Endotoxemia and gut barrier dysfunction in alcoholic liver... : Hepatology (original) (raw)

Agrowing body of evidence indicates that endotoxemia is closely associated with alcoholic liver disease (ALD). Endotoxins stimulate different cells in the liver releasing cytokines, chemokines, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) by toll‐like receptor‐4 (TLR‐4)–mediated mechanisms. Intestinal microflora is the source of circulating endotoxins, and the gut barrier dysfunction leading to elevated intestinal permeability is considered the main cause of endotoxemia in ALD. The mechanism of ethanol‐induced gut barrier disruption is an active area of investigation. Evidence indicates that intestinal microflora, the metabolism of ethanol, and acetaldehyde‐induced cell signaling are involved in ethanol‐induced intestinal barrier dysfunction. Recent advances in alcoholic endotoxemia, the mechanism of epithelial barrier disruption, and the factors that prevent alcoholic endotoxemia are discussed in this article. The current understanding of these issues is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Figure 1:

Diagrammatic representation of ethanol‐induced intestinal permeability and endotoxemia. Ethanol in the colonic lumen is metabolized to acetaldehyde by microflora and mucosa. Acetaldehyde disrupts epithelial barrier function and allows the diffusion of bacterial LPS into the portal circulation. In the liver, LPS activates Kupffer cells via an LBP/CD14/TLR‐4–dependent mechanism. Abbreviations: ADH, alcohol dehydrogenase; LBP, lipopolysaccharide binding protein; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; NFκB, nuclear factor kappa B; ROS, reactive oxygen species; TLR‐4, toll‐like receptor 4.

Endotoxemia in ALD

Endotoxins are lipopolysaccharides (LPSs) derived from the cell walls of gram‐negative bacteria. Dead bacteria and the LPS shed from the cell walls of viable organisms contribute to the circulating endotoxins. Normally, Kupffer cells in the liver detoxify endotoxins by phagocytosis. When the flux of endotoxins overwhelms the phagocytotic capacity of Kupffer cells, the endotoxins spill into the systemic circulation. Endotoxemia is conventionally believed to exist when the plasma endotoxin level rises higher than 2.5 endotoxin units per milliliter. Endotoxemia in ALD was first recognized by the detection of antibodies against Escherichia coli in the plasma of patients with ALD.1 Numerous subsequent studies have demonstrated that the plasma endotoxin level in patients with ALD is several times greater than that in healthy subjects2–7 or in patients with nonalcoholic cirrhosis.4 Endotoxemia was recorded in alcoholics who showed only minimal symptoms of ALD7; therefore, endotoxemia appears to occur early during the pathogenesis of this disease.7

The plasma endotoxin level in normal subjects ranges from 0.3 to 10.4 pg/mL,2–8 whereas the endotoxin level in ALD patients ranges from 8.5 to 206 pg/mL.2–8 Despite the wide variability in endotoxin values, the plasma endotoxin levels in patients with ALD have always been found to be 5‐ to 20‐fold greater than those in normal subjects. Although one study has indicated the existence of a positive correlation between the degree of endotoxemia and the severity of disease,3 other studies have failed to demonstrate such a correlation.7

Endotoxemia in ALD has been confirmed in experimental models of alcoholic liver injury. Plasma endotoxin levels are elevated by acute9, 10 or chronic9, 11–13 ethanol administration, and the levels correlate well with the development of liver injury. The elevation of the plasma endotoxin level with acute ethanol administration indicates that endotoxemia occurs during the early stage of liver damage. Although there exists no single animal model that depicts different stages of ALD, there is a striking agreement between plasma endotoxin levels in patients with ALD and ethanol‐fed animals. There is no evidence of species‐dependent differences in alcoholic endotoxemia; however, a gender‐dependent difference has been observed.12, 14

Abbreviations

ADH, alcohol dehydrogenase; AJ, adherens junction; ALD, alcoholic liver disease; EGF, epidermal growth factor; LBP, lipopolysaccharide binding protein; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; MLCK, myosin light chain kinase; NFκB, nuclear factor kappa B; PKC, protein kinase C; PLCγ, phospholipase C‐γ; PTPase, protein tyrosine phosphatase; PTP1B, protein tyrosine phosphatase‐1B; ROS, reactive oxygen species; TJ, tight junction; TLR, toll‐like receptor; ZO‐1, zonula occludens‐1.

