(American Journal of Pathology. 2000;156:2033-2043.)
© 2000 American Society for Investigative Pathology
The in Vitro Differentiating Capacity of Nonparenchymal Epithelial Cells Derived from Adult Porcine Livers
Junko Kano*
,
Masayuki Noguchi*,
Makoto Kodama
and
Takayoshi Tokiwa
From the Department of Pathology,*
Institute of Basic
Medical Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba; the Department of 3D
Tissue Engineering,
National Institute for
Advanced Interdisciplinary Research, Tsukuba; and the Department of
Cell Physiology,
Kohno Clinical Medicine
Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Specific nonparenchymal epithelial cell (NPEC) clusters derived
from normal adult porcine livers demonstrate a characteristic
developmental pattern in the presence of other types of nonparenchymal
cells in vitro. This pattern includes
scattering, colonial growth, and an emergence of
duct-like structures (DLSs) in the colonies. It has been confirmed that
96% of the scattered cell clusters in these cultures develop into
colonies containing DLSs. In this study, we examine the
differentiation of NPEC clusters using the scattered formation as a
marker of the DLS-emerged colonies. We report that the NPECs expressed
albumin,
-fetoprotein, transferrin,
cytokeratin (CK) 18, CK7, and c-met, but not
-1-antitrypsin (AAT), at the scattering stage. In
addition, at the same stage, NPECs expressed
oval-cell-related markers such as OV6, but not biliary
epithelial cell (BEC) markers such as
-glutamyltransferase,
CK19, and CK14. At the DLS emerging stage, hepatocyte
markers, including AAT, were detectable in the cells
either at the periphery of colonies or in the cells surrounded by the
DLSs. On the other hand, the cells constituting DLSs expressed
BEC markers, suggesting a bile duct nature of the DLSs.
Furthermore, the cells in the colonies possessed an
ultrastructural appearance of differentiated hepatocytes and BECs.
These results suggest that certain NPECs are bipotent, and
that, in culture, they mimic hepatoblast development
in vivo.
 |
Introduction
|
|---|
Studies of embryonic rodent liver development indicate that the
emerging liver contains hepatoblasts, which are bipotential progenitor
cells that can differentiate along either the hepatocyte or the biliary
epithelial cell (BEC) lineage.1,2
Marceau et al showed
that the number of these progenitor cells decreases rapidly after birth
and presented substantial evidence suggesting that such progenitor
cells are absent in the adult liver.2,3
The epithelial
compartment of the liver is composed of hepatocytes, BECs, and other
nonparenchymal epithelial cells (NPECs).4
Certain NPECs,
isolated from either an adult mouse or rat, are thought to be capable
of acting as progenitor cells.5,6
In addition, others have
suggested that NPEC cell lines behave as putative hepatic stem
cells.4,5
These studies show that NPECs display a capacity
for hepatocytic differentiation, although their ability to
differentiate along the BEC lineage remains to be determined. On the
other hand, it is well known that oval cells, which proliferate in the
peri-bile duct region when hepatocytes are impaired and unable to mount
an appropriate growth response, are capable of differentiation into
either mature hepatocytes or BECs in an adult liver.7-9
Thus, NPECs and oval cells exhibit the phenotypic characteristics of
hepatoblasts and may give rise to both hepatocyte and BEC
lineages.10,11
However, the identification of NPECs
as hepatoblasts or hepatoblast precursors remains obscure. One reason
for this uncertainty is that the NPECs have not been determined to
differentiate morphologically into bile ducts under physiological
conditions.
Previously, we reported that normal adult porcine liver
tissue may contain a population of cells, NPECs, with the capacity to
differentiate into either hepatocytes or BECs.12
However,
the nature of NPECs remained to be defined due to the lack of
experimental data and insufficient cellular characterization. In the
study reported here, we investigated the nature of the NPECs using
several experimental approaches. First, we used a nonparenchymal cell
fraction, prepared from normal porcine livers, rather than a
parenchymal cell fraction, to obtain NPECs. A nonparenchymal cell
fraction should contain more NPECs and, most likely, more bipotential
progenitor cells than a parenchymal cell fraction. Second, to study the
differentiation of NPECs, we examined the relation between the
scattered cell clusters and the duct-like structure (DLS)-emerged
colonies. Finally, we investigated the expression of several phenotypic
markers for epithelial cell lineages in cell culture, and include an
ultrastructural analysis. Together, these studies aimed at defining the
nature of NPECs, including their cellular origin.
