6 weeks of carbon tetrachloride) and regression (2 weeks off carbon tetrachloride), and with biliary fibrosis (Mdr2-/-). Recombinant FAP was added to (co-)cultures of hepatic stellate cells (HSC), fibroblasts, and macrophages. Fibrosis- and inflammation-related parameters were determined biochemically, by quantitative immunohistochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, and transcriptomics. RESULTS: FAP+ fibroblasts/HSCs were α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA)-negative and located at interfaces of fibrotic septa next to macrophages in murine and human livers. In parenchymal fibrosis, FAPi reduced collagen area, liver collagen content, α-SMA+ myofibroblasts, M2-type macrophages, serum alanine transaminase and aspartate aminotransferase, key fibrogenesis-related transcripts, and increased hepatocyte proliferation 10-fold. During regression, FAP was suppressed, and FAPi was ineffective. FAPi less potently inhibited biliary fibrosis. In vitro, FAP small interfering RNA reduced HSC α-SMA expression and collagen production, and FAPi suppressed their activation and proliferation. Compared with untreated macrophages, FAPi regulated macrophage profibrogenic activation and transcriptome, and their conditioned medium attenuated HSC activation, which was increased with addition of recombinant FAP. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological FAP inhibition attenuates inflammation-predominant liver fibrosis. FAP is expressed on subsets of activated fibroblasts/HSC and promotes both macrophage and HSC profibrogenic activity in liver fibrosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2022.12.005

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Treatment of CCl4-fibrotic mice with FAP inhibitor. (A), Scheme of experimental design. Female C56BL/6 mice received escalating doses of oral CCl4 in mineral oil (fibrotic group, n = 10) or mineral oil alone (non-fibrotic controls, n = 5) for 6 weeks. Fibrotic mice were analyzed at peak progression or after 2 weeks of regression. Other groups of fibrotic mice continued with their chow were set on chow containing FAPi at 15 or 50 mg/kg/d (n = 10 per group). (B–C), Liver/bw ratio and spleen/bw ratios. (D), Representative images of H&E-stained liver section of each group. (E–H), Serum ALT, AST, ALP, and creatinine levels. Data in (B–C, E–H) are presented as means ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analysis was performed by 1-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (∗P < .05; ∗∗P < .01; ∗∗∗P < .005; ns, not significant).
Figure 1 Treatment of CCl4-fibrotic mice with FAP inhibitor. (A), Scheme of experimental design. Female C56BL/6 mice received escalating doses of oral CCl4 in mineral oil (fibrotic group, n = 10) or mineral oil alone (non-fibrotic controls, n = 5) for 6 weeks. Fibrotic mice were analyzed at peak progression or after 2 weeks of regression. Other groups of fibrotic mice continued with their chow were set on chow containing FAPi at 15 or 50 mg/kg/d (n = 10 per group). (B–C), Liver/bw ratio and spleen/bw ratios. (D), Representative images of H&E-stained liver section of each group. (E–H), Serum ALT, AST, ALP, and creatinine levels. Data in (B–C, E–H) are presented as means ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analysis was performed by 1-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (∗P < .05; ∗∗P < .01; ∗∗∗P < .005; ns, not significant).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2 FAP inhibition attenuates parenchymal liver fibrosis. (A–C), Livers of mice (n = 5–10/group) treated with FAPi during fibrosis progression or regression vs fibrotic untreated controls were analyzed by quantitative Sirius red and α-SMA immunohistochemistry, performed in 10 random high-power fields per mouse using ImageJ software. (D), Histological fibrosis score of liver sections. (E–F), Hepatic hydroxyproline concentration. (G), Hepatic transcript of fibrosis related transcripts. Data in (B–G) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as for Figure 1.
Figure 2 FAP inhibition attenuates parenchymal liver fibrosis. (A–C), Livers of mice (n = 5–10/group) treated with FAPi during fibrosis progression or regression vs fibrotic untreated controls were analyzed by quantitative Sirius red and α-SMA immunohistochemistry, performed in 10 random high-power fields per mouse using ImageJ software. (D), Histological fibrosis score of liver sections. (E–F), Hepatic hydroxyproline concentration. (G), Hepatic transcript of fibrosis related transcripts. Data in (B–G) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as for Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Effect of FAP inhibition on hepatic inflammation in CCl4-induced fibrosis. (A–D), Livers from non-fibrotic mice and mice with fibrosis progression or regression (n = 5–10/group) treated with FAPi and controls were analyzed for macrophage markers CD68 and YM1 using immunohistochemistry in 10 random high-power fields per liver. (E–F), Representative images and quantification of CD3+ T cells in 10 random fields (×200) from the central right lobe of each liver. (G–J), Hepatic transcript levels of inflammation related genes. Data in (C–D, F, G–J) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as for Figure 1.