Endotoxin‐Mediated Liver Injury

The attenuation of alcohol‐induced endotoxemia and liver damage by antibiotics indicates that endotoxin plays a crucial role in alcoholic liver damage.15 An emerging body of evidence indicates that LPS and ethanol synergistically affect the liver cells. LPS by itself fails to mimic ethanol‐induced steatosis or hepatitis; however, ethanol and LPS together effectively induce liver damage. Ethanol feeding sensitizes the liver to LPS‐induced cellular injury in experimental animals16–18 and exacerbates LPS‐induced cytokine release in the liver.19 The mechanism of synergism between ethanol and LPS may involve multiple factors, such as down‐regulation of interleukin‐10–mediated protection,18 nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase–dependent production of ROS,16 and adrenergic stimulation.17

Cellular targets of LPS in the liver include Kupffer cells,20 sinusoidal endothelial cells,20 stellate cells,21 neutrophils, and hepatocytes.22 Inactivation of Kupffer cells prevents ethanol‐induced liver injury in rats.23 LPS stimulates sinusoidal endothelial cells to release cytokines and chemokines.20 In stellate cells, LPS pretreatment enhances ethanol‐induced collagen secretion.21 Lipopolysaccharide binding protein (LBP) presents LPS to CD14, a 55‐kDa glycoprotein.24 CD14 specifically binds to LPS and interacts with TLR‐4.25 Chronic ethanol feeding enhances the expression of LBP11 and CD14,26 and ethanol‐induced liver injury is absent in LBP,27 CD14,26 and TLR‐428 knockout mice. TLR‐4–mediated stimulation of different liver cells leads to the secretion of a variety of proinflammatory factors such as cytokines,29 chemokines,30 and ROS.31

Mechanism of Alcoholic Endotoxemia

Intestinal microflora is the source of circulating endotoxins. Normally, endotoxin absorption is impeded by the mucosal barrier function. Three major factors may contribute to alcoholic endotoxemia: (1) delayed endotoxin clearance from the circulation, (2) ethanol‐induced bacterial overgrowth, and (3) a dysfunctional gut barrier leading to elevated endotoxin absorption.

Evidence indicates that clearance of LPS from the circulation is delayed by ethanol feeding.32 Ethanol impairs the phagocytic function of Kupffer cells and attenuates the endotoxin uptake by these cells.33 The endotoxins that escape Kupffer cells spill into the circulation and contribute to endotoxemia. The numbers of both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were found to be high in the jejunal aspirates of alcoholics in comparison with those in normal subjects.34 Ethanol has been shown to delay gastrointestinal motility,35 and delayed gastrointestinal transit is known to increase bacterial growth in the lumen. Therefore, it is possible that delayed gastrointestinal motility is responsible for bacterial overgrowth in alcoholics. Although delayed clearance and bacterial overgrowth are potential contributors, enhanced intestinal permeability to endotoxins appears to be the primary cause of alcoholic endotoxemia.

Elevated Gut Permeability in ALD

Alcohol ingestion has been shown to increase intestinal permeability to macromolecules in both normal subjects and alcoholics,13, 34, 36 and this suggests that the disruption of intestinal epithelial barrier function plays an important role in causing endotoxemia in alcoholics. It is not clear whether an ethanol‐induced increase in permeability to macromolecules is caused by gastroduodenal barrier disruption or intestinal barrier disruption. This is an important issue as the intestinal microflora is confined to the colon and the distal ileum. One study has suggested that acute ethanol may increase the gastroduodenal permeability without altering the intestinal permeability, whereas chronic ethanol may elevate the intestinal permeability without altering the gastroduodenal permeability.37

Another important question is whether ethanol‐induced intestinal permeability is a transient or persistent response. Studies by Bjarnason et al.38 demonstrated that elevated intestinal permeability to ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid existed in alcoholics after 3 days of abstention from alcohol, whereas it persisted even after 2 weeks of sobriety in alcoholics with liver cirrhosis. Therefore, it appears that the effect of ethanol on intestinal barrier function is a transient effect in normal subjects and in alcoholics without cirrhosis, whereas the ethanol effect is likely to persist much longer in alcoholics with the liver disease. As intestinal epithelial cells are renewed every 48 to 72 hours, it is likely that chronic ethanol feeding causes a delay in cell migration and renewal.

Increased intestinal permeability to macromolecules has also been observed in animal models of alcoholic liver damage.39 Gastrointestinal permeability to macromolecular markers and LPS has been elevated by both acute and chronic ethanol administration in experimental animals.9, 35, 36, 40, 41 It is likely that barrier disruption occurs much before liver injury, and this has been confirmed by a recent study.42 An ethanol‐induced increase in gastrointestinal permeability has been associated with endotoxemia and liver damage.9, 36, 39 Thus, experimental models of alcoholic liver damage are beneficial in understanding the pathogenesis of ALD.