 |
Materials and Methods
|
|---|
Isolation and Culture of NPECs
Liver cell suspensions were prepared from 6- to 6.7-month-old
abattoir pigs by a four-step retrograde perfusion method, as described
elsewhere.13
The suspension was centrifuged once at
160 x g for 5 minutes, and the cell pellet fraction
was centrifuged once at 60 x g for 2 minutes, and
twice at 60 x g for 1 minute. All of the supernatant
fractions from each centrifugation were mixed and centrifuged either
once or twice at 350 x g for 5 minutes. Finally, the
cell pellet, a nonparenchymal cell fraction, was resuspended in
National Institute for Advanced Interdisciplinary Research
(NAIR)-1 medium, plated on type I collagen-coated culture dishes
at a cell density of about 2 x 104
cells/60-mm dish, and cultured at 37°C in a humidified incubator with
5% CO2 in air. In some cases, cells were frozen
at this time in freezing medium (90% NAIR-1 medium and 10%
dimethylsulfoxide) and stored at -190°C. NPEC clusters, the target
cell clusters, were marked by an object marker (Nikon Co., Tokyo,
Japan) on day 1 in culture, and other cells near the NPEC clusters,
within the field of vision using a 10x magnifying object lens, were
eliminated with a scraper on days 23. The NAIR-1 medium, originally
formulated by us, consists of Dulbeccos modified Eagles
medium/F12 (1:1) medium supplemented with 10 mmol/L HEPES, 5%
fetal bovine serum (v/v), 10 ng/ml glucagon, 10 µg/ml insulin,
60 ng/ml hydrocortisone, 25 ng/ml epidermal growth factor (EGF), 10
µg/ml transferrin (Tf), 50 nmol/L triiodothyronin, 5 ng/ml sodium
selenate, 10 mmol/L nicotinamide, 0.1 mmol/L L-ascorbic acid phosphate
magnesium salt, 1 µg/ml [
]-tocopherole acetate, 50 ng/ml
linoleic acid, and antibiotics.
Phase-Contrast Micrographs of Cells
The same fields of cultured NPECs, identified by the needle marks,
were photographed each day on a Nikon phase-contrast microscope.
Scattered NPEC Cluster and Duct-Like Structure-Emerged Colony
Counting
Freshly isolated cells of the nonparenchymal fraction were plated
on type I collagen-coated 60-mm grid culture dishes in NAIR-1 medium.
Frozen cell samples were thawed and used similarly. Scattered NPEC
clusters were marked, as described above, on day 1. The marked cell
clusters were checked on a phase-contrast microscope on days 3 and 4
and the number of scattered cell clusters were manually counted. On
days 8 to 10, the number of duct-like structure-emerged colonies,
derived from marked scattered cell clusters, were similarly counted.
Immunocytochemistry
At appropriate times during culture, the cells were fixed in 4%
neutral buffered paraformaldehyde, for subsequent examination for
albumin (Alb),
-fetoprotein (AFP), Tf,
-1-antitrypsin (AAT),
c-met, and vimentin, in an absolute ethanol at -30°C for detection
of cytokeratin (CK) 18 and CK19, and in absolute methanol at -30°C
for detection of CK 7, CK 14, OV6, BD.1, BD.2, H.4, OC.2, OC.5, and
OC.10. Rabbit anti-rat Alb (Cappel, Durham, NC), rabbit anti-human AFP
(Dako, Copenhagen, Denmark), rabbit anti-human Tf (Dako), rabbit
anti-human AAT (Zymed Lab. Inc., San Francisco, CA), rabbit anti-human
c-met (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA), mouse
monoclonal anti-human CKs, 7 (Dako), 14 (Cymbus Biotechnology Ltd.,
Hants, UK), 18 (Progen, Heidelberg, Germany), and 19 (Progen), mouse
monoclonal anti-porcine vimentin (Dako) and mouse monoclonal anti-rat
OV6, BD.1, BD.2, H.4, OC.2, OC.5, and OC.10 (gifts from Drs. D. C.
Hixson and S. Sell) were used as primary antibodies. Immunostaining was
carried out using a LSAB kit containing 3-amino-9-ethylcarbazole as a
substrate of horseradish peroxidase (Dako LSAB Kit, Dako-JAPAN Co.,
Kyoto, Japan), as described previously.14
Hep.G2 cells
(hepatoblastoma), HuH-7 cells (hepatocellular carcinoma), THLE-5b cells
(SV40 T antigen-immortalized human liver epithelial cell line), Ac2F
cells (rat liver epithelial cell line), OZ cells (human gallbladder
cancer cell line), rat hepatocytes, normal human dermal fibroblasts,
and Chinese hamster ovary-K1 cells were used as
controls.5,14
Enzyme Cytochemistry
For the histocytochemical demonstration of
-glutamyltransferase
(GGT) in the cultured cells, the method of Rutenberg et al was
used.15
Ac2F cells were used as a positive control.
