Mato, José M.

The principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favor of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. A total of 236 panelists from 56 countries participated in 4 online surveys and 2 hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83%, and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms “nonalcoholic” and “fatty” were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease was chosen as an overarching term to encompass the various aetiologies of steatosis. The term steatohepatitis was felt to be an important pathophysiological concept that should be retained. The name chosen to replace NAFLD was metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least 1 of 5 cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic steatotic liver disease. A new category, outside pure metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, termed metabolic and alcohol related/associated liver disease (MetALD), was selected to describe those with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140–350 g/wk and 210–420 g/wk for females and males, respectively). The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported and nonstigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.

Prohibitin 1 (PHB1) is best known as a mitochondrial chaperone, and its role in cancer is conflicting. Mice lacking methionine adenosyltransferase α1 (MATα1) have lower PHB1 expression, and we reported that c‐MYC interacts directly with both proteins. Furthermore, c‐MYC and MATα1 exert opposing effects on liver cancer growth, prompting us to examine the interplay between PHB1, MATα1, and c‐MYC and PHB1's role in liver tumorigenesis. We found that PHB1 is highly expressed in normal hepatocytes and bile duct epithelial cells and down‐regulated in most human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). In HCC and CCA cells, PHB1 expression correlates inversely with growth. PHB1 and MAT1A positively regulate each other's expression, whereas PHB1 negatively regulates the expression of c‐MYC, MAFG, and c‐MAF. Both PHB1 and MATα1 heterodimerize with MAX, bind to the E‐box element, and repress E‐box promoter activity. PHB1 promoter contains a repressive E‐box element and is occupied mainly by MAX, MNT, and MATα1 in nonmalignant cholangiocytes and noncancerous tissues that switched to c‐MYC, c‐MAF, and MAFG in cancer cells and human HCC/CCA. All 8‐month‐old liver‐specific Phb1 knockout mice developed HCC, and one developed CCA. Five‐month‐old Phb1 heterozygotes, but not Phb1 flox mice, developed aberrant bile duct proliferation; and one developed CCA 3.5 months after left and median bile duct ligation. Phb1 heterozygotes had a more profound fall in the expression of glutathione synthetic enzymes and higher hepatic oxidative stress following left and median bile duct ligation. Conclusion: We have identified that PHB1, down‐regulated in most human HCC and CCA, heterodimerizes with MAX to repress the E‐box and positively regulates MAT1A while suppressing c‐MYC, MAFG, and c‐MAF expression; in mice, reduced PHB1 expression predisposes to the development of cholestasis‐induced CCA. (Hepatology 2017;65:1249‐1266).

c‐Myc induction drives cholestatic liver injury and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) in mice, and induction of Maf proteins (MafG and c‐Maf) contributes to cholestatic liver injury, whereas S‐adenosylmethionine (SAMe) administration is protective. Here, we determined whether there is interplay between c‐Myc, Maf proteins, and methionine adenosyltransferase α1 (MATα1), which is responsible for SAMe biosynthesis in the liver. We used bile duct ligation (BDL) and lithocholic acid (LCA) treatment in mice as chronic cholestasis models, a murine CCA model, human CCA cell lines KMCH and Huh‐28, human liver cancer HepG2, and human CCA specimens to study gene and protein expression, protein‐protein interactions, molecular mechanisms, and functional outcomes. We found that c‐Myc, MATα1 (encoded by MAT1A), MafG, and c‐Maf interact with one another directly. MAT1A expression fell in hepatocytes and bile duct epithelial cells during chronic cholestasis and in murine and human CCA. The opposite occurred with c‐Myc, MafG, and c‐Maf expression. MATα1 interacts mainly with Mnt in normal liver, but this switches to c‐Maf, MafG, and c‐Myc in cholestatic livers and CCA. Promoter regions of these genes have E‐boxes that are bound by MATα1 and Mnt in normal liver and benign bile duct epithelial cells that switched to c‐Myc, c‐Maf, and MafG in cholestasis and CCA cells. E‐box positively regulates c‐Myc, MafG, and c‐Maf, but it negatively regulates MAT1A. MATα1 represses, whereas c‐Myc, MafG, and c‐Maf enhance, E‐box‐driven promoter activity. Knocking down MAT1A or overexpressing MafG or c‐Maf enhanced CCA growth and invasion in vivo. Conclusion: There is a novel interplay between MATα1, c‐Myc, and Maf proteins, and their deregulation during chronic cholestasis may facilitate CCA oncogenesis. (Hepatology 2016;64:439‐455)