Intestinal Barrier Disruption by Ethanol and Acetaldehyde

One of the important questions that have been addressed for a decade is whether ethanol directly disrupts intestinal barrier function. All of the in vitro studies have indicated that intestinal barrier disruption requires an ethanol concentration greater than 1%. Increases in paracellular permeability in rat jejunal everted sacs43 and Caco‐2 cell monolayers44, 45 required exposure to at least 2% ethanol. Ethanol concentrations of 1.2% and 5% were used to disrupt the barrier function in intestinal epithelial cells (IEC‐6)46 and Madin‐Darby canine kidney47 cell monolayers, respectively. Such a high concentration of ethanol is not expected to exist in the distal intestine of alcoholics. An early study by Halsted et al.48 demonstrated that 5% ethanol could be measured in the jejunal contents after alcohol consumption, whereas only 0.2% to 0.25% ethanol was detectable in the ileal and colonic lumen. Therefore, the results obtained in studies using ethanol concentrations greater than 0.25% may be relevant to barrier dysfunction in gastroduodenal and jejunal mucosa.

A significant body of evidence indicates that acetaldehyde plays a crucial role in the disruption of intestinal epithelial barrier function.41 An acetaldehyde level as high as 0.4 mM has been measured in the saliva of alcoholics.49 The concentration of acetaldehyde in the rat colonic lumen after ethanol administration was found to be millimolar.50 Acetaldehyde at a concentration of 0.1 to 0.6 mM disrupts the barrier function in Caco‐2 cell monolayers.13, 45 A similar acetaldehyde‐induced barrier disruption has been demonstrated in human colonic mucosa.51 Furthermore, in vitro incubation of rat colonic strips mounted to Ussing chambers showed that ethanol up to 18 mM does not affect the barrier function.41 However, acetaldehyde (50‐160 μM) dose‐dependently increased the paracellular permeability, and this demonstrated that the metabolism of ethanol into acetaldehyde in the colonic lumen is required for barrier disruption. The cellular mechanism involved in acetaldehyde‐induced barrier dysfunction involves the disruption of epithelial tight junctions (TJs) and adherens junctions (AJs).13, 52–57

Role of Intestinal Microflora in Ethanol Metabolism and Barrier Disruption

In addition to being the source of circulating endotoxins, intestinal microflora plays an important role in ethanol metabolism. Although intestinal epithelial cells express alcohol dehydrogenase, bacterial alcohol dehydrogenase seems to play a predominant role in the generation and accumulation of acetaldehyde in the intestinal lumen.58 The capacity of microflora and intestinal mucosa to further metabolize acetaldehyde into acetate by aldehyde dehydrogenase is low, and this results in acetaldehyde accumulation in the colonic lumen. A recent study41 demonstrated that antibiotics partially reduce colonic acetaldehyde. Therefore, intestinal microflora seems to play an important role in the production of acetaldehyde in the intestinal lumen. Ethanol‐induced gastrointestinal permeability was attenuated by the pretreatment of rats with antibiotics for 12 days, and this was also associated with the attenuation of ethanol‐induced endotoxemia.

Acetaldehyde‐Induced Disruption of TJs and AJs

TJs are the specialized intercellular junctional complexes that form a barrier to the diffusion of macromolecules across the epithelial monolayers.59 TJs are assembled by the organization of a variety of specific proteins such as occludin, claudins, and zonula occludens. AJs are other intercellular junctional complexes that lie beneath the TJs. AJs do not form a physical barrier to macromolecular diffusion. However, AJs indirectly regulate the integrity of TJs and therefore control the barrier function of the epithelium. AJs are organized by the interaction between E‐cadherin and β‐catenin, by the interaction between β‐catenin and α‐catenin, and by the binding of α‐catenin to the actin cytoskeleton. Both TJs and AJs are regulated by intracellular signal transduction

The disruption of TJs and AJs by ethanol and acetaldehyde has been demonstrated in Caco‐2 cell monolayers by immunofluorescence microscopy.44, 52–57 Acetaldehyde induces a redistribution of occludin and zonula occludens‐1 (ZO‐1) from the intercellular junctions52, 54–56 and dissociates these proteins from the actin cytoskeleton.57 Acetaldehyde also causes a redistribution of E‐cadherin and β‐catenin from the intercellular junctions, and this indicates the disruption of AJs.52, 55 A careful time course analysis of the redistribution of E‐cadherin and β‐catenin indicated that acetaldehyde disrupts AJs as early as 10 minutes, whereas the distribution of occludin and ZO‐1 is unaffected. This observation suggests that acetaldehyde alters the integrity of AJs first, and this in turn may trigger the disruption of TJs.55 Acetaldehyde‐induced disruption of TJs and AJs has been further validated in human colonic mucosa.51 Acetaldehyde induced the disruption of TJs and AJs in human colonic mucosal biopsies, as indicated by the redistribution of TJ and AJ proteins from the intercellular junctions and the dissociation of these proteins from the actin cytoskeleton.