Transmission Electron Microscopy
Cultured cells, plated on a type I collagen-coated
toluen-resistant plastic sheet (Wako, Tokyo, Japan), were fixed with
2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 mol/L cacodylate buffer, pH 7.4, at room
temperature for 30 minutes, postfixed with 2% osmium tetraoxide in the
buffer, and embedded in situ in Epon 812. Semithin and
ultrathin sections were cut on a Bromma 2088 ultratome V (LKB,
Schweden, Germany). The semithin sections were stained with 1%
toluidine blue and examined with a light microscope. The adjacent thin
sections were stained with uranyl acetate, followed by lead citrate and
examined at 60 KV with a H7000 transmission electron microscope
(Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan).
 |
Results
|
|---|
Phase-Contrast Microscopic Observation
A number of the NPEC clusters (target cell clusters) among the
several cell clusters that attached to the dishes on day 1 displayed a
slower spreading rate (Figure 1A)
.
Cultures of the nonparenchymal cell fraction produced many more such
NPEC clusters than cultures of the parenchymal cell fraction examined
in the previous study (data not shown).12
NPEC clusters
required approximately 48 hours in culture to spread well, whereas the
other cell clusters spread within 24 hours (Figure 1B)
. The NPEC
clusters began to proliferate and scatter on days 3 and 4, while
maintaining their polygonal shapes (Figure 1, C
-F). Thereafter, the
cells grew rapidly to form colonies (Figure 1G)
. Although the cells at
the periphery of colonies were morphologically similar to those
observed on days 3 to 4, the cells in the central regions of the
colonies were smaller in size, as previously reported (Figure 1, H
-K).12
After day 7, several duct-like structures emerged
within the colonies (Figure 1H)
. In addition, not only the cells
constituting the duct-like structures, but also those surrounded by the
structures were morphologically changed after further time in culture.
As shown in Figures 1L and 2
, the cells
surrounded by the duct-like structures appeared cobblestone-like with
dark cytoplasms by day 14.

View larger version (145K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Development of colonies derived from porcine nonparenchymal epithelial
cell clusters. The cells within the same field marked by a needle are
shown. A: Day 1 (28 hours after
plating). The photograph within the square is at
a higher magnification. NPECs are observed as clusters. B:
Day 2 (50 hours). NPECs
spread to about twice in area. C: Day 3
(81 hours). NPEC clusters
begin to proliferate. D: Day 4 (101
hours). NPEC clusters begin to scatter.
E: Day 4 (130
hours). F: Day 5
(141 hours).
G: Day 7 (166
hours). H: Day 8
(197 hours).
Arrows indicate a duct-like structure. I: Day 9
(220 hours).
J: Day 10 (244
hours). K: Day 12
(292 hours).
L: Day 15 (360
hours). Arrows indicate several
duct-like structures. The cells, containing dark cytoplasm that
surrounded by the duct-like structures, adopt a cobblestone-like
morphology. The star indicates the position highly magnified in Figure 2
. Original magnifications, x200
(A-C; scale bar,
C, 50 µm)
and x100 (D-L; scale bar,
L, 100
µm).
|
|

View larger version (144K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. High magnified microphotographs of Figure 1L
. Cells surrounded by the
duct-like structures are in focus
(A) and those
constituting duct-like structures are in focus
(B). Original
magnifications, x400. Scale bar, 25 µm.
|
|
Counts of Scattered NPEC Clusters and Duct-Like
Structure-Emerged Colonies
Previously, and in this study, we observed the scattering of NPEC
clusters on day 3 to 4 in culture (Figure 1, D
-F).12
In
the present experiments, 25 (33%) out of 75 clusters examined,
displayed the described scattering (Table 1)
. To assess whether the scattered
formation could be useful as an early marker of the duct-like
structure-emerged colonies, the incidence of colonies with emerging
duct-like structures derived from scattered cell clusters was examined.
We found that 96% of the scattered NPEC clusters developed into
duct-like structure-emerged colonies, as shown in Table 1
. These data
suggest that there is a close relation between the scattered formation
and the development of duct-like structure-emerged colonies and that
the scattered formation is useful as an early marker of duct-like
structure-emerged colonies.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Incidence of Duct-Like Structure-Emerged Colonies Derived from
Scattered Epithelial Cell Clusters in Primary Cultures of Adult Porcine
Livers
|
|
Cytochemical Analysis
At the scattering stage (day 34), the NPEC clusters were
recognized by antibodies against Alb, AFP, and Tf (Figure 3, A
-C), but not by
antibodies against AAT and H.4 (data not shown). Alb, AFP, and Tf were
expressed to a similar extent by all NPECs, suggesting a homogenous
expression of the proteins. At the duct-like structure-emerging stage
(day 810), all of these hepatocytic markers, except H.4, were
expressed in a subset of both the cells at the periphery of colonies
and those surrounded by the duct-like structures, although the
intensity and the frequency of expression was slightly different
between each marker. The cells at the periphery of the colonies
expressed Alb and AFP more strongly than those surrounded by the
duct-like structures. The expression of these markers in the cells
surrounded by duct-like structures decreased with time in culture
(Figure 4, A and B)
. In contrast, Tf was
expressed homogeneously and strongly in both the cells at the periphery
of the colonies and those surrounded by the duct-like structures
(Figure 4C)
. AAT expression was observed in a pattern consisting of
discrete clusters of cells at the periphery of colonies (Figure 4D)
. In
addition, all of the proteins, such as GGT, CK19, and CK14, which are
thought to be markers of BECs, were not expressed at detectable levels
by the scattered NPECs (data not shown), with the exception of CK7
(Figure 3D)
. However, the cells constituting duct-like structures
expressed these proteins (Figure 4, E
-H). Both the scattered NPECs and
the cells covering the duct-like structure-emerged colonies expressed
CK7 and CK18 at similar levels (Figures 3, D and E, and 4
, H and I).


