To the extent possible under law, AOP-Wiki has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to KE:716
Key Event Title
Increase, cell proliferation (hepatocytes)
|Level of Biological Organization|
Key Event Components
|cell proliferation||mitogenic signaling cell||increased|
Key Event Overview
AOPs Including This Key Event
|AOP Name||Role of event in AOP||Point of Contact||Author Status||OECD Status|
|CAR activation- Hepatocellular tumors||KeyEvent||Brendan Ferreri-Hanberry (send email)||Open for citation & comment||EAGMST Under Review|
|AR- HCC||KeyEvent||Evgeniia Kazymova (send email)||Open for adoption||Under Development|
|PPARalpha-dependent liver tumors in rodents||KeyEvent||Cataia Ives (send email)||Under development: Not open for comment. Do not cite||Under Development|
|All life stages||High|
Key Event Description
Key Event Description:
Cell proliferation in the livers of rats and mice occurs through exposure to a mitogen and is characterized by liver enlargement without evidence of necrosis. In contrast, regenerative/compensatory proliferation occurs following loss of liver parenchymal cells from necrosis or hepatectomy.
In mammals, the nature of the hepatocyte proliferative response is shaped by the identity of the mitogen, the time course and dose of administration, and the species and strain of the test animal (Columbano and Shinozuka, 1996).
How It Is Measured or Detected
Mitogenic proliferation in vitro and in vivo is measured by the incorporation of labeled nucleosides or nucleoside analogs into newly synthesized DNA (Peffer et al., 2018b), the detection of endogenous markers of proliferation such as antigen Ki-67 or proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) (Kee et al., 2002; Muskhelishvili et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2015), and other immunohistochemical techniques to detect proliferating cells. For each of these methods, a labeling index (fraction of labeled cell population/total number of cells in population) is calculated, and this index can be statistically compared between different groups (Wood et al., 2015).
Nucleoside and nucleoside analog labeling. Actively proliferating cells undergo DNA synthesis in a highly regulated process during the S (synthesis) phase of the cell cycle. Once the DNA of a cell is replicated during S phase, the cell undergoes mitosis. This results in two cells, each of which has a complete copy of the genome. The DNA replication that occurs in S phase may be detected by the incorporation radiolabeled (e.g., 3H-thymidine) into the newly synthesized DNA, which can be detected from isolated livers using standard autoradiographic techniques. Nucleoside analogs may also be incorporated into the newly-synthesized DNA, including 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU) or 5-ethyl-2’-deoxy uridine (EdU), which may be detected using standard immunohistochemical and biolabeling techniques, respectively (Cavanagh et al., 2011). Drawbacks of the use of nucleoside analogs include concerns regarding the proper administration (dose, route of administration and length of exposure) to animals that allow for adequate labeling without inducing considerable toxicity (Cavanagh et al., 2011; Cohen, 2010). In addition, nucleoside/nucleoside analog incorporation techniques are not specific for the detection of proliferation but may also identify cells that are undergoing DNA synthesis during apoptosis or DNA repair.
Endogenous markers of proliferation. Ki-67 and PCNA are endogenous proteins expressed by mammalian cells that are in active phases of the cell cycle (G1, S, G2, M) and are not expressed in quiescent (G0) cells (Dietrich, 1993; Eldrige et al., 1993; Scholzen and Gerdes, 2000). They are detected in hepatocytes using standard immunohistochemical techniques. The advantage of using endogenous markers is that they do not require administration of exogenous markers for labeling, and they can be used for both prospective and retrospective cell proliferation analysis. A direct comparison of BrdU, Ki67 and PCNA labeling in various proliferating tissues of male Sprague-Dawley rats (Muskhelishvili et al., 2003) has indicated that Ki67 and BrdU immunohistochemistry methods gave similar labelling index results, whereas PCNA immunohistochemistry was not concordant with these methods and gave highly variable results. These authors suggested that PCNA is less accurate as a measure of cell proliferation because it has a long half-life and can be retained in cells that are not dividing, and is more involved in DNA repair mechanisms than Ki67. As a result, Ki67 has emerged as a more preferred endogenous marker for assessing cell proliferation in hepatocytes in recent years compared to PCNA.
Domain of Applicability
Epidermal growth factor (EGF) is one of several extracellular ligands of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The EGFR signaling pathway is conserved in most animals, in which it controls processes such as cell proliferation, differentiation, adhesion, and migration (Barberan and Cebria, 2018).
EGFR is a transmembrane protein that is classified as a tyrosine kinase receptor. EGFR has several structural domains: 1) an N-terminal extracellular domain that binds ligands such as EGF, 2) a transmembrane domain, 3) an intracellular domain containing tyrosine kinase activity, and 4) a C-terminal region that contains tyrosine residues that are the sites of autophosphorylation. Ligand binding results in a cascade of events that include EGFR homo-or heterodimerization, activation of the tyrosine kinase domain, tyrosine autophosphorylation, and ultimately the activation of downstream signaling cascades that control various processes in the liver such as proliferation, survival, differentiation, response to injury, and repair (Berasain and Avila, 2014; Komposch and Sibilia, 2015).
EGF has been used as an agent to stimulate proliferation of rat, mouse, and human hepatic cells in culture (Bowen et al., 2014; Haines et al., 2018c; Hodges et al., 2000; Parzefall et al., 1991).
Other mitogenic agents produce a cell proliferation response in rats and mice, but not other mammalian species such as humans, hamsters or dogs. These agents include phenobarbital (a model CAR activator) (Haines et al., 2018c; Hirose et al., 2009; Parzefall et al., 1991), WY-14,643 (pirinixic acid) (a model PPARalpha activator) (Corton et al., 2018) and TCDD (a model AhR activator) (Becker et al., 2015; Budinsky et al., 2014).
