A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.

Method Article

Determining Bile Duct Density in the Mouse Liver

6.6K views

⸱

DOI:

10.3791/59587

⸱

April 30th, 2019

 , 
1Program in Developmental Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, 2Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP), Baylor College of Medicine, 3Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine

In This Article

Summary

We present a rather simple and sensitive method for accurate quantification of bile duct density in the mouse liver. This method can aid in determining the effects of genetic and environmental modifiers and the effectiveness of potential therapies in mouse models of biliary diseases.

Abstract

Mouse is broadly used as a model organism to study biliary diseases. To evaluate the development and function of the biliary system, various techniques are used, including serum chemistry, histological analysis, and immunostaining for specific markers. Although these techniques can provide important information about the biliary system, they often do not present a full picture of bile duct (BD) developmental defects across the whole liver. This is in part due to the robust ability of the mouse liver to drain the bile even in animals with significant impairment in biliary development. Here we present a simple method to calculate the average number of BDs associated with each portal vein (PV) in sections covering all lobes of mutant/transgenic mice. In this method, livers are mounted and sectioned in a stereotypic manner to facilitate comparison among various genotypes and experimental conditions. BDs are identified via light microscopy of cytokeratin-stained cholangiocytes, and then counted and divided by the total number of PVs present in liver section. As an example, we show how this method can clearly distinguish between wild-type mice and a mouse model of Alagille syndrome. The method presented here cannot substitute for techniques that visualize the three-dimensional structure of the biliary tree. However, it offers an easy and direct way to quantitatively assess BD development and the degree of ductular reaction formation in mice.

Introduction

The biliary tree is a critical part of the mammalian liver, allowing the passage of bile from hepatocytes into the gut. Intrahepatic bile ducts (BDs) are formed by cholangiocytes, which differentiate from bipotential hepatoblasts through Notch and TGFβ signaling1,2. Proper specification and commitment of cholangiocytes and their assembly into mature BDs are critical for the development of the intrahepatic biliary tree. As the liver grows during development or upon organ regeneration, the biliary system needs to develop along the liver to ensure proper bile drainage. Moreover, a number of syndromic and non-syndromic diseases result in the paucity of intrahepatic BDs3. In addition, a number of acute and chronic liver diseases give rise to so-called ductular reactions in the liver, which are defined as the presence of a significant number of cells that express biliary markers but do not necessarily arise from biliary cells or form patent BDs4. In the multisystem disorder Alagille syndrome (ALGS), haploinsufficiency of the Notch ligand jagged1 (JAG1) results in poor BD formation and cholestasis5,6. Our lab recently demonstrated that a previously generated Jag1 heterozygous mouse line7 is an animal model of BD paucity in ALGS8. In this mouse model of ALGS, cholangiocytes are still present. However, they fail to commit to incorporation into mature, patent BDs8. Therefore, analysis of the liver in a model of BD paucity requires more than the apparent presence or absence of cholangiocytes. It is important to accurately assess the degree to which mature BDs are present in the liver.

In anatomic pathology, there are accepted quantitative methods for assessing whether BD paucity exists9. For example, studies on ALGS in human patients often quantify the BD to portal vein (PV) ratio by analyzing at least 10 portal vessels per liver biopsy9,10. Analysis of the shape and overall presence or absence of patent BDs, combined with serum chemistry, can provide valuable information about BD development in mice11,12,13. However, mice can lose a significant number of BDs with only a modest increase in serum bilirubin level8. Accordingly, a quantitative method that evaluates the number of BDs present per PV can provide a more direct measure of the degree of BD paucity in mice. In a recent report, we quantified the number of BDs per PV across all liver lobes and reported a significant decrease in the BD to PV ratio in Jag1+/– animals8. During the course of our analysis, we noticed that despite the significant variation in the degree of inflammatory response and ductular reactions, the BD to PV ratio does not show much variability8. Moreover, quantification of the BD to PV ratio allowed us to demonstrate that removing one copy of the glycosyltransferase gene Poglut1 in Jag1+/– animals can significantly improve their BD paucity8. In a Jag1+/+ background, conditional loss of Poglut1 in vascular smooth muscle cells results in a progressive increase in BD numbers, which is modest (20-30%) at P7 but becomes prominent in adults8. Again, this technique allowed us to show that even at P7, the increase in BD density in these animals is statistically significant. Of note, the increased BD density in this genotype at four months of age was validated through resin cast analysis as well.8 These observations and other reports which measured BD density in different ALGS mouse models14,15 prompted us to incorporate this method into our overall strategy to analyze biliary defects in various mutant and transgenic mice.