View larger version (185K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. Immunocytochemistry of scattered NPEC clusters on day 3 to 4. Cells
show homogenous expression of each marker protein. Albumin
(A) and
transferrin
(C) are
expressed strongly in the cytoplasm and faintly in the nucleus. AFP
expression (B)
is detected in a granular pattern in the cytoplasm. CK7
(D), CK18
(E), OV6
(F), OC.10
(G), and
vimentin (I)
are present in a fibrous pattern in the cytoplasm. OV6 and vimentin are
faintly detectable as compared to others. C-met
(H) is
detectable both in the nucleus and in the perinuclear region of the
cytoplasm. All photographs are the same magnification. Scale bar
(I), 50 µm.
Insets show positive and negative
(*) controls.
a: HepG2. a*: NHDF. b: HepG2.
b*: NHDF. f: Ac2F. f*: NHDF.
i: CHO-K1. i*: HepG2. Original
magnifications, x200 (except insets, x160). Scale
bar, i*, 50
µm.
|
|

View larger version (132K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. Immunocytochemical analysis of duct-like structure-emerged colonies on
Day 8 to 10. Albumin
(A),
transferrin
(C), and AAT
(D) are
present in the cells at the periphery of colonies and in those
surrounded by duct-like structures. AAT is detectable in the cells at
the periphery of colonies as colonial spots. AFP
(B) is
expressed only in the cells at the periphery of colonies after Day 9.
GGT (E), CK19
(F), CK14
(G), and OC.10
(L) are
present in the cells constituting duct-like structures, although CK14
expression is faint. CK7
(H), CK18
(I), OV6
(J), and BD.2
(K) are
expressed in all cells covering the duct-like structure-emerged
colonies. Cells at the periphery of colonies express OV6 more strongly
than those in the central parts of colonies. Original magnifications,
x100. Arrows indicate positive cells. Scale bar,
L, 50 µm.
|
|
In addition to the above markers, the scattered NPECs and the cells of
the duct-like structure-emerged colonies were examined for the
expression of OV6, BD.1, BD.2, OC.2, OC.5, and OC.10. Hixson et al have
reported that both oval cells and BECs express OV6, BD.2, OC.2, OC.5,
and OC.10, whereas only BECs express BD.1 (personal
communication).9,16-19
In the present study, the
scattered NPECs were stained positively for OV6, OC.5, and OC.10,
although the staining intensity for OV6 was weak, while the cells
stained negatively for BD.1, BD.2, and OC.2 (Figure 3, F and G
; data
for BD.1, BD.2, OC.2, and OC.5 not shown). On the other hand, the cells
constituting duct-like structures were stained positively for all of
these six markers. All cells covering the duct-like structure-emerged
colonies were OV6-positive and the cells at the periphery of colonies
were stained more strongly than cells in the other parts of the
colonies (Figure 4J)
. BD.1 and OC.2 were expressed in all cells of the
colonies. However, the staining intensity was weak, especially in cells
that constituted the duct-like structures, as compared with control
cells (data not shown). Only the cells constituting duct-like
structures exhibited strong fibrous cytoplasmic staining with
antibodies to OC.10 (Figure 4L)
. BD.2 was found to be expressed in a
similar pattern as CK18 (Figure 4K)
, and all of the cells of the
colonies exhibited a granular cytoplasmic staining with antibodies to
OC.5 on day 3 to 4 (data not shown). The NPECs expressed c-met at early
culture (Figure 3H)
, regardless of their scattered formation. In the
duct-like structure-emerged colonies, only the cells at the periphery
of colonies expressed c-met (data not shown). In addition, the
scattered NPECs were stained positively for vimentin (Figure 3I)
and
most of the cells constituting duct-like structure-emerged colonies,
with an exception of the cells surrounded by duct-like structures, were
vimentin-positive (data not shown). All of the results of
immunocytochemical staining in both the scattered NPECs and the
duct-like structure-emerged colonies are summarized in Table 2
.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2. Comparison of the Phenotypic Expression of Scattered Nonparenchymal
Epithelial Cell Clusters with Duct-Like Structure-Emerged Colonies
|
|
Ultrastructure of the Cells Constituting Duct-Like
Structure-Emerged Colonies
Some of the cells found inside the duct-like structures possessed
tight junctions with desmosomes and bile canaliculi-like structures
with microvilli, which are thought to be the characteristics of mature
hepatocytes (Figure 5A)
. On the other
hand, the cells constituting duct-like structures, themselves, had a
relatively large nucleus-cytoplasm ratio, formed clear lumens with
short microvilli, and interepithelial junctional complexes. From these
characteristics, these cells appeared to be BECs (Figure 5, B and C)
.