Figure 3 Effect of FAP inhibition on hepatic inflammation in CCl4-induced fibrosis. (A–D), Livers from non-fibrotic mice and mice with fibrosis progression or regression (n = 5–10/group) treated with FAPi and controls were analyzed for macrophage markers CD68 and YM1 using immunohistochemistry in 10 random high-power fields per liver. (E–F), Representative images and quantification of CD3+ T cells in 10 random fields (×200) from the central right lobe of each liver. (G–J), Hepatic transcript levels of inflammation related genes. Data in (C–D, F, G–J) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as for Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 4 FAP inhibition increases hepatocyte and nonparenchymal liver cell proliferation in CCl4-induced fibrosis. (A–B), Representative images of Ki67 expressing cells and morphometrical quantification in 10 random high-power fields per liver. (C), Co-localization of FAP+ fibroblasts, α-SMA+ (myo-)fibroblasts, and CD68+ macrophage in livers of mice with CCl4-induced fibrosis. (D), Co-localization of FAP+ fibroblasts with type I collagen, GFAP-, and desmin-positive HSCs and (myo-)fibroblasts in livers of mice with CCl4-induced fibrosis. Data are presented as means± standard error of the means (SEMs) (n = 5 mice per non-fibrotic, and n = 10 mice per fibrotic subgroups). Statistical analysis was performed as for Figure 1.
Figure 4 FAP inhibition increases hepatocyte and nonparenchymal liver cell proliferation in CCl4-induced fibrosis. (A–B), Representative images of Ki67 expressing cells and morphometrical quantification in 10 random high-power fields per liver. (C), Co-localization of FAP+ fibroblasts, α-SMA+ (myo-)fibroblasts, and CD68+ macrophage in livers of mice with CCl4-induced fibrosis. (D), Co-localization of FAP+ fibroblasts with type I collagen, GFAP-, and desmin-positive HSCs and (myo-)fibroblasts in livers of mice with CCl4-induced fibrosis. Data are presented as means± standard error of the means (SEMs) (n = 5 mice per non-fibrotic, and n = 10 mice per fibrotic subgroups). Statistical analysis was performed as for Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Effect of FAP inhibition on liver/spleen weight and general liver inflammation in Mdr2−/− mice. (A), Scheme of FVB control and Mdr2−/− biliary fibrotic mice (n = 5 and n = 10 mice per group, respectively) treated with FAPi (15 or 50 mg/kg bw) or vehicle for 2 weeks. (B−C), Liver/bw ratio and spleen/bw ratio. (D), Representative images of H&E staining from liver sections. (E−H), Serum ALT, AST, ALP, and creatinine levels. Data in (B−C, E−H) are means ± standard errors of the mean (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as for Figure 1.