Here, we detail a straightforward technique which can be used to examine the degree of BD paucity in mouse models of liver disease (Figure 1). In this method, co-staining with cholangiocyte markers cytokeratin (CK) 8 and CK19 (hereafter wide-spectrum CK, wsCK) is used to visualize BDs and unincorporated cholangiocytes in the mouse liver. An antibody against alpha-smooth muscle actin (αSMA) is added to the staining to label vessels. Systematic analysis of the BD to PV ratio in a section covering all liver lobes ensures that a large number of PVs are analyzed for each genotype. Since our method relies on quantifying BDs and PVs in 2D images, it is not suitable for studying the effects of a given mutation on the 3D structure of the biliary tree or the integrity of the small biliary conduits. Nevertheless, it provides a simple and objective strategy for investigators to assess biliary development in the mouse.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Protocol

All animals were housed in a barrier animal facility at Baylor College of Medicine per Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines and under approved animal protocols.

1. Collection of Mouse Liver Tissue

  1. Preparation of mouse for liver harvest
    1. Euthanize the mouse using isoflurane.
    2. Perform cervical dislocation of the mouse to ensure death.
    3. Make a transverse incision approximately one inch below the rib cage.
    4. Expose the entire ventral surface of the liver.
  2. Collection of the mouse liver
    1. Carefully, with small scissors, cut through the ligaments connecting the liver to other organs in the abdomen.
    2. Cut through the common BD to detach the liver from the intestine.
    3. Carefully remove the liver by holding onto the gallbladder and immediately place in a 50 mL tube filled to three-quarters by 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA).

2. Fixation and Embedding the Liver in Paraffin

  1. Fixation
    1. Fix the liver tissue for 48 h in 4% PFA at 4 °C.
    2. Wash the tissue with 70% EtOH for 1 h at 4 °C.
    3. Wash the tissue twice with 95% EtOH for 1 h each at 4 °C.
    4. Wash the tissue twice with 100% EtOH for 1 h each at 4 °C.
  2. Clearing
    1. Wash the liver tissue with clearing agent (Table of Materials) three times for 30 min each at room temperature.
      NOTE: The liver should feel rigid following the third wash.
  3. Embedding in paraffin
    1. Place the tissue cassette in a tissue mold in paraffin wax for 3 washes, 30 min each. Wax should be preheated to 60 °C.
    2. Fill the tissue mold with paraffin wax to three-quarters height and keep on a heating block at 60 °C.
    3. Place the liver in the mold with the ventral side facing up.
    4. Carefully remove the mold from the heating block.
    5. Place the top of the cassette on the mold and top off with hot liquid paraffin.
    6. Allow the mold and block to cool to room temperature overnight.
      NOTE: Tissue blocks can now be stored at room temperature.

3. Sectioning liver tissue

  1. Preparation of the block for sectioning
    1. Place the mold on ice for 5 min before removing the block from the mold.
    2. Place the block on ice with a lab tissue paper present between block and ice.
    3. Keep the block on ice when not sectioning for best tissue slicing results.
  2. Sectioning the liver blocks
    1. Using a microtome, begin by sectioning through the superficial, dorsal side of the liver. Sections should be 5 µm.
    2. Check the superficial sections under a dissection microscope to ensure sections are not sheared or folded.
    3. Take a section of the liver that includes the caudate lobe.
      NOTE: For some blocks, you will have the left, medial, right and caudate lobes on the same tissue slice.
    4. For those blocks where all four lobes are not present on the same slide, continue to slice until the left, medial and right lobes are present on the same slide.