View larger version (89K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. Electron microscopy of cells surrounded by the duct-like structures and
those constituting the structures. A: Some of the cells
surrounded by the duct-like structures have numerous glycogen rosettes,
tight junctions with desmosomes
(arrows), and
bile canaliculi-like structures with microvilli. B and
C: Cells constituting duct-like structures show a large
nucleus-cytoplasm ratio, a lumen structure with short microvilli
(arrows in
B), and juxtaluminal junctional
complexes (arrow in
C). The nuclei, which are notched in
some cells, are located in the basal region of the cells. C:
High magnification of the boxed area in B. Original
magnifications, x12,000
(A), x1500
(B), x6000
(C). Scale
bars, 1 µm (A and
C) and 5 µm
(B).
|
|
 |
Discussion
|
|---|
Bipotential Nature of NPECs
The NPECs, that we describe, expressed not only the hepatocytic
markers Alb and Tf, but also the hepatoblast marker AFP at the
scattering stage. Others suggest that these cells are relatively
immature, possessing characteristics similar to those of
hepatoblasts.1,2,20
However, the NPECs are also thought to
be capable of differentiating along the hepatocytic lineage in culture
from the expression of AAT, a marker for highly differentiated
hepatocytes.21,22
The differentiation of NPECs into mature
hepatocytes is supported by the morphological observations that the
cells, when surrounded by duct-like structures, became dark in their
cytoplasms, and that tight junctions with desmosomes and bile
canaliculi-like structures with microvilli emerged in culture. In
contrast to the evidence for hepatocyte differentiation, NPECs
expressed both CK7 and CK18 during the whole culture period of this
experiment. These two phenotypic markers are reported to be expressed
in BECs and oval cells, although hepatocytes are known to express CK18,
but rarely CK7.1
In addition, CK7 has been reported to be
expressed in the matured intrahepatic bile duct cells of
embryos.1
Furthermore, in this study it was shown that
oval cell markers, such as OV6, OC.5, and OC.10, were expressed in a
pattern similar to the cytokeratins mentioned above, and that the other
BEC markers were expressed only in duct-like structure-emerged
colonies. Moreover, the cells constituting duct-like structures were
shown, ultrastructurally, to express some characteristics of BECs,
suggesting the morphological differentiation of NPEC clusters into
BECs. Together, these results suggest that NPECs are immature cells at
the scattering stage, as described above, and that they are capable of
differentiation into BECs. In addition, these results suggest that
duct-like structure-emerged colonies contain a population of cells that
are immature due to the presence of AFP-positive cells among the
colonies. A limited number of reports have been presented on the
formation of bile ductal structures by either hepatic stem cells or
precursor cells in culture. Lazaro et al reported that ductal
structures were formed by oval cell lines in the presence of hepatocyte
growth factor (HGF) and/or keratinocyte growth factor in a
three-dimensional collagen gel matrix system.23
These
results suggest that oval cells are able to differentiate along the
bile duct lineage. Block et al reported that mature hepatocytes were
induced to dedifferentiate and proliferate in the presence of growth
factors such as HGF and/or EGF, followed by the expression of markers
of bile ductal epithelium.24
In the same study, it was
shown that nonparenchymal cells and a special microenvironment, such as
Matrigel, contributed to the ductal structure formation. Together,
these results suggest that immature hepatocytes formed bile duct
structures when they were provided the appropriate conditions.
Considering all of these results, it appears that hepatocytes and BECs
are very similar in nature, even after maturation, and they might be
able to alter their phenotype in response to specific conditions.
Often, the phenotypic transition between hepatocytes and BECs is
observed during normal development and in various pathological
conditions of the liver (ductular metaplasia).25,26
Haque
et al describe the possibility that certain ductular hepatocytes, found
in liver during regeneration, represent metaplastic bile
ductules.27
The results presented in this study suggest
that certain NPECs derived from adult pigs are bipotential and are able
to acquire the differentiated properties of both hepatocytes and BECs
in culture. The possibility as to whether the formed bile duct-like
structures are due to ductular metaplasia remains to be determined.