Figure 5 Effect of FAP inhibition on liver/spleen weight and general liver inflammation in Mdr2−/− mice. (A), Scheme of FVB control and Mdr2−/− biliary fibrotic mice (n = 5 and n = 10 mice per group, respectively) treated with FAPi (15 or 50 mg/kg bw) or vehicle for 2 weeks. (B−C), Liver/bw ratio and spleen/bw ratio. (D), Representative images of H&E staining from liver sections. (E−H), Serum ALT, AST, ALP, and creatinine levels. Data in (B−C, E−H) are means ± standard errors of the mean (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as for Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 6 FAP inhibition attenuates hepatic fibrosis in Mdr2−/− mice. (A–E), Livers of nonfibrotic FBV control and biliary fibrotic Mdr2−/− mice (n = 5–10/group) were treated with FAPi (15 or 50 mg/kg/d) for 2 weeks and compared with respective untreated mice. Sirius red stained area and α-SMA-expressing cells in the parenchymal vs septal areas were assessed by quantitative morphometry in 10 high-power fields. (F–G), Total and relative hepatic hydroxyproline concentration. (H–O), Hepatic transcript levels of fibrosis related genes. Data in (B–O) are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 6 FAP inhibition attenuates hepatic fibrosis in Mdr2−/− mice. (A–E), Livers of nonfibrotic FBV control and biliary fibrotic Mdr2−/− mice (n = 5–10/group) were treated with FAPi (15 or 50 mg/kg/d) for 2 weeks and compared with respective untreated mice. Sirius red stained area and α-SMA-expressing cells in the parenchymal vs septal areas were assessed by quantitative morphometry in 10 high-power fields. (F–G), Total and relative hepatic hydroxyproline concentration. (H–O), Hepatic transcript levels of fibrosis related genes. Data in (B–O) are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Effects of FAP inhibition on hepatic inflammation in Mdr2−/− mice. (A–C), Livers of control and Mdr2−/− fibrotic mice (n = 5–10/group) treated with FAPi as in Figure 5 were assessed for numbers of CD68 and YM1 expressing macrophages in 10 random high-power fields per mouse. (D–J), Hepatic transcript levels related to macrophage activation, polarization, and MMP expression were determined by qPCR. Data in (B–J) are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 7 Effects of FAP inhibition on hepatic inflammation in Mdr2−/− mice. (A–C), Livers of control and Mdr2−/− fibrotic mice (n = 5–10/group) treated with FAPi as in Figure 5 were assessed for numbers of CD68 and YM1 expressing macrophages in 10 random high-power fields per mouse. (D–J), Hepatic transcript levels related to macrophage activation, polarization, and MMP expression were determined by qPCR. Data in (B–J) are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 8 FAP inhibition does not modify T cell infiltration and suppresses cell proliferation in Mdr2−/− mice. (A–C), Representative images and quantification of CD3- and Ki67-positive cells in 10 random fields (×200) from the central right lobe of each liver. Data in (B–C) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 8 FAP inhibition does not modify T cell infiltration and suppresses cell proliferation in Mdr2−/− mice. (A–C), Representative images and quantification of CD3- and Ki67-positive cells in 10 random fields (×200) from the central right lobe of each liver. Data in (B–C) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 9 FAP expression in CCl4and Mdr2−/− fibrotic livers with/without FAP inhibition and effect of rhFAP/rmFAP on LX-2 HSCs and murine fibroblasts. (A–B), Transcript levels of fap. (C–D), Effect of treatment with rhFAP on LX2 HSCs activation and collagen gene expression. (E–F), Effect of treatment with rmFAP on NIH/3T3 fibroblast activation and collagen gene expression. Data in (A–F) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 9 FAP expression in CCl4and Mdr2−/− fibrotic livers with/without FAP inhibition and effect of rhFAP/rmFAP on LX-2 HSCs and murine fibroblasts. (A–B), Transcript levels of fap. (C–D), Effect of treatment with rhFAP on LX2 HSCs activation and collagen gene expression. (E–F), Effect of treatment with rmFAP on NIH/3T3 fibroblast activation and collagen gene expression. Data in (A–F) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 10 Effect of rmFAP on M2-type macrophage polarization and gene expression. (A–F), M0 (unpolarized)-BMDMs and M2-type BMDMs were treated with rmFAP (0–100 ng/mL, 48 hours), and macrophage activation/polarization relevant transcript levels were analyzed by qPCR. (G), RNA-Seq results in M2-BMDMs treated with 100 ng/mL rmFAP vs untreated M2-BMDMs. (H), Scatter plot for Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment analysis of the differentially expressed genes. Top 20 significantly enriched pathways (P < .05 by the Fisher exact test) are shown. (I), Log2-fold change of selected genes in M2-BMDMs treated with rmFAP (vs untreated M2-BMDMs). Data in (A–F) as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 10 Effect of rmFAP on M2-type macrophage polarization and gene expression. (A–F), M0 (unpolarized)-BMDMs and M2-type BMDMs were treated with rmFAP (0–100 ng/mL, 48 hours), and macrophage activation/polarization relevant transcript levels were analyzed by qPCR. (G), RNA-Seq results in M2-BMDMs treated with 100 ng/mL rmFAP vs untreated M2-BMDMs. (H), Scatter plot for Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment analysis of the differentially expressed genes. Top 20 significantly enriched pathways (P < .05 by the Fisher exact test) are shown. (I), Log2-fold change of selected genes in M2-BMDMs treated with rmFAP (vs untreated M2-BMDMs). Data in (A–F) as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 11 Gene expression profiling by RNA-seq analysis of M2-polarized BMDMs with or without rmFAP treatment. Heatmaps of differentially expressed genes (differentiated as up- or downregulated by adjusted q-values <0.05 and ≥1.5 fold-change) in M2-BMDMs with vs without rmFAP treatment. Fragments per kilobase of transcript, per million mapped reads (FPKM) values were used to calculate the expression level by fold change of mRNA between the M2-BMDM and M2-BMDM+rmFAP groups, expressed as log2 (fold change) values. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the M2-BMDM and M2-BMDM+rmFAP groups were identified using the Student t test. Orange color marks up-regulated and blue color down-regulated genes compared with the untreated M2-BMDM group. Side bar: X-fold change.
Figure 11 Gene expression profiling by RNA-seq analysis of M2-polarized BMDMs with or without rmFAP treatment. Heatmaps of differentially expressed genes (differentiated as up- or downregulated by adjusted q-values <0.05 and ≥1.5 fold-change) in M2-BMDMs with vs without rmFAP treatment. Fragments per kilobase of transcript, per million mapped reads (FPKM) values were used to calculate the expression level by fold change of mRNA between the M2-BMDM and M2-BMDM+rmFAP groups, expressed as log2 (fold change) values. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the M2-BMDM and M2-BMDM+rmFAP groups were identified using the Student t test. Orange color marks up-regulated and blue color down-regulated genes compared with the untreated M2-BMDM group. Side bar: X-fold change.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 12 FAPi-treated LX2 HSC modulate macrophage activation and polarization in vitro. (A), Expression of acta2, col1a1, col3a1, timp1, loxl1, tgfb1, and ccl2 in LX2 HSC treated with FAPi. (B–C), Immunofluorescent staining for Ki67 and DAPI in LX2 cells treated with rhFAP and FAPi. (D), Scheme of the experimental design of LX2 CM being added to THP1 cell-derived macrophages. (E–J), Expression of inos, tgfb1, il10, mmp1, mmp9, and mmp14 in PMA-treated (macrophage) THP1 cells after addition of culture medium from LX2 HSC pretreated with and without FAPi. (K), Working model of FAP and FAPi action during liver fibrogenesis. FAP upregulates HSC fibrogenic activation and proliferation and promotes macrophage profibrogenic activation/polarization directly as well as indirectly by production of factors that further promote HSC activation or induce monocyte recruitment (eg, tgfb1 and ccl2, respectively). Data in (A, C, E–J) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 12 FAPi-treated LX2 HSC modulate macrophage activation and polarization in vitro. (A), Expression of acta2, col1a1, col3a1, timp1, loxl1, tgfb1, and ccl2 in LX2 HSC treated with FAPi. (B–C), Immunofluorescent staining for Ki67 and DAPI in LX2 cells treated with rhFAP and FAPi. (D), Scheme of the experimental design of LX2 CM being added to THP1 cell-derived macrophages. (E–J), Expression of inos, tgfb1, il10, mmp1, mmp9, and mmp14 in PMA-treated (macrophage) THP1 cells after addition of culture medium from LX2 HSC pretreated with and without FAPi. (K), Working model of FAP and FAPi action during liver fibrogenesis. FAP upregulates HSC fibrogenic activation and proliferation and promotes macrophage profibrogenic activation/polarization directly as well as indirectly by production of factors that further promote HSC activation or induce monocyte recruitment (eg, tgfb1 and ccl2, respectively). Data in (A, C, E–J) are means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed as detailed in Figure 1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 13 FAP regulates HSC activation. (A), Knockdown of FAP inhibits TGFβ1-induced profibrotic gene expression. LX2 cells were transfected with negative control small interfering (siNC) or small interfering FAP (siFAP) following pretreatment with 5 ng/mL TGFβ1 for 24 hours. Transcript levels of fap, col1a1, col3a1, loxl1, pdgfrb, acta2, tgfb1, and ccl2 were analyzed using qPCR. (B–C), Overexpression of FAP promotes HSC activation. LX2 cells were transfected with pCDNA3.1 control plasmid or FAP plasmid for 48 hours. (B), Protein levels of FLAG, collagen type I, and α-SMA were determined by Western blot. (C), Transcript levels of col1a1, acta2, loxl1, and ccl2 were analyzed using qPCR. Data are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed using an unpaired 2-tailed Student t test (∗P < .05; ∗∗P < .01; ∗∗∗P < .005).
