Bachour-El Azzi Pamela, Sharanek Ahmad, Burban Audrey, Li Ruoya, Guével Rémy Le, Abdel-Razzak Ziad, Stieger Bruno, Guguen-Guillouzo Christiane, Guillouzo André
*Inserm UMR991, Foie, Métabolismes et Cancer, Rennes, France; Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France, Université Libanaise, EDST-PRASE and EDST-AZM-center-LBA3B, Beirut, Lebanon, Biopredic International, Saint Grégoire, France, ImPACcell, SFR Biosit, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France and Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland *Inserm UMR991, Foie, Métabolismes et Cancer, Rennes, France; Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France, Université Libanaise, EDST-PRASE and EDST-AZM-center-LBA3B, Beirut, Lebanon, Biopredic International, Saint Grégoire, France, ImPACcell, SFR Biosit, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France and Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland *Inserm UMR991, Foie, Métabolismes et Cancer, Rennes, France; Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France, Université Libanaise, EDST-PRASE and EDST-AZM-center-LBA3B, Beirut, Lebanon, Biopredic International, Saint Grégoire, France, ImPACcell, SFR Biosit, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France and Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
*Inserm UMR991, Foie, Métabolismes et Cancer, Rennes, France; Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France, Université Libanaise, EDST-PRASE and EDST-AZM-center-LBA3B, Beirut, Lebanon, Biopredic International, Saint Grégoire, France, ImPACcell, SFR Biosit, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France and Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland *Inserm UMR991, Foie, Métabolismes et Cancer, Rennes, France; Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France, Université Libanaise, EDST-PRASE and EDST-AZM-center-LBA3B, Beirut, Lebanon, Biopredic International, Saint Grégoire, France, ImPACcell, SFR Biosit, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France and Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Toxicol Sci. 2015 May;145(1):157-68. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfv041. Epub 2015 Feb 17.
The role of hepatobiliary transporters in drug-induced liver injury remains poorly understood. Various in vivo and in vitro biological approaches are currently used for studying hepatic transporters; however, appropriate localization and functional activity of these transporters are essential for normal biliary flow and drug transport. Human hepatocytes (HHs) are considered as the most suitable in vitro cell model but erratic availability and inter-donor functional variations limit their use. In this work, we aimed to compare localization of influx and efflux transporters and their functional activity in differentiated human HepaRG hepatocytes with fresh HHs in conventional (CCHH) and sandwich (SCHH) cultures. All tested influx and efflux transporters were correctly localized to canalicular [bile salt export pump (BSEP), multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 (MRP2), multidrug resistance protein 1 (MDR1), and MDR3] or basolateral [Na(+)-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide (NTCP) and MRP3] membrane domains and were functional in all models. Contrary to other transporters, NTCP and BSEP were less abundant and active in HepaRG cells, cellular uptake of taurocholate was 2.2- and 1.4-fold and bile excretion index 2.8- and 2.6-fold lower, than in SCHHs and CCHHs, respectively. However, when taurocholate canalicular efflux was evaluated in standard and divalent cation-free conditions in buffers or cell lysates, the difference between the three models did not exceed 9.3%. Interestingly, cell imaging showed higher bile canaliculi contraction/relaxation activity in HepaRG hepatocytes and larger bile canaliculi networks in SCHHs. Altogether, our results bring new insights in mechanisms involved in bile acids accumulation and excretion in HHs and suggest that HepaRG cells represent a suitable model for studying hepatobiliary transporters and drug-induced cholestasis.
肝胆转运体在药物性肝损伤中的作用仍知之甚少。目前,各种体内和体外生物学方法都用于研究肝脏转运体;然而,这些转运体的适当定位和功能活性对于正常胆汁流动和药物转运至关重要。人肝细胞(HHs)被认为是最合适的体外细胞模型,但供应不稳定以及供体间功能差异限制了它们的使用。在这项研究中,我们旨在比较分化的人HepaRG肝细胞与新鲜HHs在常规(CCHH)和三明治(SCHH)培养中摄取和外排转运体的定位及其功能活性。所有测试的摄取和外排转运体均正确定位于胆小管[胆盐输出泵(BSEP)、多药耐药相关蛋白2(MRP2)、多药耐药蛋白1(MDR1)和MDR3]或基底外侧[牛磺胆酸钠共转运多肽(NTCP)和MRP3]膜结构域,并且在所有模型中均具有功能。与其他转运体相反,NTCP和BSEP在HepaRG细胞中的丰度和活性较低,牛磺胆酸盐的细胞摄取分别比SCHHs和CCHHs低2.2倍和1.4倍,胆汁排泄指数分别低2.8倍和2.6倍。然而,当在缓冲液或细胞裂解物中的标准和无二价阳离子条件下评估牛磺胆酸盐胆小管外排时,三种模型之间的差异不超过9.3%。有趣的是,细胞成像显示HepaRG肝细胞中胆小管收缩/舒张活性更高,而SCHHs中胆小管网络更大。总之,我们的结果为HHs中胆汁酸积累和排泄所涉及的机制带来了新的见解,并表明HepaRG细胞是研究肝胆转运体和药物性胆汁淤积的合适模型。