Investigates metabolic changes causing NAFLD in rats exposed to microcystin-LR, implying a need for revised safety guidelines.
Chronic exposure to the cyanotoxin microcystin-LR is an emerging environmental driver of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); however, the initiating molecular events at sub-lethal, environmentally relevant concentrations remain elusive. Current safety guidelines focus primarily on acute injury, potentially overlooking silent metabolic disruption. The present study investigates the early metabolic toxicity of chronic low-dose microcystin-LR (10 µg/L) in a 7-week rat model, specifically focusing on pre-symptomatic perturbations in lipid homeostasis. By integrating biochemical profiling with multivariate systems toxicology (LASSO and PLS-DA), we identified a specific phenotype of “Silent Hepatic Total Cholesterol Accumulation” (T-CHOL +16%, p = 0.01) occurring in the absence of systemic dyslipidemia or overt liver injury. Mechanistic analysis revealed a specific dual failure of cholesterol homeostasis, characterized by the paradoxical upregulation of the influx transporter Ldlr (LASSO coef +0.661) and the suppression of the efflux transporter Abcg1 (PLS1 loading −0.358). Crucially, Ldlr upregulation occurred despite the concomitant transcriptional downregulation of Srebp2 (Spearman ρ = −0.585), indicating a regulatory uncoupling mechanism. We propose that microcystin-LR-induced protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) inhibition likely drives this uncoupling via a post-transcriptional override—possibly involving ERK/RSK-mediated Ldlr mRNA stabilization. Concurrently, this inhibition appears to block LXR-mediated Abcg1 expression through sustained AMPK hyperactivation resulting from the loss of dephosphorylation. These findings indicate liver-specific cholesterol accumulation as the critical first step of environmental NAFLD pathogenesis, suggesting that current WHO guidelines (1 µg/L) may require re-evaluation regarding metabolic safety. We propose the hepatic Ldlr/Abcg1 ratio as a potential early biomarker for revised risk assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawahara et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: