Background: Chronic liver injury contributes to liver fibrosis, which is characterized by the excessive deposition of extracellular matrix (ECM) components. ECM is mainly composed of myofibroblasts. Recently, macrophage-to-myofibroblasts transition (MMT), has been identified as a novel origin for myofibroblasts. However, the potential functions of MMT in chronic liver injury and liver fibrosis remain unknown. Methods: To clarify the transformation of fibrotic cells in hepatic fibrosis, liver specimens were collected from people at different stages in the progression of hepatic fibrosis and stained with immunofluorescence. Models of hepatic fibrosis such as the CCL4 model, HFD-induced NAFLD model, MCD-induced NAFLD model and ethanol-induced AFLD model were demonstrated and were stained with immunofluorescence. Results: Here, we uncovered macrophages underwent MMT in clinical liver fibrosis tissue samples and multiple animal models of chronic liver injury. MMT cells were found in specimens from patients with liver fibrosis on the basis of co-expression of macrophage (CD68) and myofibroblast (a-SMA) markers. Moreover, macrophages could transform into myofibroblasts in CCL4-induced liver fibrosis model, high-fat diet (HFD) and methionine-choline-deficient diet (MCD)-induced nonalcoholic fatty liver diseases (NAFLD) model, and ethanol-induced alcoholic fatty liver diseases (AFLD) model. In addition, we highlighted that MMT cells mainly had a predominant M2 phenotype in both human and experimental chronic liver injury. Conclusions: Taken together, MMT acts a crucial role in chronic liver injury and liver fibrosis.

Histidine-rich calcium binding protein (HRC) is markedly overexpressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and is significantly correlated with metastasis. Anoikis resistance and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress may have a critical effect on survival before metastasis. However, the potential functions of HRC in anoikis resistance in HCC remain unknown. Here, we uncovered the clinical value of HRC and its functional significance on anoikis in HCC. The positive expression of HRC was observably correlated with tumor size, tumor encapsulation, and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage. The expression of HRC increased in HCC cells cultured in suspension. HRC enhanced the anoikis resistance of HCC, and promoted the HCC metastasis in vivo. Mechanistically, the anoikis resistance was probably dependent on endoplasmic reticulum stress. Modulating HRC level changed the ERS to affect anoikis resistance by acting protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK)-eIF2a-ATF4-CHOP signaling axis. In conclusion, we define HRC as a novel candidate oncogene involved in anoikis resistance and HCC metastasis, and provide a new potential therapeutic target for HCC.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the efficacy and safety of preprocedural simethicone (S) and pronase (P) for optimal mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy with sedation. The effect of postural change combined with premedication on mucosal visibility was also examined. METHODS: The study randomized 496 patients into 8 groups based on the type of premedication provided and whether a postural change occurred. The premedication in the control group was 100 mL of normal saline solution (NS). The remaining 3 intervention groups were administered 100 mL of simethicone alone (S), pronase solution alone (P), and simethicone plus pronase solution (S + P). Each group was classified into subgroups according to whether there was a postural change (PC). The mucosal visibility score (MVS), total mucosal visibility score (TVS), procedure time, water consumption for mucosal cleansing, and proportion of patients with diminutive lesions <5 mm were recorded. RESULTS: The P and S groups had a significantly better TVS than the NS group (11.86 ± 3.36 in group P vs 14.52 ± 2.57 in group NS, P < 0.001; 12.36 ± 2.93 in group S vs 14.52 ± 2.57 in group NS, P = 0.006). The TVS was better in the P group than in the S group (11.86 ± 3.36 vs 12.36 ± 2.93, P = 0.037). The MVS was significantly better in the esophagus and duodenum and worse in the upper and lower gastric body in the S group than in the P group. The P + S group had a significantly better TVS than the P and S groups (9.81 ± 2.90 in group P + S vs 11.86 ± 3.36 in group P and 12.36 ± 2.93 in group S, respectively, P < 0.001),\ and had a reduced amount of flushing water during the procedure (0 [interquartile range [IQR]: 0–33] mL in group P + S vs 40 [IQR: 0–70] mL in group P, P < 0.01; 0 [IQR: 0–33] mL in group P + S vs 50 [IQR: 20–98] mL in group S, P < 0.001). The TVS was significantly better in the P + S + PC group than in the P + S group (8.44 ± 2.10 vs 9.81 ± 2.90, P = 0.003). The MVS was significantly better in the gastric antrum, fundus, and upper and lower gastric body in the P + S + PC group than in the P + S group. There was no significant difference in the detection rate of diminutive lesions among the different groups during an endoscopic examination ( P > 0.05). DISCUSSION: The combination of preprocedural administration with simethicone and pronase achieved superior mucosal visualization compared with saline, simethicone, or pronase alone in patients receiving upper endoscopy. Postural change maneuvers performed before endoscopy further improved the mucosal visibility in most parts of the stomach when used with preprocedural simethicone and pronase.