The Origin of NPECs
As described above, certain NPECs, derived from adult porcine
livers, appear to have a functional resemblance to early embryonic
liver cells. Maceau et al reported that the progenitor cells of
hepatocytes and BECs, embryonic day 12 (E12) cells present in a mouse
liver at E10.512, already express AFP, Alb, GGT, and BDS7, and are
not only morphologically, but also functionally different from the
cells found at E1517.2,3
Moreover, E12 cells are
reported to be capable of differentiation into either hepatocytes or
BECs in vitro.2
In addition, their
microenvironments are thought to be important in determining which
lineage they will follow.28,29
These results suggest that
embryonic livers possess bipotential stem-like cells as either
hepatoblasts or immature hepatocytes. Hepatoblasts express some
hepatocytic markers, such as AFP, Alb, CK8, and CK18, as well as BEC
markers, such as GGT and CK19.1,2
The present study shows
that NPECs, at early stages in culture, share many phenotypic
characteristics with hepatoblasts, although the former does not express
the BEC markers examined, except for CK7. These results suggest that
certain NPEC cultures mimic hepatoblast development in an embryonic
liver.
The data presented here also indicate that the NPECs share some
phenotypic characteristics with oval cells. In this study, the NPECs
were derived from normal adult livers, whereas oval cells are known to
be induced to proliferate from severe damage that renders hepatocytes
unrecoverable. It is likely that the destruction of extracellular
matrix substances, resulting from dispase and collagenase digestion,
induced an activation of the NPECs in this study. Therefore, the NPECs
that we observe can be regarded as facultative progenitor cells. Small
hepatocytes, assuming the role of committed stem cells, proliferate and
become capable of differentiation into mature
hepatocytes.22,29,30
NPECs seem to be distinct
from small hepatocytes in that NPECs express AFP in all cells
at the scattering stage. AFP expression becomes localized in the cells
at the periphery of colonies, whereas small hepatocytes rarely express
AFP in culture.
The Mechanism of NPEC Differentiation
The biological mechanisms responsible for the scattering and
differentiation of NPECs remains to be determined. Often, cell-cell or
growth factor-cell interactions have been implicated as important for
hepatic cell differentiation.24,25,29,31-33
This study
strongly suggests that soluble factors (growth factors), which may be
supplied by nonparenchymal nonepithelial cells, such as stellate
cells,34
endothelial cells, and Kupffer cells, are more
important than the direct cell-cell contact for the differentiation of
NPECs. The nonparenchymal cells, adjacent to the NPEC clusters, were
mechanically eliminated, as described in Materials and Methods, at
early culture stages so that cell-cell contact was avoided. Scattering,
followed by ductal structure formation in MDCK epithelial cells, can be
induced by HGF.35
The exposure of both mouse liver
epithelial cell lines36
and oval cell lines23
to HGF results in the formation of either hepatic plate-like trabeculae
or branching duct-like tubules when grown on collagen gels. Moreover,
it is thought that HGF may be closely related to the ontogenesis of the
liver from the observation that transgenic mice that have lost HGF gene
expression failed in liver organogenesis.37
In our
experiments, NPECs were shown to express c-met at the scattering stage,
suggesting that HGF is involved as an inducer in the scattering of
these cells and in the subsequent formation of duct-like structures.
Several known or unknown growth factors in addition to HGF may be
produced by the cells in our cultures. Further work is needed to
investigate the cooperative effect of these factors and other
components included in the culture medium, NAIR-1, on the growth and/or
differentiation of NPECs.25,35,37
Homogeneity of NPEC Clustered Cells
The determination of whether the cells of an NPEC are of a single
cell origin is crucial for the evaluation of the bipotential nature of
these cells. NPECs, in the present study, were observed as a cluster
consisting of at least three cells on day 1. We have attempted single
cell cloning to obtain a pure colony, but technical difficulties have
made the methods unsuccessful thus far. We regard the NPEC clustered
cells as a homogeneous cell population, although not of a single cell
origin, for two reasons: NPEC clusters can be produced at a near
constant rate in the same inoculum size of cells derived from different
animals, ie, one NPEC cluster per 12 x
104
cells/60-mm dish; and the NPEC clustered
cells homogeneously express either liver-specific or biliary markers at
the scattering stage. Further, there are two possible explanations for
the presence of cell clusters: i) all of cell clusters were formed by
random aggregation of mixed cell populations after cell dispersion, and
ii) some of the clusters were derived from enzyme-resistant in
vivo cell populations. We hypothesize that enzyme-resistant cell
clusters exist in vivo, some of which may retain a stem-like
cell nature and are activated by the cell dissociation procedure.
The results presented here suggest that bipotential NPECs, whose
culture mimics hepatoblast development, exist in adult porcine livers.