4. Immunohistochemistry for wsCK and αSMA

  1. Processing of slides for immunohistochemistry
    1. Select one slide per genotype to be analyzed.
    2. Wash the slide for 15 min in Xylene, 100% EtOH, 95% EtOH and finally 70% EtOH (3 x 5 min in each solution).
    3. Wash the slide for 5 min in deionized H2O.
    4. Immerse the slide in the antigen retrieval solution (Tris-based, high pH).
    5. Heat under pressure in a pressure cooker for 3 min at 10 psi.
    6. Allow the slide to cool to room temperature (approximately 35 min).
  2. Blocking the tissue sections
    1. Using a Pap Pen, outline the sections on the slide.
    2. Apply phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) + 0.1% Tween to cover the section twice, 5 min each.
    3. Make blocking buffer by mixing Normal Goat Serum (NGS) at 1:50 in PBS + 0.3% Triton. To have enough buffer for both blocking and primary antibody application, 100 µL per section is sufficient.
    4. Apply 100 µL of blocking solution per section.
    5. Incubate the slides covered with the blocking solution at 4 °C for 1 h.
  3. Staining for wsCK and αSMA
    1. Dilute anti-CK8 and anti-CK19 antibodies16 (Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, TROMA-I and TROMA-III, respectively) 1:20 in blocking buffer to stain for wsCK. Dilute the anti-αSMA antibody17 (Table of Materials) to 1:200 in the same buffer.
    2. Apply 100 µL of the diluted antibody solution containing all three antibodies to each section.
    3. Incubate the slides covered with the antibody solution at 4 °C overnight.
    4. Wash the slides with PBS + 0.1% Triton three times, 5 min each.
    5. Dilute secondary antibodies (anti-rat-Alexa488 and anti-mouse-Cy5) 1:200 in PBS + 0.3% Triton.
    6. Apply 100 µL of the secondary antibody solution containing both secondary antibodies to the slides.
    7. Incubate at room temperature for 1 h.
  4. DAPI nuclear staining and mounting
    1. Wash the slides three times, 5 min each.
    2. Apply 100 µL of DAPI (1:3000) to each section for 10 min.
    3. Apply Antifade Mounting Medium (Table of Materials) to the slides and place a glass coverslip on top of the tissue sections. Leave the slides at 4 °C overnight. Seal the slides the next day.
    4. Store the slides at 4 °C and image within 1 week of mounting.

5. Imaging and Quantification of BDs

  1. Imaging liver sections
    1. Prior to imaging, blind yourself to the genotype of the sample with help from a lab member. Ensure all imaging files are devoid of genotype or other specific identifying information besides an animal/sample number.
    2. Using a fluorescent microscope, take 20x images at 1x zoom of each section and ensure that every PV across the liver is imaged. Include the left, medial, right and caudate lobes.
      NOTE: We usually find 60-90 portal tracts per animal depending on the size of the liver.
    3. To identity the PVs, look for αSMA plus wsCK staining. Structures that are αSMA positive but lack wsCK staining are not portal structures.
  2. Identification and counting of BDs
    1. Create a spreadsheet with the following columns: Animal/Sample Number, Image Number, Number of PVs, and Number of BDs.
    2. Going through each image, identify and record the number of PVs per image.
    3. Identify patent BDs in each image by the presence of cholangiocytes (wsCK+) surrounding a definable lumen. Structures should be distinct and separated by mesenchyme from other wsCK+ cells.
    4. Count each patent BD and place in the same column as the image number.
    5. Do this for each image taken of a PV.
    6. Calculate the sum of all PVs and all BDs in the liver sample.
    7. Calculate the BD to PV ratio for the liver sample.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Results

We previously documented biliary defects in Jag1+/– animals, a mouse model of ALGS8. To determine the BD to PV ratio, we sectioned P30 mouse livers and co-stained them for CK8 and CK19 (wsCK) along with the vascular marker αSMA. We then imaged all the PVs in each of the liver lobes. As shown in Figure 2A, we defined PVs as αSMA-stained vessels that have adjacent wsCK staining (arrowheads). The αSMA-stained structures without w...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Discussion