Figure 13 FAP regulates HSC activation. (A), Knockdown of FAP inhibits TGFβ1-induced profibrotic gene expression. LX2 cells were transfected with negative control small interfering (siNC) or small interfering FAP (siFAP) following pretreatment with 5 ng/mL TGFβ1 for 24 hours. Transcript levels of fap, col1a1, col3a1, loxl1, pdgfrb, acta2, tgfb1, and ccl2 were analyzed using qPCR. (B–C), Overexpression of FAP promotes HSC activation. LX2 cells were transfected with pCDNA3.1 control plasmid or FAP plasmid for 48 hours. (B), Protein levels of FLAG, collagen type I, and α-SMA were determined by Western blot. (C), Transcript levels of col1a1, acta2, loxl1, and ccl2 were analyzed using qPCR. Data are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed using an unpaired 2-tailed Student t test (∗P < .05; ∗∗P < .01; ∗∗∗P < .005).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 14 Expression of FAP protein in livers of patients with chronic liver diseases. Representative H&E, Sirius red, and FAP staining indicates prominent expression on HSC/fibroblasts at parenchymal-mesenchymal interfaces and adjacent to inflammatory infiltrates containing macrophages.
Figure 14 Expression of FAP protein in livers of patients with chronic liver diseases. Representative H&E, Sirius red, and FAP staining indicates prominent expression on HSC/fibroblasts at parenchymal-mesenchymal interfaces and adjacent to inflammatory infiltrates containing macrophages.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 15 Sequential staining CD68 and α-SMA in livers of patients with advanced chronic liver diseases. Representative images of sequential staining of liver with cirrhosis due to hepatitis B, and PBC stage 2 and stage 4. CD68+ macrophages are located peripherally of areas occupied by α-SMA+ (myo)fibroblasts, compared with a closer association of macrophages with FAP+ fibroblasts (see Figure 14).
Figure 15 Sequential staining CD68 and α-SMA in livers of patients with advanced chronic liver diseases. Representative images of sequential staining of liver with cirrhosis due to hepatitis B, and PBC stage 2 and stage 4. CD68+ macrophages are located peripherally of areas occupied by α-SMA+ (myo)fibroblasts, compared with a closer association of macrophages with FAP+ fibroblasts (see Figure 14).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 16 In vivo FAP inhibitor administration has no effect on fibrosis related gene expression in normal C67BL/6 and FBV mouse strains. Female C56BL/6 (10 weeks old; n = 5) or FBV (4 weeks old; n = 5) background health control mice were fed chow with or without FAP inhibitor (FAPi) (50 mg/kg/d) for 2 weeks. No difference of hepatic transcript levels of acta2, col1a1, tgfb1, and fap between FAPi-treated and FAPi-treated FVB and C57BL/6 mice. Data are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed using an unpaired 2-tailed Student t test (ns, not significant).