NPECs include ductal and ductal epithelial cells, and, most likely, a
population of putative progenitor cells.3,10
We have used
the scattered formation as a marker of duct-like structure-emerged
colonies to examine the differentiation of NPECs in this study. These
methods should provide a powerful means for isolating and studying the
biology of liver progenitor cells. These epithelial cells also will
provide a valuable system to develop new clinical strategies, such as
liver-reconstruction, gene therapy, and cell transplantation, instead
of liver transplantation, which faces a shortage of donors in near
future.
 |
Acknowledgements
|
|---|
We thank Drs. D. C. Hixson and S. Sell for providing us with
antibodies against OV6, BD.1, BD.2, OC.2, OC.5, OC.10, and H.4, and Ms.
N. Sugae for transmission electron microscope microphotographs.
 |
Footnotes
|
|---|
Address reprint requests to Dr. Takayoshi Tokiwa, Department of Cell Physiology, Kohno Clinical Medicine Research Institute, 34-4 Kita-shinagawa, Shinagawa, Tokyo 140-0001, Japan.
Supported by grant from the Japanese Ministry of Public Welfare (to T. T.).
Accepted for publication March 3, 2000.
 |
References
|
|---|
-
Shiojiri N, Lemire JM, Fausto N: Cell lineages and oval cell progenitors in rat liver development. Cancer Res 1991, 51:2611-2620[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Germain L, Blouin M-J, Marceau N: Biliary epithelial and hepatocytic cell lineage relationships in embryonic rat liver as determined by the differential expression of cytokeratins,
-fetoprotein, albumin, and cell surface-exposed components. Cancer Res 1988, 48:4909-4918[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Marceau N, Chamberland C, Blouin M-J, Noel M, Loranger A: Progenitor cells in embryonic and post-natal rat livers, their growth and differentiation potential. Bell E eds. Tissue Engineering Current Perspectives. 1993, :pp 58-65 Birkhauser, Berlin
-
Grisham JW: Cell types in rat liver cultures: their identification and isolation. Mol Cell Biochem 1983, 53/54:23-33
-
Tokiwa T, Nakabayashi H, Miyazaki M, Sato J: Isolation and characterization of diploid clones from adult and newborn rat liver cell lines. In Vitro 1979, 15:393-400[Medline]
-
Sirica AE, Mathis GA, Sano N, Elmore L: Isolation, culture, and transplantation of intrahepatic biliary epithelial cells and oval cells. Pathobiology 1990, 58:44-64[Medline]
-
Faust N, Lemire JM, Shiojiri N: Oval cells in liver carcinogenesis: Cell lineages in hepatic development and the identification of stem cells in normal. Sirica AE eds. The Role of Cell Types in Hepatocarcinogenesis. 1992, :pp 89-108 CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
-
Thorgeirsson SS, Evarts RP: Growth and differentiation of stem cells in adult rat liver. Sirica AE eds. The Role of Cell Types in Hepatocarcinogenesis. 1992, :pp 109-120 CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
-
Hixson DC, Faris RA, Yang L, Novikoff P: Antigenic clues to liver development, renewal, and carcinogenesis: an integrated model. Sirica AE eds. The Role of Cell Types in Hepatocarcinogenesis. 1992, :pp 151-182 CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
-
Faust N: Liver stem cells. 3rd ed. Arias IM Boyer JE Fausto N Jakoby WB Schachter DA Shafritz DA eds. The Liver: Biology and Pathobiology, 1994, :pp 1501-1518 Raven Press, New York
-
Grisham JW, Thorgeirsson SS: Liver stem cells. Potten CS eds. Stem Cells. 1997, :pp 233-282 London, Academic Press, San Diego
-
Kano J, Tokiwa T, Zhou X-D, Kodama M: Colonial growth and differentiation of epithelial cells derived from abattoir adult porcine livers. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998, 13(suppl.):62S-69S
-
Zhou X-D, Tokiwa T, Kano J, Kodama M: Isolation and primary culture of adult pig hepatocytes. Meth Cell Sci 1998, 19:277-284
-
Tokiwa T, Kano J, Noguchi M, Kodama M, Tateishi T: Restoration of differentiated functions in multicellular aggregates of a human liver epithelial cell line. Materials Sci Eng 1998, 6:249-252
-
Rutenburg AM, Kim H, Fischbein JW, Hanker JS, Wasserkrug HL, Seligman AM: Histochemical and ultrastructural demonstration of
-glutamyl transpeptidase activity. J Histochem Cytochem 1969, 17:517-526[Abstract]
-