Analysis of BD development and repair in mice is an important tool in studying the pathogenesis and mechanism of cholestatic disorders. In addition, development of new therapies is in part dependent upon establishing a reproducible and preferably quantifiable phenotype. Current phenotyping in mouse models usually involves serum chemistry, liver histology and immunostaining for cell-type specific markers. Although these techniques generate valuable information about the structure and function of the biliary system, they d...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Disclosures

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01 GM084135 and R01 DK109982), a Pilot/Feasibility Award from the Texas Medical Center Digestive Disease Center under NIH P30 DK56338, and an Alagille Syndrome Accelerator Award from The Medical Foundation.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Materials

List of materials used in this article
NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
Isothesia (Isoflurane)Henry Schein11695-6776-2
DesiccatorBel-Art16-800-552
10% PFAElectron Microscopy Sciences15712
50 mL tubeThermoScientific339653
70% EthanolDecon Laboratories2401
95% EthanolDecon Laboratories2801
100% EthanolDecon Laboratories2701
HistoChoiceVWR Life SciencesH103-4Lclearing agent
Omnisette Tissue CassetteFisher HealthCare15-197-710E
MacrosetteSimportM512
Paraplast X-TRAMcCormick Scientific39503002Parrafin
Tissue MoldFisher Scientific62528-32
MicrotomeMicromHM 325
Superfrost Plus Microscope SlidesFisher Scientific12-550-15
XyleneFisher ScientificC8H10
Tris-Based Antigen RetrievalVector LaboratoriesH-3301
Pressure CookerInstant PotLux Mini
Mini Pap PenLife Technologies8877
Polyoxyethylene 20 Sorbitan Monolaurate (Tween-20)J.T. BakerX251-07
Octyl Phenol Ethoxylate (Triton-X-100)J.T. BakerX198-07
Normal Goat SerumJackson Immunoresearch005-000-121
anti-CK8Developmental Studies Hybridoma BankTROMA-IAntibody Registry ID AB531826
anti-CK19Developmental Studies Hybridoma BankTROMA-IIIAntibody Registry ID AB2133570
anti-αSMASigma AldrichA2547, Clone 1A4
anti-rat-Alexa488ThermoFisherA21208
anti-mouse-Cy5Jackson Immunoresearch715-175-151
DAPIVector LaboratoriesH-1000
22 x 50 mm2 micro cover glassVWR Life Sciences48393 059
Fluorescence MicroscopeLeicaDMI6000 B
KimwipesKimtech Science05511
VECTASHIELDVector LaboratoriesH-1000Antifade Mounting Medium