Barberan, S. and Cebria, F. (2018), The role of the EGFR signaling pathway in stem cell differentiation during planarian regeneration and homeostasis. Semin Cell Dev Biol, 10.1016/j.semcdb.2018.05.011.
Becker, R. A., Patlewicz, G., Simon, T. W., Rowlands, J. C. and Budinsky, R. A. (2015), The adverse outcome pathway for rodent liver tumor promotion by sustained activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 73, 172-90, 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.06.015.
Bowen, W. C., Michalopoulos, A. W., Orr, A., Ding, M. Q., Stolz, D. B. and Michalopoulos, G. K. (2014), Development of a chemically defined medium and discovery of new mitogenic growth factors for mouse hepatocytes: mitogenic effects of FGF1/2 and PDGF. PLoS One 9, e95487, 10.1371/journal.pone.0095487.
Budinsky, R. A., Schrenk, D., Simon, T., Van den Berg, M., Reichard, J. F., Silkworth, J. B., Aylward, L. L., Brix, A., Gasiewicz, T., Kaminski, N., Perdew, G., Starr, T. B., Walker, N. J. and Rowlands, J. C. (2014), Mode of action and dose-response framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity: The aryl hydrocarbon receptor as a case study. Crit Rev Toxicol 44, 83-119, 10.3109/10408444.2013.835787.
Cohen, S. M. (2010), Evaluation of possible carcinogenic risk to humans based on liver tumors in rodent assays: the two-year bioassay is no longer necessary. Toxicol Pathol 38, 487-501, 10.1177/0192623310363813.
Corton, J. C., Peters, J. M. and Klaunig, J. E. (2018), The PPARalpha-dependent rodent liver tumor response is not relevant to humans: addressing misconceptions. Arch Toxicol 92, 83-119, 10.1007/s00204-017-2094-7.
Dietrich, D. R. (1993), Toxicological and pathological applications of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), a novel endogenous marker for cell proliferation. Crit Rev Toxicol 23, 77-109, 10.3109/10408449309104075.
Eldrige, S. R., Butterworth, B. E. and Goldsworthy, T. L. (1993), Proliferating cell nuclear antigen: a marker for hepatocellular proliferation in rodents. Environ Health Perspect 101 Suppl 5, 211-8, 10.1289/ehp.93101s5211.
Haines, C., Elcombe, B. M., Chatham, L. R., Vardy, A., Higgins, L. G., Elcombe, C. R. and Lake, B. G. (2018c), Comparison of the effects of sodium phenobarbital in wild type and humanized constitutive androstane receptor (CAR)/pregnane X receptor (PXR) mice and in cultured mouse, rat and human hepatocytes. Toxicology 396-397, 23-32, 10.1016/j.tox.2018.02.001.
Hirose, Y., Nagahori, H., Yamada, T., Deguchi, Y., Tomigahara, Y., Nishioka, K., Uwagawa, S., Kawamura, S., Isobe, N., Lake, B. G. and Okuno, Y. (2009), Comparison of the effects of the synthetic pyrethroid Metofluthrin and phenobarbital on CYP2B form induction and replicative DNA synthesis in cultured rat and human hepatocytes. Toxicology 258, 64-9.
Hodges, N. J., Orton, T. C., Strain, A. J. and Chipman, J. K. (2000), Potentiation of epidermal growth factor-induced DNA synthesis in rat hepatocytes by phenobarbitone: possible involvement of oxidative stress and kinase activation. Carcinogenesis 21, 2041-7.
Jones, H. B., Orton, T. C. and Lake, B. G. (2009), Effect of chronic phenobarbitone administration on liver tumour formation in the C57BL/10J mouse. Food Chem Toxicol 47, 1333-40, 10.1016/j.fct.2009.03.014.
Kolaja, K. L., Stevenson, D. E., Johnson, J. T., Walborg, E. F., Jr. and Klaunig, J. E. (1996a), Subchronic effects of dieldrin and phenobarbital on hepatic DNA synthesis in mice and rats. Fundam Appl Toxicol 29, 219-28.
Muskhelishvili, L., Latendresse, J. R., Kodell, R. L. and Henderson, E. B. (2003), Evaluation of cell proliferation in rat tissues with BrdU, PCNA, Ki-67(MIB-5) immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization for histone mRNA. J Histochem Cytochem 51, 1681-8.
Peffer, R. C., LeBaron, M. J., Battalora, M., Bomann, W. H., Werner, C., Aggarwal, M., Rowe, R. R. and Tinwell, H. (2018b), Minimum datasets to establish a CAR-mediated mode of action for rodent liver tumors. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 96, 106-120, 10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.04.001.
Wood, C. E., Hukkanen, R. R., Sura, R., Jacobson-Kram, D., Nolte, T., Odin, M. and Cohen, S. M. (2015), Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee (SRPC) Review: Interpretation and Use of Cell Proliferation Data in Cancer Risk Assessment. Toxicol Pathol 43, 760-75, 10.1177/0192623315576005.
Yamada, T., Okuda, Y., Kushida, M., Sumida, K., Takeuchi, H., Nagahori, H., Fukuda, T., Lake, B. G., Cohen, S. M. and Kawamura, S. (2014), Human hepatocytes support the hypertrophic but not the hyperplastic response to the murine nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogen sodium phenobarbital in an in vivo study using a chimeric mouse with humanized liver. Toxicol Sci 142, 137-57, 10.1093/toxsci/kfu173.