Mechanism of Acetaldehyde‐Induced Barrier Dysfunction

Signaling elements such as protein kinases60–64 and protein phosphatases63 regulate the integrity of TJs in different epithelia. Acetaldehyde‐induced disruption of TJs and AJs has been associated with a rapid increase in the tyrosine phosphorylation of ZO‐1, E‐cadherin, and β‐catenin, and the paracellular permeability is attenuated by tyrosine kinase inhibitors.52 Acetaldehyde inhibits protein tyrosine phosphatase (PTPase) activity, and this is a likely cause of increased tyrosine phosphorylation. Acetaldehyde inhibits PTPase activity in cell‐free fractions, and this indicates that it directly interacts with the PTPases. Acetaldehyde not only inhibits the activity of PTPase but also disrupts its interaction with E‐cadherin.55

The current knowledge supports a model in which inhibition and dissociation of protein tyrosine phosphatase‐1B (PTP1B) from E‐cadherin lead to tyrosine phosphorylation of E‐cadherin and β‐catenin and a loss of interaction between these two proteins (Fig. 2). Mass spectrometric analysis has demonstrated that acetaldehyde increases phosphorylation of β‐catenin on Y331, Y333, Y654, and Y670. In vitro protein‐protein interaction studies using recombinant proteins have demonstrated that tyrosine phosphorylation of β‐catenin reduces its interaction with E‐cadherin, but tyrosine phosphorylation of E‐cadherin has no effect on this interaction (Fig. 2). On the other hand, tyrosine phosphorylation of E‐cadherin results in the loss of its interaction with PTP1B. Therefore, acetaldehyde disrupts the interaction between E‐cadherin and β‐catenin by a phosphorylation‐dependent mechanism.

Figure 2:

Diagrammatic model showing acetaldehyde‐induced loss of interaction between PTP1B, E‐cadherin, and β‐catenin. Cadherin‐based cell‐cell adhesion is mediated by the interaction of E‐cadherin with β‐catenin. PTP1B binds to the intracellular domain of E‐cadherin and dephosphorylates β‐catenin on tyrosine residues. (1) The treatment of cell monolayers with acetaldehyde induces the inhibition and dissociation of PTP1B from E‐cadherin, and (2) this results in increased tyrosine phosphorylation of β‐catenin and E‐cadherin. (3) Tyrosine phosphorylation of β‐catenin results in the loss of its interaction with E‐cadherin, and (4) the loss of the interaction between E‐cadherin and β‐catenin leads to a loss of the homophilic interaction between extracellular domains of E‐cadherin and disruption of adherens junctions. (5) The disruption of adherens junctions leads to the disruption of tight junctions. (6) Ethanol at high doses alters the cytoskeletal structure by a nitric oxide–dependent and MLCK‐dependent mechanism, (7) which in turn disrupts tight junctions. Abbreviations: MLCK, myosin light chain kinase; PTP1B, protein tyrosine phosphatase‐1B.

Disruption of AJs is the likely signal that leads to disruption of TJs. Although the precise mechanism involved in AJ‐mediated TJ disruption is unknown, recent studies have demonstrated that acetaldehyde induces tyrosine phosphorylation of ZO‐1 and threonine dephosphorylation of occludin. The functions of occludin dephosphorylation and ZO‐1 phosphorylation are unclear. However, such changes in the phosphorylation status of occludin and ZO‐1 have been consistently observed during the disruption of TJs and the barrier function by other mediators.

Controlling Alcohol‐Induced Intestinal Permeability and Endotoxemia

Several factors that ameliorate ethanol/acetaldehyde‐induced barrier dysfunction have been identified. Understanding the mechanisms involved in the actions of these protective factors may be beneficial for the development of therapeutic strategies for ALD.

Epidermal growth factor (EGF), secreted in saliva and other gastrointestinal secretions,65 is known to protect the gastrointestinal mucosa from various insults.66, 67 A recent study has demonstrated that EGF prevents acetaldehyde‐induced TJ disruption56 by preventing the reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton and dissociation of TJ and AJ proteins from the actin cytoskeleton. EGF‐mediated prevention of acetaldehyde effects on TJs involves the activation of phospholipase C‐γ (PLCγ).57 Knockdown of PLCγ1 attenuates EGF‐mediated protection of TJs from acetaldehyde. EGF induces membrane translocation of protein kinase C β I (PKCβI) and PKCε by a PLCγ‐dependent mechanism.57 Prevention of PKCβI and PKCε translocation by interfering peptides also attenuates EGF‐mediated protection of TJs. This study indicates that PLCγ‐mediated activation of PKCβI and PKCε may be involved in stabilization of the actin cytoskeleton.

Other mechanisms may be involved in barrier dysfunction by a high dose of ethanol. Ethanol activates myosin light chain kinase44 and induces nitric oxide generation,42 which alters the actin and microtubule cytoskeletal structures. Therefore, more than one mechanism may synergistically attenuate barrier function.