References

  1. Zong, Y., et al. Notch signaling controls liver development by regulating biliary differentiation. Development. 136 (10), 1727-1739 (2009).
  2. Clotman, F., et al. Control of liver cell fate decision by a gradient of TGFβ signaling modulated by Onecut transcription factors. Genes & Development. 19 (16), 1849-1854 (2005).
  3. Karpen, S. J. Update on the etiologies and management of neonatal cholestasis. Clin Perinatol. 29 (1), 159-180 (2002).
  4. Roskams, T. A., et al. Nomenclature of the finer branches of the biliary tree: canals, ductules, and ductular reactions in human livers. Hepatology. 39 (6), 1739-1745 (2004).
  5. Oda, T., et al. Mutations in the human Jagged1 gene are responsible for Alagille syndrome. Nature Genetics. 16 (3), 235(1997).
  6. Li, L., et al. Alagille syndrome is caused by mutations in human Jagged1, which encodes a ligand for Notch1. Nature Genetics. 16 (3), 243(1997).
  7. Xue, Y., et al. Embryonic lethality and vascular defects in mice lacking the Notch ligand Jagged1. Human Molecular Genetics. 8 (5), 723-730 (1999).
  8. Thakurdas, S. M., et al. Jagged1 heterozygosity in mice results in a congenital cholangiopathy which is reversed by concomitant deletion of one copy of Poglut1 (Rumi). Hepatology. 63 (2), 550-565 (2016).
  9. Hadchouel, M. Paucity of interlobular bile ducts. Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology. 9 (1), 24-30 (1992).
  10. Emerick, K. M., et al. Features of Alagille syndrome in 92 patients: frequency and relation to prognosis. Hepatology. 29 (3), 822-829 (1999).
  11. Poncy, A., et al. Transcription factors SOX4 and SOX9 cooperatively control development of bile ducts. Dev Biol. 404 (2), 136-148 (2015).
  12. Hofmann, J. J., et al. Jagged1 in the portal vein mesenchyme regulates intrahepatic bile duct development: insights into Alagille syndrome. Development. 137 (23), 4061-4072 (2010).
  13. McCright, B., Lozier, J., Gridley, T. A mouse model of Alagille syndrome: Notch2 as a genetic modifier of Jag1 haploinsufficiency. Development. 129 (4), 1075-1082 (2002).
  14. Andersson, E. R., et al. Mouse Model of Alagille Syndrome and Mechanisms of Jagged1 Missense Mutations. Gastroenterology. 154 (4), 1080-1095 (2018).
  15. Loomes, K. M., et al. Bile duct proliferation in liver-specific Jag1 conditional knockout mice: effects of gene dosage. Hepatology. 45 (2), 323-330 (2007).
  16. Brulet, P., Babinet, C., Kemler, R., Jacob, F. Monoclonal antibodies against trophectoderm-specific markers during mouse blastocyst formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 77 (7), 4113-4117 (1980).
  17. Skalli, O., et al. A monoclonal antibody against alpha-smooth muscle actin: a new probe for smooth muscle differentiation. J Cell Biol. 103 (6 Pt 2), 2787-2796 (1986).
  18. Kamath, B. M., et al. A longitudinal study to identify laboratory predictors of liver disease outcome in Alagille syndrome. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 50 (5), 526(2010).
  19. Mouzaki, M., et al. Early life predictive markers of liver disease outcome in an International, Multicentre Cohort of children with Alagille syndrome. Liver International. 36 (5), 755-760 (2016).
  20. Shiojiri, N. Development and differentiation of bile ducts in the mammalian liver. Microsc Res Tech. 39 (4), 328-335 (1997).
  21. Crawford, J. M. Development of the intrahepatic biliary tree. Semin Liver Dis. 22 (3), 213-226 (2002).
  22. Kaneko, K., Kamimoto, K., Miyajima, A., Itoh, T. Adaptive remodeling of the biliary architecture underlies liver homeostasis. Hepatology. 61 (6), 2056-2066 (2015).
  23. Schaub, J. R., et al. De novo formation of the biliary system by TGFbeta-mediated hepatocyte transdifferentiation. Nature. 557 (7704), 247-251 (2018).
  24. Sparks, E. E., Huppert, K. A., Brown, M. A., Washington, M. K., Huppert, S. S. Notch signaling regulates formation of the three-dimensional architecture of intrahepatic bile ducts in mice. Hepatology. 51 (4), 1391-1400 (2010).
  25. Tanimizu, N., et al. Intrahepatic bile ducts are developed through formation of homogeneous continuous luminal network and its dynamic rearrangement in mice. Hepatology. 64 (1), 175-188 (2016).
  26. Walter, T. J., Sparks, E. E., Huppert, S. S. 3-dimensional resin casting and imaging of mouse portal vein or intrahepatic bile duct system. J Vis Exp. (68), e4272(2012).
  27. Popper, H., Kent, G., Stein, R. Ductular cell reaction in the liver in hepatic injury. J Mt Sinai Hosp N Y. 24 (5), 551-556 (1957).
  28. Yimlamai, D., et al. Hippo pathway activity influences liver cell fate. Cell. 157 (6), 1324-1338 (2014).

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Reprints and Permissions

Tags

Portal Vein RatioMouse Liver SectioningImmunohistochemistry StainingCytokeratin Alpha-SMABile Duct IdentificationLiver Tissue FixationParaffin Embedding MethodMicrotome SectioningFluorescent Microscopy Imaging
Determining Bile Duct Density in the Mouse Liver
Contact Us
Recommend to Library

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Copyright © 2026 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved.