Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40376613›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2025

Cellular effects of splenectomy on liver regeneration after 70% resection.

Andrey Elchaninov, Polina Vishnyakova, Elena Gantsova, Miroslava Chirkova, Victoria Karyagina, Larkin Anatoliy, Evgeniya Kananykhina, Maria Kuznetsova, Ibrahim Atabekov, Evgeny Karpulevich and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Andrey ElchaninovLaboratory of Growth and Development, Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of FSBI "Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery", Moscow, Russia.
Polina VishnyakovaResearch Institute of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia.
Elena GantsovaLaboratory of Growth and Development, Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of FSBI "Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery", Moscow, Russia.
Miroslava ChirkovaInformation Systems Department, Ivannikov Institute for System Programming of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISP RAS), Moscow, Russia.
Victoria KaryaginaLaboratory of Regenerative Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, National Medical Research Centre for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Larkin AnatoliyFaculty of Biology and Biotechnology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.
Evgeniya KananykhinaLaboratory of Growth and Development, Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of FSBI "Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery", Moscow, Russia.
Maria KuznetsovaLaboratory of Molecular Research Methods, Institute of Reproductive Genetics, National Medical Research Centre for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Ibrahim AtabekovInformation Systems Department, Ivannikov Institute for System Programming of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISP RAS), Moscow, Russia.
Evgeny KarpulevichInformation Systems Department, Ivannikov Institute for System Programming of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISP RAS), Moscow, Russia.
Silachev DenisLaboratory of Cell Technologies, National Medical Research Centre for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Dmitry TrofimovLaboratory of Molecular Research Methods, Institute of Reproductive Genetics, National Medical Research Centre for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Dmitry GoldshteinLaboratory of Stem Cells Genetics, Research Centre of Medical Genetics, Moscow, Russia.
Timur FatkhudinovLaboratory of Growth and Development, Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of FSBI "Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery", Moscow, Russia.
Gennady SukhikhLaboratory of Regenerative Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, National Medical Research Centre for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Mammalian liver regeneration is a complex process, the regulation of which involves many mechanisms. The immune system has a pronounced influence on the course of reparative processes in mammals. The hepatic portal vein system provides a direct anatomical connection between the liver and the spleen - the largest lymphoid organ in mammals. Accordingly, the spleen may have a direct effect on liver regeneration as a source of biologically active substances and migrating leukocytes. Specific mechanisms of such influence remain understudied. This study aimed to assess the effect of splenectomy on liver regeneration after 70% resection in mouse model. Methods: Murine model of liver regeneration after 70% resection was reproduced in C57BL/6 male mice, some of them splenectomized 7 days before the liver resection. Proliferation marker Ki67 in the liver was assessed by immunohistochemistry and the protein content for cyclin D1, cyclin A2 and p53 in the liver was assessed by Western blotting. Using TUNEL assay, an increase in the number of apoptotic cells was detected. The highest number of TUNEL+ cells was detected 1 day after liver resection, while the number of apoptotic cells in animals with prior splenectomy was significantly lower compared to animals with preserved spleen. The dynamics of Ly6C+ monocytes and Ly6G+ leukocytes were studied by flow cytometry. Macrophages were isolated from the regenerating liver using magnetic sorting for F4/80 and their gene expression profiles were analyzed using Clariom™ S Assay, mouse. Peripheral blood and splenic monocytes were isolated by magnetic sorting for CD115 and analyzed by Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform RNA sequencing. Migration of peripheral blood and splenic leukocytes to the regenerating liver was studied using allogeneic transplantation of cells derived from B10-GFP mice. Results and discussion: Animals splenectomized prior to the liver resection showed higher rates of cell proliferation along with higher content of р53 protein in the remnant organ. Splenectomy also correlated with decreased rates of Ly6C+ monocyte and Ly6G+ leukocyte migration. Macrophages in the regenerating liver were transcriptomically enriched for signaling pathways associated with monocyte migration, cell adhesion and cell death. As shown by the GFP+ leukocyte transplantation experiment, the leukocytes migrating to the regenerating liver are mainly of splenic origin. According to high-throughput sequencing data, these cells express high levels of cell adhesion molecules. The spleen has a significant effect on liver regeneration through secretion of biologically active substances and migrating leukocytes. Pre-splenectomy leads to a more pronounced liver damage response after 70% resection, as indicated by higher rates of cell proliferation, higher p53 protein content and cell death-associated signaling pathway activation.

Indexed as

livermacrophagesmonocytesregenerationspleen

Identifiers

PMID40376613
PMCPMC12078306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.