Glutamine is an essential nutrient for intestinal epithelial cell growth and differentiation.66 Pretreatment of Caco‐2 cell monolayers with L‐glutamine attenuated acetaldehyde‐induced permeability to inulin and LPS.56 This protective effect of glutamine was associated with the prevention of acetaldehyde‐induced redistribution of occludin, ZO‐1, E‐cadherin, and β‐catenin from the intercellular junctions. Interestingly enough, the protective effect of L‐glutamine was mediated by the transactivation of EGF receptor. Glutamine rapidly activated EGF receptor, and a selective inhibitor of EGF receptor kinase attenuated the glutamine effect on TJs.

Other studies have shown that feeding oat bran or zinc attenuates ethanol‐induced liver injury. Zinc supplementation attenuates an ethanol‐induced increase in plasma alanine aminotransferase and liver pathology,40 and this has been associated with a reduction of ethanol‐induced intestinal permeability and endotoxemia. Similarly, oat bran supplementation prevents ethanol‐induced liver injury.36 Once again, oat bran supplementation attenuates ethanol‐induced intestinal permeability and endotoxemia.

Another potential factor that may ameliorate alcoholic liver injury is probiotics. Probiotics attenuate ethanol‐induced liver injury in rats.68, 69 Probiotics are well known to reduce the growth of harmful bacteria,70 so it is likely that probiotics prevent intestinal barrier disruption and endotoxemia in alcoholics. Additionally, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG has been shown to effectively metabolize acetaldehyde into acetate.71 Therefore, by reducing the acetaldehyde‐producing commensal bacteria and by metabolizing acetaldehyde, probiotics may alleviate the colonic acetaldehyde level. However, further studies are necessary to confirm this possibility.

Summary and Perspectives

In summary, the evidence is clear that alcohol consumption leads to increased intestinal permeability and endotoxemia, which are involved in the pathogenesis of ALD. Intestinal microflora and the generation of acetaldehyde in the colonic lumen play crucial roles in alcoholic intestinal permeability and endotoxemia. Evidence indicates that intestinal microflora not only is the source of circulating endotoxins but also plays a role in the generation and accumulation of acetaldehyde in the colonic lumen and has a subsequent influence on epithelial barrier dysfunction. The major mechanism of acetaldehyde‐induced barrier dysfunction involves disruption of AJs and TJs by a phosphorylation‐dependent mechanism. Gastrointestinal mucosal protective factors such as EGF, glutamine, zinc, oat bran, and probiotics prevent ethanol/acetaldehyde‐induced intestinal permeability, endotoxemia, and liver damage. It is therefore important to delineate the mechanisms involved in ethanol‐induced intestinal epithelial barrier disruption, endotoxemia, and endotoxin‐mediated liver cell injury to understand the pathogenesis of ALD and to design preventive and therapeutic strategies for the treatment of ALD.

References

1. Staun‐Olsen P, Bjorneboe M, Prytz H, Thomsen AC, Orskov F. Escherichia coli antibodies in alcoholic liver disease. Correlation to alcohol consumption, alcoholic hepatitis, and serum IgA. Scand J Gastroenterol 1983; 18: 889–896.

2. Bode C, Kugler V, Bode JC. Endotoxemia in patients with alcoholic and non‐alcoholic cirrhosis and in subjects with no evidence of chronic liver disease following acute alcohol excess. J Hepatol 1987; 4: 8–14.

3. Fujimoto M, Uemura M, Nakatani Y, Tsujita S, Hoppo K, Tamagawa T, et al. Plasma endotoxin and serum cytokine levels in patients with alcoholic hepatitis: relation to severity of liver disturbance. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2000; 24: 48S–54S.

4. Fukui H, Brauner B, Bode JC, Bode C. Plasma endotoxin concentrations in patients with alcoholic and non‐alcoholic liver disease: reevaluation with an improved chromogenic assay. J Hepatol 1991; 12: 162–169.

5. Hanck C, Rossol S, Bocker U, Tokus M, Singer MV. Presence of plasma endotoxin is correlated with tumour necrosis factor receptor levels and disease activity in alcoholic cirrhosis. Alcohol Alcohol 1998; 33: 606–608.

6. Parlesak A, Schafer C, Schutz T, Bode JC, Bode C. Increased intestinal permeability to macromolecules and endotoxemia in patients with chronic alcohol abuse in different stages of alcohol‐induced liver disease. J Hepatol 2000; 32: 742–747.

7. Schafer C, Parlesak A, Schutt C, Bode JC, Bode C. Concentrations of lipopolysaccharide‐binding protein, bactericidal/permeability‐increasing protein, soluble CD14 and plasma lipids in relation to endotoxaemia in patients with alcoholic liver disease. Alcohol Alcohol 2002; 37: 81–86.

8. Schafer C, Greiner B, Landig J, Feil E, Schutz ET, Bode JC, et al. Decreased endotoxin‐binding capacity of whole blood in patients with alcoholic liver disease. J Hepatol 1997; 26: 567–573.

9. Mathurin P, Deng QG, Keshavarzian A, Choudhary S, Holmes EW, Tsukamoto H. Exacerbation of alcoholic liver injury by enteral endotoxin in rats. HEPATOLOGY 2000; 32: 1008–1017.

10. Nanji AA, Jokelainen K, Fotouhinia M, Rahemtulla A, Thomas P, Tipoe GL, et al. Increased severity of alcoholic liver injury in female rats: role of oxidative stress, endotoxin, and chemokines. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2001; 281: G1348–G1356.

11. Jokelainen K, Reinke LA, Nanji AA. Nf‐kappab activation is associated with free radical generation and endotoxemia and precedes pathological liver injury in experimental alcoholic liver disease. Cytokine 2001; 16: 36–39.

12. Nanji AA, Su GL, Laposata M, French SW. Pathogenesis of alcoholic liver disease—recent advances. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2002; 26: 731–736.

13. Rao RK, Seth A, Sheth P. Recent advances in alcoholic liver disease I. Role of intestinal permeability and endotoxemia in alcoholic liver disease. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2004; 286: G881–G884.

14. Schenker S. Medical consequences of alcohol abuse: is gender a factor? Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1997; 21: 179–181.

15. Adachi Y, Moore LE, Bradford BU, Gao W, Thurman RG. Antibiotics prevent liver injury in rats following long‐term exposure to ethanol. Gastroenterology 1995; 108: 218–224.

16. Thakur V, Pritchard MT, McMullen MR, Wang Q, Nagy LE. Chronic ethanol feeding increases activation of NADPH oxidase by lipopolysaccharide in rat Kupffer cells: role of increased reactive oxygen in LPS‐stimulated ERK1/2 activation and TNF‐alpha production. J Leukoc Biol 2006; 79: 1348–1356.

17. von Montfort C, Beier JI, Guo L, Kaiser JP, Arteel GE. Contribution of the sympathetic hormone epinephrine to the sensitizing effect of ethanol on LPS‐induced liver damage in mice. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2008; 294: G1227–G1234.

18. Hill DB, Barve S, Joshi‐Barve S, McClain C. Increased monocyte nuclear factor‐kappaB activation and tumor necrosis factor production in alcoholic hepatitis. J Lab Clin Med 2000; 135: 387–395.

19. Pennington HL, Hall PM, Wilce PA, Worrall S. Ethanol feeding enhances inflammatory cytokine expression in lipopolysaccharide‐induced hepatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1997; 12: 305–313.

20. Duryee MJ, Klassen LW, Freeman TL, Willis MS, Tuma DJ, Thiele GM. Lipopolysaccharide is a cofactor for malondialdehyde‐acetaldehyde adduct‐mediated cytokine/chemokine release by rat sinusoidal liver endothelial and Kupffer cells. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004; 28: 1931–1938.

21. Quiroz SC, Bucio L, Souza V, Hernandez E, Gonzalez E, Gomez‐Quiroz L, et al. Effect of endotoxin pretreatment on hepatic stellate cell response to ethanol and acetaldehyde. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001; 16: 1267–1273.

22. Hoek JB, Pastorino JG. Ethanol, oxidative stress, and cytokine‐induced liver cell injury. Alcohol 2002; 27: 63–68.

23. Adachi Y, Bradford BU, Gao W, Bojes HK, Thurman RG. Inactivation of Kupffer cells prevents early alcohol‐induced liver injury. HEPATOLOGY 1994; 20: 453–460.

24. Haziot A, Chen S, Ferrero E, Low MG, Silber R, Goyert SM. The monocyte differentiation antigen, CD14, is anchored to the cell membrane by a phosphatidylinositol linkage. J Immunol 1988; 141: 547–552.

25. da Silva Correia J, Soldau K, Christen U, Tobias PS, Ulevitch RJ. Lipopolysaccharide is in close proximity to each of the proteins in its membrane receptor complex. Transfer from CD14 to TLR4 and MD‐2. J Biol Chem 2001; 276: 21129–21135.

26. Yin M, Bradford BU, Wheeler MD, Uesugi T, Froh M, Goyert SM, et al. Reduced early alcohol‐induced liver injury in CD14‐deficient mice. J Immunol 2001; 166: 4737–4742.

27. Uesugi T, Froh M, Arteel GE, Bradford BU, Wheeler MD, Gabele E, et al. Role of lipopolysaccharide‐binding protein in early alcohol‐induced liver injury in mice. J Immunol 2002; 168: 2963–2969.

28. Uesugi T, Froh M, Arteel GE, Bradford BU, Thurman RG. Toll‐like receptor 4 is involved in the mechanism of early alcohol‐induced liver injury in mice. HEPATOLOGY 2001; 34: 101–108.

29. McClain CJ, Song Z, Barve SS, Hill DB, Deaciuc I. Recent advances in alcoholic liver disease. IV. Dysregulated cytokine metabolism in alcoholic liver disease. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2004; 287: G497–G502.

30. Bautista AP. Impact of alcohol on the ability of Kupffer cells to produce chemokines and its role in alcoholic liver disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000; 15: 349–356.

31. Albano E. Oxidative mechanisms in the pathogenesis of alcoholic liver disease. Mol Aspects Med 2008; 29: 9–16.

32. Jarvelainen HA, Fang C, Ingelman‐Sundberg M, Lindros KO. Effect of chronic coadministration of endotoxin and ethanol on rat liver pathology and proinflammatory and anti‐inflammatory cytokines. HEPATOLOGY 1999; 29: 1503–1510.

33. Fukui H, Kitano H, Okamoto Y, Kikuchi E, Matsumoto M, Kikukawa M, et al. Interaction of Kupffer cells to splenic macrophages and hepatocytes in endotoxin clearance: effect of alcohol. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1995; 10( suppl 1): S31–S34.

34. Bode JC, Bode C, Heidelbach R, Durr HK, Martini GA. Jejunal microflora in patients with chronic alcohol abuse. Hepatogastroenterology 1984; 31: 30–34.

35. Bode C, Bode JC. Effect of alcohol consumption on the gut. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2003; 17: 575–592.

36. Keshavarzian A, Choudhary S, Holmes EW, Yong S, Banan A, Jakate S, et al. Preventing gut leakiness by oats supplementation ameliorates alcohol‐induced liver damage in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2001; 299: 442–448.

37. Keshavarzian A, Holmes EW, Patel M, Iber F, Fields JZ, Pethkar S. Leaky gut in alcoholic cirrhosis: a possible mechanism for alcohol‐induced liver damage. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 200–207.

38. Bjarnason I, Peters TJ, Wise RJ. The leaky gut of alcoholism: possible route of entry for toxic compounds. Lancet 1984; 1: 179–182.

39. Purohit V, Bode JC, Bode C, Brenner DA, Choudhry MA, Hamilton F, et al. Alcohol, intestinal bacterial growth, intestinal permeability to endotoxin, and medical consequences: summary of a symposium. Alcohol 2008; 42: 349–361.

40. Lambert JC, Zhou Z, Wang L, Song Z, McClain CJ, Kang YJ. Preservation of intestinal structural integrity by zinc is independent of metallothionein in alcohol‐intoxicated mice. Am J Pathol 2004; 164: 1959–1966.

41. Ferrier L, Berard F, Debrauwer L, Chabo C, Langella P, Bueno L, et al. Impairment of the intestinal barrier by ethanol involves enteric microflora and mast cell activation in rodents. Am J Pathol 2006; 168: 1148–1154.

42. Keshavarzian A, Farhadi A, Forsyth CB, Rangan J, Jakate S, Shaikh M, et al. Evidence that chronic alcohol exposure promotes intestinal oxidative stress, intestinal hyperpermeability and endotoxemia prior to development of alcoholic steatohepatitis in rats. J Hepatol 2009; 50: 538–547.

43. Carter EA, Harmatz PR, Udall JN, Walker WA. Barrier defense function of the small intestine: effect of ethanol and acute burn trauma. Adv Exp Med Biol 1987; 216A: 829–833.

44. Ma TY, Nguyen D, Bui V, Nguyen H, Hoa N. Ethanol modulation of intestinal epithelial tight junction barrier. Am J Physiol 1999; 276: G965–G974.

45. Rao RK. Acetaldehyde‐induced increase in paracellular permeability in Caco‐2 cell monolayer. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998; 22: 1724–1730.

46. Kishikawa H, Miura S, Nishida J, Nakano M, Hirano E, Sudo N, et al. Ethanol‐induced CXC‐chemokine synthesis and barrier dysfunction in intestinal epithelial cells. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2005; 29: 2116–2122.

47. Diebel LN, Liberati DM, Dulchavsky SA, Diglio CA, Brown WJ. Ethanol impairs intestinal barrier defense by modulation of immunoglobulin A transport. Surgery 2002; 132: 573–581; discussion 581.

48. Halsted CH, Robles EA, Mezey E. Distribution of ethanol in the human gastrointestinal tract. Am J Clin Nutr 1973; 26: 831–834.

49. Homann N, Tillonen J, Meurman JH, Rintamaki H, Lindqvist C, Rautio M, et al. Increased salivary acetaldehyde levels in heavy drinkers and smokers: a microbiological approach to oral cavity cancer. Carcinogenesis 2000; 21: 663–668.

50. Koivisto T, Salaspuro M. Aldehyde dehydrogenases of the rat colon: comparison with other tissues of the alimentary tract and the liver. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1996; 20: 551–555.