Figure 16 In vivo FAP inhibitor administration has no effect on fibrosis related gene expression in normal C67BL/6 and FBV mouse strains. Female C56BL/6 (10 weeks old; n = 5) or FBV (4 weeks old; n = 5) background health control mice were fed chow with or without FAP inhibitor (FAPi) (50 mg/kg/d) for 2 weeks. No difference of hepatic transcript levels of acta2, col1a1, tgfb1, and fap between FAPi-treated and FAPi-treated FVB and C57BL/6 mice. Data are presented as means ± standard error of the means (SEMs). Statistical analysis was performed using an unpaired 2-tailed Student t test (ns, not significant).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 17 Formula and specificity of the FAP inhibitor (A) and targeting strategy to generate Fap-cre-knock in (KI) mice (B–C). (B), Diagram of the Fap-WT and Fap-Cre-KI alleles. C57BL/6 embryonic stem cells were transfected by the CRISPR/Cas9 technology using 2 ∼ 3.0 kb homologous arms on both sides of the 2A-Cre-WPRE (woodchuck posttranscriptional regulatory element)-polyA insertion sequence. Positive clones were selected with ampicillin. The Cre element in the Fap-cre-KI were inserted in exon 26, between the Fap STOP and polyadenylation signals. After embryo transfer, founder mice (F0) with successful homologous recombination were bred with C57BL/6 mice to obtain the F1 generation (Biomodel Organism Science & Technology Development, Shanghai). (C), Genotyping of WT and heterozygous (He) mice by PCR using primer pairs specific to the Fap-cre allele and Fap-WT allele confirmed correct insertion. To detect the constitutive KI allele (395-bp fragment) as well as the WT allele (683-bp fragment) by PCR. The following primers were used: (P3) 5′-CTTAATGCACCAGTTCTATC-3′, forward; (P4) 5′-GAGCATCTTCCAGGTGTG -3′, reverse; (P1) 5′-TGCCGCACTTATGCAATGAAGACAAT-3′, forward; (P2) 5′-CCCGGCAATGAACAGGTGATAAAACA-3′, reverse. 2A: ‘self-cleaving’ 2A peptide from porcine teschovirus-1. (D), tdTomato is expressed in FAP-positive cells upon crossing the reporter mice (LSL-tdTomato) with FAP-cre mice. FAP-expressing cells are detected in muscle cells of striated muscle, heart, and liver.
Figure 17 Formula and specificity of the FAP inhibitor (A) and targeting strategy to generate Fap-cre-knock in (KI) mice (B–C). (B), Diagram of the Fap-WT and Fap-Cre-KI alleles. C57BL/6 embryonic stem cells were transfected by the CRISPR/Cas9 technology using 2 ∼ 3.0 kb homologous arms on both sides of the 2A-Cre-WPRE (woodchuck posttranscriptional regulatory element)-polyA insertion sequence. Positive clones were selected with ampicillin. The Cre element in the Fap-cre-KI were inserted in exon 26, between the Fap STOP and polyadenylation signals. After embryo transfer, founder mice (F0) with successful homologous recombination were bred with C57BL/6 mice to obtain the F1 generation (Biomodel Organism Science & Technology Development, Shanghai). (C), Genotyping of WT and heterozygous (He) mice by PCR using primer pairs specific to the Fap-cre allele and Fap-WT allele confirmed correct insertion. To detect the constitutive KI allele (395-bp fragment) as well as the WT allele (683-bp fragment) by PCR. The following primers were used: (P3) 5′-CTTAATGCACCAGTTCTATC-3′, forward; (P4) 5′-GAGCATCTTCCAGGTGTG -3′, reverse; (P1) 5′-TGCCGCACTTATGCAATGAAGACAAT-3′, forward; (P2) 5′-CCCGGCAATGAACAGGTGATAAAACA-3′, reverse. 2A: ‘self-cleaving’ 2A peptide from porcine teschovirus-1. (D), tdTomato is expressed in FAP-positive cells upon crossing the reporter mice (LSL-tdTomato) with FAP-cre mice. FAP-expressing cells are detected in muscle cells of striated muscle, heart, and liver.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 144

Related

Metadata

Authors
Yang, A.-T., Kim, Y.-O., Yan, X.-Z., Abe, H., Aslam, M., Park, K.-S., Zhao, X.-Y., Jia, J.-D., Klein, T., You, H., & Schuppan, D.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) (DE)
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Schuppan, Detlef
ORCID
Venue
Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
841-867
ISSN
2352-345X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jcmgh.2022.12.005
PMC
PMC9972574
OpenAlex
W4311422489
Cited by
144
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 18
FWCI
15.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 1066, CRC 1292)
  • Horizon 2020 (634413, 777377)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (82130018, 81970524)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver physiology and pathology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biochemistry › Peptidase Inhibition and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
fibroblast activation protein, liver fibrosis, hepatic stellate cells, macrophage activation, M2 macrophages, myofibroblasts, collagen deposition, hepatocyte proliferation, biliary fibrosis, carbon tetrachloride, desmoplasia
MeSH terms
Animals, Carbon Tetrachloride, Collagen, Fibroblasts, Fibrosis, Hepatitis, Humans, Inflammation, Liver Cirrhosis, Liver Diseases, Macrophages, 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