Dunsford HA, Sell S: Production of monoclonal antibodies to preneoplastic liver cell populations induced by chemical carcinogens in rats and to transplantable morris hepatomas. Cancer Res 1989, 49:4887-4893[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Dunsford HA, Karnasuta C, Hunt JM, Sell S: Different lineages of chemically induced hepatocellular carcinoma in rats defined by monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Res 1989, 49:4894-4900[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Faris RA, Monfils BA, Dunsford HA, Hixson DC: Antigenic relationship between oval cells and a subpopulation of hepatic foci, nodules, and carcinomas induced by the "resistant hepatocyte" model system. Cancer Res 1991, 51:1308-1317[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Yang L, Faris RA, Hixson DC: Characterization of a mature bile duct antigen expressed on a subpopulation of ductular cells but absent from oval cells. Hepatology 1993, 18:357-366[Medline]
-
Cascio S, Zaret KS: Hepatocyte differentiation initiates during endodermal-mesenchymal interactions prior to liver formation. Development 1991, 113:217-225[Abstract]
-
Alpini GA, Phillips JO, LaRusso NF: The biology of biliary epithelia. 3rd ed. Arias IM Boyer JL Fausto N Bakoby JW Schachter DA Shafritz DA eds. The Liver: Biology and Pathobiology, 1994, :pp 623-653 Raven Press, New York
-
Tateno C, Yoshizato K: Growth and differentiation in culture of clonogenic hepatocytes that express both phenotypes of hepatocytes and biliary epithelial cells. Am J Pathol 1996, 149:1593-1605[Abstract]
-
Lazaro CA, Rhim JA, Yamada Y, Fausto N: Generation of hepatocytes from oval cell precursors in culture. Cancer Res 1998, 58:5514-5522[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Block GD, Locker J, Bowen WC, Petersen BE, Katyal S, Strom SC, Riley T, Howard TA, Michalopoulos K: Population expansion, clonal growth, and specific differentiation patterns in primary cultures of hepatocytes induced by HGF/SF, EGF and TGF
in a chemically defined (HGM) medium. J Cell Biol 1996, 132:1133-1149[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Eyken PV, Desmet VJ: Development of intrahepatic bile ducts, ductular metaplasia of hepatocytes, and cytokeratin patterns in various types of human hepatic neoplasms. Sirica AE eds. The Role of Cell Types in Hepatocarcinogenesis. 1992, :pp 227-263 FL, CRC Press, Boca Raton
-
Uchida T, Peters RL: The nature and origin of proliferated bile ductules in alcoholic liver disease. Am J Clin Pathol 1983, 79:326-333[Medline]
-
Haque S, Haruna Y, Saito K, Nalesnik NA, Atillasoy E, Thung SN, Gerber MA: Identification of bipotential progenitor cells in human liver regeneration. Lab Invest 1996, 75:699-705[Medline]
-
Coleman WB, Wennerberg AE, Smith GJ, Grisham JW: Regulation of the differentiation of diploid and some aneuploid rat liver epithelial (stemlike) cells by the hepatic microenvironment. Am J Pathol 1993, 142:1373-1392[Abstract]
-
Zvibel I, Fiorino AS, Brill S, Reid LM: Phenotypic characterization of rat hepatoma cell lines and lineage-specific regulation of gene expression by differentiation agents. Differentiation 1998, 63:215-223[Medline]
-
Mitaka T, Sato F, Mizuguchi T, Yokono T, Mochizuki Y: Reconstruction of hepatic organoid by rat small hepatocytes and hepatic nonparenchymal cells. Hepatology 1999, 29:111-125[Medline]
-
Tokiwa T, Kano J, Meng X-Y, Zhou X-D, Kodama K, Matumura T: Multilayer rat hepatocytes aggregates formed on expanded polytetrafluoloethylene surface. Cytotechnology 1997, 25:137-144
-
Kano J, Tokiwa T, Meng X-Y, Kodama M, Matumura T: Immobilization of CHO-K1 cells cultured in serum-free medium using glass fiber fabrics or expanded polytetrafluoloethylene membranes. Seitaizairyou 1997, 15:5562 (in Japanese with English abstract)
-
Tokiwa T, Kano J, Meng X-Y, Bahulekar R, Kodama M: Formation of non-spheroidal aggregates on polyacrylamide surfaces. Biotechnol Techniques 1996, 10:845-848
-
Tokiwa T, Yata Y, Takahara T, Watanabe A, Enosawa S, Suzuki S, Kano J, Noguchi M: SV40 large T antigen immortalization of rat hepatic stellate like cells. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 1999, 35:246-247
-
Santos OFP, Nigam SK: HGF-induced tubulogenesis and branching of epithelial cells is modulated by extracellular matrix and TGF-ß. Dev Biol 1993, 160:293-302[Medline]
-
Johnson M, Koukoulis G, Matsumoto K, Nakamura T, Iyer A: Heptocyte growth factor induces proliferation and morphogenesis in nonparenchymal epithelial liver cells. Hepatology 1993, 17:1052-1061[Medline]
-
Schmidt C, Bladt F, Goedecke S, Brinkmann V, Zschiesche W, Sharpe M, Gherardi E, Birchmeir C: Scatter factor/hepatocyte growth factor is essential for liver development. Nature 1995, 373:699-702[Medline]