51. Basuroy S, Sheth P, Mansbach CM, Rao RK. Acetaldehyde disrupts tight junctions and adherens junctions in human colonic mucosa: protection by EGF and L‐glutamine. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2005; 289: G367–G375.

52. Atkinson KJ, Rao RK. Role of protein tyrosine phosphorylation in acetaldehyde‐induced disruption of epithelial tight junctions. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2001; 280: G1280–G1288.

53. Rao RK. Acetaldehyde‐induced barrier disruption and paracellular permeability in Caco‐2 cell monolayer. Methods Mol Biol 2008; 447: 171–183.

54. Seth A, Basuroy S, Sheth P, Rao RK. L‐Glutamine ameliorates acetaldehyde‐induced increase in paracellular permeability in Caco‐2 cell monolayer. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2004; 287: G510–G517.

55. Sheth P, Seth A, Atkinson KJ, Gheyi T, Kale G, Giorgianni F, et al. Acetaldehyde dissociates the PTP1B‐E‐cadherin‐beta‐catenin complex in Caco‐2 cell monolayers by a phosphorylation‐dependent mechanism. Biochem J 2007; 402: 291–300.

56. Sheth P, Seth A, Thangavel M, Basuroy S, Rao RK. Epidermal growth factor prevents acetaldehyde‐induced paracellular permeability in Caco‐2 cell monolayer. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004; 28: 797–804.

57. Suzuki T, Seth A, Rao R. Role of phospholipase Cgamma‐induced activation of protein kinase Cepsilon (PKCepsilon) and PKCbetaI in epidermal growth factor‐mediated protection of tight junctions from acetaldehyde in Caco‐2 cell monolayers. J Biol Chem 2008; 283: 3574–3583.

58. Salaspuro M. Bacteriocolonic pathway for ethanol oxidation: characteristics and implications. Ann Med 1996; 28: 195–200.

59. Anderson JM, Van Itallie CM. Tight junctions and the molecular basis for regulation of paracellular permeability. Am J Physiol 1995; 269: G467–G475.

60. Basuroy S, Sheth P, Kuppuswamy D, Balasubramanian S, Ray RM, Rao RK. Expression of kinase‐inactive c‐Src delays oxidative stress‐induced disassembly and accelerates calcium‐mediated reassembly of tight junctions in the Caco‐2 cell monolayer. J Biol Chem 2003; 278: 11916–11924.

61. Rao RK, Basuroy S, Rao VU, Karnaky KJ Jr, Gupta A. Tyrosine phosphorylation and dissociation of occludin‐ZO‐1 and E‐cadherin‐beta‐catenin complexes from the cytoskeleton by oxidative stress. Biochem J 2002; 368: 471–481.

62. Rao RK, Li L, Baker RD, Baker SS, Gupta A. Glutathione oxidation and PTPase inhibition by hydrogen peroxide in Caco‐2 cell monolayer. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2000; 279: G332–G340.

63. Seth A, Sheth P, Elias BC, Rao R. Protein phosphatases 2A and 1 interact with occludin and negatively regulate the assembly of tight junctions in the CACO‐2 cell monolayer. J Biol Chem 2007; 282: 11487–11498.

64. Sheth P, Basuroy S, Li C, Naren AP, Rao RK. Role of phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase in oxidative stress‐induced disruption of tight junctions. J Biol Chem 2003; 278: 49239–49245.

65. Rao RK. Biologically active peptides in the gastrointestinal lumen. Life Sci 1991; 48: 1685–1704.

66. Rao R, Baker RD, Baker SS. Inhibition of oxidant‐induced barrier disruption and protein tyrosine phosphorylation in Caco‐2 cell monolayers by epidermal growth factor. Biochem Pharmacol 1999; 57: 685–695.

67. Basuroy S, Seth A, Elias B, Naren AP, Rao R. MAPK interacts with occludin and mediates EGF‐induced prevention of tight junction disruption by hydrogen peroxide. Biochem J 2006; 393: 69–77.

68. Nanji AA, Khettry U, Sadrzadeh SM. Lactobacillus feeding reduces endotoxemia and severity of experimental alcoholic liver (disease). Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1994; 205: 243–247.

69. Forsyth CB, Farhadi A, Jakate SM, Tang Y, Shaikh M, Keshavarzian A. Lactobacillus GG treatment ameliorates alcohol‐induced intestinal oxidative stress, gut leakiness, and liver injury in a rat model of alcoholic steatohepatitis. Alcohol 2009; 43: 163–172.

70. Nardone G, Rocco A. Probiotics: a potential target for the prevention and treatment of steatohepatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004; 38: S121–S122.

71. Nosova T, Jousimies‐Somer H, Jokelainen K, Heine R, Salaspuro M. Acetaldehyde production and metabolism by human indigenous and probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains. Alcohol Alcohol 2000; 35: 561–568.